Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Walt Cakebread]

Makes a lot of sense to me anyway that Markham on the way to work stops in 1st floor washeteria to try and payphone daughter but line engaged.
Leaving that she looks at washeteria clock and sees 1.04pm. She's in no real hurry as her 1.12 bus is usually late anyway.

She arrives at 10th and Patton approx. 2 minutes or so later. Stands watches Police cruiser and ensuing events,
Bowley after exiting car checks watch at 1.10pm. 30 seconds later Bowley calls shooting in.

I remember from my past visits to this forum that from Herbert Blenner's Dictaphone tapes you can time and prove all the supposed 1.14-1.25pm official times
as wrong and therefore all dileberately falsified to such, and that the latest possible was about 1.49 minutes prior to 1.14-15pm.
Therefore leaving the ONLY time evidence as strong credible witness's Markham, Bowley etc.

Now who would want to falsify those times like that??

Good enough that strong evidence and likelihood for me anyway.

I tried to find Herbert Blenners site to get that again, but all of Herberts sites are no longer accessable that I could find.

She arrives at 10th and Patton approx. 2 minutes or so later. Stands watches Police cruiser and ensuing events,
Bowley after exiting car checks watch at 1.10pm.

But Mrs Markham specified that the time was about 1:06......

[Martin Weidmann]

Since I began debating with you on the issue four or five years ago.

Merely asking for a sound and conclusive chain of custody for a piece of evidence is one thing. Assuming that an imperfect chain of custody will automatically preclude an item from being admitted as evidence is another thing entirely.

Since I began debating with you on the issue four or five years ago.

So you do claim to be an expert on the matter.... that's a bold and interesting claim. Can you back it up with something?


Merely asking for a sound and conclusive chain of custody for a piece of evidence is one thing. Assuming that an imperfect chain of custody will automatically preclude an item from being admitted as evidence is another thing entirely.

I agree, but the trouble for you is that I never claimed anything of the kind. You are the one who keeps on assuming that items being  admitted into evidence actually has some sort of significant meaning. The fact is that just about every day things are being entered into evidence at courts around the country that actually are proof of very little.

Evidence gets entered into court for the purpose of being weighed and examined by the lawyers on both sides and ultimately the jury. What you seem to fail to understand is that sometimes defense lawyers do not oppose a piece of bad or questionable evidence being admitted because it ultimately helps their case.

So, perhaps you should focus less on your obsession about something being entered into evidence at court meaning something it really doesn`t and pay some more time at determining whether a piece of evidence will hold up under scrutiny.

[Mitch Todd]

You are being far too humble. Average jurors don't argue with the attorneys.

Another silly comment. Is this a courtroom and is Tim an attorney? I don't think so?.

When you made yourself an "average juror," you invoked the courtroom. Tim is
trying to argue something, which would make him the equivalent of an attorney
in the courtroom metaphor. Therefore, you're a juror who is arguing with an
attorney. How many "average jurors" do that?
 

But thanks for admitting that you really don't know much about how chain of custody works in the world outside of assassination research.

Where precisely did I admit that? You wouldn't be making up your own reality as you go along, would you?

When you said "I don't have to be an expert on anything to make my own determination." That is, BTW, technically true, but it's also incredibly subjective, not likely to transfer well, and not likely to convince.

Not that it matters much, as this is not about me. It's about Tim's foolish claim that courts of law adhere to a lower evidentary standard than I do.... Could it be that your reading comprehension is such that you missed that?

Once you set up chain of possession as something you personally determine completely on your own, you made it all about you. Do you not get that?

I myself do not know what the courts consider proper chain of possession. You have already admitted that you do not know either, whether you want to believe it or not. Whether or not Tim does is open to question, I guess. But I was asking you to find out if you really had any reason to argue with him over what a proper standard would be.

[Martin Weidmann]

When you made yourself an "average juror," you invoked the courtroom. Tim is
trying to argue something, which would make him the equivalent of an attorney
in the courtroom metaphor. Therefore, you're a juror who is arguing with an
attorney. How many "average jurors" do that?
 

When you said "I don't have to be an expert on anything to make my own determination." That is, BTW, technically true, but it's also incredibly subjective, not likely to transfer well, and not likely to convince.

Once you set up chain of possession as something you personally determine completely on your own, you made it all about you. Do you not get that?

I myself do not know what the courts consider proper chain of possession. You have already admitted that you do not know either, whether you want to believe it or not. Whether or not Tim does is open to question, I guess. But I was asking you to find out if you really had any reason to argue with him over what a proper standard would be.

Stop trying to pick a fight with me... you are not very good at it and you and your arguments are simply not interesting enough.

[Michael Chambers]

She arrives at 10th and Patton approx. 2 minutes or so later. Stands watches Police cruiser and ensuing events,
Bowley after exiting car checks watch at 1.10pm.

But Mrs Markham specified that the time was about 1:06......

Yeah "at 1.06 was standing at corner" so reached the corner 2 minutes from washeteria clock 1.04 claimed time.
So in the approximate accepted timed 2 minutes time to walk that. (even the FBI only tried to stretch it to 2.45 )

"waiting for traffic to pass" - so Tippit is the traffic, so the shooting in that time line happens at 1.07.30 -1.08


After this Benavides takes 50 seconds to get to Tippit . So 1.08.20 - 1.08.50.


