Devil's advocate. After 57 years this is the first I can recall reading anthing that direcly contradicts Roberts' story of seeing LHO standing at the bus stop. Not only that, it quotes Roberts as saying something entirely different, i.e., that LHO (after hesitating) went off RUNNING south on Beckley. No one saw LHO on the walk from the boarding house to 10th and Patton much less saw LHO running anywhere. A man standing at a bus stop is easier to miss than a man running on a residential street.
If I read the OP correctly, Aynesworth waited 6 months from the interview with Roberts to make his handwritten notes, so how do we know he correctly remembered what she said?
Since the running story fits the WR conclusion so well it's strange that it has been buried so long. Not only does it have LHO going in the right direction toward Tippit it has him running so as to give him enough time to make the rendezvous.
Still, an interesting story no doubt but to me it raises its own issues.
The anybody but LHO crowd likes to believe that LHO actually stood at the bus stop near his rooming house when he left it a little after 1:00 on 11/22/63. And they point this out as part of their argument claiming that LHO couldn’t have traveled on foot the distance to the Tippit murder scene in time to get there before Tippit was murdered.
Here is a quote from a photograph of the actual typewritten notes by Hugh Aynesworth written in May of 1964 for The Dallas Morning News and published in a book titled “The Reporters’ Notes by The Dallas Morning News published in 2013.
“Mrs. Roberts recalled the now star-boarder running in about 1 p.m. as she sat watching the TV coverage of the assassination. “Boy you’re in a hurry,” she said. He hasn’t replied yet. She told us Oswald (Mr. Lee as she knew him) had hesitated at the front of the house a moment, then started running down Beckley Street south.
So, the later claims by Mrs. Roberts that LHO went to the bus stop and waited there for a while are (quite obviously to me) not true. She may believe that he did, but it is apparent that her later memory is false. Her fresh recollection (given to Aynesworth and the others just hours after the event) of LHO running south on Beckley, and no mention of the bus stop, are bound to be more accurate than her later one. Our memories are reconstructions (unlike taped re-runs) based on associations. It is easy to understand how Mrs. Roberts could mistakenly associate another memory (of LHO standing at the bus stop at another time) as part of what she remembered of 11/22/63. We all have mistakenly remembered a few things wrong from time to time. And we only realize it when we encounter evidence contrary to our memories. So, it probably happens to all of us more often than we think it does.
Some of you will cling to Mrs. Roberts’ false memory account and say that it is true. But I am convinced otherwise. I always have felt this way. But now have firm evidence to support my conclusion.
“Mrs. Roberts recalled the now star-boarder running in about 1 p.m. as she sat watching the TV coverage of the assassination."
This statement contradicts what Mrs Roberts actually said she was doing when Lee entered the house. Mrs R said that she was STANDING in front of the TV which she had just turned on and was waiting for the set to warm up when Lee entered..... Trivial detail?....Yes...But it serves to illuminate that Mr Aynesworth was not above twisting the facts to serve his purpose. IMO, Aynesworth is a Texas Bull shipper who enjoys telling stories...
Why do you believe that Aynesworth twisted this? What was the purpose? How can you say with any certainty that Mrs. Roberts didn’t actually tell Aynesworth she was sitting? She could have easily misspoken that detail instead of Aynesworth being incorrect.
AFFIDAVIT OF EARLENE ROBERTS
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Yarborough_aff.pdf
[EXCERPT]
The following affidavit was executed by Earlene Roberts on December 5, 1963.
PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF AFFIDAVIT PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
STATE OF TEXAS, County of Dallas, 88:
I, Earlene Roberts, after being duly sworn, do depose and state :
I live at 1026 Beckley, Dallas, Texas, where I serve as housekeeper for a room- ing house owned by Mr. & Mrs. A. C. Johnson.
On Friday, November 22, 1963, at approximately 1:00 pm I was sitting in the living room watching television about the President’s assassination when a man I knew as 0. H. Lee, but who has since been identified as Lee Harvey Oswald, came into the front door and went to his room. Oswald did not have a jacket when he came in the house and I don’t recall what type of clothing he was wearing.
Oswald went to his room and was only there a very few minutes before coming out. I noticed he had a jacket he was putting on. I recall the jacket was a dark color and it was the type that zips up the front. He was zipping the jacket up as he left.
Oswald went out the front door. A moment later I looked out the window. I saw Lee Oswald standing on the curb at the bus stop just to the right, and on the same side of the street as our house. I just glanced out the window that once. I don’t know how long Lee Oswald stood at the curb nor did I see which direction he went when he left there.
[...]
Charles, Roberts' earlier affidavit, December 5, actually backs up Aynesworth: "On Friday, November 22, 1963, at approximately 1:00 pm I was sitting in the living room watching television about the President’s assassination"
Why do you believe that Aynesworth twisted this? What was the purpose? How can you say with any certainty that Mrs. Roberts didn’t actually tell Aynesworth she was sitting? She could have easily misspoken that detail instead of Aynesworth being incorrect.
If you read the rest of the affidavit she says “About 30 minutes later three policemen came to the house.”
30-minutes - LOL. She remembers everything so well...
What's that got to do with not seeing where Oswald went after seeing him standing at the bus top
The anybody but LHO crowd likes to believe that LHO actually stood at the bus stop near his rooming house when he left it a little after 1:00 on 11/22/63. And they point this out as part of their argument claiming that LHO couldn’t have traveled on foot the distance to the Tippit murder scene in time to get there before Tippit was murdered.
Here is a quote from a photograph of the actual typewritten notes by Hugh Aynesworth written in May of 1964 for The Dallas Morning News and published in a book titled “The Reporters’ Notes by The Dallas Morning News published in 2013.
“Mrs. Roberts recalled the now star-boarder running in about 1 p.m. as she sat watching the TV coverage of the assassination. “Boy you’re in a hurry,” she said. He hasn’t replied yet. She told us Oswald (Mr. Lee as she knew him) had hesitated at the front of the house a moment, then started running down Beckley Street south.
So, the later claims by Mrs. Roberts that LHO went to the bus stop and waited there for a while are (quite obviously to me) not true. She may believe that he did, but it is apparent that her later memory is false. Her fresh recollection (given to Aynesworth and the others just hours after the event) of LHO running south on Beckley, and no mention of the bus stop, are bound to be more accurate than her later one. Our memories are reconstructions (unlike taped re-runs) based on associations. It is easy to understand how Mrs. Roberts could mistakenly associate another memory (of LHO standing at the bus stop at another time) as part of what she remembered of 11/22/63. We all have mistakenly remembered a few things wrong from time to time. And we only realize it when we encounter evidence contrary to our memories. So, it probably happens to all of us more often than we think it does.
Some of you will cling to Mrs. Roberts’ false memory account and say that it is true. But I am convinced otherwise. I always have felt this way. But now have firm evidence to support my conclusion.
Whether Roberts saw Oswald standing at the bus stop or not is of very little significance. Roberts tells us that when Oswald came in she was trying to get the television to work to watch the news at 1 o'clock and that he left again after about 3 minutes.
We also know from the Gary Mack time trial that the fastest route between Beckley and 10th street took 11 minutes to walk.
Combined this means that Oswald couldn't have gotten to 10th street until 1.12 pm at the earliest. Add on two minutes for a short conversation with Tippit and the events that followed and you've got a shooting at 1.14 pm.
The problem is there is convincing circumstantial evidence to justify the conclusion that the actual time of the shooting most likely was between 1.06 and 1.10. For instance, Markham said she took the same bus, on Jefferson, every day at approx 1.15 pm, which of course means that she would have been at the bus stop at the time of the shooting and thus couldn't have been at 10th street at 1.14 to witness it.
So, you see, the whole point of Oswald waiting at the bus stop or not is really a trivial matter.
There is no doubt in my mind that he took notes of what Earlene Roberts said as she said it.
That may be so, but there's no evidence that it's actually true.
Nor is there any good reason to believe that Aynesworth's May 1964 account is more accurate than Roberts' own April 1964 account.
It never ceases to amaze what the naysayers believe...
It never ceases to amaze what the naysayers believe...
Yes, it is laughable. Only if a CTer went back in a time machine with a stop watch could they come up with that level of specificity of events down to the minute. The fact remains that several people put Oswald at the scene of the Tippit murder. If he was there, then the timing issue is not relevant. However he got there, he was there. That's all that matters. And there is no doubt of that. CTers want to go down various rabbit holes with baseless claims like "add on two minutes for a short conversation with Tippit." And bus departure times as though those couldn't vary and are accurate down to the minute. But then dismiss anything they do not like as the product of "speculation." LOL. There is zero doubt that Oswald murdered Tippit. It's just the same old song and dance. Very tiresome.
It never ceases to amaze how much factual evidence LNs are willing to overlook to keep Oswald in play as the lone gunman.
Yes, it is laughable. Only if a CTer went back in a time machine with a stop watch could they come up with that level of specificity of events down to the minute. The fact remains that several people put Oswald at the scene of the Tippit murder. If he was there, then the timing issue is not relevant.
Pathetic. When witness testimony is not to a LN's liking, the witnesses are unreliable. When circumstantial evidence does not support the LN's case, the witnesses suddenly become reliable, except of course for those who say something that does not fit the narrative.
However he got there, he was there. That's all that matters.
In the real world, when there is evidence that a suspect could not physically have been at a particular place, there is no opportunity to commit the murder, regardless of what witnesses say and believe they saw.
CTers want to go down various rabbit holes with baseless claims like "add on two minutes for a short conversation with Tippit." And bus departure times as though those couldn't vary and are accurate down to the minute.
More idiocy. We know that Tippit's killer talked to the officer after being called over. The man walking towards the passenger door of the car, talking to Tippit and the latter getting out of the car and walk to the front all takes time. Two minutes is a fair assumption, but even if it only took one, it still doesn't matter for the timeline.
The departure times for the bus did probably vary, which is why the FBI found that the schedule said the bus stopped at Jefferson at 1.12. and 1.22. Markham estimated she took the bus at 1.15. That could be either a delayed 1.12 bus of simply the 1.22 bus. It is of no relevance which bus it was. What is relevant is that Markham could not witness a shooting at 10th street at 1.14 or 1.15 when in fact she would already have been at the bus stop. If that's too much logic for you, I'm sorry, I can't fix stupid!
Btw I saw you complaining about applied logic in the matter of the bus stop, but what I did not see was an explanation for Markham allegedly still being at 10th street at 1.14 / 1.15 when she herself said she took her daily bus on Jefferson at 1.15. You don't even try to explain it for an obvious reason; you can't!
But then dismiss anything they do not like as the product of "speculation." LOL.
Like what? Give one example.... I bet you can't.
There is zero doubt that Oswald murdered Tippit.
Than prove it..... I bet you can't. But then, for everything you believe there is zero doubt in your mind. Just like Trump winning the election LOL
Yes, it is laughable. Only if a CTer went back in a time machine with a stop watch could they come up with that level of specificity of events down to the minute. The fact remains that several people put Oswald at the scene of the Tippit murder. If he was there, then the timing issue is not relevant.
Pathetic. When witness testimony is not to a LN's liking, the witnesses are unreliable. When circumstantial evidence does not support the LN's case, the witnesses suddenly become reliable, except of course for those who say something that does not fit the narrative.
But thanks for proving the point I made earlier;
However he got there, he was there. That's all that matters.
It's all that matters in your mixed up world, that's for sure, but in the real world, when there is evidence that a suspect could not physically have been at a particular place, at a particular time, to commit the crime, there is no opportunity to commit the murder, regardless of what witnesses say and believe they saw.
CTers want to go down various rabbit holes with baseless claims like "add on two minutes for a short conversation with Tippit." And bus departure times as though those couldn't vary and are accurate down to the minute.
More idiocy. We know that Tippit's killer talked to the officer after being called over. The man walking towards the passenger door of the car, talking to Tippit and the latter getting out of the car and walk to the front all takes time. Two minutes is a fair assumption, but even if it only took one, it still doesn't matter for the timeline.
The departure times for the bus did probably vary, which is why the FBI found that the schedule said the bus stopped at Jefferson at 1.12. and 1.22. Markham estimated she took the bus at 1.15. That could be either a delayed 1.12 bus of simply the 1.22 bus. It is of no relevance which bus it was. What is relevant is that Markham could not witness a shooting at 10th street at 1.14 or 1.15 when in fact she would already have been at the bus stop. If that's too much logic for you, I'm sorry, I can't fix stupid!
Btw I saw you complaining about applied logic in the matter of the bus stop, but what I did not see was an explanation for Markham allegedly still being at 10th street at 1.14 / 1.15 when she herself said she took her daily bus on Jefferson at 1.15. You don't even try to explain it for an obvious reason; you can't!
But then dismiss anything they do not like as the product of "speculation." LOL.
Like what? Give one example.... I bet you can't.
There is zero doubt that Oswald murdered Tippit.
Than prove it..... I bet you can't. But then, for everything you believe there is zero doubt in your mind. Just like Trump winning the election LOL
The departure times for the bus did probably vary, which is why the FBI found that the schedule said the bus stopped at Jefferson at 1.12. and 1.22. Markham estimated she took the bus at 1.15. That could be either a delayed 1.12 bus of simply the 1.22 bus. It is of no relevance which bus it was. What is relevant is that Markham could not witness a shooting at 10th street at 1.14 or 1.15 when in fact she would already have been at the bus stop.
Buses run on a tight schedule.... If the route timetable says that a bus will be at a certain location ( Jefferson and Patton) at a posted time then the bus will be there at that time. However, occasionally a bus will be delayed by traffic and arrive at the bus stop a bit late....( but NEVER will a bus be early)
A great insight into the CTer "mind." The inability to process information in a logical manner. Here we have Roger making all manner of baseless assumptions trying to pin Oswald's movements down in pedantic detail to the minute. For what purpose? Apparently to prove he could not be at the Tippit scene at the time of the murder. But wait. Multiple eyewitnesses confirm he was there. And he is arrested a short distance away with a pistol and the same two brands of ammo used at the Tippit scene. What are the odds? But Roger is stuck on bus schedules and over nonsense that prove absolutely nothing even if accurate. Why? Because Oswald was there as confirmed by multiple witnesses and the evidence. If a thing happens, the odds against it happening are no longer relevant in proving that it didn't happen. That's rabbit hole lunacy. It's like trying to convince someone who is holding the winning lottery ticket in their hand that they couldn't have won because the odds are so long against it happening.
So you can't explain how Markham could still be at 10th street to watch a murder at 1.14 or 1.15 when she said herself that she took her daily bus on Jefferson at that exact time? Got it!
Apparently to prove he could not be at the Tippit scene at the time of the murder. But wait. Multiple eyewitnesses confirm he was there.
Hey idiot, I have four witnesses who saw you beating your wife in a hotel in Miami yesterday. No point to deny it because those people saw you there, so you were there, right?
And he is arrested a short distance away with a pistol and the same two brands of ammo used at the Tippit scene.
What pistol would that be? The one that suddenly showed up in the police station, some two hours after Oswald's arrest and was initialed by police officers who were not even present at the arrest? Is that the pistol you mean?
If a thing happens, the odds against it happening are no longer relevant in proving that it didn't happen.
Hilarious... So, you were beating your wife in Miami yesterday? Four witnesses said it happened......
It's like trying to convince someone who is holding the winning lottery ticket in their hand that they couldn't have won because the odds are so long against it happening.
Like Trump is trying to do with the election? Is that what you mean?
All those replies are I M M A T E R I A L
Not as immaterial as your comment
A weak reply.
A strong reply would explain how your comments were "NOT immaterial". In other words: material.
It never ceases to amaze how much factual evidence LNs are willing to overlook to keep Oswald in play as the lone gunman.
If you want to ignore that Markham said she took her daily bus at 1.15, which means she couldn't have been at 10th street to see a shooting at that time, then ignore it...
This is embarrassing to read but explains a lot. You really believe this rebuts multiple witnesses including Markham who saw Oswald at the Tippit scene? And that Oswald had a pistol when arrested with the same two different brands of ammo that are found at that scene. And even though there is a picture of Oswald's pistol being carried out of the TT, you believe it "mysteriously" appeared later at the police station (not to mention police officers confirming that Oswald had a pistol in the TT). But let me get this one straight. You won't admit that you are a CTer? Wow.
My comments speak for themselves and there is nothing I could tell you that you would be prepared to accept. My replies will always be weak to you and you will always try to tell me what you would like to hear as a "strong" reply.
I am not about to waste my time with you again. Been there, done that...
If you want to ignore that Markham said she took her daily bus at 1.15, which means she couldn't have been at 10th street to see a shooting at that time, then ignore it...
If you want to ignore the obvious problem with the chain of custody for the revolver, then ignore it
And if you want to ignore the stupidity of Richard Smith's comment about witnesses and my example that showed just how wrong and stupid it was, then ignore it...
It all just confirms my earlier comment,
But who knows, perhaps for you ignorance and the continuation thereof is indeed bliss...
If you want to ignore that Markham said she took her daily bus at 1.15, which means she couldn't have been at 10th street to see a shooting at that time, then ignore it...
Mrs Markham was at 10th Street at the time of the shooting. Other witnesses to the crime and it's aftermath confirm that.
You fail to discern the obvious fact that Mrs Markham's testimony about daily bus times does not trump the testimony of eye witnesses who place Lee Oswald at the scene of the crime: the murder of JD Tippit. Oswald was identified as the man seen (a.) shooting the police officer or (b.) fleeing the location of the Tippit killing with a pistol in his hand.
Mrs Markham was a less than excellent witness before the Warren Commission. Markham's bus time statement was worthy of assessment by the Commission. However, it has to be dismissed as less important in determining the time of the Tippit killing and the identity of the perpetrator.
Like all JFK assassination contrarians, you're determined to accept the least plausible evidence and dismiss that which unambiguously points to the guilt of your imagined-client, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Keep going on with this ultra-contrarian tripe and you'll soon be labelled a "Norwegian demon".
If you want to ignore that Markham said she took her daily bus at 1.15, which means she couldn't have been at 10th street to see a shooting at that time, then ignore it...
Mrs Markham was at 10th Street at the time of the shooting. Other witnesses to the crime and it's aftermath confirm that.
You fail to discern the obvious fact that Mrs Markham's testimony about daily bus times does not trump the testimony of eye witnesses who place Lee Oswald at the scene of the crime: the murder of JD Tippit. Oswald was identified as the man seen (a.) shooting the police officer or (b.) fleeing the location of the Tippit killing with a pistol in his hand.
Mrs Markham was a less than excellent witness before the Warren Commission. Markham's bus time statement was worthy of assessment by the Commission. However, it has to be dismissed as less important in determining the time of the Tippit killing and the identity of the perpetrator.
Like all JFK assassination contrarians, you're determined to accept the least plausible evidence and dismiss that which unambiguously points to the guilt of your imagined-client, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Keep going on with this ultra-contrarian tripe and you'll soon be labelled a "Norwegian demon".
So, no matter how many words you write, you still can not explain how Markham could have been at 10th street to see Tippit being killed at 1.14 or 1.15 when she, by her own account, would have been at the bus stop on Jefferson catching her daily bus at around 1.15? Got it
You really believe this rebuts multiple witnesses including Markham who saw Oswald at the Tippit scene?
So, you were in Miami yesterday beating your wife, right?
And that Oswald had a pistol when arrested with the same two different brands of ammo that are found at that scene.
Repeating the same old crap isn't making it any more credible. Show that the revolver now in evidence is the one they took from Oswald and you may be on to something, but all you've got so far is a revolver showing up at the police station two hours after Oswald was arrested and a detective claiming it was Oswald's revolver.
And even though there is a picture of Oswald's pistol being carried out of the TT, you believe it "mysteriously" appeared later at the police station (not to mention police officers confirming that Oswald had a pistol in the TT).
Show the picture and the proof that it is the same revolver that showed up at the police station two hours later. Nobody denies that Oswald he a pistol in the TT. That was never the point. The real point is that you and your ilk are jumping to conclusions based on incomplete and sometimes completely missing information. If Oswald was framed, a revolver being switched could easily have been part of the plan.
But let me get this one straight. You won't admit that you are a CTer? Wow.
No, I am not a CT for two reasons; (1) I don't have a conspiracy theory and (2) I follow the evidence where it leads me. If that means Oswald turns out to be guilty then so be it. But you don't hang a man based on a belief. So, show me the evidence, and that's where you and your ilk come up short every time.
So, tell me "Richard"... if Markham, when going to work, took the same bus every day, at around 1.15, how could she possibly have been at 10th street at that time to witness a shooting? Instead of acting like a weasel all the time, for once be a man and at least try to give a honest and plausible answer to the question.
Brutal stupidity. Did multiple witnesses confirm that I was in Miami yesterday? Was I arrested a short distance from the scene of a shooting in Miami with the same two brands of ammo used in the murder? Good grief. You should be ashamed to peddle this nonsense. I hope you are just playing devil's advocate to pass the time and don't actually believe any of your own nonsense. There is zero doubt that Oswald murdered Tippit. Zero. The evidence confirms it beyond doubt. Markham was there at the time. She saw him do it. Thus, we don't have to untangle your bizarre obsession with pedantic bus schedules and baseless assertions as to where people and buses should have been in a perfect world if they slavishly adhered to a schedule down to a precise minute every single day of their lives etc. Do you think Markham and her bus relived the same day over and over again without any minor variance in time? Like the movie Groundhog Day. Absurd.
Because Oswald was there as confirmed by multiple witnesses and the evidence. If a thing happens, the odds against it happening are no longer relevant in proving that it didn't happen.
Of course she was at 10th Street at the time of the shooting, genius. But that wasn't the point, which apparently went straight over your head.
The point I was making is that Markham said she took the same bus to work everyday. She estimated the departure time from Jefferson to be 1.15, but according to the FBI the schedule for Markham's bus had stops at 1.12 and 1.22. So, if the shooting occurred at 1.14 or 1.15, then Markham couldn't have been at 10th Street, because at that time she would be getting on her regular bus on Jefferson. In other words, the shooting took place earlier than 1.14. In fact, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to argue that the shooting probably took place between 1.06 and 1.10. This, in turn means that Oswald couldn't have been there, as he was seen at the roominghouse on Beckley at 1pm and taking the fastest route it took at least 11 minutes to get to 10th street from there.
Eyewitnesses can be and often are wrong. These witnesses were never subjected to cross-examination by a defense lawyer, which is very often the moment in court where they recant or change their story. Witness identification is the least reliable evidence there is. I know from first hand experience how difficult it is to identify a person. I once witnessed a street robbery and although I saw the robber pretty well, when the police asked me if I would be able to identify him I said no.
Having said that, if Oswald couldn't physically have been at 10th Street when Tippit was shot then the witnesses were wrong. It's as simple as that.
Wrong. You don't dismiss a clear time indication simply because it doesn't fit the narrative. Even less so when there is more circumstantial evidence to actually show that the shooting took place earlier than 1.14 or 1.15 and there is no evidence whatsoever that Tippit was really killed at 1.14 or 1.15.
Wrong again. I am not about to accept Oswald's guilt simply because you and your ilk say he is guilty. If you want to convince me of anything, you need to provide evidence that is sufficiently conclusive and holds up under scrutiny.
You are just dismissing evidence you don't like because of your predetermined conclusion that Oswald was guilty, when in fact the case against him has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. That's why LNs never want to examine or discuss the evidence honestly and complain about those who do!
Pathetic... but since I know who it is coming from, I don't give a damn.
The point I was making is that Markham said she took the same bus to work everyday. She estimated the departure time from Jefferson to be 1.15, but according to the FBI the schedule for Markham's bus had stops at 1.12 and 1.22.
And this brings us to the other bus stop farce. You apparently assume that she had to catch the 1.12 bus every day because the 1.22 bus would have been after 1.15. However, to Markham, either bus could have been taken and she would still likely describe it as the “same bus” because they both depart Jefferson around 1.15 and take her to where she needed to go. She might or might not even be aware of the difference. It would depend on whether or not she noticed details like bus numbers, drivers, etc. And, as far as I know, she really doesn’t indicate that she did.
The point I was making is that Markham said she took the same bus to work everyday. She estimated the departure time from Jefferson to be 1.15, but according to the FBI the schedule for Markham's bus had stops at 1.12 and 1.22.
And this brings us to the other bus stop farce. You apparently assume that she had to catch the 1.12 bus every day because the 1.22 bus would have been after 1.15. However, to Markham, either bus could have been taken and she would still likely describe it as the “same bus” because they both depart Jefferson around 1.15 and take her to where she needed to go. She might or might not even be aware of the difference. It would depend on whether or not she noticed details like bus numbers, drivers, etc. And, as far as I know, she really doesn’t indicate that she did.
The point I was making is that Markham said she took the same bus to work everyday. She estimated the departure time from Jefferson to be 1.15, but according to the FBI the schedule for Markham's bus had stops at 1.12 and 1.22.
And this brings us to the other bus stop farce. You apparently assume that she had to catch the 1.12 bus every day because the 1.22 bus would have been after 1.15. However, to Markham, either bus could have been taken and she would still likely describe it as the “same bus” because they both depart Jefferson around 1.15 and take her to where she needed to go. She might or might not even be aware of the difference. It would depend on whether or not she noticed details like bus numbers, drivers, etc. And, as far as I know, she really doesn’t indicate that she did.
The application of common sense and reason is lost on Martin. It is almost unfair. Like beating a dumb animal with a stick.
And this brings us to the other bus stop farce. You apparently assume that she had to catch the 1.12 bus every day
Markham said she caught the earlier bus because that bus would get her to work on time..... The later bus took a different route when it crossed the viaduct into downtown Dallas, and she would be late for work if she took the later bus.....
So, no matter how many words you write, you still can not explain how Markham could have been at 10th street to see Tippit being killed at 1.14 or 1.15 when she, by her own account, would have been at the bus stop on Jefferson catching her daily bus at around 1.15? Got it
You really believe this rebuts multiple witnesses including Markham who saw Oswald at the Tippit scene?
So, you were in Miami yesterday beating your wife, right?
And that Oswald had a pistol when arrested with the same two different brands of ammo that are found at that scene.
Repeating the same old crap isn't making it any more credible. Show that the revolver now in evidence is the one they took from Oswald and you may be on to something, but all you've got so far is a revolver showing up at the police station two hours after Oswald was arrested and a detective claiming it was Oswald's revolver.
And even though there is a picture of Oswald's pistol being carried out of the TT, you believe it "mysteriously" appeared later at the police station (not to mention police officers confirming that Oswald had a pistol in the TT).
Show the picture and the proof that it is the same revolver that showed up at the police station two hours later. Nobody denies that Oswald he a pistol in the TT. That was never the point. The real point is that you and your ilk are jumping to conclusions based on incomplete and sometimes completely missing information. If Oswald was framed, a revolver being switched could easily have been part of the plan.
But let me get this one straight. You won't admit that you are a CTer? Wow.
No, I am not a CT for two reasons; (1) I don't have a conspiracy theory and (2) I follow the evidence where it leads me. If that means Oswald turns out to be guilty then so be it. But you don't hang a man based on a belief. So, show me the evidence, and that's where you and your ilk come up short every time.
So, tell me "Richard"... if Markham, when going to work, took the same bus every day, at around 1.15, how could she possibly have been at 10th street at that time to witness a shooting? Instead of acting like a weasel all the time, for once be a man and at least try to give a honest and plausible answer to the question.
Once again to try to twist my words to create a strawman.
You apparently assume that she had to catch the 1.12 bus every day because the 1.22 bus would have been after 1.15.
I never said or assumed anything of the sort. Even if she did in fact take the 1.22 bus, she would - by her own account - be at the bus stop at 1.15 to catch her bus, whether that was a delayed 1.12 or the 1.22 bus
However, to Markham, either bus could have been taken and she would still likely describe it as the “same bus” because they both depart Jefferson around 1.15 and take her to where she needed to go. She might or might not even be aware of the difference.
True... and none of it explains why Markham would still be at 10th Street at 1.14 or 1.15 to see Tippit get killed, when she said herself she took her regular bus on Jefferson at 1.15.
It would depend on whether or not she noticed details like bus numbers, drivers, etc. And, as far as I know, she really doesn’t indicate that she did.
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it was actually the same bus every day. I would argue it probably wasn't. This is about the time that Markham said she took the bus on Jefferson. She estimated that time to be at 1.15. The bus schedule shows busses stopping at 1.12 and 1.22 and she could have taken either one. What she couldn't have done is be at 10th Street at 1.14 or 1.15, which means that the shooting of Tippit happened earlier.
There is enough circumstantial evidence to justify the conclusion that Tippit was really killed between 1.06 and 1.10.
Here is a quote from a photograph of the actual typewritten notes by Hugh Aynesworth written in May of 1964 for The Dallas Morning News and published in a book titled “The Reporters’ Notes by The Dallas Morning News published in 2013.Your "firm evidence" being that Hugh Aynesworth said so.
But now have firm evidence to support my conclusion.
The anybody but LHO crowd likes to believe that LHO actually stood at the bus stop near his rooming house when he left it a little after 1:00 on 11/22/63. And they point this out as part of their argument claiming that LHO couldn’t have traveled on foot the distance to the Tippit murder scene in time to get there before Tippit was murdered.
Here is a quote from a photograph of the actual typewritten notes by Hugh Aynesworth written in May of 1964 for The Dallas Morning News and published in a book titled “The Reporters’ Notes by The Dallas Morning News published in 2013.
“Mrs. Roberts recalled the now star-boarder running in about 1 p.m. as she sat watching the TV coverage of the assassination. “Boy you’re in a hurry,” she said. He hasn’t replied yet. She told us Oswald (Mr. Lee as she knew him) had hesitated at the front of the house a moment, then started running down Beckley Street south.
So, the later claims by Mrs. Roberts that LHO went to the bus stop and waited there for a while are (quite obviously to me) not true. She may believe that he did, but it is apparent that her later memory is false. Her fresh recollection (given to Aynesworth and the others just hours after the event) of LHO running south on Beckley, and no mention of the bus stop, are bound to be more accurate than her later one. Our memories are reconstructions (unlike taped re-runs) based on associations. It is easy to understand how Mrs. Roberts could mistakenly associate another memory (of LHO standing at the bus stop at another time) as part of what she remembered of 11/22/63. We all have mistakenly remembered a few things wrong from time to time. And we only realize it when we encounter evidence contrary to our memories. So, it probably happens to all of us more often than we think it does.
Some of you will cling to Mrs. Roberts’ false memory account and say that it is true. But I am convinced otherwise. I always have felt this way. But now have firm evidence to support my conclusion.
Members of the DPD confirmed that Oswald had a pistol when arrested. There is a photo of it being carried out of the TT. Oswald admitted he had a pistol when arrested. But you suggest it somehow mysteriously appeared later. And then deny you are a CTer? How do you reconcile suggesting that all these folks lied to implicate Oswald and framed him - including apparently Oswald himself - with any narrative that does not entail a conspiracy?
Your contentions require very punctual timing. Nothing about Markham’s account indicated that she was that punctual or paid close attention to the exact time or that the clocks she relied upon were entirely accurate. Neither were most people that punctual back in 1963.
We've been through this already. I agree with you, in general, that people do not keep acurate account of the time, but there are exceptions. If, like in Markham's case, you need to catch a bus at a certain time, you need to be punctual in your timing, or you will miss the bus. If, like in Bowley's case, you need to pick up your daughter from school and then your wife from work, you also need to be aware of the exact time to avoid having them wait for you.
The thing with these two witnesses is that by themselves they would not provide sufficient information to confidently arrive at a likely time of the shooting, but combined it is another matter all together. Even more so when placed in a wider context of interactions with others at the scene of the crime. So, let's look at what we know and see it you can follow along.
The most obvious indicator that Tippit was not killed at 1.14 or 1.15 is that the authorization for autopsy shows that Tippit was declared DOA at the Methodist hospital at 1:15 pm. DPD officer Davenport, who followed the ambulance part of the way and was present at the hospital confirms that time in his report.
And then there is the combined timeline of Helen Markham and T.F. Bowley that does not compute with Tippit being killed after 1:10 pm at the latest. No LNr has even tried to come up with a plausible scenario for Markham still being at 10th/Patton at 1:14 or 1:15 when she testified she left home "a little after 1" and the one block walk from her home on 9th street to the corner of 10th street and Patton would have taken her only 2, perhaps 3 minutes. Markham estimated in her testimony that she took the 1.15 bus to work every day, but according to the FBI the bus was scheduled to stop there at 1.12 and at 1.22. It actually doesn't matter which bus Markham was talking about, because a walk of two blocks to the bus stop would have taken her no more than 6 minutes. So, if she left home "a little after 1" she would have easily been at the bus stop at around 1.15 and thus not at 10th/Patton. In other words, Tippit must have been shot earlier than 1.15, most likely around 1.06, because otherwise Markham could not have witnessed it.
The same thing goes for Bowley. He arrived shortly after Tippit was killed. In his affidavit he said he picked up his daughter at R.L. Thornton School in Singing Hills at "about 12:55". School bells, in my experience, have a tendency to ring at the correct time every day! Now, let's also not forget that, after picking up his daughter, Bowley was also going to pick up his wife from work, to go on a family holiday and thus had every reason to be on time and be aware of the time! The drive from the school to 10th/Patton is about 7 miles long and takes roughly 13 minutes, depending on the route, making it absolutely possible and plausible for him to arrive at 10th street at 1.10 pm, like he said he did in his affidavit. But even if we accept that Bowley didn't pick up his daughter on time (leaving her waiting for 5 minutes or longer) and did not leave the school until 1 PM, he still would have arrived at 10th/Patton at 1:13, which of course would have been prior to the shooting of Tippit at 1:14 or 1:15, as the WC narrative claims.
The interaction of Bowley with Callaway further confirms Bowley's arrival at the crime scene shortly after Tippit was killed. He testified that he was about half a block away from 10th Street when he saw a man coming down the street with a revolved. After that encounter Callaway ran half a block to 10th Street and when he got there Bowley was already there, using the DPD radio. Both Bowley and Callaway assisted in putting Tippit into the ambulance which arrived only shortly after Callaway got there. The ambulance brought Tippit to Methodist hospital which was about two miles away (if memory serves) and Tippit was declared D.O.A. at 1.15.
This timeline fits perfectly together if the shooting of Tippit happened between 1.06 (the time Markham would have gotten to 10th street after walking one block) and 1.10 (the time Bowley arrived after having picked up his daughter from school). If you move the time of the murder back to 1.14 or 1.15, as per WC narrative) none of the timeline fits.
Eliminate the impossible and what you end up with, however unlikely, is the truth.
Markham more than likely missed the 1:12 bus plenty of times and caught the 1:22 bus without even knowing the difference. Why would I suggest that? Because she estimated the bus was scheduled to be there at 1:15. And that is evidence enough to convince me that Markham didn’t pay as close attention to the time as you suggest.
Your “impossibilities” are not so.....
If you follow Scoggins' timeline, he goes to the gentlemans club at 1pm and watches news of the assassination on TV with the boys for a while. He then walks to his cab at the infamous junction. His timeline pushes the Tippit shooting to well after 1:10pm.
Markham more than likely missed the 1:12 bus plenty of times and caught the 1:22 bus without even knowing the difference.
Put speculation and of no relevance to the timeline I have presented. Markham estimated that she took her regular bus at 1.15. That could be the delayed 1.12 or the 1.22. Either way - and that's the main point - she would have been at the bus stop on Jefferson at 1.15 and thus not at 10th street.
Why would I suggest that? Because she estimated the bus was scheduled to be there at 1:15. And that is evidence enough to convince me that Markham didn’t pay as close attention to the time as you suggest.
I guess you missed it, but I have already stated that Markham's estimate by itself wouldn't be enough. It needs to be looked at in combination with other known facts.
Bowley arrived at 1.10. He looked at his watch! Bowley confirms and corroborates Markham's timeline in as much as that the shooting had already taken place prior to his arrival. So, for the timeline to be wrong, not only Markham needs to be wrong, but also Bowley. But then, Callaway said he heard the shots, saw a man running towards him, then ran half a block to the crime scene and when he got there Bowley was already there and working the police radio. So, Callaway confirms and corrobarates Bowley's account. Both Bowley and Calllaway helped to put Tippit in the ambulance, which arrived at Methodist Hospital at 1.15, which in turn is confirmed and corroborated by Detective Davenport, who followed the ambulance to the hospital.
With all this in mind, your dismissal of Markham isn't very convincing. Come back to me when you have a plausible alternative for the entire timeline and not just a part of it.
Your “timeline” is full of speculation. Time was treated more casually back then. Your “reasons” for Bowley to be so concerned about being on time are a prime example of your speculative wishful thinking. His daughter and wife were most likely accustomed to having to wait a few minutes for people who were running a little behind schedule. As was I and most people I know. It was commonplace and nothing to get anymore than a little annoyed about. I doubt that Markham was always at work on time. Like I said in the original post, the naysayers will still cling to their beliefs. Sigh...
Your “timeline” is full of speculation.
And what speculation would that be exactly?
Your “reasons” for Bowley to be so concerned about being on time are a prime example of your speculative wishful thinking. His daughter and wife were most likely accustomed to having to wait a few minutes for people who were running a little behind schedule.
Now who is speculating for a selfserving purpose? You kinda forgot that Bowley looked at his watch when he arrived at the crime scene and it said 1.10.....
And that's not all. The events that followed; Callaway's arrival, the ambulance ride and the arrival at Methodist where Tippit was declared DOA at 1.15, as corroborated by Detective Davenport doesn't leave much room for Bowley's watch to be wrong.
I doubt that Markham was always at work on time.
More speculation... and not a shred of evidence (as per usual)
Like I said in the original post, the naysayers will still cling to their beliefs. Sigh...
At least it is a belief backed up by circumstantial evidence. The LNs just believe with no evidence at all, which is exactly why you are still trying to discredit the timeline by questioning individual parts of it rather than providing a plausible alternative that would fit all the known facts.... Some things never change.
And are any of those “known facts” contained in your “timeline “?
Change of tactic, now that you have failed to provide details I speculated about?
If you have to ask what the facts are, you clearly don't understand the timeline you are trying to attack with hot air.
Fact: Markham took the same bus to work every day at some point in time between 1.12 and 1.22
Fact: The walking distance between Markham's house on 9th street and the bus stop on Jefferson is two block or roughly 6
minutes
Fact: Bowley picked up his daughter from school and school bells normally ring exactly on time.
Fact: Bowley arrived at the crime scene just after the shots were fired and before Callaway got there
Fact: Bowley looked at his watch which said 1.10
Fact: The only distance Callaway had to cover after hearing the shots was half a block. Running he could have done it in one
minute
Fact: Detective Davenport saw Tippit's ambulance en route and followed it to Methodist Hospital
Fact: A justice of the peace wrote an authorization for autopsy of Tippit's body and noted he was found DOA at 1.15
Fact: In his report Davenport confirms that Tippit was declared at 1.15.
Now show me your facts for an alternative timeline with the killing of Tippit happening at 1.14 or 115
Change of tactic, now that you have failed to provide details I speculated about?
If you have to ask what the facts are, you clearly don't understand the timeline you are trying to attack with hot air.
Fact: Markham took the same bus to work every day at some point in time between 1.12 and 1.22
Fact: The walking distance between Markham's house on 9th street and the bus stop on Jefferson is two block or roughly 6
minutes
Fact: Bowley picked up his daughter from school and school bells normally ring exactly on time.
Fact: Bowley arrived at the crime scene just after the shots were fired and before Callaway got there
Fact: Bowley looked at his watch which said 1.10
Fact: The only distance Callaway had to cover after hearing the shots was half a block. Running he could have done it in one
minute
Fact: Detective Davenport saw Tippit's ambulance en route and followed it to Methodist Hospital
Fact: A justice of the peace wrote an authorization for autopsy of Tippit's body and noted he was found DOA at 1.15
Fact: In his report Davenport confirms that Tippit was declared at 1.15.
Now show me your facts for an alternative timeline with the killing of Tippit happening at 1.14 or 115
Your contention that Markham would have been at the bus stop at Jefferson by 1:15 is speculation on your part.
Your contentions that Bowley’s watch was accurate and that he was on your dreamed up time table are speculations on your part.
Your contention that the time that is written for the death of Tippit was intended to indicate the time that the doctor declared him dead (instead of the actual time of his death) is speculation on your part.
Without your speculation as context, the other items are not relevant.
As John always says; an appeal to "common sense" is usually made when no evidence is available.
BRAVO!! Martin..... You're pinning em down with the FACTS.
In which tweedle dum cites tweedle dee in advocating against the use of common sense. No one ever accused the Brothers Dumb of using any of that. Bravo.
Your contention that Markham would have been at the bus stop at Jefferson by 1:15 is speculation on your part.
BS. Markham herself said she catched her regular bus at around 1.15. There is no speculation on my part. It is factual information provided by a witness. You, on the other hand, want to speculate without a shred of evidence that she normally wasn't at the bus stop at 1.15.
Your contentions that Bowley’s watch was accurate and that he was on your dreamed up time table are speculations on your part.
Wrong again. It was Bowley himself who said in his affidavit that he looked at his watch and it said 1.10. I merely quoted that fact. You on the other hand are speculating, without a shred of evidence, that his watch wasn't accurate.
Your contention that the time that is written for the death of Tippit was intended to indicate the time that the doctor declared him dead (instead of the actual time of his death) is speculation on your part.
Again, I merely stated the fact that the DOA time the Justice of the Peace wrote on the authorization for autopsy was 1.15. It is again you who is speculating that the DOA time given on that official document was not the time the doctor declared him dead and you are doing so, as per usual, without a shred of evidence.
I on the other hand have a report from Detective Davenport, who was present at the hospital, in which he confirmed the DOA time of 1.15 and thus corroborates the DOA time on the document.
It appears that you are having great difficulty in understanding the difference between a fact and speculation.
And once again you are trying to attack a timelime that contains corroboration for each item, by cherry picking individual details of the timeline. It isn't going to work. If my timeline is wrong, you need to provide an alternative one which covers all the known facts.
But you can't, can you now?
BS. Markham herself said she catched her regular bus at around 1.15. There is no speculation on my part. It is factual information provided by a witness. You, on the other hand, want to speculate without a shred of evidence that she normally wasn't at the bus stop at 1.15.
If there was a bus scheduled to stop there at 1:15, you might have a point. But there wasn’t one. Around 1:15 apparently meant a time span that included both 1:12 and 1:15 to Markham back then. You trying to spin that span of time into meaning exactly 1:15 is hilarious. Maybe I will get back to you when I stop laughing...
There is nothing wrong with common sense when it is applied based on factual information.
You and your ilk use "common sense" when you have no factual information. With your particular kind of "common sense" you can find anybody guilty of anything. But you probably won't understand something so basic. It's only common sense to conclude that it's way beyond your level of comprehension.
Do you really believe there is "no factual information" that links Oswald to the Tippit murder? Wow. Multiple witnesses put him at the scene. He was arrested a short distance away with a pistol and the same two brands of ammo that were found at the murder scene. He was in flight from another murder scene. It's almost difficult to imagine what "factual information" is lacking. And your rebuttal is to cite a bus schedule and contrive a speculative timeline around that. It is laughable. You should be ashamed and embarrassed.
Repeating the same claims doesn't make them true.
Multiple witnesses put him at the scene.
And if he physically couldn't have been there those multiple witnesses could be wrong. None of those witnesses were ever cross-examined by a defense lawyer.
He was arrested a short distance away with a pistol and the same two brands of ammo that were found at the murder scene.
Yeah, yeah... that same ammo was allegedly also found on Oswald's person, hours after he was arrested and first searched.
He was in flight from another murder scene.
Assumes "facts" not in evidence. This idiotic claim can not be made unless you can first show he already committed another murder and for the Kennedy murder there is even less evidence than for the Tippit killing.
It's almost difficult to imagine what "factual information" is lacking.
For you, I fear that might very well be true, since you can't even distinguish between facts and wishful thinking (you know, what you ironically call "common sense"
And your rebuttal is to cite a bus schedule and contrive a speculative timeline around that. It is laughable.
Misrepresentation of the facts, as per usual for you! You simply have nothing to counter the timeline I have provided, which is far more that just a bus schedule. Like the coward you are, you don't even try to explain how Markham could still have been at 10th street at 1.15, when she, by her own words, would be getting on her regular bus on Jefferson at that particular time. No matter how much you try to spin it, the combined facts supplied in the time line only allow one conclusion; that Tippit was shot somewhere between 1.06 and 1.10. Period!..... Unless you can prove me wrong. Well can you?
Markham said that she was on her way to catch the bus to take her to work. She said that the time was 1:06 when she saw Tippit get out of his patrol car to talk to a young man who had been walking north on 10th street. She said she routinely caught the 1:15 bus to take her to work.
Thus it's logical that she would want to be at the bus stop a few minutes before 1:15 to be certain she wouldn't be late and miss the bus. So as You've pointed out if the time of the murder was 1:16 then Markham wouldn't have been at 10th & Patton to witness the murder of JD Tippit.
And in her sworn affidavit she stated clearly that the time that Tippit was shot was !:06.......
Markham said that she was on her way to catch the bus to take her to work. She said that the time was 1:06 when she saw Tippit get out of his patrol car to talk to a young man who had been walking north on 10th street. She said she routinely caught the 1:15 bus to take her to work.
Thus it's logical that she would want to be at the bus stop a few minutes before 1:15 to be certain she wouldn't be late and miss the bus. So as You've pointed out if the time of the murder was 1:16 then Markham wouldn't have been at 10th & Patton to witness the murder of JD Tippit.
And in her sworn affidavit she stated clearly that the time that Tippit was shot was !:06.......
Do you believe that her routine could not vary even by a few minutes or that her estimates of times might be off by a few minutes? There are numerous examples in this case of individuals indicating that an event took place at a certain time when it is clear that it did not. It is typically an estimate because they had no reason to note the exact time at the moment. And Markham only has to be off in her estimate by a small fraction of time. People on that day were not using a stop watch to time their routine actions. It is absurd to suggest that a pedantic and speculative timeline framed around Markham's typical routine rebuts the evidence that links Oswald to the Tippit murder. It is laughable even by the low standards of CTers.
Do you believe that her routine could not vary even by a few minutes or that her estimates of times might be off by a few minutes?
Of course it could vary, but that's not the point. You simply are not getting it or don't want to get it. For this particular day there is a sequence of events that is documented with facts.
1. Markham arriving at 10th street and seeing Tippit get killed
2. Bowley arriving at 10th street just after Tippit was killed and working the radio
3. Callaway arriving at 10th street and seeing Bowley working the radio
4. Callaway and Bowley helping to put Tippit in the ambulance
5. Tippit being declared DOA at Methodist Hospital at 1.15
6. Detective Davenport confirming the DOA at 1.15
When you move Markham's timeline, you also need to move all others and that's what you can't do.
All you can do is dismiss it out of hand, which is what LNs always do when confronted with evidence they can't explain.
It is absurd to suggest that a pedantic and speculative timeline framed around Markham's typical routine rebuts the evidence that links Oswald to the Tippit murder.
The only problem for you is that the timeline is not framed around Markham's routine. It's a sequence of events which start with Markham's actions that are subsequently corroborated by factual information about all the other events that followed.
Markham said she left home just after 1pm. She only needed to walk one block to get to 10th street. Her own estimate was 1.06. Allow two minutes for the one block walk and you get her to 10th street at 1.08. She sees Tippit get shot.
Bowley said in his affidavit that when he arrived at the crime scene he saw the officer lying in the street and looked at his watch, which said 1.10. That is corroboration that Markham was indeed at 10th street prior to 1.10. .... and so on.
Markham more than likely missed the 1:12 bus plenty of times and caught the 1:22 bus without even knowing the difference.Actually...she was meticulously punctual according to her friends, family and employer.
Actually...she was meticulously punctual according to her friends, family and employer.
Aaaargh... name the friends, family (members) and employer (manager, supervisor).
And the icing on the cake: Prove that Mrs Markham was never late for an appointment even one time in her life!
Way too much logic for "Richard Smith", Walt
Prove that Mrs Markham was never late for an appointment even one time in her life!Prove that she was late for her bus on Nov 22 '63. That is really what matters.
Only Mystery Guest #2 gave Markham pause (to put it mildly) in the lineup
And no guarantee that watches where all synched to GMT
Only Mystery Guest #2 gave Markham pause (to put it mildly) in the lineupAll these guys with ...Were the watches or clocks accurate blah blah?
And no guarantee that watches where all synched to GMT
Mr. BALL. Now, Mr. Callaway, around 1:15 or so of that day, where were you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I was standing on the front porch of our office.
Mr. BALL. Did you attempt to stand in the same place you were at the time?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Where you were standing November 22d around 1 o'clock or so?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Whether Roberts saw Oswald standing at the bus stop or not is of very little significance. Roberts tells us that when Oswald came in she was trying to get the television to work to watch the news at 1 o'clock and that he left again after about 3 minutes.
We also know from the Gary Mack time trial that the fastest route between Beckley and 10th street took 11 minutes to walk.
Combined this means that Oswald couldn't have gotten to 10th street until 1.12 pm at the earliest. Add on two minutes for a short conversation with Tippit and the events that followed and you've got a shooting at 1.14 pm.
The problem is there is convincing circumstantial evidence to justify the conclusion that the actual time of the shooting most likely was between 1.06 and 1.10. For instance, Markham said she took the same bus, on Jefferson, every day at approx 1.15 pm, which of course means that she would have been at the bus stop at the time of the shooting and thus couldn't have been at 10th street at 1.14 to witness it.
So, you see, the whole point of Oswald waiting at the bus stop or not is really a trivial matter.
Markham gets to the bus stop around 1:15 every day in time to catch the bus that stopped at Patton and Jefferson at 1:22. If true on the afternoon of 11/22/63, his would have her arriving at Tenth and Patton around 1:13/1:14.
An interesting thread OP, w/some insightful reading contributions gentlemen. IMHO Mrs. Markham's testimony is indicative of what so many in the legal profession would ascribe as "leading the witness". That said, inspite of Mr. Ball's shameful steering to a pre-determined outcome, she managed to slip this gem pass him, note her clothing description of the Tippit gunman ---->
Mr. BALL. What did he have on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on this light shirt, dark trousers
Her description eliminates the wrongly accused. Upon being apprehended inside the Texas Theatre, he donned a dark reddish brown shirt w/light grey pants. Oops!
WC counsel Ball & commission members Ford & Dulles failed--in their haste to frame an innocent party-- to recognize this rather telling conflicting admission. Otherwise, they would have invented another phantom bus ride back to the rooming house once again for the wrongly accused to once again change his clothing to fit their "star" witness' account.
The wrongly accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody.
We've been through this already. I agree with you, in general, that people do not keep acurate account of the time, but there are exceptions. If, like in Markham's case, you need to catch a bus at a certain time, you need to be punctual in your timing, or you will miss the bus. If, like in Bowley's case, you need to pick up your daughter from school and then your wife from work, you also need to be aware of the exact time to avoid having them wait for you.
The thing with these two witnesses is that by themselves they would not provide sufficient information to confidently arrive at a likely time of the shooting, but combined it is another matter all together. Even more so when placed in a wider context of interactions with others at the scene of the crime. So, let's look at what we know and see if you can follow along.
The most obvious indicator that Tippit was not killed at 1.14 or 1.15 is that the authorization for autopsy shows that Tippit was declared DOA at the Methodist hospital at 1:15 pm. DPD officer Davenport, who followed the ambulance part of the way and was present at the hospital confirms that time in his report.
And then there is the combined timeline of Helen Markham and T.F. Bowley that does not compute with Tippit being killed after 1:10 pm at the latest. No LNr has even tried to come up with a plausible scenario for Markham still being at 10th/Patton at 1:14 or 1:15 when she testified she left home "a little after 1" and the one block walk from her home on 9th street to the corner of 10th street and Patton would have taken her only 2, perhaps 3 minutes. Markham estimated in her testimony that she took the 1.15 bus to work every day, but according to the FBI the bus was scheduled to stop there at 1.12 and at 1.22. It actually doesn't matter which bus Markham was talking about, because a walk of two blocks to the bus stop would have taken her no more than 6 minutes. So, if she left home "a little after 1" she would have easily been at the bus stop at around 1.15 and thus not at 10th/Patton. In other words, Tippit must have been shot earlier than 1.15, most likely around 1.06, because otherwise Markham could not have witnessed it.
The same thing goes for Bowley. He arrived shortly after Tippit was killed. In his affidavit he said he picked up his daughter at R.L. Thornton School in Singing Hills at "about 12:55". School bells, in my experience, have a tendency to ring at the correct time every day! Now, let's also not forget that, after picking up his daughter, Bowley was also going to pick up his wife from work, to go on a family holiday and thus had every reason to be on time and be aware of the time! The drive from the school to 10th/Patton is about 7 miles long and takes roughly 13 minutes, depending on the route, making it absolutely possible and plausible for him to arrive at 10th street at 1.10 pm, like he said he did in his affidavit. But even if we accept that Bowley didn't pick up his daughter on time (leaving her waiting for 5 minutes or longer) and did not leave the school until 1 PM, he still would have arrived at 10th/Patton at 1:13, which of course would have been prior to the shooting of Tippit at 1:14 or 1:15, as the WC narrative claims.
The interaction of Bowley with Callaway further confirms Bowley's arrival at the crime scene shortly after Tippit was killed. He testified that he was about half a block away from 10th Street when he saw a man coming down the street with a revolved. After that encounter Callaway ran half a block to 10th Street and when he got there Bowley was already there, using the DPD radio. Both Bowley and Callaway assisted in putting Tippit into the ambulance which arrived only shortly after Callaway got there. The ambulance brought Tippit to Methodist hospital which was about two miles away (if memory serves) and Tippit was declared D.O.A. at 1.15.
This timeline fits perfectly together if the shooting of Tippit happened between 1.06 (the time Markham would have gotten to 10th street after walking one block) and 1.10 (the time Bowley arrived after having picked up his daughter from school). If you move the time of the murder back to 1.14 or 1.15, as per WC narrative) none of the timeline fits.
Eliminate the impossible and what you end up with, however unlikely, is the truth.
From Dale Myers: "The death certificate "discrepancy" - as I noted in "With Malice" - was explained during a 1983 interview I conducted with the late Dr. Paul Moellenhoff, who attended Tippit at Methodist. He told me that the clocks within the emergency area at Methodist showed different times - neither of them accurate as it turns out.
He used the 1:15 p.m. time shown on one of the clocks. The time reported to the FBI by Dr. Liquori (With Malice [WM], 2013 [edition], p.557) - 1:24 pm - is probably the accurate one based on the recorded timing of Bowley's call, the recorded departure of the ambulance from 10th and Patton, and the known drive time from 10th and Patton to Methodist Hospital.
DPD Officer Davenport noted that Moellenhoff removed one slug from Tippit's body at 1:30 pm (WM 2013 p.536). That same time (1:30 pm) made its way into Leavelle's homicide report (WM 2013 p.519) as the time Tippit was pronounced DOA (which couldn't possibly be true, right? You don't pull a slug from a body until after he's pronounced dead). This matches up with Moellenhoff's 1983 recollection that he removed a slug from the body within ten minutes of declaring Tippit DOA.
My caption under the death certificate (WM 2013 p.506) seeks to clarify the discrepancy between the Time of Injury (1:18 pm) and the time Death Occurred (1:15 pm). Again, it stems from my conversation with Dr. Moellenhoff. The 1:18 pm time, of course, probably refers to the time that Bowley's radio call was received - not the actual time Tippit was shot.
The 1:15 p.m. notation (although close in time to the actual moment of the shooting, as far as I can calculate) probably stems from Dr. Moellenhoff's use of an inaccurate Methodist emergency room clock.
Interesting, huh? All this fuss because no one at Methodist bothered to synchronize the clocks to actual time (some running fast, some running slow).
Can you imagine how many other death certificates were marked with times that were off by a few minutes? But what does it matter in those cases? Not one whit."
No she said she thought it was about this time "Mrs. MARKHAM. I wouldn't be afraid to bet it wasn't 6 or 7 minutes after 1." A little bit early for a bus due at 1.22 p.m.
From Dale Myers: "The death certificate "discrepancy" - as I noted in "With Malice" - was explained during a 1983 interview I conducted with the late Dr. Paul Moellenhoff, who attended Tippit at Methodist. He told me that the clocks within the emergency area at Methodist showed different times - neither of them accurate as it turns out.
He used the 1:15 p.m. time shown on one of the clocks. The time reported to the FBI by Dr. Liquori (With Malice [WM], 2013 [edition], p.557) - 1:24 pm - is probably the accurate one based on the recorded timing of Bowley's call, the recorded departure of the ambulance from 10th and Patton, and the known drive time from 10th and Patton to Methodist Hospital.
DPD Officer Davenport noted that Moellenhoff removed one slug from Tippit's body at 1:30 pm (WM 2013 p.536). That same time (1:30 pm) made its way into Leavelle's homicide report (WM 2013 p.519) as the time Tippit was pronounced DOA (which couldn't possibly be true, right? You don't pull a slug from a body until after he's pronounced dead). This matches up with Moellenhoff's 1983 recollection that he removed a slug from the body within ten minutes of declaring Tippit DOA.
My caption under the death certificate (WM 2013 p.506) seeks to clarify the discrepancy between the Time of Injury (1:18 pm) and the time Death Occurred (1:15 pm). Again, it stems from my conversation with Dr. Moellenhoff. The 1:18 pm time, of course, probably refers to the time that Bowley's radio call was received - not the actual time Tippit was shot.
