William Whaley Taxis Into History
j.raymon...@gmail.com
"At 12:30 pm., Lee Harvey Oswald entered history. Three shots from a
sixth-floor Depository window hit Governor Connally once and the
President twice. Oswald fled the building minutes later, caught a bus,
and, when it got stalled in traffic, got out and took a cab to his
rooming house. He picked up his revolver and a jacket and rushed out --
on his way, Albert Newman believes, to try to assassinate Walker, too."
This is a comforting scenario. This gentleman "fled" just as an
assassin might be expected to do. It is a comforting scenario, except
that it is at least partly fictional. We know it has fictional
elements inter alia because Albert Newman's belief, apparently shared
by Jean Davison, is unsupported by even a scintilla of evidence, while
the fleeing element of the story is directly contradicted by the
testimony of William Whaley.
(We will leave aside for now Mrs. R.A. Reid, Marion Baker, and Roy
Truly, none of whom reported signs of haste in Lee Oswald following the
shooting).
William Whaley was the cabdriver who drove Lee Oswald to Oak Cliff.
Whaley's testimony is not mentioned in "Oswald's Game," and the
following quotations from Whaley are not mentioned in Albert Newman's
book either.
MR. WHALEY: "He wasn't in any hurry. He wasn't nervous or anything."
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. The front seat. And about that time an old lady,
I think she was an old lady, I don't remember nothing but her sticking
her head down past him in the door and said, "Driver, will you call me
a cab down here?"
She had seen him get this cab and she wanted one, too, and he opened
the door a little bit like he was going to get out and he said, "I will
let you have this one..."
When his testimony resumed:
Mr. BALL. Did the man sitting next to you open the door?
Mr. WHALEY. He just started to, sir, just reached for door handle and
she said she wanted me to call one. She didn't want that.
Mr. BALL. Did the man who was sitting beside you in the cab say
anything?
Mr. WHALEY. Only that she could have that one.
Mr. BALL. He said that?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
Whaley had every opportunity to get a good look at Lee Oswald, who sat
beside him in the front seat of the taxi, thus he had no difficulty
identifying Lee in a lineup. But Whaley's testimony casts serious
doubts on the reliability of the lineup identifications of the Tippit
witnesses. In contrast to Whaley, the Tippit witnesses got little more
than a fleeting glimpse of a running gunman. Moreover, unlike Whaley,
at least some of the Tippit witnesses were probably in a state close to
shock.
. BALL. Now, in the police lineup now, and this man was talking to the
police and telling them he wanted a lawyer, and that they were trying
to, you say he said they were trying to, frame him or something of that
sort--
Mr. WHALEY. Well, the way he talked that they were doing him an
injustice by putting him out there dressed different than these other
men he was out there with.
In recent years Jean Davison has posted on this newsgroup and on
Alt.Conspiracy to the effect that there is real doubt that Lee Oswald
offered to give up his cab to a lady. (What percentage of fleeing
murderers would be willing to give up their getaway cars to a lady,
elderly or not?)
In a recent exchange with John Hunt, Jean writes:
"I wouldn't be so sure that Oswald ever offered his cab, John.
This wasn't in the earliest accounts, to my knowledge. The cab
driver's
11/23/63 affidavit says:
QUOTE:
....After we had gotten into the cab and I had turned my meter on, a
lady
came up to the cab and ask [sic] if she could get this cab. As I
recall I said there will be one behind me very soon. I am not sure
whether the man passenger repeated this to her or not, but I think he
may have. I then drove away....
UNQUOTE, from William Whaley's affidavit at
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0438-001.gif "
Every researcher knows by now that witnesses often went into greater
detail in their Warren Commission testimony than they had in their
original affidavits. There is nothing very startling about this, and it
does not at all involve that their story changed. Whaleys original
affidavit is silent about Lee Oswald opening the door to offer his cab
to the lady, but Whaley describes the incident no less than three times
in his Warren Commision testimony.
In a post on Alt.Conspiracy, Jean makes a big point out of Whaley's
statement that "...a good defense attorney could take me apart. I
get confused." [VI, 432]"
According to Jean, this means that Whaley is not a good witness. But it
is not up to Whaley to decide that. It is up to us, the jury. Only a
very stupid defense lawyer would try to tear Whaley apart, because
Whaley is one of the star witnesses for the defense.
Jean thinks that we should doubt Whaley's story because Fritz's written
report (WR, p. 604) suggests that Lee Oswald never mentioned that he
opened the door or verbally offered the cab to the lady.
Jean Quotes Fritz's report
QUOTE:
I asked him about his conversation with the cab driver, and he said he
remembered that when he got in the cab a lady came up who also wanted a
cab, and he told Oswald to tell the lady to "take another cab."
UNQUOTE
Of course we don't know exactly what Lee told Will Fritz, since Fritz
had
no tape recorder and he decided not to have a stenogropher present to
record the interrogation, but Fritz's report is hardly very persuasive
evidence on this topic. Even if Lee Oswald did not mention opening the
door or verbally offering the cab, that does not mean the incident
never
happened. Lee could have omitted it simply because it did not seem
significant, or perhaps not even relevant to the question Fritz was
asking. (Fritz's own credibility is a subject for another day).
Jean writes "Apparently the offered-his-cab story first appeared in
Whaley's March 1964 testimony. He testified again in April and gave a
slightly different version, but he didn't seem sure."
Whaley's April testimony goes like this:
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember a woman coming up to the cab?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; I remember that.
Mr. BELIN. What happened then?
Mr. WHALEY. The lady, I don't remember whether she was very old, but
she
was middle-aged. She bent down and stuck in and said, "Can I have this
cab?" And he cracked the door open like he was going to get out. I
thought
he was going to let her have it. I told her there would be another one,
and she said, "Would you please call me one."
Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything to the woman, that you can remember?
Mr. WHALEY. When she wanted to know if she could have the cab, I don't
know, but I got a faint hunch he did tell her she could have this one,
or
something like that. What it was, I was watching my left-hand side. I
wanted to pull out when the light changed. <<< [VI, 431]
Note that Whaley says: " And he cracked the door open like he was going
to
get out. I thought he was going to let her have it." Even if he seemed
unsure about the exact words Lee used, Whaley never seemed in any doubt
that Lee opened the door, or began to open the door, as if to offer the
cab to the lady. It did not suit Whaley for that to happen, since he
already had the meter running.
Jean has signified that she does not accuse Whaley of perjury, and that
Whaley had no motive to lie. Instead, Jean suggests, Whaley just
imagined
that Lee opened the door and indicated that the lady could have his
cab.
In his original affidavit, Whaley did not mention that he managed to
catch
every green light on the way to Oak Cliff, but he went into some detail
on
that subject in his Warren Commission testimony. Does that mean that he
just imagined catching all the green lights on the way to Oak Cliff?
Ben Holmes
j.raymon...@gmail.com says...
>
>In her book "Oswald's Game," at pages 241/242, Jean Davison wrote:
>
>"At 12:30 pm., Lee Harvey Oswald entered history. Three shots from a
>sixth-floor Depository window hit Governor Connally once and the
>President twice. Oswald fled the building minutes later, caught a bus,
>and, when it got stalled in traffic, got out and took a cab to his
>rooming house. He picked up his revolver and a jacket and rushed out --
>
>on his way, Albert Newman believes, to try to assassinate Walker, too."
An excellent example of 'spin'. And how LNT'ers attempt to produce 'facts' out
of thin air.
An excellent synopsis of the evidence on this point. Thanks!
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Walt
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:e2144...@drn.newsguy.com...
evidence that William Whaley was just bulls..ing his cab driver buddies
about having the killer in his cab. His B.S. was taken seriously and he was
called in for questioning. In an attempt to discredit his own B.S. He told
the interrogators that his passenger looked like he had just completed a
three day bus trip, and had on THREE jackets. He said his passenger walked
AWAY from the rooming house when he got out of Whaley's cab.
Oswald told his interrogators that he took a "CITY" cab to his rooming
house. William Whaley was not employed by the City Cab Company.
Walt
Ben Holmes
Actually, Whaley said that LHO looked like "he was a wino who had been off his
bottle for about two days..."
>and had on THREE jackets.
A coat over a jacket... as I recall.
>He said his passenger walked
>AWAY from the rooming house when he got out of Whaley's cab.
>Oswald told his interrogators that he took a "CITY" cab to his rooming
>house. William Whaley was not employed by the City Cab Company.
He testified that he worked for "City Transportation Company".
>Walt
The important think is that LNT'ers are *stuck* with Whaley's story... and it
*doesn't* support their theory of the case.
It really doesn't matter, in this case, whether you believe Whaley or not. The
point is that LNT'ers are *lying* about what Whaley's testimony shows about LHO
'fleeing' the 'scene of the crime'.
Bud
There is some real Holmes-logic. It doesn`t matter whether Oz was
ever in Whaley`s cab or not, Whaley`s testimony still shows that Oz
offered up his cab.
In any case, it would have been nice to get confirmation for
Whaley`s acount from the woman in question. Viewed in the proper
context (something kooks never seem to do), we have a cab driver
relating trivial details of a mundane nature, not interesting events
that stick in a person`s mind for days or hours. He wasn`t even sure if
Oz replied, or what he aid, even sitting right next to him. Only kooks
try to portray these kinds of things as established, carved in stone
occurances. But then, when a cop (a person who had a person of
interest, with a very good reason to be paying attention to what Oz
said) relates things that Oz said after his arrest, that information is
held totally useless by the kooks. Another thing to mention is that the
other person involved in this encounter did tell the police about it.
Oz related details of this event, and just because kooks disregard this
doesn`t mean that people trying to actually figure out what happened
have to.
Also, a favorite game of kooks being played here is "this means
this". Oz can`t be fleeing the assassination if he was willing to give
up his cab to that woman. They pretend that they have established that
the two things are mutually exclusive. Have they? Have they shown that
Oz thought his chances of escape were markedly different in this cab or
the next? The only places in Dallas which his chances of capture
increased where places he was known to frequent, like the boarding
house. Which would explain why he didn`t have the cab driver take him
to the door there. He also may have thought that mimicing the actions
an innocent man might take could be of use later. Many possibilities
besides the one the kooks declare.
Walt
Ben... Please study William Whaley's story carefully.
He saw Lee Oswald in custody and he heard him protesting the way he was
being treated. Whaley described Lee's actions......." He knew he was being
railroaded (framed) and he was raisin hell". After seeing Lee in custody,
Whaley realized the authorties were using his B.S. to frame Lee and he
wanted no part of it, but he was foisted on his own pitard.
Walt
Jean Davison
news:1145140694....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com.
Okay, into the Wayback Machine we go.....
> In her book "Oswald's Game," at pages 241/242, Jean Davison wrote:
>
> "At 12:30 pm., Lee Harvey Oswald entered history. Three shots from a
> sixth-floor Depository window hit Governor Connally once and the
> President twice. Oswald fled the building minutes later, caught a bus,
> and, when it got stalled in traffic, got out and took a cab to his
> rooming house. He picked up his revolver and a jacket and rushed out --
> on his way, Albert Newman believes, to try to assassinate Walker, too."
>
> This is a comforting scenario. This gentleman "fled" just as an
> assassin might be expected to do. It is a comforting scenario, except
> that it is at least partly fictional. We know it has fictional
> elements inter alia because Albert Newman's belief, apparently shared
> by Jean Davison, ...
There's a footnote at the end of the passage you quoted, Ray, in which
I mentioned two other theories about where Oswald was headed. Stating
Newman's belief as his belief is surely not fictional. (Is this really even
worth discussing?) Nobody knows where Oswald was going, maybe not
even Oswald.
> ....is unsupported by even a scintilla of evidence, while
> the fleeing element of the story is directly contradicted by the
> testimony of William Whaley.
Well, not really, imo. Do you know of any other occasion when Oswald
is known to have taken a cab? Big spender, was he?
>
> (We will leave aside for now Mrs. R.A. Reid, Marion Baker, and Roy
> Truly, none of whom reported signs of haste in Lee Oswald following the
> shooting).
I can think of one possible reason why Oswald might not have wanted
them to see him hurry. Can you?
You didn't mention his housekeeper in Oak Cliff, who said that he
came in about 30 minutes after the shooting "in an unusual hurry" and
"all but running." Does that mean he's guilty? No. Just as his lack of
haste earlier doesn't make him innocent, either.
>
> William Whaley was the cabdriver who drove Lee Oswald to Oak Cliff.
> Whaley's testimony is not mentioned in "Oswald's Game," and the
> following quotations from Whaley are not mentioned in Albert Newman's
> book either.
No book can cover every witness, every issue.
So the 9 or so Tippit witnesses were all wrong? The other evidence
all invalid? Talk about your comforting scenarios.
>
> In recent years Jean Davison has posted on this newsgroup and on
> Alt.Conspiracy to the effect that there is real doubt that Lee Oswald
> offered to give up his cab to a lady. (What percentage of fleeing
> murderers would be willing to give up their getaway cars to a lady,
> elderly or not?)
What percentage of shooters leap off a theater balcony
onto a stage? Or claim he was trying to impress an actress?
There's always a first time, Ray.
>
> In a recent exchange with John Hunt, Jean writes:
>
> "I wouldn't be so sure that Oswald ever offered his cab, John.
