Ted Callaway & The 1:15 Shooting

[David Von Pein]

27 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

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

Right. And that is just exactly what I have said (twice now) to Jim DiEugenio.

Plus, given my current condition of having multiple eggshells permanently affixed to both of my feet while I'm posting at this Internet location, I most certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to come out and call any EF member the L-word. And from the posts I've seen where Bill Brown has utilized the L-word "trick", I don't think Bill has called any current EF member the L-word either.

If I'm wrong, Gil, please provide the link(s).

Edited July 20, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Gil Jesus]

5 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

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?

To your point about Callaway:

 

Personally, I don't think either one of these men saw the killer. Callaway's story that he confronted an armed man heading his way after he heard five shots is as good a BS story as I've ever heard. Additionally, that he was supposedly unarmed is even crazier. He didn't grow balls until he had Tippit's gun in his hands. I'm sure that both these guys saw the killer coming their way and took cover between the cars in the lot.

[James DiEugenio]

Nice one again Gil. 

For the life of me I also do not understand why Calloway?

Except maybe he is not as bad as Markham?

[Joseph McBride]

An FBI document says Oswald was never

arraigned for the murder of JFK, only

for the murder of Tippit, although he

was charged with both murders.

 

And a point about Calloway -- his

escapade taking Tippit's service

weapon and joyriding with it broke

the chain of custody on that particular

gun.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Joseph McBride

[David Von Pein]

16 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

An FBI document says Oswald was never arraigned for the murder of JFK, only for the murder of Tippit, although he was charged with both murders.

And that document is obviously not correct, because the testimony of JP David Johnston verifies that Oswald was arraigned for JFK's murder at 1:35 AM on 11/23....

"That arraignment was held at 1:35 a.m., November 23, 1963, in the identification bureau of the Dallas Police Department, and once again I appraised him [Oswald] of his constitutional rights, read the affidavit, and advised him again that I remanded him to the custody of the sheriff, Dallas County, denying bond as capital offense." -- D. Johnston; WC Testimony

The video below was recorded about an hour or so before the 1:35 AM arraignment of Oswald. In the video, David Johnston reads the formal charges filed against Oswald (the same charges/affidavit that Johnston would be reading to Oswald an hour later):

 

Edited July 21, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Mark Knight]

"That arraignment was held at 1:35 a.m., November 23, 1963, in the identification bureau of the Dallas Police Department, and once again I appraised him [Oswald] of his constitutional rights, read the affidavit, and advised him again that I remanded him to the custody of the sheriff, Dallas County, denying bond as capital offense." -- D. Johnston; WC Testimony

So Oswald was remanded to the custody of the Dallas County Sheriff...yet he never was in the custody of the Dallas County Sheriff, was he? A mere 36 hours later, Oswald was dead, having NEVER been in the custody of the Dallas County Sheriff.

I still don't understand why Oswald wasn't transferred in the early morning hours, with no public notice, and surrounded by enough officers to form an impenetrable wall of bodies, shortly after this order was issued. Yeah, hindsight is 20/20, but had the custody of Oswald been handed off to Decker early Saturday morning, odds are we'd never have known who Jack Ruby was.

[Joseph McBride]

You can choose to consider what JP Johnston said on Nov. 23, that he

WOULD read the complaint about the assassination to the suspect,

as a fait accompli, which it was not. Captain

Will Fritz on Nov. 25 told the FBI's James Hosty 

that (in the words of the FBI document), "No arraignment on the murder charges in connection with the death of President KENNEDY was held inasmuch as such arraignment

was not necessary in view of the previous charges filed against

OSWALD [on the Tippit murder] and for which he was arraigned."

 

Since Fritz was not always reliable (see THE THIN BLUE LINE for

how he and the DPD helped frame an innocent man for

killing another Dallas police officer), you might read

Summers's book, which reports that "Officer J. B. Hicks

was on duty in the relevant office [on Nov. 23, 1963] until aafter

2:00 A.M. and is certain Oswald was not

arraigned at 1:35." The Warren Report states that the time

Fritz signed the complaint charging Oswald

with murdering Kennedy was "shortly after

1:30 a.m. on Saturday, November 23." At Oswald's

midnight press conference, when he said he

didn't know he had been charged with murdering

the president, a reporter angrily said he had.

