Podcast On Tippit

[Martin Weidmann]

And yet you have done absolutely nothing to prove that the verbal timestamps throughout are wrong.

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.

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?

And yet you have done absolutely nothing to prove that the verbal timestamps throughout are wrong.

Except for the fact of course that Bowley, the chief of the dispatchers, stated very clearly that the verbal timestamps could not be relied upon to match real time!

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.


No, I don't believe you are inside Markham's head. I believe you make up and dismiss things to fit your own narrative as you go along.

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?


Your question is still based on the assumption that Earlene Roberts was in fact spot on about the jacket when she was wrong about everything else.
Whaley said Oswald was wearing a jacket when he wasn't. He was clearly wrong. So why can he be wrong and not Roberts?
Frazier said that Oswald carried a paper bag in the cup of his hand and under his armpit and the all LNs claim he was wrong.

What is so damned special about Roberts?

[Bill Brown]

And yet you have done absolutely nothing to prove that the verbal timestamps throughout are wrong.

Except for the fact of course that Bowley, the chief of the dispatchers, stated very clearly that the verbal timestamps could not be relied upon to match real time!

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.


No, I don't believe you are inside Markham's head. I believe you make up and dismiss things to fit your own narrative as you go along.

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?


Your question is still based on the assumption that Earlene Roberts was in fact spot on about the jacket when she was wrong about everything else.
Whaley said Oswald was wearing a jacket when he wasn't. He was clearly wrong. So why can he be wrong and not Roberts?
Frazier said that Oswald carried a paper bag in the cup of his hand and under his armpit and the all LNs claim he was wrong.

What is so damned special about Roberts?

And yet you have done absolutely nothing to prove that the verbal timestamps throughout are wrong.

Except for the fact of course that Bowley, the chief of the dispatchers, stated very clearly that the verbal timestamps could not be relied upon to match real time!

First, it's Bowles, not Bowley.  You need to start getting these names right.  J.C. Bowles was the "chief of dispatchers".  T.F. Bowley pulled up on the Tippit scene just after the shooting.

And I'm perfectly aware of what Bowles said (and did not say).  He does NOT say that the timestamps could be off by as much as five to eight minutes.

In fact, here is what Bowles says:

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.

Now, multiply this by two since the police department was operating on two radio frequencies. For convenience they were referred to as Channel 1 and Channel 2. Calls for police service or information as well as interdepartmental messages were placed through the police communications office. Telephone clerks trained for the task handled the initial contacts. Telephone calls which required that an officer be sent to render a service were transcribed by hand on "call sheets" to inform the radio dispatcher as to the location and nature of the service request. The telephone clerk inserted the call sheet into the nearest time clock, causing the call sheet to be stamped with a "call received" time. The operator then sent the call sheet to the dispatcher by way of a conveyer belt which passed continuously between operators sitting opposite each other at the telephone stations. The conveyer belt terminated at the radio operator's console. The radio operator, upon receiving a call sheet, would select the officer appropriate to handle the call, dispatch the call to that officer, and stamp the call sheet with a "call dispatched" time. When the officer assigned a call had rendered the necessary service, he would inform the dispatcher that he was "clear." The dispatcher would then stamp the call sheet to obtain a "call cleared" time, and inform the officer of his clearing time. On November 22, 1963, the regular business of the department was conducted on Channel 1, and radio traffic associated with the President's visit was conducted on Channel 2. Next, consideration should be given to the methods of individual radio operators. A given operator at a given time might broadcast "time" a little early in one event then a little late the next. Accordingly, a call initiated at, say, 10:10 might be stamped at 10:13 by the dispatcher, only to have intervening radio traffic delay his broadcast. He might go ahead and announce the dispatch time as 10:13 and the digital clock then showed 10:14. Time intervals of less than one minute were never used. Likewise, the time stated in periodic station identification time checks was not always exact. During quiet intervals, station time checks were usually on time. However, radio operators did not interrupt radio traffic in progress just to give a station check. Accordingly, an operator might give, say, the 10:30 check as 10:30 when it was actually 10:29 or perhaps 10:31 or later. On another occasion, that same operator might state, "10:31 KKB 364," the correct time even though he was at least a minute late."

Are you saying that you accept that the Tippit shooting occurred no earlier than 1:12-1:13?

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?


Your question is still based on the assumption that Earlene Roberts was in fact spot on about the jacket when she was wrong about everything else.
Whaley said Oswald was wearing a jacket when he wasn't. He was clearly wrong. So why can he be wrong and not Roberts?
Frazier said that Oswald carried a paper bag in the cup of his hand and under his armpit and the all LNs claim he was wrong.

