The Police End of the Oswald Jacket Fiasco, or More Problems for Vinny
dcwi...@netscape.net
Elsewhere, I've dealt with the story of the very problematic jacket
found in the parking lot behind a Texaco Station in Oak Cliff.
Witness Warren Reynolds told the Warren Commission that he last saw
the man who shot Officer Tippit heading towards the lot, & fellow
witnesses Robert Brock & Pat Patterson backed him up. But film
footage taken on the spot, 11/22/63, told a different tale: In it,
Reynolds is seen telling police officers that he last saw the suspect
going in the *opposite* direction, into the back of an old house on
Jefferson.
Now, let's deal with this apparent duplicity-times-three from the
police end. What did the DPD officers involved tell the WC? What
brought Sgt Bud Owens, Asst DA Bill Alexander, & perhaps Capt WR
Westbrook from the Tippit crime scene to the area of the old house &
the Texaco Station?
Owens: We were informed by a man whom I do not know that the suspect
that shot Officer Tippit had run across a vacant lot toward Jefferson
& thrown down his jacket...." (v7p79)
Let's pick this up with Dale Myers' "With Malice", page 118:
"Upon learning that the gunman had dumped his jacket in a parking lot,
Sgt Owens & Alexander piled into Owens' car & left [the Tippit scene]
for the Texaco Station."
Ah! The spur: a jacket abandoned in a parking lot. Now, back to
Owens, on Jefferson, a block or so away:
"Then we started searching the buildings & houses--there are some two-
story houses there used as businesses." (v7p79)
To appreciate fully the pure non sequiturness of it all, let's strip
this to its bare essentials:
Upon learning that the gunman had dumped his jacket in a parking lot,
Owens & Alexander piled into Owens' car, traveled one block, & started
searching buildings & houses....
For his part, Westbrook testified that he left Dealey & "drove to the
immediate vicinity of where Officer Tippit had been shot" ("the body
was already gone") [v7p111]. He, too, could only say that "there is
an old house there"--when he got to the Jefferson & Crawford
area--"and some of the officers were looking it over. They had seen
somebody go in it... so I didn't pay any further attention to it.... I
just hesitated a moment & then I walked on." (v7p116, 117)
Again, pure nonsense: No officer was there to see any suspect go
anywhere.
Where is Reynolds in all this? Sgt Gerald Hill gets a little closer
to reality:
I met Owens in front of 2 large vacant houses on the north side of
Jefferson that are used for the storage of 2ndhand furniture. By
then, Owens had information also that SOME CITIZEN had seen the man
running towards these houses." (v7p48)
Hill had no name, but at least he seems situated on terra firma. Dale
Myers fits in the second-to-last piece of the puzzle (p120):
Warren Reynolds, who had come with [Owens & Alexander] from 10th &
Patton, pointed to an old house near the Texaco Station & told Owens
that he believed the gunman had gone into the back of it. (WFAA-TV
footage)
But Myers can't quite go that one step further & state the now-pretty-
obvious: The man who sent Owens, Alexander, & apparently Westbrook on
their mission from 10th & Patton to the area of the old houses & the
service station was... Reynolds.
Will it be any surprise to anyone that Owens' man whom he did not
know, who threw down his jacket, disappeared? (WM p118) This same
invisible man ("another person") appeared (so to speak) to Hill, also
at the Tippit scene, & said he'd seen the suspect take off his jacket
in a parking lot. (v7p48) But, of course, this man was not invisible--
he was Warren Reynolds, but he had nothing to do with jackets, or
shirts, or sweaters. Tellingly, neither Owens nor Hill followed up on
the supposed jacket lead. But they both followed up on the old-house
lead (v7p79 for Owens, v7p48 for Hill). Meanwhile, Myers would have
us believe that Reynolds ran back to the Tippit scene, cooled his
heels for a few minutes, quietly & patiently waiting until he & Owens
& Alexander got to the site of the houses before he finally unburdened
himself of the fact that he saw the gunman go into the back of one of
them. It's now almost blindingly obvious that Reynolds talked to
Owens & Hill at the Tippit scene--he didn't go there for nothing--and
that no one there told Owens or Hill that he'd seen someone throw down
a jacket. The latter was simply found in the general search of the
area. (WM pp121-22) It was clearly Reynolds' prompting--and only his
prompting--at the Tippit scene, that got Owens & Westbrook to the old
houses.
And if it seems strange that the police witnesses at the hearings
would even mention the old house...--they had to: It was on the
police airwaves that afternoon: "We are shaking down these old
houses...."--Owens, c1:33.
The final kicker: Westbrook testified that "officers" saw someone
going into the old house. But on page 121 of "With Malice", Westbrook
is seen, in a frame from the TV film, questioning... Warren Reynolds!
In all, then, it took some six witnesses to wean Reynolds away from
the old house: Brock, Patterson, Owens, Hill, Westbrook, and Reynolds
himself. Six witnesses to cover up the fact that the jacket was
planted. Six witnesses to cover up just one corner of the
conspiracy....
c2007 dw
David Von Pein
evidence, while we ignore the wealth of evidence that shows Oswald to
be the killer of Tippit.
At the end of the day, what are we left with? ---
We're left with Oswald being seen on 10th Street shooting a policeman,
and Oswald has a jacket on while shooting the policeman. .... And then
Oswald is next seen by Johnny Brewer on Jefferson Blvd. WITHOUT a
jacket.
Oswald, therefore, shed his jacket somewhere in between 10th and
Hardy's Shoe Store.
Correct?
And the Texaco Station was, indeed, between those two points in
question. And the jacket generally matched the jacket that witnesses
saw Oswald wearing on 10th St.
Why is it so important to the CT-Kooks to have Oswald innocent of the
Tippit crime too? Can anyone please tell me.....WHY?
THE TIPPIT MURDER AND THE HILARIOUS DEFENSE OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4d1790303e6fcc19
cdddraftsman
to unravel this open and shut case ! Six witnesses eh ?
What I love about this character is that every time he
opens his big mouth , he subtracts from the sum total
of mans knowledge ..............tl :
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2ngx5e9
eca...@tx.rr.com
Dumbed on down
whereby even the
TSFH gang can
understand!
Mr ;~D
Bud
A better name would be "Lets focus on what the police did after the
murder instead of the actual murder itself."
> Elsewhere, I've dealt with the story of the very problematic jacket
> found in the parking lot behind a Texaco Station in Oak Cliff.
> Witness Warren Reynolds told the Warren Commission that he last saw
> the man who shot Officer Tippit heading towards the lot, & fellow
> witnesses Robert Brock & Pat Patterson backed him up. But film
> footage taken on the spot, 11/22/63, told a different tale: In it,
> Reynolds is seen telling police officers that he last saw the suspect
> going in the *opposite* direction, into the back of an old house on
> Jefferson.
Wow, a discrepancy, Oz must have been framed.
Wow, this is so suspicious. In a residential area, people are
coming forward to offer the police tips. "What is the identity of
these people" cry the kooks, who deem any information missing or foggy
to be suspicious. The cops should stop their searching, and take down
the name of the person giving the tip, and the time, so these things
can perfectly reconstructed later, to the satisfaction of idiots.
<snicker> That jacket was found before Tippits body was cold. That
is some foresight on the part of the conspirators, to have a zipper
jacket ready to plant there.
> Six witnesses to cover up just one corner of the
> conspiracy....
Six more to add to the vast of thousands of people working to make
Oz appear guilty. Even the Dallas police, who had a fellow officer go
down, wanted the guilty party of that murder to go free, and an
innocent man charged (In fact, with the swiftness they were on board
in this framing, they must have been coached beforehand). Astounding
speculation constructed from next to nothing.
> c2007 dw
Walt
> The Police End of the Oswald Jacket Fiasco, or More Problems for Vinny
>
> Elsewhere, I've dealt with the story of the very problematic jacket
> found in the parking lot behind a Texaco Station in Oak Cliff.
> Witness Warren Reynolds told the Warren Commission that he last saw
> the man who shot Officer Tippit heading towards the lot, & fellow
> witnesses Robert Brock & Pat Patterson backed him up. But film
> footage taken on the spot, 11/22/63, told a different tale: In it,
> Reynolds is seen telling police officers that he last saw the suspect
> going in the *opposite* direction, into the back of an old house on
> Jefferson.
Don.....Apparently Warren Reynolds never talked to any law man that
day or at any time prior to January 21, 1964
Here's what he testified before the W.C.
Q... When was the first time that anybody from any law enforcement
agency, and I mean by that, the FBI, Secret Service, Dallas Police,
Dallas County Sheriff's office; you pick it up. When is the first
time that they ever talked to you?
Reynolds.... January 21
Q......That was the first time they ever talked to you about what you
saw that day?
Reynolds.... That's right.
Are you sure he was filmed talking to the police on 11 /22/63??
Walt
Walt
> On 28 Feb, 01:00, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>
> > The Police End of the Oswald Jacket Fiasco, or More Problems for Vinny
>
> > Elsewhere, I've dealt with the story of the very problematic jacket
> > found in the parking lot behind a Texaco Station in Oak Cliff.
> > Witness Warren Reynolds told the Warren Commission that he last saw
> > the man who shot Officer Tippit heading towards the lot, & fellow
> > witnesses Robert Brock & Pat Patterson backed him up. But film
> > footage taken on the spot, 11/22/63, told a different tale: In it,
> > Reynolds is seen telling police officers that he last saw the suspect
> > going in the *opposite* direction, into the back of an old house on
> > Jefferson.
>
> Don.....Apparently Warren Reynolds never talked to any law man that
> day or at any time prior to January 21, 1964
>
> Here's what he testified before the W.C.
>
> Q... When was the first time that anybody from any law enforcement
> agency, and I mean by that, the FBI, Secret Service, Dallas Police,
> Dallas County Sheriff's office; you pick it up. When is the first
> time that they ever talked to you?
>
> Reynolds.... January 21
>
> Q......That was the first time they ever talked to you about what you
> saw that day?
>
> Reynolds.... That's right.
>
> Are you sure he was filmed talking to the police on 11 /22/63??
Strike that question Don..... I've found out that he was in fact seen
on TV talking to police on 11/22/63
But apparently they never contacted him between 11/ 22 / 63 and 1 /
21 /64...... seems strange.
> > c2007 dw- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
> Great idea, Don.....let's focus on trivialities re. the jacket
> evidence,
Definition of "trivialities" here: Any piece of evidence or testimony
which contradicts the official, Warren Report-based
version of the story.
while we ignore the wealth of evidence that shows Oswald to
Definition of "evidence" here: Anything which seems to *support* the
official version.
> be the killer of Tippit.
>
> At the end of the day, what are we left with? ---
>
> We're left with Oswald being seen on 10th Street shooting a policeman
Oswald was already in the theatre. Scoggins saw someone else shooting
Tippit, or saw him right after he shot Tippit--it took the cops etc.
24 hours to get him to ID O. (See one of my 15 points.) Mrs M got
there too late to see any shooting or even the actual killer. (See
one....) For Virginia Davis, I'll post under your "Tippit trial". We
don't know Benavides' real story--just the one he finally gave at the
hearings--after 3 months of silence--to conform to earlier police
versions of his story.
,
> and Oswald has a jacket on while shooting the policeman. .... And then
> Oswald is next seen by Johnny Brewer on Jefferson Blvd. WITHOUT a
> jacket.
>
> Oswald, therefore, shed his jacket somewhere in between 10th and
> Hardy's Shoe Store.
>
> Correct?
See it's I believe point #15---O did not go back to Roberts' House of
Fibs to pick up anything. And you left out the fact that witnesses
were divided on which way the suspect(s) went--up Jefferson or the
alley. Burt, Mrs M, Reynolds said the latter. Guinyard, Scoggins the
former. And you're conveniently ignoring the fact that Reynolds, one
of your "jacket" witnesses, was no such thing. Nor was Brock. Nor
was Patterson. Why was their perjury suborned to make it seem as if
the man Reynolds & Patterson saw was heading toward the lot/jacket
area? He was not. Why were Owens & Hill *advised* to make up a story
about a witness who saw a jacket tossed down? A story even they admit
they did not follow-up on....
dw
>
> And the Texaco Station was, indeed, between those two points in
> question. And the jacket generally matched the jacket that witnesses
> saw Oswald wearing on 10th St.
>
> Why is it so important to the CT-Kooks to have Oswald innocent of the
> Tippit crime too? Can anyone please tell me.....WHY?
Uh, because he probably was. (But some CT-Prodigies do think O was
guilty here.)
> THE TIPPIT MURDER AND THE HILARIOUS PROSECTION OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4d1790303e6fcc19
dcwi...@netscape.net
> We should be so lucky to have a ex-pretzel maker trying
> to unravel this open and shut case ! Six witnesses eh ?
> What I love about this character is that every time he
> opens his big mouth , he subtracts from the sum total
> of mans knowledge .
In psychoanalytical terms, the above tirade is called Projection....
dw
.............tl :http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2ngx5e9
Walt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don .... Was the jacket that was found under the Oldsmoble behind the
Texaco station, given the number CE 162?
Walt
dcwi...@netscape.net
> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > The Police End of the Oswald Jacket Fiasco, or More Problems for Vinny
>
> A better name would be "Lets focus on what the police did after the
> murder instead of the actual murder itself."
>
> > Elsewhere, I've dealt with the story of the very problematic jacket
> > found in the parking lot behind a Texaco Station in Oak Cliff.
> > Witness Warren Reynolds told the Warren Commission that he last saw
> > the man who shot Officer Tippit heading towards the lot, & fellow
> > witnesses Robert Brock & Pat Patterson backed him up. But film
> > footage taken on the spot, 11/22/63, told a different tale: In it,
> > Reynolds is seen telling police officers that he last saw the suspect
> > going in the *opposite* direction, into the back of an old house on
> > Jefferson.
>
> Wow, a discrepancy, Oz must have been framed.
Definition of "discrepancy" here: A piece of witness testimony
involving as many as 5 other witnesses who also testify to the same
*false* information! Way to go, Bud!
dw
The info wasn't *missing*, it was just withheld from the Commission;
in its place: misinformation from 6 witnesses! I guess some idiots
are satisfied with that....
Are you saying that conspirators wouldn't do any *advance* planning??
Huh??
> > Six witnesses to cover up just one corner of the
> > conspiracy....
>
> Six more to add to the vast of thousands of people working to make
> Oz appear guilty. Even the Dallas police, who had a fellow officer go
> down, wanted the guilty party of that murder to go free, and an
> innocent man charged (In fact, with the swiftness they were on board
> in this framing, they must have been coached beforehand). Astounding
> speculation constructed from next to nothing.
>
A resident of Dallas at that time, who used to post here or on
alt.assassination.jfk, said the cops there were quite uneasy with,
quiet about, spooked--something to that effect--the investigation of
Tippit's murder for some years. Some of them perhaps knew that
Tippit's killer got away with it.
>
> > c2007 dw- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
dcwi...@netscape.net wrote:
> On Feb 27, 11:12 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Great idea, Don.....let's focus on trivialities re. the jacket
> > evidence,
>
> Definition of "trivialities" here: Any piece of evidence or testimony
> which contradicts the official, Warren Report-based
> version of the story.
>
> while we ignore the wealth of evidence that shows Oswald to
>
> Definition of "evidence" here: Anything which seems to *support* the
> official version.
>
> > be the killer of Tippit.
> >
> > At the end of the day, what are we left with? ---
> >
> > We're left with Oswald being seen on 10th Street shooting a policeman
>
> Oswald was already in the theatre.
<snicker> The kooks say Oz couldn`t get to 10th and patton in time
to shoot Tippit, but the have no problem believing he got all the way
to the Texas Theater even earlier.
> Scoggins saw someone else shooting
> Tippit,
Yet said it was Oswald.
> or saw him right after he shot Tippit--it took the cops etc.
> 24 hours to get him to ID O.
Yet he did ID Oswald.
> (See one of my 15 points.) Mrs M got
> there too late to see any shooting or even the actual killer.
Yet she did say she was there to see the shooting. And people who
came immediately to look out said they saw her standing on the corner
screaming.
> (See
> one....) For Virginia Davis, I'll post under your "Tippit trial". We
> don't know Benavides' real story--
We have his sworn testimony.
>just the one he finally gave at the
> hearings--after 3 months of silence--to conform to earlier police
> versions of his story.
Witness versions of the event, you mean.
> > and Oswald has a jacket on while shooting the policeman. .... And then
> > Oswald is next seen by Johnny Brewer on Jefferson Blvd. WITHOUT a
> > jacket.
> >
> > Oswald, therefore, shed his jacket somewhere in between 10th and
> > Hardy's Shoe Store.
> >
> > Correct?
>
> See it's I believe point #15---O did not go back to Roberts' House of
> Fibs to pick up anything.
Whaley, the cab driver, said he dropped Oz in the vicintity of the
boardinghouse. More lying witnesses.
> And you left out the fact that witnesses
> were divided on which way the suspect(s) went--up Jefferson or the
> alley.
Close enough.
> Burt, Mrs M, Reynolds said the latter. Guinyard, Scoggins the
> former. And you're conveniently ignoring the fact that Reynolds, one
> of your "jacket" witnesses, was no such thing. Nor was Brock. Nor
> was Patterson. Why was their perjury suborned to make it seem as if
> the man Reynolds & Patterson saw was heading toward the lot/jacket
> area? He was not. Why were Owens & Hill *advised* to make up a story
> about a witness who saw a jacket tossed down? A story even they admit
> they did not follow-up on....
DVP was right, this isn`t even molehills.
> dw
> >
> > And the Texaco Station was, indeed, between those two points in
> > question. And the jacket generally matched the jacket that witnesses
> > saw Oswald wearing on 10th St.
> >
> > Why is it so important to the CT-Kooks to have Oswald innocent of the
> > Tippit crime too? Can anyone please tell me.....WHY?
>
> Uh, because he probably was.
If you are willing to believe the astounding possibility that all
the witness and all the cops were out to get Oz.
Bud
dcwi...@netscape.net wrote:
> On Feb 28, 3:42 am, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > > The Police End of the Oswald Jacket Fiasco, or More Problems for Vinny
> >
> > A better name would be "Lets focus on what the police did after the
> > murder instead of the actual murder itself."
> >
> > > Elsewhere, I've dealt with the story of the very problematic jacket
> > > found in the parking lot behind a Texaco Station in Oak Cliff.
> > > Witness Warren Reynolds told the Warren Commission that he last saw
> > > the man who shot Officer Tippit heading towards the lot, & fellow
> > > witnesses Robert Brock & Pat Patterson backed him up. But film
> > > footage taken on the spot, 11/22/63, told a different tale: In it,
> > > Reynolds is seen telling police officers that he last saw the suspect
> > > going in the *opposite* direction, into the back of an old house on
> > > Jefferson.
> >
> > Wow, a discrepancy, Oz must have been framed.
>
> Definition of "discrepancy" here: A piece of witness testimony
> involving as many as 5 other witnesses who also testify to the same
> *false* information!
In what meaningful way have you established that those five
witnesses gave false information about the direction the shooter was
headed?
> Way to go, Bud!
Thanks, but I really don`t need encouraging.
You use one witness to trump six. Typical kook thinking. If 9
people say the gunman was righthanded, and one says left handed, latch
onto the one that says left. Or, better yet, claim it shows there were
two different shooters.
It`s a flimsy and feeble effort you are making to support an
incredible, astounding possibility. The only rational approach is to
assume that the witnesses are as they seem, ordinary citizens coming
forward to tell what they saw, and the Dallas police are just
responding to a fellow oficer being shot. The record of their actions
is likely imperfect, because noting details isn`t high priority at a
time like this. They don`t need to perfectly document who told them
what, or the details of how a piece of evidence is found, because a
lawyer who attempted to nullify evidence like you are by suggesting it
was held by someone prior to Tippit`s slaying for the purpose of
planting would be laughed out of the courtroom, although some kooks
think these scenarios play well in newsgroups.
> > > Six witnesses to cover up just one corner of the
> > > conspiracy....
> >
> > Six more to add to the vast of thousands of people working to make
> > Oz appear guilty. Even the Dallas police, who had a fellow officer go
> > down, wanted the guilty party of that murder to go free, and an
> > innocent man charged (In fact, with the swiftness they were on board
> > in this framing, they must have been coached beforehand). Astounding
> > speculation constructed from next to nothing.
> >
> A resident of Dallas at that time, who used to post here or on
> alt.assassination.jfk, said the cops there were quite uneasy with,
> quiet about, spooked--something to that effect--the investigation of
> Tippit's murder for some years. Some of them perhaps knew that
> Tippit's killer got away with it.
Perhaps it was because Tippit`s ghost used to appear regularly at
the stationhouse, rattle his chains, and moan "You motherfuckers
couldn`t shoot that prick in the theater when you had a chance?"
dcwi...@netscape.net
> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 11:12 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Great idea, Don.....let's focus on trivialities re. the jacket
> > > evidence,
>
> > Definition of "trivialities" here: Any piece of evidence or testimony
> > which contradicts the official, Warren Report-based
> > version of the story.
>
> > while we ignore the wealth of evidence that shows Oswald to
>
> > Definition of "evidence" here: Anything which seems to *support* the
> > official version.
>
> > > be the killer of Tippit.
>
> > > At the end of the day, what are we left with? ---
>
> > > We're left with Oswald being seen on 10th Street shooting a policeman
>
> > Oswald was already in the theatre.
>
> <snicker> The kooks say Oz couldn`t get to 10th and patton in time
> to shoot Tippit, but the have no problem believing he got all the way
> to the Texas Theater even earlier.
>
the theatre, what time would he have arrived at said theatre?
(Originally, Whaley had him down closer to the theatre than to the
boarding house.)
dw
> > Scoggins saw someone else shooting
> > Tippit,
>
> Yet said it was Oswald.
Yet, could not ID O in a photo for the FBI! Hey! If it's (let's say,
hypothermically) a COVER-UP, things are COVERED-UP, not spelt out.
The cops aren't going to say, Well, we did have to hold Scoggins for
24 hours before he would comply with our request that he ID Oswald.
And didn't he then say it was Oswald? Well, there!
> > or saw him right after he shot Tippit--it took the cops etc.
> > 24 hours to get him to ID O.
>
> Yet he did ID Oswald.
>
How much water would an ID that took 24 hours to get hold?
> > (See one of my 15 points.) Mrs M got
> > there too late to see any shooting or even the actual killer.
>
> Yet she did say she was there to see the shooting. And people who
> came immediately to look out said they saw her standing on the corner
> screaming.
>
Okay. I'll have to go with this here rather than on DVP's thread
since Bud launches right into my subject.... Look closely at the
respective testimonies of Davis, Davis, & Markham, as I did in "Mrs
Markham & the 2nd Gunman". I'll capsulize the latter. First, look at
the testimony of Virginia Davis. Again & again, she sez that she
called the cops first, then saw the gunman. Again & again, she
backtracks & reverses herself. Which is it? The key is how many
shots the Davises heard: Both say "2". Which means, apparently, that
they were not just dozing, but sleeping, & did not even hear the first
2 or 3 shots which everyone else heard--or, rather, those shots began
waking them up. Which means that they could not have fully woken up &
got to the door in time to see the actual shooter. He would not have
waited just for them. They saw only the man with Tippit's gun chasing
the shooter. Which means that the "people who looked out" & saw Mrs M
saw the same thing she did--the man with Tippit's gun....
> > (See
> > one....) For Virginia Davis, I'll post under your "Tippit trial". We
> > don't know Benavides' real story--
>
> We have his sworn testimony.
But not a single word from him for the 3 months before that. And his
11/22/63 affidavit disappeared....
>
> >just the one he finally gave at the
> > hearings--after 3 months of silence--to conform to earlier police
> > versions of his story.
>
> Witness versions of the event, you mean.
Okay, both.
>
> > > and Oswald has a jacket on while shooting the policeman. .... And then
> > > Oswald is next seen by Johnny Brewer on Jefferson Blvd. WITHOUT a
> > > jacket.
>
> > > Oswald, therefore, shed his jacket somewhere in between 10th and
> > > Hardy's Shoe Store.
>
> > > Correct?
>
> > See it's I believe point #15---O did not go back to Roberts' House of
> > Fibs to pick up anything.
>
> Whaley, the cab driver, said he dropped Oz in the vicintity of the
> boardinghouse. More lying witnesses.
Not the first time. Whaley, well, see above...
>
> > And you left out the fact that witnesses
> > were divided on which way the suspect(s) went--up Jefferson or the
> > alley.
>
> Close enough.
>
> > Burt, Mrs M, Reynolds said the latter. Guinyard, Scoggins the
> > former. And you're conveniently ignoring the fact that Reynolds, one
> > of your "jacket" witnesses, was no such thing. Nor was Brock. Nor
> > was Patterson. Why was their perjury suborned to make it seem as if
> > the man Reynolds & Patterson saw was heading toward the lot/jacket
> > area? He was not. Why were Owens & Hill *advised* to make up a story
> > about a witness who saw a jacket tossed down? A story even they admit
> > they did not follow-up on....
>
> DVP was right, this isn`t even molehills.
>
You mean, the jacket was unimportant? But LNers seem to like to use
that piece of evidence....
> > dw
>
> > > And the Texaco Station was, indeed, between those two points in
> > > question. And the jacket generally matched the jacket that witnesses
> > > saw Oswald wearing on 10th St.
