Was this the same revolver with the bent firing pin that would render the pistol useless . McDonald said he heard a snap which was the revolver misfiring due to a bent firing pin while he was struggling with Oswald at the Texas Theater.
Then it appears to be fairly well-settled. Apparently Oswald killed Officer Tippet.
Then it appears to be fairly well-settled. Apparently Oswald killed Officer Tippet.
He may well have done, although I doubt it, but Brown's OP contains only part of the whole story and can not be relied upon.
For instance, Helen Markham testified she left home at "a little after 1". She had only one block to walk, yet according to the official story Tippit was shot at around 1.14 pm. That means that, for the official story to be true, Markham would have taken some 10 minutes to walk one block. Anything less than that would have placed her well beyond 10th/Patton prior to the shooting. Obviously, if the shooting happened earlier, it's just about impossible for Oswald to have been there on time to do the deed.
William Scoggins's testimony reveals that his timing was off and that he got to 10th/Patton earlier than the official story claims. Also, Scoggins, who is supposed to have identified Oswald at the DPD line up failed to identify Oswald as Tippit's killer to the FBI from a photo shown to him the very next day.
Domingo Benavides, who was closer to the actual shooting than anybody else, refused to participate in a line up because he felt he could not positively identify the killer, yet others, like the Davis sisters, who were indoors somehow can identify the man? Really?
There are so many things Brown doesn't tell you, that his entire OP is just a one sided dishonest presentation of what he wants to be the truth rather than the truth itself.
Helen Markham testified she left home at "a little after 1". She had only one block to walk, yet according to the official story Tippit was shot at around 1.14 pm. That means that, for the official story to be true, Markham would have taken some 10 minutes to walk one block.
Domingo Benavides, who was closer to the actual shooting than anybody else, refused to participate in a line up because he felt he could not positively identify the killer, yet others, like the Davis sisters, who were indoors somehow can identify the man? Really?
Then it appears to be fairly well-settled. Apparently Oswald killed Officer Tippet.
You have a chain of possession for those shells?
Where did I say Davis girls?
Do you or do you not have a chain of possession for those shells?
It was 1:05 on a Friday afternoon.....Helen Markham was on foot, walking south along Patton toward her bus stop, which was on Jefferson Boulevard. She was on her way to catch the bus that she took to work everyday. She knew that she would have to be at the bus stop before 1:12 so she was a bit impatient at being held up by the traffic as she waited to cross East Tenth street.
Markham was just reaching the northwest corner of Tenth and Patton when she noticed Tippit's patrol car pass through the intersection, heading east along Tenth Street. Markham testified that the patrol car pulled up to a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south side of Tenth Street. Helen Markham positively identified Lee Oswald as the man she saw talking to, and shoot, J.D. Tippit. She testified that she saw Oswald run from the scene, heading down Patton with a gun in his hand.
William Scoggins was sitting in his cab at the southeast corner of Tenth and
Patton. Scoggins saw Tippit's patrol car pass slowly in front of his cab,
driving west to east along Tenth Street (Scoggins' cab was sitting on Patton,
facing north towards Tenth street). Scoggins noticed that the patrol car pulled
up alongside a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south side of Tenth
Street. William Scoggins positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw
running towards his cab seconds after hearing gun shots. Scoggins got out of
his cab with thoughts of running from the scene as Oswald headed straight
towards him after the shots rang out. After realizing he had nowhere to hide,
Scoggins returned to his cab and ducked down behind it as he watched Oswald turn
the corner and head down Patton towards Jefferson. Scoggins testified that
Oswald had a gun in his hand.
Barbara Davis was laying in bed inside her residence, which was the house at the
corner of Tenth and Patton. She heard gunshots outside and went to the front
door, which faced Tenth Street. She opened the screen door and noticed Helen
Markham across the street, screaming. Davis then noticed a man cutting through
her front yard, holding a gun in his hands. She testified that the man had the
gun cocked in his hands as if he were emptying it. Barbara Davis positively
identified Lee Oswald as the man who she saw cut across her yard with a gun in
his hands.
Virginia Davis was in the living room of Barbara Davis' residence (400 E. Tenth
St.) when she heard gunshots outside. Virginia Davis went to the front door
and, like Barbara, noticed Helen Markham across the street, screaming. Davis
then noticed a man cutting across the front yard with a gun in his hands. She
testified that the man was emptying shells out of the gun. Virginia Davis
positively identified Lee Oswald as the man who she saw cut across the front
yard with a gun in his hands.
Ted Callaway was standing out on the front porch of the used-car lot office,
where he worked. Callaway testified that he heard five pistol shots. Callaway
testified that he believed the shots came from the vicinity of Tenth Street,
which was behind the office he worked in. He went out to the sidewalk on the
east side of Patton and noticed Scoggin's cab parked up near the corner of
Patton at Tenth. As Callaway watched the cab driver (Scoggins) hide beside his
cab, he noticed a man running across Patton from the east side of Patton to the
west side. Callaway watched the man run down Patton towards Jefferson. Ted
Callaway positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw run down Patton with
a gun in his hands.
Sam Guinyard worked at the same used-car lot as Ted Callaway. Guinyard was out
on the lot washing one of the cars when he heard gunshots come from the
direction up toward Tenth Street. From the car lot, Guinyard was looking north
toward Tenth in an attempt to see where the shots came from when he saw a man on
the sidewalk in between the first two houses on Tenth Street (400 E. Tenth and
404 E. Tenth). Guinyard went toward the sidewalk on the east side of Patton and
saw the man cut across the yard of the house on the corner (400 E. Tenth, the
Davis residence) and proceeded to run south on Patton. Guinyard said the man
had a gun in his hands and was emptying it of shells. Sam Guinyard positively
identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw running with the gun in his hands.
Each of the above witnesses saw a man flee the vicinity of the Tippit murder. Each of the above witnesses saw a gun in the man's hands. Every single one of the above witnesses positively identified Lee Oswald as that man.
These are the real witnesses and not even one of them said that someone other than Lee Oswald was the man they saw.
As for the revolver, Jim Leavelle briefly spoke with Oswald when Oswald was brought in from the theater. Leavelle told Oswald that they could run ballistic tests on the revolver and match the revolver to the bullets taken from the officer's body, proving that the revolver taken from Oswald was the revolver responsible for the officer's death. Oswald did not deny owning the revolver. According to Leavelle, Oswald's only reply was "Well, you're just going to have to do it."
Oswald ordered the revolver under the name of A.J. Hidell on 1/27/63 from Seaport Traders, Inc. Treasury Department handwriting expert Alwyn Cole testified that the handwriting on the order coupon belonged to Lee Oswald. The FBI's handwriting expert James Cadigan also testified that the handwriting on the coupon was Oswald's.
On the order, there was the name of a D.F. Drittal, written in the section where a witness states that the person buying the weapon (Hidell) was a U.S. citizen and was not a felon. The handwriting experts, Cole and Cadigan, both testified that the name D.F. Drittal was also written in Oswald's hands.
The revolver was shipped to a post office box in Dallas rented by Lee Oswald. Cole testified that the signature and the handwriting on the post office box application belonged to Oswald.
Postal Inspector Harry Holmes testified that Oswald had previously rented a post office box in New Orleans, during the summer of 1963. Oswald's New Orleans application and his Dallas application were found. Unlike the Dallas post office box application, the New Orleans post office box application still had the portion which listed others who were able to receive mail at that post office box. In the New Orleans application, Oswald included the names of both Marina Oswald and A.J. Hidell as those able to receive mail in that box.
Holmes spoke with Oswald on Sunday morning, the 24th. Holmes asked Oswald about the Dallas post office box. Oswald stated that he was the only one who received mail at that box and that he didn't receive any mail there that was addressed to any name other than his true name. Holmes then asked Oswald about the box that Oswald rented in New Orleans earlier that year. Oswald again stated that he was the only one permitted to receive mail at that p.o. box. Holmes reminded Oswald that he (Oswald) had listed Marina Oswald as a person eligible to receive mail in that box. Oswald's reply was basically "Well so what? She was my wife and I see nothing wrong with that." Holmes then reminded Oswald that one "A.J. Hidell" was also listed in the section on the application listing others eligible to receive mail in that post office box. Holmes said that Oswald replied "I don't recall anything about that".
Oswald was caught in a lie. The handwriting which permitted A.J. Hidell to receive mail at the New Orleans post office box belonged to Lee Oswald (per experts Cole and Cadigan).
Ballistic testing can determine whether or not an empty shell casing was fired from a specific weapon to the exclusion of every other weapon in the entire world. Before shooting, the shell casing is placed against the breech face and the firing pin. When the pin strikes the primer, the bullet is fired off and the shell casing is thrust against the breech face of the weapon. This causes a permanent mark on the base of the empty shell, i.e. the distinctive fine lines etched onto the breech face put their "fingerprint" on the base of the empty shell.
Joseph Nicol (Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State of Illinois) along with Cortlandt Cunningham, Robert Frazier and Charles Killion (of the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory in Washington D.C.) each examined the shells found at the Tippit scene and Oswald's revolver, which he ordered from Seaport Traders, Inc. Each of these experts determined that the shells were linked (through ballistics) to Oswald's revolver, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world.
Not by a long shot. But even if he did, it doesn't make him a lone nut. He was a patsy who knew the jig was up. Not a LN.
Oswald's revolver did not have a bent firing pin. In fact, the FBI used that revolver to fire test bullets for ballistic comparison purposes. How is the revolver "rendered useless" if the FBI fired test bullets from it? And.. the revolver certainly did NOT have a bent firing pin when Oswald fired four bullets into Tippit's body.
Now, can you prove that the revolver had a bent firing pin?
Not by a long shot. But even if he did, it doesn't make him a lone nut. He was a patsy who knew the jig was up. Not a LN.
Helen Markham was on foot, walking south along Patton toward her bus stop, which
was on Jefferson Boulevard. Markham was just reaching the northwest corner of
Tenth and Patton when she noticed Tippit's patrol car pass through the
intersection, heading east along Tenth Street. Markham testified that the
patrol car pulled up to a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south side
of Tenth Street. Helen Markham positively identified Lee Oswald as the man she
saw talking to, and shoot, J.D. Tippit. She testified that she saw Oswald run
from the scene, heading down Patton with a gun in his hand.
~snip~
~snip~
As for the revolver, Jim Leavelle briefly spoke with Oswald when Oswald was brought in from the theater. Leavelle told Oswald that they could run ballistic tests on the revolver and match the revolver to the bullets taken from the officer's body, proving that the revolver taken from Oswald was the revolver responsible for the officer's death. Oswald did not deny owning the revolver. According to Leavelle, Oswald's only reply was "Well, you're just going to have to do it."
~snip~
~snip~
Ballistic testing can determine whether or not an empty shell casing was fired from a specific weapon to the exclusion of every other weapon in the entire world. Before shooting, the shell casing is placed against the breech face and the firing pin. When the pin strikes the primer, the bullet is fired off and the shell casing is thrust against the breech face of the weapon. This causes a permanent mark on the base of the empty shell, i.e. the distinctive fine lines etched onto the breech face put their "fingerprint" on the base of the empty shell.
Joseph Nicol (Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State of Illinois) along with Cortlandt Cunningham, Robert Frazier and Charles Killion (of the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory in Washington D.C.) each examined the shells found at the Tippit scene and Oswald's revolver, which he ordered from Seaport Traders, Inc. Each of these experts determined that the shells were linked (through ballistics) to Oswald's revolver, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world.
McDonald is quoted as saying that the firing pin failed when Oswald tried to shot him in the theater Are you saying he is incorrect??
Can you make a case for a problem with the chain of possession of the two shells found by each of the Davis girls? For years I've asked conspiracy believers to do this but none ever have.
~snip~
Ted Callaway was standing out on the front porch of the used-car lot office,
where he worked. Callaway testified that he heard five pistol shots. Callaway
testified that he believed the shots came from the vicinity of Tenth Street,
which was behind the office he worked in. He went out to the sidewalk on the
east side of Patton and noticed Scoggin's cab parked up near the corner of
Patton at Tenth. As Callaway watched the cab driver (Scoggins) hide beside his
cab, he noticed a man running across Patton from the east side of Patton to the
west side. Callaway watched the man run down Patton towards Jefferson. Ted
Callaway positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw run down Patton with
a gun in his hands.
~snip~
You would do well to remind yourself that Nick McDonald was a damned liar.....
And it is a FACT the fire pin could NOT have failed as lyin Nick claimed....
So Oswald is in Gomer Pyle-like bliss up to the assassination about whatever is going on. Then it immediately dawns on him that he is going to take the fall for it. He suddenly becomes a genius. So he does the logical thing and kills a police officer. That is quite a fantasy tale. The most logical reason for him to have killed Tippit is because he has just assassinated the President and has nothing to lose at that point. He can't risk the possibility that he has already been identified as a suspect and will be arrested if he IDs himself.
No, Oswald was a sheep-dipped patsy that hoped he would be allowed to escape or else he was left in the dark, just like Thomas Arthur Vallee was in Chicago for plan A. Oswald was an Angleton singleton agent plucked from the false defector program. Every good coup needs a patsy and Oswald was plan B.Jack, Don't waste your time with Billy Bob..... Billy is obviously too stupid to try to engage in a reasonable discussion.
Whether Oswald shot Tippit, which is unlikely IMO, he didn't shoot JFK. This was a coup pure and simple and Oswald was the patsy and conspirators never rely on the patsy to do the shooting. As soon as you LNers get a grip, you'll see that everything you've been defending and obfuscating about for the last 50+ years fits perfectly into the patsy narrative. You will feel embarrassed re your naivety and you will feel violated that you were unwitting shills to the coup, but you will finally be able to sleep at night knowing you are no longer in the dark.
Cheers ;)
JTrojan
He may well have done, although I doubt it, but Brown's OP contains only part of the whole story and can not be relied upon.
For instance, Helen Markham testified she left home at "a little after 1". She had only one block to walk, yet according to the official story Tippit was shot at around 1.14 pm. That means that, for the official story to be true, Markham would have taken some 10 minutes to walk one block. Anything less than that would have placed her well beyond 10th/Patton prior to the shooting. Obviously, if the shooting happened earlier, it's just about impossible for Oswald to have been there on time to do the deed.
William Scoggins's testimony reveals that his timing was off and that he got to 10th/Patton earlier than the official story claims. Also, Scoggins, who is supposed to have identified Oswald at the DPD line up failed to identify Oswald as Tippit's killer to the FBI from a photo shown to him the very next day.
Domingo Benavides, who was closer to the actual shooting than anybody else, refused to participate in a line up because he felt he could not positively identify the killer, yet others, like the Davis sisters, who were indoors somehow can identify the man? Really?
There are so many things Brown doesn't tell you, that his entire OP is just a one sided dishonest presentation of what he wants to be the truth rather than the truth itself.
Indoors? You're not aware that the Davis sisters were standing at their opened front door as the killer fled across their front yard?
Warren Commission Hearings, Volume VII
Current Section: James R. Leavelle
And let's not forget that we have seen in my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series that Helen Markham's own son said that she was prone to lying.
actually...he can't
I see you already have problems keeping track of what you wrote in your OP.
I asked for chain of possession for all the shells and you start babbling about the Davis girls.
Can you or can you not list the chain of possession for the shells?
McDonald is quoted as saying that the firing pin failed when Oswald tried to shot him in the theater Are you saying he is incorrect??
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4083/34812432124_fa05d3b9ba_b.jpg)
You are asking him to make case against the chain of possession when the chain of possession has not been established Not surprising that you have not got an answer from CT's because its irrational
You forgot the witness who got the best look at Tippit's killer and whose description of the murderer doesn't
match a photo taken of LHO while in DPD custody on 11/22/63.
Testimony Of Domingo Benavides
Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.
~snip~
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
~snip~
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
~snip~
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3.jpg)
You forgot the witness who got the best look at Tippit's killer...
"He can As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.' and holler he wants to, but that's the man I saw running from the scene." - William Scoggins
(Jim Leavelle interview with Dale Myers)
Bill Brown believes things that witnesses said 30 years later, except for those times when he doesn't.
TESTIMONY OF TED CALLAWAY
~snip~
Mr. BALL. He was crossing Patton?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was that to the south or the north of the taxicab? Closer to you than the taxicab?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was he running or walking?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He was running.
~snip~
Mr. BALL. About what distance was he away from you--the closest that he ever was to you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. About 56 feet.
Mr. BALL. You measured that, did you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Last SaPersonay morning?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Measured it with a tape measure?
~snip~
The Davises also could not identify the shells in evidence as the same ones they gave to officers.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)
The two Davis shells were linked, through ballistics, to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of any other weapon. The chain of possession for these two shells is clear and perfectly intact.
Any issue (if there are any) with the chain of possession of the two Poe shells does not change the fact that the two Davis shells convict Oswald.
No, Oswald was a sheep-dipped patsy that hoped he would be allowed to escape or else he was left in the dark, just like Thomas Arthur Vallee was in Chicago for plan A. Oswald was an Angleton singleton agent plucked from the false defector program. Every good coup needs a patsy and Oswald was plan B.
Whether Oswald shot Tippit, which is unlikely IMO, he didn't shoot JFK. This was a coup pure and simple and Oswald was the patsy and conspirators never rely on the patsy to do the shooting. As soon as you LNers get a grip, you'll see that everything you've been defending and obfuscating about for the last 50+ years fits perfectly into the patsy narrative. You will feel embarrassed re your naivety and you will feel violated that you were unwitting shills to the coup, but you will finally be able to sleep at night knowing you are no longer in the dark.
Cheers ;)
JTrojan
OK, so you claim to have at least two good shells (Davis).
There were four shells marked Q-74, Q-75, Q-76, Q77.
Can we have the numbers of the Davis shells, please?
No. It could easily be argued that each of the Davis girls and Scoggins got better looks at the killer than did Benavides.
Barbara Davis: Picked Oswald out of a lineup.
Virginia Davis: Picked Oswald out of a lineup.
William Scoggins: Picked Oswald out of a lineup.
Domingo Benavides: Decided that he did not get a good enough look at the killer to attend a lineup.
Duh.
Unfair and biased lineups are an unreliable way of determining what is true.
So two young women couldn't positively state that the shells in evidence were the same shells they found. Boy, you sure got a blockbuster there.
This does not negate the fact that the two shells in evidence are the two shells the girls found.
Why not cite for cite supporting evidence for your claims?
The problem for the LN is that the evidence is substantial Oswald is at the theater at the time of the shooting
I have to admit, there are more witnesses identifying Oswald as Tippit's killer than I realized I know there are holes in a lot of the stories, but if there was Oswald 2 maybe that is the most rational answer. If the story of the two Oswald's is true then the intelligence agencies had made a might effort to create such a scenario and they would have wanted to use him for something significant
The problem for the LN is that the evidence is substantial Oswald is at the theater at the time of the shooting
Once the confusion was settled, Markham said this...
"Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman."
No. It could easily be argued that each of the Davis girls and Scoggins got better looks at the killer than did Benavides.
Barbara Davis: Picked Oswald out of a lineup.
Virginia Davis: Picked Oswald out of a lineup.
William Scoggins: Picked Oswald out of a lineup.
Domingo Benavides: Decided that he did not get a good enough look at the killer to attend a lineup.
Duh.
You're not too bright, are you?
The two Davis shells were linked, through ballistics, to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of any other weapon. The chain of possession for these two shells is clear and perfectly intact.
Any issue (if there are any) with the chain of possession of the two Poe shells does not change the fact that the two Davis shells convict Oswald.
So what? Is fifty-six feet supposed to be some great, insurmountable distance? Lame.
Any golfer realizes that a distance less than nineteen yards is no great distance at all.
Domingo Benavides was directly across the street from Tippit's squad car (within 15 ft) when the shots
were fired. He said he got a really good look at the shooter.
Calloway saw a man running from a distance of 56 feet and farther.
Yet Calloway is the better witness to ID Tippit's killer?
LOL
I read the crap by conspiracy types, mindful it?s now 55 years after the event and what stands out is, their arguments HAVE NOT CHANGED in 55 years. That?s remarkable. They still choose (it?s still a choice) to live in a world where suspicion becomes fact, lack of facts becomes evidence of a conspiratorial cover up and actual proof to the contrary is dismissed as disinformation. It begs the question have these lunatics done even a cursory investigation of the facts? The answer to that is yes, they have examined the facts but in their distorted world view of how historical events happen, actual facts mean little to nothing. Their individual ideology means more than FACTS. Frightening concept, don?t you think? Nobody should be surprised they cannot prove their personal conspiracy let alone any conspiracy. The question should no longer be did LHO shoot JFK and Tippit. That?s proven to reasonable people. I?ve said it before, there may have been a conspiracy but it cannot be proven now or ever. That too is a fact.
Bill Brown believes things that witnesses said 30 years later, except for those times when he doesn't.
What evidence would that be?
Can you cite this 'evidence'
All this thread shows is that Bill Brown is nothing more than a WC propagandist.
So true... the alleged Scoggins quote isn't even directly from Scoggins....
Instead it is something that Jim Leavelle claimed to have remembered verbatim after several decades and told to Dale Myers.
It illustrates precisely how desperate Brown is to make his case and why he is such a waste of time to talk to!
Butch Burroughs
Oswald would be convicted of killing Officer Tippit, blow all the smoke you want, that doesn't change that fact.
Where is it that he changes his story?
Bump for Bill Brown...
Now is your chance to impress some newbies.
Q-numbers of the Davis shells, coming right up?
;D
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)
Oswald would be convicted of killing Officer Tippit, blow all the smoke you want, that doesn't change that fact.
That's an argument I'd like to see the substance of
though based on what you provided so far; I don't expect much
Bump for Bill Brown...
Now is your chance to impress some newbies.
Q-numbers of the Davis shells, coming right up?
What a shame you beat him to it.
I wonder if he'll agree as Barnes told Ball he got Q-75 from Poe...
That's odd: Barnes improved but Poe went blind and couldn't identify anything to the FBI, problem solved!
Oh, Barbara Davis, in her affidavit, forgot to mention the shell she found (Q-76) but said she handed over the shell to Dhority that Virginia found...what a mess.
None of the marks allegedly identified were documented in the FBI report except for Poe ("J.M.P.") who could not identify his shells, and removing Poe from the equation disconnects the chain of possession for the alleged Benavides shells.
Where is it that he changes his story?
Barnes: I believe it was Q-74 and Q-75.
"I believe" is not a positive identification. On April 7, 1964, Barnes clearly was not sure. On June 15, 1964, he was again shown the four shells and he was then able to identify his markings on Q-74 and Q-77. C.N. Dhority positively identified Q-75 as the shell that he had received from Virginia Davis.
God catch, Zeon.
There is similar contradiction about whether the screen door was open or closed.
What door was that again?
J. Davis affidavit:
I put on my shoes and went to the door and I saw this man walking across my front yard unloading a gun.
V. Davis affidavit:
We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side door at Patton Street.
Question! What direction was Oswald walking on Tenth St? East or West? I read several accounts. Tenth Street does not even exist anymore West of Patton. It's school property now, (tennis courts, athletic fields) etc. I have known all along Tippit was driving east, but Oswald's direction on foot is unclear at the time of the stop. The whole neighborhood has completely changed in half a century!
(http://i63.tinypic.com/um06h.jpg)
Tenth Street at present
Thanks, Walt,
I am starting to get the same impression. I cannot see how Oswald made it to that location within the time limits from 1026 N. Beckley. Unless he had some type of transportation. Possible yes, Probable no. And thenTippit being transported to Methodist Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 1:25 p.m. by Dr. Richard A. Liguori. Man, you have to be pushing it. I wish I had that type of ambulance service in 1963. Man, I have called an ambulance 1/2 a dozen times in my life and was never transported to the hospital and pronounced dead in less than 10 minutes! Really, think about it!
BB
Thanks, Walt,
I am starting to get the same impression. I cannot see how Oswald made it to that location within the time limits from 1026 N. Beckley. Unless he had some type of transportation. Possible yes, Probable no. And thenTippit being transported to Methodist Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 1:25 p.m. by Dr. Richard A. Liguori. Man, you have to be pushing it. I wish I had that type of ambulance service in 1963. Man, I have called an ambulance 1/2 a dozen times in my life and was never transported to the hospital and pronounced dead in less than 10 minutes! Really, think about it!
BB
Is there any real evidence that shows LHO was at Tenth and Patton?
No.
Fleeing, according to the WC sheep. Utter nonsense.
Bowley was there after the shooting 10 minutes past one. Better not call that witness and lie about the timing:
Benavides rushed to Tippit's side. The patrolman, apparently dead, was lying on his revolver, which was out of its holster.Benavides promptly reported the shooting to police head quarters over the radio in Tippit's car. The message was received shortly after 1 :16 p.m.
Benavides didn't rush and couldn't operate the radio.
Markham, washateria at 1.04, 10th & Patton at 1.06/07 PM. Better lie about her timing:
Mrs. Markham was uncertain and inconsistent in her recollection of the exact time of the slaying.
Has there ever been any credible explanation as to what LHO would have been doing at that police shooting location?
Where in hell would he have been going?
I have briskly walked the route from the Oswald rooming house to the shooting location...it took me 18 minutes.
At 1:04 pm Mrs Roberts saw Lee standing on the sidewalk in front of the rooming house at Beckley and Zangs, which was a mile away from the site where Tippit was murdered at 1:06 at 10th & Patton .....
Perhaps Lee Oswald used a flying carpet to transport him ......
A brisk, 4 miles per hour walk would take 15 minutes to walk that mile. If Oswald was seen at approx 1:04 pm at the bus stop at Beckley and Zang, you have an arrival time at 10th and Patton at approx 1:19 pm. Too Late. I doubt he jogged, and bring attention to himself. If indeed Oswald was there, I would suspect someone gave him a ride south, down N. Beckley. Perhaps something to do with that police car out front honking. If I recalled, Oswald had only about $16.00 on his person. No much to finance an escape. I don't think the Texas Theater was in his plan as he was originally walking East. There has also been a report of a second police car in a driveway on 10th Street, that exited south into an alley that was there in those days.
BB
I don't think the Texas Theater was in his plan as he was originally walking East.
Huh??.... You mixing up the mess..... Lee told the interrogators that he didn't think there would be any work done in the TSBD that afternoon....So he decided to go to the movie.... So that was his plan.
And the killer who was being tailed by Tippit was walking east on 10th....But that was NOT Lee Oswald.
Turns out he was right... because everybody was released that afternoon......
Reply to Caprio:
That has been cited for coming up on 55 years. You refuse to listen instead sticking fingers in your ears while moaning loudly to avoid hearing anything at all. It's been cited here numerous times and you have read those posts.
Are you so very lonely that you need to engage with anyone at all even in ridiculous ways just to make you feel wanted?
Pathetic.
That has been cited for coming up on 55 years. You refuse to listen instead sticking fingers in your ears while moaning loudly to avoid hearing anything at all. It's been cited here numerous times and you have read those posts.
Are you so very lonely that you need to engage with anyone at all even in ridiculous ways just to make you feel wanted?
Pathetic.
There is no supporting evidence for any of these claims.
BM Patterson
[affidavit AUG 26 1964]
?In regard to the last paragraph of this [FBI] report, I do not at this late date specifically recall having been exhibited a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald, at the time of the interview of January 22, 1964, and desire that this paragraph be deleted as an official reporting of that interview.?
yea..and these are the only 2 pictures they showed him [no others]
It shouldn't be hard to pick out this very famous man....armed
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/952/42187385612_40e16ba07f_b.jpg) (https://farm1.staticflickr.com/978/27362856107_35e8059e4f.jpg)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONhttp://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_m.htm
Date 1/22/64
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light?colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light?colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
Approximately five minutes later two individuals from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, appeared at Ballew's Texaco Service Station, making inquiry as to whether she had noticed the young white man come by the station. She indicated she had, at which time they informed her that this individual had in all probability shot a Dallas police officer. She advised she informed them that the individual proceeded north behind the Texaco station and she last observed him in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
Mrs. BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD 9 112723, dated August 9, 1963, which she identified as being the same person she observed on November 22, 1963, at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
Mrs. BROCK advised at the time she saw OSWALD on November 22, 1963, she was unaware of the fact that President JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY had been assassinated, and she was unaware that Dallas Police Officer J. D. TIPPIT had been shot.
on 1/21/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461
By Special Agents JOHN T. KESLER and VERNON MITCHEM - LAC Date dictated 1/22/64
At the Reynolds Motor Co. (southeast corner of Jefferson and Patton), four men heard the gun shots, looked north toward the sound of the shots and saw a man running south on Patton (towards their location) with a gun in his hands.
Harold Russel, L.J. Lewis, Pat Patterson and Warren Reynolds were these four men.
After seeing the man head west on Jefferson, Lewis went inside the office and called the police.
Russell went up Patton to the location of the shooting. Ted Callaway approached Russell with the idea of taking Tippit's service revolver and going after the killer. Russell told Callaway that he (Russell) was going to stay at the scene so that he could give the police information when they arrived. He was present there when then police arrived.
Warren Reynolds suggested to Pat Patterson they they follow the gunman. The two followed the man for a block until they lost sight of the man as he went north on Crawford beside the Texaco station located at the corner of Jefferson and Crawford. Reynolds and Patterson approached a lady at the station (Mary Brock) and asked her if they saw the young white man. Brock told them that she had seen a man walk past her and and go to the lot behind the station. Reynolds was present in the lot when the police arrived, assuring the officers on the scene that the man was still somewhere in the area. This is the same parking lot where the Oswald's jacket was found.
Russell, Patterson, Reynolds and Brock were each shown a photograph of Oswald and all were of the opinion that the man they saw was Oswald.
Not to mention that Saint Oz was wearing a jacket when he left his rooming house and wasn't wearing a jacket when he was arrested.
And surprise, surprise, surprise; fibers identical to the shirt he was wearing when arrested in the TT were found in the jacket he ditched in the lot behind the Texaco station.
Saint Oz needed to alter his appearance after executing JDT and the devious murdering bastard did just that by ditching his jacket.
Not to mention that Saint Oz was wearing a jacket when he left his rooming house and wasn't wearing a jacket when he was arrested.
And surprise, surprise, surprise; fibers identical to the shirt he was wearing when arrested in the TT were found in the jacket he ditched in the lot behind the Texaco station.
Saint Oz needed to alter his appearance after executing JDT and the devious murdering bastard did just that by ditching his jacket.
Then it appears to be fairly well-settled. Apparently Oswald killed Officer Tippet.
Mr. DULLES. What time was this, approximately, as far as you can recall?A witness given months to be rehearsed on their testimony should have done better.
Mr. SCOGGINS. Around 1:20 in the afternoon.
...
Mr. BELIN. Why did you jump out of your cab first when you heard the shots?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Because anytime that there is anything going on that is one thing the cab driver wants to do is to get away from that cab, because the man is going to try--if he had ever seen the cab, he looked back over his left shoulder, and I don't think he even seen the cab-he would have probably jumped in the cab and had me take him somewhere or maybe shot me, too, you know, and I didn't want to be around the cab at anytime while he was in the neighborhood, you know, when there was anything like that going on, or anything, robbery, or anything.
Mr. BELIN. I believe you said you saw the officer fall. Did you see where he fell?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he fell right by the side of the front, about, a little bit forward of the door, right about the door.
Mr. BELIN. Did you ever later go up and view the officer?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes. I went up there, but by the time I got up there the ambulance had already got there. You see I got my dispatcher and was telling him about it, just by that time the ambulance got there.
Mr. BELIN. Did you notice anything in the street to indicate where the officer fell?
Mr. SCOGGINS. There was blood there, of course. They picked the man up by the time I got there, the ambulance did.
Mr. BELIN. How many shots did you hear?Now, why did Belin ask which man fell? Also could Belin not hear well, or did he just want to correct Scoggins' imperfect grammar?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Three or four, in the neighborhood. They was fast.
Mr. BELIN. They were fast shots?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; they were fast.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do or say or hear?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Then I saw the man falling, grab his stomach and fall.
Mr. BELIN. Which man did you see fall?
Mr. SCOGGINS. The policeman......
Mr. SCOGGINS. Not in too big a hurry. It didn't seem like at first.The Warren Commission couldn't have been happy with that statement.
Mr. BELIN. At first not too big a hurry?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did he change that at all?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Never did change his pace as long as I saw him. I don't know where he went after he passed the cab and got down a little piece, because then I was busy trying to get my dispatcher, and I never did look and never did get to see him.
Mr. BELIN. Did the pistol appear to be--did he appear to be doing anything with the pistol or not?Allen Dulles wondered at that statement.
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes. He had it, holding it, in his left hand in a manner that the barrel was up like this...
Mr. DULLES. You said he had it in his left hand?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. Referring to your tracing of the path that the man later found to be Oswald followed, he went through the lower of these two bushes there, did he? He went right through it?In order to expedite hanging the crime on Oswald, Mr Dulles is first to mention the name.
Mr. BELIN. Those are all the questions I have. Just a second. When you saw a picture in the morning paper of Lee Harvey Oswald, did this look similar to the man you saw at the Tippit shooting, or did it look different?Scoggins [even though an admitted TV watcher] claimed he never did see Oswald on television.
Mr. SCOGGINS. I would say similar; yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did it look like the same man?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes.
.........................................................................
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if the number 3 man in the lineup was wearing the same clothes that the man you saw at the Tippit shooting wore?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had on a different shirt, and he didn't have a jacket on. He had on kind of a polo shirt.
...............................................
Mr. BELIN. Sometime later, after the lineup, did any of the police officers show you with a picture of anyone and ask you if you could identify him?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if he was an FBI man or a Dallas policeman or a Secret Service agent?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He was an FBI or a Secret Service.
...................................................................
Mr. BELIN. What did he ask you and what did you tell him?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He gave me some pictures, showed me several pictures there,, which was, some of them were, pretty well resembled him, and some of them didn't, and they looked like they was kind of old pictures, and I think I picked the wrong picture. I am not too--
.................................................................................
Mr. BELIN. Did he say to you something like "These are pictures we have of Lee Harvey Oswald"? Did he use that name in front of you, or did he say, "Here are some pictures. See if you can identify them"--if you remember?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I don't remember, but after I got through looking at them and everything, and I says, I told them one of these two pictures is him, out of this group he showed me, and the one that was actually him looked like an older man than he was to me. Of course, I am not too much on identifying pictures. It wasn't a full shot of him, you know, and then he told me the other one was Oswald.
This typifies the problem for the conspiracy kooks and Saint Oz defense team.
In one breath it's doubtful that a half blind woman could have noticed whether Saint Oz was wearing a jacket, in the next breath the kooks want to argue that the jacket she saw was a different color.
Hi Howard, nice pick-up. If anything "a half blind woman" may have difficulty in differentiating a subtle shade difference caused by two totally different locations but the specific mention of Oswald zipping up his jacket is unmistakable.
Why did Oswald ditch his jacket?
(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/lb_maccammon.jpg?quality=85&w=687)
JohnM
Not a very conclusive argument... just mere speculation and assumptions!
Not to mention that Saint Oz was wearing a jacket
According to only one, half blind, woman who was paying more attention to getting the TV to work and who wasn't able to identify the jacket now in evidence, because she believed the jacket she had seen was darker.
wasn't wearing a jacket when he was arrested.
How does this even begin to show that he wasn't wearing a jacket as he entered the TT and the possibility that he took it off inside?
fibers identical to the shirt he was wearing when arrested in the TT were found in the jacket
Wow, what a surpise. The grey jacket now in evidence may well have belonged to Oswald. The problem is that there is some evidence that suggests the grey jacket was worn by Oswald to Irving on Thursday, which - if true - makes it impossible for the jacket to have been in Oak Cliff the next day!
he ditched in the lot behind the Texaco station.
The jacket found at the Texaco station parking lot was described by several people as being white. The jacket now in evidence is grey!
And you can only assume that it was Oswald who ditched a jacket in the parking lot since nobody saw him do it.
According to only one, half blind, woman who was paying more attention to getting the TV to work and who wasn't able to identify the jacket now in evidence, because she believed the jacket she had seen was darker.
wasn't wearing a jacket when he was arrested.
How does this even begin to show that he wasn't wearing a jacket as he entered the TT and the possibility that he took it off inside?
The grey jacket now in evidence may well have belonged to Oswald.
So, out of fear [of being carjacked?] Scoggins jumped out of his cab but then jumped back in to talk to his dispatcher [I guess] Judging from the times stated, one would almost think that an ambulance was waiting up the street waiting to pick someone up off the street.
Who the hell is smoking a stogie and mugging to the camera as they apprehend the assassin of the POTUS?
This typifies the problem for the conspiracy kooks and Saint Oz defense team.
In one breath it's doubtful that a half blind woman could have noticed whether Saint Oz was wearing a jacket, in the next breath the kooks want to argue that the jacket she saw was a different color.
In Kookland it's not likely someone in the same room would notice if Saint Oz was wearing a jacket, but it is likely she'd be able to positively tell you if the jacket was grey or white.
For those not living in Kookland this isn't too hard to figure out. Saint Oz is wearing a jacket when he leaves his room. He's not wearing and doesn't have a jacket with him when arrested in the TT. The person suspected of murdering JDT is seen fleeing through a lot where a jacket is found that just happens to contain fibers that match the shirt Saint Oz is wearing when arrested.
Now back to our regularly scheduled 'there is no evidence' nonsense.
Hi Howard, nice pick-up. If anything "a half blind woman" may have difficulty in differentiating a subtle shade difference caused by two totally different locations but the specific mention of Oswald zipping up his jacket is unmistakable.
Why did Oswald ditch his jacket?
(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/lb_maccammon.jpg?quality=85&w=687)
JohnM
All the WC/LN BS about the jacked has already been picked apart in this thread:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,124.0.html
The ambulance was there in a flash.
"Dallas researcher Michael Brownlow interviewed Doris Holan, who lived directly across the street from the shooting, in a second-floor apartment at 409 East Tenth (researcher Bill Pulte accompanied Brownlow on one of his two interviews with Holan shortly before her death in 2000). She said that a police car had appeared in the driveway between the two houses (404 and 410 East Tenth) at the spot where Tippit was killed. Whether Tippit did so intentionally or coincidentally, he had blocked that driveway, which led to an alley at mid-block, parallel to both East Tenth and Jefferson Boulevard. Tippit, while driving eastward, may have been trying to use his squad car to prevent another police car from leaving the driveway. Holan said when she heard shots and looked out her window, the other police car was heading down the driveway approaching Tippit's vehicle.
... 'She saw a man leaving the scene, moving westward toward Patton... Near the (second) police car she also saw a man in the driveway walking toward the street, where Tippit's car was parked.' That man went up to where Tippit was lying, looked down to inspect the officer's head, and retreated back down the driveway, with the unidentified police car backing up at the same time to the alley. So Holan reported at least three suspicious men at the scene, including two men on foot and the driver of the second police car. Whoever killed Tippit may have fled in that car or in another vehicle or on foot through that alley adjacent to the shooting scene. And Tippit may have been shot by two men, a possibility the ballistics evidence, with different kinds of ammunition, might suggest, even though that evidence is unreliable. Most (not all) witnesses reported a man fleeing around the corner and up Patton toward Jefferson, which would be compatible with Holan's account.
Do any of the aspects of Holan's story fit with other witnesses accounts?....If the answer is no then perhaps Holan's story is not credible.
Sometimes you just have to laugh about the circular arguments of a simpleton.....
Witnesses at the Tippit scene claimed the man they saw was wearing a jacket. Ergo, if Oswald did not leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket, he might just not have been the man those witnesses saw.
So enter Earlene Roberts, the half blind story teller who was concentrating on getting the TV to work, who is the only person who could possibly say if Oswald left wearing a jacket or not.....and, despite her credibility problem with honking police cars etc, mr. simpleton blindly accepts her word for it, because..... wait for it........... other witnesses saw a guy wearing a jacket.....pfffffffff
Let's hope the day will never come that mr simpleton understands circular logic.... the shock of becoming aware might just prove too much for him.
All the WC/LN BS about the jacked has already been picked apart in this thread:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,124.0.html
RE Clemons
Speculation.?Another witness to the slaying of Patrolman Tippit,
an unidentified woman, was interviewed by the FBI but was never
called as a witness by the President's Commission on the Assassination
of President Kennedy. This witness is alleged to have stated that
she saw two men involved in the shooting and that they ran off in
opposite directions afterward.
Commission finding.?The only woman among the witnesses to the
slaying of Tippit known to the Commission is Helen Markham. The
FBI never interviewed any other woman who claimed to haive seen
the shooting and never received any information concerning the existence
of such a witness. Two women, Barbara Jeanette Davis and
Virginia Davis, saw the killer immediately after the shooting as
he crossed the lawn at the corner of Patton Avenue and 10th Street,
but they did not witness the shooting itself. They were both interviewed
by the FBI and appeared before the Commission. The Commission
has no evidence that there was any witness to the slaying
other than those identified in chapter IV.
Not exactly speculation if it wasn't the FBI who talked to her...those lawyers were no fools.
Seems like everything happened "in a flash" that day :-\
"Dallas researcher Michael Brownlow interviewed Doris Holan, who lived directly across the street from the shooting, in a second-floor apartment at 409 East Tenth (researcher Bill Pulte accompanied Brownlow on one of his two interviews with Holan shortly before her death in 2000). She said that a police car had appeared in the driveway between the two houses (404 and 410 East Tenth) at the spot where Tippit was killed. Whether Tippit did so intentionally or coincidentally, he had blocked that driveway, which led to an alley at mid-block, parallel to both East Tenth and Jefferson Boulevard. Tippit, while driving eastward, may have been trying to use his squad car to prevent another police car from leaving the driveway. Holan said when she heard shots and looked out her window, the other police car was heading down the driveway approaching Tippit's vehicle.
... 'She saw a man leaving the scene, moving westward toward Patton... Near the (second) police car she also saw a man in the driveway walking toward the street, where Tippit's car was parked.' That man went up to where Tippit was lying, looked down to inspect the officer's head, and retreated back down the driveway, with the unidentified police car backing up at the same time to the alley. So Holan reported at least three suspicious men at the scene, including two men on foot and the driver of the second police car. Whoever killed Tippit may have fled in that car or in another vehicle or on foot through that alley adjacent to the shooting scene. And Tippit may have been shot by two men, a possibility the ballistics evidence, with different kinds of ammunition, might suggest, even though that evidence is unreliable. Most (not all) witnesses reported a man fleeing around the corner and up Patton toward Jefferson, which would be compatible with Holan's account.
It is corroborated the other witness who saw two assailants Two kinds of bullets The cop car that went by Oswald's boarding house and suspicious behavior and stories of other cops such as Westbrook Not a very comprehensive answer on my part, but what single witness to all of this is not not contradicted by another in some respect?
Acquilla Clemons was NOT a witness to the "slaying of Patrolman Tippit".
I guess Helen Markham, Domingo Benavides and William Scoggins somehow managed to miss the mysterious second killer. I wonder how they could have missed him.
No.
The real witnesses (Markham, Benavides, Scoggins) who were actually there (strange concept, I know) describe Tippit encountering just one man.
"Two kinds of bullets" means absolutely nothing... unless you care to elaborate.
No.
The real witnesses (Markham, Benavides, Scoggins) who were actually there (strange concept, I know) describe Tippit encountering just one man.
"Two kinds of bullets" means absolutely nothing... unless you care to elaborate.
Any non police witnesses who saw Oswald with the gun in the theater?
As far as two kinds of bullets, lets just consider the law of averages how often is it the case when two types of bullets are found in a victim do those bullets come from one or two shooters
Yes. John Gibson, George Applin, and Johnny Brewer.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gibson.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/applin1.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer_j.htm
Caught on tape...
550/2 (Sgt. G.L. Hill)
The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol.
Earlier on tape...
221 (Ptm. H.W. Summers)
Might can give you some additional information. I got an eye-ball witness to the get-away man. That suspect in this shooting is a white male, twenty-seven, five feet eleven, a hundred sixty-five, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light grey Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt, and (. . . ?). Last seen running on the north side of the street from Patton, on Jefferson, on East Jefferson. And he was apparently armed with a 32 dark-finish automatic pistol which he had in his right hand.
Not when they are stamped AUTO.
You mean those shells that Poe, Barnes, Dhority and Doughty could not identify under oath?
Not when they are stamped AUTO.
You mean those shells that Poe, Barnes, Dhority and Doughty could not identify under oath?
How come something is a 'mistake' only when it contradicts the official story?
The real true physical evidence proves that a mistake was made when Hill radioed in that the shells found at the scene indicated that the gunman was armed with an automatic weapon.
The real true physical evidence proves that a mistake was made when Callaway told Patrolman Summers that the killer was armed with a dark-finish automatic pistol.
The real true physical evidence are the shells found at the scene. These shells, all four of them, were not from an automatic weapon. Hill even clearly admitted his mistake later, once he was more clear on the details surrounding the finding of the shells. Callaway simply made a mistake in identifying a revolver as an automatic pistol. He got the key points right, that the man was indeed Oswald and that Oswald was wearing a light Eisenhower-type jacket.
How could the ambulance arrive at the SAME TIME it supposedly received the call?
By "two types of bullets" you mean made by different manufacturers; Winchester-Western and Remington-Peters. When Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theatre, his revolver contained six cartridges in it. Three of those cartridges were manufactured by Winchester-Western. The other three were manufactured by Remington-Peters.
Hill even clearly admitted his mistake later, once he was more clear on the details surrounding the finding of the shells.Right...... BS:
The shell at the scene indicates that the suspect is armed with a automatic .38 rather than a pistol [Hill]
What Oswald said happened when he left the TSBD about 12:33pm, thinking no work existed the rest of that day, is exactly what could have happened. The walk, bus ride, taxi, boarding house, putting on a jacket and carrying a .38, and then walking to the movie theater. I don't think much about the .38 as it was Texas 1963. The timing would fit better if he indeed walked directly to the Texas Theater. However, we run into one MAJOR problem. Pulling the .38 on the cop. In my opinion, not the actions of an innocent man, unless something else is at play here.
BB
Not in evidence.
I already did, earlier when nanny Nickerson had to bail you out.
Under oath:
-- Poe and Barnes could not identify shells
-- Dhority was not shown shells
-- Doughty was not called.
Done.
Not in evidence.
I already did, earlier when nanny Nickerson had to bail you out.
Under oath:
-- Poe and Barnes could not identify shells
-- Dhority was not shown shells
-- Doughty was not called.
Right...... BS:
Hill screwed up alright.
His superiors apparently motivated him to be 'more clear'.
He failed to properly cover his backside.
Quoting directly from the DPD transcript.....
(https://www.pewpewtactical.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/380-ACP-gimmick-ammo-e1510677182689.jpg)
The above is a .38 auto [.380]
The below is a .38 special
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/38_Special_-_SP_-_SB_-_1.jpg/440px-38_Special_-_SP_-_SB_-_1.jpg)
A police officer would know the difference.
Actually, a blind man could know the difference!
Callaway was familiar with hand guns ( as he testified) so he would recognize a gun......But he was not familiar with Lee Oswald .....so there's no way he could identify the man with the dark- finish automatic pistol as Lee Oswald.
Sure did, then claiming "I put a mark in them":
You have been cranking out this cop killer BS out for how long now, a decade?
The FBI came out to see Callaway. They estimated that the closest Callaway was to the killer was fifty-six feet. That distance is plenty close enough to positively identify someone. However, when trying to determine if a handgun is an automatic pistol or a revolver while the killer (who is running) has his fingers wrapped around it and you're fifty-sex feet away, it is perfectly reasonable (this is where I lose you) to assume the weapon is an automatic when in reality it is a revolver.
How do you know that the man that Callaway saw wasn't a citizen that thought he could run down the killer who had ducked into the alley before Callaway saw him?
I didn't, Hill did. Keep up.
As if anyone cared.
Not needed with WC sheep like you, I saved a few keystrokes. To clear this up:
Poe and Barnes, under oath, failed to identify shells.
Dhority, under oath, not shown shells.
Doughty, not called, no shells identified under oath.
I didn't, Hill did. Keep up.
Not needed with WC sheep like you, I saved a few keystrokes. To clear this up:
Dhority, under oath, not shown shells.
Doughty, not called, no shells identified under oath.
Damn. Just when I believed we were going to have an intelligent discussion for once.
You mean the ones he put his mark in?
You never misspoke?
Error corrected, live with it.
Doesn't change a thing of what's on record: Poe and Barnes failed miserably under oath.
I know Bill Brown is big on the honest/dishonest thing ... were these honest mistakes by Belin?
Correct, I shouldn't have put Hill in my reply.
[1:34] 241 (Ptm. J.P. Hollingsworth) 10-4. Whereabouts on the third floor?http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes3.htm
550/2 (Sgt. G.L. Hill) 550/2.
Dispatcher Go ahead, car 2.
550/2 The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol.
Dispatcher 10-4.
550/2 (Sergeant Gerald L. Hill) A witness reports that he last was seen in the Abundant Life Temple about the 400 block. We are fixing to go in and shake it down.How did the dispatcher know 'they already have him'? Telepathy? There was a lot of that on that day.
Dispatcher Is that the one that was involved in the shooting of the officer?
550/2 Yes.
Dispatcher They already have him.
550/2 (Sergeant Gerald L. Hill) No, that wasn't the right one. (1:44 p.m.)So, how did Hill know that?
[1:46] Dispatcher . . . en route to Texas Theater. Have someone cover off the rear of the theater at the fire escape.
211 (Ptm. R. Hawkins) 211. There's about five squads back here with me now.
However, we run into one MAJOR problem. Pulling the .38 on the cop. In my opinion, not the actions of an innocent man, unless something else is at play here.
There is ZERO evidence that Oswald pulled a gun on a cop in the Texas Theater.
And surprise, surprise, surprise; fibers identical to the shirt he was wearing when arrested in the TT were found in the jacket he ditched in the lot behind the Texaco station.
...and by "identical", Howard means "similar".
Yes. John Gibson, George Applin, and Johnny Brewer.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gibson.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/applin1.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer_j.htm
Acquilla Clemons was NOT a witness to the "slaying of Patrolman Tippit".
Benavides is in the opposite direction for the Davis girls, yet he says Oswald walked straight towards him? Did he then turn and go in the opposite direction? By the way, why do you call them girls? Were they minors?
Okay. So now all you have to do is show that these shells were stamped AUTO.
You better check again. Odum showed the shells to Doughty and Dhority. Dhority positively identified the shell he received from Virginia Davis. Doughty positively identified the shell he received from Barbara Davis. Odum also showed the shells to Barnes. Barnes identified his marks on the other two shells. Poe probably never placed his marks on the shells in the first place.
How about the probability of being in the very building from which shots were fired at the President and then within an hour passing the scene of the Tippit shooting (the only DPD officer shot within a few years of that date),
sneaking into a movie theater without buying a ticket
pulling a gun on a police officer,
and lying about his ownership of a rifle.
And all this after being so unlucky as to make an unscheduled trip the night before to the location where he stored his rifle,
carrying a long package to work that morning (and lying about this)
Keep telling yourself that.
They were more than only similar. They were an exact match. The shirt fibers and the fibers found inside the jacket were the same exact shade, color and twist as each other. They were a 100% match.
Neither were Benavides, Scoggins, Davis, Davis, Callaway, Patterson, Reynolds, or Brock. But that's never stopped you.
Great. Now all you have to do is prove that the shells that Dhority and Doughty identified were actually found "about one hundred feet away over at the corner".
Please cite evidence that they were the "same exact shade, color and twist as each other". And then cite evidence that the jacket fibers came from the arrest shirt to the exclusion of any other shirt.
Please cite evidence that they were the "same exact shade, color and twist as each other".
And then cite evidence that the jacket fibers came from the arrest shirt to the exclusion of any other shirt.
Benavides, Markham and Scoggins
Fact check: No first day affidavits reporting Tippit trailing suspect or seeing suspect crossing Patton.
Fact check: No affidavit from Benavides has ever surfaced and he is missing from the list of witnesses in the Fritz supplementary report.
Fact check: Scoggins, before the Commission, did not see suspect cross Patton, did not initially see Markham at scene.
Acquilla Clemons
Why didn't Secret Service, DP, FBI or WC simply ask her?
Benavides, Markham and Scoggins
Fact check: No first day affidavits reporting Tippit trailing suspect or seeing suspect crossing Patton.
Fact check: No affidavit from Benavides has ever surfaced and he is missing from the list of witnesses in the Fritz supplementary report.
Fact check: Scoggins, before the Commission, did not see suspect cross Patton, did not initially see Markham at scene.
Acquilla Clemons
Why didn't Secret Service, DP, FBI or WC simply ask her?
Benavides: Prime witness, missed the lineup. LOL
(Regrouped)
Fact check: Helen Markham positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Who she didn't recognize. LOL
Fact check: William Scoggins positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Sure, after having seen a picture of Oswald in the morning paper. LOL
Fact check: Ted Callaway positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Sam Guinyard positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Seeing Oswald running south on Patton on the west and east side of the street simultaneously. LOL
Fact check: Virginia Davis positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Barbara Davis positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Simultaniously running to the front door and side door seeing Oswald in a tan jacket, black or dark coat reported as white jacket. LOL.
All these eyewitnesses picked out Lee Harvey Oswald in a lineup and as you pointed out the chances of this happening randomly is 1 in 4096, that is unless you're going to stick to your absurd "they all picked the guy with the bruise theory". LOL!
Glad you took notes, no need to embarrass yourself again going astronomical.
They all did, it seems.
I'll deal with Bill later.
You must be confused.
What does any of the above have to do with the fact that Markham, Benavides and Scoggins describe Tippit encountering only one man?
By the way, Benavides felt that he could not positively identify the killer so he never went to City Hall. Therefore, no Benavides affidavit and no "Benavides" showing up on the list of witnesses in Fritz' supplementary report.
If you were even remotely aware of the evidence in this case you wouldn't have brought it up.
LOL
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
Benavides: Prime witness, missed the lineup. LOL
(Regrouped)
Fact check: Helen Markham positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Who she didn't recognize. LOL
Fact check: William Scoggins positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Sure, after having seen a picture of Oswald in the morning paper. LOL
Fact check: Ted Callaway positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Sam Guinyard positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Seeing Oswald running south on Patton on the west and east side of the street simultaneously. LOL
Fact check: Virginia Davis positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Barbara Davis positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Simultaniously running to the front door and side door seeing Oswald in a tan jacket, black or dark coat reported as white jacket. LOL.
All these eyewitnesses picked out Lee Harvey Oswald in a lineup and as you pointed out the chances of this happening randomly is 1 in 4096, that is unless you're going to stick to your absurd "they all picked the guy with the bruise theory". LOL!
Glad you took notes, no need to embarrass yourself again going astronomical.
They all did, it seems.
I'll deal with Bill later.
Poor old Lee just couldn't catch a break that day. First, he works in the very building from which shots are fired at the president. And has no alibi. Then when he knocks off early for a movie, he passes the scene of police murder (the only one in years of a DPD officer). And Oswald looks so much like the killer that multiple witnesses ID him as the killer. And he is carrying a pistol just like the killer. And he has the same two brands of ammo just like the killer. And he acts so suspiciously that he draws the attention of shoe salesman. And then he sneaks into the movies without buying a ticket and for some unknown reason cause a ruckus when approached by the police. Everyone else is to blame for all of this. Random citizens are apparently out to frame him for the crime. Lunacy.
Billy Bob Brown wrote:
By the way, Benavides felt that he could not positively identify the killer so he never went to City Hall.
No, Billy Bob.....You have your head stuck.... Domingo Benevides had seen Tippit's clearly ...( a direct face to face at about twenty feet) And he saw Lee Oswald's photo on the TV that afternoon and KNEW that He could not Identify Lee as the killer that he'd seen who had his hair cut in a fashion that made the back of his head look flat.
He told the cops that he could not identify Lee Oswald as the man that he'd seen......
Too many assumptions to comment.
Benavides: Prime witness, missed the lineup. LOL
(Regrouped)
Fact check: Helen Markham positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Who she didn't recognize. LOL
Fact check: William Scoggins positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Sure, after having seen a picture of Oswald in the morning paper. LOL
Fact check: Ted Callaway positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Sam Guinyard positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Seeing Oswald running south on Patton on the west and east side of the street simultaneously. LOL
Fact check: Virginia Davis positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Barbara Davis positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Simultaniously running to the front door and side door seeing Oswald in a tan jacket, black or dark coat reported as white jacket. LOL.
All these eyewitnesses picked out Lee Harvey Oswald in a lineup and as you pointed out the chances of this happening randomly is 1 in 4096, that is unless you're going to stick to your absurd "they all picked the guy with the bruise theory". LOL!
Glad you took notes, no need to embarrass yourself again going astronomical.
They all did, it seems.
I'll deal with Bill later.
Benavides: Prime witness, missed the lineup. LOL
LOL
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
Billy Bob Brown wrote:
By the way, Benavides felt that he could not positively identify the killer so he never went to City Hall.
No, Billy Bob.....You have your head stuck.... Domingo Benevides had seen Tippit's killer clearly ...( a direct face to face at about twenty feet) And he saw Lee Oswald's photo on the TV that afternoon and KNEW that he could not Identify Lee as the killer that he'd seen who had his hair cut in a fashion that made the back of his head look flat.
He told the cops that he could not identify Lee Oswald as the man that he'd seen......
Explain how Benavides, Markham and Scoggins managed to miss the 2nd killer that Acquilla Clemons supposedly saw. Go on. I'll wait.
Do you believe those shells were found near Tippit's patrol car?
Paul Stombaugh.
Straw man.
Fact check: Helen Markham positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: William Scoggins positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Ted Callaway positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Virginia Davis positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Barbara Davis positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Sam Guinyard positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
All these eyewitnesses picked out Lee Harvey Oswald in a lineup and as you pointed out the chances of this happening randomly is 1 in 4096,
Poor old Lee just couldn't catch a break that day. First, he works in the very building from which shots are fired at the president.
And has no alibi.
Then when he knocks off early for a movie,
he passes the scene of police murder
And Oswald looks so much like the killer that multiple witnesses ID him as the killer.
And he is carrying a pistol just like the killer.
And he has the same two brands of ammo just like the killer.held
And he acts so suspiciously that he draws the attention of shoe salesman.
And then he sneaks into the movies without buying a ticket
and for some unknown reason cause a ruckus when approached by the police.
Everyone else is to blame for all of this. Random citizens are apparently out to frame him for the crime. Lunacy.
LOL. That is the best course of action when you have no substantive response. Like a guilty man taking the 5th. There is not a single assumption made. All are documented facts.
On the afternoon of the shooting, Benavides told the police that he wouldn't be able to identify the killer. Therefore, he certainly is NOT a prime witness.
I have to agree there. The prime witness was a woman who didn't recognize anyone in the lineup, talked to the dead, couldn't figure out how clocks and bus schedules worked, thought she was alone at the scene for 20 minutes screaming for help, thought the killer was "short, a little on the heavy side" with "somewhat bushy" hair, thought her own voice on a recorded telephone conversation was somebody else, thought she tried to use the police radio to call for help but yet didn't notice Benavides (who did try to use the police radio) as having been there at all, who fainted 3 or 4 times, and who had to be given a sedative before the lineup.
But by all means, let's rely on her observational skills.
Strawman. Clemons never said she saw a killer. Benavides and Scoggins didn't even see anybody kill anybody.
I don't know where they were found and neither do you.
Markham lied a good bit according to her own son.
You found his affidavit stating this?
I'll take a reasonable mechanic about 15 feet from the shooting, doing police work finding shells, over a hysterical, fainting waitress at 50 feet.
That's not evidence, that's a person's name. But I'll play. Cite Stombaugh ever giving an opinion on the jacket fibers.
What good is it to even claim that the fibers were "identical" if they can't be shown to be from any specific shirt?
Like a broken record you keep repeating the same regurgitated nonsense, but unfortunately it doesn't make it true.
1. Markham testified that the killer was man number 2, Lee Harvey Oswald.
2. Another eyewitness describes Tippit trying to speak, which was most likely agonal gasps.
3. Can you timestamp Markham's clock or will you continue to guess?
4. Can you prove that Markham didn't use the Police Radio or is this just another guess?
5. Markham was distressed because she just saw a man murdered and only shows she's human.
JohnM
Benavides and Scoggins were right there, on the street. They both said there was only one man. Same with Markham.
Why not answer the question? How could Markham, Scoggins and Benavides not notice the mysterious 2nd man?
I asked a simple question. Do you believe the shells were found near Tippit's patrol car?
Now cue the lame and unsupported argument that the shells in evidence aren't the same shells actually found by the witnesses.
You're taking this too personally, why would Markham Lie, what did she have to gain?
Do you honestly believe that Markham wanted to be directly responsible for the execution of an innocent man and if so why?
To the best of my knowledge, Stombaugh never examined the fibers found inside the jacket sleeve.
But, there is an FBI report regarding the microscopic fibers found inside the sleeve. This report stated that the fibers were dark blue, grey-black and orange-yellow cotton fibers.
Speaking of regurgitated nonsense...
But anything to desperately preserve any shred of credibility of your "utter screwball" (according to Joseph Ball who took her testimony) witness.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/markham-eyes.png)
Speaking of regurgitated nonsense...
But anything to desperately preserve any shred of credibility of your "utter screwball" (according to Joseph Ball who took her testimony) witness.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/markham-eyes.png)
Are you somehow under the false impression that Benavides ever stated that the killer was not Oswald?
The person Benavides describes, the one holding a gun, right after the shots were fired that killed Tippit,
doesn't match a photo of LHO taken while in custody on 11/22/63. So yes, by default, Benavides says the
killer wasn't Oswald.
Testimony Of Domingo Benavides
Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.
~snip~
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
~snip~
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
~snip~
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3.jpg)
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
Resembled? I figured? From a picture? Uhhh doesn't sound exactly like a positive ID to me.
Mr. BELIN - What did you see then?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I then pulled on up and I seen this officer standing by the door. The door was open to the car, and I was pretty close to him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car.
::)
Seriously, it's just how Benavides spoke and when asked to clarify he couldn't have been more sure that the man was Oswald.
Mr. BELIN - What did you see then?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I then pulled on up and I seen this officer standing by the door. The door was open to the car, and I was pretty close to him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car.
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
I suppose it was just a mass hallucination that nearly a dozen people all identified Oswald as the man who was at or moving away from the Tippit crime scene.
JohnM
... and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him ... ::)
Ya well, the standards used by the Warren Commission wouldn't hold water in most court rooms in the
civilized world. Was Dallas considered part of the civilized world in 1963?
from
"VINNIE IT IS ROUND"
by Mark Lane
"The Commission claimed that Mrs. Markham identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who shot the policeman at a line up on November 22 and that in testimony before the Commission, Mrs. Markham confirmed her positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man she saw kill Officer Tippit. Captain Fritz - who needed that identification real quickly -- testified that the lineup was hurriedly arranged at 4:30 that afternoon, less than three and a half hours after Tippit's death and less than that after Oswald's arrest. Mrs. Markham was "quite hysterical" when she arrived at police headquarters. Her state and the atmosphere in the lineup room are best described by the record of her testimony."
Q: Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Markham: Yes , sir.
Q: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Markham: No, sir
Q: You did not? Did you see anybody-I have asked you that question before-did you recognize anybody from their face?
"Counsel wished to remind Mrs. Markham that when he had prepared her for her testimony, before
a record of her answers was made, the matter had been discussed. To prepare a witness for testimony may
be acceptable where adversary and hostile cross-examination is expected, and it is also a legitimate way of
preventing repetition and irrelevant conjecture. The record of the Warren Commission, however, reveals no
such cross-examination and was burdened to such a degree by repetition and irrelevance that the initial
preparation seems to have been for the purpose of leading the witness to give an appropriate answer."
Markham: From their face, no.
Q: Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Markham: I didn't know nobody.
Q: I know you didn't know nobody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Markham: No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Q: No one of the four?
Markham: No one of them.
Q: No one of the four?
Markham: No, sir.
"At this point counsel, a teacher of criminal law and procedure at the University of Southern California and a member of the U.S. Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, asked a rather leading question. Mrs. Markham said that she recognized no one at the lineup; counsel tried five times for a more acceptable answer. Then, departing a little from the legal procedure he teaches, he next asked his friendly but disconcerting witness, "Was there a number two man in there?" Mrs. Markham replied, "Number two is the one I picked." Counsel began another question: "I thought you just told me that you hadn't, but Mrs. Markham interrupted to answer inexplicably, "I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing."
Counsel then inquired:
Q: You recognized him from his appearance?
Markham: I asked-I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.
"A mystical identification at best. However, the Commission was satisfied that its lawyer had at last
obtained the right answer: "Addressing itself solely to the probative value of Mrs. Markham's contemporaneous description of the gunman and her identification of Oswald at a police lineup, the Commission considers her testimony reliable."
Ffs, you have posted this more times than I've had hot dinners. Markham is clearly saying that she never recognized the men before the incident. -sigh-
But as has been pointed out to you Markham positively ID'd Oswald on the same day and in Markham's testimony she said the number 2 man and that man was Oswald.
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
JohnM
Who cares what it sounds like to you?
Benavides wasn't a Rhodes Scholar like yourself, Benavides was a mechanic and that's how he talked, get used to it.
JohnM
Where did I mention Oswald in my statement?
Too bad the back side of the Oswalds head was someone elses
Oswald's jacket was a windbreaker type and it's natural position was up to protect the neck and we know that Oswald established that he liked to change his appearance.
(https://s7.postimg.cc/k84t5gr4r/Jacket_CE_162.jpg)
And when a high collar is viewed from behind at a glance we see a squared off haircut, ala Benavides!
(https://s7.postimg.cc/7gqmz3mjf/back_jacket.jpg)
JohnM
Again you're taking Joseph Balls comments out of context he was just exposing Lane's devious method of eyewitness manipulation by using flippant irony.
Yawn! Does it give you a woody to be so outright dishonest?
:D
When the back of someones head becomes the standard practice for eyewitness identification then we'll sure come looking for ya but until then Benavides positively testified that the front of the man was Lee Harvey Oswald.
Who cares what it sounds like to you?
Benavides wasn't a Rhodes Scholar like yourself, Benavides was a mechanic and that's how he talked, get used to it.
I suppose it was just a mass hallucination that nearly a dozen people all identified Oswald as the man who was at or moving away from the Tippit crime scene.
Ffs, you have posted this more times than I've had hot dinners. Markham is clearly saying that she never recognized the men before the incident. -sigh-
Oswald's jacket was a windbreaker type and it's natural position was up to protect the neck and we know that Oswald established that he liked to change his appearance.
Benavides told the police on 11/22 that he couldn't make an identification. Get used to it.
I don't think that's what Benavides told he police.......I think he told them that he couldn't verify that Lee Oswald was the man that he saw extracting a shell from a revolver as he left the scene of the lopsided gunfight.
"Poor dumb cop..... He never had a chance and he didn't even realize that he was an expendable pawn"....
Benevides did say this on 11/22/63. That is why he never participated in one of the lineups.
Only after months of seeing LHO on t.v. and in the newspapers did he change to "LHO resembled the man he saw shoot JDT." As I asked in my series, how many other men would have resembled the shooter had he viewed their photographs?
Leavelle: "I think he said he never saw the man actually. I believe he said later on he did not see the man."
Callaway: "And he said 'Hell, no, I didn't see him. When I heard that shooting, I fell down into the floorboard of my truck and I stayed there'."
Helen Markham stated Oswald approached Tippit from the west, while another witness and the commission claimed he came from the east.
She said she saw Oswald lean into an open window of the car; two witnesses and a photograph confirm that all windows were closed.
She stated that Tippit tried to speak to her; all other witnesses, the commission, and the coroner found that he died instantly.
She stated that she was alone with Tippit for twenty minutes; all other witnesses state that a large crowd gathered immediately.
She stated Tippit had light grey pants on. He didn't when he was arrested.
Some witness.
Why defame the witness?"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; I seen this man on the opposite side, across the street from me. He was almost across Patton Street.
Helen Markham saw J.D. Tippit tailing a man who was approaching from the west ( traveling east)
She said she saw Oswald lean into an open window of the car; two witnesses and a photograph confirm that all windows were closed.
But the wing window was open.......so Markham could easily have seen the man talking to Tippit through the vent window.
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; I seen this man on the opposite side, across the street from me. He was almost across Patton Street.
Mr. BALL. Almost across Patton?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Walking in what direction?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I guess this would be south."
Sorry,Walt. she said the window was down
"Mr. BALL. He put his arms on the window ledge?
Mrs. MARKHAM. The window was down. "
Exactly the same with reference to NOV 22.
That was five months later. Then please explain how that statement aligns with the statement below and Leavelle stating (NOV 22) that Benavides didn't see the suspect.
Mr. BELIN - Let me ask you now, I would like to have you relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. BENAVIDES - As I saw him, I really---I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired, he had just tuned. He was just turning away. [...]
Benavides DID know that Lee Oswald was NOT the killer.....And he told the police that he could not identify Lee as the killer.... in fact h was sure that Lee was NOT the killer. Thus they did not want any affidavit or any statement from Benavides.
What have you seen which makes you claim that Benavides was sure that Oswald was not the killer?
I could tell you...but...You'll have to extract your head first.
Okay. I just did it. Now what?
View the Youtube video.....
A few years after the coup, Benavides told a reporter that he clearly saw the killer and Benavides referred the the killer as .... "This other man".... He Did NOT identify this "other man" as Lee Oswald.
Benavides DID know that Lee Oswald was NOT the killer.....And he told the police that he could not identify Lee as the killer.... in fact h was sure that Lee was NOT the killer. ( he saw the killer face and he described the killer's hair cut which was NOT Lee Oswald's face or the fashion in which Lee had his hair cut) Thus they did not want any affidavit or any statement from Benavides.
You're talking about "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report" (1967)
Benavides does say "This other man" when he corrected himself after originally saying "Oswald".
But, that is a far cry from your claim that Benavides told the authorities that he "could not identify Lee as the killer" and that he "was sure that Lee was NOT the killer".
In reality, Benavides did not attend a lineup because he felt he would not be able to identify the killer. To the best of my knowledge, Benavides never said anything to them about not being able to identify a Lee Oswald.
Tom,
We arrive at the same destination--Benavides could NOT identify the shooter. This means he could NOT say that it was LHO as the WC claimed.
You're talking about "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report" (1967)
Benavides does say "This other man" when he corrected himself after originally saying "Oswald".
But, that is a far cry from your claim that Benavides told the authorities that he "could not identify Lee as the killer" and that he "was sure that Lee was NOT the killer".
In reality, Benavides did not attend a lineup because he felt he would not be able to identify the killer. To the best of my knowledge, Benavides never said anything to them about not being able to identify a Lee Oswald.
Benavides does say "This other man" when he corrected himself after originally saying "Oswald".
Thank You....That's right.... He corrected his initial error of referring to the other man as "Oswald" ......
Benavides does say "This other man" when he corrected himself after originally saying "Oswald".
As I recall..... Benavides was telling the reporter what he had seen....And he said that Tippit had got out of the car and was near the front wheel when this other man shot him.
At that time it was commonly accepted that Lee Harrrrrvey Ossssswald was the killer.......So why did Benavides refer to the killer as..." this other man"
To me, it looks like Benavides was trying to be "politically correct" by not actually saying the name Oswald.
Benavides couldn't identify the killer as Oswald but that is not to say that Benavides ever stated that the killer was not Oswald. He simply had no opinion one way or the other.
Why defame the witness?
Is not defamatory. Markham's testimony is unreliable. Period.
Is there a best witness for identifying Oswald as Tippit's killer?
Is there a best witness for identifying Oswald as Tippit's killer?
Is there a best witness for identifying Oswald as Tippit's killer?
Ted Callaway is unimpeachable. He saw Oswald running with a gun from the immediate vicinity of the shooting.
Helen Markham will identify Lee Oswald as the man she saw shoot Tippit.
William Scoggins will identify Lee Oswald as the man he saw talking to Tippit and then after hearing shots, saw Oswald run straight towards his location with a gun and cut across the yard on the corner.
Barbara Davis will identify Lee Oswald as the man she saw cut across her front yard (coming from the area of Tippit's patrol car) with a gun in his hands moments after hearing shots.
Virginia Davis will identify Lee Oswald as the man she saw cut across the front yard (coming from the area of Tippit's patrol car) with a gun in his hands moments after hearing shots.
Ted Callaway will identify Lee Oswald as the man he saw turn the corner at Tenth and Patton and run down Patton towards Jefferson with a gun in his hands just moments after hearing the shots.
Sam Guinyard will identify Lee Oswald as the man he saw turn the corner at Tenth and Patton and run down Patton towards Jefferson with a gun in his hands just moments after hearing the shots.
Warren Reynolds will identify Lee Oswald as the man he saw run down Patton towards Jefferson with a gun in his hands just moments after hearing the shots.
L.J. Lewis will identify Lee Oswald as the man he saw run down Patton towards Jefferson with a gun in his hands just moments after hearing the shots.
Harold Russell will identify Lee Oswald as the man he saw run down Patton towards Jefferson with a gun in his hands just moments after hearing the shots.
Therefore, when you use your brain (unlike Iacoletti is doing) and piece it together, the Davis women, Callaway, Guinyard, Reynolds, Patterson and Russell most definitely saw Tippit's killer (since they saw the same man seen by Markham and Scoggins).
One does not have to be staring at the gunman at the instant the shots were fired in order to see the killer.
There was only one witness to Tippit's killing at all: the unreliable Helen Markham.
Really???..... Do you recall that Domingo Benavides DESCRIBED the shooting...How could he do that if he didn't witness the shooting??? "I saw the officer start to walk to the front of his car and "this other man shot him"
He was an earwitness, but not an eyewitness. He was ducking down in his car when Tippit was shot. He didn't see the shooting.
BS!!!
Mr. BENAVIDES - I then pulled on up and I seen this officer standing by the door. The door was open to the car, and I was pretty close to him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car."Was pretty close" ?
Either way, he was a mediocre witness.
Upon reviewing Benavides testimony ...
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/benavide.htm
David Belin spent the entire interview coaching, coaxing, nudging and prodding him to identify Oswald.
Especially after he stated..."Was pretty close" ?
This written statement does not accurately reflect the inflection in Benavides voice as he said that.
And he didn't duck down until the shooting sarted ( why would he???) So Benavides DID see the murder.
You mean you've heard a recording of his testimony?
He said that he heard a shot, then ducked down, then heard 2 more shots, then looked up. Is this another case where your imagination trumps what a witness actually said?
I came across the statement by William Torbitt who names William Seymour as the killer of Tippit and may have been use to impersonate Oswald
Was William Seymour a quick draw killer? Because who ever shot Tippit had to have been a cold blooded killer and very fast on the draw.....
Chuck Connors comes to mind but not clear if he was good with a revolver
He said that he heard a shot, then ducked down, then heard 2 more shots, then looked up.
And how long did Tippit remain on his feet after being shot ??..... Long enough for Benavides reflexes to move him faster than the man who was hit by the bullet??
Don't you have any commonsense? Surely you're bright enough to understand that the victim would react faster than any spectator...
Tippit's autopsy shows that he was hit by four shots in the upper body .....Do you think the killer fired just once and then waited long enough to allow Benavides to say ..."Oh Shep! .....That man just fire a gun....I think I'll duck down before he can fire again"
IMO JD Tippit was a pawn ...... He was set up to be killed. ( someone on the phone in the Record Shop sent him to 10th and Patton) The plotters thought that it would appear as though Tippit had been killed by the patsy who had eluded being killed in the TSBD. The plotters thought that Lee Oswald was still renting a room at Mrs Bledsoe's house on Marsalais.
The plotters thought that Lee Oswald would be shot by the first cop he encountered....... in the theater.
So you do think that your imagination trumps what Benavides actually said. No surprise there.
Johnnie....Sometimes you've got to use your imagination and commonsense......(I'm sorry if you're a little short in those areas)
AAMOF.... Nearly all crimes are solved by the investigators using their imagination and commonsense.
Wrong. One has to witness a killing in order to identify a killer. No amount of rhetorical gymnastics will ever change that. And no matter how many times you regurgitate it, unfair and biased lineups remain unreliable.
Pretty sure witnesses were being asked to ID the guy they saw carrying the pistol either right at the scene or near it. Nobody had to actually see the killer pulling the trigger on Tippit in order to place the guy at/near the scene.
Pretty sure witnesses were being asked to ID the guy they saw carrying the pistol either right at the scene or near it. Nobody had to actually see the killer pulling the trigger on Tippit in order to place the guy at/near the scene.
I'm pretty sure at least one witness actually saw Tippit being shot by the killer..... Domingo Benavides said...He saw Tippit get out of his car when "this other guy shot him"
Then why do so many people try to claim that these people identified Oswald as Tippit's killer?
Pretty sure Benavides qualified the remark
The other guy turned out to be Oswald
You're nitpicking
You pretty sure that you have your head stuck......Benavides said exactly the opposite of what you claim...
He at first said "Oswald" ( because that was the commonly accepted lie) But then he corrected himself by saying "OR THE MAN WHO SHOT HIM"
And he referred to the Killer as " this other man"..... If that man had been Lee Oswald then the easiest and most direct way would have been .... "Oswald shot him". But he didn't say that.... Now did he??
Why is it always "nitpicking" when LN-ers get caught out making false claims? If the evidence is so conclusive why do you have to lie about it?
He didn't know Oswald's name at the time of the shooting. That was his point.
So Oswald is in Gomer Pyle-like bliss up to the assassination about whatever is going on. Then it immediately dawns on him that he is going to take the fall for it. He suddenly becomes a genius. So he does the logical thing and kills a police officer. That is quite a fantasy tale. The most logical reason for him to have killed Tippit is because he has just assassinated the President and has nothing to lose at that point. He can't risk the possibility that he has already been identified as a suspect and will be arrested if he IDs himself.
Are you talking about me? Point out where I made false claims.
You defended the false claim that multiple people identified Oswald as Tippit's killer by calling it nitpicking to correct it.
That is not a false claim.
You defended the false claim that multiple people identified Oswald as Tippit's killer by calling it nitpicking to correct it.
Of course it's a false claim.
It is not a false claim. Both Helen Markham and William Scoggins witnessed the killing and they both positively identified Oswald as the killer.
It is not a false claim. Both Helen Markham and William Scoggins witnessed the killing and they both positively identified Oswald as the killer.
Scoggins did not see Tippit being shot.
Yep, and both agreed that the jacketed Oswald while fiddling with his weapon described him as moving towards Patton, a fact verified by the Davis sisters and then just down Patton the jacketed Oswald who was still brandishing his gun was identified by Callaway and Guinyard, all these eyewitnesses are equally important because they all corroborate the exact same narrative.
...a narrative which doesn't not involve seeing anybody getting shot. And an "exact same narrative" that can't even agree what side of the street the man was on.
And you all keep forgetting the part about the unfair and biased lineups and a single photo months later.
...a narrative which doesn't not involve seeing anybody getting shot.
and a single photo months later.
Mr. BELIN. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Three or four, in the neighborhood. They was fast.
Mr. BELIN. They were fast shots?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; they were fast.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do or say or hear?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Then I saw the man falling, grab his stomach and fall.[/b]
Like I said, Scoggins didn't see Tippit being shot. He was eating his lunch and didn't look up until the shooting was over. Then he hid behind his cab and only saw someone going south on Patton. In other words, facing away from him.
Oops!
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
Oops!
Representative FORD. In other words, they showed you pictures of how many people altogether, how many different people, your best estimate?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I would say 4 or 5.
Representative FORD. And you narrowed the number of 4 or 5 down to 2?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Down to two; yes.
Try again!
Scoggins did not see Tippit being shot.
Oops!
Yep, and both agreed that the jacketed Oswald while fiddling with his weapon described him as moving towards Patton, a fact verified by the Davis sisters and then just down Patton the jacketed Oswald who was still brandishing his gun was identified by Callaway and Guinyard, all these eyewitnesses are equally important because they all corroborate the exact same narrative.
(http://blogs.denverpost.com/library/wp-content/blogs.dir/78/files/2013/10/rsz_a_tippitmap.jpg)
JohnM
A nice bit of sophistry on your part. Why stop there? You could just as easily say that Markham never saw Tippit being shot because she never saw the bullets as they passed through the air between the revolver and Tippit's chest.
You mean raaawk?
You will not escape the mantra of the parrots.
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/xUA7aUOIB26HybnCko/200w.gif)
raaawk.. Oswald did it ..raaawk.. Oswald
Seriously hopeless.
Unsub guns Tippit down at 1.04 - 1.08.30pm, then runs as above to "assumed movements" starting approx. 1.09.45pm at the latest.
Approx 36 minutes later Unsub is seen near theatre - Anyone got any ideas where Unsub was/went in that 36 minutes?
The whole damn narrative was assumed.
Well, according to some people here he was washing the blood off of his shoes at Markham's laundromat.
LOL I never heard that one of washing blood at Markhams washeteria before.
To me a direct run to the theatre and a killer on the run could act like that. As indirect as that 36 minutes not so likely though.
He was an earwitness, but not an eyewitness. He was ducking down in his car when Tippit was shot. He didn't see the shooting.
Ducking down in his car (actually it was a truck, but anyway...) when Tippit was shot?
I have to agree with Cakebread on this one, you're full of B.S.
Benavides obviously did not "duck down" in his truck until AFTER the shots rang out.
Why else would Benavides be "ducking down"? Come on, already.
Benavides obviously did not "duck down" in his truck until AFTER the shots rang out.
Why else would Benavides be "ducking down"? Come on, already.
Whatever. Scoggins didn't see Tippit being shot, that's just a fact. I can understand why you want to invent more witnesses than the "utter screwball", but it is what it is.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/markham-eyes.png)
Like I said, Scoggins didn't see Tippit being shot. He was eating his lunch and didn't look up until the shooting was over. Then he hid behind his cab and only saw someone going south on Patton. In other words, facing away from him.
You're so full of Spotty Avocada.
Now you want to pretend that Scoggins did not get a good look at the fleeing killer since the killer was "facing away from him" and Scoggins "only saw someone going south on Patton".
The killer headed straight towards Scoggins as he (the killer) fled toward the corner and Scoggins got a look at the killer's face.
Well, he didn't say at Markham's washateria.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,84.msg922.html#msg922 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,84.msg922.html#msg922)
Yeah, makes no sense. He's seen running down the alley and then supposedly shows up 15-20 minutes later in the Texaco parking lot.
You're so full of Spotty Avocada.
Now you want to pretend that Scoggins did not get a good look at the fleeing killer since the killer was "facing away from him" and Scoggins "only saw someone going south on Patton".The killerOswald headed straight towards Scoggins asheOswald (the killer) fled toward the corner and Scoggins got a look at the killer's face.
Yeah, makes no sense. He's seen running down the alley and then supposedly shows up 15-20 minutes later in the Texaco parking lot.
Does your "pov" still have Oswald standing out on the front steps of the Depository building during the assassination?
HI Bill and you may have rarely actually mixed up there Bill, mebbe with Walt, as I can't recall ever putting LHO on TBD steps as such myself.
Michael, I am so very sorry. I was seeing posts by Michael Capasse (in another thread) and then you sneaked one in there on me. I truly apologize to you for that. Capasse was (is?) a supporter of Oswald on the steps.
Ducking down in his car (actually it was a truck, but anyway...) when Tippit was shot?
I have to agree with Cakebread on this one, you're full of B.S.
Benavides obviously did not "duck down" in his truck until AFTER the shots rang out.
Why else would Benavides be "ducking down"? Come on, already.
Yawn, selective quoting and/or imaging is all you got and as usual never tells the whole story. Why are you so afraid of the truth?
You're so full of Spotty Avocada.
Now you want to pretend that Scoggins did not get a good look at the fleeing killer since the killer was "facing away from him" and Scoggins "only saw someone going south on Patton".
The killer headed straight towards Scoggins as he (the killer) fled toward the corner and Scoggins got a look at the killer's face.
15-20 minutes? What makes you say that?
What time do you think the shooting occurred? What time did Mary Brock claim to have seen him? What time did Brewer claim to have seen him?
The FBI report stated that Brock saw the man who she identified as Oswald walk past her (wearing a light-colored jacket) at "approximately 1:30".
Are we now now taking FBI reports so literal? What about Linnie Mae Randle saying the bag she saw Oswald carrying that morning was three feet long?
For those who may be unaware (instead of being dishonest like Iacoletti), after hearing the shots, Warren Reynolds and Pat Patterson saw the gunman running down Patton and turn west onto Jefferson. Reynolds and Patterson followed the man from a safe distance. They saw the man disappear somewhere around the Texaco station.
It is hilarious to see the LNers trying so hard to use eyewitnesses when they usually claim that they are unreliable. 🤣😂
Linnie Mae testified that the bag she saw was 28 1/2 inches long. I must have missed Mary Brock's testimony where she said that "approximately 1:30" was probably 1:20.
LOL. So now your game is to pretend that "somewhere around the Texaco station" means "at the Texaco station walking past Mary Brock". But let's go with your "probably 1:20" and see where that leads. What time did Johnny Calvin Brewer say he saw the man who looked funny in front of his shoe store? He also said 1:30. But that would mean that this "fast walking man" took 10 minutes to go 0.4 miles. Supposedly the same guy who was able earlier to "fast walk" 1.1 miles in only 11 minutes. Then another 14 minutes for him (if it was the same guy) to enter the theater and for Postal to call the cops on him. So if anything, Brewer's estimate was too early. No matter how you slice it there's missing time.
Eyewitnesses are unreliable except when they aren't. :D
Linnie Mae testified that the bag she saw was 28 1/2 inches long. I must have missed Mary Brock's testimony where she said that "approximately 1:30" was probably 1:20.
LOL. So now your game is to pretend that "somewhere around the Texaco station" means "at the Texaco station walking past Mary Brock". But let's go with your "probably 1:20" and see where that leads. What time did Johnny Calvin Brewer say he saw the man who looked funny in front of his shoe store? He also said 1:30. But that would mean that this "fast walking man" took 10 minutes to go 0.4 miles. Supposedly the same guy who was able earlier to "fast walk" 1.1 miles in only 11 minutes. Then another 14 minutes for him (if it was the same guy) to enter the theater and for Postal to call the cops on him. So if anything, Brewer's estimate was too early. No matter how you slice it there's missing time.
Let's get a grip, this is 1963 and people either said about/approximately/around either 1 or 1:30 which works out to a mean time of 1:15.
Scoggins who was on lunch and was due back at work would have been clock watching and Scoggins said about 1:20.
The eyewitnesses who positively identified Oswald and confirmed he was carrying a gun
Or... and I know this is a stretch for you, but bare with me...
Mary Brock saw Oswald walk past her around 1:20 since we know Reynolds and Patterson followed Oswald to that point...
and Reynolds and Patterson could not have been following Oswald for more then a couple minutes as it's only one block from Patton & Jefferson (Reynolds' and Patterson's location at the time of the shooting) to the Texaco station.
It's painfully obvious that the time approximation of 1:30 is just that, an approximation. You can take it literal if you wish, but that shows that either you don't have a clue about the witnesses and timelines or your dishonest and not interested in the truth.
How about this... Explain how the man could literally walk past Mary Brock as late as 1:30 if it's the same man who Reynolds and Patterson were following once they saw him run down Patton from the direction of the shooting. We're talking about a parking lot located two blocks from the shooting scene. 1:30? How does that work?
Isn't it time to start being honest?
Or... and I know this is a stretch for you, but bare with me... Mary Brock saw Oswald walk past her around 1:20 since we know Reynolds and Patterson followed Oswald to that point... and Reynolds and Patterson could not have been following Oswald for more then a couple minutes as it's only one block from Patton & Jefferson (Reynolds' and Patterson's location at the time of the shooting) to the Texaco station.
It's painfully obvious that the time approximation of 1:30 is just that, an approximation. You can take it literal if you wish, but that shows that either you don't have a clue about the witnesses and timelines or your dishonest and not interested in the truth.
If you were really interested in the truth, you'd understand this. But, you're not interested in the truth.
How about this... Explain how the man could literally walk past Mary Brock as late as 1:30 if it's the same man who Reynolds and Patterson were following once they saw him run down Patton from the direction of the shooting. We're talking about a parking lot located two blocks from the shooting scene. 1:30? How does that work?
Isn't it time to start being honest?
Let's get a grip, this is 1963 and people either said about/approximately/around either 1 or 1:30 which works out to a mean time of 1:15.
Scoggins who was on lunch and was due back at work would have been clock watching and Scoggins said about 1:20.
JohnM
Scoggins who was on lunch and was due back at work would have been clock watching and Scoggins said about 1:20.
Markham had to take the bus to work and would have been clock watching and Markham said about 1:06
Bowley had to pick up his daughter from school and his wife from work and would have been clock watching and Bowley said 1:10
Btw... Scoggins' timeline shows he was at least 10 minutes off in his estimates, as he would have arrived at the corner of 10th/Patton at least ten minutes earlier (after dropping off his last ride near by) than he said.
You clearly have no idea what constitutes a positive identification...Trying to battle wits there with someone that's totally disarmed.
Trying to battle wits...
You clearly have no idea what constitutes a positive identification since no one positively identified LHO. Get over it.
You are totally delusional. You must be a legend in your own mind. How's the Outback these days?
You are totally delusional.
You must be a legend in your own mind.
How's the Outback these days?
The evidence shows that those claims are dubious at best.
Hardly. You are in fantasyland again. How's the Outback? And I don't mean the restaurant.
No answers? You are the one ducking my question. As for the case I have cited a thousand times more evidence than you have on this board.
If you want to impress me support those claims in the reports with actual supporting evidence. Well?
No answers?
As for the case I have cited a thousand times more evidence than you have on this board.
If you want to impress me support those claims in the reports with actual supporting evidence. Well?
I can type that you are smart, but that doesn't make it so. The evidence shows that those claims are dubious at best.
I posted the testimony of all the people who saw the jacketed Oswald playing with his murder weapon, moving in one direction away from the Tippit crime scene and you have posted nothing, only these stupid inane endless lies.
Mytton still hasn't figured out that biased and unfair lineups are unreliable no matter how many times he keeps repeating their outcomes.
For the umpteenth time answer the question, who said that the lineups were unbiased and unfair.
And btw using some recommendations from somewhere else decades later is a waste of my time.
"Oswald playing with his murder weapon". Are you looking to replace Walt for the title of biggest fabricator?
You waste everybody's time regurgitating the same old mountain of nonsense. Those recommendations for making lineups as unbiased and fair as possible demonstrate that the lineups that were done were biased, unfair, and therefore unreliable and invalid.
Scoggins did not see Tippit being shot.
I can believe the lineups were unfair.
I also believe that eyewitnesses are frequently wrong or unreliable.
But when you combine mountains of physical evidence with loads of corroborating eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence, there's only one conclusion that can be reached....
LEE HARVEY OSWALD MURDERED OFFICER TIPPIT
Awesome yeah, how to get away with murder the Iacoletti way.
1. Ignore all the eyewitnesses who positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
2. Ignore that Oswald dropped shells that matched his revolver.
3. Ignore all those eyewitnesses who said that Lee Harvey Oswald was wearing his light grey/tan jacket.
4. Ignore the same eyewitnesses who said Lee Harvey Oswald was carrying his weapon.
5. Ignore that Oswald ducked into a shop front to avoid Police.
5. Ignore that Oswald hid in a Theater.
6. Ignore that when arrested Oswald tried to kill more Cops.
7. Ignore that Oswald said that he was carrying a revolver.
WOW!
JohnM
For goodness sakes anyone can make up recommendations, even you but that is only someones POV and means nothing, either you can prove that the lineups were unfair or you can't and so far you can't!
I can believe the lineups were unfair.
I also believe that eyewitnesses are frequently wrong or unreliable.
But when you combine mountains of physical evidence with loads of corroborating eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence,
Your only problem is that there is NO physical evidence that points to LHO. Dittto corroborating witnesses.
So why do you think LHO is guilty?
As best as I can tell, he thinks LHO is guilty because I'm bald.
sometimes, that's all the nutter needs
all the while he knows, that's all he has
As best as I can tell, he thinks LHO is guilty because I'm bald.
As best as I can tell, he thinks LHO is guilty because I'm bald.
Yeah, we've been waiting in vain for you brainiacs to name the 'real' killer hahaha.
As best as I can tell, he thinks LHO is guilty because I'm bald.
Give me a break, Red Rings....
If you think I'm only half right about Oswald being guilty and Johnboi being bald....
That must mean you don't think Johnboi is bald.
Pull your head out, Waldo.
Bill I remember when I came here and you were relentlessly going off about how no one will name a killer, I gave you name and you said nothing in response
I don't remember which one of the 48 shooters named in conspiracy books you mentioned. In any case, it was not likely accompanied by a plausible backstory. And LNers don't often reply to the 'same old same old' 55 year long-ago debunked crap you brainiacs keep up-chucking.
Bill I remember when I came here and you were relentlessly going off about how no one will name a killer, I gave you name and you said nothing in response
You mean James Files? All the way from Chicago? Man, that was some shooting.
I am pretty sure he claims to have taken one shot only further south down the knoll where most people put the knoll shot Whoever was hosting the show, I think it was Fetzer claimed he could even be seen in a photograph or film Yet they never bother to highlight for the viewer which was a bit ridiculous Fetzer not very good on a lot of things He believes Oswald is doorman for instance
So the defense attorneys are arguing that the police entered the theatre and beat up Oswald without cause. For some unknown reason, the DPD had an extra pistol with them that they decided to plant on him (presumably the real murderer would have his pistol making any planting unnecessary). As a result, they knowingly let the real murderer of Tippit go free to frame Oswald. Presumably they then planted the ammo on him. They also plant a jacket since the killer was seen wearing one. Get folks to lie about what they saw etc. Fast work for the DPD to pull all this together on the fly. You have to wonder why they had it in for Oswald to the extent that they would frame him and let the real cop murderer go free. Particularly since no one is suggesting a conspiracy. LOL. And lucky for the DPD that Oswald just happened to work in the TSBD. What are the odds? So they get a two for one out of this frame up. What lunacy.
Yeah, we've been waiting in vain for you brainiacs to name the 'real' killer hahaha.
Yeah, sure John.
Aside from that, I find it humorous (in a what-goes-around-comes-around sense) that a bald guy would be the poster boy for Bug's well-known and accurate statement that you characters 'split hairs, then split the split hairs'.
Are you denying your baldness is a factor in all of this?
I don't remember which one of the 48 shooters named in conspiracy books you mentioned.
In any case, it was not likely accompanied by a plausible backstory.
And LNers don't often reply to the 'same old same old' 55 year long-ago debunked crap you brainiacs keep up-chucking.
From an April 24, 2001 e-mail to Barb Junkkarinen from Edward Epstein:
In brief, NBC retained me as a consultant for their planned story on Files. I hired the detective firm of Jules Kroll. JK established from telephone records Files was in Chicago, not Dallas, on November 22,1963.
How would you know what the backstory was since you never bothered to ask Seemed a bit emblematic of your true interest in looking into the question
Tell me why I would ask? I've already looked into the assassination and find for the prosecution.
If you have a plausible backstory that would produce a shooter able to supplant Dirty Harvey as main suspect, then by all means post it. And if you have additional information that would reveal that someone other than the shooter knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, by all means post that as well.
It is a matter of record that they had NO cause otherwise they would have issued an A.P.B. and obtained an arrest warrant, but they did neither.
I am pretty sure he claims to have taken one shot only further south down the knoll where most people put the knoll shot Whoever was hosting the show, I think it was Fetzer claimed he could even be seen in a photograph or film Yet they never bother to highlight for the viewer which was a bit ridiculous Fetzer not very good on a lot of things He believes Oswald is doorman for instance
The police approached a person acting suspiciously in the vicinity of a murder. They were going to question him. All Oswald had to do was explain himself like the guy in the library did when the police descended on him. Unfortunately for Oswald, he couldn't do that because he was guilty. So he assaults a police officer and gets taken in as a murder suspect due to his behavior. What you are suggesting is completely ludicrous. The DPD officers were searching for Tippit's killer. They had a general description. They were not looking for or even had a clue who Lee Harvey Oswald was until after he is arrested. They were looking for a suspicious person in the area who might be the killer. That turned out to be Oswald. The subsequent investigation confirmed he was the murderer. Case closed. Excellent police work with the assistance of some astute citizens.
It hasn't been 55 years yet. Who else always rounded up? Hmmm.
'It hasn't been 55 years yet'John Edgar Hoover
>LOL. You going to split hairs over 6 months Rob?
And your candidate to supplant Dirty Harvey as prime suspect is.... ?
'It hasn't been 55 years yet'
>LOL. You going to split hairs over 6 months Rob?
And your candidate to supplant Dirty Harvey as prime suspect is.... ?
Bill Maybe you could give us an idea of what kind of criteria would fit for you. Somebody with mob/atni Castro folks? Someone that was known to be involved in special ops, mob hits? Another communist? Just trying to get a picture of what you're looking for
Bill Maybe you could give us an idea of what kind of criteria would fit for you. Somebody with mob/atni Castro folks? Someone that was known to be involved in special ops, mob hits? Another communist? Just trying to get a picture of what you're looking for
How about somebody with a super ego who was crushed by being fired by JFK?
The police approached a person acting suspiciously in the vicinity of a murder. They were going to question him.
All Oswald had to do was explain himself like the guy in the library did when the police descended on him.
Unfortunately for Oswald, he couldn't do that because he was guilty.
So he assaults a police officer
and gets taken in as a murder suspect due to his behavior.
What you are suggesting is completely ludicrous. The DPD officers were searching for Tippit's killer. They had a general description.
They were not looking for or even had a clue who Lee Harvey Oswald was until after he is arrested. They were looking for a suspicious person in the area who might be the killer. That turned out to be Oswald. The subsequent investigation confirmed he was the murderer. Case closed. Excellent police work with the assistance of some astute citizens.
So he chatted with Bill Chapman? Why?
How about somebody with a super ego who was crushed by being fired by JFK?
June 6 2018http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/06/06/robert-f-kennedy-jr-reacts-donald-trump-keeping-jfk-assassination-documents-hidden-until
As seen on Tucker Carlson Tonight
Tucker Carlson spoke with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about President Donald Trump's decision to continue to keep official documents about his uncle's assassination under lock and key from the public.
President John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 as he rode in a motorcade through Dallas. Lee Harvey Oswald was implicated in the murder before also being killed, by nightclub owner Jack Ruby.
Robert Kennedy said he shared Carlson's "mystification" as to why Trump decided to continue to keep the files private until the next possible publication date in 2021.
"What possible national security interest could be served at this point?" Carlson asked.
Here is the first major revelation from the historic release of previously withheld government records on the JFK Assassination: the mayor of Dallas when President John F. Kennedy was killed in that city was a CIA asset.https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/08/02/dallas-mayor-jfk-assassination-cia-asset/
Acting suspiciously? To whom? Was it Postal as first claimed? Or the mysterious usher as it was secondly claimed? Or was it Brewer as finally claimed because he saw a man supposedly "ducking, running and looking funny"?
In the vicinity? The JDT murder scene was six blocks away for goodness sake.
Question him? Why? Is it in the police manual that supposed cop killers like to take in a movie afterwards? 🍿
You don't "question" somebody by ordering him on his feet and attempting an illegal search. Looking "funny" to a shoe salesman does not constitute "probable cause".
Sure, blame the victim.
There you go again, just assuming the thing you're supposed to be proving.
You have that backwards. The illegal search was an assault on Oswald. He was defending himself.
What evidence did they have to arrest him for murder? Looking "funny" to a shoe salesman?
The description that Postal gave the police dispatcher was nothing like the description that the 10th and Patton witnesses gave. So why would the police consider this man a "suspect"?
The subsequent investigation confirmed nothing of the kind. But even if it did, are you saying the ends justify the means? Civil rights exist for a reason.
That is exactly what RFK Jr said today.........
Pointing a finger at Gen Charles Cabell and his brother Earle*
Trump again reneged on his promise to open all the files.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/06/06/robert-f-kennedy-jr-reacts-donald-trump-keeping-jfk-assassination-documents-hidden-until
Until 2023?
*https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/08/02/dallas-mayor-jfk-assassination-cia-asset/
You mean James Files? All the way from Chicago? Man, that was some shooting.
So he chatted with Bill Chapman? Why?
Inquiring minds want to know: how exactly did you "look into" the assassination? Because we're always schooling you on the evidence.
Let me guess though: you're under no obligation to justify him as being the main suspect in the first place. Right?
While you and your brainiac friends were 'schooling' each other at your confirmation bias convention I was in the cafeteria eating your lunch.
Tell us why I should feel obligated to prove anything to a paid troll
Ah, Oswald probably did it
Can you name someone else who probably did it?
What, too soon?
Acting suspiciously? To whom? Was it Postal as first claimed? Or the mysterious usher as it was secondly claimed? Or was it Brewer as finally claimed because he saw a man supposedly "ducking, running and looking funny"?
In the vicinity? The JDT murder scene was six blocks away for goodness sake.
Question him? Why? Is it in the police manual that supposed cop killers like to take in a movie afterwards? 🍿
Rules of the Forum.
"Name calling, petty false allegations and personal insults towards fellow members of this Forum, when reported or observed, may carry (a to be determined on an individual basis) ban from posting on the Forum. "
Surely calling somebody a paid troll falls into the above category. I hope Mr Iacoletti complains.
Boo-hoo.
I have software called 'Little Snitch' which alerts me to programs that are trying to 'call home' (so to speak).
Are you a little snitch, Ray?No I just don't like uncalled for insults.
Feel free to call me names, it's fun.. and feel free to name your replacement shooter for Dirty Harvey as prime suspect.
The President had been assassinated. A police officer had just been murdered. Brewer, an alert citizen, was instrumental in closing the dragnet on the current prime suspect. Today, Homeland security asks citizens today in their 'See/Say' campaign (and like Jesse Curry asked citizens in a filmed announcement at the outset of the manhunt, to report any persons who seem to be acting suspiciously).
Brewer himself was afraid to follow the (to him) suspiciously-acting character in the store window, since he might be armed, but did so anyway.
Funny haha or funny strange, John?
Brewer also said the guy he saw in his window look scared.
I was stopped by police and questioned while walking down the street one day. They asked me what I was doing, saying a blonde man was seen breaking into a house (but ran away). The catch was that I'm not blonde. My point is that the DPD were stopping practically anyone who was out on the street.
"The illegal search was an assault on Oswald. He was defending himself"
>>>You weren't there... Brewer was, and testified that Oswald threw the first punch.
Now is this where you tell us what Brewer saw or didn't see, John?
Tell us why Oswald would resist if he was innocent.
While you and your brainiac friends were 'schooling' each other at your confirmation bias convention I was in the cafeteria eating your lunch.
Tell us why I should feel obligated to prove anything to a paid troll
The police are not supposed to question an individual acting suspiciously in the vicinity of a murder?
The police can talk to whoever they like. Illegally search, beat up, and arrest for murder? Not so much.
Oswald made an arrest legal by taking the first punch (as Brewer testified). No one had a clue if he had shot anyone at that point (if some did, by all means do post that info).
Try to keep up: The police were dispatched to cover all reports of suspicious-looking activity as seen
by alert citizens. It was a manhunt, FFS.
Oswald made an arrest legal by taking the first punch (as Brewer testified).
They didn't arrest him for "taking the first punch" -- they arrested him for murder. And the check boxes on the arrest report for "fought", "resisted", and for "officer injured" are not checked.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/lho-arrest-report.png)
That is indeed what it states.Also...word was passed [according to witnesses] to an angry mob who shouted stuff as Oswald was hauled out of the theater like 'Hang the SOB' and 'Kill the president will you!?'.
Do I understand that report correctly?
It states that at 1:40 PM on Nov 22, 1963 Oswald was arrested for the murder of John Kennedy at the Texas Theater?
???
Also...word was passed [according to witnesses] to an angry mob who shouted stuff as Oswald was hauled out of the theater like 'Hang the SOB' and 'Kill the president will you!?'.
a new state historical marker outside the Texas Theatre in Oak Cliff.They took it down and changed it since [I think]
The inscription on the marker says, in part: ?On November 22, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald was apprehended inside the auditorium for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, propelling the Texas Theatre into the international spotlight.?
Mr. BELIN - You saw the gun up in the air?Julia Postal statement to the WC
Mr. BREWER - And somebody hollered "He's got a gun."
And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him, and he was fighting, still fighting, and I heard some of the police holler, I don't know who it was, "Kill the President, will you." And I saw fists flying and they were hitting him.
Mrs. POSTAL. They said, "What is going on?" And someone said, "Suspect," and they started in this way, just about that time I got out to the box office, back to the box office, and they stared screaming profuse language and----"Kill the so-and-so," and trying to get to him
They took it down and changed it since [I think]
Julia Postal statement to the WC
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/0d/46/b1/0d46b18faa700e9c6ed81fa80c4b880a.jpg)
That's right Jerry - the word was out
this was the guy and he was in the TT
This is real simple -- who called the police? Postal said that she had no idea that a police officer had been shot UNTIL the police arrived. Yet Brewer claimed that she called the police.
Mr. BELIN - Julia Postal is the cashier?
Mr. BREWER - Yes; and she called the police...
She didn't even see LHO enter the TT, so why would she call the police?
Do I understand that report correctly?
It states that at 1:40 PM on Nov 22, 1963 Oswald was arrested for the murder of John Kennedy at the Texas Theater?
???
Oh boy. The police are roaring up and down the street in front of the theatre (which is why Postal is not in her ticket booth) on the day the president has been shot a short distance away. Postal is told by Brewer that a suspicious man who appeared to be trying to avoid detection has snuck into the theatre. So she calls the police to report it. Why would she need to know about the murder of a police officer in this scenario? Crazy nonsense. If Oswald had nothing to do with this, he would have explained himself and gone on his merry way like the guy at the library. Instead he assaults a police officer and gets himself arrested.
So your fantasy conspirators rushed to write a meaningless arrest report before Oswald was arrested that risked their discovery.
How did J.Edgar Hoover know BEFORE the police arrived at the theater? Three of Hoover's "Extra Special " agents were in the theater when the police arrived.
Mr. BELIN - You saw the gun up in the air?
Mr. BREWER - And somebody hollered "He's got a gun."
And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him, and he was fighting, still fighting, and I heard some of the police holler, I don't know who it was, "Kill the President, will you." And I saw fists flying and they were hitting him.
Or he was paid for his time like an interview.
Here we go again with the "fantasy conspirators" strawman. Do you have any evidence at all that Oswald was arrested for something other than for the murders of Kennedy and Tippit and assault to murder of Connelly?
the check boxes on the arrest report for "fought", "resisted", and for "officer injured" are not checked.
Thank you for posting this.....Very interesting.....
Poor dumb Chapman as he believes in things with NO supporting evidence. In other words, he believes in fairytales. He must be a big fan of Disney.
What exactly do you think Oswald needed to explain? Why a shoe salesman thought he was in front of the shoe store and looked funny? Is that a crime in Dallas?
From the testimony of George Applin [Texas Theater witness]......
I agree with Walt on this..something fishy was going on in the Tex Theater before the Dallas Police arrived to get their man >:(
Mr. BALL - Okay, fine, that is all, Mr. Applin.
Mr. APPLIN - But, there is one thing puzzling me.
Mr. BALL - What is that?
Mr. APPLIN - And I don't even know if it has any bearing on the case, but there was one guy sitting in the back row right there where I was standing at, and I said to him, I said, "Buddy, you'd better move. There is a gun." And he says--just sat there. [but what did he say?]
He was just back like this. Just like this. Just watching.
Mr. BALL - Just watching the show?
Mr. APPLIN - No; I don't think he could have seen the show. Just sitting just like this, just looking at me.
Mr. BALL - Did you know the man?
Mr. APPLIN - No; I didn't.
Mr. BALL - Ever seen him since?
Mr. APPLIN - No, sir; didn't. I tapped him on the shoulder and said, "Buddy, you'd better move," and---- [redacted]?
Mr. BALL - Were you scared?
Mr. APPLIN - Well, when I seen the gun I was.
Mr. BALL - Did you tell the police officer about this man?
Mr. APPLIN - No, sir; at the time, I didn't think about it, but I did tell--I didn't even think about it when I went before the Secret Service man, but I did tell one of the FBI men about it.
Mr. BALL - Okay. I guess that is all...............................
On November 22, 1963, Warren "Butch" Burroughs, who ran the concession stand at the Texas Theatre where Oswald was arrested, said that Oswald came into the theater between 1:00 and 1:07 pm; he also claimed he sold Oswald popcorn at 1:15 p.m.. Julie Postal told the Warren Commission that Burroughs initially told her the same thing although he later denied this.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Theatre#CITEREFDouglass2010
Theatre patron, Jack Davis, also corroborated Burroughs' time, claiming he observed Oswald in the theatre prior to 1:20 pm.
No one who truly understands what it really is can be taken in by it. Yet the individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst.J Edgar Hoover
Ah, because YOU wrote this.
"But Fetzer is polite and nice to communicate with, at least he was with me." -- Bill Chapman
Try to remember what you actually write.
I know exactly what I wrote and meant. Try to understand what you read.
But Fetzer is polite and nice to communicate with, at least he was with me.
> Yes, he was polite and nice to communicate with when we exchanged posts. If he actually was with me, I would have said 'when he was with me'
Just 'cos your paranoid doesn't meant there not out to get you, eh, Bill
Different day, same diatribe from you. The power behind the conspiracy didn't/doesn't care what a small number of people figure out. Their lies work because the majority of people want to be lied to in the final analysis.
As I have said before many times, the frame in Dallas was a rush job. Had he been killed in Tampa, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, and who knows how many other places, LHO would never have been needed, thus, the frame is far from perfect.
You're finally piecing this together.
Yep, Saint Oz needed to explain why a shoe salesman thought he was ducking the cops.
Turns out the shoe salesman was correct in his suspicions.
So Saint Oz made the very poor decision to throw a punch and pull his gun.
Which resulted in him getting his face caved in and arrested.
Kudos to the alert shoe salesman, Johnny Brewer.
Looking funny isn't a crime. If it was, you'd have been locked up a long time ago.
Typical response of a lamer (average consumer, non-techie)... no knowledge on how to protect oneself online... or even aware of the danger that exists.
Not being security aware and therefore not knowing how to take preemptive action is tantamount to leaving your front door wide open. Well, 'get the fck off my lawn' is my response to hackers, in the form of front-end countermeasures like Little Snitch.
Caprio still has no idea how to comprehend what he reads.
How old are you, Bill? Grow up for goodness sake.
They didn't arrest him for "taking the first punch" -- they arrested him for murder. And the check boxes on the arrest report for "fought", "resisted", and for "officer injured" are not checked.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/lho-arrest-report.png)
You're finally piecing this together.
Yep, Saint Oz needed to explain why a shoe salesman thought he was ducking the cops.
Turns out the shoe salesman was correct in his suspicions.
So Saint Oz made the very poor decision to throw a punch and pull his gun.
Which resulted in him getting his face caved in and arrested.
Kudos to the alert shoe salesman, Johnny Brewer.
Looking funny isn't a crime. If it was, you'd have been locked up a long time ago.
The problem I have with the encounter with Oswald in the Texas Theater is the way he was approached by the DPD, and specifically, McDonald.
If they believed that Oswald was the killer of Tippet, and also possilby the JFK assassin, it would seem to me they would have had guns drawn, pointing at the suspect and yelling at him to place his hands on his head and dont move BEFORE any DPD ever get close to him.
The problem I have with the encounter with Oswald in the Texas Theater is the way he was approached by the DPD, and specifically, McDonald.
If they believed that Oswald was the killer of Tippet, and also possilby the JFK assassin, it would seem to me they would have had guns drawn, pointing at the suspect and yelling at him to place his hands on his head and dont move BEFORE any DPD ever get close to him.
They may have been trying to avoid provoking a gun battle in a movie theatre. By checking others and approaching Oswald indirectly, they tried to momentarily fool him into hoping that maybe they were not on to him or might by pass him. That gave them a chance to close the distance. They also were not 100% certain he was their murder suspect. At that point he is a guy behaving suspiciously in the vicinity of the crime. Certainly worth checking out and being cautious with. In all likelihood they were going to question him, search him, and make an assessment as to whether to take him in. Oswald makes it all moot by assaulting a police officer and having a pistol on him. After that he is going into custody as their murder suspect.
You and Chapman are the ones with the comprehension problems as I never said Chapman was with Fetzer. He built a strawman to try and hide the fact that he said too much.
I have never heard of Bill Chapman in the JFK research community so why would Fetzer talk to him?
(https://i.imgur.com/ZCT0qig.jpg)
That's right. In my opinion, McDonald handled the situation perfectly; give the suspect a false sense of security so that you can get closer to him before guns are drawn.
LOL
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/riot%20gun.jpg)
Another non-answer... nice dodge
You can't resist arrest if there is no legal reason for the arrest. The DPD had no legal right to arrest LHO, therefore, he was defending himself. I have cited numerous court rulings on this.
If you allow the police to arrest people for no reason then you no longer live in a free country.
You can't resist arrest if there is no legal reason for the arrest. The DPD had no legal right to arrest LHO, therefore, he was defending himself. I have cited numerous court rulings on this.
If you allow the police to arrest people for no reason then you no longer live in a free country.
This is the best post I've seen posted in a long time....
You can't resist arrest if there is no legal reason for the arrest. The DPD had no legal right to arrest LHO, therefore, he was defending himself. I have cited numerous court rulings on this.
If you allow the police to arrest people for no reason then you no longer live in a free country.
This is the best post I've seen posted in a long time....
Good, now I know I can go to the movies and just walk in without paying. :D
Not quite as good as your Red Rings beauty, but right up there.
Cite your evidence for LHO not paying for a movie ticket.
Eyewitness Brewer:
https://www.jfk-assassination.eu/warren/wch/vol7/page4.php
If he was so sure that LHO had not purchased a ticket, why did he bother to ask Postal about it?
Mr. BELIN - If he had purchased a ticket, would you have seen him purchasing the ticket from where you were standing or walking?
Mr. BREWER - I could have seen him, yes; standing in front of the box office.
Mr. BELIN - Then did you know when you saw him walk in and when you walked up to Julia Postal that he had not bought a ticket?
Mr. BREWER - I knew that he hadn't.
Mr. BELIN - Why did you ask Julia Postal whether he had or hadn't?
Mr. BREWER - I don't know.
This seems odd. Furthermore, Brewer is a doubtful witness since there were two versions before his.
None of this precludes LHO from having purchased a ticket ahead of time either. Did anyone bother to check on this?
Is it normal to send 15 cops because of this? Do the police respond like this if someone gets on a train without purchasing a ticket?
Now, cite other examples of the police arresting someone for not paying for a movie ticket.
Why do you constantly ask me to explain why "the conspirators" would do this or do that, but I can't tell you since they have never filled me in.
What we do know is that LHO was NOT arrested at 1:40 p.m. and that there is NO supporting evidence for the WC claims that he killed JFK and JDT, thus, they could not know that he killed them that fast. End of story.
Why do people constantly state that the police were dispatched to the theater because a man didn't buy a ticket.The FBI was there also...for a kid sneaking into a movie?
The FBI was there also...for a kid sneaking into a movie?
Now how come?
Anybody?
. "A cop isn't shot three miles away from where the President is shot unless there's something connected," Aynesworth observes.(6)
You can't resist arrest if there is no legal reason for the arrest. The DPD had no legal right to arrest LHO, therefore, he was defending himself. I have cited numerous court rulings on this.
If you allow the police to arrest people for no reason then you no longer live in a free country.
This is the best post I've seen posted in a long time....
At this point, the Texas Theater and the place JFK and Jack Tippit were killed are very close to together.Richard -
Richard -
I've read the Reitzes stuff.
According to Dave Reitzes, Oliver Stone didn't get anything right.
However According to Reitzes, Posner, Bugliosi and all the parrots who conducted their armchair investigation...the Dallas Police got everything right within 80 minutes of the assassination.
No one [esp. the Dallas Police] is that good.
The police claimed that the arrest came based on a 'anonymous tip'.
The number of times that the police state that 'somebody told me' is ridiculous.
The "FBI" that was present at the arrest was never identified.
So how would we know if they were really FBI?
Was that "FBI" guy really the tipster?
Like 'Yeah there he is...that's the guy'
Do a search in this forum on Gerald Hill [SuperCop]
Jerry, there were two FBI agents at the Texas Theatre when Oswald was arrested. Bardwell Odum and Robert Bartlett. They both recorded what they witnessed there in FD-302s.
Jerry, there were two FBI agents at the Texas Theatre when Oswald was arrested. Bardwell Odum and Robert Bartlett. They both recorded what they witnessed there in FD-302s.
There were THREE of J.Edgar Hoover's "Extra Special" agents in the Texas Theater BEFORE and during Lee Oswald's arrest....
They were Bardwell Odum, Robert Barrett, and Jim Swinford. These agents did not work out of the Dallas FBI office....So WHAT were they doing there BEFORE Lee Oswald was grabbed by the DPD???
I haven't been able to confirm that Swinford was there. Apparently, Hosty wrote in his book that Swinford was there but I can find nothing more than that. Bardwell Odum, Robert Barrett, and Jim Swinford all worked out of the Dallas FBI office.
Attached are memoranda fr4m SA's assigned to Dallas in headquarters city, as of 11/22/63, plus memos from RA's who were in Dallas on that day.
So everybody but the Canadian Mounties and the Texas Rangers converged upon that theater in the space of 5-10 minutes.
Incredible work there.
My claim? Does the arrest report not show a time of 1:40? Was he arrested at that time or not?
By law the FBI are irrelevant as they had no jurisdiction at this time.
Your ramblings ignore my question. Was LHO arrested at 1:40 p.m. or not?
Your ramblings ignore my question. Was LHO arrested at 1:40 p.m. or not?
Gee Whiz Howie.....I'm obligated to thank you for reminding the folks that there were seven red rings in the windows of the TSBD that afternoon..... Can you present a rational and logical reason for those red rings being there....
Oh, never mind Howie.... Asking you for a rational answer is akin to askin my dog.....
Gee Whiz Howie.....I'm obligated to thank you for reminding the folks that there were seven red rings in the windows of the TSBD that afternoon..... Can you present a rational and logical reason for those red rings being there....
Oh, never mind Howie.... Asking you for a rational answer is akin to askin my dog.....
Those shells again...
Under oath, Poe and Barnes did not agree on what shells were allegedly handed to Poe by Benavides.
Under oath, Dhority was not asked to identify the shell he allegedly got from Virginia Davis.
Not called, Doughty (to identify the Barbara Davis shell).
