JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Duncan MacRae on November 21, 2023, 02:11:47 PM
-
-
Yes, it's possible and Oswald did kill Tippit.
-
This video has Oswald starting his walk at 1pm . As far as i remember Mack did not mention .when Mrs Roberts said he arrived and when he left and that she said he was stood outside the bus stop for a time .a si recall he made no mention that its noted in interrogation notes that oswald changed his shirt and slacks and placed the dirty clothes in the drawer . where later an inventory lists such clothing being removed by the authorities .the thing has always been to give oswald more time , the commission did it with the time trials they conducted . and the late mr mack was less than honest at times in his approach to this case and such things as timing .
even very well researched LN here have admitted that the shooting happened atleast 3 minutes before the radio call was made on tippits radio . bowley said when he arrived tippit was already down , he said the time on his watch was about 1.10 .we have to allow for old watches potentially being slightly slow or fast time wise . but it seems likely tippit was shot between 1.10 and 1.13 if we accept what bowley said and what the above mentioned LN agreed .
there were two routes in the above video , one took 16 minutes plus , that was the official route .even starting oswald walking at 1pm mack could not get him there in time .so he was forced to try a shorter route that i dont believe there is much evidence for . that still took 12 minutes plus , that still was very tight time wise .of course we cant state to within seconds what time oswald did this or that . so all we can do is look at all the evidence before us and see what it tells us .
-
The Secret Service and the FBI reconstructed Oswald's steps (with the help of Cecil McWatters and William Whaley) in an attempt to determine the absolute earliest that Oswald could have reached the rooming house.
Based on McWatters' statement of where it was that Oswald boarded the bus (we know Oswald boarded that bus because he had McWatters' specific bus transfer and McWatters said he issued that transfer to only one woman and only one man), Oswald walked about seven blocks east (into the downtown area) after he left the Depository within three minutes of the shooting.
"So I gave her a transfer and opened the door and she was going out the gentleman I had picked up about two blocks (back) asked for a transfer and got off at the same place in the middle of the block where the lady did. It was the intersection near Lamar Street, it was near Poydras and Lamar Street." -- Cecil McWatters
They concluded, based on what McWatters told them (along with the Secret Service agents and FBI agents walking the route in an average time of six and a half minutes), that Oswald boarded the bus around 12:40 near the intersection of Field St. and Elm St. and then, after being on the bus for no more than four minutes, Oswald got off the bus near Lamar St. and Elm St. (asking for the transfer as he got off the bus).
So now we have Oswald leaving the bus around 12:44.
Oswald then walked three to four short blocks to the Greyhound station where he boarded Whaley's cab. This has Oswald entering the cab around 12:48.
They then, with Whaley, reconstructed the cab ride from the Greyhound to the intersection of Beckley and Neely (Oswald got out of the cab on Beckley just north of the intersection with Neely). They concluded (using a stopwatch) that the cab ride took five minutes and thirty seconds.
So now we have Oswald exiting Whaley's cab on Beckley at 12:53-12:54.
Still using the stopwatch, they concluded that it was a five minute and forty-five second walk from the point Oswald exited the cab back to the rooming house.
I think Oswald got to the rooming house between 12:58 and 1:00 and was back in his room just long enough to grab a jacket before hurrying out the door, zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.
-
The Secret Service and the FBI reconstructed Oswald's steps (with the help of Cecil McWatters and William Whaley) in an attempt to determine the absolute earliest that Oswald could have reached the rooming house.
Based on McWatters' statement of where it was that Oswald boarded the bus (we know Oswald boarded that bus because he had McWatters' specific bus transfer and McWatters said he issued that transfer to only one woman and only one man), Oswald walked about seven blocks east (into the downtown area) after he left the Depository within three minutes of the shooting.
"So I gave her a transfer and opened the door and she was going out the gentleman I had picked up about two blocks (back) asked for a transfer and got off at the same place in the middle of the block where the lady did. It was the intersection near Lamar Street, it was near Poydras and Lamar Street." -- Cecil McWatters
They concluded, based on what McWatters told them (along with the Secret Service agents and FBI agents walking the route in an average time of six and a half minutes), that Oswald boarded the bus around 12:40 near the intersection of Field St. and Elm St. and then, after being on the bus for no more than four minutes, Oswald got off the bus near Lamar St. and Elm St. (asking for the transfer as he got off the bus).
So now we have Oswald leaving the bus around 12:44.
Oswald then walked three to four short blocks to the Greyhound station where he boarded Whaley's cab. This has Oswald entering the cab around 12:48.
They then, with Whaley, reconstructed the cab ride from the Greyhound to the intersection of Beckley and Neely (Oswald got out of the cab on Beckley just north of the intersection with Neely). They concluded (using a stopwatch) that the cab ride took five minutes and thirty seconds.
So now we have Oswald exiting Whaley's cab on Beckley at 12:53-12:54.
Still using the stopwatch, they concluded that it was a five minute and forty-five second walk from the point Oswald exited the cab back to the rooming house.
I think Oswald got to the rooming house between 12:58 and 1:00 and was back in his room just long enough to grab a jacket before hurrying out the door, zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.
I think Oswald got to the rooming house between 12:58 and 1:00
Earlene Roberts said that she was trying to get the television to work, to watch the 1:00 news, when Oswald walked in, so you're estimation may well be correct.
and was back in his room just long enough to grab a jacket before hurrying out the door,
I'm not so sure about this, because Oswald told investigators that he changed clothes, which would make sense after having worked in a dusty warehouse.
-
The official WC time trial for Whaleys taxi ride was 9 minutes.
When did it become 5 min 30 secs?
If Bowleys watch was correct and it was 1:10 pm then the shooting had to have occurred about 1:07 pm because of Benavides WC statement of waiting a few minutes before he exited his car.
If Benevides changed his official WC time from “minutes” to “seconds “ , it still does not quite help because you
Have to allow about 1 minute for the preliminary following of Oswald by Tippit and a conversation that happened.
So by 1:08 pm Oswald has arrive at 10th/Patton
But Oswald leaving the house at 1:04, still does not allow that unless he can run a 0.9 mile in 4 minutes
The simple solution is to discard the bus trip because McWatters did NOT actually identify Oswald and Bledsoe is definitely mistaken since Oswald did NOT have on his brown shirt with the hole in the sleeve when he left the TSBD.
It’s also doubtful if Oswald really told Fritz anything about a bus ride.
Oswald was wearing the OTHER shirt which is a slight reddish brown shirt that he did not take off until he got to his boarding room, and then he changed to the brown shirt with the hole.
So get rid of the bus trip and Oswald goes directly to Whaleys cab ( which makes more sense if Oswald was wishing to get to his boarding room ASAP) . So he enters the cab about 12:40 and 9 minutes later , exits 5 blocks from boarding house at 12:49
Double times jogs the 5 blocks in 2.5 minutes thus entering house at 12:52.
Exits 4 minutes later at 12:56.
Now Oswald has the 11 minutes needed to walk “briskly” the 0.9 mile and so arrive at 10th and Patton by 1:08-1:09.
Note : imo the bus ticket was more of the unnecessary embellishment to bolster the WC case and since no fingerprints of Mcwatters or Oswald were on the ticket , the ticket may be discarded as doubtful evidence just like Bledsoe and McWatters are doubtful.
It’s a shame that Earlene Roberts couldn’t ID that Oswald was wearing ANY jacket when he entered the boarding room nor could she positively ID the light gray jacket as the one that Oswald was wearing when he left the room/ house.
The Best Roberts could do didmention the zipping up the jacket so If you can sort out the reason why the dark blue jacket was found in the Domino room and why the light gray jacket showed no signs of gunpower residue nor was even tested for residue ( huh?), then maybe you LNs can clean this up a little better :)
-
The official WC time trial for Whaleys taxi ride was 9 minutes.
When did it become 5 min 30 secs?
If Bowleys watch was correct and it was 1:10 pm then the shooting had to have occurred about 1:07 pm because of Benavides WC statement of waiting a few minutes before he exited his car.
If Benevides changed his official WC time from “minutes” to “seconds “ , it still does not quite help because you
Have to allow about 1 minute for the preliminary following of Oswald by Tippit and a conversation that happened.
So by 1:08 pm Oswald has arrive at 10th/Patton
But Oswald leaving the house at 1:04, still does not allow that unless he can run a 0.9 mile in 4 minutes
The simple solution is to discard the bus trip because McWatters did NOT actually identify Oswald and Bledsoe is definitely mistaken since Oswald did NOT have on his brown shirt with the hole in the sleeve when he left the TSBD.
It’s also doubtful if Oswald really told Fritz anything about a bus ride.
Oswald was wearing the OTHER shirt which is a slight reddish brown shirt that he did not take off until he got to his boarding room, and then he changed to the brown shirt with the hole.
So get rid of the bus trip and Oswald goes directly to Whaleys cab ( which makes more sense if Oswald was wishing to get to his boarding room ASAP) . So he enters the cab about 12:40 and 9 minutes later , exits 5 blocks from boarding house at 12:49
Double times jogs the 5 blocks in 2.5 minutes thus entering house at 12:52.
Exits 4 minutes later at 12:56.
Now Oswald has the 11 minutes needed to walk “briskly” the 0.9 mile and so arrive at 10th and Patton by 1:08-1:09.
Note : imo the bus ticket was more of the unnecessary embellishment to bolster the WC case and since no fingerprints of Mcwatters or Oswald were on the ticket , the ticket may be discarded as doubtful evidence just like Bledsoe and McWatters are doubtful.
It’s a shame that Earlene Roberts couldn’t ID that Oswald was wearing ANY jacket when he entered the boarding room nor could she positively ID the light gray jacket as the one that Oswald was wearing when he left the room/ house.
The Best Roberts could do didmention the zipping up the jacket so If you can sort out the reason why the dark blue jacket was found in the Domino room and why the light gray jacket showed no signs of gunpower residue nor was even tested for residue ( huh?), then maybe you LNs can clean this up a little better :)
because of Benavides WC statement of waiting a few minutes before he exited his car.
Benavides did not wait a few minutes. Callaway was at the car dealership when he heard the shots. He saw a man running down Patton holding a revolver. After the man passed him, he ran to 10th streets. By the time he got there, which didn't take more than three minutes, Benavides had already made his failed attempt on the radio and Bowley was already on the scene and had talked to the DPD dispatcher for 48 seconds (as per the actual recording). There simply wasn't any time for Benavides to have stayed in his car for minutes.
Have to allow about 1 minute for the preliminary following of Oswald by Tippit and a conversation that happened.
True, Markham saw Tippit's killer crossing Patton before being stopped by Tippit and had a short conversation. And that's not all; Earlene Roberts saw Oswald standing at the bus stop after leaving the roominghouse, which adds even more time to the timeline.
-
hello bill its been a while , we go back to bob harris old forum .i hope you are well .
"The Secret Service and the FBI reconstructed Oswald's steps (with the help of Cecil McWatters and William Whaley) in an attempt to determine the absolute earliest that Oswald could have reached the rooming house." bill
well oswald may or may not have been on that bus , but i am not sure what value mcwatters is , as he never identified oswald as the man on the bus . in fact if memory serves me he went to the line up believing he was identifying a young man on his bus who he said was grinning , called roy milton jones . he never positively identified oswald from any line up . and in fact if i remember correctly both jones and mcwatters said the man on the bus wore a jacket , which contradicts bledsoe who i think is wholly unreliable . she said she saw oswald at about 12.40 on the bus wearing a shirt that was torn , buttons ripped from it and a hole in the elbow .that is quite a case of psychic ability given the damage she said she saw at about 12.40 would not occur for atleast a further hour at about 1.50 .
the transfer has long bothered me .i have no reason to doubt mcwatters gave out two transfers , i believe he told the truth . but all he could say was one was given to a woman and the other to a man in a jacket .as i said he never identified the man as oswald , he only thought it was oswald and he only mentioned it might have been oswald to milton jones the nest day because he was led to believe by the police that oswald was the man on the bus .but in regard the transfer i have seen photos of it . now if one gave it no thought at all well it could be very easily accepted that that transfer was indeed in oswalds shirt pocket . but we have to consider the scuffle that took place at the theater and how many cops were involved , the condition of oswalds shirt after this encounter with the police at the theater and the manner in which he and the shirt were man handled by the police seen in photos taken at the time . how many pounced on oswald ? . look at the condition of the shirt ,torn and buttons ripped off and look at how the cops seen in photos are pulling and dragging at oswalds shirt while removing him from the theater .
now lets look at the transfer
(https://media.gettyimages.com/id/576878040/photo/lee-harvey-oswalds-bus-transfer.webp?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=yncIYeMSDvhEnO46cTrIkCH7XEuRkpxkVOe95Cqha80=)
can anyone see the problem i have with that transfer ? , there is not a wrinkle or crease in it , i cant see how that is possible given what i said above .
but even if we accept that oswald rode on the bus and in the cab it only proves he went home .whalley was not a great witness either in the sense that he admitted seeing oswalds face i believe in a newspaper before he went to a line up . and at the line up he said ANYONE WOULD HAVE PICKED OSWALD .why ? because he was complaining to the cops who if memory serves were putting him (a 24 year old man who looked atleast 30) in to a line up with teen boys one of whom was latino DARK COMPLECTED .and these were the line ups that the late jim leavelle said were fairly conducted lol .
how many times did whalley have to drive the route in order to get the time down to a time that suited ?. i think the earliest oswald can have arrived home at best was 1 and perhaps 2 minutes before 1pm so we are it seems not far apart in that respect ..we then have to allow for that which you make no allowances for . that he was in his room several minutes , 3 or 4 according to roberts where he changed his slacks and shirt . and we further have to allow that he was still stood outside at the bus stop a time after he had left the rooming house .roberts said he did not leave the bus stop while she was looking .i believe he was still on beckley at 1.03 or 1.04 pm . at that even if we say he took macks short route well he still arrives too late .
-
I think Oswald got to the rooming house between 12:58 and 1:00
Earlene Roberts said that she was trying to get the television to work, to watch the 1:00 news, when Oswald walked in, so you're estimation may well be correct.
and was back in his room just long enough to grab a jacket before hurrying out the door,
I'm not so sure about this, because Oswald told investigators that he changed clothes, which would make sense after having worked in a dusty warehouse.
hi martin i myself had a job not unlike oswalds job at the depository . when you deal all day handling boxes and packages of books , magazines , newspapers with print ink on them believe me your hands and clothes show clear signs of it .i am sure our lone nut advocate friends here will try to argue that oswald filled no orders that day but his fellow workers said he did .but i must assume that as he went home thursday night to marina that the clothes he wore on friday morning were the same clothes he wore to work on thursday .so they would be dirty believe me .
-
hi martin i myself had a job not unlike oswalds job at the depository . when you deal all day handling boxes and packages of books , magazines , newspapers with print ink on them believe me your hands and clothes show clear signs of it .i am sure our lone nut advocate friends here will try to argue that oswald filled no orders that day but his fellow workers said he did .but i must assume that as he went home thursday night to marina that the clothes he wore on friday morning were the same clothes he wore to work on thursday .so they would be dirty believe me .
Oswald was suddenly concerned with wearing "dirty clothes" that day? He didn't have a problem wearing them before he fled the assassination. He put them on that morning expecting to wear them for the entire day unless he knew that he would be assassinating the president and knocking off early for the movies.
-
hi martin i myself had a job not unlike oswalds job at the depository . when you deal all day handling boxes and packages of books , magazines , newspapers with print ink on them believe me your hands and clothes show clear signs of it .i am sure our lone nut advocate friends here will try to argue that oswald filled no orders that day but his fellow workers said he did .but i must assume that as he went home thursday night to marina that the clothes he wore on friday morning were the same clothes he wore to work on thursday .so they would be dirty believe me .
i must assume that as he went home thursday night to marina that the clothes he wore on friday morning were the same clothes he wore to work on thursday
Why must you assume that? Marina did his washing, so it's not unlikely some of his clothes were at Ruth Paine's house.
Oswald was suddenly concerned with wearing "dirty clothes" that day? He didn't have a problem wearing them before he fled the assassination. He put them on that morning expecting to wear them for the entire day unless he knew that he would be assassinating the president and knocking off early for the movies.
Another pointless reply from a guy who constantly talks as if he knows exactly what Oswald was thinking.
-
During Oswald's alleged "escape route" he is supposed to have worn a light gray jacket, which was later found on a car at a car park near Jefferson. That, at least, is the official narrative.
However, in his testimony, Wesley Buell Frazier saw Oswald wearing a jacket which he described as "gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking"
Mr. BALL - On that day you did notice one article of clothing, that is, he had a jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What color was the jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning.
Mr. BALL - Did it have a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was one of the zipper types.
Frazier was adamant that it wasn't CE 163, which he claimed he had never seen before.
As Marina confirmed that Oswald had only two jackets, being CE 162 and CE 163, and Frazier clearly dismissed CE 163, it is fair to assume that Frazier did indeed see Oswald wear CE 162 to Irving on Thursday evening. It's either that, or Marina was wrong and Oswald did in fact have three jackets instead of two.
But when asked in her testimony, Marina identified CE 162 as the gray jacket that Lee was wearing when he arrived in Irving.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall any of these clothes that your husband was wearing when he came home Thursday night, November 21, 1963?
Mrs. OSWALD. On Thursday I think he wore this shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Is that Exhibit 150?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember anything else he was wearing at that time?
Mrs. OSWALD. It seems he had that jacket, also.
Mr. RANKIN. Exhibit 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. And the pants, Exhibit 157?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. But I am not sure. This is as much as I can remember.
So, now we have two people who, although not 100% sure, say they saw Oswald wearing CE 162 in Irving on Thursday evening.
The only person who saw Oswald leaving the roominghouse on Friday afternoon was Earlene Roberts. She said that Oswald was wearing a jacket but failed to identify CE 162.
Mr. BALL. You say he put on a separate jacket?
Mrs. ROBERTS. A jacket.
Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?
Mr. BALL. Yes---it has a zipper down the front.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe it was.
Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
The official narrative tells us that Oswald's dark-gray jacket CE 163 was later found at the TSBD, which justifies the assumption that he must have worn that jacket to work on Friday 11/22/63. This in turn means of course that he must have left his gray jacket CE 162 in Irving.
So, the crucial question to answer is; how did a jacket (CE 162) that was last seen in Irving on Thursday evening end up at the roominghouse on Friday afternoon, for Oswald to put on, or, alternatively, how did it it end up being presented by Captain Westbrook at the evidence room as the jacket found under a parked car that was earlier described as being white and why did that gray jacket have initials on it from police officers who were no where near the car park where the jacket allegedly was found?
-
Benavides did not wait a few minutes. Callaway was at the car dealership when he heard the shots. He saw a man running down Patton holding a revolver. After the man passed him, he ran to 10th streets. By the time he got there, which didn't take more than three minutes, Benavides had already made his failed attempt on the radio and Bowley was already on the scene and had talked to the DPD dispatcher for 48 seconds (as per the actual recording). There simply wasn't any time for Benavides to have stayed in his car for minutes.
Except Callaway didn’t say how long it was before he ran up to 10th. He supposedly watched the man go down to Jefferson and turn the corner first. Also, how can you tell by any of the radio recordings when Callaway got there, or how much time had elapsed since the shots?
-
Oswald was suddenly concerned with wearing "dirty clothes" that day? He didn't have a problem wearing them before he fled the assassination.
“Fled the assassination”. LOL.
-
Except Callaway didn’t say how long it was before he ran up to 10th. He supposedly watched the man go down to Jefferson and turn the corner first. Also, how can you tell by any of the radio recordings when Callaway got there, or how much time had elapsed since the shots?
Except Callaway didn’t say how long it was before he ran up to 10th.
After hearing the shots, you mean? True, he did not say specifically, but from his testimony it becomes clear that he started running towards 10th street after he watched the man with the revolver was on West-Jefferson.
Mr. DULLES. May I ask what course he was taking when you last saw him?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He was going west on Jefferson Street.
Mr. DULLES. West on Jefferson Street?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you do?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I hollered to this guy behind--B. D. Searcy.
Mr. BALL. What did you say to Mr. Searcy?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told him to keep an eye on that guy, I says, "Keep an eye on that guy, follow him. I am going to go down there and see what is going on." So I ran, a good hard run, from here down around the corner.
Mr. BALL. 10th and Patton?
As the distance the man with the revolver had to run was one block (between 10th street and Jefferson) and Callaway's was less than a block, it is fair (IMO) to assume that it took less than 3 minutes. Considering the fact that Callaway said in his testimony that he ran, ,not only to 10th street, but also to the location where he was when he saw the man with the revolver, it seems unlikely to me that Callaway would have wasted much time between the two runs.
Mr. BALL. And when you heard the shots, what did you do?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I just hurried--I don't know whether I really ran or not.
But I hurried off the side of this porch and came to this position.
Is it a slam dunk? No of course not. One can also argue that Callaway just stood there for several minutes before he ran to 10th street, but that seems as unlikely to me as him drinking a coffee with his mates between the two runs.
Also, how can you tell by any of the radio recordings when Callaway got there, or how much time had elapsed since the shots?
You can't. All you can conclude from the radio recording is that Bowley's call took 48 seconds. There are only two things you can say; (1) when Callaway arrived at the scene Bowley had already finished his call and (2) the ambulance arrived at the scene when Callaway was making his call. Somewhere inbetween these two events Callaway must have arrived at the scene.
-
Oswald was suddenly concerned with wearing "dirty clothes" that day? He didn't have a problem wearing them before he fled the assassination. He put them on that morning expecting to wear them for the entire day unless he knew that he would be assassinating the president and knocking off early for the movies.
what his concerns may or may not have been are well in main unknown to us , because in the murder case of the century the police , fbi etc ensured that we got to hear zero of what oswald said behind closed doors . i know what they said he told them , but that is not good enough . we know for sure what he said when he was moved around the police station and in front of the media .
but the fact is he was noted in interrogation notes saying he changed his shirt and slacks , as i have said i can personally vouch for how dirty his job would have made him .you not only have print ink but dust and dirt also .now here is the thing . if i was oswald , i had just shot two men , a president and a cop . and i feared evidence such as GSR was on my clothing which i had taken off , would i then be stupid enough to tell the cops i had taken off those clothes and further told them where they could find them ? . not a chance .if they believed the clothing i was wearing were the clothes i wore all day i would let them believe that and say nothing .
i of course understand why lone nut advocates dont want oswald to have changed his shirt and slacks . because if he did indeed change his shirt at his rooming house well it cant have been the shirt he wore at 12.30 in the depository .so there then can be zero evidence of any crime to be found on that shirt .and mrs bledoe cant possibly have seen that shirt on the bus at 12.40pm . oswald changing his slacks and shirt create problems that LN simply prefer to ignore .