What is so damned special about Roberts?

Whaley described, THE VERY NEXT DAY, what Oswald was wearing and makes no mention of the jacket, even describing the shirt in some detail and the bracelet, etc...

Roberts, THE VERY SAME DAY, stated that Oswald left in a short grey coat.  I don't care what color she said it was (even though the jacket in evidence is indeed a "short grey coat").

Your point is completely invalid here.

[Martin Weidmann]

First, it's Bowles, not Bowley.  You need to start getting these names right.  J.C. Bowles was the "chief of dispatchers".  T.F. Bowley pulled up on the Tippit scene just after the shooting.

And I'm perfectly aware of what Bowles said (and did not say).  He does NOT say that the timestamps could be off by as much as five to eight minutes.

In fact, here is what Bowles says:

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.

Now, multiply this by two since the police department was operating on two radio frequencies. For convenience they were referred to as Channel 1 and Channel 2. Calls for police service or information as well as interdepartmental messages were placed through the police communications office. Telephone clerks trained for the task handled the initial contacts. Telephone calls which required that an officer be sent to render a service were transcribed by hand on "call sheets" to inform the radio dispatcher as to the location and nature of the service request. The telephone clerk inserted the call sheet into the nearest time clock, causing the call sheet to be stamped with a "call received" time. The operator then sent the call sheet to the dispatcher by way of a conveyer belt which passed continuously between operators sitting opposite each other at the telephone stations. The conveyer belt terminated at the radio operator's console. The radio operator, upon receiving a call sheet, would select the officer appropriate to handle the call, dispatch the call to that officer, and stamp the call sheet with a "call dispatched" time. When the officer assigned a call had rendered the necessary service, he would inform the dispatcher that he was "clear." The dispatcher would then stamp the call sheet to obtain a "call cleared" time, and inform the officer of his clearing time. On November 22, 1963, the regular business of the department was conducted on Channel 1, and radio traffic associated with the President's visit was conducted on Channel 2. Next, consideration should be given to the methods of individual radio operators. A given operator at a given time might broadcast "time" a little early in one event then a little late the next. Accordingly, a call initiated at, say, 10:10 might be stamped at 10:13 by the dispatcher, only to have intervening radio traffic delay his broadcast. He might go ahead and announce the dispatch time as 10:13 and the digital clock then showed 10:14. Time intervals of less than one minute were never used. Likewise, the time stated in periodic station identification time checks was not always exact. During quiet intervals, station time checks were usually on time. However, radio operators did not interrupt radio traffic in progress just to give a station check. Accordingly, an operator might give, say, the 10:30 check as 10:30 when it was actually 10:29 or perhaps 10:31 or later. On another occasion, that same operator might state, "10:31 KKB 364," the correct time even though he was at least a minute late."

Are you saying that you accept that the Tippit shooting occurred no earlier than 1:12-1:13?


Whaley described, THE VERY NEXT DAY, what Oswald was wearing and makes no mention of the jacket, even describing the shirt in some detail and the bracelet, etc...

Roberts, THE VERY SAME DAY, stated that Oswald left in a short grey coat.  I don't care what color she said it was (even though the jacket in evidence is indeed a "short grey coat").

Your point is completely invalid here.

First, it's Bowles, not Bowley.  You need to start getting these names right.

At my age, things like that happen.

And I'm perfectly aware of what Bowles said (and did not say).  He does NOT say that the timestamps could be off by as much as five to eight minutes.

Nobody claimed the timestamps could be off by five to eight minutes. You claimed you could rely on the timestamps and Bowles saying they could be off undermines your claim. Easy to understand really.

Are you saying that you accept that the Tippit shooting occurred no earlier than 1:12-1:13?

No, I believe he was shot earlier than that. 1:09 or 1:10, something like that.

Whaley described, THE VERY NEXT DAY, what Oswald was wearing and makes no mention of the jacket, even describing the shirt in some detail and the bracelet, etc...

Roberts, THE VERY SAME DAY, stated that Oswald left in a short grey coat.  I don't care what color she said it was (even though the jacket in evidence is indeed a "short grey coat").

Your point is completely invalid here.

I am only using Whaley to demonstrate somebody could be wrong. I also mentioned Frazier who said on THE VERY SAME DAY while being polygraphed that he saw Oswald carried the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. In the past you have questioned that statement and said that he could be wrong.

