JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Bill Brown on April 13, 2022, 11:37:24 PM
-
I say Ted Callaway helped load Tippit's body into the ambulance and then went over to the patrol car radio to report the shooting to the police dispatcher.
Martin Weidmann says I am wrong, that Callaway got on the patrol car radio first... and then helped load the body into the ambulance.
This matters when trying to explain Callaway's timeline between hearing the shots ring out and reporting the shooting on the patrol car radio.
Martin Wedimann said this, about me....
We've seen a good example of that so-called "curb stomping" when Brown ran from the discussion we had about Callaway and Bowley helping to load Tippit into the ambulance after Callaway made his radio call. Despite all the conclusive evidence against it, Billy argued - to explain away a 2 minute gap in the timeline - that Callaway helped to load Tippit into the ambulance before he made his call, which by it itself is idiotic as the presence of the ambulance would have made Callaway's radio call superfluous. When asked for evidence to back up his silly claim all he could say was that it was in the transcripts (which it wasn't), just before he ran away from the conversation. :D
Weidmann, care to discuss this issue here in this new thread so that it is all in one place? I created the thread and therefore, it'd be kinda difficult for me to "run away".
Fair enough?
-
I say Ted Callaway helped load Tippit's body into the ambulance and then went over to the patrol car radio to report the shooting to the police dispatcher.
Martin Weidmann says I am wrong, that Callaway got on the patrol car radio first... and then helped load the body into the ambulance.
This matters when trying to explain Callaway's timeline between hearing the shots ring out and reporting the shooting on the patrol car radio.
Martin Wedimann said this, about me....
Weidmann, care to discuss this issue here in this new thread so that it is all in one place? I created the thread and therefore, it'd be kinda difficult for me to "run away".
Fair enough?
I wanted to discuss this when we were having to original conversation, but you "lost interest" and merely said something like"it's all there in the DPD recordings, you just don't interpret it correct".
So, if you are now interested again, and are not going to lose your interest again, present your case and I will respond.
Take you time though, because I will be gone for a few days on an Easter break
-
By the way, if Callaway got on the patrol car radio BEFORE helping to load the body into the ambulance (he didn't), then all it really does is help the false narrative that the shooting occurred earlier than 1:14/1:15.
In other words, Callaway helping with the body before getting on the police radio does not support my argument that the shooting occurred around 1:14/1:15; it would support the idea the shooting occurred a bit earlier than the official version. Nevertheless, that is what happened.
-
Ted Callaway testified that after hearing the five gun shots, he ran out to the sidewalk on Patton. This was a little over a half block south of the shooting scene. Callaway saw a man (who he later identified as Oswald) cutting across Patton as he (Oswald) made his way south on Patton (towards Callaway's position). Callaway hollered out to the man as the man continued south on Patton past Callaway's position. Callaway testified that the man was running and holding a gun. Callaway saw the man head west on Jefferson (the same direction as the theater).
Once the man turned west onto Jefferson, Callaway ran a "good hard run" up to the corner of Tenth and Patton. Callaway, noticing the stopped patrol car, went to the car and saw the officer (Tippit) lying dead in the street. Callaway helped load Tippit's body into the ambulance and then grabbed the police car radio and report the shooting. He said he didn't know if anyone had reported it yet, so he decided to report it himself.
To recap, Callaway hears the shots. Runs to the sidewalk. Sees the gunman run south on Patton the entire block from Tenth to Jefferson. Runs the two-thirds of a block up to the shooting scene. Helps load the body into the ambulance. Goes over to the police car and reports the shooting to the police dispatcher.
How much time do you believe passed from the time Callaway heard the shots to the time he reported the shooting on the police radio?
Let's say two minutes pass from the time Oswald shoots Tippit to the time Oswald turns the corner from Patton onto Jefferson. This is a little over one long block and Oswald was running.
Let's say it takes Callaway one minute when he made the "good hard run" the two-thirds of a block from his location to the patrol car. Add one minute to help load the body into the ambulance.
If these time estimates are anywhere close to being correct, then Callaway is at the patrol car roughly four minutes after the shots rang out. Let's add another full minute for error. So we have Callaway at the patrol car using the police radio about five minutes after the shots rang out.
Here's the thing... Callaway's report to the dispatcher while using the patrol car radio took place at 1:19/1:20.
Do the math and work it backwards. At 1:19/1:20, Callaway makes the call. If five minutes have passed (and that's being generous, in my opinion) since the shots rang out, then the shots rang out around 1:14/1:15.
-
Ted Callaway testified that after hearing the five gun shots, he ran out to the sidewalk on Patton. This was a little over a half block south of the shooting scene. Callaway saw a man (who he later identified as Oswald) cutting across Patton as he (Oswald) made his way south on Patton (towards Callaway's position). Callaway hollered out to the man as the man continued south on Patton past Callaway's position. Callaway testified that the man was running and holding a gun. Callaway saw the man head west on Jefferson (the same direction as the theater).
Once the man turned west onto Jefferson, Callaway ran a "good hard run" up to the corner of Tenth and Patton. Callaway, noticing the stopped patrol car, went to the car and saw the officer (Tippit) lying dead in the street. Callaway helped load Tippit's body into the ambulance and then grabbed the police car radio and report the shooting. He said he didn't know if anyone had reported it yet, so he decided to report it himself.
To recap, Callaway hears the shots. Runs to the sidewalk. Sees the gunman run south on Patton the entire block from Tenth to Jefferson. Runs the two-thirds of a block up to the shooting scene. Helps load the body into the ambulance. Goes over to the police car and reports the shooting to the police dispatcher.
How much time do you believe passed from the time Callaway heard the shots to the time he reported the shooting on the police radio?
Let's say two minutes pass from the time Oswald shoots Tippit to the time Oswald turns the corner from Patton onto Jefferson. This is a little over one long block and Oswald was running.
Let's say it takes Callaway one minute when he made the "good hard run" the two-thirds of a block from his location to the patrol car. Add one minute to help load the body into the ambulance.
If these time estimates are anywhere close to being correct, then Callaway is at the patrol car roughly four minutes after the shots rang out. Let's add another full minute for error. So we have Callaway at the patrol car using the police radio about five minutes after the shots rang out.
Here's the thing... Callaway's report to the dispatcher while using the patrol car radio took place at 1:19/1:20.
Do the math and work it backwards. At 1:19/1:20, Callaway makes the call. If five minutes have passed (and that's being generous, in my opinion) since the shots rang out, then the shots rang out around 1:14/1:15.
I will reply in more detail after Easter, but here's something for you to consider in the meantime;
The official narrative states that the funeral home on Jefferson received a call to dispatch an ambulance at 1:18.
According to Butler, the driver of the ambulance, it took him about a minute to get to 10th street, which (going by the transcript times) means he arrived there at 1:19, which in turn - according to the DPD transcripts - is the time Callaway made his call.
-
I will reply in more detail after Easter, but here's something for you to consider in the meantime;
The official narrative states that the funeral home on Jefferson received a call to dispatch an ambulance at 1:18.
According to Butler, the driver of the ambulance, it took him about a minute to get to 10th street, which (going by the transcript times) means he arrived there at 1:19, which in turn - according to the DPD transcripts - is the time Callaway made his call.
The ambulance arrived almost right at 1:19. Shortly after 1:19, the ambulance was gone. Then Callaway goes over to the patrol car and makes his report to the dispatcher; 1:19/1:20.
-
Except he didn't go by the office at all, but instead, according to Callaway, ran down an alley halfway down Patton, between 10th and Jefferson.
Um, No.
Mr. DULLES. May I ask what course he was taking when you last saw him?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He was going west on Jefferson Street.
Mr. DULLES. West on Jefferson Street?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
-
I say Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance and then went over to the patrol car to report the shooting to the police dispatcher. Weidmann insists that I am wrong about this.
The police tapes obviously don't mention the body being loaded into the ambulance, but the tapes do tell us when the ambulance was leaving the scene en route to Methodist Hospital. The tapes tell us that the ambulance was leaving the scene as Callaway was making his report on the squad car radio.
-
602 (ambulance): 602.
Dispatcher: 85.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker): 85.
Dispatcher: Suspect running west on Jefferson from the location.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker): 10-4.
Dispatcher: No physical description.
Citizen Callaway): Hello, hello, hello.
602 (ambulance): 602.
Citizen (Callaway): Pardon, from out here on Tenth Street, 500 block. This officer just shot. I think he's dead.
Dispatcher: 10-4. We have that information. The citizen using the radio: Remain off the radio now.
That "602" was Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital. However, he could not get through because Callaway is on the squad car radio reporting the incident (as the ambulance is speeding off).
-
Oswald knew too much… enter, Jack Ruby…
Perhaps Tippit knew too much… enter, theory that pins Tippit’s death on Oswald…
-
How about we don't post in this thread and just leave it for Bill and Martin to have their mini-debate.
Realizing how important it is for them to have a clean uncluttered debating environment I removed my earlier post and hope you do the same and for everyone else to respect Bill and Martins Mini Debate.
Btw I will leave this here for a little while and then it too will be removed.
JohnM
John, that would be great if everyone would get on board with that. I know I don't have the right to expect others to not post here but it sure would be nice if this thread was left for me and Weidmann to go at it.
I think Weidmann would feel the same way.
-
That "602" was Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital. However, he could not get through because Callaway is on the squad car radio reporting the incident (as the ambulance is speeding off).
Cites please for "602" being Butler, 602 being the ambulance that picked up Tippit, and for the claim that this was "Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital".
-
Cites please for "602" being Butler, 602 being the ambulance that picked up Tippit, and for the claim that this was "Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital".
Why are you posting in this thread?
JohnM
-
Cites please for "602" being Butler, 602 being the ambulance that picked up Tippit, and for the claim that this was "Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital".
First, if you don't know that 602 was the Butler/Kinsley ambulance (the ambulance with Tippit's body) then you don't belong here.
Second, from this point on, I will make my intended posts in this thread and will respond only to Weidmann. If this thread gets too bogged down all together by others then I will simply shut it down.
-
First, if you don't know that 602 was the Butler/Kinsey ambulance (the ambulance with Tippit's body) then you don't belong here.
Second, from this point on, I will make my intended posts in this thread and will respond only to Weidmann. If this thread gets too bogged down all together by others then I will simply shut it down.
I kindly ask you to take your bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns somewhere else.
First, if you don't know that 602 was the Butler/Kinsey ambulance (the ambulance with Tippit's body) then you don't belong here.
Agreed.
John, that would be great if everyone would get on board with that. I know I don't have the right to expect others to not post here but it sure would be nice if this thread was left for me and Weidmann to go at it.
I think Weidmann would feel the same way.
I think Weidmann would feel the same way.
Yes indeed
I'll start posting in more detail after Easter. Feel free to state your case prior to that, if you want, and I will respond.
Unless you prefer to make my case first....
-
First, if you don't know that 602 was the Butler/Kinsey ambulance (the ambulance with Tippit's body) then you don't belong here.
Agreed.
I think Weidmann would feel the same way.
Yes indeed
I'll start posting in more detail after Easter. Feel free to state your case prior to that, if you want, and I will respond.
Unless you prefer to make my case first....
No worries. Will wait 'til you get back. Happy Easter.
-
Roger the Dodger vs Bill 'Bonecrusher' Brown
-
Easter is over.
In the interest of clarity, Martin Weidmann, will you state that your (mistaken) opinion is that Ted Callaway got on the patrol car radio to report the shooting to the police dispatcher and then he helped load the body into the ambulance? This is your position, right?
On my Ted Callaway timeline (between hearing the shots and reporting the shooting on the patrol car radio), Weidmann ridiculed me for having Callaway get to the scene too soon, even going so far as to mock me by saying that I must have Callaway taking a two minute coffee break once he arrived at the scene but before getting on the patrol car radio. I then explained to Weidmann that first, Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance to which Weidmann insisted that I was wrong about this.
Weidmann, do you agree with the above?
Bill Brown: Ted Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance upon arriving at the scene and then got on the patrol car radio to report the shooting to the police dispatcher.
Martin Weidmann: Ted Callaway got on the patrol car radio upon arriving at the scene to report the shooting and then helped load the body into the ambulance.
Does this sound right to you, so far?
-
Easter is over.
In the interest of clarity, Martin Weidmann, will you state that your (mistaken) opinion is that Ted Callaway got on the patrol car radio to report the shooting to the police dispatcher and then he helped load the body into the ambulance? This is your position, right?
On my Ted Callaway timeline (between hearing the shots and reporting the shooting on the patrol car radio), Weidmann ridiculed me for having Callaway get to the scene too soon, even going so far as to mock me by saying that I must have Callaway taking a two minute coffee break once he arrived at the scene but before getting on the patrol car radio. I then explained to Weidmann that first, Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance to which Weidmann insisted that I was wrong about this.
Weidmann, do you agree with the above?
Bill Brown: Ted Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance upon arriving at the scene and then got on the patrol car radio to report the shooting to the police dispatcher.
Martin Weidmann: Ted Callaway got on the patrol car radio upon arriving at the scene to report the shooting and then helped load the body into the ambulance.
Does this sound right to you, so far?
Weidmann, do you agree with the above?
Absolutely,except for the "mistaken" part.
Weidmann ridiculed me for having Callaway get to the scene too soon, even going so far as to mock me by saying that I must have Callaway taking a two minute coffee break once he arrived at the scene but before getting on the patrol car radio.
This is a bit of a misrepresentation. I never claimed you had Callaway getting to the scene too soon. What I said was that Callaway did not need more than 3 minutes to get to the Tippit scene. After he saw the killer run/walk down Patton towards Jefferson, he only had to run (and he said he ran) about 2/3 of one block. So, if the killer needed 2 minutes after the shots to get to Jefferson (you can walk the one block distance in about 2,5 minutes), than one minute more for Callaway to make his run, gets him there at 3 minutes after the shots. Not four or five as you have argued in the past.
Having said that, before we start, will you agree to ignore any posts in this thread that are not written by either you or me? Some of the LN clowns are already desperately trying to distract me with false allegations in another thread and I have no doubt some of those trolls will try to derail our conversation with idiotic comments if given half a chance. Also, derogatory comments or direct insults end this conversation instantly, agreed?
-
Weidmann, do you agree with the above?
Absolutely,except for the "mistaken" part.
Weidmann ridiculed me for having Callaway get to the scene too soon, even going so far as to mock me by saying that I must have Callaway taking a two minute coffee break once he arrived at the scene but before getting on the patrol car radio.
This is a bit of a misrepresentation. I never claimed you had Callaway getting to the scene too soon. What I said was that Callaway did not need more than 3 minutes to get to the Tippit scene. After he saw the killer run/walk down Patton towards Jefferson, he only had to run (and he said he ran) about 2/3 of one block. So, if the killer needed 2 minutes after the shots to get to Jefferson (you can walk the one block distance in about 2,5 minutes), than one minute more for Callaway to make his run, gets him there at 3 minutes after the shots. Not four or five as you have argued in the past.
Having said that, before we start, will you agree to ignore any posts in this thread that are not written by either you or me? Some of the LN clowns are already desperately trying to distract me with false allegations in another thread and I have no doubt some of those trolls will try to derail our conversation with idiotic comments if given half a chance. Also, derogatory comments or direct insults end this conversation instantly, agreed?
Absolutely,except for the "mistaken" part.
Well, we will see about that.
This is a bit of a misrepresentation. I never claimed you had Callaway getting to the scene too soon. What I said was that Callaway did not need more than 3 minutes to get to the Tippit scene. After he saw the killer run/walk down Patton towards Jefferson, he only had to run (and he said he ran) about 2/3 of one block. So, if the killer needed 2 minutes after the shots to get to Jefferson (you can walk the one block distance in about 2,5 minutes), than one minute more for Callaway to make his run, gets him there at 3 minutes after the shots. Not four or five as you have argued in the past.
I was being generous. I too believe that Callaway got to the scene no more than three to four minutes after hearing the shots. Here's the thing... He makes his report on Tippit's squad car radio at 1:19/1:20. By saying four to five minutes, I was trying to avoid being criticized by CT's for exaggerating the numbers in order to have Callaway at the scene when I needed him to be... for if Callaway was at the scene as quickly as three minutes to four minutes, which is my belief, then that has him hearing the shots closer to the official time estimation as opposed to the shots occurring earlier. Remember, I said "let's add one minute for error". Adding that one minute helps the CT timeline, not mine.
If Callaway is at the scene in three minutes, helps load the body into the ambulance and then hops on the squad car radio at 1:19/1:20, then yes, the shooting occurs around 1:15.
Having said that, before we start, will you agree to ignore any posts in this thread that are not written by either you or me? Some of the LN clowns are already desperately trying to distract me with false allegations in another thread and I have no doubt some of those trolls will try to derail our conversation with idiotic comments if given half a chance.
Yes. For the purposes of this thread, we reply to each other only.
Also, derogatory comments or direct insults end this conversation instantly, agreed?
Agreed. Though I believe, based on past history, you're the one between the two of us who will have to fight to control those urges.
-
Well, we will see about that.
I was being generous. I too believe that Callaway got to the scene no more than three to four minutes after hearing the shots. Here's the thing... He makes his report on Tippit's squad car radio at 1:19/1:20. By saying four to five minutes, I was trying to avoid being criticized by CT's for exaggerating the numbers in order to have Callaway at the scene when I needed him to be... for if Callaway was at the scene as quickly as three minutes to four minutes, which is my belief, then that has him hearing the shots closer to the official time estimation as opposed to the shots occurring earlier. Remember, I said "let's add one minute for error". Adding that one minute helps the CT timeline, not mine.
If Callaway is at the scene in three minutes, helps load the body into the ambulance and then hops on the squad car radio at 1:19/1:20, then yes, the shooting occurs around 1:15.
Yes. For the purposes of this thread, we reply to each other only.
Agreed. Though I believe, based on past history, you're the one between the two of us who will have to fight to control those urges.
I was being generous. I too believe that Callaway got to the scene no more than three to four minutes after hearing the shots.
No need to be generous. I am actually convinced that Callaway got to the scene in a little less than three minutes. The reason why I am convinced is that, some years ago, I actually walked and ran the distance that the killer and Callaway walked and ran and I found I could be done in three minutes. Having said this, you are now talking about a wider subject than when Callaway helped to load Tippit into the ambulance. Let's try to resolve that first, shall we?
Here's the thing... He makes his report on Tippit's squad car radio at 1:19/1:20.
I don't believe for a second that the times on the DPD transcripts are correct, making it erroneous to rely on them for anything. I have an audio recording that starts when Bowley makes his call and ends 4.27 min later. To the best of my knowledge it's a continuous recording. Now, here's the thing; Bowley's call lasted 48 seconds. Exactly 12 seconds later ambulance 602 reports "code 5" confirming it's departure from the funeral home.
According to the official narrative, the Funeral Home received the call for an ambulance at 1:18, but only 20 seconds after 602's code 5 call the DPD dispatcher (who did not call 1:18) calls out "10-4, 603 and 602. 1:19". Now, how is that possible?
If we assume that Bowley started making his call at exactly 1:17:00, the time sequence described above doesn't get us beyond the 1:18:20 mark. However, if Bowley started making his call at around 1:17:40, that would explain the 40 seconds gap, but it would also reduce the time the ambulance had to get to the scene by 40 seconds.
Then, exactly 40 seconds after his initial call the dispatcher calls out "10-4, 605. 1:19", which seems to fit the timeline far better as, according to the actual recording, that second call is made roughly 2 minutes after Bowley started to make his radio call at 1:17. It is however only 6 seconds before Callaway gets on the DPD radio.
So, the first thing we need to resolve is which is the correct 1:19 call. This is important because the 40 seconds between the first and the second call makes all the difference for determining the correct sequence of events, as I will show later on in this discussion. One thing we can safely rule out, based on the actual recordings is, IMO, that Callaway made his call at or after the 1:20 mark.
Do you have an opinion about which 1:19 call is the correct one?
-
I was being generous. I too believe that Callaway got to the scene no more than three to four minutes after hearing the shots.
No need to be generous. I am actually convinced that Callaway got to the scene in a little less than three minutes. The reason why I am convinced is that, some years ago, I actually walked and ran the distance that the killer and Callaway walked and ran and I found I could be done in three minutes. Having said this, you are now talking about a wider subject than when Callaway helped to load Tippit into the ambulance. Let's try to resolve that first, shall we?
Here's the thing... He makes his report on Tippit's squad car radio at 1:19/1:20.
I don't believe for a second that the times on the DPD transcripts are correct, making it erroneous to rely on them for anything. I have an audio recording that starts when Bowley makes his call and ends 4.27 min later. To the best of my knowledge it's a continuous recording. Now, here's the thing; Bowley's call lasted 48 seconds. Exactly 12 seconds later ambulance 602 reports "code 5" confirming it's departure from the funeral home.
According to the official narrative, the Funeral Home received the call for an ambulance at 1:18, but only 20 seconds after 602's code 5 call the DPD dispatcher (who did not call 1:18) calls out "10-4, 603 and 602. 1:19". Now, how is that possible?
If we assume that Bowley started making his call at exactly 1:17:00, the time sequence described above doesn't get us beyond the 1:18:20 mark. However, if Bowley started making his call at around 1:17:40, that would explain the 40 seconds gap, but it would also reduce the time the ambulance had to get to the scene by 40 seconds.
Then, exactly 40 seconds after his initial call the dispatcher calls out "10-4, 605. 1:19", which seems to fit the timeline far better as, according to the actual recording, that second call is made roughly 2 minutes after Bowley started to make his radio call at 1:17. It is however only 6 seconds before Callaway gets on the DPD radio.
So, the first thing we need to resolve is which is the correct 1:19 call. This is important because the 40 seconds between the first and the second call makes all the difference for determining the correct sequence of events, as I will show later on in this discussion. One thing we can safely rule out, based on the actual recordings is, IMO, that Callaway made his call at or after the 1:20 mark.
Do you have an opinion about which 1:19 call is the correct one?
I don't believe for a second that the times on the DPD transcripts are correct, making it erroneous to rely on them for anything.
First... What is your opinion on the maximum that the DPD transcripts/tapes could be off? Two minutes maximum? Three minutes maximum? More?
If we assume that Bowley started making his call at exactly 1:17:00, the time sequence described above doesn't get us beyond the 1:18:20 mark. However, if Bowley started making his call at around 1:17:40, that would explain the 40 seconds gap, but it would also reduce the time the ambulance had to get to the scene by 40 seconds.
Bowley begins his call on the squad car radio at 1:17:40, as opposed to 1:17:00.
-
Secondly, I've stated many times that Callaway saw the killer run south on Patton for the full block and then watched the killer turn west onto Jefferson; nothing about the alley. My Callaway timeline has him watching the killer get to Jefferson and head west before he (Callaway) starts to make his "good hard run" up to the shooting scene. I think it was in the cop-killer thread, you said this:
Except he didn't go by the office at all, but instead, according to Callaway, ran down an alley halfway down Patton, between 10th and Jefferson.
What made you say this?
If Callaway saw the killer run into the alley halfway down Patton, then Callaway would begin his "good hard run" up to the shooting scene quite a few seconds earlier (since the killer would reach the alley halfway down Patton versus taking longer while traveling the full length of the block down Patton before reaching Jefferson).
Callaway said he asked the fleeing gunman "Hey man, what in the hell is going on?" This took place when the gunman was roughly fifty-six feet from Callaway (basically across the street from Callaway). If you know where Callaway was standing (and you say that you do know), this places the fleeing gunman on Patton well past the alley already.
Callaway testified to this:
Mr. DULLES. May I ask what course he was taking when you last saw him?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He was going west on Jefferson Street.
Mr. DULLES. West on Jefferson Street?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
In 1986, in the London trial, Callaway said this, when describing the path taken by the fleeing gunman:
"He (the killer) said something to me which I didn't understand. Then he proceeded to run toward Jefferson, through this front yard (pointing on a map to the front yard at the corner of Patton and Jefferson) right here and proceeded west on Jefferson Street."
-
First... What is your opinion on the maximum that the DPD transcripts/tapes could be off? Two minutes maximum? Three minutes maximum? More?
Bowley begins his call on the squad car radio at 1:17:40, as opposed to 1:17:00.
First... What is your opinion on the maximum that the DPD transcripts/tapes could be off? Two minutes maximum? Three minutes maximum? More?
No way to say for sure. J.C. Bowles told the HSCA that the clocks used by the dispatchers could be off by some two minutes from a master clock on the telephone room wall, which itself only provided what he called "official time".
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.
He also said;
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.
and pointed out that the time calls made by the dispatchers could be different by a minute or so from "actual" time.
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, it's anybody's guess by how much the time calls of the dispatchers differed from real time. But regardless of how much time it is exactly, this information alone shows IMO that the time calls can not be relied upon.
Bowley begins his call on the squad car radio at 1:17:40, as opposed to 1:17:00.
I take it this means that you are going with the first 1:19 call as being the right one, is that correct? What is the basis for this conclusion?
-
Secondly, I've stated many times that Callaway saw the killer run south on Patton for the full block and then watched the killer turn west onto Jefferson; nothing about the alley. My Callaway timeline has him watching the killer get to Jefferson and head west before he (Callaway) starts to make his "good hard run" up to the shooting scene. I think it was in the cop-killer thread, you said this:
What made you say this?
If Callaway saw the killer run into the alley halfway down Patton, then Callaway would begin his "good hard run" up to the shooting scene quite a few seconds earlier (since the killer would reach the alley halfway down Patton versus taking longer while traveling the full length of the block down Patton before reaching Jefferson).
Callaway said he asked the fleeing gunman "Hey man, what in the hell is going on?" This took place when the gunman was roughly fifty-six feet from Callaway (basically across the street from Callaway). If you know where Callaway was standing (and you say that you do know), this places the fleeing gunman on Patton well past the alley already.
Callaway testified to this:
Mr. DULLES. May I ask what course he was taking when you last saw him?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He was going west on Jefferson Street.
Mr. DULLES. West on Jefferson Street?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
In 1986, in the London trial, Callaway said this, when describing the path taken by the fleeing gunman:
"He (the killer) said something to me which I didn't understand. Then he proceeded to run toward Jefferson, through this front yard (pointing on a map to the front yard at the corner of Patton and Jefferson) right here and proceeded west on Jefferson Street."
From where Callaway stood he had a clear line of sight of the corner of Patton and Jefferson, so he could easily observe where the killer went while starting to make his "good hard run". Do you believe that Callaway would have stood still and waiting until he lost sight of the killer before he started to run? If so, based on what do you believe that?
-
First... What is your opinion on the maximum that the DPD transcripts/tapes could be off? Two minutes maximum? Three minutes maximum? More?
No way to say for sure. J.C. Bowles told the HSCA that the clocks used by the dispatchers could be off by some two minutes from a master clock on the telephone room wall, which itself only provided what he called "official time".
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.
He also said;
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.
and pointed out that the time calls made by the dispatchers could be different by a minute or so from "actual" time.
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, it's anybody's guess by how much the time calls of the dispatchers differed from real time. But regardless of how much time it is exactly, this information alone shows IMO that the time calls can not be relied upon.
Correct. Bowles said the dispatch clocks could sometimes be off by as much as two minutes ether way. So then you agree that Bowley got on the squad car radio sometime between 1:15 and 1:19. Is this correct, you agree with this?
-
Secondly, I've stated many times that Callaway saw the killer run south on Patton for the full block and then watched the killer turn west onto Jefferson; nothing about the alley. My Callaway timeline has him watching the killer get to Jefferson and head west before he (Callaway) starts to make his "good hard run" up to the shooting scene. I think it was in the cop-killer thread, you said this:
What made you say this?
If Callaway saw the killer run into the alley halfway down Patton, then Callaway would begin his "good hard run" up to the shooting scene quite a few seconds earlier (since the killer would reach the alley halfway down Patton versus taking longer while traveling the full length of the block down Patton before reaching Jefferson).
Callaway said he asked the fleeing gunman "Hey man, what in the hell is going on?" This took place when the gunman was roughly fifty-six feet from Callaway (basically across the street from Callaway). If you know where Callaway was standing (and you say that you do know), this places the fleeing gunman on Patton well past the alley already.
Callaway testified to this:
Mr. DULLES. May I ask what course he was taking when you last saw him?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He was going west on Jefferson Street.
Mr. DULLES. West on Jefferson Street?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
In 1986, in the London trial, Callaway said this, when describing the path taken by the fleeing gunman:
"He (the killer) said something to me which I didn't understand. Then he proceeded to run toward Jefferson, through this front yard (pointing on a map to the front yard at the corner of Patton and Jefferson) right here and proceeded west on Jefferson Street."
From where Callaway stood he had a clear line of sight of the corner of Patton and Jefferson, so he could easily observe where the killer went while starting to make his "good hard run". Do you believe that Callaway would have stood still and waiting until he lost sight of the killer before he started to run? If so, based on what do you believe that?
Callaway saw the gunman reach the corner of Patton and Jefferson and saw the man proceed west on Jefferson. I do not believe that Callaway started his "good hard run" until the fleeing gunman reached the corner of Patton and Jefferson. In my opinion, if one is making a "good hard run" in a northerly direction on Patton, he is not looking to the south over his shoulder to see what is going on behind him.
Setting my opinion aside, have you heard of B.D. Searcy? After seeing the gunman proceed west on Jefferson, Callaway then told B.D. Searcy to keep an eye on the gunman while he (Callaway) was going to go up to the shooting scene to see what was going on. Then, after saying that to Searcy, Callaway proceed to make his "good hard run" up to the shooting scene.
-
Also, you skipped past this:
Except he didn't go by the office at all, but instead, according to Callaway, ran down an alley halfway down Patton, between 10th and Jefferson.
This matters. It's directly related to when Callaway would have started his "good hard run".
Why did you say that Callaway said the fleeing gunman ran down the alley?
-
Correct. Bowles said the dispatch clocks could sometimes be off by as much as two minutes ether way. So then you agree that Bowley got on the squad car radio sometime between 1:15 and 1:19. Is this correct, you agree with this?
If this conversation is going to be one where you ignore and do not answer my questions and reply only with more questions of your own, it will not be a long discussion.
I asked you earlier;
Bowley begins his call on the squad car radio at 1:17:40, as opposed to 1:17:00.
I take it this means that you are going with the first 1:19 call as being the right one, is that correct? What is the basis for this conclusion?
Please answer the question
-
Also, you skipped past this:
This matters. It's directly related to when Callaway would have started his "good hard run".
Why did you say that Callaway said the fleeing gunman ran down the alley?
It is an erroneous statement from three years ago. I probably just misremembered.
It has nothing to do with our discussion now and it most certainly has nothing to do with when Callaway helped to load Tippit in the ambulance.
-
Correct. Bowles said the dispatch clocks could sometimes be off by as much as two minutes ether way. So then you agree that Bowley got on the squad car radio sometime between 1:15 and 1:19. Is this correct, you agree with this?
Bowles said a little bit more than that. And no, I don't agree that Bowley (in real time) got on the radio between 1:15 and 1:19.
Is it now your intention to reconstruct and debate the entire timeline instead of only when Callaway helped load Tippit in to the ambulance?
-
Bowley begins his call on the squad car radio at 1:17:40, as opposed to 1:17:00.
I take it this means that you are going with the first 1:19 call as being the right one, is that correct? What is the basis for this conclusion?
Why can't both transmissions mentioning 1:19 be correct? Are you saying that the two transmissions mentioning 1:19 are over a minute apart from each other?
Butler (the ambulance driver) radios in with Code 6 and almost immediately you hear the dispatcher reply to Butler with a 10-4 and gives the verbal timestamp of 1:19. This is the first 1:19 you're referring to.
Then you have Owens asking dispatch for the address of the shooting. Dispatch replies to Owens with the address of 501 E. Tenth. I assume they had that mistaken address because Mary Wright was the first to call the police and that was her address.
Then you have Butler (ambulance) again with the Code 6.
Next are Poe and Jez asking for verification of the address and dispatch replies that they have two different addresses.
Owens notifies dispatch that he is en route. Dispatch replies 10-4 to Owens.
Then the 2nd ambulance notifies dispatch that they are en route. Dispatch replies with a 10-4 to that ambulance. Dispatch then gives the verbal 1:19 time stamp.
-
Except he didn't go by the office at all, but instead, according to Callaway, ran down an alley halfway down Patton, between 10th and Jefferson.
This matters. It's directly related to when Callaway would have started his "good hard run".
Why did you say that Callaway said the fleeing gunman ran down the alley?
It is an erroneous statement from three years ago. I probably just misremembered.
It has nothing to do with our discussion now and it most certainly has nothing to do with when Callaway helped to load Tippit in the ambulance.
More than erroneous. You made an outlandish statement. Callaway never said such a thing. But okay.
And YES, it does matter. It's directly related to when Callaway would have began his "good hard run".
But that's fine. You've admitted your error and I can move on.
-
More than erroneous. You made an outlandish statement. Callaway never said such a thing. But okay.
And YES, it does matter. It's directly related to when Callaway would have began his "good hard run".
But that's fine. You've admitted your error and I can move on.
Up to your old tricks already?
-
Why can't both transmissions mentioning 1:19 be correct? Are you saying that the two transmissions mentioning 1:19 are over a minute apart from each other?
Butler (the ambulance driver) radios in with Code 6 and almost immediately you hear the dispatcher reply to Butler with a 10-4 and gives the verbal timestamp of 1:19. This is the first 1:19 you're referring to.
Then you have Owens asking dispatch for the address of the shooting. Dispatch replies to Owens with the address of 501 E. Tenth. I assume they had that mistaken address because Mary Wright was the first to call the police and that was her address.
Then you have Butler (ambulance) again with the Code 6.
Next are Poe and Jez asking for verification of the address and dispatch replies that they have two different addresses.
Owens notifies dispatch that he is en route. Dispatch replies 10-4 to Owens.
Then the 2nd ambulance notifies dispatch that they are en route. Dispatch replies with a 10-4 to that ambulance. Dispatch then gives the verbal 1:19 time stamp.
Why can't both transmissions mentioning 1:19 be correct?
Oh, they are both correct, in the context of the DPD radio times, as the actual sound recording shows they happened 40 seconds apart.
I just wanted to establish when exactly you believe 1:19 actually started and you still haven't answered that question.
Did the first 1:19 call mark the beginning of that minute, yes or no?
-
Why can't both transmissions mentioning 1:19 be correct?
Oh, they are both correct, in the context of the DPD radio times, as the actual sound recording shows they happened 40 seconds apart.
I just wanted to establish when exactly you believe 1:19 actually started and you still haven't answered that question.
Did the first 1:19 call mark the beginning of that minute, yes or no?
Explain how this is relevant to whether or not Callaway made his report to the dispatcher before or after he helped load the body into the ambulance. I'm curious.
-
After arriving on the scene in the ambulance, Butler and Kinsley rolled Tippit's body over (he was lying on his stomach) in order to place Tippit onto the stretcher.. Callaway noticed Tippit's service revolver lying on the street (it was underneath the body). Callaway picked up the revolver and placed it on the hood of the patrol car and then helped Bowley, Butler and Kinsley load Tippit's body into the ambulance.
T.F. Bowley stated in his affidavit that once Tippit's body was loaded into the ambulance, he saw the service revolver lying on the hood of the patrol car (having been placed there moments earlier by Callaway). Bowley picked up the revolver off of the hood and placed on the front seat of the patrol car.
"When the ambulance left, I took the gun and put it inside the squad car." -- T.F. Bowley (12/2/63 affidavit)
After making his report to the police dispatcher on the squad car radio, Callaway grabbed the service revolver from the front seat and proceeded to seek others to help him go off in search for the killer.
-
Explain how this is relevant to whether or not Callaway made his report to the dispatcher before or after he helped load the body into the ambulance. I'm curious.
Just answer the question and you will find out soon enough.
In the meantime let me just expand on what I said earlier;
Why can't both transmissions mentioning 1:19 be correct?
Oh, they are both correct, in the context of the DPD radio times, as the actual sound recording shows they happened 40 seconds apart.
I just wanted to establish when exactly you believe 1:19 actually started and you still haven't answered that question.
Did the first 1:19 call mark the beginning of that minute, yes or no?
I should add that the two 1:19 can only be correct if the first call was made no later than 21 seconds into the minute. If it was later than that, the second call wouldn't be correct.
-
Why can't both transmissions mentioning 1:19 be correct? Are you saying that the two transmissions mentioning 1:19 are over a minute apart from each other?
Butler (the ambulance driver) radios in with Code 6 and almost immediately you hear the dispatcher reply to Butler with a 10-4 and gives the verbal timestamp of 1:19. This is the first 1:19 you're referring to.
Then you have Owens asking dispatch for the address of the shooting. Dispatch replies to Owens with the address of 501 E. Tenth. I assume they had that mistaken address because Mary Wright was the first to call the police and that was her address.
Then you have Butler (ambulance) again with the Code 6.
Next are Poe and Jez asking for verification of the address and dispatch replies that they have two different addresses.
Owens notifies dispatch that he is en route. Dispatch replies 10-4 to Owens.
Then the 2nd ambulance notifies dispatch that they are en route. Dispatch replies with a 10-4 to that ambulance. Dispatch then gives the verbal 1:19 time stamp.
Let's have a closer look and compare what you have written with the actual audio recording.
Butler (the ambulance driver) radios in with Code 6 and almost immediately you hear the dispatcher reply to Butler with a 10-4 and gives the verbal timestamp of 1:19. This is the first 1:19 you're referring to.
Yes it is. Butler's first code 6 call came 29 seconds after Bowley ended his radio call and only 17 seconds after 602 called code 5 to confirm they were en route, from the funeral home.
Then you have Owens asking dispatch for the address of the shooting. Dispatch replies to Owens with the address of 501 E. Tenth. I assume they had that mistaken address because Mary Wright was the first to call the police and that was her address.
Let's not forget to mention that 602 asks the dispatcher "What was that address on Jefferson?". This happens 3 seconds after the dispatcher called "10-4, 603 and 602. 1:19."
This indicates that ambulance 602 (who apparently had been given the wrong address) was at Jefferson at 26 seconds after leaving the funeral home. This is important because Butler later remembered that they nearly ran into a man on Jefferson who (and I am paraphrasing) seemed to be on the run and could have been the killer. If Butler remembered correctly it could mean that Tippit's killer was already on Jefferson about a little more than a minute after the shots were fired.
Then you have Butler (ambulance) again with the Code 6.
Yes, the call is mentioned on the DPD transcripts that used to be on McAdams' site. However, on the actual recording I can't really hear it. It sounds like there is another call in the background, but it is squeezed in (according to the transcripts) between calls from 105 (Poe and Jez) and 102 (Jones and Noll). The 102 call is so loud that it could have drowned out the other call. In any case, that call, if it was 602, happened at 11 seconds after the dispatcher gave 602 the correct location and 38 seconds after leaving the funeral home.
-
So anyway....
More evidence that Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance BEFORE he got on the police radio to report the shooting...
"And then I got out of the cab and run down there; the ambulance had
already arrived by the time I got there, and they were in the process
of picking the man up, and they had done had him, was putting him on
the stretcher when I got there, and they put him in the ambulance and
took him away, and there was someone that got on the radio at that
time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to
get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up
the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground, apparently fell
out of his holster when he fell, and says, "Come on, let's go see if
we can find him." -- WILLIAM SCOGGINS
The "someone that got on the radio" was Callaway and the "at that
time" was once the ambulance "took him away".
-
So anyway....
More evidence that Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance BEFORE he got on the police radio to report the shooting...
"And then I got out of the cab and run down there; the ambulance had
already arrived by the time I got there, and they were in the process
of picking the man up, and they had done had him, was putting him on
the stretcher when I got there, and they put him in the ambulance and
took him away, and there was someone that got on the radio at that
time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to
get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up
the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground, apparently fell
out of his holster when he fell, and says, "Come on, let's go see if
we can find him." -- WILLIAM SCOGGINS
The "someone that got on the radio" was Callaway and the "at that
time" was once the ambulance "took him away".
The "someone that got on the radio" was Callaway and the "at that
time" was once the ambulance "took him away".
And this just your opinion and incorrect interpretation.
If you are going to jump from one topic to another and not respond to my remarks or answer my questions, we're not really having a debate, are we now? I thought you wanted a debate... so, what happened?
-
The "someone that got on the radio" was Callaway and the "at that
time" was once the ambulance "took him away".
And this just your opinion and incorrect interpretation.
What else could it be? Who else could it be? When else could it be?
You're in denial.
Scoggins tells you that "someone" got on the radio once the ambulance left and this "someone" grabbed the service revolver. Now who do you think that was?
"And then I got out of the cab and run down there; the ambulance had
already arrived by the time I got there, and they were in the process
of picking the man up, and they had done had him, was putting him on
the stretcher when I got there, and they put him in the ambulance and
took him away, and there was someone that got on the radio at that
time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to
get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up
the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground, apparently fell
out of his holster when he fell, and says, "Come on, let's go see if
we can find him." -- WILLIAM SCOGGINS
Read it again.
The "someone that got on the radio" was Callaway and the "at that
time" was once the ambulance "took him away".
-
Callaway saw the gunman reach the corner of Patton and Jefferson and saw the man proceed west on Jefferson. I do not believe that Callaway started his "good hard run" until the fleeing gunman reached the corner of Patton and Jefferson. In my opinion, if one is making a "good hard run" in a northerly direction on Patton, he is not looking to the south over his shoulder to see what is going on behind him.
Setting my opinion aside, have you heard of B.D. Searcy? After seeing the gunman proceed west on Jefferson, Callaway then told B.D. Searcy to keep an eye on the gunman while he (Callaway) was going to go up to the shooting scene to see what was going on. Then, after saying that to Searcy, Callaway proceed to make his "good hard run" up to the shooting scene.
Setting my opinion aside,
Do it more often please. It would be benificial for a factual debate.
have you heard of B.D. Searcy?
Yes, of course. Callaway named him in his WC testimony
After seeing the gunman proceed west on Jefferson, Callaway then told B.D. Searcy to keep an eye on the gunman while he (Callaway) was going to go up to the shooting scene to see what was going on. Then, after saying that to Searcy, Callaway proceed to make his "good hard run" up to the shooting scene.
Which is exactly why I don't believe that Callaway waited to start his "good hard run" until the killer was on Jefferson. We're talking about a very minor distance between where Callaway hollered at the killer and the corner of Patton and Jefferson. Also, from where Callaway stood, he had a clear line of sight to observe the killer turning west on Jefferson. Everything about Callaway suggest a take charge kind of guy who would not have waited a second longer than he needed. I believe Callaway started running, at the latest, after seeing the killer turning west on Jefferson and telling Searcy to keep an eye on the man.
Either way, it's a trivial matter as the difference in time between the two scenarios is likely not more than 10 seconds, which has no major impact on the overall time line.
-
If you are going to jump from one topic to another and not respond to my remarks or answer my questions, we're not really having a debate, are we now? I thought you wanted a debate... so, what happened?
If you have a point to make, then make it. Asking me questions like what exact time do I believe it was when the first 1:19 went out is asking me an irrelevant question.
Make your point.
-
What else could it be? Who else could it be? When else could it be?
You're in denial.
Scoggins tells you that "someone" got on the radio once the ambulance left and this "someone" grabbed the service revolver. Now who do you think that was?
"And then I got out of the cab and run down there; the ambulance had
already arrived by the time I got there, and they were in the process
of picking the man up, and they had done had him, was putting him on
the stretcher when I got there, and they put him in the ambulance and
took him away, and there was someone that got on the radio at that
time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to
get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up
the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground, apparently fell
out of his holster when he fell, and says, "Come on, let's go see if
we can find him." -- WILLIAM SCOGGINS
Read it again.
The "someone that got on the radio" was Callaway and the "at that
time" was once the ambulance "took him away".
Sorry, Bill... I am not going to discuss this matter, or your opinion about it, now, just because you want to avoid the topic we were discussing earlier. We can get back to Scoggins's statement after we have resolved the timeline matter which you yourself initiated.
-
Setting my opinion aside,
Do it more often please. It would be benificial for a factual debate.
have you heard of B.D. Searcy?
Yes, of course. Callaway named him in his WC testimony
After seeing the gunman proceed west on Jefferson, Callaway then told B.D. Searcy to keep an eye on the gunman while he (Callaway) was going to go up to the shooting scene to see what was going on. Then, after saying that to Searcy, Callaway proceed to make his "good hard run" up to the shooting scene.
Which is exactly why I don't believe that Callaway waited to start his "good hard run" until the killer was on Jefferson. We're talking about a very minor distance between where Callaway hollered at the killer and the corner of Patton and Jefferson. Also, from where Callaway stood, he had a clear line of sight to observe the killer turning west on Jefferson. Everything about Callaway suggest a take charge kind of guy who would not have waited a second longer than he needed. I believe Callaway started running, at the latest, after seeing the killer turning west on Jefferson and telling Searcy to keep an eye on the man.
Either way, it's a trivial matter as the difference in time between the two scenarios is likely not more than 10 seconds, which has no major impact on the overall time line.
I believe Callaway started running, at the latest, after seeing the killer turning west on Jefferson and telling Searcy to keep an eye on the man.
Geez Martin. I just said that a few posts back.
Either way, it's a trivial matter as the difference in time between the two scenarios is likely not more than 10 seconds, which has no major impact on the overall time line.
If it's a trivial matter, then why did you choose to make an issue out of it when I stated that you were wrong to say that Callaway said he saw the killer cut into the alley versus the reality that Callaway saw the killer actually head west on Jefferson?
-
Sorry, Bill... I am not going to discuss this matter, or your opinion about it, now, just because you want to avoid the topic we were discussing earlier. We can get back to Scoggins's statement after we have resolved the timeline matter which you yourself initiated.
I'm not avoiding a single thing. YOU are avoiding what Scoggins tells you. Again, if you have a point to make, then make it.
-
If you have a point to make, then make it. Asking me questions like what exact time do I believe it was when the first 1:19 went out is asking me an irrelevant question.
Make your point.
You don't get to decide what is an irrelevant question. This is supposed to be a debate, in which questions are asked and answers are given. I have answered your questions, even those which I considered futile, but you refuse to answer any of mine. You even jump from topic to topic without actually making any coherent point and are only giving your opinions.
When I check those opinions with the actual evidence, you move on to something else. Why is that?
I have many points to make, but how and when they are made depends on the clarity you can only provide by answering my questions as I am answering yours.
So, here's a question for you; do you really want an honest debate or is there another purpose to this discussion?
-
Geez Martin. I just said that a few posts back.
If it's a trivial matter, then why did you choose to make an issue out of it when I stated that you were wrong to say that Callaway said he saw the killer cut into the alley versus the reality that Callaway saw the killer actually head west on Jefferson?
Yes, Callaway had an open view and saw the killer turning west on Jefferson as he himself was already running towards 10th street? He wouldn't even have to turn around to do that (as you suggested). A quick look over his shoulder would have been enough.
If it's a trivial matter, then why did you choose to make an issue out of it
The one trying to make an issue out of it is you.
It's only a trivial matter for the timeline.
But is this really what you are looking for in this "debate"?
Simply having a normal, civil, honest debate is not what you want, is it now? You just can't do it, can you now? You need to be the clever-dick in a vain attempt to somehow gain the upper hand. That's so sad and it isn't going to work. I'm not going to play that game.
-
I'm not avoiding a single thing. YOU are avoiding what Scoggins tells you. Again, if you have a point to make, then make it.
What don't you understand of what I just said?
We can get back to Scoggins's statement after we have resolved the timeline matter which you yourself initiated.
Why are you playing games this early in the debate? Feeling insecure, perhaps?
-
The dispatcher gives a verbal timestamp of 1:15.
The dispatcher gives a verbal timestamp of 1:16.
Then the Bowley call occurs.
The dispatcher gives two more timestamps of 1:19, roughly 40 seconds apart.
Throughout the dictabelt recordings during this time, the communication is non-stop and therefore we can know just how many seconds passed between one particular communication and another.
Dale Myers studied the tapes exhaustively and using the 1:16 and 1:19 verbal timestamps, determined that Bowley's call occurred at 1:17:41.
Now get on with your point already.
-
What don't you understand of what I just said?
Why are you playing games this early in the debate? Feeling insecure, perhaps?
I'll make you a deal.
Post something to make me feel insecure and I'll learn what that feels like. Fair enough?
Now do you want to make your point already or do you want to keep going round and round with your endless nonsense?
