JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Ross Lidell on April 08, 2020, 04:15:39 AM
-
On the day The Warren Report was released to the public (27 September 1964), the CBS Television Network broadcast the program: "November 22nd The Warren Report".
Key witnesses had been interviewed by Eddie Barker of CBS affiliate in Dallas - KRLD Television.
Helen Markham confirmed her positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who shot and killed Officer J.D. Tippit on the day of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
-
“I knowed it was that man ‘cause I couldn’t keep my eyes off of him”
::)
-
Seems mystery guest #2 looked like the guy who shot the cop...
-
On the day The Warren Report was released to the public (27 September 1963), CBS Television Network broadcast: November 22 The Warren Report.
Key witnesses had been interviewed by Eddie Barker of CBS affiliate in Dallas - KRLD Television.
Helen Markham confirmed her positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who shot and killed Officer J.D. Tippit on the day of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
I believe that you might want to change the date that the Warren report was released to the public to 1964. Thanks.
-
from
"VINNIE IT IS ROUND"
by Mark Lane
"The Commission claimed that Mrs. Markham identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who shot
the policeman at a line up on November 22 and that in testimony before the Commission, Mrs. Markham confirmed her
positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man she saw kill Officer Tippit. Captain Fritz - who needed that
identification real quickly -- testified that the lineup was hurriedly arranged at 4:30 that afternoon, less than three
and a half hours after Tippit's death and less than that after Oswald's arrest. Mrs Markham was "quite hysterical"
when she arrived at police headquarters. Her state and the atmosphere in the lineup room are best described by the
record of her testimony."
Q: Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Markham: Yes , sir.
Q: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Markham: No, sir
Q: You did not? Did you see anybody-I have asked you that question before-did you recognize anybody from their face?
"Counsel wished to remind Mrs. Markham that when he had prepared her for her testimony, before
a record of her answers was made, the matter had been discussed. To prepare a witness for testimony may
be acceptable where adversary and hostile cross-examination is expected, and it is also a legitimate way of
preventing repetition and irrelevant conjecture. The record of the Warren Commission, however, reveals no
such cross-examination and was burdened to such a degree by repetition and irrelevance that the initial
preparation seems to have been for the purpose of leading the witness to give an appropiate answer."
Markham: From their face, no.
Q: Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Markham: I didn't know nobody.
Q: I know you didn't know nobody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Markham: No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Q: No one of the four?
Markham: No one of them.
Q: No one of the four?
Markham: No, sir.
"At this point counsel, a teacher of criminal law and procedure at the University of Southern California and
a member of the U.S. Judical Conference Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, asked a
rather leading question. Mrs. Markham said that she recognized no one at the lineup; counsel tried five times for a
more acceptable answer. Then, departing a little from the legal procedure he teaches, he next asked his friendly but
disconcerting witness, "Was there a number two man in there?" Mrs. Markham replied, "Number two is the one I
picked." Counsel began another question:"I thought you just told me that you hadn't, but Mrs. Markham interrupted
to answer inexplicably, "I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing."
Counsel then inquired:
Q: You recognized him from his appearance?
Markham: I asked-I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.
"A mystical identification at best. However, the Commission was satisfied that its lawyer had at last
obtained the right answer: "Addressing itself solely to the probative value of Mrs. Markham's contemporaneous
discription of the gunman and her identification of Oswald at a police lineup, the Commission considers her
testimony reliable."
-
On the day The Warren Report was released to the public (27 September 1964), the CBS Television Network broadcast the program: "November 22nd The Warren Report".
Key witnesses had been interviewed by Eddie Barker of CBS affiliate in Dallas - KRLD Television.
Helen Markham confirmed her positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who shot and killed Officer J.D. Tippit on the day of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Ha.ha.ha.ha.hee.hee.hee....ROTFLMAO! Watta pathetic attempt to prop up a pile of bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns....
Did Mrs Markham explain how she saw officer Tippit tailing the man at 1:04 and shot him at 1:06.... 1:04 was exactly the same time that Mrs Roberts saw Lee Oswald standing on the sidewalk in from of the rooming house? Did Markham explain how Lee Oswald could have been at two widely separate places at the same time?
-
On the day The Warren Report was released to the public (27 September 1964), the CBS Television Network broadcast the program: "November 22nd The Warren Report".
Key witnesses had been interviewed by Eddie Barker of CBS affiliate in Dallas - KRLD Television.
Helen Markham confirmed her positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who shot and killed Officer J.D. Tippit on the day of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
This is what you get when you cherry-pick one piece of vague witness testimony and jump to a conclusion.
-
“I knowed it was that man ‘cause I couldn’t keep my eyes off of him”
::)
So Helen had a Taysux accent... so what?
-
I believe that you might want to change the date that the Warren report was released to the public to 1964. Thanks.
Thanks. Too much time on video production and not enough on text-proofing.
-
from
"VINNIE IT IS ROUND"
by Mark Lane
"The Commission claimed that Mrs. Markham identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who shot
the policeman at a line up on November 22 and that in testimony before the Commission, Mrs. Markham confirmed her
positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man she saw kill Officer Tippit. Captain Fritz - who needed that
identification real quickly -- testified that the lineup was hurriedly arranged at 4:30 that afternoon, less than three
and a half hours after Tippit's death and less than that after Oswald's arrest. Mrs Markham was "quite hysterical"
when she arrived at police headquarters. Her state and the atmosphere in the lineup room are best described by the
record of her testimony."
Q: Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Markham: Yes , sir.
Q: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Markham: No, sir
Q: You did not? Did you see anybody-I have asked you that question before-did you recognize anybody from their face?
"Counsel wished to remind Mrs. Markham that when he had prepared her for her testimony, before
a record of her answers was made, the matter had been discussed. To prepare a witness for testimony may
be acceptable where adversary and hostile cross-examination is expected, and it is also a legitimate way of
preventing repetition and irrelevant conjecture. The record of the Warren Commission, however, reveals no
such cross-examination and was burdened to such a degree by repetition and irrelevance that the initial
preparation seems to have been for the purpose of leading the witness to give an appropiate answer."
Markham: From their face, no.
Q: Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Markham: I didn't know nobody.
Q: I know you didn't know nobody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Markham: No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Q: No one of the four?
Markham: No one of them.
Q: No one of the four?
Markham: No, sir.
"At this point counsel, a teacher of criminal law and procedure at the University of Southern California and
a member of the U.S. Judical Conference Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, asked a
rather leading question. Mrs. Markham said that she recognized no one at the lineup; counsel tried five times for a
more acceptable answer. Then, departing a little from the legal procedure he teaches, he next asked his friendly but
disconcerting witness, "Was there a number two man in there?" Mrs. Markham replied, "Number two is the one I
picked." Counsel began another question:"I thought you just told me that you hadn't, but Mrs. Markham interrupted
to answer inexplicably, "I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing."
Counsel then inquired:
Q: You recognized him from his appearance?
Markham: I asked-I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.
"A mystical identification at best. However, the Commission was satisfied that its lawyer had at last
obtained the right answer: "Addressing itself solely to the probative value of Mrs. Markham's contemporaneous
discription of the gunman and her identification of Oswald at a police lineup, the Commission considers her
testimony reliable."
The bane of an attorney is a befuddled witness. Note the difference in demeanor between the Warren Commission testimony of Helen Markham and that given in relaxed circumstances... her own home.
For the purpose of historical investigation, Helen Markham's statement recorded by KRLD TV in Dallas and broadcast on 27 September 1964 by CBS is conclusive. She identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who killed Officer Tippit. No revisionist history by contrarians can change that.
-
Unfair and biased lineups are unreliable, and no amount of wishful thinking by WC apologists can change that.
-
Ha.ha.ha.ha.hee.hee.hee....ROTFLMAO! Watta pathetic attempt to prop up a pile of bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns....
Did Mrs Markham explain how she saw officer Tippit tailing the man at 1:04 and shot him at 1:06.... 1:04 was exactly the same time that Mrs Roberts saw Lee Oswald standing on the sidewalk in from of the rooming house? Did Markham explain how Lee Oswald could have been at two widely separate places at the same time?
Resorting to crude language is the hallmark of a poor intellect.
The timing discrepancy type defense is often ineffectual. Inaccurate timepieces, departure from regular "time-of-the-day" habits etc render these vagaries from being of any value when weighed against better evidence.
-
Unfair and biased lineups are unreliable, and no amount of wishful thinking by WC apologists can change that.
So what do you make of Helen Markham's statement to Eddie Barker of KRLD TV Dallas?
-
The bane of an attorney is a befuddled witness. Note the difference in demeanor between the Warren Commission testimony of Helen Markham and that given in relaxed circumstances... her own home.
For the purpose of historical investigation, Helen Markham's statement recorded by KRLD TV in Dallas and broadcast on 27 September 1964 by CBS is conclusive. She identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who killed Officer Tippit. No revisionist history by contrarians can change that.
She identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who killed Officer Tippit.
If you truly believe this, It merely indicates how superficial you are......
-
Resorting to crude language is the hallmark of a poor intellect.
The timing discrepancy type defense is often ineffectual. Inaccurate timepieces, departure from regular "time-of-the-day" habits etc render these vagaries from being of any value when weighed against better evidence.
A television news broadcast at 1 PM isn't an "inaccurate timepiece" and neither is the minimal time required to walk the fastest route.
What "better evidence" is there? If Oswald physically couldn't have covered the distance between to roominghouse and 10th/Patton to shoot Tippit, the eye witnesses who "identified" him can not be correct.
-
A television news broadcast at 1 PM isn't an "inaccurate timepiece" and neither is the minimal time required to walk the fastest route.
What "better evidence" is there? If Oswald physically couldn't have covered the distance between to roominghouse and 10th/Patton to shoot Tippit, the eye witnesses who "identified" him can not be correct.
An Lner would probably tell you that Lee Oswald had supernatural powers..... Like Superman, he could travel faster than a speeding bullet......
-
So what do you make of Helen Markham's statement to Eddie Barker of KRLD TV Dallas?
A year long media indoctrination, telling the people that Oswald was indeed the killer, and a subsequent offical report, saying basically the same thing, would convince most witnesses that any doubts about the identity of Tippit's killer they may have had was probably mistaken.
Rationalisation has a tendency to influence people's thought processes. Back in those days even Marina Oswald believed her husband killed Kennedy and Tippit, so why shouldn't Markham? She basically had two options; (1) stick with the official story and be done with it or (2) or say something that disagrees with the narrative and get into all sorts of trouble with people who disagree.....
The Barker interview has no probative value.
-
A year long media indoctrination, telling the people that Oswald was indeed the killer, and a subsequent offical report, saying basically the same thing, would convince most witnesses that any doubts about the identity of Tippit's killer they may have had was probably mistaken.
Rationalisation has a tendency to influence people's thought processes. Back in those days even Marina Oswald believed her husband killed Kennedy and Tippit, so why shouldn't Markham? She basically had two options; (1) stick with the official story and be done with it or (2) or say something that disagrees with the narrative and get into all sorts of trouble with people who disagree.....
