Michael Kalin

You're off the case. Dishonesty is anathema.

I already did.

Devious & cowardly, pulling a Myers by "rendering" your above post less than an hour after my response. Here's the complete original content: My response: The nonsense may not be complete but this restores the record of the discussion.

Fantastic news, indeed. Good luck with your endeavor.

As usual, when the discussion reaches this subject of major importance the line goes dead. There is no explanation for researchers' alacrity of playing silly buggers with the Twelve Red Herrings -- usually augmented by Red Herring Thirteen, Tatum, the silliest bugger of them all -- and dummying up about critical library matters. "Fools", said I, "You do not know Silence like a cancer grows Hear my words that I might teach you Take my arms that I might reach you" But my words like silent raindrops fell And echoed in the wells of silence

Nonsense is never complete as long as you continue to post. Lewis at 500 E. Jefferson called the police immediately after hearing the shots, not "after seeing a man run down Patton with a gun." He reported a shooting "upon hearing the three or four gunshots coming from the direction of Tenth and Patton... ." Bowley's subsequent radio call confirmed the location of the shots with greater specificity. What dispatcher would thereupon send squads to 510 E. Jefferson? You also ignore the unknown voice on the radio tape that furnished the 510 E. Jefferson address. Whose was it? There's a possible way to save face. Produce the telephone call sheet. We'll read it together.

I don't know the identity of #109, but check out DPD Lt. Elmo Cunningham's account of the "Battle of the Little Big Horn" in No More Silence: This is supported by DPD Officer Hutson's WC testimony, although an understatement: "There were several officers at the location, including some constables from the constable's office in Oak Cliff at Beckley and 12th..." [7H29] DPD Detective Buhk's report says, "We converged on that location [the library] and there were Secret Service men and other patrol and CID officers present when all the people were ordered out of the building." Compare the preceding to this from McBride's Into the Nightmare: "Then what seemed to Hamby like twenty to thirty policemen converged on him with weapons drawn." [p. 464] The last clinches the nature of the sheriff's involvement. It was an ambush.

CE705 has Sheriff Decker's transcript, a fragmentary document with few messages. The sheriff's dispatcher's exchange with #109 reflects the enigmatic DPD channel 1 dispatch "Attention. Signal 19, police officer, 510 East Jefferson" [Kimbrough/Shearer #914]. The following transcript includes an interpolation from CE705 (in bold). 898. CITIZEN: Hello, police operator? 899. DIS: Go ahead. Go ahead, citizen using the police radio. 900. CITIZEN: There's been a shooting out here. 901. DIS: Where's it at? 902. DIS: The citizen using the police radio... 903. CITIZEN: Tenth Street. 904. DIS: What location on Tenth Street? 905. CITIZEN: Between Marsalis and Beckley. It's a police officer. Somebody shot him. What--what's...404 Tenth Street. 906. DIS: Can you hear me? 907. (Man and woman's voice in background) 908. DIS: 78. 909. CITIZEN: It's a police car, number 10. 910. DIS: 78. 911. DIS: (?) 78. 912. CITIZEN: Got that? 913. CITIZEN: Hello, police operator. Did you get that? (Some other unknown voice came in with "a police officer, 510 E. Jefferson") 914. DIS: Attention. Signal 19, police officer, 510 East Jefferson. Without the interpolated "a police officer, 510 E. Jefferson" the transcript's Signal 19 direction to an address that had not been received makes no sense at all. Even so, why dispatch to 510 East Jefferson immediately after Bowley transmitted the correct address? And why 510 E. Jefferson, the location of a used car lot? Answer -- it was close to the library where Decker's men (deputies & constables) gathered in force long before DPD's C.T. Walker showed up. It was a trap, of course, almost sprung on terrified library employee Adrian Hamby.

False for reasons specified repeatedly. It appears that it's time to man up to a reading comprehension deficiency. Courses might be available in English as a first language.

Desperation's death rattle -- a frantic attempt to salvage a bankrupt argument by knocking down a straw man. You supplied the data that occasions an absurd daisy chain in which Benavides hands off the mike to Bowley who hands off the mike to Callaway. Your only hope for a chapter 11 reorganization is to jettison the nonsense that Markham witnessed a murder at 1:15. In lieu thereof immediate liquidation under chapter 7 is exigent. Submit order.

Let's not add "another full minute for error," but stick to the three minutes assertion. The implied precision of your time scheme has no room for fudge: 1. Shots: 1:15 2. Bowley's radio call: 1:17:41 3. Callaway's radio call: 1:18 Your data, result is the absurdity that Callaway queued up at the squad car to wait for Bowley to stop talking and hang up the mike. Alternative scenario: maybe Bowley handed the mike to Callaway while resetting his Timex according to where he parked his car.

Nominal, per Google: "Existing in name only; not real." Nothing on the radio tapes said in "real time" validates the timestamps for reasons given in CE1974. The timestamps remain merely nominal until it can be demonstrated that they accurately reflect the times when they were made. My attempt to produce a margin of error is plus or minus three minutes, but this is shaky. I don't know how to assess either the degree of asynchronism or the dispatchers' height factor. How do you handle these issues? (NB ignoring them is a feeble response.) Asynchronism, per the Free Dictionary: "Lack of temporal concurrence; absence of synchronism."

The timestamps are nominal for reasons already described. I'm not going to repeat them. If you want to make a serious argument based on timestamps you must first establish their validity.

Excellent wrap up, Gil. Not much to add. However, my take on the 1:15 bus time is different. It's SA Barrett's invention, interpolated into his 3/17/64 report as an indirect quote, same date as his bus report that stated the scheduled time was 1:12PM. Why didn't he bring this discrepancy to Markham's attention? Simple, he fabricated the 1:15PM time. The bus report also contains the ridiculous information that it took 2 1/2 minutes to walk the 400 foot distance from the Washateria to 10th Street. Barrett was in retardation mode. Ball (who also failed to mention the 1:12PM time of the bus schedule) and the WC suborners followed through during her testimony. The notion that the radio tapes show that Bowley's call occurred at 1:18 has already been comprehensively refuted. No need to go through it again.

Not so foolish as to accept the validity of another unsupported assertion, subject to Hitchens Razor same as before. Put down your blunderbuss and produce some on-target evidence to back up your statements. Or pray for an epiphany that you are not Father Time. The whole world will rejoice at your self-revelation.