-
In the meantime, I'll continue to post this until it gets addressed.....
The "someone that got on the radio" was Callaway and the "at that
time" was once the ambulance "took him away".
And this just your opinion and incorrect interpretation.
What else could it be? Who else could it be? When else could it be?
You're in denial.
Scoggins tells you that "someone" got on the radio once the ambulance left and this "someone" grabbed the service revolver. Now who do you think that was?
"And then I got out of the cab and run down there; the ambulance had
already arrived by the time I got there, and they were in the process
of picking the man up, and they had done had him, was putting him on
the stretcher when I got there, and they put him in the ambulance and
took him away, and there was someone that got on the radio at that
time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to
get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up
the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground, apparently fell
out of his holster when he fell, and says, "Come on, let's go see if
we can find him." -- WILLIAM SCOGGINS
Read it again.
The "someone that got on the radio" was Callaway and the "at that
time" was once the ambulance "took him away".
-
The dispatcher gives a verbal timestamp of 1:15.
The dispatcher gives a verbal timestamp of 1:16.
Then the Bowley call occurs.
The dispatcher gives two more timestamps of 1:19, roughly 40 seconds apart.
Throughout the dictabelt recordings during this time, the communication is non-stop and therefore we can know just how many seconds passed between one particular communication and another.
Dale Myers studied the tapes exhaustively and using the 1:16 and 1:19 verbal timestamps, determined that Bowley's call occurred at 1:17:41.
Now get on with your point already.
Myers is wrong, because he started by believing that the audio tapes reflect real time, which they most certainly don't.
In fact, the audio tapes do not even match other information the LNs rely on. When individual parts of the official story don't even match up there is only one valid conclusion which is that the DPD time calls can not be relied on. Period.
Btw Myers torpedoed one of your main claims and you don't even know it (yet). Hilarious!
Now get on with your point already.
Again, you don't get to tell me what to do. If the debate is not going the way you want it to, that's your problem. I'll make my point after you answered my question.
I'll make you a deal.
Post something to make me feel insecure and I'll learn what that feels like. Fair enough?
Now do you want to make your point already or do you want to keep going round and round with your endless nonsense?
Post something to make me feel insecure and I'll learn what that feels like.
It seems I already did... Are you really this desperate, so soon in the debate?
do you want to keep going round and round with your endless nonsense
I haven't even made my point and you already call it "endless nonsense"? Wow, that really sounds like a guy who wants a debate.
In the meantime, I'll continue to post this until it gets addressed.....
What else could it be? Who else could it be? When else could it be?
You're in denial.
Scoggins tells you that "someone" got on the radio once the ambulance left and this "someone" grabbed the service revolver. Now who do you think that was?
"And then I got out of the cab and run down there; the ambulance had
already arrived by the time I got there, and they were in the process
of picking the man up, and they had done had him, was putting him on
the stretcher when I got there, and they put him in the ambulance and
took him away, and there was someone that got on the radio at that
time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to
get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up
the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground, apparently fell
out of his holster when he fell, and says, "Come on, let's go see if
we can find him." -- WILLIAM SCOGGINS
Read it again.
The "someone that got on the radio" was Callaway and the "at that
time" was once the ambulance "took him away".
In the meantime, I'll continue to post this until it gets addressed.....
He said, stamping his feet in a hissy fit.
Do what you gotta do, I hope you won't feel lonely as a result.
-
And the REAL Weidmann is beginning to show.
Anyone wanna bet he leaves claiming that I'm not cooperating and therefore no sense in staying?
Make your point about the two 1:19 verbal timestamps so I can see what you're trying to say.
Neither of the 1:19 verbal timestamps relate to Whether or not Callaway jumped on the squad car radio before helping to load the body into the ambulance.
I say Callaway helped load the body BEFORE getting on the squad car radio. Scoggins agrees with me. THIS is the topic.
-
And the REAL Weidmann is beginning to show.
Anyone wanna bet he leaves claiming that I'm not cooperating and therefore no sense in staying?
Make your point about the two 1:19 verbal timestamps so I can see what you're trying to say.
Neither of the 1:19 verbal timestamps relate to Whether or not Callaway jumped on the squad car radio before helping to load the body into the ambulance.
I say Callaway helped load the body BEFORE getting on the squad car radio. Scoggins agrees with me. THIS is the topic.
And the REAL Weidmann is beginning to show.
You mean the one who is confronting you with actual factual information you don't like? He has been here all along.
Neither of the 1:19 verbal timestamps relate to Whether or not Callaway jumped on the squad car radio before helping to load the body into the ambulance.
Did I ever say it did? It has everything to do with demonstrating conclusively that the official time line (based on the DPD recordings/transcripts) simply isn't credible. The audio recording is useful in some ways, but not as far as radio time vs real time is concerned. What the audio recording (which you now agree is non-stop) does do is actually destroy any possibility of Callaway loading Tippit into the ambulance before making his call. Now, are you man enough to want to find out that your opinion is wrong or will you continue to play silly games?
I say Callaway helped load the body BEFORE getting on the squad car radio. Scoggins agrees with me. THIS is the topic.
Sure about that? I could have sworn you started by talking about the DPD audio and transcripts and I was the one wondering what you were doing.
Is it now your intention to reconstruct and debate the entire timeline instead of only when Callaway helped load Tippit in to the ambulance?
But yes, that should be the topic, but I somehow think that I'll be encountering all sorts of road blocks to prevent me from making a conclusive argument which will utterly destroy your claim.
-
And the REAL Weidmann is beginning to show.
You mean the one who is confronting you with actual factual information you don't like? He has been here all along.
Neither of the 1:19 verbal timestamps relate to Whether or not Callaway jumped on the squad car radio before helping to load the body into the ambulance.
Did I ever say it did? It has everything to do with demonstrating conclusively that the official time line (based on the DPD recordings/transcripts simply isn't credible. The audio recording is useful in some ways, but not as far as radio time vs real time is concerned. What the audio recording (which you now agree is non-stop) does do is actually destroy any possibility of Callaway loading Tippit into the ambulance before making his call. Now, are you man enough to want to find out that your opinion is wrong or will you continue to play silly games?
I say Callaway helped load the body BEFORE getting on the squad car radio. Scoggins agrees with me. THIS is the topic.
Sure about that? I could have sworn you started by talking about the DPD audio and transcripts and I was the one wondering what you were doing.
But yes, that should be the topic, but I somehow think that I'll be encountering all sorts of road blocks to prevent me from making a conclusive argument which will utterly destroy your claim.
(which you now agree is non-stop)
What do you mean "now"? I've always believed the communication was non-stop during this time.
But yes, that should be the topic, but I somehow think that I'll be encountering all sorts of road blocks to prevent me from making a conclusive argument which will utterly destroy your claim.
Road blocks :D
I've asked you at least three times (feels like more) to go ahead and make your point.
You should stop discussing me and start making your point.
In the meantime, I wait anxiously (yeah right) for you to address the comments by Scoggins that the man who grabbed the revolver from the front seat (obviously Callaway) and said "let's go see if we can find him" is the same man who jumped on the police radio AFTER the ambulance had already left.
-
What do you mean "now"? I've always believed the communication was non-stop during this time.
Road blocks :D
I've asked you at least three times (feels like more) to go ahead and make your point.
You should stop discussing me and start making your point.
In the meantime, I wait anxiously (yeah right) for you to address the comments by Scoggins that the man who grabbed the revolver from the front seat (obviously Callaway) and said "let's go see if we can find him" is the same man who jumped on the police radio AFTER the ambulance had already left.
I've asked you at least three times (feels like more) to go ahead and make your point.
And I have told you just as many times that I will make my point after you answer my question.
You should stop discussing me and start making your point.
Perhaps you should stop telling me what to do.... How about that?
In the meantime, I wait anxiously (yeah right) for you to address the comments by Scoggins that the man who grabbed the revolver from the front seat (obviously Callaway) and said "let's go see if we can find him" is the same man who jumped on the police radio AFTER the ambulance had already left.
I will reply to what witnesses said, once we get to that point. For the time being we were talking about the DPD audio and transcripts. Besides, I'm not really interested in your opinion about a remark a witness made. Witnesses say all sorts of things and hardly ever get anything 100% right. For you to depend on a statement by Scoggins shows nothing but weakness.
-
Just to be absolutely clear; I'm already sick and tired of your "on the fence" act.
Your reluctance to even commit to the first 1:19 call or the second one, as the correct one, is a complete demonstration of insecurity about what's going to come. I understand you want to keep all options open, but don't ask me to debate facts (not your opinions) when you haven't got the balls to stand by your belief and answer a simple question.
You already have gotten yourself into a massive mess. Perhaps you should consider pulling out of this debate, because you are not very good at it.
-
Just to be absolutely clear; I'm already sick and tired of your "on the fence" act.
Your reluctance to even commit to the first 1:19 call or the second one, as the correct one, is a complete demonstration of insecurity about what's going to come. I understand you want to keep all options open, but don't ask me to debate facts (not your opinions) when you haven't got the balls to stand by your belief and answer a simple question.
You already have gotten yourself into a massive mess. Perhaps you should consider pulling out of this debate, because you are not very good at it.
Your reluctance to even commit to the first 1:19 call or the second one,
Again with "which one is the correct one" nonsense. You seem to be mistakenly believing that the dispatcher was saying the time was 1:19:00 when he said 1:19. Get on with your point. Or don't. That part is up to you.
You already have gotten yourself into a massive mess.
(https://i.imgur.com/XVZ3fnR.jpg)
Perhaps you should consider pulling out of this debate, because you are not very good at it.
You'd like that.
Again, stop discussing me. Discuss the topic.
-
Domingo Benavides said that Callaway got on the patrol car radio to report the shooting and the "officer" at the other end (the dispatcher) told Callaway that they already had that information and to stay off the air.
Benavides then said that Callaway grabbed the service revolver and said to Benavides that they should go chase the killer.
Benavides said he declined and added that Callaway then went over to the cab driver (Scoggins).
Callaway said to Scoggins "Let's get the son of a As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'".
Nothing about Callaway helping to load the body into the ambulance (because this had already been done earlier and the ambulance was gone).
-
Again....
Scoggins tells you that "someone" got on the radio once the ambulance left and this "someone" grabbed the service revolver. Now who do you think that was?
"And then I got out of the cab and run down there; the ambulance had
already arrived by the time I got there, and they were in the process
of picking the man up, and they had done had him, was putting him on
the stretcher when I got there, and they put him in the ambulance and
took him away, and there was someone that got on the radio at that
time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to
get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up
the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground, apparently fell
out of his holster when he fell, and says, "Come on, let's go see if
we can find him." -- WILLIAM SCOGGINS
Read it again.
The "someone that got on the radio" was Callaway and the "at that
time" was once the ambulance "took him away".
-
Witnesses say all sorts of things and hardly ever get anything 100% right.
Agreed, and I will point out examples of this later.
-
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 Ted Callaway 2/m/40 of 805 West 8th Street, WH-67-8045 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
I am the manager of the Used Car lot at 501 E. Jefferson. I was working today when I heard some shots. This was about 1 pm. I ran out into Patton Street and looked to see what the shooting was about. I saw a white man running South on Patton with a pistol in hand. I hollered at him and he looked around at me, then kept on going. I ran around on 10th Street and saw a Police officer laying in the street. He looked dead to me. I got the officer's gun and hollered at a cab driver to come on, We might catch the man. We got into his cab, number 213 and drove up Patton to Jefferson and looked all around, but did not see him. The number 2 man in the line up that I saw at City Hall is the man I saw with the gun in his hand.
/s/ Ted Callaway
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/CxScrW6n/152-FIST-SHAKE.png)
billchapman
AKA The Bad-Mouther vs The Bone-Crusher
-
Again with "which one is the correct one" nonsense. You seem to be mistakenly believing that the dispatcher was saying the time was 1:19:00 when he said 1:19. Get on with your point. Or don't. That part is up to you.
You'd like that.
Again, stop discussing me. Discuss the topic.
You seem to be mistakenly believing that the dispatcher was saying the time was 1:19:00 when he said 1:19
What in the world makes you think that?
-
Agreed, and I will point out examples of this later.
Will that be when you are going to claim that you can't rely on witness testimony but can rely on your incorrect interpretation of vague statements like the Scoggins quote or some totally insignificant remarks by Benavides that tells us nothing about when Callaway helped to load Tippit in the ambulance?
Domingo Benavides said that Callaway got on the patrol car radio to report the shooting and the "officer" at the other end (the dispatcher) told Callaway that they already had that information and to stay off the air.
Benavides then said that Callaway grabbed the service revolver and said to Benavides that they should go chase the killer.
Benavides said he declined and added that Callaway then went over to the cab driver (Scoggins).
Callaway said to Scoggins "Let's get the son of a As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'".
Nothing about Callaway helping to load the body into the ambulance (because this had already been done earlier and the ambulance was gone).
Nothing about Callaway helping to load the body into the ambulance
Indeed, so why did you bring this up?
(because this had already been done earlier and the ambulance was gone).
Says who? Benavides certainly didn't and your incorrect opinion is of no significance.
-
You can ignore them if you want to, but that will not make them go away.
You can call their remarks insignificant if you want to, but that doesn't change anything.
Ignoring what they (Scoggins and Benavides) said won't win you any debates, so go ahead and ignore them.
I'm off to New Orleans for 4 days with Fred Litwin and four other guys for a nice little Oswald/Ferrie/Garrison/Shaw trip. I won't be home until Tuesday evening. I may check in here each night but then again I may not.
-
You can ignore them if you want to, but that will not make them go away.
You can call their remarks insignificant if you want to, but that doesn't change anything.
Ignoring what they (Scoggins and Benavides) said won't win you any debates, so go ahead and ignore them.
I'm off to New Orleans for 4 days with Fred Litwin and four other guys for a nice little Oswald/Ferrie/Garrison/Shaw trip. I won't be home until Tuesday evening. I may check in here each night but then again I may not.
Ignoring what they (Scoggins and Benavides) said won't win you any debates, so go ahead and ignore them.
I'm not ignoring them. I'm just saying that they do not have the significant evidentiary value you attach to it.
The fact that Benavides doesn't say anything about Callaway and Bowley loading Tippit in the ambulance is not proof that it happened prior to the sequence of events he does describe, if this is in fact what Benavides really said. You don't even provide authentication for those remarks.
Scoggins [who you quote, without providing the source] is describing events that took place in a very short time indeed. In fact, probably in less than a minute. The order in which he relates the information tells you absolutely nothing about the actual sequence of events.
And since when is this about winning a debate? You are revealing your true mindset again.... But if you are so preoccupied with "winning" this debate, you will have to do a whole lot better than coming up with some wacky interpretations of vague and insignificant statements allegedly made by witnesses.
I'm off to New Orleans for 4 days with Fred Litwin and four other guys for a nice little Oswald/Ferrie/Garrison/Shaw trip.
Have a good time. I can wait until you get back. No problem at all.
-
I'm off to New Orleans for 4 days with Fred Litwin and four other guys for a nice little Oswald/Ferrie/Garrison/Shaw trip. I won't be home until Tuesday evening. I may check in here each night but then again I may not.
Any chance of your group recording a talk or two while ye are there? Project JFK do one of these every month or so and post on Youtube. Very interesting and I always find I learn something new from them.
-
Let's give Bill Brown something to think about during his trip;
Instead of presenting questionable interpretations of what Scoggins and Benavides are supposed to have said, as Brown has done, why not simply go to the main source, the one who was there and knows exactly what happened; Callaway himself.
On 02/25/64 Callaway was interviewed by FBI agent Arthur Carter. In his FD 302 report he writes:
.......he [Callaway] observed that TIPPIT had been shot in the temple. He said TIPPIT was lying on his pistol and he, CALLAWAY, took the pistol and put it on the hood of TiPPIT's patrol car. Then he got in the patrol car and used the police radio to contact the Dallas Police Department, who advised they were aware that the police officer [TIPPIT] had been shot. He said the dispatcher told him to get off the air. About that time an ambulance came up and CALLAWAY said he and an unidentified citizen helped the ambulance driver put the officer (TIPPIT) in the ambulance.
On 03/26/64 Callaway testified before the Warren Commission and said;
Mr. BALL. When you got there what did you see?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I saw a squad car, and by that time there was four or five people that had gathered, a couple of cars had stopped. Then I saw--I went on up to the squad car and saw the police officer lying in the street. I see he had been shot in the head. So the first thing I did, I ran over to the squad car. I didn't know whether anybody reported it or not. So I got on the police radio and called them, and told them a man had been shot, told them the location, I thought the officer was dead. They said we know about it, stay off the air, so I went back.
By this time an ambulance was coming. The officer was laying on his left side, his pistol was underneath him. I kind of rolled him over and took his gun out from under him. The people wonder whether he ever got his pistol out of his holster. He did.
The two statements are practically identical!
In the past Bill Brown has claimed that Callaway had misremembered during his WC testimony. In other words; the classic "he was mistaken" claim, but he never explained why Callaway was mistaken on this one particular point, not once but twice. Let's see what explanation Bill can come up with now.....
-
Let's give Bill Brown something to think about during his trip;
Instead of presenting questionable interpretations of what Scoggins and Benavides are supposed to have said, as Brown has done, why not simply go to the main source, the one who was there and knows exactly what happened; Callaway himself.
On 02/25/64 Callaway was interviewed by FBI agent Arthur Carter. In his FD 302 report he writes:
.......he [Callaway] observed that TIPPIT had been shot in the temple. He said TIPPIT was lying on his pistol and he, CALLAWAY, took the pistol and put it on the hood of TiPPIT's patrol car. Then he got in the patrol car and used the police radio to contact the Dallas Police Department, who advised they were aware that the police officer [TIPPIT] had been shot. He said the dispatcher told him to get off the air. About that time an ambulance came up and CALLAWAY said he and an unidentified citizen helped the ambulance driver put the officer (TIPPIT) in the ambulance.
On 03/26/64 Callaway testified before the Warren Commission and said;
Mr. BALL. When you got there what did you see?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I saw a squad car, and by that time there was four or five people that had gathered, a couple of cars had stopped. Then I saw--I went on up to the squad car and saw the police officer lying in the street. I see he had been shot in the head. So the first thing I did, I ran over to the squad car. I didn't know whether anybody reported it or not. So I got on the police radio and called them, and told them a man had been shot, told them the location, I thought the officer was dead. They said we know about it, stay off the air, so I went back.
By this time an ambulance was coming. The officer was laying on his left side, his pistol was underneath him. I kind of rolled him over and took his gun out from under him. The people wonder whether he ever got his pistol out of his holster. He did.
The two statements are practically identical!
In the past Bill Brown has claimed that Callaway had misremembered during his WC testimony. In other words; the classic "he was mistaken" claim, but he never explained why Callaway was mistaken on this one particular point, not once but twice. Let's see what explanation Bill can come up with now.....
I most certainly have explained how we know that Callaway was incorrectly recounting the proper order of events.
The police tapes clearly tell you that 602 (the Kinsley/Butler ambulance) was leaving the scene at the same time you hear Callaway making his report to the police dispatcher.
Scoggins and Benavides confirm what the police tapes tell you.
-
I most certainly have explained how we know that Callaway was incorrectly recounting the proper order of events.
The police tapes clearly tell you that 602 (the Kinsley/Butler ambulance) was leaving the scene at the same time you hear Callaway making his report to the police dispatcher.
Scroggins and Benavides confirm what the police tapes tell you.
Except we don't know that Callaway was "incorrectly recounting the proper order of events". All we know is that you want us to believe that because it's your incorrect opinion, based on a highly questionable interpretation of what two extremely vague witness statements mean.
It's a hell of a way to deal with evidence. Just say the man who was there was mistaken (not once but twice, and only on this point) because your biased interpretation of what Scoggins said is what you foolishly want to believe!
But let me ask you this; how long do you think it took between the ambulance's arrival and departure from the scene? Is it 10 seconds, 30 seconds, one minute...?
-
I don’t know the details of the police tapes... but could Callaway have spoken with the dispatcher twice... once before loading Tippit... and the second time as the ambulance was leaving the scene?
And Callaway is so specific... “the first thing I did”...
Would there be any motivation for getting his timeline so wrong?
-
But let me ask you this; how long do you think it took between the ambulance's arrival and departure from the scene? Is it 10 seconds, 30 seconds, one minute...?
Barely over a minute. Like literally 62 to 65 seconds.
-
Barely over a minute. Like literally 62 to 65 seconds.
Great, that seems a fair estimate.
Earlier in this thread you said;
The police tapes clearly tell you that 602 (the Kinsley/Butler ambulance) was leaving the scene at the same time you hear Callaway making his report to the police dispatcher.
So, to avoid any kind of misunderstanding, let's look at the transcript that used to be on the McAdams website.
Below is a parcial reproduction concerning the relevant period of that transcript. Sorry about the mess, but I couldn't get them to line up properly.
Dispatcher 603 and 602. 1:19.
602 (ambulance) What was that address on Jefferson?
Dispatcher 501 East Tenth.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker) 85 en route.
19 (Sgt. C.B. Owens) 19.
Dispatcher 19.
19 Give me the correct address on the shooting.
Dispatcher 501 East Tenth.
105 (Ptm. J.M. Poe and Ptm. L.E. Joz) 105.
602 (ambulance) 602, Code 6.
102 (Ptm. B.L. Jones and Ptm. M.D. Noll) 102, Code 4.
105 (Ptm. J.M. Poe and Ptm. L.E. Joz) Was 519 E. Jefferson correct? (Siren)
Dispatcher We have two locations; 501 East Jefferson and 501 East Tenth.
Dispatcher 19, are you en route?
105 (Ptm. J.M Poe and Ptm. L.E. Joz) Is this an officer?
This is northward on Tenth.
19 (Sgt. C.B. Owens) 10-4.
10-4.
10 . . .4.
10-4.
. . . on Tenth.
19 19 is en route.
Dispatcher 10-4, 19.
605 (ambulance) 605, Code 5.
Dispatcher 10-4, 605. 1:19.
Dispatcher 85.
602 (ambulance) 602.
Dispatcher 85.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker) 85.
Dispatcher Suspect running west on Jefferson from the location.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker) 10-4.
Dispatcher No physical description.
Citizen Hello, hello, hello.
602 (ambulance) 602.
Citizen Pardon, from out here on Tenth Street, 500 block. This officer just shot. I think he's dead.
Dispatcher 10-4. We have that information. The citizen using the radio: Remain off the radio now.
Based on what you said previously, am I right in assuming that it is your position that from the moment ambulance 6 called Code 6 (arrival at scene) [marked in bold] until the first time ambulance 6 tried to get the dispatcher's attention by calling "602" [also marked in bold] roughly one minute had gone by? Is that correct?
-
I'm already beginning to grow bored with this. I'm sure pretty much everyone else is, too. Other than quote the relevant portion of Callaway's testimony, you haven't put anything out there. Again, if you have a point to make, then make it.
Later tonight, I'll post a final summation. You can do whatever you like.
Then, it'll be left for others to decide, if they feel so inclined.
-
I'm already beginning to grow bored with this. I'm sure pretty much everyone else is, too. Other than quote the relevant portion of Callaway's testimony, you haven't put anything out there. Again, if you have a point to make, then make it.
Later tonight, I'll post a final summation. You can do whatever you like.
Then, it'll be left for others to decide, if they feel so inclined.
"Losing interest".... again?
What happened to;
Perhaps you should consider pulling out of this debate, because you are not very good at it.
You'd like that.
Other than quote the relevant portion of Callaway's testimony, you haven't put anything out there.
All you have posted are some vague quotes, allegedly by Benavides and Scoggins (which you have failed to authenticate) and your own typical "this is what it is, because I say so" interpretation of those quotes. So what are you complaining about?
It is not my problem that you stayed away for six day, putting the conversation on hold.
Again, if you have a point to make, then make it.
I will, as soon as you answer my question. It's only to make sure that I did not misunderstand you, for goodness sake!
I've answered yours, so why are you so unwilling to answer mine?
-
And yet another post goes by without you making any sort of a point.
You asked me how long I believe the ambulance was at the scene. I answered it. Then you ask yet another question.
We're already 8 pages in and you haven't made any point.
If you do not have a point to make, then just say so and perhaps we can move on to a different topic, regarding the Tippit case.
Up to you.
-
And yet another post goes by without you making any sort of a point.
You asked me how long I believe the ambulance was at the scene. I answered it. Then you ask yet another question.
We're already 8 pages in and you haven't made any point.
If you do not have a point to make, then just say so and perhaps we can move on to a different topic, regarding the Tippit case.
Up to you.
Searching for a reason to bail out just because you don't want to answer a question?
You asked me how long I believe the ambulance was at the scene. I answered it. Then you ask yet another question.
What's wrong with asking a question, if it helps to improve the debate? I'm not sure if you understand this, but the purpose of a debate is to obtain a better understanding of what the other party is actually saying.
My question was just for clarification. It's the last question, on this particular subject. You have already stated that you believe that the ambulance was at the scene barely over a minute. You have also stated that the two 602 calls made by Butler (just prior and during Callaway's radio call) were to inform the dispatcher they were leaving the scene. To me that tells me that between the Code 6 call (marked in bold on the transcript) and the first 602 call (also marked in bold) there was "barely over a minute". The entire purpose for my question is to make sure I understood you correctly.
It will be my final question on this particular subject, that much I can guarantee.
Once you've answered it I will make my point.
-
I say Ted Callaway helped load Tippit's body into the ambulance and then went over to the patrol car radio to report the shooting to the police dispatcher. Martin Weidmann says I am wrong, that Callaway got on the patrol car radio first... and then helped load the body into the ambulance. This matters when trying to explain Callaway's timeline between hearing the shots ring out and reporting the shooting on the patrol car radio.
By the way, if Callaway got on the patrol car radio BEFORE helping to load the body into the ambulance (he didn't), then all it really does is help the false narrative that the shooting occurred earlier than 1:14/1:15. In other words, Callaway helping with the body before getting on the police radio does not support my argument that the shooting occurred around 1:14/1:15; it would support the idea the shooting occurred a bit earlier than the official version. Nevertheless, that is what happened.
The police tapes obviously don't mention the body being loaded into the ambulance, but the tapes do tell us when the ambulance was leaving the scene en route to Methodist Hospital. The tapes tell us that the ambulance was leaving the scene as Callaway was making his report on the squad car radio.
602 (ambulance): 602.
Dispatcher: 85.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker): 85.
Dispatcher: Suspect running west on Jefferson from the location.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker): 10-4.
Dispatcher: No physical description.
Citizen (Callaway): Hello, hello, hello.
602 (ambulance): 602.
Citizen (Callaway): Pardon, from out here on Tenth Street, 500 block. This officer just shot. I think he's dead.
Dispatcher: 10-4. We have that information. The citizen using the radio: Remain off the radio now.
That "602" was Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital. However, he could not get through because Callaway is on the squad car radio reporting the incident (as the ambulance is speeding off).
After arriving on the scene in the ambulance, Butler and Kinsley rolled Tippit's body over (he was lying on his stomach) in order to place Tippit onto the stretcher.. Callaway noticed Tippit's service revolver lying on the street (it was underneath the body). Callaway picked up the revolver and placed it on the hood of the patrol car and then helped Bowley, Butler and Kinsley load Tippit's body into the ambulance.
T.F. Bowley stated in his affidavit that once Tippit's body was loaded into the ambulance, he saw the service revolver lying on the hood of the patrol car (having been placed there moments earlier by Callaway). Bowley picked up the revolver off of the hood and placed on the front seat of the patrol car.
"When the ambulance left, I took the gun and put it inside the squad car." -- T.F. Bowley (12/2/63 affidavit)
After making his report to the police dispatcher on the squad car radio, Callaway grabbed the service revolver from the front seat and proceeded to seek others to help him go off in search for the killer.
More evidence that Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance BEFORE he got on the police radio to report the shooting...
"And then I got out of the cab and run down there; the ambulance had
already arrived by the time I got there, and they were in the process
of picking the man up, and they had done had him, was putting him on
the stretcher when I got there, and they put him in the ambulance and
took him away, and there was someone that got on the radio at that
time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to
get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up
the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground, apparently fell
out of his holster when he fell, and says, "Come on, let's go see if
we can find him." -- WILLIAM SCOGGINS
The "someone that got on the radio" was Callaway and the "at that
time" was once the ambulance "took him away".
Domingo Benavides said that Callaway got on the patrol car radio to report the shooting and the "officer" at the other end (the dispatcher) told Callaway that they already had that information and to stay off the air. Benavides then said that Callaway grabbed the service revolver and said to Benavides that they should go chase the killer. Benavides said he declined and added that Callaway then went over to the cab driver (Scoggins).
Callaway said to Scoggins "Let's get the son of a As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'". Benavides said nothing about Callaway helping to load the body into the ambulance before going over to Scoggins with the revolver (because this had already been done earlier and the ambulance was gone).
The police tapes clearly tell you that 602 (the Kinsley/Butler ambulance) was leaving the scene at the same time you hear Callaway making his report to the police dispatcher. Scoggins and Benavides confirm what the police tapes tell you.
-
I wonder if Weidmann believes Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance with one hand while holding Tippit's service revolver with his other hand.
-
I wonder if Weidmann believes Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance with one hand while holding Tippit's service revolver with his other hand.
Stop wondering, your little factless fairytale will be blown sky high soon enough.
You might not know it yet, but you've already lost the argument by a landslide.
-
Stop wondering, your little factless fairytale will be blown sky high soon enough.
You might not know it yet, but you've already lost the argument by a landslide.
(https://i.imgur.com/wH2i6SP.png)
Witnesses say all sorts of things and hardly ever get anything 100% right.
Agreed, and I will point out examples of this later.
-
We have Callaway telling us that he placed the revolver (lying on the street) onto the hood of the patrol car before they loaded Tippit's body into the ambulance.
We have Bowley telling us that after the ambulance left, he placed the revolver (lying on the hood pf the patrol car) onto the front seat of the patrol car.
We have Scoggins telling us that at the time the ambulance took Tippit away, Callaway got on the police radio ands was told to stay off the air. Scoggins also tells us that Callaway then picked up the pistol and attempted to recruit others to help go search for the killer.
This means that Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance and then got on the police radio to report the shooting. After reporting the shooting and being told to stay off the air, Callaway grabs the revolver and goes off after the killer.
Callaway helped load the body BEFORE getting on the police radio, as I've said all along.
-
I think what Martin is trying to get at is that Callaway was badgeman.
-
I think what Martin is trying to get at is that Callaway was badgeman.
Why don't you wait for what I will present shortly, instead of making pathetic LN typical comments?
-
Why don't you wait for what I will present shortly, instead of making pathetic LN typical comments?
Stop replying to the posts of others (like we both agreed) and FINALLY "present" what you have. I'm growing bored with you.
-
Stop replying to the posts of others (like we both agreed) and FINALLY "present" what you have. I'm growing bored with you.
First you keep me waiting for six days and then you post a non reply to my question, telling me you are bored with me.
I couldn't care less if you are bored or not, I have more things to do than be at your beck and call.
The evidence to crush your pathetic argument is substantial and I will post it when I am ready to do so. You'll just have to wait until then, like it or not.
-
The question being discussed is; did Ted Callaway help to load Tippit’s body in the ambulance before or after he made his call on DPD radio?
My position is that he did it after he made his call and to support that position I have posted two quotes from Ted Callaway in which he states exactly that. The first quote is from a FD 302 report by FBU agent Arthur Carter, dated 02/25/64.
Carter writes;
.......he [Callaway] observed that TIPPIT had been shot in the temple. He said TIPPIT was lying on his pistol and he, CALLAWAY, took the pistol and put it on the hood of TiPPIT's patrol car. Then he got in the patrol car and used the police radio to contact the Dallas Police Department, who advised they were aware that the police officer [TIPPIT] had been shot. He said the dispatcher told him to get off the air. About that time an ambulance came up and CALLAWAY said he and an unidentified citizen helped the ambulance driver put the officer (TIPPIT) in the ambulance.
The second quote comes from Callaway’s testimony before the Warren Commission, on 03/26/64;
Mr. BALL. When you got there what did you see?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I saw a squad car, and by that time there was four or five people that had gathered, a couple of cars had stopped. Then I saw--I went on up to the squad car and saw the police officer lying in the street. I see he had been shot in the head. So the first thing I did, I ran over to the squad car. I didn't know whether anybody reported it or not. So I got on the police radio and called them, and told them a man had been shot, told them the location, I thought the officer was dead. They said we know about it, stay off the air, so I went back.
By this time an ambulance was coming. The officer was laying on his left side, his pistol was underneath him. I kind of rolled him over and took his gun out from under him. The people wonder whether he ever got his pistol out of his holster. He did.
Bill Brown throws Callaway completely under the bus with the classic LN “he was mistaken” claim, and tells us what Benavides allegedly said;
Domingo Benavides said that Callaway got on the patrol car radio to report the shooting and the "officer" at the other end (the dispatcher) told Callaway that they already had that information and to stay off the air.
Benavides then said that Callaway grabbed the service revolver and said to Benavides that they should go chase the killer.
Benavides said he declined and added that Callaway then went over to the cab driver (Scoggins).
Callaway said to Scoggins "Let's get the son of a As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'".
Nothing about Callaway helping to load the body into the ambulance (because this had already been done earlier and the ambulance was gone).
Brown offers no verifiable source for what Benavides allegedly said and concludes that, just because Benavides did not mention Callaway helping to load Tippit into the ambulance, the ambulance was already gone. A “conclusion” based on something a witness allegedly did not mention is pure speculation and has no evidentiary value. Somebody's opinion is not evidence!
Brown also posts a quote from Scoggins;
Again....
Scoggins tells you that "someone" got on the radio once the ambulance left and this "someone" grabbed the service revolver. Now who do you think that was?
"And then I got out of the cab and run down there; the ambulance had
already arrived by the time I got there, and they were in the process
of picking the man up, and they had done had him, was putting him on
the stretcher when I got there, and they put him in the ambulance and
took him away, and there was someone that got on the radio at that
time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to
get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up
the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground, apparently fell
out of his holster when he fell, and says, "Come on, let's go see if
we can find him." -- WILLIAM SCOGGINS
Read it again.
The "someone that got on the radio" was Callaway and the "at that
time" was once the ambulance "took him away".
Again, the quote lacks any verifiable source and Brown, just like he did with Benavides, makes up his own mind about what it means and fills in the blancs. And, once again, Bill Brown’s interpretation of something isn’t evidence!
Obviously, knowing Brown, if this was all the evidence there was, the result would most likely be a yes/no stalemate, but fortunately there is much more available to us that shows conclusively that Brown is wrong.
In an article written by Bill Drenas, which can be found in the Weisberg collection; the author tells us that Clayton Butler, the ambulance driver, told the HSCA in 1977 “I was on the scene one minute or less”.
That Butler’s estimate was correct is confirmed by the actual audio recording of the DPD radio, to which I have referred to earlier. When I asked Brown if he agreed that the audio recording I was talking about was indeed continuous, he replied;
I've always believed the communication was non-stop during this time.
So, let’s check what the audio recording actually tells us;
11 seconds after Bowley finished his radio call, the ambulance driven by Butler calls in a Code 5 to confirm he is on his way. 18 seconds later Butler calls in Code 6 to confirm his arrival at the location, except he was at the wrong one, on Jefferson, so 5 seconds later Butler asks the Dispatcher;
602 (ambulance) What was that address on Jefferson?
The Dispatcher answers;
Dispatcher 501 East Tenth.
16 seconds later ambulance 602 calls Code 6 again, this time to signal the arrival at the Tippit scene.
At this point it should be noted, when I asked him how long he thought it took between the ambulance's arrival and departure from the scene, Bill Brown replied;
Barely over a minute. Like literally 62 to 65 seconds.
And let’s not forget that one of Brown’s main points is;
The police tapes obviously don't mention the body being loaded into the ambulance, but the tapes do tell us when the ambulance was leaving the scene en route to Methodist Hospital. The tapes tell us that the ambulance was leaving the scene as Callaway was making his report on the squad car radio.
The audio recording tells us that Callaway made his radio call a mere 47 seconds after Butler had called in the Code 6, confirming his arrival at the scene, which places it right in the middle of Bill Brown's estimate that the ambulance was “barely over a minute” at the scene.
Brown’s claim that “The tapes tell us that the ambulance was leaving the scene as Callaway was making his report on the squad car radio.” is also not true.
There is no evidence whatsoever to support that claim. It is in fact something that Brown made up out of thin air. This can be said with certainty because we know what those calls by the ambulance driver Butler were actually about.
There were two occassions where Butler tried to get the dispatcher’s attention, by calling out “602”. The first one was 8 seconds before Callaway made his call. The dispatcher did not respond, so Butler tried again just after Callaway said “Hello hello hello”.
On 10/12/64 George and Patricia Nash published an article in the “New Leader”. They wrote;
“Butler radioed his arrival at the scene at 1:18 p.m., within 60 seconds of leaving the funeral home. He remembers that there were at least 10 people standing around the man lying on the ground. It was not until he and his assistant pulled back a blanket covering Tippit that they realized the victim was a policeman. Butler ran back to his radio to inform headquarters. The radio was busy and he could not cut in. He yelled “Mayday” to no avail, and went back to Tippit.
The officer lay on his side, face down with part of his body under the left front fender of the police car. Butler and Kinsley rolled him over and saw the bullet wound through Tippit’s temple. Butler told us, “I thought he was dead then. It’s not my position to say so. We got him into the ambulance and we got going as quick as possible. On the way to the hospital I finally let them know it was a policeman”.”
In another thread, John Mytton recently posted this excerpt from a footnote in Dale Myers book, Without Malice.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cHp6rgBJ/with-malice-butler.jpg)
In the excerpt, Myers writes; “Butler’s use of the radio to notify Dallas police that the victim was an officer”. This is exactly what Butler told George and Patricia Nash 13 years earlier.
All this justifies the conclusion that (1) Callaway did not make his radio call after the ambulance left and (2) that the ambulance driver was trying to call in that the victim was a police officer and not, as Brown claimed, that they were leaving when Callaway was on the radio.
And then there is this;
Officer Kenneth Croy testified before the Warren Commission that he was in his car, driving on Colorado and Zang when he heard Bowley’s call on the radio. He instantly drove to the scene. Since he was driving his own car he had to abide with normal traffic rules. When he got to 10th street, some two minutes later, he saw Tippit’s body being loaded into the ambulance.
Mr. GRIFFIN. What time were you at the scene where Tippit was killed
Mr. CROY. I watched them load him in the ambulance.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I see. Were you on reserve duty that day
Mr. CROY. Yes. I was stationed downtown in the, I believe it was the 1800 or 1900 block of Main Street.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Were you in a patrol car
Mr. CROY. No; I was on foot.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Were you in uniform?
Mr. CROY. In uniform.
The first conclusion that can be drawn from this is that Tippit was not loaded into the ambulance before Croy got there. The audio tapes tell us that Callaway's call took place 1 minute and 12 seconds after Bowley's call. If Tippit had been loaded into the ambulance before Callaway’s call, as Bill Brown foolishly claims, Croy wouldn’t have been there to witness it.
The second conclusion is that Callaway would not have had a reason for making his call if he had just helped load Tippit in the ambulance witnessed by an uniformed police man.
Whether Bill Brown likes it or not (and he probably won't), the evidence is conclusive that Callaway first made his radio call and then helped to load Tippit into the ambulance.
-
At 1:18:38, Butler (ambulance 602) reports on the police radio that they are en route.
At 1:18:59, the ambulance (602) reports to the police dispatcher that they have arrived at the scene.
William Scoggins, after finally getting through to his dispatcher on the cabbie radio, got out of his cab and went over to the scene to see if he could help Butler and Kinsley.
Kinsley and Butler took the stretcher out of the ambulance and rolled Tippit's body over (Tippit was lying on his belly). Once the body was rolled over, Callaway picked up the service revolver (which was underneath the body) and placed it on the hood of the patrol car. Then, Callaway helped Kinsley place the body onto the stretcher. Callaway, Kinsley and a couple others then loaded the stretcher into the ambulance.
Then, this:
Dispatcher: "85" (this is the dispatcher calling out for Officer Roy Walker, 85)
J.C. Butler: "602" (this is the ambulance driver, Butler, calling in trying to get hold of the dispatcher)
Dispatcher: "85" (this is the dispatcher still trying to reach Walker)
Roy Walker: "85" (this is Walker replying to the dispatcher, who was calling out for him)
Dispatcher: "Suspect running west on Jefferson, the location." (this is the dispatcher telling Walker where the suspect was last seen)
Walker: "10-4" (this is Walker acknowledging that he received that information from the dispatcher)
While the above was going on between the dispatcher and Walker ...... J.C. Butler (ambulance driver, 602) radioed in to let the police dispatcher know that the shooting victim was a police officer.
Around 1:19:45 to 1:19:55, Officer Kenneth Croy arrived on the scene still in uniform but in an unmarked car (he was in his personal vehicle). Croy arrived in time to see them loading the body into the ambulance.
The ambulance was loaded and Butler & Kinsley began to drive from the scene. As they pulled away, Butler got on the radio to inform the police dispatcher that the were en route to the hospital. However, Butler could not get through because it was at this time that Callaway was on the patrol car radio reporting the shooting to the police dispatcher:
Callaway: "Hello. Hello. Hello." (Callaway calling out for the police dispatcher)
Butler: "602" (ambulance driver Butler, 602, trying to call for the dispatcher)
Callaway: "Calling from right here on Tenth Street, 500 block, this police officer's just shot, I think he's dead."
Dispatcher: "10-4. We have the information. The citizen using the radio will remain off the radio now."
"And then I got out of the cab and run down there; the ambulance had
already arrived by the time I got there, and they were in the process
of picking the man up, and they had done had him, was putting him on
the stretcher when I got there, and they put him in the ambulance and
took him away, and there was someone that got on the radio at that
time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to
get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up
the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground, apparently fell
out of his holster when he fell, and says, "Come on, let's go see if
we can find him." -- WILLIAM SCOGGINS
Callaway has not noticed Croy at the scene. Croy was in uniform but not in a police car.
"The first thing I did was get hold of a witness." -- Kenneth Croy
Croy turned over two witnesses to officers who would eventually arrive at the scene. Based on his description, Croy's two witnesses were Jimmy Burt and Helen Markham.
While Callaway was on the police radio, T.F. Bowley grabbed the service revolver from the hood and placed it inside the patrol car, onto the front seat.
Benavides returned to the scene at this time (he originally left the scene, only to return moments later).
"After the officer on the other side of the radio told Callaway to hang up and keep the lines clear, he (Callaway) jumped out and ran around and asked me did I see what happened and I said 'Yes'". -- Domingo Benavides
This is when Callaway grabbed the revolver from the front seat and said to Benavides "let's chase him".
Benavides said no, he did not wish to go in search of the killer. This is when Callaway went over to Scoggins, still with the revolver, and recruited Scoggins to go in search of the killer.
T.F. Bowley, having just placed the revolver into the front seat while Callaway was on the police radio, saw Callaway open the cylinder of the revolver to make sure it was loaded. Bowley saw that the revolver was fully loaded.
Croy and Callaway never saw each other. Otherwise, the scenario where Callaway left with Tippit's revolver would not have played out.
All of this is covered, in detail, in With Malice by Dale Myers. All anyone really has to do is buy the book and read it, especially pages 160-164 in the updated 2013 edition.
-
At 1:18:38, Butler (ambulance 602) reports on the police radio that they are en route.
At 1:18:59, the ambulance (602) reports to the police dispatcher that they have arrived at the scene.
William Scoggins, after finally getting through to his dispatcher on the cabbie radio, got out of his cab and went over to the scene to see if he could help Butler and Kinsley.
Kinsley and Butler took the stretcher out of the ambulance and rolled Tippit's body over (Tippit was lying on his belly). Once the body was rolled over, Callaway picked up the service revolver (which was underneath the body) and placed it on the hood of the patrol car. Then, Callaway helped Kinsley place the body onto the stretcher. Callaway, Kinsley and a couple others then loaded the stretcher into the ambulance.
Then, this:
Dispatcher: "85" (this is the dispatcher calling out for Officer Roy Walker, 85)
J.C. Butler: "602" (this is the ambulance driver, Butler, calling in trying to get hold of the dispatcher)
Dispatcher: "85" (this is the dispatcher still trying to reach Walker)
Roy Walker: "85" (this is Walker replying to the dispatcher, who was calling out for him)
Dispatcher: "Suspect running west on Jefferson, the location." (this is the dispatcher telling Walker where the suspect was last seen)
Walker: "10-4" (this is Walker acknowledging that he received that information from the dispatcher)
While the above was going on between the dispatcher and Walker ...... J.C. Butler (ambulance driver, 602) radioed in to let the police dispatcher know that the shooting victim was a police officer.
Around 1:19:45 to 1:19:55, Officer Kenneth Croy arrived on the scene still in uniform but in an unmarked car (he was in his personal vehicle). Croy arrived in time to see them loading the body into the ambulance.
The ambulance was loaded and Butler & Kinsley began to drive from the scene. As they pulled away, Butler got on the radio to inform the police dispatcher that the were en route to the hospital. However, Butler could not get through because it was at this time that Callaway was on the patrol car radio reporting the shooting to the police dispatcher:
Callaway: "Hello. Hello. Hello." (Callaway calling out for the police dispatcher)
Butler: "602" (ambulance driver Butler, 602, trying to call for the dispatcher)
Callaway: "Calling from right here on Tenth Street, 500 block, this police officer's just shot, I think he's dead."
Dispatcher: "10-4. We have the information. The citizen using the radio will remain off the radio now."
"And then I got out of the cab and run down there; the ambulance had
already arrived by the time I got there, and they were in the process
of picking the man up, and they had done had him, was putting him on
the stretcher when I got there, and they put him in the ambulance and
took him away, and there was someone that got on the radio at that
time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to
get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up
the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground, apparently fell
out of his holster when he fell, and says, "Come on, let's go see if
we can find him." -- WILLIAM SCOGGINS
Callaway has not noticed Croy at the scene. Croy was in uniform but not in a police car.
"The first thing I did was get hold of a witness." -- Kenneth Croy
Croy turned over two witnesses to officers who would eventually arrive at the scene. Based on his description, Croy's two witnesses were Jimmy Burt and Helen Markham.
While Callaway was on the police radio, T.F. Bowley grabbed the service revolver from the hood and placed it inside the patrol car, onto the front seat.
Benavides returned to the scene at this time (he originally left the scene, only to return moments later).
"After the officer on the other side of the radio told Callaway to hang up and keep the lines clear, he (Callaway) jumped out and ran around and asked me did I see what happened and I said 'Yes'". This is when Callaway grabbed the revolver from the front seat and said to Benavides "let's chase him". -- Domingo Benavides
Benavides said no, he did not wish to go in search of the killer. This is when Callaway went over to Scoggins, still with the revolver, and recruited Scoggins to go in search of the killer.
T.F. Bowley, having just placed the revolver into the front seat while Callaway was on the police radio, saw Callaway open the cylinder of the revolver to make sure it was loaded. Bowley saw that the revolver was fully loaded.
Croy and Callaway never saw each other. Otherwise, the scenario where Callaway left with Tippit's revolver would not have played out.
All of this is covered, in detail, in With Malice by Dale Myers. All anyone really has to do is buy the book and read it, especially pages 160-164 in the updated 2013 edition.
All of this is covered, in detail, in With Malice by Dale Myers. All anyone really has to do is buy the book and read it, especially pages 160-164 in the updated 2013 edition.
All this tells me is that With Malice contains a completely false representation of the actual facts. Btw, I was under the impression that I was having a debate with Bill Brown. Am I now to understand that I am actually having a debate with a book?
At 1:18:38, Butler (ambulance 602) reports on the police radio that they are en route.
At 1:18:59, the ambulance (602) reports to the police dispatcher that they have arrived at the scene.
First of all, the times given for the departure and arrival of the ambulance are completely fictitious. There is no credible source available to confirm them. The only thing that can be measured to the second is the time lapse between two calls as they are recorded on the DPD audio tapes. There is also no Code 6 (arrival at the scene) on the actual audio recording, at least not as is misrepresented here at 21 seconds after Butlers Code 5 (en route call)
Using the actual audio recording it can be determined that 18 seconds after the initial Code 5 call, ambulance 602 calls Code 6, but it is for the wrong location; 501 Jefferson. This is why the driver asks the dispatcher, 5 seconds later "What was that address on Jefferson?".
