Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: The Bus Stop Farce  (Read 86866 times)

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
Re: The Bus Stop Farce
« Reply #496 on: December 13, 2020, 06:24:41 PM »
Advertisement
Yes, random people were in on the plot!   With important roles like saying Oswald had a hole in his shirt!  These folks lied and the evidence was faked for some unknown reason that we are left to figure out for ourselves since you are not a CTer right?  LOL  The contrarian strikes again.   You should be embarrassed.

Hysterial. Is that really the limit of your comprehension skills? Are you stuck at the drama queen level forever?

Bledsoe was simply an old woman, easily sceptible to being influenced. Those people do exist, but why am I telling you that. You're one of them.

Bledsoe went to the police to say she had seen Oswald on the bus. Once the WC understood how valuable such an identification could be, they send two officers to her home, prior to her testimony, to show her the arrest shirt (CE 150), which by then was damaged on a sleeve, probably by the examination of the FBI on Saturday after the assassination. That was enough for Bledsoe to let the memory take hold that she had seen that shirt, with a hole in the sleeve, before.

Despite the notes she made, she nevertheless couldn't get her story straight during her testimony, which was at best confusing. They could have easily tried to clear it up by asking more pertinent questions, but that would mean risking that she would selfdestruct completely. A good lawyer knows when to stop fighting a losing battle.

Obviously, when all this happened they had not figured out that they actually showed her the wrong shirt (it should have been CE 151) nor did they figure that somebody would notice there was no hole in the sleeve of CE 150, when Oswald was still wearing it after his arrest.

It was IMO most certainly part of the WC cover up but not necessarily part of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy.


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Bus Stop Farce
« Reply #496 on: December 13, 2020, 06:24:41 PM »


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: The Bus Stop Farce
« Reply #497 on: December 14, 2020, 01:02:33 AM »
She says she saw him on the bus (McWatters wasn't so sure), so what?

During her testimony she recognized the shirt from when they brought it to her home;

Mr. BALL - This is a shirt.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BMLEDSOE - Because they brought it out to the house and showed it.
Mr. BALL - I know. What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, because I can recognize it.
Mr. BALL - Recognize it as what?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes, sir; see there?
Mr. BALL - Yes. You tell me what do you see here? What permits you to recognize it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I recognize---first thing I notice the elbow is out and then I saw---when the man brought it out and let me see it?
Mr. BALL - No, I am talking about---I am showing you this shirt now, and you said, "That is it." You mean---What do you mean by "that is it"?

She noticed the hole when they brought the shirt to her home. Booyah.

Btw.. in her affidavit she only mentions seeing Oswald on a bus. Not a word about a hole in a sleeve! Go figure

She knew Oswald: He roomed at her house for a week. She saw him get on the bus. She recognized the shirt shown to her afterward as the one she saw Oswald wearing on the bus. 'First thing I notice' has to mean about Oswald as he got on the bus

'Btw.. in her affidavit she only mentions seeing Oswald on a bus. Not a word about a hole in a sleeve! Go figure'
>>> I did:"Affidavits are not Q&A sessions. They usually turn out to be shorthand versions of upcoming testimony: A quick sketch, a snapshot of the overall picture.. with details to be fleshed out later"--- Bill Chapman, December 08, 2020
.
Quote #476 Weidmann
“Ever tried to get complete and accurate information, in one go*, from an elderly person before? It's nearly impossible”
« Last Edit: December 12, 2020, 04:46:07 AM by Martin Weidmann »

That confirms my point made Dec08 (above)

*My emphasis
« Last Edit: December 14, 2020, 01:17:08 AM by Bill Chapman »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: The Bus Stop Farce
« Reply #498 on: December 14, 2020, 01:20:51 AM »
Yes, random people were in on the plot!   With important roles like saying Oswald had a hole in his shirt!  These folks lied and the evidence was faked for some unknown reason that we are left to figure out for ourselves since you are not a CTer right?  LOL  The contrarian strikes again.   You should be embarrassed.