The Barker interview has no probative value.
Thumb1: Well said, Martin.....
-
She identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who killed Officer Tippit.
If you truly believe this, It merely indicates how superficial you are......
A stupid vague riposte. Look at the video of Helen Markham and what she says.
-
A television news broadcast at 1 PM isn't an "inaccurate timepiece" and neither is the minimal time required to walk the fastest route.
What "better evidence" is there? If Oswald physically couldn't have covered the distance between to roominghouse and 10th/Patton to shoot Tippit, the eye witnesses who "identified" him can not be correct.
If multiple witnesses place Oswald at or near the scene of the crime (murder of Officer J.D. Tippit) the timing discrepancy theories cannot be correct. Physical presence trumps calculations based on perception--every time.
-
So what do you make of Helen Markham's statement to Eddie Barker of KRLD TV Dallas?
I thought it was amusing that she knowed it was that man ‘cause she couldn’t keep her eyes off of him. Almost as amusing as the way she picked him because when he looked at her she got cold chills and fell over.
-
A stupid vague riposte. Look at the video of Helen Markham and what she says.
What I'm trying to figure out is if you think this video reveals any information that isn't already in her previous statements and testimony.
-
I thought it was amusing that she knowed it was that man ‘cause she couldn’t keep her eyes off of him. Almost as amusing as the way she picked him because when he looked at her she got cold chills and fell over.
Perhaps, John, you've had little experience with women? They tend to be emotional: some more than others.
We both agree that Markham's Teyxsus accent is amusing. :)
The cold chills and almost fainted thing is illuminating rather than amusing.
-
The cold chills and almost fainted thing is illuminating rather than amusing.
Perhaps it's more sad than amusing. What a basis for identifying someone. Not from his face, or his clothing, or because she recognized him, but because she got cold chills and fell over when she looked at his eyes.
-
If multiple witnesses place Oswald at or near the scene of the crime (murder of Officer J.D. Tippit) the timing discrepancy theories cannot be correct. Physical presence trumps calculations based on perception--every time.
Eye witness testimony is the least reliable there is. Ask 10 people about an event they just watched and you get 10 different stories..... Most eye witnesses only saw Tippit's killer for a couple of seconds during high consternation.
And there is no timing discrepancy. Oswald last confirmed sighting was at around 1.03 pm at the bus stop in front of the roominghouse. He was seen there by Earlene Roberts who had just turned to television on for the 1 pm news, when Oswald entered the room. If he physically couldn't have been at the location where Tippit was shot at the time of the murder, he couldn't have been the murderer. Eye witnesses may well have seen somebody looking like him.
-
Eye witness testimony is the least reliable there is. Ask 10 people about an event they just watched and you get 10 different stories..... Most eye witnesses only saw Tippit's killer for a couple of seconds during high consternation.
And there is no timing discrepancy. Oswald last confirmed sighting was at around 1.03 pm at the bus stop in front of the roominghouse. He was seen there by Earlene Roberts who had just turned to television on for the 1 pm news, when Oswald entered the room. If he physically couldn't have been at the location where Tippit was shot at the time of the murder, he couldn't have been the murderer. Eye witnesses may well have seen somebody looking like him.
Eye witnesses may well have seen somebody looking like him.
Ha, ha. A man who looked like Oswald was observed by many witnesses at or near the scene of the Tippit killing. What a remarkable coincidence that Oswald worked in the building from where shots were fired at President Kennedy. Oswald had no alibi for the time that the shots were fired. Incidentally, 90 seconds after the shots were fired is not an alibi.
The timing discrepancy defense based on an speed of movement from North Beckley to Tenth and Patton does not work. It may have before the horse and buggy era. With motorized transport.... Oswald traveling between those two points in 12 minutes (if that's what it was) is not IMPOSSIBLE. Oswald could have gotten a lift (part of the way) in a car. I don't think that happened but it's a possibility no matter how slim.
-
Perhaps it's more sad than amusing. What a basis for identifying someone. Not from his face, or his clothing, or because she recognized him, but because she got cold chills and fell over when she looked at his eyes.
she got cold chills and fell over when she looked at his eyes.
Maybe Markham thought she was seeing Elvis Presley
-
Eye witnesses may well have seen somebody looking like him.
Ha, ha. A man who looked like Oswald was observed by many witnesses at or near the scene of the Tippit killing. What a remarkable coincidence that Oswald worked in the building from where shots were fired at President Kennedy. Oswald had no alibi for the time that the shots were fired. Incidentally, 90 seconds after the shots were fired is not an alibi.
Dismissing possibilities and biased ridicule aren't evidence of a crime. Neither is conjecture.
-
Eye witness testimony is the least reliable there is. Ask 10 people about an event they just watched and you get 10 different stories..... Most eye witnesses only saw Tippit's killer for a couple of seconds during high consternation.
And there is no timing discrepancy. Oswald last confirmed sighting was at around 1.03 pm at the bus stop in front of the roominghouse. He was seen there by Earlene Roberts who had just turned to television on for the 1 pm news, when Oswald entered the room. If he physically couldn't have been at the location where Tippit was shot at the time of the murder, he couldn't have been the murderer. Eye witnesses may well have seen somebody looking like him.
Eye witness testimony is the least reliable there is. Ask 10 people about an event they just watched and you get 10 different stories..... Most eye witnesses only saw Tippit's killer for a couple of seconds during high consternation.
That "high consternation" phrase is an original: Can I borrow it and use it sometime?
A detailed description of an event by multiple witnesses will produce varying results: The "rashomon" effect.
The simpler "is that the man who you saw at the scene of the crime" question is more likely to produce a consistent result. Agreed?
-
Dismissing possibilities and biased ridicule aren't evidence of a crime. Neither is conjecture.
Strange first sentence. I doubt that anyone has ever claimed that. I did not even by implication.
-
The timing discrepancy defense based on an speed of movement from North Beckley to Tenth and Patton does not work. It may have before the horse and buggy era. With motorized transport.... Oswald traveling between those two points in 12 minutes (if that's what it was) is not IMPOSSIBLE. Oswald could have gotten a lift (part of the way) in a car. I don't think that happened but it's a possibility no matter how slim.
Oswald traveling between those two points in 12 minutes (if that's what it was) is not IMPOSSIBLE.
The fastest time established by Gary Mack's time trial was 11 minutes. 1.03 + 11 = 1.14.... and that does not include the time Tippit and his killer talked. However, the available evidence justifies the conclusion that Tippit was actually shot earlier than 1.14
Oswald could have gotten a lift (part of the way) in a car. I don't think that happened but it's a possibility no matter how slim.
So, if a slim possibility favors Oswald's guilt, you accept it as a possibility, but when it doesn't you dismiss it outright. Got it.
But there is in interesting question that is never answered by those who claim Oswald must have been running or had some sort of transporation and that's this;
What in the world could have possibly been so important to Oswald that he needed to get to a go-nowhere location as 10%/Patton (where he would stand out like a sore thumb) as quickly as he could? Apart from jogging, have you ever run to a place where there was nothing to do or see? And if he was tansported in a car, why not pick a location like Jefferson to be dropped of where there was a lot more activity (less chance of being noticed) and bus stops all over the place?
It's easier to hide in the open in a crowd of people than on an empty street, right?
-
Eye witness testimony is the least reliable there is. Ask 10 people about an event they just watched and you get 10 different stories..... Most eye witnesses only saw Tippit's killer for a couple of seconds during high consternation.
That "high consternation" phrase is an original: Can I borrow it and use it sometime?
A detailed description of an event by multiple witnesses will produce varying results: The "rashomon" effect.
The simpler "is that the man who you saw at the scene of the crime" question is more likely to produce a consistent result. Agreed?
That "high consternation" phrase is an original: Can I borrow it and use it sometime?
You can't agrue with the description, right?
The simpler "is that the man who you saw at the scene of the crime" question is more likely to produce a consistent result. Agreed?
No. And I speak from personal experience. A couple of years ago, some of my employees and myself witnesses a robbery right in front of our eyes. A guy pushed a girl aside and stole her telephone. When the police came, about 30 minutes, the only consistency between us was that we all said no when the police asked if we would be able to identify the man if we saw him again. It all happened too quickly...
-
Strange first sentence. I doubt that anyone has ever claimed that. I did not even by implication.
You just laughed, that was implication enough.
-
A detailed description of an event by multiple witnesses will produce varying results: The "rashomon" effect.
On the flip side there is the bandwagon effect.
The simpler "is that the man who you saw at the scene of the crime" question is more likely to produce a consistent result. Agreed?
It introduces bias. Particularly when asked by an authority figure.
-
The fastest time established by Gary Mack's time trial was 11 minutes. 1.03 + 11 = 1.14.... and that does not include the time Tippit and his killer talked. However, the available evidence justifies the conclusion that Tippit was actually shot earlier than 1.14
And the fastest time also ignored the witnesses who said the man was walking west on 10th street.
-
Oswald traveling between those two points in 12 minutes (if that's what it was) is not IMPOSSIBLE.
The fastest time established by Gary Mack's time trial was 11 minutes. 1.03 + 11 = 1.14.... and that does not include the time Tippit and his killer talked. However, the available evidence justifies the conclusion that Tippit was actually shot earlier than 1.14
Oswald could have gotten a lift (part of the way) in a car. I don't think that happened but it's a possibility no matter how slim.
So, if a slim possibility favors Oswald's guilt, you accept it as a possibility, but when it doesn't you dismiss it outright. Got it.
But there is in interesting question that is never answered by those who claim Oswald must have been running or had some sort of transporation and that's this;
What in the world could have possibly been so important to Oswald that he needed to get to a go-nowhere location as 10%/Patton (where he would stand out like a sore thumb) as quickly as he could? Apart from jogging, have you ever run to a place where there was nothing to do or see? And if he was tansported in a car, why not pick of location like Jefferson where there was a lot more activity (less chance of being noticed) and bus stops all over the place?
Your timing discrepancy "theory" can be weighed against the physical evidence of Lee Oswald being the killer of Officer J.D. Tippit.
Have you forgotten: Oswald had his revolver taken form him as he resisted arrest in the Texas Theater about 30 minutes after Tippit was murdered not far from that location.
The expended cartridge cases found at the scene of the crime were matched to Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver to the exclusion of any other handgun. The identification of Oswald by Markham is direct evidence. The ballistic evidence is circumstantial evidence which is corroborative.
If you truly believe Oswald could not have been at Tenth and Patton when Officer Tippit was murdered, you need to answer these questions:
-- Who used Lee Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver to shoot Officer Tippit?
-- When did the real shooter of Officer Tippit return Oswald's revolver to him?
-- Where was Oswald at the time of the Tippit shooting?
If you're going to say "at the Texas Theater": It doesn't take 45 minutes to get from the rooming house at North Beckley to the Texas Theater on West Jefferson Boulevard.