>
> > > Why is it so important to the CT-Kooks to have Oswald innocent of the
> > > Tippit crime too? Can anyone please tell me.....WHY?
>
> > Uh, because he probably was.
>
> If you are willing to believe the astounding possibility that all
> the witness and all the cops were out to get Oz.
>
>
>
> > (But some CT-Prodigies do think O was
> > guilty here.)
>
> > > THE TIPPIT MURDER AND THE HILARIOUS PROSECTION OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4d1790303e6fcc19- Hide quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 3:42 am, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > > > The Police End of the Oswald Jacket Fiasco, or More Problems for Vinny
>
> > > A better name would be "Lets focus on what the police did after the
> > > murder instead of the actual murder itself."
>
> > > > Elsewhere, I've dealt with the story of the very problematic jacket
> > > > found in the parking lot behind a Texaco Station in Oak Cliff.
> > > > Witness Warren Reynolds told the Warren Commission that he last saw
> > > > the man who shot Officer Tippit heading towards the lot, & fellow
> > > > witnesses Robert Brock & Pat Patterson backed him up. But film
> > > > footage taken on the spot, 11/22/63, told a different tale: In it,
> > > > Reynolds is seen telling police officers that he last saw the suspect
> > > > going in the *opposite* direction, into the back of an old house on
> > > > Jefferson.
>
> > > Wow, a discrepancy, Oz must have been framed.
>
> > Definition of "discrepancy" here: A piece of witness testimony
> > involving as many as 5 other witnesses who also testify to the same
> > *false* information!
>
> In what meaningful way have you established that those five
> witnesses gave false information about the direction the shooter was
> headed?
>
the gunman going into the lot. But they gave false information about
which direction *Reynolds* said the shooter was headed. Certainly,
the police witnesses had no way of knowing themselves which way he was
headed. But Brock & Patterson said Reynolds saw the gunman headed for
the parking lot....
And the cops did give false info. As Myers notes, Reynolds was at the
Tippit scene. He had seen what he thought was the shooter enter the
back of an old house. He was obviously there to tell them that. But
do either Owens or Hill mention talking to a witness on 10th who told
them that? No, instead they mention talking to a witness who said
jacket/parking lot. So Owens went to Jefferson. And shook down the
*houses*.... *Reynolds* was the man they talked to on 10th--whether
they got his name doesn't matter. What does matter is they changed
*his* story to shift the focus to the jacket & away from the suspect
who was seen entering the house. Not one cop said he was looking for
a *jacket* at the houses/Texaco area....
Reynolds, alone, might be dismissed. Or even Reynolds & Patterson.
But when six people have to be used to cover up his story, I begin to
think it might be true....
No: *Brock* said Reynolds told him he, Reynolds, last saw the suspect
heading to the lot behind the station. Not true.
*Patterson* said he & Reynolds last saw the suspect heading behind the
station. Not true, not if, as Patterson states, he was *with*
Reynolds.
*Owens*--see above
*Hill*--see above
*Westbrook*--said other *officers* saw someone going into the houses.
Not true. And there's Westbrook shown actually speaking with
Reynolds! Gotcha, Pinky! Again, he didn't have to have a *name*, but
Reynolds was hardly a cop
If we'd listened to *that* approach, the incredible, astounding
Watergate story would never have been exposed....
The record of their actions
> is likely imperfect, because noting details isn`t high priority at a
> time like this. They don`t need to perfectly document who told them
> what, or the details of how a piece of evidence is found, because a
> lawyer who attempted to nullify evidence like you are by suggesting it
> was held by someone prior to Tippit`s slaying for the purpose of
> planting would be laughed out of the courtroom, although some kooks
> think these scenarios play well in newsgroups.
>
I'm not clear on the hilarity here. You're saying evidence has never
been planted by police?
> > > > Six witnesses to cover up just one corner of the
> > > > conspiracy....
>
> > > Six more to add to the vast of thousands of people working to make
> > > Oz appear guilty. Even the Dallas police, who had a fellow officer go
> > > down, wanted the guilty party of that murder to go free, and an
> > > innocent man charged (In fact, with the swiftness they were on board
> > > in this framing, they must have been coached beforehand). Astounding
> > > speculation constructed from next to nothing.
>
> > A resident of Dallas at that time, who used to post here or on
> > alt.assassination.jfk, said the cops there were quite uneasy with,
> > quiet about, spooked--something to that effect--the investigation of
> > Tippit's murder for some years. Some of them perhaps knew that
> > Tippit's killer got away with it.
>
> Perhaps it was because Tippit`s ghost used to appear regularly at
> the stationhouse, rattle his chains, and moan "You motherfuckers
> couldn`t shoot that prick in the theater when you had a chance?"
>
And LNers are content to let Tippit's killer run free &
unidentified....
David Von Pein
Physically not possible, of course. (Unless Oswald decided to stop on
10th St. and pick his ass for a few minutes before high-tailing it
toward Patton Avenue.)
>>> "They {Barbara & Virginia Davis} saw only the man with Tippit's gun chasing the shooter." <<<
And yet BOTH women positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man
with the gun they saw cutting across their yard while emptying shells
from a revolver.
Did Ted Callaway look like Lee Oswald? Hardly.
Plus: Did Callaway have any reason to cut across the Davis' front and
side yards (moving toward Jefferson Blvd.) to reach Scoggins' cab? Is
there any evidence that he made such a journey on November 22?
Plus: Was Callaway dumping shells out of Tippit's gun as he ran?
Think up another "It Couldn't Have Been LHO" hunk of kookshit, Don.
This one is beyond moribund (as all your shit is, of course).
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/85290a6703a31221
Bud
I`m glad you are a fan of identificatiom from photos, because
several people who didn`t view line-ups Identified Oswald as the man
with the gun in the vicintity of Tippit`s murder by photographs shown
to them. In any case, this event of Scoggins looking at photos for the
FBI took place after he viewed the line-up and indentified Oz as the
man he saw kill Tippit, so it doesn`t matter whether he could make Oz
out in the old, poor quality photos he said the FBI showed him. Also,
where does it appear that he picked out the wrong person?
> Hey! If it's (let's say,
> hypothermically) a COVER-UP, things are COVERED-UP, not spelt out.
> The cops aren't going to say, Well, we did have to hold Scoggins for
> 24 hours before he would comply with our request that he ID Oswald.
> And didn't he then say it was Oswald? Well, there!
Yah, that is what the man said, that it was Oswald he saw kill
Tippit.
> > > or saw him right after he shot Tippit--it took the cops etc.
> > > 24 hours to get him to ID O.
> >
> > Yet he did ID Oswald.
> >
> How much water would an ID that took 24 hours to get hold?
Why would an identification done 24 hours after the fact not hold
water?
> > > (See one of my 15 points.) Mrs M got
> > > there too late to see any shooting or even the actual killer.
> >
> > Yet she did say she was there to see the shooting. And people who
> > came immediately to look out said they saw her standing on the corner
> > screaming.
> >
> Okay. I'll have to go with this here rather than on DVP's thread
> since Bud launches right into my subject.... Look closely at the
> respective testimonies of Davis, Davis, & Markham, as I did in "Mrs
> Markham & the 2nd Gunman". I'll capsulize the latter. First, look at
> the testimony of Virginia Davis. Again & again, she sez that she
> called the cops first, then saw the gunman.
She recounts it two ways. You choose the one which is obviously
erroneous to work from.When she goes through her actions step by step,
there is no confusion.
> Again & again, she
> backtracks & reverses herself. Which is it? The key is how many
> shots the Davises heard: Both say "2". Which means, apparently, that
> they were not just dozing, but sleeping, & did not even hear the first
> 2 or 3 shots which everyone else heard--or, rather, those shots began
> waking them up. Which means that they could not have fully woken up &
> got to the door in time to see the actual shooter.
Horseshit. They said they went to the door immediately. They
reported things they saw that other people who were out there
corroborate. You are truly desparate.
> He would not have
> waited just for them. They saw only the man with Tippit's gun chasing
> the shooter. Which means that the "people who looked out" & saw Mrs M
> saw the same thing she did--the man with Tippit's gun....
More horseshit. Oswald was long gone before Calloway took Tippit`s
gun and went looking for Oz.
> > > (See
> > > one....) For Virginia Davis, I'll post under your "Tippit trial". We
> > > don't know Benavides' real story--
> >
> > We have his sworn testimony.
>
> But not a single word from him for the 3 months before that. And his
> 11/22/63 affidavit disappeared....
Which makes his sworn testimony all the more valuable.
> > >just the one he finally gave at the
> > > hearings--after 3 months of silence--to conform to earlier police
> > > versions of his story.
> >
> > Witness versions of the event, you mean.
>
> Okay, both.
No, the police weren`t there for the killing.
> > > > and Oswald has a jacket on while shooting the policeman. .... And then
> > > > Oswald is next seen by Johnny Brewer on Jefferson Blvd. WITHOUT a
> > > > jacket.
> >
> > > > Oswald, therefore, shed his jacket somewhere in between 10th and
> > > > Hardy's Shoe Store.
> >
> > > > Correct?
> >
> > > See it's I believe point #15---O did not go back to Roberts' House of
> > > Fibs to pick up anything.
> >
> > Whaley, the cab driver, said he dropped Oz in the vicintity of the
> > boardinghouse. More lying witnesses.
>
> Not the first time. Whaley, well, see above...
I`ll have to check his affidavit.
> > > And you left out the fact that witnesses
> > > were divided on which way the suspect(s) went--up Jefferson or the
> > > alley.
> >
> > Close enough.
> >
> > > Burt, Mrs M, Reynolds said the latter. Guinyard, Scoggins the
> > > former. And you're conveniently ignoring the fact that Reynolds, one
> > > of your "jacket" witnesses, was no such thing. Nor was Brock. Nor
> > > was Patterson. Why was their perjury suborned to make it seem as if
> > > the man Reynolds & Patterson saw was heading toward the lot/jacket
> > > area? He was not. Why were Owens & Hill *advised* to make up a story
> > > about a witness who saw a jacket tossed down? A story even they admit
> > > they did not follow-up on....
> >
> > DVP was right, this isn`t even molehills.
> >
> You mean, the jacket was unimportant?
No, the details of it`s finding are.
Bud
Bud wrote:
> dcwi...@netscape.net wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 2:26 pm, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > > > On Feb 27, 11:12 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Great idea, Don.....let's focus on trivialities re. the jacket
> > > > > evidence,
> > >
> > > > Definition of "trivialities" here: Any piece of evidence or testimony
> > > > which contradicts the official, Warren Report-based
> > > > version of the story.
> > >
> > > > while we ignore the wealth of evidence that shows Oswald to
> > >
> > > > Definition of "evidence" here: Anything which seems to *support* the
> > > > official version.
> > >
> > > > > be the killer of Tippit.
> > >
> > > > > At the end of the day, what are we left with? ---
> > >
> > > > > We're left with Oswald being seen on 10th Street shooting a policeman
> > >
> > > > Oswald was already in the theatre.
> > >
> > > <snicker> The kooks say Oz couldn`t get to 10th and patton in time
> > > to shoot Tippit, but the have no problem believing he got all the way
> > > to the Texas Theater even earlier.
> > >
> > Well, time it yourself: If O got out of the taxi about 5 blocks from
> > the theatre, what time would he have arrived at said theatre?
> > (Originally, Whaley had him down closer to the theatre than to the
> > boarding house.)
What is the source of this, dw? I found a statement by Whaley on
the 23rd saying he dropped Oz at the "500 blk N. Beckley." That is the
block of the boarding house.
A little elaboration here. Tippits gun was under him. Someone took
it and placed it on the hood of the patrol car. Someone then thought
better of it, and placed it inside the patrol car. Then Callaway
decided to retrieve it to go look for Tippit`s killer. dw here has the
witnesses who heard the shots crawling to their doors to look out.
This is the extent the kooks are willing to go to get Oz off the hook
for this killing.
Bud
In other words, you are basing this extraordinary scenario on
speculation that Reynold gave the police misinformation.
I don`t suppose I should bother to point out that the record of the
search, it`s chronology, and who said what to who is most likely
sketchy and incomplete, mainly because it`s pretty trivial to the
crime. Or to point out that you are trying to support the most
extraordinary claims with the flimsiest of support.The only thing what
you present shows to be is that you`ve taken a microscope and a fine
tooth comb to the statements looking for descrepancies to exploit.
That you think Watergate is comparable to the scenario you are
asserting speaks only to your mindset. You have dozens of people,
officials and civilian, working in concert to try a make an innocent
man look guilty. Why propose such an astounding possibility with the
little you have to support it? Only a reality exasion comes to mind.
> The record of their actions
> > is likely imperfect, because noting details isn`t high priority at a
> > time like this. They don`t need to perfectly document who told them
> > what, or the details of how a piece of evidence is found, because a
> > lawyer who attempted to nullify evidence like you are by suggesting it
> > was held by someone prior to Tippit`s slaying for the purpose of
> > planting would be laughed out of the courtroom, although some kooks
> > think these scenarios play well in newsgroups.
> >
> I'm not clear on the hilarity here.
Thank God you`re not a lawyer then. It would be suicide to try and
foist such a ridiculous scenario on a jury with what you are
presenting.
> You're saying evidence has never
> been planted by police?
No, of course not. It does happen, although it is very rare. But
your scenario doesn`t involve the simple planting of evidence, does
it? You have a zippered jacket at the ready by someone who knew a
murder was to take place near there, and that such a jacket would be
needed. And just what does this jacket do that makes it worth the risk
to plant? You have many people saying they saw Oz either shooting
Tippit, or fleeing in the direction of the Texas Teather with a gun.
You think a jury is going to require a trial of breadcrumbs to the
theater, especially after Oz is caught with a gun there? It doesn`t
make sense any way you look at it, not in a "risk vs. rewards" way, or
"the jacket had evidence that ties it to Oswald exclusively", or any
other.
> > > > > Six witnesses to cover up just one corner of the
> > > > > conspiracy....
> >
> > > > Six more to add to the vast of thousands of people working to make
> > > > Oz appear guilty. Even the Dallas police, who had a fellow officer go
> > > > down, wanted the guilty party of that murder to go free, and an
> > > > innocent man charged (In fact, with the swiftness they were on board
> > > > in this framing, they must have been coached beforehand). Astounding
> > > > speculation constructed from next to nothing.
> >
> > > A resident of Dallas at that time, who used to post here or on
> > > alt.assassination.jfk, said the cops there were quite uneasy with,
> > > quiet about, spooked--something to that effect--the investigation of
> > > Tippit's murder for some years. Some of them perhaps knew that
> > > Tippit's killer got away with it.
> >
> > Perhaps it was because Tippit`s ghost used to appear regularly at
> > the stationhouse, rattle his chains, and moan "You motherfuckers
> > couldn`t shoot that prick in the theater when you had a chance?"
> >
> And LNers are content to let Tippit's killer run free &
> unidentified....
No, when they exhumed Oswald, they found him right where they left
him.
eca...@tx.rr.com
firm conviction that the neck
wound was an *entry* wound?
Any ideas on:
1) Where it exited?
2) More "faked" photos?
3) Where it originated from?
4) Where the back wound over
shoulder blade on Kennedy exited?
5) Where, how, and who nailed
Connally in the back?
6) Does this require 4 or 5 shots Walt?
7) Walt how do you find your
way home from work?
MR ;~D
eca...@tx.rr.com
"The kooks say Oz couldn`t get to 10th and patton in time
to shoot Tippit, but the have no problem believing he got all the way
to the Texas Theater even earlier."
Great point Bud but ScrotuMan
is not going to be happy..
This wrecks his otherwise
stellar Pulitzer prize winning
JFK site..
To Sacknutz: Your
*stewpiT* JFK site is in the
crapper but I've got some good
news:
That match book cover you sent
in with $89.00 with your
application to become an
apprentice plumber, has been
accepted.. Unless your check
was yet another Hormel Little
Sizzler you are well on your
way to financing a new shine
kit and crack pipe..
MR ;~D
On Feb 28, 4:26 pm, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > THE TIPPIT MURDER AND THE HILARIOUS PROSECTION OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4d1790303e6fcc19- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
eca...@tx.rr.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> read more »
Dynamite posts Bud!!!!!!!!!!!!
Walt
13. The WC testimony of Virginia Davis. Google "Mrs. Markham & the
Second Gunman" (Repost)--too complicated to squeeze into a talking
point. The upshot, tho: Mrs M & the Davises all saw only the man
with Tippit's gun, chasing the murderer. One sentence from an
affidavit has thrown impressionable CT researchers off the trail here
for over 40 years: witness TF Bowley's "I looked at my watch & it
said
1:10pm." Do not believe his watch. LNers are correct on this. Mrs
M
actually got to the scene too *late* to see Tippit get shot, or even
to see Tippit's assailant. She, fellow witness Jimmy Burt (FBI
interview 12/15/63), & Virginia Davis (& probably Barbara Davis) saw
the man with Tippit's gun run into the alley off Patton (see also 1,
above).
What would Helen Markham have to gain by lying about being right there
on the corner of 10th and Patton at the time Tippit was shot??? She
made it very clear in her affidavit where she was standing when Tippit
was shot.
Don, I'm sure you've read her testimony before the Warren
Commission,as I have. I get the impression that the woman was
absolutely terrified..... she knew Tippit's killer was still running
loose, and she realized that she was a threat to him.
Julia Mercer was another woman who was afflicted with terror..... and
she left Dallas because of her fear. Markham couldn't do that....she
could only try to convey to the killer that she intended him no harm.
Walt
>
> If we'd listened to *that* ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
On Feb 11th ed wrote>>>
> I will address each of the 3 or 4 but
> at some point I'd like to know your
> source(s) for each claim you "quote"
> Quite frankly there's so much subjective
> BS on your site I'm a little leary of you
> just saying "here's what happened and
> what Baker did" ..
GO FOR IT CHILD MOLESTER.
<eca...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1172757444.2...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
dcwi...@netscape.net
God! alt.conspiracy.jfk is great! You can say anything you want! I
trust Vinny won't be quite as crass.... I also trust he'll look at
opposing arguments somewhat more closely....
dw
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/85290a6703a31221
dcwi...@netscape.net
All the difference in the world between an ID made after 24 hours in
the custody of the authorities, & an ID made within an hour or two of
being taken downtown.
> > > > (See one of my 15 points.) Mrs M got
> > > > there too late to see any shooting or even the actual killer.
>
> > > Yet she did say she was there to see the shooting. And people who
> > > came immediately to look out said they saw her standing on the corner
> > > screaming.
>
> > Okay. I'll have to go with this here rather than on DVP's thread
> > since Bud launches right into my subject.... Look closely at the
> > respective testimonies of Davis, Davis, & Markham, as I did in "Mrs
> > Markham & the 2nd Gunman". I'll capsulize the latter. First, look at
> > the testimony of Virginia Davis. Again & again, she sez that she
> > called the cops first, then saw the gunman.
>
> She recounts it two ways. You choose the one which is obviously
> erroneous to work from.When she goes through her actions step by step,
> there is no confusion.
Yet, she has to keep reversing herself to get back to that confusion-
less "step by step".
>
> > Again & again, she
> > backtracks & reverses herself. Which is it? The key is how many
> > shots the Davises heard: Both say "2". Which means, apparently, that
> > they were not just dozing, but sleeping, & did not even hear the first
> > 2 or 3 shots which everyone else heard--or, rather, those shots began
> > waking them up. Which means that they could not have fully woken up &
> > got to the door in time to see the actual shooter.
>
> Horseshit. They said they went to the door immediately.
Why did they hear only 2 shots?
They
> reported things they saw that other people who were out there
> corroborate.
Not Jimmy Burt, who said the gunman he saw took the sidewalk to the
corner of 10th & Patton. Nor Mrs M, who said the same thing. Who
said she didn't start screaming until the gunman reached the
intersection & started running up Patton. Which means that the
Davises couldn't have seen the gunman unless they were at the side
door (as Virginia noted in her 1st affidavit), since they both
testified that they only saw him *after* Mrs M screamed & pointed to
him. Which means they couldn't have seen him tossing down shells in
front of their house....
You are truly desparate.
>
> > He would not have
> > waited just for them. They saw only the man with Tippit's gun chasing
> > the shooter. Which means that the "people who looked out" & saw Mrs M
> > saw the same thing she did--the man with Tippit's gun....
>
> More horseshit. Oswald was long gone before Calloway took Tippit`s
> gun and went looking for Oz.
>
I can't believe that people still buy that story. A witness waited
what was it 5 or 6 minutes before running after the shooter?? Cold
pursuit, eh?
> > > > (See
> > > > one....) For Virginia Davis, I'll post under your "Tippit trial". We
> > > > don't know Benavides' real story--
>
> > > We have his sworn testimony.
>
> > But not a single word from him for the 3 months before that. And his
> > 11/22/63 affidavit disappeared....
>
> Which makes his sworn testimony all the more valuable.
>
All the more questionable. Maybe Vinny found that lost statement....
> > > > > THE TIPPIT MURDER AND THE HILARIOUS PROSECTION OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4d1790303e6fcc19-Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
You mean looking more closely at your crap about how the Davis ladies
saw Ted Callaway running from the Tippit murder scene instead of your
hero LHO?
Is that the type of "opposing argument" that "Vinny" is supposed to
actually take seriously (and use up paper on in his book)?
Surely you jest, my good man. (Surely?)
BTW....Answer the questions -- Was Callaway dumping shells from
Tippit's gun as he passed the Davis house? And did Callaway resemble
Lee Harvey Oswald?
~~~~~~~~~~
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1e2929be83607513
"Just forty-five minutes after the assassination....out of the five
hundred thousand or so people in Dallas....Lee Harvey Oswald is the
one out of those five hundred thousand people who just happens to
murder Officer J.D. Tippit.
"Oswald's responsibility for President Kennedy's assassination
explains....EXPLAINS....why he was driven to murder Officer Tippit.
The murder bore the signature of a man in desperate flight from some
awful deed. What other reason under the moon would he have had to kill
Officer Tippit? ....
"Let's get into the mechanics .... Who was this other gunman who, on
the day of the assassination, made his way into the Book Depository
Building, carrying a rifle....went up to the sixth floor....shot and
killed the President....made his way back down to the first
floor....and escaped without leaving a trace?
"How, in fact, if Oswald were innocent, did they GET Oswald, within
forty-five minutes of the assassination, to murder Officer Tippit? Or
was he framed for THAT murder too?!" -- Vincent Bugliosi
David Von Pein
HISTORY".
VB will obviously be covering the Tippit crime at length in his
book...but it's odd that this (tentative) Chapter List doesn't show a
specific chapter labeled "Tippit":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/79aad61f970de446
David Von Pein
Great. Now Ted Callaway is telling tales out of school, per this kook.
(Did ANYBODY tell the truth in this case, Don? Geesh.)
Here's Callaway's testimony (verifying that the ambulance had already
come and gone with Tippit's body before Ted ever started chasing
Oswald)......
Mr. CALLAWAY. I picked the gun up and laid it on the hood of the squad
car, and then someone put it in the front seat of the squad car. Then
after I helped load Officer Tippit in the ambulance, I got the gun out
of the car and told this cabdriver, I said, "You saw the guy didn't
you?" He said, yes.
I said, "If he is going up Jefferson, he can't be very far. Let's see
if we can find him." So I went with Scoggins in the taxicab, went up
to 10th, Crawford, from Crawford up to Jefferson, and down Jefferson
to Beckley. And we turned on Beckley. If we had kept going up
Jefferson, we probably--there is a good chance we would have seen him,
because he was headed right towards the Texas Theatre. But then we
circled around several blocks, and ended up coming back to where it
happened.
Mr. BALL. And the ambulance--had the ambulance been there by that
time?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Oh, yes; the ambulance already left before I ever left
with the cabdriver.
Bud
What do you base this on?
> > > > > (See one of my 15 points.) Mrs M got
> > > > > there too late to see any shooting or even the actual killer.
> >
> > > > Yet she did say she was there to see the shooting. And people who
> > > > came immediately to look out said they saw her standing on the corner
> > > > screaming.
> >
> > > Okay. I'll have to go with this here rather than on DVP's thread
> > > since Bud launches right into my subject.... Look closely at the
> > > respective testimonies of Davis, Davis, & Markham, as I did in "Mrs
> > > Markham & the 2nd Gunman". I'll capsulize the latter. First, look at
> > > the testimony of Virginia Davis. Again & again, she sez that she
> > > called the cops first, then saw the gunman.
> >
> > She recounts it two ways. You choose the one which is obviously
> > erroneous to work from.When she goes through her actions step by step,
> > there is no confusion.
>
> Yet, she has to keep reversing herself to get back to that confusion-
> less "step by step".
Her "step by step" account makes sense, which is why you reject
it, to latch on to the confused portion of her testimony to exploit
into some kind of desperate Oswald defense.
> > > Again & again, she
> > > backtracks & reverses herself. Which is it? The key is how many
> > > shots the Davises heard: Both say "2". Which means, apparently, that
> > > they were not just dozing, but sleeping, & did not even hear the first
> > > 2 or 3 shots which everyone else heard--or, rather, those shots began
> > > waking them up. Which means that they could not have fully woken up &
> > > got to the door in time to see the actual shooter.
> >
> > Horseshit. They said they went to the door immediately.
>
> Why did they hear only 2 shots?
