JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Duncan MacRae on February 21, 2024, 02:21:27 PM
-
Interview With Ted Callaway Who Witnessed The Aftermath Of The Shooting Of Officer J D Tippit
-
Ted Callaway did not witness the shooting if J.D. Tippit.
-
i dont know where LN stand on this but Calloways description of the clothing worn by the man he saw and the description of clothing given by Markham differ . as of course do the routes both witnesses say the killer took . is this indicative of two men being involved in the crime or of one of these two being unreliable witnesses ? . i am thinking LN would rather stand by mr Calloways testimony than that of Markham .
-
i dont know where LN stand on this but Calloways description of the clothing worn by the man he saw and the description of clothing given by Markham differ . as of course do the routes both witnesses say the killer took . is this indicative of two men being involved in the crime or of one of these two being unreliable witnesses ? . i am thinking LN would rather stand by mr Calloways testimony than that of Markham .
There are far more discrepancies than consistencies in this case for the official narrative to be correct.
-
yes there are problems all through this case even if our LN friends dont care to admit it . they would have is believe it is a simple case , cut and dried and straight forward with a MOUNTAIN of irrefutable evidence against Oswald .but if that were the case none of us would be here doing what we do , not LN or CT . i am not saying that evidence does not point towards Oswald , but it is whether that evidence stands up to close scrutiny .
-
Differences in witness’ accounts are normal and typical and should be expected. Human memories and perceptions are imperfect and are not like instant replay with several different camera angles available (like we have become accustomed to in televised sports). If all the witness accounts totally agreed with each other, I personally would suspect that something was amiss. The fact that there are inconsistencies is indicative of normal imperfect human memories and perceptions. Therefore I think this should give us reason to believe that the investigation was not a coverup. The fact that the WC chose to publish the testimonies and exhibits is the reason for the number of inconsistencies. If LHO had lived, and there had been a trial, I think that there would have been fewer testimonies and exhibits and that there would have been many of them that never would have been introduced in the trial.
-
Differences in witness’ accounts are normal and typical and should be expected. Human memories and perceptions are imperfect and are not like instant replay with several different camera angles available (like we have become accustomed to in televised sports). If all the witness accounts totally agreed with each other, I personally would suspect that something was amiss. The fact that there are inconsistencies is indicative of normal imperfect human memories and perceptions. Therefore I think this should give us reason to believe that the investigation was not a coverup. The fact that the WC chose to publish the testimonies and exhibits is the reason for the number of inconsistencies. If LHO had lived, and there had been a trial, I think that there would have been fewer testimonies and exhibits and that there would have been many of them that never would have been introduced in the trial.
investigation ? what investigation do you speak of ? . the DPD did try to investigate but were stopped . the FBI tried to investigate IE in that most agents were honest in my view such as sibert and oneil and odum etc .however hoover decided all most immediately the DPD had their man . he decided what the official version of events were . the commission lets face it were set up to just review the FBI reporty and rubber stamp it . but hoover and LBJ misjudged the southern contingent who dissented . warren did not want any investigation and we know in the executive sessions the line was uttered WE ARE HERE TO CLOSE DOORS NOT OPEN THEM . then specter came up with his right of NECK entry wound location to make his theory seem plausible when he knew full well having seen at least one autopsy photo that what he claimed started with A LIE . so what investigation ?.
LN often talk about mere inconsistencies , honest mistakes , but what about the outright deceptions , omissions and lies ?. lets face it the commission NEVER thought for a second that we would be here even now studying ever word they uttered 60 years later . they expected the gullible public (with the aid of the mainstream media ) to swallow what ever they were given to swallow without question . and the vast majority DID .even jim garrison swallowed it until he looked closer .
-
... lets face it the commission NEVER thought for a second that we would be here even now studying ever word they uttered 60 years later . they expected the gullible public (with the aid of the mainstream media ) to swallow what ever they were given to swallow without question . and the vast majority DID .even jim garrison swallowed it until he looked closer .
