Another TSBD Employee Who Didn't Return to Work
Vern Pascal
assassination while standing on the north side of Elm Street mid-way
between the Book Depository and the triple underpass.
"Nelson said she never returned to work following the assassination,
disproving the Warren Commission's claim that LHO was the only
Depository employee missing at a roll call held after the
assassination." (Encyclopedia of the JFK Assassination, Michael Benson)
The WC and the Ln'ers-- wrong again.----Vern
Reginald Arnold
"Vern Pascal" <lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4416-3E9...@storefull-2315.public.lawson.webtv.net...
But if she had permission to stay home, she would not have been called at
the roll call. Are you sure she didn't, or that she didnt call in before the
roll call?
Reggie
Vern Pascal
"But if she had permission to stay home, she would not have been called
at the roll call. Are you sure she didn't, or that she didn't call in
before the roll call?"
Sharon Nelson worked that morning at the TSBD. She watched the motorcade
in Dealey Plaza during her lunch hour. She stated that she did not see
Oswald and encountered no strangers in the building during work hours.
LHO was the suspect right off the bat. He was at the head of the list of
employees. Convenient, eh what?----Vern
Gerry Simone (Home)
And what is the source for her statement that she worked that morning?
Thank you.
Gerry Simone
"Vern Pascal" <lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4416-3E9...@storefull-2315.public.lawson.webtv.net...
greg
Carolyn Arnold: "I left the Texas School Book Depository Building at about
12:25pm, November 22, 1963, and never returned to this building on this date."
Virgie Rackley: "We stood there for several minutes trying to find out what
happened and then returned to the Depository Building entrance. We were told
by another building employee that if we went in the building we would not be
able to get out again so I did not re enter the building at that time."
Virginia Barnum: "When I returned to the building at 12:40pm, I was not
permitted to re enter, and subsequently went home.
Charles Givens: "After the president was shot, I returned to the Texas School
Book Depository building and was told by a Dallas policemen that I could not
re enter the building."
Gloria Holt: "Following the assassination of President Fitzgerald Kennedy I
tried to return to work in the Texas School Book Depository but was told by
other employees that noone would be allowed back in the building so I did not
return to work that day."
Stella Mae Jacob: "Following the assassination of the president I tried to
return to work in the Texas School Book Depository, but was told by other
employees that no one would be allowed in the building so I did not return to
work that day."
Judy Johnson: "after President Kennedy was shot I returned to the building but
was unable to get inside as the front door was locked... I remained in the
area outside the building until approximately 2:00pm when I left to go to my
home."
Delores Kounas: "I recall that following the shooting, we crossed the street
to the Depository building and stood in the front of the building listening to
radio reports coming over a motorcycle patrolman's police radio. I stayed in
the vicinity of the Depository building until about 3:00pm and then we entered
the building to get our coats and I immediately left the building and went
home."
Roy Lewis: "Following the assassination all employees were dismissed from
work, and I left the building at about 1:15pm." [this is PRIOR to Oswald being
"discovered" as missing]
Roberta Parker: "I was standing across the street from the Texas School Book
Depository Building entrance... I was not allowed back inside the building
until about 3:30pm and then only in the company of a policeman..."
Bonnie Richey: "I left the Texas School Book Depository building at about
12:15pm on November 22, 1963, and never returned to this building on that
date."
Roy Truly: "We made a quick examination of the roof area and then I returned
to the first floor area and started to account for the location of each
employee. I was not able to locate Oswald." [from Truly's WCT: "Then in a few
minutes--it could have been moments or minutes at a time like that--I noticed
some of my boys were over in the west corner of the shipping department, and
there were several officers over there taking their names and addresses, and
so forth. There were other officers in other parts of the building taking
other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not
among these boys." and later..."Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, 'I
have a boy over here missing. I don't know whether to report it or not.'
Because I had another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all
there or not." and still later, when asked if he had taken them names and
addresses of any other employees who might have been missing..."No sir."]
Otis Williams: "After returning inside the Texas School Book Depository
Building just after hearing the three shots on November 22, 1963 I assisted a
police detective in making a search of the 2nd floor of the building."
Steven Wilson [who viewed the motorcade alone from a position 3 floors
directly below the "sniper's nest"]: "As the motorcade proceeded, my view of
President Kennedy and his car was obscured by some trees which are on Elm
Street. In a matter of seconds or less after the President's car and occupants
were obscured from my view by the trees, I heard three shots...The shots did
not really sound like they came from above me." [later in the statement he
does say he believes that a person in the same position as he, except on a
higher floor could probably have seen over the trees. But this is just a guess
on his part, as he never had reason to be on the 6th floor, and therefore he
could not have known for sure]
I strongly doubt there was any roll call, Vern.
greg
"Vern Pascal" <lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4416-3E9...@storefull-2315.public.lawson.webtv.net...
O.H. LEE
Based on these interesting accounts that you've posted for us Greg, if there
was a roll call, sounds like it would have had to have been taken in the
middle of Elm Street. :-) Thank you.
Regards,
O.H. LEE
O.H. LEE (ga...@aol.com)
"Don't believe the so called evidence."
Lee Harvey Oswald to his brother Robert
Saturday, November 23, 1963
Vern Pascal
report. Check out Greg's comprehensive listing of other TSBD employees
who did not, for various reasons, return to work. I think Greg makes the
case that the so-called "roll-call" was a sham.-----Vern
Vern Pascal
heard of some of them, but did not realize that probably the majority of
employees did not return to work that afternoon, either because they had
an idea there'd be no work the remainder of the day, were told that was
the case, were sealed off by the police, or otherwise prevented from
re-entering the building, etc.
You're absolutely right, imo, that there was no actual "roll-call" as
such, and LHO was singled out from the get-go.-------Vern
Jean Davison
news:4416-3E9...@storefull-2315.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Only one problem with that, Vern. The Warren Commission didn't claim that "LHO was
the
only Depository employee missing at a roll call held after the assassination." It claimed
that Roy Truly happened to notice that Oswald was missing and reported it to the police,
which he did. Another conspiracy book -- wrong again.
Jean
Mitch Todd
verified by other witnesses at the time of the assassination.
Anyway, where did the WC ever claim that LHO was the only employee
that didn't show up for a roll call?
MST
Vern Pascal
(The WC) claimed that Roy Truly happened to notice that Oswald was
missing and reported it to the police."
Jean, touche', The WC didn't actually claim that LHO was the only
person missing. However, since many of the TSBD employees apparently
left the grounds, did Truly "happen" to notice if anyone else was
missing besides LHO? I don't recall him mentoning anyone else. He
fixated on LHO's absence rather quicky, and exclusively, don't you
agree?---------Vern
greg
Vern, if I may interject here... he did, as you say, fixate rather quickly on
LHO. What causes me concern though, is his stated reason for that, which was
to the effect that LHO had stuck in his mind as a result of the alleged
encounter on the 2nd floor. By the time he reported to Fritz that LHO was
absent, he must have known full well that police were concentrating on the 6th
floor. Why then would he be suspicious of someone he encountered on the second
floor so seemingly cool, calm and collected,
moments after the last shot was fired?
greg
AnthonyMarsh
>
> Which of the "missing" Depository employees' whereabouts cannot be
> verified by other witnesses at the time of the assassination.
>
> Anyway, where did the WC ever claim that LHO was the only employee
> that didn't show up for a roll call?
>
It's not the WC. We are countering claims often made by the WC
defenders, many of whom never bother to read the WC for themselves, that
Oswald was the only TSBD worker who left work.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Walt
TSBD employees you've posted shows that thetre were many TSBD employees who
could not get into the TSBD following the shooting. Many were told that
there would be no more work in the TSBD that day..... Isn't that exactly
what Oswald said....as I recall he told his interrogators that he was told
there would be no more work that day so he decided to spend the afternoon at
the movies....
I doubt that Oswald decided to go to the movies on a whim...BUT I do believe
he was told to take the rest of the day off.......
Walt
"greg" <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote in message
news:newscache$56h7dh$h68$1...@news.octa4.net.au...
Jean Davison
> Jean Davison wrote (excerpted):
>
> (The WC) claimed that Roy Truly happened to notice that Oswald was
> missing and reported it to the police."
>
> Jean, touche', The WC didn't actually claim that LHO was the only
> person missing.
Ah, so the "Encyclopedia of the JFK Assassination" got it wrong.
> However, since many of the TSBD employees apparently
> left the grounds, did Truly "happen" to notice if anyone else was
> missing besides LHO? I don't recall him mentoning anyone else. He
> fixated on LHO's absence rather quicky, and exclusively, don't you
> agree?---------Vern
Oswald was the only worker that Truly knew was both (1) inside the building during
the shooting and (2) gone.
No, I don't think Truly reported Oswald's absence all that "quickly." Why Truly's
actions seem suspicious to you when Oswald's apparently don't.... is puzzling to me.
See my note to Greg also, please.
Jean
Jean Davison
Greg,
All of the witnesses above were outside the building at the time of the shooting
and therefore could not have been the 6th floor sniper. Only Givens was on Truly's
warehouse crew, and Truly didn't report Givens missing because he knew that Givens, unlike
Oswald, was outside the building during the shooting. In addition to about 15 warehouse
workers, there were several dozen TSBD office workers, many of them female.
>
> Roy Lewis: "Following the assassination all employees were dismissed from
> work, and I left the building at about 1:15pm." [this is PRIOR to Oswald being
> "discovered" as missing]
Truly didn't *report* Oswald missing until after 1:15, most likely, but that was
after he'd looked up Oswald's address and located Fritz. According to his statement,
Lewis was a warehouse worker like Oswald, and others in the crew gave later estimates of
the time they were let go.
>
> Roberta Parker: "I was standing across the street from the Texas School Book
> Depository Building entrance... I was not allowed back inside the building
> until about 3:30pm and then only in the company of a policeman..."
>
> Bonnie Richey: "I left the Texas School Book Depository building at about
> 12:15pm on November 22, 1963, and never returned to this building on that
> date."
These two also were outside the building during the shooting. Since the WC
didn't claim that Oswald was the only employee who didn't return to work, I don't see why
it matters when they left.
>
> Roy Truly: "We made a quick examination of the roof area and then I returned
> to the first floor area and started to account for the location of each
> employee. I was not able to locate Oswald." [from Truly's WCT: "Then in a few
> minutes--it could have been moments or minutes at a time like that--I noticed
> some of my boys were over in the west corner of the shipping department, and
> there were several officers over there taking their names and addresses, and
> so forth. There were other officers in other parts of the building taking
> other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not
> among these boys." and later..."Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, 'I
> have a boy over here missing. I don't know whether to report it or not.'
> Because I had another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all
> there or not." and still later, when asked if he had taken them names and
> addresses of any other employees who might have been missing..."No sir."]
Truly testified that he had seen Givens walking *away from* the building just
before the motorcade arrived. In contrast, he knew that Oswald had been inside the
building right after the shots.
> Otis Williams: "After returning inside the Texas School Book Depository
> Building just after hearing the three shots on November 22, 1963 I assisted a
> police detective in making a search of the 2nd floor of the building."
>
> Steven Wilson [who viewed the motorcade alone from a position 3 floors
> directly below the "sniper's nest"]: "As the motorcade proceeded, my view of
> President Kennedy and his car was obscured by some trees which are on Elm
> Street. In a matter of seconds or less after the President's car and occupants
> were obscured from my view by the trees, I heard three shots...The shots did
> not really sound like they came from above me." [later in the statement he
> does say he believes that a person in the same position as he, except on a
> higher floor could probably have seen over the trees. But this is just a guess
> on his part, as he never had reason to be on the 6th floor, and therefore he
> could not have known for sure]
But we have photos taken from the 6th floor showing where the tree was. Geneva Hine
was on the second floor, southeast corner, and thought the shots came from inside the
building, so opinions varied.
>
> I strongly doubt there was any roll call, Vern.
I agree, there was no formal "roll call." However, Oswald was the only worker who
was inside the building at 12:30 who left the area before the building was sealed off,
according to the sworn testimony. Apparently no CT thinks that's suspicious. Roy Truly
reporting Oswald missing... now *that's* suspicious, right? Jean
> greg
>
Caeruleo
lazu...@webtv.net (Vern Pascal) wrote:
What we are not wrong about, however, at least in regard to what you
have presented, is that Ms. Nelson apparently did not additionally get
on a bus when she left the TSBD only to get off it when she saw that it
was heading back toward Dealey Plaza, decide to take a cab instead, go
home & grab a pistol, leave home almost immediately after she grabbed
the pistol, shoot the first police officer who stopped & tried to talk
to her, duck into a shoe store when she saw other police cars
approaching, & duck into a movie theater without paying & still carrying
the pistol.
With the possible exception of the Tippet shooting, not even most CTs
dispute in the slightest that Oswald did indeed do all these things.
Leaving the TSBD after the shooting (Ms. Nelson actually said she last
set foot in that building that day 10 minutes before the shooting) in &
of itself isn't a particularly Big Deal. But when one leaves to
immediately go home & grab a pistol & immediately leave home again, with
the additional detail of a rifle sent to one's P.O. box being found in
the same building after a shooting has taken place, that is something of
a different matter.
As I've been posting elsewhere, innocent or guilty of being the shooter
himself, Lee Harvey Oswald demonstrated that he knew something about the
shooting from the moment it occurred onward, as his actions indicate
rather strongly.
Otherwise he wouldn't have immediately gone home, grabbed a pistol, &
immediately left home, & certainly would have no reason to "hide" in a
mere movie theater, still carrying that same pistol.
People have quite frequently, in Texas & all other states, in 1963 & all
subsequent years, snuck into a movie theater without paying. I
personally know people who have done this.
But extremely rarely have people done so while also carrying a firearm.
In fact, Lee Harvey Oswald is the only person in all of recorded history
I can recall ever reading about who did so. Doubtless there must be at
least a few others, but if so, I've never seen their names cited.
What I find incredibly strange is that, if he was actually "innocent" of
doing the shooting himself, he never appears to have intimated in the
slightest that he knew of the existence of even a single person who
might have given him the idea that it would be advisable for him to get
away from the TSBD as quickly as possible (but not so quickly as to
arouse suspicion), go home & immediately grab a pistol, & immediately
leave home after grabbing the pistol.
Y'all do realize that every last one of these actions, without a single
exception, are entirely consistent with a "guilty" Oswald too, as well
as a "framed" Oswald, right?
--
Belief in the traditional Single Bullet Theory is not even mildly necessary to
support a belief in Lee Harvey Oswald as the one & only assassin of John
Fitzgerald Kennedy.
Caeruleo
lazu...@webtv.net (Vern Pascal) wrote:
Though I am not the person you asked, at this time at least I do not
agree. I don't recall Truly being particularly or even at all "fixated"
on Oswald's absence before he was arrested at the Texas Theater, & I've
read virtually every recorded statement he ever made. I'm sure I must
simply be ignorant of some recorded statement he made on the matter, &
doubtless you will be able to produce solid evidence that Truly attached
far more importance to Oswald's absence than he did to Sharon Nelson's
prior to Oswald's arrest.
Otherwise, isn't it true that what we have from Truly on this matter are
statements made well after the assassination, in which discussions of
the very few (perhaps *only*) other "missing" employees were by that
time irrelevant & totally unnecessary to discuss, as employees such as
Ms. Nelson were clearly not involved in the assassination?
Or is Ms. Nelson a possible candidate among CTs as a "conspirator" too?
Gawd knows everyone else is; at least, that's the impression one gets by
the end of reading Marrs, which is in essence the "review" I have given
on that book.
"By the time you finish reading it, you'll think everyone did it." - Me,
on Jim Marrs' "Crossfire."
Martin Shackelford
through Dealey Plaza, as that was the way to Oak Cliff, so it's foolish
to say that's why he got off the bus. He got off because it got stuck in
traffic. When he went to get a cab, he was in so little hurry that he
offered the cab to a woman standing there.
CT's will also definitely dispute the facile assumption that Oswald shot
Tippit, which you throw in as another "accepted fact."
Nor did Oswald "duck into a shoe store"--the owner saw Oswald through
the window.
And finally, evidence is contradictory as to whether he purchased a
ticket to the movie or not. The concession man, Butch Burroughs, said
Oswald had come in earlier with a ticket, and apparently left the
theater and returned a short time later. Of course, he has been largely
ignored by those who find his testimony inconvenient in pinning Tippit's
shooting on Oswald.
Martin
Jean Davison
Yes, they were concentrating on the 6th floor, but how did the sniper exit the
6th floor? When Truly raced to the back of the building with Patrolman Baker, he first
tried to use the freight elevators in the NW corner but they were hung up on the 5th
floor. That left the nearby stairs as the only feasible escape route from the SN. And
golly gee, where did Mr. Oswald show up? Near those back stairs.
So there he was, well away from a view of the motorcade which the vast
majority of the TSBD workers had been watching. With the possible exception of Jack
Dougherty, Oswald appears to have been the only TSBD employee (out of 90+) who was
anywhere near the back stairs at that particular time. Probably just a coincidence, huh?
Then, a few minutes after Truly sees Oswald there, the building is sealed off. No one is
allowed in or out. Truly remembers seeing Oswald in the building and he hasn't let his
workers go yet, so Oswald *should* still be there, but he's not. Anybody getting
suspicious yet? (Of Oswald, I mean, not Truly, or Dougherty.)
Jean
>
> greg
>
>
Caeruleo
"greg" <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote:
> Vern, some choice cuts from the beefy CE1382.
>
> Carolyn Arnold: "I left the Texas School Book Depository Building at about
> 12:25pm, November 22, 1963, and never returned to this building on this date."
That's 2 out of the 70+ so far: Sharon Nelson & Carolyn Arnold.
> Virgie Rackley: "We stood there for several minutes trying to find out what
> happened and then returned to the Depository Building entrance. We were told
> by another building employee that if we went in the building we would not be
> able to get out again so I did not re enter the building at that time."
"At that time." But not specifically stated that she did not return to
the building before the end of the workday.
> Virginia Barnum: "When I returned to the building at 12:40pm, I was not
> permitted to re enter, and subsequently went home.
Good, that's 3, I guess, although I wish you'd cite the source on this.
> Charles Givens: "After the president was shot, I returned to the Texas School
> Book Depository building and was told by a Dallas policemen that I could not
> re enter the building."
But didn't specifically say, at least in what you quoted here, that he
didn't re-enter the building before the end of the workday.
> Gloria Holt: "Following the assassination of President Fitzgerald Kennedy I
> tried to return to work in the Texas School Book Depository but was told by
> other employees that noone would be allowed back in the building so I did not
> return to work that day."
Good. 4.
> Stella Mae Jacob: "Following the assassination of the president I tried to
> return to work in the Texas School Book Depository, but was told by other
> employees that no one would be allowed in the building so I did not return to
> work that day."
5.
> Judy Johnson: "after President Kennedy was shot I returned to the building but
> was unable to get inside as the front door was locked... I remained in the
> area outside the building until approximately 2:00pm when I left to go to my
> home."
Ok. 5, if the "roll call" was not before 2:00 p.m.
> Delores Kounas: "I recall that following the shooting, we crossed the street
> to the Depository building and stood in the front of the building listening to
> radio reports coming over a motorcycle patrolman's police radio. I stayed in
> the vicinity of the Depository building until about 3:00pm and then we entered
> the building to get our coats and I immediately left the building and went
> home."
6, if the "roll call" was still not held until an hour later than
Johnson's claimed time of departure.
> Roy Lewis: "Following the assassination all employees were dismissed from
> work, and I left the building at about 1:15pm." [this is PRIOR to Oswald being
> "discovered" as missing]
Very good. 7, possibly.
> Roberta Parker: "I was standing across the street from the Texas School Book
> Depository Building entrance... I was not allowed back inside the building
> until about 3:30pm and then only in the company of a policeman..."
This is of course (as you knew perfectly well before you posted it) not
a claim of never returning to the building before the end of the workday.
We're still at 7.
> Bonnie Richey: "I left the Texas School Book Depository building at about
> 12:15pm on November 22, 1963, and never returned to this building on that
> date."
8.
> Roy Truly: "We made a quick examination of the roof area and then I returned
> to the first floor area and started to account for the location of each
> employee. I was not able to locate Oswald." [from Truly's WCT: "Then in a few
> minutes--it could have been moments or minutes at a time like that--I noticed
> some of my boys were over in the west corner of the shipping department, and
> there were several officers over there taking their names and addresses, and
> so forth. There were other officers in other parts of the building taking
> other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not
> among these boys." and later..."Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, 'I
> have a boy over here missing. I don't know whether to report it or not.'
> Because I had another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all
> there or not." and still later, when asked if he had taken them names and
> addresses of any other employees who might have been missing..."No sir."]
Plain as day (so plain I am embarrassed to even point it out) Truly is
*not* in this quotation making any claim whatsoever that Oswald was the
"only" one of the 70+ TSBD employees, female or male, who was "missing."
Notice how instead he said, "these boys," which might suggest that in
those sentences in which he used the word "boy" he was *only* referring
to the young males who helped with the menial labor of stacking & moving
the boxes of textbooks, etc. Note also that he specifically asked
Campbell if he had determined the "names and addresses" of the still
missing employees, & that Campbell had replied in the negative.
