Re: ANOTHER POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THE "WALLET MYSTERY" ON TENTH STREET
David Von Pein
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/reiland-film-november-22-1963.html
WFAA-TV cameraman Ron Reiland took some film footage of a wallet being
examined by police officers on 10th Street in Oak Cliff shortly after
the murder of Patrolman J.D. Tippit. Many conspiracy theorists over
the years have insisted that the wallet seen in Reiland's film must
have been Lee Harvey Oswald's. (The entire Reiland film is linked
above.)
I, however, have written multiple posts in the past stating my firm
belief that the wallet in Reiland's film belonged to the slain police
officer, Tippit. And, in fact, Reiland himself said that the wallet
was Tippit's when he narrated his film very shortly after the film was
developed and broadcast on the air at WFAA-TV.
But, of course, a grain of salt must be placed beside Reiland's
comment about the wallet being Tippit's, since Reiland also said that
the gun which can be seen in the hands of Sergeant Bud Owens of the
Dallas Police Department in Reiland's film was the gun that was used
to kill Officer Tippit, which we know is not correct. The revolver
seen in Reiland's film is Tippit's own service revolver.
But here's a theory regarding the "mystery wallet" that I think makes
quite a bit of sense:
I think it's possible (but far from "provable", I will readily admit)
that the wallet that can be seen in Ron Reiland's WFAA-TV footage
belonged to eyewitness Ted Callaway.
In my opinion, the Dallas police would have had every reason to want
to check out Callaway's identification (and hence, look inside his
wallet), due to the fact that it was Callaway who had taken Tippit's
gun and went to hunt for Tippit's killer in William Scoggins' cab. And
at that time, there was just one police officer at the scene of the
crime, Kenneth Croy, who later told the Warren Commission that he
thought Callaway was a "private detective".
If I had been a police officer at the scene of Tippit's murder, and a
man had just returned to that scene carrying the murdered policeman's
gun, I think I might want to ask "Who the heck are you? And why did
you take it upon yourself to take the dead officer's revolver and
search for the killer, instead of letting the police handle this
matter?"
I don't think that asking to see Callaway's identification (and hence,
his wallet) would have been out of line at all, considering the
circumstances regarding Callaway running off with Tippit's revolver on
11/22/63.
We know from the available evidence that Ted Callaway returned to the
scene of the murder after searching for Tippit's killer for a brief
period of time. And we also know that he turned over Tippit's revolver
to police officer Kenneth Croy.
Croy, at some point shortly thereafter, then gave the revolver to
Sergeant Bud Owens, who was then photographed holding the gun in his
left hand by WFAA cameraman Ron Reiland. [CD735; Page 263; An FBI
interview of Ted Callaway, dated 2/26/64, linked below]
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11133&relPageId=271
Croy also said this during his Warren Commission testimony:
"There was a report that a cab driver had picked up Tippit's gun
and had left, presumably. They don't know whether he was the one that
had shot Tippit, or whether the man, I think it was he, brought
someone out there, something. Anyway, he saw it and he picked up
Tippit's gun and attempted to give chase or something like that. ....
He brought the taxi driver back to the scene. .... I took Tippit's gun
and several other officers came up, and I turned him over to them and
they questioned him."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/croy.htm
Croy, who was somewhat confused about who had actually picked up
Tippit's gun, was obviously talking about Ted Callaway in his above
testimony. And it was obviously Callaway (not the "taxi driver",
William Scoggins) whom Croy had "turned over" to the "other officers"
for questioning.
My contention is that after Croy had retrieved Tippit's revolver from
Callaway and had "turned over" Callaway to the other policemen at the
scene (one of which was Bud Owens), it's quite possible that Owens
then asked Callaway for more information and also asked him to produce
some identification.
Therefore, it makes perfect sense that Ron Reiland could have filmed
Sergeant Owens holding both Tippit's revolver (after having just
received it from Croy) and Ted Callaway's wallet.
Quoting from Dale Myers' 1998 book:
"The opening sequence [of Ron Reiland's film] shows police
gathered around Tippit's squad car questioning eyewitness Helen
Markham. The officers depicted include Patrolman Joe M. Poe and
Leonard E. Jez, Reserve Sergeant Kenneth Croy, and Sergeant Calvin
"Bud" Owens.
"Within seconds, crime scene search Officer W.E. "Pete" Barnes
and Detective Paul Bentley arrive at the scene. The arrival of Barnes
and Bentley pins the time frame of these sequences to 1:42 p.m.--about
eight minutes before Oswald's arrest at the Texas Theater." -- Page
292 of "With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald And The Murder Of Officer J.D.
