Lee Oswald - The Cop-Killer

[Paul Cummings]

Just now, Paul Cummings said:

Randolph Carr and Helen Forrest. 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 7/16/2022 at 12:06 AM, David Von Pein said:

That's highly doubtful, since the same ambulance didn't even arrive at the Tippit murder scene until 1:18:59 PM [per Dale Myers' "With Malice", page 104].

 

That's highly doubtful given that Tippit was already at the hospital at 1:15.

 

[Bill Brown]

28 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

Randolph Carr and Helen Forrest

One at a time... Cite for Carr saying the man who he saw get into a Rambler was Lee Oswald.

[Paul Cummings]

10 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

One at a time... Cite for Carr saying the man who he saw get into a Rambler was Lee Oswald.

Good because this is the only time I'm going to play your mind games...https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKcarrR.htm

[James DiEugenio]

Now, let me make my summation.

If you present the TIppit case without Top Ten, Andrews, Gloco and the fracas at 10th and Marsalis you are only telling half a story.  You are leaving out so much that your presentation can be called, justifiably, deceptive.

Why? Because if you leave all of that out, you allow the other side to create a different narrative, perhaps more convincing than the WC.  But worse, you leave yourself open to violation of the Brady Rule.  What makes this really kind of sickening is that, like the Gideon ruling, the Supreme Court passed Brady in 1963.  Therefore it was in effect for the Commission.

One of the things that Tanenbaum told me that really upset him in studying the WR was the sheer amount of exculpatory material that was either discounted or ignored by the Commission.  He said that from his experience as Homicide chief in NYC, his training dictated that he gave that material to the defense. As we know, the Commission 1.) DId not allow a defense for LHO, and 2) DId not care about exculpatory material to any serious degree. (I mean look at the Ruby episode of him entering the basement)

But my point is that in any real legal proceeding, which the WC was not, this material would be allowed and it would be very forceful in raising reasonable doubt. In fact, combined with a powerful cross examination of Croy and Westbrook and Hill, it could turn into a route if the investigation of those three men was comprehensive.

So I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who somehow says that wrong way Calloway is probative, or leaving out any alternative scenario to the Tippit shooting.

We are in the post McBride age now.

 

Edited July 18, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Bill Brown]

12 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

Good because this is the only time I'm going to play your mind games...https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKcarrR.htm

Again, where does Carr say the man was Oswald?  Good grief.

[Bill Brown]

8 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Now, let me make my summation.

If you present the TIppit case without Top Ten, Andrews, Gloco and the fracas at 10th and Marsalis you are only telling half a story.  You are leaving out so much that your presentation can be called, justifiably, deceptive.

Why? Because if you leave all of that out, you allow the other side to create a different narrative, perhaps more convincing than the WC.  But worse, you leave yourself open to violation of the Brady Rule.  What makes this really kind of sickening is that, like the Gideon ruling, the Supreme Court passed Brady in 1963.  Therefore it was in effect for the Commission.

One of the things that Tanenbaum told me that really upset him in studying the WR was the sheer amount of exculpatory material that was either discounted or ignored by the Commission.  He said that from his experience as Homicide chief in NYC, his training dictated that he gave that material to the defense. As we know, the Commission 1.) DId not allow a defense for LHO, and 2) DId not care about exculpatory material to any serious degree. (I mean look at the Ruby episode of him entering the basement)

But my point is that in any real legal proceeding, which the WC was not, this material would be allowed and it would be very forceful in raising reasonable doubt. In fact, combined with a powerful cross examination of Croy and Westbrook and Hill, it could turn into a route if the investigation of those three men was comprehensive.

So I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who somehow says that wrong way Calloway is probative, or leaving out any alternative scenario to the Tippit shooting.

We are in the post McBride age now.

 

"If you present the TIppit case without Top Ten, Andrews, Gloco and the fracas at 10th and Marsalis you are only telling half a story."

 

Top Ten:  We don't hear of Stark and/or Cortinas coming forward with their story until 1981.

Andrews:  We don't hear of Andrews coming forward with his story until the early 90's.

GLOCO:  IF Tippit was sitting at the GLOCO, it proves absolutely nothing.  Do you somehow believe it is proof of anything?  Explain.

The fracas at 10th and Marsalis:  Nothing about this supposed Fracas on the police tapes.  In fact, nothing about this supposed incident until Brownlow decides to make it up decades after the assassination.

