JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Bill Brown on May 10, 2018, 01:51:23 AM
-
Helen Markham was on foot, walking south along Patton toward her bus stop, which
was on Jefferson Boulevard. Markham was just reaching the northwest corner of
Tenth and Patton when she noticed Tippit's patrol car pass through the
intersection, heading east along Tenth Street. Markham testified that the
patrol car pulled up to a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south side
of Tenth Street. Helen Markham positively identified Lee Oswald as the man she
saw talking to, and shoot, J.D. Tippit. She testified that she saw Oswald run
from the scene, heading down Patton with a gun in his hand.
William Scoggins was sitting in his cab at the southeast corner of Tenth and
Patton. Scoggins saw Tippit's patrol car pass slowly in front of his cab,
driving west to east along Tenth Street (Scoggins' cab was sitting on Patton,
facing north towards Tenth street). Scoggins noticed that the patrol car pulled
up alongside a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south side of Tenth
Street. William Scoggins positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw
running towards his cab seconds after hearing gun shots. Scoggins got out of
his cab with thoughts of running from the scene as Oswald headed straight
towards him after the shots rang out. After realizing he had nowhere to hide,
Scoggins returned to his cab and ducked down behind it as he watched Oswald turn
the corner and head down Patton towards Jefferson. Scoggins testified that
Oswald had a gun in his hand.
Barbara Davis was lying in bed inside her residence, which was the house at the
corner of Tenth and Patton. She heard gunshots outside and went to the door.
She opened the screen door and noticed Helen
Markham across the street, screaming. Davis then noticed a man cutting through
her front yard, holding a gun in his hands. She testified that the man had the
gun cocked in his hands as if he were emptying it. Barbara Davis positively
identified Lee Oswald as the man who she saw cut across her yard with a gun in
his hands.
Virginia Davis was in the living room of her residence (400 E. Tenth
St.) when she heard gunshots outside. Virginia Davis went to the door
and, like Barbara, noticed Helen Markham across the street, screaming. Davis
then noticed a man cutting across the front yard with a gun in his hands. She
testified that the man was emptying shells out of the gun. Virginia Davis
positively identified Lee Oswald as the man who she saw cut across the front
yard with a gun in his hands.
Ted Callaway was standing out on the front porch of the used-car lot office,
where he worked. Callaway testified that he heard five pistol shots. Callaway
testified that he believed the shots came from the vicinity of Tenth Street,
which was behind the office he worked in. He went out to the sidewalk on the
east side of Patton and noticed Scoggin's cab parked up near the corner of
Patton at Tenth. As Callaway watched the cab driver (Scoggins) hide beside his
cab, he noticed a man running across Patton from the east side of Patton to the
west side. Callaway watched the man run down Patton towards Jefferson. Ted
Callaway positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw run down Patton with
a gun in his hands.
Sam Guinyard worked at the same used-car lot as Ted Callaway. Guinyard was out
on the lot washing one of the cars when he heard gunshots come from the
direction up toward Tenth Street. From the car lot, Guinyard was looking north
toward Tenth in an attempt to see where the shots came from when he saw a man on
the sidewalk in between the first two houses on Tenth Street (400 E. Tenth and
404 E. Tenth). Guinyard went toward the sidewalk on the east side of Patton and
saw the man cut across the yard of the house on the corner (400 E. Tenth, the
Davis residence) and proceeded to run south on Patton. Guinyard said the man
had a gun in his hands and was emptying it of shells. Sam Guinyard positively
identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw running with the gun in his hands.
Each of the above witnesses saw a man flee the vicinity of the Tippit murder. Each of the above witnesses saw a gun in the man's hands. Every single one of the above witnesses positively identified Lee Oswald as that man.
These are the real witnesses and not even one of them said that someone other than Lee Oswald was the man they saw.
As for the revolver, Jim Leavelle briefly spoke with Oswald when Oswald was brought in from the theater. Leavelle told Oswald that they could run ballistic tests on the revolver and match the revolver to the bullets taken from the officer's body, proving that the revolver taken from Oswald was the revolver responsible for the officer's death. Oswald did not deny owning the revolver. According to Leavelle, Oswald's only reply was "Well, you're just going to have to do it."
Oswald ordered the revolver under the name of A.J. Hidell on 1/27/63 from Seaport Traders, Inc. Treasury Department handwriting expert Alwyn Cole testified that the handwriting on the order coupon belonged to Lee Oswald. The FBI's handwriting expert James Cadigan also testified that the handwriting on the coupon was Oswald's.
On the order, there was the name of a D.F. Drittal, written in the section where a witness states that the person buying the weapon (Hidell) was a U.S. citizen and was not a felon. The handwriting experts, Cole and Cadigan, both testified that the name D.F. Drittal was also written in Oswald's hands.
The revolver was shipped to a post office box in Dallas rented by Lee Oswald. Cole testified that the signature and the handwriting on the post office box application belonged to Oswald.
Postal Inspector Harry Holmes testified that Oswald had previously rented a post office box in New Orleans, during the summer of 1963. Oswald's New Orleans application and his Dallas application were found. Unlike the Dallas post office box application, the New Orleans post office box application still had the portion which listed others who were able to receive mail at that post office box. In the New Orleans application, Oswald included the names of both Marina Oswald and A.J. Hidell as those able to receive mail in that box.
Holmes spoke with Oswald on Sunday morning, the 24th. Holmes asked Oswald about the Dallas post office box. Oswald stated that he was the only one who received mail at that box and that he didn't receive any mail there that was addressed to any name other than his true name. Holmes then asked Oswald about the box that Oswald rented in New Orleans earlier that year. Oswald again stated that he was the only one permitted to receive mail at that p.o. box. Holmes reminded Oswald that he (Oswald) had listed Marina Oswald as a person eligible to receive mail in that box. Oswald's reply was basically "Well so what? She was my wife and I see nothing wrong with that." Holmes then reminded Oswald that one "A.J. Hidell" was also listed in the section on the application listing others eligible to receive mail in that post office box. Holmes said that Oswald replied "I don't recall anything about that".
Oswald was caught in a lie. The handwriting which permitted A.J. Hidell to receive mail at the New Orleans post office box belonged to Lee Oswald (per experts Cole and Cadigan).
Ballistic testing can determine whether or not an empty shell casing was fired from a specific weapon to the exclusion of every other weapon in the entire world. Before shooting, the shell casing is placed against the breech face and the firing pin. When the pin strikes the primer, the bullet is fired off and the shell casing is thrust against the breech face of the weapon. This causes a permanent mark on the base of the empty shell, i.e. the distinctive fine lines etched onto the breech face put their "fingerprint" on the base of the empty shell.
Joseph Nicol (Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State of Illinois) along with Cortlandt Cunningham, Robert Frazier and Charles Killion (of the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory in Washington D.C.) each examined the shells found at the Tippit scene and Oswald's revolver, which he ordered from Seaport Traders, Inc. Each of these experts determined that the shells were linked (through ballistics) to Oswald's revolver, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world.
-
Then it appears to be fairly well-settled. Apparently Oswald killed Officer Tippet.
-
Was this the same revolver with the bent firing pin that would render the pistol useless . McDonald said he heard a snap which was the revolver misfiring due to a bent firing pin while he was struggling with Oswald at the Texas Theater.
-
Was this the same revolver with the bent firing pin that would render the pistol useless . McDonald said he heard a snap which was the revolver misfiring due to a bent firing pin while he was struggling with Oswald at the Texas Theater.
Oswald's revolver did not have a bent firing pin. In fact, the FBI used that revolver to fire test bullets for ballistic comparison purposes. How is the revolver "rendered useless" if the FBI fired test bullets from it? And.. the revolver certainly did NOT have a bent firing pin when Oswald fired four bullets into Tippit's body.
Now, can you prove that the revolver had a bent firing pin?
-
Then it appears to be fairly well-settled. Apparently Oswald killed Officer Tippet.
Not by a long shot. But even if he did, it doesn't make him a lone nut. He was a patsy who knew the jig was up. Not a LN.
-
Then it appears to be fairly well-settled. Apparently Oswald killed Officer Tippet.
He may well have done, although I doubt it, but Brown's OP contains only part of the whole story and can not be relied upon.
For instance, Helen Markham testified she left home at "a little after 1". She had only one block to walk, yet according to the official story Tippit was shot at around 1.14 pm. That means that, for the official story to be true, Markham would have taken some 10 minutes to walk one block. Anything less than that would have placed her well beyond 10th/Patton prior to the shooting. Obviously, if the shooting happened earlier, it's just about impossible for Oswald to have been there on time to do the deed.
William Scoggins's testimony reveals that his timing was off and that he got to 10th/Patton earlier than the official story claims. Also, Scoggins, who is supposed to have identified Oswald at the DPD line up failed to identify Oswald as Tippit's killer to the FBI from a photo shown to him the very next day.
Domingo Benavides, who was closer to the actual shooting than anybody else, refused to participate in a line up because he felt he could not positively identify the killer, yet others, like the Davis sisters, who were indoors somehow can identify the man? Really?
There are so many things Brown doesn't tell you, that his entire OP is just a one sided dishonest presentation of what he wants to be the truth rather than the truth itself.
-
He may well have done, although I doubt it, but Brown's OP contains only part of the whole story and can not be relied upon.
For instance, Helen Markham testified she left home at "a little after 1". She had only one block to walk, yet according to the official story Tippit was shot at around 1.14 pm. That means that, for the official story to be true, Markham would have taken some 10 minutes to walk one block. Anything less than that would have placed her well beyond 10th/Patton prior to the shooting. Obviously, if the shooting happened earlier, it's just about impossible for Oswald to have been there on time to do the deed.
William Scoggins's testimony reveals that his timing was off and that he got to 10th/Patton earlier than the official story claims. Also, Scoggins, who is supposed to have identified Oswald at the DPD line up failed to identify Oswald as Tippit's killer to the FBI from a photo shown to him the very next day.
Domingo Benavides, who was closer to the actual shooting than anybody else, refused to participate in a line up because he felt he could not positively identify the killer, yet others, like the Davis sisters, who were indoors somehow can identify the man? Really?
There are so many things Brown doesn't tell you, that his entire OP is just a one sided dishonest presentation of what he wants to be the truth rather than the truth itself.
Helen Markham testified she left home at "a little after 1". She had only one block to walk, yet according to the official story Tippit was shot at around 1.14 pm. That means that, for the official story to be true, Markham would have taken some 10 minutes to walk one block.
You left out one option, which could exist for the official story to be true. Markham could have simply been incorrect about what time it was that she left home.
Domingo Benavides, who was closer to the actual shooting than anybody else, refused to participate in a line up because he felt he could not positively identify the killer, yet others, like the Davis sisters, who were indoors somehow can identify the man? Really?
Indoors? You're not aware that the Davis sisters were standing at their opened front door as the killer fled across their front yard?
Each of the Davis sisters obviously got a better look at Oswald than did Benavides. Is that really so hard to believe?
Oswald cut right across their front yard as they (Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis) stood at the opened front door. Oswald even looked at them and kind of smiled (probably a nervous smile) as he fled across their yard.
Domingo Benavides was driving his truck toward the stopped patrol car and noticed the officer talking to a man. Benavides did not study the man who was talking to the officer. Benavides had his attention on the road when he heard the gun shots. He immediately ducked down in his truck, only looking up as the killer was running from the scene, away from him. Benavides did say that the killer turned back and looked at him, but that is not to say that he (Benavides) automatically got a better look at the killer than did each of the Davis girls.
-
Then it appears to be fairly well-settled. Apparently Oswald killed Officer Tippet.
Indeed.
By the way, the correct spelling is Tippit... and welcome to the forum.
-
You have a chain of possession for those shells?
Can you make a case for a problem with the chain of possession of the two shells found by each of the Davis girls? For years I've asked conspiracy believers to do this but none ever have.
-
Where did I say Davis girls?
Do you or do you not have a chain of possession for those shells?
Yes. The chain of possession of the two shells found by the Davis girls is intact. If you have a problem with the chain of possession of those two shells, then list it.
-
It was 1:05 on a Friday afternoon.....Helen Markham was on foot, walking south along Patton toward her bus stop, which was on Jefferson Boulevard. She was on her way to catch the bus that she took to work everyday. She knew that she would have to be at the bus stop before 1:12 so she was a bit impatient at being held up by the traffic as she waited to cross East Tenth street.
Markham was just reaching the northwest corner of Tenth and Patton when she noticed Tippit's patrol car pass through the intersection, heading east along Tenth Street. Markham testified that the patrol car pulled up to a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south side of Tenth Street. Helen Markham positively identified Lee Oswald as the man she saw talking to, and shoot, J.D. Tippit. She testified that she saw Oswald run from the scene, heading down Patton with a gun in his hand.
William Scoggins was sitting in his cab at the southeast corner of Tenth and
Patton. Scoggins saw Tippit's patrol car pass slowly in front of his cab,
driving west to east along Tenth Street (Scoggins' cab was sitting on Patton,
facing north towards Tenth street). Scoggins noticed that the patrol car pulled
up alongside a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south side of Tenth
Street. William Scoggins positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw
running towards his cab seconds after hearing gun shots. Scoggins got out of
his cab with thoughts of running from the scene as Oswald headed straight
towards him after the shots rang out. After realizing he had nowhere to hide,
Scoggins returned to his cab and ducked down behind it as he watched Oswald turn
the corner and head down Patton towards Jefferson. Scoggins testified that
Oswald had a gun in his hand.
Barbara Davis was laying in bed inside her residence, which was the house at the
corner of Tenth and Patton. She heard gunshots outside and went to the front
door, which faced Tenth Street. She opened the screen door and noticed Helen
Markham across the street, screaming. Davis then noticed a man cutting through
her front yard, holding a gun in his hands. She testified that the man had the
gun cocked in his hands as if he were emptying it. Barbara Davis positively
identified Lee Oswald as the man who she saw cut across her yard with a gun in
his hands.
Virginia Davis was in the living room of Barbara Davis' residence (400 E. Tenth
St.) when she heard gunshots outside. Virginia Davis went to the front door
and, like Barbara, noticed Helen Markham across the street, screaming. Davis
then noticed a man cutting across the front yard with a gun in his hands. She
testified that the man was emptying shells out of the gun. Virginia Davis
positively identified Lee Oswald as the man who she saw cut across the front
yard with a gun in his hands.
Ted Callaway was standing out on the front porch of the used-car lot office,
where he worked. Callaway testified that he heard five pistol shots. Callaway
testified that he believed the shots came from the vicinity of Tenth Street,
which was behind the office he worked in. He went out to the sidewalk on the
east side of Patton and noticed Scoggin's cab parked up near the corner of
Patton at Tenth. As Callaway watched the cab driver (Scoggins) hide beside his
cab, he noticed a man running across Patton from the east side of Patton to the
west side. Callaway watched the man run down Patton towards Jefferson. Ted
Callaway positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw run down Patton with
a gun in his hands.
Sam Guinyard worked at the same used-car lot as Ted Callaway. Guinyard was out
on the lot washing one of the cars when he heard gunshots come from the
direction up toward Tenth Street. From the car lot, Guinyard was looking north
toward Tenth in an attempt to see where the shots came from when he saw a man on
the sidewalk in between the first two houses on Tenth Street (400 E. Tenth and
404 E. Tenth). Guinyard went toward the sidewalk on the east side of Patton and
saw the man cut across the yard of the house on the corner (400 E. Tenth, the
Davis residence) and proceeded to run south on Patton. Guinyard said the man
had a gun in his hands and was emptying it of shells. Sam Guinyard positively
identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw running with the gun in his hands.
Each of the above witnesses saw a man flee the vicinity of the Tippit murder. Each of the above witnesses saw a gun in the man's hands. Every single one of the above witnesses positively identified Lee Oswald as that man.
These are the real witnesses and not even one of them said that someone other than Lee Oswald was the man they saw.
As for the revolver, Jim Leavelle briefly spoke with Oswald when Oswald was brought in from the theater. Leavelle told Oswald that they could run ballistic tests on the revolver and match the revolver to the bullets taken from the officer's body, proving that the revolver taken from Oswald was the revolver responsible for the officer's death. Oswald did not deny owning the revolver. According to Leavelle, Oswald's only reply was "Well, you're just going to have to do it."
Oswald ordered the revolver under the name of A.J. Hidell on 1/27/63 from Seaport Traders, Inc. Treasury Department handwriting expert Alwyn Cole testified that the handwriting on the order coupon belonged to Lee Oswald. The FBI's handwriting expert James Cadigan also testified that the handwriting on the coupon was Oswald's.
On the order, there was the name of a D.F. Drittal, written in the section where a witness states that the person buying the weapon (Hidell) was a U.S. citizen and was not a felon. The handwriting experts, Cole and Cadigan, both testified that the name D.F. Drittal was also written in Oswald's hands.
The revolver was shipped to a post office box in Dallas rented by Lee Oswald. Cole testified that the signature and the handwriting on the post office box application belonged to Oswald.
Postal Inspector Harry Holmes testified that Oswald had previously rented a post office box in New Orleans, during the summer of 1963. Oswald's New Orleans application and his Dallas application were found. Unlike the Dallas post office box application, the New Orleans post office box application still had the portion which listed others who were able to receive mail at that post office box. In the New Orleans application, Oswald included the names of both Marina Oswald and A.J. Hidell as those able to receive mail in that box.
Holmes spoke with Oswald on Sunday morning, the 24th. Holmes asked Oswald about the Dallas post office box. Oswald stated that he was the only one who received mail at that box and that he didn't receive any mail there that was addressed to any name other than his true name. Holmes then asked Oswald about the box that Oswald rented in New Orleans earlier that year. Oswald again stated that he was the only one permitted to receive mail at that p.o. box. Holmes reminded Oswald that he (Oswald) had listed Marina Oswald as a person eligible to receive mail in that box. Oswald's reply was basically "Well so what? She was my wife and I see nothing wrong with that." Holmes then reminded Oswald that one "A.J. Hidell" was also listed in the section on the application listing others eligible to receive mail in that post office box. Holmes said that Oswald replied "I don't recall anything about that".
Oswald was caught in a lie. The handwriting which permitted A.J. Hidell to receive mail at the New Orleans post office box belonged to Lee Oswald (per experts Cole and Cadigan).
Ballistic testing can determine whether or not an empty shell casing was fired from a specific weapon to the exclusion of every other weapon in the entire world. Before shooting, the shell casing is placed against the breech face and the firing pin. When the pin strikes the primer, the bullet is fired off and the shell casing is thrust against the breech face of the weapon. This causes a permanent mark on the base of the empty shell, i.e. the distinctive fine lines etched onto the breech face put their "fingerprint" on the base of the empty shell.
Joseph Nicol (Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State of Illinois) along with Cortlandt Cunningham, Robert Frazier and Charles Killion (of the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory in Washington D.C.) each examined the shells found at the Tippit scene and Oswald's revolver, which he ordered from Seaport Traders, Inc. Each of these experts determined that the shells were linked (through ballistics) to Oswald's revolver, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world.
It was 1:05 on a Friday afternoon.....Helen Markham was on foot, walking south along Patton toward her bus stop, which was on Jefferson Boulevard. She was on her way to catch the bus that she took to work everyday. She knew that she would have to be at the bus stop before 1:12 so she was a bit impatient at being held up by the traffic as she waited to cross East Tenth street.
Markham was just reaching the northwest corner of Tenth and Patton when she noticed Tippit's patrol car pass through the intersection, heading east along Tenth Street. Markham testified that the patrol car pulled up to a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south side of Tenth Street. Helen Markham positively identified Lee Oswald as the man she saw talking to, and shoot, J.D. Tippit. She testified that she saw Oswald run from the scene, heading down Patton with a gun in his hand.
Of course Mrs Markham was hysterical and obviously was mistaken in her identification which the cold chills she felt at seeing the men in the rigged line up were the means by which she identified Lee Oswald. But the man she saw shoot officer Tippit could NOT have been Lee Oswald ....because at the very moment that Helen Markham was walking toward the intersection of Tenth and Patton Mrs Earlene Roberts was watching Lee Oswald as he stood on the sidewalk in front of her rooming house at the intersection of Beckley and Zangs at 1:04 pm. The rooming house was nearly one mile away from the place where officer Tippit was being shot.
-
Not by a long shot. But even if he did, it doesn't make him a lone nut. He was a patsy who knew the jig was up. Not a LN.
I didn't write that he was a lone nut. I don't believe that I inferred that either.
-
Oswald's revolver did not have a bent firing pin. In fact, the FBI used that revolver to fire test bullets for ballistic comparison purposes. How is the revolver "rendered useless" if the FBI fired test bullets from it? And.. the revolver certainly did NOT have a bent firing pin when Oswald fired four bullets into Tippit's body.
Now, can you prove that the revolver had a bent firing pin?
McDonald is quoted as saying that the firing pin failed when Oswald tried to shot him in the theater Are you saying he is incorrect??
-
Not by a long shot. But even if he did, it doesn't make him a lone nut. He was a patsy who knew the jig was up. Not a LN.
So Oswald is in Gomer Pyle-like bliss up to the assassination about whatever is going on. Then it immediately dawns on him that he is going to take the fall for it. He suddenly becomes a genius. So he does the logical thing and kills a police officer. That is quite a fantasy tale. The most logical reason for him to have killed Tippit is because he has just assassinated the President and has nothing to lose at that point. He can't risk the possibility that he has already been identified as a suspect and will be arrested if he IDs himself.
-
Helen Markham was on foot, walking south along Patton toward her bus stop, which
was on Jefferson Boulevard. Markham was just reaching the northwest corner of
Tenth and Patton when she noticed Tippit's patrol car pass through the
intersection, heading east along Tenth Street. Markham testified that the
patrol car pulled up to a man who was walking on the sidewalk on the south side
of Tenth Street. Helen Markham positively identified Lee Oswald as the man she
saw talking to, and shoot, J.D. Tippit. She testified that she saw Oswald run
from the scene, heading down Patton with a gun in his hand.
~snip~
from
"VINNIE IT IS ROUND"
by Mark Lane
"The Commission claimed that Mrs. Markham identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who shot the policeman at a line up on November 22 and that in testimony before the Commission, Mrs. Markham confirmed her positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man she saw kill Officer Tippit. Captain Fritz - who needed that identification real quickly -- testified that the lineup was hurriedly arranged at 4:30 that afternoon, less than three and a half hours after Tippit's death and less than that after Oswald's arrest. Mrs Markham was "quite hysterical" when she arrived at police headquarters. Her state and the atmosphere in the lineup room are best described by the record of her testimony."
Q: Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Markham: Yes , sir.
Q: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Markham: No, sir
Q: You did not? Did you see anybody-I have asked you that question before-did you recognize anybody from their face?
"Counsel wished to remind Mrs. Markham that when he had prepared her for her testimony, before
a record of her answers was made, the matter had been discussed. To prepare a witness for testimony may
be acceptable where adversary and hostile cross-examination is expected, and it is also a legitimate way of
preventing repetition and irrelevant conjecture. The record of the Warren Commission, however, reveals no
such cross-examination and was burdened to such a degree by repetition and irrelevance that the initial
preparation seems to have been for the purpose of leading the witness to give an appropiate answer."
Markham: From their face, no.
Q: Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Markham: I didn't know nobody.
Q: I know you didn't know nobody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Markham: No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Q: No one of the four?
Markham: No one of them.
Q: No one of the four?
Markham: No, sir.
"At this point counsel, a teacher of criminal law and procedure at the University of Southern California and a member of the U.S. Judical Conference Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, asked a rather leading question. Mrs. Markham said that she recognized no one at the lineup; counsel tried five times for a more acceptable answer. Then, departing a little from the legal procedure he teaches, he next asked his friendly but disconcerting witness, "Was there a number two man in there?" Mrs. Markham replied, "Number two is the one I picked." Counsel began another question: "I thought you just told me that you hadn't, but Mrs. Markham interrupted to answer inexplicably, "I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing."
Counsel then inquired:
Q: You recognized him from his appearance?
Markham: I asked-I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.
"A mystical identification at best. However, the Commission was satisfied that its lawyer had at last
obtained the right answer: "Addressing itself solely to the probative value of Mrs. Markham's contemporaneous description of the gunman and her identification of Oswald at a police lineup, the Commission considers her testimony reliable."
-
~snip~
As for the revolver, Jim Leavelle briefly spoke with Oswald when Oswald was brought in from the theater. Leavelle told Oswald that they could run ballistic tests on the revolver and match the revolver to the bullets taken from the officer's body, proving that the revolver taken from Oswald was the revolver responsible for the officer's death. Oswald did not deny owning the revolver. According to Leavelle, Oswald's only reply was "Well, you're just going to have to do it."
~snip~
Warren Commission Hearings, Volume VII
Current Section: James R. Leavelle
-snip-
Mr. Ball. You took part in the investigation, did you not, as a member of
the Dallas Police Department?
Mr. Leavelle. A minor part you might say. I didn't have much to do with
Oswald myself.
-snip-
Mr. Ball. Anybody ask him about a gun, whether or not he bought a rifle?
Mr. Leavelle I am sure they did. I remember some of them asking about
the rifle and about it being sent to the box here in Dallas but I do not recall.
I am not sure he denied it but I do not recall what his exact denial was.
Mr. Ball. You say he denied it. Do you remember whether or not he denied
that he had bought a rifle?
Mr. Leavelle. To the best of my knowledge I do. He did deny it but I would
not swear to it
Mr. Ball. Was anything said about a revolver?
Mr. Leavelle I am sure they asked him something about the revolver, too,
but I do not recall what it was.
-snip-
Mr. Ball Did you make any notes of the conversations?
Mr. Leavelle. No. I did not myself. That was the only time I ever sat in on
the interrogation of him by Captain Fritz or anyone.
Mr. Ball. Is that the first time you had seen Oswald?
Mr. Leavelle. No; I had seen him of course, the first day he was arrested
and when they brought him in and out of the office taking him to and from the
jail and of course, I had saw him at the showups, what have you.
Mr. Ball. Had you ever talked to him before?
Mr. Leavelle. No; I had never talked to him before.
-snip-
Mr. Stern. He engaged in banter with you and police officials?
Mr. Leavelle. Not with me because I didn't have occasion to question him,
but he did always smile and never hesitated for an answer, always had an answer.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=41&relPageId=270 (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=41&relPageId=270)
-
~snip~
Ballistic testing can determine whether or not an empty shell casing was fired from a specific weapon to the exclusion of every other weapon in the entire world. Before shooting, the shell casing is placed against the breech face and the firing pin. When the pin strikes the primer, the bullet is fired off and the shell casing is thrust against the breech face of the weapon. This causes a permanent mark on the base of the empty shell, i.e. the distinctive fine lines etched onto the breech face put their "fingerprint" on the base of the empty shell.
Joseph Nicol (Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State of Illinois) along with Cortlandt Cunningham, Robert Frazier and Charles Killion (of the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory in Washington D.C.) each examined the shells found at the Tippit scene and Oswald's revolver, which he ordered from Seaport Traders, Inc. Each of these experts determined that the shells were linked (through ballistics) to Oswald's revolver, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, were you able to determine whether those bullets have been fired in this weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I was not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
First of all, Commission Exhibit No. 602 was too mutilated. There were not sufficient microscopic marks remaining on the
surface of this bullet, due to the mutilation, to determine whether or not it had been fired from this weapon
snip-
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you said that there were three bullets of Winchester-Western manufacture, those are 602, 603,
and 605, and one bullet of R.-P. manufacture.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. However, as to the cartridge cases, Exhibit 594, you told us there were two R.-P. cartridge cases
and two Western cartridge cases.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that the recovered cartridge cases, there is one more recovered R.-P. cartridge case than there
was recovered bullet?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And as to the bullets, there is one more recovered Winchester-Western bullet than there is
Winchester-Western cartridges?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct
~snip~
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/poe%20tippit.jpg)
-
McDonald is quoted as saying that the firing pin failed when Oswald tried to shot him in the theater Are you saying he is incorrect??
You would do well to remind yourself that Nick McDonald was a damned liar.....
And it is a FACT the fire pin could NOT have failed as lyin Nick claimed....
-
Can you make a case for a problem with the chain of possession of the two shells found by each of the Davis girls? For years I've asked conspiracy believers to do this but none ever have.
You are asking him to make case against the chain of possession when the chain of possession has not been established Not surprising that you have not got an answer from CT's because its irrational
-
You forgot the witness who got the best look at Tippit's killer and whose description of the murderer doesn't
match a photo taken of LHO while in DPD custody on 11/22/63.
Testimony Of Domingo Benavides
Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.
~snip~
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
~snip~
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
~snip~
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3.jpg)
-
~snip~
Ted Callaway was standing out on the front porch of the used-car lot office,
where he worked. Callaway testified that he heard five pistol shots. Callaway
testified that he believed the shots came from the vicinity of Tenth Street,
which was behind the office he worked in. He went out to the sidewalk on the
east side of Patton and noticed Scoggin's cab parked up near the corner of
Patton at Tenth. As Callaway watched the cab driver (Scoggins) hide beside his
cab, he noticed a man running across Patton from the east side of Patton to the
west side. Callaway watched the man run down Patton towards Jefferson. Ted
Callaway positively identified Lee Oswald as the man he saw run down Patton with
a gun in his hands.
~snip~
TESTIMONY OF TED CALLAWAY
~snip~
Mr. BALL. He was crossing Patton?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was that to the south or the north of the taxicab? Closer to you than the taxicab?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was he running or walking?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He was running.
~snip~
Mr. BALL. About what distance was he away from you--the closest that he ever was to you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. About 56 feet.
Mr. BALL. You measured that, did you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Last Saturday morning?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Measured it with a tape measure?
~snip~
-
You would do well to remind yourself that Nick McDonald was a damned liar.....
And it is a FACT the fire pin could NOT have failed as lyin Nick claimed....
I have no problem with that Walt I suppose my point is to Bill about the consistency of the authorities stories and contradictions Is the story that McDonald, and the others, approached Oswald with their guns in holsters? That seems a little unlikely given the presuppositions they were operating under
-
So Oswald is in Gomer Pyle-like bliss up to the assassination about whatever is going on. Then it immediately dawns on him that he is going to take the fall for it. He suddenly becomes a genius. So he does the logical thing and kills a police officer. That is quite a fantasy tale. The most logical reason for him to have killed Tippit is because he has just assassinated the President and has nothing to lose at that point. He can't risk the possibility that he has already been identified as a suspect and will be arrested if he IDs himself.
No, Oswald was a sheep-dipped patsy that hoped he would be allowed to escape or else he was left in the dark, just like Thomas Arthur Vallee was in Chicago for plan A. Oswald was an Angleton singleton agent plucked from the false defector program. Every good coup needs a patsy and Oswald was plan B.
Whether Oswald shot Tippit, which is unlikely IMO, he didn't shoot JFK. This was a coup pure and simple and Oswald was the patsy and conspirators never rely on the patsy to do the shooting. As soon as you LNers get a grip, you'll see that everything you've been defending and obfuscating about for the last 50+ years fits perfectly into the patsy narrative. You will feel embarrassed re your naivety and you will feel violated that you were unwitting shills to the coup, but you will finally be able to sleep at night knowing you are no longer in the dark.
Cheers ;)
JTrojan
-
No, Oswald was a sheep-dipped patsy that hoped he would be allowed to escape or else he was left in the dark, just like Thomas Arthur Vallee was in Chicago for plan A. Oswald was an Angleton singleton agent plucked from the false defector program. Every good coup needs a patsy and Oswald was plan B.
Whether Oswald shot Tippit, which is unlikely IMO, he didn't shoot JFK. This was a coup pure and simple and Oswald was the patsy and conspirators never rely on the patsy to do the shooting. As soon as you LNers get a grip, you'll see that everything you've been defending and obfuscating about for the last 50+ years fits perfectly into the patsy narrative. You will feel embarrassed re your naivety and you will feel violated that you were unwitting shills to the coup, but you will finally be able to sleep at night knowing you are no longer in the dark.
Cheers ;)
JTrojan
Jack, Don't waste your time with Billy Bob..... Billy is obviously too stupid to try to engage in a reasonable discussion.
-
He may well have done, although I doubt it, but Brown's OP contains only part of the whole story and can not be relied upon.
For instance, Helen Markham testified she left home at "a little after 1". She had only one block to walk, yet according to the official story Tippit was shot at around 1.14 pm. That means that, for the official story to be true, Markham would have taken some 10 minutes to walk one block. Anything less than that would have placed her well beyond 10th/Patton prior to the shooting. Obviously, if the shooting happened earlier, it's just about impossible for Oswald to have been there on time to do the deed.
William Scoggins's testimony reveals that his timing was off and that he got to 10th/Patton earlier than the official story claims. Also, Scoggins, who is supposed to have identified Oswald at the DPD line up failed to identify Oswald as Tippit's killer to the FBI from a photo shown to him the very next day.
Domingo Benavides, who was closer to the actual shooting than anybody else, refused to participate in a line up because he felt he could not positively identify the killer, yet others, like the Davis sisters, who were indoors somehow can identify the man? Really?
There are so many things Brown doesn't tell you, that his entire OP is just a one sided dishonest presentation of what he wants to be the truth rather than the truth itself.
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/emoji-one/104/thumbs-up-sign_1f44d.png)
-
Indoors? You're not aware that the Davis sisters were standing at their opened front door as the killer fled across their front yard?
The Davis sisters-in-law didn't know that the guy they saw killed anybody.
They also didn't even agree on basic details about what they saw, like whether the screen door was opened or closed when they saw the boy, whether they called the police before or after they saw him, whether he looked at them or not, whether they were inside or out on the porch when they saw him, when they viewed the lineup, who was the first to identify him, and what he was wearing. Neither one of them could identify the shells in evidence as the same ones they handed to the police.
Unfair and biased lineups are an unreliable way of determining what is true.
-
Warren Commission Hearings, Volume VII
Current Section: James R. Leavelle
Bill Brown believes things that witnesses said 30 years later, except for those times when he doesn't.
-
And let's not forget that we have seen in my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series that Helen Markham's own son said that she was prone to lying.
Bill Brown believes witnesses who others have said tell tall tales, except for those times when he doesn't.
-
actually...he can't
The Benavides shells (which the cops couldn't even agree on whether there were 2 or 3 of them) were marked by officer Poe, who couldn't find his initials on the shells that ended up in evidence. [cue another excuse from Jim Leavelle make 30 years later]
The Davis shells were were not found by officers at the scene (neither were the Benavides shells for that matter), but rather were just handed to police officers. They could have come from anywhere. The Davises also could not identify the shells in evidence as the same ones they gave to officers.
-
I see you already have problems keeping track of what you wrote in your OP.
I asked for chain of possession for all the shells and you start babbling about the Davis girls.
Can you or can you not list the chain of possession for the shells?
You're not too bright, are you?
The two Davis shells were linked, through ballistics, to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of any other weapon. The chain of possession for these two shells is clear and perfectly intact.
Any issue (if there are any) with the chain of possession of the two Poe shells does not change the fact that the two Davis shells convict Oswald.
-
McDonald is quoted as saying that the firing pin failed when Oswald tried to shot him in the theater Are you saying he is incorrect??
Let's start at the beginning. Cite McDonald.
-
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4083/34812432124_fa05d3b9ba_b.jpg)
"He can 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.' and holler all he wants to, but that's the man I saw running from the scene." - William Scoggins
(Jim Leavelle interview with Dale Myers)
-
You are asking him to make case against the chain of possession when the chain of possession has not been established Not surprising that you have not got an answer from CT's because its irrational
What's irrational is 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 about a lack of a chain of possession while not showing where the break in the chain is.
-
You forgot the witness who got the best look at Tippit's killer and whose description of the murderer doesn't
match a photo taken of LHO while in DPD custody on 11/22/63.
Testimony Of Domingo Benavides
Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.
~snip~
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
~snip~
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
~snip~
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3.jpg)
You forgot the witness who got the best look at Tippit's killer...
No. It could easily be argued that each of the Davis girls and Scoggins got better looks at the killer than did Benavides.
Barbara Davis: Picked Oswald out of a lineup.
Virginia Davis: Picked Oswald out of a lineup.
William Scoggins: Picked Oswald out of a lineup.
Domingo Benavides: Decided that he did not get a good enough look at the killer to attend a lineup.
Duh.
-
"He can 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.' and holler he wants to, but that's the man I saw running from the scene." - William Scoggins
(Jim Leavelle interview with Dale Myers)
(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)
Bill Brown believes things that witnesses said 30 years later, except for those times when he doesn't.
-
TESTIMONY OF TED CALLAWAY
~snip~
Mr. BALL. He was crossing Patton?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was that to the south or the north of the taxicab? Closer to you than the taxicab?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was he running or walking?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He was running.
~snip~
Mr. BALL. About what distance was he away from you--the closest that he ever was to you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. About 56 feet.
Mr. BALL. You measured that, did you?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Last Saturday morning?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Measured it with a tape measure?
~snip~
So what? Is fifty-six feet supposed to be some great, insurmountable distance? Lame.
Any golfer realizes that a distance less than nineteen yards is no great distance at all.
-
The Davises also could not identify the shells in evidence as the same ones they gave to officers.
So two young women couldn't positively state that the shells in evidence were the same shells they found. Boy, you sure got a blockbuster there.
This does not negate the fact that the two shells in evidence are the two shells the girls found.
-
(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)
"He can 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.' and holler all he wants to, but that's the man I saw running from the scene." - William Scoggins
Live with it.
-
The two Davis shells were linked, through ballistics, to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of any other weapon. The chain of possession for these two shells is clear and perfectly intact.
"Oswald's revolver". LOL.
I think you mean the revolver that Gerald Hill pulled out of his pocket at the station two hours later which only then was initialed by any of the cops.
Any issue (if there are any) with the chain of possession of the two Poe shells does not change the fact that the two Davis shells convict Oswald.
What is your evidence that the shells that the Davis women handed to cops came from the boy they saw crossing their yard?
Or indeed even came from the crime scene at all?
-
No, Oswald was a sheep-dipped patsy that hoped he would be allowed to escape or else he was left in the dark, just like Thomas Arthur Vallee was in Chicago for plan A. Oswald was an Angleton singleton agent plucked from the false defector program. Every good coup needs a patsy and Oswald was plan B.
Whether Oswald shot Tippit, which is unlikely IMO, he didn't shoot JFK. This was a coup pure and simple and Oswald was the patsy and conspirators never rely on the patsy to do the shooting. As soon as you LNers get a grip, you'll see that everything you've been defending and obfuscating about for the last 50+ years fits perfectly into the patsy narrative. You will feel embarrassed re your naivety and you will feel violated that you were unwitting shills to the coup, but you will finally be able to sleep at night knowing you are no longer in the dark.
Cheers ;)
JTrojan
Not when you go making joke statements, like you think Oswald saying "I'm a patsy" is some sort of proof of a conspiracy, he likely said it because the feebeye had their eyes on him because of his activities like coming back from Russia and being involved in hands off Cuba.
-
OK, so you claim to have at least two good shells (Davis).
There were four shells marked Q-74, Q-75, Q-76, Q77.
Can we have the numbers of the Davis shells, please?
Don't expect a straight answer from Brown. Q-75 was either a Benavides shell or a Davis shell, depending on who you ask. So much for a clear and perfectly intact chain of custody.
-
No. It could easily be argued that each of the Davis girls and Scoggins got better looks at the killer than did Benavides.
Barbara Davis: Picked Oswald out of a lineup.
Virginia Davis: Picked Oswald out of a lineup.
William Scoggins: Picked Oswald out of a lineup.
Domingo Benavides: Decided that he did not get a good enough look at the killer to attend a lineup.
Duh.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)
Unfair and biased lineups are an unreliable way of determining what is true.
-
So two young women couldn't positively state that the shells in evidence were the same shells they found. Boy, you sure got a blockbuster there.
This does not negate the fact that the two shells in evidence are the two shells the girls found.
...and your evidence for this "fact" would be?
-
Why not cite for cite supporting evidence for your claims?
Because in Bill's mind, all he has to do is call something a "fact" and it becomes one.
-
I have to admit, there are more witnesses identifying Oswald as Tippit's killer than I realized I know there are holes in a lot of the stories, but if there was Oswald 2 maybe that is the most rational answer. If the story of the two Oswald's is true then the intelligence agencies had made a might effort to create such a scenario and they would have wanted to use him for something significant
The problem for the LN is that the evidence is substantial Oswald is at the theater at the time of the shooting
-
The problem for the LN is that the evidence is substantial Oswald is at the theater at the time of the shooting
What evidence would that be?
-
I have to admit, there are more witnesses identifying Oswald as Tippit's killer than I realized I know there are holes in a lot of the stories, but if there was Oswald 2 maybe that is the most rational answer. If the story of the two Oswald's is true then the intelligence agencies had made a might effort to create such a scenario and they would have wanted to use him for something significant
The problem for the LN is that the evidence is substantial Oswald is at the theater at the time of the shooting
Can you cite this 'evidence'
-
I read the crap by conspiracy types, mindful it?s now 55 years after the event and what stands out is, their arguments HAVE NOT CHANGED in 55 years. That?s remarkable. They still choose (it?s still a choice) to live in a world where suspicion becomes fact, lack of facts becomes evidence of a conspiratorial cover up and actual proof to the contrary is dismissed as disinformation. It begs the question have these lunatics done even a cursory investigation of the facts? The answer to that is yes, they have examined the facts but in their distorted world view of how historical events happen, actual facts mean little to nothing. Their individual ideology means more than FACTS. Frightening concept, don?t you think? Nobody should be surprised they cannot prove their personal conspiracy let alone any conspiracy. The question should no longer be did LHO shoot JFK and Tippit. That?s proven to reasonable people. I?ve said it before, there may have been a conspiracy but it cannot be proven now or ever. That too is a fact.
-
Once the confusion was settled, Markham said this...
"Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman."
She said she didn't recognize anyone in the line up. She had to be coached/led almost word for word.
That coaching would not have been allowed in a court of law. The kangaroo WC is another story.
"At this point counsel, a teacher of criminal law and procedure at the University of Southern California and a member of the U.S. Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, asked a rather leading question. Mrs. Markham said that she recognized no one at the lineup; counsel tried five times for a more acceptable answer. Then, departing a little from the legal procedure he teaches, he next asked his friendly but disconcerting witness, "Was there a number two man in there?" Mrs. Markham replied, "Number two is the one I picked." Counsel began another question: "I thought you just told me that you hadn't, but Mrs. Markham interrupted to answer inexplicably, "I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing."
-
No. It could easily be argued that each of the Davis girls and Scoggins got better looks at the killer than did Benavides.
Barbara Davis: Picked Oswald out of a lineup.
Virginia Davis: Picked Oswald out of a lineup.
William Scoggins: Picked Oswald out of a lineup.
Domingo Benavides: Decided that he did not get a good enough look at the killer to attend a lineup.
Duh.
"Domingo Benavides: Decided that he did not get a good enough look at the killer to attend a lineup."
Some how I don't really think that's the reason he missed the Ozzie line ups.
LOL
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
-
You're not too bright, are you?
The two Davis shells were linked, through ballistics, to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of any other weapon. The chain of possession for these two shells is clear and perfectly intact.
Any issue (if there are any) with the chain of possession of the two Poe shells does not change the fact that the two Davis shells convict Oswald.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0242b.htm
Mr. Eisenberg: Now, you said that there were three bullets of Winchester-Western manufacture, those are 602,603, and 605 and one bullet of R.-P. manufacture.
Mr. Cunningham: That is correct.
Mr. Eisenberg: However, as to the cartridge cases, Exhibit 594, you told us there were two R.-P. cartridge cases and two Winchester-Western cartridge cases.
Mr. Cunningham: That is correct.
Mr. Eisenberg: So that the recovered cartridge cases, there is one more recovered R.-P. cartridge case than there was recovered bullet?
Mr. Cunningham: Yes
Mr. Eisenberg: And as to the bullets, there is one more recovered Winchester-Western bullet than there is Winchester-Western cartridges?
Mr. Cunningham: That is correct.
Mr. Eisenberg: How would you account for that?
Mr. Cunningham: The possibility exits that one bullet is missing. Also, they may not have found one of the cartridges.
Representative Boggs: Are you able to match the bullet with the cartridge case?
Mr. Cunningham: It is not possible.
Representative Boggs: So that while you can establish the fact that the cartridge case, the four that we have, were fired in that gun---
Mr. Cunningham: Yes Sir.
Representative Boggs: You cannot establish the fact that the bullets were fired in that gun?
Mr. Cunningham: That is correct.
Representative Boggs: And you cannot--having the cartridge case and the bullet--you cannot match them up?
Mr. Cunningham: No, you can't.
---------------
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, were you able to determine whether those bullets have been fired in this weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I was not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
First of all, Commission Exhibit No. 602 was too mutilated. There were not sufficient microscopic marks remaining on the surface of this bullet, due to the mutilation, to determine whether or not it had been fired from this weapon.
-
So what? Is fifty-six feet supposed to be some great, insurmountable distance? Lame.
Any golfer realizes that a distance less than nineteen yards is no great distance at all.
Domingo Benavides was directly across the street from Tippit's squad car (within 15 ft) when the shots
were fired. He said he got a really good look at the shooter.
Calloway saw a man running from a distance of 56 feet and farther.
Yet Calloway is the better witness to ID Tippit's killer?
LOL
-
Domingo Benavides was directly across the street from Tippit's squad car (within 15 ft) when the shots
were fired. He said he got a really good look at the shooter.
Calloway saw a man running from a distance of 56 feet and farther.
Yet Calloway is the better witness to ID Tippit's killer?
LOL
Straw man.
Why are you so easily confused?
I didn't include Callaway in the Domingo Benavides list. I said each of the Davis sisters and Scoggins. Go back and read it again. Good grief.
-
I read the crap by conspiracy types, mindful it?s now 55 years after the event and what stands out is, their arguments HAVE NOT CHANGED in 55 years. That?s remarkable. They still choose (it?s still a choice) to live in a world where suspicion becomes fact, lack of facts becomes evidence of a conspiratorial cover up and actual proof to the contrary is dismissed as disinformation. It begs the question have these lunatics done even a cursory investigation of the facts? The answer to that is yes, they have examined the facts but in their distorted world view of how historical events happen, actual facts mean little to nothing. Their individual ideology means more than FACTS. Frightening concept, don?t you think? Nobody should be surprised they cannot prove their personal conspiracy let alone any conspiracy. The question should no longer be did LHO shoot JFK and Tippit. That?s proven to reasonable people. I?ve said it before, there may have been a conspiracy but it cannot be proven now or ever. That too is a fact.
I read the crap by conspiracy types, mindful it?s now 55 years after the event and what stands out is, their arguments HAVE NOT CHANGED in 55 years.
Mr May...I believe that you have your head in a most unnatural place...... The CT contingent's arguments have changed with the passage of time. Gone are the shrill silly cries of outrageous theories that were introduced as theories of wacko conspiracy theorists when in reality the theories were the work of LNer's posing as CT's to lend credence to the cries of the government's shills, that all CT's are a bunch of wackos.
The CT who post on this forum are intelligent and present reasonable alternatives to the official US government tale.
-
All this thread shows is that Bill Brown is nothing more than a WC propagandist.
Bill Brown believes things that witnesses said 30 years later, except for those times when he doesn't.
So true... the alleged Scoggins quote isn't even directly from Scoggins....
Instead it is something that Jim Leavelle claimed to have remembered verbatim after several decades and told to Dale Myers.
It illustrates precisely how desperate Brown is to make his case and why he is such a waste of time to talk to!
-
What evidence would that be?
Butch Burroughs
-
Can you cite this 'evidence'
Bill sorry but I didn't really think you were 'into' citing evidence
-
All this thread shows is that Bill Brown is nothing more than a WC propagandist.
So true... the alleged Scoggins quote isn't even directly from Scoggins....
Instead it is something that Jim Leavelle claimed to have remembered verbatim after several decades and told to Dale Myers.
It illustrates precisely how desperate Brown is to make his case and why he is such a waste of time to talk to!
It illustrates precisely how desperate Brown is to make his case and why he is such a waste of time to talk to!
-
Butch Burroughs
-
Oswald would be convicted of killing Officer Tippit, blow all the smoke you want, that doesn't change that fact.
-
Oswald would be convicted of killing Officer Tippit, blow all the smoke you want, that doesn't change that fact.
Keep smokin that stuff and hallucinating.....
-
Where is it that he changes his story?
-
Bump for Bill Brown...
Now is your chance to impress some newbies.
Q-numbers of the Davis shells, coming right up?
;D
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)
-
;D
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)
So, says Walt, flaunting breaking the rules against personal attacks in this thread.
-
Oswald would be convicted of killing Officer Tippit, blow all the smoke you want, that doesn't change that fact.
Amazing how you seem to feel that you can predict what a jury that will never exist would decide!
But let's assume for a moment that Oswald, based on the available evidence, would indeed have been convicted for killing Tippit, does that mean in your mind that he actually did it? If so, why?
-
That's an argument I'd like to see the substance of
though based on what you provided so far; I don't expect much
Billy Bob's argument is based on what he wishes were true...... He wishes that Dom Benavides hadn't succinctly stated that he clearly saw the killer's face from about 15 or 20 feet away. And Dom Benavides also saw the back of the killer's head and he noticed that he had his hair cut in an unusual fashion. Benavides noticed that the killer's haircut made the back of his head appear to be flat and the hair was squared off at the bottom. ( back in the day, that haircut was called a "Geromimo cut", like Michael Ansara wore in the old TV series.) Lee Oswald did not have a "Geromino cut".
-
Bump for Bill Brown...
Now is your chance to impress some newbies.
Q-numbers of the Davis shells, coming right up?
Barbara Davis -- Q76
Virginia Davis -- Q75
How's that? Pretty impressive, eh?
-
from WC testimony of Mrs Barbara Jeanette Davis:
Did you identify the man in the lineup before your sister-in-law?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. Before your sister-in-law?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir; I was the first one.
Mr. DULLES. All right.
from WC testimony of Mrs Charlie Virginia Davis:
Mr. BELIN. Now you identified someone in that lineup?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you hear your sister-in-law identify him first, or not?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir; I identified him first.
Mr. BELIN. Where was your sister when you identified him?
Mrs. DAVIS. She was sitting right next to me.
There is similar contradiction about whether the screen door was open or closed.
-
What a shame you beat him to it.
I wonder if he'll agree as Barnes told Ball he got Q-75 from Poe...
Barnes: I believe it was Q-74 and Q-75.
"I believe" is not a positive identification. On April 7, 1964, Barnes clearly was not sure. On June 15, 1964, he was again shown the four shells and he was then able to identify his markings on Q-74 and Q-77. C.N. Dhority positively identified Q-75 as the shell that he had received from Virginia Davis.
-
That's odd: Barnes improved but Poe went blind and couldn't identify anything to the FBI, problem solved!
Oh, Barbara Davis, in her affidavit, forgot to mention the shell she found (Q-76) but said she handed over the shell to Dhority that Virginia found...what a mess.
None of the marks allegedly identified were documented in the FBI report except for Poe ("J.M.P.") who could not identify his shells, and removing Poe from the equation disconnects the chain of possession for the alleged Benavides shells.
Oh, Barbara Davis, in her affidavit, forgot to mention the shell she found (Q-76) but said she handed over the shell to Dhority that Virginia found...what a mess.
Yes..... a mess! But we wouldn't have this mess if the killer had been using the .38 Smith & Wesson that allegedly was in Lee Oswald's possession at the theater. Because the S&W ejects all of the spent shells at the same time. Therefore if the killer had been using a S&W all of the spent shells would have been found on the ground in close proximity to each other. The fact that the spent shells were found widely distributed indicates that they were extracted separately and discarded one at a time. And that's exactly what witnesses reported..... The killer walked away and extracted one spent shell at a time....
Obviously the killer was not using a Smith and Wesson.......and he was NOT Lee Oswald.
-
Where is it that he changes his story?
Nowhere. That video is so full of fail. Must be the work of "Mytton".
-
Barnes: I believe it was Q-74 and Q-75.
"I believe" is not a positive identification. On April 7, 1964, Barnes clearly was not sure. On June 15, 1964, he was again shown the four shells and he was then able to identify his markings on Q-74 and Q-77. C.N. Dhority positively identified Q-75 as the shell that he had received from Virginia Davis.
Questions:
- Was Barnes shown all four shells on April 7?
- Did his initials become more visible between April and June?
- Was he under oath on June 15?
-
God catch, Zeon.
There is similar contradiction about whether the screen door was open or closed.
What door was that again?
J. Davis affidavit:
I put on my shoes and went to the door and I saw this man walking across my front yard unloading a gun.
V. Davis affidavit:
We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side door at Patton Street.
WC testimony from Barbara Jeanette Davis:
Mr. BALL. You were lying on the bed. What did you do?
Mrs. DAVIS. I got up, put my shoes on to see what it was.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever go outdoors?
Mrs. DAVIS. At first, I didn't.
Mr. BALL. When you went to the door, did you open the door?
