The Bus Stop Farce

[Bill Brown]

Jimmy Burt and Frank Cimino are two other witnesses at the scene who were not called by the WC. They have something else in common with Bowley: they said they showed up too late to see either the shooting or the escaping perp. It wouldn't be surprising that they wouldn't be called to testify to a crime that they did not actually witness.

BTW, in 1963, people's lives ran to the pulse of mechanical and electromechanical timepieces that were set using other mechanical clocks as a reference. A few nerdy types might periodically dial into the National Bureau of Standards' time broadcast on shortwave and sync to that, but very few made that level of effort.  As such, any randomly-selected timepiece would commonly be expected to be as much as five minutes off of some reference time; any two clocks could be off by as much as ten minutes. This expected discrepancy was the basis for the old advice to always try to be ten minutes early to any appointment. You never knew when your watch was five minutes slow and the other guy's was five minutes fast. And it explains why the timing arguments regarding the Tippit shooting tend to be an asinine waste of everyone's time.

You're using way too much common sense for some.  Stop it.

[Bill Brown]

No, the real fact of the matter is that Markham your star eyewitness positively identified Oswald as the man who killed Tippit. Try again!

JohnM

"Was there a number two"   

Absolutely unrelated to her positive identification of Oswald during the lineup she attended on 11/22/63.

[Martin Weidmann]

Time to get real.
Tippit evidence relevance based on a scale of ONE to TEN.

Discarded shells at the crime scene as seen being discarded by Oswald, exclusively matched to Oswalds revolver. TEN
Oswald being arrested and trying to kill more Policemen with the above revolver. TEN
A dozen postitive identifications of Oswald. TEN
A wide variation of time guesses. ONE

JohnM

I thought you said you wanted to "get real"

[Martin Weidmann]

No need to make up stuff to get Oswald anywhere, Tex. He was ID'd at and near the snuff scene by several witnesses, all presumably in possession of at least one good eyeball.

Several people ID'd Oswald
It's called co-oboration 
 
And tell us what makes you think I'm here to convince anyone of anything.

And tell us what makes you think I'm here to convince anyone of anything.

I never said you were. It's pretty obvious that you are not here to be convinced of anything or to convince anyone of anything because your one liners and "arguments" are too weak to convince even a 5 year old.

Which only begs the question why in fact you are here at all.

[Martin Weidmann]

Unrelated to your mistake.

There was no mistake.

Richard Smith said "the fact that he has the same two different brands of ammo in his possession when arrested"

You claimed he was referring to the six live rounds removed from the revolver that was taken from Oswald, but Richard Smith never said that. He could just as easily have been talking about the bullets that were allegedly found on his person.

But I note that you constant need to score points hasn't changed.

[Charles Collins]

What are you two arguing about here?  Regarding Oswald walking out the front door, what does it matter whether Roberts was in front of the TV or on the couch?

I explained why I asked you the question in a subsequent post. I am trying to decide how to categorize Hugh Aynesworth’s words.

And I agree with you that it really doesn’t make much difference other than that.

[Martin Weidmann]

What are you two arguing about here?  Regarding Oswald walking out the front door, what does it matter whether Roberts was in front of the TV or on the couch?

Why do you jump into a conversation if you don't understand what it is about?

It's not a photo.  You're referring to a still frame from Ron Reiland's film footage.

Hardly relevant. You're nitpicking as usual. Whether a photo or a still frame, the image is the same.

You're being a bit hypocritical here.  You claim you're "simply using the testimony", yet you ignore the portion of that same testimony which tells you that Oswald was the cop-killer.

Why do you behave so stupidly when I know you are not? I am using the testimony to determine the approximate time that Tippit was killed. There is far more evidence that shows that time to be between 1.06 and 1.10 than there is for Myers estimate of 1.14.

Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence there is. If Oswald physically couldn't have been at 10th street before 1.10, the witness identifications must be wrong. It's as simple as that. The LNs are the hypocrites here, as they behave as if the Tippit witness testimony is 100% correct and written in stone when at the same time just about every witness in Dealey Plaza is deemed by them (and the WC) to be mistaken about something.

When Buell Frazier said he wasn't paying much attention to the package Oswald was carrying, the LNs claim his estimate was incorrect and he was wrong, but when Earlene "blind in one eye" Roberts said she was paying more attention to the TV, the LNs claim she was spot on about the jacket, regardless of the fact that she got the color wrong. That's an amazing double standard.

I am also not ignoring the physical evidence (i.e. the jacket, the revolver & ammo and the wallet). I just haven't discussed it in detail here, because that's not what the conversation was about.

Because he (Bowley) didn't see the killer flee.

BS. Neither did Callaway, Guinyard and Reynolds. They did not witness the shooting and only saw a man running down the street, without knowing who he was. Besides, it was Bowley who called the dispatcher and helped Callaway to put Tippit in the ambulance.

Bowley would have been a valuable witness to any honest investigation to determine the time of the shooting, which is more than likely the reason the WC never called him. They didn't want to deal with the possibility that Oswald couldn't have been there to do the shooting.