JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Bill Brown on March 14, 2026, 04:56:51 AM
-
I appeared on The Lone Gunman Podcast earlier tonight. Have a look and let me know if you disagree with anything I said...
-
I think deep down inside you know Oswald is innocent of the Tippit murder but you can't bring yourself to admit it lest your whole internal world come crashing down.
-
I think deep down inside you know Oswald is innocent of the Tippit murder but you can't bring yourself to admit it lest your whole internal world come crashing down.
Let me pour some oil on this little fire.... :D
I think deep down inside you know Oswald is innocent of the Tippit murder
You may well be correct, because anybody who is truly convinced of Oswald's guilt, doesn't need to misrepresent evidence to make his case, as Bill has done on several occasions in the past.
In podcasts like this it isn't of much significance what Bill says. Far more telling is what he misrepresents, ignores and dismisses.
-
I think deep down inside you know Oswald is innocent of the Tippit murder but you can't bring yourself to admit it lest your whole internal world come crashing down.
I think you're full of Jim DiEugenio's pungent beans.
-
Let me mention one simple conundrum, put forward by Dale Myers and supported by Bill Brown.
In the past Bill and I have discussed that Helen Markham said in her testimony that she took her daily bus to work from the Jefferson bus stop at 1.15 PM. That may well be an estimate or a generalization, as far as I am concerned. Bill correctly pointed out that the FBI determined that the bus schedule showed arrivals of the bus at 1.12 and 1.22 (as if buses were never delayed) and that Markham thus must have taken the 1.22 bus. What Bill never did (to the best of my knowledge) is argue that Markham actually normally arrived later than 1.15 at the bus stop.
Fair enough, I suppose, but it still places Markham at the Jefferson bus stop at 1.15, when Bill thinks that Tippit was shot at around 1.14. The FBI determined that walking one block, between 10th and Jefferson took about 2,5 to 3 minutes. So, for Markham to get to the bus stop at 1.15 she would have had to pass by the 10th and Patton crossing between 1.12 and 1.13 at the latest.
Now, here's the problem; according to Dale Myers, Markham arrived at the crossing of 10th and Patton just when Tippit's patrol car passed by (at 1.12 or 1.13?). We know that Tippit was well passed the crossing when he stopped his killer. We know there was a short conversation between Tippit and the killer after which Tippit got out of the car and was shot. So, the question now becomes, what was Markham doing standing around at the crossing to watch Tippit being killed if she had to catch her bus to work? Wouldn't one expect that she would simply carry on walking in order to get to the bus stop on time?
-
I think you're full of Jim DiEugenio's pungent beans.
Do you also think that anybody is actually interested in what you think?
-
Do you also think that anybody is actually interested in what you think?
You evidently do, Weidmann, otherwise you wouldn't be replying.
-
Let me mention one simple conundrum, put forward by Dale Myers and supported by Bill Brown.
In the past Bill and I have discussed that Helen Markham said in her testimony that she took her daily bus to work from the Jefferson bus stop at 1.15 PM. That may well be an estimate or a generalization, as far as I am concerned. Bill correctly pointed out that the FBI determined that the bus schedule showed arrivals of the bus at 1.12 and 1.22 (as if buses were never delayed) and that Markham thus must have taken the 1.22 bus. What Bill never did (to the best of my knowledge) is argue that Markham actually normally arrived later than 1.15 at the bus stop.
Fair enough, I suppose, but it still places Markham at the Jefferson bus stop at 1.15, when Bill thinks that Tippit was shot at around 1.14. The FBI determined that walking one block, between 10th and Jefferson took about 2,5 to 3 minutes. So, for Markham to get to the bus stop at 1.15 she would have had to pass by the 10th and Patton crossing between 1.12 and 1.13 at the latest.
Now, here's the problem; according to Dale Myers, Markham arrived at the crossing of 10th and Patton just when Tippit's patrol car passed by (at 1.12 or 1.13?). We know that Tippit was well passed [sic] the crossing when he stopped his killer. We know there was a short conversation between Tippit and the killer after which Tippit got out of the car and was shot. So, the question now becomes, what was Markham doing standing around at the crossing to watch Tippit being killed if she had to catch her bus to work? Wouldn't one expect that she would simply carry on walking in order to get to the bus stop on time?
What are you quibbling about now?
-
You evidently do, Weidmann, otherwise you wouldn't be replying.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble I couldn't give a damn about the opinions of a nobody.
But feel free to boost your fragile ego by believing otherwise.
-
What are you quibbling about now?
Why am I not surprised that you don't understand this?
-
Bill,
I like the part where you point out that fibers matching the shirt Oswald was arrested in were found in the jacket discovered under the car at the gas station, the fact that Earlene Roberts said Oswald zipped up his "short coat" when he left -- i.e., his brownish-red (or reddish-brown?) button-up long-sleeved shirt couldn't have been confused with his zip-up jacket or vice-versa -- and the fact that it makes perfect sense that Oswald, having killed Tippit a couple of minutes earlier, would jettison his jacket at or behind the gas station in an attempt to alter his appearance.
I also like the fact that witnesses' conflicting descriptions of the direction Oswald was walking before Tippit stopped him can be explained by the following scenario:
He had a still-valid bus transfer and he hoped to catch a bus to the VA Hospital (and from there a Greyhound bus to Laredo) and therefore he walked past 10th and Patton towards the bus stop on Marsalis until he came around a curve in the road and saw a County Police car parked a block away, so he turned around and started walking back towards 10th and Patton for his unexpected rendezvous with Officer Tippit.
-- Tom
-
You may well be correct, because anybody who is truly convinced of Oswald's guilt, doesn't need to misrepresent evidence to make his case, as Bill has done on several occasions in the past.
In podcasts like this it isn't of much significance what Bill says. Far more telling is what he misrepresents, ignores and dismisses.
I think deep down inside you know Oswald is guilty of the Tippit murder but you can't bring yourself to admit it lest your whole internal world come crashing down.
-
I think deep down inside you know Oswald is guilty of the Tippit murder but you can't bring yourself to admit it lest your whole internal world come crashing down.
Correct.
Oswald murdered Tippit.
-
So, the question now becomes, what was Markham doing standing around at the crossing to watch Tippit being killed if she had to catch her bus to work? Wouldn't one expect that she would simply carry on walking in order to get to the bus stop on time?
After watching a police officer be murdered in broad daylight right in front of you, would you "simply carry on walking" ???
-
I think deep down inside you know Oswald is guilty of the Tippit murder but you can't bring yourself to admit it lest your whole internal world come crashing down.
Actually, I couldn't care less if he did or didn't.
If you show me conclusive evidence of his guilt, I'll gladly consider him to be guilty.
But when evidence is misrepresented, ignored and dismissed out of hand, you have to give the suspect the benefit of the doubt.
-
After watching a police officer be murdered in broad daylight right in front of you, would you "simply carry on walking" ???
You are missing the point.
At least a minute or so passed between Tippit passing the 10th and Patton crossing (where Markham stopped walking to let him pass by) and being shot.
Now, why would Markham stay there for at least a minute after Tippit's car had passed, when she needed to get to the bus stop.
-
I think deep down inside you know Oswald is innocent of the Tippit murder but you can't bring yourself to admit it lest your whole internal world come crashing down.
Ha ha
Yep. You got me.
-
Bill,
I like the part where you point out that fibers matching the shirt Oswald was arrested in were found in the jacket discovered under the car at the gas station, the fact that Earlene Roberts said Oswald zipped up his "short coat" when he left -- i.e., his brownish-red (or reddish-brown?) button-up long-sleeved shirt couldn't have been confused with his zip-up jacket or vice-versa -- and the fact that it makes perfect sense that Oswald, having killed Tippit a couple of minutes earlier, would jettison his jacket at or behind the gas station in an attempt to alter his appearance.
I also like the fact that witnesses' conflicting descriptions of the direction Oswald was walking before Tippit stopped him can be explained by the following scenario:
He had a still-valid bus transfer and he hoped to catch a bus to the VA Hospital (and from there a Greyhound bus to Laredo) and therefore he walked past 10th and Patton towards the bus stop on Marsalis until he came around a curve in the road and saw a County Police car parked a block away, so he turned around and started walking back towards 10th and Patton for his unexpected rendezvous with Officer Tippit.
-- Tom
Thanks Tom.
When it comes to where Oswald was heading after leaving the rooming house, all we can do is speculate. May as well try.
But, when we do, we must speculate based on what we know; "educated speculation", if you will.
-
For the people who think Tippit was assigned to eliminate Oswald, how did he know where to find him? Are we to believe that he just drove around until he spotted him on 10th? How did he know Oswald was walking about in the neighborhood instead of holed up inside somewhere?
-
For the people who think Tippit was assigned to eliminate Oswald, how did he know where to find him? Are we to believe that he just drove around until he spotted him on 10th? How did he know Oswald was walking about in the neighborhood instead of holed up inside somewhere?
Great point. So many aspects of these conspiracy theories fall apart under the slightest bit of critical thinking.
-
I think deep down inside you know Oswald is innocent of the Tippit murder but you can't bring yourself to admit it lest your whole internal world come crashing down.
Explain how Oswald could be innocent when about a dozen witnesses either saw him shoot Tippit or saw him leaving the scene with a gun in his hand and he was arrested a short time later with the Tippit murder weapon in his possession. In what Bizarro universe is such a thing even possible.
-
Explain how Oswald could be innocent when about a dozen witnesses either saw him shoot Tippit or saw him leaving the scene with a gun in his hand and he was arrested a short time later with the Tippit murder weapon in his possession. In what Bizarro universe is such a thing even possible.
In what Bizarro universe is such a thing even possible.
Perhaps you should check out the case of Rubin "Hurricane" Carter and the activities of the Innocence Project https://innocenceproject.org/. You might learn something.
-
Perhaps you should check out the case of Rubin "Hurricane" Carter and the activities of the Innocence Project https://innocenceproject.org/. You might learn something.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with Oswald's murder of Tippit, the evidence for which is beyond overwhelming.
-
In what Bizarro universe is such a thing even possible.
Perhaps you should check out the case of Rubin "Hurricane" Carter and the activities of the Innocence Project https://innocenceproject.org/. You might learn something.
So you really don't have an explanation. Don't feel bad. Nobody else does either.
-
So you really don't have an explanation. Don't feel bad. Nobody else does either.
Don't have to have one. It's a silly question that contains assumptions about the evidence.
Only a superficial look at the "evidence" would cause such a question being asked.
-
This has nothing whatsoever to do with Oswald's murder of Tippit, the evidence for which is beyond overwhelming.
Nobody said it had anything to do with Oswald or Tippit. But it does show just how unreliable witness identification and testimony is.
You didn't understand that?
Didn't you just say something about 'critical thinking'? Are you sure you should be using such words?
-
Text deleted
-
Don't have to have one. It's a silly question that contains assumptions about the evidence.
Only a superficial look at the "evidence" would cause such a question being asked.
By assumptions, you mean assumptions that the evidence is genuine?
I guess it is more fun to dream up excuses to disregard the evidence and imagine scenarios unburdened by what has been.
-
By assumptions, you mean assumptions that the evidence is genuine?
I guess it is more fun to dream up excuses to disregard the evidence and imagine scenarios unburdened by what has been.
By assumptions, you mean assumptions that the evidence is genuine?
Wow, did you figure that out by yourself?
I guess it is more fun to dream up excuses to disregard the evidence
Is it? What excuses have I made to disregard the evidence?
and imagine scenarios unburdened by what has been.
Pray tell, what exactly has been and how do you know? Let me guess, by blindly and with no questions asked accepting "the evidence"..... Right?
-
Why do posts duplicate as a quote?
This is the second text that I had to delete.
-
It's a simple proposition. Either you accept the evidence as genuine, you have reasons/excuses for not accepting it as genuine, or you are arbitrarily dismissing evidence you don't want to accept as genuine.
Which of the above applies to you.
-
It's a simple proposition. Either you accept the evidence as genuine, you have reasons/excuses for not accepting it as genuine, or you are arbitrarily dismissing evidence you don't want to accept as genuine.
Which of the above applies to you.
Either you accept the evidence as genuine,
Like you do, you mean?
you have reasons/excuses for not accepting it as genuine,
I don't need reasons or excuses. Evidence needs to be authenticated, conclusive and persuasive. Either it is or it isn't!
or you are arbitrarily dismissing evidence you don't want to accept as genuine.
Again, I haven't dismissed anything as not genuine. There wouldn't be any point.
Which of the above applies to you.
None. All you are showing, by asking this question, is your own "black or white", "right or wrong", "with us or against us" approach to this case.
Outright acceptance of evidence being genuine or dismissal of the same evidence is a pointless proposition which only demonstrates a predisposed bias.
You do understand that "genuine" evidence (whatever that means) still may not support an assumption or assertion that's made based on that evidence, don't you?
-
Explain how Oswald could be innocent when about a dozen witnesses either saw him shoot Tippit or saw him leaving the scene with a gun in his hand and he was arrested a short time later with the Tippit murder weapon in his possession. In what Bizarro universe is such a thing even possible.
Michael Brownlow was the leading expert on the Tippit case. He solved these issues decades ago and has documented his research on many videos online confirming Oswald's guilt at 10th and Patton.
-
Michael Brownlow was the leading expert on the Tippit case. He solved these issues decades ago and has documented his research on many videos online confirming Oswald's guilt at 10th and Patton.
You and Brownlow are full of beans and KGB disinformation whether you realize it or not.
-
There might have been some double timing by Oswald at intervals, so it’s not that difficult to get him to McWaters bus in 4 minutes boarding the bus at 12:37 if Oswald was able to leave TSBD by 12:33.
3 minutes later at 12:40 , Oswald exited the bus. He then double timed the 4 blocks in 2 minutes and entered Whaleys taxi at 12:42
6 minutes later, Oswald exited the taxi at 12:48
He then double timed 5 blocks in 3 minutes, entering the boarding house at 12:51
4 minutes to change shirt and jacket , get the revolver and exit house and stand outside for 1 minute before leaving at 12:56.
11 minute walk to 10th and Patton = Oswald seen by Markam at 1:06-1:07.
It works with Bowleys 1:10 watch time.
Tippit is shot by Oswald by 1:08 and flees the scene by 1:09.
Benavides waited only about 1 minute so he was at the Tippit car by 1:10 when Bowley showed up.
The call by Bowley at 1:10 works with the 1:15 DOA document time per the emergency doctor.
1:10:30 sec , ambulance dispatched
Time for ambulance is 2 minutes each way plus 30 sec to unload and unload body and into the emergency room by 1:15pm.
The hardcore LN will argue that Markam and Bowley times and the emergency room clocks were all 5-8 minutes slow and therefore the above scenario is invalid because of DPD clock time.
The hardcore CT will argue that Oswald would not have double timed any of the distances because ( fill in any answer here) therefore it’s impossible Oswald arrived at 10th and Patton by 1:07pm.
-
[...]
Well, if it isn't Peon, I mean Zeon!
-
Well, if it isn't Peon, I mean Zeon!
How’s the KGB conspiracy theory going Tom? Did Kruschev give the order to Oswald or was it some Commie version of MK ultra they used on him?
-
How’s the KGB conspiracy theory going Tom? Did Kruschev [sic] give the order to Oswald or was it some Commie version of MK ultra they used on him?
Dear Peon I mean Zeon,
No! George Hickey obviously did it for the evil, evil, evil Deep State CIA!!!
-- Tom
-
Dear Peon I mean Zeon,
No! George Hickey obviously did it for the evil, evil, evil Deep State CIA!!!
-- Tom
Dear Dom, I mean Tom, I am NOT Marjan the hooded avatar. I am the robot avatar ( I’d like to change it to something else but I’m not sure how to do so). Since you seem to rely a lot on GROK then maybe you could give me instructions on how to change my avatar to an American Flag or some other patriotic symbol.
Thanks again and may God be with you!
-
Bill,
I like the part where you point out that fibers matching the shirt Oswald was arrested in were found in the jacket discovered under the car at the gas station, the fact that Earlene Roberts said Oswald zipped up his "short coat" when he left -- i.e., his brownish-red (or reddish-brown?) button-up long-sleeved shirt couldn't have been confused with his zip-up jacket or vice-versa -- and the fact that it makes perfect sense that Oswald, having killed Tippit a couple of minutes earlier, would jettison his jacket at or behind the gas station in an attempt to alter his appearance.
I also like the fact that witnesses' conflicting descriptions of the direction Oswald was walking before Tippit stopped him can be explained by the following scenario:
He had a still-valid bus transfer and he hoped to catch a bus to the VA Hospital (and from there a Greyhound bus to Laredo) and therefore he walked past 10th and Patton towards the bus stop on Marsalis until he came around a curve in the road and saw a County Police car parked a block away, so he turned around and started walking back towards 10th and Patton for his unexpected rendezvous with Officer Tippit.
-- Tom
Tom,
Thanks for listening. I appreciate your thoughts.
Re: Oswald leaving the house zipping up a jacket as he went out the door... What conspiracy advocates can't (or don't want to) answer is regardless of what color the jacket was, why did he ditch the jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?
=========
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.
Mr. BALL: He was zipping it up as he went out the door?
Mrs. ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr. BREWER - He was a little man, about 5'9", and weighed about 150 pounds is all.
Mr. BELIN - How tall are you, by the way?
Mr. BREWER - Six three.
Mr. BELIN - So you say he was about 5'9"?
Mr. BREWER - About 5'9".
Mr. BELIN - And about 150?
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.
-
Tom,
Thanks for listening. I appreciate your thoughts.
Re: Oswald leaving the house zipping up a jacket as he went out the door... What conspiracy advocates can't (or don't want to) answer is regardless of what color the jacket was, why did he ditch the jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?
=========
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.
Mr. BALL: He was zipping it up as he went out the door?
Mrs. ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr. BREWER - He was a little man, about 5'9", and weighed about 150 pounds is all.
Mr. BELIN - How tall are you, by the way?
Mr. BREWER - Six three.
Mr. BELIN - So you say he was about 5'9"?
Mr. BREWER - About 5'9".
Mr. BELIN - And about 150?
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.
And you know for a fact that Roberts, who was paying more attention to the television and had bad vision, was absolutely right, how?
-
And you know for a fact that Roberts, who was paying more attention to the television and had bad vision, was absolutely right, how?
Why do you hate women?
And I thought you supported DEI, some hypocrite you are!
JohnM
-
Why do you hate women?
And I thought you supported DEI, some hypocrite you are!
JohnM
You think a great many things and all of them are wrong.
But I noticed your inability to answer a simple question. Extremely weak sauce for a self-proclaimed "genius". :D
-
The conspiracy hobbyist's views on the Tippit murder reveal a mindset to find any excuse imaginable to exonerate Oswald of both the murders he committed that day. No amount of evidence will ever convince them they are wrong, even though they obviously are.
-
The conspiracy hobbyist's views on the Tippit murder reveal a mindset to find any excuse imaginable to exonerate Oswald of both the murders he committed that day. No amount of evidence will ever convince them they are wrong, even though they obviously are.
And how do you know for a fact that Roberts, who was paying more attention to the television and had bad vision, was absolutely right?
-
And how do you know for a fact that Roberts, who was paying more attention to the television and had bad vision, was absolutely right?
I can't remember a single time over the past 35 years that I cited Earlene Roberts statements to support any argument I've made.
-
Dear Dom, I mean Tom, I am NOT Marjan the hooded avatar. I am the robot avatar ( I’d like to change it to something else but I’m not sure how to do so). Since you seem to rely a lot on GROK then maybe you could give me instructions on how to change my avatar to an American Flag or some other patriotic symbol.
Thanks again and may God be with you!
The avatar I was assigned is much younger and much better looking than me so I have no reason to want to change mine.
-
I can't remember a single time over the past 35 years that I cited Earlene Roberts statements to support any argument I've made.
Roberts statement about the jacket is crucial to the entire Tippit case. I find it beyond believe that you have been arguing the case for 35 years and have never discussed her statement.
Well, why don't you start today?
You claim eye witnesses are frequently unreliable. Does that also include Earlene Roberts' statement about Oswald leaving the rooming house wearing a jacket?
-
What Weidmann is doing here is a perfect example of a conspiracy Kook being unable to explain why Oswald would ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson.
Instead of dealing with the fact that Oswald threw down his jacket at some point, the Kooks try to argue that Oswald was zipping up his button up shirt. :D
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.
Mr. BALL: He was zipping it up as he went out the door?
Mrs. ROBERTS: Yes.
-
What Weidmann is doing here is a perfect example of a conspiracy Kook being unable to explain why Oswald would ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson.
Instead of dealing with the fact that Oswald threw down his jacket at some point, the Kooks try to argue that Oswald was zipping up his button up shirt. :D
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.
Mr. BALL: He was zipping it up as he went out the door?
Mrs. ROBERTS: Yes.
Says the fool who thinks the statements of a woman who admitted that she wasn't paying attention, had bad vision, and only could have seen Oswald for a few seconds as he opened the frontdoor and walked out should be written in stone.
Roberts said the jack was dark colored, which it wasn't, and she couldn't identify it during her testimony, so she didn't get a damned thing right which of course means for crazy Bill Brown that she must have been right about the zipping part. Go figure!
Btw, the grey jacket wasn't even in Oak Cliff on Friday morning. There is no way it could have been. We've discussed this in the past but you will never ever accept anything that you don't like, so I am not going to revisit that discussion.
-
Says the fool who thinks the statements of a woman who admitted that she wasn't paying attention, had bad vision, and only could have seen Oswald for a few seconds as he opened the frontdoor and walked out should be written in stone.
Roberts said the jack was dark colored, which it wasn't, and she couldn't identify it during her testimony, so she didn't get a damned thing wrong which of course means for crazy Bill Brown that she must have been right about the zipping part. Go figure!
Btw, the grey jacket wasn't even in Oak Cliff on Friday morning. There is no way it could have been. We've discussed this in the past but you will never ever accept anything that you don't like, so I am not going to revisit that discussion.
Dear Martin,
There's a big difference between passively misremembering the shade of a jacket and actively remembering the actions of a person who is not only in an unusual hurry but has just put on said jacket and is in the process of zipping it up as he rushes out the door.
-- Tom
-
Dear Martin,
There's a big difference between passively misremembering the shade of a jacket and actively remembering the actions of a person who is not only in an unusual hurry but has just put on said jacket and is in the process of zipping it up as he rushes out the door.
-- Tom
Nice try, but no cigar. She said the jacket was dark from the beginning and her lack of powers of observation are clear when you read her affidavit in which she says that she couldn't describe the clothing Oswald was wearing when he entered the rooming house.
No, why in the world would she not be able to describe Oswald's clothing as he came in as well as when he left. She can't even describe the jacket, gets the color wrong and only makes a comment about him zipping up a jacket. Even worse, Roberts, by her own admission, wasn't paying much attention and the circumstances as she described justify the conclusion that she only saw Oswald for a few seconds as he opened the front door and walked out.
Besides, the grey jacket wasn't even in the rooming house on Friday morning, but in Irving instead.
It's amazing that anybody would blindly accept the statement about one particular item from a woman with bad vision, who wasn't paying attention, got everything else wrong and who her employer described as somebody who makes up stories.
-
Nice try, but no cigar. She said the jacket was dark from the beginning and her lack of powers of observation are clear when you read her affidavit in which she says that she couldn't describe the clothing Oswald was wearing when he entered the rooming house.
