A Question of Credibility: Tippit Witnesses Can't Agree

[Bill Brown]

On 2/10/2023 at 6:28 AM, Michael Kalin said:

Reference the brace of preceding comments which I'm not going to quote as arguments this flimsy do not bear repetition. Since I've already presented my argument several ways there will be no attempt to simplify it further. A word to the wise: try to determine the identities of the "approximately six to eight witnesses, all telling officers that the subject was running west in the alley between Tenth and Jefferson Streets" mentioned in the Poe/Jez report. Markham was number one.

Forget about Callaway's credibility -- declaring him credible doesn't make him so. Leavelle appointed him conductor of the Tippit branch of the Oswald railroad.

And no seance material derived from Myers is worth responding to, he who specializes in formulating latter-day witness testimony drawn from the mouths of survivors, having lacked the diligence to interview the actual witnesses while they lived.

As to what Reynolds really saw on 11/22/63, listen to Ron Reiland's WFAA broadcast to get the drift as the camera cuts from a parking lot view with the Abundant Life Temple in the background to the rear of a "junk shop" that fronted on the alley.
https://archive.org/details/JFKAssassinationRonReilandFilm

It's difficult to make sense of Jimmy Burt's & William Smith's alleged activities. The alley ran from the Gentlemen's Club at Patton to the Abundant Life Temple at Crawford, 100+ feet from the Texaco  Station. The proposed involvement of their friend James Markham has no support from any quarter whatsoever.

No straw men allowed! I am familiar with the fragmentary "full list of witnesses," and several other witnesses not listed, but choose to refrain from contemplating copy & paste scenarios lifted from the shambles known as the Warren Report.

The bottom line is you said that no one corroborated Ted Calloway's version that the gunman fled the full length of Patton all the way down to Jefferson. You were wrong about this. Know the evidence before you attempt to criticize.

Edited February 11, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Steve Roe]

Somebody forgot Warren Reynolds.

WARREN REYNOLDS, part owner, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, advised on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, while sitting in his office, he had observed an individual running south on Patton Avenue toward Jefferson Street and then walking at a fast rate of speed west on Jefferson. As the individual was running down Patton Avenue, he had a pistol or an automatic in his possession and was apparently attempting to conceal same in his belt while he was running. REYNOLDS advised he had previously heard shots coming from the area of Tenth and Patton Streets and, thinking that possibly a marital argument had occurred and a shooting had taken place, he attempted to follow the individual in order that he could inform the Dallas Police Department of the individual's location.

He advised he stayed at a safe distance behind the individual and last observed the individual to turn north by the Ballew Texaco Service Station, and from this point he did not again observe the individual. He advised he made inquiry at Ballew's Texaco Service Station, and they informed him the individual had gone through the parking lot.

[Michael Kalin]

17 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

The bottom line is you said that no one corroborated Ted Calloway's version that the gunman fled the full length of Patton all the way down to Jefferson. You were wrong about this. Know the evidence before you attempt to criticize.

Another straw man! Here's what I wrote: "No one corroborated Callaway's story of a fugitive proceeding along the west side of Patton Avenue the entire distance to Jefferson. Patterson & Guinyard both specified the east side."

Do not feel free to misrepresent my arguments.

[Michael Kalin]

16 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

Somebody forgot Warren Reynolds.

Somebody forgot to read the comment I made two days ago (2/10/23).

[Bill Brown]

6 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

Another straw man! Here's what I wrote: "No one corroborated Callaway's story of a fugitive proceeding along the west side of Patton Avenue the entire distance to Jefferson. Patterson & Guinyard both specified the east side."

Do not feel free to misrepresent my arguments.

What are you going on about? Callaway said the gunman crossed from the east side over to the west side of Patton south of Scoggins' cab.

[Bill Brown]

6 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

Another straw man! Here's what I wrote: "No one corroborated Callaway's story of a fugitive proceeding along the west side of Patton Avenue the entire distance to Jefferson. Patterson & Guinyard both specified the east side."

Do not feel free to misrepresent my arguments.

Also, aren't you the same guy who mistakenly believed that T.F. Bowley drove past Tippit's body before getting out and going to the scene? You don't know the case and here you are trying to create these B.S. scenarios. Go back and learn the evidence first.

[Michael Kalin]

19 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

What are you going on about? Callaway said the gunman crossed from the east side over to the west side of Patton south of Scoggins' cab.

Again you miss the point! I'll make it very easy this time (pay strict attention to the portion in bold): "No one corroborated Callaway's story of a fugitive proceeding along the west side of Patton Avenue the entire distance to Jefferson." What this means is many saw him on the west side of Patton north of the alley, but no one claimed to see him on the west side of Patton between the alley & Jefferson with the exception of Callaway. This is why Markham's credibility is infinitely greater than Callaway's who has none at all.