> This wasn't in the earliest accounts, to my knowledge. The cab
> driver's
> 11/23/63 affidavit says:
>
> QUOTE:
> ....After we had gotten into the cab and I had turned my meter on, a
> lady
> came up to the cab and ask [sic] if she could get this cab. As I
> recall I said there will be one behind me very soon. I am not sure
> whether the man passenger repeated this to her or not, but I think he
> may have. I then drove away....
> UNQUOTE, from William Whaley's affidavit at
> http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0438-001.gif "
>
> Every researcher knows by now that witnesses often went into greater
> detail in their Warren Commission testimony than they had in their
> original affidavits.
That's true. Affidavits are usually shorter with less
detail. However, it's also the case that memories change.
>There is nothing very startling about this, and it
> does not at all involve that their story changed. Whaleys original
> affidavit is silent about Lee Oswald opening the door to offer his cab
> to the lady,
>but Whaley describes the incident no less than three times
> in his Warren Commision testimony.
Now all you have to do is show that repeating something three times
means that it's accurate.
Strangely enough, being certain is not highly correlated with
accuracy of memory, from what I've read on the Web. A witness can often be
absolutely certain and yet dead wrong.
>
> In a post on Alt.Conspiracy, Jean makes a big point out of Whaley's
> statement that "...a good defense attorney could take me apart. I
> get confused." [VI, 432]"
It's what he said, no? I think Meagher was the first to "make a big
point" of this, along with the fact that Whaley's testimony had Oswald
wearing *two* jackets. That also is different from his affidavit, which
describes Oswald shirt, but no jacket -- "This boy ... had on a dark
shirt with spots of something on it. He had a bracelet on his left wrist."
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0438-001.gif
Other evidence indicates that Oswald wasn't wearing a jacket at
that time. Whaley's first description was the better one, no surprise there.
It's not a criticism of Whaley to say that there are differences
between his 11/23 statement and testimony several months later, since
everybody's memory is fallible. Yours, mine, the pope's, everybody's.
>
> According to Jean, this means that Whaley is not a good witness. But it
> is not up to Whaley to decide that. It is up to us, the jury. Only a
> very stupid defense lawyer would try to tear Whaley apart, because
> Whaley is one of the star witnesses for the defense.
Funny then that one of Oswald's original "defense lawyers,"
Sylvia Meagher, was among the first to point out these inconsistencies.
>
> Jean thinks that we should doubt Whaley's story because Fritz's written
> report (WR, p. 604) suggests that Lee Oswald never mentioned that he
> opened the door or verbally offered the cab to the lady.
>
> Jean Quotes Fritz's report
>
> QUOTE:
> I asked him about his conversation with the cab driver, and he said he
> remembered that when he got in the cab a lady came up who also wanted a
> cab, and he told Oswald to tell the lady to "take another cab."
> UNQUOTE
>
> Of course we don't know exactly what Lee told Will Fritz, since Fritz had
> no tape recorder and he decided not to have a stenogropher present to
> record the interrogation, but Fritz's report is hardly very persuasive
> evidence on this topic.
Not very persuasive you say, yet it's similar to Whaley's
original account.
> Even if Lee Oswald did not mention opening the
> door or verbally offering the cab, that does not mean the incident never
> happened. Lee could have omitted it simply because it did not seem
> significant, or perhaps not even relevant to the question Fritz was
> asking. (Fritz's own credibility is a subject for another day).
Have you reconsidered the charge that Fritz testified falsely about
his notes?
>
> Jean writes "Apparently the offered-his-cab story first appeared in
> Whaley's March 1964 testimony. He testified again in April and gave a
> slightly different version, but he didn't seem sure."
>
>
> Whaley's April testimony goes like this:
>
> Mr. BELIN. Do you remember a woman coming up to the cab?
>
> Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; I remember that.
>
> Mr. BELIN. What happened then?
>
> Mr. WHALEY. The lady, I don't remember whether she was very old, but she
> was middle-aged. She bent down and stuck in and said, "Can I have this
> cab?" And he cracked the door open like he was going to get out. I thought
> he was going to let her have it. I told her there would be another one,
> and she said, "Would you please call me one."
>
> Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything to the woman, that you can remember?
>
> Mr. WHALEY. When she wanted to know if she could have the cab, I don't
> know, but I got a faint hunch he did tell her she could have this one, or
> something like that. What it was, I was watching my left-hand side. I
> wanted to pull out when the light changed. <<< [VI, 431]
>
> Note that Whaley says: " And he cracked the door open like he was going to
> get out. I thought he was going to let her have it." Even if he seemed
> unsure about the exact words Lee used, Whaley never seemed in any doubt
> that Lee opened the door, or began to open the door, as if to offer the
> cab to the lady. It did not suit Whaley for that to happen, since he
> already had the meter running.
Whaley never seemed in any doubt that Oswald was wearing two
jackets, either: After Ball showed him both jackets, Whaley said:
QUOTE:
>>>>
Mr. WHALEY. [....] he had this coat here on over that other jacket, I am
sure, sir.
>>>
UNQUOTE
Again, I don't mean this as criticism of Whaley.
>
> Jean has signified that she does not accuse Whaley of perjury, and that
> Whaley had no motive to lie. Instead, Jean suggests, Whaley just imagined
> that Lee opened the door and indicated that the lady could have his cab.
I wouldn't say "imagined." His memory changed, imo.
>
> In his original affidavit, Whaley did not mention that he managed to catch
> every green light on the way to Oak Cliff, but he went into some detail on
> that subject in his Warren Commission testimony. Does that mean that he
> just imagined catching all the green lights on the way to Oak Cliff?
Yes, it's possible that he simply left this out. But it sounds
like a different story to me, just like his two descriptions of the
clothing.
Jean
>
>
Jean Davison
On this one, I forgot something. (Memory is fallible, yeah.)
> (We will leave aside for now Mrs. R.A. Reid, Marion Baker, and Roy
> Truly, none of whom reported signs of haste in Lee Oswald following the
> shooting).
Actually, Baker *did* notice Oswald hurrying. Oswald didn't know
that Baker could see him at that time, because he was walking away into the
lunchroom, while Baker was about 20 feet away at the landing of the 2nd
floor stairway. Baker testified:
QUOTE:
>>>>
Mr. BAKER - ...... Now, through this window you can't see too much but I
just caught a glimpse of him through this window going away from me and as I
ran to this door and opened it, and looked on down in the lunchroom he was
on down there about 20 feet so he was moving about as fast as I was.
[....]
Mr. DULLES - ......... Did he seem to be hurrying, anything of that kind?
Mr. BAKER - Evidently he was hurrying because at this point here, I was
running, and I ran on over here to this door. [....]
And at that position there he was already down here some 20 feet away from
me.
>>>>
UNQUOTE
Good ol' Lee was probably just in a real big hurry to get himself a
Coke.
Jean
Bud
Wahl, that certainly is a more entertaining version. On what planet
do people do things like that, tell lies to their freinds, when the
police come, tell them lies, and keep telling lies when they are in
front of congressmen? Doesn`t the liar at some point realize they are
in over their heads and come clean?
James K. Olmstead
"Jean Davison" <walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:4444...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Jean: Re-read the account in Mexico City when Oswald left the hotel.
The clerk goes two blocks to the bus station to get a cab for Oswald, who
was going to the bus station.
jko
Jean Davison
"James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:44453f56$3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Good catch, Jim. I had to go back and look, but you're right.
Any others?
Jean
> jko
Bud
This is a real "huh?". You have Oz, who, by necessity (not having a car
or even a drivers license) must be a "walker", a person used to getting
around on foot. Also known to be fairly thrifty, not one to spend
lavishly, even on himself. So, Oz asks the clerk to go 2 blocks to get a
cab, and then boards the cab and goes two blocks to the same place the
clerk got the cab at? Did Oz have a lot of luggage?
James K. Olmstead
Yes, in the USSR, when the Soviets did not provide Oswald with a car.
The point is that cabs were a major source of transportation for those
that did not drive. I find it odd and out of line for the most part when
the issue of taking a cab comes up. Chances are Lee took a cab more times
then you or I have.
jko
Marty
Hi
Ruth Paine told the WC about taking Oswald and his "considerable" pile of
luggage to the bus station in Dallas when he was going to leave for NO.
Ruth mused that her arriving at the apartment saved Lee from spending
money to hire a cab.
Martha
James K. Olmstead
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message news:1145467297....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Not by any standards....however there is some misleading info on the
number and size of his bags. The point is that Oswald had used cabs
before 22 Nov. 1963. The need for a cab to take him to the bus station two
blocks away is however another area to consider.
jko
Jean Davison
Good question, Bud. I think the clerk went around the corner to
a bus station for a Mexican company called White Star. That wasn't the
bus line that Oswald used. I think his hotel was 4 blocks from the bus
station he was headed for. He had luggage, but not a lot.
Oswald also took a cab in Moscow, but I don't know of any
testimony that he ever used cabs in this country. He walked or took a
city bus, usually.
Jean
Ray
"Nobody knows where Oswald was going, maybe not
even Oswald."
Jean, can you tell us why nobody bothered to ask him?
Jean wrote:
" Now all you have to do is show that repeating something three times
means that it's accurate."
Not quite, Jean. It means that you have to show that William Whaley
concocted or imagined the entire incident in which Lee Oswald,
allegedly a fleeing assassin, opened the door and offered up his
getaway car to a lady.
I will agree that there is something unbelievable about this incident
if you assume that Lee really was an assassin, but there is nothing
unbelievable about if you assume he was innocent.
Jean wrote:
" Actually, Baker *did* notice Oswald hurrying. Oswald didn't know
that Baker could see him at that time, because he was walking away into
the lunchroom, while Baker was about 20 feet away at the landing of the
2nd floor stairway. Baker testified:
QUOTE:
Mr. BAKER - ...... Now, through this window you can't see too much but
I
just caught a glimpse of him through this window going away from me and
as I ran to this door and opened it, and looked on down in the
lunchroom he was on down there about 20 feet so he was moving about as
fast as I was.
[....]
Mr. DULLES - ......... Did he seem to be hurrying, anything of that
kind?
Mr. BAKER - Evidently he was hurrying because at this point here, I was
running, and I ran on over here to this door. [....]
And at that position there he was already down here some 20 feet away
from me.
UNQUOTE
Good ol' Lee was probably just in a real big hurry to get himself a
Coke.
Jean "
We know that Lee was carrying a bottle of coke when he encountered Mrs.
Reid a few moments later, so yes, if he was hurrying, he must have been
hurrying to get a bottle of coke from the machine. But Baker only
inferred rather than actually saw him "hurrying." What Baker actually
saw was a man walking.
Mr. Belin.
Was--his back was away from you, or not, as you first saw him?
Mr. Baker.
As I first caught that glimpse of him, or as I saw him, really saw him?
Mr. Belin.
As you really saw him.
Mr. Baker.
He was walking away from me with his back toward me.
Mr. Dulles.
Vol 111 P.250
Representative Boggs.
When you saw him, was he out of breath, did he appear to have been
running or what?
Mr. Baker.
It didn't appear that to me. He appeared normal you know.
Representative Boggs.
Was he calm and collected?
Mr. Baker.
Yes, sir.
Jean's quotation from Marrion Baker's testimony opens up the question
whether the "reenactments" conducted by David Belin can validly be used
to show that a sixth-floor gunman could have beaten Baker and Truly to
the lunchroom. In Baker's testimony, as quoted by Jean, Baker himself
was "running" as he reached the lunchroom. Belin's "reenactments" were
not filmed, as they could and should have been, but was Baker actually
"running" in the "reenactment"?
Mr. Belin.
All right. When we got inside the building did we run or trot or walk?
Mr. Baker.
Well, we did it at kind of a trot, I would say, it wasn't a real fast
run, an open run. It was more of a trot, kind of.
Was it a "run" or a "trot"?
(Imagine that a man's fate depends on your answer?)
As David Belin liked to say: You Are the Jury.
j.raymon...@gmail.com
Baker testified that Truly ran ahead of Baker. Belin's "reenactment",
in order to have validity, should have terminated when Truly arrived on
the second floor. Instead, from what I can gather, it did not terminate
until Baker's later arrival.
Since the whole case against Lee Oswald depends, literally, on
split-second timing, I say that -- under the laws of civilized people
-- the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
Of course Leo Sauvage explained all this years ago in "The Oswald
Affair," but I don't think you will find Sauvage's book mentioned in
"Oswald's Game," or in Albert Newman's book either.
Ben Holmes
j.raymon...@gmail.com says...
>
>P.S. Memory is fallible, and I forgot to mention that both Truly and
>Baker testified that Truly ran ahead of Baker. Belin's "reenactment",
>in order to have validity, should have terminated when Truly arrived on
>the second floor. Instead, from what I can gather, it did not terminate
>until Baker's later arrival.
The Warren Commission was forced to play with the timeline twice... They sped up
LHO's alleged acts to get him down the stairs in the quickest amount of time,
and they *slowed down* Baker's actions.
The *exact same thing* occurred with the Tippit killing... they moved Tippit's
time of murder *back*, and again, had LHO 'in a hurry'.
The times all had to be 'played with', because they simply didn't fit. So much
of the evidence simply doesn't fit. This is why LNT'ers won't debate the
*actual* evidence and testimony - and why they've sung with one voice the
infamous refrain that "Eyewitness Testimony is the least reliable form of
evidence".
This entire case is a 'patchwork quilt', and LNT'ers just hate it when you point
out just how patchy it is.