The 1:15 p.m. notation (although close in time to the actual moment of the shooting, as far as I can calculate) probably stems from Dr. Moellenhoff's use of an inaccurate Methodist emergency room clock.
Interesting, huh? All this fuss because no one at Methodist bothered to synchronize the clocks to actual time (some running fast, some running slow).
Can you imagine how many other death certificates were marked with times that were off by a few minutes? But what does it matter in those cases? Not one whit."
Markham gets to the bus stop around 1:15 every day in time to catch the bus that stopped at Patton and Jefferson at 1:22. If true on the afternoon of 11/22/63, his would have her arriving at Tenth and Patton around 1:13/1:14.
And.... I really doubt that the conversation between Oswald and Tippit lasted two minutes.
Markham gets to the bus stop around 1:15 every day in time to catch the bus that stopped at Patton and Jefferson at 1:22. If true on the afternoon of 11/22/63, his would have her arriving at Tenth and Patton around 1:13/1:14.
And.... I really doubt that the conversation between Oswald and Tippit lasted two minutes.
No, Markham said she catched the bus at 1.15. She did not estimate when she arrived at the bus stop! People don't normally arrive at the bus stop at the very moment the bus stops there.
And even if she arrived at the bus stop at 1.15, she still would have passed by 10th/Patton crossing before the shooting took place (assuming it took place at 1.14 or 1.15), as it took more than a minute to walk the distance between 10th and the bus stop on Jefferson.
And.... I really doubt that the conversation between Oswald and Tippit lasted two minutes.
Doesn't matter... It was an estimate. Even if it only took a minute all that means is that the shooting took place a minute sooner than 1.14.
No, Markham said she catched the bus at 1.15.
No, she didn't say that at all.
Ball asked his question in a strange way and none of us know Markham's understanding of the strange question when she answered it and therefore we can't know for sure what her answer of "1:15" meant. Regardless, she did not say that she caught her bus at 1:15.
Since we know there was not a 1:15 bus, she cannot be saying (with accuracy) that she "catched the bus at 1:15" (as you've falsely attributed to her).
@CTers: Keep estimating the time for another 58 years
Meanwhile, Oswald was ID'd at and near the scene
Unfair lineup or not:
Q: Why didn't Oswald ask for a jacket in the lineup?
A: Duh.
@CTers: Keep estimating the time for another 58 years
Unfortunately for you, it's no longer an estimate when it is corroborated by other evidence.
Meanwhile, Oswald was ID'd at and near the scene
All you've got is Markham's "was there a number 2"...
The other two witnesses who were in the best position to see or could have seen (and identify) the shooter were Domingo Benavides and T.F. Bowley. Both men did not attend the line up. Benavides said he couldn't be sure that he could identify the man and Bowley was completely ignored by law enforcement after he gave his affidavit.
And before you ask, we know that Bowley arrived at the crime scene just after the shooting and before Callaway got there. This means that Bowley either just missed the killer passing by or saw him leave 10th street in the direction of Callaway on Patton.
Unfair lineup or not:
Q: Why didn't Oswald ask for a jacket in the lineup?
A: Duh.
How in the world would you even know what Oswald asked for at the line up?
There is literally a MOUNTAIN of evidence that proves without any doubt that Oswald was at the Tippit crime scene and was carrying a Revolver, heck, even the shells seen dropped by Oswald at the Tippit crime scene were an exclusive match to Oswald's revolver.
The eyewitnesses who positively identified Oswald and confirmed he was carrying a gun
Mr. BALL. Which way?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Towards Jefferson, right across that way.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have the pistol in his hand at this time?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had the gun when I saw him.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it
Mr. BALL. And what did you see the man doing?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. And how was he holding the gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. We used to say in the Marine Corps in a raised pistol position.
Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand.
Mr. BALL. With which hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. With his right hand; just kicking them out.
Mr. BALL. He had it up?
Mr. B.M. PATTERSON, 4635 Hartford Street, Dallas, Texas, currently employed by Wyatt's Cafeteria, 2647 South Lancaster, Dallas, Texas, advised he was present at the used car lot of JOHNNY REYNOLDS' on the afternoon of November 22, 1963.
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JONNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas. A minute or so later they observed a white male approximately 30 years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying what appeared to be a revolver in his hand and was obviously trying to reload same while running.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see this man's face that had the gun in his hand?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Very good.
HAROLD RUSSELL, employee, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was standing on the lot of Reynolds Used Cars together with L.J. LEWIS and PAT PATTERSON, at which time they heard shots come from the vicinity of Patton and Tenth Street, and a few seconds later they observed a young white man running south on Patton Avenue carrying a pistol or revolver which the individual was attempting to either reload or place in his belt line.
Mr. BELIN. Did he have anything in his hand?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had a pistol in his left hand.
The Police Officers who were confronted with the murdering Oswald.
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When you saw Oswald's hand by his belt, which hand did you see then?
Mr. WALKER. He had ahold of the handle of it.
Mr. BELIN. Handle of what?
Mr. WALKER. The revolver.
Mr. BELIN. Was there a revolver there?
Mr. WALKER. Yes; there was.
Mr. HUTSON. McDonald was at this time simultaneously trying to hold this person's right hand. Somehow this person moved his right hand to his waist, and I saw a revolver come out, and McDonald was holding on to it with his right hand, and this gun was waving up toward the back of the seat like this.
Oswald even admitted carrying his revolver.
Mr. BELIN. Do you recall any other conversation that you had with him, or not?
Mr. WALKER. No; he was just denying it, and he was saying that all he did was carry a gun, and the reason he fought back in the theatre is, he knew he wasn't supposed to be carrying a gun, and he had never been to jail.
Mr. BELIN. During the drive down from the Texas Theatre, to the police station, do you remember any conversation with Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. CARROLL. Some. He stated that he had not done anything that - he said, "Well, I was carrying a pistol, but that is all."
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
JohnM
@CTers: Keep estimating the time for another 58 years
Unfortunately for you, it's no longer an estimate when it is corroborated by other evidence.
Meanwhile, Oswald was ID'd at and near the scene
All you've got is Markham's "was there a number 2"...
The other two witnesses who were in the best position to see or could have seen (and identify) the shooter were Domingo Benavides and T.F. Bowley. Both men did not attend the line up. Benavides said he couldn't be sure that he could identify the man and Bowley was completely ignored by law enforcement after he gave his affidavit.
And before you ask, we know that Bowley arrived at the crime scene just after the shooting and before Callaway got there. This means that Bowley either just missed the killer passing by or saw him leave 10th street in the direction of Callaway on Patton.
Unfair lineup or not:
Q: Why didn't Oswald ask for a jacket in the lineup?
A: Duh.
How in the world would you even know what Oswald asked for at the line up?
How in the world would you even know what Oswald asked for at the line up?
Based on the facts, it's obvious why Oswald would not ask for a jacket
All you've got is Markham's "was there a number 2"
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
Your "it's obvious" is nothing more than speculation
Presenting testimony out of context isn't going to get you very far.
Your "it's obvious" is nothing more than speculation
No, deduction
Presenting testimony out of context isn't going to get you very far
The fact that Markham ID'd Oswald as the shooter is context enough to get over the finish line
From Dale Myers: "The death certificate "discrepancy" - as I noted in "With Malice" - was explained during a 1983 interview I conducted with the late Dr. Paul Moellenhoff, who attended Tippit at Methodist. He told me that the clocks within the emergency area at Methodist showed different times - neither of them accurate as it turns out.
He used the 1:15 p.m. time shown on one of the clocks. The time reported to the FBI by Dr. Liquori (With Malice [WM], 2013 [edition], p.557) - 1:24 pm - is probably the accurate one based on the recorded timing of Bowley's call, the recorded departure of the ambulance from 10th and Patton, and the known drive time from 10th and Patton to Methodist Hospital.
DPD Officer Davenport noted that Moellenhoff removed one slug from Tippit's body at 1:30 pm (WM 2013 p.536). That same time (1:30 pm) made its way into Leavelle's homicide report (WM 2013 p.519) as the time Tippit was pronounced DOA (which couldn't possibly be true, right? You don't pull a slug from a body until after he's pronounced dead). This matches up with Moellenhoff's 1983 recollection that he removed a slug from the body within ten minutes of declaring Tippit DOA.
My caption under the death certificate (WM 2013 p.506) seeks to clarify the discrepancy between the Time of Injury (1:18 pm) and the time Death Occurred (1:15 pm). Again, it stems from my conversation with Dr. Moellenhoff. The 1:18 pm time, of course, probably refers to the time that Bowley's radio call was received - not the actual time Tippit was shot.
The 1:15 p.m. notation (although close in time to the actual moment of the shooting, as far as I can calculate) probably stems from Dr. Moellenhoff's use of an inaccurate Methodist emergency room clock.
Interesting, huh? All this fuss because no one at Methodist bothered to synchronize the clocks to actual time (some running fast, some running slow).
Can you imagine how many other death certificates were marked with times that were off by a few minutes? But what does it matter in those cases? Not one whit."
Thumb1:
Hospitals are facing constant challenges to meet the needs of
patients. Outdated technologies within old clock systems are unsafe
and unreliable for patient care.
https://sapling-inc.com/wp-content/uploads/Healthcare-White-Paper-1.pdf
Medical Device Clock Errors in the Hospital
...
Of 337 device clock-times that were recorded, 53% had an offset of > 1 min, 17% had an offset of > 30 minutes, and 11% had an offset of > 1 hour.
https://www.stahq.org/files/2713/2743/1017/Abstract_1.pdf
JohnM
JohnM
If there was 10,15,20 eye witnesses saying they saw Oswald kill Tippet, the truth deniers would still twist the evidence in Oswald's favour. Bit like Trump denying Biden.Only difference is Trump will give up eventually. But like the truth deniers he will still believe he was robbed of victory.
I mean it beggar's belief that people still claim Oswald is innocent of the murder of Tippet. Suppose that's the reason ridiculous conspiracies exsist. Some people just can't accept that the're wrong.
I initially started out (back in the day) believing that Oswald was innocent but once I looked at the overwhelming evidence, some of it slightly flawed admittedly, I quickly realised I was wrong. Oswald killed 2 people that day (3 if you count his own life) JFK & Officer J.D.Tippet. 3 if you count his own life
If there was 10,15,20 eye witnesses saying they saw Oswald kill Tippet, the truth deniers would still twist the evidence in Oswald's favour. Bit like Trump denying Biden.Only difference is Trump will give up eventually. But like the truth deniers he will still believe he was robbed of victory. I mean it beggar's belief that people still claim Oswald is innocent of the murder of Tippet.When someone starts harping and going on about Trump and Biden ...completely off topic...I really question their agenda here.
Although I did not remember the exact time I remember it was early in the afternoon on Friday, November 22, 1963. I was driving XXXX north on Denver and stopped at 10th St. when I first saw the squad car and men walking on the sidewalk near the squad car. Both the squad car and this young white male were coming in my direction(East on 10th Street). At the time I was just approaching the squad car, I noticed this young white male with both hands in the pockets of his zippered jacket leaning over the passenger side of the squad car. This young white male was looking into the squad car from the passenger side. The next thing I knew I heard something that sounded like gun shots as I approached the intersection. (10th & Patton). I heard three shots in rapid (illegible)I went right through the intersection, stopped my car and turned to look back. I then saw the officer lying on the street and saw this young white man standing near the front of the squad car. Next. this man with a gun in his hand ran toward the back of the squad car, but instead of running away he stepped into the street and shot the police officer who was lying in the street. At that point this young man looked around him and then started to walk away in my direction and as he started to break into a small run in my direction, I sped off in my auto. All I saw him to the intersection and run south on Patton towards Jefferson.http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tatum.htm
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you see?Alan Hardacker seems to know less about this case than Charles Collins who apparently knows nothing.
Mr. SCOGGINS. I noticed he stopped down there, and I wasn't paying too much attention to the man, you see, just used to see him every day, but then I kind of looked down the street, saw this, someone, that looked to me like he was going west, now, I couldn't exactly say whether he was going west or was in the process of turning around, but he was facing west when I saw him.
Same thing
Actually it isn't.
She didn't ID Oswald as the shooter. She felt pressured and got weak... She said so in her testimony
If this case had gone to trial Markham would have been destroyed by a defense lawyer. I don't think the prosecutor wouldn't even call her as a witness.
You got me... Markham didn't use the word "catch". It was Ball who asked her when she usually got her bus.
Mr. BALL. You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you?
Mrs. MARKHAM. 1:15.
Same difference
@CTers: Keep estimating the time for another 58 years
Meanwhile, Oswald was ID'd at and near the scene
Unfair lineup or not:
Q: Why didn't Oswald ask for a jacket in the lineup?
A: Duh.
@CTers: Keep estimating the time for another 58 years
Meanwhile, Oswald was ID'd at and near the scene
Unfair lineup or not:
Q: Why didn't Oswald ask for a jacket in the lineup?
A: Duh.
@CTers: Keep estimating the time for another 58 years
Unfortunately for you, it's no longer an estimate when it is corroborated by other evidence.
Meanwhile, Oswald was ID'd at and near the scene
All you've got is Markham's "was there a number 2"...
The other two witnesses who were in the best position to see or could have seen (and identify) the shooter were Domingo Benavides and T.F. Bowley. Both men did not attend the line up. Benavides said he couldn't be sure that he could identify the man and Bowley was completely ignored by law enforcement after he gave his affidavit.
And before you ask, we know that Bowley arrived at the crime scene just after the shooting and before Callaway got there. This means that Bowley either just missed the killer passing by or saw him leave 10th street in the direction of Callaway on Patton.
Unfair lineup or not:
Q: Why didn't Oswald ask for a jacket in the lineup?
A: Duh.
How in the world would you even know what Oswald asked for at the line up?
Unfortunately for you, it's no longer an estimate when it is corroborated by other evidence.
The other two witnesses who were in the best position to see or could have seen (and identify) the shooter were Domingo Benavides and T.F. Bowley. Both men did not attend the line up. Benavides said he couldn't be sure that he could identify the man and Bowley was completely ignored by law enforcement after he gave his affidavit.
There is literally a MOUNTAIN of evidence that proves without any doubt that Oswald was at the Tippit crime scene and was carrying a Revolver, heck, even the shells seen dropped by Oswald at the Tippit crime scene were an exclusive match to Oswald's revolver.
The eyewitnesses who positively identified Oswald and confirmed he was carrying a gun
Mr. BALL. Which way?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Towards Jefferson, right across that way.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have the pistol in his hand at this time?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had the gun when I saw him.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it
Mr. BALL. And what did you see the man doing?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. And how was he holding the gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. We used to say in the Marine Corps in a raised pistol position.
Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand.
Mr. BALL. With which hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. With his right hand; just kicking them out.
Mr. BALL. He had it up?
Mr. B.M. PATTERSON, 4635 Hartford Street, Dallas, Texas, currently employed by Wyatt's Cafeteria, 2647 South Lancaster, Dallas, Texas, advised he was present at the used car lot of JOHNNY REYNOLDS' on the afternoon of November 22, 1963.
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JONNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas. A minute or so later they observed a white male approximately 30 years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying what appeared to be a revolver in his hand and was obviously trying to reload same while running.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see this man's face that had the gun in his hand?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Very good.
HAROLD RUSSELL, employee, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was standing on the lot of Reynolds Used Cars together with L.J. LEWIS and PAT PATTERSON, at which time they heard shots come from the vicinity of Patton and Tenth Street, and a few seconds later they observed a young white man running south on Patton Avenue carrying a pistol or revolver which the individual was attempting to either reload or place in his belt line.
Mr. BELIN. Did he have anything in his hand?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had a pistol in his left hand.
The Police Officers who were confronted with the murdering Oswald.
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When you saw Oswald's hand by his belt, which hand did you see then?
Mr. WALKER. He had ahold of the handle of it.
Mr. BELIN. Handle of what?
Mr. WALKER. The revolver.
Mr. BELIN. Was there a revolver there?
Mr. WALKER. Yes; there was.
Mr. HUTSON. McDonald was at this time simultaneously trying to hold this person's right hand. Somehow this person moved his right hand to his waist, and I saw a revolver come out, and McDonald was holding on to it with his right hand, and this gun was waving up toward the back of the seat like this.
Oswald even admitted carrying his revolver.
Mr. BELIN. Do you recall any other conversation that you had with him, or not?
Mr. WALKER. No; he was just denying it, and he was saying that all he did was carry a gun, and the reason he fought back in the theatre is, he knew he wasn't supposed to be carrying a gun, and he had never been to jail.
Mr. BELIN. During the drive down from the Texas Theatre, to the police station, do you remember any conversation with Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. CARROLL. Some. He stated that he had not done anything that - he said, "Well, I was carrying a pistol, but that is all."
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
(https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/LHOrevolver_080510.jpg)
(https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/LHOrev_Fig04_080510.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/qRfCkqg6/Receipt-for-revolver-delivery.png)
JohnM
No. It's not the same difference.
Did she think he was asking her what time she got to her bus stop?
Did she think he was asking her what time she gets on the bus?
Who knows. But, 1:15 would NOT be the time she always boards her bus since there was no 1:15 bus.
Isn't Markham's positive identification of Oswald corroborated by other evidence?
Isn't Barbara Davis' positive identification of Oswald corroborated by other evidence?
Isn't Virginia Davis' positive identification of Oswald corroborated by other evidence?
Isn't Scoggins' positive identification of Oswald corroborated by other evidence?
Isn't Callaway's positive identification of Oswald corroborated by other evidence?
Isn't Guinyard's positive identification of Oswald corroborated by other evidence?
Please answer the above six questions. Eyewitness testimony is evidence.
Bowley didn't see anything. The killer was gone by the time Bowley arrived. What are you talking about? What kind of lineup would you have Bowley attend?
There is literally a MOUNTAIN of evidence that proves without any doubt that Oswald was at the Tippit crime scene and was carrying a Revolver, heck, even the shells seen dropped by Oswald at the Tippit crime scene were an exclusive match to Oswald's revolver.
Utter nonsense and a damned lie.... The shells presented at the hearing were NOT positively identified as the same shells that were found WIDELY SCATTERED at the murder scene.
The eyewitnesses who positively identified Oswald and confirmed he was carrying a gun
Mr. BALL. Which way?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Towards Jefferson, right across that way.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have the pistol in his hand at this time?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had the gun when I saw him.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it
The S&W revolver dumps all of the chambers at once....It is NOT unloaded by removing one shell at a time. thus the killer was NOT using a S&W revolver
Mr. BALL. And what did you see the man doing?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. And how was he holding the gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. We used to say in the Marine Corps in a raised pistol position.
Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand.
Mr. BALL. With which hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. With his right hand; just kicking them out.
Mr. BALL. He had it up?
Mr. B.M. PATTERSON, 4635 Hartford Street, Dallas, Texas, currently employed by Wyatt's Cafeteria, 2647 South Lancaster, Dallas, Texas, advised he was present at the used car lot of JOHNNY REYNOLDS' on the afternoon of November 22, 1963.
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JONNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas. A minute or so later they observed a white male approximately 30 years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying what appeared to be a revolver in his hand and was obviously trying to reload same while running.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see this man's face that had the gun in his hand?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Very good.
HAROLD RUSSELL, employee, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was standing on the lot of Reynolds Used Cars together with L.J. LEWIS and PAT PATTERSON, at which time they heard shots come from the vicinity of Patton and Tenth Street, and a few seconds later they observed a young white man running south on Patton Avenue carrying a pistol or revolver which the individual was attempting to either reload or place in his belt line.
Mr. BELIN. Did he have anything in his hand?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had a pistol in his left hand.
The Police Officers who were confronted with the murdering Oswald.
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When you saw Oswald's hand by his belt, which hand did you see then?
Mr. WALKER. He had ahold of the handle of it.
Mr. BELIN. Handle of what?
Mr. WALKER. The revolver.
Mr. BELIN. Was there a revolver there?
Mr. WALKER. Yes; there was.
Mr. HUTSON. McDonald was at this time simultaneously trying to hold this person's right hand. Somehow this person moved his right hand to his waist, and I saw a revolver come out, and McDonald was holding on to it with his right hand, and this gun was waving up toward the back of the seat like this.
Oswald even admitted carrying his revolver.
Mr. BELIN. Do you recall any other conversation that you had with him, or not?
Mr. WALKER. No; he was just denying it, and he was saying that all he did was carry a gun, and the reason he fought back in the theatre is, he knew he wasn't supposed to be carrying a gun, and he had never been to jail.
Mr. BELIN. During the drive down from the Texas Theatre, to the police station, do you remember any conversation with Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. CARROLL. Some. He stated that he had not done anything that - he said, "Well, I was carrying a pistol, but that is all."
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
(https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/LHOrevolver_080510.jpg)
(https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/LHOrev_Fig04_080510.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/qRfCkqg6/Receipt-for-revolver-delivery.png)
JohnM
Great post, John. This one should be a thread starter.
She also said the man who shot the policeman was Lee Oswald. So, what now?
Oswald was indeed wearing a light shirt.
He had on a white T-shirt, then the outer shirt (the long-sleeved brown shirt) and then the light-colored jacket. If the jacket is zipped only halfway up and the top half of the brown shirt is unbuttoned, then it seems the white T-shirt would be very noticeable.
Benavides said he couldn't be sure that he could identify the man
That's what the police said that Domingo Benavides said..... BUT.... Benavides DID describe the killer.....And he DID NOT describe Lee Oswald.
Benavides described the man's hair as being cut totally different than Lee Oswald's ......
First things first, Mr. Brown:
(A) Who told you sir the jacket was only zipped up halfway during the encounter between Tippit and the actual gunman? Source please.
(B) Now, regardless of the light colour of the shirt, which did Not match the dark reddish brown shirt donned by the wrongly accused, How do you account for the difference in the light grey pants worn by the wrongly accused as oppose to the dark coloured trousers described by Mrs. Markham worn by the actual gunman?
Now, for the record, Mr. Brown, I'm not here to clash with you in spite of our obvious differences in this case as I have come to respect you in spite of those differences. That said, I'm no longer the "rookie" researcher you, Mr. Mack (Gary, RIP), etc encountered in May of 2014 w/the Ben Hur chariot avatar drawn by a team of horses. Mr. Mack flooded my then PM box w/your wrong about this "kid", you're wrong about that "kid", etc.
However, upon further reading and immersing myself deeper into this case, suffice it to say the hastily contrived script fed to the general public framing an innocent party does Not pass the test of time. That said, best to you & yours for a safe, healthy & Happy Thanksgiving!
The wrongly accused did Not shoot anybody. Anybody.
That would be a short thread because nobody denies that Oswald carried a revolver when he was arrested.
The only possible discussion could be whether CE143 is in fact the revolver they took from Oswald.
That would be a short thread because nobody denies that Oswald carried a revolver when he was arrested
> Iacoletti
Then show us where he denied it.
He denies everything: In irreligious wonderland, nothing can be known and nothing is provable.
She also said the man who shot the policeman was Lee Oswald. So, what now?You never read anyone's posts but your own do you? Cite the testimony where Mrs Markham actually ever says "I saw Oswald shoot the cop". Now ..I have read her testimony several times and she was told by the Commissioners that it was Oswald who did it but for some apparent reluctance issue...she never said "I saw Oswald shoot Tippit".
Mr. BALL. When you identified Oswald--it was the number 2 man--were you told the number 2 man whom you identified in the lineup?None of this "It was #2" stuff ... No "He gave me the willies" --Where did she say it outright "Oswald shot the policeman"? Look for it here. It will not be found. Psychology interceded ..She knew it wasn't Lee Oswald.
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, I was not.
Mr. BALL. Were you ever told his name?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No.
Mr. BALL. Ever told his name later?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Nobody, nobody told me nothing.
Then show us where he denied it.You will just have to take the cops' word for it I'm afraid. Unfortunately...they are all dead by now.
You never read anyone's posts but your own do you? Cite the testimony where Mrs Markham actually ever says "I saw Oswald shoot the cop". Now ..I have read her testimony several times and she was told by the Commissioners that it was Oswald who did it but for some apparent reluctance issue...she never said "I saw Oswald shoot Tippit". None of this "It was #2" stuff ... No "He gave me the willies" --Where did she say it outright "Oswald shot the policeman"? Look for it here. It will not be found. Psychology interceded ..She knew it wasn't Lee Oswald.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/markham1.htmYou will just have to take the cops' word for it I'm afraid. Unfortunately...they are all dead by now.
Did the cops say that John Iacoletti denied that Oswald had a revolver when he was arrested? You've got me all confused now, Jerry.That really confused me.
Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he did after he left the building?We know that Fritz lied in his testimony..denying anything said by Roger Craig and Oswald's reaction at that time.
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
That's what I thought. You can't show it.
Btw, asking for proof or even just evidence is not the same as denying something.
And he is arrested a short distance away with a pistol and the same two brands of ammo used at the Tippit scene.
What pistol would that be? The one that suddenly showed up in the police station, some two hours after Oswald's arrest and was initialed by police officers who were not even present at the arrest? Is that the pistol you mean?
Show us where Iacoletti has ever said anything at all points to Oswald.
I don't have to show anything: Officer McDonald provided evidence of Oswald pulling his gun out. Witness testimony is evidence.
In CT land, nothing is knowable and nothing is provable. An attitude that can best be described as fringeworthy.
Mr. BALL - Which hand was--was his right hand or his left hand on the pistol?
Mr. McDONALD - His right hand was on the pistol.
Mr. BALL - And which of your hands?
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Forget John I. Martin/Roger himself has questioned in this very thread whether Oswald had a pistol on him.
She also said the man who shot the policeman was Lee Oswald. So, what now?
You never read anyone's posts but your own do you? Cite the testimony where Mrs Markham actually ever says "I saw Oswald shoot the cop". Now ..I have read her testimony several times and she was told by the Commissioners that it was Oswald who did it but for some apparent reluctance issue...she never said "I saw Oswald shoot Tippit". None of this "It was #2" stuff ... No "He gave me the willies" --Where did she say it outright "Oswald shot the policeman"? Look for it here. It will not be found. Psychology interceded ..She knew it wasn't Lee Oswald.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/markham1.htmYou will just have to take the cops' word for it I'm afraid. Unfortunately...they are all dead by now.
You got me... Markham didn't use the word "catch". It was Ball who asked her when she usually got her bus.
Mr. BALL. You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you?
Mrs. MARKHAM. 1:15.
Same difference
No. It's not the same difference.
Did she think he was asking her what time she got to her bus stop?
Did she think he was asking her what time she gets on the bus?
Who knows. But, 1:15 would NOT be the time she always boards her bus since there was no 1:15 bus.
Weak. You don't get to determine what she thought. The question is clear; Ball wanted to know when she got her bus.
Ball did not ask when she arrived at the bus stop.
And how do you know there wasn't a bus at 1.15? Just because the schedule (according to the FBI) said 1.12 and 1.22, does that mean that a bus can not be late three minutes?
But it's a moot point, because even if Markham arrived at the bus stop at 1.15, she would have walked passed the corner of 10th & Patton at 1.12 or 1.13, because it takes at least 2 minutes to walk the distance from 10th street to the bus stop on Jefferson. This in turn means that she would have passed 10th street before the shooting, if that took place at 1.14 or 1.15.
Weak. You don't get to determine what she thought.
The question is clear; Ball wanted to know when she got her bus.
And how do you know there wasn't a bus at 1.15? Just because the schedule (according to the FBI) said 1.12 and 1.22, does that mean that a bus can not be late three minutes?
But it's a moot point, because even if Markham arrived at the bus stop at 1.15, she would have walked passed the corner of 10th & Patton at 1.12 or 1.13, because it takes at least 2 minutes to walk the distance from 10th street to the bus stop on Jefferson. This in turn means that she would have passed 10th street before the shooting, if that took place at 1.14 or 1.15.
That would be a short thread because nobody denies that Oswald carried a revolver when he was arrested.
First things first, Mr. Brown:
(A) Who told you sir the jacket was only zipped up halfway during the encounter between Tippit and the actual gunman? Source please.
(B) Now, regardless of the light colour of the shirt, which did Not match the dark reddish brown shirt donned by the wrongly accused, How do you account for the difference in the light grey pants worn by the wrongly accused as oppose to the dark coloured trousers described by Mrs. Markham worn by the actual gunman?
Now, for the record, Mr. Brown, I'm not here to clash with you in spite of our obvious differences in this case as I have come to respect you in spite of those differences. That said, I'm no longer the "rookie" researcher you, Mr. Mack (Gary, RIP), etc encountered in May of 2014 w/the Ben Hur chariot avatar drawn by a team of horses. Mr. Mack flooded my then PM box w/your wrong about this "kid", you're wrong about that "kid", etc.
However, upon further reading and immersing myself deeper into this case, suffice it to say the hastily contrived script fed to the general public framing an innocent party does Not pass the test of time. That said, best to you & yours for a safe, healthy & Happy Thanksgiving!
The wrongly accused did Not shoot anybody. Anybody.
(A) Who told you sir the jacket was only zipped up halfway during the encounter between Tippit and the actual gunman? Source please.
(B) Now, regardless of the light colour of the shirt, which did Not match the dark reddish brown shirt donned by the wrongly accused, How do you account for the difference in the light grey pants worn by the wrongly accused as oppose to the dark coloured trousers described by Mrs. Markham worn by the actual gunman?
Now, for the record, Mr. Brown, I'm not here to clash with you in spite of our obvious differences in this case as I have come to respect you in spite of those differences. That said, I'm no longer the "rookie" researcher you, Mr. Mack (Gary, RIP), etc encountered in May of 2014 w/the Ben Hur chariot avatar drawn by a team of horses. Mr. Mack flooded my then PM box w/your wrong about this "kid", you're wrong about that "kid", etc.
However, upon further reading and immersing myself deeper into this case, suffice it to say the hastily contrived script fed to the general public framing an innocent party does Not pass the test of time. That said, best to you & yours for a safe, healthy & Happy Thanksgiving!
Also in testimony..We know that Fritz lied in his testimony..denying anything said by Roger Craig and Oswald's reaction at that time.
Where did I claim to be able to determine what she thought? Please explain.
Actually, the question was not totally clear.
I do believe Ball was trying to ask her what time she boarded her bus and I have never said otherwise. What I said was that because the question is not totally clear, we don't really know exactly how Markham interpreted the question and because of this, we do not know what her answer really means. Ball certainly could have asked the question in a more obvious manner than he did.
There was no 1:15 bus, according to all of the information we have. If you have something which suggests otherwise, then please post it (which you won't do, because you don't have it).
As for the bus being late, obviously it can be late on occasion. However, one doesn't bank on the bus being late every single time so your point here is kind of invalid.
I can accept that Lee Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit at 1:13. Fair enough?
John Iacoletti has questioned it over and over. And then, once he did that, he did it over and over again. And then again. And again.
I didn't say that the jacket was zipped up only halfway.
I believe eyewitnesses to a crime make mistakes almost always, when it comes to clothing descriptions. This is obvious. It happens.
Set aside the description of color for a minute. I would like to know what some conspiracy advocates believe happened to the jacket that Oswald was zipping up as he went out the front door of the rooming house. He left the house wearing a jacket and was seen at the shoe store entrance with no jacket. Even if the jacket was rainbow-colored, what happened to it? Why did Oswald get rid of it?
Thanks Alan. I appreciate that. buddy.
Alan, Happy Thanksgiving to you and your loved ones.
She's on video explaining what she saw, regarding the man who killed Tippit.Post Warren video is not the same evidence as- in the course of Warren hearings testimony is...not any more than the convoluted description that was made by Markham to Mark Lane.
I believe eyewitnesses to a crime make mistakes almost always, when it comes to clothing descriptions. This is obvious. It happens. I would like to know what some conspiracy advocates believe happened to the jacket that Oswald was zipping up as he went out the front door of the rooming house. He left the house wearing a jacket and was seen at the shoe store entrance with no jacket. ...what happened to it? Why did Oswald get rid of it?Picking and choosing testimony to fit a narrative. Whose word was it that Oswald was zipping up a jacket?...but this same person was in error when mentioning seeing Oswald near the bus stop north of the house. Perhaps Roberts was wrong about the jacket in the first place....who knows for sure?
Mrs. Roberts' affidavit:
I noticed he had a jacket he was putting on. I recall the jacket was a dark color and it was the type that zips up the front. He was zipping the jacket up as he left.
Note the details: dark coloured - zipper type - zipping it as Oswald left.
Being half blind does not make her half-witted.
Hardly sound and conclusive evidence of Oswald leaving the rooming house with a grey jacket that was later found in a car park and called in as being white.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what color his trousers were?
Mrs. DAVIS. [Virginia] I think they were black. Brown jacket and trousers.
On the Lane audio recording [heard by the Commissioners]...Mrs Markham said that there was no one else around when the cop was shot. So how accurate was that?Jack Moriarty [HSCA]- Did you not report this information [to the Tippit shooting] to the authorities?
Set aside the description of color for a minute.
And why would you want to set aside such a crucial part of the description?
Mrs. Roberts' affidavit:
I noticed he had a jacket he was putting on. I recall the jacket was a dark color and it was the type that zips up the front. He was zipping the jacket up as he left.
Note the details: dark coloured - zipper type - zipping it as Oswald left.
Being half blind does not make her half-witted.
Virginia Davis and Barbara Davis saw the same man cut across their front yard. They stood beside each other and watched this guy flee the scene. Virginia stated the jacket that he was wearing was light colored. Barbara said it was dark. They were referring to the same jacket.
Are you seriously asking why we'd set aside description of color for a minute?
Bingo. We have a winner.
Yes I am, as it goes to the credibility of the witness as it demonstrates just how bad most people are at sound observation. The Davis sisters only saw the killer passing by for a second or two. Not enough for them to register the color of his jacket, yet we are to believe they registered his face well enough to pick him out of a line up. Really?
Most people can't take in everything at once. But clothing wouldn't exactly be top priority in a scene with shots fired and a guy with a gun walking by.
When you falsely claim that John Iacoletti has denied that Oswald had a revolver, yes you do have to show that.
Officer McDonald provided evidence of Oswald pulling his gun out. Witness testimony is evidence.
Yes, yes... we all know what McDonald said. And we also know that Fritz wrote in his notes that Oswald admitted that he carried a revolver. But which revolver, that's the question
Dishonest John I. has denied that Oswald had a gun when arrested. "Except he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested. And how do you know those shells were even found at the crime scene?"
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,202.msg4394.html#msg4394
How can you argue with someone that denies basic facts. Several of the police officers in the Texas theatre describe Oswald as having a pistol. And Oswald admitted to having a pistol to Will Fritz.
Dishonest John I. has denied that Oswald had a gun when arrested. "Except he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested. And how do you know those shells were even found at the crime scene?"
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,202.msg4394.html#msg4394
Shells being found at the crime scene matching the gun he was carrying when arrested.
Why was he found in the theater carrying a gun?
Even that has very little evidentiary basis. Basically you have to rely on McDonald who was known to embellish his role in the events of the day. You know, one of those unreliable witnesses you've been talking about. But let's assume that Oswald did have a gun in the theater. This proves that he shot a cop...how exactly?
You can argue with them but it doesn't do any good! They can't even keep track of their own claims. For example, here the Brothers Dumb have claimed Oswald didn't have a pistol at all but then sometimes they claim he did but they suggest it was not the same one in evidence later but then they claim even the "planted" pistol can't be connected to the Tippit murder. So why plant it if it doesn't link Oswald to the crime? But they still won't admit to being CTers while suggesting all this fakery of the evidence. Who and why all this evidence was being planted to frame Oswald is just left to our imagination. Round and round it goes down the rabbit hole. They are just playing the endless contrarians.
Yet they still described the jacket instead of saying they didn't get a good look... Go figure
The point is that they saw him in a jacket
How can you argue with someone that denies basic facts. Several of the police officers in the Texas theatre describe Oswald as having a pistol. And Oswald admitted to having a pistol to Will Fritz.And never have any police ever lied to cover their own? And the Kennedy hating Dallas Police could not ever have been involved in the assassination? And someone who was suspected of gunning down a cop and then pulled that gun on another cop would not have been gunned down himself right then and there? And don't give us that some innocent might have been shot because we know that is bullcrap. And anyway we know that Fritz lied [just read his testimony]
Without identifiable features, that would be the same as saying he was wearing pants. It's meaningless, so, no that's not the point.
Oswald was seen wearing a jacket @Tippit.
Identifiable features for jackets include looking like a jacket.
Oswald was seen wearings pants @Tippit.
Identifiable features for pants include looking like pants.
Oswald was seen @Tippit wearing his own face, as turned out.
Identifiable features for faces include looking like yourself.
Oswald was arrested while wearing pants.
Oswald was arrested while not wearing a jacket.
Oswald was seen wearing a jacket @Tippit.
Oswald was seen @Tippit wearing his own face, as turned out.
Says who?
And never have any police ever lied to cover their own? And the Kennedy hating Dallas Police could not ever have been involved in the assassination? And someone who was suspected of gunning down a cop and then pulled that gun on another cop would not have been gunned down himself right then and there? And don't give us that some innocent might have been shot because we know that is bullcrap. And anyway we know that Fritz lied [just read his testimony]
There you go again
Tippits wife says J.D. voted for Kennedy. Not sure where you are getting that the DPD hated Kennedy? They were more upset about J.D. Tippit getting killed than the President but that is a typical response given how police officers are like a family they spend so much time together.
Well, who said it?
If your answer is; the witnesses (which I think it is) than all you've got is a rather silly circular argument
There you go again. You sound like Trump, denying reality.
Oswald carried a revolver when he was arrested. He admits it to Fritz and says he bought it in Forth Worth, so the revolver that shows up at the police station two hours after his arrest must be that revolver..... and oh btw it's actually bought by a mail order.
No paper work ever produced that he bought it in Fort Worth i'm guessing?
The naysayers claim that there is no evidence that LHO lied. They also believe him when he said that he didn’t shoot anybody. Go figure...
No paper work ever produced that he bought it in Fort Worth i'm guessing?
No paper work ever produced that he bought it in Fort Worth i'm guessing?
Oswald wouldn't say where in Fort Worth he bought it. Robert Oswald said his brother had other pistols which he, Robert, bought off him so he wouldn't do anything with them.
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_4205681?guccounter=1
I haven’t seen that before, Bill. Where does Robert say that, if you know?
In the link I provided.
No paper work ever produced that he bought it in Fort Worth i'm guessing?
The naysayers claim that there is no evidence that LHO lied. They also believe him when he said that he didn’t shoot anybody. Go figure...
Wow, how did I miss seeing the link?
Okay, so this is what the author says Robert told him. And he said that Lee brought them home. So it appears to me that this must have been when Robert and Lee both lived with their mother. Long before the assassination.
Still, I don’t remember reading about this in Robert’s book. That’s why I am surprised. Robert believes LHO is guilty. So he wouldn’t have reason to not say something about it in the book.
Oh well, it just goes to show that LHO was interested in guns at an early age. So was I.
The naysayers claim that there is no evidence that LHO lied. They also believe him when he said that he didn’t shoot anybody. Go figure...
-------------------------
THE CULT OF OSWALD
-------------------------
Nothing is Knowable
Nothing is Provable
Nothing is Believable
A typical irrelevant reply from somebody who lacks the ability to argue his own case and makes do with pathetic one liners
Jumping to conclusions based on assumptions is your "reality", not mine.
Your world;
One witness said Oswald left the rooming house wearing a dark colored jacket, so the white jacket found under a parked car must be that jacket.... and oh btw it's actually grey...
Oswald carried a revolver when he was arrested. He admits it to Fritz and says he bought it in Forth Worth, so the revolver that shows up at the police station two hours after his arrest must be that revolver..... and oh btw it's actually bought by a mail order.
The LN matra: Who cares about the problems with the evidence, let's just make assumptions to fill the gaps and declare him guilty
Oh, btw I don't claim that Oswald got the gun in Fort Worth. I only reported that he claimed that he did—and didn't say where in Fort Worth he got it. And aren't you going against form by agreeing that the gun was bought by mail-order? I haven't seen one CT agree to that.
You claim that witness evidence is weak. You claim that Earlene was 'half blind' and had her back to Oswald. So all of a sudden her eyesight is perfect and her memory infallible. Wow.
No need to jump to conclusions given that witnesses saw Oswald in a jacket @Tippit and have their individual memories of the colour of the jacket, whether in harsh sunlight or in the shadows. You do realize that ambient light can influence the colour objects.... right?
'Problems' with the evidence... as interpreted by The Cult of Oswald
Are you ok? You seem confused.... Do I need to worry about you?
Oh, btw I don't claim that Oswald got the gun in Fort Worth. I only reported that he claimed that he did—and didn't say where in Fort Worth he got it. And aren't you going against form by agreeing that the gun was bought by mail-order? I haven't seen one CT agree to that.
What are you rambling on about? The revolver Oswald told Fritz he bought in Fort Worth is one issue. The revolver bought by mail order is a completely different issue.
On the one hand you have Oswald admitting to Fritz (if his notes are to be believed) that he bought his revolver in Fort Worth, which is never investigated.
On the other hand you have a revolver brought into the police station some two hours after the arrest, by a detective who allegedly was in the car with Oswald (so why the delay of handing the revolver into the evidence locker?), who claims this (now known as CE 143) was the revolver taken from Oswald and has it initialed by officers who were not involved in the arrest.
Despite the clear discrepancy that CE 143, according to the paperwork allegedly was bought by mail order, and thus not in Fort Worth nobody investigates in Fort Worth and they instantly go off looking for a mail order purchase.... Nothing strange about that, right? Yeah right... Consider the trouble the FBI went through trying to find the dry cleaner of the jacket, it's not the least bit strange that nobody bothers to look into the Fort Worth purchase as alleged by Oswald? Why not.... What did they already know?
You claim that witness evidence is weak. You claim that Earlene was 'half blind' and had her back to Oswald. So all of a sudden her eyesight is perfect and her memory infallible. Wow.
Of course witness evidence is unreliable. Even more so if the witness is half blind, concentrating on the television and with her back to Oswald. This is why you guys can not claim with any kind of certainty that she did indeed see Oswald leave wearing a jacket of any discription. Even less so, when there is evidence that Oswald was wearing to grey jacket to Irving on Thursday evening, which means it couldn't have been at the rooming house on Friday morning.
The LN position on Earlene Roberts is utterly pathetic. On the one hand, you guys claim she did not see a police car in front of the house, nor did she see Oswald standing at the bus stop, yet, although she can not describe the color of the jacket (of for that matter what kind of shirt Oswald was wearing when he came in, according to you guys she's spot on about the jacket.
No need to jump to conclusions given that witnesses saw Oswald in a jacket @Tippit and have their individual memories of the colour of the jacket, whether in harsh sunlight or in the shadows.
First of all, it is in no way certain that the witnesses actually saw Oswald at the Tippit scene and not somebody who resembled him. I say again; when the timeline proves that Oswald couldn't have been on 10th street the moment Tippit was killed, the witnesses were wrong. It is as simple as that.
You do realize that ambient light can influence the colour objects.... right?
You do realize that most people are not very good at observation and/or recollection? Just like Baker, who thought Oswald was wearing a jacket in the TSBD lunchroom, or the taxi driver who thought he was wearing two jackets, when he was wearing none.
Stop cherry picking the evidence
I was addressing Oswald-Fort Worth-pistol
You brought up the mail order thing
Oswald wouldn’t say where he got the gun in Fort Worth = An innocent man would tell the cops exactly where he got the gun = Oswald was playing games.
The Jacket: To be or not to be.
Are you accusing Earlene of lying?
Are you claiming that generally inattentive people can’t be prompted into high-alert mode by shots fired and an individual brandishing a firearm?
Dishonest John I. has denied that Oswald had a gun when arrested. "Except he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested. And how do you know those shells were even found at the crime scene?"
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,202.msg4394.html#msg4394
Oswald wouldn’t say where he got the gun in Fort Worth = An innocent man would tell the cops exactly where he got the gun = Oswald was playing games.
Jumping to conclusions again? An innocent man who is accused of a murder would keep his mouth shut to the police and wait for his council.
The Jacket: To be or not to be.
Are you accusing Earlene of lying?
No, are you? Her employer did, btw....
She said she saw a police car in front of the house. LNs call her a liar.
She said she saw Oswald standing at the bus stop near the rooming house a couple of minutes after 1 pm. LNs call her a liar.
She said the "jacket" Oswald left with was dark colored and she couldn't positively identify CE162 during her testimony, yet LNs implicitely call her a liar as they claim she did in fact see a grey jacket.
All I am saying is that a half blind woman, with her back turned to Oswald because she was paying attention to the tv, isn't the most reliable witness.
Are you claiming that generally inattentive people can’t be prompted into high-alert mode by shots fired and an individual brandishing a firearm?
I'm not sure who you are talking about, now. But to counter that, are you claiming that all witnesses remain calm under stress to such an extend that all their observations are 100% correct?
Where did I say that?
Your description of Earlene being 'half blind' paints a different picture than her being blind in one eye.
And tell us how her employer would know she was lying.
Don't Talk to the Police Under Any Circumstances
Innocent people are often all-too-eager to blab about how innocent they are.
Knowing you, I figured there was a good chance that you misrepresented what John actually said by taking it out of context.
John responded to a claim by Joe Elliott;
A little bit further in the same post, there's this exchance;
Joe said;
And John replied;
So, there is no denial on John's part that Oswald had a revolver. He merely feels there is very little evidentiary basis for that claim.
But I'm sure this difference goes right over your head
Your description of Earlene being 'half blind' paints a different picture than her being blind in one eye.
Yeah, right.....
Mr. BALL. Now, Mrs. Roberts, this deposition will be written up and you can read it if you want to and you can sign it. or you can waive the signature.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can't see too good how to read. I'm completely blind in my right eye.
And tell us how her employer would know she was lying.
She knew and told the WC. How she knew, you will have to ask her. Stop asking silly questions.
Don't Talk to the Police Under Any Circumstances
Innocent people are often all-too-eager to blab about how innocent they are.
Yeah sure... And Oswald talked to the police for hours....
Your contrived argument sounds a lot like what the folks at Salem said about witches; "throw her in the water and if she floats, she's a witch". Who cares that innocent people often protest their innocence? It is a meaningless and irrelevant comment as you can not argue that everybody who doesn't talk to police is guilty.
Btw an honest man would at least try to answer the question I asked in reply # 184 and not ignore it and run away from it as you do.
So Roberts was so hard of seeing that she imagined what see saw? She said she 'can't see too good how to read'. You wouldn't be trying to apply that to her ability to see if a man was wearing a jacket or not, now would you Mr. Honesty..
‘She (the employer) knew she (Roberts) was lying’.
>>> So her employer was in the room with her when Oswald came and left?
Tell us again how she knew Roberts was lying. Tell us how that’s a silly question.
‘Oswald talked to police for hours’
>>> Except when he was asked anything about the shootings
And would then stop talking. Not the comportment of an innocent man
>>> What contrived argument? Watch the video and learn something. And you’re the one contriving arguments by babbling nonsense about Salem witches and the like. And are you sure I even saw #184 before you mentioned it? I don’t have email alerts enabled, btw.
‘Btw an honest man would at least try to answer the question I asked in reply # 184 and not ignore it and run away from it as you do’
>>> You lot are so full of yourselves & desperate for respect here that you rationalize being ignored by pointing at us as being unable to answer.
Huh? That is completely nuts. This is exactly what Dishonest John said. It is a quote from the link that I provided that anyone can read. You are the one who has misrepresented it. "Except he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested. And how do you know those shells were even found at the crime scene?"
I can't help it when something goes right over your head or you simply don't (want to) understand.
There is nothing to understand. The quote is clear and unambiguous: "Except he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested." HE WASN"T CARRYING A GUN WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED! Good grief. It can't get any clearer than that. The not unsurprising fact that Dishonest John has also made other claims about the pistol that are inconsistent with this statement does not negate the fact that he as claimed that Oswald "wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested." It is not my problem that you can't keep his inconsistent claims straight. Take it up with him. A contrarian doesn't have to be consistent. They can claim both that Oswald had no gun when arrested, and that he did have a gun but that it was switched for another gun later. It doesn't have to make any coherent narrative sense. That is whole advantage of playing the contrarian. The sum of all the pieces never has to add up to a coherent narrative or be supported by any evidence. The entire purpose is to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt like a defense attorney.
Again, the crux of my argument has gone completely over your head. Just like you cherry pick other pieces of evidence and jump to highly speculative and often incorrect conclusions, instead of looking at the entire evidence, you are concentrating on one comment which could have two meanings.
When John returns you can take up this sideshow with him. I am still waiting on the evidence that shows that the revolver (now in evidence as CE 143) that was brought into the police station some two hours after Oswald was brought in is in fact the revolver Oswald carried when he was arrested at the Texas Theater.
Wow. You called another poster out here for noting that Dishonest John I. had claimed that Oswald did not have a pistol when arrested. You then repeatedly insisted that he confirm this claim. When I posted the clear and unambiguous quote from Dishonest John that confirms he made that claim, you suddenly don't want to discuss or admit that he has done so! LOL.
What two meanings do you derive from his quote (and how is using a quotation "cherry picking"): "Except he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested." What two meanings can there be from "he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested"? Again, if Dishonest John made other inconsistent claims regarding Oswald's possession of a pistol when arrested it does not negate the fact that he has claimed that Oswald did not have a gun when arrested. You don't seem to be able to process his contrarian tactic of making inconsistent claims. Even though you and he are birds of a feather.
What two meanings can there be from "he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested"?
I'll gladly let you figure that out by yourself.
You don't seem to be able to process his contrarian tactic of making inconsistent claims. Even though you and he are birds of a feather.
Does this mean I'm not a contrarian after all? Or could it simply be that you are unable to comprehend what two "birds of a feather" find easy to understand?
Fool, she only concluded that he was wearing a jacket because she thought she saw him zipping up a zipper.
The desperation of nuts like you to keep Roberts in play as a "reliable" witness is truly pathetic. Had this case gone to trial, she would have been destroyed in a minute by the defense.
Check her testimony and you will find out what she had to say about Roberts
Were you there when he talked to the police? No, so stop pretending you know.
Your entire argument is contrived. You've got a witness who, by her own admission is blind in one eye, who wasn't paying attention because she was concentrating on the TV (which means she had her back to the living room), who couldn't tell what kind of shirt Oswald was wearing when he came in and who the LNs consider unreliable when she claims to have seen a police car in front of the house and to have seen Oswald standing at the bus stop.
That same witness claims to have seen a dark colored jacket and failed to identify the grey jacket CE 162 when it was shown to her during her testimony. Yet, somehow, for you she is an ironclad witness, despite the fact that she only could have seen Oswald for one or two seconds as he passed by her going out the door. Pathetic.
Which only tells me that you did see reply # 184 and ignored it, just like you are ignoring it now and are doing a silly song and dance to avoid honestly answering the question.
And that you are unable, or perhaps rather unwilling, the answer the question honestly doesn't need any more proof than that you didn't answer it in your post.
‘Fool, she only concluded that he was wearing a jacket because she thought she saw him zipping up a zipper’
>>> HAHAHAHA! Look at this mockup, blurred to mimic somewhat bad eyesight, and tell us one could not see a jacket. Go ahead.. squint, close one eye & blur the image as much as you as you want.
(https://i.postimg.cc/JnghBtSs/squint-001.png)
‘The desperation of nuts like you to keep Roberts in play as a "reliable" witness is truly pathetic. Had this case gone to trial, she would have been destroyed in a minute by the defense’
>>> Johnson is sounding more & more like a busybody every time you open your mouth. Again, how would Johnson know what went on in that room if she wasn’t there?
‘Were you there when he talked to the police? No, so stop pretending you know’
>>> There were witnesses present. Was Earlene’s employer in the room with Earlene and Oswald? I think not.
‘Your entire argument is contrived. You've got a witness who, by her own admission is blind in one eye, who wasn't paying attention because she was concentrating on the TV (which means she had her back to the living room), who couldn't tell what kind of shirt Oswald was wearing when he came in and who the LNs consider unreliable when she claims to have seen a police car in front of the house and to have seen Oswald standing at the bus stop.’
‘That same witness claims to have seen a dark colored jacket and failed to identify the grey jacket CE 162 when it was shown to her during her testimony. Yet, somehow, for you she is an ironclad witness, despite the fact that she only could have seen Oswald for one or two seconds as he passed by her going out the door. Pathetic’
>>> Where did I say she was an iron-clad witness? Where did I say Earlene was lying?
‘Which only tells me that you did see reply # 184 and ignored it, just like you are ignoring it now and are doing a silly song and dance to avoid honestly answering the question. And that you are unable, or perhaps rather unwilling, the answer the question honestly doesn't need any more proof than that you didn't answer it in your post.
>>> Again: I do not have email alerts enabled and was not aware of post #184 until you mentioned it. And are you sure that LNers feel that all CT posts are worth taking the time to answer?
Tippits wife says J.D. voted for Kennedy. Not sure where you are getting that the DPD hated Kennedy?So she says....So what?--Has nothing to do with the post.
So she says....So what?--Has nothing to do with the post.
Not only the Dallas police but the Sheriff [Decker] made a special point to tell his dept to not provide any protection for JFK ...the authorities [mayor.. DA] doubtfully gave Kennedy their vote. Dallas was a really big time Republican city and you should just read the newspapers of that time.
I still have them. Have you ever seen the "Welcome to Dallas Mr Kennedy" ad?
Not even referring to him as Mr President---insult enough.
Imagine a major city paper that would have run an ad...Welcome to [our city] Mr Obama....then slamming him as a communist.
So she says....So what?--Has nothing to do with the post.
Not only the Dallas police but the Sheriff [Decker] made a special point to tell his dept to not provide any protection for JFK ...the authorities [mayor.. DA] doubtfully gave Kennedy their vote. Dallas was a really big time Republican city and you should just read the newspapers of that time.
I still have them. Have you ever seen the "Welcome to Dallas Mr Kennedy" ad?
Not even referring to him as Mr President---insult enough.
Imagine a major city paper that would have run an ad...Welcome to [our city] Mr Obama....then slamming him as a communist.
I bet you can imagine it in the case of President Trump, though. Right?
Add not paying attention in the mix and only seeing Oswald for a second or two while concentrating on the TV and get back to me
And btw, all your blurred picture illustrates is the color of the jacket can hardly be missed, yet Roberts said it was dark colored and failed to indentify CE 162 during her testimony. Go figure...
Attacking Johnson to keep Roberts in play... Desperation in action :D
Witnesses who, a week later, wrote reports in the knowledge that Oswald was already dead and there would be no trial. Those kind of witnesses? At least we have now established that you were not there, so you have no idea what was really said.
So, the only witness who claimed Oswald left the rooming house might not be reliable after all? Good to know
Again, now you are aware of the post and you had another opportunity to provide an answer but you didn't. Says it all, really...
And btw, I am sure that LNs will only answer posts that do not get them out of their comfort zone, which is exactly why you refuse to answer my question.
'So, the only witness who claimed Oswald left the rooming house might not be reliable after all? Good to know'
>>> Don't get your hopes up, I might be just feeding you red meat; giving you something to live for.
‘Attacking Johnson to keep Roberts in play... Desperation in action’
>>> Attempting to deflect from the fact that Johnson was not a witness to the Oswald-Roberts living-room interplay. Desperation in action.
Not sure why you think that anyone, let alone Earlene, would need anything more than a quick glance to see that the individual had a jacket on. Are you saying it took you 1-2 seconds to realize that the tester in my demo had a jacket on?
My blurred demo demonstrates that an individual with compromised vision can tell immediately whether or not a person has a jacket on.
The jacket is largely in shadow, in effect making the white jacket the tester was wearing appear darker and somewhat grey. Ambient light in that room could affect an individual’s perception of the lightness/darkness of the garment.
‘Witnesses who, a week later, wrote reports in the knowledge that Oswald was already dead and there would be no trial. Those kind of witnesses? At least we have now established that you were not there, so you have no idea what was really said.’
>>> So, they are ‘those kind of of witnesses’, huh. Not that you’re biased. They deserve their day in court, same as Oswald.
‘Again, now you are aware of the post and you had another opportunity to provide an answer but you didn't. Says it all, really’
>>> You’ve just proven my point. And which question, btw.. be a sport by at least pointing it out.
‘And btw, I am sure that LNs will only answer posts that do not get them out of their comfort zone, which is exactly why you refuse to answer my question’
>>> Comfort zone, haha. That, coming from the far shores the lunatic fringe, where nothing can be known, proven, or believed.
:D
Yet it doesn't fit with Roberts' testimony. She didn't remember a jacket... She remembered a zipper
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?
Mr. BALL. Yes---it has a zipper down the front.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe it was.
Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
BS.. there are no shadows inside a living room, nor is there ambient light in the middle of the day. Next to the front door there were three massive windows allowing daylight into the living room. If there was any place where the color of the jacket could be seen it was there.
Sure they deserved their day in court, but as they knew there wasn't going to be a trial, they could write whatever they wanted and probably did.
And still no answer to a very simple and easy to answer question for an honest man..... Go figure
"Except he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested."
Still haven't figured it out by now? So sad...
:D
'Yet it doesn't fit with Roberts' testimony. She didn't remember a jacket... She remembered a zipper'
>>> Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?
Mr. BALL. Yes---it has a zipper down the front.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe it was.
Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
BS.. there are no shadows inside a living room, nor is there ambient light in the middle of the day. Next to the front door there were three massive windows allowing daylight into the living room. If there was any place where the color of the jacket could be seen it was there.
Sure they deserved their day in court, but as they knew there wasn't going to be a trial, they could write whatever they wanted and probably did.