Yes, and Gerald Ford admitted to French President Valérie Giscard d'Estaing in a private conversation:
The ex-French President speaking in 2013:
To Le Parisien newspaper: "Naïvely, I asked him - 'Do you know who assassinated Kennedy.' and without blinking he replied 'Yes. It wasn't an isolated mad gunman that killed the President of the United States."
To RTL radio: "It wasn't satisfying. We came to a first conclusion: it wasn't an isolated crime, it was something organised. We were sure that it was organised. By who, we didn't discover.
Therefore, there was an organisation that feared President Kennedy and decided to get rid of him."
-
Yes, and Gerald Ford admitted to French President Valérie Giscard d'Estaing in a private conversation:
The ex-French President speaking in 2013:
To Le Parisien newspaper: "Naïvely, I asked him - 'Do you know who assassinated Kennedy.' and without blinking he replied 'Yes. It wasn't an isolated mad gunman that killed the President of the United States."
To RTL radio: "It wasn't satisfying. We came to a first conclusion: it wasn't an isolated crime, it was something organised. We were sure that it was organised. By who, we didn't discover.
Therefore, there was an organisation that feared President Kennedy and decided to get rid of him."
I don’t know much about VGE. But I would suggest that he fantasized that Ford told him that. And that perhaps he also had a “thing” for Diana…
Giscard d'Estaing wrote his second romantic novel, published on 1 October 2009 in France, titled The Princess and the President.[62] It tells the story of a French leader having a romantic affair with a character called Patricia, Princess of Cardiff.[62] This caused many rumours that the book was based on a real-life affair between Giscard d'Estaing and Diana, Princess of Wales.[62] He later said that such an affair never happened and that the book was fictional.[63]
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val%C3%A9ry_Giscard_d%27Estaing (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val%C3%A9ry_Giscard_d%27Estaing)
-
I don’t know much about VGE. But I would suggest that he fantasized that Ford told him that. And that perhaps he also had a “thing” for Diana…
Giscard d'Estaing wrote his second romantic novel, published on 1 October 2009 in France, titled The Princess and the President.[62] It tells the story of a French leader having a romantic affair with a character called Patricia, Princess of Cardiff.[62] This caused many rumours that the book was based on a real-life affair between Giscard d'Estaing and Diana, Princess of Wales.[62] He later said that such an affair never happened and that the book was fictional.[63]
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val%C3%A9ry_Giscard_d%27Estaing (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val%C3%A9ry_Giscard_d%27Estaing)
But I would suggest that he fantasized that Ford told him that.
And that suggestion would be based on what, exactly?
Wishful thinking, perhaps?
-
Differences in witness’ accounts are normal and typical and should be expected. Human memories and perceptions are imperfect and are not like instant replay with several different camera angles available (like we have become accustomed to in televised sports). If all the witness accounts totally agreed with each other, I personally would suspect that something was amiss. The fact that there are inconsistencies is indicative of normal imperfect human memories and perceptions. Therefore I think this should give us reason to believe that the investigation was not a coverup. The fact that the WC chose to publish the testimonies and exhibits is the reason for the number of inconsistencies. If LHO had lived, and there had been a trial, I think that there would have been fewer testimonies and exhibits and that there would have been many of them that never would have been introduced in the trial.
Charles, you're absolutely right.
Also, keep in kind, both Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis were standing at the front door watching a man with a gun cut across their front yard just moments after the shooting. They were both watching the same man as they stood practically shoulder to shoulder with each other. One said the man was wearing a light-tan jacket and the other said the man was wearing a black coat. Only a fool would believe that these two women saw two different men. Once you accept that, then it is obvious that an eyewitness can describe a jacket differently than another eyewitness even though both were looking at the same jacket. Therefore, their point is entirely moot.
It happens all the time. But our conspiracy advocate friends around here would have everyone believe that every single eyewitness should give the exact same description as each other or else something is amiss. It's pure foolishness.
-
Charles, you're absolutely right.