 

But Detective Jim Leavelle, who was involved in the

interrogations of Oswald, told me Oswald was

telling the truth that he hadn't been informed

of that charge by the authorities. Naturally, anything

the DPD said, or the Warren Report claimed, has to be taken with a large grain

of salt, but you can watch the press conference

and see that Oswald appeared genuinely surprised.

You might also not believe Hosty and the FBI, with good reason. But

the way to study any facet of this case is to

assess all the reports and draw conclusions of your own,

doing so without preconceptions.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Joseph McBride

[David Von Pein]

So, Joseph, you think JP David Johnston was lying through his teeth to the WC was he said he personally arraigned LHO at 1:35 AM CST on 11/23?

And is this document (Johnston Exhibit No. 1), handwritten by Johnston, also a lie?:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0168a.htm

[Greg Doudna]

Callaway's story of seeing and calling to the gunman on Patton is verified by an independent second witness, Acquila Clemmons, who witnessed the encounter between the gunman and Callaway, across the street from each other, and hearing Callaway shout to the gunman, the same words:

Callaway to gunman across street (waving and shouting): "Hey man, what the hell's going on?"

Acquila Clemmons sees and hears Callaway waving and shouting to the gunman across the street, hears: "Go on!" (partial hearing of "what the hell's going on?")

Acquila Clemmons also answers the question of which side of Patton the gunman ran. Acquila Clemmons saw them on opposite sides of the street, in agreement with Callaway on that.

Acquila Clemmons saw the whole thing between Callaway and the gunman, looking south on Patton from her vantage point on the northwest corner of Patton and 10th. 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27358-tippit-acquila-clemons/

Listen to Acquila Clemmons tell it--isn't it obvious?

[Gil Jesus]

10 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

I still don't understand why Oswald wasn't transferred in the early morning hours, with no public notice, and surrounded by enough officers to form an impenetrable wall of bodies, shortly after this order was issued. Yeah, hindsight is 20/20, but had the custody of Oswald been handed off to Decker early Saturday morning, odds are we'd never have known who Jack Ruby was.

I understand it this way: Curry's plan was to move him in the daylight. Moving him at night posed special risks, like if someone tried to get him at night, they might hit a police officer by mistake. They weren't interested in the safety of the prisoner, they were interested in the safety of their officers and cooperation with the press.

Besides, Curry had promised the press that they'd have access to a daytime move. Fritz wanted to move him in the middle of the night, but they couldn't get in touch with Curry to get the OK.

I would have moved him around 2 am, but I wouldn't let anyone know that, even my own officers. I would have notified the Sheriff's Office just before we left.

[Gil Jesus]

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Nice one again Gil. 

For the life of me I also do not understand why Calloway?

Except maybe he is not as bad as Markham?

I would say so. Calloway was consistent with his BS story while Markham's changed every half an hour. I don't see how anybody could take his and Guinyard's "positive identifications" as evidence after they were told by Leavelle that the suspect in the Tippit killing was in the lineup.

 

Mr. CALLAWAY. We first went into the room. There was Jim Leavelle, the detective, Sam Guinyard, and then this busdriver 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 )

You NEVER tell a witness that the suspect is in the lineup they are about to see. NEVER. That's a no-no.

You tell them that they're about to see a lineup of men and if any of them are the man the witness saw, to point him out.

And the lineup they witnessed was comprised of three police employees and a battered and bruised Oswald. Who ya gonna pick as the suspect ?

And this was their "positive identification".

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.

But then again, they had no intention of seeing him tried, so they could deny him a lawyer, hold him incommunicado, place him in unfair and unethical lineups, it didn't matter.

Because he was never going to make it to trial.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[Steve Roe]

10 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Since Fritz was not always reliable (see THE THIN BLUE LINE for

how he and the DPD helped frame an innocent man for

killing another Dallas police officer),

I guess I learn something new every day. Captain Will Fritz of DPD Homicide was in the framing of Randall Adams, in the Thin Blue Line film. That is indeed interesting.

