Bill Brown

I suppose it doesn't bother you in the slightest that we don't hear of Andrews telling this story until the early 90's. I suppose it doesn't bother you in the slightest that we don't hear of Cortinas and/or Stark telling their story until 1981. But somehow it's of grave concern to you that Jack Tatum isn't seeked out to tell his story until the mid 70's. I find this to be hypocritical.

Can you imagine having a discussion about an Oswald/Hidell wallet at the scene of the homicide and not filing a report on it? And DiEugenio does not bat an eyelash.

Let me get this straight. First of all, I make no apologies for Croy. But.... It's absolutely acceptable to you that Barrett makes no mention in any report of an Oswald/Hidell wallet at Tenth and Patton.... but it is highly suspicious to you that Croy makes no mention in any report of interviewing a witness on the scene. Is that right?

Roger Craig is a proven l i a r. Why would anyone believe him on anything related to 11.22.63?

Even if the jacket (CE-162) was not Oswald's (it was), why did Oswald get rid of the jacket he was zipping up as he went out the door of the rooming house on Beckley by the time he arrived at Hardy's Shoes on Jefferson? Mrs. ROBERTS: He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket. Mrs. ROBERTS: Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door. Mr. BELIN: So you say he was about 5'9"?Mr. BREWER: About 5'9".Mr. BELIN: And about 150?Mr. BREWER: And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out.Mr. BELIN: Any jacket?Mr. BREWER: No.

No. J.C. Butler (the ambulance driver) showed the call sheet to George and Patricia Nash in 1964 (I think it was). The call to send an ambulance to the scene of the shooting came in to the Dudley-Hughes Funeral Home (where the ambulance was located) at 1:18. If the ambulance was not dispatched until 1:18, it certainly did not arrive at Methodist with the body at 1:15.

That is old hat. You said McBride provided photographic proof for his claim (that Oswald was in a lineup alongside men in suits). I said No, he most certainly has not provided such proof (there isn't any). CE-1054 doesn't prove that Oswald was in a lineup with men in suits. Those photos were taken seven months later and were only for the purpose of showing who the men were, as far as what they looked like (age, height, weight, hair color, etc.). I guess you have not taken the time to follow the conversation properly.

A little over a week and still no logical explanation for why Oswald ditched his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson (other than to change his appearance since he had just gunned down a police officer).

Nice one, Steve. May have to bump this one once a week.

"It seems to me the problem is that @Joseph McBride has provided you photographic proof of his claim as well as Fritz's descriptions, and you @Bill Brown have not provided any evidence to the contrary." What photographic proof has McBride (or anyone else, for that matter) provided to support his mistaken claim that Oswald was placed in a lineup alongside men wearing suits? Go read the testimony of Perry, Clark and Ables (the three men in question). Each describe what they were wearing during the lineup and none of it comes close to what the three were wearing in June of '64 when photographed (see CD 1083). "If the pictures of the men who participated in the lineup were not representative of how they looked in the lineup, why were their pictures taken in a lineup at all?" I'm not sure what you're talking about here and I don't think you know, either. There weren't any pictures taken in a lineup. "Clearly the photographs were taken and published with the intention of representing the appearance of those three men in a police lineup. Those three men were in Oswald's lineup, and the photos were published in Hearings & Exhibits investigating the crime Oswald was being accused of. Any reasonable person would think those lineup photos were intended to show how those men looked Oswald's lineup." No and No. Perry, Clark and Ables describe what they were wearing during the lineup and none of it comes close to what the three were wearing in June of '64 when photographed (see CD 1083).

Only if you believe that Tippit's body was lying in the street for eleven minutes before anyone thought to report the shooting (even though Mary Wright and Barbara Davis tell you that they phoned the police immediately).

No. J.C. Butler (the ambulance driver who picked up Tippit's body) showed the ambulance call sheet to George and Patricia Nash in the 60's. The call sheet stated that the Dudley-Hughes Funeral Home (from where the ambulance was dispatched) received the call to go to the scene at 1:18.

Since the police tapes tell us that Bowley reported the shooting at 1:17... and we know that Bowley got on the patrol car radio to report the shooting right away upon arriving... then it becomes obvious that Bowley arrived around 1:16. So yes, this would make Bowley's watch 5 or 6 minutes slow.

Ball asked her what time she "got her bus" (strange way to ask a question). We cannot know how Markham interpreted it and therefore we can not really know what her answer really tells us. It's just as possible that she is saying that she regularly got to her bus stop at 1:15 (which puts her there to regularly catch the 1:22 bus).

<Crickets>

Since we have no report from Barrett filed at any time over assassination weekend (or even decades later, for that matter), it becomes obvious that this did not take place at the scene. However, Barrett was indeed in Westbrook's office (where the theater wallet was, too) almost immediately after Oswald and the arresting party arrived at headquarters. Westbrook probably asked Barret about the Oswald and Hidell names while going through the wallet once back in his office after Oswald (and the wallet) arrived at headquarters.

"I mean why was Mentzel not called to be "at large for any emergency that might come in". (12:54 message) Yet Tippit supposedly did get that message on the radio. And allegedly acknowledged it." Murray Jackson (the dispatcher) explained that the "at large" comment was an inside joke between the two from the days when they patrolled together.

"I posted his testimony. That's what he said. If you don't want to believe it, that's your problem." And I posted Benavides' 1967 interview with Eddie Barker (The Warren Report, part 3, CBS) where he said he waited for the killer to get around the corner and then sat in his truck for "a second or two" before getting out and going over to the patrol car. Which makes more sense? That he waited maybe thirty seconds after the killer disappeared around the corner before getting out... or that he was still cowering down inside his truck a few minutes later while others began milling around the body? Set your bias aside and just answer the question honestly. But hey, if you want to be foolish about even the simplest things, then go right ahead. "Show me the evidence that the Davises ( they were sisters-in-law, not sisters ) or Markham were at the patrol car "tending to Tippit."" Witnesses went over to the area of the body and the patrol car after the killer was gone. Learn the evidence. And yes, Barbara and Virginia were sisters-in-law. So what? It's much easier to simply call them the Davis sisters when discussing them. Does this really matter? "While you're at it, don't forget to name the witness who said the shooting was at 1:15." Straw-man. I haven't said that a witness said the shooting occurred at 1:15.

That debate, if you will, is kind of raw and unedited. But I feel others can learn from listening to it. To me, that's what matters.

We did the first one in the summer of 2020 that was about two and a half hours long. We did another one in the summer of 2021 that was about four and a half hours long. I would call both of them a discussion on the Tippit case more so than a debate. Here is a link to the second one that we did last summer (enter at your own risk)... No Pat, I did not know your story. I truly hope that you're in complete remission and on your way to a full recovery. Prayers, man.

We did a couple debates. The second one was a little more heated than the first one even though we still didn't do any name-calling or anything like that. Which one did you listen to?

"So anyone who begins a thread on the Tippit case with Callaway, who thought he heard shots at one o'clock, is taking us back to 1964 and wants to stay there." Okay then. Will you provide your "sourcing" for Ted Callaway saying that he thought he heard the shots at one o'clock? "Around 1 pm or so" is not the same as "I heard the shots at one o'clock".

Callaway never said he thought he heard the shots at one o'clock.. When you have to make things up to prove a point, your point becomes invalid.