-
"i must assume that as he went home thursday night to marina that the clothes he wore on friday morning were the same clothes he wore to work on thursday "fergus
"Why must you assume that? Marina did his washing, so it's not unlikely some of his clothes were at Ruth Paine's house. " martin
i said assumption , i said so for a few reasons . one being he had not been to the paines house the previous week if my memory serves .and because he had argued with marina , and by her own admission on the evening of thursday november 21 she gave him a hard time . while i can agree with you that he could have had work clothes at the paines , given that most of his week and the previous week he was not at the paines and went to work from his rooming house that my logic dictates that he likely had his work clothes at his rooming house . so while its not impossible he had some work clothes at the paines i simply dont know that for certain , and im not aware of any specific testimony from marina that he put on fresh clothing that friday morning and left his dirty clothing behind . but you can feel free to correct me on that if you feel i am wrong .
some times there are things we dont or cant know for certain , so we can only go by what little info we have , by applying some logic and yes at times maybe adding a bit of assumption . but as a rule i dont like to assume , but a little speculation has its place . thanks for your reply martin .
-
As the distance the man with the revolver had to run was one block (between 10th street and Jefferson) and Callaway's was less than a block, it is fair (IMO) to assume that it took less than 3 minutes. Considering the fact that Callaway said in his testimony that he ran, ,not only to 10th street, but also to the location where he was when he saw the man with the revolver, it seems unlikely to me that Callaway would have wasted much time between the two runs.
Ok, but once we enter the realm of deciding what’s “likely”, then it’s no longer an evidence-based argument. Bill Brown bases many arguments surrounding Tippit on his contrived notions about how long things “likely” took, rather than what was actually said.
You can't. All you can conclude from the radio recording is that Bowley's call took 48 seconds.
I wouldn’t even say that — given that the extant recordings are known to be edited and non-continuous.
There are only two things you can say; (1) when Callaway arrived at the scene Bowley had already finished his call
How do we know this?
and (2) the ambulance arrived at the scene when Callaway was making his call.
And how do we know this?
-
Ok, but once we enter the realm of deciding what’s “likely”, then it’s no longer an evidence-based argument. Bill Brown bases many arguments surrounding Tippit on his contrived notions about how long things “likely” took, rather than what was actually said.
I wouldn’t even say that — given that the extant recordings are known to be edited and non-continuous.
How do we know this?
And how do we know this?
Ok, but once we enter the realm of deciding what’s “likely”, then it’s no longer an evidence-based argument.
Depends on what you call an evidence-based argument. Evidence is always open to interpretation. In this case, the basis for my conclusion, is Callaway's witness testimony which could have been - but wasn't - verified (at least not by the investigators) by checking the actual distances involved in his testimony, which would result in circumstantial evidence about the time required to cover the distance. Callaway obviously did not have a stopwatch, but when he says he ran to 10th street and you know the distance he had to run is less than a block, it doesn't make a great deal of sense to assume that it could have taken him more than a couple of minutes.
Bill Brown bases many arguments surrounding Tippit on his contrived notions about how long things “likely” took, rather than what was actually said.
Ok, but I'm only using what was actually said and known knowledge about the location and distances to reach (IMO) the most likely conclusion. Unless, of course, I missed something that was actually said. Did I miss something?
I wouldn’t even say that — given that the extant recordings are known to be edited and non-continuous.
We do indeed know that the recordings are non-continuous, because of the way they were actually recorded. How we know that the recordings were edited is another matter. I am curious how you can say we know that. Having said that, there is no doubt in my mind that the Bowley conversation with the dispatcher itself was indeed a continuous recording, lasting 48 seconds.
How do we know this?
We know this because Callaway testified that when he arrived at the scene he did not know if anybody had called it in, so he got on the radio. As we know for a fact that Bowley did make a call, that means that he either made that call (and ended it) prior to Callaway's arrival or he made his call after Callaway was already on the scene. I don't see how the latter could have happened. Even less so because when Callaway got on the radio he was told by the dispatcher that they already knew about the shooting. During the Bowley call, it is obvious that the dispatcher was not yet aware of the shooting.
Unless you can give be a different evidence-based scenario, all the evidence combined allows (IMO) for the conclusion that Bowley made his call before Callaway arrived at the scene, causing the ambulance being called. Callaway then arrives the scene and makes his call to the dispatcher at the time the ambulance arrived.
And how do we know this?
Because Callaway said in his testimony that when he was making his call "an ambulance was coming"
-
Callaway obviously did not have a stopwatch, but when he says he ran to 10th street and you know the distance he had to run is less than a block, it doesn't make a great deal of sense to assume that it could have taken him more than a couple of minutes.
The problem is, we don’t know how much time elapsed between the shots and the start of his run up to 10th street.
We do indeed know that the recordings are non-continuous, because of the way they were actually recorded. How we know that the recordings were edited is another matter. I am curious how you can say we know that.
Because any extant recording available for us to listen to has been spliced together from multiple dictabelts or audiograph discs. That involves editing. Particularly on the overlapping sections and the stylus skips.
Having said that, there is no doubt in my mind that the Bowley conversation with the dispatcher itself was indeed a continuous recording, lasting 48 seconds.
Why?
Because Callaway said in his testimony that when he was making his call "an ambulance was coming"
Not exactly. What he said was,
“So I got on the police radio and called them, and told them a man had been shot, told them the location, I thought the officer was dead. They said we know about it, stay off the air, so I went back. By this time an ambulance was coming.”
Callaway’s “so I went back” happened first, then an ambulance was coming. We don’t know how much time elapsed there.
-
The problem is, we don’t know how much time elapsed between the shots and the start of his run up to 10th street.
Because any extant recording available for us to listen to has been spliced together from multiple dictabelts or audiograph discs. That involves editing. Particularly on the overlapping sections and the stylus skips.
Why?
Not exactly. What he said was,
“So I got on the police radio and called them, and told them a man had been shot, told them the location, I thought the officer was dead. They said we know about it, stay off the air, so I went back. By this time an ambulance was coming.”
Callaway’s “so I went back” happened first, then an ambulance was coming. We don’t know how much time elapsed there.
The problem is, we don’t know how much time elapsed between the shots and the start of his run up to 10th street.
We don't know exactly to the second, that's true, but we have enough information to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.
We know that after the shots were fired, the killer ran towards the corner of 10th and Patton and then one block down Patton to Jefferson. By the time the killer arrived at Jefferson he had already had his encounter with Callaway. I have walked and ran that distance and thus know from first hand experience it's a matter of seconds rather than minutes.
Callaway testified that after seeing the man on Jefferson, he ran "a good hard run" to 10th street.
Mr. DULLES. May I ask what course he was taking when you last saw him?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He was going west on Jefferson Street.
Mr. DULLES. West on Jefferson Street?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you do?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I hollered to this guy behind--B. D. Searcy.
Mr. BALL. What did you say to Mr. Searcy?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told him to keep an eye on that guy, I says, "Keep an eye on that guy, follow him. I am going to go down there and see what is going on." So I ran, a good hard run, from here down around the corner.
Mr. BALL. 10th and Patton?
So, unless you want to argue that Callaway stood there motionless for several seconds or even minutes, it is (IMO) fair to say that the time that elapsed between the shots and Callaway's arrival at the scene, must be the time it takes to run the one block between 10th street and Jefferson twice.
Because any extant recording available for us to listen to has been spliced together from multiple dictabelts or audiograph discs. That involves editing. Particularly on the overlapping sections and the stylus skips.
I wasn't aware that the known recording was spliced together from various sources, but if it is, that would indeed make it utterly unreliable.
Why?
Because I had a good quality recording of Bowley's conversation examined by a friend who is a highly qualified sound engineer and he could find no edits.
Not exactly. What he said was,
“So I got on the police radio and called them, and told them a man had been shot, told them the location, I thought the officer was dead. They said we know about it, stay off the air, so I went back. By this time an ambulance was coming.”
Callaway’s “so I went back” happened first, then an ambulance was coming. We don’t know how much time elapsed there.
I think you are reading too much into this. And I don't really understand why you interpret of "by this time" as "then", when the first implies two events happening at the same time whereas "then" clearly implies a sequence of events.
Besides, this has nothing to do with how long it took for Callaway to get to the scene after the shots were fired.
-
Except Callaway didn’t say how long it was before he ran up to 10th.
After hearing the shots, you mean? True, he did not say specifically, but from his testimony it becomes clear that he started running towards 10th street after he watched the man with the revolver was on West-Jefferson.
Mr. DULLES. May I ask what course he was taking when you last saw him?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He was going west on Jefferson Street.
Mr. DULLES. West on Jefferson Street?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you do?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I hollered to this guy behind--B. D. Searcy.
Mr. BALL. What did you say to Mr. Searcy?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told him to keep an eye on that guy, I says, "Keep an eye on that guy, follow him. I am going to go down there and see what is going on." So I ran, a good hard run, from here down around the corner.
Mr. BALL. 10th and Patton?
As the distance the man with the revolver had to run was one block (between 10th street and Jefferson) and Callaway's was less than a block, it is fair (IMO) to assume that it took less than 3 minutes. Considering the fact that Callaway said in his testimony that he ran, ,not only to 10th street, but also to the location where he was when he saw the man with the revolver, it seems unlikely to me that Callaway would have wasted much time between the two runs.
Mr. BALL. And when you heard the shots, what did you do?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I just hurried--I don't know whether I really ran or not.
But I hurried off the side of this porch and came to this position.
Is it a slam dunk? No of course not. One can also argue that Callaway just stood there for several minutes before he ran to 10th street, but that seems as unlikely to me as him drinking a coffee with his mates between the two runs.
Also, how can you tell by any of the radio recordings when Callaway got there, or how much time had elapsed since the shots?
You can't. All you can conclude from the radio recording is that Bowley's call took 48 seconds. There are only two things you can say; (1) when Callaway arrived at the scene Bowley had already finished his call and (2) the ambulance arrived at the scene when Callaway was making his call. Somewhere inbetween these two events Callaway must have arrived at the scene.
I agree with you on all of this. Progress Ha Ha
I once created a thread titled "Ted Callaway And The 1:15 Shooting" or something like that. It deals with the Callaway timeline.
Anyway, Callaway's call on the squad car radio to the dispatcher took place at 1:19. Based on Callaway's description of his actions, he's making this call maybe four minutes after hearing the shots.
-
hello bill its been a while , we go back to bob harris old forum .i hope you are well .
"The Secret Service and the FBI reconstructed Oswald's steps (with the help of Cecil McWatters and William Whaley) in an attempt to determine the absolute earliest that Oswald could have reached the rooming house." bill
well oswald may or may not have been on that bus , but i am not sure what value mcwatters is , as he never identified oswald as the man on the bus . in fact if memory serves me he went to the line up believing he was identifying a young man on his bus who he said was grinning , called roy milton jones . he never positively identified oswald from any line up . and in fact if i remember correctly both jones and mcwatters said the man on the bus wore a jacket , which contradicts bledsoe who i think is wholly unreliable . she said she saw oswald at about 12.40 on the bus wearing a shirt that was torn , buttons ripped from it and a hole in the elbow .that is quite a case of psychic ability given the damage she said she saw at about 12.40 would not occur for atleast a further hour at about 1.50 .
the transfer has long bothered me .i have no reason to doubt mcwatters gave out two transfers , i believe he told the truth . but all he could say was one was given to a woman and the other to a man in a jacket .as i said he never identified the man as oswald , he only thought it was oswald and he only mentioned it might have been oswald to milton jones the nest day because he was led to believe by the police that oswald was the man on the bus .but in regard the transfer i have seen photos of it . now if one gave it no thought at all well it could be very easily accepted that that transfer was indeed in oswalds shirt pocket . but we have to consider the scuffle that took place at the theater and how many cops were involved , the condition of oswalds shirt after this encounter with the police at the theater and the manner in which he and the shirt were man handled by the police seen in photos taken at the time . how many pounced on oswald ? . look at the condition of the shirt ,torn and buttons ripped off and look at how the cops seen in photos are pulling and dragging at oswalds shirt while removing him from the theater .
now lets look at the transfer
can anyone see the problem i have with that transfer ? , there is not a wrinkle or crease in it , i cant see how that is possible given what i said above .
but even if we accept that oswald rode on the bus and in the cab it only proves he went home .whalley was not a great witness either in the sense that he admitted seeing oswalds face i believe in a newspaper before he went to a line up . and at the line up he said ANYONE WOULD HAVE PICKED OSWALD .why ? because he was complaining to the cops who if memory serves were putting him (a 24 year old man who looked atleast 30) in to a line up with teen boys one of whom was latino DARK COMPLECTED .and these were the line ups that the late jim leavelle said were fairly conducted lol .
how many times did whalley have to drive the route in order to get the time down to a time that suited ?. i think the earliest oswald can have arrived home at best was 1 and perhaps 2 minutes before 1pm so we are it seems not far apart in that respect ..we then have to allow for that which you make no allowances for . that he was in his room several minutes , 3 or 4 according to roberts where he changed his slacks and shirt . and we further have to allow that he was still stood outside at the bus stop a time after he had left the rooming house .roberts said he did not leave the bus stop while she was looking .i believe he was still on beckley at 1.03 or 1.04 pm . at that even if we say he took macks short route well he still arrives too late .
hello bill its been a while , we go back to bob harris old forum .i hope you are well.
Yes Sir. I remember. How are you? Do you know if Ol' Bob Harris is still around? I used to talk to him but it's been at least 5 years since I've heard from him.
well oswald may or may not have been on that bus , but i am not sure what value mcwatters is , as he never identified oswald as the man on the bus . in fact if memory serves me he went to the line up believing he was identifying a young man on his bus who he said was grinning , called roy milton jones.
I talked to Roy Milton Jones back in October of this year. He told me that he doesn't recall Oswald boarding the bus because "it wasn't conspicuous" (his words). I asked him if he remembered seeing Oswald on the bus for himself and he said after he saw Oswald on the news, he recognized his face as someone he had seen on the bus. I then specifically asked him if, in his opinion, Oswald was on the bus and he said "Yes".
now if one gave it no thought at all well it could be very easily accepted that that transfer was indeed in oswalds shirt pocket . but we have to consider the scuffle that took place at the theater and how many cops were involved , the condition of oswalds shirt after this encounter with the police at the theater and the manner in which he and the shirt were man handled by the police seen in photos taken at the time . how many pounced on oswald ? . look at the condition of the shirt ,torn and buttons ripped off and look at how the cops seen in photos are pulling and dragging at oswalds shirt while removing him from the theater.
now lets look at the transfer...
Can't you imagine that the transfer has been placed under glass flattened for years, in effect straightening out any "creases" which may have occurred during the arrest?
i think the earliest oswald can have arrived home at best was 1 and perhaps 2 minutes before 1pm so we are it seems not far apart in that respect ..we then have to allow for that which you make no allowances for . that he was in his room several minutes , 3 or 4 according to roberts...
Earlene Roberts gave various time estimates for how long Oswald was back in his room. She said things like "about three or four minutes" and "maybe not over three or four minutes". Both of these phrases are figures of speech, in my opinion not to be taken literal. However, one description of time that she gave which is NOT a figure of speech is when she said he was back in his room "just long enough to go in there and get a jacket and put it on". This is NOT a figure of speech. This is a literal description of a length of time. How long do you believe it takes to walk into one's room and grab a jacket and put it on?
-
can anyone see the problem i have with that transfer ? , there is not a wrinkle or crease in it , i cant see how that is possible given what i said above .
Look closely, the back Oswald's Bus transfer shows multiple folds.
(https://i.postimg.cc/g0g0PVWw/back-of-osw--ald-bus-transferb.jpg)
JohnM
-
Yes Sir. I remember. How are you? Do you know if Ol' Bob Harris is still around? I used to talk to him but it's been at least 5 years since I've heard from him.
I talked to Roy Milton Jones back in October of this year. He told me that he doesn't recall Oswald boarding the bus because "it wasn't conspicuous" (his words). I asked him if he remembered seeing Oswald on the bus for himself and he said after he saw Oswald on the news, he recognized his face as someone he had seen on the bus. I then specifically asked him if, in his opinion, Oswald was on the bus and he said "Yes".
Can't you imagine that the transfer has been placed under glass flattened for years, in effect straightening out any "creases" which may have occurred during the arrest?
Earlene Roberts gave various time estimates for how long Oswald was back in his room. She said things like "about three or four minutes" and "maybe not over three or four minutes". Both of these phrases are figures of speech, in my opinion not to be taken literal. However, one description of time that she gave which is NOT a figure of speech is when she said he was back in his room "just long enough to go in there and get a jacket and put it on". This is NOT a figure of speech. This is a literal description of a length of time. How long do you believe it takes to walk into one's room and grab a jacket and put it on?
However, one description of time that she gave which is NOT a figure of speech is when she said he was back in his room "just long enough to go in there and get a jacket and put it on". This is NOT a figure of speech. This is a literal description of a length of time. How long do you believe it takes to walk into one's room and grab a jacket and put it on?
Roberts did not know what Oswald was doing in the room. She may have believed that he only grabbed a jacket, but what if, in reality he actually did change his clothes as well?
-
Yes Sir. I remember. How are you? Do you know if Ol' Bob Harris is still around? I used to talk to him but it's been at least 5 years since I've heard from him.
I talked to Roy Milton Jones back in October of this year. He told me that he doesn't recall Oswald boarding the bus because "it wasn't conspicuous" (his words). I asked him if he remembered seeing Oswald on the bus for himself and he said after he saw Oswald on the news, he recognized his face as someone he had seen on the bus. I then specifically asked him if, in his opinion, Oswald was on the bus and he said "Yes".
Can't you imagine that the transfer has been placed under glass flattened for years, in effect straightening out any "creases" which may have occurred during the arrest?
Earlene Roberts gave various time estimates for how long Oswald was back in his room. She said things like "about three or four minutes" and "maybe not over three or four minutes". Both of these phrases are figures of speech, in my opinion not to be taken literal. However, one description of time that she gave which is NOT a figure of speech is when she said he was back in his room "just long enough to go in there and get a jacket and put it on". This is NOT a figure of speech. This is a literal description of a length of time. How long do you believe it takes to walk into one's room and grab a jacket and put it on?
i havent come across bob harris on my travels bill , not since i was last on his forum .
"I talked to Roy Milton Jones back in October of this year. He told me that he doesn't recall Oswald boarding the bus because "it wasn't conspicuous" (his words). I asked him if he remembered seeing Oswald on the bus for himself and he said after he saw Oswald on the news, he recognized his face as someone he had seen on the bus. I then specifically asked him if, in his opinion, Oswald was on the bus and he said "Yes"." Bill brown
i see you have not changed at all in your approach , the do as i say not as i do approach lol . so in 59 years no one thought to ask Mr jones what you asked and he never thought to offer the info you say you gleaned from him ? .not the police , the FBI or any of the so called investigations asked him what you asked him ? . i mean it is pretty important stuff is it not ? that he says he can ID Mr oswald as being on that bus . but only 59 years later does he mention that . so now can i presume that you accept statements from people made years or decades after the tragic events in question ? .or do you still have the same old stance that you used to have ? which was only statements made at the time of the event or in the days pretty close to it could be relied upon .i think it is a fair question given that that was your stance certainly on Bob harris forum .and i dont believe it was any different here . oh and i need to point out that i am not trying to disrespect you or attack you here , it is just that if one holds a stance and then acts contradictory to that stance , that i feel that that should be highlighted and discussed .
humans rarely take any note of things or people that do not stand out . a young man ,just like any other regular young man in the world gets on a bus , and takes a seat and sits there without saying a word . to use the word you used there was nothing at all CONSPICUOUS . Mcwatters testified he had close contact with a man and gave him a transfer , yet he could not state on the day or even in testimony who that man was .
Mr. BALL - As I understand it, neither then nor now are you able to identify or say that you have again seen the man that got off your bus to whom you gave a transfer?
Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir; I couldn't. I could not identify him.
Mcwatters further testified to the following .
Mr. McWATTERS - He got off at Brownley, because the man rode with me the next day.
Mr. BALL - You went out there the next day, did you?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - With an FBI man or a Dallas policeman?
Mr. McWATTERS - No, I mean--
Mr. BALL - The same teenager?
Mr. McWATTERS - The same teenager rode with me the next day.
Mr. BALL - And you noticed he got off there?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, and I noticed, and I asked him, like I told him, I said that I was--I thought that, you know, that he was, when he first got on down there, I says, "From all indications, we had you kind of pinpointed as the man who might have been mixed up in the assassination and everything." And--
Mr. BALL - Do I understand the day after you made the affidavit, this would be the 23d of November?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes.
Mr. BALL - That this same teenager got on your bus again?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, he got on.
Mr. BALL - And you noticed where you let him off?
Mr. McWATTERS - I noticed where I let him off, yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Is that the reason that today you remember he got off?
Mr. McWATTERS - That is it today I remember, just like I say, I remember I talked to him the next day, and he told me where he got on, and he told me where he got on, and where he got off and where he lived, and, you know that--
Mr. BALL - Has he been on your bus since?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes.
Mr. BALL - He has?
Mr. McWATTERS - He has rode with me since.
so here is Mcwatters testifying that the very next day he spoke to Jones , that he told jones the very next day that they thought he might have been the one mixed up in the shooting , that he spoke to Jones again after that also . now nowhere did he say that Mr jones told him that OSWALD was the man on the bus , that he saw him and remembered him NOWHERE . these two guys discussing that they were on the same bus that the police say oswald was on , and apparently not once did Jones say to Mcwatters HE YOU KNOW I SAW HIM , I SAW OSWALD ON THE BUS LARGE AS LIFE .
"Earlene Roberts gave various time estimates for how long Oswald was back in his room. She said things like "about three or four minutes" and "maybe not over three or four minutes". Both of these phrases are figures of speech, in my opinion not to be taken literal. However, one description of time that she gave which is NOT a figure of speech is when she said he was back in his room "just long enough to go in there and get a jacket and put it on". This is NOT a figure of speech. This is a literal description of a length of time. How long do you believe it takes to walk into one's room and grab a jacket and put it on? " Bill brown
i guess then Bill that you dont accept and that you dispute that oswald changed his shirt and slacks , even tho it was noted in the interrogation notes , i am sure you will confirm your stance on this matter what ever that stance is. i dont believe that one saying something took 3 to 4 minutes was a figure of speech , and i dont believe Roberts took such a close look at him as he left as to know if he had changed his shirt and slacks . but i can fully understand why any LN would seek to deny that Oswald changed his clothing , the time it would take would be part of it , but then LN would have a shirt in evidence , and fibers from it supposedly left on the rifle at 12.30 at the depository when said shirt was only put on at the rooming house in and around 1pm . i can see how that would be a problem .
nice to talk to you again Bill after so long , it is always a pleasure . take care .
-
I agree with you on all of this. Progress Ha Ha
I once created a thread titled "Ted Callaway And The 1:15 Shooting" or something like that. It deals with the Callaway timeline.
Anyway, Callaway's call on the squad car radio to the dispatcher took place at 1:19. Based on Callaway's description of his actions, he's making this call maybe four minutes after hearing the shots.
Callaway's call on the squad car radio to the dispatcher took place at 1:19.
How disappointing. And you were doing so well....
he's making this call maybe four minutes after hearing the shots.
So the shots were fired no sooner than 1:15?
Amazing... by that time Helen Markham, after taking 9 minutes to walk two blocks, would have been at the bus stop on Jefferson, either catching a delayed 1:12 bus or waiting for the 1:22 one. Go figure..
-
However, one description of time that she gave which is NOT a figure of speech is when she said he was back in his room "just long enough to go in there and get a jacket and put it on". This is NOT a figure of speech. This is a literal description of a length of time. How long do you believe it takes to walk into one's room and grab a jacket and put it on?