Mr. McBride can you explain how Captain Fritz framed Adams when the crime happened in 1976? I find your accusation troubling because Fritz left the Dallas Police Dept. (resigned/retired) in early 1970. 

Maybe you have information that I'm not aware of. 

[Joseph McBride]

In that post, I must have erred on adding Fritz to Wade being involved in the Adams

case, sorry and thanks, Steve, but later DA Watkins found about 300 cases

worth investigating in which Wade was dubiously

involved and cleared about 30 of the convicted

people before the voters kicked him out of the office.

Errol Morris found the evidence in Wade's files

after Wade let him rummage through them. That

is what led to exonerating Randall Dale Adams

of his false conviction for a cop-killing.

 

Wade saved DNA evidence in many cases. Maybe he

subconsciously wanted to be exposed. In my 1993 interview with Wade, I found

Wade a curious combination of stonewalling, caginess,

real or feigned ignorance, and surprising revelations. I deliberately

started with some softball questions before leading

up to the controversial ones, and about the half-hour

mark, Wade actually asked me if I didn't have any

more interesting questions, so I then cross-examined

him bluntly on a number of key topics, and he was fairly forthcoming. He and Leavelle

both made it clear that they knew the case against

Oswald for the assassination was flimsy and that

they needed to try to pin the Tippit killing on him (based

largely on what Fritz was telling them).

 

By the way, in regard to mistakes we all make

in this highly complex case despite our best efforts, and I check my books many times over for veracity and have rarely found errors in them, I always

think of what President Kennedy said in 1961 on that

subject of correcting errors before

they turn into mistakes. That's what responsible

researchers do as a matter of course. As I write in INTO THE NIGHTMARE,

in the section titled,

 

WHEN AN ERROR BECOMES A MISTAKE

 

Perhaps because of his genuine loyalty to Kennedy’s memory, Sorensen was an honorable exception to most historians’ obstinate refusal to reconsider their initial orthodoxies about the case and to risk their reputations by questioning the official lies. While historians, with their longer perspective, have even less of an excuse to overlook the truth than journalists do, it may not be surprising that many journalists still cling so stubbornly to the disproven lies and myths of a story the media blew so badly fifty years ago; admitting to grave errors is no more common in the media than it is in government. President Kennedy, a former journalist himself, did not labor under that deficiency: He told the American Newspaper Publishers Association after the Bay of Pigs fiasco in April 1961, “This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for, as a wise man once said: ‘An error doesn’t become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.’ We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.” (The wise man Kennedy quoted was the chemist and author Orlando A. Battista.)

What is continually surprising, at least to someone well-versed in the case, is how blatantly false references to the assassination in articles, books, and television documentaries can sail through without being corrected, no matter how often and how thoroughly they are refuted by assassination researchers, and how a basic ignorance about the facts of the case can be maintained with such an utter absence of shame. It is as if we live in two parallel universes where this event is concerned: There is a narrative believed by the mass media and most mainstream historians, and a wholly different narrative believed by genuine scholars of the case and most of the American public.

Factual accuracy is beside the point for many who write about the case, as Sylvia Meagher pointed out in the sixties: “What is noteworthy about the advocates of the Report is that they defend their position largely by rhetoric, asking how anyone can possibly question the probity of Chief Justice Warren or Senator Russell (much as one may disagree with his views on race) or even Allen Dulles. They do not argue on evidence, because frequently they are uninformed.” Nor, she added, was the Warren Commission itself on a genuine fact-finding mission:

 

"Indeed, although the evidence showed that Oswald had no motive, no means (marksmanship of the highest order), and no opportunity (his presence on the second floor of the Book Depository little more than a minute after the shooting, which to the men who encountered him at that time eliminated him from suspicion, constitutes an alibi), there is no indication in the vast collection of documentation that the Commission at any time seriously considered [as a body] the possibility that Oswald was not guilty, or that he had not acted alone." . . .