-
Your timing discrepancy "theory" can be weighed against the physical evidence of Lee Oswald being the killer of Officer J.D. Tippit.
Have you forgotten: Oswald had his revolver taken form him as he resisted arrest in the Texas Theater about 30 minutes after Tippit was murdered not far from that location.
The expended cartridge cases found at the scene of the crime were matched to Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver to the exclusion of any other handgun. The identification of Oswald by Markham is direct evidence. The ballistic evidence is circumstantial evidence which is corroborative.
If you truly believe Oswald could not have been at Tenth and Patton when Officer Tippit was murdered, you need to answer these questions:
-- Who used Lee Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver to shoot Officer Tippit?
-- When did the real shooter of Officer Tippit return Oswald's revolver to him?
-- Where was Oswald at the time of the Tippit shooting?
If you're going to say "at the Texas Theater": It doesn't take 45 minutes to get from the rooming house at North Beckley to the Texas Theater on West Jefferson Boulevard.
How can you be sure that the revolver now in evidence is in fact the same one as was taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater?
If you truly believe Oswald could not have been at Tenth and Patton when Officer Tippit was murdered, you need to answer these questions:
-- Who used Lee Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver to shoot Officer Tippit?
-- When did the real shooter of Officer Tippit return Oswald's revolver to him?
-- Where was Oswald at the time of the Tippit shooting?
I don't need to answer any of these questions. It's just a variation of the same game you play every time;
"Oswald is the killer unless you can give me the name, address and date of birth of the actual killer"
What you fail to notice or understand is that your questions are all based upon the false premise that the revolver that killed Tippit was indeed Oswald's revolver. The problem with that is that you simply have no evidence for that premise.
Btw, I noticed you failed to answer my question about why Oswald would be in such a hurry to get to 10%/Patton.... Is that because you can't find a logical explanation for that?
-
The expended cartridge cases found at the scene of the crime were matched to Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver to the exclusion of any other handgun.
"Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver". LOL.
No, shells recovered by civilians from an unsecured crime scene and handed to police (two with disappearing Poe initials, and two that could not be identified as the same bullets by the people who found them) were matched to a revolver that Gerald Hill pulled out of his pocket 1.5 to 2 hours after Oswald's arrest and submitted into evidence.
If you're going to say "at the Texas Theater": It doesn't take 45 minutes to get from the rooming house at North Beckley to the Texas Theater on West Jefferson Boulevard.
Burroughs reported seeing Oswald in the theater around 1:07. If you're going to say he was wrong, then we can just as easily say that your witnesses are wrong.
-
How can you be sure that the revolver now in evidence is in fact the same one as was taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater?
If you truly believe Oswald could not have been at Tenth and Patton when Officer Tippit was murdered, you need to answer these questions:
-- Who used Lee Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver to shoot Officer Tippit?
-- When did the real shooter of Officer Tippit return Oswald's revolver to him?
-- Where was Oswald at the time of the Tippit shooting?
I don't need to answer any of these questions. It's just a variation of the same game you play every time;
"Oswald is the killer unless you can give me the name, address and date of birth of the actual killer"
What you fail to notice or understand is that your questions are all based upon the false premise that the revolver that killed Tippit was indeed Oswald's revolver. The problem with that is that you simply have no evidence for that premise.
I don't need to answer any of these questions. It's just a variation of the same game you play every time;
"Oswald is the killer unless you can give me the name, address and date of birth of the actual killer"
A ridiculous exaggeration. Even though this forum is not a court of law: An intellectual "burden of proof" rests with you to provide an alternate explanation of the Tippit murder... if Oswald did not do it. The fact that you do not (and are not even curious about what actually happened) marks you as a "game-playing contrarian".
Explain your "false premise" theory with "evidence": Just saying the revolver that killed Tippit was not Oswald's is an assertion and will not do.
-
I don't need to answer any of these questions. It's just a variation of the same game you play every time;
"Oswald is the killer unless you can give me the name, address and date of birth of the actual killer"
A ridiculous exaggeration. Even though this forum is not a court of law: An intellectual "burden of proof" rests with you to provide an alternate explanation of the Tippit murder... if Oswald did not do it. The fact that you do not (and are not even curious about what actually happened) marks you as a "game-playing contrarian".
Explain your "false premise" theory--with "evidence"--that the revolver which killed Tippit was not Oswald's. An assertion will not do.
I asked you for a plausible explanation why Oswald would have been in such a hurry to get to 10th/Patton that he needed to run or get transportation. You failed to answer twice. Why is that?
I asked you how you could be sure that the revolved now in evidence is in fact the same one as the one they took from Oswald at the Texas Theater. Again you failed to answer....
It seems you like asking questions while at the same time not answering questions you don't like .....
"Oswald is the killer unless you can give me the name, address and date of birth of the actual killer"
A ridiculous exaggeration. Even though this forum is not a court of law: An intellectual "burden of proof" rests with you to provide an alternate explanation of the Tippit murder... if Oswald did not do it. The fact that you do not (and are not even curious about what actually happened) marks you as a "game-playing contrarian".
In a court of law there is no obligation whatsoever for the defense to provide an alternative scenario. It's the prosecution that needs to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. The mere fact that you keep on demanding for alternative scenarios (in line with your "Oswald is guilty unless you can prove he isn't" mantra) and keep complaining about me being a contrarian only tells me that you know that your own case against Oswald simply isn't strong enough to withstand scrutiny. You are like a prosecutor who complains to the judge that the jury doesn't believe his narrative.....
And, I am most certainly curious about what actually happened. I just am willing to look at all the possibilities and weigh all the evidence. That's where you and I differ!
Explain your "false premise" theory--with "evidence"--that the revolver which killed Tippit was not Oswald's. An assertion will not do.
I never said it was not Oswald's revolver. I can't say that simply because I do not know. But you don't get to assume that it was Oswald's revolver. You need to prove it... and John has already explained the problem with the chain of custody for the revolver. All we really know is that Gerald Hill, at the police station, pulled a revolver out of his pocket some 2 hours after Oswald's arrest, had a few officers mark it and and submitted into evidence.
Where did Hill get that revolver and how do we know it's the same one they took from Oswald at the Texas Theater?
-
On the flip side there is the bandwagon effect.
It introduces bias. Particularly when asked by an authority figure.
It introduces bias. Particularly when asked by an authority figure.
Would a young black man (in Dallas , 63) be more,... or less, inclined to say what he believedthat a DPD detective, or an FBI man wanted him to say......
How about a a frightened woman whose teenage son had been in trouble with the law......Would she want to antagonize the DA by refusing to support his position?
-
It introduces bias. Particularly when asked by an authority figure.
Would a young black man (in Dallas , 63) be more,... or less, inclined to say what he believedthat a DPD detective, or an FBI man wanted him to say......
How about a a frightened woman whose teenage son had been in trouble with the law......Would she want to antagonize the DA by refusing to support his position?
That's a non sequitur, Walt.
-
How can you be sure that the revolver now in evidence is in fact the same one as was taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater?
If you truly believe Oswald could not have been at Tenth and Patton when Officer Tippit was murdered, you need to answer these questions:
-- Who used Lee Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver to shoot Officer Tippit?
-- When did the real shooter of Officer Tippit return Oswald's revolver to him?
-- Where was Oswald at the time of the Tippit shooting?
I don't need to answer any of these questions. It's just a variation of the same game you play every time;
"Oswald is the killer unless you can give me the name, address and date of birth of the actual killer"
What you fail to notice or understand is that your questions are all based upon the false premise that the revolver that killed Tippit was indeed Oswald's revolver. The problem with that is that you simply have no evidence for that premise.
Btw, I noticed you failed to answer my question about why Oswald would be in such a hurry to get to 10%/Patton.... Is that because you can't find a logical explanation for that?
I'll have to delay my response, Martin.
Business is more important than answering immaterial questions.
-
A ridiculous exaggeration. Even though this forum is not a court of law: An intellectual "burden of proof" rests with you to provide an alternate explanation of the Tippit murder...
Nope. Your claim, your burden.
-
Nope. Your claim, your burden.
No... it's the responsibility of someone making a "contrary" claim.
You guys (you and your cohorts) insist that various events in the historical record "did not happen".
You refuse to provide coherent, logical alternative explanations. That's why (by definition) you are game-playing contrarians.
-
I'll have to delay my response, Martin.
Business is more important than answering immaterial questions.
My questions are only "immaterial" to you because you can't answer them. I wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't even explain what is "immaterial" about them.
But, by all means, take all the time you need to try and figure it out.... I'll wait. No problem.
-
No... it's the responsibility of someone making a "contrary" claim.
You guys (you and your cohorts) insist that various events in the historical record "did not happen".
You refuse to provide coherent, logical alternative explanations. That's why (by definition) you are game-playing contrarians.
No... it's the responsibility of someone making a "contrary" claim.
So, it's guilty unless proven innocent? Please let me know when you prosecute your first case. I would love to be there and see the look on the judge's face when you take that position.... Should be good for a laugh or two....
It is of course total BS.... The claims are being made by you (and the WC).... So provide the evidence for them already!
You guys (you and your cohorts) insist that various events in the historical record "did not happen".
Another strawman.... Nobody is insisting anything of the kind. We are actually asking you to prove that they did happen!
You refuse to provide coherent, logical alternative explanations. That's why (by definition) you are game-playing contrarians.
Oh boy, more whining.... This is getting so tiresome. Oh well, it's an admission of defeat... at least that's something.
-
On the day The Warren Report was released to the public (27 September 1964), the CBS Television Network broadcast the program: "November 22nd The Warren Report".
Key witnesses had been interviewed by Eddie Barker of CBS affiliate in Dallas - KRLD Television.
Helen Markham confirmed her positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who shot and killed Officer J.D. Tippit on the day of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
This is your slam dunk evidence? :D
-
Mr. BALL. So you were walking south toward Jefferson?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You think it was a little after 1?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I wouldn't be afraid to bet it wasn't 6 or 7 minutes after 1.
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.
....He didn't run. When he saw me he looked at me, stared at me. I put my hands over my face like this, closed my eyes. I gradually opened my fingers like this, and I opened my eyes, and when I did he started off in kind of a little trot.
Peek-a-boo I see you :D
At around 6-7 minutes after 1:00 PM a shooter just appears out of nowhere------
Why not start a thread about something in the case that no one has ever seen before?
-
Mrs Markham is the least credible witness of the Commission. She said she ran over to Tippit after he was shot, was alone with him for 20 minutes and that he tried to speak to her. According to her, the passenger side window of Tippit's patrol car was open (it was closed) and the initial description she gave to police and FBI SA Odum didn't match Oswald's appearance. She panicked and became hysterical and almost fainted.
Most importantly, she lied under oath on the stand when being questioned by Counsel. This same attorney (Ball) later called her an utter screwball,which is kinda mean. I think she had personal issues (she was divorced with 5 children) so perhaps her stress levels were already way up when she was confronted with murder.
The only thing she was consistent of is her timing of the shooting: 1:06 p.m. both in her affidavit and before the Commission.
