Unsung Heroes

[Martin Weidmann]

No, let’s list the entire conversation that you claim that the Dispatcher had with Officer Sabastian:

Sabastian (?):   Go ahead.
Dispatcher:      400 East Jefferson.
Sabastian(?):   We’re almost there.

[30 second later]

Sabastian:       75.
Dispatcher:     400 East Jefferson. Report in that vicinity.
Sabastian(?):   Code 2

The only statement that positively identifies Officer Sabastian is “75”. But “Code 2: is almost certainly him as well because it occurs so soon after “75”.

Your assertion, that both conversations are with Officer Sabastian is unsupported. He is not going to report that he is “almost there” when he is actually more than 13 miles away. He is not going to ask for, receive, and acknowledge instructions from Dispatch twice in the same minute.

Your assertion, that both conversations are with Officer Sabastian is unsupported.

What's wrong with you? Of course both calls were with Sabastian. The transcripts shows us they are and his voice can be heard on both sound clips. What is unsupported is your blatant assumption that Sabastian was actually more than 13 miles away. And Sabastian didn't ask for instructions twice. He merely said "Go ahead" thus giving the dispatcher the possibility to speak. He then said " 400 East Jefferson. Report in that vicinity" to which Sabastian replied with code 2.

Clearly the Dispatcher knew who he was talking to, at least in most cases. It was the person who wrote this transcript he was confused and guessed that both brief conversations were with Officer Sabastian when only the second one was.

Says the guy who has been guessing and making assumptions all the time..... How convenient it must be to just pick and choose the parts of the transcripts you like and disregard the rest as the result of some sort of confusion.

The Dallas codes and the Stockton codes mean the same thing:

https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Dallas_County_(TX)#Communication_Codes

Code 2 is an urgent response. It does not mean an urgent response, using emergency lights and sirens. If Officer Sabastian had decided to use emergency lights and sirens, he would have said “Code 3”, not “Code 2”. By saying “Code 2” he was telling the Dispatcher that he was proceeding quickly but safely and not using his sirens. If the Dispatcher wanted to overrule this decision, he would have told him to proceed at Code 3. But these instructions were never made.

It does not mean an urgent response, using emergency lights and sirens.

Nobody said it did... but as code 1 is no sirens and lights and code 3 is sirens and lights, it's pretty obvious that code 2 leaves it to the officers discretion,

If Officer Sabastian had decided to use emergency lights and sirens, he would have said “Code 3”, not “Code 2”.

I'm sorry but this is simply getting beyond pathetic. None of the officers who responded to the call for units to be sent 400 East Jefferson gave any code. Are we to believe that they would respond to the killing of a fellow officer by taking a leisurely drive to Oak Cliff. Really?

Why would Officer Sabastian decide to proceed without sirens, on an urgent mission? Because he was 13 miles away. Even with sirens, he will get there late. There are other units who are much closer and can get there sooner. Going with sirens is not a decision to be taken lightly. It is dangerous. Driving with sirens for 2 minutes is dangerous. It may cause an accident. But may be done in an emergency and if there is a fair chance it may make a difference. But driving for 10 minutes with sirens is 5 times as dangerous, and not likely to make a difference. It is a judgement call. It is evident that Officer Sabastian elected to go without sirens, informed the Dispatcher of this, and was not overruled by the Dispatcher. Officer Sabastian has no reason to deceive the Dispatcher into thinking he is responding without sirens when he is actually using them. Your speculation that Officer Sabastian decided to use sirens and misinformed the Dispatcher about this is unsupported.

Why would Officer Sabastian decide to proceed without sirens, on an urgent mission? Because he was 13 miles away.

Don't you understand just how stupid this sounds? The further the officer is away from the scene of a crime the more urgent it becomes he gets there as quick as he can. You keep saying that he was 13 miles away, as if that is a fact, but you have nothing but speculation to support that claim.

Going with sirens is not a decision to be taken lightly. It is dangerous. Driving with sirens for 2 minutes is dangerous. It may cause an accident. But may be done in an emergency and if there is a fair chance it may make a difference. But driving for 10 minutes with sirens is 5 times as dangerous, and not likely to make a difference.