Tippit"
===========================
Vincent Bugliosi wrote this in his 2007 book:
"No one other than [FBI agent Robert M.] Barrett ever mentioned
Oswald’s wallet, or any wallet, being found at the Tippit murder
scene. The only item mentioned by anyone as being found near Tippit’s
body was his service revolver. Indeed, every civilian and police
witness whom [Dale] Myers questioned said they saw no wallet at the
murder scene. For instance, Ted Callaway said, “I’ll tell you one
thing, there was no billfold at that scene. If there was, there would
have been too many people who would have seen it” (Myers, 'With
Malice', p.300)." -- Page 453 of "Reclaiming History: The
Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (Endnotes)
Now, granted, the "no billfold at that scene" quote from the lips of
Ted Callaway could conceivably throw a monkey wrench into my theory
about the wallet possibly being Callaway's, because since Callaway
said those words to "With Malice" author Dale K. Myers in an interview
on April 9, 1996, the argument could be made that Callaway's memory
would certainly have been refreshed and revitalized concerning the
issue of wallets and/or "billfold[s]" being on display at the scene of
Officer Tippit's murder. And, therefore, Callaway would probably have
remembered handing his own wallet over to Sergeant Owens on Tenth
Street.
But, then too, Callaway's comment to Myers in 1996 about there being
"no billfold" found on the ground at the Tippit murder scene is really
not inconsistent with my theory about the wallet possibly belonging to
Callaway himself. After all, Callaway was talking to Myers about a
billfold/wallet being found on the ground AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME.
Obviously, the theory about the wallet possibly being Callaway's is
far from conclusive. The "wallet mystery" remains a mystery, and
probably will never be completely resolved. I merely wanted to add one
additional possibility to the list of theories regarding this wallet
issue.
The theory about the wallet being Callaway's is even mentioned in Dale
Myers' book:
"The suggestion is that Callaway's free use of Tippit's revolver
might have sparked police to check his identification upon his return
to the murder scene. Yet, Callaway says it never happened.
"[In a 1996 interview, Callaway said this:] "When I got out of
the cab, I didn't hesitate a bit like a lot of guys would. I walked
straight to this plainclothes officer [wearing hat and glasses] and I
said, 'Here's the officer's pistol.' He said, 'Okay, thank you very
much.' After that I walked right back to the lot [the nearby used-car
lot on Jefferson Boulevard where Callaway was employed]." -- Page 303
of "With Malice"
However, the above comments made by Ted Callaway in 1996 conflict with
the testimony of Kenneth Croy of the DPD, who said: "I took Tippit's
gun and several other officers came up, and I turned him over to them
and they questioned him."
In the final analysis, like Vincent Bugliosi, I think the most likely
answer is that the wallet being examined by the Dallas police on 10th
Street belonged to J.D. Tippit. But after thinking about this wallet
topic more and more in the last couple of days, I think the theory
about Callaway makes a great deal of sense as well.
===========================
WALLET ADDENDUM:
Here are some more excerpts from Mr. Bugliosi's book concerning this
topic:
"One thing we can be reasonably certain about: the wallet was
not Oswald’s. Myers closely compared a close-up photo of Oswald’s
arrest wallet with the wallet found at the murder scene and found
definite physical differences, causing him to conclude that “the
Oswald arrest wallet is not the same billfold seen in the WFAA
newsfilm” (Myers, 'With Malice', pp.298–299).
"Furthermore, a Dallas police officer had just been slain. It is
inconceivable that members of the Dallas Police Department like
Captains Westbrook and Doughty and Sergeant Hill would suppress and
keep secret the fact that Tippit’s killer had left his calling card at
the murder scene. That simply would not, could not, have happened.
"If Oswald’s wallet had been found at the murder scene, it is
inconceivable that nowhere in the testimony or the reports of
Westbrook, Hill, Doughty, Poe, and so on, would they bother to mention
this extremely important fact. ....
"If I had to wager, I’d conclude it was Tippit’s wallet, and the
reason Reiland stated, on WFAA film, that it was Tippit’s wallet is
that the police had informed him at the scene that it was. Quite apart
from Barrett, it makes no sense to me that the Dallas police and
detectives, several of whom were Tippit’s friends, would keep from the
world that his killer’s wallet was found near his body." -- Vincent
Bugliosi; Pages 454 and 456 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)(c.2007)
http://www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
http://www.With--Malice.blogspot.com
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/bd65cc09df14d39e
>>> "I find myself in basic agreement with DVP here--that is, the witness who picked up Tippit's gun was also the one who turned over his wallet to the police. However, I believe that this witness was WW Scoggins, not Callaway." <<<
The above comment by Donald Willis is total nonsense. And just one
quick glance at William W. Scoggins' Warren Commission testimony
confirms that it's nonsense. Let's take that quick glance now:
WILLIAM SCOGGINS -- "We cruised around several blocks looking for him
[J.D. Tippit's killer], and...one of these police cars came by and
this fellow who was with me stopped it, and we got back in the car and
went back up to the scene, and he give [sic] them the pistol, and that
time is when I found out he [Ted Callaway] wasn't an officer."