Also, keep in kind, both Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis were standing at the front door watching a man with a gun cut across their front yard just moments after the shooting. They were both watching the same man as they stood practically shoulder to shoulder with each other. One said the man was wearing a light-tan jacket and the other said the man was wearing a black coat. Only a fool would believe that these two women saw two different men. Once you accept that, then it is obvious that an eyewitness can describe a jacket differently than another eyewitness even though both were looking at the same jacket. Therefore, their point is entirely moot.
It happens all the time. But our conspiracy advocate friends around here would have everyone believe that every single eyewitness should give the exact same description as each other or else something is amiss. It's pure foolishness.
When five people watch a car crash, you'll get five different stories about what happened. That's to be expected as not everybody pays attention to the same details.
When two people see a man for merely seconds, it is IMO, although not completely impossible, highly unlikely they can both identify the same man, when they can't even agree on the color of a jacket. Benavides saw the killer much better and was still unsure he would be able to identify the man. I have been in his position, several years ago, when I saw a robbery happening right in front of me. Everything happened very fast and although I thought I had seen the man clearly enough, when police brought a man they had arrested back to the scene, I couldn't say for sure that it was the same man.
Yet, in this case we are to believe that all the witnesses who attended the line up were able to actually identify the same man? Talk about pure foolishness.
-
When five people watch a car crash, you'll get five different stories about what happened. That's to be expected as not everybody pays attention to the same details.
When two people see a man for merely seconds, it is IMO, although not completely impossible, highly unlikely they can both identify the same man, when they can't even agree on the color of a jacket. Benavides saw the killer much better and was still unsure he would be able to identify the man. I have been in his position, several years ago, when I saw a robbery happening right in front of me. Everything happened very fast and although I thought I had seen the man clearly enough, when police brought a man they had arrested back to the scene, I couldn't say for sure that it was the same man.
Yet, in this case we are to believe that all the witnesses who attended the line up were able to actually identify the same man? Talk about pure foolishness.
Straw man,
Completely unrelated to the point Charles Collins made and which I replied to.
-
Straw man,
Completely unrelated to the point Charles Collins made and which I replied to.
No. It's just a reality you don't like
-
No. It's just a reality you don't like
Please explain how I "don't like" whatever point it was that you took off-topic to the post you were replying to.
As for the positive identifications of a fleeing suspect... It's one thing for one witness to be mistaken. It's another thing entirely for nine witnesses to positively identify the same man while none of the other witnesses disagree with these nine witnesses.
Could nine people all be wrong? Sure. But, when arguing that nine people were all wrong, it seems more like arguing from a position of desperation than one based in reality.
-
Please explain how I "don't like" whatever point it was that you took off-topic to the post you were replying to.
As for the positive identifications of a fleeing suspect... It's one thing for one witness to be mistaken. It's another thing entirely for nine witnesses to positively identify the same man while none of the other witnesses disagree with these nine witnesses.
Could nine people all be wrong? Sure. But, when arguing that nine people were all wrong, it seems more like arguing from a position of desperation than one based in reality.
Please explain how I "don't like" whatever point it was that you took off-topic to the post you were replying to.
You were trying to explain how two witnesses could have seen a different jacket. I pointed out that witnesses often can't be relied upon, because if they get the color of a jacket wrong, they could just as easily get the identification of a man they only saw for seconds wrong. That'what you didn't like and you confirm it in your post.
As for the positive identifications of a fleeing suspect... It's one thing for one witness to be mistaken. It's another thing entirely for nine witnesses to positively identify the same man while none of the other witnesses disagree with these nine witnesses.
Except in this case there were no other witnesses who disagreed. Perhaps you should conduct a little experiment where you have nine people watching the same event and then ask them what they saw. Nine witnesses agreeing on a positive identification is simply beyond belief. Even worse, Scoggings, who identified Oswald at the DPD line up, failed to identify the same man to the FBI. There is no credibility in all the witnesses identifying the same man.
Could nine people all be wrong? Sure.
No. Nine people collectively couldn't be wrong or right. That's the point. I don't believe for a second that the Davis sisters were really able to identify Oswald as the man they only saw for a few seconds. That's what makes this whole thing incredible.