Bowley is arriving after shooting is past. All the time he is driving towards the scene Tippit is dead on the ground and Unsub has fled and
Benavides has already reached body.


1.08.20-1.08.50 Benavides starts to head to poice radio and try to use it.

Is trying to use it when Bowley pulls up. So Bowley pulls up 1.09-1.09.30.

By the time Bowley stops car, tells kids to stay put, has a look round, gets out of car,
stands, looks at watch because a crime involved = 1.10.

IMO Him checking watch as 1.10 after exiting car is totally consistent with Markham's 1.06 at corner time AND in all the time aspects involved.

He goes to Tippit and then to Benavides who is struggling to be able to use police radio but Bowley knows how to and does.

IMO Totally consistent with 1.11 - 1.11.30 to call shooting in.

[Martin Weidmann]

Yeah "at 1.06 was standing at corner" so reached the corner 2 minutes from washeteria clock 1.04 claimed time.
So in the approximate accepted timed 2 minutes time to walk that. (even the FBI only tried to stretch it to 2.45 )

"waiting for traffic to pass" - so Tippit is the traffic, so the shooting in that time line happens at 1.07.30 -1.08


After this Benavides takes 50 seconds to get to Tippit . So 1.08.20 - 1.08.50.


Bowley is arriving after shooting is past. All the time he is driving towards the scene Tippit is dead on the ground and Unsub has fled and
Benavides has already reached body.


1.08.20-1.08.50 Benavides starts to head to poice radio and try to use it.

Is trying to use it when Bowley pulls up. So Bowley pulls up 1.09-1.09.30.

By the time Bowley stops car, tells kids to stay put, has a look round, gets out of car,
stands, looks at watch because a crime involved = 1.10.

IMO Him checking watch as 1.10 after exiting car is totally consistent with Markham's 1.06 at corner time AND in all the time aspects involved.

He goes to Tippit and then to Benavides who is struggling to be able to use police radio but Bowley knows how to and does.

IMO Totally consistent with 1.11 - 1.11.30 to call shooting in.

Exactly right and there is more.... The ambulance arrived at the hospital where Tippit was declared D.O.A. at 1.15 pm.

Here is the pathetic LN counter argument:

Markham said that she usually took the bus at 1.15 but the schedule shows busses arriving at 1.12 and 1.22. Never mind that most busses do not run perfectly according to the schedule and that Markham gave an estimate?. No, for some die hard LN's the 1.15 estimate means that Markham took the 1.22 bus every day and thus also left home later than she said, which in turn means she could have been at 10th/Patton at 1.14 to see the shooting.

Bowley, who had just collected his daughter from school and was on his way to pick up his wife from work did so with a watch that must have been off by at least 5 minutes without actually noticing this, by for example finding his daughter on the sidewalk waiting for 5 minutes because daddy was late.

And as for the ambulance arriving at the hospital at around 1.15, the hospital clock must have been wrong. Never mind that we simply do not know which clock Dr. Liguori used, so let's just say all the clocks in the hospital were wrong.

And, oh yeah, there is the claim of the ambulance driver that the call came in at the funeral home at 1.18 and there is supposed to be a time stamped document to prove it. Never mind that said stamped card is not part of the evidence and to this day nobody has been able to produce it.......

And then there is this: the FBI who had no jurisdiction in Tippit's murder contacted the Methodist Hospital frequently about the exact time of Tippit's D.O.A..... Why would they do that? Why would they even be interested in such a detail? Why did it matter to them so much at such an early stage of the investigation? Food for thought for a curious mind perhaps........

[Mitch Todd]

Stop trying to pick a fight with me... you are not very good at it and you and your arguments are simply not interesting enough.

I'm not really trying trying pick a fight. All I did was ask you a question. You answered it, and gave away maybe more than you intended.

Now you've run out of arguments, and decided compensate by copping some bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns condescension act.

What it comes down to is, you don't really know what the "official" (for lack of a better term) standard would be for weighing chain of evidence issues. That's actually OK. Like I said, I don't know what they are, either. You also don't have any real standard of your own for weighing CoE, either, beyond "I'll know it when I see it." In a way, this is also OK. You can believe what you want to. Just don't expect others to hop to beat of your own presumption.

 

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm not really trying trying pick a fight. All I did was ask you a question. You answered it, and gave away maybe more than you intended.

Now you've run out of arguments, and decided compensate by copping some bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns condescension act.

What it comes down to is, you don't really know what the "official" (for lack of a better term) standard would be for weighing chain of evidence issues. That's actually OK. Like I said, I don't know what they are, either. You also don't have any real standard of your own for weighing CoE, either, beyond "I'll know it when I see it." In a way, this is also OK. You can believe what you want to. Just don't expect others to hop to beat of your own presumption.

I'm not really trying trying pick a fight. All I did was ask you a question. You answered it, and gave away maybe more than you intended.


Only in your delusion mind

What it comes down to is, you don't really know what the "official" (for lack of a better term) standard would be for weighing chain of evidence issues. 

Stop acting stupid? there isn't a official standard. It doesn?t exist! The bar is beyond a reasonable doubt and that is different for each individual.

Just don't expect others to hop to beat of your own presumption.

There never was a presumption on my part, but I'll let you get on to hop to beat of Tim's beat.