To present this arrival of the ambulance (at the wrong location) as the one at the correct location is a willful distortion of the actual events as also recorded on the DPD transcripts that used to be on the McAdams site.
602 (ambulance) 602, Code 5. My comment: Code 5 means "en route"
211 (Ptm. R. Hawkins) 211.
Dispatcher 211.
211 We're clear, Industrial and Stemmons. We'll go out there.
Dispatcher 10-4, 211.
15 (Capt. C.E. Talbert) 15.
603 (ambulance) 603, Code 5, Baylor.
602 (ambulance) 602, Code 6 (?) My comment: This is the arrival at Jefferson
1:19 Dispatcher 10-4, 603 and 602. 1:19.
602 (ambulance) What was that address on Jefferson?
Dispatcher 501 East Tenth.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker) 85 en route.
19 (Sgt. C.B. Owens) 19.
Dispatcher 19.
19 Give me the correct address on the shooting. .
Dispatcher 501 East Tenth.
105 (Ptm. J.M. Poe and Ptm. L.E. Joz)
602 (ambulance) 602, Code 6. My comment: This is the arrival at Tippit scene
Kinsley and Butler took the stretcher out of the ambulance and rolled Tippit's body over (Tippit was lying on his belly). Once the body was rolled over, Callaway picked up the service revolver (which was underneath the body) and placed it on the hood of the patrol car. Then, Callaway helped Kinsley place the body onto the stretcher. Callaway, Kinsley and a couple others then loaded the stretcher into the ambulance.
Then, this:
Dispatcher: "85" (this is the dispatcher calling out for Officer Roy Walker, 85)
J.C. Butler: "602" (this is the ambulance driver, Butler, calling in trying to get hold of the dispatcher)
Dispatcher: "85" (this is the dispatcher still trying to reach Walker)
Roy Walker: "85" (this is Walker replying to the dispatcher, who was calling out for him)
Dispatcher: "Suspect running west on Jefferson, the location." (this is the dispatcher telling Walker where the suspect was last seen)
Walker: "10-4" (this is Walker acknowledging that he received that information from the dispatcher)
While the above was going on between the dispatcher and Walker ...... J.C. Butler (ambulance driver, 602) radioed in to let the police dispatcher know that the shooting victim was a police officer.
Another completely false representation of what actually happened. It is easily demonstrated as false by the statement Butler made to George and Patricia Nash in 1964;
“Butler radioed his arrival at the scene at 1:18 p.m., within 60 seconds of leaving the funeral home. He remembers that there were at least 10 people standing around the man lying on the ground. It was not until he and his assistant pulled back a blanket covering Tippit that they realized the victim was a policeman. Butler ran back to his radio to inform headquarters. The radio was busy and he could not cut in. He yelled “Mayday” to no avail, and went back to Tippit.
The officer lay on his side, face down with part of his body under the left front fender of the police car. Butler and Kinsley rolled him over and saw the bullet wound through Tippit’s temple. Butler told us, “I thought he was dead then. It’s not my position to say so. We got him into the ambulance and we got going as quick as possible. On the way to the hospital I finally let them know it was a policeman”.”
Butler clearly states that he tried to get in touch with the dispatcher, but failed because the radio was busy, before he went back to Tippit, who still "lay on his side, face down with part of his body under the left front fender of the police car."
The ambulance was loaded and Butler & Kinsley began to drive from the scene. As they pulled away, Butler got on the radio to inform the police dispatcher that the were en route to the hospital. However, Butler could not get through because it was at this time that Callaway was on the patrol car radio reporting the shooting to the police dispatcher.
Also not true. Butler tried to contact the dispatcher twice. Notice how Brown has now changed his story; earlier in this thread he wrote;
The police tapes obviously don't mention the body being loaded into the ambulance, but the tapes do tell us when the ambulance was leaving the scene en route to Methodist Hospital. The tapes tell us that the ambulance was leaving the scene as Callaway was making his report on the squad car radio.
602 (ambulance): 602.
Dispatcher: 85.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker): 85.
Dispatcher: Suspect running west on Jefferson from the location.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker): 10-4.
Dispatcher: No physical description.
Citizen (Callaway): Hello, hello, hello.
602 (ambulance): 602.
Citizen (Callaway): Pardon, from out here on Tenth Street, 500 block. This officer just shot. I think he's dead.
Dispatcher: 10-4. We have that information. The citizen using the radio: Remain off the radio now.
That "602" was Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital. However, he could not get through because Callaway is on the squad car radio reporting the incident (as the ambulance is speeding off).
which suggested that both "602" calls were from Butler "attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene". Now the story has changed into the first "602" being Butler trying to tell the dispatcher that the victim was a police officer and the second one being Butler informing the dispatcher that they were leaving the scene.
In reality, there were only 8 seconds between the first and the second try. Brown has constantly failed miserably in showing any evidence that the second call to the dispatcher was to tell him the ambulance was en route to the hospital. Butler stated that after he could not get the attention of the dispatcher he returned to Tippit who still lay next to his car.
While Callaway was on the police radio, T.F. Bowley grabbed the service revolver from the hood and placed it inside the patrol car, onto the front seat.
Benavides returned to the scene at this time (he originally left the scene, only to return moments later).
"After the officer on the other side of the radio told Callaway to hang up and keep the lines clear, he (Callaway) jumped out and ran around and asked me did I see what happened and I said 'Yes'". This is when Callaway grabbed the revolver from the front seat and said to Benavides "let's chase him". -- Domingo Benavides
Hilarious, how in the world can Bowley place the revolver onto the front seat of the car when, at that moment, Callaway is sitting there, making his call?
Trying to have a debate with somebody who so clearly is lying and misrepresenting the actual evidence is a waste of my and everybody's time. Unless Brown starts to substantiate his silly claims with more than "This is what happened, because I say so and/or it's in Myers book", there is no point to continue this conversation. I've made my case.
Btw, I will gladly make available the mp3 of the actual radio recording to anybody who hasn't got it himself and wants to check the actual times between the different events in the sequence. Just send me a PM.
-
"A few minutes later an ambulance came to the scene. I helped load the officer onto the stretcher and into the ambulance. As we picked the officer up, I noticed his pistol laying on the ground under him. Someone picked the pistol up and laid it on the hood of the squad car. When the ambulance left, I took the gun and put it inside the squad car. A man took the pistol out and said, "Let's catch him." He opened the cylinder, and I saw that no rounds in it had been fired. This man then took the pistol with him and got into a cab and drove off." -- T.F. Bowley (12-2-63 affidavit)
AFTER the ambulance left, Bowley placed the revolver inside the patrol car.
"After the officer on the other side of the radio told Callaway to hang up and keep the lines clear, he (Callaway) jumped out and ran around and asked me did I see what happened and I said 'Yes'". -- Domingo Benavides
This is when Callaway grabbed the revolver from the front seat and said to Benavides "let's chase him".
Benavides doesn't make any mention here of Callaway helping load the body into the ambulance because that had already occurred earlier. Benavides is clearly telling you that Callaway made his report on the police radio, then he grabbed the revolver and went off in search of the killer. The ambulance was already gone.
"...and they put him in the ambulance and
took him away, and there was someone that got on the radio at that
time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to
get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up
the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground, apparently fell
out of his holster when he fell, and says, "Come on, let's go see if
we can find him." -- WILLIAM SCOGGINS
Scoggins also tells you that the ambulance "took him (Tippit) away" and then Callaway "got on the radio at that time".
Callaway said the ambulance was arriving just as he (Callaway) was getting to the scene. Callaway helps load the body into the ambulance and then, as the ambulance is pulling away from the scene, Callaway gets on the patrol car radio to report the shooting to the police dispatcher.
The police tapes, if you correctly decipher them, tell you the exact same thing that Bowley, Benavides and Scoggins tell you.
-
"A few minutes later an ambulance came to the scene. I helped load the officer onto the stretcher and into the ambulance. As we picked the officer up, I noticed his pistol laying on the ground under him. Someone picked the pistol up and laid it on the hood of the squad car. When the ambulance left, I took the gun and put it inside the squad car. A man took the pistol out and said, "Let's catch him." He opened the cylinder, and I saw that no rounds in it had been fired. This man then took the pistol with him and got into a cab and drove off." -- T.F. Bowley (12-2-63 affidavit)
AFTER the ambulance left, Bowley placed the revolver inside the patrol car.
"After the officer on the other side of the radio told Callaway to hang up and keep the lines clear, he (Callaway) jumped out and ran around and asked me did I see what happened and I said 'Yes'". -- Domingo Benavides
This is when Callaway grabbed the revolver from the front seat and said to Benavides "let's chase him".
Benavides doesn't make any mention here of Callaway helping load the body into the ambulance because that had already occurred earlier. Benavides is clearly telling you that Callaway made his report on the police radio, then he grabbed the revolver and went off in search of the killer. The ambulance was already gone.
"...and they put him in the ambulance and
took him away, and there was someone that got on the radio at that
time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to
get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up
the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground, apparently fell
out of his holster when he fell, and says, "Come on, let's go see if
we can find him." -- WILLIAM SCOGGINS
Scoggins also tells you that the ambulance "took him (Tippit) away" and then Callaway "got on the radio at that time".
Callaway said the ambulance was arriving just as he (Callaway) was getting to the scene. Callaway helps load the body into the ambulance and then, as the ambulance is pulling away from the scene, Callaway gets on the patrol car radio to report the shooting to the police dispatcher.
You're preaching. When can I expect an actual factual debate? Repeating the same old opinions based on nothing but the same misinterpretations you started out with isn't going to make any of it true, more accurate or credible.
For the second time now, you have completely ignored everything I have stated and backed up with verifiable evidence. Instead you keep on telling us a fairytale story for which you have no credible supporting evidence. All you have presented is your flawed opinions about a couple of alleged quotes for which, despite my request, have still failed to provide even a credible source. And you don't even have the balls to challenge the information I have provided.
The two people who are the most prominent in this matter are Callaway and Butler and they both tell a very different story than the one you are trying to sell here. The audio recordings of the DPD radio provides us with a verifiable second by second record of the events and they back up completely what Callaway and Butler combined have said.
Your usual "what I tell you is true, because I said so" act is getting tiresome. For somebody who was desperate to have this debate you seem to not even know what the word means.
Callaway said the ambulance was arriving just as he (Callaway) was getting to the scene. Callaway helps load the body into the ambulance and then, as the ambulance is pulling away from the scene, Callaway gets on the patrol car radio to report the shooting to the police dispatcher.
Stop lying. Callaway said nothing of the kind.
On 02/25/64 Callaway was interviewed by FBI agent Arthur Carter. In his FD 302 report he writes:
.......he [Callaway] observed that TIPPIT had been shot in the temple. He said TIPPIT was lying on his pistol and he, CALLAWAY, took the pistol and put it on the hood of TiPPIT's patrol car. Then he got in the patrol car and used the police radio to contact the Dallas Police Department, who advised they were aware that the police officer [TIPPIT] had been shot. He said the dispatcher told him to get off the air. About that time an ambulance came up and CALLAWAY said he and an unidentified citizen helped the ambulance driver put the officer (TIPPIT) in the ambulance.
On 03/26/64 Callaway testified before the Warren Commission and said;
Mr. BALL. When you got there what did you see?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I saw a squad car, and by that time there was four or five people that had gathered, a couple of cars had stopped. Then I saw--I went on up to the squad car and saw the police officer lying in the street. I see he had been shot in the head. So the first thing I did, I ran over to the squad car. I didn't know whether anybody reported it or not. So I got on the police radio and called them, and told them a man had been shot, told them the location, I thought the officer was dead. They said we know about it, stay off the air, so I went back.
By this time an ambulance was coming. The officer was laying on his left side, his pistol was underneath him. I kind of rolled him over and took his gun out from under him. The people wonder whether he ever got his pistol out of his holster. He did.
Which part of this quote from Callaway's testimony;
So the first thing I did, I ran over to the squad car. I didn't know whether anybody reported it or not. So I got on the police radio and called them,
don't you understand?
The police tapes, if you correctly decipher them, tell you the exact same thing that Bowley, Benavides and Scoggins tell you.
And by "correctly decipher them" you mean misrepresent them and skip over parts that do not fit your story, as you did in one of your previous posts, right?
-
As I've pointed out here..... Bowley, Benavides, Scoggins and the police tapes clearly tell you that Callaway got on the police radio just as the ambulance was pulling away from the scene with the body.
It's not my concern that Weidmann doesn't get it.
What's lost in all of this is that Callaway helping to load the body into the ambulance before he jumped on the patrol car radio has no bearing one way or the other on Oswald's already proven guilt for the murder of J.D. Tippit.
Face it. Callaway arrived on the scene, helped load the body into the ambulance, got on the squad car radio to report the shooting to the dispatcher and then grabbed Tippit's service revolver and went off in search of the killer.
This thread is now wide open for others, if any of you wish, to comment, as the debate is apparently finished.
-
For what it's worth....
With Malice (2013) pages 160-164
Reclaiming History (2007) pages 83-84
Both of the above books (with the corresponding page numbers) agree with the fact that Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance and then, once the ambulance was speeding away, jumped on the squad car radio to report the shooting to the police dispatcher; exactly as I have been saying all along.
-
As I've pointed out here..... Bowley, Benavides, Scoggins and the police tapes clearly tell you that Callaway got on the police radio just as the ambulance was pulling away from the scene with the body.
It's not my concern that Weidmann doesn't get it.
What's lost in all of this is that Callaway helping to load the body into the ambulance before he jumped on the patrol car radio has no bearing one way or the other on Oswald's already proven guilt for the murder of J.D. Tippit.
Face it. Callaway arrived on the scene, helped load the body into the ambulance, got on the squad car radio to report the shooting to the dispatcher and then grabbed Tippit's service revolver and went off in search of the killer.
This thread is now wide open for others, if any of you wish, to comment, as the debate is apparently finished.
POW!
-
With Malice recounts the happenings in a minute by minute chronological order.
====================
"While the dispatcher spoke with Officer Walker, ambulance driver J.C. Butler radioed to inform police that the man shot was a Dallas police officer and that they were about to leave the murder scene with his body." -- With Malice (2013) page 161
====================
"William "Eddie" Kinsley slammed the back door of the ambulance shut and climbed into the passenger seat next to Butler. As Butler pulled away from the crowd, he again tried to contact the dispatcher to tell him they were en route to the hospital, but this time Ted Callaway was on the radio. "I ran over to the squad car," Callaway recalled, "I didn't know if anybody reported it or not. So I got on the police radio and called them."
Ted Callaway: Hello, hello, hello.
J.C. Butler: 602
Callaway: - calling from right here on Tenth Street - 500 block - this police officer's just shot. I think he's dead.
Dispatcher: 10-4, we have the information. The citizen using the radio will remain off the air now."
With Malice (2013) page 162
====================
"While Callaway was talking to the dispatcher, T.F. Bowley took Tippit's gun, which was lying on the hood of the squad car, and put it in the front seat, next to the used car salesman."
"After the officer on the other side of the radio told Callaway to hang up and keep the lines clear," Benavides recalled, "he jumped out and ran around and he asked me did I see what happened and I said, 'Yes.'"
"Callaway reached back into the squad car and picked up Tippit's .38 caliber service revolver off the front seat. He turned to Benavides and said, "Let's chase him," but the mechanic declined. Callaway snapped the revolver open and T.F. Bowley - who was looking on - saw that no rounds had been fired. Callaway tucked the gun in his belt and turned to the cab driver."
With Malice (2013) page 163
====================
Reclaiming History recounts the happenings in a minute by minute chronological order.
"Butler kneels next to Tippit's body and rolls him on his back as Kinsley pulls the stretcher cot from the back of the station wagon. Tippit's pistol is out of it's holster, lying on the pavement near his right palm. Ted Callaway moves the gun to the hood of the squad car, then with Scoggins and Guinyard, helps the attendants lift the body onto the stretcher. As they do so, the first Dallas police officer to arrive at the murder scene, reserve sergeant Kenneth Croy, pulls up. Butler and Kinsley push the cot into the back, slam the door and are off in a flash to Methodist Hospital about a mile away."
Reclaiming History (2007) page 83
====================
"Ted Callaway can hear the confusion and desperation of the police over Tippit's car radio as they struggle to locate the scene of the officer's shooting. He lowers his big frame into the patrol car and grabs the mike, "Hello, hello, hello!" "From out here on Tenth Street," he continues, "five-hundred block. This police officer's just shot. I think he's dead." "Ten-four, we [already] have the information'" dispatcher Jackson replies, exasperated. "The citizen using the radio will remain off the air now." The last thing he needs is some gung-ho citizen tying up the airwaves."
"Ted Callaway climbs out of the squad car and spots his mechanic, Domingo Benavides. "Did you see what happened?" "Yes", Benavides says. Callaway picks up Tippit's service revolver. "Let's chase him," he says. Benavides wants no part of it. Callaway tucks the gun in his belt and turns to the cabdriver, Scoggins."
Reclaiming History (2007) page 84
-
As I've pointed out here..... Bowley, Benavides, Scoggins and the police tapes clearly tell you that Callaway got on the police radio just as the ambulance was pulling away from the scene with the body.
It's not my concern that Weidmann doesn't get it.
What's lost in all of this is that Callaway helping to load the body into the ambulance before he jumped on the patrol car radio has no bearing one way or the other on Oswald's already proven guilt for the murder of J.D. Tippit.
Face it. Callaway arrived on the scene, helped load the body into the ambulance, got on the squad car radio to report the shooting to the dispatcher and then grabbed Tippit's service revolver and went off in search of the killer.
This thread is now wide open for others, if any of you wish, to comment, as the debate is apparently finished.
It's not my concern that Weidmann doesn't get it.
More preaching. It's not my concern that Brown can not support his own claims with credible evidence and doesn't know how a debate works.
What's lost in all of this is that Callaway helping to load the body into the ambulance before he jumped on the patrol car radio has no bearing one way or the other on Oswald's already proven guilt for the murder of J.D. Tippit.
Nobody said it did, but the mere fact that this thought preoccupied you is very telling indeed.
This thread is now wide open for others, if any of you wish, to comment, as the debate is apparently finished.
Was there a debate? Did I miss something? All I saw was you grandstanding based upon erroneous opinions with nothing of any evidentiary value to back it up.
For what it's worth....
With Malice (2013) pages 160-164
Reclaiming History (2007) pages 83-84
Both of the above books (with the corresponding page numbers) agree with the fact that Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance and then, once the ambulance was speeding away, jumped on the squad car radio to report the shooting to the police dispatcher; exactly as I have been saying all along.
For what it's worth....
It's worth absolutely nothing. It's a pathetic appeal at percieved authority. It only tells us that you can not even form an independent opinion of your own or defend it.
As it turnsout now, I was indeed having - what was supposed to be - a "debate" with a couple of books written by biased authors.
exactly as I have been saying all along
Indeed, you have been saying it. You just haven't been able to prove it or even make a credible case to support it.
Next time you ask me to debate you, please try to bring something credible and of substance to the table, because what you have done in this thread is downright embarrasing.
-
Next time you ask me to debate you, please try to bring something credible and of substance to the table, because what you have done in this thread is downright embarrasing.
Next time? How about right now?
Any day this week. The entire Tippit case. Skype, or just audio, whichever you prefer. Fair enough?
-
With Malice recounts the happenings in a minute by minute chronological order.
====================
"While the dispatcher spoke with Officer Walker, ambulance driver J.C. Butler radioed to inform police that the man shot was a Dallas police officer and that they were about to leave the murder scene with his body." -- With Malice (2013) page 161
====================
"William "Eddie" Kinsley slammed the back door of the ambulance shut and climbed into the passenger seat next to Butler. As Butler pulled away from the crowd, he again tried to contact the dispatcher to tell him they were en route to the hospital, but this time Ted Callaway was on the radio. "I ran over to the squad car," Callaway recalled, "I didn't know if anybody reported it or not. So I got on the police radio and called them."
Ted Callaway: Hello, hello, hello.
J.C. Butler: 602
Callaway: - calling from right here on Tenth Street - 500 block - this police officer's just shot. I think he's dead.
Dispatcher: 10-4, we have the information. The citizen using the radio will remain off the air now."
With Malice (2013) page 162
====================
"While Callaway was talking to the dispatcher, T.F. Bowley took Tippit's gun, which was lying on the hood of the squad car, and put it in the front seat, next to the used car salesman."
"After the officer on the other side of the radio told Callaway to hang up and keep the lines clear," Benavides recalled, "he jumped out and ran around and he asked me did I see what happened and I said, 'Yes.'"
"Callaway reached back into the squad car and picked up Tippit's .38 caliber service revolver off the front seat. He turned to Benavides and said, "Let's chase him," but the mechanic declined. Callaway snapped the revolver open and T.F. Bowley - who was looking on - saw that no rounds had been fired. Callaway tucked the gun in his belt and turned to the cab driver."
With Malice (2013) page 163
====================
Reclaiming History recounts the happenings in a minute by minute chronological order.
"Butler kneels next to Tippit's body and rolls him on his back as Kinsley pulls the stretcher cot from the back of the station wagon. Tippit's pistol is out of it's holster, lying on the pavement near his right palm. Ted Callaway moves the gun to the hood of the squad car, then with Scoggins and Guinyard, helps the attendants lift the body onto the stretcher. As they do so, the first Dallas police officer to arrive at the murder scene, reserve sergeant Kenneth Croy, pulls up. Butler and Kinsley push the cot into the back, slam the door and are off in a flash to Methodist Hospital about a mile away."
Reclaiming History (2007) page 83
====================
"Ted Callaway can hear the confusion and desperation of the police over Tippit's car radio as they struggle to locate the scene of the officer's shooting. He lowers his big frame into the patrol car and grabs the mike, "Hello, hello, hello!" "From out here on Tenth Street," he continues, "five-hundred block. This police officer's just shot. I think he's dead." "Ten-four, we [already] have the information'" dispatcher Jackson replies, exasperated. "The citizen using the radio will remain off the air now." The last thing he needs is some gung-ho citizen tying up the airwaves."
"Ted Callaway climbs out of the squad car and spots his mechanic, Domingo Benavides. "Did you see what happened?" "Yes", Benavides says. Callaway picks up Tippit's service revolver. "Let's chase him," he says. Benavides wants no part of it. Callaway tucks the gun in his belt and turns to the cabdriver, Scoggins."
Reclaiming History (2007) page 84
"While the dispatcher spoke with Officer Walker, ambulance driver J.C. Butler radioed to inform police that the man shot was a Dallas police officer and that they were about to leave the murder scene with his body." -- With Malice (2013) page 161
Misrepresentation. Butler never said, anywhere, that he was calling the dispatcher to say that they were about to leave. He only said he called him to inform police that the victim was an officer.
"William "Eddie" Kinsley slammed the back door of the ambulance shut and climbed into the passenger seat next to Butler. As Butler pulled away from the crowd, he again tried to contact the dispatcher to tell him they were en route to the hospital, but this time Ted Callaway was on the radio. "I ran over to the squad car," Callaway recalled, "I didn't know if anybody reported it or not. So I got on the police radio and called them."
Ted Callaway: Hello, hello, hello.
J.C. Butler: 602
Callaway: - calling from right here on Tenth Street - 500 block - this police officer's just shot. I think he's dead.
Dispatcher: 10-4, we have the information. The citizen using the radio will remain off the air now."
With Malice (2013) page 162
Editorializing based on an assumption not supported by the evidence.
Btw, why would Callaway wonder if the shooting had been reported if there was an ambulance on the scene already?
"While Callaway was talking to the dispatcher, T.F. Bowley took Tippit's gun, which was lying on the hood of the squad car, and put it in the front seat, next to the used car salesman."
"After the officer on the other side of the radio told Callaway to hang up and keep the lines clear," Benavides recalled, "he jumped out and ran around and he asked me did I see what happened and I said, 'Yes.'"
"Callaway reached back into the squad car and picked up Tippit's .38 caliber service revolver off the front seat. He turned to Benavides and said, "Let's chase him," but the mechanic declined. Callaway snapped the revolver open and T.F. Bowley - who was looking on - saw that no rounds had been fired. Callaway tucked the gun in his belt and turned to the cab driver."
With Malice (2013) page 163
Nice speech, too bad there isn't a shred of evidence to back it up.
"Ted Callaway can hear the confusion and desperation of the police over Tippit's car radio as they struggle to locate the scene of the officer's shooting. He lowers his big frame into the patrol car and grabs the mike, "Hello, hello, hello!" "From out here on Tenth Street," he continues, "five-hundred block. This police officer's just shot. I think he's dead." "Ten-four, we [already] have the information'" dispatcher Jackson replies, exasperated. "The citizen using the radio will remain off the air now." The last thing he needs is some gung-ho citizen tying up the airwaves."
Hilarious.... so now Callaway knows that the shooting had already been reported, because he allegedly hears "the confusion and desperation of the police over Tippit's car radio as they struggle to locate the scene of the officer's shooting". Bugliosi contradicts Myers.... Nice!
And besides, if the ambulance was already there, doesn't that by itself mean that they already know the location of the shooting?
Like I said.... embarrasing. Myers and Bugliosi can't even get their own fairytale story straight!
-
Next time? How about right now?
Any day this week. The entire Tippit case. Skype, or just audio, whichever you prefer. Fair enough?
Lol.... Why don't I simply read Myers and Bugliosi's books? That will spare me the constant repeats of the same old BS and give you time to learn how to debate. When you have figured out how a debate works, get back to me. Thumb1:
-
Lol.... Why don't I simply read Myers and Bugliosi's books? That will spare me the constant repeats of the same old BS and give you time to learn how to debate. When you have figured out how a debate works, get back to me. Thumb1:
I guess that's a No then. I'm not surprised. You've presented nothing of substance in a mini-debate. You shouldn't be expected to produce anything of substance if you had to think on the go in a live debate.
-
I guess that's a No then. I'm not surprised. You've presented nothing of substance in a mini-debate. You shouldn't be expected to produce anything of substance if you had to think on the go in a live debate.
I guess that's a No then.
Where did i say that? I told you to get back to me when you've learned how to debate.
You've presented nothing of substance in a mini-debate.
If you say so.... :D So, that's why you couldn't counter anything I have said? Got it!
You shouldn't be expected to produce anything of substance if you had to think on the go in a live debate.
Who said that a live debate would require the participants to "think on the go"? Where do you get this crap?
But you're boring me and your feeble attempt to save face by trying to bait me isn't working. Declare yourself the winner if your ego needs that, but for now I have had more than enough of your childish nonsense.
Now, shall we sit back and let the others voice their opinions?
-
I guess that's a No then.
Where did i say that? I told you to get back to me when you've learned how to debate.
You've presented nothing of substance in a mini-debate.
If you say so.... :D So, that's why you couldn't counter anything I have said? Got it!
You shouldn't be expected to produce anything of substance if you had to think on the go in a live debate.
Who said that a live debate would require the participants to "think on the go"? Where do you get this crap?
But you're boring me and your feeble attempt to save face by trying to bait me isn't working. Declare yourself the winner if your ego needs that, but for now I have had more than enough of your childish nonsense.
Now, shall we sit back and let the others voice their opinions?
I'm not declaring myself the winner; that's your thing.
Look, this is real simple. I asked if you want to do some sort of a live debate this week. You don't want to. I get it.
Yes, others should feel free to post their thoughts, if they wish. Unlike you, I am open to constructive criticism.
-
Callaway told us what he did
Oswald got what he deserved
POW!
-
Evidence please that 602 was “trying to contact the dispatcher to tell him they were en route to the hospital” when he just said “602” and the dispatcher didn’t respond.
“Dale Myers thinks so” is not evidence.
-
-
Just something to check out for those who have never heard...
-
Just something to check out for those who have never heard...
Two comments;
The segment we have been discussing in this thread starts with Bowley's call at 57:28
This recording runs a little bit faster than the one I have used, but the difference during the entire approx 3 minutes segment is only 2 seconds.
The key times are:
57:28:67 Bowley starts his call
58:14:42 Bowley ends his call (being told to stay of the radio)
58:24:35 Ambulance 602 calls Code 5 (en route)
58:41:85 Ambulance 602 calls Code 6 (for wrong location at Jefferson)
58:48:40 Ambulance 602 asks dispatcher for address on Jefferson - Dispatcher replies: 501 Tenth Street
59:02:85 Ambulance 602 calls Code 6 (for arrival at Tippit scene)
59:30:99 Ambulance 602 tries to get attention of the dispatcher by calling "602"
59:40:98 Callaway starts his call
59:42:85 Ambulance 602 tries again to get the attention of the dispatcher by calling "602"
I should note that there are marginal differences between the times I used earlier in the thread, as they were clocked with a stopwatch, and these more accurate ones, that were obtained by using Wavelab.
-
I was being generous. I too believe that Callaway got to the scene no more than three to four minutes after hearing the shots.
No need to be generous. I am actually convinced that Callaway got to the scene in a little less than three minutes. The reason why I am convinced is that, some years ago, I actually walked and ran the distance that the killer and Callaway walked and ran and I found I could be done in three minutes. Having said this, you are now talking about a wider subject than when Callaway helped to load Tippit into the ambulance. Let's try to resolve that first, shall we?
Here's the thing... He makes his report on Tippit's squad car radio at 1:19/1:20.
I don't believe for a second that the times on the DPD transcripts are correct, making it erroneous to rely on them for anything. I have an audio recording that starts when Bowley makes his call and ends 4.27 min later. To the best of my knowledge it's a continuous recording. Now, here's the thing; Bowley's call lasted 48 seconds. Exactly 12 seconds later ambulance 602 reports "code 5" confirming it's departure from the funeral home.
According to the official narrative, the Funeral Home received the call for an ambulance at 1:18, but only 20 seconds after 602's code 5 call the DPD dispatcher (who did not call 1:18) calls out "10-4, 603 and 602. 1:19". Now, how is that possible?
If we assume that Bowley started making his call at exactly 1:17:00, the time sequence described above doesn't get us beyond the 1:18:20 mark. However, if Bowley started making his call at around 1:17:40, that would explain the 40 seconds gap, but it would also reduce the time the ambulance had to get to the scene by 40 seconds.
Then, exactly 40 seconds after his initial call the dispatcher calls out "10-4, 605. 1:19", which seems to fit the timeline far better as, according to the actual recording, that second call is made roughly 2 minutes after Bowley started to make his radio call at 1:17. It is however only 6 seconds before Callaway gets on the DPD radio.
So, the first thing we need to resolve is which is the correct 1:19 call. This is important because the 40 seconds between the first and the second call makes all the difference for determining the correct sequence of events, as I will show later on in this discussion. One thing we can safely rule out, based on the actual recordings is, IMO, that Callaway made his call at or after the 1:20 mark.
Do you have an opinion about which 1:19 call is the correct one?
So now that the big show is is over....
This is what I have for the timing of the two "1:19" calls with respect to the Bowley transmission. If I arbitrarily assign the Bowley transmission at +0:00 minutes, then the first "1:19" comes in at +1:16 and he second one comes in at +1:56. The two 1:19 calls are 40 seconds apart. What we can get from this is that it's safe to assume that 1:19:30PM on the dispatchers clock occurred between the two 1:19 timestamps, since the interval between the two timestamps is greater than 30 seconds.
At this point, we consider two cases.
The first is that the first timestamp happened at 1:19:00PM . Then the second one would have occurred at 1:19:40. Therefore, 1:19:30PM would be 10 seconds before the second timestamp in this case. This is the upper limit for 1:19:30.
The second case puts the second timestamp at 1:19:59PM (and we'll round up one second to 1:20:00 just to make things look neater). In this case, the first timestamp would be at 1:19:20PM. In this case, 1:19:30 would be 10 seconds after the first timestamp.
Plugging this back into the Ch 1 recording run time, we get:
+0:00 Hello, police operator....
+1:16 1:19 #1
+1:26 Lower limit for 1:19:30PM
+1:46 Upper limit for 1:19:30PM
+1:56 1:19#2
It's probably better just to say that 1:19:30 occurs at +1:36 +/10 seconds after the beginning of the Bowley call. That would put 1:18:00PM at +0:06 +/- 0:10. Or, the Bowley transmission begins at 1:17:54PM +/- 10 seconds. It could be as early as 1:17:44 and as late as 1:18:04.
Having said that, I should add that Callaway hits the air at +2:12 after the beginning of Bowley's transmission. That would put the Callaway transmission at at 1:20:06PM again +/- 10 seconds.
-
So now that the big show is is over....
This is what I have for the timing of the two "1:19" calls with respect to the Bowley transmission. If I arbitrarily assign the Bowley transmission at +0:00 minutes, then the first "1:19" comes in at +1:16 and he second one comes in at +1:56. The two 1:19 calls are 40 seconds apart. What we can get from this is that it's safe to assume that 1:19:30PM on the dispatchers clock occurred between the two 1:19 timestamps, since the interval between the two timestamps is greater than 30 seconds.
At this point, we consider two cases.
The first is that the first timestamp happened at 1:19:00PM . Then the second one would have occurred at 1:19:40. Therefore, 1:19:30PM would be 10 seconds before the second timestamp in this case. This is the upper limit for 1:19:30.
The second case puts the second timestamp at 1:19:59PM (and we'll round up one second to 1:20:00 just to make things look neater). In this case, the first timestamp would be at 1:19:20PM. In this case, 1:19:30 would be 10 seconds after the first timestamp.
Plugging this back into the Ch 1 recording run time, we get:
+0:00 Hello, police operator....
+1:16 1:19 #1
+1:26 Lower limit for 1:19:30PM
+1:46 Upper limit for 1:19:30PM
+1:56 1:19#2
It's probably better just to say that 1:19:30 occurs at +1:36 +/10 seconds after the beginning of the Bowley call. That would put 1:18:00PM at +0:06 +/- 0:10. Or, the Bowley transmission begins at 1:17:54PM +/- 10 seconds. It could be as early as 1:17:44 and as late as 1:18:04.
Having said that, I should add that Callaway hits the air at +2:12 after the beginning of Bowley's transmission. That would put the Callaway transmission at at 1:20:06PM again +/- 10 seconds.
This is interesting
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/Dallas%20Police%20Department/Dallas%20Police%20Department%20Records/Volume%2004/Item%2001.pdf
216 pages DPD radio transmissions
Download PDF format
-
So now that the big show is is over....
This is what I have for the timing of the two "1:19" calls with respect to the Bowley transmission. If I arbitrarily assign the Bowley transmission at +0:00 minutes, then the first "1:19" comes in at +1:16 and he second one comes in at +1:56. The two 1:19 calls are 40 seconds apart. What we can get from this is that it's safe to assume that 1:19:30PM on the dispatchers clock occurred between the two 1:19 timestamps, since the interval between the two timestamps is greater than 30 seconds.
At this point, we consider two cases.
The first is that the first timestamp happened at 1:19:00PM . Then the second one would have occurred at 1:19:40. Therefore, 1:19:30PM would be 10 seconds before the second timestamp in this case. This is the upper limit for 1:19:30.
The second case puts the second timestamp at 1:19:59PM (and we'll round up one second to 1:20:00 just to make things look neater). In this case, the first timestamp would be at 1:19:20PM. In this case, 1:19:30 would be 10 seconds after the first timestamp.
Plugging this back into the Ch 1 recording run time, we get:
+0:00 Hello, police operator....
+1:16 1:19 #1
+1:26 Lower limit for 1:19:30PM
+1:46 Upper limit for 1:19:30PM
+1:56 1:19#2
It's probably better just to say that 1:19:30 occurs at +1:36 +/10 seconds after the beginning of the Bowley call. That would put 1:18:00PM at +0:06 +/- 0:10. Or, the Bowley transmission begins at 1:17:54PM +/- 10 seconds. It could be as early as 1:17:44 and as late as 1:18:04.
Having said that, I should add that Callaway hits the air at +2:12 after the beginning of Bowley's transmission. That would put the Callaway transmission at at 1:20:06PM again +/- 10 seconds.
Nice bit of speculation, based on the assumption (1) that the dispatcher clock is only marginally off, when it could in fact be two minutes off, not from real time but from the master clock in the dispatcher's office and (2) that the dispatcher made the calls on time.
Another problem is the fact that the official narrative has the time of the shooting between 1:14:30 and 1:15. Callaway's arrival on the scene, which happened during the 46 seconds between the end of Bowley's call and the arrival of the ambulance, makes it highly unlikely that Bowley started his call at 1:17 or even 1:17:44(or later).
-
This is interesting
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/Dallas%20Police%20Department/Dallas%20Police%20Department%20Records/Volume%2004/Item%2001.pdf
216 pages DPD radio transmissions
Download PDF format
One thing that I find interesting is that in G. D. Hensley’s transcript dated 12/5/63, he identifies the person asking “What’s that address on Jefferson?” as patrolman #85 (R.W. Walker, not ambulance 602).
-
Two comments;
The segment we have been discussing in this thread starts with Bowley's call at 57:28
This recording runs a little bit faster than the one I have used, but the difference during the entire approx 3 minutes segment is only 2 seconds.
The key times are:
57:28:67 Bowley starts his call
58:14:42 Bowley ends his call (being told to stay of the radio)
58:24:35 Ambulance 602 calls Code 5 (en route)
58:41:85 Ambulance 602 calls Code 6 (for wrong location at Jefferson)
58:48:40 Ambulance 602 asks dispatcher for address on Jefferson - Dispatcher replies: 501 Tenth Street
59:02:85 Ambulance 602 calls Code 6 (for arrival at Tippit scene)
59:30:99 Ambulance 602 tries to get attention of the dispatcher by calling "602"
59:40:98 Callaway starts his call
59:42:85 Ambulance 602 tries again to het the attention of the dispatcher by calling "602"
I should note that there are marginal differences between the times I used earlier in the thread, as they were clocked with a stopwatch, and these more accurate ones, that were obtained by using Wavelab.
(https://i.imgur.com/IkJr1ZGs.jpg)
-
So now that the big show is is over....
This is what I have for the timing of the two "1:19" calls with respect to the Bowley transmission. If I arbitrarily assign the Bowley transmission at +0:00 minutes, then the first "1:19" comes in at +1:16 and he second one comes in at +1:56. The two 1:19 calls are 40 seconds apart. What we can get from this is that it's safe to assume that 1:19:30PM on the dispatchers clock occurred between the two 1:19 timestamps, since the interval between the two timestamps is greater than 30 seconds.
At this point, we consider two cases.
The first is that the first timestamp happened at 1:19:00PM . Then the second one would have occurred at 1:19:40. Therefore, 1:19:30PM would be 10 seconds before the second timestamp in this case. This is the upper limit for 1:19:30.
The second case puts the second timestamp at 1:19:59PM (and we'll round up one second to 1:20:00 just to make things look neater). In this case, the first timestamp would be at 1:19:20PM. In this case, 1:19:30 would be 10 seconds after the first timestamp.
Plugging this back into the Ch 1 recording run time, we get:
+0:00 Hello, police operator....
+1:16 1:19 #1
+1:26 Lower limit for 1:19:30PM
+1:46 Upper limit for 1:19:30PM
+1:56 1:19#2
It's probably better just to say that 1:19:30 occurs at +1:36 +/10 seconds after the beginning of the Bowley call. That would put 1:18:00PM at +0:06 +/- 0:10. Or, the Bowley transmission begins at 1:17:54PM +/- 10 seconds. It could be as early as 1:17:44 and as late as 1:18:04.
Having said that, I should add that Callaway hits the air at +2:12 after the beginning of Bowley's transmission. That would put the Callaway transmission at at 1:20:06PM again +/- 10 seconds.
Having said that, I should add that Callaway hits the air at +2:12 after the beginning of Bowley's transmission. That would put the Callaway transmission at at 1:20:06PM again +/- 10 seconds.
Correct; meaning Callaway's call took place as the ambulance was leaving the scene.
I value your opinion, Mitch. Do you agree with that?
-
Bill,
Instead of asking Mitch to speculate, why don't you simply answer John's question;
Evidence please that 602 was “trying to contact the dispatcher to tell him they were en route to the hospital” when he just said “602” and the dispatcher didn’t respond.
“Dale Myers thinks so” is not evidence.
We've got Callaway saying he helped to load Tippit into the ambulance after he made his call three times; once in a statement to the FBI in 1964, once in his WC testimony and once during his testimony during the mock trial in the 80's.
-
Bill,
Instead of asking Mitch to speculate, why don't you simply answer John's question;
We've got Callaway saying he helped to load Tippit into the ambulance after he made his call three times; once in a statement to the FBI in 1964, once in his WC testimony and once during his testimony during the mock trial in the 80's.
And as I said a year ago... Callaway is misremembering that particular order of events. Scoggins, Bowley, Benavides and the police tapes tell you so.
As for a response to John Iacoletti, I'm not ignoring it. I am trying to find the source. Some of this stuff I have known for years and have no idea where I first learned it.
-
And as I said a year ago... Callaway is misremembering that particular order of events. Scoggins, Bowley, Benavides and the police tapes tell you so.
As for a response to John Iacoletti, I'm not ignoring it. I am trying to find the source. Some of this stuff I have known for years and have no idea where I first learned it.
So, we're back to square one....
I suppose Butler, the ambulance driver, was also mistaken when he told George and Patricia Nash in 1964 that he was trying to let the dispatcher know that the victim was an officer?
-
So, we're back to square one....
I suppose Butler, the ambulance driver, was also mistaken when he told George and Patricia Nash in 1964 that he was trying to let the dispatcher know that the victim was an officer?
I'm only telling you what the police tapes tell us. The tapes tell us that Callaway made his report to the police dispatcher AFTER the body was loaded and the ambulance was pulling away from the scene.
Once we have that, we are left to decide how much weight to give everything else.
You say you have Callaway and Butler. I say I have Benavides, Scoggins and Bowley.
I have a question for you, Martin. In your opinion, what time did the Tippit shooting occur? Rough estimate?
-
I'm only telling you what the police tapes tell us. The tapes tell us that Callaway made his report to the police dispatcher AFTER the body was loaded and the ambulance was pulling away from the scene.
Once we have that, we are left to decide how much weight to give everything else.
You say you have Callaway and Butler. I say I have Benavides, Scoggins and Bowley.
I have a question for you, Martin. In your opinion, what time did the Tippit shooting occur? Rough estimate?
The tapes tell us that Callaway made his report to the police dispatcher AFTER the body was loaded and the ambulance was pulling away from the scene.
No they don't tell us that! Why do you stubbornly keep on claiming that when anybody who listens to the audio recordings can hear for themselves that this is simply not true?
what time did the Tippit shooting occur?
In real time? Most likely around 1:09 / 1:10
Now, I have a question for you;
Helen Markham testified that she left home, on 9th street, at about 1:06 / 1:07 and when asked what time she usually got her bus, she replied: 1:15
In the past you have said that the schedule for the bus she took, on Jefferson, showed 1:12 and 1:22 as departure times and you claimed - without a shred of evidence - she must have been talking about the 1:22 bus. Be that as it may, it really isn't relevant, because as far as Markham was concerned, she needed to be at the bus stop at 1:15.
Now, here's the thing; to get from 9th street to Jefferson, Markham had to walk two blocks of each 460 feet each. At normal walking speed that would have taken 2 minutes for each block, so roughly 4 minutes in total. If she left her house at 1:07 she would have gotten to 10th street by 1:09 and to Jefferson by 1:11, perhaps 1:12 at the latest, some three minutes ahead of 1:15 and most likely in time to catch either the 1:12 or 1:22 bus. Even if we assume that she did not leave the house until 1:10, she still would have gotten to 10th street by 1:12 and the bus stop before 1:15.
So, the question is; if the shooting really did happen at 1:14:30 or 1:15, what was Markham still doing at the corner of 10th street and Patton at that time, when she should have been at the bus stop on Jefferson?
-
The tapes tell us that Callaway made his report to the police dispatcher AFTER the body was loaded and the ambulance was pulling away from the scene.
No they don't tell us that! Why do you stubbornly keep on claiming that when anybody who listens to the audio recordings can hear for themselves that this is simply not true.
what time did the Tippit shooting occur?
I real time? Most likely around 1:09 / 1:10
1:09 to 1:10?
Is that based an anything other than Markham and Bowley?
What time (roughly) do you believe Bowley's call occurred on Tippit's patrol car radio?
-
1:09 to 1:10?
Is that based an anything other than Markham and Bowley?
What time (roughly) do you believe Bowley's call occurred on Tippit's patrol car radio?
It's based on a bit more than that. But I have added a question to my post while you wrote your reply.
It concerns Markham. Care to answer it?
-
As for a response to John Iacoletti, I'm not ignoring it. I am trying to find the source. Some of this stuff I have known for years and have no idea where I first learned it.
This is crucial information. You started the debate unprepaired?
I wouldn't be surprised if you just got it from Myers and Bugliosi's book and simply accepted it as true without question.
Do you always vigurously defend something that you have no idea if it is actually true or where you first learned it?
-
Helen Markham testified that she left home, on 9th street, at about 1:06 / 1:07 and when asked what time she usually got her bus, she replied: 1:15
In the past you have said that the schedule for the bus she took, on Jefferson, showed 1:12 and 1:22 as departure times and you claimed - without a shred of evidence - she must have been talking about the 1:22 bus.
No.
This isn't the first time you've grossly misquoted me and/or misrepresented my position.
I have never claimed that Markham must have been talking about the 1:22 bus.
All I have ever said, regarding this, is that all of those who claim Markham was on her way to catch the 1:12 bus have no right to state that as a fact since there was also a 1:22 bus.
In fact, I have been very careful in the past to not claim as a fact that Markham must be catching the 1:22 bus.
Stop misrepresenting what I have (or have not) said. Cool?
-
Nice bit of speculation, based on the assumption (1) that the dispatcher clock is only marginally off, when it could in fact be two minutes off, not from real time but from the master clock in the dispatcher's office and (2) that the dispatcher made the calls on time.
Another problem is the fact that the official narrative has the time of the shooting between 1:14:30 and 1:15. Callaway's arrival on the scene, which happened during the 46 seconds between the end of Bowley's call and the arrival of the ambulance, makes it highly unlikely that Bowley started his call at 1:17 or even 1:17:44(or later).
The analysis I did involves channel one time only. That should be obvious to anyone who actually bothers to read and understand it. I did not assume anything regarding how close channel one time was to any other time standard. That issue doesn't even come up in the analysis. I did assume that the dispatcher made calls to the correct minute. That is a part of his job, after all. If you want to argue differently, you can present evidence to contrary. Otherwise, you're just barking at the moon.
The one other assumption I've made is that channel one runs continuously from the beginning of the Bowley call. Given the amount of traffic that follows during the next few minutes, I think this is quite a safe assumption.
Also, the analysis does not address "the official narrative." It simply derives a 20-second range of values for the start of the Bowley call (in channel one time, because you seem to need that spelled out) based on a couple of fortuitous observations about the two "1:19" timestamps. The rest is a different kettle of fish.
-
The tapes tell us that Callaway made his report to the police dispatcher AFTER the body was loaded and the ambulance was pulling away from the scene.
No they don't tell us that! Why do you stubbornly keep on claiming that when anybody who listens to the audio recordings can hear for themselves that this is simply not true?
what time did the Tippit shooting occur?
I real time? Most likely around 1:09 / 1:10
Now, I have a question for you;
Helen Markham testified that she left home, on 9th street, at about 1:06 / 1:07 and when asked what time she usually got her bus, she replied: 1:15
In the past you have said that the schedule for the bus she took, on Jefferson, showed 1:12 and 1:22 as departure times and you claimed - without a shred of evidence - she must have been talking about the 1:22 bus. Be that as it may, it really isn't relevant, because as far as Markham was concerned, she needed to be at the bus stop at 1:15.
Now, here's the thing; to get from 9th street to Jefferson, Markham had to walk two blocks of each 460 feet each. At normal walking speed that would have taken 2 minutes for each block, so roughly 4 minutes in total. If she left her house at 1:07 she would have gotten to 10th street by 1:09 and to Jefferson by 1:11, perhaps 1:12 at the latest, some three minutes ahead of 1:15 and most likely in time to catch either the 1:12 or 1:22 bus. Even if we assume that she did not leave the house until 1:10, she still would have gotten to 10th street by 1:12 and the bus stop before 1:15.