Replay:
"And he [Ted Callaway] give them the pistol." -- W.W. Scoggins
>>> "At one point in his testimony, Scoggins [says] that he left the scene in a police car, apparently to look for the killer. That would lend credence to Croy's belief that it was indeed the cab driver who was reported to have left the scene with Tippit's gun. Croy was not confused." <<<
Please point out the part of Scoggins' testimony where he says he got
into a "police car" to go hunt for Tippit's slayer. Why on Earth would
Scoggins tell the WC anything like that anyway?
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/bd65cc09df14d39e
>>> "Your theory about the wallet belonging to Ted Callaway or William Scoggins makes more sense than it being Oswald's or Tippit's. If it had been Oswald's, there is no way that no one else would have remembered such an incriminating find. If it had been Tippit's, as soon as they knew it was his, they would have respected the privacy of their fallen fellow officer and let it be, and not treated it as a curiosity to be browsed through on camera." <<<
I don't think that last sentence is necessarily true. The policemen
holding the wallet might not have even realized that Ron Reiland was
filming their activity at that precise moment in time. (The camera
does appear to be pretty close to the wallet, however. But maybe
that's misleading. Perhaps Reiland had the camera in "full zoom" mode
for that shot.)
Or: the police might have been too busy at the scene of the crime to
pay much attention to Reiland and his TV camera.
Plus, I don't think that merely filming the dead policeman's wallet is
to be considered any kind of severe "invasion of privacy". It's not
like Reiland had the camera focusing on distinct pictures of Tippit's
family or something like that.
Anyway, I still think it was probably J.D. Tippit's wallet. But my #2
guess is certainly Callaway, despite Callaway telling Dale Myers in
1996 that he never talked to the police at all after returning to the
crime scene. Callaway, however, didn't specifically say this to Myers
in '96: "I did not show anybody my wallet that day on Tenth Street."
And we know that Callaway definitely did talk to at least one
policeman after he returned with Tippit's gun. He talked briefly with
Ken Croy when he gave Croy Tippit's revolver.
BTW/FYI -- I never theorized about the wallet belonging to cab driver
William Scoggins in my previous posts. That was Don Willis who said
that.
IMO, it would be much more likely that it was Callaway's wallet (vs.
it belonging to another eyewitness at the scene, such as Scoggins).
Similar to Callaway, Scoggins also maintained that he didn't talk to
any policemen at the scene after he and Callaway returned to Tenth
Street.
David Von Pein
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/reiland-film-november-22-1963.html
MORE WALLET TALK:
Repeating an important quote by Vince Bugliosi regarding this topic of
the mystery surrounding the wallet on Tenth Street:
"One thing we can be reasonably certain about: the wallet was
not Oswald’s. .... Furthermore, a Dallas police officer had just been
slain. It is inconceivable that members of the Dallas Police
Department like Captains Westbrook and Doughty and Sergeant Hill would
suppress and keep secret the fact that Tippit’s killer had left his
calling card at the murder scene. That simply would not, could not,
have happened. If Oswald’s wallet had been found at the murder scene,
it is inconceivable that nowhere in the testimony or the reports of
Westbrook, Hill, Doughty, Poe, and so on, would they bother to mention
this extremely important fact." -- Vincent Bugliosi
I couldn't agree more with the above words spoken by Mr. Bugliosi in
his book, "Reclaiming History".
Along those same lines, here's something else to consider:
There are many conspiracy theorists who think that the wallet seen in
Ron Reiland's WFAA-TV film footage was "planted" on Tenth Street by
evil conspirators in order to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for Officer J.D.
Tippit's murder.
One such conspiracy theorist is James DiEugenio, who was talking about
Oswald's alleged "three wallets" during his appearance on the "Black
Op Radio" program that first aired on December 24, 2009 (linked
below).
http://www.BlackOpRadio.com/black454b.ram
http://www.BlackOpRadio.com/black454c.ram
But do people like Jim DiEugenio actually want to believe that the
Dallas Police Department, after having found a wallet on 10th Street
that some conspiracists think was planted there by either the DPD or
somebody else, would have NOT SAID A WORD about finding Oswald's
wallet in any of their police reports?