Why did some people in Dealey hear 7? Why don`t all the Tippit
witnesses agree on the number of shots?
> They
> > reported things they saw that other people who were out there
> > corroborate.
>
> Not Jimmy Burt, who said the gunman he saw took the sidewalk to the
> corner of 10th & Patton. Nor Mrs M, who said the same thing. Who
> said she didn't start screaming until the gunman reached the
> intersection & started running up Patton. Which means that the
> Davises couldn't have seen the gunman unless they were at the side
> door (as Virginia noted in her 1st affidavit), since they both
> testified that they only saw him *after* Mrs M screamed & pointed to
> him. Which means they couldn't have seen him tossing down shells in
> front of their house....
Do you really think you can fix a precise chronology from the
witness accounts?
> You are truly desparate.
> >
> > > He would not have
> > > waited just for them. They saw only the man with Tippit's gun chasing
> > > the shooter. Which means that the "people who looked out" & saw Mrs M
> > > saw the same thing she did--the man with Tippit's gun....
> >
> > More horseshit. Oswald was long gone before Calloway took Tippit`s
> > gun and went looking for Oz.
> >
> I can't believe that people still buy that story.
<snicker> You throw out everything the witnesses say, latch onto
some fragment of information, and rewrite the event. A silly creative
writing exercise, the only purpose of which is to write a story where
Oz is innocent.
> A witness waited
> what was it 5 or 6 minutes before running after the shooter?? Cold
> pursuit, eh?
Whatever it was, there was too long an interm period for the
witnesses to confuse the shooter with Callaway.
<SNIP>
Walt
> >>> "God! alt.conspiracy.jfk is great! You can say anything you want! I trust Vinny won't be quite as crass.... I also trust he'll look at opposing arguments somewhat more closely." <<<
>
> You mean looking more closely at your crap about how the Davis ladies
> saw Ted Callaway running from the Tippit murder scene instead of your
> hero LHO?
>
> Is that the type of "opposing argument" that "Vinny" is supposed to
> actually take seriously (and use up paper on in his book)?
>
> Surely you jest, my good man. (Surely?)
>
> BTW....Answer the questions -- Was Callaway dumping shells from
> Tippit's gun as he passed the Davis house? And did Callaway resemble
> Lee Harvey Oswald?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1e2929be83607513
>
> "Just forty-five minutes after the assassination....out of the five
> hundred thousand or so people in Dallas....Lee Harvey Oswald is the
> one out of those five hundred thousand people who just happens to
> murder Officer J.D. Tippit.
>
> "Oswald's responsibility for President Kennedy's assassination
> explains....EXPLAINS....why he was driven to murder Officer Tippit.
> The murder bore the signature of a man in desperate flight from some
> awful deed. What other reason under the moon would he have had to kill
> Officer Tippit? ....
I agree that the act of killing Tippit was the act of a desperate
man......But it's a quantum leap of logic to ASSUME that Oswald was
the killer. Unfortunately the authorities were also desperate
men.....trying to cover up an role the played in JFK's death. Some
cops covered up the facts because they thought they were going to be
seen as incompetent, and indifferent in the murder of JFK. these were
the lower ranking officers on the DPD. Others covered up because they
had foreknowledge of the murder and were part of the conspiracy, these
were the higher ranking officers and city officials.
Since the cops covered up the facts .....we are left with the mess
that's apparent in the debates in the NG.
The problem is the LNer's consider themselves elite and superior, and
are so arrogant and egotistical that they are blind to the
conspiracy. They steadfastly refuse to accept any FACT that flys in
the face of what they "KNOW".
Walt
dcwi...@netscape.net
block. 500 seems about midway between the theatre, on Jefferson, &
the house at 1026 N Beckely....
light out after the killer. I believe it happened right away, within
a minute after the man left. And that the man with T's gun was
Scoggins. And that the mystery wallet was Scoggins'. It had to have
been a witness's wallet--not the shooter's, unless the shooter was not
Oswald, since his wallet was found on him in the police car. Callaway
explicitly denied the wallet was his, I believe. And Scoggins let
slip that, for some reason, he left his cab behind, at the scene, &
went with the cops. They needed his ID, since he was thot by some to
have been the shooter, he explained, they took him....
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
11/22, Reynolds gave police the only information which he had at the
time, which is that he saw a suspect enter the back of an old house.
Owens appears to have acted on that info immediately, & gone right to
the houses; Westbrook, if he was there, appears to have gone to the
houses area soon after. (He testified that he was there, tho Myers
sez otherwise....) Hill took a witness with him to another location,
*then* went to help the search of the houses.
But that story was covered up, little by little, until the hearings.
First, on 1/21/64, both Reynolds & Brock told the FBI that Reynolds
saw the suspect turn north past the Texaco, into the parking lot.
Then, on 1/22, Patterson told the FBI the same thing. And, at the
hearings, Reynolds "confirmed" this cover-up story....
dw
The testimony of Reynolds, Brock & Patterson is key to the discovery
of the jacket, & that jacket seems pretty important to LNers & CTers
alike. That the later testimony & FBI interviews of the three all
pointed to the parking lot where it was found is a cover-up of
Reynolds' statements to police 11/22 that he saw last saw the suspect
going in the *opposite* direction, south, into the back of an old
house. And we see frames from the TV film showing Reynolds talking to
Capt Westbrook (p121, With Malice) & an unID'd officer (p131), & Myers
states that Reynolds talked to Owens, too (p120).
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
The cops & SS wanted witnesses to Oswald as Tippit's killer, in the
worst way. And Mrs M was the only witness mentioned on the police
radio that day, so they needed her most of all. She got to that
corner, just a bit late, just in time I think to see poor *Scoggins*
looking in the right front window of the patrol car, then going around
to pick up his service pistol & run down the *sidewalk* to the
intersection. Note that both Markham & Burt describe the gunman's
path this way, not the way that Benavides, Davis & Davis describe it--
cutting across the yard, etc. Note also that Markham described the
gunman, originally, has having bushy hair. (See Poe/Jez report in
Myers.) And perhaps also being rather short & stocky. All this
decribes Scoggins. Finally, note that Markham sent a relative to the
HSCA hearings to say that she last saw the gunman going into the
alley, *not* the flight path of the actual killer (down Jefferson)....
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
> >>> "I can't believe that people still buy that story. A witness waited what was it 5 or 6 minutes before running after the shooter?" <<<
>
> Great. Now Ted Callaway is telling tales out of school, per this kook.
> (Did ANYBODY tell the truth in this case, Don? Geesh.)
Callaway did a good job of building up his part in the story, at the
expense of others:
"I didn't think [Scoggins] would ever get that damn cab turned
around.... He was a nervous wreck." (Myers p111)
"'Benavides told me, '''I ain't gonna go down there & tell them my
story unless they give me something'''.' Callaway claimed that
Benavides ended up with a new Pontiac Firebird...." (Myers p221)
Either Callaway had delusions of grandeur, or the authorities actually
were paying off witnesses, & rather handsomely, to tell the stories
they wanted to hear! And people ask *me* why a witness would lie! A
Firebird! Go, Ted!
dw
David Von Pein
Bud
OIC, you are exploiting what is likely erroneous information again.
In his testimony, Whaley says the corner of Neches and North Beckley,
which he says is the 500 block of North Becklley. It isn`t.
No, you have to disregard it, because it destroys the scenario you
are trying to contrive. Callaway says he helped load Tippit into
ambulance, and then heads off looking for Tippit`s killer. You have
the Davis sisters crawling to the door to look out.
> I believe it happened right away, within
> a minute after the man left.
Because that works better for the defense you are trying to present
for your beloved patsy.
> And that the man with T's gun was
> Scoggins. And that the mystery wallet was Scoggins'.
With Oz`s ID in it? Hidel ID, an identitiy Oz was known to use, and
I think Oz`s library card.
> It had to have
> been a witness's wallet--not the shooter's, unless the shooter was not
> Oswald, since his wallet was found on him in the police car.
Couldn`t be just simple confusion amongst the cops where the wallet
was found?
> Callaway
> explicitly denied the wallet was his, I believe. And Scoggins let
> slip that, for some reason, he left his cab behind, at the scene, &
> went with the cops.
Scoggins took his cab, and went looking for the killer with
Callaway. He may have returned, but I wonder if he parked in the same
spot. In any case, where does Scoggins say he went with the police?
> They needed his ID, since he was thot by some to
> have been the shooter, he explained, they took him....
Where?
dcwi...@netscape.net
> On Mar 1, 11:57 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "I can't believe that people still buy that story. A witness waited what was it 5 or 6 minutes before running after the shooter?" <<<
>
> > Great. Now Ted Callaway is telling tales out of school, per this kook.
> > (Did ANYBODY tell the truth in this case, Don? Geesh.)
>
> Callaway did a good job of building up his part in the story, at the
> expense of others:
> "I didn't think [Scoggins] would ever get that damn cab turned
> around.... He was a nervous wreck." (Myers p111)
> "'Benavides told me, '''I ain't gonna go down there & tell them my
> story unless they give me something'''.' Callaway claimed that
> Benavides ended up with a new Pontiac Firebird...." (Myers p221)
> Either Callaway had delusions of grandeur, or the authorities actually
> were paying off witnesses, & rather handsomely, to tell the stories
> they wanted to hear! And people ask *me* why a witness would lie! A
> Firebird! Go, Ted!
> dw
>
for saying he saw the gunman throw down shells. I wonder what the
Davises got. After all, they said the guy tossed shells down around
bushes near the house, & Mrs Markham testified that he got nowhere
near those bushes--he took the *sidewalk* down to the corner of 10th &
P! Gotcha, Virginia! Gotcha, Barbie!
dw
>
> > Here's Callaway's testimony (verifying that the ambulance had already
> > come and gone with Tippit's body before Ted ever started chasing
> > Oswald)......
>
> > Mr. CALLAWAY. I picked the gun up and laid it on the hood of the squad
> > car, and then someone put it in the front seat of the squad car. Then
> > after I helped load Officer Tippit in the ambulance, I got the gun out
> > of the car and told this cabdriver, I said, "You saw the guy didn't
> > you?" He said, yes.
> > I said, "If he is going up Jefferson, he can't be very far. Let's see
> > if we can find him." So I went with Scoggins in the taxicab, went up
> > to 10th, Crawford, from Crawford up to Jefferson, and down Jefferson
> > to Beckley. And we turned on Beckley. If we had kept going up
> > Jefferson, we probably--there is a good chance we would have seen him,
> > because he was headed right towards the Texas Theatre. But then we
> > circled around several blocks, and ended up coming back to where it
> > happened.
>
> > Mr. BALL. And the ambulance--had the ambulance been there by that
> > time?
>
> > Mr. CALLAWAY. Oh, yes; the ambulance already left before I ever left
Bud
dcwi...@netscape.net wrote:
> On Mar 2, 10:17 pm, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 11:57 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >>> "I can't believe that people still buy that story. A witness waited what was it 5 or 6 minutes before running after the shooter?" <<<
> >
> > > Great. Now Ted Callaway is telling tales out of school, per this kook.
> > > (Did ANYBODY tell the truth in this case, Don? Geesh.)
> >
> > Callaway did a good job of building up his part in the story, at the
> > expense of others:
> > "I didn't think [Scoggins] would ever get that damn cab turned
> > around.... He was a nervous wreck." (Myers p111)
> > "'Benavides told me, '''I ain't gonna go down there & tell them my
> > story unless they give me something'''.' Callaway claimed that
> > Benavides ended up with a new Pontiac Firebird...." (Myers p221)
> > Either Callaway had delusions of grandeur, or the authorities actually
> > were paying off witnesses, & rather handsomely, to tell the stories
> > they wanted to hear! And people ask *me* why a witness would lie! A
> > Firebird! Go, Ted!
> > dw
> >
> So, we've established that Benavides got things like shiny new cars
> for saying he saw the gunman throw down shells.
Yah, offering nothing in support. Well done!
> I wonder what the
> Davises got.
C`mon, use that imagination....
> After all, they said the guy tossed shells down around
> bushes near the house, & Mrs Markham testified that he got nowhere
> near those bushes--he took the *sidewalk* down to the corner of 10th &
> P! Gotcha, Virginia! Gotcha, Barbie!
Wow. Discrepancies, just what one should expect to find. Now that
is suspicious...
dcwi...@netscape.net
talk to him, in his cab, & returned to Taxi HQ. But, coverups not
being perfect, he let slip, in his WC testimony, that he really left
the scene with the cops & left his cab behind there. FBI agent Bob (I
want to say Barrat, but that's an actor in "Go West") Barrett?, in
conversation with Dale Myers, said he in fact saw Scoggins' cab at the
scene when he arrived, at l:41 or so, 20 minutes after Scoggins
supposedly (according to the coverup story) returned to home base in
said cab....
dw
>
>
>
> > > > > > (See one of my 15 points.) Mrs M got
> > > > > > there too late to see any shooting or even the actual killer.
>
> > > > > Yet she did say she was there to see the shooting. And people who
> > > > > came immediately to look out said they saw her standing on the corner
> > > > > screaming.
>
> > > > Okay. I'll have to go with this here rather than on DVP's thread
> > > > since Bud launches right into my subject.... Look closely at the
> > > > respective testimonies of Davis, Davis, & Markham, as I did in "Mrs
> > > > Markham & the 2nd Gunman". I'll capsulize the latter. First, look at
> > > > the testimony of Virginia Davis. Again & again, she sez that she
> > > > called the cops first, then saw the gunman.
>
> > > She recounts it two ways. You choose the one which is obviously
> > > erroneous to work from.When she goes through her actions step by step,
> > > there is no confusion.
>
> > Yet, she has to keep reversing herself to get back to that confusion-
> > less "step by step".
>
> Her "step by step" account makes sense, which is why you reject
> it, to latch on to the confused portion of her testimony to exploit
> into some kind of desperate Oswald defense.
You explain why she kept returning to a statement which did not make
sense--not if she had seen the shooter....
>
> > > > Again & again, she
> > > > backtracks & reverses herself. Which is it? The key is how many
> > > > shots the Davises heard: Both say "2". Which means, apparently, that
> > > > they were not just dozing, but sleeping, & did not even hear the first
> > > > 2 or 3 shots which everyone else heard--or, rather, those shots began
> > > > waking them up. Which means that they could not have fully woken up &
> > > > got to the door in time to see the actual shooter.
>
> > > Horseshit. They said they went to the door immediately.
>
> > Why did they hear only 2 shots?
>
> Why did some people in Dealey hear 7? Why don`t all the Tippit
> witnesses agree on the number of shots?
I don't believe anyone else said less than 3 or 4 (in Oak Cliff).
And, in conjunction with the other "slips" in Virginia's testimony, it
spells out: gunman chasing gunman....
>
> > They
> > > reported things they saw that other people who were out there
> > > corroborate.
>
> > Not Jimmy Burt, who said the gunman he saw took the sidewalk to the
> > corner of 10th & Patton. Nor Mrs M, who said the same thing. Who
> > said she didn't start screaming until the gunman reached the
> > intersection & started running up Patton. Which means that the
> > Davises couldn't have seen the gunman unless they were at the side
> > door (as Virginia noted in her 1st affidavit), since they both
> > testified that they only saw him *after* Mrs M screamed & pointed to
> > him. Which means they couldn't have seen him tossing down shells in
> > front of their house....
>
> Do you really think you can fix a precise chronology from the
> witness accounts?
In this case, yes. Google "Mrs Markham & the 2nd Gunman (Repost)"
>
> > You are truly desparate.
>
> > > > He would not have
> > > > waited just for them. They saw only the man with Tippit's gun chasing
> > > > the shooter. Which means that the "people who looked out" & saw Mrs M
> > > > saw the same thing she did--the man with Tippit's gun....
>
> > > More horseshit. Oswald was long gone before Calloway took Tippit`s
> > > gun and went looking for Oz.
>
> > I can't believe that people still buy that story.
>
> <snicker> You throw out everything the witnesses say, latch onto
> some fragment of information, and rewrite the event. A silly creative
> writing exercise, the only purpose of which is to write a story where
> Oz is innocent.
Au contraire. As I've written recently, I think he was deeply
involved in the shooting of JFK.... Actually, the event was
"rewritten" by others. I'm trying to get it *write*....
>
> > A witness waited
> > what was it 5 or 6 minutes before running after the shooter?? Cold
> > pursuit, eh?
>
> Whatever it was, there was too long an interm period for the
> witnesses to confuse the shooter with Callaway.
It wasn't Callaway. As I've noted to DVP, Callaway was only to glad
to be a blowhard, blasting others to build himself up. He said
Scoggins was a nervous wreck who (accidentally) let the shooter
escape. (How ironic--as if, according to the Callaway version, they
could have caught up with the shooter several minutes later.) And he
accused Benavides of bribery--a Pontiac Firebird in exchange for going
along with the dropped shells story.
>
> <SNIP>- Hide quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
newsgroupers....
dw
>
>
> > "Let's get into the mechanics .... Who was this other gunman who, on
> > the day of the assassination, made his way into the Book Depository
> > Building, carrying a rifle....went up to the sixth floor....shot and
> > killed the President....made his way back down to the first
> > floor....and escaped without leaving a trace?
>
> > "How, in fact, if Oswald were innocent, did they GET Oswald, within
> > forty-five minutes of the assassination, to murder Officer Tippit? Or
dcwi...@netscape.net
Who I believe deserved the chair or whatever they do with perps in
Texas, for his part in the shooting of JFK....
>
> > And that the man with T's gun was
> > Scoggins. And that the mystery wallet was Scoggins'.
>
> With Oz`s ID in it? Hidel ID, an identitiy Oz was known to use, and
> I think Oz`s library card.
If you believe *that*, then you are a certified CTer: If O's got his
wallet on him in the patrol car with Hill etc., then an O wallet at
the scene would have to have been a plant. Even I don't believe that
>
> > It had to have
> > been a witness's wallet--not the shooter's, unless the shooter was not
> > Oswald, since his wallet was found on him in the police car.
>
> Couldn`t be just simple confusion amongst the cops where the wallet
> was found?
Yes! The FBI guy whose name begins with Robert *was* confused: He
was told that Westbrook & Owens, at the scene, were showing him the
wallet of the shooter. Later, the shooter was said to have been
Oswald, hence Robert thought he had been shown O's wallet at the
scene; but at the time the FBI guy was there, it was *Scoggins* who
was fingered as the shooter, by Mrs Markham, & perhaps Jimmy Burt,
both of whom saw Scoggins running into the alley off Patton, after the
shooter....
>
> > Callaway
> > explicitly denied the wallet was his, I believe. And Scoggins let
> > slip that, for some reason, he left his cab behind, at the scene, &
> > went with the cops.
>
> Scoggins took his cab, and went looking for the killer with
> Callaway. He may have returned, but I wonder if he parked in the same
> spot. In any case, where does Scoggins say he went with the police?
WC Hearings v3p337
>
> > They needed his ID, since he was thot by some to
> > have been the shooter, he explained, they took him....
>
> Where?
Police HQ, I assume
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Bud
No, but he elaborated on a lot of the things he said in his
statement when he talked to the WC. The point is, thee is a witness
who said he came into the boardinghouse. Whaley uses "500 Beckley" and
Neches" as if they are the same thing, which they are not. So that
makes one of his assertions wrong. The logical one is the one near the
boardinghouse, a place he has ties to, and a witness saw him. I would
guess that Whaley assumed that because 5th street was nearby, that
meant that it was the 500 block of Beckley.
Yet you think Oz is innocent of the crime that has stronger
evidence indicating he committed it. Strange.
> > > And that the man with T's gun was
> > > Scoggins. And that the mystery wallet was Scoggins'.
> >
> > With Oz`s ID in it? Hidel ID, an identitiy Oz was known to use, and
> > I think Oz`s library card.
>
> If you believe *that*, then you are a certified CTer: If O's got his
> wallet on him in the patrol car with Hill etc., then an O wallet at
> the scene would have to have been a plant. Even I don't believe that
No, wallets can be transported. The wallet was found at the scene
of the shooting. It did find it`s way to the officers at the theater.
> > > It had to have
> > > been a witness's wallet--not the shooter's, unless the shooter was not
> > > Oswald, since his wallet was found on him in the police car.
> >
> > Couldn`t be just simple confusion amongst the cops where the wallet
> > was found?
>
> Yes! The FBI guy whose name begins with Robert *was* confused: He
> was told that Westbrook & Owens, at the scene, were showing him the
> wallet of the shooter. Later, the shooter was said to have been
> Oswald, hence Robert thought he had been shown O's wallet at the
> scene; but at the time the FBI guy was there, it was *Scoggins* who
> was fingered as the shooter, by Mrs Markham, & perhaps Jimmy Burt,
> both of whom saw Scoggins running into the alley off Patton, after the
> shooter....
Nonsense. Show where Markum ever said Scoggins was the shooter.
There is film of the police standing around examining the wallet.
> > > Callaway
> > > explicitly denied the wallet was his, I believe. And Scoggins let
> > > slip that, for some reason, he left his cab behind, at the scene, &
> > > went with the cops.
> >
> > Scoggins took his cab, and went looking for the killer with
> > Callaway. He may have returned, but I wonder if he parked in the same
> > spot. In any case, where does Scoggins say he went with the police?
>
> WC Hearings v3p337
Non-responsive to the question. Where did the police take him. The
answer should be no more than a couple words...
> > > They needed his ID, since he was thot by some to
> > > have been the shooter, he explained, they took him....
> >
> > Where?
>
> Police HQ, I assume
Ah, theres that word. You realize that you can`t make claims of
Scoggins being at police headquarters on this weak shit, right?
dcwi...@netscape.net
> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > On Mar 2, 10:17 pm, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > > On Mar 1, 11:57 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>> "I can't believe that people still buy that story. A witness waited what was it 5 or 6 minutes before running after the shooter?" <<<
>
> > > > Great. Now Ted Callaway is telling tales out of school, per this kook.
> > > > (Did ANYBODY tell the truth in this case, Don? Geesh.)
>
> > > Callaway did a good job of building up his part in the story, at the
> > > expense of others:
> > > "I didn't think [Scoggins] would ever get that damn cab turned
> > > around.... He was a nervous wreck." (Myers p111)
> > > "'Benavides told me, '''I ain't gonna go down there & tell them my
> > > story unless they give me something'''.' Callaway claimed that
> > > Benavides ended up with a new Pontiac Firebird...." (Myers p221)
> > > Either Callaway had delusions of grandeur, or the authorities actually
> > > were paying off witnesses, & rather handsomely, to tell the stories
> > > they wanted to hear! And people ask *me* why a witness would lie! A
> > > Firebird! Go, Ted!
> > > dw
>
> > So, we've established that Benavides got things like shiny new cars
> > for saying he saw the gunman throw down shells.
>
> Yah, offering nothing in support. Well done!
What? You don't trust Ted Callaway?!? Or, He Who Needs No Support!
dw
>
> > I wonder what the
> > Davises got.
>
> C`mon, use that imagination....
>
> > After all, they said the guy tossed shells down around
> > bushes near the house, & Mrs Markham testified that he got nowhere
> > near those bushes--he took the *sidewalk* down to the corner of 10th &
> > P! Gotcha, Virginia! Gotcha, Barbie!
>
> Wow. Discrepancies, just what one should expect to find. Now that
> is suspicious...
>
Discrepancies or corroboration--LNers seem to find absolutely
*nothing* suspicious, except CTers.... Watergate would still be
unsolved if they had been in charge.... True, yes, it could be the
other way 'round: Gotcha, Mrs M! But I tend to believe the story her
way: She started shouting & pointing to the gunman only *after* he
was hoofing it away from her, down Patton. Their way, she's pointing
at the gunman & crying out that he's a murderer as he's coming towards
her & looking at her, & I tend not to believe anyone would be that
foolhardy....
>
> > dw
>
> > > > Here's Callaway's testimony (verifying that the ambulance had already
> > > > come and gone with Tippit's body before Ted ever started chasing
> > > > Oswald)......
>
> > > > Mr. CALLAWAY. I picked the gun up and laid it on the hood of the squad
> > > > car, and then someone put it in the front seat of the squad car. Then
> > > > after I helped load Officer Tippit in the ambulance, I got the gun out
> > > > of the car and told this cabdriver, I said, "You saw the guy didn't
> > > > you?" He said, yes.
> > > > I said, "If he is going up Jefferson, he can't be very far. Let's see
> > > > if we can find him." So I went with Scoggins in the taxicab, went up
> > > > to 10th, Crawford, from Crawford up to Jefferson, and down Jefferson
> > > > to Beckley. And we turned on Beckley. If we had kept going up
> > > > Jefferson, we probably--there is a good chance we would have seen him,
> > > > because he was headed right towards the Texas Theatre. But then we
> > > > circled around several blocks, and ended up coming back to where it
> > > > happened.
>
> > > > Mr. BALL. And the ambulance--had the ambulance been there by that
> > > > time?
>
> > > > Mr. CALLAWAY. Oh, yes; the ambulance already left before I ever left
> > > > with the cabdriver.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
SNIP
>
> > > OIC, you are exploiting what is likely erroneous information again.
> > > In his testimony, Whaley says the corner of Neches and North Beckley,
> > > which he says is the 500 block of North Becklley. It isn`t.
>
> > He didn't say anything about "Neches" in his original affidavit.
>
> No, but he elaborated on a lot of the things he said in his
> statement when he talked to the WC. The point is, thee is a witness
> who said he came into the boardinghouse.