>Since the whole case against Lee Oswald depends, literally, on
>split-second timing, I say that -- under the laws of civilized people
>-- the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
>
>Of course Leo Sauvage explained all this years ago in "The Oswald
>Affair," but I don't think you will find Sauvage's book mentioned in
>"Oswald's Game," or in Albert Newman's book either.
But don't worry... Bugliosi is going to explain all this when his book comes
out.
Really!
Honestly!
You can relax now...
Jean Davison
news:HZB1g.66896$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Hi, Martha,
Ruth's arrival was expected, and Lee was waiting with bags
packed. He asked her to take his luggage to the station for him. She was
his taxi.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0233a.htm
Jean
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1145577071....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> j.raymon...@gmail.com says...
> >
> >P.S. Memory is fallible, and I forgot to mention that both Truly and
> >Baker testified that Truly ran ahead of Baker. Belin's "reenactment",
> >in order to have validity, should have terminated when Truly arrived on
> >the second floor. Instead, from what I can gather, it did not terminate
> >until Baker's later arrival.
>
>
> The Warren Commission was forced to play with the timeline twice... They sped up
> LHO's alleged acts to get him down the stairs in the quickest amount of time,
> and they *slowed down* Baker's actions.
You seem sure that the second reenactment doesn`t more faithfully
recreate what occurred the day of the assassination. How is that?
> The *exact same thing* occurred with the Tippit killing... they moved Tippit's
> time of murder *back*, and again, had LHO 'in a hurry'.
Again, showing it possible he was at that location. With the
physical evidence and the witnesses identification, his being there
killing Tippit is well established.
> The times all had to be 'played with', because they simply didn't fit. So much
> of the evidence simply doesn't fit. This is why LNT'ers won't debate the
> *actual* evidence and testimony - and why they've sung with one voice the
> infamous refrain that "Eyewitness Testimony is the least reliable form of
> evidence".
Of course, for anyone to give Oz an actual alibi, all they`d need to
do is prove Oz wasn`t in the places the crimes were committed. Perhaps
that can be done for the hundreth anniversary.
> This entire case is a 'patchwork quilt', and LNT'ers just hate it when you point
> out just how patchy it is.
<snicker> Actually, it`s CT complaints about the case that is a
patchwork quilt. They don`t seem to have been able to weave all thier
suspicions into anything resembling a whole cloth yet, though.
David VP
Ain't that the truth. CT accounts run the gamut from (but certainly not
limited to the following CT Short List)........
1.) Anywhere from 2 to 6 gunmen firing shots in DP.
2.) 1, 2, or 3 gunmen/conspirators at the Tippit murder scene (none of
them the God-like Saint Oswald, naturally).
3.) Anywhere from 4 to 13 shots fired at JFK in DP. (Even though less
than 9% of witnesses heard more than three.)
4.) Oswald was a totally-innocent "Patsy".
5.) Oswald wasn't quite a "totally"-innocent "Patsy" -- i.e., he was
"involved" in the shooting in some always-undefined way (probably;
maybe; perhaps; could be), but no way he fired that head shot.
6.) Two "head shots" to JFK's cranium. (Even though the Z-Film, the
autopsy report, and all of the autopsy doctors completely debunk this
looney notion.)
7.) Umbrella Man has a nifty dart-thrower.
8.) No...Umbrella Man was merely "signaling" to the shooters.
9.) The first shot in DP missed the limo (an initial "diversionary
shot" from the TSBD).
10.) No, the first struck JFK in the throat from the front (totally
destroying theory #9).
11.) Oswald couldn't possibly have made it to the 2nd Floor in 90
seconds to meet M. Baker....but (somehow) the "real" killer(s) DID
manage to escape the 6th Floor EVEN FASTER -- otherwise why in the hell
didn't they run into Baker and Truly on the stairs? Did they leap out
the 6th-Floor window into a net below the building? Or did they decide
to just camp out inside the TSBD for many minutes after the last shot
was fired?
12.) The SBT is pure bullshit....with 3 separate bullets peppering the
2 victims instead of CE399, which was "planted" (naturally).
13.) No, no, wait...the SBT is still pure bullshit....but why not let's
have a T&T shot through JFK that somehow misses JBC? Yeah, that sounds
better than that silly "3-Shot" convenient SBT substitution. But, this
other one means that Bob Frazier is full of bullshit too when he said
there was no bullet damage done to the limo's back seats. And, of
course, this limo bullet vanishes at Jeannie's/Barbara Eden's
eye-blinking behest too (like virtually all other evidence in this case
as well).
14.) We're a-gonna shoot up the Plaza with many, many guns....but we're
gonna funnel all of this evidence down to JUST OSWALD within a very,
very short time of the shooting. Which is, of course, a theory that is
better-suited for a Quinn Martin TV production....starring David
Janssen as "The Patsy", "an innocent victim of blind justice"!
15.) It don't rain in Indianapolis in the summertime.
Can anything BE more piecemeal, incomplete, sketchy, half-baked, and
fragmentary than any of the "CTs" we've been offered since '63? If
so...how so? They're all over the map. Whereas the LN scenario is as
simple and steadfastly-stationary as can be -- One killer; One gun (his
own); Three shots; Two hits; One miss; Plus this one assassin kills
Officer Tippit while fleeing the JFK murder.
A Mark VII if there ever was a Mark VII.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> Actually, it's CT complaints about the case that is a patchwork quilt.
>
>
>Ain't that the truth. CT accounts run the gamut from (but certainly not
>limited to the following CT Short List)........
>
>1.) Anywhere from 2 to 6 gunmen firing shots in DP.
What did the eyewitnesses say?
>2.) 1, 2, or 3 gunmen/conspirators at the Tippit murder scene (none of
>them the God-like Saint Oswald, naturally).
What did the eyewitnesses say?
>3.) Anywhere from 4 to 13 shots fired at JFK in DP. (Even though less
>than 9% of witnesses heard more than three.)
What did the eyewitnesses say?
>4.) Oswald was a totally-innocent "Patsy".
What did the eyewitnesses say?
>5.) Oswald wasn't quite a "totally"-innocent "Patsy" -- i.e., he was
>"involved" in the shooting in some always-undefined way (probably;
>maybe; perhaps; could be), but no way he fired that head shot.
What did the eyewitnesses say?
>6.) Two "head shots" to JFK's cranium. (Even though the Z-Film, the
>autopsy report, and all of the autopsy doctors completely debunk this
>looney notion.)
Z-film *does* show two shots, and the X-rays support it. Bugs you, doesn't it?
You can even view the entry hole in JFK's temple yourself...
>7.) Umbrella Man has a nifty dart-thrower.
>
>8.) No...Umbrella Man was merely "signaling" to the shooters.
>
>9.) The first shot in DP missed the limo (an initial "diversionary
>shot" from the TSBD).
What did the eyewitnesses say?
>10.) No, the first struck JFK in the throat from the front (totally
>destroying theory #9).
What did the eyewitnesses say?
>11.) Oswald couldn't possibly have made it to the 2nd Floor in 90
>seconds to meet M. Baker....but (somehow) the "real" killer(s) DID
>manage to escape the 6th Floor EVEN FASTER -- otherwise why in the hell
>didn't they run into Baker and Truly on the stairs? Did they leap out
>the 6th-Floor window into a net below the building? Or did they decide
>to just camp out inside the TSBD for many minutes after the last shot
>was fired?
What did the eyewitnesses say?
>12.) The SBT is pure bullshit....with 3 separate bullets peppering the
>2 victims instead of CE399, which was "planted" (naturally).
What did the eyewitnesses, FBI, and Secret Service say?
>13.) No, no, wait...the SBT is still pure bullshit....but why not let's
>have a T&T shot through JFK that somehow misses JBC? Yeah, that sounds
>better than that silly "3-Shot" convenient SBT substitution. But, this
>other one means that Bob Frazier is full of bullshit too when he said
>there was no bullet damage done to the limo's back seats. And, of
>course, this limo bullet vanishes at Jeannie's/Barbara Eden's
>eye-blinking behest too (like virtually all other evidence in this case
>as well).
What did the eyewitnesses, FBI, and Secret Service say?
>14.) We're a-gonna shoot up the Plaza with many, many guns....but we're
>gonna funnel all of this evidence down to JUST OSWALD within a very,
>very short time of the shooting. Which is, of course, a theory that is
>better-suited for a Quinn Martin TV production....starring David
>Janssen as "The Patsy", "an innocent victim of blind justice"!
What was the FBI telling eyewitnesses on Saturday?
>15.) It don't rain in Indianapolis in the summertime.
What do eyewitnesses living in Indianapolis say?
>Can anything BE more piecemeal, incomplete, sketchy, half-baked, and
>fragmentary than any of the "CTs" we've been offered since '63?
Yep... the supposed "investigation".
>If
>so...how so?
It wasn't. (an investigation, that is)
>They're all over the map.
So too, is the evidence.
>Whereas the LN scenario is as
>simple and steadfastly-stationary as can be -- One killer; One gun (his
>own); Three shots; Two hits; One miss; Plus this one assassin kills
>Officer Tippit while fleeing the JFK murder.
And yet, LNT'ers snip and run when any evidence and/or rebuttals are offered to
their assertions.
Why is that, do you suppose? Cowards?
>A Mark VII if there ever was a Mark VII.
Steve
Will you ever succeed at making a post without calling people names?
James K. Olmstead
James K. Olmstead
for them...read the testimony again....they were surprised to see them leaving.
However, I don't believe that they did not know of the move.
jko
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben, Ben, Ben...
>
> Will you ever succeed at making a post without calling people names?
Snipped and ran, I see. Why would I refuse to call a liar a liar? Or a coward
a coward?
I'm an honest man, I call'em as I see 'em.
You make it so easy - too... *anyone* can see the lies and cowardice. I merely
point it out.
If the evidence and testimony in this case proved your theory, you'd be *happy*
to discuss and debate it... but it doesn't, and you aren't.
Jean Davison
Jim, I'm not sure I understand you. Oswald was expecting Ruth to
come over for a visit -- that had been planned. Ruth didn't know about
the trip until she got there, but what difference does that make? Two
pages later, Ruth said that Oswald had too much luggage for a city bus,
and, "I am sure he preferred me to a taxi because I didn't cost as much."
(She didn't cost anything, of course.)
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0234a.htm
Jean
Jean Davison
> Jean wrote:
>
> "Nobody knows where Oswald was going, maybe not
> even Oswald."
>
> Jean, can you tell us why nobody bothered to ask him?
He claimed he was going to a movie.
>
> Jean wrote:
>
> " Now all you have to do is show that repeating something three times
> means that it's accurate."
>
> Not quite, Jean. It means that you have to show that William Whaley
> concocted or imagined the entire incident in which Lee Oswald,
> allegedly a fleeing assassin, opened the door and offered up his
> getaway car to a lady.
But it's not unusual for witnesses to "concoct or imagine"
things. You tell me -- do you think Oswald was wearing both of his jackets
in Whaley's cab? (Oswald's blue jacket was found later in the TSBD. His
landlady said he arrived in his shirtsleeves.)
Witnesses have imagined seeing things on TV that were never
televised. People, normal people, sometimes confuse what they've imagined
with what actually happened. If you don't believe me, please spend a
little time researching it on Google. Try the phrase "source monitoring"
with "memory," e.g. Memory is not nearly as reliable as most people
think.
>
> I will agree that there is something unbelievable about this incident
> if you assume that Lee really was an assassin, but there is nothing
> unbelievable about if you assume he was innocent.
I don't agree that it's unbelievable if he was guilty. I'm not
even arguing that it definitely didn't happen, I've just pointed out that
it's not in Whaley's original account (and neither are the two jackets).
People do strange, crazy things every day, and why someone who'd just
killed a President couldn't do something that seems irrational -- well,
you tell me. Why is that impossible?
Of course Baker inferred it -- for good reason, according to his
testimony.
Oswald was about 20 feet away when Baker first spotted him and
*still* about 20 feet away after Baker ran over to the door. If Oswald
hadn't been hurrying, Baker should've gained ground on him -- but he
didn't, in Baker's opinion.
>
> Mr. Belin.
> Was--his back was away from you, or not, as you first saw him?
> Mr. Baker.
> As I first caught that glimpse of him, or as I saw him, really saw him?
>
> Mr. Belin.
> As you really saw him.
> Mr. Baker.
> He was walking away from me with his back toward me.
> Mr. Dulles.
>
> Vol 111 P.250
>
> Representative Boggs.
> When you saw him, was he out of breath, did he appear to have been
> running or what?
> Mr. Baker.
> It didn't appear that to me. He appeared normal you know.
> Representative Boggs.
> Was he calm and collected?
> Mr. Baker.
> Yes, sir.
CTs always quote this as though it means something. I don't think
it does, Ray. A guilty man would've been trying his best to look
innocent, no?
>
> Jean's quotation from Marrion Baker's testimony opens up the question
> whether the "reenactments" conducted by David Belin can validly be used
> to show that a sixth-floor gunman could have beaten Baker and Truly to
> the lunchroom. In Baker's testimony, as quoted by Jean, Baker himself
> was "running" as he reached the lunchroom. Belin's "reenactments" were
> not filmed, as they could and should have been, but was Baker actually
> "running" in the "reenactment"?
