Ä JFK_ASSN (1:101/505) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ JFK_ASSN Ä
 Msg  : 1 of 1                      Rcv                                         
 From : Lew Murray                  1:396/1.20              Sun 18 Dec 94 08:26 
 To   : Anthony Marsh                                       Tue 20 Dec 94 04:50 
 Subj : Rebuttal.txt                                                            
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
On (16 Dec 94) Anthony Marsh wrote to Lew Murray...

 AM> In some ways I wish that Jay's account would be true. It would certainly
 AM> open up the possibility that one channel was being played in the same
 AM> room while the other channel was being recorded, thus accounting for the
 AM> acoustical crosstalk. But on the other hand, if Jay's account WERE true,
 AM> it might suggest a huge cover-up, as we were all told that the channels
 AM> were recorded directly onto dictabelts and discs, thus there could be no
 AM> extraneous sounds on them, supposedly. But you may be making the wrong
 AM> assumption about the dictabelt. Supposedly the dictabelt would hold
 AM> about 1/2 hours worth of radio traffic, but then they would insert a new
 AM> belt so that there are many belts from that day, covering the whole
 AM> event, not just one tape. I am very intrigued by Jay's idea and if it
 AM> were true, it would be quite significant.
 AM> Tony

I think Jay is correct.  Again, I made my living in the two-way radio
field at the time.  We are talking about '63 not '43.  A large reel-to-
reel recorder could be purchased for LESS money that a dict-a-phone.  It
makes no sense that the channel would be monitored with a device that
required someone to change the belt every half hour.  If Dallas was
doing it, they would have been the only PD in the country doing so.

Besides which, Jay even mentioned the detectives using the tapes later
in making reports.  That tells me that he REMEMBERS what they used.
And if they were later transcribed using a dictaphone, it wouldn't
even require accustical crosstalk.  Merely that the tape and the
dictaphone were recorded and rewound and recorded again.  As I've
stated before, it was common for a dictaphone to not fully erase
previous recordings.
--- PPoint 1.88
 * Origin: A Professional Point System (1:396/1.20)