Mrs Roberts, whom even Myers found was not to be trusted. And it
somehow slipped her mind that the President killer returned to the
house after 12:30--she didn't mention it to the first cops to the
scene....
dw
Whaley uses "500 Beckley" and
> Neches" as if they are the same thing, which they are not. So that
> makes one of his assertions wrong. The logical one is the one near the
> boardinghouse, a place he has ties to, and a witness saw him. I would
> guess that Whaley assumed that because 5th street was nearby, that
> meant that it was the 500 block of Beckley.
>
I noticed that too, but I find it odd that a cab driver would invent
intersections....
If there was a conspiracy involving the cops & the SS (as I believe),
then a lot of that evidence is suspect. To be more specific,
involving at least Capt Fritz & SS agent Sorrels
>
> > > > And that the man with T's gun was
> > > > Scoggins. And that the mystery wallet was Scoggins'.
>
> > > With Oz`s ID in it? Hidel ID, an identitiy Oz was known to use, and
> > > I think Oz`s library card.
>
> > If you believe *that*, then you are a certified CTer: If O's got his
> > wallet on him in the patrol car with Hill etc., then an O wallet at
> > the scene would have to have been a plant. Even I don't believe that
>
> No, wallets can be transported. The wallet was found at the scene
> of the shooting. It did find it`s way to the officers at the theater.
Myers disproved that, bless 'im. See pp298-99 of With Malice: "The
resulting photographs [of the arrest wallet] show that the Oswald
arrest wallet is *not* the same billfold seen in the WFAA newsfilm [of
the Tippit scene]." Still got a real mystery here, tho I think it was
Scoggins' wallet....
>
> > > > It had to have
> > > > been a witness's wallet--not the shooter's, unless the shooter was not
> > > > Oswald, since his wallet was found on him in the police car.
>
> > > Couldn`t be just simple confusion amongst the cops where the wallet
> > > was found?
>
> > Yes! The FBI guy whose name begins with Robert *was* confused: He
> > was told that Westbrook & Owens, at the scene, were showing him the
> > wallet of the shooter. Later, the shooter was said to have been
> > Oswald, hence Robert thought he had been shown O's wallet at the
> > scene; but at the time the FBI guy was there, it was *Scoggins* who
> > was fingered as the shooter, by Mrs Markham, & perhaps Jimmy Burt,
> > both of whom saw Scoggins running into the alley off Patton, after the
> > shooter....
>
> Nonsense. Show where Markum ever said Scoggins was the shooter.
> There is film of the police standing around examining the wallet.
That's what I said---Westbrook & Owens were cops. Markham said "bushy
haired", as per the Poe/Jez report from the scene. Seems to apply to
Scoggins--bushy eyebrows usually mean bushy hair (see Oscar Homolka)
[Myers p227]. And Lane added stocky & short, which words have been
disputed as applied to the gunman, but they *definitely* apply to
Scoggins.... And Mrs M said the gunman ran into the alley off Patton,
whereas the actual shooter apparently took Jefferson (as per Patrolman
Summers)....
>
> > > > Callaway
> > > > explicitly denied the wallet was his, I believe. And Scoggins let
> > > > slip that, for some reason, he left his cab behind, at the scene, &
> > > > went with the cops.
>
> > > Scoggins took his cab, and went looking for the killer with
> > > Callaway. He may have returned, but I wonder if he parked in the same
> > > spot. In any case, where does Scoggins say he went with the police?
>
> > WC Hearings v3p337
>
> Non-responsive to the question. Where did the police take him. The
> answer should be no more than a couple words...
>
I misinterpreted that. I thot "where" meant "where in Scoggins'
testimony"! But I still don't quite understand. Police usually take
witnesses & suspects to the police station, rather than say to Ralph's
Supermarket.... And Scoggins said enuf right there. Elsewhere, he
said that the cops wouldn't even listen to him--here, he sez he rode
away with them!
>
> > > > They needed his ID, since he was thot by some to
> > > > have been
>
Bud
dcwi...@netscape.net wrote:
> On Mar 3, 10:07 am, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > > On Mar 2, 10:17 pm, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > > > On Mar 1, 11:57 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > >>> "I can't believe that people still buy that story. A witness waited what was it 5 or 6 minutes before running after the shooter?" <<<
> >
> > > > > Great. Now Ted Callaway is telling tales out of school, per this kook.
> > > > > (Did ANYBODY tell the truth in this case, Don? Geesh.)
> >
> > > > Callaway did a good job of building up his part in the story, at the
> > > > expense of others:
> > > > "I didn't think [Scoggins] would ever get that damn cab turned
> > > > around.... He was a nervous wreck." (Myers p111)
> > > > "'Benavides told me, '''I ain't gonna go down there & tell them my
> > > > story unless they give me something'''.' Callaway claimed that
> > > > Benavides ended up with a new Pontiac Firebird...." (Myers p221)
> > > > Either Callaway had delusions of grandeur, or the authorities actually
> > > > were paying off witnesses, & rather handsomely, to tell the stories
> > > > they wanted to hear! And people ask *me* why a witness would lie! A
> > > > Firebird! Go, Ted!
> > > > dw
> >
> > > So, we've established that Benavides got things like shiny new cars
> > > for saying he saw the gunman throw down shells.
> >
> > Yah, offering nothing in support. Well done!
>
> What? You don't trust Ted Callaway?!? Or, He Who Needs No Support!
I find it silly to believe that Ted Callaway was present when
someone approached Benavides, and offered him a car in exchange for
saying he saw the shooter throw down shells (especially when they had
so many witnesses saying the day of the assassination that they
observed the shooter doing that very thing). You can entertain such
nonsense if you wish, but I think it will prevent you from coming to
any reasonable conclusions about this event.
> dw
> >
> > > I wonder what the
> > > Davises got.
> >
> > C`mon, use that imagination....
> >
> > > After all, they said the guy tossed shells down around
> > > bushes near the house, & Mrs Markham testified that he got nowhere
> > > near those bushes--he took the *sidewalk* down to the corner of 10th &
> > > P! Gotcha, Virginia! Gotcha, Barbie!
> >
> > Wow. Discrepancies, just what one should expect to find. Now that
> > is suspicious...
> >
> Discrepancies or corroboration--LNers seem to find absolutely
> *nothing* suspicious, except CTers....
You have to understand that if one witness says the shooter ran on
the pavement, and one across the lawn, they can both be telling the
truth. There is no need to fabricate a fatastical tale to reconcile
these descrepancies.
> Watergate would still be
> unsolved if they had been in charge....
If Watergate shows anything, it is how vulnerable even a simple B&E
is to discovery, let alone the complex scenarios kooks envision.
> True, yes, it could be the
> other way 'round: Gotcha, Mrs M! But I tend to believe the story her
> way: She started shouting & pointing to the gunman only *after* he
> was hoofing it away from her, down Patton. Their way, she's pointing
> at the gunman & crying out that he's a murderer as he's coming towards
> her & looking at her, & I tend not to believe anyone would be that
> foolhardy....
Yah, lets pretend we can fix precise chronology for specific events
from witness testimony. Kooks do the same thing in assassination.
Bud
dcwi...@netscape.net wrote:
> On Mar 4, 4:54 am, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> SNIP
> >
> > > > OIC, you are exploiting what is likely erroneous information again.
> > > > In his testimony, Whaley says the corner of Neches and North Beckley,
> > > > which he says is the 500 block of North Becklley. It isn`t.
> >
> > > He didn't say anything about "Neches" in his original affidavit.
> >
> > No, but he elaborated on a lot of the things he said in his
> > statement when he talked to the WC. The point is, thee is a witness
> > who said he came into the boardinghouse.
>
> Mrs Roberts, whom even Myers found was not to be trusted. And it
> somehow slipped her mind that the President killer returned to the
> house after 12:30--she didn't mention it to the first cops to the
> scene....
Thats ok, it apparently slipped Oz`s mind to tell Mrs Roberts he
killed the President.
> dw
>
> Whaley uses "500 Beckley" and
> > Neches" as if they are the same thing, which they are not. So that
> > makes one of his assertions wrong. The logical one is the one near the
> > boardinghouse, a place he has ties to, and a witness saw him. I would
> > guess that Whaley assumed that because 5th street was nearby, that
> > meant that it was the 500 block of Beckley.
> >
> I noticed that too, but I find it odd that a cab driver would invent
> intersections....
Yah, you found a descrepancy, I wondered how this descrepancy could
be used somehow in Oz`s defense, a silly approach. Far and away the
most likely scenario is that these cilvilian witnesses are relating
information to the best of their ability (which, of course, doesn`t
mean flawlessly). So, the only rational approach is to see if what the
witness says that is inacurate can be reconciled with other
information, not use it as an excuse to throw out information
inconvenent to your far-fetched theories.
Of course the people working the case are suspects. Stellar!
> > > > > And that the man with T's gun was
> > > > > Scoggins. And that the mystery wallet was Scoggins'.
> >
> > > > With Oz`s ID in it? Hidel ID, an identitiy Oz was known to use, and
> > > > I think Oz`s library card.
> >
> > > If you believe *that*, then you are a certified CTer: If O's got his
> > > wallet on him in the patrol car with Hill etc., then an O wallet at
> > > the scene would have to have been a plant. Even I don't believe that
> >
> > No, wallets can be transported. The wallet was found at the scene
> > of the shooting. It did find it`s way to the officers at the theater.
>
> Myers disproved that, bless 'im. See pp298-99 of With Malice: "The
> resulting photographs [of the arrest wallet] show that the Oswald
> arrest wallet is *not* the same billfold seen in the WFAA newsfilm [of
> the Tippit scene]."
I don`t have that book. How did Myers establish that? I thought
officers corroborated that it was the wallet with the Hidel ID they
were examining.
> Still got a real mystery here, tho I think it was
> Scoggins' wallet....
Possible they asked Scoggins for his wallet at the scene. Maybe
they were checking out his hack license.
> > > > > It had to have
> > > > > been a witness's wallet--not the shooter's, unless the shooter was not
> > > > > Oswald, since his wallet was found on him in the police car.
> >
> > > > Couldn`t be just simple confusion amongst the cops where the wallet
> > > > was found?
> >
> > > Yes! The FBI guy whose name begins with Robert *was* confused: He
> > > was told that Westbrook & Owens, at the scene, were showing him the
> > > wallet of the shooter. Later, the shooter was said to have been
> > > Oswald, hence Robert thought he had been shown O's wallet at the
> > > scene; but at the time the FBI guy was there, it was *Scoggins* who
> > > was fingered as the shooter, by Mrs Markham, & perhaps Jimmy Burt,
> > > both of whom saw Scoggins running into the alley off Patton, after the
> > > shooter....
> >
> > Nonsense. Show where Markum ever said Scoggins was the shooter.
> > There is film of the police standing around examining the wallet.
>
> That's what I said---Westbrook & Owens were cops.
What did they saw about the information contained in the wallet
they were examining?
> Markham said "bushy
> haired",
She also attested to the fact that Oswald was the guy she saw shoot
Tippit. Why are the two things mutually exclusive?
> as per the Poe/Jez report from the scene. Seems to apply to
> Scoggins--bushy eyebrows usually mean bushy hair (see Oscar Homolka)
> [Myers p227]. And Lane added stocky & short,
Yah, but he wasn`t there.
> which words have been
> disputed as applied to the gunman,
A reading of the Lane interview of Markham shows Lane pulling
lawyer tricks to confuse Markham. She kept reitterating Oz-like
details, details you neglect to mention.
> but they *definitely* apply to
> Scoggins....
Much of what Markham told Lane doesn`t apply to Scoggins, but does
apply to Oz.
> And Mrs M said the gunman ran into the alley off Patton,
> whereas the actual shooter apparently took Jefferson (as per Patrolman
> Summers)....
I think she can be forgiven.
> >
> > > > > Callaway
> > > > > explicitly denied the wallet was his, I believe. And Scoggins let
> > > > > slip that, for some reason, he left his cab behind, at the scene, &
> > > > > went with the cops.
> >
> > > > Scoggins took his cab, and went looking for the killer with
> > > > Callaway. He may have returned, but I wonder if he parked in the same
> > > > spot. In any case, where does Scoggins say he went with the police?
> >
> > > WC Hearings v3p337
> >
> > Non-responsive to the question. Where did the police take him. The
> > answer should be no more than a couple words...
> >
> I misinterpreted that. I thot "where" meant "where in Scoggins'
> testimony"! But I still don't quite understand. Police usually take
> witnesses & suspects to the police station, rather than say to Ralph's
> Supermarket....
So, you don`t know where they took him. Well, if information is
lacking, fill it in yourself.
> And Scoggins said enuf right there. Elsewhere, he
> said that the cops wouldn't even listen to him--here, he sez he rode
> away with them!
And both of these things could be true., and still nothing like you
suggest happened.
tomnln
SBT.
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1173095786....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
dcwi...@netscape.net
Thank you. I think the problem is not with the witnesses whom
Callaway puts down: Scoggins & B enavides: but with Callaway himself.
I don't think his fellow witnesses were bribed. I think he inflated
his own role in the proceedings, & felt he had to tear down *their*
roles....
I work from the element which both the Davises & Mrs M agree upon--
that she brought their attention to the gunman by her screaming &
pointing....
dcwi...@netscape.net
> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 4:54 am, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > SNIP
>
> > > > > OIC, you are exploiting what is likely erroneous information again.
> > > > > In his testimony, Whaley says the corner of Neches and North Beckley,
> > > > > which he says is the 500 block of North Becklley. It isn`t.
>
> > > > He didn't say anything about "Neches" in his original affidavit.
>
> > > No, but he elaborated on a lot of the things he said in his
> > > statement when he talked to the WC. The point is, thee is a witness
> > > who said he came into the boardinghouse.
>
> > Mrs Roberts, whom even Myers found was not to be trusted. And it
> > somehow slipped her mind that the President killer returned to the
> > house after 12:30--she didn't mention it to the first cops to the
> > scene....
>
> Thats ok, it apparently slipped Oz`s mind to tell Mrs Roberts he
> killed the President.
>
assassin. Or at least learned this when she saw him on TV while the
cops were there....
dw
> > dw
>
> > Whaley uses "500 Beckley" and
> > > Neches" as if they are the same thing, which they are not. So that
> > > makes one of his assertions wrong. The logical one is the one near the
> > > boardinghouse, a place he has ties to, and a witness saw him. I would
> > > guess that Whaley assumed that because 5th street was nearby, that
> > > meant that it was the 500 block of Beckley.
>
> > I noticed that too, but I find it odd that a cab driver would invent
> > intersections....
>
> Yah, you found a descrepancy, I wondered how this descrepancy could
> be used somehow in Oz`s defense, a silly approach. Far and away the
> most likely scenario is that these cilvilian witnesses are relating
> information to the best of their ability (which, of course, doesn`t
> mean flawlessly). So, the only rational approach is to see if what the
> witness says that is inacurate can be reconciled with other
> information, not use it as an excuse to throw out information
> inconvenent to your far-fetched theories.
>
he wrote on 11/22 or 23 that he left O off at 500 Beckley, & last saw
him walking *away* from the area of the boarding house!
> > > > > > > > > dw
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Scoggins saw someone else shooting
> > > > > > > > > > > Tippit,
>
> > > > > > > > > > SNIP
> > If there was a conspiracy involving the cops & the SS (as I believe),
> > then a lot of that evidence is suspect. To be more specific,
> > involving at least Capt Fritz & SS agent Sorrels
>
> Of course the people working the case are suspects. Stellar!
>
No, two cops in a rowboat in Argentina were the conspiracists! Duh.
In the case of Fritz, "working the case" included picking up the hulls
in the "nest" before the lab got there to photograph them....
>
>
>
> > > > > > And that the man with T's gun was
> > > > > > Scoggins. And that the mystery wallet was Scoggins'.
>
> > > > > With Oz`s ID in it? Hidel ID, an identitiy Oz was known to use, and
> > > > > I think Oz`s library card.
>
> > > > If you believe *that*, then you are a certified CTer: If O's got his
> > > > wallet on him in the patrol car with Hill etc., then an O wallet at
> > > > the scene would have to have been a plant. Even I don't believe that
>
> > > No, wallets can be transported. The wallet was found at the scene
> > > of the shooting. It did find it`s way to the officers at the theater.
>
> > Myers disproved that, bless 'im. See pp298-99 of With Malice: "The
> > resulting photographs [of the arrest wallet] show that the Oswald
> > arrest wallet is *not* the same billfold seen in the WFAA newsfilm [of
> > the Tippit scene]."
>
> I don`t have that book. How did Myers establish that? I thought
> officers corroborated that it was the wallet with the Hidel ID they
> were examining.
>
Myers got permission from the Nat'l Archives to photograph the arrest
wallet. He focussed on the differences between the photo flap &
metal band of the respective wallets. And he seems to be on the mark
here....
> > Still got a real mystery here, tho I think it was
> > Scoggins' wallet....
>
> Possible they asked Scoggins for his wallet at the scene. Maybe
> they were checking out his hack license.
>
That's a likely possibility--except for the fact that FBI agent
Barrett was told at the scene that he was looking at the wallet of the
perp. Who, at that time--before the Texas Theatre--was thot to have
been the guy chasing the perp....
> > > > > > It had to have
> > > > > > been a witness's wallet--not the shooter's, unless the shooter was not
> > > > > > Oswald, since his wallet was found on him in the police car.
>
> > > > > Couldn`t be just simple confusion amongst the cops where the wallet
> > > > > was found?
>
> > > > Yes! The FBI guy whose name begins with Robert *was* confused: He
> > > > was told that Westbrook & Owens, at the scene, were showing him the
> > > > wallet of the shooter. Later, the shooter was said to have been
> > > > Oswald, hence Robert thought he had been shown O's wallet at the
> > > > scene; but at the time the FBI guy was there, it was *Scoggins* who
> > > > was fingered as the shooter, by Mrs Markham, & perhaps Jimmy Burt,
> > > > both of whom saw Scoggins running into the alley off Patton, after the
> > > > shooter....
>
> > > Nonsense. Show where Markum ever said Scoggins was the shooter.
> > > There is film of the police standing around examining the wallet.
>
> > That's what I said---Westbrook & Owens were cops.
>
> What did they saw about the information contained in the wallet
> they were examining?
The only thing we know is what Barrett said, that he was shown the
wallet--as he was told by Owens and/or Westbrook--of the suspect
killer
>
> > Markham said "bushy
> > haired",
>
> She also attested to the fact that Oswald was the guy she saw shoot
> Tippit. Why are the two things mutually exclusive?
>
Because "bushy hair", "stocky" & "short" apply more to Scoggins than
to O
>
> > as per the Poe/Jez report from the scene. Seems to apply to
> > Scoggins--bushy eyebrows usually
>
dcwi...@netscape.net
> It should be a slam dunk to believe ANYTHING for someone who believes in the
> SBT.
>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
Oh, it would have been so much *easier* if Tague hadn't testified....
dw
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
Bud
dcwi...@netscape.net wrote:
> On Mar 5, 4:23 am, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > > On Mar 4, 4:54 am, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > SNIP
> >
> > > > > > OIC, you are exploiting what is likely erroneous information again.
> > > > > > In his testimony, Whaley says the corner of Neches and North Beckley,
> > > > > > which he says is the 500 block of North Becklley. It isn`t.
> >
> > > > > He didn't say anything about "Neches" in his original affidavit.
> >
> > > > No, but he elaborated on a lot of the things he said in his
> > > > statement when he talked to the WC. The point is, thee is a witness
> > > > who said he came into the boardinghouse.
> >
> > > Mrs Roberts, whom even Myers found was not to be trusted. And it
> > > somehow slipped her mind that the President killer returned to the
> > > house after 12:30--she didn't mention it to the first cops to the
> > > scene....
> >
> > Thats ok, it apparently slipped Oz`s mind to tell Mrs Roberts he
> > killed the President.
> >
> By the time the 2 detectives arrived, she knew O was the accused
> assassin. Or at least learned this when she saw him on TV while the
> cops were there....
So, you have Roberts lying that Oz was at the boardinghouse. Fritz
then is lying when he says that Oz told him he went to the boarding
house. And Whaley is lying when he says "Neches", a street near the
boarding house, in his testimony. Add them to Markham, Scoggins,
Callaway, The Davis sisters, ect, and you have presented a clear
choice. Either Oswald killed Tippit, or everyone associated with the
incident is lying. I wonder what magical powers these conspirators
possess that can get people to lie, early on, and keep quiet about
those lies for decades.
> dw
> > > dw
> >
> > > Whaley uses "500 Beckley" and
> > > > Neches" as if they are the same thing, which they are not. So that
> > > > makes one of his assertions wrong. The logical one is the one near the
> > > > boardinghouse, a place he has ties to, and a witness saw him. I would
> > > > guess that Whaley assumed that because 5th street was nearby, that
> > > > meant that it was the 500 block of Beckley.
> >
> > > I noticed that too, but I find it odd that a cab driver would invent
> > > intersections....
> >
> > Yah, you found a descrepancy, I wondered how this descrepancy could
> > be used somehow in Oz`s defense, a silly approach. Far and away the
> > most likely scenario is that these cilvilian witnesses are relating
> > information to the best of their ability (which, of course, doesn`t
> > mean flawlessly). So, the only rational approach is to see if what the
> > witness says that is inacurate can be reconciled with other
> > information, not use it as an excuse to throw out information
> > inconvenent to your far-fetched theories.
> >
> My far-fetched "theory" here is that Whaley was telling the truth when
> he wrote on 11/22 or 23 that he left O off at 500 Beckley, & last saw
> him walking *away* from the area of the boarding house!
No, you plug questionable information into your far-fetched
theories. It is much more supportable that Whaley left Oz at the
boardinghouse and that Whaley was mistaken about the street numbers
there, then Whaley left Oz on the 500 block of North Beckley. What is
there associated with Oz? If Oz is going to the movie theater, why be
dropped so far away from it? Who saw Oz at 500 Beckley? And lastly,
and most important, how does Whaley dropping Oz closer to the Tippit
slaying help clear him of that murder?
> > > > > > > > > > dw
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Scoggins saw someone else shooting
> > > > > > > > > > > > Tippit,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > SNIP
> > > If there was a conspiracy involving the cops & the SS (as I believe),
> > > then a lot of that evidence is suspect. To be more specific,
> > > involving at least Capt Fritz & SS agent Sorrels
> >
> > Of course the people working the case are suspects. Stellar!
> >
> No, two cops in a rowboat in Argentina were the conspiracists! Duh.
You could make the claim about the cops in the rowboat just as
easily. It`s the establishing part that you fall way short.
> In the case of Fritz, "working the case" included picking up the hulls
> in the "nest" before the lab got there to photograph them....
So, if an investigator does something you find questionable, then
you can make the huge leap that he is actively working to frame
Oswald. What do you use for support across that chasm?
> > > > > > > And that the man with T's gun was
> > > > > > > Scoggins. And that the mystery wallet was Scoggins'.
> >
> > > > > > With Oz`s ID in it? Hidel ID, an identitiy Oz was known to use, and
> > > > > > I think Oz`s library card.
> >
> > > > > If you believe *that*, then you are a certified CTer: If O's got his
> > > > > wallet on him in the patrol car with Hill etc., then an O wallet at
> > > > > the scene would have to have been a plant. Even I don't believe that
> >
> > > > No, wallets can be transported. The wallet was found at the scene
> > > > of the shooting. It did find it`s way to the officers at the theater.
> >
> > > Myers disproved that, bless 'im. See pp298-99 of With Malice: "The
> > > resulting photographs [of the arrest wallet] show that the Oswald
> > > arrest wallet is *not* the same billfold seen in the WFAA newsfilm [of
> > > the Tippit scene]."
> >
> > I don`t have that book. How did Myers establish that? I thought
> > officers corroborated that it was the wallet with the Hidel ID they
> > were examining.
> >
> Myers got permission from the Nat'l Archives to photograph the arrest
> wallet. He focussed on the differences between the photo flap &
> metal band of the respective wallets. And he seems to be on the mark
> here....
Well, like I said, I don`t have the book. If Myer`s examination of
the issue led him to that conclusion, so be it. I think that both
wallets *had* a metal band (a rarity, I think), that speaks to them
being one and the same. And if the oficers examing it in the photo
remember reading Hidel or Oswald information in it, that would
corroborate that it was Oz`s wallet. I only did a google search about
the wallet here and on alt.assassination, so I only know what I`ve
read on these sources. I`ve seen the wallet issue brought up before,
and knew it was a sticking point, with contrary evidence involved. Of
course, when these things arise, the best approach is "what is most
reasonable to believe", one I don`t see the kook adopting very often.
> > > Still got a real mystery here, tho I think it was
> > > Scoggins' wallet....
> >
> > Possible they asked Scoggins for his wallet at the scene. Maybe
> > they were checking out his hack license.
> >
> That's a likely possibility--except for the fact that FBI agent
> Barrett was told at the scene that he was looking at the wallet of the
> perp. Who, at that time--before the Texas Theatre--was thot to have
> been the guy chasing the perp....
Yah, I didn`t like that possibility, and still lean towards it being
Oswald`s wallet.
> > > > > > > It had to have
> > > > > > > been a witness's wallet--not the shooter's, unless the shooter was not
> > > > > > > Oswald, since his wallet was found on him in the police car.