Mrs. DAVIS. I opened the door and held the screen opened.
Mr. BALL. What did you see?
Mrs. DAVIS. Mrs. Markham standing across the street over there, and she was standing over there and the man was coming across the yard.
Mr. BALL. A man was coming across what yard?
Mrs. DAVIS. My yard.
WC Testimony from Mrs Charlie Virginia Davis:
Mr. BELIN. Well, let me see if I understand your statement now. You went to the front door after you heard the second shot?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got to the front door? Did you open the front door, or not?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir; we just looked through the front door.
Mr. BELIN. You looked through the front door?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Was there a screen door on it or not?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was a screen door.
Mr. BELIN. Were you looking through the screen door, or was the screen door partially open, if you remember.
Mrs. DAVIS. It was closed. We was looking through it.
Mr. BELIN. You were looking through the screen door?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
-
Question! What direction was Oswald walking on Tenth St? East or West? I read several accounts. Tenth Street does not even exist anymore West of Patton. It's school property now, (tennis courts, athletic fields) etc. I have known all along Tippit was driving east, but Oswald's direction on foot is unclear at the time of the stop. The whole neighborhood has completely changed in half a century!
(http://i63.tinypic.com/um06h.jpg)
Tenth Street at present
-
Question! What direction was Oswald walking on Tenth St? East or West? I read several accounts. Tenth Street does not even exist anymore West of Patton. It's school property now, (tennis courts, athletic fields) etc. I have known all along Tippit was driving east, but Oswald's direction on foot is unclear at the time of the stop. The whole neighborhood has completely changed in half a century!
(http://i63.tinypic.com/um06h.jpg)
Tenth Street at present
The man was not Lee Oswald....Helen Markham said that he was walking east on 10th and Tippit was tailing him in the squad car. After they crossed Patton headed east, Tippit called him over to the car and they talked through the vent window...
-
Thanks, Walt,
I am starting to get the same impression. I cannot see how Oswald made it to that location within the time limits from 1026 N. Beckley. Unless he had some type of transportation. Possible yes, Probable no. And thenTippit being transported to Methodist Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 1:25 p.m. by Dr. Richard A. Liguori. Man, you have to be pushing it. I wish I had that type of ambulance service in 1963. Man, I have called an ambulance 1/2 a dozen times in my life and was never transported to the hospital and pronounced dead in less than 10 minutes! Really, think about it!
BB
-
Thanks, Walt,
I am starting to get the same impression. I cannot see how Oswald made it to that location within the time limits from 1026 N. Beckley. Unless he had some type of transportation. Possible yes, Probable no. And thenTippit being transported to Methodist Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 1:25 p.m. by Dr. Richard A. Liguori. Man, you have to be pushing it. I wish I had that type of ambulance service in 1963. Man, I have called an ambulance 1/2 a dozen times in my life and was never transported to the hospital and pronounced dead in less than 10 minutes! Really, think about it!
BB
The ambulance came from the Dudley-Hughes Funeral home, which was located a block and a half away from Tenth and Patton.
-
Thanks, Walt,
I am starting to get the same impression. I cannot see how Oswald made it to that location within the time limits from 1026 N. Beckley. Unless he had some type of transportation. Possible yes, Probable no. And thenTippit being transported to Methodist Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 1:25 p.m. by Dr. Richard A. Liguori. Man, you have to be pushing it. I wish I had that type of ambulance service in 1963. Man, I have called an ambulance 1/2 a dozen times in my life and was never transported to the hospital and pronounced dead in less than 10 minutes! Really, think about it!
BB
I have called an ambulance 1/2 a dozen times in my life and was never transported to the hospital and pronounced dead in less than 10 minutes!
:D
-
Has there ever been any credible explanation as to what LHO would have been doing at that police shooting location?
Where in hell would he have been going?
I have briskly walked the route from the Oswald rooming house to the shooting location...it took me 18 minutes.
-
Is there any real evidence that shows LHO was at Tenth and Patton?
Yep.
-
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bowley.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/jfk20-20tippit20pronounced20dead.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/1589-001.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/tippit1325.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/tippit1325-2.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/tippit-28.jpg)
-
No.
Fleeing, according to the WC sheep. Utter nonsense.
Bowley was there after the shooting 10 minutes past one. Better not call that witness and lie about the timing:
Benavides rushed to Tippit's side. The patrolman, apparently dead, was lying on his revolver, which was out of its holster.Benavides promptly reported the shooting to police head quarters over the radio in Tippit's car. The message was received shortly after 1 :16 p.m.
Benavides didn't rush and couldn't operate the radio.
Markham, washateria at 1.04, 10th & Patton at 1.06/07 PM. Better lie about her timing:
Mrs. Markham was uncertain and inconsistent in her recollection of the exact time of the slaying.
Markham, passed through the washateria at 1.04, and was at the corner of 10th & Patton at 1.06
Bowley was there after the shooting 10 minutes past one.
Markham saw JD Tippit murdered at 1:06 ....A few minutes later at 1:10 TF Bowley arrived and saw Tippit lying in the street near the front wheel of the police car.
The chronology fits like a glove....
-
Has there ever been any credible explanation as to what LHO would have been doing at that police shooting location?
Where in hell would he have been going?
I have briskly walked the route from the Oswald rooming house to the shooting location...it took me 18 minutes.
At 1:04 pm Mrs Roberts saw Lee standing on the sidewalk in front of the rooming house at Beckley and Zangs, which was a mile away from the site where Tippit was murdered at 1:06 at 10th & Patton .....
Perhaps Lee Oswald used a flying carpet to transport him ......
-
At 1:04 pm Mrs Roberts saw Lee standing on the sidewalk in front of the rooming house at Beckley and Zangs, which was a mile away from the site where Tippit was murdered at 1:06 at 10th & Patton .....
Perhaps Lee Oswald used a flying carpet to transport him ......
A brisk, 4 miles per hour walk would take 15 minutes to walk that mile. If Oswald was seen at approx 1:04 pm at the bus stop at Beckley and Zang, you have an arrival time at 10th and Patton at approx 1:19 pm. Too Late. I doubt he jogged, and bring attention to himself. If indeed Oswald was there, I would suspect someone gave him a ride south, down N. Beckley. Perhaps something to do with that police car out front honking. If I recalled, Oswald had only about $16.00 on his person. No much to finance an escape. I don't think the Texas Theater was in his plan as he was originally walking East. There has also been a report of a second police car in a driveway on 10th Street, that exited south into an alley that was there in those days.
BB
-
A brisk, 4 miles per hour walk would take 15 minutes to walk that mile. If Oswald was seen at approx 1:04 pm at the bus stop at Beckley and Zang, you have an arrival time at 10th and Patton at approx 1:19 pm. Too Late. I doubt he jogged, and bring attention to himself. If indeed Oswald was there, I would suspect someone gave him a ride south, down N. Beckley. Perhaps something to do with that police car out front honking. If I recalled, Oswald had only about $16.00 on his person. No much to finance an escape. I don't think the Texas Theater was in his plan as he was originally walking East. There has also been a report of a second police car in a driveway on 10th Street, that exited south into an alley that was there in those days.
BB
I don't think the Texas Theater was in his plan as he was originally walking East.
Huh??.... You mixing up the mess..... Lee told the interrogators that he didn't think there would be any work done in the TSBD that afternoon....So he decided to go to the movie.... So that was his plan.
And the killer who was being tailed by Tippit was walking east on 10th....But that was NOT Lee Oswald.
Turns out he was right... because everybody was released that afternoon......
-
I believe 10th Street ran all the way East from N. Beckley in those days. Aerial below 1956, (Historic Aerials Com). Completely different as 10th Street does not even exist today west of Patton.
BB
(http://i67.tinypic.com/29nxo5c.jpg)
-
I don't think the Texas Theater was in his plan as he was originally walking East.
Huh??.... You mixing up the mess..... Lee told the interrogators that he didn't think there would be any work done in the TSBD that afternoon....So he decided to go to the movie.... So that was his plan.
And the killer who was being tailed by Tippit was walking east on 10th....But that was NOT Lee Oswald.
Turns out he was right... because everybody was released that afternoon......
Walt:
If that is the case, then there appears to be an impersonator. To be honest, I never liked the timing of all this. There have been reports of an impersonator in the balcony of the Texas theater also. Perhaps to draw the police there. Below is what the rear of the Texas Theater looks like today. I recall reports of police waiting in the rear of the building for Oswald to run out and then shoot him.
BB
(http://i63.tinypic.com/2qn9l3r.jpg)
-
What Oswald said happened when he left the TSBD about 12:33pm, thinking no work existed the rest of that day, is exactly what could have happened. The walk, bus ride, taxi, boarding house, putting on a jacket and carrying a .38, and then walking to the movie theater. I don't think much about the .38 as it was Texas 1963. The timing would fit better if he indeed walked directly to the Texas Theater. However, we run into one MAJOR problem. Pulling the .38 on the cop. In my opinion, not the actions of an innocent man, unless something else is at play here.
BB
-
Reply to Caprio:
That has been cited for coming up on 55 years. You refuse to listen instead sticking fingers in your ears while moaning loudly to avoid hearing anything at all. It's been cited here numerous times and you have read those posts.
Are you so very lonely that you need to engage with anyone at all even in ridiculous ways just to make you feel wanted?
Pathetic.
That has been cited for coming up on 55 years. You refuse to listen instead sticking fingers in your ears while moaning loudly to avoid hearing anything at all. It's been cited here numerous times and you have read those posts.
Are you so very lonely that you need to engage with anyone at all even in ridiculous ways just to make you feel wanted?
Pathetic.
-
Reply to Caprio:
That has been cited for coming up on 55 years. You refuse to listen instead sticking fingers in your ears while moaning loudly to avoid hearing anything at all. It's been cited here numerous times and you have read those posts.
Are you so very lonely that you need to engage with anyone at all even in ridiculous ways just to make you feel wanted?
Pathetic.
That has been cited for coming up on 55 years. You refuse to listen instead sticking fingers in your ears while moaning loudly to avoid hearing anything at all. It's been cited here numerous times and you have read those posts.
Are you so very lonely that you need to engage with anyone at all even in ridiculous ways just to make you feel wanted?
Pathetic.
Welcome to the forum and what does Caprio's loneliness have to do with the JFK assassination?
-
There is no supporting evidence for any of these claims.
Supporting evidence? No. But Oswald was working at the TSBD on the morning of November 22, 1963. And He was arrested at the Texas Theater the same afternoon. How he ended up there no one knows for sure. As I stated, I take the middle road, as I am not really sure what happened that day. I remember that day well, being burned into my memory, as well as the entire weekend, for that fact, and we were all assured Oswald committed these deeds by the government. Mr. Oswald, being disposed of promptly as it must be. Today, I do not trust any talking heads in the news media. Now, 55 years after the fact, why am I still questioning exactly what occurred that weekend. It may have been a simple case, as presented, or more, that includes cover-ups, which are entirely possible.
BB
-
At the Reynolds Motor Co. (southeast corner of Jefferson and Patton), four men heard the gun shots, looked north toward the sound of the shots and saw a man running south on Patton (towards their location) with a gun in his hands.
Harold Russel, L.J. Lewis, Pat Patterson and Warren Reynolds were these four men.
After seeing the man head west on Jefferson, Lewis went inside the office and called the police.
Russell went up Patton to the location of the shooting. Ted Callaway approached Russell with the idea of taking Tippit's service revolver and going after the killer. Russell told Callaway that he (Russell) was going to stay at the scene so that he could give the police information when they arrived. He was present there when then police arrived.
Warren Reynolds suggested to Pat Patterson they they follow the gunman. The two followed the man for a block until they lost sight of the man as he went north on Crawford beside the Texaco station located at the corner of Jefferson and Crawford. Reynolds and Patterson approached a lady at the station (Mary Brock) and asked her if they saw the young white man. Brock told them that she had seen a man walk past her and and go to the lot behind the station. Reynolds was present in the lot when the police arrived, assuring the officers on the scene that the man was still somewhere in the area. This is the same parking lot where the Oswald's jacket was found.
Russell, Patterson, Reynolds and Brock were each shown a photograph of Oswald and all were of the opinion that the man they saw was Oswald.
-
BM Patterson
[affidavit AUG 26 1964]
?In regard to the last paragraph of this [FBI] report, I do not at this late date specifically recall having been exhibited a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald, at the time of the interview of January 22, 1964, and desire that this paragraph be deleted as an official reporting of that interview.?
I have been shown the account of my interview with Special Agent Richard J. Burnett
as put in written form in regards to the interviews of August 25 and 26,
1964. I have read this written report and it represents a correct report of
what I saw on November 22, 1963, as well as my identification of photographs of
Lee Harvey Oswald as the individual I had seen on that date.
Signed this 7th day of September 1964.
(S) B. M. Patterson
-
yea..and these are the only 2 pictures they showed him [no others]
It shouldn't be hard to pick out this very famous man....armed
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/952/42187385612_40e16ba07f_b.jpg) (https://farm1.staticflickr.com/978/27362856107_35e8059e4f.jpg)
They showed Lee ONE Back yard photo....( he told them it was a fake) ....This is CE 133A and it is NOT the photo
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/952/42187385612_40e16ba07f_b.jpg)
This photo ( CE 133A) was discovered in Paine's garage about three hours AFTER they displayed a photo that Lee told them was a fake. The photo they showed Lee is known as 133c and the DPD kept it hidden from the public...It was not uncovered until about 10 years after the coup d e'tat.
-
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Date 1/22/64
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light?colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light?colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
Approximately five minutes later two individuals from Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, appeared at Ballew's Texaco Service Station, making inquiry as to whether she had noticed the young white man come by the station. She indicated she had, at which time they informed her that this individual had in all probability shot a Dallas police officer. She advised she informed them that the individual proceeded north behind the Texaco station and she last observed him in the parking lot directly behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
Mrs. BROCK was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans PD 9 112723, dated August 9, 1963, which she identified as being the same person she observed on November 22, 1963, at Ballew's Texaco Service Station.
Mrs. BROCK advised at the time she saw OSWALD on November 22, 1963, she was unaware of the fact that President JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY had been assassinated, and she was unaware that Dallas Police Officer J. D. TIPPIT had been shot.
on 1/21/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461
By Special Agents JOHN T. KESLER and VERNON MITCHEM - LAC Date dictated 1/22/64
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_m.htm
Strange....why have her ID someone based on some photo taken in New Orleans?
Also, this was two months after the events.
-
At the Reynolds Motor Co. (southeast corner of Jefferson and Patton), four men heard the gun shots, looked north toward the sound of the shots and saw a man running south on Patton (towards their location) with a gun in his hands.
Harold Russel, L.J. Lewis, Pat Patterson and Warren Reynolds were these four men.
After seeing the man head west on Jefferson, Lewis went inside the office and called the police.
Russell went up Patton to the location of the shooting. Ted Callaway approached Russell with the idea of taking Tippit's service revolver and going after the killer. Russell told Callaway that he (Russell) was going to stay at the scene so that he could give the police information when they arrived. He was present there when then police arrived.
Warren Reynolds suggested to Pat Patterson they they follow the gunman. The two followed the man for a block until they lost sight of the man as he went north on Crawford beside the Texaco station located at the corner of Jefferson and Crawford. Reynolds and Patterson approached a lady at the station (Mary Brock) and asked her if they saw the young white man. Brock told them that she had seen a man walk past her and and go to the lot behind the station. Reynolds was present in the lot when the police arrived, assuring the officers on the scene that the man was still somewhere in the area. This is the same parking lot where the Oswald's jacket was found.
Russell, Patterson, Reynolds and Brock were each shown a photograph of Oswald and all were of the opinion that the man they saw was Oswald.
Not to mention that Saint Oz was wearing a jacket when he left his rooming house and wasn't wearing a jacket when he was arrested.
And surprise, surprise, surprise; fibers identical to the shirt he was wearing when arrested in the TT were found in the jacket he ditched in the lot behind the Texaco station.
Saint Oz needed to alter his appearance after executing JDT and the devious murdering bastard did just that by ditching his jacket.
-
Not to mention that Saint Oz was wearing a jacket when he left his rooming house and wasn't wearing a jacket when he was arrested.
And surprise, surprise, surprise; fibers identical to the shirt he was wearing when arrested in the TT were found in the jacket he ditched in the lot behind the Texaco station.
Saint Oz needed to alter his appearance after executing JDT and the devious murdering bastard did just that by ditching his jacket.
Pretty crazy concept, eh?
-
Not to mention that Saint Oz was wearing a jacket when he left his rooming house and wasn't wearing a jacket when he was arrested.
And surprise, surprise, surprise; fibers identical to the shirt he was wearing when arrested in the TT were found in the jacket he ditched in the lot behind the Texaco station.
Saint Oz needed to alter his appearance after executing JDT and the devious murdering bastard did just that by ditching his jacket.
Not a very conclusive argument... just mere speculation and assumptions!
Not to mention that Saint Oz was wearing a jacket
According to only one, half blind, woman who was paying more attention to getting the TV to work and who wasn't able to identify the jacket now in evidence, because she believed the jacket she had seen was darker.
wasn't wearing a jacket when he was arrested.
How does this even begin to show that he wasn't wearing a jacket as he entered the TT and the possibility that he took it off inside?
fibers identical to the shirt he was wearing when arrested in the TT were found in the jacket
Wow, what a surpise. The grey jacket now in evidence may well have belonged to Oswald. The problem is that there is some evidence that suggests the grey jacket was worn by Oswald to Irving on Thursday, which - if true - makes it impossible for the jacket to have been in Oak Cliff the next day!
he ditched in the lot behind the Texaco station.
The jacket found at the Texaco station parking lot was described by several people as being white. The jacket now in evidence is grey!
And you can only assume that it was Oswald who ditched a jacket in the parking lot since nobody saw him do it.
-
This typifies the problem for the conspiracy kooks and Saint Oz defense team.
In one breath it's doubtful that a half blind woman could have noticed whether Saint Oz was wearing a jacket, in the next breath the kooks want to argue that the jacket she saw was a different color.
In Kookland it's not likely someone in the same room would notice if Saint Oz was wearing a jacket, but it is likely she'd be able to positively tell you if the jacket was grey or white.
For those not living in Kookland this isn't too hard to figure out. Saint Oz is wearing a jacket when he leaves his room. He's not wearing and doesn't have a jacket with him when arrested in the TT. The person suspected of murdering JDT is seen fleeing through a lot where a jacket is found that just happens to contain fibers that match the shirt Saint Oz is wearing when arrested.
Now back to our regularly scheduled 'there is no evidence' nonsense.
-
Then it appears to be fairly well-settled. Apparently Oswald killed Officer Tippet.
Taken out of context [as was done] from the Warren Report, it does seem apparent.
However a concise review of the testimony that was provided from the volumes of interviews of these witnesses as well as many others concerning the shooting of J D Tippit presents a very not so settled convoluted chain of 'observations'.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/scoggins.htm
Mr. DULLES. What time was this, approximately, as far as you can recall?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Around 1:20 in the afternoon.
...
Mr. BELIN. Why did you jump out of your cab first when you heard the shots?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Because anytime that there is anything going on that is one thing the cab driver wants to do is to get away from that cab, because the man is going to try--if he had ever seen the cab, he looked back over his left shoulder, and I don't think he even seen the cab-he would have probably jumped in the cab and had me take him somewhere or maybe shot me, too, you know, and I didn't want to be around the cab at anytime while he was in the neighborhood, you know, when there was anything like that going on, or anything, robbery, or anything.
Mr. BELIN. I believe you said you saw the officer fall. Did you see where he fell?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he fell right by the side of the front, about, a little bit forward of the door, right about the door.
Mr. BELIN. Did you ever later go up and view the officer?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes. I went up there, but by the time I got up there the ambulance had already got there. You see I got my dispatcher and was telling him about it, just by that time the ambulance got there.
Mr. BELIN. Did you notice anything in the street to indicate where the officer fell?
Mr. SCOGGINS. There was blood there, of course. They picked the man up by the time I got there, the ambulance did.
A witness given months to be rehearsed on their testimony should have done better.
Were I a cab driver...I would wish to get away in my cab, not run away from my cab.
This taxi driver must have gone into a fog between the firing of the shots and the arrival of the ambulance to take away the cop.
So, out of fear [of being carjacked?] Scoggins jumped out of his cab but then jumped back in to talk to his dispatcher [I guess] Judging from the times stated, one would almost think that an ambulance was waiting up the street waiting to pick someone up off the street.
Mr. BELIN. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Three or four, in the neighborhood. They was fast.
Mr. BELIN. They were fast shots?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; they were fast.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do or say or hear?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Then I saw the man falling, grab his stomach and fall.
Mr. BELIN. Which man did you see fall?
Mr. SCOGGINS. The policeman......
Now, why did Belin ask which man fell? Also could Belin not hear well, or did he just want to correct Scoggins' imperfect grammar?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Not in too big a hurry. It didn't seem like at first.
Mr. BELIN. At first not too big a hurry?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did he change that at all?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Never did change his pace as long as I saw him. I don't know where he went after he passed the cab and got down a little piece, because then I was busy trying to get my dispatcher, and I never did look and never did get to see him.
The Warren Commission couldn't have been happy with that statement.
Mr. BELIN. Did the pistol appear to be--did he appear to be doing anything with the pistol or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes. He had it, holding it, in his left hand in a manner that the barrel was up like this...
Mr. DULLES. You said he had it in his left hand?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes, sir.
Allen Dulles wondered at that statement.
Other witnesses testified that the shooter held the pistol in his right hand in the upright position or that he was reloading it [which would necessarily mean left hand loading while right hand holding]
Mr. DULLES. Referring to your tracing of the path that the man later found to be Oswald followed, he went through the lower of these two bushes there, did he? He went right through it?
In order to expedite hanging the crime on Oswald, Mr Dulles is first to mention the name.
Mr. BELIN. Those are all the questions I have. Just a second. When you saw a picture in the morning paper of Lee Harvey Oswald, did this look similar to the man you saw at the Tippit shooting, or did it look different?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I would say similar; yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did it look like the same man?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes.
.........................................................................
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if the number 3 man in the lineup was wearing the same clothes that the man you saw at the Tippit shooting wore?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had on a different shirt, and he didn't have a jacket on. He had on kind of a polo shirt.
...............................................
Mr. BELIN. Sometime later, after the lineup, did any of the police officers show you with a picture of anyone and ask you if you could identify him?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if he was an FBI man or a Dallas policeman or a Secret Service agent?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He was an FBI or a Secret Service.
...................................................................
Mr. BELIN. What did he ask you and what did you tell him?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He gave me some pictures, showed me several pictures there,, which was, some of them were, pretty well resembled him, and some of them didn't, and they looked like they was kind of old pictures, and I think I picked the wrong picture. I am not too--
.................................................................................
Mr. BELIN. Did he say to you something like "These are pictures we have of Lee Harvey Oswald"? Did he use that name in front of you, or did he say, "Here are some pictures. See if you can identify them"--if you remember?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I don't remember, but after I got through looking at them and everything, and I says, I told them one of these two pictures is him, out of this group he showed me, and the one that was actually him looked like an older man than he was to me. Of course, I am not too much on identifying pictures. It wasn't a full shot of him, you know, and then he told me the other one was Oswald.
Scoggins [even though an admitted TV watcher] claimed he never did see Oswald on television.
Right..... Thumb1:
-
This typifies the problem for the conspiracy kooks and Saint Oz defense team.
In one breath it's doubtful that a half blind woman could have noticed whether Saint Oz was wearing a jacket, in the next breath the kooks want to argue that the jacket she saw was a different color.
Hi Howard, nice pick-up. If anything "a half blind woman" may have difficulty in differentiating a subtle shade difference caused by two totally different locations but the specific mention of Oswald zipping up his jacket is unmistakable.
Why did Oswald ditch his jacket?
(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/lb_maccammon.jpg?quality=85&w=687)
JohnM
-
Hi Howard, nice pick-up. If anything "a half blind woman" may have difficulty in differentiating a subtle shade difference caused by two totally different locations but the specific mention of Oswald zipping up his jacket is unmistakable.
Why did Oswald ditch his jacket?
(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/lb_maccammon.jpg?quality=85&w=687)
JohnM
Who the hell is smoking a stogie and mugging to the camera as they apprehend the assassin of the POTUS?
-
Not a very conclusive argument... just mere speculation and assumptions!
Not to mention that Saint Oz was wearing a jacket
According to only one, half blind, woman who was paying more attention to getting the TV to work and who wasn't able to identify the jacket now in evidence, because she believed the jacket she had seen was darker.
wasn't wearing a jacket when he was arrested.
How does this even begin to show that he wasn't wearing a jacket as he entered the TT and the possibility that he took it off inside?
fibers identical to the shirt he was wearing when arrested in the TT were found in the jacket
Wow, what a surpise. The grey jacket now in evidence may well have belonged to Oswald. The problem is that there is some evidence that suggests the grey jacket was worn by Oswald to Irving on Thursday, which - if true - makes it impossible for the jacket to have been in Oak Cliff the next day!
he ditched in the lot behind the Texaco station.
The jacket found at the Texaco station parking lot was described by several people as being white. The jacket now in evidence is grey!
And you can only assume that it was Oswald who ditched a jacket in the parking lot since nobody saw him do it.
According to only one, half blind, woman who was paying more attention to getting the TV to work and who wasn't able to identify the jacket now in evidence, because she believed the jacket she had seen was darker.
Only one? There were many more witnesses (than "only one") at the Tippit scene who literally describe Oswald wearing a jacket or a coat.
Please learn the evidence.
wasn't wearing a jacket when he was arrested.
How does this even begin to show that he wasn't wearing a jacket as he entered the TT and the possibility that he took it off inside?
Johnny Brewer saw Oswald after the Tippit shooting and before Oswald's arrest. Johnny Brewer stated that Oswald had no jacket on.
Again, please learn the evidence.
The grey jacket now in evidence may well have belonged to Oswald.
You're finally starting to learn the evidence. Good.
All of this is JFK Assassination 101. Where have you been?
-
So, out of fear [of being carjacked?] Scoggins jumped out of his cab but then jumped back in to talk to his dispatcher [I guess] Judging from the times stated, one would almost think that an ambulance was waiting up the street waiting to pick someone up off the street.
Jerry,
The ambulance which took Tippit to Methodist Hospital departed from the Dudley-Hughes Funeral Home, which was located literally one and a half blocks away from where Tippit was gunned down. The ambulance was there in a flash.
-
Who the hell is smoking a stogie and mugging to the camera as they apprehend the assassin of the POTUS?
That's Paul Bentley... and how do you know he's "mugging to the camera"? You do realize you're looking at a frozen moment in time. Right? Couldn't Bentley have simply glanced at the camera for a second or two as he assessed who was in his way as they made their path to the waiting car?
-
This typifies the problem for the conspiracy kooks and Saint Oz defense team.
In one breath it's doubtful that a half blind woman could have noticed whether Saint Oz was wearing a jacket, in the next breath the kooks want to argue that the jacket she saw was a different color.
In Kookland it's not likely someone in the same room would notice if Saint Oz was wearing a jacket, but it is likely she'd be able to positively tell you if the jacket was grey or white.
For those not living in Kookland this isn't too hard to figure out. Saint Oz is wearing a jacket when he leaves his room. He's not wearing and doesn't have a jacket with him when arrested in the TT. The person suspected of murdering JDT is seen fleeing through a lot where a jacket is found that just happens to contain fibers that match the shirt Saint Oz is wearing when arrested.
Now back to our regularly scheduled 'there is no evidence' nonsense.
In one breath it's doubtful that a half blind woman could have noticed whether Saint Oz was wearing a jacket, in the next breath the kooks want to argue that the jacket she saw was a different color.
You mean like Frazier who wasn't paying much attention to the paper bag?
Besides, Baker believed Oswald was wearing a jacket when he saw him at the TSBD, right?
In Kookland it's not likely someone in the same room would notice if Saint Oz was wearing a jacket, but it is likely she'd be able to positively tell you if the jacket was grey or white.
And only in la la la ln land would one assume that a half blind woman, who is concentrating on getting the TV to work (which means that she had her back turned to a large part the living room) would make a perfect observation in the few seconds it took Oswald to cross the room, yet also assume that a man like Frazier who was close to Oswald and his package for a much longer time would get his observations so wrong that he could not recognize the paper bag when it was shown to him only hours later on the same day!
And btw Roberts did not say the jacket was grey or white.... she rejected the jacket shown to her because she said the one she had seen was darker
For those not living in Kookland this isn't too hard to figure out. Saint Oz is wearing a jacket when he leaves his room. He's not wearing and doesn't have a jacket with him when arrested in the TT. The person suspected of murdering JDT is seen fleeing through a lot where a jacket is found that just happens to contain fibers that match the shirt Saint Oz is wearing when arrested.
You mean those who believe their own assumptions are evidence? No wonder you repeat the same ramblings all over again....
Now back to our regularly scheduled 'there is no evidence' nonsense.
Who said there is no evidence? Sure there is, it just doesn't support the assumptions you freely attach to it!
-
Hi Howard, nice pick-up. If anything "a half blind woman" may have difficulty in differentiating a subtle shade difference caused by two totally different locations but the specific mention of Oswald zipping up his jacket is unmistakable.
Why did Oswald ditch his jacket?
(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/lb_maccammon.jpg?quality=85&w=687)
JohnM
but the specific mention of Oswald zipping up his jacket is unmistakable.
Johnny, please.... did you forget that her own employer warned the WC about Roberts being a person who makes up stuff?
But if it wasn't for that minor problem, you actually might have had something .... you know, like Frazier's observation that Oswald's package fitted between the palm of his hand and tucked under his shoulder.... now that specific mention is truly unmistakable, right?
-
Sometimes you just have to laugh about the circular arguments of a simpleton.....
Witnesses at the Tippit scene claimed the man they saw was wearing a jacket. Ergo, if Oswald did not leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket, he might just not have been the man those witnesses saw.
So enter Earlene Roberts, the half blind story teller who was concentrating on getting the TV to work, who is the only person who could possibly say if Oswald left wearing a jacket or not.....and, despite her credibility problem with honking police cars etc, mr. simpleton blindly accepts her word for it, because..... wait for it........... other witnesses saw a guy wearing a jacket.....pfffffffff
Let's hope the day will never come that mr simpleton understands circular logic.... the shock of becoming aware might just prove too much for him.
-
All the WC/LN BS about the jacked has already been picked apart in this thread:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,124.0.html
Since when does that stop a LNr from repeating the same old claims again and again?
-
The ambulance was there in a flash.
Seems like everything happened "in a flash" that day :-\
-
-
"Dallas researcher Michael Brownlow interviewed Doris Holan, who lived directly across the street from the shooting, in a second-floor apartment at 409 East Tenth (researcher Bill Pulte accompanied Brownlow on one of his two interviews with Holan shortly before her death in 2000). She said that a police car had appeared in the driveway between the two houses (404 and 410 East Tenth) at the spot where Tippit was killed. Whether Tippit did so intentionally or coincidentally, he had blocked that driveway, which led to an alley at mid-block, parallel to both East Tenth and Jefferson Boulevard. Tippit, while driving eastward, may have been trying to use his squad car to prevent another police car from leaving the driveway. Holan said when she heard shots and looked out her window, the other police car was heading down the driveway approaching Tippit's vehicle.
... 'She saw a man leaving the scene, moving westward toward Patton... Near the (second) police car she also saw a man in the driveway walking toward the street, where Tippit's car was parked.' That man went up to where Tippit was lying, looked down to inspect the officer's head, and retreated back down the driveway, with the unidentified police car backing up at the same time to the alley. So Holan reported at least three suspicious men at the scene, including two men on foot and the driver of the second police car. Whoever killed Tippit may have fled in that car or in another vehicle or on foot through that alley adjacent to the shooting scene. And Tippit may have been shot by two men, a possibility the ballistics evidence, with different kinds of ammunition, might suggest, even though that evidence is unreliable. Most (not all) witnesses reported a man fleeing around the corner and up Patton toward Jefferson, which would be compatible with Holan's account.
-
"Dallas researcher Michael Brownlow interviewed Doris Holan, who lived directly across the street from the shooting, in a second-floor apartment at 409 East Tenth (researcher Bill Pulte accompanied Brownlow on one of his two interviews with Holan shortly before her death in 2000). She said that a police car had appeared in the driveway between the two houses (404 and 410 East Tenth) at the spot where Tippit was killed. Whether Tippit did so intentionally or coincidentally, he had blocked that driveway, which led to an alley at mid-block, parallel to both East Tenth and Jefferson Boulevard. Tippit, while driving eastward, may have been trying to use his squad car to prevent another police car from leaving the driveway. Holan said when she heard shots and looked out her window, the other police car was heading down the driveway approaching Tippit's vehicle.
... 'She saw a man leaving the scene, moving westward toward Patton... Near the (second) police car she also saw a man in the driveway walking toward the street, where Tippit's car was parked.' That man went up to where Tippit was lying, looked down to inspect the officer's head, and retreated back down the driveway, with the unidentified police car backing up at the same time to the alley. So Holan reported at least three suspicious men at the scene, including two men on foot and the driver of the second police car. Whoever killed Tippit may have fled in that car or in another vehicle or on foot through that alley adjacent to the shooting scene. And Tippit may have been shot by two men, a possibility the ballistics evidence, with different kinds of ammunition, might suggest, even though that evidence is unreliable. Most (not all) witnesses reported a man fleeing around the corner and up Patton toward Jefferson, which would be compatible with Holan's account.
Do any of the aspects of Holan's story fit with other witnesses accounts?....If the answer is no then perhaps Holan's story is not credible.
-
Do any of the aspects of Holan's story fit with other witnesses accounts?....If the answer is no then perhaps Holan's story is not credible.
It is corroborated the other witness who saw two assailants Two kinds of bullets The cop car that went by Oswald's boarding house and suspicious behavior and stories of other cops such as Westbrook Not a very comprehensive answer on my part, but what single witness to all of this is not not contradicted by another in some respect?
-
Sometimes you just have to laugh about the circular arguments of a simpleton.....
Witnesses at the Tippit scene claimed the man they saw was wearing a jacket. Ergo, if Oswald did not leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket, he might just not have been the man those witnesses saw.
So enter Earlene Roberts, the half blind story teller who was concentrating on getting the TV to work, who is the only person who could possibly say if Oswald left wearing a jacket or not.....and, despite her credibility problem with honking police cars etc, mr. simpleton blindly accepts her word for it, because..... wait for it........... other witnesses saw a guy wearing a jacket.....pfffffffff
Let's hope the day will never come that mr simpleton understands circular logic.... the shock of becoming aware might just prove too much for him.
Earlene Roberts mentions the jacket on the afternoon of 11/22/63. This is a fact. Get over it.
-
All the WC/LN BS about the jacked has already been picked apart in this thread:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,124.0.html
Picked apart? LOL
-
RE Clemons
Speculation.?Another witness to the slaying of Patrolman Tippit,
an unidentified woman, was interviewed by the FBI but was never
called as a witness by the President's Commission on the Assassination
of President Kennedy. This witness is alleged to have stated that
she saw two men involved in the shooting and that they ran off in
opposite directions afterward.
Commission finding.?The only woman among the witnesses to the
slaying of Tippit known to the Commission is Helen Markham. The
FBI never interviewed any other woman who claimed to haive seen
the shooting and never received any information concerning the existence
of such a witness. Two women, Barbara Jeanette Davis and
Virginia Davis, saw the killer immediately after the shooting as
he crossed the lawn at the corner of Patton Avenue and 10th Street,
but they did not witness the shooting itself. They were both interviewed
by the FBI and appeared before the Commission. The Commission
has no evidence that there was any witness to the slaying
other than those identified in chapter IV.
Not exactly speculation if it wasn't the FBI who talked to her...those lawyers were no fools.
Acquilla Clemons was NOT a witness to the "slaying of Patrolman Tippit".
I guess Helen Markham, Domingo Benavides and William Scoggins somehow managed to miss the mysterious second killer. I wonder how they could have missed him.
-
Seems like everything happened "in a flash" that day :-\
I'm not sure what you mean by that but nevertheless, the ambulance was only one and a half blocks away (at the funeral home) at the time of the shooting.
-
"Dallas researcher Michael Brownlow interviewed Doris Holan, who lived directly across the street from the shooting, in a second-floor apartment at 409 East Tenth (researcher Bill Pulte accompanied Brownlow on one of his two interviews with Holan shortly before her death in 2000). She said that a police car had appeared in the driveway between the two houses (404 and 410 East Tenth) at the spot where Tippit was killed. Whether Tippit did so intentionally or coincidentally, he had blocked that driveway, which led to an alley at mid-block, parallel to both East Tenth and Jefferson Boulevard. Tippit, while driving eastward, may have been trying to use his squad car to prevent another police car from leaving the driveway. Holan said when she heard shots and looked out her window, the other police car was heading down the driveway approaching Tippit's vehicle.
... 'She saw a man leaving the scene, moving westward toward Patton... Near the (second) police car she also saw a man in the driveway walking toward the street, where Tippit's car was parked.' That man went up to where Tippit was lying, looked down to inspect the officer's head, and retreated back down the driveway, with the unidentified police car backing up at the same time to the alley. So Holan reported at least three suspicious men at the scene, including two men on foot and the driver of the second police car. Whoever killed Tippit may have fled in that car or in another vehicle or on foot through that alley adjacent to the shooting scene. And Tippit may have been shot by two men, a possibility the ballistics evidence, with different kinds of ammunition, might suggest, even though that evidence is unreliable. Most (not all) witnesses reported a man fleeing around the corner and up Patton toward Jefferson, which would be compatible with Holan's account.
Mike Brownlow? After her death? Then it must be true.
-
It is corroborated the other witness who saw two assailants Two kinds of bullets The cop car that went by Oswald's boarding house and suspicious behavior and stories of other cops such as Westbrook Not a very comprehensive answer on my part, but what single witness to all of this is not not contradicted by another in some respect?
No.
The real witnesses (Markham, Benavides, Scoggins) who were actually there (strange concept, I know) describe Tippit encountering just one man.
"Two kinds of bullets" means absolutely nothing... unless you care to elaborate.
-
Any non police witnesses who saw Oswald with the gun in the theater?
Bernard Haire, owner of a hobby shop two doors from the theater, walked out the rear of his shop shortly before 2:00 PM and saw police cars backed up to Madison Street. He watched as the police escorted a man from the rear of the Texas Theater wearing a "white pullover shirt." They placed the man in a squad car and drove away. He noticed the man was very "flush" in the face as though he had been in a struggle. Haire's description of this man-"white shirt" with a "flush face"-is consistent with witness statements of Tippit's killer before, during and after the shooting
Shortly after 2:00 PM, Mr. T. F. White observed a man sitting in a 1961 red Ford Falcon, with the engine running, in the El Chico parking lot behind his garage. This is five blocks north of the Texas Theater. As Mr. White approached the car, the driver turned and looked at him. The driver then sped off in a westerly direction on Davis Street. Mr. White, who later saw Oswald's picture on TV, said the man in the Falcon was identical to Oswald and wore a "white T-shirt." When told by the FBI that Oswald was in jail at 2:00 PM, White still maintained that the man he saw driving the red Falcon was "possibly identical" to the Oswald he had seen on TV after the assassination. This Oswald "sighting" shortly after Harvey Oswald's arrest at the Texas Theater could have been a case of mistaken identity. But Mr. White, who had been given police training, wrote down the vehicle's license plate number. The plates belonged to a blue 1957 Plymouth 4 door sedan-not a 1961 red Ford Falcon. The Plymouth belonged to Carl Mather, a long time employee of Collins Radio and close friend of J.D. Tippit. Newsman and former Dallas Mayor Wes Wise heard of the unusual Oswald sighting. Mr. Wise and fellow news reporter Jane Bartell questioned Mather about the incident over dinner. Mather was so nervous he could hardly talk and said little. In 1977 the HSCA wanted to interview Mather about this incident. He agreed, but not before he was granted immunity from prosecution by the Justice Department. Mather was interviewed by the HSCA, but most of the documents relating to that interview remain classified in the National Archives. Wh
-
Acquilla Clemons was NOT a witness to the "slaying of Patrolman Tippit".
I guess Helen Markham, Domingo Benavides and William Scoggins somehow managed to miss the mysterious second killer. I wonder how they could have missed him.
OMG! I find myself in agreement with Billy Bob...... Watta revoltin situation....
-
No.
The real witnesses (Markham, Benavides, Scoggins) who were actually there (strange concept, I know) describe Tippit encountering just one man.
"Two kinds of bullets" means absolutely nothing... unless you care to elaborate.
I wasn't talking to you
-
No.
The real witnesses (Markham, Benavides, Scoggins) who were actually there (strange concept, I know) describe Tippit encountering just one man.
"Two kinds of bullets" means absolutely nothing... unless you care to elaborate.
And your witnesses were able to pick Oswald out of a line up before his face was shown on TV?
Benavides is in the opposite direction for the Davis girls, yet he says Oswald walked straight towards him? Did he then turn and go in the opposite direction? By the way, why do you call them girls? Were they minors?
As far as two kinds of bullets, lets just consider the law of averages how often is it the case when two types of bullets are found in a victim do those bullets come from one or two shooters
-
Any non police witnesses who saw Oswald with the gun in the theater?
Yes. John Gibson, George Applin, and Johnny Brewer.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gibson.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/applin1.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer_j.htm
-
As far as two kinds of bullets, lets just consider the law of averages how often is it the case when two types of bullets are found in a victim do those bullets come from one or two shooters
By "two types of bullets" you mean made by different manufacturers; Winchester-Western and Remington-Peters. When Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theatre, his revolver contained six cartridges in it. Three of those cartridges were manufactured by Winchester-Western. The other three were manufactured by Remington-Peters.
-
Yes. John Gibson, George Applin, and Johnny Brewer.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gibson.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/applin1.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer_j.htm
Thanks Tim Odd they did not shoot him first
-
"On The Trail Of The Assassins"
by Jim Garrisson.
~snip~
"...The bullets found in Officer Tippit's body and the cartridges found
at the scene of his murder yielded further evidence of the frameup. The
Dallas coroner had conducted an autopsy on Tippit's body and had
removed four bullets from it. Three of them, it turned out, were
copper-coated and had been manufactured by the Winchester Western
company. The fourth, however, was a lead bullet made by the
Remington-Peters company
This was awfully strange, I thought, because bullets were never sold
in mixed lots. Gun users bought either a box of all Winchesters or one
of all Remingtons, but not some of each. The discovery of two different
makes of bullets in Tippit's body indicated to me and would indicate
to most experienced police officers a likelihood that two different
gunmen did the shooting. This was consistent with the eyewitness
testimony of Acquilla Clemons and Mr. and Mrs. Wright.
When a homicide occurs, it is standard operating procedure for the
police homicide division to send off the bullets and cartridges to the
F.B.I. Iaboratory in Washington, D.C. for study and possible identi-
fication of the gun that fired them. In this case, the Dallas homicide
unit, understandably shy about advertising the coroner's discovery,
sent only one bullet to the F.B.I. Iab, informing the Bureau that this
was the only bullet found in Tippit's body.
To everyone's surprise, the Bureau lab found that the bullet did not
match Oswald's revolver. When it discovered this oddity, the Warren
Commission was inspired to look for other bullets that might match
up better. Although the Commission never received a copy of Tippit's
autopsy report, somehow it found out that four bullets rather than
merely one had been found in Tippit's body. The ordinarily incu-
rious Commission asked the F.B.I. to inquire about the three missing
bullets, and they were found after four months gathering dust in
the files of the Dallas homicide division.
These bullets were sent to the F.B.I. Iab. But Special Agent Court-
landt Cunningham, the ballistics expert from the lab, testified before
the Commission that the lab was unable to conclude that any of the
four bullets found in Tippit's body had been fired by the revolver taken
from Lee Oswald..."
~snip~
-
At the Tippit shooting scene, four shell casings were found. Two of these were Remington-Peters and two were Winchester-Westerns.
Of the four bullets removed from Tippit's body, one was Remington-Peters and three were Winchester-Westerns.
There is a missing Winchester-Western shell and a missing Remington-Peters bullet.
Possible scenario:
It very well could be that Oswald fired five shots (instead of only the four which hit Tippit). These five shots were two Remington-Peters and three Winchester-Westerns. One Remington-Peters bullet was never found and one Winchester-Western shell was never found.
-
Caught on tape...
550/2 (Sgt. G.L. Hill)
The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol.
Earlier on tape...
221 (Ptm. H.W. Summers)
Might can give you some additional information. I got an eye-ball witness to the get-away man. That suspect in this shooting is a white male, twenty-seven, five feet eleven, a hundred sixty-five, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light grey Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt, and (. . . ?). Last seen running on the north side of the street from Patton, on Jefferson, on East Jefferson. And he was apparently armed with a 32 dark-finish automatic pistol which he had in his right hand.
Mistakes happen. Right?
If the killer was using an automatic weapon, why weren't the shells found near the patrol car, where the killer was standing when he fired the shots... instead of about one hundred feet away over at the corner?
-
How come something is a 'mistake' only when it contradicts the official story?
-
Not when they are stamped AUTO.
You mean those shells that Poe, Barnes, Dhority and Doughty could not identify under oath?
Not when they are stamped AUTO.
Okay. So now all you have to do is show that these shells were stamped AUTO.
You mean those shells that Poe, Barnes, Dhority and Doughty could not identify under oath?
You better check again. Odum showed the shells to Doughty and Dhority. Dhority positively identified the shell he received from Virginia Davis. Doughty positively identified the shell he received from Barbara Davis. Odum also showed the shells to Barnes. Barnes identified his marks on the other two shells. Poe probably never placed his marks on the shells in the first place.
-
How come something is a 'mistake' only when it contradicts the official story?
The real true physical evidence proves that a mistake was made when Hill radioed in that the shells found at the scene indicated that the gunman was armed with an automatic weapon.
The real true physical evidence proves that a mistake was made when Callaway told Patrolman Summers that the killer was armed with a dark-finish automatic pistol.
The real true physical evidence are the shells found at the scene. These shells, all four of them, were not from an automatic weapon. Hill even clearly admitted his mistake later, once he was more clear on the details surrounding the finding of the shells. Callaway simply made a mistake in identifying a revolver as an automatic pistol. He got the key points right, that the man was indeed Oswald and that Oswald was wearing a light Eisenhower-type jacket.
-
The real true physical evidence proves that a mistake was made when Hill radioed in that the shells found at the scene indicated that the gunman was armed with an automatic weapon.
The real true physical evidence proves that a mistake was made when Callaway told Patrolman Summers that the killer was armed with a dark-finish automatic pistol.
The real true physical evidence are the shells found at the scene. These shells, all four of them, were not from an automatic weapon. Hill even clearly admitted his mistake later, once he was more clear on the details surrounding the finding of the shells. Callaway simply made a mistake in identifying a revolver as an automatic pistol. He got the key points right, that the man was indeed Oswald and that Oswald was wearing a light Eisenhower-type jacket.
Callaway was familiar with hand guns ( as he testified) so he would recognize a gun......But he was not familiar with Lee Oswald .....so there's no way he could identify the man with the dark- finish automatic pistol as Lee Oswald.
-
How could the ambulance arrive at the SAME TIME it supposedly received the call?
Another thing RC.....
There never was any statement or testimony before the commission from the ambulance guys ..ambulance driver Clayton J. Butler, Jr. and assistant Eddie Kinsley. [At least none I ever read]
Kinsley was interviewed years later by journalists.
About the instant dispatch...I guess someone used a cell phone ;)
-
By "two types of bullets" you mean made by different manufacturers; Winchester-Western and Remington-Peters. When Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theatre, his revolver contained six cartridges in it. Three of those cartridges were manufactured by Winchester-Western. The other three were manufactured by Remington-Peters.
Not the question I was asked by Bill Brown
-
Hill even clearly admitted his mistake later, once he was more clear on the details surrounding the finding of the shells.
Right...... BS:
Hill screwed up alright.
His superiors apparently motivated him to be 'more clear'.
He failed to properly cover his backside.
Quoting directly from the DPD transcript.....
The shell at the scene indicates that the suspect is armed with a automatic .38 rather than a pistol [Hill]
(https://www.pewpewtactical.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/380-ACP-gimmick-ammo-e1510677182689.jpg)
The above is a .38 auto [.380]
The below is a .38 special
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/38_Special_-_SP_-_SB_-_1.jpg/440px-38_Special_-_SP_-_SB_-_1.jpg)
A police officer would know the difference.
Actually, a blind man could know the difference!
-
What Oswald said happened when he left the TSBD about 12:33pm, thinking no work existed the rest of that day, is exactly what could have happened. The walk, bus ride, taxi, boarding house, putting on a jacket and carrying a .38, and then walking to the movie theater. I don't think much about the .38 as it was Texas 1963. The timing would fit better if he indeed walked directly to the Texas Theater. However, we run into one MAJOR problem. Pulling the .38 on the cop. In my opinion, not the actions of an innocent man, unless something else is at play here.
BB
How about the probability of being in the very building from which shots were fired at the President and then within an hour passing the scene of the Tippit shooting (the only DPD officer shot within a few years of that date), looking so much like the Tippit murderer that witnesses ID Oswald, carrying a pistol and having the same two types of ammo in his pistol as the killer. And oh yeah, acting so suspiciously as to draw the attention of a random shoe salesman, then sneaking into a movie theater without buying a ticket, pulling a gun on a police officer, and lying about his ownership of a rifle. And all this after being so unlucky as to make an unscheduled trip the night before to the location where he stored his rifle, carrying a long package to work that morning (and lying about this) and leaving his prints on the very boxes in the SN. Poor Old Lee was just roaming about in Mr. Magoo-like bliss to the movies and couldn't catch a break that day. LOL.
-
Not in evidence.
I already did, earlier when nanny Nickerson had to bail you out.
Under oath:
-- Poe and Barnes could not identify shells
-- Dhority was not shown shells
-- Doughty was not called.
Done.
Not in evidence.
So then why are you claiming the shells were stamped AUTO?
I already did, earlier when nanny Nickerson had to bail you out.
In the old forum, I created a thread with a huge opening post addressing Q74, Q75, Q76 and Q77 and Poe, Barnes, Doughty and Dhority. However, just because you question me doesn't mean that I will jump through your Kook hoops every time.
Also, you're not worthy of even saying Tim Nickerson's name.
Under oath:
-- Poe and Barnes could not identify shells
-- Dhority was not shown shells
-- Doughty was not called.
Odum showed the shells to Doughty and Dhority. Dhority positively identified the shell he received from Virginia Davis. Doughty positively identified the shell he received from Barbara Davis. But, if Dhority was not shown the shells and Doughty was not called, then why are you saying that they could not identify the shells under oath? You wouldn't be trying a dishonest tactic, would you?
-
Right...... BS:
Hill screwed up alright.
His superiors apparently motivated him to be 'more clear'.
He failed to properly cover his backside.
Quoting directly from the DPD transcript.....
(https://www.pewpewtactical.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/380-ACP-gimmick-ammo-e1510677182689.jpg)
The above is a .38 auto [.380]
The below is a .38 special
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/38_Special_-_SP_-_SB_-_1.jpg/440px-38_Special_-_SP_-_SB_-_1.jpg)
A police officer would know the difference.
Actually, a blind man could know the difference!
A police officer would know the difference.
But a police officer whose mind was going at lightning speed because their patsy was still on the loose may have blurted out something really stupid ...like referring to the shell as having been fired from an automatic.
-
Callaway was familiar with hand guns ( as he testified) so he would recognize a gun......But he was not familiar with Lee Oswald .....so there's no way he could identify the man with the dark- finish automatic pistol as Lee Oswald.
The FBI came out to see Callaway. They estimated that the closest Callaway was to the killer was fifty-six feet. That distance is plenty close enough to positively identify someone. However, when trying to determine if a handgun is an automatic pistol or a revolver while the killer (who is running) has his fingers wrapped around it and you're fifty-six feet away, it is perfectly reasonable (this is where I lose you) to assume the weapon is an automatic when in reality it is a revolver.
-
Sure did, then claiming "I put a mark in them":
You have been cranking out this cop killer BS out for how long now, a decade?
If the shells were fired from an automatic weapon, why weren't they found near the patrol car where the killer was standing when he fired the shots? How could shells from an auto have landed about one hundred feet away when they were ejected automatically after each shot? The shells were found at the corner, Tippit's patrol car was about one hundred feet east of the corner.
-
The FBI came out to see Callaway. They estimated that the closest Callaway was to the killer was fifty-six feet. That distance is plenty close enough to positively identify someone. However, when trying to determine if a handgun is an automatic pistol or a revolver while the killer (who is running) has his fingers wrapped around it and you're fifty-sex feet away, it is perfectly reasonable (this is where I lose you) to assume the weapon is an automatic when in reality it is a revolver.
How do you know that the man that Callaway saw wasn't a citizen that thought he could run down the killer who had ducked into the alley before Callaway saw him?
-
How do you know that the man that Callaway saw wasn't a citizen that thought he could run down the killer who had ducked into the alley before Callaway saw him?