On the other hand, you seem to believe that Roberts could not possibly have been wrong. So, there isn't an invalid point, just a very valid question;

What makes Roberts so special?

[Bill Brown]

First, it's Bowles, not Bowley.  You need to start getting these names right.

At my age, things like that happen.

And I'm perfectly aware of what Bowles said (and did not say).  He does NOT say that the timestamps could be off by as much as five to eight minutes.

Nobody claimed the timestamps could be off by five to eight minutes. You claimed you could rely on the timestamps and Bowles saying they could be off undermines your claim. Easy to understand really.

Are you saying that you accept that the Tippit shooting occurred no earlier than 1:12-1:13?

No, I believe he was shot earlier than that. 1:09 or 1:10, something like that.

Whaley described, THE VERY NEXT DAY, what Oswald was wearing and makes no mention of the jacket, even describing the shirt in some detail and the bracelet, etc...

Roberts, THE VERY SAME DAY, stated that Oswald left in a short grey coat.  I don't care what color she said it was (even though the jacket in evidence is indeed a "short grey coat").

Your point is completely invalid here.

I am only using Whaley to demonstrate somebody could be wrong. I also mentioned Frazier who said on THE VERY SAME DAY while being polygraphed that he saw Oswald carried the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. In the past you have questioned that statement and said that he could be wrong.

On the other hand, you seem to believe that Roberts could not possibly have been wrong. So, there isn't an invalid point, just a very valid question;

What makes Roberts so special?

And I'm perfectly aware of what Bowles said (and did not say).  He does NOT say that the timestamps could be off by as much as five to eight minutes.

Nobody claimed the timestamps could be off by five to eight minutes. You claimed you could rely on the timestamps and Bowles saying they could be off undermines your claim. Easy to understand really.

Bowles said they could be off by a minute or two (even three minutes is stretching it).  He did not say they could be off by as much as six or seven minutes.

Are you saying that you accept that the Tippit shooting occurred no earlier than 1:12-1:13?

No, I believe he was shot earlier than that. 1:09 or 1:10, something like that.

You either believe the timestamps are off by six or seven minutes or you believe that T.F. Bowley lollygagged around for six or seven minutes before jumping on the police radio to report the shooting while Tippit's body was lying in the street bleeding from the head.

Or....

Perhaps I should ask it this way...

Do you accept that Bowley reported the shooting on the police radio at 1:17?

[Martin Weidmann]

Bowles said they could be off by a minute or two (even three minutes is stretching it).  He did not say they could be off by as much as six or seven minutes.


You either believe the timestamps are off by six or seven minutes or you believe that T.F. Bowley lollygagged around for six or seven minutes before jumping on the police radio to report the shooting while Tippit's body was lying in the street bleeding from the head.

Or....

Perhaps I should ask it this way...

Do you accept that Bowley reported the shooting on the police radio at 1:17?

Bowles said they could be off by a minute or two (even three minutes is stretching it).  He did not say they could be off by as much as six or seven minutes.

Again, nobody claimed he said that. He did however say a few other things.

A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time.

He doesn't tell us if the City Hall system was a 100% correct or what "official" time was.

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.

He also doesn't tell us if the time giving devices in the telephone and radio rooms were in sinc with the master clock on the telephone room wall. He only tells us that the clocks were not sunchronized.

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.

I would call the time between Kennedy's murder and Oswald's arrest a pretty busy period. So, here again we don't know if the needed adjustments were in fact made.

And then of course, there is the fact that the recording goes blank for a minute or so just around the time Tippit allegedly was shot. How big the gap really was, we'll never know.

Combined, it provides enough doubt about the accuracy of the timestamps.

You either believe the timestamps are off by six or seven minutes or you believe that T.F. Bowley lollygagged around for six or seven minutes before jumping on the police radio to report the shooting while Tippit's body was lying in the street bleeding from the head.

Bowley picked up his daughter from school at 1 PM. I have driven the route Bowley drove between the school and 10th street at various times with light and heavy traffic and the average time came to roughly 1:13. So, Bowley's watch could have been off by three minutes, which is why I don't rely on his 1:10 observation. What I don't believe and never will believe is that Bowley stood around for four minutes and did nothing. See, the argument works both ways!