(Under oath, Hill claimed three shells were handed over)
The FBI fixed that in CE-2011, Poe (none!), Barnes (Q-74. Q-77), Dhority (Q-75), Doughty(76).
But, the marks allegedly identified were not documented. This means that there is no way the WC (or anyone else) could verify if that was pure fiction.
This becomes even more suspicious when looking at this transfer of evidence signed by Vince Drain:
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339993/m1/1/?q=css%20form (4-Hulls...)
The two shells picked by Barnes in CE-2011 are the RP shells marked "RD" but Barnes before the commission was looking for a "B". The "DO" shell would be Doughty's, and the UNMARKED then has to be the Dhority shell.
So who marked the shells "RD" and how come none of the marks "RD" and "DO" were mentioned during testimony?
Also, how come the "Dhority shell" was still unmarked on November 28?
Chain-of-possion is absolute trash on those shells.
EDIT:
BTW, in Carl Day's farcical attempt to de-confuse his earlier confusion regarding the third Carcano shell (link below) we learn that Doughty used the mark "GD". Who marked the .38 shell "DO"?
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark%3A/67531/metapth339000/m1/1/)
Nothing incredible about it at all.Also incredible.....your ability to peck around on a keyboard.
Tim and Rob Are there any online sources for the statements of the FBI agents at the theater? I tried looking. Maybe I need to go to search engine term school
Robert Barrett: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=87&tab=page
Bardwell Odum: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=89&tab=page
Here you go Matt:
Robert Barrett: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=87&tab=page
Bardwell Odum: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=89&tab=page
Thanks Tim
Barret says he arrived sometime after 2 , yet Oswald was in custody at 1.50?
Where do you see that? Certainly not in his report.
Third paragraph
Nope. I don't see it. The only time reference that I see in that paragraph is "At approximately 2:00 pm, I heard..."I guess your point is in the ambiguity of the term approximately? This ambiguity you seem to want to allow for would have to be ten minutes plus whatever time it took for him to get there?
I guess your point is in the ambiguity of the term approximately? This ambiguity you seem to want to allow for would have to be ten minutes plus whatever time it took for him to get there?
Anybody have a log of the Dallas police dispatch from from 1.35 to 2. Or at least some the highlights, first call for a suspect at theater, or time of arrest? McAdams seems have time of arrest at 1.45
Yeah, right, the president's been shot and the FBI have no jurisdiction.
The ambiguity is there. Your comment bewilders me.
Go and punch a cop and see if you don't get a ride downtown.
None of the other boxes in that section are checked either. That's left for nerdy office guys in glasses to get all uppity & anal about.
OK Tim you tell me what you believe the amount of leeway the term "approximately" merits in a context such as this If such large latitudes are to be accepted then closer questioning should be required Do you a time of arrest at the theater?
Doesn't the McAdams transcript show the Dispatcher says at 1.40 'They already have hi' in reference to the Tippit suspect?
When someone uses the hour or half hour in their approximation, a give or take of 15 minutes seems reasonable. Some witnesses to the Tippit shooting said they heard the shots at approximately 1:00 pm. Others said approximately 1:30 pm.
Oswald was arrested at 1:50 pm, give or take a minute or two.
Thanks Tim
Barret says he arrived sometime after 2 , yet Oswald was in custody at 1.50?
What does the dispatcher saying they already got him at 1.40 signify?
In terms of reasonable approximations It depends on the context, in a court setting I would suggest no more than five
Show us where Barrett said 'sometime after 2'
Pretty sure he said 'approximately' 2
You wouldn't happen to be twisting what Barret actually said, now would you...
What do you think it signifies? What do you think "No, that wasn't the right one" signifies?
OK Tim you tell me what you believe the amount of leeway the term "approximately" merits in a context such as this If such large latitudes are to be accepted then closer questioning should be required Do you have a time of arrest at the theater? Doesn't the McAdams transcript show the Dispatcher says at 1.40 'They already have hi' in reference to the Tippit suspect?
The transcript goes like this:
550/2 (Sergeant Gerald L. Hill): A witness reports that he last was seen in the Abundant Life Temple about the 400 block. We are fixing to go in and shake it down.
Dispatcher: Is that the one that was involved in the shooting of the officer?
550/2: Yes.
Dispatcher: They already have him.
550/2: No, that wasn't the right one.
'
McAdams' site interleaves the traffic on the two channels, and that sometimes splits up conversations to where it's not apparent when conversations start or end. I was looking for an audio copy of the channel2 recording, but can't find it. I think the 1:44 in parentheses is an editorial addition, and may not be reliable. Ch 2 wasn't running continuously, so we don't know exactly the time of each transmission in the conversation between Hill and Dispatch. All we know is that it all happened between the dispatcher time stamps at 1:40 and 1:50 PM.
What I want to know is where Charles Batchelor came up with this one, just before 1:40: "Mrs. Connally is being flown in here from Austin. She will arrive at Love Field. A State car will be standing by but it will probably be an hour before she gets here. Notify the Command Post at Parkland to get her through when she arrives." He didn't know she was already in Dallas?
Nope that is earlier What I have referred to is at 1.40
OK Tim you tell me what you believe the amount of leeway the term "approximately" merits in a context such as this If such large latitudes are to be accepted then closer questioning should be required Do you have a time of arrest at the theater? Doesn't the McAdams transcript show the Dispatcher says at 1.40 'They already have hi' in reference to the Tippit suspect?
Am I uto understand there is nothing on the police audio transcripts about a suspect at the theater until officers have already arrived?
It seems odd McDonald is not asked why he went to the Texas theater? Nor does Ball ask him for an estimate of the time he went there
Mr. McDONALD - After I was satisfied that this teenager that had run into the library didn't fit the description, I went back to my squad car, put my shotgun back in the rack. Just as I got into the squad car, it was reported that a suspect was seen running into the Texas Theatre, 231 West Jefferson.
So I reported to that location Code 3. This is approximately seven blocks from the library, seven blocks west.
Mr. BALL - Did you go down there with your partner?
Mr. McDONALD - No, sir; I had let my partner out on arrival; my first arrival in the 400 block.
Mr. BALL - He was on foot?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir; I didn't see him any more that day.
Mr. BALL - You went down to the Texas Theatre?
Again with Hill The time he entered the theater is not asked
The next place I went was, I walked up the street about half a block to a church. That would have been on the northeast corner of 10th Street in the 400 block, further west of the shooting, and was preparing to go in when there were two women who came out and said they were employees inside and had been there all the time. I asked them had they seen anybody enter the church, because we were still looking for possible places for the suspect to hide. And they said nobody passed them, nobody entered the church, but they invited us to check the rest of the doors and windows and go inside if we wanted to.
An accident investigator named Bob Apple was at the location at that time, and we were standing there together near his car when the call came out that the suspect had been seen entering the Texas Theatre.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Same with Westbrook
Mr. WESTBROOK. It could have been, sir; I don't recall, because I directed someone there to be sure and get her name for the report, but she lived directly across the street, and she told us--or was in the process of telling us how it occurred--what she had seen, when someone hollered a patrolman hollered--"It's just come over the radio that they've got a suspicious person in the Texas Theatre."
Then, Sergeant Stringer, I, and Agent Barrett got in another squad car, and I don't know what officer was driving this one, but then when we arrived and were approaching the theatre, I directed the patrolman to turn down into the alley instead of going around to the front because I figured there would be a lot of cars at the front. There were two or three at the back.
So, I and Barrett---Stringer went to another door, and I and Barrett---we stopped at the first one---we got out and walked to this first entrance that was nearest us, and as we walked into the door we met an employee of the theatre.
Again, I do not know his name, but it was taken, and he pointed--I don't think I said anything to him--I think he told me, he said, "The man you are looking for--" Now, right here, Barrett and I became separated for a short minute or two. I think he was on the other side of the stage, and I'm not for sure, but this boy reported--he pointed to a man that was sitting about the middle the middle row of seats pretty close to the back and he said, "That is the man you are looking for."
And I started toward him and I had taken about two or three steps--down the steps.
Hawkins
Mr. HAWKINS. Yes, sir; he is a three-wheel officer. We went to the library and this turned out to be an employee of the library who had heard of the news and was apparently running in the library to tell the other employees there.
We then, after this checked out, we then continued circling in the area around 10th and Patton and Marsalis and Jefferson.
We then heard on the police radio that a suspicious person was at the Texas Theatre, and at this time we proceeded to the theatre.
Mr. BALL. Where did you park?
Mr. HAWKINS. I parked my squad car in the alley at the rear of the theatre.
Mr. BALL. Then, what did you do?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Am I uto understand there is nothing on the police audio transcripts about a suspect at the theater until officers have already arrived?
At that time, the dispatcher on channel 2 believed they had the suspect holed up in the library. When Hill (1:44) reports that it was not the right man, he is referring to the suspect at the library NOT being the man who killed Tippit. The man ended up being identified as library employee Adrian Hamby (who was seen running into the library by Dallas Police Officer C.T. Walker).
OK. I guess I was presupposing they would be having discussions concerning the theater by 1.44 Any idea where Gerald Hill is at 1:44
Interestingly enough, if you do a Google search for Oswald's arrest report you see it in various versions. Including one with a notation "Assault to murder off # F85954". It is also dated 11-22-63 and signed by Fritz with an additional charge that is difficult to make out but something like "1 assault to murder." I wonder if the kooks have been intentionally dishonest again by using an early version of the arrest report that was not final?
https://clickamericana.com/eras/1960s/lee-harvey-oswalds-dallas-police-info-1963
If you were keeping up Bill you may have noticed we have been addressing the significance of the term approximately
At 1:45, dispatch first mentions a suspect entering the Texas Theater. What makes you believe any officers arrived at the theater before 1:45?
I am keeping up: You misquoted Barret.
You are not going to acknowledge that?
Typical CTroll.
You can slither back under your rock now.
The lack of any questions by the WC to establish what time they entered has significance You tell me what the evidence is as to when they entered
What significance, and/or why is it significant?
BTW, how many accused felons have been acquitted because the prosecution wasn't able to exactly pinpoint the time the cops arrested the alleged perp?
A timeline is not a primary issue in criminal prosecution?
[...]
Earlene Roberts in one video interview said that the TV was on and she was watching her favorite soap opera show when it was interrupted by the special CBS bulletin about JFK. She says that's when Oswald came in the door. The CBS bulletin was at 12:40pm ???
The jacket that Oswald allegedly had on , CE 162, in Walleys Taxi cab, and the one presumably he took off at his boarding room, was not found at the boarding room, but was found in the Domino room of TSBD several weeks later. ???
So either Wally has another passenger that he mistook for Oswald, or somebody moved CE 162 after it was found at Oswalds room, to the TSBD. and just as with the mystery CE 142 bag, failed to take photo of CE 162 in place at boarding room, where Oswald would have taken it off to swap for his other lighter gray jacket. (NOT WHITE THOUGH :)
The lack of any questions by the WC to establish what time they entered has significance You tell me what the evidence is as to when they entered
Watching the droolers attempt to figure out how and why Saint Oz came to be arrested in the Texas Theater is hysterical and demonstrates just how pathetic they truly are.
Let me make this easy for you, kooks.
The President has been assassinated. A cop has been killed.
A dragnet is launched to apprehend the cop killer.
An alert citizen notices a man that appears to be trying to avoid the cops walk towards and then duck into the Texas Theater.
Cops are notified that suspect might be holed up in the theater.
Cops descend on theater and arrest Saint Oz.
Most people with a functioning brain are already wondering if the assassination and subsequent cop killing are related.
Lo and behold, Saint Oz just happens to work in the building overlooking the assassination.
What an amazing coincidence !
THE INNOCENT PATSY HAD A REAL BAD DAY
Watching the droolers attempt to figure out how and why Saint Oz came to be arrested in the Texas Theater is hysterical and demonstrates just how pathetic they truly are.
Let me make this easy for you, kooks.
The President has been assassinated. A cop has been killed.
A dragnet is launched to apprehend the cop killer.
An alert citizen notices a man that appears to be trying to avoid the cops walk towards and then duck into the Texas Theater.
Cops are notified that suspect might be holed up in the theater.
Cops descend on theater and arrest Saint Oz.
Most people with a functioning brain are already wondering if the assassination and subsequent cop killing are related.
Lo and behold, Saint Oz just happens to work in the building overlooking the assassination.
What an amazing coincidence !
THE INNOCENT PATSY HAD A REAL BAD DAY
That's not what I asked. When is it necessary to pinpoint exactly when police officers arrest a suspect? Say, within 5-10 minutes.
Some of these guys criticize the idea that officers descended upon the theater because a man entered without buying a ticket, finding it suspicious that so many officers would respond for such a minor offense. These guys criticize while being totally unaware that officers descended upon the Abundant Life Temple, the old building full of antiques and the library before ever going to the theater.Do you recall this earlier response from me to you
In reality, members of the Dallas Police Department were running around like a chicken with it's head cut off in an attempt to follow every single lead that may put them face to face with the cop-killer.
I always find it sad that some criticize yet are totally ignorant of the events they are attempting to be critical of.
Do you recall this earlier response from me to you
OK. I guess I was presupposing they would be having discussions concerning the theater by 1.44
Do I need to confess again? So yes I misunderstood the 1.40 transcript about them having an Oswald in custody at that time Pretty sure that all is i in the thread
Don't concern yourself with answering any of my questions because this morning at least I don't really care
87 (Ptm. R.C. Nelson) 87.
Dispatcher 87.
87 A white station wagon believed to be P (Paul) E (Ellis) 3435, unknown make or model, late model, occupied by two white males, left this fellow's station going east on Davis and believed they had a shotgun or rifle laying in the back seat.
Dispatcher Received, 87.
87 87 en route down there on Jefferson.
Dispatcher 87, when you get down there see if you can find that car down there at the scene.
Be very cautious Bill, it sounds like he's folding his arms and stamping his feet.
A timeline is not a primary issue in criminal prosecution?
A few more general questions for others as well
Was Westbrook the first to arrive?
Westbrook ordered several officers to get a complete list of all the occupants in the theater and the list disappeared
Two police documents exist that Oswald was arrested in the balcony, and 7 officers stated Oswald was arrested in the balcony
Link to these documents...? Oh, wait.. they've disappeared.
Some of these guys criticize the idea that officers descended upon the theater because a man entered without buying a ticket, finding it suspicious that so many officers would respond for such a minor offense. These guys criticize while being totally unaware that officers descended upon the Abundant Life Temple, the old building full of antiques and the library before ever going to the theater.
In reality, members of the Dallas Police Department were running around like a chicken with it's head cut off in an attempt to follow every single lead that may put them face to face with the cop-killer.
I always find it sad that some criticize yet are totally ignorant of the events they are attempting to be critical of.
Do you recall this earlier response from me to you
OK. I guess I was presupposing they would be having discussions concerning the theater by 1.44
Do I need to confess again? So yes I misunderstood the 1.40 transcript about them having an Oswald in custody at that time Pretty sure that all is i in the thread
Don't concern yourself with answering any of my questions because this morning at least I don't really care
Was Westbrook the first to arrive?
Westbrook ordered several officers to get a complete list of all the occupants in the theater and the list disappeared
Two police documents exist that Oswald was arrested in the balcony, and 7 officers stated Oswald was arrested in the balcony
And here I was thinking the cops went to the library to apprehend someone refusing to pay a late fee.
I recall seeing a document that had Oswald being arrested in the balcony. What were the names of the 7 officers who stated that Oswald was arrested in the balcony?
Mitch T. Reply #622 --- He radioed in , "The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an Automatic 38 rather than a pistol ????? Sorry Mitch , I missed something . Can you explain the 38 Auto shells ? Sorry man , I'll try to stay up .
Mitch T. Reply #622 --- He radioed in , "The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an Automatic 38 rather than a pistol ????? Sorry Mitch , I missed something . Can you explain the 38 Auto shells ? Sorry man , I'll try to stay up .
There is this, but the links to the reference document do not work as usual
There is a hint of the second Oswald?s arrest in the Dallas police records.
According to the Dallas Police Department?s official Homicide Report on J.D. Tippit, ?Suspect was later arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater at 231 W. Jefferson.? 457
Dallas Police detective L.D. Springfellow also reported to Captain W. P. Gannaway, ?Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in the balconyh of the Texas Theater.? 458
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/02/
Mitch T. Reply #622 --- He radioed in , "The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an Automatic 38 rather than a pistol ????? Sorry Mitch , I missed something . Can you explain the 38 Auto shells ? Sorry man , I'll try to stay up .
If a murder is known at an exact time and police claim they arrested the subject a minute earlier at another location they would have a problem Sorry but I have no idea what you are getting at
It's Stringfellow, not Springfellow. And from the looks of his report, he wasn't present at the arrest.
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/29/2928-001.gif
BTW, you are quoting Bill Kelly, who is quoting Douglas who is quoting....God knows what. That may not be the wisest thing to rely on.
The reports of the officers of the guys on scene are at the Dallas City archives:
02 07 001 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 E. R. Baggett Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000632
02 07 002 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 E. R. Baggett Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000633
02 07 003 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 E. R. Baggett Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000635
02 07 004 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 P. L. Bentley Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000636
02 07 005 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 P. L. Bentley Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000638
02 07 006 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 P. L. Bentley Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000641
02 07 007 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 P. L. Bentley Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000643
02 07 008 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000644
02 07 009 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000646
02 07 010 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000647
02 07 011 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000648
02 07 012 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 Bob K. Carroll Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000649
02 07 013 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 Bob K. Carroll Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000651
02 07 014 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 Bob K. Carroll Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000653
02 07 015 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. L. Cunningham Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000654
02 07 016 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. L. Cunningham Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000655
02 07 017 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. L. Cunningham Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000657
02 07 018 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000659
02 07 019 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000660
02 07 020 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000661
02 07 021 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000663
02 07 022 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/05/63 Gerald L. Hill Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000665
02 07 023 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/05/63 Gerald L. Hill Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000666
02 07 024 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/05/63 Gerald L. Hill Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000668
02 07 025 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 T. A. Hutson Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000669
02 07 026 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 T. A. Hutson Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000671
02 07 027 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 T. A. Hutson Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000673
02 07 028 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 K. E. Lyon Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000675
02 07 029 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 K. E. Lyon Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000676
02 07 030 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 K. E. Lyon Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000678
02 07 031 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 K. E. Lyon Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000679
02 07 032 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 M. M. McDonald Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000680
02 07 033 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 M. M. McDonald Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000681
02 07 034 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 M. M. McDonald Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald (carbon copy, 2nd page only. This carbon copy differs from other copies of this report. It is single spaced, whereas previous copies are double spaced) 1 00000682
02 07 035 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000683
02 07 036 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000684
02 07 037 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000685
02 07 038 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000686
02 07 039 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000687
02 07 040 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000688
02 07 041 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000690
02 07 042 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000691
02 07 043 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000693
02 07 044 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000694
02 07 045 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000697
02 07 046 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000699
02 07 047 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Charles T. Walker Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000700
02 07 048 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Charles T. Walker Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000702
02 07 049 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Charles T. Walker Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000704
02 07 050 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000705
02 07 051 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000707
02 07 052 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000709
02 07 053 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000710
02 07 054 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/05/63 Gerald L. Hill Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000727
02 07 055 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000729
02 07 056 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000730
02 07 057 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000732
02 07 058 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Carbon Copy Signed and Annotated Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000734
02 07 059 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 Bob K. Carroll Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000736
02 07 060 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000738
02 07 061 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 K. E. Lyon Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000740
02 07 062 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000743
02 07 063 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 M. M. McDonald Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald (Carbon copy, first page only. This report differs from previous reports. It is single spaced whereas previous versions are double spaced) 1 00000746
02 07 064 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 E. R. Baggett Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000748
02 07 065 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. L. Cunningham Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald
Most of these are dupes, but that looks like the whole list.
I'm not sure I know what you're getting at, either. For that matter, I'm not quite sure that you're sure you really understand what you're trying to get at here. Benevides reports the shooting to police dispatch between 1:14 and 1:16. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Oswald was apprehended shortly before 1:40, that leaves about 20 minutes between shooting and apprehension. The idea that Oswald was arrested before the murder is beside the point, then.
In the interest of restoring context, remember that this particular thread branch started when you said, "the lack of any questions by the WC to establish what time they entered has significance. You tell me what the evidence is as to when they entered. " I asked you why you thought it would be significant, and also asked you in what case was the accused acquitted because the arrest time was not recorded to within some reasonably specific degree of accuracy. Maybe that will help you understand what I'm saying and why.
So, to get things back on track, what is the significance of the WC fixing the arrest time to some exact, specific time beyond what they and/or the DPD managed?
BTW, for reference, the WCR notes that "at 1:45 p.m., the police radio stated, 'Have information a suspect just went in the Texas Theatre on West Jefferson.'" And then, at "at 1:51 p.m., police car 2 reported by radio that it was on the way to headquarters with tile suspect." Maybe the WC didn't ask questions about the time of arrest because they already had the answer, courtesy the DPD radio tapes?
Like if evidence shows the officers or suspect had not yet arrived to take part in the arrest.
Was that too difficult for you?
and what do we make of it if [Stringfellow] was not there. Assigned the report from someone else? An intentional fabrication? Delusional? Part of a conspiracy to create confusion of multiple conflicting reports to perhaps provide additional options? Was there and somehow removed by the official account.
Sorry if I am not willing to dismiss it completely
My comment wasn't directed at you, Matt.
Mitch Are you saying recording the time of events such as these are not significant, or the difficulty in establishing them is unduly difficult?
If he wasn't at the scene during the arrest, how accurate can you expect him to be? At best, all he can offer is a second-hand account.
More importantly, the reports I referenced in the Dallas city archives are from the officers who were involved in the arrest. How many of those say that the arrest went down in the balcony?
Since you frame the issue of "the arrest" I assume those reports refer to the arrest of the Oswald downstairs, so of course they do not pertain to any other arrests detainment's, etc
There were a total of five Oswald wallets: a black plastic wallet (CE 1798); a red billfold found at Ruth Paine's (CE 2003 #382); a brown billfold found at Ruth Paine's (CE 2003 #114); a billfold taken from LHO upon arrest--initialed by HMM (Henry Moore), wallet and contents inventoried and photographed; and the Westbrook wallet, which was not initialed by police, not listed in inventory, not photographed, not mentioned by a single witness to the FBI, WC, HSCA, ARRB, etc. and disappeared, but not before it was filmed by WFAA TV and seen by FBI agent Barrett.
[...] the Westbrook wallet, which was not initialed by police, not listed in inventory, not photographed, not mentioned by a single witness to the FBI, WC, HSCA, ARRB, etc. and disappeared, but not before it was filmed by WFAA TV and seen by FBI agent Barrett.
The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol.
It's Stringfellow, not Springfellow. And from the looks of his report, he wasn't present at the arrest.
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/29/2928-001.gif
BTW, you are quoting Bill Kelly, who is quoting Douglas who is quoting....God knows what. That may not be the wisest thing to rely on.
The reports of the officers of the guys on scene are at the Dallas City archives:
02 07 001 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 E. R. Baggett Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000632
02 07 002 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 E. R. Baggett Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000633
02 07 003 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 E. R. Baggett Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000635
02 07 004 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 P. L. Bentley Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000636
02 07 005 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 P. L. Bentley Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000638
02 07 006 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 P. L. Bentley Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000641
02 07 007 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 P. L. Bentley Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000643
02 07 008 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000644
02 07 009 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000646
02 07 010 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000647
02 07 011 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000648
02 07 012 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 Bob K. Carroll Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000649
02 07 013 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 Bob K. Carroll Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000651
02 07 014 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 Bob K. Carroll Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000653
02 07 015 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. L. Cunningham Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000654
02 07 016 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. L. Cunningham Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000655
02 07 017 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. L. Cunningham Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000657
02 07 018 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000659
02 07 019 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000660
02 07 020 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000661
02 07 021 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000663
02 07 022 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/05/63 Gerald L. Hill Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000665
02 07 023 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/05/63 Gerald L. Hill Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000666
02 07 024 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/05/63 Gerald L. Hill Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000668
02 07 025 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 T. A. Hutson Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000669
02 07 026 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 T. A. Hutson Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000671
02 07 027 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 T. A. Hutson Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000673
02 07 028 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 K. E. Lyon Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000675
02 07 029 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 K. E. Lyon Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000676
02 07 030 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 K. E. Lyon Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000678
02 07 031 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 K. E. Lyon Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000679
02 07 032 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 M. M. McDonald Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000680
02 07 033 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 M. M. McDonald Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000681
02 07 034 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 M. M. McDonald Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald (carbon copy, 2nd page only. This carbon copy differs from other copies of this report. It is single spaced, whereas previous copies are double spaced) 1 00000682
02 07 035 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000683
02 07 036 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000684
02 07 037 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000685
02 07 038 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000686
02 07 039 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000687
02 07 040 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000688
02 07 041 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000690
02 07 042 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000691
02 07 043 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000693
02 07 044 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000694
02 07 045 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000697
02 07 046 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000699
02 07 047 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Charles T. Walker Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000700
02 07 048 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Charles T. Walker Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000702
02 07 049 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Charles T. Walker Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000704
02 07 050 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000705
02 07 051 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000707
02 07 052 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000709
02 07 053 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000710
02 07 054 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/05/63 Gerald L. Hill Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000727
02 07 055 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000729
02 07 056 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000730
02 07 057 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000732
02 07 058 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Carbon Copy Signed and Annotated Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000734
02 07 059 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 Bob K. Carroll Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000736
02 07 060 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000738
02 07 061 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 K. E. Lyon Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000740
02 07 062 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000743
02 07 063 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 M. M. McDonald Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald (Carbon copy, first page only. This report differs from previous reports. It is single spaced whereas previous versions are double spaced) 1 00000746
02 07 064 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 E. R. Baggett Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000748
02 07 065 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. L. Cunningham Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald
Most of these are dupes, but that looks like the whole list.
After all the earlier post after post..[reciting firearm nomenclature etc].. endeavor to blow smoke up and down the street ...the fact remains that car 550 [whoever it was] reported ...
Narrowing it down to an automatic handgun...seems clear to me.
Although, I think he meant -rather than a revolver
After all the earlier post after post..[reciting firearm nomenclature etc].. endeavor to blow smoke up and down the street ...the fact remains that car 550 [whoever it was] reported ...
Narrowing it down to an automatic handgun...seems clear to me.
I always find it sad that some have no problem with the DPD calling everyone to the library because a kid was running across the lawn when they had a man cornered in the lot behind the gas station.
Your lingo lesson and speculation into what Hill meant will not change the transcript showing "Automatic" referred to the weapon.
What is it you need from me? Tim and I had the conversation and the issue was addressed Do I owe you some extra confession? Paraphrasing happens and sometimes a person leaves something out that is not as important as it is to those on the other side? Also I remain unconvinced of the significance
Just get your facts straight re witness testimony. They were there. We weren't.
You have just shown that accurate quoting of a witness is not important to you. You definitely fit right in with the CT crowd around here
You CTers are nothing but a gang of gaslighters.
If the shells were from an automatic weapon, why weren't they found near Tippit's patrol car where the shooter was standing when he fired the shots? The shells were found about one hundred feet away. Do you seriously believe the killer went through the process of picking up the shells that had just been automatically ejected only to throw them down once he reached the Davis yard? Please explain.
circle back
...to Brown's opinion on where these shells are expected to land or where they are found
Domingo Benavides:
"...they were looking all over the place for evidence and everything...and taking fingerprints and what have you...So--I guess they were gonna just walk off and leave them not knowing they was there..and seeing I knew where they was at - I walked over and picked up a stick and picked them up and put them in a Winston package...I think I picked up two and put them in the Winston package and as I was walking back I picked the other one up by hand..."
I agree with Todd..... Hill simply thought that the marking 38 SPL ( 38 special) indicated a automatic handgun.
But we know from numerous witnesses that the man who shot JD Tippit was using a REVOLVER....So arguing about Hill's proclamation is a waste of time and a distractraction from the FACTS.
This debate is akin to the silly distraction about a mauser being found hidden beneath the boxes on the sixth floor when it is abundantly clear that the rifle was a Mannlicher Carcano. Arguing about whether the gun used by Tippit's killer was a automatic or a revolver is a game for those who want to distract.
The eyewitnesses and the shells that were widely disbursed at the scene speak loud and clear.... The Killer was using a REVOLVER....
You obviously missed it DUH...how many shells did the Davis sisters find? Benavides? LOL!
You can't connect a proper chain of custody to those shells starting where they are found
Sorry, I don't know exactly where those shells were found..and neither do you
I guess a proper chain of custody would be needed to prove those actually were the shells.
Sorry, I don't know exactly where those shells were found..and neither do you
I guess a proper chain of custody would be needed to prove those actually were the shells.
There doesn't seem to be a "chain of evidence" for anything involving the JFK Assassination. No wonder there are so many questions and doubts. You don't know where to start and it is very hard to believe very much at all. What a shock !
No doubt Mike And the beauty of that is that for the NNers is they can thus can paint us as some sort of psychopatholigized compulsive cynics
No doubt Mike And the beauty of that is that for the NNers is they can thus can paint us as some sort of psychopatholigized compulsive cynics
He's wrong Matt. There are chains of custody for numerous items of evidence. That CTs refuse to acknowledge them or accept them as valid does not negate the fact that they exist.
Your lingo lesson and speculation into what Hill meant will not change the transcript showing "Automatic" referred to the weapon.
Eyewitnesses are unreliable except when they aren't.
...from the start the CoE on the "Davis Shells" ..is certainly not clearThe Davis girls didn't put their initials on the shells did they? That starts the CoE legally.
Seven officers wrote: suspect arrested or questioned in the balcony
Criminal Intelligence Report, by L. D. Stringfellow
Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers 11/23/63 Statement
Tippit Homicide Report CE Talbart
Report to Chief J. E. Curry, by J. B. Toney
Report to Chief J. E. Curry, by Bob K. Carroll
Report to Chief J. E. Curry, by E. L. Cunningham
Report to Chief J. E. Curry, by Marvin A. Buhk
Nor does the fact that you prefer not to see the obvious problems with some of those alleged chains of custody doesn't mean that they are valid or even credible. It just means that your bar is at a very low level.
The Davis girls didn't put their initials on the shells did they? That starts the CoE legally.
If the shells were from an automatic weapon, why weren't they found near Tippit's patrol car where the shooter was standing when he fired the shots? The shells were found about one hundred feet away. Do you seriously believe the killer went through the process of picking up the shells that had just been automatically ejected only to throw them down once he reached the Davis yard? Please explain.
Except neither one confirmed that either shell in evidence were the same as the ones that were allegedly found on November 22, 1963.
The legal chain of custody does not start until the first law enforcement officer takes possession.
Warren Commission Conflicting Evidence of Bullets and Shells In The Shooting of J.D. TippitComplete analysis here...
Winchester/Western CE 602 (FBI Q-13) From Tippit's Body
Dallas police say exhibit 602 is the only bullet in their possession. Volume III, page 474
Winchester/Western CE 603 From Tippit's Body Cunningham later went back to the Dallas Police Department at the request of the Commission and found three more bullets.
Volume III, page 474..Winchester/Western CE 605 From Tippit's Body ?
Remington/Peters CE 604 From Tippit's Body ?... Remington/Peters?
Remington/Peters? Eddie Kinsley bullet?
"And this one that they missed hit him in the button. And it fell off the ambulance still in this button. And I would give a million dollars if I had never kicked that thing out."
Cortlandt Cunningham was the FBI's firearms expert.
"The bullet, Q-13 (CE 602). . . is so badly mutilated that there is not sufficient individual microscopic characteristics present for identification purposes."
Volume XXIV, page 263
Joseph D. Nicol was the firearms identification expert for the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, Illinois Department of Public Safety.
"He (Nicol) declared that this bullet (CE 602) was fired from the same weapon that fired the test bullets to the exclusion of all other weapons."
Conclusion
Over the years I came to believe that Oswald was responsible for Tippit's death. Taking it one step further it was something I set out to prove or disprove for Unsolved History. In my opinion I showed it was likely [seemed likely or appeared so] that Oswald shot Tippit to death. However, no matter what I came up with, during any criminal trial, the defense attorney would demand the bullet and the shell evidence be thrown out for lack of proof. To me there is no question that if the court refused to comply the case would be appealed. On appeal the case would be sent back to be re-tried without the bullet and shell evidence. That was and still is the only point I was trying to make.
Barbara and Virginia Davis could not identify their shells when asked to do so.
Volume XXIV, page 414
From page 263 ~ In 1996 Dale interviewed Tippit shooting lead investigator, Jim Leavelle. "'Poe did not mark them,' Leavelle said of the shells recovered at the Tippit scene. 'There was no reason to mark the [hulls]. There is an evidence bag that is marked with the offense number along with your initials.'"http://dperry1943.com/tippit.html
In my opinion, while Dale is honest in pointing out some of the unresolved issues, several comments in this chapter tend to gloss over problems related to the chain of custody. What follows are a couple of examples:...............................................
and what do we make of it if he was not there. Assigned the report from someone else? An intentional fabrication? Delusional? Part of a conspiracy to create confusion of multiple conflicting reports to perhaps provide additional options? Was there and somehow removed by the official account.
Sorry if I am not willing to dismiss it completely
my doubt re: number of shells by whom....already have
...from the start the CoE on the "Davis Shells" lol is certainly not clear
I think Tom Sorensen has already explained that to you more than once
You are technically correct, but I needed to get the nomenclature issue out of the way first. I also helps that you acknowledged what I said.
Hill would later say that he assumed they were from an automatic because of the way they were scattered. I think there may be more to it than that. Think of Summers' transmission about a ".32 dark finish automatic." Some witness at the scene had to be talking about an auto, and I wouldn't be surprised if Hill heard that description ,or about it, and it influenced his thinking. He hears about a witness describing a .32 auto, sees the .38 Special cases scattered about (and no .32 cases or reports of extra gunmen), and figures that no witness would really be able to tell the caliber of the pistol simply from looking at it from 20 feet away. Therefore, an automatic pistol firing .38 special.
BTW, any more, Ted Callaway is generally held to be the witness responsible for the .32 dark finish automatic . He never got closer to it than the width of Patton Ave, which Google tells me is 30' curb to curb and 45' from sidewalk to sidewalk*. I wouldn't put that much significance to his ID, other than the two things easily divined at that distance: it's size and color. A .32 auto is a relatively compact weapon, and Summers said it best: "dark finish". Both of which happen to fit the description of Oswald's stubby-barreled pistol.
* sidewalks along that stretch of Patton have been redone, so may not be where they were in 1963.
The Tippit shooting star witness-Helen Markham stated that she left her house at 1:00 as she usually did. That time was dismissed....she must have been 'mistaken'.
She could not point out LHO and say 'That's him there!'
Even after being prepped for her testimony, she still wasn't sure [already posted here umpteen times] The Davis girls didn't put their initials on the shells did they? That starts the CoE legally.
Who said anything about Oswald? My post had a title for easy reading - so I thought
I cited "Seven officers that wrote: a suspect arrested or questioned in the balcony"
did they not write one of these in their report?
I would suggest that your bar is exceedingly high. Its not one that courts of law adhere to.
The legal chain of custody does not start until the first law enforcement officer takes possession.
So every available officer was needed to check out a kid running across the lawn? Why not send a few and also get the man in the parking lot? Please explain why BOTH couldn't have been done.
Baloney. Automatic and pistol shells look nothing alike. An experienced officer like Hill wouldn't make that mistake.
Since when are you an expert on how high or low courts of law determine the bar must be?
I wasn't even aware that some sort of universal standard existed, so please enlighten me.....
Btw, Tim, I find it somewhat odd that you seem to feel that merely asking for a sound and conclusive chain of custody for a piece of evidence is somehow raising the bar "exceedingly high".
That's exactly right... and those law enforcement officers (Doughty and Dhority) later both positively identified the two shells as the shells turned over to them by the Davis girls.
A proper chain of possession must be maintained from the time it is collected by law enforcement personnel to the time it appears in court.
These clowns can claim there is a problem with the chain of custody, but any clown can make any claim they want, no matter how hollow, unfounded and wrong the claim is. It is another thing entirely to actually show what the chain of custody problem is.
Neither Buhk nor Carroll mentioned an arrest on the balcony or any questioning of any suspects on the balcony. You're still completely wrong there.
Cunningham and Toney did start asking questions of a guy sitting on or next to the stairs on the balcony, but it doesn't sound like he'd risen to the level of actually being a suspect. Toney said the "manager on duty" told them that "this subject had been in the theater since about 12:05," and that was the end of it.
Sorenson, as usual, is wrong. Both Doughty and Dhority positively identified the shells given to them by each of the Davis sisters.
Whenever you're ready to actually show what the problem is with the chain of custody of these two shells, I'd love to have a look. So far, all I have seen is you As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.' about how there is a problem, but I haven't seen you show what the problem is.
Exactly what expertise do *you* have in determining proper chain of custody. I mean, outside of the JFK case?
Based on your fabricated court scene dialogue you evidently didn't comprehend my answer to your trivial question.
Hint: "evidence".
We do know where the shells were found, unless you have reason to doubt the stories of Domingo Benavides, Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis. Please post what you've read which casts doubt on where these witnesses said they found the shells. Go on.
There is not a single piece of problem with the chain of custody of the two Davis shells.
Except neither one confirmed that either shell in evidence were the same as the ones that were allegedly found on November 22, 1963.
Well , these guys are all attorneys . Experts in trial law. It doesn't matter if he did it or not. The I's aren't dotted and the T's aren't crossed. His civil rights were violated (so the attorneys claim) so he's innocent.
These are the same clowns that come on here and claim they don't have a horse in the race. They don't care if Oswald did it or not. They sit their lame asses on the fence and don't have the sack to just fess up and say they're CONSPIRACY THEORISTS. In spite of the fact that the only people that they oppose are Lone Nut theorists. They sit there and watch nutbag after nutbag come on here and spew the most insane foolish fish tales and NEVER say a word . What a collection of frauds. You know who you are. We know who you are.
Well , these guys are all attorneys . Experts in trial law. It doesn't matter if he did it or not. The I's aren't dotted and the T's aren't crossed. His civil rights were violated (so the attorneys claim) so he's innocent.
These are the same clowns that come on here and claim they don't have a horse in the race. They don't care if Oswald did it or not. They sit their lame asses on the fence and don't have the sack to just fess up and say they're CONSPIRACY THEORISTS. In spite of the fact that the only people that they oppose are Lone Nut theorists. They sit there and watch nutbag after nutbag come on here and spew the most insane foolish fish tales and NEVER say a word . What a collection of frauds. You know who you are. We know who you are.
Who is the manager on duty, and why is he saying the guy was there before they opened?
Silly question, but I'll answer it nevertheless...
I am no different as any average juror in a criminal case. Like any other juror, I don't have to be an expert on anything to make my own determination about the validity and veracity of the evidence presented to me...
Tim whined about the fact that he feels my bar is raised to high and implied that courts of law have a lower standard. He made the claim, not me... so, why not let him answer the question?
If he needs you to defend him or run interference for him, I am sure he will ask you!
Not sure if this has been on the thread
"And this one that they missed hit him in the button. And it fell off the ambulance still in this button. And I would give a million dollars if I had never kicked that thing out."
Ambulance driver Eddie Kinsley 1978 Golz interview
You are being far too humble. Average jurors don't argue with the attorneys.
But thanks for admitting that you really don't know much about how chain of custody works in the world outside of assassination research.
[list of LHO arrest reporting found in the Dallas city JFK archive deleted]
Why are all the reports dated the 1st week in December?
Where are all the reports and witness affidavits from the date of LHO's arrest at the Texas Theater?
What Manager?
"...he ducked in as my boss went that way..."
LT Cunningham: We were questioning a young man who was sitting on the stairs in the balcony when the manager told us the suspect was on the first floor." 02 07 016 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. L. Cunningham
Detective John B. Toney: "There was a young man sitting near the top of the stairs and we ascertained from manager on duty that this subject had been in the theater since about 12:05 PM." 02 07 043 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney
John A Callahan is the manager and he left for the day when the man had "ducked in"
what manager vouched for this supect?
Julie Postal
Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir; I was looking up, as I say, when the cars passed, as you know, they make a tremendous noise, and he ducked in as my boss went that way to get in his car.
Mr. BALL. Who is your boss?
Mrs. POSTAL. Mr. John A. Callahan.
Mr. BALL. Where did you say he was?
Mrs. POSTAL. Yes; I say, they bypassed each other, actually, the man ducked in this way and my employer went that-a-way, to get in his car.
The projectionist remained in the projection room during Oswald's arrest.
Neither Postal, Burroughs, nor the projectionist (the only theater employees on duty) spoke to these officers either in the balcony or on the stairs in the balcony.
Someone either identified himself as a theater "manager," or the officers mistook someone as the theater "manager," or these officers were lying about speaking to the "manager."
A really sharp lawyer might have objected under some exclusionary rule....and had that evidence thrown out regardless of a police initial. How do we know that shell hadn't been there since 1956?
Since when are you an expert on how high or low courts of law determine the bar must be?
I wasn't even aware that some sort of universal standard existed, so please enlighten me.....
Btw, Tim, I find it somewhat odd that you seem to feel that merely asking for a sound and conclusive chain of custody for a piece of evidence is somehow raising the bar "exceedingly high".
That's exactly right... and those law enforcement officers (Doughty and Dhority) later both positively identified the two shells as the shells turned over to them by the Davis girls.
A proper chain of possession must be maintained from the time it is collected by law enforcement personnel to the time it appears in court.
These clowns can claim there is a problem with the chain of custody, but any clown can make any claim they want, no matter how hollow, unfounded and wrong the claim is. It is another thing entirely to actually show what the chain of custody problem is.
The affidavit then is accurate ...the confrontation occurred at 1:06 PM?
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339945/m1/1/med_res/)
Do you really think it would have taken 11 minutes for the shooting of officer Tippit to be reported?
Makes a lot of sense to me anyway that Markham on the way to work stops in 1st floor washeteria to try and payphone daughter but line engaged.
Leaving that she looks at washeteria clock and sees 1.04pm. She's in no real hurry as her 1.12 bus is usually late anyway.
She arrives at 10th and Patton approx. 2 minutes or so later. Stands watches Police cruiser and ensuing events,
Bowley after exiting car checks watch at 1.10pm. 30 seconds later Bowley calls shooting in.
I remember from my past visits to this forum that from Herbert Blenner's Dictaphone tapes you can time and prove all the supposed 1.14-1.25pm official times
as wrong and therefore all dileberately falsified to such, and that the latest possible was about 1.49 minutes prior to 1.14-15pm.
Therefore leaving the ONLY time evidence as strong credible witness's Markham, Bowley etc.
Now who would want to falsify those times like that??
Good enough that strong evidence and likelihood for me anyway.
I tried to find Herbert Blenners site to get that again, but all of Herberts sites are no longer accessable that I could find. :)
Since I began debating with you on the issue four or five years ago.
Merely asking for a sound and conclusive chain of custody for a piece of evidence is one thing. Assuming that an imperfect chain of custody will automatically preclude an item from being admitted as evidence is another thing entirely.
You are being far too humble. Average jurors don't argue with the attorneys.
Another silly comment. Is this a courtroom and is Tim an attorney? I don't think so?.
But thanks for admitting that you really don't know much about how chain of custody works in the world outside of assassination research.
Where precisely did I admit that? You wouldn't be making up your own reality as you go along, would you?
Not that it matters much, as this is not about me. It's about Tim's foolish claim that courts of law adhere to a lower evidentary standard than I do.... Could it be that your reading comprehension is such that you missed that?
When you made yourself an "average juror," you invoked the courtroom. Tim is
trying to argue something, which would make him the equivalent of an attorney
in the courtroom metaphor. Therefore, you're a juror who is arguing with an
attorney. How many "average jurors" do that?
When you said "I don't have to be an expert on anything to make my own determination." That is, BTW, technically true, but it's also incredibly subjective, not likely to transfer well, and not likely to convince.
Once you set up chain of possession as something you personally determine completely on your own, you made it all about you. Do you not get that?
I myself do not know what the courts consider proper chain of possession. You have already admitted that you do not know either, whether you want to believe it or not. Whether or not Tim does is open to question, I guess. But I was asking you to find out if you really had any reason to argue with him over what a proper standard would be.
She arrives at 10th and Patton approx. 2 minutes or so later. Stands watches Police cruiser and ensuing events,
Bowley after exiting car checks watch at 1.10pm.
But Mrs Markham specified that the time was about 1:06......
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339945/m1/1/med_res/)
Yeah "at 1.06 was standing at corner" so reached the corner 2 minutes from washeteria clock 1.04 claimed time.
So in the approximate accepted timed 2 minutes time to walk that. (even the FBI only tried to stretch it to 2.45 )
"waiting for traffic to pass" - so Tippit is the traffic, so the shooting in that time line happens at 1.07.30 -1.08
After this Benavides takes 50 seconds to get to Tippit . So 1.08.20 - 1.08.50.
Bowley is arriving after shooting is past. All the time he is driving towards the scene Tippit is dead on the ground and Unsub has fled and
Benavides has already reached body.
1.08.20-1.08.50 Benavides starts to head to poice radio and try to use it.
Is trying to use it when Bowley pulls up. So Bowley pulls up 1.09-1.09.30.
By the time Bowley stops car, tells kids to stay put, has a look round, gets out of car,
stands, looks at watch because a crime involved = 1.10.
IMO Him checking watch as 1.10 after exiting car is totally consistent with Markham's 1.06 at corner time AND in all the time aspects involved.
He goes to Tippit and then to Benavides who is struggling to be able to use police radio but Bowley knows how to and does.
IMO Totally consistent with 1.11 - 1.11.30 to call shooting in. :)
Stop trying to pick a fight with me... you are not very good at it and you and your arguments are simply not interesting enough.
I'm not really trying trying pick a fight. All I did was ask you a question. You answered it, and gave away maybe more than you intended.
Now you've run out of arguments, and decided compensate by copping some bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns condescension act.
What it comes down to is, you don't really know what the "official" (for lack of a better term) standard would be for weighing chain of evidence issues. That's actually OK. Like I said, I don't know what they are, either. You also don't have any real standard of your own for weighing CoE, either, beyond "I'll know it when I see it." In a way, this is also OK. You can believe what you want to. Just don't expect others to hop to beat of your own presumption.
Since I began debating with you on the issue four or five years ago.
So you do claim to be an expert on the matter.... that's a bold and interesting claim. Can you back it up with something?
Merely asking for a sound and conclusive chain of custody for a piece of evidence is one thing. Assuming that an imperfect chain of custody will automatically preclude an item from being admitted as evidence is another thing entirely.
I agree, but the trouble for you is that I never claimed anything of the kind. You are the one who keeps on assuming that items being admitted into evidence actually has some sort of significant meaning. The fact is that just about every day things are being entered into evidence at courts around the country that actually are proof of very little.
Evidence gets entered into court for the purpose of being weighed and examined by the lawyers on both sides and ultimately the jury. What you seem to fail to understand is that sometimes defense lawyers do not oppose a piece of bad or questionable evidence being admitted because it ultimately helps their case.
So, perhaps you should focus less on your obsession about something being entered into evidence at court meaning something it really doesn`t and pay some more time at determining whether a piece of evidence will hold up under scrutiny.
wasn't it reported on Tippits police radio by bystanders within 2-3 minutes?
Edit - 4 minutes maybe?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v197/zeotte/0476-001rowley.gif)
Tippit pronounced dead at 1:25pm
At approximately 1:11?1:14 p.m.,[17] Tippit was driving slowly eastward on East 10th Street ? about 100 feet (30 m) past the intersection of 10th Street and Patton Avenue ? when he pulled alongside a man who resembled the police description.[21][22] Oswald walked over to Tippit's car and apparently exchanged words with him through an open vent window.[23] Tippit opened his car door and as he walked toward the front of the car, Oswald drew his handgun and fired four shots in rapid succession. One bullet hit Tippit in the chest, one in the stomach, another in his right temple (one bullet hit a button and did not penetrate his skin). Tippit's body was transported from the scene of the shooting by ambulance to Methodist Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 1:25 p.m. by Dr. Richard A. Liguori.[7]
Evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated. Establishing a chain of custody is one means of authenticating evidence. Once it has been admitted into court as real evidence, there's very little that a defense team can do about it. Particularly if it's a non-fungible item. If the defense has something concrete to present to the jury once the evidence has been admitted then fine. However, they will not be allowed free reign to spout unsupported claims against the evidence. Not in any properly run court anyway.
There are two documents that I'm aware of that record the time that Tippit was pronounced DOA as 1:25 pm. They were both authored by FBI agent Robert Lish.
There are two documents that I'm aware of that record the time that Tippit was pronounced DOA as 1:25 pm. They were both authored by FBI agent Robert Lish.
(https://i.imgur.com/4VT0O3L.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/eRqgs2b.png)
The homicide report made out by C. E. Talbert has Tippit as being pronounced DOA at 1:30 pm.
(https://i.imgur.com/f9J9fnM.jpg)
Evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated.
No... this comment alone shows that you have no idea how the admittance of evidence works..
Establishing a chain of custody is one means of authenticating evidence. Once it has been admitted into court as real evidence, there's very little that a defense team can do about it.
More BS... in OJ?s trail the gloves were admitted as evidence and we all know how that worked out
Each to their own Tim.
For mine I am more than happy that timing from Herbert Blenners actual Dictaphone recording, available since day one 1963( ie putting it and your internet clock up at the same time on your screen and timing each instance and the overall sequence in light of all the other claimed times) proves that all such documented police and ambulance claims are proved wrong and therefore proved as dileberately falsified.
I remember doing that fully last time I was here at this forum and it irrevocably proves that.
Each to their own. :)
Herbert Blenners actual Dictaphone recording? What are you talking about?
"Real evidence must be relevant, material, and authentic before a judge will permit its use in a trial."
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/real-and-demonstrative-evidence.html
The OJ trial? Wow Martin. Your desperation slip is showing.
The Paraffin test on Oswald showed his hands tested positive and his right cheek tested negative which was proof he had not fired a rifle that day, and his hands would have tested positive because he dealt with moving boxes of books . The bottom line is that Oswald would have made a hell of a shot from the break room . Case Closed
Paraffin tests aren't known for their reliability and Saint Oz could have washed his smirking face before he murdered JDT. So there goes your claim that the paraffin test is proof of innocence.
On the other hand, Saint Oz's prints were found on the rifle used to murder JFK.
The droolers either have to claim that someone else used C2766 in the assassination or that the print and ballistic evidence was faked.
It would have been a helluva shot from the break room. Not so much from the 6th floor sniper's nest though.
OSWALD: PRESIDENTIAL ASSASSIN AND COP KILLER
I'm not really trying trying pick a fight. All I did was ask you a question. You answered it, and gave away maybe more than you intended.
Only in your delusion mind
What it comes down to is, you don't really know what the "official" (for lack of a better term) standard would be for weighing chain of evidence issues.
Stop acting stupid? there isn't a official standard. It doesn?t exist! The bar is beyond a reasonable doubt and that is different for each individual.
Just don't expect others to hop to beat of your own presumption.
There never was a presumption on my part, but I'll let you get on to hop to beat of Tim's beat.
The OJ trial? Wow Martin. Your desperation slip is showing.
If anything is showing it is your inability to respond with anything of substance. There is nothing desperate about showing you an actual case which destroys your argument. The point I made was clear. In the OJ trial, the judge admitted the gloves and the jury concluded that they actually did not prove the prosecutors claim. One of the ways the evidence was discredited by the defense was by challenging the chain of custody! And that kinda destroys your argument, but I doubt you will ever see or admit that
Herbert used to have the actual original Police radio broadcast tape of the sequence.
I wouldn't 100% know if it was fully authentic and unaltered but he seemed to think it was
and at the time I found other instances of it all saying it was the unaltered one from day one 1963.
Unfortunately, none of the shells in question meet that requirement.
You talk out of 2 sides of your mouth...LOL
you really should pay more attention to what you write...
first you said...[/i]...will rarely, if ever? --- :D
Now you say it MUST be authenticated...and there is more than one way to do that?
Go ahead demonstrate some examples of authenticating evidence without CoE
Real evidence must be relevant, material, and authentic before a judge will permit its use in a trial.
funny part is you left this out of your original quote...
The process whereby a lawyer establishes these basic prerequisites is called laying a foundation, accomplished by calling witnesses who establish the item's chain of custody. https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/real-and-demonstrative-evidence.html
The marks on the shells were?
"Real evidence must be relevant, material, and authentic before a judge will permit its use in a trial."
Poor misguided Tim. It seems you still don?t understand. Evidence presented in court must of course be relevant to the case. A judge is not going to allow something that has nothing to do with the case. However, the admittance of a piece of evidence only means that the judge agrees that the evidence should be presented to the jury, who will then decide the probative value.
The OJ trial? Wow Martin. Your desperation slip is showing.
If anything is showing it is your inability to respond with anything of substance. There is nothing desperate about showing you an actual case which destroys your argument. The point I made was clear. In the OJ trial, the judge admitted the gloves and the jury concluded that they actually did not prove the prosecutors claim. One of the ways the evidence was discredited by the defense was by challenging the chain of custody! And that kinda destroys your argument, but I doubt you will ever see or admit that
The Paraffin test on Oswald showed his hands tested positive and his right cheek tested negative which was proof he had not fired a rifle that day, and his hands would have tested positive because he dealt with moving boxes of books . The bottom line is that Oswald would have made a hell of a shot from the break room . Case Closed
The defense's convinced the jury with two arguments against the gloves: 1) the gloves --famously-- didn't fit OJ's hand, and 2) that OJ was supposed to have cut one of his fingers during the murder, but there were no holes, tears, cuts, or other openings in the gloves that would correspond to the injury. That is, they were the wrong gloves. Neither of those issues have to do with chain of custody.
Martin, I pointed out that evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated. You said No. You were wrong. "Real evidence must be relevant, material, and authentic before a judge will permit its use in a trial."
Having OJ try the gloves on was not the Defense challenging the chain of custody. It was the prosecution being stupid. It was Christopher Darden, not the Defense , who had OJ try putting the gloves on.
completely wrong?...not sure what you're trying to prove here....and really don't give a crap
who said arrest?
A few pages before my original post someone (I think it was Matt) mentioned 7 officers wrote suspect in balcony
I searched and found those...so what's the problem?....did they not write "suspect in balcony"?
what a waste...the question was clear
who is the "manager" that vouched for this suspect?
Someone either identified himself as a theater "manager," or the officers mistook someone as the theater "manager," or these officers were lying about speaking to the "manager."
(https://s15.postimg.cc/ha3h7ui3f/Brewer_manager.jpg)
JohnM
I don't even know what that is.
Brewer was at the rear exit, near the screen. He wasn't on the balcony AFAIK. Don't think it would be him.
Yeah I don't think that Brewer was on the balcony but who said the manager was on the balcony?
JohnM
Herbert never ever had the actual original Police radio broadcast tape of the sequence.
A pair of DPD officers, Toney and IIRC Cunningham.
What was the one he had, that used to come up as a little box on the screen, supposed to be then Tim?EDIT by reply quoting -
(ie the 2 minute excerpt with the citizen(Bowley?Benavides) calling in on it and a bit before it and a minute or so after it.)
I mean at that time I checked it in other places round the internet and they were all the same time and statements. :)
What Matt wrote was:
"There is a hint of the second Oswald?s arrest in the Dallas police records.
According to the Dallas Police Department?s official Homicide Report on J.D. Tippit, ?Suspect was later arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater at 231 W. Jefferson.? 457
Dallas Police detective L.D. Springfellow also reported to Captain W. P. Gannaway, ?Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater.? 458
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/02/"
And the link is to a Bill Kelly post that quotes Douglas' claim --well, insinuation, really-- that a second person was arrested on the balcony, and taken out the back door.
That's where I jumped into the sub-thread and posted the Dallas city archives index of the reports of the officers who were at the Texas Theatre. All of those accounts say that only one person, Oswald, was arrested, and that he was arrested on the main floor, not the balcony. I pointed out that the it doesn't appear that the Homicide report nor the Stringfellow report were written by anyone who was at the theater during the arrest. That being so, I wouldn't put much stock in that particular claim in either.
You are right that some of the officers proceeded to the balcony first. The DPD channel 1 logs show that when the dispatcher advise. "We have information that a suspect just went in the Texas Theater on West Jefferson. Supposed to be hiding in the balcony," so that stands to reason they would go there first. Buhk never went into the theater; he stayed outside to man the radio in the squad car. His knowledge of what was going on in the Texas Theatre consisted solely of that one radio report. Carroll went to the balcony, and saw the commotion on the lower floor when Oswald was arrested, but his report didn't mention anyone being questioned on the balcony. So, neither Buhk nor Carrol said that anyone was arrested on the balcony nor did they say anyone was questioned up there.
Of the others, Walther, Toney, Cunningham, and Hill, Walther saw someone being questioned, but wasn't involved in it himself. From context, it's apparent that Cunningham and Toney questioned some guy to determine if he could be the suspect, but were redirected by someone who is identified as either the "manager" or the "manager on duty"
For context, Taylor went to the balcony, but doesn't mention seeing anything going on up there. Same with Lyon. A number of other officers, all of whom entered from the rear of the theater went directly to the first floor. They were met by Jonnny Calvin Brewer, who pointed out Oswald then and there.
Since Julia Postal called the cops, she has to be the source for locating the suspect in the balcony. However, she didn't see him enter the theater, didn't see where he went once inside, nor did she go into the auditorium to determine his whereabouts. That job was assigned to Butch Burroughs, though Burroughs wasn't actually told to find a specific person. In fact, Postal and Brewer actually withheld the underlying reason for the assignment from Burroughs. However they figured he was in the balcony is bound to be indirect, convoluted, and not particularly compelling.
In short, there never was an arrest on the balcony. Nor was there a suspect, though there was one guy who seems to have been sitting in the wrong place at the wrong time, and was briefly the interest of a couple of police officers without actually getting to the point of being a suspect. I guess you could call him a "person of interest," as they tend to like to do nowadays.
The upshot of all of this is that there is no real evidence from the police reports that a second person was arrested at the TT and take outside the back door, as Douglas would have you believe.
The Davis shells do. But even if they didn't it wouldn't matter since their having been made readily identifiable by Dhority and Doughty did away with the need for a chain of custody.
Evidently not when Poe and Barnes testified.
You want to try again?
Martin, I pointed out that evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated. You said No. You were wrong. "Real evidence must be relevant, material, and authentic before a judge will permit its use in a trial."
Having OJ try the gloves on was not the Defense challenging the chain of custody. It was the prosecution being stupid. It was Christopher Darden, not the Defense , who had OJ try putting the gloves on.
When police initially arrived at the scene of the Tippit shooting, the dictabelt had recorded six addresses for the location of the crime scene. This situation is particularly difficult to dismiss since a citizen reported the shooting to the police over the two-way radio of Tippit?s patrol car.
Scattered?
Hill also later said he put his mark in them...
What happened to those marks?
No delusions at all. You really did give up more than you maybe wanted to.
Oh, but I've been assured there is, and by someone who actually knows for sure. It's not a concisely-written thing like you'll find from ISO or ANSI or an IETF RFC, but made up of guidelines and appellate (and maybe even Supreme) court decisions. Oh, and it's tied into admissibility.
You presumed that "there isn't a official standard. It doesn?t exist!" That is totally wrong. So much for "never."
Evidently not when Poe and Barnes testified.
You want to try again?
And the marks read?
What was the one he had, that used to come up as a little box on the screen, supposed to be then Tim?
(ie the 2 minute excerpt with the citizen(Bowley?Benavides) calling in on it and a bit before it and a minute or so after it.)
I mean at that time I checked it in other places round the internet and they were all the same time and statements. :)
EDIT by reply quoting -
ALSO Tim I found this from Herberts posting on another forum.
Herbert Blenner
Advanced Member
Members
52 posts
"See the following link for the audio segment used in this article.
http://hdblenner.com/temps/tippit.wav
The transcripts of radio traffic on Channel-I and an audio file reportedly originating from the dictabelt show that the authorities altered the sequence of recorded events surrounding the murder of Officer Tippit."
Part One - Activity on the Primary Police Channel-I
When police initially arrived at the scene of the Tippit shooting, the dictabelt had recorded six addresses for the location of the crime scene. This situation is particularly difficult to dismiss since a citizen reported the shooting to the police over the two-way radio of Tippit?s patrol car.
I am I wrong in seeing the seemingly lack of a response to the citizen phone in on Tppits radio? I believe Last time it came up there was silence
You presumed that "there isn't a official standard. It doesn?t exist!" That is totally wrong. So much for "never."
If there was an official standard you would be able to search for and find the relevant document(s) and show it here. The mere fact that you pathetically try to fall back on an alleged assurance by some unnamed person who you claim `knows for sure "is telling enough". You will not be able to produce a document containing an official standard simply because it doesn?t exist.
And you in fact have admitted as much.... by saying (1) that there is no "concisely-written thing" and (2) that it is "made up of guidelines and appellate (and maybe even Supreme) court decisions" which is actually nothing more than jurisprudence.
What are you looking for Matt?
So the fact that the shells in evidence CANNOT be shown to have been found at the crime scene doesn't bother you at all. This says all that we need to know about you.
Martin, I pointed out that evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated.
Nope, that?s what you turned it into later. You began by basically claiming that the admittance of a piece of evidence somehow automatically certifies it?s probative value to such an extend that the defense could do nothing more about it. And that is simply not true.
Having OJ try the gloves on was not the Defense challenging the chain of custody.
I never said anything about OJ trying on the gloves. And the defense did in fact challenge the chain of custody when they questioned the credibility of Mark Furman who claimed to have found one of the gloves behind OJ?s house.
I don't recall him having a little box on the screen. Whatever it was , it was not the actual original Police radio broadcast tape.
Whatever it was , it was not the actual original Police radio broadcast tape.
Why not?
How would Herbert Blenner have been permitted to obtain and hold the actual original Police radio dictabelt? Think about that.
Well Ok but I only meant a copy of the original.
Anyone familiar with the evidence in the case (the addresses relevant to the witnesses) would understand perfectly why there were different addresses.
For example, L.J. Lewis, Pat Patterson, Harold Russell and Warren Reynolds were at the Reynolds Motor Company when they heard the shots. They looked up Patton towards the sound of the shots and saw a man running down Patton (towards them) with a gun in his hands. Harold Russell went up to Tenth Street. Warren Reynolds and Pat Patterson followed the killer. However, Lewis went inside the offices of the car lot and called the police. The address of the car lot, where Lewis was calling from, was 510 E. Jefferson Boulevard.
510 E. Jefferson Blvd. was one of the addresses mentioned in the police tapes.
Herb used to make a lot of oddball claims. That the dictabelt recorded numerous different addresses for the location of the crime scene doesn't mean that it was altered in any way. It just shows that there was a lot of confusion at the time.
Blah, blah, blah. Even Dale Myers said the automatic shells showed "AUTO" and the revolver shells showed ".38 Special". You would have to think that Hill couldn't read to think he made the mistake claimed.
"Nothing more than jurisprudence" you say. Do you actually believe that jurisprudence does not itself set standards to keep the judicial process as uniform and transparent as possible? That it doesn't set rules and tests as to what can be properly admitted and weighed as evidence? Now that would be a funny thing to believe! And no, it's not something that is written in stone in one hundred words or less, Ten Commandments-style. But it doesn't have to be short, concise, pithy, or terse to be a standard.
ALSO Tim I found this from Herberts posting on another forum.
Herbert Blenner
Advanced Member
Members
52 posts
"See the following link for the audio segment used in this article.
http://hdblenner.com/temps/tippit.wav
The transcripts of radio traffic on Channel-I and an audio file reportedly originating from the dictabelt show that the authorities altered the sequence of recorded events surrounding the murder of Officer Tippit."
Part One - Activity on the Primary Police Channel-I
When police initially arrived at the scene of the Tippit shooting, the dictabelt had recorded six addresses for the location of the crime scene. This situation is particularly difficult to dismiss since a citizen reported the shooting to the police over the two-way radio of Tippit?s patrol car.
And just to clarify further in relation to Bill and Tims point of the 6 addresses - neither me or Herbert is saying that meant in itself that the authorities altered the sequence of recorded events surrounding the murder of Officer Tippit."
But that the times on of all concerned don't match meaning mainly the police and ambulance documented data is falsified.
If anyone is interested the tag of that whole Herbert Blenner posting is -
http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/810-hello-police-operator/
Quote from: Tim Nickerson on June 17, 2018, 04:38:09 AM (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,697.msg18907.html#msg18907)
Evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated.
Quote from: Martin Weidmann on June 17, 2018, 05:14:35 AM (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,697.msg18913.html#msg18913)
No... this comment alone shows that you have no idea how the admittance of evidence works..
(https://i.imgur.com/yZvyiNX.png)
Provide the transcript that has them challenging the chain of custody of the gloves.
Evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated. Establishing a chain of custody is one means of authenticating evidence. Once it has been admitted into court as real evidence, there's very little that a defense team can do about it. Particularly if it's a non-fungible item. If the defense has something concrete to present to the jury once the evidence has been admitted then fine. However, they will not be allowed free reign to spout unsupported claims against the evidence. Not in any properly run court anyway.
Of course the guy with the burden, Brown, hasn't attempted to show that there is a chain of custody as he claims.
Why not quote LHO's legal representative stating this? Oh, that's right, LHO had NO legal representation.
Why would a kid running across the lawn equal a suspect in the JDT murder?
Quote from: Tim Nickerson on June 17, 2018, 04:38:09 AM[/url]
Evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated.
Yes, Tim, you did write that,
but you also wrote this;
Here you foolishly pretend implicitly that once a piece of evidence is admitted by a judge the chain of custody is no longer an issue and this can not be used by the defense to discredit or cast doubt about that piece of evidence by attacking the chain of custody and that is simply not true! If it were true, we wouldn't need trials... we would just have judges who decide what evidence to let in and (since it can't be challenged at trial) go straight to conviction.
Remember, also at the OJ trial, the lab technician who carried a vial of blood with him for too long? The entire blood evidence was attacked through this lab technician not following correct procedures.
Provide the transcript that has them challenging the chain of custody of the gloves.
Perhaps this is a bit difficult for you to understand, Tim, but the sole purpose for discrediting Fuhrman on the stand were the gloves and the chain of custody of the glove allegedly found at the back of OJ's house by Mark Fuhrman. That planted a reasonable doubt (if he lies about using the N word under oath, what else will he lie about) in the mind of people. There are videos of F. Lee Bailey questioning Fuhrman on YouTube, but you need to open your eyes and ears to see and here the obvious!
That's right. And you said No. You were wrong.
Why only bold that part?
Particularly if it's a non-fungible item. If the defense has something concrete to present to the jury once the evidence has been admitted then fine. However, they will not be allowed free reign to spout unsupported claims against the evidence. Not in any properly run court anyway.
You're right. It is a bit difficult for me to understand. Post the transcript. That should help.
As I said, Herbert Blenner made a lot of oddball claims and was generally ignored by most here, when not made sport of.
Exactly.
Poe and Barnes, before the commission, under oath, were kind enough to mistakenly pick Q-75 that you claimed was "readily identifiable".
But you just made that up, didn't you?
Cut the BS, Tim.
List the marks.
Put up or shut up.
Just so everyone knows Todd is playing games. Automatic shells and revolver shells look differently and are marked differently. Todd must be saying that Hill was majorly incompetent to confuse the two.
Just so everyone knows Todd is playing games. Automatic shells and revolver shells look differently and are marked differently. Todd must be saying that Hill was majorly incompetent to confuse the two.
Well, at least we know that Mr Caprio doesn't know much about firearms or ammunition.
If I understand Hill's history with his own statements
He calls in at 1.40 and reprts automatic shells
Denies this at the WC
30 tears later says he did find the automatic shells
My opinion is that does not make his story completely untenable since a lot of folks tended to change their initial stories for the WC
He doesn't know much about the Constitution either. In fact, he's pathetically ignorant about most things.
That's right. And you said No. You were wrong.
Why only bold that part?
Particularly if it's a non-fungible item. If the defense has something concrete to present to the jury once the evidence has been admitted then fine. However, they will not be allowed free reign to spout unsupported claims against the evidence. Not in any properly run court anyway.
You're right. It is a bit difficult for me to understand. Post the transcript. That should help.
This time, it's a case of getting himself in trouble by knowing a little about something when knowing a little doesn't help you a lot. Ammunition designed to be used in rovolvers really does tend to use rimmed cases. This allows the gun manufacturer to headspace the cartridge against the back of the cylinder. By doing that, the gun manufacturer only has to run one boring operation per chamber, which saves them a lot of money (though some revolvers actually do overbore the butt end of each chamber just enough to contain the cartridge rim). However, there is no mechanical reason that forces them to do so. Most automatic/semi-auto pistol-caliber ammo is either semi-rimmed or rimless and headspaces the cartridge at the case mouth instead of the rim. The purpose of doing it this way is to make the kinds of magazines used in these weapons easier to design and manufacture. Again there isn't an inherent mechanical reason preventing the use of rimmed cartridges in automatic and semiautomatic weapons. In fact, the .303 British and Russian 7.62x54R are both rimmed rifle-caliber cartridges that were fired from machine guns by the zillions (and possibly even gazillions) over several decades and a couple of World Wars without too much trouble.
I'm told that, over the years, a number of manufacturers made semi-auto pistols chambered for .38 special. The most famous of these were the versions of the Colt M1911; thousands were made, and they were often used for target competitions. Competitors who liked using the 1911, but preferred a lighter recoil than the original .45 ACP snapped them up. Conversely, various concerns have made revolvers chambered for "auto" rounds. I hear that Taurus in particular has taken to offering a wide range of revolvers chambered for .380 ACP, 9mm, etc.
see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headspace_%28firearms%29 if you don't know what "headspace" refers to.
Mr. Todd, it would be nice if you made an actual contribution to this forum instead of simply attacking people who clearly disagree with you.
I'm told that, over the years, a number of manufacturers made semi-auto pistols chambered for .38 special.
If your words are to be believed, you seem to be well connected to all sorts of unidentified people who seem to "tell you" all sorts of things. It's either that or you are simply full of hot air.
And using Wikipedia to make a point is a bit pathetic for a guy who claims being told things?.. just saying!
"Dallas researcher Michael Brownlow interviewed Doris Holan, who lived directly across the street from the shooting, in a second-floor apartment at 409 East Tenth (researcher Bill Pulte accompanied Brownlow on one of his two interviews with Holan shortly before her death in 2000). She said that a police car had appeared in the driveway between the two houses (404 and 410 East Tenth) at the spot where Tippit was killed. Whether Tippit did so intentionally or coincidentally, he had blocked that driveway, which led to an alley at mid-block, parallel to both East Tenth and Jefferson Boulevard. Tippit, while driving eastward, may have been trying to use his squad car to prevent another police car from leaving the driveway. Holan said when she heard shots and looked out her window, the other police car was heading down the driveway approaching Tippit's vehicle.
... 'She saw a man leaving the scene, moving westward toward Patton... Near the (second) police car she also saw a man in the driveway walking toward the street, where Tippit's car was parked.' That man went up to where Tippit was lying, looked down to inspect the officer's head, and retreated back down the driveway, with the unidentified police car backing up at the same time to the alley. So Holan reported at least three suspicious men at the scene, including two men on foot and the driver of the second police car. Whoever killed Tippit may have fled in that car or in another vehicle or on foot through that alley adjacent to the shooting scene. And Tippit may have been shot by two men, a possibility the ballistics evidence, with different kinds of ammunition, might suggest, even though that evidence is unreliable. Most (not all) witnesses reported a man fleeing around the corner and up Patton toward Jefferson, which would be compatible with Holan's account.
...Michael Brownlow in 1970 found the other witness to the second police car, Sam Guinyard, a porter at a used-car lot at 501 East Jefferson who worked with Ted Calloway. Guinyard told the Commission that at the time of the shooting, he was standing 'at the back (of the car lot), right at the alley back there' and about ten feet from Patton. Guinyard failed to mention the second police car when he gave that testimony...
This of course is directly tied to question of Croy in particular being the first officer at the scene
Umm, I must have dozed off during your lecture...
Was the .38 special typically fired from an automatic back in the day?
(http://harveyandlee.net/November/Tippit_Aerial.jpg)
If you think I am full of hot air, you are free to demonstrate it. So is Mr Caprio. And anyone else who wishes to do so. However, I do not see either one of you actually making such an effort.
Sometimes, I say "I'm told that...." because I ask, and the people I ask either think my interest in the JFK case is a pointless waste of time, or simply don't care to be quoted because they don't want another JFK obsessive wasting even more of their time than I do. I also have a lot of normally useless firearms knowledge, partly from shooting off and on, partly from knowing a number of serious shooters, gun collectors, etc. I've also read a fair amount on guns, rifles, and pistols, though that is mostly tied directly to the assassination. Sometimes it runs together, so it's hard to specifically cite a particular source. Once in a while, I say some half remembered thing where I remembered the wrong half. I welcome being set straight in those cases, but it has to be straight.
If you doubt me about a .38 special version of the Colt 1911, you can look here:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/06/13/38-special-colt-1911/
[For that matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_52]
And if you don't think anyone makes revolvers in "auto" calibers, you can look here:
https://www.taurususa.com/gun-selector-results.cfm?series=905&toggle=tr
https://www.taurususa.com/gun-selector-results.cfm?series=380&toggle=tr
Speaking of non-traditional revolver ammunition, these guys also make revolvers chambered for .410 gauge shotgun shells:
https://www.taurususa.com/gun-selector-results.cfm?series=JPD&toggle=tr
Probably useful if you need to safeguard you're prone to attack from doves and pigeons.
BTW, Just for reference, this is what Rob C has had to offer as his part in this particular exchange:
"Baloney. Automatic and pistol shells look nothing alike. An experienced officer like Hill wouldn't make that mistake."
"Blah, blah, blah. Even Dale Myers said the automatic shells showed 'AUTO' and the revolver shells showed '.38 Special'.You would have to think that Hill couldn't read to think he made the mistake claimed."
"Just so everyone knows Todd is playing games. Automatic shells and revolver shells look differently and are marked differently. Todd must be saying that Hill was majorly incompetent to confuse the two."
Mostly, he just baldly asserts stuff then pointlessly accuses me of "playing games." The only source he references at all is Dale Meyers, who I doubt would be considered a firearms expert in any way. And not one word from you.
Typical LNer. He makes a claim with absolutely NO SUPPORT, but it then is my responsibility to show his unsupported claim is incorrect. Priceless.
Does a LNer ever support what they claim? It would seem not.
I takes a lot of foolhardiness to claim I provided "no support" in reply to my post providing just that support. And you put "no support" in all-caps just to make sure everyone sees that foolhardiness. The only question for the rest of us is, how hard do we laugh?
Mitch, I have no intention of becoming engaged in the debate between you and Robert but I have a question that I hope you can answer:
Do you think Oswald's revolver had some sort of mechanism that would eject all bullets and shell casings simultaneously? That when operated would empty all chambers of the cilinder? Thanks.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0a/f7/c3/0af7c3dc383687991c26f6a469a8c6f8.jpg)
Joffery Thanks for the shot It does make sense that Mrs Holan would have likely to been the only witness to have had the proper angle to have seen the alleged car in the driveway
"Dallas researcher Michael Brownlow interviewed Doris Holan, who lived directly across the street from the shooting, in a second-floor apartment at 409 East Tenth (researcher Bill Pulte accompanied Brownlow on one of his two interviews with Holan shortly before her death in 2000). She said that a police car had appeared in the driveway between the two houses (404 and 410 East Tenth) at the spot where Tippit was killed. Whether Tippit did so intentionally or coincidentally, he had blocked that driveway, which led to an alley at mid-block, parallel to both East Tenth and Jefferson Boulevard. Tippit, while driving eastward, may have been trying to use his squad car to prevent another police car from leaving the driveway. Holan said when she heard shots and looked out her window, the other police car was heading down the driveway approaching Tippit's vehicle.
... 'She saw a man leaving the scene, moving westward toward Patton... Near the (second) police car she also saw a man in the driveway walking toward the street, where Tippit's car was parked.' That man went up to where Tippit was lying, looked down to inspect the officer's head, and retreated back down the driveway, with the unidentified police car backing up at the same time to the alley. So Holan reported at least three suspicious men at the scene, including two men on foot and the driver of the second police car. Whoever killed Tippit may have fled in that car or in another vehicle or on foot through that alley adjacent to the shooting scene. And Tippit may have been shot by two men, a possibility the ballistics evidence, with different kinds of ammunition, might suggest, even though that evidence is unreliable. Most (not all) witnesses reported a man fleeing around the corner and up Patton toward Jefferson, which would be compatible with Holan's account.
...Michael Brownlow in 1970 found the other witness to the second police car, Sam Guinyard, a porter at a used-car lot at 501 East Jefferson who worked with Ted Calloway. Guinyard told the Commission that at the time of the shooting, he was standing 'at the back (of the car lot), right at the alley back there' and about ten feet from Patton. Guinyard failed to mention the second police car when he gave that testimony...
This of course is directly tied to question of Croy in particular being the first officer at the scene
I am also trying to gather a list of how many of witnesses describe the Oswald looking suspect as having a white undershirt and a white jacket, or just a white or light colored zippered jacket. Tatum, and Markham for sure, and it seems like several others. I have seen the response to this problem of the lack of the dark overshirt is that this Oswald had the brown shirt wrapped around his waist?
Also can anyone help me on Johnny Brewers statements in regard to what descriptions he had over the radio, or otherwise, to the suspect from either the JFK shooting or Tippits It sounds like, from what I hear from some experts, that he knew of the Tippit shooting at 1:35 when he claims his encounter begins with the individual he eventually watches sneak into the theater
Which brings me to Tatum. He was supposedly driving by Tippit's at the time of the shooting, but no one else remembered a car doing so at the time.
Mitch, I have no intention of becoming engaged in the debate between you and Robert but I have a question that I hope you can answer:
Do you think Oswald's revolver had some sort of mechanism that would eject all bullets and shell casings simultaneously? That when operated would empty all chambers of the cilinder? Thanks.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0a/f7/c3/0af7c3dc383687991c26f6a469a8c6f8.jpg)
About Holan and Tatum....
Did Brownlow ever check Holan's bona fides? By that, I mean was he able to determine that she actually lived at that address at the time? Any latter-day witness "find" needs to be treated with a bit of caution, and no one else ever reported either the extra squad car in the driveway, nor the guy walking out to Tippit.
Which brings me to Tatum. He was supposedly driving by Tippit's at the time of the shooting, but no one else remembered a car doing so at the time.
Matt,
Have you noticed this....
Mr. BELIN - I want to take you back to November 22, 1963. This was the day that President Kennedy was assassinated. How did you find out about the assassination, Mr. Brewer?
Mr. BREWER - We were listening to a transistor radio there in the store, just listening to a regular radio program, and they broke in with the bulletin that the President had been shot. And from then, that is all there was. We listened to all of the events.
Mr. BELIN - Did you hear over the radio that the President had died?
Mr. BREWER - I heard a rumor. They said that----one of the Secret Service men said that the President had died, and said that was just a rumor.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember hearing anything else over the radio concerning anything that happened that afternoon?
Mr. BREWER - Well, they kept reconstructing what had happened and what they had heard, and they talked about it in general. There wasn't too much to talk about. They didn't have all the facts, and just repeated them mostly. And they said a patrolman had been shot in Oak Cliff.
Surely BELIN missed the "we", so who is "we".
Brewer must have left them behind when following the likely armed suspect cop killer into a dark movie theater...
As I recall Brewer originally said that he was talking with a friend in the shoe store at the time he saw a "suspicious acting man" ( What does a "suspicious acting man" look like???) looking in the window of the store. Brewer said he stepped outside to watch the "suspicious acting man"and then followed him up to the Texas Theater after he saw the man enter the theater. Then he went back and locked up his store before going back to the theater.....
The whole story that Brewer spews sounds like a crock..........
I'm glad I didn't cause any concern.
I'll take your word for it.
However, in all the excitement, you missed the point which was: Why would Hill (or whoever it was) associate a .38 special with an automatic weapon, even stressing the point using "rather than"?
Exactly what on a .38 special "indicates" they were fired from an automatic?
How about the shells having AUTO stamped on them?
Yes the driveway between 404 and 410 I cannot really respond whether it was proven she lived at the apartment Here is a better quote on Guinyard
Mrs. Holan?s account of a second police car is supported by the comments of Sam Guinyard, who told Brownlow in 1970 that he saw a police car in the alley shortly after the police shooting. The man in the driveway was apparently also seen by others: a resident of the neighborhood, who wishes to remain anonymous, told Prof Pulte, in 1990, that he had heard about a man in the driveway who approached Tippit?s car.
Frank Wright, who lived half a block east of the shooting, told reporter Earl Golz that he saw two men involved in the crime. But that was a belated addition to his earlier account of seeing one man drive off in a car. To Golz he mentioned another man fleeing on foot.
...independent researchers George and Patricia Nash ...in 1964... reported Wright telling them that after hearing the shots, he came out of his home at 501 East Tenth and saw Tippit hit the ground and roll over after being shot. Wright said he saw a man standing near Tippit, not holding a gun but wearing a long coat (contrary to most other witnesses' description of a fleeing man wearing a light jacket), run away and drive off, alone, in a 'grey, little old coupe. It was about a 1950-51, maybe a Plymouth'.
When police cars are roaring up and down the road with sirens blaring most people will look toward them not duck away and try to hide (i.e. act suspiciously). Are you suggesting there is something sinister about Brewer - a random shoe salesman that Oswald encountered? LOL I guess everyone in Dallas was part of the plot except for old Lee who was just going about his business like Mr. Magoo in complete bliss. I do wonder how the fantasy conspirators knew in advance which citizens Oswald would encounter that day and convince them to lie or act in a way contrary to his interest. They must have had Nostradamus-type abilities.
When police cars are roaring up and down the road with sirens blaring most people will look toward them not duck away and try to hide (i.e. act suspiciously).
Lee Oswald wasn't trying to hide when Officer Marrion Baker confronted him in the second floor lunchroom.....He showed no sign of fear nor did he make any attempt to hide or be evasive.....
And yet you are foolish enough to believe that it was Lee Oswald who Brewer claimed he saw "acting suspicious"...
If... I say IF.... Brewer saw a man, whom he through his powers of reading peoples actions, and minds, was actually Lee Oswald ..... Then explain to me why Lee would have been being evasive and duck away from a police car that was passing by at high speed ( a time when the driver would have been concentrating on his driving and not observing
shoppers looking in shop windows) When he exhibited none of that behavior in the lunchroom. ????
Will you ever stop lying?
Baker left Oswald (if he ever was there) because he cooperated.
Brewer's story is fully uncorroborated.
He was evasive in both instances [...]
There is are no corroboration for any of your claims.
How often does this have to be explained to you?
Guinyard would be a better source had he mentioned this in '63/'64. Also would be helpful if Brownlow would submit a recording or transcript of the interview.
Wright's story doesn't corroborate Holan's. In her account, the police car in the driveway and the mystery man are moving towards the street immediately after the shooting. The mystery man walked up to Tippit as if to examine him, then slowly retreated with the police car back down the driveway. In Wright's, the car is an old two-door parked on the street that mystery guy gets into and drives off in.
Interestingly enough, Wright's testimony parallels Jimmy Burt's. Burt claims that he and a friend, William A. Smith, were hanging out at Burt's brother's house on 9th and Denver. When they heard the shot, Smith and Burt got into Burt's '52 Ford and drove towards the wound of gunfire. They parked on the street just in front of Tippit's car, and Burt was able to see the gunman cross Patton. If Wright is correct, then Burt and his '52 Ford might be the guy he saw. But there are a couple of problems here. Will Smith's version is of the same story is very different. It starts at the apartment of Burt's father-in-law, at 505 E. 10th rather than 9th and Denver. There is also no car ride in Smith's version. Interestingly, 510 E 10th would have made Wright and Burt neighbors, but I figure Wright would have likely named Burt as the mystery man if he recognized him. Also coincidentally, Smith was a neighbor of Helen Markham's, and a friend of her son James.
Burt's story is here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/burt.htm
Smith's is here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/smith_w.htm
Oswald was evasive in both instances. In the TSBD instance, Oswald fled into the lunch room to evade the police coming up the stairs. Baker saw him and pulled a gun on him. At that point, there is nothing for Oswald to do except play it out. What was he going to do at that point? Climb behind the water cooler? He does a similar thing outside Brewer's shoe store by turning away from the police cars on the road and trying to conceal himself. That draws Brewer's attention as suspicious - which it was. Are you claiming that Brewer was in on the fantasy plot? It's difficult to understand how the conspirators pulled that off and ensured that Oswald was in the TT.
But you have NOT shown this with supporting evidence. You have just made an empty claim.
What is foolish is to think anything that you posted supports your claim regarding the JDT murder. Show me which automatic pistols fired .38 Special revolver cartridges in 1963. Well? I am still waiting.
This isn't evidence for your claim as no wadcutter was mentioned. Furthermore, in case you haven't figured it out your stance suggests that an automatic was used, but your beloved WC never said that LHO ever used an automatic pistol.
You put yourself in a no-win situation. Hurry up as lifeboats are filling up. 🚣
This isn't evidence for your claim as no wadcutter was mentioned. Furthermore, in case you haven't figured it out your stance suggests that an automatic was used, but your beloved WC never said that LHO ever used an automatic pistol.
You put yourself in a no-win situation. Hurry up as lifeboats are filling up. 🚣
Sill waiting. Then show me with supporting evidence that LHO used one of these to murder JDT.
The shells that Oswald himself were seen discarding were exclusively matched to the same weapon that Oswald was arrested with.
The eyewitnesses who positively identified Oswald and confirmed he was carrying a gun
Mr. BALL. Which way?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Towards Jefferson, right across that way.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have the pistol in his hand at this time?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had the gun when I saw him.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it
Mr. BALL. And what did you see the man doing?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. And how was he holding the gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. We used to say in the Marine Corps in a raised pistol position.
Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand.
Mr. BALL. With which hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. With his right hand; just kicking them out.
Mr. BALL. He had it up?
Mr. B.M. PATTERSON, 4635 Hartford Street, Dallas, Texas, currently employed by Wyatt's Cafeteria, 2647 South Lancaster, Dallas, Texas, advised he was present at the used car lot of JOHNNY REYNOLDS' on the afternoon of November 22, 1963.
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JONNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas. A minute or so later they observed a white male approximately 30 years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying what appeared to be a revolver in his hand and was obviously trying to reload same while running.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see this man's face that had the gun in his hand?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Very good.
HAROLD RUSSELL, employee, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was standing on the lot of Reynolds Used Cars together with L.J. LEWIS and PAT PATTERSON, at which time they heard shots come from the vicinity of Patton and Tenth Street, and a few seconds later they observed a young white man running south on Patton Avenue carrying a pistol or revolver which the individual was attempting to either reload or place in his belt line.
Mr. BELIN. Did he have anything in his hand?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had a pistol in his left hand.
Jack Tatum
Next. this man with a gun in his hand ran toward the back of the squad car, but instead of running away he stepped into the street and shot the police officer who was lying in the street.
The Police Officers who were confronted with the murdering Oswald.
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When you saw Oswald's hand by his belt, which hand did you see then?
Mr. WALKER. He had ahold of the handle of it.
Mr. BELIN. Handle of what?
Mr. WALKER. The revolver.
Mr. BELIN. Was there a revolver there?
Mr. WALKER. Yes; there was.
Mr. HUTSON. McDonald was at this time simultaneously trying to hold this person's right hand. Somehow this person moved his right hand to his waist, and I saw a revolver come out, and McDonald was holding on to it with his right hand, and this gun was waving up toward the back of the seat like this.
Oswald even admitted carrying his revolver.
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
JohnM
Explain why Hill would think that a shooter used an automatic to fire .38 Special REVOLVER cartridges. Why would this even cross his mind?
Then explain why the WC didn't claim the same thing.
Finally, explain why the second dispatch said a .32 automatic was used.
Already answered that question earlier in the thread. But I guess there's always that 3% that just don't get the word.
Decades later, Hill would claim that he thought the shells were from an automatic because of the way they were scattered about on the ground.
--However--
I personally think there was more to it than that. The transmission saying the suspect was armed with a ".32 dark finish automatic" occurred before Hill's broadcast, so someone was talking about seeing an automatic pistol before Hill called it in. By the time Hill grabs the mic, he has in his head:
1.) Witness descriptions of a single gunman, but no more.
2.) A description of the killer's gun as a .32 automatic.
3.) .38 special (and only .38 special) casings.
I doubt that anyone can tell exactly the caliber of the pistol from 20+ feet, and I suspect that Hill would be prone to thinking the same way. So Hill has one gunman, an automatic, and .38 special cases. It doesn't take rocket science to mix that all together and get a gunman armed with an automatic that shoots .38 special.
Did the WC even address that as an issue?
The witness behind the .32 auto is generally held to be Ted Callaway, though I don't remember exactly what his rationale was. However, the gun was across the street from him, about 40' away, so I don't think I'd bet my life on the description being particularly accurate.
Are you claiming that Brewer was in on the fantasy plot?
Yes!!! Absolutely..... Brewer was waaaay too deeply involved to be accepted as a casual shop keeper.... No shoe store manager would get involved and run the risk of being shot by a crazed gunman in a dark theater. Brewer was involved.....
Decades later, Hill would claim that he thought the shells were from an automatic because of the way they were scattered about on the ground.
Clearly you believe this obvious lie by Hill..... and the fact that you believe it, reveals how gullible and obtuse you are.
The spent shells were not merely "scattered about" as if they had been ejected from an automatic ....The shells were dispersed over a wide area... and no 38 automatic ejects and flings the spent shells 60 to 80 feet.
And since you clearly don't know much....It may be of interest to you to learn that Domingo Benevides watched the killer remove the spent shells from a REVOLVER ( that was NOT a S&W) ONE SHELL AT A TIME........
I guess you missed the 80% of my post where I let the cat out of the bag as to why I think Hill decided the cases would have been from an automatic. Two hints: It doesn't include Hill's later claim, and it starts with the word "--However--" Also, ponder the meaning of the word "however"
As for the argument about where the cases were found versus where the gunman was determined to be, you are technically right. However (that word again!), Hill had only been at the scene for a few minutes. As evidenced by the radio traffic at the time, the emphasis at that point was on identifying, locating, and arresting the perpetrator, not on reconstructing the crime. At the time of his transmission, Hill may not have had a clear idea on who was where doing what and when during the shooting, so the distance between the car and the cases may not have been significant in his mind at the time.
BTW, where did Benevides ever say he saw a revolver?
where did Benevides ever say he saw a revolver?
Benavides said that he saw the killer remove a spent shell ( singular) from his gun and flip that spent shell away into the bushes....Do you believe that Benavides was referring to an automatic?? What else could Benavides have been referring to?, but a revolver....And a revolver that was NOT a Smith & Wesson.
Dirty Harvey:
Smith, Wesson... and Lee.
A Smith & Wesson dumps all spent shells in a single stroke of the extractor ...........
Most all revolvers do that I know of ;)
The majority of revolvers do not extract all of the spent shells at the same timeIf not, no one would buy one.
where did Benevides ever say he saw a revolver?
Benavides said that he saw the killer remove a spent shell ( singular) from his gun and flip that spent shell away into the bushes....Do you believe that Benavides was referring to an automatic?? What else could Benavides have been referring to?, but a revolver....And a revolver that was NOT a Smith & Wesson.
IOW, he didn't say it was a revolver.
At least, I agree that he said he saw the gunman unload a single round from the weapon. That could definitely be a revolver. However, it could also be a derringer. Or a single-shot. Or a pepperbox. And, it could also be someone manually clearing a jam from an automatic.
Benavides watched Tippit's killer extract a single shell from the revolver.....A Smith & Wesson dumps all spent shells in a single stroke of the extractor, just as FBI agent Cortland Cunningham demonstrated for the WC with "Oswald's S&W.
Clearly Tippit's killr was NOT using a Smith & Wesson.....
However, it could also be a derringer. Or a single-shot. Or a pepperbox.
Yes....Except the killer had just fired four or five shots in a couple of seconds.....The killer must have been faster than a speeding bullet (like superman) if he was using a singles hot gun.... And you don't clear a jammed automatic by picking the jammed shell out as Benavides described.
You clear an automatic by pulling the slide, which someone a hundred feet away could easily mistake for someone pulling the case out.
He may well have done, although I doubt it, but Brown's OP contains only part of the whole story and can not be relied upon.
For instance, Helen Markham testified she left home at "a little after 1". She had only one block to walk, yet according to the official story Tippit was shot at around 1.14 pm. That means that, for the official story to be true, Markham would have taken some 10 minutes to walk one block. Anything less than that would have placed her well beyond 10th/Patton prior to the shooting. Obviously, if the shooting happened earlier, it's just about impossible for Oswald to have been there on time to do the deed.
William Scoggins's testimony reveals that his timing was off and that he got to 10th/Patton earlier than the official story claims. Also, Scoggins, who is supposed to have identified Oswald at the DPD line up failed to identify Oswald as Tippit's killer to the FBI from a photo shown to him the very next day.
Domingo Benavides, who was closer to the actual shooting than anybody else, refused to participate in a line up because he felt he could not positively identify the killer, yet others, like the Davis sisters, who were indoors somehow can identify the man? Really?
There are so many things Brown doesn't tell you, that his entire OP is just a one sided dishonest presentation of what he wants to be the truth rather than the truth itself.
Pretty much any crane-and-cylinder double-action revolver uses a rod-n'-star ejector like an S&W Victory, regardless of who makes it. Every one I've ever seen is that way, with the exception of a top-break model I saw once. SA revolvers are the ones with the loading gate and one-at-a-time loading, IIRC.
Mr. BELIN - I am going to go down and get some clothing and see if you can identify it and I will be back in 1 minute.
Mr. BENAVIDES - Okay.
Mr. BELIN - I am handing you a jacket which has been marked as "Commission's Exhibit 163," and ask you to state whether this bears any similarity to the jacket you saw this man with the gun wearing?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say this looks just like it. Looks like he had laundried it, but it looks like it was a newer coat than that.
Mr. BELIN - I am handing you what has been marked "Commission's Exhibit 150," and see if this looks anything like the shirt that he had on?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I think the shirt looked darker than that.
Mr. BELIN - The shirt was darker?
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it
The S&W revolver is designed to extract all spent shells by a single stroke of the extractor. The shells are NOT removed one at a time.
Mr. BALL. And what did you see the man doing?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
The S&W revolver is designed to extract all spent shells by a single stroke of the extractor. The shells are NOT removed one at a time.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
IOW...We didn't recognize the BOY as Oswald, it was later that they told us the BOY we saw was Oswald...
Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand.
Mr. BALL. With which hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. With his right hand; just kicking them out.
Mr. BALL. He had it up?
The S&W revolver is designed to extract all spent shells by a single stroke of the extractor. The shells are NOT removed one at a time.
Doesn't work the way that you seem to think it does. That mechanism is entirely dependent on the amount force applied to the ejector rod, and on how far you push the rod. It's not guaranteed to completely eject cases or cartridges, and there are situations where you don't want that to happen anyway. For instance, if you still have cartridges in the cylinder (or just still think you might), and you don't want to spill them onto the ground.
B. Has a revolver that can eject all shells together in one single action, but chooses to remove shells one at time at the scene no less, rather than run away 1st to some location he can hide, and then remove ALL shells same time, reload.
Maybe you're not as smart as you think you are.....Let's see what FBI agent Cortland Cunningham had to say about removing spent shells from the very revolver that allegedly belonged to Lee Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, if a person using the gun and having it fully loaded with six bullets fired less than six bullets, can he use this ejector-extraction mechanism without losing his unfired bullets as well as the empty cartridge cases?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir--by merely tipping the weapon. The unfired cartridge is heavier, and will fall out of the cylinder into his hand. Then he can extract the cartridge cases and lead in more.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you demonstrate that?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If I may have a cartridge, please.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have any fired cartridges in the cylinder?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; I do. Prior to my appearance here today, this morning, I fired five cartridges in this weapon, and they are still in the cylinder.
Mr. EISENBERG. You are now placing an unfired--
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. An unfired cartridge in the sixth chamber of the cylinder. Now, in a normal way, you would hit the cylinder release, push in your hand like this, and tip it up. The unfired cartridge will fall right out into your hand, due to the fact that the chambers of the cylinder are naturally larger than the
cartridge you are loading in there for ease of putting them in. When you fire a cartridge in a revolver, the ease expands as wide as the cylinder. In other words, when the firing pin hits the primer, there is an explosion in the primer, the powder is ignited in the cartridge, and the terrific pressure will expand the cartridge case to tightly fit the chamber.
Mr. EISENBERG. I would like the record to show that when Mr. Cunningham tipped the revolver, the unfired bullet tipped out, but the five expended shells remained in.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, would you show how you would eject the five expended shells?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. yes. These are very difficult, by the way, to extract, due to the fact that the chamber has been rechambered. And as you can see, you get on your cartridge cases a little ballooning with these smaller diameter cases in the .38 Special.
Mr. EISENBERG. I would like the record to show that Mr. Cunningham extracted the five expended cartridge eases merely by one push of the ejector rod.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yon won't be able to see it again, but when you eject a cartridge ease later on for the powder pattern test, I will show that you can have residues of unburned powder. That is what would happen if you ejected these cartridge cases in your hand. You would pick up unburned powder, residues, and partially burned powder.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham had ejected five cartridge cases from the revolver into his hand, and his right hand is now filled with small black particles, whose composition I am unable to determine.
Representative FORD. That would happen any time that you did it?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; every time you eject them, these particles will come out from the cylinder into your hand--unburned powder, partially burned powder, and gunpowder residues.
Representative FORD. Had you fired this morning these particular bullets?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; at 8:15.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, these cartridge cases which you ejected were .38 Special cartridge cases?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were.
Mr. EISENBERG. What time did you fire those bullets, those .38 Special bullets in this revolver?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. At approximately 8:15 this morning.
.
What is this shooters thought process? Its seems very illogical.
A. Has revolver that does not eject shells thus giving opportunity to not leave shells at scene, but shooter chooses to remove shells and leave them at the scene.
B. Has a revolver that can eject all shells together in one single action, but chooses to remove shells one at time at the scene no less, rather than run away 1st to some location he can hide, and then remove ALL shells same time, reload.
C. Keeps revolver he just shot officer with, all way to Theater instead of discarding it, because he is planning have a last stand shootout, but then doesnt take Tippits revolver for extra firepower, because why? It certainly could not be for reason worried that Tippits revolver would implicate him, because he obviously doesnt care if he is dropping shells fired from his own revolver at the scene.
Mr. BELIN - When you went back, what did you do? First of all, was there anything up to that time that you saw there or that you did that you haven't related here that you can think of right now?That just sounded so silly.
Mr. BENAVIDES - Well, I started--I seen him throw the shells and I started to stop and pick them up, and I thought I'd better not so when I came back, after I had gotten back, I picked up the shells.
Mr. BELIN - There was another passerby that stopped?That sounded silly too.
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Who was he, do you know?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I couldn't tell you. I don't know who he was.
Mr. BELIN - Was he driving a car or walking?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I don't know.
Mr. BELIN - What else did you see?"Threw the other shell up" ..like weeee? Anyway like has been pointed out...the ejector rod is used to extract the shells and further...after someone fires off rounds like this and tries to touch the shells after they are removed will burn the crap out of their fingers.
Mr. BENAVIDES - Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of stalled. He didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and must have took five or six more steps and threw the other shell up, and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner.
Mr. BELIN - Did you later go back in that area and try and find the shells?Tampering with evidence automatically excludes it as evidence.
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes. Well, right after that I went back and I knew exactly where they was at, and I went over and picked up one in my hand, not thinking and I dropped it, that maybe they want fingerprints off it, so I took out an empty pack of cigarettes I had and picked them up with a little stick and put them in this cigarette package; a chrome looking shell.
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?This witness was still scared and nervous and it is obvious that he hadn't seen Oswald but what the hell...it's what they wanted to hear.
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
Mr. BELIN - Were they newspaper pictures or television pictures, or both, or neither?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Well, television pictures and newspaper pictures. The thing lasted about a month, I believe, it seemed like.
Mr. BELIN - Pardon.
Mr. BENAVIDES - I showed--I believe they showed pictures of him every day for a long time there.
That just sounded so silly.That sounded silly too."Threw the other shell up" ..like weeee? Anyway like has been pointed out...the ejector rod is used to extract the shells and further...after someone fires off rounds like this and tries to touch the shells after they are removed will burn the crap out of their fingers.Tampering with evidence automatically excludes it as evidence.This witness was still scared and nervous and it is obvious that he hadn't seen Oswald but what the hell...it's what they wanted to hear.
These two shells were positively identified by Doughty and Dhority as the shells each collected from the scene.
Mr. BELIN - Anything else?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; I guess that is all I can think of right now.
I think there was another car that was in front of me, a red Ford, I believe. I didn't know the man, but I guess he was about 25 or 30, and he pulled over. I didn't never see him get out of his car, but when he heard the scare, I guess he was about six cars from them, and he pulled over, and I don't know if he came back there or not.
The revolver was shipped to a post office box in Dallas rented by Lee Oswald. Cole testified that the signature and the handwriting on the post office box application belonged to Oswald.
Postal Inspector Harry Holmes testified that Oswald had previously rented a post office box in New Orleans, during the summer of 1963. Oswald's New Orleans application and his Dallas application were found. Unlike the Dallas post office box application, the New Orleans post office box application still had the portion which listed others who were able to receive mail at that post office box. In the New Orleans application, Oswald included the names of both Marina Oswald and A.J. Hidell as those able to receive mail in that box.
Holmes spoke with Oswald on Sunday morning, the 24th. Holmes asked Oswald about the Dallas post office box. Oswald stated that he was the only one who received mail at that box and that he didn't receive any mail there that was addressed to any name other than his true name. Holmes then asked Oswald about the box that Oswald rented in New Orleans earlier that year. Oswald again stated that he was the only one permitted to receive mail at that p.o. box. Holmes reminded Oswald that he (Oswald) had listed Marina Oswald as a person eligible to receive mail in that box. Oswald's reply was basically "Well so what? She was my wife and I see nothing wrong with that." Holmes then reminded Oswald that one "A.J. Hidell" was also listed in the section on the application listing others eligible to receive mail in that post office box. Holmes said that Oswald replied "I don't recall anything about that".
Oswald was caught in a lie. The handwriting which permitted A.J. Hidell to receive mail at the New Orleans post office box belonged to Lee Oswald (per experts Cole and Cadigan).
This is where Dishonest John asks you to prove to his subjective satisfaction what Oswald said in his interrogation. Clearly implying that the record of his statements is false. Then without missing a beat he will deny that he is suggesting a conspiracy or that any evidence is faked. A "strawman." The circular loop of lunacy.
If LHO didn?t shoot and kill Tippit, then Tippit is still alive. Nothing presented in 55 years will change this fact. That?s a fact.
If LHO didn?t shoot and kill Tippit, then Tippit is still alive. Nothing presented in 55 years will change this fact. That?s a fact.Can it be guaranteed that J D Tippit is 94 years old? There is nothing there that is a 'fact'.
The revolver was shipped to a post office box in Dallas rented by Lee Oswald.
This is where Dishonest John asks you to prove to his subjective satisfaction what Oswald said in his interrogation.
Evidence, please, that the shells collected by Doughty and Dhority from each of the Davis girls were planted.
If LHO didn?t shoot and kill Tippit, then Tippit is still alive. Nothing presented in 55 years will change this fact. That?s a fact.
The revolver was shipped to a post office box in Dallas rented by Lee Oswald.
Flat out false. The revolver you're referring to was allegedly shipped to a Railway Express office.
Flat out false? What are you talking about?
Please highlight the portion of my above statement which you feel is "flat out false".
The revolver was shipped, on March 20th, 1963, by Railway Express to P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, TX. This P.O. Box was rented by Lee Oswald. Therefore, like I clearly and directly stated, the revolver was shipped to a post office box in Dallas rented by Lee Oswald.
Flat out false? What are you talking about?
Please highlight the portion of my above statement which you feel is "flat out false".
The revolver was shipped, on March 20th, 1963, by Railway Express to P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, TX. This P.O. Box was rented by Lee Oswald. Therefore, like I clearly and directly stated, the revolver was shipped to a post office box in Dallas rented by Lee Oswald.
As I said, it wasn't shipped to a PO box, it was (allegedly) shipped to a Railway Express office. Railway Express couldn't ship to PO boxes. Neither can UPS or FedEx nowadays.
The revolver was shipped to a post office box in Dallas rented by Lee Oswald.
Flat out false. The revolver you're referring to was allegedly shipped to a Railway Express office.
Flat out false? What are you talking about?
Please highlight the portion of my above statement which you feel is "flat out false".
The revolver was shipped, on March 20th, 1963, by Railway Express to P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, TX. This P.O. Box was rented by Lee Oswald. Therefore, like I clearly and directly stated, the revolver was shipped to a post office box in Dallas rented by Lee Oswald.
As I said, it wasn't shipped to a PO box, it was (allegedly) shipped to a Railway Express office. Railway Express couldn't ship to PO boxes. Neither can UPS or FedEx nowadays.
As I recall there was money due for the purchase of the revolver.... If it were shipped to a PO Box, how could the agent collect the money due?
Helen Markham was on foot, walking south along Patton toward her bus stop, which
was on Jefferson Boulevard. Markham was just reaching the northwest corner of
Tenth and Patton when she noticed Tippit's patrol car pass through the
intersection, heading east along Tenth Street. Markham testified that the
patrol car pulled up to a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south side
of Tenth Street. Helen Markham positively identified Lee Oswald as the man she
saw talking to, and shoot, J.D. Tippit. She testified that she saw Oswald run
from the scene, heading down Patton with a gun in his hand.
William Scoggins was sitting in his cab at the southeast corner of Tenth and
Patton. Scoggins saw Tippit's patrol car pass slowly in front of his cab,
driving west to east along Tenth Street (Scoggins' cab was sitting on Patton,
facing north towards Tenth street). Scoggins noticed that the patrol car pulled
up alongside a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south side of Tenth
Street. William Scoggins positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw
running towards his cab seconds after hearing gun shots. Scoggins got out of
his cab with thoughts of running from the scene as Oswald headed straight
towards him after the shots rang out. After realizing he had nowhere to hide,
Scoggins returned to his cab and ducked down behind it as he watched Oswald turn
the corner and head down Patton towards Jefferson. Scoggins testified that
Oswald had a gun in his hand.
Barbara Davis was laying in bed inside her residence, which was the house at the
corner of Tenth and Patton. She heard gunshots outside and went to the front
door, which faced Tenth Street. She opened the screen door and noticed Helen
Markham across the street, screaming. Davis then noticed a man cutting through
her front yard, holding a gun in his hands. She testified that the man had the
gun cocked in his hands as if he were emptying it. Barbara Davis positively
identified Lee Oswald as the man who she saw cut across her yard with a gun in
his hands.
Virginia Davis was in the living room of Barbara Davis' residence (400 E. Tenth
St.) when she heard gunshots outside. Virginia Davis went to the front door
and, like Barbara, noticed Helen Markham across the street, screaming. Davis
then noticed a man cutting across the front yard with a gun in his hands. She
testified that the man was emptying shells out of the gun. Virginia Davis
positively identified Lee Oswald as the man who she saw cut across the front
yard with a gun in his hands.
Ted Callaway was standing out on the front porch of the used-car lot office,
where he worked. Callaway testified that he heard five pistol shots. Callaway
testified that he believed the shots came from the vicinity of Tenth Street,
which was behind the office he worked in. He went out to the sidewalk on the
east side of Patton and noticed Scoggin's cab parked up near the corner of
Patton at Tenth. As Callaway watched the cab driver (Scoggins) hide beside his
cab, he noticed a man running across Patton from the east side of Patton to the
west side. Callaway watched the man run down Patton towards Jefferson. Ted
Callaway positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw run down Patton with
a gun in his hands.
Sam Guinyard worked at the same used-car lot as Ted Callaway. Guinyard was out
on the lot washing one of the cars when he heard gunshots come from the
direction up toward Tenth Street. From the car lot, Guinyard was looking north
toward Tenth in an attempt to see where the shots came from when he saw a man on
the sidewalk in between the first two houses on Tenth Street (400 E. Tenth and
404 E. Tenth). Guinyard went toward the sidewalk on the east side of Patton and
saw the man cut across the yard of the house on the corner (400 E. Tenth, the
Davis residence) and proceeded to run south on Patton. Guinyard said the man
had a gun in his hands and was emptying it of shells. Sam Guinyard positively
identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw running with the gun in his hands.
Each of the above witnesses saw a man flee the vicinity of the Tippit murder. Each of the above witnesses saw a gun in the man's hands. Every single one of the above witnesses positively identified Lee Oswald as that man.
These are the real witnesses and not even one of them said that someone other than Lee Oswald was the man they saw.
As for the revolver, Jim Leavelle briefly spoke with Oswald when Oswald was brought in from the theater. Leavelle told Oswald that they could run ballistic tests on the revolver and match the revolver to the bullets taken from the officer's body, proving that the revolver taken from Oswald was the revolver responsible for the officer's death. Oswald did not deny owning the revolver. According to Leavelle, Oswald's only reply was "Well, you're just going to have to do it."
Oswald ordered the revolver under the name of A.J. Hidell on 1/27/63 from Seaport Traders, Inc. Treasury Department handwriting expert Alwyn Cole testified that the handwriting on the order coupon belonged to Lee Oswald. The FBI's handwriting expert James Cadigan also testified that the handwriting on the coupon was Oswald's.
On the order, there was the name of a D.F. Drittal, written in the section where a witness states that the person buying the weapon (Hidell) was a U.S. citizen and was not a felon. The handwriting experts, Cole and Cadigan, both testified that the name D.F. Drittal was also written in Oswald's hands.
The revolver was shipped to a post office box in Dallas rented by Lee Oswald. Cole testified that the signature and the handwriting on the post office box application belonged to Oswald.
Postal Inspector Harry Holmes testified that Oswald had previously rented a post office box in New Orleans, during the summer of 1963. Oswald's New Orleans application and his Dallas application were found. Unlike the Dallas post office box application, the New Orleans post office box application still had the portion which listed others who were able to receive mail at that post office box. In the New Orleans application, Oswald included the names of both Marina Oswald and A.J. Hidell as those able to receive mail in that box.
Holmes spoke with Oswald on Sunday morning, the 24th. Holmes asked Oswald about the Dallas post office box. Oswald stated that he was the only one who received mail at that box and that he didn't receive any mail there that was addressed to any name other than his true name. Holmes then asked Oswald about the box that Oswald rented in New Orleans earlier that year. Oswald again stated that he was the only one permitted to receive mail at that p.o. box. Holmes reminded Oswald that he (Oswald) had listed Marina Oswald as a person eligible to receive mail in that box. Oswald's reply was basically "Well so what? She was my wife and I see nothing wrong with that." Holmes then reminded Oswald that one "A.J. Hidell" was also listed in the section on the application listing others eligible to receive mail in that post office box. Holmes said that Oswald replied "I don't recall anything about that".
Oswald was caught in a lie. The handwriting which permitted A.J. Hidell to receive mail at the New Orleans post office box belonged to Lee Oswald (per experts Cole and Cadigan).
Ballistic testing can determine whether or not an empty shell casing was fired from a specific weapon to the exclusion of every other weapon in the entire world. Before shooting, the shell casing is placed against the breech face and the firing pin. When the pin strikes the primer, the bullet is fired off and the shell casing is thrust against the breech face of the weapon. This causes a permanent mark on the base of the empty shell, i.e. the distinctive fine lines etched onto the breech face put their "fingerprint" on the base of the empty shell.
Joseph Nicol (Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State of Illinois) along with Cortlandt Cunningham, Robert Frazier and Charles Killion (of the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory in Washington D.C.) each examined the shells found at the Tippit scene and Oswald's revolver, which he ordered from Seaport Traders, Inc. Each of these experts determined that the shells were linked (through ballistics) to Oswald's revolver, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world.
Two comments;
If identification was not required to pick up an item at the counter of the Postoffice, as long as the person collecting the item was in possession of the notice, anybody could have picked up the package since a standard PO box notification card is easily obtainable.
If the remaining balance of $19.95 was paid when the revolver was collected from the postoffice, Railway Express and/or Seaport Traders should have a record for that payment. Either for the money (and the added service charge) being received at the Postoffice or at least for the transfer of the due amount to Seaport Traders. The evidentiary value of this payment would be massive as it would not only prove that the entire transaction was authentic but also that the revolver was in fact collected at the Dallas Postoffice. Yet, no documents exist that confirms the payment of $19.95 to the Postoffice and/or the receipt of that money by Seaport Traders.
Bill,
Impressive post!
(Btw, it's "lying in bed," not "laying in bed.")
-- Tommy :)
Helen Markham was on foot, walking south along Patton toward her bus stop, which
was on Jefferson Boulevard. Markham was just reaching the northwest corner of
Tenth and Patton when she noticed Tippit's patrol car pass through the
intersection, heading east along Tenth Street. Markham testified that the
patrol car pulled up to a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south side
of Tenth Street. Helen Markham positively identified Lee Oswald as the man she
saw talking to, and shoot, J.D. Tippit. She testified that she saw Oswald run
from the scene, heading down Patton with a gun in his hand.
William Scoggins was sitting in his cab at the southeast corner of Tenth and
Patton. Scoggins saw Tippit's patrol car pass slowly in front of his cab,
driving west to east along Tenth Street (Scoggins' cab was sitting on Patton,
facing north towards Tenth street). Scoggins noticed that the patrol car pulled
up alongside a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south side of Tenth
Street. William Scoggins positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw
running towards his cab seconds after hearing gun shots. Scoggins got out of
his cab with thoughts of running from the scene as Oswald headed straight
towards him after the shots rang out. After realizing he had nowhere to hide,
Scoggins returned to his cab and ducked down behind it as he watched Oswald turn
the corner and head down Patton towards Jefferson. Scoggins testified that
Oswald had a gun in his hand.
Barbara Davis was lying in bed inside her residence, which was the house at the
corner of Tenth and Patton. She heard gunshots outside and went to the front
door, which faced Tenth Street. She opened the screen door and noticed Helen
Markham across the street, screaming. Davis then noticed a man cutting through
her front yard, holding a gun in his hands. She testified that the man had the
gun cocked in his hands as if he were emptying it. Barbara Davis positively
identified Lee Oswald as the man who she saw cut across her yard with a gun in
his hands.
Virginia Davis was in the living room of Barbara Davis' residence (400 E. Tenth
St.) when she heard gunshots outside. Virginia Davis went to the front door
and, like Barbara, noticed Helen Markham across the street, screaming. Davis
then noticed a man cutting across the front yard with a gun in his hands. She
testified that the man was emptying shells out of the gun. Virginia Davis
positively identified Lee Oswald as the man who she saw cut across the front
yard with a gun in his hands.
Ted Callaway was standing out on the front porch of the used-car lot office,
where he worked. Callaway testified that he heard five pistol shots. Callaway
testified that he believed the shots came from the vicinity of Tenth Street,
which was behind the office he worked in. He went out to the sidewalk on the
east side of Patton and noticed Scoggin's cab parked up near the corner of
Patton at Tenth. As Callaway watched the cab driver (Scoggins) hide beside his
cab, he noticed a man running across Patton from the east side of Patton to the
west side. Callaway watched the man run down Patton towards Jefferson. Ted
Callaway positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw run down Patton with
a gun in his hands.
Sam Guinyard worked at the same used-car lot as Ted Callaway. Guinyard was out
on the lot washing one of the cars when he heard gunshots come from the
direction up toward Tenth Street. From the car lot, Guinyard was looking north
toward Tenth in an attempt to see where the shots came from when he saw a man on
the sidewalk in between the first two houses on Tenth Street (400 E. Tenth and
404 E. Tenth). Guinyard went toward the sidewalk on the east side of Patton and
saw the man cut across the yard of the house on the corner (400 E. Tenth, the
Davis residence) and proceeded to run south on Patton. Guinyard said the man
had a gun in his hands and was emptying it of shells. Sam Guinyard positively
identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw running with the gun in his hands.
Each of the above witnesses saw a man flee the vicinity of the Tippit murder. Each of the above witnesses saw a gun in the man's hands. Every single one of the above witnesses positively identified Lee Oswald as that man.
These are the real witnesses and not even one of them said that someone other than Lee Oswald was the man they saw.
As for the revolver, Jim Leavelle briefly spoke with Oswald when Oswald was brought in from the theater. Leavelle told Oswald that they could run ballistic tests on the revolver and match the revolver to the bullets taken from the officer's body, proving that the revolver taken from Oswald was the revolver responsible for the officer's death. Oswald did not deny owning the revolver. According to Leavelle, Oswald's only reply was "Well, you're just going to have to do it."
Oswald ordered the revolver under the name of A.J. Hidell on 1/27/63 from Seaport Traders, Inc. Treasury Department handwriting expert Alwyn Cole testified that the handwriting on the order coupon belonged to Lee Oswald. The FBI's handwriting expert James Cadigan also testified that the handwriting on the coupon was Oswald's.
On the order, there was the name of a D.F. Drittal, written in the section where a witness states that the person buying the weapon (Hidell) was a U.S. citizen and was not a felon. The handwriting experts, Cole and Cadigan, both testified that the name D.F. Drittal was also written in Oswald's hands.
The revolver was shipped to a post office box in Dallas rented by Lee Oswald. Cole testified that the signature and the handwriting on the post office box application belonged to Oswald.
Postal Inspector Harry Holmes testified that Oswald had previously rented a post office box in New Orleans, during the summer of 1963. Oswald's New Orleans application and his Dallas application were found. Unlike the Dallas post office box application, the New Orleans post office box application still had the portion which listed others who were able to receive mail at that post office box. In the New Orleans application, Oswald included the names of both Marina Oswald and A.J. Hidell as those able to receive mail in that box.
Holmes spoke with Oswald on Sunday morning, the 24th. Holmes asked Oswald about the Dallas post office box. Oswald stated that he was the only one who received mail at that box and that he didn't receive any mail there that was addressed to any name other than his true name. Holmes then asked Oswald about the box that Oswald rented in New Orleans earlier that year. Oswald again stated that he was the only one permitted to receive mail at that p.o. box. Holmes reminded Oswald that he (Oswald) had listed Marina Oswald as a person eligible to receive mail in that box. Oswald's reply was basically "Well so what? She was my wife and I see nothing wrong with that." Holmes then reminded Oswald that one "A.J. Hidell" was also listed in the section on the application listing others eligible to receive mail in that post office box. Holmes said that Oswald replied "I don't recall anything about that".
Oswald was caught in a lie. The handwriting which permitted A.J. Hidell to receive mail at the New Orleans post office box belonged to Lee Oswald (per experts Cole and Cadigan).