I also do not hesitate to note that what you're quoting is from Truly's
statements made well after the assassination, which do not indicate one
way or the other whether or not at the time, before he learned that
Oswald was arrested, that he took especial notice of Oswald's absence
far beyond that of any other employees. Because, as you quote:
"'I don't know whether to report it or not.' Because I had another one
or two out then."
> Otis Williams: "After returning inside the Texas School Book Depository
> Building just after hearing the three shots on November 22, 1963 I assisted a
> police detective in making a search of the 2nd floor of the building."
Which rather indicates that he did indeed return to the building, since
otherwise I would be rather curious as to how he could assist in a
search of the building if he was not in it.
Why, then, is he included in this list?
> Steven Wilson [who viewed the motorcade alone from a position 3 floors
> directly below the "sniper's nest"]: "As the motorcade proceeded, my view of
> President Kennedy and his car was obscured by some trees which are on Elm
> Street. In a matter of seconds or less after the President's car and occupants
> were obscured from my view by the trees, I heard three shots...The shots did
> not really sound like they came from above me." [later in the statement he
> does say he believes that a person in the same position as he, except on a
> higher floor could probably have seen over the trees. But this is just a guess
> on his part, as he never had reason to be on the 6th floor, and therefore he
> could not have known for sure]
Nothing here states either way whether or not Mr. Wilson returned to the
building in time for the "roll call." I do not thus understand why he
is included in this list.
We remain at 8.
Out of 70+.
Of course it has been pointed out in this thread that the WC apparently
never claimed that Oswald was the "only" TSBD employee missing. He does
indeed, however, appear to be the only TSBD employee to leave for the
rest of the day without checking in with anyone (none of these others
are specifically said to have not notified anyone before leaving for the
day), gone home to grab a pistol, left home almost immediately after
grabbing said pistol, allegedly shot the first police officer who
stopped & talked to them, provably ducked into a shoe store when several
police cars passed by on the way to the same shooting, & provably snuck
into a movie theater without paying & still carrying the pistol.
It seems rather clear that it wasn't the mere fact of Oswald being
"missing" from the TSBD which led to his arrest.
And what you've neglected to quote from Truly's testimony:
**********
Mr. TRULY. When I noticed this boy was missing, I told Chief Lumpkin
that "We have a man here that's missing." I said, "It my not mean
anything, but he isn't here." I first called down to the
other warehouse and had Mr. Akin pull the application of the boy so I
could get--quickly get his address in Irving and his general
description, so I could be more accurate than I would be.
Mr. BALL. Was he the only man missing?
Mr. TRULY. The only one I noticed at that time. Now, I think there was
one or two more, possibly Charles Givens, but I had seen him out in
front walking up the street just before the firing of
the gun.
**********
Truly made it plain that he did not suspect Givens, because apparently
he saw Givens outside the building so incredibly close to the time of
the shooting that Givens could not possibly have been involved in it.
This seems to have left only Lee Oswald as the "only missing boy" who
could possibly have been suspicious, as I'm not clear that any of these
other 8 were among Truly's "boys."
I'm guessing that Truly was not responsible for, or even knew, every
last person who was employed in that building. He was the building
manager, who might have only overseen the "boys" & perhaps a few other
employees.
> I strongly doubt there was any roll call, Vern.
Not only does it appeat that the WC never claimed there to be any TSBD
"roll call" at which Oswald was the "only" TSBD employee missing, I'm
unable to find in the WCR any mention whatsoever of any TSBD "roll
call." Doubtless I must be simply looking in the wrong places, but
where, exactly, is the earliest source of any assertion that there was
any TSBD "roll call" at all. The most I can find is reporter Kent
Biffle claiming that there were *two* such roll calls, at the 2nd one of
which Oswald was the only employee missing. I'm not yet finding any
contemporaneous independent corroboration for his claim.
Vern Pascal
"Then a few minutes after Truly sees Oswald there the building is sealed
off. No one is allowed in or out."
Jean, I don't think so. Not in a "few minutes." Baker and Truly went up
the elevator directly to the roof, bypassing the 5th and sixth floors.
and were nosing around the roof about six minutes or so. The building
wasnit sealed off until about 12:45. In the meantime everyone had
spilled out unchecked. Baker should have seen that the building was
sealed off immediately upon entering, but that's a shoulda coulda,
woulda. The fact is that the building leaked like a sieve before the DPD
finally got around to sealing it off.--------Vern
Caeruleo
Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Some logic problems here. Oswald knew the bus would be heading back
> through Dealey Plaza, as that was the way to Oak Cliff, so it's foolish
> to say that's why he got off the bus. He got off because it got stuck in
> traffic.
Yes, & I acknowledged that as an alternate possibility in another
article yesterday, in which I said, "although of course taking the bus
was only his initial intention; he got off it, because it was going back
towards Dealey, or because it was moving too slowly because of backed-up
traffic, or some other reason, to end up taking a cab instead." My
apologies, as in the article to which you were responding, I should
perhaps not have stated the Dealey reason solely.
> When he went to get a cab, he was in so little hurry that he
> offered the cab to a woman standing there.
True enough that he offerred the cab to her, although that doesn't
necessarily mean he still didn't feel a fairly urgent need to get home.
His "hurry" was still great enough for him to abandon the bus, even
though Bledsoe didn't.
> CT's will also definitely dispute the facile assumption that Oswald shot
> Tippit, which you throw in as another "accepted fact."
Erm, not a bad point, so far as it goes, but it does indeed come far
closer to "accepted fact" than implicating him in the shooting of JFK,
as he was seen by plenty of witnesses both approaching & leaving Tippet,
with a pistol in his hand.
> Nor did Oswald "duck into a shoe store"--the owner saw Oswald through
> the window.
True, he did not literally enter the store, but he did come into the
recessed foyer leading to the entrance, just at the time a police car
went by.
> And finally, evidence is contradictory as to whether he purchased a
> ticket to the movie or not. The concession man, Butch Burroughs, said
> Oswald had come in earlier with a ticket, and apparently left the
> theater and returned a short time later. Of course, he has been largely
> ignored by those who find his testimony inconvenient in pinning Tippit's
> shooting on Oswald.
Erm, it was not in "testimony," per se, that Burroughs said this. He
said it to Marrs in the '80s. Rather than "ignoring" it as
inconvenient, I'm openly acknowledging that he said it.
Or something like it, anyway. Burroughs didn't actually say, according
to Marrs anyway, that Oswald came in with a ticket, but rather that
Oswald bought popcorn from him at 1:15. From "Crossfire":
**********
Another strong
argument for Oswald's innocence in the Tippit slaying comes from W.H.
"Butch" Burroughs, who on November 22 was manning the concession stand
in
the Texas Theater. Burroughs told this author that he distinctly
recalls
selling popcorn to Oswald about 1:15 p.m. -the exact time of the Tippit
shooting.
He said he watched the man take his popcorn and sit next to a pregnant
woman in the lower floor of the theater. Burroughs said about 20
minutes
later police rushed into the theater and dragged the man out. He later
recognized media photos of Lee Harvey Oswald as the same man who
purchased
popcorn.
**********
But was "inconvenience" your motivation for not making the slightest
mention of the fact that, in actual "testimony" to the WC in 1964,
Burroughs said no such thing, & in fact stated unequivocally that he
didn't see Oswald come in, & that he didn't see Oswald for the first
time until after the police scuffle with him, when they were bringing
Oswald out?
**********
Mr. BALL. On this day of November 22, 1963, what time did you go to
work?
Mr. BURROUGHS. I went to work at 12.
Mr. BALL. You went to work that day at 12?
Mr. BURROUGHS. That day at 12 o'clock----yes.
Mr. BALL. And you later saw a struggle in the theatre between a man and
some officers, didn't you?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did you see that man come in the theatre?
Mr. BURROUGHS. No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL. Do you have any idea what you were doing when he came in?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Well, I was----I had a lot of stock candy to count and
put in the candy case for the coming night, and if he had came around in
front of the concession out there, I would
have seen him, even though I was bent down, I would have seen him, but
otherwise I think he sneaked up the stairs real fast.
Mr. BALL. Up to the balcony?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes, sir----first, I think he was up there.
Mr. BALL. At least there was a stairway there?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes, there was two.
Mr. BALL. Is there a stairway near the entry?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Of the door----yes. Yes, it goes straight----you come
through the door and go straight----you go upstairs to the balcony.
Mr. BALL. Did anybody come in there that day? Up to the time of the
struggle between the man and the police who didn't have a ticket?
Mr. BURROUGHS. No, sir.
**********
Mr. BALL. Did you see any struggle or fight between this man and any
police officer?
Mr. BURROUGHS. No; not exactly, because I just had one door open and
that was the middle door, and I couldn't see them----that was the main
thing.
Mr. BALL. Where were you?
Mr. BURROUGHS. I was back behind the concession.
Mr. BALL. How do you get from the exit door in the rear of the theatre
to behind the concession?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Well, the concession is right here [indicating] and the
doors are right here, and the theatre is inside, and exit door No. I is
straight down this way and another one is straight
down this way.
Mr. BALL. Tell me what you did after you went to the exit door with the
shoe salesman; what did you do?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Well, he went down to this door and I stayed at this
door.
Mr. BALL. You mean at the rear of the theatre?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes----he went down to the rear of the theatre, and I
stayed at this door in case he went out one of the exit doors.
Mr. BALL. You stayed there, did you?
Mr. BURROUGHS. I stayed there for about 5 minutes and I came back out to
the concession.
Mr. BALL. Down the main aisle?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Were there police in there at that time?
Mr. BURROUGHS. They were in there checking to see where he was.
Mr. BALL. Was there any struggle going on when you came back from the
exit door to the concession?
Mr. BURROUGHS. No.
Mr. BALL. There was not?
Mr. BURROUGHS. No.
Mr. BALL. Did you hear or see any trouble between this man and the
police?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Well, I heard a struggle from outside, but I really
couldn't tell.
Mr. BALL. What did you hear?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Well, I couldn't hear anything on the inside, but when
they brought him out, he was hollering and raising, "I demand my
rights," and all that.
Mr. BALL. What else did you hear?
Mr. BURROUGHS. That's about all.
Mr. BALL. Tell me what his appearance was as they brought him out?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Well, he didn't seem---he seemed like he was mad at
everybody.
Mr. BALL. He was?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did he shout in a loud voice?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes; like "I demand my rights" [witness holding up both
above his head.]
Mr. BALL. Anything else?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Well, they carried him out to the car and there was a mob
of people out there mere people than I have ever seen before and they
put him in the car and went off.
**********
There's not even the most meager suggestion made by Burroughs in this
entire testimony that Oswald had come in earlier with a ticket, much
less buying something from him at concessions, as he told Marrs.
Perhaps it is merely "inconvenient" that it took nearly a quarter of a
century for Burroughs to suddenly & miraculously "remember" that he'd
seen Oswald before the police scuffle after all, had even served him at
the concession counter, & had additionally seen him go into the theater
& sit next to a pregnant woman. He was making *none* of these claims in
1964. In fact, the interview with Marrs is the *earliest* occasion that
I know of on which he is recorded as making such claims. If you know of
documentation of Burroughs making even one of these claims before 1980
I'd love to see it.
greg
"Caeruleo" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:caeruleo-A481A7...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> In article <newscache$agm6dh$nu6$1...@news.octa4.net.au>,
> "greg" <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Vern, some choice cuts from the beefy CE1382.
> >
> > Carolyn Arnold: "I left the Texas School Book Depository Building at about
> > 12:25pm, November 22, 1963, and never returned to this building on this
date."
>
> That's 2 out of the 70+ so far: Sharon Nelson & Carolyn Arnold.
>
> > Virgie Rackley: "We stood there for several minutes trying to find out
what
> > happened and then returned to the Depository Building entrance. We were
told
> > by another building employee that if we went in the building we would not
be
> > able to get out again so I did not re enter the building at that time."
>
> "At that time." But not specifically stated that she did not return to
> the building before the end of the workday.
The FBI was requested by the WC to obtain statements from everyone known to be
in the TSBD on 22nov63. These statements had to incorporate answers to 6
specific questions. Some the questions can be deduced from the information
contained in the statements. Clearly on of the purpose was to determine who
stayed and who left, and for those who did leave early, why they did so. Given
this, the fact that Rackley does not specify reentry before the end of the
workday, it should be taken to mean she did not reenter.
> > Virginia Barnum: "When I returned to the building at 12:40pm, I was not
> > permitted to re enter, and subsequently went home.
>
> Good, that's 3, I guess, although I wish you'd cite the source on this.
I did so at the top of the post. Glad you drew my attention to it though, as I
mistakenly gave CE 1382 as the source. It was in fact, CE 1381.
> > Charles Givens: "After the president was shot, I returned to the Texas
School
> > Book Depository building and was told by a Dallas policemen that I could
not
> > re enter the building."
>
> But didn't specifically say, at least in what you quoted here, that he
> didn't re-enter the building before the end of the workday.
As above.
And as pointed out above, one of the main purposes of collecting these
statements appears to be to determine who left and why, who remained in the
building, and who successfully returned to the building. If you have dounbts
about my take on this, suggest you read all 73 statements contained in 1381 as
I have done.
greg
"Caeruleo" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:caeruleo-A481A7...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> In article <newscache$agm6dh$nu6$1...@news.octa4.net.au>,
> "greg" <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Vern, some choice cuts from the beefy CE1382.
> >
> > Carolyn Arnold: "I left the Texas School Book Depository Building at about
> > 12:25pm, November 22, 1963, and never returned to this building on this
date."
>
> That's 2 out of the 70+ so far: Sharon Nelson & Carolyn Arnold.
>
> > Virgie Rackley: "We stood there for several minutes trying to find out
what
> > happened and then returned to the Depository Building entrance. We were
told
> > by another building employee that if we went in the building we would not
be
> > able to get out again so I did not re enter the building at that time."
>
> "At that time." But not specifically stated that she did not return to
> the building before the end of the workday.
The FBI was requested by the WC to obtain statements from everyone known to be
in the TSBD on 22nov63. These statements had to incorporate answers to 6
specific questions. Some the questions can be deduced from the information
contained in the statements. Clearly one of the purposes was to determine who
stayed and who left, and for those who did leave early, why they did so. Given
this, the fact that Rackley does not specify reentry before the end of the
workday should be taken to mean she did not reenter.
> > Virginia Barnum: "When I returned to the building at 12:40pm, I was not
> > permitted to re enter, and subsequently went home.
>
> Good, that's 3, I guess, although I wish you'd cite the source on this.
I did so at the top of the post. Glad you drew my attention to it though, as I
mistakenly gave CE 1382 as the source. It was in fact, CE 1381.
> > Charles Givens: "After the president was shot, I returned to the Texas
School
> > Book Depository building and was told by a Dallas policemen that I could
not
> > re enter the building."
>
> But didn't specifically say, at least in what you quoted here, that he
> didn't re-enter the building before the end of the workday.
As above.
And as pointed out above, one of the main purposes of collecting these
statements appears to be to determine who left and why, who remained in the
building, and who successfully returned to the building. If you have dounbts
about my take on this, suggest you read all 73 statements contained in 1381 as
I have done.
> We're still at 7.
Truly was included, as the statement made to the FBI does not match his
statments to the WC. In the first version, he has himself accounting for the
whereabouts of each employee... which may be interpretted as indicating he
himself conducted a roll-call. He dropped this version for his WC appearance.
> > Otis Williams: "After returning inside the Texas School Book Depository
> > Building just after hearing the three shots on November 22, 1963 I
assisted a
> > police detective in making a search of the 2nd floor of the building."
>
> Which rather indicates that he did indeed return to the building, since
> otherwise I would be rather curious as to how he could assist in a
> search of the building if he was not in it.
>
> Why, then, is he included in this list?
I never said this was a list solely of missing employees, though that was the
main purpose. Since this seemed interesting, I included it to see if anyone
would pick up on the ramifications. In hindsight though, I'd agree that I
should have posted it separately, and will do so soon.
> > Steven Wilson [who viewed the motorcade alone from a position 3 floors
> > directly below the "sniper's nest"]: "As the motorcade proceeded, my view
of
> > President Kennedy and his car was obscured by some trees which are on Elm
> > Street. In a matter of seconds or less after the President's car and
occupants
> > were obscured from my view by the trees, I heard three shots...The shots
did
> > not really sound like they came from above me." [later in the statement he
> > does say he believes that a person in the same position as he, except on a
> > higher floor could probably have seen over the trees. But this is just a
guess
> > on his part, as he never had reason to be on the 6th floor, and therefore
he
> > could not have known for sure]
>
> Nothing here states either way whether or not Mr. Wilson returned to the
> building in time for the "roll call." I do not thus understand why he
> is included in this list.
As above. Simply because it seemed interesting for the reasons stated.
> We remain at 8.
>
> Out of 70+.
>
> Of course it has been pointed out in this thread that the WC apparently
> never claimed that Oswald was the "only" TSBD employee missing.
Of course, noone said the WC reported that. Neverthesess, WC supporters trot
out this little factoid from time to time... probably fueled by testimony from
the likes of Hill:
---quote---
We were trying to get together to decide who was going to make the offense
report and get all the little technicalities out of the way when a detective
named Richard Stovall and another one, G. F. Rose, came up, and the four of us
were standing when Captain Fritz walked in.
He walked up to Rose and Stovall and made the statement to them, "Go get a
search warrant and go out to some address on Fifth Street," and I don't recall
the actual street number, in Irving, and "pick up a man named Lee Oswald."
And I asked the captain why he wanted him, and he said, "Well, he was employed
down at the Book Depository and he had not been present for a roll call of the
employees."
---unquote---
He does
> indeed, however, appear to be the only TSBD employee to leave for the
> rest of the day without checking in with anyone (none of these others
> are specifically said to have not notified anyone before leaving for the
> day),
If they had, it would have been noted in the statements, since that's the very
type of info the WC seems to have been requesting in asking for the
statements.
> gone home to grab a pistol,
Or two. And a wallet. Or two.
left home almost immediately after
> grabbing said pistol, allegedly shot the first police officer who
> stopped & talked to them, provably ducked into a shoe store
Please quote anyone saying he was ever in the shoestore.
when several
> police cars passed by on the way to the same shooting, & provably snuck
> into a movie theater without paying & still carrying the pistol.
Glad to see all your qualifiers out for exercise.
> It seems rather clear that it wasn't the mere fact of Oswald being
> "missing" from the TSBD which led to his arrest.
Even if tue, hardly the point.
> And what you've neglected to quote from Truly's testimony:
>
> **********
>
> Mr. TRULY. When I noticed this boy was missing, I told Chief Lumpkin
> that "We have a man here that's missing." I said, "It my not mean
> anything, but he isn't here." I first called down to the
> other warehouse and had Mr. Akin pull the application of the boy so I
> could get--quickly get his address in Irving and his general
> description, so I could be more accurate than I would be.
> Mr. BALL. Was he the only man missing?
> Mr. TRULY. The only one I noticed at that time. Now, I think there was
> one or two more, possibly Charles Givens, but I had seen him out in
> front walking up the street just before the firing of
> the gun.
>
> **********
Your point is...? Read what he had previously told the FBI. In ant case,
Givens was not the only one unaccounted for.
> Truly made it plain that he did not suspect Givens, because apparently
> he saw Givens outside the building so incredibly close to the time of
> the shooting that Givens could not possibly have been involved in it.
Yep. That's what he said. He also allegedly saw Oswald incredibly close to the
time of the shooting 4 floors below where he knew (at the time of reporting on
Oswald) where the police believed the sniper had been. Shouldn't he have
concluded the same of Oswald? Was Oswald acting suspiciously when spotted? Was
he huffing and puffing? Was he nervous?
> This seems to have left only Lee Oswald as the "only missing boy" who
> could possibly have been suspicious, as I'm not clear that any of these
> other 8 were among Truly's "boys."
Why should suspicion be limited to "Truly's boys"?
I'll give you another tip... among the 73 statements are two or three from
people who indicated they remained in the building and watched the motorcade
alone from their offices. IWO... they had no alibis. Are any of them guilty of
anything? By what we know now... highly unlikely. But any of them COULD have
been. They had opportunity, and no verifiable alibi.
> I'm guessing that Truly was not responsible for,
He did all the hiring and firing. There weren't that many employed there, and
most had been long term employees.
or even knew, every
> last person who was employed in that building.
In the building? You're probably right. The zeroing in on the Depository
employees seems to be because that was the company who used the 6th floor.
Anyone who stayed in the building however, could have gone to the 6th floor
with most everyone else outside watching.
He was the building
> manager, who might have only overseen the "boys" & perhaps a few other
> employees.
He was also on the board of the company, had rifles in his office a couple of
days prior to the assassination, created a situation where an artificial
temporary position could be filled, held strong anti-Kennedy sentiments, and
may well have lied about the Baker/Oswald encounter.
Oh, and did I mention, he zeroed in on Oswald to report as missing, despite
knowing others were?
> > I strongly doubt there was any roll call, Vern.
>
> Not only does it appeat that the WC never claimed there to be any TSBD
> "roll call" at which Oswald was the "only" TSBD employee missing, I'm
> unable to find in the WCR any mention whatsoever of any TSBD "roll
> call."
Maybe not in the report... but as shown, it's in Day's testimony.