The timestamps are most certainly off. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Bowley's arrival at 1:13 fits perfectly with Tippit being shot at around 1:10 or 1:11. It does also fit with Markham's timeline for getting to the bus stop, where she - in her mind - needed to be at 1:15. And it also fits with the arrival of the ambulance at the hospital at 1:15 as also confirmed by Detective Daveport who followed the ambulance to the hospital.

Or....

Perhaps I should ask it this way...

Do you accept that Bowley reported the shooting on the police radio at 1:17?

Already answered hundreds of times in the past and now again: the answer is NO

[Bill Brown]

Bowles said they could be off by a minute or two (even three minutes is stretching it).  He did not say they could be off by as much as six or seven minutes.

Again, nobody claimed he said that. He did however say a few other things.

A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time.

He doesn't tell us if the City Hall system was a 100% correct or what "official" time was.

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.

He also doesn't tell us if the time giving devices in the telephone and radio rooms were in sinc with the master clock on the telephone room wall. He only tells us that the clocks were not sunchronized.

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.

I would call the time between Kennedy's murder and Oswald's arrest a pretty busy period. So, here again we don't know if the needed adjustments were in fact made.

And then of course, there is the fact that the recording goes blank for a minute or so just around the time Tippit allegedly was shot. How big the gap really was, we'll never know.

Combined, it provides enough doubt about the accuracy of the timestamps.

You either believe the timestamps are off by six or seven minutes or you believe that T.F. Bowley lollygagged around for six or seven minutes before jumping on the police radio to report the shooting while Tippit's body was lying in the street bleeding from the head.

Bowley picked up his daughter from school at 1 PM. I have driven the route Bowley drove between the school and 10th street at various times with light and heavy traffic and the average time came to roughly 1:13. So, Bowley's watch could have been off by three minutes, which I don't rely on that observation. What I don't believe and never will believe is that Bowley stood around for four minutes and did nothing. See, the argument works both ways!

The timestamps are most certainly off. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Bowley's arrival at 1:13 fits perfectly with Tippit being shot at around 1:10 or 1:11. It does also fit with Markham's timeline for getting to the bus stop, where she - in her mind - needed to be at 1:15. And it also fits with the arrival of the ambulance at the hospital at 1:15 as also confirmed by Detective Daveport who followed the ambulance to the hospital.

Or....

Perhaps I should ask it this way...

Do you accept that Bowley reported the shooting on the police radio at 1:17?

Already answered hundreds of times in the past and now again: the answer is NO

You either believe the timestamps are off by six or seven minutes or you believe that T.F. Bowley lollygagged around for six or seven minutes before jumping on the police radio to report the shooting while Tippit's body was lying in the street bleeding from the head.

Bowley picked up his daughter from school at 1 PM. I have driven the route Bowley drove between the school and 10th street at various times with light and heavy traffic and the average time came to roughly 1:13. So, Bowley's watch could have been off by three minutes, which I don't rely on that observation. What I don't believe and never will believe is that Bowley stood around for four minutes and did nothing. See, the argument works both ways!

The timestamps are most certainly off. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Bowley's arrival at 1:13 fits perfectly with Tippit being shot at around 1:10 or 1:11. It does also fit with Markham's timeline for getting to the bus stop, where she - in her mind - needed to be at 1:15. And it also fits with the arrival of the ambulance at the hospital at 1:15 as also confirmed by Detective Daveport who followed the ambulance to the hospital.

Or Bowley picked up his daughter at 1:03 and arrived on the scene at 1:16.

It seems you certainly believe the timestamps are off by six or seven minutes.  That's foolish.  Nothing Bowley says should lead anyone to conclude that the timestamps are off by that much.

[Martin Weidmann]

Or Bowley picked up his daughter at 1:03 and arrived on the scene at 1:16.

It seems you certainly believe the timestamps are off by six or seven minutes.  That's foolish.  Nothing Bowley says should lead anyone to conclude that the timestamps are off by that much.

Or Bowley picked up his daughter at 1:03 and arrived on the scene at 1:16.

Isn't it fun to speculate? Are you a parent? Do you really think a father would not be at the school when the bell rings?

It seems you certainly believe the timestamps are off by six or seven minutes.  That's foolish. 

Bowles said the timestamps could be off by two minutes or so, but in a busy period the clocks were often not reset, which means they could go even further off than two minutes. And that's only compared to the master clock in the room, which in turn could be off to the City Hall clock and even that one only showed "official" time.

Nothing Bowley says should lead anyone to conclude that the timestamps are off by that much.

Was it Bowley or Bowles? I don't think Bowley ever said a word about the timestamps on the DPD radio.