Damn. Just when I believed we were going to have an intelligent discussion for once.
-
I didn't, Hill did. Keep up.
As if anyone cared.
Not needed with WC sheep like you, I saved a few keystrokes. To clear this up:
Poe and Barnes, under oath, failed to identify shells.
Dhority, under oath, not shown shells.
Doughty, not called, no shells identified under oath.
I didn't, Hill did. Keep up.
Hill claimed AUTO was stamped on the shells? Really? Where can I have a look at that? I can't wait to see what comes out of your mouth next.
Not needed with WC sheep like you, I saved a few keystrokes. To clear this up:
Exactly what I would expect from someone like you who misspoke.
Dhority, under oath, not shown shells.
Doughty, not called, no shells identified under oath.
This is a far cry from your earlier misstatement that Dhority and Doughty "could not identify the shells under oath".
I was right, you were being dishonest.
-
Damn. Just when I believed we were going to have an intelligent discussion for once.
Hey, I just asked a logical question.....
How do you know that the man that Callaway saw wasn't a citizen that thought he could run down the killer who had ducked into the alley before Callaway saw him?
If you don't know...just be a gentleman and say so.....
-
You mean the ones he put his mark in?
You never misspoke?
Error corrected, live with it.
Doesn't change a thing of what's on record: Poe and Barnes failed miserably under oath.
Doesn't change a thing of what's on record: Poe and Barnes failed miserably under oath.
What makes you think Brown cares about what's on the record?
He'll go with third party hearsay crap over official records whenever it serves his purpose....
-
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=41&relPageId=58
-snip-
Mr. Hill Right. And Poe showed me a Winston cigarette package that
contained three spent jackets from shells that he said a citizen had pointed
out to him where the suspect had reloaded his gun and dropped these in the
grass, and that the citizen had picked them up and put them in the Winston
package.
I told Poe to maintain the chain of evidence as small as possible, for him
to retain these at the time, and to be sure and mark them for evidence, and
then turn them over to the crime lab when he got there, or to homicide.
-snip-
Radio message from Tippit murder scene. 11/22/63 app. 1:35 pm
550/2 (Sgt. G.L. Hill)"The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol."
-
"On the Trail of the Assassins"
by Jim Garrisson.
~snip~
"....As I continued my research, I discovered that beyond the eyewitnesses
there was other evidence gathered and altered by the Dallas homicide
unit showing that Lee Oswald had been framed in the Tippit murder.
For instance, I read transcripts of the messages sent over the Dallas
police radio shortly after the murder. These were recorded automat-
ically on a log. Just minutes after a citizen first reported the murder on
Tippit's radio, Patrolman H.W. Summers in Dallas police unit
number 221 (the designation for the squad car) reported that an
"eyeball witness to the getaway man" had been located. The suspect
was described as having black wavy hair, wearing an Eisenhower jacket
of light color, with dark trousers and a white shirt. He was "apparently
armed with a .32, dark finish, automatic pistol," which he had in his
right hand. Moments later, Sergeant G. Hill reported that "the shell at
the scene indicates that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38
rather than a pistol."
It seemed clear to me from this that the hand gun used to shoot
Tippit was an automatic. But the gun allegedly taken from Lee Oswald
when Dallas police later arrested him at the Texas Theatre was a
revolver. Unless Oswald had stopped and changed guns, which no one
had ever suggested, this fact alone put a severe hole in the govern-
ment's case."
~snip~
-
I know Bill Brown is big on the honest/dishonest thing ... were these honest mistakes by Belin?
I'm still waiting for your cite for the (mistaken) claim that Hill stated that AUTO was stamped on the shells. When did Hill say this?
-
Correct, I shouldn't have put Hill in my reply.
Oh..it's just the word game again >:(
[1:34] 241 (Ptm. J.P. Hollingsworth) 10-4. Whereabouts on the third floor?
550/2 (Sgt. G.L. Hill) 550/2.
Dispatcher Go ahead, car 2.
550/2 The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol.
Dispatcher 10-4.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes3.htm
The amazing thing is the amount of communication listed between 1:34 and 1:35.
See for yourselves! It all looks fudged to me.
Mr. On the Scene Gerald Hill was operating on both channels of the radio...
550/2 (Sergeant Gerald L. Hill) A witness reports that he last was seen in the Abundant Life Temple about the 400 block. We are fixing to go in and shake it down.
Dispatcher Is that the one that was involved in the shooting of the officer?
550/2 Yes.
Dispatcher They already have him.
How did the dispatcher know 'they already have him'? Telepathy? There was a lot of that on that day.
550/2 (Sergeant Gerald L. Hill) No, that wasn't the right one. (1:44 p.m.)
So, how did Hill know that?
[1:46] Dispatcher . . . en route to Texas Theater. Have someone cover off the rear of the theater at the fire escape.
211 (Ptm. R. Hawkins) 211. There's about five squads back here with me now.
Five squads. They had their man.
-
However, we run into one MAJOR problem. Pulling the .38 on the cop. In my opinion, not the actions of an innocent man, unless something else is at play here.
There is ZERO evidence that Oswald pulled a gun on a cop in the Texas Theater.
-
There is ZERO evidence that Oswald pulled a gun on a cop in the Texas Theater.
Keep telling yourself that.
-
And surprise, surprise, surprise; fibers identical to the shirt he was wearing when arrested in the TT were found in the jacket he ditched in the lot behind the Texaco station.
...and by "identical", Howard means "similar".
-
...and by "identical", Howard means "similar".
They were more than only similar. They were an exact match. The shirt fibers and the fibers found inside the jacket were the same exact shade, color and twist as each other. They were a 100% match.
-
Yes. John Gibson, George Applin, and Johnny Brewer.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gibson.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/applin1.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer_j.htm
Applin didn't say he saw Oswald with a gun. He said he guessed that it was Oswald because he had on a short sleeve shirt. The only problem is that Oswald did not have on a short sleeve shirt.
-
Acquilla Clemons was NOT a witness to the "slaying of Patrolman Tippit".
Neither were Benavides, Scoggins, Davis, Davis, Callaway, Patterson, Reynolds, or Brock. But that's never stopped you.
-
Benavides is in the opposite direction for the Davis girls, yet he says Oswald walked straight towards him? Did he then turn and go in the opposite direction? By the way, why do you call them girls? Were they minors?
Virginia was. She claimed to be 16, but Tom Scully found documentation that she wasn't even that old and she lied about it.
-
Okay. So now all you have to do is show that these shells were stamped AUTO.
You better check again. Odum showed the shells to Doughty and Dhority. Dhority positively identified the shell he received from Virginia Davis. Doughty positively identified the shell he received from Barbara Davis. Odum also showed the shells to Barnes. Barnes identified his marks on the other two shells. Poe probably never placed his marks on the shells in the first place.
Great. Now all you have to do is prove that the shells that Dhority and Doughty identified were actually found "about one hundred feet away over at the corner".
-
How about the probability of being in the very building from which shots were fired at the President and then within an hour passing the scene of the Tippit shooting (the only DPD officer shot within a few years of that date),
Here we go with another round of Richard's cavalcade of lies. This is false.
sneaking into a movie theater without buying a ticket
Unproven
pulling a gun on a police officer,
Unproven
and lying about his ownership of a rifle.
Unproven
And all this after being so unlucky as to make an unscheduled trip the night before to the location where he stored his rifle,
Unproven
carrying a long package to work that morning (and lying about this)
Unproven
-
Keep telling yourself that.
Feel free to provide some.
-
They were more than only similar. They were an exact match. The shirt fibers and the fibers found inside the jacket were the same exact shade, color and twist as each other. They were a 100% match.
Please cite evidence that they were the "same exact shade, color and twist as each other". And then cite evidence that the jacket fibers came from the arrest shirt to the exclusion of any other shirt.
-
This discourse reminds me of "Gaslight" [1944]
Ever see it?
Chas Boyer tries to convince Ingrid Bergman that what she saw just simply didn't happen...
hoping to have her certified as insane and then institutionalized.
Now here, it's the opposite ...
Nobody here saw anything and yet tries to mesmerize someone into thinking it's like they have :D
-
Neither were Benavides, Scoggins, Davis, Davis, Callaway, Patterson, Reynolds, or Brock. But that's never stopped you.
Explain how Benavides, Markham and Scoggins managed to miss the 2nd killer that Acquilla Clemons supposedly saw. Go on. I'll wait.
-
Great. Now all you have to do is prove that the shells that Dhority and Doughty identified were actually found "about one hundred feet away over at the corner".
Do you believe those shells were found near Tippit's patrol car?
-
Please cite evidence that they were the "same exact shade, color and twist as each other". And then cite evidence that the jacket fibers came from the arrest shirt to the exclusion of any other shirt.
Please cite evidence that they were the "same exact shade, color and twist as each other".
Paul Stombaugh.
And then cite evidence that the jacket fibers came from the arrest shirt to the exclusion of any other shirt.
Straw man.
-
Benavides, Markham and Scoggins
Fact check: No first day affidavits reporting Tippit trailing suspect or seeing suspect crossing Patton.
Fact check: No affidavit from Benavides has ever surfaced and he is missing from the list of witnesses in the Fritz supplementary report.
Fact check: Scoggins, before the Commission, did not see suspect cross Patton, did not initially see Markham at scene.
Acquilla Clemons
Why didn't Secret Service, DP, FBI or WC simply ask her?
You must be confused.
What does any of the above have to do with the fact that Markham, Benavides and Scoggins describe Tippit encountering only one man?
By the way, Benavides felt that he could not positively identify the killer so he never went to City Hall. Therefore, no Benavides affidavit and no "Benavides" showing up on the list of witnesses in Fritz' supplementary report.
If you were even remotely aware of the evidence in this case you wouldn't have brought it up.
-
Benavides, Markham and Scoggins
Fact check: No first day affidavits reporting Tippit trailing suspect or seeing suspect crossing Patton.
Fact check: No affidavit from Benavides has ever surfaced and he is missing from the list of witnesses in the Fritz supplementary report.
Fact check: Scoggins, before the Commission, did not see suspect cross Patton, did not initially see Markham at scene.
Acquilla Clemons
Why didn't Secret Service, DP, FBI or WC simply ask her?
Fact check: Helen Markham positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: William Scoggins positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Ted Callaway positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Virginia Davis positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Barbara Davis positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Sam Guinyard positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
All these eyewitnesses picked out Lee Harvey Oswald in a lineup and as you pointed out the chances of this happening randomly is 1 in 4096, that is unless you're going to stick to your absurd "they all picked the guy with the bruise theory". LOL!
JohnM
-
Benavides: Prime witness, missed the lineup. LOL
(Regrouped)
Fact check: Helen Markham positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Who she didn't recognize. LOL
Fact check: William Scoggins positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Sure, after having seen a picture of Oswald in the morning paper. LOL
Fact check: Ted Callaway positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Sam Guinyard positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Seeing Oswald running south on Patton on the west and east side of the street simultaneously. LOL
Fact check: Virginia Davis positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Barbara Davis positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Simultaniously running to the front door and side door seeing Oswald in a tan jacket, black or dark coat reported as white jacket. LOL.
All these eyewitnesses picked out Lee Harvey Oswald in a lineup and as you pointed out the chances of this happening randomly is 1 in 4096, that is unless you're going to stick to your absurd "they all picked the guy with the bruise theory". LOL!
Glad you took notes, no need to embarrass yourself again going astronomical.
They all did, it seems.
I'll deal with Bill later.
Good rebuttal Tom...... Ol Myttton lacks the ability to see beyond simple facts. And as the old saw says..."The devil is in the details"
-
You must be confused.
What does any of the above have to do with the fact that Markham, Benavides and Scoggins describe Tippit encountering only one man?
By the way, Benavides felt that he could not positively identify the killer so he never went to City Hall. Therefore, no Benavides affidavit and no "Benavides" showing up on the list of witnesses in Fritz' supplementary report.
If you were even remotely aware of the evidence in this case you wouldn't have brought it up.
LOL
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
-
LOL
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
Billy Bob Brown wrote:
By the way, Benavides felt that he could not positively identify the killer so he never went to City Hall.
No, Billy Bob.....You have your head stuck.... Domingo Benevides had seen Tippit's killer clearly ...( a direct face to face at about twenty feet) And he saw Lee Oswald's photo on the TV that afternoon and KNEW that he could not Identify Lee as the killer that he'd seen who had his hair cut in a fashion that made the back of his head look flat.
He told the cops that he could not identify Lee Oswald as the man that he'd seen......
-
Benavides: Prime witness, missed the lineup. LOL
(Regrouped)
Fact check: Helen Markham positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Who she didn't recognize. LOL
Fact check: William Scoggins positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Sure, after having seen a picture of Oswald in the morning paper. LOL
Fact check: Ted Callaway positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Sam Guinyard positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Seeing Oswald running south on Patton on the west and east side of the street simultaneously. LOL
Fact check: Virginia Davis positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Barbara Davis positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Simultaniously running to the front door and side door seeing Oswald in a tan jacket, black or dark coat reported as white jacket. LOL.
All these eyewitnesses picked out Lee Harvey Oswald in a lineup and as you pointed out the chances of this happening randomly is 1 in 4096, that is unless you're going to stick to your absurd "they all picked the guy with the bruise theory". LOL!
Glad you took notes, no need to embarrass yourself again going astronomical.
They all did, it seems.
I'll deal with Bill later.
Poor old Lee just couldn't catch a break that day. First, he works in the very building from which shots are fired at the president. And has no alibi. Then when he knocks off early for a movie, he passes the scene of police murder (the only one in years of a DPD officer). And Oswald looks so much like the killer that multiple witnesses ID him as the killer. And he is carrying a pistol just like the killer. And he has the same two brands of ammo just like the killer. And he acts so suspiciously that he draws the attention of shoe salesman. And then he sneaks into the movies without buying a ticket and for some unknown reason cause a ruckus when approached by the police. Everyone else is to blame for all of this. Random citizens are apparently out to frame him for the crime. Lunacy.
-
Poor old Lee just couldn't catch a break that day. First, he works in the very building from which shots are fired at the president. And has no alibi. Then when he knocks off early for a movie, he passes the scene of police murder (the only one in years of a DPD officer). And Oswald looks so much like the killer that multiple witnesses ID him as the killer. And he is carrying a pistol just like the killer. And he has the same two brands of ammo just like the killer. And he acts so suspiciously that he draws the attention of shoe salesman. And then he sneaks into the movies without buying a ticket and for some unknown reason cause a ruckus when approached by the police. Everyone else is to blame for all of this. Random citizens are apparently out to frame him for the crime. Lunacy.
Too many assumptions to comment.
-
Billy Bob Brown wrote:
By the way, Benavides felt that he could not positively identify the killer so he never went to City Hall.
No, Billy Bob.....You have your head stuck.... Domingo Benevides had seen Tippit's clearly ...( a direct face to face at about twenty feet) And he saw Lee Oswald's photo on the TV that afternoon and KNEW that He could not Identify Lee as the killer that he'd seen who had his hair cut in a fashion that made the back of his head look flat.
He told the cops that he could not identify Lee Oswald as the man that he'd seen......
Thumb1:
-
Too many assumptions to comment.
LOL. That is the best course of action when you have no substantive response. Like a guilty man taking the 5th. There is not a single assumption made. All are documented facts. If you believe Oswald to be innocent, these things still occurred and you must believe Oswald to have been the single unluckiest guy in all history to blunder from one crime scene to another that day with so many actions linking him these crimes.
-
Benavides: Prime witness, missed the lineup. LOL
(Regrouped)
Fact check: Helen Markham positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Who she didn't recognize. LOL
Fact check: William Scoggins positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Sure, after having seen a picture of Oswald in the morning paper. LOL
Fact check: Ted Callaway positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Sam Guinyard positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Seeing Oswald running south on Patton on the west and east side of the street simultaneously. LOL
Fact check: Virginia Davis positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Barbara Davis positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Simultaniously running to the front door and side door seeing Oswald in a tan jacket, black or dark coat reported as white jacket. LOL.
All these eyewitnesses picked out Lee Harvey Oswald in a lineup and as you pointed out the chances of this happening randomly is 1 in 4096, that is unless you're going to stick to your absurd "they all picked the guy with the bruise theory". LOL!
Glad you took notes, no need to embarrass yourself again going astronomical.
They all did, it seems.
I'll deal with Bill later.
Hmmm, so you've seemingly abandoned your truly Kooky inspired "bruise" theory for something equally hilarious!?
So let me see, a waitress, a cab driver, some housewives, a Manager and his employee all for some morally bankrupt and insidious reason known only to yourself and your "enlightened" friends chose a completely innocent man and essentially condemned him to death, that's pretty heavy maannnn!
Honestly, would yourself and 5 of your friends or relatives ever be a part of such a cnut of an act, I certainly hope not!
Btw for the tenth time my original post said "ALMOST" astronomical, I was having a joke at your expense and you were never bright enough to figure it out.
JohnM
-
Benavides: Prime witness, missed the lineup. LOL
On the afternoon of the shooting, Benavides told the police that he wouldn't be able to identify the killer. Therefore, he certainly is NOT a prime witness.
Why do you sink to such desperate measures? I'm curious.
-
LOL
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
Billy Bob Brown wrote:
By the way, Benavides felt that he could not positively identify the killer so he never went to City Hall.
No, Billy Bob.....You have your head stuck.... Domingo Benevides had seen Tippit's killer clearly ...( a direct face to face at about twenty feet) And he saw Lee Oswald's photo on the TV that afternoon and KNEW that he could not Identify Lee as the killer that he'd seen who had his hair cut in a fashion that made the back of his head look flat.
He told the cops that he could not identify Lee Oswald as the man that he'd seen......
Benavides did NOT tell the police that he could not identify Lee Oswald as the killer.
He told the police that he felt he would not be able to positively identify the killer.
This is real simple.
If you guys don't like it, take it up with Benavides. He is the one who told the police that he wouldn't be able to pick the man out of a lineup. Your own witness destroys you.
-
Explain how Benavides, Markham and Scoggins managed to miss the 2nd killer that Acquilla Clemons supposedly saw. Go on. I'll wait.
Strawman. Clemons never said she saw a killer. Benavides and Scoggins didn't even see anybody kill anybody.
-
Do you believe those shells were found near Tippit's patrol car?
I don't know where they were found and neither do you.
-
Paul Stombaugh.
That's not evidence, that's a person's name. But I'll play. Cite Stombaugh ever giving an opinion on the jacket fibers.
Straw man.
What good is it to even claim that the fibers were "identical" if they can't be shown to be from any specific shirt?
-
Fact check: Helen Markham positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: William Scoggins positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Ted Callaway positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Virginia Davis positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Barbara Davis positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fact check: Sam Guinyard positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Unfair and biased lineups are unreliable.
All these eyewitnesses picked out Lee Harvey Oswald in a lineup and as you pointed out the chances of this happening randomly is 1 in 4096,
Who ever claimed that they picked somebody randomly?
-
Somebody nudge the Richard Smith turntable stylus again.
Poor old Lee just couldn't catch a break that day. First, he works in the very building from which shots are fired at the president.
So did dozens of other people.
And has no alibi.
So did at least 5 other people in the TSBD alone.
Then when he knocks off early for a movie,
All of the employees knocked off early.
he passes the scene of police murder
Says you.
And Oswald looks so much like the killer that multiple witnesses ID him as the killer.
Good trick since only one person saw anybody kill anybody.
And he is carrying a pistol just like the killer.
Says you.
And he has the same two brands of ammo just like the killer.held
You don't know what brands of ammo the killer had. And you probably just believe that the cops held Oswald in a cell for hours before remembering to check his pockets.
And he acts so suspiciously that he draws the attention of shoe salesman.
If that's not probable cause to search, beat up and arrest a man for double murder, I don't know what is.
And then he sneaks into the movies without buying a ticket
Nobody saw him sneak into the movies without buying a ticket.
and for some unknown reason cause a ruckus when approached by the police.
uh, I believe it was the police who caused a ruckus.
Everyone else is to blame for all of this. Random citizens are apparently out to frame him for the crime. Lunacy.
When are you going to get around to actually showing that Oswald killed somebody? Ever?
-
LOL. That is the best course of action when you have no substantive response. Like a guilty man taking the 5th. There is not a single assumption made. All are documented facts.
Horse hockey. All you do is make assumptions and call them facts, or outright lie about the evidence. You wouldn't know a fact about this case if it smacked you in the azz.
-
On the afternoon of the shooting, Benavides told the police that he wouldn't be able to identify the killer. Therefore, he certainly is NOT a prime witness.
I have to agree there. The prime witness was a woman who didn't recognize anyone in the lineup, talked to the dead, couldn't figure out how clocks and bus schedules worked, thought she was alone at the scene for 20 minutes screaming for help, thought the killer was "short, a little on the heavy side" with "somewhat bushy" hair, thought her own voice on a recorded telephone conversation was somebody else, thought she tried to use the police radio to call for help but yet didn't notice Benavides (who did try to use the police radio) as having been there at all, who fainted 3 or 4 times, and who had to be given a sedative before the lineup.
But by all means, let's rely on her observational skills.
-
For once, I think the kooks have a legit beef about the lineups being tainted by Saint Oswald's bruised mug.
That said, Kudos to the officer that landed the punch that caved in Saint Ozzie's face.
Saint Oz was very lucky to survive his arrest.
Big round of applause for Johnny Brewer too !
Take a bow, Mr Brewer. Great work.
SAINT OZ: "I AM NOT RESISTING ARREST"
JOHNNY BREWER: "YEAH, YOU ARE"
-
I have to agree there. The prime witness was a woman who didn't recognize anyone in the lineup, talked to the dead, couldn't figure out how clocks and bus schedules worked, thought she was alone at the scene for 20 minutes screaming for help, thought the killer was "short, a little on the heavy side" with "somewhat bushy" hair, thought her own voice on a recorded telephone conversation was somebody else, thought she tried to use the police radio to call for help but yet didn't notice Benavides (who did try to use the police radio) as having been there at all, who fainted 3 or 4 times, and who had to be given a sedative before the lineup.
But by all means, let's rely on her observational skills.
Like a broken record you keep repeating the same regurgitated nonsense, but unfortunately it doesn't make it true.
1. Markham testified that the killer was man number 2, Lee Harvey Oswald.
2. Another eyewitness describes Tippit trying to speak, which was most likely agonal gasps.
3. Can you timestamp Markham's clock or will you continue to guess?
4. Can you prove that Markham didn't use the Police Radio or is this just another guess?
5. Markham was distressed because she just saw a man murdered and only shows she's human.
JohnM
-
Strawman. Clemons never said she saw a killer. Benavides and Scoggins didn't even see anybody kill anybody.
Benavides and Scoggins were right there, on the street. They both said there was only one man. Same with Markham.
Why not answer the question? How could Markham, Scoggins and Benavides not notice the mysterious 2nd man? Perhaps I should ask this another way. Do you believe Tippit encountered one man or two?
-
I don't know where they were found and neither do you.
I asked a simple question. Do you believe the shells were found near Tippit's patrol car?
Domingo Benavides, Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis all testified that they found the shells near the corner of Tenth and Patton (where each of them saw the killer fleeing, by the way). Tippit's patrol car was parked about a hundred feet east of that corner.
If we go by the testimony, then we do know where the shells were found.
Now cue the lame and unsupported argument that the shells in evidence aren't the same shells actually found by the witnesses.
-
Markham lied a good bit according to her own son.
You're taking this too personally, why would Markham Lie, what did she have to gain?
Do you honestly believe that Markham wanted to be directly responsible for the execution of an innocent man and if so why?
JohnM
-
You found his affidavit stating this?
I'll take a reasonable mechanic about 15 feet from the shooting, doing police work finding shells, over a hysterical, fainting waitress at 50 feet.
Are you somehow under the false impression that Benavides ever stated that the killer was not Oswald?
-
That's not evidence, that's a person's name. But I'll play. Cite Stombaugh ever giving an opinion on the jacket fibers.
What good is it to even claim that the fibers were "identical" if they can't be shown to be from any specific shirt?
To the best of my knowledge, Stombaugh never examined the fibers found inside the jacket sleeve. But, there is an FBI report regarding the microscopic fibers found inside the sleeve. This report stated that the fibers were dark blue, grey-black and orange-yellow cotton fibers. While examining the fibers found in the crevice on the rifle, Stombaugh testified that the test fibers removed from Oswald's arrest shirt were dark blue, grey-black and orange-yellow cotton fibers.
This was discussed in the old forum.
-
Like a broken record you keep repeating the same regurgitated nonsense, but unfortunately it doesn't make it true.
1. Markham testified that the killer was man number 2, Lee Harvey Oswald.
2. Another eyewitness describes Tippit trying to speak, which was most likely agonal gasps.
3. Can you timestamp Markham's clock or will you continue to guess?
4. Can you prove that Markham didn't use the Police Radio or is this just another guess?
5. Markham was distressed because she just saw a man murdered and only shows she's human.
JohnM
Speaking of regurgitated nonsense...
But anything to desperately preserve any shred of credibility of your "utter screwball" (according to Joseph Ball who took her testimony) witness.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/markham-eyes.png)
-
Benavides and Scoggins were right there, on the street. They both said there was only one man. Same with Markham.
Why not answer the question? How could Markham, Scoggins and Benavides not notice the mysterious 2nd man?
I don't know, Bill. Scoggins and Benavides were trying to hide. Why did Clemons, Wright, and Holan all mention seeing two men? Mass hallucination? Different witnesses had different views of the scene.
-
I asked a simple question. Do you believe the shells were found near Tippit's patrol car?
I believe that 2 or 3 shells were handed to the police in a cigarette case, one in a wadded up Kleenex at the police station, and another one at some indeterminate time.
Now cue the lame and unsupported argument that the shells in evidence aren't the same shells actually found by the witnesses.
Can you demonstrate that they are?
-
You're taking this too personally, why would Markham Lie, what did she have to gain?
Do you honestly believe that Markham wanted to be directly responsible for the execution of an innocent man and if so why?
She was just hopelessly confused and easily led.
-
To the best of my knowledge, Stombaugh never examined the fibers found inside the jacket sleeve.
So you were wrong then. It's ok, Bill, you can admit it.
But, there is an FBI report regarding the microscopic fibers found inside the sleeve. This report stated that the fibers were dark blue, grey-black and orange-yellow cotton fibers.
And does this report say that the jacket fibers and the shirt fibers have the "same exact shade, color and twist as each other"? Or were you wrong about that too?
-
Speaking of regurgitated nonsense...
But anything to desperately preserve any shred of credibility of your "utter screwball" (according to Joseph Ball who took her testimony) witness.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/markham-eyes.png)
Speaking of regurgitated nonsense...
Yep, you got nothing.
But anything to desperately preserve any shred of credibility of your "utter screwball" (according to Joseph Ball who took her testimony) witness.
Again you're taking Joseph Balls comments out of context he was just exposing Lane's devious method of eyewitness manipulation by using flippant irony.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/markham-eyes.png)
Yawn! Does it give you a woody to be so outright dishonest?
How about the images that tell the whole story.
(https://s7.postimg.cc/i19apnre3/Honest_Markham_zpsuyfq8h1m.gif)
JohnM
-
Are you somehow under the false impression that Benavides ever stated that the killer was not Oswald?
The person Benavides describes, the one holding a gun, right after the shots were fired that killed Tippit,
doesn't match a photo of LHO taken while in custody on 11/22/63. So yes, by default, Benavides says the
killer wasn't Oswald.
Testimony Of Domingo Benavides
Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.
~snip~
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
~snip~
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
~snip~
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3.jpg)
-
The person Benavides describes, the one holding a gun, right after the shots were fired that killed Tippit,
doesn't match a photo of LHO taken while in custody on 11/22/63. So yes, by default, Benavides says the
killer wasn't Oswald.
Testimony Of Domingo Benavides
Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.
~snip~
Mr. Belin: Let me ask you now, I would like you to relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. Benavides: As I saw him, I really--I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired he had just turned. He was just turning away........
~snip~
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
~snip~
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/ozzieshair3.jpg)
:D
When the back of someones head becomes the standard practice for eyewitness identification then we'll sure come looking for ya but until then Benavides positively testified that the front of the man was Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
JohnM
-
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
Resembled? I figured? From a picture? Uhhh doesn't sound exactly like a positive ID to me.
-
Resembled? I figured? From a picture? Uhhh doesn't sound exactly like a positive ID to me.
Who cares what it sounds like to you?
Benavides wasn't a Rhodes Scholar like yourself, Benavides was a mechanic and that's how he talked, get used to it.
JohnM
-
Mr. BELIN - What did you see then?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I then pulled on up and I seen this officer standing by the door. The door was open to the car, and I was pretty close to him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car.
::)
-
Mr. BELIN - What did you see then?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I then pulled on up and I seen this officer standing by the door. The door was open to the car, and I was pretty close to him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car.
::)
Seriously, it's just how Benavides spoke and when asked to clarify he couldn't have been more sure that the man was Oswald.
Mr. BELIN - What did you see then?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I then pulled on up and I seen this officer standing by the door. The door was open to the car, and I was pretty close to him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car.
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
I suppose it was just a mass hallucination that nearly a dozen people all identified Oswald as the man who was at or moving away from the Tippit crime scene.
JohnM
-
Seriously, it's just how Benavides spoke and when asked to clarify he couldn't have been more sure that the man was Oswald.
Mr. BELIN - What did you see then?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I then pulled on up and I seen this officer standing by the door. The door was open to the car, and I was pretty close to him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car.
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
I suppose it was just a mass hallucination that nearly a dozen people all identified Oswald as the man who was at or moving away from the Tippit crime scene.
JohnM
Ya well, the standards used by the Warren Commission wouldn't hold water in most court rooms in the
civilized world. Was Dallas considered part of the civilized world in 1963?
from
"VINNIE IT IS ROUND"
by Mark Lane
"The Commission claimed that Mrs. Markham identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who shot the policeman at a line up on November 22 and that in testimony before the Commission, Mrs. Markham confirmed her positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man she saw kill Officer Tippit. Captain Fritz - who needed that identification real quickly -- testified that the lineup was hurriedly arranged at 4:30 that afternoon, less than three and a half hours after Tippit's death and less than that after Oswald's arrest. Mrs. Markham was "quite hysterical" when she arrived at police headquarters. Her state and the atmosphere in the lineup room are best described by the record of her testimony."
Q: Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Markham: Yes , sir.
Q: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Markham: No, sir
Q: You did not? Did you see anybody-I have asked you that question before-did you recognize anybody from their face?
"Counsel wished to remind Mrs. Markham that when he had prepared her for her testimony, before
a record of her answers was made, the matter had been discussed. To prepare a witness for testimony may
be acceptable where adversary and hostile cross-examination is expected, and it is also a legitimate way of
preventing repetition and irrelevant conjecture. The record of the Warren Commission, however, reveals no
such cross-examination and was burdened to such a degree by repetition and irrelevance that the initial
preparation seems to have been for the purpose of leading the witness to give an appropriate answer."
Markham: From their face, no.
Q: Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Markham: I didn't know nobody.
Q: I know you didn't know nobody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Markham: No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Q: No one of the four?
Markham: No one of them.
Q: No one of the four?
Markham: No, sir.
"At this point counsel, a teacher of criminal law and procedure at the University of Southern California and a member of the U.S. Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, asked a rather leading question. Mrs. Markham said that she recognized no one at the lineup; counsel tried five times for a more acceptable answer. Then, departing a little from the legal procedure he teaches, he next asked his friendly but disconcerting witness, "Was there a number two man in there?" Mrs. Markham replied, "Number two is the one I picked." Counsel began another question: "I thought you just told me that you hadn't, but Mrs. Markham interrupted to answer inexplicably, "I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing."
Counsel then inquired:
Q: You recognized him from his appearance?
Markham: I asked-I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.
"A mystical identification at best. However, the Commission was satisfied that its lawyer had at last
obtained the right answer: "Addressing itself solely to the probative value of Mrs. Markham's contemporaneous description of the gunman and her identification of Oswald at a police lineup, the Commission considers her testimony reliable."
-
... and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him ... ::)
"Who cares what it sounds like?" (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/3D_ROFL.gif)
-
Ya well, the standards used by the Warren Commission wouldn't hold water in most court rooms in the
civilized world. Was Dallas considered part of the civilized world in 1963?
from
"VINNIE IT IS ROUND"
by Mark Lane
"The Commission claimed that Mrs. Markham identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who shot the policeman at a line up on November 22 and that in testimony before the Commission, Mrs. Markham confirmed her positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man she saw kill Officer Tippit. Captain Fritz - who needed that identification real quickly -- testified that the lineup was hurriedly arranged at 4:30 that afternoon, less than three and a half hours after Tippit's death and less than that after Oswald's arrest. Mrs. Markham was "quite hysterical" when she arrived at police headquarters. Her state and the atmosphere in the lineup room are best described by the record of her testimony."
Q: Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Markham: Yes , sir.
Q: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Markham: No, sir
Q: You did not? Did you see anybody-I have asked you that question before-did you recognize anybody from their face?
"Counsel wished to remind Mrs. Markham that when he had prepared her for her testimony, before
a record of her answers was made, the matter had been discussed. To prepare a witness for testimony may
be acceptable where adversary and hostile cross-examination is expected, and it is also a legitimate way of
preventing repetition and irrelevant conjecture. The record of the Warren Commission, however, reveals no
such cross-examination and was burdened to such a degree by repetition and irrelevance that the initial
preparation seems to have been for the purpose of leading the witness to give an appropriate answer."
Markham: From their face, no.
Q: Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Markham: I didn't know nobody.
Q: I know you didn't know nobody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Markham: No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Q: No one of the four?
Markham: No one of them.
Q: No one of the four?
Markham: No, sir.
"At this point counsel, a teacher of criminal law and procedure at the University of Southern California and a member of the U.S. Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, asked a rather leading question. Mrs. Markham said that she recognized no one at the lineup; counsel tried five times for a more acceptable answer. Then, departing a little from the legal procedure he teaches, he next asked his friendly but disconcerting witness, "Was there a number two man in there?" Mrs. Markham replied, "Number two is the one I picked." Counsel began another question: "I thought you just told me that you hadn't, but Mrs. Markham interrupted to answer inexplicably, "I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing."
Counsel then inquired:
Q: You recognized him from his appearance?
Markham: I asked-I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.
"A mystical identification at best. However, the Commission was satisfied that its lawyer had at last
obtained the right answer: "Addressing itself solely to the probative value of Mrs. Markham's contemporaneous description of the gunman and her identification of Oswald at a police lineup, the Commission considers her testimony reliable."
Ffs, you have posted this more times than I've had hot dinners. Markham is clearly saying that she never recognized the men before the incident. -sigh-
But as has been pointed out to you Markham positively ID'd Oswald on the same day and in Markham's testimony she said the number 2 man and that man was Oswald.
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
-
Ffs, you have posted this more times than I've had hot dinners. Markham is clearly saying that she never recognized the men before the incident. -sigh-
But as has been pointed out to you Markham positively ID'd Oswald on the same day and in Markham's testimony she said the number 2 man and that man was Oswald.
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
Coaching and leading a witness to the answer the questioner wants isn't allowed in courts of law.
The standards set by the WC are a different matter.
If you want to hang your hat on that pile of steaming crap, be my guest.
-
Who cares what it sounds like to you?
Benavides wasn't a Rhodes Scholar like yourself, Benavides was a mechanic and that's how he talked, get used to it.
JohnM
Too bad the back side of the Oswalds head was someone elses
-
Where did I mention Oswald in my statement?
Can you explain what you meant by this (below)?
"I'll take a reasonable mechanic about 15 feet from the shooting, doing police work finding shells, over a hysterical, fainting waitress at 50 feet."
-
Too bad the back side of the Oswalds head was someone elses
Oswald's jacket was a windbreaker type and it's natural position was up to protect the neck and we know that Oswald established that he liked to change his appearance.
(https://s7.postimg.cc/k84t5gr4r/Jacket_CE_162.jpg)
And when a high collar is viewed from behind at a glance we see a squared off haircut, ala Benavides!
(https://s7.postimg.cc/7gqmz3mjf/back_jacket.jpg)
JohnM
-
Oswald's jacket was a windbreaker type and it's natural position was up to protect the neck and we know that Oswald established that he liked to change his appearance.
(https://s7.postimg.cc/k84t5gr4r/Jacket_CE_162.jpg)
And when a high collar is viewed from behind at a glance we see a squared off haircut, ala Benavides!
(https://s7.postimg.cc/7gqmz3mjf/back_jacket.jpg)
JohnM
:D
-
Again you're taking Joseph Balls comments out of context he was just exposing Lane's devious method of eyewitness manipulation by using flippant irony.
By all means, provide the "context" for which "utter screwball", "full of mistakes", and "utterly unreliable" mean something other than just that.
Yawn! Does it give you a woody to be so outright dishonest?
What the hell are you talking about? How is posting a photo of Helen Markham "dishonest"?
-
:D
When the back of someones head becomes the standard practice for eyewitness identification then we'll sure come looking for ya but until then Benavides positively testified that the front of the man was Lee Harvey Oswald.
Says the guy who accepts an identification standard based on a woman getting cold chills and falling over.
-
Who cares what it sounds like to you?
Benavides wasn't a Rhodes Scholar like yourself, Benavides was a mechanic and that's how he talked, get used to it.
Benavides told the police on 11/22 that he couldn't make an identification. Get used to it.
-
I suppose it was just a mass hallucination that nearly a dozen people all identified Oswald as the man who was at or moving away from the Tippit crime scene.
No, just unfair, biased, rigged lineups.
-
Ffs, you have posted this more times than I've had hot dinners. Markham is clearly saying that she never recognized the men before the incident. -sigh-
When did she say "before the incident"? Something isn't "clear" just because that's the way you want to spin it.
-
Oswald's jacket was a windbreaker type and it's natural position was up to protect the neck and we know that Oswald established that he liked to change his appearance.
"Oswald's jacket". LOL.
-
Benavides told the police on 11/22 that he couldn't make an identification. Get used to it.
I don't think that's what Benavides told he police.......I think he told them that he couldn't verify that Lee Oswald was the man that he saw extracting a shell from a revolver as he left the scene of the lopsided gunfight.
"Poor dumb cop..... He never had a chance and he didn't even realize that he was an expendable pawn"....
-
I don't think that's what Benavides told he police.......I think he told them that he couldn't verify that Lee Oswald was the man that he saw extracting a shell from a revolver as he left the scene of the lopsided gunfight.
"Poor dumb cop..... He never had a chance and he didn't even realize that he was an expendable pawn"....
Leavelle: "I think he said he never saw the man actually. I believe he said later on he did not see the man."
Callaway: "And he said 'Hell, no, I didn't see him. When I heard that shooting, I fell down into the floorboard of my truck and I stayed there'."
-
Benevides did say this on 11/22/63. That is why he never participated in one of the lineups.
Only after months of seeing LHO on t.v. and in the newspapers did he change to "LHO resembled the man he saw shoot JDT." As I asked in my series, how many other men would have resembled the shooter had he viewed their photographs?
Michael Paine....Larry Crafard....Donald Wayne House....Billy Lovelady....William Seymour....
-
Leavelle: "I think he said he never saw the man actually. I believe he said later on he did not see the man."
Callaway: "And he said 'Hell, no, I didn't see him. When I heard that shooting, I fell down into the floorboard of my truck and I stayed there'."
There are a couple of different statements by various people.....So who to believe?
Leavelle: "I think he said he never saw the man actually. I believe he said later on he did not see the man."
IMO Leavelle is lying.....
Callaway: "And he said 'Hell, no, I didn't see him. When I heard that shooting, I fell down into the floorboard of my truck and I stayed there'."
I believe Teddy Callaway is on record as saying to Dom Benavides.... Dom, You saw the guy. Which way did he go? C'mon man....Let's go see if we can find him."
I've seen video of Benavides in casual conversation with talking about what he witnessed that day......And he refers to the killer as "this other man" as opposed to JD Tippit...
IOW , This Other Man" who Benavides did not recognize was the killer. At the time Benavides said that, it was commonly accepted that Lee Oswald had been the killer and Benavides knew that. He had seen Lee Oswald's photo dozens of times, and yet he referred to the killer as "this other guy".
-
Helen Markham stated Oswald approached Tippit from the west, while another witness and the commission claimed he came from the east.
She said she saw Oswald lean into an open window of the car; two witnesses and a photograph confirm that all windows were closed.
She stated that Tippit tried to speak to her; all other witnesses, the commission, and the coroner found that he died instantly.
She stated that she was alone with Tippit for twenty minutes; all other witnesses state that a large crowd gathered immediately.
She stated Tippit had light grey pants on. He didn't when he was arrested.
Some witness.
-
Helen Markham stated Oswald approached Tippit from the west, while another witness and the commission claimed he came from the east.
She said she saw Oswald lean into an open window of the car; two witnesses and a photograph confirm that all windows were closed.
She stated that Tippit tried to speak to her; all other witnesses, the commission, and the coroner found that he died instantly.
She stated that she was alone with Tippit for twenty minutes; all other witnesses state that a large crowd gathered immediately.
She stated Tippit had light grey pants on. He didn't when he was arrested.
Some witness.
Why defame the witness?
Helen Markham saw J.D. Tippit tailing a man who was approaching from the west ( traveling east)
She said she saw Oswald lean into an open window of the car; two witnesses and a photograph confirm that all windows were closed.
But the wing window was open.......so Markham could easily have seen the man talking to Tippit through the vent window.
-
Why defame the witness?
Helen Markham saw J.D. Tippit tailing a man who was approaching from the west ( traveling east)
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; I seen this man on the opposite side, across the street from me. He was almost across Patton Street.
Mr. BALL. Almost across Patton?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Walking in what direction?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I guess this would be south."
She said she saw Oswald lean into an open window of the car; two witnesses and a photograph confirm that all windows were closed.
But the wing window was open.......so Markham could easily have seen the man talking to Tippit through the vent window.
Sorry,Walt. she said the window was down
"Mr. BALL. He put his arms on the window ledge?
Mrs. MARKHAM. The window was down. "
-
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; I seen this man on the opposite side, across the street from me. He was almost across Patton Street.
Mr. BALL. Almost across Patton?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Walking in what direction?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I guess this would be south."
Sorry,Walt. she said the window was down
"Mr. BALL. He put his arms on the window ledge?
Mrs. MARKHAM. The window was down. "
How would Helen Markham have known whether the passenger side window was up (closed) or down ( open) ???
She was on the opposite side ( driver's side) of the car and about a quarter of a block away.
This is one of those details that should be resolved and laid to rest...... Just as the feasibility of the gun being fired from the sixth floor window should be resolved and laid to rest....
If we can't come to grips and establish facts...Then we just as well close the case just as LBJ's Special Select Cover Up Committee did five decades ago.....
-
Exactly the same with reference to NOV 22.
That was five months later. Then please explain how that statement aligns with the statement below and Leavelle stating (NOV 22) that Benavides didn't see the suspect.
Mr. BELIN - Let me ask you now, I would like to have you relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now.
Mr. BENAVIDES - As I saw him, I really---I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired, he had just tuned. He was just turning away. [...]
please explain how that statement aligns with the statement below and Leavelle stating (NOV 22) that Benavides didn't see the suspect.
A few years after the coup, Benavides told a reporter that He clearly saw the killer and Benavides referred the the killer as .... "This other man".... He Did NOT identify this "other man" as Lee Oswald.
Benavides DID know that Lee Oswald was NOT the killer.....And he told the police that he could not identify Lee as the killer.... in fact h was sure that Lee was NOT the killer. Thus they did not want any affidavit or any statement from Benavides.
-
Benavides DID know that Lee Oswald was NOT the killer.....And he told the police that he could not identify Lee as the killer.... in fact h was sure that Lee was NOT the killer. Thus they did not want any affidavit or any statement from Benavides.
What have you seen which makes you claim that Benavides was sure that Oswald was not the killer?
-
What have you seen which makes you claim that Benavides was sure that Oswald was not the killer?
I could tell you...but...You'll have to extract your head first.
-
I could tell you...but...You'll have to extract your head first.
Okay. I just did it. Now what?
-
Okay. I just did it. Now what?
View the Youtube video.....
A few years after the coup, Benavides told a reporter that he clearly saw the killer and Benavides referred the the killer as .... "This other man".... He Did NOT identify this "other man" as Lee Oswald.
Benavides DID know that Lee Oswald was NOT the killer.....And he told the police that he could not identify Lee as the killer.... in fact h was sure that Lee was NOT the killer. ( he saw the killer face and he described the killer's hair cut which was NOT Lee Oswald's face or the fashion in which Lee had his hair cut) Thus they did not want any affidavit or any statement from Benavides.
-
View the Youtube video.....
A few years after the coup, Benavides told a reporter that he clearly saw the killer and Benavides referred the the killer as .... "This other man".... He Did NOT identify this "other man" as Lee Oswald.
Benavides DID know that Lee Oswald was NOT the killer.....And he told the police that he could not identify Lee as the killer.... in fact h was sure that Lee was NOT the killer. ( he saw the killer face and he described the killer's hair cut which was NOT Lee Oswald's face or the fashion in which Lee had his hair cut) Thus they did not want any affidavit or any statement from Benavides.
You're talking about "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report" (1967)
Benavides does say "This other man" when he corrected himself after originally saying "Oswald".
But, that is a far cry from your claim that Benavides told the authorities that he "could not identify Lee as the killer" and that he "was sure that Lee was NOT the killer".
In reality, Benavides did not attend a lineup because he felt he would not be able to identify the killer. To the best of my knowledge, Benavides never said anything to them about not being able to identify a Lee Oswald.
-
Someone must have had a gun in Benavides back to make him recant his story .
-
You're talking about "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report" (1967)
Benavides does say "This other man" when he corrected himself after originally saying "Oswald".
But, that is a far cry from your claim that Benavides told the authorities that he "could not identify Lee as the killer" and that he "was sure that Lee was NOT the killer".
In reality, Benavides did not attend a lineup because he felt he would not be able to identify the killer. To the best of my knowledge, Benavides never said anything to them about not being able to identify a Lee Oswald.
Benavides does say "This other man" when he corrected himself after originally saying "Oswald".
As I recall..... Benavides was telling the reporter what he had seen....And he said that Tippit had got out of the car and was near the front wheel when this other man shot him.
At that time it was commonly accepted that Lee Harrrrrvey Ossssswald was the killer.......So why did Benavides refer to the killer as..." this other man"
-
Tom,
We arrive at the same destination--Benavides could NOT identify the shooter. This means he could NOT say that it was LHO as the WC claimed.
Benavides could NOT identify the shooter.
This is TRUE!....."Benavides could NOT identify the shooter.", because he didn't know or recognize the shooter, but he had seen Lee Oswald's photo on TV and he knew that if that was the man they wanted him to identify, then he couldn't do it.
Benavides realized very early that this was an event that he did not want to get involved in. He said that he left the scene shortly after Callaway arrived .....but then decided that he could help the police in finding the spent shells and returned to the scene.
-
You're talking about "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report" (1967)
Benavides does say "This other man" when he corrected himself after originally saying "Oswald".
But, that is a far cry from your claim that Benavides told the authorities that he "could not identify Lee as the killer" and that he "was sure that Lee was NOT the killer".
In reality, Benavides did not attend a lineup because he felt he would not be able to identify the killer. To the best of my knowledge, Benavides never said anything to them about not being able to identify a Lee Oswald.
Benavides does say "This other man" when he corrected himself after originally saying "Oswald".
Thank You....That's right.... He corrected his initial error of referring to the other man as "Oswald" ......
-
Benavides does say "This other man" when he corrected himself after originally saying "Oswald".
Thank You....That's right.... He corrected his initial error of referring to the other man as "Oswald" ......
To me, it looks like Benavides was trying to be "politically correct" by not actually saying the name Oswald.
Benavides couldn't identify the killer as Oswald but that is not to say that Benavides ever stated that the killer was not Oswald. He simply had no opinion one way or the other.
-
Benavides does say "This other man" when he corrected himself after originally saying "Oswald".
As I recall..... Benavides was telling the reporter what he had seen....And he said that Tippit had got out of the car and was near the front wheel when this other man shot him.
At that time it was commonly accepted that Lee Harrrrrvey Ossssswald was the killer.......So why did Benavides refer to the killer as..." this other man"
Really? In 1967, you believe it was commonly accepted that Lee Oswald was the killer?
-
To me, it looks like Benavides was trying to be "politically correct" by not actually saying the name Oswald.
Benavides couldn't identify the killer as Oswald but that is not to say that Benavides ever stated that the killer was not Oswald. He simply had no opinion one way or the other.
Sounds good
-
Why defame the witness?
Is not defamatory. Markham's testimony is unreliable. Period.
-
Is not defamatory. Markham's testimony is unreliable. Period.
You're regurgitating LBJ's Cover Up Committee's BS..... I do believe that Markham was a bit flaky ...but that doesn't mean that she was totally irrational.
-
Is there a best witness for identifying Oswald as Tippit's killer?
-
Is there a best witness for identifying Oswald as Tippit's killer?
There was only one witness to Tippit's killing at all: the unreliable Helen Markham.
-
Is there a best witness for identifying Oswald as Tippit's killer?
No!..... Because Lee didn't shoot Tippit!.... He was on the sidewalk in front of 1026 N. Beckley when Tippit was murdered.
-
Is there a best witness for identifying Oswald as Tippit's killer?
Ted Callaway is unimpeachable. He saw Oswald running with a gun from the immediate vicinity of the shooting.
Helen Markham will identify Lee Oswald as the man she saw shoot Tippit.
William Scoggins will identify Lee Oswald as the man he saw talking to Tippit and then after hearing shots, saw Oswald run straight towards his location with a gun and cut across the yard on the corner.
Barbara Davis will identify Lee Oswald as the man she saw cut across her front yard (coming from the area of Tippit's patrol car) with a gun in his hands moments after hearing shots.
Virginia Davis will identify Lee Oswald as the man she saw cut across the front yard (coming from the area of Tippit's patrol car) with a gun in his hands moments after hearing shots.
Ted Callaway will identify Lee Oswald as the man he saw turn the corner at Tenth and Patton and run down Patton towards Jefferson with a gun in his hands just moments after hearing the shots.
Sam Guinyard will identify Lee Oswald as the man he saw turn the corner at Tenth and Patton and run down Patton towards Jefferson with a gun in his hands just moments after hearing the shots.
Warren Reynolds will identify Lee Oswald as the man he saw run down Patton towards Jefferson with a gun in his hands just moments after hearing the shots.
L.J. Lewis will identify Lee Oswald as the man he saw run down Patton towards Jefferson with a gun in his hands just moments after hearing the shots.
Harold Russell will identify Lee Oswald as the man he saw run down Patton towards Jefferson with a gun in his hands just moments after hearing the shots.
Therefore, when you use your brain (unlike Iacoletti is doing) and piece it together, the Davis women, Callaway, Guinyard, Reynolds, Patterson and Russell most definitely saw Tippit's killer (since they saw the same man seen by Markham and Scoggins).
One does not have to be staring at the gunman at the instant the shots were fired in order to see the killer.
-
Ted Callaway is unimpeachable. He saw Oswald running with a gun from the immediate vicinity of the shooting.
Helen Markham will identify Lee Oswald as the man she saw shoot Tippit.
William Scoggins will identify Lee Oswald as the man he saw talking to Tippit and then after hearing shots, saw Oswald run straight towards his location with a gun and cut across the yard on the corner.
Barbara Davis will identify Lee Oswald as the man she saw cut across her front yard (coming from the area of Tippit's patrol car) with a gun in his hands moments after hearing shots.
Virginia Davis will identify Lee Oswald as the man she saw cut across the front yard (coming from the area of Tippit's patrol car) with a gun in his hands moments after hearing shots.
Ted Callaway will identify Lee Oswald as the man he saw turn the corner at Tenth and Patton and run down Patton towards Jefferson with a gun in his hands just moments after hearing the shots.
Sam Guinyard will identify Lee Oswald as the man he saw turn the corner at Tenth and Patton and run down Patton towards Jefferson with a gun in his hands just moments after hearing the shots.
Warren Reynolds will identify Lee Oswald as the man he saw run down Patton towards Jefferson with a gun in his hands just moments after hearing the shots.
L.J. Lewis will identify Lee Oswald as the man he saw run down Patton towards Jefferson with a gun in his hands just moments after hearing the shots.
Harold Russell will identify Lee Oswald as the man he saw run down Patton towards Jefferson with a gun in his hands just moments after hearing the shots.
Therefore, when you use your brain (unlike Iacoletti is doing) and piece it together, the Davis women, Callaway, Guinyard, Reynolds, Patterson and Russell most definitely saw Tippit's killer (since they saw the same man seen by Markham and Scoggins).
One does not have to be staring at the gunman at the instant the shots were fired in order to see the killer.
Wrong. One has to witness a killing in order to identify a killer. No amount of rhetorical gymnastics will ever change that. And no matter how many times you regurgitate it, unfair and biased lineups remain unreliable.