Roberts did not know what Oswald was doing in the room. She may have believed that he only grabbed a jacket, but what if, in reality he actually did change his clothes as well?
indeed . she had no reason to think about him changing clothes etc . yes she did notice his return and departure she was also working on her tv , plus noting police cars outside . i dont think she paid GREAT attention oswald , yes she took notice but he was not her main focus of attention in my opinion .Oswald was noted in interrogation saying he changed his clothing , his shirt and slacks . why would he offer that information ?. i dont think he was sat there in Fritz office thinking ive got to give my self less time by dreaming up ways to add more time to things he did . in fact if we say he was indeed guilty well he in saying MY CLOTHES THAT I WORE IN WORK ARE IN THAT DRAWER THERE well he was giving them evidence to use against him .despite what some say oswald was not stupid . Roberts gave an estimate , not an unreasonable estimate of time , but as you accurately state she had no reason believe he never changed clothes .
but there is one good reason why LN would never want to have to admit he changed his slacks and shirt . if he went to his rooming house wearing the red shirt he wore in work , took it off and ONLY put on the brown shirt at 1pm in his room . how could he possibly have left fresh fibers from that brown shirt on the rifle at the depository at 12.30 ? . if Oswald did indeed change his shirt that creates serious obvious problems for LN .
-
Callaway's call on the squad car radio to the dispatcher took place at 1:19.
How disappointing. And you were doing so well....
he's making this call maybe four minutes after hearing the shots.
So the shots were fired no sooner than 1:15?
Amazing... by that time Helen Markham, after taking 9 minutes to walk two blocks, would have been at the bus stop on Jefferson, either catching a delayed 1:12 bus or waiting for the 1:22 one. Go figure..
i recall a thread here on this forum regarding this matter and the timing issues .now i may be wrong as its several years back if so i apologize in advance of this . but if my memory is correct it was Bill who sort of acknowledged that the shots probably were fired 3 or perhaps 4 minutes prior to the radio call . the 1.16 radio call . Bill please feel free here to correct me if my memory is incorrect and that it was not you , but for some reason i am believing it was you .but anyway that would mean the shots were fired as potentially as early as 1.12 . and this would be after tippit stopped the man (be that Oswald or what ever ) and had a conversation with him . then we have to add in any excess minutes that Oswald lingered on beckley . if he is on beckley at 1.03 and the shooting was at 1.12 that creates a problem .but of course this is why LN want to make Oswalds time at the rooming house a matter of seconds as opposed to minutes .and why they want to add as much time as they can to get him to 10th and patton in time to shoot the late officer Tippit . of course its difficult perhaps impossible to come up with exacting time lines , i get that . i do remember a thread once here , i believe again from memory it was Colin crowe (i hope i have the name right ) who came up with some excellent work on the 6th floor and how long it would have taken to do what oswald is said to have done and then gone down stairs . i dont know if Colin is still a member , but i have the greatest respect for his work on this forum .but my point simply is that while i know we cant be accurate to exacting levels that we can put together a reasonably accurate time line if we do so honestly , and Colin did that .
-
indeed . she had no reason to think about him changing clothes etc . yes she did notice his return and departure she was also working on her tv , plus noting police cars outside . i dont think she paid GREAT attention oswald , yes she took notice but he was not her main focus of attention in my opinion .Oswald was noted in interrogation saying he changed his clothing , his shirt and slacks . why would he offer that information ?. i dont think he was sat there in Fritz office thinking ive got to give my self less time by dreaming up ways to add more time to things he did . in fact if we say he was indeed guilty well he in saying MY CLOTHES THAT I WORE IN WORK ARE IN THAT DRAWER THERE well he was giving them evidence to use against him .despite what some say oswald was not stupid . Roberts gave an estimate , not an unreasonable estimate of time , but as you accurately state she had no reason believe he never changed clothes .
but there is one good reason why LN would never want to have to admit he changed his slacks and shirt . if he went to his rooming house wearing the red shirt he wore in work , took it off and ONLY put on the brown shirt at 1pm in his room . how could he possibly have left fresh fibers from that brown shirt on the rifle at the depository at 12.30 ? . if Oswald did indeed change his shirt that creates serious obvious problems for LN .
Changing shirts creates no issue even if that occurred. The fibers from his shirt could have got on the rifle on some prior occasion. They would not necessarily have needed to be on the rifle from contact on Nov. 22. What the fibers do is add yet another link between Oswald and the rifle left at the crime scene. The rifle used to assassinate JFK. Even if no such fibers were ever found, there is ample evidence to do that from the overwhelming evidence that links him to the rifle. Whether he changed his shirt or does nothing to undermine the case against Oswald.
-
Changing shirts creates no issue even if that occurred. The fibers from his shirt could have got on the rifle on some prior occasion. They would not necessarily have needed to be on the rifle from contact on Nov. 22. What the fibers do is add yet another link between Oswald and the rifle left at the crime scene. The rifle used to assassinate JFK. Even if no such fibers were ever found, there is ample evidence to do that from the overwhelming evidence that links him to the rifle. Whether he changed his shirt or does nothing to undermine the case against Oswald.
Changing shirts creates no issue even if that occurred. The fibers from his shirt could have got on the rifle on some prior occasion. They would not necessarily have needed to be on the rifle from contact on Nov. 22.
"Richard" is grasping at straws again.
First of all, there is no such thing as "the fibers from his shirt" as it never was (and never can be) conclusively proven that the fibers found on the rifle did actually come from Oswald's shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts. At best the FBI experts could say was that the fibers were similar.
Secondly, the only realistic time that fibers of the arrest shirt could have gotten on the rifle is on November 22, for the simple reason that - according to the official narrative - Oswald surrendered the rifle, wrapped in a blanket, to Ruth Paine, when she picked up Marina in New Orleans, in September 1963. Oswald visited Ruth Paine's home only a couple of times and simply would have had no real opportunity to have access to the rifle and/or break it down. But, let's say for argument's sake say that there was indeed a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage and that Oswald could have somehow managed to dismantle it, without being seen, that still requires that he just happened to be wearing the arrest shirt on that occassion, and that would be one massive coincidence.
Also, the likelihood that fibers similar to those of the arrest shirt could have gotten on the rifle before November 22 and stayed there is extremely low, considering that not a single single fiber similar to the fibers of the blanket, in which the rifle allegedly was wrapped for more than two months, were found on the rifle. Do the math!
What the fibers do is add yet another link between Oswald and the rifle left at the crime scene.
No they don't provide such a link, as the fibers found on the rifle were never matched conclusively to Oswald's arrest shirt.
-
Changing shirts creates no issue even if that occurred. The fibers from his shirt could have got on the rifle on some prior occasion. They would not necessarily have needed to be on the rifle from contact on Nov. 22. What the fibers do is add yet another link between Oswald and the rifle left at the crime scene. The rifle used to assassinate JFK. Even if no such fibers were ever found, there is ample evidence to do that from the overwhelming evidence that links him to the rifle. Whether he changed his shirt or does nothing to undermine the case against Oswald.
well now i call that moving the goal posts , and its supposition . while it is certainly not impossible that he could leave fibers from a particular shirt on the rifle at a point in the past well i just dont believe given the fbi testimony that in this case that this is what happened . the fibers were i believe freshly left . so again if he did not put on that brown shirt until about 1pm at his rooming house some 30 minutes after the shooting , how could he have left those fibers on the shirt . on my part i have interrogation documentation stating he changed his shirt and slacks at the rooming house . that is not supposition in the sense it was documented . he could have lied about doing that , but why ? .
and i think you ever look or perhaps choose to ignore the point here . if oswald did indeed change his shirt as he said , those freshly left fibers should never have been found . but they were so if Oswald did indeed change his shirt we then have to question how they got there . if they got there other than by oswald then we have a problem with reliability of evidence .
“These I removed and put on a glass microscope slide…because this little group of fibers—little tuft of fibers, appeared to be FRESH . The fibers on the rest of the gun were either adhering to a greasy, oily deposit or jammed into a crevice and were very dirty and apparently very old…the other fibers I cleaned up, removed the grease and examined them but they were of no value. They were pretty well fragmented…They all appeared old…in excess of a month or two months.” Stombaugh
-
well now i call that moving the goal posts , and its supposition . while it is certainly not impossible that he could leave fibers from a particular shirt on the rifle at a point in the past well i just dont believe given the fbi testimony that in this case that this is what happened . the fibers were i believe freshly left . so again if he did not put on that brown shirt until about 1pm at his rooming house some 30 minutes after the shooting , how could he have left those fibers on the shirt . on my part i have interrogation documentation stating he changed his shirt and slacks at the rooming house . that is not supposition in the sense it was documented . he could have lied about doing that , but why ? .
and i think you ever look or perhaps choose to ignore the point here . if oswald did indeed change his shirt as he said , those freshly left fibers should never have been found . but they were so if Oswald did indeed change his shirt we then have to question how they got there . if they got there other than by oswald then we have a problem with reliability of evidence .
“These I removed and put on a glass microscope slide…because this little group of fibers—little tuft of fibers, appeared to be FRESH . The fibers on the rest of the gun were either adhering to a greasy, oily deposit or jammed into a crevice and were very dirty and apparently very old…the other fibers I cleaned up, removed the grease and examined them but they were of no value. They were pretty well fragmented…They all appeared old…in excess of a month or two months.” Stombaugh
No one is moving the goal posts. You suggested that finding fibers from Oswald's shirt on the murder weapon was somehow a "problem" for those who believe he committed the crime. Think about the logic behind that one. I merely explained that the fibers link Oswald to the murder weapon regardless of whether he changed shirts that day. They came from his shirt. They were found on the rifle. That is yet another link from Oswald to the murder weapon. AND even if no such fibers had ever been discovered or can be linked to Oswald's shirt, there is abundant alternative evidence that links him beyond all doubt to the rifle left at the scene. A rifle with a specific serial number was sent to his PO Box. That rifle was left at Oswald's place of work. It has the same serial number and his palm print as the rifle he was sent. He is pictured holding it. There is no accounting for any other rifle in his possession during this timeframe. Oswald's rifle is missing on 11.22 when his own wife directs the police to the location where she knew he stored it. That rifle was used to assassinate JFK. It does not take Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots.
-
No one is moving the goal posts. You suggested that finding fibers from Oswald's shirt on the murder weapon was somehow a "problem" for those who believe he committed the crime. Think about the logic behind that one. I merely explained that the fibers link Oswald to the murder weapon regardless of whether he changed shirts that day. They came from his shirt. They were found on the rifle. That is yet another link from Oswald to the murder weapon. AND even if no such fibers had ever been discovered or can be linked to Oswald's shirt, there is abundant alternative evidence that links him beyond all doubt to the rifle left at the scene. A rifle with a specific serial number was sent to his PO Box. That rifle was left at Oswald's place of work. It has the same serial number and his palm print as the rifle he was sent. He is pictured holding it. There is no accounting for any other rifle in his possession during this timeframe. Oswald's rifle is missing on 11.22 when his own wife directs the police to the location where she knew he stored it. That rifle was used to assassinate JFK. It does not take Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots.
Think about the logic behind that one. I merely explained that the fibers link Oswald to the murder weapon regardless of whether he changed shirts that day. They came from his shirt. They were found on the rifle. That is yet another link from Oswald to the murder weapon.
This is exactly the reason why talking to "Richard Smith" is an exercise in futility. No matter how often his BS and lies are conclusively debunked, he will just ignore it and repeat the same bogus claim again.
What he will never do is discuss the arguments that debunk his fairytale. He will try to ridicule it or use some kind of pathetic diversion, but he will never argue the underlying details of his BS. And there is only one reason for that; he already knows that his baseless claims do not withstand scrutiny.
It does not take Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots.
But it takes a "Richard Smith" to make up dots that simply aren't there :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
No one is moving the goal posts. You suggested that finding fibers from Oswald's shirt on the murder weapon was somehow a "problem" for those who believe he committed the crime. Think about the logic behind that one. I merely explained that the fibers link Oswald to the murder weapon regardless of whether he changed shirts that day. They came from his shirt. They were found on the rifle. That is yet another link from Oswald to the murder weapon. AND even if no such fibers had ever been discovered or can be linked to Oswald's shirt, there is abundant alternative evidence that links him beyond all doubt to the rifle left at the scene. A rifle with a specific serial number was sent to his PO Box. That rifle was left at Oswald's place of work. It has the same serial number and his palm print as the rifle he was sent. He is pictured holding it. There is no accounting for any other rifle in his possession during this timeframe. Oswald's rifle is missing on 11.22 when his own wife directs the police to the location where she knew he stored it. That rifle was used to assassinate JFK. It does not take Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots.
i suggested that finding FRESH fibers on the rifle from a shirt that it seems Oswald only put on 30 minutes after the shooting at beckley is a problem . and by the way this fiber evidence (from the shirt) when looked at closely (and it has been by serious top researchers ) does not PROVE a link to oswald .
you say there is an abundance of evidence , some have said a VERITABLE MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE , but how much of this so called evidence stands up to close scrutiny ? . if there really was this ABUNDANCE , this MOUNTAIN of IRON clad proof there would be no 60 year debate . these forums would not exist , all the great researchers of our time would not have spent decades of their lives on this case . you just think about that
"I merely explained that the fibers link Oswald to the murder weapon regardless of whether he changed shirts that day. They came from his shirt "
but you are intentionally ignoring the problem . you are offering supposition that the fibers were from the brown shirt but left there at some time in the past . when you know from your own warren commission expert that the fibers found were FRESH . you are saying it matters not one bit if he changed his shirt OR NOT so lets get this straight .FRESH fibers were found on the rifle in evidence (that we have been told were left on the rifle at 12.30) from a shirt that oswald said in interrogation that he only put on at 1pm on beckley .if this is indeed TRUE then logic dictates that those fibers got on that rifle in some illegal manner .and you say WELL WE CAN IGNORE / FORGET ABOUT ALL THAT , THAT THAT DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL , NOTHING TO SEE HERE , BECAUSE OTHER EVIDENCE PROVES OSWALD GUILTY . Bugliosi would indeed be proud of that mentality .
-
Think about the logic behind that one. I merely explained that the fibers link Oswald to the murder weapon regardless of whether he changed shirts that day. They came from his shirt. They were found on the rifle. That is yet another link from Oswald to the murder weapon.
This is exactly the reason why talking to "Richard Smith" is an exercise in futility. No matter how often his BS and lies are conclusively debunked, he will just ignore it and repeat the same bogus claim again.
What he will never do is discuss the arguments that debunk his fairytale. He will try to ridicule it or use some kind of pathetic diversion, but he will never argue the underlying details of his BS. And there is only one reason for that; he already knows that his baseless claims do not withstand scrutiny.
It does not take Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots.
But it takes a "Richard Smith" to make up dots that simply aren't there :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
This is exactly the reason why talking to "Richard Smith" is an exercise in futility.
Yet you relentlessly continue to talk to Richard and he continues to ignore you! Hilarious!
No matter how often his BS and lies are conclusively debunked, he will just ignore it and repeat the same bogus claim again.
Dream on, you haven't "conclusively debunked" a single piece of evidence, let alone the Mountain of Evidence that convicts Oswald!
JohnM
-
Yet you relentlessly continue to talk to Richard and he continues to ignore you! Hilarious!
Dream on, you haven't "conclusively debunked" a single piece of evidence, let alone the Mountain of Evidence that convicts Oswald!
JohnM
Yet you relentlessly continue to talk to Richard and he continues to ignore you! Hilarious!
Yes, it is indeed hilarious that he shows his weakness that way. The childish "I don't want to talk to you" strategy is frequently used by people who lack compelling arguments to support their claims.
But I couldn't care less if he answers or not. I will continue to call him out for his lies and misrepresentations of the evidence.
Dream on, you haven't "conclusively debunked" a single piece of evidence, let alone the Mountain of Evidence that convicts Oswald!
A "mountain of evidence" :D :D :D :D :D :D ...... and I am the one who is dreaming? Really? You are making a fool of yourself...
-
i suggested that finding FRESH fibers on the rifle from a shirt that it seems Oswald only put on 30 minutes after the shooting at beckley is a problem . and by the way this fiber evidence (from the shirt) when looked at closely (and it has been by serious top researchers ) does not PROVE a link to oswald .
you say there is an abundance of evidence , some have said a VERITABLE MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE , but how much of this so called evidence stands up to close scrutiny ? . if there really was this ABUNDANCE , this MOUNTAIN of IRON clad proof there would be no 60 year debate . these forums would not exist , all the great researchers of our time would not have spent decades of their lives on this case . you just think about that
"I merely explained that the fibers link Oswald to the murder weapon regardless of whether he changed shirts that day. They came from his shirt "
but you are intentionally ignoring the problem . you are offering supposition that the fibers were from the brown shirt but left there at some time in the past . when you know from your own warren commission expert that the fibers found were FRESH . you are saying it matters not one bit if he changed his shirt OR NOT so lets get this straight .FRESH fibers were found on the rifle in evidence (that we have been told were left on the rifle at 12.30) from a shirt that oswald said in interrogation that he only put on at 1pm on beckley .if this is indeed TRUE then logic dictates that those fibers got on that rifle in some illegal manner .and you say WELL WE CAN IGNORE / FORGET ABOUT ALL THAT , THAT THAT DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL , NOTHING TO SEE HERE , BECAUSE OTHER EVIDENCE PROVES OSWALD GUILTY . Bugliosi would indeed be proud of that mentality .
If you want to insist that "fresh" fibers from Oswald's arrest shirt were found on the rifle used to assassinate JFK, then congratulations. That is conclusive of Oswald's guilt. What are left with at that point? Evidence that Oswald owned that rifle. Evidence that it was left at the crime scene (i.e. Oswald's place of work). Evidence that is used to assassinate JFK. And now according to you, evidence that Oswald had very recently come into contact with that rifle while wearing the very same shirt that he was arrested in just an hour or so after the assassination. A rock-solid case for his guilt. To rebut this, you have the unsubstantiated statement of the suspect that he changed his shirt. Not very compelling.
-
If you want to insist that "fresh" fibers from Oswald's arrest shirt were found on the rifle used to assassinate JFK, then congratulations. That is conclusive of Oswald's guilt. What are left with at that point? Evidence that Oswald owned that rifle. Evidence that it was left at the crime scene (i.e. Oswald's place of work). Evidence that is used to assassinate JFK. And now according to you, evidence that Oswald had very recently come into contact with that rifle while wearing the very same shirt that he was arrested in just an hour or so after the assassination. A rock-solid case for his guilt. To rebut this, you have the unsubstantiated statement of the suspect that he changed his shirt. Not very compelling.
And now according to you, evidence that Oswald had very recently come into contact with that rifle while wearing the very same shirt that he was arrested in just an hour or so after the assassination. A rock-solid case for his guilt.
Talk about not being compelling. You haven't got a shred of evidence that Oswald was wearing the shirt he was arrested in at the TSBD that morning. You just assume it, as per usual. How pathetic!
-
If you want to insist that "fresh" fibers from Oswald's arrest shirt were found on the rifle used to assassinate JFK, then congratulations. That is conclusive of Oswald's guilt. What are left with at that point? Evidence that Oswald owned that rifle. Evidence that it was left at the crime scene (i.e. Oswald's place of work). Evidence that is used to assassinate JFK. And now according to you, evidence that Oswald had very recently come into contact with that rifle while wearing the very same shirt that he was arrested in just an hour or so after the assassination. A rock-solid case for his guilt. To rebut this, you have the unsubstantiated statement of the suspect that he changed his shirt. Not very compelling.
well i think that you highlight very well indeed the great difficulty one has in attempting any sort of intelligent conversation with an LN mentality .
let us just re cap .
i have stated that YOUR warren commission and its FBI experts , told us that the fibers allegedly from Oswalds brown shirt were found on the rifle in evidence , and that they were FRESH .and we know the official version of events and the LN stance , which is that Oswald wore the brown short in work and left the fibers on the rifle at 12.30 having fired the shots .i have informed you here of the FACT (and yes im certain you were already aware of it ) that interrogation notes state that Oswald told them that he CHANGED his shirt and slacks 1t 1pm while at his rooming house .and that ONLY there and then did he put on the brown shirt that HE WAS ARRESTED IN .
if the above is indeed TRUE well then the following must also be true .
1/ Oswald wore a red shirt in work and NOT the brown shirt he was Later arrested in .
2/ Oswald ONLY put on that brown shirt at 1pm at his rooming house , some 30 minutes after the assassination .
3/ that FRESH fibers from the brown shirt were found on the rifle by the FBI , when according to interrogation notes Oswald NEVER wore that shirt that day in work .
and the best you have is to first offer that oswald may have left FRESH fibers on the rifle some weeks or months prior , which would not be FRESH would they ? .
then you give us your bugliosi impression and tell us that FRESH FIBERS that should not be on the rifle dont matter , that we should not bother our little heads thinking about that at all . JUST FORGET ABOUT IT , IGNORE IT ,and move on , because all the evidence proved oswald did it . oh and we should all just take YOUR word that anything at all was indeed proven . lol .
-
well i think that you highlight very well indeed the great difficulty one has in attempting any sort of intelligent conversation with an LN mentality .
let us just re cap .
i have stated that YOUR warren commission and its FBI experts , told us that the fibers allegedly from Oswalds brown shirt were found on the rifle in evidence , and that they were FRESH .and we know the official version of events and the LN stance , which is that Oswald wore the brown short in work and left the fibers on the rifle at 12.30 having fired the shots .i have informed you here of the FACT (and yes im certain you were already aware of it ) that interrogation notes state that Oswald told them that he CHANGED his shirt and slacks 1t 1pm while at his rooming house .and that ONLY there and then did he put on the brown shirt that HE WAS ARRESTED IN .
if the above is indeed TRUE well then the following must also be true .
1/ Oswald wore a red shirt in work and NOT the brown shirt he was Later arrested in .
2/ Oswald ONLY put on that brown shirt at 1pm at his rooming house , some 30 minutes after the assassination .
3/ that FRESH fibers from the brown shirt were found on the rifle by the FBI , when according to interrogation notes Oswald NEVER wore that shirt that day in work .
and the best you have is to first offer that oswald may have left FRESH fibers on the rifle some weeks or months prior , which would not be FRESH would they ? .
then you give us your bugliosi impression and tell us that FRESH FIBERS that should not be on the rifle dont matter , that we should not bother our little heads thinking about that at all . JUST FORGET ABOUT IT , IGNORE IT ,and move on , because all the evidence proved oswald did it . oh and we should all just take YOUR word that anything at all was indeed proven . lol .
and the best you have is to first offer that oswald may have left FRESH fibers on the rifle some weeks or months prior , which would not be FRESH would they ? .
It might be best for you to read the relevant FBI testimony before you continue to make yourself look like a complete Dummkopf!
Mr. EISENBERG. In other words, you concluded they were fresh--well, you said you thought they were fresh, Mr. Stombaugh, and I don't quite understand now whether you seem to be backing off a little from that?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I am not trying to do that. I am trying to avoid a specific time element, since there are other factors which may enter couldn't--this is something that I won't even attempt to do, just say this was on here for 1 hour or 10 minutes, something like that.