> >
> > > > > > Couldn`t be just simple confusion amongst the cops where the wallet
> > > > > > was found?
> >
> > > > > Yes! The FBI guy whose name begins with Robert *was* confused: He
> > > > > was told that Westbrook & Owens, at the scene, were showing him the
> > > > > wallet of the shooter. Later, the shooter was said to have been
> > > > > Oswald, hence Robert thought he had been shown O's wallet at the
> > > > > scene; but at the time the FBI guy was there, it was *Scoggins* who
> > > > > was fingered as the shooter, by Mrs Markham, & perhaps Jimmy Burt,
> > > > > both of whom saw Scoggins running into the alley off Patton, after the
> > > > > shooter....
> >
> > > > Nonsense. Show where Markum ever said Scoggins was the shooter.
> > > > There is film of the police standing around examining the wallet.
> >
> > > That's what I said---Westbrook & Owens were cops.
> >
> > What did they saw about the information contained in the wallet
> > they were examining?
>
> The only thing we know is what Barrett said, that he was shown the
> wallet--as he was told by Owens and/or Westbrook--of the suspect
> killer
Nothing from Owens and Westbrook about the contents of the wallet? I
suppose I need to get Myer`s book.
> > > Markham said "bushy
> > > haired",
> >
> > She also attested to the fact that Oswald was the guy she saw shoot
> > Tippit. Why are the two things mutually exclusive?
> >
> Because "bushy hair", "stocky" & "short" apply more to Scoggins than
> to O
But Markham didn`t select Scoggins as the man she saw kill Tippit.
It isn`t a matter of the thousands of people that description could
apply to. Using words to describe people is a tricky business (I doubt
I could describe my own brother in a way that would allow him to be
picked out of a crowd), its hard to narrow a it down to an individual
using words, is this something Markham had any experience doing? But,
it is a lot easier to select people who you have seen before, and say
"thats who I saw". It`s Markhams selection of Oz that show whatever
words she chose to describe him as faulty, not the reverse, because
selecting someone is a more exact method than describing them. The
crude method does not trump the more precise.
Bud
dcwi...@netscape.net wrote:
> On Mar 5, 11:54 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> > It should be a slam dunk to believe ANYTHING for someone who believes in the
> > SBT.
> >
> > http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
>
> Oh, it would have been so much *easier* if Tague hadn't testified....
> dw
Why? What did he testify to that was certain? He did know what hit
him, or when.
dcwi...@netscape.net
Not necessarily. Mebbe O didn't want it thot that he was carrying a
pistol around all day....
And Whaley is lying when he says "Neches", a street near the
> boarding house, in his testimony.
Again--he didn't mention anything except "500 Beckley" originally.
And as I recall he wound up, in his WC testimony, saying O was wearing
2 jackets! I'd say that Whaley was highly *suggestible*....
dw
Add them to Markham, Scoggins,
> Callaway, The Davis sisters, ect, and you have presented a clear
> choice. Either Oswald killed Tippit, or everyone associated with the
> incident is lying. I wonder what magical powers these conspirators
> possess that can get people to lie, early on, and keep quiet about
> those lies for decades.
>
Mrs M didn't keep quiet. She sent her son to the HSCA hearings to say
that she last saw the suspect heading into the alley off Patton. In
his WC testimony, SCoggins contradicted what he usually said (even
elsewhere in that testimony), that he took his cab back to the office
& didn't see cops again till Saturday. Virginia Davis told two
different, mutually exclusive stories *at* the hearings.... At the
other end of the spectrum--ie, before the hearings--Benavides kept
quiet about his role in the proceedings until the day he testified to
the WC; or his role was kept quiet: That 11/22 affidavit Leavelle/
Dhority said he made has never showed up.... And everyone sez Roberts
was lying, about one thing or another....
> > > dw
>
> > > > Whaley uses "500 Beckley" and
> > > > > Neches" as if they are the same thing, which they are not. So that
> > > > > makes one of his assertions wrong. The logical one is the one near the
> > > > > boardinghouse, a place he has ties to, and a witness saw him. I would
> > > > > guess that Whaley assumed that because 5th street was nearby, that
> > > > > meant that it was the 500 block of Beckley.
>
> > > > I noticed that too, but I find it odd that a cab driver would invent
> > > > intersections....
>
> > > Yah, you found a descrepancy, I wondered how this descrepancy could
> > > be used somehow in Oz`s defense, a silly approach. Far and away the
> > > most likely scenario is that these cilvilian witnesses are relating
> > > information to the best of their ability (which, of course, doesn`t
> > > mean flawlessly). So, the only rational approach is to see if what the
> > > witness says that is inacurate can be reconciled with other
> > > information, not use it as an excuse to throw out information
> > > inconvenent to your far-fetched theories.
>
> > My far-fetched "theory" here is that Whaley was telling the truth when
> > he wrote on 11/22 or 23 that he left O off at 500 Beckley, & last saw
> > him walking *away* from the area of the boarding house!
>
> No, you plug questionable information into your far-fetched
> theories. It is much more supportable that Whaley left Oz at the
> boardinghouse
Yet, Whaley sez O was walking in the opposite direction last he saw
him! Why have Whaley let him off a block or so beyond the house, then
try to *fool* him by walking in the wrong direction? Speaking of far-
fetched....
and that Whaley was mistaken about the street numbers
> there, then Whaley left Oz on the 500 block of North Beckley. What is
> there associated with Oz? If Oz is going to the movie theater, why be
> dropped so far away from it?
He was involved in the JFK assassination & was wary of a set-up....
Who saw Oz at 500 Beckley? And lastly,
> and most important, how does Whaley dropping Oz closer to the Tippit
> slaying help clear him of that murder?
>
Because, if he went directly to 10th & Patton, then he did *not* have
a jacket, thank you....
> > > > > > > > > > > dw
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Scoggins saw someone else shooting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Tippit,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > SNIP
> > > > If there was a conspiracy involving the cops & the SS (as I believe),
> > > > then a lot of that evidence is suspect. To be more specific,
> > > > involving at least Capt Fritz & SS agent Sorrels
>
> > > Of course the people working the case are suspects. Stellar!
>
> > No, two cops in a rowboat in Argentina were the conspiracists! Duh.
>
> You could make the claim about the cops in the rowboat just as
> easily. It`s the establishing part that you fall way short.
>
> > In the case of Fritz, "working the case" included picking up the hulls
> > in the "nest" before the lab got there to photograph them....
>
> So, if an investigator does something you find questionable, then
> you can make the huge leap that he is actively working to frame
> Oswald. What do you use for support across that chasm?
>
He came close to perjury when he implied that he himself did not touch
the shells before the lab got there. Apparently, it was pretty
important to him not to be connected with the picking up of the
hulls. Apparently, he thot the latter were pretty important to his
case against O, enuf to jeapordize their validity as evidence.
The respective photos do indeed show that the metal bands were
different. I thought only FBI's Barrett ever mentioned the wallet,
tho as I recall Hosty brought up the subject in his book, tho he
wasn't at the scene.
>
> > > > Still got a real mystery here, tho I think it was
> > > > Scoggins' wallet....
>
> > > Possible they asked Scoggins for his wallet at the scene. Maybe
> > > they were checking out his hack license.
>
> > That's a likely possibility--except for the fact that FBI agent
> > Barrett was told at the scene that he was looking at the wallet of the
> > perp. Who, at that time--before the Texas Theatre--was thot to have
> > been the guy chasing the perp....
>
> Yah, I didn`t like that possibility, and still lean towards it being
> Oswald`s wallet.
>
Then he had two of them, or the one at the scene was a plant.
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > It had to have
> > > > > > > > been a witness's wallet--not the shooter's, unless the shooter was not
> > > > > > > > Oswald, since his wallet was found on him in thepolicecar.
>
> > > > > > > Couldn`t be just simple confusion amongst the cops where the wallet
> > > > > > > was found?
>
> > > > > > Yes! The FBI guy whose name begins with Robert *was* confused: He
> > > > > > was told that Westbrook & Owens, at the scene, were showing him the
> > > > > > wallet of the shooter. Later, the shooter was said to have been
> > > > > > Oswald, hence Robert thought he had been shown O's wallet at the
> > > > > > scene; but at the time the FBI guy was there, it was *Scoggins* who
> > > > > > was fingered as the shooter, by Mrs Markham, & perhaps Jimmy Burt,
> > > > > > both of whom saw Scoggins running into the alley off Patton, after the
> > > > > > shooter....
>
> > > > > Nonsense. Show where Markum ever said Scoggins was the shooter.
> > > > > There is film of thepolicestanding around examining the wallet.
>
> > > > That's what I said---Westbrook & Owens were cops.
>
> > > What did they saw about the information contained in the wallet
> > > they were examining?
>
> > The only thing we know is what Barrett said, that he was shown the
> > wallet--as he was told by Owens and/or Westbrook--of the suspect
> > killer
>
> Nothing from Owens and Westbrook about the contents of the wallet? I
> suppose I need to get Myer`s book.
>
According to Myers (p294), neither Owens, Westbrook or Doughty ever
mentioned the wallet. Unimportant, I guess....
> > > > Markham said "bushy
> > > > haired",
>
> > > She also attested to the fact that Oswald was the guy she saw shoot
> > > Tippit. Why are the two things mutually exclusive?
>
> > Because "bushy hair", "stocky" & "short" apply more to Scoggins than
> > to O
>
> But Markham didn`t select Scoggins as the man she saw kill Tippit.
> It isn`t a matter of the thousands of people that description could
> apply to. Using words to describe people is a tricky business (I doubt
> I could describe my own brother in a way that would allow him to be
> picked out of a crowd), its hard to narrow a it down to an individual
> using words, is this something Markham had any experience doing? But,
> it is a lot easier to select people who you have seen before, and say
> "thats who I saw". It`s Markhams selection of Oz that show whatever
> words she chose to describe him as faulty, not the reverse, because
> selecting someone is a more exact method than describing them. The
> crude method does not trump the more precise.
But then the fact that she saw "Oz" escape by the alley route raises
the question--then who was escaping via Jefferson?
>
>
SNIP
dcwi...@netscape.net
> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > On Mar 5, 11:54 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > It should be a slam dunk to believe ANYTHING for someone who believes in the
> > > SBT.
>
> > >http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
>
> > Oh, it would have been so much *easier* if Tague hadn't testified....
> > dw
>
> Why? What did he testify to that was certain? He did know what hit
> him, or when.
>
dw
Bud
So, you even need Oz lying to make this theory of yours to work.
> >And Whaley is lying when he says "Neches", a street near the
> > boarding house, in his testimony.
>
> Again--he didn't mention anything except "500 Beckley" originally.
And when he elaborates on this before the WC, he mentions "Neches",
a street that runs up by the boardinghouse, as being near where he
dropped Oz off. That he considers "Neches" to be near the 500 block of
North Beckley when they are not indicates one or the other is wrong.
With Oz and Roberts, the only other two people in this scenario saying
Oz went to the boardinghouse, this indicates that it was the "Neeley"
area description that was correct, not what hundred block he left him
off on.
> And as I recall he wound up, in his WC testimony, saying O was wearing
> 2 jackets!
Not that I could find. Here is what he told the WC... "Then he had
on a brown shirt with little silverlike stripe on it and he had on
some kind of jacket..."
He nails the shirt, the brown shirt Oz was wearing did have little
silver thread pattern in it.
> I'd say that Whaley was highly *suggestible*....
Based on what? This is your problem, you don`t consider people
giving misinformation a far-fetched prosept, when it really is an
astounding possibility. You think it more likely they are being
dishonest than honest, when the reverse is much, much more likely.
> dw
> Add them to Markham, Scoggins,
> > Callaway, The Davis sisters, ect, and you have presented a clear
> > choice. Either Oswald killed Tippit, or everyone associated with the
> > incident is lying. I wonder what magical powers these conspirators
> > possess that can get people to lie, early on, and keep quiet about
> > those lies for decades.
> >
> Mrs M didn't keep quiet. She sent her son to the HSCA hearings to say
> that she last saw the suspect heading into the alley off Patton.
Is this it? Second hand information years and years later?
> In
> his WC testimony, SCoggins contradicted what he usually said (even
> elsewhere in that testimony), that he took his cab back to the office
> & didn't see cops again till Saturday.
What you have uncovered could have a simple explaination not found
in the record. It is incomplete, and finding voids in it doesn`t mean
you can insert anything you wish.
> Virginia Davis told two
> different, mutually exclusive stories *at* the hearings....
Yah, obviously she was confused. She said she called the cops
before she heard the shots, an impossibility that anyone with any
sense would disregard, especially when she goes through her actions
step by step, and says she heard shots, went to the door, and then
went back inside and called police, an account that *does* make sense.
You latch onto the obviously eroneous information once again...
> At the
> other end of the spectrum--ie, before the hearings--Benavides kept
> quiet about his role in the proceedings until the day he testified to
> the WC; or his role was kept quiet:
In what way does that establish anything regarding the veracity of
what he testified to?
> That 11/22 affidavit Leavelle/
> Dhority said he made has never showed up....
So we don`t know what it contained.
> And everyone sez Roberts
> was lying, about one thing or another....
I don`t think she was lying about anything. I think she was
mistaken about some things.
But to recap, you are skeptical about all the major witness to this
event, Scoggins, Markham, Callaway, Postal, Brewer, Roberts, Whaley,
ect. Seems a simple choice of believing everyone was bearing false
witness against Oz, or Oz was guilty. Doesn`t seem difficult to
conclude which is the right answer.
Seems we are missing Whaley pointing to the place he dropped him
off. You first need an established starting point before you can
determine which way Oz was walking from it.
> Why have Whaley let him off a block or so beyond the house, then
> try to *fool* him by walking in the wrong direction? Speaking of far-
> fetched....
Why not have Whaley drop him at his door, or drop him right at the
Texas Theater, if that was his intended destination?
> and that Whaley was mistaken about the street numbers
> > there, then Whaley left Oz on the 500 block of North Beckley. What is
> > there associated with Oz? If Oz is going to the movie theater, why be
> > dropped so far away from it?
>
> He was involved in the JFK assassination & was wary of a set-up....
Beside the lack of anything to support this contention, it doesn`t
make sense. Why go to the Texas Theater at all, why even go to Oak
Cliff at all, when "they" would know this is where you live. The smart
thing would be to avoid all of your known haunts.
> Who saw Oz at 500 Beckley? And lastly,
> > and most important, how does Whaley dropping Oz closer to the Tippit
> > slaying help clear him of that murder?
> >
> Because, if he went directly to 10th & Patton, then he did *not* have
> a jacket, thank you....
Ah. So, you are trying to make a case that Oz wasn`t wearing a
jacket, despite Roberts, Whaley, Markham, Scoggins, ect, saying they
saw him in one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > dw
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scoggins saw someone else shooting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tippit,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > SNIP
> > > > > If there was a conspiracy involving the cops & the SS (as I believe),
> > > > > then a lot of that evidence is suspect. To be more specific,
> > > > > involving at least Capt Fritz & SS agent Sorrels
> >
> > > > Of course the people working the case are suspects. Stellar!
> >
> > > No, two cops in a rowboat in Argentina were the conspiracists! Duh.
> >
> > You could make the claim about the cops in the rowboat just as
> > easily. It`s the establishing part that you fall way short.
> >
> > > In the case of Fritz, "working the case" included picking up the hulls
> > > in the "nest" before the lab got there to photograph them....
> >
> > So, if an investigator does something you find questionable, then
> > you can make the huge leap that he is actively working to frame
> > Oswald. What do you use for support across that chasm?
> >
> He came close to perjury when he implied that he himself did not touch
> the shells before the lab got there.
Doubtful that it would be considered perjury if he outright denied
picking up the shells. What direct imformation was derived from the
shells implicating Oswald?
> Apparently, it was pretty
> important to him not to be connected with the picking up of the
> hulls. Apparently, he thot the latter were pretty important to his
> case against O, enuf to jeapordize their validity as evidence.
In what way were the shells tied to Oswald? They only corroborated
shots being fired from that location, they don`t do anything to
establish Oz as that shooter.
I`m skeptical of these grainy blow-ups of things. A lot of time, an
item can look much different, depending on lighting, angles and such.
> I thought only FBI's Barrett ever mentioned the wallet,
> tho as I recall Hosty brought up the subject in his book, tho he
> wasn't at the scene.
I`ll look for the Myer book at the library. I did get it out once,
but I don`t think I read it.
> > > > > Still got a real mystery here, tho I think it was
> > > > > Scoggins' wallet....
> >
> > > > Possible they asked Scoggins for his wallet at the scene. Maybe
> > > > they were checking out his hack license.
> >
> > > That's a likely possibility--except for the fact that FBI agent
> > > Barrett was told at the scene that he was looking at the wallet of the
> > > perp. Who, at that time--before the Texas Theatre--was thot to have
> > > been the guy chasing the perp....
> >
> > Yah, I didn`t like that possibility, and still lean towards it being
> > Oswald`s wallet.
> >
> Then he had two of them, or the one at the scene was a plant.
No, that is not the only possibility. It is an astounding
possibility that the Dallas Police (or anyone else) had a wallet
manufactured in advance to throw down at the scene, one that should be
the conclusion of last resort. It seems that if they wanted to tie Oz
to this crime, the best way is to leave the wallet where Tippit was
shot. That the wallet that was found at the Tippit murder is the same
wallet said to be found on Oz is the likeliest possibility, but I do
admit I need to look into it more.
Strange. That is one of the problems with not having a trial. I
suspect the WC was more focused on gathering information about the
assassination, as that is what they wee charged with explaining.
> > > > > Markham said "bushy
> > > > > haired",
> >
> > > > She also attested to the fact that Oswald was the guy she saw shoot
> > > > Tippit. Why are the two things mutually exclusive?
> >
> > > Because "bushy hair", "stocky" & "short" apply more to Scoggins than
> > > to O
> >
> > But Markham didn`t select Scoggins as the man she saw kill Tippit.
> > It isn`t a matter of the thousands of people that description could
> > apply to. Using words to describe people is a tricky business (I doubt
> > I could describe my own brother in a way that would allow him to be
> > picked out of a crowd), its hard to narrow a it down to an individual
> > using words, is this something Markham had any experience doing? But,
> > it is a lot easier to select people who you have seen before, and say
> > "thats who I saw". It`s Markhams selection of Oz that show whatever
> > words she chose to describe him as faulty, not the reverse, because
> > selecting someone is a more exact method than describing them. The
> > crude method does not trump the more precise.
>
> But then the fact that she saw "Oz" escape by the alley route raises
> the question--then who was escaping via Jefferson?
Do you really think this is enough information to conclude there
must be two people fleeing?
> >
> >
> SNIP
Walt
Yup..... Yer right. That's the shirt Lee was wearing at the TSBD
that morning. and it's the shirt that Mrs Bledsoe saw him wearing on
Mc watters bus, and it's the shirt he TOOK OFF in his room, a couple
of minutes after one O'clock. The question is where did Oswald get
the jacket that Whaley said he was wearing?? No other witness who
saw Lee before 0ne O'clock saw him with a Jacket.
Perhaps Whaley could describe the shirt Oswald was wearing because he
saw him on TV, being paraded through the halls of the police station.
Walt
> shots being fired from that location, ...
Walt
Mr. Liebeler.
Let me make arrangements then to have the Secret Service bring the
tape recorder on over and we will see if it is your voice.
Mrs. Markham.
I am going to tell you this, now, there was someone--let me tell you
this--there was someone one day-- this was all to me--I was scared,
and I was, you know, frightened, and one day--now, this brings me
back--the memories [referring to the transcript heretofore mentions].
One day on my job there was someone that called, but he told me he was
from the city.
Mr. Liebeler.
>From here in Dallas?
Mrs. Markham.
That's right; the city hall down here, and this man told me he was---
now, I can tell you what he told me he was--he said he was Captain
Fritz--over this telephone--Capt. Will Fritz and I know you are
familiar with him, maybe. Now, he said he was Captain Fritz with the
police department of the city of Dallas.
Mr. Liebeler.
Well, this transcript indicates that someone called a number, a
telephone number---do you remember the telephone number at your office
where you worked; were you working?
Mrs. Markham.
Yes; I was working down here on Main Street.
Mr. Libeler.
Do you know what the telephone down there is?
Mrs. Markham.
No; I have really forgotten it, but it was over this office phone.
It's a Riverside 8 number.
Mr. Liebeler.
Is there such a number as Matthew 7-6797?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Liebeler.
Or is there such a number as MA 7-6797, is there such a number as that
that you know of?
Mrs. Markham.
No, sir.
Mr. Liebeler.
This transcript here indicates that some gentleman called this number
here, Matthew 7-6797.
Mrs. Markham.
My number at home is Whitehall and this number that I worked at was
Riverside 8.
Mr. Libeler.
Well, I think what we should do is have the Secret Service bring a
tape recorder here, because I want you to listen to this conversation,
and if it is not your voice, we certainly want to know that.
Mrs. Markham.
Sure, and this man--what this man told me--he told me he
Mrs. Markham.
was from the Dallas Police Department and he said it was concerning
the Oswalds and they had to get a little more information from me.
Mr. Liebeler.
Don .... It's quite clear that Markham was very frightened..... And
when you read between the lines it's obvious that Captain Will Fritz
called he and threatened her...... "now, I can tell you what he told
me he was--he said he was Captain Fritz"....
Markham had talked to some News Reporters and told them that Tippit's
killer was " kind of short, and a little bit heavy with bushy
hair". Of course her description didn't fit Lee Oswald and that's
the guy that Fritz was framing for the murder, he didn't want Markham
to give a description of the killer that obviously didn't fit Oswald
so he called her and told her to keep her mouth shut, or she may get
hurt, or wind up in the funny farm.
Markham felt somewhat safe in talking to the Warren Commission and
telling them that Will Fritz had called her, when she said...... "I am
going to tell you this, now, there was someone--let me tell you this--
there was someone one day-- this was all to me--I was scared, and I
was, you know, frightened, and one day--now, this brings me back--the
memories [referring to the transcript heretofore mentions]. One day on
my job there was someone that called, but he told me he was from the
city."
Helen Markham was one of only two people who actually saw the killer
who shot Tippit. Both she and Benavides gave descriptions of the
killer that did NOT fit Lee Oswald. It's true that she did
tentatively identify Oswald as the killer when she viewed a line up a
couple of hours after the murder....but her identification of Oswald
as the killer can hardly be accepted because she was hysterical at
that time. After witnessing Tippit's murder she learned that President
Kennedy had also been murdered and she was overwhelmed by the
events.
I'm convinced that Tippit's murder is tied to the murder of JFK but at
the same time I'm certain that Oswald killed neither of them. There is
a strong possibility that Tippit was part of the plot to murder JFK,
and somehow became a victim himself.
Since he was the ONLY DPD police car cruising the streets of Oakcliff
at the time, It must have been his squad car that Mrs Roberts saw in
front of the rooming house at 1:02 PM. She said there were two men
in the police car which may be a clue to his killer. If that police
car was Tippit's then who was with him?? He was supposed to be alone
on patrol.
Walt
> ajacket, thank you....
Bud
<SNIP>
> > Not that I could find. Here is what he told the WC... "Then he had
> > on a brown shirt with little silverlike stripe on it and he had on
> > some kind of jacket..."
> > He nails the shirt, the brown shirt Oz was wearing did have little
> > silver thread pattern in it.
>
> Yup..... Yer right. That's the shirt Lee was wearing at the TSBD
> that morning. and it's the shirt that Mrs Bledsoe saw him wearing on
> Mc watters bus, and it's the shirt he TOOK OFF in his room, a couple
> of minutes after one O'clock.
Oz told Fritz he only changed his trousers. The brown shirt with
the silver threads is clearly the shirt that Oz is wearing after his
arrest (look at the photo where Oz is giving the leftist salute, for
instance). To top it off, the transfer from the bus was in the top
pocket of the shirt when he was arrested.
> The question is where did Oswald get
> the jacket that Whaley said he was wearing?? No other witness who
> saw Lee before 0ne O'clock saw him with a Jacket.
Both Frazier and Linnie Mae reported Oz coming to work wearing a
jacket.
> Perhaps Whaley could describe the shirt Oswald was wearing because he
> saw him on TV, being paraded through the halls of the police station.
No, you are just wrong about Oz changing his shirt.
> Walt
>
<SNIP>
dcwi...@netscape.net
But as I recall does not even intersect Beckely. How could a cab
driver not know that?
, as being near where he
> dropped Oz off. That he considers "Neches" to be near the 500 block of
> North Beckley when they are not indicates one or the other is wrong.
> With Oz and Roberts, the only other two people in this scenario saying
> Oz went to the boardinghouse, this indicates that it was the "Neeley"
> area description that was correct, not what hundred block he left him
> off on.
>
> > And as I recall he wound up, in his WC testimony, saying O was wearing
> > 2 jackets!
>
> Not that I could find. Here is what he told the WC... "Then he had
> on a brown shirt with little silverlike stripe on it and he had on
> some kind of jacket..."
> He nails the shirt, the brown shirt Oz was wearing did have little
> silver thread pattern in it.
>
And he nails the jacket. Except, oops, either he left it in the
depository or hadn't picked it up yet at the house....
> > I'd say that Whaley was highly *suggestible*....
>
> Based on what? This is your problem, you don`t consider people
> giving misinformation a far-fetched prosept, when it really is an
> astounding possibility. You think it more likely they are being
> dishonest than honest, when the reverse is much, much more likely.