So, the question is; if the shooting really did happen at 1:14:30 or 1:15, what was Markham still doing at the corner of 10th street and Patton at that time, when she should have been at the bus stop on Jefferson?
If she left her house at 1:07...
Your entire premise is based off of something which I do not believe to be true. I base that off of the police tapes, which tell me that Markham did not leave her apartment (not a house) as early as 1:07.
-
It concerns Markham. Care to answer it?
Yes, Markham was a very important eyewitness, she positively identified Oswald as the killer of J D Tippit. Markham's clock was never independently verified as being accurate so it's not worth debating and considering a bus came every ten minutes, then waiting for the next bus was always going to be less than 10 minutes so another pointless go nowhere argument. As much as the CT's try to manipulate the approximate times for the Tippit murder, the end result is that Oswald was positively identified and he left shells at the scene which exclusively matched his revolver.
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.
JohnM
-
This is crucial information. You started the debate unprepaired?
I wouldn't be surprised if you just got it from Myers and Bugliosi's book and simply accepted it as true without question.
Do you always vigurously defend something that you have no idea if it is actually true or where you first learned it?
All one has to do is listen to the police tapes and it is painfully obvious that Butler reported "602" as they were taking off for Methodist.
Therefore the assumption (if indeed it was an assumption) that Butler was attempting to report that they were on their way to the hospital is an assumption based on what the evidence tells us.
And if I were you, I'd be careful of attacking Myers and/or Bugliosi. Just a year and a half ago (not three years ago as you mistakenly claimed earlier in this thread), you believed Callaway had the killer fleeing down the alley, for some reason. I'm positive Myers and/or Bugliosi never believed such nonsense.
-
Correct; meaning Callaway's call took place as the ambulance was leaving the scene.
I value your opinion, Mitch. Do you agree with that?
The analysis I did is agnostic as to the sequence of events occurred. It stands on it's own for what it is. What it means, and how it fits in is up to you
-
After the Tippit shooting Scoggins tried multiple times to get his dispatcher's attention and finally had a conversation lasting a couple of minutes and the recorded time was 1:23.
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.
JohnM
-
The analysis I did is agnostic as to the sequence of events occurred. It stands on it's own for what it is. What it means, and how it fits in is up to you
In my opinion, you have to believe either Callaway made his report on the patrol car radio as the ambulance was leaving... or you believe the ambulance was on the scene for much longer than Butler and Kinsley tell us they were.
-
I did assume that the dispatcher made calls to the correct minute. That is a part of his job, after all. If you want to argue differently, you can present evidence to contrary. Otherwise, you're just barking at the moon.
That turns out to be an invalid assumption, given that the supervisor of the dispatchers, James Bowles, is on record saying that the clocks were not precise, were not regularly calibrated or synchronized, and the dispatcher didn’t always say what was on the clock at the time of the announcement.
https://www.jfk-online.com/bowles1.html#ref (https://www.jfk-online.com/bowles1.html#ref)
-
Yes, Markham was a very important eyewitness, she positively identified Oswald as the killer of J D Tippit.
Biased, unfair lineups are unreliable. Also she told Joseph Ball several times that she didn’t recognize anybody in the lineup.
Markham's clock was never independently verified as being accurate
Neither were the dispatcher time announcements.
As much as the CT's try to manipulate the approximate times for the Tippit murder, the end result is that Oswald was positively identified and he left shells at the scene which exclusively matched his revolver.
Bull. Shells that you cannot demonstrate came from the scene, that you cannot demonstrate were dropped by Tippit’s killer, and that you cannot demonstrate had anything to do with Tippit’s murder matched a revolver that you cannot demonstrate was ever in Oswald’s possession.
-
All one has to do is listen to the police tapes and it is painfully obvious that Butler reported "602" as they were taking off for Methodist.
What makes this “obvious”. Serious question. All he says is “602”.
-
After the Tippit shooting Scoggins tried multiple times to get his dispatcher's attention and finally had a conversation lasting a couple of minutes and the recorded time was 1:23.
Let’s see the record.
-
Your entire premise is based off of something which I do not believe to be true. I base that off of the police tapes, which tell me that Markham did not leave her apartment (not a house) as early as 1:07.
The police tapes tell you nothing about what time Markham left her residence. She told us herself she did, so what reason could you possibly have to assume that wasn't correct?
The audio recordings about all matters relating to the Tippit shooting start with Bowley's radio call.
-
All one has to do is listen to the police tapes and it is painfully obvious that Butler reported "602" as they were taking off for Methodist.
Therefore the assumption (if indeed it was an assumption) that Butler was attempting to report that they were on their way to the hospital is an assumption based on what the evidence tells us.
And if I were you, I'd be careful of attacking Myers and/or Bugliosi. Just a year and a half ago (not three years ago as you mistakenly claimed earlier in this thread), you believed Callaway had the killer fleeing down the alley, for some reason. I'm positive Myers and/or Bugliosi never believed such nonsense.
All one has to do is listen to the police tapes and it is painfully obvious that Butler reported "602" as they were taking off for Methodist.
Painfully obvious? To whom?.... Your opinion isn't evidence.
Therefore the assumption (if indeed it was an assumption) that Butler was attempting to report that they were on their way to the hospital is an assumption based on what the evidence tells us.
An assumption based on a flawed interpretation of what the evidence (you mean the police tapes, right?) tell us....
Wow! You seem to be struggling to understand what the difference is between evidence and your opinion.
Callaway is on record, at least three times, confirming that he used the radio first and then helped to load Tippit into the ambulance. Butler has stated, to George and Patricia Nash, in 1964, that he tried to call the dispatcher to let him know the victim was as police officer. He also said that after his failed attempt he returned to Tippit, who was still lying in the street. The audio recording of the DPD radio shows that Butler (ambulance 602) tried to call twice and that there were only 8 seconds between both failed attempts.
Whether you like it or not, that's actual evidence.
On the other hand, nowhere do Benavides, Bowley or Scoggins say that Callaway helped to load Tippit into the ambulance before making his call. What you have presented are some quotes which you incorrectly interpret as being confirmation that Callaway made his call after Tippit was in the ambulance.
Whether you like it or not, your interpretations are not evidence.
And if I were you, I'd be careful of attacking Myers and/or Bugliosi. Just a year and a half ago (not three years ago as you mistakenly claimed earlier in this thread), you believed Callaway had the killer fleeing down the alley, for some reason. I'm positive Myers and/or Bugliosi never believed such nonsense.
So, now you combine an appeal to preceived authority with an attack on me, based on an erroneous comment I made? Way to go.... Classic Brown!
I wonder what happened to you moving on;
More than erroneous. You made an outlandish statement. Callaway never said such a thing. But okay.
And YES, it does matter. It's directly related to when Callaway would have began his "good hard run".
But that's fine. You've admitted your error and I can move on.
It sure didn't take long for you to bring it up again. So much for "moving on"
I'm sure in your perfect little world nobody ever makes a mistake and knows everything straight away up front so that they don't have to make mistakes and learn from them, right? :D
Myers and/Bugliosi believe a hell of a lot more nonsense than you will ever be willing to admit, as you believe that same nonsense too.
But as we are on the subject of errors;
The police tapes obviously don't mention the body being loaded into the ambulance, but the tapes do tell us when the ambulance was leaving the scene en route to Methodist Hospital. The tapes tell us that the ambulance was leaving the scene as Callaway was making his report on the squad car radio.
602 (ambulance): 602.
Dispatcher: 85.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker): 85.
Dispatcher: Suspect running west on Jefferson from the location.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker): 10-4.
Dispatcher: No physical description.
Citizen (Callaway): Hello, hello, hello.
602 (ambulance): 602.
Citizen (Callaway): Pardon, from out here on Tenth Street, 500 block. This officer just shot. I think he's dead.
Dispatcher: 10-4. We have that information. The citizen using the radio: Remain off the radio now.
That "602" was Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital. However, he could not get through because Callaway is on the squad car radio reporting the incident (as the ambulance is speeding off).
When I pointed out that Butler said he was calling the dispatcher to let him know that the victim was a police officer, you changed your story;
Kinsley and Butler took the stretcher out of the ambulance and rolled Tippit's body over (Tippit was lying on his belly). Once the body was rolled over, Callaway picked up the service revolver (which was underneath the body) and placed it on the hood of the patrol car. Then, Callaway helped Kinsley place the body onto the stretcher. Callaway, Kinsley and a couple others then loaded the stretcher into the ambulance.
Then, this:
Dispatcher: "85" (this is the dispatcher calling out for Officer Roy Walker, 85)
J.C. Butler: "602" (this is the ambulance driver, Butler, calling in trying to get hold of the dispatcher)
Dispatcher: "85" (this is the dispatcher still trying to reach Walker)
Roy Walker: "85" (this is Walker replying to the dispatcher, who was calling out for him)
Dispatcher: "Suspect running west on Jefferson, the location." (this is the dispatcher telling Walker where the suspect was last seen)
Walker: "10-4" (this is Walker acknowledging that he received that information from the dispatcher)
While the above was going on between the dispatcher and Walker ...... J.C. Butler (ambulance driver, 602) radioed in to let the police dispatcher know that the shooting victim was a police officer.
Around 1:19:45 to 1:19:55, Officer Kenneth Croy arrived on the scene still in uniform but in an unmarked car (he was in his personal vehicle). Croy arrived in time to see them loading the body into the ambulance.
The ambulance was loaded and Butler & Kinsley began to drive from the scene. As they pulled away, Butler got on the radio to inform the police dispatcher that the were en route to the hospital. However, Butler could not get through because it was at this time that Callaway was on the patrol car radio reporting the shooting to the police dispatcher:
Callaway: "Hello. Hello. Hello." (Callaway calling out for the police dispatcher)
Butler: "602" (ambulance driver Butler, 602, trying to call for the dispatcher)
Callaway: "Calling from right here on Tenth Street, 500 block, this police officer's just shot, I think he's dead."
Dispatcher: "10-4. We have the information. The citizen using the radio will remain off the radio now."
So, then the story became that the first "602" was to let the dispatcher know the victim was an officer and the second "602" was to allegedly inform the dispatcher that the ambulance was leaving. Were you wrong when you made the first comment, Bill?
Btw, never mind that between the first and second "602" calls there were only 8 seconds!
And let's also consider this contradiction;
According to you, Myers wrote on page 162 of "Without Malice"; "I ran over to the squad car," Callaway recalled, "I didn't know if anybody reported it or not. So I got on the police radio and called them."
Om the other hand, again according to you, Bugliosi wrote on page 84 of "Reclaiming history"; "Ted Callaway can hear the confusion and desperation of the police over Tippit's car radio as they struggle to locate the scene of the officer's shooting. He lowers his big frame into the patrol car and grabs the mike, "Hello, hello, hello!"
Both can't be right. Either Callaway made his call because he did not know it had already been called in, as Myers claims, or he heard the confusion of the police over the police radio (which means they knew about it, so it had already been called in), as Bugliosi claimed.
So, which of these two amazing experts was wrong?
-
In my opinion, you have to believe either Callaway made his report on the patrol car radio as the ambulance was leaving... or you believe the ambulance was on the scene for much longer than Butler and Kinsley tell us they were.
Butler and Kinsley never told us how long they were at the scene.
-
Biased, unfair lineups are unreliable. Also she told Joseph Ball several times that she didn’t recognize anybody in the lineup.
Markham's clock was never independently verified as being accurate
Neither were the dispatcher time announcements.
Bull. Shells that you cannot demonstrate came from the scene, that you cannot demonstrate were dropped by Tippit’s killer, and that you cannot demonstrate had anything to do with Tippit’s murder matched a revolver that you cannot demonstrate was ever in Oswald’s possession.
'Biased, unfair lineups are unreliable'
(https://i.postimg.cc/HLgfdR8z/CT-IDEAL-LINEUP.png)
billchapman
-
The debate was about what Callaway did first, help load Tippit into the ambulance (as Brown now claims) or get on the police radio (as I claimed)
Let's see what Bill Brown had to say on the subject in January 2020;
Ted Callaway testified that after hearing the five gun shots, he ran out to the sidewalk on Patton. This was a little over a half block south of the shooting scene. Callaway saw a man (who he later identified as Oswald) cutting across Patton as he (Oswald) made his way south on Patton (towards Callaway's position). Callaway hollered out to the man as the man continued south on Patton past Callaway's position. Callaway testified that the man was running and holding a gun. Callaway saw the man head west on Jefferson (the same direction as the theater).
Once the man turned west onto Jefferson, Callaway ran a "good hard run" up to the corner of Tenth and Patton. Callaway, noticing the stopped patrol car, went to the car and saw the officer (Tippit) lying dead in the street. Callaway said the first thing he did was to grab the police car radio and report the shooting. He said he didn't know if anyone had reported it yet, so he decided to report it himself.
To recap, Callaway hears the shots. Runs to the sidewalk. Sees the gunman run south on Patton the entire block from Tenth to Jefferson. Runs the two-thirds of a block up to the shooting scene. Goes over to the police car and the first thing he does is grab the radio and report the shooting to the police dispatcher.
How much time do you believe passed from the time Callaway heard the shots to the time he reported the shooting on the police radio?
-
No.
This isn't the first time you've grossly misquoted me and/or misrepresented my position.
I have never claimed that Markham must have been talking about the 1:22 bus.
All I have ever said, regarding this, is that all of those who claim Markham was on her way to catch the 1:12 bus have no right to state that as a fact since there was also a 1:22 bus.
In fact, I have been very careful in the past to not claim as a fact that Markham must be catching the 1:22 bus.
Stop misrepresenting what I have (or have not) said. Cool?
In fact, I have been very careful in the past to not claim as a fact that Markham must be catching the 1:22 bus.
Really?
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, this 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.
-
In fact, I have been very careful in the past to not claim as a fact that Markham must be catching the 1:22 bus.
Really?
"If true..."
-
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. - Bill Brown
I have never claimed that Markham must have been talking about the 1:22 bus. - Bill Brown
-
She said she "got her bus" at 1:15, not "got to the bus stop".
-
Evidence please that 602 was “trying to contact the dispatcher to tell him they were en route to the hospital” when he just said “602” and the dispatcher didn’t respond.
“Dale Myers thinks so” is not evidence.
As for a response to John Iacoletti, I'm not ignoring it. I am trying to find the source. Some of this stuff I have known for years and have no idea where I first learned it.
Still waiting for you to find the source.....
Btw, if you have known "this stuff" for years, why did you say this, in 2020;
Ted Callaway testified that after hearing the five gun shots, he ran out to the sidewalk on Patton. This was a little over a half block south of the shooting scene. Callaway saw a man (who he later identified as Oswald) cutting across Patton as he (Oswald) made his way south on Patton (towards Callaway's position). Callaway hollered out to the man as the man continued south on Patton past Callaway's position. Callaway testified that the man was running and holding a gun. Callaway saw the man head west on Jefferson (the same direction as the theater).
Once the man turned west onto Jefferson, Callaway ran a "good hard run" up to the corner of Tenth and Patton. Callaway, noticing the stopped patrol car, went to the car and saw the officer (Tippit) lying dead in the street. Callaway said the first thing he did was to grab the police car radio and report the shooting. He said he didn't know if anyone had reported it yet, so he decided to report it himself.
To recap, Callaway hears the shots. Runs to the sidewalk. Sees the gunman run south on Patton the entire block from Tenth to Jefferson. Runs the two-thirds of a block up to the shooting scene. Goes over to the police car and the first thing he does is grab the radio and report the shooting to the police dispatcher.
How much time do you believe passed from the time Callaway heard the shots to the time he reported the shooting on the police radio?
-
Not sure why anybody would put the bus time at 1:22 or even after 1:15.
Markham stated she left home about 6 or 7 minutes after 1. Although, she wasn't quite exactly sure.
Ball asked her what time she usually gets to her bus. Markham replied 1:15.
Ball then asked her if it was before 1:15. Markham replied "yes it was".
So, according to Markham she got her bus before 1:15.
-
That turns out to be an invalid assumption, given that the supervisor of the dispatchers, James Bowles, is on record saying that the clocks were not precise, were not regularly calibrated or synchronized, and the dispatcher didn’t always say what was on the clock at the time of the announcement.
https://www.jfk-online.com/bowles1.html#ref (https://www.jfk-online.com/bowles1.html#ref)
Specifically, what in Bowles missive do you think invalidates the analysis?
-
Specifically, what in Bowles missive do you think invalidates the analysis?
The analysis was fine as long as you kept it neutral, starting with Bowley's call at 0:00:00.
As soon as you related the timeline to the first timestamp either being at 1:19:00 or 1:19:59 you invalidated the analysis and conclusions simply because you completely ignored everything Bowles told the HSCA about time calls not being made correctly, dispatcher's clocks not matching, by as much as two minutes, the master clock in the town hall, which in turn did not match real time.
To assume that the timestamps were 100% correct after all, when the likelyhood of that being the case is nearly non existent, given what Bowles said, invalidates the conclusion that Callaway's call happened at 1:20:06PM +/- 10 seconds.
-
The analysis was fine as long as you kept it neutral, starting with Bowley's call at 0:00:00.
As soon as you related the timeline to the first timestamp either being at 1:19:00 or 1:19:59 you invalidated the analysis and conclusions simply because you completely ignored everything Bowles told the HSCA about time calls not being made correctly, dispatcher's clocks not matching, by as much as two minutes, the master clock in the town hall, which in turn did not match real time.
To assume that the timestamps were 100% correct after all, when the likelyhood of that being the case is nearly non existent, given what Bowles said, invalidates the conclusion that Callaway's call happened at 1:20:06PM +/- 10 seconds.
Bowles didn't tell the HSCA anything. His FUDdly screed was written well after the HSCA had closed up shop. I swear I brought this up before, and you'd acknowledged it.
Bowles does not say that the dispatcher's clocks could differ by two minutes. He said that the dispatcher clocks were kept to within a minute of each other. Francis Cason, one of the phone operators in the dispatch center, also testified that the clocks were kept to within a minute of each other. Bowles did say that the various clocks in the dispatch center could vary by as much as two minutes from city hall time, but that doesn't invalidate what he as Cason said. And, since I'm just talking about channel one time, the City Hall clock (and what you call "real time") doesn't even begin to come into play.
You'll have to try again.
-
Bowles does not say that the dispatcher's clocks could differ by two minutes.
Bowles;
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.
He said that the dispatcher clocks were kept to within a minute of each other.
Misrepresent much?
Bowles;
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.
Next, consideration should be given to the methods of individual radio operators. A given operator at a given time might broadcast "time" a little early in one event then a little late the next. Accordingly, a call initiated at, say, 10:10 might be stamped at 10:13 by the dispatcher, only to have intervening radio traffic delay his broadcast. He might go ahead and announce the dispatch time as 10:13 and the digital clock then showed 10:14. Time intervals of less than one minute were never used.
And, since I'm just talking about channel one time, the City Hall clock (and what you call "real time") doesn't even begin to come into play.
You wish, it would only make your speculation "analysis" even more flawed and less valid.
You seem to have missed or ignored the bottom line completely. With dispatcher's clocks out of sychronization, not matching the "official time" of the master clock, which in turn did not match real time and with the two dispatchers not always calling out the correct time, the likelyhood of a time stamp call on the audio recording being 100% correct is minimal. Yet your entire "analysis" is rather foolishly completely based on that time stamp being 100% correct.
There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time." - J.C. Bowles
It seems you are the one who needs to try again.
-
By the way, just because it was “normal procedure” to reset the clocks when they were “a minute or two” apart doesn’t mean that the maximum they could ever be off is two minutes.
And I have never seen any compelling reason to assume that the existing recordings are a continuous recording during the time period in question.
-
Misrepresent much?
He’s misrepresenting Cason too. Not only does she not say anywhere that the clocks were kept to within a minute of each other, she’s not even talking about the same clock.
-
Bowles does not say that the dispatcher's clocks could differ by two minutes.
Bowles;
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.
He said that the dispatcher clocks were kept to within a minute of each other.
Misrepresent much?
Bowles;
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.
Next, consideration should be given to the methods of individual radio operators. A given operator at a given time might broadcast "time" a little early in one event then a little late the next. Accordingly, a call initiated at, say, 10:10 might be stamped at 10:13 by the dispatcher, only to have intervening radio traffic delay his broadcast. He might go ahead and announce the dispatch time as 10:13 and the digital clock then showed 10:14. Time intervals of less than one minute were never used.
You don't understand the words you quote, do you? To wit: "When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments." To spell it out for you, that sentence is Bowles' own admission that they kept the dispatcher's clocks within a minute of each other. Just like I said.
The rest is best summarized by the string of weaselly qualifiers that Bowles relies on: "it was not uncommon" (litotes often being the weaseliest of the weaselies, which is why lawyers are so fond of the practice), "could easily be," "might," "might be," "might go." Nothing more than a big bag of "maybe." The problem is, Bowles was both the supervisor of the dispatch center and the person responsible for the first transcript of the channel one and channel two recordings. As such, he is the one person who would know of any concrete Nov. 22 examples of these maybes and mights and litotic obfuscations. But he can't point to a single example of any of them occurring on Nov 22. There is a reason for that.
As lagniappe, I offer this particularly clever bit of misdirection:
"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."
So, Bowles said that the hands on the faces of the Simplex clocks "often" [ed: exactly how often is often?] became loose.....and then admits that the DPD didn't use those clock faces to tell time in the first place. But he admits it in a way that the average sucker --that is, you-- is liable to miss it on the way to their self-congratulating, self-serving assumptery.
And, since I'm just talking about channel one time, the City Hall clock (and what you call "real time") doesn't even begin to come into play.
You wish, it would only make your speculation "analysis" even more flawed and less valid.
You seem to have missed or ignored the bottom line completely. With dispatcher's clocks out of sychronization, not matching the "official time" of the master clock, which in turn did not match real time and with the two dispatchers not always calling out the correct time, the likelyhood of a time stamp call on the audio recording being 100% correct is minimal. Yet your entire "analysis" is rather foolishly completely based on that time stamp being 100% correct.
Sorry, Martin, you are the one who keeps missing what is important. For instance, channel one dispatch is handled by one guy from 12:30PM to some time past 1:20. One guy looking at one clock. This one guy and his one clock defines channel one time. So the time announcements he makes are going to be internally consistent with each other, as well as with the other time announcements he makes after 12:30. That's one of the things that makes the analysis I did possible, but it requires that the analysis be limited only to channel one time. And that's exactly what I did.
You have yet to present any coherent or cogent rebuttal of this analysis. So far, all you can do is once again dredge up some ancient FUD-piece by Bowles that doesn't actually apply to what I've done. Now, the analysis does lead to the question, how is channel one time offset from channel two time or standard time. I've already done that --if you haven't noticed-- and Mr O'Meara has done something very similar on his own.
There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time." - J.C. Bowles
Which means what, exactly? Really, it's just an assertion by Bowles. That's all you have.
-
By the way, just because it was “normal procedure” to reset the clocks when they were “a minute or two” apart doesn’t mean that the maximum they could ever be off is two minutes.
Bowles wrote: " When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. Somehow, Bowles' "a minute or so" became "a minute or two" in your post. And yet you are the one who claims that I am misrepresenting witnesses. Good job, Kid!
Anyway, once Bowles established that the standard was to keep the dispatcher clocks within a minute of each other, then you need to come up with an actual reason to believe such an exception was in play that afternoon. Good luck. Bowles himself couldn't manage it.
And I have never seen any compelling reason to assume that the existing recordings are a continuous recording during the time period in question.
Bowles noted that the radio recording system didn't stop recording until there was 4 seconds of silence. Therefore, if there is a place where the recording shuts of and loses time, there should be at least 4 consecutive seconds of silence. If you listen to the channel one recording during this time, that doesn't happen from the beginning of the Bowley transmission until after the Callaway one. This includes the section where both 1:19 timestamps are located. Theoretically, someone with some very good audio processing could filter out everything but the 60Hz and 120Hz bands on the recording, then analyze the power supply hum to see if they can find a discontinuity as well.
-
He’s misrepresenting Cason too. Not only does she not say anywhere that the clocks were kept to within a minute of each other, she’s not even talking about the same clock.
Here's what she actually says:
Mr. HUBERT. Now, is that clock checked at any time as to accuracy?
Mrs. CASON. I don't know how often they are checked. I do know that sometimes we find a discrepancy as to the time on the clock insofar as sometimes when we dispatch--when we sent a call sheet through and the time received may be--it says, this could have been 11:23 on the time I received the call, and when we dispatched it it would have shown 11:22, then we would know that the clocks were off, because we couldn't--I couldn't receive a call after we had dispatched it.
Mr. HUBERT. But, the dispatcher would be using a different clock from you?
Mrs. CASON. And when we find these errors in these clocks this way, someone in the office usually adjusts them to where they all are stamping the same time. It doesn't happen very often that they get out of time, but sometimes they do.
So, yes, they sometime get out of sync. But the standard was having the clocks "stamping the same time." To do that, they have to be within a minute of each other, QED.
And, again, if you want to claim that I'm "misrepresenting" people's statements, do not do so yourself. And especially don't do it twice in a row. Otherwise, nice people will start thinking that you're some kind of dork and you'll never be invited to any of the cool kids' parties.
-
You don't understand the words you quote, do you? To wit: "When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments." To spell it out for you, that sentence is Bowles' own admission that they kept the dispatcher's clocks within a minute of each other. Just like I said.
The rest is best summarized by the string of weaselly qualifiers that Bowles relies on: "it was not uncommon" (litotes often being the weaseliest of the weaselies, which is why lawyers are so fond of the practice), "could easily be," "might," "might be," "might go." Nothing more than a big bag of "maybe." The problem is, Bowles was both the supervisor of the dispatch center and the person responsible for the first transcript of the channel one and channel two recordings. As such, he is the one person who would know of any concrete Nov. 22 examples of these maybes and mights and litotic obfuscations. But he can't point to a single example of any of them occurring on Nov 22. There is a reason for that.
As lagniappe, I offer this particularly clever bit of misdirection:
"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."
So, Bowles said that the hands on the faces of the Simplex clocks "often" [ed: exactly how often is often?] became loose.....and then admits that the DPD didn't use those clock faces to tell time in the first place. But he admits it in a way that the average sucker --that is, you-- is liable to miss it on the way to their self-congratulating, self-serving assumptery.
Sorry, Martin, you are the one who keeps missing what is important. For instance, channel one dispatch is handled by one guy from 12:30PM to some time past 1:20. One guy looking at one clock. This one guy and his one clock defines channel one time. So the time announcements he makes are going to be internally consistent with each other, as well as with the other time announcements he makes after 12:30. That's one of the things that makes the analysis I did possible, but it requires that the analysis be limited only to channel one time. And that's exactly what I did.
You have yet to present any coherent or cogent rebuttal of this analysis. So far, all you can do is once again dredge up some ancient FUD-piece by Bowles that doesn't actually apply to what I've done. Now, the analysis does lead to the question, how is channel one time offset from channel two time or standard time. I've already done that --if you haven't noticed-- and Mr O'Meara has done something very similar on his own.
Which means what, exactly? Really, it's just an assertion by Bowles. That's all you have.
You don't understand the words you quote, do you? To wit: "When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments." To spell it out for you, that sentence is Bowles' own admission that they kept the dispatcher's clocks within a minute of each other. Just like I said.
Cherry pick much?
Rather hypocritically, on the one hand you talk about a "string of weaselly qualifiers that Bowles relies on", yet on the other hand, when he says something you like, you instantly accept it at face value and misrepresent it by leaving out what he said next.
Bowles also said;
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.
Just one of those inconvenient bits you prefer to ignore. I wonder why.... wait, no I don't. It's pretty obvious.
Which means what, exactly? Really, it's just an assertion by Bowles. That's all you have.
Typical LN behavior; playing down evidence you don't like. You can try to discredit Bowles as much as you like, but the information he provided still stands. The mere fact that you prefer to dismiss it out of hand doesn't do much for your own credibility.
"There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time."" - J.C. Bowles
To any honest person it's self explanatory what this means.
Your desperate attempt to present a 1:16 or 1:19 time stamp as being the actual time is pathetic.
Bowles was both the supervisor of the dispatch center and the person responsible for the first transcript of the channel one and channel two recordings.
Indeed, and when he basically says that the clocks used by the dispatcher do not match real time, I'll take his word over your BS any day.
When the man in charge of the dispatchers clearly states that the clocks can not be relied on to show "real time" (actual time) you just don't get to assume that he was wrong. It's up to you to show that he was wrong and that the dispatcher's clocks were in fact running exactly on time. Good luck with that.
-
Bowles wrote: " When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. Somehow, Bowles' "a minute or so" became "a minute or two" in your post. And yet you are the one who claims that I am misrepresenting witnesses. Good job, Kid!
Good job indeed, “kid”. Direct quote from Bowles:
“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.”
And you chide Martin for “not understanding” what he reads…
Anyway, once Bowles established that the standard was to keep the dispatcher clocks within a minute of each other, then you need to come up with an actual reason to believe such an exception was in play that afternoon.
You got it. “During busy periods this was not readily done.”
By the way, nobody (apparently) ever described how “city hall time” was set or calibrated.
Bowles noted that the radio recording system didn't stop recording until there was 4 seconds of silence. Therefore, if there is a place where the recording shuts of and loses time, there should be at least 4 consecutive seconds of silence. If you listen to the channel one recording during this time, that doesn't happen from the beginning of the Bowley transmission until after the Callaway one.
How would you know that? The recording you are listening to has been dubbed, spliced, and edited. Incidentally, the transcript at https://www.jfk-assassination.net/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm) shows “(Long pause, 15 seconds)” right before the Benavides/Bowley “hello police operator” call.
-
Mrs. CASON. And when we find these errors in these clocks this way, someone in the office usually adjusts them to where they all are stamping the same time.
There are those weasel words again. “Usually”.
-
There are those weasel words again. “Usually”.
What goes straight over Todd's head is the fact that both Bowles and Cason talk about clocks that need to be adjusted because they were not running correctly.
How Todd can claim (as he clearly does) that, despite these remarks, the time stamps on the DPD recording are not only correct but also reflect real time is the real conundrum.
-
Where did Bill Brown go?
Did he lose interest again? :D
-
We've exhausted the issue of whether or not Callaway loaded the body into the ambulance before getting on the police radio to report the shooting. I've stated my case below and all you've done regarding it is simply choose to ignore what Bowley, Benavides, Scoggins and the police tapes tell you.
I say Ted Callaway helped load Tippit's body into the ambulance and then went over to the patrol car radio to report the shooting to the police dispatcher. Martin Weidmann says I am wrong, that Callaway got on the patrol car radio first... and then helped load the body into the ambulance. This matters when trying to explain Callaway's timeline between hearing the shots ring out and reporting the shooting on the patrol car radio.
By the way, if Callaway got on the patrol car radio BEFORE helping to load the body into the ambulance (he didn't), then all it really does is help the false narrative that the shooting occurred earlier than 1:14/1:15. In other words, Callaway helping with the body before getting on the police radio does not support my argument that the shooting occurred around 1:14/1:15; it would support the idea the shooting occurred a bit earlier than the official version. Nevertheless, that is what happened.
The police tapes obviously don't mention the body being loaded into the ambulance, but the tapes do tell us when the ambulance was leaving the scene en route to Methodist Hospital. The tapes tell us that the ambulance was leaving the scene as Callaway was making his report on the squad car radio.
602 (ambulance): 602.
Dispatcher: 85.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker): 85.
Dispatcher: Suspect running west on Jefferson from the location.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker): 10-4.
Dispatcher: No physical description.
Citizen (Callaway): Hello, hello, hello.
602 (ambulance): 602.
Citizen (Callaway): Pardon, from out here on Tenth Street, 500 block. This officer just shot. I think he's dead.
Dispatcher: 10-4. We have that information. The citizen using the radio: Remain off the radio now.
That "602" was Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital. However, he could not get through because Callaway is on the squad car radio reporting the incident (as the ambulance is speeding off).
After arriving on the scene in the ambulance, Butler and Kinsley rolled Tippit's body over (he was lying on his stomach) in order to place Tippit onto the stretcher.. Callaway noticed Tippit's service revolver lying on the street (it was underneath the body). Callaway picked up the revolver and placed it on the hood of the patrol car and then helped Bowley, Butler and Kinsley load Tippit's body into the ambulance.
T.F. Bowley stated in his affidavit that once Tippit's body was loaded into the ambulance, he saw the service revolver lying on the hood of the patrol car (having been placed there moments earlier by Callaway). Bowley picked up the revolver off of the hood and placed on the front seat of the patrol car.
"When the ambulance left, I took the gun and put it inside the squad car." -- T.F. Bowley (12/2/63 affidavit)
After making his report to the police dispatcher on the squad car radio, Callaway grabbed the service revolver from the front seat and proceeded to seek others to help him go off in search for the killer.
More evidence that Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance BEFORE he got on the police radio to report the shooting...
"And then I got out of the cab and run down there; the ambulance had
already arrived by the time I got there, and they were in the process
of picking the man up, and they had done had him, was putting him on
the stretcher when I got there, and they put him in the ambulance and
took him away, and there was someone that got on the radio at that
time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to
get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up
the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground, apparently fell
out of his holster when he fell, and says, "Come on, let's go see if
we can find him." -- WILLIAM SCOGGINS
The "someone that got on the radio" was Callaway and the "at that
time" was once the ambulance "took him away".
Domingo Benavides said that Callaway got on the patrol car radio to report the shooting and the "officer" at the other end (the dispatcher) told Callaway that they already had that information and to stay off the air. Benavides then said that Callaway grabbed the service revolver and said to Benavides that they should go chase the killer. Benavides said he declined and added that Callaway then went over to the cab driver (Scoggins).
Callaway said to Scoggins "Let's get the son of a As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'". Benavides said nothing about Callaway helping to load the body into the ambulance before going over to Scoggins with the revolver (because this had already been done earlier and the ambulance was gone).
The police tapes clearly tell you that 602 (the Kinsley/Butler ambulance) was leaving the scene at the same time you hear Callaway making his report to the police dispatcher. Scoggins and Benavides confirm what the police tapes tell you.
==============================
Do you care to discuss a different Tippit-related topic with me?
-
And this....
With Malice recounts the happenings in a minute by minute chronological order.
====================
"While the dispatcher spoke with Officer Walker, ambulance driver J.C. Butler radioed to inform police that the man shot was a Dallas police officer and that they were about to leave the murder scene with his body." -- With Malice (2013) page 161
====================
"William "Eddie" Kinsley slammed the back door of the ambulance shut and climbed into the passenger seat next to Butler. As Butler pulled away from the crowd, he again tried to contact the dispatcher to tell him they were en route to the hospital, but this time Ted Callaway was on the radio. "I ran over to the squad car," Callaway recalled, "I didn't know if anybody reported it or not. So I got on the police radio and called them."
Ted Callaway: Hello, hello, hello.
J.C. Butler: 602
Callaway: - calling from right here on Tenth Street - 500 block - this police officer's just shot. I think he's dead.
Dispatcher: 10-4, we have the information. The citizen using the radio will remain off the air now."
With Malice (2013) page 162
====================
"While Callaway was talking to the dispatcher, T.F. Bowley took Tippit's gun, which was lying on the hood of the squad car, and put it in the front seat, next to the used car salesman."
"After the officer on the other side of the radio told Callaway to hang up and keep the lines clear," Benavides recalled, "he jumped out and ran around and he asked me did I see what happened and I said, 'Yes.'"
"Callaway reached back into the squad car and picked up Tippit's .38 caliber service revolver off the front seat. He turned to Benavides and said, "Let's chase him," but the mechanic declined. Callaway snapped the revolver open and T.F. Bowley - who was looking on - saw that no rounds had been fired. Callaway tucked the gun in his belt and turned to the cab driver."
With Malice (2013) page 163
====================
Reclaiming History recounts the happenings in a minute by minute chronological order.
"Butler kneels next to Tippit's body and rolls him on his back as Kinsley pulls the stretcher cot from the back of the station wagon. Tippit's pistol is out of it's holster, lying on the pavement near his right palm. Ted Callaway moves the gun to the hood of the squad car, then with Scoggins and Guinyard, helps the attendants lift the body onto the stretcher. As they do so, the first Dallas police officer to arrive at the murder scene, reserve sergeant Kenneth Croy, pulls up. Butler and Kinsley push the cot into the back, slam the door and are off in a flash to Methodist Hospital about a mile away."
Reclaiming History (2007) page 83
====================
"Ted Callaway can hear the confusion and desperation of the police over Tippit's car radio as they struggle to locate the scene of the officer's shooting. He lowers his big frame into the patrol car and grabs the mike, "Hello, hello, hello!" "From out here on Tenth Street," he continues, "five-hundred block. This police officer's just shot. I think he's dead." "Ten-four, we [already] have the information'" dispatcher Jackson replies, exasperated. "The citizen using the radio will remain off the air now." The last thing he needs is some gung-ho citizen tying up the airwaves."
"Ted Callaway climbs out of the squad car and spots his mechanic, Domingo Benavides. "Did you see what happened?" "Yes", Benavides says. Callaway picks up Tippit's service revolver. "Let's chase him," he says. Benavides wants no part of it. Callaway tucks the gun in his belt and turns to the cabdriver, Scoggins."
Reclaiming History (2007) page 84
-
Repeating the same weak arguments doesn't make your case any stronger or persuasive.
We've exhausted the issue of whether or not Callaway loaded the body into the ambulance before getting on the police radio to report the shooting. I've stated my case below and all you've done regarding it is simply choose to ignore what Bowley, Benavides, Scoggins and the police tapes tell you.
I did not ignore Bowley, Benavides, Scoggins and the police tapes. I have clearly pointed out that none of the three men has stated that Callaway made his call after helping load Tippit in to the ambulance. Your interpretation of what they did say isn't evidence. For example; in the Benavides quote, for which you failed to provide authentication, the ambulance isn't mentioned at all. You say that this means that the ambulance had already gone, but that's just your flawed opinion.
Your claim that the audio recording of the police radio tells us that Butler tried in vain to call the dispatcher to allegedly let him know he was leaving the scene is debunked by Butler himself, as he confirmed to George and Patricia Nash in 1964 that he tried to call the dispatcher to let him know the victim was a police officer. Despite the fact that Butler made two calls, 8 seconds apart, and can only be heard saying "602" you nevertheless continue to claim that he was calling the dispatcher to let him know he was departing the scene.
I asked you for evidence to back up that claim, and so did John Iacoletti;
Evidence please that 602 was “trying to contact the dispatcher to tell him they were en route to the hospital” when he just said “602” and the dispatcher didn’t respond.
“Dale Myers thinks so” is not evidence.
and you responded;
As for a response to John Iacoletti, I'm not ignoring it. I am trying to find the source. Some of this stuff I have known for years and have no idea where I first learned it.
Since then, you have been silent on the subject, which leaves me with the impression that you can not provide the evidence John asked for, probably because it simply doesn't exist.
I have provided three quotes by Callaway, saying that he first got on the radio and then helped to load Tippit into the ambulance. I have shown that the audio recording of the DPD radio provides a timeline in which it was impossible for Callaway to help load Tippit into the ambulance prior to his call, as there wasn't enough time available for that, and I have provided you with a statement by Butler, the ambulance driver, who confirms that he tried to call the dispatcher (twice) to let him know that the victim was a police officer and he, after failing to get through, went back to the officer who was still lying in the street.
You have dismissed Callaway's statements as being "mistaken" and you have completely ignored the timeline provided by the audio recordings as well as what Butler told George and Patricia Nash.
It is not my problem that you don't understand the difference between actual evidence and your unsupported opinions.
Do you care to discuss a different Tippit-related topic with me?
What would be the point when all you seem able to do is make erroneous claims that are not backed up by actual evidence?
Will you be providing the evidence John asked for any time soon?
-
I have stayed off of this thread for a month, to allow Martin Weidmann and Bill Brown to debate it. That is long enough.
I think Bill Brown is clearly correct. The notion that Callaway first helped load the body of Officer Tippit into the ambulance and then called in on the radio is supported by the physical evidence, the police tapes. The opposite notion is only supported by a witness recollection, Callaway’s and witness memories is always among the weakest kind of evidence. And in this case, it is evidence that is contradicted by other witness’s memories. And, above all else, by the physical evidence. I always choose physical evidence over the memory of witnesses. Can’t be much of a skeptic if one does otherwise.
One of the most common types of witness’s errors, is misremembering the order of events. It is less likely, but not impossible, to remember doing something one did not do at all. Like for Callaway to remember that he helped load a body onto an ambulance, or talking on the police radio, or going in search of the killer, but to have actually not done some or any of those things. But is would be very easy for him to misremember to order of events. I am confident that he did misremember the order of events. The evidence shows this.
-
I am no fan of Martin but on this issue he is clearly correct and has presented, by far, the more compelling case.
Bill's constant insistence that the police "tapes do tell us when the ambulance was leaving the scene en route to Methodist Hospital", is wrong and his method of simply repeating this over and over again, hoping it will turn into a fact, is disappointing, to say the least.
The police tapes reveal "602" arriving on Jefferson and finding nothing, then being redirected to East 10th street and, finally, giving the "code 6" on arrival at the scene. Seconds later Callaway makes his call whilst Butler, as he describes to the Nashes, tries to get through to dispatch to tell them the victim is an officer but can't get through [as Callaway is making his call]
The 'coup de grace' is the Nash article in which Butler clarifies exactly when he was trying to get through to dispatch.
The argument Martin has made is clear and concise.
Bill has offered a sketchy interpretation of selected eye-witness statements in order to refute this argument.
-
I have stayed off of this thread for a month, to allow Martin Weidmann and Bill Brown to debate it. That is long enough.
I think Bill Brown is clearly correct. The notion that Callaway first helped load the body of Officer Tippit into the ambulance and then called in on the radio is supported by the physical evidence, the police tapes. The opposite notion is only supported by a witness recollection, Callaway’s and witness memories is always among the weakest kind of evidence. And in this case, it is evidence that is contradicted by other witness’s memories. And, above all else, by the physical evidence. I always choose physical evidence over the memory of witnesses. Can’t be much of a skeptic if one does otherwise.
One of the most common types of witness’s errors, is misremembering the order of events. It is less likely, but not impossible, to remember doing something one did not do at all. Like for Callaway to remember that he helped load a body onto an ambulance, or talking on the police radio, or going in search of the killer, but to have actually not done some or any of those things. But is would be very easy for him to misremember to order of events. I am confident that he did misremember the order of events. The evidence shows this.
The notion that Callaway first helped load the body of Officer Tippit into the ambulance and then called in on the radio is supported by the physical evidence, the police tapes.
Care to explain how you reached that conclusion?
The opposite notion is only supported by a witness recollection
No it isn't. The audio recording of the DPD radio shows that Butler, the ambulance driver, made two calls to the dispatcher, 8 seconds apart. One just prior to Callaway getting on the radio and one while Callaway was making his call. The reason for both calls are explained by Butler to George and Patricia Nash, in 1964. He called to tell the dispatcher that the victim was a police officer and when he couldn't get through he returned to Tippit who was still lying in the street. It doesn't get anymore clear than that! There is no evidence that Butler called to inform the dispatcher that the ambulance was leaving the scene, as Bill Brown claims.
I am confident that he did misremember the order of events. The evidence shows this.
Where exactly does the evidence show that Callaway misremembered?
-
The pedantic analysis of the timeline is a desperate effort by CTers to exonerate Oswald. Because of the vagaries of the estimates of time of events down to the very minute, it allows CTers to endlessly go down the yellow brick road with their contrarian approach as though they are proving something. The fact remains that there is no doubt that Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit even if there are real or imagined ambiguities in the timeline. That analysis is completely moot if it can otherwise be proven that Oswald was at the crime scene. This crime was committed in broad daylight in front of many witnesses. Those witnesses confirm that LHO was the person at the scene with a gun. He was arrested a short distance away with a gun after acting so suspiciously that random citizens called the police. He didn't even wait to ask the police what was going on but attempted to assault them when approached. He had in his possession the exact same TWO brands of ammunition as used in the Tippit murder. So there are multiple circumstances that link Oswald to this crime beyond any doubt. The timeline doesn't change that one iota. If you want to believe Oswald ran, got a ride, or flew there by helicopter, it doesn't change the evidence that places him at the crime scene at the moment Tippit was murdered.
-
The pedantic analysis of the timeline is a desperate effort by CTers to exonerate Oswald. Because of the vagaries of the estimates of time of events down to the very minute, it allows CTers to endlessly go down the yellow brick road with their contrarian approach as though they are proving something. The fact remains that there is no doubt that Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit even if there are real or imagined ambiguities in the timeline. That analysis is completely moot if it can otherwise be proven that Oswald was at the crime scene. This crime was committed in broad daylight in front of many witnesses. Those witnesses confirm that LHO was the person at the scene with a gun. He was arrested a short distance away with a gun after acting so suspiciously that random citizens called the police. He didn't even wait to ask the police what was going on but attempted to assault them when approached. He had in his possession the exact same TWO brands of ammunition as used in the Tippit murder. So there are multiple circumstances that link Oswald to this crime beyond any doubt. The timeline doesn't change that one iota. If you want to believe Oswald ran, got a ride, or flew there by helicopter, it doesn't change the evidence that places him at the crime scene at the moment Tippit was murdered.
A pathetic LN rant about Oswald's percieved guilt, when all we are discussing is when Callaway helped to load Tippit in to the ambulance. Nice... totally irrelevant but amusing nevertheless.
That darned time line must have got you really worried :D
.
-
That "602" was Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital.
Still waiting for any substantiation of this claim.
-
The fact remains that there is no doubt that Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit even if there are real or imagined ambiguities in the timeline.
There’s nothing “factual” about that. It’s merely your subjective, faith-based opinion.
-
I have stayed off of this thread for a month, to allow Martin Weidmann and Bill Brown to debate it. That is long enough.
I think Bill Brown is clearly correct. The notion that Callaway first helped load the body of Officer Tippit into the ambulance and then called in on the radio is supported by the physical evidence, the police tapes. The opposite notion is only supported by a witness recollection, Callaway’s and witness memories is always among the weakest kind of evidence. And in this case, it is evidence that is contradicted by other witness’s memories. And, above all else, by the physical evidence. I always choose physical evidence over the memory of witnesses. Can’t be much of a skeptic if one does otherwise.
One of the most common types of witness’s errors, is misremembering the order of events. It is less likely, but not impossible, to remember doing something one did not do at all. Like for Callaway to remember that he helped load a body onto an ambulance, or talking on the police radio, or going in search of the killer, but to have actually not done some or any of those things. But is would be very easy for him to misremember to order of events. I am confident that he did misremember the order of events. The evidence shows this.
Good to know someone gets it.
(https://i.imgur.com/XJMwbsTs.png)
-
Good to know someone gets it.
(https://i.imgur.com/XJMwbsTs.png)
Someone gets what? That you have concocted your own little false narrative based on incorrect interpretations whilst at the same time dismissing and ignoring conclusive evidence that shows you to be wrong? I don't think there is anybody who doesn't get that.
What you have demonstrated is that it is just about impossible to have a reasonable debate with you because all you do is hold speeches in which the same incorrect information is repeated over and over again. That, by itself, is bad enough, but the truly sad part is that you can't even support your main and crucial claim with evidence.
-
A pathetic LN rant about Oswald's percieved guilt, when all we are discussing is when Callaway helped to load Tippit in to the ambulance. Nice... totally irrelevant but amusing nevertheless.
That darned time line must have got you really worried :D
.
Oswald's presence at the crime scene is "totally irrelevant"! HA HA HA. What better example could there be of contrarian "logic"? I realize that you prefer to direct your contrarian "talents" to pedantic tangential issues while ignoring the elephant in the room. However, multiple witnesses place Oswald at the scene. If Oswald is at the scene when Tippit is murdered that means he had time to get there, and all your tortured analysis of the timeline is meaningless. The evidence demonstrates beyond any doubt that LHO was present at the scene with a gun at the moment Tippit was murdered. Whether there can ever be certainty on the exact nanosecond that this occurred is the stuff of contrarian deflection to avoid accepting the obvious conclusion based on the totality of evidence.