Ballistic testing can determine whether or not an empty shell casing was fired from a specific weapon to the exclusion of every other weapon in the entire world. Before shooting, the shell casing is placed against the breech face and the firing pin. When the pin strikes the primer, the bullet is fired off and the shell casing is thrust against the breech face of the weapon. This causes a permanent mark on the base of the empty shell, i.e. the distinctive fine lines etched onto the breech face put their "fingerprint" on the base of the empty shell.
Joseph Nicol (Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State of Illinois) along with Cortlandt Cunningham, Robert Frazier and Charles Killion (of the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory in Washington D.C.) each examined the shells found at the Tippit scene and Oswald's revolver, which he ordered from Seaport Traders, Inc. Each of these experts determined that the shells were linked (through ballistics) to Oswald's revolver, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world.
Helen Markham was...... Helen Markham positively identified Lee OswaldHelen Markham was...... The Commission's star witness!
Mr. BALL. The Commission would like to know something of your past life and experience...
Mrs. MARKHAM. I am very shook up....
... Well, do you want me to tell you about my life?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No; I got married. I got married.
Mr. BALL. How long were you married?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Me?
Mr. BALL. So you were walking south toward Jefferson?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You think it was a little after 1?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I wouldn't be afraid to bet it wasn't 6 or 7 minutes after 1.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?Can't get any more positive than that.
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Helen Markham was...... The Commission's star witness! Can't get any more positive than that.
Please explain... Markham's confusionI cannot explain her confusion ...can you? How's this- Are you willing to stake your life that Lee Oswald killed JFK and killed that cop? Yes or no.
I cannot explain her confusion ...can you? How's this- Are you willing to stake your life that Lee Oswald killed JFK and killed that cop? Yes or no.
Get a clueYour favorite reply it seems. The best you can do?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; but you know, I don't know nothing about the Kennedys--President Kennedy.That is not 100% positive identification..that was 100% arm twisting.
Mr. LIEBELER. I understand you were there when Oswald shot Officer Tippit?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; that's right.
Now...Mr. BALL. What did the man do?
Mrs. MARKHAM. The man, he just walked calmly, fooling with his gun.
Your favorite reply it seems. The best you can do?
Helen Markham had 8 months to prepare for her 'testimony' [or they had 8 months to prep her however you want to look at it] and it was still just demented babble.
They had to haul her back into the courthouse and tell her that she talked to Mark Lane and she denied even hearing of Mark Lane.
They had to tell her that she she saw Oswald shoot the cop...That is not 100% positive identification..that was 100% arm twisting.
So for no reason the gunman panicked and gunned down a cop...but then after that, he was real calm...but then for some reason, he panicked again and ran away to a movie theater.. See? I do have a clue and saw from then on that the whole business just stunk.
Pull your head out and answer my earlier question....
Are you willing to stake your life.. even your eternal soul that Lee Oswald killed JFK and killed that cop? Yes or no.
Helen Markham had 8 months to prepare for her 'testimony' [or they had 8 months to prep her however you want to look at it] and it was still just demented babble.
They had to tell her that she she saw Oswald shoot the cop...That is not 100% positive identification..that was 100% arm twisting.
Railway Express didn't ship to P.O. boxes but they did indeed ship to post offices, who then placed items (and/or notices) in the proper boxes, to be picked up by the renter of a particular box.
Seaport Traders used Railway Express to ship the revolver. Railway Express shipped the revolver to the post office in Dallas and a post office employee placed a notice in the box rented by Oswald.
This isn't rocket science.
... it doesn't do anything to diminish her positive identification of Oswald during the lineup on 11/22/63.Where is the sworn signed affidavit of this identification? Or is this just reciting what the police said and the report said that she said?
'... Oswald's revolver, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world.'
Seems Dirty Harvey* had a rather exclusive kind of day, overall... what with the exclusive revolver, the exclusive Carcano, and the exclusive 'global positioning' (if you will) that had him being positively identified as the only person on the face of the planet at the scene during both murders.
*'Smith, Wesson... and Lee'
You?re mistaken, Bill.Doesn't matter. This guy never errors...just ask him.
Mr. BALL. You think it was a little after 1?The Commission decided that Markham must have been mistaken. Oswald could not possibly have arrived that soon.
Mrs. MARKHAM. I wouldn't be afraid to bet it wasn't 6 or 7 minutes after 1.
Mr. BALL. You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you?
Mrs. MARKHAM. 1:15.
Mr. BALL. So it was before 1:15?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, it was.
Could it be that Oswald did indeed empty the six shells and decided to scatter them as he made his way from the scene. ?
NO!...Not if you read the reports of the witnesses who saw the killer leaving the scene. ALL of the witnesses who saw the killer leaving after the murder said that he REMOVED one shell at a time as he walked away.
And I would add....If Lee had held any shells in his hand his PALM would have tested positive for gun powder residue, but only one component of gunpowder ( nitrate) was found on his hand.
(but I'll go with what the witnesses testified to, since they were at the scene).
...except when you don?t. Gorillas playing basketball and all that.
I believe I have correctly corrected the statement------
Joseph Nicol (Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State of Illinois) along with Cortlandt Cunningham, Robert Frazier and Charles Killion (of the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory in Washington D.C.) each examined the shells that are claimed to have been found at the Tippit scene and this certain revolver, which was ordered from Seaport Traders, Inc. Each of these experts determined that the shells were linked (through ballistics) to this certain revolver.
I can believe that statement. The other words were superfluous.. purely meant to convey redundant incrimination of Lee Oswald. Did these guys actually examine every shell from every revolver in the world?
Another drive-by, vacuous post by Cryin' Johnny the Gaslighter :'(
You?re mistaken, Bill. Railway Express Agency was a private carrier. Such a package would have been shipped to, and picked up at, a Railway Express office.
A package, being delivered by Railway Express, can (and in the case of the revolver, did) make it's way to a post office box.
Let me get this straight... are you actually saying the revolver would have had to have been picked up at a Railway Express office? Is this really what you're claiming?
Says Chapman in another drive-by, vacuous post.
But at least it wasn't plagiarized from Bugliosi this time.
So you keep claiming. I don't know why.
Yes. What gave you the idea that the US postal service would act as an uncompensated COD collection agent for Railway Express?
WTF are you talking about? I didn't say anything about the shells (but I'll go with what the witnesses testified to, since they were at the scene). Maybe you meant to be addressing BillB...?
For the record, I was simply remarking on the exclusive nature of Oswald's day.
I was wrong to say the revolver was shipped to the post office.
In actuality, a notice was placed in Oswald's post office box informing him that he would have to go to the Railway Express office on South Houston Street in Dallas to retrieve his item.
The paper trail related to Oswald's purchase of the revolver under the name of Hidell is solid.
Once Oswald received the notice in his P.O. Box, he presumably took a bus to the Railway Express office and presented the notification card, paid the balance due ($19.95 plus shipping) and provided some form of Hidell identification.
The fact that Oswald had the revolver in his possession at the time of his arrest inside the theater ir further proof that he took possession of the revolver at the Railway Express office several months earlier.
Wow, 5 front pages in a row by the devil-worshipper currently.
About those drive-bys..
Indeed.
In actuality Railway Express would have had to mail a letter or a postcard to the PO Box saying that there was a package to pick up.
Unfortunately there is no evidence of siuch a card or letter or of Oswald or anyone else picking up such a package, or of Railway Express or Seaport Traders ever receiving the actual COD funds.
LOL
Pure speculation.
That?s not a ?fact?. That?s a claim that you have no evidence for. And either way it proves nothing about anyone picking up a package that you can?t even prove was ever at the Railway Express office.
I was wrong to say the revolver was shipped to the post office. In actuality, a notice was placed in Oswald's post office box informing him that he would have to go to the Railway Express office on South Houston Street in Dallas to retrieve his item.
The paper trail related to Oswald's purchase of the revolver under the name of Hidell is solid.
Once Oswald received the notice in his P.O. Box, he presumably took a bus to the Railway Express office and presented the notification card, paid the balance due ($19.95 plus shipping) and provided some form of Hidell identification.
The fact that Oswald had the revolver in his possession at the time of his arrest inside the theater ir further proof that he took possession of the revolver at the Railway Express office several months earlier.
Wow, 5 front pages in a row by the devil-worshipper currently.
About those drive-bys..
As I said earlier;
If the remaining balance of $19.95 was paid when the revolver was collected, Railway Express and/or Seaport Traders should have a record for that payment. Either for the money (and the added service charge) being received when the package was collected or at least for the transfer of the due amount to Seaport Traders.
The evidentiary value of this payment would be massive as it would not only prove that the entire transaction was authentic but also that the revolver was in fact collected. Yet, no documents exist that confirms the payment of $19.95 to Railway Express and/or the receipt of a transfer of that money by Seaport Traders.
(https://i.imgur.com/OHvgPCJ.png)
Where in this document does it say that money was received by Railway Express or by Seaport Traders?
All this document shows is the amount due, right?
Can you produce the certificate of good character done on LHO?
As I said earlier;
If the remaining balance of $19.95 was paid when the revolver was collected, Railway Express and/or Seaport Traders should have a record for that payment. Either for the money (and the added service charge) being received when the package was collected or at least for the transfer of the due amount to Seaport Traders.
The evidentiary value of this payment would be massive as it would not only prove that the entire transaction was authentic but also that the revolver was in fact collected. Yet, no documents exist that confirms the payment of $19.95 to Railway Express and/or the receipt of a transfer of that money by Seaport Traders.
(https://i.imgur.com/OHvgPCJ.png)
Where in this document does it say that money was received by Railway Express or by Seaport Traders?
All this document shows is the amount due, right?
Talk to D.F. Drittal about that.
According to Michaelis, the money was received.
That's right Bill.
(https://i.imgur.com/X4Mz0L5.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/8GEmMKA.jpg)
Mr. BALL. Is there anything in your files which shows that the Railway Express did remit to you the $19.95?
Mr. MICHAELIS. The fact that the exhibit number--may I see this green one?
Mr. BALL. Five.
Mr. MICHAELIS. Was attached to the red copy of the invoice.
Mr. BALL. Red copy of the invoice being----
Mr. MICHAELIS. No; was attached to the red copy of the invoice, exhibit number----
Mr. BALL. Two.
Mr. MICHAELIS. Indicates that the money was received.
The coupon that AJ Hidell sent to Seaport included a MO for $10.00 ... Right there on that coupon it is stated that the COD had to be for 1/2 the purchase price. The purchase price was $29.95.... $10.00 dollars is only 1/3 of the purchase price...
So how the hell did AJ Hidell receive the pistol??
It seems all we have to confirm that the money was received from the person who collected the package and was subsequently transferred to Seaport Trading is Michaelis saying so?. No receipt, no proof of transfer, no deposit in a bankaccount..... Wow!
So, how did Michaelis know the money was received? Did he check the company's records? It seems he didn't, because his own testimony shows that he concludes the money was received based exclusively on two documents being attached to eachother.....
And that is somehow supposed to be conclusive?
Martin, Michaelis tells us how he knew that the money was received. It's right there in the text that I provided. The two documents would not have been attached to each other if the payment had not been received.
The two documents would not have been attached to each other if the payment had not been received.
In a perfect world, that might be true, but why rely on a conclusion by Michaelis when a document showing the actual receipt (like a bankstatement showing the tranfer from Railway Express) would prove it conclusively?
Wrong. In a perfect world, we'd have a bank statement showing the transfer from Railway Express available to us today. Unfortunately, we do not. We'll just have to rely on the available documents and on what Michaelis testified to under oath. And why shouldn't we?
we'd have a bank statement showing the transfer from Railway Express available to us today. Unfortunately, we do not.
And why is that? At Klein's they tried to trace the money order, so why not check an easily obtainable bankstatement?
We'll just have to rely on the available documents and on what Michaelis testified to under oath.
Why should we have to rely on a conclusion of a witness?
And why shouldn't we?
Because conclusive evidence such as a bankstatement confirming a transfer from Railway Express trumps a conclusion by a witness that is only based on two pieces of paper being attached to eachother.
we'd have a bank statement showing the transfer from Railway Express available to us today. Unfortunately, we do not.
And why is that? At Klein's they tried to trace the money order, so why not check an easily obtainable bankstatement?
We'll just have to rely on the available documents and on what Michaelis testified to under oath.
Why should we have to rely on a conclusion of a witness?
b]And why shouldn't we? [/b]
Because conclusive evidence such as a bankstatement confirming a transfer from Railway Express trumps a conclusion by a witness that is only based on two pieces of paper being attached to eachother.
What do you really expect from a bank statement, exactly? For that matter, what documentation do you think would have been generated specifically for the transaction between Oswald/Hidell/etc and Railway Express, over and above what has already presented? I expect that the person receiving the shipment would have been given a receipt, but I also expect that the receipt would have soon wound up where the great majority of them do: in the circular file. Beyond that, I doubt there would be anything else.
You mean the money order that was found and that you refuse to accept as having been cashed? That one?
Because that's all we've got that's why. Well, that and the documents themselves. Michaelis exhibit #2 shows us that the full amount of $29.95 had been paid.
Why would a bank statement trump the two documents and the sworn testimony of Michaelis?
You mean the money order that was found and that you refuse to accept as having been cashed? That one?
Just because you are easily convinced, doesn't mean others have to be as well, Tim. Besides, I don't think I have ever refused to accept anything of the kind. In fact, when conclusive evidence for it is presented, I will have no problem accepting that the money order issued to Klein's was indeed cashed, but I don't believe I have ever seen anything remotely close to conclusive evidence that it was. All I have ever seen is a weak claim that an amount on a list, equal in value to the amount of the money order, must be the amount of the money order.
Now, can you explain why the investigators never took the trouble to ask for something as simple as a bankstatement to confirm the transfer from Railway Express, or are you going to try to pivot away from that again?
Because that's all we've got that's why. Well, that and the documents themselves. Michaelis exhibit #2 shows us that the full amount of $29.95 had been paid.
Are you always this easy to please, Tim? Please show me where on exhibit #2 does it say that the full amount was paid?
Why would a bank statement trump the two documents and the sworn testimony of Michaelis?
First of all, this is so selfevident that I am surprised it needs to be explained to you. Secondly, the two documents do not prove that the payment of the C.O.D. amount was received and Michealis does not confirm from personal knowledge that the money was received, he merely concluded that it was because the two documents were attached to eachother. The entire thing is a typical case of a witness saying "believe me, because I say so".
Now, don't get me wrong. Before you go there; I am not claiming that Michealis was lying. He may well have offered his conclusion in good faith, but IMO in any other case but this one a mere conclusion by a witness would hardly be sufficient.
If not, no one would buy one.
I know I wouldn't.
If you would ID these pistols that don't have extractor wheels?
(http://www.christiangunowner.com/images/xrsp101open.jpg.pagespeed.ic.DP1-h_yaC2.jpg)
Martin, you've seen the money order. You've seen Klein's stamp on it which certifies that it passed through their till. You were shown that the money order had reached the U.S. Treasury Department and it was explained to you that the fact that the Treasury Dept received it was confirmation that it had been cashed.
What for? How would I know if they took the trouble to ask or not? We don't have a bank statement. I don't know why and I don't care. We have what we have. It is more than enough.
(https://i.imgur.com/8GEmMKA.jpg)
It's right there. I underlined it in red for you.
It may be self-evident to you but it's not to me. Why would a bank statement trump the two documents and the sworn testimony of Michaelis? The Exhibit #2 shows that the $29.95 was paid and Michaelis himself confirmed under oath that it was. Explain how a bank statement would trump both of those taken together.
In a perfect world, we'd have a bank statement showing the transfer from Railway Express available to us today.
What do you really expect from a bank statement, exactly?
As Railway Express would not transfer money they did not receive to Seaport Trading, I would suggest that a bankstatement would confirm that a transfer was indeed received, which in turn would confirm that the transaction had been completed and that the C.O..D. package had indeed been collected.
For that matter, what documentation do you think would have been generated specifically for the transaction between Oswald/Hidell/etc and Railway Express, over and above what has already presented?
So far, there are no documents to conclusively show that the C.O.D. amount of $19,90 was collected. All there is to link the C.O.D. package to Hidell is an order form. Everything else is internal documentation from Seaport Trading.
I expect that the person receiving the shipment would have been given a receipt, but I also expect that the receipt would have soon wound up where the great majority of them do: in the circular file. Beyond that, I doubt there would be anything else.
Really? Yes, the person paying for the package would most likely get a receipt, but just as likely would Railway Express retain a copy of that document for their administration. And then of course, the money would have needed to be transferred to Seaport Trading, which would very likely have generated another document of some kind, don't you think?
Actually, I don't know what the Klein's stamp on the money order certifies nor have I been shown that the money order reached the Treasury Department.
As I understand it, the money order was found at a location where it shouldn't have ended up if it had gone through the system correctly, which of course also makes the explanation that the Treasury Department "receiving" the money order is "confirmation that it had been cashed" a bit questionable.
But, be all that as it may, you missed the point I was making. Despite the fact that the Klein's money order had no or very limited evidentiary value when it comes to the actual shipping of the rifle, they searched for it nevertheless.
At Seaport Trading, where the receipt of the C.O.D. amount, also confirmed the collection of the package, they never did that!
You said it yourself;
Why would you accept anything less than perfect, when you don't have to?
You keep on asking the same question I have already answered. A bankstatement confirming the transfer from RE would have eliminated every doubt that the package was collected and that the C.O.D. amount was paid.
I can't make out if the "paid" you have underlined on the invoice is for the full amount or just for the deposit of $10,00. It says on the invoice that it was prepared on 03/18/63 and that the shipment went out on 03/20/63 with an approximate delivery date of one week. All Seaport Trading had when the invoice was prepared was the deposit. I don't know who wrote "paid" on the document or when that was done, but it seems to me that if it was for the full amount, Michaelis could have said so in his testimony. He didn't and instead only concluded that the full payment was received because two documents were attached to eachother, which makes me believe that the "paid" only related to the $10,00 already received, with $19,95 to be collected upon delivery.
Actually, it was a stamp on Klein's invoice that demonstrated that the money order had passed through their cash register. The File Locator Number on the money order establishes that it reached the Treasury Department.
You understand it incorrectly. It ended up exactly where it was supposed to end up.
With the Klein's money order, it was something that was known to exist. We don't know that a bank statement unique to the $29.95 payment ever existed . As Mitch Todd has noted, that $29.95 was likely lumped in with other transactions made that day.
I'm a realist. I know that we don't live in a perfect world. We sometimes have to accept what we're dealt with.
Not to you it wouldn't.
Paid is obviously for the full amount. It's inane to suggest otherwise.
Based on my own experiences back in the day before databases tracked everything, I very much doubt it. The cash from such a transaction would have been lumped in with that from other transactions the REA office made that day, dumped into a vinyl bag, and deposited in one big lump o' tender. I've never seen a bank statement where a cash deposit was broken down the way you seem to think it would be. It would be different if a negotiable instrument were involved, but that 's not the case here.
The order form is in Oswald's handwriting, Hidell's name, and lists Oswald's P.O. box as the ship to address. Seaport Traders' internal documentation shows that the make, model, modifications, and serial number of the pistol shipped to "Hidell" match the pistol taken from Oswald at the Texas Theatre. At this point what more do you need?
So, what you really want is to know more about the documentation that REA might have generated in all of this, and not really anything about bank statements.
My first questions would be, what would they have kept and how long would they have kept it?
Actually, it was a stamp on Klein's invoice that demonstrated that the money order had passed through their cash register. The File Locator Number on the money order establishes that it reached the Treasury Department.
You understand it incorrectly. It ended up exactly where it was supposed to end up.
With the Klein's money order, it was something that was known to exist. We don't know that a bank statement unique to the $29.95 payment ever existed . As Mitch Todd has noted, that $29.95 was likely lumped in with other transactions made that day.
I'm a realist. I know that we don't live in a perfect world. We sometimes have to accept what we're dealt with.
Not to you it wouldn't.
Paid is obviously for the full amount. It's inane to suggest otherwise.
Please elaborate.
Perhaps you are right, but if your speculation is true, how would Seaport Traders ever know which shipments were paid and which were not? Klein's also made deposits of lumped sums, but they at least kept a list of the individual items. Do you have anything to suggest that Seaport Traders wouldn't have a similar system?
At this point what more do you need?
How do you know that the revolver taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater is the one shipped to "Hidell"? I know that the revolver now in evidence is the one sold by Seaport Traders, but I don't know if that was the revolver they took from Oswald.
What I really want to know is what I have been asking for all along; conclusive evidence of a transfer from Railway Express to Seaport Trading for the C.O.D. amount they had collected.
As we are talking about events that took places in one fiscal year, I would expect their records to be complete.
The rifle was purchased via money order. Money orders are handled more or less like checks, so they inherently leave an easy-to-follow trail through the banking system as they pass from institution to institution. Cash doesn't leave such fingerprints; it just gets piled up and deposited, no more questions asked. That's why it's the preferred method of payment for shifty business.
Anyway, If you read Michaelis' testimony, you'll find that he fingered his exhibit five as the notification from REA that REA had been paid. If you look at the far left of the doc carefully, you'll notice two things. The first is a field for "amount to be paid." It includes the helpful instruction, "for destination agent's use only;" that is, it's for the guys at REA's Dallas office. In fact, it's the spot where the agent on the receiving end tells his coworkers how much to remit back to the shipper. And just below that field, under "C.O.D. draft issued" there is a serial number stamped, somewhat sloppily. A draft is a form of payment, and REA is issuing it. The only people they would be issuing to in this case is Seaport Traders.
The draft leaves open an interesting question, since a draft can be a negotiable instrument like a check. However, Seaport Trader's probably did enough business with REA that they had an active account. I'm willing to bet that the draft was simply credited to ST's REA account, and whatever money was paid to REA was the balance of the account after it had been settled for the week/fortnight/month.
That's all kind of long winded. Here's the upshot:
1.) What you say you are looking for is Michaelis exhibit 5
2.) While there is the possibility that a draft was physically issued for the transaction, there is no good reason to expect that it happened that way, and good reason not to.
I have this funny feeling that you won't be satisfied until you locate a time machine, travel back to 1963, go to the Texas Theatre and actually see it for yourself. Just a word of advice: make sure you buy a ticket before you go in. They're sticklers for that in Oak Cliff. Even then, I kinda expect you won't be satisfied.
A fiscal year doesn't necessarily start on Jan 1, and there's no guarantee how long that REA would keep the docs for a single transaction for long after everything is settled at FYE.
I find it odd that 'Oswald's rifle' and 'Oswald's revolver,' although allegedly ordered months apart, were shipped on the exact same date.
I can't make out if the "paid" you have underlined on the invoice is for the full amount or just for the deposit of $10,00.
This is a long winded way of presenting speculation whilst not answering my basic question. In his testimony, Michaelis concluded that payment of the C.O.D. amount had been received because two documents were attached to eachother. That's it.... not a word about a draft (which would leave a paper trail) being issued or any further explanation about what was on the document. Now, what Michaelis said may well be true, but it doesn't explain - and that was my question - how Seaport Trading would know which payments were actually received and which documents should be attached to eachother. Your answer, as it is, doesn't explain that either.I told you it was kinda long winded. Anyway, I figure that Michaelis knows what's what regarding this issue more than you or I could. And, as I've already noted, careful inspection --or even not-quite-so-careful-inspection-- shows that DL-30/Ex 5 was designed to track the COD payment all the way back to the shipper, inform the shipper that REA had received the COD money and forwarded it to the shipper. Seaport Traders' possession of the completed document is demonstration that the item had indeed been paid for by the consignee. That is exactly the sort of thing you said you were looking for, I recall.
You can have a funny feeling as much as you like but in this case you would be wrong. It's really very simple. For a piece of physical evidence, such as a revolver taken from Oswald, there must be a credible chain of custody, which is a way designed by law to ensure that evidence is authentic and not tampered with. In this case, for the revolver there isn't such a chain of custody. Instead what you've got is some police officers being in the department's lunchroom, when Hill walks in (some two hours or so after Oswald's arrest) and he puts a revolver in front of them to be initialed, telling them this is the revolver that was taken from Oswald. They believe him but in truth they really have no way of knowing if what he said was true. It could of course be true, but it most certainly isn't protocol and it leaves the door wide open for a claim of possible evidence tampering. Now, if you are being kind to Hill, you could simply say he screwed up but there was no malice but that would be an opinion based on nothing at all. Now, if this was the only time when there was a problem with timelines and chains of custody you might just accept it as a good faith mistake, but in this case there are similar problems with evidence everywhere you look. And when that happens you can't just ignore it.... at least I can't. Perhaps you can?. with enough bias!
But let me put this question to you; how do you propose to prove that the revolver now in the National Archives is in fact the same revolver that was taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater?Well, so far, we have:
Nobody said anything about when the fiscal year starts.... between the purchase of the revolver and the murders there was only 8 months. Companies are required to keep the records intact for much longer. Your reply simply exposes your willingness to overlook anything that sheds a bad light on the investigation.Companies are required to keep certain records, but not necessarily everything. That being said, the problem is that you have yet to show that there is a bad light on the investigation here. The best you can do is insinuate that Hill might have done something with the weapon taken from Oswald, but you have no evidence whatsoever to support the supposition. Without such evidence, you instead try to assert some strict standard behavior regarding chain of possession, but a little digging appears to show that no such standard actually exist. You also continue to ignore the meaning of the REA COD brief, but it's exactly what you were asking for in the first place.
I told you it was kinda long winded. Anyway, I figure that Michaelis knows what's what regarding this issue more than you or I could. And, as I've already noted, careful inspection --or even not-quite-so-careful-inspection-- shows that DL-30/Ex 5 was designed to track the COD payment all the way back to the shipper, inform the shipper that REA had received the COD money and forwarded it to the shipper. Seaport Traders' possession of the completed document is demonstration that the item had indeed been paid for by the consignee. That is exactly the sort of thing you said you were looking for, I recall.
I have this other funny feeling that the chain-of-custody thing doesn't work quite the way that you think it does.
"Chain of custody need not be demonstrated for every piece of tangible evidence that is accepted into the trial court's record. Physical evidence that is readily identifiable by the witness might not need to be supported by chain-of-custody proof. For example, no chain-of-custody foundation is required for items that are imprinted with a serial number or inscribed with initials by an officer who collected the evidence."
(https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/chain+of+custody)
Or, as a law firm's website explains:
"Chain of custody issues do not apply to every piece of evidence. Establishing a proper chain of custody is only required for fungible evidence. Put simply, fungible evidence is evidence that has the capability of mutation, substitution, or degradation. For example, drugs and blood have been considered to be fungible evidence. A crack pipe, however, is ?a distinct and recognizable physical object,? and therefore, can be admissible without a proper showing of the chain of custody."
(https://bixonlaw.com/evidence-chain-custody/)
I read through those, and a number of other commentaries on the subject from sources that I would expect to be knowledgeable of the matter, and they all followed along the lines of what I've quoted. I can't find one that would require the sort of behavior you claim as the standard.
As it is, we have a chain of custody, as established by the testimonies of the principals. McDonald grabbed the gun from Oswald. Carroll took the gun from McDonald's hand. Carroll gave the gun to Hill when they got in the car to take Oswald to the Dallas municipal building.
Once there, Hill, McDonald, and Carroll took Oswald to an interrogation room in the Homicide Bureau's office on the third floor. After leaving Oswald there, they decamped to the Personnel office, wrote reports, then marked the pistol with their initials.
Well, so far, we have:
For establishing the authenticity of the gun: the testimonies of McDonald, Hill, and Carroll, and their recognition of their initials scratched into the metal of the gun.
Against establishing the authenticity of the gun: nothing.
It's not a hard choice. Unless you don't want to make it.
Companies are required to keep certain records, but not necessarily everything. That being said, the problem is that you have yet to show that there is a bad light on the investigation here. The best you can do is insinuate that Hill might have done something with the weapon taken from Oswald, but you have no evidence whatsoever to support the supposition. Without such evidence, you instead try to assert some strict standard behavior regarding chain of possession, but a little digging appears to show that no such standard actually exist. You also continue to ignore the meaning of the REA COD brief, but it's exactly what you were asking for in the first place.
You destroy your own argument as a revolver is in fact a piece of fungible evidence as it can be substituted!
I got another trip coming up this week, but I want to dispose of this particular claim right now:
As far as the legal system is concerned, a gun is non-fungible. For example, from a 2005 SC supreme court decision:
"While the chain of custody requirement is strict where fungible evidence is involved, where the issue is the admissibility of non-fungible evidence- - that is, evidence that is unique and identifiable- - the establishment of a strict chain of custody is not required:
If the offered item possesses characteristics which are fairly unique and readily identifiable, and if the substance of which the item is composed is relatively impervious to change, the trial court is viewed as having broad discretion to admit merely on the basis of testimony that the item is the one in question and is in a substantially unchanged condition. State v. Glenn, 328 S.C. 300, 305-306, 492 S.E.2d 393, 395 (Ct. App. 1997).
"Given the serial number and markings on the gun, and the fact that a gun is a non-fungible item, we find the chain of custody established by the state in this case was sufficient."
https://judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/displayOpinion.cfm?caseNo=26042
You also saw the statement in the previous quote about a crack pipe also being considered 'non-fungible'?
Can any WC endorser show that a 2" Commando is the *same* as a Special?
Can any WC endorser show that a 2" Commando is the *same* as a Special?
As it is, we have a chain of custody, as established by the testimonies of the principals. McDonald grabbed the gun from Oswald. Carroll took the gun from McDonald's hand. Carroll gave the gun to Hill when they got in the car to take Oswald to the Dallas municipal building.
So far so good.
So far so good.
Not so fast:
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; and then when I got up close enough, I saw a pistol pointing at me so I reached and grabbed the pistol and jerked the pistol away and stuck it In my belt, and then I grabbed Oswald.
Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.
So far so good.
Not so fast:
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; and then when I got up close enough, I saw a pistol pointing at me so I reached and grabbed the pistol and jerked the pistol away and stuck it In my belt, and then I grabbed Oswald.
Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.
McDonald said he handed the pistol to Carroll.
These guys couldn't keep their stories straight.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/mcdonaldstory2_1.gif)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/mcdonaldstory3.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/TTcarrol.gif)
McDonald said he handed the pistol to Carroll.
These guys couldn't keep their stories straight.
Hey!!?? Where's the part about Mc Donald sticking the web of his hand between the hammer and the frame of the revolver???
McDonald said he handed the pistol to Carroll.
These guys couldn't keep their stories straight.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/mcdonaldstory2_1.gif)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/mcdonaldstory3.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/TTcarrol.gif)
He may well have done, although I doubt it, but Brown's OP contains only part of the whole story and can not be relied upon.
For instance, Helen Markham testified she left home at "a little after 1". She had only one block to walk, yet according to the official story Tippit was shot at around 1.14 pm. That means that, for the official story to be true, Markham would have taken some 10 minutes to walk one block. Anything less than that would have placed her well beyond 10th/Patton prior to the shooting. Obviously, if the shooting happened earlier, it's just about impossible for Oswald to have been there on time to do the deed.
William Scoggins's testimony reveals that his timing was off and that he got to 10th/Patton earlier than the official story claims. Also, Scoggins, who is supposed to have identified Oswald at the DPD line up failed to identify Oswald as Tippit's killer to the FBI from a photo shown to him the very next day.
Domingo Benavides, who was closer to the actual shooting than anybody else, refused to participate in a line up because he felt he could not positively identify the killer, yet others, like the Davis sisters, who were indoors somehow can identify the man? Really?
There are so many things Brown doesn't tell you, that his entire OP is just a one sided dishonest presentation of what he wants to be the truth rather than the truth itself.
How do you conclude that they couldn't keep their stories straight. McDonald saw that it was Carroll who took the revolver from has hand. Carroll wasn't sure whose hand it was who he took the revolver from. There's no conflict between those two statements.For one thing..the story stinks. Cops don't approach a suspected cop killer guns in hand and then pick a fight with him after the suspect pulls a pistol. Something fishy was going on or else the cops would have gunned down a supposed killer in an instant.
For one thing..the story stinks. Cops don't approach a suspected cop killer guns in hand and then pick a fight with him after the suspect pulls a pistol. Something fishy was going on or else the cops would have gunned down a supposed killer in an instant.
For one thing..the story stinks. Cops don't approach a suspected cop killer guns in hand and then pick a fight with him after the suspect pulls a pistol. Something fishy was going on or else the cops would have gunned down a supposed killer in an instant.
For one thing..the story stinks. Cops don't approach a suspected cop killer guns in hand and then pick a fight with him after the suspect pulls a pistol. Something fishy was going on or else the cops would have gunned down a supposed killer in an instant.
Hoover's instructions to the DPD was NOT to kill Oswald until they could get some sort of fake confession out of him. Also, the DPD was so dirty they needed a 3rd party to whack Oswald so they could claim total ineptitude as their defense for some much needed plausible deniability.
Not only that, but they even had several days before Curry asked them to all write reports to compare stories and put together a blue code version of what went down in the theater.
Here's the difference between the DPD and the Mafia ..... 0Oops Walt be careful. You just insulted the Mafia :o
Do you believe Lee Oswald killed J.D. Tippit?
See this article, Rob. https://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/handguns/sw-victory-revolver/ (https://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/handguns/sw-victory-revolver/) The S & W .38 Special was called the Victory while the Colt .38 Special was called the Commando.
See this article, Rob. https://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/handguns/sw-victory-revolver/ (https://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/handguns/sw-victory-revolver/) The S & W .38 Special was called the Victory while the Colt .38 Special was called the Commando.
Seaport Trader's offered a S & W .38 Special that they referred to as Commando.
That's the model that Oswald ordered and the model that Seaport shipped to his PO Box.
That would be more convincing if the order blanks matched.
Would it? I doubt it.
The blank order form has a 38 Special on it for $16, 95 and a 38 S & W for 29,95 which is at least a bit confusing.
Having said that, it doesn't really matter as the mail coupon in the advertisment is completely different from the one Hidell used, which of course means that the advertisment itself also can't be the one from which Hidell ordered the revolver.
What was the description of the revolver in the advertisement on the page that Oswald clipped the coupon from? Or of any of the revolvers on that page. We don't have that, do we? So, how can it be said that there's a line item "that matches the alleged pistol of LHO's on the order form that is left BLANK"?
Do you believe Lee Oswald killed J.D. Tippit?
No. I have no good reason to believe that. Unfair and biased lineups are unreliable.
That would be more convincing if the order blanks matched.
Would it? I doubt it.
Anybody who thinks he can predict how a jury would rule doesn't know the first thing about how a jury trial really works.
Making a claim about there being "overwhelming evidence" is equally stupid as the jury simply might not see it that way. Prosecutors going into court thinking they have an airtight case frequently get destroyed by an able defense lawyer sowing sufficient seeds of doubts in the minds of the jury.
The entire argument that Oswald would have been convicted at trial (and he may well have been) is a pathetic one as there never was or will be a trial making the entire argument nothing more than an unprovable selfserving opinion, no matter what any dictionary says about "common sense".
'sowing seeds of doubt'As usual...Chappo misses the mark... Failing consistently to contribute anything of value to this forum.
>>> also known as gaslighting... which is lifeblood to sociopaths hereabouts... you know, the defense lawyer-wannabe types
'A form of intimidation or psychological abuse, sometimes called Ambient Abuse where false information is presented to the victim, making them doubt their memory, perception and quite often, their sanity.It does not mean or illustrate a suggestion of reasonable doubt.
As usual...Chappo misses the mark... Failing consistently to contribute anything of value to this forum.
Definition in the Urban Dictionary describes gaslighting this way: It does not mean or illustrate a suggestion of reasonable doubt.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/cf0aca58df919e016449e100a8f9d260/tenor.gif) Have a nice day
Freefall again misses my pointWhy is Chappy like a basketball? There is no point.
Seaport Trader's offered a S & W .38 Special that they referred to as Commando.
(https://i.imgur.com/DUZycnT.png)
That's the model that Oswald ordered and the model that Seaport shipped to his PO Box.
You lack the common sense required to understand.
If Oswald had gone to trial for the murder of J.D. Tippit, common sense matters.
Regarding the evidence that exists and "evidence" that does not exist, juries are required to make reasonable inferences. A judge will advise a jury about what is and what is not reasonable. Common sense must prevail in respect to the evidence (which is overwhelming in the case of Tippit).
The US Law Dictionary defines 'common sense' as:
'Sound practical judgment; that degree of intelligence and reason, as exercised upon the relations of persons and things and the ordinary affairs of life, which is possessed by the generality of mankind, and which would suffice to direct the conduct and actions of the individual in a manner to agree with the behavior of ordinary persons.'
It is overwhelming -- that LHO didn't shoot JDT.
I believe you're right.... Can you tell me:.... Were any of the spent shells split.... I don't remember.
It was the shell that was never found. Had to have been. Because I don't believe that any of the four shells that were recovered were split. BTW, those four shells were matched to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons. Oswald shot Tippit. It's a historical fact.
As usual...Chappo misses the mark... Failing consistently to contribute anything of value to this forum.
Definition in the Urban Dictionary describes gaslighting this way: It does not mean or illustrate a suggestion of reasonable doubt.
"Failing consistently to contribute anything of value to this forum"IOW an admitted troll.
I take you braying donkeys to task That's my contribution.
It's a historical fact.
For many years it was a "historical fact" that Marinus van der Lubbe burned down the Reichstag building in Berlin in 1933. Van der Lubbe was convicted for it and executed in 1934. It took until 2007 to prove the "historical fact" wrong.
The finding was independent of the factual question of whether or not it was Van der Lubbe who actually set the fire. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinus_van_der_Lubbe#cite_note-1)[1] (http://www.generalbundesanwalt.de/de/showpress.php?themenid=10&newsid=298)[2][3]
You were saying?
Go beyond Wikipedia and investigate a bit further. Then get back to me.
Hey, it was your claim, not mine. Where's the beef?
IOW an admitted troll.
"Failing consistently to contribute anything of value to this forum"
I take you braying donkeys to task
That's my contribution
Here's one of you now:
It's a historical fact.
For many years it was a "historical fact" that Marinus van der Lubbe burned down the Reichstag building in Berlin in 1933. Van der Lubbe was convicted for it and executed in 1934. It took until 2007 to prove the "historical fact" wrong.
For centuries the Donation of Constantine was considered a "historical fact" until it was proven to be a forgery
So much for "historical facts"
Hey Chappie.... That's a good photo of you......
Time for your nap
Hey Chappie.... That's a good photo of you......Now Walt... don't insult that nice donkey.
Now Walt... don't insult that nice donkey.
You lack the common sense required to understand.
(https://i.imgur.com/ttyI5cS.gif)
It was the shell that was never found. Had to have been. Because I don't believe that any of the four shells that were recovered were split. BTW, those four shells were matched to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons. Oswald shot Tippit. It's a historical fact.
I take you braying donkeys to task
That's my contribution
Why don't you bleat "poor dumb cop", and "Dirty Harvey" a few hundred more times?
That'll be useful.
There you go again with your gaslighting routine(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/Off_Topic.gif) Can we cut the crap and get back on topic?
(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/Off_Topic.gif) Can we cut the crap and get back on topic?
All Chapman has is crap.
"Common sense" is what people appeal to when they don't have real evidence.
All Chapman has is crap.
LOL... Yet again with the gaslighting
If Oswald had gone to trial for the murder of J.D. Tippit, common sense matters.
So what we are left with are claims that are supported by evidence....... claims that are supported by
If Oswald had gone to trial for the murder of J.D. Tippit, common sense matters.
Regarding the evidence that exists and "evidence" that does not exist, juries are required to make reasonable inferences. A judge will advise a jury about what is and what is not reasonable. Common sense must prevail in respect to the evidence (which is overwhelming in the case of Tippit).
The US Law Dictionary defines 'common sense' as:
'Sound practical judgment; that degree of intelligence and reason, as exercised upon the relations of persons and things and the ordinary affairs of life, which is possessed by the generality of mankind, and which would suffice to direct the conduct and actions of the individual in a manner to agree with the behavior of ordinary persons.'
..... claims that are supported byevidenceconjecture.
LNers appeal to common sense since they have NO supporting evidence.
No supporting evidence? Read the thread.Yes...read the thread. Especially when Gary Craig sets about refuting all the claims in the first post...which is merely a verbatim recital of the Warren Report's fallacious conclusions imprinted in the 'mind' of a stuck in the mud staunch defender of this absolutely irrevocable fable....and for his effort Gary is called an idiot by this same uh ...individual.
Your favorite reply it seems. The best you can do?
Helen Markham had 8 months to prepare for her 'testimony' [or they had 8 months to prep her however you want to look at it] and it was still just demented babble.
They had to haul her back into the courthouse and tell her that she talked to Mark Lane and she denied even hearing of Mark Lane.
They had to tell her that she she saw Oswald shoot the cop...That is not 100% positive identification..that was 100% arm twisting.
So for no reason the gunman panicked and gunned down a cop...but then after that, he was real calm...but then for some reason, he panicked again and [supposedly] ran away to a movie theater.
Re: Lee Oswald The Cop KillerI stand corrected. Mrs Markham was given 4 months to prepare for her incoherent jabbering.
? Reply #775 on: December 25, 2018, 09:34:23 quote Bill Brown.."The portion of the testimony which you are referring to (where she should have time to "prepare" but got confused about her identification of Oswald) was given FOUR months after the assassination, not eight."
I stand corrected. Mrs Markham was given 4 months to prepare for her incoherent jabbering.
One blog claims that Mark Lane had called Markham and "badgered" her about the description of the killer. One can listen as Lane had been quite amiable when calling her and she had every opportunity to say "Look Mr Lane..it was Oswald. Oswald was the guy" See for yourself---
Did you hear the part where Lane told her that he was from "the police department of the city hall"? I didn't either, but Markham sure did!
Markham was telling them that someone who said they were from "City Hall" had called her and told her to keep her mouth shut or she'd find herself in the cross bar hotel.
She had been told at the police station that she was not to talk to reporters...But she did, and when Henry Wade read it he gave her a call....
Anyway, I figure that Michaelis knows what's what regarding this issue more than you or I could.
You can figure that as much as you like but as Michaelis wasn't even working for Seaport (he was a manager for Merchanteers Inc who supervised Seaport Trading) when the order was processed, I wouldn't be so sure about his level of intimate knowledge of their procedures as you want to be. In any event, your comment is nothing more than a weak and flawed "because he said so" appeal to authority.
inform the shipper that REA had received the COD money and forwarded it to the shipperI already said it: "...Seaport Trader's probably did enough business with REA that they had an active account. I'm willing to bet that the draft was simply credited to ST's REA account, and whatever money was paid to REA was the balance of the account after it had been settled for the week/fortnight/month."
And how do you think they forwarded the money? Did they send somebody from Dallas to California with the cash perhaps?
Seaport Traders' possession of the completed document is demonstration that the item had indeed been paid for by the consignee.No. I claimed that the "Brief of information for COD Shipment," (Michaelis Ex 5/DL-30) was returned. Michaelis Ex. 2/DL-28 and Ex. 3/DL-27 are the copies of the invoice that Seaport Traders kept for reference.
Really? So, you claim that somehow the invoice was returned to Seaport in addition to the COD money?
So, you get you "knowledge" from an on line dictionary? Wow! By it self what the dictionary says is true, but the problem here is that there is no witness who could identify the revolver by an easily identifiable feature like the serial number, because nobody really saw the revolver up close until Hill produced it at the police station. So, what you would be left with is the identification by initials inscribed in the item by the officer who collected it. This of course is again a massive problem because, until Hill produced the revolver at the lunchroom of the police station some two hours after Oswald was arrested, nobody had placed any initials on it. And, if memory serves, some of the initials on the revolver are from officers who actually never handled the revolver at all.I've been getting my information from people who've dealt with these sorts of issues, one of whom pointed me to the SCSC decision I put up in another post. The links I've posted are there as a reference, so you don't just have to take my work for it. By contrast, you've yet to offer us anything other than your own unsupported assertions.
This kinda brings you back to square one; a chain of custody exists to prevent and/or eliminate, as much as possible, the possibility of tampering with the evidence. Due to the two hour gap between Oswald's arrest and the initialing of the revolver at the police station's lunchroom nobody has any way of knowing if the revolver Hill produced was indeed the same one as the one taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater.On the other side of the thread fork, I think I'm now getting you to understanding that the evidence rules for something like the revolver aren't as rigorous as you'd previously thought. From what I've been told, in court it would really just be the prosecutor asking Hill, Carroll, and McDonald if they could identify the weapon, and once they did, it would be admitted. Further, I'm informed that attempting to attack the chain of custody on an item considered non-fungible at this point isn't considered a good strategy: "It raises this big flag to the judge, prosecution, and jury, that says 'DESPERATION MOVE.'" Of, course, a desperate defense attorney may have no better choice. So far as criminal law is concerned, without positive evidence that a non-fungible item was altered, replaced, or misplaced, there is no good reason in attempting the argument. And the normal standard of guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt," not "to an epistemological certainty."
You destroy your own argument as a revolver is in fact a piece of fungible evidence as it can be substituted!
Your quotes are ok. They just work against you.
So far so good. It would be fair to conclude that what Hill received was in fact the revolver taken from Oswald
But then, this happened;
Which is exactly where the problem lies; None of the officers who initialed the revolver Hill gave them had any way of knowing that this was in fact the revolver taken from Oswald. All they knew is that Hill told them it was, but even Hill had no evidence for that!
I have already explained how wrong you are. I can't explain it any better, but I'll give it one more try by asking you a simple question;
We agree that Hill took possession of the revolver taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater. And we also agree that the DPD officers initialled the revolver now in evidence some two hours later in the DPD lunchroom after Hill showed the weapon to them.
So, here is the question; How do we know with any kind of certainty that the revolver initialed by the DPD officers is in fact the same revolver as the one taken from Oswald some two hours earlier?
And, when you answer bare in mind that a chain of custody authentication of evidence just about always comes up when the word of a law enforcement officer about that evidence is questioned or challenged.
So, please try to answer the question with something else than "because Hill told us so"! Can you do that?
That being said, the problem is that you have yet to show that there is a bad light on the investigation here.
Classic LN reversed burden of proof BS. The claim is that the revolver is authentic. That needs to be proven!
The best you can do is insinuate that Hill might have done something with the weapon taken from Oswald, but you have no evidence whatsoever to support the supposition.
I do not insinuate anything nor do I need evidence. The law says that evidence has to be authenticated in order to prevent tampering by law enforcement (which, and this might come as a shock to you, does indeed happen from time to time). One of the ways to do so is by producing a sound chain of custody!
Without such evidence, you instead try to assert some strict standard behavior regarding chain of possession, but a little digging appears to show that no such standard actually exist.
Actually what seems not to exist is an ability on your part to understand what is written.
Merchanteers operated J.G. Rose's mail-order operations, which operated under it's own name and also DBA Seaport Traders. Michaelis was the office manager for the whole shebang; if anyone knew how Seaport Traders' workflow and documentation operated, it was Michaelis.
I already said it: "...Seaport Trader's probably did enough business with REA that they had an active account. I'm willing to bet that the draft was simply credited to ST's REA account, and whatever money was paid to REA was the balance of the account after it had been settled for the week/fortnight/month."
No. I claimed that the "Brief of information for COD Shipment," (Michaelis Ex 5/DL-30) was returned. Michaelis Ex. 2/DL-28 and Ex. 3/DL-27 are the copies of the invoice that Seaport Traders kept for reference.
I've been getting my information from people who've dealt with these sorts of issues, one of whom pointed me to the SCSC decision I put up in another post. The links I've posted are there as a reference, so you don't just have to take my work for it. By contrast, you've yet to offer us anything other than your own unsupported assertions.
On the other side of the thread fork, I think I'm now getting you to understanding that the evidence rules for something like the revolver aren't as rigorous as you'd previously thought.
From what I've been told, in court it would really just be the prosecutor asking Hill, Carroll, and McDonald if they could identify the weapon, and once they did, it would be admitted.
Further, I'm informed that attempting to attack the chain of custody on an item considered non-fungible at this point isn't considered a good strategy: "It raises this big flag to the judge, prosecution, and jury, that says 'DESPERATION MOVE.'" Of, course, a desperate defense attorney may have no better choice.
So far as criminal law is concerned, without positive evidence that a non-fungible item was altered, replaced, or misplaced, there is no good reason in attempting the argument. And the normal standard of guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt," not "to an epistemological certainty."
That being said, I continue to be mystified by your repeated reference to some lunchroom meeting. Going back through the record, there is no reference to a meeting in a lunchroom, or to Hill going off by himself with the pistol, as you've based your argument on.
What the record presents: MacDonald testified that he grabbed the pistol from Oswald. Carroll testified that he seized the weapon from McDonald's hand during the scuffle, which McDonald's testimony corroborates. Hill and Carroll testified that Carroll gave Hill the pistol. The short rest of the story is that Hill, Carroll, Lyons, and Bentley proceeded to the personnel office to write out reports on the arrest, where they were later joined by Hawkins and McDonald. Hill, Carroll, and Hawkins testified either that they initialed the gun in the personnel office and/or saw someone else do it.
What the record does not present: anything involving a lunchroom, or that the gun was marked in a lunchroom, or that Hill somehow slipped away from everyone at any point between his being given the weapon and the point at which the pistol was marked.
I really have no idea where you got the "lunchroom" from. Hill said they went "across the hall for a cup of coffee" at some point after finishing the arrest reports (this was probably to the dispatch office, given the floor plan) but neither Hill nor anyone else mentioned a lunchroom. In fact, there was no a lunchroom on the 3rd floor. So how did the lunchroom enter the conversation? And where did the idea that Hill disappeared with the pistol come from? If you look at the testimony, Carroll was with Hill from inside the Texas Theatre through the marking of the revolver. Carroll then is in the presence of the gun the entire time, so he would know it was the same weapon that he seized in the theater, pretty much voiding the argument you keep trying to make.
Show me a manager and I'll show you the person who most likely has the least clue about what goes on on the shop floor.
Nobody argues with any of that. It only establishes that Hill had the revolver when they got into the car at the Texas Theater.
Michaelis wasn?t even in that position when this sale allegedly took place.
I take issue with Mitch?s claim that McDonald?s testimony corroborates Carroll. McDonald didn?t know who grabbed the gun from him.
Yes...read the thread. Especially when Gary Craig sets about refuting all the claims in the first post...which is merely a verbatim recital of the Warren Report's fallacious conclusions imprinted in the 'mind' of a stuck in the mud staunch defender of this absolutely irrevocable fable....and for his effort Gary is called an idiot by this same uh ...individual.
BFD. Carroll did.
Back in the day, I didn't know who passed the puck to me on a goal I scored one day. It was in the middle of a melee near the net. Well the guy who passed it did. The referee confirmed it.
But nothing will ever be confirmed in your universe. You'd call that referee a liar.
Did you hear the part where Lane told her that he was from "the police department of the city hall"? I didn't either, but Markham sure did!
I didn't know who passed the puck to me on a goal I scored one day.
This explains a lot..... it answers many questions about your mental problem.... You've had your little brain rattled a few too many times....
BFD. Carroll did.
Back in the day, I didn't know who passed the puck to me on a goal I scored one day. It was in the middle of a melee near the net. Well the guy who passed it did. The referee confirmed it.
But nothing will ever be confirmed in your universe. You'd call that referee a liar.
Still waiting for your killer and conspiracy to show up
Guessing doesn't count
Apparently guessing does count when you do it.
Waiting for your killer and conspiracy to show up
Tick-tock, tick-tock
Some people think it?s a big deal not to make false claims about the case. Pity that you don?t
>>> Lets see a specific example. Some people have to be on the scene at every turn; otherwise everything is faked, planted or altered.
If the puck was evidence in a murder case that relied on a solid chain of custody for its provenance, then maybe it would matter. What if a spectator threw the puck out on the ice and you scored off it?
>>> You missed my point (melee on ice/melee in TT).
Why? Because otherwise your guess automatically wins?
Actually you missed the point. That was a specific example. Mitch claimed, "Carroll testified that he seized the weapon from McDonald's hand during the scuffle, which McDonald's testimony corroborates."
McDonald testimony does not corroborate Carroll seizing a weapon from him. The claim is false.
My dad could beat up your dad
My dad could beat up your dad
I'm not automatically going to take your word on that.
He should talk to my dad
I'm truly sad to hear about your father, John. My condolences.
My dad v dad thing was actually what us kids used to chirp at each other. In a kind of nyah-nyah, schoolyard sense. In my dad's case it was true, as he was 6'5" with arms the size of Oak trees... a vertible Paul Bunyon.
My dad died in 1998. Had he never smoked, he might have lived a few years longer, or at least healthier.
So much for you actually paying attention to the posts your respond to.
No doubt, true. My dad has stage 5 kidney disease and is on dialysis.
Let me transfer my condolences for your father which I had inadvertently posted to Martin. You may not have yet seen them.
To wit:
I'm truly sad to hear about your father, John. My condolences.
My dad v dad thing was actually what us kids used to chirp at each other. In a kind of nyah-nyah, schoolyard sense. In my dad's case it was true, as he was 6'5" with arms the size of Oak trees... a veritable Paul Bunyon.
My dad died in 1998. Had he never smoked, he might have lived a few years longer, or at least healthier.
I appreciate your condolences, and return them for your loss. I also would like to see less schoolyard nyah-nyah responses.
It's the thought that counts
I don't see anyone else offering condolences
Ditto for your condolences
And it matters not to me what you want to see. You ain't Wyatt Earp, Tex.
P.S. Boo-hoo re nyah-nyah
:'(
I don't see anyone else offering condolences
And it matters not to me what you want to see.
Let me guess,... but it somehow does matter what you want to see, right?
All you do is guess
And that makes us different, how?
Why? Because otherwise your guess automatically wins?
You're the troll
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Nah, I'm a Hunter of Trolls
;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
LOL. Again with the argument from authority thing.
And you're the one with the oversized ego here, Lord Haughty.
Bill Chapman
Hunter of Trolls
The more you keep talking, the more you prove the point!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
argumentum ab auctoritate
Bill Chapman
Hunter of Trolls
argumentum ab auctoritate
Did you think that saying the same thing as before, but now in latin, makes it any less stupid and non-applicable as before?
Perhaps you care to show us all just how clever you are and explain to what authority I am supposed to be appealing?
Would French be easier to understand?
>argument d'autorit?
You are using/representing this 'psychological projection' thing as some sort of greater power (authority) in an attempt to win whatever argument you are trying to create here.
Bill Chapman
Hunter of Trolls
Would French be easier to understand?
>argument d'autorit?
So, you can use google.... Good for you! Thumb1:
You are using/representing this 'psychological projection' thing as some sort of greater power (authority) in an attempt to win whatever argument you are trying to create here.
As I thought; you're completely clueless. Perhaps you should try to find out what an appeal to authority actually is.
Not only is there no appeal to authority in making a simple statement of fact (i.e. that you are projecting) but there isn't an argument to be won either.
Facile ?videmment.. il vit dans le sous-sol de la maison de sa m?re.
So, you can use google.... Good for you! Thumb1:
>>> My love-life history numbers two French Canadian girlfriends (There's nothing like learning a language from the mouth of a woman) I studied French in school and it was one of my favourite subjects. I hitchhiked around France on 3 separate trips and my French came in really handy.
Any other dumbass remarks from you, Lord Haughty?
As I thought; you're completely clueless. Perhaps you should try to find out what an appeal to authority actually is. Not only is there no appeal to authority in making a simple statement of fact (i.e. that you are projecting) but there isn't an argument to be won either.
>>> What you call fact is nothing more than your opinion.
You egomaniacs simply can't stomach the fact that I think you conspiracy-freaks silly and worthy only of mockery.
Oops, did I bruise your ego?
What you call fact is nothing more than your opinion.
Of course it is my opinion that you are projecting. What it isn't, however, is an appeal to authority as you rather stupidly claimed.
And, in this case, since you have indeed been projecting, my opinion was and still is the right one. Sorry about that? try to live with it.
Actually, that's something I rather find hilarious about you!
Maybe it would be better not to upset you more, but the truth has to prevail?.I am not really interested at all by what you think.
OK sorry..my Mom's gone too. I didn't mention her but did mention her basement..you are still in the basement huh?
Oops, did I bruise your ego?
>>> Nyet. But you dodged the part about my French.
Of course it is my opinion that you are projecting.
>>> You just referred to it as a fact. Don't you remember what you write? First it was fact... then an opinion... then a fact. You wouldn't be some sort of Zen master bending with the willow would you?
What it isn't, however, is an appeal to authority as you rather stupidly claimed.
>>> You posted the wiki 'projection' article as if it was the be all/end all. Because wiki said it, it must be true, huh...
And, in this case, since you have indeed been projecting, my opinion was and still is the right one. Sorry about that? try to live with it
>>> You mean the right one for you
Maybe it would be better not to upset you more, but the truth has to prevail?.I am not really interested at all by what you think.
>>> Yet here you are. Again. Are you about to pull the ripcord once more, Martin?
but the truth has to prevail
>>> You mean your truth has to prevail
I'm sorry to hear about your mother
I left home at age 19
And you did mention my mother:
>"Facile ?videmment.. il vit dans le sous-sol de la maison de sa m?re"
> m?re is French for mother
Btw, what makes you think people on this forum are ever remotely interested in you grandstanding about your previous love life and what you may have picked up from that?
You implied that I needed to google a French phrase
I debunked that notion
Gaslight that
Getting back to the topic...Why oh why oh why do people repeat the Warren Report narrative month after month when it has long been demonstrated that it is just a load of crap?
Why oh why oh why do people repeat the Warren Report narrative month after month when it has long been demonstrated that it is just a load of crap?
Because we were suckers just like Lee Oswald.... We didn't want to believe that Out hero J. Edgar Hoover could possibly deceive us. it was a comfortable lie to start with.... and it allowed us to avoid a imagined threat of nuclear war. The lie has now so deeply entrenched that the legend has become the truth. Most Americans believe that Lee Harrrrvey Ossssswald murdered John Kennedy. That's the official US government approved tale.....
So, you can translate the French word for mother but your knowledge of the language is not good enough to understand that he was not talking about your mother but about the basement of her house?
Nonsense.
Using 'mother's basement' is an intended putdown, used to imply someone is a momma's boy, and will never leave home.
You did not debunk anything. All you did was tell us a story about your past that can not be verified.
For all I know, you did google it after all.
If you feel the compulsion to debunk it, post affidavits from your former French/Canadian girlfriends, your school records relating to your study of the language and proof for your travels through France. In other words; back up your claim with evidence! Or did you expect me to take your word for it?
Or perhaps you took the whole thing way too serious to begin with...
OMG
Are you projecting?
Another hollow reply from Lord Haughty
I debunked the both of you
You can't handle it
Keep dodging, coward
In 1869, in "The Crown of a Life" it was written by Isa Blagden:
If a lie is only printed often enough, it becomes a quasi-truth, and if such a truth is repeated often enough, it becomes an article of belief, a dogma, and men will die for it.
Or as Joseph Goebbels said: If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.
as Joseph Goebbels said: If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.
Are you sure that J. Edgar Hoover wasn't Goebbels brother?
No, not sure about that at all, but I wonder (as I can't recall) who said "the people will stand for whatever we tell them to stand for"...
Could have been Tallyrand or Churchill, but I can't remember. Perhaps it was Hoover after all?..
Or perhaps you took the whole thing way too serious to begin with...
You might want to read the wiki page about projecting to understand what it really means, because it seems you haven't got a clue.
Beyond that, it seems you are unable to back up your claims with evidence??google might be your best friend after all!
Is there some reason your mother has to be alive in order for you to live in her basement? Particularly when your dead dad can beat people up.
Martin?s right though, you don?t understand what a false appeal to authority fallacy is. Or gaslighting.
You've succeeded once again in ignoring my point
Try to review who said what and what my response was
Point out where I said I could prove anything regarding the assassination
You lot are the ones claiming your opinions as fact
I fully understand what projection means
I could apply the same charge to you lot.
To wit:
You claimed that you walked the route that Oswald walked and no way he could have done it
Yet you haven't haven't told us your age, height, weight or physical condition at the time of your test
You have not told us how briskly you walked. Were you walking at the pace of a guilty Oswald, or an innocent Oswald?
You haven't produced any numbers as to how long it actually took you
You haven't shown that you experimented by doing at least a reasonable amount of trotting
You lot suck your thumbs while wrapping yourselves in your 'all-evidence-is-faked-planted-or-altered' security blanket. A closed system that is ultimately treacherous
Watch out for Lucy.
Martin is using his projection citation as an authority. This is an argument from authority since just because a PhD makes a claim, it doesn't automatically follow that he knows what he's talking about. And even if dozens of PhDs come to the same conclusion, that also doesn't necessarily mean that they know what they're talking about either. There are plenty of tall foreheads in academe who have no idea how to apply their theories in the real world. AKA known as the 'ivory tower' syndrome.
Gaslighting
Gasighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, [attempting to] make them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief.[1][2]
Cite: wiki
Wrong as usual. The "point" you made wasn't worth responding to and what I wrote was adequate. I can't help it if you don't understand it.
This is actually kinda funny. You claim to understand what projection means and then you proceed to talk about something that has nothing to do with projection or me for that matter.
And again you offer proof that you are clueless about the appeal to authority. There is no PhD making any claim and I am not citing any claim by a PhD. All there is, is a wiki page which simply explains what projection is. That's what I offered you. Everything else is in your imagination. I (not some PhD) concluded, correctly, that you were projecting when you were attacking/blaming me for doing things you were actually doing yourself.
The appeal to authority fallacy is what you have frequently done in the past whenever you quoted Bugliosi's opinion as "proof" for something you were claiming.
You lot do nothing other than project yourselves onto others
Inluding witnesses
Point out where I 'projected myself'
C'mon, even just one
Point out where I ever claimed Bug's opinions as proof for something I was 'claiming'
In fact, point out where I ever claimed that could prove anything
PhDs were the authors of the wiki article. Probably influenced by Freud, Jung et al. Authorities.
I know full well what projection is, and maintain that you are claiming that I don't, in an attempt to mask the fact that you are appealing to authority.
All you do is guess
And that makes us different, how?
You're the troll
Gaslighting
Gasighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, [attempting to] make them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief.[1][2]
Cite: wiki
You lot are the ones claiming your opinions as fact
Is there some reason your mother has to be alive in order for you to live in her basement? Particularly when your dead dad can beat people up.
Martin?s right though, you don?t understand what a false appeal to authority fallacy is. Or gaslighting.
Give even a single example.
Start with these two brainiacs
Waldo
Freeman
Go ahead, ask them
You lot are the ones claiming your opinions as fact
Particularly when your dead dad can beat people up.
Creep. You can't disrespect my father like that.
My dad could beat up your dad
Just my opinion about these forums. While we all may not agree upon everything. And, some of us "insult each other", I do enjoy the interaction. I just wish those on both sides of the argument would respect each other. I have respect for everyone who posts. Hopefully you have the same opinion. Thanks.
What is there to disrespect. You brought it up;
If you are so touchy about your parents you shouldn't have brought them up.
Thumb1: Hey Crapman, Let's talk about the discovery of the carcano....
Bill Crapman wrote:.... Feel free to point out where any CT has ever identifified even a single piece of evidence as valid.
Here's just one piece of evidence that cannot be disputed as genuine....The Map of the sixth fllor that was drawn by Detective Robert Studebaker... Studebaker measured the distance from the N. wall to the spot where the carcano was discovered laying on the floor beneath a wooden pallet that had boxes of books stacked on it. Studebaker's tape measure indicated the spot was 5 feet from the window in the east wall and 15 feet 4 inches from the North wall.
The rifle was 8 feet south of the top of the stairs.... Not three feet. This one FACT destroys the imaginary theory concocted by the DPD and the FBI.
The last seven pages of this thread should be deleted.I have already deleted all my posts that only poked at Chapman and no one else [family etc.]
I have already deleted all my posts that only poked at Chapman and no one else [family etc.]
The original topic was destroyed a long time ago. It was impossible for Oswald to have killed the policeman. Accept it.
Have you lost yourmindvoice, Mr Crapman? Or perhaps it's a lack of guts.......
I have already deleted all my posts that only poked at Chapman and no one else [family etc.]
>>> Then you admit that you used the term 'mother's basement' in the urban meaning of the word
Time for your nap, Waldo.
And so it continues?.
... lo these 56 years... and the prime suspect yet reigns on his electrified throne
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/square%20cut.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/square%20cut.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Py0aCWl.png)
Square or tapered off?
Nice try, Tim, sneaky, but no cigar. Just look at the photo above showing the rear of Oswald in the DPD. It's amazing what the LNs will do to try to further their case. Shame.
Says the guy who can give no justification for his silly ?prime suspect? label.
I don't know which argument is more lame...
Claiming that the jacket could not have been Oswald's because it was a size Medium and Oswald wore a size Small.
Or...
Claiming that Tippit's killer could not have been Oswald because Benavides said the killer's hairline was squared instead of tapered, even though the killer was wearing a jacket with a collar.
(https://i.imgur.com/XS5Mbkx.jpg)
I've opined that buying a larger size jacket would give the little twerp a larger appearance... like in the wild where animals will make themselves appear as big as possible when facing a foe. Or looking to get a little somethin'-somethin' ;)
I don't know which argument is more lame...
Claiming that the jacket could not have been Oswald's because it was a size Medium and Oswald wore a size Small.
Or...
Claiming that Tippit's killer could not have been Oswald because Benavides said the killer's hairline was squared instead of tapered, even though the killer was wearing a jacket with a collar.
I've opined that buying a larger size jacket would give the little twerp a larger appearance... like in the wild where animals will make themselves appear as big as possible when facing a foe. Or looking to get a little somethin'-somethin' ;)
Not any more ridiculous than the other stuff that passes for "evidence" in this case...
Good bulky-sleeved, oversized jacket to swallow up the package to a point where only a 9" X 1" slice of the bag remains visible to Buell as he lollygagged behind Dirty Harvey at an ever-increasing separation.
Uh...Chapman....when does the narrative say that he put on the gray jacket?
Buell
The lamest argument is that the white jacket supposedly found in the gas station parking lot was Oswald's gray jacket because Marina said a gray jacket was his old shirt.
Well said, Dale.
The last seven pages of this thread should be deleted.
I don't know which argument is more lame...
Claiming that the jacket could not have been Oswald's because it was a size Medium and Oswald wore a size Small.
Or...
Claiming that Tippit's killer could not have been Oswald because Benavides said the killer's hairline was squared instead of tapered, even though the killer was wearing a jacket with a collar.
(https://i.imgur.com/XS5Mbkx.jpg)
Using the DPD image, the jacket collar could easily have blocked out the taper leaving the thinner sides in view, giving a squared-off appearance.
I've opined that buying a larger size jacket would give the little twerp a larger appearance... like in the wild where animals will make themselves appear as big as possible when facing a foe. Or looking to get a little somethin'-somethin' ;)
Straw man.
This is just a distraction as the *official evidence* shows that a WHITE jacket was found. LHO did not own a white jacket.
Your star witness, Helen Markham, said that the shooter had "bushy hair" and LHO did not have bushy hair.
Post those images
(https://i.imgur.com/Py0aCWl.png)
Square or tapered off?
There's that lame argument again. I bet next we get to hear about how the jacket couldn't have been Oswald's because it was a size Medium and Oswald wore size Small.
Domingo Benavides was a far more lucid and rational witness than Markham...As a side note I have always wondered about this line of questions....
Mr. BELIN - What did you do in the Navy?But that didn't last very long....
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yeoman and seaman.
Mr. BELIN - How long were you in the Navy?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Three years.
Mr. BELIN - Honorable discharge?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No, sir.
Mr. BELIN - You did not have an honorable discharge?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No, sir.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do when you got out of the Navy?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I returned to work for Merchants Delivery.
No, I think next we will hear the lame argument that it must have been Oswald's jacket because fibers were found in it that may or may not have come from the shirt Oswald was arrested in.The alleged jacket in possession of the Archives [is it not?] has probably been completely sanitized and devoid of any DNA evidence [or maybe not? :-\]
There's that lame argument again. I bet next we get to hear about how the jacket couldn't have been Oswald's because it was a size Medium and Oswald wore size Small.
I bet next we get to hear the lame argument that the laundry marks were in the jacket from a previous owner and Oswald must have got it from a thrift store.
The alleged jacket in possession of the Archives [is it not?] has probably been completely sanitized and devoid of any DNA evidence [or maybe not? :-\]
I bet next we get to hear the lame argument that the laundry marks were in the jacket from a previous owner and Oswald must have got it from a thrift store.
Domingo Benavides said he got a very good look at Tippit's killer from about 15 feet away.
He was very specific.
He didn't describe a collar creating the hairline on the back of the suspects head.
The jacket created hairline is nothing more than a LNer invention to counter exculpatory eyewitness evidence.
Testimony Of Domingo Benavides
Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.
~snip~
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
~snip~
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
~snip~
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3.jpg)
What did Benavides say when viewing the line-up? ;D
As a side note I have always wondered about this line of questions.... But that didn't last very long....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/benavide.htm
Why would that be a lame argument?
Why do you support cop-killers? I'm curious.
Why is that a lame argument? I say it's a damn good one. It's the most reasonable one.
What did Benavides say when viewing the line-up? ;D
Nice rhetoric. Why don?t you support justice? I?m curious.
Benavides wasn?t invited to a lineup, because he didn?t have the right answer.
I do support justice. Kudos to Jack Ruby.
Because it?s completely contrived. It pre-assumes that the jacket is Oswald?s, and since the laundry marks can?t be accounted for with Oswald then a ?previous? owner must be responsible.
Nice rhetoric. Why don?t you support justice? I?m curious.
This is flat out wrong.
Benavides was most definitely asked if he wanted to attend a lineup. He declined because he felt that he did not get a good enough look at the killer.
"He declined because he felt that he did not get a good enough look at the killer."
That's not what he told Mr. Belin during his WC testimony/interview.
Testimony Of Domingo Benavides
Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.
~snip~
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
Where does he say he saw his face
Helen Markham was on foot, walking south along Patton toward her bus stop, which
was on Jefferson Boulevard. Markham was just reaching the northwest corner of
Tenth and Patton when she noticed Tippit's patrol car pass through the
intersection, heading east along Tenth Street. Markham testified that the
patrol car pulled up to a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south side
of Tenth Street. Helen Markham positively identified Lee Oswald as the man she
saw talking to, and shoot, J.D. Tippit. She testified that she saw Oswald run
from the scene, heading down Patton with a gun in his hand.
William Scoggins was sitting in his cab at the southeast corner of Tenth and
Patton. Scoggins saw Tippit's patrol car pass slowly in front of his cab,
driving west to east along Tenth Street (Scoggins' cab was sitting on Patton,
facing north towards Tenth street). Scoggins noticed that the patrol car pulled
up alongside a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south side of Tenth
Street. William Scoggins positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw
running towards his cab seconds after hearing gun shots. Scoggins got out of
his cab with thoughts of running from the scene as Oswald headed straight
towards him after the shots rang out. After realizing he had nowhere to hide,
Scoggins returned to his cab and ducked down behind it as he watched Oswald turn
the corner and head down Patton towards Jefferson. Scoggins testified that
Oswald had a gun in his hand.
Barbara Davis was lying in bed inside her residence, which was the house at the
corner of Tenth and Patton. She heard gunshots outside and went to the front
door, which faced Tenth Street. She opened the screen door and noticed Helen
Markham across the street, screaming. Davis then noticed a man cutting through
her front yard, holding a gun in his hands. She testified that the man had the
gun cocked in his hands as if he were emptying it. Barbara Davis positively
identified Lee Oswald as the man who she saw cut across her yard with a gun in
his hands.
Virginia Davis was in the living room of Barbara Davis' residence (400 E. Tenth
St.) when she heard gunshots outside. Virginia Davis went to the front door
and, like Barbara, noticed Helen Markham across the street, screaming. Davis
then noticed a man cutting across the front yard with a gun in his hands. She
testified that the man was emptying shells out of the gun. Virginia Davis
positively identified Lee Oswald as the man who she saw cut across the front
yard with a gun in his hands.
Ted Callaway was standing out on the front porch of the used-car lot office,
where he worked. Callaway testified that he heard five pistol shots. Callaway
testified that he believed the shots came from the vicinity of Tenth Street,
which was behind the office he worked in. He went out to the sidewalk on the
east side of Patton and noticed Scoggin's cab parked up near the corner of
Patton at Tenth. As Callaway watched the cab driver (Scoggins) hide beside his
cab, he noticed a man running across Patton from the east side of Patton to the
west side. Callaway watched the man run down Patton towards Jefferson. Ted
Callaway positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw run down Patton with
a gun in his hands.
Sam Guinyard worked at the same used-car lot as Ted Callaway. Guinyard was out
on the lot washing one of the cars when he heard gunshots come from the
direction up toward Tenth Street. From the car lot, Guinyard was looking north
toward Tenth in an attempt to see where the shots came from when he saw a man on
the sidewalk in between the first two houses on Tenth Street (400 E. Tenth and
404 E. Tenth). Guinyard went toward the sidewalk on the east side of Patton and
saw the man cut across the yard of the house on the corner (400 E. Tenth, the
Davis residence) and proceeded to run south on Patton. Guinyard said the man
had a gun in his hands and was emptying it of shells. Sam Guinyard positively
identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw running with the gun in his hands.
Each of the above witnesses saw a man flee the vicinity of the Tippit murder. Each of the above witnesses saw a gun in the man's hands. Every single one of the above witnesses positively identified Lee Oswald as that man.
These are the real witnesses and not even one of them said that someone other than Lee Oswald was the man they saw.
As for the revolver, Jim Leavelle briefly spoke with Oswald when Oswald was brought in from the theater. Leavelle told Oswald that they could run ballistic tests on the revolver and match the revolver to the bullets taken from the officer's body, proving that the revolver taken from Oswald was the revolver responsible for the officer's death. Oswald did not deny owning the revolver. According to Leavelle, Oswald's only reply was "Well, you're just going to have to do it."
Oswald ordered the revolver under the name of A.J. Hidell on 1/27/63 from Seaport Traders, Inc. Treasury Department handwriting expert Alwyn Cole testified that the handwriting on the order coupon belonged to Lee Oswald. The FBI's handwriting expert James Cadigan also testified that the handwriting on the coupon was Oswald's.
On the order, there was the name of a D.F. Drittal, written in the section where a witness states that the person buying the weapon (Hidell) was a U.S. citizen and was not a felon. The handwriting experts, Cole and Cadigan, both testified that the name D.F. Drittal was also written in Oswald's hands.
The revolver was shipped to a post office box in Dallas rented by Lee Oswald. Cole testified that the signature and the handwriting on the post office box application belonged to Oswald.
Postal Inspector Harry Holmes testified that Oswald had previously rented a post office box in New Orleans, during the summer of 1963. Oswald's New Orleans application and his Dallas application were found. Unlike the Dallas post office box application, the New Orleans post office box application still had the portion which listed others who were able to receive mail at that post office box. In the New Orleans application, Oswald included the names of both Marina Oswald and A.J. Hidell as those able to receive mail in that box.
Holmes spoke with Oswald on Sunday morning, the 24th. Holmes asked Oswald about the Dallas post office box. Oswald stated that he was the only one who received mail at that box and that he didn't receive any mail there that was addressed to any name other than his true name. Holmes then asked Oswald about the box that Oswald rented in New Orleans earlier that year. Oswald again stated that he was the only one permitted to receive mail at that p.o. box. Holmes reminded Oswald that he (Oswald) had listed Marina Oswald as a person eligible to receive mail in that box. Oswald's reply was basically "Well so what? She was my wife and I see nothing wrong with that." Holmes then reminded Oswald that one "A.J. Hidell" was also listed in the section on the application listing others eligible to receive mail in that post office box. Holmes said that Oswald replied "I don't recall anything about that".
Oswald was caught in a lie. The handwriting which permitted A.J. Hidell to receive mail at the New Orleans post office box belonged to Lee Oswald (per experts Cole and Cadigan).
Ballistic testing can determine whether or not an empty shell casing was fired from a specific weapon to the exclusion of every other weapon in the entire world. Before shooting, the shell casing is placed against the breech face and the firing pin. When the pin strikes the primer, the bullet is fired off and the shell casing is thrust against the breech face of the weapon. This causes a permanent mark on the base of the empty shell, i.e. the distinctive fine lines etched onto the breech face put their "fingerprint" on the base of the empty shell.
Joseph Nicol (Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State of Illinois) along with Cortlandt Cunningham, Robert Frazier and Charles Killion (of the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory in Washington D.C.) each examined the shells found at the Tippit scene and Oswald's revolver, which he ordered from Seaport Traders, Inc. Each of these experts determined that the shells were linked (through ballistics) to Oswald's revolver, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world.
What about this important witness.
Why would that be a lame argument?
Why do you support cop-killers? I'm curious.
Mark Lane. That's 'what about'What Mrs. Clemons saw
I do support justice. Kudos to Jack Ruby.
Mark Lane. That's 'what about'
He knew far more about the evidence than you do, but so does a pre-schooler.
Mark Lane, coach of slow, gullible witnesses
This is flat out wrong.
Benavides was most definitely asked if he wanted to attend a lineup. He declined because he felt that he did not get a good enough look at the killer.
So PreviousMan had cause to throw away a perfectly good jacket. Under a car. Near the Tippit murder scene.
And no, CherryPickingMan, that doesn't mean he killed somebody; it only means that this AnyBodyButOswald was seen wearing a jacket at the Tippit scene, and without same in the TT.
You?ll recall that according to Mark Lane, Acquilla Clemons watched Tippit drive up upon two men conversing across the street from each other.
He knew far more about the evidence than you do, but so does a pre-schooler.
?Near?. LOL.
>>> One block LOL
What makes you think it was the same guy?
>>> See below
At this point, he was unaware that a police officer had been shot and thought perhaps that the shooting had resulted from some marital problem. As the individual reached Ballew's Texaco Service Station located in the 600 Block of Jefferson, the individual made a turn in a northerly direction and proceeded behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station where the individual discarded a jacket which was later recovered by the Dallas Police Department. The aforementioned individual was not observed again by either he, PATTERSON, or WARREN REYNOLDS.
Mark Lane LOL
He was 15 feet away from Tippit's killer and said he got a really, really good view of the man.
Why the heck wouldn't they use him in a line up.
The only reason that makes sense is he wouldn't have identified LHO as the person he saw.
The description he gives of the shooter in his WC testimony exculpates Ozzie.
I think you better check a map LOL
What does that have to do with the guy in the theater being the same guy? Just because Patterson was shown a photograph?
Or was he?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/patters1.htm (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/patters1.htm)
?In regard to the last paragraph of this report, I do not at this late date specifically recall having been exhibited a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald, at the time of the interview of January 22, 1964, and desire that this paragraph be deleted as an official reporting of that interview.?
...and yes, I know they somehow got his memory to improve a couple of weeks later.
???
Wait, are they claiming that Patterson actually saw someone discarding a jacket?
Nonsense.
Leavelle called Ted Callaway and asked him to come to city hall to view a lineup. Leavelle asked Callaway to bring Guinyard and Benavides with him. Guinyard went with Callaway but Benavides did not. In 1996, Callaway told Dale Myers that the reason Benavides did not go with them to view a lineup was because Benavides felt that he did not really get a good look at the killer.
Callaway said he and Benavides were talking about it...
Callaway: "Well, you saw the son-of-a-As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.', didn't you?"
Benavides: "Hell no, I didn't see him. When I heard that shooting, I fell down into the floorboard of my truck and I stayed there. It scared me to death."
Callaway went on to tell Myers, regarding the 1967 CBS special "The Warren Report" (which interviewed the Tippit witnesses on film)...
"He (Benavides) put together a pretty good story and he made the people (CBS) believe he was there and saw everything. This is a guy that used to come by my lot every day. In fact, he's been to my home. But he told me "I ain't gonna go down there and tell them my story unless they give me something".
Callaway claimed that Benavides ended up with a new Pontiac Firebird, half of which was paid for by CBS.
Mark Lane LOL
Lee Harvey Occam-Oswald
(KeepItSimpleSherlock)
>Oswald was wearing a jacket at the Tippit scene
>Oswald wasn't wearing a jacket at the TT
> Agreed?
:D
No, I don't agree that "Oswald was wearing a jacket at the Tippit scene".
Why am I not surprised
You don't agree that Oswald was even there
Exactly. Unfair biased lineups are unreliable.
??? Are you suggesting he dress as the killer?
Huh?
Put on a jacket
Huh?
Huh? Did you just have a series of strokes?
> Earlene Roberts told the FBI that she remembered Oswald putting on a jacket and zipping it up as he went out the front door, adding that it was the type of jacket that zips up in the front.
> Helen Markham testified to the Warren Commission that the cop-killer (who she positively identified as Lee Oswald) had on a short jacket that was open in the front and was grayish-tan in color.
> Domingo Benavides testified to the Warren Commission that the killer was wearing a light-beige jacket, and that the jacket was lightweight.
> William Scoggins testified that the man (who he positively identified as Lee Oswald) was wearing a jacket.
> Virginia Davis testified that the man (who she positively identified as Lee Oswald) had on a light-brown-tan jacket
> Ted Callaway saw a man (who he positively identified as Lee Oswald) had on a jacket which looked like CE-162 (the jacket found on the ground under a car at the Texaco lot)
> Sam Guinyard saw the man (who he positively identified as Lee Oswald) wearing a light-gray-looking jacket as he ran from the scene.
Huh? Did you just have a series of strokes?
[plagiarized Bill Brown authored text redacted]
Huh? Did you just have a series of strokes?
> Earlene Roberts told the FBI that she remembered Oswald putting on a jacket and zipping it up as he went out the front door, adding that it was the type of jacket that zips up in the front.
> Helen Markham testified to the Warren Commission that the cop-killer (who she positively identified as Lee Oswald) had on a short jacket that was open in the front and was grayish-tan in color.
> Domingo Benavides testified to the Warren Commission that the killer was wearing a light-beige jacket, and that the jacket was lightweight.
> William Scoggins testified that the man (who he positively identified as Lee Oswald) was wearing a jacket.
> Virginia Davis testified that the man (who she positively identified as Lee Oswald) had on a light-brown-tan jacket
> Ted Callaway saw a man (who he positively identified as Lee Oswald) had on a jacket which looked like CE-162 (the jacket found on the ground under a car at the Texaco lot)
> Sam Guinyard saw the man (who he positively identified as Lee Oswald) wearing a light-gray-looking jacket as he ran from the scene.
> Helen Markham testified to the Warren Commission that the cop-killer (who she positively identified as Lee Oswald) had on a short jacket that was open in the front and was grayish-tan in color.
Helen Markham said that Tippit's killer was wearing a WHITE shirt beneath the jacket.... What color was Lee Oswald's shirt?
Mr. BELIN. Had you seen any pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald in the newspapers prior to the time you went to the police station lineup?That should have tainted any ID in a line-up right there.
Mr. SCOGGINS. I think I saw one in the morning paper.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what color his trousers were?Ms Davis only had a glance at the suspect.
Mrs. DAVIS. I think they were black. Brown jacket and trousers.
Mr. BELIN. Was the jacket open or closed up?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was open.
Mr. BELIN. Later did you ever see a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald on television?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. You mean Sunday when he got shot?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did this look, could you tell whether this was the same man you saw running with the gun?
Mrs. DAVIS. I wouldn't say for sure.
Mr. GUINYARD. With his right hand; just kicking them out.I wonder how you can unload a pistol..operating the ejector without using the other hand? (https://bibleforums.org/images/smilies/redface.gif)
Mr. BALL. He had it up?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; he had it up just like this.
Mr. BALL. How was he kicking them out?
Mr. GUINYARD. He was rolling them with his hand--with his thumb.
Mr. BALL. Rolling them with his thumb?
Mr. GUINYARD. Checking them--he had the pistol up just like this [indicating].
Mr. BALL. Did he use his left hand any?
Mr. GUINYARD. No; I never did see him use his left hand.
Mr. BALL. He didn't?
Mr. GUINYARD. No, sir.
Lee Oswald was wearing a white shirt.
Did Markham have x-ray vision?
I give up, did she?
I don't mind if you copy and paste my words, but you should give proper credit when doing so.
Apparently you think so. Unless it?s your contention that Oswald had his shirt open and no jacket on when Markham allegedly saw him.
Apparently you think so. Unless it?s your contention that Oswald had his shirt open and no jacket on when Markham allegedly saw him.
> Helen Markham testified to the Warren Commission that the cop-killer (who she positively identified as Lee Oswald) had on a short jacket that was open in the front and was grayish-tan in color.
Helen Markham said that Tippit's killer was wearing a WHITE shirt beneath the jacket.... What color was Lee Oswald's shirt?
Apparently you think so. Unless it?s your contention that Oswald had his shirt open and no jacket on when Markham allegedly saw him.
Okay, sorry. I thought to PM you; but after trimming down your post aimed at the jacket presence I thought it alright
No but you made a series of nonsensical posts.
So your argument is that because some people saw a jacket that was either gray, or, tan, or brown, or, beige, or dark, or woolen, that the white jacket found in the Texaco parking lot must be a gray jacket owned by Oswald?
Or are you suggest that the wearing of a jacket was so unusual in Dallas in November that all of these reports must necessarily refer to the same man with the same jacket?
If not, then what are you suggesting?
'plagiarism' > the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.
Bill's original post re the jacket
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,124.msg1725.html#msg1725
Point out where I passed off anything as my own. Yeah, sure... I'm passing of witness testimony as my own LOL
One can imagine Oswald opening the long-sleeved shirt as well, given his quick walking/jogging/trotting/running tour of the Tippit scene and environs.
Point out where I passed off anything as my own. Yeah, sure... I'm passing of witness testimony as my own LOL
That should have tainted any ID in a line-up right there.Ms Davis only had a glance at the suspect.I wonder how you can unload a pistol..operating the ejector without using the other hand? (https://bibleforums.org/images/smilies/redface.gif)
That information was supplied in my post (edited from a BillB post) here. Guess you missed that.
The jacket was open. The tshirt was white.
One can imagine Oswald opening the long-sleeved shirt as well, given his quick walking/jogging/trotting/running tour of the Tippit scene and environs.
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had a jacket on when he done it.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a grayish tan.
So it's impossible that the jacket was unzipped (or only zipped at the bottom) and the dark shirt was unbuttoned... fully exposing the white undershirt?
Markham wasn't referring to the man's T shirt....She said that his SHIRT was white......
People too often call a tshirt a 'shirt', even today.
Oswald was arrested in a white Tshirt under a brown long-sleeved shirt.
?One can imagine?. LOL. Whatever it takes...
And then he buttoned it all back up on his quick walking/jogging/trotting/running tour to the Texas Theater?
Where did I say anything about the TT. Try rooming-house-to-killing-field.
Lee Harvey Occam-Oswald
(KeepItSimpleSherlock)
>Oswald was wearing a jacket at the Tippit scene
>Oswald wasn't wearing a jacket at the TT
> Agreed?
..and eagle-eye Helen somehow missed the brown long-sleeved shirt?
Hidden by an open, white/gray/in-shadow/not-in-shadow/partially-in-shadow/sets-of-eyeballs-with-differing-colour-perception-than- other-sets-of-eyeballs-(you-can-look-it-up-but-you-won't) jacket
I'm really worried about you, Bill. Perhaps you should see a doctor.
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/apple/198/white-down-pointing-backhand-index_1f447.png)
Well if that isn't a solid ID for the jacket allegedly found in the Texaco parking lot, I don't know what is.
The Dallas PD solved two murders in 70 minutes with no evidence but couldn't figure out who picked up a jacket from underneath a car...
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a grayish tan. (http://yoursmiles.org/csmile/preved/c0144.gif) (http://yoursmiles.org/c-preved.php)
That information was supplied in my post (edited from a BillB post) here. Guess you missed that.
The jacket was open. The tshirt was white.
One can imagine Oswald opening the long-sleeved shirt as well, given his quick walking/jogging/trotting/running tour of the Tippit scene and environs.
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had a jacket on when he done it.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a grayish tan.
So it's impossible that the jacket was unzipped (or only zipped at the bottom) and the dark shirt was unbuttoned... fully exposing the white undershirt?
The DPD had plenty of help from Oswald himself.
Aside from that, I claim a clear TKO here, since you've taken a knee and rather sheepishly departed the Tippit scene for a parking lot, all of which, in effect, has you throwing yourself under the bus.
You should be more worried about yourself: You go back to a two-day-old post that has nothing to do with my point made regarding Oswald's rooming house >>> Tippit scene
How many suppositions do you get in order to try and make your point?
Does CE 162 have tan in it? Yes or no will suffice.
Postal Inspector Harry Holmes testified that Oswald had previously rented a post office box in New Orleans, during the summer of 1963. Oswald's New Orleans application and his Dallas application were found. Unlike the Dallas post office box application, the New Orleans post office box application still had the portion which listed others who were able to receive mail at that post office box.
Holmes then asked Oswald about the box that Oswald rented in New Orleans earlier that year. Oswald again stated that he was the only one permitted to receive mail at that p.o. box. Holmes reminded Oswald that he (Oswald) had listed Marina Oswald as a person eligible to receive mail in that box. Oswald's reply was basically "Well so what? She was my wife and I see nothing wrong with that." Holmes then reminded Oswald that one "A.J. Hidell" was also listed in the section on the application listing others eligible to receive mail in that post office box. Holmes said that Oswald replied "I don't recall anything about that".
Oswald was caught in a lie.
How does "I don't recall" equate to a lie? He had had two other PO boxes since then that didn't list Hidell.
In my experience in the real World, mail is delivered to the right address/PO Box and if it's wrong then it's up to the person who owns the box to correct the mistake. I can't even imagine the amount of extra work required to check each and every letter against a huge database for correct names and let's not forget that this is a time without computers.
JohnM
In other words; naming people who can receive mail in a PO Box is just a waste of time?
My box has a sticker in it with the names of people receiving mail there. No huge database necessary.
The Hidell name listed was in the same handwriting as the Marina Oswald name listed in that section. Oswald acknowledged the Marina Oswald listing yet denied any knowledge of the Hidell listed name.
When did he ?deny any knowledge of the Hidell listed name??
Another example of Chapman actually saying something he isn't really saying??.
Are you in a habit of copy/pasting someone else's work or ideas without agreeing with the content?
John asked you what you were suggesting. Why not simply answer his question?
Did Oswald have his name in his post box in Dallas in 1963?
Holmes reminded Oswald that he (Oswald) had listed Marina Oswald as a person eligible to receive mail in that box. Oswald's reply was basically "Well so what? She was my wife and I see nothing wrong with that." Holmes then reminded Oswald that one "A.J. Hidell" was also listed in the section on the application listing others eligible to receive mail in that post office box. Holmes said that Oswald replied "I don't recall anything about that".
I don?t know. I?m just saying that having to check a huge database is not necessary. As Martin pointed out, why even bother asking?
Q: Did Oswald have his name in his post box in Dallas in 1963?
A: I don?t know.
Thanks.
That?s not denying any knowledge ? that?s not recalling.
Does anyone ever know what points you are trying to make?
Tell us what made you to point to my 2-day old earlier post (re Oswald not having a jacket in the TT) as having anything to do with my later post which suggested (sarcastically, since you tools need proof that he didn't do anything other than walk from the rooming house to the Tippit scene) an Oswald method of locomotion as walking/trotting/jogging/running the distance between the boarding house and Tippit scene.
You also failed to address my mention that colour perception is in the eye of the beholder.
LOL
Anything to get a cop-killer off the hook.
Tell us what made you to point to my 2-day old earlier post (re Oswald not having a jacket in the TT) as having anything to do with my later post which suggested (sarcastically, since you tools need proof that he didn't do anything other than walk from the rooming house to the Tippit scene) an Oswald method of locomotion as walking/trotting/jogging/running the distance between the boarding house and Tippit scene.
You also failed to address my mention that colour perception is in the eye of the beholder.
you tools need proof that he didn't do anything other than walk from the rooming house to the Tippit scene)
Simply explain how it's possible for two women to see Lee Oswald ( one of whom, Markham, didn't even know Lee Oswald by sight.) in two different place a mile apart at the same moment in time??
Just explain how Mrs Roberts saw Lee standing at the bus stop outside the rooming house at 1026 N Beckley at 1:04 pm while Mrs Markham saw officer Tippit driving slowly east on 10th street while tailing a young man who as walking east on 10th street at 1:04 pm ??? Please explain how the young man that Tippit was tailing could have been Lee Oswald???
I pointed to your post because you asked me when you said anything about the TT.
>>> Except it had nothing to do with the point I was making. You took it out of context, something you lot are fond of doing.
So what reason do you have to believe that the white jacket picked up by who knows in the Texaco parking lot was a gray jacket and was owned by Oswald? Or that it was even the same jacket seen by the people who saw a guy in the vicinity of 10th and Patton?
>>> You mean the only guy on the face of the planet seen at the two death scenes and ducking into the Gloco parking lot that day?
Re jacket colour, I cannot speak to another person's perception of same.
I pointed to your post because you asked me when you said anything about the TT.
>>> Except it had nothing to do with the point I was making. You took it out of context, something you lot are fond of doing.
>>> You mean the only guy on the face of the planet seen at the two death scenes and ducking into the Gloco parking lot that day?
So you "answer" Walt's question with a video that doesn't answer his question?
So you "answer" Walt's question with a video that doesn't answer his question?
It is a FACT that Mrs Roberts said that she saw "Mr Lee" ( Lee Oswald) standing at the bus stop in front of the rooming house at 1026 no Beckley at 1:04 pm
I don?t recall Mrs. Roberts ever saying that.
She said it John..... Perhaps not verbatim.... But Mrs Roberts said that Lee arrived at the rooming house at 1:00pm ...and he was in his room for several minutes and then left...the last time she saw him he was STANDING ( not running toward 10th and Patton) at the bus stop in front of the rooming house.
Bottom line Oswald was positively ID'd on scene.
Unfair and biased lineups are unreliable.
An unfair and biased line-up is a one guy line-up with the guy holding the rifle with a sign around his neck that says "I did it"!
Unfortunately for the CT's, as we know the Dallas lineups was anything but and a half dozen people all got a good look at Oswald and positively identified Oswald while Oswald was outside on what looked to be a sunny day.
To allege that all these six random ordinary citizens were somehow brainwashed or whatever to convict someone that was never there, knowing full well that they were sending a man to his death, is an argument that can only come from a sad and deranged mind, no offence.
JohnM
yes sir, the guy with the cut above his eye and disheveled appearance, and protesting,was the one I saw, not the other 3 guys with combed hair and clean shirts and non cut, non bruised faces who remained silent.
Zeon, let's be serious if you saw a man that was cut up, bruised, protesting his innocence would that be enough of a reason for you to say that Oswald was the man, I'm guessing/hoping that you wouldn't and I reckon that none of your friends or relatives would knowingly send an innocent man to his death.
So why do you believe that these civilians on Tenth and Patton were any different?
JohnM
You lot have a tendency to shave/add to time, height and weight estimates.
Dirty Little Harvey didn't have to run according to precise testing. Could have made it in 11 (+-) minutes by walking briskly according to the vid I just posted here. Just in time to bump into his destiny.
And could have been faster than that if he had had his hands out of his pockets, IMO. I walk all the time and having your hands swinging freely helps create & keep an easy momentum and encourages longer strides as well.
And by the way, I've personally found that trotting is the easiest way to maintain a speed somewhat faster than brisk walking. Oswald was seen as 'trotting' away from the scene by Markham, which suggests he might have trotted along at times while on his walking/trotting/jogging/running tour around the 'hood.
Bottom line Oswald was positively ID'd on scene.
An unfair and biased line-up is a one guy line-up with the guy holding the rifle with a sign around his neck that says "I did it"!
Unfortunately for the CT's, as we know the Dallas lineups was anything but
So why do you believe that these civilians on Tenth and Patton were any different?
Because they were manipulated to do so, and they trusted authority.
Zeon, let's be serious if you saw a man that was cut up, bruised, protesting his innocence would that be enough of a reason for you to say that Oswald was the man, I'm guessing/hoping that you wouldn't and I reckon that none of your friends or relatives would knowingly send an innocent man to his death.
So why do you believe that these civilians on Tenth and Patton were any different?
JohnM
You don't have to shave or add to time to understand that even the best ODIA time schedule is highly improbable and a near impossibility.
Because they were manipulated to do so, and they trusted authority.
Not only doesn't the video answer the simple question ....It's nothing but BS.....
It is a FACT that Mrs Roberts said that she saw "Mr Lee" ( Lee Oswald) standing at the bus stop in front of the rooming house at 1026 no Beckley at 1:04 pm
And it is a fact that Mrs Markham said in a sworn affidavit the Officer Tippit was shot at 1:06 pm.... Mrs Marham said the a few minutes prior to the shooting she watched Tippit cruise slowly along behind a young man who was walking east on 10th street and the Tippit called the man over to his cruiser and Tippit and the young man talked like friends through the wing window on Tippit's cruiser and then Tippit got out of the car and was shot by the young man. That shooting happened at 1:06.....and Tippit was following the man prior to 1:06..... So the man could NOT have been Lee Oswald, who was standing at the bus stop at 1026 North Beckley which was a mile away , at the time Tippit was talking to the man through the window of his cruiser.....
1:04 +11 (walking; faster trotting or jogging) = 1:15pm
Solved: The distance can be covered in time to fit the WC narrative.
Regarding time estimates by witnesses, they are just that: Estimates.
So Markham is a dingbat/oddball/whatever according to you lot, yet has perfect memory when it comes to remembering precise times.
As for Earlene, show us where she said anything about Oswald standing at the bus stop at 1:04. Or even committed to a 4 minute timeframe for Oswald putting on a jacket. She said no more than 3-4 minutes which just as well could have been 2 minutes.
Earlene Roberts Affidavit
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Roberts_aff.pdf
The witnesses attending the lineups were NOT asked which man of the four most resembled the man they saw at the scene. No.
The witnesses were asked if the man they saw at the scene was any of the four men placed before them.
1:04 +11 (walking; faster trotting or jogging) = 1:15pm
Solved: The distance can be covered in time to fit the WC narrative.
... because you said so.
So Markham is a dingbat/oddball/whatever according to you lot,
Do you prefer Joseph Ball?s ?utter screwball??
So Markham is a dingbat/oddball/whatever according to you lot, yet has perfect memory when it comes to remembering precise times.
Pssst Crapman.... Mrs Markham didn't need to be a genius to know what time that she was required to be at the restaurant and ready to go to work. So she knew what time the bus arrived ( 1:12) to get her to the restaurant on time. Markham wanted to be at that bus stop a few minutes before it's scheduled arrival time (1:12) Thus she was on her way to the bus stop at 1:06 when she saw officer JD Tippit shot by a young man who was wearing a tan jacket with a WHITE shirt beneath the jacket and black slacks. But prior to the murder she had watched Tippit tailing the young man who was walking east on the south side of 10th street. At the very time that she was watching Tippit stop and call the young man over to his cruiser Mrs Roberts was observing Lee Oswald standing at a bus stop in front of the rooming house at 1026 N Beckley....Which was a mile away from 10th and Patton.....
So Markham is a dingbat/oddball/whatever according to you lot, yet has perfect memory when it comes to remembering precise times.
Pssst Crapman.... Mrs Markham didn't need to be a genius to know what time that she was required to be at the restaurant and ready to go to work. So she knew what time the bus arrived ( 1:12) to get her to the restaurant on time. Markham wanted to be at that bus stop a few minutes before it's scheduled arrival time (1:12) Thus she was on her way to the bus stop at 1:06 when she saw officer JD Tippit shot by a young man who was wearing a tan jacket with a WHITE shirt beneath the jacket and black slacks. But prior to the murder she had watched Tippit tailing the young man who was walking east on the south side of 10th street. At the very time that she was watching Tippit stop and call the young man over to his cruiser Mrs Roberts was observing Lee Oswald standing at a bus stop in front of the rooming house at 1026 N Beckley....Which was a mile away from 10th and Patton.....
Do you prefer Joseph Ball?s ?utter screwball??
LOL. He stopped jogging and immediately shot Tippit. No Tippit following him slowly. No little chat. No time for Tippit to exit the car and walk around the front.
Ball's 'utter screwball' who positively ID'd mystery guest #2 as the killer
Tests show he could have walked (briskly) to the scene in 11 minutes.
Plus Earlene didn't have a stopwatch on Oswald.
Which only shows just how unreliable eyewitness identification can be and how badly the line up were set up.
Only a fool would rely on the vague "identification" by someone considered to be a "screwball".....
Good thing there were other witnesses, huh
Even if he left the roominghouse at 1pm and covered the distance in 11 minutes he would still arrive after Bowley did. And Bowley did have a watch!
Yeah and they all saw different things....
When he said that, I thought he was talking about someone on this forum who can only see "blobs" when he looks at photos and films.
Good thing there were other witnesses, huh
Like the guy who saw Oswald from a few feet away...
No, the screwballs would be the guys who look at blurry blobs and pretend to see detailed facial features.
Who would that be?
Other witnesses to what?
Note I changed my post before I read this, but Calloway saw him close enough to ID Oswald
There you go again
Postal Inspector Harry Holmes testified that Oswald had previously rented a post office box in New Orleans, during the summer of 1963. Oswald's New Orleans application and his Dallas application were found. Unlike the Dallas post office box application, the New Orleans post office box application still had the portion which listed others who were able to receive mail at that post office box. In the New Orleans application, Oswald included the names of both Marina Oswald and A.J. Hidell as those able to receive mail in that box.
Holmes spoke with Oswald on Sunday morning, the 24th. Holmes asked Oswald about the Dallas post office box. Oswald stated that he was the only one who received mail at that box and that he didn't receive any mail there that was addressed to any name other than his true name. Holmes then asked Oswald about the box that Oswald rented in New Orleans earlier that year. Oswald again stated that he was the only one permitted to receive mail at that p.o. box. Holmes reminded Oswald that he (Oswald) had listed Marina Oswald as a person eligible to receive mail in that box. Oswald's reply was basically "Well so what? She was my wife and I see nothing wrong with that." Holmes then reminded Oswald that one "A.J. Hidell" was also listed in the section on the application listing others eligible to receive mail in that post office box. Holmes said that Oswald replied "I don't recall anything about that".
Oswald was caught in a lie. The handwriting which permitted A.J. Hidell to receive mail at the New Orleans post office box belonged to Lee Oswald (per experts Cole and Cadigan).
Glad you dispensed with the ?few feet away? nonsense.
I don?t know who Calloway is, but Callaway did not witness a crime. And if he really saw a guy running down Patton street and then turning west on Jefferson, then why did he come back and ask Benavides if he saw which way the guy went?
Yes.
The Hidell name listed was in the same handwriting as the Marina Oswald name listed in that section. Oswald acknowledged the Marina Oswald listing yet denied any knowledge of the Hidell listed name.
In other words; naming people who can receive mail in a PO Box is just a waste of time?
Did Oswald have his name in his post box in Dallas in 1963?
Btw none of the houses in my street have any names on their letter boxes?
(https://i.postimg.cc/26zH9WtG/Aussie-house-letter-box.jpg)
JohnM
LOL
Anything to get a cop-killer off the hook.
Point out where I claim that Callaway witnessed anything other than the man he saw with a gun held in an upright ready position was the same man he ID'd as Oswald. Like Martin said, people saw different things. Markham saw Oswald right at the scene. Callaway didn't.
But one thing they both saw was Oswald at-the-trot.
That's right, John.
The witnesses attending the lineups were NOT asked which man of the four most resembled the man they saw at the scene. No.
The witnesses were asked if the man they saw at the scene was any of the four men placed before them.
1:04 +11 (walking; faster trotting or jogging) = 1:15pm
Solved: The distance can be covered in time to fit the WC narrative.
Regarding time estimates by witnesses, they are just that: Estimates.
Ball's 'utter screwball' who positively ID'd mystery guest #2 as the killer
No, the screwballs would be the guys who look at blurry blobs and pretend to see detailed facial features.
So Markham is a dingbat/oddball/whatever according to you lot, yet has perfect memory when it comes to remembering precise times.
Pssst Crapman.... Mrs Markham didn't need to be a genius to know what time that she was required to be at the restaurant and ready to go to work. So she knew what time the bus arrived ( 1:12) to get her to the restaurant on time. Markham wanted to be at that bus stop a few minutes before it's scheduled arrival time (1:12) Thus she was on her way to the bus stop at 1:06 when she saw officer JD Tippit shot by a young man who was wearing a tan jacket with a WHITE shirt beneath the jacket and black slacks. But prior to the murder she had watched Tippit tailing the young man who was walking east on the south side of 10th street. At the very time that she was watching Tippit stop and call the young man over to his cruiser Mrs Roberts was observing Lee Oswald standing at a bus stop in front of the rooming house at 1026 N Beckley....Which was a mile away from 10th and Patton.....
Mrs Markham didn't need to be a genius to know what time that she was required to be at the restaurant and ready to go to work. So she knew what time the bus arrived ( 1:12)
That's right, John.
The witnesses attending the lineups were NOT asked which man of the four most resembled the man they saw at the scene. No.
The witnesses were asked if the man they saw at the scene was any of the four men placed before them.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, let me tell you. I said the second man, and they kept asking me which one, which one. I said, number two. When I said number two, I just got weak.
Asking her ?which one which one? is equivalent to asking her to pick the one who most resembled the man she saw.
Even if he left the roominghouse at 1pm and covered the distance in 11 minutes he would still arrive after Bowley did. And Bowley did have a watch!
But one thing they both saw was Oswald at-the-trot.
...and we all know that watches in 1963 were always accurate. Right?
Gimme a break.
Isn?t it amazing that they were all equally slow when they?re needed to be.
Isn?t it amazing that they were all equally slow when they?re needed to be.
But one thing they both saw was Oswald at-the-trot.
You seem to have an amazing confidence in unreliable eye-witnesses.
Callaway ID'd Oswald. Of course you find that unreliable.
Oh, I get it.
Bowley's watch was 100% correct.
Markham's estimate of what time it was when she left her residence was 100% spot on.
The clock on the wall at Methodist was 100% perfect.
....... and the Dallas police tapes were tampered with.
Got it.
You wouldn?t be stretching things in an attempt to make your point more valid, now would you?
Her washateria clock was perpetually slow, and she never noticed. Probably because the clock at the Eat Well restaurant was chronically slow as well. That's the ticket.
I find every identification by an eyewitness unreliable, ever since I once saw a robbery happening just a few feet away from me. It all happened in a few seconds and although I saw the robber from a short distance, I could not honestly describe or identify him with 100% certainty.
Callaway is joined by others in ID'ing Oswald
...and we all know that watches in 1963 were always accurate. Right?
Gimme a break.
Callaway is joined by others in ID'ing Oswald
Sure he is... and most of them only saw the killer for seconds. They all must have had 20/20 vision and perfect ID skills.
>>> You're grasping at straws again. Bottom line is that several people ID'd Oswald.
Having gone through the experience myself I just don't buy it.
>>> You couldn't do it so nobody else can. Now there's some rational thinking right there.
Your desperation of clinging those line up ID's whilst at the same time claiming (as all LNs have to) that the Dealey Plaza witnesses were unreliable is remarkable!
>>> Point out which Dealey Plaza witnesses I claim unreliable.
Mr.CHAPMAN: You're grasping at straws again. Bottom line is that several people ID'd Oswald.
MR.WEIDMANN: No. That's not the bottom line. You are the one grasping at straws as none of these witnesses were ever subject to a cross-examination. You just take their "observations" at face value.
Mr.CHAPMAN: I can't vouch for what other people see. Anywho, the witnesses gave Oswald's face a good deal of value.
Mr.CHAPMAN: You couldn't do it so nobody else can. Now there's some rational thinking right there.
Mr.WEIDMANN: I did not claim that, but you see to claim that everybody, except me could.... talk about rational thinking!
Mr.CHAPMAN: Everybody? Nope; just the witnesses IDing Oswald
Mr.WEIDMANN: Not everything is about you! But since you asked, do you consider Sam Holland credible?
Mr.CHAPMAN: Where did I imply that your statement was about me specifically. You stated* that every LNer claims Dealey Plaza witnesses unreliable. As for Sam Holland, or any other witness for that matter, I cannot personally find anyone of them unreliable. They saw what they saw as far as I'm concerned. Even a little dog in Jackie's lap or JFK standing up in the limo.
*https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,697.msg51913.html#msg51913
Mr.WEIDMANN: Instead of desperately clinging on to your ODIA scenario, why don't you give a try to look at the "evidence" more honestly and objectively?
Mr.CHAPMAN: No doubt an undertaking that has to result in agreement with you in order to be considered valid by you...
Mr.WEIDMANN: Oh, wait, that might be just too much to ask of you.....
Mr.CHAPMAN: Oh, wait... asking me to agree with you? Yeah, that's a bridge too far, Tex.
Mr.WEIDMANN: Instead of desperately clinging on to your ODIA scenario, why don't you give a try to look at the "evidence" more honestly and objectively?
Mr.CHAPMAN: No doubt an undertaking that has to result in agreement with you in order to be considered valid by you...
No.. If and when your honest and objective examination of the evidence yields another conclusion, which you can subsequently explain and defend, rather than just mindlessly parrot the WC narrative, I will consider it valid even if it disagrees with my conclusions.... Who knows, you might even persuade me to look at things differently.
Mr.WEIDMANN: Oh, wait, that might be just too much to ask of you.....
Mr.CHAPMAN: Oh, wait... asking me to agree with you? Yeah, that's a bridge too far, Tex.
Don't you first need to know what I think and what my conclusions are before you can decide that you can agree with them or not?
Mr.WEIDMANN: No? If and when your honest and objective examination of the evidence yields another conclusion, which you can subsequently explain and defend, rather than just mindlessly parrot the WC narrative, I will consider it valid even if it disagrees with my conclusions.... Who knows, you might even persuade me to look at things differently.
Mr.CHAPMAN: I?m not trying to persuade anyone of anything here.
Mr.WEIDMANN: Don't you first need to know what I think and what my conclusions are before you can decide that you can agree with them or not?
Mr.CHAPMAN: Sheep, lemmings?. now mindless parrots. My, my. All of which dovetails back your abundantly-transparent notion that no other conclusions but yours will ever really be valid.
You wouldn?t be stretching things in an attempt to make your point more valid, now would you?
Of course he would.
Markham tells us in her testimony that she left home on 9th street "at a little after one". She only needed to walk two blocks (a distance of about 0,2 mile or roughly 4 minutes) to get to the bus stop at Jefferson. In her testimony she added "I wouldn't be afraid to bet it wasn't 6 or 7 minutes after 1" but even if that estimate was spot on, she still would have arrived at 10th/Patton at around 1.10.
So, in order for her to witness the shooting of Tippit on 10th/Patton at 1.15 pm she would have needed the better part of at least 5 to 10 minutes to cover the distance of one block. And even then, it doesn't add up, as Markham estimated that she usually catched the bus at 1.15 pm, which means that she still could not have been at 10th/Patton to watch the shooting at that exact same time!
However, the bus schedule for Markham's bus allegedly gives arrival times at the Jefferson stop as 1.12 and 1.22. I say "allegedly" because I have never seen a copy of the schedule. Anyway, in order to desperately get Markham at 10th/Patton at around 1.15 pm Bill Brown dreamed up a scenario in which Markham didn't catch a delayed 1.12 bus (perhaps he thinks no busses were ever delayed in those days) at 1.15 but instead (according to Bill) she really took the 1.22 bus every day.
The 1:30 earwitnesses/eyewitnesses
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light?colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light?colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Mrs. Virginia Davis, w/m/16 [sic], of 400 E. 10th WH-3-8120 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
"Today November 22, 1963 about 1:30 pm my sister-in-law and myself were lying down in our apartment. My sister-in-law is Jeanette Davis, we live in the same house in different apartments. We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side door at Patton Street."
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JONNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas.
ROBERT BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was employed as a mechanic at Roger Ballew Texaco Service Station, 600 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. He advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, November 22, 1963, a young white man passed him, BROCK and his wife, and proceeded north past the Texaco Service Station into the parking lot, at which time the individual disappeared.
Scoggins a cab driver was on his lunch break so would be aware of the time and is easily the best time eyewitness.
Mr. DULLES. What time was this, approximately, as far as you can recall?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Around 1:20 in the afternoon.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Will you please state then what happened, what you saw, what you did, what you heard?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Well, I first seen the police car cruising east.
Scoggins could accurately guess the time because he was on a schedule, Scoggins recalls discharging a passenger at 1PM then he went and parked his cab walked to the club, then stayed in the club for 10-15 minutes then walked back to his cab.
Mr. BELIN. Where were you driving your cab in the early part of the afternoon of November 22, 1963, if you remember?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Well, I picked up a gentleman at Love Field at approximately 12:35, I would say, and I discharged him at 1 o'clock at 321 North Ewing.
Mr. BELIN. Then where did you go?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I went around by the Gentlemen's Club which I believe is 125 Patton.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do there?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I pulled up and parked at the corner of Patton and 10th and went back down to the club. At first, whenever I passed by, one of the guys hollered at me and asked me did I know the President had been shot, and I made the remark that I had not heard that one. I found a place to park and I came back, and he came back there in a couple of minutes and told me the facts about it. I thought it was some kind of a joke. So I had to go plumb up to the corner of 10th before I could find a parking place, and I parked right there on the corner and went back and got me a coke and watched the deal, watched the television.
Mr. DULLES. Would you speak a little louder, please; I can't quite hear.
Mr. SCOGGINS. I got me a coke and watched television for a few minutes, I would say 10, 12, 15 minutes, there, and went out to eat my lunch.
Mr. DULLES. What were you seeing on television?
Mr. SCOGGINS. The deal about the President getting assassinated; and when I got back to my cab and got my lunch, and, well, I noticed a police car cruising east there on 10th Street.
JohnM
Scoggins a cab driver was on his lunch break so would be aware of the time and is easily the best time eyewitness.
Mr. DULLES. What time was this, approximately, as far as you can recall?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Around 1:20 in the afternoon.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Will you please state then what happened, what you saw, what you did, what you heard?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Well, I first seen the police car cruising east.
Scoggins could accurately guess the time because he was on a schedule, Scoggins recalls discharging a passenger at 1PM then he went and parked his cab walked to the club, then stayed in the club for 10-15 minutes then walked back to his cab.
Mr. BELIN. Where were you driving your cab in the early part of the afternoon of November 22, 1963, if you remember?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Well, I picked up a gentleman at Love Field at approximately 12:35, I would say, and I discharged him at 1 o'clock at 321 North Ewing.
Mr. BELIN. Then where did you go?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I went around by the Gentlemen's Club which I believe is 125 Patton.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do there?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I pulled up and parked at the corner of Patton and 10th and went back down to the club. At first, whenever I passed by, one of the guys hollered at me and asked me did I know the President had been shot, and I made the remark that I had not heard that one. I found a place to park and I came back, and he came back there in a couple of minutes and told me the facts about it. I thought it was some kind of a joke. So I had to go plumb up to the corner of 10th before I could find a parking place, and I parked right there on the corner and went back and got me a coke and watched the deal, watched the television.
Mr. DULLES. Would you speak a little louder, please; I can't quite hear.
Mr. SCOGGINS. I got me a coke and watched television for a few minutes, I would say 10, 12, 15 minutes, there, and went out to eat my lunch.
Mr. DULLES. What were you seeing on television?
Mr. SCOGGINS. The deal about the President getting assassinated; and when I got back to my cab and got my lunch, and, well, I noticed a police car cruising east there on 10th Street.
JohnM
Nobody gets to a bus stop at the exact time the bus is supposed to arrive.
To catch a (likely delayed) bus at an estimated time of 1:15, one gets to the bus stop a few minutes earlier
Nobody gets to a bus stop at the exact time the bus is supposed to arrive.
To catch a (likely delayed) bus at an estimated time of 1:15, one gets to the bus stop a few minutes earlier
Buses traveled on a strict time schedule .... Mc Watters himself told how he was required to be at specific bus stops at a designated time .....Ans that's totally rational and reasonable . A person using the bus ( Like Helen Markham) would be at the bus stop a few minutes early.
Buses traveled on a strict time schedule .... Mc Watters himself told how he was required to be at specific bus stops at a designated time .....Ans that's totally rational and reasonable .
Of course that's reasonable. However, it's also theory. In practice buses frequently run late due to heavy traffic, accidents, road blocks etc. So, if the schedule for Markham's bus was indeed 1:12, the bus may well have arrived 3 minutes late. On the other hand, Markham's estimate of 1:15 could simply be wrong by three minutes.
A person using the bus ( Like Helen Markham) would be at the bus stop a few minutes early.
Absolutely right Mr Weidman.....re: Markham being at the bus stop a bit early..... Bus drivers were in trouble if they arrived at a designated point AHEAD of schedule.....and if they were more than five minutes lae at a dsignated point they were required to explain why they were behind schedule....and the problems that you pointed out were acceptable excuses..... But stopping to pee was not an accepted excuse....
Of course she would. Leaving home at approx 1:06, a four minute/2 block walk would have gotten her to the bus stop on Jefferson at around 1:10, in plenty of time for the 1:12 bus. There is no way that she would still be at 10th/Patton at 1:14 - 1:15! She would have passed there around 1:09.
Nobody gets to a bus stop at the exact time the bus is supposed to arrive.
To catch a (likely delayed) bus at an estimated time of 1:15, one gets to the bus stop a few minutes earlier
Buses traveled on a strict time schedule .... Mc Watters himself told how he was required to be at specific bus stops at a designated time .....Ans that's totally rational and reasonable . A person using the bus ( Like Helen Markham) would be at the bus stop a few minutes early.
Alternatively, Markham's estimate of 1.15 was just a bit of[sic].
Leaving her house just after one and walking two blocks in four minutes gets her to the bus stop at Jefferson at 1:10.
To catch the 1:12?
LOL
I seriouly doubt she would've cut it so close.
A teenager might, but not a middle aged woman.
-- MWT ;)
I should have said;
Leaving her house just after one and walking two blocks in four minutes gets her to the bus stop at Jefferson at the latest at 1:10.
It makes far more sense than leaving her house just after one to catch a bus ar 1.22 when she only had 4 minutes to walk.
An elderly woman wouldn't want to be standing for over ten minutes waiting for a bus.Notice how when Markham rounded off the time she catches her bus ..it was only an approximate time but when someone else's 'recorded' statement rounds off to the nearest half hour it is nailed as an exact time. Who pried that time of day out of all these affidavits that were executed anyway? Notice how each one states "at approximately 1:30"---it sounds contrived and rehearsed. Who looks at their watch when pandemonium arrives? Also...it was reported that Helen Markham was a punctuality nut and was never late. The case against Oswald smelled rosy to the authorities when actually there was a stench about it that still exists even today.
