Interview With Ted Callaway Who Witnessed Aftermath Of The Shooting J D Tippit

[Duncan MacRae]

Interview With Ted Callaway Who Witnessed The Aftermath Of The Shooting Of Officer J D Tippit

[Martin Weidmann]

Ted Callaway did not witness the shooting if J.D. Tippit.

[Fergus O'brien]

i dont know where LN stand on this but Calloways description of the clothing worn by the man he saw and the description of clothing given by Markham differ . as of course do the routes both witnesses say the killer took . is this indicative of two men being involved in the crime or of one of these two being unreliable witnesses ? . i am thinking LN would rather stand by mr Calloways testimony than that of Markham .

[Martin Weidmann]

i dont know where LN stand on this but Calloways description of the clothing worn by the man he saw and the description of clothing given by Markham differ . as of course do the routes both witnesses say the killer took . is this indicative of two men being involved in the crime or of one of these two being unreliable witnesses ? . i am thinking LN would rather stand by mr Calloways testimony than that of Markham .

There are far more discrepancies than consistencies in this case for the official narrative to be correct.

[Fergus O'brien]

yes there are problems all through this case even if our LN friends dont care to admit it . they would have is believe it is a simple case , cut and dried and straight forward with a MOUNTAIN of irrefutable evidence against Oswald .but if that were the case none of us would be here doing what we do , not LN or CT . i am not saying that evidence does not point towards Oswald , but it is whether that evidence stands up to close scrutiny .

[Charles Collins]

Differences in witness’ accounts are normal and typical and should be expected. Human memories and perceptions are imperfect and are not like instant replay with several different camera angles available (like we have become accustomed to in televised sports). If all the witness accounts totally agreed with each other, I personally would suspect that something was amiss. The fact that there are inconsistencies is indicative of normal imperfect human memories and perceptions. Therefore I think this should give us reason to believe that the investigation was not a coverup. The fact that the WC chose to publish the testimonies and exhibits is the reason for the number of inconsistencies. If LHO had lived, and there had been a trial, I think that there would have been fewer testimonies and exhibits and that there would have been many of them that never would have been introduced in the trial.

[Fergus O'brien]

Differences in witness’ accounts are normal and typical and should be expected. Human memories and perceptions are imperfect and are not like instant replay with several different camera angles available (like we have become accustomed to in televised sports). If all the witness accounts totally agreed with each other, I personally would suspect that something was amiss. The fact that there are inconsistencies is indicative of normal imperfect human memories and perceptions. Therefore I think this should give us reason to believe that the investigation was not a coverup. The fact that the WC chose to publish the testimonies and exhibits is the reason for the number of inconsistencies. If LHO had lived, and there had been a trial, I think that there would have been fewer testimonies and exhibits and that there would have been many of them that never would have been introduced in the trial.

investigation ? what investigation do you speak of ? . the DPD did try to investigate but were stopped . the FBI tried to investigate IE in that most agents were honest in my view such as sibert and oneil and odum etc .however hoover decided all most immediately the DPD had their man . he decided what the official version of events were . the commission lets face it were set up to just review the FBI reporty and rubber stamp it . but hoover and LBJ misjudged the southern contingent who dissented . warren did not want any investigation and we know in the executive sessions the line was uttered WE ARE HERE TO CLOSE DOORS NOT OPEN THEM . then specter came up with his right of NECK entry wound location to make his theory seem plausible when he knew full well having seen at least one autopsy photo that what he claimed started with A LIE . so what investigation ?.

LN often talk about mere inconsistencies , honest mistakes , but what about the outright deceptions , omissions and lies ?. lets face it the commission NEVER thought for a second that we would be here even now studying ever word they uttered 60 years later . they expected the gullible public (with the aid of the mainstream media ) to swallow what ever they were given to swallow without question . and the vast majority DID .even jim garrison swallowed it until he looked closer .

[Jim Hawthorn]

... lets face it the commission NEVER thought for a second that we would be here even now studying ever word they uttered 60 years later . they expected the gullible public (with the aid of the mainstream media ) to swallow what ever they were given to swallow without question . and the vast majority DID .even jim garrison swallowed it until he looked closer .

Yes, and Gerald Ford admitted to French President Valérie Giscard d'Estaing in a private conversation:

The ex-French President speaking in 2013:

To Le Parisien newspaper: "Naïvely, I asked him - 'Do you know who assassinated Kennedy.' and without blinking he replied 'Yes. It wasn't an isolated mad gunman that killed the President of the United States."

To RTL radio: "It wasn't satisfying. We came to a first conclusion: it wasn't an isolated crime, it was something organised. We were sure that it was organised. By who, we didn't discover.
Therefore, there was an organisation that feared President Kennedy and decided to get rid of him."