-
Oswald's presence at the crime scene is "totally irrelevant"! HA HA HA. What better example could there be of contrarian "logic"? I realize that you prefer to direct your contrarian "talents" to pedantic tangential issues while ignoring the elephant in the room. However, multiple witnesses place Oswald at the scene. If Oswald is at the scene when Tippit is murdered that means he had time to get there, and all your tortured analysis of the timeline is meaningless. The evidence demonstrates beyond any doubt that LHO was present at the scene with a gun at the moment Tippit was murdered. Whether there can ever be certainty on the exact nanosecond that this occurred is the stuff of contrarian deflection to avoid accepting the obvious conclusion based on the totality of evidence.
Oswald's presence at the crime scene is "totally irrelevant"! HA HA HA.
Are you laughing about your own stupidity? Oswald's alleged presence at the crime scene is indeed totally irrelevant for the topic Bill and I were discussing.
However, multiple witnesses place Oswald at the scene. If Oswald is at the scene when Tippit is murdered that means he had time to get there, and all your tortured analysis of the timeline is meaningless.
Flawed circular logic, based on the dubious assumption that witness identification in a bogus line up has any significant evidentiary value.
The other side of the argument is that if the time line shows that Oswald couldn't have been there when the shooting happened, the witnesses must be wrong.
-
Oswald's presence at the crime scene is "totally irrelevant"! HA HA HA.
Are you laughing about your own stupidity? Oswald's alleged presence at the crime scene is indeed totally irrelevant for the topic Bill and I were discussing.
However, multiple witnesses place Oswald at the scene. If Oswald is at the scene when Tippit is murdered that means he had time to get there, and all your tortured analysis of the timeline is meaningless.
Flawed circular logic, based on the dubious assumption that witness identification in a bogus line up has any significant evidentiary value.
The other side of the argument is that if the time line shows that Oswald couldn't have been there when the shooting happened, the witnesses must be wrong.
Once a thing occurs, the odds against it occurring are no longer relevant. It's like telling someone holding a winning lottery ticket that the odds against them winning are so long that it is impossible they won. Lunatic logic. You are trapped down the rabbit hole taking the events individually to avoid the larger totality of evidence. Your timeline nonsense is pointless if the evidence otherwise confirms Oswald was there at the moment Tippit was murdered. This event occurred in broad daylight in front of numerous witnesses. Oswald was identified by multiple witnesses as the person at the scene. He is arrested a short distance away with a gun AND the same two brands of ammo as used by the killer. If Oswald is the murderer of Tippit, then we know with no ambiguity that he was there even if we can't know with absolute certainty the exact minute of his every movement.
-
Once a thing occurs, the odds against it occurring are no longer relevant. It's like telling someone holding a winning lottery ticket that the odds against them winning are so long that it is impossible they won. Lunatic logic. You are trapped down the rabbit hole taking the events individually to avoid the larger totality of evidence. Your timeline nonsense is pointless if the evidence otherwise confirms Oswald was there at the moment Tippit was murdered. This event occurred in broad daylight in front of numerous witnesses. Oswald was identified by multiple witnesses as the person at the scene. He is arrested a short distance away with a gun AND the same two brands of ammo as used by the killer. If Oswald is the murderer of Tippit, then we know with no ambiguity that he was there even if we can't know with absolute certainty the exact minute of his every movement.
One trick pony, "Richard", strikes again. Your total incapacity of giving due consideration to anything you don't already believe in is duly noted. Thumb1:
-
Your timeline nonsense is pointless if the evidence otherwise confirms Oswald was there at the moment Tippit was murdered.
But it doesn’t. Sorry, “Richard”.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/Qd3CyJfJ/SEND-IN-THE-CLONES-FINAL.png)
billchapman
(https://i.postimg.cc/G3kVPQDn/YELLOW.png)
-
Good to know someone gets it.
(https://i.imgur.com/XJMwbsTs.png)
Slam dunk that Callaway (and most of us) would attend to the fallen officer before making any damn phone call.
-
Slam dunk that Callaway (and most of us) would attend to the fallen officer before making any damn phone call.
Never let facts get in the way of a stupid remark, right Chappy?
Callaway said he did exactly that.
When he arrived at scene, Callaway first checked on Tippit. He then ran to the police car to report the shooting on the police radio and at that time the ambulance arrived. Callaway's call only lasted a few seconds and after that he returned to Tippit and helped to load his body into the ambulance.
-
Let's see if we can resolve the matter being discussed by having a closer look at the timeline, provided by the actual audio recording of the DPD radio.
On page 11 of this thread I gave a detailed schedule for the audio recording posted by Bill Brown, by using the actual times of the recording.
The key points are;
57:28:67 Bowley starts his call
58:14:42 Bowley ends his call (being told to stay of the radio)
58:24:35 Ambulance 602 calls Code 5 (en route)
58:41:85 Ambulance 602 calls Code 6 (for wrong location at Jefferson)
58:48:40 Ambulance 602 asks dispatcher for address on Jefferson - Dispatcher replies: 501 Tenth Street
59:02:85 Ambulance 602 calls Code 6 (for arrival at Tippit scene)
59:30:99 Ambulance 602 tries to get attention of the dispatcher by calling "602"
59:40:98 Callaway starts his call
59:42:85 Ambulance 602 tries again to get the attention of the dispatcher by calling "602"
We know for a fact that Callaway had not yet arrived at the scene when Bowley finished his call. We also know that he arrived on the scene shortly before the ambulance did. This means that Callaway must have arrived at the scene between 58:14:42 and 59:02:85.
We also know that Callaway said that when he arrived at the scene, he first went to check on the victim before he went to the police car to use the radio. He made his call at 59:40:98, which is roughly 38 seconds after the Code 6 call by the ambulance, at 59:02:85.
Although this can not be said with 100% certainty, it's highly likely that when Butler made the Code 6 call, he was still driving the ambulance towards the location. The alternative would be that he first stopped the ambulance and then made the Code 6, but that would only mean a loss of possibly valuable seconds.
So, if Butler did indeed make his Code 6 call at 59:02:85, it would have taken him - I assume - another 10 to 15 seconds to stop the car, near the victim, and get out of the ambulance.
Butler told George and Patricia Nash that he went to check on the victim. When she saw that it was a police officer he returned to the ambulance to let the dispatcher know that the victim was a police officer. The audio timeline shows this call (the first unanswered "602") took place at 59:30:99, so roughly 28 seconds after the Code 6 call.
Only 10 seconds later, at 59:40:98, Callaway makes his radio call.
All this justifies the question when exactly was there time for Callaway (and Bowley) to help load Tippit into the ambulance before Callaway made his call?
-
One trick pony, "Richard", strikes again. Your total incapacity of giving due consideration to anything you don't already believe in is duly noted. Thumb1:
Run Roger run.
-
Run Roger run.
Your pathetically childish obsession with this guy, Roger, as well as your complete inability to have a normal conversation is also duly noted Thumb1:
-
Your pathetically childish obsession with this guy, Roger, as well as your complete inability to have a normal conversation is also duly noted Thumb1:
Am I speaking to Norman Bates or "Mother" today? Talk about obsession. You are trying to pinpoint events from nearly sixty years ago down to the nanosecond in a desperate effort to cast doubt that Oswald could have been at the scene of the Tippit murder when numerous witnesses place him there. This crime was committed in broad daylight in front of numerous witnesses. These witnesses confirm that Oswald was there. He was arrested a short distance away with the gun and the same TWO different brands of ammo used in the crime. Your pedantic analysis of every second is hilarious. There is no doubt that LHO was the person at the scene of the crime. As a result, your timeline is not relevant to that issue. It only has relevance as to when Oswald committed this crime. Not whether he did so.
-
Am I speaking to Norman Bates or "Mother" today? Talk about obsession. You are trying to pinpoint events from nearly sixty years ago down to the nanosecond in a desperate effort to cast doubt that Oswald could have been at the scene of the Tippit murder when numerous witnesses place him there. This crime was committed in broad daylight in front of numerous witnesses. These witnesses confirm that Oswald was there. He was arrested a short distance away with the gun and the same TWO different brands of ammo used in the crime. Your pedantic analysis of every second is hilarious. There is no doubt that LHO was the person at the scene of the crime. As a result, your timeline is not relevant to that issue. It only has relevance as to when Oswald committed this crime. Not whether he did so.
Have you got anything of value to say or is this diatribe all you've got?
You are trying to pinpoint events from nearly sixty years ago down to the nanosecond
I am not trying to do anything of the kind. I am actually doing it, using the actual audio recording. Too bad that you don't like me using actual evidence.
As a result, your timeline is not relevant to that issue.
Indeed, the timeline I have presented, so far, is only relevant to determine whether Callaway helped load Tippit into the ambulance before or after his radio call.
Everything else is only in your paranoid mind, putting your anxiety about the possible consequences for your "Oswald did it" fairytale on full display. It's pathetic and sad at the same time.
An honest person would not be afraid of evidence being examined, so why are you so concerned about it?
-
Martin, you said you believe the Tippit shooting occurred around 1:09 to 1:10, if I recall correctly.
In your opinion, how long was Tippit lying in the street before anyone called the police?
How long after the shooting (which you believe to be 1:09/1:10) was Benavides attempting to key the mic on the squad car radio?
How many minutes were the police tapes off by, i.e. if Bowley reported the shooting at 1:17:40, how close was the real time to 1:17:40?
-
Never let facts get in the way of a stupid remark, right Chappy?
Callaway said he did exactly that.
When he arrived at scene, Callaway first checked on Tippit. He then ran to the police car to report the shooting on the police radio and at that time the ambulance arrived. Callaway's call only lasted a few seconds and after that he returned to Tippit and helped to load his body into the ambulance.
Stop dodging
Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?
« on: April 14, 2022, 04:37:24 AM »
Bill Brown
I say Ted Callaway helped load Tippit's body into the ambulance and then went over to the patrol car radio to report the shooting to the police dispatcher.
Martin Weidmann says I am wrong, that Callaway got on the patrol car radio first... and then helped load the body into the ambulance.
-
Martin, you said you believe the Tippit shooting occurred around 1:09 to 1:10, if I recall correctly.
In your opinion, how long was Tippit lying in the street before anyone called the police?
How long after the shooting (which you believe to be 1:09/1:10) was Benavides attempting to key the mic on the squad car radio?
How many minutes were the police tapes off by, i.e. if Bowley reported the shooting at 1:17:40, how close was the real time to 1:17:40?
John Iacoletti and I asked you a question and we have been waiting for the answer for nearly two weeks now!
Evidence please that 602 was “trying to contact the dispatcher to tell him they were en route to the hospital” when he just said “602” and the dispatcher didn’t respond.
“Dale Myers thinks so” is not evidence.
So, I'll gladly answer your questions as soon as you have answered the question above. Fair enough?
On second thought, I'll answer this one now;
How long after the shooting (which you believe to be 1:09/1:10) was Benavides attempting to key the mic on the squad car radio?
Roughly 30 to 45 seconds after the shooting. Benavides said that, after the shots, he stayed in his car until the killer had gone. We know from one of your own YT videos that the killer would only have taken about 30 seconds to get from the scene to the corner with Patton and disappear out of Benavides' line of sight.
Btw, you have claimed in the past (iirc) that Benavides tried to get the radio to work for at least some two minutes, but closer analysis of the actual audio recording does not confirm or support this. It also does not match with the most probable timeline for Callaway.
-
Stop dodging
Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?
« on: April 14, 2022, 04:37:24 AM »
Bill Brown
I say Ted Callaway helped load Tippit's body into the ambulance and then went over to the patrol car radio to report the shooting to the police dispatcher.
Martin Weidmann says I am wrong, that Callaway got on the patrol car radio first... and then helped load the body into the ambulance.
Try to understand what I have written before jumping in with anymore stupid comments.
Callaway checked Tippit first, saw the wound to his head and concluded that he was dead. He then went to the police car and told the dispatcher exactly that; that he thought the officer was dead. By then the ambulance had arrived and it's driver saw Tippit lying in the street covered by a blanket or jacket. When he pulled the cover off, he noticed it was a police officer, so he ran back to his ambulance to let the dispatcher know the victim was a police officer. He couldn't get through, because Callaway was on the radio, and returned to the ambulance. Then Callaway, who had finished his short call, and Bowley both helped to load Tippit into the ambulance.
-
Have you got anything of value to say or is this diatribe all you've got?
“Richard” doesn’t think any topic is worth discussing, other than his unsubstantiated opinion that Oswald did it. Why is he even here?
-
Try to understand what I have written before jumping in with anymore stupid comments.
Callaway checked Tippit first, saw the wound to his head and concluded that he was dead. He then went to the police car and told the dispatcher exactly that; that he thought the officer was dead. By then the ambulance had arrived and it's driver saw Tippit lying in the street covered by a blanket or jacket. When he pulled the cover off, he noticed it was a police officer, so he ran back to his ambulance to let the dispatcher know the victim was a police officer. He couldn't get through, because Callaway was on the radio, and returned to the ambulance. Then Callaway, who had finished his short call, and Bowley both helped to load Tippit into the ambulance.
Stop dodging
-
Stop dodging
Still don't understand what you read? Oh well... Not really a surprise.
-
Still don't understand what you read? Oh well... Not really a surprise.
What I read from you is nothing more than attempts to distance yourself from previous claims
-
What I read from you is nothing more than attempts to distance yourself from previous claims
Which only tells me that you are clueless.
Here's a clue; instead of trying to make this this about me, as per usual, why don't you try to look at the evidence honestly for once?
Oh wait....
-
Which only tells me that you are clueless.
Here's a clue; instead of trying to make this this about me, as per usual, why don't you try to look at the evidence honestly for once?
Oh wait....
Get over yourself. You're nothing special: You're just another Oswald arse-kisser to slap around.
-
You don't understand the words you quote, do you? To wit: "When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments." To spell it out for you, that sentence is Bowles' own admission that they kept the dispatcher's clocks within a minute of each other. Just like I said.
Cherry pick much?
Rather hypocritically, on the one hand you talk about a "string of weaselly qualifiers that Bowles relies on", yet on the other hand, when he says something you like, you instantly accept it at face value and misrepresent it by leaving out what he said next.
Bowles also said;
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.
Just one of those inconvenient bits you prefer to ignore. I wonder why.... wait, no I don't. It's pretty obvious.
Which means what, exactly? Really, it's just an assertion by Bowles. That's all you have.
Typical LN behavior; playing down evidence you don't like. You can try to discredit Bowles as much as you like, but the information he provided still stands. The mere fact that you prefer to dismiss it out of hand doesn't do much for your own credibility.
"There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time."" - J.C. Bowles
To any honest person it's self explanatory what this means.
Your desperate attempt to present a 1:16 or 1:19 time stamp as being the actual time is pathetic.
Bowles was both the supervisor of the dispatch center and the person responsible for the first transcript of the channel one and channel two recordings.
Indeed, and when he basically says that the clocks used by the dispatcher do not match real time, I'll take his word over your BS any day.
When the man in charge of the dispatchers clearly states that the clocks can not be relied on to show "real time" (actual time) you just don't get to assume that he was wrong. It's up to you to show that he was wrong and that the dispatcher's clocks were in fact running exactly on time. Good luck with that.
MT: You don't understand the words you quote, do you? To wit: "When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments." To spell it out for you, that sentence is Bowles' own admission that they kept the dispatcher's clocks within a minute of each other. Just like I said.
Cherry pick much?
Rather hypocritically, on the one hand you talk about a "string of weaselly qualifiers that Bowles relies on", yet on the other hand, when he says something you like, you instantly accept it at face value and misrepresent it by leaving out what he said next.
Bowles also said;
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.
Just one of those inconvenient bits you prefer to ignore. I wonder why.... wait, no I don't. It's pretty obvious.
When Bowles writes "When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments," he sets the standard by which the DPD dispatch office set it's clocks. By doing so, Bowles sets the normal behavior of the DPD time system. And this state of affairs is borne out by analysis of the transcripts themselves, and by more than one regression analysis beginning with BBNs from the HSCA.
The Bowles statements that you want to rely on are his suggestions that something coulda happened a certain way, or mighta happened a certain way, or maybe happened a certain way. But that's nothing more than a big steaming pile of conjecture and whatiffery. Conjectures that Bowles can't substantiate with a single instance in the recordings or transcripts. And neither have you.
Which brings me to the sentence you so desperately want to make something of: "during busy periods this was not readily done." This sentence has relevance only if one of the clocks was out of spec that afternoon. However, you haven't presented one single iota of evidence that any of the dispatcher clocks were off that day. Neither has Bowles. So that sentence is utterly meaningless in the current context. You're just barking into the wind and hoping that something sticks.
MW: There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time." - J.C. Bowles
MT: Which means what, exactly? Really, it's just an assertion by Bowles. That's all you have.[\b]
Typical LN behavior; playing down evidence you don't like. You can try to discredit Bowles as much as you like, but the information he provided still stands. The mere fact that you prefer to dismiss it out of hand doesn't do much for your own credibility.
"There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time."" - J.C. Bowles
To any honest person it's self explanatory what this means.
Then you should have no problem whatsoever explaining specifically what Bowles meant by that statement. Unless, of course, you aren't an honest person.
Your desperate attempt to present a 1:16 or 1:19 time stamp as being the actual time is pathetic.
I've never argued that any timestamp on the DPD radio recordings reflect actual time. What I've argued is that channel one time is within one minute of channel two time, and channel two time is within one minute of standard time.
-
When Bowles writes "When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments," he sets the standard by which the DPD dispatch office set it's clocks. By doing so, Bowles sets the normal behavior of the DPD time system. And this state of affairs is borne out by analysis of the transcripts themselves, and by more than one regression analysis beginning with BBNs from the HSCA.
He sets the standard? Really? Based on the clocks being out of synch by "as much as a minute or so"? That's some standard, if it were true. In fact it is just something you made up and it is BS.
But even if it were true, Bowles himself tells you that this so-called "standard" was not adhered to when it was busy.
The Bowles statements that you want to rely on are his suggestions that something coulda happened a certain way, or mighta happened a certain way, or maybe happened a certain way. But that's nothing more than a big steaming pile of conjecture and whatiffery. Conjectures that Bowles can't substantiate with a single instance in the recordings or transcripts. And neither have you.
I don't rely on anything. I merely state factual information. It's not my problem that you don't like it. When the man in charge of the DPD dispatchers tells you that the entire system does not work on real time, then that's good enough for me. Bowles knows what he is talking about. You, on the other hand, not so much.
Here's a quote from Bowles that might help you to overcome your feigned ignorance;
There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time." The Committee Report stated that the Dallas Police Communications system was recorded by continuously operating recorders. That statement is incorrect. Channel 1 was recorded on a Dictaphone A2TC, Model 5, belt or loop recorder. Channel 2 was recorded on a Gray "Audograph" flat disk recorder. Both were duplex units with one recording and one on standby for when the other unit contained a full recording. Both units were sound activated. It is important to note "sound" rather than "voice" because either sound or noise from any source, received through the transmission line, would activate the recorders. Once activated, the recorders remained "on" for the duration of the activating sound plus 4 seconds. The four second delay permitted brief pauses or answers to questions without the relay mechanism being overworked. On occasion, the recorders would operate almost continuously because rapid radio traffic kept them operating. On November 22, 1963, the Channel 1 recorders became, for practical purposes, continuous recorders for just over five minutes starting at approximately 12:29 pm (Channel 1 time) because the microphone on a police motorcycle stuck in the "on" position. The resulting continuous transmission kept the Channel 1 recorders operating for just over five minutes thus giving us a real-time recording for that period. The only problem was determining a basis for an accurate time reference during that period.
and he continues;
It is, however, important to remember that
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;
The big take away from everything Bowles said is that you can not rely on the DPD time stamps to reflect real actual time, period! If you want to make a case that those time stamps can be relied on and do reflect real time, then it's up to you to prove it.
Which brings me to the sentence you so desperately want to make something of: "during busy periods this was not readily done." This sentence has relevance only if one of the clocks was out of spec that afternoon. However, you haven't presented one single iota of evidence that any of the dispatcher clocks were off that day. Neither has Bowles. So that sentence is utterly meaningless in the current context. You're just barking into the wind and hoping that something sticks.
More BS. Of course the sentence has relevance at any given time, because it was something that clearly happened frequently when DPD radio was busy. I don't need to prove that the dispatcher clocks were off that day, because Bowles has already told us that they were. They always were, that's the point that is going way over your head. If the dispatcher clocks were in synch with real time, Bowles would have said so and there wouldn't have been any need for his explanation about them not being in synch.
Again, if you want to prove Bowles wrong, go ahead, but as long as you don't/can't I'll take his word over yours anytime.
MW: There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time." - J.C. Bowles
MT: Which means what, exactly? Really, it's just an assertion by Bowles. That's all you have.[\b]
Typical LN behavior; playing down evidence you don't like. You can try to discredit Bowles as much as you like, but the information he provided still stands. The mere fact that you prefer to dismiss it out of hand doesn't do much for your own credibility.
"There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time."" - J.C. Bowles
To any honest person it's self explanatory what this means.
Then you should have no problem whatsoever explaining specifically what Bowles meant by that statement. Unless, of course, you aren't an honest person.
To me it's self explanatory. By your reasoning that makes me an honest man. If you want to argue for argument's sake that you can't figure out something so obvious and simple, what does that make you?
Your desperate attempt to present a 1:16 or 1:19 time stamp as being the actual time is pathetic.
I've never argued that any timestamp on the DPD radio recordings reflect actual time. What I've argued is that channel one time is within one minute of channel two time, and channel two time is within one minute of standard time.
What is standard time?
What I've argued is that channel one time is within one minute of channel two time, and channel two time is within one minute of standard time.
So you accept that the clocks were not in synch with eachother, just like Bowles said?
You do understand that you admitting that the clocks were not in synch, makes your asinine demand for "one single iota of evidence that any of the dispatcher clocks were off that day" utterly superfluous and completely disingenuous, don't you?
-
I've never argued that any timestamp on the DPD radio recordings reflect actual time. What I've argued is that channel one time is within one minute of channel two time, and channel two time is within one minute of standard time.
You haven’t presented one single iota of evidence that either of these things is true.
-
Have you got anything of value to say or is this diatribe all you've got?
You are trying to pinpoint events from nearly sixty years ago down to the nanosecond
I am not trying to do anything of the kind. I am actually doing it, using the actual audio recording. Too bad that you don't like me using actual evidence.
As a result, your timeline is not relevant to that issue.
Indeed, the timeline I have presented, so far, is only relevant to determine whether Callaway helped load Tippit into the ambulance before or after his radio call.
Everything else is only in your paranoid mind, putting your anxiety about the possible consequences for your "Oswald did it" fairytale on full display. It's pathetic and sad at the same time.
An honest person would not be afraid of evidence being examined, so why are you so concerned about it?
So you are not trying to suggest that the timeline casts doubt on Oswald's guilt? You are just focused obsessively on one pedantic issue for no apparent reason? What is next? An analysis of whether Oswald wore boxers or briefs that day? Of course you are trying to suggest that the timeline casts doubt on Oswald's ability to be present at the time of the crime. Why you won't be honest and just admit that (much like that you are a CTer) is mystifying but humorous. Here is something to ponder. If the totality of evidence places Oswald at the crime scene, do you believe that the timeline analysis is still relevant as to whether he could have been there?
-
So you are not trying to suggest that the timeline casts doubt on Oswald's guilt? You are just focused obsessively on one pedantic issue for no apparent reason? What is next? An analysis of whether Oswald wore boxers or briefs that day? Of course you are trying to suggest that the timeline casts doubt on Oswald's ability to be present at the time of the crime. Why you won't be honest and just admit that (much like that you are a CTer) is mystifying but humorous. Here is something to ponder. If the totality of evidence places Oswald at the crime scene, do you believe that the timeline analysis is still relevant as to whether he could have been there?
So you are not trying to suggest that the timeline casts doubt on Oswald's guilt?
Fool, the timeline is what it is. Whether it casts doubt on Oswald's guilt or not doesn't matter to me. Don't confuse me with yourself. I couldn't care less if Oswald was guilty or not, as long as the evidence shows it conclusively either way. I know that's a foreign concept for you, as you have determined Oswald to be guilty despite the evidence.
If the totality of evidence places Oswald at the crime scene, do you believe that the timeline analysis is still relevant as to whether he could have been there?
Of course it is relevant as the timeline provided by the DPD audio recording is part of that "totality of evidence". I fully understand that you don't want it to be, because you can't refute it. It's really very simple; if the timeline shows that Oswald couldn't have been at the scene when the shooting happened, than the "totality of evidence" doesn't place Oswald at the scene, whether you like it or not.
You know this, of course, which is why you want no part of an honest discussion about the evidence. Much easier to just call it a "pedantic issue" and ignore it, right?
-
So you are not trying to suggest that the timeline casts doubt on Oswald's guilt?
Fool, the timeline is what it is. Whether it casts doubt on Oswald's guilt or not doesn't matter to me. Don't confuse me with yourself. I couldn't care less if Oswald was guilty or not, as long as the evidence shows it conclusively either way. I know that's a foreign concept for you, as you have determined Oswald to be guilty despite the evidence.
If the totality of evidence places Oswald at the crime scene, do you believe that the timeline analysis is still relevant as to whether he could have been there?
Of course it is relevant as the timeline provided by the DPD audio recording is part of that "totality of evidence". I fully understand that you don't want it to be, because you can't refute it. It's really very simple; if the timeline shows that Oswald couldn't have been at the scene when the shooting happened, than the "totality of evidence" doesn't place Oswald at the scene, whether you like it or not.
You know this, of course, which is why you want no part of an honest discussion about the evidence. Much easier to just call it a "pedantic issue" and ignore it, right?
Don't they have any anger management classes in "Europe"? That is about a 9 on the stress scale from a simple question. And here we learn that although Martin/Roger spends night and day on a JFK assassination forum nitpicking every piece of evidence against Oswald while entertaining any manner of doubt of his guilt (no matter how baseless) that he "couldn't care less if Oswald was guilty or not"? HA HA HA.
-
Don't they have any anger management classes in "Europe"? That is about a 9 on the stress scale from a simple question. And here we learn that although Martin/Roger spends night and day on a JFK assassination forum nitpicking every piece of evidence against Oswald while entertaining any manner of doubt of his guilt (no matter how baseless) that he "couldn't care less if Oswald was guilty or not"? HA HA HA.
Try to come up with something original next time. After losing all credibility a long time ago, your act is wearing thin.
Don't they have any anger management classes in "Europe"?
What makes you think I was angry? I know you've lost grip on reality a long time ago, but this is extreme, even for you. In fact I was laughing out loud about the stupidity of your "totality of evidence" question.
John Iacoletti was right;
“Richard” doesn’t think any topic is worth discussing, other than his unsubstantiated opinion that Oswald did it. Why is he even here?
I would only have added; Why is he even here every day?
-
Try to come up with something original next time. After losing all credibility a long time ago, your act is wearing thin.
Don't they have any anger management classes in "Europe"?
What makes you think I was angry? I know you've lost grip on reality a long time ago, but this is extreme, even for you. In fact I was laughing out loud about the stupidity of your "totality of evidence" question.
John Iacoletti was right;
I would only have added; Why is he even here every day?
You are one of the angriest posters here as evidenced by your constant insults. Not just to myself but everyone who you engage with. The same pattern over and over. Going on and on taking your own nonsense so seriously but then being unable to answer a simple question without resorting to personal insults until the thread digresses. A thousand such examples. You are asking me why I'm here after you just claimed not to be interested in whether Oswald was guilty or innocent! HA HA HA. That is comedy gold.
-
You are one of the angriest posters here as evidenced by your constant insults. Not just to myself but everyone who you engage with. The same pattern over and over. Going on and on taking your own nonsense so seriously but then being unable to answer a simple question without resorting to personal insults until the thread digresses. A thousand such examples. You are asking me why I'm here after you just claimed not to be interested in whether Oswald was guilty or innocent! HA HA HA. That is comedy gold.
You are one of the angriest posters here as evidenced by your constant insults.
He said angerly in yet another one of his post in which anything but the case is discussed.
Pot meet kettle. You want dish it out but can't take it. Oh what a poor little puppy...
-
You are one of the angriest posters here as evidenced by your constant insults.
He said angerly in yet another one of his post in which anything but the case is discussed.
Pot meet kettle. You want dish it out but can't take it. Oh what a poor little puppy...
If you don't like the answer, then don't ask the question. Maybe don't begin responses with "Fool" if you don't want to be called out for insulting others and being out of control with your emotions.
-
If you don't like the answer, then don't ask the question. Maybe don't begin responses with "Fool" if you don't want to be called out for insulting others and being out of control with your emotions.
What answer?
Still trying to provoke me? :D
Try discussing the evidence for once.
-
What answer?
Still trying to provoke me? :D
Try discussing the evidence for once.
Your question: "What makes you think I was angry?"
The answer: Beginning responses by calling someone a "fool." Something you do frequently to myself and just about anyone who points out the absurdity of your approach to this case. Which is most anyone who bothers to respond to you.
-
Your question: "What makes you think I was angry?"
The answer: Beginning responses by calling someone a "fool." Something you do frequently to myself and just about anyone who points out the absurdity of your approach to this case. Which is most anyone who bothers to respond to you.
The guy who does nothing else but try to ridicule people in every way he can, and clearly considers himself to be superior enough to "point out the absurdity of their approach" to others (what an ego!), has his feelings hurt by being called a fool, while acting like one. HA HA HA HA, that's comedy gold
Btw, this thread's subject is a discussion between Bill Brown and myself about when exactly Callaway helped to load Tippit into the ambulance. In all your posts in this thread you haven't mentioned or said anything about the topic. Not a single word. That really tells us all we need to know about your presence on this board.
-
The guy who does nothing else but try to ridicule people in every way he can, and clearly considers himself to be superior enough to "point out the absurdity of their approach" to others (what an ego!), has his feelings hurt by being called a fool, while acting like one. HA HA HA HA, that's comedy gold
Btw, this thread's subject is a discussion between Bill Brown and myself about when exactly Callaway helped to load Tippit into the ambulance. In all your posts in this thread you haven't mentioned or said anything about the topic. Not a single word. That really tells us all we need to know about your presence on this board.
I spent considerable time discussing that topic which was the basis of your tantrum. The timeline of events does not, as you erroneously imply, have any relevance as to Oswald's guilt in the murder of J.D. Tippit. The totality of evidence proves beyond any doubt that Oswald was present at the scene at the moment of the crime. Whatever time that occurred. The only relevance this discussion has is to when Oswald murdered Tippit. As a result, the resolution of the order of every event isn't of much importance except as a matter of historical curiosity even if it were somehow possible to resolve nearly six decades later. Which it isn't to any degree of certainty. I suppose the color of Oswald's socks that day is deemed important to some because everything he did that day, as the assassin of the president, has some historical significance. But pontificating like it matters is absurd and humorous.
-
Here is something to ponder. If the totality of evidence places Oswald at the crime scene, do you believe that the timeline analysis is still relevant as to whether he could have been there?
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
-
The totality of evidence proves beyond any doubt that Oswald was present at the scene at the moment of the crime.
BS:
As a result, the resolution of the order of every event isn't of much importance except as a matter of historical curiosity even if it were somehow possible to resolve nearly six decades later.
That’s a laugh. Just because you have formed an ignorant conclusion doesn’t mean that there’s nothing left to discuss. Again, why are you here?
-
I spent considerable time discussing that topic which was the basis of your tantrum. The timeline of events does not, as you erroneously imply, have any relevance as to Oswald's guilt in the murder of J.D. Tippit. The totality of evidence proves beyond any doubt that Oswald was present at the scene at the moment of the crime. Whatever time that occurred. The only relevance this discussion has is to when Oswald murdered Tippit. As a result, the resolution of the order of every event isn't of much importance except as a matter of historical curiosity even if it were somehow possible to resolve nearly six decades later. Which it isn't to any degree of certainty. I suppose the color of Oswald's socks that day is deemed important to some because everything he did that day, as the assassin of the president, has some historical significance. The totality of evidence proves beyond any doubt that Oswald was present at the scene at the moment of the crime. But pontificating like it matters is absurd and humorous.
I spent considerable time discussing that topic which was the basis of your tantrum.
You do understand that people can read back your messages and easily find out that you haven't said a word about when Callaway helped to load Tippit into the ambulance.
All you have been doing is pontificating that the timeline being discussed by Bill Brown and I is not relevant to Oswald's perceived guilt, when nobody has even claimed it is.
The totality of evidence proves beyond any doubt that Oswald was present at the scene at the moment of the crime.
No it doesn't, except of course in your delusional mind. But pontificating like it is somehow true is absurd and humorous.
-
I spent considerable time discussing that topic which was the basis of your tantrum.
You do understand that people can read back your messages and easily find out that you haven't said a word about when Callaway helped to load Tippit into the ambulance.
All you have been doing is pontificating that the timeline being discussed by Bill Brown and I is not relevant to Oswald's perceived guilt, when nobody has even claimed it is.
The totality of evidence proves beyond any doubt that Oswald was present at the scene at the moment of the crime.
No it doesn't, except of course in your delusional mind. But pontificating like it is somehow true is absurd and humorous.
As I just explained, I placed the topic in proper context. The timeline including your pedantic analysis of a minor event down to the nanosecond can't be used to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt. At best, your analysis of this minor event can be used to determine the time that Oswald killed Tippit. Not whether he did so. The totality of evidence conclusively proves Oswald was at the scene and murdered Tippit. This crime happened in broad daylight on a public street in front of numerous witnesses who identified LHO as the person at the scene with a gun. He was arrested a short distance away with the gun and same two different brands of ammo used to kill Tippit. This is an obvious point of logic. If the evidence places Oswald at the scene, then we know with certainty that he had time to get there even if we don't know the exact time this occurred. His presence at the scene is the best possible evidence of this and not your tortured attempt to piece together every event down to the second. An impossible task. And - for the record - you have included yet another personal insult in this post.
-
As I just explained, I placed the topic in proper context. The timeline including your pedantic analysis of a minor event down to the nanosecond can't be used to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt. At best, your analysis of this minor event can be used to determine the time that Oswald killed Tippit. Not whether he did so. The totality of evidence conclusively proves Oswald was at the scene and murdered Tippit. This crime happened in broad daylight on a public street in front of numerous witnesses who identified LHO as the person at the scene with a gun. He was arrested a short distance away with the gun and same two different brands of ammo used to kill Tippit. This is an obvious point of logic. If the evidence places Oswald at the scene, then we know with certainty that he had time to get there even if we don't know the exact time this occurred. His presence at the scene is the best possible evidence of this and not your tortured attempt to piece together every event down to the second. An impossible task. And - for the record - you have included yet another personal insult in this post.
I placed the topic in proper context.
No, you didn't. Are you really so arrogant to actually believe that you can tell Bill Brown and me what the correct context is of what we are discussing? Wow.... Who died and left you in charge of determining what the context of a conversation between two other people should be?
In fact, the only thing that your so-called "placing the topic in proper context" shows is your obsession with Oswald's perceived guilt and anything that might cast doubt about it.
Go and take your circular logic crap somewhere else. I am not wasting any more time on your BS on this topic.
As it was Bill Brown who wanted to debate this particular issue with me, I'll let him know that "Richard Smith" considers our discussion a "pedantic analysis of a minor event".
-
As I just explained, I placed the topic in proper context. The timeline including your pedantic analysis of a minor event down to the nanosecond can't be used to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt.
And who said the purpose of the discussion about Callaway and the ambulance was to “cast doubt on Oswald’s guilt”? There would be no need to to “cast doubt on Oswald’s guilt” because doubt is already there. In spades.
The totality of evidence conclusively proves Oswald was at the scene and murdered Tippit.
BS:
If the evidence places Oswald at the scene, then we know with certainty that he had time to get there even if we don't know the exact time this occurred.
But it doesn’t. False premises lead to false conclusions.
And - for the record - you have included yet another personal insult in this post.
Pot, kettle.
-
And who said the purpose of the discussion about Callaway and the ambulance was to “cast doubt on Oswald’s guilt”? There would be no need to to “cast doubt on Oswald’s guilt” because doubt is already there. In spades.
And who said the purpose of the discussion about Callaway and the ambulance was to “cast doubt on Oswald’s guilt”?
That would be that one guy with a paranoid mind, "Richard Smith", who is so obsessed with Oswald's perceived guilt that he feels a compulsive need to see any discussion as a threat to his belief. Kinda sad, really.
-
And who said the purpose of the discussion about Callaway and the ambulance was to “cast doubt on Oswald’s guilt”?
That would be that one guy with a paranoid mind, "Richard Smith", who is so obsessed with Oswald's perceived guilt that he feels a compulsive need to see any discussion as a threat to his belief. Kinda sad, really.
Do you think a single person who has ever read your tortured contrarian efforts to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt believes for one second that this pedantic analysis of a minor event is just to contribute our to general knowledge? LOL. I've truly heard it all. This is just a furtherance of your lazy effort to be a CTer without ever taking any position. But let's put it to the test. Do you think the timeline casts doubt on Oswald's presence at the moment Tippit was murdered or not? Despite the overwhelming evidence including multiple witnesses who confirm his presence on a public street in broad daylight at the scene.
-
Do you think a single person who has ever read your tortured contrarian efforts to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt believes for one second that this pedantic analysis of a minor event is just to contribute our to general knowledge? LOL. I've truly heard it all. This is just a furtherance of your lazy effort to be a CTer without ever taking any position. But let's put it to the test. Do you think the timeline casts doubt on Oswald's presence at the moment Tippit was murdered or not? Despite the overwhelming evidence including multiple witnesses who confirm his presence on a public street in broad daylight at the scene.
Do you think a single person who has ever read your tortured contrarian efforts to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt believes for one second that this pedantic analysis of a minor event is just to contribute our to general knowledge?
Who said it was to contribute to general knowledge? Bill Brown and I were just having a discussion when you jumped in with all your usual of topic BS. We didn't ask for anybody's opinion. So, why don't you ask Bill Brown, since he brought it up with the erroneous assertion that Callaway helped load Tippit into the ambulance before he made his call. He might have a different take on this.
Btw, as far as contributions go, I'm pretty sure not one of your post has ever made any kind of significant contribution to any discussion on this forum. But then, that's not what you are here for, right?
This is just a furtherance of your lazy effort to be a CTer without ever taking any position.
Unlike you, who has taken a position but has never been able to support it with evidence or defend or even explain it.... :D
Do you think the timeline casts doubt on Oswald's presence at the moment Tippit was murdered or not?
The timeline as a whole? It surely has evidentiary value, if that's what you mean, but why am I saying this to you when you are clearly absolutely clueless about the significance of actual evidence.
Despite the overwhelming evidence including multiple witnesses who confirm his presence on a public street in broad daylight at the scene.
Although I will probably not get an answer, let me ask you three questions;
1. Do you have any idea how many people in the country have been wrongfully convicted based on flawed and incorrect eye-witness identifications?
2. Do you think it is plausible or even possible for two people, who get everything else wrong, to positively identify a man who they have only seen for a couple of seconds as he ran by their front door?
3. Do you really believe that all those witness identifications of Oswald would stand up under scrutiny by a competent defense lawyer?
-
Despite the overwhelming evidence including multiple witnesses who confirm his presence on a public street in broad daylight at the scene.
“Including”? What other evidence do you have besides the unfair, biased lineups that demonstrate his “presence at the scene”? It doesn’t take much to overwhelm you.
-
So, why don't you ask Bill Brown, since he brought it up with the erroneous assertion that Callaway helped load Tippit into the ambulance before he made his call.
Erroneous? Hey now.
-
Oswald line-up candidate, anyone?
(https://i.postimg.cc/rFFWsRVd/CAM-GIGANDET.png)
-
Oswald line-up candidate, anyone?
(https://i.postimg.cc/rFFWsRVd/CAM-GIGANDET.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/aWBdbqAm.jpg)
-
Erroneous? Hey now.
Ok, here's the timeline again, based on the actual audio recording;
57:28:67 Bowley starts his call
58:14:42 Bowley ends his call (being told to stay of the radio)
58:24:35 Ambulance 602 calls Code 5 (en route)
58:41:85 Ambulance 602 calls Code 6 (for wrong location at Jefferson)
58:48:40 Ambulance 602 asks dispatcher for address on Jefferson - Dispatcher replies: 501 Tenth Street
59:02:85 Ambulance 602 calls Code 6 (for arrival at Tippit scene)
59:30:99 Ambulance 602 tries to get attention of the dispatcher by calling "602"
59:40:98 Callaway starts his call
59:42:85 Ambulance 602 tries again to get the attention of the dispatcher by calling "602"
We know for a fact that Callaway had not yet arrived at the scene when Bowley finished his call. We also know that he arrived on the scene shortly before the ambulance did. This means that Callaway must have arrived at the scene between 58:14:42 and 59:02:85.
We also know that Callaway said that when he arrived at the scene, he first went to check on the victim before he went to the police car to use the radio. He made his call at 59:40:98, which is roughly 38 seconds after the Code 6 call by the ambulance, at 59:02:85.
Although this can not be said with 100% certainty, it's highly likely that when Butler made the Code 6 call, he was still driving the ambulance towards the location. The alternative would be that he first stopped the ambulance and then made the Code 6, but that would only mean a loss of possibly valuable seconds.
So, if Butler did indeed make his Code 6 call at 59:02:85, it would have taken him - I assume - another 10 to 15 seconds to stop the car, near the victim, and get out of the ambulance.
Butler told George and Patricia Nash that he went to check on the victim. When she saw that it was a police officer he returned to the ambulance to let the dispatcher know that the victim was a police officer. In his book, Myers, accepts this actually happened and so did you earlier in this thread. The audio timeline shows this call (the first unanswered "602") took place at 59:30:99, so roughly 28 seconds after the Code 6 call.
Only 10 seconds later, at 59:40:98, Callaway makes his radio call.
All this justifies the question when exactly was there time for Callaway (and Bowley) to help load Tippit into the ambulance before Callaway made his call?
If your assertion is not erroneous, you should be able to answer this question, right?
-
Do you think a single person who has ever read your tortured contrarian efforts to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt believes for one second that this pedantic analysis of a minor event is just to contribute our to general knowledge?
Who said it was to contribute to general knowledge? Bill Brown and I were just having a discussion when you jumped in with all your usual of topic BS. We didn't ask for anybody's opinion. So, why don't you ask Bill Brown, since he brought it up with the erroneous assertion that Callaway helped load Tippit into the ambulance before he made his call. He might have a different take on this.
Btw, as far as contributions go, I'm pretty sure not one of your post has ever made any kind of significant contribution to any discussion on this forum. But then, that's not what you are here for, right?
This is just a furtherance of your lazy effort to be a CTer without ever taking any position.
Unlike you, who has taken a position but has never been able to support it with evidence or defend or even explain it.... :D
Do you think the timeline casts doubt on Oswald's presence at the moment Tippit was murdered or not?
The timeline as a whole? It surely has evidentiary value, if that's what you mean, but why am I saying this to you when you are clearly absolutely clueless about the significance of actual evidence.
Despite the overwhelming evidence including multiple witnesses who confirm his presence on a public street in broad daylight at the scene.
Although I will probably not get an answer, let me ask you three questions;
1. Do you have any idea how many people in the country have been wrongfully convicted based on flawed and incorrect eye-witness identifications?
2. Do you think it is plausible or even possible for two people, who get everything else wrong, to positively identify a man who they have only seen for a couple of seconds as he ran by their front door?
3. Do you really believe that all those witness identifications of Oswald would stand up under scrutiny by a competent defense lawyer?
Here is the difference. And it is significant. Bill understands that the evidence places Oswald at the scene and the timeline does not change that. If the evidence confirms Oswald was there, then that is the best possible evidence that he was there regardless of what time this event occurred. You refuse to even state what relevance the timeline has. It has "evidentiary" value? LOL. "Evidentiary" of what exactly? There is no doubt based on multiple witness confirmations and other evidence that Oswald was present at the scene at the time Tippit was murdered. The only possible "evidentiary" value the timeline has is to pinpoint the time Oswald killed Tippit. Not whether he did so. This is just a continuation of your contrarian game of nitpicking the evidence against Oswald to tortuous levels, implying that something else or someone else was involved, then denying that you are a CTer or even suggesting a conspiracy. If Oswald did not murder JFK and Tippit and all the evidence is suspect (as you continually suggest) then you are a CTer whether you ever admit it or not.
-
Here is the difference. And it is significant. Bill understands that the evidence places Oswald at the scene and the timeline does not change that. If the evidence confirms Oswald was there, then that is the best possible evidence that he was there regardless of what time this event occurred. You refuse to even state what relevance the timeline has. It has "evidentiary" value? LOL. "Evidentiary" of what exactly? There is no doubt based on multiple witness confirmations and other evidence that Oswald was present at the scene at the time Tippit was murdered. The only possible "evidentiary" value the timeline has is to pinpoint the time Oswald killed Tippit. Not whether he did so. This is just a continuation of your contrarian game of nitpicking the evidence against Oswald to tortuous levels, implying that something else or someone else was involved, then denying that you are a CTer or even suggesting a conspiracy. If Oswald did not murder JFK and Tippit and all the evidence is suspect (as you continually suggest) then you are a CTer whether you ever admit it or not.
As predicted, not one single answer to my three questions.... No real surprise there.
Only yet another silly repetitive rant with nothing of any significance in it.
But thank you for demonstrating so clearly that you are absolutely clueless about the significance of actual evidence.
-
Here is the difference. And it is significant. Bill understands that the evidence places Oswald at the scene and the timeline does not change that.
No, that’s your agenda. Bill is convinced that Callaway helped load Tippit into the ambulance before he used the radio, and that is what’s being discussed here.
There is no doubt based on multiple witness confirmations and other evidence that Oswald was present at the scene at the time Tippit was murdered.
Still waiting on that “other evidence”.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/aWBdbqAm.jpg)
This one is the 'type' to use
More of a loser look
(https://i.postimg.cc/G20mYfGg/OSWALD-TYPE.png)
-
As predicted, not one single answer to my three questions.... No real surprise there.
Only yet another silly repetitive rant with nothing of any significance in it.
But thank you for demonstrating so clearly that you are absolutely clueless about the significance of actual evidence.
Your questions are ridiculous. Because there may be examples in history of someone being convicted based upon false witness identification does not mean that the witness identifications in this case are suspect. That is defense attorney deflection that is an implicit acknowledgement of guilt. The exception does not prove the rule. In this case, there were multiple witnesses. Not just one. They would all have to be wrong. In addition, there was other evidence that links Oswald to the crime such as his possession of the murder weapon, same two brands of ammo used to kill Tippit, suspicious behavior which led random citizens to alert the police, resisting arrest instead of asking what the police wanted. That totality of circumstance is overwhelming to place Oswald at the scene. To respond that are some instances in history of misidentification is rabbit hole deflection. Weak sauce. I don't think even you believe that all these witnesses and circumstances that link Oswald to the Tippit murder are just bad luck. Rather, it's just a hobby to see how long you can avoid admitting checkmate and extend the discussion endlessly.
-
Because there may be examples in history of someone being convicted based upon false witness identification does not mean that the witness identifications in this case are suspect.
They are suspect because they didn’t come close to meeting any reasonable standard of a fair lineup/showup.
In this case, there were multiple witnesses.
Who all attended unfair, biased lineups.
Not just one.
Only one of them saw anybody shoot anybody.
They would all have to be wrong. In addition, there was other evidence that links Oswald to the crime such as his possession of the murder weapon,
Correction: a gun you cannot demonstrate was ever in Oswald’s possession may or may not have been the murder weapon.
same two brands of ammo used to kill Tippit,
Wrong. The bullets allegedly found in Oswald’s pocket hours after his arrest were all one brand.
suspicious behavior which led random citizens to alert the police
LOL. That’s “evidence”?
resisting arrest instead of asking what the police wanted.
They had no probable cause to search him or arrest him for murder.
That totality of circumstance is overwhelming to place Oswald at the scene
None of these things place Oswald at the scene other than your questionable identifications.
-
Murder weapon not needed to convict
Only one person saw Oswald shoot the officer
_Only one needed
The others didn't need to see the shooting
They confirmed Oswald's presence
The Only UnBiased Lineup possible in CTWonderland:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Qd3CyJfJ/SEND-IN-THE-CLONES-FINAL.png)
billchapman
-
That is defense attorney deflection that is an implicit acknowledgement of guilt.
suspicious behavior which led random citizens to alert the police
Two amazing examples of a total lack of understanding of what constitutes "evidence" in Richard Smith's mind.