Not so fast. What's wrong with Oswald-lovers being concerned about their hero's haberdashery?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2020, 01:22:00 AM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Bus Stop Farce
« Reply #498 on: December 14, 2020, 01:20:51 AM »


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
Re: The Bus Stop Farce
« Reply #499 on: December 14, 2020, 01:43:45 AM »
She knew Oswald: He roomed at her house for a week. She saw him get on the bus. She recognized the shirt shown to her afterward as the one she saw Oswald wearing on the bus. 'First thing I notice' has to mean about Oswald as he got on the bus

'Btw.. in her affidavit she only mentions seeing Oswald on a bus. Not a word about a hole in a sleeve! Go figure'
>>> I did:"Affidavits are not Q&A sessions. They usually turn out to be shorthand versions of upcoming testimony: A quick sketch, a snapshot of the overall picture.. with details to be fleshed out later"--- Bill Chapman, December 08, 2020
.
Quote #476 Weidmann
“Ever tried to get complete and accurate information, in one go*, from an elderly person before? It's nearly impossible”
« Last Edit: December 12, 2020, 04:46:07 AM by Martin Weidmann »

That confirms my point made Dec08 (above)

*My emphasis

She knew Oswald: He roomed at her house for a week. She saw him get on the bus. She recognized the shirt shown to her afterward as the one she saw Oswald wearing on the bus. 'First thing I notice' has to mean about Oswald as he got on the bus

No. It was the first thing she noticed when they brought the shirt to her home.

>>> I did:"Affidavits are not Q&A sessions. They usually turn out to be shorthand versions of upcoming testimony: A quick sketch, a snapshot of the overall picture.. with details to be fleshed out later"--- Bill Chapman, December 08, 2020


That's true. Affidavits are often just a short version of what the person actually said, but they do live a life of their own afterwards, which is exactly why lawyers always recommend to their clients not to give formal statements to the police. Say something not 100% correct, or not 100% correctly recorded, or omit something and it might come back to haunt you.

Having said that, as Bledsoe did not mention the shirt at all, in her affidavit, what do you think caused the investigators to bring Oswald's arrest shirt to Bledsoe's house prior to her testimony? Can you provide a good reason for that?

Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
Re: The Bus Stop Farce
« Reply #500 on: December 14, 2020, 05:22:11 AM »
MT: Jimmy Burt and Frank Cimino are two other witnesses at the scene who were not called by the WC. They have something else in common with Bowley: they said they showed up too late to see either the shooting or the escaping perp. It wouldn't be surprising that they wouldn't be called to testify to a crime that they did not actually witness.

They called Callaway, Guinyard and Reynolds, who didn't actually witness a crime and only saw a man running down the street and they had no way of knowing who he was. Besides, it was Bowley who called the dispatcher and helped Callaway to put Tippit in the ambulance. He would have been a far more valuable witness that Burt and Cimino.
Reread this phrase from the second sentence: "they showed up too late to see either the shooting or the escaping perp."  I actually put some consideration as to the wording of the sentence after that one, with regard to specifically add a reference to not being able to see the fleeing gunman. In the end, I figured anyone reading it would be able to put two and two together easily enough. While no ne else seems to have missed out on the connection, it apparently sailed right by you without notice. So in light of this deficiency, let me rephrase my earlier statement for the sake of mutual understanding: "It wouldn't be surprising that they wouldn't be called to testify to a crime when they did not actually witness the crime or the fleeing perpetrator of that crime." Callaway, Reynolds, and Guinyard were called because they could testify to seeing an armed man fleeing the scene of a murder, even if they didn't witness the act itself. Callaway, in particular, identified Lee Harvey Oswald as that man. In contrast, Bowley, Burt, and Cimino arrived too late to see the killing and the subsequent flight of the shooter. As such, they had nothing probative to add to the record, and were not called to testify. That's not a surprising turn of events, unless you desperately want it to be.

Now, you would have us believe that Bowley's testimony would necessarily have been useful because he used Tippit's car radio to call in the shooting, and that Bowley helped load Tippit into the ambulance. Bowley's call from the radio in Car 10 is immortalized on the channel one dictabelt recording, nestled with any number time stamps useful to place when that radio call was made. With the dictabelt, there's no need to know what time Bowley thought it was. The latter assertion reagrding the ambulancing of J D Tippit is nothing more than a useless Whiskey Tango Foxtrot attractor. How would answering the question, "who manned the ambulance detail?" move the case even a hair's breadth closer to solution?