No, why in the world would she not be able to describe Oswald's clothing as he came in as well as when he left. She can't even describe the jacket, gets the color wrong and only makes a comment about him zipping up a jacket. Even worse, Roberts, by her own admission, wasn't paying much attention and the circumstances as she described justify the conclusion that she only saw Oswald for a few seconds as he opened the front door and walked out.
Besides, the grey jacket wasn't even in the rooming house on Friday morning, but in Irving instead.
It's amazing that anybody would blindly accept the statement about one particular item from a woman with bad vision, who wasn't paying attention, got everything else wrong and who her employer described as somebody who makes up stories.
Dear Martin,
Roberts was sufficiently distracted by the problematic television to notice correctly the shade of Oswald's jacket, but his actions were sufficiently unusual for her to remember that he arrived in a hurry, that he hurriedly entered his room, that he left wearing a jacket that he hadn't arrived in, and that he was zipping it up as he was hurriedly leaving.
-- Tom
-
Dear Martin,
Roberts was sufficiently distracted by the problematic television to notice correctly the shade of Oswald's jacket, but his actions were sufficiently unusual for her to remember that he arrived in a hurry, that he hurriedly entered his room, that he left wearing a jacket that he hadn't arrived in, and that he was zipping it up as he was hurriedly leaving.
-- Tom
Since when is zipping up a jacket unusual?
I repeat; there is evidence that shows that the grey jacket was in Irving and could not have been at the rooming house on Friday morning. As Oswald had only two jackets and one of those was found at the TSBD, while Frazier described the jacket Oswald was wearing on Thursday afternoon as being grey, can you explain how the grey jacket could have been at the rooming house the next day?
-
Nice try, but no cigar. She said the jacket was dark from the beginning and her lack of powers of observation are clear when you read her affidavit in which she says that she couldn't describe the clothing Oswald was wearing when he entered the rooming house.
No, why in the world would she not be able to describe Oswald's clothing as he came in as well as when he left. She can't even describe the jacket, gets the color wrong and only makes a comment about him zipping up a jacket. Even worse, Roberts, by her own admission, wasn't paying much attention and the circumstances as she described justify the conclusion that she only saw Oswald for a few seconds as he opened the front door and walked out.
Besides, the grey jacket wasn't even in the rooming house on Friday morning, but in Irving instead.
It's amazing that anybody would blindly accept the statement about one particular item from a woman with bad vision, who wasn't paying attention, got everything else wrong and who her employer described as somebody who makes up stories.
She said the jacket was dark...
Why do you insist on being so stupid and dishonest, she said the jacket she was shown was relatively darker than the one she saw Oswald zipping up at the rooming house. But the most relevant memory she has is the zipping action, something understandably that stuck with her!
Because you realize how important her testimony is you have tried every pathetic attempt to try and discredit her. Like I said you are simply an angry, bitter old man who hates Women! Misogynist!
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?
Just because one grey is darker than another, doesn't instantly categorize it as "Dark", you must be the dumbest person to ever walk the Earth!!
(https://www.color-hex.com/palettes/75285.png)
And shades are powerfully reflected by the contrast of the environment. The centre bar when surrounded by varying shades appears to be itself different shades but it's a constant colour.
Grow a brain you idiot!
(https://i.postimg.cc/15F02KX7/optical-illusion-shad-bar-gif.gif)
JohnM
-
Why do you insist on being so stupid and dishonest, she said the jacket she was shown was relatively darker than the one she saw Oswald zipping up at the rooming house. But the most relevant memory she has is the zipping action, something understandably that stuck with her!
Because you realize how important her testimony is you have tried every pathetic attempt to try and discredit her. Like I said you are simply an angry, bitter old man who hates Women! Misogynist!
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?
Just because one grey is darker than another, doesn't instantly categorize it as "Dark", you must be the dumbest person to ever walk the Earth!!
(https://www.color-hex.com/palettes/75285.png)
And shades are powerfully reflected by the contrast of the environment. The centre bar when surrounded by varying shades appears to be itself different shades but it's a constant colour.
Grow a brain you idiot!
(https://i.postimg.cc/15F02KX7/optical-illusion-shad-bar-gif.gif)
JohnM
Why do you insist on being so stupid and dishonest, she said the jacket she was shown was relatively darker than the one she saw Oswald zipping up at the rooming house.
Did you ever read her affidavit of 12/5/1963? I doubt it, because than you wouldn't have exposed your ignorance!
Because you realize how important her testimony is you have tried every pathetic attempt to try and discredit her.
Her testimony (if true) is indeed important, but you have it backwards. It's pretty obvious to any sane person that Roberts isn't a reliable witness, but idiots like you desperately need her testimony to keep your pathetic narrative alive that you will say anything you can to salvage the wreckage of her statements and thus expose yourself as a dishonest fool with an agenda.
Like I said you are simply an angry, bitter old man who hates Women! Misogynist!
Oh boy, so much anger....
you must be the dumbest person to ever walk the Earth!!
More insults from a petty keyboard junkie.... I'm really sad that little Johnny doesn't like me (not really :D)
-
Since when is zipping up a jacket unusual?
I repeat; there is evidence that shows that the grey jacket was in Irving and could not have been at the rooming house on Friday morning. As Oswald had only two jackets and one of those was found at the TSBD, while Frazier described the jacket Oswald was wearing on Thursday afternoon as being grey, can you explain how the grey jacket could have been at the rooming house the next day?
Frazier described the jacket Oswald was wearing on Thursday afternoon as being grey
Try Again!
(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/91/f3/0d/91f30db8fa5800664af818d5982c24f7.jpg)
Actually, eye witness testimony is the worst kind of evidence.
(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/91/f3/0d/91f30db8fa5800664af818d5982c24f7.jpg)
And it is common knowledge that eyewitnesses frequently get all sorts of details wrong,
Ouch!
JohnM
-
Try Again!
(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/91/f3/0d/91f30db8fa5800664af818d5982c24f7.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/91/f3/0d/91f30db8fa5800664af818d5982c24f7.jpg)
Ouch!
JohnM
Except of course when the witness' name is Earlene Roberts, right?
But let's see if you want to play. We know from Marina that Oswald had two jackets; one grey one and one dark-grey one. The latter was found at the TSBD and thus must have been the jacket that Oswald was wearing on Friday.
According to Frazier, Oswald was wearing a grey jacket on the trip to Irving on Thursday.
So, how could the grey jacket have been at the rooming house in Oak Cliff on the next day?
When you figure it out, let me know!
-
Except of course when the witness' name is Earlene Roberts, right?
But let's see if you want to play. We know from Marina that Oswald had two jackets; one grey one and one dark-grey one. The latter was found at the TSBD and thus must have been the jacket that Oswald was wearing on Friday.
According to Frazier, Oswald was wearing a grey jacket on the trip to Irving on Thursday.
So, how could the grey jacket have been at the rooming house in Oak Cliff on the next day?
When you figure it out, let me know!
Very near the Tippit crime scene, Oswald was seen entering a carpark and his jacket was found under a car, the jacket was initialled by various law officers and the FBI forensic examiner, to maintain a chain of custody.
The jacket was filmed at the scene and this jacket was positively identified by his wife.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sXpws54X/Oswald-ditched-jacket.jpg)
Stombaugh confirms his initials on evidence was designated by his initials PMS.
Mr. EISENBERG. "PMS" being your initials, Paul M. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dbbrsX8/jacket-initials1-zps70d8a969.jpg)
Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's--an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
JohnM
-
So who actually found the jacket under the car?
-
Roberts statement about the jacket is crucial to the entire Tippit case. I find it beyond believe that you have been arguing the case for 35 years and have never discussed her statement.
Well, why don't you start today?
You claim eye witnesses are frequently unreliable. Does that also include Earlene Roberts' statement about Oswald leaving the rooming house wearing a jacket?
I have discussed her statements bu never found any of them to be crucial to the case against Oswald. The discussions I've had with conspiracy hobbyists have been about here statement that Oswald came and left at about 1:00. Numerous times conspiracy hobbyists we try to use that as a firmly established time to argue Oswald couldn't have reached 10th and Patton in time to have been Tippit's murder. That's silly for several reasons. We don't know that he left the rooming house at precisely 1:00 and a difference of even a few minutes makes all the difference in the world. Back when I visited Dallas in 2008 I made the walk from the rooming house to 10th and Patton in just under 13 minutes so I don't see any problem for Oswald to have gotten there in time to kill ==Tippit.
As for the jacket, I can't ever remember focusing on Roberts statement about the jacket. The fact that she said he left with a jacket does not prove to me he actually did have a jacket on when he left but it certainly doesn't rule it out either. There's plenty of other evidence to establish ditched his jacket under a car after fleeing the scene of the Tippit murder. We could establish that even if Roberts had never mentioned the jacket. The single most damning piece of evidence that Oswald was the Tippit murderer is that he had the murder weapon in his possession when he was arrested along wtih the same two makes of bullets that killed Tippit. It's hard to get around that if you want to argue for Oswald's innocence.
-
So who actually found the jacket under the car?
After Oswald's jacket was pointed out, Westbrook removed Oswald's jacket from under a parked car.
Mr. WESTBROOK. Actually, I didn't find it--it was pointed out to me by either some officer that--that was while we were going over the scene in the close area where the shooting was concerned, someone pointed. out a jacket to me that was laying under a car and I got the jacket and told the officer to take the license number.
And subsequently Oswald's jacket which was confirmed by Marina, was filmed in the carpark.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sXpws54X/Osw-ald-ditched-jacket.jpg)
JohnM
-
Very near the Tippit crime scene, Oswald was seen entering a carpark and his jacket was found under a car, the jacket was initialled by various law officers and the FBI forensic examiner, to maintain a chain of custody.
The jacket was filmed at the scene and this jacket was positively identified by his wife.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sXpws54X/Oswald-ditched-jacket.jpg)
Stombaugh confirms his initials on evidence was designated by his initials PMS.
Mr. EISENBERG. "PMS" being your initials, Paul M. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dbbrsX8/jacket-initials1-zps70d8a969.jpg)
Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's--an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
JohnM
Very near the Tippit crime scene, Oswald was seen entering a carpark and his jacket was found under a car, the jacket was initialled by various law officers and the FBI forensic examiner, to maintain a chain of custody.
Lie # 1 and 2
There was no chain of custody;
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes; behind the Texaco service station, and some officer, I feel sure it was an officer, I still can't be positive pointed this jacket out to me and it was laying slightly under the rear of one of the cars.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a car was it?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That, I couldn't tell you. I told the officer to take the make and the license number.
Mr. BALL. Did you take the number yourself?
Mr. WESTBROOK. No.
Mr. BALL. What was the name of the officer?
Mr. WESTBROOK. I couldn't tell you that, sir.
<>
Mr. WESTBROOK. Now, I did, when I left this scene, I turned this jacket over to one of the officers and I went by that church, I think, and I think that would be on 10th Street.
<>
Mr. BALL. And you turned it over to whom?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Now, it was to this officer--that got the name.
Mr. BALL. Does your report show the name of the officer?
Mr. WESTBROOK. No, sir; it doesn't. When things like this happen--it was happening so fast you don't remember those things.
And unknown and never identified officer finds a jacket and shows it to Westbrook who gives it to another unnamed officer isn't a chain of custody.
The people who marked the grey jacket did so at the police station and were never part of the chain of custody.
The jacket was filmed at the scene and this jacket was positively identified by his wife
Lie # 3
Marina identified the grey jacket that did indeed belong to Oswald. There is no evidence that the jacket found at the car park, described as white by several officers, was ever shown to Marina,
-
I have discussed her statements bu never found any of them to be crucial to the case against Oswald. The discussions I've had with conspiracy hobbyists have been about here statement that Oswald came and left at about 1:00. Numerous times conspiracy hobbyists we try to use that as a firmly established time to argue Oswald couldn't have reached 10th and Patton in time to have been Tippit's murder. That's silly for several reasons. We don't know that he left the rooming house at precisely 1:00 and a difference of even a few minutes makes all the difference in the world. Back when I visited Dallas in 2008 I made the walk from the rooming house to 10th and Patton in just under 13 minutes so I don't see any problem for Oswald to have gotten there in time to kill ==Tippit.
As for the jacket, I can't ever remember focusing on Roberts statement about the jacket. The fact that she said he left with a jacket does not prove to me he actually did have a jacket on when he left but it certainly doesn't rule it out either. There's plenty of other evidence to establish ditched his jacket under a car after fleeing the scene of the Tippit murder. We could establish that even if Roberts had never mentioned the jacket. The single most damning piece of evidence that Oswald was the Tippit murderer is that he had the murder weapon in his possession when he was arrested along wtih the same two makes of bullets that killed Tippit. It's hard to get around that if you want to argue for Oswald's innocence.
The fact that she said he left with a jacket does not prove to me he actually did have a jacket on when he left but it certainly doesn't rule it out either.
True.
There's plenty of other evidence to establish ditched his jacket under a car after fleeing the scene of the Tippit murder.
Wrong! If Oswald left the rooming house without a jacket, than he couldn't have ditched a jacket under a car.
We could establish that even if Roberts had never mentioned the jacket.
Wrong again! There was no chain of custody for the jacket found at the car park. An unknown and never identified patrol officer pointed the jacket under the car out to Captain Westbrook, who then gave it to another unknown officer after which that jacket disappeared.
In several radio communications the jacket in the car park was described as being white. John Mytton constantly claims falsely that sunlight changed the color of the jacket, but although that might be true when looking at a black and white photo, it most certainly isn't true when an officer is holding the jacket in his hand.
Add to this, that we know from Marina that Oswald had only two jackets. One grey one and one dark-grey one. The latter was found at the TSBD, so must have been the one Oswald was wearing on Friday morning. Buell Frazier testified that during the trip to Irving on Thursday afternoon Oswald was wearing a grey jacket. Although his description of that jacket was somewhat strange, there can nevertheless only be one conclusion, which is that Oswald did in fact wear his grey jacket to Irving and left it there. This means it could not have been at Oak Cliff on Friday morning.
So, how did the grey jacket end up at the DPD station being marked by several officers? I believe it is possible that the grey jacket was taken from Ruth Paine's house during the second search of her home on Saturday afternoon. When it got to the station the white jacket was substituted for the grey one and marked. I also believe this is the reason why the FBI visited some 400 dry cleaners in the Dallas and New Orleans areas in order to find the dry cleaner that matched the label found in the jacket, so that the jacket could be linked to Oswald.
Now before you go all "the DPD wouldn't something like that", you should consider that this isn't the only strange matter in relation to the second search of Ruth Paine's house. That search started on Saturday around midday and by around 3 PM the officers were back at the station. Allegedly, it was during the second search that the BY photos were found. However, Michael Paine is on record saying that he was shown one of the photos on Friday evening by an FBI agent who wanted to know where the photo was taken. And Captain Fritz testified that around 12.30 on Saturday afternoon he showed Oswald a BY photo which had already been enlarged. So, how was that possible if the BY photos really didn't get to the station until about 3 PM.
See where this is going?
-
Dear Martin,
There's a big difference between passively misremembering the shade of a jacket and actively remembering the actions of a person who is not only in an unusual hurry but has just put on said jacket and is in the process of zipping it up as he rushes out the door.
-- Tom
Bingo!
-
So who actually found the jacket under the car?
"And he said look, there's a jacket under the car. He pointed this jacket out to me and it was laying slightly under the rear of one of the cars. I think it was an old Pontiac sitting there, if I remember right. So I walked over and reached under and picked up the jacket." -- Capt. Westbrook
-
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.
Approximately five minutes later two individuals from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, appeared at Ballew's Texaco Service Station, making inquiry as to whether she had noticed the young white man come by the station. She indicated she had, at which time they informed her that this individual had in all probability shot a Dallas police officer. She advised she informed them that the individual proceeded north behind the Texaco station and she last observed him in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
Mrs. BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD 9 112723, dated August 9, 1963, which she identified as being the same person she observed on November 22, 1963, at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
Mrs. BROCK advised at the time she saw OSWALD on November 22, 1963, she was unaware of the fact that President JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY had been assassinated, and she was unaware that Dallas Police Officer J. D. TIPPIT had been shot.
on 1/21/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461
By Special Agents JOHN T. KESLER and VERNON MITCHEM - LAC Date dictated 1/22/64
-
Very near the Tippit crime scene, Oswald was seen entering a carpark and his jacket was found under a car, the jacket was initialled by various law officers and the FBI forensic examiner, to maintain a chain of custody.
Lie # 1 and 2
There was no chain of custody;
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes; behind the Texaco service station, and some officer, I feel sure it was an officer, I still can't be positive pointed this jacket out to me and it was laying slightly under the rear of one of the cars.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a car was it?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That, I couldn't tell you. I told the officer to take the make and the license number.
Mr. BALL. Did you take the number yourself?
Mr. WESTBROOK. No.
Mr. BALL. What was the name of the officer?
Mr. WESTBROOK. I couldn't tell you that, sir.
<>
Mr. WESTBROOK. Now, I did, when I left this scene, I turned this jacket over to one of the officers and I went by that church, I think, and I think that would be on 10th Street.
<>
Mr. BALL. And you turned it over to whom?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Now, it was to this officer--that got the name.
Mr. BALL. Does your report show the name of the officer?
Mr. WESTBROOK. No, sir; it doesn't. When things like this happen--it was happening so fast you don't remember those things.
And unknown and never identified officer finds a jacket and shows it to Westbrook who gives it to another unnamed officer isn't a chain of custody.
The people who marked the grey jacket did so at the police station and were never part of the chain of custody.
The jacket was filmed at the scene and this jacket was positively identified by his wife
Lie # 3
Marina identified the grey jacket that did indeed belong to Oswald. There is no evidence that the jacket found at the car park, described as white by several officers, was ever shown to Marina,
At the end of the day it would be up to a judge and jury to determine if the jacket was actually at the crime scene.
1. Westbrook testified that the jacket that he found was the same one in evidence. And that's that!
Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket you found?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir.
2. The jacket was initialled by Stombaug, meaning he looked at the jacket and according to a FBI report, the jacket in evidence had Oswald's shirt fibers in one of the sleaves. Slam Dunk!
3. Marina positively identified the jacket in evidence. Home run!
Mrs. OSWALD. This is a pullover sweater. This is his pullover sweater.
Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's--an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?
JohnM
-
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.
Approximately five minutes later two individuals from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, appeared at Ballew's Texaco Service Station, making inquiry as to whether she had noticed the young white man come by the station. She indicated she had, at which time they informed her that this individual had in all probability shot a Dallas police officer. She advised she informed them that the individual proceeded north behind the Texaco station and she last observed him in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
Mrs. BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD 9 112723, dated August 9, 1963, which she identified as being the same person she observed on November 22, 1963, at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
Mrs. BROCK advised at the time she saw OSWALD on November 22, 1963, she was unaware of the fact that President JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY had been assassinated, and she was unaware that Dallas Police Officer J. D. TIPPIT had been shot.
on 1/21/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461
By Special Agents JOHN T. KESLER and VERNON MITCHEM - LAC Date dictated 1/22/64
That's one hell of a memory. Identifying a person who walked past her at a fast pace, some two months earlier, from a photograph.
Or could the two months of massive media exposure and finger pointing at Oswald have something to do with it?
Scoggings, who identified Oswald in a line up couldn't identify him from a photo the next day...... Something wrong in paradise methinks!
-
At the end of the day it would be up to a judge and jury to determine if the jacket was actually at the crime scene.
1. Westbrook testified that the jacket that he found was the same one in evidence. And that's that!
Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket you found?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir.
2. The jacket was initialled by Stombaug, meaning he looked at the jacket and according to a FBI report, the jacket in evidence had Oswald's shirt fibers in one of the sleaves. Slam Dunk!
3. Marina positively identified the jacket in evidence. Home run!
Mrs. OSWALD. This is a pullover sweater. This is his pullover sweater.
Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's--an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?
JohnM
1. Westbrook testified that the jacket that he found was the same one in evidence. And that's that!
Because cop said so..... HAHAHAHAHAHA... What else did you expect him to say?
A chain of custody is required to avoid exactly this kind of pathetic testimony. In Henry Wade's Dallas a large number of innocent people were found guilty on flawed and manipulated evidence.
A great number of this convictions were later nullified as being unsafe.
But by all means, let's just take the Personnel officer's word for it. :D
2. The jacket was initialled by Stombaug [sic], meaning he looked at the jacket and according to a FBI report, the jacket in evidence had Oswald's shirt fibers in one of the sleaves. Slam Dunk!
Of course the jacket was marked by Stombaugh. He did so in Washington after the white jacket had already morphed into the grey one that actually belonged to Oswald. If there were fibers in that jacket there is nothing remarkable about that.
3. Marina positively identified the jacket in evidence. Home run!
Of course she did, as the grey jacket belonged to Oswald. The question is when exactly was that jacket placed in evidence? And with that we're back at square one.... COP SAID SO :D :D :D :D
-
Conspiracy theorists like to claim that much of the evidence for the Oswald trial would have been inadmissible because the officers lost exclusive custody. As this brief from the O. J. Simpson Civil Trial makes clear, the law is not nearly so rigid.
To establish a proper chain of custody for the physical evidence at
issue, rendering that evidence (and the various tests thereon) admissible,
Goldman need only "show to the satisfaction of the trial court that, taking
all the circumstances into account including the ease or difficulty with
which the particular evidence could have been altered, it is reasonably
certain that there was no alteration." People v. Riser. 47 Cal. 2d 566, 580
(1956) (emphasis added). Where there is only "the barest speculation that
there was tampering, it is proper to admit the evidence and let what doubt
remains go to its weight." Id. at 581; accord People v. Lozano, 57 Cal.
App. 3d 490, 493-96 (1976).
-
Conspiracy theorists like to claim that much of the evidence for the Oswald trial would have been inadmissible because the officers lost exclusive custody. As this brief from the O. J. Simpson Civil Trial makes clear, the law is not nearly so rigid.
To establish a proper chain of custody for the physical evidence at
issue, rendering that evidence (and the various tests thereon) admissible,
Goldman need only "show to the satisfaction of the trial court that, taking
all the circumstances into account including the ease or difficulty with
which the particular evidence could have been altered, it is reasonably
certain that there was no alteration." People v. Riser. 47 Cal. 2d 566, 580
(1956) (emphasis added). Where there is only "the barest speculation that
there was tampering, it is proper to admit the evidence and let what doubt
remains go to its weight." Id. at 581; accord People v. Lozano, 57 Cal.
App. 3d 490, 493-96 (1976).
The clown quotes a rule of evidence for a civil trial, to make a point about a criminal case. No need to say anything more.
-
1. Westbrook testified that the jacket that he found was the same one in evidence. And that's that!
Because cop said so..... HAHAHAHAHAHA... What else did you expect him to say?
A chain of custody is required to avoid exactly this kind of pathetic testimony. In Henry Wade's Dallas a large number of innocent people were found guilty on flawed and manipulated evidence.
A great number of this convictions were later nullified as being unsafe.
But by all means, let's just take the Personnel officer's word for it. :D
2. The jacket was initialled by Stombaug [sic], meaning he looked at the jacket and according to a FBI report, the jacket in evidence had Oswald's shirt fibers in one of the sleaves. Slam Dunk!
Of course the jacket was marked by Stombaugh. He did so in Washington after the white jacket had already morphed into the grey one that actually belonged to Oswald. If there were fibers in that jacket there is nothing remarkable about that.
3. Marina positively identified the jacket in evidence. Home run!
Of course she did, as the grey jacket belonged to Oswald. The question is when exactly was that jacket placed in evidence? And with that we're back at square one.... COP SAID SO :D :D :D :D
Because cop said so.....
This is getting real boring.