Exactly.
Ball asked Markham what time she "gets her bus" and she replies 1:15.... too late to regularly catch the 1:12 bus and perfectly reasonable to catch the 1:22 bus.
Please post the bus schedule that shows a bus at the bus stop at Jefferson at Patton at 1:22.....I don't believe buses stopped at the same bus stop just seven minutes apart.....I believe that you are teller of non truths...
the Dallas Transit System advised the FBI that the bus was scheduled to come at 1:12,
I don't believe buses stopped at the same bus stop just seven minutes apart.....
the Dallas Transit System advised the FBI that the bus was scheduled to come at 1:12
I've said, at least a couple dozen times in this forum and the old one, that a bus stopped at Jefferson and Patton at 1:12 and 1:22. I've never said anything about a 1:15 bus stop. Nothing about 1:15. Understand now?
Mr. BALL. You left your home to go to work at some time, didn't you, that day?
Mrs. MARKHAM. At one.
Mr. BALL. One o'clock?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe it was a little after 1.
Mr. BALL. Where did you intend to catch the bus?
Mrs. MARKHAM. On Patton and Jefferson.
Mr. BALL. So you were walking south toward Jefferson?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You think it was a little after 1?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I wouldn't be afraid to bet it wasn't 6 or 7 minutes after 1.
Mr. BALL. You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you?
Mrs. MARKHAM. 1:15.
Mr. BALL. So it was before 1:15?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, it was.
[Bill Brown] Nobody regularly gets to a bus stop at 1:15 in order to catch a 1:12 bus.Why leave out pertinent testimony? This happens all the time (https://www.raptureforums.com/forums/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/Revolving%20Door%20Smiley.gif)
Please post the bus schedule that shows a bus at the bus stop at Jefferson at Patton at 1:22.....I don't believe buses stopped at the same bus stop just seven minutes apart.....I believe that you are teller of non truths...
the Dallas Transit System advised the FBI that the bus was scheduled to come at 1:12,
the Dallas Transit System advised the FBI that the bus was scheduled to come at 1:12,
No, Commission Document 630 says;
"The bus is scheduled to pass this point at about 1:12 PM"
And since when is being scheduled the same as actually passing at that exact time?
I wonder how Bill Brown seems to know for a fact "that a bus stopped at Jefferson and Patton at 1:12 and 1:22." I know he made that claim about these times several times in the past, but so far he has always failed to explain how he could possibly know this with at least enough certainty to make the claim at all.
But more importantly, I would love to see one LNr try and come up with a plausible scenario for Markham still being at 10th/Patton at 1:14 or 1:15 when she testified she left home "a little after 1" and the one block walk to the corner of 10th street would have taken her 2, perhaps 3 minutes.
The same thing goes for Bowley. He picked up his daughter at R.L. Thorntom School in Singing Hills at "about 12:55". School bells, in my experience, have a tendency to ring at the correct time every day! The drive from the school to 10th/Patton is about 7 miles long and takes roughly 13 minutes, making it absolutely possible and plausible for him to arrive at 10th street at 1.10 pm, like he said he did. But even if we are kind to the LNs and accept that Bowley didn't pick up his daughter and leave the school until 1 PM, he still would have arrived at 10th/Patton at 1:13, which of course would have been prior to the shooting of Tippit at 1:15, as the WC narrative claims.
These two timelines alone justify, IMO, the conclusion that Tippit was shot before 1:10 pm. But perhaps the LNs can provide a plausible scenario for these two timelines to be wrong...? I'll wait an see, but I won't hold my breath..
the Dallas Transit System advised the FBI that the bus was scheduled to come at 1:12,
No, Commission Document 630 says;
"The bus is scheduled to pass this point at about 1:12 PM"
And since when is being scheduled the same as actually passing at that exact time?
I wonder how Bill Brown seems to know for a fact "that a bus stopped at Jefferson and Patton at 1:12 and 1:22." I know he made that claim about these times several times in the past, but so far he has always failed to explain how he could possibly know this with at least enough certainty to make the claim at all.
But more importantly, I would love to see one LNr try and come up with a plausible scenario for Markham still being at 10th/Patton at 1:14 or 1:15 when she testified she left home "a little after 1" and the one block walk to the corner of 10th street would have taken her 2, perhaps 3 minutes.
The same thing goes for Bowley. He picked up his daughter at R.L. Thorntom School in Singing Holls at "about 12:55". School bells, in my experience, have a tendency to ring at the correct time every day! The drive from the school to 10th/Patton is about 7 miles long and takes roughly 13 minutes, making it absolutely possible and plausible for him to arrive at 10th street at 1.10 pm, like he said he did. But even if we are kind to the LNs and accept that Bowley didn't pick up his daughter and leave the school until 1 PM, he still would have arrived at 10th/Patton at 1:13, which of course would have been prior to the shooting of Tippit at 1:15, as the WC narrative claims.
These two timelines alone justify, IMO, the conclusion that Tippit was shot before 1:10 pm. But perhaps the LNs can provide a plausible scenario for these two timelines to be wrong...? I'll wait an see, but I won't hold my breath..
If Tippit was killed before 1:10, then all it really means is that Oswald was at Tenth and Patton a little before 1:10.
If Tippit was killed before 1:10, then all it really means is that Oswald was at Tenth and Patton a little before 1:10.
Helen Markham was on foot, walking south along Patton toward her bus stop, which
was on Jefferson Boulevard. Markham was just reaching the northwest corner of
Tenth and Patton when she noticed Tippit's patrol car pass through the
intersection, heading east along Tenth Street. Markham testified that the
patrol car pulled up to a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south side
of Tenth Street. Helen Markham positively identified Lee Oswald as the man she
saw talking to, and shoot, J.D. Tippit. She testified that she saw Oswald run
from the scene, heading down Patton with a gun in his hand.
~snip~
Ain't it just remarkable how the LNs can't produce a plausible scenario for the combined timelines of Markham and Bowley to work, for the shooting of Tippit 1.14 or 1.15 pm
Instead they just ignore it and claim Oswald must have been there at or before 1.10 - even if, by their own narrative, he couldn't have gotten there by that time on foot.
No response also to the unexplained 10 minute gap in Scoggins' timeline.
Oh maybe..how about the depressed microphone for several minutes just right when the motorcade was passing through Dealey Plaza and then headed to the hospital. One of the umptyfive hundred coincidences just in the space of an half hour (http://www.planet-love.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif)
....... and the Dallas police tapes were tampered with. Do I have it right?
Oh maybe..how about the depressed microphone for several minutes just right when the motorcade was passing through Dealey Plaza and then headed to the hospital. One of the umptyfive hundred coincidences just in the space of an half hour (http://www.planet-love.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif)
Markham said she left home at "a little after one" and that it could have been as late as 1.06 or 1.07. The walking distance from 9th street to 10th/Patton is one block which takes about 2 minutes, which would have her arrive at 10th/Patton at the latest at 1.09.
The route Bowley described from the school to 10th/Patton takes an estimated 13 minutes, so if he picked up his daughter at "about 12.55" and allow a bit more time for traffic, he could and would have arrived at 10th/Patton at roughly 1.10.
Inbetween those to arrival times Tippit must have been shot.
THE COP-KILLER IN THE ALLEY
Bill Smith and Jimmy Burt were about a block away, east of the intersection of Tenth and Patton. When they heard the shots, they went to the patrol car and to the fallen officer. After spending some time there, they went to the corner and turned left onto Patton, heading south towards Jefferson (the same path they observed the killer take, from what they could see).
When they reached a point halfway down the block on Patton (between Tenth and Jefferson), they looked west along the alley and saw the killer in the alley one block down, at a point which places the killer behind the Texaco station (exactly where the jacket was found). Bill Smith positively identified the killer as Lee Oswald. Jimmy Burt felt he didn't get a good enough look at the killer.
Point being, Bill Smith and Jimmy Burt both place the killer behind the Texaco lot where the jacket was found. The enclosed photo (taken shortly after the day of the Tippit murder) shows the view down the alley, looking west, from Patton (where Burt and Smith were standing).
Also included is a look at the Ballew's Texaco, circa early 60's. The building still stands today, now housing Santos Muffler & Radiator. Notice the back of the Abundant Life Temple behind the Texaco station. The police originally believed the killer fled to that building after disappearing behind the Texaco station.
(https://i.imgur.com/jntSeU0.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/GC1PS9X.jpg)
Thumb1:
Great post and I don't think I've seen those photo's before.
JohnM
He may well have done, although I doubt it, but Brown's OP contains only part of the whole story and can not be relied upon.
For instance, Helen Markham testified she left home at "a little after 1". She had only one block to walk, yet according to the official story Tippit was shot at around 1.14 pm. That means that, for the official story to be true, Markham would have taken some 10 minutes to walk one block. Anything less than that would have placed her well beyond 10th/Patton prior to the shooting. Obviously, if the shooting happened earlier, it's just about impossible for Oswald to have been there on time to do the deed.
William Scoggins's testimony reveals that his timing was off and that he got to 10th/Patton earlier than the official story claims. Also, Scoggins, who is supposed to have identified Oswald at the DPD line up failed to identify Oswald as Tippit's killer to the FBI from a photo shown to him the very next day.
Domingo Benavides, who was closer to the actual shooting than anybody else, refused to participate in a line up because he felt he could not positively identify the killer, yet others, like the Davis sisters, who were indoors somehow can identify the man? Really?
There are so many things Brown doesn't tell you, that his entire OP is just a one sided dishonest presentation of what he wants to be the truth rather than the truth itself.
The biggest problem for the believers in a 1.14 / 1.15 shooting of Tippit are the combined timelines of Markham and Bowley. Their "estimates" don't have to be "spot on". There are two anchors which IMO make it nearly impossible to challenge these timelines, even when you give or take a minute or so.
First of all, we know that Markham arrived at the scene, at least two or three minutes (my estimate), prior to Bowley. Markham saw the shooting taking place and Bowley arrived shortly after it happened.
Secondly, we know that Bowley said he picked up his daughter from school at "about 12.55" and school bells tend to ring on time.
So, if you want to push back Markham's time, you also have to push back Bowley's timeline with the same amount of time, otherwise there is no way that Bowley could have arrived after Markham saw the shooting.
Markham said she left home at "a little after one" and that it could have been as late as 1.06 or 1.07. The walking distance from 9th street to 10th/Patton is one block which takes about 2 minutes, which would have her arrive at 10th/Patton at the latest at 1.09.
The route Bowley described from the school to 10th/Patton takes an estimated 13 minutes, so if he picked up his daughter at "about 12.55" and allow a bit more time for traffic, he could and would have arrived at 10th/Patton at roughly 1.10.
Inbetween those to arrival times Tippit must have been shot.
So, what happens if you try to push back Markham's arrival time to (let's say) 1.14? It would mean that Bowley's timeline would have to be pushed back by 5 minutes also, but how does that work when you know he picked up his daughter from school at 12.55? Five minutes late would have left his daughter waiting for him for 5 minutes after school was out.... so, what's the reasoning there? Bowley got to the school 5 minutes late and somehow didn't notice it?
And what about Markham, where was she during those extra 5 minutes? Did she perhaps go for coffee halfway down the 2 minute walk it would have taken to get her from 9th to 10th street?
Bill Smith positively identified the killer as Lee Oswald.
Wm Smith stated in his affidavit that the shooter he saw was wearing a WHITE shirt and BROWN jacket.
If this was Oswald--when did he change clothes?
Wm Smith stated in his affidavit that the shooter he saw was wearing a WHITE shirt...
...and BROWN jacket.
He was wearing a WHITE shirt, what's your point?
(https://www.nydailynews.com/resizer/akc9qCY2CMf3IOjQDwtdxi93zkA=/800x552/top/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/G3GPCBZWZXNSXLNURYDKKZO2CY.jpg)
(http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/FIG01_041013.jpg)
Smith's affidavit said the jacket was LIGHT brown and like almost every eyewitness at the Tippit crime scene they said Oswald was wearing a LIGHT coloured jacket and because everyone perceives colour in their own way due to contrast of background, direction of sun, reflection of surrounds and etc, so of course there was a slight variation in reported colour.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FKGhfgsT/jacketcolour.gif)
For instance, A and B in the following image are the same.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Grey_square_optical_illusion.PNG/618px-Grey_square_optical_illusion.PNG)
JohnM
Bla bla bla…
Yes, Oswald was wearing a white T shirt under his brown shirt, when he was arrested, and his brown shirt looked a lot more brown than a light grey jacket ever would....
But that would of course mean that Oswald didn't leave the roominghouse with his jacket after all and that the white jacket found at the car park wasn't his....
Seems you want to have your cake and eat it too….
Yes, Oswald was wearing a white T shirt under his brown shirt, when he was arrested
But that would of course mean that Oswald didn't leave the roominghouse with his jacket after all
and that the white jacket found at the car park wasn't his....
Seems you want to have your cake and eat it too….
Thumb1:
Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Mr. BALL. He was zipping it up as he went out the door?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's--an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
BS:
JohnM
Cherry picking only proves my point Thumb1:
Sorry, but here's Earlene Roberts telling us that Oswald went to his room and got a short coat to put on and went out.
There's more, the eyewitnesses who positively identified Oswald, said Oswald was wearing a jacket.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs.V DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.
Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs.B DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs.B DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.
Mr. BALL. Did he have a jacket or a shirt? The man that you saw shoot Officer Tippit and run away, did you notice if he had a jacket on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had a jacket on when he done it.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a grayish tan.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.
Mr. JACK RAY TATUM - At the time I was just approaching the squad car, I noticed this young white male with both hands in the pockets of his zippered jacket
JohnM
Lexical semantics at work....
And wasn't Earlene Roberts described by her employer as somebody who was known for making up things?
Lexical semantics at work....
And wasn't Earlene Roberts described by her employer as somebody who was known for making up things?
"Lexical semantics" LOL
Yes, that's what one witness said, so what? and btw how in any way does that nullify a stack of supporting evidence for Oswald wearing a light coloured jacket?
JohnM
.... the eyewitnesses who positively identified Oswald, said Oswald was wearing a jacket.Actually, at the end of the day, it was the police/FBI/Warren Report who said Oswald was positively identified. The dubious testimonies of all these people have been scrutinized dozens of times and everyone knows it.
...Oswald putting on a jacket and zipping it up as he went out the front door, adding that it was the type of jacket that zips up in the front.As opposed to a jacket that zips up the back?
He was wearing a WHITE shirt, what's your point?Wearing a T-shirt [which people would say] under another shirt under a Brown jacket..sighted from far enough away that Mr Smith stated he could NOT IDENTIFY the shooter.
For instance, A and B in the following image are the same.What is YOUR point? A & B are the same what? Color? Size? Shape? Or just another silly illustration?
"Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman." - Helen MarkhamThis whole case is #2
~snip~
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.
~snip~
JohnM
"Lexical semantics" LOL
Yes, that's what one witness said, so what? and btw how in any way does that nullify a stack of supporting evidence for Oswald wearing a light coloured jacket?
JohnM
Testimony Of Domingo Benavides
Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.
~snip~
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
~snip~
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
~snip~
A photo below of Ozzie in custody the same day Benavides observed and described Tippit's killer.
He's obviously not the person he saw at murder scene.
The combination of the shirt and jacket could have ridden up somewhat, especially as he was in the process of turning away from the witness... and concealed the lower part of the hair, giving a squared-off look.
Coulda woulda shoulda.
Coulda
(https://i.postimg.cc/T34srtW0/oswald-collar-height-re-nape.png)
What is that? All I can see are blobs!"
Coulda
What is that? All I can see are blobs!"
-- Iacoletti
Lots of people coulda.
AnybodyButOswald
;)
And a blind person coulda made those shots if he got lucky enough
Therefore Oswald probably did it. Brilliant.
Tommy thinks all photographic images are equally identifiable. Don't be like Tommy.
No, Iacoletti, it's just that your eyesight is so bad
And a blind person coulda made those shots if he got lucky enoughNoticed that this fatuous..off the charts statement was re-qualified with "got lucky enough" :-\
[See post#1270]
The shirt collar appears to be high enough to give the impression of a 'squared-off' Oswald 'do.
(https://i.postimg.cc/T34srtW0/oswald-collar-height-re-nape.png)
::)
Testimony Of Domingo Benavides
Mr. BENAVIDES - I was just trying to hide from the reporters and everything, and these two officers came around and asked me if I'd seen him, and I told him yes, and told them what I had seen, and they asked me if I could identify him, and I said I don't think I could. It this time I was sure, I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't have.
Mr. BELIN - Did he ever take you to the police station and ask you if you could identify him?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; they didn't.
::)
Testimony Of Domingo Benavides
Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.
~snip~
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
~snip~
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
~snip~
A photo below of Ozzie in custody the same day Benavides observed and described Tippit's killer.
He's obviously not the person he saw at murder scene.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3.jpg)
What so impressive about unfair lineups involving people who saw no crime committed?
And Oswald didn’t have any revolver at the time of his arrest, much less that particular one.
Oswald didn’t have any revolver at the time of his arrest, much less that particular one.
The hair could appear to be square cut if the collar of the jacket reached up to just below the thickest hair at the nape.
Again a pissweak response.
10 eyewitnesses positively identified Oswald either at or moving away from the Tippit crime scene.
Most of these Eyewitnesses saw Oswald with a weapon.
Eyewitnesses saw Oswald discard shells.
These shells were an exclusive match for Oswald's revolver.
Oswald was seen wearing a jacket.
Oswald's jacket was discarded in a car park he was seen entering.
Oswald snuck into a theater.
Oswald resisted arrest.
Oswald tried to kill another cop.
The revolver that Oswald was arrested with was an exclusive match to the shells recovered from the scene.
Nicol testified that one of the bullets found in Tippit was an exclusive match to Oswald's revolver.
Oswald was not wearing his jacket.
Oswald admitted it was his revolver.
The paperwork for the revolver was written by Oswald and had his address.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda.
How do you know Oswald didn't have a revolver with him when he was arrested?
Because he was arrested after the police had possession of the alleged revolver.
Again a pissweak response.
10 eyewitnesses positively identified Oswald either at or moving away from the Tippit crime scene.
Most of these Eyewitnesses saw Oswald with a weapon.
Eyewitnesses saw Oswald discard shells.
These shells were an exclusive match for Oswald's revolver.
Oswald was seen wearing a jacket.
Oswald's jacket was discarded in a car park he was seen entering.
Oswald snuck into a theater.
Oswald resisted arrest.
Oswald tried to kill another cop.
The revolver that Oswald was arrested with was an exclusive match to the shells recovered from the scene.
Nicol testified that one of the bullets found in Tippit was an exclusive match to Oswald's revolver. CE 625
Oswald was not wearing his jacket.
Oswald admitted it was his revolver.
The paperwork for the revolver was written by Oswald and had his address.
JohnM
Oswald admitted it was his revolver.
According to the interrogation reports, Oswald admitted he had carried a revolver, but nowhere in the reports does it say that he was shown the revolver now in evidence or that he identified that particular revolver as the one he had.
'the alleged revolver'
So it wasn't necessarily a revolver... just alleged to be one, huh GrammarBoy.
@Newbies:
The revolver tried to speak for itself, but was muzzled..
>>> I know that. How would newbies?
>>> Translation 101 for CTrolls:
'The revolver tried to speak for itself, but was muzzled' = Oswald was trying to shoot an officer but was prevented from doing so
Oswald admitted it was his revolver.
According to the interrogation reports, Oswald admitted he had carried a revolver, but nowhere in the reports does it say that he was shown the revolver now in evidence or that he identified that particular revolver as the one he had.
LOL. Somewhere in hell John Wilkes Booth is asking for ice water and enjoying Roger's idiotic nonsense. Of course if Oswald had been shown the revolver and confirmed it was his, Roger would be on here asking us to prove what was said during his interrogation (i.e. implying those present lied). On and on it goes down the rabbit hole.
Is this your way of agreeing that Oswald didn't actually admit it was his revolver as "Mytton" claimed?
Is this your way of agreeing that Oswald didn't actually admit it was his revolver as "Mytton" claimed?
Geez, what are the chances, Oswald leaves the rooming house and half an hour later he arrives at the Texas Theater but somewhere in between the rooming house and the Texas Theater in the same time period a Cop is killed, the Cop is not killed by a knife or a rifle or with fists or by being run over or whatever, no, the first Dallas Cop shot and killed that year is shot with a revolver which just happens to be of the same type which unlucky Oswald was arrested with and to top it off a stack of eyewitnesses were all fooled into believing it was Oswald when they positively identified him either at or moving away from the Tippit murder scene. And let's not forget Oswald was also at the Texas School Book Depository when Kennedy was shot, this Oswald guy was the unluckiest guy alive.
Now for some reason which eludes me, the Cops who had a mountain of evidence
wanted to replace Oswald's revolver which fires virtually unmatchable bullets with another revolver which fires virtually unmatchable bullets, have any of you actually thought this through?
Unfortunately for you, sarcasm is not evidence. And you can’t actually determine what weapon killed Tippit. And Oswald wasn’t arrested with a revolver.
No they didn’t.
Thought what through? The strawman you just made up?
You can either prove that the gun that Hill pulled out of his pocket two hours later was ever in Oswald’s possession or you cannot.
And you cannot.
Unfortunately for you, sarcasm is not evidence.
And you can’t actually determine what weapon killed Tippit.
And Oswald wasn’t arrested with a revolver.
No they didn’t.
You can either prove that the gun that Hill pulled out of his pocket two hours later was ever in Oswald’s possession or you cannot.
Because “newbies” know more about the case than you do.
As I recall.
This is the Chapman version of epistemology. Just declare the thing you want to believe as a fact, and it becomes a fact.
Probably.
>>> You mean the newbies that show up and call their pet theories fact?
Says the oldby who calls his pet theories fact (probably).
Define 'oldby'
Given your shallow replies, I'd say 'flyby' would be a more apt term to apply here.
Point out where I've claimed to be right about anything here
So you write things like "Oswald was trying to shoot an officer", but don't claim to be right about it?
(https://www.smileysapp.com/emojis/not-quite-right-smiley.png)
Nah, only probably
You're probably insane. But :DI'm not claiming to be right about that. ::)
Wow.. now I'm insane lemming/sheeple/parrot.
Cool
:D
Wow.. now I'm insane lemming/sheeple/parrot.
“Sheeple” now? Another thing you “recall” me supposedly saying? Maybe you should have that recall checked out.
Where did I say you called me a sheeple... you know damn well that 'sheep' and 'lemmings' are words in common usage in CTer posts when describing WC supporters.
I found exactly one instance in this entire forum of a CT ever calling LNers “sheeple”.
“Common usage” :D
Sheep, sheeple... there's a difference, SemanticSuckJohnny?
I found exactly one instance in this entire forum of a CT ever calling LNers “sheeple”.
“Common usage” :D
I doubt it. Chapman is determined to talk about anything other than the JFK assassination.
I doubt it. Chapman is determined to talk about anything other than the JFK assassination.
Exactly right..... Thumb1:
Time for an ignore list, I'd say
I'm definitely not going to get involved in this row but just as a POI, before the forum was hacked the term 'sheeple' was indeed a common reference to an LN, along with the term 'parrot'. Never, at least to my knowledge, was the term 'lemming' used. My personal reaction to being called a sheeple or parrot? BFD ~shrug~ I've been called a lot worse believe me. :D
PS Any chance of you two calling a truce soon?
Bill Brown seems to think that if he reports the results of unfair lineups often enough, they will become valid evidence.
Also, what “shells found at the Tippit scene”? And what “Oswald’s revolver”?
Correction:
Dirty Harvey's revolver
;)
The Nazis perfected this technique a long time ago: keep repeating the same lies over and over, eventually most people will cave in and believe them.
Thanks again, Chapman. Every post is indeed better than the next one.
@Lurkers:
Authored by Bill Chapman
Why would anyone else want to take credit for your idiotic ramblings?
More a case of protection against OBies attempting to assign origin elsewhere.
@Lurkers:
Note how ObieOneIacoletti left out this:
Dirty Harry:
'Smith, Wesson... and me'
Dirty Harvey:
Smith, Wesson... and Lee.
--------------------
PS:
Those of you who are guests should join the forum and have your say. The admin is more than fair and gives everyone a lot of leeway.
Where did you dig that one up, Ottoman...
More a case of protection against OBies attempting to assign origin elsewhere.
@Lurkers:
Note how ObieOneIacoletti left out this:
Dirty Harry:
'Smith, Wesson... and me'
Dirty Harvey:
Smith, Wesson... and Lee.
--------------------
PS:
Those of you who are guests should join the forum and have your say. The admin is more than fair and gives everyone a lot of leeway.
Translation please… I don't speak Chapman..
A fact of history….. but you know very little about history, it seems
Good catch, buying yourself immunity makes perfect sense. Wondering how much lifetime immunity will run you?
I'm sure the LNers love having this guy on their side.
Probably.
Iacoletti arrives at The Gates of Hell
'I did not see THIS coming' he moans
Satan appears, with Oswald in tow
Iacoletti: LEE? What are YOU doing here?
Oswald: I killed Kennedy and Tippit.
Iacoletti: No you didn't! YOU'RE LYING!
Satan: ::)
Oswald: ::) [SMIRK]
LOL. Here's another.
Scene: Dishonest John in Hell. John Wilkes Booth appears.
DJ: You assassinated Lincoln.
Booth: Prove it.
DJ: It was your pistol.
Booth: Booth's pistol? LOL.
DJ: Lots of people saw you shoot Lincoln.
Booth: You made that up. They heard a loud bang and looked in my direction to see me pointing an object "made of wood" at Lincoln's head. It was only their "opinion" that I shot him.
DJ: You fled the scene.
Booth: Wrong again. I was just an actor at my place of employment and thought the play was over. I suppose an actor jumping onto stage is evidence they just assassinated the president? That highlights the weakness of your "circumstantial" case.
DJ: But your own handwritten diary confirms that you did it.
Booth: Don't you know that handwriting analysis is not scientific? Just ask Hidell.
LOL. Here's another.
Scene: Dishonest John in Hell. John Wilkes Booth appears.
DJ: You assassinated Lincoln.
Booth: Prove it.
DJ: It was your pistol.
Booth: Booth's pistol? LOL.
DJ: Lots of people saw you shoot Lincoln.
Booth: You made that up. They heard a loud bang and looked in my direction to see me pointing an object "made of wood" at Lincoln's head. It was only their "opinion" that I shot him.
DJ: You fled the scene.
Booth: Wrong again. I was just an actor at my place of employment and thought the play was over. I suppose an actor jumping onto stage is evidence they just assassinated the president? That highlights the weakness of your "circumstantial" case.
DJ: But your own handwritten diary confirms that you did it.
Booth: Don't you know that handwriting analysis is not scientific? Just ask Hidell.
You've just insulted the admin, fool
Bill Brown continues to think that if he reports the results of unfair lineups often enough, they will become valid evidence.
What’s wearing thin is people trumpeting unfair and rigged lineups as meaningful.
- The fillers were not chosen to resemble the witnesses' descriptions of the perpetrator
- There were only 3 fillers for the lineups and no fillers for the photo identifications
- The fillers were not dressed like Oswald
- The fillers were not dressed to match witnesses' descriptions of the perpetrator
- The person administering the lineup knew which person in the lineup was the suspect
- The witnesses did not view the lineups separately
- Some witnesses knew which man was the suspect before they attended the lineup
- Not all of the men were handcuffed together for the first lineup
- Witnesses were influenced by the physical appearances of both Oswald and the fillers
- Witnesses were influenced by Oswald's complaints about the fairness of the lineups
- Witnesses were intimidated or pressured by the authorities
- Witnesses were asked to sign affidavits which would include who they picked in the lineup before actually viewing the lineup
- The criminal justice system in Dallas County had a history of railroading suspects
LOL. Here's another.
Scene: Dishonest John in Hell. John Wilkes Booth appears.
DJ: You assassinated Lincoln.
Booth: Prove it.
DJ: It was your pistol.
Booth: Booth's pistol? LOL.
DJ: Lots of people saw you shoot Lincoln.
Booth: You made that up. They heard a loud bang and looked in my direction to see me pointing an object "made of wood" at Lincoln's head. It was only their "opinion" that I shot him.
DJ: You fled the scene.
Booth: Wrong again. I was just an actor at my place of employment and thought the play was over. I suppose an actor jumping onto stage is evidence they just assassinated the president? That highlights the weakness of your "circumstantial" case.
DJ: But your own handwritten diary confirms that you did it.
Booth: Don't you know that handwriting analysis is not scientific? Just ask Hidell.
- Not all of the men were handcuffed together for the first lineup
(https://i.imgur.com/ttyI5cS.gif)
Can you cite for this? I ask in sincerity. Without going through the testimony of the participants, I thought they testified that they each were handcuffed to the next man, even during the first lineup. It's too late tonight and I don't have the desire to dig through the testimony. So, I'm just thinking, can you support your above statement? I'd like to have a look.
Testimony of Richard L. Clark.
Mr. BALL. What was your position in the showup?
Mr. CLARK. My right had was handcuffed to Oswald's left hand.
Mr. BALL. Your right----
Mr. CLARK. To his left.
Mr. BALL. To his left. Then who was next to Oswald?
Mr. CLARK. And my partner, W.E. Perry, was next to Oswald.
Mr. BALL. Was he handcuffed to Oswald?
Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir; he was. Handcuffed his left hand to Oswald's right hand.
Mr. BALL. What about Mr. Ables?
Mr. CLARK. Mr. Ables was standing to the left.
Mr. BALL. Was he handcuffed?
Mr. CLARK. No, sir.
Despite your excuses, the fact remains that the lineups were unfair and biased.
“Oswald and his weapons”. LOL.
Helen Markham [after some prodding in her testimony] only stated that the # 2 in the line up ''gave her chills''. Oswald was beat up and worn out. The other guys were probably cops in suits. Here is an aerial view of the Tippit scene back in the day. NOTE--Markham was some 125 feet or more from the squad car......
(http://harveyandlee.net/November/Tippit_Aerial.jpg)
Those annotations were made later by John Armstrong.
This aerial photo is very interesting.....It obviously was taken at the time. ( Probably the morning of November 23).....
Holan was never called by the Warren Commission. Nor is there any evidence she was ever interviewed by either the Dallas Police or the FBI. Like many important witnesses in the JFK assassination, she was discovered by private citizens many years after the fact. Local Dallas researchers Bill Pulte and Michael Brownlow were the first to talk to her. Which is weird since she lived only one door down from the crime scene, at 409 10th Street, on the second floor. This placed her in a perfect position to see what she was about to disclose. The most remarkable information to come to the fore in the two interviews she granted was this: As she looked out her window upon hearing the shots, she saw a second police car at the scene. It was in the driveway between 404 and 410 East Tenth. This was adjacent to the spot on the street where Tippit’s car stopped. Knowingly or unknowingly, Tippit had blocked the driveway, which led to an alley at mid-block. She said a man got out of the car, looked at Tippit’s body and then went back down the driveway. He was alongside the car, which was retreating back toward the alley. She also saw a man fleeing the scene in a different direction. (McBride, pp. 494-95)
Mr. BALL. Was he dressed the same in the lineup as he was when you saw him running across the lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. All except he didn't have a black coat on when I saw him in the lineup.
Mr. BALL. Did he have a coat on when you saw him?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What color coat?
Mrs. DAVIS. A dark coat.
Mr. BALL. Now, did you recognize him from his face or from his clothes when you saw him in the lineup?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, I looked at his clothes and then his face from the side because I had seen him from a side view of him. I didn't see him fullface.
Mr. BALL. Now answer the question. Did you recognize him from seeing his face or from his clothes?
Mrs. DAVIS. From his face because that was all I was looking at.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what color his trousers were?
Mrs. DAVIS. I think they were black. Brown jacket and trousers.
Mr. BELIN. The trousers were black?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what kind of shirt he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir; I don't recall that.
Mr. BELIN. Was the jacket open or closed up?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was open.
Mr. BELIN. But you don't remember what kind of shirt he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did he look at you?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir; not that I remember. I don't think so.
Barbara Davis testimony....
Virginia Davis testimony.....
From their testimony you can tell that the Davis women were nervous and somewhat intimidated as they were quite young. I believe it was Virginia who was 15 or 16 at the time...a child bride.
Their testimony is full of contradictions as you would read in the earlier pages. What bothers me is the part [Barbara statement] where the shooter was wearing a black coat.
Helen Markham [after some prodding in her testimony] only stated that the # 2 in the line up ''gave her chills''. Oswald was beat up and worn out. The other guys were probably cops in suits. Here is an aerial view of the Tippit scene back in the day. NOTE--Markham was some 125 feet or more from the squad car......
(http://harveyandlee.net/November/Tippit_Aerial.jpg)
So what do you think it means that the two women gave differing descriptions of the coat/jacket?I don't really know Mr Brown. What do you think it means that neither of the young ladies described a light grey or white jacket like was found supposedly discarded? So perhaps there actually was more than one guy involved after all.
I don't really know Mr Brown. What do you think it means that neither of the young ladies described a light grey or white jacket like was found supposedly discarded? So perhaps there actually was more than one guy involved after all.
So you think that perhaps Barbara saw a different man than Virginia saw? C'mon Jerry.Always answering a question with a question.
The ambulance came from the Dudley-Hughes Funeral home, which was located a block and a half away from Tenth and Patton.That makes it seem like an ambulance was all ready and set to go get him before Tippit was even shot :-\
The men alongside Oswald in the lineups were not wearing suits. Good grief. Read their testimony along with the testimony of others, regarding the lineups.Good grief indeed... The young Davis' ladies couldn't even seem to remember which one was the first to identify "#2".
The men were NOT wearing suits during the lineups. Posting the above image (a Warren Commission exhibit meant only to identify the participants) in the context which you have is dishonesty at best. But hey, if it makes ya feel better.....You were there? BTW-- The suit picture is in the Warren Report. Go split a hair...they were cops! The line up was "dishonest".
Bill is correct — they took off their coats and ties.OK but..they still looked like cops. Did Oswald look like a cop? Hardly.
OK but..they still looked like cops. Did Oswald look like a cop? Hardly.
A fair line-up would have been to take [let's say 4] prisoners from county that were similar in appearance..height...weight... hair etc and lined them up with Oswald. You would have had a different outcome and everyone knows it.
OK but..they still looked like cops. Did Oswald look like a cop? Hardly.
A fair line-up would have been to take [let's say 4] prisoners from county that were similar in appearance..height...weight... hair etc and lined them up with Oswald. You would have had a different outcome and everyone knows it.
No, not everyone..... There are some who refuse to open their eyes .....they prefer to see the mental image of their imagination.
On a serious note Walt, how are you? I understand you had a health scare recently.
I'm doing OK....Thank you. I've been diagnosed with prostate cancer. The treatments I'm taking have side effects that are not pleasant . I only mention this because i'm sure there are other old men in the group that may benefit from my experience.
But let's keep it private..... Use PM
Unrelated to your mistaken notion that the lineup participants were wearing suit and tie.What? ???
Well, I certainly wish you the best.
For once I agree with Bill. I wish you all the best as well, Walt
I believe in the power of prayer. If any of you "have the ear" of the "Big Man Upstairs"... tell him I'd greatly appreciate a little more time...+ 1 Thumb1:
The handgun brands match, 'Lee' rhymes with 'me', and Oswald wasn't going to just let Tippit go, now was he.Huh? ???
The handgun brands match, 'Lee' rhymes with 'me', and Oswald wasn't going to just let Tippit go, now was he.
Huh? ???
Huh? ???
Huh? ???
I'm doing OK....Thank you. I've been diagnosed with prostate cancer. The treatments I'm taking have side effects that are not pleasant . I only mention this because i'm sure there are other old men in the group that may benefit from my experience.
But let's keep it private..... Use PM
Best wishes to you Walt. Hope things go well for you.Seconded, Walt. Hope you win your battle.
I think Chappers has been watching too many cop films. He seems to have fallen for "the cops are always right".
Dirty Harry: "Smith, Wesson... and me"
Dirty Harvey: Smith, Wesson... and Lee
(The Tippit thing; that's my point, RayBan)
By the way when are you actually going to say something witty
"Probably" a lot sooner than you do.
"Probably" a lot sooner than you do.
Dude, the Tippit S&W-reference thing
Great summation in one brilliant line
Right on the money and mocks you little OswaldAs I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'es
Dude, the Tippit S&W-reference thing"Great summation...Brilliant...mocks you little OswaldAs I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'es" The admission of narcissism with complications of trollitus [incurable]
Great summation in one brilliant line...Right on the money and mocks you little OswaldAs I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'es
Dude, the Tippit S&W-reference thing
Great summation in one brilliant line
I bet in a former life, you were the leader of a lynch mob.
Awww, poor little put-upon Ray
Dunning-Kruger is alive and well.
Come back when you have something intelligent to post.
You go first
Unrelated to your mistaken notion that the lineup participants were wearing suit and tie.The cops in the lineup were not dressed up in their Sunday suits...so that made them look less like cops and more like Oswald :D
The cops in the lineup were not dressed up in their Sunday suits...so that made them look less like cops and more like Oswald :D
Straw man. I'm not arguing whether or not these men were dressed similar to Oswald. I'm simply correcting your nonsense when you believed they were wearing suit and tie.My name is not Straw Man. It is against forum rules to refer to members with other than their forum name.
My name is not Straw Man. It is against forum rules to refer to members with other than their forum name.
Also..I just don't seem to have that corrected feeling that you seem to be reaching for there because we both should know that Oswald was unfairly displayed in the lineup with the COPS!!
You no longer believe that, right?Mr Brown doesn't seem to care what anyone believes anyway.
Cheerleader
I wasn't calling you any names. Good grief. Maybe you should run off and google "straw man" real quick. If you were already aware of the meaning and this was an attempt at humor, well, don't quit your day job.
As for your lack of the feeling of being corrected, only two or three pages back, you were saying that Oswald appeared in a lineup alongside men in suit and tie. You no longer believe that, right?
Proves my point. Another adolescent post, by Chapman.
You have a point?
Maybe you should run off and google "straw man" real quick. If you were already aware of the meaning and this was an attempt at humor, well, don't quit your day job.A really bleak Bill Brown "attempt at humor". Wasn't the Straw Man Dorothy's friend that she met on the way to Oz and he didn't have a brain so the Wizard gave him a Diploma Honorarium? See ...my humor is funnier.
Freeman has a job?No, Freeman does not have a job. Jobs are for chumps. Don't you have one? :-\
Yep. As I said previously come back when you have something intelligent to contribute. Not childish, supposedly funny comments.
Come back when you have a cited width for the Oswald package
Come back when you have a cited width for the Oswald package
I do believe this would be a job for Marina and maybe that lady who calls herself Judy Baker, she might know too.
Perhaps you could phone them both and report back with that information? It's called research. You just pick up
the phone and call them and ask "Do you have a cited width for Oswald's package?" If you get two wildly different
figures just go ahead and add them both together and divide by two for a rough estimate.
Wow, it's only taken you four days to think up that brilliant riposte. 8)
???
WOW! You've been waiting for my response for four days? Isn't your wife jealous?
4) doggy bag
Why would I wait for more of your nonsense?
5) I don’t know, and neither does Chapman.
4) doggy bag
I've narrowed it down:
1) a 34.8" broken-down MC-length object
2) a 34.8" lunch
3) 34.8" curtain rods
:D
Of course you have. Because you want the package to have been 34.8 inches, nothing more.
LOL
Of course you haven't. You want it to be anything but the size of a broken-down Carcano
The evidence doesn’t care what anybody wants it to be. It is what it is.
The evidence doesn’t care what anybody wants it to be. It is what it is.
Like Bermuda shorts-wearing guys on the Pergola Patio in Towner, and Karen Westbrook's ... uhh ... "memory," ... uhh ... 54 years after-the-fact, from behind, and at a considerable distance from Zapruder's camera!
Now that's I call "evidence," guys and gals!
Or, to be "PC," should I say gals and guys?
It is what you say it is, apparently
Your made up BS is not evidence.
How about you just STFU?
Says the guy who just decided for himself how long the bag Randle and Frazier saw was.
Show us the 24/27" bags with the 5.5"/8" widths
Nothing like a Lone Nutter as frustrated and confused as the commission he quotes,
Without "visual recollection" they are left with "evidence here presented" which is the FBI conclusion there is NO trace of a rifle in that bag, CE 142. Sums up well why it sucks being a Lone Nutter.
I have no clue what the discussion about a 5.5/8 " width is about.....But if the paper sack was only 5.625" wide, then the carcano with the scope could not have fit in the bag....
Frazier's bag width estimate was around 5.5"And what does this have to do with The Cop Killer? We have this bag in about 6 different threads now.
Randle's estimate was 8"
Read Stombaugh's testimony
And blanket fibers were found in the bag
Perhaps you should learn how to read....A single blanket fiber ( ONE) was found ....and there are photos that show the blanket and bag touching when the evidence was being photographed before release to the FBI.
That's not what he said, can you get ANYTHING right?
You ought to ask yourself the same question
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you proceed to examine the inside of the paper bag to see if there were any foreign objects?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What were your conclusions?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I removed the debris from the inside of the bag by opening the bag as best I could, and tapping it and knocking the debris on to a small piece of white paper, and I found a very small number of fibers. Upon examining these fibers, I found a single brown, delustered, viscose fiber and several light-green cotton fibers from the inside of the bag.
Stombaugh’s 1964 testimony linked Oswald to the rifle by concluding that certain hair and fiber samples could be associated with Oswald and with a blanket found in the garage of his wife’s Irving, Texas residence.
Stombaugh was careful to qualify some of his key opinions. He said he was “unable to render an opinion that the fibers which he found in the bag had probably come from the blanket.” At other times he said, “All I would say here is that it is possible;” and “the possibility exists, these fibers could have come from this blanket.”
The Warren Commission report omitted most of those qualifications in asserting the “probative value” of Stombaugh’s testimony, which was said to be “strong evidence” that the rifle was “most probably” linked recently to Oswald’s shirt.
Hmmmm..... Are you sure you want to stand on the BS from the WC?
Nowhere does Stombaugh say "blanket fibers" were found in the bag.
Thanks for putting your ignorance of the evidence on display.
Do you really want to continue?
He was only able to arrive at possible rather than probable. I don't have a problem with that.
You just did it for me, thanks!
No amount of 'bolding' and 'underlining' can fix your illiteracy.
Point out exactly where Stombaugh concluded there were "blanket fibers" in that bag.
It may be possible for rain to ascend, rather than descend..... or a river to reverse flow .....But is it probable?
Perhaps you should learn how to read....A single blanket fiber ( ONE) was found ....and there are photos that show the blanket and bag touching when the evidence was being photographed before release to the FBI.(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/BaginDallasarchives.png)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/BaginDallasarchives.png)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/fibersbagsblankets.gif1.gif)
Or is it Alzheimer's?
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/BaginDallasarchives.png)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/fibersbagsblankets.gif1.gif)
Oh, now I remember... it was Oswald's pubes that were green
Very Good!.... Now, would you mind telling us how you know that Lee's pubic hair was green?
Oops... I meant brown and light green
Do you have a fascination for men's pubic hair?
Do you have a fascination for men's pubic hair?
Walt, asking Chapman for his fascinations is like asking Gremlins what they want to eat after midnight....
Please don't go there!
Yes, that was foolish of me.....
I should have followed through with my train of thought here....
When was the photo of the evidence taken? Has anybody seen documentation for the time and date of the photo?
Since on SaPersonay morning the FBI reported that ...."The latent prints appearing in the photograph taken of the rifle K1 by the Dallas Police department are too fragmentary and indistinct to be of any value for identification purposes. Photographs of this weapon taken by this bureau also failed to produce prints of sufficient legibility for comparison purposes."
That means they had the evidence in their possession on SaPersonay 11 /23 /63 .... So the evidence had to have been released to them prior to SaPersonay morning.... And item number 14 on the evidence inventory list is the "Partial palm print off underside of gunbarrel near end of foregrip" c2766.
Yesterday I noticed something I hadn't seen before....On the Original evidence list "A" at the very bottom of the sheet it says....
"Paraffin test on Oswald, was positive on both hands and negative on face."
But on the altered evidence inventory list "B" that entry has been eliminated..... I wonder ...WHY? any idea?
Walt, asking Chapman for his fascinations is like asking Gremlins what they want to eat after midnight....
Please don't go there!
And yet here you are
Did you say something?
There you go again.
Just can't stay away from me, can you...
Since on SaPersonay morning the FBI reported that ...."The latent prints appearing in the photograph taken of the rifle K1 by the Dallas Police department are too fragmentary and indistinct to be of any value for identification purposes. Photographs of this weapon taken by this bureau also failed to produce prints of sufficient legibility for comparison purposes."
That means they had the evidence in their possession on SaPersonay 11 /23 /63 ....
Oh, now I remember... it was Oswald's pubes that were greenAnother irrelevant Chapman contribution :-\
This is just talking about prints appearing in photographs taken of the rifle.
Page 105 Of First Day Evidence....The latent prints appeared immediately while the rifle as being dusted on the sixth floor .... This action was CAPTURED ON FILM by a news photographer who had been allowed on the sixth floor by police.
We know the reporter was Tom Alyea..... Have you ever seen the film?
Thumb1: Hey Crapman, Let's talk about the discovery of the carcano....Tom Alyea wrote:...
Bill Crapman wrote:.... Feel free to point out where any CT has ever identifified even a single piece of evidence as valid.
Here's just one piece of evidence that cannot be disputed as genuine....The Map of the sixth fllor that was drawn by Detective Robert Studebaker... Studebaker measured the distance from the N. wall to the spot where the carcano was discovered laying on the floor beneath a wooden pallet that had boxes of books stacked on it. Studebaker's tape measure indicated the spot was 5 feet from the window in the east wall and 15 feet 4 inches from the North wall.
The rifle was 8 feet south of the top of the stairs.... Not three feet. This one FACT destroys the imaginary theory concocted by the DPD and the FBI.
Yes, but the extant footage doesn’t show Day doing any lifts with cellophane tape and sticking them on index cards. And if Alyea’s memory was correct then where are all the index cards?
Yes, but the extant footage doesn’t show Day doing any lifts with cellophane tape and sticking them on index cards. And if Alyea’s memory was correct then where are all the index cards?
You've seen one of them....it was item number 14 on the evidence inventory list, and it became WC exhibit 639.
FBI agents Vincent Drain and Charles T. Brown with bag and rifle
LOL. Circular argument. If Alyea saw Day putting lifts on little white cards then where are the rest of them? And what evidence is there that the magic partial palmprint was one of them? Just because you want it to be?
WTF did they put in the bag to make Brown/Drain carry it that way??? It's bad enough they weren't wearing gloves but using the bag to hide "other" evidence that we are never privy to is beyond incompetence. What other evidence besides the rifle and chicken bones could be in that bag, which incidentally looks too short to contain the MC stock unless carried the way Brown/Drain did. There is also no evidence that the bag was folded at the top and carried like a sack lunch.
How was this not tampering with crucial crime scene evidence by those trained to know better?
You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer ...are you John?
Did Alyea say that he filmed Detective Day as Day lifted prints from the rifle and then place the lifts on little white cards? Asking me where the other cards are is a silly, and desperate, tactic.....
Gary Craig just posted a film clip that shows FBI agents Drain, and Brown, carrying evidence including the rifle and something wrapped in a brown paper bag. The trigger guard / magazine area of the rifle has a what looks like a file folder loosely tied around the magazine/ trigger guard. If Lt Day had covered the prints on the magazine with cellophane tape why would the FBI agents tie the cardboard around that area?
Jack...I don't believe that paper bag in the photos is the bag that Montgomery carried from the TSBD.... I believe those FBI agents are carrying something inside of the bag that they didn't want reporters to see .....
Perhaps you're like so many folks.... You simply can't believe that Hoover and LBJ were the prime conspirators.....
You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer ...are you John?
John and I may differ in our approach towards you but we basically share your concerns about the validity and credibility of the evidence, and I am sure both of us would prefer to engage you in an open minded and honest discussion of that evidence, but when you start making LN-like comments like above, just because we don't instantly accept your version of events, it leaves very little room for discussion. And that's IMO too bad..... Why not leave the insults to the LNs (it's all they have!)?
Insults aren't evidence, Walt. Why should anyone accept your fabricated story based on an undated evidence sheet when there is no evidence whatsoever that the FBI got the magic partial palmprint before 11/29?
No, what's desperate is trying to fit your fabricated narrative into Kritzberg's hearsay that doesn't even match your narrative.
Duh. Because he didn't put the tape on there until later that evening in the crime lab.
It's not rocket science....and I'm not asking folks to accept my "story".... I'm merely presenting the evidence for those who are intelligent enough to see the truth.
Dear John.... Do the FBI agents possess the rifle in the photo?? Suely you know that Lt day kept the rifle in his possession until it was released to the FBI.... Now then....Since the FBI agents posses the rifle...WHEN was the photo taken?? Duh!!
From another thread to me;
From this thread to John;
Walt,
John and I may differ in our approach towards you but we basically share your concerns about the validity and credibility of the evidence, and I am sure both of us would prefer to engage you in an open minded and honest discussion of that evidence, but when you start making LN-like comments like above, just because we don't instantly accept your version of events, it leaves very little room for discussion. And that's IMO too bad..... Why not leave the insults to the LNs (it's all they have!)?
I'm sorry Martin, John Iacoletti constantly insults me.... Perhaps you haven't noticed.
Thumb1:
I don't have much patience for anyone who states speculation as fact, regardless of what conclusions they've arrived at.
The Carl Day magic partial palmprint is dodgy no matter how you slice it, but there is literally no reason to suspect that he gave it to the FBI on 11/22 and they all pretended like he didn't. That wouldn't advance their case against Oswald in the slightest.
An undated partial list of evidence doesn't cut it, even if Walt's "common sense" were really sensical.
Jack...I don't believe that paper bag in the photos is the bag that Montgomery carried from the TSBD.... I believe those FBI agents are carrying something inside of the bag that they didn't want reporters to see .....It's not and they are. I have never seen that clip before.
Your undated sheet of paper doesn't not make your story "the truth".
Probably when Day released it to the FBI "shortly before midnight". Ok, I see what you're getting at. Who knows why they put the folder there? To keep their own mangy prints off the rest of the rifle? To hold the clip in? If you're suggesting that Day's word is unreliable, then amen, brother. But the rifle had cellophane tape on the trigger guard area when Latona got it.
So what prints did Tom Alyea see Lt Day lift?
I'm 100% certain that Alyea saw Day lift what he imagined to be a palm print on the wooden forgrip
...and the reason that i'm 100% certain is because the so called "palm print" lift clearly shows the bayonet slot that is cut into the foregrip of all model 91 / 38 Mannlicher carcanos... And furthermore the 5/8 inch diameter barrel is too small to hold a man's palm print...
I don’t believe he did. If Alyea actually said this at all he confused Day’s dusting the rifle as “lifting prints”.
I know you are.
Yes, those are two more of your appeals to “common sense”.
Really?.... Tom Alyea said that he saw Lt Day place the prints on index cards...So if Alyea didn't witness the event then explain how Alyea knew there was a lift on a 3 X 5 index card?
He didn't, because Day didn't do such a lift in the TSBD. Or probably even that evening in the crime lab.
He didn't, because Day didn't do such a lift in the TSBD. Or probably even that evening in the crime lab.
Really?.... Tom Alyea said that he saw Lt Day place the prints on index cards...So if Alyea didn't witness the event then explain how Alyea knew there was a lift on a 3 X 5 index card?
On page 108 of First Day Evidence, the author (Savage) quotes Lt Day....
"Lt Day told us that, after he photographed the trigger-housing prints and had been stopped by Captain Doughty he continued working on the rifle under the order of Captain Fritz. It was at that time that he noticed a print sticking out from the barrel. He said it was obvious that part of the print was under the wooden stock, so he took the stock off and finished dusting the barrel. He said he could tell it was part of a palm print and so he proceeded with a lift."
Lt Day was lying through his teeth.....
Walt, the conspirators knew that Oswald's prints were not on the rifle, which is why they man-handled all the evidence without gloves. They had decided that a single palm print would be enough to link Oswald to the crime, so someone had to pretend to lift a print from the place Oswald would have gripped the stock. This was all for show and plausible deniability. If Alyea wasn't there, Day wouldn't have bothered.
At any rate, the partial print Day alleged to have lifted from the rifle stock was not Oswald's. Unless Day was oblivious that several index cards were replaced a week later by a single card with Oswald's partial palm print, then he was a conspirator. The bottom line is a conspirator had to go thru the motions of testing for prints at the crime scene in front of a camera to sheep-dip Oswald and link him to the rifle. No different than the BYPs. Apparently, Day was their guy.
Do you believe that Oswald's 1 partial palm print on the single 3 x 5 index card was what Day submitted? Or was it a post-mortem swap-out?
"Paul Groody, the mortician who received Oswald's body after his autopsy, says that in the early morning of Monday, November 25th, "agents" visited his funeral home and asked to be alone with Oswald's body. After they left, he had to remove fingerprint ink from Oswald's fingers and hands."
If Alyea was right, then where are the other cards, Walt? You're cherry-picking.
That could very well be true, but how does that demonstrate that Day's alleged magic partial palmprint was lifted in the TSBD and sent to the FBI on 11/22? Why would Day make up a story like that and then claim that he didn't give it to the FBI? Why would Vince Drain agree that Day didn't give it to the FBI? Why would Sebastian Latona agree that he didn't get the card until 11/29? Your story isn't even internally consistent. Saying that they are all liars isn't sufficient. They would have to have a reason to lie about not getting the magic partial palmprint with the other evidence.
The question is why would they need to take his fingerprints subsequent to his death? Anybody got a good reason?
Unless like a lot of witnesses, he mis understood what they were up to. :-[
Waits for Felucca excuses.
John, How the hell would I know what the conspirators ( The authorities) did with the other card(s)? I assume they destroyed them ( or it) There may have been only one card but.....Alyea used the plural when he said he watched Day lift Prints from the rifle....
I know it's difficult to believe the Cops involved and the FBI agents all lied about the evidence.....But they did. Some of them were actual conspirators who knew that Lee Oswald had not murdered JFK...Because they were the very ones who suckered him into thinking he was working undercover for the FBI....
Walt, the conspirators knew that Oswald's prints were not on the rifle, which is why they man-handled all the evidence without gloves. They had decided that a single palm print would be enough to link Oswald to the crime, so someone had to pretend to lift a print from the place Oswald would have gripped the stock. This was all for show and plausible deniability. If Alyea wasn't there, Day wouldn't have bothered.
At any rate, the partial print Day alleged to have lifted from the rifle stock was not Oswald's. Unless Day was oblivious that several index cards were replaced a week later by a single card with Oswald's partial palm print, then he was a conspirator. The bottom line is a conspirator had to go thru the motions of testing for prints at the crime scene in front of a camera to sheep-dip Oswald and link him to the rifle. No different than the BYPs. Apparently, Day was their guy.
Do you believe that Oswald's 1 partial palm print on the single 3 x 5 index card was what Day submitted? Or was it a post-mortem swap-out?
"Paul Groody, the mortician who received Oswald's body after his autopsy, says that in the early morning of Monday, November 25th, "agents" visited his funeral home and asked to be alone with Oswald's body. After they left, he had to remove fingerprint ink from Oswald's fingers and hands."
Or Alyea (or Kritzberg) may have just been wrong.
But you didn’t answer the question. What possible reason would there be for Day, Drain, and Latona to all lie about sending and receiving the card later and separately from the other evidence?
Or Alyea (or Kritzberg) may have just been wrong.
But you didn’t answer the question. What possible reason would there be for Day, Drain, and Latona to all lie about sending and receiving the card later and separately from the other evidence?
Jack.....In the book First Day Evidence there are five photos of the prints on the side of the trigger guard....Those five photos were made from the negatives of the exposures that Lt Day made. They became CE 720 & CE 721......I believe the photos show scotch tape over the finger prints...and one of the prints appears to be complete enough to use for identification purposes....and yet the FBI claimed the prints were useless for Identification purposes. Hmmmm.... Do you suppose that they knew the prints were NOT Lee Oswald's???
They were forced to convict Lee Oswald.... He had been murdered while in their custody....They wouldn't dare to have let the pissants know that Lee Oswald was NOT the assassin..... They wanted the pissants to believe that Lee Harrrrrvey Ossssswald was the back shootin killer who deserved being lynched, just as Jack Ruby also thought.
I believe Vince Drain took only a few select pieces of evidence ( The Rifle and a couple of other items) and flew in an Air Force jet to Washington.... The bulk of the evidence arrived later on SaPersonay........
They couldn’t have done that without pretending that a lift was sent over late and separate from other evidence?
Of course they knew the prints weren't Oswald's. But the conspirators had to go thru the motions for the cameras and onlookers. They decided which print(s) to use after they got Oswald's corpse to put fresh prints on the rifle, then they took his prints as reference to match the new prints they lifted from the rifle stock. Then they replaced any 3 x 5 index cards with the 1 post-mortem partial print. I guess corpses don't "print up" very well.
If they had admitted the alleged Palmprint was lifted from the rifle in the TSBD and it had been examined and found to be nothing but a worthless smudge then they would have had no proof that Lee had ever handled that rifle.... By lying and pretending they had found Lee's palm print on the metal barrel they were able to fool the pissants into believing that there was a physical connection between the rifle and Lee Oswald.
However ....I'd suggest that you get out your magnifying glass and examine the so called "palm print" on CE 639......If you can find anything but a smudge on that 3 X 5 card, I'd appreciate it if you'd point it out.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/barrel-lift.png)
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/barrel-lift.png)
Mr. LIEBELER. How many shots did you hear?Mr Reynolds [at first] failed to positively identify Oswald as the guy he saw running away. Two days later [it is reported] that he was shot in the head by a mysterious assailant. He survived and afterward was then able to identify Lee Oswald as the guy.
Mr.REYNOLDS. I really have no idea, to be honest with you. I would say four or five or six. I just would have no idea. I heard one, and then I heard a succession of some more, and I didn't see the officer get shot.......
Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there. ........
Mr. LIEBELER. You were in no way, if I understand it correctly then, properly identified as anyone who had told the authorities that this man that was going down the street was the same man as Lee Harvey Oswald, is that correct?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Well, yes and no.....
Helen Markham was on foot, walking south along Patton toward her bus stop, which
was on Jefferson Boulevard. Markham was just reaching the northwest corner of
Tenth and Patton when she noticed Tippit's patrol car pass through the
intersection, heading east along Tenth Street. Markham testified that the
patrol car pulled up to a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south side
of Tenth Street. Helen Markham positively identified Lee Oswald as the man she
saw talking to, and shoot, J.D. Tippit. She testified that she saw Oswald run
from the scene, heading down Patton with a gun in his hand.
William Scoggins was sitting in his cab at the southeast corner of Tenth and
Patton. Scoggins saw Tippit's patrol car pass slowly in front of his cab,
driving west to east along Tenth Street (Scoggins' cab was sitting on Patton,
facing north towards Tenth street). Scoggins noticed that the patrol car pulled
up alongside a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south side of Tenth
Street. William Scoggins positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw
running towards his cab seconds after hearing gun shots. Scoggins got out of
his cab with thoughts of running from the scene as Oswald headed straight
towards him after the shots rang out. After realizing he had nowhere to hide,
Scoggins returned to his cab and ducked down behind it as he watched Oswald turn
the corner and head down Patton towards Jefferson. Scoggins testified that
Oswald had a gun in his hand.
Barbara Davis was lying in bed inside her residence, which was the house at the
corner of Tenth and Patton. She heard gunshots outside and went to the front
door, which faced Tenth Street. She opened the screen door and noticed Helen
Markham across the street, screaming. Davis then noticed a man cutting through
her front yard, holding a gun in his hands. She testified that the man had the
gun cocked in his hands as if he were emptying it. Barbara Davis positively
identified Lee Oswald as the man who she saw cut across her yard with a gun in
his hands.
Virginia Davis was in the living room of Barbara Davis' residence (400 E. Tenth
St.) when she heard gunshots outside. Virginia Davis went to the front door
and, like Barbara, noticed Helen Markham across the street, screaming. Davis
then noticed a man cutting across the front yard with a gun in his hands. She
testified that the man was emptying shells out of the gun. Virginia Davis
positively identified Lee Oswald as the man who she saw cut across the front
yard with a gun in his hands.
Ted Callaway was standing out on the front porch of the used-car lot office,
where he worked. Callaway testified that he heard five pistol shots. Callaway
testified that he believed the shots came from the vicinity of Tenth Street,
which was behind the office he worked in. He went out to the sidewalk on the
east side of Patton and noticed Scoggin's cab parked up near the corner of
Patton at Tenth. As Callaway watched the cab driver (Scoggins) hide beside his
cab, he noticed a man running across Patton from the east side of Patton to the
west side. Callaway watched the man run down Patton towards Jefferson. Ted
Callaway positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw run down Patton with
a gun in his hands.
Sam Guinyard worked at the same used-car lot as Ted Callaway. Guinyard was out
on the lot washing one of the cars when he heard gunshots come from the
direction up toward Tenth Street. From the car lot, Guinyard was looking north
toward Tenth in an attempt to see where the shots came from when he saw a man on
the sidewalk in between the first two houses on Tenth Street (400 E. Tenth and
404 E. Tenth). Guinyard went toward the sidewalk on the east side of Patton and
saw the man cut across the yard of the house on the corner (400 E. Tenth, the
Davis residence) and proceeded to run south on Patton. Guinyard said the man
had a gun in his hands and was emptying it of shells. Sam Guinyard positively
identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw running with the gun in his hands.
Each of the above witnesses saw a man flee the vicinity of the Tippit murder. Each of the above witnesses saw a gun in the man's hands. Every single one of the above witnesses positively identified Lee Oswald as that man.
These are the real witnesses and not even one of them said that someone other than Lee Oswald was the man they saw.
As for the revolver, Jim Leavelle briefly spoke with Oswald when Oswald was brought in from the theater. Leavelle told Oswald that they could run ballistic tests on the revolver and match the revolver to the bullets taken from the officer's body, proving that the revolver taken from Oswald was the revolver responsible for the officer's death. Oswald did not deny owning the revolver. According to Leavelle, Oswald's only reply was "Well, you're just going to have to do it."
Oswald ordered the revolver under the name of A.J. Hidell on 1/27/63 from Seaport Traders, Inc. Treasury Department handwriting expert Alwyn Cole testified that the handwriting on the order coupon belonged to Lee Oswald. The FBI's handwriting expert James Cadigan also testified that the handwriting on the coupon was Oswald's.
On the order, there was the name of a D.F. Drittal, written in the section where a witness states that the person buying the weapon (Hidell) was a U.S. citizen and was not a felon. The handwriting experts, Cole and Cadigan, both testified that the name D.F. Drittal was also written in Oswald's hands.
The revolver was shipped to a post office box in Dallas rented by Lee Oswald. Cole testified that the signature and the handwriting on the post office box application belonged to Oswald.
Postal Inspector Harry Holmes testified that Oswald had previously rented a post office box in New Orleans, during the summer of 1963. Oswald's New Orleans application and his Dallas application were found. Unlike the Dallas post office box application, the New Orleans post office box application still had the portion which listed others who were able to receive mail at that post office box. In the New Orleans application, Oswald included the names of both Marina Oswald and A.J. Hidell as those able to receive mail in that box.
Holmes spoke with Oswald on Sunday morning, the 24th. Holmes asked Oswald about the Dallas post office box. Oswald stated that he was the only one who received mail at that box and that he didn't receive any mail there that was addressed to any name other than his true name. Holmes then asked Oswald about the box that Oswald rented in New Orleans earlier that year. Oswald again stated that he was the only one permitted to receive mail at that p.o. box. Holmes reminded Oswald that he (Oswald) had listed Marina Oswald as a person eligible to receive mail in that box. Oswald's reply was basically "Well so what? She was my wife and I see nothing wrong with that." Holmes then reminded Oswald that one "A.J. Hidell" was also listed in the section on the application listing others eligible to receive mail in that post office box. Holmes said that Oswald replied "I don't recall anything about that".
Oswald was caught in a lie. The handwriting which permitted A.J. Hidell to receive mail at the New Orleans post office box belonged to Lee Oswald (per experts Cole and Cadigan).
Ballistic testing can determine whether or not an empty shell casing was fired from a specific weapon to the exclusion of every other weapon in the entire world. Before shooting, the shell casing is placed against the breech face and the firing pin. When the pin strikes the primer, the bullet is fired off and the shell casing is thrust against the breech face of the weapon. This causes a permanent mark on the base of the empty shell, i.e. the distinctive fine lines etched onto the breech face put their "fingerprint" on the base of the empty shell.
Joseph Nicol (Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State of Illinois) along with Cortlandt Cunningham, Robert Frazier and Charles Killion (of the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory in Washington D.C.) each examined the shells found at the Tippit scene and Oswald's revolver, which he ordered from Seaport Traders, Inc. Each of these experts determined that the shells were linked (through ballistics) to Oswald's revolver, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world.
Perhaps you should learn how to read....A single blanket fiber ( ONE) was found ....and there are photos that show the blanket and bag touching when the evidence was being photographed before release to the FBI.
MR TF Bowley says he found JD dead, looked at his watch and it said
1.10pm
theres no way LHO can make it in time
TWC concedes he left at 1.03pm from his rooming house
why would the man lie in his affidavit?
don't start talking about bad watches
a few minutes each side wouldn't make a difference
this is solid eyewitness testimony that exonerates
LHO and has never been successfully debunked
Mr Reynolds [at first] failed to positively identify Oswald as the guy he saw running away. Two days later [it is reported] that he was shot in the head by a mysterious assailant. He survived and afterward was then able to identify Lee Oswald as the guy.
Mary Wright stated that she heard the shots and called the police immediately after the shooting. (With Malice, 2013, pg. 136)
Barbara Davis heard the shots and stated that, from the front door, she saw a man walking across her front yard unloading a gun. She then heard Helen Markham across the street yelling that a police officer was shot and killed. Davis looked over and saw the police car. Immediately after seeing the police car, she went inside and phoned the operator and reported the shooting to the police. (affidavit, 11/22/63)
L.J. Lewis was at the Johnny Reynolds Motor Company, located one block south of the shooting. He called the police immediately after hearing the gunshots to report a shooting. (affidavit, 8/26/64)
Murray Jackson, the police radio dispatcher, received an alert at 1:16 from the "citizen using the police radio". Upon being told by the citizen that a police man had been shot and that it was near Marsalis, Beckley and Tenth Street, Jackson immediately calls out for "78" two more times. After getting no response, he again calls out for "78". Jackson is calling out for "78" because that is Tippit's call number and he knows Tippit was driving car number 10. On 11/22/63, Tippit was "78". That he calls out for Tippit after receiving the alert from the "citizen using the police radio" tells us that at 1:16, Jackson was made aware, for the very first time, that Tippit had been shot.
Since we know that Mary Wright, Barbara Davis and L.J. Lewis called the police almost immediately... and we know that Murray Jackson (the dispatcher) was unaware of the shooting until 1:16, it becomes painfully obvious that Wright, Davis and Lewis phoned in the shooting at a point in time just before the "citizen using the police radio" alerted Jackson. If these three witnesses had phoned in the shooting much earlier, then Jackson would have been already made aware of the shooting by his superiors and told to put an all-points bulletin. No all-points bulletin was put out by dispatch until AFTER dispatch (Jackson) was alerted at 1:16.
They couldn’t have done that without pretending that a lift was sent over late and separate from other evidence?
Murray Jackson, the police radio dispatcher, received an alert at 1:16 from the "citizen using the police radio".
According to a transcript of a recording made by a voice actived device.
we know that Murray Jackson (the dispatcher) was unaware of the shooting until 1:16
We only "know" this if the transcript of the recording made by a voice actived device is indeed accurate. So far it has never been proven to be, it is only assumed to be.
No.
That photo was taken after all of the evidence seen in the photo was examined.
This is in the testimonial record.
Murray Jackson, the police radio dispatcher, received an alert at 1:16 from the "citizen using the police radio". Upon being told by the citizen that a police man had been shot and that it was near Marsalis, Beckley and Tenth Street, Jackson immediately calls out for "78" two more times. After getting no response, he again calls out for "78". Jackson is calling out for "78" because that is Tippit's call number and he knows Tippit was driving car number 10. On 11/22/63, Tippit was "78". That he calls out for Tippit after receiving the alert from the "citizen using the police radio" tells us that at 1:16, Jackson was made aware, for the very first time, that Tippit had been shot.
FBI report, interview with Warren Reynolds one day before Reynolds was shot in the head...
"REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to definitely identify OSWALD as the individual."
That claim doesn't apply to this photo though.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/bag%20and%20blanket.gif)
They couldn’t have done that without pretending that a lift was sent over late and separate from other evidence?
...At the time of the initial investigation following the assassination, we impounded the tapes and held all records for just that purpose, the ensuing investigation. When the FBI took the tapes and tried to make audible sense out of them, they found that they couldn’t comprehend the tape traffic because they couldn’t understand the speech style used on the radio. The things that were said by the officers on the radio made complete sense to the officers, but they didn’t make a bit of sense to the transcribers. So an FBI agent brought the tapes back to the department, and the chief gave them back to me and asked me to transcribe them for him; of course, understanding that we didn’t have a lot of conspiracy theorists in our midst at that time...
...An officer, depending on the individual circumstance at an individual time, might use either the digital clock in front of him, or he might use the time stamp on the other clock. Using a headset, let’s say the dispatcher turns away to do something and in the process sees the digital clock and says, “224, a disturbance at such and such location—2: 13.” He used the digital 2: 13. By now the time stamp clock might be reading 2: 15. He puts it in the slot, turns around, and now 125 says, “I’m clear.” The dispatcher says, “125 clear,” and he looks at the time stamp—2: 15, “2: 15 KKB364.” Now it would look like to all the righteous world that 125 cleared two minutes after the radio operator dispatched the call at 2: 13, but he didn’t. It was almost in one breath. So, under no circumstance could you put any stock in the real world time or any continuity on 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...
Right, you're claiming that they made up a story about sending the magic partial palmprint late and separate from the other evidence, when it would serve no purpose whatsoever to do so, and Day, Drain, and Latona all went along with it.
I believe that JAMES C. BOWLES Communications Supervisor Dallas Police Department explained the accuracy of the time in his interview in “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed:
Since I was the communications supervisor in charge of the dispatch office, I became involved with the tapes of all radio communications of the Dallas Police Department that day, the same tapes which were analyzed by the Warren Commission and later the House Select Committee on Assassinations. There should be no controversy about the tapes. The tapes are very simple and self explanatory if you accept them for what they’re worth...
...At the time of the initial investigation following the assassination, we impounded the tapes and held all records for just that purpose, the ensuing investigation. When the FBI took the tapes and tried to make audible sense out of them, they found that they couldn’t comprehend the tape traffic because they couldn’t understand the speech style used on the radio. The things that were said by the officers on the radio made complete sense to the officers, but they didn’t make a bit of sense to the transcribers. So an FBI agent brought the tapes back to the department, and the chief gave them back to me and asked me to transcribe them for him; of course, understanding that we didn’t have a lot of conspiracy theorists in our midst at that time...
...I just made a recording of it with a nice reel to reel tape recorder which the FBI furnished to me and then set about from the original tapes and the original Gray audiograph disks to transcribe the tapes using the originals because, according to the law, that’s the best evidence. The tapes were in as good a condition as you would expect considering the fact that the FBI had tried to transcribe them using a single stylus...
...Remember, even the House Select Committee and the National Academy of Sciences put in computer monitors on the belts and on the tapes so that the consistency of the tapes used indicated no interruption, alteration or changes. Both agreed as well as could be that the tapes at the last instance are the same as the original tapes in the first instance. No hanky panky!...
...Something a lot of people really got their lather up about was whether something was or wasn’t at a certain time. Some people tried to use stop watches to time that belt to say something happened after a certain minute, second, or fraction of a second. That is nonsense, utter nonsense!...
...The dispatcher had two types of clocks: He had a time stamp clock that didn’t show seconds, just minutes, and he had a digital clock in front of him which had the numerical hour and minutes. That was the usual clock for general sight and time statements. At the same time, the same dispatcher might use the digital clock. There was no way in the world that some six clocks in the telephone room and the two clocks in the dispatching room were synchronized. They could be as much as a minute or two apart. Usually we didn’t change them until they became at least two minutes or more out of synchronization of each other. There was one clock in the office that had a generally reliable time. It was on the back wall of the telephone room. The only trouble was that it was way back in the corner which you could hardly see, and nobody ever looked at it. It was just there...
...An officer, depending on the individual circumstance at an individual time, might use either the digital clock in front of him, or he might use the time stamp on the other clock. Using a headset, let’s say the dispatcher turns away to do something and in the process sees the digital clock and says, “224, a disturbance at such and such location—2: 13.” He used the digital 2: 13. By now the time stamp clock might be reading 2: 15. He puts it in the slot, turns around, and now 125 says, “I’m clear.” The dispatcher says, “125 clear,” and he looks at the time stamp—2: 15, “2: 15 KKB364.” Now it would look like to all the righteous world that 125 cleared two minutes after the radio operator dispatched the call at 2: 13, but he didn’t. It was almost in one breath. So, under no circumstance could you put any stock in the real world time or any continuity on 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...
...More specifically, at the time of the assassination, when Gerald Henslee, who was operating Channel 2, said, “12: 30 KKB364 Police Department, Dallas,” it really wasn’t 12: 30 by all that I can reconstruct by all other parallels. I used several indices to try to correlate that. There were certain places you could tend to lock Channel 1 and Channel 2 together such as things that transpired where there’s cross talk between the channels or where they used a simultaneous broadcast and went on both channels. I made a big, long sheet of paper where Channel 1 was on one side and Channel 2 on the other and slid these papers back and forth to try to line up conversation in a reasonably faithful lineup. A good close proximity is the best I could do—no one can do better.
The tapes are very simple and self explanatory if you accept them for what they’re worth...
This alone should tell you enough about the evidentary value of the tapes.
There was no way in the world that some six clocks in the telephone room and the two clocks in the dispatching room were synchronized. They could be as much as a minute or two apart.
Oops... so how does one determine the exact time?
There was one clock in the office that had a generally reliable time. It was on the back wall of the telephone room. The only trouble was that it was way back in the corner which you could hardly see, and nobody ever looked at it.
And still they maintain that the times on the transcripts are acurate. Go figure!
So, under no circumstance could you put any stock in the real world time or any continuity on 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...
Which basically destroys the claim that the transcript times are acurate....
HUH??.... I most certainly am NOT making such a claim... I've said repeatedly that after midnight 11/22/63, they sent the 3 X 5 card, which allegedly contained a palm print ( item #14 on the original evidence list) along with the other evidence on the list, to the FBI Crime Lab in Washington DC.
At that time ( midnight 11/22/63 ) we have no way of knowing if there was any print on that 3 X 5 card. All we know is that whatever it was, it had been lifted "off underside gun barrell near end of foregrip c 2766" Later they liars produced a PHOTOGRAPH that they claimed was a photo of the lift.
The transcripts were made from tapes, not from the original dictabelt discs. The fact that the transcripts say "tape splice" in several spots means that the tapes were edited in some fashion.
So what Bowles is saying here is that it's meaningless that the dispatcher said "1:16" shortly before the citizen reported the shooting of the police officer.
The transcripts were made from tapes, not from the original dictabelt discs. The fact that the transcripts say "tape splice" in several spots means that the tapes were edited in some fashion.
That's not how I interpret the following words from him:
..."I just made a recording of it with a nice reel to reel tape recorder which the FBI furnished to me and then set about from the original tapes and the original Gray audiograph disks to transcribe the tapes using the originals because, according to the law, that’s the best evidence. The tapes were in as good a condition as you would expect considering the fact that the FBI had tried to transcribe them using a single stylus"...
"On channel 1 we used a two phase dictaphone voice recording. I stress voice recording because it was not a precision quality; it was a stenographic type recording. You had a comparatively dull stylus making a simple impression on a thin celluloid belt." (Apparently he uses tape interchangeably with belt.)
So what Bowles is saying here is that it's meaningless that the dispatcher said "1:16" shortly before the citizen reported the shooting of the police officer.
No, not meaningless, just inexact. "A good close proximity is the best I could do—no one can do better."
Yes you are. If that card was sent with the other evidence on 11/22, then Day and Drain both lied about Drain not getting it that night, and Latona lied about not receiving it until 11/29. The question is, why would they deny that the card was with the other evidence when it would serve no purpose to do so?
You still haven't demonstrated how you even know that it's a 3x5 card...
The tapes are very simple and self explanatory if you accept them for what they’re worth...
This alone should tell you enough about the evidentary value of the tapes.
There was no way in the world that some six clocks in the telephone room and the two clocks in the dispatching room were synchronized. They could be as much as a minute or two apart.
Oops... so how does one determine the exact time?
There was one clock in the office that had a generally reliable time. It was on the back wall of the telephone room. The only trouble was that it was way back in the corner which you could hardly see, and nobody ever looked at it.
And still they maintain that the times on the transcripts are acurate. Go figure!
So, under no circumstance could you put any stock in the real world time or any continuity on 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...
Which basically destroys the claim that the transcript times are acurate....
Oops... so how does one determine the exact time?
The most accurate time pieces (even by today's standards) are not exact. There are tolerances involved. Generally, the more expensive ones have closer tolerances. Given what Bowles says in the interview, the tolerances involved with the voice time stamps on the recordings would be plus or minus a minute or two. (Not the ten minutes or so that some people try to attribute to the Tippit murder.)
Which basically destroys the claim that the transcript times are acurate....
It clarifies what the tolerances are. Accurate within a minute or two.
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...
What part of the following quote don't you (want to) understand?
He explains what he means by that. I previously pointed it out to you. What part don’t you (want to) understand?
if that card was sent with the other evidence on 11/22, then Day and Drain both lied about Drain not getting it that night,
Is that so preposterous?.... Do you doubt that Day was a bare faced liar? I know that you've seen many examples of Day's prevarications.
Twist and turn all you want, but he did indeed explain it alright and it was pretty clear;
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.
Paraphrasing: He explains that the reason that they had no faithful validity is because the dispatcher might have been looking at one of two clocks. That the two clocks were not necessarily synchronized. And that if one got more than one or two minutes off, it was adjusted accordingly.
That means that the tolerances for being off were one or two minutes. However, it doesn’t preclude the possibility that they were more accurate than that.
Nope.. no need to paraphrase and muddy the water. We don't need your version of what he said, when Bowley's own words are perfectly clear;
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.
I ask again, who are you and what do you know that Bowles doesn't to disagree with this clear cut statement?
Btw you seem to ignore the fact that the original recordings were made by voice activated equipment, reducing the evidentary value of the recordings/transcripts even further.
Why do you think that I am disagreeing with what he said? I am only pointing out that he does explain what he meant by that statement. You want to ignore his explanation? Then go ahead and be an ignoramus.
You are disagreeing with what he said when you argue that his explanation somehow only means "that the tolerances for being off were one or two minutes" when in fact the man himself said unambiguously that under no circumstance could you put any stock in the real world time references
Calling me names isn't going to alter that one bit and only shows the weakness of your argument.
How the hell do you reason that that statement precludes what his own explanation of it says it means? I am not name calling. If you choose to be ignorant of the facts. Then the definition fits.
The suggestion that Day was less than honest is not that preposterous. The suggestion that Day, Drain, and Latona all lied about something that served no purpose whatsoever (and in fact was counter-productive to their narrative) is definitely preposterous.
::)
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.
Not at all. That was not his conclusion statement. In fact it appears before the explanation.
I believe that JAMES C. BOWLES Communications Supervisor Dallas Police Department explained the accuracy of the time in his interview in “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed:
Since I was the communications supervisor in charge of the dispatch office, I became involved with the tapes of all radio communications of the Dallas Police Department that day, the same tapes which were analyzed by the Warren Commission and later the House Select Committee on Assassinations. There should be no controversy about the tapes. The tapes are very simple and self explanatory if you accept them for what they’re worth...
...At the time of the initial investigation following the assassination, we impounded the tapes and held all records for just that purpose, the ensuing investigation. When the FBI took the tapes and tried to make audible sense out of them, they found that they couldn’t comprehend the tape traffic because they couldn’t understand the speech style used on the radio. The things that were said by the officers on the radio made complete sense to the officers, but they didn’t make a bit of sense to the transcribers. So an FBI agent brought the tapes back to the department, and the chief gave them back to me and asked me to transcribe them for him; of course, understanding that we didn’t have a lot of conspiracy theorists in our midst at that time...
...I just made a recording of it with a nice reel to reel tape recorder which the FBI furnished to me and then set about from the original tapes and the original Gray audiograph disks to transcribe the tapes using the originals because, according to the law, that’s the best evidence. The tapes were in as good a condition as you would expect considering the fact that the FBI had tried to transcribe them using a single stylus...
...Remember, even the House Select Committee and the National Academy of Sciences put in computer monitors on the belts and on the tapes so that the consistency of the tapes used indicated no interruption, alteration or changes. Both agreed as well as could be that the tapes at the last instance are the same as the original tapes in the first instance. No hanky panky!...
...Something a lot of people really got their lather up about was whether something was or wasn’t at a certain time. Some people tried to use stop watches to time that belt to say something happened after a certain minute, second, or fraction of a second. That is nonsense, utter nonsense!...
...The dispatcher had two types of clocks: He had a time stamp clock that didn’t show seconds, just minutes, and he had a digital clock in front of him which had the numerical hour and minutes. That was the usual clock for general sight and time statements. At the same time, the same dispatcher might use the digital clock. There was no way in the world that some six clocks in the telephone room and the two clocks in the dispatching room were synchronized. They could be as much as a minute or two apart. Usually we didn’t change them until they became at least two minutes or more out of synchronization of each other. There was one clock in the office that had a generally reliable time. It was on the back wall of the telephone room. The only trouble was that it was way back in the corner which you could hardly see, and nobody ever looked at it. It was just there...
...An officer, depending on the individual circumstance at an individual time, might use either the digital clock in front of him, or he might use the time stamp on the other clock. Using a headset, let’s say the dispatcher turns away to do something and in the process sees the digital clock and says, “224, a disturbance at such and such location—2: 13.” He used the digital 2: 13. By now the time stamp clock might be reading 2: 15. He puts it in the slot, turns around, and now 125 says, “I’m clear.” The dispatcher says, “125 clear,” and he looks at the time stamp—2: 15, “2: 15 KKB364.” Now it would look like to all the righteous world that 125 cleared two minutes after the radio operator dispatched the call at 2: 13, but he didn’t. It was almost in one breath. So, under no circumstance could you put any stock in the real world time or any continuity on 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...
...More specifically, at the time of the assassination, when Gerald Henslee, who was operating Channel 2, said, “12: 30 KKB364 Police Department, Dallas,” it really wasn’t 12: 30 by all that I can reconstruct by all other parallels. I used several indices to try to correlate that. There were certain places you could tend to lock Channel 1 and Channel 2 together such as things that transpired where there’s cross talk between the channels or where they used a simultaneous broadcast and went on both channels. I made a big, long sheet of paper where Channel 1 was on one side and Channel 2 on the other and slid these papers back and forth to try to line up conversation in a reasonably faithful lineup. A good close proximity is the best I could do—no one can do better.
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.
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
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.
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 :D
::)
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.
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?
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.
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.
He explained what he meant and you choose to ignore him. The voice time stamps are not just some arbitrary numbers pulled out of thin air that have no meaning. They are within the tolerances that he explained. Ignore these facts if you wish...
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.
Here are his words in his complete sentence:
“So, under no circumstance could you put any stock in the real world time or any continuity on 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.”
You take a partial sentence and on top of that you omit some of the words that belong in the partial sentence. You are the one who is pathetic!
So, under no circumstance could you put any stock in the real world time references by the belt or any continuity on time references 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.
The suggestion that Day, Drain, and Latona all lied about something that served no purpose whatsoever--- is definitely preposterous.
Oh really.... So you know what they all were thinking, and know there motive for lying?.... Do you think they were all saints and would never lie.
How about if they thought nuclear war might hang in the balance.....
Between Marsalis and Beckley.
Cite.
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.
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?
Are you blind or do you have a problem reading. The sentence you have quoted is exactly the same as I have been quoting all along.....
He explained what he meant and you choose to ignore him. The voice time stamps are not just some arbitrary numbers pulled out of thin air that have no meaning. They are within the tolerances that he explained. Ignore these facts if you wish...
I am not blind. Here (again) is your reply that I was responding to:
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"
You left out exactly what I said you did. You are the one who is blind and forgetful.
Nuclear war hung in the balance on what date a card with a print on it arrived at the FBI?
I did not take a partial sentence at all, at least not purposely. But it seems indeed that some words that were in the original sentence were somehow lost in my later quote. It was unintentional and I can't really explain how that happened. Not that it matters much, but I have now rectified the problem and included the missing words.
The fact remains that Bowles clearly states that the recordings/transcripts can not be relied on to provide accurate times.
Apparently you didn't live through that week.... Yes....The missile crisis of 62 was still fresh in everybody's mind... and the conspirators took advantage of the fear that people felt. If Anybody thought they could help to avoid nuclear war ...They would lie.
You just can't win the argument and thus attack the messenger.....
On what basis did he determine that the tolerances were within "a minute or two"?
The fact remains that Bowles clearly states that the recordings/transcripts can not be relied on to provide accurate times.
The key word (that you finally used) is: “accurate.”
The main thrust of the interview is explaining why the acoustics experts’ report to the HSCA was invalid. The acoustics experts tried to show that the timing on the recordings could be accurate enough to indicate exactly who was where at very specific exacting times. Bowles was explaining why they are not THAT accurate.
Bowles’ explanation does indicate how accurate they could be relied upon to be (one to two minute tolerances). He certainly doesn’t say that they are useless (as your spin tries to suggest). Only that they couldn’t be as accurate as the acoustics experts wanted them to be.
When the recordings are not accurate enough "to indicate exactly who was where at very specific exacting times", it's also not accurate enough to pin down the exact times around Tippit's shooting.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too...
Btw, Bowles did indeed not say they were useless (your choice of word) he actually said that they can not be relied on under no circumstance
So, under no circumstance could you put any stock in the real world time references by the belt or any continuity on time references 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.
No one needs the “exact” times around Tippit’s shooting. At least not as exacting as the acoustics experts needed for their endeavors.
“Btw, Bowles did indeed not say they were useless (your choice of word) he actually said that they can not be relied on under no circumstance”
There you go again trying to take a partial sentence and spin it. And again you screwed up the words.
Sorry, I can not argue with dishonest BS:
This was explained earlier in this thread. It has to do with when the DPD decided that the clocks were far enough off and needed to be synchronized. Have you read the earlier posts?
Yes, I have.
First of all, Bowles said “Usually we didn’t change them until they became at least two minutes or more out of synchronization of each other.”
Secondly, whether the dispatcher clocks were synchronized with each other or not, that tells you nothing about how accurately either one was set to any time standard.
First of all, Bowles said “Usually we didn’t change them until they became at least two minutes or more out of synchronization of each other.”
Here are the preceding two sentences:
“There was no way in the world that some six clocks in the telephone room and the two clocks in the dispatching room were synchronized. They could be as much as a minute or two apart.”
The above statement includes all eight clocks.
Here are the four sentences that follow your selected sentence:
“There was one clock in the office that had a generally reliable time. It was on the back wall of the telephone room. The only trouble was that it was way back in the corner which you could hardly see, and nobody ever looked at it. It was just there. They’d use it only when they wanted to check its time versus the other time.”
Since we're discussing the time checks made by the dispatcher, then what's relevant are the two clocks in the dispatching room.
What does "generally reliable time" even mean? And if you could "hardly see it" then how could it have been used to synchronize the others? And what was that clock synchronized to in order to make it "generally reliable"?
I think all this mess shows is that the time checks given by the dispatcher are unreliable, and the preponderance of the evidence is that Tippit was shot earlier than the official narrative wants it to have happened.
Much like it was reasonable to assume that the phone company kept their time closely synchronized with the official time, it is reasonable to assume that the DPD kept their time synchronized with the official time also. (Otherwise, Bowles wouldn’t have known that one clock was generally reliable).
That's a lot of assuming based on a rather vague statement. We have no idea if, or when, or how, any of these clocks were set. Regardless, the spoken time checks at any given time "had no faithful validity".
Yes, “no faithful validity” would be due to the fact that the dispatcher had two different clocks within sight. And Bowles had no way of knowing which one he used for the voice time stamp. Not necessarily that the time was more out of sync than their normal tolerances.
Right. And also no way of knowing how close either clock was to any time standard.
This quote from the same interview by Larry Sneed might give you a clue:Charles; I'm not sure if you read this or not but Bowles goes into some detail as to how he determined that and other times: http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles.html
And somebody else said, “All right.” Just after that, at about 12: 30: 55 is when the first shot was fired.
I don’t have the information as to how Bowles arrived at that conclusion. But it doesn’t appear to me that their clocks were more than a minute or two off.
Charles; I'm not sure if you read this or not but Bowles goes into some detail as to how he determined that and other times: http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles.html
See chapter/section 3 in particular.
This quote from the same interview by Larry Sneed might give you a clue:
And somebody else said, “All right.” Just after that, at about 12: 30: 55 is when the first shot was fired.
I don’t have the information as to how Bowles arrived at that conclusion.
But it doesn’t appear to me that their clocks were more than a minute or two off.
Charles; I'm not sure if you read this or not but Bowles goes into some detail as to how he determined that and other times: http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles.html
See chapter/section 3 in particular.
Or Alyea (or Kritzberg) may have just been wrong.
Gary Savage (1st Day Evidence) also says that a newsman (Alyea) who had been allowed into the TSBD took video of Lt Day lifting prints from the rifle....
What possible reason would there be for Day, Drain, and Latona to all lie about sending and receiving the card later and separately from the other evidence?
That would take me a while to type out.....And you already know the answer.....You've read my posts....
I believe Vince Drain took only a few select pieces of evidence ( The Rifle and a couple of other items) and flew in an Air Force jet to Washington.... The bulk of the evidence arrived later on SaPersonay........
"I believe Vince Drain took only a few select pieces of evidence ( The Rifle and a couple of other items) and flew in an Air Force jet to Washington.... The bulk of the evidence arrived later on SaPersonay........"
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10484#relPageId=89&tab=page
Commission Document 81.1 - AG Texas
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/drainevidence1.png)
Thanks Gary, Although the 3 X 5 card isn't specifically mentioned , the writer does say " The evidence was turned over to Drain about midnight Friday, November, 22, 1963. " And that 3 X 5 card was listed on the evidence inventory list.
Thanks for the pointer. So Bowles derives his "approximate to the second" timestamps only during the period of time that the motorcycle radio mic was stuck on (thus causing the sound-activated channel 1 recorder to record continuously) buy arbitrarily assigning the exact time of 12:29:10 p.m. (Channel 1 time) to the beginning of the stuck-mic episode. Unfortunately this doesn't help us determine anything about the time period surrounding Tippit's shooting.
Bowles also gives a number of caveats:
"It is, however, important to remember that
1. No exact record of "time" exists;
2. The several clocks were not synchronized;
3. The radio operators were not exact with regard to "time statements" on either radio;
4. The recordings were continuous only on Channel 1, and only while the mike was stuck open;
5. For an accurate, although derived, time reference point, 12:29:10 (Channel 1), the time the mike stuck open, will be developed and used in this text."
How would you know?
Two quotes from the same page: http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles1.html#set
A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time. Within the dispatcher's office there were numerous other time giving and time recording devices, both in the telephone room and in the radio room. Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose, they indicated the incorrect time. However, their purpose was to stamp the time, day and date on incoming calls. While they were reliable at this, they were not synchronized as stated in the Committee report. Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock. Accordingly, at "exactly" 10:10, various clocks could be stamping from 10:08 to 10:12, for example. When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done.
There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time." The Committee Report stated that the Dallas Police Communications system was recorded by continuously operating recorders. That statement is incorrect. Channel 1 was recorded on a Dictaphone A2TC, Model 5, belt or loop recorder. Channel 2 was recorded on a Gray "Audograph" flat disk recorder. Both were duplex units with one recording and one on standby for when the other unit contained a full recording. Both units were sound activated. It is important to note "sound" rather than "voice" because either sound or noise from any source, received through the transmission line, would activate the recorders. Once activated, the recorders remained "on" for the duration of the activating sound plus 4 seconds. The four second delay permitted brief pauses or answers to questions without the relay mechanism being overworked. On occasion, the recorders would operate almost continuously because rapid radio traffic kept them operating. On November 22, 1963, the Channel 1 recorders became, for practical purposes, continuous recorders for just over five minutes starting at approximately 12:29 pm (Channel 1 time) because the microphone on a police motorcycle stuck in the "on" position. The resulting continuous transmission kept the Channel 1 recorders operating for just over five minutes thus giving us a real-time recording for that period. The only problem was determining a basis for an accurate time reference during that period.
Spoken time stamps that could be two minutes ahead or behind the "official" time, recorded on voice activated devices do not provide a solid basis for preparing accurate transcripts.
As it would appear, since the Channel 2 dispatcher gave the 12:30 time and station check, "12:30 KKB364" a few seconds before Chief Curry's broadcast, "We're going to the hospital . . . ", the assassin's shots were fired either just before or immediately after 12:30 p.m. (Channel 2). However, that would be an inaccurate assumption.
There is a simple way to determine more accurately the approximate time the 12:30 station check was actually given.
Actually, the 12:30 station check was given more nearly at 12:31:16 (Channel 2).
If the clocks used by the dispatchers were more than a minute or two off of official time, then his time and station check at 12:30 would have been off accordingly. It wasn’t.
Official time that affected the entire city government, including the mayor’s office, etc. Do you really believe that the city would not frequently sync their official time with the rest of the world?!
But only based on his arbitrarily chosen "zero-base" time.
But the whole point is, we don't know if, how, or when any of these clocks were calibrated to "official time", only that they were synchronized with each other
if they got "at least two minutes or more out of synchronization of each other".
I believe that this is an assumption, and not based on anything that Bowles or anybody else stated.
]A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time.
Official time that affected the entire city government, including the mayor’s office, etc. Do you really believe that the city would not frequently sync their official time with the rest of the world?!
Nobody suggested they didn't. But, as usual, your reply fails to address the obvious point being made about the reliability of the voice activated recordings and the transcripts derived thereof when it comes down to determining the exact time an event took place.
Again:
If the clocks used by the dispatchers were more than a minute or two off of official time, then his time and station check at 12:30 would have been off accordingly. It wasn’t.
Do you believe that the clocks magically got off between the 12:30 time check and the time of Tippit’s shooting?
What do you mean with "it wasn't"... to make that determination one needs a rock solid time source to make the comparision with.
You seem to assume that the "official time" was indeed exactly accurate.
Again:
A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time.
Do you believe that the clocks magically got off between the 12:30 time check and the time of Tippit’s shooting?
Again, Bowles’ words from the Larry Sneed interview:
“There was one clock in the office that had a generally reliable time. It was on the back wall of the telephone room.”
There is absolutely no evidence that the document in question was an evidence list of items turned over to the FBI on 11/22 or that it was even written on 11/22. Or even that CE637 is a 3x5 card.
Dear John, I'm sorry that you'll have to find someone who knows elementary arithmetic , so you will be able to scale a photo of CE 637 and determine that the card measures 3 inches by five inches.... You'll notice in his testimony Detective Studebaker said that hey were using 1 inch wide "Magic Mending tape"
Studebaker didn't take this alleged lift.
Duh!.... Who said that he did?.... I merely determined the tape they were using was 1 inch wide.... I'm sorry that you'll have to find someone to scale a photo of CE 637 and use the 1 inch width of the tape to determine that the card is 3 inches by 5 inches.
What do you mean with "it wasn't"... to make that determination one needs a rock solid time source to make the comparision with.
You seem to assume that the "official time" was indeed exactly accurate.
What do you mean with "it wasn't"... to make that determination one needs a rock solid time source to make the comparision with.
For the third time: If the clocks used by the dispatchers were more than a minute or two off of official time, then his time and station check at 12:30 would have been off accordingly. It wasn’t.
How do you know that Day and Studebaker used the same kind of tape?
Gary Savage, "JFK First Day Evidence", p. 108Aha,ha,ha,ha...ROTFLMAO!.... 2 inches would wrap all the way around the barrel....
"He told Rusty and me that he could tell it wasn't put on there recently by the way it took the fingerprint powder. He said what makes a print of this sort is a lack of moisture, and this print had dried out. He said he took a small camel hair brush and dipped it in fingerprint powder and lightly brushed it. He then placed a strip of 2" scotch tape over the developed print and rubbed it down before finally lifting the tape containing the print off and placed it on a card. He said he then compared the lift to Oswald's palm print card and was certain that it was Oswald's. He also said that after the lift, he could still see an impression of the palm print left on the barrel."
There is absolutely no evidence that the document in question was an evidence list of items turned over to the FBI on 11/22 or that it was even written on 11/22. Or even that CE637 is a 3x5 card.
How do you know that Day and Studebaker used the same kind of tape?
How did I know that would be your next stupid question?... The Answer...Studebaker said so....And No ....I'm not going to post the proof...look it up for yourself.
Aha,ha,ha,ha...ROTFLMAO!.... 2 inches would wrap all the way around the barrel....
PS.... A two inch wide tape would be very unwieldy and hard to work with....AND a two inch wide tape would be wider than the magazine of a carcano....A 2 inch wide tape would extend 3/4 inch below the magazine....
There is no evidence that you've got a working brain......
BS:
When did Studebaker say that Day used the same tape?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. We have - it's like a Magic Mending Tape, only we use it just strictly for fingerprinting.
What makes you think “we” refers to Day?
Day, himself, said he used 2-inch tape on that particular lift. What Studebaker used is irrelevant.
I'm sorry John.... My mistake.... I assumed that I was dealing with a rational intelligent person....
There you go again. You trot some story out that you have no evidence for, and your "evidence" is to insult the person who doesn't buy your unsupported opinion.
The question is, why do you think your ridiculous posturing is going to fool anybody?
Don't need to fool anybody, nor do I wish to..... Most folks are intelligent enough to see that the 3 X 5 card was on the evidence inventory list that was sent to FBI Crime lab in DC at midnight 11 /22 /63. You can't fool them.
What makes you think “we” refers to Day?
Day, himself, said he used 2-inch tape on that particular lift. What Studebaker used is irrelevant.
No, Day himself did not say that he used two inch tape.... that's an asinine interpretation of what Gary Savage said that Day said......
Do you pay money here to do bad stand up and not be yanked?
You can repeat this meaningless statement as much as you like, it won't become any more credible as an answer.
On page 371 of "Pictures of the Pain," author Richard B. Trask quotes Thomas M. Atkins: (Camera Car #1):
"We came to the end of [Main Street] and made that right-hand turn, and were going directly at the [Texas School Book] Depository. Just as we turned, I remember looking at my watch, and it was 12:30, and just as I looked at my watch I heard an explosion. ... And then immediately following there were two more quick explosions, and my stomach just went into a knot."
For the third time: If the clocks used by the dispatchers were more than a minute or two off of official time, then his time and station check at 12:30 would have been off accordingly. It wasn’t.
The most accurate time pieces (even by today's standards) are not exact. There are tolerances involved. Generally, the more expensive ones have closer tolerances. Given what Bowles says in the interview, the tolerances involved with the voice time stamps on the recordings would be plus or minus a minute or two. (Not the ten minutes or so that some people try to attribute to the Tippit murder.)
So, to argue that the clocks used by the dispatchers were not more than a minute or two off of official time;
you rely on Thomas M. Atkins' wristwatch?
Wow, are you the same guy who also argued;
Amazing.....
On page 371 of "Pictures of the Pain," author Richard B. Trask quotes Thomas M. Atkins: (Camera Car #1):
"We came to the end of [Main Street] and made that right-hand turn, and were going directly at the [Texas School Book] Depository. Just as we turned, I remember looking at my watch, and it was 12:30, and just as I looked at my watch I heard an explosion. ... And then immediately following there were two more quick explosions, and my stomach just went into a knot."
Do you have evidence that the time of the assassination was more than a minute or two off of the universally recognized time of 12:30?
Do you have firm evidence that the assassination really happened at exactly 12:30?
T.F. Bowley affidavit:
"I saw a police officer lying next to the left front wheel. I stopped my car and got out to go to the scene. I looked at my watch and it said 1:10 pm."
No one has claimed that.
I quoted it verbatim. You're the one who "interprets" things in order to spin your own stories.
"He then placed a strip of 2" scotch tape over the developed print and rubbed it down before finally lifting the tape containing the print off and placed it on a card."
Savage talked directly to Day. You're taking something that Studebaker said that doesn't even mention Day and applying it to Day, even though it contradicts what Day himself said. Why would Day lie about what width his damn tape was? That's even more ridiculous than your claim that he lied about when he gave the card to the FBI. It would serve no purpose whatsoever to lie about either of these things.
Do you lack the commonsense to know that either Day or Savage were wrong....
And I'd say that Day was talkin through his hat... Because he did call the BOLT ACTION carcano, a LEVER ACTION rifle. I can't imagine a police officer that doesn't know the difference between a bolt action rifle, and a lever action rifle.
And he probably didn't know the difference between 1 inch and 2 inch tape....
"Commonsense" is Walt-speak for "I made something up with no evidence to support it".
So what is your evidence then that Day (who is not Studebaker) used 1 inch tape on the magic partial palmprint?
Do you have trouble understanding English? What does the word "WE" mean.... Studebaker said "WE" used 1 inch wide tape.... Who was he working with that day in the TSBD?
Hang on, so the term "universally recognized time of 12:30" doesn't really mean the assassination happened at 12:30?
But didn't you just claim that the DPD transcripts of the voice actived recording devices containing time calls by the dispatchers were correct because they line up with Thomas M. Atkins saying that he looked at his wristwatch and it said 12:30 when he heard the shots.
So what exactly is the purpose of that claim when you don't claim that the assassination took place at 12:30?
Are you now taking the position that the assassination could also have happened shortly prior to or after 12:30, is that what you are saying?
You seem to be all over the place with this time stuff....
Martin, FWIW.... Merriman Smith a reporter in the press poll car in the motorcade grabbed the microphone and announced the shots fired immediately , that radio break was recorded at 12:30....
Martin, FWIW.... Merriman Smith a reporter in the press poll car in the motorcade grabbed the microphone and announced the shots fired immediately , that radio break was recorded at 12:30....
Do you have firm evidence that the assassination really happened at exactly 12:30?
(https://i.postimg.cc/J0LqDHXV/12-30-texas-depository.jpg)
JohnM
And that clock was accurate?
How many clocks/watches in 1963 can you prove were accurate?
JohnM
Obviously, if you can't show the clock is accurate, there would not be any point in posting the picture, right?
Hang on, so the term "universally recognized time of 12:30" doesn't really mean the assassination happened at 12:30?
But didn't you just claim that the DPD transcripts of the voice actived recording devices containing time calls by the dispatchers were correct because they line up with Thomas M. Atkins saying that he looked at his wristwatch and it said 12:30 when he heard the shots.
So what exactly is the purpose of that claim when you don't claim that the assassination took place at 12:30?
Are you now taking the position that the assassination could also have happened shortly prior to or after 12:30, is that what you are saying?
You seem to be all over the place with this time stuff....
Exactly, that's the hypocrisy...
On the one hand argueing that most accurate time pieces are not exact and that Markham's, Bowley's and the Methodist Hospital's clock were all slow and using as "evidence" for that claim the transcripts of voice activated recording devices containing time calls by dispatchers who were using non synchronized clocks with a possible estimated margin of error of two minutes ahead or behind "official time", whatever that may be.....
And on the other hand argueing that those same time calls by dispatchers were correct because they allegedly matched up with the time on Thomas M. Atkins' wristwatch
T.F. Bowley affidavit:
"I saw a police officer lying next to the left front wheel. I stopped my car and got out to go to the scene. I looked at my watch and it said 1:10 pm."
(https://i.postimg.cc/J0LqDHXV/12-30-texas-depository.jpg)
JohnM
And that clock was accurate?
Care to discuss it with Charles Collins, who seems to be of the opinion that back in 1963 clocks couldn't be relied on to give the exact accurate time?
That's exactly the answer I was looking for, you or I can't prove that any clock/watch in 1963 was accurate therefore the CT's heavy reliance on minute/second accuracy for the Tippit murder is a waste of time. Thanks for playing!
JohnM
You seem to be confused. I have no idea what you are supposed to be arguing about.
Hang on, so the term "universally recognized time of 12:30" doesn't really mean the assassination happened at 12:30?
Your question included the word "exactly." That is why I said no one claimed that.
If I remember correctly I joined the discussion after someone stated that the voice time stamps on the DPD recordings were meaningless. I simply began showing what Bowley documented regarding this subject. Once I showed that, the question became whether or not the official time for the Dallas, TX city hall clocks network was synchronized with real world time. I am simply showing that they appear to be within the tolerances that Bowley specified.
If you are still lost, I suggest that you go back and read the previous posts.
I'm not the one who is lost or confused....
I don't confuse Bowley (who said he arrived at 10th/Patton at 1:10, after Tippit was killed) with Bowles, the DPD Communications Supervisor, who told us that the clocks used by the dispatchers and the voice actived recording devices could not be relied on to determine the exact time an event happened.
But don't worry about, the entire topic has been going over your head for some time now.
Thomas Atkins was documenting the activities of the President. It was an important aspect of his job to be able to pinpoint the time that these activities occurred. He was on the job at the time of the assassination. Does it seem very likely that he would let his wristwatch be very far off the official time? Can you say the same about T.F. Bowley?
And the clock atop the TSBD.
And please don't forget Walt's contribution:
Martin, FWIW.... Merriman Smith a reporter in the press poll car in the motorcade grabbed the microphone and announced the shots fired immediately , that radio break was recorded at 12:30....
My mistake. And you insist on continuing to use the word “exact” even though it is not a part of the discussion that the rest of us are having. Why is that point continuing to go over your head?
Typical Mytton hit and run BS...
You can't rely on the clocks of the DPD dispatchers either, which means that the transcripts of the voice actived devices that recorded the radio transmission can not serve as proof for the time Tippit was killed.
As far as the CT reliance on minute/second accuracy that's just more BS.... The combined testimony of Markham and Bowley who both were very much aware of the time as well as the DOA time of Tippit at Methodist Hospital at 1:15 make a compelling case that Tippit must indeed have been killed between 1:06 and 1:10.
Typical Mytton hit and run BS...
You can't rely on the clocks of the DPD dispatchers either
a compelling case that Tippit must indeed have been killed between 1:06 and 1:10.
Man, you're all over the place, you so desperately want to defend Oswald that I easily baited you and you unwittingly gave me the answer I wanted.
On a scale of 1 to ten of time accuracy I'd give the DPD dispatchers a 9 because time was integral to the job.
As for screwball Markham you can't have it both ways, so you can forget that.
Bowleys watch was never tested or calibrated.
And as for the DOA time, that's an estimate of the actual time of death not the time the ambulance arrives at the hospital.
No, you don't get to pick and choose, advanced statistical analysis says something completely different, the mean time average of the time of Tippit's death was closer to 1:15!
Along with the reasonably accurate DPD times we have these times from witnesses which are closer to 1:30 and when all the times a plotted the median is 1:15.
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Mrs. Virginia Davis, w/m/16 [sic], of 400 E. 10th WH-3-8120 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
"Today November 22, 1963 about 1:30 pm my sister-in-law and myself were lying down in our apartment. My sister-in-law is Jeanette Davis, we live in the same house in different apartments. We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side door at Patton Street."
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JONNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas.
ROBERT BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was employed as a mechanic at Roger Ballew Texaco Service Station, 600 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. He advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, November 22, 1963, a young white man passed him, BROCK and his wife, and proceeded north past the Texaco Service Station into the parking lot, at which time the individual disappeared.
Mr. DULLES. What time was this, approximately, as far as you can recall?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Around 1:20 in the afternoon.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Will you please state then what happened, what you saw, what you did, what you heard?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Well, I first seen the police car cruising east.
JohnM
On a scale of 1 to ten of time accuracy I'd give the DPD dispatchers a 9 because time was integral to the job.
Yeah right... you need to have a conversation with Bowles.
As for screwball Markham you can't have it both ways, so you can forget that.
Bowleys watch was never tested or calibrated.
And as for the DOA time, that's an estimate of the actual time of death not the time the ambulance arrives at the hospital.
Not one solid argument there, just outright dismissal .... typical LN crap.
No, you don't get to pick and choose, advanced statistical analysis says something completely different, the mean time average of the time of Tippit's death was closer to 1:15!
More BS and double talk... you don't get to determine the time it happened by averaging the times given by selective "witnesses". It's not something you get to vote on!
And I don't pick and choose. I've presented a circumstantial case using Markham, Bowley, Davenport and documents from Methodist Hospital and so far nobody has been able to counter it, and that says enough.
Yeah right... you need to have a conversation with Bowles.
Not one solid argument there, just outright dismissal .... typical LN crap.
More BS and double talk... you don't get to determine the time it happened by averaging the times given by selective "witnesses". It's not something you get to vote on!
And I don't pick and choose. I've presented a circumstantial case using Markham, Bowley, Davenport and documents from Methodist Hospital and so far nobody has been able to counter it, and that says enough.
Typical Kook cop-out.
No, I gave 3 solid responses,
1) you rely on a "screwball",
2) Bowley's watch which must be right because he was on a mission from God
3) and you still don't understand D.O.A.
Huh? the time of 1:15 can't be found by exclusively examining the 5 eyewitnesses I quoted, it seems you don't understand this concept either.
Seriously Weidmann?, how would you present Markham in court, you'd be smashing her Oswald Positive ID for a six and on the other hand you'd place all your faith in Markham's time recollection in which you've already admitted that clocks like the TSBD and the DPD clocks can't be trusted, where can your argument possibly go?
Whereas I'd embrace Markham's Tippit positive ID and would use your example that clocks/watches of the time can't be trusted.
Are you really this clueless?
JohnM
Go back to posting gifs.
This is too easy, go away. NEXT!
JohnM
Go back to posting gifs. You've just exposed your total inability to have a normal conversation.
how would you present Markham in court
We are not in court.
We are not in court.
Since you again altered the post I responded to, here's my continuation.
Don't kid yourself, all you people think you are defending Oswald to some sort of self perceived legal standard, it's truly hilarious.
But getting back to Markham, how can you rely on her time estimate and why can't you rely on her positive ID of Oswald?
Btw a bus came along every ten minutes, so Markham never had a longer than a ten minute wait.
JohnM
But I'll give you a clue; Bowley said he arrived on the scene at 1:10 after having just picked up his daughter from school. The distance between the school and 10th/Patton is such that he, driving at normal speed, would indeed have arrived there when he said he did. When he arrived, Tippit was already shot. The record shows that Markham saw Tippit being shot before Bowley arrived. The walking distance from 10th/Patton to Markham's home on 9th street is at best a three minute walk, which means that Markham must indeed have left her home at around 1:06 or 1:07, just like she testified. The walking distance from Markham's home to the bus stop on Jefferson is (two blocks) no more than 6 minutes. If she left home at 1:07 she would have been at the bus stop at 1:13..... How in the world could see have seen Tippit being shot at 1:15?
Deal with the information I posted as a whole, instead of cherry picking what you think you can attack, and show us you can in fact have a normal conversation.
But getting back to Markham, how can you rely on her time estimate and why can't you rely on her positive ID of Oswald?
This just shows how little you (want to) understand. I actually don't rely on her time estimate. Bowley in fact confirmed her timeline, but that's probably over your head.
And with her positive ID of Oswald, I take it you mean the "was there a number 2" fiasco?
Unless you can tell me what the ability to ID a person has to do with knowing at what time you leave home and catch a bus, there isn't much to discuss.
Btw a bus came along every ten minutes, so Markham never had a longer than a ten minute wait.
Sure, according to an elusive schedule, which nobody has ever been able to produce, there was a bus at 1:12 and 1:22.... In my previous post I have shown that it didn't matter which bus it was that Markham actually took.
Why are you responding to me?, your selective contradictory nonsense is a waste of bandwidth.
JohnM
Can you use arguments to show me the error of my ways?
Since I'm polite and considering you're begging for a response I'll comply.
There is only 1 argument which you yourself exposed, that even the DPD clocks which rely on accuracy and were regularly calibrated could be wrong therefore how can we trust any timepiece? You've dug yourself a deep inescapable hole but keep digging because watching you self destruct is absolutely fascinating.
JohnM
Since I'm polite and considering you're begging for a response I'll comply.
Oh, what a pathetic little man you truly are...
Hahaha, whenever you get your arse kicked out come the insults, thanks for acknowledging your loss.
JohnM
Bowles, the man in charge of them admitted they were not accurate!
So, still nothing to address the Markham... timelime?
Thanks, so again we arrive at the same conclusion that the clocks in the Dallas Police Headquarters were not accurate but somehow an unchecked clock in some random building as seen by a "screwball" is seriously good evidence? That's not very convincing.
JohnM
It's not the Markham timeline.... but you editing my post exposes the weakness of your case Thumb1:
I'm not following you. How would the dispatcher know that Tippit was between Marsalis and Beckley?
(https://tosee....wrworld.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/metapth338334_l_dsma_91-001-1503054-3445_11.jpg)
How many clocks/watches in 1963 can you prove were accurate?
JohnM
Why ask me? You posted the picture, so how do you know the time on the clock is accurate?
Obviously, if you can't show the clock is accurate, there would not be any point in posting the picture, right?
That's exactly the answer I was looking for, you or I can't prove that any clock/watch in 1963 was accurate therefore the CT's heavy reliance on minute/second accuracy for the Tippit murder is a waste of time. Thanks for playing!
JohnM
Exactly.
Now where does it say what you claimed it does? Where does it say that Tippit was pronounced DOA at 1:15?
Thumb1:
Hi Bill, it's simple logic, if someone is "dead on arrival" that can only mean that they died earlier and somewhere else and it's the job of the doctor at the hospital to make an educated decision to the time of death.
For instance if someone dies sometime during the night and is taken to the hospital the time of death isn't the time the ambulance arrives but the doctor will evaluate the body for temperature, rigor mortis and other stuff and give their professional opinion of the time of death.
(https://tosee....wrworld.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/metapth338334_l_dsma_91-001-1503054-3445_11.jpg)
JohnM
And with her positive ID of Oswald, I take it you mean the "was there a number 2" fiasco?
Unless you can tell me what the ability to ID a person has to do with knowing at what time you leave home and catch a bus, there isn't much to discuss.
So Markham could remember a clock face but couldn't remember a human face?
JohnM
So Markham could remember a clock face but couldn't remember a human face?
JohnM
Classic Thumb1:
Can you say the same about T.F. Bowley?
Actually, yes I can. Bowley was acutely aware of the time because, just prior to arriving at 10th/Patton he had picked up his daughter from school. When he got to 10th, he was on his way to pick up his wife from work. Do you really think that Bowley would have left his daughter waiting outside the schoolgates without noticing it?
But the mere fact that you need to ask this question tells me all I need to know about just how basic you knowledge of the details of this case truly is.
Your point being? That the clock atop the TSBD was correct because Merriman Smith made a report?
Well, if you had done a bit of research you would have discovered very quickly that Merriman Smith's radio call was actually on air at 12:34.!
How does Markham's positive identification have anything to do with Ball's badly phrased question?BS: Trouble with that comment is that Mrs Markham didn't have to remember a clock face just the time
So Markham could remember a clock face but couldn't remember a human face?
JohnM
Yes, indeed your mistake. One that shows just how little you pay attention!
Instead of dealing with a single word, which it seems you don't like, why don't you try to deal with the facts for once?
it is not a part of the discussion that the rest of us are having
Who else is in the discussion, except for you and me? And as I am part of the discussion, the word "exact" is indeed part of the discussion.
So, let's go back to basics;
I have tried this serveral times in the past, but so far no LNr has even tried to come up with a plausible scenario for Markham still being at 10th/Patton at 1:14 or 1:15 when she testified she left home "a little after 1" and the one block walk from her home on 9th street to the corner of 10th street and Patton would have taken her only 2, perhaps 3 minutes. Markham estimated in her testimony that she took the 1.15 bus to work every day. And before you go there, yes I know that according to the bus schedule (which btw nobody has ever been able to show me) there was a bus at 1.12 and one at 1.22. It actually doesn't matter which bus Markham was talking about, because a walk of two blocks to the bus stop would have taken her no more than 6 minutes. So, if she left home "a little after 1" she would have easily been at the bus stop on Jefferson at around 1.15 and thus not at 10th/Patton. In other words, Tippit must have been shot earlier than 1.15, most likely around 1.06, because otherwise Markham could not have witnessed it.
The same thing goes for Bowley. He arrived after Tippit was killed. In his affidavit he said he picked up his daughter at R.L. Thornton School in Singing Hills at "about 12:55". School bells, in my experience, have a tendency to ring at the correct time every day! Now, let's also not forget that, after picking up his daughter, Bowley was also going to pick up his wife from work, to go on a family holiday and thus had every reason to be on time and be aware of the time! The drive from the school to 10th/Patton is about 7 miles long and takes roughly 13 minutes, depending on the route, making it absolutely possible and plausible for him to arrive at 10th street at 1.10 pm, like he said he did in his affidavit.
Bowley also said in his affidavit that he saw the ambulance arrive and pick up Tippit's body just after his radio call (which he made within a minute or so after arriving on the scene). Hospital records show that Tippit was declared DOA at 1:15 at Methodist Hospital, on North Beckley, about 1,5 miles from the scene of the crime. DPD office Davenport says in his report that, while en route, he saw and followed the ambulance to the hospital where he witnessed Tippit being declared dead at 1:15.
Markham's and Bowley's timelines alone justify, IMO, the conclusion that Tippit was in fact shot before 1:10 pm, which makes it nearly impossible for Oswald to have been there. But perhaps the LNs can provide a plausible scenario for these two timelines to be wrong...? I'll wait and see, but I won't hold my breath.
Care to explain how this evidence relates to the DPD dispatcher's time calls from clocks which could be two minutes ahead or behind official and recorded on voice actived devices? On second thought, perhaps you should just stick to posting gifs. You are far better in doing that than having a normal discussion!
Instead of dealing with a single word, which it seems you don't like, why don't you try to deal with the facts for once?
it is not a part of the discussion that the rest of us are having
Who else is in the discussion, except for you and me? And as I am part of the discussion, the word "exact" is indeed part of the discussion.
Several others are in the discussion. But don't believe me, look for yourself.
Exact: not approximated in any way; precise.