> Doubtless I must be simply looking in the wrong places,
Yup.
but
> where, exactly, is the earliest source of any assertion that there was
> any TSBD "roll call" at all.
If you believe Day, it was reported to him by Fritz shortly after Oswald was
brought in.
The most I can find is reporter Kent
> Biffle claiming that there were *two* such roll calls, at the 2nd one of
> which Oswald was the only employee missing.
Interesting. Is this supposed to indicate he was present at the first one?
More baffle from Biffle, I would think.
I'm not yet finding any
> contemporaneous independent corroboration for his claim.
Well, now you have it.
greg
O.H. LEE
Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <3E979F9D...@concentric.net>,
> Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>> Some logic problems here. Oswald knew the bus would be heading back
>> through Dealey Plaza, as that was the way to Oak Cliff, so it's foolish
>> to say that's why he got off the bus. He got off because it got stuck
in
>> traffic.
>
>Yes, & I acknowledged that as an alternate possibility in another
>article yesterday, in which I said, "although of course taking the bus
>was only his initial intention; he got off it, because it was going back
>towards Dealey, or because it was moving too slowly because of backed-up
>traffic, or some other reason, to end up taking a cab instead." My
>apologies, as in the article to which you were responding, I should
>perhaps not have stated the Dealey reason solely.
>
>> When he went to get a cab, he was in so little hurry that he
>> offered the cab to a woman standing there.
>
>True enough that he offerred the cab to her, although that doesn't
>necessarily mean he still didn't feel a fairly urgent need to get home.
>His "hurry" was still great enough for him to abandon the bus, even
>though Bledsoe didn't.
But if Oswald DID offer his cab to an old lady, and he WAS an actual assassin
on the lam, this was a most curious time for an exhibition of male chivalry,
don't you think?
>> CT's will also definitely dispute the facile assumption that Oswald shot
>> Tippit, which you throw in as another "accepted fact."
>
>Erm, not a bad point, so far as it goes, but it does indeed come far
>closer to "accepted fact" than implicating him in the shooting of JFK,
>as he was seen by plenty of witnesses both approaching & leaving Tippet,
>with a pistol in his hand.
There can be little doubt that the Tippit witness accounts pose a problem
for those who posit Oswald's complete innocence in that crime. Therefore,
while I yet consider his innocence in that crime to also be a strong possibility,
I also allow for the possibility that Oswald did indeed kill Tippit.
>> Nor did Oswald "duck into a shoe store"--the owner saw Oswald through
>> the window.
>
>True, he did not literally enter the store, but he did come into the
>recessed foyer leading to the entrance, just at the time a police car
>went by.
I see a couple of curious things worth noting here. First, for some reason,
Oswald's usual calm demeanor appears to have deserted him entirely here.
For all he had to do was enter Brewer's store on the pretense of shopping
for a pair of shoes, and he could have bought several crucial minutes of
time. But by far the most curious aspect of the entire "Brewer saga" was
the fact that there was immediate recognition of this man by Brewer! Brewer
claimed to have readily *recognized* the man who entered the foyer of his
store that afternoon. And yet, no evidence was ever adduced that Oswald had
ever shopped there, or that the two men had ever crossed paths before. This
fact has always led me to be far more hesitant to merely write off the theories
involving possible Oswald "lookalikes".
Actually, if Oswald did not bring his lunch to work that morning, and left
the Depository before eating, the "popcorn" story seems rather plausible.
For by early afternoon, a famished Oswald may well have wanted at least a
snack to munch on.
Regards,
O.H. LEE
O.H. LEE (ga...@aol.com)
AnthonyMarsh
You are jumping to preconceived conclusions again. How did Truly KNOW
that Oswald was not also outside at the time of the shooting? Are you
postulating that he was psychic and knew the location of all TSBD
employees at all times?
>
> >
> > Roy Lewis: "Following the assassination all employees were dismissed from
> > work, and I left the building at about 1:15pm." [this is PRIOR to Oswald being
> > "discovered" as missing]
>
> Truly didn't *report* Oswald missing until after 1:15, most likely, but that was
> after he'd looked up Oswald's address and located Fritz. According to his statement,
> Lewis was a warehouse worker like Oswald, and others in the crew gave later estimates of
> the time they were let go.
>
> >
> > Roberta Parker: "I was standing across the street from the Texas School Book
> > Depository Building entrance... I was not allowed back inside the building
> > until about 3:30pm and then only in the company of a policeman..."
> >
> > Bonnie Richey: "I left the Texas School Book Depository building at about
> > 12:15pm on November 22, 1963, and never returned to this building on that
> > date."
>
> These two also were outside the building during the shooting. Since the WC
> didn't claim that Oswald was the only employee who didn't return to work, I don't see why
> it matters when they left.
>
Because various WC defenders make that false claim.
> >
> > Roy Truly: "We made a quick examination of the roof area and then I returned
> > to the first floor area and started to account for the location of each
> > employee. I was not able to locate Oswald." [from Truly's WCT: "Then in a few
> > minutes--it could have been moments or minutes at a time like that--I noticed
> > some of my boys were over in the west corner of the shipping department, and
> > there were several officers over there taking their names and addresses, and
> > so forth. There were other officers in other parts of the building taking
> > other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not
> > among these boys." and later..."Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, 'I
> > have a boy over here missing. I don't know whether to report it or not.'
> > Because I had another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all
> > there or not." and still later, when asked if he had taken them names and
> > addresses of any other employees who might have been missing..."No sir."]
>
> Truly testified that he had seen Givens walking *away from* the building just
> before the motorcade arrived. In contrast, he knew that Oswald had been inside the
> building right after the shots.
>
How does that prove that Oswald was inside the building at the time of
the shots?
> > Otis Williams: "After returning inside the Texas School Book Depository
> > Building just after hearing the three shots on November 22, 1963 I assisted a
> > police detective in making a search of the 2nd floor of the building."
> >
> > Steven Wilson [who viewed the motorcade alone from a position 3 floors
> > directly below the "sniper's nest"]: "As the motorcade proceeded, my view of
> > President Kennedy and his car was obscured by some trees which are on Elm
> > Street. In a matter of seconds or less after the President's car and occupants
> > were obscured from my view by the trees, I heard three shots...The shots did
> > not really sound like they came from above me." [later in the statement he
> > does say he believes that a person in the same position as he, except on a
> > higher floor could probably have seen over the trees. But this is just a guess
> > on his part, as he never had reason to be on the 6th floor, and therefore he
> > could not have known for sure]
>
> But we have photos taken from the 6th floor showing where the tree was. Geneva Hine
> was on the second floor, southeast corner, and thought the shots came from inside the
> building, so opinions varied.
>
> >
> > I strongly doubt there was any roll call, Vern.
>
> I agree, there was no formal "roll call." However, Oswald was the only worker who
> was inside the building at 12:30 who left the area before the building was sealed off,
How do you prove that Oswald was inside the building at 12:30? Are you
simply taking his word for that?
> according to the sworn testimony. Apparently no CT thinks that's suspicious. Roy Truly
If you claim that Oswald was the only worker to leave before the
building was sealed off, it seems axiomatic that no one could leave
after the building was sealed off. Therefore how do you explain people
who were inside the building at the time of the shooting and then left
the building?
> reporting Oswald missing... now *that's* suspicious, right? Jean
>
> > greg
> >
AnthonyMarsh
A beautiful strawman argument. This is not my thread, but your point is
silly. Just because we bring up an exception to your blanket statement
does not mean that we are proposing an alternative scenario. It just
disproves your blanket statement.
> Gawd knows everyone else is; at least, that's the impression one gets by
> the end of reading Marrs, which is in essence the "review" I have given
> on that book.
>
> "By the time you finish reading it, you'll think everyone did it." - Me,
> on Jim Marrs' "Crossfire."
>
> --
> Belief in the traditional Single Bullet Theory is not even mildly necessary to
> support a belief in Lee Harvey Oswald as the one & only assassin of John
> Fitzgerald Kennedy.
greg
"Jean Davison" <dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote in message
news:b781v...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Jean, as I pointed out elsewhere, 2 or 3 others made statements that they
watched the motorcade alone from within the building and thus, had no
verifiable alibi.
As for those outside, some stated they could not recall who was "at my elbow"
as one put it - it is pretty obvious that not all could have had someone vouch
for there whereabouts.
Another example is Warren Caster. Caster stated he was at a business lunch at
the university in Denton with a Dr Vernon V Payne during the assassination.
This alibi was never checked out with Dr Payne.
Only Givens was on
Truly's
> warehouse crew, and Truly didn't report Givens missing because he knew that
Givens, unlike
> Oswald, was outside the building during the shooting. In addition to about
15 warehouse
> workers, there were several dozen TSBD office workers, many of them female.
As pointed out already, how could Truly have known Oswald was not outside at
the time of the shots? If you answer because he saw him moments later on the
2nd floor, then by the same locic, he should have also assumed he could not
have been on the 6th floor.
> > Roy Lewis: "Following the assassination all employees were dismissed from
> > work, and I left the building at about 1:15pm." [this is PRIOR to Oswald
being
> > "discovered" as missing]
>
> Truly didn't *report* Oswald missing until after 1:15, most likely,
but that was
> after he'd looked up Oswald's address and located Fritz. According to his
statement,
> Lewis was a warehouse worker like Oswald, and others in the crew gave later
estimates of
> the time they were let go.
It is the report to Fritz which is the critical moment. By then, he knew the
6th floor was where they believed the sniper was.
I can't recall was Frazier said in in WC testimony, but in this CE 1381, he
stated he left between 1:00pm and 2:pm. No mention is made of whether he had
permission.
> > Roberta Parker: "I was standing across the street from the Texas School
Book
> > Depository Building entrance... I was not allowed back inside the building
> > until about 3:30pm and then only in the company of a policeman..."
> >
> > Bonnie Richey: "I left the Texas School Book Depository building at about
> > 12:15pm on November 22, 1963, and never returned to this building on that
> > date."
>
> These two also were outside the building during the shooting.
Since the WC
> didn't claim that Oswald was the only employee who didn't return to work, I
don't see why
> it matters when they left.
They may have been unnaccounted for.
He knew? Jean, is that your final worf on this? I
Regardless, asI've already said, if Givens was off the hook because Truly knew
he was out of the building, then similarly, Oswald should not have caused him
suspicion once he knew the sniper was apparently on the 6th floor.
> > Otis Williams: "After returning inside the Texas School Book Depository
> > Building just after hearing the three shots on November 22, 1963 I
assisted a
> > police detective in making a search of the 2nd floor of the building."
> >
> > Steven Wilson [who viewed the motorcade alone from a position 3 floors
> > directly below the "sniper's nest"]: "As the motorcade proceeded, my view
of
> > President Kennedy and his car was obscured by some trees which are on Elm
> > Street. In a matter of seconds or less after the President's car and
occupants
> > were obscured from my view by the trees, I heard three shots...The shots
did
> > not really sound like they came from above me." [later in the statement he
> > does say he believes that a person in the same position as he, except on a
> > higher floor could probably have seen over the trees. But this is just a
guess
> > on his part, as he never had reason to be on the 6th floor, and therefore
he
> > could not have known for sure]
>
> But we have photos taken from the 6th floor showing where the tree
was.
It was still in its original place, I hope.
Geneva Hine
> was on the second floor, southeast corner, and thought the shots came from
inside the
> building, so opinions varied.
Yes, they did. But who would have more cred on this, a young female, or an
elderly male, who no doubt had his share of experiences of hearing gunfire?
> > I strongly doubt there was any roll call, Vern.
>
> I agree, there was no formal "roll call." However, Oswald was the
only worker who
> was inside the building at 12:30 who left the area before the building was
sealed off,
Even if I allow that to stand as an unchallemged fact, Truly did not know at
the time that Oswald was the ONLY perosn who met that crieria.
> according to the sworn testimony. Apparently no CT thinks that's
suspicious. Roy Truly
> reporting Oswald missing... now *that's* suspicious, right?
In the circumstances, it doesn't look good... especially when he may have lied
about his and Baker's encounter with Oswald, and that he created an artificial
vacancy at just the right time for Oswald etc etc...
greg
Jean
>
>
> > greg
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
greg
Tres convenient. But firstly, I don't necessarily believe the shooter was on
the 6th floor. He may have been. Secondly, I don't believe there was any
encounter on the 2nd floor. Refer to my previous posts about this. Add into
the mix also the statement of Otis Williams: "After returning inside the Texas
School Book Depository
Building just after hearing the three shots on November 22, 1963 I assisted a
police detective in making a search of the 2nd floor of the building."
Why didn't Williams and this unknown detective bump into Oswald? Or for that
matter, Truly and Baker? And why was this detective interested in the 2nd
floor in the first place?
> So there he was, well away from a view of the motorcade which
the vast
> majority of the TSBD workers had been watching. With the possible exception
of Jack
> Dougherty, Oswald appears to have been the only TSBD employee (out of 90+)
76 I believe was the FBI count. Only 73 statements taken because 3 were absent
from work that day.
who was
> anywhere near the back stairs at that particular time. Probably just a
coincidence, huh?
I don't think it's any coincidence he was placed by Truly, and then later by
Baker, were he was, no.
> Then, a few minutes after Truly sees Oswald there, the building is sealed
off.
Sawyer said the building wasn't sealed until he arrived and gave the order, so
we're looking at 8 to 10 minutes, I believe.
Any idea why, btw that Sawyer happened to turn up at the TSBD in the first
place? Could not have been for the reason he gave the WC.
No one is
> allowed in or out. Truly remembers seeing Oswald in the building and he
hasn't let his
> workers go yet, so Oswald *should* still be there, but he's not. Anybody
getting
> suspicious yet? (Of Oswald, I mean, not Truly, or Dougherty.)
> Jean
Sure I'm suspicious of Oswald. But that doesn't mean things happened the wasy
the commission stated.
greg
> > greg
> >
> >
>
>
Jean Davison
No, I'm not jumping to anything. Truly made a reasonable assumption.
QUOTE:
>>>
Mr. BALL. Did you make a check of your employees afterwards?
Mr. TRULY. No, no; not complete. No, I just saw the group of the employees over there on
the floor and I noticed this boy wasn't with them. With no thought in my mind except that
I had seen him a short time before in the building, I noticed he wasn't there.
Mr. BALL. What do you mean "a short time before"?
Mr. TRULY. I would say 10 or 12 minutes.
Mr. BALL. You mean that's when you saw him in the lunchroom?
Mr. TRULY. In the lunchroom.
Mr. BALL. And you noticed he wasn't over there?
Mr. TRULY. Well, I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him around and he said "No."<<<
END QUOTE
Do you think Truly should not have reported Oswald missing, Tony?
>
> >
> > >
> > > Roy Lewis: "Following the assassination all employees were dismissed from
> > > work, and I left the building at about 1:15pm." [this is PRIOR to Oswald being
> > > "discovered" as missing]
> >
> > Truly didn't *report* Oswald missing until after 1:15, most likely, but that
> > was
> > after he'd looked up Oswald's address and located Fritz. According to his statement,
> > Lewis was a warehouse worker like Oswald, and others in the crew gave later estimates
> > of
> > the time they were let go.
> >
> > >
> > > Roberta Parker: "I was standing across the street from the Texas School Book
> > > Depository Building entrance... I was not allowed back inside the building
> > > until about 3:30pm and then only in the company of a policeman..."
> > >
> > > Bonnie Richey: "I left the Texas School Book Depository building at about
> > > 12:15pm on November 22, 1963, and never returned to this building on that
> > > date."
> >
> > These two also were outside the building during the shooting. Since the WC
> > didn't claim that Oswald was the only employee who didn't return to work, I don't see
> > why it matters when they left.
> >
>
> Because various WC defenders make that false claim.
I don't recall a "WC defender" making that claim. Who did you have in mind?
>
> > >
> > > Roy Truly: "We made a quick examination of the roof area and then I returned
> > > to the first floor area and started to account for the location of each
> > > employee. I was not able to locate Oswald." [from Truly's WCT: "Then in a few
> > > minutes--it could have been moments or minutes at a time like that--I noticed
> > > some of my boys were over in the west corner of the shipping department, and
> > > there were several officers over there taking their names and addresses, and
> > > so forth. There were other officers in other parts of the building taking
> > > other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not
> > > among these boys." and later..."Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, 'I
> > > have a boy over here missing. I don't know whether to report it or not.'
> > > Because I had another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all
> > > there or not." and still later, when asked if he had taken them names and
> > > addresses of any other employees who might have been missing..."No sir."]
> >
> > Truly testified that he had seen Givens walking *away from* the building just
> > before the motorcade arrived. In contrast, he knew that Oswald had been inside the
> > building right after the shots.
> >
>
> How does that prove that Oswald was inside the building at the time of
> the shots?
It didn't, but Truly had seen him upstairs at the rear of the building approximately
2 minutes after the shots.
>
> > > Otis Williams: "After returning inside the Texas School Book Depository
> > > Building just after hearing the three shots on November 22, 1963 I assisted a
> > > police detective in making a search of the 2nd floor of the building."
> > >
> > > Steven Wilson [who viewed the motorcade alone from a position 3 floors
> > > directly below the "sniper's nest"]: "As the motorcade proceeded, my view of
> > > President Kennedy and his car was obscured by some trees which are on Elm
> > > Street. In a matter of seconds or less after the President's car and occupants
> > > were obscured from my view by the trees, I heard three shots...The shots did
> > > not really sound like they came from above me." [later in the statement he
> > > does say he believes that a person in the same position as he, except on a
> > > higher floor could probably have seen over the trees. But this is just a guess
> > > on his part, as he never had reason to be on the 6th floor, and therefore he
> > > could not have known for sure]
> >
> > But we have photos taken from the 6th floor showing where the tree was. Geneva
Hine
> > was on the second floor, southeast corner, and thought the shots came from inside the
> > building, so opinions varied.
> >
> > >
> > > I strongly doubt there was any roll call, Vern.
> >
> > I agree, there was no formal "roll call." However, Oswald was the only worker
who
> > was inside the building at 12:30 who left the area before the building was sealed off,
>
> How do you prove that Oswald was inside the building at 12:30? Are you
> simply taking his word for that?
Oswald is on film telling a reporter that he was in the building. You think he
lied? Do you think Oswald was outside the building, Tony?
>
> > according to the sworn testimony. Apparently no CT thinks that's suspicious. Roy
Truly
>
> If you claim that Oswald was the only worker to leave before the
> building was sealed off, it seems axiomatic that no one could leave
> after the building was sealed off. Therefore how do you explain people
> who were inside the building at the time of the shooting and then left
> the building?
Excuse me? Who are you talking about that left and when? Eventually, of course,
they *all* went home.
Jean
Jean Davison
news:3E979F9D...@concentric.net...
> Some logic problems here. Oswald knew the bus would be heading back
> through Dealey Plaza, as that was the way to Oak Cliff, so it's foolish
> to say that's why he got off the bus. He got off because it got stuck in
> traffic. When he went to get a cab, he was in so little hurry that he
> offered the cab to a woman standing there.
I'm not so sure he *did* offer the cab to this woman. The evidence is mixed, to say
the least.
> CT's will also definitely dispute the facile assumption that Oswald shot
> Tippit, which you throw in as another "accepted fact."
"Facile." I like that, Martin. Very facile. ;-)
> Nor did Oswald "duck into a shoe store"--the owner saw Oswald through
> the window.
Brewer certainly didn't describe him as someone who was window shopping.
> And finally, evidence is contradictory as to whether he purchased a
> ticket to the movie or not. The concession man, Butch Burroughs, said
> Oswald had come in earlier with a ticket, and apparently left the
> theater and returned a short time later. Of course, he has been largely
> ignored by those who find his testimony inconvenient in pinning Tippit's
> shooting on Oswald.
I like Burroughs' testimony just fine.
QUOTE:
>>>
Mr. BALL. Did you see that man come in the theatre?
Mr. BURROUGHS. No, sir; I didn't.
<<<
UNQUOTE
By the time Burroughs testified, he surely knew what Oswald looked like. If he
recalled selling him a ticket, why didn't he say so?
Jean
Jean Davison
I deliberately said "a few minutes" because the exact time the building was sealed
off has never been established. Various estimates exist, and it may've taken 15 minutes,
as you say, I don't know. I'd consider 15 minutes "a few," evidently you don't. Shoulda
been faster, I agree. However, the point is that *everyone* who'd been inside the TSBD had
an opportunity to leave right after the shooting, but Oswald is the only worker who did
so, according to the affidavits in CE 1381 and other testimony.
If you'd been Truly, Vern, would you have reported him missing? Jean
Walt
"O.H. LEE " <ga...@sol.com> wrote in message
news:3e9832f9$1...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
NOT TRUE!!!.... The ONLY witness who actually SAW the shooting of officer
Tippit. and who knew EXACTLY what time she SAW the shooting .....said that
Tippit was shot at 1:06......
Walt
Caeruleo
"O.H. LEE " <ga...@sol.com> wrote:
> Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >In article <3E979F9D...@concentric.net>,
> > Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >
> >> When he went to get a cab, he was in so little hurry that he
> >> offered the cab to a woman standing there.
> >
> >True enough that he offerred the cab to her, although that doesn't
> >necessarily mean he still didn't feel a fairly urgent need to get home.
>
> >His "hurry" was still great enough for him to abandon the bus, even
> >though Bledsoe didn't.