Let's make a running list of what you claim, if you tried this BS in court they'd laugh in your face.
The shells at the Tippit crime scene were planted.
Police substituted Oswald's revolver.
Police somehow swapped Oswald's jacket.
The rifle was planted.
The rifle shells were planted.
Lt. Day lied about the palmprint
Lt. Day lied about the Walker bullet.
The FBI lied about the microfilm.
Everyone in the Interrogations lied.
The backyard photos were either faked or a set-up.
The Police planted the bus transfer.
The Police planted revolver bullets on Oswald.
The arresting Police lied.
I could go on but I've made my point, the unimaginable size of your conspiracy as any sane person can see is totally at odds with reality.
JohnM
-
This is getting real boring.
Let's make a running list of what you claim, if you tried this BS in court they'd laugh in your face.
The shells at the Tippit crime scene were planted.
Police substituted Oswald's revolver.
Police somehow swapped Oswald's jacket.
The rifle was planted.
The rifle shells were planted.
Lt. Day lied about the palmprint
Lt. Day lied about the Walker bullet.
The FBI lied about the microfilm.
Everyone in the Interrogations lied.
The backyard photos were either faked or a set-up.
The Police planted the bus transfer.
The Police planted revolver bullets on Oswald.
The arresting Police lied.
I could go on but I've made my point, the unimaginable size of your conspiracy as any sane person can see is totally at odds with reality.
JohnM
The same old LN crap over and over again. Full of lies and misrepresentations of course....
Most of those claims I have never made. Others are questions about for example chain of custody matter which LNs can never answer.
-
The clown quotes a rule of evidence for a civil trial, to make a point about a criminal case. No need to say anything more.
The doctrine of precedents I quoted came from criminal cases. You are so stupid!
https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-riser-24135
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1832570.html
JohnM
-
The doctrine of precedents I quoted came from criminal cases. You are so stupid!
https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-riser-24135
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1832570.html
JohnM
Conspiracy theorists like to claim that much of the evidence for the Oswald trial would have been inadmissible because the officers lost exclusive custody. As this brief from the O. J. Simpson Civil Trial makes clear, the law is not nearly so rigid.
As this brief from the O. J. Simpson Civil Trial makes clear, the law is not nearly so rigid.
Our resident self-appointed "law-professor" strikes again....
What anybody who understands even the most basic things about the law knows is that in law very little is ever cut and dry. That's why there is jurisprudence. There is no point in finding some quote on the internet and present it as if it has any relationship with another case. Even two cases who look identical could nevertheless have different outcomes,
The National Institute of Justice said this about a chain of custody;
The reason for establishing a chain of custody is to prevent substitution of, tampering with, mistaking the identity of, damaging, altering, contaminating, misplacing or falsifying the evidence.
This principle and procedure creates legal integrity of the evidence. The chain of custody verifies both the legal integrity and the authenticity of all evidence. Without proof of an intact chain of custody, the evidence may be excluded from trial or afforded less weight by the trier of fact.
Yet, our resident self-appointed legal eagle basically says that COP SAID SO would be enough to ignore or by pass the chain of custody. Hilarious!
Mytton is very much exactly like the WC... at first superficial glance they might seem to tell a plausible story, but when you dig only a little bit deeper everything falls apart.
-
As this brief from the O. J. Simpson Civil Trial makes clear, the law is not nearly so rigid.
Our resident self-appointed "law-professor" strikes again....
What anybody who understands even the most basic things about the law knows is that in law very little is ever cut and dry. That's why there is jurisprudence. There is no point in finding some quote on the internet and present it as if it has any relationship with another case. Even two cases who look identical could nevertheless have different outcomes,
The National Institute of Justice said this about a chain of custody;
The reason for establishing a chain of custody is to prevent substitution of, tampering with, mistaking the identity of, damaging, altering, contaminating, misplacing or falsifying the evidence.
This principle and procedure creates legal integrity of the evidence. The chain of custody verifies both the legal integrity and the authenticity of all evidence. Without proof of an intact chain of custody, the evidence may be excluded from trial or afforded less weight by the trier of fact.
Yet, our resident self-appointed legal eagle basically says that COP SAID SO would be enough to ignore or by pass the chain of custody. Hilarious!
...or afforded less weight by the trier of fact.
At the very least the quote from The National Institute of Justice says without a solid chain of custody, evidence is afforded less weight. Doesn't mean it's necessarily excluded.
You'd have to fight very hard to remove the jacket from evidence.
1. Earlene Roberts saw Oswald zipping up a jacket.
2. Benavides saw Oswald wearing a jacket.
3. Callaway positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
4. Markham positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
5. Virginia Davis positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
6. Barbara Davis positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
7. Scoggins positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
8. Mary Brock positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
9. Sam Guinyard positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
10. Westbrook recovered Oswald's jacket and later positively ID'd it.
11. Marina identified the Jacket.
12. Oswald is arrested without his jacket, where did it go?
The prosecution would drag out all of the above eyewitnesses and the defence would be left with trying to disprove each and every eyewitness to what they saw. Good luck with that. And at the end of the day the jacket is only a fraction of the evidence in what convicts Oswald for the murder of Tippit, so I can understand why the CT's try so hard to isolate the Jacket evidence, because it's all you got!
JohnM
-
It always amuses me when conspiracy hobbyists try to get Oswald off on technicalities. It is a tacit admission they know their client is guilty.
Our criminal courts have two very important missions, to find the truth while at the same time protecting the rights of the accused. Sometimes those two missions are at cross purposes and usually that means the courts come down on the side of protecting the rights of the accused, even if sometimes that means the guilty go free.
History has no such conflicts. It has no duty to protect the rights of the accused. It's sole purpose is to find the truth. That means looking at all available evidence without any concern for the rights of the accused. Even though Oswald was never tried in court, I have no problem concluding without a shadow of a doubt he was guilty. I feel the same way about O. J. Simpson. I can say without hesitation that both men were double murderers even though neither was ever convicted in court of those crimes. I'm glad they are both dead.
-
At the very least the quote from The National Institute of Justice says without a solid chain of custody, evidence is afforded less weight. Doesn't mean it's necessarily excluded.
You'd have to fight very hard to remove the jacket from evidence.
1. Earlene Roberts saw Oswald zipping up a jacket.
2. Benavides saw Oswald wearing a jacket.
3. Callaway positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
4. Markham positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
5. Virginia Davis positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
6. Barbara Davis positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
7. Scoggins positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
8. Mary Brock positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
9. Sam Guinyard positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
10. Westbrook recovered Oswald's jacket and later positively ID'd it.
11. Marina identified the Jacket.
12. Oswald is arrested without his jacket, where did it go?
The prosecution would drag out all of the above eyewitnesses and the defence would be left with trying to disprove each and every eyewitness to what they saw. Good luck with that. And at the end of the day the jacket is only a fraction of the evidence in what convicts Oswald for the murder of Tippit, so I can understand why the CT's try so hard to isolate the Jacket evidence, because it's all you got!
JohnM
At the very least the quote from The National Institute of Justice says without a solid chain of custody, evidence is afforded less weight. Doesn't mean it's necessarily excluded.
At least you have learned something now! Good for you.... and yes, it depends on case by case.
Oh btw, nobody is talking about evidence being excluded. It doesn't have to be. A lack of a solid chain of custody, as for the jacket in this case, leaves the evidence without proper authentication. And that by itself is enough, because no sane person would want to rely on evidence that can not and isn't being autheticated. LNs of course do exactly the latter as a matter of routine!
You'd have to fight very hard to remove the jacket from evidence.
1. Earlene Roberts saw Oswald zipping up a jacket.
2. Benavides saw Oswald wearing a jacket.
3. Callaway positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
4. Markham positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
5. Virginia Davis positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
6. Barbara Davis positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
7. Scoggins positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
8. Mary Brock positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
9. Sam Guinyard positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
10. Westbrook recovered Oswald's jacket and later positively ID'd it.
11. Marina identified the Jacket.
Oh boy... this is so stupid. Let's see if I can tell you this in simple words. If Earlene Roberts is wrong and Oswald didn't leave the rooming house wearing a jacket all those people who "positively identified Oswald" at a questionable line up could not have seen Oswald!
# 10. is just the same COP SAID SO BS you have just been schooled on. Which only shows how LNs operate. They will repeat a lie time after time no matter how often it has been debunked.
# 11. Marina identified the jacket, he says. And, indeed, she did. She identified the grey jacket that did belong to Oswald. She never identified the white jacket Westbrook gave to an unknown police officer. Claiming that the two jackets are one and the same requires proof and that's exactly what is completely missing here!
The prosecution would drag out all of the above eyewitnesses and the defence would be left with trying to disprove each and every eyewitness to what they saw. Good luck with that.
What prosecution would that be? You have a crystal ball, do you?
And at the end of the day the jacket is only a fraction of the evidence in what convicts Oswald for the murder of Tippit, so I can understand why the CT's try so hard to isolate the Jacket evidence, because it's all you got!
Now, there's an idiotic contradiction if I ever saw one. On the one hand he claims that the jacket is only a fraction of the evidence and then he says he can't understand why CT's try so hard to isolate the jacket. It just doesn't make sense. If there was more evidence than only the jacket it wouldn't make any sense at all for anybody to only concentrate on the jacket alone.
The facts are very simple;
1. Earlene Roberts is a highly unreliable witness who wasn't paying much attention, had bad vision, only saw Oswald walking out of the house for a few seconds and was known for making up stories.
2. There is plausible evidence that places Oswald's grey jacket (the one identified by Marina) in Irving on Thursday evening. There is no way that jacket could have been in Oak Cliff on Friday morning.
3. There is no evidence that the jacket, described as being white in several radio communications, which has no chain of custody whatsoever is the same jacket as the one now in evidence with markings of a number of officers on it, who were not and could not have been in the chain of custody. Marking an item of evidence when you had never anything to do with it is manipulation of that piece of evidence.
So, if you want to play the "at court they would do" game, let's try this;
The defense would call Earlene Roberts and go after her full force to find out if her story held up.
Then they would call the officers who searched Ruth Paine's house on Saturday and ask them under oath if they saw the grey jacket in Irving or not
Then they would find out who the patrol officers were who actually did hold the jacket and ask them what they saw and what happened to the jacket between the moment Westbrook gave it to one of them and the moment the grey jacket showed up at the police station.
And finally, they would call the officers who put their markings on the grey jacket and ask they how and why that happened.
I'll leave it to our resident self-appointed legal eagle to determine for himself what the outcome of all that could possibly be. He'll probably get it all wrong, but that's a given and not much to worry about.
-
It always amuses me when conspiracy hobbyists try to get Oswald off on technicalities. It is a tacit admission they know their client is guilty.
Our criminal courts have two very important missions, to find the truth while at the same time protecting the rights of the accused. Sometimes those two missions are at cross purposes and usually that means the courts come down on the side of protecting the rights of the accused, even if sometimes that means the guilty go free.
History has no such conflicts. It has no duty to protect the rights of the accused. It's sole purpose is to find the truth. That means looking at all available evidence without any concern for the rights of the accused. Even though Oswald was never tried in court, I have no problem concluding without a shadow of a doubt he was guilty. I feel the same way about O. J. Simpson. I can say without hesitation that both men were double murderers even though neither was ever convicted in court of those crimes. I'm glad they are both dead.
There goes mr. "shoot to kill first, ask questions later" again.
It always amuses me when conspiracy hobbyists try to get Oswald off on technicalities.
What technicalities would that be? Asking for evidence to be authenticated instead of assumed to be valid. Or perhaps simply ignore the rules for the chain of custody and assume anything that could be used to point to Oswald is solid evidence?
Our criminal courts have two very important missions, to find the truth while at the same time protecting the rights of the accused.
Oh please, do us all a favor! A criminal court is a battleground where two parties fight to win regardless of what the truth actually is. The prison system houses a large number of innocent people who were wrongly convicted on bad witness. Tell them about the court protecting the rights of the accused.
History has no such conflicts. It has no duty to protect the rights of the accused. It's sole purpose is to find the truth.
For crying out load. Just how gullible are you? History is written by the victors. It has nothing to do with the truth!
When Henry Tudor defeated Richard III and became king the first thing he did was to make the day before the battle as the day that he became king, so that history would recall that he was the rightful king defending his country against the usurper Richard of York. So much for the truth!
-
So, if you want to play the "at court they would do" game, let's try this;
The defense would call Earlene Roberts and go after her full force to find out if her story held up.
Then they would call the officers who searched Ruth Paine's house on Saturday and ask them under oath if they saw the grey jacket in Irving or not
Then they would find out who the patrol officers were who actually did hold the jacket and ask them what they saw and what happened to the jacket between the moment Westbrook gave it to one of them and the moment the grey jacket showed up at the police station.
And finally, they would call the officers who put their markings on the grey jacket and ask they how and why that happened.
I'll leave it to our resident self-appointed legal eagle to determine for himself what the outcome of all that could possibly be. He'll probably get it all wrong, but that's a given and not much to worry about.
So, if you want to play the "at court they would do" game, let's try this;
The defense would call Earlene Roberts and go after her full force to find out if her story held up.
Ok, let's go, she saw what she saw. She could see well enough to do her job. And she saw Oswald doing a very specific action. Keep em coming.
Then they would call the officers who searched Ruth Paine's house on Saturday and ask them under oath if they saw the grey jacket in Irving or not
Hahahaha! Obviously they didn't find any grey jacket, Oswald's jacket was in evidence.
Then they would find out who the patrol officers were who actually did hold the jacket and ask them what they saw and what happened to the jacket between the moment Westbrook gave it to one of them and the moment the grey jacket showed up at the police station.
Exactly, the jacket on film ended up as official evidence.
And finally, they would call the officers who put their markings on the grey jacket and ask they how and why that happened.
Yep, precisely.
And this is how you'd handle being on the Defence, Really?? Go back to laymen school and do some more Google searching!
I'll leave it to our resident self-appointed legal eagle
What are you talking about? You're the one who make keeps making the Legal claims and I just refute them, No biggie!
Anyway you're just Butt-hurt that I embarrassed you when you erroneously claimed that "Beyond all reasonable doubt" had to include "conclusive evidence", and we're still laughing at you!
JohnM
-
Ok, let's go, she saw what she saw. She could see well enough to do her job. And she saw Oswald doing a very specific action. Keep em coming.
Hahahaha! Obviously they didn't find any grey jacket, Oswald's jacket was in evidence.
Exactly, the jacket on film ended up as official evidence.
Yep, precisely.
And this is how you'd handle being on the Defence, Really?? Go back to laymen school and do some more Google searching!
What are you talking about? You're the one who make keeps making the Legal claims and I just refute them, No biggie!
Anyway you're just Butt-hurt that I embarrassed you when you erroneously claimed that "Beyond all reasonable doubt" had to include "conclusive evidence", and we're still laughing at you!
JohnM
Oh poor little man. You really don't understand just how much of a fool you have just shown yourself to be.
What are you talking about? You're the one who make keeps making the Legal claims and I just refute them, No biggie!
Let's see if I understand this.... you feel that you can refute legal claims (I never made) without knowing the first thing about the law and how it works?
Is that what you are saying?
-
At the very least the quote from The National Institute of Justice says without a solid chain of custody, evidence is afforded less weight. Doesn't mean it's necessarily excluded.
At least you have learned something now! Good for you.... and yes, it depends on case by case.
Oh btw, nobody is talking about evidence being excluded. It doesn't have to be. A lack of a solid chain of custody, as for the jacket in this case, leaves the evidence without proper authentication. And that by itself is enough, because no sane person would want to rely on evidence that can not and isn't being autheticated. LNs of course do exactly the latter as a matter of routine!
You'd have to fight very hard to remove the jacket from evidence.
1. Earlene Roberts saw Oswald zipping up a jacket.
2. Benavides saw Oswald wearing a jacket.
3. Callaway positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
4. Markham positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
5. Virginia Davis positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
6. Barbara Davis positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
7. Scoggins positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
8. Mary Brock positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
9. Sam Guinyard positively identified Oswald and wearing a jacket.
10. Westbrook recovered Oswald's jacket and later positively ID'd it.
11. Marina identified the Jacket.
Oh boy... this is so stupid. Let's see if I can tell you this in simple words. If Earlene Roberts is wrong and Oswald didn't leave the rooming house wearing a jacket all those people who "positively identified Oswald" at a questionable line up could not have seen Oswald!
# 10. is just the same COP SAID SO BS you have just been schooled on. Which only shows how LNs operate. They will repeat a lie time after time no matter how often it has been debunked.
# 11. Marina identified the jacket, he says. And, indeed, she did. She identified the grey jacket that did belong to Oswald. She never identified the white jacket Westbrook gave to an unknown police officer. Claiming that the two jackets are one and the same requires proof and that's exactly what is completely missing here!
The prosecution would drag out all of the above eyewitnesses and the defence would be left with trying to disprove each and every eyewitness to what they saw. Good luck with that.
What prosecution would that be? You have a crystal ball, do you?
And at the end of the day the jacket is only a fraction of the evidence in what convicts Oswald for the murder of Tippit, so I can understand why the CT's try so hard to isolate the Jacket evidence, because it's all you got!
Now, there's an idiotic contradiction if I ever saw one. On the one hand he claims that the jacket is only a fraction of the evidence and then he says he can't understand why CT's try so hard to isolate the jacket. It just doesn't make sense. If there was more evidence than only the jacket it wouldn't make any sense at all for anybody to only concentrate on the jacket alone.
The facts are very simple;
1. Earlene Roberts is a highly unreliable witness who wasn't paying much attention, had bad vision, only saw Oswald walking out of the house for a few seconds and was known for making up stories.
2. There is plausible evidence that places Oswald's grey jacket (the one identified by Marina) in Irving on Thursday evening. There is no way that jacket could have been in Oak Cliff on Friday morning.
3. There is no evidence that the jacket, described as being white in several radio communications, which has no chain of custody whatsoever is the same jacket as the one now in evidence with markings of a number of officers on it, who were not and could not have been in the chain of custody. Marking an item of evidence when you had never anything to do with it is manipulation of that piece of evidence.
Oh boy... this is so stupid. Let's see if I can tell you this in simple words. If Earlene Roberts is wrong and Oswald didn't leave the rooming house wearing a jacket all those people who "positively identified Oswald" at a questionable line up could not have seen Oswald!
Yawn! Again, you bash a poor woman who simply saw Oswald zipping up his jacket and as you agree this is verified by a plethora of eyewitnesses who also saw Oswald wearing a jacket. All these eyewitnesses independently saw the same thing. And let's not forget at the Tippit crime scene, Oswald was seen emptying his revolver and these shells were recovered and were an exclusive match to the revolver in evidence and this revolver is the same revolver he ordered and received and was arrested with. Try and wiggle out of that Weidmann.
And at the end of the day the jacket is only a fraction of the evidence in what convicts Oswald for the murder of Tippit, so I can understand why the CT's try so hard to isolate the Jacket evidence, because it's all you got!
Now, there's an idiotic contradiction if I ever saw one. On the one hand he claims that the jacket is only a fraction of the evidence and then he says he can't understand why CT's try so hard to isolate the jacket. It just doesn't make sense. If there was more evidence than only the jacket it wouldn't make any sense at all for anybody to only concentrate on the jacket alone.
I said "can" not "can't"
1. Earlene Roberts is a highly unreliable witness who wasn't paying much attention, had bad vision, only saw Oswald walking out of the house for a few seconds and was known for making up stories.
She only needed a few seconds to see Oswald zipping up his jacket. Because Earlene was blind in one eye doesn't mean she was blind. Your attack on Earlene is clueless, desperate and unwarranted.
2. There is plausible evidence that places Oswald's grey jacket (the one identified by Marina) in Irving on Thursday evening. There is no way that jacket could have been in Oak Cliff on Friday morning.
Are you saying that the Police took the jacket and planted it under a car or even more bizarre swapped it? Have you even thought this through? How did they even know the killer was wearing a light coloured jacket? They really needed your Crystal Ball! LOL
3. There is no evidence that the jacket, described as being white in several radio communications, which has no chain of custody whatsoever is the same jacket as the one now in evidence with markings of a number of officers on it, who were not and could not have been in the chain of custody. Marking an item of evidence when you had never anything to do with it is manipulation of that piece of evidence.
The Jacket may have been interpreted to be white by a Police Officer! So what?
WTF? Please explain how you know the Officers who initialled the jacket had nothing to do with the chain of custody of the jacket?
JohnM
-
Oh poor little man. You really don't understand just how much of a fool you have just shown yourself to be.
What are you talking about? You're the one who make keeps making the Legal claims and I just refute them, No biggie!
Let's see if I understand this.... you feel that you can refute legal claims (I never made) without knowing the first thing about the law and how it works?
Is that what you are saying?
Seriously? Don't you even read your own posts?
I just gave you an example of when you foolishly kept asking for "conclusive evidence" and claimed it was required to arrive at "Beyond all reasonable doubt", as if that was some court required legal standard but fortunately after I schooled you, you've refrained from repeating this stupidity. Your welcome!
JohnM
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTSGBFZJ/Reclaiming-History-Book-Excerpt-Page-442-Of-Endnotes-chain-of-custody.png)
Graphic created by David Von Pein
-
Our criminal courts have two very important missions, to find the truth while at the same time protecting the rights of the accused.
Oh please, do us all a favor! A criminal court is a battleground where two parties fight to win regardless of what the truth actually is. The prison system houses a large number of innocent people who were wrongly convicted on bad witness. Tell them about the court protecting the rights of the accused.
AHA!!! So you finally acknowledge that eyewitness testimony is less than reliable in establishing facts. We are making progress here.
-
Yawn! Again, you bash a poor woman who simply saw Oswald zipping up his jacket and as agree this is verified by a plethora of eyewitnesses who also saw Oswald wearing a jacket. All these eyewitnesses independently saw the same thing. And let's not forget at the Tippit crime scene, Oswald was seen emptying his revolver and these shells were recovered and were an exclusive match to the revolver in evidence and this revolver is the same revolver he ordered and received and was arrested with. Try and wiggle out of that Weidmann.
I said "can" not "can't"
She only needed a few seconds to see Oswald zipping up his jacket. Because Earlene was blind in one eye doesn't mean she was blind. Your attack on Earlene is clueless, desperate and unwarranted.
Are you saying that the Police took the jacket and planted it under a car or even more bizarre swapped it? Have you even thought this through? How did they even know the killer was wearing a light coloured jacket? They really needed your Crystal Ball! LOL
The Jacket may have been interpreted to be white by a Police Officer! So what?
WTF? Please explain how you know the Officers who initialled the jacket had nothing to do with the chain of custody of the jacket?
JohnM
Yawn! Again, you bash a poor woman who simply saw Oswald zipping up his jacket and as agree this is verified by a plethora of eyewitnesses who also saw Oswald wearing a jacket. All these eyewitnesses independently saw the same thing. And let's not forget at the Tippit crime scene, Oswald was seen emptying his revolver and these shells were recovered and were an exclusive match to the revolver in evidence and this revolver is the same revolver he ordered and received and was arrested with. Try and wiggle out of that Weidmann.
There is no plethora of eyewitnesses who saw Oswald wearing a jacket. There are few people that saw a man wearing a jacket and that same pre-selected group later identified Oswald at a very questionable line up.
I say again; If Earlene Roberts was wrong and Oswald left the rooming house without wearing a jacket those witnesses could not have seen Oswald during and after the killing.
All these eyewitnesses independently saw the same thing.
Which in the real world is a near impossibility. When 5 people watch a car crash on an intersection, you'll get five different stories about what happened.