>
> > dw
> > Add them to Markham, Scoggins,
> > > Callaway, The Davis sisters, ect, and you have presented a clear
> > > choice. Either Oswald killed Tippit, or everyone associated with the
> > > incident is lying. I wonder what magical powers these conspirators
> > > possess that can get people to lie, early on, and keep quiet about
> > > those lies for decades.
>
> > Mrs M didn't keep quiet. She sent her son to the HSCA hearings to say
> > that she last saw the suspect heading into the alley off Patton.
>
> Is this it? Second hand information years and years later?
Then, try Barnes' crime-scene sketch, which notes that the suspect
took the alley off Patton, not Jefferson. And to whom did Barnes
speak--only Mrs M, according to his WC testimony. And he's seen with
her in photos at the scene. Same day, not "years later".... And you
who believes every witness does not trust Mrs M's son?
>
> > In
> > his WC testimony, SCoggins contradicted what he usually said (even
> > elsewhere in that testimony), that he took his cab back to the office
> > & didn't see cops again till Saturday.
>
> What you have uncovered could have a simple explaination not found
> in the record. It is incomplete, and finding voids in it doesn`t mean
> you can insert anything you wish.
FBI agent Barrett verified that Scoggins left his cab at the scene.
It was still there when he, Barrett, got there at 1:41....
>
> > Virginia Davis told two
> > different, mutually exclusive stories *at* the hearings....
>
> Yah, obviously she was confused. She said she called the cops
> before she heard the shots
She never said that, to my knowledge. She said she heard the shots
(according to one of her two scenarios), called the cops, then *saw
the suspect*....
, an impossibility that anyone with any
> sense would disregard
see above
especially when she goes through her actions
> step by step, and says she heard shots, went to the door, and then
> went back inside and calledpolice, an account that *does* make sense.
> You latch onto the obviously eroneous information once again...
>
> > At the
> > otherendof the spectrum--ie, before the hearings--Benavides kept
> > quiet about his role in the proceedings until the day he testified to
> > the WC; or his role was kept quiet:
>
> In what way does that establish anything regarding the veracity of
> what he testified to?
It has never been explained why he was (apparently) never interviewed
by the FBI or SS
>
> > That 11/22 affidavit Leavelle/
> > Dhority said he made has never showed up....
>
> So we don`t know what it contained.
It would be helpful to have it, in the absence of anything else from
him before the hearings. Especially since his brother was reported
shot dead the month before DB testified.
Either starting point was south of the boarding house. And in his
affidavit, W sez, "The boy got out of the cab & walked in front of the
cab at an angle SOUTH on Beckley." Either way, W last sees him
walking *away* from the boarding house....
> > Why have Whaley let him off a block or so beyond the house, then
> > try to *fool* him by walking in the wrong direction? Speaking of far-
> > fetched....
>
> Why not have Whaley drop him at his door, or drop him right at the
> Texas Theater, if that was his intended destination?
>
> > and that Whaley was mistaken about the street numbers
> > > there, then Whaley left Oz on the 500 block of North Beckley. What is
> > > there associated with Oz? If Oz is going to the movie theater, why be
> > > dropped so far away from it?
>
> > He was involved in the JFK assassination & was wary of a set-up....
>
> Beside the lack of anything to support this contention, it doesn`t
> make sense. Why go to the Texas Theater at all, why even go to Oak
> Cliff at all, when "they" would know this is where you live. The smart
> thing would be to avoid all of your known haunts.
I think he was supposed to meet fellow conspirators at the theatre,
but was (properly) suspicious
>
> > Who saw Oz at 500 Beckley? And lastly,
> > > and most important, how does Whaley dropping Oz closer to the Tippit
> > > slaying help clear him of that murder?
>
> > Because, if he went directly to 10th & Patton, then he did *not* have
> > a jacket, thank you....
>
> Ah. So, you are trying to make a case that Oz wasn`t wearing a
> jacket, despite Roberts, Whaley, Markham, Scoggins, ect, saying they
> saw him in one.
>
Hey, I'm not the one who sez he wasn't wearing a jacket between the
TSBD & wherever he went next. The whole idea of the (invented) trip
to Roberts' house was for him to pick up the jacket (which will later
be found behind the gas station). Even the suggestible Whaley in his
affid. sez he was only wearing the long-sleeved shirt, no jacket!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > dw
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scoggins saw someone else shooting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tippit,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SNIP
> > > > > > If there was a conspiracy involving the cops & the SS (as I believe),
> > > > > > then a lot of that evidence is suspect. To be more specific,
> > > > > > involving at least Capt Fritz & SS agent Sorrels
>
> > > > > Of course the people working the case are suspects. Stellar!
>
> > > > No, two cops in a rowboat in Argentina were the conspiracists! Duh.
>
> > > You could make the claim about the cops in the rowboat just as
> > > easily. It`s the establishing part that you fall way short.
>
> > > > In the case of Fritz, "working the case" included picking up the hulls
> > > > in the "nest" before the lab got there to photograph them....
>
> > > So, if an investigator does something you find questionable, then
> > > you can make the huge leap that he is actively working to frame
> > > Oswald. What do you use for support across that chasm?
>
> > He came close to perjury when he implied that he himself did not touch
> > the shells before the lab got there.
>
> Doubtful that it would be considered perjury if he outright denied
> picking up the shells.
It would then have to be explained why 2 deputy sheriffs said they saw
him pick the hulls up
What direct imformation was derived from the
> shells implicating Oswald?
Well, the information that's in question is where they were found, how
many there were, & what kind of shells they were, & thanks to Fritz we
can't be sure of any of these points
>
> > Apparently, it was pretty
> > important to him not to be connected with the picking up of the
> > hulls. Apparently, he thot the latter were pretty important to his
> > case against O, enuf to jeapordize their validity as evidence.
>
> In what way were the shells tied to Oswald? They only corroborated
> shots being fired from that location, ...
Bingo! perhaps. But were the hulls not found to be from the
Carcano?
Ben Holmes
dcwi...@netscape.net says...
>
>On Mar 7, 5:57 am, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>> > On Mar 6, 7:45 am, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>> > > > On Mar 5, 4:23 am, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>> > > > > > On Mar 4, 4:54 am, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > SNIP
>>
>tion again.
>> > > > > > > > > In his testimony, Whaley says the corner of Neches and No=
>rth Beckley,
>> > > > > > > > > which he says is the 500 block of North Becklley. It isn`=
>t=2E
>>
>> > > > > > > > He didn't say anything about "Neches" in his original affid=
>avit.
>>
>> > > > > > > No, but he elaborated on a lot of the things he said in his
>itness
>> > > > > > > who said he came into the boardinghouse.
>>
>it
>> > > > > > somehow slipped her mind that the President killer returned to =
>the
>> > > > > > house after 12:30--she didn't mention it to the first cops to t=
He did *indeed* attempt to assert that Oswald had on *two* jackets... anyone who
reads Whaley's testimony can't escape Willis' assertion that Whaley was quite
"suggestible".
Mr. BALL. Here is Commission No. 162 which is a gray jacket with zipper.
Mr. WHALEY. I thank that is the jacket he had on when he rode with me in the
cab.
Mr. BALL. Look something like it?
And here is Commission Exhibit No. 163, does this look like anything he had on?
Mr. WHALEY. He had this one on or the other one.
Mr. BALL. That is right.
Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being
open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.
But Buddy, being Buddy - can't locate this exchange... is that a surprise that a
LNT'er doesn't know the evidence, or where to find it?
>> > > > > > > Neches" as if they are the same thing, which they are not. So=
> that
>> > > > > > > makes one of his assertions wrong. The logical one is the one=
> near the
>> > > > > > > boardinghouse, a place he has ties to, and a witness saw him.=
> I would
>> > > > > > > guess that Whaley assumed that because 5th street was nearby,=
> that
>> > > > > > > meant that it was the 500 block of Beckley.
>>
>> > > > > > I noticed that too, but I find it odd that a cab driver would i=
>nvent
>> > > > > > intersections....
>>
>> > > > > Yah, you found a descrepancy, I wondered how this descrepancy =
>could
>> > > > > be used somehow in Oz`s defense, a silly approach. Far and away t=
>he
>> > > > > most likely scenario is that these cilvilian witnesses are relati=
>ng
>> > > > > information to the best of their ability (which, of course, doesn=
>`t
>> > > > > mean flawlessly). So, the only rational approach is to see if wha=
>t the
>> > > > > witness says that is inacurate can be reconciled with other
>> > > > > information, not use it as an excuse to throw out information
>> > > > > inconvenent to your far-fetched theories.
>>
>> > > > My far-fetched "theory" here is that Whaley was telling the truth w=
>hen
>> > > > he wrote on 11/22 or 23 that he left O off at 500 Beckley, & last s=
>> > > > > > If there was a conspiracy involving the cops & the SS (as I bel=
>ieve),
>> > > > > > then a lot of that evidence is suspect. To be more specific,
>> > > > > > involving at least Capt Fritz & SS agent Sorrels
>>
>> > > > > Of course the people working the case are suspects. Stellar!
>>
>> > > > No, two cops in a rowboat in Argentina were the conspiracists! Duh.
>>
>> > > You could make the claim about the cops in the rowboat just as
>> > > easily. It`s the establishing part that you fall way short.
>>
>> > > > In the case of Fritz, "working the case" included picking up the hu=
Bud
<SNIP>
> >> > And as I recall he wound up, in his WC testimony, saying O was wearing
> >> > 2 jackets!
> >>
> >> Not that I could find. Here is what he told the WC... "Then he had
> >> on a brown shirt with little silverlike stripe on it and he had on
> >> some kind of jacket..."
> >> He nails the shirt, the brown shirt Oz was wearing did have little
> >> silver thread pattern in it.
> >>
> >And he nails the jacket. Except, oops, either he left it in the
> >depository or hadn't picked it up yet at the house....
>
> He did *indeed* attempt to assert that Oswald had on *two* jackets... anyone who
> reads Whaley's testimony can't escape Willis' assertion that Whaley was quite
> "suggestible".
>
> Mr. BALL. Here is Commission No. 162 which is a gray jacket with zipper.
> Mr. WHALEY. I thank that is the jacket he had on when he rode with me in the
> cab.
> Mr. BALL. Look something like it?
> And here is Commission Exhibit No. 163, does this look like anything he had on?
> Mr. WHALEY. He had this one on or the other one.
> Mr. BALL. That is right.
> Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being
> open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.
>
> But Buddy, being Buddy - can't locate this exchange... is that a surprise that a
> LNT'er doesn't know the evidence, or where to find it?
When dw mentioned this, I went to Whaley`s testimony, and read
until I came him talking about the clothes Oz was wearing when he saw
him. At that place in the testimony, he only mentions one jacket.
Further on, at the end, he mentions the two.
The only interesting thing about the whole "one jacket/two jacket"
descrepancy is that when something like this appears in the evidence,
somehow the kooks always construe this as being helpful to Oz in same
way.
<SNIP>
Walt
> <SNIP>
>
> > > Not that I could find. Here is what he told the WC... "Then he had
> > > on a brown shirt with little silverlike stripe on it and he had on
> > > some kind of jacket..."
> > > He nails the shirt, the brown shirt Oz was wearing did have little
> > > silver thread pattern in it.
>
> > Yup..... Yer right. That's the shirt Lee was wearing at the TSBD
> > that morning. and it's the shirt that Mrs Bledsoe saw him wearing on
> > Mc watters bus, and it's the shirt he TOOK OFF in his room, a couple
> > of minutes after one O'clock.
>
> Oz told Fritz he only changed his trousers. The brown shirt with
> the silver threads is clearly the shirt that Oz is wearing after his
> arrest (look at the photo where Oz is giving the leftist salute, for
> instance). To top it off, the transfer from the bus was in the top
> pocket of the shirt when he was arrested.
Leftist salute??..... Oh you mean the Winfry photo.... The one where
Lee held up his shackled hands for reporters, while at the same time
signalling his handler that he had no opened up to the
interrogators. Is that the photo you're referring to??
Perhaps you should go see an eye doctor because that photo is printed
in black and white ....If you can see that gray shirt as brown in a
black and white photo there's something wrong with your head. There
is a colored photograph on page 154 of the book "The Search for lee
Harvey Oswald " whicj was taken as Oswald was being put in a police
car outside of the Texas theater. The cops have a hold of his shirt
and his bare belly and naval can be seen. The shirt he was wearing at
the time of his arrest was GRAY.
He was wearing a BROWNISH RED shirt at the TSBD that morning, and it's
that shirt that Mrs Bledsoe saw him wearing on Mc Watters bus. He took
off the BROWNISH RED shirt at the rooming house and placed it in a
dresser drawer.
In an effort to make it appear that Oswald had fired the rifle, The
FBI claimed they found a fiber on the butt of the rifle that matched
the GRAY shirt that Oswald was wearing AT THE TIME of his arrest.
If Oswald had in fact had that rifle against his shoulder that morning
the fibers should have matched the BROWNISH Red shirt which he had
been wearing at the time of the shooting.
Walt
No, you are just wrong about Oz changing his shirt.
Mr. Ball.
After the cab ride, what he had done.
Mr. Fritz.
This time he told me a different story about changing the clothing. He
told me this time that he had changed his trousers and shirt and I
asked him what he did with his dirty clothes and he said, I believe he
said, he put them, the dirty clothes, I believe he said he put a shirt
in a drawer.
>
> > > Walt
>
> > <SNIP>- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Here's what several of the officers who sat in on Oswald's
interrogation wrote about the shirt.....
FBI agent James Bookout: He ( Oswald ) stated that after arriving
at his appartment , he changed his shirt and trousers because they
were dirty. He described his dirty clothes as being a REDDISH colored
long sleeved shirt......
Secret Service agent Tom Kelley: He said he went home, changed his
trousers and shirt and put his shirt in a drawer. This was a RED shirt
and he put it with his dirty clothes. He described the shirt as having
a button down color and of REDDISH color.
Here's what Captain Fritz's wtote in his hand written notes: Changed
shirt & tr (ousers) - Put in dirty clothes-
Long sleeved -REDDISH.
Bud
What is the point of posting this? Do you kooks believe the
interrogators now?
> FBI agent James Bookout: He ( Oswald ) stated that after arriving
> at his appartment , he changed his shirt and trousers because they
> were dirty. He described his dirty clothes as being a REDDISH colored
> long sleeved shirt......
Oz said, eh? Oz also said he ate with Norman.
> Secret Service agent Tom Kelley: He said he went home, changed his
> trousers and shirt and put his shirt in a drawer. This was a RED shirt
> and he put it with his dirty clothes. He described the shirt as having
> a button down color and of REDDISH color.
Oz also told the interrogators that he didn`t carry a long package
into work the morning of the assassinatiom.
> Here's what Captain Fritz's wtote in his hand written notes: Changed
> shirt & tr (ousers) - Put in dirty clothes-
> Long sleeved -REDDISH.
He also work earlier in his notes "home by bus changed britches" .
The transfer from the bus was in the pocket of the shirt he was
arrested in, indicating he wore the shirt he was arrested in on the
bus. Heres the only color picture I could find of Oz being arrested at
the Texas Theater If the link works, of course...)
http://www.sparticus.schoolnet.co.uk/LHO30.jpg
I can`t distiquish the color of the shirt from this photo.
>
<SNIP>
Bud
Bud
Just a few quick questions, Walt. Do you think CE150 is the shirt he
took off at the boardinghouse, or the one he was arrested in? Is the
shirt Oz was shot in the shirt he was arrested in?
Walt
Are you serious??? Surely you're aware that a bus transfer can be
removed from the pocket of one shirt, and put in the pocket of another
shirt, aren't you??
Heres the only color picture I could find of Oz being arrested at the
Texas Theater If the link works, of course...)
I told you there is a colored photo on page 154 of The Search for Lee
Harvey Oswald. The GRAY shirt is clearly visible in that photo.... I
know you won't look at the photo because you don't have the guts to
face the truth, but others read these posts and it for their benefit
that I post this info.
Walt
http://www.sparticus.schoolnet.co.uk/LHO30.jpg
I can`t distiquish the color of the shirt from this photo.
>
>
Bud
> transfer from the bus was in the pocket of the shirt he was arrested
> in, indicating he wore the shirt he was arrested in on the bus.
>
> Are you serious??? Surely you're aware that a bus transfer can be
> removed from the pocket of one shirt, and put in the pocket of another
> shirt, aren't you??
Surely you are aware of the meaning of the word "indicating",
aren`t you? It doesn`t establish, but tends to support that this is
the shirt he wore on the bus. Why transfer the transer? Unlikely it
would do him any good, they`re for specific bus lines. More likely it
was in the shirt because that was the shirt he was wearing when he
bought the transfer.
> Heres the only color picture I could find of Oz being arrested at the
> Texas Theater If the link works, of course...)
>
> I told you there is a colored photo on page 154 of The Search for Lee
> Harvey Oswald.
I don`t have that book. Or any assassination books. I fixed the
link, maybe you can tell me if that photo I gave the link to is the
photo you are referring to. I suspect it is, it`s the only color photo
I could find searching Google images.
> The GRAY shirt is clearly visible in that photo.... I
> know you won't look at the photo because you don't have the guts to
> face the truth, but others read these posts and it for their benefit
> that I post this info.
Yah, I`m so afraid I spent over a hour searching the internet
looking for it. Searched Mary Ferrell`s site (great resource).
Searched Google images under a dozen different combinations of words.
All because I was afraid to find it.
> Walt
>
> http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/LHO30.jpg
The link is fixed, check this photo, and see if it`s the one you are
reffering me to.
dcwi...@netscape.net
suggestible. He wanted to please. And he didn't please the Powers
That Were enuf in his original affidavit, so he added a few details
about jackets & streets.
dw
> <SNIP>- Hide quoted text -
Bud
Does it? How?
> He wanted to please.
Spin.
> And he didn't please the Powers
> That Were enuf in his original affidavit,
I suppose I can claim the powers that be were pleased with the
affidavit, since the stadard seems to be just saying it.
> so he added a few details
> about jackets & streets.
Yah, thats why they called him before the WC, to elaborate. If
they only wanted the information provided in the affidavit, they`d
need only read the affidavit.
dcwi...@netscape.net
at either end (McWatters & co./Roberts) say he was wearing *no*
jacket! If they'd questioned him a little further, Whaley would have
had O wearing Whaley's jacket.... The guy was crazy to pleaz, or try
to pleaz, but he went too far, into absurdity....
dw
>
> > dw
> > > <SNIP>- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
dcwi...@netscape.net says...
What Buddy is saying - is that he read only as far as he needed to prove his
point - then stopped.
It's far better in the long run - particularly if you don't want to look stupid
later on - to read the *entire* testimony.
Of course, advice is worth what Buddy pays for it...
>> > > The only interesting thing about the whole "one jacket/two jacket"
>> > > descrepancy is that when something like this appears in the evidence,
>> > > somehow the kooks always construe this as being helpful to Oz in same
>> > > way.
>>
>> > And it furthers (thank you, Ben) my assertion that Whaley was highly
>> > suggestible.
>>
>> Does it? How?
Buddy illustrates once again (as if another example were needed), the extent to
which LNT'ers must go in order to maintain their faith.
>> > He wanted to please.
>>
>> Spin.
>>
>> > And he didn't please the Powers
>> > That Were enuf in his original affidavit,
>>
>> I suppose I can claim the powers that be were pleased with the
>> affidavit, since the stadard seems to be just saying it.
>>
>> > so he added a few details
>> > about jackets & streets.
>>
>> Yah, thats why they called him before the WC, to elaborate. If
>> they only wanted the information provided in the affidavit, they`d
>> need only read the affidavit.
>>
>And O ends up wearing *2* jackets at the same time!! When witnesses
>at either end (McWatters & co./Roberts) say he was wearing *no*
>jacket! If they'd questioned him a little further, Whaley would have
>had O wearing Whaley's jacket.... The guy was crazy to pleaz, or try
>to pleaz, but he went too far, into absurdity....
>dw
I have two other favorites:
MR BELIN: "How many shots did you hear, if you remember?"
MR EDWARDS: "Well, I heard one more than was fired, I believe."
Dr. Humes: Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from
other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind.
But it's certainly amusing to hear an eyewitness assert that Oswald was wearing
*two* jackets.
Buddy drops to moron status if he can't see anything wrong with that...
>> > dw
Bud
<SNIP>
> > > And it furthers (thank you, Ben) my assertion that Whaley was highly
> > > suggestible.
> >
> > Does it? How?
> >
> > > He wanted to please.
> >
> > Spin.
> >
> > > And he didn't please the Powers
> > > That Were enuf in his original affidavit,
> >
> > I suppose I can claim the powers that be were pleased with the
> > affidavit, since the stadard seems to be just saying it.
> >
> > > so he added a few details
> > > about jackets & streets.
> >
> > Yah, thats why they called him before the WC, to elaborate. If
> > they only wanted the information provided in the affidavit, they`d
> > need only read the affidavit.
> >
> And O ends up wearing *2* jackets at the same time!!
And Whaley said only one earlier in his testimony. Perhaps a
clarification was in order.
> When witnesses
> at either end (McWatters & co./Roberts) say he was wearing *no*
> jacket!
McWatter said he was wearing a jacket. "He was dressed in what I
would call work clothes, just some type of jacket on..."
And Roberts was working on the TV, trying to get a picture when Oz
all but ran past her.
> If they'd questioned him a little further, Whaley would have
> had O wearing Whaley's jacket....
Or maybe blurted out ""They told me to say he was wearing a
jacket!" Maybe.
>The guy was crazy to pleaz, or try
> to pleaz, but he went too far, into absurdity....
How would relating information about multiple jackets please
anyone?
Bud
I wonder why Ben felt the need to rewrite what I said with spin? I
said I only read down until I came to Whaley mentioning the jacket (as
that was the information I was looking for), unaware that the topic
was revisited later in the questioning. Does Ben feel he scored a
point portraying it his way?
> It's far better in the long run - particularly if you don't want to look stupid
> later on - to read the *entire* testimony.
Point taken, Ben. But that isn`t what I did, I read until I got the
information I was looking for, Whaley referring to the jacket Oz was
wearing.
> Of course, advice is worth what Buddy pays for it...
Heres some free advice... go to the personality store and buy
yourself a personality.
> >> > > The only interesting thing about the whole "one jacket/two jacket"
> >> > > descrepancy is that when something like this appears in the evidence,
> >> > > somehow the kooks always construe this as being helpful to Oz in same
> >> > > way.
> >>
> >> > And it furthers (thank you, Ben) my assertion that Whaley was highly
> >> > suggestible.
> >>
> >> Does it? How?
>
> Buddy illustrates once again (as if another example were needed), the extent to
> which LNT'ers must go in order to maintain their faith.
Notice Ben dodges the question. It seems whatever spin these kooks
put on things should be accepted at face value, as any questions about
that spin remain unaddressed.
> >> > He wanted to please.
> >>
> >> Spin.
> >>
> >> > And he didn't please the Powers
> >> > That Were enuf in his original affidavit,
> >>
> >> I suppose I can claim the powers that be were pleased with the
> >> affidavit, since the stadard seems to be just saying it.
> >>
> >> > so he added a few details
> >> > about jackets & streets.
> >>
> >> Yah, thats why they called him before the WC, to elaborate. If
> >> they only wanted the information provided in the affidavit, they`d
> >> need only read the affidavit.
> >>
> >And O ends up wearing *2* jackets at the same time!! When witnesses
> >at either end (McWatters & co./Roberts) say he was wearing *no*
> >jacket! If they'd questioned him a little further, Whaley would have
> >had O wearing Whaley's jacket.... The guy was crazy to pleaz, or try
> >to pleaz, but he went too far, into absurdity....
> >dw
>
> I have two other favorites:
>
> MR BELIN: "How many shots did you hear, if you remember?"
> MR EDWARDS: "Well, I heard one more than was fired, I believe."
Ben loves confused testimony, all kooks do. That way they think they
can read anything they want to into it.
> Dr. Humes: Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from
> other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind.
Yah, either he misspoke, or it was mistranscribed, or some other
reason, but Ben, being a kook, finds it significant.
> But it's certainly amusing to hear an eyewitness assert that Oswald was wearing
> *two* jackets.
What is amusing is what kooks zero in on as significant. The muddle
is what important, because from muddle kooks find clarity.
> Buddy drops to moron status if he can't see anything wrong with that...
I didn`t say I found nothing wrong with that. It conflicts with
what Whaley said earlier, mentioning only one jacket, and it should
have been clarified. I just see no reason why what the kooks deem the
cause of this conflict to be accepted. I notice my call for you two to
back up this assertion went unanswered. "It just is what we say it is,
because we say it is" seems to be your answer, as if kook claims
aren`t a dime a dozen here. Since you can`t establish that Whaley had
any motivation to modify his testimony to please the WC, you do the
next best thing, and just say it without support, as if that is just
as good.
