Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Mitch Todd]

[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]

[Matt Grantham]

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

[Tim Nickerson]

 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? 

[Tim Nickerson]

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.

[Tim Nickerson]

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.

[Tim Nickerson]

The affidavit then is accurate ...the confrontation occurred at 1:06 PM?

Do you really think it would have taken 11 minutes for the shooting of officer Tippit to be reported?

[Michael Chambers]

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?

[Michael Chambers]

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.