JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Podcast On Tippit
Zeon Mason:
I would like to know if the emergency room clock at the hospital which Tippit was taken , was in sync with DPD radio dispatch clock or was the hospital clock 7 minutes slow relative to the DOD clock?
John Mytton:
--- Quote from: Bill Brown on April 15, 2026, 08:40:53 PM ---
Again, the police tapes (combined with the actions of witnesses like Mary Wright, Barbara Davis and L.J. Lewis, who contacted the police shortly after the shooting) tell us that Markham was NOT going to arrive at Patton and Jefferson at 1:15. She was approaching Patton and Tenth at 1:15.
--- End quote ---
Yep the Police tapes were synchronized with the Hertz clock at 12:30 and some CT's claim that somehow the Police tapes went out of sync by somewhere around 5 to 10 minutes in the next 3/4 of an hour, and the more desperate CT's claim that the Hertz clock which people set their own timepieces by was not accurate, but not one CT has ever even proved that the Hertz clock was a minute out, much less 5 or more! :D
JohnM
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Bill Brown on April 16, 2026, 04:33:54 AM ---
Nonsense. The time stamps on the police tapes are not "bad evidence" at all. You don't understand them; that doesn't make them "bad".
Again, you basically asked me to speculate and I admit I am only giving my opinion. Seems simple enough but only a Kook would take issue with it.
Again, in her Warren Commission testimony, she said traffic was coming. She did not say it was a police car. If you want to rely on the FBI report as if it's gospel, then we can also agree then that Randle indeed said the bag was three feet long. This is simple stuff, really. So, which is it for you?
By the way, the FBI agent who interviewed Markham in March of '64 was Barrett (as you originally stated), not Bookhout (as you are now stating).
In your opinion. Obviously that was not Markham's opinion, as she tells us she had to wait for traffic to pass before trying to cross.
You don't know what "get your bus" means and you certainly don't know how Markham interpreted the question. The bottom line is that Markham never says she caught a bus at 1:15 and no amount of you putting words into her mouth will change this.
--- End quote ---
Nonsense. The time stamps on the police tapes are not "bad evidence" at all. You don't understand them; that doesn't make them "bad".
I understand them alright. I just don't agree with your opinion.
Again, you basically asked me to speculate and I admit I am only giving my opinion. Seems simple enough but only a Kook would take issue with it.
Typical LN talk. I asked you to help me out by explaining why Markham would risk missing her bus by waiting at the corner of 10th and Patton after the car(s) had passed.
You then started speculating and you did so in a self-serving way, like you always do. Your speculations are not facts! It's that simple.
Again, in her Warren Commission testimony, she said traffic was coming. She did not say it was a police car. If you want to rely on the FBI report as if it's gospel, then we can also agree then that Randle indeed said the bag was three feet long. This is simple stuff, really. So, which is it for you?
Apparently you want to rely fully on witness testimony because you are desperate to get Tippit's police car out of the overall picture, despite the fact that his car was there and did pass the intersection. But if you want to rely solely on WC testimony, let's go that way. That means of course that Roberts couldn't identify CE 162 and thought that the jacket she had seen was darker. It means that Frazier saw Oswald carry the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit and it means that Randle provided a far more accurate estimate of the size of the package than Barrett wrote. Are you happy with that?
By the way, the FBI agent who interviewed Markham in March of '64 was Barrett (as you originally stated), not Bookhout (as you are now stating).
I stand corrected. My bad.
In your opinion. Obviously that was not Markham's opinion, as she tells us she had to wait for traffic to pass before trying to cross.
And where exactly does she say that also included Tatum's car? Or are you simply making that up?
You don't know what "get your bus" means and you certainly don't know how Markham interpreted the question.
Her answer in her WC testimony is clear enough;
Mr. BALL. You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you?
Mrs. MARKHAM. 1:15.
And you swear by WC testimony, right?
The bottom line is that Markham never says she caught a bus at 1:15 and no amount of you putting words into her mouth will change this.
So, now you want verbatim quotes. As I said before.... you are playing word games (again). You can deny reality as much as you like but normal same people know exactly what somebody says she "gets" or "caught" her bus at 1:15 PM.
Besides, she made it very very clear that she needed to be at the bus stop every day at 1:15 PM, regardless if she got or caught a bus or jumped on the back of a bike! Deal with it!
Bill Brown:
--- Quote from: John Mytton on April 16, 2026, 10:36:29 AM ---Yep the Police tapes were synchronized with the Hertz clock at 12:30 and some CT's claim that somehow the Police tapes went out of sync by somewhere around 5 to 10 minutes in the next 3/4 of an hour, and the more desperate CT's claim that the Hertz clock which people set their own timepieces by was not accurate, but not one CT has ever even proved that the Hertz clock was a minute out, much less 5 or more! :D
JohnM
--- End quote ---
It's amazing, isn't it?