Your use of the word in this discussion is ridiculous. Bowles attempted to determine the timing of the shots down to the hundredth of a second for his purpose of rebuttal of the acoustics experts' report. Even that tolerance isn't "exact." A thousandth of a second is more precise than a hundredth of a second. Atomic clocks are among the most precise timepieces in the world, but even they are not perfect.
But you go on and use the word exact if you wish. And show the world just how ridiculous you are.
Markham's and Bowley's timelines alone justify, IMO, the conclusion that Tippit was in fact shot before 1:10 pm, which makes it nearly impossible for Oswald to have been there.
That is just absurd. What you are doing is making an ad hoc assumption that their timelines were accurate because that fits your crazy idea that it was impossible for Oswald to have been there. The point I have been making is that the voice timestamps on the DPD recordings are not meaningless.
Thomas Atkins was documenting the activities of the President. It was an important aspect of his job to be able to pinpoint the time that these activities occurred. He was on the job at the time of the assassination. Does it seem very likely that he would let his wristwatch be very far off the official time? Can you say the same about T.F. Bowley?
That is just absurd. What you are doing is making an ad hoc assumption that their timelines were accurate because that fits your crazy idea that it was impossible for Oswald to have been there.
What is absurd is your inability to deal with what I actually wrote.
I never assumed that their timelines were accurate (as far as estimates go) but I concluded instead that their timelines are linked. Markham saw Tippit being killed and Bowley arrived just after that happened. What is not variable are the distances Markham needed to walk from her home to 10th/Patton (one block) and the bus stop on Jefferson (two blocks) which makes it possible to determine the time needed to walk those distances. Also not variable is the distance Bowley needed to drive from the school where he picked up his daughter to 10th/Patton and the time required for that. And finally, what is not variable is that school are out at the same time every day.
Markham only had to walk one block, taking no more than three minutes at best, to get from her home to 10th/Patton. If Tippit was indeed shot at 1:14 and she saw it, it means that she did not leave home until 1:09 at the lastest. But that would also mean that Bowley would have arrived at least five or six minutes later than the 1:10 that his watch showed, which in turn means he must have kept his daughter waiting for that same amount of time after school was out and not notice it. Do you really think that's likely?
Markham also said that she usually catched the bus at 1:15. The FBI told us the bus schedule had busses arriving at 1:12 and 1:22, so she must have been talking about either the 1:12 bus that was delayed by a couple of minutes or the 1:22 for which she would have been at the bus stop 7 minutes early. It really does not matter which bus it was, because if Markham did indeed normally arrive at the bus stop at 1:15 she simply could not have been at 10th/Patton a minute earlier to witness Tippit's murder if that happened at 1:14 because she would have passed that location at least three minutes earlier.
So, if you wish to push back Markham's timeline to fit Tippit being murdered at 1.14 you also have to push back Bowley's timeline with the same amount of time thus making it inevitable that he would have been late at the school to pick up his daughter and somehow not notice it.
And then of course there is the report of DPD officer Davenport who followed the ambulance to Methodist Hospital on Beckley and said Tippit was declared DOA at 1:15. There is no way that Tippit could have been at the hospital at 1:15 if he was shot at 10th street only a minute earlier.
The only real variable in all this is the estimated time that Tippit was shot. If he was shot between 1:06 and 1:10 the entire timeline fits perfectly and makes sense, but if he was killed at 1:14 nothing else of the combined timelines fits.
The point I have been making is that the voice timestamps on the DPD recordings are not meaningless.
Nobody said those transcripts (because that's what we have) are meaningless. There is just simply no guarantee that the times called by the dispatcher were indeed accurate in the real world. Bowles himself said that the clocks used could be as much as two minutes behind or ahead of "offical time". In other words, if the dispatcher calls 1:16 it could very well have been 1:14 or 1:18 in the real world. Such a margin of error alone means that you can not use the transcripts to pin point the exact time of the shooting!
The transcripts were made from tapes, not from the original dictabelt discs. The fact that the transcripts say "tape splice" in several spots means that the tapes were edited in some fashion.
So what Bowles is saying here is that it's meaningless that the dispatcher said "1:16" shortly before the citizen reported the shooting of the police officer.
I never assumed that their timelines were accurate (as far as estimates go) but I concluded instead that their timelines are linked
Then, unlike the voice timestamp recordings, the rest of your rant is meaningless.
Nobody said those transcripts (because that's what we have) are meaningless.
Then, unlike the voice timestamp recordings, the rest of your rant is meaningless.
So, you are unable to deal honestly with the information I provided.... It's duly noted.
What is actually meaningless is the opinion of a biased person who is unwilling to discuss facts placed before him because he knows he can not counter them!
On a scale of 1 to ten of time accuracy I'd give the DPD dispatchers a 9 because time was integral to the job.
Bowleys watch was never tested or calibrated.
And as for the DOA time, that's an estimate of the actual time of death not the time the ambulance arrives at the hospital.
No, you don't get to pick and choose, advanced statistical analysis says something completely different, the mean time average of the time of Tippit's death was closer to 1:15!
Along with the reasonably accurate DPD times we have these times from witnesses which are closer to 1:30 and when all the times are plotted the median is closer to 1:15.
Don't kid yourself, all you people think you are defending Oswald to some sort of self perceived legal standard, it's truly hilarious.
There is only 1 argument which you yourself exposed, that even the DPD clocks which rely on accuracy and were regularly calibrated could be wrong therefore how can we trust any timepiece? You've dug yourself a deep inescapable hole but keep digging because watching you self destruct is absolutely fascinating.
That's a call for speculation and doesn't mean much.
I could just as easily say T.F. Bowley was picking up his daughter from school. It was an important aspect of his job as a parent to be able to pinpoint the time that she was ready to be picked up so as not to leave her unattended. Does it seem very likely that he would let his wristwatch be very far off the official time?
Btw The person who had the most reason to be aware of the time is Scoggins who was on his lunch break and if he was anything like me, "the time on your lunch break feels like 10 x the time of actually working"
You're missing the point, a huge part of your evidence relies on a "screwball" who said she was catching a 1:12 bus at 1:15 and an an unsynchronised clock.
DOA doesn't mean the time the ambulance arrives.
I presented a ton of eyewitnesses who all say the time was closer to 1:30, which must be equally analysed.
Oswald was positively identified with a gun at the scene of the crime.
Oswald's PO Box received a revolver,
the same revolver he was arrested with.
Oswald dropped shells at the scene.
The shells that were seen dropped by Oswald were an exclusive match to the revolver he was arrested with.
Nicol provided photographic evidence that one bullet in Tippit came from Oswald's revolver.
The jacket Oswald was wearing was recovered from a carpark he was seen entering.
Oswald appeared to hide outside a shoe store.
Oswald waited for the Police car to move away before he continued.
Oswald snuck into a theatre.
Oswald tried to kill more police.
Jackson didn't know that Tippit was between Marsalis and Beckley... until the concerned citizen told him that an officer had been shot at a location that was between Marsalis and Beckley.
Now where does it say what you claimed it does? Where does it say that Tippit was pronounced DOA at 1:15?
Hi Bill, it's simple logic,
if someone is "dead on arrival" that can only mean that they died earlier and somewhere else and it's the job of the doctor at the hospital to make an educated decision to the time of death.
For instance if someone dies sometime during the night and is taken to the hospital the time of death isn't the time the ambulance arrives but the doctor will evaluate the body for temperature, rigor mortis and other stuff and give their professional opinion of the time of death.
So Markham could remember a clock face but couldn't remember a human face?
Thomas Atkins was a naval officer who was assigned to the White House to document the President's activities. He was chosen for that position because he was good at his job in the navy. His job required that had to be at events on time. The President wasn't likely to wait for Atkins to catch up (because his wristwatch was out of sync).
They had all just traveled from Washington DC to a different (central) time zone on 11/21/63. Therefore Atkins would have needed to set his wristwatch to central time. That would have been a logical, and likely, reason to sync his wristwatch with the official time.
You're missing the point, a huge part of your evidence relies on a "screwball" who said she was catching a 1:12 bus at 1:15 and an an unsynchronised clock.
And as for your other evidence I've already shown that Bowley's watch was never shown to be accurate.
DOA doesn't mean the time the ambulance arrives.
I presented a ton of eyewitnesses who all say the time was closer to 1:30, which must be equally analysed.
The DPD time is still accurate within a reasonable margin of error.
Anyway let's not forget that these time guesses are only a small part of the evidence because;
Oswald was positively identified with a gun at the scene of the crime.
Oswald's PO Box received a revolver, the same revolver he was arrested with.
Oswald dropped shells at the scene.
The shells that were seen dropped by Oswald were an exclusive match to the revolver he was arrested with.
Nicol provided photographic evidence that one bullet in Tippit came from Oswald's revolver.
The jacket Oswald was wearing was recovered from a carpark he was seen entering.
Oswald appeared to hide outside a shoe store.
Oswald waited for the Police car to move away before he continued.
Oswald snuck into a theatre.
Oswald tried to kill more police.
JohnM
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
The revolver that magically appeared at the Texas Theater was a Smith & Wesson.... so it was NOT the gun that the witnesses saw being unloaded one shell at a time as the killer walked away.
Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before
Was this a veiled attempt to prod Markham and remind her of what had been rehearsed ?
Correction: The revolver that magically appeared in Gerald Hill's pocket.
Hmm, so that's what Martin Weidmann has been doing, speculating? Somebody ought to tell him this, don't you think?
It's a telling sign when a die hard LN finds himself confronted with information he can not counter with credible arguments. They will try every trick in the book, ranging from outright dismissal to ridicule, from trying to change the subject to muddy the waters and pretending not to understand and so on.
There's just one thing they will never ever do; enter into an open and honest discussion about the information that has been presented.
Another feeble attempt to paint the honest and heroic LNers in a bad light, we have a mountain of evidence on our side and you can't even speculate a solution, it's just attack attack attack, with no conclusions. You just have to look at the pathetic way you treat Markham to see the massive contradictions in the way you approach the evidence.
JohnM
Because he was pronounced dead at Methodist Hospital by Dr. Richard Liguori.
Who pronounced him dead while he was lying on the ground on 10th street? Helen Markham, after she had her conversation with him?
You're deflecting. You were wrong to say that the document claimed that Tippit was pronounced DOA at 1:15.
No I wasn’t. It says “place of death: Methodist Hospital”, so “time of death” refers to being pronounced dead at the hospital.
Besides, the Davenport CSS (which you have conspicuously ignored) unambiguously says “Dr. Richard Liguori pronounced dead @ 1:15 p.m.”
Cue another lame excuse...
No I wasn’t.
It says “place of death: Methodist Hospital”, so “time of death” refers to being pronounced dead at the hospital.
Besides, the Davenport CSS (which you have conspicuously ignored) unambiguously says “Dr. Richard Liguori pronounced dead @ 1:15 p.m.”
For anyone keeping score, here's all the Tippit times I could find and what's interesting is the spread of times. Allowing for a 15 minute buffer we see the only time which can satisfy everyone's recollection is 1:15. Can the people who specifically specified about 1:30 be so wrong and why say 1:30 and not about 1:00 PM, logically they must have known it was closer to 1:30, which we know to be true.
Btw The person who had the most reason to be aware of the time is Scoggins who was on his lunch break and if he was anything like me, "the time on your lunch break feels like 10 x the time of actually working" so Scoggins who looked for parking, left the cab, went to buy his lunch, watched the telly "I got me a coke and watched television for a few minutes, I would say 10, 12, 15 minutes" then went back to his cab, would have to be reasonably aware of the time he had left and his 1:20 guess is near perfect. Scoggins wins!
ELBERT AUSTIN, sometime after 1:00 PM
ROGER BALLEW, time?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I imagine it was about 1 o'clock.
BOWLEY I looked at my watch and it said 1:10 pm.
Mrs. MARY BROCK, approximately 1:30 PM
ROBERT BROCK, approximately 1:30 PM,
JIMMY EARL BURT time?
Mr. CALLAWAY. about 1 pm
FRANK CIMINO around 1 p.m.
Barbara Jeanette Davis shortly after 1:00 pm
Mrs. Virginia Davis, about 1:30 pm
Sam Guinyard about 1:00 pm
FRANCIS KINNETH, approximately 1:00 PM
I, L. J. Lewis time?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I wouldn't be afraid to bet it wasn't 6 or 7 minutes after 1.
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM
Mr.REYNOLDS. time?
HAROLD RUSSELL time Mr. SCOGGINS. Around 1:20 in the afternoon.
Ironic and interesting at the same time as it shows clearly that Mytton wil go any length to make even the most invaluable point rather than dealing with the factual information he doesn't like.
He's giving us some estimates from people saying 1:00 PM or just thereafter and some of people who say 1:30 PM. He doing so in a vain attempt to create confusion, as he is very well aware that the WC narrative estimates the killing of Tippit at around 1:15 PM, which obviously means that even the WC did not take the 1:30 PM estimates even remotely serious. Even less so, as they also conflict with the (according to the transcripts) 1:16 PM radio call the DPD dispatcher made and the elusive (as in never produced) time stamped card of the funeral home allegedly showing the departure of the ambulance at 1:18 PM.
So, even by the standards of the WC and just about all the LNs, including Mytton himself, any time estimate after 1:16 PM for Tippit's shooting must obviously be erroneous, as the Methodist Hospital and Davenport both confirm that at 1:30 PM a bullet was being removed from Tippit's body!
As for the estimates that say 1:00 PM, the same applies. Mytton obviously doesn't take those serious as his WC bible tells him that, according to Earlene Roberts, Oswald was still at the roominghouse on Beckley.
And that really only leaves the two estimates by Markham and Bowley;
Mrs. MARKHAM. I wouldn't be afraid to bet it wasn't 6 or 7 minutes after 1.
BOWLEY I looked at my watch and it said 1:10 pm.
which come close to the actual time of the shooting.
So all Johnny is trying to do is muddy the waters without actually presenting anything of value or significance to the discussion.
And finally, a word about Scoggings;
Btw The person who had the most reason to be aware of the time is Scoggins who was on his lunch break and if he was anything like me, "the time on your lunch break feels like 10 x the time of actually working" so Scoggins who looked for parking, left the cab, went to buy his lunch, watched the telly "I got me a coke and watched television for a few minutes, I would say 10, 12, 15 minutes" then went back to his cab, would have to be reasonably aware of the time he had left and his 1:20 guess is near perfect. Scoggins wins!
Scoggins actually wasn't aware of the time. Anybody who reads Scoggins testimony will find that he got his time wrong. In his testimony he said he picked up a gentleman at Love Field at approx 12:35 and he discharged him at 321 North Ewing at 1:00.
Mr. SCOGGINS. Well, I picked up a gentleman at Love Field at approximately 12:35, I would say, and I discharged him at 1 o'clock at 321 North Ewing.
However, that trip is only 9,9 miles and, depending on how one drives, doesn't take anymore than 16 to max. 20 minutes. In other words, he got to North Ewing at 12:55 or even earlier. He then goes on to say that he went to the Gentlemen's Club he believed to be at 125 Patton, which is only a 2 to 3 minutes drive. I know, Johnny doesn't like this kind of deductive reasoning, but for those without a bias, it's obvious that Scoggins really must have arrived at the Club just before 1:00 PM.
Then it gets really dodgy for John, because Scoggins himself can't even say for sure just how long he was at the club before returning to his car. It could have been 5, 10 or 20 minutes.... making his estimate of no value whatsoever....
But then, it's really the only thing Johnny has to hold on, so he goes with Scoggins estimate at 1:20 being "near perfect" when it really isn't. In fact it's actually some five minutes after the WC bible tells him Tippit was shot.
So much for Johnny's "research" and arguments.... :D
No I wasn’t. It says “place of death: Methodist Hospital”, so “time of death” refers to being pronounced dead at the hospital.Also..what about this? I am still looking for the complete certificate that was made at the funeral home that the ambulance took him to. Tippit was actually pronounced dead there. The ODIAs are still trying to shove 15 minutes of time into a 5 minute sack :-\
Also..what about this? I am still looking for the complete certificate that was made at the funeral home that the ambulance took him to. Tippit was actually pronounced dead there. The ODIAs are still trying to shove 15 minutes of time into a 5 minute sack :-\
(https://kennedysandking.com/images/2018/tippit-dieugenio/tippit-death-certificate.png)
Also..what about this? I am still looking for the complete certificate that was made at the funeral home that the ambulance took him to. Tippit was actually pronounced dead there. The ODIAs are still trying to shove 15 minutes of time into a 5 minute sack :-\
(https://kennedysandking.com/images/2018/tippit-dieugenio/tippit-death-certificate.png)
I am still looking for the complete certificate that was made at the funeral home that the ambulance took him to. Tippit was actually pronounced dead there.
Ironic and interesting at the same time as it shows clearly that Mytton wil go any length to make even the most invaluable point rather than dealing with the factual information he doesn't like.
He's giving us some estimates from people saying 1:00 PM or just thereafter and some of people who say 1:30 PM. He doing so in a vain attempt to create confusion, as he is very well aware that the WC narrative estimates the killing of Tippit at around 1:15 PM, which obviously means that even the WC did not take the 1:30 PM estimates even remotely serious. Even less so, as they also conflict with the (according to the transcripts) 1:16 PM radio call the DPD dispatcher made and the elusive (as in never produced) time stamped card of the funeral home allegedly showing the departure of the ambulance at 1:18 PM.
So, even by the standards of the WC and just about all the LNs, including Mytton himself, any time estimate after 1:16 PM for Tippit's shooting must obviously be erroneous, as the Methodist Hospital and Davenport both confirm that at 1:30 PM a bullet was being removed from Tippit's body!
As for the estimates that say 1:00 PM, the same applies. Mytton obviously doesn't take those serious as his WC bible tells him that, according to Earlene Roberts, Oswald was still at the roominghouse on Beckley.
And that really only leaves the two estimates by Markham and Bowley;
Mrs. MARKHAM. I wouldn't be afraid to bet it wasn't 6 or 7 minutes after 1.
BOWLEY I looked at my watch and it said 1:10 pm.
which come close to the actual time of the shooting.
So all Johnny is trying to do is muddy the waters without actually presenting anything of value or significance to the discussion.
And finally, a word about Scoggings;
Btw The person who had the most reason to be aware of the time is Scoggins who was on his lunch break and if he was anything like me, "the time on your lunch break feels like 10 x the time of actually working" so Scoggins who looked for parking, left the cab, went to buy his lunch, watched the telly "I got me a coke and watched television for a few minutes, I would say 10, 12, 15 minutes" then went back to his cab, would have to be reasonably aware of the time he had left and his 1:20 guess is near perfect. Scoggins wins!
Scoggins actually wasn't aware of the time. Anybody who reads Scoggins testimony will find that he got his time wrong. In his testimony he said he picked up a gentleman at Love Field at approx 12:35 and he discharged him at 321 North Ewing at 1:00.
Mr. SCOGGINS. Well, I picked up a gentleman at Love Field at approximately 12:35, I would say, and I discharged him at 1 o'clock at 321 North Ewing.
However, that trip is only 9,9 miles and, depending on how one drives, doesn't take anymore than 16 to max. 20 minutes. In other words, he got to North Ewing at 12:55 or even earlier. He then goes on to say that he went to the Gentlemen's Club he believed to be at 125 Patton, which is only a 2 to 3 minutes drive. I know, Johnny doesn't like this kind of deductive reasoning, but for those without a bias, it's obvious that Scoggins really must have arrived at the Club just before 1:00 PM.
Then it gets really dodgy for John, because Scoggins himself can't even say for sure just how long he was at the club before returning to his car. It could have been 5, 10 or 20 minutes.... making his estimate of no value whatsoever....
But then, it's really the only thing Johnny has to hold on, so he goes with Scoggins estimate at 1:20 being "near perfect" when it really isn't. In fact it's actually some five minutes after the WC bible tells him Tippit was shot.
So much for Johnny's "research" and arguments.... :D
Ironic and interesting at the same time as it shows clearly that Mytton wil go any length to make even the most invaluable point rather than dealing with the factual information he doesn't like.
As for the estimates that say 1:00 PM, the same applies. Mytton obviously doesn't take those serious as his WC bible tells him that, according to Earlene Roberts, Oswald was still at the roominghouse on Beckley.
And that really only leaves the two estimates by Markham and Bowley;
Mrs. MARKHAM. I wouldn't be afraid to bet it wasn't 6 or 7 minutes after 1.
BOWLEY I looked at my watch and it said 1:10 pm.
And finally, a word about Scoggings;
Then it gets really dodgy for John, because Scoggins himself can't even say for sure just how long he was at the club before returning to his car. It could have been 5, 10 or 20 minutes.... making his estimate of no value whatsoever....
Also..what about this? I am still looking for the complete certificate that was made at the funeral home that the ambulance took him to. Tippit was actually pronounced dead there. The ODIAs are still trying to shove 15 minutes of time into a 5 minute sack :-\
(https://kennedysandking.com/images/2018/tippit-dieugenio/tippit-death-certificate.png)
Whenever you're struggling out comes a wall of words as if more words are going to save you.
Typical circle logic from Weidmann, take a small handful of cherry picked eyewitnesses, and again manipulate it so Saint Oswald can be innocent whereas the intelligent researchers like the majority of LNers look at the entire picture and evaluate ALL the evidence. Just look at Markham, you ridicule her for her Positive Identification of Lee Harvey Oswald being the cold blooded murderer of J.D.Tippit and her subsequent grilling by the WC, yet you use her time guesses as Gospel and let's face it, you don't trust the official Police time to be accurate so what chance does a "screwball" have? Your own interpretation and the way you evaluate of the evidence destroys you and makes you look the Fool.
Like ALL the others her time was a guess, she was watching the TV and trying to learn about her President, so Oswald at that precise time would be just another bug on the wall.
Here we go, your cherry picked eyewitnesses one whose watch was never tested and the other "screwball" was making a "bet" on what time it was? WTF?, Absolutely Pathetic!.
Here we go again, the self serving assumption flight has reached maximum altitude, your using of google maps to estimate a cars travelling time is completely pointless and doesn't take into account 55 years of changes. Your 16 minute time is based on a specifically built Toll road, was that there in 1963? And you don't seem to remember that there was just a small event at Love Field.
You liar, Scoggins says "I would say 10, 12, 15 minutes" just like all the others the President was just shot and people were in a state of shock. Anyway looking at Scoggins, his time guess is within a 5 minute range and his Tippit guess was just 5 minutes off, go figure.
Weidmann, if you want to present a successful argument, remember what you have said in the past because it's going to come back and bite you on the arse.
JohnM
We have the CT perspective, the LN perspective, and then Bowles’ perspective (from the Larry Sneed interview):
“Anyway, Oswald had been walking along at a fast pace. Others tried to measure the distance and said that you just couldn’t walk it that fast. You can when you’re in a hurry! When the Devil’s behind you, it’s not that hard to do.”
👍
Here we go, your cherry picked eyewitnesses one whose watch was never tested and the other "screwball" was making a "bet" on what time it was? WTF?, Absolutely Pathetic!.
Thanks Jerry but unfortunately for you, you've proved the opposite of what you think. Your Methodist recollection states that were trying to bring Tippit back to life, so Tippit must be already dead when he arrived therefore the time of death happened at an earlier time. And the doctors established that the time of death was when he was shot and died instantly at 1:15.
We have the CT perspective, the LN perspective, and then Bowles’ perspective (from the Larry Sneed interview):
“Anyway, Oswald had been walking along at a fast pace. Others tried to measure the distance and said that you just couldn’t walk it that fast. You can when you’re in a hurry! When the Devil’s behind you, it’s not that hard to do.”
👍
Ever walked or ran the distance?
Thanks Jerry but unfortunately for you, you've proved the opposite of what you think. Your Methodist recollection states that were trying to bring Tippit back to life, so Tippit must be already dead when he arrived therefore the time of death happened at an earlier time. And the doctors established that the time of death was when he was shot and died instantly at 1:15.
JohnM
At age 66, and 8 stents, my cardiac rehab (3-times per week) includes treadmill incline interval training. Between 3.2 and 3.4 mph (average 3.25 mph) with incline varying up to 4%. This is kept up for a total time of 35-minutes. That equals something like 1.89 miles. I get a little sweaty, but not out of breath.
I take it that means that you have never walked or run the distance between Beckley and 10th street.
If Tippit was indeed killed at 1:14 (quod non), Oswald would only have had 10 minutes or so at to walk the distance and even that would be cutting it close.
If Tippit was actually killed between 1:06 and 1:10, as the evidence suggests, there is no way Oswald could have been there, at least not on foot.
Brilliant logic. Oswald was seen at the boardinghouse. Then he is seen at the Tippit murder scene. But we are told "there is no way Oswald could have been there." Wow. Only a person in the legal profession could make that argument. Once a thing has happened, the odds against it happening become moot. They are trumped by reality. Multiple witnesses place Oswald at the Tippit scene. He was there whether he walked or strapped jet engines to his backside. All the debarred defense attorney arguments in the world don't change the facts.
Brilliant logic. Oswald was seen at the boardinghouse. Then he is seen at the Tippit murder scene. But we are told "there is no way Oswald could have been there." Wow. Only a person in the legal profession could make that argument. Once a thing has happened, the odds against it happening become moot. They are trumped by reality. Multiple witnesses place Oswald at the Tippit scene. He was there whether he walked or strapped jet engines to his backside. All the debarred defense attorney arguments in the world don't change the facts.
Btw, misquoting me doesn't really make your "argument" any more convincing.
Then he is seen at the Tippit murder scene. But we are told "there is no way Oswald could have been there."WE ARE TOLD that he is seen at the Tippit murder scene. BUT WE CAN SEE THAT-- there is no way Oswald could have been there.
Says the legal eagle who relies on bogus biased line ups by eyewitnesses who, as any competent lawyer knows, provide the least reliable evidence.
Since none of the witnesses were ever cross-examined by a defense lawyer, only an idiot would take their word as gospel.
Richard doesn't seem to understand that in a murder investigation all sorts of people say all sorts of things. When an investigator finds that a particular person could not have been at the crime scene, it only means that the witness was wrong or mistaken....... You know, like all those witnesses who were wrong at DP!QuoteQuoteBtw, misquoting me doesn't really make your "argument" any more convincing.
Btw, misquoting me doesn't really make your "argument" any more convincing.
Thanks Jerry but unfortunately for you, you've proved the opposite of what you think. Your Methodist recollection states that were trying to bring Tippit back to life, so Tippit must be already dead when he arrived therefore the time of death happened at an earlier time. And the doctors established that the time of death was when he was shot and died instantly at 1:15.I don't know why it is "unfortunate" for me. Must Mr Mytton be so pompous? According to the recorded document... This Dr Liquori had pronounced Tippit dead at 1:00 which was changed to 1:15 by someone [obviously not happy with the 1:00 time restriction] Making "Oswald The Cop Killer" an impossibility. A retarded person can see that the actual death had to precede the pronouncement by several minutes. So what is "unfortunate" is that John Mytton is too stubborn to accept reality---------> The entire opening post of this thread is based on a fallacious belief.
WE ARE TOLD that he is seen at the Tippit murder scene. BUT WE CAN SEE THAT-- there is no way Oswald could have been there.
Tell the story right.
I don't know why it is "unfortunate" for me. Must Mr Mytton be so pompous? According to the recorded document... This Dr Liquori had pronounced Tippit dead at 1:00 which was changed to 1:15 by someone [obviously not happy with the 1:00 time restriction] Making "Oswald The Cop Killer" an impossibility. A retarded person can see that the actual death had to precede the pronouncement by several minutes. So what is "unfortunate" is that John Mytton is too stubborn to accept reality---------> The entire opening post of this thread is based on a fallacious belief.
In case everybody missed it.......
(https://harveyandlee.net/Tippit/images/Davenport.jpg)
Nobody loads just three rounds in a S&W.
Or 4 rounds in a 6 round rifle clip for that matter...
Well any sane and rational shooter would most certainly make damned certain that his weapon was zeroed in and firing accurately, and then he would want at least two full clips of fresh ammo. No rational sniper would ever embark on a mission with only four rounds. ...Nor would a man who had allegedly just shot a cop, load only three rounds in a six shot revolver..... ( the cops claimed that they found several live cartridges in Lee Oswald's pocket) .... If true ( which I doubt) then why would there be only three rounds??
Imagine this, Tippit's killer is cornered by police and attempts to shoot it out with the pollce, but he has only three rounds in his gun....so he yells out..."Hey wait a minute, I've only loaded three bullets in my gun"......
And yet, when one considers a scenario with a lone nut who has limited means, limited time to prepare, and is on the run after two murders in broad daylight with witnesses, it DOES begin to make sense. DANG!Include there...limited ability...limited quality of these weapons...limited motive to kill anyone...and so on---We see this [lone nut] scene as just a theory using speculation, assumption, and conjecture.
And yet, when one considers a scenario with a lone nut who has limited means, limited time to prepare, and is on the run after two murders in broad daylight with witnesses, it DOES begin to make sense. DANG!
And yet, when one considers a scenario with a lone nut who has limited means, limited time to prepare, and is on the run after two murders in broad daylight with witnesses, it DOES begin to make sense. DANG!
OK Charlie.... Every assassin in history has had a motive for assassinating a Leader. If Lee was the assassin as you believe, ...what was his motive?
Define "motive." Do you mean, for example, some comprehensible reason? Many assassins are mentally unhinged. Their motivations are subjective and often don't make sense. They don't act or think like rational people which is why they are assassins. Did John Hinckley have a motive to assassinate Reagan or was he just a nut acting out some bizarre fantasy? Oswald falls in the latter category. A nut with an image of himself as some type of revolutionary figure. Thus, the BY pictures and attempt to gain entry to Cuba. Willing to die to be remembered in the history books. It doesn't have to make sense because it can't. It is the act of a mental case. We don't have to know or agree about his motive, however, to conclude he is the guilty party. And the reasons don't have to make any sense to a rational person because a rational person wouldn't act as he did. It's the evidence that informs us of his guilt.
Did John Hinckley have a motive to assassinate Reagan or was he just a nut acting out some bizarre fantasy?
Oswald falls in the latter category. A nut with an image of himself as some type of revolutionary figure.
So you think he was yelling to reporters...."I got him,....He was a threat to communists and I got him" Just ignore the fact that the right wingers ( American Nazis)were convinced that JFK was a "commie symp"
BTW.... Can you present just one personal statement of Lee Oswald in which he proudly admits the murder, and proclaims his greatness? If you can't ... then there's a very strong probability that you're living in La La Land.....or have been smokin somthin.
Well any sane and rational shooter would most certainly make damned certain that his weapon was zeroed in and firing accurately, and then he would want at least two full clips of fresh ammo. No rational sniper would ever embark on a mission with only four rounds. ...Nor would a man who had allegedly just shot a cop, load only three rounds in a six shot revolver..... ( the cops claimed that they found several live cartridges in Lee Oswald's pocket) .... If true ( which I doubt) then why would there be only three rounds??
Imagine this, Tippit's killer is cornered by police and attempts to shoot it out with the pollce, but he has only three rounds in his gun....so he yells out..."Hey wait a minute, I've only loaded three bullets in my gun"......
Can you understand the obvious difference between historical credit and legal responsibility for the assassination? When Oswald pulled the trigger he achieved his objective. He had no intention, however, of assisting the authorities in sending him to the electric chair. And he had no reason to believe that he was going to die in less than 48 hours after his arrest. For all he knew he had months or years. All he had to bargain for his life in a legal context was his confession. He was not going to give that up voluntarily.
But going down the rabbit hole about what you think Oswald should have said or not is pointless.
Even if he acted contrary to however you believe he would have had he been the assassin the evidence still exists and convicts him.
Wasn't Oswald* spotted emptying shells from his revolver post-shooting Tippit? The three live rounds in his pocket, maybe?
*Assuming of course, it was indeed Oswald - which I think it most likely was.
The downed stop sign on the southeast corner of the intersection of Tenth and Patton:
(https://i.imgur.com/DmuOZ6p.jpg)
Wasn't Oswald* spotted emptying shells from his revolver post-shooting Tippit? The three live rounds in his pocket, maybe?
*Assuming of course, it was indeed Oswald - which I think it most likely was.
The downed stop sign on the southeast corner of the intersection of Tenth and Patton:Just spit it out, you are trying to say Oswald wore a dress that day, right?
(https://i.imgur.com/DmuOZ6p.jpg)
Was that Stop sign down on November 22/63 or is that a latter photo?
Cause if it was down on Nov 22/63, that another one of those unusual "coincidences" imo :)
Zeon, the stop sign was knocked over by a car in the wee hours of 11/22/63, roughly twelve hours before Tippit was killed.
Zeon, the stop sign was knocked over by a car in the wee hours of 11/22/63, roughly twelve hours before Tippit was killed.
So like on that night around 1:07 am in the morning of Friday Nov 22/63 right after the conspirators had stolen Oswald rifle from his boarding room :)
No, Zeon....
Don't you know that Earlene Roberts said she cleaned Oswald's room frequently and never saw a weapon anywhere in that massive space ;)
Mr. BALL. Had you ever cleaned up his room?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; I cleaned his rooms, but I didn't see no gun.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever go through any of his effects?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Oh, no.
Mr. BALL. There was a little wooden commode or closet in there, wasn't there?
Mrs. ROBERTS. There was a chifforobe----yes.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever look in there?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No, sir; I sure didn't-that's against the rules-to ransack their things.
Mr. BALL. Were there any drawers or anything in there?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; there was drawers in that chifforobe and he also had a vanity dresser with four drawers.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever look inside of that ?
Mr. ROBERTS. No; I didn't.
JohnM
Mr. BALL. Had you ever cleaned up his room?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; I cleaned his rooms, but I didn't see no gun.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever go through any of his effects?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Oh, no.
Mr. BALL. There was a little wooden commode or closet in there, wasn't there?
Mrs. ROBERTS. There was a chifforobe----yes.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever look in there?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No, sir; I sure didn't-that's against the rules-to ransack their things.
Mr. BALL. Were there any drawers or anything in there?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; there was drawers in that chifforobe and he also had a vanity dresser with four drawers.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever look inside of that ?
Mr. ROBERTS. No; I didn't.
JohnM
The downed stop sign on the southeast corner of the intersection of Tenth and Patton:
(https://i.imgur.com/DmuOZ6p.jpg)
Actually she was a cross-dresser and pranced around in Oswald's shorts, so naturally she would keep that to herself.
;)
Thanks again for your always useful input.
Actually she was a cross-dresser and pranced around in Oswald's shorts, so naturally she would keep that to herself. ;)
Wasn't LHO trying to learn how to drive a car? ;-) Kind of reminds me of the broken passenger side mirror on the student driver car that I saw parked in front of the driving school a while back. ;-)
Wasn’t LHO trying to learn how to drive a car? ;-) Kind of reminds me of the broken passenger side mirror on the student driver car that I saw parked in front of the driving school a while back. ;-)
Wasn’t LHO trying to learn how to drive a car? ;-) Kind of reminds me of the broken passenger side mirror on the student driver car that I saw parked in front of the driving school a while back. ;-)
Thanks again for your always useful input.
Thanks so much for sharing
Wasn’t LHO trying to learn how to drive a car?
>>> Good one.
That downed stop sign photo was taken on the afternoon of 11/22/63. For those of you who are into this sort of thing and need help orienting yourself, the car closest to the stop sign (facing the stop sign) is almost exactly where Scoggins' cab was sitting at the time of the shooting.
He may well have done, although I doubt it, but Brown's OP contains only part of the whole story and can not be relied upon.
For instance, Helen Markham testified she left home at "a little after 1". She had only one block to walk, yet according to the official story Tippit was shot at around 1.14 pm. That means that, for the official story to be true, Markham would have taken some 10 minutes to walk one block. Anything less than that would have placed her well beyond 10th/Patton prior to the shooting. Obviously, if the shooting happened earlier, it's just about impossible for Oswald to have been there on time to do the deed.
William Scoggins's testimony reveals that his timing was off and that he got to 10th/Patton earlier than the official story claims. Also, Scoggins, who is supposed to have identified Oswald at the DPD line up failed to identify Oswald as Tippit's killer to the FBI from a photo shown to him the very next day.
Domingo Benavides, who was closer to the actual shooting than anybody else, refused to participate in a line up because he felt he could not positively identify the killer, yet others, like the Davis sisters, who were indoors somehow can identify the man? Really?
There are so many things Brown doesn't tell you, that his entire OP is just a one sided dishonest presentation of what he wants to be the truth rather than the truth itself.
Did you say something?
Domingo Benavides, who was closer to the actual shooting than anybody else, refused to participate in a line up because he felt he could not positively identify the killer,
This is one of the biggest pieces of BS in the evidence surrounding the Tippit murder.....
A witness cannot refuse to participate in a line up.... Mrs Markham sure as hell didn't want to participate,... Was she given a choice??
The truth is; The cops didn't want Benavides to view a line up....Because he had seen the killer face to face and he had seen Lee Oswald's picture on TV and he knew that Lee was not the killer. The cops sure as hell didn't want Benavides on record just as they didn't want Howard Brennan's failure to identify Lee Oswald in the Line up.
A witness cannot refuse to participate in a line up...
Oh yes he can. All he needs to do is say - as Benavides did - that he was not sure if he could identify the shooter.
Mrs Markham sure as hell didn't want to participate,..
Where did you get this information from, Walt?
The truth is; The cops didn't want Benavides to view a line up....Because he had seen the killer face to face and he had seen Lee Oswald's picture on TV and he knew that Lee was not the killer.
Huh? That would not have been a problem at all. At worst the result of such a line up would be that Benavides failed to identify the shooter. No biggie at all. Such things happen all the time.
The cops sure as hell didn't want Benavides on record just as they didn't want Howard Brennan's failure to identify Lee Oswald in the Line up.
They may not have wanted Brennan's failure to identify on record, but on record it is nevertheless.
Mrs Markham sure as hell didn't want to participate,..The Commission attorneys didn't really want her either....and she was their star witness.
Where did you get this information from, Walt?
The Commission attorneys didn't really want her either....and she was their star witness.
The witlesses here redundantly chime about her pointing out Oswald in a line up and it has been posted earlier in the thread that counsel had to tear it out of her and all she could say was '#2 frightened her' ::)
All he needs to do is say - as Benavides did - that he was not sure if he could identify the shooter.
And that's acceptable?.... The cops would reply...That's OK, we want you take a look anyway, after all that is the whole idea of having a line up. Those cops did NOT want Benavides to view a line up, after he told them that the guy that he's seen on the TV didn't look like the guy he saw shoot the officer.
The Commission attorneys didn't really want her either....and she was their star witness.
The witlesses here redundantly chime about her pointing out Oswald in a line up and it has been posted earlier in the thread that counsel had to tear it out of her and all she could say was '#2 frightened her' ::)
And that's acceptable?...
Sure it is. What's the point in wasting time with a witness who is not sure if he can identify the killer?
The cops would reply...That's OK, we want you take a look anyway, after all that is the whole idea of having a line up.
Actually, the idea of having a line up is finding out if witnesses who think they can identify the killer can actually do so!
Those cops did NOT want Benavides to view a line up, after he told them that the guy that he's seen on the TV didn't look like the guy he saw shoot the officer.
It's difficult to argue with an opinion, so I won't, Walt. It's that's what you believe, so be it.
Btw, where did you get the information that "Mrs Markham sure as hell didn't want to participate" in a line up?
where did you get the information that "Mrs Markham sure as hell didn't want to participate" in a line up?
I can't remember ...Except The author pointed out that Fritz was pushing to get Markham to view a line up ASAP, because she was hysterical....( He considered having her sedated ) Does this sound like a willing participant to you?
The fact that she was hysterical doesn't preclude the possibility that she might be a willing participant in a line up once she calmed down, does it now?
And that Fritz was pushing to get Markham to view a line up also doesn't mean that she did not want to participate. What would be the point of getting somebody to view a line up, if that person doesn't want to be there? What could the possible outcome of such a viewing be?
What WAS the outcome?.... Didn't they use the hysterical woman's screwy identification " chills just ran all over me" as a positive ID?
Mr. BALL. Had you ever cleaned up his room?He didn't ask her if she had looked everywhere, now did he?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; I cleaned his rooms, but I didn't see no gun.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever go through any of his effects?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Oh, no.
Mr. BALL. There was a little wooden commode or closet in there, wasn't there?
Mrs. ROBERTS. There was a chifforobe----yes.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever look in there?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No, sir; I sure didn't-that's against the rules-to ransack their things.
Mr. BALL. Were there any drawers or anything in there?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; there was drawers in that chifforobe and he also had a vanity dresser with four drawers.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever look inside of that ?
Mr. ROBERTS. No; I didn't.
JohnM
Ted Callaway testified that after hearing the five gun shots, he ran out to the sidewalk on Patton. This was a little over a half block south of the shooting scene. Callaway saw a man (who he later identified as Oswald) cutting across Patton as he (Oswald) made his way south on Patton (towards Callaway's position). Callaway hollered out to the man as the man continued south on Patton past Callaway's position. Callaway testified that the man was running and holding a gun. Callaway saw the man head west on Jefferson (the same direction as the theater).
Once the man turned west onto Jefferson, Callaway ran a "good hard run" up to the corner of Tenth and Patton. Callaway, noticing the stopped patrol car, went to the car and saw the officer (Tippit) lying dead in the street. Callaway said the first thing he did was to grab the police car radio and report the shooting. He said he didn't know if anyone had reported it yet, so he decided to report it himself.
To recap, Callaway hears the shots. Runs to the sidewalk. Sees the gunman run south on Patton the entire block from Tenth to Jefferson. Runs the two-thirds of a block up to the shooting scene. Goes over to the police car and the first thing he does is grab the radio and report the shooting to the police dispatcher.
How much time do you believe passed from the time Callaway heard the shots to the time he reported the shooting on the police radio?
Let's say two minutes pass from the time Oswald shoots Tippit to the time Oswald turns the corner from Patton onto Jefferson. This is a little over one block and Oswald was running.
Let's say it takes Callaway one minute when he made the "good hard run" the two-thirds of a half block from his location to the patrol car.
If these two time estimates are anywhere close to being correct, then Callaway is at the patrol car roughly three minutes after the shots rang out. Let's add another full minute for error. So we have Callaway at the patrol car using the police radio about four minutes after the shots rang out.
Here's the thing... Callaway's report to the dispatcher while using the patrol car radio took place at 1:19/1:20.
Do the math and work it backwards. At 1:19/1:20, Callaway makes the call. If four minutes have passed (and that's being generous, in my opinion) since the shots rang out, then the shots rang out around 1:15.
=================================
"The number 2 man in the line up that I saw at City Hall is the man I saw with the gun in his hand." -- Ted Callaway (Affidavit, 11/22/63)
So Bill. Using your assumed timeline, and I think it's pretty accurate, then we can also make the assumption that the shooter was approached by Tippet at approximately 1:13pm. Keeping in mind that there was a discussion between the shooter and Tippet that maybe took a minute, maybe more, and then there was the actual shooting that maybe took 15 to 30 seconds. So if Tippets car approached the shooter at 1:13PM, the REAL question would be could Oswald have been able to walk from the rooming house to the shooting scene by 1:13PM. Given what the housekeeper gave as the time that Oswald left the rooming house, I'm not so sure that he could have made it to the scene in that amount of time on foot alone.
How much do you get payed for being a disinformation agent? Or is it voluntary? :-\ You like to cherry pick eh?
How much do you get payed for being a disinformation agent? Or is it voluntary? :-\ You like to cherry pick eh?
Martin why would this be aimed at you? I never tagged you? It was aimed at the OP ::)
David,
Do you believe we live in an evil, evil, evil Deep State controlled by the evil, evil, evil Military Industrial Intelligence Community Complex?
LOL
-- MWT ;)
David,Hasn't that always been the case since time began? I wouldn't emphasise the word evil so many times to strengthen your point of view , no doubting that war creates money, every generation has gone to war for little or no reason, America is mess that has raped and pillaged nations for centuries, ffs you elected a halfwit.
Do you believe we live in an evil, evil, evil Deep State controlled by the evil, evil, evil Military Industrial Intelligence Community Complex?
LOL
-- MWT ;)
Hasn't that always been the case since time began? I wouldn't emphasise the word evil so many times to strengthen your point of view , no doubting that war creates money, every generation has gone to war for little or no reason, America is mess that has raped and pillaged nations for centuries, ffs you elected a halfwit.
Modify message
America is mess that has raped and pillaged nations for centuries,
Really??.... If you believe that to be true..... Then why don't you move to Iran, or North Korea? You could live in a country whose government shares your views.
One of the prime reasons that Europeans flocked to America was because the citizens of those European nations disagreed with those who were governing them. So if you disagree with our government, and believe that we have "raped and pillaged" then don't let the door hit your backside as you leave.
Walt, I don't think David is an American.
One of the prime reasons that Europeans flocked to America was because the citizens of those European nations disagreed with those who were governing them.
That's actually not the real reason. Those in Europe who did not agree with those who were governing them went the way of revolution. In the 1500's the Dutch broke away from Spain (their declaration, called "Plakkaat van verlatinghe" was the inspiration for the Constitution), in the 1600's the English got rid of King Charles I and the French revolution did the same with the French monarchy in late 1700's. In 1845 just about all of Europe was in some degree of revolt and the French went on the barricades again in 1870.
Sure, some, including the Pilgrim Fathers, did leave Europe because they were being prosecuted for their belief, but the bulk of Europeans came to the new country (as they called it back then) for economic reasons and a better life. The still unexplored territories offered them the possibility of a better future.
So if you disagree with our government, and believe that we have "raped and pillaged"
Those words are perhaps too strongs, but it can not be denied that the USA has meddled in many countries to serve it's own purposes.
Which one is it: a big force or occupy the world or both? We could have both if your Aunt Hillary had won. We could have paid for all of NATO if Hillary won. We could still have ISIS if Hillary won. Hey Martin, there is another one that will never get back, Uranium One.
Who said you could get off the bench? We may need to invest in a kennel for you. Kennel up Martin! hahahahahahahhaha Kennel up! I like that one
Which one is it: a big force or occupy the world or both? We could have both if your Aunt Hillary had won. We could have paid for all of NATO if Hillary won. We could still have ISIS if Hillary won. Hey Martin, there is another one that will never get back, Uranium One.
Boy, you're ignorant and would suck up anything fed to you. Fact check makes excuses: Each member of the committee gets to vote but the vote can't block the sale (imagine that) But the President can
Here is the point No one on the committee even recommended to the President and Fact check what happens as the sale occurred. Hillary didn't vote and didn't use her only power to recommend to Obama Why did she look the other way as the excuse is in the following paragraph from fact check
"We don’t know much about the committee’s deliberations because there are “strong confidentiality requirements” prohibiting disclosure of information filed with the committee, the Treasury Department says on its website. Some information would have become available if the committee or any one of its members objected to the sale. But none of the nine members objected.
So, you will say there is nothing anyone could do???
Exactly which shows that Hillary ignored her only influence in exchange for her pay off. So then everyone looks the other way and passes the buck. But how was it a pay off you will ask? Instantly after this deal went through two things happened that were illegal. Known as PAY FOR PLAY CLINTONS KEEP TWO SETS OF BOOKS
1. Ironically Bill Clinton gave speeches for 100's of thousands of dollars to the parent company who purchased Uranium One
2. Hillary received enormous donations to the Clinton fund from the same purchaser involved in the deal
Martin why would this be aimed at you? I never tagged you? It was aimed at the OP ::)You must indicate that or we won't know who.
But none of the nine members [of the committee] objected.
And Hillary is somehow responsible for that? Or is she simply a convenient target in a trumped up, go nowhere, bogus Republican smear strategy?
Instantly after this deal went through two things happened that were illegal. Known as PAY FOR PLAY CLINTONS KEEP TWO SETS OF BOOKS
Two sets of books? Got any evidence for that claim or is it simply hot air, as with most of the Republican claims.
1. Ironically Bill Clinton gave speeches for 100's of thousands of dollars to the parent company who purchased Uranium One
Since when is making speeches for money not legal? Lots of highly placed politicians all over the world do it....
2. Hillary received enormous donations to the Clinton fund from the same purchaser involved in the deal
The Clinton fund was investigated and, unlike with the Trump fund, nothing illegal or irregular was found.
All you've got is debunked theories.
1. Ironically Bill Clinton gave speeches for 100's of thousands of dollars to the parent company who purchased Uranium One
Bill Clinton was a piker compared to Joe Biden..... Biden got his son a position on the board of the Ukrain Gas and Oil company so they could kick back U.S. Taxpayer's dollars to the tune of $83,000 per month through his son Hunter Biden.....
"The number 2 man in the line up that I saw at City Hall is the man I saw with the gun in his hand." -- Ted Callaway (Affidavit, 11/22/63)Jim Leavelle testified that he took the affidavits WHILE they were waiting for the line up to start.....
Mr. LEAVELLE. I know they were on two different showups, so it is quite possible.So Mr Callaway knew which guy he was going to pick before he ever saw him?
Mr. BALL. Who conducted the questions of the men in the showup?
Mr. LEAVELLE. I would think I would have been--the same line.
Mr. BALL. Do you know what Ted Callaway said?
Mr. LEAVELLE. Not per se; I know they were able to identify Oswald.
Mr. BALL. What was the substance of what he said?
Mr. LEAVELLE. I do not recall.
Mr. BALL. You say "identify"; that doesn't mean much to me because I don't know what he identified him as.
Mr. LEAVELLE. He said he was the man; he identified him as the man he saw running from the direction where the shots came from over in the Oak Cliff area near his carlot.
Mr. BALL. What about Sam Guinyard?
Mr. LEAVELLE. Same thing, practically.
Mr. BALL. Did you take statements from them?
Mr. LEAVELLE. I believe I took affidavits from them, according to my notes, there while we were waiting for them to come down.
Mr. BENAVIDES - And so Ted then got in the taxicab and the taxicab came to a halt and he asked me which way he went.
Mr. CALLAWAY. We first went into the room. There was Jim Leavelle, the detective, Sam Guinyard, and then this bus driver and myself......and Jim told us, "When I show you these guys, be sure, take your time, see if you can make a positive identification.........We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him."Here was Callaway's big chance to go from a tinhorn used car hack and into history...he would get to identify the assassin of the president! Yeah---we've got him.
America is mess that has raped and pillaged nations for centuries,Rape is a figure of speech for being intrusive and taking what isn't yours, america has condoned this since Columbus set foot on the land, the white man rape and pillaged the native Americans, this is an undeniable fact, If i country has something america want they lie and invade ( how did the weapons of mass destruction go?) The CIA is the american government, anyone naive enough to think otherwise need to wake up, here is a wee list for starters.
Really??.... If you believe that to be true..... Then why don't you move to Iran, or North Korea? You could live in a country whose government shares your views.
One of the prime reasons that Europeans flocked to America was because the citizens of those European nations disagreed with those who were governing them. So if you disagree with our government, and believe that we have "raped and pillaged" then don't let the door hit your backside as you leave.
Rape is a figure of speech for being intrusive and taking what isn't yours, america has condoned this since Columbus set foot on the land, the white man rape and pillaged the native Americans, this is an undeniable fact, If i country has something america want they lie and invade ( how did the weapons of mass destruction go?) The CIA is the american government, anyone naive enough to think otherwise need to wake up, here is a wee list for starters.
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009 *
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012
Ukraine 2014 *
Davey.... Yer FOS.... Rape is - The act of forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse.#
But you seem to be too stupid to understand this simple definition.....
Rape is a figure of speech for being intrusive and taking what isn't yours, america has condoned this since Columbus set foot on the land, the white man rape and pillaged the native Americans, this is an undeniable fact, If i country has something america want they lie and invade ( how did the weapons of mass destruction go?) The CIA is the american government, anyone naive enough to think otherwise need to wake up, here is a wee list for starters.How does this relate to Oswald? I see like two countries on the list that Oswald visited and unless they dug him up to visit the second half of your funny list, I don't know what to tell you
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009 *
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012
Ukraine 2014 *
Rape is a figure of speech for being intrusive and taking what isn't yours, america has condoned this since Columbus set foot on the land, the white man rape and pillaged the native Americans, this is an undeniable fact, If i country has something america want they lie and invade ( how did the weapons of mass destruction go?) The CIA is the american government, anyone naive enough to think otherwise need to wake up, here is a wee list for starters.
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009 *
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012
Ukraine 2014 *
Rape is a figure of speech for being intrusive and taking what isn't yours, america has condoned this since Columbus set foot on the land, the white man rape and pillaged the native Americans, this is an undeniable fact, If i country has something america want they lie and invade ( how did the weapons of mass destruction go?) The CIA is the american government, anyone naive enough to think otherwise need to wake up, here is a wee list for starters.
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009 *
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012
Ukraine 2014 *
How does this relate to Oswald? I see like two countries on the list that Oswald visited and unless they dug him up to visit the second half of your funny list, I don't know what to tell youWho said relating to Oswald? This was in response to the CIA and the American government, they've overthrown and invaded hundreds of countries for their own benefit, do you really believe they wouldn't do this on their own soil where they can orchestrate the murder and cover up no ?
Who said relating to Oswald? This was in response to the CIA and the American government, they've overthrown and invaded hundreds of countries for their own benefit, do you really believe they wouldn't do this on their own soil where they can orchestrate the murder and cover up no ?
Oh an activist you are? The American Indian tribes killed each other over salt mines, now what is your point
That's from William Blum, a Marxist apologist for the Soviet Union, who never got over the collapse of the Evil Empire. Nor did he forgive Reagan for his role in bringing that collapse about.
Reagan had nothing to do with any of it. Though he did waste a lot of money on a ridiculous Star Wars project - which, to this day, cannot be made to work - and other military boondogles, which ran up the the federal debt.
Gorbachev began implementing Perestroika in the mid 80's.
As to the countries listed above, please read some history. You could start with the CIA's "Crown Jewels".
Iran, 1953. Guatemala, 1954.
Please tell us what you know about those CIA coups.
The CIA coups were not authorized by the US government. The CIA did whatever it damned well wanted.... If the over throw of some banana republic would enable American "business men" ( aka the mafia) to exploit the peasants and use them to build bigger bank accounts ...then the CIA was there to help.Operation PBSUCCESS was authorized by President Eisenhower.
Operation PBSUCCESS was authorized by President Eisenhower.
Also Operation PBFORTUNE by Truman.
In peacetime does the President have the authority to authorize the destruction of a foreign government??
Has anyone here ever taken a bus from downtown Dallas to Oak Cliff? Because I have. And I can tell you that it isn't a fast trip, on a normal day, without the mess and crowds of people gawking at a presidential parade. For Oswald to accomplish all that in such a short time is truly amazing.
But here's another problem. Witnesses claim they saw Oswald running down a hill and get into a car. So did he take the bus or a car? Couldn't have been both. The likeliness of catching the bus on time and making it through downtown, with all the stops in between, make it highly unlikely. And if Oswald took a car, he wouldn't have run into officer Tippet.
Then it appears to be fairly well-settled. Apparently Oswald killed Officer Tippet.
Of course. Now if we could just figure out how Oswald got to Oak Cliff. Because witnesses also claim they saw Oswald run down the hill from depository and get into a car. But other witnesses claim they saw Oswald on the bus, including the bus driver who let him off.
Now if Oswald took the bus, there's no way he made it to Oak Cliff in that time. I lived in Dallas. I rode the bus everyday to see my girlfriend in Oak Cliff. You can't get from downtown Dallas to Oak Cliff in that amount of time, even on a day that isn't crowded with people watching a presidential motorcade. It took some people 3 hours just to get through downtown that day. And buses have to make other stops for people getting on and off. A day such as that no doubt had lots of people riding the bus.
Of course. Now if we could just figure out how Oswald got to Oak Cliff. Because witnesses also claim they saw Oswald run down the hill from depository and get into a car. But other witnesses claim they saw Oswald on the bus, including the bus driver who let him off.
Now if Oswald took the bus, there's no way he made it to Oak Cliff in that time. I lived in Dallas. I rode the bus everyday to see my girlfriend in Oak Cliff. You can't get from downtown Dallas to Oak Cliff in that amount of time, even on a day that isn't crowded with people watching a presidential motorcade. It took some people 3 hours just to get through downtown that day. And buses have to make other stops for people getting on and off. A day such as that no doubt had lots of people riding the bus.
Of course. Now if we could just figure out how Oswald got to Oak Cliff. Because witnesses also claim they saw Oswald run down the hill from depository and get into a car. But other witnesses claim they saw Oswald on the bus, including the bus driver who let him off.
Now if Oswald took the bus, there's no way he made it to Oak Cliff in that time. I lived in Dallas. I rode the bus everyday to see my girlfriend in Oak Cliff. You can't get from downtown Dallas to Oak Cliff in that amount of time, even on a day that isn't crowded with people watching a presidential motorcade. It took some people 3 hours just to get through downtown that day. And buses have to make other stops for people getting on and off. A day such as that no doubt had lots of people riding the bus.
If I may jump forward to the timing controversy regarding Oswald's movement between his lodging and @Tippit, I have high confidence that Oswald might well have employed the military 'Double Time March' (as against the CT stubborn notion that seems to suggest that no-one-saw-him-so-he-must-have-been-walking)
Military Double Time March
If I may jump forward to the timing controversy regarding Oswald's movement between his lodgings and @Tippit, I have high confidence that Oswald might well have employed the military 'Double Time March' (as against the CT stubborn notion that seems to suggest that no-one-saw-him-so-he-must-have-been-walking)
Military Double Time March
If I may jump forward to the timing controversy regarding Oswald's movement between his lodging and @Tippit, I have high confidence that Oswald might well have employed the military 'Double Time March'
Mrs Roberts saw Lee standing on the sidewalk in front of the rooming house at 1:04 pm..... JD Tippit was tailing a man who was walking on the sidewalk along E. 10th at 1:04 pm.... A couple of minutes later at 1:06 pm, Mrs Markham saw the man who Tippit had been tailing, shoot JD Tippit.
There is one mile between the rooming house and 10th and Patton. The fastest man on earth, Roger Bannister, could not have " double timed " that one mile in just two minutes. Bannister had recently broken the time for the one mile run....Running as fast as he could ...It took him just under FOUR minutes to run one mile...
high confidence
may well have
As opposed to actual proof. Ok.
Oh, wait... Chapman is babbling incoherently again.
If I may jump forward to the timing controversy regarding Oswald's movement between his lodgings and @Tippit, I have high confidence that Oswald might well have employed the military 'Double Time March' (as against the CT stubborn notion that seems to suggest that no-one-saw-him-so-he-must-have-been-walking)
Military Double Time March
And as at least one 'Johnny-on-the-spot' attendee (that would be The Divine Miss 'M') stated, Oswald left the scene at a trot, a human-locomotion technique closely resembling the military double time movement.
I have high confidence that Oswald might well have employed the military 'Double Time March'
So, pray tell... what exactly was Oswald's hurry to get to a go-nowhere place like 10th street that he needed to run?
I mean, a double time march or even running is something one does when one has to be somewhere on time, right? So, what was there at 10th street that Oswald needed to get to on time?
And if he didn't need to be at 10th street on time, what was the purpose for running? And why didn't he run elsewhere than a go-nowhere street?
And as at least one 'Johnny-on-the-spot' attendee (that would be The Divine Miss 'M') stated, Oswald left the scene at a trot, a human-locomotion technique closely resembling the military double time movement.
At a trot? Really?.... Didn't the witnesses say that Tippit's killer didn't seem to be in a real hurry at all?
I have high confidence that Oswald might well have employed the military 'Double Time March'
So, pray tell... what exactly was Oswald's hurry to get to a go-nowhere place like 10th street that he needed to run?
I mean, a double time march or even running is something one does when one has to be somewhere on time, right? So, what was there at 10th street that Oswald needed to get to on time?
And if he didn't need to be at 10th street on time, what was the purpose for running? And why didn't he run elsewhere than a go-nowhere street?
And as at least one 'Johnny-on-the-spot' attendee (that would be The Divine Miss 'M') stated, Oswald left the scene at a trot, a human-locomotion technique closely resembling the military double time movement.
At a trot? Really?.... Didn't the witnesses say that Tippit's killer didn't seem to be in a real hurry at all?
if he didn't need to be at 10th street on time, what was the purpose for running?
Excellent!!... An excellent rhetorical question..... Of course I don't believe that Lee was anywhere near 10th & Patton at the time ( 1:06 pm) that JD Tippit was shot. But this question should cause any intelligent person to THINK.
I heard that Oswald was movie and popcorn-driven that day. And military double-time vid reveals gradual ramp-up to getting the trots.
I heard that you haven't got a clue how to answer a simple question.....
I heard that you haven't got a clue how to answer a simple question.....
Can anyone make a case for the WC seeing this unsanitized original? Which is more troubling, the WC knowing about this, or not knowing?The answer would be---- C. The Sgt Shultz syndrome....I see nothing. Not wanting to know.
Can anyone make a case for the WC seeing this unsanitized original? Which is more troubling, the WC knowing about this, or not knowing?
Update: Perhaps the WC was aware, and cooperated in sparing the public the full scope of Travis Cook's claims and speculation...
Commission Document 84 - FBI Clements Report of 06 Dec 1963 re: Ruby
Current Section: 2. Dallas Area - Page 88 :
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10486&search=%22Commission_Document+84%22#relPageId=88&tab=page
Presented by Steve Thomas in 2007 :
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57001#relPageId=134&tab=page
(http://jfkforum.com/images/RubyFritzTippitTravisKirk_1of2.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/RubyFritzTippitTravisKirk_2of2.jpg)
(Thanks to Milo Reech)
VS CE-3006 :
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_3006.pdf
(http://jfkforum.com/images/RubyFritzTippitTravisKirk_CE3006.jpg)
HSCA report description of Kirk's opinion of Fritz :
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=955&relPageId=138&search="travis_kirk"%20and%20fritz
At a trot? Really?.... Didn't the witnesses say that Tippit's killer didn't seem to be in a real hurry at all?
Are you under the mistaken impression that witnesses did NOT say that the killer was trotting/running?
Thread should say Larry Crafard dirty cop killer.
There's the same amount of evidence pointing the finger towards Crafard as Oswald, Crafard fleeing Dallas the morning after, admitting he was once employed as a mob hitman ( Tippit shooting was a professional hit) 3 to the chest and 1 to the head to finish him off mafia style. Always thought the head shot was a massive clue, if it was Oswald he'd have been happy nullifying Tippit with the 3 shots to aid him get away, absolutely no need for the execution shot unless he was determined that Tippit could never identify him ( hardly the work of a crazed assassin hurriedly fleeing the scene. I believe Tippit's job was to kill the fleeing Oswald, once this didn't happen the plan was quickly put in place to kill Tippit leaving conveniently Oswald's wallet behind at the scene. Tippit's bizarre behaviour beforehand was testament to a guy pretty much out of control pulling cars over like a maniac searching them etc, making rash calls the works. Tippit was knee deep in this conspiracy 100%.
admitting he was once employed as a mob hitmanHi Walt, it's in Joan Mellen's book , a farewell to justice, Crafard admitted to an investigator Peter Whitmey that he was a hitman in the early 60s, his own brother admitted this a few years later and added his brother was heavily involved in the events of that weekend in November. It's worth noting that Crafard while in the army was a crack shot, Could Crafard have been the fella Craig saw running towards the rambler after the shooting I wonder??
David, I'm not challenging you on this point simply to embarrass you or send you on a fools errand.....BUT I sincerely would like to know where you picked up the idea that Larry Crafard admitted that he'd killed someone for the mob. I certainly can believe that, because I believe that Crawfard was a worthless lowlife, but I'd love to have it verified that he admitted being a hitman..
Hi Walt, it's in Joan Mellen's book , a farewell to justice, Crafard admitted to an investigator Peter Whitmey that he was a hitman in the early 60s, his own brother admitted this a few years later and added his brother was heavily involved in the events of that weekend in November. It's worth noting that Crafard while in the army was a crack shot, Could Crafard have been the fella Craig saw running towards the rambler after the shooting I wonder??
The officer's name is Tippit.... just saying!
Helen Markham was on foot, walking south along Patton toward her bus stop, which
was on Jefferson Boulevard. Markham was just reaching the northwest corner of
Tenth and Patton when she noticed Tippit's patrol car pass through the
intersection, heading east along Tenth Street. Markham testified that the
patrol car pulled up to a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south side
of Tenth Street. Helen Markham positively identified Lee Oswald as the man she
saw talking to, and shoot, J.D. Tippit. She testified that she saw Oswald run
from the scene, heading down Patton with a gun in his hand.
William Scoggins was sitting in his cab at the southeast corner of Tenth and
Patton. Scoggins saw Tippit's patrol car pass slowly in front of his cab,
driving west to east along Tenth Street (Scoggins' cab was sitting on Patton,
facing north towards Tenth street). Scoggins noticed that the patrol car pulled
up alongside a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south side of Tenth
Street. William Scoggins positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw
running towards his cab seconds after hearing gun shots. Scoggins got out of
his cab with thoughts of running from the scene as Oswald headed straight
towards him after the shots rang out. After realizing he had nowhere to hide,
Scoggins returned to his cab and ducked down behind it as he watched Oswald turn
the corner and head down Patton towards Jefferson. Scoggins testified that
Oswald had a gun in his hand.
Barbara Davis was lying in bed inside her residence, which was the house at the
corner of Tenth and Patton. She heard gunshots outside and went to the door.
She opened the screen door and noticed Helen
Markham across the street, screaming. Davis then noticed a man cutting through
her front yard, holding a gun in his hands. She testified that the man had the
gun cocked in his hands as if he were emptying it. Barbara Davis positively
identified Lee Oswald as the man who she saw cut across her yard with a gun in
his hands.
Virginia Davis was in the living room of her residence (400 E. Tenth
St.) when she heard gunshots outside. Virginia Davis went to the door
and, like Barbara, noticed Helen Markham across the street, screaming. Davis
then noticed a man cutting across the front yard with a gun in his hands. She
testified that the man was emptying shells out of the gun. Virginia Davis
positively identified Lee Oswald as the man who she saw cut across the front
yard with a gun in his hands.
Ted Callaway was standing out on the front porch of the used-car lot office,
where he worked. Callaway testified that he heard five pistol shots. Callaway
testified that he believed the shots came from the vicinity of Tenth Street,
which was behind the office he worked in. He went out to the sidewalk on the
east side of Patton and noticed Scoggin's cab parked up near the corner of
Patton at Tenth. As Callaway watched the cab driver (Scoggins) hide beside his
cab, he noticed a man running across Patton from the east side of Patton to the
west side. Callaway watched the man run down Patton towards Jefferson. Ted
Callaway positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw run down Patton with
a gun in his hands.
Sam Guinyard worked at the same used-car lot as Ted Callaway. Guinyard was out
on the lot washing one of the cars when he heard gunshots come from the
direction up toward Tenth Street. From the car lot, Guinyard was looking north
toward Tenth in an attempt to see where the shots came from when he saw a man on
the sidewalk in between the first two houses on Tenth Street (400 E. Tenth and
404 E. Tenth). Guinyard went toward the sidewalk on the east side of Patton and
saw the man cut across the yard of the house on the corner (400 E. Tenth, the
Davis residence) and proceeded to run south on Patton. Guinyard said the man
had a gun in his hands and was emptying it of shells. Sam Guinyard positively
identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw running with the gun in his hands.
Each of the above witnesses saw a man flee the vicinity of the Tippit murder. Each of the above witnesses saw a gun in the man's hands. Every single one of the above witnesses positively identified Lee Oswald as that man.
These are the real witnesses and not even one of them said that someone other than Lee Oswald was the man they saw.
As for the revolver, Jim Leavelle briefly spoke with Oswald when Oswald was brought in from the theater. Leavelle told Oswald that they could run ballistic tests on the revolver and match the revolver to the bullets taken from the officer's body, proving that the revolver taken from Oswald was the revolver responsible for the officer's death. Oswald did not deny owning the revolver. According to Leavelle, Oswald's only reply was "Well, you're just going to have to do it."
Oswald ordered the revolver under the name of A.J. Hidell on 1/27/63 from Seaport Traders, Inc. Treasury Department handwriting expert Alwyn Cole testified that the handwriting on the order coupon belonged to Lee Oswald. The FBI's handwriting expert James Cadigan also testified that the handwriting on the coupon was Oswald's.
On the order, there was the name of a D.F. Drittal, written in the section where a witness states that the person buying the weapon (Hidell) was a U.S. citizen and was not a felon. The handwriting experts, Cole and Cadigan, both testified that the name D.F. Drittal was also written in Oswald's hands.
The revolver was shipped to a post office box in Dallas rented by Lee Oswald. Cole testified that the signature and the handwriting on the post office box application belonged to Oswald.
Postal Inspector Harry Holmes testified that Oswald had previously rented a post office box in New Orleans, during the summer of 1963. Oswald's New Orleans application and his Dallas application were found. Unlike the Dallas post office box application, the New Orleans post office box application still had the portion which listed others who were able to receive mail at that post office box. In the New Orleans application, Oswald included the names of both Marina Oswald and A.J. Hidell as those able to receive mail in that box.
Holmes spoke with Oswald on Sunday morning, the 24th. Holmes asked Oswald about the Dallas post office box. Oswald stated that he was the only one who received mail at that box and that he didn't receive any mail there that was addressed to any name other than his true name. Holmes then asked Oswald about the box that Oswald rented in New Orleans earlier that year. Oswald again stated that he was the only one permitted to receive mail at that p.o. box. Holmes reminded Oswald that he (Oswald) had listed Marina Oswald as a person eligible to receive mail in that box. Oswald's reply was basically "Well so what? She was my wife and I see nothing wrong with that." Holmes then reminded Oswald that one "A.J. Hidell" was also listed in the section on the application listing others eligible to receive mail in that post office box. Holmes said that Oswald replied "I don't recall anything about that".
Oswald was caught in a lie. The handwriting which permitted A.J. Hidell to receive mail at the New Orleans post office box belonged to Lee Oswald (per experts Cole and Cadigan).
Ballistic testing can determine whether or not an empty shell casing was fired from a specific weapon to the exclusion of every other weapon in the entire world. Before shooting, the shell casing is placed against the breech face and the firing pin. When the pin strikes the primer, the bullet is fired off and the shell casing is thrust against the breech face of the weapon. This causes a permanent mark on the base of the empty shell, i.e. the distinctive fine lines etched onto the breech face put their "fingerprint" on the base of the empty shell.
Joseph Nicol (Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State of Illinois) along with Cortlandt Cunningham, Robert Frazier and Charles Killion (of the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory in Washington D.C.) each examined the shells found at the Tippit scene and Oswald's revolver, which he ordered from Seaport Traders, Inc. Each of these experts determined that the shells were linked (through ballistics) to Oswald's revolver, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world.
Consider the report of B. M. Patterson in his own words...
Domingo Benavides, who was closer to the actual shooting than anybody else, refused to participate in a line up because he felt he could not positively identify the killer,
This is one of the biggest pieces of BS in the evidence surrounding the Tippit murder.....
A witness cannot refuse to participate in a line up.... Mrs Markham sure as hell didn't want to participate,... Was she given a choice??
The truth is; The cops didn't want Benavides to view a line up....Because he had seen the killer face to face and he had seen Lee Oswald's picture on TV and he knew that Lee was not the killer. The cops sure as hell didn't want Benavides on record just as they didn't want Howard Brennan's failure to identify Lee Oswald in the Line up.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONAnd then----
Date January 23, 1964
Mr. B.M. PATTERSON, 4635 Hartford Street, Dallas, Texas, currently employed by Wyatt's Cafeteria, 2647 South Lancaster, Dallas, Texas, advised he was present at the used car lot of JOHNNY REYNOLDS' on the afternoon of November 22, 1963.
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JONNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas. A minute or so later they observed a white male approximately 30 years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying what appeared to be a revolver in his hand and was obviously trying to reload same while running. When the individual reached the intersection of Patton Avenue and Jefferson Street, he placed the weapon inside his waistband and began walking west on the north side of Jefferson Street. As the individual was walking WARREN REYNOLDS suggested that they follow the individual to determine, his location in order that they could later notify the Dallas Police Department. At this point, he was unaware that a police officer had been shot and thought perhaps that the shooting had resulted from some marital problem. As the individual reached Ballew's Texaco Service Station located in the 600 Block of Jefferson, the individual made a turn in a northerly direction and proceeded behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station where the individual discarded a jacket which was later recovered by the Dallas Police Department. The aforementioned individual was not observed again by either he, PATTERSON, or WARREN REYNOLDS.
PATTERSON was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD at which time he identified said photograph as being identical with the individual he had observed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, running south on Patton Avenue with a weapon in his hand.
on 1/21/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461
By Special Agents VERNON MITCHEM and JOHN THOMAS KESLER - gj Date dictated 1/22/64
AFFIDAVITIn their zeal to thicken the case against Oswald.. it seems that the FBI acted here as de facto witnesses.
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
I, B. M. Patterson, being duly sworn, depose as follows:
I now reside at Apartment 201, Habana Apartments, 1607 North Carroll, Dallas, Texas. On January 22, 1964, I was residing at 4635 Hartford Street, Dallas, Texas, and was then employed by Wyatt's Cafeteria, 2647 Lancaster, Dallas, Texas.
On January 22, 1964, I was interviewed by Special Agents John T. Kesler and Vernon Mitchem of the Federal Bureau of Investigation concerning what I had seen on November 22, 1963, as it related to Lee Harvey Oswald, the shooting of Dallas Police Officer, J. D. Tippit, and the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
I have been shown the written report of the results of this interview by Special Agents John T. Kesler and Vernon Mitchem of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, on January 22, 1964.* While this transcription is basically and materially correct, I desire to make the following clarifications in regard to the contents of this report. This modification pertains to the second sentence of paragraph two. I choose to have the second referenced sentence changed to read as follows:
"A minute or so later, they observed a white male, approximately thirty years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying a revolver in his hand and was obviously trying to reload it. He stopped still and then reloaded the gun."
In regard to the last paragraph of this report, I do not at this late date specifically recall having been exhibited a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald, at the time of the interview of January 22, 1964, and desire that this paragraph be deleted as an official reporting of that interview.
I have read this written report and with the exception of the aforementioned notations, it reveals a correct report of what I saw on November 22, 1963.
Signed this 26th day of August 1964.
(S) B.M. Patterson,
B. M. PATTERSON.
The cop shooter might probably have had Tippit's blood splattered on his clothes or shoes.
Yet nothing like this was presented as evidence against Oswald.
Did they even look? Did they even really want to?
This doesn't even address the obvious... that Oswald was not close enough to Tippit to have blood "splattered" on his clothes, anyway.A typical straw argument. The type of 'research' I expected.
If Oswald had none of Tippit's blood on his clothing, then what? Would that somehow prove that Oswald therefore did not shoot Tippit? You yourself just said the shooter " might probably" have had blood splattered on his clothes. Your own words imply that it's hardly definitive. So, what would it mean if there was no blood on Oswald's clothes?
This doesn't even address the obvious... that Oswald was not close enough to Tippit to have blood "splattered" on his clothes, anyway.
A typical straw argument. The type of 'research' I expected.
How would you or anyone else know how close the shooter was?
A coup d' gras' shot at close range to the head----The police automatically postulated that it would not have been close enough to make it worth their while to examine for blood splatter?
Reverse investigation...accuse someone and then apply what didn't happen :-\
Mrs. DAVIS. I told the man who had brought us down there.So.....a black or dark coat huh? And really didn't see much of a face.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him
Mrs. DAVIS. That I thought number 2 was the man that I saw.
****************
Representative FORD. You saw him take the shells out of the gun?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir; he was shaking them.
Representative FORD. He was shaking them?
Mrs. DAVIS. He was shaking them. I didn't see him actually use his hand to take them out. I mean he was sort of shaking them out.
Representative FORD. Did you find this one bullet at the point where you saw him shake the gun?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir; it was around the side of the house.
Representative FORD. About how many feet?
Mrs. DAVIS. I don't know. Not too far.
Representative FORD. But he had moved from the one point to where you found the bullets?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. Yes.
Mrs. DAVIS. That is where they started looking for it.
Representative FORD. I meant the shells rather than the bullets.
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was he dressed the same in the lineup as he was when you saw him running across the lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. All except he didn't have a black coat on when I saw him in the lineup.
Mr. BALL. Did he have a coat on when you saw him?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What color coat?
Mrs. DAVIS. A dark coat.
Mr. BALL. Now, did you recognize him from his face or from his clothes when you saw him in the lineup?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, I looked at his clothes and then his face from the side because I had seen him from a side view of him. I didn't see him fullface.
The "coup-de-grace" shot wasn't a thing until Jack Tatum reported it 15 years after the fact. If he was actually there to begin with...But there was a shot to the head at point blank range that apparently left no powder marks....
But there was a shot to the head at point blank range that apparently left no powder marks....
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338568/m1/
Still could have been fired from across the hood.
" could have been fired from across the hood."
Absolutely right....And that would indicate that the killerwas a crack shot with an accurate pistol..... Which means that the killer was NOT Lee Oswald, nor was the weapon a grossly inaccurate and worn out S&W revolver.
Please show your work which made you determine that Oswald could not have hit Tippit with gun shots from across the hood.
One of the most glaring discrepancies of all is seen in the accounts of the direction in which Tippit's killer was walking just before Tippit stopped. William Scoggins, a cab driver who was an eyewitness, testified that the gunman was walking west toward Tippit's car prior to the shooting. Another witness [Jim Burt] reported similarly. Reports from the Dallas police as well as the first reports of the Secret Service reflect the same impression. Despite the preponderance of evidence that the killer and Tippit's car were moving toward each other, the Warren Report concluded the killer was walking in the opposite direction. The commission version held that Tippit's car overtook the pedestrian killer. (71:149-150)
If they are discarded at the scene, revolver casings [shells] are readily distinguishable from casings designed for semi and full automatic pistols. The difference is in the base. Revolver rounds have a wider base, a lip, extending out beyond the diameter of the body of the shell casing. This lip keeps the rounds from sliding out the front of the cylinder when their chamber is not aligned with the barrel or frame. The lip on ammunition designed for semis and autos is the same size as the body of the casing. (78:156-157)
The thread OP is loaded with errors, distortions, and omissions. If you want to read a detailed response to the claim that Oswald shot Tippit, please read the following article:
Did Oswald Shoot Tippit? A Review of Dale Myers' Book With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit"
https://miketgriffith.com/files/malice.htm
What follows is part of my chapter on the Tippit shooting in my book Hasty Judgment (which is available for free online):
* The witness with the best view of the shooting, Domingo Benavides, at first said he could not identify the killer, and, incredibly, Benavides was not taken to a police lineup. Weeks later, Benavides's brother was shot--in mistake for him, according to Benavides and his father-in-law. When Benavides testified before the Warren Commission, he would only say that a picture of Oswald "bore a resemblance" to Tippit's killer, and he seemed to identify a dark jacket as the one the assailant had worn, whereas the Commission claimed the killer wore a light gray jacket. Only years later did Benavides make a positive identification of Oswald as the gunman. Today, Benavides is hesitant to talk about the case, in part because he believes federal agents are monitoring his phone conversations.
* Two witnesses to the Tippit slaying described the killer in terms that did not resemble Oswald at all.
* Two other witnesses said Oswald entered the Texas Theater just a few minutes after 1:00 P.M., and that he remained in the theater until he was arrested there about an hour later. But Tippit was killed at no later than 1:12, and probably between 1:06 and 1:10.
* Officer J. M. Poe marked two of the empty shells found at the crime scene with his initials, a standard chain-of-evidence procedure, but the shells produced by the FBI and the Dallas police as evidence of Oswald's guilt do not have Poe's markings on them. Officer Poe initially said he was certain he had marked the shells. Later, testifying before the Warren Commission, Poe did not sound quite as certain, though even then he said he believed he had marked the shells.
* Posner assumes that Tippit approached his assailant from behind, meaning that the killer was walking east on Tenth Street. However, the available evidence strongly indicates the killer was walking west. This is a crucial point because if the killer was in fact walking west, or toward Tippit, then it could not have been Oswald (unless someone drove Oswald to the scene and then, for some inexplicable reason, Oswald started walking back toward the direction of his rooming house). Henry Hurt explains,
* The first two reports on the Tippit slaying to go out over the radio said Tippit's killer had used an automatic pistol, not a revolver. The first report originated with Dallas policeman H. W. Summers, who said he had an "eyeball witness to the getaway man" and that the man was "apparently armed with a .32, dark finish, automatic pistol." The second report came from Sergeant Gerald Hill, who was one of the first officers to arrive at the crime scene. After examining a shell found nearby, Hill said the casing indicated the suspect had used an automatic pistol (17:273, citing CE 1974:78). As anyone familiar with firearms knows, it's very hard to mistake a revolver shell for an automatic shell. There is an obvious difference between the two. I quote leading criminalist and forensic expert Larry Ragle:
* Helen Markham, Posner's star witness against Oswald in the Tippit shooting, gave such wildly conflicting and confused testimony that one Warren Commission staffer called her an "utter screwball." Although by all accounts (including Posner's) Tippit died instantly, Mrs. Markham said she conversed with him after he was shot. She told attorney Mark Lane that she conversed with the dead Tippit for twenty minutes. Additionally, Mrs. Markham gave conflicting descriptions of the killer. (https://miketgriffith.com/files/hastyjudgmentbook.pdf)
Please show your work which made you determine that Oswald could not have hit Tippit with gun shots from across the hood.Here is the generally accepted story---
Officer J.D. Tippit was shot and killed while questioning the assassin of President John F. Kennedy at Tenth and Patton Streets.https://www.odmp.org/officer/13338-officer-j-d-tippit
At approximately 1:14 pm, 45 minutes after President Kennedy was shot, Officer Tippit stopped the suspect, Lee Harvey Oswald, who was on foot and fit the general description of the assassin that was being broadcast by the Dallas police radio.
After being summoned by Officer Tippit, Oswald came over to the passenger side of the patrol car where they spoke through an open window. After a brief conversation, Officer Tippit got out of his car and as he was walking toward the front of his patrol car, Oswald suddenly shot him three times at point blank range with a .38 caliber revolver. After Officer Tippit fell, he was shot in the head by Oswald, which proved to be the fatal shot.
So Sorry!.... Wish I could educate a door knob....... But I recognize that some things are impossible.Can't help but notice that you came back to try once more anyway.
Here is an excellent lecture by Dr. Don Thomas on the Tippit shooting and on some of the evidence that the WC ignored about the event--it's only 34 minutes long:
"The Tippit Murder: Rosetta Stone to the Warren Commission Cover-Up"
$13 in pocket = no escape plan = he didn't think he would get away = survival instinct kicks in = hey, why not give it a shot = bumps into dumb & dumber downstairs = buh, bye suckers = still famous after all these years = smirk
Weeks later, Benavides's brother was shot--in mistake for him, according to Benavides and his father-in-law.
Edward Benavides was shot in February 1965. [Death certificate snipped]
I'll have to check on this. I know that Domingo and his father-in-law did say they believed that Eddie was killed in mistake for Domingo. Even Myers admits this. And it was in fact after Edward's death that Domingo changed his story and said he was certain the shooter was Oswald. Before his brother's death, he never made a positive identification (Myers admits that Domingo told his boss he did not get a good look at the gunman).
If the death certificate checks out, I'll revise the text in Hasty Judgment to correct the month and year of death and to observe that Domingo did not claim he was certain the gunman was Oswald until after Edward's death.
Do you even pause to consider the logic of your statements before you make them?
If he didn't think he would get away, why would he have taken the time to hide the rifle so carefully? (As Dr. Wrone notes, whoever hid the rifle had to climb over a wall of boxes to get to the spot where the rifle was hidden.)
This is not to mention that none of the people who were near or on the stairs when Oswald would have had to come flying down them saw or heard anyone on the stairs. Roy Truly was running well ahead of Baker, and he didn't see Oswald on the stairs or near the vestibule door.
Moving to the Tippit scene, the first and firm reports of the gun used said it was an automatic, based on the shells found at the scene, and it's very easy to distinguish between automatic shells and revolver shells. The fingerprints that Tippit's killer left near his window turned out *not* to be Oswald's. Two witnesses independently put Oswald at the Texas Theater during the Tippit shooting. The weight of the evidence clearly shows that Tippit was shot no later than 1:10, probably at 1:09, just after Tippit signaled the dispatcher that he was getting out of his car, but Oswald, even if he had speed walked, could not have arrived at the scene until 1:14 at the absolute earliest.
I discuss these and other facts in my revised and expanded article on the Tippit shooting:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/malice.pdf
If he didn't think he would get away, why would he have taken the time to hide the rifle so carefully?
Prior to Friday > he didn't think he would get away
Post shots > survival instinct kicks in > off he goes
Radford Lee Hill, 41, confessed that he killed Eddy Benavides in a bar brawl at 'THE WHEEL' and served 20 months in prison for manslaughter. Eddy Benavides was not involved in the brawl, he was ducking for cover when he was hit in the head by a shotgun blast. The death certificate John posted is (obviously) correct. A bit late to start fact checking now, isn't it? Maybe a good idea to do that before publishing a book, you think?
Gosh, that never occurred to me. Who are you? Have you been lurking and just waiting to huff and puff over a relatively modest error?
Just on a point of logic, why is the death certificate "obviously correct"? With modern word-processing and graphics software, it is very, very easy to produce a genuine-looking document of this kind. I could produce a death certificate for someone else that would look virtual identical to the one "John posted." I'm not saying the document is fake, but just that one should not blindly accept it because it looks real.
Yes, I'm aware of the circumstances of Eddy's death, but that doesn't change the fact that both Domingo and his father-in-law said they believed Eddy was killed in mistake for Domingo. Even Dale Myers admits this is true.
It is also true that Domingo did not change his story, i.e., did not begin to claim he was certain the gunman was Oswald, until after his brother was killed.
If the death cert checks out, which I suspect it will, I will make the following correction to the paragraph in question: Instead of saying that Domingo told the WC that Oswald "bore a resemblance" to the gunman after his brother was killed, I will note that Domingo did not claim he was certain the gunman was Oswald until after his brother was killed in early 1965. While I'm at it, I will include the fact that Domingo's boss said Domingo told him that he did not get a good look at the gunman.
Gosh,well it obviously didn't occur to you, did it. If it had you wouldn't have made such a fundamental mistake.Nobodi's perfekt.
I'll have to check on this. I know that Domingo and his father-in-law did say they believed that Eddie was killed in mistake for Domingo. Even Myers admits this. And it was in fact after Edward's death that Domingo changed his story and said he was certain the shooter was Oswald.
Radford Lee Hill, 41, confessed that he killed Eddy Benavides in a bar brawl at 'THE WHEEL' and served 20 months in prison for manslaughter. Eddy Benavides was not involved in the brawl, he was ducking for cover when he was hit in the head by a shotgun blast. The death certificate John posted is (obviously) correct. A bit late to start fact checking now, isn't it? Maybe a good idea to do that before publishing a book, you think?
I don't recall Domingo ever saying that he was certain the shooter was Oswald.
Yer right....The closest Benevides came to actually identifing the gunman was when he said ...." Oswald... or whoever the other man was"
And it was in fact after Edward's death that Domingo changed his story and said he was certain the shooter was Oswald.I believe you are thinking about Warren Reynolds.
The misinformation about Eddy being shot in 1964 is pervasive. Bugliosi didn't challenge it either.
Mr. BENAVIDES - I then pulled on up and I seen this officer standing by the door. The door was open to the car, and I was pretty close to him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Did you see the officer as he was getting out of the car?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; I seen as he was, well, he had his hand on the door and kind of in a hurry to get out, it seemed like.
Mr. BELIN - Had he already gotten out of the car?
Mr. BENAVIDES - He had already gotten around.
Mr. BELIN - Where did you see the other man?
Mr. BENAVIDES - The other man was standing to the right side of the car, riders side of the car, and was standing right in front of the windshield on the right front fender. And then I heard the shot. Actually I wasn't looking for anything like that, so I heard the shot, and I just turned into the curb. Looked around to miss a car, I think.
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald
Gosh, well it obviously didn't occur to you, did it. If it had you wouldn't have made such a fundamental mistake. [More demagoguery SNIPPED]
Mr. BENAVIDES - I then pulled on up and I seen this officer standing by the door. The door was open to the car, and I was pretty close to him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car.
The words...."Or the man who shot him" is a rebuttal of the first part of the sentence in which Benavides uses the name "Oswald"
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald
This not at all a positive identification..... " I figured it was Oswald"
Oh, huff, huff, huff. Yes, I get that you're gonna demagogue this. "Such a fundamental mistake"? Instead of dying in early 1964, the brother died in early 1965, and instead of Domingo giving hedged testimony after his brother's death, he markedly changed his story after his brother's death a year later. That's hardly an egregious, fundamental mistake.
Anyway, I'm convinced that the death certificate is valid, and so I will soon be editing the paragraph in question in my online book. I will be adding the fact that Domingo's boss said Domingo told him he did not get a good look at the killer.
"Such a fundamental mistake"? Instead of dying in early 1964, the brother died in early 1965, and instead of Domingo giving hedged testimony after his brother's death, he markedly changed his story after his brother's death a year later. That's hardly an egregious, fundamental mistake.Michael did you not see my post above? You are obviously thinking of Warren Reynolds.
Anyway, I'm convinced that the death certificate is valid, and so I will soon be editing the paragraph in question in my online book. I will be adding the fact that Domingo's boss said Domingo told him he did not get a good look at the killer.
Date January 16, 1964It seems like it took the Tippit gunman forever to unload his pistol [something that actually takes all of about 5 seconds to do]
Mr. JOHNIE REYNOLDS, owner and operator of Johnie Reynolds Used Cars, 500 East Jefferson Avenue, Dallas, advised that his brother, WARREN REYNOLDS, and a man named RUSSELL, who works with him, were present at the car lot on November 22, 1963 when OSWALD allegedly killed Patrolman J. D. TIPPIT of the Dallas Police Department approximately a block from this car lot. RUSSELL and WARREN then observed OSWALD running down the street toward Jefferson Avenue carrying a pistol in his hand and unloading and reloading it as he ran. WARREN then followed OSWALD down Jefferson Avenue at a discreet distance to try to help the police locate OSWALD when they arrived.
on 1/15/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461
By Special Agent NAT A. PINKSTON Date dictated 1/16/64
1/22/64Several of the identifications were made by showing 'witnesses' Oswald's pictures taken in New Orleans.
WARREN REYNOLDS, part owner, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, advised on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, while sitting in his office, he had observed an individual running south on Patton Avenue toward Jefferson Street and then walking at a fast rate of speed west on Jefferson. As the individual was running down Patton Avenue, he had a pistol or an automatic in his possession and was apparently attempting to conceal same in his belt while he was running. REYNOLDS advised he had previously heard shots coming from the area of Tenth and Patton Streets and, thinking that possibly a marital argument had occurred and a shooting had taken place, he attempted to follow the individual in order that he could inform the Dallas Police Department of the individual's location.
He advised he stayed at a safe distance behind the individual and last observed the individual to turn north by the Ballew Texaco Service Station, and from this point he did not again observe the individual. He advised he made inquiry at Ballew's Texaco Service Station, and they informed him the individual had gone through the parking lot.
REYNOLDS advised approximately five or ten minutes later he was informed by an unknown source that the individual whom he had been "tailing" had shot and apparently killed a uniform officer of the Dallas Police Department.
REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to definitely identify OSWALD as the individual.
on 1/21/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461
By Special Agents JOHN T. KESLER and VERNON MITCHEM - LAC Date dictated 1/22/64
Michael did you not see my post above? You are obviously thinking of Warren Reynolds.
Another two brothers report... only Johnie Reynolds did not testify.
You should stick to spellchecking.Like you stick to pimples and warts.
I'll have to check on this. I know that Domingo and his father-in-law did say they believed that Eddie was killed in mistake for Domingo. Even Myers admits this. And it was in fact after Edward's death that Domingo changed his story and said he was certain the shooter was Oswald. Before his brother's death, he never made a positive identification (Myers admits that Domingo told his boss he did not get a good look at the gunman).
If the death certificate checks out, I'll revise the text in Hasty Judgment to correct the month and year of death and to observe that Domingo did not claim he was certain the gunman was Oswald until after Edward's death.
I know that Domingo and his father-in-law did say they believed that Eddie was killed in mistake for Domingo. Even Myers admits this.
Gosh,well it obviously didn't occur to you, did it. If it had you wouldn't have made such a fundamental mistake. Perhaps a little more research and a little less plagiarism is in order. It would have been "a relatively modest error" for an amateur forum member to make, yes. But as a writer you have a far greater responsibility..how many thousands of people have read that mistake in your book and then gone on to state it as fact to thousands upon thousands more on forums and websites? Who am I? Well, what I'm not is someone who writes books for a living and claims to be a JFK assassination expert as you do. Neither do I spread incorrect factoids in books and all over the internet, as you do. You recently made a posting entitled "Poor Scholarship on Display: Larry SPersonivan's Book "The JFK Myths" so perhaps you shouldn't whine so much when someone picks you up on your mistakes. Is it OK for you to criticise other authors work whilst your work is off limits?
Glad you joined the forum, perhaps we can help you improve your research skills and become a better writer.
Here is how the paragraph about Benavides in my book Hasty Judgment now reads:
* The witness who should have had the best view of the shooting, Domingo Benavides, at first said he could not identify the killer. This might be because, as even some lone-gunman theorists admit, Benavides told his boss the day after the shooting that he did not get a good look at the gunman. When Benavides testified before the Warren Commission, he would only say that a picture of Oswald "bore a resemblance" to Tippit's killer, and he seemed to identify a dark jacket as the one the assailant had worn, whereas the Commission claimed the killer wore a light gray jacket. About a year after Benavides’s Warren Commission testimony, his brother Edward was shot and killed. Domingo and his father-in-law both believed Edward was shot in mistake for Domingo, even though all the evidence indicated he was shot accidentally during a bar fight. Later, Benavides finally made a positive identification of Oswald as the gunman.
Benavides finally made a positive identification of Oswald as the gunman.
No, Dom Benavides did NOT positively identify Lee as the man who shot JD Tippit...... As a matter of fact Dom DESCRIBED the action of the killer after the shooting and he said the man looked directly at him and they saw each other clearly face to face. Then the killer turned around and walked away and removed a single spent shell from his gun and tossed it aside ... ONE ...JUST ONE spent shell....
The fact that the shells were found widely dispersed in the area indicates that Dom was accurate in his description of the killer's actions. And the killer WAS NOT unloading a S&W revolver. The conspirators have said that Lee Oswald was carrying a S&W revolver when he was arrested in the theater..... Maybe??? BUT.... the weapon that was used to kill JD Tippit was NOT a Smith & Wesson revolver.
I was referring to the fact that later Benavides claimed he was certain the gunman he had seen was Oswald. I realize that his story is problematic. I'm just noting the fact that years later he finally claimed he was certain the gunman was Oswald.
I was referring to the fact that later Benavides claimed he was certain the gunman he had seen was Oswald. I realize that his story is problematic. I'm just noting the fact that years later he finally claimed he was certain the gunman was Oswald.
Here is how the paragraph about Benavides in my book Hasty Judgment now reads:
* The witness who should have had the best view of the shooting, Domingo Benavides, at first said he could not identify the killer. This might be because, as even some lone-gunman theorists admit, Benavides told his boss the day after the shooting that he did not get a good look at the gunman. When Benavides testified before the Warren Commission, he would only say that a picture of Oswald "bore a resemblance" to Tippit's killer, and he seemed to identify a dark jacket as the one the assailant had worn, whereas the Commission claimed the killer wore a light gray jacket. About a year after Benavides’s Warren Commission testimony, his brother Edward was shot and killed. Domingo and his father-in-law both believed Edward was shot in mistake for Domingo, even though all the evidence indicated he was shot accidentally during a bar fight. Later, Benavides finally made a positive identification of Oswald as the gunman.
I believe this to be yet another incorrect 'factoid' caused by bad CT authors copying other bad CT authors shabby work.
The origanal source, as far as I'm able to determine, is Ramparts magazine. A particularly badly written and inacruate publication, which is thankfully, now defunct. As you can see below, from the middle of the seconed paragraph on, the article was completely wrong in just about every detail. The last two and a half paragraphs are pure invention!! I suspect the claim concerning Domingo and his father in-law believing Eddy being shot by mistake for Domingo is also erroneous.
David Welsh in the November 1966 edition of "Ramparts" magazine:
"Domingo Benevides, a dark, slim auto mechanic, was a witness to the
murder of Officer Tippit who testified that he "really got a good view" of
the slayer. He was not asked to see the police lineup in which Oswald
appeared. Although he later said the killer resembled newspaper pictures
of Oswald, he described the man differently: "I remember the back of his
head seemed like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered
off...it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look flat in
back." Domingo reports that he has been repeatedly threatened by police,
and advised not to talk about what he saw.
"In mid-February 1964 his brother Eddy, who resembled him, was
fatally shot in the back of the head in a beer joint on Second Avenue in
Dallas. Police said it was a pistol shot, wrote up a cursory report and
marked the case "unsolved."
"Domingo's father-in-law, J.W. Jackson, was so unimpressed with the
police investigation of Eddy's death that he launched a little inquiry of
his own. Two weeks later Jackson was shot at in his home. The assailant
secreted himself in the carport, fired once into the house, and when
Jackson ran outside, fired one more time, just missing his head.
"As the gunman clambered into an automobile in a nearby driveway,
Jackson saw a police car coming down the block. The officer made no
attempt to follow the gunman's speeding car; instead, he stopped at
Jackson's home and spent a long time inquiring what had happened. Later a
police lieutenant advised Jackson, "You'd better lay off of this business.
Don't go around asking question; that's our job." Jackson and Domingo are
both convinced that Eddy's murder was a case of mistaken identity and that
Domingo, the Tippit witness, was the intended victim."
"Domingo Benevides, a dark, slim auto mechanic, was a witness to the murder of Officer Tippit who testified that he "really got a good view" of the slayer. He was not asked to see the police lineup in which Oswald appeared. Although he later said the killer resembled newspaper pictures of Oswald, he described the man differently: "I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off...it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look flat in back." Domingo reports that he has been repeatedly threatened by police,and advised not to talk about what he saw."
Domingo Benavides testified that he "really got a good view" of the slayer, and he said that although the killer resembled newspaper pictures of Oswald, he didn't believe the man was Lee Oswald, Because,...."I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off...it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look flat in back."
Oy ::) That could mean so many things if applied to Oswald.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"his head look flat in back"
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"his hairline sort of went square"
John Mytton proposed the jacket collar at the nape cropped off from view the hairline to make it appear trimmed.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Collar climbs to nape
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Jacket superimposed on Oswald
Of course it's pervasive with lazy ass authors like Griffith copying other lazy ass authors mistakes instead of doing a little research. That's exactly how incorrect pervasive crap gets spread all over the internet. But it sounds like that's perfectly acceptable in your book..it's not in mine.
What's your point in bringing Bugliosi into it..or you saying if Bugliosi made the same mistake that's OK then?
It's a start. Plus 'or the man that shot him' ultimately meant Oswald.
A friendly piece of advice Mr Griffith, if you're so averse to having your mistakes pointed out, then you're definitely on the wrong forum. Trying to bully and belittle members so no one else dares do the same wont work here.
Here is how the paragraph about Benavides in my book Hasty Judgment now reads:
* The witness who should have had the best view of the shooting, Domingo Benavides, at first said he could not identify the killer. This might be because, as even some lone-gunman theorists admit, Benavides told his boss the day after the shooting that he did not get a good look at the gunman. When Benavides testified before the Warren Commission, he would only say that a picture of Oswald "bore a resemblance" to Tippit's killer, and he seemed to identify a dark jacket as the one the assailant had worn, whereas the Commission claimed the killer wore a light gray jacket. About a year after Benavides’s Warren Commission testimony, his brother Edward was shot and killed. Domingo and his father-in-law both believed Edward was shot in mistake for Domingo, even though all the evidence indicated he was shot accidentally during a bar fight. Later, Benavides finally made a positive identification of Oswald as the gunman.
Says you.
Who said he was "averse" to it? He was provided the correct evidence and he corrected himself. That's how things should work around here.
That, and a gracious admission of error is the way "things should work around here." Rather than sarcasm and rudeness as posted by Griffiths:
Gosh,well it obviously didn't occur to you, did it. If it had you wouldn't have made such a fundamental mistake. Perhaps a little more research and a little less plagiarism is in order. It would have been "a relatively modest error" for an amateur forum member to make, yes. But as a writer you have a far greater responsibility..how many thousands of people have read that mistake in your book and then gone on to state it as fact to thousands upon thousands more on forums and websites? Who am I? Well, what I'm not is someone who writes books for a living and claims to be a JFK assassination expert as you do. Neither do I spread incorrect factoids in books and all over the internet, as you do. You recently made a posting entitled "Poor Scholarship on Display: Larry SPersonivan's Book "The JFK Myths" so perhaps you shouldn't whine so much when someone picks you up on your mistakes. Is it OK for you to criticise other authors work whilst your work is off limits?
Glad you joined the forum, perhaps we can help you improve your research skills and become a better writer.
"When did Domingo ever make a positive identification of Oswald as the gunman?" In 1967 in a C-SPAN interview.
Perhaps that was rude, but so was this.
C-SPAN didn't even exist until 1979.
That was precipitated by Griffith posting: "Gosh, that never occurred to me. Who are you? Have you been lurking and just waiting to huff and puff over a relatively modest error?"
But why the hell am I explaining myself to you? Who the hell do you think you are, picking members up on their manners!! I really don't give a flying f*** what you think.
My mistake: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4904439/user-clip-domingo-benavides-interview
You're the one who decided to go ballistic over rudeness. Apparently you get to be as rude as you like.
Someone's rude and sarcastic to me, I'll give it back. Dont like it John..tough.
A bit late to start fact checking now, isn't it? Maybe a good idea to do that before publishing a book, you think?
IMO, you were rude first.
There's no positive identification of Oswald in that clip.
What part of "I don't give a flying f*** what you think" did you not understand?
What on Earth are you blabbering on about, that was a completely different witness. Why would Johnie Reynolds testify anyway? He didn't see anything! He just reported to the FBI that his brother Warren, had:Then why did the FBI interview him in the first place?...I believe to get another "Oswald did it" into the books.
Then why did the FBI interview him in the first place?...I believe to get another "Oswald did it" into the books.
The Warren Commission produced witnesses who had nothing to report. For example ..Doris Burns---
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/burns.htm
Ms Burns testified to witnessing absolutely nothing of any importance.
Tom Dillard's photo shows that Doris Burns is correct, because Mr Wilson can be seen behind the window in Tom Dillard's photo. IOW...Dillard took his photo DURING the shooting, NOT AFTER, and there is nobody visible behind the sixth floor window.Not that I doubt this singular revelation and don't wish to drift too far off topic....The Commission could not possibly have realized this particular disclosure [first I have heard of it] and I would like to see that Dillard photo if it can be found and posted :)
Not that I doubt this singular revelation and don't wish to drift too far off topic....The Commission could not possibly have realized this particular disclosure [first I have heard of it] and I would like to see that Dillard photo if it can be found and posted :)
I disagree.....Doris Burns testified that Mr Wilson was standing behind the window of his office in the SE corner, on the third floor, of the TSBD DURING the shooting.....
So Bill. Using your assumed timeline, and I think it's pretty accurate, then we can also make the assumption that the shooter was approached by Tippet at approximately 1:13pm. Keeping in mind that there was a discussion between the shooter and Tippet that maybe took a minute, maybe more, and then there was the actual shooting that maybe took 15 to 30 seconds. So if Tippets car approached the shooter at 1:13PM, the REAL question would be could Oswald have been able to walk from the rooming house to the shooting scene by 1:13PM. Given what the housekeeper gave as the time that Oswald left the rooming house, I'm not so sure that he could have made it to the scene in that amount of time on foot alone.
Hi Dale. I don't recall if I responded to this post or not. This thread got caught up in a lot of political debate for many pages.
In my opinion (based on eyewitness descriptions), Tippit and Oswald carry on a conversation for less than thirty seconds. The shooting itself probably took less than five seconds (and is therefore irrelevant when discussing a timeline).
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.
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.
Bill Brown will never agree to this, but a preponderance of evidence points conclusive to Tippit being killed before 1:10 PM
So it took over nine minutes for Callaway make his way over to the sidewalk on Patton after hearing the shots, watch the killer run down Patton to Jefferson, then make his (Callaway's) "good hard run" less than a block up to the corner of Tenth and Patton, make his way to the patrol car and grab the mic to report the shooting.
No way did that take him nine minutes.
Your mistaken "preponderance of evidence" has Tippit's body lying in the street for over six minutes before anyone reports it.
No it hasn't and you know it. In fact it has Tippit being collected by an ambulance within about 3 minutes after the shooting, with Callaway helping, and getting him to the Methodist Hospital where he was declared dead at 1:15 PM. But you know all this from our previous discussion of the subject and just like then you simply do not want to look at the evidence honestly.
I "know all this from our previous discussion"? Laughable. You have no idea where I know "all of this" from.
Anyway, you were wrong about all of that back then just as you are wrong about all of it right now.
Unless, of course, you wish to post it again along with a little extra this time to help make your case.
What BS is this? Why are you being so dishonest? Did you "forget" our conversation about where Callaway was standing when he encountered the man with the revolver running down Patton. That discussion was part of the time line I had prepared and you were desperately trying to extend the time Callaway needed to get to the scene, after the shots, by a few seconds. It's all on this board, so why are you pretending to be ignorant?
Even more so, when you tell me I was wrong back then. What would that "back then" be, other than the discussion I just mentioned.
And of course you are telling me that I am wrong, because you will never ever agree to anything that does not compute with your fairytale story of the events and you will ever ever honestly discuss or even listen to a coherent narrative build on corroborative witness statements, day 1 documents and factual information.
Unless, of course, you wish to post it again along with a little extra this time to help make your case.
Why would I waste my time by posting it again, when we can simple revive the old discussion already on this board. I'll even discuss it with you, by going through it point by point and letting you tell me just how wrong I am. That should be fun....
There's only one condition. You stick with the discussion to the end and do not bail out (just telling me I'm wrong) when you can't present a persuasive argument as you have done several times in the past.
What BS is this? Why are you being so dishonest? Did you "forget" our conversation about where Callaway was standing when he encountered the man with the revolver running down Patton.
I do not remember it. But, what's your point already?
Stop playing pathetic games and I'll tell you.
The point is that Callaway did not get to the Tippit scene until 1:18 or 1:19 and you can't a shred of even credible evidence that he did.
You're losing it (again).
I created an entire thread regarding the Callaway timeline and I stated that Callaway got up to the scene right around that same time. What are you going on about?
You created nothing. You just copied what Myers and the WC said and both were wrong.
You've got to look at the entire interlocking chain of statements by witnesses who corroborate eachother and are supported by documentation as well as first hand knowledge of the area around the scene.
Let me give you an example;
You yourself have stated that Callaway was at the scene of the shooting roughly 3 minutes after he heard the shots.
During those three minutes the following sequence of events must have taken place.
Benavides waited until the killer had turned on to Patton and was out of sight, before he left the car and tried to call the DPD dispatcher. The distance between the location of Tippit's car and the corner of Patton (where Scoggings saw the killer jump the bushes) is, according to one of your own video's no more than 30 seconds.
Benavides failed to get the radio working and at that time Bowley drove up and took the radio from him. You have claimed that you have listened to a recording of the DPD radio tapes at Dale Myers house and you heard two minutes of noise which you claimed was Benavides trying in vain to work the radio. This is not even remotely possible. You may have heard two minutes of noise, but unless you know exactly when Tippit was killed you have no way of knowing if the recording of that noise started after or before he was killed. It is also practically impossible that it took two minutes because that would have placed the end of the noise at 2 minutes and 30 seconds after the shots and you have Callaway getting there in 3 minutes after the shots.
This in turn would mean that, in those spare 30 seconds, Bowley would have had to arrive at the scene, get out of his car, which he parked a fair distance away to ensure that his daughter did not get to close to see, check on Tippit and make his call which btw (I timed it) by itself took roughly 40 seconds. An another impossibility.
When Callaway arrived he said that he wasn't sure if anybody had called the DPD dispatcher, which means that Bowley must have been away from the radio when Callaway arrived. Callaway testified that as he was working the radio "an ambulance was coming", which is another impossibility if the official narrative you promote is to be believed, because you have Callaway being on the radio at 1:18 which is exactly the moment that your narrative says the ambulance was called. In reality the ambulance was already there and Callaway and Bowley both helped to put Tippit in the ambulance.
The first officer who arrived at the scene was Croy. He testified that he was at Zang and Colorado when he heard Bowley's call on the radio and he instantly made his way to the scene. The distance is about a one mile drive which at a mere 30 mph would have gotten him there in two minutes at the most. When he arrived the ambulance was already there and so was Callaway because he helped loading Tippit in the ambulance..
Mr. GRIFFIN. I see. Now, I am just referring to the street you found him on. When you got there, was Tippit's car there?
Mr. CROY. Yes.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Was Tippit there?
Mr. CROY. They were loading him in the ambulance.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Were other officers on the scene?
Mr. CROY. None that I saw.
So, how does all of this fit into the time line based on the DPD radio transcripts and your theories? The answer is: It doesn't.
How can Bowley make a 40 second long radio broadcast in less than 30 seconds?
How can an ambulance arrive when Callaway was calling the DPD operator when the official version has it being called a minute later than it's actual arrival?
It simply doesn't fit... it's as simple as that. And that's not the only things that do not compute with the offical narrative.
I'll continue this discussion with you as long as it remains civil. The first time you start patronizing the conversation is over.
I'll continue this discussion with you as long as it remains civil. The first time you start patronizing the conversation is over.
Let's start with this....
You said:
"The point is that Callaway did not get to the Tippit scene until 1:18 or 1:19 and you can't a shred of even credible evidence that he did."
Where have I stated that Callaway was at the scene BEFORE 1:18?
You created nothing. You just copied what Myers and the WC said and both were wrong.
Based on both of our posting histories, I think we know who needs to try their damnedest to remain civil.
You're losing it (again).
I created an entire thread regarding the Callaway timeline and I stated that Callaway got up to the scene right around that same time. What are you going on about?
Why are you already trying to confuse the issue by talking about something I did not mention in my previous post?
So, no, let's not start with that. Let's start with your reply to the comments I've just made, in which I have already started to demonstrate that a time line based on the DPD recordings/transcripts can not be correct.
We'll get to the times each individual witness (must have) arrived at the scene as we progress.
I used Ted Callaway's own words.
Try to reply to the entire post rather than pick something and give meaningless reply to that.
I used Callaway's words as well, and those of several others.
There are two ways of doing this;
1. we have a discussion
2. we take turns in making speeches without really addressing anything of substance in the other guy's post.
This is an example of # 2
Why not try for # 1 for once?
You stated something BEFORE your "previous post" and I want it addressed before we move on to that "previous post". Why not simply address it real quick?
You said:
"The point is that Callaway did not get to the Tippit scene until 1:18 or 1:19 and you can't a shred of even credible evidence that he did."
Are you under the mistaken impression that I have stated that Callaway was at the scene BEFORE 1:18?
No, I am not under that impression. You have misunderstood what I was trying to say, but that was my fault. It was written inbetween things and clearly not done very well because the word "present" between "can't" and "a shred" is also missing. I should have said
Callaway did not get to the Tippit scene as late as 1:18 or 1:19 and you can't present a shred of even credible evidence that he did.
Can we move on now?
But, I'm curious. Why did you feel the need to say this to me? I didn't say that Callaway was at the scene before 1:18 and in fact, I have stated that Callaway was there at the scene right at 1:18 to 1:19. It doesn't make sense for you to say this to me.
Big straw man argument on your part and I'm just trying to understand.
Instead of saying you were mistaken about something you think I might have said recently, you switch it to say that I "misunderstood" what it was that you were trying to say.
If you are not under the impression (as you just said so yourself) that I stated that Callaway arrived at the scene before 1:18, then what on earth was your point?
No you are not trying to understand anything. You are trying to pivot away from the points I have raised.
You have no interest in having a discussion about the main subject. Thanks for demonstrating that so clearly. End of conversation.
So I must address your questions/points but you don't have to address mine? If you wanna do this, then we go in order. Before you raised your "points", you said something that I am asking you to clear up. You haven't cleared it up, yet. Do so and then we can move on to your points.
Up to you.
But at the same time, don't fool yourself into thinking that any of this is a must for me. Hell, I don't even recall having a conversation with you in the past about Callaway and any of this. To you, I'm playing games. But in reality, I simply don't have you very high on my radar.
So it took over nine minutes for Callaway make his way over to the sidewalk on Patton after hearing the shots, watch the killer run down Patton to Jefferson, then make his (Callaway's) "good hard run" less than a block up to the corner of Tenth and Patton, make his way to the patrol car and grab the mic to report the shooting.
No way did that take him nine minutes.
Your mistaken "preponderance of evidence" has Tippit's body lying in the street for over six minutes before anyone reports it.
I have cleared it up. I caused the misunderstanding by writing that line too quickly inbetween things. It was a reponse to your pathetic claim that if Tippit was shot prior to 1:10 [as I claimed based on a preponderance of evidence] it would have taken Callaway nine minutes to get to the crime scene.
That's what I was replying to. Calculate 1:10 + 9 minutes and you get 1:19 and there is not a shred of credible evidence that you can show that Callaway arrived at the scene at 1:19.
Had we continued our discussion I would have demonstrated that Callaway did in fact not even need 3 minutes after the shots to arrive at the crime scene.
Hell, I don't even recall having a conversation with you in the past about Callaway and any of this.
Really, short term memory failing?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2759.msg103253.html#msg103253
But in reality, I simply don't have you very high on my radar.
Then don't engage me and go back to your propaganda loving friends at your facebook site.
It was a reponse to your pathetic claim...
Really, short term memory failing?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2759.msg103253.html#msg103253
I doubt that even one single member of this forum is surprised that YOU are the one who bailed on being civil.
Now I remember. Thanks for posting the link to your error. Like I said, I didn't recall that conversation with you. Is that somehow supposed to be of any relevance? I apologize to you that I rarely pay attention to what you've said once I am finished with that particular conversation with you.
No. Where are you getting this from? Please explain.
First, I do not have Callaway being on the police radio at 1:18. I'm not sure where you get this from.
What I've clearly said, many times over, is that Callaway was on the police radio reporting the shooting to the dispatcher at 1:19-1:20.
Also, the ambulance was not already there when Callaway arrived. The ambulance was dispatched at 1:18. Callaway is on the police radio at 1:19-1:20. The ambulance was on it's way to the scene as Callaway was on the radio (it's sirens can be heard in the background of Callaway's radio report).
I am not going to discuss just the details of my posts that you want to discuss. Address the entire post or not at all. Up to you.
No. Where are you getting this from? Please explain.
First, I do not have Callaway being on the police radio at 1:18. I'm not sure where you get this from.
What I've clearly said, many times over, is that Callaway was on the police radio reporting the shooting to the dispatcher at 1:19-1:20.
Also, the ambulance was not already there when Callaway arrived. The ambulance was dispatched at 1:18. Callaway is on the police radio at 1:19-1:20. The ambulance was on it's way to the scene as Callaway was on the radio (it's sirens can be heard in the background of Callaway's radio report).
The points you raised? Like the "points" you raised regarding Callaway that I just addressed a minute ago in my above post? Your errors are so egregious that it's a waste of my time.
The points you raised? Like the "points" you raised regarding Callaway that I just addressed a minute ago in my above post? Your errors are so egregious that it's a waste of my time.
That's what all those say who have nothing of substance to counter the arguments presented. Your "holier than thou" posture is once again getting the better of you. No wonder you ran away for a live face to face debate. You haven't got the guts!
Callaway testified that as he was working the radio "an ambulance was coming", which is another impossibility if the official narrative you promote is to be believed, because you have Callaway being on the radio at 1:18...
You said the ambulance was already there when Callaway arrived. This is another error. Where did you get that from?
When Callaway arrived he said that he wasn't sure if anybody had called the DPD dispatcher, which means that Bowley must have been away from the radio when Callaway arrived. Callaway testified that as he was working the radio "an ambulance was coming", which is another impossibility if the official narrative you promote is to be believed, because you have Callaway being on the radio at 1:18 which is exactly the moment that your narrative says the ambulance was called. In reality the ambulance was already there and Callaway and Bowley both helped to put Tippit in the ambulance.
I like to break down large posts into smaller segments. Easier to follow that way. You don't have to like it. But, for you to have the gall to even think that you can tell me how to post is comical. Stop behaving like a child. I am responding to your "points" and instead of replying to that, you want to tell me how to post properly.
Where exactly did I say that?
This is what I actually said;
Substitude 1:18 for 1:19 and the same observation is valid. There is no error, but you would love for one to be there,right?
You're playing your usual word games again and I am not having it. It is pathetic. It's not the way a researcher works, but it is the way a propagandist works. And I have no interest in talking to a agenda driven propagandist.
I like to break down large posts into smaller segments.
Sure you do, because that way you can attack only parts of the information without having to deal with the totality of the information. It's about scoring points for you and not what really happened. "Truth be told" says it all.
One of the principal complaints of LNs is that CTs (who ever they are) attack individual pieces of evidence because that can't attack the total narrative as a whole. You're doing exactly the same here, so what's up?
If you really had any interest in an open and honest discussion you wouldn't be playing these pathetic games. All you are doing is trying to create as much confusion as you can, which basically tells me that you know that the narrative to are trying to promote is bogus. If you were defending a narrative that was even remotely conclusive you would have to confidence to engage me in a normal discussion. The fact that you are not doing that tells me all I need to know.
So to have a "normal discussion", one must post in the exact manner in which you would prefer.
Too bad, dude.
I am responding to your points. I will respond to all of them as soon as one at a time gets put to bed one way or another. That's perfectly fair.
Sorry, no longer interested in anything you have to say.
The ambulance was dispatched at 1:18.
Evidence please.
Evidence please.
According to the police tapes, the first ambulance arrived at 1:18. It was dispatched from the Dudley-Hughes Funeral Home, two blocks away. George and Patricia Nash saw the time slip notifying of the dispatch and noted that it was time-stamped 1:18.
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/WC_Period/Reactions_to_Warren_Report/Support_from_center/The_other_witnesses--Nashes.html
The Dudley M. Hughes Funeral Home is the central ambulance dispatching point for southern Dallas. It either handles calls directly or calls other funeral homes in the system that cover other areas. Dudley M. Hughes Jr., the dispatcher, took the call from the police. He filled out an ambulance call slip with the code “3-19” (which means emergency shooting) and the address, “501 East 10th Street.” He put the slip into the time clock and stamped it 1:18 p.m., November 22, in the space marked “Time Called.” Since the location was just two short blocks away he told one of his own drivers, Clayton Butler, to respond. Butler and Eddie Kinsley ran down the steps, got into the ambulance and took off, siren screaming.
