The Bus Stop Farce

[Charles Collins]

So, his starting time estimate of 1.29 was a rational assumption. So what? He needed a starting point and he found one. That's it.

Yes, I do know that the 5 minute open mike recording was a sound activated recording, which subsequently continued for 5 minutes. So what?

You could only have done that for the Tippit shooting if the recording during that period was continuous, which it wasn't. If there had been a continuous recording, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

You don't have to claim that either was 100% accurate. There was only one sequence of events. The things that happened did happen in a specific order and at a particular time. So, if you want to argue that the DPD recordings and the time provided by Scoggins both are to be believed (which is what you did) they should at least not be at odds with eachother. But they are! That's my point. You can not have a DPD call to the ambulance service at 1.18 on the transcripts (which means the ambulance was there at 1.19 at the latest) and have Scoggins say that he was calling his dispatcher when the ambulance arrived at 1.23. I don't understand why I need to explain something as basic as this to you, again and again...

So, his starting time estimate of 1.29 was a rational assumption. So what? He needed a starting point and he found one. That's it.

The fact that he needed one is not what made it a rational assumption.


You could only have done that for the Tippit shooting if the recording during that period was continuous, which it wasn't.

If you are stipulating that it be as accurate as Bowles’ report and accurately cover an extended period of time. Then I might agree. But the event that enables Bowles to closely associate his derived time to Central time is the known generally accepted time of the JFK shooting. Not just the continuous recording aspect alone.


You can not have a DPD call to the ambulance service at 1.18 on the transcripts (which means the ambulance was there at 1.19 at the latest) and have Scoggins say that he was calling his dispatcher when the ambulance arrived at 1.23.

The 1:23 is the time that Scoggins said that the dispatcher indicated to the supervisor that he recorded the call. Not what you said above.

[Bill Chapman]

Why would I need to show such a nonsensical thing?

Let me catch you up: Oswald was seen wearing a jacket @Tippit. An if-guilty Oswald would not want to be wearing, in the line-up, the same clothing he was seen wearing @Tippit.

Thus, no request (unless you can prove otherwise) by Oswald for his jacket.

Well?

[Martin Weidmann]

Let me catch you up: Oswald was seen wearing a jacket @Tippit. An if-guilty Oswald would not want to be wearing, in the line-up, the same clothing he was seen wearing @Tippit.

Thus, no request (unless you can prove otherwise) by Oswald for his jacket.

Well?

And an if-not guilty Oswald would not be asking - for lack of knowledge - for a jacket, if he had left the rooming house without a jacket and had never been at the Tippit scene. Duh.

[Martin Weidmann]

So, his starting time estimate of 1.29 was a rational assumption. So what? He needed a starting point and he found one. That's it.

The fact that he needed one is not what made it a rational assumption.

You could only have done that for the Tippit shooting if the recording during that period was continuous, which it wasn't.

If you are stipulating that it be as accurate as Bowles’ report and accurately cover an extended period of time. Then I might agree. But the event that enables Bowles to closely associate his derived time to Central time is the known generally accepted time of the JFK shooting. Not just the continuous recording aspect alone.

None of this has any relevance for the Tippit murder. There was no continuous recording nor an event that could be used to fix a starting time.

You can not have a DPD call to the ambulance service at 1.18 on the transcripts (which means the ambulance was there at 1.19 at the latest) and have Scoggins say that he was calling his dispatcher when the ambulance arrived at 1.23.

The 1:23 is the time that Scoggins said that the dispatcher indicated to the supervisor that he recorded the call. Not what you said above.

Hang on, you were relying on the time Scoggins gave to somehow "prove" that Bowley's watch was slow and you even went so far as to argue that the cab company's clock was better calibrated than Bowley's watch. So, your intention was clearly to present the 1.23 "recorded time" as the time the call actually took place, when it clearly wasn't.