>
Classic Harold Weisberg, repeated by CTs for 4 decades. Wrong
then, wrong now.
The "lunchroom encounter" has been re-enacted several times,
most recently in one of the JFK documentaries (Discovery Channel's, I
think). In that one, Oswald's journey down the stairs took, as I recall,
less than 50 seconds, and the LHO stand-in wasn't out of breath.
Moreover, Baker took longer to reach the TSBD on 11/22 than he did during
the WC re-enactment -- this is shown by the timing of both Baker's
appearance on the Couch film and by a radio message Baker heard before he
left his motorcycle.
Here's an old post of mine from Lancer, just so I don't have
to type it again:
QUOTE:
************************************************
************************************************
As you know, Baker testified that as he was leaving his parked
motorcycle...:
QUOTE:
>>> ... the last thing I heard here on the
radio was the chief [Curry] saying, "Get some men up on that railroad
track."
Mr. BELIN. Did you hear that on your police radio?
Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir; that was the last thing I heard.
Mr. BELIN. As you were getting off your motorcycle?
Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir.
<<<
UNQUOTE (III, 256)
Gary Mack has estimated that Curry's statement came at least 30-40 seconds
after the shots. He gave me permission to quote from his e-mail:
QUOTE:
>> Curry told me, and others over the years, that he didn't say or do
>> anything until officer Chaney rode up and confirmed that it was a
>> shooting, that Kennedy and Connally had been hit, and they needed to get
>> to a hospital.
Thanks to the Jack Daniel home movie shot from west of the triple
underpass, it's known that at least 15 seconds went by before Chaney even
reached the underpass. Add another 10-15 seconds, or more for him to reach
Curry -- which didn't happen until Curry rounded the curve to the Stemmons
ramp -- have the brief conversation, then Curry shouted to Greer what to
do, and you have a minimum time of 30-40 seconds between the shooting and
Curry's order. ...<< UNQUOTE
Curry's testimony on this is at IV, 161.
For you "lunchroom encounter" fans, this means that Baker took longer to
get to the lunchroom than the 90 seconds of the reenactment, and the WR
noted that this might be the case, when it said:
QUOTE:
>>>The time actually required for Baker and Truly to reach the second
floor on November 22 was probably longer than in the test runs. For
example, Baker required 15 seconds after the simulated shot to ride his
motorcycle 180 to 200 feet, park it, and run 45 feet to the building. No
allowance was made for the special conditions which existed on the day of
the assassination -- possible delayed reaction to the shot, jostling with
the crowd of people on the steps and scanning the area along Elm Street
and the parkway. Baker said, "We simulated the shots and by the time we
got there, we did everything that I did that day, and this would be the
minimum, because I am sure that I, you know, it took me a little longer."
<<<
UNQUOTE
And evidently, Baker was right -- it did take him longer on 11/22. In the
reenactment he got to the front door in 15 seconds, whereas on 11/22, he
hadn't yet left his motorcycle.
Jean
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
UNQUOTE
Returning to your post......
> Mr. Belin.
> All right. When we got inside the building did we run or trot or walk?
> Mr. Baker.
> Well, we did it at kind of a trot, I would say, it wasn't a real fast
> run, an open run. It was more of a trot, kind of.
>
> Was it a "run" or a "trot"?
>
> (Imagine that a man's fate depends on your answer?)
>
> As David Belin liked to say: You Are the Jury.
Weisberg was wrong, Ray. The Couch film and the radio message from
Curry show that this is a dead issue. Oswald had plenty of time to get to
the lunchroom.
Jean
David VP
Oh, so Ben-boy wants to now (evidently) rely exclusively on
"eyewitness" testimony (at least for this post/thread at any rate).
OK.....
The OVERWHELMING majority of witnesses (nearly 100% in fact; over 95%
total) are "1 Killer" (ear)witnesses, with all but 4 or 5 witnesses
hearing shots from just "one" single location. If shots had come from 2
or more locales, this pct. of 95% in favor of just "one" location
(whether it be front or rear) is impossibly high, IMO.
Plus -- 100% of the EYEwitnesses who can offer up an informed opinion
are "1 Killer Witnesses" -- because absolutely NOBODY saw more than one
gun or more than one killer firing a weapon at JFK on 11/22.
>> "What did the eyewitnesses say?"
Re. Tippit this time -- Ben's gotta be joking here folks. He wants to
rely of the "eyewitnesses" at the Tippit scene to SUPPORT CONSPIRACY
AND MULTIPLE KILLERS OF OFFICER TIPPIT?
He must be using that CT Goofy Juice again!
Answer -- Very nearly 100% (again, like in DP) are "1 Killer"
eyewitnesses....with only ONE single lonely witness supporting the idea
of multiple killers running in opposite directions after the shooting
of Tippit.
IMO, Acquilla Clemmons saw Ted Callaway "escaping" the crime scene
(with Tippit's own gun in tow) after Callaway secured Tippit's gun from
the dead officer.
>> "What did the eyewitnesses say?"
Re. shots fired in DP --- Again, Ben must be a glutton for punishment
in bringing up the witnesses re. the # of shots....because the vast
majority (beyond ALL doubt) heard THREE SHOTS EXACTLY. ......
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
>> "What did the eyewitnesses say?"
Re. Oswald's "Patsy" status. Let's let Ben come up with a single
"witness" who went on record on 11/22 (or any # of days later) and said
to the world "Oswald's nuttin' but a patsy folks". Can you come up with
a single person...besides the accused double-murderer himself, of
course?
>> "{The} Z-film *does* show two {head} shots, and the X-rays support it."
Bull (re. Z-Film proof), and bull again (re. the X-rays, which do not
verify any such 2-shots-to-the-head scenario). You're spittin' out
theories just to see where they'll splatter. You...are...pathetic.
The autopsy report is unambiguous and always was re. the NUMBER OF
SHOTS THAT STRUCK THE PRESIDENT -- Two. And both from "behind and
somewhat above the level of the deceased".
All THREE autopsy docs are rotten liars when they signed-off on above
conclusion...right?
You're pathetic.
>> "What did the eyewitnesses, FBI, and Secret Service say {re. the SBT's validity}?"
And what did the WC say re. the SBT's likelihood, Ben (with the WC
being the entity investigating this whole situation closer than anybody
else at the time)?
And what did the HSCA say, Ben?
And what did every single one of the nine pathologists say re. the
SBT's validity for the HSCA in '78, Ben? (Including Wecht. Wecht thinks
the bullet did emerge from JFK's throat, but somehow didn't hit
Connally OR do any limo damage....per his 1986 account of the event at
the LHO Mock Trial. In short, he's cuckoo. Because one of those two
things HAD to have happened.)
And...what has every single "re-creation" and "test" and "animation"
(using verified TSBD measurements, blueprints, exacting scale-models of
the limo, etc.) said regarding the validity and likelihood of the SBT
since 1964, Ben?
Answer -- Each test has undeniably shown the SBT to be a valid and
reasonable scenario to explain the wounding of JFK/JBC in '63.
CTers will continue to deny the SBT's viability...but so what? Matters
not. Because the SBT WAS doable, and everybody with a brain and some
CS&L can easily see that to be the case. Because if it's NOT a correct
scenario....then bullets CAN dance around President's bodies, and
multiple bullets CAN disappear without a trace, and President's necks
and backs can be void of all major damage where major damage SHOULD be,
and miracles CAN, indeed, be performed.
>> "And yet, LNT'ers snip and run when any evidence and/or rebuttals are offered to their assertions."
You must be officially in fruitcake-land with this last comment of
yours. Because your patently-weak "comebacks" to my last multi-point
pro-LN essay only prove to me you have very little on your "CT" side
re. most of these items. Your repeating "What did the eyewitnesses
say?" is laughable.
Two words again apply best here -- You're pathetic.
>> "Why is that, do you suppose? Cowards?"
And CTers will continue to "isolate" proven-invalid CT "evidence" till
the cows come home (or until "Final Verdict" by VB arrives, whichever
comes first).
Why is that, do you suppose? Stupidity perhaps?
Ben Holmes
Davey-boy again snips all the relevant context, and only responds to topics that
he thinks he can handle - which is generally less than 10% of anything I post.
Anyone wonder why?
In article <1145694918....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> What did the eyewitnesses say?
>
>Oh, so Ben-boy wants to now (evidently) rely exclusively on
>"eyewitness" testimony (at least for this post/thread at any rate).
Actually, I responded to each of your questions by asking for the *relevant*
evidence, which in most cases were eyewitness statements or testimony.
This is an area that is dangerous for LNT'ers - they'd rather rely on
speculation, and often get upset when it's correctly labeled as such.
>OK.....
>
>The OVERWHELMING majority of witnesses (nearly 100% in fact; over 95%
>total) are "1 Killer" (ear)witnesses,
Untrue, of course... once again, when you use a lie to support your argument,
you really need to brush up on your argument.
>with all but 4 or 5 witnesses
>hearing shots from just "one" single location.
Oh? Which location was that? (Rhetorical question - Davey-boy will snip and
not answer it.)
>If shots had come from 2
>or more locales, this pct. of 95% in favor of just "one" location
>(whether it be front or rear) is impossibly high, IMO.
And we have a good basis on which to judge whether or not your opinion is worth
listening to.
>Plus -- 100% of the EYEwitnesses who can offer up an informed opinion
>are "1 Killer Witnesses" -- because absolutely NOBODY saw more than one
>gun or more than one killer firing a weapon at JFK on 11/22.
Even though there were a number of eyewitnesses to *multiple* people with a
rifle. And rifles in positions *other* than the SN.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your omissions...
>> What did the eyewitnesses say?
>
>Re. Tippit this time -- Ben's gotta be joking here folks. He wants to
>rely of the "eyewitnesses" at the Tippit scene to SUPPORT CONSPIRACY
>AND MULTIPLE KILLERS OF OFFICER TIPPIT?
As you snipped your original comment... I'll refer again to it here:
>>> 2.) 1, 2, or 3 gunmen/conspirators at the Tippit murder scene (none of
>>> them the God-like Saint Oswald, naturally).
And I asked you what did the eyewitnesses say. But you couldn't respond... for
you know, as well as I, that the closest eyewitness, Domingo Benavides, refused
to identify LHO as the killer. And strangely enough, he also reports that he
has been repeatedly threatened by police, and advised not to talk about what he
saw. (David Welsh, Ramparts, Nov '66). Helen Markham, of course, described
someone completely different.
William Scoggins, who *did* identify LHO, did so in the same lineup as Whaley,
and you can read Whaley's testimony to see what sort of "lineup" that one was.
But why is it so difficult for you to cite the evidence, Davey-boy? What scares
you about the eyewitnesses?
>He must be using that CT Goofy Juice again!
>
>Answer -- Very nearly 100% (again, like in DP) are "1 Killer"
>eyewitnesses....with only ONE single lonely witness supporting the idea
>of multiple killers running in opposite directions after the shooting
>of Tippit.
Meaningless... the closest eyewitness said one killer, I strongly suspect that
he's absolutely correct.
>IMO, Acquilla Clemmons saw Ted Callaway "escaping" the crime scene
>(with Tippit's own gun in tow) after Callaway secured Tippit's gun from
>the dead officer.
Why are you so afraid to cite the eyewitnesses for LHO's identification?
>> What did the eyewitnesses say?
>
>Re. shots fired in DP --- Again, Ben must be a glutton for punishment
>in bringing up the witnesses re. the # of shots....because the vast
>majority (beyond ALL doubt) heard THREE SHOTS EXACTLY. ......
Polls again... hmmm... that leaves you out in the cold, since polls put the
believers in conspiracy as high as 90% of America.
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
You clearly missed the HSCA - they corrected the record, and *four* shots is now
the official government position...
Sadly, you have no explanation for why eyewitnesses were being told by the FBI
as early as Saturday that if they didn't hear three shots, they didn't hear the
assassination... or words to that effect.
If there *were* exactly three shots, why was there official intimidation to
assert that number?
>> What did the eyewitnesses say?
>
>
>Re. Oswald's "Patsy" status. Let's let Ben come up with a single
>"witness" who went on record on 11/22 (or any # of days later) and said
>to the world "Oswald's nuttin' but a patsy folks". Can you come up with
>a single person...besides the accused double-murderer himself, of
>course?
Police Chief Jesse Curry: "We never could put him in that window with the rifle"
>> Z-film *does* show two shots, and the X-rays support it. Bugs you,
>> doesn't it?
>
>Bull (re. Z-Film proof),
Robert Harris has made an indisputable case... but you *will* dispute it, won't
you? How sad...
>and bull again (re. the X-rays, which do not
>verify any such 2-shots-to-the-head scenario).
A number of medically qualified people who've examined the X-rays have stated
so. What are *your* qualifications for calling them liars?
>You're spittin' out
>theories just to see where they'll splatter. You...are...pathetic.
Nah... just listing the evidence.
>The autopsy report is unambiguous and always was re. the NUMBER OF
>SHOTS THAT STRUCK THE PRESIDENT -- Two.
It was *also* unambiguous that the back of the heas was involved... but you
can't believe that, can you?
>And both from "behind and
>somewhat above the level of the deceased".
>
>All THREE autopsy docs are rotten liars when they signed-off on above
>conclusion...right?
You *do* have to believe that, don't you?
Or do you believe that the BOH film is altered? One or the other, they *both*
can't be true.
>You're pathetic.
