DPD Tapes and a 6 Minute Discrepancy

[Martin Weidmann]

"I did have occasion to reproduce that trip ticket and it was given to a man and wife reporting team from Life magazine in 1964" -- J.C. Butler

I suppose Weidmann believes there was another man and wife team running around interviewing Tippit witnesses in 1964 besides the Nashes.

And still not a shred of evidence that the Nashes actually saw the time stamped card. Just speculation and wishful thinking, based on a document that was written 14 years after the event.

[Bill Brown]

No, my memory is just better than yours. You denied having a conversation with me about Callaway as well when in fact you later "remembered" that the conversation did indeed take place.

No.

I've never said I could produce the trip ticket just like I've never denied having a conversation with you about Callaway.

The truth is, you were saying something to me about Callaway and I replied that I couldn't remember exactly what it was that we discussed.  That's not the same as denying that the conversation ever took place.

Why do you lie so much?  Sincere question.

Never mind.  I already know the answer.

[John Iacoletti]

By this standard, we shouldn't believe Markham, Bowley, Davenport, your mom, or just about
anyone else. You've come up with the most ridiculous argument I've seen all week.

There's nothing at all ridiculous about it.  An unverifiable claim is just that.

[John Iacoletti]

I post a statement from Butler where he says he made a copy of the trip ticket and passed it along to a man and wife team (obviously the Nashes) in 1964.

Even if there was such a "trip ticket" in 1964, that doesn't demonstrate that it said what the Nashes claim it said.  Why would anybody discard such an item?

Now you're asking for the actual "time card".   This is just more proof that you'll never be satisfied.  Anything to get a cop-killer off the hook, right?

It's proof that you are satisfied with anything that comports with your preferred narrative, no matter how tenuous.  And you haven't gotten anybody ON the hook yet.

[Mitch Todd]

There's nothing at all ridiculous about it.  An unverifiable claim is just that.

Let me put this statement back in context:

JI: I don't know what the Nashes saw, but I do know anyone can claim that they saw anything.

MT: By this standard, we shouldn't believe Markham, Bowley, Davenport, your mom, or just about
anyone else. You've come up with the most ridiculous argument I've seen all week.

JI: There's nothing at all ridiculous about it.  An unverifiable claim is just that.

What you just said neither changes nor rebuts my point. If we can't absolutely verify
what the Nashes said they saw, we also cannot do so for Bowley, Davenport, Markham,
or --yes-- your mom. And if we should not believe the Nashes, then we should not
believe Bowley, Davenport, Markham, or your mom. My problem is, you apply this
in one direction only, against the Nash article. Had you really believed in the position
you now maintain, you wouldn't apply it so one-sidedly.

 

[Mitch Todd]

Consider the phrase 'He put the slip into the time clock and stamped it 1:18 p.m., November 22, in the space marked “Time Called.”' Calling out a specific field on the card, to the point of putting that field's name in quotation marks, strongly implies that the Nashes saw the actual card and are describing what they saw on it.

It only implies that to you, because that's what you want it to imply.

Does this part: 'He put the slip into the time clock and stamped it 1:18 p.m., November 22, also imply that they saw him put the slip in the time clock?

Whatever you think something implies does not provide credible evidence. At best it provides an opinion.

Quotation marks are used to denote that something was actually said and/or written.  The Nashes wouldn't have used them unless it was something that they'd actually been told or had read. The real tipoff is the use of proper case in “Time Called.” Folks don't talk in proper case, so if the Nashes used it, then they had seen it written or printed that way. Of course, the HSCA/Butler interview page that Bill B posted ices the cake. You may not wan to believe that, but there it is.

That being said, let me answer your question with another: did the Nashes quote the phrase, ''[h]e put the slip into the time clock and stamped it 1:18 p.m., November 22"?

Then there is this sentence in the next paragraph: "The record shows that Butler called in to the funeral home at 1:26 p.m. to say he had reached the hospital." "The record" indicates that the Nashes  saw it written down. 1:26 ambulance arrival isn't anywhere in the DPD records that I know of. Nor does it appear in the Channel One recordings, so the only record left was what Dudley Hughes kept. And the obvious place that would appear in on the call sheet.

Consider this; according to the DPD transcripts the ambulance was called at 1:18 and Butler, the driver, is on record saying that from the departure at the funeral home to the arrival at the ambulance took less than four minutes. So, even if the 1:18 call is correct (which it isn't) the ambulance would have arrived at the hospital at 1:22, which makes a time of 1:26 not only not correct but impossible.

All of this could have been resolved by the investigators by collecting the original time stamped card from the funeral home and put it into evidence. This never happened, despite the fact that FBI agents, were talking to staff of the hospital and funeral home and producing FD 302 reports (which were later altered again). The time card is gone. It was never produced and I bet it doesn't even exists.

But even if it does and even if it said the call was received at 1:18, how do you know the clock of the funeral home was correct, when at the same time LNs are claiming that just about every other time piece, involved in this case, was wrong?

I've never said that the Dudley Hughes clock was correct. In fact, I've said from the beginning that I expect none of clock to show the exact correct time, unless it can be shown otherwise. As far as I can determine, DH time is about a minute behind DPD channel one time which is within a minute of channel two time which is a within a minute of correct time. That is, channel one can be determined to be within two minutes of standard time, and DH is about a minute behind that. I've already laid out the reasons why the different time pieces sort out this way, and see no reason to repeat myself.

Butler's recollection of the Tippit ambulance run is something he fished out his memory 14 years after the fact. He may remember it that way, but just the 1.5 mile trip from 404 E Tenth to Methodist  would have taken at least 3 minutes. Then you have to factor in the rest of the trip. Getting to the shooting site. Stopping not once, but twice (as Butler claimed). Getting out. Opening the back hatch. Hauling the gurney from the ambulance. Checking the status of the victim. Trying to radio the dispatcher that the victim is in fact a policeman. Lifting a limp, lifeless body up off the ground then arranging it properly on the gurney. Securing said limp lifeless body to said gurney so it the victim doesn't get thrown around the inside of the ambulance like a rag doll on the way to Methodist. Getting the gurney back into the the ambulance. Securing the gurney so that it doesn't become a rolling hazard inside the ambulance. Closing the back door. Getting back into the ambulance. Taking those few seconds to figure out the best way to get to Methodist. All of that has to happen before the ambulance crew even starts their journey to the ER. And then the ambulance has to back up to, get out, open the back door, get the gurney out, then explain the problem to the staff at the hospital. I'd say the ambulance action lasted more like 5 minutes stem to stern. Possibly even six. Maybe even seven.

You also haven't considered that the ambulance may have had a a separate radio channel for communications with their home base. Or, Butler may have just used a phone at the hospital. And did the ambulance call in their arrival before or after the body had been removed from the vehicle? There are too many unknowns to stake a position on 1:26 being impossible, as you have.

Finally, you're mad that the FBI or Warren Commission or whatever other investigative agency didn't sequester any documentation from Dudley Hughes and put it "into evidence" as you would prefer. Because those investigative agencies had nothing better to do in those days but figure out what some guys would be arguing about on the internet 60 years after the crime occurred, and failed to accede to your future demands for action.

Big whoop.

Has there really been a murder case in the modern world that was cracked by detailed examination of funeral home ambulance records?

[John Iacoletti]

What you just said neither changes nor rebuts my point. If we can't absolutely verify
what the Nashes said they saw, we also cannot do so for Bowley, Davenport, Markham,
or --yes-- your mom.

Agreed.  So what?