Butler radioed his arrival at the scene at 1:18 p.m., within 60 seconds of leaving the funeral home. He remembers that there were at least 10 people standing around the man lying on the ground. It was not until he and his assistant pulled back a blanket covering Tippit that they realized the victim was a policeman.
Astounding hypocriscy.
According to LNs Markham's clock was wrong, Bowley's watch was wrong, Methodist Hospital clocks were wrong, but the clocks used by DPD Dispatchers (which their own man in charge, J.C. Bowles said were not synchronized and did not give real time) and the clock used by Dudley M. Hughes Funeral Home worked perfectly and were spot on.
No time stamped slip of the Funeral Home has ever been found. It doesn't exist. And nowhere in the article written by George and Patricia Nash does it say they actually saw the time slip.
How long do you think it takes for the ambulance to get to the scene once the funeral home received the call?
Irrelevant to the comment I made.
Who said it was relevant to your comment? Why not (finally) answer a very simple question?
I have answered far more questions in our conversations than you ever have.
Why do you lie about George and Patricia Nash actually seeing the stamped time slip when they never said that in their article?
I'll continue this discussion with you as long as it remains civil. The first time you start patronizing the conversation is over.
Based on both of our posting histories, I think we know who needs to try their damnedest to remain civil.
It was a reponse to your pathetic claim...
Because you don't know the case means I'm lying? Do you really believe that article I linked to is the only place on the entire internet where information on the Nash's can be found?
It's not my problem that you don't know the facts of the Tippit murder.
Hi Dale. I don't recall if I responded to this post or not. This thread got caught up in a lot of political debate for many pages.
In my opinion (based on eyewitness descriptions), Tippit and Oswald carry on a conversation for less than thirty seconds. The shooting itself probably took less than five seconds (and is therefore irrelevant when discussing a timeline).
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.
All ya gotta do is read Callaway's own words. He did not make his way up to the corner until after the killer had reached the corner of Patton and Jefferson.
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.
You really should read his testimony a little closer.
Of course you are lying, because if you were not you would have produced the link that would prove me wrong.
Let's see how well you know the facts of this case;
:D
3 minutes or 5 minutes between the shots and the use of the radio by Callaway. It seems somebody is adapting his story depending on the conversation.
Now, let's examine this claim;
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.
Which means that in this version Tippit was shot at 1:16. But, hang on, Helen Markham testified she catched her regular bus to work at 1:15, so what would she be still doing at 10th & Patton at 1:16?.
Never mind that Markham also said she left home at "a little after 1", perhaps even 1:06 or 1:07, and never mind that the FBI timed the one block walk from Markham's home to the corner of 10th and Patton as taking no more than 2,5 minutes. Now, how does any of this compute with Tippit being shot at 1:16?
The obvious answer: It doesn't!
If the shooting occurred before 1:10, then you have to explain why it would have taken Callaway ten minutes to get to Tippit's patrol car radio to report the incident at 1:19. He tells us what he did upon hearing the shots and it does not take ten minutes.
"Went to his room. Got a short coat to put on." -- Earlene Roberts
Oswald left the rooming house in a jacket. Roberts told the Warren Commission that he was zipping it up as he went out the front door. He's seen without a jacket by Johnny Brewer on Jefferson outside the shoe store. Forget Tenth and Patton. Forget the jacket found underneath the car behind the Texaco station. Why would Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?
Because you don't know the case means I'm lying? Do you really believe that article I linked to is the only place on the entire internet where information on the Nash's can be found?
It's not my problem that you don't know the facts of the Tippit murder.
I agree. It took him no more than 3 minutes. Callaway's radio call took place around 3 minutes after the shots at 1:13 at the latest. The radio transcript times are not real time, and thus unreliable for timing purposes, as explained to the HSCA by J.C. Bowles, the man in charge of the dispatchers. I can demonstrate the 3 minutes in other ways as well, but for now let's just say there is corroboration for the 3 minutes from DPD officer Croy, the first police officer to arrive on the scene. He was in his car at Zang and Colorado when he heard the Bowley radio call. At 30 mph it took him no more than 2 minutes (and probably less) to get to the scene and when he arrived two civilians (Bowley and Callaway) were helping loading Tippit into the ambulance. So, Callaway was there 3 minutes after the shots.
In addition, if Callaway's radio call took place at 1:19, how else are you going to explain the discrepancy with the Markham time line? If Markham left home at 1:06 or 1:07 (as I believe she did) and the FBI timed the one block walk from 9th to 10th street as taking 2,5 max, she would be at in position to see Tippit being killed at 1:09 or 1:10 at the latest. The Callaway radio call scenario (1:19) requires Markham to have taken at least 10 minutes to walk one block. It also requires that Markham could not have catched her bus at 1:15 (be it either the 1:12 or 1:22 bus).
The sequence of events I have already described in a timeline based on witness testimony, documents and local knowledge, fits together perfectly, without any need for Markham's clock to be wrong, Bowley's watch to be wrong, the clocks at Methodist Hospital being wrong and DPD officer Davenport being mistaken twice about the time Tippit was declared DOA at the hospital.
It all fits, except for the times on the radio transcripts. In one of my earlier posts I have already demonstrated that it is physically impossible for Benavides to mess around with the police radio for two minutes (as you said he did), because that simply doesn't compute with Bowley's and Callaway's account.
Btw, Callaway told FBI SA Carter in February 1964 that he heard the shots shortly after hearing the news of Kennedy being shot at "about 1:00 PM", just like he said in his Affidavit of 11/22/63. In his WC testimony he is more ambivalent, because of the way Ball asks the questions.
Mr. BALL. Now, Mr. Callaway, around 1:15 or so of that day, where were you? [talk about a leading question!]
Mr. CALLAWAY. I was standing on the front porch of our office.
Mr. BALL. That is at 401 East Jefferson?
Mr. CALLAWAY. No; 501.
Mr. BALL. I will show you a picture which we will mark as 538.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 538 for identification.)
Mr. BALL. Does this show a picture of the office?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir. That is it.
Mr. BALL. Now you went down there one day last week to have some pictures taken.
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you attempt to stand in the same place you were at the time?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Where you were standing November 22d around 1 o'clock or so?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
I agree. It took him no more than 3 minutes. Callaway's radio call took place around 3 minutes after the shots at 1:13 at the latest. The radio transcript times are not real time...
In addition, if Callaway's radio call took place at 1:19, how else are you going to explain the discrepancy with the Markham time line? If Markham left home at 1:06 or 1:07...
In one of my earlier posts I have already demonstrated that it is physically impossible for Benavides to mess around with the police radio for two minutes (as you said he did)...
Here we go again;
According to Marina, Oswald had only two jackets, being a gray jacket (CE 162) and a blue/gray jacket (CE 163), and no other jackets have ever been found. The blue/gray jacket (CE 163) was found at the TSBD, so that was the jacket Oswald was wearing on Friday morning. Wesley Buell Frazier testified that he saw Oswald wearing a gray jacket during the trip to Irving on Thursday evening. It is true that Frazier was shown both jackets during his testimony and he could not identify them. But, having said that, as we know for a fact that Oswald was wearing CE 163 on Friday morning, there is only one other jacket he could have been wearing to Irving on Thursday evening and that's CE 162.
Please explain how CE 162 could have made it's way from Irving to the rooming house between Thursday evening and Friday 1:00 PM?
Please explain how CE 162 could have made it's way from Irving to the rooming house between Thursday evening and Friday 1:00 PM?
Here we go again.
You continue to go on and on about CE-162 even though I clearly said to forget about that jacket in evidence.
Forget Tenth and Patton. Forget the jacket found underneath the car behind the Texaco station. Why would Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?
I would have thought the obvious interpretation of the evidence concerning the jacket is that Oswald wore the blue/gray jacket (CE-162) to work that day and that is the jacket he left behind. He went back to his rooming house and collected his light gray jacket.
What's the problem?
Here we go again.
You continue to go on and on about CE-162 even though I clearly said to forget about that jacket in evidence.
Forget Tenth and Patton. Forget the jacket found underneath the car behind the Texaco station. Why would Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?
There's really nothing for us to discuss then. You're in denial about the accuracy of the time stamps on the police tapes, without any evidence to suggest the tapes were not accurate (at least within one minute either way).
Easy. Markham didn't leave home when she estimated she did. I'll take the accuracy pf the police tapes versus an estimate by a witness.
I don't believe I said that. I think I said a minute and a half to two minutes.
If you listen to the actual police tapes (versus what you get on the McAdams site) you can hear Benavides attempt to key the mic several times without getting through (he didn't work it correctly). These sounds can be heard for a complete minute at 1:15.
At some point during all of this, Bowley arrives, looks over Tippit's body and then eventually grabs the mic from Benavides.
Point being, Bowley didn't get on the mic right away because it was under the control of Benavides.
The shooting takes place at 1:14. Benavides begins keying the mic around 1:15-1:16. Bowley finally grabs the mic from Benavides at 1:17.
Look. Bottom line. You doubt the authentic time stamps of the police tapes. I don't. There's nothing to discuss, really.
The problem is that according to Frazier's testimony the light gray jacket (CE 162) was worn by Oswald during the trip on Thursday evening to Irving. The fact that he wore the blue/gray jacket (CE 163) to work on Friday morning, which means that the light gray jacket stayed behind at Irving.
So, how did the light gray jacket get from Irving to the rooming house?
BS. You can not assume that Oswald ditched a jacket unless you demonstrate first which of the two jackets he owned it was.
The blue/gray jacket was found at the TSBD and the light gray jacket was, according to Frazier, worn by Oswald to Irving on Thursday evening. There is no way that light gray jacket could have gotten from Irving to the rooming house.
How can Oswald ditch a jacket if he did not have one to put on in the first place?
FBI Report 12/2/63
"At about 4:45 PM, on November 21, 1963, FRAZIER and OSWALD departed the TSBD building, walked to FRAZIER'S car, and drove to Irving. OSWALD did not have a package and was not carrying anything with him at that time. As FRAZIER recalls, OSWALD was wearing a reddish shirt and a gray jacket, waist length."
From Frazier's WC testimony
Mr. BALL - On that day you did notice one article of clothing, that is, he had a jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What color was the jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning.
Mr. BALL - Did it have a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was one of the zipper types.
...
Mr. BALL - Was it light or dark gray?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was light grey.
It is clear that Frazier testifies to Oswald wearing a grey jacket to Irving on the evening of the 21st and that he was wearing a light grey jacket when he went to work on the morning of the 22nd.
Nobody recalls seeing Oswald leaving the TSBD so do not know what he was wearing.
McWaters recalls the man who got on the bus was wearing a "little old jacket".
Whaley testifes that Oswald was wearing "some type of jacket".
Is it the case the only person who believes Oswald was wearing a shirt when he got back to the rooming house was Earlene Roberts?
If this is indeed the case we can assume Roberts was mistaken as she wasn't paying attention and two people have already testified that Oswald was wearing a jacket before he reached his rooming house.
Oswald wore his light grey jacket to Irving on the 21st.
He wore the same jacket to work on the 22nd.
He left work wearing the same jacket.
He got back to his room wearing the same jacket.
He left his room wearing the same jacket.
Oswald entered the rooming house wearing his light grey jacket and left wearing the same jacket.
He was not wearing it in the Texas Theater
BS. You can not assume that Oswald ditched a jacket unless you demonstrate first which of the two jackets he owned it was.
The blue/gray jacket was found at the TSBD and the light gray jacket was, according to Frazier, worn by Oswald to Irving on Thursday evening. There is no way that light gray jacket could have gotten from Irving to the rooming house.
Just telling me that I am in denial about the accuracy of the time stamps doesn't make it so. It's a meaningless comment from somebody who clearly foolishly thinks he knows better than others. There is a preponderance of evidence that shows that the time line provided by the police tapes can not be correct, including a statement to the HSCA from the man in charge of the DPD dispatchers;
There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time." - J.C. Bowles
I went back and checked and you are right. I could have sworn you said two minutes, but it seems you said one minute.
The shooting takes place at 1:14. Benavides begins keying the mic around 1:15-1:16. Bowley finally grabs the mic from Benavides at 1:17.
Even this argument contradicts your own claims about Callaway. You've stated that it took Callaway less than 3 minutes after the shots to reach the scene. If the shooting took place at 1:14 you would have Callaway arriving at 1:17 which is when you claim Bowley made his (46 seconds long) call to the dispatcher. Callaway himself said that he wasn't sure if the dispatcher had been called, which can only mean that he did not see Bowley work the radio. In other words, if it took Callaway less than three minutes after the shots to get there (which I believe it did, because Croy's testimony confirms it), the following events must have already occured prior to 1:17;
Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket, zipping it up as he went out the door. Why did he ditch that jacket somewhere, anywhere, between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson? For once, give a reasonable explanation for this.
Just repeating the same statement and question and expecting a different result is foolish.
If Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket he also could not have ditched it somewhere.
So me proof positive that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket!
It is clear that Frazier testifies to Oswald wearing a grey jacket to Irving on the evening of the 21st
Indeed and that could only have been CE 162, right?
and that he was wearing a light grey jacket when he went to work on the morning of the 22nd.
So how did they blue/grey jacket (CE 163) end up in the Domino room of the TSBD where it was found after the assassination?
Nobody recalls seeing Oswald leaving the TSBD so do not know what he was wearing.
The last person to see Oswald inside the TSBD after the assassination was Mrs Reid;
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what clothes he had on when you saw him?
Mrs. REID. What he was wearing, he had on a white T-shirt and some kind of wash trousers. What color I couldn't tell you.
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit, first 157 and then 158, and I will ask you if either or both look like they might have been the trousers that you saw him wear or can you tell?
Mrs. REID. I just couldn't be positive about that. I would rather not say, because I just cannot.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether he had any shirt or jacket on over his T-shirt?
Mrs. REID. He did not. He did not have any jacket on.
McWaters recalls the man who got on the bus was wearing a "little old jacket".
Whaley testifes that Oswald was wearing "some type of jacket".
But McWaters did not even identify Oswald was the man he had seen and Whaley actually said that his passenger was wearing two jackets, which was impossible if Oswald left the TSBD without a jacket.
Is it the case the only person who believes Oswald was wearing a shirt when he got back to the rooming house was Earlene Roberts?
Yes.
If this is indeed the case we can assume Roberts was mistaken as she wasn't paying attention and two people have already testified that Oswald was wearing a jacket before he reached his rooming house.
Why can we assume that Roberts was mistaken (because she wasn't paying attention) about what Oswald was wearing when he came in and why can't we assume that Roberts was mistaken (for the same reason) about Oswald leaving wearing a jacket? You are applying a double standard, why?
Oswald wore his light grey jacket to Irving on the 21st.
He wore the same jacket to work on the 22nd.
He left work wearing the same jacket.
He got back to his room wearing the same jacket.
He left his room wearing the same jacket.
Nice bit of speculation for which there is no evidence. But it does suggest that you have understood that the discrepancy between Roberts' and Frazier's testimony about the grey jacket is an evidentiary problem which requires some sort of explanation on how the grey jacket got from Irving (where it was on Thursday evening) to the rooming house on Friday 1:00 PM.
Oswald entered the rooming house wearing his light grey jacket and left wearing the same jacket. He was not wearing it in the Texas Theater
Assumes facts not in evidence.
You're missing the point.
Bowles' words tell us that the tapes could be off somewhat. That's not even a guarantee, as you seem to believe it is. However, the point is... the tapes could be off slightly one direction or the other. YOU, in order to get your cop-killer off the hook, need them to be off by as much as eight minutes. That's the point.
I don't know much about the tapes but aren't they synchronised to 12:30 PM by the shooting.
From memory I'm aware of a few individuals who independently note the time of the assassination as 12:30 PM (pretty sure Kellerman is one) and the first transmission at 12:30 PM on the tapes is a clear reference to the assassination.
I don't know much about the tapes but aren't they synchronised to 12:30 PM by the shooting.
From memory I'm aware of a few individuals who independently note the time of the assassination as 12:30 PM (pretty sure Kellerman is one) and the first transmission at 12:30 PM on the tapes is a clear reference to the assassination.
You're missing the point.
Bowles' words tell us that the tapes could be off somewhat. That's not even a guarantee, as you seem to believe it is. However, the point is... the tapes could be off slightly one direction or the other. YOU, in order to get your cop-killer off the hook, need them to be off by as much as eight minutes. That's the point.
We can assume that.
"The fact that he wore the blue/gray jacket (CE 163) to work on Friday morning, which means that the light gray jacket stayed behind at Irving."
This is incorrect. Frazier is clear that Oswald was wearing a light grey jacket to work that morning. We must assume it is the same grey jacket he was wearing when Frazier dropped him off. This makes sense. What doesn't make sense is your assertion that Oswald swapped jackets while he was in Irving.
Instead of acknowledging your error you ask how CE 163 ends up in the domino room. What has that got to do with the jacket Frazier saw Oswald wearing on Friday morning? The answer is - it doesn't have anything to do with it.
As I said, nobody saw Oswald leaving the TSBD. So what if Reid saw him upstairs with no jacket. It doesn't mean anything. I don't see why you would even bring that up.
I never said anything about McWatters identifying Oswald. McWatters testifies that the man he gave the transfer ticket to was wearing a jacket. Oswald had that transfer ticket it on him. It is not a stretch to assume Oswald was that man and that he was wearing a jacket. What else makes sense? That the transfer ticket was planted on him? That the investigating authorities wanted to frame him for an aborted bus ride?
Whaley testifies Oswald was wearing a jacket. Unbelievably you argue this could not have been the case if Oswald left the TSBD without a jacket!! The point is surely that Oswald left the TSBD with a jacket on as the bus driver who gave out the transfer ticket that was discovered in Oswald's possession described the man as wearing a jacket. As did the taxi driver who took Oswald home.
Why do you believe Oswald left the TSBD without a jacket? What do you base that on?
We can assume Oswald was wearing a jacket when he entered the rooming house because Whaley confirms he was wearing a jacket when he got in the taxi. There is no reason to assume Oswald didn't take his jacket from the TSBD when he left. There is no reason to assume he got rid of it between the taxi and his room. We must assume he entered the house wearing a jacket which Roberts mistook for some kind of shirt.
The reason we can have more confidence in Roberts' observation that he left the house wearing a jacket is that she specifically recalls Oswald trying to zip it up:
Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Mr. BALL. He was zipping it up as he went out the door?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.
We can even assume why he was trying to zip it up before he left the house - because he had a gun tucked in his trouser belt.
It is speculation based on eye-witness testimony.
McWatters
Whaley
Roberts
Do you have a better fit for the eye-witness testimony.
Remember, there is no reason to assume Oswald left the TSBD without his jacket.
And remember, you are wrong about Oswald wearing the blue/grey jacket to work that morning.
It isn't a fact he wasn't wearing the jacket in the Texas Theater??
Really??
Whatever the case, I'd be interested to know why you assume Oswald left the TSBD without his jacket.
Nope. The officer doing the radio broadcasts occasionally has to call out the time. He looks at the clock and calls the time. So a call for 1:15 could either be 1 second after 1:15 or 59 seconds after 1:15. This all throws the timing off. Plus it was never checked if the clock the officer was reading from was correct.
Hi Gerry,
Your argument only makes sense if the broadcasts are noted by the second, which they are not. The point you are making is true for every minute.
However, your point about the dispatchers clock is important. We can know with some certainty that it is accurate as it is independently confirmed by witnesses in Dealey Plaza:
Mr. GREER. After he had said to me, "Get out of here fast." He got the radio and called to the lead car, "Get us to a hospital fast, nearest hospital fast."
Mr. SPECTER. Do you recall whether he said anything else at that time?
Mr. GREER. After he had said to me, he said, "12:30," and that is all I remember him saying to me was 12:30, and he had communications with the cars but I don't remember what he had said to them.
Mr. SPECTER. Did he say just "12:30," or was it 12:30 used in a sentence?
Mr. GREER. He said "12:30." He looked at his watch, he said "12:30," and we were in the underpass at the time.
David Powers affidavit:
At that time we were traveling very slowly, no more than 12 miles an hour. In accordance with my custom, I was very much concerned about our timing and at just about that point I looked at my watch and noted that it was almost exactly 12:30 p.m.
I'm sure there are others but you get my drift.
Are you sure you're not a LN?
You and your assumptions have gone completely over the deep end. There is no point for me to confront you with facts. You clearly prefer to make up your own story.
This is incorrect. Frazier is clear that Oswald was wearing a light grey jacket to work that morning. We must assume it is the same grey jacket he was wearing when Frazier dropped him off.
Can you please show is where in his testimony is Frazier "clear that Oswald was wearing a light grey jacket to work that morning". You're the first LN who (to my knowledge) has ever claimed that and I can't find it in his testimony.
So, if you please would be so kind. Thanks in advance.
Unbelievably you argue this could not have been the case if Oswald left the TSBD without a jacket!! The point is surely that Oswald left the TSBD with a jacket on as the bus driver who gave out the transfer ticket that was discovered in Oswald's possession described the man as wearing a jacket. As did the taxi driver who took Oswald home.
Why do you believe Oswald left the TSBD without a jacket? What do you base that on?
Aren't you forgetting Bledsoe? You know the lady who said she saw Oswald on the bus and remembered it because he had a hole in a sleeve of his shirt (you know, the same hole the fibers are supposed to have come from that allegedly were found on the rifle). How can Bledsoe see a hole in Oswald's shirt sleeve when he was wearing a jacket?
However, your point about the dispatchers clock is important. We can know with some certainty that it is accurate
That's not what the man in charge of the DPD dispatchers said in his statement to the HSCA.
There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time." - J.C. Bowles
Didn't you have a litmus test to find out exactly how determined one is at finding the truth?
So the examples of people recording the assassination at 12:30 PM isn't a way of connecting "police time" with "real time".
Maybe you're right.
But maybe you're totally wrong.
I do.
But...
I now prefer to just sit back and watch Dan O'meara dismantle you piece by piece.
Dan is not a LNer but, like probably everyone else, is growing tired of your troll-like behavior.
The shooting takes place at 1:14. Benavides begins keying the mic around 1:15-1:16. Bowley finally grabs the mic from Benavides at 1:17.
Even this argument contradicts your own claims about Callaway. You've stated that it took Callaway less than 3 minutes after the shots to reach the scene. If the shooting took place at 1:14 you would have Callaway arriving at 1:17 which is when you claim Bowley made his (46 seconds long) call to the dispatcher. Callaway himself said that he wasn't sure if the dispatcher had been called, which can only mean that he did not see Bowley work the radio. In other words, if it took Callaway less than three minutes after the shots to get there (which I believe it did, because Croy's testimony confirms it), the following events must have already occured prior to 1:17;
Hidden deep inside Frazier's WC testimony where it's almost impossible to find:
Mr. BALL - I have here Commission's 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have.
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have because most time I noticed when Lee had it, I say he put off his shirt and just wear a T-shirt the biggest part of the time so really what shirt he wore that day I really didn't see it or didn't pay enough attention to it whether he did have a shirt on.
Mr. BALL - On that day you did notice one article of clothing, that is, he had a jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What color was the jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning.
Mr. BALL - Did it have a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was one of the zipper types.
Mr. BALL - It isn't one of these two zipper jackets we have shown?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
...
Mr. BALL - I have here a paper sack which is Commission's Exhibit 364. That gray jacket you mentioned, did it have any design in it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Was it light or dark gray?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was light gray.
Mr. BALL - You mentioned it was woolen.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Long sleeves?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Are you sure you're a JFK researcher because these are the basics.
Your notion Oswald went to work with the grey/blue jacket on is wrong.
Your idea that Oswald left the grey jacket in Irving is wrong.
Your whole idea that Oswald left the TSBD without his jacket is wrong.
You've completely misunderstood some very basic stuff.
Lame.
Show me proof positive Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket!
Fair enough?
Oswald pulled a gun on an officer inside the Texas Theatre and tried to shoot him. That alone is the proof Oswald shot Kennedy.
Speaking of running....
First, where did I state that it took Callaway less than three minutes after the shots to reach the scene?
He tells us what he did upon hearing the shots and it does not take ten minutes.
I agree. It took him no more than 3 minutes.
There's really nothing for us to discuss then.
Sure...
Mr. BALL - I have here Commission's 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have.
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have because most time I noticed when Lee had it, I say he put off his shirt and just wear a T-shirt the biggest part of the time so really what shirt he wore that day I really didn't see it or didn't pay enough attention to it whether he did have a shirt on.
Mr. BALL - On that day you did notice one article of clothing, that is, he had a jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What color was the jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning.
Mr. BALL - Did it have a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was one of the zipper types.
Mr. BALL - It isn't one of these two zipper jackets we have shown?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
<>
Mr. BALL - I have here a paper sack which is Commission's Exhibit 364. That gray jacket you mentioned, did it have any design in it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Was it light or dark gray?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was light gray.
Mr. BALL - You mentioned it was woolen.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Long sleeves?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Buttoned sleeves at the wrist, or do you remember?
Mr. FRAZIER - To be frank with you, I didn't notice that much about the jacket, but I had seen him wear that gray woolen jacket before.
Mr. BALL - You say it had a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
You really need to read Frazier's testimony more carefully and assume less, so you won't jump to unwarrented conclusions.
And no, I'm not a JFK researcher.
Your notion Oswald went to work with the grey/blue jacket on is wrong.
Your idea that Oswald left the grey jacket in Irving is wrong.
And still Oswald's blue/grey jacket was found at the TSBD after the assassination. Now how could that have gotten there?
Your whole idea that Oswald left the TSBD without his jacket is wrong.
You've completely misunderstood some very basic stuff.
You might want to take that up with the Warren Commission because they have Oswald leaving the TSBD without wearing a jacket and they attach value to the statements of Bledsoe who said she saw a hole in Oswald's shirt sleeve on the bus, which seems a bit difficult to see if he was wearing a jacket.
Basic stuff.... :D
At least I'd read it, unlike yourself.
And based my "unwarranted conclusions" on the part where Frazier described Oswald wearing a light grey jacket to work that morning.
No thanks necessary for steering you in the right direction.
;)
It's a bit of a mystery.
But one thing we do know - it wasn't the jacket Oswald wore to work that morning
:D :D
You, of all people, invoking the Warren Commission. Priceless.
Speaking of which...
Here's another gem I managed to dig out:
Mr. BALL. How was Lee dressed that morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. He had on a white T-shirt, I just saw him from the waist up, I didn't pay any attention to his pants or anything, when he was going with the package. I was more interested in that. But he had on a white T-shirt and I remember some sort of brown or tan shirt and he had a gray jacket, I believe.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket. I will show you some clothing here. First, I will show you a gray jacket. Does this look anything like the jacket he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. That morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. Similar to that. I didn't pay an awful lot of attention to it.
Mr. BALL. Was it similar in color?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I think so. It had big sleeves.
Mr. BALL. Take a look at these sleeves. Was it similar in color?
Mrs. RANDLE. I believe so.
What were you thinking 8)
By the way - I'm a CTer, not an LNer.
Mrs. RANDLE. Similar to that. I didn't pay an awful lot of attention to it.
That's some identification! Not convincing for any reasonable person but enough for the average LN.
At least I'd read it, unlike yourself.
So now you know what I have read? Really... stop drinking the cool aid! I not only have read it, I have discussed it, and much more, with Frazier in person. You clearly haven't got a clue who you are talking to, because otherwise you wouldn't make such a stupid comment.
What I am thinking?
The mask has fallen.... the lie is exposed
That's what I am thinking. :D
No, extremely pathetic.
A negative can not be proven. You claim he left the rooming house wearing a jacket, you prove it. Stop playing games, they only make you look weak.
You didn't say it, I did.
You've stated that it took Callaway less than 3 minutes after the shots to reach the scene.
First, where did I state that it took Callaway less than three minutes after the shots to reach the scene?
You are very conspiracy minded, aren't you.
Regarding Oswald entering and leaving the rooming house, we have only one person who's account we can go by. That one person says Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.
Does this really have to be explained to you any further?
Now, prove that Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket.
No. You said that I stated it. Just look below.
I ask, for the third time (at least)... When did I say that Callaway reached the scene less than three minutes after hearing the shots?
Because you don't know the case means I'm lying?
Yes.
Does this really have to be explained to you any further?
No, but it seems it needs to be explained to you.
Roberts didn't have a clue what Oswald was wearing when he came into the rooming house and when he left. Frazier's testimony places the light gray jacket (CE 162) in Irving on Thursday evening.
I don't need to prove you wrong. You need to prove that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket and all you have is a half blind woman who was paying more attention to the television and who is described by her employer as being somebody who makes up stuff.....
Are you really so gullible to believe that in any other criminal investigation something as pathetic as this would be sufficient?
Now, what about the Nash couple? Any progress there?
Roberts didn't have a clue what Oswald was wearing when he came into the rooming house and when he left.
So, you didn't agree with me but nevertheless said we have nothing to talk about? Is that your current position?
As I said; cue for the word games
Why didn't she have a clue? Because you don't like what she said?
No. I did not agree with you. You're now taking my post completely out of context to try to prove a point.
To be dishonest? Yes, you would know all about that.... posting one word from a reply I made to Dan O'meara in a different context say everything about you and nothing about me.
Mr. selfdeclared expert in the Tippit case is reduced to playing childish claims because he can not argue the actual facts. I would ask you if you were not ashamed, but you are a LN so it goes with the territory.
You haven't got the guts to confront me in a live face to face discussion because I will destroy you and you know it.
You took my comments and posted them out of context to get my words to say what you wanted them to say. I'm just showing you how easy it is for others to do that to your words, too.
And no, I am not a "selfdeclared" expert. I haven't claimed to be an expert on the Tippit case (save for one occasion when i was making an obvious joke) nor have i ever claimed to be a researcher. You sound jealous though.
Why do discussions with you always turn personal and about other forum members instead of simply discussing the case? Do you even know that you're the only member in this entire forum with this certain posting characteristic?
Are you this angry in real life, too?
You took my comments and posted them out of context to get my words to say what you wanted them to say.
No, I quoted from our actual conversation. Anybody who follows the links can see that
From Dale Myers:
"The death certificate "discrepancy" - as I noted in "With Malice" - was explained during a 1983 interview I conducted with the late Dr. Paul Moellenhoff, who attended Tippit at Methodist. He told me that the clocks within the emergency area at Methodist showed different times - neither of them accurate as it turns out.
He used the 1:15 p.m. time shown on one of the clocks. The time reported to the FBI by Dr. Liquori (With Malice [WM], 2013 [edition], p.557) - 1:24 pm - is probably the accurate one based on the recorded timing of Bowley's call, the recorded departure of the ambulance from 10th and Patton, and the known drive time from 10th and Patton to Methodist Hospital.
DPD Officer Davenport noted that Moellenhoff removed one slug from Tippit's body at 1:30 pm (WM 2013 p.536). That same time (1:30 pm) made its way into Leavelle's homicide report (WM 2013 p.519) as the time Tippit was pronounced DOA (which couldn't possibly be true, right? You don't pull a slug from a body until after he's pronounced dead). This matches up with Moellenhoff's 1983 recollection that he removed a slug from the body within ten minutes of declaring Tippit DOA.
My caption under the death certificate (WM 2013 p.506) seeks to clarify the discrepancy between the Time of Injury (1:18 pm) and the time Death Occurred (1:15 pm). Again, it stems from my conversation with Dr. Moellenhoff. The 1:18 pm time, of course, probably refers to the time that Bowley's radio call was received - not the actual time Tippit was shot.
The 1:15 p.m. notation (although close in time to the actual moment of the shooting, as far as I can calculate) probably stems from Dr. Moellenhoff's use of an inaccurate Methodist emergency room clock.
Interesting, huh? All this fuss because no one at Methodist bothered to synchronize the clocks to actual time (some running fast, some running slow).
Can you imagine how many other death certificates were marked with times that were off by a few minutes? But what does it matter in those cases? Not one whit."
No. Show me where I have ever claimed there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy murder. You can't, because it never happened! All there is are narrowminded shallow LNs accusing me of being conspiracy minded, but those are hollow claims.
But after nearly 40 years of experience in all sorts of areas, I have learned that reality is often stranger than fiction.
The one thing that makes me different from a guy like you is that I don't make up stories to defend a narrative.
I just look at the facts and in this particular case the facts are that;
1. Frazier has Oswald wearing the gray jacket (which can only be CE 162) to Irving on Thursday evening
2. Frazier and Randle can not say with any kind of certainty which jacket Oswald was wearing on Friday morning
3. The blue/gray jacket (CE 163) is later found at the TSBD and there is no other explanation for it to be there than that Oswald was wearing it on Friday morning
4. Bledsoe couldn't have seen a hole in Oswald's sleeve on the bus if he was wearing a jacket
This alone creates sufficient reasonable doubt (to a reasonable person) that you can not assume that Roberts saw Oswald leaving wearing a jacket, whilst at the same time advocating the absurd notion that she wasn't paying enough attention to notice only a shirt and not a jacket when Oswald came into to the rooming house.
I know LNs don't like facts but even for LN standards this is absurd.
It's a logical conclusion based on the fact that Marina said Oswald had two jackets
Oswald keeps his clothes at his room, he needs the few clothes he has for work.
Pray tell, on what evidence (other than mere assumption) is this statement based?
Of course it is a fact, because both said in their testimony that they didn't pay much attention. You must have missed that.
Mr. BALL - I have here a paper sack which is Commission's Exhibit 364. That gray jacket you mentioned, did it have any design in it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Was it light or dark gray?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was light gray.
Mr. BALL - You mentioned it was woolen.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Long sleeves?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Buttoned sleeves at the wrist, or do you remember?
Mr. FRAZIER - To be frank with you, I didn't notice that much about the jacket, but I had seen him wear that gray woolen jacket before.
If it was the same jacket as he had seen Oswald the night before, why didn't he simply say that?
Stop being a troll and provide another explanation.
So you are not completely lost to reality? Of course it creates a reasonable doubt when a witness says she saw a hole in a shirt sleeve when the person involved was wearing a jacket. Are you throwing Bledsoe under the bus now to salvage your narrative?
And as far as reasonable goes, do you actually know what the word means?
You have a very strange interpretation of what the word "fact" means.
When his wife testified she did his washing? Please, are you for real?
I don't really care what you told me or not. You're wrong about just about everything you say and are a proven liar.
Frazier knows the jacket and he knows Oswald was wearing it that morning. Your little theory is over. Deal with it.
Do you want me to put you in touch with him, so he can tell you you're just as wrong as you can be?
Ah another pathetic loser who thinks he is more intelligent than everybody else. It's the definition of a fool.
Give me another plausible explanation for how Oswald's jacket (CE 163) ended up at the TSBD if he wasn't wearing it on Friday morning. You can't, hence the song and dance act.
Bledsoe is all I need to destroy your pathetic theory
I have nothing to contribute you would even remotely be able to understand. The only liar between is is you, Mr "I'm not a LN"
What a loser!
Fact - Bledsoe identifies Oswald as the man who got off the bus mid stop.
Fact - McWatters states this man was wearing a jacket.
Fact - Milton Jones also states this man was wearing a jacket.
Fact - Whaley states Oswald was wearing a jacket.
Fact - The light grey jacket Frazier testifies to seeing was never found in the TSBD
Fact - Roberts is certain Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he left.
Fact - Johnson confirms Roberts told police about his "zip up jacket"
Any reasonable person would conclude Oswald was wearing a jacket when he left the TSBD.
Interesting series of posts, Dan. Great work. A real eye opener, which is rare at this late stage in the case.
I mean it. Great posts.
No. You said that I stated it. Just look below.
I ask, for the third time (at least)... When did I say that Callaway reached the scene less than three minutes after hearing the shots?
Hi Dale. I don't recall if I responded to this post or not. This thread got caught up in a lot of political debate for many pages.
In my opinion (based on eyewitness descriptions), Tippit and Oswald carry on a conversation for less than thirty seconds. The shooting itself probably took less than five seconds (and is therefore irrelevant when discussing a timeline).
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.
All ya gotta do is read Callaway's own words. He did not make his way up to the corner until after the killer had reached the corner of Patton and Jefferson.
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.
You really should read his testimony a little closer.
Callaway backs up Jack Tatums account. They both heard (Tatum actually saw) Oswald fire a few shots first and then a few seconds later fire another shot. This account also matches the Davis girls account where she heard a few shots, sat up in bed in shock and then heard another shot.
All these eyewitnesses back up each other and Jack tatum confirms it was Oswald who fired the shots.
Re McWatters
Texas Portal
Handwritten affidavit by Cecil J. McWatters.
McWatters states that he was driving a bus at about 12:40 PM when he picked up a man, who told him that the President had been shot, and then a woman. The woman did not believe that the President had been shot, and the man grinned. McWatters does not recall where he let the man off. He writes that the man looks like the #2 man in the lineup he saw.
-------------
In WC Q&A:
'One man in the lineup was about the size and the height and and complexion of a man that got my bus, but as far as positively identifying the man I could not do so'
-------------
Mr. McWATTERS - Just like I say, I remember he had on, to me he had on just work clothes, he didn't have on a suit of clothes, and some type of jacket. I would say a cloth jacket.
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"
What you provide is at best that McWatters wrote in an affidavit that a man got on the bus who looked like the # 2 man in the line up but which he could not positively identify.
Obviously, Bill Brown misrepresented the facts when he claimed that "McWatters testified that Oswald got on the bus", unless of course I am missing something and Bill can show me that actual piece of testimony.
What you provide is at best that McWatters wrote in an affidavit that a man got on the bus who looked like the # 2 man in the line up but which he could not positively identify.
It supports your beef against BillB. Now how does that have "nothing to do" with the question you asked Bill Brown?
No it does not support my beef against BillB, whatever that is supposed to mean.
I am asking Bill Brown to show me where in his testimony McWatters said "Oswald got on the bus".
It really isn't all that difficult to understand
I knew I had seen you mention 3 minutes before
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"
Jack tatum confirms it was Oswald who fired the shots\
Where can I find his testimony?
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?
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.
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.
I've already explained this. Go back and look.
\
This is the Tatum testimony to the HSCA, Martin.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tatum.htm
`
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?
Now you show where I "erroneously" claimed that Callaway was at the police radio in less than three minutes?
It doesn't add up. Can you explain the descrepancy?
No. YOU said that I said that Callaway reached the scene in less than three minutes.
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.
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.
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?
There is no discrepancy in what I said.
Where exactly did I say that? Show me...
As far as I know, all I did was put two of your statements together;
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!)
So why ask me an irrelevant question like this ;
Why ask me if I don't understand the difference, when I never said it in the first place?
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.
As I said, there is no discrepancy in what I've stated. All anyone has to do is go back through my comments and have a look.
What are you going on about?
What part of this don't you understand?
OK, pay attention!
Now that we have established, that according to you, Callaway was at the patrol car reporting the shooting (let's say about) 3 minutes after the shots, at 1:19, then you have the shooting taking place at 1:16 PM. Or does your clock work differently?
The DPD radio tapes have Bowley making his 46 seconds call at 1:17 PM, which (in this scenario) means about one minute after the shots, right?
But before that, and these are all things you claimed yourself, you have Benavides waiting roughly 40 seconds in his car until the killer had disappeared on Patton and needing one minute to try and operate the radio. And - you did not say this - but let's not forget he first got out of his car and went to see if he could help Tippit, which by a very conservative estimate would have taken 20 seconds (is that fair?).
So, the DPD recordings have Bowley making his call at 1:17 (taking 46 seconds) with a 15 seconds pause preceding it.
And they have Callaway's call between the verbal time stamps of 1:19 and 1:21, but with clearly more traffic after his short call than before it.
The DPD recordings also reveal that the ambulance was already on it's way prior to Callaway's call, and Officer Croy testified that when he arrived at the scene (from Zang/Colorado - where he heard Bowley's call - which is no more than a 2 minute drive) the ambulance was already there and two civilians (Callaway and Bowley) were helping putting Tippit in the ambulance. The distance from the Funeral Home to 10th street is a little more than one block, and would have taken the ambulance no more than 30 to 40 seconds, with sirens on. Based on this information it is reasonable to conclude that when Croy arrived (two minutes after Bowley's call) Callaway had already made his call!
Combined this information links the events after Bowley's 1:17 radio conclusively together as they must have happened within a roughly two minutes long sequence of events.
Are you still following this?
But, as I have already shown to you, Benavides needed at around two minutes to do the things you said he did, before Bowley took over the radio. In other words, if you do the math, your scenario has Callaway making his call three minutes after the shots, which means at 1:16, but Benavides shows that the shots must have been fired at least a minute earlier, at 1:15, because otherwise he could not have done what you claimed he did.
So, there is a discrepancy of a minute in the two scenarios. Either the verbal time stamps of the DPD radio calls do not correspond with the actual sequence of events or Callaway did not arrive and get on the radio three minutes after the shots but four.
Having said all this, you also might want to consider this little beauty from what J.C. Bowles told the HSCA;
Next, consideration should be given to the methods of individual radio operators. A given operator at a given time might broadcast "time" a little early in one event then a little late the next. Accordingly, a call initiated at, say, 10:10 might be stamped at 10:13 by the dispatcher, only to have intervening radio traffic delay his broadcast. He might go ahead and announce the dispatch time as 10:13 and the digital clock then showed 10:14. Time intervals of less than one minute were never used. Likewise, the time stated in periodic station identification time checks was not always exact. During quiet intervals, station time checks were usually on time. However, radio operators did not interrupt radio traffic in progress just to give a station check. Accordingly, an operator might give, say, the 10:30 check as 10:30 when it was actually 10:29 or perhaps 10:31 or later.
Which one is it? Which is the one you were wrong about? Either Callaway being at the patrol car to make his call at 1:19 or the time stamps on the DPD recordings being wrong.
Both can't be right. Your choice
I have said time and time again that the time stamps on the police tapes could be off by as much as forty-five seconds to a minute. I have also said (even in the very recent Youtube interview) that Callaway was at the patrol car three to four minutes after hearinfg the shots. I have also said (even in the very recent Youtube interview) that Callaway's call was at 1:19/1:20.
So what are you going on about again?
Just trying to work out when the shooting of Tippit took place and was struck by this from the WC testimony of Benevides:Dan: Not sure if this has been posted but James Bowles, the "Communications Superviser" for the DPD, has a long piece linked below that goes over in some details the time stamps.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Then I don't know if I opened the car door back further than what it was or not, but anyway, I went in and pulled the radio and I mashed the button and told them that an officer had been shot, and I didn't get an answer, so I said it again, and this guy asked me whereabouts all of a sudden, and I said, on 10th Street. I couldn't remember where it was at at the time. So I looked up and I seen this number and I said 410 East 10th Street.
It sounds to me like he only tried the radio a couple of times then hears someone asking for his whereabouts. So I looked at the DPD tapes. Just after the 1:16 mark it has the word "static", This word does not appear anywhere else in the tapes. Just a few seconds before this the dispatcher asks "Location?" a couple of times.
Going out on a bit of a limb but I think Benevides hears "Location?" as he's messing about with the radio and the static is him trying to tell the dispatcher his location but he can't operate the radio properly.
Very shortly after this is Bowley's call.
Might be something, might not be.
Dan: Not sure if this has been posted but James Bowles, the "Communications Superviser" for the DPD, has a long piece linked below that goes over in some details the time stamps.
See the section titled "Reference to the Times and Recordings". Some of it - more than some - is over my head but it might help.
Link: https://jfk-online.com/bowles1.html
Thanks Steve.
It has been mentioned a few times already, the bottom line being that there is no way to connect "police time " with "real time".
I was working under the premise that a number of independent witnesses note that the assassination occurred at 12:30 PM ("real time") and that this was reflected in the DPD tapes ("police time")
I appreciate that time-keeping in general in the '60's wasn't like it is today (wind-up watches etc.) but this corroboration of different sources with "police time" indicates, to me at least, that the dispatchers time-stamps were fairly accurate (at least for the time around the assassination).
It may have veered off slightly by the time of the Tippit shooting but I don't know how that can be corroborated.
The best I can do at the moment is try to fit all the various statements together as accurately as possible and see how that pans out. If Markham's regular bus is indeed at 1:15 PM, I can't see her being stood at the corner of 10th and Patton any later than 1:12 PM but this creates major problems with the time-stamps.
Not by a long shot. But even if he did, it doesn't make him a lone nut. He was a patsy who knew the jig was up. Not a LN.
T. F. Bowley actually checked his watch on arrival; it said 1:10 pm.
At least 5 minutes slow -- LOL
No wonder the commission did not call this witness.
But, there was no 1:15 bus. There was a 1:12 and 1:22 bus.
However, 1:15 is the perfect time to get to the bus stop if one were regularly catching the 1:22 bus. I believe Markham, who said she was rushing to leave her apartment, was a little behind normal time for her that day and was on pace to get to the bus stop (Patton and Jefferson) around 1:17, 1:18 (still in time to catch the 1:22 bus but later than she normally arrived at the bus stop: 1:15).
Tippit shooting occurs at 1:14/1:15.
Mary Wright calls the police at 1:15/1:16.
Barbara Davis calls the police shortly after Mary Wright.
L.J. Lewis (from the Johnny Reynolds Motor Co.) calls the police at 1:16/1:17.
Domingo Benavides begins to key the mic of the patrol car radio at 1:16. This keying of the mic would go on for about a minute and a half.
T.F. Bowley arrives at the scene, goes to Tippit's body and, realizing there is nothing he can do for the officer, takes the mic from Benavides and reports the shooting at 1:17. This is the first time dispatcher Murray Jackson hears of the shooting.
Ted Callaway gets to the scene around 1:17/1:18.
About 1:18, Jimmy Burt and Bill Smith, heading south on Patton in search of the killer and intending to go all the way down to Jefferson, see the man in the alley (as they made their way halfway down Patton to Jefferson) about one block west of Patton, "almost down to the next street" (Jimmy Burt), which puts the killer in the alley directly behind the parking lot behind the Texaco where a light-colored jacket was found underneath a car.
At 1:18, an ambulance (driven by J.C. Butler with Eddie Kinsley) is dispatched from the Dudley-Hughes Funeral Home by the Dallas Police Department after receiving the call from Mary Wright.
The funeral home is two blocks from the scene and the ambulance arrives at the scene within thirty seconds.
Officer Kenneth Croy (reserve) arrives at the scene at 1:19 and observes Tippit's body being loaded into the ambulance.
At 1:19, the ambulance speeds off to Methodist Hospital with Tippit's body.
Callaway gets on the patrol car radio to report the shooting at 1:19 (ambulance sirens can be heard in the background).
What you believe is of very little importance. Even less so as it does not match what Markham herself said.
Why take an affidavit if he didn't see any thing?
Nonsense. "Markham herself" never said anything about a 1:12 bus or a 1:22 bus. Therefore, the reality is that she could be referring to either one of them. You don't have the right to state automatically (try as you might) that she was referring to the 1:12 bus.
I believe Markham, who said she was rushing to leave her apartment, was a little behind normal time for her that day
Markham never said anything of the kind. She testified that she left home on 9th street "a little after one", which could be as late as 1:06 or 1:07.
T.F. Bowley arrives at the scene, goes to Tippit's body and, realizing there is nothing he can do for the officer, takes the mic from Benavides and reports the shooting at 1:17. This is the first time dispatcher Murray Jackson hears of the shooting.
Bowley said in his affidavit that when he arrived at the scene he looked at his watch and it said 1:10 PM. By having him arrive at about 1:17, you are basically claiming that his watch was wrong by 7 minutes. This is just plain silly considering the fact that he was en route to pick up his wife from work and had just picked up his daughter from school. School bells tend to ring on time, yet somehow Bowley didn't notice that his watch was off by 7 minutes? Really?
Callaway gets on the patrol car radio to report the shooting at 1:19 (ambulance sirens can be heard in the background).
But previously you had Callaway arriving at the scene 3 minutes after hearing the shots. Now you've changed that to 4 maybe even 5 minutes.
Tippit shooting occurs at 1:14/1:15.
===============
Ted Callaway gets to the scene around 1:17/1:18.
Really? The man had to run one block (and he said he ran) which would have taken no more than 2 minutes to walk. It's totally unbelievable.
T. F. Bowley actually checked his watch on arrival; it said 1:10 pm.
At least 5 minutes slow -- LOL
No wonder the commission did not call this witness.
Bowley didn't see anything. Why would they call him?
Why take an affidavit if he didn't see any thing?
And why in the world would Callaway still make a radio call if the ambulance was already gone and he helped load Tippit's body in the ambulance. It makes no sense at all.
You don't have the right to state automatically (try as you might) that she was referring to the 1:12 bus.
But you have the right to state automatically that she was catching the 1:22 bus, right?
You don't have the right to state automatically (try as you might) that she was referring to the 1:12 bus.
But you have the right to state automatically that she was catching the 1:22 bus, right?
Talk about nonsense.
She said she left her home at 1:06 / 1:07 and there is nothing in her statements anywhere that contradicts that. The distance from her home to the bus stop at Jefferson was no more than 5 minutes. Waiting for the 1:22 bus would have her waiting at the bus stop for 10 minutes. Highly unlikely. Even less so as this was her daily routine.
She said she left her home at 1:06 / 1:07
Bowley stated that he picked up his daughter at the R.L. Thornton School at 12:55 pm. Assuming same location today (6011 Old Ox Rd, Dallas, TX 75241) MapQuest advises a 15 minute drive north on Marsalis, west on 10th, to get to the crime scene, as Bowley stated. There is no reason to doubt his timing.
Back in the day a watch running slow would get you in trouble. Anyone wearing and relying on a watch would be fully aware of it's performance.
BTW, "Bowley didn't see anything." as stated by Bill Brown is a lie.
She never said anything of the kind? You need to go learn the evidence a little better, still.
No.
What's "plain silly" is you misrepresenting what I did say in a lame attempt to score points (I can only assume that's why you do it). Stop misrepresenting what I said. Got it? Is it that difficult to stop?
You're (once again) misrepresenting my position.
How have I "changed that to 4 maybe even 5 minutes"?
(https://i.imgur.com/wH2i6SP.png)
First, Callaway waited until Oswald traversed the entire block down Patton from Tenth to Jefferson. Right? Of course it's right.
He did it, so what's your point here? Or do you enjoy asking useless questions?
Again with misrepresenting my position.
Concentrate here...
My position is that none of us can say with any certainty which bus Markham was intending to catch that day. I don't claim as a fact that she was trying to catch the 1:22 bus. It's most of "you and your ilk" who try to claim as a fact that she was on her way to catch the 1:12 bus. She never mentions either one.
Where did she say that?
Bowley stated that he picked up his daughter at the R.L. Thornton School at 12:55 pm. Assuming same location today (6011 Old Ox Rd, Dallas, TX 75241) MapQuest advises a 15 minute drive north on Marsalis, west on 10th, to get to the crime scene, as Bowley stated. There is no reason to doubt his timing.
Back in the day a watch running slow would get you in trouble. Anyone wearing and relying on a watch would be fully aware of it's performance.
BTW, "Bowley didn't see anything." as stated by Bill Brown is a lie.
More evasion.
What did I say exactly that "misrepresented" what you said?
Bowley said in his affidavit that when he arrived at the scene he looked at his watch and it said 1:10. That's a fact!
You now claim that he arrived at around 1:17 which must mean that his watch was off by seven minutes.
Why deny this obvious and falsely claim I misrepresented something? Look in the mirror.
No. We've been over this before. Callaway never said that.
He said he last saw the man "going west on Jefferson Street". From Patton, where he was, he had plain sight of Jefferson as there was no obstruction. There was no reason for him to just stand there and wait until the man turned the corner and then run ("a good hard run") to the scene. It makes no sense and simply didn't happen. Why the desperation to stretch out the time Callaway needed after the shots to get to the crime scene. We are literally seconds here, for crying out loud.
But even if true, Oswald running down Patton one block and Callaway running the same block the opposite direction doesn't take more than three minutes, which is exactly period of time you said previously, when you had Callaway at the patrol car making his call three minutes after the shots. Now you've got Callaway arriving at the scene at 1:17 (probably to keep alive the three minute claim) or 1:18, and you still have him at the patrol car to make his radio call at 1:19 or 1:20. So, are we to assume that Callaway took a coffee break [= sarcasm] between arriving at the scene and making his call?
What is even more incredible is that you now have Callaway arriving at the moment that Bowley must have been making his 46 seconds call. Yet - if your version is true - Callaway somehow must have missed that all together because if he had noticed it, he would have known a call had already been made (which he said he didn't), making his own call obsolete.
You're all over the place. What's wrong with you?
No. We've been over this before. Callaway never said that.
He said he last saw the man "going west on Jefferson Street". From Patton, where he was, he had plain sight of Jefferson as there was no obstruction. There was no reason for him to just stand there and wait until the man turned the corner and then run ("a good hard run") to the scene. It makes no sense and simply didn't happen. Why the desperation to stretch out the time Callaway needed after the shots to get to the crime scene. We are literally seconds here, for crying out loud.
But even if true, Oswald running down Patton one block and Callaway running the same block the opposite direction doesn't take more than three minutes, which is exactly period of time you said previously, when you had Callaway at the patrol car making his call three minutes after the shots. Now you've got Callaway arriving at the scene at 1:17 (probably to keep alive the three minute claim) or 1:18, and you still have him at the patrol car to make his radio call at 1:19 or 1:20. So, are we to assume that Callaway took a coffee break [= sarcasm] between arriving at the scene and making his call?
You're all over the place. What's wrong with you?
True. She said she catched her regular bus at 1:15
I don't claim as a fact that she was trying to catch the 1:22 bus.
I have never said that you claimed as a fact that she was trying to catch the 1:22 bus
But you have the right to state automatically that she was catching the 1:22 bus, right?
True. She actually said that she left home at little after 1.
Mr. BALL. You left your home to go to work at some time, didn't you, that day?
Mrs. MARKHAM. At one.
Mr. BALL. One o'clock?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe it was a little after 1.
and that she was walking toward Jefferson at 1:06 / 1:07
Mr. BALL. So you were walking south toward Jefferson?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You think it was a little after 1?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I wouldn't be afraid to bet it wasn't 6 or 7 minutes after 1.
Which basically fits with her arriving at the corner of 10th street no later that 1:09, as the total walk (and she was already walking at 1:06 or 1:07) of one block would have taken her (according to the FBI) only 2,5 minutes.
Happy now.... cue for the usual "you were wrong" BS.
But thanks for correcting me and destroying your own theory in the process.
But even if true, Oswald running down Patton one block and Callaway running the same block the opposite direction doesn't take more than three minutes, which is exactly period of time you said previously, when you had Callaway at the patrol car making his call three minutes after the shots. Now you've got Callaway arriving at the scene at 1:17 (probably to keep alive the three minute claim) or 1:18, and you still have him at the patrol car to make his radio call at 1:19 or 1:20. So, are we to assume that Callaway took a coffee break [= sarcasm] between arriving at the scene and making his call?
Unless you can quote me saying that Bowley "arrived at around 1:17", then you're misrepresenting my position, yes. Why do you do this continually?
More evasion and back to playing silly games again. You must really be desperate to salvage the already sunken ship that you call a narrative.
But, I'll play along....
Bowley did not arrive at around 1:17? Do tell....
No.
She doesn't say that at all.
And your cite doesn't support that at all.
Why are CT's like you always the ones putting words into the mouths of witnesses (instead of LNers)?
But you said this (below) which is pretty much the same thing (unless you now try to retract your own words):
Nonsense. "Markham herself" never said anything about a 1:12 bus or a 1:22 bus. Therefore, the reality is that she could be referring to either one of them. You don't have the right to state automatically (try as you might) that she was referring to the 1:12 bus.
If you'd learn the basics, you wouldn't have to be corrected on things like this. And I'll correct your errors whether the correction supports my position or not, in the interest of accuracy.
You are aware that Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance BEFORE making his call on the patrol car radio. Right? There's your "coffee break".
And you want to debate this stuff live? Really?
So no quote of mine saying that Bowley arrived at 1:17?
T.F. Bowley arrives at the scene, goes to Tippit's body and, realizing there is nothing he can do for the officer, takes the mic from Benavides and reports the shooting at 1:17. This is the first time dispatcher Murray Jackson hears of the shooting.
Bowley said in his affidavit that when he arrived at the scene he looked at his watch and it said 1:10 PM. By having him arrive at about 1:17, you are basically claiming that his watch was wrong by 7 minutes. This is just plain silly considering the fact that he was en route to pick up his wife from work and had just picked up his daughter from school. School bells tend to ring on time, yet somehow Bowley didn't notice that his watch was off by 7 minutes? Really?
Domingo Benavides begins to key the mic of the patrol car radio at 1:16. This keying of the mic would go on for about a minute and a half.
If you'd learn the basics, you wouldn't have to be corrected on things like this. And I'll correct your errors whether the correction supports my position or not, in the interest of accuracy.
Domingo Benavides begins to key the mic of the patrol car radio at 1:16. This keying of the mic would go on for about a minute and a half.
Why didn't Bowley tell Callaway the incident had already been reported by him using the radio in Tippit's car?
Where in this exchange (because that's where you falsely claimed I misrepresented you) did I claim that you said "Bowley arrived at 1:17".
What I said was;
Bowley said in his affidavit that when he arrived at the scene he looked at his watch and it said 1:10 PM. By having him arrive at about 1:17, you are basically claiming that his watch was wrong by 7 minutes.
The difference is easy to understand. I'm sorry that you seem to be struggling to understand. Do you really have so much ego that you actually thought that by using the word "you" I was actually talking to you and not in general?
You most likely won't (for obvious reasons) but why not simply tell us at what time you (now) believe Bowley arrived, so that we can determine by how much you are actually claiming his watch was wrong?
I've said this once before; if you write your replies less vague people might better understand what it is that you are actually saying, but I seriously doubt you will comply with that request because your replies are basically intended to provoke petty little discussions like this. After all why discuss the actual narrative when you can play around discussing everything else but the narrative and make up your own stuff as you go along.
Do you really have so much ego that you actually thought that by using the word "you" I was actually talking to you and not in general?
I thought you were talking to BillB
Pretty sure, in fact: Using 'you' while posting to Bill in the first-person was my first clue.
Hey the circus is back in town... Goody
'Circus'
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
MARTIN WEIDMANN
INSULT COUNT #2
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
Saying the circus is back in town is an insult?
If I told you you are a complete idiot, that would be an insult.
If I told you :D
Hate to admit I completely missed this one!
Easily the most insane claim coming from Bill Brown so far.
So, Callaway thinks the ambulance crew just happened to cruise by looking for bodies to pick up...ROFL
Absolutely.
Please refer to quoted part by Weidmann.
Thumb1:
No potty training on the forum.
BTW, your quote was incomplete.
Get a grip.
You are aware that Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance BEFORE making his call on the patrol car radio. Right? There's your "coffee break".
And you want to debate this stuff live? Really?
Now you are getting beyond ridiculous. Even Callaway disagrees!
Mr. CALLAWAY. I saw a squad car, and by that time there was four or five people that had gathered, a couple of cars had stopped. Then I saw--I went on up to the squad car and saw the police officer lying in the street. I see he had been shot in the head. So the first thing I did, I ran over to the squad car. I didn't know whether anybody reported it or not. So I got on the police radio and called them, and told them a man had been shot, told them the location, I thought the officer was dead. They said we know about it, stay off the air, so I went back.
By this time an ambulance was coming. The officer was laying on his left side, his pistol was underneath him. I kind of rolled him over and took his gun out from under him. The people wonder whether he ever got his pistol out of his holster. He did.
Mr. BALL. The pistol was out of the holster?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir; out of the holster, and it was unsnapped. It was on his right side. He was laying with the gun under him.
Mr. BALL. What did you do?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I picked the gun up and laid it on the hood of the squad car, and then someone put it in the front seat of the squad car. Then after I helped load Officer Tippit in the ambulance, I got the gun out of the car and told this cabdriver, I said, "You saw the guy didn't you?" He said, yes.
And you want to debate this stuff live? Really?
No I want to debate what actually happened, not what you make up in a vain attempt to save your ass.
Debating you is actually very easy. It's actually so easy that I can even tell you in advance how I can bring you down with very little effort at all. Your entire narrative is based on the dubious assumption that the DPD recordings and time stamps are 100% correct. That's all you've really got. So, all I need to do is demonstrate conclusively, by a multitude of discrepancies, that the time line provided by the DPD recording not only is not correct but simply can not be correct. The fact alone that you have recently been all over the place about the time Benavides needed to work the mic in the patrol car, and the fact that you can't even say with any kind of certainty how much time Callaway needed to get to the scene after hearing the shots and call the DPD operator is going to destroy you. It's a simple as that. But it needs to be a live, face to face, because you have shown here, over and over again, that you will change your story whenever you think it's needed. In a live debate I will not let you do that. Your biggest weakness is your misguided confidence in your own alibity to think up enough BS to get out of the mess you've already created.
You really are pissed off with yourself for making such a mess of your own narrative, aren't you?
Understandable, I would be pissed off too, but I wouldn't start making up my own little fairytales.
Now, how about that "coffee break". Got another explanation?
You are aware that Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance BEFORE making his call on the patrol car radio. Right? There's your "coffee break".
And you want to debate this stuff live? Really?
Hate to admit I completely missed this one!
Easily the most insane claim coming from Bill Brown so far.
So, Callaway thinks the ambulance crew just happened to cruise by looking for bodies to pick up...ROFL
Wow.
All of that yada yada yada and you still don't know what you're talking about.
By the time Callaway testified in 1964, he was slightly off in the order of events, regarding loading the body into the ambulance and reporting the shooting to the police dispatcher.
All you really have to do is study the police tapes.
602 is the Kinsley/Butler ambulance. As they pulled away from the scene with Tippit's body, they made an attempt to get hold of the police dispatcher to notify the dispatcher that they were en route to Methodist Hospital.
Murray Jackson (the dispatcher) didn't hear their attempt because at the same time, Callaway (after helping load the body into the ambulance) then went over to the patrol car radio, grabbed the mic and reported: "Hello, Hello, Hello. This police officer's just shot. I think he's dead."
Callaway was told by the dispatcher that the police had the information and to remain off the air.
When Callaway (during his testimony) said "By this time, an ambulance was coming", he was correct. Another ambulance (605) had been dispatched to the scene but the first ambulance (602) had already left for Methodist with the body.
I wouldn't really expect you to know any of this because (besides the sad reality that you're only interested in scoring points) it requires some work and maybe more importantly, an understanding of the big picture after having read EVERYTHING (as opposed to just Callaway's testimony). But, you haven't read EVERYTHING, only what you feel works for you at the moment.
Get a clue.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/Dallas%20Police%20Department/Dallas%20Police%20Department%20Records/Volume%2004/Item%2001.pdf
Mr. CALLAWAY: "I saw a squad car, and by that time there was four or five people that had gathered, a couple of cars had stopped. Then I saw--I went on up to the squad car and saw the police officer lying in the street. I see he had been shot in the head. So the first thing I did, I ran over to the squad car. I didn't know whether anybody reported it or not. So I got on the police radio and called them, and told them a man had been shot, told them the location, I thought the officer was dead. They said we know about it, stay off the air, so I went back. By this time an ambulance was coming."
At 1:19, the ambulance speeds off to Methodist Hospital with Tippit's body.
Callaway gets on the patrol car radio to report the shooting at 1:19 (ambulance sirens can be heard in the background).
From Dale Myers:
The time reported to the FBI by Dr. Liquori (With Malice [WM], 2013 [edition], p.557) - 1:24 pm - is probably the accurate one based on the recorded timing of Bowley's call, the recorded departure of the ambulance from 10th and Patton, and the known drive time from 10th and Patton to Methodist Hospital.
According to the police tapes, the first ambulance arrived at 1:18. It was dispatched from the Dudley-Hughes Funeral Home, two blocks away. George and Patricia Nash saw the time slip notifying of the dispatch and noted that it was time-stamped 1:18.
Domingo Benavides begins to key the mic of the patrol car radio at 1:16. This keying of the mic would go on for about a minute and a half.
But, the problem for you is that you are using Bowles' words to suggest that it is possible that the clocks were off by as much as six or seven minutes, while Bowles tells you they may be off by two minutes maximum at any given time.
A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time. Within the dispatcher's office there were numerous other time giving and time recording devices, both in the telephone room and in the radio room. Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose, they indicated the incorrect time. However, their purpose was to stamp the time, day and date on incoming calls. While they were reliable at this, they were not synchronized as stated in the Committee report. Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock. Accordingly, at "exactly" 10:10, various clocks could be stamping from 10:08 to 10:12, for example. When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done.
A given operator at a given time might broadcast "time" a little early in one event then a little late the next. Accordingly, a call initiated at, say, 10:10 might be stamped at 10:13 by the dispatcher, only to have intervening radio traffic delay his broadcast.
There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time."
From the Dallas Police tapes;
Shortly after Bowley's call on Tippit's radio the Dispatcher puts out this call:
"Attention. Signal 19 [shooting], police officer, 510 E. Jefferson." (Even though Bowley gives 404 Tenth Street as the address of the shooting)
Ambulance 602 responds - "Code 5" [En Route]
Maybe one minute later 602 states - "Code 6" [Arrived] - Meaning the ambulance has reached the East Jefferson address.
Shortly after this 602 asks - "What was that address on Jefferson?" - presumably because there is no sign of anything wrong.
To which the Dispatcher responds - "501 East Tenth."
Shortly after this 602 states - "Code 6" [Arrived] - Meaning they have arrived at the scene of the Tippit shooting at 501 East Tenth Street
Shortly after this 602 tries to get the attention of the Dispatcher but the call is interrupted by Callaway's call.
It would appear the Dallas Police tapes support Bill's assertion that the ambulance has arrived to pick up Tippit before Callaway makes his call.
It's nice of you to explain what the meaning of all those radio codes are, but please don't expect me to take you word for it.
Even less so as you let yourself be guided by a radio transcript that simply can not be correct.
There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time." - J.C. Bowles (the man in charge of the DPD dispatchers).
But let's assume for a second that you are correct about the codes. Brown not only claimed that Callaway helped load Tippit into the ambulance (that would be 602) before making his call, but that another ambulance (which would 605) arrived during or just after (I'm paraphrazing) the radio call.
Now, here's the thing. Just after 602 asked for the correct address, 605 called in with code 5 (which according to you means "en route", right"?" The dispatcher replied with a time stamp of 1:19. Only seconds later Callaway made his radio call. But the radio transcript shows that 605 did not call in with code 6 ("arrived") until just before a time stamp of 1:25 by the dispatcher.
So, how can an ambulance that does not arrive until roughly 1:25 be heard in Callaway's radio call at 1:19?
And then there is this minor problem. The drive time from 10th street to Methodist Hospital is no more than 2 to 3 minutes depending on traffic. Brown basically claims that Tippit was declared DOA at the hospital at around 1:24. So, if the ambulance left 10th street just prior to a 1:19 time call, are we to believe that, with sirens, they needed 5 minutes to cover a distance that normally takes about 2 to 3 minutes to drive?
Btw, in my previous two posts I point out all sorts of discrepancies in Brown's story and time line and this is the only one you want to focus on or deal with?
Here's the link to the codes - https://www.bearcat1.com/radiotx.htm
This isn't about connecting police time with real time.
You will note in my post I've not referred to any specific times.
It's about the order of events and some approximate times in between these events.
I don't agree with Bill that the sirens that can be heard on Callaway's call are 605 arriving.
I think it makes much more sense that the sirens belong to 602 leaving
I think there is a problem with the times given on the DPD tapes.
I've been checking these out recently and there are some weird things that I've noticed that I can't explain (yet)
So, the time of 1:19 you've given (I assume from the tape transcripts) may not be accurate.
My post wasn't aimed at you and shouldn't be taken personally.
I had read Callaway's WC testimony and was intrigued that Bill, who seems fairly well up on this stuff, could be making such a wild claim as the ambulance arriving before Callaway's call.
I was also interested in trying to resolve the various time discrepancies that seem to exist in this particular aspect of the case and, as such, have been examining the DPD tapes.
Finding that the tapes actually support Bill's assertion was quite a surprise so wanted to post about it to clear it up.
Anyone with the codes and the transcripts of the tapes can see that what I posted is a fair representation of what is there.
Still no answers from Bill Brown to my questions:
Where in his testimony "McWatters testified that Oswald got on the bus".
Sorry, but you can not discuss the one without the other. If you use the DPD radio transcripts as guide you have already decided which time line is the one that you want to use.
That certainly is a more plausible explanation, but it still does not explain why an ambulance with sirens would require 5 minutes to drive a distance that in normal traffice can be driven in less than 3 minutes. Remember, according to Brown, Tippit was declared DOA at Methodist Hospital at 1:24. Never mind that DPD officer Davenport, who followed the ambulance part of the way and was present at the Hospital said in two different documents that the DOA time was 1:15.
Fair enough, although you only focused on ambulance 602 and disregarded 605. Thumb1:
Here's the link to the codes - https://www.bearcat1.com/radiotx.htm
This isn't about connecting police time with real time.
You will note in my post I've not referred to any specific times.
It's about the order of events and some approximate times in between these events.
I don't agree with Bill that the sirens that can be heard on Callaway's call are 605 arriving.
I think it makes much more sense that the sirens belong to 602 leaving
I think there is a problem with the times given on the DPD tapes.
I've been checking these out recently and there are some weird things that I've noticed that I can't explain (yet)
So, the time of 1:19 you've given (I assume from the tape transcripts) may not be accurate.
My post wasn't aimed at you and shouldn't be taken personally.
I had read Callaway's WC testimony and was intrigued that Bill, who seems fairly well up on this stuff, could be making such a wild claim as the ambulance arriving before Callaway's call.
I was also interested in trying to resolve the various time discrepancies that seem to exist in this particular aspect of the case and, as such, have been examining the DPD tapes.
Finding that the tapes actually support Bill's assertion was quite a surprise so wanted to post about it to clear it up.
Anyone with the codes and the transcripts of the tapes can see that what I posted is a fair representation of what is there.
I don't agree with Bill that the sirens that can be heard on Callaway's call are 605 arriving.
I think it makes much more sense that the sirens belong to 602 leaving
I had read Callaway's WC testimony and was intrigued that Bill, who seems fairly well up on this stuff, could be making such a wild claim as the ambulance arriving before Callaway's call.
I was also interested in trying to resolve the various time discrepancies that seem to exist in this particular aspect of the case and, as such, have been examining the DPD tapes.
Finding that the tapes actually support Bill's assertion was quite a surprise so wanted to post about it to clear it up.
If we examine the DPD tapes and ignore the time calls for a minute the following approximations can be inferred:
Benevides makes his unsuccessful call on Tippit's radio
One minute later Bowley makes his call.
Two minutes after this Callaway makes his call
Now for the really big assumption - let's assume Benevides is in Tippit's car two minutes after the shooting,
This means Callaway makes his call 5 minutes after the shooting.
In this time Callaway has watched Oswald run down Patton and had some kind of brief interaction with him.
He then followed Oswald down Patton (according to Guinyard).
He then has some kind of interaction with B D Searcy.
He then runs back up Patton and over to the squad car.
He briefly examines Tippit.
The ambulance arrives and he helps load Tippit into it.
He then makes his call.
5 minutes seems perfectly reasonable. When he arrives at the squad car Bowley has finished his call, so he could've actually reached the scene about 3 minutes after the shooting.
It mustn't have escaped his attention that there were no police at the scene which probably prompted him into making the call as the ambulance was leaving.
I already explained this; so did several other members.
I don't need an explanation. I need you to show me where (as you claimed in the interview) "McWatters testified that Oswald got on the bus".
Or you can just say you were wrong and McWatters never said that.... Your choice.
It could be both, however (for what it's worth) Callaway does testify that an ambulance was arriving as he was making his report to the police dispatcher on the patrol car radio.
This is clearly incorrect.
Ignore the time calls and you're left with a record of events, the order in which they happen and a good estimation of the time between each event. These things are not affected by ignoring the time calls.
I've not really looked into this but if the DPD tapes are out by two minutes it's possible the ambulance left at 1:21 instead of 1:19
A 3 minute drive would have it at the Methodist Hospital at 1:24. Just a suggestion.
As for Davenport reporting Tippit was DOA at the same time Markham was supposed to be catching her bus...something seems off with that. Maybe Davenport got it wrong. Maybe.
I'm glad you agree.
605 has got nothing to do with it (that I can see).
Out of interest, why did you bring it up?
It could be both, however (for what it's worth) Callaway does testify that an ambulance was arriving as he was making his report to the police dispatcher on the patrol car radio.
(https://i.imgur.com/IkJr1ZG.jpg)
I already explained this; so did several other members. Scroll back about thirty pages for a look.
Dan: Not sure if this has been posted but James Bowles, the "Communications Superviser" for the DPD, has a long piece linked below that goes over in some details the time stamps.
See the section titled "Reference to the Times and Recordings". Some of it - more than some - is over my head but it might help.
Link: https://jfk-online.com/bowles1.html
I believe the DPD tapes show 602 has arrived at the scene well before Callaway makes his call.
In between 602 giving the Code 6 for the murder scene and Callaway calling out "Hello, hello, hello" there are the following interactions:
102, Code 4.
Was 519 E. Jefferson correct? (Siren)
We have two locations; 501 East Jefferson and 501 East Tenth.
19, are you en route?
Is this an officer?
This is northward on Tenth.
10-4.
10-4.
10 . . .4.
10-4.
. . . on Tenth.
19 is en route.
10-4, 19.
605, Code 5.
10-4, 605. 1:19.
85.
602.
85.
85.
Suspect running west on Jefferson from the location.
10-4.
Dispatcher No physical description.
602 then tries to make a call but is interrupted by Callaway. The call could have been to tell the dispatcher they were Code 5 to the Methodist Hospital. I think the amount of interactions between 602 arriving at the scene and Callaway placing his call make it clear there was enough time for Callaway to help load Tippit into the ambulance before he made the call.
No other ambulance arrives during this time.
It is interesting to note that around 1:22 PM 602 makes the call "602 in service" which, I assume, means they have dropped Tippit off at the Methodist Hospital. This would indeed give an approximate time of 3 minutes for the journey to have been made between the murder scene and the Methodist Hospital. It would also indicate the DPD time calls were about two minutes off (if the 1:24 PM time is independent from the DPD time calls)
If you read it, read carefully. It doesn't mean what Martin would like you to believe.
When you boil it down and winnow out the irrelevancies, the FUD, and the hypothetical worst-case scenarios, you have two statements by Bowles that sum up the situation:
1.) "it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the 'official' time shown on the master clock" [note defensive use of litotes here, by the way]
2.) "When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments."
So Bowles says the dispatcher clocks were kept within two minutes of City Hall time, and also within a minute of each other. The dispatcher clocks are consistent to within a minute, which is the important thing. I've already noted earlier in this thread that the timestamp data from the channel one and two demonstrate the dispatcher clocks were within a minute of each other that day. Frances Cason, a telephone operator in the DPD dispatch office, also said that the clocks were kept within a minute of each other. It's not perfect agreement between the different clocks, but they have don't have to be exactly in sync in order to be useful for our purpose here. And, yes, things would occasionally break down or otherwise get out of that within-a-minute sync, but those occasions were exceptions. You can claim Nov 22 was one of those exceptional days, but then you need to present evidence for it. Bowles himself was the supervisor of the dispatch center. Later, he spent a great deal of time pouring over the Dictabelt when he prepared the original channel one transcripts. And yet, he can't point to a single such exception. Imagine that.
As for the other timepieces involved in this desultory little play:
Bowley is quoted by "Into the Nightmare," saying his watch could have been five minutes off.
Markham's "time" is only an estimate offered well after the fact by a woman who didn't know what time her bus was supposed to have shown up. An estimate based on her observation of a laundromat clock at some point before she set off to catch a bus. She's just guessing.
Lottie Thompson was the Methodist Hospital ER nurse whom Martin brings into the conversation from time to time. In the 70's, she told Earl Golz that the clock in the Methodist ER was 15 minutes behind on November 22.
If you want to pin your hopes on any of these timepieces agreeing with "real time", good luck. You'll need it.
On a related note, it's worth noting that Callaway's attempt to use the Car 10 radio begins about two and a half minutes running time after the beginning of Bowley's transmission on the channel one recording. Callaway's transmission had to have occurred shortly before the ambulance's arrival but the Dudley Hughes ambulance logs showed that it arrived on scene at 1:18 their time, so the DH clock has to be behind DPD channel one time by a minute or two .
Once again; I don't need your explanation. I need you to show me where in his testimony McWatters said it.
[...]Two things, if someone else hasn't already pointed this out:
602 then tries to make a call but is interrupted by Callaway. The call could have been to tell the dispatcher they were Code 5 to the Methodist Hospital. I think the amount of interactions between 602 arriving at the scene and Callaway placing his call make it clear there was enough time for Callaway to help load Tippit into the ambulance before he made the call.
No other ambulance arrives during this time.
It is interesting to note that around 1:22 PM 602 makes the call "602 in service" which, I assume, means they have dropped Tippit off at the Methodist Hospital. This would indeed give an approximate time of 3 minutes for the journey to have been made between the murder scene and the Methodist Hospital. It would also indicate the DPD time calls were about two minutes off (if the 1:24 PM time is independent from the DPD time calls)
Benevides makes his unsuccessful call on Tippit's radio
One minute later Bowley makes his call.
Two minutes after this Callaway makes his call
Way too simplistic.
Let's add times to it.
Benavides said that he waited in his truck until the killer had disappeared on Patton. That took 40 seconds
So we have:
00:00 Killing of Tippit
00:40 Benavides gets out of his car, checks Tippit and tries to get the radio to work at approximately
01:00 Benavides starts keying the mic and (according to Bill Brown) the actual recording has him doing that one and half to two minutes after which Bowley takes over the mic at (approximately)
02:30 Bowley makes his call and it lasts 46 seconds which means it ends at 03:16
If Callaway made his call two minutes later it would be at 05:16 after the shots.
Now for the really big assumption - let's assume Benevides is in Tippit's car two minutes after the shooting,
This means Callaway makes his call 5 minutes after the shooting.
Benavides was in Tippit's car approx 45 - 50 seconds after the shooting.
In this time Callaway has watched Oswald run down Patton and had some kind of brief interaction with him.
He then followed Oswald down Patton (according to Guinyard).
He then has some kind of interaction with B D Searcy.
He then runs back up Patton and over to the squad car.
The distance of one block (from 10th street to Jefferson) takes 2,5 minutes to walk. Running it takes less than a minute. Even if Callaway waiting until the killer turned the corner to Jefferson, the whole thing wouldn't have taken 5 minutes for Callaway to get to the scene. 3 minutes is a far more reasonable estimate.
He briefly examines Tippit.
The ambulance arrives and he helps load Tippit into it.
He then makes his call.
Neither here nor there without time specification. Bill Brown said earlier that Callaway arrived at the scene at 3 minutes after the shots and I agree with him. Which means that the time line looks like;
00:00 Killing of Tippit
00:40 Benavides gets out of his car, checks Tippit and tries to get the radio to work at approximately
01:00 Benavides starts keying the mic and (according to Bill Brown) the actual recording has him doing that one and half to two minutes after which Bowley takes over the mic at (approximately)
02:30 to 03:00 Bowley makes his call and it lasts 46 seconds which means it ends at 03:16 or 3:46
03:00 Callaway arrives at the scene
5 minutes seems perfectly reasonable.
Except it isn't. The distance he and the killer had to run down and up Patton from and to 10th streets simply do not allow for a 5 minute duration conclusion.
When he arrives at the squad car Bowley has finished his call, so he could've actually reached the scene about 3 minutes after the shooting.
So now you are using the fact that Callaway did not know a call had already been made as "evidence" that it must have taken him longer than 3 minutes to get there? Really?
It mustn't have escaped his attention that there were no police at the scene which probably prompted him into making the call as the ambulance was leaving.
Speculation.
examine the DPD tapes and ignore the time calls
You can not examine the DPD tapes and ignore the time calls, but still use them to create a time line which simply doesn't fit.
Rather than trying to defend a pre-determined conclusion, perhaps you should try to evaluate all the available evidence.
I already explained this; so did several other members. Scroll back about thirty pages for a look.
What don't you understand about "I don't need your explanation. I need you to show me where in his testimony McWatters said it."
Run, Bill... run
Two things, if someone else hasn't already pointed this out:
1.) Callaway said that he tried to use the radio because he didn't know whether the shooting had been reported. However, the ambulance's presence would have been definitive proof that the shooting had indeed been reported, and that there was no reason for Callaway to break in on channel one.
2.) Callaway made clear that the transmission was the first action he took once he got to the scene. If he'd helped load Tippit into the ambulance first, then he wouldn't have said that the radio was the first thing he went for.
There isn't enough information in the abortive 602 transmissions during this time to determine exactly what 602 was trying to say. Any interpretation is going to be guesswork.
As far as I've been able to find, "In service" tends to mean two things: that someone just fired up their radio, or that someone just tuned into the channel from another frequency. That is, it seems to be related to the status of the radio rather than the status of the unit itself.
Also, the ambulance stayed at Methodist once they dropped Tippit off. Once Tippit's body had been released to the county, the same crew loaded his body up again and drove it to Parkland for the autopsy.
So much desperation to fit a square peg in a round hole.
It is interesting to note that around 1:22 PM 602 makes the call "602 in service" which, I assume, means they have dropped Tippit off at the Methodist Hospital. This would indeed give an approximate time of 3 minutes for the journey to have been made between the murder scene and the Methodist Hospital. It would also indicate the DPD time calls were about two minutes off (if the 1:24 PM time is independent from the DPD time calls)
How in the world is it possible to have an honest conversation with guys like you when you keep on changing your mind.
So, now the DPD time calls are off by about two minutes? How does that work out with the times for the calls by Bowley and Callaway. Did they also happen two minutes earlier?
And what about DPD officer Davenport who, in two separate day one documents states that Tippit was declared DOA at 1:15 at the hospital? He was actually there and witnessed it. Are you calling him "mistaken" or simply a liar?
I'm glad you pretty much agree with my estimations.
I have Callaway making his call about 5 minutes after the shooting and you have 5 minutes 16 seconds. That's not bad.
I have Callaway arriving at the scene about 3 minutes after the shooting and so do you.
You do seem to get a bit confused though. I posted:
When he arrives at the squad car Bowley has finished his call, so he could've actually reached the scene about 3 minutes after the shooting.
So I'm saying Callaway could've reached the scene about 3 minutes after the shooting, to which you responded:
"So now you are using the fact that Callaway did not know a call had already been made as "evidence" that it must have taken him longer than 3 minutes to get there? Really?"
You seem to think I was saying it took Callaway "longer than 3 minutes" to reach the scene but that's not what I said at all.
We are in agreement about how long it might have taken Callaway to reach the scene - 3 minutes.
Again, you seem a bit confused when I said that 5 minutes seemed a perfectly reasonable time between the shooting and Callaway making his call when you post:
"Except it isn't. The distance he and the killer had to run down and up Patton from and to 10th streets simply do not allow for a 5 minute duration conclusion."
Nobody is saying it took him 5 minutes to run up and down Patton to 10th Street. We're in agreement that it probably took around 3 minutes.
The problem you seem to be having is that I've demonstrated, using the DPD tapes, that the ambulance arrives before Callaway makes his call.
So after arriving at the scene (3 minutes), Callaway spends a couple of minutes examining Tippit's body and helping to load him into the ambulance.
I know my estimations are simplistic but I'm more concerned with the order of events and no matter how much you pretend it doesn't, the DPD tapes do contain the order of events and approximate times between these events.
I'm not running from anything. What don't you understand about I have already explained this; so have several other members. Scroll back about thirty pages for a look.
Hilarious... Would that be when he had the "coffee break" I previously discussed with Bill Brown. "A couple of minutes"... really? You might want to read his testimony again.
Of course you are running. In the interview you claimed "McWatters testified that Oswald got on the bus".
That was a lie, as McWatters never testified anything of the kind.
Or can you show me in his testimony where he said it?
Why not critique the evidence being provided rather than some meaningless comment?
Just a few posts earlier I stated that there was something off about the time calls on the DPD tapes and you agreed!
I've not changed my mind about it, it's more like you've got a really bad memory
Are you calling Markham a liar?
Are you saying she lied about catching the 1;15 PM bus to work. Her regular bus? Is that what you're saying?
What exactly are you saying?
Translation for "coffee break": Martin was unaware that Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance BEFORE reporting the shooting on the patrol car radio to the police dispatcher.
Again, I'm not running from anything. What don't you understand about I have already explained this; so have several other members. Scroll back about thirty pages for a look.
Translation for "coffee break": Martin was unaware that Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance BEFORE reporting the shooting on the patrol car radio to the police dispatcher.
Martin "wasn't aware" that Callaway helped load Tippit's body into the ambulance before he made his radio call because it never happened. You made it up to score a point. There is not a shred of evidence for it and it doesn't make sense.
The time has long passed that I would accept something at face value because Bill Brown said so.
A fact is still a fact whether you've accepted it or not. Callaway helped load the body and THEN, as the ambulance pulled away, got on the radio to report the incident. Just a simple act of helping load the body into the ambulance, no "coffee break" required. Like I said before, I don't expect you to know these things. No biggie.
According to the police tapes, the first ambulance arrived at 1:18. It was dispatched from the Dudley-Hughes Funeral Home, two blocks away. George and Patricia Nash saw the time slip notifying of the dispatch and noted that it was time-stamped 1:18.
Domingo Benavides begins to key the mic of the patrol car radio at 1:16. This keying of the mic would go on for about a minute and a half.
But, the problem for you is that you are using Bowles' words to suggest that it is possible that the clocks were off by as much as six or seven minutes, while Bowles tells you they may be off by two minutes maximum at any given time.
A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time. Within the dispatcher's office there were numerous other time giving and time recording devices, both in the telephone room and in the radio room. Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose, they indicated the incorrect time. However, their purpose was to stamp the time, day and date on incoming calls. While they were reliable at this, they were not synchronized as stated in the Committee report. Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock. Accordingly, at "exactly" 10:10, various clocks could be stamping from 10:08 to 10:12, for example. When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done.
A given operator at a given time might broadcast "time" a little early in one event then a little late the next. Accordingly, a call initiated at, say, 10:10 might be stamped at 10:13 by the dispatcher, only to have intervening radio traffic delay his broadcast.
There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time."
No. Not sure where you get from that I agree with your estimations because I don't agree at all.
I have Callaway making his call at 3 minutes after the shooting. The bogus DPD time line would suggest 5 minutes and 16 seconds, but I don't buy that for a second.
He was making his radio call about three minutes after the shooting
I'm not the one who is confused. You are the one making the mistake to relate everything to the DPD radio transcripts. That's where the confusion comes from. Callaway didn't need 3 minutes to reach the scene.
Good, if we are agreement that it took him around 3 minutes to get to the scene, but if you are going to claim that it took him two minutes to make his call, then I most certainly disagree.
I don't really need you to tell me what problem I seem to be having, because I have no problem at all. You have not demonstrated anything else but that you blindly rely on the DPD tapes despite the fact that the man in charge of the DPD dispatcher clearly told us they were not providing "real time".
Hilarious... Would that be when he had the "coffee break" I previously discussed with Bill Brown. "A couple of minutes"... really? You might want to read his testimony again.
Where are you getting from that the DPD tapes do not show the sequence of events? Of course they do, except the time attached to each event is simply wrong.
I can provide you with a time line which has each witness corroborating the other one, there is no need for any claims that watches were off, that Markham was late to miss her regular bus, that Bowley's watch was at least 5 minutes off (meaning he picked up his daughter from school 5 minutes late), hospital clocks were wrong and a DPD detective as well as a justice of the peace were mistaken about Tippit's DOA. In that time line everything simply fits.
Or alternative, there is the official narrative, based on the DPD time stamps, which - according to the WC - has Tippit being killed at 1:16 (Myers claims it was 1:14:30) and which requires all the people mentioned above to be 100% wrong and can't even match the individual events (involving each individual) in a fluent sequence.
The last time I told you this, you said that the scenario in which it all fits together was the more credible (or words to that effect), yet here you are desperately trying to defend the second (WC) scenario. Why is that?
When I do, you ignore it. Typical LN strategy
So why rely on the time calls when you think there is something off with the time calls?
Why would I call Markham a liar?
Markham had no reason to lie and said in her testimony that she left he home "a little after 1"
She also said that it was around 1:06 or 1:07 when she was walking from 9th street to 10th street
The FBI timed the distance of that one block walk and determined it took 2,5 minutes
The WC lawyer asked her when she normally got her regular bus to work and she answered at 1:15
The FBI determined that the bus schedule for her bus had stops at Jefferson at 1:12 and 1:22
Obviously, this was just the official schedule and not taking in account traffic.
If Markham left her house at "a little after 1" and was walking at 1:06/1:07 she would have arrived at the intersection of 10th and Patton at roughly 1:09 with only another block (2,5 minutes) to walk to get to the bus stop on Jefferson.
If Tippit was killed at 1:16 (according to the WC) or at 1:14 according to Dale Myers, what the hell was Markham still doing at the corner at 10th/Patton. My point is that by then she would have been at Jefferson boarding her bus.
Now, how about some corrobaration?
Bowley, who also had no reason to lie, said in his affidavit that he was picking up his daughter from school (at 12:55) and then went to pick up his wife from work (near the crime scene). He also said that when he arrived at 10th street he saw something had happened, so he parked a distance away so his daughter would not see. He said he looked at his clock and it said 1:10 PM. Now, can watches be wrong? Sure they can, but in this case wouldn't Bowley have noticed when he was late picking up his 12 year old daughter? Anyway, the driving distance between the school and 10th/Patton is 13 to 14 minutes (I have driven and timed it) which would have gotten him to the Tippit scene at around 1:10 PM
Markham arrived just prior to Tippit being shot and Bowley arrived just after he was shot. What are the chances that both times are wrong by about 5 minutes?
But wait, there's more. When you follow the sequence of events starting with Tippit being killed at around 1:09 and you follow the sequence of events as provided by the corrected DPD time calls you end up with the ambulance arriving at the Methodist Hospital at 1:15 which is exactly the time the authorisation for autopsy states and detective Davenport, who had no reason to lie, confirms it twice in offical documents.
With all this in mind, why would any reasonable person still conclude that the DPD time stamps provide the only accurate time line?
You seem to be having a problem understanding something very simple about the DPD tape transcripts.
I will try to explain this as simply as I can to show you how I am approaching the tapes.
Let's say, as an example, on the tapes event A happens at 1:18 PM and event B happens at 1:19 PM.
We both agree that the time calls might not be reliable when compared to "real time". So let's ignore the time calls of 1:18 and 1:19
We are sill left with te following information from the tapes:
1) That two events happened - event A and event B
2) That there is an order to these events - event A happened before event B
3) That there is an approximate time gap between these two events of one minute
I cannot explain it any simpler than that. You seem to be under the impression that, just because the time calls might be out when compared to "real time", that there is no other information that can be gained from the tapes. But this is wrong.
Again, you seem really confused. I posted:
"... the DPD tapes do contain the order of events and approximate times between these events."
What I'm saying here is really easy to understand but in response you posted:
"Where are you getting from that the DPD tapes do not show the sequence of events? "
I said they do contain the order of events but you have misrepresented (or not understood) this and insist I am saying they do not contain such an order. Very confusing.
Okay, so your timeline would look something like this:
1:09 Shooting
1:10 Benevides making his call and Bowley arrives
1:10 - 1:11 Bowley makes his call
1:12 Callaway makes his call and Ambulance arrives
1:15 Ambulance arrives at Methodist Hospital
To be honest, that's really impressive and makes a great deal of sense.
It's a pity the DPD tapes prove the ambulance arrives before Callaway makes his call.
And that you have a 6 minute discrepancy between "police time" and "real time". Something your Mr Bowles would heartily disapprove of.
It also has the feeling of a 4x100m relay with everyone racing around at full tilt (but that's just a subjective opinion)
It's a pity the DPD tapes prove the ambulance arrives before Callaway makes his call.
No they don't prove that at all. It's an assumption made by Bill Brown which you seem to readily accept
And that you have a 6 minute discrepancy between "police time" and "real time". Something your Mr Bowles would heartily disapprove of.
More BS. You simply haven't read or understood what Bowles told the HSCA.
https://www.jfk-online.com/bowles1.html#set
It also has the feeling of a 4x100m relay with everyone racing around at full tilt (but that's just a subjective opinion)
Everything you say is a subjective opinion. The real question is; is it a honest opinion?
Let's expand on that time line a bit (all times are approximations);
Markham leaves her home at "a little after 1" and is en route to the bus stop on Jefferson by 1:06 or 1:07
She only needs to walk one block to get from 9th street to 10th street. The FBI determined that the distance of one block takes about 2,5 minutes to walk. This gets Markham to the corner of 10th and Patton by 1:09:30 at the latest, perfectly on time to reach the bus stop on Jefferson at 1:11 or 1:12.
1:09 Shooting
Bowley picked up his daugther at school at 12:55 and is en route to pick up his wife from work. The distance between the school and 10th street takes about 13 to 15 minutes to drive. This gets him to 10th street at 1:10
1:10 Benevides making his call and Bowley arrives
Bowley says (in the video "Hunting Oswald") that when he arrived he noticed something was going on, so he parked his car at a fair distance away so his 12 year old daughter would not see it. He then walked towards the police car, checked on Tippit and then noticed Benavides who could not get the radio of the patrol car to work. It's a fair estimation that this would have taken him around 45 seconds. During this time Benavides is keying the mic in vain.
1:11 Bowley makes his call, lasting 46 seconds
DPD officers Poe and Jez (squad car 105) wrote in their supplementary offense report that at approximently 1:10 they heard on the radio that a police officer was involved in a shooting at East Tenth Street.
1:12 Callaway arrives at the scene
1:12:30 After checking on Tippit, Callaway makes his call and hears the ambulance's sirens in the background
Ambulance arrives. Callaway and Bowley help loading Tippit's body into the ambulance
1:12:45 DPD officer Croy is in his car at Zang and Colorado when he hears Bowley's radio call. It takes him no more than
1,5 to 2 minutes to arrive at 10th street. When he arrives he sees Tippit's body being loaded into the ambulance
1:13 The ambulance leaves. The distance to Methodist Hospital takes 2 minutes to drive in normal traffic. With sirens on
it takes less.
DPD officers Davenport and Bardin are in their car and see the ambulance pass by. They follow it and arrive at the
same time at as the ambulance at the hospital.
1:15 Ambulance arrives at Methodist Hospital and Tippit is declared DOA at 1:15
The DOA time is communicated to the Justice of the Peace who issues an Authorization for Autopsy which gives the
time of death as 1:15.
Davenport writes in his report that Tippit was declared dead at 1:15 and on the form he uses to deliver a bullet
taken from Tippit's body and a button from his uniform he writes in his own handwriting that Tippit was declared
DOA at 1:15
For the DPD times to be correct, Markham needs to be wrong about the time she left home and she also does not get to the bus stop at 1:15, Bowley's watch must be off by 7 minutes which means he was 7 minutes late to pick up his daughter from school and did not notice it. DPD officers Poe and Jez have to be wrong about the time they heard the radio call. The clocks at Methodist Hospital must be wrong, or at least the one used by Dr. Liquori and Davenport and Bardin must have been mistaken about Tippit being declared dead at 1:15.
From the Dallas Police tapes;
Shortly after Bowley's call on Tippit's radio the Dispatcher puts out this call:
"Attention. Signal 19 [shooting], police officer, 510 E. Jefferson." (Even though Bowley gives 404 Tenth Street as the address of the shooting)
Ambulance 602 responds - "Code 5" [En Route]
Maybe one minute later 602 states - "Code 6" [Arrived] - Meaning the ambulance has reached the East Jefferson address.
Shortly after this 602 asks - "What was that address on Jefferson?" - presumably because there is no sign of anything wrong.
To which the Dispatcher responds - "501 East Tenth."
Shortly after this 602 states - "Code 6" [Arrived] - Meaning they have arrived at the scene of the Tippit shooting at 501 East Tenth Street
Shortly after this 602 tries to get the attention of the Dispatcher but the call is interrupted by Callaway's call.
1) That two events happened - event A and event B
2) That there is an order to these events - event A happened before event B
Agreed
This is my post Reply #2163
This is proof the ambulance arrived at the scene before Callaway made his call. I gave you the code meanings and you have the transcript. Instead of arguing the evidence (which you will never do when it shows you to be clearly wrong) you become "confused".
You agree the DPD tapes show the order of events:
The DPD tapes prove that the order of events, irrespective of "police time" and "real time", the order of events is that the ambulance arrives before Callaway's call.
This evidence proves your timeline is wrong. You can argue all you want about who's watch is right but it doesn't change the fact that the ambulance arrives before the call.
Argue the evidence instead of name-calling or more "confusion"
It is a trivial point to argue about the ambulance arriving before or after Callaway's radio call. His call only took a second or two and the ambulance may well have arrived at exactly that instance. Ambulance 602 made it's code 6 call only seconds before Callaway used the radio. If you want to be believe that Callaway and Bowley were able to load Tippit into the ambulance in those few seconds, then believe it. I don't care.
By arguing that the ambulance got there earlier, you only increase the time between it's departure at 10th street and it's arrival at the hospital. As it stands, Myers and Brown are claiming the ambulance arrived at the hospital (or at least that Tippit was pronounced dead) at around 1:24, which means that if it left at 1:19 it needed 5 minutes to drive a distance with sirens which in normal traffic would have taken a mere two minutes or so. And that makes sense to you?
Instead of arguing the evidence (which you will never do when it shows you to be clearly wrong)
There's the pot calling the kettle black. :D
Why in the world should I take you seriously? I can't think of a reason. Can you?
This evidence proves your timeline is wrong.
Stop being so shallow-minded. The ambulance arriving seconds before or after Callaway's call has no real impact on my time line. You are merely using it as an excuse to dismiss the time line completely.
Argue the evidence instead of name-calling or more "confusion"
Says the guy who dismisses all the evidence used to create the time line based on a trivial point.
You guys are truly incredible. You agree that the times of the DPD recordings may not be correct. Bill Brown has the greatest difficulty trying to match individual events to the DPD time line and still you use those recordings as a bible. The level of dishonesty is staggering.
I believe the DPD tapes show 602 has arrived at the scene well before Callaway makes his call.
In between 602 giving the Code 6 for the murder scene and Callaway calling out "Hello, hello, hello" there are the following interactions:
102, Code 4.
Was 519 E. Jefferson correct? (Siren)
We have two locations; 501 East Jefferson and 501 East Tenth.
19, are you en route?
Is this an officer?
This is northward on Tenth.
10-4.
10-4.
10 . . .4.
10-4.
. . . on Tenth.
19 is en route.
10-4, 19.
605, Code 5.
10-4, 605. 1:19.
85.
602.
85.
85.
Suspect running west on Jefferson from the location.
10-4.
Dispatcher No physical description.
602 then tries to make a call but is interrupted by Callaway. The call could have been to tell the dispatcher they were Code 5 to the Methodist Hospital. I think the amount of interactions between 602 arriving at the scene and Callaway placing his call make it clear there was enough time for Callaway to help load Tippit into the ambulance before he made the call.
No other ambulance arrives during this time.
Firstly, Martin, you keep dragging Bill Brown into a discussion we are having. What I'm putting forward has nothing to do with Bill Brown. The analysis of the DPD tapes that clearly prove the ambulance arrives before Callaway's call are my own work. Something I've not seen or heard anywhere else (which isn't to say it hasn't been done before)
Secondly, when I got my head around the timeline you were proposing I called it impressive because, as far as I'm concerned, it is.
It is a far better fit for all the testimony than anything I can come up with at the moment.
The main issues with it, as far as I can see, are (in order of importance):
1) The ambulance arriving before the Callaway call in the DPD tapes
2) Bowley arrives while Benevides is on the radio - Bowley is 1:10 PM, according to his watch, Benevides is calling at 1:16 PM according to DPD tapes. This is a time discrepancy of 6 minutes between the two and Bowles does not hint at anything even remotely like this.
3) You have Callaway calling 3 minutes after the shooting but the tapes have Callaway calling 3 minutes after Benevides tries to make his call. The impression I get from Bowles is that these discrepancies gradually increase over time and are then corrected. I do not see him saying that you can lose a minute or two every three minutes. It would make the system redundant.
"Ambulance 602 made it's code 6 call only seconds before Callaway used the radio"
If this is the case it clears away the main issue with your timeline. In an earlier post I demonstrated, using the order and number of interactions recorded on the DPD tapes, that there was a significant time difference between the ambulance arriving and Callaway's call. This is the post:
In my mind this is clearly longer than 6 seconds. This is a lot closer to a minute and supports the notion that as Callaway is stood looking at Tippit's body (as he testifies to doing) the ambulance arrives and Callaway helps load the body. This is also supported by Guinyard's testimony:
Mr. BALL. And what did Callaway do?
Mr. GUINYARD. He turned around and run back to the street and we helped load the policeman in the ambulance.
Mr. BALL. He ran back up to 10th Street, did you say?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did you go with him?
Mr. GUINYARD. Right with him.
Mr. BALL. Did you see a police car there?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes.
Mr. BALL. What did you see besides the police car?
Mr. GUINYARD. The police that was laying down in the front of the car.
Mr. BALL. A policeman?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was he dead or alive at that time?
Mr. GUINYARD. He looked like he was dead to me.
Mr. BALL. What did you do?
Mr. GUINYARD. Helped put him in the ambulance.
The only way it might possibly work (in my mind) is if as soon as the ambulance sees the murder scene off in the distance they put in the call that they have arrived and the sirens on Callaway's call is 602 arriving. But this is still very problematic.
The main issues with it, as far as I can see, are (in order of importance):
1) The ambulance arriving before the Callaway call in the DPD tapes
That's not a big issue as I have already explained to you and I'll do it again below
2) Bowley arrives while Benevides is on the radio - Bowley is 1:10 PM, according to his watch, Benevides is calling at 1:16 PM according to DPD tapes. This is a time discrepancy of 6 minutes between the two and Bowles does not hint at anything even remotely like this.
Bowles didn't specifically say that the clocks could be 6 minutes wrong, but if you read his information more closely you will notice that the 6 minutes difference isn't all that impossible.
A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time. Within the dispatcher's office there were numerous other time giving and time recording devices, both in the telephone room and in the radio room. Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose, they indicated the incorrect time. However, their purpose was to stamp the time, day and date on incoming calls. While they were reliable at this, they were not synchronized as stated in the Committee report. Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock. Accordingly, at "exactly" 10:10, various clocks could be stamping from 10:08 to 10:12, for example. When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done.
Note that Bowles does not say that the master clock's "official" time is the same as "real" time. Secondly he says that the clocks used by the dispatchers indicated the incorrect time and that it was not uncommon for for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock. And he then adds that when the dispatcher's clocks were a minute or so out they needed adjustment, but in busy periods that was not always done.
So, if the dispatcher's clock could differ two minutes from the "official" time on the master clock, how much did they differ from the "real" time?
Bowles then continues by explaining that the digital clocks used by the dispatchers were not synchronized with any time standard.
In addition to the times stamped on calls by telephone operators, the radio operators stamped the "time" as calls were dispatched, and the "time" that officers completed an assignment and returned to service. Radio operators were also furnished with 12-hour digital clocks to facilitate their time references when they were not using call sheets containing stamped time. These digital clocks were not synchronized with any time standard. Therefore, the time "actual" and time "broadcast" could easily be a minute or so apart.
So, what we now have is a clock used by the dispatcher that could be off by two minutes from the "offical" time, which in turn was not "real" time and we have a time difference between "actual" time (whatever that is) and "broadcast" time.
And still that's not all. He also points out that dispatchers did not always give the correct time stamp when there was heavy radio traffic.
Next, consideration should be given to the methods of individual radio operators. A given operator at a given time might broadcast "time" a little early in one event then a little late the next. Accordingly, a call initiated at, say, 10:10 might be stamped at 10:13 by the dispatcher, only to have intervening radio traffic delay his broadcast. He might go ahead and announce the dispatch time as 10:13 and the digital clock then showed 10:14.
He actually gives as example how a 10:10 event might be time stamped at 10:13 with the digital clock showing 10:14. This clearly demonstrates that it is fully possible that the dispatcher's clocks and time stamps could differ by as much as 3 to 4 minutes from the master clock's "official" time. If the master clock's time then was off by only two minutes from real time, you end up with time stamps that possibly differ 4 or 5 minutes and maybe even 6 minutes from real time.
Let's not forget that the time line not only says that Bowley's watch said 1:10 but also that Markham would have arrived at the corner of 10th and Patton at around 1:09. Without her seeing the shooting she would have continued walking to the bus stop on Jefferson where she would have arrived about 3 minutes later at about 1:12. And then of course there are the officers Poe and Joz who wrote in their report that they heard on the radio about Tippit's death at approximently 1:10
How unlikely a 6 minute time difference between real time and DPD dispatcher time stamps might seems, it has happened unless the above four people are all wrong.
3) You have Callaway calling 3 minutes after the shooting but the tapes have Callaway calling 3 minutes after Benevides tries to make his call. The impression I get from Bowles is that these discrepancies gradually increase over time and are then corrected. I do not see him saying that you can lose a minute or two every three minutes. It would make the system redundant.
No I have Callaway arriving at the scene at roughly 3 minutes after hearing the shots. And I have already demonstrated that as far as real time is concerned the system was in fact redundant, but it served it's purpose of time stamping a sequence of events.
If this is the case it clears away the main issue with your timeline. In an earlier post I demonstrated, using the order and number of interactions recorded on the DPD tapes, that there was a significant time difference between the ambulance arriving and Callaway's call. This is the post:
Have a closer look at the transcript, which starts at 1:19
We have the dispatcher calling out 1:19 twice. And just look how close the second code 6 call of ambulance 602 is to Callaway's radio call.
01:19:00 Dispatcher 10-4, 603 and 602. 1:19.
602 (ambulance) What was that address on Jefferson?
Dispatcher 501 East Tenth.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker) 85 en route.
19 (Sgt. C.B. Owens) 19
Dispatcher 19
19 Give me the correct address on the shooting.
Dispatcher 501 East Tenth.
105 (Ptm. J.M. Poe and Ptm. L.E. Joz) 105.
602 (ambulance) 602, Code 6.
102 (Ptm. B.L. Jones and Ptm. M.D. Noll) 102, Code 4.
105 (Ptm. J.M. Poe and Ptm. L.E. Joz) Was 519 E. Jefferson correct? (Siren)
Dispatcher We have two locations; 501 East Jefferson and 501 East Tenth.
Dispatcher 19, are you en route?
105 (Ptm. J.M Poe and Ptm. L.E. Joz) Is this an officer?
This is northward on Tenth.
19 (Sgt. C.B. Owens) 10-4
10-4
10 . . .4.
10-4
. . . on Tenth.
19 19 is en route.
Dispatcher 10-4, 19.
605 (ambulance) 605, Code 5.
Dispatcher 10-4, 605. 1:19.
Dispatcher 85.
602 (ambulance) 602.
Dispatcher 85.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker) 85.
Dispatcher Suspect running west on Jefferson from the location.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker) 10-4
Dispatcher No physical description.
Citizen Hello, hello, hello.
602 (ambulance) 602.
Citizen Pardon, from out here on Tenth Street, 500 block. This officer just shot. I think he's dead.
Dispatcher 10-4. We have that information. The citizen us
It all happens in less than a minute and I would argue that the code 6 call of the ambulance is made no more than 20 or 30 seconds before Callaway's radio call. But whatever the difference is, it has no major impact on my time line.
I have to say, Martin, that I'm coming round to your way of thinking.
602 is around 510 East Jefferson when they ask the address. Once they get 501 East 10th they only have to drive a short distance up Denver to the intersection with 10th. When they get to the intersection they only have to look left to see where the small crowd is gathered near the squad car and the call "Code 6" can go in immediately. By the time they roll up to the scene and check out the condition of Tippit, maybe open the back doors etc. there is very little time, a matter of a few seconds, in which Callaway can help load Tippit into the ambulance.
I concede that it is far more likely the sirens on Callaway's call are 602 arriving. As far as the 6 minute discrepancy is concerned...
...in one set of scales is a preponderance of interlocking testimony in the other the 6 minute discrepancy.
Having the ambulance arrive before Callaway's call on the DPD tapes threw me and I hadn't appreciated the very small amount in time which Callaway would have to help out loading Tippit.
Shots at 1:09 PM
So, you're a truth seeker after all. Well done! Thumb1:
One final comment about the DPD radio transcripts, going by what Bowles told the HSCA;
Let's say the real time is 1:10
But the master clock connected to the City Hall system shows 1:12 as "official" time
And the clocks used by the dispatchers are all different and 2 minutes faster than the "official" time. That gets the time up to 1:14.
And then consider that the dispatchers were not always punctual in giving the correct time stamp, so consider an error rate of 2 minutes and you can end up with a time stamp of 1:16 when the real time is actually 1:10.
Once the error of a wrong time stamp crept in it was unlikely to be corrected as long as the dispatchers were busy.
I fully appreciate that this may be hard for some to believe or accept, but, considering what Bowles said, it clearly is a possibility that this is what happened and even more so when one considers the fact that it must have been pandemonium at the dispatchers office just after Kennedy's and Tippit's murder. Phone calls coming in, "call sheets" coming in on a conveyer belt and constant radio calls. I can imagine that under those hectic circumstances a dispatcher might lose sight of the time.
Always have been.
Still surprised about the size of the discrepancy but once this is ignored everything else fits together in a satisfactory way (IMO).
The clincher was something I should have spotted as soon as I'd noticed ambulance 602 gave the "Code 6" before Callaway's call. I imagined Callaway arriving after 3 minutes then helping out with the ambulance for a minute or more before making his call which is something clearly not supported by the transcripts. Once the travel time of 602 from East Jefferson is taken into account, plus the time to check out Tippit etc., there was only a matter of seconds left for Callaway to help out, which is totally unrealistic.
Once this issue was resolved Callaway's testimony made sense, as did Markham's, Bowley's and Davenport's.
Benevides is quicker on the scene than I imagined but those seconds after the shooting must have seemed a lot longer than they actually were.
It was not until he and his assistant pulled back a blanket covering Tippit that they realized the victim was a policeman.
Didn't know of this account -- I haven't seen a blanket mentioned anywhere else.
Who put it there?
None of the known witnesses seemed to have any trouble recognizing the body as a police officer.
And...Croy was in uniform...
Mr. GRIFFIN. Were you in uniform?
Mr. CROY. In uniform.
He must have been close to see Tippit being loaded and Bowley, who already made a call, was there.
Makes no sense Callaway would THEN get on the radio to report a shooting.
Bill Brown's wet dream.
You are aware that Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance BEFORE making his call on the patrol car radio. Right? There's your "coffee break".
And you want to debate this stuff live? Really?
Translation for "coffee break": Martin was unaware that Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance BEFORE reporting the shooting on the patrol car radio to the police dispatcher.
Martin "wasn't aware" that Callaway helped load Tippit's body into the ambulance before he made his radio call because it never happened. You made it up to score a point. There is not a shred of evidence for it and it doesn't make sense.
The time has long passed that I would accept something at face value because Bill Brown said so.
A fact is still a fact whether you've accepted it or not. Callaway helped load the body and THEN, as the ambulance pulled away, got on the radio to report the incident. Just a simple act of helping load the body into the ambulance, no "coffee break" required. Like I said before, I don't expect you to know these things. No biggie.
You guys are incorrect. Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance before he got on the patrol car radio. The order of events on the police tapes tell you this.
Wow.
All of that yada yada yada and you still don't know what you're talking about.
By the time Callaway testified in 1964, he was slightly off in the order of events, regarding loading the body into the ambulance and reporting the shooting to the police dispatcher.
All you really have to do is study the police tapes.
602 is the Kinsley/Butler ambulance. As they pulled away from the scene with Tippit's body, they made an attempt to get hold of the police dispatcher to notify the dispatcher that they were en route to Methodist Hospital.
Murray Jackson (the dispatcher) didn't hear their attempt because at the same time, Callaway (after helping load the body into the ambulance) then went over to the patrol car radio, grabbed the mic and reported: "Hello, Hello, Hello. This police officer's just shot. I think he's dead."
Callaway was told by the dispatcher that the police had the information and to remain off the air.
When Callaway (during his testimony) said "By this time, an ambulance was coming", he was correct. Another ambulance (605) had been dispatched to the scene but the first ambulance (602) had already left for Methodist with the body.
I wouldn't really expect you to know any of this because (besides the sad reality that you're only interested in scoring points) it requires some work and maybe more importantly, an understanding of the big picture after having read EVERYTHING (as opposed to just Callaway's testimony). But, you haven't read EVERYTHING, only what you feel works for you at the moment.
Get a clue.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/Dallas%20Police%20Department/Dallas%20Police%20Department%20Records/Volume%2004/Item%2001.pdf
Just reading through the 1964 Nash article " The Other Witnesses" in which it states:
"Butler radioed his arrival at the scene at 1:18 p.m., within 60 seconds of leaving the funeral home. He remembers that there were at least 10 people standing around the man lying on the ground. It was not until he and his assistant pulled back a blanket covering Tippit that they realized the victim was a policeman.
Butler ran back to his radio to inform headquarters. The radio was busy and he could not cut in. He yelled “Mayday” to no avail, and went back to Tippit."
This is surely a reference to the part on the tapes when 602 is trying to call in but is cut across by Callaway's call.
This appears to confirm that Callaway was in Tippit's car at the time the ambulance arrived, Butler discovers the victim is a police officer then tries to call in but Callaway is on the radio. It is after this Tippit is loaded into the ambulance.
Bill: How many shells/spent cartridge cases were found near/around Tippit's body or the police car?
If the shooter had a automatic I would think that that's where they would be located and/or found.
If you read [Bowles], read carefully. It doesn't mean what Martin would like you to believe.So, you weren't trying to spin anything at all when you tried to use Bowles' statements to claim that "[a]t best the time calls on the DPD recordings are the product of a very weak system" a few pages back?
That's weird, because I just quoted the man without giving an opinion and - unlike you - wasn't trying to spin it.
When you boil it down and winnow out the irrelevancies, the FUD, and the hypothetical worst-case scenarios, you have two statements by Bowles that sum up the situation:Didn't miss it at all. However, I'm missing where you showed Bowles actually stating that the dispatcher clocks were out of spec that afternoon. Or any other evidence that the clocks were off spec.
1.) "it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the 'official' time shown on the master clock" [note defensive use of litotes here, by the way]
2.) "When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments."
And here is me thinking he actually said;
"When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done."
You must have missed that last bit, right?
Lottie Thompson was the Methodist Hospital ER nurse whom Martin brings into the conversation from time to time. In the 70's, she told Earl Golz that the clock in the Methodist ER was 15 minutes behind on November 22.Like Davenport, Nurse Thompson was also in the Methodist ER that afternoon. Unlike Davenport, she was there every workday and had a much better perspective on the functioning of the Hospital's timekeeping machinery. Her bringing up the issue with Golz implies that she didn't believe that Tippt was wheeled in at 1:15 or just before.
First of all, I have never brought up Lottie Thompson and, secondly, Methodist Hospital only had one clock? Really?
Also, DPD officer Davenport (who, unlike Mr. Todd, was actually present at the hospital when all this happened) presented to the DPD identification bureau a button from Tippit's uniform and a bullet taken from his corpse at 1:30. So, if the nurse was correct, they took a bullet from Tippit's body when he was not even declared DOA. Really?
Anyway, Davenport wrote in his own hand on the form that Tippit had been declared DOA at 1:15. Go figure.... now why would he lie on day one?
Great question, Steve... And the answer is zero, of course.
So, you weren't trying to spin anything at all when you tried to use Bowles' statements to claim that "[a]t best the time calls on the DPD recordings are the product of a very weak system" a few pages back?
Didn't miss it at all. However, I'm missing where you showed Bowles actually stating that the dispatcher clocks were out of spec that afternoon. Or any other evidence that the clocks were off spec.
As I said (and you deleted it without responding to it), "You can claim Nov 22 was one of those exceptional days, but then you need to present evidence for it. Bowles himself was the supervisor of the dispatch center. Later, he spent a great deal of time pouring over the Dictabelt when he prepared the original channel one transcripts. And yet, he can't point to a single such exception."
Like Davenport, Nurse Thompson was also in the Methodist ER that afternoon. Unlike Davenport, she was there every workday and had a much better perspective on the functioning of the Hospital's timekeeping machinery. Her bringing up the issue with Golz implies that she didn't believe that Tippt was wheeled in at 1:15 or just before.
BTW, who claimed Davenport lied? I never did. But if he's basing time of DOA on a clock that's way off, then his report will be way off because of it. Or, if Davenport (who was a traffic cop and not a murder investigator) is told that Ligouri was going to declare Tippit DOA and put the time of death at 1:15, and misunderstands the difference between time of death and time declared dead, he's still going to honestly wrong.
You need to go back a few posts to see my examination of the DPD tapes and how they demonstrate the ambulance arriving at the murder scene before Callaway makes his call.On McAdams DPD tapes pages, you can download a sections of the channel one recording, though it's in Real Audio format. One of those sections covers the period in question. If you listen, you'll notice that the transmission corresponding to the second (after 1:19) "602 code 6" in the transcript doesn't really sound like what is in the transcript. Specifically, the "6" in "code 6" doesn't sounds like someone saying "6". I'll let you decide for yourself, it to me it sounds like someone else tried to break onto the channel and rendered the end of whatever 602 was trying to say unintelligable.
On McAdams DPD tapes pages, you can download a sections of the channel one recording, though it's in Real Audio format. One of those sections covers the period in question. If you listen, you'll notice that the transmission corresponding to the second (after 1:19) "602 code 6" in the transcript doesn't really sound like what is in the transcript. Specifically, the "6" in "code 6" doesn't sounds like someone saying "6". I'll let you decide for yourself, it to me it sounds like someone else tried to break onto the channel and rendered the end of whatever 602 was trying to say unintelligable.
I'm not sure what point you are actually trying to make but earlier in this thread we had the discussion about the ambulance (602) calls. Dan and I believe that the ambulance arrived just as Callaway was making his call. The 602 calls just prior and during Callaway's radio call were not the ambulance leaving but the ambulance driver trying to call in that it was a police officer who had been shot. It is all explained in reply #2220 at the top of this page.I was replying to a comment made by Dan in response to what I originally wrote in reply #2183. That's where I explained to him how Callaway's testimony excludes the ambulance arriving before Callaway picked up the microphone. You're way behind me at #2220.