A defense lawyer questioning the validity and authenticity of evidence is implicitely admitting his client's guilt
and suspicious behavior is evidence of murder..... You can't make this stuff up :D
-
Just a few reasons the sham lineups were unfair and biased and hence utterly unreliable:
- The fillers were not chosen to resemble the witnesses' descriptions of the perpetrator
- There were only 3 fillers for the lineups and no fillers for the photo identifications
- The fillers were not dressed like Oswald
- The fillers were not dressed to match witnesses' descriptions of the perpetrator
- The person administering the lineup knew which person in the lineup was the suspect
- The witnesses did not view the lineups separately
- Some witnesses knew which man was the suspect before they attended the lineup
- Not all of the men were handcuffed together for the first lineup
- Witnesses were influenced by the physical appearances of both Oswald and the fillers
- Witnesses were influenced by Oswald's complaints about the fairness of the lineups
- Witnesses were intimidated or pressured by the authorities
- Witnesses were asked to sign affidavits which would include who they picked in the lineup before actually viewing the lineup
- The criminal justice system in Dallas County had a history of railroading suspects
-
Now that the trolls have been dealt with, let's see if we can get the conversation between Bill Brown and myself back on track;
Since Bill still hasn't been able to tell us what his source is for the claim that the ambulance left the scene when Callaway was on the radio, let's just have a look at some other things he said;
All one has to do is listen to the police tapes and it is painfully obvious that Butler reported "602" as they were taking off for Methodist. Therefore the assumption (if indeed it was an assumption) that Butler was attempting to report that they were on their way to the hospital is an assumption based on what the evidence tells us.
I'm only telling you what the police tapes tell us. The tapes tell us that Callaway made his report to the police dispatcher AFTER the body was loaded and the ambulance was pulling away from the scene.
As we now have a verbatim second by second record of what the audio recording is actually saying;
Ok, here's the timeline again, based on the actual audio recording;
57:28:67 Bowley starts his call
58:14:42 Bowley ends his call (being told to stay of the radio)
58:24:35 Ambulance 602 calls Code 5 (en route)
58:41:85 Ambulance 602 calls Code 6 (for wrong location at Jefferson)
58:48:40 Ambulance 602 asks dispatcher for address on Jefferson - Dispatcher replies: 501 Tenth Street
59:02:85 Ambulance 602 calls Code 6 (for arrival at Tippit scene)
59:30:99 Ambulance 602 tries to get attention of the dispatcher by calling "602"
59:40:98 Callaway starts his call
59:42:85 Ambulance 602 tries again to get the attention of the dispatcher by calling "602"
We know for a fact that Callaway had not yet arrived at the scene when Bowley finished his call. We also know that he arrived on the scene shortly before the ambulance did. This means that Callaway must have arrived at the scene between 58:14:42 and 59:02:85.
We also know that Callaway said that when he arrived at the scene, he first went to check on the victim before he went to the police car to use the radio. He made his call at 59:40:98, which is roughly 38 seconds after the Code 6 call by the ambulance, at 59:02:85.
Although this can not be said with 100% certainty, it's highly likely that when Butler made the Code 6 call, he was still driving the ambulance towards the location. The alternative would be that he first stopped the ambulance and then made the Code 6, but that would only mean a loss of possibly valuable seconds.
So, if Butler did indeed make his Code 6 call at 59:02:85, it would have taken him - I assume - another 10 to 15 seconds to stop the car, near the victim, and get out of the ambulance.
Butler told George and Patricia Nash that he went to check on the victim. When she saw that it was a police officer he returned to the ambulance to let the dispatcher know that the victim was a police officer. In his book, Myers, accepts this actually happened and so did you earlier in this thread. The audio timeline shows this call (the first unanswered "602") took place at 59:30:99, so roughly 28 seconds after the Code 6 call.
Only 10 seconds later, at 59:40:98, Callaway makes his radio call.
All this justifies the question when exactly was there time for Callaway (and Bowley) to help load Tippit into the ambulance before Callaway made his call?
If your assertion is not erroneous, you should be able to answer this question, right?
should Bill not at least be able to pin point when exactly there was time for Callaway to help Tippit into the ambulance before he made his call? If it is really as obvious as Bill claims it is, what's holding him back to prove me wrong?
-
Because there may be examples in history of someone being convicted based upon false witness identification does not mean that the witness identifications in this case are suspect.
(https://i.imgur.com/ttyI5cS.gif)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/ttyI5cS.gif)
Instead of posting a gif, perhaps you can point out where the audio recording is "obviously telling us" that the ambulance left when Callaway was making his call?
C'mon, Bill... Let's resolve this and then we can move on to another topic, as you wanted.
-
In addition, there was other evidence that links Oswald to the crime such as his possession of the murder weapon, same two brands of ammo used to kill Tippit...
Wrong. The bullets allegedly found in Oswald’s pocket hours after his arrest were all one brand.
Richard Smith didn't say anything about the bullets removed from Oswald's pants pocket.
The revolver taken from Oswald contained two brands of bullets (Winchester-Westerns and Remington-Peters) and these were the same two brands of shell casings found at the Tippit shooting scene.
I'm positive this is the point Richard was making and he's correct.
Now cue the tired "Oswald's revolver LOL" comment.
-
Instead of posting a gif, perhaps you can point out where the audio recording is "obviously telling us" that the ambulance left when Callaway was making his call?
C'mon, Bill... Let's resolve this and then we can move on to another topic, as you wanted.
I've made my case for Callaway helping to load the body into the ambulance BEFORE making the call to the police dispatcher. I'm satisfied with the case I have made. Others can do with it what they wish.
There's only so much either of us can say about it.
If you want to discuss another topic, we can do that.
-
At least one filler looked the part of Oswald who had that kind of dishevelled, overwrought-loser look about him
And where's the jacket Oswald was seen wearing @Tippit?
(https://i.postimg.cc/s29j3PvR/OSWALD-NECK.jpg)
-
I've made my case for Callaway helping to load the body into the ambulance BEFORE making the call to the police dispatcher. I'm satisfied with the case I have made. Others can do with it what they wish.
There's only so much either of us can say about it.
If you want to discuss another topic, we can do that.
I'll accept that as an admission that you can not show where the audio recording "obviously" tells us that the ambulance was leaving when Callaway was making his call. If you could, you would have pointed it out and, in doing so, proved me wrong.
The reason for that is of course indeed obvious; there was no time for Callaway to help load Tippit into the ambulance before he made his call. It didn't happen.
If you want to discuss another topic, we can do that.
After this disappointing reply, I have to say I've lost interest. Against my better judgement, I accepted your invitation to debate this topic here, because in my mind there is always a possibility that my opinion is wrong and, just maybe, you would present something that would make me change my opinion. From our discussion in this thread it has, sadly, become obvious that you never even considered the possibility that you could be wrong, when in fact, as is painfully clear, you are.
It is my humble opinion that no matter how much I think I know about a certain topic, there's always a possibility that somebody else knows more. I would love to discuss all details of this case with an LN who actually has an open mind as that would be beneficial to further my, and perhaps his, knowledge. Unfortunately, you are not that LN.
-
The revolver taken from Oswald contained two brands of bullets (Winchester-Westerns and Remington-Peters) and these were the same two brands of shell casings found at the Tippit shooting scene.
Correction: the revolver that Gerald Hill pulled out of his pocket 1.5-2 hours after Oswald’s arrest, that you can’t demonstrate was ever in Oswald’s possession or had anything to do with Tippit’s murder had two brands of bullets in it.
-
Correction: the revolver that Gerald Hill pulled out of his pocket 1.5-2 hours after Oswald’s arrest, that you can’t demonstrate was ever in Oswald’s possession or had anything to do with Tippit’s murder had two brands of bullets in it.
(https://i.imgur.com/wH2i6SPm.png)
Now cue the tired "Oswald's revolver LOL" comment.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/wH2i6SPm.png)
Who cares about the actual details of the evidence when you already (think you) know who the guilty one is, right?
-
For what it's worth, Gerald Hill tried to turn over the revolver once back at headquarters (after arriving from the theater) but was told to hang onto it in order to keep the chain of possession to a minimum.
-
For what it's worth, Gerald Hill tried to turn over the revolver once back at headquarters (after arriving from the theater) but was told to hang onto it in order to keep the chain of possession to a minimum.
Another one of those things you can't remember where you've heard it first, I'm sure....
Keeping the chain of possession to a minimum would be achieved by handing it in to the evidence room as soon as possible, not to walk around with it for 2 hours and then show it to the media and other officers at the lunchroom.
-
Not to mention leaving it unattended on a desk in the personnel office.
-
MT:Bowles wrote: " When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. Somehow, Bowles' "a minute or so" became "a minute or two" in your post. And yet you are the one who claims that I am misrepresenting witnesses. Good job, Kid!
Good job indeed, “kid”. Direct quote from Bowles:
“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.”
And you chide Martin for “not understanding” what he reads…
Well what I understand is that I originally said this:
"Bowles does not say that the dispatcher's clocks could differ by two minutes. He said that the dispatcher clocks were kept to within a minute of each other."
As I made clear later, this was a reference to this sentence from Bowles' manuscript:
"When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments"
So when you replied to my post, starting off with this:
"By the way, just because it was 'normal procedure' to reset the clocks when they were..."
It's pretty clear that you are paraphrasing the statement that I'd quoted. But then your sentence went on:
"By the way, just because it was “normal procedure” to reset the clocks when they were “a minute or two” apart..." (I'll get to the rest shortly)
So now you have Bowles saying something here that wasn't in the original sentence. I figure it was due to some memory lapse or bit of inattention on your part. But your latest response kinda implies that you deliberately took a piece of one sentence and spliced it into another with the intent to change the meaning of that sentence. I hope this is not the case. After all, people are liable to understand that kind of behavior to be dishonest.
No, as to the end of your sentence:
"...[that] doesn’t mean that the maximum they could ever be off is two minutes."
You are technically correct. The problem is, if the radio dispatcher clocks were that far off, we'd see it in the data. We don't. So far, you have presented no evidence whatsoever that any of the dispatcher clocks were out of the spec Bowles described.
MT:Anyway, once Bowles established that the standard was to keep the dispatcher clocks within a minute of each other, then you need to come up with an actual reason to believe such an exception was in play that afternoon. Good luck. Bowles himself couldn't manage it.
You got it. “During busy periods this was not readily done.”
This would presume that one of the clocks was running out of spec. Since you haven't shown that to be the case, the quote you proffer is not an answer.
By the way, nobody (apparently) ever described how “city hall time” was set or calibrated.
None of the analyses I've performed so far require that anything be known about the City Hall clock system. That question seems to be moot.
MT: Bowles noted that the radio recording system didn't stop recording until there was 4 seconds of silence. Therefore, if there is a place where the recording shuts of and loses time, there should be at least 4 consecutive seconds of silence. If you listen to the channel one recording during this time, that doesn't happen from the beginning of the Bowley transmission until after the Callaway one. This includes the section where both 1:19 timestamps are located
How would you know that? The recording you are listening to has been dubbed, spliced, and edited. Incidentally, the transcript at https://www.jfk-assassination.net/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm) shows “(Long pause, 15 seconds)” right before the Benavides/Bowley “hello police operator” call.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that the channel one recordings have been "edited" or "dubbed" outside of where consecutive recordings have been spliced together. There are a handful of splice points between 12:20 and 1:20, but any hope that channel one is some massive spliceapalooza is badly misplaced.
What I wrote about the beginning of Bowley's transmission doesn't count on any of the recording before Bowley's transmission starts...or on any of the recording after the second "1:19" timestamp. Therefore, those 15 quiet seconds don't apply here. BTW, Bowles notes that the system was activated by sound on the channel, and points out that transients could start the recorder. If the transient is short enough, it can be come and gone before the Dictabelt machine has time to get the recording head up to speed, and will either be minimally audible or not audible at all. Multiple such instances that are not interrupted by an actual voice transmission would easily account for a 15 second long stretch of silence.
-
There are those weasel words again. “Usually”.
"Usually" is what usually happens.
Therefore, we usually expect
that the usual thing usually happens.
When unusual things happen,
they are usually unexpected,
since if we usually expect the usual,
then we don't expect the unusual.
And the unusual is the unexpected.
So then, the higher burden of proof
falls upon the unexpected
rather than the expected
Thus, the higher burden of proof
falls on the unusual
rather than the usual
-
What goes straight over Todd's head is the fact that both Bowles and Cason talk about clocks that need to be adjusted because they were not running correctly.
How Todd can claim (as he clearly does) that, despite these remarks, the time stamps on the DPD recording are not only correct but also reflect real time is the real conundrum.
I have said from the beginning --a couple of years ago-- that we can't assume that any of the clocks in general use in those days could be assumed to be running right on standard time. I have also stated that it can be determined from the record derived from channel one and channel two [and also from the recordings themselves] that the channel one and channel two clocks were running to within a minute of each other, and other evidence (the McIntire photo, Greer/Kellerman, Rowley, Powers) shows that channel two was within a minute of standard time that afternoon.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I thought about it differently.
-
"...[that] doesn’t mean that the maximum they could ever be off is two minutes."
You are technically correct.
Thank you. That invalidates your entire claim that he said that the dispatcher clocks were kept to within a minute of each other." You omitted “or so” and “normal procedure” in your dishonest summary.
The problem is, if the radio dispatcher clocks were that far off, we'd see it in the data.
What data? You can’t use the time announcements to validate the time announcements. There is no “data” that tells you how far apart they were that day.
We don't. So far, you have presented no evidence whatsoever that any of the dispatcher clocks were out of the spec Bowles described.
You’ve presented no evidence that they were at most a minute apart that day. Which is your claim.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that the channel one recordings have been "edited" or "dubbed" outside of where consecutive recordings have been spliced together. There are a handful of splice points between 12:20 and 1:20, but any hope that channel one is some massive spliceapalooza is badly misplaced.
Ignoring your “massive spliceapalooza” strawman, a splice IS an edit. And of course they were dubbed. Multiple times. None of us are listening to the original Dictabelt and Audograph. And they had a tendency to skip and repeat sections. Those (at least) were edited as well.
-
"Usually" is what usually happens.
Therefore, we usually expect
that the usual thing usually happens.
When unusual things happen,
they are usually unexpected,
since if we usually expect the usual,
then we don't expect the unusual.
And the unusual is the unexpected.
So then, the higher burden of proof
falls upon the unexpected
rather than the expected
Thus, the higher burden of proof
falls on the unusual
rather than the usual
No, the burden of proof lies on the person claiming that “usually” really means always.
-
I have also stated that it can be determined from the record derived from channel one and channel two [and also from the recordings themselves] that the channel one and channel two clocks were running to within a minute of each other,
You stated that but provided no evidence for it.
and other evidence (the McIntire photo, Greer/Kellerman, Rowley, Powers) shows that channel two was within a minute of standard time that afternoon.
No, because none of those things have any known association with “standard time”.
-
For what it's worth, Gerald Hill tried to turn over the revolver once back at headquarters (after arriving from the theater) but was told to hang onto it in order to keep the chain of possession to a minimum.
Another one of those things you can't remember where you've heard it first, I'm sure....
Hey, it is what it is. It's the truth, regardless.
-
Hey, it is what it is. It's the truth, regardless.
So, it's another one of those "It's true, because I say so" things?
But I get it, it's your version of what you believe to be the truth! :D
-
I would appreciate a cite for this one too, because all Hill testified to was that Baker told him to “hold on to it until later”, and true to form the WC didn’t bother to confirm this with Baker. I also don’t see how giving it to Baker now or later would have any effect on keeping the chain of possession to a minimum. In fact, why does Baker need to have it at all?
-
In which we learn that the same contrarians who protest that no one has suggested a conspiracy contend that the gun found on Oswald was either switched or planted on him per the usual "chain of possession" nonsense which has no relevance outside of a criminal trial. I'm sure they are not suggesting a conspiracy. That would be a "strawman" to conclude. Just that all the evidence was faked. The implications don't matter if it creates any real or imagined doubt of Oswald's guilt. That is the sole objective. The DPD concluded on the fly to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit. They didn't care if he really did it or if a dangerous cop killer was never arrested. They planted a gun on him at the TT or they switched the gun in his possession to another gun presumably to link him to the crime. But then CTers argue this gun doesn't link Oswald to the crime making the switch pointless! Round and round we go down the rabbit hole.
-
In which we learn that the same contrarians who protest that no one has suggested a conspiracy contend that the gun found on Oswald was either switched or planted on him per the usual "chain of possession" nonsense which has no relevance outside of a criminal trial. I'm sure they are not suggesting a conspiracy. That would be a "strawman" to conclude. Just that all the evidence was faked. The implications don't matter if it creates any real or imagined doubt of Oswald's guilt. That is the sole objective. The DPD concluded on the fly to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit. They didn't care if he really did it or if a dangerous cop killer was never arrested. They planted a gun on him at the TT or they switched the gun in his possession to another gun presumably to link him to the crime. But then CTers argue this gun doesn't link Oswald to the crime making the switch pointless! Round and round we go down the rabbit hole.
per the usual "chain of possession" nonsense which has no relevance outside of a criminal trial.
Why do you keep on saying stupid things like this, if you don't like being called a fool.
A chain of possession exists to protect the authenticity of the evidence. Ignoring it, or calling it nonsense, is the same as saying that it doesn't matter if the evidence can not be authenticated.
The implications don't matter if it creates any real or imagined doubt of Oswald's guilt.
The implications of a lack of chain of custody don't matter if the "evidence" can be used to "prove" Oswald's guilt.
The DPD concluded on the fly to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit.
Who, except you of course, said ever something this stupid?
They planted a gun on him at the TT or they switched the gun in his possession to another gun presumably to link him to the crime.
The law is clear; without a sound chain of custody, the authenticity of evidence can not be assumed and a possibility of manipulation can not be ruled out.
Btw, who are "they"?
-
In which we learn that the same contrarians who protest that no one has suggested a conspiracy contend that the gun found on Oswald was either switched or planted on him per the usual "chain of possession" nonsense which has no relevance outside of a criminal trial.
Of course it’s relevant. If you can’t authenticate the evidence then you cannot state with any reliability that it was “the gun found on Oswald” — inside or outside the context of a trial.
I'm sure they are not suggesting a conspiracy. That would be a "strawman" to conclude. Just that all the evidence was faked.
Now that’s a strawman. Nobody said all the evidence is faked. It doesn’t need to be since it doesn’t conclusively show who killed Kennedy anyway.
-
per the usual "chain of possession" nonsense which has no relevance outside of a criminal trial.
Why do you keep on saying stupid things like this, if you don't like being called a fool.
A chain of possession exists to protect the authenticity of the evidence. Ignoring it, or calling it nonsense, is the same as saying that it doesn't matter if the evidence can not be authenticated.
The implications don't matter if it creates any real or imagined doubt of Oswald's guilt.
The implications of a lack of chain of custody don't matter if the "evidence" can be used to "prove" Oswald's guilt.
The DPD concluded on the fly to frame Oswald for the murder of Tippit.
Who, except you of course, said ever something this stupid?
They planted a gun on him at the TT or they switched the gun in his possession to another gun presumably to link him to the crime.
The law is clear; without a sound chain of custody, the authenticity of evidence can not be assumed and a possibility of manipulation can not be ruled out.
Btw, who are "they"?
You are not a conspiracy theorist. Right? So why question whether the gun taken from Oswald is the same one in evidence? Why would anyone switch the gun? You don't even believe the gun in evidence is linked to the crime. Right? You while not being a conspiracy theorist entertain the possibility that someone for some unknown reason either planted a gun on Oswald or switched the gun he did have with another gun. A gun that you believe is not linked to the crime! Wow. That goes well beyond the rabbit hole. Just shouting "chain of custody" over and over again is weak sauce. There is no real doubt that the gun in evidence is the same one taken from Oswald. What "law" are you referring too? This is a discussion of the case and not a criminal trial in which the rights even of the guilty are protected. That is endless contrarian nonsense.
-
You are not a conspiracy theorist. Right? So why question whether the gun taken from Oswald is the same one in evidence?
Because it’s questionable. Duh.
There is no real doubt that the gun in evidence is the same one taken from Oswald.
Of course there’s doubt. That’s the whole point of authenticating evidence. Your blind faith that it’s authentic means nothing.
-
You are not a conspiracy theorist. Right? So why question whether the gun taken from Oswald is the same one in evidence? Why would anyone switch the gun? You don't even believe the gun in evidence is linked to the crime. Right? You while not being a conspiracy theorist entertain the possibility that someone for some unknown reason either planted a gun on Oswald or switched the gun he did have with another gun. A gun that you believe is not linked to the crime! Wow. That goes well beyond the rabbit hole. Just shouting "chain of custody" over and over again is weak sauce. There is no real doubt that the gun in evidence is the same one taken from Oswald. What "law" are you referring too? This is a discussion of the case and not a criminal trial in which the rights even of the guilty are protected. That is endless contrarian nonsense.
So why question whether the gun taken from Oswald is the same one in evidence?
Because, unlike you, I don't take anything on blind faith.
You don't even believe the gun in evidence is linked to the crime. Right?
Wrong. The revolver in evidence is clearly linked to Tippit's killing. Whether it is linked to Oswald is another matter.
You while not being a conspiracy theorist entertain the possibility that someone for some unknown reason either planted a gun on Oswald or switched the gun he did have with another gun.
What do you mean with "for some unknown reason"? That's a pretty stupid remark, because if the revolver was indeed switched the reason would obviously be to frame Oswald.
That goes well beyond the rabbit hole.
All your flawed straw man go that way.... why should this one be any different?
This is a discussion of the case and not a criminal trial in which the rights even of the guilty are protected.
So, in a discussion of the case, outside the court room, it's not important that the evidence being discussed is authentic? Is that what you are saying? If it is... WOW!
-
So why question whether the gun taken from Oswald is the same one in evidence?
Because, unlike you, I don't take anything on blind faith.
You don't even believe the gun in evidence is linked to the crime. Right?
Wrong. The revolver in evidence is clearly linked to Tippit's killing. Whether it is linked to Oswald is another matter.
You while not being a conspiracy theorist entertain the possibility that someone for some unknown reason either planted a gun on Oswald or switched the gun he did have with another gun.
What do you mean with "for some unknown reason"? That's a pretty stupid remark, because if the revolver was indeed switched the reason would obviously be to frame Oswald.
That goes well beyond the rabbit hole.
All your flawed straw man go that way.... why should this one be any different?
This is a discussion of the case and not a criminal trial in which the rights even of the guilty are protected.
So, in a discussion of the case, outside the court room, it's not important that the evidence being discussed is authentic? Is that what you are saying? If it is... WOW!
So now you agree that the pistol in evidence is the one used to murder Tippit! Progress. Now how did the DPD acquire the gun used to kill Tippit to plant it on Oswald? Did they take this from the real killer? If so, why not arrest the real killer? Did they have it in for Oswald for some inexplicable reason and allow the murderer of a fellow cop to go free? That's the scenario you want to us to entertain? And again, you are not a CTer or suggesting a conspiracy? You are just discussing the case without any agenda. LOL.
-
So now you agree that the pistol in evidence is the one used to murder Tippit! Progress. Now how did the DPD acquire the gun used to kill Tippit to plant it on Oswald? Did they take this from the real killer? If so, why not arrest the real killer? Did they have it in for Oswald for some inexplicable reason and allow the murderer of a fellow cop to go free? That's the scenario you want to us to entertain? And again, you are not a CTer or suggesting a conspiracy? You are just discussing the case without any agenda. LOL.
So now you agree that the pistol in evidence is the one used to murder Tippit! Progress.
You actually becoming aware of something that I have never denied is indeed progress.
Now how did the DPD acquire the gun used to kill Tippit to plant it on Oswald?
If they did, how in the world would I know? When you can't explain a magic trick, does that mean it didn't happen?
That's the scenario you want to us to entertain?
No, that's the scenario you want us to entertain!
-
The bullets removed from Tippit did not have sufficient characteristics to identify what weapon fired them, so it makes little difference how many people "agree" what gun killed Tippit.
And why would it be necessary to "plant" anything on Oswald, when there is no documented chain of custody for CE143 or any evidence that it was ever in his possession?
-
The bullets removed from Tippit did not have sufficient characteristics to identify what weapon fired them, so it makes little difference how many people "agree" what gun killed Tippit.
And why would it be necessary to "plant" anything on Oswald, when there is no documented chain of custody for CE143 or any evidence that it was ever in his possession?
"Richard" just likes to ask loaded questions, as he is desperately looking for his "gotcha" moment.
The evidence doesn't support his claims, so this is all he has left
-
MT: When Bowles writes "When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments," he sets the standard by which the DPD dispatch office set it's clocks. By doing so, Bowles sets the normal behavior of the DPD time system. And this state of affairs is borne out by analysis of the transcripts themselves, and by more than one regression analysis beginning with BBNs from the HSCA.
He sets the standard? Really? Based on the clocks being out of synch by "as much as a minute or so"? That's some standard, if it were true. In fact it is just something you made up and it is BS.
But even if it were true, Bowles himself tells you that this so-called "standard" was not adhered to when it was busy.
Bowles himself said that the DPDs standard was to keep the dispatcher clocks to within a minute. Francis Cason said the same thing. I've quoted both saying it. The idea that I've made it all up is nothing more than an invention all your own that you've concocted from thin air, you having long ago run out of substantial rebuttals.
And, you've misrepresented what Bowles said. He didn't say that they stopped adhering to the standard during busy times. He said that clocks would occasionally run out of spec, and that sometimes of these sometimes they would be too busy to adjust the errant timepiece as quickly as they normally did. But the other clocks remained within spec. They didn't just abandon the standard for one clock. It's a subtle difference, but it's an important difference. This might also be a good time to point out that a fraction (ie, the percentage of the time that a clock goes out of spec) multiplied by a fraction (the percentage of the time when a clock is out of spec that the dispatch office is too busy to intervene at normal speed) is an even smaller fraction. That's not much to bet on.
I don't rely on anything. I merely state factual information. It's not my problem that you don't like it. When the man in charge of the DPD dispatchers tells you that the entire system does not work on real time, then that's good enough for me. Bowles knows what he is talking about. You, on the other hand, not so much.
You started off here saying that you rely on nothing. Then, three sentences later, you declare that you rely on Bowles ('...that's good enough for me'). At least, your own highly personalized interpretation of Bowles. Just like I said. You just proved me right trying to prove me wrong. Nice!
Here's a quote from Bowles that might help you to overcome your feigned ignorance;
There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time." The Committee Report stated that the Dallas Police Communications system was recorded by continuously operating recorders. That statement is incorrect. Channel 1 was recorded on a Dictaphone A2TC, Model 5, belt or loop recorder. Channel 2 was recorded on a Gray "Audograph" flat disk recorder. Both were duplex units with one recording and one on standby for when the other unit contained a full recording. Both units were sound activated. It is important to note "sound" rather than "voice" because either sound or noise from any source, received through the transmission line, would activate the recorders. Once activated, the recorders remained "on" for the duration of the activating sound plus 4 seconds. The four second delay permitted brief pauses or answers to questions without the relay mechanism being overworked. On occasion, the recorders would operate almost continuously because rapid radio traffic kept them operating. On November 22, 1963, the Channel 1 recorders became, for practical purposes, continuous recorders for just over five minutes starting at approximately 12:29 pm (Channel 1 time) because the microphone on a police motorcycle stuck in the "on" position. The resulting continuous transmission kept the Channel 1 recorders operating for just over five minutes thus giving us a real-time recording for that period. The only problem was determining a basis for an accurate time reference during that period.
and he continues;
It is, however, important to remember that
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;
The big take away from everything Bowles said is that you can not rely on the DPD time stamps to reflect real actual time, period! If you want to make a case that those time stamps can be relied on and do reflect real time, then it's up to you to prove it.
It's pretty obvious from your commentary at the end that you've either never understood what I've written about the DPD clocks in the past couple of years, or you maybe you'd never really read it carefully in the first place.
MT: Which brings me to the sentence you so desperately want to make something of: "during busy periods this was not readily done." This sentence has relevance only if one of the clocks was out of spec that afternoon. However, you haven't presented one single iota of evidence that any of the dispatcher clocks were off that day. Neither has Bowles. So that sentence is utterly meaningless in the current context. You're just barking into the wind and hoping that something sticks.
More BS. Of course the sentence has relevance at any given time, because it was something that clearly happened frequently when DPD radio was busy. I don't need to prove that the dispatcher clocks were off that day, because Bowles has already told us that they were. They always were, that's the point that is going way over your head. If the dispatcher clocks were in synch with real time, Bowles would have said so and there wouldn't have been any need for his explanation about them not being in synch.
Again, if you want to prove Bowles wrong, go ahead, but as long as you don't/can't I'll take his word over yours anytime.
it was something that clearly happened frequently when DPD radio was busy
Bowles didn't say how often this occurred, and definitely didn't say that it happened "frequently." Cason said that "t doesn't happen very often that they get out of time, but sometimes they do." That sure doesn't sound like clocks were "frequently" running out of spec. In reality, "frequently" is simply another invention that you've conjured up out of thin air in order to buttress an otherwise baseless line of argument.
I don't need to prove that the dispatcher clocks were off that day, because Bowles has already told us that they were.
Bowles doesn't say whether the clocks were actually off that day, whether you mean 'off of standard time', or off of the normal operating parameters that he related. This is just another invention of yours. The best he can do is say that this one thing could have happened, or maybe that thing could have happened. But he doesn't back that up with specific examples, so all he can do is insinuate that something or another might have happened.
MW1: There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time." - J.C. Bowles
MT1: Which means what, exactly? Really, it's just an assertion by Bowles. That's all you have.[\b]
MW2: Typical LN behavior; playing down evidence you don't like. You can try to discredit Bowles as much as you like, but the information he provided still stands. The mere fact that you prefer to dismiss it out of hand doesn't do much for your own credibility.
"There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time."" - J.C. Bowles
To any honest person it's self explanatory what this means.
MT2: Then you should have no problem whatsoever explaining specifically what Bowles meant by that statement. Unless, of course, you aren't an honest person.
To me it's self explanatory. By your reasoning that makes me an honest man. If you want to argue for argument's sake that you can't figure out something so obvious and simple, what does that make you?
It makes me curious as to why, when faced with a question that should have a simple a answer, you continue to avoid answering the question. All at the same time you're patting youself on the back about your honesty.
So what exactly does Bowles means by "There is no way to connect 'police time' with 'real time'?"
What is standard time?
Standard time is the time standard standardized by the National Beureau of Standards. At least, that's the standard answer. Put another way, it is the official US time standard as derived from UT1.
What I've argued is that channel one time is within one minute of channel two time, and channel two time is within one minute of standard time.
So you accept that the clocks were not in synch with eachother, just like Bowles said?
You do understand that you admitting that the clocks were not in synch, makes your asinine demand for "one single iota of evidence that any of the dispatcher clocks were off that day" utterly superfluous and completely disingenuous, don't you?
Before I start, what do mean by "synch," precisely? That word has a number of different overlapping meanings, and I'd like to be sure we're both on the same page when using it.
Now, first things first...
Apparently, I have to repeat myself: I have never argued, claimed, or impled that any of the DPD dispatcher clock were running on standard time. I presume standard time is what you refer to when you say 'real time'. I have no idea how you came up with the notion that I've ever claimed otherwise. And by "one single iota of evidence that any of the dispatcher clocks were off that day," I was referring to the clocks being off any further than the within-a-minute standard as stated by Bowles and Cason.
What I have argued here for the past couple of years, is this:
It can be determined that the clocks used by the channel one and channel two radio operators were running within one minute of each other. This can be done by inspecting the simulcasts broadcast shortly after the assassination, and comparting the timestamps on those transmissions to the timestamps on the surrounding radio traffic. This can also be done by looking the instances of crosstalk between channel two and channel one during the open mic interval. BBN (and others) used regression analysis of the time announcements on both channels to show the same thing.
Further, the '12:30 KKB364' announcement between Curry's "approaching triple underpass" and "Go to the hospital" transmissions align with the Hertz clock in the McIntire photo as well as the observed time noted by various members of the White House party indicate that channel two is within one minute of standard time. Thus, channel one announced time is within two minutes of standard time.
This state of affairs is predicted by statements from Bowles and Cason to the effect that the clocks in the dispatch center were normally kept within a minute of each other. While Bowles presents a number of hypothetical reasons why the time announcements might be off of this spec, he can point to no example of any of them either in the record. Considering that Bowles was in charge of the dispatchers and was responsible for the first transcripts of the channel one and channel two radio traffic, his inability to proffer any example of his hypothetical scenarios is quite significant. Further, the various analyses (in particular, the regression analyses) leave precious little room for any of Bowles' 'maybe' scenarios. There simply is no reason to think that the clocks were apart any more than the within-a-minute spec presented by Bowles and Cason.
-
Bowles himself said that the DPDs standard was to keep the dispatcher clocks to within a minute. Francis Cason said the same thing. I've quoted both saying it. The idea that I've made it all up is nothing more than an invention all your own that you've concocted from thin air, you having long ago run out of substantial rebuttals.
And, you've misrepresented what Bowles said. He didn't say that they stopped adhering to the standard during busy times. He said that clocks would occasionally run out of spec, and that sometimes of these sometimes they would be too busy to adjust the errant timepiece as quickly as they normally did. But the other clocks remained within spec. They didn't just abandon the standard for one clock. It's a subtle difference, but it's an important difference. This might also be a good time to point out that a fraction (ie, the percentage of the time that a clock goes out of spec) multiplied by a fraction (the percentage of the time when a clock is out of spec that the dispatch office is too busy to intervene at normal speed) is an even smaller fraction. That's not much to bet on.
You started off here saying that you rely on nothing. Then, three sentences later, you declare that you rely on Bowles ('...that's good enough for me'). At least, your own highly personalized interpretation of Bowles. Just like I said. You just proved me right trying to prove me wrong. Nice!
It's pretty obvious from your commentary at the end that you've either never understood what I've written about the DPD clocks in the past couple of years, or you maybe you'd never really read it carefully in the first place.
it was something that clearly happened frequently when DPD radio was busy
Bowles didn't say how often this occurred, and definitely didn't say that it happened "frequently." Cason said that "t doesn't happen very often that they get out of time, but sometimes they do." That sure doesn't sound like clocks were "frequently" running out of spec. In reality, "frequently" is simply another invention that you've conjured up out of thin air in order to buttress an otherwise baseless line of argument.
I don't need to prove that the dispatcher clocks were off that day, because Bowles has already told us that they were.
Bowles doesn't say whether the clocks were actually off that day, whether you mean 'off of standard time', or off of the normal operating parameters that he related. This is just another invention of yours. The best he can do is say that this one thing could have happened, or maybe that thing could have happened. But he doesn't back that up with specific examples, so all he can do is insinuate that something or another might have happened.
It makes me curious as to why, when faced with a question that should have a simple a answer, you continue to avoid answering the question. All at the same time you're patting youself on the back about your honesty.
So what exactly does Bowles means by "There is no way to connect 'police time' with 'real time'?"
Standard time is the time standard standardized by the National Beureau of Standards. At least, that's the standard answer. Put another way, it is the official US time standard as derived from UT1.
Before I start, what do mean by "synch," precisely? That word has a number of different overlapping meanings, and I'd like to be sure we're both on the same page when using it.
Now, first things first...
Apparently, I have to repeat myself: I have never argued, claimed, or impled that any of the DPD dispatcher clock were running on standard time. I presume standard time is what you refer to when you say 'real time'. I have no idea how you came up with the notion that I've ever claimed otherwise. And by "one single iota of evidence that any of the dispatcher clocks were off that day," I was referring to the clocks being off any further than the within-a-minute standard as stated by Bowles and Cason.
What I have argued here for the past couple of years, is this:
It can be determined that the clocks used by the channel one and channel two radio operators were running within one minute of each other. This can be done by inspecting the simulcasts broadcast shortly after the assassination, and comparting the timestamps on those transmissions to the timestamps on the surrounding radio traffic. This can also be done by looking the instances of crosstalk between channel two and channel one during the open mic interval. BBN (and others) used regression analysis of the time announcements on both channels to show the same thing.
Further, the '12:30 KKB364' announcement between Curry's "approaching triple underpass" and "Go to the hospital" transmissions align with the Hertz clock in the McIntire photo as well as the observed time noted by various members of the White House party indicate that channel two is within one minute of standard time. Thus, channel one announced time is within two minutes of standard time.
This state of affairs is predicted by statements from Bowles and Cason to the effect that the clocks in the dispatch center were normally kept within a minute of each other. While Bowles presents a number of hypothetical reasons why the time announcements might be off of this spec, he can point to no example of any of them either in the record. Considering that Bowles was in charge of the dispatchers and was responsible for the first transcripts of the channel one and channel two radio traffic, his inability to proffer any example of his hypothetical scenarios is quite significant. Further, the various analyses (in particular, the regression analyses) leave precious little room for any of Bowles' 'maybe' scenarios. There simply is no reason to think that the clocks were apart any more than the within-a-minute spec presented by Bowles and Cason.
Bowles himself said that the DPDs standard was to keep the dispatcher clocks to within a minute. Francis Cason said the same thing. I've quoted both saying it.
Bowles said a hell of a lot more than that. You can do all the self-serving song and dance you want, it doesn't change the fact that Bowles clearly provided information that the DPD time stamps can not be relied upon.
You started off here saying that you rely on nothing.
Stop misrepresenting what I actually said, which was;
"I don't rely on anything. I merely state factual information. It's not my problem that you don't like it. "
Your argument is with Bowles, not with me. But anybody who needs to misrepresent something like this, isn't worth talking to.
Good luck trying to play down what the chief of the DPD dispatchers (who, in case you don't understand that, is a primary source) said. Thumb1:
I'm not going to waste my time dealing with your nonsense.
-
Bowles himself said that the DPDs standard was to keep the dispatcher clocks to within a minute. Francis Cason said the same thing. I've quoted both saying it.
Bowles said a hell of a lot more than that. You can do all the self-serving song and dance you want, it doesn't change the fact that Bowles clearly provided information that the DPD time stamps can not be relied upon.
You started off here saying that you rely on nothing.
Stop misrepresenting what I actually said, which was;
"I don't rely on anything. I merely state factual information. It's not my problem that you don't like it. "
Your argument is with Bowles, not with me. But anybody who needs to misrepresent something like this, isn't worth talking to.
Good luck trying to play down what the chief of the DPD dispatchers (who, in case you don't understand that, is a primary source) said. Thumb1:
I'm not going to waste my time dealing with your nonsense.
I'm not going to waste my time dealing with your nonsense.
And there it is.
-
And there it is.
I really hurt your feelings by exposing your BS, didn't I?
Grow up and get over it.
Btw, just because Mitch Todd wants to write a book filled with nonsense to discredit Bowles, doesn't mean I have to write one as well. I've got better things to do.
-
I really hurt your feelings by exposing your BS, didn't I?
Grow up and get over it.
Btw, just because Mitch Todd wants to write a book filled with nonsense to discredit Bowles, doesn't mean I have to write one as well. I've got better things to do.
I don't know. Looks to me like he pretty much kicked your ass and you won't accept it. You should be embarrassed.
-
I don't know. Looks to me like he pretty much kicked your ass and you won't accept it. You should be embarrassed.
Sure, and if anybody with any credibility would have said that, I would take it seriously.
But, it's only the guy who I kicked his ass and can't get over it, so I won't bother.
Btw, I've already got a couple of dogs. I don't need another frustrated puppy to follow me around.
I don't know.
I agree... you do indeed not know.
Oh yeah, I forgot to ask; did you find the source for Butler's second "602" allegedly being to inform the dispatcher he was leaving the scene already, or is it too soon to ask? I mean, it's only about a month since the question was first asked, right?
-
Sure, and if anybody with any credibility would have said that, I would take it seriously.
But, it's only the guy who I kicked his ass and can't get over it, so I won't bother.
Btw, I've already got a couple of dogs. I don't need another frustrated puppy to follow me around.
Text book response by one who has been embarrassed. You're hateful and a complete joke.
-
Text book response by one who has been embarrassed. You're hateful and a complete joke.
That's all you've got? It might be a text book (your book?) response, but that doesn't make it untrue.
You've been on the war path ever since you went down in flames in the debate. It's comical.
-
That's all you've got? It might be a text book (your book?) response, but that doesn't make it untrue.
You've been on the war path ever since you went down in flames in the debate. It's comical.
Went down in flames? It's like you're eight years old.
Regarding Callaway, your argument relies on the police tapes, which you dispute as even being accurate. That's laughable.
As far as Bowles, Mitch Todd has obviously embarrassed you; I mean just look at your responses since the penny finally dropped.
As for your general hatefulness, I bet you're a real hit during the holidays.
-
Went down in flames? It's like you're eight years old.
Regarding Callaway, your argument relies on the police tapes, which you dispute as even being accurate. That's laughable.
As far as Bowles, Mitch Todd has obviously embarrassed you; I mean just look at your responses since the penny finally dropped.
As for your general hatefulness, I bed you're a real hit during the holidays.
So much frustration..... Will you start throwing things around next?
You bed?
Regarding Callaway, your argument relies on the police tapes, which you dispute as even being accurate.
Another misrepresentation. One of many by now. I don't dispute the sequence of events as can be heard on the police recordings, but I do have an issue with the time calls by the dispatchers to the extent that they do not reflect real time. Which, btw, is exactly what Bowles said.
And as far as relying on the police tapes goes; you claimed that it was obvious (there is that word again) that the second "602" call by Butler was to inform the dispatcher that he was leaving the scene. Despite the fact that Butler told George and Patricia Nass a different story in 1964, you nevertheless claimed you had a source that would confirm your claim. It's been nearly a month now, and you still haven't presented that information. One can only wonder why......
And then, of course, there is the time line of the radio recording itself, which clearly shows that Callaway simply had no time to help Tippit into the ambulance before making his radio call. You ran from that one as fast as you could. Why was that again, Bill?
As far as Bowles, Mitch Todd has obviously embarrassed you
You use the word "obvious" way to often and incorrectly!
How in the world would Todd be able to embarrass me, when all he talks about is the time difference between channel 1 and 2 and the Callaway sequence was all on channel 1?
Todd even admits that he has "never argued, claimed, or impled that any of the DPD dispatcher clock were running on standard time" and that for him "standard time is the time standard standardized by the National Beureau of Standards. At least, that's the standard answer. Put another way, it is the official US time standard as derived from UT1..".
-
Bowles himself said that the DPDs standard was to keep the dispatcher clocks to within a minute. Francis Cason said the same thing. I've quoted both saying it.
And as I pointed out, you misrepresented Cason. She was talking about the time clocks in the telephone dispatcher’s office. And as both Martin and I pointed out, Bowles said “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.”
11/22/63 was nothing if not a “busy period”. It’s also important to note that Bowles never said the 2 radio dispatcher clocks were ever synced with each other, just with the “master clock” when it was noticed that one was out of sync.
In addition to these things, Bowles also said that the radio dispatchers didn’t always announce the same time that was currently being displayed on the clock.
This might also be a good time to point out that a fraction (ie, the percentage of the time that a clock goes out of spec)
You don’t know what this percentage was.
multiplied by a fraction (the percentage of the time when a clock is out of spec that the dispatch office is too busy to intervene at normal speed) is an even smaller fraction.
You don’t know what this percentage was either. And it doesn’t matter anyway. All that matters is how busy they were that day.
That's not much to bet on.
It’s more than enough to state, as Bowles did, that you cannot rely on the accuracy of the announced times.
It can be determined that the clocks used by the channel one and channel two radio operators were running within one minute of each other. This can be done by inspecting the simulcasts broadcast shortly after the assassination, and comparting the timestamps on those transmissions to the timestamps on the surrounding radio traffic.
There you have it. Dan O’Meara was asking who was advocating this “simulcast” idea.
This can also be done by looking the instances of crosstalk between channel two and channel one during the open mic interval. BBN (and others) used regression analysis of the time announcements on both channels to show the same thing.
It’s time to get specific here. What crosstalk tells you what both radio dispatcher clocks were reading at any particular moment in time? What crosstalk is even timestamped? What “regression analysis” (whatever that means) tells you what both radio dispatcher clocks were reading at any particular moment in time?
Further, the '12:30 KKB364' announcement between Curry's "approaching triple underpass" and "Go to the hospital" transmissions align with the Hertz clock in the McIntire photo as well as the observed time noted by various members of the White House party indicate that channel two is within one minute of standard time.
Not unless you can show that the Hertz clock was aligned with standard time.
-
Let's see if there is anybody who can help Bill Brown to pinpoint the moment when Callaway had time to help load Tippit into the ambulance before making his radio call, as Bill claims he did.
When I asked Bill this question he refused to answer and said he had made his case, so others can now make up their mind. That made me curious and wanting to go over this again, to see if there is anybody who agrees with Bill and can explain, in detail, why....
On page 11 of this thread, Bill posted this YouTube video;
It provides the audio recordings of the DPD radio over a much longer period of time than the one Bill and I were discussing, so I provided a timeline (obtained by placing the mp3 of the YouTube recording in a software program called Wavelab), which looked like this;
The key times are:
57:28:67 Bowley starts his call
58:14:42 Bowley ends his call (being told to stay of the radio)
58:24:35 Ambulance 602 calls Code 5 (en route)
58:41:85 Ambulance 602 calls Code 6 (for wrong location at Jefferson)
58:48:40 Ambulance 602 asks dispatcher for address on Jefferson - Dispatcher replies: 501 Tenth Street
59:02:85 Ambulance 602 calls Code 6 (for arrival at Tippit scene)
59:30:99 Ambulance 602 tries to get attention of the dispatcher by calling "602"
59:40:98 Callaway starts his call
59:42:85 Ambulance 602 tries again to get the attention of the dispatcher by calling "602"
We know for a fact that Callaway had not yet arrived at the scene when Bowley finished his call. We also know that he arrived on the scene shortly before the ambulance did. This means that Callaway must have arrived at the scene between 58:14:42 and 59:02:85.
We also know that Callaway said that when he arrived at the scene, he first went to check on the victim before he went to the police car to use the radio. He made his call at 59:40:98, which is roughly 38 seconds after the Code 6 call by the ambulance, at 59:02:85.
Although this can not be said with 100% certainty, it's highly likely that when Butler made the Code 6 call, he was still driving the ambulance towards the location. The alternative would be that he first stopped the ambulance and then made the Code 6, but that would only mean a loss of possibly valuable seconds.
So, if Butler did indeed make his Code 6 call at 59:02:85, it would have taken him - I assume - another 10 to 15 seconds to stop the car, near the victim, and get out of the ambulance.
Butler told George and Patricia Nash that he went to check on the victim. When he saw that it was a police officer he returned to the ambulance to let the dispatcher know that the victim was a police officer. In his book, Myers, accepts this actually happened and so did Bill earlier in this thread. The audio timeline shows this call (the first unanswered "602") took place at 59:30:99, so roughly 28 seconds after the Code 6 call.
Only 10 seconds later, at 59:40:98, Callaway makes his radio call, during which Butler made his second "602" call.
So, the question is; when exactly did Callaway have the oppertunity to help load Tippit into the ambulance, during the 38 seconds that elapsed between the ambulance's code 6 call at 59:02:85 and Callaway's call at 59:40:98?
When considering if there was a window of opportunity, it should be taken in consideration that;
(1) the arrival call for the ambulance, at 59:02:85, was probably made when the ambulance was still driving. Parking it near to the victim could easily have taken 10 seconds or so, and
(2) when Callaway made his call, he first had to get into the car, which also reduced the window of opportunity by, at least, several seconds.
I really would appreciate feedback, especially from LNs who can be relied upon to support Bill Brown, about exactly when they think Callaway had the opportunity to help load Tippit into the ambulance before he made his call.
-
I would also like to know the provenance of the recording on the YouTube video.
-
The police tapes obviously don't mention the body being loaded into the ambulance, but the tapes do tell us when the ambulance was leaving the scene en route to Methodist Hospital. The tapes tell us that the ambulance was leaving the scene as Callaway was making his report on the squad car radio.
602 (ambulance): 602.
Dispatcher: 85.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker): 85.
Dispatcher: Suspect running west on Jefferson from the location.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker): 10-4.
Dispatcher: No physical description.
Citizen (Callaway): Hello, hello, hello.
602 (ambulance): 602.
Citizen (Callaway): Pardon, from out here on Tenth Street, 500 block. This officer just shot. I think he's dead.
