Jump to content
The Education Forum

Did Callaway REALLY see Oswald ?


Gil Jesus
 Share

Recommended Posts

Mr. BENAVIDES. And so Ted then got in the taxicab and the taxicab came to a halt and he asked me which way he went. I told him he went down Patton Street toward the office, and come to find out later Ted had already seen him go by there. - ( Testimony of Tippit murder witness Domingo Benavides in Vol. VI, pg. 452 )

Why on earth would Callaway ask Benavides which way the shooter went if he had already seen him running down Patton Ave. ?

And if he didn't see which way the shooter went, how could he identify Oswald ?

Edited by Gil Jesus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I could have identified him [Oswald] if he'd been nekkid." -- Ted Callaway

In his testimony, Ted Callaway quoted what Detective Jim Leavelle told himself, Guinyard and McWatters before they viewed lineup # 2 :

Mr. CALLAWAY. We first went into the room. There was Jim Leavelle, the detective, Sam Guinyard, and then this bus driver and myself......and Jim told us, "When I show you these guys, be sure, take your time, see if you can make a positive identification.........We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him."

( 3 H 355 )

Leavelle indicated to the witnesses that the suspect in Tippit's killing was also a suspect in the shooting of the President and was in the lineup they were about to see.

Yeah anybody could have picked him out of THAT lineup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'm sure the same type of unethical tactics were used on witnesses across the board. Some subtle, some not so subtle.

How's this one: Callaway gave an affidavit ( 24 H 204 ) identifying Oswald as the man he saw before he even saw the lineup. In his testimony, Jim Leavelle, who took the affidavits from Callaway and Sam Guinyard ( 24 H 210 ), reported that he took the affidavits "while waiting for the showup". ( 24 H 311 )

Leavelle's WC testimony confirms that the affidavits were taken while the witnesses were waiting for the lineup participants to come down the elevator.

Mr. BALL. Did you take statements from them?

Mr. LEAVELLE. I believe I took affidavits from them, according to my notes, there while we were waiting for them to come down.

( 7 H 264 )

So the affidavits of Callaway and Guinyard, which identified the "No. 2 man" ( Oswald ) in the lineup as the man they saw running with the gun/pistol in his hand, were taken BEFORE EITHER MAN HAD VIEWED OSWALD IN A LINEUP !!!!

Edited by Gil Jesus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'm sure the same type of unethical tactics were used on witnesses across the board. Some subtle, some not so subtle.

How's this one: Callaway gave an affidavit ( 24 H 204 ) identifying Oswald as the man he saw before he even saw the lineup. In his testimony, Jim Leavelle, who took the affidavits from Callaway and Sam Guinyard ( 24 H 210 ), reported that he took the affidavits "while waiting for the showup". ( 24 H 311 )

Leavelle's WC testimony confirms that the affidavits were taken while the witnesses were waiting for the lineup participants to come down the elevator.

Mr. BALL. Did you take statements from them?

Mr. LEAVELLE. I believe I took affidavits from them, according to my notes, there while we were waiting for them to come down.

( 7 H 264 )

So the affidavits of Callaway and Guinyard, which identified the "No. 2 man" ( Oswald ) in the lineup as the man they saw running with the gun/pistol in his hand, were taken BEFORE EITHER MAN HAD VIEWED OSWALD IN A LINEUP !!!!

Gil

It appears that leavelle had a habit of taking statements before lineups he did the same to Whaley

Mr. BELIN. Did they have any statements on there before you went down to the lineup?

Mr. WHALEY. I never saw what they had in there. It was all written out by hand. The statement I saw, I think, was this one, and that could be writing. I might not even seen this one yet. I signed my name because they said that is what I said.

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good one Gil.

Between Lifton and DVP you are on a roll.