You never knew when your watch was five minutes slow and the other guy's was five minutes fast.

Really? And what about if it meant missing your daily bus to work or being late for picking up your daughter from school?

Besides, individual time estimates are not even the issue here. The time line I have presented earlier is a combination and sequence of events that all relate to and corroborate each other.

1. Markham arriving at 10th street and seeing Tippit get killed
2. Bowley arriving at 10th street just after Tippit was killed and working the radio
3. Callaway arriving at 10th street and seeing Bowley working the radio
4. Callaway and Bowley helping to put Tippit in the ambulance
5. Tippit being declared DOA at Methodist Hospital at 1.15
6. Detective Davenport confirming the DOA at 1.15

Markham said she left home just after 1pm. She only needed to walk one block to get to 10th street. Her own estimate was 1.06. Allow two minutes for the one block walk and you get her to 10th street at 1.08. She sees Tippit get shot.
Bowley said in his affidavit that when he arrived at the crime scene he saw the officer lying in the street and looked at his watch, which said 1.10. That is corroboration that Markham was indeed at 10th street prior to 1.10. .... and so on.

When you move Markham's timeline, you also need to move all others and that's what you can't do. All you can do is dismiss it out of hand, which is what LNs always do when confronted with evidence they can't explain. Rather than dealing with the entire time line honestly, it's far easier for the LNs to simply dismiss it all because time estimates are not 100% reliable.

It's ironic though that those same LNs place the timing of Tippit's murder at 1.14 or 1.15 solely based upon times mentioned in the transcripts of the DPD radio, when the man in charge of those dispatchers is on record to the HSCA saying that the times given on the recordings/transcripts are "police time" and not real time.
The "police time" bit is what exactly the what I was getting at. Your problem is, there is also a "Markham time" problem,  a "Bowley time" problem, a "Davenport time" problem, etc, and no expectation that any of them would conform more closely to some standard reference clock than "police time."  And there are those pesky accounts that you haven't mentioned, like the FBI interview where Dr Liguori says he declared Tippit DOA at 1:25 (and it's helpful to realize that "time of death" is not necessarily the same as "time declared dead.") What you've done is to try and center everything around up Markham's 1:06 estimate in order to show that the DPD recording is an anomaly, when the same data can just as easily be used to argue that the Markham timeline is actual outlier by starting with a different time stamp.


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Bus Stop Farce
« Reply #500 on: December 14, 2020, 05:22:11 AM »


Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
Re: The Bus Stop Farce
« Reply #501 on: December 14, 2020, 12:14:08 PM »
How did Mrs Bledsoe see a hole in the elbow of the shirt when Oswald was wearing a jacket?

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
Re: The Bus Stop Farce
« Reply #502 on: December 14, 2020, 02:15:31 PM »
Reread this phrase from the second sentence: "they showed up too late to see either the shooting or the escaping perp."  I actually put some consideration as to the wording of the sentence after that one, with regard to specifically add a reference to not being able to see the fleeing gunman. In the end, I figured anyone reading it would be able to put two and two together easily enough. While no ne else seems to have missed out on the connection, it apparently sailed right by you without notice. So in light of this deficiency, let me rephrase my earlier statement for the sake of mutual understanding: "It wouldn't be surprising that they wouldn't be called to testify to a crime when they did not actually witness the crime or the fleeing perpetrator of that crime." Callaway, Reynolds, and Guinyard were called because they could testify to seeing an armed man fleeing the scene of a murder, even if they didn't witness the act itself. Callaway, in particular, identified Lee Harvey Oswald as that man. In contrast, Bowley, Burt, and Cimino arrived too late to see the killing and the subsequent flight of the shooter. As such, they had nothing probative to add to the record, and were not called to testify. That's not a surprising turn of events, unless you desperately want it to be.


In contrast, Bowley, Burt, and Cimino arrived too late to see the killing and the subsequent flight of the shooter. As such, they had nothing probative to add to the record, and were not called to testify.

