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

[Bill Brown]

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

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

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

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

Could nine people all be wrong?  Sure. 

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

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

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

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

You were trying to explain how two witnesses could have seen a different jacket.

I was trying to explain no such thing.  I was explaining how two witnesses saw the SAME jacket and described it drastically different.

Perhaps you should conduct a little experiment where you have nine people watching the same event and then ask them what they saw. Nine witnesses agreeing on a positive identification is simply beyond belief.

What you're missing here is that there were more than nine people watching this same event.  Nine witnesses OUT OF THIRTEEN agreed on a positive identification.  You're acting like it was nine witnesses OUT OF NINE who agreed on the same thing.  You're forgetting Jimmy Burt, Bill Smith, Domingo Benavides and L.J. Lewis; each of which could not say yay or nay.  I think this makes your point invalid.

Even worse, Scoggings, who identified Oswald at the DPD line up, failed to identify the same man to the FBI. There is no credibility in all the witnesses identifying the same man.

It is not unreasonable at all for a witness to positively identify a suspect in a lineup conducted 24 hours after the crime and then the same witness not identifying the suspect in a photo lineup conducted many weeks later.  Perhaps the photo of Oswald shown to Scoggins (I believe it was Oswald's arrest photo from New Orleans taken earlier that year) did not resemble Oswald as he was seen running from the Tippit shooting scene.  Do you really feel that Oswald, in New Orleans during the summer of '63, must look like Oswald as he did on the afternoon of the Tippit murder in November of '63?  I think your position is faulty.  You're trying to compare apples and oranges.

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

For what it's worth, these two women seemed pretty sure.  No hesitation and/or doubts on their part.

Mr. BALL:  Did you recognize anyone in that room?
BARBARA DAVIS:  Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.

"About 8:00 pm the same day, the police came after me and took me downtown to the city hall where I saw this man in a lineup. The #2 man in a 4-man lineup was the same man I saw in my yard, also the one that was unloading the gun." - Barbara Davis (11/22/63 affidavit)

VIRGINIA DAVIS:  And then these five boys, or men walked up on this platform, and he was No. 2.
Mr. BELIN:  You say he was No. 2. Who was No. 2?
VIRGINIA DAVIS:  The boy that shot Tippit.
Mr. BELIN:  You mean the man--did you see him shoot Tippit? Or you mean the man you saw with the gun?
VIRGINIA DAVIS:  The man I saw carrying the gun.

Mr. BELIN:  How did you identify him? Did you yell that this is the man I saw?
VIRGINIA DAVIS:  No; I just leaned over and told the detective it was No. 2.

"The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw tonight as number 2 man in a line up." - Virginia Davis (11/22/63 affidavit)

The point is that when, out of nine people. nine people identify the same person at a line up, and nobody says they're no sure, you need to question the line up and not the outcome.

Again... Four witnesses did indeed say they weren't sure.

You're mistakenly acting like nine people out of nine all identified the same guy.  This is not what happened.  Nine people out of thirteen identified the same guy.  The other four couldn't be certain.

You said that if nine people out of nine all identify the same guy, then you have to question the lineup and not the outcome.  But, what if nine people out of thirteen identify the same guy while the other four weren't certain?  In reality, THAT is what happened, not your "nine out of nine" false scenario.

I'm not trying to be combative but your point above is completely invalid.

On a side note, to be clear, not all of the witnesses actually attended a physical lineup.  Some were shown a photo.

Witness testimony is the worst kind of evidence there is and over the years it has been proven, beyond any doubt, that incorrect or false witness testimony has put many people behind bars for many years who shouldn't have been there.

Agreed.

[Martin Weidmann]

I was trying to explain no such thing.  I was explaining how two witnesses saw the SAME jacket and described it drastically different.


What you're missing here is that there were more than nine people watching this same event.  Nine witnesses OUT OF THIRTEEN agreed on a positive identification.  You're acting like it was nine witnesses OUT OF NINE who agreed on the same thing.  You're forgetting Jimmy Burt, Bill Smith, Domingo Benavides and L.J. Lewis; each of which could not say yay or nay.  I think this makes your point invalid.


It is not unreasonable at all for a witness to positively identify a suspect in a lineup conducted 24 hours after the crime and then the same witness not identifying the suspect in a photo lineup conducted many weeks later.  Perhaps the photo of Oswald shown to Scoggins (I believe it was Oswald's arrest photo from New Orleans taken earlier that year) did not resemble Oswald as he was seen running from the Tippit shooting scene.  Do you really feel that Oswald, in New Orleans during the summer of '63, must look like Oswald as he did on the afternoon of the Tippit murder in November of '63?  I think your position is faulty.  You're trying to compare apples and oranges.