But I would say these fibers were put on there in the recent past for this reason. If they had been put on there say 3, 4, 5 weeks or so ago, and the gun used every day, these fibers would have come off. Am I making myself a little more clear?
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you go into that in a little more detail, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes. Mainly because the fibers or the shirt is composed of point one, cotton, and point two, three basic colors. I found all three colors together on the gun. Now if the shirt had been composed of 10 or 15 different colors and types of fibers and I only had found 3 of them, then I would feel that I had not found enough, but I found fibers on the gun which I could match with the fibers composing this shirt., so I feel the fibers could easily have come from the shirt.
(https://i.postimg.cc/httY7Y52/brownshirtfibers-zpsrgyy13mq.jpg)
Conclusion,
The "fresh" fibers could be put on the rifle 3, 4 or 5 weeks ago.
We know that Oswald did not use the rifle daily.
We know that the three types of fibers on the rifle matched the same three types of fibers on Oswald's arrest shirt, therefore the shirt was owned by Oswald.
The three types of fibers on the rifle could have come from another piece of material being composed of the same three types of fibers.
Bugliosi in Reclaiming History informs the reader that "The FBI laboratory found that the colors, and even the twist of the fibers, perfectly matched those on the shirt Oswald was wearing at the time of his arrest. Though such fibers could theoretically have come from another identical shirt, the prohibitive probability is that they came from Oswald’s shirt."
JohnM
-
Fergus, it might be best for you to read the relevant FBI testimony before you continue to make yourself look like a complete Dummkopf!
Mr. EISENBERG. In other words, you concluded they were fresh--well, you said you thought they were fresh, Mr. Stombaugh, and I don't quite understand now whether you seem to be backing off a little from that?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I am not trying to do that. I am trying to avoid a specific time element, since there are other factors which may enter couldn't--this is something that I won't even attempt to do, just say this was on here for 1 hour or 10 minutes, something like that.
But I would say these fibers were put on there in the recent past for this reason. If they had been put on there say 3, 4, 5 weeks or so ago, and the gun used every day, these fibers would have come off. Am I making myself a little more clear?
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you go into that in a little more detail, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes. Mainly because the fibers or the shirt is composed of point one, cotton, and point two, three basic colors. I found all three colors together on the gun. Now if the shirt had been composed of 10 or 15 different colors and types of fibers and I only had found 3 of them, then I would feel that I had not found enough, but I found fibers on the gun which I could match with the fibers composing this shirt., so I feel the fibers could easily have come from the shirt.
(https://i.postimg.cc/httY7Y52/brownshirtfibers-zpsrgyy13mq.jpg)
Conclusion,
The "fresh" fibers could be put on the rifle 3, 4 or 5 weeks ago.
We know that Oswald did not use the rifle daily.
We know that the three types of fibers on the rifle matched the same three types of fibers on Oswald's arrest shirt, therefore the shirt was owned by Oswald.
The three types of fibers on the rifle could have come from another piece of material being composed of the same three types of fibers.
Bugliosi in Reclaiming History informs the reader that "The FBI laboratory found that the colors, and even the twist of the fibers, perfectly matched those on the shirt Oswald was wearing at the time of his arrest. Though such fibers could theoretically have come from another identical shirt, the prohibitive probability is that they came from Oswald’s shirt."
JohnM
Though such fibers could theoretically have come from another identical shirt, the prohibitive probability is that they came from Oswald’s shirt.
Translation: Let's disregard the fact that those fibers could have come from another source and let's just assume they came from Oswald's shirt because that's the most convenient option. :D :D :D :D :D
-
Though such fibers could theoretically have come from another identical shirt, the prohibitive probability is that they came from Oswald’s shirt.
Translation: Let's disregard the fact that those fibers could have come from another source and let's just assume they came from Oswald's shirt because that's the most convenient option. :D :D :D :D :D
Another important consideration is coincidence. When fibers that match the clothing fibers of the suspect are found on the clothing of a victim, two conclusions may be drawn: The fibers originated from the suspect, or the fibers originated from another fabric source that not only was composed of fibers of the exact type and color, but was also in a position to contribute those fibers through primary or secondary contact. The likelihood of encountering identical fibers from the environment of a homicide victim (i.e., from his or her residence or friends) is extremely remote.
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric3.htm#Fiber%20Evidence:%20Assigning%20Significance
JohnM
-
Another important consideration is coincidence. When fibers that match the clothing fibers of the suspect are found on the clothing of a victim, two conclusions may be drawn: The fibers originated from the suspect, or the fibers originated from another fabric source that not only was composed of fibers of the exact type and color, but was also in a position to contribute those fibers through primary or secondary contact. The likelihood of encountering identical fibers from the environment of a homicide victim (i.e., from his or her residence or friends) is extremely remote.
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric3.htm#Fiber%20Evidence:%20Assigning%20Significance
JohnM
More selfserving BS! Hilarious....
When fibers that match the clothing fibers of the suspect are found on the clothing of a victim, two conclusions may be drawn: The fibers originated from the suspect, or the fibers originated from another fabric source that not only was composed of fibers of the exact type and color, but was also in a position to contribute those fibers through primary or secondary contact.
Stombaugh claiming that the fibers found on the rifle "matched" those of Oswald's shirt isn't evidence that the fibers did actually come from Oswald's shirt. It's an unchallenged opinion of a biased prosecutorial expert.
Even worse, there is no evidence that Oswald ever was in a position to "contribute those fibers". That he was, is just another massive assumption based on other assumptions.
The bottom line is a simple one; as long as it can not be ruled out that the fibers came from another source, it can't be conclusively "concluded" that the fibers came from Oswald's shirts.
So, let's play this little game for a moment;
First it has to be assumed that a rifle that Marina Oswald may have seen in Ruth Paine's garage in late September 1963 belonged to Oswald
Then it has to be assumed that it was the MC rifle C2766 that was found at the TSBD
It also has to be assumed that Oswald had access to that particular rifle, during the nearly three months prior to November 23, and did dismantle the rifle without being seen or noticed by anybody in Ruth Paine's tiny house.
Then it has to be assumed that Oswald managed to bring that broken down rifle into the TSBD without anybody seeing it (btw if the fibers were already on the rifle before November 22, how did they manage to remain stuck to the rifle when it was allegedly being transported in a broken down condition in a paper bag?)
And then it has to be assumed that Oswald did wear the arrest shirt while working at the TSBD on Friday morning or did ever wear that shirt during one of his trips to Irving.
There isn't a shred of evidence for any of this
The possibility that all the above things happened without anybody seeing anything is extremely remote :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
But I have to give you credit for at least trying.......
-
More selfserving BS! Hilarious....
When fibers that match the clothing fibers of the suspect are found on the clothing of a victim, two conclusions may be drawn: The fibers originated from the suspect, or the fibers originated from another fabric source that not only was composed of fibers of the exact type and color, but was also in a position to contribute those fibers through primary or secondary contact.
Stombaugh claiming that the fibers found on the rifle "matched" those of Oswald's shirt isn't evidence that the fibers did actually come from Oswald's shirt. It's an unchallenged opinion of a biased prosecutorial expert.
Even worse, there is no evidence that Oswald ever was in a position to "contribute those fibers". That he was, is just another massive assumption based on other assumptions.
The bottom line is a simple one; as long as it can not be ruled out that the fibers came from another source, it can't be conclusively "concluded" that the fibers came from Oswald's shirts.
So, let's play this little game for a moment;
First it has to be assumed that a rifle that Marina Oswald may have seen in Ruth Paine's garage in late September 1963 belonged to Oswald
Then it has to be assumed that it was the MC rifle C2766 that was found at the TSBD
It also has to be assumed that Oswald had access to that particular rifle, during the nearly three months prior to November 23, and did dismantle the rifle without being seen or noticed by anybody in Ruth Paine's tiny house.
Then it has to be assumed that Oswald managed to bring that broken down rifle into the TSBD without anybody seeing it (btw if the fibers were already on the rifle before November 22, how did they manage to remain stuck to the rifle when it was allegedly being transported in a broken down condition in a paper bag?)
And then it has to be assumed that Oswald did wear the arrest shirt while working at the TSBD on Friday morning or did ever wear that shirt during one of his trips to Irving.
There isn't a shred of evidence for any of this
The possibility that all the above things happened without anybody seeing anything is extremely remote :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
But I have to give you credit for at least trying.......
Thank you for confirming that there is indeed a Mountain of Evidence.
JohnM
-
Thank you for confirming that there is indeed a Mountain of Evidence.
JohnM
Disappointing....
but thank you for showing us so clearly that you consider speculative assumptions to be evidence.... Thumb1:
And your inability to counter any of the points I have raised is duly noted as well.
-
Disappointing....
but thank you for showing us so clearly that you consider speculative assumptions to be evidence.... Thumb1:
And your inability to counter any of the points I have raised is duly noted as well.
When you can prove to me that your tired, well worn "speculative assumptions" are not evidence then I may consider your ideas but until then, the Mountain of Evidence is impervious to your feeble attempts of refutation. Sorry about that!
JohnM
-
When you can prove to me that your tired, well worn "speculative assumptions" are not evidence then I may consider your ideas but until then, the Mountain of Evidence is impervious to your feeble attempts of refutation. Sorry about that!
JohnM
"It's possible the fibers were planted. It's possible the backyard photos were faked. It's possible the prints were planted. It's possible the money order is fake. It's possible the envelope was faked. It's possible the Tippit eyewitnesses were wrong. It's possible the shells were switched. It's possible the revolver was planted. It's possible..it's possible...it's possible...."
At some point one would think a reasonably intelligent person - a supposed non-conspiracist at that - would take a step back, look at this and ask himself, "Is it really possible to fake all of this?"
-
When you can prove to me that your tired, well worn "speculative assumptions" are not evidence then I may consider your ideas but until then, the Mountain of Evidence is impervious to your feeble attempts of refutation. Sorry about that!
JohnM
When you can prove to me that your tired, well worn "speculative assumptions" are not evidence
Huh? You seem to be confused, John. I don't have "tired, well worn "speculative assumptions". You have....
And, why would I have to prove a negative that is utterly self explanatory?
But if you really want to argue that your biased assumptions and speculations are actually evidence, go ahead. You're only exposing yourself as delusional.
-
"It's possible the fibers were planted. It's possible the backyard photos were faked. It's possible the prints were planted. It's possible the money order is fake. It's possible the envelope was faked. It's possible the Tippit eyewitnesses were wrong. It's possible the shells were switched. It's possible the revolver was planted. It's possible..it's possible...it's possible...."
At some point one would think a reasonably intelligent person - a supposed non-conspiracist at that - would take a step back, look at this and ask himself, "Is it really possible to fake all of this?"
Let's just go back for a moment to the immortal words of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes who said; "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
A credible criminal investigation is conducted by eliminating possibilities to arrive at the only possibility that can not be ruled out and thus, no matter how improbable, must be the truth!
It's possible..it's possible...it's possible....
I can play that game...
It's possible that Klein's sent a 40" rifle to fill an order for a 36" rifle. It's possible that Oswald carried a broken down rifle in a paper bag on Friday morning. It's possible that Buell Wesley Frazier was wrong when he denied that the bag shown to him on Friday evening was the one he had seen Oswald carry. It's possible that Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 and it's possible that he came down the stairs of the TSBD, within 75 seconds after the last shot, without being seen or heard by anybody. It's possible that Oswald somehow managed to get to 10th/Patton in time to kill Tippit. It's possible that DPD officers found the BY photos during the second search of Ruth Paine's house, on Saturday, and that Michael Paine was wrong when he said an FBI agent had shown him a BY photo on Friday evening. It's possible that Oswald did leave the roominghouse of Friday afternoon, wearing a light-grey jacket and that Marina was wrong when she said he was wearing that jacket when he arrived in Irving on Thursday evening. It is possible that Helen Markham took nine minutes to walk one block and arrive at 10th/Patton at 1:12 / 1:13 and that she was wrong when she said she got on her regular bus on Jefferson at 1:15.
It's possible..it's possible...it's possible....
-
Let's just go back for a moment to the immortal words of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes who said; "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
A credible criminal investigation is conducted by eliminating possibilities to arrive at the only possibility that can not be ruled out and thus, no matter how improbable, must be the truth!
It's possible..it's possible...it's possible....
I can play that game...
It's possible that Klein's sent a 40" rifle to fill an order for a 36" rifle. It's possible that Oswald carried a broken down rifle in a paper bag on Friday morning. It's possible that Buell Wesley Frazier was wrong when he denied that the bag shown to him on Friday evening was the one he had seen Oswald carry. It's possible that Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 and it's possible that he came down the stairs of the TSBD, within 75 seconds after the last shot, without being seen or heard by anybody. It's possible that Oswald somehow managed to get to 10th/Patton in time to kill Tippit. It's possible that DPD officers found the BY photos during the second search of Ruth Paine's house, on Saturday, and that Michael Paine was wrong when he said an FBI agent had shown him a BY photo on Friday evening. It's possible that Oswald did leave the roominghouse of Friday afternoon, wearing a light-grey jacket and that Marina was wrong when she said he was wearing that jacket when he arrived in Irving on Thursday evening. It is possible that Helen Markham took nine minutes to walk one block and arrive at 10th/Patton at 1:12 / 1:13 and that she was wrong when she said she got on her regular bus on Jefferson at 1:15.
It's possible..it's possible...it's possible....
So you think discussing a man's murder is a "game", that say a lot about you!
Anyway, after that bit of unpleasantness let's analyze some of Weidmann's plethora of lies, misrepresentations and fantasies.
1. Oswald ordered C20-T750 from Kleins and Oswald received C20-T750 from Kleins.
2. If the bag fits you can't acquit!
(https://i.postimg.cc/BnKgYhgC/rifle-bag.jpg)
3. Frazier repeatedly says he didn't pay much attention to Oswald's bag.
Mr. BALL - All right. When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.
Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.
Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.
Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.
Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--
4. The rear stairs are on the opposite side of the building to Elm street. And let's not forget that 90 seconds after the assassination amid all the sirens and screaming, Oswald was on the other side of the 2nd floor vestibule door, moving in a direction away from the stairs and was calmly getting himself a coke!
Mr. DULLES - Had he meanwhile gone on through the door ahead of you?
Mr. BAKER - I can't say whether he had gone on through that door or not. All I did was catch a glance at him, and evidently he was--this door might have been, you know, closing and almost shut at that time.
Mr. DULLES - Could you tell us anything more about his appearance, what he was doing, get an impression of the man at all? Did he seem to be hurrying, anything of that kind?
Mr. BAKER - Evidently he was hurrying because at this point here, I was running, and I ran on over here to this door.
Mr. BELIN - What door number on that?
Mr. BAKER - This would be 23.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/37/db/ed/37dbed979c4101d6787a25ed626dab03.jpg)
5. We know Oswald was at or very near to the corner of Patton and Tenth because almost a dozen eyewitnesses positively identified him.
6. Markham's time estimate was taken from an unverified timepiece and besides wasn't it Weidmann who called Markham a "Screwball"? Why yes, yes he did!
...who was an even bigger screwball than Markham,
JohnM
-
So you think discussing a man's murder is a "game", that say a lot about you!
Anyway after that bit of unpleasantness let's analyze some of Weidmann's plethora of lies, misrepresentations and fantasies.
1. Oswald ordered C20-T750 from Kleins and Oswald received C20-T750 from Kleins.
2. If the bag fits you can't acquit!
(https://i.postimg.cc/BnKgYhgC/rifle-bag.jpg)
3. Frazier repeatedly says he didn't pay much attention to Oswald's bag.
Mr. BALL - All right. When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.
Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.
Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.
Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.
Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--
4. The rear stairs are on the opposite side of the building to Elm street.
5. We know Oswald was at or very near to the corner of Patton and Tenth because almost a dozen eyewitnesses positively identified him.
6. Markham's time estimate was taken from an unverified timepiece and besides wasn't it Weidmann who called Markham a "Screwball"? Why yes, yes he did!
JohnM
Oh boy, your level of desperation is so pathetic.
Do you really think you can make some extremely superficial comments and somehow make a conclusive compelling case?
The utter BS you have written here doesn't even warrant a reply. At least try to make some sort of coherent argument next time, because what you've come up with so far is nonsense.
-
Oh boy, your level of desperation is so pathetic.
Do you really think you can make some extremely superficial comments and somehow make a conclusive compelling case?
The utter BS you have written here doesn't even warrant a reply. At least try to make some sort of coherent argument next time, because what you've come up with so far is nonsense.
No worries, it was fully expected that after being presented with this powerful irrefutable evidence, you'd run away.
Now, run little doggie, run!
(https://media.tenor.com/ssQj3S9vkW4AAAAC/puppy-run-away.gif)
JohnM
-
No worries, it was fully expected that after being presented with this powerful irrefutable evidence, you'd run away.
Now, run little doggie, run!
JohnM
That's the best you've got? Another pathetic attempt at ridicule? You can't be more creative for once?
You don't know the meaning of "powerful irrefutable evidence", but I get it. As per usual, you just haven't got anything of significance to say. Anybody who posts a floorplan of the TSBD which shows where the stairs are as "evidence" that Oswald did manage to come down those stairs unseen in less than 75 seconds after the last shot, needs to have his head examined.
There is just no point in kicking your ass time after time because you will always try to change the subject in any way you can.
What you will never do is actually discuss the case in detail! You are just like a bad skin rash that won't go away.
-
well i think that you highlight very well indeed the great difficulty one has in attempting any sort of intelligent conversation with an LN mentality .
let us just re cap .
i have stated that YOUR warren commission and its FBI experts , told us that the fibers allegedly from Oswalds brown shirt were found on the rifle in evidence , and that they were FRESH .and we know the official version of events and the LN stance , which is that Oswald wore the brown short in work and left the fibers on the rifle at 12.30 having fired the shots .i have informed you here of the FACT (and yes im certain you were already aware of it ) that interrogation notes state that Oswald told them that he CHANGED his shirt and slacks 1t 1pm while at his rooming house .and that ONLY there and then did he put on the brown shirt that HE WAS ARRESTED IN .
if the above is indeed TRUE well then the following must also be true .
1/ Oswald wore a red shirt in work and NOT the brown shirt he was Later arrested in .
2/ Oswald ONLY put on that brown shirt at 1pm at his rooming house , some 30 minutes after the assassination .
3/ that FRESH fibers from the brown shirt were found on the rifle by the FBI , when according to interrogation notes Oswald NEVER wore that shirt that day in work .
and the best you have is to first offer that oswald may have left FRESH fibers on the rifle some weeks or months prior , which would not be FRESH would they ? .
then you give us your bugliosi impression and tell us that FRESH FIBERS that should not be on the rifle dont matter , that we should not bother our little heads thinking about that at all . JUST FORGET ABOUT IT , IGNORE IT ,and move on , because all the evidence proved oswald did it . oh and we should all just take YOUR word that anything at all was indeed proven . lol .
You are not following. I'm not disputing that Oswald wore the arrest shirt at the moment of the assassination and left the fibers on the rifle at that time. To the contrary, that is almost certainly what did happen. What I was addressing is your claim that it somehow poses a problem that fibers from Oswald's arrest shirt were found on the rifle. Think about the logic of arguing that fibers linking a particular person to the murder weapon somehow lends itself to his innocence. That is absurd. If fibers from Oswald's shirt are on the rifle, that is just another link between him and the murder weapon and therefore the crime regardless of when they got there. It does not lend itself to his innocence. As I've tried to explain, even if you were correct, based on your assumption, that he changed shirts before his arrest, that would only mean his arrest shirt had come into contact with the rifle at some prior time. It still links Oswald to the rifle used to commit the crime which lends itself to his guilt rather than his innocence.
Your claim is also premised entirely on Oswald's unsubstantiated statement that he changed shirts. It is not a fact by a longshot that he actually changed his shirt. In fact, it is very unlikely that Oswald wasted any time changing his clothes. He knew he was the most wanted man in the world at that moment. He was not going to linger at his boardinghouse waiting for the police. The fact that he requested to be let out of the cab some distance away from his boardinghouse supports the conclusion that Oswald was concerned that the police might already be there by that point in time. He was not wasting a second longer than necessary being there. He came there to obtain his gun. He is in and out.
Assume for a second that Oswald was the assassin. Why might he lie to the police and tell them that he had changed clothes after the assassination? Because for all he knows someone had seen the assassin and provided a description including the manner of his dress. What to do to muddy the waters? Claim that he has changed clothes after the crime. He can then argue that it is only an unlucky coincidence for him that he put on a shirt that is similar to the one as described by any witness as being worn by the assassin. He knew his jacket would cover the shirt. So there was no reason to take time to change the shirt to avoid detection for the assassination. The jacket has to be discarded, however, after murdering Tippit in the presence of multiple witnesses because he knows the description of the Tippit shooter will include a reference to the suspect wearing a jacket.
-
You are not following. I'm not disputing that Oswald wore the arrest shirt at the moment of the assassination and left the fibers on the rifle at that time. To the contrary, that is almost certainly what did happen. What I was addressing is your claim that it somehow poses a problem that fibers from Oswald's arrest shirt were found on the rifle. Think about the logic of arguing that fibers linking a particular person to the murder weapon somehow lends itself to his innocence. That is absurd. If fibers from Oswald's shirt are on the rifle, that is just another link between him and the murder weapon and therefore the crime regardless of when they got there. It does not lend itself to his innocence. As I've tried to explain, even if you were correct, based on your assumption, that he changed shirts before his arrest, that would only mean his arrest shirt had come into contact with the rifle at some prior time. It still links Oswald to the rifle used to commit the crime which lends itself to his guilt rather than his innocence.
Your claim is also premised entirely on Oswald's unsubstantiated statement that he changed shirts. It is not a fact by a longshot that he actually changed his shirt. In fact, it is very unlikely that Oswald wasted any time changing his clothes. He knew he was the most wanted man in the world at that moment. He was not going to linger at his boardinghouse waiting for the police. The fact that he requested to be let out of the cab some distance away from his boardinghouse supports the conclusion that Oswald was concerned that the police might already be there by that point in time. He was not wasting a second longer than necessary being there. He came there to obtain his gun. He is in and out.
Assume for a second that Oswald was the assassin. Why might he lie to the police and tell them that he had changed clothes after the assassination? Because for all he knows someone had seen the assassin and provided a description including the manner of his dress. What to do to muddy the waters? Claim that he has changed clothes after the crime. He can then argue that it is only an unlucky coincidence for him that he put on a shirt that is similar to the one as described by any witness as being worn by the assassin. He knew his jacket would cover the shirt. So there was no reason to take time to change the shirt to avoid detection for the assassination. The jacket has to be discarded, however, after murdering Tippit in the presence of multiple witnesses because he knows the description of the Tippit shooter will include a reference to the suspect wearing a jacket.
Assume for a second that Oswald was the assassin.
Hilarious. Richard's "logic" is exclusively based on the pre-determined conclusion that Oswald was the assassin. All the assumptions made in this post rely absolutely on the premise that Oswald was the assassin.
As usual, Richard is looking for arguments to support his opinion. At no time does he let the actual evidence lead him to make an honest determination.
-
Conclusion,
The "fresh" fibers could be put on the rifle 3, 4 or 5 weeks ago.
We know that Oswald did not use the rifle daily.