-
There was only one witness to Tippit's killing at all: the unreliable Helen Markham.
Really???..... Do you recall that Domingo Benavides DESCRIBED the shooting...How could he do that if he didn't witness the shooting??? "I saw the officer start to walk to the front of his car and "this other man shot him"
-
Really???..... Do you recall that Domingo Benavides DESCRIBED the shooting...How could he do that if he didn't witness the shooting??? "I saw the officer start to walk to the front of his car and "this other man shot him"
He was an earwitness, but not an eyewitness. He was ducking down in his car when Tippit was shot. He didn't see the shooting.
-
He was an earwitness, but not an eyewitness. He was ducking down in his car when Tippit was shot. He didn't see the shooting.
BS!!!
-
BS!!!
Benvenides to the WC.
"Mr. BENAVIDES - The other man was standing to the right side of the car, riders side of the car, and was standing right in front of the windshield on the right front fender. And then I heard the shot. Actually I wasn't looking for anything like that, so I heard the shot, and I just turned into the curb. Looked around to miss a car, I think.
And then I pulled up to the curb, hitting the curb, and I ducked down, and then I heard two more shots.
Mr. BELIN - How many shots did you hear all told?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I heard three shots.
Mr. BELIN - You heard three shots?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir, "
-
Either way, he was a mediocre witness.
Upon reviewing Benavides testimony ...
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/benavide.htm
David Belin spent the entire interview coaching, coaxing, nudging and prodding him to identify Oswald.
Especially after he stated...
Mr. BENAVIDES - I then pulled on up and I seen this officer standing by the door. The door was open to the car, and I was pretty close to him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car.
"Was pretty close" ?
-
Either way, he was a mediocre witness.
Upon reviewing Benavides testimony ...
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/benavide.htm
David Belin spent the entire interview coaching, coaxing, nudging and prodding him to identify Oswald.
Especially after he stated..."Was pretty close" ?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I then pulled on up and I seen this officer standing by the door. The door was open to the car, and I was pretty close to him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car.
I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car.
This written statement does not accurately reflect the inflection in Benavides voice as he said that...He said "Oswald" and then quickly changed that to "or... the man that shot him". IOW... Benavides knew that Oswald was NOT the man.
And he didn't duck down until the shooting sarted ( why would he???) So Benavides DID see the murder.
PS All of Tippit's wounds were inflicted before he fell.....So the shots were very rapid.
-
This written statement does not accurately reflect the inflection in Benavides voice as he said that.
You mean you've heard a recording of his testimony?
And he didn't duck down until the shooting sarted ( why would he???) So Benavides DID see the murder.
He said that he heard a shot, then ducked down, then heard 2 more shots, then looked up. Is this another case where your imagination trumps what a witness actually said?
-
You mean you've heard a recording of his testimony?
He said that he heard a shot, then ducked down, then heard 2 more shots, then looked up. Is this another case where your imagination trumps what a witness actually said?
He said that he heard a shot, then ducked down, then heard 2 more shots, then looked up.
And how long did Tippit remain on his feet after being shot ??..... Long enough for Benavides reflexes to move him faster than the man who was hit by the bullet??
Don't you have any commonsense? Surely you're bright enough to understand that the victim would react faster than any spectator...
Tippit's autopsy shows that he was hit by four shots in the upper body .....Do you think the killer fired just once and then waited long enough to allow Benavides to say ..."Oh Shep! .....That man just fire a gun....I think I'll duck down before he can fire again"
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oJRpJVvv4Y4/U-FLc9u6DCI/AAAAAAAA2H4/s7EprReI_FA/s530/Commission-Document-630--(9).jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QxsYEiZLWsE/U-FLbaWrXzI/AAAAAAAA2Hs/qDmLfIwSbs4/s530/Commission-Document-630--(11).jpg)
-
I came across the statement by William Torbitt who names William Seymour as the killer of Tippit and may have been use to impersonate Oswald
-
I came across the statement by William Torbitt who names William Seymour as the killer of Tippit and may have been use to impersonate Oswald
Was William Seymour a quick draw killer? Because who ever shot Tippit had to have been a cold blooded killer and very fast on the draw.....
-
Was William Seymour a quick draw killer? Because who ever shot Tippit had to have been a cold blooded killer and very fast on the draw.....
Chuck Connors comes to mind but not clear if he was good with a revolver
-
Chuck Connors comes to mind but not clear if he was good with a revolver
IMO JD Tippit was a pawn ...... He was set up to be killed. ( someone on the phone in the Record Shop sent him to 10th and Patton) The plotters thought that it would appear as though Tippit had been killed by the patsy who had eluded being killed in the TSBD. The plotters thought that Lee Oswald was still renting a room at Mrs Bledsoe's house on Marsalais.
The plotters thought that Lee Oswald would be shot by the first cop he encountered....... in the theater.
-
He said that he heard a shot, then ducked down, then heard 2 more shots, then looked up.
And how long did Tippit remain on his feet after being shot ??..... Long enough for Benavides reflexes to move him faster than the man who was hit by the bullet??
Don't you have any commonsense? Surely you're bright enough to understand that the victim would react faster than any spectator...
Tippit's autopsy shows that he was hit by four shots in the upper body .....Do you think the killer fired just once and then waited long enough to allow Benavides to say ..."Oh Shep! .....That man just fire a gun....I think I'll duck down before he can fire again"
So you do think that your imagination trumps what Benavides actually said. No surprise there.
-
IMO JD Tippit was a pawn ...... He was set up to be killed. ( someone on the phone in the Record Shop sent him to 10th and Patton) The plotters thought that it would appear as though Tippit had been killed by the patsy who had eluded being killed in the TSBD. The plotters thought that Lee Oswald was still renting a room at Mrs Bledsoe's house on Marsalais.
The plotters thought that Lee Oswald would be shot by the first cop he encountered....... in the theater.
you mean: In the 2nd floor lunchroom by Baker, if Truly had not been with Baker?
-
So you do think that your imagination trumps what Benavides actually said. No surprise there.
Johnnie....Sometimes you've got to use your imagination and commonsense......(I'm sorry if you're a little short in those areas)
AAMOF.... Nearly all crimes are solved by the investigators using their imagination and commonsense.
-
Johnnie....Sometimes you've got to use your imagination and commonsense......(I'm sorry if you're a little short in those areas)
AAMOF.... Nearly all crimes are solved by the investigators using their imagination and commonsense.
I'll remember that, Mervin. The next time I want to know how a witness inflected his voice!
(http://sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)
-
Wrong. One has to witness a killing in order to identify a killer. No amount of rhetorical gymnastics will ever change that. And no matter how many times you regurgitate it, unfair and biased lineups remain unreliable.
Pretty sure witnesses were being asked to ID the guy they saw carrying the pistol either right at the scene or near it. Nobody had to actually see the killer pulling the trigger on Tippit in order to place the guy at/near the scene.
-
Pretty sure witnesses were being asked to ID the guy they saw carrying the pistol either right at the scene or near it. Nobody had to actually see the killer pulling the trigger on Tippit in order to place the guy at/near the scene.
Then why do so many people try to claim that these people identified Oswald as Tippit's killer?
-
Pretty sure witnesses were being asked to ID the guy they saw carrying the pistol either right at the scene or near it. Nobody had to actually see the killer pulling the trigger on Tippit in order to place the guy at/near the scene.
I'm pretty sure at least one witness actually saw Tippit being shot by the killer..... Domingo Benavides said...He saw Tippit get out of his car when "this other guy shot him"
-
I'm pretty sure at least one witness actually saw Tippit being shot by the killer..... Domingo Benavides said...He saw Tippit get out of his car when "this other guy shot him"
Pretty sure Benavides qualified the remark
The other guy turned out to be Oswald
-
Then why do so many people try to claim that these people identified Oswald as Tippit's killer?
You're nitpicking
-
Pretty sure Benavides qualified the remark
The other guy turned out to be Oswald
You pretty sure that you have your head stuck......Benavides said exactly the opposite of what you claim...
He at first said "Oswald" ( because that was the commonly accepted lie) But then he corrected himself by saying "OR THE MAN WHO SHOT HIM"
And he referred to the Killer as " this other man"..... If that man had been Lee Oswald then the easiest and most direct way would have been .... "Oswald shot him". But he didn't say that.... Now did he??
-
You're nitpicking
Why is it always "nitpicking" when LN-ers get caught out making false claims? If the evidence is so conclusive why do you have to lie about it?
-
You pretty sure that you have your head stuck......Benavides said exactly the opposite of what you claim...
He at first said "Oswald" ( because that was the commonly accepted lie) But then he corrected himself by saying "OR THE MAN WHO SHOT HIM"
And he referred to the Killer as " this other man"..... If that man had been Lee Oswald then the easiest and most direct way would have been .... "Oswald shot him". But he didn't say that.... Now did he??
He didn't know Oswald's name at the time of the shooting. That was his point.
-
Why is it always "nitpicking" when LN-ers get caught out making false claims? If the evidence is so conclusive why do you have to lie about it?
Are you talking about me? Point out where I made false claims.
-
He didn't know Oswald's name at the time of the shooting. That was his point.
But EVERYBODY knew Lee Oswald's name at the time that Benavides said ...." this other man shot him"
-
So Oswald is in Gomer Pyle-like bliss up to the assassination about whatever is going on. Then it immediately dawns on him that he is going to take the fall for it. He suddenly becomes a genius. So he does the logical thing and kills a police officer. That is quite a fantasy tale. The most logical reason for him to have killed Tippit is because he has just assassinated the President and has nothing to lose at that point. He can't risk the possibility that he has already been identified as a suspect and will be arrested if he IDs himself.
What does 'Gomer Pyle-like bliss' mean?
"If he IDs himself"? Didn't he have a fake ID to show- that said A J or [Alek] Hidell who didn't even actually exist?
-
Are you talking about me? Point out where I made false claims.
You defended the false claim that multiple people identified Oswald as Tippit's killer by calling it nitpicking to correct it.
-
You defended the false claim that multiple people identified Oswald as Tippit's killer by calling it nitpicking to correct it.
That is not a false claim.
-
That is not a false claim.
Of course it's a false claim. These people didn't witness a killing. All they could do is identify a guy they saw nearby (in a biased and unfair lineup or in most cases from a single photo months later).
-
You defended the false claim that multiple people identified Oswald as Tippit's killer by calling it nitpicking to correct it.
BUMP
-
Of course it's a false claim.
It is not a false claim. Both Helen Markham and William Scoggins witnessed the killing and they both positively identified Oswald as the killer.
-
It is not a false claim. Both Helen Markham and William Scoggins witnessed the killing and they both positively identified Oswald as the killer.
Scoggins did not see Tippit being shot.
-
It is not a false claim. Both Helen Markham and William Scoggins witnessed the killing and they both positively identified Oswald as the killer.
Yep, and both agreed that the jacketed Oswald while fiddling with his weapon described him as moving towards Patton, a fact verified by the Davis sisters and then just down Patton the jacketed Oswald who was still brandishing his gun was identified by Callaway and Guinyard, all these eyewitnesses are equally important because they all corroborate the exact same narrative.
(http://blogs.denverpost.com/library/wp-content/blogs.dir/78/files/2013/10/rsz_a_tippitmap.jpg)
JohnM
-
Scoggins did not see Tippit being shot.
Mr. BELIN. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Three or four, in the neighborhood. They was fast.
Mr. BELIN. They were fast shots?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; they were fast.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do or say or hear?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Then I saw the man falling, grab his stomach and fall.
JohnM
-
Yep, and both agreed that the jacketed Oswald while fiddling with his weapon described him as moving towards Patton, a fact verified by the Davis sisters and then just down Patton the jacketed Oswald who was still brandishing his gun was identified by Callaway and Guinyard, all these eyewitnesses are equally important because they all corroborate the exact same narrative.
...a narrative which doesn't not involve seeing anybody getting shot. And an "exact same narrative" that can't even agree what side of the street the man was on.
And you all keep forgetting the part about the unfair and biased lineups and a single photo months later.
-
...a narrative which doesn't not involve seeing anybody getting shot. And an "exact same narrative" that can't even agree what side of the street the man was on.
And you all keep forgetting the part about the unfair and biased lineups and a single photo months later.
...a narrative which doesn't not involve seeing anybody getting shot.
Oops!
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.
and a single photo months later.
Oops!
Representative FORD. In other words, they showed you pictures of how many people altogether, how many different people, your best estimate?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I would say 4 or 5.
Representative FORD. And you narrowed the number of 4 or 5 down to 2?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Down to two; yes.
Try again!
JohnM
-
Mr. BELIN. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Three or four, in the neighborhood. They was fast.
Mr. BELIN. They were fast shots?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; they were fast.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do or say or hear?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Then I saw the man falling, grab his stomach and fall.[/b]
Like I said, Scoggins didn't see Tippit being shot. He was eating his lunch and didn't look up until the shooting was over. Then he hid behind his cab and only saw someone going south on Patton. In other words, facing away from him.
-
Like I said, Scoggins didn't see Tippit being shot. He was eating his lunch and didn't look up until the shooting was over. Then he hid behind his cab and only saw someone going south on Patton. In other words, facing away from him.
Scoggins saw Oswald with a gun coming from where he saw the policeman fall to the ground.
JohnM
-
Oops!
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.
Oops!
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
Oops!
Representative FORD. In other words, they showed you pictures of how many people altogether, how many different people, your best estimate?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I would say 4 or 5.
Representative FORD. And you narrowed the number of 4 or 5 down to 2?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Down to two; yes.
Try again!
You try again!
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4083/34812432124_fa05d3b9ba_b.jpg)
Besides, I was talking about the people who were only shown a New Orleans mugshot of Oswald months later (Patterson, Russell, Brock) long after the narrative was firmly planted in the media. But anything to railroad a guy.
-
Scoggins did not see Tippit being shot.
A nice bit of sophistry on your part. Why stop there? You could just as easily say that Markham never saw Tippit being shot because she never saw the bullets as they passed through the air between the revolver and Tippit's chest.
-
Oops!
You mean raaawk?
You will not escape the mantra of the parrots.
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/xUA7aUOIB26HybnCko/200w.gif)
raaawk.. Oswald did it ..raaawk.. Oswald
Seriously hopeless.
-
Yep, and both agreed that the jacketed Oswald while fiddling with his weapon described him as moving towards Patton, a fact verified by the Davis sisters and then just down Patton the jacketed Oswald who was still brandishing his gun was identified by Callaway and Guinyard, all these eyewitnesses are equally important because they all corroborate the exact same narrative.
(http://blogs.denverpost.com/library/wp-content/blogs.dir/78/files/2013/10/rsz_a_tippitmap.jpg)
JohnM
Unsub guns Tippit down at 1.04 - 1.08.30pm, then runs as above to "assumed movements" starting approx. 1.09.45pm at the latest.
Approx 36 minutes later Unsub is seen near theatre - Anyone got any ideas where Unsub was/went in that 36 minutes?
-
A nice bit of sophistry on your part. Why stop there? You could just as easily say that Markham never saw Tippit being shot because she never saw the bullets as they passed through the air between the revolver and Tippit's chest.
Whatever. Scoggins didn't see Tippit being shot, that's just a fact. I can understand why you want to invent more witnesses than the "utter screwball", but it is what it is.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/markham-eyes.png)
-
You mean raaawk?
You will not escape the mantra of the parrots.
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/xUA7aUOIB26HybnCko/200w.gif)
raaawk.. Oswald did it ..raaawk.. Oswald
Seriously hopeless.
Raaawk....mountains of evidence....Raaawk....Oswald's rifle....Raaawk.....no doubt....Raaawk
-
Unsub guns Tippit down at 1.04 - 1.08.30pm, then runs as above to "assumed movements" starting approx. 1.09.45pm at the latest.
The whole damn narrative was assumed.
Approx 36 minutes later Unsub is seen near theatre - Anyone got any ideas where Unsub was/went in that 36 minutes?
Well, according to some people here he was washing the blood off of his shoes at Markham's laundromat.
-
The whole damn narrative was assumed.
Well, according to some people here he was washing the blood off of his shoes at Markham's laundromat.
LOL I never heard that one of washing blood at Markhams washeteria before.
To me a direct run to the theatre and a killer on the run could act like that. As indirect as that 36 minutes not so likely though.
More likely a LHO lookalike used to set Oswald up and the lookalike slipped into one of his aquaintances nearby houses for
that 36 minutes - AND THEN to draw attention to the theatre - my pov anyway. :) Walk: 8)
-
Is it unfashionable to believe he is in the theater at 1.10 maybe earlier Is Butch Burroughs not to be believed because another Oswald comes in at 1.30 or whatever
-
LOL I never heard that one of washing blood at Markhams washeteria before.
Well, he didn't say at Markham's washateria.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,84.msg922.html#msg922 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,84.msg922.html#msg922)
To me a direct run to the theatre and a killer on the run could act like that. As indirect as that 36 minutes not so likely though.
Yeah, makes no sense. He's seen running down the alley and then supposedly shows up 15-20 minutes later in the Texaco parking lot.
-
He was an earwitness, but not an eyewitness. He was ducking down in his car when Tippit was shot. He didn't see the shooting.
Ducking down in his car (actually it was a truck, but anyway...) when Tippit was shot?
I have to agree with Cakebread on this one, you're full of B.S.
Benavides obviously did not "duck down" in his truck until AFTER the shots rang out.
Why else would Benavides be "ducking down"? Come on, already.
-
Ducking down in his car (actually it was a truck, but anyway...) when Tippit was shot?
I have to agree with Cakebread on this one, you're full of B.S.
Benavides obviously did not "duck down" in his truck until AFTER the shots rang out.
Why else would Benavides be "ducking down"? Come on, already.
Benavides obviously did not "duck down" in his truck until AFTER the shots rang out.
Why else would Benavides be "ducking down"? Come on, already.
:D
Hahaha yeah, some of these Kooks aren't too bright.
JohnM
-
Whatever. Scoggins didn't see Tippit being shot, that's just a fact. I can understand why you want to invent more witnesses than the "utter screwball", but it is what it is.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/markham-eyes.png)
Yawn, selective quoting and/or imaging is all you got and as usual never tells the whole story. Why are you so afraid of the truth?
(https://s7.postimg.cc/i19apnre3/Honest_Markham_zpsuyfq8h1m.gif)
Btw being a waitress is not easy and we know that Markham held down a steady job waitressing at a restaurant in the middle of downtown Dallas.
JohnM
-
Like I said, Scoggins didn't see Tippit being shot. He was eating his lunch and didn't look up until the shooting was over. Then he hid behind his cab and only saw someone going south on Patton. In other words, facing away from him.
You're so full of sh!t.
Now you want to pretend that Scoggins did not get a good look at the fleeing killer since the killer was "facing away from him" and Scoggins "only saw someone going south on Patton".
The killer headed straight towards Scoggins as he (the killer) fled toward the corner and Scoggins got a look at the killer's face.
-
You're so full of sh!t.
Now you want to pretend that Scoggins did not get a good look at the fleeing killer since the killer was "facing away from him" and Scoggins "only saw someone going south on Patton".
The killer headed straight towards Scoggins as he (the killer) fled toward the corner and Scoggins got a look at the killer's face.
Mr. BELIN. When you saw the officer fall, when was the next place that you saw the man, or did you see him at the same time you saw the officer fall, the other man?
Mr. SCOGGINS. No, I saw him coming kind of toward me around that cutoff through there, and he never did look at me. He looked back over his left shoulder like that, as he went by. It seemed like I could see his face, his features and everything plain, you see.
JohnM
-
Well, he didn't say at Markham's washateria.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,84.msg922.html#msg922 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,84.msg922.html#msg922)
Yeah, makes no sense. He's seen running down the alley and then supposedly shows up 15-20 minutes later in the Texaco parking lot.
Thumb1: (just read that whole topic through)
-
You're so full of sh!t.
Now you want to pretend that Scoggins did not get a good look at the fleeing killer since the killer was "facing away from him" and Scoggins "only saw someone going south on Patton".
The killerOswald headed straight towards Scoggins as heOswald (the killer) fled toward the corner and Scoggins got a look at the killer's face.
FIFY
-
Mr. Ball.
If anybody comes in there without a ticket, what do you do, run them off?
Mr. Burroughs.
I make it a point to stop them and ask them to go out and get a ticket. I just failed to see him when he slipped in.
Mr. Ball.
We will get to that in a minute I want to see what you usually do if somebody comes in without a ticket.
Mr. Burroughs.
I stop them and have them go out to the box office and get an admission ticket.
Mr. Ball.
On this day of November 22, 1963, what time did you go to work?
Mr. Burroughs.
I went to work at 12.
Mr. Ball.
You went to work that day at 12?
Mr. Burroughs.
That day at 12 o'clock----yes.
Mr. Ball.
And you later saw a struggle in the theatre between a man and some officers, didn't you?
Mr. Burroughs.
Yes.
Mr. Ball.
Did you see that man come in the theatre?
Mr. Burroughs.
No, sir; I didn't.
Now the LN and Warren Commission apparently interpret this as meaning he never saw Oswald Do they ever ask him whether he served a amn that looked like Oswald around 1.10 No .Did they ask him if he ever saw Oswald? No Theyt just try to play on the ccharade is that the man who snuck in at 1.30 and any identifications outside of that don't count
-
Yeah, makes no sense. He's seen running down the alley and then supposedly shows up 15-20 minutes later in the Texaco parking lot.
15-20 minutes? What makes you say that?
-
Does your "pov" still have Oswald standing out on the front steps of the Depository building during the assassination?
HI Bill and you may have rarely actually mixed up there Bill, mebbe with Walt, as I can't recall ever putting LHO on TBD steps as such myself.
-
HI Bill and you may have rarely actually mixed up there Bill, mebbe with Walt, as I can't recall ever putting LHO on TBD steps as such myself.
Michael, I am so very sorry. I was seeing posts by Michael Capasse (in another thread) and then you sneaked one in there on me. I truly apologize to you for that. Capasse was (is?) a supporter of Oswald on the steps.
-
Michael, I am so very sorry. I was seeing posts by Michael Capasse (in another thread) and then you sneaked one in there on me. I truly apologize to you for that. Capasse was (is?) a supporter of Oswald on the steps.
Thumb1:
-
Ducking down in his car (actually it was a truck, but anyway...) when Tippit was shot?
I have to agree with Cakebread on this one, you're full of B.S.
Benavides obviously did not "duck down" in his truck until AFTER the shots rang out.
Why else would Benavides be "ducking down"? Come on, already.
Sorry, he was looking away. The point was that he wasn't looking at Tippit for any of the shots.
Mr. BENAVIDES - The other man was standing to the right side of the car, riders side of the car, and was standing right in front of the windshield on the right front fender. And then I heard the shot. Actually I wasn't looking for anything like that, so I heard the shot, and I just turned into the curb. Looked around to miss a car, I think.
And then I pulled up to the curb, hitting the curb, and I ducked down, and then I heard two more shots.
-
Yawn, selective quoting and/or imaging is all you got and as usual never tells the whole story. Why are you so afraid of the truth?
What "whole story" did I not tell? You're the master of cherry picking only the things that tell your story.
-
You're so full of sh!t.
Now you want to pretend that Scoggins did not get a good look at the fleeing killer since the killer was "facing away from him" and Scoggins "only saw someone going south on Patton".
The killer headed straight towards Scoggins as he (the killer) fled toward the corner and Scoggins got a look at the killer's face.
Sure Bill. As the guy looked over his left shoulder. Got a good look at him, did he?
Mr. SCOGGINS. No, I saw him coming kind of toward me around that cutoff through there, and he never did look at me. He looked back over his left shoulder like that, as he went by. It seemed like I could see his face, his features and everything plain, you see.
It "seemed like"? Either he could or he couldn't!
-
15-20 minutes? What makes you say that?
What time do you think the shooting occurred? What time did Mary Brock claim to have seen him? What time did Brewer claim to have seen him?
-
What time do you think the shooting occurred? What time did Mary Brock claim to have seen him? What time did Brewer claim to have seen him?
The FBI report stated that Brock saw the man who she identified as Oswald walk past her (wearing a light-colored jacket) at "approximately 1:30".
Are we now now taking FBI reports so literal? What about Linnie Mae Randle saying the bag she saw Oswald carrying that morning was three feet long?
Anyway, we know the 1:30 is off a little bit because Warren Reynolds and Pat Patterson followed Oswald as soon as he came running down Patton and turned west onto Jefferson Boulevard.
For those who may be unaware (instead of being dishonest like Iacoletti), after hearing the shots, Warren Reynolds and Pat Patterson saw the gunman running down Patton and turn west onto Jefferson. Reynolds and Patterson followed the man from a safe distance. They saw the man disappear somewhere around the Texaco station. They went up to Mary Brock (her husband was a mechanic at the station) and asked her if she saw a man come by. She told them she had just seen a man walk fast past her, wearing a light colored-jacket with his hands in his pockets. She told them she last saw the man in the parking lot behind the station.
I suppose an honest person would conclude that "approximately 1:30" was an estimation. However, a person being dishonest (and hardly interested in the truth) would imply that it really took Oswald (and then Reynolds and Patterson) fifteen minutes to reach the Texaco lot.
In reality, Oswald was probably at the Texaco within five minutes of shooting Tippit. Therefore, "approximately 1:30" was probably 1:20.
-
pathetic
It is hilarious to see the LNers trying so hard to use eyewitnesses when they usually claim that they
are unreliable.
-
Now we know that there is at least one LN who thinks we shouldn't take FBI reports (including the one claiming Linnie Mae Randle said the bag Oswald carried that morning was three feet long) literally....
That's at least something.... I guess :)
-
The FBI report stated that Brock saw the man who she identified as Oswald walk past her (wearing a light-colored jacket) at "approximately 1:30".
Are we now now taking FBI reports so literal? What about Linnie Mae Randle saying the bag she saw Oswald carrying that morning was three feet long?
Linnie Mae testified that the bag she saw was 28 1/2 inches long. I must have missed Mary Brock's testimony where she said that "approximately 1:30" was probably 1:20.
For those who may be unaware (instead of being dishonest like Iacoletti), after hearing the shots, Warren Reynolds and Pat Patterson saw the gunman running down Patton and turn west onto Jefferson. Reynolds and Patterson followed the man from a safe distance. They saw the man disappear somewhere around the Texaco station.
LOL. So now your game is to pretend that "somewhere around the Texaco station" means "at the Texaco station walking past Mary Brock". But let's go with your "probably 1:20" and see where that leads. What time did Johnny Calvin Brewer say he saw the man who looked funny in front of his shoe store? He also said 1:30. But that would mean that this "fast walking man" took 10 minutes to go 0.4 miles. Supposedly the same guy who was able earlier to "fast walk" 1.1 miles in only 11 minutes. Then another 14 minutes for him (if it was the same guy) to enter the theater and for Postal to call the cops on him. So if anything, Brewer's estimate was too early. No matter how you slice it there's missing time.
-
It is hilarious to see the LNers trying so hard to use eyewitnesses when they usually claim that they are unreliable. 🤣😂
Eyewitnesses are unreliable except when they aren't. :D
-
Linnie Mae testified that the bag she saw was 28 1/2 inches long. I must have missed Mary Brock's testimony where she said that "approximately 1:30" was probably 1:20.
LOL. So now your game is to pretend that "somewhere around the Texaco station" means "at the Texaco station walking past Mary Brock". But let's go with your "probably 1:20" and see where that leads. What time did Johnny Calvin Brewer say he saw the man who looked funny in front of his shoe store? He also said 1:30. But that would mean that this "fast walking man" took 10 minutes to go 0.4 miles. Supposedly the same guy who was able earlier to "fast walk" 1.1 miles in only 11 minutes. Then another 14 minutes for him (if it was the same guy) to enter the theater and for Postal to call the cops on him. So if anything, Brewer's estimate was too early. No matter how you slice it there's missing time.
Let's get a grip, this is 1963 and people either said about/approximately/around either 1 or 1:30 which works out to a mean time of 1:15.
Scoggins who was on lunch and was due back at work would have been clock watching and Scoggins said about 1:20.
JohnM
-
Eyewitnesses are unreliable except when they aren't. :D
The eyewitnesses who positively identified Oswald and confirmed he was carrying a gun
Mr. BALL. Which way?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Towards Jefferson, right across that way.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have the pistol in his hand at this time?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had the gun when I saw him.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it
Mr. BALL. And what did you see the man doing?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. And how was he holding the gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. We used to say in the Marine Corps in a raised pistol position.
Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand.
Mr. BALL. With which hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. With his right hand; just kicking them out.
Mr. BALL. He had it up?
Mr. B.M. PATTERSON, 4635 Hartford Street, Dallas, Texas, currently employed by Wyatt's Cafeteria, 2647 South Lancaster, Dallas, Texas, advised he was present at the used car lot of JOHNNY REYNOLDS' on the afternoon of November 22, 1963.
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JONNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas. A minute or so later they observed a white male approximately 30 years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying what appeared to be a revolver in his hand and was obviously trying to reload same while running.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see this man's face that had the gun in his hand?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Very good.
HAROLD RUSSELL, employee, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was standing on the lot of Reynolds Used Cars together with L.J. LEWIS and PAT PATTERSON, at which time they heard shots come from the vicinity of Patton and Tenth Street, and a few seconds later they observed a young white man running south on Patton Avenue carrying a pistol or revolver which the individual was attempting to either reload or place in his belt line.
Mr. BELIN. Did he have anything in his hand?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had a pistol in his left hand.
Jack Tatum
Next. this man with a gun in his hand ran toward the back of the squad car, but instead of running away he stepped into the street and shot the police officer who was lying in the street.
The Police Officers who were confronted with the murdering Oswald.
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When you saw Oswald's hand by his belt, which hand did you see then?
Mr. WALKER. He had ahold of the handle of it.
Mr. BELIN. Handle of what?
Mr. WALKER. The revolver.
Mr. BELIN. Was there a revolver there?
Mr. WALKER. Yes; there was.
Mr. HUTSON. McDonald was at this time simultaneously trying to hold this person's right hand. Somehow this person moved his right hand to his waist, and I saw a revolver come out, and McDonald was holding on to it with his right hand, and this gun was waving up toward the back of the seat like this.
Oswald even admitted carrying his revolver.
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
JohnM
-
Linnie Mae testified that the bag she saw was 28 1/2 inches long. I must have missed Mary Brock's testimony where she said that "approximately 1:30" was probably 1:20.
LOL. So now your game is to pretend that "somewhere around the Texaco station" means "at the Texaco station walking past Mary Brock". But let's go with your "probably 1:20" and see where that leads. What time did Johnny Calvin Brewer say he saw the man who looked funny in front of his shoe store? He also said 1:30. But that would mean that this "fast walking man" took 10 minutes to go 0.4 miles. Supposedly the same guy who was able earlier to "fast walk" 1.1 miles in only 11 minutes. Then another 14 minutes for him (if it was the same guy) to enter the theater and for Postal to call the cops on him. So if anything, Brewer's estimate was too early. No matter how you slice it there's missing time.
Or... and I know this is a stretch for you, but bare with me... Mary Brock saw Oswald walk past her around 1:20 since we know Reynolds and Patterson followed Oswald to that point... and Reynolds and Patterson could not have been following Oswald for more then a couple minutes as it's only one block from Patton & Jefferson (Reynolds' and Patterson's location at the time of the shooting) to the Texaco station.
It's painfully obvious that the time approximation of 1:30 is just that, an approximation. You can take it literal if you wish, but that shows that either you don't have a clue about the witnesses and timelines or your dishonest and not interested in the truth.
If you were really interested in the truth, you'd understand this. But, you're not interested in the truth.
How about this... Explain how the man could literally walk past Mary Brock as late as 1:30 if it's the same man who Reynolds and Patterson were following once they saw him run down Patton from the direction of the shooting. We're talking about a parking lot located two blocks from the shooting scene. 1:30? How does that work?
Isn't it time to start being honest?
-
Let's get a grip, this is 1963 and people either said about/approximately/around either 1 or 1:30 which works out to a mean time of 1:15.
Scoggins who was on lunch and was due back at work would have been clock watching and Scoggins said about 1:20.
And Markham and Bowley who both had reasons to "clock watch" both put the shooting earlier than the narrative. Let's face it, you guys use whatever times you think will support your story. Besides, how the hell would Scoggins know what time a man was walking near the Texaco station?
-
The eyewitnesses who positively identified Oswald and confirmed he was carrying a gun
No matter how many times you regurgitate this claptrap, unfair and biased lineups are still unreliable. And "carrying a gun" doesn't prove that you just murdered somebody anyway.
-
Or... and I know this is a stretch for you, but bare with me...
What, you want me to get naked?
Mary Brock saw Oswald walk past her around 1:20 since we know Reynolds and Patterson followed Oswald to that point...
That's not what you said. You said they saw him "somewhere around the Texaco station".
and Reynolds and Patterson could not have been following Oswald for more then a couple minutes as it's only one block from Patton & Jefferson (Reynolds' and Patterson's location at the time of the shooting) to the Texaco station.
Another assumption. Reynolds and Patterson saw a guy coming down Patton Street. They didn't know where he came from or how long it took him to get there.
It's painfully obvious that the time approximation of 1:30 is just that, an approximation. You can take it literal if you wish, but that shows that either you don't have a clue about the witnesses and timelines or your dishonest and not interested in the truth.
What it shows is that you'll make up whatever times you think will support your narrative.
How about this... Explain how the man could literally walk past Mary Brock as late as 1:30 if it's the same man who Reynolds and Patterson were following once they saw him run down Patton from the direction of the shooting. We're talking about a parking lot located two blocks from the shooting scene. 1:30? How does that work?
That was my question. How does that work? I'm not sure it was the same man. Mary Brock's husband wasn't so sure.
Isn't it time to start being honest?
Yes, I think you should be.
-
Or... and I know this is a stretch for you, but bare with me... Mary Brock saw Oswald walk past her around 1:20 since we know Reynolds and Patterson followed Oswald to that point... and Reynolds and Patterson could not have been following Oswald for more then a couple minutes as it's only one block from Patton & Jefferson (Reynolds' and Patterson's location at the time of the shooting) to the Texaco station.
It's painfully obvious that the time approximation of 1:30 is just that, an approximation. You can take it literal if you wish, but that shows that either you don't have a clue about the witnesses and timelines or your dishonest and not interested in the truth.
If you were really interested in the truth, you'd understand this. But, you're not interested in the truth.
How about this... Explain how the man could literally walk past Mary Brock as late as 1:30 if it's the same man who Reynolds and Patterson were following once they saw him run down Patton from the direction of the shooting. We're talking about a parking lot located two blocks from the shooting scene. 1:30? How does that work?
Isn't it time to start being honest?
Isn't it time to start being honest?
Good Idea, Billy Bob,..... To thine self be true......
-
Let's get a grip, this is 1963 and people either said about/approximately/around either 1 or 1:30 which works out to a mean time of 1:15.
Scoggins who was on lunch and was due back at work would have been clock watching and Scoggins said about 1:20.
JohnM
Scoggins who was on lunch and was due back at work would have been clock watching and Scoggins said about 1:20.
Markham had to take the bus to work and would have been clock watching and Markham said about 1:06
Bowley had to pick up his daughter from school and his wife from work and would have been clock watching and Bowley said 1:10
Btw... Scoggins' timeline shows he was at least 10 minutes off in his estimates, as he would have arrived at the corner of 10th/Patton at least ten minutes earlier (after dropping off his last ride near by) than he said.
-
Scoggins who was on lunch and was due back at work would have been clock watching and Scoggins said about 1:20.
Markham had to take the bus to work and would have been clock watching and Markham said about 1:06
Bowley had to pick up his daughter from school and his wife from work and would have been clock watching and Bowley said 1:10
Btw... Scoggins' timeline shows he was at least 10 minutes off in his estimates, as he would have arrived at the corner of 10th/Patton at least ten minutes earlier (after dropping off his last ride near by) than he said.
Markham had to take the bus to work and would have been clock watching and Markham said about 1:06
Bowley had to pick up his daughter from school and his wife from work and would have been clock watching and Bowley said 1:10
You're right... Markham, Bowley, and Benavides all verify the time of the shooting as about 1:06 .....The liars who framed an innocent man, desperately try to set the clock ahead and attempt to make the time of the murder as about 1:16. But all of the three ( Markham, Bowley, Benavides) witnesses KNEW the approximate ( within a minute) time of the event.... And none placed the time as late as 1:16.
-
You clearly have no idea what constitutes a positive identification...
Trying to battle wits there with someone that's totally disarmed.
-
Trying to battle wits...
Exactly, he tried and failed and he's your role model?
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/do.gif)
JohnM
-
You clearly have no idea what constitutes a positive identification since no one positively identified LHO. Get over it.
Thumb1:
(https://s31.postimg.cc/cbnc4zzwb/line_up_Oswald_positive_ID.gif)
JohnM
-
You are totally delusional. You must be a legend in your own mind. How's the Outback these days?
You are totally delusional.
No.
You must be a legend in your own mind.
I let my posts speak for themselves.
How's the Outback these days?
Cleanup aisle 5, now what did you say again? LMFAO!
JohnM
-
The evidence shows that those claims are dubious at best.
So you admit you were wrong, good, we're finally getting somewhere.
JohnM
-
Hardly. You are in fantasyland again. How's the Outback? And I don't mean the restaurant.
Hahaha as predicted, no answers.
JohnM
-
No answers? You are the one ducking my question. As for the case I have cited a thousand times more evidence than you have on this board.
If you want to impress me support those claims in the reports with actual supporting evidence. Well?
No answers?
Exactly, you wouldn't know an answer if it came up and bit you on the arse.
As for the case I have cited a thousand times more evidence than you have on this board.
You have posted a thousand times more than me so what do you expect?
But in reality we know that I post evidence and you continually post "no evidence" Hehehe!
If you want to impress me support those claims in the reports with actual supporting evidence. Well?
I posted the testimony of all the people who saw the jacketed Oswald playing with his murder weapon, moving in one direction away from the Tippit crime scene and you have posted nothing, only these stupid inane endless lies.
JohnM
-
I can type that you are smart, but that doesn't make it so. The evidence shows that those claims are dubious at best.
Mytton still hasn't figured out that biased and unfair lineups are unreliable no matter how many times he keeps repeating their outcomes.
-
I posted the testimony of all the people who saw the jacketed Oswald playing with his murder weapon, moving in one direction away from the Tippit crime scene and you have posted nothing, only these stupid inane endless lies.
"Oswald playing with his murder weapon". Are you looking to replace Walt for the title of biggest fabricator?
-
Mytton still hasn't figured out that biased and unfair lineups are unreliable no matter how many times he keeps repeating their outcomes.
For the umpteenth time answer the question, who said that the lineups were unbiased and unfair.
And btw using some recommendations from somewhere else decades later is a waste of my time.
JohnM
-
For the umpteenth time answer the question, who said that the lineups were unbiased and unfair.
And btw using some recommendations from somewhere else decades later is a waste of my time.
You waste everybody's time regurgitating the same old mountain of nonsense. Those recommendations for making lineups as unbiased and fair as possible demonstrate that the lineups that were done were biased, unfair, and therefore unreliable and invalid.
-
"Oswald playing with his murder weapon". Are you looking to replace Walt for the title of biggest fabricator?
Awesome yeah, how to get away with murder the Iacoletti way.
1. Ignore all the eyewitnesses who positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
2. Ignore that Oswald dropped shells that matched his revolver.
3. Ignore all those eyewitnesses who said that Lee Harvey Oswald was wearing his light grey/tan jacket.
4. Ignore the same eyewitnesses who said Lee Harvey Oswald was carrying his weapon.
5. Ignore that Oswald ducked into a shop front to avoid Police.
5. Ignore that Oswald hid in a Theater.
6. Ignore that when arrested Oswald tried to kill more Cops.
7. Ignore that Oswald said that he was carrying a revolver.
WOW!
JohnM
-
You waste everybody's time regurgitating the same old mountain of nonsense. Those recommendations for making lineups as unbiased and fair as possible demonstrate that the lineups that were done were biased, unfair, and therefore unreliable and invalid.
For goodness sakes anyone can make up recommendations, even you but that is only someones POV and means nothing, either you can prove that the lineups were unfair or you can't and so far you can't!
JohnM
-
Scoggins did not see Tippit being shot.
Poor dumb cop
-
I can believe the lineups were unfair.
I also believe that eyewitnesses are frequently wrong or unreliable.
But when you combine mountains of physical evidence with loads of corroborating eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence, there's only one conclusion that can be reached....
LEE HARVEY OSWALD MURDERED OFFICER TIPPIT
-
I can believe the lineups were unfair.
I also believe that eyewitnesses are frequently wrong or unreliable.
But when you combine mountains of physical evidence with loads of corroborating eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence, there's only one conclusion that can be reached....
LEE HARVEY OSWALD MURDERED OFFICER TIPPIT
That would be true.....IF you could provide the mountains of physical evidence to support your contention.
P.S. How did Lee Oswald appear in two different places at he same time?
At 1:04 pm Mrs Roberts saw Lee standing on the side walk in front of the rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley.
At 1:04 pm Helen Markham saw Officer JD Tippit tailing a man who was walking east on 10th street.....
-
Awesome yeah, how to get away with murder the Iacoletti way.
1. Ignore all the eyewitnesses who positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
2. Ignore that Oswald dropped shells that matched his revolver.
3. Ignore all those eyewitnesses who said that Lee Harvey Oswald was wearing his light grey/tan jacket.
4. Ignore the same eyewitnesses who said Lee Harvey Oswald was carrying his weapon.
5. Ignore that Oswald ducked into a shop front to avoid Police.
5. Ignore that Oswald hid in a Theater.
6. Ignore that when arrested Oswald tried to kill more Cops.
7. Ignore that Oswald said that he was carrying a revolver.
WOW!
JohnM
How to railroad a suspect the Mytton way.
1. Rig an unfair lineup and coerce and intimidate the witnesses into picking who you want.
2. Allow what little evidence there is to be collected, documented, and handled with no controls.
3. Pretend that the color of a jacket that can't even be proven to belong to your suspect is evidence of murder.
4. Pretend that carrying a firearm proves that you just murdered a cop.
5. Pretend that you can read minds and know why a guy went into the display area of a shoe store.
5. Have two number 5s in your list for no apparent reason.
6. Pretend that watching a movie in a theater that nobody even saw you enter means you just killed a cop.
7. Illegally search, beat up and arrest a man for murder based on no probable cause other than that he looked funny to a shoe salesman. Then cover your ass by lying about the suspect trying to kill cops based on somebody hearing a clicking sound when several hands were on a gun.
8. Don't document or record an interrogation in any way until days later and then do it from memory. Then conveniently ignore that the suspect said that he had a revolver that he bought in Fort Worth. Then lie about it and say that Oswald admitted carrying the gun identified as the murder weapon solely based on some empty shells that were handed to the cops by civilians rather than being recovered and documented at the crime scene. Then pretend like it doesn't matter that a cop said he initialed them, but his initials are not on the shells.
-
For goodness sakes anyone can make up recommendations, even you but that is only someones POV and means nothing, either you can prove that the lineups were unfair or you can't and so far you can't!
You heard it here first. Some yahoo in Australia knows more about fair lineups in the United States than the Unites States Department of Justice. That's just somebody's unproveable point of view, but when an utter screwball says "number 2 is the one I picked" after saying six times that she didn't recognize anybody in the lineup and after being led with "was there a number 2 man in there", well, that's not just somebody's unproveable point of view, that's "evidence".
-
I can believe the lineups were unfair.
I also believe that eyewitnesses are frequently wrong or unreliable.
Thank you. First honest thing you've said.
But when you combine mountains of physical evidence with loads of corroborating eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence,
Such as?
-
Your only problem is that there is NO physical evidence that points to LHO. Dittto corroborating witnesses.
So why do you think LHO is guilty?
As best as I can tell, he thinks LHO is guilty because I'm bald.
-
As best as I can tell, he thinks LHO is guilty because I'm bald.
I've always thought Gee Whiz was half-assed..... So here he is again....Half right.
-
So the defense attorneys are arguing that the police entered the theatre and beat up Oswald without cause. For some unknown reason, the DPD had an extra pistol with them that they decided to plant on him (presumably the real murderer would have his pistol making any planting unnecessary). As a result, they knowingly let the real murderer of Tippit go free to frame Oswald. Presumably they then planted the ammo on him. They also plant a jacket since the killer was seen wearing one. Get folks to lie about what they saw etc. Fast work for the DPD to pull all this together on the fly. You have to wonder why they had it in for Oswald to the extent that they would frame him and let the real cop murderer go free. Particularly since no one is suggesting a conspiracy. LOL. And lucky for the DPD that Oswald just happened to work in the TSBD. What are the odds? So they get a two for one out of this frame up. What lunacy.
-
sometimes, that's all the nutter needs
all the while he knows, that's all he has
Yeah, we've been waiting in vain for you brainiacs to name the 'real' killer hahaha.
-
As best as I can tell, he thinks LHO is guilty because I'm bald.
Yeah, sure John.
Aside from that, I find it humorous (in a what-goes-around-comes-around sense) that a bald guy would be the poster boy for Bug's well-known and accurate statement that you characters 'split hairs, then split the split hairs'.
-
As best as I can tell, he thinks LHO is guilty because I'm bald.
Now that's not true, but it is funny.
-
Yeah, we've been waiting in vain for you brainiacs to name the 'real' killer hahaha.
Bill I remember when I came here and you were relentlessly going off about how no one will name a killer, I gave you name and you said nothing in response
-
As best as I can tell, he thinks LHO is guilty because I'm bald.
Are you denying your baldness is a factor in all of this?
-
Give me a break, Red Rings....
If you think I'm only half right about Oswald being guilty and Johnboi being bald....
That must mean you don't think Johnboi is bald.
Pull your head out, Waldo.
It seems now you are even wrong about that!
-
Bill I remember when I came here and you were relentlessly going off about how no one will name a killer, I gave you name and you said nothing in response
I don't remember which one of the 48 shooters named in conspiracy books you mentioned. In any case, it was not likely accompanied by a plausible backstory. And LNers don't often reply to the 'same old same old' 55 year long-ago debunked crap you brainiacs keep up-chucking.
-
I don't remember which one of the 48 shooters named in conspiracy books you mentioned. In any case, it was not likely accompanied by a plausible backstory. And LNers don't often reply to the 'same old same old' 55 year long-ago debunked crap you brainiacs keep up-chucking.
How would you know what the backstory was since you never bothered to ask Seemed a bit emblematic of your true interest in looking into the question
-
Bill I remember when I came here and you were relentlessly going off about how no one will name a killer, I gave you name and you said nothing in response
You mean James Files? All the way from Chicago? Man, that was some shooting.
-
You mean James Files? All the way from Chicago? Man, that was some shooting.
I am pretty sure he claims to have taken one shot only further south down the knoll where most people put the knoll shot Whoever was hosting the show, I think it was Fetzer claimed he could even be seen in a photograph or film Yet they never bother to highlight for the viewer which was a bit ridiculous Fetzer not very good on a lot of things He believes Oswald is doorman for instance
-
I am pretty sure he claims to have taken one shot only further south down the knoll where most people put the knoll shot Whoever was hosting the show, I think it was Fetzer claimed he could even be seen in a photograph or film Yet they never bother to highlight for the viewer which was a bit ridiculous Fetzer not very good on a lot of things He believes Oswald is doorman for instance
From an April 24, 2001 e-mail to Barb Junkkarinen from Edward Epstein:
In brief, NBC retained me as a consultant for their planned story on Files. I hired the detective firm of Jules Kroll. JK established from telephone records Files was in Chicago, not Dallas, on November 22,1963. We then placed a call to Files from Dick Clark's office (DC was producer), and I interviewed Files about Kroll findings. He said he had a twin brother, who no one knew about, and whom he met shortly before November 22, and who he murdered after November 22. He said it was his twin brother in hospital with his wife, not him. His wife, however, said there was no twin, and Kroll confirmed there was no twin. My view then and now is that Files invented the story for the money it would earn him.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/files.htm
-
So the defense attorneys are arguing that the police entered the theatre and beat up Oswald without cause. For some unknown reason, the DPD had an extra pistol with them that they decided to plant on him (presumably the real murderer would have his pistol making any planting unnecessary). As a result, they knowingly let the real murderer of Tippit go free to frame Oswald. Presumably they then planted the ammo on him. They also plant a jacket since the killer was seen wearing one. Get folks to lie about what they saw etc. Fast work for the DPD to pull all this together on the fly. You have to wonder why they had it in for Oswald to the extent that they would frame him and let the real cop murderer go free. Particularly since no one is suggesting a conspiracy. LOL. And lucky for the DPD that Oswald just happened to work in the TSBD. What are the odds? So they get a two for one out of this frame up. What lunacy.
Once again, Richard makes up a whole bunch of nonsense and pretends that someone here actually said any of it.
-
Yeah, we've been waiting in vain for you brainiacs to name the 'real' killer hahaha.
Not as long as we've been waiting for you to prove that your killer did it.
-
Yeah, sure John.
Aside from that, I find it humorous (in a what-goes-around-comes-around sense) that a bald guy would be the poster boy for Bug's well-known and accurate statement that you characters 'split hairs, then split the split hairs'.
That's Bugliosi-speak for "they should blindly accept my rhetoric and mischaracterizatons of the evidence without questioning it".
-
Are you denying your baldness is a factor in all of this?
Hey, they'll pile on anything they can to call it a mountain of evidence. Thumb1:
-
I don't remember which one of the 48 shooters named in conspiracy books you mentioned.
I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.
In any case, it was not likely accompanied by a plausible backstory.
How about a plausible front story? Anyone?
And LNers don't often reply to the 'same old same old' 55 year long-ago debunked crap you brainiacs keep up-chucking.
And so your "name your shooter" rhetoric was disingenuous all along.
-
From an April 24, 2001 e-mail to Barb Junkkarinen from Edward Epstein:
In brief, NBC retained me as a consultant for their planned story on Files. I hired the detective firm of Jules Kroll. JK established from telephone records Files was in Chicago, not Dallas, on November 22,1963.
That's a good trick. How does a telephone record tell you where somebody is?
-
How would you know what the backstory was since you never bothered to ask Seemed a bit emblematic of your true interest in looking into the question
Tell me why I would ask. I've already looked into the assassination and find for the prosecution.
If you have a plausible backstory that would produce a shooter able to supplant Dirty Harvey as main suspect, then by all means post it. And if you have additional information that would reveal that someone other than the shooter knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, by all means post that as well.
-
Tell me why I would ask? I've already looked into the assassination and find for the prosecution.
Inquiring minds want to know: how exactly did you "look into" the assassination? Because we're always schooling you on the evidence.
If you have a plausible backstory that would produce a shooter able to supplant Dirty Harvey as main suspect, then by all means post it. And if you have additional information that would reveal that someone other than the shooter knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, by all means post that as well.
Let me guess though: you're under no obligation to justify him as being the main suspect in the first place. Right?
-
It is a matter of record that they had NO cause otherwise they would have issued an A.P.B. and obtained an arrest warrant, but they did neither.
The police approached a person acting suspiciously in the vicinity of a murder. They were going to question him. All Oswald had to do was explain himself like the guy in the library did when the police descended on him. Unfortunately for Oswald, he couldn't do that because he was guilty. So he assaults a police officer and gets taken in as a murder suspect due to his behavior. What you are suggesting is completely ludicrous. The DPD officers were searching for Tippit's killer. They had a general description. They were not looking for or even had a clue who Lee Harvey Oswald was until after he is arrested. They were looking for a suspicious person in the area who might be the killer. That turned out to be Oswald. The subsequent investigation confirmed he was the murderer. Case closed. Excellent police work with the assistance of some astute citizens.
-
I am pretty sure he claims to have taken one shot only further south down the knoll where most people put the knoll shot Whoever was hosting the show, I think it was Fetzer claimed he could even be seen in a photograph or film Yet they never bother to highlight for the viewer which was a bit ridiculous Fetzer not very good on a lot of things He believes Oswald is doorman for instance
Fetzer thinks he sees all sorts of things. He's is so paranoid that he thinks he's being spied on. He thought the multi-coloured, small spinning circle that appeared on his Mac screen (which happens when the OS freezes) is evidence of that. We MacHeads call it the 'spinning beachball of death' which is akin to the Microsoft 'blue screen of death' when Windows freezes..
But Fetzer is polite and nice to communicate with, at least he was with me.
-
The police approached a person acting suspiciously in the vicinity of a murder. They were going to question him. All Oswald had to do was explain himself like the guy in the library did when the police descended on him. Unfortunately for Oswald, he couldn't do that because he was guilty. So he assaults a police officer and gets taken in as a murder suspect due to his behavior. What you are suggesting is completely ludicrous. The DPD officers were searching for Tippit's killer. They had a general description. They were not looking for or even had a clue who Lee Harvey Oswald was until after he is arrested. They were looking for a suspicious person in the area who might be the killer. That turned out to be Oswald. The subsequent investigation confirmed he was the murderer. Case closed. Excellent police work with the assistance of some astute citizens.