Eyewitness testimony (including identification) is the worst kind of evidence. Yet her you are to rely on it in other the make it more plausible that Roberts did see a jacket.
I say again; there is evidence that shows that Oswald's grey jacket was in Irving on Thursday evening and thus could not have been at Oak Cliff on Friday midday!
And let's not forget at the Tippit crime scene, Oswald was seen emptying his revolver and these shells were recovered and were an exclusive match to the revolver in evidence and this revolver is the same revolver he ordered and received and was arrested with. Try and wiggle out of that Weidmann.
Don't have to! There is no chain of custody for the revolver taken from Oswald.
I said "can" not "can't"
Indeed, my bad. That actually makes it worse. How is it you can understand that CT's concentrate only on the jacket if - as you falsely claim - there is a lot more evidence. What would be the point for them to do that?
She only needed a few seconds to see Oswald zipping up his jacket. Because Earlene was blind in one eye doesn't mean she was blind. Your attack on Earlene is clueless, desperate and unwarranted.
Yeah right, just like Frazier only needed a few seconds to see Oswald putting the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. And Frazier wasn't even half blind.
Your attack on Earlene is clueless, desperate and unwarranted.
She was blind in one eye, wasn't paying much attention and her employer called her somebody who made up stories. LNs don't believe a word she said except the part about the jacket.
Yeah, that's a real solid reliable witness!
Are you saying that the Police took the jacket and planted it under a car
No. They found a white jacket that was probably put under a car by the guy who shot Tippit.
or even more bizarre swapped it?
Swapped it? Where"At the car park? No.
Have you even thought this through? How did they even know the killer was wearing a light coloured jacket?
They didn't. That's the point. You don't get this? It's so simple; Oswald was arrested and their only suspect. They weren't even looking further. And then a white jacket shows up that they can not match to Oswald in any way. But roughly at the same time, the officers who searched Ruth Paine's house return to the station and they bring with them a grey jacket that they knew belonged to Oswald. Do the math.
The Jacket may have been interpreted to be white by a Police Officer! So what?
How do you describe a jacket that you are holding or at least seeing up close as being white when it actually isn't?
And it wasn't one police officer! There were several officers who described it as white!
Please explain how you know the Officers who initialled the jacket had nothing to do with the chain of custody of the jacket?
Because none of them were near the car park where the jacket was found and Westbrook didn't name any of them and instead said he gave the jacket to an unidentified patrol officer.
But you will find that some of them did mark the revolver as well and we know that happened in the DPD lunchroom after Oswald had been brought in. I don't this won't be easy for you, but try to figure it out what actually happened.
-
Seriously? Don't you even read your own posts?
I just gave you an example of when you foolishly kept asking for "conclusive evidence" and claimed it was required to arrive at "Beyond all reasonable doubt", as if that was some court required legal standard but fortunately after I schooled you, you've refrained from repeating this stupidity. Your welcome!
JohnM
So, again, let me get this straight, without you having any legal expertise you feel that you can refute legal claims and school people on the law and legal standards?.
I just gave you an example of when you foolishly kept asking for "conclusive evidence" and claimed it was required to arrive at "Beyond all reasonable doubt"
You simply don't understand that "conclusive evidence" means that the evidence is authenticated. Once again you are in way over your head. Not surprising though, as you deny having any legal knowledge at all. :D
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTSGBFZJ/Reclaiming-History-Book-Excerpt-Page-442-Of-Endnotes-chain-of-custody.png)
Graphic created by David Von Pein
If you can't quote from the bible (the WC report) there's always bugs and his self-serving BS.
Always handy of course when you are desperately trying to avoid answering this question.
So, again, let me get this straight, without you having any legal expertise you feel that you can refute legal claims and school people on the law and legal standards?.
And just for the record; I have never said that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because of a chain of custody problem.
I've only recently said that in 1964 Oswald most likely would have been convicted regardless of how weak the chain of custody for some of the evidence was.
So, none of this crappy quote applies to the discussion we are having.
-
Yawn! Again, you bash a poor woman who simply saw Oswald zipping up his jacket and as agree this is verified by a plethora of eyewitnesses who also saw Oswald wearing a jacket. All these eyewitnesses independently saw the same thing. And let's not forget at the Tippit crime scene, Oswald was seen emptying his revolver and these shells were recovered and were an exclusive match to the revolver in evidence and this revolver is the same revolver he ordered and received and was arrested with. Try and wiggle out of that Weidmann.
There is no plethora of eyewitnesses who saw Oswald wearing a jacket. There are few people that saw a man wearing a jacket and that same pre-selected group later identified Oswald at a very questionable line up.
I say again; If Earlene Roberts was wrong and Oswald left the rooming house without wearing a jacket those witnesses could not have seen Oswald during and after the killing.
All these eyewitnesses independently saw the same thing.
Which in the real world is a near impossibility. When 5 people watch a car crash on an intersection, you'll get five different stories about what happened.
Eyewitness testimony (including identification) is the worst kind of evidence. Yet her you are to rely on it in other the make it more plausible that Roberts did see a jacket.
I say again; there is evidence that shows that Oswald's grey jacket was in Irving on Thursday evening and thus could not have been at Oak Cliff on Friday midday!
And let's not forget at the Tippit crime scene, Oswald was seen emptying his revolver and these shells were recovered and were an exclusive match to the revolver in evidence and this revolver is the same revolver he ordered and received and was arrested with. Try and wiggle out of that Weidmann.
Don't have to! There is no chain of custody for the revolver taken from Oswald.
I said "can" not "can't"
Indeed, my bad. That actually makes it worse. How is it you can understand that CT's concentrate only on the jacket if - as you falsely claim - there is a lot more evidence. What would be the point for them to do that?
She only needed a few seconds to see Oswald zipping up his jacket. Because Earlene was blind in one eye doesn't mean she was blind. Your attack on Earlene is clueless, desperate and unwarranted.
Yeah right, just like Frazier only needed a few seconds to see Oswald putting the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. And Frazier wasn't even half blind.
Your attack on Earlene is clueless, desperate and unwarranted.
She was blind in one eye, wasn't paying much attention and her employer called her somebody who made up stories. LNs don't believe a word she said except the part about the jacket.
Yeah, that's a real solid reliable witness!
Are you saying that the Police took the jacket and planted it under a car
No. They found a white jacket that was probably put under a car by the guy who shot Tippit.
or even more bizarre swapped it?
Swapped it? Where"At the car park? No.
Have you even thought this through? How did they even know the killer was wearing a light coloured jacket?
They didn't. That's the point. You don't get this? It's so simple; Oswald was arrested and their only suspect. They weren't even looking further. And then a white jacket shows up that they can not match to Oswald in any way. But roughly at the same time, the officers who searched Ruth Paine's house return to the station and they bring with them a grey jacket that they knew belonged to Oswald. Do the math.
The Jacket may have been interpreted to be white by a Police Officer! So what?
How do you describe a jacket that you are holding or at least seeing up close as being white when it actually isn't?
And it wasn't one police officer! There were several officers who described it as white!
Please explain how you know the Officers who initialled the jacket had nothing to do with the chain of custody of the jacket?
Because none of them were near the car park where the jacket was found and Westbrook didn't name any of them and instead said he gave the jacket to an unidentified patrol officer.
But you will find that some of them did mark the revolver as well and we know that happened in the DPD lunchroom after Oswald had been brought in. I don't this won't be easy for you, but try to figure it out what actually happened.
Wow, another wall of text of mainly self serving guesses!
But one thing that's new is you're saying that the jacket found under the car was probably put under the car by the killer, so how do most of the witnesses, who saw the killer and say the jacket was a light coloured grey or beige suddenly becomes a white jacket? WOW!
BTW I like your story of how Oswald's jacket was the same type and style as the one seen being held by the Policeman in the video and then back at headquarters some dishonest Policeman who had access to the evidence room and was aware of all the collected evidence, somehow mysteriously swaps Oswald's jacket for the one in evidence, what are the chances that the Jackets are almost the same colour, same style and appear to be the same size. Let me tell you the chances are not good and it's just another product of a CT's wet dream. Do the math, indeed!
The more you try to create a narrative for your massive conspiracy, the more unwieldly, illogical and frankly ridiculous it becomes.
JohnM
-
So, again, let me get this straight, without you having any legal expertise you feel that you can refute legal claims and school people on the law and legal standards?.
I just gave you an example of when you foolishly kept asking for "conclusive evidence" and claimed it was required to arrive at "Beyond all reasonable doubt"
You simply don't understand that "conclusive evidence" means that the evidence is authenticated. Once again you are in way over your head. Not surprising though, as you deny having any legal knowledge at all. :D
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wbq2zYCd/Conclusive-proof-vs-beyond-reasonable-doubty.jpg)
JohnM
-
AHA!!! So you finally acknowledge that eyewitness testimony is less than reliable in establishing facts. We are making progress here.
What are you babbling about. I have always said that eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence.
But that doesn't mean that all eyewitnesses are always wrong.
-
Duplicate
-
Wow, another wall of text of mainly self serving guesses!
But one thing that's new is you're saying that the jacket found under the car was probably put under the car by the killer, so how do most of the witnesses, who saw the killer and say the jacket was a light coloured grey or beige suddenly becomes a white jacket? WOW!
BTW I like your story of how Oswald's jacket was the same type and style as the one seen being held by the Policeman in the video and then back at headquarters some dishonest Policeman who had access to the evidence room and was aware of all the collected evidence, somehow mysteriously swaps Oswald's jacket for the one in evidence, what are the chances that the Jackets are almost the same colour, same style and appear to be the same size. Let me tell you the chances are not good and it's just another product of a CT's wet dream. Do the math, indeed!
The more you try to create a narrative for your massive conspiracy, the more unwieldly, illogical and frankly ridiculous it becomes.
JohnM
But one thing that's new is you're saying that the jacket found under the car was probably put under the car by the killer,
It is a plausible assumption.
so how do most of the witnesses, who saw the killer and say the jacket was a light coloured grey or beige suddenly becomes a white jacket? WOW!
Well, as you always claim, sunlight can cause the color to be different because of shade and depending from where you look and how far away you are.
Btw which witnesses said the jacket was light colored grey or beige?
BTW I like your story of how Oswald's jacket was the same type and style as the one seen being held by the Policeman in the video
Was it? I didn't say it was the same type and style. That's just your imagination filling in the blanks in a biased manner as per usual.
But it certainly looked similar but I've only seen a photo of the back side and there is no way to make the determination you want to make but can not support!
what are the chances that the Jackets are almost the same colour, same style and appear to be the same size.
Were they? Did you examine both jackets or are you just making this stuff up?
The more you try to create a narrative for your massive conspiracy, the more unwieldly, illogical and frankly ridiculous it becomes.
My massive conspiracy? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wbq2zYCd/Conclusive-proof-vs-beyond-reasonable-doubty.jpg)
JohnM
As I said, you don't understand what I mean with "conclusive evidence"!
I have never used the term "absolute, 100% certainty". As per usual you are jumping to a completely wrong conclusion.
But feel free to keep on google searches to find stuff like this to fit what you have misrepresented I allegedly said but never really did.
Who knows you might even find something to help you claim that the word "conclusive" is the same as "100% certainty". Thumb1:
-
Duplicate
-
What are you babbling about. I have always said that eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence.
But that doesn't mean that all eyewitnesses are always wrong.
It means we shouldn't assume what they have told us is factual if it cannot be corroborated.
-
That's one hell of a memory. Identifying a person who walked past her at a fast pace, some two months earlier, from a photograph.
Or could the two months of massive media exposure and finger pointing at Oswald have something to do with it?
Scoggings, who identified Oswald in a line up couldn't identify him from a photo the next day...... Something wrong in paradise methinks!
That's one hell of a memory. Identifying a person who walked past her at a fast pace, some two months earlier, from a photograph.
Or could the two months of massive media exposure and finger pointing at Oswald have something to do with it?
You're accusing Mary Brock of telling the FBI that Oswald was the guy who ran past her in a jacket for no other reason than it was known by this time (2 months later) that Oswald was the alleged assassin and cop-killer. This would be mighty low of Mary Brock. What evidence do you have to support this?
Scoggings, who identified Oswald in a line up couldn't identify him from a photo the next day...... Something wrong in paradise methinks!
Please post whatever you have which suggests that Oswald, when running past Scoggins with a gun in his hands, looked exactly like he did in the photo shown to Scoggins.
------------
See what I did here? Same thing you are doing. If you can do it, than I can do it.
-
It always amuses me when conspiracy hobbyists try to get Oswald off on technicalities. It is a tacit admission they know their client is guilty.
Our criminal courts have two very important missions, to find the truth while at the same time protecting the rights of the accused. Sometimes those two missions are at cross purposes and usually that means the courts come down on the side of protecting the rights of the accused, even if sometimes that means the guilty go free.
History has no such conflicts. It has no duty to protect the rights of the accused. It's sole purpose is to find the truth. That means looking at all available evidence without any concern for the rights of the accused. Even though Oswald was never tried in court, I have no problem concluding without a shadow of a doubt he was guilty. I feel the same way about O. J. Simpson. I can say without hesitation that both men were double murderers even though neither was ever convicted in court of those crimes. I'm glad they are both dead.
Great post. I couldn't agree more with every single thing you said above.
-
But one thing that's new is you're saying that the jacket found under the car was probably put under the car by the killer,
It is a plausible assumption.
so how do most of the witnesses, who saw the killer and say the jacket was a light coloured grey or beige suddenly becomes a white jacket? WOW!
Well, as you always claim, sunlight can cause the color to be different because of shade and depending from where you look and how far away you are.
Btw which witnesses said the jacket was light colored grey or beige?
BTW I like your story of how Oswald's jacket was the same type and style as the one seen being held by the Policeman in the video
Was it? I didn't say it was the same type and style. That's just your imagination filling in the blanks in a biased manner as per usual.
But it certainly looked similar but I've only seen a photo of the back side and there is no way to make the determination you want to make but can not support!
what are the chances that the Jackets are almost the same colour, same style and appear to be the same size.
Were they? Did you examine both jackets or are you just making this stuff up?
The more you try to create a narrative for your massive conspiracy, the more unwieldly, illogical and frankly ridiculous it becomes.
My massive conspiracy? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Btw which witnesses said the jacket was light colored grey or beige?
Helen Markham, standing at the northwest corner of Tenth and Patton, testified to the Warren Commission that the cop-killer (who she positively identified as Lee Oswald) had on a short jacket that was open in the front and was grayish-tan in color.
Domingo Benavides, passing by in his pickup truck, saw Tippit's patrol car stopped near the curb and stated that the officer (Tippit) was talking to a man on foot. Benavides heard the shots and saw the killer run from the scene. Benavides testified to the Warren Commission that the killer was wearing a light-beige jacket, and that the jacket was lightweight.
William Scoggins, sitting in his cab (facing north on Patton towards the intersection with Tenth Street), was eating lunch when he noticed Tippit's patrol car travel from west to east on Tenth Street, crossing through the intersection with Patton. Scoggins saw the patrol car come to a stop and noticed the officer having a conversation with a man who was walking on the sidewalk. Scoggins heard the shots, looked up and saw the man running towards his cab. Scoggins got out of his cab and hid beside it as the cop-killer passed. He (Scoggins) testified that the man (who he positively identified as Lee Oswald) was wearing a light-colored jacket.
Virginia Davis was inside the same house on Tenth Street as was her sister-in-law, Barbara, when she heard the shots. Virginia went to the door and saw a man cutting across the yard with a gun in his hands. Virginia testified to the Warren Commission that the man (who she positively identified as Lee Oswald) had on a light-brown-tan jacket.
Ted Callaway was on the front porch of his office near the alley between Tenth and Jefferson when he heard the shots come from the vicinity of Tenth Street. He saw a man (who he positively identified as Lee Oswald) cutting across the yard of the house on the corner (Barbara and Virginia Davis) and noticed William Scoggins ducking beside the cab as the man passed, running down Patton from Tenth, holding a gun in his hands. Callaway stated that the man had on a light tannish-gray windbreaker jacket. Callaway testified to the Warren Commission that CE-162 (the jacket found on the ground under a car at the Texaco lot) looked like the jacket that the man was wearing as he was running from the scene.
Sam Guinyard was on Patton Ave. when he heard the shots. Like the others, Guinyard saw the man (who he positively identified as Lee Oswald) cut across the yard of the Davis house on the corner of Tenth and Patton. Guinyard testified that the man was running down Patton with a gun in his hands. Guinyard testified to the Warren Commission that Oswald was wearing sort of a light-gray-looking jacket as he ran from the scene.
-
But one thing that's new is you're saying that the jacket found under the car was probably put under the car by the killer,
It is a plausible assumption.
so how do most of the witnesses, who saw the killer and say the jacket was a light coloured grey or beige suddenly becomes a white jacket? WOW!
Well, as you always claim, sunlight can cause the color to be different because of shade and depending from where you look and how far away you are.
Btw which witnesses said the jacket was light colored grey or beige?
BTW I like your story of how Oswald's jacket was the same type and style as the one seen being held by the Policeman in the video
Was it? I didn't say it was the same type and style. That's just your imagination filling in the blanks in a biased manner as per usual.
But it certainly looked similar but I've only seen a photo of the back side and there is no way to make the determination you want to make but can not support!
what are the chances that the Jackets are almost the same colour, same style and appear to be the same size.
Were they? Did you examine both jackets or are you just making this stuff up?
The more you try to create a narrative for your massive conspiracy, the more unwieldly, illogical and frankly ridiculous it becomes.
My massive conspiracy? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Well, as you always claim, sunlight can cause the color to be different because of shade and depending from where you look and how far away you are.
It's one thing for a light coloured garment to look different in various lighting conditions but white has no pigment to alter.
Btw which witnesses said the jacket was light colored grey or beige?
Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs.V DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.
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. 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.
what are the chances that the Jackets are almost the same colour, same style and appear to be the same size.
Were they? Did you examine both jackets or are you just making this stuff up?
The jackets are extremely similar in size, shape and shade, they could almost be identical, what a coincidence, eh!
(https://i.postimg.cc/gjz2bLCk/Oswald-jacket-comparison.jpg)
Anyway, I did an image search for a vintage 1963 men's jacket and out of nearly 100 results, there is nothing that really comes close to Oswald's jacket, but in your scenario Oswald's jacket was a near identical match for some random jacket that your make believe cop killer was wearing. Like I said the chances were not good but I guess in CT fantasy land anything is possible! Hahahaha!
(https://i.postimg.cc/J0Gc7SLY/1963-mens-vintage-jacket.jpg)
BTW Frazier said that Oswald was wearing a grey jacket that morning, so much for your grey Jacket left at Irving BS! LOL!
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.
(https://i.postimg.cc/R00QQ9v6/Oswald-jacket-ce163.jpg)
Mr. BALL - I have here Commission's 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have.
JohnM
-
OMG WOW!
After going through my collection of images I found a photo of the rear of Oswald's jacket and the similarity to the carpark photo is even more striking, at both ends across the back of Oswald's jacket we see a small elastic section where the fabric is gathered and allowed to stretch so as to provide a snug fit around the mid-section, this design is seen in both photos!!
To confirm the uniqueness of this find, I did a google image search across hundreds of jackets through many decades and couldn't find a single example that showed this unique pair of gathered elastic sections. So I went a bit more specific and searched "windbreaker jacket" and the best I could find was in the bottom photo which doesn't really gather in the same way.
Now I'm sure that eventually I could find one but it's clear that I've proven that Weidmann's scenario of Oswald's jacket matching some random jacket is basically extremely statistically unlikely. But don't trust me, do some research and see what you can find!
(https://i.postimg.cc/QCV4nhXP/Oswald-jacket-comparison-back-4.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/XYNTbc1C/back-jacket-vintage.webp)
JohnM
-
It means we shouldn't assume what they have told us is factual if it cannot be corroborated.
Exactly right...
Earlene Roberts' story hasn't got any corroboration.
Wesley Buell Frazier's story is corroborated by his sister
So why do LN blindly accept Roberts' story and reject what Frazier said?
-
You're accusing Mary Brock of telling the FBI that Oswald was the guy who ran past her in a jacket for no other reason than it was known by this time (2 months later) that Oswald was the alleged assassin and cop-killer. This would be mighty low of Mary Brock. What evidence do you have to support this?
Please post whatever you have which suggests that Oswald, when running past Scoggins with a gun in his hands, looked exactly like he did in the photo shown to Scoggins.
------------
See what I did here? Same thing you are doing. If you can do it, than I can do it.
You're accusing Mary Brock of telling the FBI that Oswald was the guy who ran past her in a jacket for no other reason than it was known by this time (2 months later) that Oswald was the alleged assassin and cop-killer. This would be mighty low of Mary Brock. What evidence do you have to support this?
I'm not accusing Mary Brock of anything. I was asking a question that any honest person would answer with; of course it is possible that two months of massive media exposure could have influenced her. When a jury is frequently sequestered to isolated it from outside influence, why would you assume that a witness who only saw a man who walked past at a fast pace once, two months earlier, could not have been influenced by media reports?
Please post whatever you have which suggests that Oswald, when running past Scoggins with a gun in his hands, looked exactly like he did in the photo shown to Scoggins.
What kind of BS is this? When Scoggings identified Oswald in the line up he wasn't holding a gun. And since when can police and FBI only use a photograph of a suspect that showed him exactly the way he looked when the witness saw him?
Like it or not; the fact remains that one day after identifing Oswald in the line up, Scoggings failed to identify Oswald from a photo to the FBI.
-
Helen Markham, standing at the northwest corner of Tenth and Patton, testified to the Warren Commission that the cop-killer (who she positively identified as Lee Oswald) had on a short jacket that was open in the front and was grayish-tan in color.
Domingo Benavides, passing by in his pickup truck, saw Tippit's patrol car stopped near the curb and stated that the officer (Tippit) was talking to a man on foot. Benavides heard the shots and saw the killer run from the scene. Benavides testified to the Warren Commission that the killer was wearing a light-beige jacket, and that the jacket was lightweight.
William Scoggins, sitting in his cab (facing north on Patton towards the intersection with Tenth Street), was eating lunch when he noticed Tippit's patrol car travel from west to east on Tenth Street, crossing through the intersection with Patton. Scoggins saw the patrol car come to a stop and noticed the officer having a conversation with a man who was walking on the sidewalk. Scoggins heard the shots, looked up and saw the man running towards his cab. Scoggins got out of his cab and hid beside it as the cop-killer passed. He (Scoggins) testified that the man (who he positively identified as Lee Oswald) was wearing a light-colored jacket.
Virginia Davis was inside the same house on Tenth Street as was her sister-in-law, Barbara, when she heard the shots. Virginia went to the door and saw a man cutting across the yard with a gun in his hands. Virginia testified to the Warren Commission that the man (who she positively identified as Lee Oswald) had on a light-brown-tan jacket.
Ted Callaway was on the front porch of his office near the alley between Tenth and Jefferson when he heard the shots come from the vicinity of Tenth Street. He saw a man (who he positively identified as Lee Oswald) cutting across the yard of the house on the corner (Barbara and Virginia Davis) and noticed William Scoggins ducking beside the cab as the man passed, running down Patton from Tenth, holding a gun in his hands. Callaway stated that the man had on a light tannish-gray windbreaker jacket. Callaway testified to the Warren Commission that CE-162 (the jacket found on the ground under a car at the Texaco lot) looked like the jacket that the man was wearing as he was running from the scene.
