Ted Callaway & The 1:15 Shooting

[Joseph McBride]

It seems that trolls are trying to take over

the forum. 

[Paul Bacon]

2 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

It seems that trolls are trying to take over

the forum. 

Nice one Joseph!

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

It seems that trolls are trying to take over the forum. 

Are all LNers to be considered "trolls", Joseph?

And speaking of forum rules --- Is it okay to refer to other forum members as "trolls" (as Joseph McBride just did above)? I doubt that it is. 

"No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member."

Edited July 20, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Pete Mellor]

Your honour,

There are several misconceptions about memory that have a direct effect on the study of the Tippit killing.  First, it is generally assumed that the more violent the crime, the more likely a witness will be able to remember the details.  It has been theorised that a mental shock disrupts the process necessary for full storage of memories.  Another postulation is that in situations where emotions run high, such as would occur during a violent killing, people tend to become more distracted, more self-preoccupied or more worried.  Studies have demonstrated that witness accuracy is consistently poorer in violent or stressful situations.  Witnesses are always asked to give the time of an incident, and among other things, to describe the actions of themselves and/or others during and after the shooting and the length of time that elapsed.  But how accurate are witnesses likely to be in their descriptions?  Not very, particularly in light of the violence in the Tippit killing.  Studies have shown that witnesses are also likely to overestimate the duration of a violent event by twice the amount or greater, especially in situations where the event was of a very short duration.  One study involving a simulated bank robbery even resulted in witnesses describing a thirty second event as having taken fifteen minutes!  Therefore we must be wary of those witnesses that have connected a happenstance that appears to be of significant importance because it might actually have occurred minutes or hours later.  Witnesses also distort their own memories.  Again, a variety of reasons may exist for this to occur.  For one thing, witnesses are affected by their own internal thoughts, wishes and desires.  People often wish to place themselves into a better light or help contribute to an important project such as solving a murder case.  This does not have to be done purposefully, nor does it have to be even consciously noticed by the witness.  In these situations it is virtually impossible to determine which memories are real and which are not.  (Arnolds, Carroll, Lewis & Seng-Eyewitness Testimony: Strategies & Tactics. 1984)

[Gil Jesus]

33 minutes ago, Pete Mellor said:

Your honour,

There are several misconceptions about memory that have a direct effect on the study of the Tippit killing.  First, it is generally assumed that the more violent the crime, the more likely a witness will be able to remember the details.  It has been theorised that a mental shock disrupts the process necessary for full storage of memories.  Another postulation is that in situations where emotions run high, such as would occur during a violent killing, people tend to become more distracted, more self-preoccupied or more worried.  Studies have demonstrated that witness accuracy is consistently poorer in violent or stressful situations.  Witnesses are always asked to give the time of an incident, and among other things, to describe the actions of themselves and/or others during and after the shooting and the length of time that elapsed.  But how accurate are witnesses likely to be in their descriptions?  Not very, particularly in light of the violence in the Tippit killing.  Studies have shown that witnesses are also likely to overestimate the duration of a violent event by twice the amount or greater, especially in situations where the event was of a very short duration.  One study involving a simulated bank robbery even resulted in witnesses describing a thirty second event as having taken fifteen minutes!  Therefore we must be wary of those witnesses that have connected a happenstance that appears to be of significant importance because it might actually have occurred minutes or hours later.  Witnesses also distort their own memories.  Again, a variety of reasons may exist for this to occur.  For one thing, witnesses are affected by their own internal thoughts, wishes and desires.  People often wish to place themselves into a better light or help contribute to an important project such as solving a murder case.  This does not have to be done purposefully, nor does it have to be even consciously noticed by the witness.  In these situations it is virtually impossible to determine which memories are real and which are not.  (Arnolds, Carroll, Lewis & Seng-Eyewitness Testimony: Strategies & Tactics. 1984)

Good point, Pete. Let me add to that:

Eyewitness testimony is historically among the most convincing forms of evidence in criminal trials. That iconic moment when a testifying witness points to the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime is iconic, and has been dramatized often on television and movies. It is easy to understand why it is so convincing. We trust our own perception and experience.

But being convincing isn’t the same as being accurate.

Eyewitness testimony is more fallible than many people assume. The advent of DNA analysis in the late 1980s revolutionized forensic science, providing an unprecedented level of accuracy about the identity of actual perpetrators versus innocent people falsely accused of crime. DNA testing led to the review of many settled cases.