Why, thankyou! I work very hard to be known as such from cowards and liars.
>> What did the eyewitnesses, FBI, and Secret Service say?
You added: "{re. the SBT's validity}?"
But let's look at what you *originally* said:
>12.) The SBT is pure bullshit....with 3 separate bullets peppering the
>2 victims instead of CE399, which was "planted" (naturally).
But you didn't answer the question - for you know that some of the medical and
ballistics experts stated that the SBT was untenable, and you know that the FBI
and Secret Service both stated, 'three shots, three hits'.
Yet you are too gutless to produce this simple answer, aren't you?
>And what did the WC say re. the SBT's likelihood, Ben (with the WC
>being the entity investigating this whole situation closer than anybody
>else at the time)?
I didn't ask you what the WC concluded, I asked you what the BASIC EVIDENCE
UNDERLYING THEIR 'CONCLUSIONS' WERE.
You couldn't give it, could you?
>And what did the HSCA say, Ben?
I didn't ask you what the HSCA concluded, I asked you what the BASIC EVIDENCE
UNDERLYING THEIR 'CONCLUSIONS' WERE.
You couldn't give it, could you?
>And what did every single one of the nine pathologists say re. the
>SBT's validity for the HSCA in '78, Ben? (Including Wecht. Wecht thinks
>the bullet did emerge from JFK's throat, but somehow didn't hit
>Connally OR do any limo damage....per his 1986 account of the event at
>the LHO Mock Trial. In short, he's cuckoo. Because one of those two
>things HAD to have happened.)
What did the evidence show? Or again, will you be too gutless to admit that
there is *NO* medically established evidence for transit - which is rather basic
to any SBT ideas...
In fact, what medical examination *was* done, proved exactly the opposite, that
no bullet transited JFK's body.
>And...what has every single "re-creation" and "test" and "animation"
>(using verified TSBD measurements, blueprints, exacting scale-models of
>the limo, etc.) said regarding the validity and likelihood of the SBT
>since 1964, Ben?
G.I.G.O.
>Answer -- Each test has undeniably shown the SBT to be a valid and
>reasonable scenario to explain the wounding of JFK/JBC in '63.
Nope.
>CTers will continue to deny the SBT's viability...but so what? Matters
>not. Because the SBT WAS doable, and everybody with a brain and some
>CS&L can easily see that to be the case. Because if it's NOT a correct
>scenario....then bullets CAN dance around President's bodies, and
>multiple bullets CAN disappear without a trace, and President's necks
>and backs can be void of all major damage where major damage SHOULD be,
>and miracles CAN, indeed, be performed.
It *would* take miracles for the SBT to be true. CAT scans have proven this
simple fact.
>> And yet, LNT'ers snip and run when any evidence and/or rebuttals are
>> offered to their assertions."
>
>
>You must be officially in fruitcake-land with this last comment of
>yours.
And yet, it's true, isn't it? LNT'ers constantly snip and run - you do it in
*THIS VERY POST*. You can't respond to the eyewitness testimony and evidence,
because there really *is* no response.
What can you say when it's pointed out that kids can see in the AP X-ray what
doctors and radiologists can't?
What can you say when it's pointed out that in the WCR and 26 volumes, they
couldn't find the space to put the OFFICIAL DEATH CERTIFICATE???!
What can you say when it's pointed out that the closest police eyewitness to the
murder was never asked a single question prior to the release of the WCR???
What can you say when it's pointed out that both the WC and HSCA *KNOWINGLY
LIED* in order to support their 'conclusions'???
The answer? "Nothing"... hence your desire to snip and run.
This is why one of my posts has drawn *no* rebuttals, despite being posted five
times now.
I think I'll expand on it, and start a weekly, or monthly posting - Just to
point out how cowardly LNT'ers have to be.
>Because your patently-weak "comebacks" to my last multi-point
>pro-LN essay only prove to me you have very little on your "CT" side
>re. most of these items.
Sad then, that you can't rebut them.
>Your repeating "What did the eyewitnesses
>say?" is laughable.
LNT'ers *have* to laugh at the evidence - they certainly can't *use* it.
>Two words again apply best here -- You're pathetic.
Thankyou. I work very hard to be considered so by those of your character.
>> Why is that, do you suppose? Cowards?
>
>
>And CTers will continue to "isolate" proven-invalid CT "evidence" till
>the cows come home (or until "Final Verdict" by VB arrives, whichever
>comes first).
>
>Why is that, do you suppose? Stupidity perhaps?
Bugliosi will be a joke, (just as Posner is), if and when his book is ever
released. Write this down.
greg
where ever he'd been since late Sept (Mexico City according to most).
Q: Now, about how long after you got to Ruth Paine's house in Irving,
Texas did you --
A: We left; a week or after a week or ten days, he show up.
Q: After a week or ten days he showed up?
A: Yes. He called one morning and said he was there, spent the night
YMCA or something like that. I forget now if he come by bus, you know,
and Ruth picked him up from the bus station or he took a taxi. I don't
remember.
Q: You don't remember which?
A: No, sir.
It would not have occurred to Marina that he may have got a taxi unless
he had used them previously.
With regard to Ruth Paine offering herself as a taxi servive... she did
later explain that when she had arrived he'd been looking for a cab.
Mr. JENNER - So that is confined to the meeting you expected to have
with Lee and Marina that morning when you went there and, to your
surprise, you found that Mr. Oswald was all packed to go to New Orleans.
Mrs. PAINE - All packed and looking for a cab; yes.
This business that he used one for the first time on 11/22/63 is a
classic LN factoid.
greg
James K. Olmstead
Jean: The difficulty is understanding the event. The M and R visit...was it planned, if so
why if Oswald was leaving and they didn't know the visit was to say goodbye. If they
were a few minutes early they would interfer with the last minute packing. If they were
a few minutes late, they would have missed them. If the visit was not planned, why say it was.
All of their belongings were packed for the trip, Ruth talks them into seperatiing......which
means all of the baby stuff and all of Marina's items needed for the stay had to be unpacked
and divided.......which means the rifle was in danger of exposure to the Paines.
They said they didn't know about the trip....but I believe they did.
jko
James K. Olmstead
btw did you get those doc last week?
jko
"greg" <magicrem...@octa4.net.au> wrote in message
news:4449d3a1$0$12115$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
j.raymon...@gmail.com
Curry show that this is a dead issue. Oswald had plenty of time to get
to the lunchroom."
Jean, I give up on the timing issue for now. I have not studied the
question for a long time. Of course to say that someone COULD have been
in a position to commit a crime is a long way from proving that the
same someone actually did commit the crime.
Jean wrote: "You tell me -- do you think Oswald was wearing both of his
jackets in Whaley's cab?"
No Jean, I do not. We do not normally identify people by their
clothing, and the real issue here is whether Whaley was able to
positively identify Lee Oswald, not by his clothing, but by his face. I
suspect that if the Commission had opened the issue of clothing by
refreshing Whaley's memory with his original affidavit, the confusion
about the jackets might never have arisen.
Ask any trial lawyer, you could trip up ANY witness, no matter how
honest or how observant, with some trivial issue like exactly what
someone was wearing four months earlier. Any trial lawyer will tell
you, though, that this is a dangerous tactic, because jurors are likely
to see right through it.
Jean wrote : "Witnesses have imagined seeing things on TV that were
never televised. People, normal people, sometimes confuse what they've
imagined with what actually happened."
I get it. So Buell Wesley Frazier imagined seeing Lee Oswald carrying a
package, and imagined that Lee said he had curtain rods. This method of
reasoning looks like great fun.
Jean, I commend you for your studies in the psychology of memory. Be
careful, though. That kind of study could lead you to the conclusion
that the lineup identifications by the Tippit witnesses are completely
worthless.
Jean wrote: "People do strange, crazy things every day, and why someone
who'd just killed a President couldn't do something that seems
irrational [offer up his getaway car to a lady] -- well, you tell me.
Why is that impossible?"
I do not say it is impossible that a fleeing killer could offer up his
getaway car to a lady, but I do say it is highly improbable. I do not
see how any fair-minded person can deny that this incident is evidence
-- not proof, just evidence -- of Lee Oswald's innocence. To attempt to
deny that the incident ever happened, why that's just a river in Egypt.
To Ben, thanks for the support. And thanks to James, Martha and Greg we
now know that, in his travels through this great big world of ours, Lee
Oswald used trains, planes and ships, and even that he was no stranger
to the common taxi. .
A special thanks goes out to Jean for clearing up one big mystery. Of
course I should have guessed the answer myself, since I have done the
same thing when confronted with an unexpected free afternoon:
Jean wrote:
"Nobody knows where Oswald was going, maybe not
even Oswald."
I wrote: " Jean, can you tell us why nobody bothered to ask him?
Jean wrote: "He claimed he was going to a movie."
So there we have it, folks. He said he was going to a movie, and dang
me if that's not exactly where he went.
David VP
Yeah....Oswald was just dying to see that Van Heflin double-feature. So
bent on seeing it he was, that he ducked out of work early....dashed
home....and grabbed a gun (just in case the theater door was blocked by
anybody; he could shoot his way into the picture-show house).
And Lee decides to act "funny" in Brewer's shoe-store entryway too just
down the street.
Why in the world WOULDN'T Oswald use an "I was going to the movies"
excuse....seeing as how he was caught in....the movie theater???
Why do so many people want to let Lee Oswald have TWO "Free Murder"
cards??
Amazing ignorance.
Jean Davison
Jim, I'm still not sure I follow you. The packing wasn't
necessarily "last minute," was it? It was planned all along that he go
alone to N.O. and find work, and Marina stay behind. He had Ruth take him
to the station so he could check his luggage and buy a ticket, but he
wasn't scheduled for any particular bus.
>
> All of their belongings were packed for the trip, Ruth talks them into
> seperatiing......which
> means all of the baby stuff and all of Marina's items needed for the stay
> had to be unpacked
> and divided.......which means the rifle was in danger of exposure to the
> Paines.
No, look again. Nothing was unpacked and divided. It was
planned that some of the baby things stay behind, which was one reason
that Ruth suggested that she drive Marina and June to New Orleans later,
rather than have Marina try to handle all that on a bus.
>
> They said they didn't know about the trip....but I believe they did.
Not sure what you mean by "they." Marina knew about the trip
ahead of time.
Jean
James K. Olmstead
Jean:
The Paines did not know of the move, you say so yourself
quote
>>>Ruth didn't know about the trip until she got there, <<<<
And if the plan was for Marina to stay behind....Lee would have
only packed his two bags.....not everything they owned.
jko
Jean Davison
But I don't see what difference that makes. Could you explain?
>
> quote
>
>>>>Ruth didn't know about the trip until she got there, <<<<
>
> And if the plan was for Marina to stay behind....Lee would have
> only packed his two bags.....not everything they owned.
But he *didn't* pack everything they owned. See this page,
e.g.:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0235a.htm
The entire discussion starts on p. 457 and continues for several
pages.
Jean
Anthony Marsh
> "Ray" <j.raymon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1145550402....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Jean wrote:
>>
>> "Nobody knows where Oswald was going, maybe not
>> even Oswald."
>>
>> Jean, can you tell us why nobody bothered to ask him?
>
> He claimed he was going to a movie.
>
No, that's silly. He only ducked into the Texas Theatre because he had
just killed a cop and the cops were looking for him.
j.raymon...@gmail.com
> No, that's silly. He only ducked into the Texas Theatre because he had
> just killed a cop and the cops were looking for him.
How do you know that?
Entering a cinema without paying constitutes the crime of Theft of
Services. As far as I know no one has ever proven that Lee Oswald was a
thief. He certainly did not admit to such a crime, nor was he ever charged
with such a crime during his lifetime.
tomnln
to Ruby's Place.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lqWdnfiKpM_FmEPZ...@comcast.com...
j.raymon...@gmail.com
tomnln wrote:
> Only two more blocks on the route Oswald was taking would have brought him
> to Ruby's Place.
Unlikely he was heading to meet Ruby.
Ruby was at Parkland hospital, remember?
Jim Shannon
<j.raymon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155409458.1...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
If Oswald had a criminal record he couldn't get intio Russia. Good points.
Jim
Jim Shannon
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:K6pDg.3417$W01.2227@dukeread08...
> Only two more blocks on the route Oswald was taking would have brought him
> to Ruby's Place.
Which basically dispenses the idea Oswald was heading too Ruby's. I still
think Oswald was headed to the Oak Cliff Library and if Tippit hadn't
spotted him the Library Intern and Oswald would have been an interesting
encounter when Police got there.
Jim
tomnln
<j.raymon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155423100.6...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Walt
There's a point to be made here about Oswald going to the movies, but I
can't remember what it is right now....... The point to be made is
concerning Cap't Fritz's notes. I believe somewhere in Fritz's notes he
said that Oswald PLANNED to go to the movies when he left the TSBD.
If Fritz believed that Lee Oswald had PLANNED to go to the movies, then
why did they pretend that Oswald FLED from the scene??
Walt
Anthony Marsh
What are you mumbling about now? Who said that Oswald wanted to get into
Russia after sneaking into the theatre? And please cite this law you are
talking about. Since when is sneaking into a theater a felony?
Were you just joking?
Anthony Marsh
Oswald was trying to hide from the police. He had just killed a cop. He
does not want to risk being identified by the ticket clerk while paying
for a ticket. So, is sneaking into the theater a felony according to you?