And still no answer to a very simple and easy to answer question for an honest man..... Go figure
Yet it doesn't fit with Roberts' testimony. She didn't remember a jacket... She remembered a zipper.
>>> Maybe Earlene mistook his fly for a jacket as the thing she saw him zipping up.
Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
WTF are you babbling about?
‘BS.. there are no shadows inside a living room, nor is there ambient light in the middle of the day. Next to the front door there were three massive windows allowing daylight into the living room. If there was any place where the color of the jacket could be seen it was there.’
>>> Where did I say that there were shadows in the living room? And are you sure the blinds weren’t drawn somewhat and that the 1.00pm sunlight was all that direct?
And are you sure that the ambient light from the snowy TV screen didn't factor in re light & dark values of the jacket? Are you sure that Earlene didn't inadvertently let her memory of the brown shirt somehow 'leak' into her description of the jacket?
(https://il3.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/10258481/thumb/1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/pLy6tmGS/lighting-beckley-oswald.jpg)
1060 Beckley 1963 OH Lee not-so-safe house, Dallas
Looks kinda murky to me
‘Sure they deserved their day in court, but as they knew there wasn't going to be a trial they could write whatever they wanted’
>>> Point taken
‘And probably did’
>>> Speculation, a biased throwaway nothingburger.
‘And still no answer to a very simple and easy to answer question for an honest man..... Go figure’
>>> Feel free to point out the question you are referring to, as I requested in my last post.
I thought of the backlit thing myself. But she would have had to seen Oswald from the front or side to have seen the zipper. Or maybe she didn't actually see the zipper but went by his arm motion. It depends on where Earlene was situated vis-a-vis Oswald of course.
But I maintain that she might have somehow inadvertently merged her memory of the shirt colour in with her description of the jacket, given her lack of attention (she was concentrated on the TV) and compromised eyesight.
As an aside, she moved out that night as soon as everybody went to bed, according to Gladys Johnson, who also remarked that she looked 'scared'
Roberts died just 3 years later in case anyone is interested.
I thought of the backlit thing myself. But she would have had to seen Oswald from the front or side to have seen the zipper. Or maybe she didn't actually see the zipper but went by his arm motion. It depends on where Earlene was situated vis-a-vis Oswald of course.
But I maintain that she might have somehow inadvertently merged her memory of the shirt colour in with her description of the jacket, given her lack of attention (she was concentrated on the TV) and compromised eyesight.
As an aside, she moved out that night as soon as everybody went to bed, according to Gladys Johnson, who also remarked that she looked 'scared'
Roberts died just 3 years later in case anyone is interested.
I can only imagine the fear. And I have little doubt that the stress contributed to her death. It reminds me of Howard Brennan’s similar reaction. If anyone wants to get a feel for what it must have been like for some of the witnesses, I recommend Howard Brennan’s book “Eyewitness to History.” There are many others who were there in Dealey Plaza who either much later or never came forward. Dr. Glover (the girl in the blue sweater on the pedestal) tells of her mother, who was with her, never publicly telling of her experience. So we only have her daughter’s words to describe what she thinks her mother went through. The Dealey Plaza witness oral history section of The Sixth Floor Museum website is a good source to hear from some folks who only much later came forward.
It depends on where Earlene was situated vis-a-vis Oswald of course.
The television was in the right corner (looking towards the street) of the living room. The front door was three windows down to the left. Oswald left his room, crossed the living room and walked towards the front door. Roberts was looking at the TV and thus had her back turned to the living room.
Oswald probably only caught her eye just as he got level with her and opened the front door.
But I maintain that she might have somehow inadvertently merged her memory of the shirt colour in with her description of the jacket, given her lack of attention (she was concentrated on the TV) and compromised eyesight.
And just as inadvertently she might have mistaken a dark shirt for a jacket, just as Baker did in the lunchroom.
It depends on where Earlene was situated vis-a-vis Oswald of course.
The television was in the right corner (looking towards the street) of the living room. The front door was three windows down to the left. Oswald left his room, crossed the living room and walked towards the front door. Roberts was looking at the TV and thus had her back turned to the living room.
Oswald probably only caught her eye just as he got level with her and opened the front door.
But I maintain that she might have somehow inadvertently merged her memory of the shirt colour in with her description of the jacket, given her lack of attention (she was concentrated on the TV) and compromised eyesight.
And just as inadvertently she might have mistaken a dark shirt for a jacket, just as Baker did in the lunchroom.
Here is a view from the back of the living room towards the front windows;
in the video above they have the television set placed in front of the middle window, but when Earlene Roberts was there it was more to the right, as you can see in the video below
The silhouette effect (on the tourists) is very noticeable in the first video. If Roberts was on the couch when he left it could have been a factor, as I suggested. Thanks.
Words like "if" and "could" do not enhance the quality and/or persuasiveness of the evidence being presented.
But as we are speculating, if Roberts was sitting on the couch she would have seen Oswald's backside as he walked towards the front door. The light coming into the living room would only make it more difficult for her to see if he was wearing a dark shirt or a jacket. Just have a look at the girl coming into the room in the first video at about 0.19 sec. How would she have looked to somebody with poor eye sight?
The evidence I am pointing out is the silhouettes shown in the video. It doesn’t need any enhancing or require any additional persuasiveness. It is there for all to see with their own eyes.
The naysayers have already poo poo’d the statements I presented earlier by Hugh Aynesworth regarding Roberts sitting watching TV. So there was no need to repeat that when replying to your post.
We can all see the girl coming through the front door. And tell basically what she is wearing. Regardless of the fact that it is a poor quality video. It would be difficult to say what Roberts was able to see or not see, based only on that video and what we do believe happened. What is apparent to me is that the silhouette effect could have been a factor. And whether (in your opinion) that adds substance to the discussion or not, I couldn’t care less.
The evidence I am pointing out is the silhouettes shown in the video. It doesn’t need any enhancing or require any additional persuasiveness. It is there for all to see with their own eyes.
Indeed, that's why I posted the video
The naysayers have already poo poo’d the statements I presented earlier by Hugh Aynesworth regarding Roberts sitting watching TV. So there was no need to repeat that when replying to your post.
Two comments; First of all I was not part of the conversation your refer to and secondly there is indeed no need to repeat it because we have Roberts on video showing us what she did and where she was.
We can all see the girl coming through the front door. And tell basically what she is wearing. Regardless of the fact that it is a poor quality video. It would be difficult to say what Roberts was able to see or not see, based only on that video and what we do believe happened. What is apparent to me is that the silhouette effect could have been a factor. And whether (in your opinion) that adds substance to the discussion or not, I couldn’t care less.
I must have struck a nerve. All this bla bla bla means there is more than reasonable doubt about what Roberts saw or not and that's a very weak position to argue that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket.
As I've mentioned before, someone might have seen Oswald walking along from the boarding house but upon finding out who he was, didn't come forward because of some of the things you've just pointed out. Buell took a lot of crap as well.Bill: Check the claims made by one Eclan Elliott. He said he was out driving looking for his 14 year old daughter when he saw a man he later identified as Oswald near the Beckley address. He said there was no one on the street at that time; that everyone was inside watching the news about the shooting.
Make up your mind about Roberts. Either she is credible or not. She said under oath that LHO was wearing a jacket and zipping it up as he left. You want to say that he wasn’t wearing a jacket??? Then your argument sheds doubt about everything she says. ::)
Edit: Roberts says in the video that she was turning on the TV when LHO came in. She didn’t say that she was still standing at the TV when LHO left.
Yes, nothing to see here. Oswald just made a routine stop at his boarding house to get a pistol after knocking off early when someone shot the president from his building. A perfectly normal thing to do. He zipped up his shirt (which had only buttons). And by bad luck just passed the Tippit murder scene on the way to the movies. He also looked exactly like the murderer so that multiple witnesses identified him as the killer and more bad luck he had the same two brands of ammo as the killer used. Decided to punch a cop instead of just asking what was going on etc. Wow.
You're assuming way too much for which there is little or no evidence. But then, that's your thing all along; assumptions instead of facts.
No, she said under oath that LHO was zipping up a dark colored jacket as he left and she failed to identify CE 162 when it was shown to her. Based in that testimony alone you can not say whether he was wearing a jacket or not.
Mr. BALL. Then, what happened after that?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket.
Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen him wear that jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I can't say I did---if I did, I don't remember it.
Mr. BALL. When he came in he was in a shirt?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He was in his shirt sleeves.
Mr. BALL. What color was his shirt? Do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember. I didn't pay that much attention for I was interested in the television trying to get it fixed.
Eclan Elliott ...was interviewed by Gus Russo in "Live by the Sword." Part of his account is below.
(https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/cd37/08t834461jn0fnizg.jpg)
She testified under oath that LHO was wearing a jacket.
Roberts’ TV response was to Ball asking about the color of the shirt that LHO was wearing when he came in. (Not when he was leaving.) So what is your claim?
Here is Vincent Bugliosis (Reclaiming History) response to this claim:
(https://i.ibb.co/vdBJRJP/Reclaiming-History.png)
Was this Oswald?
She testified under oath that LHO was wearing a jacket.
Yes, but she said - also under oath - that the jacket was dark and she failed to identify the grey jacket now in evidence as CE 162. So, if you want to play the "under oath" we can take it to the bank that Oswald, if he left with a jacket, did not leave with the one now in evidence as CE 162.
Roberts’ TV response was to Ball asking about the color of the shirt that LHO was wearing when he came in. (Not when he was leaving.) So what is your claim?
No claim. Just uncertainty, but either location works for me. If you want her to be on the couch, it's fine with me. That probably means she could have had a slightly better look at him, but regardless she still was unable to identify the grey jacket, so it still isn't getting you anywhere.
We've got a woman with a blind eye, concentrating on the television, who thought Oswald left wearing a jacket because of a zipping movement, who said the jacket was dark colored and who failed to identify the jacket that Oswald was supposed to have been wearing.
If that isn't reasonable doubt, then what is?
No claim??? Typical!!!
People pay attention to different things. I rarely pay attention to what other people are wearing hence I probably wouldn’t even try to guess. My wife does pay attention to those things and can usually remember correctly. Who knows what Roberts really remembered. She was concerned with the news of the President being shot and trying to get more information about it. It is understandable to me that she got some details wrong and wouldn’t positively identify the jacket.
Reasonable doubt when weighed against the other witness accounts that said they saw LHO wearing a jacket. And a jacket found along the escape route these witnesses said they saw LHO take??? I think not.
On the 22nd when Roberts was trying to watch TV, were the curtains fully opened as this video shows 50 years later(cite?) and how would this extra light in any way stop Roberts seeing Oswald zipping up his jacket? Also an important consideration is that the camera in this video was in a completely different position to where Roberts was on the 22nd.
Roberts says the zipper jacket "seemed" to be darker and then she also clarified "Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know", yeah that's absolutely conclusive evidence. LMAO!
Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?
Colour and shade will always be influenced by a number of different parameters, such as lighting and contrasting backgrounds and comparing a lit courtroom with the inside of the rooming house and then desperately trying to reach a solid conclusion is absurd. In the following comparison we see the same jacket which "seems" to appear darker and lighter precisely because of the above factors.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Dydzdytk/jacketcolour.gif)
Here "A" seems to be darker but actually "A" and "B" are the EXACT same shade! Ouch!
(https://i.postimg.cc/pTCH5pmq/zqpq.jpg)
JohnM
Who knows what Roberts really remembered. She was concerned with the news of the President being shot and trying to get more information about it. It is understandable to me that she got some details wrong and wouldn’t positively identify the jacket.
But it is inconceivable to you that she may not really have seen a jacket at all, right? Nice double standard.
Reasonable doubt when weighed against the other witness accounts that said they saw LHO wearing a jacket. And a jacket found along the escape route these witnesses said they saw LHO take??? I think not.
And there is the circular logic fallacy again;
"A witness saw a man wearing a jacket kill Tippit and we know this man was Oswald, so Oswald must have been wearing a jacket when he left the rooming house....
We know Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket because witnesses saw him wearing a jacket when he shot Tippit"
Not for a second do you consider it possible that Oswald did not leave the rooming house without a jacket and thus the witness must be wrong when she identified the man who killed Tippit as Oswald.
The evidence I am pointing out is the silhouettes shown in the video. It doesn’t need any enhancing or require any additional persuasiveness. It is there for all to see with their own eyes.
Indeed, that's why I posted the video
The naysayers have already poo poo’d the statements I presented earlier by Hugh Aynesworth regarding Roberts sitting watching TV. So there was no need to repeat that when replying to your post.
Two comments; First of all I was not part of the conversation your refer to and secondly there is indeed no need to repeat it because we have Roberts on video showing us what she did and where she was.
We can all see the girl coming through the front door. And tell basically what she is wearing. Regardless of the fact that it is a poor quality video. It would be difficult to say what Roberts was able to see or not see, based only on that video and what we do believe happened. What is apparent to me is that the silhouette effect could have been a factor. And whether (in your opinion) that adds substance to the discussion or not, I couldn’t care less.
I must have struck a nerve. All this bla bla bla means there is more than reasonable doubt about what Roberts saw or not and that's a very weak position to argue that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket.
Your question was: If that isn’t reasonable doubt, what is it?
“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not involve proof to an absolute certainty. It is not proof beyond any doubt, nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt.”
Your idea that LHO left the rooming house without a jacket is in my opinion imaginary and frivolous. Therefore in my opinion, there is no reasonable doubt.
You can disagree with my opinion. But the Tippit murder witnesses did not use the jacket to identify LHO. They identified LHO and said he was wearing a jacket. Your argument for circular logic is false.
Two comments; First of all I was not part of the conversation your refer to and secondly there is indeed no need to repeat it because we have Roberts on video showing us what she did and where she was.
I need to repeat it to dispute your apparent interpretation of what Roberts said.
Again, Roberts doesn’t say where she was when LHO left (only when he came in).
This is from one of my earlier posts (that you say you were not a part of):
Here’s what is written in the 11/28/63 [Dallas Morning News] story about this aspect:
“Mrs. Roberts noticed Oswald stand, momentarily at a bus stop on North Beckley after he left the house. She could see him there, through the front window, as she watched TV from the oval couch in the front room.
But Oswald didn’t wait long. He bolted to his left and hurried south, on Beckley - the last time Mrs. Roberts saw him until his image appeared on the TV screen an hour later.”
Your idea that LHO left the rooming house without a jacket is in my opinion imaginary and frivolous. Therefore in my opinion, there is no reasonable doubt.
It's not my idea that LHO left the rooming house without a jacket, it's yours that he did wear one! You solely rely on an unreliable witness who very likely would have been destroyed on cross examination by a defense lawyer. Reasonable doubt exists when the witness herself says she wasn't paying attention and there is no third party corroboration for what she says.
In this case all you have is Roberts saying that Oswald left the building wearing, what she believed was a jacket (because of the zipper action she could not have seen from the couch), that she had never seen before and that was darker than CE 162.
Marina, however confirmed that Oswald only had two jackets; the grey one and the blue/grey one that was later found at the TSBD. Testimony from Buell Frazier confirms that he saw Oswald wearing a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday night and we know he was wearing the blue/grey jacket to the TSBD on Friday morning. Which begs the question how the grey jacket CE 162 could have been at the rooming house on Friday morning and how Oswald could have left the rooming house wearing a jacket at all, as the blue/gray one was at the TSBD and the grey one in Irving.
That's enough to have reasonable doubt about what Roberts said.
You can disagree with my opinion. But the Tippit murder witnesses did not use the jacket to identify LHO. They identified LHO and said he was wearing a jacket. Your argument for circular logic is false.
It seems you don't understand what circular logic is. Your opinion is of no significance and neither is mine. The facts are what matters and in this case you have made my point for me.
Yes, the witnesses did identify LHO in a line up and said he was wearing a jacket, but that only means that the identifications were were probably wrong when it can be established that Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket. In order to "prove" that he did, you are indeed using circular logic.
Your idea that LHO left the rooming house without a jacket is in my opinion imaginary and frivolous. Therefore in my opinion, there is no reasonable doubt.
It's not my idea that LHO left the rooming house without a jacket, it's yours that he did wear one! You solely rely on an unreliable witness who very likely would have been destroyed on cross examination by a defense lawyer. Reasonable doubt exists when the witness herself says she wasn't paying attention and there is no third party corroboration for what she says.
In this case all you have is Roberts saying that Oswald left the building wearing, what she believed was a jacket (because of the zipper action she could not have seen from the couch), that she had never seen before and that was darker than CE 162.
Marina, however confirmed that Oswald only had two jackets; the grey one and the blue/grey one that was later found at the TSBD. Testimony from Buell Frazier confirms that he saw Oswald wearing a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday night and we know he was wearing the blue/grey jacket to the TSBD on Friday morning. Which begs the question how the grey jacket CE 162 could have been at the rooming house on Friday morning and how Oswald could have left the rooming house wearing a jacket at all, as the blue/gray one was at the TSBD and the grey one in Irving.
That's enough to have reasonable doubt about what Roberts said.
You can disagree with my opinion. But the Tippit murder witnesses did not use the jacket to identify LHO. They identified LHO and said he was wearing a jacket. Your argument for circular logic is false.
It seems you don't understand what circular logic is. Your opinion is of no significance and neither is mine. The facts are what matters and in this case you have made my point for me.
Yes, the witnesses did identify LHO in a line up and said he was wearing a jacket, but that only means that the identifications were were probably wrong when it can be established that Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket. In order to "prove" that he did, you are indeed using circular logic.
Your idea that LHO left the rooming house without a jacket is in my opinion imaginary and frivolous. Therefore in my opinion, there is no reasonable doubt.
It's not my idea that LHO left the rooming house without a jacket, it's yours that he did wear one! You solely rely on an unreliable witness who very likely would have been destroyed on cross examination by a defense lawyer. Reasonable doubt exists when the witness herself says she wasn't paying attention and there is no third party corroboration for what she says.
In this case all you have is Roberts saying that Oswald left the building wearing, what she believed was a jacket (because of the zipper action she could not have seen from the couch), that she had never seen before and that was darker than CE 162.
Marina, however confirmed that Oswald only had two jackets; the grey one and the blue/grey one that was later found at the TSBD. Testimony from Buell Frazier confirms that he saw Oswald wearing a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday night and we know he was wearing the blue/grey jacket to the TSBD on Friday morning. Which begs the question how the grey jacket CE 162 could have been at the rooming house on Friday morning and how Oswald could have left the rooming house wearing a jacket at all, as the blue/gray one was at the TSBD and the grey one in Irving.
That's enough to have reasonable doubt about what Roberts said.
You can disagree with my opinion. But the Tippit murder witnesses did not use the jacket to identify LHO. They identified LHO and said he was wearing a jacket. Your argument for circular logic is false.
It seems you don't understand what circular logic is. Your opinion is of no significance and neither is mine. The facts are what matters and in this case you have made my point for me.
Yes, the witnesses did identify LHO in a line up and said he was wearing a jacket, but that only means that the identifications were were probably wrong when it can be established that Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket. In order to "prove" that he did, you are indeed using circular logic.
It's not my idea that LHO left the rooming house without a jacket, it's yours that he did wear one! You solely rely on an unreliable witness who very likely would have been destroyed on cross examination by a defense lawyer. Reasonable doubt exists when the witness herself says she wasn't paying attention and there is no third party corroboration for what she says.
Totally wrong in all aspects. There are multiple witnesses who saw LHO during the Tippit murder and the flight from that scene who say that he was wearing a jacket. That was only minutes after he left the boarding house and in the same area. Therefore I am not relying solely on any one witness. And, for at least the third time, Roberts said that she wasn’t paying attention [to the color] when she was asked about the color of his shirt when he came in. She was clear in her testimony that he donned a jacket that zipped up. And hesitated only when asked if the jacket in evidence was the same jacket. With all that evidence indicating he had a jacket on, your trying to create doubt that he was even wearing a jacket at all (based on Roberts not being sure enough to positively identify the jacket in evidence) is not reasonable.
Marina, however confirmed that Oswald only had two jackets; the grey one and the blue/grey one that was later found at the TSBD. Testimony from Buell Frazier confirms that he saw Oswald wearing a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday night and we know he was wearing the blue/grey jacket to the TSBD on Friday morning. Which begs the question how the grey jacket CE 162 could have been at the rooming house on Friday morning and how Oswald could have left the rooming house wearing a jacket at all, as the blue/gray one was at the TSBD and the grey one in Irving.
Lee didn’t live with Marina. Therefore Marina had no way of knowing what LHO had or didn’t have at the rooming house. Who knows where the jacket came from? He could have picked it up anywhere and kept it in his room without Marina knowing about it. This is a non-issue. There is no reasonable doubt.
It seems you don't understand what circular logic is. Your opinion is of no significance and neither is mine. The facts are what matters and in this case you have made my point for me.
Yes, the witnesses did identify LHO in a line up and said he was wearing a jacket, but that only means that the identifications were were probably wrong when it can be established that Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket. In order to "prove" that he did, you are indeed using circular logic.
Please explain how it can be established that LHO did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket. You said that you were making no claims when I asked earlier. But it appears that now you are claiming this. You are being way more wishy washy that Roberts!
It's not my idea that LHO left the rooming house without a jacket, it's yours that he did wear one! You solely rely on an unreliable witness who very likely would have been destroyed on cross examination by a defense lawyer. Reasonable doubt exists when the witness herself says she wasn't paying attention and there is no third party corroboration for what she says.
Totally wrong in all aspects. There are multiple witnesses who saw LHO during the Tippit murder and the flight from that scene who say that he was wearing a jacket. That was only minutes after he left the boarding house and in the same area. Therefore I am not relying solely on any one witness. And, for at least the third time, Roberts said that she wasn’t paying attention [to the color] when she was asked about the color of his shirt when he came in. She was clear in her testimony that he donned a jacket that zipped up. And hesitated only when asked if the jacket in evidence was the same jacket. With all that evidence indicating he had a jacket on, your trying to create doubt that he was even wearing a jacket at all (based on Roberts not being sure enough to positively identify the jacket in evidence) is not reasonable.
Marina, however confirmed that Oswald only had two jackets; the grey one and the blue/grey one that was later found at the TSBD. Testimony from Buell Frazier confirms that he saw Oswald wearing a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday night and we know he was wearing the blue/grey jacket to the TSBD on Friday morning. Which begs the question how the grey jacket CE 162 could have been at the rooming house on Friday morning and how Oswald could have left the rooming house wearing a jacket at all, as the blue/gray one was at the TSBD and the grey one in Irving.
Lee didn’t live with Marina. Therefore Marina had no way of knowing what LHO had or didn’t have at the rooming house. Who knows where the jacket came from? He could have picked it up anywhere and kept it in his room without Marina knowing about it. This is a non-issue. There is no reasonable doubt.
It seems you don't understand what circular logic is. Your opinion is of no significance and neither is mine. The facts are what matters and in this case you have made my point for me.
Yes, the witnesses did identify LHO in a line up and said he was wearing a jacket, but that only means that the identifications were were probably wrong when it can be established that Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket. In order to "prove" that he did, you are indeed using circular logic.
Please explain how it can be established that LHO did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket. You said that you were making no claims when I asked earlier. But it appears that now you are claiming this. You are being way more wishy washy that Roberts!
In CT Wonderland, nothing can be known, nothing can be proven, and nothing is believable.
In LN fantasy land everything can be assumed and with enough assumptions you can find anybody guilty of anything.
Not a fantasy that several witnesses ID'd Oswald @Tippit. Not a fantasy that Oswald was the only person on the planet placed at both scenes during the firing sequences.
Your desperation is showing.
Totally wrong in all aspects. There are multiple witnesses who saw LHO during the Tippit murder and the flight from that scene who say that he was wearing a jacket. That was only minutes after he left the boarding house and in the same area. Therefore I am not relying solely on any one witness.
Yes, you are relying on one witness, because nobody, except Roberts saw Oswald leave the rooming house. Using the witnesses who allegedly saw Oswald wearing a jacket at the Tippit scene is 50% of the circular logic trap you seem stuck in and don't understand.
And, for at least the third time, Roberts said that she wasn’t paying attention [to the color] when she was asked about the color of his shirt when he came in. She was clear in her testimony that he donned a jacket that zipped up.
No she wasn't. It was only because she had seen him "zipping up" something that she concluded he was wearing a jacket.
Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
And hesitated only when asked if the jacket in evidence was the same jacket.
There was no hestitation. She clearly did not identifiy CE 162 as the jacket she had seen. According to her the jacket Oswald was wearing was darker.
With all that evidence indicating he had a jacket on, your trying to create doubt that he was even wearing a jacket at all (based on Roberts not being sure enough to positively identify the jacket in evidence) is not reasonable.
Yeah, just like anybody who is not convinced by the WC narrative isn't reasonable either. It's like a prosecutor who can not present a convincing case complaining about the jury he can't convince. What's really unreasonable is a failure to look at all the evidence and try to make sense of it. By simply jumping to conclusions and dismissing/ignoring evidence you do not like, it is you who is not reasonable. But that's par for the course for LNs, so no surprise there.
There is no "all that evidence indicating he had a jacket on". There is one woman, blind in one eye, not paying much attention, not sure of the color of the jacket and unable to identify CE 162, who says Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket. That's it!
Lee didn’t live with Marina. Therefore Marina had no way of knowing what LHO had or didn’t have at the rooming house.
Really? She did his washing and, more importantly, only two jackets were found in Oswald's possession. The dark/grey one found at the TSBD and CE 162, which Marina confirmed as belonging to Oswald.
Who knows where the jacket came from?
The problem for you is that Marina identified CE 162 as one of those two jackets. Strangely enough CE 162 showed up at the police station some two hours after Oswald's arrest. Captain Westbrook said in his testimony that he gave the white jacket found at the car park to an unidentified officer and from there it disappeared until it surfaced again at the police station, with initials on it from officers that never were at the parking lot where the jacket was found. Obviously it's merely a coincidence that roundabout the same time the officers arrived back from the first search of Ruth Paine's house with varios pieces of evidence that were never listed, right?
I notice you ignored Buell Frazier's testimony about Oswald wearing a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday evening. Now, why did you do that? Too inconvenient, perhaps?
You seem to to a novice in legal matters, so I'll let it slide that you don't understand any of this. I'll try to explain again if you try to keep up.
First of all, I am not claiming anything. If the available evidence shows that Oswald left the rooming house, than so be it. But that's not what the evidence shows. You've got one unreliable witness with a shaky story and no corroboration when there is other albeit circumstantial evidence to show that the jacket CE 162 (the one you claim Oswald was wearing) simply could not have been at the rooming house on Friday morning. This is where your problem lies; you can not conclusively show that Oswald did in fact leave the rooming house wearing CE 162. All you can do is assume it and use circular logic to try and substantiate it.
Not a fantasy that Oswald was the only person on the planet placed at both scenes during the firing sequences.
Was he?
In Tippit's case, only if the witnesses were right. The problem is that he probably couldn't have been there when the shooting happened, which, if true, means the witnesses were wrong.
Circular logic is based on an assumption that something is true. Therefore something else must be true. I am not assuming anything. Roberts said that she saw LHO leave with a jacket (no assumption needed). Multiple witnesses minutes later said they saw LHO wearing a jacket (no assumption needed). The multiple witnesses’ accounts strengthen Roberts’ testimony regarding LHO wearing a jacket. Your idea that LHO was not wearing a jacket (which I am still waiting for you to “establish”) can only be based on your assumptions, because Roberts said otherwise.
So you pound on Earlene as being practically useless, yet she's bang-on with her timing. Same thing with Markham. No cherrypicking there.
Not a fantasy that Oswald was the only person on the planet placed at both scenes during the firing sequences.
Was he?
In Tippit's case, only if the witnesses were right. The problem is that he probably couldn't have been there when the shooting happened, which, if true, means the witnesses were wrong.
Prime example of circular logic!
You really need to google "circular logic" before you make a fool of yourself again.
You are the fool.
Have it your way. I don't mind. I have understood for a long time that I can't fix stupid or ignorant.
Are you sure that's a verbatim quote and not just something the reporter wrote. Having been inside the rooming house myself, I am convinced there is no way that Roberts could have seen Oswald standing at the bus stop, as that was near the traffic lights at the right side of the building.
Nonsense.
From the living room window, one can easily see the bus stop. I've been in the house, too; multiple times, in fact.
(The bench depicts the location of the bus stop)
(https://i.imgur.com/aD5PEWd.png)
Here’s what is written in the 11/28/63 [Dallas Morning News] story about this aspect:
“Mrs. Roberts noticed Oswald stand, momentarily at a bus stop on North Beckley after he left the house. She could see him there, through the front window, as she watched TV from the oval couch in the front room.
But Oswald didn’t wait long. He bolted to his left and hurried south, on Beckley - the last time Mrs. Roberts saw him until his image appeared on the TV screen an hour later.”
Not a fantasy that Oswald was the only person on the planet placed at both scenes during the firing sequences.
Was he?
In Tippit's case, only if the witnesses were right. The problem is that he probably couldn't have been there when the shooting happened, which, if true, means the witnesses were wrong.
You really need to google "circular logic" before you make a fool of yourself again.
Student "A" says that 5 apples and one orange equal 6 apples. 95% of the class agree with student "A" ....
Does that prove that student A is correct?
“It is often pointed out by critics that 70% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy, as if the percentage itself is enough to change the reality of what really happened. Six hundred years ago, the vast majority of humanity believed the world was flat. That still didn’t change the reality of a spherical world. We know that many Americans base their opinion of the Kennedy assassination on a mixture of fact and fantasy derived from a variety of often suspect sources of information. While opinion polls can reveal cultural trends, they don’t change facts. In the final analysis, the truth doesn’t require anyone’s belief.” —-Dale K. Myers
'he probably couldn't have been there'
>>> He probably ran part way
A very inaccurate claim. It was widely known that the earth was a sphere [simply observing the shadow cast upon the surface of the moon during an eclipse will tell you this] What was not widely known [at that time] was how vast was the Atlantic Ocean and could it be sailed to the west to China before the sailors perished of starvation or exposure to the elements. Mr Myers was a gullible believer in quite a few myths it seems.
“ Six hundred years ago, the vast majority of humanity believed the world was flat. ” —-Dale K. Myers
A very inaccurate claim. It was widely known that the earth was a sphere [simply observing the shadow cast upon the surface of the moon during an eclipse will tell you this] What was not widely known [at that time] was how vast was the Atlantic Ocean and could it be sailed to the west to China before the sailors perished of starvation or exposure to the elements. Mr Myers was a gullible believer in quite a few myths it seems.
It was known as early as the 5th century BC that the Earth was not only spherical but also it's exact diameter.
https://www.history.com/news/christopher-columbus-never-set-out-to-prove-the-earth-was-round
You run when you need to get somewhere fast.... Like down North Beckley, straight to the busses on Jefferson.
What could possibly his reason for running to a go nowhere street like 10th street in a residencial area?
Probably the same impetus that caused him to come into the boarding house in an 'unusual hurry'
Silly quote
What exactly happened, happened. Period.
However whether somebody believes Oswald was the lone gunman or whether there was a conspiracy will always be an opinion. Just like calling the WC narrative factual is an opinion. That's why the quote is silly.
The WC wasn't tasked to prove anything
They said 'probably'
The HSCA said 'likely'
Nope... the boarding house was a destination that made sense. 10th street no so much, or rather not at all
How often in your life did you run to a place where you had no apparent business being, where nothing was happening, where there was nowhere to go and where there was nobody you knew to meet?
The quote from Myers is part of his answer to a FAQ regarding his animation: Why should I believe your conclusions? If you want to read more, it can be found on his website, jfkfiles.com.
Mr. BALL. Was he dressed the same in the lineup as he was when you saw him running across the lawn?A dark coat.
Mrs. DAVIS. All except he didn't have a black coat on when I saw him in the lineup.
Mr. BALL. Did he have a coat on when you saw him?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What color coat?
Mrs. DAVIS. A dark coat.
Mr. BALL. Now, did you recognize him from his face or from his clothes when you saw him in the lineup?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, I looked at his clothes and then his face from the side because I had seen him from a side view of him. I didn't see him fullface.
I think that your post is meant for Martin
I'm not engaging in the Myers discussion at this point
Actually, the quote you responded to (in that post) was Martin’s response to the Myers quote. Therefore, I thought that was what was being discussed. But logic never works when Martin is involved.....
So you reply to a reply to my post (instead of directly to my post) and call that "logic".... Wow!
No wonder your "logic" never works when I'm involved. :D
I was replying to Bill’s remark. Not to you.
Actually, the quote you responded to (in that post) was Martin’s response to the Myers quote. Therefore, I thought that was what was being discussed. But logic never works when Martin is involved.....
My head hurts..
How often in your life did you run to a place where you had no apparent business being, where nothing was happening, where there was nowhere to go and where there was nobody you knew to meet?
Exactly. Sounds more like a person running away from something.
Really? But if that was the case, why not simply hop on a bus out of town, either from the city center or, after his stop at the boarding house, down on Jefferson?
Why run to a go nowhere street in the middle of a residential area where he would stand out like a sore tumb?
It doesn't make sense...
Really? But if that was the case, why not simply hop on a bus out of town, either from the city center or, after his stop at the boarding house, down on Jefferson?
Why run to a go nowhere street in the middle of a residential area where he would stand out like a sore tumb?
It doesn't make sense...
Wait, I thought there was no reason for Tippit to question Oswald. And Tippit was some type of hit man in the CTer fantasy land. But now Oswald stood out like a sore thumb for some reason. Do tell. Maybe Oswald would have got on a bus somewhere but for the good police work of Tippit. There is no great plan to escape after shooting the president. He was lucky to just get out of the building. He is under enormous stress. He is putting distance between himself and his boardinghouse to the best of his ability. What would have happened but for his encounter with Tippit remains uncertain. Did the Boston bomber intend to end up in a boat in someone's backyard? Of course not. Oswald was in flight with no good options. He is making tracks.
Wait, I thought there was no reason for Tippit to question Oswald. And Tippit was some type of hit man in the CTer fantasy land. But now Oswald stood out like a sore thumb for some reason.
You seem to be unable to differentiate between a factual and a hypothetical conversation. Bill Chapman argued that Oswald could have run to 10th street and thus followed a hypothetical conversation about a highly unlikely scenario. You don't normally run to a go nowhere street in the middle of a residential area with no particular place to go or person to meet.
Maybe Oswald would have got on a bus somewhere but for the good police work of Tippit.
On 10th street? Really... You've clearly never been there. If he wanted to get on a bus he simply could have gone down Beckley to Jefferson. Plenty of busses there.... No need or plausible reason to run to 10th street.
There is no great plan to escape after shooting the president. He was lucky to just get out of the building. He is under enormous stress. He is putting distance between himself and his boardinghouse to the best of his ability. What would have happened but for his encounter with Tippit remains uncertain.
Yeah that's what the WC narrative says. Doesn't make it true or even convincing though. If he was on the run, he wouldn't have offered his taxi to a woman and he most likely wouldn't even go to Beckley. Instead he just would have gotten on the first bus out of Dallas. A far more likely scenario.
What you believe - often based on false information or questionable assumptions - that Oswald could have or should have done is completely meaningless to rebut the evidence of his guilt. Even if we were to accept your false premise that you believe Oswald's escape not as well executed as possible, so what? Criminals are caught all the time for doing stupid things. Oswald was approached by Tippit just a short time after leaving his boardinghouse. We have no idea what he would have done had this encounter not taken place. All your speculation about what he should have done doesn't rebut multiple witnesses identify him as the Tippit shooter or the fact that he has the same two different brands of ammo in his possession when arrested that the shooter used to kill Tippit or that he resisted arrest and tried to kill another cop without even asking what the cop wanted. It is a drumbeat of guilt. Hard to imagine what more evidence there could even be absent a time machine.
What are you rambling on about? You seem impervious to any kind of reason as long as it doesn't involve your pet scenario, which is no more than an opinion as well.
Even if we were to accept your false premise that you believe Oswald's escape not as well executed as possible, so what? Criminals are caught all the time for doing stupid things.
There's only one thing wrong with this comment; I don't have a premise that Oswald's escape was not well executed.
All your speculation about what he should have done doesn't rebut multiple witnesses identify him as the Tippit shooter
Not this again... You really are unable to follow along in a normal conversation, aren't you. Witnesses are unreliable. They are wrong all the time. God knows how many innocent people are now in jail due to false or incorrect witness testimony. In an investigation witnesses are frequently deemed to be wrong when other evidence shows a particular suspect couldn't have been at a particular location at a particular time. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to question if Oswald had the ability to be at 10th Street when Tippit was shot. But you don't want to know any of that, do you now? It would shatter your world and believe system and you can't have that, right?
or the fact that he has the same two different brands of ammo in his possession when arrested that the shooter used to kill Tippit
The ammo that was "found" on his person hours after his arrest, despite him being searched earlier? That ammo?
or that he resisted arrest and tried to kill another cop without even asking what the cop wanted.
There is no evidence that he tried to kill another cop. He was never charged with attempted murder.
Hard to imagine what more evidence there could even be absent a time machine.
At best all you've got is what the WC gave you; a highly dubious and questionable circumstantial case with all sorts of unanswered questions and lots of loose ends
You are playing the same tired endless game of contrarian. You question Oswald's action in not taking a bus from a certain location then respond that you are not suggesting that his escape was not well planned. You imply that guns and ammo were planted on Oswald after the fact but then deny you are suggesting a conspiracy. How and why these things happen are left unexplained. You question multiple witness identifications of Oswald as the shooter but then fixate on any minor observation from one of these same witnesses that lends any straw of doubt to Oswald's guilt (like how they described the color of his jacket or the exact minute they claimed to do something). It is laughable.
You are playing the same tired endless game of contrarian. You question Oswald's action in not taking a bus from a certain location then respond that you are not suggesting that his escape was not well planned. You imply that guns and ammo were planted on Oswald after the fact but then deny you are suggesting a conspiracy. How and why these things happen are left unexplained. You question multiple witness identifications of Oswald as the shooter but then fixate on any minor observation from one of these same witnesses that lends any straw of doubt to Oswald's guilt (like how they described the color of his jacket or the exact minute they claimed to do something). It is laughable.
or the fact that he has the same two different brands of ammo in his possession when arrested that the shooter used to kill Tippit
The ammo that was "found" on his person hours after his arrest, despite him being searched earlier? That ammo?
From the living room window, where the television was, you can indeed see the bus stop. But Charles Collins argued that Earlene Roberts was sitting on the couch as Oswald left the house. He, in fact, quoted a newspaper article;
That's what I responded to, because from where the couch is, you can not see the bus stop.
A dark coat.
No. Your point above is entirely invalid.
The five bullets in Oswald's pants pocket (removed hours after his arrest) were all Winchester-Westerns.
Richard Smith is correctly referring to the six live rounds removed from the revolver that was taken from Oswald. Three of these live bullets were Winchester-Westerns and three were Remington-Peters.
As Richard correctly points out, Tippit was gunned down by both Winchester-Western and Remington-Peters bullets, which happened to be the same two manufacturers of bullets found inside his revolver when he was arrested.
Yes, definitely not from the couch.
Means nothing.Yeah...to the Oswald did it guys I wouldn't expect it to.
Yes, definitely not from the couch.
How far into the room (away from the windows) do you loose sight of the bus stop? I know that that would depend on where along the front wall one is. So lets specify along a perpendicular line to the front wall at that runs to the back of the end of the couch seat closest to the front wall. I believe that the angle to the right edge of the window nearest the TV from that spot is very close to the angle to the bus stop. Also, do we know the bus stop was at the same exact location in 1963 as it is now?
This is so typical for you. You clearly have never been to the rooming house yourself, yet you "believe" that Roberts was sitting on the couch when Oswald walked out. Why do you believe that? The answer is simple; so you can argue that she would have had a good look at Oswald as he walked out. You now have two people, who have actually been there, telling you that she couldn't have seen the bus stop from the couch, yet instead of accepting that, you are still desperately looking for a way to keep Roberts on the couch anyway. This happens all the time with you. You prefer what you believe over factual information time after time.
Well, let me tell you this; if you are now looking for a way to place Roberts on the couch seat closest to the front wall, so that she could somehow see the bus stop, the consequence is that you put Roberts on the couch at a location where Oswald would have passed behind her on his way to the front door.
You really need to think things through in the future.....
I asked a freaking question and you attack me. Typical nonsense (ignore it).
It is obvious why you asked those questions. You simply can not deal with being wrong.
Calling it "typical nonsense" and an "attack" is just part of that.
Really? But if that was the case, why not simply hop on a bus out of town, either from the city center or, after his stop at the boarding house, down on Jefferson?
Why run to a go nowhere street in the middle of a residential area where he would stand out like a sore tumb?
It doesn't make sense...
I asked it in order to attempt to put Aynesworth’s words in the proper category. I already admitted to jumping to a wrong conclusion earlier in this thread. And I have done so before. I most certainly do not have a problem “dealing with being wrong.”
I asked the question to someone who I believe will give me a straight answer (that wasn’t you). Some of us are interested in learning the truth. It appears to me that you are more interested in getting on people’s nerves to get a reaction than anything else. Some people seem to enjoy doing just that. ::)
He wouldn't stand out if he was smart enough to slow his pace upon seeing somebody approaching.
I asked the question to someone who I believe will give me a straight answer (that wasn’t you).
And that's your first mistake. You trust Bill Brown to give you a straight answer for one reason only; he is an LN and you don't trust anything a skeptic of the WC narrative says. I, on the other hand, have discussions with LNs to find out things I did not know and perhaps learn something I have overlooked. That's why I keep asking for answers to questions that may shed another light on some of the evidence.
Here's the difference between you and me. Let's take Roberts and the jacket as an example;
Roberts is the only person who said Oswald left the rooming house zipping up a jacket. You need to keep that in play, because as soon as you leave open the possibility that Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket, the WC narrative falls apart and dominos start to fall, as Tippit's killer was wearing a jacket, a jacket was found under a car park and Oswald was arrested without a jacket. You have no room to move or discuss anything honestly and openly.
I, on the other hand, have the freedom to ask the question how a grey jacket could have been in Beckley on Friday morning for Oswald to put on, when we have Buell Frazier saying that he was wearing a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday and we know he returned to the TSBD on Friday wearing the blue/grey jacket that was later found there. Marina said he only had two jackets and no other jacket was ever found at Ruth Paine's house or his room at Beckley, so how did the grey jacket to the rooming house?
Obviously, you will ignore and never answer my question because the answer will never fit with the narrative that you defend.
Some of us are interested in learning the truth.
Some of us, probably, but not you. All you do is preach the gospel of the WC
It appears to me that you are more interested in getting on people’s nerves
If my questions and comments are getting on your nerves, it's probably because they confront you with something you don't want to know or accept.
You are jumping to conclusions about me that are just not true. Readers typically want to learn something about the assassination. Not your unfounded opinions about what you think about me.
Do you have any corroboration for Buell Frazier’s account regarding the jacket on Thursday evening?
Do you have any corroboration for Buell Frazier’s account regarding the jacket on Thursday evening?
Depends on what you consider to be corroboration. First of all there is the testimony of Buell Frazier;
Mr. BALL - On Thursday afternoon when you went home, drove on home, did he carry any package with him?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't
Mr. BALL - Did he have a jacket or coat on him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What kind of a jacket or coat did he have?
Mr. FRAZIER - That, you know, like I say gray jacket.
Mr. BALL - That same gray jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Now, I can be frank with you, I had seen him wear that jacket several times, because it is cool type like when you keep a jacket on all day, if you are working on outside or something like that, you wouldn't go outside with just a plain shirt on.
and then there is Marina confirming that Oswald only owned two jackets. Both jackets were recovered and no others were found at Ruth Paine's house or the rooming house.
The blue/grey jacket (CE 163) was later found at the TSBD, which means that's the jacket Oswald was wearing on Friday morning. This only leaves the grey jacket, that Frazier said, Oswald was wearing to Irving on Thursday afternoon.
There are two more things in Frazier's testimony that got my attention.
First of all, they never showed him CE 162, the grey jacket, for identification (one can only wonder why) and, secondly, they did show him CE 163.
Mr. BALL - I have here Commission's 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have.
Frazier's response is somewhat remarkable as it was jacket CE 163 that Oswald was wearing during the trip to the TSBD on Friday morning, so Frazier must have seen it at least once.
Could Frazier have been mistaken about the grey jacket? Sure, he could, but so could - and that's the point I am making - be Earlene Roberts.
So, did Marina positively identify both CE 162 and CE 163 as belonging to LHO?
You've never been there, right?
It's the kind of street where anybody who walks there but doesn't live there stands out, regardless of how fast or slow he was walking.
At that time of day, at least one person per household would be at work, a couple would be at school, and others with at least one good eyeball would more than likely have had these eyeballs glued to the TV.
And more than likely you're just guessing
Far more interesting would be if you could explain why Oswald would run to such a location in the first place?
But, I somehow doubt I will get a serious answer from you, right?
More than likely you're just trolling. My remarks regarding most people being otherwise occupied and therefore not being in a position to see Oswald that day are eminently feasible.
And where did I claim he had a plan for any particular direction of travel? Feel free to seek out other other sources like Cakebread who claim Oswald was on his way to meeting his 'handlers'. You should really confine yourself to those who make claims that Oswald had a reason to take any particular street.
But, I somehow doubt I will get a serious answer from you, right?
Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's--an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. 163?
Mrs. OSWALD. Also.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall which one of the sweaters or jackets he was wearing on the morning of November 22, 1963?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember.
Mr. RANKIN. When was the last time that you saw this jacket, Exhibit 163?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember seeing it on the morning of November 22, 1963?
Mrs. OSWALD. The thing is that I saw Lee in the room, and I didn't see him getting dressed in the room. That is why it is difficult for me to say. But I told him to put on something warm on the way to work.
Page 653 of the Warren Report
Speculation.--When Oswald left his roominghouse at about 1 p.m. on November 22 he had on a zipper-type tan plaid jacket.
Commission finding.--The jacket that Oswald was wearing at the time of the slaying of Tippit was a light-gray jacket. According to Marina Oswald, her husband owned only two jackets--one blue and the other light gray. The housekeeper at 1026 North Beckley Avenue, Mrs. Earlene Roberts, was not certain about the color of the jacket that Oswald was wearing when he left the house.62
Did anyone else who saw LHO on 11/22 (Frazier’s sister, coworkers, etc) indicate what jacket he was wearing? Same with the evening of 11/21.
Not that I am aware of, but given the fact that CE 163 was later found at the TSBD and Oswald left the building without a jacket, it's a pretty safe bet to assume that he was wearing CE 163 on Friday morning.
Which of course only leaves the grey jacket CE 162 as the one he would have worn to Irving on Thursday.
I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it should be noted that nobody else but Roberts saw Oswald leave the rooming house either.
I could be mistaken, but I seem to remember seeing a photo or video frame of an officer examining a jacket at the scene where it was found (the parking lot behind the building on Jefferson). But if I understand your theory correctly, LHO would have left CE 162 in Irving.
In my previous post I wrote;
and I was right!
More than likely you're just trolling.
I am actually trying to have a normal conversation about evidence and circumstances and once again you have shown that you're the wrong person to talk to.
You should really confine yourself to those who make claims that Oswald had a reason to take any particular street.
In this particular instance I was talking to the guy who claimed, without a shred of evidence, that Oswald ran to 10th Street, but who, as per usual, can not explain why he would be running to get to a go nowhere street. That would be you!
Again, you need to consult with those who claim Oswald had a a specific destination in mind.
Again, you're going to have to consult with those who claim that Oswald had a particular destination in mind.
Did you say something?
Aren't you the guy who, without a shred of evidence, claimed that Oswald ran to 10th Street, but can't explain why he would even go to such a go nowhere street in a residential area, let alone run there?
Are you paying attention?
I'm suggesting Oswald was on the run with no particular destination in mind, other than to get the f out of Dodge by whatever route available.
(1) a guy running down the street gets noticed far more quickly than somebody who walks
I don't know. If you do a google street view journey through the streets of that area it is quiet run down with lots of houses missing. I don't know how run down or empty (as in empty sites) Oak Cliff was in 1963 but its possible Oswald could have ran portions of the trip to 10th and Patton where there were no houses.
He could also have run through the alleyways at the backs of houses.
Tippit was most likely killed between 1.06 and 1.10
How do you explain the police radio log showing that Tippits death was only called in by a bystander using Tippits radio at 1:16pm. That's quiet a time difference.
And the bystander who called it in to the dispatcher was T.F. Bowley who arrived on the scene just after Tippit was shot. He looked at his watch and it said 1.10 pm
So Bowley says 1.10pm and Markham says she saw the clock read 1.06pm when she left. That means she would have first seen Oswald about, what, 1.08 or 1.09pm.
But when you follow Scoggins movements he goes to the gentlemans club at like 1pm, watches TV for a few minutes, then walks up to his car, sits in and starts eating his lunch and sees Tippit pass by. Scoggins timeline seems to push the timing of the Tippit shooting to more in line with Dale Myers timing of 1.14pm
I don't know. If you do a google street view journey through the streets of that area it is quiet run down with lots of houses missing. I don't know how run down or empty (as in empty sites) Oak Cliff was in 1963 but its possible Oswald could have ran portions of the trip to 10th and Patton where there were no houses.
He could also have run through the alleyways at the backs of houses.
Exactly. In my home town there were plenty of back alleys in those days. And many had high wooden fences. Us kids used them a lot especially when we were carrying slingshots, BB guns, and sometimes .22s (re the rifle there was a bounty on muskrats out side the town along the dam but we were underage.
Sample of Dallas back alleys. Note the high fences.
http://www3.dallascityhall.com/council_briefings/briefings0112/DallasAlleys_010412.pdf
No. Markham did not say that. She said she left home just after 1 pm and she estimated that it was 1.06 when she got to the junction of 10th and Patton. That's where she saw Oswald walking and being called over by Tippit.
And if you follow Scoggins from the moment he picked up his last customer at the airport and drove him to Oak Cliff, you will notice that Scoggins probably was in the area of the gentlemans club some 15 to 10 minutes earlier than he estimated.
I'm not a big fan of Dale Myers. It is clear to me that he arrived at 1.14 because he based his opinion on the DPD radio transcripts and needed to push back the time of Tippit's shooting as late as possible, so that Oswald would have had the time to get from the rooming house to 10th Street on foot. We know from Gary Mack's time trial that the fastest route took 11 minutes and we know from Roberts that Oswald left the rooming house just after the 1 pm news had started.
The most obvious indicator that Tippit was not killed at 1.14 or 1.15 is that the authorization for autopsy I already mentioned which shows that Tippit was declared DOA at the Methodist hospital at 1:15 pm. DPD officer Davenport, who followed the ambulance part of the way and was present at the hospital confirms that time in his report.
And then there is the combined timeline of Helen Markham and T.F. Bowley that does not compute with Tippit being killed after 1:10 pm at the latest. No LNr has even tried to come up with a plausible scenario for Markham still being at 10th/Patton at 1:14 or 1:15 when she testified she left home "a little after 1" and the one block walk from her home on 9th street to the corner of 10th street and Patton would have taken her only 2, perhaps 3 minutes. Markham estimated in her testimony that she took the 1.15 bus to work every day, but according to the FBI the bus was scheduled to stop there at 1.12 and at 1.22. It actually doesn't matter which bus Markham was talking about, because a walk of two blocks to the bus stop would have taken her no more than 6 minutes. So, if she left home "a little after 1" she would have easily been at the bus stop at around 1.15 and thus not at 10th/Patton. In other words, Tippit must have been shot earlier than 1.15, most likely around 1.06, because otherwise Markham could not have witnessed it.
The same thing goes for Bowley. He arrived shortly after Tippit was killed. In his affidavit he said he picked up his daughter at R.L. Thornton School in Singing Hills at "about 12:55". School bells, in my experience, have a tendency to ring at the correct time every day! Now, let's also not forget that, after picking up his daughter, Bowley was also going to pick up his wife from work, to go on a family holiday and thus had every reason to be on time and be aware of the time! The drive from the school to 10th/Patton is about 7 miles long and takes roughly 13 minutes, depending on the route, making it absolutely possible and plausible for him to arrive at 10th street at 1.10 pm, like he said he did in his affidavit. But even if we accept that Bowley didn't pick up his daughter on time (leaving her waiting for 5 minutes or longer) and did not leave the school until 1 PM, he still would have arrived at 10th/Patton at 1:13, which of course would have been prior to the shooting of Tippit at 1:14 or 1:15, as the WC narrative claims.
The interaction of Bowley with Callaway further confirms Bowley's arrival at the crime scene shortly after Tippit was killed. He testified that he was about half a block away from 10th Street when he saw a man coming down the street with a revolved. After that encounter Callaway ran half a block to 10th Street and when he got there Bowley was already there, using the DPD radio. Both Bowley and Callaway assisted in putting Tippit into the ambulance which arrived only shortly after Callaway got there. The ambulance brought Tippit to Methodist hospital which was about two miles away (if memory serves) and Tippit was declared D.O.A. at 1.15.
This timeline fits perfectly together if the shooting of Tippit happened between 1.06 (the time Markham would have gotten to 10th street after walking one block) and 1.10 (the time Bowley arrived after having picked up his daughter from school). If you move the time of the murder back to 1.14 or 1.15, as per WC narrative) none of the timeline fits.
You're quite fond of estimations, aren't you.
1:06 - 1:07 qualifies as 'just after 1pm' imo
Markham could have meant the time she left the house
We all know her roundabout way of attaching her responses to questions
Let's see where Markham's time is corroborated
She seems ti be in the same boat as Earlene in that department
Nobody had to wait for the news at 1PM
The CBS bulletin came on at 12:40pm
(https://i.postimg.cc/x10K5bzZ/bulletin-jfk-cbs.png)
And are you sure Bowley's watch was of good quality?
(https://i.postimg.cc/XY7Cd6MS/swiss-mickey.jpg)
Maybe closer to Mickey than Rolex..
Classic Chapman, go after one detail and ignore the rest. The irony is that I am simply using the testimony of the WC star witness in the Tippit case and Chapman is questioning it with another one of his "could have" games. Go figure....
I have explained all this to you several times, but you simply ignore and dismiss it only to start again with the same challenge of one detail out of a coherent timeline.
It doesn't make any significant difference if Markham meant the time she left her house on 9th street because it only took one block, or around 2 minutes, to walk to the junction of 10th and Patton, which means she would have arrived there at 1.08 and she would be at the bus stop on Jefferson at no later than 1.11. In other words, if Tippit was killed at 1.14 or 1.15, Markham would not have been there. She would have been at the bus stop instead.
Another pathetic argument. Earlene Roberts wasn't waiting for the news at 1 pm. She said that a friend told her about the assassination so she wanted to watch the 1 pm news. There is a difference, but it will probably go over your head.
In any event, the WC presented a timeline which has Oswald arriving at the rooming house just before 1 pm and when he walked in Roberts was trying to get the television to work.
Just keep throwing things against the wall, hoping something will stick, but the timeline I have presented in it's combined form makes it highly unlikely, if not impossible, for Bowley's watch to be wrong by much.
If you want to make a case, in which Markham's estimate is off and Bowley's watch was wrong, then all you have to do is provide an alternative timeline that fits all the known facts. And exactly that is your biggest problem. You can't, which is why you keep attacking individual points of the timeline.
There is only one question you need to answer to understand what really happened; Why did the investigators and the WC ignore Bowley completely? One of the main witnesses in the Tippit case, the one who called the DPD dispatcher, the one who - together with Callaway - helped put Tippit in the ambulance.....They completely erased him from the case. He is not mentioned in the WC report at all..... Now, why do you think is that?
Your time estimations are just that: Estimations.
One-Eyeball Earlene's estimated times were just that: Estimations.
The time trial only tested the walking mode of human locomotion.
Oswald had plenty of reasons to step up the pace. It's what killers do.
He had is say in his affidavit.
Your time estimations are just that: Estimations.
One-Eyeball Earlene's estimated times were just that: Estimations.
The time trial only tested the walking mode of human locomotion.
Oswald had plenty of reasons to step up the pace. It's what killers do.
He had is [sic] say in his affidavit.
Who had his day in his affidavit? Bowley?... Yes, so what? He is the only witness from the Tippit scene that was ignored by the WC and you can't possibly think of a reason why? Really? Are you that stupid or just dishonest, or perhaps both?
Jimmy Burt and Frank Cimino are two other witnesses at the scene who were not called by the WC. They have something else in common with Bowley: they said they showed up too late to see either the shooting or the escaping perp. It wouldn't be surprising that they wouldn't be called to testify to a crime that they did not actually witness.
BTW, in 1963, people's lives ran to the pulse of mechanical and electromechanical timepieces that were set using other mechanical clocks as a reference. A few nerdy types might periodically dial into the National Bureau of Standards' time broadcast on shortwave and sync to that, but very few made that level of effort. As such, any randomly-selected timepiece would commonly be expected to be as much as five minutes off of some reference time; any two clocks could be off by as much as ten minutes. This expected discrepancy was the basis for the old advice to always try to be ten minutes early to any appointment. You never knew when your watch was five minutes slow and the other guy's was five minutes fast. And it explains why the timing arguments regarding the Tippit shooting tend to be an asinine waste of everyone's time.
Jimmy Burt and Frank Cimino are two other witnesses at the scene who were not called by the WC. They have something else in common with Bowley: they said they showed up too late to see either the shooting or the escaping perp. It wouldn't be surprising that they wouldn't be called to testify to a crime that they did not actually witness.