Callaway as a witness poses BIG problems. He and Guinyard were supposed to be together, but what they each saw completely contradicted what the other saw. For example:

Callaway saw the man with the gun cross the street behind the taxi and come down Patton Ave on the west side of the street. ( 3 H 352, 353 twice ) He estimated that the man passed about 56 ft from him. ( 3 H 355 )

Guinyard saw the man with the gun come down Patton Ave. on the east side of the street and cross over about 5 ft from West Jefferson. ( 7 H 397, 398 ) He estimated that the man passed about 10 ft from him.( ibid.)

How can two witness, who were supposed to be together, see the same man with the gun on different sides of the street. One witness has him on the opposite side of the street ( Callaway ) and the other has him on the same side of the street ( Guinyard ). It seems to me that a detail as basic as which side of the street he was on could not be subject to error.

And if it was, what does that say about the reliability of whatever else they claimed to have seen ?

I doubt that either one of these witnesses saw what they said they saw.

Edited by Gil Jesus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that a copywright infringement, taking someone else's work and labelling it as your own ?

What a hypocrite.

All anyone needs to do is go to your Youtube channel and watch most of your videos which give zero credits to the makers of the original content of your video's.

Just because you give a bit of spiel in between clips, doesn't make it your video.

Oh, and wasn't your original Youtube account deleted because of copright infringements when some weasel reported you?

I've NEVER labelled any of the videos on my Youtube channel produced by someone else as my own.

I don't believe that I've ever seen anyone else on Youtube do that.

Most of the videos I posted were posted by other Youtubers as well.

I don't recall seeing "credits" on any of their videos.

Your arguments are weak. There's a BIG difference between not naming the source of a video and claiming it as your own.

That's against the law here in the US.

If you have a video I posted that was produced by someone else where I claimed or labelled it as my own , let's see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Oh, Jim, you didn't tell Gil that he spelled copyright wrong. Best buds and all that I suppose. ;)

ROFLMAO..the last bastion of a LNer with his back up against the wall.

SPELLING

How utterly childish.

Edited by Gil Jesus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I could have identified him [Oswald] if he'd been nekkid." -- Ted Callaway

In his testimony, Ted Callaway quoted what Detective Jim Leavelle told himself, Guinyard and McWatters before they viewed lineup # 2 :

Mr. CALLAWAY. We first went into the room. There was Jim Leavelle, the detective, Sam Guinyard, and then this bus driver and myself......and Jim told us, "When I show you these guys, be sure, take your time, see if you can make a positive identification.........We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him."

( 3 H 355 )

Leavelle indicated to the witnesses that the suspect in Tippit's killing was also a suspect in the shooting of the President and was in the lineup they were about to see.

Yeah anybody could have picked him out of THAT lineup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, Jim, you didn't tell Gil that he spelled copyright wrong.

I have made ammendments and have given credits in the title.

What a hypocrite.

I simply asked a question and all of a sudden Duncan attacks me, accusing me of claiming someone else's work as my own.

I've challeneged him to prove it by providing us with the video.

Let's see if he does it.

In the meantime, I guess I have to ask another question: Is making "amendments" to a video an admission of guilt ?

Edited by Gil Jesus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone else owns the copyright any of the video materials which you post, and most of them do, then you are in violation.

That's a fact.

Excerpted from The United States Copyright Office:

The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for
nonprofit educational purposes

The nature of the copyrighted work

The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, Jim, you didn't tell Gil that he spelled copyright wrong.

I have made ammendments and have given credits in the title.

What a hypocrite.

There are people here who don't want us to talk about the evidence. They'll try to get you tangled up in all kinds of nonsense and off-topic bullshizer from personal attacks to spelling ( or in my case typing ) errors.

In this thread I've shown where Callaway was a weak witness. I don't believe his story and I find it difficult to believe that he heard the shots, ran to the curb, saw a man coming down the street reloading a gun, and unarmed, didn't run for cover.

Instead, he tells us that he confronted the man at nearly point blank range and the man, rather than shoot him, simply mumbled something and ran away.

Very difficult to believe.

When added to his asking Benavides which way the gunman went, his giving an affidavit before he even saw the lineup and Leavelle's "tip" that the Tippit killer was in the lineup pretty much destroys Callaway as a witness IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...