We know that the three types of fibers on the rifle matched the same three types of fibers on Oswald's arrest shirt, therefore the shirt was owned by Oswald.
The three types of fibers on the rifle could have come from another piece of material being composed of the same three types of fibers.
Bugliosi in Reclaiming History informs the reader that "The FBI laboratory found that the colors, and even the twist of the fibers, perfectly matched those on the shirt Oswald was wearing at the time of his arrest. Though such fibers could theoretically have come from another identical shirt, the prohibitive probability is that they came from Oswald’s shirt."
JohnM
so in your mind and that of the man you bow down and pray to each morning fibers that could be left on a rifle some 5 weeks prior to an event would be considered FRESH ?.
as much as you may want to ram your nonsense down peoples throats neither you , the FBI or bugliosi ever proved that the fibers came from oswalds brown shirt to the exclusion of any other shirt in the world .
probably , could have , most likely blah blah blah . none of that equals PROVEN .
but i do understand how it works ha ha . your little LN pal was trying to avoid evidence he did not care for , LN 101 , if you dont like it or it creates a problem ignore it lol . so i can see why you felt a need to step in and help your little pal .
-
Mr. EISENBERG. In other words, you concluded they were fresh--well, you said you thought they were fresh, Mr. Stombaugh, and I don't quite understand now whether you seem to be backing off a little from that?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I am not trying to do that. I am trying to avoid a specific time element, since there are other factors which may enter couldn't--this is something that I won't even attempt to do, just say this was on here for 1 hour or 10 minutes, something like that.
But I would say these fibers were put on there in the recent past for this reason. If they had been put on there say 3, 4, 5 weeks or so ago, and the gun used every day, these fibers would have come off. Am I making myself a little more clear?
just as i said the fbi experts certainly in this case refused to say something was fact if it was not , to say it was irrefutable if it was not . Stombaugh said above even if he felt the fibers were left on the rifle 10 minutes prior , an hour prior that he would not state such . when asked if he was NOW TRYING TO BACK OFF FROM HIS FRESH STATEMENT he replied NO "i am not trying to do that " .
so Stombaugh in no way reversed his FRESH fibers statement . he simply refused to be drawn in to GIVING AN OPINION (as opposed to fact ) and to (to use his wording ) "to avoid a SPECIFIC time element " as to WHEN these fibers were left there .
-
"wasn't it Weidmann who called Markham a "Screwball"?" Mr Mytton
i would feel with certainty that the original person who said that was indeed YOUR very own Mr Ball of the warren commission .
-
"wasn't it Weidmann who called Markham a "Screwball"?" Mr Mytton
i would feel with certainty that the original person who said that was indeed YOUR very own Mr Ball of the warren commission .
He knows that, Fergus, but whenever Mytton gets stuck he starts playing silly games and goes ad hominem. I'm used to it by now.
-
You are not following. I'm not disputing that Oswald wore the arrest shirt at the moment of the assassination and left the fibers on the rifle at that time. To the contrary, that is almost certainly what did happen. What I was addressing is your claim that it somehow poses a problem that fibers from Oswald's arrest shirt were found on the rifle. Think about the logic of arguing that fibers linking a particular person to the murder weapon somehow lends itself to his innocence. That is absurd. If fibers from Oswald's shirt are on the rifle, that is just another link between him and the murder weapon and therefore the crime regardless of when they got there. It does not lend itself to his innocence. As I've tried to explain, even if you were correct, based on your assumption, that he changed shirts before his arrest, that would only mean his arrest shirt had come into contact with the rifle at some prior time. It still links Oswald to the rifle used to commit the crime which lends itself to his guilt rather than his innocence.
Your claim is also premised entirely on Oswald's unsubstantiated statement that he changed shirts. It is not a fact by a longshot that he actually changed his shirt. In fact, it is very unlikely that Oswald wasted any time changing his clothes. He knew he was the most wanted man in the world at that moment. He was not going to linger at his boardinghouse waiting for the police. The fact that he requested to be let out of the cab some distance away from his boardinghouse supports the conclusion that Oswald was concerned that the police might already be there by that point in time. He was not wasting a second longer than necessary being there. He came there to obtain his gun. He is in and out.
Assume for a second that Oswald was the assassin. Why might he lie to the police and tell them that he had changed clothes after the assassination? Because for all he knows someone had seen the assassin and provided a description including the manner of his dress. What to do to muddy the waters? Claim that he has changed clothes after the crime. He can then argue that it is only an unlucky coincidence for him that he put on a shirt that is similar to the one as described by any witness as being worn by the assassin. He knew his jacket would cover the shirt. So there was no reason to take time to change the shirt to avoid detection for the assassination. The jacket has to be discarded, however, after murdering Tippit in the presence of multiple witnesses because he knows the description of the Tippit shooter will include a reference to the suspect wearing a jacket.
oh do not worry i follow PERFECTLY .
number 1 , i have NEVER in many years doing this claimed that was Oswald was innocent , but also nor have i said he was guilty .there is a reason for that . it is that in so far as my research has shown me the official case against Oswald has never been proven . in fact often it simply does not stand up to close scrutiny . but also , even tho i say the case against Oswald has never been proven , i also am aware of no one piece of irrefutable proof that would completely exonerate him .
number 2 , i have never said that YOU dispute that Oswald wore the brown shirt IN WORK . it should be clear to anyone reading that that is your stance REGARDLESS ANY EVIDENCE OR WITNESS TO THE CONTRARY .
number 3 . i have not in any way argued that fibers from Oswalds shirt on the rifle would prove him innocent . unlike your arguments of assumption i argued based on recorded statements from within official interrogation notes , even Bugliosi used these notes in his door stop . my argument VERY CLEARLY is that A stombaugh said these fibers were FRESH all be it he declined to state just how fresh , and B that oswald was recorded in interrogation stating he changed his slacks and shirt at his rooming house .and THUS that if he did indeed do that , that the BROWN shirt he was arrested in was not the shirt he wore in work that day . if that is indeed the case HE CANT HAVE LEFT FRESH FIBERS FROM HIS BROWN SHIRT ON THE RIFLE AT 12.30 AT THE DEPOSITORY . you could only counter that with supposition that he left the fibers from the brown shirt weeks or months prior .
number 4 . yes its TRUE that it is not a proven fact that Oswald changed his shirt and slacks that day . but here is the kicker I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT IT WAS FACT OR PROVEN . i said very clearly IF IT IS INDEED TRUE that he then cant have left the fresh fibers on the rifle at 12.30 that tragic day .i will not / never state something to be proven fact if i dont know it to be or cant prove it to be , its an affliction of mine , it is this darn honest streak that runs through me . but i know most LN do not suffer with the same affliction lol .
yes oswald could have lied about changing his shirt and slacks , but also he could have told the truth .the difference between you and me is that you are taking a stance that he killed and thus he lied , and i am sure anything he said that you dont care for you call a lie . where as my approach is to examine both trains of thought , IE did he lie or did he tell the truth .from my perspective and approach on the surface atleast there appears more reasons to accept that he told the truth on this particular matter .
-
He knows that, Fergus, but whenever Mytton gets stuck he starts playing silly games and goes ad hominem. I'm used to it by now.
hello Martin and may i wish you and yours a very happy and healthy 2024 .
indeed i know Mr Mytton and his ways for quite some years now .and you are quite correct . i too have been the subject of his attack on a few occasions . like you it does not bother me , i just carry on regardless lol . but thank you for your reply . i have read a great many of your posts here and i have to say they are well written , intelligent and based clearly on very good research . and i do very much enjoy reading your comments and replies . to your credit you do seem to have the measure of the LN on this forum , and you handle them accordingly . take care and talk soon
-
there may be people reading this who are new to this case or who or not new to it but desire to learn more about these fibers , so here is a segment of an article by Pat Speer in regards the fiber evidence .
"Which brings us back to the 4-3-64 testimony of the FBI's fiber expert, Stombaugh...
He eventually discussed the fibers: “I tried to match these fibers with the fibers to the blanket, and found that they had not originated from the blanket, because the cotton fibers were of entirely different colors. So I happened to think of the shirt and I made a known sample of the shirt fibers…I removed fibers from the shirt to determine the composition of it and also the colors. I found that the shirt was composed of dark-blue, grayish black, and orangish-yellow cotton fibers, and that these were the same shades of fibers I had found on the butt of the gun… "
He then presented some photographs to prove his point: “Color photographs are very difficult to make microscopically because the color isn’t always identical to what you see in the microscope. So these colors are slightly off.” “These are the orangish fibers. The color is not exactly the same as what one would see under the microscope. However, you can see that the fibers on both sides, namely the fiber from the rifle, here…And the fibers from the shirt, which are on the left hand side of Exhibit 674, do match. The colors are the same and also, we find the same twist in the fiber.” He then moved on to the grayish-black fibers: “These are the gray-black cotton fibers and the color didn’t come out well on these in this instance because of time and color process limitations…The same would apply to Exhibit 675 as to 674, with the exception of the color. The color on these is much darker and we tried up to last night to duplicate the exact color and this is the best I could come up with under the time and color process limitations. It took us about four hours to make a photograph such as this.”
Well, this is a bit of a surprise. Stombaugh was unable to get his photographs to match and expected the commission to take his word for it that the fibers really did match, when seen under his super spiffy microscope. Of course, they did just that. Not surprisingly, a detailed report by Stombaugh, explaining how and why he came to his conclusions, when his photographs didn't even match, never surfaced. A defense attorney could get fat on this stuff.
Stombaugh then moved on to the dark blue cotton fibers: “the color match of the dark blue cotton fibers shows rather well in this photograph, Exhibit 676…" (When asked about a violet fiber in the picture) “I asked the photographer about this when he developed this and I said “Why did we get this; this is not in the slide at all,” and he said that is one of the orange fibers. They use different techniques in bringing out the blue and yellow-orange in a photomicrograph…this shade in the photograph is different from what that fiber actually is. It is in the development process. I am not too familiar with color photography. There is an art to it. However, I do know that there are times and technical limitations on the accuracy of color reproductions…I believe (I recovered) a total of six or seven fibers from the butt plate, and three of them are blue fibers and all matched…Two shades.”
When asked his conclusions, Stombaugh declared: “it was my opinion that these fibers could easily have come from the shirt…Mainly because the fibers or the shirt is composed of point one, cotton, and point two, three basic colors. I found all three colors on the gun. Now if the shirt had been composed of 10 or 15 different colors and types of fibers and I only had found 3 of them, then I would feel that I had not found enough, but I found fibers on the gun which I could match with the fibers composing the shirt, so I feel the fibers could easily have come from the shirt.”
Could Stombaugh really have stated that a rust brown shirt was made up entirely of dark blue, grayish-black, and orange-ish yellow fibers? I must admit I'm skeptical. Since when is there no brown in brown? His assurance that the fibers found on the rifle "could easily" have come from Oswald's shirt is also questionable, and notable for its lack of precision."
https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence
-
oh do not worry i follow PERFECTLY .
number 1 , i have NEVER in many years doing this claimed that was Oswald was innocent , but also nor have i said he was guilty .there is a reason for that . it is that in so far as my research has shown me the official case against Oswald has never been proven . in fact often it simply does not stand up to close scrutiny . but also , even tho i say the case against Oswald has never been proven , i also am aware of no one piece of irrefutable proof that would completely exonerate him .
number 2 , i have never said that YOU dispute that Oswald wore the brown shirt IN WORK . it should be clear to anyone reading that that is your stance REGARDLESS ANY EVIDENCE OR WITNESS TO THE CONTRARY .
number 3 . i have not in any way argued that fibers from Oswalds shirt on the rifle would prove him innocent . unlike your arguments of assumption i argued based on recorded statements from within official interrogation notes , even Bugliosi used these notes in his door stop . my argument VERY CLEARLY is that A stombaugh said these fibers were FRESH all be it he declined to state just how fresh , and B that oswald was recorded in interrogation stating he changed his slacks and shirt at his rooming house .and THUS that if he did indeed do that , that the BROWN shirt he was arrested in was not the shirt he wore in work that day . if that is indeed the case HE CANT HAVE LEFT FRESH FIBERS FROM HIS BROWN SHIRT ON THE RIFLE AT 12.30 AT THE DEPOSITORY . you could only counter that with supposition that he left the fibers from the brown shirt weeks or months prior .
number 4 . yes its TRUE that it is not a proven fact that Oswald changed his shirt and slacks that day . but here is the kicker I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT IT WAS FACT OR PROVEN . i said very clearly IF IT IS INDEED TRUE that he then cant have left the fresh fibers on the rifle at 12.30 that tragic day .i will not / never state something to be proven fact if i dont know it to be or cant prove it to be , its an affliction of mine , it is this darn honest streak that runs through me . but i know most LN do not suffer with the same affliction lol .
yes oswald could have lied about changing his shirt and slacks , but also he could have told the truth .the difference between you and me is that you are taking a stance that he killed and thus he lied , and i am sure anything he said that you dont care for you call a lie . where as my approach is to examine both trains of thought , IE did he lie or did he tell the truth .from my perspective and approach on the surface atleast there appears more reasons to accept that he told the truth on this particular matter .
You haven't argued "in any way" that the fibers from Oswald's shirt would prove him innocent? Then why make such a big deal about him changing shirts and claiming that resulted in a "problem" for LNers? What problem would there be then? The argument seemed to be that because Oswald claimed to have changed shirts, he could not have left the fibers on the rifle that was used to assassinate JFK. That sounds a lot like suggesting he was not the assassin. The facts are that the fibers found on the rifle are consistent with those from the shirt that Oswald was wearing approximately an hour after the assassination. Absent a time machine we can't know certain things with absolute certainty, but those facts lend themselves to Oswald's guilt rather than his innocence. What are the odds that Oswald puts on a random shirt that matches the fibers found on his rifle that day? And again, even if there were no fibers from his shirt, there is ample evidence to link Oswald to the murder weapon. It is difficult to even contemplate how there could be any more evidence of the fact. Oswald has no explanation for the presence of his rifle at the crime scene. He has no credible alibi for the moment of the assassination. He flees the scene within minutes and gets a gun. He is identified by several witnesses as the person who murdered a police officer in broad daylight on the street. I'm puzzled how anyone can fixate on a trivial point like the fibers in the face of the overwhelming mountain of evidence that links Oswald to the crime.
-
"wasn't it Weidmann who called Markham a "Screwball"?" Mr Mytton
i would feel with certainty that the original person who said that was indeed YOUR very own Mr Ball of the warren commission .
Ball was debating Mark Lane at the time and within context was only giving a sarcastic reply, but Martin likes to say Markham is a screwball when she identified Oswald and on the other hand Markham was an honest valuable eyewitness with her time estimate. Do you see the obvious conflict?
Whereas from my perspective, Markham's identification of Oswald was true and genuine and the 1963 timepiece was never verified and considering the FBI ascertained that buses came every ten minutes, whenever she got to the bus stop, the wait was never very long.
JohnM
-
Ball was debating Mark Lane at the time and within context was only giving a sarcastic reply, but Martin likes to say Markham is a screwball when she identified Oswald and on the other hand Markham was an honest valuable eyewitness with her time estimate. Do you see the obvious conflict?
Whereas from my perspective, Markham's identification of Oswald was true and genuine and the 1963 timepiece was never verified and considering the FBI ascertained that buses came every ten minutes, whenever she got to the bus stop, the wait was never very long.
JohnM
Still being your usual obnoxious self, I see
-
I'm just gonna leave this here...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48199896537_0a0b37ebca_n.jpg)
Mr. BALL. Later that day they had a show up you went to?
Mrs. MARKHAM. A lineup?
Mr. BALL. A lineup.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
Mr. BALL. How many men were in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe there were, now I am not positive, I believe there were three besides this man.
Mr. BALL. That would be four people altogether?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe that is correct.
Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.
Mr. BALL. Well, I thought you just told me that you hadn't--
Mrs. MARKHAM. I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.
Mr. BALL. No. I wanted to know if that day when you were in there if you saw anyone in there--
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What can I say?
It reads like a "Burns & Allen" routine or an episode of "I Love Lucy."
Obvious evidence the witnesses were coached throughout this process.
There is no confidence in this witness' ability to answer simple and direct questions.
Helen Markham, testified 3x before the commission. Twice in April (I think), with Attorney Ball, the other on July 22 or 23 with Liebeler.
The record is not clear. April sounds right because, Ball is referencing and introducing Mark Lane to the testimony.
Lane, played a bigger part in July when they, (WC) try to legally threaten him.
The above doesn't dispute that Mrs. Markham chose number 2 at the lineup.
What it does is, bring into question the fairness of the circumstances for which she made that choice.
-
I'm just gonna leave this here...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48199896537_0a0b37ebca_n.jpg)
Mr. BALL. Later that day they had a show up you went to?
Mrs. MARKHAM. A lineup?
Mr. BALL. A lineup.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
Mr. BALL. How many men were in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe there were, now I am not positive, I believe there were three besides this man.
Mr. BALL. That would be four people altogether?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe that is correct.
Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.
Mr. BALL. Well, I thought you just told me that you hadn't--
Mrs. MARKHAM. I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.
Mr. BALL. No. I wanted to know if that day when you were in there if you saw anyone in there--
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What can I say?
It reads like a "Burns & Allen" routine or an episode of "I Love Lucy."
Obvious evidence the witnesses were coached throughout this process.
There is no confidence in this witness' ability to answer simple and direct questions.
Helen Markham, testified 3x before the commission. Twice in April (I think), with Attorney Ball, the other on July 22 or 23 with Liebeler.
The record is not clear. April sounds right because, Ball is referencing and introducing Mark Lane to the testimony.
Lane, played a bigger part in July when they, (WC) try to legally threaten him.
The above doesn't dispute that Mrs. Markham chose number 2 at the lineup.
What it does is, bring into question the fairness of the circumstances for which she made that choice.
How exactly does it "bring into question the fairness of the circumstances"? She is taking his questions literally. She didn't "know" Oswald or "recognize" him. She didn't have a clue who he was. She had never seen him before she witnessed him murdering Tippit. Obviously, if she had been "coached" to answer these questions her answer would have been "yes." She is certainly not the greatest witness in history, but she is also not the only witness who places Oswald at the scene with his gun in hand. What do you think the odds are that Oswald worked in the place from which the president was assassinated, would leave work to get his gun, and then pass the very scene of the only DPD officer murdered in a number of years on the way to the movies? All within about an hour. And was unlucky enough to look so much like the Tippit shooter that he was identified by multiple witnesses as the person at the scene with a gun? A billion to one if he was innocent?
-
How exactly does it "bring into question the fairness of the circumstances"? She is taking his questions literally. She didn't "know" Oswald or "recognize" him. She didn't have a clue who he was. She had never seen him before she witnessed him murdering Tippit. Obviously, if she had been "coached" to answer these questions her answer would have been "yes." She is certainly not the greatest witness in history, but she is also not the only witness who places Oswald at the scene with his gun in hand. What do you think the odds are that Oswald worked in the place from which the president was assassinated, would leave work to get his gun, and then pass the very scene of the only DPD officer murdered in a number of years on the way to the movies? All within about an hour. And was unlucky enough to look so much like the Tippit shooter that he was identified by multiple witnesses as the person at the scene with a gun? A billion to one if he was innocent?
It's called "Unfair Lineups"
https://jfk.boards.net/post/1268/thread
Do you think she knew the other fill ins?
-
And as far as the "unverified timepiece" goes; Markham took the same bus to work every workday. People who do that are not only accutely aware of the time but they also know when to leave home for the bus stop. In her WC testimony, Markham stated that she usually got the bus from Jefferson at 1:15 PM.
Mr. BALL. You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you?
Mrs. MARKHAM. 1:15.
The FBI established that her regular bus was scheduled to stop at the Jefferson bus stop at 1:12 and 1:22, so LN's made a big deal out of this, as if buses back then always ran exactly on schedule. In March 1964 Markham told FBI agent Barrett that she "had hoped to catch a bas at about 1:15". So, regardless if it was a delayed 1:12 bus or the one scheduled for 1:22, Markham was clear at her being at the bus stop at 1:15. When you then look at the distance she had to walk, it turns out to be no more than two blocks, which the FBI established could be walked at normal speed in roughly 2,5 minutes each. This means that Markham would have passed the crossing at 10th and Patton no later than 1:12 which is well before the time Tippit, according to the official narrative, was supposedly shot.
Mytton's argument about the "unverified timepiece" relates only to the time Markham left the washateria and clearly has no merit because Markham never said in either her testimony or affidavit at what time exactly she left the washateria. What she did say in her testimony was;
Mr. BALL. So you were walking south toward Jefferson?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You think it was a little after 1?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I wouldn't be afraid to bet it wasn't 6 or 7 minutes after 1.
So, she actually said that she was already walking toward Jefferson at roughly 1:06 or 1:07
In her affidavit, on 11/22/63, she goes even further when she says; "At approximately 1:06 PM, November 22, 1963 -- I was standing at the corner of E. 10th and Patton street waiting for the traffic to go by.
Markham's statements match up perfectly with the information provided by T.F. Bowley. He said he was picking up his daughter from her school in Singing Hills and then his wife from work, at the Telephone Company on 9th street, to go on a holiday. He gave the time he picked up his daughter as around 12:55. He then drove along Marsalis Ave to his wife's place of work in Oak Cliff, and after turning left onto 10th street he came upon the location of the shooting. I have driven this route myself some years ago and it took me, at normal speed, no more that 13 minutes. This means that Bowley arrived at the crime scene at roughly between 1:08 to 1:11, depending on the exact time he left the school. Bowley said that when he arrived at the scene he checked his watch, because he wondered if he would be late to pick up his wife. Years later, he told Stan Dane that he wasn't sure he looked at his watch immediately after arriving at the scene or a little bit later. In any event, his watch said 1:10, which fits right in with Markham's time estimate.
Markham said in her affidavit that she was standing at the crossing of 10th and Patton at around 1:06, waiting for traffic to pass. She sees a man walking east being followed by a police car. She then sees the interaction between Tippit and the man, resulting in Tippit being shot. Several minutes later Bowley arrives and she's Benavides trying in vain to call the DPD dispatcher. He then takes over and calls the dispatcher. By then, Callaway arrives on the scene, about 3 minutes after hearing the shots, which confirms that Bowley must have arrived on the scene about 1 minute after the murder (as his radio call is timed at lasting 48 seconds). When Callaway is using the DPD radio, the ambulance pulls up and Bowley and Callaway help to place Tippit's body in it. The ambulance then drives to Methodist Hospital where Tippit is pronounced dead on arrival at 1:15 PM.
The only thing that doesn't match this timeline is the recording of the DPD radio, as we know it today. However, and rather remarkably, it is around this time that the recording failed to function properly. There's about a two minute gap with noise. Add to this that DPD Communications Supervisor, Sergeant Jim Bowles stated that the times called out by the dispatchers did not reflect real time, because the clocks in the dispatcher's office was linked to a master clock which itself could be off by several minutes. Bowles estimated it could be 3 minutes from standard time. And then there is the fact that between 1:04 and 1:15 there were only two time calls (1:07 and 1:12) on a recording which should have lasted 1 hour by actually only lasted 48 minutes.
With all this in mind it's pretty obvious that Mytton's argument about the "unverified timepiece" is absolutely nonsensical.