But, when arguing that nine people were all wrong, it seems more like arguing from a position of desperation than one based in reality.
But I'm not arguing that all nine people were wrong. That's not an issue. I am in no position to determine if a witness was right or wrong. The point is that when, out of nine people. nine people identify the same person at a line up, and nobody says they're no sure, you need to question the line up and not the outcome. Witness testimony is the worst kind of evidence there is and over the years it has been proven, beyond any doubt, that incorrect or false witness testimony has put many people behind bars for many years who shouldn't have been there.
I have no confidence in the way the DPD conducted their line ups. That's the bottom line
-
Please explain how I "don't like" whatever point it was that you took off-topic to the post you were replying to.
You were trying to explain how two witnesses could have seen a different jacket. I pointed out that witnesses often can't be relied upon, because if they get the color of a jacket wrong, they could just as easily get the identification of a man they only saw for seconds wrong. That'what you didn't like and you confirm it in your post.
As for the positive identifications of a fleeing suspect... It's one thing for one witness to be mistaken. It's another thing entirely for nine witnesses to positively identify the same man while none of the other witnesses disagree with these nine witnesses.
Except in this case there were no other witnesses who disagreed. Perhaps you should conduct a little experiment where you have nine people watching the same event and then ask them what they saw. Nine witnesses agreeing on a positive identification is simply beyond belief. Even worse, Scoggings, who identified Oswald at the DPD line up, failed to identify the same man to the FBI. There is no credibility in all the witnesses identifying the same man.
Could nine people all be wrong? Sure.
No. Nine people collectively couldn't be wrong or right. That's the point. I don't believe for a second that the Davis sisters were really able to identify Oswald as the man they only saw for a few seconds. That's what makes this whole thing incredible.
But, when arguing that nine people were all wrong, it seems more like arguing from a position of desperation than one based in reality.
But I'm not arguing that all nine people were wrong. That's not an issue. I am in no position to determine if a witness was right or wrong. The point is that when, out of nine people. nine people identify the same person at a line up, and nobody says they're no sure, you need to question the line up and not the outcome. Witness testimony is the worst kind of evidence there is and over the years it has been proven, beyond any doubt, that incorrect or false witness testimony has put many people behind bars for many years who shouldn't have been there.
I have no confidence in the way the DPD conducted their line ups. That's the bottom line
You were trying to explain how two witnesses could have seen a different jacket.
I was trying to explain no such thing. I was explaining how two witnesses saw the SAME jacket and described it drastically different.
Perhaps you should conduct a little experiment where you have nine people watching the same event and then ask them what they saw. Nine witnesses agreeing on a positive identification is simply beyond belief.
What you're missing here is that there were more than nine people watching this same event. Nine witnesses OUT OF THIRTEEN agreed on a positive identification. You're acting like it was nine witnesses OUT OF NINE who agreed on the same thing. You're forgetting Jimmy Burt, Bill Smith, Domingo Benavides and L.J. Lewis; each of which could not say yay or nay. I think this makes your point invalid.
Even worse, Scoggings, who identified Oswald at the DPD line up, failed to identify the same man to the FBI. There is no credibility in all the witnesses identifying the same man.
It is not unreasonable at all for a witness to positively identify a suspect in a lineup conducted 24 hours after the crime and then the same witness not identifying the suspect in a photo lineup conducted many weeks later. Perhaps the photo of Oswald shown to Scoggins (I believe it was Oswald's arrest photo from New Orleans taken earlier that year) did not resemble Oswald as he was seen running from the Tippit shooting scene. Do you really feel that Oswald, in New Orleans during the summer of '63, must look like Oswald as he did on the afternoon of the Tippit murder in November of '63? I think your position is faulty. You're trying to compare apples and oranges.
No. Nine people collectively couldn't be wrong or right. That's the point. I don't believe for a second that the Davis sisters were really able to identify Oswald as the man they only saw for a few seconds. That's what makes this whole thing incredible.