Where Burt and Cimino are concerned I agree. In Bowley's case you are wrong, because he could pin point the time of the crime. That's probative, at least in a honest investigation, and if you feel that it is not, then please explain why the FBI went through all sorts of trouble to get time estimates for the time of DOA from the hospital, to such an extend that they were calling several times daily and a nurse described it as boardering on harassment. Also please explain why they did call people like James Thomas Aycox, Anne Boudreaux and George Bouhe who did not witness anything at all?

Quote
Now, you would have us believe that Bowley's testimony would necessarily have been useful because he used Tippit's car radio to call in the shooting, and that Bowley helped load Tippit into the ambulance. Bowley's call from the radio in Car 10 is immortalized on the channel one dictabelt recording, nestled with any number time stamps useful to place when that radio call was made. With the dictabelt, there's no need to know what time Bowley thought it was. The latter assertion reagrding the ambulancing of J D Tippit is nothing more than a useless Whiskey Tango Foxtrot attractor. How would answering the question, "who manned the ambulance detail?" move the case even a hair's breadth closer to solution?

Bowley's call from the radio in Car 10 is immortalized on the channel one dictabelt recording, nestled with any number time stamps useful to place when that radio call was made. With the dictabelt, there's no need to know what time Bowley thought it was.

BS. First of all, the dictabelt was a voice activated machine that did not run all the time, and thus can not give an accurate sequence of events as far as actual time is concerned and, secondly, the times being called by the dispatcher can not be relied upon, as J.C. Bowles, the man in charge of the DPD dispatchers, explained to the HSCA that the clocks used by the dispatchers did not reflect real time.

A quote from Bowles' HSCA testimony;

A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time. Within the dispatcher's office there were numerous other time giving and time recording devices, both in the telephone room and in the radio room. Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose, they indicated the incorrect time. However, their purpose was to stamp the time, day and date on incoming calls. While they were reliable at this, they were not synchronized as stated in the Committee report. Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock. Accordingly, at "exactly" 10:10, various clocks could be stamping from 10:08 to 10:12, for example. When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done.

In addition to the times stamped on calls by telephone operators, the radio operators stamped the "time" as calls were dispatched, and the "time" that officers completed an assignment and returned to service. Radio operators were also furnished with 12-hour digital clocks to facilitate their time references when they were not using call sheets containing stamped time. These digital clocks were not synchronized with any time standard. Therefore, the time "actual" and time "broadcast" could easily be a minute or so apart.


So, in short; the master clock was connected to a clock at town hall that showed "official time". It's not even sure that was the same as real time. All other clocks used by the DPD were not automatically synchronized with the master clock and required adjustments, which in busy periods did not always take place.

As it was not uncommon for the time stamps, which is "broadcast" time to differ by minutes from "actual" time on a DPD dispatcher clock, which in turn could differ from the "official" time on the master clock connected to the City Hall System, which in turn could differ from "real" time, there is no way you can rely on the DPD recordings and/or transcripts to get an accurate time.

Quote
The "police time" bit is what exactly the what I was getting at. Your problem is, there is also a "Markham time" problem,  a "Bowley time" problem, a "Davenport time" problem, etc, and no expectation that any of them would conform more closely to some standard reference clock than "police time." 

No, there isn't a "Markam time" problem etc. On an individual level each item can perhaps be questioned to some extend but not in combination with eachother. When I created the timeline, it was clear to me that no LN would look at the combined facts in an honest manner, and so far I've been right. And that obviously includes you.

Quote
And there are those pesky accounts that you haven't mentioned, like the FBI interview where Dr Liguori says he declared Tippit DOA at 1:25 (and it's helpful to realize that "time of death" is not necessarily the same as "time declared dead.")

You mean the 302 report in which the time was later changed? That report? Why in the world would I mention that? The authorization for autopsy is an official document, signed by a Justice of the Peace. That carries for more weight than some internal 302 report of the FBI, claiming that somebody said something, that isn't part of the official record. The authorization for autopsy said the D.O.A. time was 1.15 and that was based on information from Dr Liguori. And Detective Davenport, who was there, confirms that time in his report. That's corroboration, whether you like it or not!

Quote
What you've done is to try and center everything around up Markham's 1:06 estimate in order to show that the DPD recording is an anomaly, when the same data can just as easily be used to argue that the Markham timeline is actual outlier by starting with a different time stamp.