Now you basically say; Scoggins claimed he heard from his dispatcher that the supervisor had written down the time of 1.23 some time after the actual call took place. In other words, it had nothing to do with a calibrated clock and it could have been written down minutes later, depending on whatever else the supervisor was doing at that time.

So all you've really got is a double hearsay of a time that is not the actual time the call took place!

If you had presented this argument in a court of law, you would have been laughed out of court and probably reprimanded by the Judge for wasting the court's time.

Scoggins' time of 1.23 is completely meaningless and does not influence the time line I have presented at all.

[Charles Collins]

None of this has any relevance for the Tippit murder. There was no continuous recording nor an event that could be used to fix a starting time.

Hang on, you were relying on the time Scoggins gave to somehow "prove" that Bowley's watch was slow and you even went so far as to argue that the cab company's clock was better calibrated than Bowley's watch. So, your intention was clearly to present the 1.23 "recorded time" as the time the call actually took place, when it clearly wasn't.

Now you basically say; Scoggins claimed he heard from his dispatcher that the supervisor had written down the time of 1.23 some time after the actual call took place. In other words, it had nothing to do with a calibrated clock and it could have been written down minutes later, depending on whatever else the supervisor was doing at that time.

So all you've really got is a double hearsay of a time that is not the actual time the call took place!

If you had presented this argument in a court of law, you would have been laughed out of court and probably reprimanded by the Judge for wasting the court's time.

Scoggins' time of 1.23 is completely meaningless and does not influence the time line I have presented at all.

If you had presented your "timeline" in a court of law, they would be laughing even harder.

But this isn't a court of law. If LHO had survived to go to trial, and this became part of the evidence, the witnesses would be there and questions would be answered.

[Martin Weidmann]

If you had presented your "timeline" in a court of law, they would be laughing even harder.

But this isn't a court of law. If LHO had survived to go to trial, and this became part of the evidence, the witnesses would be there and questions would be answered.

If you had presented your "timeline" in a court of law, they would be laughing even harder.

Which only tells me that you are clueless about what goes on in a court room. And isn't it a pity that you have been totally unable to discredit the time line in it's entirety and never got any further than questioning parts of it based on highly dubious claims, misrepresentations and warped logic.


But this isn't a court of law. If LHO had survived to go to trial, and this became part of the evidence, the witnesses would be there and questions would be answered.

Indeed, and the WC case against Oswald would collapse before the prosecutor's eyes.

The defense would have called Dorothy Garner who would testify that she saw nobody going the down the stairs between the time Victoria Adams went down and Baker & Truly came up. They would establish which shirt Oswald was wearing on Friday morning and what jacket he was wearing to Irving on Thursday evening. They would question where the hole in Oswald's came from, as it does not show in any of the photos taken after Oswald's arrest and they would determine that Bledsoe could not have seen Oswald wear the arrest shirt on the bus. They would destroy Earlene Roberts and establish that Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket and they would have a forensic investigation done in the DPD clocks, recordings and transcripts as well as have Bowles on the stand to explain why "official time" is not the same as "real time". Then they would put Bowley on the stand and have him confirm exactly what he did that day and that his watch said 1.10 when he arrived at 10th Street. Next they would put Westbrook on and have him explain how a white jacket became a grey jacket, two hours later, and they would establish the complete lack of a chain of custody for (1) the revolver, (2) the wallet and (3) the jacket. And that would only be the beginning.....

But none of this has anything to do with the fact that you, by using a double hearsay comment by Scoggins, tried to pass off 1.23 as the moment the ambulance arrived and as somehow prove that Bowley's watch was slow. So much for wanting to find the truth, Mr. Collins

[Bill Chapman]

And an if-not guilty Oswald would not be asking - for lack of knowledge - for a jacket, if he had left the rooming house without a jacket and had never been at the Tippit scene. Duh.

He was seen wearing a jacket @Tippit
An innocent Oswald would still have it with him.

[EDIT: 1:37pm EST)