>
> But if Oswald DID offer his cab to an old lady, and he WAS an actual assassin
> on the lam, this was a most curious time for an exhibition of male chivalry,
> don't you think?
Nope. Just as he didn't run pell-mell out of the TSBD, but walked out
instead, so when going toward the cab he may well have not wished to
appear too suspicious by being in too much of a hurry. Figuratively
"knocking" the old lady out of the way might be remembered more vividly
by the cab driver. Of course the driver did remember him anyway, but
that's primarily because he was arrested that same day & became almost
instantly so well-known.
> >> CT's will also definitely dispute the facile assumption that Oswald shot
>
> >> Tippit, which you throw in as another "accepted fact."
> >
> >Erm, not a bad point, so far as it goes, but it does indeed come far
> >closer to "accepted fact" than implicating him in the shooting of JFK,
> >as he was seen by plenty of witnesses both approaching & leaving Tippet,
>
> >with a pistol in his hand.
>
> There can be little doubt that the Tippit witness accounts pose a problem
> for those who posit Oswald's complete innocence in that crime. Therefore,
> while I yet consider his innocence in that crime to also be a strong
> possibility,
> I also allow for the possibility that Oswald did indeed kill Tippit.
I don't consider the possibility of him being innocent in that shooting
to be particularly "strong" with that many witnesses seeing him both
approaching & leaving Tippet, the latter with his pistol drawn, &
furthermore seeing him along his route to the Texas Theater.
> >> Nor did Oswald "duck into a shoe store"--the owner saw Oswald through
>
> >> the window.
> >
> >True, he did not literally enter the store, but he did come into the
> >recessed foyer leading to the entrance, just at the time a police car
> >went by.
>
> I see a couple of curious things worth noting here. First, for some reason,
> Oswald's usual calm demeanor appears to have deserted him entirely here.
Why do you assume his calm demeanor to be "usual"? He was carefully
observed by people for less than 48 hours of his life.
> For all he had to do was enter Brewer's store on the pretense of shopping
> for a pair of shoes, and he could have bought several crucial minutes of
> time. But by far the most curious aspect of the entire "Brewer saga" was
> the fact that there was immediate recognition of this man by Brewer! Brewer
> claimed to have readily *recognized* the man who entered the foyer of his
> store that afternoon. And yet, no evidence was ever adduced that Oswald had
> ever shopped there, or that the two men had ever crossed paths before. This
> fact has always led me to be far more hesitant to merely write off the
> theories
> involving possible Oswald "lookalikes".
You've lost me here. What do you mean by "recognized"? I've read
plenty of Brewer's statements, & I don't recall him ever claiming that
he had seen Oswald before that day. There is no suggestion of such a
thing in his 12-6-63 affidavit or his WC testimony. Where are you
getting this from?
That could be. The problem is that in 1964, Mr. Burroughs said quite
specifically that he didn't see Oswald at all until the police brought
him out of the theater. Suddenly, no earlier than about a quarter of a
century later, Burroughs miraculously "remembered" that he had sold
Oswald popcorn, & even more miraculously "remembered" the time: 1:15.
Strange that he didn't seem to recall any of this much closer to the day
it happened.
Caeruleo
"greg" <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote:
> sorry if this is already up. encountered problems with first attempt
The other one is up; I see it on this news-server at this very moment.
;-)
> "Caeruleo" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:caeruleo-A481A7...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> > In article <newscache$agm6dh$nu6$1...@news.octa4.net.au>,
> > "greg" <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Vern, some choice cuts from the beefy CE1382.
> > >
> > > Carolyn Arnold: "I left the Texas School Book Depository Building at about
> > > 12:25pm, November 22, 1963, and never returned to this building on this
> date."
> >
> > That's 2 out of the 70+ so far: Sharon Nelson & Carolyn Arnold.
> >
> > > Virgie Rackley: "We stood there for several minutes trying to find out
> what
> > > happened and then returned to the Depository Building entrance. We were
> told
> > > by another building employee that if we went in the building we would not
> be
> > > able to get out again so I did not re enter the building at that time."
> >
> > "At that time." But not specifically stated that she did not return to
> > the building before the end of the workday.
>
> The FBI was requested by the WC to obtain statements from everyone known to be
> in the TSBD on 22nov63. These statements had to incorporate answers to 6
> specific questions.
I do not see those "6 specific questions" in the document itself.
> Some the questions can be deduced from the information
> contained in the statements.
"Deduced"?
> Clearly one of the purposes was to determine who
> stayed and who left, and for those who did leave early, why they did so. Given
> this, the fact that Rackley does not specify reentry before the end of the
> workday should be taken to mean she did not reenter.
I assume you mean "Rachley," as there was a "Rackley" who also gave
testimony to the WC who was male & who was a railroad employee; just
clarifying that to avoid confusion. That is an assumption & speculation
that her not specifically stating that she reentered means she didn't.
It could also just as plausibly mean that she did reenter, & thought it
too mundane a thing to mention.
> > > Virginia Barnum: "When I returned to the building at 12:40pm, I was not
> > > permitted to re enter, and subsequently went home.
> >
> > Good, that's 3, I guess, although I wish you'd cite the source on this.
>
> I did so at the top of the post. Glad you drew my attention to it though, as I
> mistakenly gave CE 1382 as the source. It was in fact, CE 1381.
Oh yes, I see now. Sorry. Glad you corrected the CE number though.
> > > Charles Givens: "After the president was shot, I returned to the Texas
> School
> > > Book Depository building and was told by a Dallas policemen that I could
> not
> > > re enter the building."
> >
> > But didn't specifically say, at least in what you quoted here, that he
> > didn't re-enter the building before the end of the workday.
>
> As above.
And as above, not saying it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Returning to
work after a break is such a mundane activity that it often doesn't even
require mention. It would be leaving work earlier than one normally
leaves that is more remarkable. I'm generally hesitant to assume a
witness meant something that the witness never specifically stated.
Although in this case there is certainly some other evidence that Givens
didn't return, at least not very soon.
> > > Roberta Parker: "I was standing across the street from the Texas School
> Book
> > > Depository Building entrance... I was not allowed back inside the building
> > > until about 3:30pm and then only in the company of a policeman..."
> >
> > This is of course (as you knew perfectly well before you posted it) not
> > a claim of never returning to the building before the end of the workday.
>
> And as pointed out above, one of the main purposes of collecting these
> statements appears to be to determine who left and why, who remained in the
> building, and who successfully returned to the building. If you have dounbts
> about my take on this, suggest you read all 73 statements contained in 1381 as
> I have done.
Like here?
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0331b
.htm
;-)
> > We remain at 8.
> >
> > Out of 70+.
> >
> > Of course it has been pointed out in this thread that the WC apparently
> > never claimed that Oswald was the "only" TSBD employee missing.
>
> Of course, noone said the WC reported that. Neverthesess, WC supporters trot
> out this little factoid from time to time... probably fueled by testimony from
> the likes of Hill:
>
> ---quote---
> We were trying to get together to decide who was going to make the offense
> report and get all the little technicalities out of the way when a detective
> named Richard Stovall and another one, G. F. Rose, came up, and the four of us
> were standing when Captain Fritz walked in.
> He walked up to Rose and Stovall and made the statement to them, "Go get a
> search warrant and go out to some address on Fifth Street," and I don't recall
> the actual street number, in Irving, and "pick up a man named Lee Oswald."
> And I asked the captain why he wanted him, and he said, "Well, he was employed
> down at the Book Depository and he had not been present for a roll call of the
> employees."
> ---unquote---
Of course, not even there was Hill saying that Oswald was the "only"
employee not present for the "roll call."
> He does
> > indeed, however, appear to be the only TSBD employee to leave for the
> > rest of the day without checking in with anyone (none of these others
> > are specifically said to have not notified anyone before leaving for the
> > day),
>
> If they had, it would have been noted in the statements, since that's the very
> type of info the WC seems to have been requesting in asking for the
> statements.
No. They did not *mention* checking in with their employers before
leaving early. That doesn't mean they didn't. That also is such a
mundane activity that some may have not thought it necessary to mention,
as it would normally be a given.
> left home almost immediately after
> > grabbing said pistol, allegedly shot the first police officer who
> > stopped & talked to them, provably ducked into a shoe store
>
> Please quote anyone saying he was ever in the shoestore.
Sorry, & I've already admitted that correction before you posted this
article. In the recessed foyer of the entrance to the shoestore. But
even though I did deserve to be corrected, is the difference terribly
significant? He still ducked "into" space which belonged to the
shoestore that was not completely out in the open on the sidewalk.
> when several
> > police cars passed by on the way to the same shooting, & provably snuck
> > into a movie theater without paying & still carrying the pistol.
>
> Glad to see all your qualifiers out for exercise.
Excuse me? Many other things about this case are not proven, but Julia
Postal knew perfectly well that no one had bought a ticket from her even
remotely matching Oswald's description, & he most certainly *did* have a
pistol on him in the theater, which even he himself didn't deny.
> > It seems rather clear that it wasn't the mere fact of Oswald being
> > "missing" from the TSBD which led to his arrest.
>
> Even if tue, hardly the point.
How is it "hardly the point"? The point is precisely that there were
more reasons to arrest Oswald than merely his absence from the TSBD.
> > And what you've neglected to quote from Truly's testimony:
> >
> > **********
> >
> > Mr. TRULY. When I noticed this boy was missing, I told Chief Lumpkin
> > that "We have a man here that's missing." I said, "It my not mean
> > anything, but he isn't here." I first called down to the
> > other warehouse and had Mr. Akin pull the application of the boy so I
> > could get--quickly get his address in Irving and his general
> > description, so I could be more accurate than I would be.
> > Mr. BALL. Was he the only man missing?
> > Mr. TRULY. The only one I noticed at that time. Now, I think there was
> > one or two more, possibly Charles Givens, but I had seen him out in
> > front walking up the street just before the firing of
> > the gun.
> >
> > **********
>
> Your point is...? Read what he had previously told the FBI. In ant case,
> Givens was not the only one unaccounted for.
I knew that already, thanks. And Truly said "one or two more." His
words; I didn't make them up. "Two" is plural.
> > Truly made it plain that he did not suspect Givens, because apparently
> > he saw Givens outside the building so incredibly close to the time of
> > the shooting that Givens could not possibly have been involved in it.
>
> Yep. That's what he said. He also allegedly saw Oswald incredibly close to the
> time of the shooting 4 floors below where he knew (at the time of reporting on
> Oswald) where the police believed the sniper had been.
I've confirmed for myself in that very building that Oswald could have
shot & still EASILY made it to the 2nd floor lunchroom in time for Baker
& Truly to see him. Have you even been in the former TSBD? And Truly
did not see him *before* the shooting at anywhere near a time too close
to it for him to be involved in it.
> Shouldn't he have
> concluded the same of Oswald?
Nope, because Truly didn't see Oswald *outside* the building "just
before the firing of the gun."
> Was Oswald acting suspiciously when spotted? Was
> he huffing and puffing? Was he nervous?
Not according to Truly. Truly also never said Oswald was holding a
Coke. ;-)
> > This seems to have left only Lee Oswald as the "only missing boy" who
> > could possibly have been suspicious, as I'm not clear that any of these
> > other 8 were among Truly's "boys."
>
> Why should suspicion be limited to "Truly's boys"?
Never said it should have been. Neither did Truly. His words, quoted
above, which I didn't make up, were:
"It my not mean anything, but he isn't here."
> I'll give you another tip... among the 73 statements are two or three from
> people who indicated they remained in the building and watched the motorcade
> alone from their offices. IWO... they had no alibis. Are any of them guilty of
> anything? By what we know now... highly unlikely. But any of them COULD have
> been. They had opportunity, and no verifiable alibi.
There wasn't a rifle sent to their P.O. boxes found in the TSBD.
> > I'm guessing that Truly was not responsible for,
>
> He did all the hiring and firing. There weren't that many employed there, and
> most had been long term employees.
He did *not* do all the hiring & firing. Plenty of those employees were
employed by independent publishing companies, etc., who had offices in
the building. Those employees were "hired & fired" by those companies,
not by Truly. His official title was "Building Manager." He was in
charge of people who did such things as stocking the textbooks, etc.,
*not* in charge of all 70+ employees who worked in that building.
> > He was the building
> > manager, who might have only overseen the "boys" & perhaps a few other
> > employees.
>
> He was also on the board of the company, had rifles in his office a couple of
> days prior to the assassination, created a situation where an artificial
> temporary position could be filled,
Why do you call it "artificial"?
> held strong anti-Kennedy sentiments,
Hmmm, never read that before in my life. Source?
> and
> may well have lied about the Baker/Oswald encounter.
Perhaps he may have. Is there actual evidence that he did?
> Oh, and did I mention, he zeroed in on Oswald to report as missing, despite
> knowing others were?
Hmmm, well let's see...of the other employees he himself was in charge
of who were missing, he only named Givens, whom he said he saw outside
the building "just before the firing of the gun."
> > > I strongly doubt there was any roll call, Vern.
> >
> > Not only does it appeat that the WC never claimed there to be any TSBD
> > "roll call" at which Oswald was the "only" TSBD employee missing, I'm
> > unable to find in the WCR any mention whatsoever of any TSBD "roll
> > call."
>
> Maybe not in the report... but as shown, it's in Day's testimony.
"As shown"? Above you say "the likes of Hill" & then proceed to quote
someone's testimony. I'm looking at Day's WC testimony now & the phrase
"roll call" appears nowhere in it. You're meaning Gerald Hill, of
course, not Day.
> > Doubtless I must be simply looking in the wrong places,
>
> Yup.
That has now been corrected, as I am looking at Mr. Hill's testimony as
I type these words. Thanks. I'm glad you said "Hill" above though, as
I'd still be looking in the wrong place now otherwise. ;-)
> > but
> > where, exactly, is the earliest source of any assertion that there was
> > any TSBD "roll call" at all.
>
> If you believe Day, it was reported to him by Fritz shortly after Oswald was
> brought in.
You mean Hill. ;-)
--
greg
combination of rushing, and just sheer tiredness.
Responses below.
"Caeruleo" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:caeruleo-3E3E80...@news.fu-berlin.de...
We'd need to locate the letter Hoover received requesting the statements to
know for absolute certain.
> > Some the questions can be deduced from the information
> > contained in the statements.
>
> "Deduced"?
Perhaps not quite the right word, but I gather you know what I meant.
> > Clearly one of the purposes was to determine who
> > stayed and who left, and for those who did leave early, why they did so.
Given
> > this, the fact that Rackley does not specify reentry before the end of the
> > workday should be taken to mean she did not reenter.
>
> I assume you mean "Rachley," as there was a "Rackley" who also gave
> testimony to the WC who was male & who was a railroad employee; just
> clarifying that to avoid confusion.
Happy for you to do that, though sorry I have caused the need.
That is an assumption & speculation
> that her not specifically stating that she reentered means she didn't.
> It could also just as plausibly mean that she did reenter, & thought it
> too mundane a thing to mention.
If you read the documents, the intent does become reasonably clear: answering
the question as to whether Oswald perhaps may have left with permission by
determining if and when others did; finding out who was where; finding out if
anyone noticed any sttrangers in the building; finding out if and how much
there was movement in and out of the building. If I am correct here, then she
would have been required to specifically state any re-entry, if indeed that is
what she did.
If you disagree with my take on the purpose of the statements, please spill
the beans on your take.
> > > > Virginia Barnum: "When I returned to the building at 12:40pm, I was
not
> > > > permitted to re enter, and subsequently went home.
> > >
> > > Good, that's 3, I guess, although I wish you'd cite the source on this.
> >
> > I did so at the top of the post. Glad you drew my attention to it though,
as I
> > mistakenly gave CE 1382 as the source. It was in fact, CE 1381.
>
> Oh yes, I see now. Sorry. Glad you corrected the CE number though.
>
> > > > Charles Givens: "After the president was shot, I returned to the Texas
> > School
> > > > Book Depository building and was told by a Dallas policemen that I
could
> > not
> > > > re enter the building."
> > >
> > > But didn't specifically say, at least in what you quoted here, that he
> > > didn't re-enter the building before the end of the workday.
> >
> > As above.
>
> And as above, not saying it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Returning to
> work after a break is such a mundane activity that it often doesn't even
> require mention.
But if I am correct on the purpose of the doocuments, that information would
be specifically required to be included.
It would be leaving work earlier than one normally
> leaves that is more remarkable. I'm generally hesitant to assume a
> witness meant something that the witness never specifically stated.
> Although in this case there is certainly some other evidence that Givens
> didn't return, at least not very soon.
No. I don't think he did. But I believe Givens is another whose original
statement changed in key areas by the time he got the WC hearings.
> > > > Roberta Parker: "I was standing across the street from the Texas
School
> > Book
> > > > Depository Building entrance... I was not allowed back inside the
building
> > > > until about 3:30pm and then only in the company of a policeman..."
> > >
> > > This is of course (as you knew perfectly well before you posted it) not
> > > a claim of never returning to the building before the end of the
workday.
> >
> > And as pointed out above, one of the main purposes of collecting these
> > statements appears to be to determine who left and why, who remained in
the
> > building, and who successfully returned to the building. If you have
dounbts
> > about my take on this, suggest you read all 73 statements contained in
1381 as
> > I have done.
>
> Like here?
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0331b
> .htm
>
> ;-)
So, enlighten me. What was the purpose of the statements?
Hill wasn't present at the TSBD, and was only quoting what Fritz told him (not
that Fritz admitting saying any such thing).
> > He does
> > > indeed, however, appear to be the only TSBD employee to leave for the
> > > rest of the day without checking in with anyone (none of these others
> > > are specifically said to have not notified anyone before leaving for the
> > > day),
> >
> > If they had, it would have been noted in the statements, since that's the
very
> > type of info the WC seems to have been requesting in asking for the
> > statements.
>
> No. They did not *mention* checking in with their employers before
> leaving early. That doesn't mean they didn't.
No it doesn't. But if that information was unimportant, what was the purpose
of gathering the statements?
That also is such a
> mundane activity that some may have not thought it necessary to mention,
> as it would normally be a given.
Then the purpose of the statements was... only to annoy Hoover, perhaps?
> > left home almost immediately after
> > > grabbing said pistol, allegedly shot the first police officer who
> > > stopped & talked to them, provably ducked into a shoe store
> >
> > Please quote anyone saying he was ever in the shoestore.
>
> Sorry, & I've already admitted that correction before you posted this
> article. In the recessed foyer of the entrance to the shoestore. But
> even though I did deserve to be corrected, is the difference terribly
> significant? He still ducked "into" space which belonged to the
> shoestore that was not completely out in the open on the sidewalk.
As pointed out by someone else... it would actually make more sense if he had
"ducked" into the shoestore. But of course, his normal cool demeanour had
evaporated temporarily (the best break the DPD ever had!). My picture of him
in that little recessed entrance is as Spencer Tracey making the
transformation from the unruffled Dr Jeckyll into the wild-eyed, wild-haired
Hyde cowering, but ready to lash out if escape became impossible.
'e was a proper gent, 'e was, guv, until he swallowed that communist poison.
It turned him mad as an 'atter, it did.
> > when several
> > > police cars passed by on the way to the same shooting, & provably snuck
> > > into a movie theater without paying & still carrying the pistol.
> >
> > Glad to see all your qualifiers out for exercise.
>
> Excuse me? Many other things about this case are not proven, but Julia
> Postal knew perfectly well that no one had bought a ticket from her even
> remotely matching Oswald's description,
Did she tell the truth about the opening time?
Why did she need to ask which man Brewer was talking about?
& he most certainly *did* have a
> pistol on him in the theater,
Or had one forced into his hand.
> which even he himself didn't deny.
Sorry. I didn't know the interrogations had been taped.
> > > It seems rather clear that it wasn't the mere fact of Oswald being
> > > "missing" from the TSBD which led to his arrest.
> >
> > Even if tue, hardly the point.
>
> How is it "hardly the point"? The point is precisely that there were
> more reasons to arrest Oswald than merely his absence from the TSBD.
I know, I know. Not buying a ticket for the movie, and performing Spencer
Tracey impersonations without AGVA membership.
Are you aware of the confict in testimony as to whether the cops who went to
the TT knew they were about to encounter an assassin as well as a cop killer?
Are you aware that they apparently did not know his name until they searched
his wallet?
So what were these other reasons they had to arrest Oswald specifcally... as
opposed to an unknown suspect?
Had Truly already tested the theory with a run down from the 6th floor?
> > Shouldn't he have
> > concluded the same of Oswald?
>
> Nope, because Truly didn't see Oswald *outside* the building "just
> before the firing of the gun."
No. He allegedly saw him 4 floors below where the sniper allegedly fired from,
immediatley after the shooting looking cool, calm and collected. If it was so
obviously easy for someone to perform the feat, then there would not have been
need for re-enactments to test it. Therefore unless, for whatever reason,
Truly had already timed a run down those stairs, Oswald, unflustered on the
second floor, should not have caused a concern - despite apparently being one
of a couple of Truly's people to be absent.
> > Was Oswald acting suspiciously when spotted? Was
> > he huffing and puffing? Was he nervous?