They were not looking for or even had a clue who Lee Harvey Oswald was until after he is arrested.
Isn't it true that LNer's believe that Lee Oswald was evasive about his identity......and nobody knew if he was Hidell or Oswald ?? When did the police decide that the man that they dragged from the theater was Lee Oswald? But more important HOW did J.Edgar Hoover know that the man's name was Oswald?? Hoover had already ordered Shanklin to send FBI agent James Hosty to the Dallas police headquarters BEFORE they knew the man's name... and Shanklin told DPD Chief Jesse Curry that Hosty had been working with "these people" and knew them.
-
It hasn't been 55 years yet. Who else always rounded up? Hmmm.
'It hasn't been 55 years yet'
>LOL. You going to split hairs over 6 months Rob?
And your candidate to supplant Dirty Harvey as prime suspect is.... ?
-
'It hasn't been 55 years yet'
>LOL. You going to split hairs over 6 months Rob?
And your candidate to supplant Dirty Harvey as prime suspect is.... ?
John Edgar Hoover
-
'It hasn't been 55 years yet'
>LOL. You going to split hairs over 6 months Rob?
And your candidate to supplant Dirty Harvey as prime suspect is.... ?
Bill Maybe you could give us an idea of what kind of criteria would fit for you. Somebody with mob/atni Castro folks? Someone that was known to be involved in special ops, mob hits? Another communist? Just trying to get a picture of what you're looking for
-
Bill Maybe you could give us an idea of what kind of criteria would fit for you. Somebody with mob/atni Castro folks? Someone that was known to be involved in special ops, mob hits? Another communist? Just trying to get a picture of what you're looking for
How about somebody with a super ego who was crushed by being fired by JFK?
-
Bill Maybe you could give us an idea of what kind of criteria would fit for you. Somebody with mob/atni Castro folks? Someone that was known to be involved in special ops, mob hits? Another communist? Just trying to get a picture of what you're looking for
For you lot to name your prime suspect...
-
How about somebody with a super ego who was crushed by being fired by JFK?
Who was that?
-
The police approached a person acting suspiciously in the vicinity of a murder. They were going to question him.
You don't "question" somebody by ordering him on his feet and attempting an illegal search. Looking "funny" to a shoe salesman does not constitute "probable cause".
All Oswald had to do was explain himself like the guy in the library did when the police descended on him.
Sure, blame the victim.
Unfortunately for Oswald, he couldn't do that because he was guilty.
There you go again, just assuming the thing you're supposed to be proving.
So he assaults a police officer
You have that backwards. The illegal search was an assault on Oswald. He was defending himself.
and gets taken in as a murder suspect due to his behavior.
What evidence did they have to arrest him for murder? Looking "funny" to a shoe salesman?
What you are suggesting is completely ludicrous. The DPD officers were searching for Tippit's killer. They had a general description.
The description that Postal gave the police dispatcher was nothing like the description that the 10th and Patton witnesses gave. So why would the police consider this man a "suspect"?
They were not looking for or even had a clue who Lee Harvey Oswald was until after he is arrested. They were looking for a suspicious person in the area who might be the killer. That turned out to be Oswald. The subsequent investigation confirmed he was the murderer. Case closed. Excellent police work with the assistance of some astute citizens.
The subsequent investigation confirmed nothing of the kind. But even if it did, are you saying the ends justify the means? Civil rights exist for a reason.
-
So he chatted with Bill Chapman? Why?
His amazing wit and charm, no doubt.
-
How about somebody with a super ego who was crushed by being fired by JFK?
That is exactly what RFK Jr said today.........
Pointing a finger at Gen Charles Cabell and his brother Earle*
Trump again reneged on his promise to open all the files.
June 6 2018
As seen on Tucker Carlson Tonight
Tucker Carlson spoke with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about President Donald Trump's decision to continue to keep official documents about his uncle's assassination under lock and key from the public.
President John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 as he rode in a motorcade through Dallas. Lee Harvey Oswald was implicated in the murder before also being killed, by nightclub owner Jack Ruby.
Robert Kennedy said he shared Carlson's "mystification" as to why Trump decided to continue to keep the files private until the next possible publication date in 2021.
"What possible national security interest could be served at this point?" Carlson asked.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/06/06/robert-f-kennedy-jr-reacts-donald-trump-keeping-jfk-assassination-documents-hidden-until
Until 2023?
*Here is the first major revelation from the historic release of previously withheld government records on the JFK Assassination: the mayor of Dallas when President John F. Kennedy was killed in that city was a CIA asset.
https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/08/02/dallas-mayor-jfk-assassination-cia-asset/
-
Acting suspiciously? To whom? Was it Postal as first claimed? Or the mysterious usher as it was secondly claimed? Or was it Brewer as finally claimed because he saw a man supposedly "ducking, running and looking funny"?
In the vicinity? The JDT murder scene was six blocks away for goodness sake.
Question him? Why? Is it in the police manual that supposed cop killers like to take in a movie afterwards? 🍿
That's it. It's all over now.
Poor dumb cop.
...poor dumb Caprio.
-
You don't "question" somebody by ordering him on his feet and attempting an illegal search. Looking "funny" to a shoe salesman does not constitute "probable cause".
Sure, blame the victim.
There you go again, just assuming the thing you're supposed to be proving.
You have that backwards. The illegal search was an assault on Oswald. He was defending himself.
What evidence did they have to arrest him for murder? Looking "funny" to a shoe salesman?
The description that Postal gave the police dispatcher was nothing like the description that the 10th and Patton witnesses gave. So why would the police consider this man a "suspect"?
The subsequent investigation confirmed nothing of the kind. But even if it did, are you saying the ends justify the means? Civil rights exist for a reason.
The President had been assassinated. A police officer had just been murdered. Brewer, an alert citizen, was instrumental in closing the dragnet on the current prime suspect. Today, Homeland security asks citizens today in their 'See/Say' campaign (and like Jesse Curry asked citizens in a filmed announcement at the outset of the manhunt, to report any persons who seem to be acting suspiciously). Brewer himself was afraid to follow the (to him) suspiciously-acting character in the store window, since he might be armed, but did so anyway.
Funny haha or funny strange, John?
Brewer also said the guy he saw in his window look scared.
I was stopped by police and questioned while walking down the street one day. They asked me what I was doing, saying a blonde man was seen breaking into a house (but ran away). The catch was that I'm not blonde. My point is that the DPD were stopping practically anyone who was out on the street. After all, they wouldn't know at that point whether there were other shooters involved, and might have been on the run. And innocent persons would want to cooperate one would think.
"The illegal search was an assault on Oswald. He was defending himself"
>>>You weren't there... Brewer was, and testified that Oswald threw the first punch.
Now is this where you tell us what Brewer saw or didn't see, John?
Or is he just a liar, like anyone who disagrees with you?
Tell us why Oswald would resist if he was innocent.
Oswald served up his guilt on a silver platter the moment he threw that punch.
Mr. BELIN - Who hit who first?
Mr. BREWER - Oswald hit McDonald first, and he knocked him to the seat.
Mr. BELIN - Who knocked who?
Mr. BREWER - He knocked McDonald down. McDonald fell against one of the seats. And then real quick he was back up.
Mr. BELIN - When you say he was----
Mr. BREWER - McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.
-
That is exactly what RFK Jr said today.........
Pointing a finger at Gen Charles Cabell and his brother Earle*
Trump again reneged on his promise to open all the files.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/06/06/robert-f-kennedy-jr-reacts-donald-trump-keeping-jfk-assassination-documents-hidden-until
Until 2023?
*https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/08/02/dallas-mayor-jfk-assassination-cia-asset/
2021
RFK Jr. is promoting his new book. He brings up the removal of the limo windshield as something people should know about, as if that's been held back, LOL
-
You mean James Files? All the way from Chicago? Man, that was some shooting.
Maybe he means one of the 48 shooters on the knoll disguised as foliage, trees and branches.
-
So he chatted with Bill Chapman? Why?
Why do you assume Fetzer chatted with me? Try to absorb what you read, for a change.
-
Inquiring minds want to know: how exactly did you "look into" the assassination? Because we're always schooling you on the evidence.
Let me guess though: you're under no obligation to justify him as being the main suspect in the first place. Right?
While you and your brainiac friends were 'schooling' each other at your confirmation bias convention I was in the cafeteria eating your lunch.
Tell us why I should feel obligated to prove anything to a paid troll
Ah, Oswald probably did it
Can you name someone else who probably did it?
What, too soon?
-
While you and your brainiac friends were 'schooling' each other at your confirmation bias convention I was in the cafeteria eating your lunch.
Tell us why I should feel obligated to prove anything to a paid troll
Ah, Oswald probably did it
Can you name someone else who probably did it?
What, too soon?
Rules of the Forum.
"Name calling, petty false allegations and personal insults towards fellow members of this Forum, when reported or observed, may carry (a to be determined on an individual basis) ban from posting on the Forum. "
Surely calling somebody a paid troll falls into the above category. I hope Mr Iacoletti complains.
-
Acting suspiciously? To whom? Was it Postal as first claimed? Or the mysterious usher as it was secondly claimed? Or was it Brewer as finally claimed because he saw a man supposedly "ducking, running and looking funny"?
In the vicinity? The JDT murder scene was six blocks away for goodness sake.
Question him? Why? Is it in the police manual that supposed cop killers like to take in a movie afterwards? 🍿
This is real simple. The police got a call that a man had just snuck into a movie theatre a few blocks away from the murder scene. He was acting suspiciously enough to be reported by a citizen to the police who then responded. No great mystery. And Oswald was a whole six blocks away!!! LOL. I guess when the police are looking for a murderer they should keep the search to less than six blocks. He could have crawled that distance on his hands and knees in the timeframe. Wow. That may be the single dumbest thing you have said in a long while which is saying a great deal. Sheer lunacy. The police are not supposed to question an individual acting suspiciously in the vicinity of a murder? Posts like this one lead me to believe Caprio is just trying to extend the discussion. He can't possibly believe any of his nonsense has validity.
-
Rules of the Forum.
"Name calling, petty false allegations and personal insults towards fellow members of this Forum, when reported or observed, may carry (a to be determined on an individual basis) ban from posting on the Forum. "
Surely calling somebody a paid troll falls into the above category. I hope Mr Iacoletti complains.
Boo-hoo.
I have software called 'Little Snitch' which alerts me to programs that are trying to 'call home' (so to speak).
Are you a little snitch, Ray?
Feel free to call me names, it's fun.. and feel free to name your replacement shooter for Dirty Harvey as prime suspect.
-
Boo-hoo.
I have software called 'Little Snitch' which alerts me to programs that are trying to 'call home' (so to speak).
Just 'cos your paranoid doesn't meant there not out to get you, eh, Bill.
Are you a little snitch, Ray?
No I just don't like uncalled for insults.
Feel free to call me names, it's fun.. and feel free to name your replacement shooter for Dirty Harvey as prime suspect.
You could be nice if you ever grow up, and you really tried..
-
The President had been assassinated. A police officer had just been murdered. Brewer, an alert citizen, was instrumental in closing the dragnet on the current prime suspect. Today, Homeland security asks citizens today in their 'See/Say' campaign (and like Jesse Curry asked citizens in a filmed announcement at the outset of the manhunt, to report any persons who seem to be acting suspiciously).
Great. Does Homeland Security then proceed to beat them up and arrest them for murder on that basis?
Brewer himself was afraid to follow the (to him) suspiciously-acting character in the store window, since he might be armed, but did so anyway.
Really? Has Brewer ever said that?
Funny haha or funny strange, John?
Brewer also said the guy he saw in his window look scared.
Perhaps you'd care to explain what that even means and how it signifies that he just murdered a cop?
I was stopped by police and questioned while walking down the street one day. They asked me what I was doing, saying a blonde man was seen breaking into a house (but ran away). The catch was that I'm not blonde. My point is that the DPD were stopping practically anyone who was out on the street.
Cool. Did they try to search you, then beat you up and arrest you for murder?
"The illegal search was an assault on Oswald. He was defending himself"
>>>You weren't there... Brewer was, and testified that Oswald threw the first punch.
Now is this where you tell us what Brewer saw or didn't see, John?
I said "assault", not punch. But why is Brewer your go-to guy? He was clear across the darkened theater on the stage. Hutson, who was right behind them said it was too dark to tell who hit who first.
Tell us why Oswald would resist if he was innocent.
Are you in the habit of letting yourself be searched for no legal reason? Can I come over and search you and your house? Or do you have something to hide?
-
While you and your brainiac friends were 'schooling' each other at your confirmation bias convention I was in the cafeteria eating your lunch.
If by "eating your lunch", you mean repeating "poor dumb cop" over and over again like a crazed bag lady, then I suppose you were.
Tell us why I should feel obligated to prove anything to a paid troll
Translation: you are unable to justify why you think Oswald probably did it, but you believe it anyway. And a lousy bluffer to boot.
-
The police are not supposed to question an individual acting suspiciously in the vicinity of a murder?
The police can talk to whoever they like. Illegally search, beat up, and arrest for murder? Not so much.
-
The police can talk to whoever they like. Illegally search, beat up, and arrest for murder? Not so much.
Oswald made an arrest legal by taking the first punch (as Brewer testified). No one had a clue if he had shot anyone at that point (if some did, by all means do post that info).
Try to keep up: The police were dispatched to cover all reports of suspicious-looking activity as seen
by alert citizens. It was a manhunt, FFS.
-
Oswald made an arrest legal by taking the first punch (as Brewer testified). No one had a clue if he had shot anyone at that point (if some did, by all means do post that info).
Try to keep up: The police were dispatched to cover all reports of suspicious-looking activity as seen
by alert citizens. It was a manhunt, FFS.
Oswald made an arrest legal by taking the first punch (as Brewer testified).
Are you nuts?.....This doesn't even make sense. According to you feeble brains you believe Lee didn't hesitate to shoot JD Tippit...But when he was approached by Mc Ducky he merely punched him in the nose when he could shot him easier than JD Tippit had been shot.
-
Not only that...but 'Ole McDonald said he grabbed Oswald around the waist [in the Dallas Morning News] Like ...do you want to dance?
-
Oswald made an arrest legal by taking the first punch (as Brewer testified).
They didn't arrest him for "taking the first punch" -- they arrested him for murder. And the check boxes on the arrest report for "fought", "resisted", and for "officer injured" are not checked.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/lho-arrest-report.png)
-
They didn't arrest him for "taking the first punch" -- they arrested him for murder. And the check boxes on the arrest report for "fought", "resisted", and for "officer injured" are not checked.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/lho-arrest-report.png)
the check boxes on the arrest report for "fought", "resisted", and for "officer injured" are not checked.
Thank you for posting this.....Very interesting.....
-
Do I understand that report correctly?
It states that at 1:40 PM on Nov 22, 1963 Oswald was arrested for the murder of John Kennedy at the Texas Theater?
???
-
That is indeed what it states.
-
That is indeed what it states.
Also...word was passed [according to witnesses] to an angry mob who shouted stuff as Oswald was hauled out of the theater like 'Hang the SOB' and 'Kill the president will you!?'.
-
Do I understand that report correctly?
It states that at 1:40 PM on Nov 22, 1963 Oswald was arrested for the murder of John Kennedy at the Texas Theater?
???
No, you do not understand it correctly.
-
Also...word was passed [according to witnesses] to an angry mob who shouted stuff as Oswald was hauled out of the theater like 'Hang the SOB' and 'Kill the president will you!?'.
Have you seen video or photos of Lee being dragged from the theater?..... Do those images validate the police stories of the crowd being an "angry mob"?
The images that I've seen, show a curious or bewildered crowd..... They all seem to be standing back and wondering " What the hell is going on"?
-
a new state historical marker outside the Texas Theatre in Oak Cliff.
The inscription on the marker says, in part: ?On November 22, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald was apprehended inside the auditorium for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, propelling the Texas Theatre into the international spotlight.?
They took it down and changed it since [I think]
Mr. BELIN - You saw the gun up in the air?
Mr. BREWER - And somebody hollered "He's got a gun."
And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him, and he was fighting, still fighting, and I heard some of the police holler, I don't know who it was, "Kill the President, will you." And I saw fists flying and they were hitting him.
Julia Postal statement to the WC
Mrs. POSTAL. They said, "What is going on?" And someone said, "Suspect," and they started in this way, just about that time I got out to the box office, back to the box office, and they stared screaming profuse language and----"Kill the so-and-so," and trying to get to him
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/0d/46/b1/0d46b18faa700e9c6ed81fa80c4b880a.jpg)
-
They took it down and changed it since [I think]
Julia Postal statement to the WC
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/0d/46/b1/0d46b18faa700e9c6ed81fa80c4b880a.jpg)
Mrs. POSTAL. They said, "What is going on?" And someone said, "Suspect," and they started in this way, just about that time I got out to the box office, back to the box office, and they stared screaming profuse language and----"Kill the so-and-so," and trying to get to him.
Of course you are entirely free to believe whatever ...... But you should keep in mind that the Warren Commission was nothing but a cover up committee. They extracted statements from witnesses that fit their agenda.
We could argue about Mrs Postal's awareness of what was happening.... I believe that she was as befuddled as the crowd outside the theater.....She said," someone said, "Suspect," Suspect??? What's that supposed mean?
And the photos that were taken at the time do not support her statement...... "they stared screaming profuse language and----"Kill the so-and-so," and trying to get to him."
-
That's right Jerry - the word was out
this was the guy and he was in the TT
How did J.Edgar Hoover know BEFORE the police arrived at the theater? Three of Hoover's "Extra Special " agents were in the theater when the police arrived.
-
This is real simple -- who called the police? Postal said that she had no idea that a police officer had been shot UNTIL the police arrived. Yet Brewer claimed that she called the police.
Mr. BELIN - Julia Postal is the cashier?
Mr. BREWER - Yes; and she called the police...
She didn't even see LHO enter the TT, so why would she call the police?
Oh boy. The police are roaring up and down the street in front of the theatre (which is why Postal is not in her ticket booth) on the day the president has been shot a short distance away. Postal is told by Brewer that a suspicious man who appeared to be trying to avoid detection has snuck into the theatre. So she calls the police to report it. Why would she need to know about the murder of a police officer in this scenario? Crazy nonsense. If Oswald had nothing to do with this, he would have explained himself and gone on his merry way like the guy at the library. Instead he assaults a police officer and gets himself arrested.
-
Do I understand that report correctly?
It states that at 1:40 PM on Nov 22, 1963 Oswald was arrested for the murder of John Kennedy at the Texas Theater?
???
So your fantasy conspirators rushed to write a meaningless arrest report before Oswald was arrested that risked their discovery. Somehow they knew in advance the exact location Oswald would be arrested and the name of the arresting officers even though there were a multitude of DPD officers looking for the suspect. How does this advance their cause? Particularly if, as many kooks allege, the plan was to kill rather than arrest Oswald?
How about the time on the report is an estimate of the arrest time and/or perhaps tied to the time of the incoming call that led to Oswald's arrest? The first incident leading to Oswald's arrest. And information was added to the report as it became known. Which seems more likely to you?
-
Oh boy. The police are roaring up and down the street in front of the theatre (which is why Postal is not in her ticket booth) on the day the president has been shot a short distance away. Postal is told by Brewer that a suspicious man who appeared to be trying to avoid detection has snuck into the theatre. So she calls the police to report it. Why would she need to know about the murder of a police officer in this scenario? Crazy nonsense. If Oswald had nothing to do with this, he would have explained himself and gone on his merry way like the guy at the library. Instead he assaults a police officer and gets himself arrested.
2 guys in suits told the cops as soon as they arrived at the library that Hamby wasn't their man.
What exactly do you think Oswald needed to explain? Why a shoe salesman thought he was in front of the shoe store and looked funny? Is that a crime in Dallas?
-
So your fantasy conspirators rushed to write a meaningless arrest report before Oswald was arrested that risked their discovery.
Here we go again with the "fantasy conspirators" strawman. Do you have any evidence at all that Oswald was arrested for something other than for the murders of Kennedy and Tippit and assault to murder of Connelly?
-
How did J.Edgar Hoover know BEFORE the police arrived at the theater? Three of Hoover's "Extra Special " agents were in the theater when the police arrived.
False.
-
Mr. BELIN - You saw the gun up in the air?
Mr. BREWER - And somebody hollered "He's got a gun."
And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him, and he was fighting, still fighting, and I heard some of the police holler, I don't know who it was, "Kill the President, will you." And I saw fists flying and they were hitting him.
Guys re-read the statement [is it shoe sales guy?]
I just call it like I see it right from the Commission's own report.
If Brewer was lying about what the police said then why isn't his whole statement thrown out too?
The Keystone Cops screwed up. They were incompetent and this all proves it.
Oswald pulls a gun and McDonald starts dancing with him?
I agree with Walt on this..something fishy was going on in the Tex Theater before the Dallas Police arrived to get their man >:(
-
Or he was paid for his time like an interview.
Where did I say I interviewed him or actually spoke to him? I said he was polite, and nice to communicate with.
-
Here we go again with the "fantasy conspirators" strawman. Do you have any evidence at all that Oswald was arrested for something other than for the murders of Kennedy and Tippit and assault to murder of Connelly?
I'll go with resisting arrest for starters.
-
the check boxes on the arrest report for "fought", "resisted", and for "officer injured" are not checked.
Thank you for posting this.....Very interesting.....
LOL
Neither are any of the other boxes, dummy.
-
Poor dumb Chapman as he believes in things with NO supporting evidence. In other words, he believes in fairytales. He must be a big fan of Disney.
Poor dumb Caprio keeps running polls involving LNers and keeps getting outscored by wide margins... and proceeds to write that reality that off as the voting LNers simply not being honest. If that's not the sign of dangerous, rampant narcissistic behaviour requiring immediate psychiatric assistance, then shut my mouth and call me mute.
-
What exactly do you think Oswald needed to explain? Why a shoe salesman thought he was in front of the shoe store and looked funny? Is that a crime in Dallas?
You're finally piecing this together.
Yep, Saint Oz needed to explain why a shoe salesman thought he was ducking the cops.
Turns out the shoe salesman was correct in his suspicions.
So Saint Oz made the very poor decision to throw a punch and pull his gun.
Which resulted in him getting his face caved in and arrested.
Kudos to the alert shoe salesman, Johnny Brewer.
Looking funny isn't a crime. If it was, you'd have been locked up a long time ago.
-
And isn't there some detail of the story that one of the policemen were able to get their fingers on the pistol and jammed it or he, Oswald would have shot someone.
-
I agree with Walt on this..something fishy was going on in the Tex Theater before the Dallas Police arrived to get their man >:(
From the testimony of George Applin [Texas Theater witness]......
Mr. BALL - Okay, fine, that is all, Mr. Applin.
Mr. APPLIN - But, there is one thing puzzling me.
Mr. BALL - What is that?
Mr. APPLIN - And I don't even know if it has any bearing on the case, but there was one guy sitting in the back row right there where I was standing at, and I said to him, I said, "Buddy, you'd better move. There is a gun." And he says--just sat there. [but what did he say?]
He was just back like this. Just like this. Just watching.
Mr. BALL - Just watching the show?
Mr. APPLIN - No; I don't think he could have seen the show. Just sitting just like this, just looking at me.
Mr. BALL - Did you know the man?
Mr. APPLIN - No; I didn't.
Mr. BALL - Ever seen him since?
Mr. APPLIN - No, sir; didn't. I tapped him on the shoulder and said, "Buddy, you'd better move," and---- [redacted]?
Mr. BALL - Were you scared?
Mr. APPLIN - Well, when I seen the gun I was.
Mr. BALL - Did you tell the police officer about this man?
Mr. APPLIN - No, sir; at the time, I didn't think about it, but I did tell--I didn't even think about it when I went before the Secret Service man, but I did tell one of the FBI men about it.
Mr. BALL - Okay. I guess that is all...............................
What really 'puzzled' Mr Applin? What did the guy say to Mr Applin that wasn't entered or redacted?
Why did Mr Applin think the guy 'couldn't have seen the show'? Why did Ball ask Applin if he reported the man to the police? Why did Applin feel compelled to tell the FBI about this person?
-
On November 22, 1963, Warren "Butch" Burroughs, who ran the concession stand at the Texas Theatre where Oswald was arrested, said that Oswald came into the theater between 1:00 and 1:07 pm; he also claimed he sold Oswald popcorn at 1:15 p.m.. Julie Postal told the Warren Commission that Burroughs initially told her the same thing although he later denied this.
Theatre patron, Jack Davis, also corroborated Burroughs' time, claiming he observed Oswald in the theatre prior to 1:20 pm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Theatre#CITEREFDouglass2010
Video of Burroughs....
No one who truly understands what it really is can be taken in by it. Yet the individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst.
J Edgar Hoover
-
"No one who truly understands what it really is can be taken in by it. Yet the individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst". J Edgar Hoover
In the above Hoover was referring to JFK and Martin Luther King ....... In his insanity he believed that JFK was a communist and a subversive who was ruining the country..... And he was the loyal patriot who would destroy that "evil" and save the nation from the likes of the Kennedy brothers..
Who would have been more aware that Americans could be duped by an enormous unbelievable conspiracy that John Edgar Hoover....
-
Ah, because YOU wrote this.
"But Fetzer is polite and nice to communicate with, at least he was with me." -- Bill Chapman
Try to remember what you actually write.
I know exactly what I wrote and meant. Try to understand what you read.
But Fetzer is polite and nice to communicate with, at least he was with me.
> Yes, he was polite and nice to communicate with when we exchanged posts. If he actually was with me, I would have said 'when he was with me'
-
I know exactly what I wrote and meant. Try to understand what you read.
But Fetzer is polite and nice to communicate with, at least he was with me.
> Yes, he was polite and nice to communicate with when we exchanged posts. If he actually was with me, I would have said 'when he was with me'
Caprio still has no idea how to comprehend what he reads.
-
Just 'cos your paranoid doesn't meant there not out to get you, eh, Bill
Typical response of a lamer (average consumer, non-techie)... no knowledge on how to protect oneself online... or even aware of the danger that exists.
Not being security aware and therefore not knowing how to take preemptive action is tantamount to leaving your front door wide open. Well, 'get the fck off my lawn' is my response to hackers, in the form of front-end countermeasures like Little Snitch.
-
Different day, same diatribe from you. The power behind the conspiracy didn't/doesn't care what a small number of people figure out. Their lies work because the majority of people want to be lied to in the final analysis.
As I have said before many times, the frame in Dallas was a rush job. Had he been killed in Tampa, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, and who knows how many other places, LHO would never have been needed, thus, the frame is far from perfect.
This is easy. You are not talking about a rush job but Nostradamus-like knowledge of future events. Did your fantasy conspirators have a crystal ball that enabled them to know prior to Oswald's arrest both the location that Oswald would be arrested and the names/ID numbers of the arresting officers? If you believe the arrest report and all the information it contains was written at 1:40 prior to Oswald's arrest, then that is what you must account for whether you like it not. How would anyone know when and by whom Oswald would be arrested in advance when many police officers were looking for the suspect? Again, what would be the rush to write such a report and risk detection for having prior knowledge of Oswald as a suspect? There doesn't appear to be any conspiracy-related advantage and many obvious disadvantages to do so. Your failure to even attempt an explanation should be a clue that what you are suggesting is ridiculous.
-
You're finally piecing this together.
Yep, Saint Oz needed to explain why a shoe salesman thought he was ducking the cops.
Turns out the shoe salesman was correct in his suspicions.
So Saint Oz made the very poor decision to throw a punch and pull his gun.
Which resulted in him getting his face caved in and arrested.
Kudos to the alert shoe salesman, Johnny Brewer.
Looking funny isn't a crime. If it was, you'd have been locked up a long time ago.
It's hopeless with these kooks. Oswald was reported by a citizen as acting suspiciously in the vicinity, both in time and place, to a murder. In addition, he has snuck into a movie theatre without buying a ticket (i.e. committed a crime). As a result, the police had reasonable grounds to question him on that basis. Given that they were looking for a murder suspect, they had every reason to approach him as a potentially dangerous individual. He may or may not have turned out to be their suspect but for their own protection they have to proceed with caution which they fortunately did. Oswald's reaction in assaulting a police officer provides ample grounds to take him into custody. Whether that arrest is attributed to assaulting a police officer or murder per se is a pedantic distinction at that point. Oswald's behavior has provided grounds to take him into custody. It also provides grounds to suspect he is their murder suspect. The subsequent investigation confirms he is their murder suspect. Thus, after the fact, it is reasonable to deem the arrest as being for murder even if the arresting officers at that moment would not have been 100% certain Oswald was their guy and were taking him into custody primarily for his assault on a police officer.
-
Typical response of a lamer (average consumer, non-techie)... no knowledge on how to protect oneself online... or even aware of the danger that exists.
Not being security aware and therefore not knowing how to take preemptive action is tantamount to leaving your front door wide open. Well, 'get the fck off my lawn' is my response to hackers, in the form of front-end countermeasures like Little Snitch.
How old are you, Bill? Grow up for goodness sake.
-
Caprio still has no idea how to comprehend what he reads.
It takes a special kind of crazy to come up with what these crackpots upchuck...
-
How old are you, Bill? Grow up for goodness sake.
Another non-answer... nice dodge
-
They didn't arrest him for "taking the first punch" -- they arrested him for murder. And the check boxes on the arrest report for "fought", "resisted", and for "officer injured" are not checked.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/lho-arrest-report.png)
Go and punch a cop and see if you don't get a ride downtown.
None of the other boxes in that section are checked either. That's left for nerdy office guys in glasses to get all uppity & anal about.
-
You're finally piecing this together.
Yep, Saint Oz needed to explain why a shoe salesman thought he was ducking the cops.
Turns out the shoe salesman was correct in his suspicions.
So Saint Oz made the very poor decision to throw a punch and pull his gun.
Which resulted in him getting his face caved in and arrested.
Kudos to the alert shoe salesman, Johnny Brewer.
Looking funny isn't a crime. If it was, you'd have been locked up a long time ago.
Notice how PaidToPostJohnny keeps reminding us that Brewer is a shoe salesman.
Guess he can't get over the fact that this particular shoe salesman 'fingered' his hero
-
The problem I have with the encounter with Oswald in the Texas Theater is the way he was approached by the DPD, and specifically, McDonald.
If they believed that Oswald was the killer of Tippet, and also possilby the JFK assassin, it would seem to me they would have had guns drawn, pointing at the suspect and yelling at him to place his hands on his head and dont move BEFORE any DPD ever get close to him.
-
The problem I have with the encounter with Oswald in the Texas Theater is the way he was approached by the DPD, and specifically, McDonald.
If they believed that Oswald was the killer of Tippet, and also possilby the JFK assassin, it would seem to me they would have had guns drawn, pointing at the suspect and yelling at him to place his hands on his head and dont move BEFORE any DPD ever get close to him.
They may have been trying to avoid provoking a gun battle in a movie theatre. By checking others and approaching Oswald indirectly, they tried to momentarily fool him into hoping that maybe they were not on to him or might by pass him. That gave them a chance to close the distance. They also were not 100% certain he was their murder suspect. At that point he is a guy behaving suspiciously in the vicinity of the crime. Certainly worth checking out and being cautious with. In all likelihood they were going to question him, search him, and make an assessment as to whether to take him in. Oswald makes it all moot by assaulting a police officer and having a pistol on him. After that he is going into custody as their murder suspect.
-
The problem I have with the encounter with Oswald in the Texas Theater is the way he was approached by the DPD, and specifically, McDonald.
If they believed that Oswald was the killer of Tippet, and also possilby the JFK assassin, it would seem to me they would have had guns drawn, pointing at the suspect and yelling at him to place his hands on his head and dont move BEFORE any DPD ever get close to him.
They may have been trying to avoid provoking a gun battle in a movie theatre. By checking others and approaching Oswald indirectly, they tried to momentarily fool him into hoping that maybe they were not on to him or might by pass him. That gave them a chance to close the distance. They also were not 100% certain he was their murder suspect. At that point he is a guy behaving suspiciously in the vicinity of the crime. Certainly worth checking out and being cautious with. In all likelihood they were going to question him, search him, and make an assessment as to whether to take him in. Oswald makes it all moot by assaulting a police officer and having a pistol on him. After that he is going into custody as their murder suspect.
That's right. In my opinion, McDonald handled the situation perfectly; give the suspect a false sense of security so that you can get closer to him before guns are drawn.
-
You and Chapman are the ones with the comprehension problems as I never said Chapman was with Fetzer. He built a strawman to try and hide the fact that he said too much.
I have never heard of Bill Chapman in the JFK research community so why would Fetzer talk to him?
Still having those reading comprehension problems, I see.
Quote Bill Chapman ever saying that Fetzer talked to him.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/ZCT0qig.jpg)
-
That's right. In my opinion, McDonald handled the situation perfectly; give the suspect a false sense of security so that you can get closer to him before guns are drawn.
LOL
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/riot%20gun.jpg)
-
LOL
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/riot%20gun.jpg)
Unrelated to McDonald successfully giving Oswald a false sense of security, a sense which kept Oswald from drawing his revolver and having a shootout in a theater full of innocent patrons.
-
Mr. McDONALD - Well, after seeing him, I noticed the other people in the theater--there was approximately 10 or 15 other people seated throughout the theater. There were two men sitting in the center, about 10 rows from the front.
I walked up the left center aisle into the row behind these two men, and Officer C. T. Walker was behind me. When I got to these two men, I told them to get on their feet. They got up. I searched them for a weapon.
I looked over my shoulder and the suspect that had been pointed out to me. He remained seated without moving, just looking at me.
Mr. BALL - Why did you frisk these two men in the center of the theater?
Mr. McDONALD - I wanted to make sure that I didn't pass anything or miss anybody. I wanted to make sure I didn't overlook anybody or anything.
Mr. BALL - And you still kept your eye on the suspect?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir. He was to my back. I was looking over my shoulder at him.
Mr. BALL - Was he sitting nearest the right or the left aisle as you came in?
Mr. McDONALD - The right center aisle. He was in the second seat.
Mr. BALL - What did you do then?
Mr. McDONALD - After I was satisfied that these two men were not armed or had a weapon on them, I walked out of this row, up to the right center aisle toward the suspect. And as I walked up there, just at a normal gait, I didn't look directly at him, but I kept my eye on him and any other persons. And to my left was another man and I believe a woman was with him. But he was further back than the suspect.
And just as I got to the row where the suspect was sitting, I stopped abruptly, and turned in and told him to get on his feet.
-
Another non-answer... nice dodge
What was the question, Bill?
-
You can't resist arrest if there is no legal reason for the arrest. The DPD had no legal right to arrest LHO, therefore, he was defending himself. I have cited numerous court rulings on this.
If you allow the police to arrest people for no reason then you no longer live in a free country.
You can't resist arrest if there is no legal reason for the arrest. The DPD had no legal right to arrest LHO, therefore, he was defending himself. I have cited numerous court rulings on this.
If you allow the police to arrest people for no reason then you no longer live in a free country.
This is the best post I've seen posted in a long time....
-
You can't resist arrest if there is no legal reason for the arrest. The DPD had no legal right to arrest LHO, therefore, he was defending himself. I have cited numerous court rulings on this.
If you allow the police to arrest people for no reason then you no longer live in a free country.
This is the best post I've seen posted in a long time....
Not quite as good as your Red Rings beauty, but right up there.
-
You can't resist arrest if there is no legal reason for the arrest. The DPD had no legal right to arrest LHO, therefore, he was defending himself. I have cited numerous court rulings on this.
If you allow the police to arrest people for no reason then you no longer live in a free country.
This is the best post I've seen posted in a long time....
Good, now I know I can go to the movies and just walk in without paying. :D
-
Good, now I know I can go to the movies and just walk in without paying. :D
This is the best part when all the crackpots get tired of playing forensic pathologist they then either become experts in law and or police work.
-
Not quite as good as your Red Rings beauty, but right up there.
Gee Whiz Howie.....I'm obligated to thank you for reminding the folks that there were seven red rings in the windows of the TSBD that afternoon..... Can you present a rational and logical reason for those red rings being there....
Oh, never mind Howie.... Asking you for a rational answer is akin to askin my dog.....
-
Cite your evidence for LHO not paying for a movie ticket.
Eyewitness Brewer:
https://www.jfk-assassination.eu/warren/wch/vol7/page4.php
-
Eyewitness Brewer:
https://www.jfk-assassination.eu/warren/wch/vol7/page4.php
If Brewer knew that Oswald hadn't bought a ticket, why did he ask Postal if she had sold him one?
-
If he was so sure that LHO had not purchased a ticket, why did he bother to ask Postal about it?
Mr. BELIN - If he had purchased a ticket, would you have seen him purchasing the ticket from where you were standing or walking?
Mr. BREWER - I could have seen him, yes; standing in front of the box office.
Mr. BELIN - Then did you know when you saw him walk in and when you walked up to Julia Postal that he had not bought a ticket?
Mr. BREWER - I knew that he hadn't.
Mr. BELIN - Why did you ask Julia Postal whether he had or hadn't?
Mr. BREWER - I don't know.
This seems odd. Furthermore, Brewer is a doubtful witness since there were two versions before his.
None of this precludes LHO from having purchased a ticket ahead of time either. Did anyone bother to check on this?
Is it normal to send 15 cops because of this? Do the police respond like this if someone gets on a train without purchasing a ticket?
Now, cite other examples of the police arresting someone for not paying for a movie ticket.
For all Johnny Brewer knew Lee could have bought a ticket prior to seeing him looking over the shoes in Brewers window.... Recall that Lee was concerned about June needing new shoes....He may have stepped down the street to look at the shoes in the window after buying a ticket.....
-
Why do people constantly state that the police were dispatched to the theater because a man didn't buy a ticket.
-
Why do you constantly ask me to explain why "the conspirators" would do this or do that, but I can't tell you since they have never filled me in.
What we do know is that LHO was NOT arrested at 1:40 p.m. and that there is NO supporting evidence for the WC claims that he killed JFK and JDT, thus, they could not know that he killed them that fast. End of story.
Again, real simple. Try to break out of your canned responses. It is your claim that this arrest report was written at 1:40 prior to Oswald's arrest. Thus, proving a conspiracy. So how did your conspirators know in advance where and by whom Oswald would be arrested since that information is included on the report? For your claim to be true, you have to be able to provide some explanation or you are implicitly conceding that the report was written after these events occurred as that is the only way this information could be known.
-
Why do people constantly state that the police were dispatched to the theater because a man didn't buy a ticket.
The FBI was there also...for a kid sneaking into a movie?
Now how come?
Anybody?
-
The FBI was there also...for a kid sneaking into a movie?
Now how come?
Anybody?
At this point, the Texas Theater and the place JFK and Jack Tippit were killed are very close to together.
. "A cop isn't shot three miles away from where the President is shot unless there's something connected," Aynesworth observes.(6)
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100theatre.html
That would make me edgy, say if Martin Luther King Jr. was killed and a short distance away, a policeman was killed. Someone looks a bit suspicious and goes into a theater without paying? It might raised the eyebrows of some.
FBI There? I don't know, I'm sure they would be a citywide manhunt.
-
You can't resist arrest if there is no legal reason for the arrest. The DPD had no legal right to arrest LHO, therefore, he was defending himself. I have cited numerous court rulings on this.
If you allow the police to arrest people for no reason then you no longer live in a free country.
This is the best post I've seen posted in a long time....
Texas Penal code on the subject:
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-38-03.html
Specifically, subsection (b): "It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful"
And the ruling that seems to be the final word on the current state of jurisprudence on the subject, at least in Texas :
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1769045/ford-v-state/
At least, that's in 1976, affirming a 1973 decision, and referencing a similar 1970 decision. That leaves the question whether it was any different in 1963. I kinda doubt it, but you can try.
-
At this point, the Texas Theater and the place JFK and Jack Tippit were killed are very close to together.
Richard -
I've read the Reitzes stuff.
According to Dave Reitzes, Oliver Stone didn't get anything right.
However According to Reitzes, Posner, Bugliosi and all the parrots who conducted their armchair investigation...the Dallas Police got everything right within 80 minutes of the assassination.
No one [esp. the Dallas Police] is that good.
The police claimed that the arrest came based on a 'anonymous tip'.
The number of times that the police state that 'somebody told me' is ridiculous.
The "FBI" that was present at the arrest was never identified.
So how would we know if they were really FBI?
Was that "FBI" guy really the tipster?
Like 'Yeah there he is...that's the guy'
Do a search in this forum on Gerald Hill [SuperCop]
-
Richard -
I've read the Reitzes stuff.
According to Dave Reitzes, Oliver Stone didn't get anything right.
However According to Reitzes, Posner, Bugliosi and all the parrots who conducted their armchair investigation...the Dallas Police got everything right within 80 minutes of the assassination.
No one [esp. the Dallas Police] is that good.
The police claimed that the arrest came based on a 'anonymous tip'.
The number of times that the police state that 'somebody told me' is ridiculous.
The "FBI" that was present at the arrest was never identified.
So how would we know if they were really FBI?
Was that "FBI" guy really the tipster?
Like 'Yeah there he is...that's the guy'
Do a search in this forum on Gerald Hill [SuperCop]
Jerry, there were two FBI agents at the Texas Theatre when Oswald was arrested. Bardwell Odum and Robert Bartlett. They both recorded what they witnessed there in FD-302s.
-
Jerry, there were two FBI agents at the Texas Theatre when Oswald was arrested. Bardwell Odum and Robert Bartlett. They both recorded what they witnessed there in FD-302s.
Jerry, there were two FBI agents at the Texas Theatre when Oswald was arrested. Bardwell Odum and Robert Bartlett. They both recorded what they witnessed there in FD-302s.
There were THREE of J.Edgar Hoover's "Extra Special" agents in the Texas Theater BEFORE and during Lee Oswald's arrest....
They were Bardwell Odum, Robert Barrett, and Jim Swinford. These agents did not work out of the Dallas FBI office....So WHAT were they doing there BEFORE Lee Oswald was grabbed by the DPD???
-
Jerry, there were two FBI agents at the Texas Theatre when Oswald was arrested. Bardwell Odum and Robert Bartlett. They both recorded what they witnessed there in FD-302s.
There were THREE of J.Edgar Hoover's "Extra Special" agents in the Texas Theater BEFORE and during Lee Oswald's arrest....
They were Bardwell Odum, Robert Barrett, and Jim Swinford. These agents did not work out of the Dallas FBI office....So WHAT were they doing there BEFORE Lee Oswald was grabbed by the DPD???
I haven't been able to confirm that Swinford was there. Apparently, Hosty wrote in his book that Swinford was there but I can find nothing more than that. Bardwell Odum, Robert Barrett, and Jim Swinford all worked out of the Dallas FBI office.
-
I haven't been able to confirm that Swinford was there. Apparently, Hosty wrote in his book that Swinford was there but I can find nothing more than that. Bardwell Odum, Robert Barrett, and Jim Swinford all worked out of the Dallas FBI office.
Attached are memoranda fr4m SA's assigned to Dallas in headquarters city, as of 11/22/63, plus memos from RA's who were in Dallas on that day.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/F%20Disk/FBI/FBI%20Dallas%20Field%20Office%20Agents/Item%2003.pdf
Looks like James Swinford NYC? transferred to Dallas maybe [did not see the parade]
Robert Barrett [BH?] [didn't see it either].
Bardwell Odum [did not see the motorcade].
I guess they were busy doing something else?
So everybody but the Canadian Mounties and the Texas Rangers converged upon that theater in the space of 5-10 minutes.
Incredible work there.
RC....I believe he was arrested at 1:37 ??
-
So everybody but the Canadian Mounties and the Texas Rangers converged upon that theater in the space of 5-10 minutes.
Incredible work there.
Nothing incredible about it at all.
A cop had just been murdered and the President assassinated.
Most people with a brain were wondering if the killings were related.
So when the call goes out that a suspect in the cop killing might be holed up in the Texas Theater, you can bet your kook azz that law enforcement was going to swarm.
And it wasn't just law enforcement, as evidenced by the dozens of citizens that also converged in time to see Saint Oz dragged out of the theater.
KOOKS DON'T HAVE A CLUE
-
My claim? Does the arrest report not show a time of 1:40? Was he arrested at that time or not?
Real simple. The arrest report contains the location and names of the arresting officers. If it was written prior to Oswald's arrest (as you have repeatedly claimed), then how could anyone have known that information? If you accept that this information could not have been known to anyone at 1:40 because the arrest had not happened, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the arrest report was written after 1:40 and that the time notation is simply an approximation of the time of arrest. Not the time that is was written. This is not rocket science. Simply repeating over and over that 1:40 is written on the report (something that no one has disputed) doesn't advance the discussion.
-
Tim and Rob Are there any online sources for the statements of the FBI agents at the theater? I tried looking. Maybe I need to go to search engine term school
-
By law the FBI are irrelevant as they had no jurisdiction at this time.
Yeah, right, the president's been shot and the FBI have no jurisdiction.
-
Your ramblings ignore my question. Was LHO arrested at 1:40 p.m. or not?
"He alerted the theater's ticket clerk, who telephoned police[183] at about 1:40 p.m."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald
You can't prove it's not procedure to write the time of the report down. An approximation as said.
Jack Ruby doesn't have any time on his arrest report. What do we make from that?
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340104/m1/1/
-
Your ramblings ignore my question. Was LHO arrested at 1:40 p.m. or not?
Are you an automated message machine incapable of thought or reasoning? There is no dispute that Oswald was not arrested at 1:40 or that the time notion on the report says 1:40. Can you follow so far? No one is disputing that. Read that a couple of times as you are having difficulty comprehending. We are not debating that. The issue is whether the report is evidence of a conspiracy by demonstrating advance knowledge that LHO was the assassin before his arrest. Still following? Take your time.
Now here is the relevant question again, if the report was written at 1:40 - in advance of Oswald's arrest - how would the conspirators know the location of his arrest and the names of the arresting officers? Information contained in that report. The logical conclusion to be drawn from that is that the report was written at some point AFTER Oswald's arrest since it contains specific information about that event that can only become known afterwards (i.e. the name of the arresting officer). Got that? As all of that occurred after 1:40, that tells us that the time notation is not the exact time the report was written. It is likely an estimate of the time of Oswald's arrest and is off by a whole ten minutes or so! Close to the exact time that call was received leading the police to respond to the TT. The first step leading to Oswald's arrest. Do you even know who wrote the report?
-
Gee Whiz Howie.....I'm obligated to thank you for reminding the folks that there were seven red rings in the windows of the TSBD that afternoon..... Can you present a rational and logical reason for those red rings being there....
Oh, never mind Howie.... Asking you for a rational answer is akin to askin my dog.....
Dallas County Fire Code
Stop screwin' the pooch, Waldo
-
Gee Whiz Howie.....I'm obligated to thank you for reminding the folks that there were seven red rings in the windows of the TSBD that afternoon..... Can you present a rational and logical reason for those red rings being there....
Oh, never mind Howie.... Asking you for a rational answer is akin to askin my dog.....
Dallas County Fire Code
Stop screwin' the pooch, Waldo
-
Those shells again...
Under oath, Poe and Barnes did not agree on what shells were allegedly handed to Poe by Benavides.
Under oath, Dhority was not asked to identify the shell he allegedly got from Virginia Davis.
Not called, Doughty (to identify the Barbara Davis shell).
(Under oath, Hill claimed three shells were handed over)
The FBI fixed that in CE-2011, Poe (none!), Barnes (Q-74. Q-77), Dhority (Q-75), Doughty(76).
But, the marks allegedly identified were not documented. This means that there is no way the WC (or anyone else) could verify if that was pure fiction.
This becomes even more suspicious when looking at this transfer of evidence signed by Vince Drain:
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339993/m1/1/?q=css%20form (4-Hulls...)
The two shells picked by Barnes in CE-2011 are the RP shells marked "RD" but Barnes before the commission was looking for a "B". The "DO" shell would be Doughty's, and the UNMARKED then has to be the Dhority shell.
So who marked the shells "RD" and how come none of the marks "RD" and "DO" were mentioned during testimony?
Also, how come the "Dhority shell" was still unmarked on November 28?
Chain-of-possion is absolute trash on those shells.
EDIT:
BTW, in Carl Day's farcical attempt to de-confuse his earlier confusion regarding the third Carcano shell (link below) we learn that Doughty used the mark "GD". Who marked the .38 shell "DO"?
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark%3A/67531/metapth339000/m1/1/)
Fact: Dhority and Doughty positively identified each shell turned over to them by the Davis sisters.
-
Nothing incredible about it at all.
Also incredible.....your ability to peck around on a keyboard.
Congratulations on that achievement.
(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/Clapping.gif)
-
Tim and Rob Are there any online sources for the statements of the FBI agents at the theater? I tried looking. Maybe I need to go to search engine term school
Here you go Matt:
Robert Barrett: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=87&tab=page
Bardwell Odum: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=89&tab=page
-
Robert Barrett: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=87&tab=page
Bardwell Odum: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=89&tab=page
SA Barrett states that he heard Oswald -yell in a loud voice.. "Kill all the sons of 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.'es".
The first I've heard that one.
-
Here you go Matt:
Robert Barrett: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=87&tab=page
Bardwell Odum: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=89&tab=page
Thanks Tim
Barret says he arrived sometime after 2 , yet Oswald was in custody at 1.50?
-
Thanks Tim
Barret says he arrived sometime after 2 , yet Oswald was in custody at 1.50?
Where do you see that? Certainly not in his report.
-
Where do you see that? Certainly not in his report.
Third paragraph
-
Third paragraph
Nope. I don't see it. The only time reference that I see in that paragraph is "At approximately 2:00 pm, I heard..."
-
Nope. I don't see it. The only time reference that I see in that paragraph is "At approximately 2:00 pm, I heard..."
I guess your point is in the ambiguity of the term approximately? This ambiguity you seem to want to allow for would have to be ten minutes plus whatever time it took for him to get there?
-
Anybody have a log of the Dallas police dispatch from from 1.35 to 2. Or at least some the highlights, first call for a suspect at theater, or time of arrest? McAdams seems have time of arrest at 1.45
-
I guess your point is in the ambiguity of the term approximately? This ambiguity you seem to want to allow for would have to be ten minutes plus whatever time it took for him to get there?
The ambiguity is there. Your comment bewilders me.
-
Anybody have a log of the Dallas police dispatch from from 1.35 to 2. Or at least some the highlights, first call for a suspect at theater, or time of arrest? McAdams seems have time of arrest at 1.45
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes3.htm
-
Yeah, right, the president's been shot and the FBI have no jurisdiction.
The only way that the FBI would have jurisdiction is if they suspected that the killings were a part of a conspiracy. They were at the Texas Theatre as observers. Nothing more.
-
The ambiguity is there. Your comment bewilders me.
OK Tim you tell me what you believe the amount of leeway the term "approximately" merits in a context such as this If such large latitudes are to be accepted then closer questioning should be required Do you have a time of arrest at the theater? Doesn't the McAdams transcript show the Dispatcher says at 1.40 'They already have hi' in reference to the Tippit suspect?
-
Go and punch a cop and see if you don't get a ride downtown.
None of the other boxes in that section are checked either. That's left for nerdy office guys in glasses to get all uppity & anal about.
Interestingly enough, if you do a Google search for Oswald's arrest report you see it in various versions. Including one with a notation "Assault to murder off # F85954". It is also dated 11-22-63 and signed by Fritz with an additional charge that is difficult to make out but something like "1 assault to murder." I wonder if the kooks have been intentionally dishonest again by using an early version of the arrest report that was not final?
https://clickamericana.com/eras/1960s/lee-harvey-oswalds-dallas-police-info-1963
-
OK Tim you tell me what you believe the amount of leeway the term "approximately" merits in a context such as this If such large latitudes are to be accepted then closer questioning should be required Do you a time of arrest at the theater?
When someone uses the hour or half hour in their approximation, a give or take of 15 minutes seems reasonable. Some witnesses to the Tippit shooting said they heard the shots at approximately 1:00 pm. Others said approximately 1:30 pm.
Oswald was arrested at 1:50 pm, give or take a minute or two.
-
Doesn't the McAdams transcript show the Dispatcher says at 1.40 'They already have hi' in reference to the Tippit suspect?
"No, that wasn't the right one. (1:44 p.m.)"
-
When someone uses the hour or half hour in their approximation, a give or take of 15 minutes seems reasonable. Some witnesses to the Tippit shooting said they heard the shots at approximately 1:00 pm. Others said approximately 1:30 pm.
Oswald was arrested at 1:50 pm, give or take a minute or two.
What does the dispatcher saying they already got him at 1.40 signify?
In terms of reasonable approximations It depends on the context, in a court setting I would suggest no more than five
-
Thanks Tim
Barret says he arrived sometime after 2 , yet Oswald was in custody at 1.50?
Show us where Barrett said 'sometime after 2'
Pretty sure he said 'approximately' 2
You wouldn't happen to be twisting what Barret actually said, now would you...