For what it's worth, these two women seemed pretty sure.  No hesitation and/or doubts on their part.

Mr. BALL:  Did you recognize anyone in that room?
BARBARA DAVIS:  Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.

"About 8:00 pm the same day, the police came after me and took me downtown to the city hall where I saw this man in a lineup. The #2 man in a 4-man lineup was the same man I saw in my yard, also the one that was unloading the gun." - Barbara Davis (11/22/63 affidavit)

VIRGINIA DAVIS:  And then these five boys, or men walked up on this platform, and he was No. 2.
Mr. BELIN:  You say he was No. 2. Who was No. 2?
VIRGINIA DAVIS:  The boy that shot Tippit.
Mr. BELIN:  You mean the man--did you see him shoot Tippit? Or you mean the man you saw with the gun?
VIRGINIA DAVIS:  The man I saw carrying the gun.

Mr. BELIN:  How did you identify him? Did you yell that this is the man I saw?
VIRGINIA DAVIS:  No; I just leaned over and told the detective it was No. 2.

"The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw tonight as number 2 man in a line up." - Virginia Davis (11/22/63 affidavit)


Again... Four witnesses did indeed say they weren't sure.

You're mistakenly acting like nine people out of nine all identified the same guy.  This is not what happened.  Nine people out of thirteen identified the same guy.  The other four couldn't be certain.

You said that if nine people out of nine all identify the same guy, then you have to question the lineup and not the outcome.  But, what if nine people out of thirteen identify the same guy while the other four weren't certain?  In reality, THAT is what happened, not your "nine out of nine" false scenario.

I'm not trying to be combative but your point above is completely invalid.

On a side note, to be clear, not all of the witnesses actually attended a physical lineup.  Some were shown a photo.


Agreed.

Just one simple question; how many witnesses to the Tippit shooting were actually present at the line up?

[Bill Brown]

Just one simple question; how many witnesses to the Tippit shooting were actually present at the line up?

THE lineup?  As in only one?  There were more than just one lineup.

Positive identification (at a police lineup) of Oswald as the man they saw:

Helen Markham
Barbara Davis
Virginia Davis
William Scoggins
Ted Callaway
Sam Guinyard

Positive identification (via a photo of Oswald shown to them by the FBI) of Oswald as the man they saw:

Warren Reynolds
Pat Patterson
Harold Russell

Four others (Burt, Smith, Benavides, Lewis) weren't sure either way.

Nine out of thirteen witnesses positively identified Oswald as the man they saw.
Four out of thirteen witnesses weren't sure.
Six out of Six attended lineups and positively identified Oswald.

Side note:  Zero witnesses out of thirteen said the man they saw was NOT Oswald.

[Martin Weidmann]

THE lineup?  As in only one?  There were more than just one lineup.

Positive identification (at a police lineup) of Oswald as the man they saw:

Helen Markham
Barbara Davis
Virginia Davis
William Scoggins
Ted Callaway
Sam Guinyard

Positive identification (via a photo of Oswald shown to them by the FBI) of Oswald as the man they saw:

Warren Reynolds
Pat Patterson
Harold Russell

Four others (Burt, Smith, Benavides, Lewis) weren't sure either way.

Nine out of thirteen witnesses positively identified Oswald as the man they saw.
Four out of thirteen witnesses weren't sure.
Six out of Six attended lineups and positively identified Oswald.

Side note:  Zero witnesses out of thirteen said the man they saw was NOT Oswald.

I only asked how many of the Tippit witnesses were at a line up (and yes, I know there were more than one).

So your answer is;

Positive identification (at a police lineup) of Oswald as the man they saw:

Helen Markham
Barbara Davis
Virginia Davis
William Scoggins
Ted Callaway
Sam Guinyard

Do you think it's normal or usual that all the witnesses who were at a line up identify the same person?

Four others (Burt, Smith, Benavides, Lewis) weren't sure either way.

That's pretty meaningless. Even a witness who is not sure can be asked to attend a line up, but these four guys didn't. Any idea why not?

Btw, are you sure only thirteen people witnessed the events that day?


Positive identification (via a photo of Oswald shown to them by the FBI) of Oswald as the man they saw:

Warren Reynolds
Pat Patterson
Harold Russell

How much value can you place on an identification via a photo, when you have just explained why Scoggins failed to ID Oswald from a photo after having identified him at a line up?
If it depends on the photo, as you argued, the same surely must apply to a positive identification from a photo, right?