And keep in mind that the Dallas Police Department is an organization
that DiEugenio and other conspiracy theorists certainly think was
trying to railroad and frame an innocent Lee Oswald for Tippit's
murder!
And yet the DPD says absolutely NOTHING in any of their official
reports about finding a wallet near Tippit's body that belonged to the
person the DPD later arrested and charged with the murder of Tippit??
That's just nuts, folks!
If the cops (or whoever) had actually planted the wallet on Tenth
Street to incriminate Lee Oswald, then the DPD would certainly have
been propping up that wallet for everybody to see!
The fact that NO POLICE REPORT mentions anything about a wallet being
found near Tippit's body is, all by itself, proof that the wallet that
is seen in Ron Reiland's TV film is not Lee Harvey Oswald's wallet.
And even conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio (who thinks the DPD
was up to its collective necks in conspiracy and plotting and planting
evidence all over Dallas on 11/22/63) should realize the built-in
common sense and truth that exists in the last sentence I just wrote
above.
BTW, one of those "three" Oswald wallets that DiEugenio was talking
about is a wallet that Oswald was known to keep his "savings" in (vs.
his regular wallet that he carried with him every day). That fact is
proven via Marina Oswald's Warren Commission testimony below:
MARINA OSWALD -- "In my room at Ruth Paine's there was a black wallet
in a wardrobe. Whenever Lee would come he would put money in there,
but I never counted it." [1 H 69]
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh1/html/WC_Vol1_0041a.htm
In addition to the above Warren Commission testimony, the "spare
wallet" fact is confirmed in another official document as well -- a
November 28, 1963, FBI interview with Marina Oswald (which is part of
CE1781):
"She [Marina] said [Lee] OSWALD had a wallet which he kept in
the apartment in New Orleans with this money that he was
saving." [CE1781; at 23 H 387]
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0210a.htm
And since we know beyond all reasonable doubt that the wallet seen in
Ron Reiland's film is not Oswald's wallet, the final tally of wallets
known to be owned by Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63 is two -- his
regular wallet that he carried with him (which was removed from
Oswald's pocket by police immediately after his arrest), plus the
wallet that he used to store larger sums of cash.
BTW #2, Mr. DiEugenio seems to be travelling deeper and deeper into
the "outer fringe" areas in his conspiracy beliefs concerning the JFK
case. Every time I hear him speak these days, it seems as though he's
latched on to another crazy conspiracy theory that has already been
debunked long ago.
I wouldn't be surprised to find DiEugenio soon announcing that he is
endorsing the insane theories of Douglas "Two Brains" Horne.
David Von Pein
I've noticed some possible inconsistencies regarding a couple of
things Ted Callaway told "With Malice" author Dale K. Myers during
Myers' April 9, 1996, interview with Callaway.
On page 303 of "With Malice", Myers quotes Callaway as saying this:
"When I got out of the cab, I didn't hesitate a bit like a lot
of guys would. I walked straight to this plainclothes officer [wearing
hat and glasses] and I said, 'Here's the officer's pistol.' He said,
'Okay, thank you very much.' After that I walked right back to the
[car] lot."
Right after the above quote on page 303, Dale Myers said this:
"[William] Scoggins later testified that he didn't talk to
police either, after returning to the scene [of J.D. Tippit's
murder]."
But on page 256, we find this quote from Callaway (during the same
lengthy interview with Myers on 4/9/96):
"When I saw him jump through that hedge, he had his pistol in a
raised position and his left hand going to the pistol. My sidearm was
a .45, when I was in the Marine Corps. And I used that same motion
before in pushing a loaded magazine up to the handle of a .45. ....
And so, when they asked me what kind of gun that he had I told them it
was an automatic; on account of that motion."
So, unless I'm missing something here, it sure would appear that Ted
Callaway definitely did talk with the police almost immediately after
Callaway returned to the J.D. Tippit murder scene on Tenth Street on
11/22/63 (after Callaway and cab driver William Scoggins abandoned
their brief search for Tippit's killer in Scoggins' taxicab).
Because if Callaway didn't talk to any police officers after he
returned to the murder scene (as is indicated in the first quotes
above by Callaway and then Myers), then exactly WHEN did the police
ask Callaway the question concerning the type of gun that Tippit's
killer was carrying?
If Callaway, as author Dale Myers believes, was the source of the 1:37
PM police radio report put out by Patrolman Howell W. Summers (re: an
"automatic pistol" being the gun involved in the shooting of Officer
Tippit), I believe that has to mean that Callaway was talking to
officers very shortly before 1:37 PM (CST) on November 22nd.