Sam Guinyard was on Patton Ave. when he heard the shots. Like the others, Guinyard saw the man (who he positively identified as Lee Oswald) cut across the yard of the Davis house on the corner of Tenth and Patton. Guinyard testified that the man was running down Patton with a gun in his hands. Guinyard testified to the Warren Commission that Oswald was wearing sort of a light-gray-looking jacket as he ran from the scene.
Thanks for helping John Mytton out. He was struggling, so now he can relax a bit.
Helen Markham, standing at the northwest corner of Tenth and Patton, testified to the Warren Commission that the cop-killer (who she positively identified as Lee Oswald) had on a short jacket that was open in the front and was grayish-tan in color.
As you mention Markham, there's something I have wanted to ask you ever since you did that video interview. Let me establish the context first. Markham testified that she took her usual bus to work from Jefferson at 1.15. You made a big deal about the time table showing there was a bus at 1.12 an 1.22 and I agreed it could have been either bus; a delayed 1.12 or indeed 1.22. The point is that if you take the same bus to work, you normally would try to get to the bus stop a few minutes earlier than the scheduled departure time. I know I did in my late teens when I caught the bus to my first, very modest, job. So, let's say for argument's sake that Markham would have at least tried to have gotten to the bus stop some three minutes earlier, at around 1.12 perhaps 1.13. Would that be fair?
Now we know from the FBI that Markham had to walk two blocks, from 9th street to Jefferson and that walking each block would have taken her 2,5 to 3 minutes. So, in order to get to the bus stop at a fairly safe time she would have had to leave 9th street at around 1.06 or 1.07, right?
Here's the problem I can't solve, so perhaps you can help me. Dale Myers has Markham standing on the corner of 10th and Patton when Tippit drives by. There's anything unusual to see a police cruiser pass by, she you would expect that after the car had passed, she would just cross the street and carry on walking to get to the bus stop on time. Right? But according to Myers, Markham didn't do that and I have never been able to understand that. Perhaps it would have been more understandable if Markham had a bit more spare time before she had to be at the bus stop, but why in the world would she risk missing her bus to observe for two minutes or so a police car? Can you explain that to me?
Now, let's just get back to the FBI timing of the walking distance. If we assume that Markham would have tried to be at least two minutes earlier at the bus stop to catch her bus at 1.15, and she did leave 9th street at 1.06 or 1.07, that would have gotten her to 10th and Patton at 1.10, perhaps 1.11. But according to Myers, and you argree with him, Tippit was shot at around 1.14.30. So what am I missing here? Did Markham get to 10th and Patton at 1.11 and stayed there for several minutes, or did she leave 9th street several minutes later at the risk of not getting to the bus stop on time. Can you make sense of this?
-
So what am I missing here? Did Markham get to 10th and Patton at 1.11 and stayed there for several minutes, or did she leave 9th street several minutes later at the risk of not getting to the bus stop on time. Can you make sense of this?
If presented with the analysis that Bud provided HERE (https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/DfAImX9BK7c/m/K3N9-KC3KGEJ), Vincent Bugliosi would very likely have been able to accept the "1:26" timing for Markham's bus arrival.
The reason why Bugliosi had trouble accepting the 1:12 time is because if that time were ACTUALLY CORRECT, it would mean that Mrs. Markham would have missed her bus most of the time (if we're to also accept as fact that she caught her bus at 1:15 PM each day). And how likely is it that she was constantly missing the 1:12 bus because she just refused to get there in time? Not very likely, is it?
So, of course, Vince could very easily accept a wider differential in time, because it would mean Markham wouldn't be missing her bus every single day.
Bugliosi's reasoning in rejecting the 1:12 time is just as he stated in his book....
"I find it very hard to believe it routinely came by at that [1:12 PM] time. If it did, with Markham thinking it came by at 1:15, I wonder how she didn’t miss the bus a lot and was able to keep her job." -- VB
Now, who would routinely get to a bus stop at 1:15 to try and catch a 1:12 bus? That's why Bugliosi had doubts about the "1:12" time.
My guess is that Helen Markham very likely timed it so that she would be at the Jefferson & Patton bus stop at approximately 1:15 every day, and she would (of course) then catch the next bus to come by that was going downtown (whenever that was, at 1:22, or 1:26, whenever). That way, she would be a little early to catch the next bus. Makes sense to me anyway. And the FBI report in CD630 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11029#relPageId=73) clearly indicates that "the bus is scheduled to pass this point [at Patton and Jefferson] at about 1:12 PM and every ten minutes thereafter".
So it's fairly clear that if Mrs. Markham didn't catch the 1:12 bus, she could have caught another bus at about 1:22 or 1:32. And since she didn't have to be at work until 2:30 PM, there was plenty of time to spare, even if she had to take one of those later busses.
But it makes no sense for her to regularly get to the bus stop at 1:15 if she was really trying to catch a 1:12 bus. That's crazy.
Lots more Bus Talk here:
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1242.html
-
It's one thing for a light coloured garment to look different in various lighting conditions but white has no pigment to alter.
Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs.V DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.
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. 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.
The jackets are extremely similar in size, shape and shade, they could almost be identical, what a coincidence, eh!
(https://i.postimg.cc/gjz2bLCk/Oswald-jacket-comparison.jpg)
Anyway, I did an image search for a vintage 1963 men's jacket and out of nearly 100 results, there is nothing that really comes close to Oswald's jacket, but in your scenario Oswald's jacket was a near identical match for some random jacket that your make believe cop killer was wearing. Like I said the chances were not good but I guess in CT fantasy land anything is possible! Hahahaha!
(https://i.postimg.cc/J0Gc7SLY/1963-mens-vintage-jacket.jpg)
BTW Frazier said that Oswald was wearing a grey jacket that morning, so much for your grey Jacket left at Irving BS! LOL!
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.
JohnM
It's one thing for a light coloured garment to look different in various lighting conditions but white has no pigment to alter.
Really? So if somebody wearing a white jacket is standing in the shade, the jacket is still shown to be white. Is that what you are saying? HAHAHAHAHAHA
The jackets are extremely similar in size, shape and shade, they could almost be identical, what a coincidence, eh!
So, you are just looking at a couple of photographs (you didn't actually examine both jackets!) and then simply conclude the jackets in the photos are identical, regardless of the fact of one jacket the back and very long sleeves is shown and the other shows the front with not so long sleeves.
You are so full of it!
Anyway, I did an image search for a vintage 1963 men's jacket and out of nearly 100 results, there is nothing that really comes close to Oswald's jacket, but in your scenario Oswald's jacket was a near identical match for some random jacket that your make believe cop killer was wearing. Like I said the chances were not good but I guess in CT fantasy land anything is possible! Hahahaha
You frequently say a great many crazy and stupid things, but this one goes into the top ten. You find 100 men's jackets and none comes close to Oswald's jacket (which by itself is a nutty observation to make) and then you rather idiotically claim that I ever said that Oswald's jacket was a near identical match for some random jacket. I've never said anything of the kind. I have no way of knowing of both the jackets in the photos are similar or not. All I can say is that both jackets look to be of the Windbreaker type. But that's it. You really need to stop visiting cuckoo land. It's not good for you!
But here's a question for you; if the jackets were swapped and the white one disappeared, what makes you think that they needed to be similar in the first place. The only three people who we know actually saw the white jacket were Westbrook and two unnamed and unidentified patrol officers who likely never saw the jacket again. As for Westbrook, that guy was the personnel officer, but he was all over the Tippit scenes. What in the world was he doing there?
BTW Frazier said that Oswald was wearing a grey jacket that morning, so much for your grey Jacket left at Irving BS! LOL!
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.
Hilariously stupid. Just how pathetic can you be? First of all, they found Oswald's dark grey jacket at the TSBD, so that's the one he must have been wearing on Friday morning.
Secondly, even if he had been wearing the light grey jacket that morning, then how in the world did that get to Oak Cliff for Oswald to pick it up and put on? Oswald left the TSBD wearing no jacket, right? Roberts said he entered the rooming house wearing no jacket, right? So, come on, genius, tell is how did the light grey jacket get to the rooming house if Oswald had worn it to the TSBD on Friday morning?
-
If presented with the analysis that Bud provided HERE (https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/DfAImX9BK7c/m/K3N9-KC3KGEJ), Vincent Bugliosi would very likely have been able to accept the "1:26" timing for Markham's bus arrival.
The reason why Bugliosi had trouble accepting the 1:12 time is because if that time were ACTUALLY CORRECT, it would mean that Mrs. Markham would have missed her bus most of the time (if we're to also accept as fact that she caught her bus at 1:15 PM each day). And how likely is it that she was constantly missing the 1:12 bus because she just refused to get there in time? Not very likely, is it?
So, of course, Vince could very easily accept a wider differential in time, because it would mean Markham wouldn't be missing her bus every single day.
Bugliosi's reasoning in rejecting the 1:12 time is just as he stated in his book....
"I find it very hard to believe it routinely came by at that [1:12 PM] time. If it did, with Markham thinking it came by at 1:15, I wonder how she didn’t miss the bus a lot and was able to keep her job." -- VB
Now, who would routinely get to a bus stop at 1:15 to try and catch a 1:12 bus? That's why Bugliosi had doubts about the "1:12" time.
My guess is that Helen Markham very likely timed it so that she would be at the Jefferson & Patton bus stop at approximately 1:15 every day, and she would (of course) then catch the next bus to come by that was going downtown (whenever that was, at 1:22, or 1:26, whenever). That way, she would be a little early to catch the next bus. Makes sense to me anyway. And the FBI report in CD630 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11029#relPageId=73) clearly indicates that "the bus is scheduled to pass this point [at Patton and Jefferson] at about 1:12 PM and every ten minutes thereafter".
So it's fairly clear that if Mrs. Markham didn't catch the 1:12 bus, she could have caught another bus at about 1:22 or 1:32. And since she didn't have to be at work until 2:30 PM, there was plenty of time to spare, even if she had to take one of those later busses.
But it makes no sense for her to regularly get to the bus stop at 1:15 if she was really trying to catch a 1:12 bus. That's crazy.
Lots more Bus Talk here:
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1242.html
My guess is that Helen Markham very likely timed it so that she would be at the Jefferson & Patton bus stop at approximately 1:15 every day, and she would (of course) then catch the next bus to come by that was going downtown (whenever that was, at 1:22, or 1:26, whenever). That way, she would be a little early to catch the next bus. Makes sense to me anyway.
I agree, that's the most likely scenario. Buses seldom run on exactly the time of their schedule. But Markham indicated that she would be at the bus stop at 1.15 and she would then just wait for the next bus to show up.
But that doesn't answer the question I asked Bill Brown. For Markham to get to the bus stop at 1.15 (regardles which bus she took, a delayed 1.12 or the 1.122) she still needed to walk two blocks in about five to six minutes to get there. So, she would have left 9th street at around 1.09 or 1.10 and get to 10th and Patton at about 1.13. According to Dale Myers, Tippit was shot at 1.14.30, so are we really to believe that Markham just stood around at the intersection of 10th and Patton for two minutes or so and likely risk (in her perception) missing her bus to work?
That doesn't make sense at all.
-
OMG WOW!
After going through my collection of images I found a photo of the rear of Oswald's jacket and the similarity to the carpark photo is even more striking, at both ends across the back of Oswald's jacket we see a small elastic section where the fabric is gathered and allowed to stretch so as to provide a snug fit around the mid-section, this design is seen in both photos!!
To confirm the uniqueness of this find, I did a google image search across hundreds of jackets through many decades and couldn't find a single example that showed this unique pair of gathered elastic sections. So I went a bit more specific and searched "windbreaker jacket" and the best I could find was in the bottom photo which doesn't really gather in the same way.
Now I'm sure that eventually I could find one but it's clear that I've proven that Weidmann's scenario of Oswald's jacket matching some random jacket is basically extremely statistically unlikely. But don't trust me, do some research and see what you can find!
(https://i.postimg.cc/QCV4nhXP/Oswald-jacket-comparison-back-4.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/XYNTbc1C/back-jacket-vintage.webp)
JohnM
After going through my collection of images I found a photo of the rear of Oswald's jacket and the similarity to the carpark photo is even more striking, at both ends across the back of Oswald's jacket we see a small elastic section where the fabric is gathered and allowed to stretch so as to provide a snug fit around the mid-section, this design is seen in both photos!!
Oh boy. Those elastic sections are in just about every jacket of that type. I have two windbreaker type jackets that have exactly the same elastic sections at the same place. No big deal. But what the photos do show (and Johnny simply ignores) is that the sleeves of the white jacket are far larger that the one's on Oswald's grey jacket. So much for similarity! You just see what you want to see.
To confirm the uniqueness of this find, I did a google image search across hundreds of jackets through many decades and couldn't find a single example that showed this unique pair of gathered elastic sections
Now why am I not surprised you didn't find any? HAHAHAHAHA
Now I'm sure that eventually I could find one but it's clear that I've proven that Weidmann's scenario of Oswald's jacket matching some random jacket is basically extremely statistically unlikely. But don't trust me, do some research and see what you can find!
Oh, I don't trust you for even a little bit. And you have proven exactly nothing except of course that you don't know how to google searches.
Btw, you do understand that you have cornered yourself massively by claiming that Oswald was wearing the light grey jacket to the TSBD on Friday morning, right?
Because, now you are going to have to explain how that same light grey jacket ended up in the rooming house on Friday midday for Oswald to zip it up in front of Roberts.
And if you can't explain that, your entire "jacket under the car" BS is exactly that.... BS
-
OMG WOW!
After going through my collection of images I found a photo of the rear of Oswald's jacket and the similarity to the carpark photo is even more striking, at both ends across the back of Oswald's jacket we see a small elastic section where the fabric is gathered and allowed to stretch so as to provide a snug fit around the mid-section, this design is seen in both photos!!
To confirm the uniqueness of this find, I did a google image search across hundreds of jackets through many decades and couldn't find a single example that showed this unique pair of gathered elastic sections. So I went a bit more specific and searched "windbreaker jacket" and the best I could find was in the bottom photo which doesn't really gather in the same way.
Now I'm sure that eventually I could find one but it's clear that I've proven that Weidmann's scenario of Oswald's jacket matching some random jacket is basically extremely statistically unlikely. But don't trust me, do some research and see what you can find!
(https://i.postimg.cc/QCV4nhXP/Oswald-jacket-comparison-back-4.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/XYNTbc1C/back-jacket-vintage.webp)
JohnM
GREAT find, John. I've never caught that before.
Thanks. That's very valuable.
-
Hilariously stupid. Just how pathetic can you be? First of all, they found Oswald's dark grey jacket at the TSBD, so that's the one he must have been wearing on Friday morning.
Secondly, even if he had been wearing the light grey jacket that morning, then how in the world did that get to Oak Cliff for Oswald to pick it up and put on? Oswald left the TSBD wearing no jacket, right? Roberts said he entered the rooming house wearing no jacket, right? So, come on, genius, tell is how did the light grey jacket get to the rooming house if Oswald had worn it to the TSBD on Friday morning?
Hahahaha! Gotcha, Frazier your star witness with the photographic memory had never seen CE163 ever before and don't forget that Frazier sat right next to Oswald for about half an hour on the way to work! And you expect Frazier to remember Oswald in the five or so minutes they walked from the car to the loading dock, where Oswald ended up about 50 feet away??
(https://i.postimg.cc/R00QQ9v6/Oswald-jacket-ce163.jpg)
Mr. BALL - I have here Commission's 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have.
:D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D
JohnM
-
GREAT find, John. I've never caught that before.
Thanks. That's very valuable.
Yeah, you bet. It makes Weidmann's story about Jacket swaps more ridiculous than ever! He is such a Dufus. Anyway, here's a higher resolution photo that better shows the gathered material.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3JyGnnB7/Oswald-jacket-comparison-back-b.jpg)
JohnM
-
My guess is that Helen Markham very likely timed it so that she would be at the Jefferson & Patton bus stop at approximately 1:15 every day, and she would (of course) then catch the next bus to come by that was going downtown (whenever that was, at 1:22, or 1:26, whenever). That way, she would be a little early to catch the next bus. Makes sense to me anyway.
I agree, that's the most likely scenario. Buses seldom run on exactly the time of their schedule. But Markham indicated that she would be at the bus stop at 1.15 and she would then just wait for the next bus to show up.
But that doesn't answer the question I asked Bill Brown. For Markham to get to the bus stop at 1.15 (regardles which bus she took, a delayed 1.12 or the 1.122) she still needed to walk two blocks in about five to six minutes to get there. So, she would have left 9th street at around 1.09 or 1.10 and get to 10th and Patton at about 1.13. According to Dale Myers, Tippit was shot at 1.14.30, so are we really to believe that Markham just stood around at the intersection of 10th and Patton for two minutes or so and likely risk (in her perception) missing her bus to work?
That doesn't make sense at all.
We don't have time stamps for any event related to the Tippit shooting until a citizen radioed in the report from Tippit's cruiser. Every other event is based on ESTIMATED times. You cannot do precise calculations if you don't start with precise figures.
-
Oh boy. Those elastic sections are in just about every jacket of that type. I have two windbreaker type jackets that have exactly the same elastic sections at the same place. No big deal. But what the photos do show (and Johnny simply ignores) is that the sleeves of the white jacket are far larger that the one's on Oswald's grey jacket. So much for similarity! You just see what you want to see.
But what the photos do show (and Johnny simply ignores) is that the sleeves of the white jacket are far larger that the one's on Oswald's grey jacket.
Sure Oswald was a Gorilla, Hilarious!
I have two windbreaker type jackets that have exactly the same elastic sections at the same place. No big deal.
Wow, in 2026, you claim to own two of that type of jacket, please take a photo of the two jackets and show us the two elastic gathered sections on the back and I hope they're a light grey/beige shade! Then post them in this thread. Waiting....Zzzzzz...
JohnM
-
We don't have time stamps for any event related to the Tippit shooting until a citizen radioed in the report from Tippit's cruiser. Every other event is based on ESTIMATED times. You cannot do precise calculations if you don't start with precise figures.
So, Markham just missed he bus on a daily basis?
If you wan't to be considered to be serious, than act serious and cut of the crap. There is nothing reliable about the time stamps on the DPD radio. The chief on the dispatcher said it himself, you can not rely on the time stamps to get accurate times.
-
Hahahaha! Gotcha, Frazier your star witness with the photographic memory had never seen CE163 ever before and don't forget that Frazier sat right next to Oswald for about half an hour on the way to work! And you expect Frazier to remember Oswald in the five or so minutes they walked from the car to the loading dock, where Oswald ended up about 50 feet away??
(https://i.postimg.cc/R00QQ9v6/Oswald-jacket-ce163.jpg)
Mr. BALL - I have here Commission's 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have.
:D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D
JohnM
How delusional are you? I know what Frazier said in his testimony.
So, how did CE 163 end up being found at the Domino room of the TSBD?
And have you figured out already how Oswald's grey jacket CE 162 could have ended up at the rooming house at Friday 1 PM, if Oswald had worn it to the TSBD in the morning and left the TSBD without a jacket.?
I've always known you were not the sharpest knife in the draw, but this beats it all.
-
How delusional are you? I know what Frazier said in his testimony.
So, how did CE 163 end up being found at the Domino room of the TSBD?
And have you figured out already how Oswald's grey jacket CE 162 could have ended up at the rooming house at Friday 1 PM, if Oswald had worn it to the TSBD in the morning and left the TSBD without a jacket.?
I've always known you were not the sharpest knife in the draw, but this beats it all.
How delusional are you? I know what Frazier said in his testimony.
Obviously, not that well.
So, how did CE 163 end up being found at the Domino room of the TSBD?
Oswald put it there.
And have you figured out already how Oswald's grey jacket CE 162 could have ended up at the rooming house at Friday 1 PM, if Oswald had worn it to the TSBD in the morning and left the TSBD without a jacket.?
You can't be this thick?? Oswald clearly wore the dark jacket but Frazier didn't even notice, yet as I said "your star witness with the photographic memory had never seen CE163 ever before", even though he sat right next to him for the half hour trip from Irving, but you expect him to remember some insignificant action with precise detail. Did your Mother drop you on your head when you were a baby?
(https://i.postimg.cc/R00QQ9v6/Oswald-jacket-ce163.jpg)
Mr. BALL - I have here Commission's 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have.
:D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D
I've always known you were not the sharpest knife in the draw, but this beats it all.
Before you go balls to the walls, take a second or two to read and comprehend what's written, so you can be less of an embarrasment, otherwise you'll fall into another one of my traps. Muhahaha.
BTW, how are those jacket photos coming along?
Because I believe you I really do, Oswald's jacket was clearly mass produced and there must be at least hundreds out there, but there was also millions and millions of jackets produced and the problem here is a simple case of probability, for your killer to possess and discard a virtually identical jacket in a carpark that a jacketed Oswald was also seen entering, is pretty far fetched.
Oswald arrested without his jacket. Where did it go?
(https://gcp-na-images.contentstack.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt95ccf886db30c45c/6987e4325f570fc502b1863a/lb_maccammon.jpg?branch=production)
JohnM
-
Sure Oswald was a Gorilla, Hilarious!
Wow, in 2026, you claim to own two of that type of jacket, please take a photo of the two jackets and show us the two elastic gathered sections on the back and I hope they're a light grey/beige shade! Then post them in this thread. Waiting....Zzzzzz...
JohnM
Sure Oswald was a Gorilla, Hilarious!
No he wasn't. That's why it is likely or possible that the white jacket found at the car park wasn't his.
Wow, in 2026, you claim to own two of that type of jacket, please take a photo of the two jackets and show us the two elastic gathered sections on the back and I hope they're a light grey/beige shade! Then post them in this thread. Waiting....Zzzzzz...
Hilarious. Who do you think you are?
You make one idiotic claim after another and never present a shred of evidence.
I'm not going to do a damned thing until you have explained how Oswald could have picked up CE 162 (the light grey jacket) at the rooming house, when he, as you claimed was wearing that same jacket to the TSBD on Friday morning and left the TSBD without wearing a jacket.
-
Duplicate
-
So, Markham just missed he bus on a daily basis?
If you wan't to be considered to be serious, than act serious and cut the crap. There is nothing reliable about the time stamps on the DPD radio. The chief on the dispatcher said it himself, you can not rely on the time stamps to get accurate times.
-
Sure Oswald was a Gorilla, Hilarious!
No he wasn't. That's why it is likely or possible that the white jacket found at the car park wasn't his.
Wow, in 2026, you claim to own two of that type of jacket, please take a photo of the two jackets and show us the two elastic gathered sections on the back and I hope they're a light grey/beige shade! Then post them in this thread. Waiting....Zzzzzz...
Hilarious. Who do you think you are?
You make one idiotic claim after another and never present a shred of evidence.
I'm not going to do a damned thing until you have explained how Oswald could have picked up CE 162 (the light grey jacket) at the rooming house, when he, as you claimed was wearing that same jacket to the TSBD on Friday morning and left the TSBD without wearing a jacket.
I'm not going to do a damned thing...
Say it's not true, yet another Weidmann personal anecdote that he uses as proof, can't be another one of his lies?
(https://media.tenor.com/kU-t_lw486QAAAAM/pinoquio.gif)
JohnM
-
Obviously, not that well.
Oswald put it there.
You can't be this thick?? Oswald clearly wore the dark jacket but Frazier didn't even notice, yet as I said "your star witness with the photographic memory had never seen CE163 ever before", even though he sat right next to him for the half hour trip from Irving, but you expect him to remember some insignificant action with precise detail. Did your Mother drop you on your head when you were a baby?