How in the world do you come up with this kind of stuff? Where is the research to back that up? And driving on a highway isn't nearly as dangerous and would only require use of sirens and lights to communicate to cars in front to get out of the way.

It is evident that Officer Sabastian elected to go without sirens, informed the Dispatcher of this, and was not overruled by the Dispatcher.

It's only evident to you, because you want it to be

Yes, I use speculation as well. But my speculation is reasonable. Like Officer Sabastian won’t ask for instructions, and acknowledge he has received those instructions, twice in the same minute. He is not going to report that he is “almost there” when he is actually 13 miles away. And is not going to indicate that he is going without sirens when he actually is.

Getting there a few minutes later than he could have done so dangerously might still be useful, if more reports come in 20 minutes later. At least he will now be in the general area, not 13 miles away.

Yes, I use speculation as well. But my speculation is reasonable.

Hilarious! Have you ever met anybody who speculated about something saying that his speculation is unreasonable? The mere fact that you call your speculation reasonable is evidence of the fact that it isn't reasonable at all. If it were, it would speak for itself and require no such comment from you.

Like Officer Sabastian won’t ask for instructions, and acknowledge he has received those instructions, twice in the same minute.

Except it has already been explained to you that he never asked for instructions twice. You just pretend that he did. So much for being reasonable!

He is not going to report that he is “almost there” when he is actually 13 miles away.

True, and yet he said it, which justifies the conclusion that he wasn't "actually 13 miles away". So much for being reasonable.

And is not going to indicate that he is going without sirens when he actually is.

He didn't indicate anything of the kind. He just said "code 2" and it is you who claims this means without sirens, when there is no proof for that on the Dallas DPD codes website. So much for being reasonable.

Your so-called "reasonable" speculations are getting tiresome.

[Martin Weidmann]

A final point I should make, could “Code 2” mean Officer Sabastian was using sirens? Yes, it could. Either he could be using sirens or he wasn’t. Although I think he would have made himself clearer by saying “Code 3”. But we know he couldn’t have been. If he was using sirens, he probably could not have gotten a message from “NBC News”, either by a reporter in person, the theory you seem to favor, or over commercial radio, the theory that I favor, if he had elected to use sirens.

And even if he was speeding down the expressway, with sirens on, it is still more likely he got this message “Officer DOA” over his squad car’s commercial radio than from an NBC reporter pulling up besides him while both are travelling at high speed with sirens and shout with a megaphone “A Dallas police officer is DOA”. Speculation? Yes, but reasonable speculation.

A final point I should make, could “Code 2” mean Officer Sabastian was using sirens? Yes, it could. Either he could be using sirens or he wasn’t.

Beginning to see the light?

If he was using sirens, he probably could not have gotten a message from “NBC News”, either by a reporter in person, the theory you seem to favor, or over commercial radio, the theory that I favor, if he had elected to use sirens.

I think you need to go back to my previous post. After hearing the sound clips, I have changed my mind in as much as that I have discarded completely the possibility that Sabastian was talking about Tippit when he said to the dispatcher "NBC News is reporting DOA". I now firmly believe he was asking about Kennedy. Here is the relevant part of my previous post;

Actually, when you listen to the sound clip for this conversation, it's not even clear that it was Sabastian who said "That the officer?" and on the transcript itself there is a question mark behind 75 for this comment. No such question mark appears behind 75 for the later question "...... on the President".

So the actual question that Sabastian could well have been asking is "NBC News is reporting DOA..... on the President?"
As Kennedy was declared dead at 1 pm, nearly a half hour earlier, that could have been what Sabastian heard on the radio, but I am all but sure you will of course disagree...

And even if he was speeding down the expressway, with sirens on, it is still more likely he got this message “Officer DOA” over his squad car’s commercial radio than from an NBC reporter pulling up besides him while both are travelling at high speed with sirens and shout with a megaphone “A Dallas police officer is DOA”. Speculation? Yes, but reasonable speculation.