BTW, in 1963, people's lives ran to the pulse of mechanical and electromechanical timepieces that were set using other mechanical clocks as a reference. A few nerdy types might periodically dial into the National Bureau of Standards' time broadcast on shortwave and sync to that, but very few made that level of effort. As such, any randomly-selected timepiece would commonly be expected to be as much as five minutes off of some reference time; any two clocks could be off by as much as ten minutes. This expected discrepancy was the basis for the old advice to always try to be ten minutes early to any appointment. You never knew when your watch was five minutes slow and the other guy's was five minutes fast. And it explains why the timing arguments regarding the Tippit shooting tend to be an asinine waste of everyone's time.
Exactly, there were also a stack of time witnesses who said the time was closer to 1:30, and if you take the mean time of all the time witnesses we get the average of about 1:15, how about that!
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Mrs. Virginia Davis, w/m/16 [sic], of 400 E. 10th WH-3-8120 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
"Today November 22, 1963 about 1:30 pm my sister-in-law and myself were lying down in our apartment. My sister-in-law is Jeanette Davis, we live in the same house in different apartments. We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side door at Patton Street."
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JONNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas.
ROBERT BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was employed as a mechanic at Roger Ballew Texaco Service Station, 600 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. He advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, November 22, 1963, a young white man passed him, BROCK and his wife, and proceeded north past the Texaco Service Station into the parking lot, at which time the individual disappeared.
Mr. DULLES. What time was this, approximately, as far as you can recall?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Around 1:20 in the afternoon.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Will you please state then what happened, what you saw, what you did, what you heard?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Well, I first seen the police car cruising east.
But in reality, all these time guesses in a pre digital world are worthless and are a last desperate attempt to free a man who was positively identified at the crime scene holding a gun and most observed Oswald wearing a light coloured jacket which was discarded in a car park directly between the crime scene and where Oswald was discovered without his jacket hiding in a darkened theatre.
The eyewitnesses who positively identified Oswald and confirmed he was carrying a gun
Mr. BALL. Which way?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Towards Jefferson, right across that way.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have the pistol in his hand at this time?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had the gun when I saw him.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it
Mr. BALL. And what did you see the man doing?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. And how was he holding the gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. We used to say in the Marine Corps in a raised pistol position.
Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand.
Mr. BALL. With which hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. With his right hand; just kicking them out.
Mr. BALL. He had it up?
Mr. B.M. PATTERSON, 4635 Hartford Street, Dallas, Texas, currently employed by Wyatt's Cafeteria, 2647 South Lancaster, Dallas, Texas, advised he was present at the used car lot of JOHNNY REYNOLDS' on the afternoon of November 22, 1963.
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JONNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas. A minute or so later they observed a white male approximately 30 years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying what appeared to be a revolver in his hand and was obviously trying to reload same while running.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see this man's face that had the gun in his hand?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Very good.
HAROLD RUSSELL, employee, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was standing on the lot of Reynolds Used Cars together with L.J. LEWIS and PAT PATTERSON, at which time they heard shots come from the vicinity of Patton and Tenth Street, and a few seconds later they observed a young white man running south on Patton Avenue carrying a pistol or revolver which the individual was attempting to either reload or place in his belt line.
Mr. BELIN. Did he have anything in his hand?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had a pistol in his left hand.
Jack Tatum
Next. this man with a gun in his hand ran toward the back of the squad car, but instead of running away he stepped into the street and shot the police officer who was lying in the street.
The Police Officers who were confronted with the murdering Oswald.
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When you saw Oswald's hand by his belt, which hand did you see then?
Mr. WALKER. He had ahold of the handle of it.
Mr. BELIN. Handle of what?
Mr. WALKER. The revolver.
Mr. BELIN. Was there a revolver there?
Mr. WALKER. Yes; there was.
Mr. HUTSON. McDonald was at this time simultaneously trying to hold this person's right hand. Somehow this person moved his right hand to his waist, and I saw a revolver come out, and McDonald was holding on to it with his right hand, and this gun was waving up toward the back of the seat like this.
Oswald even admitted carrying his revolver.
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
(http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h441/johniscool5/LHOrev_Fig02_080510_zpsch4v5bkj.jpg)
(http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h441/johniscool5/LHOrev_Fig04_0805101_zps85fc9281.jpg)
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. V DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. B DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.
Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Mr. BALL. You mean he looked like the same man?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. 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. BALL. Then what did you do?
Mr. GUINYARD. I was looking--trying to see and after I heard the third shot, then Oswald came through on Patton running---came right through the yard in front of the big white house---there's a big two-story white house---there's two of them there and he come through the one right on the corner of Patton.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I identified him.
RUSSELL positively identified a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans Police Department # 112723, taken August 9, 1963, as being identical with the individual he had observed at the scene of the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. TIPPIT on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas.
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
The Jacket eyewitnesses.
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a grayish tan.
Mr. BELIN. Was the jacket open or closed up?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was open.
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.
Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.
Mrs. ROBERTS. He wasn't running, but he was walking pretty fast---he was all but running.
Mr. BALL. Then, what happened after that?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket.
Btw only a pathetic moron would attempt to discard this mountain of evidence for a completely unreliable timeline based on dated and unofficially uncalibrated time pieces. LOL!
JohnM
but the fact of the matter remains that Markham would have been at the bus stop on Jefferson by 1.15.
No, the real fact of the matter is that Markham your star eyewitness positively identified Oswald as the man who killed Tippit. Try again!
JohnM
"Was there a number two" :D
So, are you now saying that your Star Time Eyewitness is unreliable?, hmmmm, very interesting! LMFAO!
JohnM
Does this mean that you can't produce either a map with a faster route from Beckley to 10th Street or an alternative time line that includes all the known facts? Gheez... now there's a surprise.
So, it's back to the one liners and "estimations" BS, is it?
You come across as a little cry baby who doesn't want to deal with facts, closes his eyes and hopes they go away...
So, are you now saying that your Star Time Eyewitness is unreliable?, hmmmm, very interesting! LMFAO!
JohnM
Deflect all you want: Oswald was ID'd at the scene as the killer.
Are you paying attention?
Are you? You don't appear to be...
Your suggestion is plain stupid for three reasons; (1) a guy running down the street gets noticed far more quickly than somebody who walks, (2) Oswald knew the area, he had lived on Neely Street nearby, so he knew where to go for the busses, and that would be straight down Beckley to Jefferson and not to some residential street and (3) if he wanted to get out of Dallas he could have taken any bus from the city center.
You're just making up stuff in order to somehow get Oswald to 10th street on time to shoot Tippit. Good luck with that, because the timeline shows Tippit was most likely killed between 1.06 and 1.10 and the fastest way from the rooming house, where he still was just after 1 pm, takes 11 minutes... Do the math..... but you probably won't.
No deflection. If he couldn't have been there when it happened that I.D. doesn't mean anything. Eye witness testimony is the least reliable evidence there is. Just ask any prosecutor.
History shows there are plenty of innocent people who ended up in jail because eyewitnesses were wrong.
Why don't you try to convince me I am wrong by pointing out the flaws in the time line I have presented?
No. Your point above is entirely invalid.
The five bullets in Oswald's pants pocket (removed hours after his arrest) were all Winchester-Westerns.
Richard Smith is correctly referring to the six live rounds removed from the revolver that was taken from Oswald. Three of these live bullets were Winchester-Westerns and three were Remington-Peters.
As Richard correctly points out, Tippit was gunned down by both Winchester-Western and Remington-Peters bullets, which happened to be the same two manufacturers of bullets found inside his revolver when he was arrested.
Richard Smith is correctly referring to the six live rounds removed from the revolver that was taken from Oswald.
And what revolver would that be? I know you refer to the revolver now in evidence as CE 143, but what evidence do you have that this is the same revolver taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater?
Yeah...to the Oswald did it guys I wouldn't expect it to.
However, if the ladies had claimed that it was a light grey or whitish jacket they saw then that would become absolutely positive evidence huh? The likelihood that Oswald never even put a jacket on in the first place is becoming more probable. Who said that he put this jacket on in the first place? One distracted lady with admittedly poor vision.
When one witness' story points to a conspiracy.. they are summarily dismissed as wrong. Yet when one witness [no matter how convoluted their story] points to the single killer...their statements are heralded as the gospel truth.
How far into the room (away from the windows) do you loose sight of the bus stop? I know that that would depend on where along the front wall one is. So lets specify along a perpendicular line to the front wall at that runs to the back of the end of the couch seat closest to the front wall. I believe that the angle to the right edge of the window nearest the TV from that spot is very close to the angle to the bus stop. Also, do we know the bus stop was at the same exact location in 1963 as it is now?
This is so typical for you. You clearly have never been to the rooming house yourself, yet you "believe" that Roberts was sitting on the couch when Oswald walked out. Why do you believe that? The answer is simple; so you can argue that she would have had a good look at Oswald as he walked out. You now have two people, who have actually been there, telling you that she couldn't have seen the bus stop from the couch, yet instead of accepting that, you are still desperately looking for a way to keep Roberts on the couch anyway. This happens all the time with you. You prefer what you believe over factual information time after time.
Well, let me tell you this; if you are now looking for a way to place Roberts on the couch seat closest to the front wall, so that she could somehow see the bus stop, the consequence is that you put Roberts on the couch at a location where Oswald would have passed behind her on his way to the front door.
You really need to think things through in the future.....
I could be mistaken, but I seem to remember seeing a photo or video frame of an officer examining a jacket at the scene where it was found (the parking lot behind the building on Jefferson). But if I understand your theory correctly, LHO would have left CE 162 in Irving.
There is indeed a photo of an officer holding a jacket, flapping in the wind, at a parking lot near the Tippit scene.
You're quite fond of estimations, aren't you.
1:06 - 1:07 qualifies as 'just after 1pm' imo
Markham could have meant the time she left the house
We all know her roundabout way of attaching her responses to questions
that seem to confuse her
Let's see where Markham's time is corroborated
She seems ti be in the same boat as Earlene in that department
Nobody had to wait for the news at 1PM
The CBS bulletin came on at 12:40pm
(https://i.postimg.cc/x10K5bzZ/bulletin-jfk-cbs.png)
And are you sure Bowley's watch was of good quality?
(https://i.postimg.cc/XY7Cd6MS/swiss-mickey.jpg)
Maybe closer to Mickey than Rolex..
Classic Chapman, go after one detail and ignore the rest. The irony is that I am simply using the testimony of the WC star witness in the Tippit case and Chapman is questioning it with another one of his "could have" games. Go figure....
I have explained all this to you several times, but you simply ignore and dismiss it only to start again with the same challenge of one detail out of a coherent timeline.
It doesn't make any significant difference if Markham meant the time she left her house on 9th street because it only took one block, or around 2 minutes, to walk to the junction of 10th and Patton, which means she would have arrived there at 1.08 and she would be at the bus stop on Jefferson at no later than 1.11. In other words, if Tippit was killed at 1.14 or 1.15, Markham would not have been there. She would have been at the bus stop instead.
Another pathetic argument. Earlene Roberts wasn't waiting for the news at 1 pm. She said that a friend told her about the assassination so she wanted to watch the 1 pm news. There is a difference, but it will probably go over your head.
In any event, the WC presented a timeline which has Oswald arriving at the rooming house just before 1 pm and when he walked in Roberts was trying to get the television to work.
Just keep throwing things against the wall, hoping something will stick, but the timeline I have presented in it's combined form makes it highly unlikely, if not impossible, for Bowley's watch to be wrong by much.
If you want to make a case, in which Markham's estimate is off and Bowley's watch was wrong, then all you have to do is provide an alternative timeline that fits all the known facts. And exactly that is your biggest problem. You can't, which is why you keep attacking individual points of the timeline.
There is only one question you need to answer to understand what really happened; Why did the investigators and the WC ignore Bowley completely? One of the main witnesses in the Tippit case, the one who called the DPD dispatcher, the one who - together with Callaway - helped put Tippit in the ambulance.....They completely erased him from the case. He is not mentioned in the WC report at all..... Now, why do you think is that?
Classic Chapman, go after one detail and ignore the rest. The irony is that I am simply using the testimony of the WC star witness in the Tippit case and Chapman is questioning it with another one of his "could have" games. Go figure....
There is only one question you need to answer to understand what really happened; Why did the investigators and the WC ignore Bowley completely? One of the main witnesses in the Tippit case, the one who called the DPD dispatcher, the one who - together with Callaway - helped put Tippit in the ambulance.....They completely erased him from the case. He is not mentioned in the WC report at all..... Now, why do you think is that?
Jimmy Burt and Frank Cimino are two other witnesses at the scene who were not called by the WC. They have something else in common with Bowley: they said they showed up too late to see either the shooting or the escaping perp. It wouldn't be surprising that they wouldn't be called to testify to a crime that they did not actually witness.
BTW, in 1963, people's lives ran to the pulse of mechanical and electromechanical timepieces that were set using other mechanical clocks as a reference. A few nerdy types might periodically dial into the National Bureau of Standards' time broadcast on shortwave and sync to that, but very few made that level of effort. As such, any randomly-selected timepiece would commonly be expected to be as much as five minutes off of some reference time; any two clocks could be off by as much as ten minutes. This expected discrepancy was the basis for the old advice to always try to be ten minutes early to any appointment. You never knew when your watch was five minutes slow and the other guy's was five minutes fast. And it explains why the timing arguments regarding the Tippit shooting tend to be an asinine waste of everyone's time.
No, the real fact of the matter is that Markham your star eyewitness positively identified Oswald as the man who killed Tippit. Try again!
JohnM
"Was there a number two" :D
Time to get real.
Tippit evidence relevance based on a scale of ONE to TEN.
Discarded shells at the crime scene as seen being discarded by Oswald, exclusively matched to Oswalds revolver. TEN
Oswald being arrested and trying to kill more Policemen with the above revolver. TEN
A dozen postitive identifications of Oswald. TEN
A wide variation of time guesses. ONE
JohnM
No need to make up stuff to get Oswald anywhere, Tex. He was ID'd at and near the snuff scene by several witnesses, all presumably in possession of at least one good eyeball.
Several people ID'd Oswald
It's called co-oboration
And tell us what makes you think I'm here to convince anyone of anything.
Unrelated to your mistake.
What are you two arguing about here? Regarding Oswald walking out the front door, what does it matter whether Roberts was in front of the TV or on the couch?
What are you two arguing about here? Regarding Oswald walking out the front door, what does it matter whether Roberts was in front of the TV or on the couch?
It's not a photo. You're referring to a still frame from Ron Reiland's film footage.
You're being a bit hypocritical here. You claim you're "simply using the testimony", yet you ignore the portion of that same testimony which tells you that Oswald was the cop-killer.
Because he (Bowley) didn't see the killer flee.
I explained why I asked you the question in a subsequent post. I am trying to decide how to categorize Hugh Aynesworth’s words.
And I agree with you that it really doesn’t make much difference other than that.
Not that I am aware of, but given the fact that CE 163 was later found at the TSBD and Oswald left the building without a jacket, it's a pretty safe bet to assume that he was wearing CE 163 on Friday morning.
Which of course only leaves the grey jacket CE 162 as the one he would have worn to Irving on Thursday.
I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it should be noted that nobody else but Roberts saw Oswald leave the rooming house either.
...it's a pretty safe bet to assume that he was wearing CE 163 on Friday morning.
Linnie Mae Randle affidavit 11/22/63:
“I didn’t see Lee again until this morning, Friday November 22, 1963, about 7:10 or 7:15 am. ... Lee was bareheaded, wearing a light brown or tan shirt.”
What's your point?
Another witness who mistook a jacket for a shirt or the other way around, maybe? Just like Baker and.... Roberts, perhaps?
Or did Linnie Mae simply notice (and remembered) the color of the shirt and nothing else?
Was that the "white' jacket found in the car park?
It would be difficult to mistake a light brown or tan shirt for this jacket. Your assumption isn’t so safe.
(https://kennedysandking.com/images/ctka/public/2013/fullscreen/Photo_naraevid_CE163-2.jpg)
And tell us what makes you think I'm here to convince anyone of anything.
I never said you were. It's pretty obvious that you are not here to be convinced of anything or to convince anyone of anything because your one liners and "arguments" are too weak to convince even a 5 year old.
Which only begs the question why in fact you are here at all.
This forum is a come-one-come-all discussion platform, not a court of law. It's not even formal debate. Not my bad if you have a problem with why I'm here. Not my problem if you cannot get past me with your ultra-contrarian bluster.
Why would that be difficult. Early in the morning, probably just awake with the light of the sun, anything is possible, right?
Isn't it your argument that the color of CE 162 could appear different depending on the conditions it is seen?
And it doesn't even matter if my assumption is safe or not. Even if Oswald did not wear a jacket to work on Friday morning, CE 163 was still found at the TSBD, and Oswald left the TSBD on Friday without wearing a jacket.
So, I ask again, what's your point?
Did anyone else who saw LHO on 11/22 (Frazier’s sister, coworkers, etc) indicate what jacket he was wearing? Same with the evening of 11/21.
Not that I am aware of, but given the fact that CE 163 was later found at the TSBD and Oswald left the building without a jacket, it's a pretty safe bet to assume that he was wearing CE 163 on Friday morning.
Which of course only leaves the grey jacket CE 162 as the one he would have worn to Irving on Thursday.
I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it should be noted that nobody else but Roberts saw Oswald leave the rooming house either.
I made my point. But since you want to pretend that I didn’t, here is another one:
And your reply:
So, the next time someone asks you a similar question to the one that I asked, you might be able to give them a more accurate answer.
You are making no sense whatsoever. If your quote from Linnie Mae Randle's affidavit is supposed to prove anything (which it doesn't) than come right out and say that.
You asked me if anybody else who saw LHO on 11/22 indicated what jacket he was wearing and I answered; none that I am aware of. What you don't understand about my answer is beyond me. My answer was correct and your quote from Linnie Mae Randle doesn't alter that one bit, because she said nothing about a jacket. All she mentioned was a shirt.
If you read into that statement that Oswald was not wearing a jacket on Friday morning, than that's your own assumption not based on any known fact.
Two persons (Frazier and his sister) who saw what LHO was wearing to work that morning. Neither one of them say anything that would indicate that LHO was wearing CE 163. In fact Frazier says he has never seen it before when it is shown to him.
Yet you insist that is is a safe assumption that LHO was wearing CE 163 to work on Friday 11/22/63. I believe that you are the one not making any sense.
There are two more things in Frazier's testimony that got my attention.
First of all, they never showed him CE 162, the grey jacket, for identification (one can only wonder why) and, secondly, they did show him CE 163.
Mr. BALL - I have here Commission's 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have.
Frazier's response is somewhat remarkable as it was jacket CE 163 that Oswald was wearing during the trip to the TSBD on Friday morning, so Frazier must have seen it at least once.
Don't flatter yourself. You are of no significance or relevance to me. Just another clown who joins a forum to not debate the subject matter.
BS... The mere fact that Linnie Mae Randle does not say anything about Oswald wearing a jacket does not mean that he didn't wear one. It just means that she didn't mention it.
And as for Frazier himself, he did say that Oswald was wearing a jacket on Friday morning.
Mr. FRAZIER - He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that has the big sleeves in them and he put the package that he had, you know, that he told me was curtain rods up under his arm, you know, and so he walked down behind the car and standing over there at the end of the cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car, and so quick as I cut the engine off and started out of the car, shut the door just as I was starting out just like getting out of the car, he started walking off and so I followed him in.
And I already pointed out the discrepancy in his testimony;
So, we've got Frazier saying Oswald was wearing a jacket to the TSBD on Friday morning and CE 163 was in fact found at the TSBD after the murder. Now, could that possibly mean that CE 163 was the jacket Oswald was wearing that morning?
If not, let's consider the alternative. Marina confirmed that Oswald only had two jackets and no other jacket has ever been found except CE 162 and CE 163. So, if it wasn't CE 163 that Oswald was wearing that morning, it could only be CE 162 (are you with me so far, or have I lost you already?). Except, it couldn't have been CE 162 because according to you that was at the rooming house at Beckley and according to Frazier, Oswald was wearing it during the trip to Irving on Thursday evening.
And even if it was CE 162 that Oswald was wearing on Friday morning, that still wouldn't explain how he was able to put it on at the rooming house after leaving the TSBD without a jacket. In other words; if Oswald was wearing CE 162 on Friday morning, that jacket would have stayed behind at the TSBD.... Still with me?
Based on this information it's pretty damned certain that if Oswald was wearing a jacket at all on Friday morning, it can only have been CE 163. That's why it is a safe assumption to believe that this was indeed the case.
if Oswald was wearing a jacket at all on Friday morning
That is a big if though. Another possibility is that CE 151 (light brown shirt which has big sleeves) is what Frazier saw on LHO on both Thursday evening and Friday morning. He could have mistaken it for LHO’s light colored jacket. This would tend to agree with both Frazier’s sister’s and Earlene Roberts’ descriptions of LHO wearing a shirt (to and from the TSBD respectively). LHO could have changed shirts and donned the jacket at the rooming house to help conceal his pistol.
if Oswald was wearing a jacket at all on Friday morning
That is a big if though. Another possibility is that CE 151 (light brown shirt which has big sleeves) is what Frazier saw on LHO on both Thursday evening and Friday morning. He could have mistaken it for LHO’s light colored jacket. This would tend to agree with both Frazier’s sister’s and Earlene Roberts’ descriptions of LHO wearing a shirt (to and from the TSBD respectively). LHO could have changed shirts and donned the jacket at the rooming house to help conceal his pistol.
That is a big if though.
No it isn't. CE 163 was still found at the TSBD after the murder, so how did it get there?
Another possibility is that CE 151 (light brown shirt which has big sleeves) is what Frazier saw on LHO on both Thursday evening and Friday morning. He could have mistaken it for LHO’s light colored jacket. This would tend to agree with both Frazier’s sister’s and Earlene Roberts’ descriptions of LHO wearing a shirt (to and from the TSBD respectively). LHO could have changed shirts and donned the jacket at the rooming house to help conceal his pistol.
Great, you've just destroyed a significant part of the case against Oswald. You do understand that, don't you? If Oswald was wearing a light brown shirt at the TSBD and changed his shirt at the rooming house, how do you explain that fibers from the shirt he was arrested in were found on the rifle? Care to reconsider?
Besides, the trip from the TSBD to Irving takes at least 20 minutes. Do you really think Frazier wouldn't notice that Oswald, who was sitting next to him, wasn't wearing a jacket? Really?
Great, you've just destroyed a significant part of the case against Oswald.
Here is a link to CE 674:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0179a.htm (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0179a.htm)
It is a comparison photograph of matching fibers from CE 151 and fibers found on the C 2766 rifle.
By the way it would also explain the light colored clothing description from Howard Brennan of the shooter.
You're all over the place on this one and it's getting worse....
If Oswald is arrested wearing CE 151, and he changed his shirt at the rooming house, as you suggested, how in the world could he have worn CE 151 at the TSBD on Friday morning?
This is just another example of how you keep on spitting out "possibilities" that are pure speculation, simply to avoid having to accept that you are wrong about Oswald not wearing CE 163 to the TSBD on Friday morning. For crying out loud, Frazier sat next to Oswald in the car for at least 20 minutes and saw him walk towards the TSBD on Friday morning. Frazier said that Oswald was wearing a jacket. Period. The suggestion that he would have mistaken a shirt for a jacket is absurd.
Besides, all this speculation on your part is a complete waste of time.
You are obviously confusing CE 150 with CE 151. LHO was not arrested wearing CE 151. And it is easy to believe that Frazier could mistake it for the light colored jacket. Those jackets are short and shirt-like, save for the zippers.
Something else about the CE 151 shirt is what appears to be a large tear in the left sleeve in the upper arm area. This would agree with what I remember the former landlady saying about a tear in the sleeve (she saw LHO on the bus on Elm Street immediately after the assassination). So here we have another witness account that tends to agree with this being the shirt worn by LHO to the TSBD on Friday 11/22/63.
You are obviously confusing CE 150 with CE 151. LHO was not arrested wearing CE 151.
You are correct. My bad
I should have said Oswald was arrested wearing CE 150 and fibers from CE 150 (not CE 151) were found on the rifle.
And it is easy to believe that Frazier could mistake it for the light colored jacket.
But not so easy to believe that Roberts, who only saw him a couple of seconds, could mistake a shirt for a jacket, right?
Bledsoe did indeed say that she saw a hole in one of the sleeves of Oswald's shirt, but the shirt she identified was the one he was wearing when he was arrested. They took the original shirt to her house and showed it to her prior to her testimony.
Mr. BALL - Now, I have got a piece of clothing here, which is marked---
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - Commission Exhibit 150.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - This is a shirt.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Because they brought it out to the house and showed it.
Mr. BALL - I know. What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, because I can recognize it.
Mr. BALL - Recognize it as what?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes, sir; see there?
Mr. BALL - Yes. You tell me what do you see here? What permits you to recognize it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I recognize---first thing I notice the elbow is out and then I saw---when the man brought it out and let me see it?
Mr. BALL - No, I am talking about---I am showing you this shirt now, and you said, "That is it." You mean---What do you mean by "that is it"?
I should have said Oswald was arrested wearing CE 150 and fibers from CE 150 (not CE 151) were found on the rifle.
Fibers from both shirts were found on the rifle. See the link I provided.
Two persons (Frazier and his sister) who saw what LHO was wearing to work that morning. Neither one of them say anything that would indicate that LHO was wearing CE 163. In fact Frazier says he has never seen it before when it is shown to him.
Yet you insist that is is a safe assumption that LHO was wearing CE 163 to work on Friday 11/22/63. I believe that you are the one not making any sense.
I saw the page(s). Where did it say fibers from both shirts were found on the rifle? I must have missed that.....
Let's get back for a second to your suggestion that Oswald might not have been wearing a jacket at all on Friday morning;
You said;
I have already quoted from Frazier's testimony that he did say Oswald was wearing a jacket.
And now Bill Chapman has added to his most recent post a part of Linnie Mae Randle's testimony, which I had forgotten about.
Mr. BALL. Here is another jacket which is a gray jacket, does this look anything like the jacket he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; I remember its being gray.
Mr. BALL. Well, this one is gray but of these two the jacket I last showed you is Commission Exhibit No. 162, and this blue gray is 163, now if you had to choose between these two?
Mrs. RANDLE. I would choose the dark one.
Mr. BALL. You would choose the dark one?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which is 163, as being more similar to the jacket he had?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; that I remember. But I, you know, didn't pay an awful lot of attention to his jacket. I remember his T-shirt and the shirt more so than I do the jacket.
Mr. BALL. The witness just stated that 163 which is the gray-blue is similar to the jacket he had on. 162, the light gray jacket was not.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
Kinda destroys your entire argument, yet I am sure you will not see it that way and still soldier on with more speculation.
Perhaps you could try and find an explanation for how the grey jacket (CE 162) got to the rooming house on Friday morning, when Frazier said he saw Oswald wear his grey jacket to Irving on Thursday?
Try this link and scroll down to 674 and read the description (that is where it says it). Then you can view 674 on the link I provided. I should have done this to begin with, my mistake.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-WARRENCOMMISSIONHEARINGS-17/pdf/GPO-WARRENCOMMISSIONHEARINGS-17.pdf (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-WARRENCOMMISSIONHEARINGS-17/pdf/GPO-WARRENCOMMISSIONHEARINGS-17.pdf)
All it says there is that fibers from a shirt, item C11, matched fibers on the rifle. There is no mention of two shirts, just one...
That explains how CE 163 could have gotten to the TSBD. It doesn’t destroy the idea that Wesley Frazier could have been mistaken about the jacket on Thursday evening. Your idea hinges on that one item though.
By the way, when shown CE 150 Linnie Mae Randle said:
Well now, I don’t remember it being that shade of brown. It could have been but I was looking through the screen and out the window but I don’t remember it being exactly that. I thought it was a solid color.
And FWIW, CE 151 is a solid color.
You didn’t follow my instructions. Here is a cut and paste from the link:
674....
“Comparison photographs of orange-yellow cotton fibers found on the C2766 rifle and orange-yellow cotton fibers from Commission Exhibit No. 151.”
The next item (675) is for CE 150.
Far more interesting would be if you could explain why Oswald would run to such a location in the first place?I am from Dallas and have mentioned several times here on the forum that I have walked the proposed 'Oswald route' a couple of times. Unbeknownst to most here...there is a high school along the way on Patton. Adamson High occupies the entire corner of Davis and Patton. I would think that someone/anyone gazing out one of the windows at that time would have noticed this well publicized wayward behavior and mentioned it long ago..."Hey I/we saw this guy in a grey jacket walking down the street that afternoon just like the newspapers said!"
That's not what I saw. Why don't you simply provide the link to that page?
Try this link and scroll down to 674 and read the description (that is where it says it). Then you can view 674 on the link I provided. I should have done this to begin with, my mistake.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-WARRENCOMMISSIONHEARINGS-17/pdf/GPO-WARRENCOMMISSIONHEARINGS-17.pdf (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-WARRENCOMMISSIONHEARINGS-17/pdf/GPO-WARRENCOMMISSIONHEARINGS-17.pdf)
It doesn’t destroy the idea that Wesley Frazier could have been mistaken about the jacket on Thursday evening.
Please explain how Frazier could have been mistaken about seeing Oswald wearing a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday evening?
Your idea hinges on that one item though.
Once again, it's not my idea. I have no horse in this race, either way. If Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit so be it. But it needs to be proven, which is why I am constantly challenging the evidence used by the WC. I have always stated that, as far as Kennedy is concerned, Oswald must have been involved in some way because you simply can not frame an innocent man in the way some CTs suggest it was done.
Having said that, here we have two conflicting stories from two witnesses and it was never resolved. On the one hand we have Roberts claiming (based on her observation of a zipping action) that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket which (by elimination of CE 163) could only be CE 162 and on the other hand we have Frazier saying he saw Oswald wearing a grey jacket which (by the same elimination of CE 163) can only be CE 162 to Irving on Thursday evening.
Both witnesses can not be right. The consequence of Frazier being right is massive as far as the WC narrative goes, which IMO is exactly the reason why the WC never pursued the matter further. Just like they did nothing with the Stroud letter about what Dorothy Garner said and the lack if chain of custody for CE399). You can't find something you don't like if you are not looking for it, right?
For me, there are two major problems with the claim that Oswald killed Tippit, notwithstanding the witness identifactions. First of all, if Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket than he couldn't be wearing one when Tippit was killed and, secondly, if Oswald left the rooming house at just past 1 pm and the fastest route to get to 10th street takes 11 minutes to walk, he couldn't have been there between 1.06 and 1.10, which is when the most reliable time line suggests Tippit was really shot.
Having said all this, it is not for me to argue that Oswald didn't kill Tippit. I have reasonable doubt about that (and many other things) and it's the evidence that is supposed to pursuade me that he did. So, where is that evidence?
I did:
It is the description in the table of contents. Page 19 of the pdf if I remember correctly. As I said earlier just scroll down to 674. You must have gone all the way to the exhibit photo and skipped the table of contents.
All it says there is that fibers from a shirt, item C11, matched fibers on the rifle. There is no mention of two shirts, just one...
The Warren Commission was not a court of law and LHO was not on trial. There are three levels of proof: Preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
In my opinion your doubt about LHO leaving the rooming house with a jacket is not reasonable. The witnesses who saw LHO during the time period in question said he was wearing a jacket. Your doubt stems from Frazier’s account of the afternoon of 11/21/63. A reasonable way to decide would weigh the evidence on each side of the discrepancy and conclude that Frazier must have been mistaken. It is his account vs all the evidence to the contrary.
I am not going to argue the evidence again with you. We have already done that and it is ridiculous to keep doing it over and over and over and over again.
The Warren Commission was not a court of law and LHO was not on trial.
And yet, the WC and the LNs have no problem declaring him guilty anyway. Go figure...
There are three levels of proof: Preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
In a criminal case there is only one standard; beyond a reasonable doubt
In my opinion your doubt about LHO leaving the rooming house with a jacket is not reasonable.
And when everything else fails, just say your opponent is unreasonable.... Pathetic.
The witnesses who saw LHO during the time period in question said he was wearing a jacket.
There is only one witness who saw Oswald leave the rooming house. Your belief that this witness (Earlene Roberts) could not have been mistaken, but Frazier could have been is what is really unreasonable and exposes your agenda.
Your doubt stems from Frazier’s account of the afternoon of 11/21/63.
Not only that. Frazier did say that he saw Oswald wear a grey jacket during the trip to Irving on Thursday, yes. But that's not all of it. Marina confirmed Oswald only had two jackets and no other jacket belonging to Oswald was ever found. Given the fact that CE 163 was later found at the TSBD, it is logical to conclude that Frazier must have seen CE 162 on Thursday.
A reasonable way to decide would weigh the evidence on each side of the discrepancy and conclude that Frazier must have been mistaken. It is his account vs all the evidence to the contrary.
No it isn't. Calling something reasonable doesn't make it so. It's Frazier testimony vs Roberts' testimony. What you are doing is first determining that Oswald did in fact kill Tippit and then you start looking for evidence to support that conclusion. That's what the WC also did. That however is circular logic. In the real world an investigation is conducted on the basis of exclusion. Eliminate the suspects who could not have done it and you end up - hopefully - with the most likely suspect. In this case, Frazier's testimony stands in the way of a simple conclusion that Roberts, as the only person who saw Oswald leave the rooming house, was correct in what she said.
If witnesses say that Tippit's killer was wearing a jacket, when it is unclear how the grey jacket could have been at the rooming house for Oswald to put on, it is possible that the witnesses of Tippit's murder were mistaken in their identification of Oswald. It wouldn't be the first time that eye witnesses are wrong. In fact, it is IMO a statistical near impossibility that all the witnesses called to identify Oswald in a line up would indeed pick the same man.
I know from first hand that identification of a suspect isn't that easy. Some years ago I witnessed a street robbery at short distance. I noticed the man before it happened and thought I had seen him pretty well, but when police asked me to identify him I wasn't certain enough to do so. Yet here we have at least six people who only saw the suspect briefly and they all are positive Oswald was the man they so.... I don't believe it for a second.
I am not going to argue the evidence again with you.
You don't have to. It's not going to change anything. Regardless of how much evidence I provide for the grey jacket being in Irving on Thursday evening, nothing I say will ever change your mind. You'll just dismiss it out of hand, which is always the LNs last resort to get out of a tricky situation. On the other hand, I have asked for evidence to show that the time line I presented was wrong, and nothing happened, except ridicule and dismissal of course.
So, please don't pretend any more that you are looking at the evidence honestly, and are trying to learn something, when in fact you don't want to know and are biased as hell.
Not only that. Frazier did say that he saw Oswald wear a grey jacket during the trip to Irving on Thursday, yes. But that's not all of it. Marina confirmed Oswald only had two jackets and no other jacket belonging to Oswald was ever found. Given the fact that CE 163 was later found at the TSBD, it is logical to conclude that Frazier must have seen CE 162 on Thursday.
But Frazier didn't identify CE 162 as what LHO was wearing on Thursday afternoon to Irving.
Here is a photo of CE 151:
(https://i.vgy.me/ygwvui.png)
And here is a photo of CE 162:
(https://i.vgy.me/J096rO.png)
What I believe happened is that Frazier saw LHO wearing CE 151 on Thursday afternoon and mistakenly thought it was a jacket. It does have a similar appearance when compared with CE 162.
And guess what. It appears that William Whaley made a similar mistake. When shown CE 162, he identified it as what LHO was wearing in Whaley's cab on 11/22/63.
I believe that LHO wore CE 151 to Irving on 11/21 and wore it again to work on Friday 11/22. Linnie Mae said she remembered the shirt as being solid in color vs the pattern of the shirt LHO was arrested in. Brennan saw a light colored shirt on the shooter. And Bledsoe saw a ripped sleeve.
But Frazier didn't identify CE 162 as what LHO was wearing on Thursday afternoon to Irving.
How could he? They never showed CE 162 to him for identification during his testimony.
What I believe happened is that Frazier saw LHO wearing CE 151 on Thursday afternoon and mistakenly thought it was a jacket.
The drive from the TSBD to Irving took at least 20 minutes. Are you really trying to tell me that Frazier would not notice what Oswald, who was sitting next to him, was wearing and would mistake a shirt for a jacket? Really?
And guess what. It appears that William Whaley made a similar mistake. When shown CE 162, he identified it as what LHO was wearing in Whaley's cab on 11/22/63.
Whaley's observation isn't really reliable. He thought Oswald was wearing two jackets (CE 162 and CE 163) when he was wearing none.
Mr. BALL. Here is Commission No. 162 which is a gray jacket with zipper.
Mr. WHALEY. I thank that is the jacket he had on when he rode with me in the cab.
Mr. BALL. Look something like it?
And here is Commission Exhibit No. 163, does this look like anything he had on?
Mr. WHALEY. He had this one on or the other one.
Mr. BALL. That is right.
Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.
So much for Whaley's "identification" of CE 162. And you also kinda failed to mention that Whaley also identified CE 150 as the shirt Oswald was wearing, when - according to you he was actually wearing CE 151. I say again; all this shows is that witness observations are not always 100% correct!
Mr. BALL. I have some clothing here. Commission Exhibit No. 150, does that look like the shirt?
Mr. WHALEY. That is the shirt, sir, it has my initials on it.
Mr. BALL. In other words, this is the shirt the man had on?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; that is the same one the FBI man had me identify.
Mr. BALL. This is the shirt the man had on who took your car at Lamar and Jackson?
Mr. WHALEY. As near as I can recollect as I told him. I said that is the shirt he had on because it had a kind of little stripe in it, light-colored stripe. I noticed that.
Linnie Mae said she remembered the shirt as being solid in color vs the pattern of the shirt LHO was arrested in.
From her testimony it becomes clear she wasn't certain about the shirt at all.
Mr. BALL. How was Lee dressed that morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. He had on a white T-shirt, I just saw him from the waist up, I didn't pay any attention to his pants or anything, when he was going with the package. I was more interested in that. But he had on a white T-shirt and I remember some sort of brown or tan shirt and he had a gray jacket, I believe.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket. I will show you some clothing here. First, I will show you a gray jacket. Does this look anything like the jacket he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. That morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. Similar to that. I didn't pay an awful lot of attention to it.
Mr. BALL. Was it similar in color?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I think so. It had big sleeves.
Mr. BALL. Take a look at these sleeves. Was it similar in color?
Mrs. RANDLE. I believe so.
Mr. BALL. What is the Commission Exhibit on this jacket?
Mrs. RANDLE. It was gray, I am not sure of the shade.
Mr. BALL. 163.
I will show you another shirt which is Commission No. 150.
Does this look anything like the shirt he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well now, I don't remember it being that shade of brown. It could have been but I was looking through the screen and out the window but I don't remember it being exactly that. I thought it was a solid color.
The WC lawyer only showed her CE 150 (Oswald's arrest shirt), but not CE 151, so all Linnie Mae could provide is a vagie recollection.
Brennan saw a light colored shirt on the shooter.
After checking out the link to the fiber photos, I looked into your claim that matching fibers of both CE 150 and CE 151 were found on the rifle. Your claim was incorrect. The FBI only examined one shirt, they marked as C 11. That same marking is mentioned on all the fiber photos. C 11 became Warren Commission Exhibit 150, the shirt Oswald was arrested in. If Brennan saw the killer wearing a light colored shirt fibers from that shirt should have been on the rifle. They were not.
And Bledsoe saw a ripped sleeve.
Again, Bledsoe saw a damaged sleeve on the shirt Oswald was arrested in. I have already shown you her testimony in which she said they brought the shirt to her home. Here it is again.
Mr. BALL - Now, I have got a piece of clothing here, which is marked---
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - Commission Exhibit 150.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - This is a shirt.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Because they brought it out to the house and showed it.
Mr. BALL - I know. What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, because I can recognize it.
Mr. BALL - Recognize it as what?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes, sir; see there?
Mr. BALL - Yes. You tell me what do you see here? What permits you to recognize it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I recognize---first thing I notice the elbow is out and then I saw---when the man brought it out and let me see it?
Mr. BALL - No, I am talking about---I am showing you this shirt now, and you said, "That is it." You mean---What do you mean by "that is it"?
The question is of course how Bledsoe could have seen the damage of the sleeve on CE 150 on the bus, when Oswald wasn't wearing that shirt that morning?
I have a theory about how Bledsoe became aware of the damage to the sleeve, but I won't bother you with it, at least not for now.
I believe that Frazier was shown CE 162 but am not able to look into it right now.
Did you look at the table of contents description? It says CE 151. Could be a typographical error. But I don’t have evidence to say for sure either way.
But Frazier didn't identify CE 162 as what LHO was wearing on Thursday afternoon to Irving.
How could he? They never showed CE 162 to him for identification during his testimony.
What I believe happened is that Frazier saw LHO wearing CE 151 on Thursday afternoon and mistakenly thought it was a jacket.
The drive from the TSBD to Irving took at least 20 minutes. Are you really trying to tell me that Frazier would not notice what Oswald, who was sitting next to him, was wearing and would mistake a shirt for a jacket? Really?
And guess what. It appears that William Whaley made a similar mistake. When shown CE 162, he identified it as what LHO was wearing in Whaley's cab on 11/22/63.
Whaley's observation isn't really reliable. He thought Oswald was wearing two jackets (CE 162 and CE 163) when he was wearing none.
Mr. BALL. Here is Commission No. 162 which is a gray jacket with zipper.
Mr. WHALEY. I thank that is the jacket he had on when he rode with me in the cab.
Mr. BALL. Look something like it?
And here is Commission Exhibit No. 163, does this look like anything he had on?
Mr. WHALEY. He had this one on or the other one.
Mr. BALL. That is right.
Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.
So much for Whaley's "identification" of CE 162. And you also kinda failed to mention that Whaley also identified CE 150 as the shirt Oswald was wearing, when - according to you he was actually wearing CE 151. I say again; all this shows is that witness observations are not always 100% correct!
Mr. BALL. I have some clothing here. Commission Exhibit No. 150, does that look like the shirt?
Mr. WHALEY. That is the shirt, sir, it has my initials on it.
Mr. BALL. In other words, this is the shirt the man had on?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; that is the same one the FBI man had me identify.
Mr. BALL. This is the shirt the man had on who took your car at Lamar and Jackson?
Mr. WHALEY. As near as I can recollect as I told him. I said that is the shirt he had on because it had a kind of little stripe in it, light-colored stripe. I noticed that.
Linnie Mae said she remembered the shirt as being solid in color vs the pattern of the shirt LHO was arrested in.
From her testimony it becomes clear she wasn't certain about the shirt at all.
Mr. BALL. How was Lee dressed that morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. He had on a white T-shirt, I just saw him from the waist up, I didn't pay any attention to his pants or anything, when he was going with the package. I was more interested in that. But he had on a white T-shirt and I remember some sort of brown or tan shirt and he had a gray jacket, I believe.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket. I will show you some clothing here. First, I will show you a gray jacket. Does this look anything like the jacket he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. That morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. Similar to that. I didn't pay an awful lot of attention to it.
Mr. BALL. Was it similar in color?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I think so. It had big sleeves.
Mr. BALL. Take a look at these sleeves. Was it similar in color?
Mrs. RANDLE. I believe so.
Mr. BALL. What is the Commission Exhibit on this jacket?
Mrs. RANDLE. It was gray, I am not sure of the shade.
Mr. BALL. 163.
I will show you another shirt which is Commission No. 150.
Does this look anything like the shirt he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well now, I don't remember it being that shade of brown. It could have been but I was looking through the screen and out the window but I don't remember it being exactly that. I thought it was a solid color.
The WC lawyer only showed her CE 150 (Oswald's arrest shirt), but not CE 151, so all Linnie Mae could provide is a vagie recollection.
Brennan saw a light colored shirt on the shooter.
After checking out the link to the fiber photos, I looked into your claim that matching fibers of both CE 150 and CE 151 were found on the rifle. Your claim was incorrect. The FBI only examined one shirt, they marked as C 11. That same marking is mentioned on all the fiber photos. C 11 became Warren Commission Exhibit 150, the shirt Oswald was arrested in. If Brennan saw the killer wearing a light colored shirt fibers from that shirt should have been on the rifle. They were not.
And Bledsoe saw a ripped sleeve.
Again, Bledsoe saw a damaged sleeve on the shirt Oswald was arrested in. I have already shown you her testimony in which she said they brought the shirt to her home. Here it is again.
Mr. BALL - Now, I have got a piece of clothing here, which is marked---
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - Commission Exhibit 150.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - This is a shirt.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Because they brought it out to the house and showed it.
Mr. BALL - I know. What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, because I can recognize it.
Mr. BALL - Recognize it as what?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes, sir; see there?
Mr. BALL - Yes. You tell me what do you see here? What permits you to recognize it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I recognize---first thing I notice the elbow is out and then I saw---when the man brought it out and let me see it?
Mr. BALL - No, I am talking about---I am showing you this shirt now, and you said, "That is it." You mean---What do you mean by "that is it"?
The question is of course how Bledsoe could have seen the damage of the sleeve on CE 150 on the bus, when Oswald wasn't wearing that shirt that morning?
I have a theory about how Bledsoe became aware of the damage to the sleeve, but I won't bother you with it, at least not for now.
Mr. BALL - Now, I have got a piece of clothing here, which is marked---
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - Commission Exhibit 150.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - This is a shirt.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BMLEDSOE - Because they brought it out to the house and showed it.
Mr. BALL - I know. What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, because I can recognize it.
Mr. BALL - Recognize it as what?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes, sir; see there?
Mr. BALL - Yes. You tell me what do you see here? What permits you to recognize it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I recognize---first thing I notice the elbow is out and then I saw---when the man brought it out and let me see it?
Mr. BALL - No, I am talking about---I am showing you this shirt now, and you said, "That is it." You mean---What do you mean by "that is it"?
The question is of course how Bledsoe could have seen the damage of the sleeve on CE 150 on the bus, when Oswald wasn't wearing that shirt that morning?
How could Lee have removed that shirt in his room and put it in the dresser drawer at 1:00 pm , if he wasn't wearing it???)
I doubt that Mrs Bledsoe saw Lee Oswald on the Mc Watter's bus.....She clearly says that the FBI BROUGHT THE SHIRT ( The shirt from Lee's dresser at the rooming house, NOT the arrest shirt) out to her residence and displayed it to her.
I believe that Frazier was shown CE 162 but am not able to look into it right now.
Well, I did check his entire testimony and CE 162 is not mentioned anywhere. It's one of the reasons why I doubt the WC's actions and findings.
They did a similar thing with Tomlinson. They had a perfect opportunity to get an identification of the bullet now in evidence as CE 399 from the man who actually found it and they never showed it to him when he testified. If fact, they only introduced the bullet into evidence after Tomlinson gave his testimony. And there are more examples of where the WC dropped the ball, either on purpose or due to sheer incompetence.
Did you look at the table of contents description? It says CE 151. Could be a typographical error.
Yes, it does say CE 151, but on the photos themselves all it says is C-11 (which later became CE 150). A typographical error is indeed the most likely explanation.
I believe that Frazier was shown CE 162 but am not able to look into it right now.
Well, I did check his entire testimony and CE 162 is not mentioned anywhere. It's one of the reasons why I doubt the WC's actions and findings.
They did a similar thing with Tomlinson. They had a perfect opportunity to get an identification of the bullet now in evidence as CE 399 from the man who actually found it and they never showed it to him when he testified. If fact, they only introduced the bullet into evidence after Tomlinson gave his testimony. And there are more examples of where the WC dropped the ball, either on purpose or due to sheer incompetence.
Did you look at the table of contents description? It says CE 151. Could be a typographical error.
Yes, it does say CE 151, but on the photos themselves all it says is C-11 (which later became CE 150). A typographical error is indeed the most likely explanation.
Well, I did check his entire testimony and CE 162 is not mentioned anywhere. It's one of the reasons why I doubt the WC's actions and findings.
Did you happen to look at 2H238?
Mr. Ball. Commission Exhibit 162, which can be described for the record as a gray jacket with zipper, have you seen Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. Frazier. No sir; I haven’t.
Now it doesn’t appear that Frazier was shown CE 151. And that is unfortunate.
Yes, it does say CE 151, but on the photos themselves all it says is C-11 (which later became CE 150). A typographical error is indeed the most likely explanation.
Unless you have more evidence than what we can see in the WC document, I submit that it is no more likely than the wrong item number being on the photo. The two shirts in question are still in evidence in the archives. So, there is a way to test them again and compare them to the photos.
I have to disagree, Walt. Ball showed her CE 150 which is in fact the arrest shirt. And that was actually the shirt they brought to her home. But you are right, she couldn't have seen the damage to the sleeve of that shirt on the bus, if Oswald was in fact wearing CE 151 that Friday morning. In her affidavit she only says that she saw Oswald get on and off the bus. There is no mention of the damaged sleeve.
However, in her testimony she says this;
Mr. BALL - When did you first notify the police that you believe you'd seen Oswald?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - When I got home, first thing I did I went next door and told them the President had been shot, and he said, "Why, he has got killed." Well, I turned on the radio--television--and we heard ambulances and going around and there was a little boy came in that room in the back and he turned it on, and we listened and hear about the President, only one I was interested in, so, he went on back to work and they kept talking about this boy Oswald and had on a brown shirt, and all of a sudden, well, I declare, I believe that this was this boy, and his name was Oswald---that is---give me his right name, you know, and so, about an hour my son came home, and I told him and he immediately called the police and told them, because we wanted to do all we could, and so, I went down the next night. He took me down, and I made a statement to them, what kind of---Secret Service man or something down there.
Mr. BALL - Where?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - At the police station.
Mr. BALL - Uh-huh. Now, did you ever see Oswald in a lineup?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No.
Mr. BALL - Never did see Oswald after he was arrested?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Not after he got off the bus; no.
Mr. BALL - But, you looked at the pictures of Oswald?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Showed you the pictures of Oswald?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - The man down at the police station, he had a picture of him with a gun, and said, "Do you recognize him?"
And I said, "Yes; it is Oswald." That is the one that I remember him.
It is somewhat convoluted, but I believe she is saying that she actually recognized Oswald by his name, which was mentioned on the television or radio. She then went down to the police station, where she was shown pictures of Oswald, and that's where she saw the brown shirt (with the damaged sleeve) he was arrested in.
After officers brought the arrest shirt to her home, prior to her testimony, she mixed the identification of Oswald by name with her seeing the damaged sleeve at her home into one (false) recollection of seeing the damaged sleeve on the bus.
It is somewhat convoluted, but I believe she is saying that she actually recognized Oswald by his name, which was mentioned on the television or radio. She then went down to the police station, where she was shown pictures of Oswald, and that's where she saw the brown shirt (with the damaged sleeve) he was arrested in.
After officers brought the arrest shirt to her home, prior to her testimony, she mixed the identification of Oswald by name with her seeing the damaged sleeve at her home into one (false) recollection of seeing the damaged sleeve on the bus.
Martin , I agree that Mrs Bledoe's statements are "convoluted" and a bit confused. ( I believe that she had alzhiemer's)
However even though her statements leave much to be desired with regard to clarification, we can establish a few facts from her statements.
Fact...."about an hour my son came home, and I told him and he immediately called the police and told them, because we wanted to do all we could, and so, I went down the next night. "
Bledsoe is referring to Saturday 11 /23/63 ......Where was the arrest shirt on Saturday 11/23/63?
Answer....The arrest shirt ( CE 150) was in the FBI lab in Wash. DC.
Question...Could Mrs Bledsoe have seen CE 150 on Saturday 11/23/63?
If She saw any shirt at the police station on 11/23/63 it had to have been CE 151 , which was the shirt with the hole in the right sleeve ( CE 151) and that was the shirt that Detective Potts found in Lee's dresser drawer at the rooming house. ( See Pott's exhibit)
There are several photos of Lee after he was dragged from the theater, which show the right sleeve of the shirt he was wearing when he was arrested, and there is NO HOLE in the elbow of that shirt.
If She saw any shirt at the police station on 11/23/63 it had to have been CE 151 , which was the shirt with the hole in the right sleeve ( CE 151) and that was the shirt that Detective Potts found in Lee's dresser drawer at the rooming house. ( See Pott's exhibit)
There are several photos of Lee after he was dragged from the theater, which show the right sleeve of the shirt he was wearing when he was arrested, and there is NO HOLE in the elbow of that shirt.
Bledsoe is referring to Saturday 11 /23/63 ......Where was the arrest shirt on Saturday 11/23/63?
Answer....The arrest shirt ( CE 150) was in the FBI lab in Wash. DC.
Question...Could Mrs Bledsoe have seen CE 150 on Saturday 11/23/63?
You are correct. She couldn't have seen CE 150 on that day and I don't think she did, because if she had she probably would have mentioned it in her affidavit.
I don't think Bledsoe saw any shirt at the police station on 11/23/63. CE 151 was indeed found in Lee's room at the rooming house and Pat Speer seems to think that was the shirt Oswald was wearing on Friday morning, and I agree with him.
This of course provides us with an interesting conundrum because how could fibers matching the shirt Oswald was arrested in (CE 150) be found on the rifle, when Oswald was wearing CE 151 at the TSBD that morning?
I agree. But I have also seen close up photos from the sleeves of CE 151 (on Pat Speer's site)
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence
which show no hole in those sleeves either.
What is possible is that the shirt CE 150 got damaged while being tested by the FBI. In any event, as far as Bledsoe goes, I believe that the first time she saw a hole in the sleeve of CE 150 was when the shirt was brought out to her home.
And then you call me a contrarian!
Check the record. The FBI only tested one shirt. In this case CE 150, the shirt Oswald was arrested in.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Stombaugh, I hand you a photograph which is labeled on the bottom "C 11, Commission Exhibit 150." It is a color photograph of a brownish textured shirt, long-sleeved, with a hole in the right elbow, and I ask you whether you recognize the shirt that is pictured in that photograph?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, I do.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you see your mark anywhere on that?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, my mark is in red, initials "PMS" are in the collar of the shirt.
<>
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive this shirt that is pictured in Exhibit 673, said shirt being Commission Exhibit 150?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I received this shirt the same day I received the blanket, which was November 23, 1963, approximately 7:30 a.m.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you conduct an examination to determine the composition of this shirt?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, I did.
There is no mention of CE 151 or any other shirt in Stombaugh's testimony
The two shirts in question are still in evidence in the archives. So, there is a way to test them again and compare them to the photos.
You won't be able to get near enough to either shirt to do a test and comparing them against photos is a complete waste of time. Besides, Stombaugh's testimony is clear enough.
Pat Speer seems to think that was the shirt Oswald was wearing on Friday morning, and I agree with him.
This of course provides us with an interesting conundrum because how could fibers matching the shirt Oswald was arrested in (CE 150) be found on the rifle, when Oswald was wearing CE 151 at the TSBD that morning?
Pat Speer seems to think that was the shirt Oswald was wearing on Friday morning, and I agree with him.
No, Lee was not wearing CE 150 at the TSBD that morning ..... CE 150 was/is the arrest shirt. CE 151 was the shirt that Lee wore at work that morning, and it is the shirt with the hole in the elbow that Detective Potts found in Lee's dresser drawer.
This of course provides us with an interesting conundrum because how could fibers matching the shirt Oswald was arrested in (CE 150) be found on the rifle, when Oswald was wearing CE 151 at the TSBD that morning?
BINGO!!..... You win a Kewpie doll.... What we havvve heya is a failya of the FBI to cover theyya tracks..... Or more clearly, this is clear evidence that the FBI ( Hoover) was manipulating the evidence .
They said that they had found a tuft of fibers on the butt of the rifle that matched the ARREST SHIRT.....The ONLY way that tuft of fibers could have got on the shirt was AFTER both the shirt and the rifle were in the hands of the authorities.
This is weird. I am using Frazier's testimony on McAdams' site, which is supposed to be verbatim.
However, if you do a page search for 162 nothing comes up but 163 does.....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
Is McAdams site not complete?
There is no mention of CE 151 or any other shirt in Stombaugh's testimony
He wasn’t asked about CE 151. I would like to know whether or not CE 150 had all the different color fibers (including the ones in the photo identified as CE 151 in the table of contents) contained in its fabric.
He wasn't asked about CE 151 because he never examined it. Had he examined it and had he found fibers that matched the fibers found on the rifle, they would have asked him, don't you think?
I take it you're still clinging to the notion that fibers of CE 151 were fact found on the rifle, despite the fact that Stombaugh only examined CE 150? Really?
No clinging, your logic in this instance is probably good. But we still have the conflicting table of contents description.
And the fibers from CE 150 could have been on the rifle butt plate for an indefinite amount of time. And it is possible that the fabric of CE151 doesn’t shed as easily as CE 150. Or, if your contention is true, any of the fibers that might have been found on the rifle from CE 151 were simply left unidentified (due not having that shirt to compare them to).
The point is that the fiber evidence does not exclude CE 151 as the shirt worn by LHO on 11/22/63.
But we still have the conflicting table of contents description.
I'll gladly leave that to you to resolve as for me it's a minor insignificant matter given Stombaugh's testimony
And the fibers from CE 150 could have been on the rifle butt plate for an indefinite amount of time.
Let's be precise here. You can not say that they are fibers from CE 150 as it is impossible to connect a fiber to a particular shirt. At best anyone can say is that the fibers are similar. Having said that, I am not sure if fibers could have been on that rifle for a long period of time, considering the fact that Oswald is supposed to have dismantled to rifle for transportation.
The point is that the fiber evidence does not exclude CE 151 as the shirt worn by LHO on 11/22/63.