Last chance for lucidity.

[Michael Kalin]

19 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Also, aren't you the same guy who mistakenly believed that T.F. Bowley drove past Tippit's body before getting out and going to the scene? You don't know the case and here you are trying to create these B.S. scenarios. Go back and learn the evidence first.

Not me. Wrong ad hominem. I have no mistaken beliefs about Bowley.

[Bill Brown]

3 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

Again you miss the point! I'll make it very easy this time (pay strict attention to the portion in bold): "No one corroborated Callaway's story of a fugitive proceeding along the west side of Patton Avenue the entire distance to Jefferson." What this means is many saw him on the west side of Patton north of the alley, but no one claimed to see him on the west side of Patton between the alley & Jefferson with the exception of Callaway. This is why Markham's credibility is infinitely greater than Callaway's who has none at all.

Last chance for lucidity.

 

"What this means is many saw him on the west side of Patton north of the alley, but no one claimed to see him on the west side of Patton between the alley & Jefferson with the exception of Callaway."

 

So now what?

[Bill Brown]

3 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

Not me. Wrong ad hominem. I have no mistaken beliefs about Bowley.

Yes,  you.  

 

On page 3 of the thread POLICE CAR IN THE ALLEY? NOPE, describing Bowley's actions, you said:

 

"There were exactly two houses between Tippit's body & the corner. The 100 yard distance described in Moriarty's HSCA report put Bowley in the 300 block of E. 10th. Nothing prevented him from proceeding through the intersection, consistent with his desire to protect his daughter from an ugly sight."

Edited February 13, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Michael Kalin]

On 2/13/2023 at 11:38 AM, Bill Brown said:

On page 3 of the thread POLICE CAR IN THE ALLEY? NOPE, describing Bowley's actions, you said:

 

"There were exactly two houses between Tippit's body & the corner. The 100 yard distance described in Moriarty's HSCA report put Bowley in the 300 block of E. 10th. Nothing prevented him from proceeding through the intersection, consistent with his desire to protect his daughter from an ugly sight."

No hijacking -- Bowley has no place in this thread. Either reopen the relevant thread or start a new one.

A friendly word of advice -- however you choose to proceed it's probably best to make an effort to support your position with genuine evidence. Perpetually declaiming a set of opinions acquired by rote does not carry the force of persuasion. Regarding Bowley this may prove challenging as he was barred from entering the WR, one of the many flaws that render that document wholly defective.

Bon voyage!

Edited February 14, 2023 by Michael Kalin
for clarity

[Bill Brown]

3 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

No hijacking -- Bowley has no place in this thread. Either reopen the relevant thread or start a new one.

A friendly word of advice -- however you choose to proceed it's probably best to make an effort to support your position with genuine evidence. Perpetually declaiming a set of opinions acquired by rote does not carry the force of persuasion. Regarding Bowley this may prove challenging as he was barred entry from the WR, one of the many flaws that render that document wholly defective.

Bon voyage!

Sadly, you don't know what you are talking about. You are saying that Bowley was driving west on 10th, drove past the patrol car, drove past the body lying in the street, and then continued on through the intersection of 10th and Patton and parked on the 300 block of East 10th which would be one block west of the shooting scene. That is pure nonsense.

 

This is not "hijacking". It applies to this thread. It shows that you make up scenarios without knowing the evidence; exactly as you've done with Callaway.

 

The reality is that Bowley stopped his car BEFORE ever getting all the way to the patrol car and the body lying in the street. 

The "100 yards" is debatable but regardless of that, it's referring to 100 yards east of the patrol car. 

 

Edited February 14, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Evan Marshall]

As a retired Detroit Homicide Sgt I'd be more troubled if they all agreed.

[Bill Brown]

11 hours ago, Evan Marshall said:

As a retired Detroit Homicide Sgt I'd be more troubled if they all agreed.

 

That's a great point which is completely lost on many.

 

[Michael Kalin]

23 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

This is not "hijacking". It applies to this thread. It shows that you make up scenarios without knowing the evidence; exactly as you've done with Callaway.

Is an ad hominem attack the best you can do? This thread asks a simple question relative to two witnesses whose statements contradict each other. You have four options.

1. Deny the contradictions.
2. Show Markham's account is correct.
3. Show Callaway's account is correct.
4. Show neither is correct.

My focus is the escape route. I get the sense you disagree with the conclusion based on an examination of the available evidence that Markham's credibility in this matter is far greater than Callaway's although you do not provide a counter-argument.

Am I right? If so it is incumbent on you to provide a carefully researched argument based on actual evidence relative to your position. Invective, thread hijacking, strawmen arguments & ad hominem attacks are not the way to go.