There is that word "reasonable" again..... Do you think it's reasonable to assume that a police officer racing down a highway, likely with sirens and lights on (where necessary), en route to the scene where a fellow officer was shot and killed would have a commercial radio on in his squad car?

I'll say this again. There is no trace of a NBC News radio broadcast about Tippit at 1.25. The time line (according to the official narrative) makes such a broadcast just about impossible for lack of sufficient time. No reporter has ever come forward and confirmed he was the one who was at Methodist Hospital when Tippit was declared DOA at 1.22.

On the other hand, reports about Kennedy being declared dead at Parkland were already on the air for some 20 minutes. Given the fact that Sabastian adds "...... on the President" clearly indicates he was talking about Kennedy. Why else would he have asked that?

[Joe Elliott]

I'll say this again. There is no trace of a NBC News radio broadcast about Tippit at 1.25. The time line (according to the official narrative) makes such a broadcast just about impossible for lack of sufficient time. No reporter has ever come forward and confirmed he was the one who was at Methodist Hospital when Tippit was declared DOA at 1.22.

We do have a trace of a news broadcast on the death of an officer. The Dictabelt recording.

On the other hand, reports about Kennedy being declared dead at Parkland were already on the air for some 20 minutes. Given the fact that Sabastian adds "...... on the President" clearly indicates he was talking about Kennedy. Why else would he have asked that?

Sabastian adds ". . . on the President?” Let take another look at the transcript of the Dictabelt tape:

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes3.htm


19 is the code for Officer C. B. Owens
75 is the code for Officer E. G. Sabastian
87 is the code for Officer R. C. Nelson


Below is the transcript that portion of the DIctabelt recording:


Dispatcher:         19
[19] Owens         19
Dispatcher:         Do you have the information?
[19] Owens         No. What?
Dispatcher:         On 2.

[75] Sabastian:   75
Dispatcher:         75
[75] Sabastian:   NBC News is reporting DOA.
Dispatcher:         That’s correct.
[75] Sabastian:   That the officer?
Dispatcher:         Yes.
[87] Nelson:        87.
[75] Sabastian:   . . . on the President?
Dispatcher:         No, that’s not correct, 19.

[?] unknown:     What officer was it?
Dispatcher:         J. D. Tippit.


This seems ambiguous. Is Officer Sabastian reporting that NBC said that Officer Tippit is DOA or the President?



However, I have learned not to trust the judgement of the person who typed out this transcript about who was broadcasting what. You, however, seem to be slow of learning.

Let me give you my version of what was said and by who:


Dispatcher:         19
[19] Owens         19
Dispatcher:         Do you have the information?
[19] Owens         No. What?
Dispatcher:         On 2.

[75] Sabastian:   75
Dispatcher:         75
[75] Sabastian:   NBC News is reporting DOA.
Dispatcher:         That’s correct.
[75] Sabastian:   That the officer?
Dispatcher:         Yes.

[87] Nelson:        87.

[19] Owens:        . . . on the President?
Dispatcher:         No, that’s not correct, 19.

[?] unknown:     What officer was it?
Dispatcher:         J. D. Tippit.


Why do I believe that it is Officer Owens who is asking “. . . on the President?” and not Officer Sabastian? Because the Dispatcher responded with “No, that’s not correct, 19”. 19. That is Officer Owens, not Officer Sabastian. If it had been Officer Sabastian, he would have said “No, that’s not correct, 75.”

The Dispatcher could recognize everyone’s voice. He evidently had been working at this for a while and had developed a knack for it. Officer Sabastian was good at following protocol, and always, or at least usually, identified himself as “75”. But a lot of other officers didn’t. Because they had learned that the Dispatcher could recognize their voice. So, for instance, we find:

Someone speaks and says:   Did someone find a jacket?
Dispatcher responds:            No 85.

But the person never identified himself. So how did the Dispatcher know it was 85? Because he recognized his voice. I haven’t noticed the Dispatcher mistaken someone’s voice and being corrected. And yes, this is an example where the Dispatcher had not gotten the information yet, or understand it yet, that a jacket had been found. But he knew who he was talking to.