> >> > dw
Walt
Of course I can only speculate...... But my guess is that Oswald asked
for the transfer thinking that he could walk a few blocks and catch a
bus that was not tied up in traffic and use the transfer to board that
bus....OR ( and I think this is more probable)...He asked for the
transfer knowing that he could jump off Mc Watters bus at Colorado and
Marsalis avenues, hurry across Lake Cliff park to his room, quickly
change his clothes, and comb his hair, and then catch the Beckley
Avenue bus which he knew would arrive at Beckley and Zangs about
1:05, because that bus run about 10 minutes behind the Marsalis bus
that Mc watters was driving. When he left the TSBD he was headed for
the Texas theater, and by transferring from the Marsalis Ave bus to
the Beckley Ave bus he could go by his room change clothes and be at
the bus stop in time to catch the Beckley bus to the theater. I
believe that's what he planned to do.....but when he left the rooming
house he looked up Beckley Avenue and saw that the bus had already
gone by the bus stop.
>
Heres the only color picture I could find of Oz being arrested at
the
Texas Theater If the link works, of course...)
I told you there is a colored photo on page 154 of The Search for Lee
Harvey Oswald.
I don`t have that book. Or any assassination books. I fixed the
link, maybe you can tell me if that photo I gave the link to is the
photo you are referring to. I suspect it is, it`s the only color
photo
I could find searching Google images.
The GRAY shirt is clearly visible in that photo.... I
know you won't look at the photo because you don't have the guts to
face the truth, but others read these posts and it for their benefit
that I post this info.
Yah, I`m so afraid I spent over a hour searching the internet
looking for it. Searched Mary Ferrell`s site (great resource).
Searched Google images under a dozen different combinations of words.
All because I was afraid to find it.
Walt
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/LHO30.jpg
The link is fixed, check this photo, and see if it`s the one you
are
reffering me to.
I can`t distiquish the color of the shirt from this photo
Dud, If you could comprehend what you read , you'd know that the photo
you provided the link to is NOT the photo I told you about on 3 /8 /
07.
Here's a copy of a excerpt from that post.....
"There is a colored photograph on page 154 of the book "The Search for
Lee Harvey Oswald " which was taken as Oswald was being put in a
police car outside of the Texas theater. The cops have a hold of his
shirt and his bare belly and naval can be seen. The shirt he was
wearing at the time of his arrest was GRAY.
You see the part that says...."HIS BARE BELLY AND NAVAL CAN BE
SEEN"?? I put that in the post so you wouldn't have to ask dumb
questions. Do you see his bare belly in the photo you linked to??
Can't you read???
Walt
Walt
Don, I agree Whaley went to the absurd.... And I think he did that to
make himself appear a bit nutty, so they wouldn't take him to
seriously. His whole involvment started when he was BSing his fellow
Cabbies and talked about how he had had JFK's killer right in his cab
and didn't even know it. He told them he had picked Oswald up at the
Greyhound bus station and drove him over to Oakcliff just a few blocks
from the Texas theater. He told them how Oswald got out of his taxi
and crossed the street headed toward the Theater. But it was all a
lot of B.S. .... When his tale reached the ears of the dispatcher he
contacted the DPD and told them one of his drivers had driven Oswald
to Oakcliff after the assassination.
When the cops called Whaley in for questioning he knew his big mouth
had got him involved in a mess that he wanted np part of. So he
played the role of an unbelievable moron ( probably a natural for
him) But never the less he knew that Oswald was being
railroaded .....and he said as much in his testimony to the Warren
Commission.
Walt
Walt
> > dcwill...@netscape.net says...
Don, Dud thinks he's a very clever fellow....... Just yesterday I
told him he could see with his own eyes that the shirt that Lee was
wearing AT THE TIME of his arrest was GRAY. I told him there was a
colored photo on page 154 of The Search for Lee harvey Oswald which
was taken as Lee was being put in a police car outside the TT. The
photo clearly shows the GRAY shirt with Oswalds Tee shirt and bare
belly below the shirt. Dud posted a link to another photo that he
said he couldn't tell what color the shirt was in the photo. He
deliberately put up a link to a photo that he knew didn't prove
anything, just to save his ego. It's amazing the lengths the LNer's
will go to to protect their precious egos.
Walt
> > >> > dw- Hide quoted text -
Walt
>
Not that I could find. Here is what he told the WC... "Then he had
on a brown shirt with little silverlike stripe on it and he had on
some kind of jacket..."
He nails the shirt, the brown shirt Oz was wearing did have little
silver thread pattern in it.
Yup..... Yer right. That's the shirt Lee was wearing at the TSBD
that morning. and it's the shirt that Mrs Bledsoe saw him wearing on
Mc watters bus, and it's the shirt he TOOK OFF in his room, a couple
of minutes after one O'clock.
Oz told Fritz he only changed his trousers. The brown shirt with
the silver threads is clearly the shirt that Oz is wearing after his
arrest (look at the photo where Oz is giving the leftist salute, for
instance). To top it off, the transfer from the bus was in the top
pocket of the shirt when he was arrested.
Thank you for revealing that you have a copy of Bill Winfrey's
photo....The one you LNer's refer to as Oswald giving a Leftist
salute .....That photo clearly shows that the right elbow of Oswald's
shirt HAS NO HOLE in the sleeve at the elbow.
The BROWN shirt that Lee was wearing at the TSBD at the time of the
shooting, and the shirt he was wearing when Mrs Bledsoe saw him on the
bus, had a LARGE HOLE in the right sleeve at the elbow. Lee told
Captain Fritz that he went to his room, and changed his clothes before
going to the Texas theater. The FACT that the shirt he was wearing
when he was arrested was GRAY and it had NO HOLE in the elbow is proof
that Oswald changed his clothes in his room at 1:00PM.
Walt
Bud
There is always the the option of supporting your speculation.
> But my guess is that Oswald asked
> for the transfer thinking that he could walk a few blocks and catch a
> bus that was not tied up in traffic and use the transfer to board that
> bus....OR ( and I think this is more probable)...He asked for the
> transfer knowing that he could jump off Mc Watters bus at Colorado and
> Marsalis avenues, hurry across Lake Cliff park to his room, quickly
> change his clothes, and comb his hair, and then catch the Beckley
> Avenue bus which he knew would arrive at Beckley and Zangs about
> 1:05, because that bus run about 10 minutes behind the Marsalis bus
> that Mc watters was driving.
Have you established that the transfer Oz purchased from Mc Watters
was usable on the Beckley Avenue bus?
Yah, I can. I also know I am dealing with an idiot who works from
memory a lot more than he should, as his memory is as bad as his
thinking. Have you recently looked at that photo, and confirmed it to
be as you remember?
>
> Walt
Bud
Now, lets compare Walt`s musings to what really happened. Walt did
indeed direct me to that picture. I went to google images, and
attempted to find it. After looking at hundreds of photos using
different search phrases, and found none that fit Walt`s description,
but the color photo I gave the link to reproduced several places, I
allowed for the possibility that Walt was mistaken, that his
recollection of the details of this photo were faulty, and that he
took the information from that book from a previous post of his, not
by getting the book out, and looking it up, so I asked him to confirm
that the photo I gave the link to wasn`t the one he was reffering to.
I want very much to see that photo, without having to go to the
library, and trying to track down that book.
Like a typical kook, Walt misinterprets the whole affair, and then
leaps right into misidentifying my motivations, which had nothing to
do with stupidity or ego, but knowing I was dealing with a person who
plays fast and loose with information, without checking into what he
is saying. Recently, he has asserted a whole bunch of information, and
when I challengrd him to tell what the sources were to his assertions,
he merely ignored my requests. So, I tend to take his assertions
lightly until I can check them out myself, which is why I wanted to
seethis photo for myself, and see whether it is as he claims.
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On 7 Mar, 12:06, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > <SNIP>
> >
> Not that I could find. Here is what he told the WC... "Then he had
> on a brown shirt with little silverlike stripe on it and he had on
> some kind of jacket..."
> He nails the shirt, the brown shirt Oz was wearing did have little
> silver thread pattern in it.
>
> Yup..... Yer right. That's the shirt Lee was wearing at the TSBD
> that morning. and it's the shirt that Mrs Bledsoe saw him wearing on
> Mc watters bus, and it's the shirt he TOOK OFF in his room, a couple
> of minutes after one O'clock.
>
> Oz told Fritz he only changed his trousers. The brown shirt with
> the silver threads is clearly the shirt that Oz is wearing after his
> arrest (look at the photo where Oz is giving the leftist salute, for
> instance). To top it off, the transfer from the bus was in the top
> pocket of the shirt when he was arrested.
>
> Thank you for revealing that you have a copy of Bill Winfrey's
> photo....The one you LNer's refer to as Oswald giving a Leftist
> salute .....That photo clearly shows that the right elbow of Oswald's
> shirt HAS NO HOLE in the sleeve at the elbow.
> The BROWN shirt that Lee was wearing at the TSBD at the time of the
> shooting,
Likely Oz was only wearing his t-shirt when he shot JFK.
> and the shirt he was wearing when Mrs Bledsoe saw him on the
> bus, had a LARGE HOLE in the right sleeve at the elbow.
Of course, that doesn`t establish this as a fact.
> Lee told
> Captain Fritz that he went to his room, and changed his clothes before
> going to the Texas theater. The FACT that the shirt he was wearing
> when he was arrested was GRAY and it had NO HOLE in the elbow is proof
> that Oswald changed his clothes in his room at 1:00PM.
No, it really isn`t. Why didn`t you answer my question about CE150?
Do you think this is the shirt he wore to work, or was arrested in?
Walt
Well "IF" I misintrepreted your motives I believe most folks will
realize I based my intrepretation of your motive on your reputation.
I know you to be a coward, who is afraid of the truth, and a liar who
will lie, to avoid having to face the truth, so "IF" I was mistaken it
was a natural mistake.
An example of your twisting and squirming like a maggot with the light
of day shining on him, is your attempt to claim I was posting a
SPECFIC page number from a book from memory. I'll readily acknowledge
that I don't have a memory in which I can recall a SPECIFIC page
number where I saw some piece of information. I told you that you
could see with your own eyes that Lee was wearing a GRAY shirt when
the cops put him in a police car outside of the Texas Theater by
looking at the photo on page 154 of the Search for Lee Harvey Oswald.
Since I don't have a photographic memory I looked that up before I
posted it. I was aware that was giving the info to a coward who would
try to wiggle away from it, so I'm not at all surprised that you
attempted to misdirect others to a photo that reveals nothing as you
yourself said.
I'm sure you know that the crux of this whole post is the FACT that
the FBI said they found a fiber on the butt of the rifle that matched
the shirt Oswald was wearing AT THE TIME OF HIS ARREST. They did that
to make it appear they had proof that Oswald had had that rifle to his
shoulder. Of course IF the FBI found fibers that matched the shirt
that Lee was wearing when he was arrested they had to have gotten on
that rifle AFTER both the rifle and the shirt were in the hands of the
police. Because the shirt that Oswald was wearing when arrested was
NOT NOT the shirt he was wearing at the time of the shooting.
Walt
Walt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dud wrote:..... I don`t have that book. Or any assassination books.
Your statement is rather revealing, Dud...... Apparently the only
book you own about one of the biggest history turning events in
American history is ....The Warren Report. It no wonder you are so
ill informed about the murder of JFK, you are blind to anything except
the official story. You're like the color blind Swede who was ashamed
of being color blind. On his wedding night he told his new bride that
he had a confession to make about himself that he hadn't told her. He
said ..I'm color blind, and I can't tell black from white.... His new
bride replied " Oh I knowed dat fo a long time honey chil".
Or perhaps a better analogy is you're like the guy who was wearing red
lensed glasses while viewing a famous art work that was painted all in
red. He said he couldn't see anything great about a blank piece of
paper.
The fact that you refuse to look at any other answer indicates that
you're really stupid, or you're just too cowardly to look at anything
that threatens your make believe world.
Walt
Ben Holmes
Yep... I *did* score a point. You embarrass yourself constantly by being
unaware of the evidence. CT'ers are *CONSTANTLY* pointing out to you the
evidence that disproves your silly assertions - and if you'd ever take the time
to *READ* the eyewitness testimony - you wouldn't be 'caught out' so often.
Unlike your compadres DVD, cdddraftsman, Grizzlie, and others - you're not a
complete moron - yet you often appear to be simply because of your ignorance of
the evidence. You too often speak without having taken the time to learn what
you're talking about.
This explains why Walt is walking circles around you. Walt *does* know the
evidence. I'd even assert that Walt has *forgotten* more of the evidence that
you know, Buddy.
>Don, Dud thinks he's a very clever fellow....... Just yesterday I
>told him he could see with his own eyes that the shirt that Lee was
>wearing AT THE TIME of his arrest was GRAY. I told him there was a
>colored photo on page 154 of The Search for Lee harvey Oswald which
>was taken as Lee was being put in a police car outside the TT. The
>photo clearly shows the GRAY shirt with Oswalds Tee shirt and bare
>belly below the shirt. Dud posted a link to another photo that he
>said he couldn't tell what color the shirt was in the photo. He
>deliberately put up a link to a photo that he knew didn't prove
>anything, just to save his ego. It's amazing the lengths the LNer's
>will go to to protect their precious egos.
True... Buddy likes to play the fool - which got him killfiled. I don't have
time for nonsense. More power to you, Walt and Don - for putting up with the
trolls.
>Walt
>
>
>
>>> It's far better in the long run - particularly if you don't want to
>>> look stupid later on - to read the *entire* testimony.
>>
>> Point taken, Ben. But that isn`t what I did, I read until I got the
>> information I was looking for, Whaley referring to the jacket Oz was
>> wearing.
And clearly - looked the fool for having done so.
The internet even makes it incredibly *easy* to search for *ALL* occurances of
the word "jacket" - even *that* simple step would have prevented you from
looking the fool again.
>> > Of course, advice is worth what Buddy pays for it...
>>
>> Heres some free advice... go to the personality store and buy
>> yourself a personality.
I already have one... it's sheer honesty.
Serves me well...
>>> >> > > The only interesting thing about the whole "one jacket/two jacket"
>>> >> > > descrepancy is that when something like this appears in the evidence,
>>> >> > > somehow the kooks always construe this as being helpful to Oz in same
>> > >> > > way.
>>
>> > >> > And it furthers (thank you, Ben) my assertion that Whaley was highly
>> > >> > suggestible.
>>
>> > >> Does it? How?
>>
>>> Buddy illustrates once again (as if another example were needed), the
>>> extent to which LNT'ers must go in order to maintain their faith.
>>
>> Notice Ben dodges the question.
Sorry... I can't explain simple English to someone who's either illiterate or a
moron.
Faith simply won't prevent you from looking like a fool when the actual evidence
is presented.
>> It seems whatever spin these kooks
>> put on things should be accepted at face value, as any questions about
>> that spin remain unaddressed.
Buddy must accept that Oswald was walking around with *two* jackets. What
happened to one of them, Buddy? We know where *two* jackets ended up - one that
actually belonged to Oswald, and one that was too large for him. Where's that
third jacket, Buddy?
>> > >> > He wanted to please.
>>
>> > >> Spin.
>>
>> > >> > And he didn't please the Powers
>> > >> > That Were enuf in his original affidavit,
>>
>> > >> I suppose I can claim the powers that be were pleased with the
>> > >> affidavit, since the stadard seems to be just saying it.
>>
>> > >> > so he added a few details
>> > >> > about jackets & streets.
>>
>> > >> Yah, thats why they called him before the WC, to elaborate. If
>> > >> they only wanted the information provided in the affidavit, they`d
>> > >> need only read the affidavit.
>>
>> > >And O ends up wearing *2* jackets at the same time!! When witnesses
>> > >at either end (McWatters & co./Roberts) say he was wearing *no*
>> > >jacket! If they'd questioned him a little further, Whaley would have
>> > >had O wearing Whaley's jacket.... The guy was crazy to pleaz, or try
>> > >to pleaz, but he went too far, into absurdity....
>> > >dw
>>
>> > I have two other favorites:
>>
>> > MR BELIN: "How many shots did you hear, if you remember?"
>> > MR EDWARDS: "Well, I heard one more than was fired, I believe."
>>
>> Ben loves confused testimony, all kooks do. That way they think they
>> can read anything they want to into it.
What's confused about it? Edwards clearly asserts that he originally heard four
shots - but has been convinced by the "investigation" that there must have only
been three.
Nothing "confused" about that at all. He just got a tad more honest on his
testimony than Belin could have possibly liked.
>>> Dr. Humes: Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been
>>> fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind.
>>
>> Yah, either he misspoke, or it was mistranscribed, or some other
>> reason, but Ben, being a kook, finds it significant.
If he "misspoke", (or, for that matter, "mistranscribed"), then you should be
able to demonstrate, by means of Dr. Humes' testimony, that he *DIDN'T* believe
that both the entry and exit were on the rear of the skull.
But you can't do that, can you?
Rather dishonest to try to imply that his testimony isn't true if you have
*ZERO* evidence that it was...
>>> But it's certainly amusing to hear an eyewitness assert that Oswald
>>> was wearing *two* jackets.
>>
>> What is amusing is what kooks zero in on as significant. The muddle
>> is what important, because from muddle kooks find clarity.
Buddy simply throws out anything he doesn't like. And then refers to it as
"insignificant".
Truly the faithful's way to deal with the evidence.
>> > Buddy drops to moron status if he can't see anything wrong with that...
>>
>> I didn`t say I found nothing wrong with that.
Good... I'd hate to think of you as merely another moron.
Clown is a step up...
>> It conflicts with
>> what Whaley said earlier, mentioning only one jacket, and it should
>> have been clarified.
Bravo! There's an *amazing* amount of testimony that should have been
"clarified"... and probably a great deal of it *was*, unfortunately, in the "off
the record" exchanges we have no record of.
>> I just see no reason why what the kooks deem the
>> cause of this conflict to be accepted.
Perhaps because the eyewitnesses were *there*?
>> I notice my call for you two to
>> back up this assertion went unanswered.
Sorry... feeding the trolls is against my religion...
>> "It just is what we say it is,
>> because we say it is" seems to be your answer, as if kook claims
>> aren`t a dime a dozen here.
Gutlessly yellow, you provide *NO* explanation for Whaley's testimony. Don's
theory fits the facts to a tee. That you are unwilling to admit it, illustrates
that you have nothing better to do than to imagine Oswald wearing two jackets.
Tell us, Buddy... just where did that third jacket end up at?
>> Since you can`t establish that Whaley had
>> any motivation to modify his testimony to please the WC, you do the
>> next best thing, and just say it without support, as if that is just
>> as good.
Where's the third jacket, Buddy?
Ben Holmes
Ignorance of the evidence is what leads to the few who believe in the WCR to
continue to believe in it.
Buddy posts here too often to be totally ignorant...
Draw the appropriate conclusions...
Bud
Highfive yourself, kook.
> You embarrass yourself constantly by being
> unaware of the evidence.
Yah, I accurately quoted Whaley from the evidence I was unaware of.
> CT'ers are *CONSTANTLY* pointing out to you the
> evidence that disproves your silly assertions - and if you'd ever take the time
> to *READ* the eyewitness testimony - you wouldn't be 'caught out' so often.
> Unlike your compadres DVD, cdddraftsman, Grizzlie, and others - you're not a
> complete moron -
The evidence suggests otherwise. I routinely try to hold rational
discussions with Walt, for instance.
> yet you often appear to be simply because of your ignorance of
> the evidence. You too often speak without having taken the time to learn what
> you're talking about.
And here you display your ability to ignore the portions of the
testimony you find irrelevant. Whaley does indeed say Oz was wearing
one jacket.
> This explains why Walt is walking circles around you. Walt *does* know the
> evidence.
Even if that is true, which it is not, knowing the evidence would
do Walt no good with that brain of his. But, if you were following my
discussions with Walt, you`s see me constantly asking Walt to back up
his assertions, and that he does so infequently. Should I compile a
list of the questions I asked Walt that he has ducked for you?
> I'd even assert that Walt has *forgotten* more of the evidence that
> you know, Buddy.
Walt twists and misrepresents every piece of evidence he examines.
> >Don, Dud thinks he's a very clever fellow....... Just yesterday I
> >told him he could see with his own eyes that the shirt that Lee was
> >wearing AT THE TIME of his arrest was GRAY. I told him there was a
> >colored photo on page 154 of The Search for Lee harvey Oswald which
> >was taken as Lee was being put in a police car outside the TT. The
> >photo clearly shows the GRAY shirt with Oswalds Tee shirt and bare
> >belly below the shirt. Dud posted a link to another photo that he
> >said he couldn't tell what color the shirt was in the photo. He
> >deliberately put up a link to a photo that he knew didn't prove
> >anything, just to save his ego. It's amazing the lengths the LNer's
> >will go to to protect their precious egos.
>
> True... Buddy likes to play the fool - which got him killfiled.
Thats your story. My version has me exposing you as a fraud, so you
ran and hid from me.
> I don't have
> time for nonsense.
Yet here you are, getting involved in discussions that you could
have easily ignored.
> More power to you, Walt and Don - for putting up with the
> trolls.
>
> >Walt
> >
> >
> >
> >>> It's far better in the long run - particularly if you don't want to
> >>> look stupid later on - to read the *entire* testimony.
> >>
> >> Point taken, Ben. But that isn`t what I did, I read until I got the
> >> information I was looking for, Whaley referring to the jacket Oz was
> >> wearing.
>
>
> And clearly - looked the fool for having done so.
Why do you feel Whaley saying he saw two jackets trumps him saying
one?
> The internet even makes it incredibly *easy* to search for *ALL* occurances of
> the word "jacket" - even *that* simple step would have prevented you from
> looking the fool again.
I was foolish to accurately quote this witness?
> >> > Of course, advice is worth what Buddy pays for it...
> >>
> >> Heres some free advice... go to the personality store and buy
> >> yourself a personality.
>
>
> I already have one... it's sheer honesty.
>
> Serves me well...
>
>
> >>> >> > > The only interesting thing about the whole "one jacket/two jacket"
> >>> >> > > descrepancy is that when something like this appears in the evidence,
> >>> >> > > somehow the kooks always construe this as being helpful to Oz in same
> >> > >> > > way.
> >>
> >> > >> > And it furthers (thank you, Ben) my assertion that Whaley was highly
> >> > >> > suggestible.
> >>
> >> > >> Does it? How?
> >>
> >>> Buddy illustrates once again (as if another example were needed), the
> >>> extent to which LNT'ers must go in order to maintain their faith.
> >>
> >> Notice Ben dodges the question.
>
> Sorry... I can't explain simple English to someone who's either illiterate or a
> moron.
The answer to my simple question was not contained in your respone.
You assert this testimony establishes Whaley as being
"suggestible" (whatever that means to a kook). I asked the obvious
question, "How"? Instead of quoting the testimony that causes you to
form that opinion,.you go off on a tangent about faith, then lie, and
say you answered the question. Typical of your MO, you always duck
direct questions, and always claim you answered.
> Faith simply won't prevent you from looking like a fool when the actual evidence
> is presented.
I don`t have a "kook to English" dictionary. Since I don`t have a
kooky perspective, these kooky ideas that are plain to you are not
apparent to me. So, I ask you to point specifically to the portions of
this evidence from which you draw these conclusions, and you wax
poetic about "faith". It`s you that has faith that all these witnesses
were being untruthful whenever they gave information indicating Oz`s
guilt. You think these people were coerced to say things, yet you
can`t establish these claims that you just "know" occurred. You can`t
document one occurance of an official making a witness attest to any
information that witness knew to be untrue.
> >> It seems whatever spin these kooks
> >> put on things should be accepted at face value, as any questions about
> >> that spin remain unaddressed.
>
>
> Buddy must accept that Oswald was walking around with *two* jackets.
Again, Ben neglects to support why the viewpoint he declares must
be accepted. In fact, he merely changes the point, hoping I don`t
notice the ham-handed "look over here" misdirection. Ok, I`ll address
your strawman, since it is all you are offering. I don`t need to
accept any of Whaley`s clothing descriptions, I allow that Oz could be
wearing a jacket when a witness said he wasn`t, or was wearing a
jacket when a witness said he wasn`t. The first step to making a
realistic examination of the clothing evidence should be to determine
just how well people note and retain clothing details. Then, with that
general guideline in hand, you`d know if your expectations about the
accuracy of what these witnesses relate was realistic or not. Look at
other crimes, and do a study comparing what witnesses related,, and
how accurate the information they related actually was. Or, use the
kook favored method of assuming, even when it is clear that such
assuming is completely unrealistic. Look at Given`s clothing
description, then Baker`s, then Reid`s, then Mc Watter`s, then
Bledsoe`s, then Whaley`s, then Robert`s. Are we to assume that
whenever what one witness relates differs from the previous witness
who saw Oz, that Oz changed in the interim? Thats why I keep saying it
isn`t a case of knowing information, it`s being able to process it in
a reasonable manner, something you kooks keep demonstrating you cannot
do. Thats why you folks shouldn`t even be looking into this event,
it`s hard to imagine it being done more poorly.
> What
> happened to one of them, Buddy? We know where *two* jackets ended up - one that
> actually belonged to Oswald, and one that was too large for him. Where's that
> third jacket, Buddy?
I don`t assume it exists, thats kook-rules that only gospel comes
from the mouths of witnesses (unless that witness is saying they saw
Oz kill someone, of course). I would allow for the possibility that Oz
picked up a jacket at the Greyhound station before entering Whaley`s
cab, that would explain Bledsoe`s "no jacket", and Whaley`s "jacket".
Maybe he bought a jacket from a bum, or picked it up from an unlocked
locker at thebus terminal. I don`t know, maybe some, or all of the
witnesses are mistaken about the jacket. Obviously, the most unlikely
and unsupportable possibilities revolve around the authorities putting
the witnesses up to lying about the jacket(s). Since this is the most
fantasic and extraordinary possibility, it of course requires the most
support.
