Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ted Callaway
Callaway from the first identified himself as the one who grabbed Tippit's gun and commandeered Scoggins cab, which, while generally accepted, has little support in the way of corroboration. As pointed out in the William Scoggins thread Benvenides alone confirmed Callaway's account of himself but did so in such a way as to cast doubt on its validity. The return to the scene after the ride has no support whatsoever.

Both Russell & Scoggins made statements that came close to eliminating Callaway from consideration for the role, and DPD refrained from interrogating the parties to sort out this important detail.

Dale Myers with the publication of With Malice (WM) in 1998 took up the issue. A spirited discussion ensued with Donald Willis, available on the wayback machine.

WM promoted the standard line of Callaway's participation in the cab ride, but there were complications. For example, this per Myers: "When I got out of the cab," Callaway recalled in a 1996 interview, "I didnt hesitate a bit like a lot of guys would. I walked straight to this plainclothes officer [wearing hat and glasses] and I said, Heres the officers pistol. He said, Okay, thank you very much. After that I walked right back to the lot."

The recipient was supposed to be Croy, the Constable Dogberry of the plot, but Croy was in uniform, and the statements Myers attributed to Callaway in 1996 undermined the book's hypothesis. The debate between Willis & Myers is fascinating but there is no earthly reason to try to work out the details because in 2013, with the publication of the second edition of WM, Meyers trashed a major portion of the scenario.

21st century now, deep into the computer age, Meyers applied the fundamental theorem of software engineering to the muddle he promoted --
We can solve any problem by introducing an extra level of indirection…

And so he did by introducing Holmes & Wheless to the stage, a pair of security officers. Their story was unknown to the public for 50 years, disclosed by Holmes Jr. in 1999, kept under wraps until 2013, finally revealed a year after Holmes Jr. died, whose epitaph is --
Master of Tall Tales - July 16, 2012

The revised yarn, replete with car chase & near shoot out, disconnects Callaway from Tippit's gun, "on one of the side streets just east of Beckley." Belief comes at the price of declaring Callaway a liar from the beginning, demonstrating the fundamental theorem's pitfall --
…except for the problem of too many levels of indirection.

Another example -- Benavides' arrival twice at murder scene, per his testimony second time on foot, per Guinyard's by truck. WM2 endorses the latter, having Benavides arrive twice by truck, second time after he picked himself up off the floorboards and drove to his mother's house via the alley blocked by squad 10. Did he go over the curb, whipping around the tree and across the front yard? Why not go to Patton and hang a left?

Upshot is neither Callaway's nor Benavides' role stands up to scrutiny, and WM efforts to circumvent the complications likewise fail, the scenario unsalvageable no matter how many levels of indirection are added. When the smoke clears from the cab the preceding levels come back into focus. Callaway cannot be found with Scoggins, and Benavides enters the scene for the first and last time.
The Acorn link does not work when I click it.
Acorn dead link for me too...
My mistake. Try this --

Should work, if not try entering the acorn url in the wayback machine next to the Browse History button.
"We can solve any problem by introducing an extra level of indirection".

I do not recall it being stated any better.


WM2 is not oblivious to the contradiction with respect to Benavides' re-arrival by different modes but makes no attempt to solve the problem. Instead it gets shunted off to a pair of circular endnotes --
[489] 6H449 (WCT of Domingo Benavides April 2, 1964) [Note: although Benavides indicated that he left the scene on foot, eyewitness Sam Guinyard told the Warren Commission that he saw Benavides drive up in his truck at about the time he would have returned to the shooting scene. (7H398)]
[518] 6H449 (WCT of Domingo Benavides April 2, 1964); 7H398 (WCT of Sam Guinyard April 2, 1964) [Note: see endnote, 489]

The implication is that the double arrival is factual, the second's exact manner but an insignificant detail, leaving the resolution to the reader's judgment & discretion. A few possibilities follow --

1. Benavides left & returned by truck.
2. Benavides left by foot and returned by another truck.
3. Guinyard did not see Benavides arrive by truck.
4. Benavides left & returned by both foot & truck.
5. Benavides arrived by truck once witnessed by Guinyard.

#1 is implied by Guinyard but contradicted by Benavides who ought to have known if he traveled on foot or wheel. #2 fits to a degree but otherwise lacks support. #3 is curious. Why did Myers refrain from undermining Guinyard by using some cheap interviewing trick or other means? Probably because Guinyard was led by Ball into making the statement, the arrival by truck treated as established fact in the question --
Mr. BALL. Were you there when the truck came up that was driven by Benavides?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. He came up right after this?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; he came up from the east side---going west.

#4 may be ludicrous but it's the version presented in WM2's reconstruction, an erratic fable loosely based on historical events.

#5 is what happened. Benavides was not at the scene when the shooting occurred, a bit player until appearing at the WC hearings, possibly as a last minute replacement, solving the problems of Bowley's watch & Ruby connection by adding a layer of indirection.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)