Oswald killed Tippit -- Helen Markham confirms her ID on CBS 1964

[Martin Weidmann]

Calling a man a liar (with no proof) is cowardly.

So you're a ballistics expert, now, Walt?

Your "theory" is that every witness who contributes to proving the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald is a liar. That's all you've got. How about some evidence that somebody else killed Officer J.D. Tippit? Not "thumb-suckers': Identification of an alternative shooter and physical evidence is required. Over to you... genius.

Calling a man a liar (with no proof) is cowardly.

So is running away from questions you don't like.....

[Ross Lidell]

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 Saturday morning?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Measured it with a tape measure?

~snip~

Mr. BALL. Tell us what happened.
Mr. CALLAWAY. We first went into the room. There was Jim Leavelle, the detective, Sam Guinyard, and then this busdriver and myself. We waited down there for probably 20 or 30 minutes. And Jim told us, "When I show you these guys, be sure,. take your time, see if you can make a positive identification."
Mr. BALL. Had you known him before?
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.
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.

 So they brought four men in.
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.

Good post, Gary. You provide confirmation that Ted Callaway positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw running with a gun in his hand seconds after he (Callaway) heard shots fired. Glad you agree that Ted Callaway was absolutely convinced the gun-carrier was Lee Harvey Oswald. Keep up the good work.

[Martin Weidmann]

So they brought four men in.
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.

Good post, Gary. You provide confirmation that Ted Callaway positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw running with a gun in his hand seconds after he (Callaway) heard shots fired. Glad you agree that Ted Callaway was absolutely convinced the gun-carrier was Lee Harvey Oswald. Keep up the good work.

Another strategy of a coward; misrepresenting what the other poster was saying or intended to say. Pathetic!

[Ross Lidell]

The one who is in denial is you. You have convinced yourself by cherry-picking the evidence and made up your mind to the extend that you are unwilling to even consider anything that contradicts your opinion and/or the serious problems there are with the historical record. The points John raised are valid, but rather than deal with them you start attacking John. That's a massive demonstration of weakness on your part. And it isn't the first time you have displayed that same weakness.

When I ask you two simple questions you can't give a credible answer to, you run away, saying;

But now, here your are, replying to other posts in the same thread and completely ignoring the two questions I asked.

Did you think I would let you get away with that? Here are my two questions again;
1.
What in the world could have possibly been so important to Oswald that he needed to get to a go-nowhere location as 10%/Patton (where he would stand out like a sore thumb) as quickly as he could? Apart from jogging, have you ever run to a place where there was nothing to do or see? And if he was tansported in a car, why not pick a location like Jefferson to be dropped of where there was a lot more activity (less chance of being noticed) and bus stops all over the place?

It's easier to hide in the open in a crowd of people than on an empty street, right?

2.
I never said it was not Oswald's revolver. I can't say that simply because I do not know. But you don't get to assume that it was Oswald's revolver. You need to prove it... and John has already explained the problem with the chain of custody for the revolver. All we really know is that Gerald Hill, at the police station, pulled a revolver out of his pocket some 2 hours after Oswald's arrest, had a few officers mark it and and submitted into evidence.

Where did Hill get that revolver and how do we know it's the same one they took from Oswald at the Texas Theater?

Are you going to man up to at least try to answer the questions or are you going to run away again.... Your choice!

1.
What in the world could have possibly been so important to Oswald that he needed to get to a go-nowhere location as 10%/Patton (where he would stand out like a sore thumb) as quickly as he could? Apart from jogging, have you ever run to a place where there was nothing to do or see? And if he was tansported in a car, why not pick a location like Jefferson to be dropped of where there was a lot more activity (less chance of being noticed) and bus stops all over the place?

It's easier to hide in the open in a crowd of people than on an empty street, right?

Your theory cannot be proved. You're suggesting Tenth & Patton was Oswald's destination: You have no evidence for that.

I'm not convinced that Oswald was given a lift part of the way from North Beckley to Tenth & Patton. I mentioned that "possibility" to counter the argument that the journey was "impossible" in the time (approximate) Oswald had available. Oswald was not observed all the way from the rooming house to Tenth and Patton. He might have run part of the way. It's reasonable to assume that Oswald wanted to get to his destination as quickly as possible. My theory (for which I have no proof): Oswald was going to Redbird Airport to hijack a light-plane.


2.
I never said it was not Oswald's revolver. I can't say that simply because I do not know. But you don't get to assume that it was Oswald's revolver. You need to prove it... and John has already explained the problem with the chain of custody for the revolver. All we really know is that Gerald Hill, at the police station, pulled a revolver out of his pocket some 2 hours after Oswald's arrest, had a few officers mark it and and submitted into evidence.

These "do-not-knows" are designed to permit you to "sit on the fence". You are simply avoiding offering any speculative opinion that would be open to scrutiny by other members of this forum. 

Where did Hill get that revolver and how do we know it's the same one they took from Oswald at the Texas Theater?[/i]

It's overwhelmingly likely that the revolver is the one taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater. For it not to be requires a massive conspiracy that involved police officers such as Gerald Hill. When you invoke a preposterous theory implying Hill got another revolver from somewhere else, you need to explain a plausible series of events to explain that.

Are you going to man up to at least try to answer the questions or are you going to run away again.... Your choice!

I was busy with other matters that were more important.

[Ross Lidell]

Another strategy of a coward; misrepresenting what the other poster was saying or intended to say. Pathetic!

It's not my fault that Gary Craig did not make his opinion more clear.

[Ross Lidell]

Indeed.

I don't mind when somebody has high confidence in his own opinion, but when he starts attacking those who disagree with him and at the same time is running away from questions and hiding behind "I do not need to prove anything, you need to prove me wrong" crap, as Ross frequently does, he is not only showing us all just how shallow and weak his position is but also that he totally lacks the ability to defend it.

"I do not need to prove anything" is your "contrarian" technique. You imply all sorts of theories without any proof and then accuse others of exhibiting bad character for doing the same thing.

[Bill Chapman]

Who else thinks that Chapman [based on his biased and predisposed posts] would have picked out Oswald whether he saw him or not?
  Especially someone running from 60 feet away--------------------                                         
                                                           >>>>>> <<<<<<

Put between a lineup of cops. Which one looks like they might be a suspect? You could nail the president's killer here!!

I wonder why Oswald didn't insist on wearing his jacket.
 

Meantime back here on planet earth: Ever played baseball?

I played OB throughout my teenage years.
The pitchers' mound is 60ft* from home plate
Yeah, I could ID the little twerp at that distance
And at the 90ft distance between the bases, for that matter.

And are you claiming that drawing is accurate?

*Callaway stated the measured 56ft, btW

[Rick Plant]

You say: "vague testimony".

Actually, Joseph D. Nichol goes into considerable detail about the reason for the difficulty matching the lead bullets to the test sample fired from Oswald's Smith & Wesson Victory revolver.

Explain how Nichol's testimony is "vague". Your simple "assertion" statement is a weak, inadequate comment.

My comment about "hours producing superb Vids" was designed to provoke John Iacoletti. Just a bit of fun. 

Yes, it is vague. It's obvious to anybody who watches them. Nothing in these videos are conclusive to confirm Oswald killed Tippit.