-
It's called "Unfair Lineups"
https://jfk.boards.net/post/1268/thread
Do you think she knew the other fill ins?
You think the lineup was "unfair" to Oswald because he looked like the person who committed the crime? And your explanation for this is that: "there are Oswald imposters running around Dallas in the weeks and days before the assassination." That is way far out stuff. Honestly, you can't really believe that nonsense. That is called working backwards toward the facts to reach a desired conclusion. Again, what do you think the odds are that Oswald worked in the very building from which the president was assassinated, left work to get a gun, passed the scene of the only murder of a DPD officer within a period of years on his way to the movies, and looked so much like the gunman that several random witnesses ID him as the shooter? Has to be a billion to one that all those things would happen to an innocent person within a space of an hour or so. Add in finding Oswald's prints on the SN boxes and bag "because he worked there."
-
You think the lineup was "unfair" to Oswald because he looked like the person who committed the crime? And your explanation for this is that: "there are Oswald imposters running around Dallas in the weeks and days before the assassination." That is way far out stuff. Honestly, you can't really believe that nonsense. That is called working backwards toward the facts to reach a desired conclusion. Again, what do you think the odds are that Oswald worked in the very building from which the president was assassinated, left work to get a gun, passed the scene of the only murder of a DPD officer within a period of years on his way to the movies, and looked so much like the gunman that several random witnesses ID him as the shooter? Has to be a billion to one that all those things would happen to an innocent person within a space of an hour or so. Add in finding Oswald's prints on the SN boxes and bag "because he worked there."
I have no idea what your asking there ?- or how that makes the line ups unfair? - but it's blatantly obvious they broke every line up rule in the book.
And numerous FBI reports of some "lone nut loser" creating a scene, and even identifying himself as "Lee Oswald" is nothing made up.
and looked so much like the gunman that several random witnesses ID him as the shooter?
That's why I ask - did she know the fill ins? - they were cops - her restaurant was a 4 min walk away
Who will she not choose?
-
You think the lineup was "unfair" to Oswald because he looked like the person who committed the crime? And your explanation for this is that: "there are Oswald imposters running around Dallas in the weeks and days before the assassination." That is way far out stuff. Honestly, you can't really believe that nonsense. That is called working backwards toward the facts to reach a desired conclusion. Again, what do you think the odds are that Oswald worked in the very building from which the president was assassinated, left work to get a gun, passed the scene of the only murder of a DPD officer within a period of years on his way to the movies, and looked so much like the gunman that several random witnesses ID him as the shooter? Has to be a billion to one that all those things would happen to an innocent person within a space of an hour or so. Add in finding Oswald's prints on the SN boxes and bag "because he worked there."
You think the lineup was "unfair" to Oswald because he looked like the person who committed the crime?
That should probably be: he looked like the only person out of the four who was likely to have committed the crime!
Has to be a billion to one that all those things would happen to an innocent person within a space of an hour or so.
True, if Oswald was a totally innocent person, I would agree. But if he was in some way involved in some scheme, which left him open to manipulation, the odds would be considerably smaller.
-
You think the lineup was "unfair" to Oswald because he looked like the person who committed the crime? And your explanation for this is that: "there are Oswald imposters running around Dallas in the weeks and days before the assassination." That is way far out stuff. Honestly, you can't really believe that nonsense. That is called working backwards toward the facts to reach a desired conclusion. Again, what do you think the odds are that Oswald worked in the very building from which the president was assassinated, left work to get a gun, passed the scene of the only murder of a DPD officer within a period of years on his way to the movies, and looked so much like the gunman that several random witnesses ID him as the shooter? Has to be a billion to one that all those things would happen to an innocent person within a space of an hour or so. Add in finding Oswald's prints on the SN boxes and bag "because he worked there."
It's called reverse engineering a conspiracy. Simply lay out all of this vast amount of information - stories, claims, accounts - and then pluck those out that support your preconceived conspiracy. Works every time. As long as you ignore all of this other evidence.
Again, it's why they have 50 different flavors of conspiracies. The CIA, the Pentagon, the FBI, SS, Mob, anti-Castro Cubans, rich Texas oilmen, the Mossad, Wall Street financiers, the FED, and on and on. They all grab that information that supports their original theory. After 60 years instead of having a more streamlined explanation it's gotten more convoluted. One giant Rube Goldberg device where you push a button and the bells jingle and the wheels turn and at the end JFK is dead.
Like this made by the CIA at their Hawkeye Photographic Lab. I hope Michael Griffith doesn't see it.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID10882772229/Key5hn03nerhn5k/JFK Goldberg.jpg)
-
It's called reverse engineering a conspiracy. Simply lay out all of this vast amount of information - stories, claims, accounts - and then pluck those out that support your preconceived conspiracy. Works every time. As long as you ignore all of this other evidence.
Again, it's why they have 50 different flavors of conspiracies. The CIA, the Pentagon, the FBI, SS, Mob, anti-Castro Cubans, rich Texas oilmen, the Mossad, Wall Street financiers, the FED, and on and on. They all grab that information that supports their original theory. After 60 years instead of having a more streamlined explanation it's gotten more convoluted. One giant Rube Goldberg device where you push a button and the bells jingle and the wheels turn and at the end JFK is dead.
Like this made by the CIA at their Hawkeye Photographic Lab. I hope Michael Griffith doesn't see it.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID10882772229/Key5hn03nerhn5k/JFK Goldberg.jpg)
Some theories are at least plausible despite lacking any support. When they start rolling out the "Oswald doubles" and "body alterations" explanations that is X-Files material.
-
I have no idea what your asking there ?- or how that makes the line ups unfair? - but it's blatantly obvious they broke every line up rule in the book.
And numerous FBI reports of some "lone nut loser" creating a scene, and even identifying himself as "Lee Oswald" is nothing made up.
That's why I ask - did she know the fill ins? - they were cops - her restaurant was a 4 min walk away
Who will she not choose?
You suggested the lineups were unfair and provided a link in which your very first post claims that there were Oswald doubles roaming about Dallas. In that context, presumably you are implying that one of these "doubles" who looked like Oswald committed the Tippit murder. And that is why the witnesses picked poor old Ozzy out of the lineup. Because the shooter looked like him. Markham indicated that she didn't know or recognize any of the people in the lineup. None of them. Meaning that none of them were not previously known to her. The first and only time she saw Oswald was when he murdered Tippit. Is there any reason to believe that she would lie on this point if some of these men had frequented her restaurant? And again, she was not the only witness to ID Oswald.
-
I'm just gonna leave this here...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48199896537_0a0b37ebca_n.jpg)
Mr. BALL. Later that day they had a show up you went to?
Mrs. MARKHAM. A lineup?
Mr. BALL. A lineup.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
Mr. BALL. How many men were in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe there were, now I am not positive, I believe there were three besides this man.
Mr. BALL. That would be four people altogether?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe that is correct.
Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.
Mr. BALL. Well, I thought you just told me that you hadn't--
Mrs. MARKHAM. I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.
Mr. BALL. No. I wanted to know if that day when you were in there if you saw anyone in there--
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What can I say?
It reads like a "Burns & Allen" routine or an episode of "I Love Lucy."
Obvious evidence the witnesses were coached throughout this process.
There is no confidence in this witness' ability to answer simple and direct questions.
Helen Markham, testified 3x before the commission. Twice in April (I think), with Attorney Ball, the other on July 22 or 23 with Liebeler.
The record is not clear. April sounds right because, Ball is referencing and introducing Mark Lane to the testimony.
Lane, played a bigger part in July when they, (WC) try to legally threaten him.
The above doesn't dispute that Mrs. Markham chose number 2 at the lineup.
What it does is, bring into question the fairness of the circumstances for which she made that choice.
Eyewitnesses who positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald. And don't forget in many cases only 1 positive ID is enough but here we have an absolute plethora. Also another very important fact in this case is the shells recovered at the scene, the same shells that Oswald was seen removing and discarding from his revolver, were an exclusive match to Oswald's revolver, the same revolver he was arrested with and the same revolver he tried to use to kill more cops! A Slam Dunk in other words.
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. V DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. B DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.
Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Mr. BALL. You mean he looked like the same man?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Then what did you do?
Mr. GUINYARD. I was looking--trying to see and after I heard the third shot, then Oswald came through on Patton running---came right through the yard in front of the big white house---there's a big two-story white house---there's two of them there and he come through the one right on the corner of Patton.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I identified him.
RUSSELL positively identified a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans Police Department # 112723, taken August 9, 1963, as being identical with the individual he had observed at the scene of the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. TIPPIT on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas.
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
Eyewitnesses who positively identified Oswald and confirmed he was carrying a gun
Mr. BALL. Which way?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Towards Jefferson, right across that way.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have the pistol in his hand at this time?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had the gun when I saw him.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it
Mr. BALL. And what did you see the man doing?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. And how was he holding the gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. We used to say in the Marine Corps in a raised pistol position.
Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand.
Mr. BALL. With which hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. With his right hand; just kicking them out.
Mr. BALL. He had it up?
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see this man's face that had the gun in his hand?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Very good.
HAROLD RUSSELL, employee, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was standing on the lot of Reynolds Used Cars together with L.J. LEWIS and PAT PATTERSON, at which time they heard shots come from the vicinity of Patton and Tenth Street, and a few seconds later they observed a young white man running south on Patton Avenue carrying a pistol or revolver which the individual was attempting to either reload or place in his belt line.
Mr. BELIN. Did he have anything in his hand?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had a pistol in his left hand.
The Police Officers who were confronted with the murdering Oswald.
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When you saw Oswald's hand by his belt, which hand did you see then?
Mr. WALKER. He had ahold of the handle of it.
Mr. BELIN. Handle of what?
Mr. WALKER. The revolver.
Mr. BELIN. Was there a revolver there?
Mr. WALKER. Yes; there was.
Mr. HUTSON. McDonald was at this time simultaneously trying to hold this person's right hand. Somehow this person moved his right hand to his waist, and I saw a revolver come out, and McDonald was holding on to it with his right hand, and this gun was waving up toward the back of the seat like this.
Oswald even admitted carrying his revolver.
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
(http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h441/johniscool5/LHOrev_Fig02_080510_zpsch4v5bkj.jpg)
(http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h441/johniscool5/LHOrev_Fig04_0805101_zps85fc9281.jpg)
JohnM
-
You haven't argued "in any way" that the fibers from Oswald's shirt would prove him innocent? Then why make such a big deal about him changing shirts and claiming that resulted in a "problem" for LNers? What problem would there be then? The argument seemed to be that because Oswald claimed to have changed shirts, he could not have left the fibers on the rifle that was used to assassinate JFK. That sounds a lot like suggesting he was not the assassin. The facts are that the fibers found on the rifle are consistent with those from the shirt that Oswald was wearing approximately an hour after the assassination. Absent a time machine we can't know certain things with absolute certainty, but those facts lend themselves to Oswald's guilt rather than his innocence. What are the odds that Oswald puts on a random shirt that matches the fibers found on his rifle that day? And again, even if there were no fibers from his shirt, there is ample evidence to link Oswald to the murder weapon. It is difficult to even contemplate how there could be any more evidence of the fact. Oswald has no explanation for the presence of his rifle at the crime scene. He has no credible alibi for the moment of the assassination. He flees the scene within minutes and gets a gun. He is identified by several witnesses as the person who murdered a police officer in broad daylight on the street. I'm puzzled how anyone can fixate on a trivial point like the fibers in the face of the overwhelming mountain of evidence that links Oswald to the crime.
i am not making a big deal , you are the one doing that . your stance is oswald was guilty , as with any LN and as with the warren commission when taking this LN stance you are stuck with the evidence you thinks proves oswald acted alone . you simply cant and wont contradict it , because it weakens and maybe destroys your arguments to do so . this is why you felt a need to come up with the supposition that he left the FRESH fibers on the rifle weeks to months prior , anything to keep that brown shirt on Oswalds back .
it is very simple the fibers were fresh , not weeks or months old , but Stombaugh as with the other agents was not going to let the commission try to push them into being specific and try to give an exact time how long the fibers were there . just as they would not say any tippit bullet matched to the pistol . hence the commission had to get joe nichol in to save the day .if they were fresh fibers left on that rifle that day and Oswald never wore that brown shirt in work that day , well that is a problem . it means they got there in one of two ways , by accident (cross contamination ) or on purpose . if the fibers got there on purpose that then means we have to question the reliability of that evidence , that is the point . and if one item of evidence is suspect how do we know we can trust other evidence ? .
LN love certain words , one being consistent / CONSISTENT WITH . the fibers are CONSISTENT with the fibers from Oswalds shirt .the sun and the moon are consistent , both are round and bright in the sky . but they are very different . Stombaugh mentioned the color of fibers he looked at , he never mentioned BROWN , it was after all a brown shirt . so there should be brown fibers or color fibers that together make a shirt look brown YES ? . i already posted some of pat speers work on this matter .
but as you admit you cant know with certainty certain things , neither can i . the difference being i am not claiming that which i cant prove is proof of anything .
there is that OVERWHELMING MOUNTAIN again lol , certainly evidence points to Oswald but as we can see here on this forum that evidence is not always quite what it appears to be .
-
Ball was debating Mark Lane at the time and within context was only giving a sarcastic reply, but Martin likes to say Markham is a screwball when she identified Oswald and on the other hand Markham was an honest valuable eyewitness with her time estimate. Do you see the obvious conflict?
Whereas from my perspective, Markham's identification of Oswald was true and genuine and the 1963 timepiece was never verified and considering the FBI ascertained that buses came every ten minutes, whenever she got to the bus stop, the wait was never very long.
JohnM
and LN love to cite Markham as a witness to the Tippit shooting but they refuse to accept her estimate of the time (about 1.07) that the shooting took place BASED upon her leaving home at her normal time to go and get her normal bus to work . a time estimate which is not inconsistent with Bowleys 1.10pm time . he saw tippit already down , looked at his watch , and noted the time was 1.10 pm . you are another who refuses to accept her time estimate .
you accept her testimony that she identified oswald . but she told agent Odum (from me memory) the killer was about 18 with dark hair . she told Aynesworth the killer was (again from memory) again bit chunky , bit short , slightly bushy hair . this is what prompted lane to speak to her . a conversation she first denied took place and she even denied her own voice . in addition she has the killer crossing 10th street , turning left and going to the corner of 10th and patton , then crossing the street again and coming face to face with her . NO OTHER WITNESS CLAIMED THIS . this either tells us that she was a screwball or that she saw a second man . the same woman who testified that she did not know ANYONE in the line up NOT A ONE , not by their face , not by their clothing . yet you stand by her identification of Oswald while you criticize martin .
-
How exactly does it "bring into question the fairness of the circumstances"? She is taking his questions literally. She didn't "know" Oswald or "recognize" him. She didn't have a clue who he was. She had never seen him before she witnessed him murdering Tippit. Obviously, if she had been "coached" to answer these questions her answer would have been "yes." She is certainly not the greatest witness in history, but she is also not the only witness who places Oswald at the scene with his gun in hand. What do you think the odds are that Oswald worked in the place from which the president was assassinated, would leave work to get his gun, and then pass the very scene of the only DPD officer murdered in a number of years on the way to the movies? All within about an hour. And was unlucky enough to look so much like the Tippit shooter that he was identified by multiple witnesses as the person at the scene with a gun? A billion to one if he was innocent?
"She is taking his questions literally. She didn't "know" Oswald or "recognize" him. She didn't have a clue who he was"
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
-
How about a dose of reality in this thread? I discuss the myriad of problems with the case against Oswald in the Tippit shooting in my article "Did Oswald Shoot Tippit?" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_j_022lJYli3B5Xyw8wLs-0nl6mDLo2t/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_j_022lJYli3B5Xyw8wLs-0nl6mDLo2t/view?usp=sharing)). A few points:
-- The last time housekeeper Earlene Roberts saw Oswald shortly after he left the rooming house, he was standing at the northbound bus stop. He wasn't speed-walking southward to the Tippit scene but was standing at a bus stop.
-- The fact that Oswald was standing at the northbound bus stop is important because the Tippit scene was in the opposite direction--it was southward from the bus stop.
-- The weight of the eyewitness evidence clearly has Tippit's killer walking toward the police car, not away from it. This wreaks havoc with the WC's timeline for getting Oswald to the Tippit scene. From Rockefeller Foundation scholar Henry Hurt's widely acclaimed book Reasonable Doubt:
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of the most glaring discrepancies of all is seen in the accounts
of the direction in which Tippit's killer was walking just before Tippit
stopped. William Scoggins, a cab driver who was an eyewitness,
testified that the gunman was walking west toward Tippit's car prior
to the shooting. Another witness reported similarly. Reports from
the Dallas police as well as the first reports of the Secret Service
reflect the same impression. Despite the preponderance of evidence
that the killer and Tippit's car were moving toward each other, the
Warren Report concluded that the killer was walking in the opposite
direction. The commission version held that Tippit's car overtook
the pedestrian killer.43
This was necessary for the Warren Commission's tenuous version
to work at all. If he was Oswald, the killer had to be walking east,
in the same direction as the police car was moving when it overtook
the killer. Otherwise, Oswald, on his exceedingly tight time sched-
ule, would have had to move from the rooming house to a point
beyond the scene of the shooting and then to have turned and been
heading back to reach the location of the murder. Because of time
considerations, that was preposterous even by commission stan-
dards, so the commission ignored the testimony. (pp. 149-150)
----------------------------------------------------------------
-- The weight of the evidence puts the time of the shooting at around 1:08-1:10, not 1:16. Henry Hurt:
----------------------------------------------------------------
As in other aspects of its investigation, the Warren Commission
found itself using as key witnesses those whose accounts must have
been distressing in the formulation of the official version. For the
Tippit murder, Helen Markham emerged as the star of the com-
mission's presentation, even though she claimed she saw Tippit
being shot no later than 1:07 P.M.—significantly earlier than the
murder could have happened if it was committed by Oswald. (Mrs.
Markham, while highly inconsistent in other areas, seems credible
on the matter of the timing because she was on her way to catch a
bus at 1:15 to go to her regular job.)2
Other eyewitnesses also plagued the commission. The only person
who claimed he actually checked the time was T. F. Bowley, who
stated that his watch indicated that it was 1:10 P.M. And Bowley
came upon the murder scene after Tippit was shot, while he was
still lying in the street. Bowley's report gives credence to the 1:07
time Helen Markham gave for the actual shooting. Four other wit-
nesses put the time even earlier, stating that it occurred around one
o'clock. (p. 144)
----------------------------------------------------------------
-- The "identifications" of Oswald as Tippit's killer are doubtful. Henry Hurt:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Other eyewitness testimony concerning Oswald and the Tippit
murder also seemed shaky at best, calling into question the whole
lineup procedure used that afternoon and evening by the Dallas
Police Department. One witness taken to view the lineup told the
Warren Commission that one reason he was able to pick out the
prime suspect was that Oswald was complaining loudly that he
was being framed by the procedure. In fact, he was the only one in
the lineup with a bruised and swollen face, the results of the scuf-
fle at the time of his arrest. He certainly was the only one who,
when questioned so that the witness could hear his voice, stated
that he worked at the Texas School Book Depository—by then
heralded to the world as the almost certain site of the assassin's
Five of the witnesses who identified Oswald as the man fleeing
the scene picked him out of the lineup under the dubious conditions
described.
Others were asked two months later to look at a photograph of
Oswald and to say whether he was the man observed running
from the murder scene. (These witnesses were not asked to pick
the person they saw from among several photographs—only to say
whether Oswald was the man they had seen.) Several witnesses made
positive identifications in this fashion, while others did not.3 (pp. 146-147)
----------------------------------------------------------------
-- The duration of Oswald's ride in Whaley's cab is problematic for the WC's case against Oswald, and his post-assassination actions are not indicative of someone who was in desperate flight. From Sylvia Meagher's book Accessories After the Fact:
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Warren Report, Oswald walked from the point where he had
left the bus to the Greyhound Bus Terminal. There he took a taxicab driven by
William Whaley, saying that he wished to go to 500 North Beckley. As the cab
was about to start, Oswald seemed about to yield his place to an elderly woman
who wanted a taxi too, but apparently she refused his offer.
The cab proceeded to North Beckley, where Oswald got out in the 700 block,
paying a meter charge of 95 cents. The Report (WR 163) states that the elapsed
time of the reconstructed run from the Greyhound Bus Station to Neely and Beckley Streets
was 5 minutes 30 seconds, in a retracing of the route performed during an inter-
view with Whaley in Dallas. The Commission suggests that if the cab ride lasted
approximately 6 minutes, Oswald could have walked the distance to his room-
ing house in time to arrive there by 1 p.m.
Comments on the treatment of the taxi ride by the Warren Commission can
be brief. It is immediately obvious that Oswald's actions were inconsistent with
those of an escaping assassin in two respects: he took a taxi to a local address
instead of taking advantage of the possibilities in the Greyhound Bus Station
for leaving Dallas or the State of Texas altogether; and he was ready to sur-
render the taxi to a lady who wanted it, as if he had no cause for anxiety or
urgency.5 These surprising actions are not discussed in the Report in the con-
text of Oswald's alleged guilt, although the mere fact of his departure from the
Book Depository is considered incriminating.
5 It is increasingly difficult to reconcile Oswald's demeanor with what the Commission
calls "escape." Whaley testified to the "slow way" Oswald had walked up to the taxi, saying:
"He didn't talk. He wasn't in any hurry. He wasn't nervous or anything." (2H 261)
The estimate of six minutes for the taxi trip merits a few remarks. Whaley
first testified before the Commission on March 12, 1964. At that time he esti-
mated the distance between the points where he had picked up and discharged
Oswald as two and a half miles. Asked for an estimate of the time it took to
cover that distance, Whaley said:
Whaley: I run it again with the policeman because the policeman was wor-
ried, he run the same trip and he couldn't come out the same time I did... .
I got the two minutes on him he never could make up. So I had to go back
with him to make that trip to show him I was right.
Ball: How much time, in that experiment, when you hit the lights right,
how long did it take you?
Whaley: Nine minutes. (2H 259)
The estimate of nine minutes for the taxi ride apparently created difficulties,
since Oswald's movements from the Book Depository to the Tippit scene, as
reconstructed by the Warren Commission, had him on a tight schedule without
a minute to spare. Whaley was re-interviewed in Dallas on April 8, 1964, after
again retracing the route on which he had transported Oswald, this time in a
Secret Service car. It was this re-enactment that served as the basis for the
Commission's estimate of six minutes (6H 434), with a slightly altered point of
termination of the ride (the 700 instead of the 500 block of North Beckley
Street), three blocks (instead of five) from the rooming house, to which Whaley
now agreed. He readily acknowledged that his original recollection—that Oswald
had left the cab in the 500 block—was wrong.
In allowing six minutes for the taxi ride,7 the Commission has made no
allowance for traffic conditions immediately after the assassination. Yet in the
case of testimony that Jack Ruby was seen at Parkland Hospital an hour after
the assassination, the Commission solemnly concluded that the witnesses were
mistaken, basing this decision in part on the assumption that Ruby could not
have made the drive in the available time, 10 to 15 minutes, because of traffic
conditions. Since the normal time for the drive was 9 to 10 minutes, the Com-
mission apparently considered that Ruby would have experienced a slowdown
of 50 per cent.