-
Your timing discrepancy "theory" can be weighed against the physical evidence of Lee Oswald being the killer of Officer J.D. Tippit.
Have you forgotten: Oswald had his revolver taken form him as he resisted arrest in the Texas Theater about 30 minutes after Tippit was murdered not far from that location.
The expended cartridge cases found at the scene of the crime were matched to Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver to the exclusion of any other handgun. The identification of Oswald by Markham is direct evidence. The ballistic evidence is circumstantial evidence which is corroborative.
If you truly believe Oswald could not have been at Tenth and Patton when Officer Tippit was murdered, you need to answer these questions:
-- Who used Lee Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver to shoot Officer Tippit?
-- When did the real shooter of Officer Tippit return Oswald's revolver to him?
-- Where was Oswald at the time of the Tippit shooting?
If you're going to say "at the Texas Theater": It doesn't take 45 minutes to get from the rooming house at North Beckley to the Texas Theater on West Jefferson Boulevard.
Who used Lee Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver to shoot Officer Tippit?
I hope you're prepared for a rude awakening Mr Lidell..... JD Tippit was NOT killed by using the Smith & Wesson 38 revolver that appeared at the Texas theater.
Nobody has been able to trace the bullets from Tippit's body to that revolver.... THAT is a fact.
And the reason the bullets can't be traced to the S&W revolver is because the killer WAS NOT using a S&W revolver. Virtually all of the witnesses who saw the killer removing spent shells from his revolver said that he removed the spent shells ONE AT A TIME....as he walked away from the murder scene. The SW is not unloaded in that fashion....The S&W ejects all six chambers AT THE SAME TIME.... But don't take my word..... Just read FBI agent Cunningham's testimony to LBJ's cover up committee. .....
-
she got cold chills and fell over when she looked at his eyes.
Maybe Markham thought she was seeing Elvis Presley
:D
-
FRANCIS KINNETH, 1425 Caidwell, Dallas, Texas, advised he was employed on a construction job at the intersection of Denver and Tenth Street, Dallas, on the afternoon of November 22, 1963.
He advised at approximately 1:00 PM he had heard approximately two or three shots and, looking in a westerly direction, he saw a parked police car and a uniform police officer lying on the ground in front of same.
At the same time he observed an individual running west on Tenth Street turning south on a street, the name of which he does not know.
KINNETH advised he did not go down to the scene of the shooting for fear that additional shots might be fired.
KINNETH was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he could not identify OSWALD as being the individual he had observed leaving the scene of the shooting of the Dallas police officer.
By Special Agents JOHN T. KESLER and VERNON MITCHEM - LAC Date dictated 1/22/64
-
ELBERT AUSTIN, 8317 Fourth Avenue, Dallas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was working on a construction job at the intersection of Tenth and Denver Street, Dallas, Texas. He advised he was a brick mason's helper and was assisting in the construction of an apartment house. Me stated sometime after 1:00 PM he was on a scaffold in front of the aforementioned apartment house when he heard approximately two or three shots and, looking in a westerly direction, he saw a policeman lying in front of a police car on the left front side.
He also observed an individual running west on Tenth Street and then turning left and going down another street, name unknown. AUSTIN advised he did not go down to the scene of the shooting for two reasons, one being that he was afraid to go down there because he was afraid of being shot, and the second being that he did not consider it any of his business.
AUSTIN was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans Police Department # 112—723, and advised he could not identify OSWALD as being the person who shot the Dallas police officer inasmuch as he was approximately one block away and the individual who did the shooting was running in the opposite direction.
AUSTIN advised PERRY HOLMES, brick mason tender, was at the rear of the apartment building when the shooting of the Dallas police officer occurred and did not go to the scene of the shooting.
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
-
Who used Lee Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver to shoot Officer Tippit?
I hope you're prepared for a rude awakening Mr Lidell..... JD Tippit was NOT killed by using the Smith & Wesson 38 revolver that appeared at the Texas theater.
Nobody has been able to trace the bullets from Tippit's body to that revolver.... THAT is a fact.
And the reason the bullets can't be traced to the S&W revolver is because the killer WAS NOT using a S&W revolver. Virtually all of the witnesses who saw the killer removing spent shells from his revolver said that he removed the spent shells ONE AT A TIME....as he walked away from the murder scene. The SW is not unloaded in that fashion....The S&W ejects all six chambers AT THE SAME TIME.... But don't take my word..... Just read FBI agent Cunningham's testimony to LBJ's cover up committee. .....
'But don't take my word'
LOL
No problem
-
'But don't take my word'
LOL
No problem
That's right....You can argue with FBI agent Cunningham's testimony. He described how the spent shells are removed from the revolver that was found at the Texas Theater. Since I'm sure that you would like to appear a little less ignorant, I'll find Cunningham's testimony and post it for your enlightenment.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have any fired cartridges in the cylinder?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; I do. Prior to my appearance here today, this morning, I fired five cartridges in this weapon, and they are still in the cylinder.
Mr. EISENBERG. You are now placing an unfired--
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. An unfired cartridge in the sixth chamber of the cylinder. Now, in a normal way, you would hit the cylinder release, push in your hand like this, and tip it up. The unfired cartridge will fall right out into your hand, due to the fact that the chambers of the cylinder are naturally larger than the
cartridge you are loading in there for ease of putting them in. When you fire a cartridge in a revolver, the ease expands as wide as the cylinder. In other words, when the firing pin hits the primer, there is an explosion in the primer, the powder is ignited in the cartridge, and the terrific pressure will expand the cartridge case to tightly fit the chamber.
Mr. EISENBERG. I would like the record to show that when Mr. Cunningham tipped the revolver, the unfired bullet tipped out, but the five expended shells remained in.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, would you show how you would eject the five expended shells?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. yes. These are very difficult, by the way, to extract, due to the fact that the chamber has been rechambered. And as you can see, you get on your cartridge cases a little ballooning with these smaller diameter cases in the .38 Special.
Mr. EISENBERG. I would like the record to show that Mr. Cunningham extracted the five expended cartridge eases merely by one push of the ejector rod.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yon won't be able to see it again, but when you eject a cartridge ease later on for the powder pattern test, I will show that you can have residues of unburned powder. That is what would happen if you ejected
457
731-219 O--64--vol.III---30
these cartridge cases in your hand. You would pick up unburned powder, residues, and partially burned powder.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham had ejected five cartridge cases from the revolver into his hand, and his right hand is now filled with small black particles, whose composition I am unable to determine.
Representative FORD. That would happen any time that you did it?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; every time you eject them, these particles will come out from the cylinder into your hand--unburned powder, partially burned powder, and gunpowder residues.
Representative FORD. Had you fired this morning these particular bullets?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; at 8:15.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, these cartridge cases which you ejected were .38 Special cartridge cases?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were.
Mr. EISENBERG. What time did you fire those bullets, those .38 Special bullets in this revolver?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. At approximately 8:15 this morning.
-
Police ID initials disappeared.....
(http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit28.jpg)
-
'But don't take my word'
LOL
No problem
Cunningham testified to this about ejecting the shells:
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, would you show how you would eject the five expended shells?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. yes. These are very difficult, by the way, to extract, due to the fact that the chamber has been rechambered. And as you can see, you get on your cartridge cases a little ballooning with these smaller diameter cases in the .38 Special.
"Difficult .... to extract" due to a "balloning" of the shells. Oswald used "undersized" bullets that expanded or "ballooned" upon firing. They would then "stick" and he would have to shake them out. Witnesses saw him shaking the revolver to remove them.
Those shells that stuck were of two types and were the same type of bullets founds on Oswald when he was arrested.
And ballistic tests done on the revolver using this smaller ammunition showed this to happen.
Here is Cunningham's full testimony: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cunningham1.htm
-
Cunningham testified to this about ejecting the shells:
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, would you show how you would eject the five expended shells?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. yes. These are very difficult, by the way, to extract, due to the fact that the chamber has been rechambered. And as you can see, you get on your cartridge cases a little ballooning with these smaller diameter cases in the .38 Special.
He did indeed, but then Eisenberg noted,
Mr. EISENBERG. I would like the record to show that Mr. Cunningham extracted the five expended cartridge cases merely by one push of the ejector rod.
Those shells that stuck were of two types and were the same type of bullets founds on Oswald when he was arrested.
Nope. The shells "found" in Oswald pocket hours after his arrest were all Winchesters.
-
He did indeed, but then Eisenberg noted,
Mr. EISENBERG. I would like the record to show that Mr. Cunningham extracted the five expended cartridge cases merely by one push of the ejector rod.
Nope. The shells "found" in Oswald pocket hours after his arrest were all Winchesters.
Mr. EISENBERG. I would like the record to show that Mr. Cunningham extracted the five expended cartridge cases merely by one push of the ejector rod.
In which case Tippit's killer wouldn't have walked a few steps and removed a shell and tossed it aside, and then walked a little farther and then removed another spent shell....
-
Mr. BELIN - About my size? I am standing up.
... I am between 5' 10" and 5' 11". Closer to 5' 11", I believe.
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size....
Mr. BELIN - My color hair?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - You say he is my size, my weight, and my color hair?
Mr. BENAVIDES - He kind of looks like---well, his hair was a little bit curlier.
Mr. BELIN - Anything else about him that looked like me?................
Mr. BELIN - What did you see then?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I then pulled on up and I seen this officer standing by the door. The door was open to the car, and I was pretty close to him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car. ................
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
Mr. BELIN - Were they newspaper pictures or television pictures, or both, or neither?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Well, television pictures and newspaper pictures. The thing lasted about a month, I believe, it seemed like.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/benavide.htm
The shooter was David Belin's twin :D
or the man that shot him
Does that sound like a positive ID?
A TV line-up with just one guy :D
-
That's right....You can argue with FBI agent Cunningham's testimony. He described how the spent shells are removed from the revolver that was found at the Texas Theater. Since I'm sure that you would like to appear a little less ignorant, I'll find Cunningham's testimony and post it for your enlightenment.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have any fired cartridges in the cylinder?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; I do. Prior to my appearance here today, this morning, I fired five cartridges in this weapon, and they are still in the cylinder.
Mr. EISENBERG. You are now placing an unfired--
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. An unfired cartridge in the sixth chamber of the cylinder. Now, in a normal way, you would hit the cylinder release, push in your hand like this, and tip it up. The unfired cartridge will fall right out into your hand, due to the fact that the chambers of the cylinder are naturally larger than the
cartridge you are loading in there for ease of putting them in. When you fire a cartridge in a revolver, the ease expands as wide as the cylinder. In other words, when the firing pin hits the primer, there is an explosion in the primer, the powder is ignited in the cartridge, and the terrific pressure will expand the cartridge case to tightly fit the chamber.
Mr. EISENBERG. I would like the record to show that when Mr. Cunningham tipped the revolver, the unfired bullet tipped out, but the five expended shells remained in.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, would you show how you would eject the five expended shells?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. yes. These are very difficult, by the way, to extract, due to the fact that the chamber has been rechambered. And as you can see, you get on your cartridge cases a little ballooning with these smaller diameter cases in the .38 Special.
