DPD Tapes and a 6 Minute Discrepancy

[Tim Nickerson]

Markham's washateria clock, Mrs. Higgins' clock, and the clock at Methodist Hostpital.

Mrs. Higgins' clock?

[Martin Weidmann]

Asked if his watch was reliable, Bowley laughed and said "Best I remember. I usually had pretty good watches." But he conceded that "it could have been five minutes off." From pages 246-251 (third part) of Joseph McBride's book, for what it's worth.

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t950p15-was-mary-ferrell-a-disinfo-agent

Sorry Tim. I don't read LN or CT books about the Kennedy murder. I want to make up my own mind and not rely on what others tell me.

Why don't you have a look at the time line I have put together based on witness testimony, official documents and local knowledge about distances and the time it takes to cover them. Maybe you can find a way for Bowley's watch to be wrong by 5 minutes and keep the rest of the time line intact.

[Bill Chapman]

Sorry Tim. I don't read LN or CT books about the Kennedy murder. I want to make up my own mind and not rely on what others tell me.

Why don't you have a look at the time line I have put together based on witness testimony, official documents and local knowledge about distances and the time it takes to cover them. Maybe you can find a way for Bowley's watch to be wrong by 5 minutes and keep the rest of the time line intact.

You talk-the-talk but testers who have, literally, walked-the-walk, place Oswald @Tippit in time to be observed ambushing the officer.

Let me tell-the-tell: Fact is, you are pitting the witnesses who ID'd Oswald @Tippit and nearby the ambush scene against a wristwatch.
You will have to call the 11-12 witnesses who attest to Oswald's presence on/near said ambush-scene liars/stupid/forgetful/involved in a conspiracy/dishonest/pathetic

You are fond of calling people liars/dishonest/pathetic aren't you..

[Martin Weidmann]

You talk-the-talk but testers who have, literally, walked-the-walk, place Oswald @Tippit in time to be observed ambushing the officer.

Let me tell-the-tell: Fact is, you are pitting the witnesses who ID'd Oswald @Tippit and nearby the ambush scene against a wristwatch.
You will have to call the 11-12 witnesses who attest to Oswald's presence on/near said ambush-scene liars.

You are fond of calling people liars, aren't you..

You will have to call the 11-12 witnesses who attest to Oswald's presence on/near said ambush-scene liars.

No just "mistaken"... just like the double-standard boys who call themselves LNs do with every witness who says something they don't like.

If all the Parkland doctors can be mistaken and if all the witnesses who heard a shot from the grassy knoll can be mistaken, why should it not be possible that people who only saw Tippit's killer for a couple of seconds are misled by a highly prejudicial line up?

[Mark A. Oblazney]

Henry Hurt originally had a big budget, "the Digest / Pam Butler, Epstein, and nearly ten years to get his book right. Why would he write what he did about Nelson except to further muddy the water while paying a cynical, backhanded compliment to Sylvia Meagher? Hurt's book was published in 1986, by Holt, not by R. D. Was there still a pressing need to make Oswald an convincing assassin via a Tippit frame?

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/O%20Disk/Ourslee%20Fulton%20Jr/Item%2002.pdf


I tend to believe the opposite of anything Henry Hurt embraced because he seemed to be Bush's eyes and ears, and why would Bush have a need for a personal representative, on the ground, at the dawn of the HSCA inquiry?

Nelson breaks his silence...for posterity, for the children, (LOL) in 2013 :

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2509.msg111782.html#msg111782

Dang, this is like the threads of old, Tom !!!  Discussion !!  Discourse !!  Continue !!  Thanks to all who are sharing.  Wish I had something to share+

[Bill Chapman]

You will have to call the 11-12 witnesses who attest to Oswald's presence on/near said ambush-scene liars.

No just "mistaken"... just like the double-standard boys who call themselves LNs do with every witness who says something they don't like.

If all the Parkland doctors can be mistaken and if all the witnesses who heard a shot from the grassy knoll can be mistaken, why should it not be possible that people who only saw Tippit's killer for a couple of seconds are misled by a highly prejudicial line up?