Again, if fibers matching those of CE 151 were found on the rifle, we would have known about it. To me, it's a safe bet that only fibers matching those of CE 150 were found on the rifle. But you are correct, that does not exclude CE 151 as the shirt worn by Oswald on Friday morning.
However, as CE 151 was found at Lee's room at the rooming house, it does mean that Oswald changed his shirt, which is something the WC was not willing to say. I actually believe that, given the evidence as we now know it, CE 151 was indeed likely the shirt Oswald was wearing on Friday morning, but that does not mean he was wearing the same shirt the day before.
There is a good color picture of CE 151 (obtained from the National Archive) on Pat Speer's website;
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence
and having seen that, there is no way IMO that Frazier, in natural light, could have mistaken that shirt for a grey jacket.
Btw, by saying that Oswald was wearing CE 151 on Friday morning, you are not only going against the WC's opinion, but you also destroy Bledsoe as a witness and, notwithstanding your speculation, leave the door wide open for the question to be asked why fibers matching those from CE 150 were found on the rifle when Oswald wasn't wearing CE 150 that Friday morning.
Having said that, I am not sure if fibers could have been on that rifle for a long period of time, considering the fact that Oswald is supposed to have dismantled to rifle for transportation.
I cannot imagine that LHO would have dismantled the butt plate from the stock. And if the fibers were wedged between the butt plate and the wooden stock, they could have been there a long long time. (This is an argument that CTs have used against the fibers being evidence of LHO actually firing the weapon on 11/22/63.)
There is a good color picture of CE 151 (obtained from the National Archive) on Pat Speer's website;
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence
and having seen that, there is no way IMO that Frazier, in natural light, could have mistaken that shirt for a grey jacket.
Sorry, but that particular photo of CE 151 is black and white. So are two others in that group of photos. The color photo of CE 150 does show that orange-yellow is a likely color of fiber to come from it. So I am conceding that the table of contents is probably in error.
Mistaking the shirt for a jacket isn’t all about the color only. The argument against this idea now is that, when shown CE 162 Frazier testified that he never saw LHO wearing it. So the idea that he mistook the shirt as a jacket (that didn’t look like CE 162) becomes more likely.
I haven't used that argument because it is pure speculation either way. And it leads to nowhere because fibers can not be matched to a particular source. At best when can be said is that the fibers are similar and that doesn't prove much.
Sorry, but that particular photo of CE 151 is black and white
No, the photo on Pat Speer's site I was talking about is in color and just underneath a black and white photo. Perhaps you should have scrolled a bit further down. There are also two pictures of the sleeves of CE 151. They are not the evidence photos, but photos made for Pat by the National Archive. You'll find them under the caption "Color Blind?
Mistaking the shirt for a jacket isn’t all about the color only. The argument against this idea now is that, when shown CE 162 Frazier testified that he never saw LHO wearing it. So the idea that he mistook the shirt as a jacket (that didn’t look like CE 162) becomes more likely.
I guess you missed it when I added this to my last post;
Mr. BALL - What color was the jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning.
Mr. BALL - Did it have a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was one of the zipper types.
So, yes, Frazier testified he had never seen CE 162 and CE 163, but he did see that the jacket had a zipper and since we know Oswald had only two jackets, it could very well be that Frazier was mistaken when he said he had not seen either jacket before.
No, the photo on Pat Speer's site I was talking about is in color and just underneath a black and white photo. Perhaps you should have scrolled a bit further down. There are also two pictures of the sleeves of CE 151. They are not the evidence photos, but photos made for Pat by the National Archive. You'll find them under the caption "Color Blind?
I finally found the color photos in the Color Blind section. FWIW: my wife is a lot better with colors than I am. Without knowing much of anything about the situation other than it involves the JFK assassination, she says that she believes fibers that could be described as orange-yellow in color could have come from either shirt. And it dawned on me that if Pat Speer's argument that the FBI was trying to show that LHO was wearing CE 150 during the shooting, they might have intentionally avoided bringing up the other fibers and clothing in the WC hearings. Here is an intriguing snippet from Pat Speer's web site:
At the end of the lab report on the shirt and fibers sent the Dallas FBI, an Addendum reads "You should attempt to obtain the remaining items of clothing suspect is believed to have worn during the shooting for comparisons with the other fibers found on the K1 gun." (FBI file 62-109060 Sec 21, p193). As we will see, although the FBI will eventually obtain the rest of Oswald's clothing, there is no record of further tests of Oswald's clothing against these "other" fibers.
Emphasis added by yours truly. At any rate it adds some intrigue and tempts me toward withdrawing my concession regarding the table of contents.
it could very well be that Frazier was mistaken when he said he had not seen either jacket before.
If Linnie Mae is to be believed, you have a point about CE 163.
Without knowing much of anything about the situation other than it involves the JFK assassination, she says that she believes fibers that could be described as orange-yellow in color could have come from either shirt.
Your wife's expertise nothwithstanding, the fibers could actually have come from a multitude of other sources. The evidentiary value of fiber evidence is extremely limited.
And it dawned on me that if Pat Speer's argument that the FBI was trying to show that LHO was wearing CE 150 during the shooting, they might have intentionally avoided bringing up the other fibers and clothing in the WC hearings.
Does this mean that you consider it possible that the FBI manipulated evidence and sometimes withheld crucial information from the Warren Commission?
If Linnie Mae is to be believed, you have a point about CE 163.
And if Frazier's testimony is to be believed about the grey jacket he saw on Thursday evening having a zipper, where does that leave us with regard to Roberts's claim that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a darker than grey jacket?
Does this mean that you consider it possible that the FBI manipulated evidence and sometimes withheld crucial information from the Warren Commission?
I wouldn’t go that far. They (FBI experts) are accustomed to testifying in legal proceedings. And unlike most of the ordinary citizen assassination witnesses, they answer the questions...period; without rambling on, etc. The WC investigators asked the questions, and the FBI was obligated to answer them honestly. But the FBI experts were not obligated to offer information that they were not asked about. And that is what I believe happened in the fiber evidence. They just didn’t offer up any information about fibers that they were not asked about. They believed that LHO was wearing CE 150, had fiber evidence that supports that belief. And didn’t want to muddy up the water. You and I are not immune from presenting our views similarly.
Hang on... The FBI experts were not just witnesses. The WC had no investigators of their own and relied on the FBI to do all the investigative work. In other words, the FBI were not at liberty to withhold any kind of information from the WC.
Obviously, it is true that a witness, any kind of witness for that matter, normally simply answers questions and does not offer any information voluntarily. But when it comes to an investigator that's an entirely different matter. And investigator, or for that matter an investigative body as the FBI, does not have the right to withhold any results from their investigation to a court or, as in this case, a factfinding committee that the WC was supposed to be.
Even worse, if this had been a court case, the FBI would have violated the law by not disclosing all the evidence they had obtained, be it for or against the defendant.
They believed that LHO was wearing CE 150, had fiber evidence that supports that belief. And didn’t want to muddy up the water.
That's the definition of manipulating evidence.
You and I are not immune from presenting our views similarly.
You and I are birds of a different feather. You, as a WC defender, take on the roll as a prosecutor and I, as a WC skeptic, take on the roll of defense counsel. We both can be selective about the evidence we present and emphasize. An investigator does not have that same privilege.
The Warren Commission had authority to investigate in any manner that they deemed necessary. And they often did employ independent experts, interview witnesses themselves, go to the scene of the assassination, etc.
There is a difference between withholding evidence and not volunteering evidence that is not requested.
If the FBI wanted to actually withhold any evidence, chances are that Pat Speer wouldn’t be able to find any correspondence regarding it.
The lawyers working for the Commission took testimony from witnesses, but for the investigation they relied completely on the FBI.
No there isn't. Not for an investigative body as the FBI. As soon as the FBI became the investigators of the WC it was their legal obligation to turn over all the evidence they collected. Otherwise it would be the FBI who determined the outcome of the enquiry and not the Warren Commission.
Sorry, but I'm not sure what your argument is. Are you saying that the FBI would ensure that all records about an investigative result they did not want to share would be destroyed? If so, then I disagree.
The FBI is a massively burocratic institution and their files are normally not open to the public. To get documents from them requires a lot of effort, as is demonstrated by the files of the late Harold Weisberg, who had to file thousands of FOIA's to obtain, mainly heavily redacted, documents. Back in the 60's the FBI had no reason to assume that their files would end up in the public domain as soon as they did. So, there may not exist any documents where one FBI official writes to another "let's just withold this" but the results of their investigations themselves were documented nevertheless. Obviously, if you come across an investigative result that wasn't reported to the WC you have found what Pat has found.
Asking witnesses questions is considered investigating in my book. The Warren Commission requested the FBI to investigate many items that they normally wouldn’t have. And they hired independent experts to verify the FBI’s results whenever they felt the need. The WC did not have their hands tied.
We are talking about two different things. I am referring to the testimony of the experts. And their answering only the questions that are asked during that testimony. The actual written reports that are the results of the investigation should be complete. What we typically discuss here in the forum most often is what is in the testimony.
Nobody said their hands were tied. All I am saying is that the FBI was already investigating the case before the WC was even formed. Hoover even issued a report of his own and wasn't happy that there would be an enquiry by a Presidential Committtee. Nevertheless, as soon as the FBI assumed the role of investigative body for the WC they were under a legal obligation to turn over all the evidence they collected. The mere fact that the WC also used other experts for certain parts of the investigation does not alter that.
During testimony witnesses normally get asked questions to which either the prosecutor or defense already know the answer, as they generate their respective questions based on the evidence the investigators have brought them. Testimony is indeed a different setting as witnesses typically do not volunteer information and only answer the questions asked. That's the advise most lawyers give their witnesses.
However, the FBI, as a Government Agency is held to a different standard. They have to generate evidence but they do not get to decide what evidence is relevant or not. If, for instance, the FBI found evidence of Oswald's innocence and they wouldn't pass that on to the WC, that would be perversion of justice.
So, if the FBI had tested CE 151 for fiber evidence (and found a match) they would have had to inform the WC in advance of the testimony of an expert like Stombaugh. That they did not ask Stombaugh anything about a second shirt (in this case CE 151, which could have tentatively linked Oswald to the rifle on 11/22/63) is IMO a good indicator that no other shirt than CE 150 was tested for fibers.
is IMO a good indicator that no other shirt than CE 150 was tested for fibers.
And some of the things that Pat Speer has on the webpage we have been discussing supports that opinion. I tend to agree.
However, this was not an adversarial court setting where say, a defense attorney would have access to the reports and would try to bring out anything that tended to muddy up the water and create doubt in the minds of the jury members. (This seems to be a big issue to most CTs, but LHO was dead. And there are no provisions for trials for the deceased.) So, the WC hearings are what they are. And if the FBI and/or WC believed that LHO was wearing CE 150 during the shooting, it would be expected that the fibers that matched CE 150 were the only ones that they (like any good prosecuting attorney) would bring out during the expert testimony. Nothing sinister, just typical procedures. In other words the expert isn’t required to start blabbing about anything that he isn’t asked during testimony to the WC. But he is required to furnish complete results in the written reports. The WC was charged with finding the facts and reporting them to the President. It was their duty to read the reports completely and ask the pertinent questions. However, their opinion of which questions are pertinent might be different than ours. But we have had 57-years of researching and second-guessing. The WC had any resource available to them. But they were pressed for time, mostly due to an upcoming election.
if the FBI and/or WC believed that LHO was wearing CE 150 during the shooting, it would be expected that the fibers that matched CE 150 were the only ones that they (like any good prosecuting attorney) would bring out during the expert testimony.
Perhaps you're unaware that virtually ALL of the witnesses who saw a man behind a sixth floor window before and during the shooting reported the man was wear a LIGHT COLORED shirt, ( possible khaki) ....And Lee didn't even own any shirt matching that description. So It doesn't make a damned bit of difference if the fibers match any shirt that Lee owned....The Man behind the window was NOT Lee Oswald.
I referred to Brennan’s description of the shooter and stated that I believe CE 151 might fit the Bill. It is a lighter color than CE 151. And the sun shining into that window and reflecting off of it would tend to accentuate the lighter threads within the fabric. The WC didn’t identify the correct shirt, in my opinion.
Oswald (or whomever was the rifle displayer at the SE window 6th floor TSBD) was not wearing some kind of mask to hide his face during the shooting?
Sticking the rifle farther out of the window than is necessary during the shooting?
Withdrawing the rifle slowly after the last shot heard by ear witnesses?
Not wearing gloves while handling and firing the rifle, thus requiring shooter to wipe off ( and hope he wipes thoroughly enough) any prints left from his bare hands?
A few possible explanation:
1. The shooter is a low IQ , perhaps near retarded person, such as Jack Dougherty
2. The shooter somewhat resembled Oswald in appearance, and was wearing skin tone colored rubber gloves that witnesses mistook as bare hands, while firing an MC rifle.
3. The shooter WAS wearing some kind of mask or stocking making it difficult for Amos Euins and other witness to decide what complexion the shooter was. If so, this shooter was
A. A professional shooter
B. Used a semi auto rifle with good quality scope
C. Pre planted an unfired MC rifle w/defective scope and corroded barrel before the shooting In between 2 walls of boxes( or possibly underneath a palette of boxes as discussed in another thread) .
D. Had an escape plan using east freight elevator, ( or via an access panel to the top of the passenger elevator shaft per Armstrong theory)
E. Stuck the rifle out the window purposely to display it to direct attention to the TSBD 6th floor SE window, and withdrew it slowly after last shot fired for same purpose
Why pre plant an MC rifle apparently unfired , with defective scope?
To Implicate Oswald (because he had become an FBI informant) however, introducie enough doubt that could aid Oswald if arrested( in consideration of past CIA activity in which Oswald was an asset as a spy inserted via the CIA “defector” operation, in which Oswald had provided info about the USSR capability to shoot down U2 spy planes)
Oswald (or whomever was the rifle displayer at the SE window 6th floor TSBD) was not wearing some kind of mask to hide his face during the shooting?
Sticking the rifle farther out of the window than is necessary during the shooting?
Withdrawing the rifle slowly after the last shot heard by ear witnesses?
Not wearing gloves while handling and firing the rifle, thus requiring shooter to wipe off ( and hope he wipes thoroughly enough) any prints left from his bare hands?
A few possible explanation:
1. The shooter is a low IQ , perhaps near retarded person, such as Jack Dougherty
2. The shooter somewhat resembled Oswald in appearance, and was wearing skin tone colored rubber gloves that witnesses mistook as bare hands, while firing an MC rifle.
3. The shooter WAS wearing some kind of mask or stocking making it difficult for Amos Euins and other witness to decide what complexion the shooter was. If so, this shooter was
A. A professional shooter
B. Used a semi auto rifle with good quality scope
C. Pre planted an unfired MC rifle w/defective scope and corroded barrel before the shooting In between 2 walls of boxes( or possibly underneath a palette of boxes as discussed in another thread) .
D. Had an escape plan using east freight elevator, ( or via an access panel to the top of the passenger elevator shaft per Armstrong theory)
E. Stuck the rifle out the window purposely to display it to direct attention to the TSBD 6th floor SE window, and withdrew it slowly after last shot fired for same purpose
Why pre plant an MC rifle apparently unfired , with defective scope?
To Implicate Oswald (because he had become an FBI informant) however, introducie enough doubt that could aid Oswald if arrested( in consideration of past CIA activity in which Oswald was an asset as a spy inserted via the CIA “defector” operation, in which Oswald had provided info about the USSR capability to shoot down U2 spy planes)
On this we agree. I do believe that Oswald was wearing CE 151 on Friday morning and later changed that shirt for CE 150 at the rooming house.
In addition, it is also my opinion that the FBI dropped the ball on the shirt issue, by not testing the shirt CE 150 for gunpowder residue.
I know it is only conjecture, but the rather large tear in the back side left sleeve of CE 151 that can be seen in the WC photo suggests to me a couple of things.
1. Most of us would not want to wear a shirt with that size tear in it. Even if it was only to work in a warehouse. It would bother me, not only the appearance, but I would be aware of it from the feeling of a partially exposed arm, I am reasonably sure.
2. LHO told Fritz that he changed shirts when he went to the rooming house the afternoon of 11/22/63. This, to me, is evidence that the tear did bother LHO, along with it being dirty (as he told Fritz).
3. Due to #1 & #2 above, it seems reasonable to me that LHO most likely ripped the sleeve while wearing it on 11/22/63. Otherwise, I don’t believe that he would have donned it to wear to work knowing it had such a large tear in the sleeve.
Also, I believe that I read (probably on Pat Speers’ webpage) that someone described the pants (that they believed LHO was wearing and changed out of at the rooming house) as dirty and looking like they had been slept in. Just another reason to believe that he wore the same pants and shirt on Friday, 11/22/63, as he did the previous day, Thursday. I wonder if the evidence that belonged to LHO that was collected at the Paine’s residence included any clothes suitable for LHO to wear to work at the warehouse. If it didn’t, that would be a good reason for him to wear the same clothes both days.
I know it is only conjecture, but the rather large tear in the back side left sleeve of CE 151 that can be seen in the WC photo suggests to me a couple of things.
Perhaps I am just missing something or maybe I am just looking at the wrong WC photo, but I don't see a large tear in the sleeves.
On Pat Speers website there are color photos of both sleeves of CE 151 and no tear is visible there either.
But let's suppose your speculation is correct, where does that leave Bledsoe? Her testimony indicates that she recognized CE 150 as the shirt Oswald was wearing on the bus, when it was in fact the shirt he was arrested in. If Oswald was indeed wearing CE 151 on the bus, Bledsoe could have seen the tear (if there was one) on that shirt, but that begs the question why she indentified CE 150 as the one she had seen.
My suggestion would be that Bledsoe never saw a hole in a sleeve on the bus, and here is why;
Earlier I have already posted testimony in which Bledsoe clearly indicates that she heard Oswald’s name on the radio as well as that he was wearing a brown shirt. Obviously, she must be talking about media reports after Oswald’s arrest. She also confirms she was shown photos of Oswald at the police station when she was there for her affidavit. She also indicated that she recognized CE 150 as the shirt the officers brought to her home, prior to her testimony, for identifcation and that the shirt she saw had a hole in it. Photos of Oswald after his arrest show no hole when he was still wearing the shirt!
But IMO the most telling part of her testimony is this;
Mr. BALL - Had you ever seen the shirt before that?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well---
Mr. BALL - Have you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; he had it on, though.
Mr. BALL - Who had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald.
Mr. BALL - Oswald had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald had it on.
Mr. BALL - Now, what is there about the shirt that makes you believe that this is the shirt that Oswald had on when he was on the bus? What is there about it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, let's see the front of it. Yes see all this [indicating]? I remember that.
Mr. BALL - Tell me what you see there?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I saw the---no; not so much that. It was done after---that is part I recognize more than anything.
Mr. BALL - You are pointing to a hole in the right elbow?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - What about the color?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, I---What do you mean?
Mr. BALL - Well----
Mrs. BLEDSOE - When he had it on?
Mr. BALL - Yes.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Before he was shot? Yes; I remember it being brown.
Initially, Bledsoe is clearly not sure when she saw Oswald in this shirt, but she then believes seeing him in this shirt, not on the bus, but instead “before he was shot”.
IMO, it can not be ruled out that Bledsoe really had no idea what Oswald was wearing on the bus, if she actually did see him on the bus. Prior to her testimony, she had heard on the radio about a brown shirt, she had been shown a brown shirt and she may even have seen Oswald on television wearing the shirt, the day before he was shot!. She may well have fallen back on this knowledge during her testimony.
I know it is only conjecture, but the rather large tear in the back side left sleeve of CE 151 that can be seen in the WC photo suggests to me a couple of things.
Perhaps I am just missing something or maybe I am just looking at the wrong WC photo, but I don't see a large tear in the sleeves.
On Pat Speers website there are color photos of both sleeves of CE 151 and no tear is visible there either.
But let's suppose your speculation is correct, where does that leave Bledsoe? Her testimony indicates that she recognized CE 150 as the shirt Oswald was wearing on the bus, when it was in fact the shirt he was arrested in. If Oswald was indeed wearing CE 151 on the bus, Bledsoe could have seen the tear (if there was one) on that shirt, but that begs the question why she indentified CE 150 as the one she had seen.
My suggestion would be that Bledsoe never saw a hole in a sleeve on the bus, and here is why;
Earlier I have already posted testimony in which Bledsoe clearly indicates that she heard Oswald’s name on the radio as well as that he was wearing a brown shirt. Obviously, she must be talking about media reports after Oswald’s arrest. She also confirms she was shown photos of Oswald at the police station when she was there for her affidavit. She also indicated that she recognized CE 150 as the shirt the officers brought to her home, prior to her testimony, for identifcation and that the shirt she saw had a hole in it. Photos of Oswald after his arrest show no hole when he was still wearing the shirt!
But IMO the most telling part of her testimony is this;
Mr. BALL - Had you ever seen the shirt before that?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well---
Mr. BALL - Have you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; he had it on, though.
Mr. BALL - Who had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald.
Mr. BALL - Oswald had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald had it on.
Mr. BALL - Now, what is there about the shirt that makes you believe that this is the shirt that Oswald had on when he was on the bus? What is there about it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, let's see the front of it. Yes see all this [indicating]? I remember that.
Mr. BALL - Tell me what you see there?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I saw the---no; not so much that. It was done after---that is part I recognize more than anything.
Mr. BALL - You are pointing to a hole in the right elbow?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - What about the color?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, I---What do you mean?
Mr. BALL - Well----
Mrs. BLEDSOE - When he had it on?
Mr. BALL - Yes.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Before he was shot? Yes; I remember it being brown.
Initially, Bledsoe is clearly not sure when she saw Oswald in this shirt, but she then believes seeing him in this shirt, not on the bus, but instead “before he was shot”.
IMO, it can not be ruled out that Bledsoe really had no idea what Oswald was wearing on the bus, if she actually did see him on the bus. Prior to her testimony, she had heard on the radio about a brown shirt, she had been shown a brown shirt and she may even have seen Oswald on television wearing the shirt, the day before he was shot!. She may well have fallen back on this knowledge during her testimony.
IMO, it can not be ruled out that Bledsoe really had no idea what Oswald was wearing on the bus, if she actually did see him on the bus. Prior to her testimony, she had heard on the radio about a brown shirt, she had been shown a brown shirt and she may even have seen Oswald on television wearing the shirt, the day before he was shot!. She may well have fallen back on this knowledge during her testimony.
The "investigators" ( conspirators) determined Bledsoe was on Cecil Mc Watter's bus.....But Cecil Mc watter's said that he had mistaken another young man for Lee Oswald and therefore Lee may not have been on Mc Watter's bus at all. Mary Bledsoe said that she was on a bus ( she referred to it as a "car" as in street car, as many old timers did) that passed through the intersection of Houston and Elm AFTER the yellow barricade tapes were up around the TSBD . She said she looked up toward the window where the shooting had happened, and she saw the police taking the assassin away in handcuffs.
If she wasn't simply making up a story..... Then she was on a bus that passed through the intersection AFTER 1:00 pm and obviously she could not have seen Lee Oswald on that bus because it has been established that Lee was at his rooming house at 1:00 pm.
Bledsoe’s accounts appears to me to be some of the least reliable of what is generally accepted as unreliable witness accounts. I say that because some of her language and the situations she describes make her appear to be more than a little unstable. Therefore I wouldn’t hang my hat on anything she says without some good corroborating evidence.
The large tear in the left sleeve of CE 151 appears just above the elbow in the WC photo. It appears to me that the color photo that Pat Speer has on his webpage has that sleeve turned such that the tear is hidden underneath. I say that because the button on the left cuff is positioned differently. And that is the way it appears to me.
That would be a short thread because nobody denies that Oswald carried a revolver when he was arrested
> Iacoletti
I'm just now seeing this, and I'll confirm it. It is indisputable that there was no revolver in Oswald's possession when he was arrested. He was arrested after his struggle with McDonald and after the time that Bob Carroll grabbed a gun out of somebody's (he didn't know who) hand.
Sorry Charles, I overlooked your post
I will check out the photographic evidence one more time and then respond
Earlier I have already posted testimony in which Bledsoe clearly indicates that she heard Oswald’s name on the radio as well as that he was wearing a brown shirt. Obviously, she must be talking about media reports after Oswald’s arrest. She also confirms she was shown photos of Oswald at the police station when she was there for her affidavit. She also indicated that she recognized CE 150 as the shirt the officers brought to her home, prior to her testimony, for identifcation and that the shirt she saw had a hole in it.
That's the point I was trying to make to Richard Smith, but it went way over his head.
Members of the DPD confirmed that Oswald had a pistol when arrested. There is a photo of it being carried out of the TT. Oswald admitted he had a pistol when arrested. But you suggest it somehow mysteriously appeared later. And then deny you are a CTer? How do you reconcile suggesting that all these folks lied to implicate Oswald and framed him - including apparently Oswald himself - with any narrative that does not entail a conspiracy?
If you are looking at the WC photo of CE 151, there is a button hole on the pocket flap over the left pocket. Go horizontally from there to the left sleeve. The rip is a large one that is gaped open as if they were trying to display the rip. There doesn’t appear to be a lot of fraying. So that supports my idea that it is a fairly new rip.
There's also this:
Mr. BALL - But, before you go into that, I notice you have been reading from some notes before you.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, because I forget what I have to say.
There's also this:
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, because I forget what I have to say.
Mr. BALL - When did you make those notes?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - What day did I make them?
Miss DOUTHIT - When Mr. Sorrels and I were talking about her going to Washington, he made the suggestion that she put all the things down on paper because she might forget something, and I said, "Mary, you put everything on a piece of paper so that you can remember it and you won't forget anything, you know, what happened," and that's when she started making notes.
Charles, Does the shirt have a "Button down collar"? Lee said that the shirt he wore home ( the rooming house) from the TSBD had a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR.... And Detective Potts found a dirty shirt with a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR in the dresser in Lee's room at the rooming house.
Well, that didn't really work out, as she seems to be very confused during her testimony, despite of the notes. Maybe the instructions were too difficult for her....
A lot of things go over Lying "Richard's" head. For example this unadulterated BS:
- What "members of the DPD"? The only cop who was in a position to see a gun in Oswald's waistband when he was approached (not when he was arrested) was McDonald. Everything else was hearsay.
- There is a photo of somebody holding a gun outside the TT, but "Richard" can't legitimately claim that this was ever in Oswald's possession or that it is CE 143.
- We don't know what Oswald "admitted". All we know is what Fritz claimed after the fact. Either way, that tell you nothing about CE 143.
Well, that didn't really work out, as she seems to be very confused during her testimony, despite of the notes. Maybe the instructions were too difficult for her....
'Everything else was hearsay'
>>> And McDonald saw/said
I drew a couple of arrows to indicate the rips in the left sleeve:
(https://i.vgy.me/slXEmy.jpg)
The upper one is a straight rip. It appears to me that, in that area, the outer portion of the sleeve is folded over the rest of the sleeve.
The lower rip appears to be a large ragged edge rip. The arrow is pointing to the upper right portion of the rip, which extends several inches down towards the cuff.
If LHO was wearing this shirt and sat on the bus in one of the seats on the right side of the bus, Bledsoe (sitting behind) could have easily noticed these rips.
And here is a potential cause of the rips in the left sleeve:
(https://i.vgy.me/4pIONy.jpg)
The red arrow points to a coupling, with set screws, in the conduit at about the same elevation of the upper arm of a shooter sitting in the sniper's nest.
I'm having a hard time trying to see the rip on that photo, but let's assume you are right and it is there. Let's further assume that the rip was indeed caused by the coupling on the pipe at the sniper's nest. Wouldn't there be fibers attached to the coupling?
Possibly, but not necessarily, (in my opinion). If Sherlock Holmes had been there with a very powerful magnifying glass, he might have found some. But as far as I know that coupling wasn’t searched for fibers. And there could be some small fibers there (that we cannot see in the photo) when that photo was taken.
Whether my hypothesis is correct or not isn’t critical to the case. I just believe that it is possible.
Talk about CT's grasping at straws!
This is a really shallow and silly attempt to tie Lee Oswald to the staged "crime scene"..... I'd bet that you also believe the moon could be made of cheddar cheese.
'Everything else was hearsay'
>>> And McDonald saw/said
Talk about CT's grasping at straws!
This is a really shallow and silly attempt to tie Lee Oswald to the staged "crime scene"..... I'd bet that you also believe the moon could be made of cheddar cheese.
Nobody is grasping at straws here, Walt. Least of all CT's because what is being discussed is Oswald wearing a different shirt on Friday morning than the one he was arrested in.
In other words; there is a shirt Oswald had on in the morning for which no matching fibers are ever found at the sniper's nest and there is a shirt Oswald was arrested in, after changing his clothes, for which the FBI claims to have found matching fibers (whatever that exactly means) on the rifle found at the TSBD.
At best there's something very weird here.... at worst, well do the math.
Regardless, if the fibers come from Oswald's shirt - even if you don't think it was he one he wore that morning - it still links him to the rifle.
But the shirt fibers are just a cherry on top of Oswald's sundae of guilt.
He left his rifle at the murder scene.
He lied about owing the rifle and offered no explanation for it to have been found in the TSBD.
He fled the scene.
Murdered a cop within an hour.
That cooks his goose a thousand times over without the fibers. All the other evidence against him just confirms the obvious.
Bledsoe indicated that the shirt Oswald was wearing on the bus just after the assassination had the hole in it and the bus transfer was found in the pocket of that shirt. So the arrest shirt is most likely the same one that he had on that morning. Regardless, if the fibers come from Oswald's shirt - even if you don't think it was he one he wore that morning - it still links him to the rifle. In that scenario, they just got on his rifle at some earlier time. The importance is that - like all evidence in this case - it points to Oswald. But the shirt fibers are just a cherry on top of Oswald's sundae of guilt. He left his rifle at the murder scene. He lied about owing the rifle and offered no explanation for it to have been found in the TSBD. He fled the scene. Murdered a cop within an hour. That cooks his goose a thousand times over without the fibers. All the other evidence against him just confirms the obvious.
Where do you lot get the idea that the tear/hole was in the left sleeve?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Hole in his sleeve right here [indicating].
Mr. BALL - Which is the elbow of the sleeve? That is, you pointed to
the elbow?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, it is.
Mr. BALL - And that would be which elbow, right or left elbow?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Right.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9MHB1qfZ/oswald-sleeve-hole.png)
The hole might have increased size during the TT fisticuffs
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Hole in his sleeve right here [indicating].
Mr. BALL - Which is the elbow of the sleeve? That is, you pointed to
the elbow?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, it is.
Mr. BALL - And that would be which elbow, right or left elbow?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Right.
Nobody disputes that Bledsoe saw a hole on the right sleeve, but that was not before she was shown the shirt at her home. In her affidavit she says nothing about the hole or the shirt.
The photo you have posted was taken between Oswald's arrest on Friday afternoon and the transport of evidence to the FBI around midnight that same day. So, where in the photo can the hole be seen?
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Mrs. Mary E. Bledsoe, w/f 67, 621 N. Marsalis, Dallas, Texas, Telephone WH2-1985 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Last Friday, November 22, 1963, I went downtown to see the President. I stood on Main Street just across the street from Titche's until the parade passed by. The I walked over to Elm Street and caught a bus to go home. The bus traveled West on Elm Street to about Murphy Street and made a stop and that is when I saw Lee Oswald get on the bus. The traffic was heavy and it took quite sometime [sic] to travel two or three blocks. During that time someone made the statement that the President had been shot and while the bus was stopped due to the heavy traffic, Oswald got off the bus and I didn't see him again. I know this man was Lee Oswald because he lived in my home from October 7, 1963 to October 14, 1963.
/s/ Mrs. Mary E. Bledsoe
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 23rd DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
I can't find anything in her statement that indicates to me that she was attempting to get into more detail. Its a statement ffs, not full testimony
Are you suggesting she had a reason to lie?
It's arguable that the hole or tear is revealed is this image
It could be that the hole was folded over to face front (on the right sleeve)
(https://i.postimg.cc/hPL49njL/sleeve-hole-shirt.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/TwJTMqDK/large-150-right-sleeve-tear-003.png)
Oswald was wearing the shirt when he was arrested. It was sent to Washington around midnight that same day.
I have looked at all the photos I could find of Oswald wearing the shirt between those times and there isn't one that shows the hole that Bledsoe claimed to have seen on the bus.
So, what happened?
(https://i.postimg.cc/hPL49njL/sleeve-hole-shirt.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/TwJTMqDK/large-150-right-sleeve-tear-003.png)
Lee said that the shirt he took off and left in his dresser drawer at the rooming house had a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR .....And the shirt that Detective Potts found in a dresser drawer in Lee's room had a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR... Does the shirt in the photo have a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR????
What's your point, Walt?
The shirt in the photograph is CE 150, the shirt Oswald was wearing when he was arrested.
It is not the button down collar shirt (CE 151) that he was wearing at the TSBD prior to the assassination.
Thank you Martin, IF ( I repeat IF) That is the arrest shirt....Then someone ripped the right sleeve at the elbow , because there was NO HOLE in the sleeve when Lee was "escorted" in hand cuffs into the police station at about 2:30 that afternoon....
Yes, this is the arrest shirt. There's no doubt about that, but as I have already said, I've looked at as many photos of Oswald wearing the shirt after his arrest (until Friday evening) I could find and none of them show a hole in the sleeve.
Bledsoe indicated that the shirt Oswald was wearing on the bus just after the assassination had the hole in it and the bus transfer was found in the pocket of that shirt. So the arrest shirt is most likely the same one that he had on that morning. Regardless, if the fibers come from Oswald's shirt - even if you don't think it was he one he wore that morning - it still links him to the rifle. In that scenario, they just got on his rifle at some earlier time. The importance is that - like all evidence in this case - it points to Oswald. But the shirt fibers are just a cherry on top of Oswald's sundae of guilt. He left his rifle at the murder scene. He lied about owing the rifle and offered no explanation for it to have been found in the TSBD. He fled the scene. Murdered a cop within an hour. That cooks his goose a thousand times over without the fibers. All the other evidence against him just confirms the obvious.
Oswald was wearing the shirt when he was arrested. It was sent to Washington around midnight that same day.
I have looked at all the photos I could find of Oswald wearing the shirt between those times and there isn't one that shows the hole that Bledsoe claimed to have seen on the bus.
So, what happened?
'So what happened?'
>>> Oswald shot Tippit and probably shot Kennedy
When it gets right down to the real nitty-gritty, Oswald shot Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Yes, some kook doesn't see the hole in a grainy B&W film or picture and his conclusion is that it was not there! And by implication everyone is a liar or involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald even though this contrarian refuses to admit he is a CTer. Wow. I've seen the shirt in person. And the hole is difficult to notice.
I've seen the shirt as well, and the hole is there and not difficult to notice at all. You are lying again, as per usual.
The hole wasn't there on 11/22/63, when Oswald was arrested and I challenge you to find one picture, out of the many that exist from that day, that actually shows the hole. With so many photos having been taken that day, there should at least be one that shows the hole, right?
Hey, a LN who can't explain a contradiction between the actual evidence and a claim of a WC witness.... Now, where have I seen that before?
Pay attention: Bledsoe described what she saw
Booyah
She also described where she saw it; at her house, when they brought the (wrong) shirt to her, prior to her testimony.
And although she made notes to keep her story straight, she still messed it up in her testimony.
Booyah
Mr. BALL - How close did he pass to you as he boarded the bus?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Just in front of me. Just like this [indicating].
Mr. BALL - Just a matter of a foot or two?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Uh-huh.Close enough to notice a hole. Booyah.
Or, alternatively, some LN nut can't see the hole in any picture and his mindless conclusion is that it was there nevertheless!
I've seen the shirt as well, and the hole is there and not difficult to notice at all. You are lying again, as per usual.
The hole wasn't there on 11/22/63, when Oswald was arrested and I challenge you to find one picture, out of the many that exist from that day, that actually shows the hole. With so many photos having been taken that day, there should at least be one that shows the hole, right?
Yes, random people were in on the plot! With important roles like saying Oswald had a hole in his shirt! These folks lied and the evidence was faked for some unknown reason that we are left to figure out for ourselves since you are not a CTer right? LOL The contrarian strikes again. You should be embarrassed.
She says she saw him on the bus (McWatters wasn't so sure), so what?
During her testimony she recognized the shirt from when they brought it to her home;
Mr. BALL - This is a shirt.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BMLEDSOE - Because they brought it out to the house and showed it.
Mr. BALL - I know. What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, because I can recognize it.
Mr. BALL - Recognize it as what?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes, sir; see there?
Mr. BALL - Yes. You tell me what do you see here? What permits you to recognize it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I recognize---first thing I notice the elbow is out and then I saw---when the man brought it out and let me see it?
Mr. BALL - No, I am talking about---I am showing you this shirt now, and you said, "That is it." You mean---What do you mean by "that is it"?She noticed the hole when they brought the shirt to her home. Booyah.
Btw.. in her affidavit she only mentions seeing Oswald on a bus. Not a word about a hole in a sleeve! Go figure
Yes, random people were in on the plot! With important roles like saying Oswald had a hole in his shirt! These folks lied and the evidence was faked for some unknown reason that we are left to figure out for ourselves since you are not a CTer right? LOL The contrarian strikes again. You should be embarrassed.
She knew Oswald: He roomed at her house for a week. She saw him get on the bus. She recognized the shirt shown to her afterward as the one she saw Oswald wearing on the bus. 'First thing I notice' has to mean about Oswald as he got on the bus
'Btw.. in her affidavit she only mentions seeing Oswald on a bus. Not a word about a hole in a sleeve! Go figure'
>>> I did:"Affidavits are not Q&A sessions. They usually turn out to be shorthand versions of upcoming testimony: A quick sketch, a snapshot of the overall picture.. with details to be fleshed out later"--- Bill Chapman, December 08, 2020
.
Quote #476 Weidmann
“Ever tried to get complete and accurate information, in one go*, from an elderly person before? It's nearly impossible”
« Last Edit: December 12, 2020, 04:46:07 AM by Martin Weidmann »
That confirms my point made Dec08 (above)
*My emphasis
MT: Jimmy Burt and Frank Cimino are two other witnesses at the scene who were not called by the WC. They have something else in common with Bowley: they said they showed up too late to see either the shooting or the escaping perp. It wouldn't be surprising that they wouldn't be called to testify to a crime that they did not actually witness.Reread this phrase from the second sentence: "they showed up too late to see either the shooting or the escaping perp." I actually put some consideration as to the wording of the sentence after that one, with regard to specifically add a reference to not being able to see the fleeing gunman. In the end, I figured anyone reading it would be able to put two and two together easily enough. While no ne else seems to have missed out on the connection, it apparently sailed right by you without notice. So in light of this deficiency, let me rephrase my earlier statement for the sake of mutual understanding: "It wouldn't be surprising that they wouldn't be called to testify to a crime when they did not actually witness the crime or the fleeing perpetrator of that crime." Callaway, Reynolds, and Guinyard were called because they could testify to seeing an armed man fleeing the scene of a murder, even if they didn't witness the act itself. Callaway, in particular, identified Lee Harvey Oswald as that man. In contrast, Bowley, Burt, and Cimino arrived too late to see the killing and the subsequent flight of the shooter. As such, they had nothing probative to add to the record, and were not called to testify. That's not a surprising turn of events, unless you desperately want it to be.
They called Callaway, Guinyard and Reynolds, who didn't actually witness a crime and only saw a man running down the street and they had no way of knowing who he was. Besides, it was Bowley who called the dispatcher and helped Callaway to put Tippit in the ambulance. He would have been a far more valuable witness that Burt and Cimino.
You never knew when your watch was five minutes slow and the other guy's was five minutes fast.The "police time" bit is what exactly the what I was getting at. Your problem is, there is also a "Markham time" problem, a "Bowley time" problem, a "Davenport time" problem, etc, and no expectation that any of them would conform more closely to some standard reference clock than "police time." And there are those pesky accounts that you haven't mentioned, like the FBI interview where Dr Liguori says he declared Tippit DOA at 1:25 (and it's helpful to realize that "time of death" is not necessarily the same as "time declared dead.") What you've done is to try and center everything around up Markham's 1:06 estimate in order to show that the DPD recording is an anomaly, when the same data can just as easily be used to argue that the Markham timeline is actual outlier by starting with a different time stamp.
Really? And what about if it meant missing your daily bus to work or being late for picking up your daughter from school?
Besides, individual time estimates are not even the issue here. The time line I have presented earlier is a combination and sequence of events that all relate to and corroborate each other.
1. Markham arriving at 10th street and seeing Tippit get killed
2. Bowley arriving at 10th street just after Tippit was killed and working the radio
3. Callaway arriving at 10th street and seeing Bowley working the radio
4. Callaway and Bowley helping to put Tippit in the ambulance
5. Tippit being declared DOA at Methodist Hospital at 1.15
6. Detective Davenport confirming the DOA at 1.15
Markham said she left home just after 1pm. She only needed to walk one block to get to 10th street. Her own estimate was 1.06. Allow two minutes for the one block walk and you get her to 10th street at 1.08. She sees Tippit get shot.
Bowley said in his affidavit that when he arrived at the crime scene he saw the officer lying in the street and looked at his watch, which said 1.10. That is corroboration that Markham was indeed at 10th street prior to 1.10. .... and so on.
When you move Markham's timeline, you also need to move all others and that's what you can't do. All you can do is dismiss it out of hand, which is what LNs always do when confronted with evidence they can't explain. Rather than dealing with the entire time line honestly, it's far easier for the LNs to simply dismiss it all because time estimates are not 100% reliable.
It's ironic though that those same LNs place the timing of Tippit's murder at 1.14 or 1.15 solely based upon times mentioned in the transcripts of the DPD radio, when the man in charge of those dispatchers is on record to the HSCA saying that the times given on the recordings/transcripts are "police time" and not real time.
Reread this phrase from the second sentence: "they showed up too late to see either the shooting or the escaping perp." I actually put some consideration as to the wording of the sentence after that one, with regard to specifically add a reference to not being able to see the fleeing gunman. In the end, I figured anyone reading it would be able to put two and two together easily enough. While no ne else seems to have missed out on the connection, it apparently sailed right by you without notice. So in light of this deficiency, let me rephrase my earlier statement for the sake of mutual understanding: "It wouldn't be surprising that they wouldn't be called to testify to a crime when they did not actually witness the crime or the fleeing perpetrator of that crime." Callaway, Reynolds, and Guinyard were called because they could testify to seeing an armed man fleeing the scene of a murder, even if they didn't witness the act itself. Callaway, in particular, identified Lee Harvey Oswald as that man. In contrast, Bowley, Burt, and Cimino arrived too late to see the killing and the subsequent flight of the shooter. As such, they had nothing probative to add to the record, and were not called to testify. That's not a surprising turn of events, unless you desperately want it to be.
Now, you would have us believe that Bowley's testimony would necessarily have been useful because he used Tippit's car radio to call in the shooting, and that Bowley helped load Tippit into the ambulance. Bowley's call from the radio in Car 10 is immortalized on the channel one dictabelt recording, nestled with any number time stamps useful to place when that radio call was made. With the dictabelt, there's no need to know what time Bowley thought it was. The latter assertion reagrding the ambulancing of J D Tippit is nothing more than a useless Whiskey Tango Foxtrot attractor. How would answering the question, "who manned the ambulance detail?" move the case even a hair's breadth closer to solution?
The "police time" bit is what exactly the what I was getting at. Your problem is, there is also a "Markham time" problem, a "Bowley time" problem, a "Davenport time" problem, etc, and no expectation that any of them would conform more closely to some standard reference clock than "police time."
And there are those pesky accounts that you haven't mentioned, like the FBI interview where Dr Liguori says he declared Tippit DOA at 1:25 (and it's helpful to realize that "time of death" is not necessarily the same as "time declared dead.")
What you've done is to try and center everything around up Markham's 1:06 estimate in order to show that the DPD recording is an anomaly, when the same data can just as easily be used to argue that the Markham timeline is actual outlier by starting with a different time stamp.
She knew Oswald: He roomed at her house for a week. She saw him get on the bus. She recognized the shirt shown to her afterward as the one she saw Oswald wearing on the bus. 'First thing I notice' has to mean about Oswald as he got on the bus
No. It was the first thing she noticed when they brought the shirt to her home.
>>> I did:"Affidavits are not Q&A sessions. They usually turn out to be shorthand versions of upcoming testimony: A quick sketch, a snapshot of the overall picture.. with details to be fleshed out later"--- Bill Chapman, December 08, 2020
That's true. Affidavits are often just a short version of what the person actually said, but they do live a life of their own afterwards, which is exactly why lawyers always recommend to their clients not to give formal statements to the police. Say something not 100% correct, or not 100% correctly recorded, or omit something and it might come back to haunt you.
Having said that, as Bledsoe did not mention the shirt at all, in her affidavit, what do you think caused the investigators to bring Oswald's arrest shirt to Bledsoe's house prior to her testimony? Can you provide a good reason for that?
And 'round and 'roundweyou go. Stop stepping on your own tongue: Read your own post#476
FFS
And there are those pesky accounts that you haven't mentioned, like the FBI interview where Dr Liguori says he declared Tippit DOA at 1:25 (and it's helpful to realize that "time of death" is not necessarily the same as "time declared dead.") What you've done is to try and center everything around up Markham's 1:06 estimate in order to show that the DPD recording is an anomaly, when the same data can just as easily be used to argue that the Markham timeline is actual outlier by starting with a different time stamp.
I hadn't heard of this FBI report before. This changes things and undermines Helen Markhams account, though not entirely.
Well, when you are having difficulty understanding it the first time, all I can do is try to explain it to you again and again and again
An affidavit is not a full testimony. Period. Full stop.
Let's try this again; the shirt and the hole in the sleeve are not mentioned in Bledsoe's affidavit.
So, what do you think caused the investigators to bring Oswald's arrest shirt to Bledsoe's house prior to her testimony? Can you provide a good reason for that?
The shirt and the hole in the sleeve are not mentioned in Bledsoe's affidavit
>>> Neither were his shoes.
So, what do you think caused the investigators to bring Oswald's arrest shirt to Bledsoe's house prior to her testimony? Can you provide a good reason for that?
>>> Because she hadn't mentioned it in her shorthand version of her later full testimony. Btw, materials used to refresh recollection are admissible as evidence.
How did Mrs Bledsoe see a hole in the elbow of the shirt when Oswald was wearing a jacket?
Irrelevant
You are not making sense. If you mean by "shorthand version" her affidavit, she had indeed not mentioned it. So, what reason did they have to assume that the shirt, and nothing else, could refresh her recollection?
And yes, materials used to refresh recollection are admissible at trial, in some cases, but witness manipulation of influencing prior to testimony is a criminal offence.
So, let's try it again, but in a perhaps easier way for you to understand; if I don't tell you about seeing a shirt, what reason would you have to come to my house to show me a shirt and ask me if I recognize it?
Show us where I said the 'shorthand version affidavit'
An affidavit is the shorthand version of a full testimony
And are you sure you're fully aware of the nature of the WC mandate?
So, let's try it again, but in a perhaps easier way for you to understand; if I don't tell you about seeing a shirt, what reason would you have to come to my house to show me a shirt and ask me if I recognize it?
-----------------------------------
CONSPIRACY BUFF STANDARDS
FOR MARY BLEDSOE AFFIDAVIT
------------------------------------
"Last Friday, November 22, 1963, I went downtown to see the President. I stood on Main Street just across the street from Titche's until the parade passed by. I was looking for men who had holes in their shirts. Then I walked over to Elm Street and caught a bus to go home. The bus traveled West on Elm Street to about Murphy Street and made a stop and that is when I saw Lee Oswald get on the bus. He had a hole his shirt. I didn’t recognize him ay first because his face was contorted and he wasn’t quite as creepy-looking back then.(Well not unless you tried to talk to him). The traffic was heavy and it took quite sometime [sic] to travel two or three blocks. Oswald still had the hole in his shirt. During that time someone made the statement that the President had been shot and while the bus was stopped due to the heavy traffic, Oswald (who still had the hole in his shirt) got off the bus and I didn't see him again. I know this man was Lee Oswald because he lived in my home from October 7, 1963 to October 14, 1963."
So, let's try it again, but in a perhaps easier way for you to understand; if I don't tell you about seeing a shirt, what reason would you have to come to my house to show me a shirt and ask me if I recognize it?
Show us where I said the 'shorthand version affidavit'
Do you understand what is written? I asked; If you mean by "shorthand version" her affidavit
An affidavit is the shorthand version of a full testimony
No it isn't. An affidavit is a statement under oath to a notary public. It may or may not be expanded upon during testimony, but it most certainly isn't the "shorthand version of a full testimony". What law school did you go to?
Perhaps you should do so research before making a stupid comment like that.
And are you sure you're fully aware of the nature of the WC mandate?
Why don't you tell us what the WC mandate was? This should be good.....
In the meantime, I repeat my question;
Wanna go for three in avoiding answering it?
Hey, drama queen, stop playing around and answer the question;
The answer is obvious. The WC was an investigative body tasked with gathering evidence.
Pretty sure investigators would have a keen interest in visiting someone who saw Oswald on the bus.
Don't get your panties in a knot, big fella
Take a breath once in a while
And still no answer to my question. One can only wonder why.....
So, let's try it again; if I don't tell you about seeing a shirt, what reason would you have to come to my house to show me a shirt and ask me if I recognize it?
Pretty sure investigators would have a keen interest in visiting someone who saw Oswald on the bus.
And they did have an interest in Bledsoe. That's why she testified. But they could have shown her the shirt during the testimony, so why did they feel the need to bring the shirt to her home prior to her testimony?
Keep in mind that Martin/Roger is not a conspiracy theorist. Or so he keeps telling us. All this skullduggery that he claims happened in every instance when it points to Oswald's guilt is apparently just the product of sugar plum fairies. There is no explanation for who or why this is all being done to frame Oswald if there is not a conspiracy. It is just so.
Why do you insist to keep on displaying your gullibility and complete lack of thinking skills?
One does not have to advocate a conspiracy (before the fact) to conclude that there was a cover up after the fact.
The WC had a narritive they wanted to sell to the public, but they clearly lacked the evidence to present a compelling case.
For instance, they had no real evidence to place Oswald on the 6th floor with a rifle in his hand at 12.30 on 11/22/63, so they did the next best thing; they created a set of circumstances that would allow a superficial person to conclude Oswald was indeed the killer, regardless if he actually was or not.
For this purpose, the bag Frazier saw Oswald carry had to become big enough to conceal a broken down rifle, Dorothy Garner was ignored as a witness to allow Oswald a way to leave the 6th floor and Oswald had to be seen in the shirt of which similar fibers were allegedly found on the rifle. Bledsoe provided the perfect way to do the latter. That's the only plausible and logical explanantion for which the arrest shirt was brought to Bledsoe's house prior to her testimony.
But I'm sure that's all way above lyin' Richard's head.
Why do you insist to keep on displaying your gullibility and complete lack of thinking skills?
One does not have to advocate a conspiracy (before the fact) to conclude that there was a cover up after the fact.
The WC had a narritive they wanted to sell to the public, but they clearly lacked the evidence to present a compelling case.
For instance, they had no real evidence to place Oswald on the 6th floor with a rifle in his hand at 12.30 on 11/22/63, so they did the next best thing; they created a set of circumstances that would allow a superficial person to conclude Oswald was indeed the killer, regardless if he actually was or not.
For this purpose, the bag Frazier saw Oswald carry had to become big enough to conceal a broken down rifle, Dorothy Garner was ignored as a witness to allow Oswald a way to leave the 6th floor and Oswald had to be seen in the shirt of which similar fibers were allegedly found on the rifle. Bledsoe provided the perfect way to do the latter. That's the only plausible and logical explanantion for which the arrest shirt was brought to Bledsoe's house prior to her testimony.
But I'm sure that's all way above lyin' Richard's head.
Why did all these people have it in for Oswald? A nobody. It is completely nutty to suggest that so many people "after the fact" (i.e. as in within minutes or hours) including random citizens just decided to pin all the blame on him. And presumably let the guilty person go free. That is laughable. I can understand why you refuse to acknowledge that you are a CTer because the facts and evidence all point to Oswald and that would require taking a position instead of being a lazy contrarian who can simply claim all the evidence is suspect without offering any explanation or support. You are a CTer even if you are too cowardly to admit it when you make these baseless claims about a massive frame up of Oswald.
Why did all these people have it in for Oswald? A nobody. It is completely nutty to suggest that so many people "after the fact" (i.e. as in within minutes or hours) including random citizens just decided to pin all the blame on him. And presumably let the guilty person go free. That is laughable. I can understand why you refuse to acknowledge that you are a CTer because the facts and evidence all point to Oswald and that would require taking a position instead of being a lazy contrarian who can simply claim all the evidence is suspect without offering any explanation or support. You are a CTer even if you are too cowardly to admit it when you make these baseless claims about a massive frame up of Oswald.
Why did all these people have it in for Oswald? A nobody. It is completely nutty to suggest that so many people "after the fact" (i.e. as in within minutes or hours) including random citizens just decided to pin all the blame on him. And presumably let the guilty person go free. That is laughable. I can understand why you refuse to acknowledge that you are a CTer because the facts and evidence all point to Oswald and that would require taking a position instead of being a lazy contrarian who can simply claim all the evidence is suspect without offering any explanation or support. You are a CTer even if you are too cowardly to admit it when you make these baseless claims about a massive frame up of Oswald.
Bottom line: To conspiracy buffs, every tiny bit of minutia in this assassination is sinister and larded with nothing but evil intent.
The little nobody shot Tippit and probably shot the somebody.
Result: Oswald apologists have wasted their lives love'n on a nobody.
I take it this means you can't answer my question. Got it!
'Irrelevant'
>>> No it isn't when my point—which I've made several times in this thread— is that affidavits are not meant to be full testimonies given that they are not Q&A. And how was she to know—at the time of her affidavit—that the shirt would eventually become so important?
'You are not making sense. If you mean by "shorthand version" her affidavit, she had indeed not mentioned it. So, what reason did they have to assume that the shirt, and nothing else, could refresh her recollection?'
>>> I cannot vouch for any of that, since I wasn't in on The Plot.
And yes, materials used to refresh recollection are admissible at trial, in some cases, but witness manipulation or influencing prior to testimony is a criminal offence.
>>> I'll take being influenced & manipulated over being fitted for a cement overcoat (in a swimming-with-the fishes sense) any day
'So, let's try it again, but in a perhaps easier way for you to understand; if I don't tell you about seeing a shirt, what reason would you have to come to my house to show me a shirt and ask me if I recognize it?'
>>> There was a shirt on the loose? If I were you, I wouldn't talk to some stranger who comes to the door with a shirt that has a hole in it
You lot seem far more invested in what witnesses didn't say
Bottom line: To conspiracy buffs, every tiny bit of minutia in this assassination is sinister and larded with nothing but evil intent.
The little nobody shot Tippit and probably shot the somebody.
Result: Oswald apologists have wasted their lives love'n on a nobody.
Which only proves the point I made earlier. You make a lot of silly comments but when it comes right down to it you can't (or don't want to) answer a simple question.
Says the guy who warned me that he could get me banned after I posted my ‘Operation Sitzgoose’ spoof a few months ago. Based on that, I’d say I’m a major thorn in your side.
Been burning any books lately, Martin?
So you can't even get the basics of my question right?
Stop lying.
You sound like a Trump supporter, claiming there was fraud in the elections but never providing any evidence or even a solid argument for it. Don't you understand that opinions based on mere faith belong in church?
I might just call you Rudy from now on....
The basics of attempting to compare Bledsoe's situation to somebody coming to your door with a shirt in hand, etc are irrelevant
Which only shows that you lack the comprehension skills to have a somewhat meaningful conversation with me.
Keep running, Rudy
But let me tell you what I think could have happened. They had no physical evidence whatsoever to place Oswald on the 6th floor with a rifle in his hand at 12.30 on 11/22/63. The FBI couldn't find any prints on the rifle and no gunshot residue was found on Oswald's face. Fingerprints on boxes were no good either as the guy worked at the TSBD and part of his job was moving boxes.
The shirt Oswald was wearing when he was arrested was sent to the FBI in Washington on Friday evening and low and behold they suddenly found fibers on the rifle that were similar to the arrest shirt. This is btw how IMO the hole in the sleeve came to be, because of none of the photos taken of Oswald after his arrest show a hole in the sleeve!. But that aside, with potentially "matching" fibers all they needed to do is prove that the arrest shirt was the shirt that Oswald was wearing on Friday morning (which of course it wasn't), so how do you do that? By that time Oswald was dead of course and it was obvious there was not going to be a trial. And then somebody said something like; remember that lady who said she saw Oswald on the bus? Why don't we send some guys to her house with the shirt (which now has a hole in the sleeve) and see if she can "remember" it....
Bullets carried loosely in his pockets as opposed to in a small plastic bag inside a pocket.?
Loose is better because it is quicker than having to open an additional container. Besides, they didn’t make ziplock bags in 1963. They hadn’t been invented yet.
Who said anything about ziplock bag?
Bullets carried loosely in his pockets as opposed to in a small plastic bag inside a pocket.?
While he didn’t specify ziplock, I was trying to think of another type of small plastic bag (that was available back then) that would seal up quickly and easily (I don’t remember any). Otherwise, it could potentially spill out the bullets instead of containing them and defeat the purpose of putting them in a small plastic bag. Plastic bags, in general, were much less common back then.
Why do you insist to keep on displaying your gullibility and complete lack of thinking skills?