Mr. EISENBERG. I would like the record to show that Mr. Cunningham extracted the five expended cartridge eases merely by one push of the ejector rod.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yon won't be able to see it again, but when you eject a cartridge ease later on for the powder pattern test, I will show that you can have residues of unburned powder. That is what would happen if you ejected
457
731-219 O--64--vol.III---30
these cartridge cases in your hand. You would pick up unburned powder, residues, and partially burned powder.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham had ejected five cartridge cases from the revolver into his hand, and his right hand is now filled with small black particles, whose composition I am unable to determine.
Representative FORD. That would happen any time that you did it?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; every time you eject them, these particles will come out from the cylinder into your hand--unburned powder, partially burned powder, and gunpowder residues.
Representative FORD. Had you fired this morning these particular bullets?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; at 8:15.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, these cartridge cases which you ejected were .38 Special cartridge cases?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were.
Mr. EISENBERG. What time did you fire those bullets, those .38 Special bullets in this revolver?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. At approximately 8:15 this morning.
Still no problem for me not taking your word
-
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared T.F. Bowley w/m/35 of 1454 Summertime Lane, TE6 5965 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
On Friday November 22, 1963 I picked up my daughter at the R. L. Thornton School in Singing Hills at about 12:55 pm. I then left the school to pick up my wife who was at work at the Telephone Company at Ninth Street and Zangs Street. I was headed north on Marsalis and turned west on 10th Street. I traveled about a block and noticed a Dallas police squad car stopped in the traffic lane headed east on 10th Street. I saw a police officer lying next to the left front wheel. I stopped my car and got out to go to the scene. I looked at my watch and it said 1:10 pm. Several people were at the scene. When I got there the first thing I did was try to help the officer. He appeared beyond help to me. A man was trying to use the radio in the squad car but stated he didn't know how to operate it. I know how and took the radio from him. I said, "Hello, operator. A police officer has been shot here." The dispatcher asked for the location. I found out the location and told the dispatcher what it was. A few minutes later an ambulance came to the scene. I helped load the officer onto the stretcher and into the ambulance. As we picked the officer up, I noticed his pistol laying on the ground under him. Someone picked the pistol up and laid it on the hood of the squad car. When the ambulance left, I took the gun and put it inside the squad car. A man took the pistol out and said, "Let's catch him." He opened the cylinder, and I saw that no rounds in it had been fired. This man then took the pistol with him and got into a cab and drove off. The police arrived and I talked to a police sergeant at the scene I told him I did not witness the shooting and after questioning me, he said it was all right for me to leave. I then went on to the Telephone Company office at Ninth and Zangs.
/s/ T. F. Bowley
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 2 DAY OF December A.D. 1963
/s/ Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
That was Ted Callaway who may have very well committed a crime by taking that policeman's gun in the first place.
I looked at my watch and it said 1:10 pm. Several people were at the scene.
With 'several people at the scene' already and it being 1:10 according to his watch it looks quite improbable if not impossible for Oswald to have been the shooter.
-
BROCK advised he, WARREN REYNOLDS and various police officers from the Dallas Police Department had searched the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station in efforts to locate the person responsible for the shooting, with negative results. BROCK advised, however, a Dallas, Texas, police officer, name unknown, had located a jacket underneath a 1954 Oldsmobile which was parked in parking space # 17. This jacket apparently had belonged to the person who had shortly before shot a Dallas police officer.
ROBERT BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he could not positively identify same as being identical with the individual who had passed him at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
FRANK CIMINO, 403 East Tenth Street, Apartment 7, Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was residing in an apartment at 405 East Tenth Street. He Stated that at around 1 p.m. he was at his apartment listening to the radio. He heard four loud noises which sounded like shots and then he heard a women scream.
Mr. BELIN. How many people were in the lineup, if you can remember?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Four.
Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I identified him.
Mr. BELIN. You didn't know his name as Oswald at that time, did you, or did you not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes, the next day I did. But, of course I didn't know what his name was the day that I picked him out.
.......
Mr. BELIN. Had you seen any pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald in the newspapers prior to the time you went to the police station lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I think I saw one in the morning paper......
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if the number 3 man in the lineup was wearing the same clothes that the man you saw at the Tippit shooting wore?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had on a different shirt, and he didn't have a jacket on. He had on kind of a polo shirt.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/scoggins.htm
So Scoggins saw a nameless picture in the paper and then went down and identified the guy in the picture?!?!
That does not compute.
Reading the testimony...it seems like Belin, Ford, and Dulles rattled Scoggins to his wits end.
BTW Where is a picture of Oswald wearing a 'polo shirt'?
-
Testimony Of Domingo Benavides
Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.
~snip~
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
~snip~
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
~snip~
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3_1.jpg)
-
That was Ted Callaway who may have very well committed a crime by taking that policeman's gun in the first place.
And if other witnesses had seen Callaway leaving the scene with a gun, would that be evidence that Callaway just shot Tippit? That’s the folly of the LN argument.
-
Who used Lee Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver to shoot Officer Tippit?
I hope you're prepared for a rude awakening Mr Lidell..... JD Tippit was NOT killed by using the Smith & Wesson 38 revolver that appeared at the Texas theater.
Nobody has been able to trace the bullets from Tippit's body to that revolver.... THAT is a fact.
And the reason the bullets can't be traced to the S&W revolver is because the killer WAS NOT using a S&W revolver. Virtually all of the witnesses who saw the killer removing spent shells from his revolver said that he removed the spent shells ONE AT A TIME....as he walked away from the murder scene. The SW is not unloaded in that fashion....The S&W ejects all six chambers AT THE SAME TIME.... But don't take my word..... Just read FBI agent Cunningham's testimony to LBJ's cover up committee. .....
And the reason the bullets can't be traced to the S&W revolver is because the killer WAS NOT using a S&W revolver.
Wrong. Oswald's Smith & Wesson Victory revolver had been re-chambered but not re-barreled. The bullets were of a slightly smaller diameter than the barrel of the gun. Additionally, the barrel had been shortened from 6 inches to 2 1/2 inches: There was less distance for a bullet to traverse the lands and grooves to leave consistent engravings.
Virtually all of the witnesses who saw the killer removing spent shells from his revolver said that he removed the spent shells ONE AT A TIME....as he walked away from the murder scene. The SW is not unloaded in that fashion....The S&W ejects all six chambers AT THE SAME TIME.... But don't take my word..... Just read FBI agent Cunningham's testimony to LBJ's cover up committee. .....
That testimony is contradicted by the physical evidence which must take precedence. The revolver taken from Lee Harvey Oswald when he tried to shoot Officer N.M. McDonald in the Texas Theater was the murder weapon in the killing of Officer J.D. Tippit.
-
That testimony is contradicted by the physical evidence which must take precedence.
Then stop misrepresenting the evidence.
The revolver taken from Lee Harvey Oswald
You don’t know what revolver (if any) was taken from Lee Harvey Oswald.
when he tried to shoot Officer N.M. McDonald in the Texas Theater
There’s no evidence that he tried to shoot Officer N.M. McDonald.
was the murder weapon in the killing of Officer J.D. Tippit.
You can’t determine what weapon killed Officer J.D. Tippit.
-
Then stop misrepresenting the evidence.
You don’t know what revolver (if any) was taken from Lee Harvey Oswald.
There’s no evidence that he tried to shoot Officer N.M. McDonald.
You can’t determine what weapon killed Officer J.D. Tippit.
More of your nonsense born out of a need to respond to every post; not ashamed that you contribute nothing of substance to this forum: Just denials of the historical record unsupported by any evidence.
Very disappointing, John. I spend hours producing superb Vids and they fail to penetrate your devilish, closed mind.
-
I spend hours producing superb Vids
What does this vid offer other than vague testimony? Anybody can produce a vid trying to push a narrative they want to sell.
-
What does this vid offer other than vague testimony? Anybody can produce a vid trying to push a narrative they want to sell.
You say: "vague testimony".
Actually, Joseph D. Nichol goes into considerable detail about the reason for the difficulty matching the lead bullets to the test sample fired from Oswald's Smith & Wesson Victory revolver.
Explain how Nichol's testimony is "vague". Your simple "assertion" statement is a weak, inadequate comment.
My comment about "hours producing superb Vids" was designed to provoke John Iacoletti. Just a bit of fun. ;D
-
More of your nonsense born out of a need to respond to every post; not ashamed that you contribute nothing of substance to this forum: Just denials of the historical record unsupported by any evidence.
Very disappointing, John. I spend hours producing superb Vids and they fail to penetrate your devilish, closed mind.
The one who is in denial is you. You have convinced yourself by cherry-picking the evidence and made up your mind to the extend that you are unwilling to even consider anything that contradicts your opinion and/or the serious problems there are with the historical record. The points John raised are valid, but rather than deal with them you start attacking John. That's a massive demonstration of weakness on your part. And it isn't the first time you have displayed that same weakness.
When I ask you two simple questions you can't give a credible answer to, you run away, saying;
I'll have to delay my response, Martin.
Business is more important than answering immaterial questions.
But now, here your are, replying to other posts in the same thread and completely ignoring the two questions I asked.
Did you think I would let you get away with that? Here are my two questions again;
1.
What in the world could have possibly been so important to Oswald that he needed to get to a go-nowhere location as 10%/Patton (where he would stand out like a sore thumb) as quickly as he could? Apart from jogging, have you ever run to a place where there was nothing to do or see? And if he was tansported in a car, why not pick a location like Jefferson to be dropped of where there was a lot more activity (less chance of being noticed) and bus stops all over the place?
It's easier to hide in the open in a crowd of people than on an empty street, right?
2.
I never said it was not Oswald's revolver. I can't say that simply because I do not know. But you don't get to assume that it was Oswald's revolver. You need to prove it... and John has already explained the problem with the chain of custody for the revolver. All we really know is that Gerald Hill, at the police station, pulled a revolver out of his pocket some 2 hours after Oswald's arrest, had a few officers mark it and and submitted into evidence.
Where did Hill get that revolver and how do we know it's the same one they took from Oswald at the Texas Theater?
Are you going to man up to at least try to answer the questions or are you going to run away again.... Your choice!
-
Ross is another one in a long line of people who thinks that arrogance and condescension is a good substitute for evidence.
-
Cunningham testified to this about ejecting the shells:
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, would you show how you would eject the five expended shells?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. yes. These are very difficult, by the way, to extract, due to the fact that the chamber has been rechambered. And as you can see, you get on your cartridge cases a little ballooning with these smaller diameter cases in the .38 Special.
"Difficult .... to extract" due to a "balloning" of the shells. Oswald used "undersized" bullets that expanded or "ballooned" upon firing. They would then "stick" and he would have to shake them out. Witnesses saw him shaking the revolver to remove them.
Those shells that stuck were of two types and were the same type of bullets founds on Oswald when he was arrested.