It is difficult to reconcile the Commission's reasoning in the case of Ruby
with its calculations in the case of Oswald. His trip was actually speeded up
by 33 1/3 per cent in relation to the driver's first attempts to retrace the route,
which took nine minutes. In the later experiment, the Commission failed to
check the six-minute ride against the taxi meter to see if it registered 95 cents
at the end of the ride, the amount that Oswald paid. (pp. 83-84)
----------------------------------------------------------------
-
All those words and it could actually be summed up in a few sentences. You wrote,
-- The weight of the eyewitness evidence clearly has Tippit's killer walking toward the police car, not away from it. This wreaks havoc with the WC's timeline for getting Oswald to the Tippit scene. From Rockefeller Foundation scholar Henry Hurt's widely acclaimed book Reasonable Doubt:
The two "timing" witnesses, Roberts and Whaley, are farces. Mrs. Roberts' testmony had the DPD arriving at 1:30 pm, vs. Detective Potts at 3:00 pm.
Her employer, Gladys Johnson, testified to a prior firing of Roberts as a compulsive teller of tall tales!
I proved that Whaley was born three years later than his midlife alteration of his birth year and no one has responded to my challenge for support of his earning the Navy Cross (a cab driver @ age 40) for his combat actions as a navy gunner "over Iwo Jima".
Your extreme right wing orientation has you praising Henry Hurt, "the scout" dispatched by his patrons, Bush and Beamis, to find out everything Billy Joe Lord remembered about Oswald, after Hurt married the niece (see article image below) of FreePort Sulphur's Langbourne Williams. Williams was the nephew of Beamis's grandmother.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9963#relPageId=270
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53445165710_88d02df140_b.jpg)
Michael, you're intelligent with a penchant for detail. We actually agree on most things but your political orientation introduces a blind spot in your entire approach.
From Billy Joe Lord's 1977 letter to newly swqorn-in President Jimmy Carter,
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1439.msg38753.html#msg38753
Dec. 6 specially decorated Bush '41 Train engine, was Billy Joe Lord on board?
...
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BillyLordLetterDescriptionCrop.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/HenryHurtKennebunkport.jpg)
The China Diary of George H. W. Bush: The Making of a Global ...books.google.com › books
Jeffrey A. Engel · 2011
FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 311
The Making of a Global President Jeffrey A. Engel. I brought home a picture for Bar from ... Bemis, Lias and Devine had a meeting regarding my political future—very thoughtful of them.5 All I know now is to do the best job one can here.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9963#relPageId=270
(https://jfkforum.com/images/BushLordBemissHotelExecutive.jpg)
-
How about a dose of reality in this thread? I discuss the myriad of problems with the case against Oswald in the Tippit shooting in my article "Did Oswald Shoot Tippit?"
Have you considered the fact that Marina confirmed to the WC that Oswald arrived in Irving on 11/21/63 in his gray jacket;
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall any of these clothes that your husband was wearing when he came home Thursday night, November 21, 1963?
Mrs. OSWALD. On Thursday I think he wore this shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Is that Exhibit 150?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember anything else he was wearing at that time?
Mrs. OSWALD. It seems he had that jacket, also.
Mr. RANKIN. Exhibit 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
If Marina's recollection is correct, how in the world could the gray jacket have ended up at the roominghouse the next day for Oswald to put it on?
-
Have you considered the fact that Marina confirmed to the WC that Oswald arrived in Irving on 11/21/63 in his gray jacket;
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall any of these clothes that your husband was wearing when he came home Thursday night, November 21, 1963?
Mrs. OSWALD. On Thursday I think he wore this shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Is that Exhibit 150?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember anything else he was wearing at that time?
Mrs. OSWALD. It seems he had that jacket, also.
Mr. RANKIN. Exhibit 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
If Marina's recollection is correct, how in the world could the gray jacket have ended up at the roominghouse the next day for Oswald to put it on?
"seems" LOL
JohnM
-
"seems" LOL
JohnM
"Seems" from a wife who knew the two jackets Oswald owned is a lot better than this from somebody who was paying more attention to the television;
Mr. BALL. You say he put on a separate jacket?
Mrs. ROBERTS. A jacket.
Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?
LOL
-
"Seems" from a wife who knew the two jackets Oswald owned is a lot better than this from somebody who was paying more attention to the television;
Mr. BALL. You say he put on a separate jacket?
Mrs. ROBERTS. A jacket.
Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?
LOL
Oops! LOL!
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.
Mr. BALL. Did he have a jacket or a shirt? The man that you saw shoot Officer Tippit and run away, did you notice if he had a jacket on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had a jacket on when he done it.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a grayish tan.
Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs.B DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs.B DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs.V DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.
JohnM
-
Oops! LOL!
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.
Mr. BALL. Did he have a jacket or a shirt? The man that you saw shoot Officer Tippit and run away, did you notice if he had a jacket on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had a jacket on when he done it.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a grayish tan.
Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs.B DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs.B DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs.V DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.
JohnM
Circular logic (as per usual).
-
Circular logic (as per usual).
Oswald was arrested without a Jacket.
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/oswald-1527194255.jpg)
And Brewer who saw Oswald out the front of his store just before he headed to the Texas Theatre, describes NO jacket.
Mr. BREWER - And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out.
Mr. BELIN - Any jacket?
Mr. BREWER - No.
JohnM
-
Oswald was arrested without a Jacket.
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/oswald-1527194255.jpg)
And Brewer who saw Oswald out the front of his store just before he headed to the Texas Theatre, describes NO jacket.
Mr. BREWER - And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out.
Mr. BELIN - Any jacket?
Mr. BREWER - No.
JohnM
So what?
-
So what?
:D
JohnM
-
Even if Oswald left the rooming house in a rainbow-colored jacket, why did he ditch it between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?
-
Even if Oswald left the rooming house in a rainbow-colored jacket, why did he ditch it between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?
The assumption that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket relies 100% on Earlene Roberts being correct. There are, however, several indicators that she could easily have been wrong. Frazier describes (somewhat poorly) that Oswald was wearing a gray jacket during the trip to Irving on Thursday evening and Marina identified the gray jacket (CE 162) as the one Oswald seemed to be wearing when he arrived in Irving. Roberts, on the other hand, was unable to identify the gray jacket and instead relied solely on that whatever Oswald was putting on had a zipper. Roberts even rejected the gray jacket because she believed the jacket she had seen was darker. Earlier that same day, Baker had mistaken Oswald's shirt for a jacket and Whaley also stated that Oswald was wearing a jacket (or even two) during the taxi ride, when in fact he wasn't. So, the assumption that Roberts was correct is somewhat questionable.
The statement that Oswald ditched his jacket between the rooming house and the shoe store in Jefferson is speculative at best, because it assumes that Oswald was in fact the shooter and thus was at the scene of the Tippit murder to begin with. I am aware of what the witnesses said, but witnesses can be wrong and/or manipulated at a line up. I personally find it beyond belief that all the Tippit witnesses identified Oswald at the line up, because the likelihood that under normal circumstances all the witnesses identify the same man seems extremely remote to me. I only bring to mind that Scoggins identified Oswald at the line up but failed to identify him from a photo to the FBI the very next day.
As for the "rainbow colored jacket", you can not argue that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket of any other color than light gray and still maintain that the light gray jacket Westbrook delivered to the evidence room (without any kind of chain of custody, at least two still unidentified officers involved and with initials of officers on it who were nowhere near the parking lot) is the same one that Oswald was wearing when he left the rooming house. One can only wonder how Westbrook ended up with that light gray jacket (if Frazier and Marina were correct and it was supposed to be in Irving) and how and when it got to the DPD offices and from where.
A major part of any murder investigation is motive and opportunity. As far as is known, Oswald had no motive to kill Tippit or for that matter to even be at 10th street and it most certainly isn't clear that he even had the opportunity to murder Tippit. It all comes down to a very fragile time line based upon an estimate of a witness (Roberts) and a highly questionable time stamp call on the recording of DPD radio traffic. I personally believe that there wasn't enough time for Oswald to get to 10th street and have the opportunity to kill Tippit. Obviously that means that I also find the witness identification of Oswald unreliable.
-
Even if Oswald left the rooming house in a rainbow-colored jacket, why did he ditch it between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?
Exactly,
1. Roberts didn't say Oswald was buttoning up a jacket but specifically testified that Oswald was "zipping up" a jacket.
(https://www.jfk-assassination.net/images/landlady.jpg)
2. Oswald was positively identified at or moving away from the Tippit crime scene while wearing a jacket.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iBN1_9VPzOg/hqdefault.jpg)
3. Oswald was arrested without a jacket.
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/oswald-1527194255.jpg)
4. Oswald was positively identified as carrying a gun while at or moving away from the Tippit crime scene.
5. The same parking lot where Oswald was seen entering, was later found to have a discarded jacket that Marina testified belonged to Oswald.
6. Oswald jacket that Marina later proved was Oswald's was not long after filmed in the Parking lot.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y95t3bmJ/Oswald-jacket-in-parking-lot.jpg)
7. Some members theorize that the Dallas Police without knowing that multiple Eyewitnesses saw Oswald wearing a jacket and/or that he was arrested without a jacket, took the jacket from Irving and placed it in the Parking lot? Talk about desperation based on stupidity.
8. The same shells that were discarded by Oswald at the crime scene Exclusively matched Oswald's revolver.
9. Out of the hundreds of square miles of Dallas, the only Police Officer shot in years, was a stone's throw from both Oswald's rooming house and the the Theater where Oswald was arrested.
10. Why would anybody else have any motive to kill Tippit but perhaps an escaping assassin would have reason to commit another murder.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71nb40EY+CL._UC256,256_CACC,256,256_.jpg)
11. After Oswald left the Rooming House and before Oswald was arrested, Tippit was killed.
12. Oswald's reason for being on the side streets, was obviously because after killing Kennedy, he was avoiding the main roads. Duh!
13. Oswald while being arrested tried to use the same revolver to kill more cops.
14. Oswald admitted to Fritz that he was carrying his revolver, ""Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it."
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCXFt5t1/oswald-revolver-sn-zpsthmb8ukv.jpg)
JohnM
-
Exactly,
1. Roberts didn't say Oswald was buttoning up a jacket but specifically testified that Oswald was "zipping up" a jacket.
2. Oswald was positively identified at or moving away from the Tippit crime scene while wearing a jacket.
3. Oswald was arrested without a jacket.
4. Oswald was positively identified as carrying a gun while at or moving away from the Tippit crime scene.
5. The same parking lot where Oswald was seen entering, was later found to have a discarded jacket that Marina testified belonged to Oswald.
6. Oswald jacket that Marina later proved was Oswald's was not long after filmed in the Parking lot.
7. Some members theorize that the Dallas Police without knowing that multiple Eyewitnesses saw Oswald wearing a jacket and/or that he was arrested without a jacket, took the jacket from Irving and placed it in the Parking lot? Talk about desperation based on stupidity.
8. The same shells that were discarded by Oswald at the crime scene Exclusively matched Oswald's revolver.
9. Out of the hundreds of square miles of Dallas, the only Police Officer shot in years, was a stone's throw from both Oswald's rooming house and the the Theater where Oswald was arrested.
10. Why would anybody else have any motive to kill Tippit but perhaps an escaping assassin would have reason to commit another murder.
11. After Oswald left the Rooming House and before Oswald was arrested, Tippit was killed.
12. Oswald's reason for being on the side streets, was obviously because after killing Kennedy, he was avoiding the main roads. Duh!
13. Oswald while being arrested tried to use the same revolver to kill more cops.
14. Oswald admitted to Fritz that he was carrying his revolver, ""Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it."
JohnM
When you have something else and better to offer than some jpg's, circular logic, cherry picked "evidence" and thousand times regurgitated flawed claims that ignore significant parts of the evidence, perhaps then we can talk.
-
When you have something else and better to offer than some jpg's, circular logic, cherry picked "evidence" and thousand times regurgitated flawed claims that ignore significant parts of the evidence, perhaps then we can talk.
perhaps then we can talk.
Huh? I wasn't responding to you??
And even if I was, the fact that my Mountain of Rock Solid Evidence will be here for eternity, whereas your speculation based on your faith is currently being flushed down the toilet, is presently where you're at.
JohnM
-
Huh? I wasn't responding to you??
And even if I was, the fact that my Mountain of Rock Solid Evidence will be here for eternity, whereas your speculation based on your faith is currently being flushed down the toilet, is presently where you're at.
JohnM
Oh sorry, John, did I hurt your feelings?
I wasn't responding to you??
Why the question marks? You don't know who you were responding to?
And even if I was, the fact that my Mountain of Rock Solid Evidence will be here for eternity, whereas your speculation based on your faith is currently being flushed down the toilet, is presently where you're at.
Nasty, nasty, but hilarious nevertheless. It's funny, but I can actually understand how a little person can confuse an actual molehill for some sort of mountain. It's all a matter of perspective.
-
Oh sorry, John, did I hurt your feelings?
I wasn't responding to you??
Why the question marks? You don't know who you were responding to?
And even if I was, the fact that my Mountain of Rock Solid Evidence will be here for eternity, whereas your speculation based on your faith is currently being flushed down the toilet, is presently where you're at.
Nasty, nasty, but hilarious nevertheless. It's funny, but I can actually understand how a little person can confuse an actual molehill for some sort of mountain. It's all a matter of perspective.
Why the question marks? You don't know who you were responding to?
You seem to be unaware of the formatting procedure of a Forum! So if you haven't learnt by now, after all this time that you spend here, I really can't help you.
Nasty, nasty, but hilarious nevertheless.
How was my post in any way "nasty", it's clear that you are the one with the hurt feelings! Poor misunderstood Martin! LOL!
It's funny, but I can actually understand how a little person can confuse an actual molehill for some sort of mountain.
A plethora of Eyewitnesses, physical evidence at the crime scene, physical evidence on the Murderer, flight, changing appearance, more attempted murder, etc etc, is a MOUNTAIN of EVIDENCE and on the other hand from Martin we have coulda, shoulda, woulda, probably, speculation and bucketloads of insults! Nice Work.
JohnM
-
You seem to be unaware of the formatting procedure of a Forum! So if you haven't learnt by now, after all this time that you spend here, I really can't help you.
How was my post in any way "nasty", it's clear that you are the one with the hurt feelings! Poor misunderstood Martin! LOL!
A plethora of Eyewitnesses, physical evidence at the crime scene, physical evidence on the Murderer, flight, changing appearance, more attempted murder, etc etc, is a MOUNTAIN of EVIDENCE and on the other hand from Martin we have coulda, shoulda, woulda, probably, speculation and bucketloads of insults! Nice Work.
JohnM
So predictable. Johnny has nothing of any significance to present. Very sad!
-
So predictable. Johnny has nothing of any significance to present. Very sad!
So the Mountain of Rock Solid Evidence isn't significant? Interesting!
JohnM
-
So the Mountain of Rock Solid Evidence isn't significant? Interesting!
JohnM
No, it only exists in your mind. Perhaps one day you will understand that, but I seriously doubt it.
A bunch of one liners that misrepresent the actual evidence combined with flawed claims and assumptions that are not supported by evidence at all, is hardly "rock solid".
-
No, it only exists in your mind.
Well yes, in my mind and in the History Books from now until the end of time!
JohnM
-
Well yes, in my mind and in the History Books from now until the end of time!
JohnM
Too bad that history books are written by the victors and are frequently found to be wrong as time passes by.
But thanks to the internet everything that's wrong with the official fairytale will also live on just as long. Thumb1:
-
But thanks to the internet everything that's wrong with the official fairytale will also live on just as long. Thumb1:
Books are the perpetual history of the World and the internet frequently forgets, don't forget that this Forum lost everything before the great crash of 2018! LOL!
JohnM
-
Books are the perpetual history of the World and the internet frequently forgets, don't forget that this Forum lost everything before the great crash of 2018! LOL!
JohnM
Books in the old format probably won't exist in the next couple of decades. It will all be on the internet.
Data may be lost from time to time, like McAdams' website, but all the information will never be erased at the same time.
I'm sorry that you don't like that.
-
Books in the old format probably won't exist in the next couple of decades. It will all be on the internet.
Data may be lost from time to time, like McAdams' website, but all the information will never be erased at the same time.
I'm sorry that you don't like that.
Don't be sorry, the history written by reputable forensic scientist's of every type imaginable, is already recorded and thousands of copies still exist! Thumb1:
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/91G8EvGDR1L._AC_UF894,1000_QL80_.jpg)
(https://natedsanders.com/ItemImages/000049/Warren%20Commission%20Report%20on%20John%20F.%20Kennedy%20Assassination55108_med.jpeg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/7L4W0Ln1/HSCA-final-report.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/11/71/e5/1171e55b82e1419c6a74820fe37da605.png)
JohnM
-
Don't be sorry, the history written by reputable forensic scientist's of every type imaginable, is already recorded and thousands of copies still exist! Thumb1:
JohnM
So much desperation. I really feel for you, John.
and thousands of copies still exist!
Yes, and they are gathering dust in some dark corners of a few libraries.... :D
And isn't it ironic that when an LN is told that the majority of people do not believe the official story, they always respond with the claim that those people are clueless and do not know the evidence?
-
So much desperation. I really feel for you, John.
and thousands of copies still exist!
Yes, and they are gathering dust in some dark corners of a few libraries.... :D
And isn't it ironic that when an LN is told that the majority of people do not believe the official story, they always respond with the claim that those people are clueless and do not know the evidence?
I would bet any amount of money that a very large percentage (probably close to 98%) of those who vote (in some meaningless poll somewhere) that there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy have never heard of names like Marina, J.D. Tippit, Ruth Paine, Edwin Walker, Buell Frazier, etc. These people have never heard of items like the paper bag, the blanket, shell casings, palm prints on boxes, etc.
These people have only heard of the magic bullet and the grassy knoll. Period.
Therefore, their opinions on whether or not there was a conspiracy are absolutely meaningless. Surely you understand this. Right?
-
I would bet any amount of money that a very large percentage (probably close to 98%) of those who vote (in some meaningless poll somewhere) that there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy have never heard of names like Marina, J.D. Tippit, Ruth Paine, Edwin Walker, Buell Frazier, etc. These people have never heard of items like the paper bag, the blanket, shell casings, palm prints on boxes, etc.
These people have only heard of the magic bullet and the grassy knoll. Period.
Therefore, their opinions on whether or not there was a conspiracy are absolutely meaningless. Surely you understand this. Right?
I understand and even agree. But John Mytton's argument was that the official narrative would always be in the History Books from now until the end of time!
The points I made was that the counter arguments would also survive on the internet and that hardly anybody reads the Warren Report.
You just made that last point for me! Thumb1:
-
I understand and even agree. But John Mytton's argument was that the official narrative would always be that the official narrative would be the History Books from now until the end of time!
The points I made was that the counter arguments would also survive on the internet and that hardly anybody reads the Warren Report.
You just made that last point for me! Thumb1:
You just made that last point for me!
Huh? That the vast majority of the population of the entire World doesn't know squat about the Assassination? And that's your point? WOW!
JohnM
-
Huh? That the vast majority of the population of the entire World doesn't know squat about the Assassination? And that's your point? WOW!
JohnM
I'm sorry John, if you don't understand what I am saying.
If you ask me nicely, I may try to explain it to you again. OK?
-
I understand and even agree. But John Mytton's argument was that the official narrative would always be in the History Books from now until the end of time!
The points I made was that the counter arguments would also survive on the internet and that hardly anybody reads the Warren Report.
You just made that last point for me! Thumb1:
The points I made was that the counter arguments would also survive on the internet and that hardly anybody reads the Warren Report.
You just made that last point for me! Thumb1:
Well yeah. Hell, probably 98% of conspiracy advocates who actually take the time to post in JFK assassination internet forums haven't bothered to read the Warren Report.
-
Well yeah. Hell, probably 98% of conspiracy advocates who actually take the time to post in JFK assassination internet forums haven't bothered to read the Warren Report.
That may or may not be true, but I wonder how many LNs haven't read the Warren Report either. I do agree that many CTs have indeed not read the Report and the major part of all conspiracy theories originate from highly questionable websites.
As far as I am concerned, I not only have read the Warren Report, but it's the only book I have ever read about the assassination.
It was in fact the Warren Report itself that convinced me that the official narrative as presented in the books was questionable.
-
That may or may not be true, but I wonder how many LNs haven't read the Warren Report either. I do agree that many CTs have indeed not read the Report and the major part of all conspiracy theories originate from highly questionable websites.
As far as I am concerned, I not only have read the Warren Report, but it's the only book I have ever read about the assassination.
It was in fact the Warren Report itself that convinced me that the official narrative as presented in the books was questionable.
This is just my opinion, but it's an educated one... I would say that there are more conspiracy advocates than lone nut advocates who post in JFK assassination forums on the internet and yet, the number of lone nut advocates who have actually read the Warren Report probably outnumber conspiracy advocates who have read the report four to one.
It's great that you've read the report itself. You're a rarity.
-
I would bet any amount of money that a very large percentage (probably close to 98%) of those who vote (in some meaningless poll somewhere) that there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy have never heard of names like Marina, J.D. Tippit, Ruth Paine, Edwin Walker, Buell Frazier, etc. These people have never heard of items like the paper bag, the blanket, shell casings, palm prints on boxes, etc.
These people have only heard of the magic bullet and the grassy knoll. Period.
Therefore, their opinions on whether or not there was a conspiracy are absolutely meaningless. Surely you understand this. Right?
98% of americans ? . if so i am certain you know better than that . yes of course many people will never research . more so these days with younger people who just want to be on social media , and go out and drink and party . but its always been the case that many have never and will never research . that is the case with BOTH sides of this argument . how many people of an LN mentality have read whitewash ? or rush to judgement or accessories after the fact etc etc ? . as a prime example i have seen a certain Mr Von Pien being cited sources , be they books or online documents provided by Mr di eugenio and refusing point blank to check any of them . stating that (not verbatim ) he never has nor ever will have any interest in reading conspiracy oriented materials . and this is a very prominent and well known LN . but i have known many people of the LN mentality who i know and proved had little in the way of research in this case , many get their info from cbs or nbc etc .
one guy once told me he taught american history to american students . he posted a picture of Howard brennan sat on the white wall and told me it was taken at 12.30 on november 22 1963 . now there was very obvious problems with his claim lol . one being brennan was sat facing the depository in a position HE WAS NEVER IN .but the most important was that there was no motorcade , no crowds of people , no jfk , no limo , no motorcade lol lol . i think Bill here knows exactly what photo i speak of . it was clearly a photo taken months AFTER the assassination by the warren commission and which appeared in the report . i pointed that fact out , and posted for him an actual still of Brennan sat on the wall in his correct position that day with jfk and his motorcade passing by . this supposed american history teacher rejected this still as a fake and even accused me of faking it lol . and this guy apparently teaches young people about jfks assassination ? lol lol lol . so my point being that on both sides people have little or no research , its a big undertaking and takes many years and even decades if done properly and many are not willing to give that much time or any time to it .and i can understand that , however they then should not go around claiming things as fact that they know they have never researched . that goes for both sides.
but even when people have patently researched and very clearly know what they are speaking about LN will still attack them .