> >> > >> > He wanted to please.
> >>
> >> > >> Spin.
> >>
> >> > >> > And he didn't please the Powers
> >> > >> > That Were enuf in his original affidavit,
> >>
> >> > >> I suppose I can claim the powers that be were pleased with the
> >> > >> affidavit, since the stadard seems to be just saying it.
> >>
> >> > >> > so he added a few details
> >> > >> > about jackets & streets.
> >>
> >> > >> Yah, thats why they called him before the WC, to elaborate. If
> >> > >> they only wanted the information provided in the affidavit, they`d
> >> > >> need only read the affidavit.
> >>
> >> > >And O ends up wearing *2* jackets at the same time!! When witnesses
> >> > >at either end (McWatters & co./Roberts) say he was wearing *no*
> >> > >jacket! If they'd questioned him a little further, Whaley would have
> >> > >had O wearing Whaley's jacket.... The guy was crazy to pleaz, or try
> >> > >to pleaz, but he went too far, into absurdity....
> >> > >dw
> >>
> >> > I have two other favorites:
> >>
> >> > MR BELIN: "How many shots did you hear, if you remember?"
> >> > MR EDWARDS: "Well, I heard one more than was fired, I believe."
> >>
> >> Ben loves confused testimony, all kooks do. That way they think they
> >> can read anything they want to into it.
>
> What's confused about it? Edwards clearly asserts that he originally heard four
> shots -
Without saying the number "four", or "three".
> but has been convinced by the "investigation" that there must have only
> been three.
Without ever saying anything about anyone putting him up to saying
anything. Thanks for making my point that kooks like ambiguous
testimony, because they can read into it anything they like.
> Nothing "confused" about that at all. He just got a tad more honest on his
> testimony than Belin could have possibly liked.
Well, if you are going to make up a meaning for what Edwards said,
you may as well make up a reaction from Belin also.
> >>> Dr. Humes: Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been
> >>> fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind.
> >>
> >> Yah, either he misspoke, or it was mistranscribed, or some other
> >> reason, but Ben, being a kook, finds it significant.
>
>
> If he "misspoke", (or, for that matter, "mistranscribed"), then you should be
> able to demonstrate, by means of Dr. Humes' testimony, that he *DIDN'T* believe
> that both the entry and exit were on the rear of the skull.
I`m not wading into that medical morass.
> But you can't do that, can you?
Don`t know if I could or not. I know I don`t intend to try. For one
think, with me killfiled, I don`t know you if would see the result of
that effort.
> Rather dishonest to try to imply that his testimony isn't true if you have
> *ZERO* evidence that it was...
So, you think Humes mean to say that ther e was a rear shooter, the
bullet entered the rear of the head, and the bullet exitted the rear
of the head. Hard to imagine what caused all that damge up front.
> >>> But it's certainly amusing to hear an eyewitness assert that Oswald
> >>> was wearing *two* jackets.
> >>
> >> What is amusing is what kooks zero in on as significant. The muddle
> >> is what important, because from muddle kooks find clarity.
>
>
> Buddy simply throws out anything he doesn't like. And then refers to it as
> "insignificant".
It`s unverifiable.You have one person on the planet in the cab with
Oswald at the time. The kooks would have you believe that when there
is only one witness, everything that witness says must be accepted as
accurate (if this were true, and Jean Hill was the only witness to the
assassination, a dog would be thought to be in the limo).The same
applies to WB Frazier carrying the rifle into the TSBD. You have one
witness, you don`t have a concensus, you don`t have corroboration, you
have the assertions of one person, who had no reason to note anything
in particular about this fare. It`s the same kook game over and over,
pretending you can establish things as fact from witnesses
observations and recollections. There are impressions mixed in,
assumptions, composites formed from snippits remembered, all kinds of
things. The kooks just pretend that sand is concrete, so they can
takes leaps from this information in the direction they desire to go.
> Truly the faithful's way to deal with the evidence.
I look for a consensus, corroboration. Take the flooring crew on
the 6th floor. Shelley leaves, goes downstairs, says he see Oz. Says
this happens at 11:50. The flooring crew waits a little while, then
follows Shelley`s lead, and breaks for lunch. Givens goes to the first
floor, wanders around, goes to the bathroom, remebers he left his
cigarettes upstairs, goes up to retrieve them, sees Oz. Says this
happens at 11:50. Now, there is probably around 5 minutes betwen
Shelley`s "11:50", and Given`s "11:50" Which was closer, was one
right, both wrong? By how much? Time and time again, it can be shown
that what the witneses relate isn`t always accurate, yet the kooks
continue to pretend it is. Some of it is, but what parts? Why don`t
all the witnesses outside relate the same thing about the shots if
what they say is golden? I think, like with the Tippit shooting, you
get the gist of what occurred from the witnesses, Microanalyzing and
finding descrepancies isn`t significant, unless you can show other
crime cases where all the pieces of evidence fit perfectly and
seamlessly.
> >> > Buddy drops to moron status if he can't see anything wrong with that...
> >>
> >> I didn`t say I found nothing wrong with that.
>
> Good... I'd hate to think of you as merely another moron.
>
> Clown is a step up...
Where is "kook" in your scheme of thngs?
> >> It conflicts with
> >> what Whaley said earlier, mentioning only one jacket, and it should
> >> have been clarified.
>
> Bravo! There's an *amazing* amount of testimony that should have been
> "clarified"...
The testimony is fixed, and regardless of what was asked, someone
could come along and say "why didn`t they ask this?"
> and probably a great deal of it *was*, unfortunately, in the "off
> the record" exchanges we have no record of.
You can always assume you know what was said...
> >> I just see no reason why what the kooks deem the
> >> cause of this conflict to be accepted.
>
> Perhaps because the eyewitnesses were *there*?
Yah, saying they saw Oz shoot Tippit. Every identification of a
killer made in this case was of Oz.
> >> I notice my call for you two to
> >> back up this assertion went unanswered.
>
>
> Sorry... feeding the trolls is against my religion...
Lurkers notice these cowardly evasions. You had no problem making
the assertion, yet are incapable of supporting it.
> >> "It just is what we say it is,
> >> because we say it is" seems to be your answer, as if kook claims
> >> aren`t a dime a dozen here.
>
> Gutlessly yellow, you provide *NO* explanation for Whaley's testimony.
What is there to explain? Whaley was called to testify, that
explains his testimony. I explained to Don previously how "the witness
is giving information honesty, and to the best of his or her ability"
is the default approach to viewing testimony.
> Don's
> theory fits the facts to a tee.
Why then, when I asked "how?", that question went unanswered by
either of you?
> That you are unwilling to admit it,
You are unwilling to support it. Merely declaring it over and over
isn`t as compelling as you might think.
> illustrates
> that you have nothing better to do than to imagine Oswald wearing two jackets.
Kill that strawman, Ben. When you are done knocking the hay out of
it, perhaps you can support Don and your assertion that Whaley was
"suggestible".
> Tell us, Buddy... just where did that third jacket end up at?
Jean Hill`s dog ate it.
> >> Since you can`t establish that Whaley had
> >> any motivation to modify his testimony to please the WC, you do the
> >> next best thing, and just say it without support, as if that is just
> >> as good.
>
> Where's the third jacket, Buddy?
Where did the dog in the limo go, Ben? Using kook-rules, a witness
asserted it, so it must be accurate.
Now, why don`t you unkillfile me, so I can spank you without the
need for intermediates. I know you want to, thats why you keep saying
I`m not a total troll or moron, it kills you I`m trouncing you in
front of the lurkers.
Until Ben decides to "unplonk" me, I need to ask Walt, or dw, to
respond to this response, so Ben can read it. C`mon, help a nutter
out...
eca...@tx.rr.com
>
> > > A better name would be "Lets focus on what the police did after the
> > > murder instead of the actual murder itself."
>
> > > > Elsewhere, I've dealt with the story of the very problematic jacket
> > > > found in the parking lot behind a Texaco Station in Oak Cliff.
> > > > Witness Warren Reynolds told the Warren Commission that he last saw
> > > > the man who shot Officer Tippit heading towards the lot, & fellow
> > > > witnesses Robert Brock & Pat Patterson backed him up. But film
> > > > footage taken on the spot, 11/22/63, told a different tale: In it,
> > > > Reynolds is seen telling police officers that he last saw the suspect
> > > > going in the *opposite* direction, into the back of an old house on
> > > > Jefferson.
>
> > > Wow, a discrepancy, Oz must have been framed.
>
> > Definition of "discrepancy" here: A piece of witness testimony
> > involving as many as 5 other witnesses who also testify to the same
> > *false* information!
>
> In what meaningful way have you established that those five
> witnesses gave false information about the direction the shooter was
> headed?
>
> > Way to go, Bud!
>
> Thanks, but I really don`t need encouraging.
>
>
>
>
>
> > dw
>
> > > > Now, let's deal with this apparent duplicity-times-three from the
> > > > police end. What did the DPD officers involved tell the WC? What
> > > > brought Sgt Bud Owens, Asst DA Bill Alexander, & perhaps Capt WR
> > > > Westbrook from the Tippit crime scene to the area of the old house &
> > > > the Texaco Station?
> > > > Owens: We were informed by a man whom I do not know that the suspect
> > > > that shot Officer Tippit had run across a vacant lot toward Jefferson
> > > > & thrown down his jacket...." (v7p79)
> > > > Let's pick this up with Dale Myers' "With Malice", page 118:
> > > > "Upon learning that the gunman had dumped his jacket in a parking lot,
> > > > Sgt Owens & Alexander piled into Owens' car & left [the Tippit scene]
> > > > for the Texaco Station."
> > > > Ah! The spur: a jacket abandoned in a parking lot. Now, back to
> > > > Owens, on Jefferson, a block or so away:
> > > > "Then we started searching the buildings & houses--there are some two-
> > > > story houses there used as businesses." (v7p79)
>
> > > > To appreciate fully the pure non sequiturness of it all, let's strip
> > > > this to its bare essentials:
> > > > Upon learning that the gunman had dumped his jacket in a parking lot,
> > > > Owens & Alexander piled into Owens' car, traveled one block, & started
> > > > searching buildings & houses....
> > > > For his part, Westbrook testified that he left Dealey & "drove to the
> > > > immediate vicinity of where Officer Tippit had been shot" ("the body
> > > > was already gone") [v7p111]. He, too, could only say that "there is
> > > > an old house there"--when he got to the Jefferson & Crawford
> > > > area--"and some of the officers were looking it over. They had seen
> > > > somebody go in it... so I didn't pay any further attention to it.... I
> > > > just hesitated a moment & then I walked on." (v7p116, 117)
>
> > > > Again, pure nonsense: No officer was there to see any suspect go
> > > > anywhere.
>
> > > > Where is Reynolds in all this? Sgt Gerald Hill gets a little closer
> > > > to reality:
> > > > I met Owens in front of 2 large vacant houses on the north side of
> > > > Jefferson that are used for the storage of 2ndhand furniture. By
> > > > then, Owens had information also that SOME CITIZEN had seen the man
> > > > running towards these houses." (v7p48)
>
> > > Wow, this is so suspicious. In a residential area, people are
> > > coming forward to offer the police tips. "What is the identity of
> > > these people" cry the kooks, who deem any information missing or foggy
> > > to be suspicious. The cops should stop their searching, and take down
> > > the name of the person giving the tip, and the time, so these things
> > > can perfectly reconstructed later, to the satisfaction of idiots.
>
> > The info wasn't *missing*, it was just withheld from the Commission;
> > in its place: misinformation from 6 witnesses! I guess some idiots
> > are satisfied with that....
>
> You use one witness to trump six. Typical kook thinking. If 9
> people say the gunman was righthanded, and one says left handed, latch
> onto the one that says left. Or, better yet, claim it shows there were
> two different shooters.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Hill had no name, but at least he seems situated on terra firma. Dale
> > > > Myers fits in the second-to-last piece of the puzzle (p120):
> > > > Warren Reynolds, who had come with [Owens & Alexander] from 10th &
> > > > Patton, pointed to an old house near the Texaco Station & told Owens
> > > > that he believed the gunman had gone into the back of it. (WFAA-TV
> > > > footage)
> > > > But Myers can't quite go that one step further & state the now-pretty-
> > > > obvious: The man who sent Owens, Alexander, & apparently Westbrook on
> > > > their mission from 10th & Patton to the area of the old houses & the
> > > > service station was... Reynolds.
>
> > > > Will it be any surprise to anyone that Owens' man whom he did not
> > > > know, who threw down his jacket, disappeared? (WM p118) This same
> > > > invisible man ("another person") appeared (so to speak) to Hill, also
> > > > at the Tippit scene, & said he'd seen the suspect take off his jacket
> > > > in a parking lot. (v7p48) But, of course, this man was not invisible--
> > > > he was Warren Reynolds, but he had nothing to do with jackets, or
> > > > shirts, or sweaters. Tellingly, neither Owens nor Hill followed up on
> > > > the supposed jacket lead. But they both followed up on the old-house
> > > > lead (v7p79 for Owens, v7p48 for Hill). Meanwhile, Myers would have
> > > > us believe that Reynolds ran back to the Tippit scene, cooled his
> > > > heels for a few minutes, quietly & patiently waiting until he & Owens
> > > > & Alexander got to the site of the houses before he finally unburdened
> > > > himself of the fact that he saw the gunman go into the back of one of
> > > > them. It's now almost blindingly obvious that Reynolds talked to
> > > > Owens & Hill at the Tippit scene--he didn't go there for nothing--and
> > > > that no one there told Owens or Hill that he'd seen someone throw down
> > > > a jacket. The latter was simply found in the general search of the
> > > > area. (WM pp121-22) It was clearly Reynolds' prompting--and only his
> > > > prompting--at the Tippit scene, that got Owens & Westbrook to the old
> > > > houses.
>
> > > > And if it seems strange that the police witnesses at the hearings
> > > > would even mention the old house...--they had to: It was on the
> > > > police airwaves that afternoon: "We are shaking down these old
> > > > houses...."--Owens, c1:33.
>
> > > > The final kicker: Westbrook testified that "officers" saw someone
> > > > going into the old house. But on page 121 of "With Malice", Westbrook
> > > > is seen, in a frame from the TV film, questioning... Warren Reynolds!
>
> > > > In all, then, it took some six witnesses to wean Reynolds away from
> > > > the old house: Brock, Patterson, Owens, Hill, Westbrook, and Reynolds
> > > > himself. Six witnesses to cover up the fact that the jacket was
> > > > planted.
>
> > > <snicker> That jacket was found before Tippits body was cold. That
> > > is some foresight on the part of the conspirators, to have a zipper
> > > jacket ready to plant there.
>
> > Are you saying that conspirators wouldn't do any *advance* planning??
> > Huh??
>
> It`s a flimsy and feeble effort you are making to support an
> incredible, astounding possibility. The only rational approach is to
> assume that the witnesses are as they seem, ordinary citizens coming
> forward to tell what they saw, and the Dallas police are just
> responding to a fellow oficer being shot. The record of their actions
> is likely imperfect, because noting details isn`t high priority at a
> time like this. They don`t need to perfectly document who told them
> what, or the details of how a piece of evidence is found, because a
> lawyer who attempted to nullify evidence like you are by suggesting it
> was held by someone prior to Tippit`s slaying for the purpose of
> planting would be laughed out of the courtroom, although some kooks
> think these scenarios play well in newsgroups.
>
> > > > Six witnesses to cover up just one corner of the
> > > > conspiracy....
>
> > > Six more to add to the vast of thousands of people working to make
> > > Oz appear guilty. Even the Dallas police, who had a fellow officer go
> > > down, wanted the guilty party of that murder to go free, and an
> > > innocent man charged (In fact, with the swiftness they were on board
> > > in this framing, they must have been coached beforehand). Astounding
> > > speculation constructed from next to nothing.
>
> > A resident of Dallas at that time, who used to post here or on
> > alt.assassination.jfk, said the cops there were quite uneasy with,
> > quiet about, spooked--something to that effect--the investigation of
> > Tippit's murder for some years. Some of them perhaps knew that
> > Tippit's killer got away with it.
>
> Perhaps it was because Tippit`s ghost used to appear regularly at
> the stationhouse, rattle his chains, and moan "You motherfuckers
> couldn`t shoot that prick in the theater when you had a chance?"
>
>
>
> > > > c2007 dw- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Another solid 5 Star post Bud!
MR ;~D
eca...@tx.rr.com
> On 2 Mar, 00:51, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>> "God! alt.conspiracy.jfk is great! You can say anything you want! I trust Vinny won't be quite as crass.... I also trust he'll look at opposing arguments somewhat more closely." <<<
>
> > You mean looking more closely at your crap about how the Davis ladies
> > saw Ted Callaway running from the Tippit murder scene instead of your
> > hero LHO?
>
> > Is that the type of "opposing argument" that "Vinny" is supposed to
> > actually take seriously (and use up paper on in his book)?
>
> > Surely you jest, my good man. (Surely?)
>
> > BTW....Answer the questions -- Was Callaway dumping shells from
> > Tippit's gun as he passed the Davis house? And did Callaway resemble
> > Lee Harvey Oswald?
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1e2929be83607513
>
> > "Just forty-five minutes after the assassination....out of the five
> > hundred thousand or so people in Dallas....Lee Harvey Oswald is the
> > one out of those five hundred thousand people who just happens to
> > murder Officer J.D. Tippit.
>
> > "Oswald's responsibility for President Kennedy's assassination
> > explains....EXPLAINS....why he was driven to murder Officer Tippit.
> > The murder bore the signature of a man in desperate flight from some
> > awful deed. What other reason under the moon would he have had to kill
> > Officer Tippit? ....
>
> I agree that the act of killing Tippit was the act of a desperate
> man......But it's a quantum leap of logic to ASSUME that Oswald was
> the killer. Unfortunately the authorities were also desperate
> men.....trying to cover up an role the played in JFK's death. Some
> cops covered up the facts because they thought they were going to be
> seen as incompetent, and indifferent in the murder of JFK. these were
> the lower ranking officers on the DPD. Others covered up because they
> had foreknowledge of the murder and were part of the conspiracy, these
> were the higher ranking officers and city officials.
> Since the cops covered up the facts .....we are left with the mess
> that's apparent in the debates in the NG.
> The problem is the LNer's consider themselves elite and superior, and
> are so arrogant and egotistical that they are blind to the
> conspiracy. They steadfastly refuse to accept any FACT that flys in
> the face of what they "KNOW".
>
> Walt
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Let's get into the mechanics .... Who was this other gunman who, on
> > the day of the assassination, made his way into the Book Depository
> > Building, carrying a rifle....went up to the sixth floor....shot and
> > killed the President....made his way back down to the first
> > floor....and escaped without leaving a trace?
>
> > "How, in fact, if Oswald were innocent, did they GET Oswald, within
> > forty-five minutes of the assassination, to murder Officer Tippit? Or
> > was he framed for THAT murder too?!" -- Vincent Bugliosi- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
WALT ON:--------------
"The problem is the LNer's consider themselves elite and superior,
and
are so arrogant and egotistical that they are blind to the
conspiracy. They steadfastly refuse to accept any FACT that flys in
the face of what they "KNOW".
WALT OFF--------------
Okay Walt, how do you "KNOW"
Kennedy's neck wound was an
entry wound?
America wants to KNOW how you
get home from work Walt..
MR >;~{ ED
Walt
Neck wound??? I believe you're trying to be clever.... I'd call it a
THROAT wound, that's a more precise way of describing the LOCATION of
the wound. ALL of the doctors at Parkland referred to the tiny bullet
ENTRY wound as being in the THROAT at near midline, just below the
adams apple.
I know it was a bullet entry wound because ALL of the Parkland doctors
who actually saw the wound said it was a bullet entry wound......
AND .....it's the most logical assessment of the wound. Arlen "the
spook" Spector attempted to rewrite the laws of physics, and say it
was an exit wound made by a bullet that struck JFK in the back.
Nobody but a imbecile would believe that the throat wound was an EXIT
wound ..... for a number of commonsense and logical reasons.
A) The trajectory from a bullet fired from 60 feet above would have
been traveling at a down angle. The back wound was too low to exit at
JFK's throat. A bullet traveling at a down angle from 60 feet up
would have exited about 6 inches down fromJFK's adams apple.
B) An exit wound is ALWAYS larger than the entry wound of the
bullet. The back wound measured 4 X 7mm , and the throat wound was
approximately 3 to 5 mm in diameter.
C) The entry wound in JFK's throat looked as if it had been made by a
paper punch...ie; a tiny little round hole with clearly defined
edges. An exit wound is not neat and round it usually has somewhat
ragged edges.
You see Ed.... Simple as A,B,C,....
Walt
> get home from work Walt..
> MR >;~{ ED- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
Bullshit. Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in a brown shirt, without a
SHRED of a doubt.
WC testimony......
MR. BELIN -- "By the way, what is the suspect wearing? You mentioned a
T-shirt in the picture. Do you remember what else he had on?"
GERALD HILL -- "He had on a dark--I don't recall it being a solid
brown--shirt, but it was a dark-brownish-looking sports shirt, and
dark trousers. This I specifically remember."
MR. BELIN -- "Any jacket?"
MR. HILL -- "No, sir; he didn't have a jacket on at this time."
~~~~~~
MR. BELIN -- "Do you remember what clothes he had on?"
C.T. WALKER -- "He had on a white T -shirt under a brown shirt, and a
pair of black pants."
~~~~~~
Were both Hill and Walker telling lies re. the "brown" shirt that LHO
was arrested in? Did they both think that GRAY was BROWN?
And those are just the first two examples of DPD officers' testimony I
checked in this "shirt color" regard. There are probably more.
Also -- Here are the words from two more witnesses re. Oswald's shirt
color at the time of his arrest:
"He had on this brown sports shirt." -- Julia Postal
~~~~~~
"This man was wearing a brown sport shirt." -- Johnny Brewer
(affidavit)
"He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out." -- Johnny
Brewer (to WC)
~~~~~~
Did Oswald enter the theater wearing a BROWN shirt (per Postal and
Brewer), and then change into a GRAY one just minutes later? (But even
that silly assertion wouldn't explain away Hill's and Walker's "brown
shirt" testimony that I just mentioned above.)
And, of course, we have these photos of Oswald taken on November 22,
very shortly after his arrest (do you think these B&W images show LHO
in a GRAY shirt here?)......
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/LHO/oswald09.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/JFK/oswald3.jpg
Walt The Super-Kook has struck again.....he's turned the evidence on
its head to satisfy his endless thirst for "conspiracy" -- ANY
conspiracy. Even a "shirt" plot of some kind, where all the cops and
regular citizens like Julia Postal and Johnny Brewer (for some reason)
said "brown", but the shirt (per Walt-Kook) was really "gray".
Go figure kooks.
luthie...@yahoo.com
Walt
> >>> "The shirt that Lee Oswald was wearing AT THE TIME of his arrest was GRAY." <<<
>
> Bullshit. Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in a brown shirt, without a
> SHRED of a doubt.
Use your own eyes.....LOOK at page 154 of The Search for Lee Harvey
Oswald. The photo shows the cops are pulling on Oswald's shirt and
they have pulled it up above his trousers so that his bare belly is
exposed. His trousers appear to be almost the same color as the cops
dark blue uniform, his white Tee shirt is visible, beneath his GRAY
shirt. The flesh tone of the people in the photo are right, Blackie
Harrison's cigar is brown...... In short the colors are correct in the
photo. I know that you will attempt to say the colors are not right in
the photo, and that's why the shirt appears to be gray, but I've
already pointed out the colors are correct.
Walt
Walt
>
> Bullshit. Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in a brown shirt, without a
> SHRED of a doubt.
Damn, I love makin you jump up and down, and froth at the mouth, when
I post a FACT that you can't HONESTLY refute.
I invite anybody reading this post to find a copy of the book The
Search for Lee Harvey Oswald and look on page 154 to see with your
eyes the color of the shirt that Lee was wearing as they put him in
the police car.
Walt
David Von Pein
Either that or gobs of "brown shirt" witnesses are ALL color blind
(and are all color blind so that "GRAY = BROWN").
Weird shit, huh?
(Or maybe just Walt is a kook. Not a tough call there, huh?)
David Von Pein
body is visible at all)? I can't even discern any of Oswald's shirt
(specifically) in this photo. Very hard to see. Of course, the color
version could be clearer and sharper I suppose.
http://www.jfk-fr.com/images/jfk/2.jpg
However, it's occurred to me just this second that if a COLOR version
of this photo is in a GRODEN-authored book (right?), it just might be
an artificially-"colorized" photo done by Groden HIMSELF.
Groden has "colorized" other B&W-only pics, including (I believe) the
Altgens photo.
If that's the case....your "gray shirt" argument is shot to hell.
Groden could just paint in any color he wants.
Your argument is crap anyway, given the mounds of witnesses who
confirm Oswald was arrested in BROWN, not gray.
dcwi...@netscape.net
Don't look at the photo of O's arrest shirt on page 408 of "With
Malice". Yes, it looks maybe purple-reddish. But then look at O's
hair on p394--it looks purply too. A picture isn't always worth a
thousand words....
dw
David Von Pein
Exactly.
Maybe we'd better tell Walt that.