The only other alternative would be that Callaway had told a policeman
(probably Howell Summers) about an "automatic" being used in Tippit's
murder BEFORE Callaway had left the scene of the crime with Tippit's
service revolver in hand.
The above scenario is possible, as indicated by author Dale Myers in
his book (in Endnote #326, quoted below):
"[DPD Officer Howell W.] Summers stated [in an interview with
Dale Myers on March 28, 1983] that when he arrived at the shooting
scene Tippit was still in the street, and the ambulance pulled up
about a minute and a half later. Although Summers believed he was the
first officer to arrive, it is doubtful that his recollection is
accurate. All of the witnesses agree that the ambulance arrived BEFORE
the first police officer. Ambulance attendants Butler and Kinsley
confirm this fact. .... Apparently, Summers was the first officer to
arrive at the scene in A MARKED CAR. Reserve Sergeant Kenneth Croy
arrived about a minute before Summers, driving his own vehicle." --
Dale K. Myers; Page 611 of "With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald And The
Murder Of Officer J.D. Tippit" (c.1998)
http://www.With--Malice.blogspot.com
However, I think it's quite unlikely that Callaway gave the police any
information about an "automatic" pistol BEFORE Callaway left the scene
to go and look for Tippit's assailant.
Because if that had happened, I'd have to wonder why Summers would
have waited approximately 15 to 20 minutes to broadcast his report
concerning the "automatic" over the DPD radio, which, as mentioned, is
a radio broadcast that didn't occur until 1:37 PM?
And, more importantly, if Callaway had seen and talked to a uniformed
police officer at the crime scene just after Tippit was loaded into
the ambulance, I find it impossible to believe that Callaway would
then have seen fit to snatch Tippit's gun and go chasing after the
killer in Scoggins' cab. Nor would Callaway have been permitted to do
such a thing if any DPD officers had been right there with Callaway at
that time.
I'm not sure what the end result of all this might be. The record is
certainly a bit muddled with respect to the precise timing of certain
things. But I thought I'd point out a possible inconsistency in
Callaway's 1996 remarks to Dale Myers.
But if, in fact, Mr. Callaway was a bit confused when talking to Myers
in '96 about the exact timing of his actions on 11/22/63, I'm
wondering if it's just possible that Callaway could have also
forgotten about giving his wallet to the police after he returned to
10th Street that day (as discussed in the post linked below).
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b7c60b07f22e6f04
In the final analysis, this post certainly doesn't PROVE anything. But
I think it just might demonstrate that the memory of even a very good
witness like Ted Callaway isn't completely infallible 33 years later.
Of course, that last sentence isn't exactly the revelation of the ages
either, is it? ;)
Walt
> 32 dark-finish automatic pistol" being the gun involved in the
> certainly a bit muddled with respect to the precise timing of certain
> things.
Von Pea Brain admitted;....'The record is certainly a bit muddled with
respect to the precise timing of certain things. "
You're just now recognizing tha FACT that the chronology of events
don't make sense when you use the DPD's chronology?? You're a little
slow aren't you?
If you use the testimonies and affidavit of the witnesses you won't be
quite so confused.....
A few minutes after 1:00---- Sam Ginyard heard the gunshots
A few minutes after 1:00 --- Ted calloway heard the gunshots
A few minutes after 1:00 --- William Smith heard the gunshots
A few minutes afte 1:00 -----William Scoggins heard the gunshots
A few minutes after 1:00 ----- Barbara Davis heard the gunshots
A few minutes after 1:00---- Virginia Davis heard the gunshots
A few minutes after 1:00 ---- Domingo Benavides saw Officer Tippit
shot
1:06---- Helen Markham witnessed the murder of Tippit
1:10--- TF Bowley climbed out of his car near where the dead officer
was lying in the street
Von Pea Brain wrote..."In the final analysis, this post certainly
doesn't PROVE anything."
Ah contaire mon peeee bran........ This post proves that you are a
either a moron, who can't think for himself......Or you're a liar who
will distort facts to deceive.....Or you lack the balls to face
reality..... I beieve all three are true.
Walt
> >>> "You're just now recognizing th[e] FACT that the chronology of events don't [sic] make sense when you use the DPD's chronology?" <<<
>
> You're retarded, Walter. (But, then again, that's hardly a bolt from
> heaven, now is it?)
>
> Other than the "1:37 PM" part of the chronology/timeline, tell me
> where in my last post I was relying on the "DPD's chronology"?
>
> I was mainly almost exclusively on the memory of Ted Callaway. (Which
> was the whole point of my last post, of course.)
>
> BTW, this is worth repeating -- Walt's retarded.
It must really piss you off when a "retatard" reveals that he's
smarter than you..... huh?