Anything to get a cop-killer off the hook.
Bill Brown:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on April 16, 2026, 10:41:09 AM ---Nonsense. The time stamps on the police tapes are not "bad evidence" at all. You don't understand them; that doesn't make them "bad".
I understand them alright. I just don't agree with your opinion.
Again, you basically asked me to speculate and I admit I am only giving my opinion. Seems simple enough but only a Kook would take issue with it.
Typical LN talk. I asked you to help me out by explaining why Markham would risk missing her bus by waiting at the corner of 10th and Patton after the car(s) had passed.
You then started speculating and you did so in a self-serving way, like you always do. Your speculations are not facts! It's that simple.
Again, in her Warren Commission testimony, she said traffic was coming. She did not say it was a police car. If you want to rely on the FBI report as if it's gospel, then we can also agree then that Randle indeed said the bag was three feet long. This is simple stuff, really. So, which is it for you?
Apparently you want to rely fully on witness testimony because you are desperate to get Tippit's police car out of the overall picture, despite the fact that his car was there and did pass the intersection. But if you want to rely solely on WC testimony, let's go that way. That means of course that Roberts couldn't identify CE 162 and thought that the jacket she had seen was darker. It means that Frazier saw Oswald carry the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit and it means that Randle provided a far more accurate estimate of the size of the package than Barrett wrote. Are you happy with that?
By the way, the FBI agent who interviewed Markham in March of '64 was Barrett (as you originally stated), not Bookhout (as you are now stating).
I stand corrected. My bad.
In your opinion. Obviously that was not Markham's opinion, as she tells us she had to wait for traffic to pass before trying to cross.
And where exactly does she say that also included Tatum's car? Or are you simply making that up?
You don't know what "get your bus" means and you certainly don't know how Markham interpreted the question.
Her answer in her WC testimony is clear enough;
Mr. BALL. You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you?
Mrs. MARKHAM. 1:15.
And you swear by WC testimony, right?
The bottom line is that Markham never says she caught a bus at 1:15 and no amount of you putting words into her mouth will change this.
So, now you want verbatim quotes. As I said before.... you are playing word games (again). You can deny reality as much as you like but normal same people know exactly what somebody says she "gets" or "caught" her bus at 1:15 PM.
Besides, she made it very very clear that she needed to be at the bus stop every day at 1:15 PM, regardless if she got or caught a bus or jumped on the back of a bike! Deal with it!
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---I understand them alright. I just don't agree with your opinion.
--- End quote ---
And yet you have done absolutely nothing to prove that the verbal timestamps throughout are wrong.
--- Quote ---Typical LN talk. I asked you to help me out by explaining why Markham would risk missing her bus by waiting at the corner of 10th and Patton after the car(s) had passed.
You then started speculating and you did so in a self-serving way, like you always do. Your speculations are not facts! It's that simple.
--- End quote ---
Markham had to wait for traffic (most likely Tatum) to pass and by the time Tatum passed, the shooting had already taken place.
She "risked missing her bus" so that she wouldn't get run over by Tatum.
This is my opinion, which is what you asked before; unless you somehow believe that I am inside Markham's head and was supposed to give you a definite on what she was thinking.
--- Quote ---Apparently you want to rely fully on witness testimony because you are desperate to get Tippit's police car out of the overall picture, despite the fact that his car was there and did pass the intersection. But if you want to rely solely on WC testimony, let's go that way. That means of course that Roberts couldn't identify CE 162 and thought that the jacket she had seen was darker. It means that Frazier saw Oswald carry the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit and it means that Randle provided a far more accurate estimate of the size of the package than Barrett wrote. Are you happy with that?
--- End quote ---
Speaking of the jacket, forget CE-162. Forget Tenth & Patton. Forget the gunning down of a police officer. Forget any jacket found under a car behind the Texaco station.
On the afternoon of the murder, Roberts told a reporter that Oswald left in a "short grey coat". She testified that he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Johnny Brewer, in a December 1963 affidavit, stated that Oswald was wearing a "brown sport shirt" on Jefferson Blvd. and made no mention of any jacket. During his Warren Commission testimony, Brewer described what Oswald was wearing in more detail, even mentioning that the shirt was untucked. When directly asked if Oswald was wearing any jacket, Brewer replied "No".
Even if it was rainbow-colored, why did Oswald ditch the jacket he was wearing when he left the rooming house by the time he was seen on Jefferson by Brewer? Why can't the Kooks ever make a reasonable reply to that question instead of the lame-ass reply that Earlene Roberts was blind and Oswald must have been zipping up a button-up shirt?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version