Anthony Marsh
Mind showing me where in Fritz's notes Oswald said that he had planned
to go to the theatre?
>
>
j.raymon...@gmail.com
> Oswald was trying to hide from the police. He had just killed a cop. He
> does not want to risk being identified by the ticket clerk while paying
> for a ticket.
The Gospel according to the Warren Commission.
Was he afraid that that the ticket clerk witnessed the Tippit murder?
>So, is sneaking into the theater a felony according to you?
Probably a misdemeanour given the value involved, but a crime
nonetheless. Why draw attention to himself by committing a silly crime
like theft in broad daylight if he really was a murderer?
All due respect, Mr. Marsh, I think you are missing something here.
Jim Shannon
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:1155481567.3...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Most importantly, why was Oswald spotted heading up Tenth st if he was
going to the movies. Why be on Tenth st at all?
Jim
Jim Shannon
Um, I wrote only the last line about the criminal record.
Jim
Jim Shannon
I Capt Fritz was right that Oswald had "planned" to go to the movies then
Oswald could not be the Tippit shooter. Notice the Julia Postal water
works. Oswald was still in the theater when Tippit was shot. Brewer
spotted the Oswald double *away* from the TT. If Oswald did take part in
the Tippit shooting he would have ducked into the theater right away
instead of meandering down Jefferson looking at shoes.
Jim
Jim Shannon
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:1155481567.3...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
Oops, too many cross posts. If that was the case then V Davis saw an
Oswald double and Oswald was already in the theater.
Jim
Anthony Marsh
That's the line I am talking about. I reply just under the sentence to
which I am replying, not the whole message. Were you serious about the
idea that someone can not get into Russia if he had a criminal record?
Where did you get such a wacky idea? Of course you could never cite
anything to verify that.
Anthony Marsh
False premise. Oswald was not headed for the movies.
Anthony Marsh
None of that makes sense. Show me where Fritz said Oswald planned to go
to the movies. You are starting with a false premise.
The Tipppit shooting was well before Oswald snuck into the theater.
Oswald was not meandering and he was not looking at shoes. He was trying
to find a place to hide from the police dragnet.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Oswald was trying to hide from the police. He had just killed a cop. He
>> does not want to risk being identified by the ticket clerk while paying
>> for a ticket.
>
> The Gospel according to the Warren Commission.
>
> Was he afraid that that the ticket clerk witnessed the Tippit murder?
>
No, he did not want to be remembered by the ticket clerk in case the
police asked if someone just came into the theater. SOP.
>> So, is sneaking into the theater a felony according to you?
>
> Probably a misdemeanour given the value involved, but a crime
> nonetheless. Why draw attention to himself by committing a silly crime
> like theft in broad daylight if he really was a murderer?
>
A crime? Oh my. Why, Oswald would never commit a crime would he? Such as
killing a cop? Or shooting at General Walker. Don't know for sure, but I
believe even then attempted murder would be a felony in Texas.
Anthony Marsh
Where? Show me.
Walt
Oswald was LAST seen standing on the curb near his rooming house on
N.Berkley ave.
The next time he was seen was when he was taken into custody in the
Theater.
Walt
Walt
Look in Appendix XI in the W.R.
Walt
Walt
Tony ....What the hell's the idea of making up this crap.... How do you
know when Oswald went into the theater.... The man that shot Tippit may
have ducked into the theater . You don't know if the man that Brewer saw
was Oswald.....(Personally, I don't believe it was) You may "BELIEVE" that
Oswald ducked into the theater to hide from a police dragnet, but that
idea doesn't make much sense.
Your looking at the situation with the benefit of hindsight. If Oswald
had been a "lone nut" killer with no associates, and had been trying to
escape....do you think he would have entered a theater and sat down to
watch a movie?? If he had been JFK's killer would it have made sense for
him to go to the rooming house, the very spot that the cops could track
him?? Don't you think a murderer would flee away from any known haunts.??
You think that Because Oswald was arrested in the theater that he fled
there....
That HINDSIGHT is based on your assumption that Oswald had cause to flee.
I don't believe he was fleeing at all....He went to the theater because
the PLAN called for him to go there after the "staged" attempt on JFK's
life. He was supposed to be one of the assassins who ATTEMPTED to shoot
JFK and had got away. He believed that Castro would welcome him as the
fugitive who had attempted to shoot JFK.
He was exactly what he said he was.....A Patsy.
Walt
Anthony Marsh
Then explain and prove your point. He did not want to risk being
remembered by the ticket seller. That is why he snuck in.
David VP
He did. His name was Lee Oswald.
>>> "You don't know if the man that Brewer saw was Oswald." <<<
Now this here just might be in the Top 5 of "Most Absurd Walt-isms"
he's ever uttered. Brewer, just minutes after seeing the man acting
"funny" and dodging police vehicles, positively identified the man who
he had seen just minutes earlier down the street. He pointed to Lee
Oswald as that man. That is as good as an official "Police Line-up"
identification in my book.
But when a kook examines this very same evidence, we're treated to this
--- "You don't know if the man that Brewer saw was Oswald."
Hilarious!
>>> "Personally, I don't believe it was..." <<<
That's because you're a kook.
>>> "That idea {dashing into a movie theater without paying} doesn't make much sense." <<<
Only a kook would utter the above crap as well.
Oswald, obviously feeling "the law" getting ever closer, ran into a
dark theater to hide for a while (hoping he wasn't noticed).
That scenario makes PERFECT sense given the circumstances. Perfect
sense. What BETTER place, in fact, to "lay low" for an hour or two than
in a DARK PLACE (like a movie theater with a movie already in
progress)?
But, when a kook examines this case, we're treated to this --- "You may
"BELIEVE" that Oswald ducked into the theater to hide from a police
dragnet, but that idea doesn't make much sense."
Hilarious!
>>> "If Oswald had been a "lone nut" killer with no associates, and had been trying to escape...do you think he would have entered a theater and sat down to watch a movie?" <<<
Yes. Absolutely. Positively. For the reasons given above.
Do you think it makes MORE sense for Oswald to remain OUTSIDE ON THE
SUNNY STREETS, while the police cars converge all around the
neighborhood?
That theater became a 'safe haven' for Oswald. For a few minutes
anyhow. And if not for a young man named Johnny C. Brewer (who has
never been given the proper credit he deserves when it comes to the
major role he played in the events of 11/22/63), it's quite possible
that Oswald would have slipped underneath the police radar entirely on
Nov. 22nd.
But, unfortunately for sweet Lee O., Brewer happened to get a glimpse
of LHO acting "funny" and looking scared in the Hardy's shoe-store
entrance.
I, for one, tip my cap to Mr. Brewer for the bravery he exhibited after
observing Oswald at the shoe store too. Brewer certainly didn't have to
follow Oswald up the street; and he wasn't forced to talk with Julia
Postal about this man who entered the theater without paying; and
Brewer certainly wasn't under any obligation to then go into the
theater and help secure the exits in case Oswald tried to leave.
Brewer and Postal both did their good deeds on 11/22 to help capture a
double-murderer. Postal, in fact, given her testimony, sort of took
charge of things and was coordinating the effort to seal off the
theater (in a fashion), by enlisting the help of Brewer and Mr.
Burroughs as well.
I tip my hat to both Johnny Calvin Brewer and Julia Postal.
>>> "If he {Oswald} had been JFK's killer would it have made sense for him to go to the rooming house, the very spot that the cops could track him?" <<<
If the killer needed to pick up something really bad (like, say, a
gun)...then, yes, absolutely....this action makes total sense. (Except
to a person in Oz's fan club, of course.)
Plus...Oswald had a good idea that he wasn't walking into a trap set by
the cops...because he had cab driver Whaley drive past 1026 Beckley
BEFORE letting him out in the 700 block of Beckley. Oz, in this
instance, was using his head. He checked to see if it was safe before
dashing into his roominghouse (and staying no more than 4 minutes, per
Mrs. Roberts...it was probably much less time than that, though,
IMO....because there was certainly no reason at all for him to stay in
that room for more than 1 minute at most).
>>> "He {Oswald} went to the theater because the PLAN called for him to go there after the "staged" attempt on JFK's life." <<<
Ahhhh....the life of a CT-Kook! It must be lovely. Patsies galore!
Faked evidence everywhere you turn! Cops who are more than willing to
frame an innocent man so that the real killer of a fellow police
officer can get away scot-free! Witness testimony that you can twist
into a pretzel to make Oswald look totally innocent! And "Staged"
attempts on JFK's life! (LOL!)
Do they allow you TV privileges there at the "Oswald's My Hero" club?
(And if you are allowed to watch TV...do they ever show anything except
Oliver Stone's 'JFK' 24/7?)
>>> "He {Oswald} was exactly what he said he was.....A Patsy." <<<
And Walt is exactly what I say he is --- a bona fide, Grade-A,
top-of-the-class "CT-Kook". Congrats are in order. You made it.
Walt
My goodness..... Your verbose response to my post makes it obvious that
I've struck a chord. Apparently this is an area that you don't want
intruded into.... You want to continue painting Oswald guilty by
making his actions after the assassination seem sinister. It ain't
gonna work....but good Luck.
Walt
Walt
David VP wrote:
> >>> "The man that shot Tippit may have ducked into the theater." <<<
>
> He did. His name was Lee Oswald.
>
>
> >>> "You don't know if the man that Brewer saw was Oswald." <<<
>
>
> Now this here just might be in the Top 5 of "Most Absurd Walt-isms"
> he's ever uttered. Brewer, just minutes after seeing the man acting
> "funny" and dodging police vehicles, positively identified the man who
> he had seen just minutes earlier down the street. He pointed to Lee
> Oswald as that man. That is as good as an official "Police Line-up"
> identification in my book.
Brewer did not know Lee Oswald.....Therefore he could not be certain
that the man he saw was in FACT Lee Harvey Oswald. Anybody who doesn't
have their vision obstructed, knows that there were at least two Oswald
imposter's who looked enough like Lee to be his twin. (Read how Sylvia
Odio caused near panic among the W.C. by revealing that a Oswald
imposter had visited her appartment)
>
> But when a kook examines this very same evidence, we're treated to this
> --- "You don't know if the man that Brewer saw was Oswald."
>
> Hilarious!
Well get away from the mirror......
>
> >>> "Personally, I don't believe it was..." <<<
>
> That's because you're a kook.
>
>
> >>> "That idea {dashing into a movie theater without paying} doesn't make much sense." <<<
>
> Only a kook would utter the above crap as well.
I agree...... Some kook changed the meaning of the sentence by adding
the words" dashing into a movie theater without paying"
> Oswald, obviously feeling "the law" getting ever closer, ran into a
> dark theater to hide for a while (hoping he wasn't noticed).
>
> That scenario makes PERFECT sense given the circumstances. Perfect
> sense. What BETTER place, in fact, to "lay low" for an hour or two than
> in a DARK PLACE (like a movie theater with a movie already in
> progress)?
HUMAN NATURE doesn't work that way...... When a man commits a crime he
runs AWAY from the scene.
>
> But, when a kook examines this case, we're treated to this --- "You may
> "BELIEVE" that Oswald ducked into the theater to hide from a police
> dragnet, but that idea doesn't make much sense."
>
> Hilarious!
>
>
> >>> "If Oswald had been a "lone nut" killer with no associates, and had been trying to escape...do you think he would have entered a theater and sat down to watch a movie?" <<<
>
> Yes. Absolutely. Positively. For the reasons given above.
Your "reasoning" is badly flawed
He did go to the theater as part of the plan..... He thought he he
would meet the pilot thre who was to fly him to Mexico, on the first
leg of his "flight to avoid prosecution" for ATTEMPTING to shoot the
president. He thought he would wind up in Cuba....where he could find
out if the missles really had been removed.
Walt
David VP
Yes, any kook who insists that Oswald is innocent of killing Tippit
does strike a "chord" in me. Because I have no respect for such obvious
disregard for the obvious in that particular part of the Kennedy case.
Oswald killed Tippit...and you could toss out all the witnesses and
Oswald's guilt would still be verifiable. Only a kook would paint LHO
innocent of that 2nd 11/22 murder.
>>> "You want to continue painting Oswald guilty by making his actions after the assassination seem sinister. It ain't gonna work....but good Luck." <<<
As if I need "luck" to paint Oswald as a double-murderer on 11/22/63.
LOL.
Every single thing Oswald did after 12:30 on Nov. 22 reeks with guilt.
Everything.
Does an innocent man truly act as Oswald did in the post-12:30 hours on
11/22?
Does an innocent man START KILLING POLICEMEN less than an hour after he
DOESN'T kill JFK?
Does an innocent man say the strange things to the police that Oswald
did after his arrest (and also fight like a wild man while trying to
kill people with a gun)?
Does an innocent person tell one lie on top of another after he's
arrested?
And yet we're treated to this absurd comment by Walt-Kook.....
"You want to continue painting Oswald guilty by making his actions
after the assassination seem sinister. It ain't gonna work...but good
Luck."
Hilarious (yet again)!
Walt
David VP wrote:
> >>> "Your verbose response to my post makes it obvious that I've struck a chord." <<<
>
> Yes, any kook who insists that Oswald is innocent of killing Tippit
> does strike a "chord" in me. Because I have no respect for such obvious
> disregard for the obvious in that particular part of the Kennedy case.