-
What does the dispatcher saying they already got him at 1.40 signify?
What do you think it signifies? What do you think "No, that wasn't the right one" signifies?
In terms of reasonable approximations It depends on the context, in a court setting I would suggest no more than five
I would suggest that you are wrong.
-
Show us where Barrett said 'sometime after 2'
Pretty sure he said 'approximately' 2
You wouldn't happen to be twisting what Barret actually said, now would you...
If you were keeping up Bill you may have noticed we have been addressing the significance of the term approximately
-
What do you think it signifies? What do you think "No, that wasn't the right one" signifies?
It would say it signifies something that belongs on the two Oswald's thread Hoewever it does suggest they may not have gotten the correct Oswald at 1.40
-
Am I uto understand there is nothing on the police audio transcripts about a suspect at the theater until officers have already arrived?
It seems odd McDonald is not asked why he went to the Texas theater? Nor does Ball ask him for an estimate of the time he went there
Mr. McDONALD - After I was satisfied that this teenager that had run into the library didn't fit the description, I went back to my squad car, put my shotgun back in the rack. Just as I got into the squad car, it was reported that a suspect was seen running into the Texas Theatre, 231 West Jefferson.
So I reported to that location Code 3. This is approximately seven blocks from the library, seven blocks west.
Mr. BALL - Did you go down there with your partner?
Mr. McDONALD - No, sir; I had let my partner out on arrival; my first arrival in the 400 block.
Mr. BALL - He was on foot?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir; I didn't see him any more that day.
Mr. BALL - You went down to the Texas Theatre?
Again with Hill The time he entered the theater is not asked
The next place I went was, I walked up the street about half a block to a church. That would have been on the northeast corner of 10th Street in the 400 block, further west of the shooting, and was preparing to go in when there were two women who came out and said they were employees inside and had been there all the time. I asked them had they seen anybody enter the church, because we were still looking for possible places for the suspect to hide. And they said nobody passed them, nobody entered the church, but they invited us to check the rest of the doors and windows and go inside if we wanted to.
An accident investigator named Bob Apple was at the location at that time, and we were standing there together near his car when the call came out that the suspect had been seen entering the Texas Theatre.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Same with Westbrook
Mr. WESTBROOK. It could have been, sir; I don't recall, because I directed someone there to be sure and get her name for the report, but she lived directly across the street, and she told us--or was in the process of telling us how it occurred--what she had seen, when someone hollered a patrolman hollered--"It's just come over the radio that they've got a suspicious person in the Texas Theatre."
Then, Sergeant Stringer, I, and Agent Barrett got in another squad car, and I don't know what officer was driving this one, but then when we arrived and were approaching the theatre, I directed the patrolman to turn down into the alley instead of going around to the front because I figured there would be a lot of cars at the front. There were two or three at the back.
So, I and Barrett---Stringer went to another door, and I and Barrett---we stopped at the first one---we got out and walked to this first entrance that was nearest us, and as we walked into the door we met an employee of the theatre.
Again, I do not know his name, but it was taken, and he pointed--I don't think I said anything to him--I think he told me, he said, "The man you are looking for--" Now, right here, Barrett and I became separated for a short minute or two. I think he was on the other side of the stage, and I'm not for sure, but this boy reported--he pointed to a man that was sitting about the middle the middle row of seats pretty close to the back and he said, "That is the man you are looking for."
And I started toward him and I had taken about two or three steps--down the steps.
Hawkins
Mr. HAWKINS. Yes, sir; he is a three-wheel officer. We went to the library and this turned out to be an employee of the library who had heard of the news and was apparently running in the library to tell the other employees there.
We then, after this checked out, we then continued circling in the area around 10th and Patton and Marsalis and Jefferson.
We then heard on the police radio that a suspicious person was at the Texas Theatre, and at this time we proceeded to the theatre.
Mr. BALL. Where did you park?
Mr. HAWKINS. I parked my squad car in the alley at the rear of the theatre.
Mr. BALL. Then, what did you do?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
-
OK Tim you tell me what you believe the amount of leeway the term "approximately" merits in a context such as this If such large latitudes are to be accepted then closer questioning should be required Do you have a time of arrest at the theater? Doesn't the McAdams transcript show the Dispatcher says at 1.40 'They already have hi' in reference to the Tippit suspect?
The transcript goes like this:
550/2 (Sergeant Gerald L. Hill): A witness reports that he last was seen in the Abundant Life Temple about the 400 block. We are fixing to go in and shake it down.
Dispatcher: Is that the one that was involved in the shooting of the officer?
550/2: Yes.
Dispatcher: They already have him.
550/2: No, that wasn't the right one.
'
McAdams' site interleaves the traffic on the two channels, and that sometimes splits up conversations to where it's not apparent when conversations start or end. I was looking for an audio copy of the channel2 recording, but can't find it. I think the 1:44 in parentheses is an editorial addition, and may not be reliable. Ch 2 wasn't running continuously, so we don't know exactly the time of each transmission in the conversation between Hill and Dispatch. All we know is that it all happened between the dispatcher time stamps at 1:40 and 1:50 PM.
What I want to know is where Charles Batchelor came up with this one, just before 1:40: "Mrs. Connally is being flown in here from Austin. She will arrive at Love Field. A State car will be standing by but it will probably be an hour before she gets here. Notify the Command Post at Parkland to get her through when she arrives." He didn't know she was already in Dallas?
-
The transcript goes like this:
550/2 (Sergeant Gerald L. Hill): A witness reports that he last was seen in the Abundant Life Temple about the 400 block. We are fixing to go in and shake it down.
Dispatcher: Is that the one that was involved in the shooting of the officer?
550/2: Yes.
Dispatcher: They already have him.
550/2: No, that wasn't the right one.
'
McAdams' site interleaves the traffic on the two channels, and that sometimes splits up conversations to where it's not apparent when conversations start or end. I was looking for an audio copy of the channel2 recording, but can't find it. I think the 1:44 in parentheses is an editorial addition, and may not be reliable. Ch 2 wasn't running continuously, so we don't know exactly the time of each transmission in the conversation between Hill and Dispatch. All we know is that it all happened between the dispatcher time stamps at 1:40 and 1:50 PM.
What I want to know is where Charles Batchelor came up with this one, just before 1:40: "Mrs. Connally is being flown in here from Austin. She will arrive at Love Field. A State car will be standing by but it will probably be an hour before she gets here. Notify the Command Post at Parkland to get her through when she arrives." He didn't know she was already in Dallas?
Nope that is earlier What I have referred to is at 1.40
-
Nope that is earlier What I have referred to is at 1.40
Let me do this again.
The transcript goes like this:
Dispatcher: 1:40 p.m.
550/2 (Sergeant Gerald L. Hill): A witness reports that he last was seen in the Abundant Life Temple about the 400 block. We are fixing to go in and shake it down.
Dispatcher: Is that the one that was involved in the shooting of the officer?
550/2: Yes.
Dispatcher: They already have him.
550/2: No, that wasn't the right one.
I don't see a a similar conversation in Channel 1 or channel 2 that could be mistaken for this one.
Since channel 2 isn't continuous, we don't know how long it is between the 1:40 timestamp and the beginning of the Hill/Dispatcher conversation.
'
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes3.htm)
-
OK Tim you tell me what you believe the amount of leeway the term "approximately" merits in a context such as this If such large latitudes are to be accepted then closer questioning should be required Do you have a time of arrest at the theater? Doesn't the McAdams transcript show the Dispatcher says at 1.40 'They already have hi' in reference to the Tippit suspect?
At that time, the dispatcher on channel 2 believed they had the suspect holed up in the library. When Hill (1:44) reports that it was not the right man, he is referring to the suspect at the library NOT being the man who killed Tippit. The man ended up being identified as library employee Adrian Hamby (who was seen running into the library by Dallas Police Officer C.T. Walker).
-
Am I uto understand there is nothing on the police audio transcripts about a suspect at the theater until officers have already arrived?
It seems odd McDonald is not asked why he went to the Texas theater? Nor does Ball ask him for an estimate of the time he went there
Mr. McDONALD - After I was satisfied that this teenager that had run into the library didn't fit the description, I went back to my squad car, put my shotgun back in the rack. Just as I got into the squad car, it was reported that a suspect was seen running into the Texas Theatre, 231 West Jefferson.
So I reported to that location Code 3. This is approximately seven blocks from the library, seven blocks west.
Mr. BALL - Did you go down there with your partner?
Mr. McDONALD - No, sir; I had let my partner out on arrival; my first arrival in the 400 block.
Mr. BALL - He was on foot?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir; I didn't see him any more that day.
Mr. BALL - You went down to the Texas Theatre?
Again with Hill The time he entered the theater is not asked
The next place I went was, I walked up the street about half a block to a church. That would have been on the northeast corner of 10th Street in the 400 block, further west of the shooting, and was preparing to go in when there were two women who came out and said they were employees inside and had been there all the time. I asked them had they seen anybody enter the church, because we were still looking for possible places for the suspect to hide. And they said nobody passed them, nobody entered the church, but they invited us to check the rest of the doors and windows and go inside if we wanted to.
An accident investigator named Bob Apple was at the location at that time, and we were standing there together near his car when the call came out that the suspect had been seen entering the Texas Theatre.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Same with Westbrook
Mr. WESTBROOK. It could have been, sir; I don't recall, because I directed someone there to be sure and get her name for the report, but she lived directly across the street, and she told us--or was in the process of telling us how it occurred--what she had seen, when someone hollered a patrolman hollered--"It's just come over the radio that they've got a suspicious person in the Texas Theatre."
Then, Sergeant Stringer, I, and Agent Barrett got in another squad car, and I don't know what officer was driving this one, but then when we arrived and were approaching the theatre, I directed the patrolman to turn down into the alley instead of going around to the front because I figured there would be a lot of cars at the front. There were two or three at the back.
So, I and Barrett---Stringer went to another door, and I and Barrett---we stopped at the first one---we got out and walked to this first entrance that was nearest us, and as we walked into the door we met an employee of the theatre.
Again, I do not know his name, but it was taken, and he pointed--I don't think I said anything to him--I think he told me, he said, "The man you are looking for--" Now, right here, Barrett and I became separated for a short minute or two. I think he was on the other side of the stage, and I'm not for sure, but this boy reported--he pointed to a man that was sitting about the middle the middle row of seats pretty close to the back and he said, "That is the man you are looking for."
And I started toward him and I had taken about two or three steps--down the steps.
Hawkins
Mr. HAWKINS. Yes, sir; he is a three-wheel officer. We went to the library and this turned out to be an employee of the library who had heard of the news and was apparently running in the library to tell the other employees there.
We then, after this checked out, we then continued circling in the area around 10th and Patton and Marsalis and Jefferson.
We then heard on the police radio that a suspicious person was at the Texas Theatre, and at this time we proceeded to the theatre.
Mr. BALL. Where did you park?
Mr. HAWKINS. I parked my squad car in the alley at the rear of the theatre.
Mr. BALL. Then, what did you do?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Am I uto understand there is nothing on the police audio transcripts about a suspect at the theater until officers have already arrived?
At 1:45, dispatch first mentions a suspect entering the Texas Theater. What makes you believe any officers arrived at the theater before 1:45?
-
At that time, the dispatcher on channel 2 believed they had the suspect holed up in the library. When Hill (1:44) reports that it was not the right man, he is referring to the suspect at the library NOT being the man who killed Tippit. The man ended up being identified as library employee Adrian Hamby (who was seen running into the library by Dallas Police Officer C.T. Walker).
OK. I guess I was presupposing they would be having discussions concerning the theater by 1.44 Any idea where Gerald Hill is at 1:44
-
OK. I guess I was presupposing they would be having discussions concerning the theater by 1.44 Any idea where Gerald Hill is at 1:44
He radioed in "The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol" between 1:34 and 1:35, so at that point he's at 10th and Patton.
According to his testimony, he remained at the murder scene until he heard the a call on the radio that "the suspect had been seen entering the Texas Theatre." At that point, he and an officer Apple "went to Jefferson, made a right on Jefferson, headed west from our location, and pulled up as close to the front of the theatre as we could. There were already two or three officers at the location. I asked if it was covered off at the back. " That radio call came in between 1:44 and 1:46.
-
Interestingly enough, if you do a Google search for Oswald's arrest report you see it in various versions. Including one with a notation "Assault to murder off # F85954". It is also dated 11-22-63 and signed by Fritz with an additional charge that is difficult to make out but something like "1 assault to murder." I wonder if the kooks have been intentionally dishonest again by using an early version of the arrest report that was not final?
https://clickamericana.com/eras/1960s/lee-harvey-oswalds-dallas-police-info-1963
Smith, Wesson... and Lee.
AKA Dirty Harvey.
But I kind of take issue where the report states outright that Oswald shot Kennedy et al. The report should have said he was a suspect in the murders, not that he was the killer.
The joke on these characters trying to minimize John Brewer's importance in the case ('shoe salesman', 'looking funny') is that Oswald could have even arrested for assault alone: A quick google reveals that under Tort law, merely raising a fist in a threatening manner could have gotten Oswald charged with assault if it could be shown that he had the means to do bodily harm to the intended victim. Well, according to Brewer, Oswald threw the first punch, knocking McDonald backwards.
That's it. It's all over now.
-
If you were keeping up Bill you may have noticed we have been addressing the significance of the term approximately
I am keeping up: You misquoted Barret.
You are not going to acknowledge that?
Typical CTroll.
You can slither back under your rock now.
-
Earlene Roberts in one video interview said that the TV was on and she was watching her favorite soap opera show when it was interrupted by the special CBS bulletin about JFK. She says that's when Oswald came in the door. The CBS bulletin was at 12:40pm ???
The jacket that Oswald allegedly had on , CE 162, in Walleys Taxi cab, and the one presumably he took off at his boarding room, was not found at the boarding room, but was found in the Domino room of TSBD several weeks later. ???
So either Wally has another passenger that he mistook for Oswald, or somebody moved CE 162 after it was found at Oswalds room, to the TSBD. and just as with the mystery CE 142 bag, failed to take photo of CE 162 in place at boarding room, where Oswald would have taken it off to swap for his other lighter gray jacket. (NOT WHITE THOUGH :)
-
At 1:45, dispatch first mentions a suspect entering the Texas Theater. What makes you believe any officers arrived at the theater before 1:45?
The lack of any questions by the WC to establish what time they entered has significance You tell me what the evidence is as to when they entered
-
I am keeping up: You misquoted Barret.
You are not going to acknowledge that?
Typical CTroll.
You can slither back under your rock now.
What is it you need from me? Tim and I had the conversation and the issue was addressed Do I owe you some extra confession? Paraphrasing happens and sometimes a person leaves something out that is not as important as it is to those on the other side? Also I remain unconvinced of the significance
-
The lack of any questions by the WC to establish what time they entered has significance You tell me what the evidence is as to when they entered
What significance, and/or why is it significant?
BTW, how many accused felons have been acquitted because the prosecution wasn't able to exactly pinpoint the time the cops arrested the alleged perp?
-
What significance, and/or why is it significant?
BTW, how many accused felons have been acquitted because the prosecution wasn't able to exactly pinpoint the time the cops arrested the alleged perp?
A timeline is not a primary issue in criminal prosecution?
A few more general questions for others as well
Was Westbrook the first to arrive?
Westbrook ordered several officers to get a complete list of all the occupants in the theater and the list disappeared
Two police documents exist that Oswald was arrested in the balcony, and 7 officers stated Oswald was arrested in the balcony
-
A timeline is not a primary issue in criminal prosecution?
[...]
That's not what I asked. When is it necessary to pinpoint exactly when police officers arrest a suspect? Say, within 5-10 minutes.
-
Watching the droolers attempt to figure out how and why Saint Oz came to be arrested in the Texas Theater is hysterical and demonstrates just how pathetic they truly are.
Let me make this easy for you, kooks.
The President has been assassinated. A cop has been killed.
A dragnet is launched to apprehend the cop killer.
An alert citizen notices a man that appears to be trying to avoid the cops walk towards and then duck into the Texas Theater.
Cops are notified that suspect might be holed up in the theater.
Cops descend on theater and arrest Saint Oz.
Most people with a functioning brain are already wondering if the assassination and subsequent cop killing are related.
Lo and behold, Saint Oz just happens to work in the building overlooking the assassination.
What an amazing coincidence !
THE INNOCENT PATSY HAD A REAL BAD DAY
-
Earlene Roberts in one video interview said that the TV was on and she was watching her favorite soap opera show when it was interrupted by the special CBS bulletin about JFK. She says that's when Oswald came in the door. The CBS bulletin was at 12:40pm ???
The jacket that Oswald allegedly had on , CE 162, in Walleys Taxi cab, and the one presumably he took off at his boarding room, was not found at the boarding room, but was found in the Domino room of TSBD several weeks later. ???
So either Wally has another passenger that he mistook for Oswald, or somebody moved CE 162 after it was found at Oswalds room, to the TSBD. and just as with the mystery CE 142 bag, failed to take photo of CE 162 in place at boarding room, where Oswald would have taken it off to swap for his other lighter gray jacket. (NOT WHITE THOUGH :)
Zeon, CE-162 is the light-colored jacket found on the ground behind the Texaco station a block and a half from the Tippit scene.
-
The lack of any questions by the WC to establish what time they entered has significance You tell me what the evidence is as to when they entered
No.
You asked if you were understanding it correctly that there was nothing in the transcripts about the Texas Theater until officers were already in the theater. I told you that the dispatcher mentions the theater at 1:45. I am asking you why you believe any officers were inside the theater before 1:45. You skipped right over answering that.
I'll ask again..
What have you seen which suggests that officers were inside the theater before 1:45?
-
Watching the droolers attempt to figure out how and why Saint Oz came to be arrested in the Texas Theater is hysterical and demonstrates just how pathetic they truly are.
Let me make this easy for you, kooks.
The President has been assassinated. A cop has been killed.
A dragnet is launched to apprehend the cop killer.
An alert citizen notices a man that appears to be trying to avoid the cops walk towards and then duck into the Texas Theater.
Cops are notified that suspect might be holed up in the theater.
Cops descend on theater and arrest Saint Oz.
Most people with a functioning brain are already wondering if the assassination and subsequent cop killing are related.
Lo and behold, Saint Oz just happens to work in the building overlooking the assassination.
What an amazing coincidence !
THE INNOCENT PATSY HAD A REAL BAD DAY
Some of these guys criticize the idea that officers descended upon the theater because a man entered without buying a ticket, finding it suspicious that so many officers would respond for such a minor offense. These guys criticize while being totally unaware that officers descended upon the Abundant Life Temple, the old building full of antiques and the library before ever going to the theater.
In reality, members of the Dallas Police Department were running around like a chicken with it's head cut off in an attempt to follow every single lead that may put them face to face with the cop-killer.
I always find it sad that some criticize yet are totally ignorant of the events they are attempting to be critical of.
-
And here I was thinking the cops went to the library to apprehend someone refusing to pay a late fee.
-
Watching the droolers attempt to figure out how and why Saint Oz came to be arrested in the Texas Theater is hysterical and demonstrates just how pathetic they truly are.
Let me make this easy for you, kooks.
The President has been assassinated. A cop has been killed.
A dragnet is launched to apprehend the cop killer.
An alert citizen notices a man that appears to be trying to avoid the cops walk towards and then duck into the Texas Theater.
Cops are notified that suspect might be holed up in the theater.
Cops descend on theater and arrest Saint Oz.
Most people with a functioning brain are already wondering if the assassination and subsequent cop killing are related.
Lo and behold, Saint Oz just happens to work in the building overlooking the assassination.
What an amazing coincidence !
THE INNOCENT PATSY HAD A REAL BAD DAY
What an amazing coincidence !
Yes...... Or perhaps it's not merely a coincidence. Perhaps the three FBI agents that were in the theater at the time of Lee's arrest were "working with" Lee and duped him into thinking he was the lead player in a scam to trick Castro into allowing a fugitive ( LHO) into Cuba.
Castro had allowed American fugitives to escape justice in the US.......
-
That's not what I asked. When is it necessary to pinpoint exactly when police officers arrest a suspect? Say, within 5-10 minutes.
If a murder is known at an exact time and police claim they arrested the subject a minute earlier at another location they would have a problem Sorry but I have no idea what you are getting at
-
Some of these guys criticize the idea that officers descended upon the theater because a man entered without buying a ticket, finding it suspicious that so many officers would respond for such a minor offense. These guys criticize while being totally unaware that officers descended upon the Abundant Life Temple, the old building full of antiques and the library before ever going to the theater.
In reality, members of the Dallas Police Department were running around like a chicken with it's head cut off in an attempt to follow every single lead that may put them face to face with the cop-killer.
I always find it sad that some criticize yet are totally ignorant of the events they are attempting to be critical of.
Do you recall this earlier response from me to you
OK. I guess I was presupposing they would be having discussions concerning the theater by 1.44
Do I need to confess again? So yes I misunderstood the 1.40 transcript about them having an Oswald in custody at that time Pretty sure that all is i in the thread
Don't concern yourself with answering any of my questions because this morning at least I don't really care
-
Do you recall this earlier response from me to you
OK. I guess I was presupposing they would be having discussions concerning the theater by 1.44
Do I need to confess again? So yes I misunderstood the 1.40 transcript about them having an Oswald in custody at that time Pretty sure that all is i in the thread
Don't concern yourself with answering any of my questions because this morning at least I don't really care
Be very cautious Bill, it sounds like he's folding his arms and stamping his feet.
-
Dallas Police transcripts Approx 1:27 ....
87 (Ptm. R.C. Nelson) 87.
Dispatcher 87.
87 A white station wagon believed to be P (Paul) E (Ellis) 3435, unknown make or model, late model, occupied by two white males, left this fellow's station going east on Davis and believed they had a shotgun or rifle laying in the back seat.
Dispatcher Received, 87.
87 87 en route down there on Jefferson.
Dispatcher 87, when you get down there see if you can find that car down there at the scene.
Never mind those guys huh? (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
-
Be very cautious Bill, it sounds like he's folding his arms and stamping his feet.
Simply tired of asking for facts outside of the comfort zone
-
Mitch T. Reply #622 --- He radioed in , "The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an Automatic 38 rather than a pistol ????? Sorry Mitch , I missed something . Can you explain the 38 Auto shells ? Sorry man , I'll try to stay up .
-
A timeline is not a primary issue in criminal prosecution?
A few more general questions for others as well
Was Westbrook the first to arrive?
Westbrook ordered several officers to get a complete list of all the occupants in the theater and the list disappeared
Two police documents exist that Oswald was arrested in the balcony, and 7 officers stated Oswald was arrested in the balcony
Link to these documents...? Oh, wait.. they've disappeared.
-
Link to these documents...? Oh, wait.. they've disappeared.
Did you miss the word questions?
-
Mr. ELY. Yes; I have one. Captain, you mentioned that you had left orders for somebody to take the names of everybody in the theatre, and you also stated you did not have this list; do you know who has it?
Mr. WESTBROOK. No; possibly Lieutenant Cunningham will know, but I don't know who has the list.
Mr. ELY. That's all.
And the list has disappeared Oh I forgot Bill I am not allowed to say stuff like that
-
There is this, but the links to the reference document do not work as usual
There is a hint of the second Oswald?s arrest in the Dallas police records.
According to the Dallas Police Department?s official Homicide Report on J.D. Tippit, ?Suspect was later arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater at 231 W. Jefferson.? 457
Dallas Police detective L.D. Springfellow also reported to Captain W. P. Gannaway, ?Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in the balconyh of the Texas Theater.? 458
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/02/
-
Some of these guys criticize the idea that officers descended upon the theater because a man entered without buying a ticket, finding it suspicious that so many officers would respond for such a minor offense. These guys criticize while being totally unaware that officers descended upon the Abundant Life Temple, the old building full of antiques and the library before ever going to the theater.
In reality, members of the Dallas Police Department were running around like a chicken with it's head cut off in an attempt to follow every single lead that may put them face to face with the cop-killer.
I always find it sad that some criticize yet are totally ignorant of the events they are attempting to be critical of.
Do you recall this earlier response from me to you
OK. I guess I was presupposing they would be having discussions concerning the theater by 1.44
Do I need to confess again? So yes I misunderstood the 1.40 transcript about them having an Oswald in custody at that time Pretty sure that all is i in the thread
Don't concern yourself with answering any of my questions because this morning at least I don't really care
My comment wasn't directed at you, Matt.
-
Was Westbrook the first to arrive?
No, he was not. T. A. Hutson, Ray Hawkins, and E. R. Baggett were probably the first to arrive.
Westbrook ordered several officers to get a complete list of all the occupants in the theater and the list disappeared
Did the list ever exist?
Two police documents exist that Oswald was arrested in the balcony, and 7 officers stated Oswald was arrested in the balcony
I recall seeing a document that had Oswald being arrested in the balcony. What were the names of the 7 officers who stated that Oswald was arrested in the balcony?
-
And here I was thinking the cops went to the library to apprehend someone refusing to pay a late fee.
;D
-
I recall seeing a document that had Oswald being arrested in the balcony. What were the names of the 7 officers who stated that Oswald was arrested in the balcony?
I posed it as a question It was a claim Armstrong had made I see nothing other than the two reports mentioned earlier in this thread
-
Mitch T. Reply #622 --- He radioed in , "The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an Automatic 38 rather than a pistol ????? Sorry Mitch , I missed something . Can you explain the 38 Auto shells ? Sorry man , I'll try to stay up .
You never had that explained to you before Mike? Really?
-
Mitch T. Reply #622 --- He radioed in , "The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an Automatic 38 rather than a pistol ????? Sorry Mitch , I missed something . Can you explain the 38 Auto shells ? Sorry man , I'll try to stay up .
Here is part of the story
Many researchers believe that after Hill observed the spent shell casings inside the cigarette packet, he reported over the DPD radio that ?The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol.? Although both WCE 705 and 1974 show that Hill reported ?The shell at the scene indicates that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol,? tape recordings of the transmission (which can be found here on John McAdams? website) reveal that Hill did in fact report ?shells? and not ?shell?. During his testimony before the Warren Commission, Hill was asked by Counsel David Belin if he made the aforementioned transmission over the DPD radio. The transcript of the DPD radio recordings to which Belin was referring to was dubbed Sawyer deposition exhibit A (WC Volume VII, page 57). Hill denied that he was the officer who made that transmission, claiming that it was ?probably? Sergeant R.D. (Henry) Stringer, who according to Hill, ?quite probably? was using the same radio number (550 car 2) as he was (ibid).
http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2014/07/gerald-hill-and-tippit-murder-scene.html
-
There is this, but the links to the reference document do not work as usual
There is a hint of the second Oswald?s arrest in the Dallas police records.
According to the Dallas Police Department?s official Homicide Report on J.D. Tippit, ?Suspect was later arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater at 231 W. Jefferson.? 457
Dallas Police detective L.D. Springfellow also reported to Captain W. P. Gannaway, ?Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in the balconyh of the Texas Theater.? 458
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/02/
It's Stringfellow, not Springfellow. And from the looks of his report, he wasn't present at the arrest.
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/29/2928-001.gif
BTW, you are quoting Bill Kelly, who is quoting Douglas who is quoting....God knows what. That may not be the wisest thing to rely on.
The reports of the officers of the guys on scene are at the Dallas City archives:
02 07 001 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 E. R. Baggett Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000632
02 07 002 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 E. R. Baggett Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000633
02 07 003 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 E. R. Baggett Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000635
02 07 004 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 P. L. Bentley Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000636
02 07 005 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 P. L. Bentley Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000638
02 07 006 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 P. L. Bentley Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000641
02 07 007 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 P. L. Bentley Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000643
02 07 008 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000644
02 07 009 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000646
02 07 010 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000647
02 07 011 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000648
02 07 012 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 Bob K. Carroll Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000649
02 07 013 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 Bob K. Carroll Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000651
02 07 014 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 Bob K. Carroll Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000653
02 07 015 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. L. Cunningham Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000654
02 07 016 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. L. Cunningham Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000655
02 07 017 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. L. Cunningham Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000657
02 07 018 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000659
02 07 019 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000660
02 07 020 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000661
02 07 021 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000663
02 07 022 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/05/63 Gerald L. Hill Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000665
02 07 023 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/05/63 Gerald L. Hill Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000666
02 07 024 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/05/63 Gerald L. Hill Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000668
02 07 025 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 T. A. Hutson Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000669
02 07 026 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 T. A. Hutson Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000671
02 07 027 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 T. A. Hutson Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000673
02 07 028 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 K. E. Lyon Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000675
02 07 029 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 K. E. Lyon Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000676
02 07 030 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 K. E. Lyon Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000678
02 07 031 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 K. E. Lyon Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000679
02 07 032 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 M. M. McDonald Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000680
02 07 033 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 M. M. McDonald Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000681
02 07 034 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 M. M. McDonald Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald (carbon copy, 2nd page only. This carbon copy differs from other copies of this report. It is single spaced, whereas previous copies are double spaced) 1 00000682
02 07 035 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000683
02 07 036 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000684
02 07 037 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000685
02 07 038 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000686
02 07 039 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000687
02 07 040 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000688
02 07 041 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000690
02 07 042 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000691
02 07 043 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000693
02 07 044 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000694
02 07 045 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000697
02 07 046 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000699
02 07 047 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Charles T. Walker Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000700
02 07 048 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Charles T. Walker Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000702
02 07 049 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Charles T. Walker Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000704
02 07 050 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000705
02 07 051 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000707
02 07 052 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000709
02 07 053 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000710
02 07 054 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/05/63 Gerald L. Hill Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000727
02 07 055 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000729
02 07 056 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000730
02 07 057 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000732
02 07 058 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Carbon Copy Signed and Annotated Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000734
02 07 059 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 Bob K. Carroll Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000736
02 07 060 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000738
02 07 061 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 K. E. Lyon Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000740
02 07 062 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000743
02 07 063 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 M. M. McDonald Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald (Carbon copy, first page only. This report differs from previous reports. It is single spaced whereas previous versions are double spaced) 1 00000746
02 07 064 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 E. R. Baggett Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000748
02 07 065 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. L. Cunningham Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald
Most of these are dupes, but that looks like the whole list.
-
Mitch T. Reply #622 --- He radioed in , "The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an Automatic 38 rather than a pistol ????? Sorry Mitch , I missed something . Can you explain the 38 Auto shells ? Sorry man , I'll try to stay up .
Let me preface this with a confession: While I've been around and shot firearms off and on most of my life, I am not an NRA-paying firearms maven. However, I've known more than my share, and can talk comfortably and pretty fluently with them in their own chosen tongue.
When you refer to a particular cartridge, it's always "[bullet diameter] [disambiguator]." The bullet diameter part should be self-explanatory. "Disambiguator" is a neologism of my invention and needs some explanation. There are cases (no pun intended) where multiple cartridges are made for the same caliber. thing .22 shot rifle and .22 long rifle. Or 7.62 NATO vs 7.62x39 Soviet. .38 is kind of a sweet spot. There is .38 S&W, .38 Special, .38 ACP (aka, .38 auto), .380 ACP, .38 Super (aka, .38 Super Auto), and, to get confusing .357 magnum (which technically is a .38, and uses the same bullet as .38 special), 9mm Parabellum, and a few other lesser known cartridges. The thing to remember is that it's ".38 somethingsomething," There are some exceptions where a particular cartridge is common enough that it's referred to simply by it's diameter. For instance, if I say, ".357", you're already thinking ".357 magnum." If I say ".44," your inner Dirty Harry whispers "Magnum, punk!" in your ear. I don't have to put "parabellum" after 9mm, either. Gun guys, including cops, already know how to end it.
Which brings me to the ".38" After it was introduced in the 1920's, .38 special became so ubiquitous that, well before 1963, ".38" was synonymous with ".38 special." Cops, especially, used that nomenclature, since .38SPL was what they were universally armed with.
Given this, then what Hill means when he says "Automatic 38" is "automatic .38 special." If it was a .38 ACP, he would have said ".38ACP" or".38auto," not "automatic .38"
-
If a murder is known at an exact time and police claim they arrested the subject a minute earlier at another location they would have a problem Sorry but I have no idea what you are getting at
I'm not sure I know what you're getting at, either. For that matter, I'm not quite sure that you're sure you really understand what you're trying to get at here. Benevides reports the shooting to police dispatch between 1:14 and 1:16. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Oswald was apprehended shortly before 1:40, that leaves about 20 minutes between shooting and apprehension. The idea that Oswald was arrested before the murder is beside the point, then.
In the interest of restoring context, remember that this particular thread branch started when you said, "the lack of any questions by the WC to establish what time they entered has significance. You tell me what the evidence is as to when they entered. " I asked you why you thought it would be significant, and also asked you in what case was the accused acquitted because the arrest time was not recorded to within some reasonably specific degree of accuracy. Maybe that will help you understand what I'm saying and why.
So, to get things back on track, what is the significance of the WC fixing the arrest time to some exact, specific time beyond what they and/or the DPD managed?
BTW, for reference, the WCR notes that "at 1:45 p.m., the police radio stated, 'Have information a suspect just went in the Texas Theatre on West Jefferson.'" And then, at "at 1:51 p.m., police car 2 reported by radio that it was on the way to headquarters with tile suspect." Maybe the WC didn't ask questions about the time of arrest because they already had the answer, courtesy the DPD radio tapes?
-
I knew about the 38 Automatic shells that were found and then of course those shells disappeared and were said to not be Auto 38 shells . I thought maybe we were being jerked around with not noticing the blowout of the back of JFK's head ( OOPS I'm sorry I forgot we were talking about those Auto 38 shells )that were found and marked and then were misidentified and lost or whatever happened to them !
-
It's Stringfellow, not Springfellow. And from the looks of his report, he wasn't present at the arrest.
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/29/2928-001.gif
BTW, you are quoting Bill Kelly, who is quoting Douglas who is quoting....God knows what. That may not be the wisest thing to rely on.
The reports of the officers of the guys on scene are at the Dallas City archives:
02 07 001 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 E. R. Baggett Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000632
02 07 002 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 E. R. Baggett Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000633
02 07 003 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 E. R. Baggett Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000635
02 07 004 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 P. L. Bentley Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000636
02 07 005 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 P. L. Bentley Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000638
02 07 006 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 P. L. Bentley Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000641
02 07 007 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 P. L. Bentley Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000643
02 07 008 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000644
02 07 009 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000646
02 07 010 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000647
02 07 011 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000648
02 07 012 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 Bob K. Carroll Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000649
02 07 013 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 Bob K. Carroll Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000651
02 07 014 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 Bob K. Carroll Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000653
02 07 015 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. L. Cunningham Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000654
02 07 016 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. L. Cunningham Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000655
02 07 017 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. L. Cunningham Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000657
02 07 018 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000659
02 07 019 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000660
02 07 020 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000661
02 07 021 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000663
02 07 022 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/05/63 Gerald L. Hill Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000665
02 07 023 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/05/63 Gerald L. Hill Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000666
02 07 024 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/05/63 Gerald L. Hill Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000668
02 07 025 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 T. A. Hutson Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000669
02 07 026 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 T. A. Hutson Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000671
02 07 027 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 T. A. Hutson Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000673
02 07 028 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 K. E. Lyon Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000675
02 07 029 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 K. E. Lyon Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000676
02 07 030 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 K. E. Lyon Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000678
02 07 031 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 K. E. Lyon Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000679
02 07 032 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 M. M. McDonald Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000680
02 07 033 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 M. M. McDonald Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000681
02 07 034 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 M. M. McDonald Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald (carbon copy, 2nd page only. This carbon copy differs from other copies of this report. It is single spaced, whereas previous copies are double spaced) 1 00000682
02 07 035 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000683
02 07 036 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000684
02 07 037 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000685
02 07 038 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000686
02 07 039 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000687
02 07 040 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000688
02 07 041 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000690
02 07 042 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000691
02 07 043 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000693
02 07 044 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000694
02 07 045 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000697
02 07 046 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000699
02 07 047 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Charles T. Walker Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000700
02 07 048 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Charles T. Walker Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000702
02 07 049 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Charles T. Walker Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000704
02 07 050 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000705
02 07 051 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000707
02 07 052 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000709
02 07 053 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000710
02 07 054 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/05/63 Gerald L. Hill Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000727
02 07 055 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000729
02 07 056 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000730
02 07 057 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000732
02 07 058 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Carbon Copy Signed and Annotated Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000734
02 07 059 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 Bob K. Carroll Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000736
02 07 060 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000738
02 07 061 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 K. E. Lyon Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000740
02 07 062 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000743
02 07 063 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 M. M. McDonald Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald (Carbon copy, first page only. This report differs from previous reports. It is single spaced whereas previous versions are double spaced) 1 00000746
02 07 064 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 E. R. Baggett Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000748
02 07 065 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. L. Cunningham Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald
Most of these are dupes, but that looks like the whole list.
and what do we make of it if he was not there. Assigned the report from someone else? An intentional fabrication? Delusional? Part of a conspiracy to create confusion of multiple conflicting reports to perhaps provide additional options? Was there and somehow removed by the official account.
Sorry if I am not willing to dismiss it completely
-
I'm not sure I know what you're getting at, either. For that matter, I'm not quite sure that you're sure you really understand what you're trying to get at here. Benevides reports the shooting to police dispatch between 1:14 and 1:16. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Oswald was apprehended shortly before 1:40, that leaves about 20 minutes between shooting and apprehension. The idea that Oswald was arrested before the murder is beside the point, then.
In the interest of restoring context, remember that this particular thread branch started when you said, "the lack of any questions by the WC to establish what time they entered has significance. You tell me what the evidence is as to when they entered. " I asked you why you thought it would be significant, and also asked you in what case was the accused acquitted because the arrest time was not recorded to within some reasonably specific degree of accuracy. Maybe that will help you understand what I'm saying and why.
So, to get things back on track, what is the significance of the WC fixing the arrest time to some exact, specific time beyond what they and/or the DPD managed?
BTW, for reference, the WCR notes that "at 1:45 p.m., the police radio stated, 'Have information a suspect just went in the Texas Theatre on West Jefferson.'" And then, at "at 1:51 p.m., police car 2 reported by radio that it was on the way to headquarters with tile suspect." Maybe the WC didn't ask questions about the time of arrest because they already had the answer, courtesy the DPD radio tapes?
Mitch Are you saying recording the time of events such as these are not significant, or the difficulty in establishing them is unduly difficult?
-
Like if evidence shows the officers or suspect had not yet arrived to take part in the arrest.
Was that too difficult for you?
Maybe for you...
DEF ATTY: Your honor, I object! My client was arrested illegally!
JUDGE: On what grounds?
DEF ATTY: My client was not at the scene of arrest when the police arrested him! Also, the police officers who arrested my client were not at the place where they arrested him!
JUDGE (facepalming): OVERRULED! Also, you are hereby convicted of one count Public Imbecility and sentenced summary execution before you can reproduce.
-
and what do we make of it if [Stringfellow] was not there. Assigned the report from someone else? An intentional fabrication? Delusional? Part of a conspiracy to create confusion of multiple conflicting reports to perhaps provide additional options? Was there and somehow removed by the official account.
Sorry if I am not willing to dismiss it completely
If he wasn't at the scene during the arrest, how accurate can you expect him to be? At best, all he can offer is a second-hand account.
More importantly, the reports I referenced in the Dallas city archives are from the officers who were involved in the arrest. How many of those say that the arrest went down in the balcony?
-
My comment wasn't directed at you, Matt.
Ok Bill Looking back not sure why I assumed that so pardon the somewhat snarky response I am in some hard meds ,and am a bit off my already questionable game
-
Mitch Are you saying recording the time of events such as these are not significant, or the difficulty in establishing them is unduly difficult?
First off, the arrest is self-evident, no matter how accurate the cops' reports are at recording when it went down. I get this vibe that someone wants to argue that somehow Oswald wasn't actually arrested at the Texas Theatre based on some faulty time stamping. I've already sarcasticised all over some other poor soul over this.
Second, how accurate do you expect them to be? Did the cops think to look at their watch during the arrest? I kinda doubt it. They had other things to do.
Plus, there's something else to remember, and it's good to remember no matter what part of the assassination you study. 1963 was in an era before clocks automatically set themselves to super-accurate stratum 1 time sources via radio. It was also before quartz movement timekeeping made it out of the R&D lab. In those days you were lucky or rich if you had a watch that didn't lose a couple of minutes a day. In fact, it's reasonable to assume that any clock in those days could be as much as 5 minutes of of sync with UTC, and any two clocks could be as much as ten minutes apart. People either forget that, or never lived in such primitive conditions. BTW, I was always told that's the underlying reason for the old advice to be 10 minutes early to any appointment. You never knew when the other guy's watch was five minutes fast, and yours was 5 minutes slow.
-
If he wasn't at the scene during the arrest, how accurate can you expect him to be? At best, all he can offer is a second-hand account.
More importantly, the reports I referenced in the Dallas city archives are from the officers who were involved in the arrest. How many of those say that the arrest went down in the balcony?
Since you frame the issue of "the arrest" I assume those reports refer to the arrest of the Oswald downstairs, so of course they do not pertain to any other arrests detainment's, etc
-
There were a total of five Oswald wallets: a black plastic wallet (CE 1798); a red billfold found at Ruth Paine's (CE 2003 #382); a brown billfold found at Ruth Paine's (CE 2003 #114); a billfold taken from LHO upon arrest--initialed by HMM (Henry Moore), wallet and contents inventoried and photographed; and the Westbrook wallet, which was not initialed by police, not listed in inventory, not photographed, not mentioned by a single witness to the FBI, WC, HSCA, ARRB, etc. and disappeared, but not before it was filmed by WFAA TV and seen by FBI agent Barrett.
-
Since you frame the issue of "the arrest" I assume those reports refer to the arrest of the Oswald downstairs, so of course they do not pertain to any other arrests detainment's, etc
Those are the "what I did during Oswald's arrest" reports. I referenced them primarily to address the issue of whether Oswald had been arrested in the balcony. IIRC, the reports mention driving a witness downtown to make a statement. That may be what Brewer [correction: not Brewer but Borroughs] and the other guy thought was an arrest. I can see why the cops would want to take him out the back door, given the reaction of the crowd out front to Oswald. You never know what some fool pumped up on a combination of ignorance and indignation might do to a witness if they assumed he was a perp.
-
There were a total of five Oswald wallets: a black plastic wallet (CE 1798); a red billfold found at Ruth Paine's (CE 2003 #382); a brown billfold found at Ruth Paine's (CE 2003 #114); a billfold taken from LHO upon arrest--initialed by HMM (Henry Moore), wallet and contents inventoried and photographed; and the Westbrook wallet, which was not initialed by police, not listed in inventory, not photographed, not mentioned by a single witness to the FBI, WC, HSCA, ARRB, etc. and disappeared, but not before it was filmed by WFAA TV and seen by FBI agent Barrett.
There was no "Westbrook wallet". That wallet was a figment of Barrett's imagination 3 decades after the fact. A few of Barrett's recollections made in the 90s and later are demonstrably false or inaccurate. That's not to say that Barrett was dishonest. His memory was faulty , that's all. Humes put it best during his ARRB testimony when he said "That's part of the problem with all of this, temporal distortion of memory and what have you, accentuated when you get 35 years away."
-
[...] the Westbrook wallet, which was not initialed by police, not listed in inventory, not photographed, not mentioned by a single witness to the FBI, WC, HSCA, ARRB, etc. and disappeared, but not before it was filmed by WFAA TV and seen by FBI agent Barrett.
We don't know whose wallet is in the WFAA film. The Barrett wallet is a 30+ year after the fact memory, and one filtered through someone else.
That leaves you with "not initialed by police, not listed in inventory, not photographed, not mentioned by a single witness to the FBI, WC, HSCA, ARRB, etc." which is a pretty good way of saying that it never existed in the first place.
-
After all the earlier post after post..[reciting firearm nomenclature etc].. endeavor to blow smoke up and down the street ...the fact remains that car 550 [whoever it was] reported ...
The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol.
Narrowing it down to an automatic handgun...seems clear to me.
Although, I think he meant -rather than a revolver
-
It's Stringfellow, not Springfellow. And from the looks of his report, he wasn't present at the arrest.
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/29/2928-001.gif
BTW, you are quoting Bill Kelly, who is quoting Douglas who is quoting....God knows what. That may not be the wisest thing to rely on.
The reports of the officers of the guys on scene are at the Dallas City archives:
02 07 001 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 E. R. Baggett Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000632
02 07 002 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 E. R. Baggett Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000633
02 07 003 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 E. R. Baggett Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000635
02 07 004 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 P. L. Bentley Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000636
02 07 005 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 P. L. Bentley Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000638
02 07 006 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 P. L. Bentley Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000641
02 07 007 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 P. L. Bentley Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000643
02 07 008 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000644
02 07 009 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000646
02 07 010 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000647
02 07 011 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000648
02 07 012 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 Bob K. Carroll Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000649
02 07 013 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 Bob K. Carroll Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000651
02 07 014 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 Bob K. Carroll Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000653
02 07 015 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. L. Cunningham Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000654
02 07 016 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. L. Cunningham Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000655
02 07 017 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. L. Cunningham Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000657
02 07 018 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000659
02 07 019 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000660
02 07 020 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000661
02 07 021 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000663
02 07 022 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/05/63 Gerald L. Hill Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000665
02 07 023 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/05/63 Gerald L. Hill Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000666
02 07 024 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/05/63 Gerald L. Hill Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000668
02 07 025 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 T. A. Hutson Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000669
02 07 026 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 T. A. Hutson Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000671
02 07 027 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 T. A. Hutson Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000673
02 07 028 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 K. E. Lyon Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000675
02 07 029 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 K. E. Lyon Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000676
02 07 030 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 K. E. Lyon Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000678
02 07 031 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 K. E. Lyon Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000679
02 07 032 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 M. M. McDonald Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000680
02 07 033 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 M. M. McDonald Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000681
02 07 034 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 M. M. McDonald Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald (carbon copy, 2nd page only. This carbon copy differs from other copies of this report. It is single spaced, whereas previous copies are double spaced) 1 00000682
02 07 035 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000683
02 07 036 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000684
02 07 037 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000685
02 07 038 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000686
02 07 039 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000687
02 07 040 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000688
02 07 041 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000690
02 07 042 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000691
02 07 043 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000693
02 07 044 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000694
02 07 045 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000697
02 07 046 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000699
02 07 047 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Charles T. Walker Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000700
02 07 048 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Charles T. Walker Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000702
02 07 049 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Charles T. Walker Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000704
02 07 050 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Original Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000705
02 07 051 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000707
02 07 052 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000709
02 07 053 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000710
02 07 054 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/05/63 Gerald L. Hill Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 2 00000727
02 07 055 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. E. Taylor Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000729
02 07 056 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 Marvin A. Buhk Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000730
02 07 057 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 Ray Hawkins Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000732
02 07 058 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 W. R. Westbrook Carbon Copy Signed and Annotated Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000734
02 07 059 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/04/63 Bob K. Carroll Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000736
02 07 060 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 H. H. Stringer Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000738
02 07 061 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 K. E. Lyon Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000740
02 07 062 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000743
02 07 063 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 M. M. McDonald Carbon Copy Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald (Carbon copy, first page only. This report differs from previous reports. It is single spaced whereas previous versions are double spaced) 1 00000746
02 07 064 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/02/63 E. R. Baggett Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald 1 00000748
02 07 065 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. L. Cunningham Carbon Copy Signed Report concerning the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald
Most of these are dupes, but that looks like the whole list.
Why are all the reports dated the 1st week in December?
Where are all the reports and witness affidavits from the date of LHO's arrest at the Texas Theater?
-
After all the earlier post after post..[reciting firearm nomenclature etc].. endeavor to blow smoke up and down the street ...the fact remains that car 550 [whoever it was] reported ...
Narrowing it down to an automatic handgun...seems clear to me.
Although, I think he meant -rather than a revolver
.....when confronted with more powerful amps that go to ten, Nigel Tufnel can only say "...but.....this one goes to eleven!"
-
After all the earlier post after post..[reciting firearm nomenclature etc].. endeavor to blow smoke up and down the street ...the fact remains that car 550 [whoever it was] reported ...
Narrowing it down to an automatic handgun...seems clear to me.
If the shells were from an automatic weapon, why weren't they found near Tippit's patrol car where the shooter was standing when he fired the shots? The shells were found about one hundred feet away. Do you seriously believe the killer went through the process of picking up the shells that had just been automatically ejected only to throw them down once he reached the Davis yard? Please explain.
-
I always find it sad that some have no problem with the DPD calling everyone to the library because a kid was running across the lawn when they had a man cornered in the lot behind the gas station.
And if other officers were NOT called to the library, you would then criticize them for not exhausting all possible leads since they knew the patsy was in the theater. In fact, I've seen you do this exact sort of thing more than once.
-
Gerald Hill, regarding the writing of the arrest report...
I explained to trim that this was the suspect on Tippit and did he want us to make up the arrest sheet, or would they make them up.
We were trying to get together to decide who was going to make the offense report and get all the little technicalities out of the way when a detective named Richard Stovall and another one, G. F. Rose, came up, and the four of us were standing when Captain Fritz walked in.
He walked up to Rose and Stovall and made the statement to them, "Go get a search warrant and go out to some address on Fifth Street," and I don't recall the actual street number, in Irving, and "pick up a man named Lee Oswald."
And I asked the captain why he wanted him, and he said, "Well, he was employed down at the Book Depository and he had not been present for a roll call of the employees."
And we said, "Captain, we will save you a trip," or words to that effect, "Because there he sits."
And with that, we relinquished our prisoner to the homicide and robbery bureau, to Captain Fritz.
Walker, Bentley, Lyons, Carroll, and I knew that the prisoner had received a laceration and bruises while effecting his arrest, and that an officer had been scratched while effecting the arrest, and that Bentley had sprained an ankle, and Lyons had sprained an ankle while effecting the arrest--they were fixing to have to make a whole bushel basket of reports--we adjourned to the personnel office, which was further down the hall from homicide and I sat down and started to try to organize the first report on the arrest.
I originally had the heading on it, "Injuries sustained by suspect while effecting his arrest in connection with the murder of Officer J. D. Tippit," and a few minutes later Captain Westbrook came in the office and said that our suspect had admitted being a Communist. This is strictly hearsay. I did not hear it myself.
He himself also said a few minutes later he had previously been in the Marine Corps, had a dishonorable discharge, had been to Russia, and had had some trouble with the police in New Orleans for passing out pro-Castro literature.
This still is all hearsay because I didn't actually hear it firsthand myself.
And at about this point Captain Westbrook suggested that I change the heading of my report to include arrest of the suspect in the assassination of the President and in the murder of Officer J. D. Tippit, which I did.
-
Your lingo lesson and speculation into what Hill meant will not change the transcript showing "Automatic" referred to the weapon.
I agree with Todd..... Hill simply thought that the marking 38 SPL ( 38 special) indicated a automatic handgun.
But we know from numerous witnesses that the man who shot JD Tippit was using a REVOLVER....So arguing about Hill's proclamation is a waste of time and a distractraction from the FACTS.
This debate is akin to the silly distraction about a mauser being found hidden beneath the boxes on the sixth floor when it is abundantly clear that the rifle was a Mannlicher Carcano. Arguing about whether the gun used by Tippit's killer was a automatic or a revolver is a game for those who want to distract.
The eyewitnesses and the shells that were widely disbursed at the scene speak loud and clear.... The Killer was using a REVOLVER and it was NOT a Smith and Wesson.
-
What is it you need from me? Tim and I had the conversation and the issue was addressed Do I owe you some extra confession? Paraphrasing happens and sometimes a person leaves something out that is not as important as it is to those on the other side? Also I remain unconvinced of the significance
Just get your facts straight re witness testimony. They were there. We weren't.
You have just shown that accurate quoting of a witness is not important to you. You definitely fit right in with the CT crowd around here
You CTers are nothing but a gang of gaslighters.
-
Just get your facts straight re witness testimony. They were there. We weren't.
You have just shown that accurate quoting of a witness is not important to you. You definitely fit right in with the CT crowd around here
You CTers are nothing but a gang of gaslighters.
On it goes. Generally when I quote directly it is clear that I am doing so. Therefore when paraphrasing is occurring some folks without agendas are able to understand the difference Was there an indication I was quoting Barrett directly?
-
If the shells were from an automatic weapon, why weren't they found near Tippit's patrol car where the shooter was standing when he fired the shots? The shells were found about one hundred feet away. Do you seriously believe the killer went through the process of picking up the shells that had just been automatically ejected only to throw them down once he reached the Davis yard? Please explain.
circle back
...to Brown's opinion on where these shells are expected to land or where they are found
Domingo Benavides:
"...they were looking all over the place for evidence and everything...and taking fingerprints and what have you...So--I guess they were gonna just walk off and leave them not knowing they was there..and seeing I knew where they was at - I walked over and picked up a stick and picked them up and put them in a Winston package...I think I picked up two and put them in the Winston package and as I was walking back I picked the other one up by hand..."
What's your point? Shells ejected from the automatic weapon and flew over one hundred feet through the air before landing over by the corner?
-
I agree with Todd..... Hill simply thought that the marking 38 SPL ( 38 special) indicated a automatic handgun.