One does not have to advocate a conspiracy (before the fact) to conclude that there was a cover up after the fact.
The WC had a narritive they wanted to sell to the public, but they clearly lacked the evidence to present a compelling case.
For instance, they had no real evidence to place Oswald on the 6th floor with a rifle in his hand at 12.30 on 11/22/63, so they did the next best thing; they created a set of circumstances that would allow a superficial person to conclude Oswald was indeed the killer, regardless if he actually was or not.
For this purpose, the bag Frazier saw Oswald carry had to become big enough to conceal a broken down rifle, Dorothy Garner was ignored as a witness to allow Oswald a way to leave the 6th floor and Oswald had to be seen in the shirt of which similar fibers were allegedly found on the rifle. Bledsoe provided the perfect way to do the latter. That's the only plausible and logical explanantion for which the arrest shirt was brought to Bledsoe's house prior to her testimony.
But I'm sure that's all way above lyin' Richard's head.
The brand name is 'Ziploc' and it was about 1967 when development of the product first began. But why not use a small paper bag and just roll it up tightly? I suggest that might be a faster way to access and shoot even more dumb cops.
I used to have a speed loader for my S&W 38 special revolver. These make reloading much faster. But I don’t know if these were available in 1963.
Looks like you could beat Dirty Harry to the draw.
But don't turn your back on Dirty Harvey..
I used to have a speed loader for my S&W 38 special revolver. These make reloading much faster. But I don’t know if these were available in 1963.You might consider doing some research next time...
The first revolver speedloader patented was that of William H. Bell in 1879.[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedloader
You might consider doing some research next time...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedloader
Incidentally...speedloaders are used primarily in competition shooting.
Yep, his specialty was the surprise ambush from behind....
Stop lying.
You sound like a Trump supporter, claiming there was fraud in the elections but never providing any evidence or even a solid argument for it. Don't you understand that opinions based on mere faith belong in church?
I might just call you Rudy from now on....
Are you sure you didn't warn me with a threat of getting me banned?
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Freemason recalls where he was, what he was doing, the day he shot JFK
« on: September 04, 2020, 08:18:34 PM »
Quote from: Martin Weidmann on September 04, 2020, 07:12:38 PM
'Perhaps we should have a word with Duncan before you complete your mission to destroy this forum by making normal discussion about the subject matter completely impossible with your BS. Tommy Graves was banned for a lot less...'
I might just call you Pinocchio from now on..
That's weird. My posting history (on page 45) shows only one post on September 4th 2020 and it wasn't this and I also see no reply to it on page 28 of your posting history, which covers posts between September 3rd and 7th.
So, I am going to give you one opportunity to link to the actual quote.
I couldn't find that quote in my search of that period either. I have that in my show posts. I think Duncan removed it. I suggest we drop this immediately, since when Duncan deletes something it is not meant to be brought up again.
I don't lie about anything.
(https://i.postimg.cc/GmKSWdgq/accusation-re-spoof.png)
I suggest we drop this immediately, since when Duncan deletes something it is not meant to be brought up again.
If that's what really happened, why did to bring it up again nevertheless?
I don't lie about anything.
Yeah right... Duncan did it and you just posted something that wasn't there. Wow!
The above image confirms the presence of your threat on Sept 04.
I save all my 'Show Posts' offline, therefore they are impervious to online changes.
Otherwise I would lose evidence that I wasn't lying.
Which only shows that you lack the comprehension skills to have a somewhat meaningful conversation with me.
Keep running, Rudy
But let me tell you what I think could have happened. They had no physical evidence whatsoever to place Oswald on the 6th floor with a rifle in his hand at 12.30 on 11/22/63. The FBI couldn't find any prints on the rifle and no gunshot residue was found on Oswald's face. Fingerprints on boxes were no good either as the guy worked at the TSBD and part of his job was moving boxes.
The shirt Oswald was wearing when he was arrested was sent to the FBI in Washington on Friday evening and low and behold they suddenly found fibers on the rifle that were similar to the arrest shirt. This is btw how IMO the hole in the sleeve came to be, because none of the photos taken of Oswald after his arrest show a hole in the sleeve!. But that aside, with potentially "matching" fibers all they needed to do is prove that the arrest shirt was the shirt that Oswald was wearing on Friday morning (which of course it wasn't), so how do you do that? By that time Oswald was dead of course and it was obvious there was not going to be a trial. And then somebody said something like; remember that lady who said she saw Oswald on the bus? Why don't we send some guys to her house with the shirt (which now has a hole in the sleeve) and see if she can "remember" it....
It's painful but humorous when Martin/Roger tries to think. Imagine living in a world where such a scenario could even be entertained. And then, of course, the kicker after all this fakery is that Martin/Roger still doesn't believe it links Oswald to the rifle! The entire purpose of his fantasy. The fibers are only similar. Thereby proving nothing in his opinion. HA HA HA. You can't make that up. And keep in mind he is not a CTer! Please stick to being a contrarian. It doesn't require any intelligence.
The above image confirms the presence of your threat on Sept 04.
No it doesn't, it just shows you can be creative.
I save all my 'Show Posts' offline, therefore they are impervious to online changes.
How paranoid... I don't even know how to do that nor do I care.
And not being impervious to online changes is one thing, but vulnerable to manipulation off line is another.
And your "evidence" that you are not lying is presenting a "post" that can not be found on the board. Wow!
Are you certain you want to continue this conversation and dig an even deeper hole for yourself?
You have accused me of threatening you, when the content of the "post" you present here isn't even a threat and you are unable to provide any credible evidence that there ever was a threat. Think carefully before you continue with this farce.
‘No it doesn't, it just shows you can be creative’
>>> So now I’m creative, huh?
‘How paranoid... I don't even know how to do that nor do I care’
>>> No paranoia required. Just a paper trail record.
And not being impervious to online changes is one thing, but vulnerable to manipulation off line is another.
>>> Are you accusing me of fakery? I only mess with stuff when writing spoofs
‘And your "evidence" that you are not lying is presenting a "post" that can not be found on the board. Wow!’
>>> A bit slow on the uptake, aren’t you… and here thought you had a ‘superior education’.
‘Are you certain you want to continue this conversation and dig an even deeper hole for yourself?’
>>> No holes required on my part. But it’s fun watching you dig yours.
‘You have accused me of threatening you, when the content of the "post" you present here isn't even a threat and you are unable to provide any credible evidence that there ever was a threat. Think carefully before you continue with this farce.’
>>> Your saying that you might talk to Duncan about me and then adding that Graves was booted for much less is indeed a threat.
Keep dodging.
Did you say something?He's trying to walk you down this nowhere road...I would say don't go any further. Organ is doing the same thing and running out of rubber.
Did you say something?
He's trying to walk you down this nowhere road...I would say don't go any further. Organ is doing the same thing and running out of rubber.
He's trying to walk you down this nowhere road...I would say don't go any further.
Thumb1:
Mr. Belin. Did you ever letter go up and view the officer?
Mr. Scoggins. Yes, I went up there, but by the time I got up there the ambulance had already got there. You see I got my dispatcher and was telling him about it, just by that time the ambulance got there.
.
.
.
Mr. Belin. Do you remember whether or not your dispatcher recorded any time on his sheets as to the time you called in after the Tippit shooting?
Mr. Scoggins. When I was down there giving my statement to my supervisor, he asked me what time it was, and I said I don’t have any idea, so he picked up the phone and called the dispatcher, and he said it was 1:23.
Mr. Belin. That is the time that he recorded it?
Mr. Scoggins. Yes. He must have recorded it up there because he said it was 1:23 in the afternoon.
Mr. Belin. When you called in after the shooting?
Mr. Scoggins. Yes.
So, the ambulance arrived while Scoggins was talking to his dispatcher. And the dispatcher recorded the time as 1:23. Yet some people believe that the death certificate time of 1:15 is the time that the doctor pronounced Tippit dead? Do they believe that the doctor was at the murder scene in order to do so????
The time indicated on the DPD recordings and the time recorded independently by the cab dispatcher both indicate that Tippit was not yet at the hospital at 1:15. Yet some believe that a bystander’s wristwatch was correct and that the DPD and the cab company’s time records must be wrong. ::)
So, the ambulance arrived while Scoggins was talking to his dispatcher. And the dispatcher recorded the time as 1:23.
The other Frazier threatened him physically, while the notorious vulture Henry Wade hovered overhead: Why help the cops throw you to the wolves, mulled Lillie Mae..
Why did it take Scoggins so long to go over to Tippit? This sentence "Yes, I went up there, but by the time I got up there the ambulance had already got there." perhaps suggests that Scoggins and Callaway went chasing after the shooter in Scoggins cab, came back and then saw the ambulance. And that Scoggins then called the dispatcher. Am i getting this wrong?
For this purpose, the bag Frazier saw Oswald carry had to become big enough to conceal a broken down rifle, Dorothy Garner was ignored as a witness to allow Oswald a way to leave the 6th floor and Oswald had to be seen in the shirt of which similar fibers were allegedly found on the rifle. Bledsoe provided the perfect way to do the latter. That's the only plausible and logical explanantion for which the arrest shirt was brought to Bledsoe's house prior to her testimony.
But I'm sure that's all way above lyin' Richard's head.
The “other Frazier”? You mean Fritz?
Is there any reason anyone should engage seriously with somebody who is so woefully ignorant about the case?
Let’s see the time sheet.
Brilliantly stated, Martin. This was witness tampering at its finest. They weren’t “investigating” so much as “steering”.
Let me catch you up: Martin P. Weidmann has never stated anything even remotely brilliant. Or even anywhere close to clever, for that matter. Additionally, I recently outed him as to what he really is, to the point of him 'steering' himself into the ditch and out the door... as is always his fate whenever he attempts to get around me.These witnesses were interviewed by the FBI. And the Warren Commission. And reporters like Aynesworth and Ewell. Reporters who were AT the scene of these crimes. So the witnesses were "steered" to implicate Oswald by those entities too, by these reporters?
Imagine living in a world where such a scenario could even be entertained.
There is your biggest problem by far. You can't imagine anything like that because you don't have brain capacity to the extend that you don't even know the difference between day and night.
The fibers are only similar. Thereby proving nothing in his opinion.
If you don't want to continue making a fool of yourself, you'd better check with some experts about the probative value of fiber evidence, like, for example this guy;
Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is just no way at this time to be able to positively state that a particular small group of fibers came from a particular source, because there just aren't enough microscopic characteristics present in these fibers.
We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts."
Oops!
You can't make that up. '
Well, I can't, but you can make stuff up every day. I just quote the experts.
These witnesses were interviewed by the FBI. And the Warren Commission. And reporters like Aynesworth and Ewell. Reporters who were AT the scene of these crimes. So the witnesses were "steered" to implicate Oswald by those entities too, by these reporters?
Their answer is yes, they'll attack Aynesworth too (they have). And other reporters. All of these witnesses lied or were "steered" by all of these groups and people. It's an endless conspiracy. It's not one conspiracy that they claimed happened. It's dozens of conspiracies involving all sorts of people.
This is sheer lunacy. This is like the Trump supporters who claim all of these votes were rigged. Even by Republican politicians and election officials. Who stood there and let it happen. It's just crazy.
CTers and Trump supporters are, in their states of rampant paranoia, saddled with their 'no one can tell me what to say, think or do' adolescent mindsets. It's the Appeal to Rebellion fallacy.There are Trump supporters - like my older brother who said Trump was an ass but "He's my ass" - who recognize how awful he was as a person (and my god, what a narcissistic jerk he is) but thought he was at least concerned about them and that the alternative was even worse and then there are Trump supporters who truly think he was some sort of god and believe all sorts of nonsense.
HA HA HA. Keep trying to "think." It is very entertaining. So the people who control all this evidence need the fibers to link Oswald to the crime because they have no other evidence? But wait they do link Oswald to the crime through a multitude of other evidence that you suggest they don't have - prints, rifle etc. because they control all the evidence in your fantasy (just like the fibers). It's bizarre to suggest they then engage in this vast conspiracy to link him to the rifle via a hole in his shirt only then to be told by you - wait for it - wait some more - that they couldn't link anyone via fibers. HA HA HA So let's summarize. The [fill in the blank since you are not a CTer but believe all the evidence is faked] decided to frame Oswald via some shirt fibers which requires the cooperation and lies of a random citizen but then it doesn't link Oswald to the crime. The entire purpose of the charade in your baseless fantasy. Pure gold. Keep up the "brilliant" analysis.
Mr. Belin. Did you ever letter go up and view the officer?
Mr. Scoggins. Yes, I went up there, but by the time I got up there the ambulance had already got there. You see I got my dispatcher and was telling him about it, just by that time the ambulance got there.
Mr. Belin. Do you remember whether or not your dispatcher recorded any time on his sheets as to the time you called in after the Tippit shooting?
Mr. Scoggins. When I was down there giving my statement to my supervisor, he asked me what time it was, and I said I don’t have any idea, so he picked up the phone and called the dispatcher, and he said it was 1:23.
Mr. Belin. That is the time that he recorded it?
Mr. Scoggins. Yes. He must have recorded it up there because he said it was 1:23 in the afternoon.
Mr. Belin. When you called in after the shooting?
Mr. Scoggins. Yes.
So, the ambulance arrived while Scoggins was talking to his dispatcher. And the dispatcher recorded the time as 1:23. Yet some people believe that the death certificate time of 1:15 is the time that the doctor pronounced Tippit dead? Do they believe that the doctor was at the murder scene in order to do so????
The time indicated on the DPD recordings and the time recorded independently by the cab dispatcher both indicate that Tippit was not yet at the hospital at 1:15. Yet some believe that a bystander’s wristwatch was correct and that the DPD and the cab company’s time records must be wrong. ::)
Why the double standard? You take a bystander’s testimony that he looked at his wristwatch. But you don’t take an eyewitness’ testimony that his supervisor told him the time that his call was recorded?
FWIW, An FBI interview of cab dispatcher D.G. Graham on November 28, 1963 says Graham recorded the call coming in at 1:25 p.m. The two minute discrepancy is probably due to Graham’s desire to notify the DPD before recording the time of the call.
“With Malice” (reference note #399).
HA HA HA. Keep trying to "think." It is very entertaining. So the people who control all this evidence need the fibers to link Oswald to the crime because they have no other evidence? But wait they do link Oswald to the crime through a multitude of other evidence that you suggest they don't have - prints, rifle etc. because they control all the evidence in your fantasy (just like the fibers). It's bizarre to suggest they then engage in this vast conspiracy to link him to the rifle via a hole in his shirt only then to be told by you - wait for it - wait some more - that they couldn't link anyone via fibers. HA HA HA So let's summarize. The [fill in the blank since you are not a CTer but believe all the evidence is faked] decided to frame Oswald via some shirt fibers which requires the cooperation and lies of a random citizen but then it doesn't link Oswald to the crime. The entire purpose of the charade in your baseless fantasy. Pure gold. Keep up the "brilliant" analysis.
The fibers are only similar. Thereby proving nothing in his opinion. HA HA HA. You can't make that up.
There are Trump supporters - like my older brother who said Trump was an ass but "He's my ass" - who recognize how awful he was as a person (and my god, what a narcissistic jerk he is) but thought he was at least concerned about them and that the alternative was even worse and then there are Trump supporters who truly think he was some sort of god and believe all sorts of nonsense.
Similarly with conspiracy believers: some are asking good questions, are honestly puzzled by this event and can be reasoned with; and then there are people like the ones you're trying to reason with. It's hopeless.
So the people who control all this evidence need the fibers to link Oswald to the crime because they have no other evidence?
This would be hilarious, if it wasn't so sad and pathetic. In a blink of an eye you go from trying to ridicule me about the fiber evidence;
to - after being confronted with Stombaugh, in his testimony, agreeing with me - to who needs fibers anyway.
And you still think you are credible and can be taken seriously? Really? :D
But wait they do link Oswald to the crime through a multitude of other evidence that you suggest they don't have - prints, rifle etc. because they control all the evidence in your fantasy (just like the fibers).
The rifle can tentatively be linked to Oswald. That's true and I never disputed that. But, and this probably goes over your head again, the fact that the rifle was found at the TSBD does not automatically link Oswald to the crime. And, as for prints, there are none. The FBI found no prints on the rifle the day after the murder. Only seven days later, Day, suddenly produces a piece of paper with a print on it, which he claimed he took from the rifle but never mentioned to anybody for a whole week. Wow!
It's bizarre to suggest they then engage in this vast conspiracy to link him to the rifle via a hole in his shirt only then to be told by you - wait for it - wait some more - that they couldn't link anyone via fibers. HA HA HA
It's even worse than bizarre, when you consider that the shirt they tried to link to the rifle wasn't the shirt Oswald was wearing on Friday morning and it had no hole in it's sleeve when he was wearing it in custody, until late Friday evening! It becomes completely stupid when you consider (which you won't do) what the FBI fiber and hair expert testified;
Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is just no way at this time to be able to positively state that a particular small group of fibers came from a particular source, because there just aren't enough microscopic characteristics present in these fibers.
We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts."
The [fill in the blank since you are not a CTer but believe all the evidence is faked] decided to frame Oswald via some shirt fibers which requires the cooperation and lies of a random citizen but then it doesn't link Oswald to the crime.
I'm already aware of the fact that just about everything I say is way beyond your capacity of comprehension. There is no need to keep on proving that fact time after time....
Btw, where did you get the idiotic notion that I believe all the evidence is faked? Your hysteria is getting the better of you!
The time indicated on the DPD recordings and the time recorded independently by the cab dispatcher both indicate that Tippit was not yet at the hospital at 1:15. Yet some believe that a bystander’s wristwatch was correct and that the DPD and the cab company’s time records must be wrong.
When you need to misrepresent the evidence, your argument loses credibility. The real facts are that the times on the DPD recordings are disputed by J.C. Bowles, the supervisor in charge of the dispatchers, in his testimony before the HSCA, and nobody has claimed that "a bystander's wristwatch was correct". Even worse for your basic argument; the time Scoggins gave in his testimony does not match, in any way, shape or form, with the times called out on the DPD radio.
Mr. Belin. Do you remember whether or not your dispatcher recorded any time on his sheets as to the time you called in after the Tippit shooting?
Mr. Scoggins. When I was down there giving my statement to my supervisor, he asked me what time it was, and I said I don’t have any idea, so he picked up the phone and called the dispatcher, and he said it was 1:23.
Mr. Belin. That is the time that he recorded it?
Mr. Scoggins. Yes. He must have recorded it up there because he said it was 1:23 in the afternoon.
Mr. Belin. When you called in after the shooting?
Mr. Scoggins. Yes.
So, Scoggins' supervisor heard from a dispatcher that the time was 1:23. WOW, that's some "ironclad evidence" you've got there.
Now let's see what we can do with this. The timeline I have developed is a sequence of events, with time estimates relative to eachother, based upon the testimony of the people involved which looks like this;
1:03 - 1.04 Markham leaves home at 9th street
1:06 - 1.07 Markham arrives at the corner of 10th street, after having walked one block. She has one more block to go, to
Jefferson, where she would arrive at around 1.09 or 1.10, well in time for the 1.12 bus.
1:06 - 1.09 Tippit is shot and killed.
1.10 Bowley arrives at the crime scene after having picked up his daughter from school at 12.55 and driving 7 miles
Upon arrival he looks at his watch which says 1.10
1.07 - 1.11 Callaway hears the shots and encounters a man with a revolver running towards him.
1.11 After the encounter, Callaway runs half a block and arrives at 10th street. He gets there after Bowley had already
finished operating the police radio
1.11 - 1.13 The ambulance, dispatched from a nearby funeral home on Jefferson, only a block away, arrives and Bowley and
Callaway help to put Tippit in the ambulance.
1.15 - 1.16 After a short 2 miles drive, the ambulance arrives at Methodist Hospital followed by Detective Davenport who saw
the ambulance and chased it to the hospital
1.16 - 1.17 Tippit - who was likely dead at the scene - is declared DOA @ 1.15
In this timeline, the ambulance arrived between 1.11 and 1.13. Now, if Scoggins' is correct that time would become 1.23, so between 10 to 12 minutes later than what the timeline says. This would mean that all the times in the timeline would have to shift to 10 to 12 minutes later as well.
So, the new timeline would have Markham witness Tippit's shooting somewhere between 1.16 and 1.18 (i.e. two to four minutes later than Myers estimated the time of the shooting at 1.14), instead of being on the bus to work which she estimated she took at 1.15. T.F. Bowley's watch must have been off by 10 to 12 minutes also, which in turn means that he must have picked up his daughter from school, not at 12.55 (like he said), but at 1.05 or even 1.07, and he didn't notice he was 10 to 12 minutes late.
It also means that Callaway would not arrive at the scene of the shooting until 1.21 or 1.23, which is at least strange because according to the DPD radio transcripts (if they are correct) show he made his call to the dispatcher at 1.19. And finally, it would mean that Tippit was declared DOA between 1.29 and 1.30, which in turn means that Dr. Liguori and Detective Davenport got the DOA time wrong by 10 to 12 minutes. It also does not match the DPD radio transcripts, which somewhere between 1.26 and 1.28 report that NBC News is reporting Tippit's DOA. That's really something magical, isn't it?. NBC reporting the DOA before it was actually declared by the doctors! I never knew news outlets in 1963 could work so fast....
And not only that, because it also means that the doctors at Methodist Hospital couldn't have taken a bullet out of Tippit's body (which they did about 15 minutes after DOA) at 1.30.
The 1.23 time that Scoggins gave doesn't match the timecalls on the DPD recording and it makes a complete mess of the timeline.
Why the double standard? You take a bystander’s testimony that he looked at his wristwatch. But you don’t take an eyewitness’ testimony that his supervisor told him the time that his call was recorded?
What you are describing is double hearsay. Scoggins is testifying that his supervisor told him that the dispatcher said that the time was recorded on a time sheet at 1.23.
John has no double standard when he asks for the time sheet, for one simple reason; Scoggins claimed there was a time sheet, so why not produce it?
FWIW, An FBI interview of cab dispatcher D.G. Graham on November 28, 1963 says Graham recorded the call coming in at 1:25 p.m. The two minute discrepancy is probably due to Graham’s desire to notify the DPD before recording the time of the call.
“With Malice” (reference note #399).
It is actually not worth a damned thing. FBI 302 reports contain all sorts of mistakes and conflicting information. For example, there is also a 302 report which claims that Dr. Liguori told an FBI agent that Tippit was DOA at 1.25. The conflict between these two 302 reports is obvious, but there is more;
First of all, how can the dispatcher tell Scoggins' supervisor that the time was recorded on his time sheet at 1.23, and then tell the FBI it was actually 1.25? Secondly, when the time given by Scoggins already doesn't match any of the known facts in the time line, the time Graham gave to the FBI surely doesn't match either. And thirdly, by 1.25 police officers were already on the scene and the DPD radio transcript shows (if they are correct) that the dispatcher has already received a report about a white jacket that was found on a parking lot.
It's a pretty good bet that the time Scoggins gave was wrong. If you disagree, feel free to tell me where I went wrong in my reasoning.
So many words. In a nutshell, you suggest a vast conspiracy to frame Oswald for some unspecified reason and then dispute that the planted evidence links him to the crime. The sole purpose of such planted evidence. Thus, pursuant to your baseless fantasy some unnamed entity for some unknown reason attempted to framed Oswald via his shirt fibers but then you reject the shirt fibers as linking him to the crime. It is an Alice in Wonderland narrative.
What route did Bowley take from the school to the Tippit murder scene?
Let me catch you up: Martin P. Weidmann has never stated anything even remotely brilliant. Or even anywhere close to clever, for that matter. Additionally, I recently outed him as to what he really is, to the point of him 'steering' himself into the ditch and out the door... as is always his fate whenever he attempts to get around me.
He didn't say, but I seem to recall that he mentioned being om Marsalis coming into 10th street.
There are two options; he could have taken the I-35E or S. Marsalis Ave. The driving time for both is roughly the same, but as he was en route to pick up his wife from work, I would suggest that he likely took the I-35E and then turn onto N. Marsalis Ave.
I am not sure where you are going with this, but the fact that Bowley arrived just after Tippit was shot can not be denied, simply because Callaway, who was only half a block away, arrived on 10th street after Bowley had already used the radio and the two men helped to put Tippit in the ambulance. So, it doesn't really matter which route Bowley took, because Callaway confirmed he was there before he arrived.
I'm answering your questions, so why don't you return the favor by addressing some of the points I have raised re the time Scoggins gave?
There are two options; he could have taken the I-35E or S. Marsalis Ave.
Looking at a map of Dallas dated 1962 shows that I-35 was under construction in the area of Clarendon Drive and only proposed (not yet under construction) south of that area. Therefore, I submit that Bowley probably took Marsalis Ave. A check of google maps shows this route takes about 17 minutes. Your arithmetic doesn’t work so well now, does it?
Why the double standard? You take a bystander’s testimony that he looked at his wristwatch. But you don’t take an eyewitness’ testimony that his supervisor told him the time that his call was recorded?
FWIW, An FBI interview of cab dispatcher D.G. Graham on November 28, 1963 says Graham recorded the call coming in at 1:25 p.m. The two minute discrepancy is probably due to Graham’s desire to notify the DPD before recording the time of the call.
“With Malice” (reference note #399).
Let me catch you up: Martin P. Weidmann has never stated anything even remotely brilliant. Or even anywhere close to clever, for that matter. Additionally, I recently outed him as to what he really is, to the point of him 'steering' himself into the ditch and out the door... as is always his fate whenever he attempts to get around me.
But wait they do link Oswald to the crime through a multitude of other evidence that you suggest they don't have - prints, rifle etc.
So let's summarize. The [fill in the blank since you are not a CTer but believe all the evidence is faked]
decided to frame Oswald via some shirt fibers which requires the cooperation and lies of a random citizen but then it doesn't link Oswald to the crime.
For a moment I thought it might be possible to have a normal, reasonable, conversation with you, but, once again, you blew it.
You can submit all you want but it doesn't matter a damned thing because google maps calculates based on present day traffic conditions and not the traffic in 1963, which, I submit, was not as heavy as it is today. And my arithmetic is actaully about right, because if he picked up his daughter at 12.55, a trip of "about 17 minutes" would still have gotten him to 10th street at 1.12. Two minutes less and he gets there at 1.10 just like he said. Either way, when he got there, Tippit had already been shot, which means he was killed before 1.14 - 1.15!
Traffic at 8:00 p.m. still shows a 16-minute trip. Do you really want to hang your hat on traffic being significantly lighter than that on a Friday afternoon before Thanksgiving week? And did he arrive at the school to pick up his daughter at 12:55? Or was he already back on the road by 12:55? I believe that it would have taken a little time to physically pick her up and get back onto the street.
Traffic at 8:00 p.m. still shows a 16-minute trip. Do you really want to hang your hat on traffic being significantly lighter than that on a Friday afternoon before Thanksgiving week?
It doesn't matter. How many times do I have to explain this to you? Callaway confirmed he was there before he [Callaway] arived on the scene and he only had to run half a block to get there.
And did he arrive at the school to pick up his daughter at 12:55? Or was he already back on the road by 12:55? I believe that it would have taken a little time to physically pick her up and get back onto the street.
Another moot point. If he was already back on the road by 12.55 he simply would have gotten to 10th street sooner. You are arguing semantics whilst missing the bigger point; Callaway confirmed that Bowley was at the scene before he got there. It doesn't matter one bit if his trip took a minute longer or not, nor does it matter how long it took to pick up his daughter.
He was there just after Tippit was shot and he had finished working the radio when Callaway got there. Period.
You’re a legend in your own mind. You can’t even get the most basic information right.
Sure, “Richard”. Which is why you never get around to ever specifying what this “multitude” is.
Strawman “Smith” strikes again. Martin never said he believes all the evidence is faked.
The fibers can’t be uniquely tied to any particular garment. Full stop.
I'm not a big fan of Dale Myers. It is clear to me that he arrived at 1.14 because he based his opinion on the DPD radio transcripts and needed to push back the time of Tippit's shooting as late as possible, so that Oswald would have had the time to get from the rooming house to 10th Street on foot.
There is only one question you need to answer to understand what really happened; Why did the investigators and the WC ignore Bowley completely? One of the main witnesses in the Tippit case, the one who called the DPD dispatcher, the one who - together with Callaway - helped put Tippit in the ambulance.....They completely erased him from the case. He is not mentioned in the WC report at all..... Now, why do you think is that?
Markham said she left home just after 1pm.
Deflect all you want: Oswald was ID'd at the scene as the killer.
Several people ID'd Oswald
It's called co-oboration
There was no mistake.
Richard Smith said "the fact that he has the same two different brands of ammo in his possession when arrested"
You claimed he was referring to the six live rounds removed from the revolver that was taken from Oswald, but Richard Smith never said that. He could just as easily have been talking about the bullets that were allegedly found on his person.
But I note that you constant need to score points hasn't changed.
I explained why I asked you the question in a subsequent post. I am trying to decide how to categorize Hugh Aynesworth’s words.
And I agree with you that it really doesn’t make much difference other than that.
And here's the catch. Oswald was positively identified as the killer or fleeing from the scene with a gun by as much as ten witnesses. Conspiracy believers would have a point if LNers were relying on just one or two positive witness identifications. It's another thing entirely to dismiss the positive identification by as much as ten different people.
It doesn’t appear that Bowley could have made that trip in the time frame outlined in your timeline. Maybe he forgot to wind his watch and it was running slow. Both the DPD and the cab company indicate the time was several minutes later than Bowley’s watch indicated. That is a pretty good indication that his watch was slow.
Show us what 'basic information' I didn't get right lately.
What matters the most is what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
No multitude needed: Oswald killed Tippit and most likely shot Kennedy
And, we know from the police tapes that Bowley did not really arrive at 1:10
As for your constant relying on Bowles and the clocks, please explain how any of that is supposed to show that the police tapes were off by more than two minutes.
She also said the man she saw shoot the policeman was Lee Oswald. So now what?
And here's the catch. Oswald was positively identified as the killer or fleeing from the scene with a gun by as much as ten witnesses. Conspiracy believers would have a point if LNers were relying on just one or two positive witness identifications. It's another thing entirely to dismiss the positive identification by as much as ten different people.
You referred to Fritz as “the other Frazier”.
Something which you have never done for any of your claims about Oswald.
Richard Smith does not need to clarify. He stated that Oswald had the same mix and match of shells in his possession when arrested. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. He was also 100% correct. There were three live Winchester-Western rounds and three live Remington-Peters rounds taken from the revolver (Oswald's possession) when he (Oswald) was arrested.
Are you sure I don't know who Fritz is?
“As much as ten”. LOL. Why the equivocation?
Ten or two, biased unfair lineups are unreliable. And only Markham saw a crime being committed.
What “other Frazier” threatened Buell Frazier? FBI ballistics expert Robert Frazier?
Flat out false. When Oswald was arrested the alleged gun was allegedly in the possession of Bob Carroll.
Why would you just assume that the police dispatcher time check on an edited non-continuous dictabelt recording based on an uncalibrated clock, or a cab driver’s double hearsay account of what his dispatcher told his supervisor are any more accurate than Markham’s washateria clock, her usual bus schedule, Bowley’s watch, Higgins’ clock, and the clock at Methodist hospital?
He was there just after Tippit was shot and he had finished working the radio when Callaway got there. Period.
So, what time was that?
Markham was basing her time estimate on a clock in the laundromat (which wasn’t checked for accuracy). She had varied from her usual routine and stopped in the laundromat to call her daughter. The line was busy.
It doesn’t appear that Bowley could have made that trip in the time frame outlined in your timeline. Maybe he forgot to wind his watch and it was running slow. Both the DPD and the cab company indicate the time was several minutes later than Bowley’s watch indicated. That is a pretty good indication that his watch was slow.
Oh boy....
Markham was basing her time estimate on a clock in the laundromat
Only as far as the time was concerned when she left home to get to the bus stop. That particular estimate didn't have to be 100% accurate, because the bus was scheduled to stop at Jefferson at 1.12 and 1.22 (according to the FBI) and she had only two blocks to walk to get there, which would have taken her, at best, six minutes. So, if she left home at late as 1.06, she still would have gotten to Jefferson on time to catch the 1.12 bus. The point you are missing is that Markham would have passed the corner of 10th street and Patton long before 1.14.
It doesn’t appear that Bowley could have made that trip in the time frame outlined in your timeline. Maybe he forgot to wind his watch and it was running slow.
No. It doesn't appear that at all. Even using your own estimate of 17 minutes for the trip, he still would have gotten to 10th street well before 1.14
Both the DPD and the cab company indicate the time was several minutes later than Bowley’s watch indicated. That is a pretty good indication that his watch was slow.
No. It's only a pretty good indication that you are desperately looking for a way to move the time of Tippit's murder further back without actually wanting to deal with the fact that the entire time line can't shift as far back and still be a fair representation of what all the evidence says on which it was developed.
I have already dealt with the time Scoggins gave and shown rather conclusively that there is no way it can be right. You have refused to deal with it. I have also shown that Bowles, the man in charge of the DPD Dispatchers, clearly indicates that the times on the radio transcripts not only can not be relied upon to show the actual "real" time but also that the clocks used by the dispatchers could be off by a lot more than the two minutes you say they were. You have also refused to deal with this matter honestly.
Now, why should I waste my time talking to you about any of this when you are not willing to look at the evidence honestly? I thought you said you were only interested in the truth?
Dale Myers started with the dispatcher timestamp at 1:19 and worked backwards from there. This has Bowley on the police radio reporting the shooting at 1:17.
This is pretty simple. Bowley didn't see anything. The killer was gone by the time he arrived.
And, we know from the police tapes that Bowley did not really arrive at 1:10 so there was no need to call him to testify about anything. The Commission discounted Bowley's time of 1:10 because (again) the police tapes tell us that his watch was clearly wrong by about five or six minutes.
As for your constant relying on Bowles and the clocks, please explain how any of that is supposed to show that the police tapes were off by more than two minutes.
And here's the catch. Oswald was positively identified as the killer or fleeing from the scene with a gun by as much as ten witnesses. Conspiracy believers would have a point if LNers were relying on just one or two positive witness identifications. It's another thing entirely to dismiss the positive identification by as much as ten different people.
Wow. You flat out made a mistake and instead of just admitting it, you come up with this tripe above. And you have the gall to criticize others of having a problem saying they made a mistake.k
Richard Smith does not need to clarify. He stated that Oswald had the same mix and match of shells in his possession when arrested. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. He was also 100% correct. There were three live Winchester-Western rounds and three live Remington-Peters rounds taken from the revolver (Oswald's possession) when he (Oswald) was arrested. You then challenged Richard by "correcting" him, informing him that Oswald had only one brand of bullets taken from his person while in custody downtown. None of it changed what Richard Smith stated, nor did anything you said about it somehow show that Richard Smith was wrong.
I'm not trying to score points against you. Quite honestly, I don't give a spombleprofglidnoctobuns. I'm just correcting your mistakes. No biggie.
Why are you assuming that the clocks in the DPD (city hall) were uncalibrated? Yes, they needed to be corrected from time to time (as most clocks did in that era). Bowles stated that they would correct them whenever they became noticeably off. And that they might possibly be off by as much as two minutes. However, there are several ways that Bowles checked the time stamps against the actual time on 11/22/63. And based on Bowles’ report and other observations, it appears that the time stamps are reasonably accurate given the variables involved.
Other reasons that should give us greater confidence in the DPD and cab company times versus the laundromat clock and Bowley’s watch are:
It is of vital importance to the business operations of both the DPD and the cab company to keep reasonably accurate time in order for their employees and others who might be involved in their businesses to be able to synchronize in concert.
Example: the presidential motorcade required coordinated police activities all along the route. They would want their clocks to be reasonably accurate in order for all participants to be able to be at their assigned places along the route on time. Therefore it would be in their best interest to check the calibration of the clocks shortly before, or on, the day of the motorcade. I don’t know that they actually did or didn’t do that, but there was a good reason to do so.
Similarly, the cab company needs to coordinate their activities with each other and their customers.
So, you see, it isn’t that I am “just assuming” this. There are legitimate reasons. Do you have any legitimate reasons to believe that the clocks and watches, that you apparently have ultimate faith in, were better calibrated than the DPD’s and cab company’s?
The point you are missing is that Markham would have passed the corner of 10th street and Patton long before 1.14.
You are assuming the clock in the laundromat was not slow. But the evidence of the DPD radio recordings and the cab company’s dispatcher time are indicating otherwise. That is the point that you are missing.
No. It doesn't appear that at all. Even using your own estimate of 17 minutes for the trip, he still would have gotten to 10th street well before 1.14
Not if his watch was running slow. He stated that he picked up his daughter at “about 12:55.” We don’t know if this means that he arrived at the school at that time, what procedure he needed to go through to get her out of school early and how much time that involved, etc. Based on my experiences of being in school in that era, he probably had to go to the office and request to pick her up, then she would have been taken out of her classroom. This procedure would have taken a few minutes. If Bowley had specified that he was finished picking her up and was back on the road at 12:55, you might have a reasonable argument.
I have already dealt with the time Scoggins gave and shown rather conclusively that there is no way it can be right.
No one said that the time Scoggins gave was 100% accurate. Only approximate (with added time for notifying the police).
Show us where Oswald asked for his jacket.
Why would I need to show such a nonsensical thing?
Why are you assuming that the clocks in the DPD (city hall) were uncalibrated?
Yes, they needed to be corrected from time to time (as most clocks did in that era). Bowles stated that they would correct them whenever they became noticeably off.
And that they might possibly be off by as much as two minutes.
However, there are several ways that Bowles checked the time stamps against the actual time on 11/22/63.
It is of vital importance to the business operations of both the DPD and the cab company to keep reasonably accurate time in order for their employees and others who might be involved in their businesses to be able to synchronize in concert.
Example: the presidential motorcade required coordinated police activities all along the route.
Do you have any legitimate reasons to believe that the clocks and watches, that you apparently have ultimate faith in, were better calibrated than the DPD’s and cab company’s?
Yet you argue that, where witness identifications in other cases are very often wrong, in this case ten different people got the identification perfectly correct? Really? They all must have had amazing observational skills.
You then challenged Richard by "correcting" him, informing him that Oswald had only one brand of bullets taken from his person while in custody downtown.
Where did I say that Oswald had only one brand of bullets taken from him while in custody.
No amount of word smorgasbord-ery is going to alter the abundantly-obvious truth that Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
What else but nonsensical things do you expect from Chapman?
So many words.
Something you can't deal with, right? You need small portions to be able to understand.
In a nutshell, you suggest a vast conspiracy to frame Oswald for some unspecified reason
No, that's your nutshell, with the emphasis on the three first letters in the word.
then dispute that the planted evidence links him to the crime.
Planted or not, if you are talking about the rifle, let's say that he did buy it (which although possible is by no means certain) and was photographed with it in April 1963. That doesn't mean that he was the shooter in November 1963.
some unnamed entity for some unknown reason attempted to framed Oswald via his shirt fibers but then you reject the shirt fibers as linking him to the crime.
It wasn't an "unnamed entity"... It was the Warren Commission and Hoover's boys, who only had one task; to "prove" to the people that Oswald (who was already dead) had been the sole gunman. Remember the Katzenbach memo? Who was it again who said; we need to wrap this thing around Oswald as tight was we can.
John Adams said "facts are stubborn things" and he was right.
Fact: Oswald's arrest shirt was sent to the FBI lab, on Friday night, together with the rifle
Fact: No other shirt was ever sent to the FBI
Fact: On none of the photos taken of Oswald in which he was wearing that shirt, before it went to Washington, damage to a sleeve can be seen
Fact: After Oswald's death, the FBI found some fibers on the rifle which were similar to those of the shirt they had received.
Fact: When detectives took the arrest shirt to Bledsoe's house, in December 1963, it suddenly had a hole in it's sleeve.
Fact: Bledsoe had not said anything about the shirt or the hole in the sleeve in her Affidavit
Fact: Bledsoe told the WC in her testimony that she recognized the shirt because he [Oswald] was wearing it before he was shot. Despite the notes she brough with he, she does not mention anywhere in her testimony that she saw Oswald wear the shirt on the bus....
I'll leave it to you to do the math.... but you won't, because law enforcement officers never ever create evidence against a suspect they "know" is guilty when they lack the evidence to prove it, right?
It is an Alice in Wonderland narrative.
I wouldn't know. You're the expert on Alice in Wonderland...
It’s “abundantly obvious” to Bill Chapman of “the other Frazier” fame. How compelling.
I'm going to try to dumb this down once more so perhaps even you can understand. You suggest a risky charade to frame Oswald involving the shirt fibers that requires a random citizen witness to lie and others to facilitate that lie. But then you dispute that the fibers link Oswald to the crime citing the findings of the very same folks who you claim facilitated this frame up. Can you understand the logical disconnect in your line of "reasoning"?
You suggest a risky charade to frame Oswald involving the shirt fibers that requires a random citizen witness to lie and others to facilitate that lie.
First of all, there was nothing risky about it, as Oswald was already dead and there wasn't going to be a trial. Secondly, there was no need for a random citizen to lie. Bledsoe's testimony, if you read it careful, never makes the link between the shirt and Oswald wearing it on the bus. It's the power of suggestion at work. Bledsoe did not mention the shirt in her affidavit at all and in her testimony she recognized the shirt from the time they brought it out to her house and classified it as the shirt he was wearing "before he was shot".
But then you dispute that the fibers link Oswald to the crime citing the findings of the very same folks who you claim facilitated this frame up.
I have disputed that fibers can be linked to a particular shirt. Stombaugh agrees, as would any other fiber expert.
Can you understand the logical disconnect in your line of "reasoning"?
There is no logical disconnect. I don't cite "the very same folks who facilitated the frame up", but instead cite the opinion of a fiber expert who may not have been part of the frame up at all. You seem to believe, rather foolishly, that everybody who made a statement in this case must have been knowingly part of the cover up, when in fact there is no need for that at all. Stombaugh, for instance, could very well have received the shirt with a hole in the sleeve and the rifle with fibers on it and just conducted an examination.
If there is a logical disconnect, it is on your side. You are the one who, mistakenly, believes or wants to believe that a cover up of this nature would involve massive numbers of people, when in fact it could all be done by a few people at the right place to manipulate the evidence.
Total BS. You are completely misrepresenting what Bowles told the HSCA.
More BS.... Bowles was in charge of the DPD dispatchers and he confirmed that the time stamps basically only served the purpose of documenting a sequence of events rather than represent actual time. In fact, he explained in great detail how the time stamps called out by the dispatchers had nothing to do with actual time at all.
And as for the cab company; Whaley testified he marked his trips to the nearest 15 minutes.
Mr. WHALEY. I thought maybe you might need it. You look down there it says Greyhound, 500 North Beckley, I think it is marked 12:30 to 12:45. Now that could have been 10 minutes off in each direction because I didn't use a watch, I just guess, in other words, all my trips are marked about 15 minutes each.
What kind of an argument is this? You don't know if they did or not, but you are going to throw your own opinion, which isn't worth much, out there anyway. Really?
As far as the motorcade was concerned, police was already deploying along the route well ahead of the arrival of the motorcade. They didn't need any times passed on by the dispatcher. The motorcade itself communicated where they were and how far they were still out from their destination. That's the only thing the officers deployed along the route needed to know.
Sure, they needed to call the nearest cab if somebody wanted to be picked up from some location. Whenever I go to the airport I always take a cab. They never specify an 100% correct time of arrival for the cab but instead just make sure there is one on time to get me to the airport on time. It's not rocket science!
Like hell, you are "not assuming this". All you are doing is making assumptions. You are not arguing facts or evidence. You are arguing hypotheticals. And your question about clocks and watches being better calibrated that the DPD's and cab company's clock is a bogus one. I have already demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the time given by Scoggins doesn't even match any of the times on the DPD transcripts, which means that from the two only one can be right, if any of the two is right at all.
I have also demonstrated, time after time again, that the man in charge of the DPD dispatchers himself disputes that the DPD clocks were calibrated at all, going so far as to tell the HSCA that the DPD times can not be relied up to reflect actual time.
You keep on ignoring that, evidence based, information and instead make up nothing but hypothetical go nowhere claims you can't even support with any kind of evidence yourself. So much for being interested in the truth!
LNers everywhere must cringe every time Chapman attempts to argue their side...
In which we learn that there is nothing risky involved in framing someone for the assassination of the President with fake evidence! And when a witness says that she saw a hole in Oswald's shirt, she is not lying if she didn't see a hole in Oswald's shirt due to the "power of suggestion"! LOL And there is no logical disconnect in faking certain evidence for the purpose of linking someone to a crime but then claiming the evidence that was faked doesn't link them to the crime. And on and on. Hopeless.
You suggest a risky charade to frame Oswald involving the shirt fibers that requires a random citizen witness to lie and others to facilitate that lie.
First of all, there was nothing risky about it, as Oswald was already dead and there wasn't going to be a trial. Secondly, there was no need for a random citizen to lie. Bledsoe's testimony, if you read it careful, never makes the link between the shirt and Oswald wearing it on the bus. It's the power of suggestion at work. Bledsoe did not mention the shirt in her affidavit at all and in her testimony she recognized the shirt from the time they brought it out to her house and classified it as the shirt he was wearing "before he was shot".
But then you dispute that the fibers link Oswald to the crime citing the findings of the very same folks who you claim facilitated this frame up.
I have disputed that fibers can be linked to a particular shirt. Stombaugh agrees, as would any other fiber expert.
Can you understand the logical disconnect in your line of "reasoning"?
There is no logical disconnect. I don't cite "the very same folks who facilitated the frame up", but instead cite the opinion of a fiber expert who may not have been part of the frame up at all. You seem to believe, rather foolishly, that everybody who made a statement in this case must have been knowingly part of the cover up, when in fact there is no need for that at all. Stombaugh, for instance, could very well have received the shirt with a hole in the sleeve and the rifle with fibers on it and just conducted an examination.
If there is a logical disconnect, it is on your side. You are the one who, mistakenly, believes or wants to believe that a cover up of this nature would involve massive numbers of people, when in fact it could all be done by a few people at the right place to manipulate the evidence.
And if the starting time is wrong all other times are wrong as well. The information that J.C. Bowles, the man in charge of the DPD dispatchers, provided to the HSCA shows unequivocally that the times on the radio transcripts can not be relied upon as being the actual times.
"Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock."
A clock that provides a time stamp that can be off by two minutes ahead or behind the "official" times is basically off by four minutes.
I can take Bowles’ words out of context also.
From Bowles’ report:
By noting the stated times and the duration of messages in the minutes preceding the incident of the open microphone, I have, for practical purposes, fixed the time for the start of the five-minute open mike episode at 12:29:10 p.m. (Channel 1 time). Time statements broadcast later confirm this as a rational assumption. (See PART II, CHAPTER FIVE for technical details demonstrating this confirmation.) Since it is important to have a zero-base from which one might project future time points, a decision was necessary. In using the start of the five-minute interval, and 12:29:10 (Channel 1) as the zero-base, with subsequent time factored thereon, "time" would at least be constant if not absolutely accurate. If not absolutely accurate, time statements cannot be more than a second or two off. The reader is encouraged to reach an independent decision based on the transcriptions of the radio transmissions contained in the Appendix
But I don’t claim that that sentence means all of the time statements, on both channels, all day long. It is way too complicated to argue this stuff on this forum. What you seem to fail to comprehend is that Bowles’ report is in rebuttal to the acoustics report. Here is an example of the type of stuff that he is trying to explain cannot be done using the recordings:
A considerable number of references to exact times, even to tenths of seconds, exist in the Committee's Report....
No where does Bowles indicate that the time could be 6 or 7 minutes off, period. And that is what one would have to assume if one believes that Bowley’s watch was accurate and he arrived on the scene at 1:10. So you are the one grossly misrepresenting what Bowles’ report says.
And as for the cab company; Whaley testified he marked his trips to the nearest 15 minutes
There is a difference in expectations for the times on the individual time sheets kept by the cab drivers and the ones kept by the dispatchers. In the late seventies I ran a radio dispatched service truck and kept track of the times I spent on each call for billing purposes. These were also rounded off to the nearest quarter-hour. The times recorded by the dispatcher didn’t need to match exactly but were kept as a record of when the call was received, dispatched, and completed. Travel times varied but were accounted for in this way. You are trying to compare apples to oranges (so to speak).
But, the problem for you is that you are using Bowles' words to suggest that it is possible that the clocks were off by as much as six or seven minutes, while Bowles tells you they may be off by two minutes maximum at any given time.
Bowles said that "it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock." He did not say that the clocks themselves "may be off by two minutes maximum".
He did say "A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time." but did not mention that "official time" was the same as real time!
He also said; "Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose, they indicated the incorrect time." and when the clocks show the incorrect time, the time calls on the DPD recordings and transcripts derived from them are also incorrect.
And he said; "Radio operators were also furnished with 12-hour digital clocks to facilitate their time references when they were not using call sheets containing stamped time. These digital clocks were not synchronized with any time standard. Therefore, the time "actual" and time "broadcast" could easily be a minute or so apart."
Dispatchers worked with clocks that were either known to be incorrect and/or were not synchronized with any time standard. There was no guarantee that any of those clocks matched the time on the master clock, nor was there any certainty that the time on the master clock was in fact the same as real time. And then, on top of it all, the dispatcher could give out a time on the radio that did not correspond with the time on the clock he was using.
I am not even sure where you are getting the 6 or 7 minutes from. According to the transcripts Bowley called the dispatcher somewhere after the 1.16 time call. Bowley said he arrived at the scene at 1.10 (according to his watch) so I would argue that it's possible he actually made the call to the dispatcher at around 1.11. That makes the difference only some 5 minutes. And if Bowley's watch was one minute slow, the difference would only be 4 minutes.
You have been doing so all the time. No need to convince me of that.
You compare apples and oranges. The comment you have quoted relates to the so-called open mike episode, where an open mike caused the recording device to record without interruption for some 5 minutes. Obviously, any time statements during that period can not be more than a second or two off, because the continuous recording makes it possible to check the exact times during that period.
But I don’t claim that that sentence means all of the time statements, on both channels, all day long.
Because that would be disingenuous at best, as the time stamps called out by the dispatchers are all individual items recorded on a voice activated system and thus can not be verified in a similar manner than during the 5 minute open mike episode.
It is way too complicated to argue this stuff on this forum.
No it isn't. It's very simple actually. Bowles explained in great deal how the system of clocks and time calls related to eachother and why none of it is reliable.
What you seem to fail to comprehend is that Bowles’ report is in rebuttal to the acoustics report.
I've understood that from day one, which is why it is so interesting that in his effort to discredit the acoustics report he actually gave away the game regarding the reliability of the time calls made by the dispatchers. I don't believe that was his intention, but there it was anyway.
I can not make a misrepresentation of something by not saying that particular something. I have never claimed that Bowles has indicated that the time could be 6 or 7 minutes off. I have merely stated that the times given on the transcripts can not be relied upon simply because Bowles has confirmed and explained in great detail that the system of clocks can not be relied upon to give the actual time. I also have never claimed that Bowley's watch was 100% accurate.
Nope... Double hearsay is double hearsay. The dispatcher never produced his sheet and the time he allegedly gave Scoggins does not even match the times on the DPD transcripts.
For example; according to the DPD transcripts the ambulance was called at 1.18. As the funeral home from where it came was only a block away, on Jefferson, the ambulance arrived straight away, probably in less than a minute. Yet, Scoggings claimed that he called his dispatcher when the ambulance got there and allegedly according to his dispatcher that was at 1.23. It doesn't add up. In one of my previous posts I have already destroyed your entire Scoggins story, so I am done repeating it to you again. You can go back and read it or not. Either way I don't care, your Scoggins story is a fairytale.
Bowley made the report on the police radio at 1:17.
Nothing in Bowles' statements suggest that the clocks were off by as much as six or seven minutes, which is how much they would have to be off if in reality Bowley reported the shooting at 1:11, as you suggest.
Because that would be disingenuous at best, as the time stamps called out by the dispatchers are all individual items recorded on a voice activated system and thus can not be verified in a similar manner than during the 5 minute open mike episode.
A repeat of what I posted, from Bowles’ report, above:
By noting the stated times and the duration of messages in the minutes preceding the incident of the open microphone, I have, for practical purposes, fixed the time for the start of the five-minute open mike episode at 12:29:10 p.m. (Channel 1 time)
Bowles determined the time of the start of that open mike period based on (what he says). There is no reason that a similar method could not be applied to a particular point in the time frame of the recordings during the period of the Tippit shooting.
No it isn't. It's very simple actually. Bowles explained in great deal how the system of clocks and time calls related to eachother and why none of it is reliable.
Yeah, like I indicated, not reliable enough to tie something down to a tenth of a second. The report is very long and detailed with one aspect depending on the correct understandings of other aspects. And you only accept the parts that you want to. There is no point in trying to discuss this. The report speaks for itself.
Scoggins time does not need to match the DPD time. Why do you insist that it must? If the DPD time is off a minute or two, and the cab company’s time is off a minute or two, and the dispatcher delayed his recording of the call to notify the police; then there is no conflict between them. So the conflict between Bowley’s watch and the other two times is what is in dispute. You can believe what you want. I really don’t care. But there is no way that I will believe that both the DPD and the cab company’s time are off by 6 or 7 minutes.
He fixed the time, for practical purposes, at 12:29. That doesn't mean that time was correct. He needed a starting point from where to time the duration of the open mike episode. He could just as easily have used 12:28 or 12:31. What he tried to establish was if the open mike episode could have occurred when the acoustics report claimed it did.
There is no reason that a similar method could not be applied to a particular point in the time frame of the recordings during the period of the Tippit shooting
Oh yes there is a reason. The radio calls were recorded on voice activated devices. When you do not know how long each interval is between each activation you will get nowhere. Had the recording been continuous it would have been a different matter because all you then needed was a starting point. But it wasn't continuous. I have actually heard a part of the dictabelt recording and what the time calls by the dispatchers suggested was a one hour period only lasted (if I remember correctly) 48 minutes on the dictabelt
No, not reliable to tie it down to a particular minute. Who says I only accept the parts of the report I want to? That's total BS. You can do a song and dance routine as much as you like, but you will never be able to deny that Bowles said;
"Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose, they indicated the incorrect time."
and
"Radio operators were also furnished with 12-hour digital clocks to facilitate their time references when they were not using call sheets containing stamped time. These digital clocks were not synchronized with any time standard. Therefore, the time "actual" and time "broadcast" could easily be a minute or so apart."
These two factual comments are enough to conclude that the times provided by the dispatchers can not be relied upon.
Scoggins time does not need to match the DPD time. Why do you insist that it must?
For crying out loud, when you claim that DPD times and the time Scoggins gave are correct, they have to be in sinc with eachother, don't you think? There is only one sequence of events that is and can be the right one.....
If the DPD time is off a minute or two, and the cab company’s time is off a minute or two, and the dispatcher delayed his recording of the call to notify the police; then there is no conflict between them.
Aha, I see... between the two of them they can be off by a couple of minutes, but they can't be off against all the other time related evidence that is out there? Got it... that's some special pleading!
So the conflict between Bowley’s watch and the other two times is what is in dispute.
Sure.. and the time(s) Markham's bus left Jefferson, and the time recorded on the authorisation for autopsy which says Dr Ligouri declared Tippit DOA at 1.15, and the time Detective Davenport registered for the DOA and the time that NBC news reported Tippit's DOA (before it actually could have happened in Scoggins' alternative time line).
But there is no way that I will believe that both the DPD and the cab company’s time are off by 6 or 7 minutes.
No worries. The is also no way that I will believe that you are willing to look at the evidence honestly and are only interested in the truth.... I suppose living in cuckoo land will eventually drive you cuckoo...
He could just as easily have used 12:28 or 12:31.
I suggest that you might want to read the following:
Time statements broadcast later confirm this as a rational assumption. (See PART II, CHAPTER FIVE for technical details demonstrating this confirmation.)
He could not have just as easily used 12:28 or 12:31. The time he used appears to be derived as a close approximation of a time that is based on the first shot occurring at approximately 12:30:55 (not some arbitrary time, and the general consensus is that 12:30 Central Standard Time is the approximate time of the shooting). I have taken another look at the method he describes and it appears to me that his derived time synchronizes to within about 40-seconds or so of the announced time at 12:28 (before the mike stuck open) on channel 1.
Had the recording been continuous it would have been a different matter because all you then needed was a starting point.
What you need to keep in mind is that the 5-minute stuck-open mike was just another sound activated recording. The main difference is that it lasted way longer than the typical one. The starting point time for that recording was derived from the recorded times of other activities. Bowles describes his method in detail. My contention is that a similar derived time can be approximated for the Tippit shooting using a similar method.
For crying out loud, when you claim that DPD times and the time Scoggins gave are correct, they have to be in sinc with eachother, don't you think?
Did I claim that either one or both were 100% accurate. I don’t believe that I ever did that. What I suggested is that both of the entities involved had good reason to keep their times reasonably close to the standard time. A minute or two off is about as far off as they should ever be. And most of the time they should be closer than that.
So, his starting time estimate of 1.29 was a rational assumption. So what? He needed a starting point and he found one. That's it.
Yes, I do know that the 5 minute open mike recording was a sound activated recording, which subsequently continued for 5 minutes. So what?