>
> Oswald killed Tippit...and you could toss out all the witnesses and
> Oswald's guilt would still be verifiable. Only a kook would paint LHO
> innocent of that 2nd 11/22 murder.
>
>
> >>> "You want to continue painting Oswald guilty by making his actions after the assassination seem sinister. It ain't gonna work....but good Luck." <<<
>
>
> As if I need "luck" to paint Oswald as a double-murderer on 11/22/63.
> LOL.
>
> Every single thing Oswald did after 12:30 on Nov. 22 reeks with guilt.
> Everything.
>
> Does an innocent man truly act as Oswald did in the post-12:30 hours on
> 11/22?
>
> Does an innocent man START KILLING POLICEMEN less than an hour after he
> DOESN'T kill JFK?
You think he did....I think he didn't.... PROVE that Oswald could run
a mile in 3 minutes.
His landlady saw him on the curb in front of the house at 1:03. A mile
away from the rooming house, Helen Markham was on her way to catch a
1:10 bus when she saw a gunman shoot officer J.D. Tippit at 1:06.
>
> Does an innocent man say the strange things to the police that Oswald
> did after his arrest (and also fight like a wild man while trying to
> kill people with a gun)?
Are there tape recordings that Oswald said any of the things you THINK
he said??
>
> Does an innocent person tell one lie on top of another after he's
> arrested?
What lies??.... Let's take em one at a time....
Walt
>
> And yet we're treated to this absurd comment by Walt-Kook.....
>
> "You want to continue painting Oswald guilty by making his actions
> after the assassination seem sinister. It ain't gonna work...but good
> Luck."
>
> Hilarious (yet again)!
Please take my earlier advise.....Get away from that mirror.
David VP
Was Markham looking at her watch at that exact moment? Was Roberts?
All times are "estimates", of course. And only a kook would use that
evidence to try and debunk the known FACT that Oswald was at 10th &
Patton and shot Tippit with a gun -- regardless of the exact time.
tomnln
It's obvious that you are NOT familiar with the facts of the Tippit Murder.
I suggest you look at the Officialk Records found HERE>>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155652092.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
David VP
The Kook Facts? Or the true ones that all show Oswald to be Tippit's
killer?
The latter I'm fully aware of, of course.
The former I could certainly live without.
Walt
No they are NOT estimates....in the sense that they are totally
inaccurate. His Landlady used what she was seeing on TV at the time
as a gauge to determine when she last saw Oswald. She said he arrived
at 1:00pm and left a few minutes later, at approximately 1:03 . I
agree, she could have been off a little in her "estimate".... He might
have left closer to 1:04,
who knows??
Helen Markham used the time of arrival of her bus as a gauge..... She
knew she had to be at work at 1:30 and she had to catch the 1:10 bus.
She knew she had left her apartment at 1:04, so she KNEW it was 1:06
and wrote that time down in her affidavit. Again I agree with
you...She might have been off a little in her "estimation" of the time
that saw the Tippit shooting.... It could have been closer to 1:05, who
knows?
One witnesses, T.F.Bowly, who arrived on the scene in a short period of
time after the shooting, actually looked at his watch, and noticed that
it was 1:06.
Unless you can prove that Lee Oswald was the worlds fastest man, I
believe you've foisted yerself on yer own pitard.
Walt
David VP
What do you think it would take for you to turn from a CTer into an
LNer??
Just curious if dynamite would be involved to get that job done??
But, seriously, I'd enjoy hearing the answer to that inquiry.
Do you think that ANYTHING (or anybody) could convince you that just
one man murdered JFK & JDT on 11-22-63?
David VP
Nonsense. More kook logic...as usual.
As said previously, only a kook would use the time estimates to attempt
to debunk the KNOWN FACT (by way of OTHER things) that Oswald killed
Tippit.
But I suppose you figure it's your duty to be a kook and ignore the
overriding "Oswald's Guilty" evidence. Right?
BTW, Walt -- Can you answer this for me please......What would it take
for you to turn from "CTer" to "LNer"?
Do you think that that switch is even possible, given your current
status of "Mind-Bogglingly-Stupid CT Kook"?
Just wondering.
Thanks for your time. (Even if it IS just an "estimated kook time".) :)
tomnln
I was referring to the Official Records here that you Snippped.
Here they are again snippy>>>>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
Unless of course you wanna state that the Official Records are PHONY???
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155653406.8...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Your goal is to get me to something I can NOT Prove.
Your goal is to destroy my credibility.
Impossible, because I quote ONLY Official Evidence/Testimony.
http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
ps;
Notice I don't even attempt to reverse the question to you?
Because I know you don't go by Evidence/Testimony.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155653568.9...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Walt
David VP wrote:
> >>> "Unless you can prove that Lee Oswald was the world's fastest man, I believe you've foisted yerself on yer own pitard." <<<
>
> Nonsense. More kook logic...as usual.
>
> As said previously, only a kook would use the time estimates to attempt
> to debunk the KNOWN FACT (by way of OTHER things) that Oswald killed
> Tippit.
>
> But I suppose you figure it's your duty to be a kook and ignore the
> overriding "Oswald's Guilty" evidence. Right?
>
> BTW, Walt -- Can you answer this for me please......What would it take
> for you to turn from "CTer" to "LNer"?
Dear Dumbass..... I've already told you.... that at one time I too was
a naive, gullible, unthinking, Warren Commission believer. But there
was something about the official story that I couldn't swallow. No
matter how long I masticated the mess, I couldn't swallow it. Then
after damned near choking to death, it finally dawned on me,... It was
indigestable.
That's why you LNer's are so irritababble... You've swallowed it and
now yer constipated.
So you see, I've already switched.....Try it...You'll like it!
Walt
aeffects
Walt wrote:
> David VP wrote:
> > >>> "Unless you can prove that Lee Oswald was the world's fastest man, I believe you've foisted yerself on yer own pitard." <<<
> >
> > Nonsense. More kook logic...as usual.
> >
> > As said previously, only a kook would use the time estimates to attempt
> > to debunk the KNOWN FACT (by way of OTHER things) that Oswald killed
> > Tippit.
> >
> > But I suppose you figure it's your duty to be a kook and ignore the
> > overriding "Oswald's Guilty" evidence. Right?
> >
> > BTW, Walt -- Can you answer this for me please......What would it take
> > for you to turn from "CTer" to "LNer"?
>
> Dear Dumbass..... I've already told you.... that at one time I too was
> a naive, gullible, unthinking, Warren Commission believer. But there
> was something about the official story that I couldn't swallow. No
> matter how long I masticated the mess, I couldn't swallow it. Then
> after damned near choking to death, it finally dawned on me,... It was
> indigestable.
> That's why you LNer's are so irritababble... You've swallowed it and
> now yer constipated.
LMAO!
Walt
David VP wrote:
> >>> "Unless you can prove that Lee Oswald was the world's fastest man, I believe you've foisted yerself on yer own pitard." <<<
>
> Nonsense. More kook logic...as usual.
Logic???.. It's simple arithmetic.... 1:06 - 1:03 = 3minutes. I
believe if you check the record books, You will NOT find L.H. Oswald as
a record holder.... I believe you'll find that nobody has ever ran a
mile in 3 minutes.
Why do you keep attributing all of these magical feats to Oswald? (
Firing a bolt action Mannlicher Carcano so that the sound was
....Boom..............bang, bang.... with the last two shots nearly
superimposed on top of each other) As far as I know there is only
one instance on record where Oswald attempted to be a "magician". That
was when he was in the Marine Corp. The trick was a flop.
Walt
David VP
LOL.
I was hoping The Sackster would provide an answer similar to the above
LOL-inducing one!
He didn't disappoint.
This quote is a howl, Mr. Sack!! Deserves a triple-play, in
fact........
"Your goal is to destroy my credibility."
"Your goal is to destroy my credibility."
"Your goal is to destroy my credibility."
Can anyone tell me if Tom R. ever HAD any "credibility" to be
"destroyed" in the first place? (I know the answer, of course...but
maybe somebody else would like to join in here....and the merriment can
continue unabated for a while longer.)
That was a classic. Does he really NOT know he's continually walking
right into those solid-brick walls??
David VP
Wow. How about that!
No matter how many times you point out their idiocy, the kooks will
keep going right back to play in the CT playpen.
Just like with clothing descriptions, humans are notoriously LOUSY at
time estimates. Take several of the DP witnesses for example...Jim
Altgens said the shooting of JFK took "no more than 30 seconds" to
complete! Up to thirty seconds for an 8-second event.
And one witness estimated the shooting took FIVE MINUTES!
You're not likely to get two time estimates that match each other among
a handful of witnesses. Very UNlikely, in fact.
The "best" evidence, of course, is the ballistics evidence which proves
Oswald's gun was used to shoot Tippit. Plus the eyewitnesses, who
verify it was Oswald (many times over).
But keep on pretending "Saint O." was a great guy, kook. You two guys
were made for each other. After all, Oswald was a "kook" too.
Jim Shannon
> Jim Shannon wrote:
>> "Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
>> news:1155481567.3...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> <j.raymon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1155409458.1...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that's silly. He only ducked into the Texas Theatre because he
>>>>>> had
>>>>>> just killed a cop and the cops were looking for him.
>>>>> How do you know that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Entering a cinema without paying constitutes the crime of Theft of
>>>>> Services. As far as I know no one has ever proven that Lee Oswald was
>>>>> a
>>>>> thief. He certainly did not admit to such a crime, nor was he ever
>>>>> charged
>>>>> with such a crime during his lifetime.
>>>> points.
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>> There's a point to be made here about Oswald going to the movies, but I
>>> can't remember what it is right now....... The point to be made is
>>> concerning Cap't Fritz's notes. I believe somewhere in Fritz's notes he
>>> said that Oswald PLANNED to go to the movies when he left the TSBD.
>>> If Fritz believed that Lee Oswald had PLANNED to go to the movies, then
>>> why did they pretend that Oswald FLED from the scene??
>>>
>>> Walt
>>
>> going to the movies. Why be on Tenth st at all?
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
I share that premise too. Oswald ino was headed towards the Library.
Jim
Jim Shannon
Walt, we know this already. Question is what was Oswald doing two lots up
Tenth st heading in the direction *away* from TT? According to the offcial
version that is.
Jim
Jim Shannon
>>> Jim Shannon wrote:
>>>> <j.raymon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1155409458.1...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that's silly. He only ducked into the Texas Theatre because he
>>>>>> had
>>>>>> just killed a cop and the cops were looking for him.
>>>>> How do you know that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Entering a cinema without paying constitutes the crime of Theft of
>>>>> Services. As far as I know no one has ever proven that Lee Oswald was
>>>>> a
>>>>> thief. He certainly did not admit to such a crime, nor was he ever
>>>>> charged
>>>>> with such a crime during his lifetime.
>>>> If Oswald had a criminal record he couldn't get intio Russia. Good
>>>> points.
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>> Russia after sneaking into the theatre? And please cite this law you are
>>> talking about. Since when is sneaking into a theater a felony?
>>>
>>> Were you just joking?
>>
>> Um, I wrote only the last line about the criminal record.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> That's the line I am talking about. I reply just under the sentence to
> which I am replying, not the whole message. Were you serious about the
> idea that someone can not get into Russia if he had a criminal record?
> Where did you get such a wacky idea? Of course you could never cite
> anything to verify that.
Given the climate of a Communist country like the former Soviet Union pre
Glasnost, I'd suspect that anyone entering the country would need such
proper documentation in their passport. It isn't unreasonable to make such
an observation. I got turned away at the US boarder in 1970 because I had a
dime in my pocket when we were only going to be there for an afternoon and
out. We later went to one of the minor crossings and we got in no problem.
Jim
Walt
tomnln wrote:
> Only two more blocks on the route Oswald was taking would have brought him
> to Ruby's Place.
It's all well and good to point out that the Tippit murder took place
just a couple of blocks from Jack Ruby's pad..... But saying that
Oswald was there at the scene of Tippit's murder is pure BULL SHIT!!
Walt
>
>
>
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:lqWdnfiKpM_FmEPZ...@comcast.com...
> > Jean Davison wrote:
> >> "Ray" <j.raymon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1145550402....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >>> Jean wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "Nobody knows where Oswald was going, maybe not
> >>> even Oswald."
> >>>
> >>> Jean, can you tell us why nobody bothered to ask him?
> >>
> >> He claimed he was going to a movie.
> >>
> >
> > No, that's silly. He only ducked into the Texas Theatre because he had
> > just killed a cop and the cops were looking for him.
> >
> >>> Jean wrote:
> >>>
> >>> " Now all you have to do is show that repeating something three times
> >>> means that it's accurate."
> >>>
> >>> Not quite, Jean. It means that you have to show that William Whaley
> >>> concocted or imagined the entire incident in which Lee Oswald,
> >>> allegedly a fleeing assassin, opened the door and offered up his
> >>> getaway car to a lady.
> >>
> >> But it's not unusual for witnesses to "concoct or imagine"
> >> things. You tell me -- do you think Oswald was wearing both of his
> >> jackets in Whaley's cab? (Oswald's blue jacket was found later in the
> >> TSBD. His landlady said he arrived in his shirtsleeves.)
> >>
> >> Witnesses have imagined seeing things on TV that were never
> >> televised. People, normal people, sometimes confuse what they've
> >> imagined with what actually happened. If you don't believe me, please
> >> spend a little time researching it on Google. Try the phrase "source
> >> monitoring" with "memory," e.g. Memory is not nearly as reliable as most
> >> people think.