But we know from numerous witnesses that the man who shot JD Tippit was using a REVOLVER....So arguing about Hill's proclamation is a waste of time and a distractraction from the FACTS.
This debate is akin to the silly distraction about a mauser being found hidden beneath the boxes on the sixth floor when it is abundantly clear that the rifle was a Mannlicher Carcano. Arguing about whether the gun used by Tippit's killer was a automatic or a revolver is a game for those who want to distract.
The eyewitnesses and the shells that were widely disbursed at the scene speak loud and clear.... The Killer was using a REVOLVER....
Indeed.
-
You obviously missed it DUH...how many shells did the Davis sisters find? Benavides? LOL!
You can't connect a proper chain of custody to those shells starting where they are found
That is not the point being discussed at all.
I asked you to explain, if the shells were from an automatic weapon, how they came to be found about one hundred feet away from where the shooter was standing when he fired the shots. Why can't you respond to that instead of taking the conversation in an entirely different direction?
Unless, of course, you believe the shells were NOT from an automatic weapon. Do you?
-
Sorry, I don't know exactly where those shells were found..and neither do you
I guess a proper chain of custody would be needed to prove those actually were the shells.
A proper chain of custody would not be needed, even though there was one for the Davis shells.
-
There doesn't seem to be a "chain of evidence" for anything involving the JFK Assassination. No wonder there are so many questions and doubts. You don't know where to start and it is very hard to believe very much at all. What a shock !
-
Sorry, I don't know exactly where those shells were found..and neither do you
I guess a proper chain of custody would be needed to prove those actually were the shells.
We do know where the shells were found, unless you have reason to doubt the stories of Domingo Benavides, Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis. Please post what you've read which casts doubt on where these witnesses said they found the shells. Go on.
There is not a single piece of problem with the chain of custody of the two Davis shells.
-
There doesn't seem to be a "chain of evidence" for anything involving the JFK Assassination. No wonder there are so many questions and doubts. You don't know where to start and it is very hard to believe very much at all. What a shock !
No doubt Mike And the beauty of that is that for the NNers is they can thus can paint us as some sort of psychopatholigized compulsive cynics
-
No doubt Mike And the beauty of that is that for the NNers is they can thus can paint us as some sort of psychopatholigized compulsive cynics
That comment makes it clear that you are a CTer through and through. Quite revealing. I was thinking you might be a fence sitter but I was wrong.
-
No doubt Mike And the beauty of that is that for the NNers is they can thus can paint us as some sort of psychopatholigized compulsive cynics
He's wrong Matt. There are chains of custody for numerous items of evidence. That CTs refuse to acknowledge them or accept them as valid does not negate the fact that they exist.
-
He's wrong Matt. There are chains of custody for numerous items of evidence. That CTs refuse to acknowledge them or accept them as valid does not negate the fact that they exist.
Nor does the fact that you prefer not to see the obvious problems with some of those alleged chains of custody doesn't mean that they are valid or even credible. It just means that your bar is at a very low level.
-
Your lingo lesson and speculation into what Hill meant will not change the transcript showing "Automatic" referred to the weapon.
You are technically correct, but I needed to get the nomenclature issue out of the way first. I also helps that you acknowledged what I said.
Hill would later say that he assumed they were from an automatic because of the way they were scattered. I think there may be more to it than that. Think of Summers' transmission about a ".32 dark finish automatic." Some witness at the scene had to be talking about an auto, and I wouldn't be surprised if Hill heard that description ,or about it, and it influenced his thinking. He hears about a witness describing a .32 auto, sees the .38 Special cases scattered about (and no .32 cases or reports of extra gunmen), and figures that no witness would really be able to tell the caliber of the pistol simply from looking at it from 20 feet away. Therefore, an automatic pistol firing .38 special.
BTW, any more, Ted Callaway is generally held to be the witness responsible for the .32 dark finish automatic . He never got closer to it than the width of Patton Ave, which Google tells me is 30' curb to curb and 45' from sidewalk to sidewalk*. I wouldn't put that much significance to his ID, other than the two things easily divined at that distance: it's size and color. A .32 auto is a relatively compact weapon, and Summers said it best: "dark finish". Both of which happen to fit the description of Oswald's stubby-barreled pistol.
* sidewalks along that stretch of Patton have been redone, so may not be where they were in 1963.
-
Eyewitnesses are unreliable except when they aren't.
The Tippit shooting star witness-Helen Markham stated that she left her house at 1:00 as she usually did. That time was dismissed....she must have been 'mistaken'.
She could not point out LHO and say 'That's him there!'
Even after being prepped for her testimony, she still wasn't sure [already posted here umpteen times]
...from the start the CoE on the "Davis Shells" ..is certainly not clear
The Davis girls didn't put their initials on the shells did they? That starts the CoE legally.
-
Seven officers wrote: suspect arrested or questioned in the balcony
Criminal Intelligence Report, by L. D. Stringfellow
Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers 11/23/63 Statement
Tippit Homicide Report CE Talbart
Report to Chief J. E. Curry, by J. B. Toney
Report to Chief J. E. Curry, by Bob K. Carroll
Report to Chief J. E. Curry, by E. L. Cunningham
Report to Chief J. E. Curry, by Marvin A. Buhk
The Walthers, Toney, Carrol, and Cunningham reports say that Oswald was caught on the first floor, NOT in the balcony. Buhk didn't go into Texas Theatre and didn't see the arrest; he said he heard over the radio (see DPD Ch1 1:45PM) that the suspect was on the balcony. Neither Talbert nor Stringfellow appear to have been at the Texas Theatre; they simply got the bureaucrat's job of writing a report based on someone else's information.
You didn't even bother to read the reports you cited, did you?
-
Nor does the fact that you prefer not to see the obvious problems with some of those alleged chains of custody doesn't mean that they are valid or even credible. It just means that your bar is at a very low level.
I would suggest that your bar is exceedingly high. Its not one that courts of law adhere to.
-
The Davis girls didn't put their initials on the shells did they? That starts the CoE legally.
The legal chain of custody does not start until the first law enforcement officer takes possession.
-
If the shells were from an automatic weapon, why weren't they found near Tippit's patrol car where the shooter was standing when he fired the shots? The shells were found about one hundred feet away. Do you seriously believe the killer went through the process of picking up the shells that had just been automatically ejected only to throw them down once he reached the Davis yard? Please explain.
Hmmmm. Let me put my drooling kook hat on and figure this out.
The Davis sisters are lying. They're part of the plot to frame Saint Oz.
Or maybe they're mistaken and a big gust of wind blew the shells into their yard.
There you go, explained !
-
Except neither one confirmed that either shell in evidence were the same as the ones that were allegedly found on November 22, 1963.
Too dense to understand that even if the shells in evidence were switched, that still wouldn't explain how the original shells were found in the Davis yard.
Bag of rocks.
-
The legal chain of custody does not start until the first law enforcement officer takes possession.
We have a lady who found a shell 10 minutes after the police had left the area.
So Barbara Davis picked it up 100 ft from the shooting..maybe Virginia had a look at it...peradventure the whole family handled the shell for awhile. All their neighbors could have came over and picked up that shell. A really sharp lawyer might have objected under some exclusionary rule....and had that evidence thrown out regardless of a police initial. How do we know that shell hadn't been there since 1956?
Warren Commission Conflicting Evidence of Bullets and Shells In The Shooting of J.D. Tippit
Winchester/Western CE 602 (FBI Q-13) From Tippit's Body
Dallas police say exhibit 602 is the only bullet in their possession. Volume III, page 474
Winchester/Western CE 603 From Tippit's Body Cunningham later went back to the Dallas Police Department at the request of the Commission and found three more bullets.
Volume III, page 474..Winchester/Western CE 605 From Tippit's Body ?
Remington/Peters CE 604 From Tippit's Body ?... Remington/Peters?
Remington/Peters? Eddie Kinsley bullet?
"And this one that they missed hit him in the button. And it fell off the ambulance still in this button. And I would give a million dollars if I had never kicked that thing out."
Cortlandt Cunningham was the FBI's firearms expert.
"The bullet, Q-13 (CE 602). . . is so badly mutilated that there is not sufficient individual microscopic characteristics present for identification purposes."
Volume XXIV, page 263
Joseph D. Nicol was the firearms identification expert for the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, Illinois Department of Public Safety.
"He (Nicol) declared that this bullet (CE 602) was fired from the same weapon that fired the test bullets to the exclusion of all other weapons."
Complete analysis here...
http://dperry1943.com/tippit.html
Conclusion
Over the years I came to believe that Oswald was responsible for Tippit's death. Taking it one step further it was something I set out to prove or disprove for Unsolved History. In my opinion I showed it was likely [seemed likely or appeared so] that Oswald shot Tippit to death. However, no matter what I came up with, during any criminal trial, the defense attorney would demand the bullet and the shell evidence be thrown out for lack of proof. To me there is no question that if the court refused to comply the case would be appealed. On appeal the case would be sent back to be re-tried without the bullet and shell evidence. That was and still is the only point I was trying to make.
Barbara and Virginia Davis could not identify their shells when asked to do so.
Volume XXIV, page 414
From page 263 ~ In 1996 Dale interviewed Tippit shooting lead investigator, Jim Leavelle. "'Poe did not mark them,' Leavelle said of the shells recovered at the Tippit scene. 'There was no reason to mark the [hulls]. There is an evidence bag that is marked with the offense number along with your initials.'"
In my opinion, while Dale is honest in pointing out some of the unresolved issues, several comments in this chapter tend to gloss over problems related to the chain of custody. What follows are a couple of examples:...............................................
http://dperry1943.com/tippit.html
-
and what do we make of it if he was not there. Assigned the report from someone else? An intentional fabrication? Delusional? Part of a conspiracy to create confusion of multiple conflicting reports to perhaps provide additional options? Was there and somehow removed by the official account.
Sorry if I am not willing to dismiss it completely
Assuming that "he" refers to the police officer that writes a specific report on a given arrest here. The guy writing the report is stuck with using the information he has, from the sources he knows. It's not footnoted, nor are specific accounts or sources mentioned, so we don't know exactly where the information used to create the report came from.
What we do know:
The officers involved in the arrest wrote reports about it. All of them say that Oswald was arrested on the lower level of the theater, not the balcony. Many of the officers accounts say that they initially went to the balcony, but descended to the main level when Oswald was found there. At least one account noted that the officers went to the balcony based on the instruction of the radio dispatcher. In the channel 1 radio logs, at about 1:45, there is this transmission from the dispatcher: "We have information that a suspect just went in the Texas Theater on West Jefferson. Supposed to be hiding in the balcony." That transmission seems to be the source of the idea that Oswald was arrested on the balcony, and it was a source broadcast all over the department (and to anyone else who had a police radio). It's not that far fetched, then, to think that a police officer who was not at the arrest to have assumed Oswald was arrested on the balcony based on the radio traffic.
What is important is to note that all of the officers who were in the theater at the time said that Oswald was arrested on the lower level.
-
my doubt re: number of shells by whom....already have
...from the start the CoE on the "Davis Shells" lol is certainly not clear
I think Tom Sorensen has already explained that to you more than once
Sorenson, as usual, is wrong. Both Doughty and Dhority positively identified the shells given to them by each of the Davis sisters.
Whenever you're ready to actually show what the problem is with the chain of custody of these two shells, I'd love to have a look. So far, all I have seen you do is 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.' about how there is a problem, but I haven't seen you show what the problem is.
-
Super -Duper Ultra right wing Kennedy hater asst DA Bill Alexander tagged along with the dynamic duo of Hill and Westbrook. None of these guys were homicide investigators. They were personnel department officers and a prosecutor. Who knows what they were really up to? William Alexander never testified to the Warren Commission.
-
You are technically correct, but I needed to get the nomenclature issue out of the way first. I also helps that you acknowledged what I said.
Hill would later say that he assumed they were from an automatic because of the way they were scattered. I think there may be more to it than that. Think of Summers' transmission about a ".32 dark finish automatic." Some witness at the scene had to be talking about an auto, and I wouldn't be surprised if Hill heard that description ,or about it, and it influenced his thinking. He hears about a witness describing a .32 auto, sees the .38 Special cases scattered about (and no .32 cases or reports of extra gunmen), and figures that no witness would really be able to tell the caliber of the pistol simply from looking at it from 20 feet away. Therefore, an automatic pistol firing .38 special.
BTW, any more, Ted Callaway is generally held to be the witness responsible for the .32 dark finish automatic . He never got closer to it than the width of Patton Ave, which Google tells me is 30' curb to curb and 45' from sidewalk to sidewalk*. I wouldn't put that much significance to his ID, other than the two things easily divined at that distance: it's size and color. A .32 auto is a relatively compact weapon, and Summers said it best: "dark finish". Both of which happen to fit the description of Oswald's stubby-barreled pistol.
* sidewalks along that stretch of Patton have been redone, so may not be where they were in 1963.
The FBI estimated that the closest Callaway was to Oswald was fifty-six feet.
-
The Tippit shooting star witness-Helen Markham stated that she left her house at 1:00 as she usually did. That time was dismissed....she must have been 'mistaken'.
She could not point out LHO and say 'That's him there!'
Even after being prepped for her testimony, she still wasn't sure [already posted here umpteen times] The Davis girls didn't put their initials on the shells did they? That starts the CoE legally.
Supposedly "being prepped for her testimony" in 1964 has absolutely nothing to do with her positive identification of Lee Oswald as the killer on Nov. 22, 1963.
-
Who said anything about Oswald? My post had a title for easy reading - so I thought
I cited "Seven officers that wrote: a suspect arrested or questioned in the balcony"
did they not write one of these in their report?
Neither Buhk nor Carroll mentioned an arrest on the balcony or any questioning of any suspects on the balcony. You're still completely wrong there.
Cunningham and Toney did start asking questions of a guy sitting on or next to the stairs on the balcony, but it doesn't sound like he'd risen to the level of actually being a suspect. Toney said the "manager on duty" told them that "this subject had been in the theater since about 12:05," and that was the end of it.
-
I would suggest that your bar is exceedingly high. Its not one that courts of law adhere to.
Since when are you an expert on how high or low courts of law determine the bar must be?
I wasn't even aware that some sort of universal standard existed, so please enlighten me.....
Btw, Tim, I find it somewhat odd that you seem to feel that merely asking for a sound and conclusive chain of custody for a piece of evidence is somehow raising the bar "exceedingly high".
-
The legal chain of custody does not start until the first law enforcement officer takes possession.
That's exactly right... and those law enforcement officers (Doughty and Dhority) later both positively identified the two shells as the shells turned over to them by the Davis girls.
A proper chain of possession must be maintained from the time it is collected by law enforcement personnel to the time it appears in court.
These clowns can claim there is a problem with the chain of custody, but any clown can make any claim they want, no matter how hollow, unfounded and wrong the claim is. It is another thing entirely to actually show what the chain of custody problem is.
-
So every available officer was needed to check out a kid running across the lawn? Why not send a few and also get the man in the parking lot? Please explain why BOTH couldn't have been done.
Cite for your absurd claim that every available officer ended up going to the library.
C.T. Walker, after seeing the man (Hamby) run into the library, radioed to dispatch that he was going around to the back and he wanted dispatch to get someone to watch the front.
-
Baloney. Automatic and pistol shells look nothing alike. An experienced officer like Hill wouldn't make that mistake.
There are a lot of colt 1911's out there chambered for .38 special, and you can get Desert Eagles chambered for "revolver" cartridges like .357 magnum and .44 magnum. There are revolvers that are chambered for .380 ACP, 9mm luger, and other "auto" cartridges. rimfire .22 has been fired out of revolvers, semi-autos, pump-action, lever action, single shot, and hamster-driven firearms for decades. No matter what *you* think a cartridge was designed for, some gunsmith is willing to design a different sort of weapon around it, and has done so. It's been that way for a very long time.
-
Since when are you an expert on how high or low courts of law determine the bar must be?
I wasn't even aware that some sort of universal standard existed, so please enlighten me.....
Btw, Tim, I find it somewhat odd that you seem to feel that merely asking for a sound and conclusive chain of custody for a piece of evidence is somehow raising the bar "exceedingly high".
Exactly what expertise do *you* have in determining proper chain of custody. I mean, outside of the JFK case?
-
That's exactly right... and those law enforcement officers (Doughty and Dhority) later both positively identified the two shells as the shells turned over to them by the Davis girls.
A proper chain of possession must be maintained from the time it is collected by law enforcement personnel to the time it appears in court.
These clowns can claim there is a problem with the chain of custody, but any clown can make any claim they want, no matter how hollow, unfounded and wrong the claim is. It is another thing entirely to actually show what the chain of custody problem is.
Well , these guys are all attorneys . Experts in trial law. It doesn't matter if he did it or not. The I's aren't dotted and the T's aren't crossed. His civil rights were violated (so the attorneys claim) so he's innocent.
These are the same clowns that come on here and claim they don't have a horse in the race. They don't care if Oswald did it or not. They sit their lame asses on the fence and don't have the sack to just fess up and say they're CONSPIRACY THEORISTS. In spite of the fact that the only people that they oppose are Lone Nut theorists. They sit there and watch nutbag after nutbag come on here and spew the most insane foolish fish tales and NEVER say a word . What a collection of frauds. You know who you are. We know who you are.
-
The affidavit then is accurate ...the confrontation occurred at 1:06 PM?
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339945/m1/1/med_res/)
-
Neither Buhk nor Carroll mentioned an arrest on the balcony or any questioning of any suspects on the balcony. You're still completely wrong there.
Cunningham and Toney did start asking questions of a guy sitting on or next to the stairs on the balcony, but it doesn't sound like he'd risen to the level of actually being a suspect. Toney said the "manager on duty" told them that "this subject had been in the theater since about 12:05," and that was the end of it.
Who is the manager on duty, and why is he saying the guy was there before they opened?
-
Sorenson, as usual, is wrong. Both Doughty and Dhority positively identified the shells given to them by each of the Davis sisters.
Whenever you're ready to actually show what the problem is with the chain of custody of these two shells, I'd love to have a look. So far, all I have seen is you 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.' about how there is a problem, but I haven't seen you show what the problem is.
Are either of them still around? That is chain of custody in my book
Speaking of missing stuff Apparently neither of the wallets, Westbrook's and the one seized at the theater were neither photographed or inventoried by DPD The link also contains another ruined DPD film of Oswald's possessions and a little bit about the Minox
http://harveyandlee.net/NID98.htm
-
Exactly what expertise do *you* have in determining proper chain of custody. I mean, outside of the JFK case?
Silly question, but I'll answer it nevertheless...
I am no different as any average juror in a criminal case. Like any other juror, I don't have to be an expert on anything to make my own determination about the validity and veracity of the evidence presented to me...
Tim whined about the fact that he feels my bar is raised to high and implied that courts of law have a lower standard. He made the claim, not me... so, why not let him answer the question?
If he needs you to defend him or run interference for him, I am sure he will ask you!
-
Based on your fabricated court scene dialogue you evidently didn't comprehend my answer to your trivial question.
Hint: "evidence".
I'm aware of what you were sorta trying to get at. You've slipped the surly bonds of the real world to drift the rarified, sulfone-scented air of the hypothetical. I'm stuck here on Earth, tied to this pesky, real-world case involving this Oswald guy. You know, the one who was arrested in front of all those witnesses and walked to the police cruiser in full view of a big crowd and news cameras. The fact of arrest is self-evident here. Any attempt to disprove that it happened is silly unless you wish to war with reality itself. Good luck with that.
-
We do know where the shells were found, unless you have reason to doubt the stories of Domingo Benavides, Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis. Please post what you've read which casts doubt on where these witnesses said they found the shells. Go on.
There is not a single piece of problem with the chain of custody of the two Davis shells.
Except neither one confirmed that either shell in evidence were the same as the ones that were allegedly found on November 22, 1963.
That means absolutely nothing.
Two young women could not confirm that the shell in evidence was the shell they found. You've really got a winner there. Do you foolishly believe that is supposed to mean something?
Detective Dhority later identified a shell in evidence as the one given to him by Virginia Davis.
Captain Doughty later identified a shell in evidence as the one pointed out to him by Barbara Davis.
-
Well , these guys are all attorneys . Experts in trial law. It doesn't matter if he did it or not. The I's aren't dotted and the T's aren't crossed. His civil rights were violated (so the attorneys claim) so he's innocent.
These are the same clowns that come on here and claim they don't have a horse in the race. They don't care if Oswald did it or not. They sit their lame asses on the fence and don't have the sack to just fess up and say they're CONSPIRACY THEORISTS. In spite of the fact that the only people that they oppose are Lone Nut theorists. They sit there and watch nutbag after nutbag come on here and spew the most insane foolish fish tales and NEVER say a word . What a collection of frauds. You know who you are. We know who you are.
Well said and I totally agree.
-
Well , these guys are all attorneys . Experts in trial law. It doesn't matter if he did it or not. The I's aren't dotted and the T's aren't crossed. His civil rights were violated (so the attorneys claim) so he's innocent.
These are the same clowns that come on here and claim they don't have a horse in the race. They don't care if Oswald did it or not. They sit their lame asses on the fence and don't have the sack to just fess up and say they're CONSPIRACY THEORISTS. In spite of the fact that the only people that they oppose are Lone Nut theorists. They sit there and watch nutbag after nutbag come on here and spew the most insane foolish fish tales and NEVER say a word . What a collection of frauds. You know who you are. We know who you are.
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
-
Who is the manager on duty, and why is he saying the guy was there before they opened?
That I can't tell you, it's just what was in Toney's report. Anything more, you are welcome to investigate.
-
Not sure if this has been on the thread
"And this one that they missed hit him in the button. And it fell off the ambulance still in this button. And I would give a million dollars if I had never kicked that thing out."
Ambulance driver Eddie Kinsley 1978 Golz interview
-
Silly question, but I'll answer it nevertheless...
I am no different as any average juror in a criminal case. Like any other juror, I don't have to be an expert on anything to make my own determination about the validity and veracity of the evidence presented to me...
Tim whined about the fact that he feels my bar is raised to high and implied that courts of law have a lower standard. He made the claim, not me... so, why not let him answer the question?
If he needs you to defend him or run interference for him, I am sure he will ask you!
You are being far too humble. Average jurors don't argue with the attorneys.
But thanks for admitting that you really don't know much about how chain of custody works in the world outside of assassination research.
-
Not sure if this has been on the thread
"And this one that they missed hit him in the button. And it fell off the ambulance still in this button. And I would give a million dollars if I had never kicked that thing out."
Ambulance driver Eddie Kinsley 1978 Golz interview
Nonsense.
The bullet, with the uniform button wrapped around it, was admitted into evidence (CE-602).
At Methodist Hospital, Dr. Paul Moellenhoff removed the bullet from Tippit's body with a pair of hemostats in the presence of Dallas police officer Robert Davenport.
Davenport put a mark on the bullet and later positively identified it as the one removed from Tippit's body by Dr. Moellenhoff.
-
You are being far too humble. Average jurors don't argue with the attorneys.
But thanks for admitting that you really don't know much about how chain of custody works in the world outside of assassination research.
You are being far too humble. Average jurors don't argue with the attorneys.
Another silly comment. Is this a courtroom and is Tim an attorney? I don't think so?.
But thanks for admitting that you really don't know much about how chain of custody works in the world outside of assassination research.
Where precisely did I admit that? You wouldn't be making up your own reality as you go along, would you?
Not that it matters much, as this is not about me. It's about Tim's foolish claim that courts of law adhere to a lower evidentary standard than I do.... Could it be that your reading comprehension is such that you missed that?
-
[list of LHO arrest reporting found in the Dallas city JFK archive deleted]
Why are all the reports dated the 1st week in December?
Where are all the reports and witness affidavits from the date of LHO's arrest at the Texas Theater?
If those questions are that important to you, why don't you go and try to find out one way or the other? And why do you assume that those aren't "all of the reports and affidavits" from the LHO arrest. Honestly, it looks like you're simply trying to move the goalpost eather than make a serious point.
[/list]
-
What Manager?
"...he ducked in as my boss went that way..."
LT Cunningham: We were questioning a young man who was sitting on the stairs in the balcony when the manager told us the suspect was on the first floor." 02 07 016 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 E. L. Cunningham
Detective John B. Toney: "There was a young man sitting near the top of the stairs and we ascertained from manager on duty that this subject had been in the theater since about 12:05 PM." 02 07 043 Report to Chief J. E. Curry 12/03/63 J. B. Toney
John A Callahan is the manager and he left for the day when the man had "ducked in"
what manager vouched for this supect?
Julie Postal
Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir; I was looking up, as I say, when the cars passed, as you know, they make a tremendous noise, and he ducked in as my boss went that way to get in his car.
Mr. BALL. Who is your boss?
Mrs. POSTAL. Mr. John A. Callahan.
Mr. BALL. Where did you say he was?
Mrs. POSTAL. Yes; I say, they bypassed each other, actually, the man ducked in this way and my employer went that-a-way, to get in his car.
The projectionist remained in the projection room during Oswald's arrest.
Neither Postal, Burroughs, nor the projectionist (the only theater employees on duty) spoke to these officers either in the balcony or on the stairs in the balcony.
Someone either identified himself as a theater "manager," or the officers mistook someone as the theater "manager," or these officers were lying about speaking to the "manager."
And of course a logical inference would be if if there was an Oswald in the balcony this provided an alibi Certainly an odd statement since it contains two contradictions
-
A really sharp lawyer might have objected under some exclusionary rule....and had that evidence thrown out regardless of a police initial. How do we know that shell hadn't been there since 1956?
(https://i.imgur.com/yZvyiNX.png)
-
Since when are you an expert on how high or low courts of law determine the bar must be?
Since I began debating with you on the issue four or five years ago.
I wasn't even aware that some sort of universal standard existed, so please enlighten me.....
Btw, Tim, I find it somewhat odd that you seem to feel that merely asking for a sound and conclusive chain of custody for a piece of evidence is somehow raising the bar "exceedingly high".
Merely asking for a sound and conclusive chain of custody for a piece of evidence is one thing. Assuming that an imperfect chain of custody will automatically preclude an item from being admitted as evidence is another thing entirely.
-
That's exactly right... and those law enforcement officers (Doughty and Dhority) later both positively identified the two shells as the shells turned over to them by the Davis girls.
A proper chain of possession must be maintained from the time it is collected by law enforcement personnel to the time it appears in court.
A proper chain of possession should be maintained from the time it is collected by law enforcement personnel to the time it appears in court. However, an imperfect chain of custody will rarely, if ever, keep items like bullets, shells, guns, knives, or any other non-fungible item from being admitted into court as evidence.
These clowns can claim there is a problem with the chain of custody, but any clown can make any claim they want, no matter how hollow, unfounded and wrong the claim is. It is another thing entirely to actually show what the chain of custody problem is.
Well said Bill. CTs do make some rather ridiculous claims. And many of them should know better. Take Bill Simpich for example. The guy is a lawyer, yet he claims that a chain of custody for CE-399 is non-existent and , as such, that bullet would be excluded at any trial. Of course, he's wrong on both accounts. Simpich states outright that Elmer Todd's marking is not on CE-399. He essentially calls Todd a liar and he does so based not on any close personal examination of CE-399 himself, but rather on low resolution photos of the bullet from the National Archives. The guy is definitely a CT clown.
-
The affidavit then is accurate ...the confrontation occurred at 1:06 PM?
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339945/m1/1/med_res/)
Do you really think it would have taken 11 minutes for the shooting of officer Tippit to be reported?
-
Do you really think it would have taken 11 minutes for the shooting of officer Tippit to be reported?
wasn't it reported on Tippits police radio by bystanders within 2-3 minutes?
Edit - 4 minutes maybe?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v197/zeotte/0476-001rowley.gif)
-
Makes a lot of sense to me anyway that Markham on the way to work stops in 1st floor washeteria to try and payphone daughter but line engaged.
Leaving that she looks at washeteria clock and sees 1.04pm. She's in no real hurry as her 1.12 bus is usually late anyway.
She arrives at 10th and Patton approx. 2 minutes or so later. Stands watches Police cruiser and ensuing events,
Bowley after exiting car checks watch at 1.10pm. 30 seconds later Bowley calls shooting in.
I remember from my past visits to this forum that from Herbert Blenner's Dictaphone tapes you can time and prove all the supposed 1.14-1.25pm official times
as wrong and therefore all dileberately falsified to such, and that the latest possible was about 1.49 minutes prior to 1.14-15pm.
Therefore leaving the ONLY time evidence as strong credible witness's Markham, Bowley etc.
Now who would want to falsify those times like that??
Good enough that strong evidence and likelihood for me anyway.
I tried to find Herbert Blenners site to get that again, but all of Herberts sites are no longer accessable that I could find. :)
-
Makes a lot of sense to me anyway that Markham on the way to work stops in 1st floor washeteria to try and payphone daughter but line engaged.
Leaving that she looks at washeteria clock and sees 1.04pm. She's in no real hurry as her 1.12 bus is usually late anyway.
She arrives at 10th and Patton approx. 2 minutes or so later. Stands watches Police cruiser and ensuing events,
Bowley after exiting car checks watch at 1.10pm. 30 seconds later Bowley calls shooting in.
I remember from my past visits to this forum that from Herbert Blenner's Dictaphone tapes you can time and prove all the supposed 1.14-1.25pm official times
as wrong and therefore all dileberately falsified to such, and that the latest possible was about 1.49 minutes prior to 1.14-15pm.
Therefore leaving the ONLY time evidence as strong credible witness's Markham, Bowley etc.
Now who would want to falsify those times like that??
Good enough that strong evidence and likelihood for me anyway.
I tried to find Herbert Blenners site to get that again, but all of Herberts sites are no longer accessable that I could find. :)
She arrives at 10th and Patton approx. 2 minutes or so later. Stands watches Police cruiser and ensuing events,
Bowley after exiting car checks watch at 1.10pm.
But Mrs Markham specified that the time was about 1:06......
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339945/m1/1/med_res/)
-
Since I began debating with you on the issue four or five years ago.
Merely asking for a sound and conclusive chain of custody for a piece of evidence is one thing. Assuming that an imperfect chain of custody will automatically preclude an item from being admitted as evidence is another thing entirely.
Since I began debating with you on the issue four or five years ago.
So you do claim to be an expert on the matter.... that's a bold and interesting claim. Can you back it up with something?
Merely asking for a sound and conclusive chain of custody for a piece of evidence is one thing. Assuming that an imperfect chain of custody will automatically preclude an item from being admitted as evidence is another thing entirely.
I agree, but the trouble for you is that I never claimed anything of the kind. You are the one who keeps on assuming that items being admitted into evidence actually has some sort of significant meaning. The fact is that just about every day things are being entered into evidence at courts around the country that actually are proof of very little.
Evidence gets entered into court for the purpose of being weighed and examined by the lawyers on both sides and ultimately the jury. What you seem to fail to understand is that sometimes defense lawyers do not oppose a piece of bad or questionable evidence being admitted because it ultimately helps their case.
So, perhaps you should focus less on your obsession about something being entered into evidence at court meaning something it really doesn`t and pay some more time at determining whether a piece of evidence will hold up under scrutiny.
-
You are being far too humble. Average jurors don't argue with the attorneys.
Another silly comment. Is this a courtroom and is Tim an attorney? I don't think so?.
When you made yourself an "average juror," you invoked the courtroom. Tim is
trying to argue something, which would make him the equivalent of an attorney
in the courtroom metaphor. Therefore, you're a juror who is arguing with an
attorney. How many "average jurors" do that?
But thanks for admitting that you really don't know much about how chain of custody works in the world outside of assassination research.
Where precisely did I admit that? You wouldn't be making up your own reality as you go along, would you?
When you said "I don't have to be an expert on anything to make my own determination." That is, BTW, technically true, but it's also incredibly subjective, not likely to transfer well, and not likely to convince.
Not that it matters much, as this is not about me. It's about Tim's foolish claim that courts of law adhere to a lower evidentary standard than I do.... Could it be that your reading comprehension is such that you missed that?
Once you set up chain of possession as something you personally determine completely on your own, you made it all about you. Do you not get that?
I myself do not know what the courts consider proper chain of possession. You have already admitted that you do not know either, whether you want to believe it or not. Whether or not Tim does is open to question, I guess. But I was asking you to find out if you really had any reason to argue with him over what a proper standard would be.
-
When you made yourself an "average juror," you invoked the courtroom. Tim is
trying to argue something, which would make him the equivalent of an attorney
in the courtroom metaphor. Therefore, you're a juror who is arguing with an
attorney. How many "average jurors" do that?
When you said "I don't have to be an expert on anything to make my own determination." That is, BTW, technically true, but it's also incredibly subjective, not likely to transfer well, and not likely to convince.
Once you set up chain of possession as something you personally determine completely on your own, you made it all about you. Do you not get that?
I myself do not know what the courts consider proper chain of possession. You have already admitted that you do not know either, whether you want to believe it or not. Whether or not Tim does is open to question, I guess. But I was asking you to find out if you really had any reason to argue with him over what a proper standard would be.
Stop trying to pick a fight with me... you are not very good at it and you and your arguments are simply not interesting enough.
-
She arrives at 10th and Patton approx. 2 minutes or so later. Stands watches Police cruiser and ensuing events,
Bowley after exiting car checks watch at 1.10pm.
But Mrs Markham specified that the time was about 1:06......
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339945/m1/1/med_res/)
Yeah "at 1.06 was standing at corner" so reached the corner 2 minutes from washeteria clock 1.04 claimed time.
So in the approximate accepted timed 2 minutes time to walk that. (even the FBI only tried to stretch it to 2.45 )
"waiting for traffic to pass" - so Tippit is the traffic, so the shooting in that time line happens at 1.07.30 -1.08
After this Benavides takes 50 seconds to get to Tippit . So 1.08.20 - 1.08.50.
Bowley is arriving after shooting is past. All the time he is driving towards the scene Tippit is dead on the ground and Unsub has fled and
Benavides has already reached body.
1.08.20-1.08.50 Benavides starts to head to poice radio and try to use it.
Is trying to use it when Bowley pulls up. So Bowley pulls up 1.09-1.09.30.
By the time Bowley stops car, tells kids to stay put, has a look round, gets out of car,
stands, looks at watch because a crime involved = 1.10.
IMO Him checking watch as 1.10 after exiting car is totally consistent with Markham's 1.06 at corner time AND in all the time aspects involved.
He goes to Tippit and then to Benavides who is struggling to be able to use police radio but Bowley knows how to and does.
IMO Totally consistent with 1.11 - 1.11.30 to call shooting in. :)
-
Yeah "at 1.06 was standing at corner" so reached the corner 2 minutes from washeteria clock 1.04 claimed time.
So in the approximate accepted timed 2 minutes time to walk that. (even the FBI only tried to stretch it to 2.45 )
"waiting for traffic to pass" - so Tippit is the traffic, so the shooting in that time line happens at 1.07.30 -1.08
After this Benavides takes 50 seconds to get to Tippit . So 1.08.20 - 1.08.50.
Bowley is arriving after shooting is past. All the time he is driving towards the scene Tippit is dead on the ground and Unsub has fled and
Benavides has already reached body.
1.08.20-1.08.50 Benavides starts to head to poice radio and try to use it.
Is trying to use it when Bowley pulls up. So Bowley pulls up 1.09-1.09.30.
By the time Bowley stops car, tells kids to stay put, has a look round, gets out of car,
stands, looks at watch because a crime involved = 1.10.
IMO Him checking watch as 1.10 after exiting car is totally consistent with Markham's 1.06 at corner time AND in all the time aspects involved.
He goes to Tippit and then to Benavides who is struggling to be able to use police radio but Bowley knows how to and does.
IMO Totally consistent with 1.11 - 1.11.30 to call shooting in. :)
Exactly right and there is more.... The ambulance arrived at the hospital where Tippit was declared D.O.A. at 1.15 pm.
Here is the pathetic LN counter argument:
Markham said that she usually took the bus at 1.15 but the schedule shows busses arriving at 1.12 and 1.22. Never mind that most busses do not run perfectly according to the schedule and that Markham gave an estimate?. No, for some die hard LN's the 1.15 estimate means that Markham took the 1.22 bus every day and thus also left home later than she said, which in turn means she could have been at 10th/Patton at 1.14 to see the shooting.
Bowley, who had just collected his daughter from school and was on his way to pick up his wife from work did so with a watch that must have been off by at least 5 minutes without actually noticing this, by for example finding his daughter on the sidewalk waiting for 5 minutes because daddy was late.
And as for the ambulance arriving at the hospital at around 1.15, the hospital clock must have been wrong. Never mind that we simply do not know which clock Dr. Liguori used, so let's just say all the clocks in the hospital were wrong.
And, oh yeah, there is the claim of the ambulance driver that the call came in at the funeral home at 1.18 and there is supposed to be a time stamped document to prove it. Never mind that said stamped card is not part of the evidence and to this day nobody has been able to produce it.......
And then there is this: the FBI who had no jurisdiction in Tippit's murder contacted the Methodist Hospital frequently about the exact time of Tippit's D.O.A..... Why would they do that? Why would they even be interested in such a detail? Why did it matter to them so much at such an early stage of the investigation? Food for thought for a curious mind perhaps........
-
Stop trying to pick a fight with me... you are not very good at it and you and your arguments are simply not interesting enough.
I'm not really trying trying pick a fight. All I did was ask you a question. You answered it, and gave away maybe more than you intended.
Now you've run out of arguments, and decided compensate by copping some bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns condescension act.
What it comes down to is, you don't really know what the "official" (for lack of a better term) standard would be for weighing chain of evidence issues. That's actually OK. Like I said, I don't know what they are, either. You also don't have any real standard of your own for weighing CoE, either, beyond "I'll know it when I see it." In a way, this is also OK. You can believe what you want to. Just don't expect others to hop to beat of your own presumption.
-
I'm not really trying trying pick a fight. All I did was ask you a question. You answered it, and gave away maybe more than you intended.
Now you've run out of arguments, and decided compensate by copping some bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns condescension act.
What it comes down to is, you don't really know what the "official" (for lack of a better term) standard would be for weighing chain of evidence issues. That's actually OK. Like I said, I don't know what they are, either. You also don't have any real standard of your own for weighing CoE, either, beyond "I'll know it when I see it." In a way, this is also OK. You can believe what you want to. Just don't expect others to hop to beat of your own presumption.
I'm not really trying trying pick a fight. All I did was ask you a question. You answered it, and gave away maybe more than you intended.
Only in your delusion mind
What it comes down to is, you don't really know what the "official" (for lack of a better term) standard would be for weighing chain of evidence issues.
Stop acting stupid? there isn't a official standard. It doesn?t exist! The bar is beyond a reasonable doubt and that is different for each individual.
Just don't expect others to hop to beat of your own presumption.
There never was a presumption on my part, but I'll let you get on to hop to beat of Tim's beat.
-
Since I began debating with you on the issue four or five years ago.
So you do claim to be an expert on the matter.... that's a bold and interesting claim. Can you back it up with something?
Merely asking for a sound and conclusive chain of custody for a piece of evidence is one thing. Assuming that an imperfect chain of custody will automatically preclude an item from being admitted as evidence is another thing entirely.
I agree, but the trouble for you is that I never claimed anything of the kind. You are the one who keeps on assuming that items being admitted into evidence actually has some sort of significant meaning. The fact is that just about every day things are being entered into evidence at courts around the country that actually are proof of very little.
Evidence gets entered into court for the purpose of being weighed and examined by the lawyers on both sides and ultimately the jury. What you seem to fail to understand is that sometimes defense lawyers do not oppose a piece of bad or questionable evidence being admitted because it ultimately helps their case.
So, perhaps you should focus less on your obsession about something being entered into evidence at court meaning something it really doesn`t and pay some more time at determining whether a piece of evidence will hold up under scrutiny.
Evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated. Establishing a chain of custody is one means of authenticating evidence. Once it has been admitted into court as real evidence, there's very little that a defense team can do about it. Particularly if it's a non-fungible item. If the defense has something concrete to present to the jury once the evidence has been admitted then fine. However, they will not be allowed free reign to spout unsupported claims against the evidence. Not in any properly run court anyway.
-
wasn't it reported on Tippits police radio by bystanders within 2-3 minutes?
Edit - 4 minutes maybe?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v197/zeotte/0476-001rowley.gif)
Bowley used Tippit's radio to contact dispatch at about 1:17 pm. So no, not 4 minutes.
-
Tippit pronounced dead at 1:25pm by Dr. Richard A. Liguori.[7]
-Myers, Dale K. (1998). With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit. Milford, Mich.: Oak Cliff Press. ISBN 0-9662709-7-5.
At approximately 1:11?1:14 p.m.,[17] Tippit was driving slowly eastward on East 10th Street ? about 100 feet (30 m) past the intersection of 10th Street and Patton Avenue ? when he pulled alongside a man who resembled the police description.[21][22] Oswald walked over to Tippit's car and apparently exchanged words with him through an open vent window.[23] Tippit opened his car door and as he walked toward the front of the car, Oswald drew his handgun and fired four shots in rapid succession. One bullet hit Tippit in the chest, one in the stomach, another in his right temple (one bullet hit a button and did not penetrate his skin). Tippit's body was transported from the scene of the shooting by ambulance to Methodist Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 1:25 p.m. by Dr. Richard A. Liguori.[7]
-
Tippit pronounced dead at 1:25pm
At approximately 1:11?1:14 p.m.,[17] Tippit was driving slowly eastward on East 10th Street ? about 100 feet (30 m) past the intersection of 10th Street and Patton Avenue ? when he pulled alongside a man who resembled the police description.[21][22] Oswald walked over to Tippit's car and apparently exchanged words with him through an open vent window.[23] Tippit opened his car door and as he walked toward the front of the car, Oswald drew his handgun and fired four shots in rapid succession. One bullet hit Tippit in the chest, one in the stomach, another in his right temple (one bullet hit a button and did not penetrate his skin). Tippit's body was transported from the scene of the shooting by ambulance to Methodist Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 1:25 p.m. by Dr. Richard A. Liguori.[7]
There are two documents that I'm aware of that record the time that Tippit was pronounced DOA as 1:25 pm. They were both authored by FBI agent Robert Lish.
(https://i.imgur.com/4VT0O3L.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/eRqgs2b.png)
The homicide report made out by C. E. Talbert has Tippit as being pronounced DOA at 1:30 pm.
(https://i.imgur.com/f9J9fnM.jpg)
-
Evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated. Establishing a chain of custody is one means of authenticating evidence. Once it has been admitted into court as real evidence, there's very little that a defense team can do about it. Particularly if it's a non-fungible item. If the defense has something concrete to present to the jury once the evidence has been admitted then fine. However, they will not be allowed free reign to spout unsupported claims against the evidence. Not in any properly run court anyway.
Evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated.
No... this comment alone shows that you have no idea how the admittance of evidence works..
Establishing a chain of custody is one means of authenticating evidence. Once it has been admitted into court as real evidence, there's very little that a defense team can do about it.
More BS... in OJ?s trail the gloves were admitted as evidence and we all know how that worked out
If the defense has something concrete to present to the jury once the evidence has been admitted then fine. However, they will not be allowed free reign to spout unsupported claims against the evidence. Not in any properly run court anyway.
Really, so now you want to limit the discretion of the judge.... good luck with that.
-
There are two documents that I'm aware of that record the time that Tippit was pronounced DOA as 1:25 pm. They were both authored by FBI agent Robert Lish.
Thanks. Now, I just can't wait for Iacoletti to pop up and exclaim 'How does that prove that Oswald shot Tippit'
:D
-
There are two documents that I'm aware of that record the time that Tippit was pronounced DOA as 1:25 pm. They were both authored by FBI agent Robert Lish.
(https://i.imgur.com/4VT0O3L.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/eRqgs2b.png)
The homicide report made out by C. E. Talbert has Tippit as being pronounced DOA at 1:30 pm.
(https://i.imgur.com/f9J9fnM.jpg)
Each to their own Tim.
For mine I am more than happy that timing from Herbert Blenners actual Dictaphone recording, available since day one 1963( ie putting it and your internet clock up at the same time on your screen and timing each instance and the overall sequence in light of all the other claimed times) proves that all such documented police and ambulance claims are proved wrong and therefore proved as dileberately falsified.
I remember doing that fully last time I was here at this forum and it irrevocably proves that.
Each to their own. :)
-
Evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated.
No... this comment alone shows that you have no idea how the admittance of evidence works..
"Real evidence must be relevant, material, and authentic before a judge will permit its use in a trial."
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/real-and-demonstrative-evidence.html
Establishing a chain of custody is one means of authenticating evidence. Once it has been admitted into court as real evidence, there's very little that a defense team can do about it.
More BS... in OJ?s trail the gloves were admitted as evidence and we all know how that worked out
The OJ trial? Wow Martin. Your desperation slip is showing.
-
Each to their own Tim.
For mine I am more than happy that timing from Herbert Blenners actual Dictaphone recording, available since day one 1963( ie putting it and your internet clock up at the same time on your screen and timing each instance and the overall sequence in light of all the other claimed times) proves that all such documented police and ambulance claims are proved wrong and therefore proved as dileberately falsified.
I remember doing that fully last time I was here at this forum and it irrevocably proves that.
Each to their own. :)
Herbert Blenners actual Dictaphone recording? What are you talking about?
-
Herbert Blenners actual Dictaphone recording? What are you talking about?
Herbert used to have the actual original Police radio broadcast tape of the sequence.
I wouldn't 100% know if it was fully authentic and unaltered but he seemed to think it was
and at the time I found other instances of it all saying it was the unaltered one from day one 1963.
-
"Real evidence must be relevant, material, and authentic before a judge will permit its use in a trial."
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/real-and-demonstrative-evidence.html
The OJ trial? Wow Martin. Your desperation slip is showing.
"Real evidence must be relevant, material, and authentic before a judge will permit its use in a trial."
Poor misguided Tim. It seems you still don?t understand. Evidence presented in court must of course be relevant to the case. A judge is not going to allow something that has nothing to do with the case. However, the admittance of a piece of evidence only means that the judge agrees that the evidence should be presented to the jury, who will then decide the probative value.
The OJ trial? Wow Martin. Your desperation slip is showing.
If anything is showing it is your inability to respond with anything of substance. There is nothing desperate about showing you an actual case which destroys your argument. The point I made was clear. In the OJ trial, the judge admitted the gloves and the jury concluded that they actually did not prove the prosecutors claim. One of the ways the evidence was discredited by the defense was by challenging the chain of custody! And that kinda destroys your argument, but I doubt you will ever see or admit that
-
Saint Oz and OJ have something in common.
They're both double murderers.
-
The Paraffin test on Oswald showed his hands tested positive and his right cheek tested negative which was proof he had not fired a rifle that day, and his hands would have tested positive because he dealt with moving boxes of books . The bottom line is that Oswald would have made a hell of a shot from the break room . Case Closed
-
The Paraffin test on Oswald showed his hands tested positive and his right cheek tested negative which was proof he had not fired a rifle that day, and his hands would have tested positive because he dealt with moving boxes of books . The bottom line is that Oswald would have made a hell of a shot from the break room . Case Closed
Paraffin tests aren't known for their reliability and Saint Oz could have washed his smirking face before he murdered JDT. So there goes your claim that the paraffin test is proof of innocence.
On the other hand, Saint Oz's prints were found on the rifle used to murder JFK.
The droolers either have to claim that someone else used C2766 in the assassination or that the print and ballistic evidence was faked.
It would have been a helluva shot from the break room. Not so much from the 6th floor sniper's nest though.
OSWALD: PRESIDENTIAL ASSASSIN AND COP KILLER
-
Paraffin tests aren't known for their reliability and Saint Oz could have washed his smirking face before he murdered JDT. So there goes your claim that the paraffin test is proof of innocence.
On the other hand, Saint Oz's prints were found on the rifle used to murder JFK.
The droolers either have to claim that someone else used C2766 in the assassination or that the print and ballistic evidence was faked.
It would have been a helluva shot from the break room. Not so much from the 6th floor sniper's nest though.
OSWALD: PRESIDENTIAL ASSASSIN AND COP KILLER
The droolers either have to claim that someone else used C2766 in the assassination or that the print and ballistic evidence was faked.
There's not a shred of doubt that the evidence was faked..... The Carcano wasn't even fired that day. There is ample photographic evidence that reveals the evidence photos are fake.....They are NOT genuine in situ photos of the alleged "crime scene". Many of the DPD police officers testified that the did in fact "reconstruct " the scenes for the fake photo taking.....
-
I'm not really trying trying pick a fight. All I did was ask you a question. You answered it, and gave away maybe more than you intended.
Only in your delusion mind
No delusions at all. You really did give up more than you maybe wanted to.
What it comes down to is, you don't really know what the "official" (for lack of a better term) standard would be for weighing chain of evidence issues.
Stop acting stupid? there isn't a official standard. It doesn?t exist! The bar is beyond a reasonable doubt and that is different for each individual.
Oh, but I've been assured there is, and by someone who actually knows for sure. It's not a concisely-written thing like you'll find from ISO or ANSI or an IETF RFC, but made up of guidelines and appellate (and maybe even Supreme) court decisions. Oh, and it's tied into admissibility.
Just don't expect others to hop to beat of your own presumption.
There never was a presumption on my part, but I'll let you get on to hop to beat of Tim's beat.
You presumed that "there isn't a official standard. It doesn?t exist!" That is totally wrong. So much for "never."
-
The OJ trial? Wow Martin. Your desperation slip is showing.
If anything is showing it is your inability to respond with anything of substance. There is nothing desperate about showing you an actual case which destroys your argument. The point I made was clear. In the OJ trial, the judge admitted the gloves and the jury concluded that they actually did not prove the prosecutors claim. One of the ways the evidence was discredited by the defense was by challenging the chain of custody! And that kinda destroys your argument, but I doubt you will ever see or admit that
The defense's convinced the jury with two arguments against the gloves: 1) the gloves --famously-- didn't fit OJ's hand, and 2) that OJ was supposed to have cut one of his fingers during the murder, but there were no holes, tears, cuts, or other openings in the gloves that would correspond to the injury. That is, they were the wrong gloves. Neither of those issues have to do with chain of custody.
-
Herbert used to have the actual original Police radio broadcast tape of the sequence.
I wouldn't 100% know if it was fully authentic and unaltered but he seemed to think it was
and at the time I found other instances of it all saying it was the unaltered one from day one 1963.
Herbert never ever had the actual original Police radio broadcast tape of the sequence.
-
Unfortunately, none of the shells in question meet that requirement.
The Davis shells do. But even if they didn't it wouldn't matter since their having been made readily identifiable by Dhority and Doughty did away with the need for a chain of custody.
-
You talk out of 2 sides of your mouth...LOL
you really should pay more attention to what you write...
Michael, you have difficulty grasping even simple concepts. You should try harder.
first you said...[/i]...will rarely, if ever? --- :D
What's so funny?
Now you say it MUST be authenticated...and there is more than one way to do that?
Go ahead demonstrate some examples of authenticating evidence without CoE
Real evidence must be relevant, material, and authentic before a judge will permit its use in a trial.
funny part is you left this out of your original quote...
The process whereby a lawyer establishes these basic prerequisites is called laying a foundation, accomplished by calling witnesses who establish the item's chain of custody. https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/real-and-demonstrative-evidence.html
"The easiest and usually the least troublesome way to authenticate real evidence is by the testimony of a witness who can identify a unique object in court. For example, the curator of a museum may be able to testify that he is familiar with, say, Picasso's "Dames de Avignon" and that what has been marked as exhibit so-and-so is in fact that unfortunate painting. It is important to remember, however, that many more mundane objects may be amenable to this kind of identification. A unique contract, or one that has been signed, may be authenticated by a person who is familiar with the document or its signatures. A ring may have an inscription by which it can be identified. Even a manufactured object, like a wallet, may be identifiable by its owner after years of use have given it a unique personality.
The second method--identification in court of an object that has been made unique, is extremely useful since it sometimes allows a lawyer or client to avoid the pitfalls of proving a chain of custody by exercising some forethought. If a witness who can establish an object's relevance to the case marks it with his signature, initials, or another mark that will allow him to testify that he can tell it from all other objects of its kind, that witness will be allowed to identify the object in court and thus to authenticate it. Often, if a member of the lawyer's staff or another person early in the chain of custody marks the evidence, big problems can be avoided if a later link in the chain turns out to be missing.
The third and least desirable way to authenticate real evidence is by establishing a chain of custody. Establishing a chain of custody requires that the whereabouts of the evidence at all times since the evidence was involved in the events at issue be established by competent testimony."
https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/summary-of-the-rules-of-evidence.html
-
The marks on the shells were?
On the inside rims of the shells.
-
"Real evidence must be relevant, material, and authentic before a judge will permit its use in a trial."
Poor misguided Tim. It seems you still don?t understand. Evidence presented in court must of course be relevant to the case. A judge is not going to allow something that has nothing to do with the case. However, the admittance of a piece of evidence only means that the judge agrees that the evidence should be presented to the jury, who will then decide the probative value.