(https://i.postimg.cc/R00QQ9v6/Oswald-jacket-ce163.jpg)
Mr. BALL - I have here Commission's 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have.
:D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D
Before you go balls to the walls, take a second or two to read and comprehend what's written, so you can be less of an embarrasment, otherwise you'll fall into another one of my traps. Muhahaha.
BTW, how are those jacket photos coming along?
Because I believe you I really do, Oswald's jacket was clearly mass produced and there must be at least hundreds out there, but there was also millions and millions of jackets produced and the problem here is a simple case of probability, for your killer to possess and discard a virtually identical jacket in a carpark that a jacketed Oswald was also seen entering, is pretty far fetched.
Oswald arrested without his jacket. Where did it go?
(https://gcp-na-images.contentstack.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt95ccf886db30c45c/6987e4325f570fc502b1863a/lb_maccammon.jpg?branch=production)
JohnM
The fool looks at two photographs in which the elastics on one jacket are clearly further apart than on the other one and he declares the jackets to be the same based on his biased self-serving opinion. Even worse, based up what he pathetically calls "research" he concludes that these jackets are the only two in the entire world that are the same. And then he wants to be taken seriously.
But at least you've ran away from your previous bogus claim that Oswald was wearing CE 162 to the TSBD on Friday morning. Of course he didn't. He was wearning CE 162 to Irving on Thursday afternoon and left the next morning with CE 163.
-
Say it's not true, yet another Weidmann personal anecdote that he uses as proof, can't be another one of his lies?
(https://media.tenor.com/kU-t_lw486QAAAAM/pinoquio.gif)
JohnM
I have seldom seen you so desperate to back away from your own pathetic claims.
-
The fool looks at two photographs in which the elastics on one jacket are clearly further apart than on the other one and he declares the jackets to be the same based on his biased self-serving opinion. Even worse, based up what he pathetically calls "research" he concludes that these jackets are the only two in the entire world that are the same. And then he wants to be taken seriously.
But at least you've ran away from your previous bogus claim that Oswald was wearing CE 162 to the TSBD on Friday morning. Of course he didn't. He was wearning CE 162 to Irving on Thrusday afternoon and left the next morning with CE 163.
I've got you really rattled as you are resorting to making the most absurd claims and making up things I never even remotely said? Your World is falling down all around you and it's Hilarious. :D
in which the elastics on one jacket are clearly further apart than on the other one
Well Weidmann, let's put that to the test, on the jacket on the left we can easily see the elastic and the subsequent gathering of the material above and on the jacket on the right we can clearly see the gathered fabric above and therefore we can determine where the elastic would be.
The end of the sleave is a relative constant size, which I've called "W" and in both images the distance between the elastic sections is Wx2.
Thanks for making this proof even stronger and your demise even sweeter.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cHSPddZC/Oswald-jacket-comparison-back-wrist-a.jpg)
JohnM
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/cHSPddZC/Oswald-jacket-comparison-back-wrist-a.jpg)
JohnM
:D you added a mark to the white jacket over the portion in doubt.
double jackets, double wallets, uh oh oswald doubles too..?
-
I've got you really rattled as you are resorting to making the most absurd claims and making up things I never even remotely said? Your World is falling down all around you and it's Hilarious. :D
Well Weidmann, let's put that to the test, on the jacket on the left we can easily see the elastic and the subsequent gathering of the material above and on the jacket on the right we can clearly see the gathered fabric above and therefore we can determine where the elastic would be.
The end of the sleave is a relative constant size, which I've called "W" and in both images the distance between the elastic sections is Wx2.
Thanks for making this proof even stronger and your demise even sweeter.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cHSPddZC/Oswald-jacket-comparison-back-wrist-a.jpg)
JohnM
I've got you really rattled as you are resorting to making the most absurd claims and making up things I never even remotely said?
So, you didn't say this;
OMG WOW!
After going through my collection of images I found a photo of the rear of Oswald's jacket and the similarity to the carpark photo is even more striking, at both ends across the back of Oswald's jacket we see a small elastic section where the fabric is gathered and allowed to stretch so as to provide a snug fit around the mid-section, this design is seen in both photos!!
To confirm the uniqueness of this find,........
Well Weidmann, let's put that to the test, on the jacket on the left we can easily see the elastic and the subsequent gathering of the material above and on the jacket on the right we can clearly see the gathered fabric above and therefore we can determine where the elastic would be.
The end of the sleave is a relative constant size, which I've called "W" and in both images the distance between the elastic sections is Wx2.
Thanks for making this proof even stronger and your demise even sweeter.
So now you figure that the two photos actually show exactly the same size of the jackets?
You're looking at two photo and are desperately trying to make a point but failing miserably. But, what else is new?
You really need to get that desperation of yours under control.
-
You really need to get that desperation of yours under control.
Get a grip.
I'm not the one inventing fantasyland delusions.
I'm not the one saying Oswald's only accessible jacket at the time was a perfect match for what the killer was wearing.
I'm not creating scenarios where jackets are secretly stolen.
I'm not the one who's saying stolen jackets are being clandestinely swapped into evidence.
I'm not the one saying that your Oswald doppelganger entered a carpark and dropped a perfectly matched jacket under a car.
I'm not the one cruelly saying Roberts was yet another mistaken eyewitness.
I'm not the one making up fairy tales that I have two identical Jackets in my clothing collection.
I'm not the one that's twisting my comments and lying about what I wrote.
The problem for you is that the Warren Commission did such a thorough job in finding Oswald guilty that you now have to keep inventing a string of impossible, illogical narratives to cover each piece of incriminating evidence.
Instead of just accepting a single individual assassinated Kennedy and Tippit, you dementedly have teams of unrelated conspirators in every branch of law enforcement and men in positions of power, organizing teams of assassins and doing all sorts of undetected tampering.
And you call me desperate?? -sigh-
JohnM
-
Thanks for helping John Mytton out. He was struggling, so now he can relax a bit.
Helen Markham, standing at the northwest corner of Tenth and Patton, testified to the Warren Commission that the cop-killer (who she positively identified as Lee Oswald) had on a short jacket that was open in the front and was grayish-tan in color.
As you mention Markham, there's something I have wanted to ask you ever since you did that video interview. Let me establish the context first. Markham testified that she took her usual bus to work from Jefferson at 1.15. You made a big deal about the time table showing there was a bus at 1.12 an 1.22 and I agreed it could have been either bus; a delayed 1.12 or indeed 1.22. The point is that if you take the same bus to work, you normally would try to get to the bus stop a few minutes earlier than the scheduled departure time. I know I did in my late teens when I caught the bus to my first, very modest, job. So, let's say for argument's sake that Markham would have at least tried to have gotten to the bus stop some three minutes earlier, at around 1.12 perhaps 1.13. Would that be fair?
Now we know from the FBI that Markham had to walk two blocks, from 9th street to Jefferson and that walking each block would have taken her 2,5 to 3 minutes. So, in order to get to the bus stop at a fairly safe time she would have had to leave 9th street at around 1.06 or 1.07, right?
Here's the problem I can't solve, so perhaps you can help me. Dale Myers has Markham standing on the corner of 10th and Patton when Tippit drives by. There's anything unusual to see a police cruiser pass by, she you would expect that after the car had passed, she would just cross the street and carry on walking to get to the bus stop on time. Right? But according to Myers, Markham didn't do that and I have never been able to understand that. Perhaps it would have been more understandable if Markham had a bit more spare time before she had to be at the bus stop, but why in the world would she risk missing her bus to observe for two minutes or so a police car? Can you explain that to me?
Now, let's just get back to the FBI timing of the walking distance. If we assume that Markham would have tried to be at least two minutes earlier at the bus stop to catch her bus at 1.15, and she did leave 9th street at 1.06 or 1.07, that would have gotten her to 10th and Patton at 1.10, perhaps 1.11. But according to Myers, and you argree with him, Tippit was shot at around 1.14.30. So what am I missing here? Did Markham get to 10th and Patton at 1.11 and stayed there for several minutes, or did she leave 9th street several minutes later at the risk of not getting to the bus stop on time. Can you make sense of this?
As you mention Markham, there's something I have wanted to ask you ever since you did that video interview. Let me establish the context first. Markham testified that she took her usual bus to work from Jefferson at 1.15. You made a big deal about the time table showing there was a bus at 1.12 an 1.22 and I agreed it could have been either bus; a delayed 1.12 or indeed 1.22. The point is that if you take the same bus to work, you normally would try to get to the bus stop a few minutes earlier than the scheduled departure time. I know I did in my late teens when I caught the bus to my first, very modest, job. So, let's say for argument's sake that Markham would have at least tried to have gotten to the bus stop some three minutes earlier, at around 1.12 perhaps 1.13. Would that be fair?
No.
To get to her bus stop "some three minutes earlier" than the time the bus was due by would mean she would get to the bus stop at around 1:09 (for the 1:12 bus) or 1:19 (for the 1:22 bus).
The mistake you're making above is that you're assuming that she said the bus arrived at 1:15. When she gave the time of 1:15 (which is the ONLY time she ever gave, re: her bus), we really can't know if she's saying she caught the bus at 1:15 (she'd be wrong if this is what she was saying) or that she usually got to the bus stop at 1:15.
The police radio report by Bowley at 1:17 (combined with what Bowley tells us he did upon arriving at the scene before taking the mic from Benavides) tells me that Markham was approaching the corner of Tenth & Patton around 1:15.
Now we know from the FBI that Markham had to walk two blocks, from 9th street to Jefferson and that walking each block would have taken her 2,5 to 3 minutes. So, in order to get to the bus stop at a fairly safe time she would have had to leave 9th street at around 1.06 or 1.07, right?
I guess it depends on what you mean by "a fairly safe time". I mean, was she saying that she tries to get to the bus stop at 1:15? If that's what she was saying and she was on what she'd consider her perfect schedule, then yes, she'd be at Tenth & Patton around 1:12 or a half minute after.
I don't rely on Markham's time estimate for one simple reason. The police tapes, combined with the actions of T.F. Bowley (reporting the shooting on the squad car radio at 1:17), Mary Wright, Barbara Davis and L.J. Lewis (calling the police on the phone almost immediately after the shots rang out and the dispatcher Murray Jackson being unaware of any of their phone calls by the time he received the radio call from Bowley) tells me that Markham was at the corner at roughly 1:15/1:16. In other words, the police tapes (combined with the self-described actions of the four I just mentioned) tell me that Markham's time estimate of when it was that she was at the corner was flat-out wrong.
It happens.
Here's the problem I can't solve, so perhaps you can help me. Dale Myers has Markham standing on the corner of 10th and Patton when Tippit drives by. There's anything unusual to see a police cruiser pass by, she you would expect that after the car had passed, she would just cross the street and carry on walking to get to the bus stop on time. Right? But according to Myers, Markham didn't do that and I have never been able to understand that. Perhaps it would have been more understandable if Markham had a bit more spare time before she had to be at the bus stop, but why in the world would she risk missing her bus to observe for two minutes or so a police car? Can you explain that to me?
Here's how I've always seen it play out...
Markham is not actually at the corner when Tippit cruises slowly through the intersection. I can imagine it like this... she's approaching the corner, perhaps forty or fifty feet still from the corner when she sees Tippit cruise along Tenth and crossing Patton. By the time she actually gets to the corner, Tippit is pulling over or has just pulled over. She sees the guy who was walking then walk over to the passenger side of the car and watched as the conversation between the two takes place. Because of this, instead of continuing to walk on her merry way, she stands there at the corner wondering why a police officer in his squad car has pulled alongside a guy who was walking on the sidewalk.
In short, she has not arrived at the corner yet when Tippit drove through the intersection.
Now, let's just get back to the FBI timing of the walking distance. If we assume that Markham would have tried to be at least two minutes earlier at the bus stop to catch her bus at 1.15, and she did leave 9th street at 1.06 or 1.07, that would have gotten her to 10th and Patton at 1.10, perhaps 1.11. But according to Myers, and you argree with him, Tippit was shot at around 1.14.30. So what am I missing here? Did Markham get to 10th and Patton at 1.11 and stayed there for several minutes, or did she leave 9th street several minutes later at the risk of not getting to the bus stop on time. Can you make sense of this?
We can't assume that Markham was trying to catch a bus at 1:15. There's no reason to assume that, especially since we know there was no 1:15 bus.
By the way, my opinion is that the shooting occurred around 1:15:30(ish).
Domingo Benavides told Eddie Barker (The Warren Report, part 3, CBS-TV, 1967) that he watched the killer go around the corner and then sat there in his truck "for a second or two" before getting out and going over to Tippit and, realizing there was nothing he could do for Tippit, grabs the police radio. My opinion is that Benavides begins keying the mic shortly after 1:16 and was on the mic 30 to 45 seconds after the shots (based on getting out of his truck "a second or two" after the killer went around the corner).
-
Get a grip.
I'm not the one inventing fantasyland delusions.
I'm not the one saying Oswald's only accessible jacket at the time was a perfect match for what the killer was wearing.
I'm not creating scenarios where jackets are secretly stolen.
I'm not the one who's saying stolen jackets are being clandestinely swapped into evidence.
I'm not the one saying that your Oswald doppelganger entered a carpark and dropped a perfectly matched jacket under a car.
I'm not the one cruelly saying Roberts was yet another mistaken eyewitness.
I'm not the one making up fairy tales that I have two identical Jackets in my clothing collection.
I'm not the one that's twisting my comments and lying about what I wrote.
The problem for you is that the Warren Commission did such a thorough job in finding Oswald guilty that you now have to keep inventing a string of impossible, illogical narratives to cover each piece of incriminating evidence.
Instead of just accepting a single individual assassinated Kennedy and Tippit, you dementedly have teams of unrelated conspirators in every branch of law enforcement and men in positions of power, organizing teams of assassins and doing all sorts of undetected tampering.
And you call me desperate?? -sigh-
JohnM
You're only the one who makes up all that bogus "I'm not the one..." BS!
Instead of just accepting a single individual assassinated Kennedy and Tippit,
I wouldn't hesitate one second to accept Oswald's guilt if the LN clan provides persuasive evidence for that guilt.
The problem is that you can't and never will be able to do so.
-
No.
To get to her bus stop "some three minutes earlier" than the time the bus was due by would mean she would get to the bus stop at around 1:09 (for the 1:12 bus) or 1:19 (for the 1:22 bus).
The mistake you're making above is that you're assuming that she said the bus arrived at 1:15. When she gave the time of 1:15 (which is the ONLY time she ever gave, re: her bus), we really can't know if she's saying she caught the bus at 1:15 (she'd be wrong if this is what she was saying) or that she usually got to the bus stop at 1:15.
The police radio report by Bowley at 1:17 (combined with what Bowley tells us he did upon arriving at the scene before taking the mic from Benavides) tells me that Markham was approaching the corner of Tenth & Patton around 1:15.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "a fairly safe time". I mean, was she saying that she tries to get to the bus stop at 1:15? If that's what she was saying and she was on what she'd consider her perfect schedule, then yes, she'd be at Tenth & Patton around 1:12 or a half minute after.
I don't rely on Markham's time estimate for one simple reason. The police tapes, combined with the actions of T.F. Bowley (reporting the shooting on the squad car radio at 1:17), Mary Wright, Barbara Davis and L.J. Lewis (calling the police on the phone almost immediately after the shots rang out and the dispatcher Murray Jackson being unaware of any of their phone calls by the time he received the radio call from Bowley) tells me that Markham was at the corner at roughly 1:15/1:16. In other words, the police tapes (combined with the self-described actions of the four I just mentioned) tell me that Markham's time estimate of when it was that she was at the corner was flat-out wrong.
It happens.
Here's how I've always seen it play out...
Markham is not actually at the corner when Tippit cruises slowly through the intersection. I can imagine it like this... she's approaching the corner, perhaps forty or fifty feet still from the corner when she sees Tippit cruise along Tenth and crossing Patton. By the time she actually gets to the corner, Tippit is pulling over or has just pulled over. She sees the guy who was walking then walk over to the passenger side of the car and watched as the conversation between the two takes place. Because of this, instead of continuing to walk on her merry way, she stands there at the corner wondering why a police officer in his squad car has pulled alongside a guy who was walking on the sidewalk.
In short, she has not arrived at the corner yet when Tippit drove through the intersection.
We can't assume that Markham was trying to catch a bus at 1:15. There's no reason to assume that, especially since we know there was no 1:15 bus.
By the way, my opinion is that the shooting occurred around 1:15:30(ish).
Domingo Benavides told Eddie Barker (The Warren Report, part 3, CBS-TV, 1967) that he watched the killer go around the corner and then sat there in his truck "for a second or two" before getting out and going over to Tippit and, realizing there was nothing he could do for Tippit, grabs the police radio. My opinion is that Benavides begins keying the mic shortly after 1:16 and was on the mic 30 to 45 seconds after the shots (based on getting out of his truck "a second or two" after the killer went around the corner).
No.
To get to her bus stop "some three minutes earlier" than the time the bus was due by would mean she would get to the bus stop at around 1:09 (for the 1:12 bus) or 1:19 (for the 1:22 bus).
That assumes that Markham knew the official timetable and that the busses would always run on time. The reality is that Markham, in her mind, needed to be at the bus stop at 1:15 to get her bus!
Mr. BALL. You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you?
Mrs. MARKHAM. 1:15.
Busses seldom run exactly on time, so trying to argue that they did in this instance is disingenuous. Markham, in her mind, clearly needed to be at the bus stop every day at 1:15 and she would get on the first bus on her route that came along. That's how it works in the real world.
Markham is not actually at the corner when Tippit cruises slowly through the intersection. I can imagine it like this... she's approaching the corner, perhaps forty or fifty feet still from the corner when she sees Tippit cruise along Tenth and crossing Patton. By the time she actually gets to the corner, Tippit is pulling over or has just pulled over. She sees the guy who was walking then walk over to the passenger side of the car and watched as the conversation between the two takes place. Because of this, instead of continuing to walk on her merry way, she stands there at the corner wondering why a police officer in his squad car has pulled alongside a guy who was walking on the sidewalk.[/b]
Markham is not actually at the corner when Tippit cruises slowly through the intersection. I can imagine it like this... she's approaching the corner, perhaps forty or fifty feet still from the corner when she sees Tippit cruise along Tenth and crossing Patton.
Nice try, but that's not what is shown in a video you recently took part in, which showed a map with Markham being stationary for some time at 10th and Patton.
I just can't remember which video that was, but perhaps you know. Beyond that, you can imagine it all you want, it's still self-serving speculation.
Markham tells a different story;
In her statement to FBI Agent Robert Barrett on 3/16/64 she said "she had hoped to catch a bus at about 1:15 PM" According to Barrett "She stopped at this intersection in order to allow a police squad car and some other cars pass by.
Mr. BALL. You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you?
Mrs. MARKHAM. 1:15.
Mr. BALL. So it was before 1:15?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, it was.
Mr. BALL. When you came to the corner of Patton and 10th Street--first of all, what side of the street were you walking on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Now you have got me mixed up on all my streets. I was on the opposite of where this man was.
Mr. BALL. Well, you were walking along the street--
Mrs. MARKHAM. On the street.
Mr. BALL. On Patton, you were going toward Jefferson?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And you were on the right- or left-hand side of the street as you were walking south?
Mrs. MARKHAM. That would be on the left.
Mr. BALL. Your right.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, it would be right.
Mr. BALL. Right-hand side, wouldn't it? When you came to the corner did you have to stop before you crossed 10th Street?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, I did.
Mr. BALL. Why?
Mrs. MARKHAM. On account the traffic was coming.
Mr. BALL. And you stopped there on the corner?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
If Markham wasn't stopped at the intersection by Tippit's cruiser passing by, she would have had no plausible reason for stopping. She was on her way to catch her usual bus and only had minutes to spare. That's not a moment for sightseeing!
By the time she actually gets to the corner, Tippit is pulling over or has just pulled over. She sees the guy who was walking then walk over to the passenger side of the car and watched as the conversation between the two takes place. Because of this, instead of continuing to walk on her merry way, she stands there at the corner wondering why a police officer in his squad car has pulled alongside a guy who was walking on the sidewalk.
And risk missing her usual bus? For a police officer calling a civilian and having a conversation with him? Really?
We can't assume that Markham was trying to catch a bus at 1:15. There's no reason to assume that, especially since we know there was no 1:15 bus.
We don't have to assume it. Markham herself told us!
By the way, my opinion is that the shooting occurred around 1:15:30(ish).
So now you disagree with Dale Myers?
-
No.
To get to her bus stop "some three minutes earlier" than the time the bus was due by would mean she would get to the bus stop at around 1:09 (for the 1:12 bus) or 1:19 (for the 1:22 bus).
That assumes that Markham knew the official timetable and that the busses would always run on time. The reality is that Markham, in her mind, needed to be at the bus stop at 1:15 to get her bus!
Mr. BALL. You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you?
Mrs. MARKHAM. 1:15.
Busses seldom run exactly on time, so trying to argue that they did in this instance is disingenuous. Markham, in her mind, clearly needed to be at the bus stop every day at 1:15 and she would get on the first bus on her route that came along. That's how it works in the real world.
Nice try, but that's not what is shown in a video you recently took part in, which showed a map with Markham being stationary for some time at 10th and Patton.
I just can't remember which video that was, but perhaps you know. Beyond that, you can imagine it all you want, it's still self-serving speculation.
Markham tells a different story;
In her statement to FBI Agent Robert Barrett on 3/16/64 she said "she had hoped to catch a bus at about 1:15 PM" According to Barrett "She stopped at this intersection in order to allow a police squad car and some other cars pass by.
Mr. BALL. You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you?
Mrs. MARKHAM. 1:15.
Mr. BALL. So it was before 1:15?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, it was.
Mr. BALL. When you came to the corner of Patton and 10th Street--first of all, what side of the street were you walking on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Now you have got me mixed up on all my streets. I was on the opposite of where this man was.
Mr. BALL. Well, you were walking along the street--
Mrs. MARKHAM. On the street.
Mr. BALL. On Patton, you were going toward Jefferson?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And you were on the right- or left-hand side of the street as you were walking south?
Mrs. MARKHAM. That would be on the left.
Mr. BALL. Your right.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, it would be right.
Mr. BALL. Right-hand side, wouldn't it? When you came to the corner did you have to stop before you crossed 10th Street?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, I did.
Mr. BALL. Why?
Mrs. MARKHAM. On account the traffic was coming.
Mr. BALL. And you stopped there on the corner?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
If Markham wasn't stopped at the intersection by Tippit's cruiser passing by, she would have had no plausible reason for stopping. She was on her way to catch her usual bus and only had minutes to spare. That's not a moment for sightseeing!
By the time she actually gets to the corner, Tippit is pulling over or has just pulled over. She sees the guy who was walking then walk over to the passenger side of the car and watched as the conversation between the two takes place. Because of this, instead of continuing to walk on her merry way, she stands there at the corner wondering why a police officer in his squad car has pulled alongside a guy who was walking on the sidewalk.
And risk missing her usual bus? For a police officer calling a civilian and having a conversation with him? Really?
We can't assume that Markham was trying to catch a bus at 1:15. There's no reason to assume that, especially since we know there was no 1:15 bus.
We don't have to assume it. Markham herself told us!
By the way, my opinion is that the shooting occurred around 1:15:30(ish).
So now you disagree with Dale Myers?
That assumes that Markham knew the official timetable and that the busses would always run on time. The reality is that Markham, in her mind, needed to be at the bus stop at 1:15 to get her bus!
Mr. BALL. You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you?
Mrs. MARKHAM. 1:15.