For what it's worth, these two women seemed pretty sure. No hesitation and/or doubts on their part.
Mr. BALL: Did you recognize anyone in that room?
BARBARA DAVIS: Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.
"About 8:00 pm the same day, the police came after me and took me downtown to the city hall where I saw this man in a lineup. The #2 man in a 4-man lineup was the same man I saw in my yard, also the one that was unloading the gun." - Barbara Davis (11/22/63 affidavit)
VIRGINIA DAVIS: And then these five boys, or men walked up on this platform, and he was No. 2.
Mr. BELIN: You say he was No. 2. Who was No. 2?
VIRGINIA DAVIS: The boy that shot Tippit.
Mr. BELIN: You mean the man--did you see him shoot Tippit? Or you mean the man you saw with the gun?
VIRGINIA DAVIS: The man I saw carrying the gun.
Mr. BELIN: How did you identify him? Did you yell that this is the man I saw?
VIRGINIA DAVIS: No; I just leaned over and told the detective it was No. 2.
"The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw tonight as number 2 man in a line up." - Virginia Davis (11/22/63 affidavit)
The point is that when, out of nine people. nine people identify the same person at a line up, and nobody says they're no sure, you need to question the line up and not the outcome.
Again... Four witnesses did indeed say they weren't sure.
You're mistakenly acting like nine people out of nine all identified the same guy. This is not what happened. Nine people out of thirteen identified the same guy. The other four couldn't be certain.
You said that if nine people out of nine all identify the same guy, then you have to question the lineup and not the outcome. But, what if nine people out of thirteen identify the same guy while the other four weren't certain? In reality, THAT is what happened, not your "nine out of nine" false scenario.
I'm not trying to be combative but your point above is completely invalid.
On a side note, to be clear, not all of the witnesses actually attended a physical lineup. Some were shown a photo.
Witness testimony is the worst kind of evidence there is and over the years it has been proven, beyond any doubt, that incorrect or false witness testimony has put many people behind bars for many years who shouldn't have been there.
Agreed.
-
I was trying to explain no such thing. I was explaining how two witnesses saw the SAME jacket and described it drastically different.
What you're missing here is that there were more than nine people watching this same event. Nine witnesses OUT OF THIRTEEN agreed on a positive identification. You're acting like it was nine witnesses OUT OF NINE who agreed on the same thing. You're forgetting Jimmy Burt, Bill Smith, Domingo Benavides and L.J. Lewis; each of which could not say yay or nay. I think this makes your point invalid.
It is not unreasonable at all for a witness to positively identify a suspect in a lineup conducted 24 hours after the crime and then the same witness not identifying the suspect in a photo lineup conducted many weeks later. Perhaps the photo of Oswald shown to Scoggins (I believe it was Oswald's arrest photo from New Orleans taken earlier that year) did not resemble Oswald as he was seen running from the Tippit shooting scene. Do you really feel that Oswald, in New Orleans during the summer of '63, must look like Oswald as he did on the afternoon of the Tippit murder in November of '63? I think your position is faulty. You're trying to compare apples and oranges.
For what it's worth, these two women seemed pretty sure. No hesitation and/or doubts on their part.
Mr. BALL: Did you recognize anyone in that room?
BARBARA DAVIS: Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.
"About 8:00 pm the same day, the police came after me and took me downtown to the city hall where I saw this man in a lineup. The #2 man in a 4-man lineup was the same man I saw in my yard, also the one that was unloading the gun." - Barbara Davis (11/22/63 affidavit)
VIRGINIA DAVIS: And then these five boys, or men walked up on this platform, and he was No. 2.
Mr. BELIN: You say he was No. 2. Who was No. 2?
VIRGINIA DAVIS: The boy that shot Tippit.
Mr. BELIN: You mean the man--did you see him shoot Tippit? Or you mean the man you saw with the gun?
VIRGINIA DAVIS: The man I saw carrying the gun.
Mr. BELIN: How did you identify him? Did you yell that this is the man I saw?