David Von Pein
>>> "You're just now recognizing th[e] FACT that the chronology of events don't [sic] make sense when you use the DPD's chronology?" <<<
You're retarded, Walter. (But, then again, that's hardly a bolt from
heaven, now is it?)
Other than the "1:37 PM" part of the chronology/timeline, tell me
where in my last post I was relying on the "DPD's chronology"?
I was relying almost exclusively on the memory of Ted Callaway. (Which
David Von Pein
>>> "It must really piss you off when a "retatard" [sic] reveals that he's smarter than you..... huh?" <<<
The [sic] is priceless here.
A stuttering retard yet.
Walt
Ok......So your even more embarrassed that a sssttuttering reetaard
helps you make a fool of yourself..... You still didn't anser the
question.
"It must really piss you off when a "retard" reveals that he's smarter
than you..... huh?"
David Von Pein
>>> "It must really piss you off when a "retard" reveals that he's smarter than you..... huh?" <<<
When has that ever happened?
Bud
> things Ted Callaway told "With Malice" author Dale K. Myers during
> Myers' April 9, 1996, interview with Callaway.
>
> On page 303 of "With Malice", Myers quotes Callaway as saying this:
>
> "When I got out of the cab, I didn't hesitate a bit like a lot
> of guys would. I walked straight to this plainclothes officer [wearing
> hat and glasses] and I said, 'Here's the officer's pistol.' He said,
> 'Okay, thank you very much.' After that I walked right back to the
> [car] lot."
>
> Right after the above quote on page 303, Dale Myers said this:
>
> "[William] Scoggins later testified that he didn't talk to
> police either, after returning to the scene [of J.D. Tippit's
> murder]."
>
> But on page 256, we find this quote from Callaway (during the same
> lengthy interview with Myers on 4/9/96):
>
> "When I saw him jump through that hedge, he had his pistol in a
> raised position and his left hand going to the pistol. My sidearm was
> a .45, when I was in the Marine Corps. And I used that same motion
> before in pushing a loaded magazine up to the handle of a .45. ....
> And so, when they asked me what kind of gun that he had I told them it
> was an automatic; on account of that motion."
This is good example of how error gets interjected into the
evidence. A witness supplies an erroneous impression because that is
how people process information, when they see things it is influenced
by other things they`ve seen in the past, and that get incorporated
into the narrative. Often this information is passed on as a factual
observation when it is really just a conclusion the that satisfied the
observer. Sometimes information is not available with which to compare
or correct the original observation, and of course the retards reject
all attempts to remove any error. The kooks will demand that LN
establish how the error was made (and that information rarely exists
in the record), so they can insist that the error is actually correct.
Here for instance, Callaway says he drew the conclusion it was an
automatic due to his interpretation of Oswald`s motions, it was not an
identification of the weapon itself by actual observation.
> So, unless I'm missing something here, it sure would appear that Ted
> Callaway definitely did talk with the police almost immediately after
> Callaway returned to the J.D. Tippit murder scene on Tenth Street on
> 11/22/63 (after Callaway and cab driver William Scoggins abandoned
> their brief search for Tippit's killer in Scoggins' taxicab).
>
> Because if Callaway didn't talk to any police officers after he
> returned to the murder scene (as is indicated in the first quotes
> above by Callaway and then Myers), then exactly WHEN did the police
> ask Callaway the question concerning the type of gun that Tippit's
> killer was carrying?
I think the problem is that you can`t cut hairs like this with a
crude instrument like witness testimony. Less than one percent of all
the information passed from one person to another appears in the
record. Callaway was there when Tippit was loaded in the ambulance.
Tippits gun was moved twice, finally being put in the front seat. Can
it be expected that during this time, Callaway didn`t speak to anyone?
Nobody was talking to each other, information wasn`t being passed,
discussions taking place, notes compared? Did what some people said
influence others recollections? Couldn`t any one of a dozen people who
did not see the actual murder but who came out afterwards hear
Callaway say the guy had an automatic, thought Callaway sounded
authoritative enough to know what he was talking about, and relayed
this information to police while Callaway was gone? All kinds of
possibilities exist, it`s impossible to get a solid picture of who
said what to who when. The kooks take the one percent that is on
record, and them proceed to make absolute statements from this. But it
is retarded to make absolute statements from such a small and
incomplete information pool. You can get general ideas, like the fact
that Oswald was fiddling with the gun, but a total and flawless
reconstruction is unrealistic.