Busses seldom run exactly on time, so trying to argue that they did in this instance is disingenuous. Markham, in her mind, clearly needed to be at the bus stop every day at 1:15 and she would get on the first bus on her route that came along. That's how it works in the real world.
Again, the police tapes (combined with the actions of witnesses like Mary Wright, Barbara Davis and L.J. Lewis, who contacted the police shortly after the shooting) tell us that Markham was NOT going to arrive at Patton and Jefferson at 1:15. She was approaching Patton and Tenth at 1:15.
Nice try, but that's not what is shown in a video you recently took part in, which showed a map with Markham being stationary for some time at 10th and Patton.
I just can't remember which video that was, but perhaps you know. Beyond that, you can imagine it all you want, it's still self-serving speculation.
You may be thinking of Fred Litwin's "On The Trail Of Delusion" podcast. I was not responsible for the graphics, though I don't have a problem with them.
You asked for my opinion and then ridicule me by calling it "self-serving speculation". You really are a dickhead, aren't ya?
Markham tells a different story;
In her statement to FBI Agent Robert Barrett on 3/16/64 she said "she had hoped to catch a bus at about 1:15 PM" According to Barrett "She stopped at this intersection in order to allow a police squad car and some other cars pass by.
Mr. BALL. You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you?
Mrs. MARKHAM. 1:15.
Mr. BALL. So it was before 1:15?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, it was.
Mr. BALL. When you came to the corner of Patton and 10th Street--first of all, what side of the street were you walking on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Now you have got me mixed up on all my streets. I was on the opposite of where this man was.
Mr. BALL. Well, you were walking along the street--
Mrs. MARKHAM. On the street.
Mr. BALL. On Patton, you were going toward Jefferson?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And you were on the right- or left-hand side of the street as you were walking south?
Mrs. MARKHAM. That would be on the left.
Mr. BALL. Your right.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, it would be right.
Mr. BALL. Right-hand side, wouldn't it? When you came to the corner did you have to stop before you crossed 10th Street?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, I did.
Mr. BALL. Why?
Mrs. MARKHAM. On account the traffic was coming.
Mr. BALL. And you stopped there on the corner?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
If Markham wasn't stopped at the intersection by Tippit's cruiser passing by, she would have had no plausible reason for stopping. She was on her way to catch her usual bus and only had minutes to spare. That's not a moment for sightseeing!
Clearly YOU aren't aware that Jack Tatum would be approaching the intersection of Tenth & Patton while Tippit and his killer were talking. Markham described "traffic was coming". She didn't say a police car was coming. Or... are we now accepting everything the FBI (in this case, Barrett) says is 100% true? If that's the case, then the bag was indeed three feet long by six inches wide, according to Linnie Mae Randle (per Bookhout).
We don't have to assume it. Markham herself told us!
Markham tells us no such thing. You're putting words into her mouth. That's bad form.
-
Again, the police tapes (combined with the actions of witnesses like Mary Wright, Barbara Davis and L.J. Lewis, who contacted the police shortly after the shooting) tell us that Markham was NOT going to arrive at Patton and Jefferson at 1:15. She was approaching Patton and Tenth at 1:15.
You may be thinking of Fred Litwin's "On The Trail Of Delusion" podcast. I was not responsible for the graphics, though I don't have a problem with them.
You asked for my opinion and then ridicule me by calling it "self-serving speculation". You really are a dickhead, aren't ya?
Clearly YOU aren't aware that Jack Tatum would be approaching the intersection of Tenth & Patton while Tippit and his killer were talking. Markham described "traffic was coming". She didn't say a police car was coming. Or... are we now accepting everything the FBI (in this case, Barrett) says is 100% true? If that's the case, then the bag was indeed three feet long by six inches wide, according to Linnie Mae Randle (per Bookhout).
Markham tells us no such thing. You're putting words into her mouth. That's bad form.
Again, the police tapes (combined with the actions of witnesses like Mary Wright, Barbara Davis and L.J. Lewis, who contacted the police shortly after the shooting) tell us that Markham was NOT going to arrive at Patton and Jefferson at 1:15. She was approaching Patton and Tenth at 1:15.
Rely on bad evidence and get bad results.
You may be thinking of Fred Litwin's "On The Trail Of Delusion" podcast. I was not responsible for the graphics, though I don't have a problem with them.
Could be. No surpise that you don't have a problem with them. You won't have a problem with them if they showed Markham having a barbeque at that intersection.
You asked for my opinion and then ridicule me by calling it "self-serving speculation". You really are a dickhead, aren't ya?
Said one dickhead to another. I asked you because there was a possibility you might come up with something credible. All I got was the same BS as per usual.
When you start talking about how you can imagine something; you are by definition speculating. Easy enough to understand!
Clearly YOU aren't aware that Jack Tatum would be approaching the intersection of Tenth & Patton while Tippit and his killer were talking. Markham described "traffic was coming". She didn't say a police car was coming. Or... are we now accepting everything the FBI (in this case, Barrett) says is 100% true? If that's the case, then the bag was indeed three feet long by six inches wide, according to Linnie Mae Randle (per Bookhout).
So, the FBI only tells the truth when you need them to? In my opinion no FD 302 is evidence of anything. It is my personal opinion that we would have been far better off without them as they only muddy the waters. Plain and simple. The point was that Markham told Bookhout that she hoped to catch a bas at about 1:15 PM and she only stopped because of a police car and cars passing by. She basically said the same thing in her WC testimony, athough she didn't mention the police car. If you think Bookhout lied about that, be my guest.
I'm very much aware of Jack Tatum coming up, but he didn't pass the intersection until after the shots, so he would have far enough away to give Markham time to pass the street. You make it out as a highway with loads of cars passing by. It wasn't and still isn't.
Markham tells us no such thing. You're putting words into her mouth. That's bad form.
She didn't? HAHAHAHAHA. Are you playing your typical semantics game again? Talk about utter dishonesty!
Markham never said that she took her regular bus at 1:15 PM? Are you for real?
Let me guess, normally Markham "usually" get's her bus at 1:15 PM (which would either be a delayed 1:12 or the 1:22) but on that day she figured she would leave 9th street later and just risk missing her usual bus. Oh well, anything to keep your fairytale alive, I suppose.
-
You're only the one who makes up all that bogus "I'm not the one..." BS!
Instead of just accepting a single individual assassinated Kennedy and Tippit,
I wouldn't hesitate one second to accept Oswald's guilt if the LN clan provides persuasive evidence for that guilt.
The problem is that you can't and never will be able to do so.
You can lead a horse to water...
-
You can lead a horse to water...
I would let you lead me, if you only knew where the water actually is.....
-
Again, the police tapes (combined with the actions of witnesses like Mary Wright, Barbara Davis and L.J. Lewis, who contacted the police shortly after the shooting) tell us that Markham was NOT going to arrive at Patton and Jefferson at 1:15. She was approaching Patton and Tenth at 1:15.
Rely on bad evidence and get bad results.
You may be thinking of Fred Litwin's "On The Trail Of Delusion" podcast. I was not responsible for the graphics, though I don't have a problem with them.
Could be. No surpise that you don't have a problem with them. You won't have a problem with them if they showed Markham having a barbeque at that intersection.
You asked for my opinion and then ridicule me by calling it "self-serving speculation". You really are a dickhead, aren't ya?
Said one dickhead to another. I asked you because there was a possibility you might come up with something credible. All I got was the same BS as per usual.
When you start talking about how you can imagine something; you are by definition speculating. Easy enough to understand!
Clearly YOU aren't aware that Jack Tatum would be approaching the intersection of Tenth & Patton while Tippit and his killer were talking. Markham described "traffic was coming". She didn't say a police car was coming. Or... are we now accepting everything the FBI (in this case, Barrett) says is 100% true? If that's the case, then the bag was indeed three feet long by six inches wide, according to Linnie Mae Randle (per Bookhout).
So, the FBI only tells the truth when you need them to? In my opinion no FD 302 is evidence of anything. It is my personal opinion that we would have been far better off without them as they only muddy the waters. Plain and simple. The point was that Markham told Bookhout that she hoped to catch a bas at about 1:15 PM and she only stopped because of a police car and cars passing by. She basically said the same thing in her WC testimony, athough she didn't mention the police car. If you think Bookhout lied about that, be my guest.
I'm very much aware of Jack Tatum coming up, but he didn't pass the intersection until after the shots, so he would have far enough away to give Markham time to pass the street. You make it out as a highway with loads of cars passing by. It wasn't and still isn't.
Markham tells us no such thing. You're putting words into her mouth. That's bad form.
She didn't? HAHAHAHAHA. Are you playing your typical semantics game again? Talk about utter dishonesty!
Markham never said that she took her regular bus at 1:15 PM? Are you for real?
Let me guess, normally Markham "usually" get's her bus at 1:15 PM (which would either be a delayed 1:12 or the 1:22) but on that day she figured she would leave 9th street later and just risk missing her usual bus. Oh well, anything to keep your fairytale alive, I suppose.
Rely on bad evidence and get bad results.
Nonsense. The time stamps on the police tapes are not "bad evidence" at all. You don't understand them; that doesn't make them "bad".
I asked you because there was a possibility you might come up with something credible. All I got was the same BS as per usual.
When you start talking about how you can imagine something; you are by definition speculating. Easy enough to understand!
Again, you basically asked me to speculate and I admit I am only giving my opinion. Seems simple enough but only a Kook would take issue with it.
So, the FBI only tells the truth when you need them to? In my opinion no FD 302 is evidence of anything. It is my personal opinion that we would have been far better off without them as they only muddy the waters. Plain and simple. The point was that Markham told Bookhout that she hoped to catch a bas at about 1:15 PM and she only stopped because of a police car and cars passing by. She basically said the same thing in her WC testimony, athough she didn't mention the police car. If you think Bookhout lied about that, be my guest.
Again, in her Warren Commission testimony, she said traffic was coming. She did not say it was a police car. If you want to rely on the FBI report as if it's gospel, then we can also agree then that Randle indeed said the bag was three feet long. This is simple stuff, really. So, which is it for you?
By the way, the FBI agent who interviewed Markham in March of '64 was Barrett (as you originally stated), not Bookhout (as you are now stating).
I'm very much aware of Jack Tatum coming up, but he didn't pass the intersection until after the shots, so he would have far enough away to give Markham time to pass the street.
In your opinion. Obviously that was not Markham's opinion, as she tells us she had to wait for traffic to pass before trying to cross.
She didn't? HAHAHAHAHA. Are you playing your typical semantics game again? Talk about utter dishonesty!
Markham never said that she took her regular bus at 1:15 PM? Are you for real?
Let me guess, normally Markham "usually" get's her bus at 1:15 PM (which would either be a delayed 1:12 or the 1:22) but on that day she figured she would leave 9th street later and just risk missing her usual bus. Oh well, anything to keep your fairytale alive, I suppose.
You don't know what "get your bus" means and you certainly don't know how Markham interpreted the question. The bottom line is that Markham never says she caught a bus at 1:15 and no amount of you putting words into her mouth will change this.
-
I would like to know if the emergency room clock at the hospital which Tippit was taken , was in sync with DPD radio dispatch clock or was the hospital clock 7 minutes slow relative to the DOD clock?
-
Again, the police tapes (combined with the actions of witnesses like Mary Wright, Barbara Davis and L.J. Lewis, who contacted the police shortly after the shooting) tell us that Markham was NOT going to arrive at Patton and Jefferson at 1:15. She was approaching Patton and Tenth at 1:15.
Yep the Police tapes were synchronized with the Hertz clock at 12:30 and some CT's claim that somehow the Police tapes went out of sync by somewhere around 5 to 10 minutes in the next 3/4 of an hour, and the more desperate CT's claim that the Hertz clock which people set their own timepieces by was not accurate, but not one CT has ever even proved that the Hertz clock was a minute out, much less 5 or more! :D
(https://i.postimg.cc/13P79zsV/12-30-in-sync.jpg)
JohnM
-
Nonsense. The time stamps on the police tapes are not "bad evidence" at all. You don't understand them; that doesn't make them "bad".
Again, you basically asked me to speculate and I admit I am only giving my opinion. Seems simple enough but only a Kook would take issue with it.
Again, in her Warren Commission testimony, she said traffic was coming. She did not say it was a police car. If you want to rely on the FBI report as if it's gospel, then we can also agree then that Randle indeed said the bag was three feet long. This is simple stuff, really. So, which is it for you?
By the way, the FBI agent who interviewed Markham in March of '64 was Barrett (as you originally stated), not Bookhout (as you are now stating).
In your opinion. Obviously that was not Markham's opinion, as she tells us she had to wait for traffic to pass before trying to cross.
You don't know what "get your bus" means and you certainly don't know how Markham interpreted the question. The bottom line is that Markham never says she caught a bus at 1:15 and no amount of you putting words into her mouth will change this.
Nonsense. The time stamps on the police tapes are not "bad evidence" at all. You don't understand them; that doesn't make them "bad".
I understand them alright. I just don't agree with your opinion.
Again, you basically asked me to speculate and I admit I am only giving my opinion. Seems simple enough but only a Kook would take issue with it.
Typical LN talk. I asked you to help me out by explaining why Markham would risk missing her bus by waiting at the corner of 10th and Patton after the car(s) had passed.
You then started speculating and you did so in a self-serving way, like you always do. Your speculations are not facts! It's that simple.
Again, in her Warren Commission testimony, she said traffic was coming. She did not say it was a police car. If you want to rely on the FBI report as if it's gospel, then we can also agree then that Randle indeed said the bag was three feet long. This is simple stuff, really. So, which is it for you?
Apparently you want to rely fully on witness testimony because you are desperate to get Tippit's police car out of the overall picture, despite the fact that his car was there and did pass the intersection. But if you want to rely solely on WC testimony, let's go that way. That means of course that Roberts couldn't identify CE 162 and thought that the jacket she had seen was darker. It means that Frazier saw Oswald carry the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit and it means that Randle provided a far more accurate estimate of the size of the package than Barrett wrote. Are you happy with that?
By the way, the FBI agent who interviewed Markham in March of '64 was Barrett (as you originally stated), not Bookhout (as you are now stating).
I stand corrected. My bad.
In your opinion. Obviously that was not Markham's opinion, as she tells us she had to wait for traffic to pass before trying to cross.
And where exactly does she say that also included Tatum's car? Or are you simply making that up?
You don't know what "get your bus" means and you certainly don't know how Markham interpreted the question.
Her answer in her WC testimony is clear enough;
Mr. BALL. You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you?
Mrs. MARKHAM. 1:15.
And you swear by WC testimony, right?
The bottom line is that Markham never says she caught a bus at 1:15 and no amount of you putting words into her mouth will change this.
So, now you want verbatim quotes. As I said before.... you are playing word games (again). You can deny reality as much as you like but normal same people know exactly what somebody says she "gets" or "caught" her bus at 1:15 PM.
Besides, she made it very very clear that she needed to be at the bus stop every day at 1:15 PM, regardless if she got or caught a bus or jumped on the back of a bike! Deal with it!
-
Yep the Police tapes were synchronized with the Hertz clock at 12:30 and some CT's claim that somehow the Police tapes went out of sync by somewhere around 5 to 10 minutes in the next 3/4 of an hour, and the more desperate CT's claim that the Hertz clock which people set their own timepieces by was not accurate, but not one CT has ever even proved that the Hertz clock was a minute out, much less 5 or more! :D
(https://i.postimg.cc/13P79zsV/12-30-in-sync.jpg)
JohnM
It's amazing, isn't it?
Anything to get a cop-killer off the hook.
-
Nonsense. The time stamps on the police tapes are not "bad evidence" at all. You don't understand them; that doesn't make them "bad".
I understand them alright. I just don't agree with your opinion.
Again, you basically asked me to speculate and I admit I am only giving my opinion. Seems simple enough but only a Kook would take issue with it.
Typical LN talk. I asked you to help me out by explaining why Markham would risk missing her bus by waiting at the corner of 10th and Patton after the car(s) had passed.
You then started speculating and you did so in a self-serving way, like you always do. Your speculations are not facts! It's that simple.
Again, in her Warren Commission testimony, she said traffic was coming. She did not say it was a police car. If you want to rely on the FBI report as if it's gospel, then we can also agree then that Randle indeed said the bag was three feet long. This is simple stuff, really. So, which is it for you?
Apparently you want to rely fully on witness testimony because you are desperate to get Tippit's police car out of the overall picture, despite the fact that his car was there and did pass the intersection. But if you want to rely solely on WC testimony, let's go that way. That means of course that Roberts couldn't identify CE 162 and thought that the jacket she had seen was darker. It means that Frazier saw Oswald carry the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit and it means that Randle provided a far more accurate estimate of the size of the package than Barrett wrote. Are you happy with that?
By the way, the FBI agent who interviewed Markham in March of '64 was Barrett (as you originally stated), not Bookhout (as you are now stating).
I stand corrected. My bad.
In your opinion. Obviously that was not Markham's opinion, as she tells us she had to wait for traffic to pass before trying to cross.
And where exactly does she say that also included Tatum's car? Or are you simply making that up?
You don't know what "get your bus" means and you certainly don't know how Markham interpreted the question.
Her answer in her WC testimony is clear enough;
Mr. BALL. You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you?
Mrs. MARKHAM. 1:15.
And you swear by WC testimony, right?
The bottom line is that Markham never says she caught a bus at 1:15 and no amount of you putting words into her mouth will change this.
So, now you want verbatim quotes. As I said before.... you are playing word games (again). You can deny reality as much as you like but normal same people know exactly what somebody says she "gets" or "caught" her bus at 1:15 PM.
Besides, she made it very very clear that she needed to be at the bus stop every day at 1:15 PM, regardless if she got or caught a bus or jumped on the back of a bike! Deal with it!
I understand them alright. I just don't agree with your opinion.
And yet you have done absolutely nothing to prove that the verbal timestamps throughout are wrong.
Typical LN talk. I asked you to help me out by explaining why Markham would risk missing her bus by waiting at the corner of 10th and Patton after the car(s) had passed.
You then started speculating and you did so in a self-serving way, like you always do. Your speculations are not facts! It's that simple.
Markham had to wait for traffic (most likely Tatum) to pass and by the time Tatum passed, the shooting had already taken place.
She "risked missing her bus" so that she wouldn't get run over by Tatum.
This is my opinion, which is what you asked before; unless you somehow believe that I am inside Markham's head and was supposed to give you a definite on what she was thinking.
Apparently you want to rely fully on witness testimony because you are desperate to get Tippit's police car out of the overall picture, despite the fact that his car was there and did pass the intersection. But if you want to rely solely on WC testimony, let's go that way. That means of course that Roberts couldn't identify CE 162 and thought that the jacket she had seen was darker. It means that Frazier saw Oswald carry the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit and it means that Randle provided a far more accurate estimate of the size of the package than Barrett wrote. Are you happy with that?
Speaking of the jacket, forget CE-162. Forget Tenth & Patton. Forget the gunning down of a police officer. Forget any jacket found under a car behind the Texaco station.
On the afternoon of the murder, Roberts told a reporter that Oswald left in a "short grey coat". She testified that he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Johnny Brewer, in a December 1963 affidavit, stated that Oswald was wearing a "brown sport shirt" on Jefferson Blvd. and made no mention of any jacket. During his Warren Commission testimony, Brewer described what Oswald was wearing in more detail, even mentioning that the shirt was untucked. When directly asked if Oswald was wearing any jacket, Brewer replied "No".
Even if it was rainbow-colored, why did Oswald ditch the jacket he was wearing when he left the rooming house by the time he was seen on Jefferson by Brewer? Why can't the Kooks ever make a reasonable reply to that question instead of the lame-ass reply that Earlene Roberts was blind and Oswald must have been zipping up a button-up shirt?
-
And yet you have done absolutely nothing to prove that the verbal timestamps throughout are wrong.
Markham had to wait for traffic (most likely Tatum) to pass and by the time Tatum passed, the shooting had already taken place.
She "risked missing her bus" so that she wouldn't get run over by Tatum.
This is my opinion, which is what you asked before; unless you somehow believe that I am inside Markham's head and was supposed to give you a definite on what she was thinking.
Speaking of the jacket, forget CE-162. Forget Tenth & Patton. Forget the gunning down of a police officer. Forget any jacket found under a car behind the Texaco station.
On the afternoon of the murder, Roberts told a reporter that Oswald left in a "short grey coat". She testified that he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Johnny Brewer, in a December 1963 affidavit, stated that Oswald was wearing a "brown sport shirt" on Jefferson Blvd. and made no mention of any jacket. During his Warren Commission testimony, Brewer described what Oswald was wearing in more detail, even mentioning that the shirt was untucked. When directly asked if Oswald was wearing any jacket, Brewer replied "No".
Even if it was rainbow-colored, why did Oswald ditch the jacket he was wearing when he left the rooming house by the time he was seen on Jefferson by Brewer? Why can't the Kooks ever make a reasonable reply to that question instead of the lame-ass reply that Earlene Roberts was blind and Oswald must have been zipping up a button-up shirt?
And yet you have done absolutely nothing to prove that the verbal timestamps throughout are wrong.
Except for the fact of course that Bowley, the chief of the dispatchers, stated very clearly that the verbal timestamps could not be relied upon to match real time!
Markham had to wait for traffic (most likely Tatum) to pass and by the time Tatum passed, the shooting had already taken place.
She "risked missing her bus" so that she wouldn't get run over by Tatum.
This is my opinion, which is what you asked before; unless you somehow believe that I am inside Markham's head and was supposed to give you a definite on what she was thinking.
No, I don't believe you are inside Markham's head. I believe you make up and dismiss things to fit your own narrative as you go along.
Speaking of the jacket, forget CE-162. Forget Tenth & Patton. Forget the gunning down of a police officer. Forget any jacket found under a car behind the Texaco station.
On the afternoon of the murder, Roberts told a reporter that Oswald left in a "short grey coat". She testified that he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Johnny Brewer, in a December 1963 affidavit, stated that Oswald was wearing a "brown sport shirt" on Jefferson Blvd. and made no mention of any jacket. During his Warren Commission testimony, Brewer described what Oswald was wearing in more detail, even mentioning that the shirt was untucked. When directly asked if Oswald was wearing any jacket, Brewer replied "No".
Even if it was rainbow-colored, why did Oswald ditch the jacket he was wearing when he left the rooming house by the time he was seen on Jefferson by Brewer? Why can't the Kooks ever make a reasonable reply to that question instead of the lame-ass reply that Earlene Roberts was blind and Oswald must have been zipping up a button-up shirt?
Your question is still based on the assumption that Earlene Roberts was in fact spot on about the jacket when she was wrong about everything else.
Whaley said Oswald was wearing a jacket when he wasn't. He was clearly wrong. So why can he be wrong and not Roberts?
Frazier said that Oswald carried a paper bag in the cup of his hand and under his armpit and the all LNs claim he was wrong.
What is so damned special about Roberts?
-
And yet you have done absolutely nothing to prove that the verbal timestamps throughout are wrong.
Except for the fact of course that Bowley, the chief of the dispatchers, stated very clearly that the verbal timestamps could not be relied upon to match real time!
Markham had to wait for traffic (most likely Tatum) to pass and by the time Tatum passed, the shooting had already taken place.
She "risked missing her bus" so that she wouldn't get run over by Tatum.
This is my opinion, which is what you asked before; unless you somehow believe that I am inside Markham's head and was supposed to give you a definite on what she was thinking.
No, I don't believe you are inside Markham's head. I believe you make up and dismiss things to fit your own narrative as you go along.
Speaking of the jacket, forget CE-162. Forget Tenth & Patton. Forget the gunning down of a police officer. Forget any jacket found under a car behind the Texaco station.