>
> Not according to Truly. Truly also never said Oswald was holding a
> Coke. ;-)
>
> > > This seems to have left only Lee Oswald as the "only missing boy" who
> > > could possibly have been suspicious, as I'm not clear that any of these
> > > other 8 were among Truly's "boys."
> >
> > Why should suspicion be limited to "Truly's boys"?
>
> Never said it should have been. Neither did Truly. His words, quoted
> above, which I didn't make up, were:
>
> "It my not mean anything, but he isn't here."
>
> > I'll give you another tip... among the 73 statements are two or three from
> > people who indicated they remained in the building and watched the
motorcade
> > alone from their offices. IWO... they had no alibis. Are any of them
guilty of
> > anything? By what we know now... highly unlikely. But any of them COULD
have
> > been. They had opportunity, and no verifiable alibi.
>
> There wasn't a rifle sent to their P.O. boxes found in the TSBD.
The rifle was known to be Oswald's at the very time his name was first brought
to Fritz' attention?
It was known that no other employees had PO boxes or rifles at that time?
> > > I'm guessing that Truly was not responsible for,
> >
> > He did all the hiring and firing. There weren't that many employed there,
and
> > most had been long term employees.
>
> He did *not* do all the hiring & firing.
I probably could have been clearer. I was referring ONLY to the employees of
the Texas Book Depository Co.
Plenty of those employees were
> employed by independent publishing companies, etc., who had offices in
> the building. Those employees were "hired & fired" by those companies,
> not by Truly. His official title was "Building Manager." He was in
> charge of people who did such things as stocking the textbooks, etc.,
> *not* in charge of all 70+ employees who worked in that building.
>
> > > He was the building
> > > manager, who might have only overseen the "boys" & perhaps a few other
> > > employees.
> >
> > He was also on the board of the company, had rifles in his office a couple
of
> > days prior to the assassination, created a situation where an artificial
> > temporary position could be filled,
>
> Why do you call it "artificial"?
---out of the mouths of babes---
Mr. Ball.
You went to work there. That is about a block, a block and a half north?
Mr. Williams.
A block and a half.
Mr. Ball.
North of the corner of Houston and Elm?
Mr. Williams.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
And how long did you work at that place?
Mr. Williams.
Well, I worked there until business began to get slow. I think that was--it
was before November. I think it was some time during October. I am not sure.
Mr. Ball.
And what did they put you to work at at that time?
Mr. Williams.
They called me up to help lay a floor on the fifth floor, they wanted more
boards over it. As I say, business was slow, and they were trying to keep us
on without laying us off at the time.
So I was using the saw, helping cut wood and lay wood.
Mr. Ball.
You were laying a wood floor over the old floor?
---the awful truth escapes---
> > held strong anti-Kennedy sentiments,
>
> Hmmm, never read that before in my life. Source?
Manchester's Death of a President.
> > and
> > may well have lied about the Baker/Oswald encounter.
>
> Perhaps he may have. Is there actual evidence that he did?
Baker's original statement which put the encounter on the 3rd or 4th floor.
This was made on 22nov63. Even if he had trouble counting, you would expect
mention of the lunchroom somewhere in his 3 page statement, but there isn't.
Also the statement of Otis Williams: "After returning inside the Texas
School Book Depository Building just after hearing the three shots on
November 22, 1963 I assisted a police detective in making a search
of the 2nd floor of the building."
Why didn't Williams and this unknown detective bump into Oswald? Or for that
matter, Truly and Baker? And why was this detective interested in the 2nd
floor in the first place?
> > Oh, and did I mention, he zeroed in on Oswald to report as missing,
despite
> > knowing others were?
>
> Hmmm, well let's see...of the other employees he himself was in charge
> of who were missing, he only named Givens, whom he said he saw outside
> the building "just before the firing of the gun."
Did he name Givens --- at the time?
> > > > I strongly doubt there was any roll call, Vern.
> > >
> > > Not only does it appeat that the WC never claimed there to be any TSBD
> > > "roll call" at which Oswald was the "only" TSBD employee missing, I'm
> > > unable to find in the WCR any mention whatsoever of any TSBD "roll
> > > call."
> >
> > Maybe not in the report... but as shown, it's in Day's testimony.
>
> "As shown"? Above you say "the likes of Hill" & then proceed to quote
> someone's testimony. I'm looking at Day's WC testimony now & the phrase
> "roll call" appears nowhere in it. You're meaning Gerald Hill, of
> course, not Day.
Got me. Yes, I meant Hill.
> > > Doubtless I must be simply looking in the wrong places,
> >
> > Yup.
>
> That has now been corrected, as I am looking at Mr. Hill's testimony as
> I type these words. Thanks. I'm glad you said "Hill" above though, as
> I'd still be looking in the wrong place now otherwise. ;-)
What day is it anyway?
> > > but
> > > where, exactly, is the earliest source of any assertion that there was
> > > any TSBD "roll call" at all.
> >
> > If you believe Day, it was reported to him by Fritz shortly after Oswald
was
> > brought in.
>
> You mean Hill. ;-)
Yeah, and I probably need a benny to keep going...
greg
Caeruleo
"greg" <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote:
> Firstly, apologies for all the typos and other errors in my previous post: a
> combination of rushing, and just sheer tiredness.
No prob.
> "Caeruleo" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:caeruleo-3E3E80...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> > In article <newscache$tpj8dh$qn9$1...@news.octa4.net.au>,
> > "greg" <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > "Caeruleo" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:caeruleo-A481A7...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> > > > In article <newscache$agm6dh$nu6$1...@news.octa4.net.au>,
> > > > "greg" <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote:
> > That is an assumption & speculation
> > that her not specifically stating that she reentered means she didn't.
> > It could also just as plausibly mean that she did reenter, & thought it
> > too mundane a thing to mention.
>
> If you read the documents, the intent does become reasonably clear: answering
> the question as to whether Oswald perhaps may have left with permission by
> determining if and when others did; finding out who was where; finding out if
> anyone noticed any sttrangers in the building; finding out if and how much
> there was movement in and out of the building. If I am correct here, then she
> would have been required to specifically state any re-entry, if indeed that is
> what she did.
Um, I've just discovered that what we've been discussing has been
misleading. In your previous article you said, "Given this, the fact
that Rackley does not specify reentry before the end of the workday
should be taken to mean she did not reenter."
But she *did* specify when she reentered. ;-)
In your article, you ended your quote of her statement with, "We were
told by another building employee that if we went in the building we
would not be able to get out again so I did not re enter the building at
that time." I'm guessing that you did not notice that her statement
continues on the next page, & she specifically said, "I returned to the
Depository building at approximately 3:00 PM as I had left my coat and
purse in the office. I was in the building about ten minutes," etc.
Then she specified what time she went home.
> If you disagree with my take on the purpose of the statements, please spill
> the beans on your take.
They seem to have been exactly what you say they were. I haven't looked
at all of them yet, but so far every last one that I've seen specifies
what time the person left the building, what time the person did return
if that person did return later in the day, & what time the person left
the building for the remainder of the day.
> > > > > Charles Givens: "After the president was shot, I returned to the Texas
> > > School
> > > > > Book Depository building and was told by a Dallas policemen that I
> could
> > > not
> > > > > re enter the building."
> > > >
> > > > But didn't specifically say, at least in what you quoted here, that he
> > > > didn't re-enter the building before the end of the workday.
> > >
> > > As above.
> >
> > And as above, not saying it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Returning to
> > work after a break is such a mundane activity that it often doesn't even
> > require mention.
>
> But if I am correct on the purpose of the doocuments, that information would
> be specifically required to be included.
And apparently it was. Even in Rachley's statement. ;-)
> It would be leaving work earlier than one normally
> > leaves that is more remarkable. I'm generally hesitant to assume a
> > witness meant something that the witness never specifically stated.
> > Although in this case there is certainly some other evidence that Givens
> > didn't return, at least not very soon.
>
> No. I don't think he did. But I believe Givens is another whose original
> statement changed in key areas by the time he got the WC hearings.
That it certainly did.
> > > > > Roberta Parker: "I was standing across the street from the Texas
> School
> > > Book
> > > > > Depository Building entrance... I was not allowed back inside the
> building
> > > > > until about 3:30pm and then only in the company of a policeman..."
> > > >
> > > > This is of course (as you knew perfectly well before you posted it) not
> > > > a claim of never returning to the building before the end of the
> workday.
> > >
> > > And as pointed out above, one of the main purposes of collecting these
> > > statements appears to be to determine who left and why, who remained in
> the
> > > building, and who successfully returned to the building. If you have
> dounbts
> > > about my take on this, suggest you read all 73 statements contained in
> 1381 as
> > > I have done.
> >
> > Like here?
> >
> > http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0331b
> > .htm
> >
> > ;-)
>
> So, enlighten me. What was the purpose of the statements?
Apparently exactly what you said it was. ;-)
That's true. He still wasn't even quoting *Fritz* as saying that Oswald
was the only employee missing.
> > > He does
> > > > indeed, however, appear to be the only TSBD employee to leave for the
> > > > rest of the day without checking in with anyone (none of these others
> > > > are specifically said to have not notified anyone before leaving for the
> > > > day),
> > >
> > > If they had, it would have been noted in the statements, since that's the
> very
> > > type of info the WC seems to have been requesting in asking for the
> > > statements.
> >
> > No. They did not *mention* checking in with their employers before
> > leaving early. That doesn't mean they didn't.
>
> No it doesn't. But if that information was unimportant, what was the purpose
> of gathering the statements?
Now there we have a different matter. Almost none of the statements
I've looked at so far contain any mention of checking in with employers
before leaving, so this does not appear to be one of the questions they
were asked to answer.
> > That also is such a
> > mundane activity that some may have not thought it necessary to mention,
> > as it would normally be a given.
>
> Then the purpose of the statements was... only to annoy Hoover, perhaps?
What a silly question.
> > > left home almost immediately after
> > > > grabbing said pistol, allegedly shot the first police officer who
> > > > stopped & talked to them, provably ducked into a shoe store
> > >
> > > Please quote anyone saying he was ever in the shoestore.
> >
> > Sorry, & I've already admitted that correction before you posted this
> > article. In the recessed foyer of the entrance to the shoestore. But
> > even though I did deserve to be corrected, is the difference terribly
> > significant? He still ducked "into" space which belonged to the
> > shoestore that was not completely out in the open on the sidewalk.
>
> As pointed out by someone else... it would actually make more sense if he had
> "ducked" into the shoestore.
Why is that? Brewer said that the recessed foyer extended 15 feet back
from the street, which seems more than deep enough to get him out of
plain sight from police in passing cars.
> But of course, his normal cool demeanour
I asked another poster yesterday why he described Oswald's cool demeanor
as "usual," & I'll ask you now why you describe it as "normal." Oswald
was under the bright light of scrutiny for less than the last 48 hours
of his life, hardly enough time to ascertain what moods were normal &
abnormal for him. He certainly doesn't seem to have been especially
"cool" when being brought out of the Texas Theater. The witnesses who
saw him leaving the scene of the Tippet murder did not especially seem
to think he was "cool" then either. His own wife described plenty of
occasions in which he was far from "cool"; so did the de Mohrenschildts,
& so did his own mother.
> had
> evaporated temporarily (the best break the DPD ever had!). My picture of him
> in that little recessed entrance is as Spencer Tracey making the
> transformation from the unruffled Dr Jeckyll into the wild-eyed, wild-haired
> Hyde cowering, but ready to lash out if escape became impossible.
You seem to be getting that picture out of thin air then, as there is
not a shred of evidence that he was especially "cool" from the time
Tippet was shot to the time he was put into the police car in front of
the theater.
> > > when several
> > > > police cars passed by on the way to the same shooting, & provably snuck
> > > > into a movie theater without paying & still carrying the pistol.
> > >
> > > Glad to see all your qualifiers out for exercise.
> >
> > Excuse me? Many other things about this case are not proven, but Julia
> > Postal knew perfectly well that no one had bought a ticket from her even
> > remotely matching Oswald's description,
>
> Did she tell the truth about the opening time?
She told the WC that the box office opened at 12:45. In his testimony,
Burroughs did not contradict her, only saying that he went to work at
12:00. It's rather common for employees of many different types of
businesses to report to work before the businesses open, as there are
often things they need to do to prepare for the businesses to open. Is
there some evidence that she was not telling the truth?
> Why did she need to ask which man Brewer was talking about?
Another silly question. Because she didn't see the man. Really, this
isn't rocket science.
> > & he most certainly *did* have a
> > pistol on him in the theater,
>
> Or had one forced into his hand.
Oh dear...
Could be, but that's rather a stretch, don't you think? Several
witnesses saw Oswald moving away from the scene of the Tippet murder
with a pistol in his hand, & several of the theater patrons corroborated
the police statements that Oswald drew out a pistol. I have tremendous
difficulty in believing all these different people were lying. The
preponderance of evidence is that he did indeed have a pistol.
> > which even he himself didn't deny.
>
> Sorry. I didn't know the interrogations had been taped.
Um, if you're going to pull that one, then I might add that almost none
of the testimony & witness statements we've been talking about in this
entire exchange were taped either. Should we throw it all out then
because of that?
> > > > It seems rather clear that it wasn't the mere fact of Oswald being
> > > > "missing" from the TSBD which led to his arrest.
> > >
> > > Even if tue, hardly the point.
> >
> > How is it "hardly the point"? The point is precisely that there were
> > more reasons to arrest Oswald than merely his absence from the TSBD.
>
> I know, I know. Not buying a ticket for the movie, and performing Spencer
> Tracey impersonations without AGVA membership.
You haven't a shred of evidence that he "performed" any such
"impersonation."
> Are you aware of the confict in testimony as to whether the cops who went to
> the TT knew they were about to encounter an assassin as well as a cop killer?
I've read them saying that a connection between the Tippet slaying & the
shooting of JFK occurred to some of them almost immediately. There
were, for example, several that I recall reading saying that shootings
of police officers in quiet residential areas like that were far from
common in Dallas in 1963, especially in broad daylight. I don't see all
of that as particularly implausible reasoning for some of them to fairly
quickly suspect that there was a connection between the two.
> Are you aware that they apparently did not know his name until they searched
> his wallet?
Yep.
> So what were these other reasons they had to arrest Oswald specifcally... as
> opposed to an unknown suspect?
I'm not aware of any evidence that at first "Oswald" was to be
"arrested." You quoted Hill quoting Fritz as merely putting out an
order to "pick up a man named Lee Oswald." The word "arrest" is not
used there. "Pick up" may have simply meant "pick up for questioning,"
not "arrest." I'm also not aware that the man in the Texas Theater was
even suspected of being Oswald, i.e., the same employee who was missing
from the TSBD, at the time of his arrest. Is there some evidence that
the DPD suspected in advance that the Oswald of the TSBD was going to be
the person about whom they had received the call from Postal regarding
him sneaking into the theater? The only thing I know is that they
suspected this to be the killer of Tippet, & some of them suspected that
it had some connection to the JFK shooting as well, as I've explained
above. I'm not aware that, even though Truly did mention Oswald
specifically as missing, even Fritz during the time before Oswald's
arrest actually suspected him of possibly being involved in the JFK
shooting. Fritz seems only to have wanted him brought in for
questioning since he was a TSBD employee, & seems to have been surprised
to find that very man already under arrest & waiting to be questioned by
him down at his office.
> > > > Truly made it plain that he did not suspect Givens, because apparently
> > > > he saw Givens outside the building so incredibly close to the time of
> > > > the shooting that Givens could not possibly have been involved in it.
> > >
> > > Yep. That's what he said. He also allegedly saw Oswald incredibly close to
> the
> > > time of the shooting 4 floors below where he knew (at the time of
> reporting on
> > > Oswald) where the police believed the sniper had been.
> >
> > I've confirmed for myself in that very building that Oswald could have
> > shot & still EASILY made it to the 2nd floor lunchroom in time for Baker
> > & Truly to see him. Have you even been in the former TSBD? And Truly
> > did not see him *before* the shooting at anywhere near a time too close
> > to it for him to be involved in it.
>
> Had Truly already tested the theory with a run down from the 6th floor?
Dunno about a "run"; here's what is said about the matter in his
testimony:
**********
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Truly, when we were there on March 20th, did you take a
walk down from the southeast corner window on the sixth floor with
Officer Baker and a Secret Service Agent
Howlett--we walked along from that window at the southeast corner of the
sixth floor, walked along the east wall to the northeast corner of the
building, and then across there around the
elevators, and Secret Service Agent Howlett simulated putting a rifle at
the spot where the rifle was found; and then we took the stairs down to
the second floor lunch-room where Officer Baker
encountered Lee Harvey Oswald? You remember us doing that?
Mr. TRULY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. How fast were we going--running, trotting, walking or what?
Mr. TRULY. Walking at a brisk walk, and then a little bit faster, I
would say.
Mr. BELIN. You remember what time that was? How long did it take?
Mr. TRULY. It seemed to me like it was a minute and 18 seconds, and a
minute and 15 seconds. We tried it twice. I believe that is about as
near as I remember.
**********
"A brisk walk, and then a little faster." Very little, I'd say, if
there was only 3 seconds' difference between the times. I myself
*walked* from the sniper's window to the stairway on the 6th floor on
11-23-02, not going in anything close to a straight line, negotiating
many visitors & exhibits, & not daring to go too fast in order not to
attract attention, & made it in 30 seconds. I'm supremely confident I
could run it in less than half that time, as most humans in even average
shape can run at well over twice as fast as their normal walking speed.
I did not even go as straight as Oswald would have had to do; all he
would have had to do was run down the straight aisle between the stacks
of boxes near the east wall, then turn & run down another straight aisle
near the north wall. My route had to be more circuitous because of the
visitors (there were many that day, as it was a Saturday & also the day
after the anniversary of the assassination) & exhibits to walk around.
I then went up to the 7th floor & after looking at the art exhibit there
for a few minutes, went back to the flight of stairs & trotted down to
the 6th floor, again not daring to go so fast as to attract attention, &
taking only one step at a time instead of every other step, & did it in
exactly 8 seconds. Obviously had I taken it 2 steps at a time it would
have been less. At my timing, 4 flights of stairs would take 32
seconds. Add 30 seconds to *walk*, not run, a more circuitous route
across the 6th floor than was available to the shooter that day, & I'm
down on the 2nd floor in only 1 minute & 2 seconds. But as I said,
running across the floor would take half as long, if not less. The
floor isn't all that big. So, 15 seconds at most to run it, & probably
less in reality. Taking the stairs 2 at a time would also reduce that
timing significantly, but I'm not sure if it would be by as much as half
since I didn't have an opportunity to test it. But I think it
reasonable that I could reduce the time of my descent by one-third quite
easily; in fact, I have absolutely no doubt that I could reduce it at
least by that much. Therefore, about 22 seconds to descend 4 flights.
That now puts my total time at the very *most* at only 37 seconds from
sniper's window to 2nd floor. Descending stairs is also not nearly as
much exertion as ascending them, & I've not been particularly out of
breath doing this in other stairwells.
But of course this does not account for the shooter to take some time in
leaving the sniper's nest & hiding the rifle, or for getting from the
2nd floor stairway exit all the way into the lunchroom. But I don't see
why the shooter would necessarily have lingered in the sniper's nest
more than 10 seconds after the last shot. I've read a great deal about
where the rifle was found & seen all the extant pictures taken of it in
the hiding place, & I also don't see that hiding it & getting back out
of the hiding place to run to the very nearby stairway would have taken
more than 10 seconds either, especially if he had already scoped out the
hiding place beforehand, which is not an unreasonable speculation. The
distance from the 2nd floor stairway exit to the lunchroom was also not
that great, & I don't see it taking more than 10 seconds to get into the
room from the stairway exit either. So I'm adding 30 more seconds to
the time which now puts the total at only 1 minute 7 seconds.
We also should be aware that 90 seconds was only Baker's estimate of the
amount of time between when he heard the first shot & when he saw
Oswald. He never said he was absolutely certain that this was the exact
amount of time. There were delays such as Baker having to shove people
out of the way to get into the building, Baker & Truly running into a
closed door that was latched, & had to be unlatched, Truly calling up
for the elevator to be brought down, waiting to hear an answer or the
sound of the elevator coming down, calling a 2nd time for the elevator,
then making the decision to take the stairs instead. It is quite
reasonable to suppose that Baker may have been off by as much as 30
seconds, & that it may have been a full 2 minutes. Yes, they both
recreated their actions later, but they of course could never recreate
again the exact circumstances in every detail.
From all this I don't see any particular reason to assume it to be
impossible for Oswald to have beaten Truly & Baker to the lunchroom by
as much as 45 seconds, had he been the shooter.
> > > Shouldn't he have
> > > concluded the same of Oswald?
> >
> > Nope, because Truly didn't see Oswald *outside* the building "just
> > before the firing of the gun."
>
> No. He allegedly saw him 4 floors below where the sniper allegedly fired from,
> immediatley after the shooting looking cool, calm and collected.
"Immediately" is perhaps a trifle misleading, & I would imagine that a
gunman who wished to appear innocent would make himself look cool, calm,
& collected. Do remember that Baker & Truly did not observe Oswald in
the lunchroom for very long at all. Baker asked him to come here, asked
Truly if the man worked here, Truly replied yes, & then Baker
immediately dismissed him as a suspect & both he & Truly went back to
the stairway. Not much time at all to fully assess Oswald's demeanor;
it was a very brief encounter.
