Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

Why Officer Tippit Stopped his Killer

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

There is every reason on earth to put "Oswald" in quotes.

Let me guess ---- You, Jim Hargrove, are one of those CTers who doesn't even believe Lee H. Oswald got into William Whaley's taxicab on November 22, 1963, despite Whaley confirming via a positive identification that his passenger was, indeed, the "real" Lee Harvey Oswald? Is that about the size of the situation?

IOW --- The "Nothing Is Ever What It Seems To Be In The JFK Case" syndrome surfaces yet again.

(And Oswald was never on McWatters' bus either, was he Jim?)

(And Oswald was never in Mexico City either, was he Jim?)

(And the Lunchroom Encounter never even happened, did it Jim?)

(And Oswald never even owned a rifle [or pistol] in the year 1963, did he Jim?)

(And Oswald never posed for the Backyard Photos, did he Jim?)

(And Oswald never fired that shot at Edwin Walker either, did he James?)

I wonder how many more verifiable happenings the Jim Hargroves of the world have rewritten and distorted to suit their fantasy version of events? (Too many to mention here, that's for sure.)

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

A question for the honest members of this forum:  Should we bother debating Mr. Von Pein?  

Doesn't really matter, of course. Because conspiracy fantasists like you are going to continue to believe the most outrageous and fantastic CT scenarios imaginable....regardless of anything I have to say.

But for truly reasonable and sensible and "honest" people ------> XX.+Oswald+Is+Guilty+Blog+Logo.png

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Let me guess ---- You, Jim Hargrove, are one of those CTers who doesn't even believe Lee H. Oswald got into William Whaley's taxicab on November 22, 1963, despite Whaley confirming via a positive identification that his passenger was, indeed, the "real" Lee Harvey Oswald? Is that about the size of the situation?

IOW --- The "Nothing Is Ever What It Seems To Be In The JFK Case" syndrome surfaces yet again.

(And Oswald was never on McWatters' bus either, was he Jim?)

(And Oswald was never in Mexico City either, was he Jim?)

(And the Lunchroom Encounter never even happened, did it Jim?)

(And Oswald never even owned a rifle [or pistol] in the year 1963, did he Jim?)

(And Oswald never posed for the Backyard Photos, did he Jim?)

(And Oswald never fired that shot at Edwin Walker either, did he James?)

I wonder how many more verifiable happenings the Jim Hargroves of the world have rewritten and distorted to suit their fantasy version of events? (Too many to mention here, that's for sure.)

 

Quantity over quality?

 

Lone nutters accuse way more witnesses of lying than conspiracy theorists do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Lone nutters accuse way more witnesses of lying than conspiracy theorists do. 

Oh, for Pete sake. You're being ridiculous. It's not even close. Almost everybody in the case is a l-i-a-r, according to most Internet CTers. [Partial List.]

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Get a load of the cab driver here:

https://www.giljesus.com/the-cab-ride.html

 

I would also recommend reading what Meagher says about this whole episode. (see pp. 83-85) . It is pretty clear from this that Whaley was another of these witnesses that the WC decided needed some massaging since the original story did not fit their scenario.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I like what Lane says about Whaley: 'No one's desire to tell the Commission what it wanted to hear was more pronounced than Whaley's.  A comparison between his original testimony and that which he offered later in Dallas shows how he made a valiant effort to recant and to excise all the troublesome inconsistencies from his account after being briefed by the FBI." (RTJ, p. 167)

When asked when he changed his mind about where he dropped off Oswald he replies, "Well, when the FBI man go tin my cab and he wanted to go over the route." (ibid, p. 168) That happened a lot in this case. 

Lane goes on to note that the WC needed this in order to get Oswald back to his rooming house at about 12:59. He then quotes another whopper from the WR, "From the 500 block of North Beckley the walk to 1026 would be a few minutes longer, but in either event he would have been in the rooming house  at about 1 PM." 

😋 . 😧

By the way, Mark points out another way that they got the cab driver to change his story. Originally he said that Oswald walked at a south angle after exiting. The rooming house was north.  No problem, Presto!

To the WC, he said he did not recall whether he walked north or south. (ibid,  p. 168)

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Originally he [Whaley] said that Oswald walked at a south angle after exiting. The rooming house was north.  No problem, Presto! 

To the WC, he said he did not recall whether he walked north or south.

Well, since we know for a fact that the real Oswald rushed into his roominghouse at about 1:00 PM....and we also know that the same real Oswald was in Whaley's cab (at Neely & Beckley) in the minutes prior to 1:00 PM....then it's pretty clear that LHO must have walked north fairly soon after parting company with Whaley.

CTers will, of course, arrive at their own (fantastic) conclusions instead.

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did Whaley change his description of where he dropped Oswald off  i.e 500 block at  Zang and Neches Street, just where Oswald lived,  to further on at "700 block", because all of his early  statements, his Warren testimony and  the cab manifest showed that he dropped Oswald off at the first location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Oh, for Pete sake. You're being ridiculous. It's not even close. Almost everybody in the case is a l-i-a-r, according to most Internet CTers. [Partial List.]

 

Quote

Anyone can go back through Jim's posts in just this thread alone and find where Jimmy accuses many different people of being XXXXX. Let's just take an inventory of some of them.... 