On the afternoon of the murder, Roberts told a reporter that Oswald left in a "short grey coat". She testified that he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Johnny Brewer, in a December 1963 affidavit, stated that Oswald was wearing a "brown sport shirt" on Jefferson Blvd. and made no mention of any jacket. During his Warren Commission testimony, Brewer described what Oswald was wearing in more detail, even mentioning that the shirt was untucked. When directly asked if Oswald was wearing any jacket, Brewer replied "No".
Even if it was rainbow-colored, why did Oswald ditch the jacket he was wearing when he left the rooming house by the time he was seen on Jefferson by Brewer? Why can't the Kooks ever make a reasonable reply to that question instead of the lame-ass reply that Earlene Roberts was blind and Oswald must have been zipping up a button-up shirt?
Your question is still based on the assumption that Earlene Roberts was in fact spot on about the jacket when she was wrong about everything else.
Whaley said Oswald was wearing a jacket when he wasn't. He was clearly wrong. So why can he be wrong and not Roberts?
Frazier said that Oswald carried a paper bag in the cup of his hand and under his armpit and the all LNs claim he was wrong.
What is so damned special about Roberts?
And yet you have done absolutely nothing to prove that the verbal timestamps throughout are wrong.
Except for the fact of course that Bowley, the chief of the dispatchers, stated very clearly that the verbal timestamps could not be relied upon to match real time!
First, it's Bowles, not Bowley. You need to start getting these names right. J.C. Bowles was the "chief of dispatchers". T.F. Bowley pulled up on the Tippit scene just after the shooting.
And I'm perfectly aware of what Bowles said (and did not say). He does NOT say that the timestamps could be off by as much as five to eight minutes.
In fact, here is what Bowles says:
A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time. Within the dispatcher's office there were numerous other time giving and time recording devices, both in the telephone room and in the radio room. Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose, they indicated the incorrect time. However, their purpose was to stamp the time, day and date on incoming calls. While they were reliable at this, they were not synchronized as stated in the Committee report. Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock. Accordingly, at "exactly" 10:10, various clocks could be stamping from 10:08 to 10:12, for example. When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done.
In addition to the times stamped on calls by telephone operators, the radio operators stamped the "time" as calls were dispatched, and the "time" that officers completed an assignment and returned to service. Radio operators were also furnished with 12-hour digital clocks to facilitate their time references when they were not using call sheets containing stamped time. These digital clocks were not synchronized with any time standard. Therefore, the time "actual" and time "broadcast" could easily be a minute or so apart.
Now, multiply this by two since the police department was operating on two radio frequencies. For convenience they were referred to as Channel 1 and Channel 2. Calls for police service or information as well as interdepartmental messages were placed through the police communications office. Telephone clerks trained for the task handled the initial contacts. Telephone calls which required that an officer be sent to render a service were transcribed by hand on "call sheets" to inform the radio dispatcher as to the location and nature of the service request. The telephone clerk inserted the call sheet into the nearest time clock, causing the call sheet to be stamped with a "call received" time. The operator then sent the call sheet to the dispatcher by way of a conveyer belt which passed continuously between operators sitting opposite each other at the telephone stations. The conveyer belt terminated at the radio operator's console. The radio operator, upon receiving a call sheet, would select the officer appropriate to handle the call, dispatch the call to that officer, and stamp the call sheet with a "call dispatched" time. When the officer assigned a call had rendered the necessary service, he would inform the dispatcher that he was "clear." The dispatcher would then stamp the call sheet to obtain a "call cleared" time, and inform the officer of his clearing time. On November 22, 1963, the regular business of the department was conducted on Channel 1, and radio traffic associated with the President's visit was conducted on Channel 2. Next, consideration should be given to the methods of individual radio operators. A given operator at a given time might broadcast "time" a little early in one event then a little late the next. Accordingly, a call initiated at, say, 10:10 might be stamped at 10:13 by the dispatcher, only to have intervening radio traffic delay his broadcast. He might go ahead and announce the dispatch time as 10:13 and the digital clock then showed 10:14. Time intervals of less than one minute were never used. Likewise, the time stated in periodic station identification time checks was not always exact. During quiet intervals, station time checks were usually on time. However, radio operators did not interrupt radio traffic in progress just to give a station check. Accordingly, an operator might give, say, the 10:30 check as 10:30 when it was actually 10:29 or perhaps 10:31 or later. On another occasion, that same operator might state, "10:31 KKB 364," the correct time even though he was at least a minute late."
Are you saying that you accept that the Tippit shooting occurred no earlier than 1:12-1:13?
Speaking of the jacket, forget CE-162. Forget Tenth & Patton. Forget the gunning down of a police officer. Forget any jacket found under a car behind the Texaco station.
On the afternoon of the murder, Roberts told a reporter that Oswald left in a "short grey coat". She testified that he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Johnny Brewer, in a December 1963 affidavit, stated that Oswald was wearing a "brown sport shirt" on Jefferson Blvd. and made no mention of any jacket. During his Warren Commission testimony, Brewer described what Oswald was wearing in more detail, even mentioning that the shirt was untucked. When directly asked if Oswald was wearing any jacket, Brewer replied "No".
Even if it was rainbow-colored, why did Oswald ditch the jacket he was wearing when he left the rooming house by the time he was seen on Jefferson by Brewer? Why can't the Kooks ever make a reasonable reply to that question instead of the lame-ass reply that Earlene Roberts was blind and Oswald must have been zipping up a button-up shirt?
Your question is still based on the assumption that Earlene Roberts was in fact spot on about the jacket when she was wrong about everything else.
Whaley said Oswald was wearing a jacket when he wasn't. He was clearly wrong. So why can he be wrong and not Roberts?
Frazier said that Oswald carried a paper bag in the cup of his hand and under his armpit and the all LNs claim he was wrong.
What is so damned special about Roberts?
Whaley described, THE VERY NEXT DAY, what Oswald was wearing and makes no mention of the jacket, even describing the shirt in some detail and the bracelet, etc...
Roberts, THE VERY SAME DAY, stated that Oswald left in a short grey coat. I don't care what color she said it was (even though the jacket in evidence is indeed a "short grey coat").
Your point is completely invalid here.
-
First, it's Bowles, not Bowley. You need to start getting these names right. J.C. Bowles was the "chief of dispatchers". T.F. Bowley pulled up on the Tippit scene just after the shooting.
And I'm perfectly aware of what Bowles said (and did not say). He does NOT say that the timestamps could be off by as much as five to eight minutes.
In fact, here is what Bowles says:
A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time. Within the dispatcher's office there were numerous other time giving and time recording devices, both in the telephone room and in the radio room. Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose, they indicated the incorrect time. However, their purpose was to stamp the time, day and date on incoming calls. While they were reliable at this, they were not synchronized as stated in the Committee report. Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock. Accordingly, at "exactly" 10:10, various clocks could be stamping from 10:08 to 10:12, for example. When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done.
In addition to the times stamped on calls by telephone operators, the radio operators stamped the "time" as calls were dispatched, and the "time" that officers completed an assignment and returned to service. Radio operators were also furnished with 12-hour digital clocks to facilitate their time references when they were not using call sheets containing stamped time. These digital clocks were not synchronized with any time standard. Therefore, the time "actual" and time "broadcast" could easily be a minute or so apart.
Now, multiply this by two since the police department was operating on two radio frequencies. For convenience they were referred to as Channel 1 and Channel 2. Calls for police service or information as well as interdepartmental messages were placed through the police communications office. Telephone clerks trained for the task handled the initial contacts. Telephone calls which required that an officer be sent to render a service were transcribed by hand on "call sheets" to inform the radio dispatcher as to the location and nature of the service request. The telephone clerk inserted the call sheet into the nearest time clock, causing the call sheet to be stamped with a "call received" time. The operator then sent the call sheet to the dispatcher by way of a conveyer belt which passed continuously between operators sitting opposite each other at the telephone stations. The conveyer belt terminated at the radio operator's console. The radio operator, upon receiving a call sheet, would select the officer appropriate to handle the call, dispatch the call to that officer, and stamp the call sheet with a "call dispatched" time. When the officer assigned a call had rendered the necessary service, he would inform the dispatcher that he was "clear." The dispatcher would then stamp the call sheet to obtain a "call cleared" time, and inform the officer of his clearing time. On November 22, 1963, the regular business of the department was conducted on Channel 1, and radio traffic associated with the President's visit was conducted on Channel 2. Next, consideration should be given to the methods of individual radio operators. A given operator at a given time might broadcast "time" a little early in one event then a little late the next. Accordingly, a call initiated at, say, 10:10 might be stamped at 10:13 by the dispatcher, only to have intervening radio traffic delay his broadcast. He might go ahead and announce the dispatch time as 10:13 and the digital clock then showed 10:14. Time intervals of less than one minute were never used. Likewise, the time stated in periodic station identification time checks was not always exact. During quiet intervals, station time checks were usually on time. However, radio operators did not interrupt radio traffic in progress just to give a station check. Accordingly, an operator might give, say, the 10:30 check as 10:30 when it was actually 10:29 or perhaps 10:31 or later. On another occasion, that same operator might state, "10:31 KKB 364," the correct time even though he was at least a minute late."
Are you saying that you accept that the Tippit shooting occurred no earlier than 1:12-1:13?
Whaley described, THE VERY NEXT DAY, what Oswald was wearing and makes no mention of the jacket, even describing the shirt in some detail and the bracelet, etc...
Roberts, THE VERY SAME DAY, stated that Oswald left in a short grey coat. I don't care what color she said it was (even though the jacket in evidence is indeed a "short grey coat").
Your point is completely invalid here.
First, it's Bowles, not Bowley. You need to start getting these names right.
At my age, things like that happen.
And I'm perfectly aware of what Bowles said (and did not say). He does NOT say that the timestamps could be off by as much as five to eight minutes.
Nobody claimed the timestamps could be off by five to eight minutes. You claimed you could rely on the timestamps and Bowles saying they could be off undermines your claim. Easy to understand really.
Are you saying that you accept that the Tippit shooting occurred no earlier than 1:12-1:13?
No, I believe he was shot earlier than that. 1:09 or 1:10, something like that.
Whaley described, THE VERY NEXT DAY, what Oswald was wearing and makes no mention of the jacket, even describing the shirt in some detail and the bracelet, etc...
Roberts, THE VERY SAME DAY, stated that Oswald left in a short grey coat. I don't care what color she said it was (even though the jacket in evidence is indeed a "short grey coat").
Your point is completely invalid here.
I am only using Whaley to demonstrate somebody could be wrong. I also mentioned Frazier who said on THE VERY SAME DAY while being polygraphed that he saw Oswald carried the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. In the past you have questioned that statement and said that he could be wrong.
On the other hand, you seem to believe that Roberts could not possibly have been wrong. So, there isn't an invalid point, just a very valid question;
What makes Roberts so special?
-
First, it's Bowles, not Bowley. You need to start getting these names right.
At my age, things like that happen.
And I'm perfectly aware of what Bowles said (and did not say). He does NOT say that the timestamps could be off by as much as five to eight minutes.
Nobody claimed the timestamps could be off by five to eight minutes. You claimed you could rely on the timestamps and Bowles saying they could be off undermines your claim. Easy to understand really.
Are you saying that you accept that the Tippit shooting occurred no earlier than 1:12-1:13?
No, I believe he was shot earlier than that. 1:09 or 1:10, something like that.
Whaley described, THE VERY NEXT DAY, what Oswald was wearing and makes no mention of the jacket, even describing the shirt in some detail and the bracelet, etc...
Roberts, THE VERY SAME DAY, stated that Oswald left in a short grey coat. I don't care what color she said it was (even though the jacket in evidence is indeed a "short grey coat").
Your point is completely invalid here.
I am only using Whaley to demonstrate somebody could be wrong. I also mentioned Frazier who said on THE VERY SAME DAY while being polygraphed that he saw Oswald carried the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. In the past you have questioned that statement and said that he could be wrong.
On the other hand, you seem to believe that Roberts could not possibly have been wrong. So, there isn't an invalid point, just a very valid question;
What makes Roberts so special?
And I'm perfectly aware of what Bowles said (and did not say). He does NOT say that the timestamps could be off by as much as five to eight minutes.
Nobody claimed the timestamps could be off by five to eight minutes. You claimed you could rely on the timestamps and Bowles saying they could be off undermines your claim. Easy to understand really.
Bowles said they could be off by a minute or two (even three minutes is stretching it). He did not say they could be off by as much as six or seven minutes.
Are you saying that you accept that the Tippit shooting occurred no earlier than 1:12-1:13?
No, I believe he was shot earlier than that. 1:09 or 1:10, something like that.
You either believe the timestamps are off by six or seven minutes or you believe that T.F. Bowley lollygagged around for six or seven minutes before jumping on the police radio to report the shooting while Tippit's body was lying in the street bleeding from the head.
Or....
Perhaps I should ask it this way...
Do you accept that Bowley reported the shooting on the police radio at 1:17?
-
Bowles said they could be off by a minute or two (even three minutes is stretching it). He did not say they could be off by as much as six or seven minutes.
You either believe the timestamps are off by six or seven minutes or you believe that T.F. Bowley lollygagged around for six or seven minutes before jumping on the police radio to report the shooting while Tippit's body was lying in the street bleeding from the head.
Or....
Perhaps I should ask it this way...
Do you accept that Bowley reported the shooting on the police radio at 1:17?
Bowles said they could be off by a minute or two (even three minutes is stretching it). He did not say they could be off by as much as six or seven minutes.
Again, nobody claimed he said that. He did however say a few other things.
A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time.
He doesn't tell us if the City Hall system was a 100% correct or what "official" time was.
Within the dispatcher's office there were numerous other time giving and time recording devices, both in the telephone room and in the radio room. Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose, they indicated the incorrect time. However, their purpose was to stamp the time, day and date on incoming calls. While they were reliable at this, they were not synchronized as stated in the Committee report. Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock.
He also doesn't tell us if the time giving devices in the telephone and radio rooms were in sinc with the master clock on the telephone room wall. He only tells us that the clocks were not sunchronized.
When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done.
I would call the time between Kennedy's murder and Oswald's arrest a pretty busy period. So, here again we don't know if the needed adjustments were in fact made.
And then of course, there is the fact that the recording goes blank for a minute or so just around the time Tippit allegedly was shot. How big the gap really was, we'll never know.
Combined, it provides enough doubt about the accuracy of the timestamps.
You either believe the timestamps are off by six or seven minutes or you believe that T.F. Bowley lollygagged around for six or seven minutes before jumping on the police radio to report the shooting while Tippit's body was lying in the street bleeding from the head.
Bowley picked up his daughter from school at 1 PM. I have driven the route Bowley drove between the school and 10th street at various times with light and heavy traffic and the average time came to roughly 1:13. So, Bowley's watch could have been off by three minutes, which is why I don't rely on his 1:10 observation. What I don't believe and never will believe is that Bowley stood around for four minutes and did nothing. See, the argument works both ways!
The timestamps are most certainly off. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Bowley's arrival at 1:13 fits perfectly with Tippit being shot at around 1:10 or 1:11. It does also fit with Markham's timeline for getting to the bus stop, where she - in her mind - needed to be at 1:15. And it also fits with the arrival of the ambulance at the hospital at 1:15 as also confirmed by Detective Daveport who followed the ambulance to the hospital.
Or....
Perhaps I should ask it this way...
Do you accept that Bowley reported the shooting on the police radio at 1:17?
Already answered hundreds of times in the past and now again: the answer is NO
-
Bowles said they could be off by a minute or two (even three minutes is stretching it). He did not say they could be off by as much as six or seven minutes.
Again, nobody claimed he said that. He did however say a few other things.
A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time.
He doesn't tell us if the City Hall system was a 100% correct or what "official" time was.
Within the dispatcher's office there were numerous other time giving and time recording devices, both in the telephone room and in the radio room. Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose, they indicated the incorrect time. However, their purpose was to stamp the time, day and date on incoming calls. While they were reliable at this, they were not synchronized as stated in the Committee report. Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock.
He also doesn't tell us if the time giving devices in the telephone and radio rooms were in sinc with the master clock on the telephone room wall. He only tells us that the clocks were not sunchronized.
When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done.
I would call the time between Kennedy's murder and Oswald's arrest a pretty busy period. So, here again we don't know if the needed adjustments were in fact made.
And then of course, there is the fact that the recording goes blank for a minute or so just around the time Tippit allegedly was shot. How big the gap really was, we'll never know.
Combined, it provides enough doubt about the accuracy of the timestamps.
You either believe the timestamps are off by six or seven minutes or you believe that T.F. Bowley lollygagged around for six or seven minutes before jumping on the police radio to report the shooting while Tippit's body was lying in the street bleeding from the head.
Bowley picked up his daughter from school at 1 PM. I have driven the route Bowley drove between the school and 10th street at various times with light and heavy traffic and the average time came to roughly 1:13. So, Bowley's watch could have been off by three minutes, which I don't rely on that observation. What I don't believe and never will believe is that Bowley stood around for four minutes and did nothing. See, the argument works both ways!
The timestamps are most certainly off. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Bowley's arrival at 1:13 fits perfectly with Tippit being shot at around 1:10 or 1:11. It does also fit with Markham's timeline for getting to the bus stop, where she - in her mind - needed to be at 1:15. And it also fits with the arrival of the ambulance at the hospital at 1:15 as also confirmed by Detective Daveport who followed the ambulance to the hospital.
Or....
Perhaps I should ask it this way...
Do you accept that Bowley reported the shooting on the police radio at 1:17?
Already answered hundreds of times in the past and now again: the answer is NO
You either believe the timestamps are off by six or seven minutes or you believe that T.F. Bowley lollygagged around for six or seven minutes before jumping on the police radio to report the shooting while Tippit's body was lying in the street bleeding from the head.
Bowley picked up his daughter from school at 1 PM. I have driven the route Bowley drove between the school and 10th street at various times with light and heavy traffic and the average time came to roughly 1:13. So, Bowley's watch could have been off by three minutes, which I don't rely on that observation. What I don't believe and never will believe is that Bowley stood around for four minutes and did nothing. See, the argument works both ways!
The timestamps are most certainly off. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Bowley's arrival at 1:13 fits perfectly with Tippit being shot at around 1:10 or 1:11. It does also fit with Markham's timeline for getting to the bus stop, where she - in her mind - needed to be at 1:15. And it also fits with the arrival of the ambulance at the hospital at 1:15 as also confirmed by Detective Daveport who followed the ambulance to the hospital.
Or Bowley picked up his daughter at 1:03 and arrived on the scene at 1:16.
It seems you certainly believe the timestamps are off by six or seven minutes. That's foolish. Nothing Bowley says should lead anyone to conclude that the timestamps are off by that much.
-
Or Bowley picked up his daughter at 1:03 and arrived on the scene at 1:16.
It seems you certainly believe the timestamps are off by six or seven minutes. That's foolish. Nothing Bowley says should lead anyone to conclude that the timestamps are off by that much.
Or Bowley picked up his daughter at 1:03 and arrived on the scene at 1:16.
Isn't it fun to speculate? Are you a parent? Do you really think a father would not be at the school when the bell rings?
It seems you certainly believe the timestamps are off by six or seven minutes. That's foolish.
Bowles said the timestamps could be off by two minutes or so, but in a busy period the clocks were often not reset, which means they could go even further off than two minutes. And that's only compared to the master clock in the room, which in turn could be off to the City Hall clock and even that one only showed "official" time.
Nothing Bowley says should lead anyone to conclude that the timestamps are off by that much.
Was it Bowley or Bowles? I don't think Bowley ever said a word about the timestamps on the DPD radio.
-
"In addition to the times stamped on calls by telephone operators, the radio operators stamped the "time" as calls were dispatched, and the "time" that officers completed an assignment and returned to service. Radio operators were also furnished with 12-hour digital clocks to facilitate their time references when they were not using call sheets containing stamped time. These digital clocks were not synchronized with any time standard. Therefore, the time "actual" and time "broadcast" could easily be a minute or so apart." -- J.C. Bowles
For some unknown reason (wait, I do know the reason after all), you keep wanting to stretch this "minute or so apart" to mean six or seven minutes.
-
"In addition to the times stamped on calls by telephone operators, the radio operators stamped the "time" as calls were dispatched, and the "time" that officers completed an assignment and returned to service. Radio operators were also furnished with 12-hour digital clocks to facilitate their time references when they were not using call sheets containing stamped time. These digital clocks were not synchronized with any time standard. Therefore, the time "actual" and time "broadcast" could easily be a minute or so apart." -- J.C. Bowles
For some unknown reason (wait, I do know the reason after all), you keep wanting to stretch this "minute or so apart" to mean six or seven minutes.
No, for some reason you are unwilling to accept that between the City Hall clock's "official" time and the timestamps there are three different clocks involved which all could easily be two minutes off compared to eachother.
Now, let's get back to Roberts. Are you going to tell me why she is such a special witness?
-
No, for some reason you are unwilling to accept that between the City Hall clock's "official" time and the timestamps there are three different clocks involved which all could easily be two minutes off compared to eachother.
Now, let's get back to Roberts. Are you going to tell me why she is such a special witness?
No, for some reason you are unwilling to accept that between the City Hall clock's "official" time and the timestamps there are three different clocks involved which all could easily be two minutes off compared to eachother.
So two minutes for "this" clock, plus two minutes for "that" clock, plus two minutes for the "other" clock means the timestamps are off by six minutes. Got it.
::)
-
So two minutes for "this" clock, plus two minutes for "that" clock, plus two minutes for the "other" clock means the timestamps are off by six minutes. Got it.
::)
I didn't say they were of by six minutes. Based on what Bowles said they could have been. But I actually do not believe they were six minutes off.
They give Bowley's radio call at 1:17. If the timestamp was off by six minutes, Bowley would have made the call at 1:11, which is not possible because the drive from the school took 13 minutes. I believe it's likely that Bowley really made his call at around 1:14 (real time), which would make the timestamps off by roughly 3 minutes,
And still no answer about Roberts..... Why am I not surpirsed?
-
I didn't say they were of by six minutes. Based on what Bowles said they could have been. But I actually do not believe they were six minutes off.
They give Bowley's radio call at 1:17. If the timestamp was off by six minutes, Bowley would have made the call at 1:11, which is not possible because the drive from the school took 13 minutes. I believe it's likely that Bowley really made his call at around 1:14 (real time), which would make the timestamps off by roughly 3 minutes,
And still no answer about Roberts..... Why am I not surpirsed?
I'm not trying to avoid any discussion on Earlene Roberts. Unlike you, I do not wish to argue over things just for the sake of arguing. We've discussed Roberts a million times. Maybe a week from now I'll want to argue with you some more. Right now? No interest. I've made my points.
-
I'm not trying to avoid any discussion on Earlene Roberts. Unlike you, I do not wish to argue over things just for the sake of arguing. We've discussed Roberts a million times. Maybe a week from now I'll want to argue with you some more. Right now? No interest. I've made my points.
I was asking you why Roberts was so damned special. I did not ask you to argue about it.
But no worries, Bill... It's not the first time you've run away from a simple question. Thumb1:
-
But no worries, Bill... It's not the first time you've run away from a simple question. Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/26LC0ZR5/dewey-defeats-truman.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/HcHGxjLG)
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/26LC0ZR5/dewey-defeats-truman.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/HcHGxjLG)
I was wondering when the childish crap would start. I obviously expected it as it is usually at the moment when you get stuck.
Old school LN temper tantrums are still around.... Hilarious!