I was replying to a comment made by Dan in response to what I originally wrote in reply #2183. That's where I explained to him how Callaway's testimony excludes the ambulance arriving before Callaway picked up the microphone. You're way behind me at #2220.
On McAdams DPD tapes pages, you can download a sections of the channel one recording, though it's in Real Audio format. One of those sections covers the period in question. If you listen, you'll notice that the transmission corresponding to the second (after 1:19) "602 code 6" in the transcript doesn't really sound like what is in the transcript. Specifically, the "6" in "code 6" doesn't sounds like someone saying "6". I'll let you decide for yourself, it to me it sounds like someone else tried to break onto the channel and rendered the end of whatever 602 was trying to say unintelligable.
Shortly after Bowley's call on Tippit's radio the Dispatcher puts out this call:
"Attention. Signal 19 [shooting], police officer, 510 E. Jefferson." (Even though Bowley gives 404 Tenth Street as the address of the shooting)
Ambulance 602 responds - "Code 5" [En Route]
Maybe one minute later 602 states - "Code 6" [Arrived] - Meaning the ambulance has reached the East Jefferson address.
Shortly after this 602 asks - "What was that address on Jefferson?" - presumably because there is no sign of anything wrong.
To which the Dispatcher responds - "501 East Tenth."
Shortly after this 602 states - "Code 6" [Arrived] - Meaning they have arrived at the scene of the Tippit shooting at 501 East Tenth Street
Shortly after this 602 tries to get the attention of the Dispatcher but the call is interrupted by Callaway's call.
If it were an automatic, you'd expect the empty cases to be flung to the right of the shooter. That is, to the east of Tippit's car. The cases that were recovered were well to the west.
This was the relevant part of the post in question:
On the tapes 602 responds to the address 510 E. Jefferson, state when they get there, ask what the address was (as, presumably, there's nothing going on), they are given the correct address (only a few seconds drive from where they are) and they announce they have arrived "Code 6" (whether you can make it out or not it is part of a sequence).
Butler reports that when he gets to the scene Tippit is lying in the street, covered by a blanket (or a coat). They pull it back to discover the victim is a policeman and Butler gets straight back on the radio to call this in. On the tapes, 602 is trying to call at the time of Callaway's call and don't seem to get through. Butler describes this precise sequence of events - arriving at the scene (calling in their arrival), finding the victim is a police officer, getting back on the radio to call "Mayday" but he can't get through and gives up (because Callaway is making his call). It is after this they load Tippit into the ambulance.
It is clear from the transcripts that, although 602 calls "Code 3" before the Callaway call there is not enough time for the ambulance to pull up, for Butler to check on Tippit and then make his aborted call and, then, for Tippit's body to be loaded into the ambulance before Callaway makes his call.
I believe this confirms the timeline Martin puts forward but I don't know what the big deal is as it has zero bearing on Oswald's guilt as far as the Tippit murder is concerned.
Absolutely. The shells were not from an automatic weapon. Thankfully, I haven't seen anyone recently argue in favor of that, however. They're learning, slowly.
I believe this confirms the timeline Martin puts forward but I don't know what the big deal is as it has zero bearing on Oswald's guilt as far as the Tippit murder is concerned.
Agreed to some extent, but point well taken. Why fight the obvious time line and defend the DPD radio recordings/transcripts if one is not preoccupied with the possibe consequences?
Consequences ?
Thumb1:
"...Oswald's guilt..." -- LOL
You seem to have little confidence in Mr. Wright:
I saw that man drive off in a grey coupe just as clear as I was born. I know what I saw The can say all they want about a fellow running away, but I can’t accept this because I saw a fellow get in a car and drive away.
If Tippit was killed at around 1:09 and Oswald was still at the rooming house at 1:03 there wouldn't have been enough time for him to get to 10th street on foot.
Right, I thought you were talking about personal consequences [my bad]
Agreed that it is unrealistic for Oswald to run 0.9 miles in 6 minutes to get there but there is no evidence, literally zero, that he left the rooming house at 1:03 PM
The only thing I can think you're basing that time on is the testimony of Earlene Roberts in which she says:
"Now, it must have been around 1 o'clock, or maybe a little after..."
This would seem to suggest a time around 1:03 PM taken in tandem with her observation that Oswald was in his room for "3 or 4 minutes".
However, when she qualifies why she believes it is "a little later" than 1 o'clock it is revealed she only has a vague grasp of what time it is:
" Now, it must have been around 1 o'clock, or maybe a little after, because it was after President Kennedy had been shot-what time I wouldn't want to say..."
She believes it's 1:00 PM because it's after JFK was shot!
Not because she saw it on a watch or a clock or heard it on the TV.
She actually says "what time I wouldn't want to say".
She is clearly guessing at the time and using the shooting of JFK to gauge this estimation.
To stick a specific time on this is unrealistic (IMO)
The best we can hope to do is give it a realistic range of times for when Oswald leaves the house.
It's not a question of undermining the reliability of Roberts' testimony, it's just accepting that she reveals her uncertainty regarding the time in what she says. Her uncertainty regarding his shirt is also revealed.
Conversely, she is absolutely certain about a couple of aspects of this interaction:
1) That Oswald was in a big hurry
2) That he was wearing a zip-up jacket when he left the house
As far as I'm concerned, a reasonable interpretation of Roberts' testimony reveals these two things.
A reasonable interpretation of her testimony does not allow to put a specific time on when Oswald left the rooming house.
The only thing I can think you're basing that time on is the testimony of Earlene Roberts in which she says:
Now, it must have been around 1 o'clock, or maybe a little after..."
Indeed, but it needs to be placed in context. She said that she was trying to get the television to work so she could watch the 1 PM news to find out more about Kennedy.
Also, the evidence presented by the WC about Oswald's journey from the TSBD to the rooming house does not leave much room for him to have arrived prior to 1 PM.
And you also need to take in account that the fastest way on foot from the rooming house to 10th street takes 11 minutes, according to a split time trial Gary Mack did some years ago. Personally I'm not convinced of that time, because I am a fast walker and when I walked the distance it took me 12,5 minutes.
If Tippit was shot at 1:09, then Oswald must have been there at least a minute earlier, which means 1:08. Obviously that would mean that he left the rooming house at around 12:56 which, IMO, is impossible.
The only thing I can think you're basing that time on is the testimony of Earlene Roberts in which she says:
Now, it must have been around 1 o'clock, or maybe a little after..."
Indeed, but it needs to be placed in context. She said that she was trying to get the television to work so she could watch the 1 PM news to find out more about Kennedy.
Also, the evidence presented by the WC about Oswald's journey from the TSBD to the rooming house does not leave much room for him to have arrived prior to 1 PM.
And you also need to take in account that the fastest way on foot from the rooming house to 10th street takes 11 minutes, according to a split time trial Gary Mack did some years ago. Personally I'm not convinced of that time, because I am a fast walker and when I walked the distance it took me 12,5 minutes.
If Tippit was shot at 1:09, then Oswald must have been there at least a minute earlier, which means 1:08. Obviously that would mean that he left the rooming house at around 12:56 which, IMO, is impossible.
The timeline is relevant only if there is any actual doubt that Oswald was at the Tippit scene when he was murdered. It alone doesn't create doubt if we otherwise have sufficient evidence that Oswald was there. That is like trying to convince someone holding a winning lottery ticket in their hand that the odds against them winning are so high that it couldn't happen. Once a thing happens, the odds against it happening, no matter how improbable, are no longer relevant. However short you think that timeframe is for Oswald to get to the scene, the evidence confirms he was there. Multiple witnesses, the pistol, the ammo link Oswald to the crime. There is no doubt Oswald was there even if you falsely believe he had to strap a jet engine to back to arrive in time. Endless pedantic nitpicking and subjective bias in a desperate attempt to create doubt doesn't change the evidence of Oswald's guilt.
Impossible??
If the shooting happens at exactly 1:09 PM
And If Oswald arrives exactly one minute beforehand at 1:08 PM
And if Mack's time of 11 minutes is correct.
This has Oswald leaving the house at 12:57 PM.
Is that also impossible?
What if the shooting happens at 1:09.30 PM
What if Bowley's watch reads 1: 10.30 PM
And what if Oswald only needs to be there 30 seconds beforehand, at 1:09 PM
This has Oswald leaving the house at 12:58 PM.
Is that impossible?
"Indeed, but it needs to be placed in context. She said that she was trying to get the television to work so she could watch the 1 PM news to find out more about Kennedy."
I'm not familiar with this statement bit it doesn't seem to exclude the possibility that she was trying to get it to work before the 1:00 PM news.
"Also, the evidence presented by the WC about Oswald's journey from the TSBD to the rooming house does not leave much room for him to have arrived prior to 1 PM."
But it does leave some time. How much time does it leave - 2 minutes, 3 minutes, 4 minutes. 5 minutes? What is the exact time Oswald gets in the taxi? What is the exact amount of time taken for the taxi ride? How quickly does Oswald move to cover the distance back to the rooming house from where the taxi drops him off? How long is he in his room?
These things can't be known with exact precision, hence the need for a range of times.
I most certainly do not accept that it is "impossible" for Oswald to be around 10th and Patton for the timeline you are presenting.
The timeline is relevant only if there is any actual doubt that Oswald was at the Tippit scene when he was murdered. It alone doesn't create doubt if we otherwise have sufficient evidence that Oswald was there. That is like trying to convince someone holding a winning lottery ticket in their hand that the odds against them winning are so high that it couldn't happen. Once a thing happens, the odds against it happening, no matter how improbable, are no longer relevant. However short you think that timeframe is for Oswald to get to the scene, the evidence confirms he was there. Multiple witnesses, the pistol, the ammo link Oswald to the crime. There is no doubt Oswald was there even if you falsely believe he had to strap a jet engine to back to arrive in time. Endless pedantic nitpicking and subjective bias in a desperate attempt to create doubt doesn't change the evidence of Oswald's guilt.
The LN timeline is that Oswald walked at a brisk pace from his rooming house to the Tippit site in about 11 minutes. However if he ran, which is very possible through the quiet back streets of Oak Cliff, then Oswald could have got to the site in plenty time to shoot Tippit.
CTers can't prove LHO didn't run to the Tippit site. LNers only have to create a case that it is possible that he ran there. They don't have to PROVE he ran there.
They're learning, slowly.The
Get off your high horse! The truck carrying your ego is delayed!
However short you think that timeframe is for Oswald to get to the scene, the evidence confirms he was there. Multiple witnesses, the pistol, the ammo link Oswald to the crime.
You are free to believe whatever you want even if your subjective bias blinds you from the real problems with the evidence.
The only "problem" here is that you cannot discern the difference between information and knowledge. The evidence links Oswald to the Tippit killing beyond any reasonable doubt. That implicitly means he had time to reach the Tippit scene even if we cannot reconstruct the timeline almost 60 years later with pedantic scientific precision. There can't be doubt about Oswald's ability to reach the scene if the evidence is conclusive that he was there. No matter how much you beat it to death in a desperate attempt to create false doubt. The thing speaks for itself.
I most certainly do not accept that it is "impossible" for Oswald to be around 10th and Patton for the timeline you are presenting.
I did not say that it was impossible for him to be there. I said it was impossible for him to get there on time on foot. There is a difference.
This has Oswald leaving the house at 12:57 PM.
Is that also impossible?
This has Oswald leaving the house at 12:58 PM.
Is that impossible?
Yes on both counts IMO
And what if Oswald only needs to be there 30 seconds beforehand, at 1:09 PM
merely 30 seconds?
Markham said she watched him crossing Patton and walking to the location of the shooting. That distance alone (from Patton to where Tippit stopped him) took - according to a video posted by Bill Brown - around 30 seconds to walk. Remember Benavides who waited in his truck for an estimated 45 seconds until the killer disappeared on Patton?
And then there was the interaction with Tippit, before Tippit got out of the car and was shot. How long do you think that took?
These things can't be known with exact precision, hence the need for a range of times.
I agree. That's why I prefer my own timing of the walk which was 12,5 minutes. If Oswald was on 10th street at 1:08 (which computes with Markham's arrival, after walking one block), then he must have left the rooming house at 12:56 at the latest. I don't believe that happened.
The evidence links Oswald to the Tippit killing beyond any reasonable doubt.
If you say so.... oh wait, you don't really think I am just going to take your word for it, do you?
There can't be doubt about Oswald's ability to reach the scene if the evidence is conclusive that he was there.
There can't be any doubt that you actually believe that the evidence is conclusive, that's for sure.
Just too bad that you fail time after time in presenting that "conclusive" evidence and in turn constantly present assumptions and speculation.
Agreed, I was assuming he made it on foot but didn't specify.
How is it "impossible" that Oswald left the house at 12:58 PM
This seems like quite an extreme statement (IMO)
You must have a really good, solid reason for believing it's "impossible", particularly when you have no idea of the speed Oswald was moving. Roberts gives the distinct impression he was in a big hurry - "all but running".
According to Google Maps the distance between Oswald's rooming house and 10th and Patton is 0.8 miles.
At the not impossible speed of 6mph this distance can be covered in 8 minutes
At 5mph it can be covered in less than 10 minutes.
These are not impossible parameters
Fair enough.
One minute seems a more reasonable estimate.
That's not a range of possibilities.
That's just you deciding what it is.
It has nothing to do with me or your pedantic efforts to create fake doubt. The witnesses who were there confirmed that Oswald was present at the time and place of Tippit's murder. That is confirmed by Oswald's possession of the murder weapon and identical two brands of ammo that were used to murder Tippit. Compounded with evidence of Oswald's flight from the scene of the JFK assassination and resisting arrest. There is no reasonable basis to conclude from the evidence that there is any doubt that Oswald murdered Tippit. All your nitpicking and attempts to shoehorn your subjective bias into a timeline that suits you desired narrative is not relevant to Oswald's guilt. He was there, thus we know that he had the time to reach that point even if it is not possible to precisely know his every movement down to the minute.
You've just been destroyed claiming Oswald owned the rifle found on the 6th floor.
You've been posting this nonsense for a decade, approximately, making a fool of yourself.
"evidence" -- ROFL
Is "pedantic" your word of the week, or is it perhaps that you figure it makes you look smart to use words like that?
There is no reasonable basis to conclude from the evidence that there is any doubt that Oswald murdered Tippit.
So you keep telling me, but when it comes to discussing the evidence you get all defensive or simply refuse to do so. Why is that?
He was there, thus we know that he had the time to reach that point even if it is not possible to precisely know his every movement down to the minute.
It's a hell of an argument to make to a jury; "Members of the jury, it doesn't matter that the defendant couldn't have been at that location at that time is not important. What is important is that Inspector Clouseau says he was there. :D
I do have a reason and will leave it up to you to decide if it is a good one or not.
At 5.03 minutes in this timeline special Roberts tells us Oswald entered the rooming house after 1 PM
If you believe her about seeing Oswald leaving zipping up a jacket, then why do you doubt her when she says this?
This is the reason I believe she was certain about Oswald wearing a zip-up jacket as he left the house.
Mrs. ROBERTS. He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?
Mr. BALL. Yes---it has a zipper down the front.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe it was.
Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Mr. BALL. He was zipping it up as he went out the door?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.
Mr. 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.
"...All I remember-he was zipping up a coat and I was trying to find out about President Kennedy..."
Mr. BALL. And when he was zipping up his jacket, his belt was covered?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Was it covered---well--- I don't know. I just couldn't answer you---I don't know---I don't remember it. I couldn't any more tell you than the man in the moon whether or not the man's belt was covered or uncovered. All I know he was zipping his coat.
Roberts is absolutely certain Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he left. She could not be any clearer. There is no room for doubt. Anyone questioning the certainty of this testimony on this specific aspect, cannot be taking the testimony as a whole seriously.
This is the reason I doubt the accuracy of Roberts' time estimate:
Mrs. ROBERTS. Now, it must have been around 1 o'clock, or maybe a little after, because it was after President Kennedy had been shot-what time I wouldn't want to say because
The reason given for the time estimate is "because it was after President Kennedy was shot". This is simply not good enough. I cannot accept this as an accurate estimation of the time. She even states "what time I wouldn't want to say", indicating her vagueness about the time in question.
So I hoped for something a bit more solid in the video you posted:
"It must have been after one o'clock because...he come in, and you know how (unintelligible)...I tried to clear it up and he come in..."
I have listened over and over again to the unintelligible part, maybe someone can help out. I can hear the word "blink" and that's about it. Judging from the phrase "I tried to clear it up", the best sense I can make so far of what Roberts is saying seems to be that it must be after one o'clock because she was trying to fix the TV!
There is nothing to verify Roberts time assessment so far. At the moment, it appears to me, she is just guessing.
In stark contrast to her testimony regarding Oswald's zip-up jacket.
If the shoe fits:
Pedantic - a word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter.
This from the guy who constantly complains about "strawman." I have not argued that it "doesn't matter that the defendant couldn't have been at that location at that time." To the contrary, what I have argued is that the evidence is conclusive that Oswald was at that location at the relevant time. Numerous witnesses and the evidence confirm that conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt. What you have been going on and and on about here for weeks in long rambling posts is ignoring that evidence and suggesting that a timeline that is vague and incomplete somehow creates doubt of a confirmed fact. It doesn't. It can't. Because Oswald's presence is confirmed at the Tippit scene, at best (even accepting your dubious subjective claims as true) all your pedantic nitpicking about an ambiguous timeline can do is indicate that perhaps he didn't walk there. Maybe he ran, maybe someone gave him a ride, maybe he found a jet pack and flew there like Superman. However he did it doesn't matter except as a matter of some minor historical interest to fill in all the details on the movements of an assassin. He was there because the evidence confirms that as a fact. Thus we know that he had sufficient time to be there.
The shells at the Tippit scene were matched to the revolver Oswald had in his possession when he was arrested. That would be enough to convict anyone.
the revolver Oswald had in his possession when he was arrested
Which revolver would that be, Gerry?
The national archives -- LOL
First it had to be admitted into evidence by the judge.
You're going down faster than I expected.
The one currently at the national archives. If you dispute it was found on him, then you are going down the road of saying any evidence you don't like was planted. If you tried that as a lawyer in court, the judge would just ignore you.
You have a weird concept of how courts of law operate. If you start claiming all the evidence against you is planted, you are going to jail.
If the shoe fits:
Pedantic - a word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter.
This from the guy who constantly complains about "strawman." I have not argued that it "doesn't matter that the defendant couldn't have been at that location at that time." To the contrary, what I have argued is that the evidence is conclusive that Oswald was at that location at the relevant time. Numerous witnesses and the evidence confirm that conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt. What you have been going on and and on about here for weeks in long rambling posts is ignoring that evidence and suggesting that a timeline that is vague and incomplete somehow creates doubt of a confirmed fact. It doesn't. It can't. Because Oswald's presence is confirmed at the Tippit scene, at best (even accepting your dubious subjective claims as true) all your pedantic nitpicking about an ambiguous timeline can do is indicate that perhaps he didn't walk there. Maybe he ran, maybe someone gave him a ride, maybe he found a jet pack and flew there like Superman. However he did it doesn't matter except as a matter of some minor historical interest to fill in all the details on the movements of an assassin. He was there because the evidence confirms that as a fact. Thus we know that he had sufficient time to be there.
Mr. BELIN. Did you ever later go up and view the officer?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes. I went up there, but by the time I got up there the ambulance had already got there. You see I got my dispatcher and was telling him about it, just by that time the ambulance got there.
-snip-
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether or not your dispatcher recorded any time on his sheets as to the time you called in after the Tippit shooting?
Mr. SCOGGINS. When I was down there giving my statement to my supervisor, he asked me what time it was, and I said I don't have any idea, so he picked up the phone and called the dispatcher, and he said it was 1:23.
Mr. BELIN. That is the time that he recorded it?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes. He must have recorded it up there because he said it was 1:23 in the afternoon.
Mr. BELIN. When you called in after the shooting?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes.
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Mrs. Virginia Davis, w/m/16 [sic], of 400 E. 10th WH-3-8120 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
"Today November 22, 1963 about 1:30 pm my sister-in-law and myself were lying down in our apartment. My sister-in-law is Jeanette Davis, we live in the same house in different apartments. We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side door at Patton Street."
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JONNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas.
ROBERT BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was employed as a mechanic at Roger Ballew Texaco Service Station, 600 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. He advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, November 22, 1963, a young white man passed him, BROCK and his wife, and proceeded north past the Texaco Service Station into the parking lot, at which time the individual disappeared.
JohnM
Who said I would?
First it must be accepted as evidence.
Stop making a fool of yourself.
It was accepted as evidence by a judge - Earl Warren.
Is that the same Earl Warren who didn't want the job and was pressured into it by Johnson?
Btw was Earl Warren acting as a judge in a proper trial setting? Just wondering...
The Police Officers who were confronted with the murdering Oswald.
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When you saw Oswald's hand by his belt, which hand did you see then?
Mr. WALKER. He had ahold of the handle of it.
Mr. BELIN. Handle of what?
Mr. WALKER. The revolver.
Mr. BELIN. Was there a revolver there?
Mr. WALKER. Yes; there was.
Mr. HUTSON. McDonald was at this time simultaneously trying to hold this person's right hand. Somehow this person moved his right hand to his waist, and I saw a revolver come out, and McDonald was holding on to it with his right hand, and this gun was waving up toward the back of the seat like this.
Oswald even admitted carrying his revolver.
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/VNMqSczb/ce-135-Oswald-revolver-coupon.jpg)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, did you compare Commission Exhibit No. 135 with the standard or known writings of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion as to the origin of 135?
Mr. CADIGAN. That it was written by Lee Harvey Oswald.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-o9XklceDIsA/WVgZlYVWy1I/AAAAAAABMJo/3ChJU7AUBRwrkuky-FZ6YkRxDiJ_eIWZgCLcBGAs/s1600/Michaelis-Exhibit-2.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/SR5R7JrQ/Oswald-po-box-2915.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/7hJSS8kz/Seaport-060120-Fig12.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Tw4ry2ZG/Seaport-060120-Fig11-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zBBCXH20/Seaport-060120-Fig10.jpg)
JohnM
That's the Earl Warren.
At the Garrison trial, Garrison never attempted to question the validity of the rifle and revolver as evidence. So why would you?
Simple question; how often in your lifetime have you heard a story where one individual did some other individual a favor by buying or ordering a weapon because the person who wanted it couldn't buy one himself?
Or is it your contention that we live in a perfect world where these kind of things don't happen?
You must live in a bad neighborhood because I have never heard of this happening.
Lucky you... shielded from reality must be a nice way to grow up.
You should get out of your neighbourhood. Go to the nearest bus stop and keep going until you can't hear the gunshots going off anymore.
Why don't you stop assuming stuff you know absolutely nothing about?
Every bad neighborhood has a bus stop. Its peoples own fault if they don't get on the bus and leave.
And what makes you think I ever needed a bus or a bus stop?
Your comment about knowing people who bought weapons for other people. That's weird stuff. That stuff doesn't go on in normal neighborhoods.
Pray tell, what is a normal neighborhood and who has been talking about neighborhoods in the first place?
This whole thing tells me more about you than it will ever tell you about me.
You clearly have no idea what goes on outside your shielded environment.
You can post all the gifs you want, it doesn't change the facts.
Sorry to burst your bubble Marty, but the gifs are the facts. Doh!
Oswald filled out a coupon requesting the revolver, so obviously it didn't come from Fort Worth.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FRZzBhyc/CE790.jpg)
The revolver in evidence shares the same serial number that was sent to Oswald.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-o9XklceDIsA/WVgZlYVWy1I/AAAAAAABMJo/3ChJU7AUBRwrkuky-FZ6YkRxDiJ_eIWZgCLcBGAs/s1600/Michaelis-Exhibit-2.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/3rsVc2wX/oswald-in-backyard-with-revolver.jpg)
JohnM
I keep bad people out of my environment. Bad people are what drag you down (if you're lucky) and get you in prison (if you're unlucky).
Roberts is absolutely certain Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he left. She could not be any clearer. There is no room for doubt. Anyone questioning the certainty of this testimony on this specific aspect, cannot be taking the testimony as a whole seriously.
Now, that's just you deciding what it is.
The fact remains that it's just one person saying the same thing over and over again.
I have listened over and over again to the unintelligible part, maybe someone can help out. I can hear the word "blink" and that's about it. Judging from the phrase "I tried to clear it up", the best sense I can make so far of what Roberts is saying seems to be that it must be after one o'clock because she was trying to fix the TV!
Roberts wanted to watch the 1 PM news. Let me put it to you that she had the television on prior to 1 PM but only had sound and a very blurred picture. I recall her saying that somewhere. Now obviously (IMO) as soon as the news came on she also wanted to see pictures, don't you think? So, that's what she meant by saying "I tried to clear it up". That is my reason for accepting the 1 PM entry time as reasonable.
There is nothing to verify Roberts time assessment so far. At the moment, it appears to me, she is just guessing.
There is also nothing that speaks against her being right when she says 1 PM, so I wonder what motivates you to question her on that and on not on other things.
In stark contrast to her testimony regarding Oswald's zip-up jacket.
Her testimony about the jacket is, just like her 1 PM comment, a single statement, for which there is no corroboration, but in this case there is evidence that speaks against it. It's not conclusive, I'll gladly conceed that, but it is contrary evidence nevertheless.
I'm finding it somewhat difficult to understand why you would so readily dismiss or disbelieve the time estimate of 1 PM, yet go out of your way to question Frazier's testimony about the jacket to such an extent that you contrive a story about Oswald leaving the TSBD wearing a jacket.
The only way for me to perhaps understand it is by looking to the common denominator which seems to be that in both cases Oswald is kept in play as Tippit's killer. Or am I missing something?
I sense a disturbance in the force coming from a silly Canadian desperately begging for attention. :D
"Roberts wanted to watch the 1 PM news."
Where are you getting this information from?
In the video you posted Roberts said she was watching a program called "As The World Turns" which ran from 12:30 to 1:00 PM
She said that after a few minutes into her program a news bulletin came on announcing the shooting. The bulletin was at 12:40 PM.
I assume after the bulletin it returned to the program but Roberts wanted to find out more which, I assume, is when she started trying to find a channel with the news on.
It seems from around 12:41 PM (or after the bulletin ended) Roberts is trying to find a channel with the news about the shooting on.
I am sure you can provide the evidence that Oswald actually received the revolver...?
"The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol."
Does this thing fire AUTO shells?
Jerry must've been mighty surprised!
You have a chain of evidence on those shells?
"Roberts wanted to watch the 1 PM news."
Where are you getting this information from?
In the video you posted Roberts said she was watching a program called "As The World Turns" which ran from 12:30 to 1:00 PM
She said that after a few minutes into her program a news bulletin came on announcing the shooting. The bulletin was at 12:40 PM.
I assume after the bulletin it returned to the program but Roberts wanted to find out more which, I assume, is when she started trying to find a channel with the news on.
It seems from around 12:41 PM (or after the bulletin ended) Roberts is trying to find a channel with the news about the shooting on.
..a real investigator(me) maintains their neutrality and will thoroughly examine the clues whereas a novice such as yourself ....(https://ruadventures.com/forum/Smileys/animated/biglaugh.gif)
You've made this claim a couple of times (#2241) as the basis for your insistence the it was "impossible" for Oswald to have left the rooming house before one o'clock:Her testimony I would imagine----
"Indeed, but it needs to be placed in context. She said that she was trying to get the television to work so she could watch the 1 PM news to find out more about Kennedy."
Can you tell me where you're getting this information from?
Mr. BALL. And about what time was this?She 'had a friend' OK who was this friend and how did this friend contact her?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in
Mr. BALL. Can you tell me what time it was approximately that Oswald came in?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Now, it must have been around 1 o'clock, or maybe a little after, because it was after President Kennedy had been shot-what time I wouldn't want to say because
Mr. BALL.. How long did he stay in the room ?
Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes
Her testimony I would imagine----
She 'had a friend' OK who was this friend and how did this friend contact her?
Sorry to burst your bubble Marty, but the gifs are the facts. Doh!
Oswald filled out a coupon requesting the revolver, so obviously it didn't come from Fort Worth.
The revolver in evidence shares the same serial number of the revolver that was sent to Oswald.
JohnM
"Roberts wanted to watch the 1 PM news."
Where are you getting this information from?
In the video you posted Roberts said she was watching a program called "As The World Turns" which ran from 12:30 to 1:00 PM
She said that after a few minutes into her program a news bulletin came on announcing the shooting. The bulletin was at 12:40 PM.
I assume after the bulletin it returned to the program but Roberts wanted to find out more which, I assume, is when she started trying to find a channel with the news on.
It seems from around 12:41 PM (or after the bulletin ended) Roberts is trying to find a channel with the news about the shooting on.
Bumped for Martin.
You've made this claim a couple of times (#2241) as the basis for your insistence that it was "impossible" for Oswald to have left the rooming house before one o'clock:
"Indeed, but it needs to be placed in context. She said that she was trying to get the television to work so she could watch the 1 PM news to find out more about Kennedy."
Can you tell me where you're getting this information from?
Huh? wake up Marty the evidence is that Oswald was arrested with the same revolver with the same serial number that was sent to him, and it's up to you to provide contrary evidence and so far you are failing miserably.
(https://i.postimg.cc/br770tZR/Oswald-revolver.jpg)
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-o9XklceDIsA/WVgZlYVWy1I/AAAAAAABMJo/3ChJU7AUBRwrkuky-FZ6YkRxDiJ_eIWZgCLcBGAs/s1600/Michaelis-Exhibit-2.jpg)
JohnM
Facts do not count as insults.
You blindly did a WC copy-paste job and was immediately destroyed, then ran for the hills -- FACT
Just let me know if you want your a$$ kicked one more time.
If you say so :D
I am sure you can provide the evidence that Oswald actually received the revolver and that he paid the balance due, right?
Where are you getting this information from?
From Roberts herself.
I assume after the bulletin it returned to the program
Indeed.
but Roberts wanted to find out more which, I assume, is when she started trying to find a channel with the news on.
It seems from around 12:41 PM (or after the bulletin ended) Roberts is trying to find a channel with the news about the shooting on.
It's highly likely that Roberts was curious but just how many channels were there in 1963? Instant reporting as we know it today didn't happen back then. Reporters were phoning in their reports and film material needed to be developed and edited.
As the regular news came on at 1 PM she probably just waited for that.
Were you so desperate for my reply that you bumped your post? Wow
Can you tell me where you're getting this information from?
Well, Roberts said that "As the world turns" ran from 12:30 to 1:00 PM. Back in those days there were not many stations and there was no such thing as instant news.
So, she most likely just waited for the news to come on at 1 PM. But then she had some problems with the picture;
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, "Oh, you are in a hurry." He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes.
This is crucial because in the video I posted, at around 5.39, she says; "when he went out, he went out walking fast the same way, I was still listening to them broadcasting about President Kennedy"
Now, unless you can show me a channel that had news about Kennedy on (except the flash message at 12:40) prior to 1 PM it is fair to conclude that Roberts was listening to the 1 PM news as Oswald left the house.
This is the Alamo position of the contrarian. When all else fails and the evidence proves some point they don't want to accept, we learn it "might" be planted. The old impossible standard of proof argument. There is no valid basis to discuss the case or evidence if at the end of the day it can be dismissed upon no basis whatsoever by contending the evidence "might" or "possibly" be planted. That is not even allowed in a criminal trial context. There must be at least some basis to argue the evidence is planted. Not just that it could have happened. This is called the point of impasse with the likes of Martin/Roger who tells us over and over he is no CTer and has no agenda. He just ignores all evidence of Oswald's guilt and makes arguments like this one.
When you stated the following...
"She [Mrs Roberts] said that she was trying to get the television to work so she could watch the 1 PM news to find out more about Kennedy."
...I was concerned you were inventing witness testimony to support your entrenched position and this, indeed, appears to be the case.
When I asked you where you were getting this information from you replied "From Roberts herself", but this is not true. Nowhere, except in your imagination, does Roberts say she was trying to watch the 1 PM news.
Rather than admit to this blatant fabrication you come up with some bizarre assumptionfest concluding with the assumption that there was no TV channel showing in the Dallas area that was covering the assassination between 12:41 and 1 PM
I was alerted by your incredible refusal to reject Roberts' emphatic testimony that Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he left the rooming house but your willingness to accept her vague and confused guess at the timing of Oswald's hurried entrance - because it was after JFK was shot!!
This is only outdone by your refusal of Frazier's equally emphatic identification of the light grey jacket Oswald wore to work that morning. The same jacket he was wearing when Frazier dropped him off!
However, refusing to accept such emphatic witness testimony is one thing - creating new witness testimony is quite another.
No it's asking for evidence. I can't help it if that's a foreign concept to you.
This is the Alamo position of the contrarian. When all else fails and the evidence proves some point they don't want to accept, we learn it "might" be planted. The old impossible standard of proof argument. There is no valid basis to discuss the case or evidence if at the end of the day it can be dismissed upon no basis whatsoever by contending the evidence "might" or "possibly" be planted. That is not even allowed in a criminal trial context. There must be at least some basis to argue the evidence is planted. Not just that it could have happened. This is called the point of impasse with the likes of Martin/Roger who tells us over and over he is no CTer and has no agenda. He just ignores all evidence of Oswald's guilt and makes arguments like this one.
"She [Mrs Roberts] said that she was trying to get the television to work so she could watch the 1 PM news to find out more about Kennedy."
Did she use those exact words? No, but what she said is not misrepresented by what I wrote.
...I was concerned you were inventing witness testimony to support your entrenched position and this, indeed, appears to be the case.
When I asked you where you were getting this information from you replied "From Roberts herself", but this is not true. Nowhere, except in your imagination, does Roberts say she was trying to watch the 1 PM news.
Oh goody, we're playing word games again....
Rather than admit to this blatant fabrication you come up with some bizarre assumptionfest concluding with the assumption that there was no TV channel showing in the Dallas area that was covering the assassination between 12:41 and 1 PM
It's a far better assumption than to assume that Roberts was searching for a channel with news about Kennedy after 12:41. You seem to conveniently forget that a friend told her to put the TV on.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in
Now, why would a friend have to tell her that if she was already searching for a station with news about Kennedy. It seems that you are the one making up your own reality.
But let me guess, you could not find a single station that was broadcasting news about Kennedy before 1 PM, right? So, instead you decide to attack me? Great stuff.....
In a previous post you wrote;
It seems from around 12:41 PM (or after the bulletin ended) Roberts is trying to find a channel with the news about the shooting on.
How does this "seem" to be? Did Roberts say anything that indicated that or is it just a figment of your imagination?
I was alerted by your incredible refusal to reject Roberts' emphatic testimony that Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he left the rooming house
Now, who is making stuff up? I never refused to reject (or accept for that matter) Robert's testimony about the jacket. I merely stated that the evidence about the grey jacket CE 162 was ambivalent. It was you who then started to concoct a extremely dubious story about Oswald leaving the TSBD wearing a jacket, which completely ignored that Bledsoe couldn't have seen the hole in the sleeve of his shirt, if he was wearing a jacket, as well as Roberts herself saying he entered the house wearing a shirt and not a jacket. Go figure!
This is only outdone by your refusal of Frazier's equally emphatic identification of the light grey jacket Oswald wore to work that morning.
Pray tell... where can I find Frazier's "emphatic identification of the light grey jacket Oswald wore to work that morning"
The same jacket he was wearing when Frazier dropped him off!
Did Frazier actually say that or are you just making it up?
Your truth seeking didn't take very long, did it now?
She never said anything like this.
You haven't misrepresented what she said, you've invented it!
That you can defend such an action speaks volumes about your "truth-seeking" credentials.
It appears you will do literally anything to bolster your intensely flawed outlook on the Tippit murder.
Where does this leave rational, reasoned debate?
:D You invent testimony, put it in the mouth of a witness then complain about "word games". Priceless.
This speaks of the amount of work you've put into this.
WFAA, Dallas local news, was broadcasting about the assassination long before 1PM.
Here, I've done the work for you (it took 10 seconds):
The word "seems" indicates speculation or assumption on my behalf. It's an honest thing to do rather than present assumption as fact.
The speculation is based on the video you posted in which Roberts reports seeing the bulletin and her testimony regarding trying to find out more information on another channel. It "seemed" unlikely she would just settle back into her program after the bulletin.
"Now, who is making stuff up?"
Is this a tacit admission of your own behaviour? 8)
Roberts testimony about Oswald leaving the house zipping up a jacket is emphatic and unequivocal, there is nothing ambivalent about it.
Speculation - as the dark blue jacket is in the TSBD and Oswald only has two jackets it is safe to assume which jacket he was zipping up as he left the rooming house.
I thought you were familiar with Frazier's testimony?
My "truth-seeking" credentials are established.
What about yours?
The word "seems" indicates speculation or assumption on my behalf. It's an honest thing to do rather than present assumption as fact. The speculation is based on the video you posted in which Roberts reports seeing the bulletin and her testimony regarding trying to find out more information on another channel. It "seemed" unlikely she would just settle back into her program after the bulletin.
Roberts testimony about Oswald leaving the house zipping up a jacket is emphatic and unequivocal, there is nothing ambivalent about it.
Speculation - as the dark blue jacket is in the TSBD and Oswald only has two jackets it is safe to assume which jacket he was zipping up as he left the rooming house.
An entire post attacking me in a pathetic way and ignoring just about every point I have raised. Oh yes, you are really trying to have a "rational, reasoned debate".
Why would you even speculate, when she told you when Oswald came in. Anyway you were wrong and the video I just posted in my previous post proves it. Just in case you missed it or just ignored it, here it is again.
It's a far better assumption than to assume that Roberts was searching for a channel with news about Kennedy after 12:41. You seem to conveniently forget that she got a telephone call from a friend who told her Kennedy had been killed and to put the TV on. Kennedy wasn't declared dead until 1 PM!
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in
Now, why would a friend have to tell her that, and why would she have to turn on the television, if she was already searching for a station with news about Kennedy? It seems that you are the one making up your own reality.
You claimed as fact that Oswald left the TSBD wearing a jacket and that Roberts was wrong ("mistaken" is the correct LN term, I believe) when she said he entered the house wearing only a shirt. As this concocted story only matched (in a contrived way) some of the known evidence it most certainly did not match all the known evidence. It was a pathetic story to "explain" how the grey jacket could have been in the rooming house on Friday afternoon and it doesn't pass the smell test.
I thought you were familiar with Frazier's testimony?
You claim that Frazier's emphatically identified the light grey jacket Oswald wore to work that morning. The same jacket he was wearing when Frazier dropped him off! That's not an assumption, it's an invented claim. So, I ask you where I can find Frazier making that identification and all you can come up with is this? Really?
All that tells me is that you can't show me where Frazier made that emphatic identification, because it doesn't exist!
My "truth-seeking" credentials are established.
What about yours?
I refer back to my comments about when Roberts switched the TV on, your made up story about Oswald leaving the TSBD wearing a jacket and Frazier alleged emphatic identification of the jacket. That tells us all we need to know about your "truth-seeking credentials".
I've been long resigned to the fact that on this forum difference of opinions goes hand in hand with insults and petty games being played. The only reason for me to hang around is that once in a while something is said in a discussion that I did not know. Our discussion about the Tippit time line was constructive and interesting, and then you fall back to this.... It's a shame, really!
Btw. you said;
It appears you will do literally anything to bolster your intensely flawed outlook on the Tippit murder.
That sounds like you have your mind made up about the Tippit murder (which would explain a few things) but please tell me what is my "intensely flawed outlook on the Tippit murder" because I haven't got a clue what you are on about.
What do you think (assume, perhaps) that my outlook on the Tippit murder is?
My post was criticising you for falsifying eye-witness testimony to support your argument and I was making the point that it is impossible to have a rational and reasoned debate with someone who is falsifying eye-witness testimony.
Rather than acknowledge your error you tried to defend it.
Now you would like to make yourself out to be the victim of an "attack".
In the above video you posted Roberts says she was watching "As The World Turns" when a bulletin about the shooting came on.
It can be assumed, if her testimony is correct, that this was the program that was on when she switched the TV on after her friend called. After the bulletin ended and went back to the original program it is not beyond the realms of possibility that this was the time Roberts started messing with the TV to get another channel with the news on.
No need for a call while she already had the TV on.
No need to invent anything.
"You claimed as fact that Oswald left the TSBD wearing a jacket"
This is a falsehood. Nowhere have I claimed that as a fact. I've put that forward as a theory that best fits the majority of eye-witness testimony.
"...it's an invented claim"
I'm not the one who invents things around here:
Mr. BALL - On Thursday afternoon when you went home, drove on home, did he carry any package with him?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't
Mr. BALL - Did he have a jacket or coat on him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What kind of a jacket or coat did he have?
Mr. FRAZIER - That, you know, like I say gray jacket.
Mr. BALL - That same gray jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Now, I can be frank with you, I had seen him wear that jacket several times, because it is cool type like when you keep a jacket on all day, if you are working on outside or something like that, you wouldn't go outside with just a plain shirt on.
Frazier is the key witness regarding what Oswald wore that morning.
Your ignorance of his testimony and your contempt for those who are familiar with it, is another reason why rational debate is almost impossible.
The only shame is on you.
You have just lost all credibility.
That Oswald didn't do it.
A closer analysis of Frazier's testimony regarding what Oswald was wearing that morning.
Frazier is shown the dark blue jacket (CE 163) that was found in the TSBD and is asked if he recognises it. For some reason Ball describes it as a "gray blue" jacket.
(https://i.postimg.cc/HsDN2j7v/Photo-naraevid-CE163-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Mr. BALL - I have here Commission's 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have.
It doesn't get much more straight-forward than that. Not only isn't it the jacket Oswald wore to work that morning, it's a jacket Frazier is completely unfamiliar with. It must be remembered, Frazier is in the company of Oswald quite a number of times taking him to and from Irving. He is sat right next to him at a time Oswald would most likely be wearing his jacket - before and after work.
Frazier has never seen the jacket before (to the best of his knowledge)
So what was Oswald wearing to work that day?
Mr. BALL - On that day you did notice one article of clothing, that is, he had a jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What color was the jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning.
Mr. BALL - Did it have a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was one of the zipper types.
The one item of clothing Frazier specifically remembers is Oswald's gray jacket. A zipper jacket. In this part of his testimony we see the first of three times Frazier makes the point he had seen Oswald wearing this jacket before. He is unequivocal that this was the jacket Oswald had on that morning - "and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning."
A curious thing happens at this point in the questioning. Ball asks - "It isn't one of these two zipper jackets we have shown?" - to which Frazier replies - "No, sir"
There are two jackets in evidence that are thought to be Oswald's - the dark blue one (CE 163) and a light grey one (CE 162)
As we have seen, CE 163 was introduced into the hearing given to Frazier to look at. However, at no point in proceedings is CE 162 introduced. It is never mentioned and Frazier is never asked to give an opinion about it so I find Ball's mention of two zipper jackets quite baffling.
Frazier is then asked about Oswald's pants but he makes the point he can't really remember what else he had on:
Mr. BALL - You are not able to tell us then anything or are you able to tell us, describe any of the clothing he had on that day, except this gray jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - That is the only thing you can remember?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Frazier reiterates that he is only sure about the gray jacket. The testimony is about to move on to the bag Oswald was carrying that day but Ball wants more details about the gray jacket:
Mr. BALL - I have here a paper sack which is Commission's Exhibit 364. That gray jacket you mentioned, did it have any design in it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Was it light or dark gray?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was light gray.
Mr. BALL - You mentioned it was woolen.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Long sleeves?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Here we find out it was a long-sleeved, light gray jacket. It is a zippered, long-sleeved, light gray jacket that Oswald was wearing to work that morning. Ball wants even more detail but Frazier isn't sure:
Mr. BALL - Buttoned sleeves at the wrist, or do you remember?
Mr. FRAZIER - To be frank with you, I didn't notice that much about the jacket, but I had seen him wear that gray woolen jacket before.
Mr. BALL - You say it had a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Although Frazier can't confirm whether or not there were buttons on the wrist he states for the second time that he had seen Oswald wearing the jacket before. There can be little doubt what jacket Oswald wore to work that morning and it most certainly was not the dark blue jacket subsequently found at the TSBD.
Towards the end of his questioning Frazier is asked about the Thursday he dropped Oswald off:
Mr. BALL - On Thursday afternoon when you went home, drove on home, did he carry any package with him?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't
Mr. BALL - Did he have a jacket or coat on him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What kind of a jacket or coat did he have?
Mr. FRAZIER - That, you know, like I say gray jacket.
Mr. BALL - That same gray jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Now, I can be frank with you, I had seen him wear that jacket several times, because it is cool type like when you keep a jacket on all day, if you are working on outside or something like that, you wouldn't go outside with just a plain shirt on.
For the third time Frazier states he had seen Oswald wearing this jacket before and that he was wearing it when he dropped him off on Thursday. The same jacket he was wearing Friday morning which is why an extensive search of the Paine house never turned up this light gray, long-sleeved, zippered jacket.
It should also be remembered that nobody saw Oswald leave the TSBD.
Nobody saw what he was wearing.
And this jacket was never found in the TSBD so it is safe to assume that when Oswald left the TSBD that day he was wearing his light gray jacket.
None of this explains the fact that CE 163 was the jacket found in the Domino room at the TSBD, after Kennedy was killed.
Oswald never returned to the TSBD, so how did that jacket get there?
And that's the conudrum. According to Marina, Oswald had only two jackets, yet Frazier dismisses both CE 162 and CE 163 as the jacket he saw Oswald wear that Friday morning. It most certainly doesn't justify the conclusion that Oswald was wearing CE 162 that morning. In fact, with CE 163 being found at the TSBD the most likely jacket, despite Frazier's failure to identify it, is in fact CE 163
And yet they must both have been in the room, because how else could Frazier dismiss them both as the jacket he had seen?
There can be little doubt what jacket Oswald wore to work that morning and it most certainly was not the dark blue jacket subsequently found at the TSBD.
And this is where fact becomes opinion and speculation.
That's one hell of an assumption. How do you know that the grey jacket wasn't found during the first search of the Paine house?
The answer is that you only assume it. The backyard photos were officially not found until the second search of the Paine house, the one with the warrant, yet on Friday evening Michael Paine was shown a BT photo by an FBI agent and Fritz confronted Oswald with a photo on SaPersonay morning, hours before the photos were allegedly found.
I find it somewhat remarkable that the white jacket that was found at the parking lot, somehow became a grey jacket with initials on it from officers who were not in the chain of custody (and no initials of the unidentified officers that were) would end up only being submitted to the Identification Bureau after the officers had returned of their first search of the Paine house.
What are you rambling on about? His jacket was in fact found at the TSBD. It just wasn't CE 162.
This is where your concocted story goes off the rails. You have Oswald going to the TSBD on Friday morning wearing a grey jacket (CE 162), you then have him leaving the TSBD wearing the same jacket, despite witness testimony that he wasn't wearing a jacket, yet at the TSBD another jacket (CE 163) is later found. Does this make sense to you?
;D
Both Linnie & Buell said the jacket had wide sleeves
Linnie said the jacket was closer to the blue gray one (163)
Mr. BALL. Well, this one is gray but of these two the jacket I last showed you is Commission Exhibit No. 162, and this blue gray is 163, now if you had to choose between these two?
Mrs. RANDLE. I would choose the dark one.
Mr. BALL. You would choose the dark one?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which is 163, as being more similar to the jacket he had?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; that I remember. But I, you know, didn't pay an awful lot of attention to his jacket. I remember his T-shirt and the shirt more so than I do the jacket.
Mr. BALL. The witness just stated that 163 which is the gray-blue is similar to the jacket he had on. 162, the light gray jacket was not.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
When Ball talked to Helen Markham he actually showed her the 162 jacket:
Mr. BALL. I have here an exhibit, Commission Exhibit 162, a jacket. Did you ever see this before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No; I did not.
Mr. BALL. Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It is short, open down the front. But that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.
Mr. BALL. You don't think it was as light a jacket as that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, it was darker than that, I know it was. At that moment I was so excited--
That sucked big time!
At no point have I put this analysis forward as an explanation of why CE 163 was found in the TSBD.
The only way it relates to that aspect of the case is that Frazier is unequivocal that CE 163 is not the jacket Oswald was wearing that morning. He couldn't be any clearer. Frazier is completely unfamiliar with this jacket, as far as he is concerned he's never even seen Oswald wearing it before, let alone on the morning of the assassination.
To dismiss Frazier's testimony on this point just because it doesn't agree with your explanation of how CE 163 ended up in the TSBD is unwarranted.
If Frazier's testimony regarding CE 163 means anything, it means there has to be another explanation as to how CE 163 ended up there. No other reasonable conclusion can be drawn if Frazier's testimony is accepted.
The conundrum is that CE 162 is never introduced into the hearing. It is never mentioned. Frazier is never asked to look at it so he never gets a chance to dismiss it. CE 163 is introduced, this is in the transcript of the hearing, and Frazier dismisses it out of hand as the jacket wore that morning.
We can assume and speculate all we want - maybe Ball misspoke - but the fact remains, at no point is CE 162 mentioned during Frazier's questioning. That is a fact.
You've taken this out of context.
It is clearly referring to Frazier's testimony, which is unequivocal - Oswald wore a light gray, long-sleeved zipper jacket to work that morning. This cannot be denied. Frazier's testimony is emphatic on this point. To sweep away all of his testimony, his multiple references to knowing this jacket, is tantamount to saying he is perjuring himself. He could not be any clearer. There is no ambiguity, no ambivalence, no doubt. His testimony is clear.
Is that the sound of metallic headgear being donned I hear.
What are you saying? You have some kind of proof the jacket was found at the Paine house? Oh, you don't? You're suggesting the evidence was (drum roll) planted?
Here's why it's not an assumption - Frazier testifies that Oswald was wearing the same jacket on Friday morning that he was wearing on Thursday when he dropped him off. He is certain of it. He qualifies it by saying, for the third time, how familiar he is with the jacket.
Unless Frazier was part of the (drum roll) conspiracy to frame Oswald's jacket ;)
Your inability to accept straight-forward testimony in favour of Tinfoil BS: speaks volumes.
I've heard you say this before. What is it about the initials you find so objective?
It is something I'm genuinely interested in.
Again, you're taking things out of context.
When I say "this jacket" I am clearly referring to the light gray, long-sleeved, zippered jacket Frazier identified, this was never found in the TSBD.
It's a really desperate move on your behalf.
"You have Oswald going to the TSBD on Friday morning wearing a grey jacket..."
Frazier has Oswald going into work wearing a light grey jacket. He is emphatic about it. There can be no doubt about it.
"...you then have him leaving the TSBD wearing the same jacket, despite witness testimony that he wasn't wearing a jacket..."
Please cite the witness who saw Oswald leaving the TSBD without a jacket.
Does it make sense to you that Frazier emphatically denies Oswald was wearing CE 163 that morning, that he emphatically identifies a light grey, long-sleeved, zippered jacket, that he identifies this same light grey, long-sleeved, zippered jacket as the one Oswald was wearing on Thursday night and that this is the jacket found in the TSBD??
Does Frazier lying about it make sense? That the authorities discovered it at the Paine's then planted it, does that make sense?
"You have Oswald going to the TSBD on Friday morning wearing a grey jacket..."
Frazier has Oswald going into work wearing a light grey jacket. He is emphatic about it. There can be no doubt about it.
"...you then have him leaving the TSBD wearing the same jacket, despite witness testimony that he wasn't wearing a jacket..."
Please cite the witness who saw Oswald leaving the TSBD without a jacket.
I wonder what happened to the jacket she saw Oswald wearing when he shot Tippit.
Because she identified Oswald as the shooter:
Mr. BALL. When you identified Oswald--it was the number 2 man--were you told the number 2 man whom you identified in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, I was not.
Mr. BALL. Were you ever told his name?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No.
Mr. BALL. Ever told his name later?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Nobody, nobody told me nothing.
Mr. BALL. Well, the man that you identified as the number 2 man in the lineup in the police station, you identified him as the man you had seen shoot Officer Tippit?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, I did.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify him because of his clothing that he had on at that time in the lineup.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Just like I told you. I mostly looked at his face, his eyes, and his clothing, too.
And she is definite he had a light, short jacket on:
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.
Mr. BALL. Did he have the same clothing on that the man had that you saw shoot the officer?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had, these dark trousers on.
Mr. BALL. Did he have a jacket or a shirt? The man that you saw shoot Officer Tippit and run away, did you notice if he had a jacket on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had a jacket on when he done it.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a grayish tan.
I wonder what happened to that jacket?
Because Oswald wasn't wearing it in the Texas Theater..
I wonder where it went.
Just like I wonder where the jacket went that Earlene Roberts is absolutely certain Oswald was wearing when he left the rooming house.
Where do you think that jacket went Otto?
Because Oswald didn't have it with him in the Theater.
Or did he?
This is the Alamo position of the contrarian.
No it's asking for evidence. I can't help it if that's a foreign concept to you.
When all else fails and the evidence proves some point they don't want to accept, we learn it "might" be planted.
What "all the evidence" might that be?
There is no valid basis to discuss the case or evidence if at the end of the day it can be dismissed upon no basis whatsoever by contending the evidence "might" or "possibly" be planted.
Asking for evidence that shows the revolver now in the National Archives is the one taken from Oswald is completely different than contending the evidence "might" or "possibly" be planted.
The way to avoid having to deal with such a possible claim is simply by providing the evidence.
That is not even allowed in a criminal trial context. There must be at least some basis to argue the evidence is planted. Not just that it could have happened.
Who is saying that? You are the one who is turning a straightforward request for evidence being presented into a silly "it could be planted" claim.
He just ignores all evidence of Oswald's guilt and makes arguments like this one.
Huh.. asking for evidence to be presented is "ignoring all the evidence" in your book? Oh boy.... :D
Because Oswald didn't have it with him in the Theater.
How do you know this? Was the Texas Theater searched? Or do you just assume that he didn't have a jacket with him?
Unreal. You were given evidence. The documentation posted confirms that a pistol with a specific serial number was sent to Oswald/Hidell. That is the same pistol in his possession upon arrest. I'm not sure how there could be much more evidence than the fact that the pistol sent to Oswald is the same one he has in his possession. As usual, you just ignore the actual evidence and go down another pedantic rabbit hole suggesting any evidence of Oswald's guilt is the product of fakery. Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim. And think of the narrative behind it. The DPD would frame Oswald for a crime they know he did not commit. They would allow Tippit's murderer to go free but only after acquiring his pistol to plant on Oswald as the murder weapon. Why they would do this is left unexplained. They would then need to somehow manipulate all the documentation in the hands of external sources to link Oswald to the pistol. They manage to somehow do all this within hours of his arrest.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6pm9dBJR/ALL-IN-THE-FAMILY.png)
BILL CHAPMAN
Unreal. You were given evidence. The documentation posted confirms that a pistol with a specific serial number was sent to Oswald/Hidell. That is the same pistol in his possession upon arrest. I'm not sure how there could be much more evidence than the fact that the pistol sent to Oswald is the same one he has in his possession. As usual, you just ignore the actual evidence and go down another pedantic rabbit hole suggesting any evidence of Oswald's guilt is the product of fakery. Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim. And think of the narrative behind it. The DPD would frame Oswald for a crime they know he did not commit. They would allow Tippit's murderer to go free but only after acquiring his pistol to plant on Oswald as the murder weapon. Why they would do this is left unexplained. They would then need to somehow manipulate all the documentation in the hands of external sources to link Oswald to the pistol. They manage to somehow do all this within hours of his arrest.
Mr Belin: Any jacket?
Mr Brewer: No.
This is a very good point. The DPD of all people would want to make sure they got the right person. They would not be framing an innocent person for Tippits death.
No it's not a good point. It's a made up point. If innocent people were not being framed by cops and prosecutors, then why is Project Innocence getting so many people out of jail who were innocent and wrongly convicted?
Most of those are violent criminals getting off on technicalities.
Maybe they do things differently on the planet where you live, but here on earth prosecutors (and defense lawyers) don't give a damn about guilt or innocence. The adversarial system that we call a trial is all about winning cases.
The documentation posted confirms that a pistol with a specific serial number was sent to Oswald/Hidell.
No it doesn't.
That is the same pistol in his possession upon arrest.
Just because Carroll (who did not see who was holding the revolver when he grabbed it) told Hill and Hill told everybody else that this was Oswald's revolver? Wow
I'm not sure how there could be much more evidence than the fact that the pistol sent to Oswald is the same one he has in his possession.
That's no big surprise, as you are usually clueless about just about everything.
As usual, you just ignore the actual evidence and go down another pedantic rabbit hole suggesting any evidence of Oswald's guilt is the product of fakery.
You constantly talk about the "actual evidence" yet you never provide it or point towards it. Why is that?
Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim.
To support what claim?
The DPD would frame Oswald for a crime they know he did not commit. They would allow Tippit's murderer to go free but only after acquiring his pistol to plant on Oswald as the murder weapon. Why they would do this is left unexplained. They would then need to somehow manipulate all the documentation in the hands of external sources to link Oswald to the pistol. They manage to somehow do all this within hours of his arrest.
Who said anything about framing Oswald within hours of his arrest? Stop making things up, will ya?
Contrarian mumbo jumbo. You interjected doubt of Oswald's ownership of the pistol into the discussion citing some alleged minor delay in logging it into evidence. Then you claim that you didn't say anything about anyone framing Oswald!! Unreal. If the pistol in evidence is not the same one that the DPD indicate they took from Oswald upon his arrest, then what exactly are you suggesting? Who switched the pistols? Who doctored all the documentation to link the pistol to Oswald/Hidell? And for what purpose would this be done except to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit? And wouldn't that mean by implication that the DPD knew the identity of the real murderer (because they obtained his pistol) and decided to let him go free to put the blame on Oswald? Wouldn't all this fakery have to take place quickly since the evidence is documented within hours of Oswald's arrest? You have to own the implications of your own loony theories even if you don't like them.
If Roberts was mistaken about Oswald entering the house wearing only a shirt (as Dan O'meara suggests) then why can't Brewer be mistaken also?
It makes sense Bill but Frazier is emphatic about the jacket.
Linnie is all "maybe" "I don't really know" I wasn't paying attention" sort of thing.
What you propose is the simplest and most efficient solution except for the insistence of Frazier who not only drove to work with him that morning but walked behind him as he tried to tuck his package under his arm.
McWatters and some kid whose name I forget have the man who is eventually ID'd as Oswald wearing a jacket as does Whaley,
Bledose ID's Oswald's shirt after the arrest.
And he may have taken it off by the time Roberts saw him as he was in full flight and looking for a quick change (perhaps)
I would like to go there for convenience's sake but my stupid brain won't allow it.
And just when I thought I was on to something a lot of the witnesses seem to be describing a jacket darker than CE 162.
I'll be down this rabbit hole if you need me for anything
Cut to the quick: Ce63 was left behind @TBSD
You do the math.
Jim Garrisons name comes to mind.
Checkmate.
Never play chess
CE 163 was found in the TSBD, no doubt.
The same jacket Frazier is emphatic he didn't recognise and had never seen Oswald wearing.
In contrast to the light grey, long-sleeved, zipper jacket Frazier swears up and down Oswald was wearing that morning and when he dropped him off on Thursday.
A jacket he states three times he is familiar with.
McWatters and, in particular Whaley, put a jacket on Oswald/the guy with the transfer ticket.
So does some kid whose name I can't remember (I want to say Milton)
You do your math Bill and I'll do mine.
PS Why would Brewer see Oswald with a jacket on?
CE 163 was found in the TSBD, no doubt.
The same jacket Frazier is emphatic he didn't recognise and had never seen Oswald wearing.
In contrast to the light grey, long-sleeved, zipper jacket Frazier swears up and down Oswald was wearing that morning and when he dropped him off on Thursday.
A jacket he states three times he is familiar with.
McWatters and, in particular Whaley, put a jacket on Oswald/the guy with the transfer ticket.
So does some kid whose name I can't remember (I want to say Milton)
You do your math Bill and I'll do mine.
PS Why would Brewer see Oswald with a jacket on?
You need to include CE163 in your math.
PS: Where you in Brewer's shoes?
You need to include CE163 in your math.
Why?
What has that got to do with Frazier's testimony? His emphatic, unequivocal testimony regarding the jacket. If there's a part of his testimony that even remotely hints at Oswald wearing CE 163 that morning I've not found it. And if there's a more qualified witness to state what jacket Oswald had on that morning I've not found them.
As far as Frazier is concerned Oswald wore a light grey, long-sleeved, zipper jacket that morning. That's a fact.
Why?Sorry, where did Brewer say Oswald was wearing a jacket?
What has that got to do with Frazier's testimony? His emphatic, unequivocal testimony regarding the jacket. If there's a part of his testimony that even remotely hints at Oswald wearing CE 163 that morning I've not found it. And if there's a more qualified witness to state what jacket Oswald had on that morning I've not found them.
As far as Frazier is concerned Oswald wore a light grey, long-sleeved, zipper jacket that morning. That's a fact.
Where does Frazier's testimony fit into your math?
And what about McWatters or Whaley?
Ermm...not that I'm aware of.
What I meant by my question was that Oswald is supposed to have dumped the zipper jacket Roberts is certain Oswald was wearing before he got to Brewer's store.
Why would Brewer see Oswald wearing a jacket if he'd already dumped it?
Sorry, where did Brewer say Oswald was wearing a jacket?
WC testimony:
Mr. BELIN - Any jacket?
Mr. BREWER - No.
Affidavit: "This man was wearing a brown sport shirt..." Nothing about a jacket. Did he say this elsewhere?
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/hzCg_11jrsb8W40MzmdgPuKK6AsJUi1DtET4VgDm5RoFfQGxWddJpZ6UQvPx9rqJ8Y09ikqvg7StEkxs3vS5n_OMwCCUVdiUuqqfkwvjNc5uewydKQffw_3oYrTwMTqFs64xqlL56ZOgd6OMvtciOJsqtWzLeZsruYAUQUGV2SoIjwzRgZ-fPloRrlD9bcw-ucQUoIuCMmvBT_YONW2Ug7kEgZ96AFCa247YlwgZNchjNgq40AIM7p7n47VrLThz8MW8Jy5cToqIu4tkPM8DrRXqHd5SCwPYbYwEZZpGQUZGtZA172RUlKHCH1JR7Isx7ph7Ko-W0Jt3A6R_qmX0JOPPr8lMJf3iZ3pFBofQaQaHGPTrpiMO2tWTs7C06WMztTkRlj_ytQXSlrnrdwMP7c8582rT7gXxXafvw-Xl5yedpZ8suumj43TZtoWWyaCAj4tohh-JyzLC_avtsVqSOCvXXzGI0kZFm3t6Q23box1fJC_OMtiGSVZxV3qAUFKu3FD3ActXESOIoHlYNUeOD69NJEzjLRmKiciFHS0p8hUVsFIAUEtfa2tTy1eTGlAuUqEhThC_DR8R58NO87jtwbpmFRXSLLZ0ekbPyqVjnAa44grrazU6JmXCABJPEG2vcbXWLAK55tKCuyhuRyPWli4TIi8afnrg4JWeqC82AWAu5027rIUrvzh6DBm6tqz6w6EocQcAZl5ge1X_IY_3gQE-=w365-h275-no?authuser=0)
I haven't seen Whaley quoted to support the jacket tale, or did I miss it?
It seems mr. O'meara is ignoring my posts.
Not that I mind. After all, it's the ultimate expression of defeat.
You keep ignoring the fact that saint Oswald tried to shoot a police officer when being arrested. This all but proves he shot JFK.
Did he? We only have the word of "do you want my autograph" McDonald for that....
And how does that prove he shot JFK? How in the world did you come to that conclusion?
Let me put a hypothetical to you. What if Oswald was involved in a plot which purpose is to kill Kennedy (but he doesn't know that). He's merely a foot soldier at a very low level and when Kennedy is actually shot and killed he understands the position he has been placed in and panics. He runs to the Texas Theater because he has been told to go there in case of trouble and he finds that his suspicion is correct. Instead of a contact showing up, the police are there in force. So, in a desperate attempt to get away he pulls his gun.....
Don't tell me this isn't a possible scenario! How do you reach the conclusion that he killed Kennedy?
At no stage does Oswald come across as a panicky character. Or a stupid one. Your scenario requires both.
So you can't answer my question? Got it! Thanks for playing.....
Oswald showed he was capable of murder when he told Robert Oswald while he was in Russia that he was willing to kill ANY American.
Kennedy would count as any American.
It still doesn't answer my question. How does Oswald allegedly trying to shoot McDonalds prove that he did kill Kennedy?
I guess if Oswald was a black man you would deem him dangerous. A white man would never shoot a police officer.
Why?
What has that got to do with Frazier's testimony? His emphatic, unequivocal testimony regarding the jacket. If there's a part of his testimony that even remotely hints at Oswald wearing CE 163 that morning I've not found it. And if there's a more qualified witness to state what jacket Oswald had on that morning I've not found them.
As far as Frazier is concerned Oswald wore a light grey, long-sleeved, zipper jacket that morning. That's a fact.
Where does Frazier's testimony fit into your math?
And what about McWatters or Whaley?
Ermm...not that I'm aware of.
What I meant by my question was that Oswald is supposed to have dumped the zipper jacket Roberts is certain Oswald was wearing before he got to Brewer's store.
Why would Brewer see Oswald wearing a jacket if he'd already dumped it?
Not sure where you get this crap from but it most certainly doesn't answer my question.
And no, I am not a racist (as you seem to imply), but maybe you are when you come up with this kind of argument.
41% of my employees are non-whites and my right hand man is what you call a black man. I think he might want to talk to you about your remarks.
How do you know that "41%" of your employees are non-white? Were you there with an excel sheet opened one day watching your employees come in and cataloging the color of each persons skin? If so that's weird. What exactly were you planning on doing with this excel sheet once completed?
I doubt that you even have a job however, let alone run a business were "41% of my employees are non-whites". You are on this forum all day calling people names. I can't see how you would be running a business.
My math includes Randle's testimony re CE163.
My math includes CE163 being found in the TSBD post Oswald's departure.
My math includes Buell's testimony, along with the fact that he practically coined the phrase 'I wasn't really paying attention.'
And Brewer didn't need to know anything about any jacket other than he didn't see Oswald wearing a jacket.
How odd you wouldn't highlight Whaley giving you color matched clothes!
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.
For good measure he even dresses "Oswald" in both jackets:
Mr. BALL. Here is Commission No. 162 which is a gray jacket with zipper.
Mr. WHALEY. I thank that is the jacket he had on when he rode with me in the cab.
Mr. BALL. Look something like it?
And here is Commission Exhibit No. 163, does this look like anything he had on?
Mr. WHALEY. He had this one on or the other one.
Mr. BALL. That is right.
Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.
Mr. BALL. Wait a minute, we have got the shirt which you have identified as the rust brown shirt with the gold stripe in it.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You said that a jacket--
Mr. WHALEY. That jacket now it might have been clean, but the jacket he had on looked more the color, you know like a uniform set, but he had this coat here on over that other jacket, I am sure, sir.
Mr. BALL. This is the blue-gray jacket, heavy blue-gray jacket.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
He's all in on the blue 163 jacket found in the TSBD (allegedly) -- ROFL
Only a delusional nut job would put his money on Whaley.
A curious thing happens at this point in the questioning. Ball asks - "It isn't one of these two zipper jackets we have shown?" - to which Frazier replies - "No, sir"
There are two jackets in evidence that are thought to be Oswald's - the dark blue one (CE 163) and a light grey one (CE 162)
As we have seen, CE 163 was introduced into the hearing and given to Frazier to look at. However, at no point in proceedings is CE 162 introduced. It is never mentioned and Frazier is never asked to give an opinion about it so I find Ball's mention of two zipper jackets quite baffling.
Sorry Bill, I have to disagree with you here.
Not out of awkwardness or contrariness or an agenda but because I believe I have a genuine and valid point.
Your math does not include Frazier's testimony, regarding the jacket, in any way.
Your math is refuted by this particular part of Frazier's testimony.
Frazier isn't wishy-washy or uncertain in this part of his testimony, as you insinuate.
He is unequivocal about the following points:
1) CE 163 is NOT the jacket Oswald wore that morning
2) Oswald wore a light grey, long-sleeved, zipper jacket to work that morning.
3) Oswald wore the same jacket on Friday morning as he did on Thursday when Frazier dropped him off in Irving.
Frazier has never seen CE 163 before but he is really familiar with the light grey jacket. He states on three separate occasions in his testimony that he is familiar with the jacket. The only tiny bit of uncertainty in Frazier's testimony is when he is asked about a really specific detail regarding the jacket - whether it had buttons on the sleeves - and he admits he hadn't studied the jacket that closely.
Other than that he is unequivocal and emphatic - Oswald wore a light grey, long-sleeved zipper jacket to work that morning.
This refutes your notion that he wore CE 163 to work that day.
However, his testimony is, as you point out, contradicted by Linnie Mae.
The reasons I favour Frazier's testimony are that he rode to work with him that morning and was walking behind him as they crossed the car park. He must have been paying some kind of attention to him as he noticed how Oswald was carrying the package.
Linnie Mae only saw him very briefly and, as we shall see, wasn't paying that much attention to Oswald's jacket. In fact, her whole testimony on this point could hardly be any more uncertain:
Mrs. RANDLE. He had on a white T-shirt, I just saw him from the waist up, I didn't pay any attention to his pants or anything, when he was going with the package. I was more interested in that. But he had on a white T-shirt and I remember some sort of brown or tan shirt and he had a gray jacket, I believe.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket. I will show you some clothing here. First, I will show you a gray jacket. Does this look anything like the jacket he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. That morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. Similar to that. I didn't pay an awful lot of attention to it.
Mr. BALL. Was it similar in color?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I think so. It had big sleeves.
Mr. BALL. Take a look at these sleeves. Was it similar in color?
Mrs. RANDLE. I believe so.
Mr. BALL. What is the Commission Exhibit on this jacket?
Mrs. RANDLE. It was gray, I am not sure of the shade.
Mr. BALL. 163.
I will show you another shirt which is Commission No. 150.
Does this look anything like the shirt he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well now, I don't remember it being that shade of brown. It could have been but I was looking through the screen and out the window but I don't remember it being exactly that. I thought it was a solid color.
Mr. BALL. Here is another jacket which is a gray jacket, does this look anything like the jacket he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; I remember its being gray.
Mr. BALL. Well, this one is gray but of these two the jacket I last showed you is Commission Exhibit No. 162, and this blue gray is 163, now if you had to choose between these two?
Mrs. RANDLE. I would choose the dark one.
Mr. BALL. You would choose the dark one?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which is 163, as being more similar to the jacket he had?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; that I remember. But I, you know, didn't pay an awful lot of attention to his jacket. I remember his T-shirt and the shirt more so than I do the jacket.
Mr. BALL. The witness just stated that 163 which is the gray-blue is similar to the jacket he had on. 162, the light gray jacket was not
"I didn't pay any attention to his pants or anything"
"I believe"
"I didn't pay an awful lot of attention to it"
"I think so"
"I believe so"
"I am not sure of the shade"
" didn't pay an awful lot of attention to his jacket"
You are free to choose Linnie Mae's testimony over Frazier's on this point and I am free to choose Frazier's.
Clearly I choose Frazier's and I've provided the reasons why I do.
Obviously this leaves the conundrum of CE 163 being found in the TSBD (obviously it was post Oswald's departure, it could hardly have been before he departed)
I refuse to just make up some kind of unprovable speculation about it.
It makes sense Oswald left it there at some point but Frazier's testimony tells me he didn't bring it on the Friday so, I assume, it was already in the TSBD when Frazier took Oswald to Irving on Thursday.
As for Brewer.
You brought Brewer up, insinuating it was somehow strange that Brewer saw Oswald without a jacket.
I merely pointed out that Oswald was supposed to have dumped his jacket before he got to Brewer's store so there was no reason why he should be wearing it.
I might be wide of the mark here [it wouldn't be the first time] but I get the feeling you've made a simple error regarding Brewer but you can't take it back because of the toxic, hard-core, tinfoil-tiara-wearing, fringe CT mentality that dogs a lot of these discussions.
Below is an earlier analysis I did of Frazier's testimony regarding the jacket Oswald wore that morning just to demonstrate how unequivocal Frazier is on this point:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frazier is shown the dark blue jacket (CE 163) that was found in the TSBD and is asked if he recognises it. For some reason Ball describes it as a "gray blue" jacket.
(https://i.postimg.cc/HsDN2j7v/Photo-naraevid-CE163-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Mr. BALL - I have here Commission's 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have.
It doesn't get much more straight-forward than that. Not only isn't it the jacket Oswald wore to work that morning, it's a jacket Frazier is completely unfamiliar with. It must be remembered, Frazier is in the company of Oswald quite a number of times taking him to and from Irving. He is sat right next to him at a time Oswald would most likely be wearing his jacket - before and after work.
Frazier has never seen the jacket before (to the best of his knowledge)
So what was Oswald wearing to work that day?
Mr. BALL - On that day you did notice one article of clothing, that is, he had a jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What color was the jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning.
Mr. BALL - Did it have a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was one of the zipper types.
The one item of clothing Frazier specifically remembers is Oswald's gray jacket. A zipper jacket. In this part of his testimony we see the first of three times Frazier makes the point he had seen Oswald wearing this jacket before. He is unequivocal that this was the jacket Oswald had on that morning - "and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning."
A curious thing happens at this point in the questioning. Ball asks - "It isn't one of these two zipper jackets we have shown?" - to which Frazier replies - "No, sir"
There are two jackets in evidence that are thought to be Oswald's - the dark blue one (CE 163) and a light grey one (CE 162)
As we have seen, CE 163 was introduced into the hearing and given to Frazier to look at. However, at no point in proceedings is CE 162 introduced. It is never mentioned and Frazier is never asked to give an opinion about it so I find Ball's mention of two zipper jackets quite baffling.
Frazier is then asked about Oswald's pants but he makes the point he can't really remember what else he had on:
Mr. BALL - You are not able to tell us then anything or are you able to tell us, describe any of the clothing he had on that day, except this gray jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - That is the only thing you can remember?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Frazier reiterates that he is only sure about the gray jacket. The testimony is about to move on to the bag Oswald was carrying that day but Ball wants more details about the gray jacket:
Mr. BALL - I have here a paper sack which is Commission's Exhibit 364. That gray jacket you mentioned, did it have any design in it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Was it light or dark gray?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was light gray.
Mr. BALL - You mentioned it was woolen.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Long sleeves?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Here we find out it was a long-sleeved, light gray jacket. It is a zippered, long-sleeved, light gray jacket that Oswald was wearing to work that morning. Ball wants even more detail but Frazier isn't sure:
Mr. BALL - Buttoned sleeves at the wrist, or do you remember?
Mr. FRAZIER - To be frank with you, I didn't notice that much about the jacket, but I had seen him wear that gray woolen jacket before.
Mr. BALL - You say it had a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Although Frazier can't confirm whether or not there were buttons on the wrist he states for the second time that he had seen Oswald wearing the jacket before. There can be little doubt what jacket Oswald wore to work that morning and it most certainly was not the dark blue jacket subsequently found at the TSBD.
Towards the end of his questioning Frazier is asked about the Thursday he dropped Oswald off:
Mr. BALL - On Thursday afternoon when you went home, drove on home, did he carry any package with him?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't
Mr. BALL - Did he have a jacket or coat on him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What kind of a jacket or coat did he have?
Mr. FRAZIER - That, you know, like I say gray jacket.
Mr. BALL - That same gray jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Now, I can be frank with you, I had seen him wear that jacket several times, because it is cool type like when you keep a jacket on all day, if you are working on outside or something like that, you wouldn't go outside with just a plain shirt on.
For the third time Frazier states he had seen Oswald wearing this jacket before and that he was wearing it when he dropped him off on Thursday. The same jacket he was wearing Friday morning which is why an extensive search of the Paine house never turned up this light gray, long-sleeved, zippered jacket.
It should also be remembered that nobody saw Oswald leave the TSBD.
Nobody saw what he was wearing.
And this jacket was never found in the TSBD so it is safe to assume that when Oswald left the TSBD that day he was wearing his light gray jacket.
Just plain mumbo jumbo. I'm getting a bit bored with your rants. Stop asking silly questions and telling me what I supposedly have claimed and start dealing with the actual evidence.
How do we know that the revolver now in evidence at the NA is the same revolver they took from Oswald?
A simple question, so try to answer it for once instead of posting another rant.
some alleged minor delay in logging it into evidence.
OK this is definitely going to make the all time favorite top 10 of oversimplifications... Thumb1:
Given that CE163 was found in the TSBD and CE162 wasn't, it seems logical that the lighter jacket was the one Oswald put on @Beckley. Arriving in shirt sleeves nails it.
I posted the Brewer thing to Weidmann, not you, by the way.
Given that CE163 was found in the TSBD and CE162 wasn't, it seems logical that the lighter jacket was the one Oswald put on @Beckley. Arriving in shirt sleeves nails it.
Except for the fact that Frazier said that Oswald was wearing a light grey jacket (which can only be CE 162) to Irving on Thursday evening.
Except for the fact that Randle said that the jacket looked more like CE163. Except for the fact that Earlene said Oswald arrived @Beckley in shirt sleeves Friday afternoon.
Was JD Tippit an innocent cop or was he as corrupt as the rest of the Dallas Police Force ? Just a thought ...
Given that CE163 was found in the TSBD and CE162 wasn't, it seems logical that the lighter jacket was the one Oswald put on @Beckley. Arriving in shirt sleeves nails it.
I originally posted the Brewer thing to Weidmann, not you, by the way. And did not find it 'strange' that he didn't see a jacket. Go back and try to figure out why I posted that to Weidmann, not you.
I just can't brush off Frazier's testimony. It's absolutely unequivocal. He is certain Oswald wore a light grey, long-sleeved zipper jacket that morning. There is no doubt about that.
Whaley describes him as wearing a jacket in his testimony as he does in this video [1:37]
In my mind Oswald is on the run at this point, he gets Whaley to drive past the rooming house so he can check the coast is clear and he double-times it back to the rooming house. The point of returning to the rooming house, as far as I can tell, is to pick up the revolver and get a change of clothes while he's there. He's in a big rush so I don't imagine it to be beyond the realms of possibility that he already had his jacket off as he entered the house. He rushes through the living room, gets the revolver (leaving the holster there), changes his shirt (making sure to take the transfer ticket with him), stuffs the revolver down his waistband and is putting his jacket back on as he rushes out of the house.
My bad about the Brewer thing.
I see what you're saying now.
No evidence Tippit was corrupt. No evidence the rest of the DPD was corrupt either.
I just can't brush off Frazier's testimony. It's absolutely unequivocal. He is certain Oswald wore a light grey, long-sleeved zipper jacket that morning. There is no doubt about that.
Whaley describes him as wearing a jacket in his testimony as he does in this video [1:37]
In my mind Oswald is on the run at this point, he gets Whaley to drive past the rooming house so he can check the coast is clear and he double-times it back to the rooming house. The point of returning to the rooming house, as far as I can tell, is to pick up the revolver and get a change of clothes while he's there. He's in a big rush so I don't imagine it to be beyond the realms of possibility that he already had his jacket off as he entered the house. He rushes through the living room, gets the revolver (leaving the holster there), changes his shirt (making sure to take the transfer ticket with him), stuffs the revolver down his waistband and is putting his jacket back on as he rushes out of the house.
My bad about the Brewer thing.
I see what you're saying now.
As I recall, Baker describes Oswald wearing a jacket in the TSBD lunch room and then only moments later Mrs. Reid describes Oswald in just a white t-shirt w/o any jacket or outer shirt. I think you would drive yourself crazy drying to reconcile all the descriptions. It is not something anyone had cause to note at the time and recall later.
As I recall, Baker describes Oswald wearing a jacket in the TSBD lunch room and then only moments later Mrs. Reid describes Oswald in just a white t-shirt w/o any jacket or outer shirt. I think you would drive yourself crazy drying to reconcile all the descriptions. It is not something anyone had cause to note at the time and recall later.
Hey, I agree with this. The question is; Frazier said Oswald was wearing a light grey jacket (which can only be CE 162) to Irving on Thursday and returned to the TSBD on Friday morning wearing CE 163. So, how did the light grey jacket (CE 162) from Irving to the rooming house?
'possibility that he already had his jacket off as he entered the house'
Earlene said nothing about Oswald carrying a jacket.
Where did Buell say Oswald wore CE 163 on Friday
Given that CE163 was found in the TSBD and CE162 wasn't, it seems logical that the lighter jacket was the one Oswald put on @Beckley. Arriving in shirt sleeves nails it.
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.
IMO there are only two things that Roberts is certain of regarding Oswald's trip to the rooming house - that he was in a real hurry and that he was zipping up a jacket on his way out.
It is entirely possible Oswald was carrying a jacket that Roberts didn't notice.
It would also make sense, if Oswald was in such, a rush to have taken his jacket off in preparation for a quick change of shirt.
The jacket Whaley reports seeing Oswald wearing.
Where did the jacket go between the taxi and the rooming house?
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.
IMO there are only two things that Roberts is certain of regarding Oswald's trip to the rooming house - that he was in a real hurry and that he was zipping up a jacket on his way out.
It is entirely possible Oswald was carrying a jacket that Roberts didn't notice.
It would also make sense, if Oswald was in such, a rush to have taken his jacket off in preparation for a quick change of shirt.
The jacket Whaley reports seeing Oswald wearing.
Where did the jacket go between the taxi and the rooming house?
Hilarious, so much hypocrisy. To offer this in support of a claim that Roberts was wrong about the shirt.
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.
and to ignore the same when discussing the possibility that Roberts was wrong about the jacket.
In Stone's JFK movie, there is a scene that was shot inside the rooming house. The actor playing Oswald is seen walking from the front door to his room in the back. You can time it. It takes only 5 seconds. So, while Roberts is trying to clear up the picture of the television and has her back turned to the living room, Oswald would only have taken 5 seconds to reach the front door. That is a ridiculously short period of time for somebody who was not paying attention to make any kind of sound observation.
'I didn't pay that much attention'
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.
Neither jacket looks a 'work jacket' to me. Nor do either of them look like they're made of khaki.
And Whaley suddenly perks up when he finds out Oswald is a somebody.
Only a fraction of a second, in a bat of the eye if you will, needed to make a 'sound observation' here:
(https://i.postimg.cc/kg69xWqL/MAN-CARRYING-JACKET.png)
The thing is Bill, I'm not offering up Whaley's testimony in isolation.
It is part of a narrative founded on Frazier's unequivocal identification of the jacket Oswald wore to work that morning.
Frazier is 100% certain Oswald was not wearing CE 163
Frazier is 100% certain Oswald was wearing a light grey, long sleeved zipper jacket to work that morning.
The same jacket he was wearing when he dropped him off at Irving on Thursday.
Frazier's unequivocal ID of the jacket is surely the kind of thing we should build our narrative on.
He rode to work with Oswald that morning. He sat right next to him.
He walked behind him as they went to the TSBD.
He was familiar with the jacket.
He was totally unfamiliar with CE 163.
I don't understand how you can brush off Frazier's testimony or why you would do that.
Regarding Oswald's jacket, Frazier's testimony is possibly the only testimony that is certain and definitive.
So, surely we start with this and then build on it.
Why don't you accept Frazier's testimony regarding Oswald's jacket?
It is part of a narrative founded on Frazier's unequivocal identification of the jacket Oswald wore to work that morning.
Frazier is 100% certain Oswald was not wearing CE 163
Frazier is 100% certain Oswald was wearing a light grey, long sleeved zipper jacket to work that morning.
Sure, just like Marion Baker
Mr. BAKER - At that particular time I was looking at his face, and it seemed to me like he had a light brown jacket on and maybe some kind of white-looking shirt.
<>
Mr. BAKER - I could have mistaken it for a jacket, but to my recollection it was a little colored jacket, that is all I can say.
Stop deflecting and try to see if you can figure out what point I'm making by posting the image of the guy carrying his jacket. Oh, btw how long did it take you to make a 'sound' observation that the guy is indeed carrying a jacket? Surely you're not going to say 5 seconds this time.
The thing is Bill, I'm not offering up Whaley's testimony in isolation.
It is part of a narrative founded on Frazier's unequivocal identification of the jacket Oswald wore to work that morning.
Frazier is 100% certain Oswald was not wearing CE 163
Frazier is 100% certain Oswald was wearing a light grey, long sleeved zipper jacket to work that morning.
The same jacket he was wearing when he dropped him off at Irving on Thursday.
Frazier's unequivocal ID of the jacket is surely the kind of thing we should build our narrative on.
He rode to work with Oswald that morning. He sat right next to him.
He walked behind him as they went to the TSBD.
He was familiar with the jacket.
He was totally unfamiliar with CE 163.
I don't understand how you can brush off Frazier's testimony or why you would do that.
Regarding Oswald's jacket, Frazier's testimony is possibly the only testimony that is certain and definitive.
So, surely we start with this and then build on it.
Why don't you accept Frazier's testimony regarding Oswald's jacket?
Roberts did not say she saw Oswald carrying a jacket when he left so your misleading picture is irrelevant.
I did not say anything about Oswald leaving, let alone carrying a jacket. I'm replying to Dan's suggestion that Oswald might have taken his jacket off prior to being seen by Earlene. Thus her testimony of seeing him in shirt sleeves. You barged in with the charge that 5 seconds is not enough time to make a 'sound observation'. The image I posted disproves that unless you are really, really slow on the uptake. Which you appear to be in this instance.
Sure, just like Marion Baker
Mr. BAKER - At that particular time I was looking at his face, and it seemed to me like he had a light brown jacket on and maybe some kind of white-looking shirt.
Where did I say that I don't accept Buell's testimony? You're being overly defensive here.
If you want to hands-down accept the testimony of the guy who drove the killer to work (a fact that in itself is fraught with a potential world-of-hurt for Buell) then good luck with that. By the way, Buell has said that he didn't want to be seen as the guy who drove the suspect to the scene of the crime. Or words to that effect.
However, the fact remains that the bulkier jacket was found not only to be left behind in the TSBD, but also supported as the jacket Linnie saw Oswald wearing that AM in Irving.
I'm replying to Dan's suggestion that Oswald might have taken his jacket off prior to being seen by Earlene. Thus her testimony of seeing him in shirt sleeves.
Earlier Dan replied to one of your posts, which turned out to be addressed to me. Now a similar confusion happens again. Could it be your lack of communication sleeves?
But I agree that Earlene Roberts would have seen Oswald carrying a jacket as he entered the house. She didn't see it because he wasn't carrying one.
You barged in with the charge that 5 seconds is not enough time to make a 'sound observation'.
The 5 seconds is not enough remark was about Oswald leaving the rooming house. That was made clear in my post. You're the one who seems to be confused or not paying attention
The image I posted disproves that unless you are really, really slow on the uptake. Which you appear to be in this instance.
It has already been established that your ramblings very often simply don't make sense are result in confusion.
Have a good time concocting another fairytale story with Dan Thumb1:
I'm at odds with Dan in case you haven't noticed. Do try to keep up or move along.
And no concocting of fairy tales necessary as Oswald has already been caught red-handed
with his greasy little paws in the cookie jar:
BILL CHAPMAN
Without getting too 'pantomime' about - I've not said that you ever said you don't accept Frazier's testimony about the jacket.
It's just that...well...I get the strong impression (maybe I'm wrong here) that you are of the opinion Oswald wore CE 163 to work and left it behind in his rush to get out of the TSBD.
If so, by default, you do not accept Frazier's unequivocal testimony regarding what jacket Oswald wore to work that morning.
Not being defensive.
Just saying.
It makes sense Frazier would want to diminish the size of the package Oswald was carrying as the investigating authorities would rightly find it difficult to believe Frazier didn't notice that Oswald was carrying a rifle-shaped package to work with him.
Frazier was also correct to believe that the very act of driving Oswald to work that morning was going to impact negatively on his life, and, as I understand it, it really did impact negatively on his life.
But that doesn't (IMO) extend to the description of what jacket Oswald had on that morning. And Frazier is definitive about what jacket Oswald had on that morning.
So, as far as accepting his testimony on this detail "hands-down", I don't see the problem.
And I don't see what bearing it has on Oswald's guilt as far as the assassination is concerned.
The fact also remains that Frazier's testimony is definitive whilst Linnie Mae's is uncertain, to say the least.
As for CE 163 being left behind in the TSBD...it's a mystery.
All we can say, with confidence, is that it wasn't the jacket Oswald wore to work that morning.
That is, of course, if Frazier's testimony on the matter means anything.
And I believe it does.
Let's agree to disagree about it.
If you believe as I do that Oswald was trying to minimize the size of the package, including folding it in the back seat, then you'll surely agree that the larger, bulkier CE 163 jacket would be the first choice to effect that ruse. Buell would have no choice but to rail really hard in support for the less-bulky jacket (remember he said 'the one with the bulky sleeves') in order to distance himself from any 'you-should- have-noticed' blame.
So you have no explanation whatsoever for why the DPD would switch the pistols, frame a person they knew was innocent, and let the guilty person who they obtained the pistol from go free? It just could have happened. Got it.
I reckon there's a lot of yoga gurus who would be envious of that stretch.
Why should I need to explain that? It's another strawman.
The sole purpose of a chain of custody is to establish that a piece of evidence is in fact related to the alleged crime, rather than having, for example, been "planted" fraudulently to make someone appear guilty. In other words, to limit the possibility that a claim of "it could have happened" is successful and thus questioning (at the least) or destroying (at the worst) the evidentiary value of that piece of evidence.
It's a law enforcement officer's job to ensure that a credible, well documented chain of custody is established for each piece of evidence. You don't get to say "it doesn't matter that there is no credible chain of custody, because you can't explain why the police would tamper with the evidence". That's not how it works.... You don't know that?
Oh wait, I'm asking a die hard LN who will use any excuse to keep Oswald in play as the lone gun man. So, who cares about a chain of custody, right?
Now we learn that not only do you not have to provide any evidence whatsoever to support the suggestion that the pistol was planted or rebut the actual evidence linking it to Oswald, but you also don't even need to provide any explanation for WHY the DPD would knowingly frame an innocent person and let the person they knew had murdered a fellow officer to go free. We must simply just accept that possibility. All of this based on an OJ-like alleged brief delay in logging the evidence on a day in which both the President of the United States and a police officer had been murdered. A pretty busy day. Unreal. You should be embarrassed to peddle this nonsense.
Vince Bugliosi, an actual lawyer, had a different experience with the ins & outs in dealing with this chain-of-custody thing. You can find this information on DVP's blog where he corresponds directly with the aforementioned Bugliosi.
As I recall, Baker describes Oswald wearing a jacket in the TSBD lunch room and then only moments later Mrs. Reid describes Oswald in just a white t-shirt w/o any jacket or outer shirt. I think you would drive yourself crazy drying to reconcile all the descriptions. It is not something anyone had cause to note at the time and recall later.
Being a prosecutor of course he will have a different take on chain of custody matters. For a prosecutor chains of custody can be a real pain. I haven't checked on DVP's blog (can't really be bothered to get information from a propaganda site) but even if Bugliosi managed to get away with a chain of custody matter, that still doesn't make it the norm.
And that really is all that needs to be said.
You guys are incorrect. Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance before he got on the patrol car radio. The order of events on the police tapes tell you this.
Reclaiming History
Vince Bugliosi:
"I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case
would be admissible. I can tell you from personal experience that
excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is
rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical
situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial
judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of
the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much
weight or credence the jury will give it*, not its admissibility"
via David Von Pein Blog Spot
*My emphasis
Aha... you've clearly not understood that the admissibility of evidence at trial does not say anything about the credibility of that evidence. When a chain of custody does not exist the defense has two options;
1. they can object to the admissibility of that evidence, which is not so easy as it sounds, because the bar for admissibility is really low. As long as the argument can be made to the judge that the evidence is related to the case (even for a little bit) the judge will likely allow it in. A judge normally does not want to decide which evidence is credible or not. Unless there is clearly no link between the evidence and the crime a judge will prefer to let the jury decide.
or
2. you can challenge the credibility of that evidence in front of the jury, by pointing out that there is no solid (enough) chain of custody and that there are credibility issues with that evidence.
The latter is what Cochran did in the OJ trial with the bloody glove. The only person in the chain of custody for that glove, if I remember correctly, was Mark Fuhrman and by destroying his credibility on the stand as well as the "demonstration" of OJ trying to put on the glove was not only enough for the jury to deem that evidence not credible but also to come back with a not guilty verdict.
So, it seems this thing backfired for you because I basically agree with Bugs.... and he's "an actual lawyer", don't you know.
Go figure. Thumb1:
I quoted Bugliosi verbatim and you agree with him: Yet you're trying to make me seem the fool. Wtf is your problem. Are you sure you've got the correct Wiki page in front of you?
Vince Bugliosi, an actual lawyer, had a different experience with the ins & outs in dealing with this chain-of-custody thing. You can find this information on DVP's blog where he corresponds directly with the aforementioned Bugliosi.
Yet you're trying to make me seem the fool.
I wasn't trying. If you feel the fool, it has nothing to do with me.
You claimed Bugliosi had "a different experience with the ins & outs in dealing with this chain-of-custody thing."
Except he didn't have a "different experience" at all....
'I wasn't trying. If you feel the fool, it has nothing to do with me.'
Where did I say I felt like a fool? I said you tried to make me seem the fool.
It is on you.
Let's see. Now you really hope that I am going to debate you in this pathetic topic, right?
No way... but nice try Thumb1:
No debate necessary.
You tried to twist what I said and failed.
No need to get nasty, just because I don't want to play your silly game.
I wasn't even trying, but it seems that I somehow succeeded to make you seem the obvious ........ fool.
Tell us what's silly about straightening out Oswald apologists.
Enjoy:
And again:
Tell us what's silly about straightening out Oswald apologists.
Oh, where to start?.... First of all it's silly to even believe there is such a thing as an Oswald apologist.
Secondly, it is silly to believe that a WC apologist LNr somehow has the capacity to straighten out anything....
It's also silly to believe that these pathetic Western Union gifs have any value and/or impress somebody.... They don't!
Should I go on..... Nah, that's enough already
:'(There are WC apologists but no Oswald apologists? That's a good one. How would an Oswald apologist act differently than coming here day-after-day, week-after-week, year-after year defending him? Literally thousands of posts, hundreds of hours defending him. What would a "real" apologist do differently?
There are WC apologists but no Oswald apologists? That's a good one. How would an Oswald apologist act differently than coming here day-after-day, week-after-week, year-after year defending him? Literally thousands of posts, hundreds of hours defending him. What would a "real" apologist do differently?
I can understand defending someone like Alfred Dreyfus or another accomplished person who one thinks was innocent. But Oswald? This miserable wife beater? He was a traitor, he was willing to aid the Soviets. And abandon his family. He wanted to go to Cuba. And leave his pregnant wife and child behind. He turned his back on his family, his friends and his country.
And people spend their time defending this miserable person?
There are WC apologists but no Oswald apologists?
Yes, indeed, but that's probably way above your head. The WC apologists will swallow anything the WC told them no matter how questionable it is and will do anything to keep Oswald in play as the lone gun man. There are no Oswald apologists because in order to be one you first need to accept that he was guilty and then defend him nevertheless. I don't know anybody who actually believes he's guilty and still defend him. Personally, I couldn't care less about Oswald. If he did it, I'm not going to apologize for him, but it needs to be proven - not just assumed - that he did it.
Oswald apologists only exist in the mind of die hard WC apologists.
As far as the remainder of you post goes, you've just exposed the emotional side of your argument. To somebody like you Oswald needs to be guilty because you actually hate somebody who you don't know and has been dead for more than half a century. It's Salem stuff.... take a step back and consider what you just said and ask yourself if that's a reasonable stance!
I can understand defending someone like Alfred Dreyfus or another accomplished person who one thinks was innocent.
Dreyfus was innocent. It has nothing to do with this case.
Which only shows that you have learned nothing and have no respect for normal police procedures and the legal requirement to provide a credible chain of custody for each piece of evidence.
rebut the actual evidence linking it to Oswald,
This is by far the most idiotic comment in your pathetic rant. The chain of custody's main purpose is to credibly link a piece of evidence to a suspect. Such a link is not automatically assumped as you seem to believe or favor. It is not necessary to rebut evidence without a credible chain of custody. Just how ignorant are you?
Ah, the well-worn conspiracy-monger Appeal to Rebellion fallacy, the profoundly childish' you-can't-tell-us-what-to-do-think-feel-or-say' syndrome.. IOW, If you listen to authority you are gullible sheep because they are lying to you.It's always "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission....". It's like a cult mantra. The WC was carried out by dozens and dozens of individuals, people like Norman Redlich and others. But the Oswald defenders and conspiracists don't like to talk about the actual people who conducted the investigation. They want to chant "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission..."
Aw, poor little put-upon CTers. Boo-boo.
Edited: 8:00am EST
Ah, the well-worn conspiracy-monger Appeal to Rebellion fallacy, the profoundly childish' you-can't-tell-us-what-to-do-think-feel-or-say' syndrome.. IOW, If you listen to authority you are gullible sheep because they are lying to you.
Aw, poor little put-upon CTers. Boo-boo.
Edited: 8:00am EST
It's always "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission....". It's like a cult mantra. The WC was carried out by dozens and dozens of individuals, people like Norman Redlich and others. But the Oswald defenders and conspiracists don't like to talk about the actual people who conducted the investigation. They want to chant "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission..."
It's been more than half a century; we've had numerous investigations AFTER the Warren Commission including both government and media ones, e.g., CBS News, PBS, the Washington Post, ABC. Investigative journalists and historians have done investigations or works on the major figures - Robert Caro on LBJ, books on Hoover, Tim Weiner on the CIA. And the totality of these investigations showed no government conspiracy, that the evidence, direct and indirectly points to Oswald.
But all of that is ignored. It's the cult mantra of "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission.."
Did I miss where you showed us evidence of what constituted "normal police procedures" in this situation? You haven't even managed that. You just keep repeating the claim. And even if there were such quantifiable "normal procedures" Nov. 22, 1963 was certainly not a normal day in Dallas. The DPD had the assassination of the President on their hands and the murder of a DPD officer. An alleged minor delay in logging in the pistol does not equate to evidence that it was planted as you have stupidly claimed.
Why should I show you evidence for something you should already know, or are you telling me that you are taking part in this conversation without knowing what you are talking about. Btw the last person I will ever show a piece of evidence to is you, because you never ever produce any evidence or even answer a straight question yourself. If you want to find out something you already should have know, then look it up yourself.
And even if there were such quantifiable "normal procedures" Nov. 22, 1963 was certainly not a normal day in Dallas. The DPD had the assassination of the President on their hands and the murder of a DPD officer.
So what? Police have murders on their hands every day of the year. It's is a pathetic excuse to accept that normal procedures required by law were not followed and complied with just because the victim was the President of the United States.
An alleged minor delay in logging in the pistol does not equate to evidence that it was planted as you have stupidly claimed.
So you keep saying, rather stupidly, while at the same time ignoring that Hill walked into the personnel office of the DPD, told the people present that this was "Oswald's revolver" and marked it, when he was only told by Bob Carroll (who gave him the revolver in the car) that it was Oswald's. Even worse, Carroll himself testified that he took the revolver from somebody's hand but he couldn't say who the hand belonged to. That's a little more than "an alleged minor delay in logging in the pistol".
But then you will accept and forgive anything as long as it keeps Oswald in play as the killer. It's almost like you have a personal emotional investment in Oswald's guilt, that's clouding your judgment.
Translation: Martin/Roger made a baseless claim that the DPD violated "normal procedure" by allegedly having a brief delay in logging in the pistol as evidence. But he has no basis to support this claim by showing us what "normal procedure" was followed by the DPD in 1963. I'm not asking for "evidence". Where did you come up with that strawman? I'm asking you to support YOUR claim that it was not normal procedure for a brief delay in logging the evidence. If you suggest that was the case, then surely you can support your claim. Just repeating that claim over and over is not supportive of this as a fact.As we've mentioned before, this is like a defense attorney trying to persuade one juror to find his client not guilty. It doesn't matter how, it doesn't matter whether it's logical; just find one person to block a guilty vote.
We also learn they had murders every day of the year in Dallas in 1963! LOL. It must have been quite a bloody year in Dallas. And therefore the fact that the President had been assassinated that day shouldn't be a consideration in process! It's just another murder. Happens every day. As though the DPD had all the time in the world to complete the paperwork as usual on Nov. 22. You should be ashamed to peddle that nonsense. Oswald's guilt is compelled by the facts and evidence in this case. It is folks such as yourself who ignore the actual evidence and make bizarre claims like a brief delay in logging in the pistol somehow suggests doubt of Oswald's guilt.
Translation: Martin/Roger made a baseless claim that the DPD violated "normal procedure" by allegedly having a brief delay in logging in the pistol as evidence. But he has no basis to support this claim by showing us what "normal procedure" was followed by the DPD in 1963. I'm not asking for "evidence". Where did you come up with that strawman? I'm asking you to support YOUR claim that it was not normal procedure for a brief delay in logging the evidence. If you suggest that was the case, then surely you can support your claim. Just repeating that claim over and over is not supportive of this as a fact.
We also learn they had murders every day of the year in Dallas in 1963! LOL. It must have been quite a bloody year in Dallas. And therefore the fact that the President had been assassinated that day shouldn't be a consideration in process! It's just another murder. Happens every day. As though the DPD had all the time in the world to complete the paperwork as usual on Nov. 22. You should be ashamed to peddle that nonsense. Oswald's guilt is compelled by the facts and evidence in this case. It is folks such as yourself who ignore the actual evidence and make bizarre claims like a brief delay in logging in the pistol somehow suggests doubt of Oswald's guilt.
Did I miss where you showed us evidence of what constituted "normal police procedures" in this situation?
As we've mentioned before, this is like a defense attorney trying to persuade one juror to find his client not guilty. It doesn't matter how, it doesn't matter whether it's logical; just find one person to block a guilty vote.
And it's done on every piece of evidence, however small, that indicates Oswald's guilt. Time after time, day after day, week after week, year after year it's this fanatical devotion to the cause of Oswald. Every piece of evidence implicating Oswald has to be attacked, made into a "supposition" or "conjecture", waved away on some made up technical ground (as if we're in a court room).
Thousands and thousands of posts - at this forum, at the previous ones - giving the most innocent interpretations of Oswald's actions, of the evidence against him. Every single time. And thousands more giving the most sinister suggestions and explanations for the actions of everyone else. Every single time. If these aren't the actions of an apologist for Oswald then it's a damned good impersonation of one.
As I said, defending a Dreyfus was understandable. Or other people accused of crimes. But Lee Oswald? This is what they devote their lives to doing?
As we've mentioned before, this is like a defense attorney trying to persuade one juror to find his client not guilty. It doesn't matter how, it doesn't matter whether it's logical; just find one person to block a guilty vote.
And it's done on every piece of evidence, however small, that indicates Oswald's guilt. Time after time, day after day, week after week, year after year it's this fanatical devotion to the cause of Oswald. Every piece of evidence implicating Oswald has to be attacked, made into a "supposition" or "conjecture", waved away on some made up technical ground (as if we're in a court room).
Thousands and thousands of posts - at this forum, at the previous ones - giving the most innocent interpretations of Oswald's actions, of the evidence against him. Every single time. And thousands more giving the most sinister suggestions and explanations for the actions of everyone else. Every single time. If these aren't the actions of an apologist for Oswald then it's a damned good impersonation of one.
As I said, defending a Dreyfus was understandable. Or other people accused of crimes. But Lee Oswald? This is what they devote their lives to doing?
It's mystifying. The evidentiary case against Oswald is very strong and straightforward. Absent a time machine, it is difficult to understand how we could have much more evidence than exists. Almost equally compelling is the improbable nature of any alternative narrative - including everything that would have to have happened - for Oswald to be innocent or some Gomer Pyle-type patsy.
So what is the explanation for this pedantic endless defense of Oswald:
1) Bias. A conspiracy behind the JFK assassination comports with a world view that important events are always controlled by some nefarious entity. So the CIA, FBI, WC, or LBJ is behind everything. In fact, the conspiracy itself becomes necessary to explain why they can never make a case for proving Oswald's innocence. Some powerful force precludes it. An endless loop. Similar to UFO believers. They can never be dissuaded from this belief because their inability to make the case for Oswald's innocence is deemed further proof of a conspiracy.
2) Compulsion disorder. Many CTers appear to share a common trait. They are obsessed with minutia. They literally can't see the forest for the trees. Long rambling posts that have disconnected points that never add up to anything. They can't filter information into knowledge. Thus, they become overwhelmed by detail and conclude "something" must have happened. What they can't quite articulate but something must have happened because a lot of small details can't be explained to their subjective satisfaction.
3) Mental illness. Some CTers appear to have actual mental issues. If they believe even half of the nonsense that they espouse, they are suffering from delusions and paranoia. Outside of an Internet forum with many like minded folks, these people would be put in a straight jacket for some of their nutty theories. There are serious minded CTers who use evidence in an attempt to make their case, but they are a definite minority. Oddly, intelligence is not a mitigating factor. In fact, there some very intelligent CTers who are off their rocker.
4) Attention. It's easy to play the contrarian and gain attention. Ironically, not much different from Oswald himself who played the outsider to garner attention. So they take issue with every point - no matter how obvious - that lends itself to Oswald's guilt ("Oswald's rifle - LOL"). Repeat endlessly. I suppose it passes the time like other hobbies. Whether these folks believe their own nonsense is unclear. Perhaps they get so caught up in trying to conjure up doubt that they come to believe it.
Mental illness. Some CTers appear to have actual mental issues. If they believe even half of the nonsense that they espouse, they are suffering from delusions and paranoia. Outside of an Internet forum with many like minded folks, these people would be put in a straight jacket for some of their nutty theories. There are serious minded CTers who use evidence in an attempt to make their case, but they are a definite minority. Oddly, intelligence is not a mitigating factor. In fact, there some very intelligent CTers who are off their rocker.
Richard addressing other people's mental health...I don't think Richard composed those quips.... He must have plagiarized somebody more witty and also more insulting than he. When it suits their purpose...the Oswald did it people will state that eye witnesses can be in error. I place myself in the micro-minority of skeptics who still fail to understand how someone can appear within a 10-15 minute time frame from a rooming house approx one mile away to an unexplained location and for no further explained reason gun down a policeman. That's all.
Helen Markham, Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, William Scoggins, Sam Guinyard and Ted Callaway all attended a police lineup and positively identified Lee Oswald as the man they saw either shoot J.D. Tippit or run from the immediate scene with a gun in his hands. Not one witness who attended a lineup identified someone other than Oswald as the man they saw.
Four men located at the Johnny Reynolds Motor Company located one block south of the Tippit shooting scene heard the shots and looked up the street. Warren Reynolds, Pat Patterson and Harold Russell positively identified Lee Oswald as the man they saw running south on Patton to Jefferson with a gun in his hands. One man, L.J. Lewis, failed to identify Oswald as the man he saw but Lewis also did NOT say that the man was not Oswald; only that he couldn't be sure either way.
Jimmy Burt and Bill Smith were out in the front yard of the house on the corner of Tenth and Denver (one block east of Tenth and Patton). They heard the shots, looked west along Tenth and saw the killer run from the scene. These two men were interviewed by the FBI and neither could positively identify Lee Oswald as the killer. However, neither man stated that Oswald was NOT the man they saw.
Domingo Benavides was the closest witness to the shooting. He heard the shots and ducked down in his pickup truck. He saw the killer but told the Dallas Police that he felt he didn't get a good enough look at the killer to make an identification. Benavides could not state that the killer was Oswald and he could not state that the killer was NOT Oswald.
Add up these above witnesses. Thirteen witnesses to the shooting and/or the killer fleeing. Nine of the witnesses positively identified Lee Oswald. Four of the witnesses could not make a determination one way or the other. But ZERO of the thirteen witnesses told the authorities that the man was NOT Oswald.
I don't think Richard composed those quips.... He must have plagiarized somebody more witty and also more insulting than he. When it suits their purpose...the Oswald did it people will state that eye witnesses can be in error. I place myself in the micro-minority of skeptics who still fail to understand how someone can appear within a 10-15 minute time frame from a rooming house approx one mile away to an unexplained location and for no further explained reason gun down a policeman. That's all.
"...how someone can appear within a 10-15 minute time frame from a rooming house approx one mile away..."
The distance was actually 0.8 miles and at a brisk walk of 4mph this distance can be covered in 12 minutes.
"...to an unexplained location..."
The clue to why Oswald was on East 10th Street is the bus transfer ticket.
In the memo below it is explained that the only place Oswald could use the transfer was at Marsalis and Jefferson (3 blocks away from the Tippit shooting). It also explains why Oswald appeared to be in a hurry - there was a limited time in which he could use the transfer ticket.
https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0393/23811297.pdf
"...for no further explained reason gun down a policeman..."
It seems that Oswald was on the run (from the police).
"...for no further explained reason gun down a policeman..."
It seems that Oswald was on the run (from the police).
Oswald was a totally-controlled CIA asset who feigned defection to the Soviet Union on behalf of the CIA (see link).
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2958.0.html
If Oswald killed Tippit, it was on orders from his CIA handlers. If Oswald did not kill Tippit, the CIA killed Tippit and then gave the gun to Oswald and said, “Meet us at the theater.”
That lines up with my own timing, when I did the walk. So, if you agree that Tippit was shot at around 1.09 PM how do you propose he got there by (roughly) 1:08, when Markham saw him walking?
Still it makes no sense for him to be walking east on 10th street (if he did as some witnesses have him walking west first). He could have walked down Patton and turned left when he got to Jefferson.
Hindsight based on bias. Assumes Oswald was the man and that he was on the run.
If you had the decency to read the post I was responding to you would see there is no need for your unwarranted accusations of 'bias' (you, of all people on this forum, accusing anyone of 'bias' is beyond a joke).
Jerry expressed his failure to understand how someone, namely Oswald, could get from his rooming house to the Tippit shooting in 10-15 minutes. Why Oswald was at this specific location. And why Oswald shot Tippit for no apparent reason.
The assumption of Oswald being 'the man' was put forward by Jerry and I was putting forward some opinions regarding the points Jerry raised. Not facts or the "truth". Just some opinions.
Here's some more assumptions based on the following assumption - Oswald was involved in the assassination of JFK.
#1 He's on the run.
This is supported by Whaley's testimony that Oswald was supposed to get out of the cab a lot further down Beckley. Oswald gets Whaley to drive by the house so he can check it out. He sees it's all clear and jumps out of the cab before his designated stop. If it wouldn't have been all clear he would've got Whaley to drop him off further down Beckley where he'd originally agreed to be dropped off.
#2 He's in a hurry.
This is supported by Roberts' testimony. She is certain about two things in her testimony - that Oswald is in a hurry and that he is zipping up a jacket when he leaves the house.
It's also supported by the bus transfer ticket - Oswald can only use it at Marsalis and Jefferson and he has to get there before 1:15PM.
He has a small window of opportunity to get to the transfer point. Oswald jogging at 6mph would get him to Patton in 8 minutes.
#3 He uses the back streets.
It makes sense that he would avoid main streets like Beckley or Jefferson if he was on the run. With this in mind Oswald got off Beckley and onto North Crawford street, crossed the 8th and Davis triangle and carried on down North Crawford. He turned left onto 10th Street. This is supported by Markham's testimony that she first saw the shooter crossing Patton and moving east.
Oswald may have intended to go further down North Crawford but may have seen Tippit's squad car coming up from Jefferson so decided to duck down East 10th Street.
When Markham saw him walking he was already being followed by Tippit. If he was aware of that he would hardly be running.
Oswald had to get to Marsalis and Jefferson by 1:15 PM
He was in a big hurry and used the back streets.
Why are you so aggressive and paranoid at the same time?
I agree that Oswald, walking, could get from the rooming house to the Tippit scene in 12 minutes but not in 10.
But you haven't answered my question. You have agreed that my timeline shows that Tippit was most probably shot around 1:09, which means that his killer must have been there at 1:08. So, if the killer was Oswald, how do you get him from the rooming house to 10th street in 8 minutes max.?
That's one hell of an assumption, but it happens to be one I agree with to the extent that Oswald must have been involved, because you can't frame a complete outsider. What Oswald exactly was involved in is another matter.
Hindsight and speculation! Whaley's testimony does not support that Oswald was "on the run".
No. It might have been Roberts' impression that Oswald was in a hurry, but that doesn't mean he actually was. And the bus transfer ticket doesn't prove anything of the kind. Even if the transfer did in fact belong to Oswald, that still doesn't mean that he was on his way to a bus stop at Marsalis and Jefferson
Now, you are only making things up and claiming it makes sense. In reality you have no idea whatsoever what route Oswald took, if he was indeed Tippit's killler. Markham may have seen him when he was walking east, but other witnesses saw him walking west first. The whole thing is pure 100% speculation.
Who said that Oswald had to get to Marsalis and Jefferson by 1:15 PM?
With enough speculation you can get anybody to do anything, but I can just as easily speculate that Oswald left the rooming house and went straight to the Texas Theater, where Burrows saw him at 1:07 PM.
You can't build a house on quicksand (i.e. speculations) and expect it will survive the first storm.
Because I'm sick and tired of your accusations of hypocrisy, dishonesty and bias.
And if I was paranoid about it then it wouldn't be in the written record of this forum, would it?
The really grating aspect of it is that you are clearly an unreasonably aggressive tinfoil tiara-wearing CT zealot pretending to be a open, reasonable person.
Where in my post does it mention Oswald walking the distance in 10 minutes?
What are you talking about?
What's wrong with you?
But I have answered this question.
It's in the post you're supposed to be replying to.
You've not even read the post you're criticising.
Really, what is wrong with you? It's written there for all to see (except you)
That Oswald was involved in the assassination of JFK is "one hell of an assumption"?
Really?
It's just something I plucked out of thin air?
Get a grip.
Of course it's speculation. My whole post is speculation. It's opinions and assumptions.
I've made that perfectly clear in the post.
Why can't you understand something so simple.
Oswald asking to be dropped on 500 block and getting out on 700 block when he lives at 1026 is strange behaviour.
It can be explained by Oswald being on the run and wanting to check out whether the coast was clear outside his rooming house.
If you have a better piece of speculation let's hear it.
You've not read the memo I posted have you.
Read it, then comment.
Well done.
You're getting it.
It's 100% speculation.
Well done.
Markham testified to seeing him crossing Patton and walking east followed shortly by Tippit. If that is the case, and I'm not saying it's a fact, but if her testimony on this point is reliable then he came from North Crawford, as did Tippit.
Remember, it was you who brought Markham into it.
I did.
Don't you get it.
I did as part of my speculating.
If you'd read the memo you'd understand where I'm getting that idea from.
But you've not.
How would you explain Brewer's testimony. That he watched Oswald go into the Texas Theater.
:D :D :D
Thank you for showing your true colors, mr. truth-seeker :D
Because I'm sick and tired of your accusations of hypocrisy, dishonesty and bias.
Then stop being a dishonest and bias driven hypocrite! It's an easy solution to your problem.
What a pathetic, weak-minded response.
What a show of your true colours.
A complete lack of substance.
A complete lack of character.
Run along, I've wasted as much time on you as I'm going to.
All this stuff was all covered on page one of this thread and has gone in circles ever since. And let's not insult the other posters...it accomplishes nothing and is violating forum regulations. Scrutinizing everything...Oswald just simply did not have the time to meander down back streets etc and arrive on site and engaging in a shooting of the policeman. As the crow may fly...yeah it is a bit less than a mile perhaps but I walked it [the shortest route possible] and saw for myself that things just didn't fit. Also if Oswald wanted to take a bus... there was a stop right next to his rooming house.
This is a snapshot of a Google maps walking route from 1026 North Beckley Avenue to 401 East 10th Street:
(https://i.postimg.cc/wB9DHRRN/Screenshot-188.png) (https://postimages.org/)
It shows the walking distance to be 0.8 miles.
At a normal walking rate of 3mph this distance can be covered in 16 minutes
At a brisk walking rate of 4mph this distance can be covered in 12 minutes
At a jog of 6mph this distance can be covered in 8 minutes
These figures are not up for dispute. They are facts.
To imagine that a young, fit man like Oswald, who was trained in the Marines, couldn't make this distance in 8 minutes is baffling.
To imagine he couldn't do it in 10 minutes is incomprehensible. Unless there is an underlying medical condition Oswald was suffering from that I've yet to come across.
As far as I'm concerned there is no reason to believe Oswald could not have made the distance in 8 minutes and even less if he really pushed himself. I'm not saying he did do that. I'm saying I'm perplexed at inability to accept that he could do that.
2 comments;
The route in your map is wrong, because you have Oswald walking down Patton towards 10th street. Had he walked that way he would have been behind Markham, walking down Patton towards Jefferson.
And it is of little significance what you believe Oswald could or could not have done. In a car it would have taken him perhaps three minutes to get there, but there is no evidence for him using a car or him jogging. Like Jerry, I also walked the distance so years ago and my walking speed was pretty fast back then, yet I couldn't walk the fastest route in less than 12 minutes. There hasn't been any time trial that resulted in less time.
Once again, you are calling your own speculation "a fact" and ignore the basic truth that with enough speculation and assumptions you can get anybody to do anything, whether it's realistic or not.
Now, here's a question for you; can you provide one plausible reason for Oswald to run or jog from the rooming house to 10th street, instead of getting on a bus in front of the rooming house?
"Once again, you are calling your own speculation "a fact" "
Where have I called my own speculation a "fact"?
I'll save you the time, I haven't done that, it's just your inability to read the simplest text rearing it's ugly head again.
Just spend a few minutes going over what you are reading, then put your brain in gear.
The figures I gave for how long it takes to cover a certain distance at a certain speed are mathematical facts. Get to grips with that.
As for the route shown, it's impossible to show a route turning left onto 10th from Crawford as part of 10th has been built over nowadays. It was just to highlight the distance from Oswald's rooming house to the scene of the Tippit shooting - which is 0.8 miles, as I'm sure you'd agree.
As for you waddling the route in 12 minutes, top speed, well...who cares? It means nothing.
That distance can be covered in 12 minutes moving at 4mph (mathematical fact)
Can't you move faster than 4mph?
"In a car it would have taken him perhaps three minutes to get there"
:D
Ground control to Major Tom...
"Now, here's a question for you; can you provide one plausible reason for Oswald to run or jog from the rooming house to 10th street, instead of getting on a bus in front of the rooming house?"
He didn't know when the bus was coming and he only had a short window of opportunity to get to Marsalis and Jefferson.
How difficult was that?
How much brain power was required to overcome that mighty obstacle?