You could only have done that for the Tippit shooting if the recording during that period was continuous, which it wasn't. If there had been a continuous recording, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
You don't have to claim that either was 100% accurate. There was only one sequence of events. The things that happened did happen in a specific order and at a particular time. So, if you want to argue that the DPD recordings and the time provided by Scoggins both are to be believed (which is what you did) they should at least not be at odds with eachother. But they are! That's my point. You can not have a DPD call to the ambulance service at 1.18 on the transcripts (which means the ambulance was there at 1.19 at the latest) and have Scoggins say that he was calling his dispatcher when the ambulance arrived at 1.23. I don't understand why I need to explain something as basic as this to you, again and again...
Why would I need to show such a nonsensical thing?
Let me catch you up: Oswald was seen wearing a jacket @Tippit. An if-guilty Oswald would not want to be wearing, in the line-up, the same clothing he was seen wearing @Tippit.
Thus, no request (unless you can prove otherwise) by Oswald for his jacket.
Well?
So, his starting time estimate of 1.29 was a rational assumption. So what? He needed a starting point and he found one. That's it.
The fact that he needed one is not what made it a rational assumption.
You could only have done that for the Tippit shooting if the recording during that period was continuous, which it wasn't.
If you are stipulating that it be as accurate as Bowles’ report and accurately cover an extended period of time. Then I might agree. But the event that enables Bowles to closely associate his derived time to Central time is the known generally accepted time of the JFK shooting. Not just the continuous recording aspect alone.
You can not have a DPD call to the ambulance service at 1.18 on the transcripts (which means the ambulance was there at 1.19 at the latest) and have Scoggins say that he was calling his dispatcher when the ambulance arrived at 1.23.
The 1:23 is the time that Scoggins said that the dispatcher indicated to the supervisor that he recorded the call. Not what you said above.
None of this has any relevance for the Tippit murder. There was no continuous recording nor an event that could be used to fix a starting time.
Hang on, you were relying on the time Scoggins gave to somehow "prove" that Bowley's watch was slow and you even went so far as to argue that the cab company's clock was better calibrated than Bowley's watch. So, your intention was clearly to present the 1.23 "recorded time" as the time the call actually took place, when it clearly wasn't.
Now you basically say; Scoggins claimed he heard from his dispatcher that the supervisor had written down the time of 1.23 some time after the actual call took place. In other words, it had nothing to do with a calibrated clock and it could have been written down minutes later, depending on whatever else the supervisor was doing at that time.
So all you've really got is a double hearsay of a time that is not the actual time the call took place!
If you had presented this argument in a court of law, you would have been laughed out of court and probably reprimanded by the Judge for wasting the court's time.
Scoggins' time of 1.23 is completely meaningless and does not influence the time line I have presented at all.
If you had presented your "timeline" in a court of law, they would be laughing even harder.
But this isn't a court of law. If LHO had survived to go to trial, and this became part of the evidence, the witnesses would be there and questions would be answered.
And an if-not guilty Oswald would not be asking - for lack of knowledge - for a jacket, if he had left the rooming house without a jacket and had never been at the Tippit scene. Duh.
He was seen wearing a jacket @Tippit
An innocent Oswald wouldn't have to ask for his jacket.
He would still have it with him.
If you had presented your "timeline" in a court of law, they would be laughing even harder.
Which only tells me that you are clueless about what goes on in a court room. And isn't it a pity that you have been totally unable to discredit the time line in it's entirety and never got any further than questioning parts of it based on highly dubious claims, misrepresentations and warped logic.
But this isn't a court of law. If LHO had survived to go to trial, and this became part of the evidence, the witnesses would be there and questions would be answered.
Indeed, and the WC case against Oswald would collapse before the prosecutor's eyes.
The defense would have called Dorothy Garner who would testify that she saw nobody going the down the stairs between the time Victoria Adams went down and Baker & Truly came up. They would establish which shirt Oswald was wearing on Friday morning and what jacket he was wearing to Irving on Thursday evening. They would question where the hole in Oswald's came from, as it does not show in any of the photos taken after Oswald's arrest and they would determine that Bledsoe could not have seen Oswald wear the arrest shirt on the bus. They would destroy Earlene Roberts and establish that Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket and they would have a forensic investigation done in the DPD clocks, recordings and transcripts as well as have Bowles on the stand to explain why "official time" is not the same as "real time". Then they would put Bowley on the stand and have him confirm exactly what he did that day and that his watch said 1.10 when he arrived at 10th Street. Next they would put Westbrook on and have him explain how a white jacket became a grey jacket, two hours later, and they would establish the complete lack of a chain of custody for (1) the revolver, (2) the wallet and (3) the jacket. And that would only be the beginning.....
But none of this has anything to do with the fact that you, by using a double hearsay comment by Scoggins, tried to pass off 1.23 as the moment the ambulance arrived and as somehow prove that Bowley's watch was slow. So much for wanting to find the truth, Mr. Collins
This is Martin’s game (Martin is aka Paul):
(https://i.vgy.me/6fKRdO.png)
This is Martin’s game (Martin is aka Paul):
(https://i.vgy.me/6fKRdO.png)
Seems you've had a couple of face-to-facers with CTers as have I. They tend to yell very loudly, along with demonstrating the body-english of a cage fighter.
There is the circular logic again.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade.
An innocent Oswald who left the rooming house without a jacket would have no need to ask for a jacket.
Seems you've had a couple of face-to-facers with CTers as have I. They tend to yell very loudly, along with demonstrating the body-english of a cage fighter.
I tried having a reasonable discussion, ignoring the insults, etc. When that proved impossible I gave up.
Here is an exerpt from Chapter One of “With Malice” by Dale Myers:
Former dispatch supervisor Jim Bowles used a stop watch and some mathematics to deduce a “real” time from the police recordings by comparing an arbitrary zero base-time with the recorded time announcements that followed. A similar technique was applied to the entire channel one recordings for this book. The study shows that with the exception of five areas, the rapid radio exchanges that occurred in the wake of the Kennedy assassination caused the channel one recorder to operate in an almost continuous fashion. The result is a virtual “running clock” on the events surrounding Tippit’s death and the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. It should be stressed that the recording contains no exact record of “real time.” What it does contain is a sequence of events whose relationship to one another can be measured. For example, a time check of 1:19 p.m. and a check of 1:22 p.m. do not necessarily relate to “real time,” yet a stop watch review of the tapes show that the two instances did occur three minutes apart. By applying a stop watch and some mathematics to the channel one recordings, and comparing the resulting sequence of events with the eyewitness accounts, a reasonably accurate reconstruction of the Tippit murder and its aftermath was possible. The result is the real-life detective story that follows.
This is what I was suggesting is possible earlier in this thread. Dale’s description is better than mine.
Oh look.. the LN "mini-me" joins in, again.... What a surprise... Not!
No CTr yells, but it's certainly possible that what they say comes trough loud and clear enough to shatter the LN fantasy.
You sound like a f*cking Republican, accusing other of what they are doing themselves and then whine that people are nasty when their fake crap get destroyed!
It's kinda sad and ironic, because if you guys (before you ask; the LNs) had an easily defendable and persuasive case you wouldn't need this pathetic behavior.
Oswald was seen wearing a jacket @Tippit. And point out where I claim that Oswald didn't have a jacket when he left the rooming house.
Here, let me catch you up: Since June 2019, there
are a total of 29 separate references related to my
interactions regarding Fritz
Bowley made the report on the police radio at 1:17.
And point out where I claim that Oswald didn't have a jacket when he left the rooming house.
Exactly. You don't claim that. Instead you just assume that he did leave the rooming house with a jacket.
That's the circular logic!
No assumptions needed
Earlene testified to seeing him in a jacket
And Buell Frazier testified that Oswald was wearing a grey jacket with a zipper to Irving on Thursday evening. Now what?
Colour perception is subjective.
Memory is fallible.
Bully for you. So who’s “the other Frazier” who threatened Buell Frazier then?
But only for a witness who says something you do not like, right?
Frazier sat next to Oswald during the drive to Irving for at least 20 minutes and was close enough to see the color of the jacket under all sorts of light conditions.
Earlene Roberts was blind in one eye, was concentrating on the television and saw Oswald a few seconds as he walked by.
Where Frazier said the jacket he saw was grey, Roberts rejected that same grey jacket, shown to her by the WC, as too light. She had seen a darker jacket.
Yet, for the LNs, Roberts, who got just about everything else wrong, is the one to rely on....Right?
And blatant dishonesty is par for the course for you!
Buell wasn't paying attention. He was driving the car.
She wasn't sure about the colour.
Point out why you find me dishonest at all, let alone blatantly.
Buell wasn't paying attention. He was driving the car.
Really? And then you need to ask why you are dishonest? You're a f*cking joke!
Waiting for evidence of me being dishonest..
It should be stressed that the recording contains no exact record of “real time.”
This alone makes everything that follows questionable.
What it does contain is a sequence of events whose relationship to one another can be measured. For example, a time check of 1:19 p.m. and a check of 1:22 p.m. do not necessarily relate to “real time,” yet a stop watch review of the tapes show that the two instances did occur three minutes apart.
I understand the logic of what he is saying, but it is meaningless if he is still using the times called out by the dispatcher, because that ignores completely what Bowles told the HSCA about the time stamps not being reliable to determine "real time".
And, even worse, the transcripts show that no times were called between 12.55 and 1.04. After that the next time call is 1.07 and then between 1.12 and 1.15 there were no time calls. Those are gaps of 9 minutes, 3 minutes and 3 minutes respectively. And then there is the problem that the actual audio recordings demonstrate clearly that there was no continuous recording between 12.55 and 1.15 and there also is no event during that period that could pin point an exact time, so there is now way of knowing where to start the stopwatch Myers claimed to have used.
Myers concluded that Tippit was killed at 1.14. If the starting time of the dictabelt recording was off by three minutes, which IMO opinion, given what Bowles told the HSCA is not beyond being impossible, the real time could have easily be 1.11 and the DPD recordings would still match up.
By applying a stop watch and some mathematics to the channel one recordings, and comparing the resulting sequence of events with the eyewitness accounts, a reasonably accurate reconstruction of the Tippit murder and its aftermath was possible.
There is absolutely no way that Myers could have compared the DPD recordings with the eyewitness accounts, simply because those eyewitness account do not match with the transcripts.
But, and I am going out on a limb here, if you are prepared to look at the factual information honestly, I am willing to walk you through the "comparision" of the DPD transcripts with the eyewitness accounts.
But, and I am going out on a limb here, if you are prepared to look at the factual information honestly, I am willing to walk you through the "comparision" of the DPD transcripts with the eyewitness accounts.
But, and I am going out on a limb here, if you are prepared to look at the factual information honestly, I am willing to walk you through the "comparision" of the DPD transcripts with the eyewitness accounts.
I suggest that you contact Dale Myers with your proposal. You could even do a live in-person debate with him and charge for the privilege to view it online to pay for the expenses and might even make a profit. Who knows? I know who my bet would be on for the winner!
Memory is fallible.
He could not have just as easily used 12:28 or 12:31. The time he used appears to be derived as a close approximation of a time that is based on the first shot occurring at approximately 12:30:55
Let me catch you up: Oswald was seen wearing a jacket @Tippit. An if-guilty Oswald would not want to be wearing, in the line-up, the same clothing he was seen wearing @Tippit.
Thus, no request (unless you can prove otherwise) by Oswald for his jacket.
Well?
Yeah, that's what I thought. When it comes right down to it you chicken out and run to mommy (or in this case Dale Myers).
I’ve engaged with Myers on Facebook. It’s a waste of time. He doesn’t ever admit to being wrong, even when he clearly is, and insults people who dare to disagree with him. Much like most of the LNers here.
Well what? Your speculation about what Oswald would want is relevant how?
As if you could catch anybody up on anything. You can’t even keep people’s names straight.
Easy. Look at your posting history. You even lie about not being dishonest.
Exactly.
Of course he will never admit he is wrong, because he has a book to sell and a reputation to protect.
Where did you get that idea? Bowles clearly states that his zero-base time was arbitrary. He says nothing about when the shots occurred with regard to the accuracy of the clocks, and the shots (at least in his opinion) are not audible on the recording.
There are a lot of things that LN-ers claim “general consensus” on that are not demonstrable.
Let me catch you up, Slick: No guilty Oswald would parade around in a jacket he was seen wearing
@Tippit.
Proof: He ditched it.
I acknowledged my unforced error
You'll have to point out specific posts, since I see utterly no dishonesty on my part.
And it is definitely not arbitrary. You are simply wrong.
I’m not going argue the dictionary with you. Here’s another definition from Merriam-Webster:
“based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something”
Rather than wasting time quibbling over word definitions, do you agree that Bowles states that he picked his “zero-base” timestamp for “practical purposes” and that no absolute record of time exists?
Bowles:
“1. No exact record of "time" exists;
2. The several clocks were not synchronized;
3. The radio operators were not exact with regard to "time statements" on either radio;
4. The recordings were continuous only on Channel 1, and only while the mike was stuck open;“
Where did you get that idea? Bowles clearly states that his zero-base time was arbitrary. He says nothing about when the shots occurred with regard to the accuracy of the clocks, and the shots (at least in his opinion) are not audible on the recording.
There are a lot of things that LN-ers claim “general consensus” on that are not demonstrable.
Bowles clearly states that his zero-base time was arbitrary.
Does he? ???
Arguing ad nauseam over petty details of a matter that has nothing to do with the Tippit murder radio transcripts, you want to do, but when given an opportunity to debate and verify the validity and probative value of the transcripts, in relation to the Tippit murder, compared to what the witnesses said, you run to mommy.....
So much for only being interested in the truth.
Seeing you beg for someone to discuss this with you, and no one seems to be interested does my heart good. The silence to your begging is well deserved.
And changing the subject when called to back up claims has become the expected response from both of you.
He said, rather dishonestly.
Nervous about something?
Sticks and stones, little man.
The fact that no LNr is interested (which hardly comes as a surprise) only tells me they are afraid to be confronted by facts they don't like and can't dispute. You are the biggest coward of them all.
You implied that you would put your money on Myers if he was to fight your battle for you, but I can tell you right now, it's a good thing you didn't because, with the factual evidence (from the witnesses) I am going to present, his little fairytale is going to be blown out of the water and the credibility of the DPD transcripts with it. But why am I telling you this? You're not interested in the truth, right?
I have no illusions. I'll be doing this little exercise for myself as it is impossible to combat a LN cult member's belief with facts.
He said, rather dishonestly.
No. You?
The fact that no LNr is interested (which hardly comes as a surprise) only tells me they are afraid to be confronted by facts they don't like and can't dispute.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you are a legend in your own mind. ::)
I'll be doing this little exercise for myself
Hilarious, be sure to congratulate yourself when you (of course) “win”.... :D
You didn't say, rather cowardly
I have nothing to be nervous about, Pinochio
When is the next cult meeting?
Didn't say what?
Perhaps you should be nervous about your spelling..... Just saying.
MT: In contrast, Bowley, Burt, and Cimino arrived too late to see the killing and the subsequent flight of the shooter. As such, they had nothing probative to add to the record, and were not called to testify.Well, they certainly didn't witness anything involving either Tippit's murder or it's aftermath, so I'd have to say they were deposed with the deliberate intent to give future conspiracy theorists red herrings to toss around when all else failed. I hope you sent a nice note thanking them for that thoughtful touch. Proper etiquette aside, why you think Bowley could be used to "pin point" anything is a mystery. You've presented no evidence whatsoever that his watch was any more accurate than any other clock that day.
Where Burt and Cimino are concerned I agree. In Bowley's case you are wrong, because he could pin point the time of the crime. That's probative, at least in a honest investigation, and if you feel that it is not, then please explain why the FBI went through all sorts of trouble to get time estimates for the time of DOA from the hospital, to such an extend that they were calling several times daily and a nurse described it as boardering on harassment. Also please explain why they did call people like James Thomas Aycox, Anne Boudreaux and George Bouhe who did not witness anything at all?
MT: Bowley's call from the radio in Car 10 is immortalized on the channel one dictabelt recording, nestled with any number time stamps useful to place when that radio call was made. With the dictabelt, there's no need to know what time Bowley thought it was.Again, this is what I've been saying from the beginning: in 1963, clocks in common use could only be reasonably expected to be within 5 minutes of standard time. You keep proving my points for me! However, you haven't shown that Bowley's watch, or Davenport's, or Methodist Hospital's clocks, or Markham's *estimate* were any more accurate than the DPD's. And you can't. I should probably still address what Bowles wrote. And I should start by saying clarifying that the test you've quoted is from his "The Kennedy Assassination Tapes," Bowles' rebuttal to the BBN/WA echo correlation analyses. As far as I can find, he never testified in front of the HSCA, nor presented the this work to them. Not sure why you think that would be the case. That being set straight, lets get onto the meat of the problem. When Bowles says that "There is no way to connect 'police time' with 'real time.'" He is specifically referring to this statement by BBN:
BS. First of all, the dictabelt was a voice activated machine that did not run all the time, and thus can not give an accurate sequence of events as far as actual time is concerned and, secondly, the times being called by the dispatcher can not be relied upon, as J.C. Bowles, the man in charge of the DPD dispatchers, explained to the HSCA that the clocks used by the dispatchers did not reflect real time.
A quote from Bowles' HSCA testimony;
A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time. Within the dispatcher's office there were numerous other time giving and time recording devices, both in the telephone room and in the radio room. Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose, they indicated the incorrect time. However, their purpose was to stamp the time, day and date on incoming calls. While they were reliable at this, they were not synchronized as stated in the Committee report. Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock. Accordingly, at "exactly" 10:10, various clocks could be stamping from 10:08 to 10:12, for example. When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done.
In addition to the times stamped on calls by telephone operators, the radio operators stamped the "time" as calls were dispatched, and the "time" that officers completed an assignment and returned to service. Radio operators were also furnished with 12-hour digital clocks to facilitate their time references when they were not using call sheets containing stamped time. These digital clocks were not synchronized with any time standard. Therefore, the time "actual" and time "broadcast" could easily be a minute or so apart.
So, in short; the master clock was connected to a clock at town hall that showed "official time". It's not even sure that was the same as real time. All other clocks used by the DPD were not automatically synchronized with the master clock and required adjustments, which in busy periods did not always take place.
As it was not uncommon for the time stamps, which is "broadcast" time to differ by minutes from "actual" time on a DPD dispatcher clock, which in turn could differ from the "official" time on the master clock connected to the City Hall System, which in turn could differ from "real" time, there is no way you can rely on the DPD recordings and/or transcripts to get an accurate time.
MT: The "police time" bit is what exactly the what I was getting at. Your problem is, there is also a "Markham time" problem, a "Bowley time" problem, a "Davenport time" problem, etc, and no expectation that any of them would conform more closely to some standard reference clock than "police time."The guilty dog barks first, Mr Weidmann. Pointless insults aside, you haven't rebutted anything here. "In combination" is, in your case, a pretty nebulous concoction. In reality, the measurement of time is subject to the same issues with precision, accuracy, and margin of error just as that any other measurement humans can make. In this case, we're talking about people running around with a cheap mechanical clock on their wrist that was last synchronized God knows when with a reference that was God knows haw far off of standard time. Markham is subject to the same issues that everyone else had in those days. But really, her sense of time is particularly suspect: as you've noted, she was trying to catch the "1:15" bus to downtown even though the scheduled times were 1:12 and 1:22. She didn't even know what time her bus was supposed to be there. And she left home at about 1:00 PM in order to catch a bus that would take her the 3.5 miles so she could start her shift at 2:30. That's right: she gave herself an hour and a half to go 3.5 miles. That's someone who's used to missing her bus and knew to give herself more than enough time for the next one. That's not someone who I'd expect to have a good grasp of exactly what time it was.
No, there isn't a "Markam time" problem etc. On an individual level each item can perhaps be questioned to some extend but not in combination with eachother. When I created the timeline, it was clear to me that no LN would look at the combined facts in an honest manner, and so far I've been right. And that obviously includes you.
MT: And there are those pesky accounts that you haven't mentioned, like the FBI interview where Dr Liguori says he declared Tippit DOA at 1:25 (and it's helpful to realize that "time of death" is not necessarily the same as "time declared dead.")You realize that Davenport altered the time of death in his report as well? In good copies, you can easily see that he'd originally put the time of death as "1:00" then overstruck the "00" with "15." This creates a problem for you. The change can't really be explained by a simple typo; on a typewriter keyboard, "0" is on the opposite side of the top row from "1", with "5" in the middle. It's hard to see how Davenport's fingers would confuse "0" for "1" and another "0" for "5." Had Davenport known firsthand that the TOD/DOA was at 1:15, he would have typed it that way the first time. Another interesting detail is the times he chooses to type. The time of death is placed at 1:00 then 1:15 as I've already mentioned. He then notes that a button and bullet was removed from a wound at 1:30, and that at 3:30 Fritz commanded everyone to turn in the evidence gathered in the Tippit investigation. All of these time fall neatly on the quarter hour. The odds of that happening by chance is (4/60)^4, or 1 in 50625, if you're looking at it minute by minute. The odds are still a don't-bet-on-it 1 in 81 if you want to chop the hour into 5 minute increments. If he's quantizing his hours into quarters, nothing he writes is going to be useful to "pinpoint" anything. Especially if his time of death didn't come from his own first-hand knowledge. Just be cause he was there doesn't mean that he was paying attention to everything that you'd like him to.
You mean the 302 report in which the time was later changed? That report? Why in the world would I mention that? The authorization for autopsy is an official document, signed by a Justice of the Peace. That carries for more weight than some internal 302 report of the FBI, claiming that somebody said something, that isn't part of the official record. The authorization for autopsy said the D.O.A. time was 1.15 and that was based on information from Dr Liguori. And Detective Davenport, who was there, confirms that time in his report. That's corroboration, whether you like it or not!
MT: What you've done is to try and center everything around up Markham's 1:06 estimate in order to show that the DPD recording is an anomaly, when the same data can just as easily be used to argue that the Markham timeline is actual outlier by starting with a different time stamp.You still assume that Markham was a particularly time conscious person who would be expected to be correct about time, when there is no good reason to do so, and good reasons not to.
Wrong again. Markham's 1.06 estimate has nothing to do with me showing that the DPD recordings is wrong. It was the DPD supervisor of the dispatchers, J.C. Bowles, who told the HSCA that the recording could not be relied on to give the actual real time. For obvious reasons, you, being a LNr, may disagree with Bowles, but that would be something you would have to take up with him and not with me.
This is the timeline I reconstructed on the basis of the available evidence;
1:03 - 1.04 Markham leaves home at 9th street
1:06 - 1.07 Markham arrives at the corner of 10th street, after having walked one block. She has one more block to go, to
Jefferson, where she would arrive at around 1.09 or 1.10, well in time for the 1.12 bus.
1:06 - 1.09 Tippit is shot and killed.
1.10 Bowley arrives at the crime scene after having picked up his daughter from school at 12.55 and driving 7 miles
Upon arrival he looks at his watch which says 1.10
1.07 - 1.11 Callaway hears the shots and encounters a man with a revolver running towards him.
1.11 After the encounter, Callaway runs half a block and arrives at 10th street. He gets there after Bowley had already
finished operating the police radio
1.11 - 1.13 The ambulance, dispatched from a nearby funeral home on Jefferson, only a block away, arrives and Bowley and
Callaway help to put Tippit in the ambulance.
1.15 - 1.16 After a short 2 miles drive, the ambulance arrives at Methodist Hospital followed by Detective Davenport who saw
the ambulance and chased it to the hospital
1.16 - 1.17 Tippit - who was likely dead at the scene - is declared DOA @ 1.15
It fits perfectly, but only if the shooting happened between 1.06 and 1.10.
Feel free to start Markham's time later and make all the details fit. Go on then...
Let's start with giving us an explanation for the following;
Markham took the same bus to work every day. The bus stop was at Jefferson and she estimated that she would get the bus at 1.15. That could mean either the 1.12 bus or the 1.22 bus, because those were the scheduled times according to the FBI. It doesn't really matter which bus she actually took, a 1.12 running 3 minutes late or a 1.22. What matters is that she used to be at the bus stop at around 1.15.
In order to get to the bus stop, she had to walk two blocks, which would have taken her roughly 6 to 8 minutes. So, as a matter of routine she would leave home "just after 1". If we assume that means 1.04 or 1.05, it have taken her three to four minutes to get the corner of 10th street and Patton. In other words, she would have gotten there at 1.07 or 1.08.
Had she carried on, she would have arrived at the bus stop on Jefferson at around 1.11 or 1.12, perfectly in time to catch her regular bus.
So, the question is; how in the world could Markham witness Tippit being shot at 1.14 or 1.15 when she would have been at the bus stop on Jefferson by then?
You still didn't tell us which specific posts you are referencing.
CT mantra: When stuck with nothing intelligent to say, divert to typos. The name suits you, no matter how it's spelled.
Oh, btw:
(https://i.postimg.cc/4xpDMMwL/Pinocchio-002.png)
Now that the pleasantries are overwith, put on your big boy pants and kindly point out which specific post(s) you are claiming as being dishonest, and provide evidence so that I might have an opportunity to respond. Failure to respond as requested will reveal these charges as being nothing more than frivolous.
Amazing how easily you can be provoked and be made highly insecure. You are trying too hard....
What makes you think I am even interested in having a conversation with you about your obvious dishonesty?
I’ve engaged with Myers on Facebook. It’s a waste of time. He doesn’t ever admit to being wrong, even when he clearly is, and insults people who dare to disagree with him. Much like most of the LNers here.
This leaves us with this interpretation of the Tippit shooting in RT, using the more liberal (+/- 5 minute) margin of error for the DPD channel one radio dispatcher clock.
1:12-1:14 Tippit is shot
1:13-1:15 Bowley arrives and transmits news of the shooting to DPD channel 1
1:15- The Hughes ambulance arrives at 404 10th St
1:23- The ambulance arrives at Methodist Hospital
1:23- Dr Liguori declares Tippit dead, puts time of death at 1:15
If we use the stricter margin of error implied by the to-a-minute sync of the channel one and two clocks, it looks like this:
1:14 Tippt shot
1:15 Bowley arrives and alerts the DPD via radio
1:17- The ambulance arrives on scene
1:25- The ambulance arrives at Methodist
1:27- Liguori pronounces Tippit DOA and assigns the TOD as 1:15
The empty dash that appears after a the third, fourth and fifth entries in each timeline reflects that we can only know that the Hughes clock was at least 2 minutes slower than the channel one clock, but could be even slower.
I'm not saying that this is the be-all-and-end-all. There isn't really much that can be precisely quantified and the timeline I created still relies on a few estimates and a couple of fudge factors. But it's better than simply assuming that Bowley's watch was right on, Markham could correctly estimate time, and then ignoring some important additional data, like the Hughes funeral home logs.
The fact that no LNr is interested (which hardly comes as a surprise) only tells me they are afraid to be confronted by facts they don't like and can't dispute.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you are a legend in your own mind. ::)
I'll be doing this little exercise for myself
Hilarious, be sure to congratulate yourself when you (of course) “win”.... :D
Wait, what.. are you saying you don't know when Cult of Oswald meetings occur? Lazy bugger. Oh, btw... do you know when the next Oswald-lover Knee-Taking Fest takes place?
Wait, what.. are you saying you don't know when Cult of Oswald meetings occur? Lazy bugger. Oh, btw... do you know when the next Oswald-lover Knee-Taking Fest takes place?
Seeing you beg for someone to discuss this with you, and no one seems to be interested does my heart good. The silence to your begging is well deserved.
And changing the subject when called to back up claims has become the expected response from both of you.
Well, they certainly didn't witness anything involving either Tippit's murder or it's aftermath, so I'd have to say they were deposed with the deliberate intent to give future conspiracy theorists red herrings to toss around when all else failed. I hope you sent a nice note thanking them for that thoughtful touch. Proper etiquette aside, why you think Bowley could be used to "pin point" anything is a mystery. You've presented no evidence whatsoever that his watch was any more accurate than any other clock that day.
Again, this is what I've been saying from the beginning: in 1963, clocks in common use could only be reasonably expected to be within 5 minutes of standard time. You keep proving my points for me! However, you haven't shown that Bowley's watch, or Davenport's, or Methodist Hospital's clocks, or Markham's *estimate* were any more accurate than the DPD's. And you can't. I should probably still address what Bowles wrote. And I should start by saying clarifying that the test you've quoted is from his "The Kennedy Assassination Tapes," Bowles' rebuttal to the BBN/WA echo correlation analyses. As far as I can find, he never testified in front of the HSCA, nor presented the this work to them. Not sure why you think that would be the case. That being set straight, lets get onto the meat of the problem. When Bowles says that "There is no way to connect 'police time' with 'real time.'" He is specifically referring to this statement by BBN:
"Channels 1 and 2 were in close synchronization, with Channel 2 announced time running approximately 15 seconds ahead of Channel 1. Accordingly, where a determination was necessary, a 15-second adjustment is used. Therefore, Channel 1 plus 15 seconds equals Channel 2 time: Channel 2 less 15 seconds equals Channel 1 time."
The difference between what Bowles is referring to as "real time" versus what you'd like us to believe is one of scale. He is saying that the DPD dispatcher time system isn't consistent enough to allow exact synchronization of channel 1 with channel 2, as BBN had asserted possible. He is not saying that the DPD dispatcher time system isn't consistent enough for general usage. He's also trying to rebut the BBN/WA analyses by creating FUD, and as such might be (actually, probably is) exaggerating the actual status in furtherance of that goal. Reading further in, the only part of the Bowles excerpt that matters in this conversation is the part about the clocks used by the radio dispatch operators. If you start comparing channel one and channel 2, you'll realize that they had to be pretty closely aligned that day. JM Souter broadcasts "captain advises all emergency equipment...have 283 cut the traffic at Hines and Industrial...Have all emergency units on South Industrial" just after the channel 2 dispatch operator calls out "12:35 PM" and before the operator calls out "12:36". On channel one, Souter also chimes in saying, "Advise all emergency traffic to use some other route besides Industrial and have 283 cut traffic at Hines and Industrial" soon after the channel one dispatch operator calls out "12:35" and before the operator calls out "12:36." That is Souter transmitting on one channel, then immediately flipping over the other and transmitting the same information so that everyone is on the same page. They obviously won't be simultaneous, but will be within seconds of each other. Soon after, both the channel 1 and channel 2 dispatchers deliver almost identical urgent broadcast messages at 12:36. On channel one, it's, "attention, all emergency equipment...attention all emergency equipment...do not use Industrial Boulevard...Do not use Industrial Boulevard...12:36". The channel two message is a somewhat more terse "Attention, do not use Industrial Boulevard...12:36 PM." The implication of these synchronicities is clear: on that afternoon, the radio operators' clocks were running within a minute of each other. And everyone seems to agree that Channel 2 was running within a minute or two of "real" time that day. So, the channel one clock appears to be within 3 minutes at most of standard time. No matter what you'd have Bowles have us believe.
You don't have to assume that the channel one recording was continuous to get important temporal information out of it. By the way, people have run regression analyses against the channel one recording. After the assassination, it was running very close to continuously from the open mic all the way to the Tippit killing. Any objection to the timing data from the Dictabelt based on possible gaps caused by stoppage isn't going to amount to much.
The guilty dog barks first, Mr Weidmann. Pointless insults aside, you haven't rebutted anything here. "In combination" is, in your case, a pretty nebulous concoction. In reality, the measurement of time is subject to the same issues with precision, accuracy, and margin of error just as that any other measurement humans can make. In this case, we're talking about people running around with a cheap mechanical clock on their wrist that was last synchronized God knows when with a reference that was God knows haw far off of standard time. Markham is subject to the same issues that everyone else had in those days. But really, her sense of time is particularly suspect: as you've noted, she was trying to catch the "1:15" bus to downtown even though the scheduled times were 1:12 and 1:22. She didn't even know what time her bus was supposed to be there. And she left home at about 1:00 PM in order to catch a bus that would take her the 3.5 miles so she could start her shift at 2:30. That's right: she gave herself an hour and a half to go 3.5 miles. That's someone who's used to missing her bus and knew to give herself more than enough time for the next one. That's not someone who I'd expect to have a good grasp of exactly what time it was.
You realize that Davenport altered the time of death in his report as well? In good copies, you can easily see that he'd originally put the time of death as "1:00" then overstruck the "00" with "15." This creates a problem for you. The change can't really be explained by a simple typo; on a typewriter keyboard, "0" is on the opposite side of the top row from "1", with "5" in the middle. It's hard to see how Davenport's fingers would confuse "0" for "1" and another "0" for "5." Had Davenport known firsthand that the TOD/DOA was at 1:15, he would have typed it that way the first time. Another interesting detail is the times he chooses to type. The time of death is placed at 1:00 then 1:15 as I've already mentioned. He then notes that a button and bullet was removed from a wound at 1:30, and that at 3:30 Fritz commanded everyone to turn in the evidence gathered in the Tippit investigation. All of these time fall neatly on the quarter hour. The odds of that happening by chance is (4/60)^4, or 1 in 50625, if you're looking at it minute by minute. The odds are still a don't-bet-on-it 1 in 81 if you want to chop the hour into 5 minute increments. If he's quantizing his hours into quarters, nothing he writes is going to be useful to "pinpoint" anything. Especially if his time of death didn't come from his own first-hand knowledge. Just be cause he was there doesn't mean that he was paying attention to everything that you'd like him to.
And then you had to go all Rossley on us and bring up the "official document" defense. Good luck with that. The autopsy authorization states that the time of death was 1:15, but the time of death and time declared dead aren't necessarily the same. Really, in the case of DOA, then they aren't by definition. However, if you like official reports, the DPD homicide report states that the "time of offence" for the murder was 1:18 PM, and the "Pronounced dead by physician" field says "Dr Liguori Methodist Hospital, DOA at 1:30pm," which comports well with the FBI 302 interview with Liguori placing the time declared dead at 1:25.
A few years ago someone posted Tippit's death certificate, as official document as official documents get. It put the time of death at 1:15pm, but curiously stated that the "time of injury" was 1:18. Maybe Tippit got hit by one of those bullets from the movie Tenet? Relying on "official documents" may not be the game-changer you seem to believe.
There is one other source for time in the Tippit case that you don't realize exists. The records of Dudley Hughes Funeral Home. Back in '64, George and Patricia Nash interviewed the folks at that establishment and were allowed access to the Hughes ambulance dispatch documentation for the Tippit case. The Dudley Hughes dispatcher received the call from the DPD to dispatch an ambulance to 501 E 10th (ie, responding to Mrs Wright's call) at 1:18PM. The radio logs showed the the ambulance crew reported reaching Methodist Hospital at 1:26, a bit late for Tippit to be declared DOA at 1:15, but consistent with the time declared dead in the FBI Liguori 302 and the DPD Homicide report. Oddly enough, Davenport's report provides some support, albeit weakly, for a ~1:25 declaration of death. He notes that Dr Moellenhoff removed a bullet and a button from Tippit's abdomen at 12:30. If the DPD wasn't too impatient to wait for Earl Rose to pull it out, then they wanted that bullet ASAP.
You still assume that Markham was a particularly time conscious person who would be expected to be correct about time, when there is no good reason to do so, and good reasons not to.
Now, let me make a counter-scenario here, and we'll see what the punters think.
Let me start off by defining some kind of standard time scale, I'll call it real time or RT, to represent true (presumed NBS) time. And I'll assert the observation that any clock in common usage in 1963 could be reasonably expected to be accurate to within +/5 minutes of RT. And I will note, again, that "time of death" is not necessarily the same thing as "time declared dead."
There are three sources where we can be sure that there is first-hand knowledge of a specific time, derived from direct observation of a clock during the events in question:
1.) TF Bowley and his watch. Bowley looked at his watch when he pulled up to the crime scene after the shooting and looked at his watch. He reports that it read "1:10" his time (hereafter "Bowley time" or "BT").
2.) The DPD channel 1 recordings. They have two dispatcher notations for 1:16 spaced about 10 seconds apart. 1:40 after the latter of these, Bowley radios in that a Policeman has been shot. About two and a half minutes after that, Callaway attempts to call the shooting in, but is cut short by the dispatcher. Dallas Police time is hereafter denoted by "DPT".
3.) The Dudley Hughes ambulance dispatch logs. They report that they received notice of the shooting at 1:18, dispatched an ambulance that arrived within a minute, and that the ambulance arrived at Methodist Hospital at 1:26, all "Dudley Hughes Time" or "DHT".
Some info about what people do in the aftermath of the shooting will probably be helpful:
1.) Bowley didn't mention seeing a fleeing suspect, so the suspect would have either already ran to a point where Bowley would not have been able to see him, or at least far enough away that he wouldn't distract Bowley's attention from Tippit.
2.) Domingo Benavides testified that, after the shooting, the gunman walked a few steps back to the sidewalk, hesitated (but did not stop), took a few more steps, then began running at "a pretty good trot." Benavides also said that he did not leave the cab of his truck until after he saw the gunman disappear behind the house at the end of the block.
3.) Callaway testified that, after he heard the shooting, he walked towards Patton. As he was just about to the east side sidewalk, he saw a man with a gun running across Patton, then southbound on Patton once on the other side. When the man with the gun reached a point slightly south of the alley between 10th and Jefferson, Callaway had a brief conversation with him. After that, the gunman continued on to Jefferson, and Callaway ran north, around the corner and to Tippit's squad car.
We can use these to get some idea of the amounts of time that lapsed between the shooting, when Bowley arrived, and the point where Callaway got to the quad car.
Let's say the gunman takes his first few steps due south to reach the 10th street sidewalk, then runs west along the sidewalk the sidewalk until he gets to the walk leading from the street to the Davises' front door. At that point, he cuts across their yard to reach the street behind where Scoggins' cab was parked on NB Patton, the continues on at about the same angle until he reaches the sidewalk on the west side of Patton, whereupon he heads straight down the sidewalk, at least to the point where he and Callaway have their tete a tete. This follows the path of the fleeing gunman as detailed by Benavides, Davis, Scoggins, Callaway, etc. Using Google Maps, and starting from location of the end of the driveway at 404 10th, the gunman reached the curb on the east side of Patton in 130 feet, the sidewalk on the west side of Patton in 175 feet, and the point where Callaway called out to him at 355 feet.
A comfortable 5k pace for a young adult male is about 9-10 feet per second, and that seems to be a good assumption as to the fleeing gunman's average exit velocity. He was probably a bit slower reloading his gun, but picked up the pace afterward in order to leave the scene as quickly as practically possible. It's notable that Benavides described the pace as "a good trot" while Callaway described the man he saw crossing Patton as "running." At nine feet per second, the gunman would travel the 130' to the curb in 14 seconds, be across Patton in 19, and reach the Callaway point in 39 seconds. At 10 feet per second, the numbers are 13, 18, and 35. After the gunman reaches this point, he has the 'conversation' with Callaway, whereupon Callaway starts running up the Patton, around the corner, and to the squad car. I figure he cut the corner in his haste, and Google puts the length of his run at about 375 feet. At 9 feet per second, he covers the distance in 42 seconds. At 10fps, he makes it in 38. Since Callaway started running immediately after his encounter with the gunman, we can get an idea of the maximum time Bowley has to use the radio before Callaway gets there. The fastest estimate assumes both moving at 10fps, with the gunman taking 35 second to reach Callaway and Callaway needing another 38 seconds to reach the squad car. I'll add in another 15 seconds to factor in any hesitations, the gunman's first few walky steps, and the Callaway/gunman repartee. That leaves us with 35 + 38 + 15 = 88 seconds. The slowest estimate has the gunman reaching the Callaway point in 39 seconds, the Callaway reaching the squad car in 42 seconds, and I'll add in 20 seconds to account for the other activity. that comes out to 39 + 42 + 20 = 101 seconds, a bit more than a minute and a half.
We can do the same for the earliest that Bowley could have showed up on scene. Benavides said that he didn't leave his truck until the gunman had turned the corner and was out of sight. Again, using Google Maps, that would be about the point where the fleeing gunman reached the sidewalk on the west side of Patton, about 175' from his starting point. Given the postulated rates of movement, plus a pair of low (10s) and high (15s) fudge factors to account for interstitial events, The gunman disappears from Benavides' view 28-34 seconds after the shooting. Then there is another 20-30 seconds for Benavides to leave his truck, make his way to the police cruiser and try to call in. Add it up, and we're looking at about 45-60 seconds between the shooting and Benavides' abortive attempt to radio the police. Which is when Benavides notices Bowley standing there next to the cruiser. Since Bowley immediately takes over from there, we can put his call in at right about one minute, and his arrival shortly before. So he would have been looking at his watch between 45 and 60 seconds after the shooting. We can wrap all that up with, "about a minute."
Now, lets go back and deal with the people looking at clock faces. On the channel one tape, the Bowley transmission comes one minute and forty seconds after the channel one dispatcher calls out 1:16 PM for the second time. This timestamp is 10 seconds after the first. At a minimum, assuming that the first time call-out happened at exactly 1:16:00, then Bowley cut in no sooner than 1:17:50. More likely somewhere in 1:18:00 proper, so we'll just use that. So there's a tentative sync between the channel one dispatcher clock and Bowley's watch where 1:10 Bowley time equals 1:18 Dallas Police time. This isn't too far out of whack. If clocks tended to be accurate within 5 minutes, then 1:10 Bowley time could be anywhere from 1:05 to 1:15 "real" time; similarly, 1:18 channel one time could really be anywhere from 1:13 to 1:23 RT. That leaves an overlap between Bowley time and DPD channel one time from 1:13 to 1:15 RT. Since we've already determined that the shooting happened about one minute before Bowley's call, then the shooting would have occurred between 1:12 and 1:14 RT.
However, there's a wrinkle in this. As I've noted, the channel one and channel two clocks can easily be shown to be within a minute of each other using the traffic regarding clearing the approach to Parkland Hospital that occurs at 12:35 and 12:36 on both channels' recordings. Further, a number of researchers have over the years tried to pinpoint the exact moment of JFK's assassination. They've tried to do this by syncing up different sources, including but not limited to the DPD tapes. The "alternative" clock that I always remember offhand is in the McIntire photo of the Presidential limousine catching up to the lead car just west of the triple overpass. In the background, you can see that the Hertz clock atop the roof of the TSBD is showing "12:30." Anyway, the results of these inquiries have generally been in the 12:29-12:30 range, with IIRC one brave soul arguing for 12:28. I can't remember anyone claiming anything later than 12:30. I've taken two things away from these efforts: trying to nail it down exactly to within seconds or maybe even one minute is kinda foolish, and that we should be able to agree that JFK was shot between 12:28 and 12:30 PM. The channel two recording definitely stands in the 12:30 camp: the dispatcher calls out 12:30 between Curry's "approaching triple underpass" transmission and his urgent "go to the hospital" broadcast in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. This would indicate that channel two is running between zero and two minutes ahead of "real" time. Channel one is within a minute of channel two, though we don't know which is ahead of the other, so the channel one clock would be running no more than one minute behind RT and no more than three minutes faster than RT. Taking this approach changes how channel one syncs up with Bowley. His watch is still treated as being within +/- 5 minutes of real time, but channel one time is between -3 and +1 minutes of RT. That still allows for Bowley's watch to be five minutes slow, channel one three minutes fast, and 1:10 Bowley time being 1:18 DPD time at 1:15 real time. By this reckoning, Tippit would have been shot at 1:14 RT.
That leaves Dudley Hughes, who received the Tippit call at 1:18 by their clock. The ambulance they dispatched arrived on scene within a minute, and then arrived at Methodist at 1:26. On the channel one recording, Ted Callaway's attempt to alert the DPD via Tippit's radio occurs two and a half minutes after Bowley's call, somewhere in 1:20 PM territory. The ambulance obviously hadn't arrived yet, so the Callaway transmission tells us that the Dudley Hughes clock was at least two minutes slower than the DPD channel clock. If we adjust the Dudley Hughes clock by two minutes to match the earliest possible sync with the DPD clock, then Hughes' dispatch received the call at 1:20 at the earliest. The ambulance would then have arrived at Methodist hospital at 1:28 DPD time. Applying the +/- 5 minute rule, that would be no earlier than 1:23 real time. This is a problem for the idea that Liguori was with Tippit's body at 1:15. Even with the five minute rule, this would have been no later than 1:20 PM, still too early to sync with the Hughes ambulance arrival time. Even if we use original, unadjusted Dudley Hughes time, the earliest the ambulance could have arrived is 1:21 PM real time, which is still too late. The Dudley Hughes dispatch logs, then, support putting the declaration of death at 1:25-1:30PM, consistent with the FBI interview with Liguori and the DPD homicide report. Conflict within the references to Tippit being declared dead @ 1:15 is resolved by taking into account that time of death is not necessarily the same as time declared dead. That is, you wind up with something like "at 1:25PM, Dr Liguori declared that Tippit had died at the scene at ~1:15PM." This interpretation fits the known data better than any other scenario than anyone has come up with.
That leaves Helen Markham as the odd woman out. It continually amazes me that the people who would have you believe that she was some wild-eyed moonbat drama queen who couldn't be trusted to give you the time of day suddenly becomes a model of reason when she does, in fact, try to give you the time of day.
This leaves us with this interpretation of the Tippit shooting in RT, using the more liberal (+/- 5 minute) margin of error for the DPD channel one radio dispatcher clock.
1:12-1:14 Tippit is shot
1:13-1:15 Bowley arrives and transmits news of the shooting to DPD channel 1
1:15- The Hughes ambulance arrives at 404 10th St
1:23- The ambulance arrives at Methodist Hospital
1:23- Dr Liguori declares Tippit dead, puts time of death at 1:15
If we use the stricter margin of error implied by the to-a-minute sync of the channel one and two clocks, it looks like this:
1:14 Tippt shot
1:15 Bowley arrives and alerts the DPD via radio
1:17- The ambulance arrives on scene
1:25- The ambulance arrives at Methodist
1:27- Liguori pronounces Tippit DOA and assigns the TOD as 1:15
The empty dash that appears after a the third, fourth and fifth entries in each timeline reflects that we can only know that the Hughes clock was at least 2 minutes slower than the channel one clock, but could be even slower.
I'm not saying that this is the be-all-and-end-all. There isn't really much that can be precisely quantified and the timeline I created still relies on a few estimates and a couple of fudge factors. But it's better than simply assuming that Bowley's watch was right on, Markham could correctly estimate time, and then ignoring some important additional data, like the Hughes funeral home logs.
Says the guy who just changed to subject to argue about what “arbitrary” means.
No change of subject needed. Both of you two used arbitrary in your claim.
And I provided the definition, without any intent to argue about whether the dictionary is correct or not.
Neither of you have even tried to back up your claim. So why the heck should anyone believe anything either one of you have to say?
Of course we did. Bowles stated that he established his zero-base time as a matter of practicality and it was not intended to reflect the actual time of the shooting. Instead of acknowledging that, you chose to attack a perfectly valid use of the word “arbitrary” instead.
everyone seems to agree that Channel 2 was running within a minute or two of "real" time that day.
In this case, we're talking about people running around with a cheap mechanical clock on their wrist that was last synchronized God knows when with a reference that was God knows haw far off of standard time.
That's someone who's used to missing her bus and knew to give herself more than enough time for the next one. That's not someone who I'd expect to have a good grasp of exactly what time it was.
There is one other source for time in the Tippit case that you don't realize exists. The records of Dudley Hughes Funeral Home. Back in '64, George and Patricia Nash interviewed the folks at that establishment and were allowed access to the Hughes ambulance dispatch documentation for the Tippit case. The Dudley Hughes dispatcher received the call from the DPD to dispatch an ambulance to 501 E 10th (ie, responding to Mrs Wright's call) at 1:18PM.
The "alternative" clock that I always remember offhand is in the McIntire photo of the Presidential limousine catching up to the lead car just west of the triple overpass. In the background, you can see that the Hertz clock atop the roof of the TSBD is showing "12:30."
Valid in what sense?
Devil's advocate. After 57 years this is the first I can recall reading anthing that direcly contradicts Roberts' story of seeing LHO standing at the bus stop. Not only that, it quotes Roberts as saying something entirely different, i.e., that LHO (after hesitating) went off RUNNING south on Beckley. No one saw LHO on the walk from the boarding house to 10th and Patton much less saw LHO running anywhere. A man standing at a bus stop is easier to miss than a man running on a residential street.
If I read the OP correctly, Aynesworth waited 6 months from the interview with Roberts to make his handwritten notes, so how do we know he correctly remembered what she said?
Since the running story fits the WR conclusion so well it's strange that it has been buried so long. Not only does it have LHO going in the right direction toward Tippit it has him running so as to give him enough time to make the rendezvous.
Still, an interesting story no doubt but to me it raises its own issues.
Already answered.
“based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something” - Merriam-Webster
That fits this usage whether you approve or not.
Not even close. Bowles derived the time. It was not based on his individual preference or convenience. It was based on events surrounding the start of the open-mike transmission. I said you wouldn’t admit being wrong. And you haven’t disappointed.
What a world these contrarians live in where no fact can ever proven if they don't want it to be true. Absent a time machine, there would be no way to prove a single fact in human history using their methods. For example, prove that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address. There is only one fuzzy picture and you arguably can't identify him. I bet you could find a witness who quibbled with what time it began and ended or the color of Lincoln's coat. No one likely had their watch calibrated by some unspecified precise mechanism to Greenwich Mean Time. Letters and accounts COULD be the product of fakery. Eyewitnesses are unreliable etc. It is hilarious. I can't believe they are for real, but view this as a hobby to see how long they can prolong a discussion without having to concede the obvious. Round and round it goes down the rabbit hole.
What a world these contrarians live in where no fact can ever proven if they don't want it to be true. Absent a time machine, there would be no way to prove a single fact in human history using their methods. For example, prove that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address. There is only one fuzzy picture and you arguably can't identify him. I bet you could find a witness who quibbled with what time it began and ended or the color of Lincoln's coat. No one likely had their watch calibrated by some unspecified precise mechanism to Greenwich Mean Time. Letters and accounts COULD be the product of fakery. Eyewitnesses are unreliable etc. It is hilarious. I can't believe they are for real, but view this as a hobby to see how long they can prolong a discussion without having to concede the obvious. Round and round it goes down the rabbit hole.
What you're saying is there is only ONE undeniable fact .... That fact is: We are all mortal, and as sure as we live and breathe we will someday stop living and breathing......THAT is an undeniable fact.
However there are certain things that all sane and rational people agree on..... Water flows down hill due to the effects of gravity. ( or a ball will roll downhill) Or if a ball is tossed into the air it will fall back to earth.....
And any sane and rational person can see that the official account of the murder of President Kennedy is fraught with items that are simply not true .... One simple example is the physically impossible tale that Lee Oswald sat on a box to the rear of a 3 foot high stack of boxes and rested a rifle on top of the stack of boxes and fired down onto Elm street in Dealey Plaza. It would have been physically impossible for a 5'9" man whose shoulder would have been about 3 foot up from the floor to have rested a rifle on the top of a 3 foot high stack of boxes and declined the muzzle down onto Dealey Plaza.
What a pathetic little man,
Running away from a substantive conversation like Mitch Todd and I are having and then returning to argue a trivial minor point about an unrelated event.
Gutless and dishonest.....
Btw John doesn't have to admit that he is wrong, because he isn't. You are!
That you don't understand why you are wrong doesn't alter the fact that you are.
Already answered.
“based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something” - Merriam-Webster
That fits this usage whether you approve or not.
What a pathetic little man,
Running away from a substantive conversation like Mitch Todd and I are having and then returning to argue a trivial minor point about an unrelated event.
Gutless and dishonest.....
Btw John doesn't have to admit that he is wrong, because he isn't. You are!
That you don't understand why you are wrong doesn't alter the fact that you are.
Well, they certainly didn't witness anything involving either Tippit's murder or it's aftermath, so I'd have to say they were deposed with the deliberate intent to give future conspiracy theorists red herrings to toss around when all else failed. I hope you sent a nice note thanking them for that thoughtful touch. Proper etiquette aside, why you think Bowley could be used to "pin point" anything is a mystery. You've presented no evidence whatsoever that his watch was any more accurate than any other clock that day.
Again, this is what I've been saying from the beginning: in 1963, clocks in common use could only be reasonably expected to be within 5 minutes of standard time. You keep proving my points for me! However, you haven't shown that Bowley's watch, or Davenport's, or Methodist Hospital's clocks, or Markham's *estimate* were any more accurate than the DPD's. And you can't. I should probably still address what Bowles wrote. And I should start by saying clarifying that the test you've quoted is from his "The Kennedy Assassination Tapes," Bowles' rebuttal to the BBN/WA echo correlation analyses. As far as I can find, he never testified in front of the HSCA, nor presented the this work to them. Not sure why you think that would be the case. That being set straight, lets get onto the meat of the problem. When Bowles says that "There is no way to connect 'police time' with 'real time.'" He is specifically referring to this statement by BBN:
"Channels 1 and 2 were in close synchronization, with Channel 2 announced time running approximately 15 seconds ahead of Channel 1. Accordingly, where a determination was necessary, a 15-second adjustment is used. Therefore, Channel 1 plus 15 seconds equals Channel 2 time: Channel 2 less 15 seconds equals Channel 1 time."
The difference between what Bowles is referring to as "real time" versus what you'd like us to believe is one of scale. He is saying that the DPD dispatcher time system isn't consistent enough to allow exact synchronization of channel 1 with channel 2, as BBN had asserted possible. He is not saying that the DPD dispatcher time system isn't consistent enough for general usage. He's also trying to rebut the BBN/WA analyses by creating FUD, and as such might be (actually, probably is) exaggerating the actual status in furtherance of that goal. Reading further in, the only part of the Bowles excerpt that matters in this conversation is the part about the clocks used by the radio dispatch operators. If you start comparing channel one and channel 2, you'll realize that they had to be pretty closely aligned that day. JM Souter broadcasts "captain advises all emergency equipment...have 283 cut the traffic at Hines and Industrial...Have all emergency units on South Industrial" just after the channel 2 dispatch operator calls out "12:35 PM" and before the operator calls out "12:36". On channel one, Souter also chimes in saying, "Advise all emergency traffic to use some other route besides Industrial and have 283 cut traffic at Hines and Industrial" soon after the channel one dispatch operator calls out "12:35" and before the operator calls out "12:36." That is Souter transmitting on one channel, then immediately flipping over the other and transmitting the same information so that everyone is on the same page. They obviously won't be simultaneous, but will be within seconds of each other. Soon after, both the channel 1 and channel 2 dispatchers deliver almost identical urgent broadcast messages at 12:36. On channel one, it's, "attention, all emergency equipment...attention all emergency equipment...do not use Industrial Boulevard...Do not use Industrial Boulevard...12:36". The channel two message is a somewhat more terse "Attention, do not use Industrial Boulevard...12:36 PM." The implication of these synchronicities is clear: on that afternoon, the radio operators' clocks were running within a minute of each other. And everyone seems to agree that Channel 2 was running within a minute or two of "real" time that day. So, the channel one clock appears to be within 3 minutes at most of standard time. No matter what you'd have Bowles have us believe.
You don't have to assume that the channel one recording was continuous to get important temporal information out of it. By the way, people have run regression analyses against the channel one recording. After the assassination, it was running very close to continuously from the open mic all the way to the Tippit killing. Any objection to the timing data from the Dictabelt based on possible gaps caused by stoppage isn't going to amount to much.
The guilty dog barks first, Mr Weidmann. Pointless insults aside, you haven't rebutted anything here. "In combination" is, in your case, a pretty nebulous concoction. In reality, the measurement of time is subject to the same issues with precision, accuracy, and margin of error just as that any other measurement humans can make. In this case, we're talking about people running around with a cheap mechanical clock on their wrist that was last synchronized God knows when with a reference that was God knows haw far off of standard time. Markham is subject to the same issues that everyone else had in those days. But really, her sense of time is particularly suspect: as you've noted, she was trying to catch the "1:15" bus to downtown even though the scheduled times were 1:12 and 1:22. She didn't even know what time her bus was supposed to be there. And she left home at about 1:00 PM in order to catch a bus that would take her the 3.5 miles so she could start her shift at 2:30. That's right: she gave herself an hour and a half to go 3.5 miles. That's someone who's used to missing her bus and knew to give herself more than enough time for the next one. That's not someone who I'd expect to have a good grasp of exactly what time it was.
You realize that Davenport altered the time of death in his report as well? In good copies, you can easily see that he'd originally put the time of death as "1:00" then overstruck the "00" with "15." This creates a problem for you. The change can't really be explained by a simple typo; on a typewriter keyboard, "0" is on the opposite side of the top row from "1", with "5" in the middle. It's hard to see how Davenport's fingers would confuse "0" for "1" and another "0" for "5." Had Davenport known firsthand that the TOD/DOA was at 1:15, he would have typed it that way the first time. Another interesting detail is the times he chooses to type. The time of death is placed at 1:00 then 1:15 as I've already mentioned. He then notes that a button and bullet was removed from a wound at 1:30, and that at 3:30 Fritz commanded everyone to turn in the evidence gathered in the Tippit investigation. All of these time fall neatly on the quarter hour. The odds of that happening by chance is (4/60)^4, or 1 in 50625, if you're looking at it minute by minute. The odds are still a don't-bet-on-it 1 in 81 if you want to chop the hour into 5 minute increments. If he's quantizing his hours into quarters, nothing he writes is going to be useful to "pinpoint" anything. Especially if his time of death didn't come from his own first-hand knowledge. Just be cause he was there doesn't mean that he was paying attention to everything that you'd like him to.