VIRGINIA DAVIS: No; I just leaned over and told the detective it was No. 2.
"The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw tonight as number 2 man in a line up." - Virginia Davis (11/22/63 affidavit)
Again... Four witnesses did indeed say they weren't sure.
You're mistakenly acting like nine people out of nine all identified the same guy. This is not what happened. Nine people out of thirteen identified the same guy. The other four couldn't be certain.
You said that if nine people out of nine all identify the same guy, then you have to question the lineup and not the outcome. But, what if nine people out of thirteen identify the same guy while the other four weren't certain? In reality, THAT is what happened, not your "nine out of nine" false scenario.
I'm not trying to be combative but your point above is completely invalid.
On a side note, to be clear, not all of the witnesses actually attended a physical lineup. Some were shown a photo.
Agreed.
Just one simple question; how many witnesses to the Tippit shooting were actually present at the line up?
-
Just one simple question; how many witnesses to the Tippit shooting were actually present at the line up?
THE lineup? As in only one? There were more than just one lineup.
Positive identification (at a police lineup) of Oswald as the man they saw:
Helen Markham
Barbara Davis
Virginia Davis
William Scoggins
Ted Callaway
Sam Guinyard
Positive identification (via a photo of Oswald shown to them by the FBI) of Oswald as the man they saw:
Warren Reynolds
Pat Patterson
Harold Russell
Four others (Burt, Smith, Benavides, Lewis) weren't sure either way.
Nine out of thirteen witnesses positively identified Oswald as the man they saw.
Four out of thirteen witnesses weren't sure.
Six out of Six attended lineups and positively identified Oswald.
Side note: Zero witnesses out of thirteen said the man they saw was NOT Oswald.
-
THE lineup? As in only one? There were more than just one lineup.
Positive identification (at a police lineup) of Oswald as the man they saw:
Helen Markham
Barbara Davis
Virginia Davis
William Scoggins
Ted Callaway
Sam Guinyard
Positive identification (via a photo of Oswald shown to them by the FBI) of Oswald as the man they saw:
Warren Reynolds
Pat Patterson
Harold Russell
Four others (Burt, Smith, Benavides, Lewis) weren't sure either way.
Nine out of thirteen witnesses positively identified Oswald as the man they saw.
Four out of thirteen witnesses weren't sure.
Six out of Six attended lineups and positively identified Oswald.
Side note: Zero witnesses out of thirteen said the man they saw was NOT Oswald.
I only asked how many of the Tippit witnesses were at a line up (and yes, I know there were more than one).
So your answer is;
Positive identification (at a police lineup) of Oswald as the man they saw:
Helen Markham
Barbara Davis
Virginia Davis
William Scoggins
Ted Callaway
Sam Guinyard
Do you think it's normal or usual that all the witnesses who were at a line up identify the same person?
Four others (Burt, Smith, Benavides, Lewis) weren't sure either way.
That's pretty meaningless. Even a witness who is not sure can be asked to attend a line up, but these four guys didn't. Any idea why not?
Btw, are you sure only thirteen people witnessed the events that day?
Positive identification (via a photo of Oswald shown to them by the FBI) of Oswald as the man they saw:
Warren Reynolds
Pat Patterson
Harold Russell
How much value can you place on an identification via a photo, when you have just explained why Scoggins failed to ID Oswald from a photo after having identified him at a line up?
If it depends on the photo, as you argued, the same surely must apply to a positive identification from a photo, right?
So, even though you keep talking about 13 witnesses, when likely more people saw what happened, the basic fact is that only 6 of the Tippit witnesses were present at a line up and all 6 identified Oswald.
I seriously doubt that it is even mathematically possible for 100% of the witnesses who participate in a line up identification to all say the same thing. Even less so, as at least two of them saw the killer only for a few seconds as he ran by their frontdoor.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying these witnesses are lying. All 6 did indeed identify Oswald, albeit that Markham's identification is, to say the least, a bit shaky. But I do wonder about the way the line ups were conducted.
