04-05-2018, 05:29 PM
Sorry for the makeshift quote but I keep getting markup errors when trying to quote separate portions of DJ's post #14.
DJ: So we have a man who probably did not see much of anything while ducked down in his truck simply say he could not ID the man... except the "anything else" which he adds virtually disqualifies Oswald...
I guess I am having a hard time seeing where he was "elevated" and how anything he says disqualifies BOWLEY and MARKHAM ???
...
So, one thing that always has bothered me about him was he only hers 3 shots and does not describe a very key action by "the suspect" as recounted by Jack TATUM... Tippit was shot FOUR TIMES, not 3... 3 times to the upper chest, then a delay and a 4th shot to the right front with virtually the same path as the JFK shot
...
Milo - I think we agree... I just don't see the significance... can you help me?
See previous post #5. The argument is Benavides was not present on 10th street when Tippit was murdered. He debuted later at the scene. The essay that is the subject of this thread says otherwise.
Reasons why Benavides was called on to supplant (not disqualify) Bowley for the sake of WR:
1. Bowley's Ruby connection.
2. Bowley looked at his watch & remembered the time.
Therefore Bowley was removed from the scene and Benavides was assigned to make the radio call. At some point his role was elevated into eyewitness status (see "Eyewitnesses" WR p.166 -- he's #2). A side effect was heading off the presence of a second assailant, notwithstanding discrepancies & quirks in his WC testimony. As to disqualifying Markham, I'm trying to help, but I don't see where it happened. Maybe you can help me?
Forget about Tatum. He didn't witness the murder either. The belated coup-de-grace to the head is nonsense. Moriarty fudged the whole thing.
See: https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...Jack-Tatum
Tatum is not mentioned by name in the essay, although there's an anonymous reference in section VI.
If you see no significance in setting facts straight, why did you put so much effort into your splendid analysis of the Mexico City episode?
DJ: So we have a man who probably did not see much of anything while ducked down in his truck simply say he could not ID the man... except the "anything else" which he adds virtually disqualifies Oswald...
I guess I am having a hard time seeing where he was "elevated" and how anything he says disqualifies BOWLEY and MARKHAM ???
...
So, one thing that always has bothered me about him was he only hers 3 shots and does not describe a very key action by "the suspect" as recounted by Jack TATUM... Tippit was shot FOUR TIMES, not 3... 3 times to the upper chest, then a delay and a 4th shot to the right front with virtually the same path as the JFK shot
...
Milo - I think we agree... I just don't see the significance... can you help me?
Reasons why Benavides was called on to supplant (not disqualify) Bowley for the sake of WR:
1. Bowley's Ruby connection.
2. Bowley looked at his watch & remembered the time.
Therefore Bowley was removed from the scene and Benavides was assigned to make the radio call. At some point his role was elevated into eyewitness status (see "Eyewitnesses" WR p.166 -- he's #2). A side effect was heading off the presence of a second assailant, notwithstanding discrepancies & quirks in his WC testimony. As to disqualifying Markham, I'm trying to help, but I don't see where it happened. Maybe you can help me?
Forget about Tatum. He didn't witness the murder either. The belated coup-de-grace to the head is nonsense. Moriarty fudged the whole thing.
See: https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...Jack-Tatum
Tatum is not mentioned by name in the essay, although there's an anonymous reference in section VI.
If you see no significance in setting facts straight, why did you put so much effort into your splendid analysis of the Mexico City episode?