So, it was not Officer Sabastian who was confused about whether NBC News was reporting an officer or the President being DOA. It was a different officer, Officer Owens, who I assume had not heard the news report.

Clearly Officer Sabastian heard a report over the radio saying that an officer was DOA. He checked with the Dispatcher to confirm whether this is true or not. The police are always concerned about their fellow officers.

Officer Owens, not hearing the news report, was hoping the Dispatcher was confused. It was he, “19” who basically asked “You mean the President, don’t you?”



Could the media have gotten the news that he was DOA? Perhaps. Reporters were sent out there very quickly. One of them might have been instructed to confirm that the officer was dead. And in route spotted an ambulance and followed it, thinking that would be the fastest way to find out. Or, since people on the police radio reported that the officer was dead at the scene, it was assumed that he would be DOA. Or maybe an erroneous report, which happen all the time. Like the reporting of the death of a Secret Service agent in Dealey Plaza. In any case, it is clear that the death of a police officer was reported over the radio pretty early, early enough for Mr. Brewer to hear it.

[Martin Weidmann]

We do have a trace of a news broadcast on the death of an officer. The Dictabelt recording.

For the umpteenth time.... No, the dictabelt recording is not proof that there was a radio broadcast on Tippit's DOA.

The words "NBC News is reporting DOA" do not prove anything of the kind.

This is just you, being your usual stubborn self.

Sabastian adds ". . . on the President?” Let take another look at the transcript of the Dictabelt tape:

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes3.htm

19 is the code for Officer C. B. Owens
75 is the code for Officer E. G. Sabastian
87 is the code for Officer R. C. Nelson

Below is the transcript that portion of the DIctabelt recording:

Dispatcher:         19
[19] Owens         19
Dispatcher:         Do you have the information?
[19] Owens         No. What?
Dispatcher:         On 2.

[75] Sabastian:   75
Dispatcher:         75
[75] Sabastian:   NBC News is reporting DOA.
Dispatcher:         That’s correct.
[75] Sabastian:   That the officer?
Dispatcher:         Yes.
[87] Nelson:        87.
[75] Sabastian:   . . . on the President?
Dispatcher:         No, that’s not correct, 19.

[?] unknown:     What officer was it?
Dispatcher:         J. D. Tippit.

This seems ambiguous. Is Officer Sabastian reporting that NBC said that Officer Tippit is DOA or the President?

However, I have learned not to trust the judgement of the person who typed out this transcript about who was broadcasting what. You, however, seem to be slow of learning.

Oh I have learned more than you think. I have in fact learned not to trust your judgement as you will twist and turn every which way you can to arrive at the point where you want to be. Whenever a point you have raised can no longer be sustained, as has happened several times in this discussion, you just move on to the next speculative point. Your latest effort being that  somehow the person who typed the transcript was confused.

Let me give you my version of what was said and by who:

Dispatcher:         19
[19] Owens         19
Dispatcher:         Do you have the information?
[19] Owens         No. What?
Dispatcher:         On 2.

[75] Sabastian:   75
Dispatcher:         75
[75] Sabastian:   NBC News is reporting DOA.
Dispatcher:         That’s correct.
[75] Sabastian:   That the officer?
Dispatcher:         Yes.

[87] Nelson:        87.

[19] Owens:        . . . on the President?
Dispatcher:         No, that’s not correct, 19.

[?] unknown:     What officer was it?
Dispatcher:         J. D. Tippit.

Why do I believe that it is Officer Owens who is asking “. . . on the President?” and not Officer Sabastian? Because the Dispatcher responded with “No, that’s not correct, 19”. 19. That is Officer Owens, not Officer Sabastian. If it had been Officer Sabastian, he would have said “No, that’s not correct, 75.”

The Dispatcher could recognize everyone’s voice. He evidently had been working at this for a while and had developed a knack for it. Officer Sabastian was good at following protocol, and always, or at least usually, identified himself as “75”. But a lot of other officers didn’t. Because they had learned that the Dispatcher could recognize their voice. So, for instance, we find:

Someone speaks and says:   Did someone find a jacket?
Dispatcher responds:            No 85.