Dispatcher: 10-4. We have that information. The citizen using the radio: Remain off the radio now.
That "602" was Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital. However, he could not get through because Callaway is on the squad car radio reporting the incident (as the ambulance is speeding off).
After arriving on the scene in the ambulance, Butler and Kinsley rolled Tippit's body over (he was lying on his stomach) in order to place Tippit onto the stretcher.. Callaway noticed Tippit's service revolver lying on the street (it was underneath the body). Callaway picked up the revolver and placed it on the hood of the patrol car and then helped Bowley, Butler and Kinsley load Tippit's body into the ambulance.
T.F. Bowley stated in his affidavit that once Tippit's body was loaded into the ambulance, he saw the service revolver lying on the hood of the patrol car (having been placed there moments earlier by Callaway). Bowley picked up the revolver off of the hood and placed on the front seat of the patrol car.
"When the ambulance left, I took the gun and put it inside the squad car." -- T.F. Bowley (12/2/63 affidavit)
After making his report to the police dispatcher on the squad car radio, Callaway grabbed the service revolver from the front seat and proceeded to seek others to help him go off in search for the killer.
More evidence that Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance BEFORE he got on the police radio to report the shooting...
"And then I got out of the cab and run down there; the ambulance had
already arrived by the time I got there, and they were in the process
of picking the man up, and they had done had him, was putting him on
the stretcher when I got there, and they put him in the ambulance and
took him away, and there was someone that got on the radio at that
time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to
get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up
the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground, apparently fell
out of his holster when he fell, and says, "Come on, let's go see if
we can find him." -- WILLIAM SCOGGINS
The "someone that got on the radio" was Callaway and the "at that
time" was once the ambulance "took him away".
Domingo Benavides said that Callaway got on the patrol car radio to report the shooting and the "officer" at the other end (the dispatcher) told Callaway that they already had that information and to stay off the air. Benavides then said that Callaway grabbed the service revolver and said to Benavides that they should go chase the killer. Benavides said he declined and added that Callaway then went over to the cab driver (Scoggins).
Callaway said to Scoggins "Let's get the son of a As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'". Benavides said nothing about Callaway helping to load the body into the ambulance before going over to Scoggins with the revolver (because this had already been done earlier and the ambulance was gone).
-
The police tapes obviously don't mention the body being loaded into the ambulance, but the tapes do tell us when the ambulance was leaving the scene en route to Methodist Hospital. The tapes tell us that the ambulance was leaving the scene as Callaway was making his report on the squad car radio.
602 (ambulance): 602.
Dispatcher: 85.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker): 85.
Dispatcher: Suspect running west on Jefferson from the location.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker): 10-4.
Dispatcher: No physical description.
Citizen (Callaway): Hello, hello, hello.
602 (ambulance): 602.
Citizen (Callaway): Pardon, from out here on Tenth Street, 500 block. This officer just shot. I think he's dead.
Dispatcher: 10-4. We have that information. The citizen using the radio: Remain off the radio now.
That "602" was Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital. However, he could not get through because Callaway is on the squad car radio reporting the incident (as the ambulance is speeding off).
After arriving on the scene in the ambulance, Butler and Kinsley rolled Tippit's body over (he was lying on his stomach) in order to place Tippit onto the stretcher.. Callaway noticed Tippit's service revolver lying on the street (it was underneath the body). Callaway picked up the revolver and placed it on the hood of the patrol car and then helped Bowley, Butler and Kinsley load Tippit's body into the ambulance.
T.F. Bowley stated in his affidavit that once Tippit's body was loaded into the ambulance, he saw the service revolver lying on the hood of the patrol car (having been placed there moments earlier by Callaway). Bowley picked up the revolver off of the hood and placed on the front seat of the patrol car.
"When the ambulance left, I took the gun and put it inside the squad car." -- T.F. Bowley (12/2/63 affidavit)
After making his report to the police dispatcher on the squad car radio, Callaway grabbed the service revolver from the front seat and proceeded to seek others to help him go off in search for the killer.
More evidence that Callaway helped load the body into the ambulance BEFORE he got on the police radio to report the shooting...
"And then I got out of the cab and run down there; the ambulance had
already arrived by the time I got there, and they were in the process
of picking the man up, and they had done had him, was putting him on
the stretcher when I got there, and they put him in the ambulance and
took him away, and there was someone that got on the radio at that
time and they told him he was going to report it, so they told him to
get off the air, that it had already been reported, and he picks up
the officer's pistol that was laying on the ground, apparently fell
out of his holster when he fell, and says, "Come on, let's go see if
we can find him." -- WILLIAM SCOGGINS
The "someone that got on the radio" was Callaway and the "at that
time" was once the ambulance "took him away".
Domingo Benavides said that Callaway got on the patrol car radio to report the shooting and the "officer" at the other end (the dispatcher) told Callaway that they already had that information and to stay off the air. Benavides then said that Callaway grabbed the service revolver and said to Benavides that they should go chase the killer. Benavides said he declined and added that Callaway then went over to the cab driver (Scoggins).
Callaway said to Scoggins "Let's get the son of a As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'". Benavides said nothing about Callaway helping to load the body into the ambulance before going over to Scoggins with the revolver (because this had already been done earlier and the ambulance was gone).
"That "602" was Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital."
I'm sorry Bill, but this is an assumption you are making and it needs to be stated as such.
This interpretation of the "602" may fit your timeline but it is not inherent in the tapes.
-
"That "602" was Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital."
I'm sorry Bill, but this is an assumption you are making and it needs to be stated as such.
This interpretation of the "602" may fit your timeline but it is not inherent in the tapes.
Indeed.
Bill has claimed that he has a source for the second "602" call, but several weeks have now gone by and he hasn't been able to produce it.
On the other hand, in 1964, Butler, the ambulance driver, told George and Patricia Nash that he was trying to get through to the dispatcher to tell him the victim was a police officer.
And the timeline provided by the actual audio recording confirms there was only 38 seconds between the "Code 6" call (confirming the arrival of the ambulance on the scene) and Callaway's radio call. During that time Butler made his first "602" call (28 seconds after the "Code 6"call) and 8 seconds later the second. When he couldn't get trough, Butler said, he returned to the officer. This of course means that Tippit had not yet been placed inside the ambulance, because if he had been, Butler would not have to return to him.
Bill Brown is wrong, but he will never admit it. Rather disappointingly he is too stubborn for that. Instead he will keep on repeating his interpretation of the radio traffic as "evidence" and throw insults my way.
-
Bill Brown is wrong, but he will never admit it. Rather disappointingly he is too stubborn for that. Instead he will keep on repeating his interpretation of the radio traffic as "evidence" and throw insults my way.
If you prove me wrong, I'll admit it. I've never had a problem admitting my mistakes. I simply don't think that I am wrong and you haven't posted anything which proves that I am.
-
If you prove me wrong, I'll admit it. I've never had a problem admitting my mistakes. I simply don't think that I am wrong and you haven't posted anything which proves that I am.
So, now you are not only stubborn but also completely dishonest.
First of all, it was you who made the claim that Callaway helped load Tippit into the ambulance before making his radio call, so it's you who should prove that actually happened. You do not get to assume that you are right unless somebody proves you wrong.
Secondly, hell can freeze over 10 times, but it will never ever be possible to prove you wrong, simply because no matter how much solid and conclusive evidence is presented to you, it will never ever be enough for you.
-
If you prove me wrong, I'll admit it. I've never had a problem admitting my mistakes. I simply don't think that I am wrong and you haven't posted anything which proves that I am.
Repeating “that "602" was Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital” over and over again does not make it true. Nobody has to “prove you wrong” about this. It seems you pulled it out of your ass.
-
So now you agree that the pistol in evidence is the one used to murder Tippit! Progress.
You actually becoming aware of something that I have never denied is indeed progress.
Now how did the DPD acquire the gun used to kill Tippit to plant it on Oswald?
If they did, how in the world would I know? When you can't explain a magic trick, does that mean it didn't happen?
That's the scenario you want to us to entertain?
No, that's the scenario you want us to entertain!
You accept that the gun in evidence was used to kill Tippit but have suggested it is not linked to Oswald due to a "chain of custody" issue. A legal argument valid only in a criminal trial. What you are actually implying is that the DPD somehow (never explained by you) obtained the murder weapon and for some reason (never explained) decided to plant it on Oswald and allow the actual killer of a fellow police officer to go free. But they don't stop there. Now they have to somehow (never explained by you) forge the documentation that links Oswald/Hidell to the pistol that you admit was used to kill Tippit. They also have to convince the seller and various other parties involved in this transaction to all go along. And it doesn't end there. If this gun was purchased and owned by someone other than Oswald, then the police have to search out the records of that transaction to ensure no one ever uncovers the true owner. All this is entailed in your suggestion that Oswald is not linked to this pistol. You provide not a scintilla of evidence to support this alternative fantasy. In fact, you deny being a CTer. Deny suggesting the evidence against Oswald is fake. Just yell "chain of custody" "chain of custody". It is laughable. I hope you are just spoofing this nonsense to pass the time and don't actually believe there is any validity to your ridiculous contrarian approach to this case.
-
You accept that the gun in evidence was used to kill Tippit but have suggested it is not linked to Oswald due to a "chain of custody" issue. A legal argument valid only in a criminal trial. What you are actually implying is that the DPD somehow (never explained by you) obtained the murder weapon and for some reason (never explained) decided to plant it on Oswald and allow the actual killer of a fellow police officer to go free. But they don't stop there. Now they have to somehow (never explained by you) forge the documentation that links Oswald/Hidell to the pistol that you admit was used to kill Tippit. They also have to convince the seller and various other parties involved in this transaction to all go along. And it doesn't end there. If this gun was purchased and owned by someone other than Oswald, then the police have to search out the records of that transaction to ensure no one ever uncovers the true owner. All this is entailed in your suggestion that Oswald is not linked to this pistol. You provide not a scintilla of evidence to support this alternative fantasy. In fact, you deny being a CTer. Deny suggesting the evidence against Oswald is fake. Just yell "chain of custody" "chain of custody". It is laughable. I hope you are just spoofing this nonsense to pass the time and don't actually believe there is any validity to your ridiculous contrarian approach to this case.
You accept that the gun in evidence was used to kill Tippit but have suggested it is not linked to Oswald due to a "chain of custody" issue. A legal argument valid only in a criminal trial.
No. A legal argument that's always valid. You just want to do away with it, because for you any evidence that can point to Oswald's guilt, no matter how pathetic, is important even if it can't be authenticated. It's for the exact same reason that you have proven yourself beyond doubt to be utterly incapable to argue or debate any particular part of this case beyond being argumentative about anything except the evidence, being dismissive of any opinion that does not match your own, and filling page after page with insignificant drivel.
What you are actually implying is that the DPD somehow (never explained by you) obtained the murder weapon and for some reason (never explained) decided to plant it on Oswald and allow the actual killer of a fellow police officer to go free.
Wrong again. A chain of custody is required to rule out the possibility of evidence manipulation. By not giving a damn about a chain of custody, it's actually you who is saying that you don't care if the DPD manipulated the evidence. And, btw, nobody said anything about planting a revolver on Oswald. A revolver was taken from Oswald and a revolver was handed in to the evidence room, after Hill had allegedly carried it around for several hours. The question that needs to be answered, either way, is; was it the same revolver in both cases? You can assume it was, but you can not prove it.
Now they have to somehow (never explained by you) forge the documentation that links Oswald/Hidell to the pistol that you admit was used to kill Tippit. They also have to convince the seller and various other parties involved in this transaction to all go along.
Nice strawman. I only have one question; why would they have to do that?
And it doesn't end there. If this gun was purchased and owned by someone other than Oswald, then the police have to search out the records of that transaction to ensure no one ever uncovers the true owner.
Again; why?
You're completely barking up the wrong tree here. Is this really the limit of your imagination?
All this is entailed in your suggestion that Oswald is not linked to this pistol.
No it isn't.
Btw don't you also know the difference between a suggestion and asking a question?
You provide not a scintilla of evidence to support this alternative fantasy.
Actually, the one who can't present a shred of proof for the claim that the revolver now in evidence is the one they took from Oswald, is you. Why? Because you don't have a chain of custody, all you've got is assumptions.
Deny suggesting the evidence against Oswald is fake. Just yell "chain of custody" "chain of custody". It is laughable.
Well, it works as it should do. It sure has you all fired up throwing hissy fits.... :D
I hope you are just spoofing this nonsense to pass the time and don't actually believe there is any validity to your ridiculous contrarian approach to this case.
One thing is for sure. It is a hell of a lot better than just relying on assumptions and blind faith, believing everything you have been told without questioning any of it or having a single critical thought about it, as you do.
If I am a contrarian for not accepting a non factual and unproven case based on unconclusive and questional evidence, as you do, than the title "contrarian" is a honorary one!
-
No murder weapon needed to convict re Tippit
-
You accept that the gun in evidence was used to kill Tippit but have suggested it is not linked to Oswald due to a "chain of custody" issue. A legal argument valid only in a criminal trial.
No. A legal argument that's always valid. You just want to do away with it, because for you any evidence that can point to Oswald's guilt, no matter how pathetic, is important even if it can't be authenticated. It's for the exact same reason that you have proven yourself beyond doubt to be utterly incapable to argue or debate any particular part of this case beyond being argumentative about anything except the evidence, being dismissive of any opinion that does not match your own, and filling page after page with insignificant drivel.
What you are actually implying is that the DPD somehow (never explained by you) obtained the murder weapon and for some reason (never explained) decided to plant it on Oswald and allow the actual killer of a fellow police officer to go free.
Wrong again. A chain of custody is required to rule out the possibility of evidence manipulation. By not giving a damn about a chain of custody, it's actually you who is saying that you don't care if the DPD manipulated the evidence. And, btw, nobody said anything about planting a revolver on Oswald. A revolver was taken from Oswald and a revolver was handed in to the evidence room, after Hill had allegedly carried it around for several hours. The question that needs to be answered, either way, is; was it the same revolver in both cases? You can assume it was, but you can not prove it.
Now they have to somehow (never explained by you) forge the documentation that links Oswald/Hidell to the pistol that you admit was used to kill Tippit. They also have to convince the seller and various other parties involved in this transaction to all go along.
Nice strawman. I only have one question; why would they have to do that?
And it doesn't end there. If this gun was purchased and owned by someone other than Oswald, then the police have to search out the records of that transaction to ensure no one ever uncovers the true owner.
Again; why?
You're completely barking up the wrong tree here. Is this really the limit of your imagination?
All this is entailed in your suggestion that Oswald is not linked to this pistol.
No it isn't.
Btw don't you also know the difference between a suggestion and asking a question?
You provide not a scintilla of evidence to support this alternative fantasy.
Actually, the one who can't present a shred of proof for the claim that the revolver now in evidence is the one they took from Oswald, is you. Why? Because you don't have a chain of custody, all you've got is assumptions.
Deny suggesting the evidence against Oswald is fake. Just yell "chain of custody" "chain of custody". It is laughable.
Well, it works as it should do. It sure has you all fired up throwing hissy fits.... :D
I hope you are just spoofing this nonsense to pass the time and don't actually believe there is any validity to your ridiculous contrarian approach to this case.
One thing is for sure. It is a hell of a lot better than just relying on assumptions and blind faith, believing everything you have been told without questioning any of it or having a single critical thought about it, as you do.
If I am a contrarian for not accepting a non factual and unproven case based on unconclusive and questional evidence, as you do, than the title "contrarian" is a honorary one!
You completely misunderstand - likely intentionally - the difference between the legal standard that governs a criminal trial and a discussion outside that context to determine what happened. In a criminal trial, the rights even of the guilty are taken into consideration. The prosecution has a high burden to convict someone for a crime. Even if there is evidence that proves beyond any doubt that a person has committed a crime, that evidence might be excluded due to a violation of the defendants rights. Can you understand how that is different than reaching a conclusion as to whether an individual nevertheless committed the act? If, for example, there is a film of an individual committing the crime, the fact that this film might be excluded from consideration in a legal context does not preclude everyone else from reaching the conclusion that the film demonstrates that the individual committed the crime. Here, you suggest that there is a "chain of custody" issue. A legal concept applied only in a criminal context. This is a procedural question applicable only in a trial. Even if you were correct that there is some issue with the chain of custody (and that is highly debatable), that alone does not mean there is doubt about Oswald's possession of this gun. You do not provide a scintilla of evidence that actually demonstrates that the gun in evidence was not the same gun obtained from Oswald. You do not address the totality of evidence and circumstances that link him to that particular gun. Those are not assumptions. There are documents that link him to the gun. The DPD confirm they took that gun from him. You can't even articulate a rational explanation for how or why this occurred. You just shout over and over "chain of custody" as though that itself casts doubt on the matter. It is a lazy defense attorney tactic when the facts, evidence, and common sense lend themselves to a different conclusion.
-
You completely misunderstand - likely intentionally - the difference between the legal standard that governs a criminal trial and a discussion outside that context to determine what happened. In a criminal trial, the rights even of the guilty are taken into consideration. The prosecution has a high burden to convict someone for a crime. Even if there is evidence that proves beyond any doubt that a person has committed a crime, that evidence might be excluded due to a violation of the defendants rights. Can you understand how that is different than reaching a conclusion as to whether an individual nevertheless committed the act? If, for example, there is a film of an individual committing the crime, the fact that this film might be excluded from consideration in a legal context does not preclude everyone else from reaching the conclusion that the film demonstrates that the individual committed the crime. Here, you suggest that there is a "chain of custody" issue. A legal concept applied only in a criminal context. This is a procedural question applicable only in a trial. Even if you were correct that there is some issue with the chain of custody (and that is highly debatable), that alone does not mean there is doubt about Oswald's possession of this gun. You do not provide a scintilla of evidence that actually demonstrates that the gun in evidence was not the same gun obtained from Oswald. You do not address the totality of evidence and circumstances that link him to that particular gun. Those are not assumptions. There are documents that link him to the gun. The DPD confirm they took that gun from him. You can't even articulate a rational explanation for how or why this occurred. You just shout over and over "chain of custody" as though that itself casts doubt on the matter. It is a lazy defense attorney tactic when the facts, evidence, and common sense lend themselves to a different conclusion.
Can you understand how that is different than reaching a conclusion as to whether an individual nevertheless committed the act?
If you want to reach such a conclusion based on questionable evidence that can not be authenticated, then yes, there is a massive difference. But even if you may want to do something so shallow and stupid, that doesn't mean that others have to do the same.
What you seem to struggle with is that a chain of custody issue is not just about "evidence that proves beyond any doubt that a person has committed a crime" might be excluded due to a violation of the defendants rights. It's about validation and authentication of evidence in general. Evidence that can not be authenticated is not valid and can never ever be considered as being proof of anything, including a defendant's guilt.
Let's see if you understand it, when I say it like this; You can not consider any piece of evidence as "proof beyond any doubt" that somebody is guilty, when you don't even know for a fact that the evidence is valid and authentic.
Here, you suggest that there is a "chain of custody" issue. A legal concept applied only in a criminal context. This is a procedural question applicable only in a trial.
No it isn't. Authentication is a prerequisite for anybody who wants to reach a honest conclusion based on the evidence. You keep going on about how the evidence shows Oswald's guilt, but you don't seem to care the least that the evidence may not be authentic, which basically makes your conclusion worthless.
Even if you were correct that there is some issue with the chain of custody (and that is highly debatable), that alone does not mean there is doubt about Oswald's possession of this gun.
Hilarious. That's exactly what it means, whether you like it or not.
You do not provide a scintilla of evidence that actually demonstrates that the gun in evidence was not the same gun obtained from Oswald. You do not address the totality of evidence and circumstances that link him to that particular gun.
Don't have to. It's the classic LN "I'm right until you prove me wrong" BS again. You claim it's Oswald's revolver, so you need to prove that. Not the other way around!
There are documents that link him to the gun.
Actually, no there aren't.
The DPD confirm they took that gun from him.
No, they didn't. Hill said that he was given that revolver and was told it was Oswald's. No officer has ever stated that he took the revolver now in evidence from Oswald.
You just shout over and over "chain of custody" as though that itself casts doubt on the matter.
Because it does. No such doubt would have to exist if there was a solid chain of custody. The fact that there isn't one justifies doubt.
It is a lazy defense attorney tactic when the facts, evidence, and common sense lend themselves to a different conclusion.
LOL ... the actual evidence is not authenticated and common sense is not evidence.
-
This is real simple. Even if there were a "chain of custody" issue in the context of a criminal trial regarding the gun (and there is not) that alone does nothing to advance the claim that the gun in evidence is not the same gun taken from Oswald. We can look to the evidence and totality of circumstances to make a conclusion about that outside of a criminal trial context. We are not bound by the rules of a criminal trial and a real or imagined violation of those rules is not, standing alone, any evidence of a switch. There are documents that link Oswald to this gun. There are witnesses who confirm this gun was taken from Oswald. There is not a scintilla of evidence that the revolver was ever owned by anyone else. And think of the absurdity of the DPD somehow (unexplained) obtaining the actual murder weapon, letting the real murderer go free, framing Oswald (again for some unexpressed reason), forging all the documentation that links Oswald to this gun (including somehow working with the seller of the gun to forge documents), and covering up the ownership of the gun by someone else while allowing the real killer of a fellow police officer to go free. All that is on one end of the evidentiary scale and on the other repeating "chain of custody" over and over.
-
This is real simple. Even if there were a "chain of custody" issue in the context of a criminal trial regarding the gun (and there is not) that alone does nothing to advance the claim that the gun in evidence is not the same gun taken from Oswald. We can look to the evidence and totality of circumstances to make a conclusion about that outside of a criminal trial context. We are not bound by the rules of a criminal trial and a real or imagined violation of those rules is not, standing alone, any evidence of a switch. There are documents that link Oswald to this gun. There are witnesses who confirm this gun was taken from Oswald. There is not a scintilla of evidence that the revolver was ever owned by anyone else. And think of the absurdity of the DPD somehow (unexplained) obtaining the actual murder weapon, letting the real murderer go free, framing Oswald (again for some unexpressed reason), forging all the documentation that links Oswald to this gun (including somehow working with the seller of the gun to forge documents), and covering up the ownership of the gun by someone else while allowing the real killer of a fellow police officer to go free. All that is on one end of the evidentiary scale and on the other repeating "chain of custody" over and over.
This is real simple. Even if there were a "chain of custody" issue in the context of a criminal trial regarding the gun (and there is not) that alone does nothing to advance the claim that the gun in evidence is not the same gun taken from Oswald.
The only thing real simple here, is your reasoning, if it can be called that. Try to understand this; there doesn't have to be a claim that the gun in evidence is not the one taken from Oswald. Instead, it has to be proven that the gun in evidence is the one taken from Oswald.
We can look to the evidence and totality of circumstances to make a conclusion about that outside of a criminal trial context. We are not bound by the rules of a criminal trial and a real or imagined violation of those rules is not, standing alone, any evidence of a switch.
What you a really saying is that outside of a criminal trial context you can make up anything you like, but that doesn't make it a valid argument and to call it a "conclusion" would be laughable.
There are documents that link Oswald to this gun.
No, there are not.
There are witnesses who confirm this gun was taken from Oswald.
No, there are not! You are already making up stuff again.
There is not a scintilla of evidence that the revolver was ever owned by anyone else
So what? There doesn't have to be? It tells you absolutely nothing.
And think of the absurdity of the DPD somehow (unexplained) obtaining the actual murder weapon, letting the real murderer go free, framing Oswald (again for some unexpressed reason), forging all the documentation that links Oswald to this gun (including somehow working with the seller of the gun to forge documents), and covering up the ownership of the gun by someone else while allowing the real killer of a fellow police officer to go free.
Cops don't lie.... Is that your point?
Beyond that, this is just another one of your pathetic strawman. I've already dealt with it in my previous post, yet here you are again with the same old BS.
What makes you think that the DPD (whatever you mean by that) obtained the murder weapon, in the knowledge that somebody else killed Tippit with it, or that they would knowingly be involved in a cover up?
All that is on one end of the evidentiary scale and on the other repeating "chain of custody" over and over.
You are way out of your league here.
-
This is stupid even by “Richard” standards. He seems to think that chain of custody is only a legal maneuver used in court. If you can’t trust the evidence, then you can’t trust any conclusions made about the evidence.
-
This is stupid even by “Richard” standards. He seems to think that chain of custody is only a legal maneuver used in court. If you can’t trust the evidence, then you can’t trust any conclusions made about the evidence.
Or, alternatively, "Richard understands full well just how questionable and weak the evidence really is and that it can't stand withstand detailed scrutiny beyond anything superficial. Or, is that giving him too much credit?
-
--------
BONUS
--------
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wb34xTrH/GUNNY.png)
;D
-
--------
BONUS
--------
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wb34xTrH/GUNNY.png)
;D
What gun was that, exactly?
On second thought, why am I asking you? You're clueless about any of this.
-
What gun was that, exactly?
On second thought, why am I asking you? You're clueless about any of this.
> The one Brewer saw being taken from Oswald
> Clueless? You're the one who just said there were no witnesses who saw Oswald with a gun
-
> The one Brewer saw being taken from Oswald
> Clueless? You're the one who just said there were no witnesses who saw Oswald with a gun
Idiot. We all know that Oswald had a revolver. He even admitted it during questioning.
But there is nobody who can say that the revolver now in evidence is the one that was taken from Oswald.
That's why you are clueless!
-
Idiot. We all know that Oswald had a revolver. He even admitted it during questioning.
But there is nobody who can say that the revolver now in evidence is the one that was taken from Oswald.
That's why you are clueless!
HA! Since when do you lot believe anything said in the Oswald interviews.. especially being unrecorded they are
-
HA! Since when do you lot believe anything said in the Oswald interviews.. especially being unrecorded they are
So, dumb ass, Oswald didn't have a revolver with him at the Texas Theater?
-
We all know that Oswald had a revolver. He even admitted it during questioning.
No.
Not Iacoletti.
-
No.
Not Iacoletti.
So, Oswald did not admit to having a revolver at the Texas Theater?
Btw, are you still here?
What happened to the source you claimed you have, for Callaway helping to load Tippit into the ambulance before making his radio call?
-
So, Oswald did not admit to having a revolver at the Texas Theater?
Btw, are you still here?
What happened to the source you claimed you have, for Callaway helping to load Tippit into the ambulance before making his radio call?
So, Oswald did not admit to having a revolver at the Texas Theater?
I didn't say anything even remotely close to that.
You said: "We all know that Oswald had a revolver."
Iacoletti has argued (a thousand times over) that we do not know for sure that Oswald had a revolver at all at the theater.
What happened to the source you claimed you have, for Callaway helping to load Tippit into the ambulance before making his radio call?
Quote my comment first, then I can try to address it.
-
Funny how Brewer, who was back by the stage door on the opposite side of a dimly lit theater saw something that nobody else (even the cops involved in the struggle) saw.
-
I didn't say anything even remotely close to that.
You said: "We all know that Oswald had a revolver."
Iacoletti has argued (a thousand times over) that we do not know for sure that Oswald had a revolver at all at the theater.
Quote my comment first, then I can try to address it.
Stop wasting everybody's time with silly childish games.
You claimed to have a source for Butler, in his second "602" call, was trying to let the dispatcher know that the ambulance was leaving the scene. In other words, if you are correct (quod non), Callaway had already helped to load Tippit into the ambulance.
So, how much longer do we have to wait for that source? Produce it already or admit you've got no such source and you just made it up.
-
To summarize, the "chain of custody" standard is applicable only in a criminal trial context. It is an ideal standard designed to protect the rights in our legal system of even the guilty. A real or (as in this context) imagined violation of that standard does not, standing alone, constitute evidence that the gun in evidence is not the same one taken from Oswald. There is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest this. The evidence and circumstances lend themselves beyond any doubt to the conclusion that the gun in evidence is the same one taken from Oswald. The DPD confirms this. The documentation confirms this. The totality of circumstances confirms this. The fact that there are some examples in history of the police planting evidence does not lend themselves to a conclusion that they did so in this instance. I've already laid out the reasoning and evidence for that conclusion. Martin has just repeated "chain of custody" like a pro bono defense attorney defending a guilty client.
-
To summarize, the "chain of custody" standard is applicable only in a criminal trial context. It is an ideal standard designed to protect the rights in our legal system of even the guilty. A real or (as in this context) imagined violation of that standard does not, standing alone, constitute evidence that the gun in evidence is not the same one taken from Oswald. There is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest this. The evidence and circumstances lend themselves beyond any doubt to the conclusion that the gun in evidence is the same one taken from Oswald. The DPD confirms this. The documentation confirms this. The totality of circumstances confirms this. The fact that there are some examples in history of the police planting evidence does not lend themselves to a conclusion that they did so in this instance. I've already laid out the reasoning and evidence for that conclusion. Martin has just repeated "chain of custody" like a pro bono defense attorney defending a guilty client.
The only one repeating the same old BS time after time is you!
-
So, dumb ass, Oswald didn't have a revolver with him at the Texas Theater?
::)
-
To summarize, the "chain of custody" standard is applicable only in a criminal trial context.
Repeating a fallacious argument over and over doesn’t turn it into a good argument. Authenticity of evidence is important in any context. Garbage in, garbage out.
A real or (as in this context) imagined violation of that standard does not, standing alone, constitute evidence that the gun in evidence is not the same one taken from Oswald.
Nobody has to provide evidence that it is not. You have to provide evidence that it is. Your claim, your burden. “Cop said so” is not sufficient. That’s why chain of custody rules exist in the first place.
-
Funny how Brewer, who was back by the stage door on the opposite side of a dimly lit theater saw something that nobody else (even the cops involved in the struggle) saw.
------
FACT
------
(https://i.postimg.cc/jSP0sq3K/house-lights-tt.png)
-
The only one repeating the same old BS time after time is you!
LOL. Where is Otto?
-
LOL. Where is Otto?
When repeating crappy arguments doesn't work...... look for a diversion :D
-
------
FACT
------
Mr. BELIN. Did you see who hit whom first?
Mr. HUTSON. No.
Mr. BELIN. You are shaking your head, no.
Mr. HUTSON. No, I didn't.
Mr. BELIN. Okay.
Mr. HUTSON. The lights were down. The lights were on in the theatre, but it was dark.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
-
When repeating crappy arguments doesn't work...... look for a diversion :D
How much of the Oswald interrogations did you believe
It appears that you believe he brought a gun
-
How much of the Oswald interrogations did you believe
It appears that you believe he brought a gun
What makes you think that I want to have a conversation with you?
-
Mr. BELIN. Did you see who hit whom first?
Mr. HUTSON. No.
Mr. BELIN. You are shaking your head, no.
Mr. HUTSON. No, I didn't.
Mr. BELIN. Okay.
Mr. HUTSON. The lights were down. The lights were on in the theatre, but it was dark.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Brewer said differently
-
Brewer said differently
No he didn’t.
-
No he didn’t.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jSP0sq3K/house-lights-tt.png)
https://www.jdtippit.com/brewer_nov.htm
-
When repeating crappy arguments doesn't work...... look for a diversion :D
Otto, Otto, Otto!
-
What makes you think that I want to have a conversation with you?
No need for any sort of contact with you at all, other than to call you out when (for instance) you try to insult me by pretending to agree that Oswald confessed to bringing a gun to the movies.
-
No need for any sort of contact with you at all, other than to call you out when you try to insult me by pretending to agree that Oswald confessed to bringing a gun to the movies.
No need for any sort of contact with you at all,
Then don't ask me questions
when you try to insult me
I wouldn't have to try very hard, but in this case I didn't try at all.
It is not my problem that you are so desperate as to believe that what I say or not has anything to do with you, when the truth is that you are completely insignificant to me.
-
Hutson said the lights were on, but it was dark in the theater. Brewer didn’t say anything different.
-
No need for any sort of contact with you at all,
Then don't ask me questions
when you try to insult me
I wouldn't have to try very hard, but in this case I didn't try at all.
It is not my problem that you are so desperate as to believe that what I say or not has anything to do with you, when the truth is that you are completely insignificant to me.
And yet here you are
Moth to the flame
-
Hutson said the lights were on, but it was dark in the theater. Brewer didn’t say anything different.
FFS
Brewer said he saw the man with a gun
Another guy said 'he's got a gun'
-
Witnesses confirm a revolver was taken from Oswald. Oswald admits he had a gun. There are images of the revolver being carried out of the TT. Documents that preexist this event link an order and shipment of the revolver per the same serial number to Oswald's PO Box in an alias associated with Oswald. No other pistol associated with Oswald is ever found. But the contrarians shout "chain of custody" over and over. Did the DPD have a time machine to create documents that confirm this revolver was sent to Oswald?
-
Maybe someone can find the pantry that was used to go back to 1959 in Stephen King's '11.22.63'
Aside from that, I wonder if Iacoletti would care to let us know just how dark it was in the TT for
A) Hutson
B) Brewer
C) The 'he's got a gun' guy
(https://i.postimg.cc/ncPV1405/to-see-or-not-to-see.png)
To see or not to see
-
FFS
Brewer said he saw the man with a gun
Another guy said 'he's got a gun'
The question is, did he have a gun before McDonald accosted him? We only have McDonald’s say-so on that. A known attention-seeking, self-promoting, serial embellisher who needed to justify his own misconduct.
A lot of people’s hands were on a gun during the struggle. Only Brewer (again, across a darkened theater) claimed to see one in Oswald’s hand. McDonald didn’t even say that.
“Another guy”. LOL.
-
Witnesses confirm a revolver was taken from Oswald.
BS: What witnesses?
Oswald admits he had a gun.
BS: You don’t know what he “admitted”.
There are images of the revolver being carried out of the TT.
BS: You don’t know which revolver is in the images.
Documents that preexist this event link an order
BS: You don’t know when the “documents” were created.
and shipment of the revolver per the same serial number to Oswald's PO Box
BS: You have no evidence of any such shipment.
But the contrarians shout "chain of custody" over and over.
You don’t understand why chain of custody matters. Without it, you can’t demonstrate that CE143 was the same gun handled by McDonald, Carroll, or Hill, or that it was ever in Oswald’s possession, much less had anything to do with Tippit. Wanting to believe it is not sufficient.
-
BS: What witnesses?
BS: You don’t know what he “admitted”.
BS: You don’t know which revolver is in the images.
BS: You don’t know when the “documents” were created.
BS: You have no evidence of any such shipment.
You don’t understand why chain of custody matters. Without it, you can’t demonstrate that CE143 was the same gun handled by McDonald, Carroll, or Hill, or that it was ever in Oswald’s possession, much less had anything to do with Tippit. Wanting to believe it is not sufficient.
You know what's going to happen, right?
"Richard Smith" is going to completely ignore everything you have written and repeat the same old BS over and over again, in much the same way as Bill Brown did earlier in this thread.
The only take away from this is that it is pointless to ask a LN a question about the evidence, because he simply can't provide a plausible answer.
-
The question is, did he have a gun before McDonald accosted him? We only have McDonald’s say-so on that. A known attention-seeking, self-promoting, serial embellisher who needed to justify his own misconduct.
A lot of people’s hands were on a gun during the struggle. Only Brewer (again, across a darkened theater) claimed to see one in Oswald’s hand. McDonald didn’t even say that.
“Another guy”. LOL.
Mr. McDONALD. Yes. I went at him with this hand, and I believe I struck him on the face, but I don't know where. And with my hand, that was on his hand over the pistol.
--------
BONUS
--------
Now watch Iacoletti try to pull his old 'precise language' shtick :D
-
JI: "...[that] doesn’t mean that the maximum they could ever be off is two minutes."
MT: You are technically correct.
Thank you. That invalidates your entire claim that he said that the dispatcher clocks were kept to within a minute of each other." You omitted “or so” and “normal procedure” in your dishonest summary.
My statement invalidates nothing else I've said. Your logic is simply faulty.
I haven't quite claimed that "the dispatcher clocks were kept to within a minute of each other." I claimed the standard the DPD used was to keep clocks to within a minute of each other. Those aren't really the same things. I've used both Cason's and Bowles' testimony to demonstrate this.
Knowing the standard sets the expected operation. And while accidents happen and things sometimes go cattywhompus, those are unusual occurrences. The unusual has a higher burden of proof, which is simply the more general (and necessarily milder) case of the old skeptic's saw that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". This is especially true here, where we already have evidence pointing to the clocks being within one minute of each other, and no evidence that they were off by any more.
"Or so" simply means "some small amount in addition to or subtracted from." Since Bowles starts with "a minute," then "or so" means something less than a minute. If Bowles wanted to say "a minute or two," he was perfectly willing to and capable of doing so. You've already provided the evidence of this.
What data? You can’t use the time announcements to validate the time announcements. There is no “data” that tells you how far apart they were that day.
If you don't know by know what the data is, then you need to shut it, pack it up, and go home. Otherwise, all you are doing is wasting everyone's time, including your own. I'm spoon-feeding you everything like you're some little bitty whiny baby kid.
You’ve presented no evidence that they were at most a minute apart that day. Which is your claim.
Yes I have, in previous incarnations of this debate. Again, you don't know what's going on, but that doesn't stop you from arguing about it. Which is just a waste of time.
MT: I'm not sure where you get the idea that the channel one recordings have been "edited" or "dubbed" outside of where consecutive recordings have been spliced together.
Ignoring your “massive spliceapalooza” strawman, a splice IS an edit. And of course they were dubbed. Multiple times. None of us are listening to the original Dictabelt and Audograph. And they had a tendency to skip and repeat sections. Those (at least) were edited as well.
If you go back and reread what you responded to, I specifically accounted for cases "outside of where consecutive recordings have been spliced together." Your response is then redundant, and also another waste of time.
-
No, the burden of proof lies on the person claiming that “usually” really means always.
I never said that "usually" means "always." If you have to keep putting words in my mouth in order to continue arguing then you must be in a pretty pitiful state of affairs here.
-
Bowles himself said that the DPDs standard was to keep the dispatcher clocks to within a minute. Francis Cason said the same thing. I've quoted both saying it.
Bowles said a hell of a lot more than that. You can do all the self-serving song and dance you want, it doesn't change the fact that Bowles clearly provided information that the DPD time stamps can not be relied upon.
Bowles provided no such "information." He did cough up a handful of hypothetical situations that might affect the timestamps, but could not provide any examples that this was the case. And --again-- he's the guy who would know. You have also failed to provide any examples on your own.
MT: You started off here saying that you rely on nothing. [Then, three sentences later, you declare that you rely on Bowles ('...that's good enough for me').]
Stop misrepresenting what I actually said, which was;
"I don't rely on anything. I merely state factual information. It's not my problem that you don't like it. "
I misrepresented nothing. Your first first sentence directly contradicts your fourth, and the two in between do nothing to mitigate the collision.
Your argument is with Bowles, not with me. But anybody who needs to misrepresent something like this, isn't worth talking to.
Good luck trying to play down what the chief of the DPD dispatchers (who, in case you don't understand that, is a primary source) said.
I'm not going to waste my time dealing with your nonsense.
I'm not arguing with Bowles. He never actually claimed that there was a clock issue on the 22nd. The best he could manage was to insinuate that something might have been wrong, based on few hypothetical situations for which he provides no substantiation. That's a pretty thin gruel with which to nurse your notions back to health.
-
Bowles provided no such "information." He did cough up a handful of hypothetical situations that might affect the timestamps, but could not provide any examples that this was the case. And --again-- he's the guy who would know. You have also failed to provide any examples on your own.
I misrepresented nothing. Your first first sentence directly contradicts your fourth, and the two in between do nothing to mitigate the collision.
I'm not arguing with Bowles. He never actually claimed that there was a clock issue on the 22nd. The best he could manage was to insinuate that something might have been wrong, based on few hypothetical situations for which he provides no substantiation. That's a pretty thin gruel with which to nurse your notions back to health.
Bowles provided no such "information." He did cough up a handful of hypothetical situations that might affect the timestamps, but could not provide any examples that this was the case. And --again-- he's the guy who would know.
Yes, indeed. Being the man in charge of the dispatchers he would indeed know what he was talking about and he told us exactly why the timestamps could not be relied upon. There was nothing hypothetical about it and you demanding examples is just another dishonest way of trying to discredit what Bowles said. I'm pretty sure that if Bowley had given particular examples it still wouldn't be enough.
Btw, what makes you even think that Bowles could not provide examples? Perhaps, the mere fact that he didn't provide any as part of his authoritative explanation?
I'm not arguing with Bowles. He never actually claimed that there was a clock issue on the 22nd. The best he could manage was to insinuate that something might have been wrong, based on few hypothetical situations for which he provides no substantiation.
Nobody ever said that Bowles claimed there was a clock issue on the 22nd. That's your straw man.
There were no insinuations or hypotheticals on Bowles' part. You just call his explanations that because you don't like them.
What Bowles actually did was explain how the system worked, what the purpose of it was, what frequently went wrong and that the times used by the dispatchers did not reflect the actual "real" time. As he was the man in charge of the dispatchers, and thus has first hand knowledge, I'll go with what he said over any of your denials and concoctions any time.
Your desperation to present the time stamp calls by the dispatchers as a reflection of real time (because no matter how much you deny it, that is exactly what you are trying to do) is just as obvious as it is pathetic.
-
You know what's going to happen, right?
"Richard Smith" is going to completely ignore everything you have written and repeat the same old BS over and over again, in much the same way as Bill Brown did earlier in this thread.
You are right about that. There are two people on this forum that I never respond to. John I. is one of those. The fact remains that documents from the seller confirm that a specific revolver with a specific serial number was ordered and sent via Oswald's PO box address and a known alias associated with Oswald. That SAME revolver is the one placed into evidence by the DPD as the revolver taken from Oswald at the TT. That is the revolver even you acknowledge was used to kill Tippit. Your baseless "chain of custody" fantasy that the gun in evidence was somehow planted on Oswald is thus laughable. It is proven to belong to Oswald by all the facts and circumstances. It has the same serial number as the revolver sent to him. There is no other such revolver ever associated with him. It's difficult to conceive how there could even be any more evidence of this. It was literally taken from Oswald. He confirmed he had it with him. There are images of it being carried from the TT while Oswald is being put in the car. Your weak sauce is to repeat "chain of custody" over and over.
-
You are right about that. There are two people on this forum that I never respond to. John I. is one of those. The fact remains that documents from the seller confirm that a specific revolver with a specific serial number was ordered and sent via Oswald's PO box address and a known alias associated with Oswald. That SAME revolver is the one placed into evidence by the DPD as the revolver taken from Oswald at the TT. That is the revolver even you acknowledge was used to kill Tippit. Your baseless "chain of custody" fantasy that the gun in evidence was somehow planted on Oswald is thus laughable. It is proven to belong to Oswald by all the facts and circumstances. It has the same serial number as the revolver sent to him. There is no other such revolver ever associated with him. It's difficult to conceive how there could even be any more evidence of this. It was literally taken from Oswald. He confirmed he had it with him. There are images of it being carried from the TT while Oswald is being put in the car. Your weak sauce is to repeat "chain of custody" over and over.
That SAME revolver is the one placed into evidence by the DPD as the revolver taken from Oswald at the TT.
Of course it was. You said it yourself it was placed into evidence as the revolver taken from Oswald at the TT.
Just like the grey jacket (with initials on it of officers who were not in the chain of custody) was placed into evidence as the white jacket that was found at the car park.
And just as the wallet, containing the Hidell ID, was handed to Gus Rose, by an unidentified officer, as the wallet that was taken from Oswald.
Your baseless "chain of custody" fantasy that the gun in evidence was somehow planted on Oswald is thus laughable.
I never claimed that the gun now in evidence was planted on Oswald.
It is proven to belong to Oswald by all the facts and circumstances.
No, it isn't
It was literally taken from Oswald. He confirmed he had it with him.
No he didn't.
When you come up with something new, more substantive and credible than this propaganda BS, make sure to let me know.
-
Your baseless "chain of custody" fantasy that the gun in evidence was somehow planted on Oswald is thus laughable.
I never claimed that the gun now in evidence was planted on Oswald.
It is proven to belong to Oswald by all the facts and circumstances.
No, it isn't
It was literally taken from Oswald. He confirmed he had it with him.
No he didn't.
When you come up with something new, more substantive and credible than this propaganda BS, make sure to let me know.
Round and round we go. You acknowledged in this very thread that it would be pointless to plant a gun on Oswald unless that gun had been used in the Tippit murder. The gun in evidence is either the gun taken from Oswald or another gun planted by the DPD to frame him (per your "chain of custody" nonsense). Now you are claiming that you never claimed the gun in evidence was planted on Oswald!!! Huh? What does that even mean if you are claiming there is a "chain of custody" issue with the gun in evidence? If someone didn't falsely place it into evidence as the gun found on him, then this is the gun taken from Oswald. And per your own acknowledgement it is the gun used to kill Tippit. Good grief. The documents from the seller linking Oswald to the gun in evidence is "propaganda"? Hard to understand even what that means. That is how evidence works. The authorities trace ownership of a gun via the documents and serial numbers to figure out who owned it. In this case, they confirm via serial numbers and addresses that it was ordered and sent to person using a known alias associated with Oswald to an address that was his PO Box. That wasn't even necessary in this case because the gun was in Oswald's possession when arrested. That documentation from a third-party source is just a cherry on top of his ice cream sundae of guilt. Just saying "no it isn't" in time honored Monty Python-style does not rebut that evidence.
-
Round and round we go. You acknowledged in this very thread that it would be pointless to plant a gun on Oswald unless that gun had been used in the Tippit murder. The gun in evidence is either the gun taken from Oswald or another gun planted by the DPD to frame him (per your "chain of custody" nonsense). Now you are claiming that you never claimed the gun in evidence was planted on Oswald!!! Huh? What does that even mean if you are claiming there is a "chain of custody" issue with the gun in evidence? If someone didn't falsely place it into evidence as the gun found on him, then this is the gun taken from Oswald. And per your own acknowledgement it is the gun used to kill Tippit. Good grief. The documents from the seller linking Oswald to the gun in evidence is "propaganda"? Hard to understand even what that means. That is how evidence works. The authorities trace ownership of a gun via the documents and serial numbers to figure out who owned it. In this case, they confirm via serial numbers and addresses that it was ordered and sent to person using a known alias associated with Oswald to an address that was his PO Box. That wasn't even necessary in this case because the gun was in Oswald's possession when arrested. That documentation from a third-party source is just a cherry on top of his ice cream sundae of guilt. Just saying "no it isn't" in time honored Monty Python-style does not rebut that evidence.
You acknowledged in this very thread that it would be pointless to plant a gun on Oswald unless that gun had been used in the Tippit murder.
No. I never said anything about planting a gun on Oswald. Stop making stuff up.
The gun in evidence is either the gun taken from Oswald or another gun planted by the DPD to frame him
True, but who said anything about the DPD (as in the entire police department) planting a gun?
Now you are claiming that you never claimed the gun in evidence was planted on Oswald!!! Huh?
Try to think harder. You'll figure it out at the end, I'm sure. Here's a clue; introducing something into evidence is not the same as planting something on a person. Get it now?
What does that even mean if you are claiming there is a "chain of custody" issue with the gun in evidence?
After dismissing it as nonsense, you now have to ask what the chain of custody issue is? Really?
If someone didn't falsely place it into evidence as the gun found on him, then this is the gun taken from Oswald. And per your own acknowledgement it is the gun used to kill Tippit. Good grief.
Wow, you're actually starting to get it. The chain of custody requirement is in place to ensure that the authenticity of the evidence is protected and safeguarded. So all you have to do now is prove that the revolver Hill walked around with for several hours, showed to people and claimed that it was Oswald's was indeed the revolver taken from Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. Now I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit 143. Would you state if you know what this is?
Mr. HILL. This is a .38 caliber revolver, Smith & Wesson, with a 2" barrel that would contain six shells. It is an older gun that has been blue steeled, and has a worn wooden handle.
Mr. BELIN. Have you ever seen this gun before?
Mr. HILL. I am trying to see my mark on it to make sure, sir. I don't recall specifically where I marked it, but I did mark it, if this is the one. I don't remember where I did mark it, now.
Here it is, Hill right here, right in this crack.
Mr. BELIN. Officer, you have just pointed out a place which I will identify as a metal portion running along the butt of the gun. Can you describe it any more fully?
Mr. HILL. It would be to the inside of the pistol grip holding the gun in the air. It would begin under the trigger guard to where the last name H-i-l-1 is scratched in the metal.