Martin, I pointed out that evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated. You said No. You were wrong. "Real evidence must be relevant, material, and authentic before a judge will permit its use in a trial."
The OJ trial? Wow Martin. Your desperation slip is showing.
If anything is showing it is your inability to respond with anything of substance. There is nothing desperate about showing you an actual case which destroys your argument. The point I made was clear. In the OJ trial, the judge admitted the gloves and the jury concluded that they actually did not prove the prosecutors claim. One of the ways the evidence was discredited by the defense was by challenging the chain of custody! And that kinda destroys your argument, but I doubt you will ever see or admit that
Having OJ try the gloves on was not the Defense challenging the chain of custody. It was the prosecution being stupid. It was Christopher Darden, not the Defense , who had OJ try putting the gloves on.
-
The Paraffin test on Oswald showed his hands tested positive and his right cheek tested negative which was proof he had not fired a rifle that day, and his hands would have tested positive because he dealt with moving boxes of books . The bottom line is that Oswald would have made a hell of a shot from the break room . Case Closed
Mike, the paraffin tests on the FBI agents who test-fired the rifle also tested negative on the cheek. Sorry, but the paraffin test does not exonerate your guy.
-
The defense's convinced the jury with two arguments against the gloves: 1) the gloves --famously-- didn't fit OJ's hand, and 2) that OJ was supposed to have cut one of his fingers during the murder, but there were no holes, tears, cuts, or other openings in the gloves that would correspond to the injury. That is, they were the wrong gloves. Neither of those issues have to do with chain of custody.
OJ was wearing rubber gloves under the actual gloves when he tried them on in court
Of course he had to struggle to put them on.
-
Martin, I pointed out that evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated. You said No. You were wrong. "Real evidence must be relevant, material, and authentic before a judge will permit its use in a trial."
Having OJ try the gloves on was not the Defense challenging the chain of custody. It was the prosecution being stupid. It was Christopher Darden, not the Defense , who had OJ try putting the gloves on.
And let OJ try the gloves on over rubber gloves
Of course he had trouble putting them on.
-
completely wrong?...not sure what you're trying to prove here....and really don't give a crap
who said arrest?
A few pages before my original post someone (I think it was Matt) mentioned 7 officers wrote suspect in balcony
I searched and found those...so what's the problem?....did they not write "suspect in balcony"?
What Matt wrote was:
"There is a hint of the second Oswald?s arrest in the Dallas police records.
According to the Dallas Police Department?s official Homicide Report on J.D. Tippit, ?Suspect was later arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater at 231 W. Jefferson.? 457
Dallas Police detective L.D. Springfellow also reported to Captain W. P. Gannaway, ?Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater.? 458
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/02/"
And the link is to a Bill Kelly post that quotes Douglas' claim --well, insinuation, really-- that a second person was arrested on the balcony, and taken out the back door.
That's where I jumped into the sub-thread and posted the Dallas city archives index of the reports of the officers who were at the Texas Theatre. All of those accounts say that only one person, Oswald, was arrested, and that he was arrested on the main floor, not the balcony. I pointed out that the it doesn't appear that the Homicide report nor the Stringfellow report were written by anyone who was at the theater during the arrest. That being so, I wouldn't put much stock in that particular claim in either.
You are right that some of the officers proceeded to the balcony first. The DPD channel 1 logs show that when the dispatcher advise. "We have information that a suspect just went in the Texas Theater on West Jefferson. Supposed to be hiding in the balcony," so that stands to reason they would go there first. Buhk never went into the theater; he stayed outside to man the radio in the squad car. His knowledge of what was going on in the Texas Theatre consisted solely of that one radio report. Carroll went to the balcony, and saw the commotion on the lower floor when Oswald was arrested, but his report didn't mention anyone being questioned on the balcony. So, neither Buhk nor Carrol said that anyone was arrested on the balcony nor did they say anyone was questioned up there.
Of the others, Walther, Toney, Cunningham, and Hill, Walther saw someone being questioned, but wasn't involved in it himself. From context, it's apparent that Cunningham and Toney questioned some guy to determine if he could be the suspect, but were redirected by someone who is identified as either the "manager" or the "manager on duty"
For context, Taylor went to the balcony, but doesn't mention seeing anything going on up there. Same with Lyon. A number of other officers, all of whom entered from the rear of the theater went directly to the first floor. They were met by Jonnny Calvin Brewer, who pointed out Oswald then and there.
Since Julia Postal called the cops, she has to be the source for locating the suspect in the balcony. However, she didn't see him enter the theater, didn't see where he went once inside, nor did she go into the auditorium to determine his whereabouts. That job was assigned to Butch Burroughs, though Burroughs wasn't actually told to find a specific person. In fact, Postal and Brewer actually withheld the underlying reason for the assignment from Burroughs. However they figured he was in the balcony is bound to be indirect, convoluted, and not particularly compelling.
In short, there never was an arrest on the balcony. Nor was there a suspect, though there was one guy who seems to have been sitting in the wrong place at the wrong time, and was briefly the interest of a couple of police officers without actually getting to the point of being a suspect. I guess you could call him a "person of interest," as they tend to like to do nowadays.
The upshot of all of this is that there is no real evidence from the police reports that a second person was arrested at the TT and take outside the back door, as Douglas would have you believe.
-
what a waste...the question was clear
who is the "manager" that vouched for this suspect?
That wasn't the claim in the post I replied to, so I'm not sure why you think it would be "clear"
However, it should be well-established by now that only one person was arrested at the Texas Theatre that day, and there's no good reason to believe that there were any other suspects running around the place.
As to whom the "manager on duty" was...
Postal said that John Callahan walked out of the theater to his car at about the same time Oswald snuck in. She doesn't mention him re-entering, but she doesn't say that he didn't come back in. Still, I doubt it was him. The term, "manager on duty," used by Toney implies that it was someone who was not the manager but provisionally acting in that capacity, like an assistant manager or some other employee who would have been given responsibility over the place in the manager's absence. AFAIK, no one has a 1963 Texas Theatre org chart, so we don't know how many people would have been working there that day, if any, other than Postal, Burroughs, Callahan, and the Projectionist.
So, we don't really know, and I don't really know if anyone has ever tried to find out. We also don't have any good reason to think it would be important, either, which would explain why no one has ever tried to find out after 50 years.
To me, it looks like the mystery manager is a desperation play wildly snatched at while backpedalling from Douglas' insinuations.
-
Someone either identified himself as a theater "manager," or the officers mistook someone as the theater "manager," or these officers were lying about speaking to the "manager."
(https://s15.postimg.cc/ha3h7ui3f/Brewer_manager.jpg)
JohnM
-
(https://s15.postimg.cc/ha3h7ui3f/Brewer_manager.jpg)
JohnM
Brewer was at the rear exit, near the screen. He wasn't on the balcony AFAIK. Don't think it would be him.
-
I don't even know what that is.
you mean "a Bill Kelly post that quotes Douglas' claim --well, insinuation, really-- that a second person was arrested on the balcony, and taken out the back door." ?
Matt originally linked to it; I quoted the link in post 795
(http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/02/ in case you missed it)
You responded to #795 in 796, so it's odd that you "don't know what it is".
Damn, man, playing dumb is one thing, being so good at it is another.
-
Brewer was at the rear exit, near the screen. He wasn't on the balcony AFAIK. Don't think it would be him.
Yeah I don't think that Brewer was on the balcony but who said the manager was on the balcony?
JohnM
-
Yeah I don't think that Brewer was on the balcony but who said the manager was on the balcony?
JohnM
A pair of DPD officers, Toney and IIRC Cunningham.
-
Herbert never ever had the actual original Police radio broadcast tape of the sequence.
What was the one he had, that used to come up as a little box on the screen, supposed to be then Tim?
(ie the 2 minute excerpt with the citizen(Bowley?Benavides) calling in on it and a bit before it and a minute or so after it.)
I mean at that time I checked it in other places round the internet and they were all the same time and statements. :)
-
A pair of DPD officers, Toney and IIRC Cunningham.
Yeah I read Capasse's post but I think their statements are being misinterpreted and I get the impression that while the Theater was being stormed the cops on the balcony who were desperately needed downstairs were simply having information relayed to them from the Police who confronted Brewer(suit wearing Manager) at the rear exit and Brewer must have been the manager who said Oswald was on the ground floor.
JohnM
-
What was the one he had, that used to come up as a little box on the screen, supposed to be then Tim?
(ie the 2 minute excerpt with the citizen(Bowley?Benavides) calling in on it and a bit before it and a minute or so after it.)
I mean at that time I checked it in other places round the internet and they were all the same time and statements. :)
EDIT by reply quoting -
ALSO Tim I found this from Herberts posting on another forum.
Herbert Blenner
Advanced Member
Members
52 posts
"See the following link for the audio segment used in this article.
http://hdblenner.com/temps/tippit.wav
The transcripts of radio traffic on Channel-I and an audio file reportedly originating from the dictabelt show that the authorities altered the sequence of recorded events surrounding the murder of Officer Tippit."
Part One - Activity on the Primary Police Channel-I
When police initially arrived at the scene of the Tippit shooting, the dictabelt had recorded six addresses for the location of the crime scene. This situation is particularly difficult to dismiss since a citizen reported the shooting to the police over the two-way radio of Tippit?s patrol car.
-
I am I wrong in seeing the seemingly lack of a response to the citizen phone in on Tppits radio? I believe Last time it came up there was silence
-
What Matt wrote was:
"There is a hint of the second Oswald?s arrest in the Dallas police records.
According to the Dallas Police Department?s official Homicide Report on J.D. Tippit, ?Suspect was later arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater at 231 W. Jefferson.? 457
Dallas Police detective L.D. Springfellow also reported to Captain W. P. Gannaway, ?Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater.? 458
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/02/"
And the link is to a Bill Kelly post that quotes Douglas' claim --well, insinuation, really-- that a second person was arrested on the balcony, and taken out the back door.
That's where I jumped into the sub-thread and posted the Dallas city archives index of the reports of the officers who were at the Texas Theatre. All of those accounts say that only one person, Oswald, was arrested, and that he was arrested on the main floor, not the balcony. I pointed out that the it doesn't appear that the Homicide report nor the Stringfellow report were written by anyone who was at the theater during the arrest. That being so, I wouldn't put much stock in that particular claim in either.
You are right that some of the officers proceeded to the balcony first. The DPD channel 1 logs show that when the dispatcher advise. "We have information that a suspect just went in the Texas Theater on West Jefferson. Supposed to be hiding in the balcony," so that stands to reason they would go there first. Buhk never went into the theater; he stayed outside to man the radio in the squad car. His knowledge of what was going on in the Texas Theatre consisted solely of that one radio report. Carroll went to the balcony, and saw the commotion on the lower floor when Oswald was arrested, but his report didn't mention anyone being questioned on the balcony. So, neither Buhk nor Carrol said that anyone was arrested on the balcony nor did they say anyone was questioned up there.
Of the others, Walther, Toney, Cunningham, and Hill, Walther saw someone being questioned, but wasn't involved in it himself. From context, it's apparent that Cunningham and Toney questioned some guy to determine if he could be the suspect, but were redirected by someone who is identified as either the "manager" or the "manager on duty"
For context, Taylor went to the balcony, but doesn't mention seeing anything going on up there. Same with Lyon. A number of other officers, all of whom entered from the rear of the theater went directly to the first floor. They were met by Jonnny Calvin Brewer, who pointed out Oswald then and there.
Since Julia Postal called the cops, she has to be the source for locating the suspect in the balcony. However, she didn't see him enter the theater, didn't see where he went once inside, nor did she go into the auditorium to determine his whereabouts. That job was assigned to Butch Burroughs, though Burroughs wasn't actually told to find a specific person. In fact, Postal and Brewer actually withheld the underlying reason for the assignment from Burroughs. However they figured he was in the balcony is bound to be indirect, convoluted, and not particularly compelling.
In short, there never was an arrest on the balcony. Nor was there a suspect, though there was one guy who seems to have been sitting in the wrong place at the wrong time, and was briefly the interest of a couple of police officers without actually getting to the point of being a suspect. I guess you could call him a "person of interest," as they tend to like to do nowadays.
The upshot of all of this is that there is no real evidence from the police reports that a second person was arrested at the TT and take outside the back door, as Douglas would have you believe.
One minute, conspiracy theorists believe evidence is falsified to hide the true facts.
The next minute, conspiracy theorists ignore the obvious, that if a suspect really was arrested in the balcony, any documentation supporting that idea would have disappeared (or been falsified) long ago.
I wish they would make up their minds. Were these conspirators geniuses or fools?
-
The Davis shells do. But even if they didn't it wouldn't matter since their having been made readily identifiable by Dhority and Doughty did away with the need for a chain of custody.
Evidently not when Poe and Barnes testified.
You want to try again?
How about YOU try again?
What do Poe and Barnes have to do with the two Davis shells, Doughty and Dhority?
I can't wait to hear this one.
-
Martin, I pointed out that evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated. You said No. You were wrong. "Real evidence must be relevant, material, and authentic before a judge will permit its use in a trial."
Having OJ try the gloves on was not the Defense challenging the chain of custody. It was the prosecution being stupid. It was Christopher Darden, not the Defense , who had OJ try putting the gloves on.
Martin, I pointed out that evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated.
Nope, that?s what you turned it into later. You began by basically claiming that the admittance of a piece of evidence somehow automatically certifies it?s probative value to such an extend that the defense could do nothing more about it. And that is simply not true.
Having OJ try the gloves on was not the Defense challenging the chain of custody.
I never said anything about OJ trying on the gloves. And the defense did in fact challenge the chain of custody when they questioned the credibility of Mark Furman who claimed to have found one of the gloves behind OJ?s house.
-
When police initially arrived at the scene of the Tippit shooting, the dictabelt had recorded six addresses for the location of the crime scene. This situation is particularly difficult to dismiss since a citizen reported the shooting to the police over the two-way radio of Tippit?s patrol car.
Anyone familiar with the evidence in the case (the addresses relevant to the witnesses) would understand perfectly why there were different addresses.
For example, L.J. Lewis, Pat Patterson, Harold Russell and Warren Reynolds were at the Reynolds Motor Company when they heard the shots. They looked up Patton towards the sound of the shots and saw a man running down Patton (towards them) with a gun in his hands. Harold Russell went up to Tenth Street. Warren Reynolds and Pat Patterson followed the killer. However, Lewis went inside the offices of the car lot and called the police. The address of the car lot, where Lewis was calling from, was 510 E. Jefferson Boulevard.
510 E. Jefferson Blvd. was one of the addresses mentioned in the police tapes.
-
Scattered?
Hill also later said he put his mark in them...
What happened to those marks?
Offhand, I don't remember the exact term he used, but he did say that he figured it was an auto from the way that the cases were distributed. Or, "scattered" as I said it. Like I said, I think that the ".32 dark finish automatic" description of the murderous firearm exerted an influence of it's own, and likely more than anything to do with the location of the cases.
As for the marks, I don't know. I wearied of CT chain-of-custody arguments years ago, when I realized that the goalposts would never stop being moved on me. Just like you are now trying to do by changing the subject from "why did Hill radio 'automatic .38'" to "what is the chain of evidence for the .38 cases?"
It looks like someone else has taken up that thankless task anyway, so I'll leave it to them. The subject seems to be in good hands.
-
No delusions at all. You really did give up more than you maybe wanted to.
Oh, but I've been assured there is, and by someone who actually knows for sure. It's not a concisely-written thing like you'll find from ISO or ANSI or an IETF RFC, but made up of guidelines and appellate (and maybe even Supreme) court decisions. Oh, and it's tied into admissibility.
You presumed that "there isn't a official standard. It doesn?t exist!" That is totally wrong. So much for "never."
You presumed that "there isn't a official standard. It doesn?t exist!" That is totally wrong. So much for "never."
If there was an official standard you would be able to search for and find the relevant document(s) and show it here. The mere fact that you pathetically try to fall back on an alleged assurance by some unnamed person who you claim `knows for sure "is telling enough". You will not be able to produce a document containing an official standard simply because it doesn?t exist.
And you in fact have admitted as much.... by saying (1) that there is no "concisely-written thing" and (2) that it is "made up of guidelines and appellate (and maybe even Supreme) court decisions" which is actually nothing more than jurisprudence.
-
Evidently not when Poe and Barnes testified.
You want to try again?
Neither Poe nor Barnes had anything to do with the Davis shells.
-
And the marks read?
However Dhority and Doughty marked them.
-
What was the one he had, that used to come up as a little box on the screen, supposed to be then Tim?
(ie the 2 minute excerpt with the citizen(Bowley?Benavides) calling in on it and a bit before it and a minute or so after it.)
I mean at that time I checked it in other places round the internet and they were all the same time and statements. :)
I don't recall him having a little box on the screen. Whatever it was , it was not the actual original Police radio broadcast tape.
-
EDIT by reply quoting -
ALSO Tim I found this from Herberts posting on another forum.
Herbert Blenner
Advanced Member
Members
52 posts
"See the following link for the audio segment used in this article.
http://hdblenner.com/temps/tippit.wav
The transcripts of radio traffic on Channel-I and an audio file reportedly originating from the dictabelt show that the authorities altered the sequence of recorded events surrounding the murder of Officer Tippit."
Part One - Activity on the Primary Police Channel-I
When police initially arrived at the scene of the Tippit shooting, the dictabelt had recorded six addresses for the location of the crime scene. This situation is particularly difficult to dismiss since a citizen reported the shooting to the police over the two-way radio of Tippit?s patrol car.
Herb used to make a lot of oddball claims. That the dictabelt recorded numerous different addresses for the location of the crime scene doesn't mean that it was altered in any way. It just shows that there was a lot of confusion at the time.
-
I am I wrong in seeing the seemingly lack of a response to the citizen phone in on Tppits radio? I believe Last time it came up there was silence
What are you looking for Matt?
-
You presumed that "there isn't a official standard. It doesn?t exist!" That is totally wrong. So much for "never."
If there was an official standard you would be able to search for and find the relevant document(s) and show it here. The mere fact that you pathetically try to fall back on an alleged assurance by some unnamed person who you claim `knows for sure "is telling enough". You will not be able to produce a document containing an official standard simply because it doesn?t exist.
And you in fact have admitted as much.... by saying (1) that there is no "concisely-written thing" and (2) that it is "made up of guidelines and appellate (and maybe even Supreme) court decisions" which is actually nothing more than jurisprudence.
"Nothing more than jurisprudence" you say. Do you actually believe that jurisprudence does not itself set standards to keep the judicial process as uniform and transparent as possible? That it doesn't set rules and tests as to what can be properly admitted and weighed as evidence? Now that would be a funny thing to believe! And no, it's not something that is written in stone in one hundred words or less, Ten Commandments-style. But it doesn't have to be short, concise, pithy, or terse to be a standard.
-
A few quotes from Bill Simpich's research at JFK facts
Both 38 special and 38 automatic hulls are clearly identified at their base ?- Hill?s misidentification cannot be passed off as a simple mistake.
Officer J.M. Poe told the FBI that he marked these hulls with his initials ?JMP?. When he testified before the Commission, Poe stated under oath that he could not swear that he initialed these hulls. Hence, there was no chain of custody.
Officer Jerry Hill complicated matters still further by claiming that Poe showed him three hulls
In the face of a very carefully phrased question by David Belin, Hill denied under oath that he made the radio call about the finding of 38 automatic hulls at 1:40 pm. Hill claimed that he wasn?t using his call number ?550-2? as much as another officer, and that it was wrong to think that he made the call.
Twenty-two years later, in 1986, Hill admitted to researcher Dale Myers that he made the call. When he was asked how he determined that the hulls were 38 caliber, Hill said, ?Thirty-eight?s stamped on the bottom of it. I looked on the bottom.?
It could be argued that the two hulls found by two sisters, Barbara and Virginia Davis should be admitted because of the clear stories about two different officers that received them from the Davis sisters.
Hill told Dale Myers that all of the shells found within a foot and a half of each other. The problem with Hill?s story is that the police reports and testimony state that the four shells were found many yards apart.
Hill wrote in his report that one of the shells had a hammer mark on the primer.
Firearms and toolmark expert Cortlandt Cunningham testified to the Warren Commission, ?We found nothing to indicate that this weapon?s firing pin had struck the primer of any of these cartridges.? In other words, Cunningham called Hill a liar.
Furthermore, the Davis sisters said that the marked hulls were not the hulls that they originally provided to the police
On this last quote in regard to the Davis Sisters is from Volume XXIV, page 414 but no direct link to fin that
It seems the Davis sisters told officers said they saw a man running across their lawn shortly after the shooting but the officers cannot find them and the sisters find them later Just trying to see if I am getting this right Is there a clear time the Davis sisters found the shells? The area was not cordoned off apparently?
I assume there is at least a transcript of Hills call at 1:40 if not a recording
From D Perry
1) The Bullets
From page 250 ~ "The bullets removed from Tippit's body during the autopsy were marked and turned over to the FBI, along with the bullet and police button removed earlier at Methodist Hospital."
If this statement is accurate then what are we to make of the comment found in Warren Commission Volume III, page 474?
"Cunningham later went back to the Dallas Police Department at the request of the Commission and found three more bullets."
The truth is no bullets were ever turned over to the FBI. Cunningham returned to Dallas months later, went through some file cabinets and came up with the bullets. As far as I'm concerned a clear break in the chain of custody.
Your statement that "no bullets were ever turned over to the FBI" is incorrect.
One bullet and a uniform button were turned over to the FBI for testing on the night of 11-22-63. The three other bullets were turned over to the FBI on 3-13-64 after the first bullet proved insufficient to determine the source weapon. All of this information is detailed in With Malice (pp.641-42, endnote 697)
The Cunningham remark is a small part of how the FBI came to possess all of the bullets. (See endnote 697)
As far as "a clear break in the chain of custody," all of the bullets were identified by the markings placed on them. The bullet and button removed at Methodist was marked by R.A. Davenport and the three bullets removed at Parkland during the autopsy were marked by Earl F. Rose. (24H415 CE2011, p.9)
-
What are you looking for Matt?
It sounds like the reports of four or six addresses of the location caused confusion Wouldn't a call from the officers car take some precedent over the others and clear up the situation?
-
So the fact that the shells in evidence CANNOT be shown to have been found at the crime scene doesn't bother you at all. This says all that we need to know about you.
If the shells were switched, why would the switcher throw them in the front yard of a house further down the street? You could hardly throw them that far when standing in the spot where Tippet's killer fired. It doesn't make sense that the shells were picked up (every last one of them) and furled down the street away from the scene. Anyone who believes that has lost the plot.
-
Martin, I pointed out that evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated.
Nope, that?s what you turned it into later. You began by basically claiming that the admittance of a piece of evidence somehow automatically certifies it?s probative value to such an extend that the defense could do nothing more about it. And that is simply not true.
Quote from: Tim Nickerson on June 17, 2018, 04:38:09 AM (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,697.msg18907.html#msg18907)
Evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated.
Quote from: Martin Weidmann on June 17, 2018, 05:14:35 AM (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,697.msg18913.html#msg18913)
No... this comment alone shows that you have no idea how the admittance of evidence works..
(https://i.imgur.com/yZvyiNX.png)
Having OJ try the gloves on was not the Defense challenging the chain of custody.
I never said anything about OJ trying on the gloves. And the defense did in fact challenge the chain of custody when they questioned the credibility of Mark Furman who claimed to have found one of the gloves behind OJ?s house.
Provide the transcript that has them challenging the chain of custody of the gloves.
-
I don't recall him having a little box on the screen. Whatever it was , it was not the actual original Police radio broadcast tape.
Whatever it was , it was not the actual original Police radio broadcast tape.
Why not?
-
Whatever it was , it was not the actual original Police radio broadcast tape.
Why not?
How would Herbert Blenner have been permitted to obtain and hold the actual original Police radio dictabelt? Think about that.
-
How would Herbert Blenner have been permitted to obtain and hold the actual original Police radio dictabelt? Think about that.
Well Ok but I only meant a copy of the original.
-
Well Ok but I only meant a copy of the original.
Thumb1:
-
Anyone familiar with the evidence in the case (the addresses relevant to the witnesses) would understand perfectly why there were different addresses.
For example, L.J. Lewis, Pat Patterson, Harold Russell and Warren Reynolds were at the Reynolds Motor Company when they heard the shots. They looked up Patton towards the sound of the shots and saw a man running down Patton (towards them) with a gun in his hands. Harold Russell went up to Tenth Street. Warren Reynolds and Pat Patterson followed the killer. However, Lewis went inside the offices of the car lot and called the police. The address of the car lot, where Lewis was calling from, was 510 E. Jefferson Boulevard.
510 E. Jefferson Blvd. was one of the addresses mentioned in the police tapes.
ALSO Tim I found this from Herberts posting on another forum.
Herbert Blenner
Advanced Member
Members
52 posts
"See the following link for the audio segment used in this article.
http://hdblenner.com/temps/tippit.wav
The transcripts of radio traffic on Channel-I and an audio file reportedly originating from the dictabelt show that the authorities altered the sequence of recorded events surrounding the murder of Officer Tippit."
Part One - Activity on the Primary Police Channel-I
When police initially arrived at the scene of the Tippit shooting, the dictabelt had recorded six addresses for the location of the crime scene. This situation is particularly difficult to dismiss since a citizen reported the shooting to the police over the two-way radio of Tippit?s patrol car.
Herb used to make a lot of oddball claims. That the dictabelt recorded numerous different addresses for the location of the crime scene doesn't mean that it was altered in any way. It just shows that there was a lot of confusion at the time.
And just to clarify further in relation to Bill and Tims point of the 6 addresses - neither me or Herbert is saying that meant in itself that the authorities altered the sequence of recorded events surrounding the murder of Officer Tippit."
But that the times on of all concerned don't match meaning mainly the police and ambulance documented data is falsified.
If anyone is interested the tag of that whole Herbert Blenner posting is -
http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/810-hello-police-operator/
-
[Just so you know what Rob was replying to]
There are a lot of colt 1911's out there chambered for .38 special, and you can get Desert Eagles chambered for "revolver" cartridges like .357 magnum and .44 magnum. There are revolvers that are chambered for .380 ACP, 9mm luger, and other "auto" cartridges. Rimfire .22 has been fired out of revolvers, semi-autos, pump-action, lever action, single shot, and hamster-driven firearms for decades. No matter what *you* think a cartridge was designed for, some gunsmith is willing to design a different sort of weapon around it, and has done so. It's been that way for a very long time.
Blah, blah, blah. Even Dale Myers said the automatic shells showed "AUTO" and the revolver shells showed ".38 Special". You would have to think that Hill couldn't read to think he made the mistake claimed.
And Dale Myers' expertise in firearms is......?
As I've already said, the way gun people say .38 auto is ".38 auto," not "auto .38." The way gun people say ".38 special" is ".38" I hate to repeat myself, but fear the need to in the face of the militantly unthinking.
-
"Nothing more than jurisprudence" you say. Do you actually believe that jurisprudence does not itself set standards to keep the judicial process as uniform and transparent as possible? That it doesn't set rules and tests as to what can be properly admitted and weighed as evidence? Now that would be a funny thing to believe! And no, it's not something that is written in stone in one hundred words or less, Ten Commandments-style. But it doesn't have to be short, concise, pithy, or terse to be a standard.
Do you actually believe that jurisprudence does not itself set standards to keep the judicial process as uniform and transparent as possible?
Nice try to pivot away from your bogus claim that there is an official standard, which clearly there isn't, but here again you screw up big time. Jurisprudence is by nature volatile, evolving and subject to interpretation by individual judges. It is thus by no means an official standard.
That it doesn't set rules and tests as to what can be properly admitted and weighed as evidence?
Not automatically and most certainly not in general terms. Jurisprudence can influence a decision by a Judge but it can never replace the law itself.
And no, it's not something that is written in stone in one hundred words or less, Ten Commandments-style. But it doesn't have to be short, concise, pithy, or terse to be a standard.
BS: For something to be an official standard it needs to be rock solid. Jurisprudence can ultimately result to some extend in a legal standard, after over time enough rulings based on it have been upheld on appeal, but even that can not be considered the "official standard" you foolishly believed existed.
You can twist and turn all you want but the fact remains that there is no offical standard.
-
ALSO Tim I found this from Herberts posting on another forum.
Herbert Blenner
Advanced Member
Members
52 posts
"See the following link for the audio segment used in this article.
http://hdblenner.com/temps/tippit.wav
The transcripts of radio traffic on Channel-I and an audio file reportedly originating from the dictabelt show that the authorities altered the sequence of recorded events surrounding the murder of Officer Tippit."
Part One - Activity on the Primary Police Channel-I
When police initially arrived at the scene of the Tippit shooting, the dictabelt had recorded six addresses for the location of the crime scene. This situation is particularly difficult to dismiss since a citizen reported the shooting to the police over the two-way radio of Tippit?s patrol car.
And just to clarify further in relation to Bill and Tims point of the 6 addresses - neither me or Herbert is saying that meant in itself that the authorities altered the sequence of recorded events surrounding the murder of Officer Tippit."
But that the times on of all concerned don't match meaning mainly the police and ambulance documented data is falsified.
If anyone is interested the tag of that whole Herbert Blenner posting is -
http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/810-hello-police-operator/
Michael, if you have a case to make then make it. As I said, Herbert Blenner made a lot of oddball claims and was generally ignored by most here, when not made sport of. I suspect that Herb was a rather sharp guy in his day. It's just that his day had long passed when he posted stuff like that in your link.
-
Quote from: Tim Nickerson on June 17, 2018, 04:38:09 AM (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,697.msg18907.html#msg18907)
Evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated.
Quote from: Martin Weidmann on June 17, 2018, 05:14:35 AM (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,697.msg18913.html#msg18913)
No... this comment alone shows that you have no idea how the admittance of evidence works..
(https://i.imgur.com/yZvyiNX.png)
Provide the transcript that has them challenging the chain of custody of the gloves.
Quote from: Tim Nickerson on June 17, 2018, 04:38:09 AM[/url]
Evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated.
Yes, Tim, you did write that, but you also wrote this;
Evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated. Establishing a chain of custody is one means of authenticating evidence. Once it has been admitted into court as real evidence, there's very little that a defense team can do about it. Particularly if it's a non-fungible item. If the defense has something concrete to present to the jury once the evidence has been admitted then fine. However, they will not be allowed free reign to spout unsupported claims against the evidence. Not in any properly run court anyway.
Here you foolishly pretend implicitly that once a piece of evidence is admitted by a judge the chain of custody is no longer an issue and this can not be used by the defense to discredit or cast doubt about that piece of evidence by attacking the chain of custody and that is simply not true! If it were true, we wouldn't need trials... we would just have judges who decide what evidence to let in and (since it can't be challenged at trial) go straight to conviction.
Remember, also at the OJ trial, the lab technician who carried a vial of blood with him for too long? The entire blood evidence was attacked through this lab technician not following correct procedures.
Provide the transcript that has them challenging the chain of custody of the gloves.
Perhaps this is a bit difficult for you to understand, Tim, but the sole purpose for discrediting Fuhrman on the stand were the gloves and the chain of custody of the glove allegedly found at the back of OJ's house by Mark Fuhrman. That planted a reasonable doubt (if he lies about using the N word under oath, what else will he lie about) in the mind of people. There are videos of F. Lee Bailey questioning Fuhrman on YouTube, but you need to open your eyes and ears to see and here the obvious!
Now, let's go back to my original question. I asked you;
Since when are you an expert on how high or low courts of law determine the bar must be?
Please tell me where you get your expertise from?
-
Of course the guy with the burden, Brown, hasn't attempted to show that there is a chain of custody as he claims.
Is this supposed to be your way of explaining the problem with the chain of custody of the two Davis shells? Lame.
These two shells were positively identified by Doughty and Dhority as the shells each collected from the scene.
-
Why not quote LHO's legal representative stating this? Oh, that's right, LHO had NO legal representation.
Another lame post.
What does any of that have to do with Markham's 11/22/63 positive identification of Lee Oswald as the man she saw shoot Tippit?
-
Why would a kid running across the lawn equal a suspect in the JDT murder?
Wouldn't you have to ask C.T. Walker that question?
-
Quote from: Tim Nickerson on June 17, 2018, 04:38:09 AM[/url]
Evidence is not admitted into court without first being authenticated.
Yes, Tim, you did write that,
That's right. And you said No. You were wrong.
but you also wrote this;
Here you foolishly pretend implicitly that once a piece of evidence is admitted by a judge the chain of custody is no longer an issue and this can not be used by the defense to discredit or cast doubt about that piece of evidence by attacking the chain of custody and that is simply not true! If it were true, we wouldn't need trials... we would just have judges who decide what evidence to let in and (since it can't be challenged at trial) go straight to conviction.
Remember, also at the OJ trial, the lab technician who carried a vial of blood with him for too long? The entire blood evidence was attacked through this lab technician not following correct procedures.
Why only bold that part?
Particularly if it's a non-fungible item. If the defense has something concrete to present to the jury once the evidence has been admitted then fine. However, they will not be allowed free reign to spout unsupported claims against the evidence. Not in any properly run court anyway.
Provide the transcript that has them challenging the chain of custody of the gloves.
Perhaps this is a bit difficult for you to understand, Tim, but the sole purpose for discrediting Fuhrman on the stand were the gloves and the chain of custody of the glove allegedly found at the back of OJ's house by Mark Fuhrman. That planted a reasonable doubt (if he lies about using the N word under oath, what else will he lie about) in the mind of people. There are videos of F. Lee Bailey questioning Fuhrman on YouTube, but you need to open your eyes and ears to see and here the obvious!
You're right. It is a bit difficult for me to understand. Post the transcript. That should help.
-
That's right. And you said No. You were wrong.
Why only bold that part?
Particularly if it's a non-fungible item. If the defense has something concrete to present to the jury once the evidence has been admitted then fine. However, they will not be allowed free reign to spout unsupported claims against the evidence. Not in any properly run court anyway.
You're right. It is a bit difficult for me to understand. Post the transcript. That should help.
Post the transcript. That should help.
I seriously doubt it would.
-
As usual pardon my ignorance
From Rob Caprio
On June 15, 1964, the same cartridge cases designated C47-C50, were shown by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum to Pete Barnes, an officer of the Dallas Police Department assigned to the Crime Laboratory, and he identified his marking on two of two of these cases, which also bear the markings ?Q-74? and ?Q-77?
So these are the shells that Poe claimed to have received from Benavides and Poe sort of claimed to have initialed and are now being claimed by Odum to have been marked by himself? I thought I saw Odum received, or picked up, one of the Davis sister shells after that Sister located them for the officers some time after originally telling the officers of their approximate locations? Odum assisted in finding the other Davis sister shell? And Doughity the other? No officer was apparently able to find any of these shells without being directed to them or being picked up by the witnesses
-
As I said, Herbert Blenner made a lot of oddball claims and was generally ignored by most here, when not made sport of.
Was Blenner the whacko who claimed it wasn't Oswald being placed in the ambulance based on his nostrils ?
Or was that another nut ?
-
Exactly.
Poe and Barnes, before the commission, under oath, were kind enough to mistakenly pick Q-75 that you claimed was "readily identifiable".
But you just made that up, didn't you?
Barnes said "I believe it was Q-74 and Q-75". "I believe" is not a positive identification. Poe said that he wanted to say that Q-77 and Q-75 were his but he couldn't swear to it. He could not find his mark on either of them and he couldn't swear that he had ever marked either of the shells that he received from Benevides. Q-75 was not readily identifiable to Barnes or Poe because neither of them had marked it. Q-75 was readily identifiable to Dhority because he had made it so by placing his mark on it.
-
Cut the BS, Tim.
List the marks.
Put up or shut up.
Why should I have to list the marks?
I don't know what Dhority's mark looks like because I've never seen it. But you can be sure that Dhority could recognize his own mark. I've seen Doughty's mark on a number of items. They are not always identical. They differ a bit, depending on what type of material they are on and the size of the marking. Doughty's mark on the inside rim of Q-76 would look very much like the following. Though much smaller of course.
(https://i.imgur.com/jU0HPrp.jpg)
-
Just so everyone knows Todd is playing games. Automatic shells and revolver shells look differently and are marked differently. Todd must be saying that Hill was majorly incompetent to confuse the two.
If I understand Hill's history with his own statements
He calls in at 1.40 and reprts automatic shells
Denies this at the WC
30 tears later says he did find the automatic shells
My opinion is that does not make his story completely untenable since a lot of folks tended to change their initial stories for the WC
-
Just so everyone knows Todd is playing games. Automatic shells and revolver shells look differently and are marked differently. Todd must be saying that Hill was majorly incompetent to confuse the two.
Well, at least we know that Mr Caprio doesn't know much about firearms or ammunition. And, no, Rob, you simply have no idea, no matter what you may tell yourself.
It doesn't matter what kind of gun you think a particular cartridge is used for. There are automatic pistols that fire "revolver" ammunition, and revolvers that fire "automatic" ammunition. I've even given you specific examples of semiautomatic weapons that come from the factory chambered to fire .38 special, .44 magnum, etc. That seemed to fall into Rob's memory hole in no time, flat.
-
Well, at least we know that Mr Caprio doesn't know much about firearms or ammunition.
He doesn't know much about the Constitution either. In fact, he's pathetically ignorant about most things.
-
If I understand Hill's history with his own statements
He calls in at 1.40 and reprts automatic shells
Denies this at the WC
30 tears later says he did find the automatic shells
My opinion is that does not make his story completely untenable since a lot of folks tended to change their initial stories for the WC
I believe that Hill was one of the key conspirators on the DPD......He's a liar.
-
He doesn't know much about the Constitution either. In fact, he's pathetically ignorant about most things.
This time, it's a case of getting himself in trouble by knowing a little about something when knowing a little doesn't help you a lot. Ammunition designed to be used in rovolvers really does tend to use rimmed cases. This allows the gun manufacturer to headspace the cartridge against the back of the cylinder. By doing that, the gun manufacturer only has to run one boring operation per chamber, which saves them a lot of money (though some revolvers actually do overbore the butt end of each chamber just enough to contain the cartridge rim). However, there is no mechanical reason that forces them to do so. Most automatic/semi-auto pistol-caliber ammo is either semi-rimmed or rimless and headspaces the cartridge at the case mouth instead of the rim. The purpose of doing it this way is to make the kinds of magazines used in these weapons easier to design and manufacture. Again there isn't an inherent mechanical reason preventing the use of rimmed cartridges in automatic and semiautomatic weapons. In fact, the .303 British and Russian 7.62x54R are both rimmed rifle-caliber cartridges that were fired from machine guns by the zillions (and possibly even gazillions) over several decades and a couple of World Wars without too much trouble.
I'm told that, over the years, a number of manufacturers made semi-auto pistols chambered for .38 special. The most famous of these were the versions of the Colt M1911; thousands were made, and they were often used for target competitions. Competitors who liked using the 1911, but preferred a lighter recoil than the original .45 ACP snapped them up. Conversely, various concerns have made revolvers chambered for "auto" rounds. I hear that Taurus in particular has taken to offering a wide range of revolvers chambered for .380 ACP, 9mm, etc.
see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headspace_%28firearms%29 if you don't know what "headspace" refers to.
-
That's right. And you said No. You were wrong.
Why only bold that part?
Particularly if it's a non-fungible item. If the defense has something concrete to present to the jury once the evidence has been admitted then fine. However, they will not be allowed free reign to spout unsupported claims against the evidence. Not in any properly run court anyway.
You're right. It is a bit difficult for me to understand. Post the transcript. That should help.
That's right. And you said No. You were wrong.
No. It's clear by now that you and I attach a different meaning to the word "authentication". In a trial setting a judge will basically admit any evidence that he feels the jury should see because it has a significant connection to the case. However, the admittance alone does not mean the evidence is validated on it's probative value. It's a bit like a judge ruling, based on basic information from the prosecution that there is enough material to justify that somebody should be held over for trial. That alone doesn't mean that the person is guilty, it only means the judge wants his guilt or innocence to be determined in a trial. The same goes for admitted evidence.
Why only bold that part?
Particularly if it's a non-fungible item. If the defense has something concrete to present to the jury once the evidence has [sic] been admitted then fine. However, they will not be allowed free reign to spout unsupported claims against the evidence. Not in any properly run court anyway.
Great, so you accept that your basic implicit argument [that evidence admitted at trial is already authenticated and needs no further chain of custody] is incorrect?
-
This time, it's a case of getting himself in trouble by knowing a little about something when knowing a little doesn't help you a lot. Ammunition designed to be used in rovolvers really does tend to use rimmed cases. This allows the gun manufacturer to headspace the cartridge against the back of the cylinder. By doing that, the gun manufacturer only has to run one boring operation per chamber, which saves them a lot of money (though some revolvers actually do overbore the butt end of each chamber just enough to contain the cartridge rim). However, there is no mechanical reason that forces them to do so. Most automatic/semi-auto pistol-caliber ammo is either semi-rimmed or rimless and headspaces the cartridge at the case mouth instead of the rim. The purpose of doing it this way is to make the kinds of magazines used in these weapons easier to design and manufacture. Again there isn't an inherent mechanical reason preventing the use of rimmed cartridges in automatic and semiautomatic weapons. In fact, the .303 British and Russian 7.62x54R are both rimmed rifle-caliber cartridges that were fired from machine guns by the zillions (and possibly even gazillions) over several decades and a couple of World Wars without too much trouble.
I'm told that, over the years, a number of manufacturers made semi-auto pistols chambered for .38 special. The most famous of these were the versions of the Colt M1911; thousands were made, and they were often used for target competitions. Competitors who liked using the 1911, but preferred a lighter recoil than the original .45 ACP snapped them up. Conversely, various concerns have made revolvers chambered for "auto" rounds. I hear that Taurus in particular has taken to offering a wide range of revolvers chambered for .380 ACP, 9mm, etc.
see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headspace_%28firearms%29 if you don't know what "headspace" refers to.
Mr. Todd, it would be nice if you made an actual contribution to this forum instead of simply attacking people who clearly disagree with you.
I'm told that, over the years, a number of manufacturers made semi-auto pistols chambered for .38 special.
If your words are to be believed, you seem to be well connected to all sorts of unidentified people who seem to "tell you" all sorts of things. It's either that or you are simply full of hot air.
And using Wikipedia to make a point is a bit pathetic for a guy who claims being told things?.. just saying!
-
How did the shells stay in Oswalds loose brown shirt pocket all thru the entire "falling into the seats" struggle with McDonald?
Why is a nearly pristine condition experied bus transfer pass in Oswald brown shirt, if he CHANGED his shirt at his boarding room?
How did that bus transfer pass remain unbent, or twisted, during all that struggling, the outside of the theater where Oswald looks like his brown shirt is about to be taken off him by the DPD?
Why are there no fingerprints from McWatters or Oswald on the bus transfer ticket. Its PAPER, and paper easily retains persperation, oil, and sodium chloride, and even if the persiration evaportates, silver nitrate will react with sodium chloride particle that remain (up to days, weeks, years old).
-
Mr. Todd, it would be nice if you made an actual contribution to this forum instead of simply attacking people who clearly disagree with you.
I'm told that, over the years, a number of manufacturers made semi-auto pistols chambered for .38 special.
If your words are to be believed, you seem to be well connected to all sorts of unidentified people who seem to "tell you" all sorts of things. It's either that or you are simply full of hot air.
And using Wikipedia to make a point is a bit pathetic for a guy who claims being told things?.. just saying!
If you think I am full of hot air, you are free to demonstrate it. So is Mr Caprio. And anyone else who wishes to do so. However, I do not see either one of you actually making such an effort.
Sometimes, I say "I'm told that...." because I ask, and the people I ask either think my interest in the JFK case is a pointless waste of time, or simply don't care to be quoted because they don't want another JFK obsessive wasting even more of their time than I do. I also have a lot of normally useless firearms knowledge, partly from shooting off and on, partly from knowing a number of serious shooters, gun collectors, etc. I've also read a fair amount on guns, rifles, and pistols, though that is mostly tied directly to the assassination. Sometimes it runs together, so it's hard to specifically cite a particular source. Once in a while, I say some half remembered thing where I remembered the wrong half. I welcome being set straight in those cases, but it has to be straight.
If you doubt me about a .38 special version of the Colt 1911, you can look here:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/06/13/38-special-colt-1911/
[For that matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_52]
And if you don't think anyone makes revolvers in "auto" calibers, you can look here:
https://www.taurususa.com/gun-selector-results.cfm?series=905&toggle=tr
https://www.taurususa.com/gun-selector-results.cfm?series=380&toggle=tr
Speaking of non-traditional revolver ammunition, these guys also make revolvers chambered for .410 gauge shotgun shells:
https://www.taurususa.com/gun-selector-results.cfm?series=JPD&toggle=tr
Probably useful if you need to safeguard you're prone to attack from doves and pigeons.
BTW, Just for reference, this is what Rob C has had to offer as his part in this particular exchange:
"Baloney. Automatic and pistol shells look nothing alike. An experienced officer like Hill wouldn't make that mistake."
"Blah, blah, blah. Even Dale Myers said the automatic shells showed 'AUTO' and the revolver shells showed '.38 Special'.You would have to think that Hill couldn't read to think he made the mistake claimed."
"Just so everyone knows Todd is playing games. Automatic shells and revolver shells look differently and are marked differently. Todd must be saying that Hill was majorly incompetent to confuse the two."
Mostly, he just baldly asserts stuff then pointlessly accuses me of "playing games." The only source he references at all is Dale Meyers, who I doubt would be considered a firearms expert in any way. And not one word from you.
-
"Dallas researcher Michael Brownlow interviewed Doris Holan, who lived directly across the street from the shooting, in a second-floor apartment at 409 East Tenth (researcher Bill Pulte accompanied Brownlow on one of his two interviews with Holan shortly before her death in 2000). She said that a police car had appeared in the driveway between the two houses (404 and 410 East Tenth) at the spot where Tippit was killed. Whether Tippit did so intentionally or coincidentally, he had blocked that driveway, which led to an alley at mid-block, parallel to both East Tenth and Jefferson Boulevard. Tippit, while driving eastward, may have been trying to use his squad car to prevent another police car from leaving the driveway. Holan said when she heard shots and looked out her window, the other police car was heading down the driveway approaching Tippit's vehicle.
... 'She saw a man leaving the scene, moving westward toward Patton... Near the (second) police car she also saw a man in the driveway walking toward the street, where Tippit's car was parked.' That man went up to where Tippit was lying, looked down to inspect the officer's head, and retreated back down the driveway, with the unidentified police car backing up at the same time to the alley. So Holan reported at least three suspicious men at the scene, including two men on foot and the driver of the second police car. Whoever killed Tippit may have fled in that car or in another vehicle or on foot through that alley adjacent to the shooting scene. And Tippit may have been shot by two men, a possibility the ballistics evidence, with different kinds of ammunition, might suggest, even though that evidence is unreliable. Most (not all) witnesses reported a man fleeing around the corner and up Patton toward Jefferson, which would be compatible with Holan's account.
...Michael Brownlow in 1970 found the other witness to the second police car, Sam Guinyard, a porter at a used-car lot at 501 East Jefferson who worked with Ted Calloway. Guinyard told the Commission that at the time of the shooting, he was standing 'at the back (of the car lot), right at the alley back there' and about ten feet from Patton. Guinyard failed to mention the second police car when he gave that testimony...
This of course is directly tied to question of Croy in particular being the first officer at the scene
I am also trying to gather a list of how many of witnesses describe the Oswald looking suspect as having a white undershirt and a white jacket, or just a white or light colored zippered jacket. Tatum, and Markham for sure, and it seems like several others. I have seen the response to this problem of the lack of the dark overshirt is that this Oswald had the brown shirt wrapped around his waist?
Also can anyone help me on Johnny Brewers statements in regard to what descriptions he had over the radio, or otherwise, to the suspect from either the JFK shooting or Tippits It sounds like, from what I hear from some experts, that he knew of the Tippit shooting at 1:35 when he claims his encounter begins with the individual he eventually watches sneak into the theater
-
"Dallas researcher Michael Brownlow interviewed Doris Holan, who lived directly across the street from the shooting, in a second-floor apartment at 409 East Tenth (researcher Bill Pulte accompanied Brownlow on one of his two interviews with Holan shortly before her death in 2000). She said that a police car had appeared in the driveway between the two houses (404 and 410 East Tenth) at the spot where Tippit was killed. Whether Tippit did so intentionally or coincidentally, he had blocked that driveway, which led to an alley at mid-block, parallel to both East Tenth and Jefferson Boulevard. Tippit, while driving eastward, may have been trying to use his squad car to prevent another police car from leaving the driveway. Holan said when she heard shots and looked out her window, the other police car was heading down the driveway approaching Tippit's vehicle.
... 'She saw a man leaving the scene, moving westward toward Patton... Near the (second) police car she also saw a man in the driveway walking toward the street, where Tippit's car was parked.' That man went up to where Tippit was lying, looked down to inspect the officer's head, and retreated back down the driveway, with the unidentified police car backing up at the same time to the alley. So Holan reported at least three suspicious men at the scene, including two men on foot and the driver of the second police car. Whoever killed Tippit may have fled in that car or in another vehicle or on foot through that alley adjacent to the shooting scene. And Tippit may have been shot by two men, a possibility the ballistics evidence, with different kinds of ammunition, might suggest, even though that evidence is unreliable. Most (not all) witnesses reported a man fleeing around the corner and up Patton toward Jefferson, which would be compatible with Holan's account.
...Michael Brownlow in 1970 found the other witness to the second police car, Sam Guinyard, a porter at a used-car lot at 501 East Jefferson who worked with Ted Calloway. Guinyard told the Commission that at the time of the shooting, he was standing 'at the back (of the car lot), right at the alley back there' and about ten feet from Patton. Guinyard failed to mention the second police car when he gave that testimony...
This of course is directly tied to question of Croy in particular being the first officer at the scene
(http://harveyandlee.net/November/Tippit_Aerial.jpg)
-
Umm, I must have dozed off during your lecture...
Was the .38 special typically fired from an automatic back in the day?
If it's any consolation, no one missed you while you were out.
Whether .38SPL was "typically" fired from automatics is beside the point. All I need to make my point is to show that there were automatics that fired that round.
-
(http://harveyandlee.net/November/Tippit_Aerial.jpg)
Joffery Thanks for the shot It does make sense that Mrs Holan would have likely to been the only witness to have had the proper angle to have seen the alleged car in the driveway
-
If you think I am full of hot air, you are free to demonstrate it. So is Mr Caprio. And anyone else who wishes to do so. However, I do not see either one of you actually making such an effort.
Sometimes, I say "I'm told that...." because I ask, and the people I ask either think my interest in the JFK case is a pointless waste of time, or simply don't care to be quoted because they don't want another JFK obsessive wasting even more of their time than I do. I also have a lot of normally useless firearms knowledge, partly from shooting off and on, partly from knowing a number of serious shooters, gun collectors, etc. I've also read a fair amount on guns, rifles, and pistols, though that is mostly tied directly to the assassination. Sometimes it runs together, so it's hard to specifically cite a particular source. Once in a while, I say some half remembered thing where I remembered the wrong half. I welcome being set straight in those cases, but it has to be straight.
If you doubt me about a .38 special version of the Colt 1911, you can look here:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/06/13/38-special-colt-1911/
[For that matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_52]
And if you don't think anyone makes revolvers in "auto" calibers, you can look here:
https://www.taurususa.com/gun-selector-results.cfm?series=905&toggle=tr
https://www.taurususa.com/gun-selector-results.cfm?series=380&toggle=tr
Speaking of non-traditional revolver ammunition, these guys also make revolvers chambered for .410 gauge shotgun shells:
https://www.taurususa.com/gun-selector-results.cfm?series=JPD&toggle=tr
Probably useful if you need to safeguard you're prone to attack from doves and pigeons.
BTW, Just for reference, this is what Rob C has had to offer as his part in this particular exchange:
"Baloney. Automatic and pistol shells look nothing alike. An experienced officer like Hill wouldn't make that mistake."
"Blah, blah, blah. Even Dale Myers said the automatic shells showed 'AUTO' and the revolver shells showed '.38 Special'.You would have to think that Hill couldn't read to think he made the mistake claimed."
"Just so everyone knows Todd is playing games. Automatic shells and revolver shells look differently and are marked differently. Todd must be saying that Hill was majorly incompetent to confuse the two."
Mostly, he just baldly asserts stuff then pointlessly accuses me of "playing games." The only source he references at all is Dale Meyers, who I doubt would be considered a firearms expert in any way. And not one word from you.
Typical LNer. He makes a claim with absolutely NO SUPPORT, but it then is my responsibility to show his unsupported claim is incorrect. Priceless.
Does a LNer ever support what they claim? It would seem not.
It takes a lot of foolhardiness to claim I provided "no support" in reply to my post providing just that support. And you put "no support" in all-caps just to make sure everyone sees that foolhardiness. The only question for the rest of us is, how hard do we laugh?
`
-