Since 2006, The Innocence Project of Texas has exonerated or freed 25 innocent people from incarceration who collectively served 341 years behind bars.
https://innocencetexas.org/our-work

19 of those convictions came under the leadership of Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade, who served as DA at the time of the assassination.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

Nationwide, as of January 2020, 367 people who were convicted have had those convictions overturned by DNA evidence. Of those, 21 people had been convicted and sentenced to death.
https://innocenceproject.org/research-resources/

Eyewitness misidentification played a major role in those original convictions.

Of those 367 people, 69 % had been convicted through eyewitness misidentification and had served an average of 14 years in prison before exoneration.
https://innocenceproject.org/how-eyewitness-misidentification-can-send-innocent-people-to-prison/

The authors of a 2018 study concluded that “eyewitnesses typically provide reliable evidence on an initial, uncontaminated memory test, and this is true even for most of the wrongful convictions that were later reversed by DNA evidence.

The researchers argued that eyewitnesses are usually correct immediately after a crime takes place, but that their memories become contaminated during the process of interviewing and questioning. Inaccuracies in eyewitnesses’ memories can, in turn, lead to wrongful convictions.

The more times an eyewitness is questioned, the more likely it is that their memories will become contaminated.

Being asked leading questions, hearing more information about a case from media or other witnesses, and even having to repeat their story many times can all affect a person’s memory.
https://www.verywellmind.com/can-you-trust-eyewitness-testimony-4579757

Memory also deteriorates while we store it. Research dating back to the 19th century shows that we rapidly forget what we have seen and heard, and that memory doesn’t improve over time.

Many of the Commission’s witnesses were interviewed and gave testimony between 2 and 10 months after the murder.

Which makes the account of Jack Ray Tatum, who claimed to have witnessed the Tippit murder and identified Oswald as the murderer that much more difficult to believe. Tatum didn’t enter the limelight until the House Select Committee investigation in 1977, some 14 YEARS after the murder. That Tatum could retain his memory for that long is not supported by the science or the research.

The fact that he never came forward before that time makes his “identification” all the more unreliable.

Memory is extremely malleable as we store and recall it.

Information we learn after witnessing an event from other witnesses, police investigators and the media as well as the ways in which we are asked questions about what we saw can profoundly alter our memories.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the witnesses’ accounts of the murder of J.D. Tippit. Over time, witnesses changed their stories, none of them were consistent with each other and some even contradicted in their testimony months later what they originally told police.

Others were influenced by what they saw on television and in the newspapers.

Domingo Benavides was the closest witness to the murder. He admitted under oath that his eventual identification of Oswald came from pictures he had seen in the newspaper:

Mr. BELIN. You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES. From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
BELIN. Were they newspaper pictures or television pictures, or both, or neither ?
Mr. BENAVIDES. Well, television pictures and newspaper pictures. The thing lasted about a month, I believe, it seemed like.
Mr. BELIN. Pardon.
Mr. BENAVIDES. I showed I believe they showed pictures of him every day for a long time there. ( 6 H 452 )

Cab driver William Scoggins also admitted that he had seen pictures of Oswald in the morning paper before he identified him. ( 3 H 334 )

Improved memory over time ? Not according to the research.

And "resembled the guy" is NOT considered a positive identification.

 

[David Von Pein]

14 minutes ago, Kathy Beckett said:

Don't call anyone dishonest. .... Don't call anyone ignorant.

What about calling members "trolls"?

Edited July 20, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Mark Knight]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

What about calling members "trolls"?

I believe the rules against ad hominem attacks cover that. However, I also noticed that no particular member was called out on that one.

The fact that Kathy has had to come in and break up this schoolyard scuffle shows that EF rules have been violated. I would caution that personal attacks of ANY kind are prohibited here, and that ALL members should take note when an administrator has to step in on a thread, and see that as an "opportunity" to examine their own behavior here.

We like to promote discussion here. But by that, we mean the discussion of ideas and evidence. I would hope no one here would tell another member to "go to Hell," but if one does that, at least try to be Churchillian and "do it in such a way that they will be looking forward to the trip."

Obviously, several have missed that mark on this thread.

[David Von Pein]

6 minutes ago, Kathy Beckett said:

Everybody here knows how to act well. Just do it.

EOD

Ten-Four!

I agree.

Edited July 20, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Steve Thomas]

21 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Hill also told Sneed that he turned in the revolver to Baker in the Homicide office before heading down to personnel, which is pretty interesting with that document you posted about Fritz and Doughty. 

Tom,

I have been very surprised to learn that all of the policemen involved in Oswald's arrest gathered together in Westbrook's office when they filled out their after-action reports.