> If it was so
> obviously easy for someone to perform the feat, then there would not have been
> need for re-enactments to test it.
Of course there was need. The President had been assassinated. It was
being investigated whether or not Oswald could have performed the
assassination. They obviously wouldn't know whether or not the feat
could be performed until they tested it for themselves, eh?
> Therefore unless, for whatever reason,
> Truly had already timed a run down those stairs,
Apparently he hadn't on that day; only several months later.
> Oswald, unflustered on the
> second floor, should not have caused a concern - despite apparently being one
> of a couple of Truly's people to be absent.
It doesn't seem to me that he did initially cause any great deal of
concern. At first, Fritz appears to have only wanted to find him for
questioning. I'm not aware of a shred of evidence that Oswald was
seriously suspected of the shooting until he was arrested & it was
discovered that he was the same employee who was missing from the TSBD.
> > > Was Oswald acting suspiciously when spotted? Was
> > > he huffing and puffing? Was he nervous?
> >
> > Not according to Truly. Truly also never said Oswald was holding a
> > Coke. ;-)
Kinda surprised you skipped over that one. ;-)
You do realize that without having the Coke when Baker & Truly saw him,
this reduces the needed time still further?
> > > I'll give you another tip... among the 73 statements are two or three from
> > > people who indicated they remained in the building and watched the
> motorcade
> > > alone from their offices. IWO... they had no alibis. Are any of them
> guilty of
> > > anything? By what we know now... highly unlikely. But any of them COULD
> have
> > > been. They had opportunity, and no verifiable alibi.
> >
> > There wasn't a rifle sent to their P.O. boxes found in the TSBD.
>
> The rifle was known to be Oswald's at the very time his name was first brought
> to Fritz' attention?
I never said so. You were the one seeming to assume that Fritz was
putting out an order for him to be arrested when Truly reported him
missing, rather than merely wanting him for questioning. When I posted
that reply, I was going with your apparent assertion without thinking
more carefully about it.
> It was known that no other employees had PO boxes or rifles at that time?
All that's immaterial if Oswald was not a suspect in the shooting at the
time Truly reported him missing.
> > > > I'm guessing that Truly was not responsible for,
> > >
> > > He did all the hiring and firing. There weren't that many employed there,
> and
> > > most had been long term employees.
> >
> > He did *not* do all the hiring & firing.
>
> I probably could have been clearer. I was referring ONLY to the employees of
> the Texas Book Depository Co.
Yes, & how many of the 70+ employees in the entire building was Truly
actually responsible for? Was it even the majority? Do you know
whether or not Oswald & Givens were the only ones of *Truly's* employees
who were missing? If they were the only ones that he himself was
actually responsible for who were missing, then it would make sense for
him to only report them. And as I've already said, Truly said he saw
Givens outside the building right before the shots were fired, so he
might have logically assumed that Givens would likely have no
information about the shooter. Oswald was a different matter, however.
Truly didn't have any idea where Oswald had been for more than 15
minutes before the shooting at the very least. He of course had seen
him in the lunchroom shortly after the shooting, but at that time he &
Baker hadn't asked him anything about the shooting. And since he had
seen him in the lunchroom only a little while before, he may well have
wondered why, as he himself said, "I noticed that Lee Oswald was not
among these boys," whose statements were being taken by officers. And
he did quote himself as saying, "It may not mean much, but he isn't
here." He also said repeatedly in his testimony that Oswald was the
only one he was certain was missing at the time; he did not seem to have
realized that Givens was also missing until a bit later. But he said
that when he mentioned Oswald being missing to Chief Lumpkin, that
Lumpkin took him upstairs to repeat it to Fritz. You might also
consider that Oswald may have been on his mind merely because he had
seen him not long before in the lunchroom. He may not have initially
thought of Givens because he hadn't seen him as recently.
"Awful truth," eh? I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, but I don't
see how that in any way even meagerly suggests that the position was
created "artificially."
> > > held strong anti-Kennedy sentiments,
> >
> > Hmmm, never read that before in my life. Source?
>
> Manchester's Death of a President.
Ok. And Manchester's source for that assertion is...?
> > > and
> > > may well have lied about the Baker/Oswald encounter.
> >
> > Perhaps he may have. Is there actual evidence that he did?
>
> Baker's original statement which put the encounter on the 3rd or 4th floor.
> This was made on 22nov63. Even if he had trouble counting, you would expect
> mention of the lunchroom somewhere in his 3 page statement, but there isn't.
I'm curious as to which "original statement" that is. This is his
same-day affidavit, which appears to have been far briefer than 3 pages:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
I don't know what the URL for the facsimile of it on history-matters.com
is. I hope you're not referring to the September 1964 FBI report on
Baker, which I've often seen erroneously called his "original" November
1963 statement, which it most decidedly is not. That is the one, btw,
with the famous crossing out of the words "drinking a Coke." But of
course that also does mention the lunchroom encounter. But this
same-day affidavit I'm citing does indeed say "third or fourth floor" &
does indeed make no mention of the lunchroom, but it is also very brief
descriptively, & leaves out many other details as well. Is there some
other "original statement" by Baker which is longer to which you're
referring?
> Also the statement of Otis Williams: "After returning inside the Texas
> School Book Depository Building just after hearing the three shots on
> November 22, 1963 I assisted a police detective in making a search
> of the 2nd floor of the building."
>
> Why didn't Williams and this unknown detective bump into Oswald?
This only indicates that he returned to the building just after the
shots. It does not indicate how soon after that Williams began
assisting the detective.
> Or for that
> matter, Truly and Baker?
Ditto.
> And why was this detective interested in the 2nd
> floor in the first place?
Just a wild guess, but perhaps different detectives were assigned or
decided to search different floors, & this particular detective was
assigned or decided on the 2nd floor?
> > > Oh, and did I mention, he zeroed in on Oswald to report as missing,
> despite
> > > knowing others were?
> >
> > Hmmm, well let's see...of the other employees he himself was in charge
> > of who were missing, he only named Givens, whom he said he saw outside
> > the building "just before the firing of the gun."
>
> Did he name Givens --- at the time?
Not as far as I can tell. I see no evidence that he realized at the
time that Givens had not returned to the building either. He himself
said that he only initially noticed Oswald missing.
> > > > Doubtless I must be simply looking in the wrong places,
> > >
> > > Yup.
> >
> > That has now been corrected, as I am looking at Mr. Hill's testimony as
> > I type these words. Thanks. I'm glad you said "Hill" above though, as
> > I'd still be looking in the wrong place now otherwise. ;-)
>
> What day is it anyway?
Huh?
--
Caeruleo
Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ok, this must be it:
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/02/Doc-0019.jpg
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/02/Doc-0020.jpg
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/02/Doc-0021.jpg
But this is obviously word for word the same document as the typed
version I cited at the jfkassassination.net URL above, the only
differences I'm noting being that in the typed version some punctuation
is added which Baker omitted.
And it is indeed 3 pages. The typed version didn't give me the
impression that the handwritten original would be that long. Baker's
handwriting was just kinda big. ;-)
But as this is the same document I've already discussed, again I note
that it is very brief on detail, & leaves out much more information
about what Baker did that day than just the name of the room in which
Baker encountered Oswald. Thus I don't see that the failure to name the
lunchroom in it is necessarily significant.
This certainly does not suggest to me that Truly may have "lied" about
the lunchroom encounter.
AnthonyMarsh
Truly didn't say this. It is a guess you are making about what Truly was
thinking.
> QUOTE:
>
> >>>
> Mr. BALL. Did you make a check of your employees afterwards?
>
> Mr. TRULY. No, no; not complete. No, I just saw the group of the employees over there on
> the floor and I noticed this boy wasn't with them. With no thought in my mind except that
> I had seen him a short time before in the building, I noticed he wasn't there.
>
> Mr. BALL. What do you mean "a short time before"?
>
> Mr. TRULY. I would say 10 or 12 minutes.
>
> Mr. BALL. You mean that's when you saw him in the lunchroom?
>
> Mr. TRULY. In the lunchroom.
>
> Mr. BALL. And you noticed he wasn't over there?
>
> Mr. TRULY. Well, I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him around and he said "No."<<<
>
> END QUOTE
>
Excellent. You are assuming that "this boy" could only refer to Lee
Harvey Oswald. Fine with me. But you seem to be the only WC defender who
will admit that a witness said that he saw Oswald in the lunchroom 10 to
12 minutes before the shooting. Not much time to get the rifle, set up
the sniper's nest and be ready for the motorcade to arrive on time 5
minutes earlier than it actually did.
Now that's you've opened up this can of worms, how can you explain the
men who were actually in the lunchroom and who testified that Oswald was
never in the lunchroom?
> Do you think Truly should not have reported Oswald missing, Tony?
>
Nothing wrong with the fact. Just when someone misuses that to jump to
conclusions.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Roy Lewis: "Following the assassination all employees were dismissed from
> > > > work, and I left the building at about 1:15pm." [this is PRIOR to Oswald being
> > > > "discovered" as missing]
> > >
> > > Truly didn't *report* Oswald missing until after 1:15, most likely, but that
> > > was
> > > after he'd looked up Oswald's address and located Fritz. According to his statement,
> > > Lewis was a warehouse worker like Oswald, and others in the crew gave later estimates
> > > of
> > > the time they were let go.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Roberta Parker: "I was standing across the street from the Texas School Book
> > > > Depository Building entrance... I was not allowed back inside the building
> > > > until about 3:30pm and then only in the company of a policeman..."
> > > >
> > > > Bonnie Richey: "I left the Texas School Book Depository building at about
> > > > 12:15pm on November 22, 1963, and never returned to this building on that
> > > > date."
> > >
> > > These two also were outside the building during the shooting. Since the WC
> > > didn't claim that Oswald was the only employee who didn't return to work, I don't see
> > > why it matters when they left.
> > >
> >
> > Because various WC defenders make that false claim.
>
> I don't recall a "WC defender" making that claim. Who did you have in mind?
>
Various WC defenders have put up lists of damning facts which prove
Oswald guilty and this is often one of their "facts."
> >
> > > >
> > > > Roy Truly: "We made a quick examination of the roof area and then I returned
> > > > to the first floor area and started to account for the location of each
> > > > employee. I was not able to locate Oswald." [from Truly's WCT: "Then in a few
> > > > minutes--it could have been moments or minutes at a time like that--I noticed
> > > > some of my boys were over in the west corner of the shipping department, and
> > > > there were several officers over there taking their names and addresses, and
> > > > so forth. There were other officers in other parts of the building taking
> > > > other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not
> > > > among these boys." and later..."Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, 'I
> > > > have a boy over here missing. I don't know whether to report it or not.'
> > > > Because I had another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all
> > > > there or not." and still later, when asked if he had taken them names and
> > > > addresses of any other employees who might have been missing..."No sir."]
> > >
> > > Truly testified that he had seen Givens walking *away from* the building just
> > > before the motorcade arrived. In contrast, he knew that Oswald had been inside the
> > > building right after the shots.
> > >
> >
> > How does that prove that Oswald was inside the building at the time of
> > the shots?
>
> It didn't, but Truly had seen him upstairs at the rear of the building approximately
> 2 minutes after the shots.
>
Again you rely on jumping to conclusions. Truly also saw Baker at the
rear of the building approximately 2 minutes after the shots, so should
he assume that Baker was inside the building at the time of the shots?
What proof do you have that Oswald could not have gone outside for a
couple of minutes or stayed in the lunchroom at the time of the shots?
Of course he was in that building, since he worked in that building. Do
you think that you can rest your case on Oswald's truthfulness? Or only
when it is convenient? No, I personally do not think that Oswald was
outside the building at the time of the shooting. I am just objecting to
WC defender tactics to beg the question or jump to conclusions.
> >
> > > according to the sworn testimony. Apparently no CT thinks that's suspicious. Roy
> Truly
> >
> > If you claim that Oswald was the only worker to leave before the
> > building was sealed off, it seems axiomatic that no one could leave
> > after the building was sealed off. Therefore how do you explain people
> > who were inside the building at the time of the shooting and then left
> > the building?
>
> Excuse me? Who are you talking about that left and when? Eventually, of course,
> they *all* went home.
> Jean
>
You want me to repeat every other message which has been written about
this? Try reading. Some left soon after the shooting.
Jean Davison
offered his cab to a woman at the Greyhound bus station:
QUOTE:
>>> ...an old lady, I think she was an old lady, I don't remember nothing
but her sticking her head down past him in the door and said, "Driver,
will you call me a cab down here?" She had seen him get this cab and she
wanted one, too, and he opened the door a little bit like he was going to
get out and he said, "I will let you have this one, " and she says, "No,
the driver can call me one." <<< II, 256
UNQUOTE
That was from Whaley's testimony in Washington, DC, 3/12/64.
When he testified again in Dallas on 4/8/64 the details were slightly
different:
QUOTE:
>>>
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember a woman coming up to the cab?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; I remember that.
Mr. BELIN. What happened then?
Mr. WHALEY. The lady, I don't remember whether she was very old, but she
was middle-aged. She bent down and stuck in and said, "Can I have this
cab?" And he cracked the door open like he was going to get out. I thought
he was going to let her have it. I told her there would be another one,
and she said, "Would you please call me one."
Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything to the woman, that you can remember?
Mr. WHALEY. When she wanted to know if she could have the cab, I don't
know, but I got a faint hunch he did tell her she could have this one, or
something like that. What it was, I was watching my left-hand side. I
wanted to pull out when the light changed. <<< [VI, 431]
END QUOTE
Whaley was by his own admission not the best witness in the world.
Discussing a different issue he said, "...a good defense attorney could
take me apart. I get confused." [VI, 432] Belin had been present at his
testimony in Washington, but Whaley couldn't recall where he'd seen him,
though he looked "familiar." Well, memory's like that, so maybe we should
check his earliest statements on record. Whaley's affidavit of 11/23/63
can be seen here:
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0438-001.gif
It says, in part: "After we had gotten into the cab and I had
turned my meter on, a lady came up to the cab and ask [sic] if she could
get this cab. As I recall I said there will be one behind me very soon.
I am not sure whether the man passenger repeated this to her or not, but I
think he may have. I then drove away."
So, in Whaley's first account, Oswald didn't offer the woman the
cab at all. Whaley said there'd be another cab soon and Oswald may've
repeated this. Period.
Fritz's written report of Oswald's interrogation (WR, p. 604) says
much the same thing:
QUOTE:
>>
I asked him about his conversation with the cab driver, and he said he
remembered that when he got in the cab a lady came up who also wanted a
cab, and he told Oswald to tell the lady to "take another cab."
>>>
UNQUOTE
There again, Oswald made no offer, Whaley did the talking. I
wouldn't argue that these earlier accounts *have* to be correct, but with
this much conflict and uncertainty in the testimony, how did it get to be
an established "fact" that Oswald offered his cab to this woman?
Comments, anybody?
Jean
greg
I did read the full statement. Didn't include the bit about reentry at 3:00pm
because it was irrelevant.Because I didn't originally include it, I think you
responded along the lines that she may have reentered. By then, Id forgetton
that was indeed, the case.
Well, actually, except for timing issues, it doesn't. His statement was
extremely brief. Not even a mention of going back and seeing Oswald on the 6th
floor - surprising since that is most germane to the building case against the
accused. In short, I was mistaken. The real problem is his testimony.
And that's true. But bringing in Hill's testimony was only to help shed light
on the origins of the "roll call" factoid.
> > > > He does
> > > > > indeed, however, appear to be the only TSBD employee to leave for
the
> > > > > rest of the day without checking in with anyone (none of these
others
> > > > > are specifically said to have not notified anyone before leaving for
the
> > > > > day),
> > > >
> > > > If they had, it would have been noted in the statements, since that's
the
> > very
> > > > type of info the WC seems to have been requesting in asking for the
> > > > statements.
> > >
> > > No. They did not *mention* checking in with their employers before
> > > leaving early. That doesn't mean they didn't.
> >
> > No it doesn't. But if that information was unimportant, what was the
purpose
> > of gathering the statements?
>
> Now there we have a different matter. Almost none of the statements
> I've looked at so far contain any mention of checking in with employers
> before leaving, so this does not appear to be one of the questions they
> were asked to answer.
A lot couldn't check in. They were locked out, and so just went home.
> > > That also is such a
> > > mundane activity that some may have not thought it necessary to mention,
> > > as it would normally be a given.
> >
> > Then the purpose of the statements was... only to annoy Hoover, perhaps?
>
> What a silly question.
Maybe not the intended purpose, but I suspect it did annoy himjust the same.
> > > > left home almost immediately after
> > > > > grabbing said pistol, allegedly shot the first police officer who
> > > > > stopped & talked to them, provably ducked into a shoe store
> > > >
> > > > Please quote anyone saying he was ever in the shoestore.
> > >
> > > Sorry, & I've already admitted that correction before you posted this
> > > article. In the recessed foyer of the entrance to the shoestore. But
> > > even though I did deserve to be corrected, is the difference terribly
> > > significant? He still ducked "into" space which belonged to the
> > > shoestore that was not completely out in the open on the sidewalk.
> >
> > As pointed out by someone else... it would actually make more sense if he
had
> > "ducked" into the shoestore.
>
> Why is that? Brewer said that the recessed foyer extended 15 feet back
> from the street, which seems more than deep enough to get him out of
> plain sight from police in passing cars.
The police couldn't see him?
What good was that when it apparently made him look suspicious, thereby
drawing attention to himself.
Would Brewer (or any other person) have thought him suspicious if he entered
the shop and asked about a pair of loafers?
> > But of course, his normal cool demeanour
>
> I asked another poster yesterday why he described Oswald's cool demeanor
> as "usual," & I'll ask you now why you describe it as "normal." Oswald
> was under the bright light of scrutiny for less than the last 48 hours
> of his life, hardly enough time to ascertain what moods were normal &
> abnormal for him. He certainly doesn't seem to have been especially
> "cool" when being brought out of the Texas Theater.
How cool would you expect him to be after being attacked by a horde of cops,
and then dragged out before a potential lynch mob? All things considered, I'd
say he was cool enough to save his own neck by yelling out that he wasn't
resisting arrest.
The witnesses who
> saw him leaving the scene of the Tippet murder did not especially seem
> to think he was "cool" then either.
Not proven by any stretch that this was Oswald.
His own wife described plenty of
> occasions in which he was far from "cool"; so did the de Mohrenschildts,
> & so did his own mother.
Many people are not cool at home, but in public, they're ice. He was cool with
Baker and Truly. He was cool during 99% of his interrogations by the DPD. He
was cool when harrased by Bringuier and friends... even offering to shake
hands. He was cool when arrested for that. He was cool when locked up and
questioned by Martello.
> > had
> > evaporated temporarily (the best break the DPD ever had!). My picture of
him
> > in that little recessed entrance is as Spencer Tracey making the
> > transformation from the unruffled Dr Jeckyll into the wild-eyed,
wild-haired
> > Hyde cowering, but ready to lash out if escape became impossible.
>
> You seem to be getting that picture out of thin air then, as there is
> not a shred of evidence that he was especially "cool" from the time
> Tippet was shot to the time he was put into the police car in front of
> the theater.
Which is where your problem is. He goes from cool coke drinker - to wild eyed
Hyde - to savvy arrestee who knows just the right things to shout out if he
was to survive - back to cool under pressure of DPD interrogation. The
Tippit/Brewer Oswald just does not fit. And indeed, the probable Tippit killer
was reported to go into the Hunt associated church. Hill and McDonald both
made police broadcasts to that effect, with Hill stating this was from an
eyewitness. Unfortunately, a searche was never carried out.
> > > > when several
> > > > > police cars passed by on the way to the same shooting, & provably
snuck
> > > > > into a movie theater without paying & still carrying the pistol.
> > > >
> > > > Glad to see all your qualifiers out for exercise.
> > >
> > > Excuse me? Many other things about this case are not proven, but Julia
> > > Postal knew perfectly well that no one had bought a ticket from her even
> > > remotely matching Oswald's description,
> >
> > Did she tell the truth about the opening time?
>
> She told the WC that the box office opened at 12:45. In his testimony,
> Burroughs did not contradict her, only saying that he went to work at
> 12:00. It's rather common for employees of many different types of
> businesses to report to work before the businesses open, as there are
> often things they need to do to prepare for the businesses to open. Is
> there some evidence that she was not telling the truth?
Donald Willis has done some excellent work on this issue.
> > Why did she need to ask which man Brewer was talking about?
>
> Another silly question. Because she didn't see the man. Really, this
> isn't rocket science.
Why silly? She asked which man... now you say she didn't see him.... which
would make sense given her initial question to Brewer... but then she is
describing him in similar terms to Brewer, and just knows he is wanted for
something. If she had seen him (as she does indicate), and he was acting so
suspiciously to her, she had no cause to ask Brewer who he was talking about,
did she? There wasn't exactly a queue at the ticket box, either...
> > > & he most certainly *did* have a
> > > pistol on him in the theater,
> >
> > Or had one forced into his hand.
>
> Oh dear...
>
> Could be, but that's rather a stretch, don't you think?
The WC version is the stretch.
Several
> witnesses saw Oswald moving away from the scene of the Tippet murder
> with a pistol in his hand,
And your witnesses are...?