So, even though you keep talking about 13 witnesses, when likely more people saw what happened, the basic fact is that only 6 of the Tippit witnesses were present at a line up and all 6 identified Oswald.
I seriously doubt that it is even mathematically possible for 100% of the witnesses who participate in a line up identification to all say the same thing. Even less so, as at least two of them saw the killer only for a few seconds as he ran by their frontdoor.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying these witnesses are lying. All 6 did indeed identify Oswald, albeit that Markham's identification is, to say the least, a bit shaky. But I do wonder about the way the line ups were conducted.

You have already agreed with me that witness testimony is the worst kind of evidence there is. The evidentiary value of a witness identification does not increase when another witness (or even 5 more) say the same thing, when the circumstances of the identifications are not beyond question. And even then, when you look at the cases taken on by the Innocence Project you'll find that on cross examination witnesses frequently become less sure of their initial identification or even admit they were or could wrong. The mere fact that none of the witnesses in this case have ever been cross examined and the quality of the line ups is, so say the least, questionable means that you can not consider the witness identifications to be solid evidence of anything.

[Michael Capasse]

They denied Oswald an attorney while putting him through a series of prejudiced lineups. The men used in
the showings were police officers that had nothing to do with the witness descriptions. Some were blonde,
much heavier than Lee, with collared shirts, button down sweaters, vests, and a suit jacket.
While Oswald, only sometimes wore his over shirt, complained profusely about the clothing and lack of legal council.

He was beat up, cuts above his eye, bruises on his face, the others were neat and well groomed, not meant to be chosen.
DPD broke every rule in the book. Witnesses were told going in, "...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." While fill-ins did not match their descriptions.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LAST WORDS OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD | Compiled by Mae Brussell

Friday
4:45 P.M. At a Lineup for Helen Markham, Witness to Tippit Murder
"It isn't right to put me in line with these teenagers. . . . You know what you are doing, and you are trying to railroad me. . . .
I want my lawyer. . . . You are doing me an injustice by putting me out there dressed different than these other men. . . .
I am out there, the only one with a bruise on his head. . . . I don t believe the lineup is fair, and I desire to put on a jacket
similar to those worn by some of the other individuals in the lineup. . . . All of you have a shirt on, and I have a T-shirt on.
I want a shirt or something. . . . This T-shirt is unfair."

6:30 P.M. Lineup for Witnesses Cecil J. McWatters, Sam Guinyard, and Ted Callaway
"I didn't shoot anyone," Oswald yelled in the halls to reporters. . . . "I want to get in touch with a lawyer,
Mr. Abt, in New York City. . . . I never killed anybody."

7:10 P.M. Arraignment: State of Texas v. Lee Harvey Oswald for Murder with Malice of Officer J. D. Tippit of the Dallas Police Dept.
"I insist upon my constitutional rights. . . . The way you are treating me, I might as well be in Russia. . . .
I was not granted my request to put on a jacket similar to those worn by other individuals in some previous lineups."

7:50 P.M. Lineup for Witness J. D. Davis
"I have been dressed differently than the other three. . . . Don't you know the difference? I still have on the same
clothes I was arrested in. The other two were prisoners, already in jail." Seth Kantor, reporter, heard Oswald yell, "I am only a patsy.

11:20 - 11:25 P.M. Lineup for Press Conference; Jack Ruby Present
When newsmen asked Oswald about his black eye, he answered, "A cop hit me." When asked about the earlier arraignment,
Oswald said "Well, I was questioned by Judge Johnston. However, I protested at that time that I was not allowed legal
representation during that very short and sweet hearing. I really don't know what the situation is about.
Nobody has told me anything except that I am accused of murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that,
and I do request someone to come forward to give me legal assistance." When asked, "Did you kill the President?"
Oswald replied, "No. I have not been charged with that. In fact, nobody has said that to me yet. The first thing
I heard about it was when the newspaper reporters in the hall asked me that question. . . . I did not do it.
I did not do it. . . . I did not shoot anyone."

Saturday
2:15 P.M. Lineup for Witnesses William W. Scoggins and William Whaley
"I refuse to answer questions. I have my T-shirt on, the other men are dressed differently. . . .
Everybody's got a shirt and everything, and I've got a T-shirt on. . . . This is unfair."

https://jfk.boards.net/post/1268/thread

[Dan O'meara]

At around 5:06 in this video we see Oswald being taken for a line-up, complaining that it is already a foregone conclusion that he will be picked out, comparing himself to the other men in the line-up.
Regardless of his guilt or innocence, the idea that the line-ups are somehow reliable or fair is a non-starter.