And then you had to go all Rossley on us and bring up the "official document" defense. Good luck with that. The autopsy authorization states that the time of death was 1:15, but the time of death and time declared dead aren't necessarily the same. Really, in the case of DOA, then they aren't by definition. However, if you like official reports, the DPD homicide report states that the "time of offence" for the murder was 1:18 PM, and the "Pronounced dead by physician" field says "Dr Liguori Methodist Hospital, DOA at 1:30pm," which comports well with the FBI 302 interview with Liguori placing the time declared dead at 1:25.
A few years ago someone posted Tippit's death certificate, as official document as official documents get. It put the time of death at 1:15pm, but curiously stated that the "time of injury" was 1:18. Maybe Tippit got hit by one of those bullets from the movie Tenet? Relying on "official documents" may not be the game-changer you seem to believe.
There is one other source for time in the Tippit case that you don't realize exists. The records of Dudley Hughes Funeral Home. Back in '64, George and Patricia Nash interviewed the folks at that establishment and were allowed access to the Hughes ambulance dispatch documentation for the Tippit case. The Dudley Hughes dispatcher received the call from the DPD to dispatch an ambulance to 501 E 10th (ie, responding to Mrs Wright's call) at 1:18PM. The radio logs showed the the ambulance crew reported reaching Methodist Hospital at 1:26, a bit late for Tippit to be declared DOA at 1:15, but consistent with the time declared dead in the FBI Liguori 302 and the DPD Homicide report. Oddly enough, Davenport's report provides some support, albeit weakly, for a ~1:25 declaration of death. He notes that Dr Moellenhoff removed a bullet and a button from Tippit's abdomen at 12:30. If the DPD wasn't too impatient to wait for Earl Rose to pull it out, then they wanted that bullet ASAP.
You still assume that Markham was a particularly time conscious person who would be expected to be correct about time, when there is no good reason to do so, and good reasons not to.
Now, let me make a counter-scenario here, and we'll see what the punters think.
Let me start off by defining some kind of standard time scale, I'll call it real time or RT, to represent true (presumed NBS) time. And I'll assert the observation that any clock in common usage in 1963 could be reasonably expected to be accurate to within +/5 minutes of RT. And I will note, again, that "time of death" is not necessarily the same thing as "time declared dead."
There are three sources where we can be sure that there is first-hand knowledge of a specific time, derived from direct observation of a clock during the events in question:
1.) TF Bowley and his watch. Bowley looked at his watch when he pulled up to the crime scene after the shooting and looked at his watch. He reports that it read "1:10" his time (hereafter "Bowley time" or "BT").
2.) The DPD channel 1 recordings. They have two dispatcher notations for 1:16 spaced about 10 seconds apart. 1:40 after the latter of these, Bowley radios in that a Policeman has been shot. About two and a half minutes after that, Callaway attempts to call the shooting in, but is cut short by the dispatcher. Dallas Police time is hereafter denoted by "DPT".
3.) The Dudley Hughes ambulance dispatch logs. They report that they received notice of the shooting at 1:18, dispatched an ambulance that arrived within a minute, and that the ambulance arrived at Methodist Hospital at 1:26, all "Dudley Hughes Time" or "DHT".
Some info about what people do in the aftermath of the shooting will probably be helpful:
1.) Bowley didn't mention seeing a fleeing suspect, so the suspect would have either already ran to a point where Bowley would not have been able to see him, or at least far enough away that he wouldn't distract Bowley's attention from Tippit.
2.) Domingo Benavides testified that, after the shooting, the gunman walked a few steps back to the sidewalk, hesitated (but did not stop), took a few more steps, then began running at "a pretty good trot." Benavides also said that he did not leave the cab of his truck until after he saw the gunman disappear behind the house at the end of the block.
3.) Callaway testified that, after he heard the shooting, he walked towards Patton. As he was just about to the east side sidewalk, he saw a man with a gun running across Patton, then southbound on Patton once on the other side. When the man with the gun reached a point slightly south of the alley between 10th and Jefferson, Callaway had a brief conversation with him. After that, the gunman continued on to Jefferson, and Callaway ran north, around the corner and to Tippit's squad car.
We can use these to get some idea of the amounts of time that lapsed between the shooting, when Bowley arrived, and the point where Callaway got to the quad car.
Let's say the gunman takes his first few steps due south to reach the 10th street sidewalk, then runs west along the sidewalk the sidewalk until he gets to the walk leading from the street to the Davises' front door. At that point, he cuts across their yard to reach the street behind where Scoggins' cab was parked on NB Patton, the continues on at about the same angle until he reaches the sidewalk on the west side of Patton, whereupon he heads straight down the sidewalk, at least to the point where he and Callaway have their tete a tete. This follows the path of the fleeing gunman as detailed by Benavides, Davis, Scoggins, Callaway, etc. Using Google Maps, and starting from location of the end of the driveway at 404 10th, the gunman reached the curb on the east side of Patton in 130 feet, the sidewalk on the west side of Patton in 175 feet, and the point where Callaway called out to him at 355 feet.
A comfortable 5k pace for a young adult male is about 9-10 feet per second, and that seems to be a good assumption as to the fleeing gunman's average exit velocity. He was probably a bit slower reloading his gun, but picked up the pace afterward in order to leave the scene as quickly as practically possible. It's notable that Benavides described the pace as "a good trot" while Callaway described the man he saw crossing Patton as "running." At nine feet per second, the gunman would travel the 130' to the curb in 14 seconds, be across Patton in 19, and reach the Callaway point in 39 seconds. At 10 feet per second, the numbers are 13, 18, and 35. After the gunman reaches this point, he has the 'conversation' with Callaway, whereupon Callaway starts running up the Patton, around the corner, and to the squad car. I figure he cut the corner in his haste, and Google puts the length of his run at about 375 feet. At 9 feet per second, he covers the distance in 42 seconds. At 10fps, he makes it in 38. Since Callaway started running immediately after his encounter with the gunman, we can get an idea of the maximum time Bowley has to use the radio before Callaway gets there. The fastest estimate assumes both moving at 10fps, with the gunman taking 35 second to reach Callaway and Callaway needing another 38 seconds to reach the squad car. I'll add in another 15 seconds to factor in any hesitations, the gunman's first few walky steps, and the Callaway/gunman repartee. That leaves us with 35 + 38 + 15 = 88 seconds. The slowest estimate has the gunman reaching the Callaway point in 39 seconds, the Callaway reaching the squad car in 42 seconds, and I'll add in 20 seconds to account for the other activity. that comes out to 39 + 42 + 20 = 101 seconds, a bit more than a minute and a half.
We can do the same for the earliest that Bowley could have showed up on scene. Benavides said that he didn't leave his truck until the gunman had turned the corner and was out of sight. Again, using Google Maps, that would be about the point where the fleeing gunman reached the sidewalk on the west side of Patton, about 175' from his starting point. Given the postulated rates of movement, plus a pair of low (10s) and high (15s) fudge factors to account for interstitial events, The gunman disappears from Benavides' view 28-34 seconds after the shooting. Then there is another 20-30 seconds for Benavides to leave his truck, make his way to the police cruiser and try to call in. Add it up, and we're looking at about 45-60 seconds between the shooting and Benavides' abortive attempt to radio the police. Which is when Benavides notices Bowley standing there next to the cruiser. Since Bowley immediately takes over from there, we can put his call in at right about one minute, and his arrival shortly before. So he would have been looking at his watch between 45 and 60 seconds after the shooting. We can wrap all that up with, "about a minute."
Now, lets go back and deal with the people looking at clock faces. On the channel one tape, the Bowley transmission comes one minute and forty seconds after the channel one dispatcher calls out 1:16 PM for the second time. This timestamp is 10 seconds after the first. At a minimum, assuming that the first time call-out happened at exactly 1:16:00, then Bowley cut in no sooner than 1:17:50. More likely somewhere in 1:18:00 proper, so we'll just use that. So there's a tentative sync between the channel one dispatcher clock and Bowley's watch where 1:10 Bowley time equals 1:18 Dallas Police time. This isn't too far out of whack. If clocks tended to be accurate within 5 minutes, then 1:10 Bowley time could be anywhere from 1:05 to 1:15 "real" time; similarly, 1:18 channel one time could really be anywhere from 1:13 to 1:23 RT. That leaves an overlap between Bowley time and DPD channel one time from 1:13 to 1:15 RT. Since we've already determined that the shooting happened about one minute before Bowley's call, then the shooting would have occurred between 1:12 and 1:14 RT.
However, there's a wrinkle in this. As I've noted, the channel one and channel two clocks can easily be shown to be within a minute of each other using the traffic regarding clearing the approach to Parkland Hospital that occurs at 12:35 and 12:36 on both channels' recordings. Further, a number of researchers have over the years tried to pinpoint the exact moment of JFK's assassination. They've tried to do this by syncing up different sources, including but not limited to the DPD tapes. The "alternative" clock that I always remember offhand is in the McIntire photo of the Presidential limousine catching up to the lead car just west of the triple overpass. In the background, you can see that the Hertz clock atop the roof of the TSBD is showing "12:30." Anyway, the results of these inquiries have generally been in the 12:29-12:30 range, with IIRC one brave soul arguing for 12:28. I can't remember anyone claiming anything later than 12:30. I've taken two things away from these efforts: trying to nail it down exactly to within seconds or maybe even one minute is kinda foolish, and that we should be able to agree that JFK was shot between 12:28 and 12:30 PM. The channel two recording definitely stands in the 12:30 camp: the dispatcher calls out 12:30 between Curry's "approaching triple underpass" transmission and his urgent "go to the hospital" broadcast in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. This would indicate that channel two is running between zero and two minutes ahead of "real" time. Channel one is within a minute of channel two, though we don't know which is ahead of the other, so the channel one clock would be running no more than one minute behind RT and no more than three minutes faster than RT. Taking this approach changes how channel one syncs up with Bowley. His watch is still treated as being within +/- 5 minutes of real time, but channel one time is between -3 and +1 minutes of RT. That still allows for Bowley's watch to be five minutes slow, channel one three minutes fast, and 1:10 Bowley time being 1:18 DPD time at 1:15 real time. By this reckoning, Tippit would have been shot at 1:14 RT.
That leaves Dudley Hughes, who received the Tippit call at 1:18 by their clock. The ambulance they dispatched arrived on scene within a minute, and then arrived at Methodist at 1:26. On the channel one recording, Ted Callaway's attempt to alert the DPD via Tippit's radio occurs two and a half minutes after Bowley's call, somewhere in 1:20 PM territory. The ambulance obviously hadn't arrived yet, so the Callaway transmission tells us that the Dudley Hughes clock was at least two minutes slower than the DPD channel clock. If we adjust the Dudley Hughes clock by two minutes to match the earliest possible sync with the DPD clock, then Hughes' dispatch received the call at 1:20 at the earliest. The ambulance would then have arrived at Methodist hospital at 1:28 DPD time. Applying the +/- 5 minute rule, that would be no earlier than 1:23 real time. This is a problem for the idea that Liguori was with Tippit's body at 1:15. Even with the five minute rule, this would have been no later than 1:20 PM, still too early to sync with the Hughes ambulance arrival time. Even if we use original, unadjusted Dudley Hughes time, the earliest the ambulance could have arrived is 1:21 PM real time, which is still too late. The Dudley Hughes dispatch logs, then, support putting the declaration of death at 1:25-1:30PM, consistent with the FBI interview with Liguori and the DPD homicide report. Conflict within the references to Tippit being declared dead @ 1:15 is resolved by taking into account that time of death is not necessarily the same as time declared dead. That is, you wind up with something like "at 1:25PM, Dr Liguori declared that Tippit had died at the scene at ~1:15PM." This interpretation fits the known data better than any other scenario than anyone has come up with.
That leaves Helen Markham as the odd woman out. It continually amazes me that the people who would have you believe that she was some wild-eyed moonbat drama queen who couldn't be trusted to give you the time of day suddenly becomes a model of reason when she does, in fact, try to give you the time of day.
This leaves us with this interpretation of the Tippit shooting in RT, using the more liberal (+/- 5 minute) margin of error for the DPD channel one radio dispatcher clock.
1:12-1:14 Tippit is shot
1:13-1:15 Bowley arrives and transmits news of the shooting to DPD channel 1
1:15- The Hughes ambulance arrives at 404 10th St
1:23- The ambulance arrives at Methodist Hospital
1:23- Dr Liguori declares Tippit dead, puts time of death at 1:15
If we use the stricter margin of error implied by the to-a-minute sync of the channel one and two clocks, it looks like this:
1:14 Tippt shot
1:15 Bowley arrives and alerts the DPD via radio
1:17- The ambulance arrives on scene
1:25- The ambulance arrives at Methodist
1:27- Liguori pronounces Tippit DOA and assigns the TOD as 1:15
The empty dash that appears after a the third, fourth and fifth entries in each timeline reflects that we can only know that the Hughes clock was at least 2 minutes slower than the channel one clock, but could be even slower.
I'm not saying that this is the be-all-and-end-all. There isn't really much that can be precisely quantified and the timeline I created still relies on a few estimates and a couple of fudge factors. But it's better than simply assuming that Bowley's watch was right on, Markham could correctly estimate time, and then ignoring some important additional data, like the Hughes funeral home logs.
What’s pathetic, gutless and dishonest is the lack of reason for both of your responses. Followed by nonsense declarations:
However, it is typical of the “debunking” process we see from you two. It appears that you believe that you have debunked the entire WC effort and have proven that every single thing that they came up with is false. Why? Its kinda like what you get when you crossbreed an elephant and a rhinoceros: el-if-I- know.
WOW
My head hurts. Let me edit that for you:
Oswald killed Tippit.
--------
BONUS
--------
Oswald probably shot Kennedy.
I think it’s immediately following the “Oswald did it because I said so” convention.
Of course your head hurts. It's too much to take in and deal with for a simpleton, hence the wrong "conclusion" based on faith rather than facts, logic and reason....
Some things will never change
However, in the middle ages my family had court jesters. At this day and age I have to deal with clowns like you and Charles Collins. What is the world coming to?
The world has passed you by.
As have I..
:'(
Which only shows just how far removed from reality you are....
Oh, before I forget... I've just managed to make enough assumptions and have speculated enough to say with certainty that your grandfather probably killed Kennedy and Tippit....
Which only shows just how far removed from reality you are....
Oh, before I forget... I've just managed to make enough assumptions and have speculated enough to say with certainty that your grandfather probably killed Kennedy and Tippit....
Says the guy who asked Mr.Todd to keep his posts shorter
It seems your head hurts
You call anybody who doesn't agree with your pathetic opinion a contrarian, which makes you an arrogant prick since you were not born with the privilege of always being right, nor are you right most of the time.
The real contrarian is permanently unreasonable, never argues his case (for fear of being shown to be wrong), always says no to everything he doesn't like without providing any kind of explanation and constantly whines about those "awful contrarians" while not understanding that the real contrarian is you!
What a nutty rant. It reads like an exercise in self-loathing. Very entertaining. But back to the discussion. Prove to me that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address using the same standard that you apply to Oswald's guilt in the JFK and Tippit murders. Keep in mind that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. So anyone who claims to have been there might be mistaken. Accounts could also be faked. As could any evidence. I don't have to explain why anyone would do so. Just that it was possible and, therefore, there is doubt. How can it be proven? Have at it. Make the case.
I did so for two reasons;
1. Smaller posts don't take up as much time to reply to
2. Smaller posts are much more easy for simpletons, like you, to follow and digest
What a nutty rant. It reads like an exercise in self-loathing. Very entertaining. But back to the discussion. Prove to me that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address using the same standard that you apply to Oswald's guilt in the JFK and Tippit murders. Keep in mind that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. So anyone who claims to have been there might be mistaken. Accounts could also be faked. As could any evidence. I don't have to explain why anyone would do so. Just that it was possible and, therefore, there is doubt. How can it be proven? Have at it. Make the case.
What I digest from your posts is that you insult everybody who disagrees with you, laced with the usual schoolyard taunts.
That is how you (think you can) avoid challenges: Just call the challenger stupid in order to avoid having to engage any further.
Martin is more obstinate than anything else
Not even close. Bowles derived the time. It was not based on his individual preference or convenience.
What a world these contrarians live in where no fact can ever proven if they don't want it to be true. Absent a time machine, there would be no way to prove a single fact in human history using their methods. For example, prove that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address. There is only one fuzzy picture and you arguably can't identify him. I bet you could find a witness who quibbled with what time it began and ended or the color of Lincoln's coat. No one likely had their watch calibrated by some unspecified precise mechanism to Greenwich Mean Time. Letters and accounts COULD be the product of fakery. Eyewitnesses are unreliable etc. It is hilarious. I can't believe they are for real, but view this as a hobby to see how long they can prolong a discussion without having to concede the obvious. Round and round it goes down the rabbit hole.
However, it is typical of the “debunking” process we see from you two. It appears that you believe that you have debunked the entire WC effort and have proven that every single thing that they came up with is false.
The world has passed you by.
As have I..
Which only shows just how far removed from reality you are....
Oh, before I forget... I've just managed to make enough assumptions and have speculated enough to say with certainty that your grandfather probably killed Kennedy and Tippit....
He probably took a knee at the guy’s grave too....
This is actually a case of delusional narcissism and an over-inflated ego.
You can even keep people’s names straight, Mr. “passed you by”. A village somewhere is missing you.
Everybody misses me
Yeah sure... like a bad toothache
No, like your wife
He said he picked it for practical purposes. That’s convenience. Your opinion of what a word means is no more factual than your opinion about the accuracy of the dispatcher clocks.
Practical does not mean convenient. Here are two definitions from the dictionary that are applicable to Bowles’ use of the word:
1. (of an idea, plan, or method) likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances; feasible
2. so nearly the case that it can be regarded as so; virtual.
And a phrase from the same dictionary:
for all practical purposes — virtually, or essentially.
"Zimmerman had become, for all practical purposes, an arms smuggler"
You two seem to have a problem with the term “rational assumption.” Just because it is an assumption does not mean that it is arbitrary. In fact rational is an antonym of arbitrary (opposite meaning).
Now, if you have a problem with how Bowles derived the time, and can demonstrate that he made a mistake, lets hear it.
Arbitrary does not describe Bowles’ method by any sense of the word.
Here is an exerpt from Chapter One of “With Malice” by Dale Myers:
Former dispatch supervisor Jim Bowles used a stop watch and some mathematics to deduce a “real” time from the police recordings by comparing an arbitrary zero base-time with the recorded time announcements that followed. A similar technique was applied to the entire channel one recordings for this book. The study shows that with the exception of five areas, the rapid radio exchanges that occurred in the wake of the Kennedy assassination caused the channel one recorder to operate in an almost continuous fashion. The result is a virtual “running clock” on the events surrounding Tippit’s death and the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. It should be stressed that the recording contains no exact record of “real time.” What it does contain is a sequence of events whose relationship to one another can be measured. For example, a time check of 1:19 p.m. and a check of 1:22 p.m. do not necessarily relate to “real time,” yet a stop watch review of the tapes show that the two instances did occur three minutes apart. By applying a stop watch and some mathematics to the channel one recordings, and comparing the resulting sequence of events with the eyewitness accounts, a reasonably accurate reconstruction of the Tippit murder and its aftermath was possible. The result is the real-life detective story that follows.
This is what I was suggesting is possible earlier in this thread. Dale’s description is better than mine.
You really like to argue an insignificant point to death, while avoiding far more interesting discussions that actually have some significance.
Arbitrary does not describe Bowles’ method by any sense of the word.
Dale Myers describes it as arbitrary! This is what you posted 3 days ago;
So what's next? Now you are going to argue that Myers, who you relied on before, got it wrong?
Something like; Myers did say he used an arbitrary zero base-time but what Bowles did wasn't arbitrary at all.
He fixed the time, for practical purposes, at 12:29. That doesn't mean that time was correct. He needed a starting point from where to time the duration of the open mike episode. He could just as easily have used 12:28 or 12:31. What he tried to establish was if the open mike episode could have occurred when the acoustics report claimed it did.
There is no reason that a similar method could not be applied to a particular point in the time frame of the recordings during the period of the Tippit shooting
Oh yes there is a reason. The radio calls were recorded on voice activated devices. When you do not know how long each interval is between each activation you will get nowhere. Had the recording been continuous it would have been a different matter because all you then needed was a starting point. But it wasn't continuous. I have actually heard a part of the dictabelt recording and what the time calls by the dispatchers suggested was a one hour period only lasted (if I remember correctly) 48 minutes on the dictabelt
No, not reliable to tie it down to a particular minute. Who says I only accept the parts of the report I want to? That's total BS. You can do a song and dance routine as much as you like, but you will never be able to deny that Bowles said;
"Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose, they indicated the incorrect time."
and
"Radio operators were also furnished with 12-hour digital clocks to facilitate their time references when they were not using call sheets containing stamped time. These digital clocks were not synchronized with any time standard. Therefore, the time "actual" and time "broadcast" could easily be a minute or so apart."
These two factual comments are enough to conclude that the times provided by the dispatchers can not be relied upon.
Scoggins time does not need to match the DPD time. Why do you insist that it must?
For crying out loud, when you claim that DPD times and the time Scoggins gave are correct, they have to be in sinc with eachother, don't you think? There is only one sequence of events that is and can be the right one.....
If the DPD time is off a minute or two, and the cab company’s time is off a minute or two, and the dispatcher delayed his recording of the call to notify the police; then there is no conflict between them.
Aha, I see... between the two of them they can be off by a couple of minutes, but they can't be off against all the other time related evidence that is out there? Got it... that's some special pleading!
So the conflict between Bowley’s watch and the other two times is what is in dispute.
Sure.. and the time(s) Markham's bus left Jefferson, and the time recorded on the authorisation for autopsy which says Dr Ligouri declared Tippit DOA at 1.15, and the time Detective Davenport registered for the DOA and the time that NBC news reported Tippit's DOA (before it actually could have happened in Scoggins' alternative time line).
But there is no way that I will believe that both the DPD and the cab company’s time are off by 6 or 7 minutes.
No worries. There is also no way that I will believe that you are willing to look at the evidence honestly and are only interested in the truth (as you claim) .... I suppose living in cuckoo land will eventually drive you cuckoo...But it is good of you to expose your bias.
What wife? Do I have a wife? I thought she died 3 years ago... Is there something you know that I don't?
Are are you just exposing yourself as the true life jerk you are?
My condolences. May she rest in peace.
But I need not apologize, since how could I have possibly known about her passing..
This is your post that started the whole discussion about arbitrary:
This is a statement from your post that you made that I disagree with:
He fixed the time, for practical purposes, at 12:29. That doesn't mean that time was correct. He needed a starting point from where to time the duration of the open mike episode. He could just as easily have used 12:28 or 12:31.
The point is that his deduction of a time of 12:29: was not arbitrary. He could not have just as easily used 12:28 or 12:31.
Read the entire sentence that Dale Myers wrote:
Former dispatch supervisor Jim Bowles used a stop watch and some mathematics to deduce a “real” time from the police recordings by comparing an arbitrary zero base-time with the recorded time announcements that followed.
The word arbitrary describes his selection of the beginning of the open-mike transmission as his zero base time. Now, he could have selected another point in the recording as his zero-base time and deduced the “real” time accordingly. This is what Dale Myers is saying.
Is the “real” time exact. Hell no. Is the “real” time close to the exact time? Bowles invites anyone to review his methods and decide for himself. His methods are explained in detail. So, knock yourself out if you so desire to. However, there is no way that his decision to use 12:29 is arbitrary. And if either one of you had any integrity whatsoever, you would admit that you are wrong and accept Bowles report and Dale Myers’ words for what they are.
BS.. when you start talking about family members you always need to be careful. But I never expected an apology from you.
So, you don't even accept my condolences. You're a class act, Martin. You can't even put differences aside for one moment, can you. That speaks volumes as to your involvement here.
By contrast, when I mentioned the death of my brother in May 2018, John Iacoletti was the only member on this entire forum to offer condolences. And in a timely manner, I might add.
So, you don't even accept my condolences.
Where did I say that? All I said was that I did not expect an apology from you.
You're a class act, Martin. You can't even put differences aside for one moment, can you. That speaks volumes as to your involvement here.
So, you decide to turn it into an issue and I am the class act? Really?
And there you go.... arguing for argument's sake.
When you start out with something that's arbitrary everything that follows is by definition arbitrary.
I've already proven beyond any doubt that the time stamps on the DPD recording do not justify the conclusion that Tippit was killed at 1.14. So, either the 1.17 and 1.18 time stamps for the calls by Bowles and Callaway (both men made calls roughly within 2 minutes after the shots and not 4) are wrong or Myers is pathetically bad at mathematics.
However, there is no way that his decision to use 12:29 is arbitrary.
You can take that up with Dale Myers. He seems to disagree with you.
And if either one of you had any integrity whatsoever, you would admit that you are wrong and accept Bowles report and Dale Myers’ words for what they are.
You really mean we should take your version of what Bowles and Myers said for what it is, don't you?
But you just keep on believing the fairytale.
You brought it up; I offered my condolences.
You disrespected that. Tell us who made this an issue.
Are you sure you're honouring your wife's memory here today?
You started your reply with 'BS'.
I'll take that as meaning my entire post.
'You're a class act' is obviously meant as sarcasm in this context. (Let me change that to a 'real' class act so the sarcasm might be made clear to any mentally-challenged posters here). What the hell happened to your self-proclaimed 'superior education'?
And you are doing what you just accused Charles Collins of doing: Arguing for the sake of argument.
--------------------------------------------------
You lot break up things into far too many pieces
Then break up those pieces into evermore tiny pieces
Inspired by Vincent Bugliosi's 'split the split hairs'
You disrespected that.
I disrespected nothing. I only responded to the rest of your post in which you tried to justify bringing a poster's family into it.
That was BS.
I'll take that as meaning my entire post.
So based on a wrong assumption you decided to make an issue out if it. Wow!
Are you sure you're honouring your wife's memory here today?
You clearly have never met her. She never had the time of day for disingenuous people. I'm done with this pathetic conversation.
Here is an example of using a zero reference point that will hopefully help clear up any confusion:
An architect is drawing up a set of plans for a multistory building with an underground parking deck below the building. He needs to draw some elevation views to show the distances between floors, ceiling heights, window sill heights, etc. And he needs a reference point (zero point) that he can calculate the various elevation distances from. Lets say he selects the main (ground) floor as his reference point. He can designate the finished ground floor as zero and show the elevations of the other items as a distance from his zero reference point. In this case the underground items would have a negative number for their elevations.
However, he could have selected, for example, the floor of the lowest level of the underground parking deck to be his zero reference point, designated the distances to the other items accordingly, and still ended up with, for practical purposes, the same resulting building. Provided of course that the builder followed the plans properly.
So, in a sense, the selection of what to use for the zero reference point is arbitrary. And I believe that that is what Dale Meyers is trying to say in that sentence.
Exactly. I have never met her. That, in effect, leaves me off any potential list of people who might be contacted upon news of her passing. Again, tell me how I would have known she had passed.
You couldn't have known. You couldn't even have known that I had a wife. But that's not the point.
When you start talking about a poster's family, without knowing anything about them, you always run the risk of saying something wrong. Better not go there.....That's the point I was making.
And that can be easily corrected by offering condolences, with the other person graciously accepting.
I didn't say that the jacket was zipped up only halfway.
Okay, Mr. Brown, fair enough, no harm, no foul.
I believe eyewitnesses to a crime make mistakes almost always, when it comes to clothing descriptions. This is obvious. It happens.
Yes, we mutually agree on this point all human beings are prone to mistakes. Again, no harm, no foul. However, in their haste to frame the wrongly accused why didn't those charged w/fully investigating the actual events at 10th & Patton take this into consideration?
Set aside the description of color for a minute. I would like to know what some conspiracy advocates believe happened to the jacket that Oswald was zipping up as he went out the front door of the rooming house. He left the house wearing a jacket and was seen at the shoe store entrance with no jacket. Even if the jacket was rainbow-colored, what happened to it? Why did Oswald get rid of it?
Conjecture, Mr. Brown at, quote, "Why did Oswald get rid of it?" Besides, the colour of the jacket wasn't indicative of any clothing actually owned by the wrongly accused. Not to mention it carried a cleaner's tag, which is so contrary to the wrongly accused's personal upkeep of his clothing. Not exactly a luxury on his mere warehouseman's salary.
Thanks Alan. I appreciate that. buddy.
No problem. Like I said before, even though we are miles--perhaps even an entire ocean apart--on this case, I respect you. I'm no longer the kid with the Ben Hur team of horses avatar from six years ago, meaning I do remember the researchers who confronted me w/their truth as oppose to flooding my IM box like the late Gary Mack (RIP) telling me how wrong I was to question the "evidence".
Alan, Happy Thanksgiving to you and your loved ones.
MUCH appreciated, Mr. Brown, best to you & yours for a safe, happy & healthy holiday season right into the new year.
And on and on and on he goes.... Trying to "win" an argument by wearing everybody else down.
And now you can spend another 5 posts explaining why you are not trying to wear everybody down....
In the meantime I'm going to have a far more interesting conversation with a wall.
There is no argument here. I am just explaining why you are wrong.
The good thing (for you) is that a wall won’t tell you when you are wrong.
And, the bad thing (for you) is that a wall won’t tell you when you are wrong.
Or it could have been prevented by simply not doing it. And here I end this "discussion". Feel free to have the last word
The word arbitrary describes his selection of the beginning of the open-mike transmission as his zero base time. Now, he could have selected another point in the recording as his zero-base time and deduced the “real” time accordingly. This is what Dale Myers is saying.
BS.. when you start talking about family members you always need to be careful. But I never expected an apology from you.
I've already proven beyond any doubt that the time stamps on the DPD recording do not justify the conclusion that Tippit was killed at 1.14. So, either the 1.17 and 1.18 time stamps for the calls by Bowles and Callaway (both men made calls roughly within 2 minutes after the shots and not 4) are wrong or Myers is pathetically bad at mathematics.
When you start out with something that's arbitrary everything that follows is by definition arbitrary.
1. Dale Myers is the one that used the word arbitrary (not Bowles).
2. In Dale Myers’ sentence, the adjective arbitrary immediately precedes the words zero base. Which in proper English grammar means he is describing zero base (not “real” time, or anything else).
I’ve engaged with Myers on Facebook. It’s a waste of time. He doesn’t ever admit to being wrong, even when he clearly is, and insults people who dare to disagree with him. Much like most of the LNers here.
Of course he will never admit he is wrong, because he has a book to sell and a reputation to protect.
Here is an example of using a zero reference point that will hopefully help clear up any confusion:
An architect is drawing up a set of plans for a multistory building with an underground parking deck below the building. He needs to draw some elevation views to show the distances between floors, ceiling heights, window sill heights, etc. And he needs a reference point (zero point) that he can calculate the various elevation distances from. Lets say he selects the main (ground) floor as his reference point. He can designate the finished ground floor as zero and show the elevations of the other items as a distance from his zero reference point. In this case the underground items would have a negative number for their elevations.
However, he could have selected, for example, the floor of the lowest level of the underground parking deck to be his zero reference point, designated the distances to the other items accordingly, and still ended up with, for practical purposes, the same resulting building. Provided of course that the builder followed the plans properly.
So, in a sense, the selection of what to use for the zero reference point is arbitrary. And I believe that that is what Dale Meyers is trying to say in that sentence.
There is no “1:17” dispatcher time check on the extant tapes.
There is no argument here. I am just explaining why you are wrong.
Except, Myers wasn't wrong. Iacoletti just didn't understand what was being clearly explained to him.
There's a 1:19 time stamp by the dispatcher. Allow up to a minute for error and work your way back from that time stamp and you have the Bowley report on the police radio taking place at 1:17.
There's a 1:19 time stamp by the dispatcher. Allow up to a minute for error and work your way back from that time stamp and you have the Bowley report on the police radio taking place at 1:17.
a) “up to a minute” is arbitrary (there’s that word again)
b) you don’t just get to assume that the recording is continuous.
FACEPALM
That’s exactly what I said was arbitrary and you argued with me!
Where did you get that idea? Bowles clearly states that his zero-base time was arbitrary. He says nothing about when the shots occurred with regard to the accuracy of the clocks, and the shots (at least in his opinion) are not audible on the recording.
There are a lot of things that LN-ers claim “general consensus” on that are not demonstrable.
You said:
Bowles clearly states that his zero-base time was arbitrary.
Dale Myers is the one who used the word arbitrary, not Bowles. Bowles didn’t state any such thing.
But you were using this arbitrary reference point to make claims about the time at which the shots occurred.
Here is an example of using a zero reference point that will hopefully help clear up any confusion:
An architect is drawing up a set of plans for a multistory building with an underground parking deck below the building. He needs to draw some elevation views to show the distances between floors, ceiling heights, window sill heights, etc. And he needs a reference point (zero point) that he can calculate the various elevation distances from. Lets say he selects the main (ground) floor as his reference point. He can designate the finished ground floor as zero and show the elevations of the other items as a distance from his zero reference point. In this case the underground items would have a negative number for their elevations.
However, he could have selected, for example, the floor of the lowest level of the underground parking deck to be his zero reference point, designated the distances to the other items accordingly, and still ended up with, for practical purposes, the same resulting building. Provided of course that the builder followed the plans properly.
So, in a sense, the selection of what to use for the zero reference point is arbitrary. And I believe that that is what Dale Meyers is trying to say in that sentence.
And on and on he goes.... ::)
I am responding to John’s reply. I did not go on and on without being prodded.....
You said:
Bowles clearly states that his zero-base time was arbitrary.
Dale Myers is the one who used the word arbitrary, not Bowles. Bowles didn’t state any such thing.
It appears that you are still confused. Here is my post that you are responding to:
Actually, there is a 1:18 time stamp as well.
I’m not confused. And repeating your word salad about your building doesn’t change the fact that Bowles arbitrarily chose a zero-base time for his analysis and also said that the dispatcher time checks were not accurate.
Not on channel 1, which is the channel dealing with the Tippit shooting.
According to the transcripts on McAdams' site there is. Nothing happens between 1.18 and 1.19 but the time stamp is there nevertheless
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm
Again, there is no 1:18 time stamp on channel 1, as I already told you. A time stamp is given verbally by the dispatcher.
I reconsidered my reply while you wrote your reply and have edited my post accordingly.
I am aware the time stamps are given verbally by the dispatcher. I also know that, according to Bowles, those verbal time stamps could be a minute or so of from what the dispatcher's clock said, depending on how busy the dispatcher was.
And I still maintain that Bowley did not make his call at 1.17, nor did Callaway make his at 1.19.
Let me ask you this; if Tippit was killed at 1.14, as Dale Myers estimates, do you really believe Bowley made his radio call three minutes after that and Callaway did the same 5 minutes after the shots?
Benavides watched the gunman disappear around the corner of the Davis house and then sat in his truck "for a second or two" before getting out and going over to Tippit. After looking over Tippit, he leans in the open driver-side door and grabs the police radio mic. If you listen to the actual police tapes (versus what you get on the McAdams site) you can hear Benavides attempt to key the mic several times without getting through (he didn't work it correctly). These sounds can be heard for a complete minute at 1:15.
At some point during all of this, Bowley arrives, looks over Tippit's body and then eventually grabs the mic from Benavides.
Point being, Bowley didn't get on the mic right away because it was under the control of Benavides.
The shooting takes place at 1:14. Benavides begins keying the mic around 1:15-1:16. Bowley finally grabs the mic from Benavides at 1:17.
Benavides watched the gunman disappear around the corner of the Davis house and then sat in his truck "for a second or two" before getting out and going over to Tippit. After looking over Tippit, he leans in the open driver-side door and grabs the police radio mic. If you listen to the actual police tapes (versus what you get on the McAdams site) you can hear Benavides attempt to key the mic several times without getting through (he didn't work it correctly). These sounds can be heard for a complete minute at 1:15.
At some point during all of this, Bowley arrives, looks over Tippit's body and then eventually grabs the mic from Benavides.
Point being, Bowley didn't get on the mic right away because it was under the control of Benavides.
The shooting takes place at 1:14. Benavides begins keying the mic around 1:15-1:16. Bowley finally grabs the mic from Benavides at 1:17.
Benavides watched the gunman disappear around the corner of the Davis house and then sat in his truck "for a second or two" before getting out and going over to Tippit. After looking over Tippit, he leans in the open driver-side door and grabs the police radio mic. If you listen to the actual police tapes (versus what you get on the McAdams site) you can hear Benavides attempt to key the mic several times without getting through (he didn't work it correctly). These sounds can be heard for a complete minute at 1:15.
At some point during all of this, Bowley arrives, looks over Tippit's body and then eventually grabs the mic from Benavides.
Point being, Bowley didn't get on the mic right away because it was under the control of Benavides.
The shooting takes place at 1:14. Benavides begins keying the mic around 1:15-1:16. Bowley finally grabs the mic from Benavides at 1:17.
If you begin with the 1:19 verbal timestamp and work backwards, Bowley's report on the police radio took place at 1:17:41.
Merry Christmas, Martin.
The shooting takes place at 1:14. Benavides begins keying the mic around 1:15-1:16. Bowley finally grabs the mic from Benavides at 1:17.
If this were true Helen Markham wouldn't have been there to witness the shooting.... She would have been boarding the bus at the corner of Jafferson and Patton at that time.... BUT Markham swore that she was standing on the corner of 10th at Patton and the time was 1:06 when she witnessed the shooting.
At some point during all of this, Bowley arrives, looks over Tippit's body and then eventually grabs the mic from Benavides.
TF Bowley swore that he saw Tippit lying on the street when got out of his car at 1:10 ....
If Tippit had been shot at 1:14 Bowley wouldn't have been at the scene because he would have passed by that are 8 minutes earlier.... And he might have witnessed Tippit's squad car cruising slowly along behind the man who was walking on the sidewalk along 10th street.
If you listen to the actual police tapes (versus what you get on the McAdams site)
Where can one obtain a copy of the complete recordings?
Yes, that's the fairytale version. If this is what actually happened, you have to believe that Callaway (who arrived at the scene after Bowley had finished his radio call) needed four minutes, after the shots were fired, to get to 10th street. You have been there yourself and thus know the distance he needed to cover after his encounter with the killer on Patton, halfway between Jefferson and 10th street. There is no way that took him 4 minutes, unless he crawled of course.
Those are two of the main reasons to believe that the time stamps on the DPD radio are incorrect and likely tampered with.
There is a third one and that's the ambulance. The authorisation for autopsy gave Tippit's DOA time at Methodist Hospital as 1:15 pm. DPD officer Davenport, who was there, confirms that time, not only is his report, but also on the document he signed for the Identification Bureau when he handed in the bullet, taken from Tippit's body at 1.30, and a button. There is more witness testimony that actually corroborates this version but I'll leave that for later.
The authorisation for autopsy gave Tippit's DOA time at Methodist Hospital as 1:15 pm.
They're not online anywhere. I listened to the unedited tapes with Dale Myers at his house back in September.
Before making his way up to the patrol car, Callaway first watched Oswald make his trek all the way down Patton to Jefferson. A couple minutes had passed before Callaway actually reached the scene and he did not immediately get on the radio to report the shooting.
I'm being lazy today. Can you post this please?
They're not online anywhere. I listened to the unedited tapes with Dale Myers at his house back in September.I have a copy of the recording. How do you really know that they were "unedited"?
You really need to read his testimony more closely, Bill.
Callaway didn't wait on the porche of his office to watch the killer "trek all the way down Patton to Jefferson". He ran towards 10th street and was about halfway down Patton when he encountered the killer. If he had waited for only a minute he would have missed the killer completely.
In his testimony and his first day affidavit Callaway said he heard the shots and ran from the porche of his office to Patton. He was on the sidewalk of Patton, near the alley that's halfway between Jefferson and 10th Street, when he saw the man running towards him with the revolver.
Tippit's killer left the scene directly after the shots. The distance he needed to cover before getting to Callaway, was from the car to the corner of 10th/Patton, which - walking at normal speed - would have taken him 20 seconds. You know this because somebody timed it in a video you were in that is on YouTube. Then he had to walk halfway down Patton (about 200 feet) to where Callaway was. That would have taken him another 20 seconds, maybe 30. You know this, you've been there yourself, you've seen just how short a distance it is. But here's a reminder;
CE 539 is a photograph of where Callaway was when he saw the killer running towards him
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_539.pdf
You can clearly see the houses of 10th street in the background.
After his encounter with the killer, which took no more that a couple of seconds, Callaway, according to his testimony, ran towards 10th street. If you add on some seconds here and there, you get to around 90 seconds to 2 minutes maximum that it took Callaway to get to 10th street and on the radio after the shots.
00:00:00 Tippit is killed
00:00:30 Killer reaches the corner of 10th street and Patton
00:00:50 Killer reaches the alley halfway between 10th street and Jefferson
Callaway, who is on the other side of the street, sees the man running towards him
00:01:10 Callaway starts running to 10th street
00:01:30 Callaway arrives at 10th street
00:01:35 Callaway checks on Tippit and sees he's dead
00:01:50 Callaway gets on the radio
I don't know what you mean by "a couple of minutes" but anything more than 2 minutes, you are going to have to explain to me.
Actually, no I can't post this because I don't know how. But I'm sure somebody else can post the document. I've seen it being posted before.
Edit: I found a copy on line for you.
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338568/m1/7/
Actually, no I can't post this because I don't know how. But I'm sure somebody else can post the document. I've seen it being posted before.
Edit: I found a copy on line for you.
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338568/m1/7/
Thanks, I wasn’t having any luck searching online. So, it doesn’t appear to be a defect in my searching. Did Dale happen to explain or expound on any of the details of his methods to you?
You really should refrain from telling me that I need to read Callaway's testimony a little more closely. You're wrong.
I said "Before making his way up to the patrol car, Callaway first watched Oswald make his trek all the way down Patton to Jefferson." This is exactly what Callaway says in his testimony (among other places). To say that Callaway began making his way up to Tenth without first having watched the killer go all the way to Jefferson (even watched The killer turn west onto Jefferson) is a mistake.
You're also wrong when you claim that Callaway was already up to and near the alley (located at the halfway point in the block) when he encountered the killer. Callaway went from the porch out to Patton and was a good fifty feet south of the alley when the killer passed. The very photo you linked to (CE-539), which you claim shows Callaway near the alley, clearly shows Callaway standing well south of the alley. In the image, do you see the brick building across the street and up the street somewhat? That is exactly where the alley is, which is the halfway point down the block. You need to orient yourself on this better than you have.
You really should refrain from telling me that I need to read Callaway's testimony a little more closely. You're wrong.
You really actually believe that you are right all the time, don't you?
I said "Before making his way up to the patrol car, Callaway first watched Oswald make his trek all the way down Patton to Jefferson." This is exactly what Callaway says in his testimony (among other places). To say that Callaway began making his way up to Tenth without first having watched the killer go all the way to Jefferson (even watched The killer turn west onto Jefferson) is a mistake.
No. That's not what Callaway said in his testimony. He did not say that he watched the man running to Jefferson before making his way to 10th street. Callaway's view of the man was unobstructed all the way down Patton. In his testimony, he said that the last time he saw the man he was on Jefferson.
Mr. DULLES. May I ask what course he was taking when you last saw him?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He was going west on Jefferson Street.
He does not say he was still in the same location when he saw that.
You're also wrong when you claim that Callaway was already up to and near the alley (located at the halfway point in the block) when he encountered the killer. Callaway went from the porch out to Patton and was a good fifty feet south of the alley when the killer passed.
The distances we are talking about are minimal. I said "about halfway down" and "near the alley that's halfway between Jefferson and 10th Street". If you want to place him 50 feet closer to Jefferson, feel free to do so. It only takes a couple of seconds to run 50 feet extra. It makes very little difference for the duration of the events.
But even if you are right about this, which I don't think you are (IMO it's just another one of your word games), and Callaway waited - before running to 10th street - until the killer got to Jefferson, we're only talking, at best, about an additional 30 seconds for him to get to the scene.
I estimated he arrived at 10th street between 90 seconds and 2 minutes after the shots, so those additional 30 seconds are still well within the range of my estimated times.
You had Callaway arriving at the scene "a couple of minutes" after the shots, without explaining what that means exactly, and you have not provided any information that shows that conclusion is wrong.
You need to orient yourself on this better than you have.
There you go again... Typical Bill Brown. First telling me to refrain from telling you what to do and then, somewhat hypocritically, proceding to tell me what I should do.
As I thought (which is why I asked you to post it), you were incorrect when you said that the document says Tippit was pronounced DOA at 1:15.
The document states that Tippit was pronounced DOA.
The document also states that the time of death was 1:15.
Nothing about him being pronounced DOA at 1:15.
This matters.
Hey. It is what it is. When you tell me that I really should read testimony more carefully, while at the same time making error upon error, I am going to defend myself by correcting your errors.
You were wrong. It's not a big deal.
Again, it makes absolutely no difference whether or not you believe that the choice of the beginning of the open-mike transmission was arbitrary.
The accuracy of the time in Bowles' report are dependent upon the accuracy of his methods of deriving the rational assumption of 12:29:10 as the start of that transmission; and his use of the recordings and a stopwatch for deriving the times of the other events. This includes the time checks, which he indicates how far off his derived "real" time that he estimates them to be.
Bowles explained his methods and invited others to evaluate them and decide for themselves just how accurate they believe them to be.
Benavides watched the gunman disappear around the corner of the Davis house and then sat in his truck "for a second or two" before getting out and going over to Tippit.
Hypocrite Chapman had a fit once when I made a similar crack about his father.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QdF5fsgz/dead-father-insult.png)
Tell us where you see a 'fit' on my part.
And you already knew my father was dead.
I did not know Martin's wife had passed.
I immediately offered my condolences.
He did not acknowledge same.
And it makes absolutely no difference whether or not you believe that it wasn’t arbitrary.
Without any knowledge of how far off the dispatcher clocks were from real time on that day, or how far off the “city hall” clock was from real time, or how precise the dispatchers were in reporting their time checks, then his “derived estimates” are arbitrary too.
And we have.
Without any knowledge of how far off the dispatcher clocks were from real time on that day, or how far off the “city hall” clock was from real time, or how precise the dispatchers were in reporting their time checks, then his “derived estimates” are arbitrary too.
This is the misconception that is at the crux of my disagreement with you two. You simply cannot dismiss his methods of deriving “real” time with that silly statement. Shame on you.
Show us how you believe his methods of deriving “real” time become arbitrary by examining his method and pointing out exactly where you believe that they become arbitrary. You cannot.
I'm not sure who you are talking to here and who "you two" are, but just in case I'm one of the two, I have already given up trying to have a reasonable conversation with you.
You are the other one. You said (paraphrasing) that his assumption of 12:29:10 was arbitrary and that he could have just as easily chose 12:28 or 12:31. This is essentially the same misconception that John has.
Hi Charles. It was information overload (in a good way) during the two days I spent up there with Dale Myers (as well as with Todd Vaughan).
I'm sure I can answer your question if you can be more specific.
The most farcical of all is that Bill Brown seems to believe and defend a theory which says that Callaway, who was less than on block (approx 0.1 mile) away from the shooting needed 5 minutes, after the shots, to get to the scene and call the dispatcher. Says it all, really....
You simply cannot dismiss his methods of deriving “real” time
Show us how you believe his methods of deriving “real” time become arbitrary by examining his method and pointing out exactly where you believe that they become arbitrary. You cannot.
All ya gotta do is read Callaway's own words. He did not make his way up to the corner until after the killer had reached the corner of Patton and Jefferson.
Callaway was at the scene sooner than five minutes after the shots; he just did not get on the police radio to report it immediately upon arriving at the scene.
You really should read his testimony a little closer.
Yes we can. And we do.
Already done in spades. His zero-base time is arbitrary, and by his own account, the time-pieces are not accurate or synchronized.
Yes we can. And we do.
Not legitimately. Not with your silly statement.
His zero-base time is arbitrary,
It most definitely is not arbitrary. It is a rational assumption. You can argue the accuracy of his rational assumption. But to claim that it is in any way form or fashion arbitrary is dead wrong.
And since when is a "rational assumption" not arbitrary?
I said many posts back in this thread that you two have a problem with that term.
I also posted that rational and reasoned are antonyms of arbitrary.
I also said that just because something is an assumption, that doesn’t mean that it is arbitrary.
There are arbitrary assumptions, but Bowles’ rational assumption is not one of them.
Dig into his reasoning, then come back and tell us why you thing that there is anything whatsoever arbitrary about it.
Total BS. An assumption is by definition always arbitrary as it is designed to bridge a gap from A to B. For this purpose an assumption is made which, in the mind of the person making the assumption, best fills that gap, and this disregards the other possible options, which makes the assumption arbitrary.
An assumption is by definition always arbitrary
Show me a definition in the dictionary that says that.
Here is the definition in the one that I am looking at:
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof
Not legitimately.
Bill: Check the claims made by one Eclan Elliott. He said he was out driving looking for his 14 year old daughter when he saw a man he later identified as Oswald near the Beckley address. He said there was no one on the street at that time; that everyone was inside watching the news about the shooting.
He was interviewed by Gus Russo in "Live by the Sword." Part of his account is below.
(https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/cd37/08t834461jn0fnizg.jpg)
An assumption is usually believed and perhaps even accepted to be true by the person making the assumption.
It doesn't mean that it is actually true, when there are alternatives to choose from. The selection of one over the others is what makes the assumption arbitrary.
It’s perfectly legitimate, despite your weak attempt to turn this into a dictionary argument.
Bowles states that his assumption is a rational one. He explains that it is not exact but for practical purposes it is accurate. He explains his methods and reasoning. And he invites others to examine his reasoning and decide for themselves just how accurate they believe it to be.
The selection of one over the others is what makes the assumption arbitrary.
Not no, but hell no. You are wrong and I have been said this many times.
If he had pulled the time out of thin air, THAT would be arbitrary. However, he selected 12:29:10 over the other possibilities after deriving it from other recorded events surrounding that time. THAT is what makes it a rational assumption. There is absolutely nothing arbitrary about it.
Bowles states that his assumption is a rational one.
This is so stupid. Have you ever heard somebody say that his assumption is not a rational one?
As far as everything else goes; there is just not talking to you. For a guy who claims to have no problem admitting when he's wrong you dig yourself in way too deep and well beyond the level of any rational discussion.
Despite Charles’ irrational insistence otherwise, “assumption” and “arbitrary” are not mutually exclusive.
Bowles states that his assumption is a rational one. He explains that it is not exact but for practical purposes it is accurate. He explains his methods and reasoning. And he invites others to examine his reasoning and decide for themselves just how accurate they believe it to be.
The selection of one over the others is what makes the assumption arbitrary.
Not no, but hell no. You are wrong and I have been said this many times.
If he had pulled the time out of thin air, THAT would be arbitrary. However, he selected 12:29:10 over the other possibilities after deriving it from other recorded events surrounding that time. THAT is what makes it a rational assumption. There is absolutely nothing arbitrary about it.
Have you ever heard somebody say that his assumption is not a rational one?
Many times. It is often used for hypothetical scenarios.
You are the one who doesn’t make any sense. The only reason I am continuing this discussion is because it bothers me that you try to spread your misconceptions as correct. They are dead wrong.
Are you still talking about that? Get over it, will ya... I have!
Has it been established at what time Elcan saw Oswald? If it was after the Tippit killing, that might help to explain the (apparently) extended time he took to cover what was, purportedly, just a few minutes walk to the TT area.
However, Bugliosi writes:
"But if Oswald was walking back and forth in opposite directions and
going toward Lancaster Boulevard, it would not have been physically
possible for him to reach Tenth and Patton when we know he did."
V. Bugliosi; Page 46 of CD-ROM Endnotes; "Reclaiming History"; c.2007
I didn’t say that they were. In fact I gave an example of an arbitrary assumption:
Iacoletti brought it up, with his calling me a hypocrite
I schooled him on the difference between the two situations
Despite Charles’ irrational insistence otherwise, his notion of “rational derivation” and “arbitrary assumption” are not mutually exclusive.
You’re not fooling anyone but yourself.
You can continue to insist that you are the ultimate authority of what words mean, but it’s nothing but a waste of time.
The bottom line still is that we don’t know how accurate the dispatcher spoken time checks on the edited non-continuous dictabelt recordings are.
That must have been a great experience. Thumb1:
When I read Bowles’ report, he specifically explains how he derived the 12:29:10 time for the start of the open-mike transmission. And he ties it to a specific event (the sighting of the front of the motorcade passing under the triple underpass. In his book, Dale Myers indicates that he used a similar method to Bowles’ method; but he doesn’t tie it to a specific event (unless I missed that). Did he explain his method to you to the extent of what specific event he used (if any)?
Thanks!
You’ve never “schooled” anybody on anything here. You can’t even keep people’s names straight.
Yes, I’ve said that before.
You can continue to insist that you are the ultimate authority of what words mean, but it’s nothing but a waste of time.
The bottom line still is that we don’t know how accurate the dispatcher spoken time checks on the edited non-continuous dictabelt recordings are.
You will continue to use one excuse after another to claim that we don’t know anything at all about any thing at all. ::)
The reason for Charles Collins to desperately cling to his "opinion" is a simple one. Claiming that Bowles managed to reconstruct a sequence of events, in the open mike matter, from a particular point, gives him (at least he hopes so) a reason to falsely argue that Dale Myers could indeed have done the same re the Tippit shooting.
That he knows it's complete BS is proven by the question he asked Bill Brown;
Charles Collins seems to be determined to fight a massive uphill battle he is doomed to lose from the outset for one simple reason; there is no way that Bowley called the DPD dispatcher 3 minutes after the killing and Callaway did the same 5 minutes after the killing, as the DPD transcripts suggest, when the time line, I constructed based on witness testimony shows persuasively that both Bowles and Callaway were at the scene and made their calls within 2 minutes after the shots.
The consequence is a simple one; if Bowley and Callaway called the dispatcher much earlier than the DPD transcripts suggest, there can be only one conclusion; the DPD recordings and transcripts do not reflect reality and were most likely tampered with. That's why Collins is fighting this thing so hard.
Well, you're the one who constantly needs to consult a dictionary. What does that tell you?
I asked Bill the question because I believe that there is a good chance that Dale Myers elaborated on his methods. And I would like to know more about them.
You believe that you have figured out a “timeline” based on witness testimony. And you desperately want to be able to dismiss the times on the DPD recordings as “arbitrary” because they are at odds with your “timeline.” However, dismissing the times as arbitrary because of your misconceptions of the meaning and use of the word arbitrary is dead wrong.
It tells me that when I need to know the exact meaning of a word I look it up to be sure. Unlike you who claims it means something that it doesn’t.
Which confirms exactly the point that John made. Thank you for the confirmation.
Says the guy who hasn't got the guts to discuss the time line I have created.
It's just too bad that you are unable to show what misconceptions there are in my timeline. It's really very simple; according to the DPD radio transcripts Bowley called the dispatcher at 1:17 and Callaway did the same at 1:19. Dale Myers concluded that Tippit was shot at 1:14. This alone, to any rational thinking human being, says that either Callaway made his call 5 minutes after the shots were fired or something is wrong with the transcripts. There is enough circumstantial evidence (and I haven't even presented all of it) to show that the transcripts can not be right and there is nothing but belief that they are correct.
And you desperately want to be able to dismiss the times on the DPD recordings as “arbitrary” because they are at odds with your “timeline.”
I am not dismissing the DPD recordings as "arbitrary". I am dismissing them because the available evidence shows they can not be relied upon.
there is a good chance that Dale Myers elaborated on his methods. And I would like to know more about them.
Thank you for confirming what I said about your motives for obsessively clinging to whatever it is you think Bowles said.
What point did John make?
Why ask me? You know things, don't you?
I am not dismissing the DPD recordings as "arbitrary".
You were earlier in this thread. If you have changed your tune, then the effort hasn’t been in vain.
I am not a mind reader. So I asked.
You're not much of an analyst either, it seems
You will continue to use one excuse after another to claim that we don’t know anything at all about any thing at all. ::)
I asked Bill the question because I believe that there is a good chance that Dale Myers elaborated on his methods. And I would like to know more about them.
You believe that you have figured out a “timeline” based on witness testimony. And you desperately want to be able to dismiss the times on the DPD recordings as “arbitrary” because they are at odds with your “timeline.”
It tells me that when I need to know the exact meaning of a word I look it up to be sure.
You will continue to jump through all sort of hoops to pretend that you know things that you don’t.
And then you cherry-pick the dictionary and the definition that most fits your bias so that you can declare any other usage “wrong” and argue about it ad nauseam.
In CT Wonderland, nothing can be known, proven or believed.
In Chapman-wonderland, if he says it over and over again it becomes true.
Slam Dunk 101:
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
;D
You really need to get a life....
You really need to get a life....
Billy needs to grow a pair and face reality.....
No second pair required
And let me once again offer
some face-time with reality
-----------------
Slam Dunk 101
-----------------
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
;D ;D ;D
In a biased and unfair lineup because she looked at his eyes and got cold chills and fell over.
And she didn’t recognize anyone in the lineup.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.Always taken out of context----WHY?
Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?A woman that was obviously terrified....WHY? Equally obvious..you don't really care do you?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.
Mr. BALL. Well, I thought you just told me that you hadn't--
Mrs. MARKHAM. I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.
Mr. BALL. No. I wanted to know if that day when you were in there if you saw anyone in there--
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two.
Mr. BALL. What did you say when you saw number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, let me tell you. I said the second man, and they kept asking me which one, which one. I said, number two. When I said number two, I just got weak.
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
Mr. BALL. You recognized him from his appearance?
Mrs. 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.
Always taken out of context----WHY?A woman that was obviously terrified....WHY? Equally obvious..you don't really care do you?