And ballistic tests done on the revolver using this smaller ammunition showed this to happen.
Here is Cunningham's full testimony: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cunningham1.htm
I'm more than familiar with Cunningham's testimony
(A fine example of how life can turn on a dime)
However, my 'no problem' response was in reply to Wallyburger's 'don't take my word for it'
----------------
WALLYBURGER
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wallyburger
an annoying person who makes slanderous comments and then repeats themself like a child again and again whilst ignoring culpability and denying reality in a sanctimonious holier-than-thou manner
-
Testimony Of Domingo Benavides
Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.
~snip~
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
~snip~
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
~snip~
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3_1.jpg)
Where's his jacket? Y'know, the one Earlene saw him (with her one good eye) zipping up as he practiclly ran past her out the door? And the one witnesses @Tippit eyeballed?
Oh. wait...
-
I'm more than familiar with Cunningham's testimony
(A fine example of how life can turn on a dime)
That whole dime business is pure speculation.
-
That whole dime business is pure speculation.
CSI right there. No screwdriver found...
-
Where's his jacket? Y'know, the one Earlene saw him (with her one good eye) zipping up as he practiclly ran passed her out the door? And the one witnesses @Tippit eyeballed?
Oh. wait...
Where's the squared off hairline that made the back of the killer's head appear to be flat? Hint: You'll need to extract your head to see that Lee Oswald's hair was TAPERED and the back of his head DID NOT appear to be flat.
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
~snip~
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3_1.jpg)
-
And if other witnesses had seen Callaway leaving the scene with a gun, would that be evidence that Callaway just shot Tippit? That’s the folly of the LN argument.
Callaway heard some gunfire.
Saw a guy with a gun in his hand.
Identified the guy as Oswald.
Callaway didn't see anybody get shot.
Callaway wasn't @Tippit.
Cool that Callaway saw Oswald near the scene brandishing a gun, though.
Raises my eyebrows, I can tell you..
-
Where's the squared off hairline that made the back of the killer's head appear to be flat? Hint: You'll need to extract your head to see that Lee Oswald's hair was TAPERED and the back of his head DID NOT appear to be flat.
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
~snip~
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3_1.jpg)
Again, where's the jacket in that photo
In addition, where's the re-enactment of the witness view
-
And the reason the bullets can't be traced to the S&W revolver is because the killer WAS NOT using a S&W revolver.
Wrong. Oswald's Smith & Wesson Victory revolver had been re-chambered but not re-barreled. The bullets were of a slightly smaller diameter than the barrel of the gun. Additionally, the barrel had been shortened from 6 inches to 2 1/2 inches: There was less distance for a bullet to traverse the lands and grooves to leave consistent engravings.
Virtually all of the witnesses who saw the killer removing spent shells from his revolver said that he removed the spent shells ONE AT A TIME....as he walked away from the murder scene. The SW is not unloaded in that fashion....The S&W ejects all six chambers AT THE SAME TIME.... But don't take my word..... Just read FBI agent Cunningham's testimony to LBJ's cover up committee. .....
That testimony is contradicted by the physical evidence which must take precedence. The revolver taken from Lee Harvey Oswald when he tried to shoot Officer N.M. McDonald in the Texas Theater was the murder weapon in the killing of Officer J.D. Tippit.
This Guy in the video is a liar.....
He might convince an ignoramus that what he is saying is valid.....But he'd never convince a knowledgeable person that a sawed off barrel that was designed to fire a bullet with the diameter of .359" would leave ballistic grooves on a bullet that was .357".
The rifling in the barrel of the S&W was worn out, and there was only two inches of barrel which could have come in contact with a bullet
The hot gasses blowing by the lead bullet would have prevented the rifling from leaving "tracks" on the bullet .....
-
Callaway heard some gunfire.
Saw a guy with a gun in his hand.
Identified the guy as Oswald.
Callaway didn't see anybody get shot.
Callaway wasn't @Tippit.
Cool that Callaway saw Oswald near the scene brandishing a gun, though.
Raising my eyebrows, I can tell you..
::)
TESTIMONY OF TED CALLAWAY
~snip~
Mr. BALL. He was crossing Patton?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was that to the south or the north of the taxicab? Closer to you than the taxicab?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was he running or walking?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He was running.
~snip~
Mr. BALL. About what distance was he away from you--the closest that he ever was to you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. About 56 feet.
Mr. BALL. You measured that, did you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Last Saturday morning?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Measured it with a tape measure?
~snip~
Mr. BALL. Tell us what happened.
Mr. CALLAWAY. We first went into the room. There was Jim Leavelle, the detective, Sam Guinyard, and then this busdriver and myself. We waited down there for probably 20 or 30 minutes. And Jim told us, "When I show you these guys, be sure,. take your time, see if you can make a positive identification."
Mr. BALL. Had you known him before?
Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
-
~snip~
Mr. WHALEY. Well, I tried to get by the reporters, stepping over television cables and you couldn't hardly get by, they would grab you and wanted to know what you were doing down here, even with the detectives one in front and one behind you. Then they took me in an office there and I think Bill Alexander, the Assistant District Attorney, two or three, I was introduced to two or three who were FBI men and they wanted my deposition of what happened.
So, I told them to the best of my ability. Then they took me down in their room where they have their show-ups, and all, and me and this other taxi driver who was with me, sir, we sat in the room awhile and directly they brought in six men, young teenagers, and they all were handcuffed together. Well, they wanted me to pick out my passenger.
At that time he had on a pair of black pants and white T-shirt, that is all he had on. But you could have picked him out without identifying him by just listening to him because he was bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers and all of that and they asked me which one and I told them. It was him all right, the same man.
Mr. BALL. They had him in line with men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. With five others.
Mr. BALL. Men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. Not much younger, but just young kids they might have got them in jail.
Mr. BALL. Did he look older than those other boys?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And he was talking, was he?
Mr. WHALEY. He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.
~snip~
-
~snip~
Mr. WHALEY. Well, I tried to get by the reporters, stepping over television cables and you couldn't hardly get by, they would grab you and wanted to know what you were doing down here, even with the detectives one in front and one behind you. Then they took me in an office there and I think Bill Alexander, the Assistant District Attorney, two or three, I was introduced to two or three who were FBI men and they wanted my deposition of what happened.
So, I told them to the best of my ability. Then they took me down in their room where they have their show-ups, and all, and me and this other taxi driver who was with me, sir, we sat in the room awhile and directly they brought in six men, young teenagers, and they all were handcuffed together. Well, they wanted me to pick out my passenger.
At that time he had on a pair of black pants and white T-shirt, that is all he had on. But you could have picked him out without identifying him by just listening to him because he was bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers and all of that and they asked me which one and I told them. It was him all right, the same man.
Mr. BALL. They had him in line with men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. With five others.
Mr. BALL. Men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. Not much younger, but just young kids they might have got them in jail.
Mr. BALL. Did he look older than those other boys?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And he was talking, was he?
Mr. WHALEY.He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.
~snip~
This is Whaley the cabbie speaking....
They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.
And Whaley recognized what was going on. He said...."They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him"
That's Whaley recognizing that THEY (the police) WERE TRYING TO RAILROAD HIM.......
-
Ross is another one in a long line of people who thinks that arrogance and condescension is a good substitute for evidence.
Indeed.
I don't mind when somebody has high confidence in his own opinion, but when he starts attacking those who disagree with him and at the same time is running away from questions and hiding behind "I do not need to prove anything, you need to prove me wrong" crap, as Ross frequently does, he is not only showing us all just how shallow and weak his position is but also that he totally lacks the ability to defend it.
-
::)
TESTIMONY OF TED CALLAWAY
~snip~
Mr. BALL. He was crossing Patton?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was that to the south or the north of the taxicab? Closer to you than the taxicab?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was he running or walking?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He was running.
~snip~
Mr. BALL. About what distance was he away from you--the closest that he ever was to you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. About 56 feet.
Mr. BALL. You measured that, did you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Last Saturday morning?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Measured it with a tape measure?
~snip~
Mr. BALL. Tell us what happened.
Mr. CALLAWAY. We first went into the room. There was Jim Leavelle, the detective, Sam Guinyard, and then this busdriver and myself. We waited down there for probably 20 or 30 minutes. And Jim told us, "When I show you these guys, be sure,. take your time, see if you can make a positive identification."
Mr. BALL. Had you known him before?
Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
When I show you these guys, be sure,. take your time, see if you can make a positive identification."
> Thanks for reminding us that Callaway ID'd Oswald as the guy with the gun.
And raising one's eyebrows does not require rolling one's eyes.
-
Who else thinks that Chapman [based on his biased and predisposed posts] would have picked out Oswald whether he saw him or not?
Especially someone running from 60 feet away--------------------
>>>>>> ::) <<<<<<
Put between a lineup of cops. Which one looks like they might be a suspect? You could nail the president's killer here!!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTEO_wcU8AIlbIZ.jpg:large)
-
This Guy in the video is a liar.....
He might convince an ignoramus that what he is saying is valid.....But he'd never convince a knowledgeable person that a sawed off barrel that was designed to fire a bullet with the diameter of .359" would leave ballistic grooves on a bullet that was .357".
The rifling in the barrel of the S&W was worn out, and there was only two inches of barrel which could have come in contact with a bullet
The hot gasses blowing by the lead bullet would have prevented the rifling from leaving "tracks" on the bullet .....
Calling a man a liar (with no proof) is cowardly.
So you're a ballistics expert, now, Walt?
Your "theory" is that every witness who contributes to proving the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald is a liar. That's all you've got. How about some evidence that somebody else killed Officer J.D. Tippit? Not "thumb-suckers': Identification of an alternative shooter and physical evidence is required. Over to you... genius.
-
Calling a man a liar (with no proof) is cowardly.
So you're a ballistics expert, now, Walt?
Your "theory" is that every witness who contributes to proving the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald is a liar. That's all you've got. How about some evidence that somebody else killed Officer J.D. Tippit? Not "thumb-suckers': Identification of an alternative shooter and physical evidence is required. Over to you... genius.
Calling a man a liar (with no proof) is cowardly.
So is running away from questions you don't like.....
-
::)
TESTIMONY OF TED CALLAWAY
~snip~
Mr. BALL. He was crossing Patton?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was that to the south or the north of the taxicab? Closer to you than the taxicab?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was he running or walking?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He was running.
~snip~
Mr. BALL. About what distance was he away from you--the closest that he ever was to you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. About 56 feet.
Mr. BALL. You measured that, did you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Last Saturday morning?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Measured it with a tape measure?
~snip~
Mr. BALL. Tell us what happened.
Mr. CALLAWAY. We first went into the room. There was Jim Leavelle, the detective, Sam Guinyard, and then this busdriver and myself. We waited down there for probably 20 or 30 minutes. And Jim told us, "When I show you these guys, be sure,. take your time, see if you can make a positive identification."
Mr. BALL. Had you known him before?
Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Good post, Gary. You provide confirmation that Ted Callaway positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw running with a gun in his hand seconds after he (Callaway) heard shots fired. Glad you agree that Ted Callaway was absolutely convinced the gun-carrier was Lee Harvey Oswald. Keep up the good work.
-
So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Good post, Gary. You provide confirmation that Ted Callaway positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw running with a gun in his hand seconds after he (Callaway) heard shots fired. Glad you agree that Ted Callaway was absolutely convinced the gun-carrier was Lee Harvey Oswald. Keep up the good work.
Another strategy of a coward; misrepresenting what the other poster was saying or intended to say. Pathetic!
-
The one who is in denial is you. You have convinced yourself by cherry-picking the evidence and made up your mind to the extend that you are unwilling to even consider anything that contradicts your opinion and/or the serious problems there are with the historical record. The points John raised are valid, but rather than deal with them you start attacking John. That's a massive demonstration of weakness on your part. And it isn't the first time you have displayed that same weakness.
When I ask you two simple questions you can't give a credible answer to, you run away, saying;
But now, here your are, replying to other posts in the same thread and completely ignoring the two questions I asked.
Did you think I would let you get away with that? Here are my two questions again;
1.
What in the world could have possibly been so important to Oswald that he needed to get to a go-nowhere location as 10%/Patton (where he would stand out like a sore thumb) as quickly as he could? Apart from jogging, have you ever run to a place where there was nothing to do or see? And if he was tansported in a car, why not pick a location like Jefferson to be dropped of where there was a lot more activity (less chance of being noticed) and bus stops all over the place?
It's easier to hide in the open in a crowd of people than on an empty street, right?
2.
I never said it was not Oswald's revolver. I can't say that simply because I do not know. But you don't get to assume that it was Oswald's revolver. You need to prove it... and John has already explained the problem with the chain of custody for the revolver. All we really know is that Gerald Hill, at the police station, pulled a revolver out of his pocket some 2 hours after Oswald's arrest, had a few officers mark it and and submitted into evidence.
Where did Hill get that revolver and how do we know it's the same one they took from Oswald at the Texas Theater?
Are you going to man up to at least try to answer the questions or are you going to run away again.... Your choice!
1.
What in the world could have possibly been so important to Oswald that he needed to get to a go-nowhere location as 10%/Patton (where he would stand out like a sore thumb) as quickly as he could? Apart from jogging, have you ever run to a place where there was nothing to do or see? And if he was tansported in a car, why not pick a location like Jefferson to be dropped of where there was a lot more activity (less chance of being noticed) and bus stops all over the place?
It's easier to hide in the open in a crowd of people than on an empty street, right?
Your theory cannot be proved. You're suggesting Tenth & Patton was Oswald's destination: You have no evidence for that.
I'm not convinced that Oswald was given a lift part of the way from North Beckley to Tenth & Patton. I mentioned that "possibility" to counter the argument that the journey was "impossible" in the time (approximate) Oswald had available. Oswald was not observed all the way from the rooming house to Tenth and Patton. He might have run part of the way. It's reasonable to assume that Oswald wanted to get to his destination as quickly as possible. My theory (for which I have no proof): Oswald was going to Redbird Airport to hijack a light-plane.
2.
I never said it was not Oswald's revolver. I can't say that simply because I do not know. But you don't get to assume that it was Oswald's revolver. You need to prove it... and John has already explained the problem with the chain of custody for the revolver. All we really know is that Gerald Hill, at the police station, pulled a revolver out of his pocket some 2 hours after Oswald's arrest, had a few officers mark it and and submitted into evidence.
These "do-not-knows" are designed to permit you to "sit on the fence". You are simply avoiding offering any speculative opinion that would be open to scrutiny by other members of this forum.
Where did Hill get that revolver and how do we know it's the same one they took from Oswald at the Texas Theater?[/i]
It's overwhelmingly likely that the revolver is the one taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater. For it not to be requires a massive conspiracy that involved police officers such as Gerald Hill. When you invoke a preposterous theory implying Hill got another revolver from somewhere else, you need to explain a plausible series of events to explain that.
Are you going to man up to at least try to answer the questions or are you going to run away again.... Your choice!
I was busy with other matters that were more important.
-
Another strategy of a coward; misrepresenting what the other poster was saying or intended to say. Pathetic!
It's not my fault that Gary Craig did not make his opinion more clear.
-
Indeed.
I don't mind when somebody has high confidence in his own opinion, but when he starts attacking those who disagree with him and at the same time is running away from questions and hiding behind "I do not need to prove anything, you need to prove me wrong" crap, as Ross frequently does, he is not only showing us all just how shallow and weak his position is but also that he totally lacks the ability to defend it.
"I do not need to prove anything" is your "contrarian" technique. You imply all sorts of theories without any proof and then accuse others of exhibiting bad character for doing the same thing.
-
Who else thinks that Chapman [based on his biased and predisposed posts] would have picked out Oswald whether he saw him or not?
Especially someone running from 60 feet away--------------------
>>>>>> ::) <<<<<<
Put between a lineup of cops. Which one looks like they might be a suspect? You could nail the president's killer here!!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTEO_wcU8AIlbIZ.jpg:large)
I wonder why Oswald didn't insist on wearing his jacket.
;)
Meantime back here on planet earth: Ever played baseball?
I played OB throughout my teenage years.
The pitchers' mound is 60ft* from home plate
Yeah, I could ID the little twerp at that distance
And at the 90ft distance between the bases, for that matter.
And are you claiming that drawing is accurate?
*Callaway stated the measured 56ft, btW
-
You say: "vague testimony".
Actually, Joseph D. Nichol goes into considerable detail about the reason for the difficulty matching the lead bullets to the test sample fired from Oswald's Smith & Wesson Victory revolver.
Explain how Nichol's testimony is "vague". Your simple "assertion" statement is a weak, inadequate comment.
My comment about "hours producing superb Vids" was designed to provoke John Iacoletti. Just a bit of fun. ;D
Yes, it is vague. It's obvious to anybody who watches them. Nothing in these videos are conclusive to confirm Oswald killed Tippit.
-
1.
What in the world could have possibly been so important to Oswald that he needed to get to a go-nowhere location as 10%/Patton (where he would stand out like a sore thumb) as quickly as he could? Apart from jogging, have you ever run to a place where there was nothing to do or see? And if he was tansported in a car, why not pick a location like Jefferson to be dropped of where there was a lot more activity (less chance of being noticed) and bus stops all over the place?
It's easier to hide in the open in a crowd of people than on an empty street, right?
Your theory cannot be proved. You're suggesting Tenth & Patton was Oswald's destination: You have no evidence for that.
There you go again. Turning a simple question into a so-called theory, when there isn't one. But a strawman is easier to attack than answering a simple question, right
There is no theory that needs to be proven, nor am I making any suggestions.
I am asking you; "What in the world could have possibly been so important to Oswald that he needed to get to a go-nowhere location as 10%/Patton (where he would stand out like a sore thumb) as quickly as he could?"
and as predicted, you can't provide a plausible answer and are playing games again.
I'm not convinced that Oswald was given a lift part of the way from North Beckley to Tenth & Patton. I mentioned that "possibility" to counter the argument that the journey was "impossible" in the time (approximate) Oswald had available. Oswald was not observed all the way from the rooming house to Tenth and Patton. He might have run part of the way. It's reasonable to assume that Oswald wanted to get to his destination as quickly as possible. My theory (for which I have no proof): Oswald was going to Redbird Airport to hijack a light-plane.
It's reasonable to assume that Oswald wanted to get to his destination as quickly as possible.
No, it is not reasonable at all to assume that since you don't know what his destination was. En route to the roominghouse he offered his taxi to a woman. That doesn't sound like somebody who is in a hurry to get somewhere fast.
All we know is that according to the narrative Oswald ended up at 10th/Patton where nobody saw him running.
You think it is possible that Oswald was running or was given a lift (for neither exists any evidence) but you simply can not give a plausible reason from him being in a hurry to get to 10th/Patton or where ever else he was going!
2.
I never said it was not Oswald's revolver. I can't say that simply because I do not know. But you don't get to assume that it was Oswald's revolver. You need to prove it... and John has already explained the problem with the chain of custody for the revolver. All we really know is that Gerald Hill, at the police station, pulled a revolver out of his pocket some 2 hours after Oswald's arrest, had a few officers mark it and and submitted into evidence.
These "do-not-knows" are designed to permit you to "sit on the fence". You are simply avoiding offering any speculative opinion that would be open to scrutiny by other members of this forum.
Again, more evasiveness, a personal attack and deflection.... everything except an answer.
This of course justifies the conclusion that you can not prove that the revolver Hill produced at the police station some 2 hours after Oswald's arrest was in fact the same revolver that was taken from Oswald.
Where did Hill get that revolver and how do we know it's the same one they took from Oswald at the Texas Theater?[/i]
It's overwhelmingly likely that the revolver is the one taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater. For it not to be requires a massive conspiracy that involved police officers such as Gerald Hill. When you invoke a preposterous theory implying Hill got another revolver from somewhere else, you need to explain a plausible series of events to explain that.
It's overwhelmingly likely that the revolver is the one taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater.
Nope.. It's overwhelmingly wishful thinking on your part. But by making this comment you are actually confirming that it is only your assumption that the revolver Hill brought into the police station and had marked by a few cops there was the same one as the revolver taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater.
Are you going to man up to at least try to answer the questions or are you going to run away again.... Your choice!
I was busy with other matters that were more important.
Yeh, so you said... but you were not so busy to write other posts on the forum and.... you still haven't even tried to answer the two questions...
Bottom line; you can't give any plausible reason for why Oswald would be in such a hurry to get to 10th/Patton that he needed to run and you only assume that the revolver Hill entered into evidence did indeed belong to Oswald.
-
It's not my fault that Gary Craig did not make his opinion more clear.
So you were the only one on the forum who did not understand, is that what you are saying?
-
"I do not need to prove anything" is your "contrarian" technique. You imply all sorts of theories without any proof and then accuse others of exhibiting bad character for doing the same thing.
It seems you still don't understand the difference between a question being asked and a claim (implied or not) being made.
-
Calling a man a liar (with no proof) is cowardly.
So you're a ballistics expert, now, Walt?
Your "theory" is that every witness who contributes to proving the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald is a liar. That's all you've got. How about some evidence that somebody else killed Officer J.D. Tippit? Not "thumb-suckers': Identification of an alternative shooter and physical evidence is required. Over to you... genius.
I clearly stated that this mendacious man can fool an ignoramus.....Just as a snake oil salesmen can fool ignorant people.
What size was the bore diameter of the revolver ?..... What was the diameter of the projectile? How long was the barrel?
What was the composition of the projectile metal? What was the melting point? What was the temperature of the gasses blowing by the projectile? What was the velocity of the hot gasses blowing past the projectile?
Please answer the above questions.
-
Yes, it is vague. It's obvious to anybody who watches them. Nothing in these videos are conclusive to confirm Oswald killed Tippit.
Yes, it is vague. It's obvious to anybody who watches them.....