Some in this forum pounce on the occasional mistake while ignoring the many they make without apparent compunction. It is healthy to have fact-checking by serious researchers.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Joseph McBride

[Tony Rose]

On 7/15/2022 at 4:15 AM, David Von Pein said:

You're dead wrong. Lee Oswald's Smith & Wesson .38 revolver (Serial No. V510210) has a perfectly fine chain of custody ---- from Bob Carroll to Gerald Hill and then straight to the Dallas Police Headquarters at City Hall. No problem with that at all. CTers, as usual, are creating problems with the chain of possession for a piece of evidence where no problems exist whatsoever.

Do you think Bob Carroll and Sergeant Gerald L. Hill are both lying through their individual and collective teeth in their Warren Commission testimony below?

Emphasis added by DVP:

------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. BELIN. I now want to hand you one of the exhibits which has been marked as Commission Exhibit 143 and ask you to state what that is?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir. It is a .38 caliber revolver with a blue steel 2" barrel with wooden handle.
Mr. BELIN. Have you ever seen this before?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes; I have.
Mr. BELIN. Where did you first see it?
Mr. CARROLL. I first saw it in the Texas Theatre on November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Would you just tell us about this weapon, when you first saw it?
Mr. CARROLL. The first time I saw the weapon, it was pointed in my direction and I reached and grabbed it and stuck it into my belt.
Mr. BELIN. What did you happen to be doing at the time?
Mr. CARROLL. At the time I was assisting in the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whose hand was on the gun when you saw it pointed in your direction?
Mr. CARROLL. No; I do not.
Mr. BELIN. You just jumped and grabbed it?
Mr. CARROLL. I jumped and grabbed the gun; yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do with it?
Mr. CARROLL. Stuck it in my belt.
Mr. BELIN. And then?
Mr. CARROLL. After leaving the theatre and getting into the car, I released the pistol to Sgt. Jerry Hill.
Mr. BELIN. Sgt. G. L. Hill?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Who drove the car down to the station?
Mr. CARROLL. I drove the car.
Mr. BELIN. Did you give it to him before you started up the car, or after you started up the car, if you remember?
Mr. CARROLL. After.
Mr. BELIN. How far had you driven when you gave it to him?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't recall exactly how far I had driven.
Mr. BELIN. Did you put any identification mark at all on this weapon?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; I did. The initials B. C., right above the screw on the inside of the butt of the pistol.

[...]

Mr. BELIN. What day did you put your initials on it?
Mr. CARROLL. November 22, 1963.

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

------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. BELIN. Now I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit 143. Would you state if you know what this is?
Mr. HILL. This is a .38 caliber revolver, Smith & Wesson, with a 2" barrel that would contain six shells. It is an older gun that has been blue steeled, and has a worn wooden handle.
Mr. BELIN. Have you ever seen this gun before?
Mr. HILL. I am trying to see my mark on it to make sure, sir. I don't recall specifically where I marked it, but I did mark it, if this is the one. I don't remember where I did mark it, now. Here it is, Hill right here, right in this crack.
Mr. BELIN. Officer, you have just pointed out a place which I will identify as a metal portion running along the butt of the gun. Can you describe it any more fully?
Mr. HILL. It would be to the inside of the pistol grip holding the gun in the air. It would begin under the trigger guard to where the last name H-i-l-l is scratched in the metal.
Mr. BELIN. Who put that name in there?
Mr. HILL. I did.
Mr. BELIN. When did you do that?
Mr. HILL. This was done at approximately 4 p.m., the afternoon of Friday, November 22, 1963, in the personnel office of the police department.
Mr. BELIN. Did you keep that gun in your possession until you scratched your name on it?

Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. BELIN. Was this gun the gun that Officer Carroll handed to you?
Mr. HILL. And identified to me as the suspect's weapon.

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

Right off the bat, Carrol doesn't know who he took the pistol from.  How does that link it to Oswald?

[David Von Pein]

52 minutes ago, Tony Rose said:

Right off the bat, Carrol doesn't know who he took the pistol from.  How does that link it to Oswald?

You must be joking here, Tony.

How many gun-waving suspects do you think the cops were fighting in the theater on 11/22?