It was used in the OJ trail, people shown on film talking to one
another and arriving at different times was used to exploit
discrepancies in their accounts. It possible that if you asked a
person a general outline of their activities that day, who they talked
to in chronological order and such, and you actually fine combed the
information, questioning people they came in contact with (or better
yet, follow them with a hidden camera), you might find all sorts of
discrepancies. You just don`t give it a lot of thought because most
people are not retarded enough to fine comb the information they hear.
And people are pretty sloppy and imprecise how they relate
information, because it really doesn`t matter most of the time so that
has become their habit of relating information. It would be best if,
say, Baker`s affidavit was done in "walk through" fashion, where each
step is carefully thought about and worded, instead of the brief
narrative they actually are. The retards exploit the wording, but then
again, nobody could mistake them for people trying to determine what
actually occurred.
Bud
Walt, can you quote the above witnesses saying they heard the shots
a few minutes after one?
David Von Pein
>>> "But it is retarded to make absolute statements from such a small and incomplete information pool. You can get general ideas, like the fact that Oswald was fiddling with the gun, but a total and flawless reconstruction is unrealistic." <<<
Good thoughts, Bud. (As always.) Thanks for taking the time to write
it all out.
Your post reminded me of something else along similar lines with
respect to "incomplete information":
Right after JFK was shot, the initial police radio reports (which were
almost certainly based chiefly, but not necessarily exclusively, on
the observations of eyewitness Howard Brennan) said that President
Kennedy's assassin was "armed with what is thought to be a 30-30
rifle".
That early DPD radio bulletin about the killer being armed with a
"30-30 rifle" is exactly the same kind of erroneous initial
information that was supplied by one or more persons following the
shooting of Officer Tippit, who thought Tippit's killer was carrying
an "automatic" pistol.
But when better and more complete information comes to light, then the
truth emerges.
Many conspiracy theorists, however, seem to want to perpetually accept
the earliest erroneous reports and treat those early reports as
absolute facts -- with the "automatic pistol" error being a prime
example of this.
It would appear to be a manifestation of the "Anybody But Oswald"
disease that those CTers are afflicted with. Therefore, ANY
information that they can utilize to support their false notion that
Lee Oswald was innocent of shooting anyone is information they are
eager to prop up -- even when the CTer has got to know it is wrong
information he is propping up....such as the "automatic" at the Tippit
murder scene.
Deep down, the conspiracy promoters have certainly got to know that
the person who shot and killed J.D. Tippit did NOT use an automatic
weapon. And there are many things that prove that Tippit's slayer was
using a non-automatic revolver (besides even the best physical
evidence of the bullet shells themselves) -- such as the fact that
multiple witnesses saw the killer (Oswald) dumping shell casings out
of his gun BY HAND (something that is not required at all if an
automatic pistol was being used).
Plus, there's the fact that all of the spent shells were found AT THE
CORNER of Tenth & Patton, indicating that an automatic was certainly
NOT the murder weapon, because if the killer had shot Tippit with an
automatic, then all of the spent cartridge cases would have been RIGHT
NEXT TO TIPPIT'S PATROL CAR, instead of up the street in the yard of
Barbara and Virginia Davis.
Do CTers want to pretend that somebody shot Tippit with an automatic
(with the shells being automatically ejected from the gun near
Tippit's police car), and then the killer picked up the shells and
scattered them in the Davises' yard as he fled? That's nuts.
Or do CTers want to pretend that all of the witnesses were wrong when
they all said they saw the gunman shoot Tippit while the killer was
standing RIGHT NEXT TO THE POLICE CAR?
So, given the totality of evidence in the case, we can realistically
see that the conspiracists who continue to believe that an "automatic"
killed Tippit have nowhere to go with their theories. Such theories
reside only in their imaginations.
Bud
> >>> "But it is retarded to make absolute statements from such a small and incomplete information pool. You can get general ideas, like the fact that Oswald was fiddling with the gun, but a total and flawless reconstruction is unrealistic." <<<
>
> Good thoughts, Bud. (As always.) Thanks for taking the time to write
> it all out.
Random thoughts presented in a stream of consciousness rambling
form.
> Your post reminded me of something else along similar lines with
> respect to "incomplete information":
>
> Right after JFK was shot, the initial police radio reports (which were
> almost certainly based chiefly, but not necessarily exclusively, on
> the observations of eyewitness Howard Brennan) said that President
> Kennedy's assassin was "armed with what is thought to be a 30-30
> rifle".
>
> That early DPD radio bulletin about the killer being armed with a
> "30-30 rifle" is exactly the same kind of erroneous initial
> information that was supplied by one or more persons following the
> shooting of Officer Tippit, who thought Tippit's killer was carrying
> an "automatic" pistol.