No just "mistaken"... just like the double-standard boys who call themselves LNs do with every witness who says something they don't like
Go ahead and segue to what other people do or don't do. In the meantime, point out those who only saw Oswald for 'a couple of seconds'. And suggesting that in the first place, in that offhanded way, suggests this is something you'd rather avoid. And you will have to prove that people were misled and prejudicial based on something other than your disdain for authority and your obvious predilection for arguing for the sake of argument .

Additionally, I think it was Bill (Boots-on-the-Ground) Brown who noted that there were a total of 15 (iirc) witnesses in or around the ambush area in a position to sight Oswald. Four-five (not sure if he's including Benavides) weren't sure the man was Oswald. Only 4-5 out of 15, or even 11-12, seems a reasonable percentage that would give the sworn witnesses a good deal of credibility.

If all the Parkland doctors can be mistaken and if all the witnesses who heard a shot from the grassy knoll can be mistaken, why should it not be possible that people who only saw Tippit's killer for a couple of seconds are misled by a highly prejudicial line up?
Kennedy was not turned over in the OR. And when exactly did the Parkland doctors perform an autopsy. The primary concern was totally focussed on trying to revive Kennedy.

[Martin Weidmann]

No just "mistaken"... just like the double-standard boys who call themselves LNs do with every witness who says something they don't like
Go ahead and segue to what other people do or don't do. In the meantime, point out those who only saw Oswald for 'a couple of seconds'. And suggesting that in the first place, in that offhanded way, suggests this is something you'd rather avoid. And you will have to prove that people were misled and prejudicial based on something other than your disdain for authority and your obvious predilection for arguing for the sake of argument .

In the meantime, point out those who only saw Oswald for 'a couple of seconds'.

I don't know who saw Oswald for only a couple of seconds, but the Davis girls only saw Tippit's killer as he ran through their garden and passed their front door. They were resting with their kids when they heard the shots and had to make their way to the front door. It only took Tippit's killer no more than 30 seconds to get from the scene to the hedge he jumped over to get to Patton, so how long do you think they actually saw him as he ran by? 

Scoggings said in his testimony that he didn't pay much attention to the man talking to the police officer. When he heard the shots he tried to get away, found out there was nowhere to go and returned to his taxi. He only really saw the killer as he was coming towards him on his way towards Patton and that's the only time he saw his face. It couldn't have been more than a few seconds. And Scoggins' observations were so poor that, one day after the line up, he failed to identify Oswald to the FBI as the man he had seen.

And you will have to prove that people were misled and prejudicial based on something other than your disdain for authority and your obvious predilection for arguing for the sake of argument .

This is rich coming from the guy who always says this is not a court and he needs to prove nothing. And btw, I have no disdain for authority, but I do have disdain for cops who do not follow correct procedures and idiots who cover for them.

Additionally, I think it was Bill (Boots-on-the-Ground) Brown who noted that there were a total of 15 (iirc) witnesses in or around the ambush area in a position to sight Oswald. Four-five (not sure if he's including Benavides) weren't sure the man was Oswald. Only 4-5 out of 15, or even 11-12, seems a reasonable percentage that would give the sworn witnesses a good deal of credibility.

If they all attended the line up, maybe, but they didn't. Out of those selected to attend the line up, all identified Oswald as the man they had seen. Such a pre-selection alone should tell you something! Stop misrepresenting the facts.

If all the Parkland doctors can be mistaken and if all the witnesses who heard a shot from the grassy knoll can be mistaken, why should it not be possible that people who only saw Tippit's killer for a couple of seconds are misled by a highly prejudicial line up?

Kennedy was not turned over in the OR. And when exactly did the Parkland doctors perform an autopsy. The primary concern was totally focussed on trying to revive Kennedy.

The same old LN propaganda crap. When they tried to resuscitate Kennedy the blood flooded out of the head wound, yet here you are suggesting they didn't even bother to look at that wound. And btw, the embalmer Tom Robinson, who actually had to fill the cavity with rubber, confirmed the location and size of the head wound as described by the Parkland doctors.

At the next LN meeting please see if you can get a better script to work with for next time.