-
This is just my opinion, but it's an educated one... I would say that there are more conspiracy advocates than lone nut advocates who post in JFK assassination forums on the internet and yet, the number of lone nut advocates who have actually read the Warren Report probably outnumber conspiracy advocates who have read the report four to one.
It's great that you've read the report itself. You're a rarity.
It's great that you've read the report itself. You're a rarity.
For many years, I couldn't care less. The official story said Oswald killed Kennedy and I just accepted it at face value. Then, out of the blue, I had a conversation about this case which sparked my interest, so I figured I would read the Warren Report. I quickly got the impression that it was written by an amateur, but of course that couldn't be, because some of the country's best legal minds were involved in compiling the Report. This made me wonder if the Report was indeed serving another purpose than actually pin pointing the real killer(s). Some of the questions not asked during testimony simply didn't make sense and it quickly became clear to me there had been a pre-determined conclusion. That really pissed me off, because the last thing the Government, or any of it's bodies, should do is lie to the people, yet IMO that's exactly what happened here.
I don't care about Oswald either way. I've never met him and he doesn't seem to be somebody I would want to be friends with, but IMO if he was used as a patsy he should have his day in court. Obviously, thanks to Ruby, that will never happen, so the next best thing to do is to scrutinize the evidence against him. Having said that, I have never been interested in what other people had to say in the books they wrote (LN and CT), so I have not read a single one of the thousand of books that have been written. I prefer to determine the veracity and persuasiveness of the evidence by playing devil's advocate. So far, my findings are that the Warren Report should indeed be placed in the fiction section of a library.
-
"Gladys Johnson, testified to a prior firing of Roberts as a compulsive teller of tall tales!" Tom scully
can i take it from your above statement then that you afford Mrs roberts no credibility ? . or is she a compulsive story teller and unreliable ONLY when what she said does not suit the argument you are making ? .
this is a point i have made often in regard LN , because LN will cite a witness to make their argument one day , and then attack that same witness as unreliable or untruthful the next day . a witness is either reliable OR NOT , they are either credible OR NOT , they are either truthful OR NOT . so given the above tell us how you see Mrs roberts tom .
-
Huh? That the vast majority of the population of the entire World doesn't know squat about the Assassination? And that's your point? WOW!
JohnM
the vast amount as you say ALSO includes those who believe oswald acted alone YES ? . so by your own admission then the vast amount of people offering an opinion that Oswald acted alone , the vast amount of those via one poll or another listed as stating they believe Oswald acted alone do not KNOW SQUAT about the assassination .
that should tell any intelligent person what ? that polls and percentages based on polls to use your wording dont prove SQUAT .
-
This is just my opinion, but it's an educated one... I would say that there are more conspiracy advocates than lone nut advocates who post in JFK assassination forums on the internet and yet, the number of lone nut advocates who have actually read the Warren Report probably outnumber conspiracy advocates who have read the report four to one.
It's great that you've read the report itself. You're a rarity.
the warren report itself in parts is not supported by or is contradicted by content in the volumes , or is contradicted by information available now that the people never had back then . even the HSCA in parts disputes areas and certain conclusions in the warren report . you know this as well as any one Bill .hence often now LN will often decide to push the warren commissions conclusions and not the HSCA . of course some will cherry pick from both .
how many so called LN have read white wash , case open , oswald in new orleans , rush to judgement , accessories after the fact , on the trail of the assassins , destiny betrayed , cross fire , jfk the second plot , reclaiming parkland etc etc etc . i mean books considered pro conspiracy ? . in my own experience thus far very precious few . i could probably count those ive spoken to who have not on just one hand .and ive spoken to many over many years . my point very simply is that anything you can say here about CT applies to many LN also . you say probably 4 LN to 1 CT have studied the warren report , but how many of the 4 to 1 simply perused the report , stopped there and never read anything further ? . where as any so called CT who really has a desire to research and learn will read any number of books and view documents and testimonies from all commissions and even ARRB and more .
but at the end of the day the majority of people (be they of the LN or CT mentality ) just do not and never will want to give up / devote the great deal of time required to research this case . that sadly is what it is . and so its futile and pointless trying to use a supposed lack of research against those of a CT leaning when just as many if not more of the LN leaning are guilty of the same thing .
-
It's great that you've read the report itself. You're a rarity.
For many years, I couldn't care less. The official story said Oswald killed Kennedy and I just accepted it at face value. Then, out of the blue, I had a conversation about this case which sparked my interest, so I figured I would read the Warren Report. I quickly got the impression that it was written by an amateur, but of course that couldn't be, because some of the country's best legal minds were involved in compiling the Report. This made me wonder if the Report was indeed serving another purpose than actually pin pointing the real killer(s). Some of the questions not asked during testimony simply didn't make sense and it quickly became clear to me there had been a pre-determined conclusion. That really pissed me off, because the last thing the Government, or any of it's bodies, should do is lie to the people, yet IMO that's exactly what happened here.
I don't care about Oswald either way. I've never met him and he doesn't seem to be somebody I would want to be friends with, but IMO if he was used as a patsy he should have his day in court. Obviously, thanks to Ruby, that will never happen, so the next best thing to do is to scrutinize the evidence against him. Having said that, I have never been interested in what other people had to say in the books they wrote (LN and CT), so I have not read a single one of the thousand of books that have been written. I prefer to determine the veracity and persuasiveness of the evidence by playing devil's advocate. So far, my findings are that the Warren Report should indeed be placed in the fiction section of a library.
hi Martin while i can see reasons for not reading books form either side , i also think that there is a wealth of information not available (suppressed etc ) from that tragic day in history for many years and decades that has since been made available . and its been via the very hard work of dedicated researchers , freedom of information lawsuits or just sat in the archives for hours , days , weeks and years .i believe we need all this information .i once read a book called jfk the second plot . now regardless of what the authors final conclusion might be in this case the author in the book offered a belief that this case is not just one big puzzle , but that it is a case of several puzzles that do not necessarily join together anywhere . but are independent of each other , but that each of the puzzles are a part of the full picture if you will . in essence that we need all parts of all puzzles to fully understand what happened . for example oswald in new orleans , while these events are removed from november 22 1963 they are important to the over all understanding . IE this time in Oswalds life is one puzzle , one part of the big picture . different books delve into different areas and so are important . but i must say you argue the case very intelligently and knowledgeably and so perhaps your approach has merit , i guess you remain untainted by the views of the various authors . and i can see sense in that also .but from my own point of view i like to read as much as i can when i can , but i always try to keep an open mind about what i read .
-
"Gladys Johnson, testified to a prior firing of Roberts as a compulsive teller of tall tales!" Tom scully
can i take it from your above statement then that you afford Mrs roberts no credibility ? . or is she a compulsive story teller and unreliable ONLY when what she said does not suit the argument you are making ? .
this is a point i have made often in regard LN , because LN will cite a witness to make their argument one day , and then attack that same witness as unreliable or untruthful the next day . a witness is either reliable OR NOT , they are either credible OR NOT , they are either truthful OR NOT . so given the above tell us how you see Mrs roberts tom .
Gladys Johnson, her husband, and their employee, Earline Roberts, were witnesses whose testimony should have been taken with a grain of salt. All three were unreliable as far as descriptions of their perceptions of time. Gladys impeached anything Earline would have to say.
Oswald was unemployed when he first spoke to Gladys Johnson.
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-743.html
...TOM SCULLY SAID:
Question for David von Pein [sic]....
Do you think the time observations of the witnesses you have criticized were any less credible than Gladys Johnson claiming she first talked to OH Lee about three weeks before she said she rented a room to him on 14 Oct., and that Lee told her during that first encounter that he wanted to be near his work? What work.
Or the 1:04 time fix of Earline [sic] Roberts who also stated in early December that police had arrived about thirty minutes after Oswald departed. DPD detective Potts established in his testimony that he and other officers arrived at 3:00 pm.
Or that Whaley had any idea who Oswald was or what time near exact that Oswald got in or out of his cab?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
No.
You're only helping to emphasize my point about "timelines". Timelines always have to be taken with a grain of salt, including each instance you mentioned above. And the Vickie Adams timeline too.
Marrion Baker's timeline is more accurate because a detailed reconstruction of his movements was done by the Warren Commission.
Now, perhaps such a detailed reconstruction of Victoria Adams' movements should have also been done. Obviously, quite a few CTers think that such an Adams re-creation should have been performed by the Commission. I'll leave it to others to debate whether the Commission was being deliberately deceptive by not doing such a re-creation with Miss Adams.
But as far as I can recall, I have always adhered to the "Grain Of Salt" policy when discussing any "witness timeline" issues. All such times must be considered ESTIMATES. And that includes the time estimates provided by Earlene Roberts and Helen Markham and T.F. Bowley too.
-
"Gladys Johnson, testified to a prior firing of Roberts as a compulsive teller of tall tales!" Tom scully
can i take it from your above statement then that you afford Mrs roberts no credibility ? . or is she a compulsive story teller and unreliable ONLY when what she said does not suit the argument you are making ? .
this is a point i have made often in regard LN , because LN will cite a witness to make their argument one day , and then attack that same witness as unreliable or untruthful the next day . a witness is either reliable OR NOT , they are either credible OR NOT , they are either truthful OR NOT . so given the above tell us how you see Mrs roberts tom .
No accurate concept of time :
https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Yarborough_aff.pdf
The following affidavit was executed by Earlene Roberts on December 5, 1963.
...
Oswald went out the front door. A moment later I looked out the window. I
saw Lee Oswald standing on the curb at the bus stop just to the right, and on the
same side of the street as our house. I just glanced out the window that once.
I don’t know how long Lee Oswald stood at the curb nor did I see which direction
he went when he left there.
About thirty minutes later three Dallas policemen came to the house looking
for Lee Harvey Oswald. We didn’t know who Lee Harvey Oswald was until
sometime later his picture was flashed on television. I then let the Dallas policemen in the room occupied by Lee Oswald. While the Dallas police were searching the room two FBI agents came in. ..
Steve Thomas posted on January 3, 2021 :
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26891-gladys-johnson/#comment-435720
"Jim,
I believe that Mrs. Johnson confused the plainclothed Detectives of the Dallas Police Department for the FBI.
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/johnso_g.htm
Mr. BALL. On the day of the 22d of November, were you home around 1 o'clock?
Mrs. JOHNSON. It must have been 1:30 or 2, something like that.
Mr. BALL. When you came home?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes; after serving lunch.
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/johnso_a.htm
Mr. BELIN. All right. What happened when the officers got there? They asked if Lee Harvey Oswald lived there?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. How long had you been at the house when the officers arrived?
Mr. JOHNSON. Oh, probably 30 minutes.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember about what time of the day they arrived?
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, it must have been around 1:30 or 2 o'clock--the best I remember.
Mr. BELIN. When did you get home that day from your work?
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, it was around 1 o'clock or maybe a little bit after.
Mr. BELIN. At the time you had gotten home, had you heard that the President had been shot?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. I heard that before I went home.
Mr. BELIN. Did you hear that the President had died before you went home?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. So you got home sometime after you had heard that the President had died?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. When did you get home that day from your work?
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, it was around 1 o'clock or maybe a little bit after.
The announcement that the President had died was made around 1:30 PM
Oswald was arrested at approximately 1:50 PM
He was brought into Headquarters at 2:00 PM
I first posed the question on November 22, 2004 in the Education Forum JFK Assassination Seminars
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/2331-how-did-the-police-first-learn-of-1026-n-beckley/
How did the police first learn that Oswald lived at 1026 N. Beckley?
At 2:40 PM, W.E. Potts, B.L. Senkel and Lt. E.L. Cunningham were dispatched to 1026 N. Beckley. Potts wrote in his after-action report (Box 2, Folder# 9, Item# 32) http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box2.htm that after he finished taking some affidavits, Fritz dispatched them to the Beckely St address at 2:40 and they arrived at Beckley at 3:00PM.
Detective B.L. Senkel also said in his after action report (Dallas Police Archives Box 3, Folder# 12, Item#1) that they arrived at 1026 N. Beckley at 3:00PM. They did not have a search warrant, and one wasn't issued until 3:55 PM by Justice of the Peace David Johnston.
Report of Justice of the Peace, David Johnston.
Johnston Exhibit 1
(20H314
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=334&tab=page
What cannot be answered is why, when the police arrived at 1026 N. Beckley, they were asking for Harvey Lee Oswald.
WC testimony of Earlene Roberts April 8, 1964
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/robertse.htm
Mr. BALL. Do you remember the day the President was shot?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; I remember it---who would forget that?
Mr. BALL. And the police officers came out there?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember what they said?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was Will Fritz' men---it was plainclothesmen and I was at the back doing something and Mr. Johnson answered the door and they identified themselves and then he called me.
Mr. BALL. What did they say?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, they asked him if there was a Harvey Lee Oswald there.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mrs. ROBERTS. And he says, "I don't know, I'll have to call the housekeeper," and he called me and I went and got the books and I said, "No; there's no one here by that name," and they tried to make me remember and I couldn't, and Mrs. Johnson come in in the meantime and there wasn't nobody there by that name, and Mrs. Johnson said, "Mrs. Roberts, don't you have him?" And, I said, "No; we don't, for here is my book and there is nobody there by that name." We checked it back a year.
Mr. BALL. And you didn't have that name you didn't ever know his name was Lee Oswald?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No---he registered as O. H. Lee and they were asking for Harvey Lee Oswald.
To the best of my knowledge, no FBI agents were at 1026 N. Beckley.
Steve Thomas"
-
hi Martin while i can see reasons for not reading books form either side , i also think that there is a wealth of information not available (suppressed etc ) from that tragic day in history for many years and decades that has since been made available . and its been via the very hard work of dedicated researchers , freedom of information lawsuits or just sat in the archives for hours , days , weeks and years .i believe we need all this information .i once read a book called jfk the second plot . now regardless of what the authors final conclusion might be in this case the author in the book offered a belief that this case is not just one big puzzle , but that it is a case of several puzzles that do not necessarily join together anywhere . but are independent of each other , but that each of the puzzles are a part of the full picture if you will . in essence that we need all parts of all puzzles to fully understand what happened . for example oswald in new orleans , while these events are removed from november 22 1963 they are important to the over all understanding . IE this time in Oswalds life is one puzzle , one part of the big picture . different books delve into different areas and so are important . but i must say you argue the case very intelligently and knowledgeably and so perhaps your approach has merit , i guess you remain untainted by the views of the various authors . and i can see sense in that also .but from my own point of view i like to read as much as i can when i can , but i always try to keep an open mind about what i read .
Hi Fergus,
The reason for not reading any books is that I want to keep an open mind and not be influenced by the opinion of somebody who has a book to sell. It has been my experience that if in any book or article new evidence is presented it quickly finds it way on the internet which then allows me to research the matter further and draw my own conclusions. In most cases, it isn't the evidence itself that is the problem, it's the context in which it is placed by who ever is commenting on it.
-
Gladys Johnson, her husband, and their employee, Earline Roberts, were witnesses whose testimony should have been taken with a grain of salt. All three were unreliable as far as descriptions of their perceptions of time. Gladys impeached anything Earline would have to say.
Oswald was unemployed when he first spoke to Gladys Johnson.
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-743.html
so can i take it from your reply that your stance is she is unreliable as regards timing , in general not reliable and a story teller , but perfectly reliable when she talked about Oswald arriving home , what he did and what he wore ? . if so (and i am sure you will clarify ) that would sort of go along with what i said previously , that in essence LN say she is reliable when it suits and unreliable when it does not suit .
-
so can i take it from your reply that your stance is she is unreliable as regards timing , in general not reliable and a story teller , but perfectly reliable when she talked about Oswald arriving home , what he did and what he wore ? . if so (and i am sure you will clarify ) that would sort of go along with what i said previously , that in essence LN say she is reliable when it suits and unreliable when it does not suit .
that in essence LN say she is reliable when it suits and unreliable when it does not suit .
Spot on. Thumb1:
-
hi Martin well i really did not expect an LN to reply and admit that that was their logic lol . i know it is in essence their logic , but they usually have enough sense to not admit it lol .
i think you and me have a different approach . we try to look at each witness in an honest and unbiased manner and decide genuinely if there was a serious and valid reason why we should not rely on them. any witness in any aspect of this case can be wrong or make an error , that is just being human , that would not mean we then should dismiss all that they said . some witnesses for sure are questionable or indeed unreliable at best . i know neither of us would cite the word of a witness and offer them as completely reliable that we previously said was highly unreliable . i think we are too honest to do that . it would seem that many LN do not suffer with the affliction of being honest as we do . good to talk to you , i admire your work and approach here on this forum and i always enjoy reading your comments .
-
hi Martin well i really did not expect an LN to reply and admit that that was their logic lol . i know it is in essence their logic , but they usually have enough sense to not admit it lol .
i think you and me have a different approach . we try to look at each witness in an honest and unbiased manner and decide genuinely if there was a serious and valid reason why we should not rely on them. any witness in any aspect of this case can be wrong or make an error , that is just being human , that would not mean we then should dismiss all that they said . some witnesses for sure are questionable or indeed unreliable at best . i know neither of us would cite the word of a witness and offer them as completely reliable that we previously said was highly unreliable . i think we are too honest to do that . it would seem that many LN do not suffer with the affliction of being honest as we do . good to talk to you , i admire your work and approach here on this forum and i always enjoy reading your comments .
The fixation on witness discrepancies while ignoring the elephant in the room is a common trait of many CTers. There is no doubt that Oswald was at his boardinghouse. There is no doubt that he was the Tippit scene with a gun at the time the crime was committed. Several different witnesses place him there. He literally committed the crime in broad daylight on a public street in the presence of numerous witnesses. He is still holding the smoking gun. He is arrested with this gun a short distance away after random citizens reported him acting suspiciously. He had the exact same two brands of ammo when arrested that were used to murder Tippit. So unlucky! Endless pedantic nitpicking of testimony and subjective interpretation of those witness recollections to reach a desired outcome in a desperate attempt to suggest false doubt is not a compelling way to rebut the evidence. It is a good way, however, to take every single thread on this forum down the same rabbit hole.
-
The fixation on witness discrepancies while ignoring the elephant in the room is a common trait of many CTers. There is no doubt that Oswald was at his boardinghouse. There is no doubt that he was the Tippit scene with a gun at the time the crime was committed. Several different witnesses place him there. He literally committed the crime in broad daylight on a public street in the presence of numerous witnesses. He is still holding the smoking gun. He is arrested with this gun a short distance away after random citizens reported him acting suspiciously. He had the exact same two brands of ammo when arrested that were used to murder Tippit. So unlucky! Endless pedantic nitpicking of testimony and subjective interpretation of those witness recollections to reach a desired outcome in a desperate attempt to suggest false doubt is not a compelling way to rebut the evidence. It is a good way, however, to take every single thread on this forum down the same rabbit hole.
And that is a perfect example of making cherry picked questionable evidence fit the already pre-existing conclusion.
Endless pedantic nitpicking of testimony and subjective interpretation of those witness recollections to reach a desired outcome in a desperate attempt to suggest false doubt is not a compelling way to rebut the evidence.
Translation: how dare you ask questions about the "evidence" I like, but can't explain or defend with actual sound arguments?
"The evidence that Oswald came down the stairs after the last shot is.... that it happened - "Richard Smith" :D :D :D :D
-
The fixation on witness discrepancies while ignoring the elephant in the room is a common trait of many CTers. There is no doubt that Oswald was at his boardinghouse. There is no doubt that he was the Tippit scene with a gun at the time the crime was committed. Several different witnesses place him there. He literally committed the crime in broad daylight on a public street in the presence of numerous witnesses. He is still holding the smoking gun. He is arrested with this gun a short distance away after random citizens reported him acting suspiciously. He had the exact same two brands of ammo when arrested that were used to murder Tippit. So unlucky! Endless pedantic nitpicking of testimony and subjective interpretation of those witness recollections to reach a desired outcome in a desperate attempt to suggest false doubt is not a compelling way to rebut the evidence. It is a good way, however, to take every single thread on this forum down the same rabbit hole.
i have no such fixation . i was very clear in saying some witnesses simply being human were wrong in one respect or another , which would not make all that they said unreliable . and that some i would consider to be unreliable for differing reasons .
false doubt ? , i am not a dodgy lawyer looking for anything to create doubt in peoples minds . in fact LN would come closer to that in my humble opinion . for example such as Bugliosi inferring that oswald grabbed a long package from the rear seat of fraziers vehicle and that he then took off quickly leaving frazier behind . this after frazier had CLEARLY stated that he looked and saw that Oswald was actually STILL there STANDING by the cyclone fence WAITING for him .so the picture the BUG painted was not quite the same picture frazier painted was it ? .i call a spade a spade , i say it like it is , i dont say its proven when i cant prove it , i dont claim things to be true that i know are not .yes i am human thus i am fallible , so i can be wrong , and i will be wrong some times but i will always admit it if i am wrong . as far as i am concerned when it comes to this case there is either a valid reason to have doubt or there is not . and unfortunately when it comes to this case whether you like it or not we have very good and valid reasons to doubt / question evidence , witnesses , commissions , agencies etc etc .
-
The fixation on witness discrepancies while ignoring the elephant in the room is a common trait of many CTers. There is no doubt that Oswald was at his boardinghouse. There is no doubt that he was the Tippit scene with a gun at the time the crime was committed. Several different witnesses place him there. He literally committed the crime in broad daylight on a public street in the presence of numerous witnesses. He is still holding the smoking gun. He is arrested with this gun a short distance away after random citizens reported him acting suspiciously. He had the exact same two brands of ammo when arrested that were used to murder Tippit. So unlucky! Endless pedantic nitpicking of testimony and subjective interpretation of those witness recollections to reach a desired outcome in a desperate attempt to suggest false doubt is not a compelling way to rebut the evidence. It is a good way, however, to take every single thread on this forum down the same rabbit hole.
He had the exact same two brands of ammo when arrested that were used to murder Tippit. So unlucky!
Thumb1:
Revolver Cartridges and Cartridge Cases
When Oswald was arrested six live cartridges were found in the revolver. 63 Three were Western .38 Specials, loaded with copper-coated lead bullets, and three were Remington-Peters .38 Specials, loaded with lead bullets. 64 Five additional live cartridges were found in Oswald's pocket, 65 all of which were Western .38 Specials, loaded with copper-coated bullets. 66 The Western and Remington-Peters .88 Special cartridges are virtually identical--the copper coating on the Western bullets is not a full jacket, but only a gilding metal, put on principally for sales appeal. 67
Four expended cartridge cases were found near the site of the Tippit killing. 68 Two of these cartridge cases were Remington-Peters .38 Specials and two were Western .38 Specials. 69 Based on a comparison with test cartridge cases fired in the V510210 revolver, the four cartridge cases were identified as having been fired in the V510210 revolver.
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-10.html#revbul
Btw another interesting factoid is Oswald's revolver was rechambered and not rebarrelled, meaning the bullets fired were difficult to link back to the original weapon, which leads to the question, why set up Oswald with a weapon of this type?? The only person who would use a weapon which could not be easily matched up to the gun would be a ruthless murderer who intended to have the least amount of linking evidence!
JohnM