Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Martin Weidmann]

But you said this (below) which is pretty much the same thing (unless you now try to retract your own words):

Now who is misrepresenting who?

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 replied with a question;

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.

There are more holes in your story than in Swiss cheese, which is why you constantly need to change your story.


Why don't you just stop playing these pathetic games? Do you really think you are fooling anybody?

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

Pitiful. A 5 year old child plays these silly games.

Episode 3 of a desperate rescue mission is clearly trying to divert attention away from the complete failure of your narrative.

[Martin Weidmann]

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?

[Martin Weidmann]

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?

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?

And then there is something else. Bowley said that he looked at his watch when he arrived at the scene and it said 1:10. With that in mind, let's not forget that at around 47:40 in your interview you said that Bowley's watch "was probably slow by five minutes or something like that", which implies that he actually arrived at the scene at around 1:15. But how can that be, when you have Benavides starting to key the mic of the patrol car at 1:16?

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.

Are we supposed to believe that Bowley arrived a minute or so before Benavides started keying the mic and that he did nothing about it for a minute or a minute and a half, before taking the mic from Benavides?

You most likely won't (for obvious reasons) but why not simply tell us at what time you (now) believe Bowley arrived, because none of this is making any sense.

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.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

in the interest of accuracy.

Thanks for reminding me. You still have not told me where in his testimony "McWatters testified that Oswald got on the bus". Why is that?

And where on the internet can I find the proof that the Nash couple actually saw the time stamped slip for the ambulance call at the Funeral home?

And earlier in our conversations you objected to me saying that you had said that Benavides took 1,5 to 2 minutes to get the mic of the police car to work. I knew I had heard or read it somewhere, but when you reduced it to 1 minute, I just gave it no other thought and let the matter rest. Until yesterday when I listened to a part of your interview again and clearly heard you say that Benavides took 1,5 to 2 minutes to get the police mic to work. Now suddenly I see you claiming here again that

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.

So "in the interest of accuracy" would you please make up your mind and tell us if it was 1 minute, 1,5 minute or 2 minutes?

And please also tell us when Benadives actually started keying the mic. In the quote above you say he starts at 1:16 but at around 42:30 in your interview you said he started keying the mic at 1:15. So, which one is it? 1:15 or 1:16?

You can not expect accuracy from others and not be accurate yourself.

[Martin Weidmann]

Why didn't Bowley tell Callaway the incident had already been reported by him using the radio in Tippit's car?

In the alternate reality that Bill Brown is desperately trying to create, that would be a fair and justified question.

However, in the real world, the evidence points to Callaway arriving 3 minutes after hearing the shots and just after Bowley had used the radio for his 46 seconds long call. If he and Bowley talked it was probably after Callaway's call, when they were loading Tippit into the ambulance.

[Bill Chapman]

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: Addressing Biil directly with 'you' while posting to Bill in the first-person was my first clue.


---------
EDIT
BONUS
---------
> edited-in
'addressing'

[Martin Weidmann]

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