But the person never identified himself. So how did the Dispatcher know it was 85? Because he recognized his voice. I haven’t noticed the Dispatcher mistaken someone’s voice and being corrected. And yes, this is an example where the Dispatcher had not gotten the information yet, or understand it yet, that a jacket had been found. But he knew who he was talking to.

So, it was not Officer Sabastian who was confused about whether NBC News was reporting an officer or the President being DOA. It was a different officer, Officer Owens, who I assume had not heard the news report.

Clearly Officer Sabastian heard a report over the radio saying that an officer was DOA. He checked with the Dispatcher to confirm whether this is true or not. The police are always concerned about their fellow officers.

Officer Owens, not hearing the news report, was hoping the Dispatcher was confused. It was he, “19” who basically asked “You mean the President, don’t you?”

Another one of your "reasonable speculations"? 

Your "version" is nothing more than a string of self serving arguments based on a false premise. You need to listen to the actual broadcast. The dispatcher does not say "nineteen"... he says "nine ten" whatever that means.

Could the media have gotten the news that he was DOA? Perhaps. Reporters were sent out there very quickly. One of them might have been instructed to confirm that the officer was dead. And in route spotted an ambulance and followed it, thinking that would be the fastest way to find out. Or, since people on the police radio reported that the officer was dead at the scene, it was assumed that he would be DOA. Or maybe an erroneous report, which happen all the time. Like the reporting of the death of a Secret Service agent in Dealey Plaza.

Again, it has already been shown to you in great detail that there was no way that Tippit being declared DOA (at 1.22) could have been reported on the radio at 1.25. There was no reporter at Methodist Hospital and no reporter has ever come forward to claim he was the one who called it in that Tippit was DOA. All you are doing is speculating about how the information could have gotten on the air so quickly and it only serves one purpose; to keep alive the story that Brewer heard a report on the radio.

In any case, it is clear that the death of a police officer was reported over the radio pretty early, early enough for Mr. Brewer to hear it.

And there it is..... You don't follow the facts, you shape them to arrive at the desired outcome. Our entire conversations serves no purpose. You made up your mind before you even started the thread and despite all the push back you simply stick to your opinion which you defend with whatever lousy argument you can think of. I have better things to do than to continue this pointless conversation which basically was and is nothing more than you looking for confirmation to support your claim that Brewer heard a radio broadcast when he said he did.

Get over it, there was no such broadcast. It hasn't surfaced in 57 years. Nobody, at none of the radio stations, has ever come forward and confirmed he was the person who broadcasted that report. You just keep on living in fantasy land! I'm done

I'll leave you with these wise words written in another thread by Mr. Alan J. Ford

The absolute truth always has a knack for standing all alone on its own, only lies need revisions.

How many times did you change your theory/story again?

[Joe Elliott]

Oh I have learned more than you think. I have in fact learned not to trust your judgement as you will twist and turn every which way you can to arrive at the point where you want to be. Whenever a point you have raised can no longer be sustained, as has happened several times in this discussion, you just move on to the next speculative point. Your latest effort being that  somehow the person who typed the transcript was confused.

Another one of your "reasonable speculations"? 

Yes. It is. I leave it to the reader to go to

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/

To see the transcripts of what was said on the Police Radio.

At the top of the first page, in the third paragraph, you will find the phrase “Real Player downloaded and installed”. Click on that to download the Real Player application that will allow you to listen to parts of the broadcast. It takes around 10 minutes to figure out how to download and install.

And looking at the transcripts and listening to portions of the broadcast, judge for yourself if my premise is correct. And never trust the word of Martin about what is recorded without checking it out for yourself.

What is my premise? That the person who transcribed the recordings did not do a good job of identifying who was talking to the Dispatcher. He may have recorded what was said pretty well, but misidentified the speaker on multiple occasions. What are some of the indicators of a mistake?

1.   If the transcript says “Officer A” gives a location where he is at, and two minutes later again gives the location where he is at, which is 13 miles away, then “Officer A” did not make both statements. These are two different statements made by two different officers.