& several of the theater patrons corroborated
> the police statements that Oswald drew out a pistol.
"Several" did not. Try one. Gibson.
I have tremendous
> difficulty in believing all these different people were lying.
Only because you've been misled by what the evidence actually shows.
The
> preponderance of evidence is that he did indeed have a pistol.
The evidence is far from convincing.
McDonald said "he was darwing a gun". In the final report, this was changed to
"he dew the gun".
Brewer and Gibson go anyhere near having Oswald with a gun cleanly in his
hand. Even McDonal never claimed that.
> > which even he himself didn't deny.
> >
> > Sorry. I didn't know the interrogations had been taped.
>
> Um, if you're going to pull that one, then I might add that almost none
> of the testimony & witness statements we've been talking about in this
> entire exchange were taped either. Should we throw it all out then
> because of that?
Never suggested throwing anything out. Just treating it with some caution as
to the weight it carries...
> > > > > It seems rather clear that it wasn't the mere fact of Oswald being
> > > > > "missing" from the TSBD which led to his arrest.
> > > >
> > > > Even if tue, hardly the point.
> > >
> > > How is it "hardly the point"? The point is precisely that there were
> > > more reasons to arrest Oswald than merely his absence from the TSBD.
> >
> > I know, I know. Not buying a ticket for the movie, and performing Spencer
> > Tracey impersonations without AGVA membership.
>
> You haven't a shred of evidence that he "performed" any such
> "impersonation."
No. I don't think he did, either. Brewer was probably exaggerating his
description.
> > Are you aware of the confict in testimony as to whether the cops who went
to
> > the TT knew they were about to encounter an assassin as well as a cop
killer?
>
> I've read them saying that a connection between the Tippet slaying & the
> shooting of JFK occurred to some of them almost immediately. There
> were, for example, several that I recall reading saying that shootings
> of police officers in quiet residential areas like that were far from
> common in Dallas in 1963, especially in broad daylight. I don't see all
> of that as particularly implausible reasoning for some of them to fairly
> quickly suspect that there was a connection between the two.
Then why did some have trouble admitting it?
> > Are you aware that they apparently did not know his name until they
searched
> > his wallet?
>
> Yep.
>
> > So what were these other reasons they had to arrest Oswald specifcally...
as
> > opposed to an unknown suspect?
>
> I'm not aware of any evidence that at first "Oswald" was to be
> "arrested."
My comment was in response to this by you: "It seems rather clear that it
wasn't the mere fact of Oswald being "missing" from the TSBD which led to his
arrest."
You quoted Hill quoting Fritz as merely putting out an
> order to "pick up a man named Lee Oswald." The word "arrest" is not
> used there. "Pick up" may have simply meant "pick up for questioning,"
> not "arrest." I'm also not aware that the man in the Texas Theater was
> even suspected of being Oswald, i.e., the same employee who was missing
> from the TSBD, at the time of his arrest. Is there some evidence that
> the DPD suspected in advance that the Oswald of the TSBD was going to be
> the person about whom they had received the call from Postal regarding
> him sneaking into the theater?
I have no idea if such evidence exists.
Are you claiming that Oswald being reported as absent has absolutely no
importance in the scheme of things?
The only thing I know is that they
> suspected this to be the killer of Tippet, & some of them suspected that
> it had some connection to the JFK shooting as well, as I've explained
> above. I'm not aware that, even though Truly did mention Oswald
> specifically as missing, even Fritz during the time before Oswald's
> arrest actually suspected him of possibly being involved in the JFK
> shooting. Fritz seems only to have wanted him brought in for
> questioning since he was a TSBD employee, & seems to have been surprised
> to find that very man already under arrest & waiting to be questioned by
> him down at his office.
They were the luckiest bunch of bumblers since the Keystone mob weren't they?
Uh huh. Excpet when trying to hide in shoe store foyers?
Because the person encountered, wasn't.
> You do realize that without having the Coke when Baker & Truly saw him,
> this reduces the needed time still further?
Yep. You do realise that if the encounter was on the 4th floor with a coat and
no coke, Oswald could not have been seen moments later on the 2nd floor
without coat, but with coke?
In an unsigned and undated memo titled
REPORT ON OFFICER'S DUTIES IN REGARD TO THE PRESIDENT'S
MURDER
MARVIN JOHNSON - #879
Johnson states: "While in the office [Fritz's] from 3:00pm until
2:00am I answered the phone and took an affidavit from Patrolman ML Baker.
Patrolman Baker stated in his affidavit that he was riding escort on his
motorcycle for the President's motorcade; that he heard the shots that killed
the President and wounded Governor Connally; that he decided the shots were
coming from the Texas School Book Depository Building. After determining the
origin of the shots, he jumped from his motor and ran into the building. He
found a man who said he was the building manager. Officer Baker and the
building manager then went to a stairway and started up the stairs to search
the building. On the 4th floor Officer Baker apprehended a man that was
walking away from the stairway on that floor. Officer Baker started to search
the man, but the building manager stated that the man was an employee of the
company and was known to him. Officer Baker released the man and continued his
search of the building. Officer Baker later identified Lee Harvey Oswald as
the man he had seen on the 4th floor of the Texas School Book Depository."
He ends: "When Patrolman ML Baker identified Lee Harvey Oswald
as the man that he stopped in the Texas School Book Depository Building,
Patrolman Baker was in the Homicide Bureau giving an affidavit and Oswald was
brought into the room to talk to some Secret Service men. When Baker saw
Oswald he stated, 'that is the man I stopped on the 4th floor of the School
Book Depository.'"
Note Baker did not mention in his statement that he could ID the suspect now
sitting in the same rrom as the person he encountered - nor did he describe
him accurately despite a clear view as he wrote.
> > > > I'll give you another tip... among the 73 statements are two or three
from
> > > > people who indicated they remained in the building and watched the
> > motorcade
> > > > alone from their offices. IWO... they had no alibis. Are any of them
> > guilty of
> > > > anything? By what we know now... highly unlikely. But any of them
COULD
> > have
> > > > been. They had opportunity, and no verifiable alibi.
> > >
> > > There wasn't a rifle sent to their P.O. boxes found in the TSBD.
> >
> > The rifle was known to be Oswald's at the very time his name was first
brought
> > to Fritz' attention?
>
> I never said so. You were the one seeming to assume that Fritz was
> putting out an order for him to be arrested when Truly reported him
> missing, rather than merely wanting him for questioning.
> When I posted
> that reply, I was going with your apparent assertion without thinking
> more carefully about it.
Fair enough.
> > It was known that no other employees had PO boxes or rifles at that time?
>
> All that's immaterial if Oswald was not a suspect in the shooting at the
> time Truly reported him missing.
Well, as you noted, you made claims about why Oswald was wanted - apart from
being absent. You've now backed away from those claims.
You put a good case that the mangers of the other companies should also have
been asked to perform a check on the whereabouts of staff. But that was what
I've been getting at all along, anyway.
Truly got them laying floor to keep 'em busy and in work. Ooops. Too many
laying floor. Need a temp to fill a few orders for a little while... just as
the question of where the luncheon will be held is being decided... and just
as the Irving Organising Committee of Good Samaritans is putting feelers out
in just the right place for a Commie Ex-Marine.
> > > > held strong anti-Kennedy sentiments,
> > >
> > > Hmmm, never read that before in my life. Source?
> >
> > Manchester's Death of a President.
>
> Ok. And Manchester's source for that assertion is...?
Interviews. Haven't time to dig it out at present. Will do at some stage if
you require.
> > > > and
> > > > may well have lied about the Baker/Oswald encounter.
> > >
> > > Perhaps he may have. Is there actual evidence that he did?
> >
> > Baker's original statement which put the encounter on the 3rd or 4th
floor.
> > This was made on 22nov63. Even if he had trouble counting, you would
expect
> > mention of the lunchroom somewhere in his 3 page statement, but there
isn't.
>
> I'm curious as to which "original statement" that is. This is his
> same-day affidavit, which appears to have been far briefer than 3 pages:
<snipped your baker URL and commentary, as you've posted on it separately>
> > Also the statement of Otis Williams: "After returning inside the Texas
> > School Book Depository Building just after hearing the three shots on
> > November 22, 1963 I assisted a police detective in making a search
> > of the 2nd floor of the building."
> >
> > Why didn't Williams and this unknown detective bump into Oswald?
>
> This only indicates that he returned to the building just after the
> shots. It does not indicate how soon after that Williams began
> assisting the detective.
I disagree.
> > Or for that
> > matter, Truly and Baker?
>
> Ditto.
>
> > And why was this detective interested in the 2nd
> > floor in the first place?
>
> Just a wild guess, but perhaps different detectives were assigned or
> decided to search different floors, & this particular detective was
> assigned or decided on the 2nd floor?
Was there perhaps, a specific report that something may have happened up
there?
> > > > Oh, and did I mention, he zeroed in on Oswald to report as missing,
> > despite
> > > > knowing others were?
> > >
> > > Hmmm, well let's see...of the other employees he himself was in charge
> > > of who were missing, he only named Givens, whom he said he saw outside
> > > the building "just before the firing of the gun."
> >
> > Did he name Givens --- at the time?
>
> Not as far as I can tell. I see no evidence that he realized at the
> time that Givens had not returned to the building either. He himself
> said that he only initially noticed Oswald missing.
QUOTE
Mr. TRULY. 3 or 4 minutes after we reached the entrance, the walkway, we stood
on the steps 2 or 3 minutes, and then I don't believe we just gradually moved
out a bit.
And then when the policemen leading the motorcade came off of Main on to
Houston, we saw them coming, and then we just moved out a little farther to
the edge of the parkway.
Mr. BELIN. Did you notice any other company employees with you other than Mr.
Campbell at that time?
Mr. TRULY. Well, I did. I noticed several. Mrs. Reid was standing there close.
And it seemed like there were several of the other employees standing out in
front of the building. But I cannot--I think Bill Shelley was standing over to
my right as I faced the motorcade--somewheres in that area.
I noticed just before the motorcade passed there were, I believe, three of our
colored boys had come out and started up, and two of them came back. And I
didn't see them when the motorcade passed.
But they had started across Houston Street up Elm, and they came back later
on, and I think those were the ones that were two of them were the ones on the
fifth floor. Possibly they could not see over the crowd. They are short boys.
I wasn't doing too well at that, myself.
UNQUOTE
I don't think its a given by any stretch that Truly would have seen Givens if
Givens had decided to go back in prior to the assassination, based on the
above testimony.
> > > > > Doubtless I must be simply looking in the wrong places,
> > > >
> > > > Yup.
> > >
> > > That has now been corrected, as I am looking at Mr. Hill's testimony as
> > > I type these words. Thanks. I'm glad you said "Hill" above though, as
> > > I'd still be looking in the wrong place now otherwise. ;-)
> >
> > What day is it anyway?
>
> Huh?
Yeah, thanks for help. I had to find out from another source.
greg
O.H. LEE
Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <3e9832f9$1...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com>,
> "O.H. LEE " <ga...@sol.com> wrote:
>
>> Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >In article <3E979F9D...@concentric.net>,
>> > Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> When he went to get a cab, he was in so little hurry that he
>> >> offered the cab to a woman standing there.
>> >
>> >True enough that he offerred the cab to her, although that doesn't
>> >necessarily mean he still didn't feel a fairly urgent need to get home.
>>
>> >His "hurry" was still great enough for him to abandon the bus, even
>> >though Bledsoe didn't.
>>
>> But if Oswald DID offer his cab to an old lady, and he WAS an actual assassin
>> on the lam, this was a most curious time for an exhibition of male chivalry,
>> don't you think?
>
>Nope. Just as he didn't run pell-mell out of the TSBD, but walked out
>instead, so when going toward the cab he may well have not wished to
>appear too suspicious by being in too much of a hurry. Figuratively
>"knocking" the old lady out of the way might be remembered more vividly
>by the cab driver. Of course the driver did remember him anyway, but
>that's primarily because he was arrested that same day & became almost
>instantly so well-known.
But if Whaley is being accurate and truthful here, who knows how many additional
minutes Oswald might have been delayed if forced to wait for another cab?
Could an assassin on the lam afford this? In addition, we have a scenario
whereby Oswald is apparently decidedly impatient and in a hurry on the bus,
only to somehow adopt a much more relaxed and patient demeanor when attempting
to acquire a cab, and then going back to a hurried demeanor when he goes
bustling by Mrs. Roberts at the rooming house. A bit curious.
>> >> CT's will also definitely dispute the facile assumption that Oswald
shot
>>
>> >> Tippit, which you throw in as another "accepted fact."
>> >
>> >Erm, not a bad point, so far as it goes, but it does indeed come far
>> >closer to "accepted fact" than implicating him in the shooting of JFK,
>> >as he was seen by plenty of witnesses both approaching & leaving Tippet,
>>
>> >with a pistol in his hand.
>>
>> There can be little doubt that the Tippit witness accounts pose a problem
>> for those who posit Oswald's complete innocence in that crime. Therefore,
>> while I yet consider his innocence in that crime to also be a strong
>> possibility,
>> I also allow for the possibility that Oswald did indeed kill Tippit.
>
>I don't consider the possibility of him being innocent in that shooting
>to be particularly "strong" with that many witnesses seeing him both
>approaching & leaving Tippet, the latter with his pistol drawn, &
>furthermore seeing him along his route to the Texas Theater.
The timing aspect and Poe's problems with the "marked" shells are but two
of several problems I see in attempting to fix sole blame on Oswald in the
Tippit slaying.
>> >> Nor did Oswald "duck into a shoe store"--the owner saw Oswald through
>>
>> >> the window.
>> >
>> >True, he did not literally enter the store, but he did come into the
>> >recessed foyer leading to the entrance, just at the time a police car
>> >went by.
>>
>> I see a couple of curious things worth noting here. First, for some reason,
>> Oswald's usual calm demeanor appears to have deserted him entirely here.
>
>Why do you assume his calm demeanor to be "usual"? He was carefully
>observed by people for less than 48 hours of his life.
At moments of what would be presumed to be heightened fear and or heightened
adrenaline flow, Oswald's track record in public does indeed appear to be
that of a man who remains calm and composed. We know that at the time of
his encounter with Baker, after allegedly just blowing off JFK's head, that
he struck both Baker and Truly as calm. We have the statements from Stuckey,
that even though Oswald was ambushed and broadsided during his radio debate
with his "defection" to the Soviet Union, he comported himeslf very well,
remaining composed and cooly parrying questions put to him. Of course, he
was extremely cool both during and after his street fight scene with Bringuier,
which led to his arrest, and his interrogators, almost to a man, have often
reflected upon his cool demeanor during even the most intense interrogation
sessions, some even opining that he seemed to have training in interrogation
techniques. So yes, I would call Oswald a cool customer, whose coolness inexplicably
deserted him, if the official accounts are to be believed, in the wake of
the Tippit shooting.
>> For all he had to do was enter Brewer's store on the pretense of shopping
>> for a pair of shoes, and he could have bought several crucial minutes
of
>> time. But by far the most curious aspect of the entire "Brewer saga" was
>> the fact that there was immediate recognition of this man by Brewer! Brewer
>> claimed to have readily *recognized* the man who entered the foyer of
his
>> store that afternoon. And yet, no evidence was ever adduced that Oswald
had
>> ever shopped there, or that the two men had ever crossed paths before.
This
>> fact has always led me to be far more hesitant to merely write off the
>> theories
>> involving possible Oswald "lookalikes".
>
>You've lost me here. What do you mean by "recognized"? I've read
>plenty of Brewer's statements, & I don't recall him ever claiming that
>he had seen Oswald before that day. There is no suggestion of such a
>thing in his 12-6-63 affidavit or his WC testimony. Where are you
>getting this from?
During Brewer's Warren Commission testimony, the following remarkable exchange
occurred with questioner David Belin: (emphasis added)
BELIN: Why did you happen to watch this particular man?
BREWER: He just looked funny to me. Well, *IN THE FIRST PLACE*, I had *SEEN*
him before. I think he had been in my store before. And when you wait on
somebody, you *RECOGNIZE* them, and he just seemed funny.
Clearly, then, there was instsnt recognition on the part of Brewer when this
mysterious man ducked into his store alcove that afternoon. But how could
this be, unless Oswald had shopped there? Apparently, Brewer worked days,
as he was on duty that Friday afternoon. But while Oswald was living in Oak
Cliff, his weekdays were accounted for, as he was working at the Depository.
In addition, most of Oswald's weekends were also accounted for, so where
were the opportunities for Oswald to go shoe shopping in Brewer's store?
Indeed, no evidence was ever adduced that Oswald had ever been in Brewer's
store. Yet questioner Belin was, incredibly, totally uninterested in the
possibility that Brewer had previously encountered Oswald. And possibly with
good reason. For had Brewer indicated that Oswald had been a customer at
a time when it could not possibly have been the real Oswald, this would have
opened up the strong possibility of imposture, which was a can of worms the
Commission wanted no part of. But knowing that Brewer readily recognized
the man who ducked into his foyer that day has led me to speculate that perhaps
an Oswald lookalike *deliberately* led Brewer, through highly suspicious
actions, to the Texas Theatre and where the real Oswald sat biding his time
or attempting to make a contact. Why else fail to buy a ticket and sneak
into the theatre, if not to attract attention to oneself and appear to be
a furtive fugitive on the run? For the real Oswald had plenty of money on
him to purchase a ticket.
>it happened.
I too have some problems with Burroughs.
Regards,
O.H. LEE
O.H. LEE (ga...@aol.com)
"Don't believe the so called evidence."
Lee Harvey Oswald to his brother Robert
Saturday, November 23, 1963
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
O.H. LEE
Hello Ms. Davison,
You know, it is so frustrating to see so much witness ambiguity exist
in this case. So many times in this case, one thinks that one has a fact
nailed down, only to find contradictory accounts on the record. I had always
taken it as fact that Oswald did indeed offer his cab to an older lady. But
I must say that what you have posted of Whaley's varied accounts of this
incident have now led to a bit of doubt in my mind. And it does indeed appear
that when it comes to assessing witness credibility, William Whaley may well
be the "Helen Markham" of cab drivers.
James K. Olmstead
case at this point? To me regardless of the level of guilt of Oswald,
once he crossed the street, from the TSBD, he was "in the clear" until his
next move, in relationship to his involvement.
How much effect on Oswald does this incident have?
good post btw
jko
"Jean Davison" <dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote in message
news:b7daa...@enews2.newsguy.com...
GMcNally
O.H.
Oswald had walked some five blocks to the East and was in no danger of
discovery. He could have hung out around the bus terminal for the rest
of the day.
Jerry
Caeruleo
"greg" <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote:
> "Caeruleo" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:caeruleo-E222AD...@news.fu-berlin.de...
>
> > > > > He does
> > > > > > indeed, however, appear to be the only TSBD employee to leave for
> the
> > > > > > rest of the day without checking in with anyone (none of these
> others
> > > > > > are specifically said to have not notified anyone before leaving for
> the
> > > > > > day),
> > > > >
> > > > > If they had, it would have been noted in the statements, since that's
> the
> > > very
> > > > > type of info the WC seems to have been requesting in asking for the
> > > > > statements.
> > > >
> > > > No. They did not *mention* checking in with their employers before
> > > > leaving early. That doesn't mean they didn't.
> > >
> > > No it doesn't. But if that information was unimportant, what was the
> purpose
> > > of gathering the statements?
> >
> > Now there we have a different matter. Almost none of the statements
> > I've looked at so far contain any mention of checking in with employers
> > before leaving, so this does not appear to be one of the questions they
> > were asked to answer.
>
> A lot couldn't check in. They were locked out, and so just went home.
That's fine. Even the majority of the ones who did eventually get back
inside the building, however, made no statement whatsoever as to whether
or not they checked in with their employers for permission to leave for
the remainder of the day, so this does not appear to be one of the
questions all of them were asked to answer.
> > > > > left home almost immediately after
> > > > > > grabbing said pistol, allegedly shot the first police officer who
> > > > > > stopped & talked to them, provably ducked into a shoe store
> > > > >
> > > > > Please quote anyone saying he was ever in the shoestore.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, & I've already admitted that correction before you posted this
> > > > article. In the recessed foyer of the entrance to the shoestore. But
> > > > even though I did deserve to be corrected, is the difference terribly
> > > > significant? He still ducked "into" space which belonged to the
> > > > shoestore that was not completely out in the open on the sidewalk.
> > >
> > > As pointed out by someone else... it would actually make more sense if he
> had
> > > "ducked" into the shoestore.
> >
> > Why is that? Brewer said that the recessed foyer extended 15 feet back
> > from the street, which seems more than deep enough to get him out of
> > plain sight from police in passing cars.
>
> The police couldn't see him?
They wouldn't have been able to plainly see him out on the sidewalk, no.
> What good was that when it apparently made him look suspicious, thereby
> drawing attention to himself.
>
> Would Brewer (or any other person) have thought him suspicious if he entered
> the shop and asked about a pair of loafers?
If Oswald was the killer of Tippet, I would imagine he might not have
wanted tolinger in the shoestore that long. The fact that he didn't
come all the way into the shoestore is not necessarily evidence of
innocence.