Now here's one for you - can you provide one plausible explanation for why Oswald asked for the cab to drop him at 500 block but got out near Neely Street, way past his actual address but before the destination he requested?
This should be good.
And remember to read the post thoroughly before responding.
As for you waddling the route in 12 minutes, top speed, well...who cares? It means nothing.
That distance can be covered in 12 minutes moving at 4mph (mathematical fact)
Can't you move faster than 4mph?
"Now, here's a question for you; can you provide one plausible reason for Oswald to run or jog from the rooming house to 10th street, instead of getting on a bus in front of the rooming house?"
He didn't know when the bus was coming and he only had a short window of opportunity to get to Marsalis and Jefferson.
How difficult was that?
How much brain power was required to overcome that mighty obstacle?
Now here's one for you - can you provide one plausible explanation for why Oswald asked for the cab to drop him at 500 block but got out near Neely Street, way past his actual address but before the destination he requested?
This should be good.
And remember to read the post thoroughly before responding.
Walking on 10th street towards Denver street has him walking parallel with Jefferson, when, from Davis street, he should have been going south to Jefferson, on either Crawford or Patton and turn left on Jefferson. There was absolutely no need for him to be anywhere near 10th street.
If that's what actually happened, the answer is; no I can't. The difference between you and me is that you seem to believe that you know what other people do and for what reason and I don't. People do silly things that don't make sense to others all the time.
To summarize. No one knows Oswald's exact route. No one knows whether he walked, ran, got a ride or strapped a jet engine on his back. What is known beyond any doubt - as confirmed by multiple witnesses and the evidence - is that Oswald was at the scene of the Tippit murder. Applying basic common sense to that fact then informs us that if Oswald was at the scene, then he had time to get there regardless of the pedantic nitpicking of a contrarian. Rendering all the attempts to conjure up false doubt about the timeline no longer relevant.
Why should I even bother to reply to your patronizing BS?
Of course it means nothing to you, because it doesn't fit in your narrative. And who said anything about "top speed"?
There hasn't been a single time trial that has shown that, at normal walking speed, the distance between the rooming house and 10th street takes less than 12 minutes. Your mathematical fact doesn't alter that one bit. Now, you can speculate all you want about how fast Oswald was running (without being noticed by anyone) but that would be just as silly - and this went clearly over your head - as claiming he drove there by car.... back to you, ground control.
But since you like mathematics so much, here's something for you to consider; Roberts said that she received a phone call from a friend who told her Kennedy had been killed and that she should turn on the television. The news of Kennedy's death was announced just after 1 PM. Oswald entered the rooming house when Roberts was trying to get the television to work. She already had the sound but not a good picture. This justifies the conclusion that Oswald did not enter the rooming house before 1 PM. If he only was in his room for 2 minutes, he would be back outside at 1:02 at the earliest.
Tippit's killer was seen walking (not running!) down 10th street by Markham at least one minute (but likely longer) before the shooting. You have agreed that my time line shows that Tippit was killed at 1:09, which means that Markham must have seen the killer walking down the street at 1:08 or even a bit earlier.
That leaves only six minutes at best between Oswald's departure from the rooming house and Markham's sighting of the killer. Can your mathematical brain figure out how Oswald could have (your words) jogged there in 8 minutes and still be on time to kill Tippit?
Even if he was running to Marsalis and Jefferson (which is only speculation on your part), there was no need or reason for him to be at 10th street. And that's what I asked you, but your brain power didn't understand that, did it now?
Walking on 10th street towards Denver street has him walking parallel with Jefferson, when, from Davis street, he should have been going south to Jefferson, on either Crawford or Patton and turn left on Jefferson. There was absolutely no need for him to be anywhere near 10th street.
If that's what actually happened, the answer is; no I can't. The difference between you and me is that you seem to believe that you know what other people do and for what reason and I don't. People do silly things that don't make sense to others all the time.
Hate to break it to you: It wasn't Oswald in the cab.
You seem completely lost at the moment.
And you KNOW Oswald didn't know the timetable for the bus passing his rooming house?
"But since you like mathematics so much, here's something for you to consider; Roberts said that she received a phone call from a friend who told her Kennedy had been killed and that she should turn on the television. The news of Kennedy's death was announced just after 1 PM. Oswald entered the rooming house when Roberts was trying to get the television to work. She already had the sound but not a good picture. This justifies the conclusion that Oswald did not enter the rooming house before 1 PM. If he only was in his room for 2 minutes, he would be back outside at 1:02 at the earliest."
This is absolutely key to your argument about how Oswald couldn't get to the scene of the shooting in the allotted time.
I've already corrected you on this once but, as it doesn't serve your entrenched and highly bias view of things, you just ignore it and move on.
In the clip below (that you posted) at 4:37, Roberts begins to explain things from the moment she turned on the TV (presumably after her friend called)
She describes that a program called "As The World Turns" was on when suddenly a bulletin cut in about the assassination.
The bulletin Roberts is describing was at 12:40 PM.
She describes how she was then trying to find out more news about the assassination when Oswald came in.
Your notion that Roberts heard the news at 1:00 PM has been proven to be false (again) and I hope this time you don't resort to making up eye-witness testimony as you did last time. A truly underhand move.
ASSUMPTION - The 1:00 PM news hadn't come on yet otherwise Roberts wouldn't be searching the channels for more news. Her statement in the clip above all but proves Oswald came in between 12:40 PM and 1:00 PM.
Roberts heard the news of the assassination at 12:40 PM. Not 1:00 PM as your doomed argument requires.
But wait on. There's always Roberts' testimony:
Mr. BALL. Can you tell me what time it was approximately that Oswald came in?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Now, it must have been around 1 o'clock, or maybe a little after, because it was after President Kennedy had been shot-what time I wouldn't want to say
Testimony I know you view as solid gold when it comes to confirmation of the time - because it was after JFK was shot!!
Followed up by "what time I wouldn't want to say". Well I'm sold 8)
I know it is a complete waste of time posting this as far as you're concerned but others might be interested.
"There hasn't been a single time trial that has shown that, at normal walking speed, the distance between the rooming house and 10th street takes less than 12 minutes."
Normal walking speed ::) Who cares about normal walking speed?
What about on-the-run from the law speed?
Or got-to-get to-the-transfer-point by 1:15 PM speed?
"There hasn't been a single time trial that has shown that, at normal walking speed, the distance between the rooming house and 10th street takes less than 12 minutes."
Normal walking speed ::) Who cares about normal walking speed?
What about on-the-run from the law speed?
Or got-to-get to-the-transfer-point by 1:15 PM speed?
Exactly.
But he was a wino, good enough for you?
Wow, you're so bad with the evidence.
In the clip below (that you posted) at 4:37, Roberts begins to explain things from the moment she turned on the TV (presumably after her friend called). She describes how she was then trying to find out more news about the assassination when Oswald came in.
What an amazing display of total ignorance combined with cherry picking the evidence you like. Yes, Roberts does say that she was watching "As the world turns" when, at 12:40, a special bulletin came on about shots being fired at the President and that the first reports say that Kennedy had been seriously wounded.
The problem with this is that the bulletin was the first news broadcast about the shooting and it said nothing about Kennedy being killed. You can presume all you want that this bulletin was broadcast after her friend called, but that simply does not match the facts. For a start, if this was the first news broadcast about the shooting, how could the friend even have known there had been a shooting. Secondly, the friend told Roberts that Kennedy had been killed and that news was not made public until 1 PM. In the video below she says that she turned to television on after her friend told her Kennedy had been killed.
And she confirms the sequence of events in her testimony.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in
So, Roberts' comment that she turned the television on after her friend called is indeed strange, if the television had been on the whole time. However, she said it twice and in her testimony she does not mention "As the world turns" or the special bulletin at all, which leaves open the possibility that that story was nothing more than an embellishment of her story for the media. This seems to be classic Roberts as described by her employer, Mrs. Johnson, making up stories as she goes along.
But ignoring/dismissing that information is not even half of your mistake, because at 5.12 in the video you have posted Roberts also says that it must have been after one o'clock when Oswald came in. And, as you've have pointed out, she also said the same thing in her testimony.
ASSUMPTION - The 1:00 PM news hadn't come on yet otherwise Roberts wouldn't be searching the channels for more news. Her statement in the clip above all but proves Oswald came in between 12:40 PM and 1:00 PM.
Except it doesn't. Not even close. The apparent contradiction in Roberts' statements about when she turned the television on is what you are trying to exploit for your bogus argument to push back the time of Oswald's entry at the rooming house which has the sole purpose (just like the jacket fairytale you came up with) to keep Oswald in play as Tippit's killer.
But what blows your entire theory straight out of the water is the documented time Oswald needed to get from the TSBD to the rooming house. There is no way that Oswald could have entered the rooming house when Roberts - as you claim - turned on the television at 12:40. And there is no way he could have come in at - let's say 12:50 or 12:55 - either because then he wouldn't be coming in when Roberts was turning on the television, as she said he did.
Roberts testimony is clear as day on that point; Oswald came in as she was turning on the television. In your version that would be at 12:40, and in Roberts' version at 1 PM. There is no way Oswald could be at the rooming house at 12:40.... need help to figure out the rest?
Roberts heard the news of the assassination at 12:40 PM. Not 1:00 PM as your doomed argument requires.
My argument does not require that Roberts heard the news about the assassination at 1 PM.
I know it is a complete waste of time posting this as far as you're concerned but others might be interested.
You claim to know what Oswald was thinking, what witnesses were thinking and now you even believe you know what I am thinking. That's one hell of a delusion.
The only speed you seem to be interested in is the one that gets Oswald to 10th street in time to kill Tippit. You are not looking at the facts in this case, you are twisting and turning to create your own set of "facts" with an already predetermined outcome.
Except, wrong guy in the picture.
Exactly.
But he was a wino, good enough for you?
Wow, you're so bad with the evidence.
"And there is no way he could have come in at - let's say 12:50 or 12:55 - either because then he wouldn't be coming in when Roberts was turning on the television, as she said he did.
Roberts testimony is clear as day on that point; Oswald came in as she was turning on the television."
Nowhere in her testimony does Roberts say Oswald came in as she was turning the TV on.
Once again you are falsifying witness testimony. You are just unbelievable.
This despicable strategy speaks volumes about your desperation to justify your entrenched mind-set.
How you can accuse anyone of dishonesty is hypocrisy of the highest order.
You simply don't care what you say and have zero interest in anything other that your ill-conceived theory.
"So, Roberts' comment that she turned the television on after her friend called is indeed strange, if the television had been on the whole time. However, she said it twice and in her testimony she does not mention "As the world turns" or the special bulletin at all, which leaves open the possibility that that story was nothing more than an embellishment of her story for the media. This seems to be classic Roberts as described by her employer, Mrs. Johnson, making up stories as she goes along."
Absolutely classic Tinfoil mentality.
Hanging all your hopes on Roberts' testimony then holding her up as a pathological liar just because she makes a mockery of your nonsense.
Are you not ashamed to portray yourself as reasonable?
"My argument does not require that Roberts heard the news about the assassination at 1 PM."
Truly unbelievable.
Your whole sorry tale relies on Roberts' testimony and your completely made up assertion that she heard the news at 1:00 PM
Let's not forget, this was the another instance of when you falsified eye-witness testimony, insisting Roberts had actually said she was looking for the 1:00 PM news when Oswald came in.
It should come as no surprise to find you using this most dishonest strategy once again.
But it does.
His rooming house?
Have you checked the registry?
Just for fun...
You should know.
And the guy in the cab wasn't in any hurry.
Done editing?
Nowhere in her testimony does Roberts say Oswald came in as she was turning the TV on.
Watch the goddamned video before you falsely accuse me of lying.
"I walked over here and turned the television on and the door opened and he come in in a hurry" - Earlene Roberts
And read her testimony;
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, "Oh, you are in a hurry." He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes.
So,... you were saying?
I am going to ignore the pathetic ad-hominem rant that is the remainder of your post. It isn't the first time a die hard LN flips out when confronted with facts he can not dispute.
Instead I'll just post again the fact that you are so desperately trying to avoid having to deal with.
Roberts testimony is clear as day on that point; Oswald came in as she was turning on the television. In your version that would be at 12:40, and in Roberts' version at 1 PM. There is no way Oswald could be at the rooming house at 12:40.... need help to figure out the rest?
Now, are you going to provide a credible reply to this or are you just going to embarrass yourself some more?
Don't be shy Otto.
Roberts testified Oswald entered the rooming house.
How do you think he got there.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, "Oh, you are in a hurry." He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes.
So...I was saying.
She turned the TV on.
She was trying to clear it up.
She could hear people talking but couldn't get the picture.
Then Oswald came in.
How you can equate the above testimony with your falsified assertion that "Oswald came in as she was turning on the television" speaks of a troubled mind.
If you really can't see the difference between the two then something is seriously amiss.
But I think you are fully aware of the difference and in particular this question - How long was she trying to clear the picture before Oswald came in?
In the interview I posted she said she that "As The World Turns" was on, then the bulletin, then she was trying to find out more news. But that's not good enough for you is it?
Because Roberts is a rock solid witness when it comes to telling the time but a pathological liar when it comes to how long the TV was on before Oswald came in.
I think your tinfoil tiara might be on a little too tight.
And there are the word games, as predicted.
Any sane reasonable person will understand exactly what Roberts said in the video and her testimony. Your, totally insane, explanation is that Oswald didn't come in at exactly the same moment that Roberts pushed the button to switch the television on. It's desperation of the highest level. Stop embarrasing yourself.
Well, let me guess.... in your fairytale she was trying to clear the picture for about 10 to 15 minutes, right?
And then you have the audacity to call me unreasonable? Really? :D
As it contradicts what else she said, no it's not good enough for me. The fact that it is good enough for you, despite all her other statements tells me all I need to know.
Actually, I consider Roberts to be one of the most unreliable witnesses in this case. But she did not lie about how long the TV was on before Oswald came in, because she never said anything about it. You just made it up. All she said was that she turned on the television, after her friend called, and was trying to get a better picture when Oswald came in. That's it. Everything else is just your biased imagination.
One more problem for you to solve, Sherlock; If she was watching "As the world turns" and saw the bulletin at 12:40 - as you claimed - she already must have had a good picture. So what's all this stuff about turning the TV on and trying to get a better picture? It doesn't add up, does it now, Sherlock?
There is only one of us who is trying to create an alternate "reality" and that's you!
"Actually, I consider Roberts to be one of the most unreliable witnesses in this case."
Yet your whole sad tale is predicated on Roberts establishing the time Oswald left the rooming house at just after 1:00 PM.
What a joke.
I think we can agree the time given by Roberts is wholly unreliable and is not to be taken seriously.
Your sorry tale lies in tatters.
There is nothing to say exactly what time Oswald left the rooming house.
Where does that leave you now?
:D Or are you going to suddenly rally to support the reliability of Roberts' testimony?
Surely not even you would try that.
Nice try, now it's "the rooming house" - - LOL
So, did you check the registry for corroboration?
(one of those easy Y/N questions)
Looks more like being beat up.
A wino wearing two jackets - - LOL
Done editing?
Done editing?
Bump for Dan O'meara
From experience I know that it is normal LN procedure to simply abandon/ignore a conversation when faced with a problem, but I would like to get an answer to this fairly straight forward question;
You do remember that Roberts said that Oswald entered the rooming house when she was trying to get a better picture on the television, right?
Now, if Roberts was watching "As the world turns" and saw the special bulletin at 12:40 - as you claimed - she already must have had a good picture, right? So what's all this stuff about turning the TV on and trying to get a better picture when Oswald walked in? It doesn't add up, does it now, Sherlock?
Do you think I will have a credible answer before the year is out?
Word salad.
What makes you think you're in a position to make deals?
If Oswald wore two jackets in the cab there was no jacket to put on in the rooming house and no jacket to leave behind in the domino room. Elementary.
This is really exciting.Dan: I'll just drop this and move on: He doesn't believe Oswald lived/stayed at the rooming house. Why not? Because there is no "Lee Oswald" listed in the registry.
I feel like I'm tentatively treading through the echoing sub-chambers of the truly conspiratorial mind.
Is it shadow?
Is it light?
Just a few simple exchanges and through the looking-glass we go.
"Nice try, now it's "the rooming house" - - LOL"
But that's what I referred to it as before when I asked:
"Just for fun...how do you think Oswald got to his rooming house."
Nothing tricky is happening here.
How did Oswald get from the Dealey Plaza area to his rooming house at 1026 North Beckley Avenue?
You are saying he wasn't in Whaley's cab so I'm asking you how he got there.
There is no trap, it's all really straight-forward, it's a really simple question.
Instead of answering it you keep asking me if I've checked "the registry".
I'll make you a deal - I asked my question first, you answer that and I'll answer yours.
Promise.
Earlene Roberts testified that Oswald returned to the rooming house [at 1026 North Beckley Avenue] after she learned of the shooting of JFK.
How did Oswald get from the Dealey Plaza area to the rooming house?
Dan: He doesn't believe Oswald lived/stayed at the rooming house. Why not? Because there is no "Lee Oswald" listed in the registry.
So that means Oswald never went to the rooming house after leaving the TSBD. Roberts did not see Oswald come in and leave. Whaley didn't drive Oswald to the rooming house. Again because Oswald NEVER LIVED at that house. When you ask how did Oswald get to the rooming house, he will say "LOL, rooming house." He doesn't believe Oswald went to the rooming house because Oswald never lived there.
These claims by Roberts and Whaley and others are all lies or falsehoods made to frame Oswald. End of story.
It's useless trying to find middle ground - or any ground - with this type of mindset. You argue that "one plus one equals two" and they will reply "LOL, there is no one and one."
And I know from my experience of dealing with the Tinfoil Brigade that the only answer that matters is the one they already have and they will go to any extent to defend their "truth", as we have already seen.
Your lame self-portrayal as a man of reason is a joke. You have your answer already even though the unreliability of Roberts timestamp has been held up for all to see.
And even though continuing this discussion with you is a farce I will try to answer your question as openly and as honestly as my limited abilities allow.
It doesn't matter how credible the answer is with you, you already know it all.
But here goes.
My first port of call was David Von Pein's website, an invaluable research tool. Without genuine researchers such as David, Robin Unger and Pat Speer a novice such as myself wouldn't have a clue what to do. It's all been done for me.
From there I found a video of the CBS channel showing it's contents uncut from just after the time of the assassination. This is the channel Roberts was watching according to her interview. It starts with As The World Turns, a popular soap opera. A quick Google search of the show threw up this image:
(https://i.postimg.cc/g29nVTSv/Screenshot-190.png) (https://postimages.org/)
These are the two actors in the opening sequence of the video confirming it is As The World Turns.
I found a timestamp at 58:50 in the video where Walter states that JFK died at 1:00 PM "some thirty eight minutes ago".
Therefore 58:50 on the video = 1:38 PM in "real time" [RT] (obviously this is not to the second, just an approximation. But a close one)
The following analysis of the first part of the video is based on this approximate timestamp.
0:00 [ 12:39.10 RT ] -- "As The World Turns" is on
1:50 [ 12:41 RT ] -- The first bulletin flashes on (this is the one shown in the Roberts interview)
2:50 [ 12:42 RT ] -- First bulletin ends, followed by various ads
4:57 [ 12:44.07 RT ] -- Second Bulletin flashes on
7:08 [ 12:46.18 RT ] -- Second Bulletin finishes and "As The World Turns" resumes
8:50 [ 12:48 RT ] -- "As The World Turns" goes into an ad break
9:34 [ 12:48.44 RT ] -- Third bulletin begins. This runs continuously until the 1:00 PM news comes on with Walter Cronkite
My best interpretation of Roberts testimony and the interview she gave is that her friend sees either the first or second Bulletin and rings Roberts to tell her the news.
Roberts switches on the TV and "As The World Turns" is on which goes into an ad break shortly after which the third and final bulletin comes on. This is the bulletin Roberts reports seeing. This bulletin begins around 12:49 PM. For whatever reason her TV starts playing up and she has to try to fix it. She can hear the report but the picture isn't any good. It is around this time Oswald comes in.
Remember - this is my best, most honest interpretation. It's not the only interpretation and it doesn't account for every statement Roberts made in her various testimonies and interviews, but it accounts for a lot of them.
Obviously the timings are not perfect to the second but they are probably within a minute.
First LN instinct is ad hominem attack and insults. Nothing new or of interest there, so I'll just ignore it.
Your lame self-portrayal as a man of reason is a joke.
That's exactly what unreasonable people, pushing their own bogus agenda, have been saying about me for the past 40 years or so. I'm not impressed....
You have your answer already even though the unreliability of Roberts timestamp has been held up for all to see.
Huh? I don't even understand what the hell this means? if Roberts' timestamp is unreliable, then why do you continue to rely on what she said? You are not making any kind of sense.
Yes, so what? Roberts said that Oswald came in as she was trying to get a better picture on the television (I'm paraphrasing, just in case you want to play word games again), so when did this happen?
My best interpretation of Roberts testimony and the interview she gave is that her friend sees either the first or second Bulletin and rings Roberts to tell her the news.
So, that's the first assumption. The only problem is that Roberts said in the video I posted that her friend called her and told her Kennedy had been killed. That had not been broadcast yet.
This is the bulletin Roberts reports seeing.
That's the second assumption
For whatever reason her TV starts playing up and she has to try to fix it. She can hear the report but the picture isn't any good.
That's the third assumption.
It is around this time Oswald comes in.
And that's the fourth assumption. This one has a major problem, because there is no way that Oswald could have made it from the TSBD to the rooming house by 12:49. Didn't you check the WC bible, like I told you to?
Obviously the timings are not perfect to the second but they are probably within a minute.
No they are not. They are not even close.
There is not a shred of evidence that the television started to play up. You just made it up. What Roberts actually said (again paraphrasing) was that she turned on the television and she had the sound but the picture was still blurred.
But more importantly is that Roberts said, in her interview as well as in her testimony, that it must have been after one o'clock that Oswald came in. Now, why in the world would you make up your own alternate reality based on several assumptions instead of simply accepting what she testified?
Wait, no need to answer that. The real reason is already abundantly clear.
As predicted, a complete farce.
More than once I stressed that I was presenting an "interpretation" of various pieces of evidence which is necessarily a series of assumptions to integrate Roberts' statements with the video and you've jumped on that like it's some big discovery.
Well done. Great work.
But here's what I'd like to highlight just to show the pointlessness of attempting to deal with the Tinfoil mentality:
"So, that's the first assumption. The only problem is that Roberts said in the video I posted that her friend called her and told her Kennedy had been killed. That had not been broadcast yet."
In her WC testimony Roberts states that:
"Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on."
She emphasises it was after JFK was shot, which fits perfectly with her interview in which she says she was watching "As The World Turns" and the a bulletin came on. This bulletin referred to JFK being shot.
But in a short video posted of Roberts she uses the word "killed" instead of "shot" which you jump on to try and win a point.
The problem is that the announcement of JFK's death isn't until 1:38 PM.
So you are now implying that Oswald didn't enter the rooming house until after 1:38 PM which destroys your own theory!!
You have absolutely no qualms about destroying your own theory just to make a silly point so you can feel you're winning the argument.
Is there nothing you won't do to try and win a point?
What am I saying...you're more than prepared to falsify eye-witness testimony so why wouldn't you do this.
Truly unbelievable.
You're not worth discussing anything with.
And just for the record - I've not said anything about Oswald coming in at 12:49 PM. That's just a little strawman you've put up to knock down to give yourself the illusion you're still in the game. ::)
No, I am not implying anything of the kind. That's just your strawman. Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1 PM. You don't know where Roberts' friend got the information from. Unlike you, I just try to follow the evidence and am not trying to create an alternate reality.
He didn't know when the bus was coming and he only had a short window of opportunity to get to Marsalis and Jefferson.
This claim by O'meara remains unproven.
Not that it should surprise anyone.
Oh dear.
It's only just dawned on me how far gone you are.
This is one of the most Tinfoil things I've ever come across.
So somebody immediately contacted Roberts' friend from Parkland Hospital to tell her that JFK was dead??
:D :D :D :D
Long before any of the networks were aware of it Roberts' neighbour had the scoop??
:D :D :D :D
And the first thing this woman thought to do was ring Earlene Roberts with the news??
:D :D :D :D
Once I'd pointed out you were destroying your own tinfoil, ill-conceived, tatty theory with your insistence that Roberts' friend had used the word "killed" instead of "shot" anyone with a grain of common sense would've held their hands up to the mistake. But not the truly Tinfoil who forge ahead into ever deeper and darker folly.
It's clear you don't have the wit to be embarrassed by your own buffoonery and I feel embarrassed I've wasted so much time on you.
It won't be happening in future.
"Unlike you, I just try to follow the evidence and am not trying to create an alternate reality."
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
"Oswald", getting dropped off in the wrong block, wearing two jackets, entering rooming house in shirt sleeves.
ROFL
That's beyond delusion.
Any factual incorrectness you can point me to?
Didn't think so, check.
Too bad neither his back story nor trip sheet fit.
Ever considered stand-up?
Listen Otto,
I've just finished mopping up one Tinfoil mess,
Forgive me if I don't get involved in another.
Agreed, simply running is probably the best option for you right now.
Listen Otto,
I've just finished mopping up one Tinfoil mess,
Forgive me if I don't get involved in another.
(https://i.imgur.com/ttyI5cS.gif)
One runner congratulating another runner.... This is hilarious.
Have you figured out where you went wrong with Callaway (helping to put Tippit into the ambulance after - not before - his call) yet?
And have you found the evidence that the Nash couple actually saw the time stamped card for the ambulance, or do you need more time for that one as well?
Have you figured out where you went wrong with Callaway (helping to put Tippit into the ambulance after - not before - his call) yet?
And have you found the evidence that the Nash couple actually saw the time stamped card for the ambulance, or do you need more time for that one as well?
11/23/63 FBI interview with Whaley (below). Whaley gives a detailed description of Oswald's shirt, makes no mention of a jacket and even goes as far as describing that his infamous passenger's shirt had long sleeves.
(https://i.imgur.com/N0ZZW4n.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/rk55EpG.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/hU3YrMo.jpg)
I didn't go wrong anywhere. You don't know what you're talking about. Your issue, not mine. It's all in the police tapes. Go have a listen.
Learn the case.
You can be as stubborn and/or patronizing as you want to be, but that still doesn't alter the fact that you were (and still are) wrong about Callaway. If you had read the full Nash article you would have known that the ambulance driver tried to call the dispatcher to tell him the victim was a police man when he couldn't get through because of Callaway being on the police radio. That's what's in the police tapes and you have simply misinterpret it.
As for the Nash claim, I will take your pathetic "Learn the case" remark as an admission that you are unable to produce the evidence I asked for to support your false and incorrect claim.
It is not my problem that your ego prevents you from admitting you were wrong on both counts.
No one knows Oswald's exact route.
Even worse. No one knows if Oswald did in fact walk the distance at all. It is just assumed that he did.
What is known beyond any doubt - as confirmed by multiple witnesses and the evidence - is that Oswald was at the scene of the Tippit murder.
Beyond any doubt? Really?
Applying basic common sense to that fact then informs us that if Oswald was at the scene, then he had time to get there regardless of the pedantic nitpicking of a contrarian.
Circular logic!
Common sense is a poor substitute for actual evidence. But if you want to play that game, how about the other side of the same coin;
If Oswald couldn't physically be at 10th street when Tippit was killed, because he simply did not have enough time to get there, then common sense should tell you that the witnesses (the least reliable evidence there is, to begin with) are simply wrong.
See how easy it is.....
The events of that day only happened in one way, which means that it isn't enough to just say Oswald had time to get there. Prove it...... but you won't, because you can't!
Silly. I realize this is hopeless but perhaps others have a better grasp of logic than yourself. Try this. A person is holding a winning lottery ticket in their hand. Would arguing that the odds of winning the lottery were so long that this person could not have possibly won cast doubt on this fact? Of course not. Multiple witnesses and the evidence place Oswald at the Tippit murder scene (regardless of your endless speculation about the exact minute that this event occurred). Therefore it renders your pedantic speculation about the timeline moot as it applies to Oswald's presence at the crime scene. A fact is still a fact even if you could prove the odds were against it happening. In this case your claim that the timeline was tight. Something you haven't even done here. You have just gone on and on and on in your desperate attempt to raise false doubt of Oswald's guilt.
Your incorrect interpretation of the radio calls mentioned in the Nash article doesn't mean anything at all, related to the police tapes telling you that Callaway made the call to the police dispatcher after helping load the body into the ambulance.
I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make him drink from it, blah blah blah
The second truck carrying the other part of your ego has just arrived.
The police tapes do not tell me or anybody else that Callaway made the call the the dispatcher after helping loading Tippit's body in the ambulance. It's not there.... You just made it up. A foolish mistake.....
Oh, btw it's not my interpretation of the radio calls mentioned in the Nash article. It is what the article actually said!
Butler radioed his arrival at the scene at 1:18 p.m., within 60 seconds of leaving the funeral home. He remembers that there were at least 10 people standing around the man lying on the ground. It was not until he and his assistant pulled back a blanket covering Tippit that they realized the victim was a policeman.
Butler ran back to his radio to inform headquarters. The radio was busy and he could not cut in. He yelled “Mayday” to no avail, and went back to Tippit. The officer lay on his side, face down with part of his body under the left front fender of the police car. Butler and Kinsley rolled him over and saw the bullet wound through Tippit’s temple. Butler told us, “I thought he was dead then. It’s not my position to say so. We got him into the ambulance and we got going as quick as possible. On the way to the hospital I finally let them know it was a policeman.”
Here is Butler (602) not being able to get through on the radio transcripts.
602 (ambulance) 602.
Dispatcher 85.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker) 85.
Dispatcher Suspect running west on Jefferson from the location.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker) 10-4.
Dispatcher No physical description.
Citizen Hello, hello, hello.
602 (ambulance) 602.
Citizen Pardon, from out here on Tenth Street, 500 block. This officer just shot. I think he's dead.
Dispatcher 10-4. We have that information. The citizen using the radio: Remain off the radio now.
Again, that is your incorrect INTERPRETATION. I've explained this to you before but I'm no longer interested in explaining things to you.
Too bad Whaley ID'd Oswald.Whaley's convoluted testimony .......
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.
Mr. BALL. Got in the front door?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. The front seat. And about that time an old lady, I think she was an old lady, I don't remember nothing but her sticking her head down past him in the door and said, "Driver, will you call me a cab down here?"
She had seen him get this cab and she wanted one, too, and he opened the door a little bit like he was going to get out and he said, "I will let you have this one," and she says, "No, the driver can call me one."
Mr. BALL. Here are two pair of pants, Commission Exhibit No. 157 and Commission Exhibit No. 156. Does it look anything like that?
Mr. WHALEY. I don't think I can identify the pants except they were the same color as that, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which color?
Mr. WHALEY. More like this lighter color, at least they were cleaner or something.
Mr. BALL. That is 157?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. But you are not sure about that?
Mr. WHALEY. I am not sure about the pants. I wouldn't be sure of the shirt if it hadn't had that light stripe in it. I just noticed that.
Mr. BALL. Here is Commission No. 162 which is a gray jacket with zipper.
Mr. WHALEY. I thank that is the jacket he had on when he rode with me in the cab.
Mr. BALL. Look something like it?
Mr. BALL. Later that day did you--were you called down to the police department?We are left to figure out if Oswald went home to change his shirt [with the stripe on it] or his jacket which was light blue? Or both...neither? Maybe he changed his grey jacket for another grey jacket. Lee was in a hurry? Then why would he offer his cab to another passenger?
Mr. WHALEY. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Were you the next day?
Mr. WHALEY. No, sir; they came and got me, sir, the next day after I told my superior when I saw in the paper his picture, I told my superiors that that had been my passenger that day at noon. They called up the police and they came up and got me.
Mr. BALL. When you saw in the newspaper the picture of the man?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
Why wait for SaPersonay Night Live when you can watch the LN Clown Show all Friday?
As for Whaley, his memory improved tremendously when shown the two jackets. What he (and BALL) "forgot" was that "Oswald", when leaving the cab, angled south while crossing Beckley and continued walking south on Beckley which is in the opposite direction of the rooming house.
Mr. BALL. Did you see whether he walked south?
Mr. WHALEY. I didn't see whether he walked north or south from there.
I don't think I've seen the LN Dream Team in such bad shape ever.
Whaley's 11/23/63 affidavit. Again, no mention of a jacket, even describing spots on the shirt:Bill...Would you like me to teach you how to make a picture fit the page?----
Mr. BALL. They had him in line with men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. With five others.
Mr. BALL. Men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. Not much younger, but just young kids they might have got them in jail.
Mr. BALL. Did he look older than those other boys?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And he was talking, was he?
Mr. WHALEY. He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.
Sure...
Representative FORD. Did you point him out with your hand?
Mr. WHALEY. No, sir; I did not. They asked me which number he was standing under and he was standing under No. 2.
So, the #3 guy he picked according to his affidavit was standing under #2 -- ROFL
Sure...
Representative FORD. Did you point him out with your hand?
Mr. WHALEY. No, sir; I did not. They asked me which number he was standing under and he was standing under No. 2.
So, the #3 guy he picked according to his affidavit was standing under #2 -- ROFL
Sure...
Representative FORD. Did you point him out with your hand?
Mr. WHALEY. No, sir; I did not. They asked me which number he was standing under and he was standing under No. 2.
So, the #3 guy he picked according to his affidavit was standing under #2 -- ROFL
It's clear you don't have the wit to be embarrassed by your own buffoonery and I feel embarrassed I've wasted so much time on you.
It won't be happening in future.
Again, that is your incorrect INTERPRETATION. I've explained this to you before but I'm no longer interested in explaining things to you.
Why wait for SaPersonay Night Live when you can watch the LN Clown Show all Friday?
As for Whaley, his memory improved tremendously when shown the two jackets. What he (and BALL) "forgot" was that "Oswald", when leaving the cab, angled south while crossing Beckley and continued walking south on Beckley which is in the opposite direction of the rooming house.
Mr. BALL. Did you see whether he walked south?
Mr. WHALEY. I didn't see whether he walked north or south from there.
I don't think I've seen the LN Dream Team in such bad shape ever.
No need to worry about being in bad shape given that Whaley ID'd Oswald. Third from his (Whaley's) right; second from his (Whaley's) left. Handcuffed together. You can look it up. Meantime, sounds like y'all need a big hug: Keep circling those wagons, whistling in the dark, and backslapping your fellow Oswald-lovers.
Do you actually know anybody who loves Oswald, or is it just a figment of your imagination?
You know, something like an imaginary opponent you desperately need to battle against and stop you from losing your faith....
Seems I've touched a nerve. Again.
If it doesn't fit you must aquit, remember?
Can't wait for your continued cable comic strip explaining why "Oswald" dumped his two jackets PRIOR to entering the boarding room.
OMG, that will be painful to watch!
Seems you've got delusions of grandeur. Again
Sure...
Representative FORD. Did you point him out with your hand?
Mr. WHALEY. No, sir; I did not. They asked me which number he was standing under and he was standing under No. 2.
So, the #3 guy he picked according to his affidavit was standing under #2 -- ROFL
Whaley's four and a half month old recollection was faulty on that point. He identified Oswald as the number 3 man in a four man line up.Then what about this statement?-------------
Mr. BALL. They had him in line with men much younger?He forgot how to count?
Mr. WHALEY. With five others.
Mr. BALL. Men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. Not much younger, but just young kids they might have got them in jail.
Mr. BALL. Did he look older than those other boys?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And he was talking, was he?
Mr. WHALEY. He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.
Nothing like watching a genius 'splaining stuff.....(cough)
The DPD didn't need counting because.....numbers on top, as Whaley said, which I already quoted if you had cared to pay attention:
Representative FORD. Did you point him out with your hand?
Mr. WHALEY. No, sir; I did not. They asked me which number he was standing under and he was standing under No. 2.
Free hints: Check with Mr. Nickerson and pull up your pants before you start running.
Looks good, carry on.....
Why the sudden confusion, genius?
Whaley mentions no jackets left in the cab, "Oswald" enters rooming house in shirt sleeves.
Carry on.
There's no need to cast doubt, genius, it was on record 50+ years ago, like:
Mr. WHALEY. I never saw what they had in there. It was all written out by hand. The statement I saw, I think, was this one, and that could be writing. I might not even seen this one yet. I signed my name because they said that is what I said.
Evidently, Whaley has no clue WTF he signed and is trying a right to left count to make a #3 man in the affidavit work with the #2 man he told them.
I now very much doubt you would pass as a genius anywhere.
We have Whaley on record saying "Oswald" was dressed in two jackets, then enters the rooming house in shirt sleeves according to Earlene Roberts.
Looks like we're one jacket short if he exited wearing a jacket...
Our genius having problems counting right to left in a four man lineup?
Go do that.
Nobody cares WTF you're noting.
Genius.
Just exemplifying how you have 'unsubscribe' written all over Whaley to keep your fantasy alive.
Like Bill Brown's inverse cherry picking, unpicking the jackets to prevent the WC narrative from sinking -- ROFL
Wrong, it looks like Whaley was screwed over by DPD, and you even missed the part where the 500 block was upgraded to 700, genius.
500 block was upgraded to 700
Cite that, in context
PS:
written all over Whaley to keep your fantasy alive.
No fantasy needed: Whaley ID'd Oswald.
And jacket #163 was found left behind in Oswald's place of work.
Seems Oswald was fond of leaving jackets behind that day.
And you sort are the type trucking in fantasies around here.
And jacket #163 was found left behind in Oswald's place of work.
Seems Oswald was fond of leaving jackets behind that day.
Yes indeed.... for once you're right
Frazier saw Oswald wear a light grey jacket to Irving on Thursday evening. As he only had two jackets that light grey jacket can only have been CE 162, which he did indeed leave behind in Irving, where the cops most likely found it during the first search of Ruth Paine's house on Friday afternoon.
But wait, that means that Oswald couldn't have left the rooming house wearing a jacket, doesn't it? Just as I have been saying all along Thumb1:
Mr. BALL - On Thursday afternoon when you went home, drove on home, did he carry any package with him?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't
Mr. BALL - Did he have a jacket or coat on him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What kind of a jacket or coat did he have?
Mr. FRAZIER - That, you know, like I say gray jacket.
Mr. BALL - That same gray jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Now, I can be frank with you, I had seen him wear that jacket several times...
You'll accept Frazier's testimony that Oswald was wearing the light grey jacket to Irving on Thursday might but won't accept his testimony that he wore exactly the same jacket to work Friday morning.
Typical CT BS:
I now very much doubt you would pass as a genius anywhere.
We have Whaley on record saying "Oswald" was dressed in two jackets, then enters the rooming house in shirt sleeves according to Earlene Roberts.
Looks like we're one jacket short if he exited wearing a jacket...
It is really simple, but I am not surprised you're not getting it. So, I'll try to explain it one more time... baby steps
Marina testified Oswald only had two jackets. A light grey one (now in evidence as CE 162) and a blue/grey one (CE 163).
Frazier testified that Oswald was wearing a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday evening.
We know CE 163 was found at the TSBD, which - regardless of Frazier saying he had never seen that blue/grey jacket before - makes that CE 163 is the one that Oswald most likely wore on Friday morning and left behind when he left the TSBD after the shooting.
But even if it wasn't. Even if you somehow want to concoct as story, as you have tried to do, that Oswald wore CE 162 to the TSBD on Friday morning, that still does not get that jacket to the rooming house, for Oswald to put on when Roberts sees him.
And don't even try to revive your pathetic "he was wearing a jacket when he left the TSBD" BS, because that's been utterly debunked by now as classic superficial LN wishful thinking.
One more time for you;
Mr. BALL - On Thursday afternoon when you went home, drove on home, did he carry any package with him?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't
Mr. BALL - Did he have a jacket or coat on him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What kind of a jacket or coat did he have?
Mr. FRAZIER - That, you know, like I say gray jacket.
Mr. BALL - That same gray jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Now, I can be frank with you, I had seen him wear that jacket several times...
Frazier testifies that Oswald was wearing the grey jacket on Thursday night and you accept that.
But in the very same piece of testimony Frazier states that Oswald was wearing exactly the same jacket Friday morning and that he is familiar with this jacket. But you don't accept that.
You cannot get away from the Tinfoli mentality required to pull that off.
Bottom line: Whaley ID'd Oswald as the passenger he hauled to Beckley. Roberts stated that Oswald came in with no jacket and left zipping one up. Markham stated that Oswald was wearing a jacket when she saw him shoot Tippit. In addition, a same-style/colour jacket was discarded under a car not far from the Tippit ambush scene. Oswald just happens to not be seen in a jacket again, including by Brewer nor in the TT.
Oswald would fry.
There, fixed it for you.
I was very specific.
Genius.
Roberts stated that Oswald came in with no jacket and left zipping one up.
Hey genius, how can Oswald zip up a jacket (CE 162) at the rooming house when that jacket is in Irving?
Why do you keep repeating this insignificant part of Frazier's testimony, when I have just shown you that it is getting you nowhere.
Even if Oswald wore CE 162 to the TSBD that morning, how come CE 163 was found there and how did CE 162 get to the rooming house, when there is no evidence whatsoever that Oswald left the TSBD wearing a jacket?
Officer Baker only saw a brown shirt during the lunchroom encounter
Mrs Reid, the last person to see Oswald as he was walking towards the front door only saw a shirt
Mrs Bledsoe claimed she saw a hole in a shirt sleeve, which she could not have seen if Oswald was wearing a jacket
McWatters did say he saw a man wearing a jacket but he could not identify him as Oswald
Whaley, in his early statements, did not mention seeing a jacket (as pointed out by Bill Brown)
And Mrs Roberts said Oswald was only wearing a shirt when he entered the rooming house.
So, genius, how did CE 162 get from the TSBD to the rooming house?
The next time you think you have something of substance to offer, think again... and again... and again, because now you're only making a fool of yourself.
Hey almost-genius, how can Oswald be ID'd by several witnesses @Tippit and seen to be wearing a jacket at and near same?
Oswald would fry.
"Why do you keep repeating this insignificant part of Frazier's testimony, when I have just shown you that it is getting you nowhere."
:D
This "insignificant part of Frazier's testimony" that you rely on for your crazy assertion Oswald left his grey jacket in Irving?
That "insignificant" piece of testimony?
The same piece of testimony that states Oswald wore the same grey jacket to work?
Something you refuse to accept.
I repeat it to show your idiocy in action.
It's a mathematical impossibility that so many witnesses identify the same man yet disagree about just about everything else, like for instance the color of the jacket.
Is it really a mathematical impossibility?
As stated you're correct because.....wrong cabbie.
Cherry picking on steroids.
The totality of evidence rules out Whaley.
Even the best lawyers within the Commission couldn't make it work.
It"s not about me.
We have Whaley on record stating, repeatedly, counting left or right, he picked the wrong guy.
Not my problem you can't deal with it.
Is it really a mathematical impossibility?
Comedy Gold.
Oswald was #3 in that that particular lineup according to the DP.
Who's taking water on?
Not with the line up they had. They might just as well have placed a neon sign above Oswald's head.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Qd3CyJfJ/SEND-IN-THE-CLONES-FINAL.png)
BILL CHAPMAN
Thanks for your time - - I didn't bother correcting it.
Now?
And could the self proclaimed genius please tell us the name of No. 2 from the left?
This line up would have been just as "fair" as the one they actually had
To you lot it would: That's the point I'm making with the design.
Thanks for confirming it.
So, you're posting stuff you don't agree with? Got it!
The intent of the design is clear. Again, thanks for confirming it.
The intent of the design is clear.
Indeed. It's to post things you don't agree with. It has been my pleasure to point that out and thus confirm it.
From now on, we can all assume that you mean the opposite of what you post. Good to know! Thumb1:
Keep assuming.
The intent of the design is abundantly clear: Mockery.
There. Consider yourself schooled. Again.
Oh dear.
It's only just dawned on me how far gone you are.
This is one of the most Tinfoil things I've ever come across.
So somebody immediately contacted Roberts' friend from Parkland Hospital to tell her that JFK was dead??
:D :D :D :D
Long before any of the networks were aware of it Roberts' neighbour had the scoop??
:D :D :D :D
And the first thing this woman thought to do was ring Earlene Roberts with the news??
:D :D :D :D
Once I'd pointed out you were destroying your own tinfoil, ill-conceived, tatty theory with your insistence that Roberts' friend had used the word "killed" instead of "shot" anyone with a grain of common sense would've held their hands up to the mistake. But not the truly Tinfoil who forge ahead into ever deeper and darker folly.
It's clear you don't have the wit to be embarrassed by your own buffoonery and I feel embarrassed I've wasted so much time on you.
It won't be happening in future.
"Unlike you, I just try to follow the evidence and am not trying to create an alternate reality."
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
There. Consider yourself schooled. Again.
As we now know that you post things you don't agree with, there's nothing really there for me to consider....
Keep dodging the fact that you cannot stand being mocked.
But keep twisting. It's very entertaining.
Yet you have repeatedly been quoting Whaley for picking the #2 man.
So let's try again:
The name of the #2 man was?
But that wouldn't be ID'ing the man, would it?
Is that so?
To correct this misunderstanding: I don't give a fxck.
But I suggest not showing them your "contributions" on this forum.
But I suggest not showing them your "contributions" on this forum
They'll love the graphic ideas, the hard-hitting concepts. Guaranteed.
To correct this misunderstanding: I don't give a fxck.
Yeah, you keep repeating that. Yet here you are.
The name of the #2 man was?
Ask Whaley. He was the guy who hauled the killer to Beckley. And I see you're messing with my blue box (bolding text that I did not bolden)
N'uh... don't do that. Bubba. But while I'm at it, you conveniently avoided bolding Whaley's "But he was the man that I carried in my taxicab"
Is that so?
Yeah, that's so. Now don't get me started on my talent on the sporting field, where I also had tons of compliments whether on the baseball diamond or tennis court but especially as a hockey player.
Well, ok. ok.. I'll provide some proof:
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dsZbpMt/detroit-red-wing-scout-offer.png)
Keep dodging the fact that you cannot stand being mocked.
Who is mocking me? What are you on about, Mr "my friends call me 'genius' and I don't even understand the irony in that"?
Point out where I said my friends call me 'genius
Your desperation to "prove" yourself to others is getting beyond ridiculous.
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dsZbpMt/detroit-red-wing-scout-offer.png)
Are you the only person in the world that's called Bill Chapman (if that's even your real name)?
If not, so much for your "proof".
You're a real piece of work, Martin.
Oh, wait.. I forgot about the CT credo:
Nothing is knowable.
Nothing is provable.
Nothing is believable.
Oh, I'm sorry, my bad. For a moment I believed that these "multiple art directors, clients, bosses and colleagues" who allegedly have called you 'genius' were your friends. Seems I was wrong. I really should have guessed.... who in their right mind would want to be friends with you, right?
A couple of my more macho friends are jealous about the hockey thing. And if these remarks of yours are a sample of you being in your right mind, then you might want to book a good deal of facetime in the nearest psychiatric facility.
A couple of my more macho friends are jealous about the hockey thing.
Are those some of your friends who did not call you a 'genius"? I just want to understand what it is you are actually saying....
The only thing that you need to understand is that you will never be seen as a friend by me, myself or I.
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dsZbpMt/detroit-red-wing-scout-offer.png)
Nice piece to have. Hockey is a tough sport to master.
Shooting yourself in both feet is now my responsibility?
Whaley destroyed himself long before you exposed your own ignorance of the evidence:
According to the DP #2 was David Knapp -- LOL
Time for another BubbaCable?
Whaley ID'd Oswald.
Third from his (Whaley's) right;
second from his (Whaley's) left.
Was David Knapp.
Time to clarify, genius.
Counting from left or right?
Here's what you said June 5:
Close to two weeks now, Lee Harvey Oswald was not third from the right, genius.
Not according to his clarification on April 8, 1964.
#BUBBACABLE doesn't clarify anything.
Just one day later you posted this piece of incomprehensible babble:
Bonkers.
Scoggins' statement doesn't specify the order of those events.
WHALEY: "The No. 3 man who I now know is Lee Harvey Oswald was the man who I carried from the Greyhound Bus Station"
Here, let me clarify that for you:
(https://i.postimg.cc/kgHxB9PL/WHALLEY-DUMMIES.png)
BILL CHAPMAN
LOL Yeah, Okay. Keep telling yourself that.
If all else fails, you can always go check out the police tapes. They'll tell you that the body was loaded BEFORE Callaway got on the radio and the ambulance was leaving as he was on the radio.
The edited transcripts of the edited recordings don't say anything about a body being loaded into an ambulance or who helped.
Wow.
All of that yada yada yada and you still don't know what you're talking about.
By the time Callaway testified in 1964, he was slightly off in the order of events, regarding loading the body into the ambulance and reporting the shooting to the police dispatcher.
All you really have to do is study the police tapes.
602 is the Kinsley/Butler ambulance. As they pulled away from the scene with Tippit's body, they made an attempt to get hold of the police dispatcher to notify the dispatcher that they were en route to Methodist Hospital.
Murray Jackson (the dispatcher) didn't hear their attempt because at the same time, Callaway (after helping load the body into the ambulance) then went over to the patrol car radio, grabbed the mic and reported: "Hello, Hello, Hello. This police officer's just shot. I think he's dead."
Callaway was told by the dispatcher that the police had the information and to remain off the air.
When Callaway (during his testimony) said "By this time, an ambulance was coming", he was correct. Another ambulance (605) had been dispatched to the scene but the first ambulance (602) had already left for Methodist with the body.
I wouldn't really expect you to know any of this because (besides the sad reality that you're only interested in scoring points) it requires some work and maybe more importantly, an understanding of the big picture after having read EVERYTHING (as opposed to just Callaway's testimony). But, you haven't read EVERYTHING, only what you feel works for you at the moment.
Get a clue.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/Dallas%20Police%20Department/Dallas%20Police%20Department%20Records/Volume%2004/Item%2001.pdf
Indeed. Let's have another look at the explanation Brown gave on May 12.
By the time Callaway testified in 1964, he was slightly off in the order of events, regarding loading the body into the ambulance and reporting the shooting to the police dispatcher.
Amazing, isn't it. For Brown to be correct the key witness must have been mistaken during his WC testimony;
Mr. CALLAWAY. I saw a squad car, and by that time there was four or five people that had gathered, a couple of cars had stopped. Then I saw--I went on up to the squad car and saw the police officer lying in the street. I see he had been shot in the head. So the first thing I did, I ran over to the squad car. I didn't know whether anybody reported it or not. So I got on the police radio and called them, and told them a man had been shot, told them the location, I thought the officer was dead. They said we know about it, stay off the air, so I went back.
By this time an ambulance was coming. The officer was laying on his left side, his pistol was underneath him. I kind of rolled him over and took his gun out from under him. The people wonder whether he ever got his pistol out of his holster. He did.
The foolish claim that Callaway was simply mistaken, when he testified, also ignores the fact that according to FBI SA Arthur E. Carter’s FD-302 report, Callaway said exactly the same thing to Carter on 25/2/64.
All you really have to do is study the police tapes.
As John already pointed out, the police tapes/transcripts tells us nothing about when Tippit was loaded in the ambulance.
Your so-called "fact" is nothing more than your mistaken interpretation of what you want to believe you are hearing.
In fact - and you already know this - in the 1964 article “the other witness” by George and Patrica Nash this explanation is given for what you are actually hearing on the police recordings;
“Since the location was just two short blocks away he told one of his own drivers, Clayton Butler, to respond. Butler and Eddie Kinsley ran down the steps, got into the ambulance and took off, siren screaming. Butler radioed his arrival at the scene at 1:18 p.m., within 60 seconds of leaving the funeral home. He remembers that there were at least 10 people standing around the man lying on the ground. It was not until he and his assistant pulled back a blanket covering Tippit that they realized the victim was a policeman.
Butler ran back to his radio to inform headquarters. The radio was busy and he could not cut in. He yelled “Mayday” to no avail, and went back to Tippit. The officer lay on his side, face down with part of his body under the left front fender of the police car. Butler and Kinsley rolled him over and saw the bullet wound through Tippit’s temple. Butler told us, “I thought he was dead then. It’s not my position to say so. We got him into the ambulance and we got going as quick as possible. On the way to the hospital I finally let them know it was a policeman.”
This coincides perfectly with the police transcripts which show us that the ambulance driver (602) tried in vain to make two calls to the DPD dispatcher. The first one just prior to Callaway coming on the air and the second one just after Callaway had called “Hello, hello, hello”
602 (ambulance) 602.
Dispatcher 85.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker) 85.
Dispatcher Suspect running west on Jefferson from the location.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker) 10-4.
Dispatcher No physical description.
Citizen Hello, hello, hello.
602 (ambulance) 602.
Citizen Pardon, from out here on Tenth Street, 500 block. This officer just shot. I think he's dead.
Dispatcher 10-4. We have that information. The citizen using the radio: Remain off the radio now.
But what blows your so-called "fact" out of the water is the testimony of DPD officer Croy, who was the first police officer to arrive at the scene.
Croy testified that he watched Tippit being loaded in the ambulance.
Mr. GRIFFIN. What time were you at the scene where Tippit was killed
Mr. CROY. I watched them load him in the ambulance.
As Croy was in uniform, there would have been no reason for Callaway to call the police, as at least one officer was already at the scene.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I see. Now, I am just referring to the street you found him on. When you got there, was Tippit's car there?
Mr. CROY. Yes.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Was Tippit there?
Mr. CROY. They were loading him in the ambulance.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Were other officers on the scene?
Mr. CROY. None that I saw.
Mr. GRIFFIN. What did you do when you got there?
Mr. CROY. Got me a witness.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Who did you get ahold of?
Mr. CROY. It was a woman standing across the street from me. I don't recall her name. She gave me her name at that time.
Mr. GRIFFIN. What did she tell you?
Mr. CROY. She told me that she saw Tippit get out of the car, and I don't recall, I think she said he stepped back a couple of foot and shot him and then ran. She was pretty hysterical at that particular time.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Did she tell you where she first saw Oswald?
Mr. CROY. I don't recall whether she did or not. There was, as I recall, there was 2 people who saw it. No; 3. A man in a, taxicab driver. However, she was the main eyewitness, as far as I could make out. She saw the actual shooting.
Mr. GRIFFIN. How long did you talk with her?
Mr. CROY. Oh, a good 5 or 10 minutes.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Were there any other officers there with you when you were talking with her?
Mr. CROY. Yes; and no. I talked to her, and then they talked to her, and then I talked to her, and just after I located a witness, the squad did get there.
Mr. GRIFFIN. This conversation all took place near the scene of the Tippit killing?
Mr. CROY. Leaning up against his car.
In other words, there is a uniformed police man standing directly next to Tippit's patrol car at the exact moment that Bill Browns wants you to believe Callaway called the DPD dispatcher from that same car.......
And then Brown tells others to "learn the case". Pathetic and hilarious at the same time!
Oh yeah, before I forget.... Remember the two minute gap in Callaway's time line which I described as a "coffee break" and which you tried (in vain) to explain by claiming that it was during this time that Callaway helped loading Tippit into the ambulance? Ambulance driver, Butler, is on record saying that from his departure at the funeral home to his arrival at the hospital it took less than four minutes....Are you really trying to convince anybody that Callaway would have taken two minutes to load Tippit into the ambulance? If you are, you must be further removed from reality than even I could imagine.
Having said all that, that's it. I have wasted enough time here...... no more.
All you really have to do is study the police tapes.
As John already pointed out, the police tapes/transcripts tells us nothing about when Tippit was loaded in the ambulance.
Your so-called "fact" is nothing more than your mistaken interpretation of what you want to believe you are hearing.
This coincides perfectly with the police transcripts which show us that the ambulance driver (602) tried in vain to make two calls to the DPD dispatcher. The first one just prior to Callaway coming on the air and the second one just after Callaway had called “Hello, hello, hello”
602 (ambulance) 602.
Dispatcher 85.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker) 85.
Dispatcher Suspect running west on Jefferson from the location.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker) 10-4.
Dispatcher No physical description.
Citizen Hello, hello, hello.
602 (ambulance) 602.
Citizen Pardon, from out here on Tenth Street, 500 block. This officer just shot. I think he's dead.
Dispatcher 10-4. We have that information. The citizen using the radio: Remain off the radio now.
Croy testifies that, when he arrived, he saw Tippit being loaded into the ambulance and the first thing he did was talk to a witness (most likely Markham) for "5 or 10 minutes" while he was leaning up against Tippit's car.
Oh yeah, before I forget.... Remember the two minute gap in Callaway's time line which I described as a "coffee break" and which you tried (in vain) to explain by claiming that it was during this time that Callaway helped loading Tippit into the ambulance? Ambulance driver, Butler, is on record saying that from his departure at the funeral home to his arrival at the hospital it took less than four minutes....Are you really trying to convince anybody that Callaway would have taken two minutes to load Tippit into the ambulance? If you are, you must be further removed from reality than even I could imagine.
The police tapes obviously don't mention the body being loaded into the ambulance, but the tapes do tell us when the ambulance was leaving the scene en route to Methodist Hospital. The tapes tell us that the ambulance was leaving the scene as Callaway was making his report on the squad car radio.
No they don't tell us anything of the kind. You just made it up and you ignored the statements made by Callaway himself - which prove you wrong - to do.
No.
That 2nd "602" was Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital. However, he could not get through because as you can plainly see, Callaway is on the squad car radio reporting the incident (as the ambulance is speeding off).
And your evidence for this opinion is?.... Where, other than in your imagination, did you get that the 2nd "602" was "Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene"?
Croy interviewed Markham at the scene. Yes. This could have easily taken place once the ambulance left and Callaway had already made his report on the squad car radio. In fact, the police tapes tell us that this is what happened.
Could have?.... It actually happened, and if you read Croy's testimony it's pretty obvious that he saw Tippit being loaded into the ambulance when he arrived and the first thing he did was to talk to Markham, next to Tippit's patrol car. There is not a chance in hell that Callaway wouldn't have seen Croy, in uniform, standing next to the car from where he is supposed to have made his call. And no, the police tapes do not tell us anything of the kind. It's all your imagination.
Straw man. Typical.
I've never said (or hinted) that it took Callaway (and others) two minutes to load the body. That was YOUR mistaken timeline, not my correct one.
There is no straw man, nor is there a mistake in my time line and you know it, because that's the only reason why you have refused to discuss the entire time line.
You're a propagandist, Brown. You throw your own key witnesses under the bus when it fits your narrative. Callaway wasn't mistaken about the sequence of events and Croy wasn't either. If you truly were a reseacher for 1% you would admit that, but you aren't.
The police tapes obviously don't mention the body being loaded into the ambulance, but the tapes do tell us when the ambulance was leaving the scene en route to Methodist Hospital. The tapes tell us that the ambulance was leaving the scene as Callaway was making his report on the squad car radio.
No they don't tell us anything of the kind. You just made it up and you ignored the statements made by Callaway himself - which prove you wrong - to do.
No.
That 2nd "602" was Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital. However, he could not get through because as you can plainly see, Callaway is on the squad car radio reporting the incident (as the ambulance is speeding off).
And your evidence for this opinion is?.... Where, other than in your imagination, did you get that the 2nd "602" was "Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene"?
Croy interviewed Markham at the scene. Yes. This could have easily taken place once the ambulance left and Callaway had already made his report on the squad car radio. In fact, the police tapes tell us that this is what happened.
Could have?.... It actually happened, and if you read Croy's testimony it's pretty obvious that he saw Tippit being loaded into the ambulance when he arrived and the first thing he did was to talk to Markham, next to Tippit's patrol car. There is not a chance in hell that Callaway wouldn't have seen Croy, in uniform, standing next to the car from where he is supposed to have made his call.
You're a propagandist, Brown. You throw your own key witnesses under the bus when it fits your narrative. Callaway wasn't mistaken about the sequence of events and Croy wasn't either. If you truly were a reseacher for 1% you would admit that, but you aren't.
There was a time when I had some respect for you. Not any more.
Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.Eager to be the guy that fingered the assassin of JFK was Callaway? From almost 60 feet away...not exactly eye to eye.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Mr. BALL. You mean he looked like the same man?
Mr. BALL. About what distance was he away from you--the closest that he ever was to you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. About 56 feet.
......................................................
Mr. DULLES. Did he say anything?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir; he said something, but I could not understand it.
Mr. DULLES. You could not understand what he said?
Mr. BALL. Did he have the same clothes on in the lineup--did the man have the same clothes?Did Callaway see someone "ditch his jacket"? Or was he told this happened? What else that happened...was he told that happened?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He had the same trousers and shirt, but he didn't have his jacket on. He had ditched his jacket.
It seems crystal clear that Whaley took Oswald to the designated Beckley/Nash St [or whatever] intersection. Cabbie Whaley identified Oswald's bracelet in testimony. That does not prove that Oswald shot the cop.
It seems to me that Ted Callaway was somehow predisposed to select Oswald.Eager to be the guy that fingered the assassin of JFK was Callaway? From almost 60 feet away...not exactly eye to eye.
With a four man line up and three of them are big cops...what does that leave you? "He said something"...this is supposed to be Oswald who had nothing to say to his housekeeper but responds to a perfect stranger?
Did Callaway see someone "ditch his jacket"? Or was he told this happened? What else that happened...was he told that happened?
It seems crystal clear that Whaley took Oswald to the designated Beckley/Nash St [or whatever] intersection. Cabbie Whaley identified Oswald's bracelet in testimony. That does not prove that Oswald shot the cop.
It seems to me that Ted Callaway was somehow predisposed to select Oswald.Eager to be the guy that fingered the assassin of JFK was Callaway? From almost 60 feet away...not exactly eye to eye.
With a four man line up and three of them are big cops...what does that leave you? "He said something"...this is supposed to be Oswald who had nothing to say to his housekeeper but responds to a perfect stranger?
Did Callaway see someone "ditch his jacket"? Or was he told this happened? What else that happened...was he told that happened?
Whaley DESCRIBED the clothing of his passenger as being BLUE colored Workman's type clothing ( a blue JACKET and Blue trousers) Lee was not wearing a Jacket, and he didn't even own any clothing as described by Wild Bill Whaley.
It's crystal clear that Whaley was a simple minded cabbie who the cops used to their advantage.
More like about 10 feet.
Said eyewitness Sam Guinyard.
Übertroll.... ROFL
More like about 10 feet.
Said eyewitness Sam Guinyard.
Übertroll.... ROFL
Went above your head as expected.
While scratching your head, why don't you work out how Oswald, moving south on the east sidewalk, managed to pass Callaway in no less than 56 feet.
Oswald gone Super Mario?
ROFL
"ROLF"
LOL. That sounds like you're choking or gagging on something.
Can't handle the truth, Herr Beck?
While scratching your arse, try to figure out how Callaway came up with a measured 56' as the closest Oswald got to him.
---------
BONUS
EDITS ;)
---------
7:25 PM
EST
266 pages....... dang. this reminds me of that praying person thread of old
No worries, thanks, and it wouldn't havehavesurprised me at all if a common LN retard had dodged my question, but a genius?
No scratching needed as a distance of 56 feet is no mystery having viewed CE 327, but the sketch itself makes no sense based on what Guinyard told the commission.
So, since you evidently are going with the 56 feet, why don't you tell the audience (don't let Mr. Oblazney scare you away) why you have no trust in Mr. Guinyard?
Here, you can have Guinyard:So?QuoteMr. BALL. And how far through school did you go?
Mr. GUINYARD. Well, I got to the sixth grade.
QuoteMr. BALL. How far did you go through school?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Eighth grade.
Mr. BELIN. How old are you?Many of the witnesses [and Oswald himself] did not graduate from high school.
Mrs. [Virginia] DAVIS. Sixteen.
Mr. BELIN. How far did you get through school?
Mrs. DAVIS. The ninth grade.
From almost 60 feet awayNow was that nice? :(
He said 56ft. Stop exaggerating, troll
Interesting.
Markham?
Mr. BALL. How far did you go through school?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Eighth grade.
Now was that nice? :(
Suitable for those who claim everything is faked, planted or altered in some wayNot "everything"...Though you just might be a fake, a plant, or altered in some way.
The reason you dodged my Markham question is....?
First we need to establish if the little school grade thing you invented to eliminate Guinyard is all BS.
Any scientific evidence that school grade can be used to dismiss an eyewitness?
(I bring in Markham when I decide to bring in Markham, got it?)
Callaway reports the shooting on the squad car radio as the ambulance is taking off. The 2nd "602" is Butler attempting to notify dispatch that they are en route to the hospital but he is blocked out by Callaway, who is currently on the squad car radio reporting the incident.
Again... It's foolish to believe that Croy is interviewing Markham next to the patrol car while the body is lying in the street and the ambulance personnel is dealing with trying to get the body loaded.
How would Whaley know the shirt was long-sleeved if the guy was wearing a jacket? Please explain.
In other words you're speculating, right?
Ask him. He's the one who couldn't get his story straight.
No speculation.
I very clearly said that it's foolish to believe that Croy is interviewing Markham next to the patrol car while the body is lying in the street and the ambulance personnel is dealing with trying to get the body loaded.
That's not an answer.
Either the tapes have been altered (for what reason, pray tell?) or Callaway simply misremembered what he did and when, related to helping load the body into the ambulance and then getting on the squad car radio to report the incident to the police dispatcher.
It's all laid out for you if you just go read the transcripts of the police tapes. It really isn't my problem if you cannot comprehend what you're looking at.
Apparently, you did not read my comment completely before getting all excited and rushing off to respond. Slow down. Deep breaths.
It could very easily be (and most likely is the case, if you listen to the police tapes) that Croy interviewed Markham "next to Tippit's patrol car" once the ambulance left the scene and after Callaway had already made his report on the squad car radio.
It's foolish to believe that Croy is interviewing Markham next to the patrol car while the body is lying in the street and the ambulance personnel is dealing with trying to get the body loaded. Pure foolishness.
Callaway helps load the body into the ambulance. He said the ambulance was arriving right as he was getting to the scene.
Callaway reports the shooting on the squad car radio as the ambulance is taking off. The 2nd "602" is Butler attempting to notify dispatch that they are en route to the hospital but he is blocked out by Callaway, who is currently on the squad car radio reporting the incident.
Croy, once the ambulance is gone, is NOW beginning to interview Markham near/leaning against Tippit's patrol car.
Seriously, use your head.
Again... It's foolish to believe that Croy is interviewing Markham next to the patrol car while the body is lying in the street and the ambulance personnel is dealing with trying to get the body loaded.
You're a propagandist, Weidmann. You throw your own key witness under the bus when it fits your narrative. Callaway wasn't mistaken about his positive identification of Oswald as the man he saw running down Patton with a gun in his hands immediately after hearing the gun shots. Guinyard wasn't either. If you truly were a researcher, you'd know I've never claimed to be a researcher. But I could beat your ass any day in an online debate.
I stand by everything I've already stated in this thread. The long-winded post by Weidmann doesn't change that.
I'm not sure what Otto Beck is referring to, regarding "the Whaley thing".
But I could beat your ass any day in an online debate.
But I could beat your ass any day in an online debate.
Which is LN speak for yet another recital of the 888 pages of lies and deception we all know.
Pointless.
Reply to Caprio:
That has been cited for coming up on 55 years. You refuse to listen instead sticking fingers in your ears while moaning loudly to avoid hearing anything at all. It's been cited here numerous times and you have read those posts.
Are you so very lonely that you need to engage with anyone at all even in ridiculous ways just to make you feel wanted?
Pathetic.
That has been cited for coming up on 55 years. You refuse to listen instead sticking fingers in your ears while moaning loudly to avoid hearing anything at all. It's been cited here numerous times and you have read those posts.
Are you so very lonely that you need to engage with anyone at all even in ridiculous ways just to make you feel wanted?
Pathetic.
Welcome to the forum and what does Caprio's loneliness have to do with the JFK assassination?I understand that Howsley's condition is improving----
Consider that Oswald was wearing a jacket with a collar. Therefore, Benavides couldn't see the actual hairline.
(https://i.imgur.com/pfIeVEH.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Py0aCWl.png)
Thumb1:
(https://i.imgur.com/pfIeVEH.png)
Consider that Oswald was wearing a jacket with a collar. Therefore, Benavides couldn't see the actual hairline.
Forget all the other evidence including the fact that several witnesses confirmed that Oswald was the person at the scene with a gun.
An interesting graphic that shows the entire layout of the major events of the 22nd.
(https://oxfordshirehistoryteacher.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/image-39-1024x676.png)
JohnM
There is nothing interesting about it.
Looks like I've adopted a little Padawan that want to follow in my footsteps, Neat!
JohnM
"Johnny" you might think that you are safe, hiding in mum's basement and using VPN's but don't get over confident.
Give it a rest Weidmann, you were caught out.
JohnM
This thread, around June 2021, has some excellent Beck/Weidmann interaction "ganging up" on Dan O'meara who corners himself (as usual) and bails out, applauded by no other than.... Bill Brown!
A must read for Baxter and guaratied to fuel his paranoia.
Thumb1:
Don't forget to quote me on that alleged theory!
Meanwhile, good luck with your "easily checkable detail" from your best evidence and don't forget to post the result.
Will you make it before Xmas (2022)?
So you've got Oswald in Room 0, allegedly.
Now you only have 11 more easily checkable room numbers and names to go.
Does a Xmas 2022 deadline seem fair to you?
could you kindly point them out to me, as I can't find them anywhere.
https://tinyurl.com/59tf5y9u (https://tinyurl.com/59tf5y9u)
You already have two unsupported claims pending and want to dig yourself in deeper?
No problem, I'll play!
Both Gladys Johnson and her husband agree the DP arrived way before Oswald had "volunteered" his address.
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. BELIN. Do you remember about what time of the day they arrived?
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, it must have been around 1:30 or 2 o'clock--the best I remember.
Mr. BELIN. When did you get home that day from your work?
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, it was around 1 o'clock or maybe a little bit after.
Would have been stupid sending three of his men to Irving if he knew Oswald lived at Beckley.
Would have been stupid sending three of his men to Irving if he knew Oswald lived at Beckley.
Yeah that's real good detective work there Otto, no wonder you're a Noob! Hahahaha!::) Well that is one junior high school post if I ever saw one.
Oswald's not exactly truthful Job Application.I notice that it looks like it is spelled 'Honourable Discharge'...the British spelling.
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. BELIN. Do you remember about what time of the day they arrived?
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, it must have been around 1:30 or 2 o'clock--the best I remember.
Mr. BELIN. When did you get home that day from your work?
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, it was around 1 o'clock or maybe a little bit after.
Would have been stupid sending three of his men to Irving if he knew Oswald lived at Beckley.
It's your fantasy remember.
So, you've got Earlene Roberts, Gladys Johnson and her husband, A. C. Johnson all perjuring themselves, all part of this unnecessarily complex lie.
Who else is in on it?
Surely the officers who collected Oswald's belonging from his room?
They must be in on it as well, yeah?
Surely the officers who collected Oswald's belonging from his room?
They must be in on it as well, yeah?
Not all DPD officers were "in on it", but they all were members of "The thin blue line"... And they knew that a fellow officer(JD Tippit) had been gunned down in cold blood, and the "brass" were saying that Lee Harvey Oswald was the killer.....
So, Oswald's possessions weren't really taken from Beckley?
They certainly are in agreement, Mr. Johnson leaning toward 1:30, so why are you telling they said "around 2:00PM."?
Correct, which is why he talked to Gerald Hill about picking up Oswald in Irving?
If Oswald volunteered anything it would have been 2:30pm at the earliest.
There's no reason to push the Johnsons estimate one minute beyond 2:00pm and Potts stated they (DP) arrived at 3:00, deal with it.
Okay Otto, I'll deal with it (whatever that means)
They certainly are in agreement, Mr. Johnson leaning toward 1:30, so why are you telling they said "around 2:00PM."?
Mr Johnson hears the news of JFK's death before coming home, and doesn't get home until about 10 minutes after the announcement, let's say about 1:50PM
At this time Potts is in the DPD taking affidavits off Dougherty and Arce who both recognise Oswald as he's brought in after his arrest.
Potts processes these two affidavits and at some point after that Bill Senkel arrives to tell him they're going out to 1026.
In Potts' account it doesn't seem like they have been at the house all that long before Oswald is recognised on the television. Oswald's image first flashes up on CBS around 3:34PM.
If Oswald volunteered anything it would have been 2:30pm at the earliest.
So let's say Oswald gives up the address around 2:30 - 2:40Pm
Fritz tells Senkel to take some men and check out the address.
Potts, Senkel and Cunningham arrive around 3:00PM
Oswald is recognised around 3:30PM
Senkel calls HQ to find out the search warrant is already en route.
This is because, around 3:00PM Buddy Walthers calls Decker with the number Ruth Paine gave him. Decker asks Allan Sweatt to check the address. At some point Sweatt reports back with the 1026 address at which point Decker gets on to Justice of the Peace Johnston for a search warrant, which he personally delivers to the Beckley address.
A couple of problems with the notion of the DP being at the house around 2:00PM.
Firstly, what were Potts and co. doing for the hour and a half before Oswald was recognised on the TV?
Secondly, if the Johnsons are part of some elaborate hoax, why are they saying the DP arrived so early, thereby ruining the elaborate hoax?
Why would any conspirator be in a rush to have Oswald's boardinghouse searched when he was already in custody and there was nothing incriminating to be found there?
And you know this how?
Like the bus to nowhere and alleged phone/power outage, this seems to advance no objective from a conspiracy perspective.
ROFL -- you bailed the bus to nowhere, literary, when your argument fell apart.
And if there is no allegation of this occurring as a result of a conspiracy (or proof of such) to frame Oswald but just a because someone "wants to know," then why does it really matter?
Any timeline that breaks down matters. Your question underlines the fact that you don't understand how a timeline works.
Down the rabbit hole we go again!
Classic, translation: I somehow can't make my strawman work.
Martin is awfully quiet. Three's a crowd.
ROFL -- Gone CT on the alleged account scam?
Again, what would be the rush for anyone to have the DPD to search Oswald's boardinghouse if there was nothing incriminatory to be found there?
Again, you know this how?
Do you believe something incriminating was found at Oswald's boardinghouse and the DPD was protecting Oswald by rushing there to cover it up? That seems to cut against framing him.
Odd question, how would this protection of Oswald work?
In your fantasy scenario, what are you suggesting is the motivation for the DPD to search Oswald's boardinghouse in such a rush instead of just waiting until they uncovered his address?
I don't deal in fantasy scenarios, but how could they rush anywhere until they had uncovered his address?
He was already in custody.
Your point being?
4-3=0 again.
Irrelevant.
Okay Otto, I'll deal with it (whatever that means)
Pro-tip: If in doubt, ask.
(which may seem to be in conflict with my previous tip)
You seem to be going down the route of Richard Smith's infallible conspirators but you should know by now how that is guarantied to end.
Potts, in his report, increased your 11 tenants to 16 which brings us back to your easily checkable evidence...
I incorrectly assumed you would understand the difference between being in 'game mode' and engaging in some elaborate explanation before understanding what is being asked.
Disappointing, read back:
Secondly, if the Johnsons are part of some elaborate hoax, why are they saying the DP arrived so early, thereby ruining the elaborate hoax?
Equally disappointing:
The lame excuse thread, reply #329.
Further disappointment:
The lame excuse thread, reply #323.
Whether you understood my advise or not doesn't matter since, per your own admission, you tried to deal with something you didn't understand. I'm glad we have that covered.
Your argument continues to rely on the nutty and irrational premise that everyone getting involved with a conspiracy will have their IQ doubled instantly.
So tell us what Gladys Johnson would have said if she was part of a conspiracy and what prevented it from being easily checked?
And do tell us what "matter" caused the easy checks not to be performed.
How about Oswald possibly possessing evidence implicating the DPD?
As I've already pointed out, I can't help someone with this irrational backward way of problem solving.
Why would you hope to understand how a "very complex and audacious Hoax is being perpetrated" based on a flawed investigation
and why would you assume these people were adequately prepped?
Argument from ignorance, making zero sense to you doesn't mean there's no one out there smarter than you. People take stupid risks all the time like running red lights getting themselves and others killed.
But the WC turned every stone?
But I'm not problem solving.
The problem has, apparently, been "solved".
I am examining this solution and my point is simple - if it is indeed a Hoax, then that Hoax must be able to withstand at least mild scrutiny. I don't have to get lost in the details as this has already been done by researchers like LeDoux, who has gathered all the anomalous material together and presented his solution explaining that anomalous material.
This solution must answer this most basic question - if the Hoax is real, why was it done?
There has to be a convincing, coherent answer to this question.
LeDoux's answer to this question is - to have Oswald living close to the scene of the Tippit shooting.
I find this answer highly problematic and very unsatisfactory.
But this is not to say that there's not a better answer to this question or that the anomalous material has somehow been dealt with just because I don't like the answer.
As I understand it, Oswald's house keys are never found, not on him or at the house. That's weird.
Why does the fake-looking slip of paper Gladys Johnson wants back only have one "signature" on it if it is a record of Oswald's payments?
Why is the guest register never produced? [or sold to the highest bidder]
There's something fishy going on at Ma Johnson's rooming house, that's for sure.
??
Are the Johnsons and Earlene being told what to say or not?
Are they making it up as they go along?
How is this Hoax working?
Having the Johnsons basically testify that the DP were round at the house before Oswald was arrested is a colossal blunder as far as the Hoax is concerned. It's absolutely monumental. Surely a basic detail such as this would have been covered in the preparation for the story the Johnsons and Earlene were going to tell.
Once we start considering the Hoax as a reality it must make sense and the Johnsons effectively testifying that the DP arrived before Oswald was arrested makes zero sense. [Or is this another argument from ignorance and that there are people far more intelligent than I am who understand how this is not a catastrophic mistake]
Setting the Hoax up in a rooming house makes zero sense.
Unless it's being made up on the fly.
If that's the case then a whole other can of worms is opened up.
The Johnsons testifying that the DP arrive before Oswald is arrested isn't a "stupid risk", it's a massive mistake in the context of the Hoax being a reality
IMO the WC is a sick joke.
A perverted pantomime. A cover-up of a cover-up.
If there is a single reason this debate rages on it is the utter farce that is the Warren Commission.
A cursory questioning of the tenants revealed there was nothing of interest to be added to the preferred narrative - that Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK and a cop-killer.
When were the tenants questioned?
Interestingly, there was a tenant there named Mr. Lee — Herbert Lee.
Also of interest is that the man who benefitted most from the assassination of JFK was Lyndon Johnson and that it was the Johnsons who owned 1026 North Beckley.
Also of interest is that the man who benefitted most from the assassination of JFK was Lyndon Johnson and that it was the Johnsons who owned 1026 North Beckley.
Not nearly as interesting. Unless somebody were to claim that Lyndon used the name “Arthur Carl” to buy a rooming house in Dallas.
As the creator of this particular thread, I have the right to ask that posts here remain on-topic. This thread is about Oswald's guilt in the death of J.D. Tippit.
Is there any way of synchronising the timing of Tippit's murder with events happeneing at the TSBD.
Gerald Hill testifies that, shortly after the discovery of the SN/3 shells he makes his way to the elevator where he encounters Fritz.
He then goes down to the front entrance and sees Day on his way into the building.
After leaving the building he notices the fire truck arriving.
He is then stood for a while with Sawyer, Alexander and Owens when they hear the citizen first calling about the Tippit shooting.
If the call is from Benevides we can assume the shooting occurred approximately one minute before he calls in.
What time did Day arrive at the TSBD?
What time did the fire truck arrive?
What time were the shells discovered?
Is it possible to determine the timing of these events without recourse to the DP tapes?
There do seem to be some very specific times given in the various testimonies:
12:58PM for the arrival of Fritz, Boyd and Sims at the TSBD
1:22PM for the discovery of the rifle
1:23PM for the time the shells were processed.
I strongly suspect a gap of at least 6 minutes between "tape" time and "real" time should be revealed or refuted.
If the call is from Benevides we can assume the shooting occurred approximately one minute before he calls in.
There do seem to be some very specific times given in the various testimonies:
12:58PM for the arrival of Fritz, Boyd and Sims at the TSBD
1:22PM for the discovery of the rifle
1:23PM for the time the shells were processed.
I don’t think we can. Benavides said he sat in his truck for a few minutes.
The problem is that there is no known time standard by which to calibrate any of these specific times that were given.
It’s completely foolish to pretend you know what Benavides did with more certainty than Benavides.
I don’t think we can. Benavides said he sat in his truck for a few minutes.
Benavides also said that he watched the killer go around the corner and then sat in his truck "for a second or two" before getting out.
It's completely foolish to believe Benavides actually sat cowering down in his truck for three or four minutes while Tippit's body was lying in the street and others had begin to gather around.
It’s completely foolish to pretend you know what Benavides did with more certainty than Benavides.
Benavides said he watched the killer go around the corner and then sat in his truck "for a second or two" before getting out.
Yeah, but your cherry-pick was 3 years later. You don’t know which is more accurate.
Neither do you, of course.
It's up to each of us to determine for ourselves if it is foolish to believe Benavides sat in his truck for a few minutes while Tippit's body was lying in the street and others were already gathering around... or if Benavides sat in his truck for a second or two once the killer went around the corner.
Neither do you, of course.
Between 1:11pm and 1:12pm "tape time", Sawyer makes the following call:
On the 3rd floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle hulls and it looked like the man had been here for some time. We are checking it out now.
It is clearly a reference to the shells found on the 6th floor but something got lost in translation.
This call must be a result of information given to Sawyer by Hill, who had just come stright down after the discovery of the SN. In his testimony Hill makes the point:
"I was talking to Inspector Sawyer, telling him what we found..."
According to Hill he meets Day arriving at the TSBD, sees the fire truck pulling up then goes to Sawyer and tells him what he found.
Presumably Sawyer then makes his call to dispatch between 1:11 and 1:12pm.
Carl Day is very specific about when he arrives at the TSBD:
Mr. Day: Yes, sir; I went out of my office almost straight up 1 o'clock. I arrived at the location on Elm about 1:12.
I'm assuming Day is going by his watch, if so we have some kind of synchronisation between "real" time and "tape" time.
Obviously there are issues with the accuracy of Day's timekeeping and the dispatcher clocks but it's a start.
I'm assuming Day is going by his watch, if so we have some kind of synchronisation between "real" time and "tape" time.
Obviously there are issues with the accuracy of Day's timekeeping and the dispatcher clocks but it's a start.
I would agree if it wasn't for this from Bowles, the DPD radio dispatcher's chief;
There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time." The Committee Report stated that the Dallas Police Communications system was recorded by continuously operating recorders. That statement is incorrect. Channel 1 was recorded on a Dictaphone A2TC, Model 5, belt or loop recorder. Channel 2 was recorded on a Gray "Audograph" flat disk recorder. Both were duplex units with one recording and one on standby for when the other unit contained a full recording. Both units were sound activated. It is important to note "sound" rather than "voice" because either sound or noise from any source, received through the transmission line, would activate the recorders. Once activated, the recorders remained "on" for the duration of the activating sound plus 4 seconds. The four second delay permitted brief pauses or answers to questions without the relay mechanism being overworked. On occasion, the recorders would operate almost continuously because rapid radio traffic kept them operating. On November 22, 1963, the Channel 1 recorders became, for practical purposes, continuous recorders for just over five minutes starting at approximately 12:29 pm (Channel 1 time) because the microphone on a police motorcycle stuck in the "on" position. The resulting continuous transmission kept the Channel 1 recorders operating for just over five minutes thus giving us a real-time recording for that period. The only problem was determining a basis for an accurate time reference during that period.
“There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time."
Bowles is referring to the dispatcher set-up when he is making this statement but I don't agree with it as some kind of fundamental pronouncement.
A thought experiment - imagine an officer was stood next to a reliable time source (let's say the Hertz clock on top of the TSBD). The dispatcher asks the officer what time the Hertz clock says and compares it to his own clock. In this way "real" time and "police" time have been connected.
Can this thought experiment be reproduced in reality?
The answer is "Yes".
(https://i.postimg.cc/bwLKyc1L/Screenshot-165.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The above picture is taken seconds after the assassination. The Hertz clock can be clearly seen showing 12:30.
When we look at the DPD tape transcripts we see that the very first call after the 12:30 timestamp is Chief Curry stating:
“Go to the hospital - Parkland Hospital. Have them stand by.”
This is clearly a reference to the assassination.
So, here we have an example of "real" time being connected to "police" time. Maybe not to the second but certainly to the minute.
"Real" time (the Hertz clock) says the assassination occurred at 12:30pm.
"Police" time (the tapes) says the assassination occurred at 12:30pm
This could be a coincidence.
Also, just because both "times" seem connected at 12:30pm doesn't mean they can't be 6 minutes out 40 minutes later.
And who's to say the Hertz clock represents "real" time.
The example I gave in my previous post about Day arriving at 1:12pm and Sawyer's call between 1:11 and 1:12pm appears to another coincidence at first glance but actually suggests there is a slight discrepency between the two "times".
There is also motorcycle cop E. D. Brewer. Between 12:37 and 12:38pm "tape" time Brewer is dealing with a witness on the west side of the underpass. He is told to get to the TSBD and rides the wrong way up Elm Street to get there.
The Murray pic below shows 12:39pm on the Hertz clock:
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5YcH5LL/Murray-Unger3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
A closer inspection of the pic reveals Brewer riding the wrong way up Elm:
(https://i.postimg.cc/CxsxyrFY/Screenshot-224-1.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Once again, this demonstrates a very close synchronisation between "real" time and "police" time.
Great post, Dan. If you don't mind, I'm gonna use that in a couple of the JFK assassination/J.D. Tippit Facebook groups that I participate in.I don't mind at all Bill. It's still a work in progress so let's see where it leads.
I don't mind at all Bill. It's still a work in progress so let's see where it leads.
I don't mind at all Bill. It's still a work in progress so let's see where it leads.
And who's to say the Hertz clock represents "real" time.
Exactly.
Besides, Curry’s announcements are on channel 2 and all of the time checks around the time of the Tippit shooting are on channel 1. Different dispatcher, different clock.
"Exactly" what?
We have four independent sources confirming that the minute of the assassination was 12:30pm.
Then it is important to establish that channel 1 and channel 2 are synchronised with each other.
After the 12:44pm timestamp [channel 2], Sawyer gives the first description of the suspect. Both dispatchers immediately broadcast this description givng the same details Sawyer provided but with slightly different wording.
Both dispatchers finish their descriptions with a timestamp - 12:45pm.
Once again, I am confident you will agree this is an unequivocal example of both channels being synched together.
Who's to say the Hertz clock represents "real" time? We don’t know how or when it was calibrated.
You don’t know that they’re independent. For all you know, the channel two dispatcher set his clock to match the Hertz clock that morning and that Powers looked at the Hertz clock and misremembered it at looking at his watch. Greer is hearsay.
Besides, the 4 independent sources confirming that Tippit was shot several minutes before 1:15 don’t seem to impress the WC faithful, so why would this?
Not even a little bit. Just because they both announce a description doesn’t mean both did it immediately or at the same “real” time.
By the way, it has been claimed elsewhere that the “attention all squads” announcement was a single announcement given by a single dispatcher over both police channels. If that’s true, then the time check only reflects a single dispatcher’s clock.
But then that doesn’t explain why the wordings aren’t identical in the transcripts.
What is "real" time in this instance?
What is the source that all clocks and watches should be measured against.
The best I can offer is when four independent sources confirm the time of the assassination as 12:30pm we can safely assume this is indeed "real" time.
I present a solid argument for synchronising the timestamp of the DP tapes with "real" time, backed up with multiple evidence and all you can do is offer up is these half-baked fantasies? It's beyond desperate.
Why not just say that I don't know if Powers, Greer and the dispatchers met up at the TSBD before everyone else was awake and all set their watches/clocks to the Hertz clock?
I can't prove that didn't happen.
Does this ridiculous fantasy cast doubt on whether these are independent sources?
Only in your mind.
The problem you have is that these four independent time "sources" corroborate each other. I am confident it's something that would be accepted as solid evidence by anyone with a grain of common sense.
This argument is so weak you should be embarrassed.
The point was about synchronising the two channels with each other.
Nothing to do with "real" time.
Both dispatchers finish their descriptions with the timestamp 12:45(pm) confirming, beyond doubt, that channels 1 and 2 are synchronised at this point.
Your misrepresentation of this point once again reflects a certain desperation on your part.
It is unequivocal that both channels are synchronised at this point.
What is "real" time in this instance?
The best I can offer is when four independent sources confirm the time of the assassination as 12:30pm we can safely assume this is indeed "real" time.
I present a solid argument for synchronising the timestamp of the DP tapes with "real" time, backed up with multiple evidence and all you can do is offer up is these half-baked fantasies? It's beyond desperate.
Why not just say that I don't know if Powers, Greer and the dispatchers met up at the TSBD before everyone else was awake and all set their watches/clocks to the Hertz clock?
I can't prove that didn't happen.
Does this ridiculous fantasy cast doubt on whether these are independent sources?
Only in your mind.
The problem you have is that these four independent time "sources" corroborate each other.
I am confident it's something that would be accepted as solid evidence by anyone with a grain of common sense.
This argument is so weak you should be embarrassed.
The point was about synchronising the two channels with each other.
Nothing to do with "real" time.
Both dispatchers finish their descriptions with the timestamp 12:45(pm) confirming, beyond doubt, that channels 1 and 2 are synchronised at this point.
Your misrepresentation of this point once again reflects a certain desperation on your part.
You, of all people, coming up with a phrase like "it has been claimed elsewhere".
Cite please
Facebook discussion group called "J. D. Tippit: Searching For The Truth". A gadfly named Frederic James. But this is more attention than he deserves.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/403553303608257/posts/1062905751006339 (https://www.facebook.com/groups/403553303608257/posts/1062905751006339)
Real time in this context would be the precise time according to the USNO master clock or its equivalent.
Agreed that this is the best you can offer, but it doesn't demonstrate that they are actually independent. Or correct.
You think all of your arguments are solid. I agree that the Hertz clock visible in the McIntyre photo appears to show 12:30 when the motorcade is going through the underpass. What we don't know is how accurate the Hertz clock was.
You don't know what you don't know.
That's not a "problem" for me. I'm not attached to any particular outcome -- I just expect truth claims to be proven. At best, you can assert that the Hertz clock is close to what the channel 2 dispatcher announced the time as on the extant recordings (assuming they are authentic and haven't been edited in the relevant timeframe). But that doesn't tell you that these times are correct. Or that they are any help with determining the actual time of the Tippit shooting.
I too applaud your efforts to look for a way to reliably synchronize the dispatcher time announcements. I just don't think you have found one yet that doesn't depend on handwaving.
"Common sense" is what people appeal to when they don't have evidence.
It's not an argument, but it does point out how much special pleading goes on here. Do you accept the "four independent sources" argument of people's memories about what their watches said as solid evidence of accuracy or not?
No, that doesn't confirm a damn thing unless you can demonstrate that the two announcements occurred at the same time as each other.
What misrepresentation?
Can it realistically be the case that within 40 minutes later a six minute discrepancy emerges between the two "times".
Do the police tapes reveal something that may have contributed to such a discrepancy?
Not sure where the 6 minute discrepancy comes from. I think it's probably closer to about 5 minutes.
Let's consider the circumstances;
First of all, prior to the assassination there was only normal radio traffic. It is possible, and certainly within an acceptable range, that prior to 12:30 the police radio and other clocks were already two minutes off from the actual time. Bowles said it was not uncommon for that to happen;
"Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock. Accordingly, at "exactly" 10:10, various clocks could be stamping from 10:08 to 10:12, for example."
After the assassination, the radio traffic explodes, which causes the dispatchers to call times too late, as Bowles said could happen.
"In addition to the times stamped on calls by telephone operators, the radio operators stamped the "time" as calls were dispatched, and the "time" that officers completed an assignment and returned to service. Radio operators were also furnished with 12-hour digital clocks to facilitate their time references when they were not using call sheets containing stamped time. These digital clocks were not synchronized with any time standard. Therefore, the time "actual" and time "broadcast" could easily be a minute or so apart."
"Next, consideration should be given to the methods of individual radio operators. A given operator at a given time might broadcast "time" a little early in one event then a little late the next. Accordingly, a call initiated at, say, 10:10 might be stamped at 10:13 by the dispatcher, only to have intervening radio traffic delay his broadcast. He might go ahead and announce the dispatch time as 10:13 and the digital clock then showed 10:14."
And then there is the problem that sound activated machines were being used, providing no guarantee for accurate time keeping.
A six or five minute discrepancy might, at first glance, seem excessive, but given the many variables it is certainly possible. It becomes even more likely when one considers three external elements that all point in the same direction;
1. Markham testified she left her home on 9th street at 1:06 or 1:07. She had a two block walk (about 4 minutes) to go to get to the bus stop on Jefferson where she estimated she got on the bus at 1:15. If Tippit was killed at 1:14 / 1:15, Markham would not have been on the corner of 10th and Patton to watch it.
2. Bowley had just picked up his 12 year old daughter from school and was en route to pick up his wife from work. The school bel rang at 12:55 and the drive from school to 10th street took about 13 minutes. Even if it had taken him roughly 20 minutes, that would still have Bowley arriving at the Tippit scene at around 1:14 or 1:15, which is when the shooting allegedly took place. But when he arrived at the scene the killer was already gone and Benavides was trying work the radio. Bowley said that he looked at his watch and it said 1:10 and the timing of his drive confirms that time must have been about correct, give or take a minute perhaps.
3. Tippit was declared D.O.A. at Methodist Hospital at 1:15 and DPD officer Davenport confirms that time in two different reports.
Either all these three events, combined, must be wrong or the time calls on DPD radio are wrong.
Let's call it a 5 minute discrepancy.
It is still quite a substantial difference.
Bowles is describing things that "could" happen or "might" happen and not what "did" happen.
The evidence I have provided in my previous post demonstrates the 12:30pm timestamp on channel 2 was correct as it is corroborated by other "external" sources. It may not have been accurate to the second but it was to the minute.
As such, the idea that the dispatchers clock might have been out as much as two minutes at 12:30pm can be dispensed with.
This is not to say the discrepancy couldn't have crept in after 12:30pm but it is important to get some kind of corroboration for this.
I have also presented the evidence of Brewer appearing in the Allen pic riding the wrong way up Elm St at 12:39pm (according to the Hertz clock). In the DP tape transcript Brewer is dealing with a witness near the triple underpass between 12:37pm and 12:40pm [timestamps on channel 2]. After agreeing to leave the witness there he drives the wrong way up Elm St where he is photographed at 12:39pm. It can be said with some confidence that this evidence precludes a five minute gap at this period.
Obviously I'm aware of this evidence but am trying to approach the problem from a different angle - how the events in and around Dealey Plaza relate to Bowley's call on the police radio, in terms of timing.
It is notable that the radio traffic on channel 1 is very intense for the period in question (far more so than channel 2) and, considering Bowles' insights, it seems likely some kind of discrepancy to crept in.
But 5 minutes?
It is notable that the radio traffic on channel 1 is very intense for the period in question (far more so than channel 2) and, considering Bowles' insights, it seems likely some kind of discrepancy to crept in.
But 5 minutes?
Fair enough, but how much time do you think the discrepancy could be?
Out of my quite substantial post you pick one line:
"And who's to say the Hertz clock represents "real" time."
To which your response is - "Exactly"
And in one line you've pretty much summed up Iacoletti
Takes one line from a lengthy post, takes it completely out of context and then argues against a point that you weren't even making in the first place ::).
Mytton didn't have time? :D
Have time for what? Well done on attempting a joke that didn't actually make sense.
Have you calmed down from your explosive rant and excessive 'throwing your toys out of the pram' moment with regards to the $25,000 challenge that got our previous thread disabled yet, Weidmann?
Still haven't received a PM with the contact info for yours (and Otto's) solicitors yet. :-\
To suggest I'm not providing evidence is ridiculous and misrepresentative.
Juries use common sense all the time to determine which "narrative" is the most realistic/probable.
The "Prosecution Narrative" in the case of JFK's assassination is well known, it is the narrative espoused by all LNers. To counter it, there must be a "Defense Narrative" that has emerged from the same evidence available to the Prosecution.
This is the reason why all the pseudo-defense attorneys who inhabit this forum are irrelevant and always will be - they never provide a "Defense Narrative".
We are left with determining which narrative is most realistic, most probable, and "common sense" is key to making this determination.
The McIntire pic below, taken from the Unger gallery, shows the Hertz clock reading 12:30pm.
So whatever I present is never going to be an "Absolute Truth" as this is impossible to do.
The screenshot below shows the moment in the DP tape transcripts that the assassination occurs:
Dave Powers "was Special Assistant and assistant Appointments Secretary" to JFK.
My common sense is telling me that the assistant Appointments Secretary to the most powerful man on the planet is someone very concerned with timekeeping.
As was his custom, he kept a close eye on his watch regarding the timekeeping of JFK's appointments.
Greer witnesses Kellerman look at his watch and then hears him say "12:30". My common sense is telling me that Kellerman's watch was reading 12:30pm which is why he said "12:30". This happened when they were in underpass, seconds after the assassination.
Four pieces of evidence all pointing to 12:30pm as the time of the assassination.
Can it realistically be the case that within 40 minutes later a six minute discrepancy emerges between the two "times".
I have also presented the evidence of Brewer appearing in the Allen pic riding the wrong way up Elm St at 12:39pm (according to the Hertz clock).
Perhaps they do, but that doesn’t make it evidence.
This is why it’s important to distinguish actual evidence from assumptions made about the evidence. The WC narrative is not conclusively supported by the totality of the evidence.
No, that doesn’t absolve the people who make up a narrative from demonstrating that it’s actually true. The burden of proof always lies on the person making the positive claim. The only thing that’s required to reject a claim is to show that it has not met that burden. For example it was not rational to accept as true the claim that the moon is made of cheese prior to humans visiting it. There wasn’t any conclusive evidence to support that — it was just a narrative made up by somebody who considered it “common sense”. Sure, it’s better to keep investigating and come up with a correct answer, but it’s not a requirement for rejection. The point in showing that the proffered evidence is either not evidence at all (ring in a cup), questionable/tainted (lineups), or not pointing to a specific person (shells by the window) is to show why the burden of proof has not been met.
Right. And the best answer that fits all the known evidence is “undetermined”. I know that doesn’t satisfy people who would rather have an answer, even if they have to make one up, but it is what it is.
Also agreed. Which is why the legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, not just “story makes sense to me”.
That’s not the same kind of assumption as the previous two. In fact it has no evidentiary basis at all. And even if it happens to be correct, that doesn’t mean his watch was precise or that he remembered it properly. A photo carries much more weight.
You have given no basis for declaring this as his custom.
The problem with this is that it’s hearsay. Greer didn’t see what Kellerman’s watch said. There’s a reason that hearsay testimony is generally not permitted in a trial.
But the only one you have physical evidence for is the Hertz clock. And there’s no compelling reason to believe it must be more accurate than any other timepiece.
Absolutely. Because Curry’s 12:30 announcement was on channel 2 and all the Tippit related timechecks were on channel 1. Different dispatcher, different clock. And besides that, the time of the Tippit shooting is not captured on the police recordings at all — only the aftermath.
How did you determine that this is Brewer?
There is no "narrative" that is conclusively supported by the totality of the evidence in this case. I'd wager there are many cases where the narrative isn't conclusively supported by the evidence. Yet a determination must still be made.
At the heart of any criminal case are competing "narratives" from which the jury must choose. This is why Common Sense is of fundamental importance.
This isn't a trial.
There is no "burden of proof".
Nit-picking at the details is meaningless.
It is a question of competing narratives and which, however imperfect, fits best with the evidence related to this case.
We have very different ideas about what "common sense" is.
You seem to think "common sense" is the same as a belief system - people believing the moon is made of cheese because they've been told to believe that.
In my opinion, it is an intuitive rationalising based on our experiences as human beings.
"What goes up must come down", is a good example of common sense. There's no need to have studied physics or have even heard of the concept of gravity to appreciate this as a general "truism".
I didn't mention "answers". Why are you suddenly talking about "answers"?
What is the best narrative?
Is there a better narrative than the LNer one.
Reasonable Doubt is not an empirical measure, it is a measure of Common Sense. It is a subjective measure.
Logic is not interested in Reasonable Doubt, it is only interested in Zero Doubt.
It is easily argued that, as the assistant Appointments Secretary to the President of the United States, Powers is an expert in timekeeping.
It is the basis of his job. His job is specifically related to keeping a track of time. And not just for anyone, it's for the most powerful man on the planet at that time. And the key piece of equipment for this job must be his watch, which, one would imagine, has to be incredibly reliable.
His testimony on this matter must be considered credible.
He states this himself:
"In accordance with my custom, I was very much concerned about our timing and at just about that point I looked at my watch and noted that it was almost exactly 12:30 p.m."
Greer is testifying to seeing Kellerman look at his watch and say "12:30". That's it.
It can be concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Kellerman's watch read 12:30pm as:
a) This is what Kellerman states
b) This is the time on the Hertz clock
c) This is the time on Powers' watch
d) This is the timestamp on the DP tapes
It may not be an Absolute Truth but it is a reasonable conclusion.
The impression given here is that the two dispatchers are somehow isolated from each other.
I find it hard to believe that, in this given situation, each dispatcher is unaware of the calls of the other.
As such, I find it even harder to believe that one channel can wander off from the other by a minute let alone five minutes.
Particularly as there are regular intervals when both dispatchers call the same timestamp:
Finding something “hard to believe” isn’t particularly dispositive. Particularly when Bowles said the clocks couldn’t be relied upon to be in synch.
You couldn’t possibly know that they called the same timestamp at the same time.
Those transcripts are aligned with each other based on the time announcements.
You’re making a circular argument.
The Brewer thing is actually a good catch. But even if that is Brewer, his broadcast was also on channel 2, so that doesn’t add any new information to help with the Tippit timings.
It's nice of you to leave out why I find it hard to believe.
I never said this.
The Brewer thing is just to demonstrate that channel 2 is still in synch with the events in Dealey Plaza at 12:39pm
This is how Frances Cason describes the situation in the radio dispatchers office:
Mrs. Cason: These are the initials of Officer M. J. Jackson who was working on the radio with Officer C. E. Hulse at the time the calls were dispatched. The way our radio is set up part of the squads are handled by this officer on one side of the board and part of the squads and the ambulances and APB, which is traffic investigators are handled by the officer on the other side of the radio board, and Mr. Jackson was sitting on the side of the board that would handle a call in the downtown area.
She appears to be describing a situation where both dispatchers sit at the same radio board. This implies the dispatchers are sat in close proximity. This seems to be confirmed by Gerald Henslee:
Mr. Henslee: Well, in this instance, I was not only supervising the channel 1 radio and the incoming radio calls, but was the police dispatcher for channel 2, covering the special event of the arrival of the President of the United States, President Kennedy.
On the day of the assassination Henslee and Murray are sat at the radio board and Henslee is across both channels.
I find it hard to believe that, in this given situation, each dispatcher is unaware of the calls of the other.
As such, I find it even harder to believe that one channel can wander off from the other by a minute let alone five minutes. Particularly as there are regular intervals when both dispatchers call the same timestamp:
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:40
12:45
12:51
12:54
1:11
1:12
1:19
The timestamp at 12:45pm is a particularly clear example of both channels being in synch with each other:
(https://i.postimg.cc/JhYXrcSF/Screenshot-226.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The available evidence suggests, in terms timestamps, the events in Dealey Plaza and the DP dispatch office are in synch at 12:30pm
Brewers' call on channel 2, between 12:37 and 12:40pm, is supported by the picture of him riding the wrong way up Elm at 12:39pm
Both channels are in synch at 12:45pm and there is no evidence I can find, in the tape transcripts or otherwise, that suggests the channels go out of synch up to the point of Bowley's call.
That’s because it doesn’t matter what you believe.
You don’t know that Murray and Henslee “sat at the same radio board”. Neither Cason or Henslee said that. That was just something you read into it.
And obviously the two radio dispatcher clocks could drift apart without them being aware of it right away because Bowles said that they did.
You claimed that “there are regular intervals when both dispatchers call the same timestamp”. You can’t possibly know that.
Cason said:
"The way our radio is set up part of the squads are handled by this officer on one side of the board and part of the squads and the ambulances and APB, which is traffic investigators are handled by the officer on the other side of the radio board..."
The [singular] radio board.
I'm not reading anything into it, that's how English works.
Cason does not say Murray was sat at one board and Henslee was sat at another.
They were sat at the same radio board.
You might believe there's another way of interpreting what Cason said, but it doesn't matter what you believe.
Wrong. Bowles said the clocks "could" drift apart.
You seem to believe just because Bowles said it "could" happen, that it "did" happen.
And, if it did happen, it is possible neither dispatcher would notice it "right away", but immensely unlikely it wouldn't be noticed as the timestamps drifted further and further apart, until there was a five minute difference [ a difference Bowles never even hinted at].
All the available evidence points to the conclusion that this is the case.
There is nothing to suggest otherwise. Is there?
I'm not reading anything into it, that's how English works.
Cason does not say Murray was sat at one board and Henslee was sat at another.
They were sat at the same radio board.
Wrong. Bowles said the clocks "could" drift apart.
You seem to believe just because Bowles said it "could" happen, that it "did" happen.
And, if it did happen, it is possible neither dispatcher would notice it "right away", but immensely unlikely it wouldn't be noticed as the timestamps drifted further and further apart, until there was a five minute difference [ a difference Bowles never even hinted at].
And, if it did happen, it is possible neither dispatcher would notice it "right away", but immensely unlikely it wouldn't be noticed as the timestamps drifted further and further apart, until there was a five minute difference [ a difference Bowles never even hinted at].
The five minute difference would have been between what Bowles described as "police time" and "real time". The dispatcher would not be aware of any difference, because they had no way of knowing if and by how much their own clocks (which they related to the master clock in the room) would be behind or faster than "real time".
If there was a difference between "real time" and the master clock of two minutes and a difference of two minutes between the master clock and the clocks used by the dispatchers, you already have a difference of four minutes between "real time" and the dispatcher's clocks.
It doesn't have to be proven conclusively what the exact time difference, to the precise second, was between the dispatcher's clocks and/or time stamps and "real time". The mere possibility that Bowles basically told us that the system wasn't set up to give "real time" is enough to conclude that the time stamps called out but dispatcher can not be relied upon as being accurate.
The evidence I have provided and the arguments I have presented as a result of this evidence, have shown, to a very high degree of probability, that the timestamps in the dispatchers office are synchronised with events happening in Dealey Plaza, specifically the time given on the Hertz clock (corroborated by the testimonies of Powers and Greer).
As such, there is no need to refer to the master clock or "real" time (whatever that means).
"If there was a difference between "real time" and the master clock of two minutes and a difference of two minutes between the master clock and the clocks used by the dispatchers, you already have a difference of four minutes between "real time" and the dispatcher's clocks."
Because I have focused on synchronising the dispatchers timestamps with "Dealey" time the above argument is no longer relevant. The only way for a five minute discrepancy to occur is for the dispatcher's clock for channel 1 to drift 5 minutes away from the moment of 12:30pm, synchronised with "Dealey" time.
For the Tippit shooting to have occurred around 1;10pm that would require a 5 drift shift in 40 minutes (from 12:30pm to 1:10pm)
The Brewer evidence demonstrates channel 2 was still in synch with "Dealey" time around 12:39pm.
The problem I am having is that, from the testimonies of Henslee and Cason, we have a situation where Murray and Henslee are sat at the same radio board that day and, more importantly, Henslee is not only the channel 2 dispatcher, he is also supervising channel 1, meaning he is across both channels.
I find it most unlikely, given this situation, that the channel 1 dispatcher is calling out timestamps that are 5 minutes different from channel 2, and Henslee isn't noticing it.
This drift would've occurred over a period of time, getting gradually worse, so there would be plenty of time and opportunities for the discrepancy to be noticed, particularly as there are so many examples of the dispatchers calling out the same timestamp.
The only other alternative I can see is that both clocks gradually drifted away from "Dealey" time until there was a 5 minute discrepancy, but I find this scenario extremely unlikely.
Because I have focused on synchronising the dispatchers timestamps with "Dealey" time the above argument is no longer relevant. The only way for a five minute discrepancy to occur is for the dispatcher's clock for channel 1 to drift 5 minutes away from the moment of 12:30pm, synchronised with "Dealey" time.
For the Tippit shooting to have occurred around 1;10pm that would require a 5 drift shift in 40 minutes (from 12:30pm to 1:10pm)
Well, they actually didn't call out any time stamp between 1:16 and 1:19.
I do not know if it has ever been linked before but below is the google map walking prompt from 1026 N Beckley to 408 E 10th [where Tippit was shot]...showing the *shortest distance at 17 minutes. I walked it years ago and it took me *18. The walk south BTW is uphill. The start time is questionably 1:00 or after---
Once again...How does the walk time + the police stop and chat w/suspect time + the confrontation time + the shooting time + the onlooker gets to the radio and calls dispatch time = 1:16? [Sixteen minutes or less]
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/1026+North+Beckley+Avenue,+Dallas,+TX/408+E+10th+St,+Dallas,+TX+75203/@32.7501084,-96.8202632,1988m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x864e999d1b785c03:0xf4b8e76beb3a162d!2m2!1d-96.8226033!2d32.7558212!1m5!1m1!1s0x864e9999e27dc995:0x74404ad9827de298!2m2!1d-96.8181642!2d32.7472428!3e2?hl=en
* Beckley to left on Davis to right on Patton to left on 10th
I walked that exact route back in March of 2020 and it took me a little less than 12 minutes and 30 seconds.I guess that is because you were in quite a hurry to go kill a cop huh? Did you have your gun with you? Was it tucked in your waistband so as to not fall out at your go-get-em speed? And knew right where to go at 4.8 miles an hour?
How Long Does It Take to Walk a Mile?https://www.nike.com/hr/a/how-long-does-it-take-to-walk-a-mile
Most people can expect to walk a mile in 15 to 22 minutes, according to data gathered in a 2019 study spanning five decades. The average walking pace is 2.5 to 4 mph, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Factors that affect the speed of your pace include physical fitness levels, the incline and your age.
Wondering if there is still DNA presence of the wearer of this jacket which AFAIK is presently stored in the Natl Archives.
As for the zipper jacket, the evidence that Tippit’s killer wore it is doubtful, the
evidence that it was worn by or ever belonged to Oswald is weak, and the
circumstances under which it was allegedly found (by a still unidentified Dallas
policeman) lying on the ground in a service station parking lot have never been
satisfactorily explained.
Wondering if there is still DNA presence of the wearer of this jacket which AFAIK is presently stored in the Natl Archives.
In terms of Oswald's jacket, it's likely that DNA of many people would be found. It has been handled by the investigators and folks at the Archives etc.Doesn't matter. If Oswald's DNA weren't found.. then it should clear him as owner of the jacket.
Doesn't matter. If Oswald's DNA weren't found.. then it should clear him as owner of the jacket.
Why? The absence of DNA after nearly six decades wouldn't prove it wasn't Oswald's jacket. It would just prove that they couldn't find his DNA. Of course, if they did find his DNA, that would be dismissed, like his rifle and prints at the crime scene, as a product of fakery.
It is unbelievable that someone would post this nonsense on a public board after all we now know about the Tippit shooting. Here are just a few of the facts that point away from Oswald:
-- Warren Reynolds did not see the shooting but saw the gunman running from the scene of the crime. He claimed that the man was not Oswald. After he survived an attempt to kill him, he changed his mind and identified Oswald as the man he had seen.
-- Four cartridge cases were found lying on the ground near the scene of the murder. It would seem that the killer had opened the chamber of his gun and manually ejected the cases. Instead of immediately fleeing the scene of the crime, he deliberately stopped and discarded four vital pieces of evidence that could have been used against him. And of course WC apologists just gobble up this tale.
-- The four cartridge cases were traced to Oswald's revolver, but they were never matched to the bullets. Simply put, the slugs from Tippit's body do not match the shells in evidence.
-- Not one of the shells in evidence has Sergeant W. E. Barnes' or Patrolman J. M. Poe's initials on it, even though both men said they marked two of the shells. Sergeant Gerald Hill testified that he told Poe to be "sure" to mark two of the shells.
-- Helen Markham said the shooting occurred at 1:06 or 1:07. She had left her home, about one block from the site of the shooting, just after 1 pm, to go to work. She was about one and a half minutes’ walk from the bus stop where she was about to catch her regular bus. She caught this bus every day she worked. According to the Dallas Transit System, the bus was scheduled to arrive at 1:12 and she routinely arrived at least five minutes early, so the shooting must have occurred at around 1:07-1:10. There is no way Oswald could have walked from his house to 10th and Patton in time to be seen by Markham there.
-- The police lineups where Oswald was "identified" were brazenly unfair. He was the only one who was dressed shabbily. A monkey would have "identified" Oswald at those lineups.
-- Tippit's very presence in the Oak Cliff area, far from his assigned area, at a time when all DPD officers had been ordered to go downtown or to Parkland smacks of conspiracy. It took the DPD weeks to "discover" the transmission that ordered Tippit to Oak Cliff.
-- The fingerprints on Tippit's passenger door and on the right front fender were not Oswald's.
-- The FBI found that Oswald’s revolver was defective—it would not fire because the firing pin did not work properly. Dr. Gerald McKnight:
The first indication that Oswald’s .38 Smith and Wesson revolver was defective surfaced in the Warren report’s account of his arrest in the Texas Theatre. The reported stated that while Oswald was scuffling with one of the arresting officers, “a click” was heard, which the report identified as the sound of Oswald’s handgun misfiring. Later, when the FBI crime lab examined the four empty .38 hulls retrieved from the Tippit crime scene, none of the cartridges bore firing-pin indentations. Based on the physical evidence, BuLab [the FBI crime lab] surmised, “the firing pin would not strike one or more of the cartridges with sufficient force to fire them.” The FBI was confronted with the strong likelihood
that Oswald’s pistol was so hopelessly defective that it could not have been used
in the Tippit shooting. This could explain why the FBI was so conspicuously
indifferent about collecting and testing the three slugs Dr. Rose had removed
from the slain policeman’s body. (McKnight, Breach of Trust: How the Warren
Commission Failed the Nation and Why, University Press of Kansas, 2013, p.
146)
Donald Wilkes of the University of Georgia law school doesn't buy the case against Oswald in the Tippit shooting:
After shooting Tippit the killer conveniently discarded four empty .38 caliber shells, which were identified by FBI experts as having been fired from the pistol Oswald possessed at arrest. There are, however, strong suspicions that the shells handed over to the FBI by Dallas police were not the shells found at the crime scene. Furthermore, the shells did not correspond with the bullets removed from Tippit’s body during his autopsy--a strange fact which the Warren Report desperately but unsuccessfully tried to explain away. Two of the shells were Winchesters and two were Remingtons, but the bullets recovered from Tippit consisted of three Winchesters and one Remington. (FBI experts could not link the bullets taken from Tippit’s corpse to Oswald’s revolver, for two reasons: first, the bullets were too mutilated; second, the barrel of the weapon had--apparently before Oswald bought it--been altered, and test-firing the revolver showed that consecutive bullets fired from the revolver could not be identified as having been fired from that revolver.) Even accepting that Oswald owned and possessed the weapon in question, and that the shells tested by the FBI had been fired from that weapon, therefore, the ballistics evidence is questionable.
As for the zipper jacket, the evidence that Tippit’s killer wore it is doubtful, the
evidence that it was worn by or ever belonged to Oswald is weak, and the
circumstances under which it was allegedly found (by a still unidentified Dallas
policeman) lying on the ground in a service station parking lot have never been
satisfactorily explained. There is an excellent account of the suspicious nature of the jacket evidence in the Meagher book. (The jacket, incidentally, bore a laundry or dry-cleaning tag which the FBI was unable to trace.)
It may well be, therefore, as James P. Duffy and Vincent L. Rice suggest in their book The Assassination of John F. Kennedy (1992), that Tippit’s murder “had no connection ... with Oswald, that [it] was committed by an unknown person for reasons entirely unconnected with the president’s assassination, and that the murder charge was pinned on Oswald.” (https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1145&context=fac_pm)
These are just some of the problems with the case against Oswald in the Tippit shooting. That case is a bunch of hokum consisting of witnesses who were pressured to change their story, witnesses who "identified" Oswald in grossly unfair lineups, suppressed evidence, and sloppily planted evidence.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_j_022lJYli3B5Xyw8wLs-0nl6mDLo2t/view
-- Warren Reynolds did not see the shooting but saw the gunman running from the scene of the crime. He claimed that the man was not Oswald. After he survived an attempt to kill him, he changed his mind and identified Oswald as the man he had seen.
Michael T. Griffith on August 06, 2022, 02:01:52 PM -- Warren Reynolds did not see the shooting but saw the gunman running from the scene of the crime. He claimed that the man was not Oswald. After he survived an attempt to kill him, he changed his mind and identified Oswald as the man he had seen.
Mr. LIEBELER. OK; let me put it this way: When is the first time that anybody from any law-enforcement agency,
and I mean by that, the FBI, Secret Service, Dallas Police Department,
Dallas County sheriff's office; you pick it. When is the first time that they ever talked to you?
Mr.REYNOLDS. January 21.
Mr. LIEBELER. That is the first time they ever talked to you about what you saw on that day?
Mr.REYNOLDS. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. So you never in any way identified this man in the police department or any other authority, either in November or in December of 1963; is that correct?
Mr.REYNOLDS. No; I sure didn't.
Mr. LIEBELER. So it can be in no way said that you "fingered" the man who was running down the street, and
identified him as the man who was going around and putting the gun in his pocket?
Mr.REYNOLDS. It can be said I didn't talk to the authorities.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you say anything about it to anybody else?
Mr.REYNOLDS. I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. Were you able to identify this man in your own mind?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You did identify him as Lee Harvey Oswald in your own mind?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You had no question about it? [he obviously did on Jan 21]
Mr.REYNOLDS. No.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and
ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.
Mr. LIEBELER. I show you an exhibit that has been marked Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C and ask you if that is the same man, in your opinion?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You were in no way, if I understand it correctly then, properly identified as anyone who had told the authorities
that this man that was going down the street was the same man as Lee Harvey Oswald, is that correct?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Well, yes and no...... [Avoiding that question]
Nonsense.
Cite for Reynolds claiming that the man was not Oswald.
What he actually said was that he was of the opinion that the man he saw was Oswald but that he would hesitate to definitely identify Oswald.
Why do you feel the need to make s h i t up?
Why? The absence of DNA after nearly six decades wouldn't prove it wasn't Oswald's jacket. It would just prove that they couldn't find his DNA. Of course, if they did find his DNA, that would be dismissed, like his rifle and prints at the crime scene, as a product of fakery.The usual