2.   If the transcript says that “Officer A” asks for instructions, is given an address to go to, and acknowledges the instructions. And then a minute later “Officer A” appears to suffer a major memory lapse and again asks for instructions, is given the same address to go to, and again acknowledges the instructions, these statements were not all made by “Officer A”. Instead these are instructions given to two different officers telling them to go to the same address.


3.   If the transcript says that “Officer A” talks to the Dispatcher, and the Dispatcher responds as if he was talking to “Officer B”, then it was actually “Officer B” who was talking to the Dispatcher.

I will leave it to the reader to judge whether this is a reasonable premise or not.

Your "version" is nothing more than a string of self serving arguments based on a false premise. You need to listen to the actual broadcast. The dispatcher does not say "nineteen"... he says "nine ten" whatever that means.

No. I listened to the recording. The Dispatcher says “10” pause “19”. Clearly the Dispatcher is about to say a common phrase, like “10-4”. But then corrects himself and says “19”, indicating that he is talking to Officer Owens, not Officer Sabastian. He is definitely not saying “9-10”, which Martin can’t even come up with a theory about what that would be code for.

Again, I urge the reader not to take Martin’s word for it, not to take my word for it, but to download the Real Player application, which I gave some instructions on earlier, so they can listen to the recording and judge for themselves.

[John Iacoletti]

According to CE1974, "code 2" means "Urgent - siren and red lights as needed".

I agree with Martin.  "reporting DOA" refers to the president.  He doesn't literally mean "on arrival at Parkland", he means they are reporting that the president has died.  This was before the official flash from Kilduff, but I just discovered a Wikipedia article that says that ABC radio reported an unconfirmed report at 1:25 CST that the president had died.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_John_F._Kennedy_assassination#ABC

You can hear the audio of that here at 44:59:

If you think they wouldn't use "DOA" in this fashion, consider the following exchange on police channel 2 at 1:30 (dispatcher time):

15 (Captain C.E. Talbert) Did you say he was DOA at Methodist?
Dispatcher Yes.
15 Have they released any condition on the President?
Dispatcher We understand he is DOA, too.

[Martin Weidmann]

According to CE1974, "code 2" means "Urgent - siren and red lights as needed".

I agree with Martin.  "reporting DOA" refers to the president.  He doesn't literally mean "on arrival at Parkland", he means they are reporting that the president has died.  This was before the official flash from Kilduff, but I just discovered a Wikipedia article that says that ABC radio reported an unconfirmed report at 1:25 CST that the president had died.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_John_F._Kennedy_assassination#ABC

If you think they wouldn't use "DOA" in this fashion, consider the following exchange on police channel 2 at 1:30 (dispatcher time):

15 (Captain C.E. Talbert) Did you say he was DOA at Methodist?
Dispatcher Yes.
15 Have they released any condition on the President?
Dispatcher We understand he is DOA, too.

According to CE1974, "code 2" means "Urgent - siren and red lights as needed".

Thanks John. I wasn't aware it was in the evidence.

The most interesting part of your post is that the first broadcast of the President having died was at 1.25, some 25 minutes after the doctors at Parkland had declared him dead.

Compare that to Tippit, who - if the official narrative and timeline are correct - was declared DOA at Methodist Hospital at 1.22, yet Joe Elliott would have us believe that no more than 3 minutes later Tippit's death was being broadcast on the radio, for Brewer (and Sabastian) to hear.

If Joe Elliott's theory is correct some unknown reporter (who has never been identified or come forward) was at Methodist to hear about Tippit's death, call it in to his station and get it on the air in under 3 minutes, where it took busloads of reporters present at Parkland 25 minutes to get the report about the President's death on the air.

Elliott can argue all he wants about Sabastian waiting for traffic lights under a code 2, being 13 miles away from 400 Jefferson when he said on the radio that he was almost there and having a commercial radio station on in his cruiser while racing down the highway with sirens and light and/or even the person who transcribed the dictabelt recordings being confused, but the simple comparision above says it all....

The only broadcast there was, was at 1.25 and it was about Kennedy and that's what Sabastian somehow heard and asked the dispatcher about!