No it is not vague. The man takes 70 seconds to explain the difficulty of the ballistics match of the projectiles.
I'm not going list all the points he made. You need to rebut Joseph D. Nichols conclusions point-by-point: Otherwise you're just another contrarian.
Incidentally, your brief, incorrect statement is actually "vague" too. What irony!
Nothing in these videos are conclusive to confirm Oswald killed Tippit.
The Video concludes with text stating: "Joseph D. Nicol's expert ballistics evidence SUPPORTS other evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered Office J.D. Tippit".
Have you ever heard of the legal term "probative"?
-
"I do not need to prove anything" is your "contrarian" technique. You imply all sorts of theories without any proof and then accuse others of exhibiting bad character for doing the same thing.
It's called JAQing
A chicken-spombleprofglidnoctobuns troll method
-
I clearly stated that this mendacious man can fool an ignoramus.....Just as a snake oil salesmen can fool ignorant people.
What size was the bore diameter of the revolver ?..... What was the diameter of the projectile? How long was the barrel?
What was the composition of the projectile metal? What was the melting point? What was the temperature of the gasses blowing by the projectile? What was the velocity of the hot gasses blowing past the projectile?
Please answer the above questions.
Not necessary. You're demanding an unrealistic standard of evidence.
I'm not required to be a ballistics expert. I posted a video of someone who was (1964).
Your demands: The first 3 are known. The last 3 are not used in ballistics identification. Explain why the last 3 would be tested for.
If you think they are relevant: Explain how they disprove the conclusions of Joseph D. Nicol.
-
When I show you these guys, be sure,. take your time, see if you can make a positive identification."
> Thanks for reminding us that Callaway ID'd Oswald as the guy with the gun.
And raising one's eyebrows does not require rolling one's eyes.
"Thanks for reminding us that Callaway ID'd Oswald as the guy with the gun."
Domingo Benavides was directly across the street from Tippit's car, within 15 feet, when he was shot. He got the best view of Tippit's murderer and he described a oerson who doesn't match Oswald.
The closest Calloway got to the guy with the gun was 56 feet and the guy was running. Considering the evidence against Oswald I can see why you're grasping at straw though.
-
So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Good post, Gary. You provide confirmation that Ted Callaway positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw running with a gun in his hand seconds after he (Callaway) heard shots fired. Glad you agree that Ted Callaway was absolutely convinced the gun-carrier was Lee Harvey Oswald. Keep up the good work.
You jumped in the same boat as Chapman.
Callaway's ID from 56 feet of a running man gets trumped by Domingo Benavides' exculpatory ID from 15 feet away.
-
"Thanks for reminding us that Callaway ID'd Oswald as the guy with the gun."
Domingo Benavides was directly across the street from Tippit's car, within 15 feet, when he was shot. He got the best view of Tippit's murderer and he described a oerson who doesn't match Oswald.
The closest Calloway got to the guy with the gun was 56 feet and the guy was running. Considering the evidence against Oswald I can see why you're grasping at straw though.
Calloway saw Oswald at full face. Did Benavides?
-
Calloway saw Oswald at full face. Did Benavides?
Didn't need to.
Testimony Of Domingo Benavides
Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.
~snip~
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
~snip~
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
~snip~
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3_1.jpg)
-
Not necessary. You're demanding an unrealistic standard of evidence.
I'm not required to be a ballistics expert. I posted a video of someone who was (1964).
Your demands: The first 3 are known. The last 3 are not used in ballistics identification. Explain why the last 3 would be tested for.
If you think they are relevant: Explain how they disprove the conclusions of Joseph D. Nicol.
I posted a video of someone who was (1964).
How many other experts disagreed with your "expert".... Isn't it a fact that several other experts swore that the bullets could NOT be traced to that big bore, short barrel, revolver ??
-
These "do-not-knows" are designed to permit you to "sit on the fence". You are simply avoiding offering any speculative opinion that would be open to scrutiny by other members of this forum.
Pretending to know something you don't actually know just in order to have a position is no virtue.
-
It's called JAQing
Wrong again, Chapman.
-
Not necessary. You're demanding an unrealistic standard of evidence.
That's what people without any good evidence always say.
-
I posted a video of someone who was (1964).
How many other experts disagreed with your "expert".... Isn't it a fact that several other experts swore that the bullets could NOT be traced to that big bore, short barrel, revolver ??
Name "the experts" who swore that the bullets could NOT be traced to that big bore, short barrel, revolver AND swore that the bullets could be absolutely excluded from that gun based on having different class characteristics?
-
I posted a video of someone who was (1964).
How many other experts disagreed with your "expert".... Isn't it a fact that several other experts swore that the bullets could NOT be traced to that big bore, short barrel, revolver ??
Yes. 7 other firearms experts for the WC and HSCA to be exact. But of course the LNers cite Nicol.
-
That's what people without any good evidence always say.
I provided evidence: Audio/visual testimony on video.
According to you: Every piece of evidence (without exception) is NOT good evidence.
-
Yes. 7 other firearms experts for the WC and HSCA to be exact. But of course the LNers cite Nicol.
You ignored the "class characteristics" question.
-
Name "the experts" who swore that the bullets could NOT be traced to that big bore, short barrel, revolver
Robert A. Frazier
Cortlandt Cunningham
John S. Bates, Jr.
Donald E. Champagne
Monty C. Lutz
Andrew M. Newquist
George R. Wilson
AND swore that the bullets could be absolutely excluded from that gun based on having different class characteristics?
That's not what he said, Mr. Strawman.
-
No it is not vague. The man takes 70 seconds to explain the difficulty of the ballistics match of the projectiles.
Yes it is vague. If it wasn't you would have a slam dunk case. Speculation never proved anything.
I'm not going list all the points he made. You need to rebut Joseph D. Nichols conclusions point-by-point: Otherwise you're just another contrarian.
Well, this is your propaganda so you need to make your case. The reason you refuse is because you have flimsy evidence.
Incidentally, your brief, incorrect statement is actually "vague" too. What irony!
If you had solid evidence then you would have a case. Nothing you've shown proves anything about Oswald.
The Video concludes with text stating: "Joseph D. Nicol's expert ballistics evidence SUPPORTS other evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered Office J.D. Tippit".
:D :D :D
That isn't proof of anything.
-
I provided evidence: Audio/visual testimony on video.
The only thing that's evidence of is that Markham picked Oswald out of a biased, unfair lineup.
According to you: Every piece of evidence (without exception) is NOT good evidence.
According to you, every piece of questionable, arguable, tainted circumstantial evidence is good solid evidence.
-
You ignored the "class characteristics" question.
That's because "class characteristics" is BS rhetoric to make up for an inability to match them to a specific weapon.
-
Incidentally, where is the complete interview that Ross pulled his propaganda piece from? I thought it was from the 1964 CBS "November 22nd and the Warren Report" special, but I can't find her talking about the lineup in that special.
-
I wonder why Oswald didn't insist on wearing his jacket.
Supposedly the shooter was wearing a jacket so actually the cops should have insisted. I played OB throughout my teenage years.
I give up ...what is an "OB"? And are you claiming that drawing is accurate?
According to the Warren Report....
(https://jfkscoup.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/lholineup.png?w=616)
-
That's not what the fillers were wearing that day.
Perry put on a brown sport coat that he got from the homicide office.
Clark was wearing a white shirt and put on a red vest that he got from the homicide office.
Ables was wearing a white shirt and gray knit sweater.
But they were not dressed like Oswald or like any of the witness descriptions.
-
That's not what the fillers were wearing that day.
Not that day-- but anyway..they could have been standing in their underwear and they still would have looked like cops.
-
Didn't need to.
Testimony Of Domingo Benavides
Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.
~snip~
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
~snip~
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
~snip~
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3_1.jpg)
Show a reconstruction of Benevides view of Oswald with his jacket on..
-
That's not what the fillers were wearing that day.
Perry put on a brown sport coat that he got from the homicide office.
Clark was wearing a white shirt and put on a red vest that he got from the homicide office.
Ables was wearing a white shirt and gray knit sweater.
But they were not dressed like Oswald or like any of the witness descriptions.
Everybody had a face. Oswald's was the one on mystery guest #2
And Oswald was not dressed as Oswald. No jacket. Well at least you didn't mention one.
-
Show a reconstruction of Benevides view of Oswald with his jacket on..
Benavides description of Tippit's killer doesn't match Oswald.
Why would I reconstruct his view of Tippit's murder with Oswald in his jacket rather than with the real killer?
-
Everybody had a face. Oswald's was the one on mystery guest #2
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
-
Supposedly the shooter was wearing a jacket so actually the cops should have insisted. I give up ...what is an "OB"? According to the Warren Report....
(https://jfkscoup.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/lholineup.png?w=616)
That's not a drawing
-
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Markham gave Ball fits in the way she (mis)understood and responded to questions
You left that part out
-
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
What a statement.
The WC said the following:
Just prior to the shooting, Mrs. Helen Markham, a waitress in downtown Dallas, was about to cross 10th Street at Patton. As she waited on the northwest corner of the intersection for traffic to pass, she noticed a young man as he was "almost ready to get up on the curb" at the southeast corner of the intersection, approximately 50 feet away. The man continued along 10th Street. Mrs. Markham saw a police car slowly approach the man from the rear and stop alongside of him.
Who was this man? Wasn't Oswald walking west on 10th street, not east? No mention of this man by Scoggins who was parked right at that corner.
-
Did Oswald walk all the way west past the intersection, and then turn back east when he saw Tippits patrol car. Is that what Markham saw? Is she seeing Oswald walking back east?
Surely if that was the case Oswald should have ran down Paton, not simply turn back east on 10th street.
-
Why in the world would he do that if Tippit was heading east?
-
Incidentally, where is the complete interview that Ross pulled his propaganda piece from? I thought it was from the 1964 CBS "November 22nd and the Warren Report" special, but I can't find her talking about the lineup in that special.
Hi John,
Easy for an amateur Vid-producer to find. Video production apps permit smooth scrolling of the entire film. In the "trim" module, you see the spot you're looking for as the images change when the mouse moves the position on the timeline left or right.
What you are looking for (the clip in my YouTube video) is at 1:23:08 (in the full CBS 1964 program). I did not exclude anything.
Markham's detailed description of seeing "before during and after" the Tippit murder (by Oswald!!!) is at 1:09:17 (in the full CBS 1964 program).
Note: You need the version that commences with the apology for not broadcasting the usual programs: Sunday with Jack Benny, Ted Mack and The Original Amateur Hour, The Twentieth Century and Mister Ed. That version will give you the correct times for the clips you want to review.
Ross
-
Markham gave Ball fits in the way she (mis)understood and responded to questions
You left that part out
Yeah Counsel Ball couldn't speak East Texas hick. So what is an OB?
-
What you are looking for (the clip in my YouTube video) is at 1:23:08 (in the full CBS 1964 program). I did not exclude anything.
Thanks much! I'd sure like to see Eddie Barker's entire footage to see what they left out.