> >>
> >>> I will agree that there is something unbelievable about this incident
> >>> if you assume that Lee really was an assassin, but there is nothing
> >>> unbelievable about if you assume he was innocent.
> >>
> >> I don't agree that it's unbelievable if he was guilty. I'm not
> >> even arguing that it definitely didn't happen, I've just pointed out that
> >> it's not in Whaley's original account (and neither are the two jackets).
> >> People do strange, crazy things every day, and why someone who'd just
> >> killed a President couldn't do something that seems irrational -- well,
> >> you tell me. Why is that impossible?
> >>
> >>> Jean wrote:
> >>>
> >>> " Actually, Baker *did* notice Oswald hurrying. Oswald didn't know
> >>> that Baker could see him at that time, because he was walking away into
> >>> the lunchroom, while Baker was about 20 feet away at the landing of the
> >>> 2nd floor stairway. Baker testified:
> >>>
> >>> QUOTE:
> >>>
> >>> Mr. BAKER - ...... Now, through this window you can't see too much but
> >>> I
> >>> just caught a glimpse of him through this window going away from me and
> >>> as I ran to this door and opened it, and looked on down in the
> >>> lunchroom he was on down there about 20 feet so he was moving about as
> >>> fast as I was.
> >>> [....]
> >>> Mr. DULLES - ......... Did he seem to be hurrying, anything of that
> >>> kind?
> >>> Mr. BAKER - Evidently he was hurrying because at this point here, I was
> >>>
> >>> running, and I ran on over here to this door. [....]
> >>> And at that position there he was already down here some 20 feet away
> >>> from me.
> >>> UNQUOTE
> >>>
> >>> Good ol' Lee was probably just in a real big hurry to get himself a
> >>> Coke.
> >>>
> >>> Jean "
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> We know that Lee was carrying a bottle of coke when he encountered Mrs.
> >>> Reid a few moments later, so yes, if he was hurrying, he must have been
> >>> hurrying to get a bottle of coke from the machine. But Baker only
> >>> inferred rather than actually saw him "hurrying." What Baker actually
> >>> saw was a man walking.
> >>
> >> Of course Baker inferred it -- for good reason, according to his
> >> testimony.
> >>
> >> Oswald was about 20 feet away when Baker first spotted him and
> >> *still* about 20 feet away after Baker ran over to the door. If Oswald
> >> hadn't been hurrying, Baker should've gained ground on him -- but he
> >> didn't, in Baker's opinion.
> >>
> >>> Mr. Belin.
> >>> Was--his back was away from you, or not, as you first saw him?
> >>> Mr. Baker.
> >>> As I first caught that glimpse of him, or as I saw him, really saw him?
> >>>
> >>> Mr. Belin.
> >>> As you really saw him.
> >>> Mr. Baker.
> >>> He was walking away from me with his back toward me.
> >>> Mr. Dulles.
> >>>
> >>> Vol 111 P.250
> >>>
> >>> Representative Boggs.
> >>> When you saw him, was he out of breath, did he appear to have been
> >>> running or what?
> >>> Mr. Baker.
> >>> It didn't appear that to me. He appeared normal you know.
> >>> Representative Boggs.
> >>> Was he calm and collected?
> >>> Mr. Baker.
> >>> Yes, sir.
> >>
> >> CTs always quote this as though it means something. I don't
> >> think it does, Ray. A guilty man would've been trying his best to look
> >> innocent, no?
> >>
> >>> Jean's quotation from Marrion Baker's testimony opens up the question
> >>> whether the "reenactments" conducted by David Belin can validly be used
> >>> to show that a sixth-floor gunman could have beaten Baker and Truly to
> >>> the lunchroom. In Baker's testimony, as quoted by Jean, Baker himself
> >>> was "running" as he reached the lunchroom. Belin's "reenactments" were
> >>> not filmed, as they could and should have been, but was Baker actually
> >>> "running" in the "reenactment"?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Classic Harold Weisberg, repeated by CTs for 4 decades. Wrong
> >> then, wrong now.
> >>
> >> The "lunchroom encounter" has been re-enacted several times,
> >> most recently in one of the JFK documentaries (Discovery Channel's, I
> >> think). In that one, Oswald's journey down the stairs took, as I recall,
> >> less than 50 seconds, and the LHO stand-in wasn't out of breath.
> >> Moreover, Baker took longer to reach the TSBD on 11/22 than he did during
> >> the WC re-enactment -- this is shown by the timing of both Baker's
> >> appearance on the Couch film and by a radio message Baker heard before he
> >> left his motorcycle.
> >>
> >> Here's an old post of mine from Lancer, just so I don't have
> >> to type it again:
> >>
> >> QUOTE:
> >> ************************************************
> >> ************************************************
> >>
> >> As you know, Baker testified that as he was leaving his parked
> >> motorcycle...:
> >>
> >> QUOTE:
> >>>>> ... the last thing I heard here on the
> >> radio was the chief [Curry] saying, "Get some men up on that railroad
> >> track."
> >> Mr. BELIN. Did you hear that on your police radio?
> >> Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir; that was the last thing I heard.
> >> Mr. BELIN. As you were getting off your motorcycle?
> >> Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir.
> >> <<<
> >> UNQUOTE (III, 256)
> >>
> >> Gary Mack has estimated that Curry's statement came at least 30-40
> >> seconds
> >> after the shots. He gave me permission to quote from his e-mail:
> >>
> >> QUOTE:
> >>
> >>>> Curry told me, and others over the years, that he didn't say or do
> >>>> anything until officer Chaney rode up and confirmed that it was a
> >>>> shooting, that Kennedy and Connally had been hit, and they needed to
> >>>> get
> >>>> to a hospital.
> >>
> >> Thanks to the Jack Daniel home movie shot from west of the triple
> >> underpass, it's known that at least 15 seconds went by before Chaney even
> >> reached the underpass. Add another 10-15 seconds, or more for him to
> >> reach Curry -- which didn't happen until Curry rounded the curve to the
> >> Stemmons ramp -- have the brief conversation, then Curry shouted to Greer
> >> what to do, and you have a minimum time of 30-40 seconds between the
> >> shooting and Curry's order. ...<< UNQUOTE
> >>
> >> Curry's testimony on this is at IV, 161.
> >>
> >> For you "lunchroom encounter" fans, this means that Baker took longer to
> >> get to the lunchroom than the 90 seconds of the reenactment, and the WR
> >> noted that this might be the case, when it said:
> >>
> >> QUOTE:
> >>
> >>>>> The time actually required for Baker and Truly to reach the second
> >> floor on November 22 was probably longer than in the test runs. For
> >> example, Baker required 15 seconds after the simulated shot to ride his
> >> motorcycle 180 to 200 feet, park it, and run 45 feet to the building. No
> >> allowance was made for the special conditions which existed on the day of
> >> the assassination -- possible delayed reaction to the shot, jostling with
> >> the crowd of people on the steps and scanning the area along Elm Street
> >> and the parkway. Baker said, "We simulated the shots and by the time we
> >> got there, we did everything that I did that day, and this would be the
> >> minimum, because I am sure that I, you know, it took me a little longer."
> >> <<<
> >>
> >> UNQUOTE
> >>
> >> And evidently, Baker was right -- it did take him longer on 11/22. In the
> >> reenactment he got to the front door in 15 seconds, whereas on 11/22, he
> >> hadn't yet left his motorcycle.
> >> Jean
> >> ************************************************************************
> >> ************************************************************************
> >> UNQUOTE
> >>
> >> Returning to your post......
> >>
> >>
> >>> Mr. Belin.
> >>> All right. When we got inside the building did we run or trot or walk?
> >>> Mr. Baker.
> >>> Well, we did it at kind of a trot, I would say, it wasn't a real fast
> >>> run, an open run. It was more of a trot, kind of.
> >>>
> >>> Was it a "run" or a "trot"?
> >>>
> >>> (Imagine that a man's fate depends on your answer?)
> >>>
> >>> As David Belin liked to say: You Are the Jury.
> >>
> >> Weisberg was wrong, Ray. The Couch film and the radio message
> >> from
> >> Curry show that this is a dead issue. Oswald had plenty of time to get
> >> to
> >> the lunchroom.
> >>
> >> Jean
> >
David VP
Tell me, Mr. Kook, what is it like to go from looking at the JFK/Tippit
cases from the reasonable, believable perspective of THE ACTUAL
EVIDENCE ON THE TABLE to the complete opposite -- i.e., relying on
shadows, guesswork, hidden killers behind every bush, windows that move
when YOU want them to, cops who think nothing at all of letting a cop
killer go free, and gobs of additional hunks of nonsense that make
everybody in Dallas out to be against poor boy LHO?
That's a remarkable (and stupid) "switch" you made there, Walt. I don't
think I've encountered more than a couple of other people who were
actually willing to go from the verifiable "LN" side of the fence over
to the kooky CT side.
You're in a unique category there, Walt.
I don't know whether to congratulate you on your switch...or just bust
out laughing.
(That latter option shall win out, as we all know.)
Jim Shannon
>>> j.raymon...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No, that's silly. He only ducked into the Texas Theatre because he had
>>>>> just killed a cop and the cops were looking for him.
>>>>
>>>> Entering a cinema without paying constitutes the crime of Theft of
>>>> Services. As far as I know no one has ever proven that Lee Oswald was a
>>>> thief. He certainly did not admit to such a crime, nor was he ever
>>>> charged with such a crime during his lifetime.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> does not want to risk being identified by the ticket clerk while paying
>>> for a ticket. So, is sneaking into the theater a felony according to
>>> you?
>>
>>
>> I Capt Fritz was right that Oswald had "planned" to go to the movies then
>> Oswald could not be the Tippit shooter. Notice the Julia Postal water
>> works. Oswald was still in the theater when Tippit was shot. Brewer
>> spotted the Oswald double *away* from the TT. If Oswald did take part in
>> the Tippit shooting he would have ducked into the theater right away
>> instead of meandering down Jefferson looking at shoes.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> None of that makes sense. Show me where Fritz said Oswald planned to go to
> the movies. You are starting with a false premise.
> The Tipppit shooting was well before Oswald snuck into the theater.
> Oswald was not meandering and he was not looking at shoes. He was trying
> to find a place to hide from the police dragnet.
By now the Fritz question has already been answered. "Oswald" was seen
*walking away* from the TT along Tenth. How was he going to the movies
looking for a place too hide if he was casually walking just up Tenth
street? Johnny Brewer was trailing the other "Oswald." The real Oswald was
well into the theater before the Tippit shooting.
Jim
Walt
As matter of fact, Lee Oswald was more like you than me.... He was
naive, gullible, egotistical, intelligent, and trusted his
leaders....You have some of the same flaws
Yes, I said intelligent.....and it can be a flaw when a person "thinks"
he is smarter than he actually is. That person then thinks that he's
too smart to be fooled and refuses to believe it when it is shown to
him time after time. Similiar to O.J. Simpson....He's in denial.... He
murdered his wife, but his mind cannot accept that.
Walt
Walt
tomnln
Credibility".
What Next? Throw yourself on the Mercy of the Court?
You KNOW you'll have to turn States Evidence & Rat out your friends.
But, those 30 pieces of silver ADD Up I guess.
Why don't you try Official Records for a change instead of Opinions?
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155658218.4...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "Your goal is to destroy my credibility. Impossible..." <<<
>
> LOL.
>
> I was hoping The Sackster would provide an answer similar to the above
> LOL-inducing one!
>
> He didn't disappoint.
>
> This quote is a howl, Mr. Sack!! Deserves a triple-play, in
> fact........
>
> "Your goal is to destroy my credibility."
>
> "Your goal is to destroy my credibility."
>
> "Your goal is to destroy my credibility."
>
> Can anyone tell me if Tom R. ever HAD any "credibility" to be
> "destroyed" in the first place? (I know the answer, of course...but
> maybe somebody else would like to join in here....and the merriment can
> continue unabated for a while longer.)
>
> That was a classic. Does he REALLY know he's not continually walking
tomnln
Do you Drool when you stutter??
A Good Remedy for that is Truth/Justice. HERE>>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155658270.5...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
Bowley said itwas 1:10, not 1:06.
"I looked at my watch and it said 1:10 pm."
You're sloppy Walt, consistently.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bowley.htm
Walt
David VP wrote:
> >>> "So you see, I've already switched.....Try it...You'll like it!" <<<
>
>
> Tell me, Mr. Kook, what is it like to go from looking at the JFK/Tippit
> cases from the reasonable, believable perspective of THE ACTUAL
> EVIDENCE ON THE TABLE to the complete opposite -- i.e., relying on
> shadows, guesswork, hidden killers behind every bush, windows that move
> when YOU want them to, cops who think nothing at all of letting a cop
> killer go free,
Hey Von Peon.....If you can find someone who comprehends what he reads
have them read the book "White Lies" to you.... It's a true story. A
warning is in order: Beware: there are some of the same Dallas
Detectives in the book who were involved with the "investigation" of
Oswald. P.S. The book has nothing to do with the murder of JFK.
Walt
David VP
Only when I'm thinking about your hot-&-sweaty thighs and nutsack. And
also when thinking about your firm, proud buttocks and rock-hard
nipples. That stuff just makes me drool all over. And just makes me
qwazy!!!!