Bentley was there, Carroll was there. Hill, Lyons, McDonald - they all gathered together and compared notes.

Do you think that was a good idea, or a bad one?

 

In his after-action Report dated December 3, 1963, DPD Archives, Box 2, Folder# 7, Item# 4, page 2

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=217801#relPageId=267

Detective Paul Bentley wrote: “On the way to the City Hall, I removed the suspect's wallet and obtained his name.... I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook's office to make a report of this arrest.”

 

Gerald Hill's testimony before the Warren Commission

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/hill_gl.htm

“Bentley had sprained an ankle, and Lyons had sprained an ankle while effecting the arrest--they were fixing to have to make a whole bushel basket of reports--we adjourned to the personnel office, which was further down the hall from homicide and I sat down and started to try to organize the first report on the arrest.

I originally wrote the report for Bob Carroll's signature and for my signature, and left it with the captain to be typed while we moved over in another office to get a cup of coffee and sort of calm down and recap the events.
By then McDonald was there, and we had added some information that he could give us such as the information about "This is it."

 

WC testimony of C.T. Walker

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/walker_c.htm

Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you, did you have anything to do on November 22, or anything more to do on November 22, with either the Tippit shooting or investigation or apprehension of Oswald or the assassination of the President's investigation?
Mr. WALKER. No. I stayed down in Captain Westbrook's office for a while until I got off.

I personally would have preferred them to have written down their own recollections in isolation.

Steve Thomas

[Michael Kalin]

Whether lying or not, Callaway was an unreliable witness regarding even basic matters. For example, the simple detail of which side of Patton the fugitive took is vexed. Callaway said west. Guinyard & Patterson said east. At least one is wrong.

It's a mystery as to why Callaway's version is commonly accepted. Is there corroboration?

[James DiEugenio]

Two very good posts.

I especially like Bob's.

I mean if you cannot see there is a hunting party going on, then you must be willfully blind. 

[James DiEugenio]

Kathy and Mark, thanks, but I also wish you would address the BB trick of calling someone a L i a r by spacing out the letters.   That is clearly a deliberate dodge of the rules.

As for the "trolls' remark by Joe, making a general comment like that is kind of mild compared to some of the things Von Pein used to say here and elsewhere.  The only reason he is not doing it now is because, as he himself said, he is walking on egg shells.

A generalization is not as stinging or inflammatory, as a personal insult. 

[David Von Pein]

24 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Kathy and Mark, thanks, but I also wish you would address the BB trick of calling someone a L i a r by spacing out the letters.   That is clearly a deliberate dodge of the rules.

But, as I said before, neither Bill Brown nor I dodged any rule, and that's because we did not call any FORUM MEMBER the L-word.

(And, as we can see, Jim D. above just now did the "spaced out letters" trick again himself.)

[Steve Roe]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Kathy and Mark, thanks, but I also wish you would address the BB trick of calling someone a L i a r by spacing out the letters.   That is clearly a deliberate dodge of the rules.

As for the "trolls' remark by Joe, making a general comment like that is kind of mild compared to some of the things Von Pein used to say here and elsewhere.  The only reason he is not doing it now is because, as he himself said, he is walking on egg shells.

A generalization is not as stinging or inflammatory, as a personal insult. 

Yes Mr. DiEugenio, maybe it is a deliberate dodge of the rules. Here's your violations. 

From Mr. DiEugenio:

Quote

 

What a riot.

Davey is being wasted on about three different issues.  Then he says, well so what if I am off a bit in my angle of declination?  LOL

He cannot handle what that hand wound means.  Or Speer showing that Specter was a l-i-a-r.  

The critics need to show the Single Bullet Theory was a Fantasy?   To most normal people, it shows itself to be a fantasy.  DVP and the WC nuts hang on to it like Linus and his blanket.

Edited July 5, 2018 by James DiEugenio

 

Quote

 

And that is just the beginning of VB's shenanigans in that regard.

But that is not the worst part of RH.  The worst part of it is that in his intro, VB said he would present the evidence as the critics would present it, not as an advocate. And he then would collapse their arguments on their own terms.

WHAT A L-I-A-R.  Because he did no such thing.

Edited August 7, 2019 by James DiEugenio

 

 

[Gil Jesus]

26 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

Yes Mr. DiEugenio, maybe it is a deliberate dodge of the rules. Here's your violations. 

From Mr. DiEugenio:

 

Mr. DiEugenio was speaking of Vincent Bugliosi and since Mr. Bugliosi has never been a member of this forum, there is no violation.

Your loathing of DiEugenio is obvious.