Mr. BELIN. Who put that name in there?
Mr. HILL. I did.
Mr. BELIN. When did you do that?
Mr. HILL. This was done at approximately 4 p.m., the afternoon of Friday, November 22, 1963, in the personnel office of the police department.
Mr. BELIN. Did you keep that gun in your possession until you scratched your name on it?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. BELIN. Was this gun the gun that Officer Carroll handed to you?
Mr. HILL. And identified to me as the suspect's weapon.
<>
Mr. BELIN. Now, you said as the driver of the car, Bob Carroll, got in the car, he handed this gun to you?
Mr. HILL. Right, sir.
So, can you tell me how Hill knew that the revolver he had been carrying around for hours did indeed belong to Oswald?
And - as if you are going to answer this question [yeah right] - , don't say he just trusted Carroll's word, because Carroll testified that he did not even know from which hand he pulled the revolver.
Just saying "no it isn't" in time honored Monty Python-style does not rebut that evidence.
Just saying "no it isn't" is still a hell of a lot better than completely ignoring questions and never provide any answers, as you always do.
But as just about everything you write is Monty Python-esque, my reply is very fitting. And there is nothing to rebut since what you claim to be conclusive evidence just isn't. It always comes down to the same problem with you; you confuse your opinion with the actual evidentiary value of the evidence.
-
I haven't quite claimed that "the dispatcher clocks were kept to within a minute of each other." Those aren't really the same things. I claimed the standard the DPD used was to keep clocks to within a minute of each other. I've used both Cason's and Bowles' testimony to demonstrate this.
And as has already been pointed out multiple times, Cason was talking about different clocks, and Bowles said it was not always done.
Knowing the standard sets the expected operation. And while accidents happen and things sometimes go cattywhompus, those are unusual occurrences. The unusual has a higher burden of proof, which is simply the more general (and necessarily milder) case of the old skeptic's saw that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Bull. The only claim being made here is that you cannot rely on the clocks being within one minute or so of each other. Bowles’ statement that adjustments were not always readily done is sufficient.
If you don't know by know what the data is, then you need to shut it, pack it up, and go home. Otherwise, all you are doing is wasting everyone's time, including your own. I'm spoon-feeding you everything like you're some little bitty whiny baby kid.
You can either back up what you claim with actual evidence, or you can pretend that vague references to “data” and posturing is the same thing. Your choice.
-
Whether “Richard” has the ability to respond or not, his misinformation is still misinformation. He doesn’t just get to claim that “the revolver” is in images without demonstrating that it’s the same revolver.
-
“A Hidell” wasn’t a “known alias associated with Oswald”. That’s just more “Richard” misinformation.
-
Just saying "no it isn't" in time honored Monty Python-style does not rebut that evidence.
What “Richard” always fails to comprehend is that claiming something has been proven is not the same thing as proving it.
-
What “Richard” always fails to comprehend is that claiming something has been proven is not the same thing as proving it.
Yes it is
-
Yes it is
'Yes it is'
_ In this context, meant as contradiction
Contradiction for the sake of it.. the life blood of all Oswald arse kissers
-
“A Hidell” wasn’t a “known alias associated with Oswald”. That’s just more “Richard” misinformation.
AJ Hidell (aka Lee Harvey Oswald) was in charge of armament procurement
OH Lee (aka Lee Harvey Oswald) was in charge of safe-house procurement
Dirty Harvey (aka Lee Harvey Oswald) was in charge of shooting cops
Lee Harvey Oswald was in charge of screwing things up his entire life
------------
QUOTE OF
THE DAY ;)
------------
'Hidell: Rhymes with Fidel'
>attributed to Marina Oswald
-
You acknowledged in this very thread that it would be pointless to plant a gun on Oswald unless that gun had been used in the Tippit murder.
No. I never said anything about planting a gun on Oswald. Stop making stuff up.
The gun in evidence is either the gun taken from Oswald or another gun planted by the DPD to frame him
True, but who said anything about the DPD (as in the entire police department) planting a gun?
Now you are claiming that you never claimed the gun in evidence was planted on Oswald!!! Huh?
Try to think harder. You'll figure it out at the end, I'm sure. Here's a clue; introducing something into evidence is not the same as planting something on a person. Get it now?
What does that even mean if you are claiming there is a "chain of custody" issue with the gun in evidence?
After dismissing it as nonsense, you now have to ask what the chain of custody issue is? Really?
If someone didn't falsely place it into evidence as the gun found on him, then this is the gun taken from Oswald. And per your own acknowledgement it is the gun used to kill Tippit. Good grief.
Wow, you're actually starting to get it. The chain of custody requirement is in place to ensure that the authenticity of the evidence is protected and safeguarded. So all you have to do now is prove that the revolver Hill walked around with for several hours, showed to people and claimed that it was Oswald's was indeed the revolver taken from Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. Now I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit 143. Would you state if you know what this is?
Mr. HILL. This is a .38 caliber revolver, Smith & Wesson, with a 2" barrel that would contain six shells. It is an older gun that has been blue steeled, and has a worn wooden handle.
Mr. BELIN. Have you ever seen this gun before?
Mr. HILL. I am trying to see my mark on it to make sure, sir. I don't recall specifically where I marked it, but I did mark it, if this is the one. I don't remember where I did mark it, now.
Here it is, Hill right here, right in this crack.
Mr. BELIN. Officer, you have just pointed out a place which I will identify as a metal portion running along the butt of the gun. Can you describe it any more fully?
Mr. HILL. It would be to the inside of the pistol grip holding the gun in the air. It would begin under the trigger guard to where the last name H-i-l-1 is scratched in the metal.
Mr. BELIN. Who put that name in there?
Mr. HILL. I did.
Mr. BELIN. When did you do that?
Mr. HILL. This was done at approximately 4 p.m., the afternoon of Friday, November 22, 1963, in the personnel office of the police department.
Mr. BELIN. Did you keep that gun in your possession until you scratched your name on it?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. BELIN. Was this gun the gun that Officer Carroll handed to you?
Mr. HILL. And identified to me as the suspect's weapon.
<>
Mr. BELIN. Now, you said as the driver of the car, Bob Carroll, got in the car, he handed this gun to you?
Mr. HILL. Right, sir.
So, can you tell me how Hill knew that the revolver he had been carrying around for hours did indeed belong to Oswald?
And - as if you are going to answer this question [yeah right] - , don't say he just trusted Carroll's word, because Carroll testified that he did not even know from which hand he pulled the revolver.
Just saying "no it isn't" in time honored Monty Python-style does not rebut that evidence.
Just saying "no it isn't" is still a hell of a lot better than completely ignoring questions and never provide any answers, as you always do.
But as just about everything you write is Monty Python-esque, my reply is very fitting. And there is nothing to rebut since what you claim to be conclusive evidence just isn't. It always comes down to the same problem with you; you confuse your opinion with the actual evidentiary value of the evidence.
I can't follow what you are babbling about here. This is Inspector Clouseau nonsense. Why should anyone have to "figure out" what you are claiming? You kept saying there is "chain of custody" problem with the gun in evidence (i.e. there is a problem linking that gun to the one taken from Oswald at the TT). After you understood that it made no sense to plant a gun on Oswald that had nothing to do with the crime, you admitted that this gun was obviously used to kill Tippit. Now you are claiming you never suggested it was planted!!! Making some bizarre distinction about the "entire" DPD planting versus some individual DPD officer. Wow. Either this is the gun taken from Oswald or someone planted it to frame Oswald. It did not descend from the heavens. The serial numbers from a preexisting document linke this gun to Oswald via his PO Box. It was ordered in a known alias used by Oswald. The order requested that it be sent to his PO Box. That is the SAME gun in evidence. The one owned by Oswald. The one the DPD confirm they took from him.
-
And down we go the rabbit hole of “Richard’s” misinformation. The DPD can’t “confirm” they took it from Oswald because there is no chain of custody. That’s the whole point that keeps eluding you.
And you can’t seem to grasp the difference between “planting evidence” and “planting evidence ON OSWALD”.
-
I can't follow what you are babbling about here. This is Inspector Clouseau nonsense. Why should anyone have to "figure out" what you are claiming? You kept saying there is "chain of custody" problem with the gun in evidence (i.e. there is a problem linking that gun to the one taken from Oswald at the TT). After you understood that it made no sense to plant a gun on Oswald that had nothing to do with the crime, you admitted that this gun was obviously used to kill Tippit. Now you are claiming you never suggested it was planted!!! Making some bizarre distinction about the "entire" DPD planting versus some individual DPD officer. Wow. Either this is the gun taken from Oswald or someone planted it to frame Oswald. It did not descend from the heavens. The serial numbers from a preexisting document linke this gun to Oswald via his PO Box. It was ordered in a known alias used by Oswald. The order requested that it be sent to his PO Box. That is the SAME gun in evidence. The one owned by Oswald. The one the DPD confirm they took from him.
I can't follow what you are babbling about here. This is Inspector Clouseau nonsense.
Of course you can't follow it. That's the entire point. You are indeed clueless...
You kept saying there is "chain of custody" problem with the gun in evidence (i.e. there is a problem linking that gun to the one taken from Oswald at the TT).
Sure there is. Anybody who has any knowledge of the subject only needs to read the testimony of Hill to understand what the problem is. Too bad you're not that anybody.
After you understood that it made no sense to plant a gun on Oswald that had nothing to do with the crime, you admitted that this gun was obviously used to kill Tippit.
Now, who is babbling?
Now you are claiming you never suggested it was planted!!! Making some bizarre distinction about the "entire" DPD planting versus some individual DPD officer. Wow.
First of all there is a major difference between an entire police department and one individual officer. Secondly there is a massive difference between planting something on somebody and just handing something in as evidence and claiming it belonged to a specific person.
Either this is the gun taken from Oswald or someone planted it to frame Oswald.
Which only tells us that you are still just a clueless as you were before.
That is the SAME gun in evidence. The one owned by Oswald. The one the DPD confirm they took from him.
Except the DPD never confirmed they took the revolver now in evidence from Oswald and they never proved that he was the owner of that particular revolver. You can repeat the same false claims over and over again as much as you like, they will never become true.
-
I can't follow what you are babbling about here. This is Inspector Clouseau nonsense.
Of course you can't follow it. That's the entire point. You are indeed clueless...
You kept saying there is "chain of custody" problem with the gun in evidence (i.e. there is a problem linking that gun to the one taken from Oswald at the TT).
Sure there is. Anybody who has any knowledge of the subject only needs to read the testimony of Hill to understand what the problem is. Too bad you're not that anybody.
After you understood that it made no sense to plant a gun on Oswald that had nothing to do with the crime, you admitted that this gun was obviously used to kill Tippit.
Now, who is babbling?
Now you are claiming you never suggested it was planted!!! Making some bizarre distinction about the "entire" DPD planting versus some individual DPD officer. Wow.
First of all there is a major difference between an entire police department and one individual officer. Secondly there is a massive difference between planting something on somebody and just handing something in as evidence and claiming it belonged to a specific person.
Either this is the gun taken from Oswald or someone planted it to frame Oswald.
Which only tells us that you are still just a clueless as you were before.
That is the SAME gun in evidence. The one owned by Oswald. The one the DPD confirm they took from him.
Except the DPD never confirmed they took the revolver now in evidence from Oswald and they never proved that he was the owner of that particular revolver. You can repeat the same false claims over and over again as much as you like, they will never become true.
Why don't you lay out the exact scenario that you are suggesting regarding chain of custody instead of playing the endless contrarian in which everything is true and everything is suspect? There is a revolver in evidence. The DPD officers indicate that they took a revolver from Oswald upon his arrest. No DPD officer has ever suggested this is not the revolver in evidence. That revolver has the same serial number as the revolver sent to a PO Box associated with Oswald per an order in a known alias used by Oswald in Oswald's handwriting. No other revolver has ever been associated with Oswald via any means. Spin a yarn now.
-
Why don't you lay out the exact scenario that you are suggesting regarding chain of custody instead of playing the endless contrarian in which everything is true and everything is suspect? There is a revolver in evidence. The DPD officers indicate that they took a revolver from Oswald upon his arrest. No DPD officer has ever suggested this is not the revolver in evidence. That revolver has the same serial number as the revolver sent to a PO Box associated with Oswald per an order in a known alias used by Oswald in Oswald's handwriting. No other revolver has ever been associated with Oswald via any means. Spin a yarn now.
Why don't you lay out the exact scenario that you are suggesting regarding chain of custody
I already have, but I will do again, after you start answering questions... Fair enough?
There is a revolver in evidence.
Yes, there is
The DPD officers indicate that they took a revolver from Oswald upon his arrest.
Name the officers who said that they took a revolver from Oswald?
No DPD officer has ever suggested this is not the revolver in evidence.
Just how many DPD officers had sufficient knowledge about the revolver to make such a suggestion?
No other revolver has ever been associated with Oswald via any means.
So what? Did they look for another revolver? Did they look for the shop in Fort Worth where Oswald said he bought his revolver?
-
Why don't you lay out the exact scenario that you are suggesting regarding chain of custody instead of playing the endless contrarian in which everything is true and everything is suspect? There is a revolver in evidence. The DPD officers indicate that they took a revolver from Oswald upon his arrest. No DPD officer has ever suggested this is not the revolver in evidence. That revolver has the same serial number as the revolver sent to a PO Box associated with Oswald per an order in a known alias used by Oswald in Oswald's handwriting. No other revolver has ever been associated with Oswald via any means. Spin a yarn now.
Parroting the same misinformation over and over again will not save you. Neither will shifting the burden. You can either demonstrate that CE143 was ever in Oswald’s possession or you cannot. And you cannot.
-
Why don't you lay out the exact scenario that you are suggesting regarding chain of custody
I already have, but I will do again, after you start answering questions... Fair enough?
There is a revolver in evidence.
Yes, there is
The DPD officers indicate that they took a revolver from Oswald upon his arrest.
Name the officers who said that they took a revolver from Oswald?
No DPD officer has ever suggested this is not the revolver in evidence.
Just how many DPD officers had sufficient knowledge about the revolver to make such a suggestion?
No other revolver has ever been associated with Oswald via any means.
So what? Did they look for another revolver? Did they look for the shop in Fort Worth where Oswald said he bought his revolver?
So you won't even articulate what it is that you are suggesting when you say there is a "chain of custody" issue? LOL. You have indicated that you are not claiming that gun was planted. You have also implied it was not taken from Oswald. It's left to our imagination then what you are suggesting here and you won't provide any insight. Multiple witnesses place a gun in Oswald's possession at the Tippit scene and then in the TT. The DPD confirm that a gun was taken from Oswald upon arrest and placed into evidence. That gun has a serial number that confirms it is the same gun ordered using an alias associated with Oswald with a mailing address to his PO Box. You weakly suggest that the DPD needed to "look" for another revolver when they had the murder weapon taken directly from Oswald. They did search all his possessions and found none. In addition, official investigations and unofficial investigations over the last six decades have not turned up an iota of evidence that associates Oswald with any other revolver. What level of investigation would satisfy you that Oswald possessed no other pistol if the most investigated case in criminal history - both officially and unofficially via numerous CTer "researchers" - has never found a scintilla of evidence that suggests Oswald owned any other revolver at the time of his arrest? This is just another weak attempt to suggest fake doubt by applying an impossible standard of proof to the facts.
-
So you won't even articulate what it is that you are suggesting when you say there is a "chain of custody" issue? LOL. You have indicated that you are not claiming that gun was planted. You have also implied it was not taken from Oswald. It's left to our imagination then what you are suggesting here and you won't provide any insight. Multiple witnesses place a gun in Oswald's possession at the Tippit scene and then in the TT. The DPD confirm that a gun was taken from Oswald upon arrest and placed into evidence. That gun has a serial number that confirms it is the same gun ordered using an alias associated with Oswald with a mailing address to his PO Box. You weakly suggest that the DPD needed to "look" for another revolver when they had the murder weapon taken directly from Oswald. They did search all his possessions and found none. In addition, official investigations and unofficial investigations over the last six decades have not turned up an iota of evidence that associates Oswald with any other revolver. What level of investigation would satisfy you that Oswald possessed no other pistol if the most investigated case in criminal history - both officially and unofficially via numerous CTer "researchers" - has never found a scintilla of evidence that suggests Oswald owned any other revolver at the time of his arrest? This is just another weak attempt to suggest fake doubt by applying an impossible standard of proof to the facts.
Talk about weak. What a load of BS!
Where can I find the names of the officers who indicated that they took a revolver from Oswald?
You can't name them because there aren't any.
It's left to our imagination then what you are suggesting here
No. I'm pretty sure that most people understand prefectly. You're just not one of them.
The DPD confirm that a gun was taken from Oswald upon arrest and placed into evidence.
Really? Are you sure about that? Name some names of people that confirm that and be precise because this "The DPD" crap is growing old.
You weakly suggest that the DPD needed to "look" for another revolver when they had the murder weapon taken directly from Oswald. They did search all his possessions and found none.
So, to determine the origin of the grey jacket the FBI visits over 400 dry cleaners in the greater Dallas and New Orleans areas, but when it comes to the revolver (which according to Fritz, Oswald said he bought in Fort Worth) they only search "all his possessions". Do you even understand how wacky that sounds?
In addition, official investigations and unofficial investigations over the last six decades have not turned up an iota of evidence that associates Oswald with any other revolver. What level of investigation would satisfy you that Oswald possessed no other pistol if the most investigated case in criminal history - both officially and unofficially via numerous CTer "researchers" - has never found a scintilla of evidence that suggests Oswald owned any other revolver at the time of his arrest?
What a pathetic appeal to perceived authority. It doesn't matter one bit that all the official and unofficial investigations failed to do their job. The fact that they didn't find another revolver (because they did not look for one) still doesn't justify the conclusion that the revolver now in evidence must belong to Oswald! But, I'm sure, that will never get through your thick skull.
Now, let's get back to basics, shall we; which DPD officer has said that he took a revolver from Oswald at the Texas Theater and how did Gerald Hill know that the evidence he placed into evidence several hours later belonged to Oswald?
Without answering these two very basic questions, you can place as many idiotic rants as you like, but I won't respond to them anymore.
-
That’s all “Richard” does — rant and spread misinformation. Now that he’s humiliated himself once again, can we get back to Bill’s evidence that “‘602’ was Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital”? I’m sure we would all like to see it.
-
Talk about weak. What a load of BS!
Where can I find the names of the officers who indicated that they took a revolver from Oswald?
You can't name them because there aren't any.
It's left to our imagination then what you are suggesting here
No. I'm pretty sure that most people understand prefectly. You're just not one of them.
Can you direct me to these "people" who understand what point you are trying to make about "chain of custody" since you refuse to articulate it? Would they include MIA Otto and Roger Collins? If so, can you conjure them up? And now there are no officers who can confirm that they took a revolver from Oswald!!! I knew you were a contrarian but that is bizarre. Let me guess. This statement has some hidden semantic meaning that we are supposed to "figure out"? You know that several officers were present at the arrest. The revolver can actually be seen being carried out of the TT. You know that multiple witnesses also confirm that Oswald had a revolver at the Tippit scene. Why this silly Inspector Clouseau routine?
-
... can we get back to Bill’s evidence that “‘602’ was Butler attempting to let dispatch know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital”? I’m sure we would all like to see it.
We won't. Like dozens of other dead end speculation that is all it is.
The driver of Oswald's ambulance that following Sunday testified but not Tippit's driver [who may have shed light on the question of whether he may have survived some miraculous resuscitation should they get him to Methodist with due promptness]
The Tippit trip would not have taken more than 5 minutes notwithstanding.
In other threads the arrival time at Methodist was noted as rather sketchy---
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/jfk20-20tippit20pronounced20dead.jpg)
1:06 becomes 1:15 which subsequently became 1:25 and so on :-\
-
“Richard” is intent on embarrassing himself. He’s like the boxer who keeps getting up after a nine count.
Go ahead, “Richard”. Name the officers who confirm that a revolver was taken from Oswald.
-
Our resident contrarians remind me of Inspector Clouseau: "I believe everything and I believe nothing. I suspect everyone and I suspect no one." In which they imply over and over and over that the evidence is faked/planted but then deny they have suggested a conspiracy. It is just so. There is no explanation. Not even an attempt. Just shout "chain of custody" and Oswald's revolver vanishes. Disregard that Oswald confirmed that he had a gun, that DPD officers took it from him, that there are pictures of it being carried from the TT and that there are documents that the same gun in evidence was ordered using an alias associated with Oswald and sent to his PO Box. But then deny that they are suggesting the evidence is fake. Or anyone has suggested a conspiracy (ie strawman). Refuse to state what exactly they are suggesting. Round and round we go down the rabbit hole.
-
Our resident contrarians remind me of Inspector Clouseau: "I believe everything and I believe nothing. I suspect everyone and I suspect no one." In which they imply over and over and over that the evidence is faked/planted but then deny they have suggested a conspiracy. It is just so. There is no explanation. Not even an attempt. Just shout "chain of custody" and Oswald's revolver vanishes. Disregard that Oswald confirmed that he had a gun, that DPD officers took it from him, that there are pictures of it being carried from the TT and that there are documents that the same gun in evidence was ordered using an alias associated with Oswald and sent to his PO Box. But then deny that they are suggesting the evidence is fake. Or anyone has suggested a conspiracy (ie strawman). Refuse to state what exactly they are suggesting. Round and round we go down the rabbit hole.
Oh listen to you ::)
That entire rabbit hole post is a total deviation from the subject of this thread.
"Oswald confirmed that he had a gun..."
When did a dead man tell you this?
-
Oh listen to you ::)
That entire rabbit hole post is a total deviation from the subject of this thread.
"Oswald confirmed that he had a gun..."
When did a dead man tell you this?
You're watching "Richard" desperately trying to divert attention away from his stupidy.
He is making bogus claims left, right and center and can't back any of them up with evidence.
And then the fool expects to be taken seriously..... It's really beyond pathetic.
-
The jig is up, “Richard”. Until you can demonstrate — with evidence, not your usual litany of BS claims — that CE143 was taken from Oswald in the theater, run along and let the grownups talk.
-
'Gotta keep on keeping' on'-- Joe Frazier
-
You're watching "Richard" desperately trying to divert attention away from his stupidy.
He is making bogus claims left, right and center and can't back any of them up with evidence.
And then the fool expects to be taken seriously..... It's really beyond pathetic.
So again no substantive response or explanation of your "chain of custody" claim. It is all commentary and personal insults. And I'm the one trying to "divert attention." LOL.
-
How about we try this one at a time to avoid going down every contrarian rabbit hole?
Was the revolver in evidence used to kill Tippit? It seems like the answer has to be yes regardless of whether you are a LNer or CTer because it was either used by Oswald to do so or was planted on him to link him to that crime. It would make no apparent sense to plant a gun that wasn't used in the crime to frame someone. But what say the contrarian?
-
So again no substantive response or explanation of your "chain of custody" claim. It is all commentary and personal insults. And I'm the one trying to "divert attention." LOL.
How about we try this one at a time to avoid going down every contrarian rabbit hole?
Was the revolver in evidence used to kill Tippit? It seems like the answer has to be yes regardless of whether you are a LNer or CTer because it was either used by Oswald to do so or was planted on him to link him to that crime. It would make no apparent sense to plant a gun that wasn't used in the crime to frame someone. But what say the contrarian?
Poor little "Richard"... So desperately trying to get out of the mess he has gotten himself into.
And still no names of the officers who "Richard" claims can confirm that a revolver was taken from Oswald at the TT and that it was CE143.....
LOL
-
How about we try this one at a time to avoid going down every contrarian rabbit hole?
Was the revolver in evidence used to kill Tippit? It seems like the answer has to be yes regardless of whether you are a LNer or CTer because it was either used by Oswald to do so or was planted on him to link him to that crime. It would make no apparent sense to plant a gun that wasn't used in the crime to frame someone. But what say the contrarian?
The weapon used to kill Tippit is indeterminate. There were insufficient characteristics on the bullets to identify a specific gun.
Next BS claim?
-
Poor little "Richard"... So desperately trying to get out of the mess he has gotten himself into.
And still no names of the officers who "Richard" claims can confirm that a revolver was taken from Oswald at the TT and that it was CE143.....
LOL
What is with the constant commentary and insults? How about trying to have a discussion? This is not a trick question. Was the gun in evidence used to kill Tippit?
-
What is with the constant commentary and insults? How about trying to have a discussion? This is not a trick question. Was the gun in evidence used to kill Tippit?
How about trying to have a discussion?
This, coming from you, is the joke of the week.
You want to know what the problem is with the chain of custody? You being unable to name the officer(s) who took a revolver from Oswald and your inability to show that CE143 is the revolver that was allegedly taken from Oswald. That is the problem with the chain of custody.
Now, after you can not back up your bogus claims with any evidence, you suddenly want a "discussion"? For what? So you can argue until hell freezes over that it somehow doesn't matter that you can't name the officers and that you are right anyway? No thank you, I'm not wasting my time on that. Even more so, as your posting history reveals beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are utterly incapable to have a discussion, as that requires the answering of questions and you won't or can't even answer a basic question.
Now, go back to just repeating your usual BS, because that seems to be the only thing you are good at.
-
McDonald gives the gun to Carroll..
then, after leaving the theater and taking Oswald to the cop shop:
(https://i.postimg.cc/bvQG7wfg/GAVE-HILL-THE-GUN.png)
...good so far ;D
--------
BONUS
--------
(https://i.postimg.cc/LsLwtzkD/I-had-a-pistol.png)
-
...good so far ;D
Nope.
Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.
-
Nope.
Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.
Yep.
Mr. BALL. What happened when you jerked the pistol free?
Mr. McDONALD. When I jerked it free, I was down in the seats with him, with my head, some reason or other, I don't know why, and when I brought the pistol out, it grazed me across the cheek here, and I put it all the way out to the aisle, holding it by the butt. I gave the pistol to Detective Bob Carroll...
JohnM
-
Nope.
Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.
Correct. And the hand-over to Sgt. Hill happened in the car as Oswald was being driven away from the TT.
Meantime, in other news, McDonald said he took the gun from Oswald and handed, or gave it, to Carroll.
--------
BONUS
--------
If I was a CT, I'd claim that there was no gun in Oswald's pants at all: He was just happy to see them. ;)
-
Okay, LNs...
Who is lying?
Is it Carroll;
Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.
or is it McDonald;
Mr. BALL. What happened when you jerked the pistol free?
Mr. McDONALD. When I jerked it free, I was down in the seats with him, with my head, some reason or other, I don't know why, and when I brought the pistol out, it grazed me across the cheek here, and I put it all the way out to the aisle, holding it by the butt. I gave the pistol to Detective Bob Carroll...
Well....
-
How about trying to have a discussion?
This, coming from you, is the joke of the week.
You want to know what the problem is with the chain of custody? You being unable to name the officer(s) who took a revolver from Oswald and your inability to show that CE143 is the revolver that was allegedly taken from Oswald. That is the problem with the chain of custody.
Now, after you can not back up your bogus claims with any evidence, you suddenly want a "discussion"? For what? So you can argue until hell freezes over that it somehow doesn't matter that you can't name the officers and that you are right anyway? No thank you, I'm not wasting my time on that. Even more so, as your posting history reveals beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are utterly incapable to have a discussion, as that requires the answering of questions and you won't or can't even answer a basic question.
Now, go back to just repeating your usual BS, because that seems to be the only thing you are good at.
So much endless commentary. Why so frightened to answer a simple question? Here it is again: Was the gun in evidence used to kill Tippit?
-
So much endless commentary. Why so frightened to answer a simple question? Here it is again: Was the gun in evidence used to kill Tippit?
I'll answer your question, after you have answered mine. Fair enough?
Name the officer(s) who took a revolver from Oswald?
What proof do you have to show that CE143 is the revolver that was allegedly taken from Oswald?
-
So why question whether the gun taken from Oswald is the same one in evidence?
Because, unlike you, I don't take anything on blind faith.
You don't even believe the gun in evidence is linked to the crime. Right?
Wrong. The revolver in evidence is clearly linked to Tippit's killing. Whether it is linked to Oswald is another matter.
Martin now is frightened for some reason to answer the question as to whether the gun in evidence was used to kill Tippit. But he had acknowledged in this very thread that "it is clearly linked to Tippit's killing." His reluctance to just confirm what he has already said on this very thread is another example of his dishonest approach to this case. This is the only logical conclusion since either Oswald used this gun to kill Tippit or it was planted on him by someone in the DPD to frame him for that crime. It would make no sense to plant a gun that doesn't link him to the crime (the entire purpose of planting the gun). Why this is like pulling teeth to get around the endless commentary, insults, and attempts at deflections when Martin has already indicated that the gun was used in the crime is a matter of psychological wonderment.
-
Martin now is frightened for some reason to answer the question as to whether the gun in evidence was used to kill Tippit. But he had acknowledged in this very thread that "it is clearly linked to Tippit's killing." His reluctance to just confirm what he has already said on this very thread is another example of his dishonest approach to this case. This is the only logical conclusion since either Oswald used this gun to kill Tippit or it was planted on him by someone in the DPD to frame him for that crime. It would make no sense to plant a gun that doesn't link him to the crime (the entire purpose of planting the gun). Why this is like pulling teeth to get around the endless commentary, insults, and attempts at deflections when Martin has already indicated that the gun was used in the crime is a matter of psychological wonderment.
Why do you insist on keeping on making yourself look like a fool?
I told you, I would answer your question after you answered my questions. The one who is frightened to answer questions is you!
How you get from the revolver now in evidence being "clearly linked to Tippit's killing" to "Martin has already indicated that the gun was used in the crime" is utterly beyond any reason.
Well, actually I do know how; it's your usual dishonesty!
You can do a song and dance as much as you like, but until you have answered my questions, you won't get anymore answers from me.
Name the officer(s) who took a revolver from Oswald?
What proof do you have to show that CE143 is the revolver that was allegedly taken from Oswald?
-
A revolver that you cannot demonstrate was ever in Oswald’s possession can be linked to 4 shells that you cannot demonstrate had anything to do with Tippit’s murder. Brilliant.
But chain of custody “doesn’t matter”. :D
-
Shots fired: Markham saw Oswald using a hand gun on Tippit. Others saw Oswald emptying a hand gun. Others saw Oswald carrying a hand gun in a threatening manner while buggering off down Patton. A rogue hand gun was wrestled from Oswald at the movies.
Feel the Chain
McDonald>Carroll>Sgt Hill>Baker&Fritz
Bentley:
(https://i.postimg.cc/d3WB55FH/BENTLEY-CHAIN.png)
-
A revolver that you cannot demonstrate was ever in Oswald’s possession can be linked to 4 shells that you cannot demonstrate had anything to do with Tippit’s murder. Brilliant.
But chain of custody “doesn’t matter”. :D
LNs keep shooting themselves in the foot again and again.... who knows, perhaps it was with "Oswald's revolver" :D
Paul Bentley, who never had the revolver and was taken to hospital for his leg injury, upon his arrival at City Hall, somehow initialed a revolver Jerry Hill apparently gave him.
Don't these LN clowns understand that, if true, this of course means that the chain of custody was compromised, by introducing the initials of an officer who never had custody of the item. It also means that Hill didn't have custody of the revolver all the time between the moment Carroll gave it to him and the moment it was put into the evidence room?
Feel the chain breaking?
-
Shots fired: Markham saw Oswald using a hand gun on Tippit. Others saw Oswald emptying a hand gun. Still others saw Oswald carrying a hand gun in a threatening manner while buggering off down Patton. A rogue hand gun was wrestled from Oswald at the movies.
Feel the Chain
McDonald>Carroll>Sgt Hill>Baker&Fritz
Bentley:
(https://i.postimg.cc/d3WB55FH/BENTLEY-CHAIN.png)
Bentley:
In addition to the above, he had easy access to the revolver in the squad-car ride to City Hall before having to go 'off-campus' for medical attention
(https://i.postimg.cc/Vv5hFCM8/BACK-SEAT.png)
-
All Carroll knew was that he grabbed a gun out of some unknown person’s hand. All Hill knew was that Carroll handed him a gun, either inside the theater, while getting into the police car, or during the car ride, depending on who and when you ask.
How did McDonald or Carroll know that the gun they initialed hours later in the personnel office was the same gun they handled?
Baker makes no mention of taking possession of the gun in any testimony or report. The CSSS form that he filled out that day lists other evidence, but not the gun.
Davenport filed a report saying that Fritz told “officers” to take the gun and give it to Doughty. Davenport filled out the CSSS, saying that he submitted it to both Barnes and Doughty. Who gave it to Davenport and when?
Westbrook testified that at one point he just saw the gun in his office laying on Mr. McGee’s desk with the shells taken out of it. Who put it there and when? And how long was it there?
There is no chain of custody for the revolver.
-
Why do you insist on keeping on making yourself look like a fool?
I told you, I would answer your question after you answered my questions. The one who is frightened to answer questions is you!
How you get from the revolver now in evidence being "clearly linked to Tippit's killing" to "Martin has already indicated that the gun was used in the crime" is utterly beyond any reason.
Well, actually I do know how; it's your usual dishonesty!
You can do a song and dance as much as you like, but until you have answered my questions, you won't get anymore answers from me.
Name the officer(s) who took a revolver from Oswald?
What proof do you have to show that CE143 is the revolver that was allegedly taken from Oswald?
So much endless commentary. Again, you said the following: "The revolver in evidence is clearly linked to Tippit's killing. "Clearly" linked! Why not just confirm this instead of your usual childish deflections? I can't understand why you think no one can read what you have already posted.
-
So much endless commentary. Again, you said the following: "The revolver in evidence is clearly linked to Tippit's killing. "Clearly" linked! Why not just confirm this instead of your usual childish deflections? I can't understand why you think no one can read what you have already posted.
Stop playing games and answer my questions.
And stop misrepresenting what I actually said;
Wrong. The revolver in evidence is clearly linked to Tippit's killing. Whether it is linked to Oswald is another matter.
Now before you, in your obvious desperation, try to make something more out of this than it actually is; the revolver now in evidence is clearly linked to Tippit's killing, simply because it has been entered into evidence as being linked to Tippit's killing.
That's it... no more and no less.
For crying out loud, a 5 year old can understand this, but I bet you won't.
-
I predict that “Richard” will continue to rant on this particular point, ignore everything else that has been presented or asked, and regurgitate the same litany of misinformation yet again.
-
I predict that “Richard” will continue to rant on this particular point, ignore everything else that has been presented or asked, and regurgitate the same litany of misinformation yet again.
Of course he will.... It's a one trick pony with no answers or any valid claims about the evidence.
-
All Carroll knew was that he grabbed a gun out of some unknown person’s hand. All Hill knew was that Carroll handed him a gun, either inside the theater, while getting into the police car, or during the car ride, depending on who and when you ask.
How did McDonald or Carroll know that the gun they initialed hours later in the personnel office was the same gun they handled?
Baker makes no mention of taking possession of the gun in any testimony or report. The CSSS form that he filled out that day lists other evidence, but not the gun.
Davenport filed a report saying that Fritz told “officers” to take the gun and give it to Doughty. Davenport filled out the CSSS, saying that he submitted it to both Barnes and Doughty. Who gave it to Davenport and when?
Westbrook testified that at one point he just saw the gun in his office laying on Mr. McGee’s desk with the shells taken out of it. Who put it there and when? And how long was it there?
There is no chain of custody for the revolver.
---------------
10th & Patton
Shots fired
---------------
EYES ON
There was a chain of custody for Oswald w/revolver all along Patton
Each link in the chain is supplied by each witness in turn
Shoutout to Bill (Boots on the Ground) Brown for the initial observation
-
Stop playing games and answer my questions.
And stop misrepresenting what I actually said;
Now before you, in your obvious desperation, try to make something more out of this than it actually is; the revolver now in evidence is clearly linked to Tippit's killing, simply because it has been entered into evidence as being linked to Tippit's killing.
That's it... no more and no less.
For crying out loud, a 5 year old can understand this, but I bet you won't.
What is with the hysterics? Misreprsenting what you said??? I quoted exactly what you said. Here it is again: "The revolver in evidence is clearly linked to Tippit's killing" That seems pretty clear. It is "linked to Tippit's killing." Tippit's killing! For the love of God. Such endless dishonesty. There was never any debate that the gun was in evidence! HA HA HA. You should be ashamed to peddle this nonsense. You clearly acknowledged that the gun in evidence was used to kill Tippit. You were conceding that this is a point of obvious logic since there would be no point to plant a gun on Oswald unless that gun links him to the crime.
-
What is with the hysterics? Misreprsenting what you said??? I quoted exactly what you said. Here it is again: "The revolver in evidence is clearly linked to Tippit's killing" That seems pretty clear. It is "linked to Tippit's killing." Tippit's killing! For the love of God. Such endless dishonesty. There was never any debate that the gun was in evidence! HA HA HA. You should be ashamed to peddle this nonsense. You clearly acknowledged that the gun in evidence was used to kill Tippit. You were conceding that this is a point of obvious logic since there would be no point to plant a gun on Oswald unless that gun links him to the crime.
There is nothing in this pathetic rant that wasn't predicted.
Misreprsenting what you said??? I quoted exactly what you said.
No, you quoted only part of what I actually said. That's misrepresentation.
That seems pretty clear. It is "linked to Tippit's killing." Tippit's killing! For the love of God. Such endless dishonesty.
Nothing dishonest about it. Just a statement of fact.
You clearly acknowledged that the gun in evidence was used to kill Tippit.
Did I? Don't think so! Is your imagination running wild again, as per usual?
Rather than desperately seeking my acknowledgement (which you will never get), here's something for you to do; why don't you prove that CE143 was used to kill Tippit and that it was taken from Oswald? Oh wait, you can't. You just assume it, which is why you are so desperately seeking my acknowledgement. :D
You were conceding that this is a point of obvious logic since there would be no point to plant a gun on Oswald unless that gun links him to the crime.
I conceded nothing of the kind. Not much of what you say has anything to do with logic.
Btw what does it take to make you understand that no gun was ever planted on Oswald?
Anyway, I've now completely lost interest in talking to you. It's a point of obvious logic that there is no point in talking to you because on the one hand you won't listen to reason and don't answer my questions and on the other hand you can't argue the facts of the case if it saved your life and you keep on posting nothing but dishonest BS. You seem to be living in some sort of fantasy world and somehow you have foolishly convinced yourself that it is "reality".
You're on your own from now on. Have fun talking to the mirror.
-
There is nothing in this pathetic rant that wasn't predicted.
Misreprsenting what you said??? I quoted exactly what you said.
No, you quoted only part of what I actually said. That's misrepresentation.
That seems pretty clear. It is "linked to Tippit's killing." Tippit's killing! For the love of God. Such endless dishonesty.
Nothing dishonest about it. Just a statement of fact.
You clearly acknowledged that the gun in evidence was used to kill Tippit.
Did I? Don't think so! Is your imagination running wild again, as per usual?
Rather than desperately seeking my acknowledgement (which you will never get), here's something for you to do; why don't you prove that CE143 was used to kill Tippit and that it was taken from Oswald? Oh wait, you can't. You just assume it, which is why you are so desperately seeking my acknowledgement. :D
You were conceding that this is a point of obvious logic since there would be no point to plant a gun on Oswald unless that gun links him to the crime.
I conceded nothing of the kind. Not much of what you say has anything to do with logic.
Btw what does it take to make you understand that no gun was ever planted on Oswald?
Anyway, I've now completely lost interest in talking to you. It's a point of obvious logic that there is no point in talking to you because on the one hand you won't listen to reason and don't answer my questions and on the other hand you can't argue the facts of the case if it saved your life and you keep on posting nothing but dishonest BS. You seem to be living in some sort of fantasy world and somehow you have foolishly convinced yourself that it is "reality".
You're on your own from now on. Have fun talking to the mirror.
In response to the obvious point that it wouldn't make any sense to plant a gun to frame Oswald unless that gun was used to kill Tippit you responded: "The revolver in evidence is clearly linked to Tippit's killing." It is "linked to Tippit's killing." Why you are struggling so mightily against what is perhaps the only sensical thing that you have ever acknowledged on this is forum is immensely amusing. Your lazy "chain of custody" claim came back to bite you in the backside because the only reason to plant a gun on Oswald would be if the planted gun links Oswald to the crime. There would be no point to plant a gun that wasn't, as you conceded, "linked to Tippit's killing." Now you are behaving like a child that has been forced to acknowledge there is no Santa Clause or whatever they call him in "Europe."
-
Let's not forget that we are still waiting for Bill Brown to provide us with the source that confirms that the second "602" by ambulance driver Butler was "to contact the dispatcher to tell him they were en route to the hospital”.
-
Exactly as predicted. “Richard” is colossally predictable as well as being a colossal waste of time.
-
Let's not forget that we are still waiting for Bill Brown to provide us with the source that confirms that the second "602" by ambulance driver Butler was "to contact the dispatcher to tell him they were en route to the hospital”.
Let's also not forget that you suggested there was a "chain of custody" issue regarding Oswald's possession of the gun in evidence but also claimed that you are not suggesting it was planted because you now understand (and even conceded) it would be pointless to plant a gun to frame Oswald for the Tippit murder unless that gun was used to kill Tippit. The gun apparently just materialized from the heavens! You are increasingly like Inspector Clouseau: "I believe everything and I believe nothing. I suspect everyone and I suspect no one."
-
Let's also not forget that you suggested there was a "chain of custody" issue regarding Oswald's possession of the gun in evidence but also claimed that you are not suggesting it was planted because you now understand (and even conceded) it would be pointless to plant a gun to frame Oswald for the Tippit murder unless that gun was used to kill Tippit. The gun apparently just materialized from the heavens! You are increasingly like Inspector Clouseau: "I believe everything and I believe nothing. I suspect everyone and I suspect no one."
:D
Just for the record; I am not suggesting there was a chain of custody issue, I am stating as a matter of fact there was indeed a massive evidentiary problem with the chain of custody. That's why you can't name a single officer who allegedly took CE143 from Oswald!
The thing you constantly fail to understand (what a surprise!) is that a problem with the chain of custody does not necessarily mean that the evidence is not authentic. It merely means that it can not be authenticated and relied upon. But that's probably to complicated for you to comprehend, right, Sherlock?
-
:D
Just for the record; I am not suggesting there was a chain of custody issue, I am stating as a matter of fact there was indeed a massive evidentiary problem with the chain of custody. That's why you can't name a single officer who allegedly took CE143 from Oswald!
The thing you constantly fail to understand (what a surprise!) is that a problem with the chain of custody does not necessarily mean that the evidence is not authentic. It merely means that it can not be authenticated and relied upon. But that's probably to complicated for you to comprehend, right, Sherlock?
In which Martin once again invokes his inner Inspector Clouseau: "I believe everything and I believe nothing. I suspect everyone and I suspect no one." So you are not claiming it is fake but you are not claiming it is authentic. A world of endless doubt in which nothing can be proven or disproven. And round and round it goes down the rabbit hole.
-
In which Martin once again invokes his inner Inspector Clouseau: "I believe everything and I believe nothing. I suspect everyone and I suspect no one." So you are not claiming it is fake but you are not claiming it is authentic. A world of endless doubt in which nothing can be proven or disproven. And round and round it goes down the rabbit hole.
In which "Richard" shows us once again what a fool he really is.
He still doesn't understand that it doesn't matter what he or I believe/suspect or not believe/suspect. The case against Oswald needs to be proven, not just assumed (like "Richard" does). In order to prove that case one needs evidence that is authenticated. The authenticity of the revolver needs to be proven. When no such authentication exist the case is not proven, regardless whether "Richard" likes it or not.
-
In which "Richard" shows us once again what a fool he really is.
He still doesn't understand that it doesn't matter what he or I believe/suspect or not believe/suspect. The case against Oswald needs to be proven, not just assumed (like "Richard" does). In order to prove that case one needs evidence that is authenticated. The authenticity of the revolver needs to be proven. When no such authentication exist the case is not proven, regardless whether "Richard" likes it or not.
There are third party documents pre-existing Nov. 22 that link Oswald - via a specific serial number - to a revolver that was ordered using a known alias used by Oswald and sent to his PO Box. That same revolver - with the same serial number as the one sent to Oswald - was placed into evidence. The DPD officers present at his arrest took this revolver from Oswald. There are pictures of them carrying it out of the TT. There is not a scintilla of evidence produced by yourself or any "researcher" over the last sixty years that indicates that Oswald possessed any other revolver. As we have discussed ad nauseum, shouting "chain of custody" casts no doubt on the issue. Even if you do it over and over. The fact remains that the evidence links Oswald to a specific revolver - the same one in evidence which the DPD took from him upon his arrest. Those present at the TT took a revolver from Oswald and placed it in evidence. Whatever procedural fantasy you wish to entertain casts no doubt on the authenticity of this gun as the one taken from Oswald. Nor can you formulate any reasonable explanation for how or why the DPD could obtain the gun sent to Oswald's PO Box and plant it on him less than an hour after the Tippit murder. Nor why they would frame Oswald for this crime and knowingly allow the murderer of a fellow police officer to escape justice. Pedantic and vague unsupported claims relating to "chain of custody" does nothing to cast any doubt whatsoever on the facts and evidence that link Oswald to this revolver.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/XYRJ74M5/191-CHAINS-SMALL.png)
billchapman
-
There are third party documents pre-existing Nov. 22 that link Oswald - via a specific serial number - to a revolver that was ordered using a known alias used by Oswald and sent to his PO Box. That same revolver - with the same serial number as the one sent to Oswald - was placed into evidence. The DPD officers present at his arrest took this revolver from Oswald. There are pictures of them carrying it out of the TT. There is not a scintilla of evidence produced by yourself or any "researcher" over the last sixty years that indicates that Oswald possessed any other revolver. As we have discussed ad nauseum, shouting "chain of custody" casts no doubt on the issue. Even if you do it over and over. The fact remains that the evidence links Oswald to a specific revolver - the same one in evidence which the DPD took from him upon his arrest. Those present at the TT took a revolver from Oswald and placed it in evidence. Whatever procedural fantasy you wish to entertain casts no doubt on the authenticity of this gun as the one taken from Oswald. Nor can you formulate any reasonable explanation for how or why the DPD could obtain the gun sent to Oswald's PO Box and plant it on him less than an hour after the Tippit murder. Nor why they would frame Oswald for this crime and knowingly allow the murderer of a fellow police officer to escape justice. Pedantic and vague unsupported claims relating to "chain of custody" does nothing to cast any doubt whatsoever on the facts and evidence that link Oswald to this revolver.
Ignore and misrepresent the actual evidence, wash, rinse and post again... "Richard Smith" in a nutshell.
And before you start whining again; your pathetic little rant offers nothing new or significant and isn't worthy of a reply.
-
….and “Richard” regurgitates his litany of BS claims once again — exactly as predicted.
-
Ignore and misrepresent the actual evidence, wash, rinse and post again... "Richard Smith" in a nutshell.
And before you start whining again; your pathetic little rant offers nothing new or significant and isn't worthy of a reply.
Commentary - check.
Insults - check.
Attempts at deflection - big check on that one.
We miss Otto. Is he in "Europe" with you? Send him my regards.
-
Commentary - check.
Insults - check.
Attempts at deflection - big check on that one.
We miss Otto. Is he in "Europe" with you? Send him my regards.
Mummy, the bad man doesn't like my BS, said "Richard", as he threw another hissy fit.
-
Mummy, the bad man doesn't like my BS, said "Richard", as he threw another hissy fit.
Commentary - check
Personal insult - check
Attempt to deflect - big check on that one
Invoking his alter ego in "Europe" - LOL
-
"Invoking" -- LOL
You said you missed me and I took time to do a post pointing out why people keep coming back to watch your clown show.
And then you keep As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'ing, wow!
"LOL" -- LOL. Good to have you back Otto. Your valuable contributions like the above have been missed! Now if only Roger Collins would return you could all sing a trio. Maybe "Tom Dooly"?
-
Sharing a room with Von P?
Your posts are like watching Amber Turd's clown lawyers presenting her "mountain of evidence" and we all know how that went down.
Priceless, keep it coming!
I'm learning so much about the JFK assassination from your participation.
-
"learning" -- LOL
That would be another of your delutions.
Thumb1:
So much information here about the JFK assassination! Or maybe I'm just "deluting" myself -- LOL. Now pretend that you are Roger Collins or Daffy Duck.