You have already agreed with me that witness testimony is the worst kind of evidence there is. The evidentiary value of a witness identification does not increase when another witness (or even 5 more) say the same thing, when the circumstances of the identifications are not beyond question. And even then, when you look at the cases taken on by the Innocence Project you'll find that on cross examination witnesses frequently become less sure of their initial identification or even admit they were or could wrong. The mere fact that none of the witnesses in this case have ever been cross examined and the quality of the line ups is, so say the least, questionable means that you can not consider the witness identifications to be solid evidence of anything.
-
They denied Oswald an attorney while putting him through a series of prejudiced lineups. The men used in
the showings were police officers that had nothing to do with the witness descriptions. Some were blonde,
much heavier than Lee, with collared shirts, button down sweaters, vests, and a suit jacket.
While Oswald, only sometimes wore his over shirt, complained profusely about the clothing and lack of legal council.
He was beat up, cuts above his eye, bruises on his face, the others were neat and well groomed, not meant to be chosen.
DPD broke every rule in the book. Witnesses were told going in, "...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." While fill-ins did not match their descriptions.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LAST WORDS OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD | Compiled by Mae Brussell
Friday
4:45 P.M. At a Lineup for Helen Markham, Witness to Tippit Murder
"It isn't right to put me in line with these teenagers. . . . You know what you are doing, and you are trying to railroad me. . . .
I want my lawyer. . . . You are doing me an injustice by putting me out there dressed different than these other men. . . .
I am out there, the only one with a bruise on his head. . . . I don t believe the lineup is fair, and I desire to put on a jacket
similar to those worn by some of the other individuals in the lineup. . . . All of you have a shirt on, and I have a T-shirt on.
I want a shirt or something. . . . This T-shirt is unfair."
6:30 P.M. Lineup for Witnesses Cecil J. McWatters, Sam Guinyard, and Ted Callaway
"I didn't shoot anyone," Oswald yelled in the halls to reporters. . . . "I want to get in touch with a lawyer,
Mr. Abt, in New York City. . . . I never killed anybody."
7:10 P.M. Arraignment: State of Texas v. Lee Harvey Oswald for Murder with Malice of Officer J. D. Tippit of the Dallas Police Dept.
"I insist upon my constitutional rights. . . . The way you are treating me, I might as well be in Russia. . . .
I was not granted my request to put on a jacket similar to those worn by other individuals in some previous lineups."
7:50 P.M. Lineup for Witness J. D. Davis
"I have been dressed differently than the other three. . . . Don't you know the difference? I still have on the same
clothes I was arrested in. The other two were prisoners, already in jail." Seth Kantor, reporter, heard Oswald yell, "I am only a patsy.
11:20 - 11:25 P.M. Lineup for Press Conference; Jack Ruby Present
When newsmen asked Oswald about his black eye, he answered, "A cop hit me." When asked about the earlier arraignment,
Oswald said "Well, I was questioned by Judge Johnston. However, I protested at that time that I was not allowed legal
representation during that very short and sweet hearing. I really don't know what the situation is about.
Nobody has told me anything except that I am accused of murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that,
and I do request someone to come forward to give me legal assistance." When asked, "Did you kill the President?"
Oswald replied, "No. I have not been charged with that. In fact, nobody has said that to me yet. The first thing
I heard about it was when the newspaper reporters in the hall asked me that question. . . . I did not do it.
I did not do it. . . . I did not shoot anyone."
Saturday
2:15 P.M. Lineup for Witnesses William W. Scoggins and William Whaley
"I refuse to answer questions. I have my T-shirt on, the other men are dressed differently. . . .
Everybody's got a shirt and everything, and I've got a T-shirt on. . . . This is unfair."
https://jfk.boards.net/post/1268/thread
-
At around 5:06 in this video we see Oswald being taken for a line-up, complaining that it is already a foregone conclusion that he will be picked out, comparing himself to the other men in the line-up.
Regardless of his guilt or innocence, the idea that the line-ups are somehow reliable or fair is a non-starter.