Possible ways the "30-30" identification could have come about are
from Brennan saying he saw a long barrel sticking out, which if true
would indicate a hunting rifle (but Brennan missed the scope, so he
could miss the stock under the barrel also). A cop hears his
description and interprets Brennan`s description of the rifle as being
a 30-30. The sound or closeness of the shots could have been a factor.
If Norman has come out, his "click, boom" description might have led
the cop taking the information to conclude this was the action of a
30-30 Winchester (I think "The Rifleman" was popular around this
time).
> But when better and more complete information comes to light, then the
> truth emerges.
The fact is that in neither case did the information have any impact
whatsoever on the search for the respective gunman. I think both the
police and the witnesses are more lax when presenting information
where there they see no real importance. They arrested Oswald even
though he didn`t have an automatic, and they would have arrested him
leaving the TSBD with his M-C, even though it wasn`t a 30-30. It might
be best if they just said "handgun" or "rifle" in the reports, as it
isn`t likely that witnesses can make actual identifications under
these conditions. Much in the same way, Jean Davison once produced
where doctors are cautioned against making determinations about
"entry" and "exit" in their reports, but to just call them "wounds",
to prevent defense lawyers from exploiting any errors that might
occur. It is better not to use precise wording when the information
does not lend itself to precision.
> Many conspiracy theorists, however, seem to want to perpetually accept
> the earliest erroneous reports and treat those early reports as
> absolute facts -- with the "automatic pistol" error being a prime
> example of this.
Thats why I always bring up the "Jean Hill`s dog" example, it is an
extreme example of the fact that just because a witness said they saw
something, this does not make the information they supplied factual.
It`s well known that people work from impressions as much as actual
observation. We look at something, and most times the mind comes up
with something we are satisfied with and moves on. Sometimes these
impressions are accurate, sometimes they are not. Mimes use certain
actions because they bring to mind cases where we saw such activity,
the rub being that the activity isn`t occurring. This is why Randle`s
impression that the package Oswald carried was heavy should really be
given more weight than her brother`s observations of the size as
Oswald carried it to the TSBD. How you would carry a light object and
one with some weight is considerably different, I`d never carry
curtain rods the way Randle said Oswald had the package. Under my arm,
cradled in my arms, on my shoulder are possibilities, grabbed by the
top is not one of them. But the main point is Randle likely got the
impression of weight from visual clues, like how stiff Oswald kept the
arm holding the package, or how the weight effected his gait. These
kinds of clues, when they are picked up, are pretty accurate, you
wouldn`t see someone carry a box of styrofoam and mistake it for
books, someone who was carrying a box of books and mistake it as
empty. Not all observations should be given the same weight. Compare
this to Frazier`s uninterested glance towards Oswald as they walked
towards the TSBD. He looks, his mind gets an impression it is
satisfied with, and moves on. Just the kind of observation you would
expect to have the most error.
> It would appear to be a manifestation of the "Anybody But Oswald"
> disease that those CTers are afflicted with. Therefore, ANY
> information that they can utilize to support their false notion that
> Lee Oswald was innocent of shooting anyone is information they are
> eager to prop up -- even when the CTer has got to know it is wrong
> information he is propping up....such as the "automatic" at the Tippit
> murder scene.
>
> Deep down, the conspiracy promoters have certainly got to know that
> the person who shot and killed J.D. Tippit did NOT use an automatic
> weapon. And there are many things that prove that Tippit's slayer was
> using a non-automatic revolver (besides even the best physical
> evidence of the bullet shells themselves) -- such as the fact that
> multiple witnesses saw the killer (Oswald) dumping shell casings out
> of his gun BY HAND (something that is not required at all if an
> automatic pistol was being used).
Ben tried to offer the idea that this was a "stovepipe jam", where
an expended shell is not ejected, but jams up in the ejector port. Of
course if an automatic were to jam like this, only the last shot fired
would have been stuck, and the previously fired shells would be
ejected around Tippit`s car. But Ben is not likely ever to honestly
present ideas and defend them in an open manner in this forum.
> Plus, there's the fact that all of the spent shells were found AT THE
> CORNER of Tenth & Patton, indicating that an automatic was certainly
> NOT the murder weapon, because if the killer had shot Tippit with an
> automatic, then all of the spent cartridge cases would have been RIGHT
> NEXT TO TIPPIT'S PATROL CAR, instead of up the street in the yard of
> Barbara and Virginia Davis.
>
> Do CTers want to pretend that somebody shot Tippit with an automatic
> (with the shells being automatically ejected from the gun near
> Tippit's police car), and then the killer picked up the shells and
> scattered them in the Davises' yard as he fled? That's nuts.
This seems to make the idea more appealing to them.