Wrong again. Markham's 1.06 estimate has nothing to do with me showing that the DPD recordings is wrong. It was the DPD supervisor of the dispatchers, J.C. Bowles, who told the HSCA that the recording could not be relied on to give the actual real time. For obvious reasons, you, being a LNr, may disagree with Bowles, but that would be something you would have to take up with him and not with me.

This is the timeline I reconstructed on the basis of the available evidence;

1:03 - 1.04 Markham leaves home at 9th street
1:06 - 1.07 Markham arrives at the corner of 10th street, after having walked one block. She has one more block to go, to
                 Jefferson, where she would arrive at around 1.09 or 1.10, well in time for the 1.12 bus.
1:06 - 1.09 Tippit is shot and killed.
1.10           Bowley arrives at the crime scene after having picked up his daughter from school at 12.55 and driving 7 miles
                 Upon arrival he looks at his watch which says 1.10
1.07 - 1.11 Callaway hears the shots and encounters a man with a revolver running towards him.
1.11           After the encounter, Callaway runs half a block and arrives at 10th street. He gets there after Bowley had already
                 finished operating the police radio
1.11 - 1.13 The ambulance, dispatched from a nearby funeral home on Jefferson, only a block away, arrives and Bowley and
                 Callaway help to put Tippit in the ambulance.
1.15 - 1.16 After a short 2 miles drive, the ambulance arrives at Methodist Hospital followed by Detective Davenport who saw
                 the ambulance and chased it to the hospital
1.16 - 1.17 Tippit - who was likely dead at the scene - is declared DOA @ 1.15

It fits perfectly, but only if the shooting happened between 1.06 and 1.10.

Feel free to start Markham's time later and make all the details fit. Go on then...

Let's start with giving us an explanation for the following;

Markham took the same bus to work every day. The bus stop was at Jefferson and she estimated that she would get the bus at 1.15. That could mean either the 1.12 bus or the 1.22 bus, because those were the scheduled times according to the FBI. It doesn't really matter which bus she actually took, a 1.12 running 3 minutes late or a 1.22. What matters is that she used to be at the bus stop at around 1.15.

In order to get to the bus stop, she had to walk two blocks, which would have taken her roughly 6 to 8 minutes. So, as a matter of routine she would leave home "just after 1". If we assume that means 1.04 or 1.05, it have taken her three to four minutes to get the corner of 10th street and Patton. In other words, she would have gotten there at 1.07 or 1.08.

Had she carried on, she would have arrived at the bus stop on Jefferson at around 1.11 or 1.12, perfectly in time to catch her regular bus.

So, the question is; how in the world could Markham witness Tippit being shot at 1.14 or 1.15 when she would have been at the bus stop on Jefferson by then?

 
« Last Edit: December 14, 2020, 11:10:36 PM by Martin Weidmann »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Bus Stop Farce
« Reply #502 on: December 14, 2020, 02:15:31 PM »


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: The Bus Stop Farce
« Reply #503 on: December 14, 2020, 05:33:43 PM »
She knew Oswald: He roomed at her house for a week. She saw him get on the bus. She recognized the shirt shown to her afterward as the one she saw Oswald wearing on the bus. 'First thing I notice' has to mean about Oswald as he got on the bus

No. It was the first thing she noticed when they brought the shirt to her home.

>>> I did:"Affidavits are not Q&A sessions. They usually turn out to be shorthand versions of upcoming testimony: A quick sketch, a snapshot of the overall picture.. with details to be fleshed out later"--- Bill Chapman, December 08, 2020


That's true. Affidavits are often just a short version of what the person actually said, but they do live a life of their own afterwards, which is exactly why lawyers always recommend to their clients not to give formal statements to the police. Say something not 100% correct, or not 100% correctly recorded, or omit something and it might come back to haunt you.

Having said that, as Bledsoe did not mention the shirt at all, in her affidavit, what do you think caused the investigators to bring Oswald's arrest shirt to Bledsoe's house prior to her testimony? Can you provide a good reason for that?

And 'round and 'round we you go. Stop stepping on your own tongue: Read your own post#476

FFS