Marina Oswald ["Marina was so full of crap." -- J. DiEugenio; 1/19/19]

Mary Bledsoe ["who may be worse than Marina." -- JD]

The DPD (via the alleged "planted shirt fibers") [LOL]

Howard Brennan

Buell Frazier

Linnie Mae Randle

Henry Wade 

Will Fritz

Bill Shelley 

Billy Lovelady

J. Edgar Hoover 

Ruth Paine

Harold Norman

Charles Givens ["what a lying cuss this guy was." -- JD]

James Files

Ed Hoffman

Jean Hill

Richard Randolph Carr

Beverly Oliver

Tim Tilson

Roger Craig

Jerry Coley

Acquilla Clemons

Dr. Charles Crenshaw

Audrey Bell

Dr. Robert Livingston

Robert Knudsen

Dennis David

Jerrol Custer

Hugh Huggins

This is just a short list of problematic witnesses off the top of my head. Now, most conspiracy researchers also tend to think some of these people are lying. Lying for attention. But what is a more powerful motivator to lie? Attention, or delivering your idea of justice for a dead President and Police officer? Somebody who personally believes in a lone gunman could fudge the facts just to reinforce what they already think everybody else should believe. For example, take the autopsy pathologists' experience dealing with the Justice Department and the HSCA forensic pathology panel. Attorney General Ramsey Clark believed in a lone gunman, yet he made Humes, Boswell, and Stringer sign a false statement claiming there had no reason to believe there were any missing autopsy photographs. The HSCA's Gary Cornwell and Dr. Charles Petty tried to intimidate Humes into agreeing with their theory of a higher entry wound in the head, and they both believed in a lone gunman. 

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Let me guess ---- You, Jim Hargrove, are one of those CTers who doesn't even believe Lee H. Oswald got into William Whaley's taxicab on November 22, 1963, despite Whaley confirming via a positive identification that his passenger was, indeed, the "real" Lee Harvey Oswald? Is that about the size of the situation?

IOW --- The "Nothing Is Ever What It Seems To Be In The JFK Case" syndrome surfaces yet again.

(And Oswald was never on McWatters' bus either, was he Jim?)

Holy cow, DVP, you're as clueless about my beliefs as you are about this case.  Every belief you ascribe to me above is wrong!  But that doesn't keep you from rattling on and on and on.  An "Oswald" did ride the bus and taxi, while another rode in the Nash Rambler, and the proof is HERE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's pretty obvious why he had to change his story.

It's the timeline.  And BTW, the whole thing about keeping the quarter hour slots in his records is also false and proven so by Lane again.

Just remember, the WC needed to come up with an alternative to the Marvin Robinson/ Roger Craig story about the Rambler picking up someone in the Plaza who resembles Oswald.

Therefore they put together the Bus/Cab drive story. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I think it's pretty obvious why he had to change his story.

It's the timeline.  And BTW, the whole thing about keeping the quarter hour slots in his records is also false and proven so by Lane again.

Just remember, the WC needed to come up with an alternative to the Marvin Robinson/ Roger Craig story about the Rambler picking up someone in the Plaza who resembles Oswald.

Therefore they put together the Bus/Cab drive story. 

 

You know, Jim, if it were not for the Stuart Reed photos of the bus  on Elm, east of the TSBD, plus all of Reed's photo montage, I'd wonder much more about the bus ride story myself as a way to discredit Roger Craig. 

But the Reed photos do exist, they were taken on the afternoon of the 22nd, and they were a perfect photo montage of the "escape route" that "Oswald" took. Had those photos not been so conspiratorial (they could only have been taken by someone tipped off in advance to photograph particular locations, including the front of Hardy's Shoes! The FBI went ballistic when they saw them, according to Robert Groden!) then undoubtedly they would have been used for their intended purpose: to show the American public the route of the "assassin." (But because the whole sequence was so over the top, they never saw the light of day for decades!)

Also, while Mary Bledsoe may well be full of it (she was prompted/urged/commanded  by the Secret Service to solidify the presence of "Oswald" on McWatters' bus because no one else could identify him with certainty) there is no doubt some man did board McWatters bus in a fashion described by both Cecil McWatters and Roy Milton Jones, did (vaguely) fit "Oswald's" description, and did exit in a manner described by those men. In addition, "Oswald" (apparently) really did have a bus transfer on him when he was searched later. Whalley's passenger was not conjured out of thin air: Whalley did drive someone whom he believed to be "Oswald" to some location in Oak Cliff. 

Was Whalley later willing to go along with whatever was most convenient for the FBI?

Of course. 

But that doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't drive anyone ("Oswald") in a manner roughly consistent with what he wrote in his first day affidavit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul:

I am not familiar with the Stuart Reed photos of the bus.

Wasn't Reed one of these military photographers who just happened to be there?  But what about these photos you refer to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the gist of the argument here is...that first-day testimony is most reliable.

Except when it's not.

What do I mean? In DVP'S world, anything that contradicts the WC conclusions is unreliable, whether it's first-day testimony or not. Never mind that the first-day testimony is far less likely to be tainted by something the witness read, saw, or heard. If it conflicts with the WC conclusion, then the witness is either a liar or simply wrong.

IOW, first-day testimony is "gospel" when it fits his preconceived notion of the truth...and when it conflicts, it's just wrong.

The idea of challenging his preconceived notion of truth is beyond the lengths to which DVP is willing to go.

Kinda like flat-Earth adherents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...