 

 

"So I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who somehow says that wrong way Calloway is probative, or leaving out any alternative scenario to the Tippit shooting."

 

Again with the "wrong way Callaway" stuff.  I've already told you that you conveniently ignore that Sam Guinyard corroborates Callaway.

 

[Bill Brown]

Mr. DULLES. May I ask what course he was taking when you last saw him?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He was going west on Jefferson Street.
Mr. DULLES. West on Jefferson Street?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.

 

Before you (once again) call Callaway a  l i a r  and say that Callaway didn't see the gunman turn west on Jefferson, I should inform you that Sam Guinyard was very near Callaway's position on the sidewalk on Patton and also saw the gunman turn west onto Jefferson.  Guinyard corroborates Callaway. 

 

"I saw a white man running south on Patton Street with a pistol in his hand. The last I saw of this man he was running west on Jefferson." -- Sam Guinyard (11.22.63 affidavit)

 

Mr. GUINYARD. Mr. Callaway followed him, you see, we was together--he was my boss at that time and he followed him.
Mr. BALL. Callaway?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; trying to see which way was he going.
Mr. BALL. And then, which way did he go after he got to Jefferson?
Mr. GUINYARD. He went west on Jefferson--on the right-hand side---going west.
Mr. BALL. And what did Callaway do?
Mr. GUINYARD. He turned around and run back to the street and we helped load the policeman in the ambulance.

[James DiEugenio]

I actually made the mistake of looking at BB's stuff.

 

It will not happen again.

Is he saying what I think he is saying, that somehow Whitten did not write the letter to Top Ten which I saw?  I guess my eyes deceived me or Simpich did.

And I guess Benavides was lying about Calloway?

Tippit staring at the viaduct for ten minutes  means nothing?  Waiting for his wife to take him to lunch maybe after the JFK murder?

As per Andrews, OMG, it is OK for their side to take late witnesses, like Myers does, but if its not conforming to the official story, you cannot?

Bye Bye Mr. Brown. 🖐️ Next time I will not be that dumb.

Edited July 18, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Cummings]

34 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Again, where does Carr say the man was Oswald?  Good grief.

It's there Charlie Brown.

[Bill Brown]

4 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

It's there Charlie Brown.

All I'm asking you to do then is copy and paste the part where Carr says the man was Oswald.  Perhaps I've missed it all these years.  Carr says the guy was heavy-set and wearing glasses.

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, notice how these guys always ignore the Brady Rule and Gideon Case.

And what Tanenbaum said about the exorbitant amount of exculpatory evidence.

But yet, if the prosecution can be proven to leave out that kind of evidence, the case can be thrown out on that ground. As they did in the Ted Stevens case. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-apr-08-na-stevens8-story.html

But yet this is crucial to the whole underpinning of the Commission.  In both the Kennedy and Tippit cases.  And its why Tanenbaum said in JFK Revisited,, that you could not convict Oswald in any court in the country on the Commission's evidence.  He should know.

[Steve Thomas]

Carr could be used to corroborate the idea that there was a Rambler in the vicinity of Dealey Plaza at approximately the same time Craig said there was; but he couldn't be used to to corroborate that it was Oswald who got into it out in front of the TSBD.

I think Marvin Robinson would be a better corroborating witness for that.

Steve Thomas

 

[David Von Pein]

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

[Quoting Jack Meyers:]

At a distance of 55-60 feet, Ted Calloway [sic] could have easily mistaken Billy Lovelady (and a lot of other young, white males) for Lee Oswald. It is exactly this sort of testimony by a witness who is so “100% positive” that has led to innocent persons finding themselves on death row.

Of course the big difference in this (Tippit/Callaway) case is that the man seen by Ted Callaway had the Tippit murder weapon on him when he was arrested while fighting with the police just half-an-hour after Callaway saw the armed man at Patton & Jefferson.

An anesthetized armadillo could have solved the Tippit murder case in less than twelve hours. But, for some odd reason, thousands of unanesthetized conspiracy researchers can't seem to manage that simple feat.

~large shrug~

Edited July 18, 2022 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

That's highly doubtful given that Tippit was already at the hospital at 1:15.

Which is, of course, impossible since we have TWO different sources for the ambulance being en route to Tenth & Patton at 1:18 (the Dudley Hughes call slip + DPD radio tapes).

You think BOTH sources were wrong---to the exact same (wrong) minute??!

(Wanna dance around this a third time?)

Edited July 18, 2022 by David Von Pein