> > > But of course, his normal cool demeanour
> >
> > I asked another poster yesterday why he described Oswald's cool demeanor
> > as "usual," & I'll ask you now why you describe it as "normal." Oswald
> > was under the bright light of scrutiny for less than the last 48 hours
> > of his life, hardly enough time to ascertain what moods were normal &
> > abnormal for him. He certainly doesn't seem to have been especially
> > "cool" when being brought out of the Texas Theater.
>
> How cool would you expect him to be after being attacked by a horde of cops,
> and then dragged out before a potential lynch mob? All things considered, I'd
> say he was cool enough to save his own neck by yelling out that he wasn't
> resisting arrest.
Why does that have to be a statement made with a "cool" attitude?
> > The witnesses who
> > saw him leaving the scene of the Tippet murder did not especially seem
> > to think he was "cool" then either.
>
> Not proven by any stretch that this was Oswald.
Depends on what you accept as "proven." Several witnesses positively
identified him as the man they saw leaving the scene.
> > His own wife described plenty of
> > occasions in which he was far from "cool"; so did the de Mohrenschildts,
> > & so did his own mother.
>
> Many people are not cool at home, but in public, they're ice.
> He was cool with
> Baker and Truly.
As I've already noted, Baker's & Truly's time of observance of Oswald
during that encounter was extraordinarily brief. Truly said
specifically that Baker "immediately" (his exact word) left Oswald &
went back toward the stairs as soon as Truly told him Oswald was an
employee of the building. They simply did not recall observing any
*obvious* signs of stress in Oswald during this very brief encounter,
nor did they recall Oswald saying anything during it. This is hardly
enough to go on to reasonably assess Oswald's demeanor, other than that
he apparently exhibited no *obvious* signs of being upset or afraid or
guilty, such as yelling out something, arguing with Baker, or looking as
if he was about to flee when Baker spoke to him. All we have is that he
didn't flee from Baker, but did come to him when called, & apparently
remained silent during the entire brief encounter. We don't know, for
example, that he wasn't about to speak when Truly explained that he was
an employee, & what he would have said had he done so.
> He was cool during 99% of his interrogations by the DPD.
Where on earth are you getting "99%" from? He was certainly described
as extremely agitated when Hosty came in the room, but he was also
described as being at least somewhat agitated when asked about the
backyard photos & again when asked about the rifle. And I'll remind you
that you yourself noted that the interrogations were not taped. You
don't have the slightest idea of what "percentage" of the total
interrogation time Oswald remained "cool."
> He
> was cool when harrased by Bringuier and friends... even offering to shake
> hands. He was cool when arrested for that. He was cool when locked up and
> questioned by Martello.
You are now describing extraordinarily different circumstances. He was
arrested only for allegedly "disturbing the peace," not allegedly
shooting a police officer.
> > > had
> > > evaporated temporarily (the best break the DPD ever had!). My picture of
> him
> > > in that little recessed entrance is as Spencer Tracey making the
> > > transformation from the unruffled Dr Jeckyll into the wild-eyed,
> wild-haired
> > > Hyde cowering, but ready to lash out if escape became impossible.
> >
> > You seem to be getting that picture out of thin air then, as there is
> > not a shred of evidence that he was especially "cool" from the time
> > Tippet was shot to the time he was put into the police car in front of
> > the theater.
>
> Which is where your problem is. He goes from cool coke drinker -
Um, there again you are engaging in wild speculation, & I've already put
part of this to rest. The only person who is recorded as
contemporaneously claiming that Oswald was drinking a Coke *during* the
lunchroom encounter is Oswald himself, & I'm not sure that even that was
specifically his claim, only that he claimed to have been in the
lunchroom having a Coke during the time of the shooting. But Baker &
Truly themselves NEVER said that they saw him holding, much less
drinking a Coke, during the lunchroom encounter. Their earliest
statements made no mention of such a thing, & to the WC they both quite
specifically said that they didn't recall seeing anything in either of
his hands. Only in his statement to the FBI of 10 months later does
there appear any suggestion by Baker that Oswald had a Coke *during* the
lunchroom encounter, & this is the statement in which the words
"drinking a Coke" were crossed out. But I've read that the statement
was not in Baker's handwriting, but was rather being taken down by an
FBI agent, & this might merely have been some initial confusion due to
the fact that by then, 10 months after the assassination, rumors had
gone around that Oswald had a Coke *during* the encounter, confusing the
fact that Baker & Truly had not actually previously said such a thing
with Oswald's supposed statements of having a Coke at the time, & the
statement of one other TSBD employee who said she saw him with a Coke
*after* the Baker/Truly encounter. There is not a shred of evidence
that Baker & Truly actually saw Oswald holding a Coke, or drinking one,
at the time they encountered him in the lunchroom.
And as far as "cool," once again, all we have is a description by 2 men
who observed Oswald very briefly, in which Oswald apparently did not
speak a word.
> to wild eyed
> Hyde -
Now you're really going overboard with the speculations. I don't recall
even Brewer describing Oswald as being *that* agitated. Here's what
Brewer said to the WC:
**********
Mr. BELIN - Why did you happen to watch this particular man?
Mr. BREWER - He just looked funny to me. Well, in the first place, I had
seen him some place before. I think he had been in my store before. And
when you wait on somebody, you recognize
them, and he just seemed funny. His hair was sort of messed up and
looked like he had been running, and he looked scared, and he looked
funny.
Mr. BELIN - Did you notice any of his actions when he was standing in
your lobby there?
Mr. BREWER - No; he just stood there and stared.
Mr. BELIN - He stared?
Mr. BREWER - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Was he looking at the merchandise?
Mr. BREWER - Not anything in particular. He was just standing there
staring.
**********
I don't see any description there even remotely approaching "wild eyed."
The most he attributed to Oswald was that he looked "scared."
> to savvy arrestee who knows just the right things to shout out if he
> was to survive -
I don't understand why that is particularly "savvy."
> back to cool under pressure of DPD interrogation.
Again, your assertion of "cool" under DPD interrogation, certainly
during the vast majority of it, is not supported by any extant evidence.
> The
> Tippit/Brewer Oswald just does not fit.
Why?
> > > > > when several
> > > > > > police cars passed by on the way to the same shooting, & provably
> snuck
> > > > > > into a movie theater without paying & still carrying the pistol.
> > > > >
> > > > > Glad to see all your qualifiers out for exercise.
> > > >
> > > > Excuse me? Many other things about this case are not proven, but Julia
> > > > Postal knew perfectly well that no one had bought a ticket from her even
> > > > remotely matching Oswald's description,
> > >
> > > Did she tell the truth about the opening time?
> >
> > She told the WC that the box office opened at 12:45. In his testimony,
> > Burroughs did not contradict her, only saying that he went to work at
> > 12:00. It's rather common for employees of many different types of
> > businesses to report to work before the businesses open, as there are
> > often things they need to do to prepare for the businesses to open. Is
> > there some evidence that she was not telling the truth?
>
> Donald Willis has done some excellent work on this issue.
I'm looking at one of his articles on the matter now. He seems to find
it suspicious that although Postal said she told Brewer not to mention
anyone sneaking into the theater to Burroughs, according to Burroughs
Brewer did anyway, & supposedly Brewer confirmed this. I don't see how
this indicates any "lie" on Postal's part; it just shows that apparently
Brewer did not follow her directions. Mr. Willis also seems to find it
suspicious that Burroughs opined that the "sneaker" may have gone first
to the balcony, & that Postal mentioned Burroughs' opinion on that
matter, with the dispatcher notice saying, "Supposed to be hiding in the
balcony." That still does not indicate that Postal "lied" about telling
Brewer not to mention anything to Burroughs; all it may mean is that he
mentioned something to him anyway, & once it was mentioned, there was no
point in Postal denying to Burroughs that someone had snuck into the
theater, at which point Burroughs might well have voiced his suspicion
that the person had snuck up into the balcony.
> > > Why did she need to ask which man Brewer was talking about?
> >
> > Another silly question. Because she didn't see the man. Really, this
> > isn't rocket science.
>
> Why silly? She asked which man... now you say she didn't see him....
You say "now" as if I had said something different before. I do not
recall doing so. I had never previously said that she saw him.
But that was my own mistake, for which I apologize. But you need to
acknowledge your mistake too. I will now elaborate. ;-)
I do now see in her testimony that she did say she saw Oswald outside
the theater, & that he ducked "around the corner" (the corner of the box
office it seems) passing close by her employer as he was leaving. So my
apologies for saying that she didn't see him. It is plain that she did,
although she didn't actually see him go into the theater itself.
Now for your mistake. ;-)
This portion of our discussion began with you asking 2 days ago, in text
we see quoted above, "Why did she need to ask which man Brewer was
talking about?"
Who says she asked Brewer which man he was talking about? ;-)
She did not say she asked Brewer any such thing in her testimony.
Neither did *Brewer* attribute such a question to her in his. All he
said was, "He [Oswald] walked into the Texas Theatre and I walked up to
the theatre, to the box office and asked Mrs. Postal if she sold a
ticket to a man who was wearing a brown shirt, and she said
no, she hadn't." There is no suggestion that Postal asked Brewer which
man he was talking about. In her own testimony she said she knew
perfectly well which man Brewer was talking about, saying quite
specifically, "Well, just as I turned around then Johnny Brewer was
standing there and he asked me if the fellow that ducked in bought a
ticket, and I said, "No; by golly, he didn't," and turned around
expecting to see him."
"Him" being the man she had just finished describing as ducking around
the corner of the box office toward the theater, but not seen by her to
actually go into it.
> which
> would make sense given her initial question to Brewer... but then she is
> describing him in similar terms to Brewer, and just knows he is wanted for
> something. If she had seen him (as she does indicate), and he was acting so
> suspiciously to her, she had no cause to ask Brewer who he was talking about,
> did she?
I guess not, since there is no evidence that I can find that either she
or Brewer ever claimed that she asked Brewer such a question. ;-)
May I ask what the source of your assumption was that she did ask Brewer
which man he was talking about?
> > > > & he most certainly *did* have a
> > > > pistol on him in the theater,
> > >
> > > Or had one forced into his hand.
> >
> > Oh dear...
> >
> > Could be, but that's rather a stretch, don't you think?
>
> The WC version is the stretch.
How is that? Especially that it's more of a "stretch" than your
speculation? "Forced into his hand"?? Are you suggesting the
possibility that one of the police arresting Oswald actually may have
*put* a gun in his hand, a weapon he could use during the struggle, even
if it was not loaded, at the very least to hit an officer with, so that
it could then be later claimed that Oswald had the pistol on his person
already when he was arrested?
If so, that seems an *extraordinary* stretch to me.
How on earth is the WC version a "stretch" when, if Oswald was indeed
the person who shot Tippit, then it would not be a terribly implausible
thing to keep the pistol with him when he left the scene.
> Several
> > witnesses saw Oswald moving away from the scene of the Tippet murder
> > with a pistol in his hand,
>
> And your witnesses are...?
Let's go ahead & look at *all* witnesses who saw a man with a pistol
near the scene, whether or not they identified him as Oswald, or at
least all that I have time for this afternoon, as I don't want to spend
6 hours or so on this one article:
Domingo Benavides:
**********
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw
the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember in which hand he was holding his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; I sure don't.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember if he was trying to put anything in the gun
also?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes. As he turned the corner he was putting another
shell in his gun.
Mr. BELIN - You saw him?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I mean, he was acting like. I didn't see him actually
put a shell in his gun, but he acted like he was trying to reload it.
Maybe he was trying to take out another shell, but he could have been
reloading it or something.
**********
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy,
resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
Mr. BELIN - Were they newspaper pictures or television pictures, or
both, or neither?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Well, television pictures and newspaper pictures. The
thing lasted about a month, I believe, it seemed like.
Mr. BELIN - Pardon.
Mr. BENAVIDES - I showed--I believe they showed pictures of him every
day for a long time there.
**********
The man moving away from Tippit while carrying a gun is quite clear. As
for this being a positive ID of Oswald, it might be somewhat
questionable, but we do see here Benavides expressing a belief that it
was Oswald. I am at this time forgetting whether or not Benavides ever
attended a lineup.
Jimmy Burt, 12-26-63 FBI report:
**********
At that moment he caught a glimpse of a man running on the sidewalk on
the south side of the street. The man at this point had reached the
intersection of 10th and Patton Streets. He
described this man as a white male, approximately 5'8". He was wearing a
light colored short jacket. BURT stated he could not describe the man
further as he was never closer than 50 to 60 yards
from the man. He said at one point he did notice the man had a pistol in
his right hand. Although he is familiar with hand weapons he said that
because of the distance he could not describe the
pistol.
**********
This certainly attests to a man seen carrying a pistol near the scene,
though of course it is not an identification of Oswald as that man. But
do note what he did describe of the man.
Ted Callaway, 11-22-63 affidavit:
**********
I am the manager of the Used Car lot at 501 E. Jefferson. I was working
today when I heard some shots. This was about 1 pm. I ran out into
Patton Street and looked to see what the shooting
was about. I saw a white man running South on Patton with a pistol in
hand. I hollered at him and he looked around at me, then kept on going.
I ran around on 10th Street and saw a Police officer
laying in the street. He looked dead to me. I got the officer's gun and
hollered at a cab driver to come on, We might catch the man. We got into
his cab, number 213 and drove up Patton to
Jefferson and looked all around, but did not see him. The number 2 man
in the line up that I saw at City Hall is the man I saw with the gun in
his hand.
**********
Here not only do we have the man carrying a pistol, in a statement made
that very day, but also a positive ID of the same man as "number 2" in a
lineup. I'm seeing now with my own eyes that Callaway in his more
extensive WC testimony did not directly contradict anything said above,
unless I'm overlooking it. Unfortunately I also don't see any
clarification here in this particular testimony on who this "number 2"
man in the lineup was. However, it took me less than 5 minutes to find
such information elsewhere.
Any guesses on your part as to whom I've discovered to be the "number 2"
man in that lineup? ;-)
Barbara Davis, 11-22-63 affidavit:
**********
Today November 22, 1963 shortly after 1:00 pm, my sister-in-law,
Virginia Davis, and I were lying on the bed with the kids. I heard a
shot and jumped up and heard another shot. I put on my
shoes and went to the door and I saw this man walking across my front
yard unloading a gun. A woman was standing across the street screaming
that "he shot him, he killed him" and pointed
towards a police car. That is the first time I noticed a police car
there. I ran back in the house and called the operator and reported this
to the police. When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of
them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell. After
the police had left I went back into the yard and Virginia found another
shell which I turned over to the police. About 8:00
pm the same day, the police came after me and took me downtown to the
city hall where I saw this man in a lineup. The #2 man in a 4-man lineup
was the same man I saw in my yard, also the one
that was unloading the gun.
**********
Once again, in a statement made on that very day, absolute certainty of
*seeing* the man carrying a gun, & positive ID of that same man as
"number 2" in a lineup.
Virginia Davis, 11-22-63 affidavit:
**********
Today November 22, 1963 about 1:30 pm my sister-in-law and myself were
lying down in our apartment. My sister-in-law is Jeanette Davis, we live
in the same house in different apartments. We
heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side door at Patton
Street. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his
gun. We walked outside and a woman was hollering
"he's dead, he's dead, he's shot". This woman told Jeanette to call the
Police and she did [sic]. I saw the officer that had been shot lying on
Tenth street after Jeanette had called the police. Jeanette
found a empty shell [sic] that the man had unloaded and gave it to the
police. After the Police had left I found a empty shell [sic] in our
yard. This is the same shell I gave to Detective Dhority
[sic]. The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw tonight
as number 2 man in a line up.
**********
Same thing as before: man carrying a gun, ID'd positively as "number 2"
in lineup. And unlike Callaway or her sister-in-law Barbara, Virginia
in her WC testimony made it quite plain that this was Oswald.
Sam Guinyard, 11-22-63 affidavit:
**********
I work as a partner at the used car lot at 501 E. Jefferson. Today about
1:00 pm I heard some shooting near Patton and 10th Street. I ran out and
looked. I saw a white man running south on
Patton Street with a pistol in his hand. The last I saw of this man he
was running west on Jefferson. I went around on 10th Street and saw a
policeman laying in the street. He was bloody and
looked dead to me. The #2 man in the lineup I saw at the city hall is
the same man I saw running with the pistol in his hand.
**********
And in his WC testimony Guinyard made it plain that he was under no
delusion that this "number 2" man was anyone other than Oswald.
Are you starting to see a pattern here?
I've just produced one witness (Burt) who saw "a" man near the scene
with a pistol, but who did not identify him as Oswald or any other
particular person, but who nevertheless gave a description of the man
remarkably similar to that of the other witnesses. I've just produced
one other witness (Benavides) who missed seeing the shooting itself only
by ducking, but saw a man with a pistol standing right beside the fallen
officer emptying shells out of his gun, with an ID which, while perhaps
not "positive" in the strictest sense, still expresses a belief that the
man he saw was almost certainly the same man whose pictures were
subsequently seen in the media. But most importantly, I have just
produced FOUR witnesses who said they saw the man with the gun near the
scene, & moreover positively ID'd him on the same day.
And I've only gotten so far through the letter "G."
These 4 witnesses alone are more than enough to support my assertion
that, "Several witnesses saw Oswald moving away from the scene of the
Tippet murder with a pistol in his hand." "Four" would most definitely
count as "several," & note carefully that I did not say they saw him
*at* the scene with a pistol, but moving in a direction "away" from the
scene. Are these 4 enough for you, or shall we go through more of the
alphabet in my next reply?
Ask & ye shall receive. ;-)
Now you may possibly explain to me why it might be a reasonable
assertion that Oswald did not actually carry a pistol into the theater,
when precisely the same man who was arrested in the theater was
positively ID'd by a minimum of 4 people, all of whom additionally said
they saw him carrying a pistol (& said it on the very day even), &
described him as moving in a general direction away from the scene of
the Tippit murder, & more or less in a direction toward the theater.
> & several of the theater patrons corroborated
> > the police statements that Oswald drew out a pistol.
>
> "Several" did not. Try one. Gibson.
Bzzzt!
George Applin, 11-22-63 affidavit:
**********
On Friday evening, November 22, 1963 at about 1:45 p.m., I was seated on
the main floor of the Texas Theater on West Jefferson in Dallas, Texas.
As I watched the movie I saw an officer walking
down the isle [sic] with a riot gun and about that time the light came
on in the theater. One of the patrolmen walked down to the front of the
theater and walked back up the isle [sic] and I got up and
started walking toward the front of the theater. I saw the officer shake
two men down and then asked a man sitting by himself to stand up. As the
officer started to shake him down, and when he did,
this boy took a swing at the officer and then the next thing I could see
was this boy had his arm around the officer's left shoulder and had a
pistol in his hand. I heard the pistol snap at least once.
Then I saw a large group of officers subdue this boy and arrest him.
**********
Now, admittedly he did not literally say that he saw Oswald "draw" the
pistol, & I suppose Oswald could have grabbed a pistol out of a
policeman's holster (as for it being "forced" into his hand, I find that
quite silly). But in combination with these others seeing him holding a
pistol before he reached the theater, it seems rather unlikely that this
was not the same pistol Applin saw him holding, eh?
In his WC testimony Applin did not claim to have seen Oswald literally
"draw" the gun either, but he did specifically say that he saw it in
Oswald's hand only when the first officer had reached him, & *before*
any other officers reached him, & that he had not seen any pistol appear
before that:
**********
Mr. BALL - Did you see a gun?
Mr. APPLIN - Well, the gun didn't come into view until after about four
or five officers were there.
Mr. BALL - Then did you see a gun?
Mr. APPLIN - Yes, sir; but only--there was one gun. The pistol. It came
into view before any of the other officers got there.
Mr. BALL - That is what I mean. What do you say happened about that? Who
pulled a gun?
Mr. APPLIN - Well, anyhow, the officer was facing this way [indicating]
and Oswald was facing this way [indicating]. And then the gun was
pointed out that way [indicating].
Mr. BALL - Wait a minute. I can't follow you when you say it was "this
way," sir. You told me that this officer asked Oswald to stand up?
Mr. APPLIN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Did he stand up?
Mr. APPLIN - Yes, sir; he did.
Mr. BALL - Then did he put his hand some place on Oswald?
Mr. APPLIN - Yes, sir; along about
Mr. BALL - Where?
Mr. APPLIN - I guess about his hips.
Mr. BALL - Then what did Oswald do?
Mr. APPLIN - He took a right-hand swing at him.
Mr. BALL - What did the officer do?
Mr. APPLIN - The officer grabbed him then.
Mr. BALL - Had you seen the pistol up to that time?
Mr. APPLIN - No, sir; there was not one in view then.
Mr. BALL - How soon after that did you see the pistol?
Mr. APPLIN - I guess it was about--I guess it was about 2 or 3 seconds.
Mr. BALL - Who pulled the pistol?
Mr. APPLIN - I guess it was Oswald, because--for one reason, that he had
on a short sleeve shirt, and I seen a man's arm that was connected to
the gun.
**********
Let's not omit Brewer's description of the incident:
**********
Mr. BELIN - Who hit who first?
Mr. BREWER - Oswald hit McDonald first, and he knocked him to the seat.
Mr. BELIN - Who knocked who?
Mr. BREWER - He knocked McDonald down. McDonald fell against one of the
seats. And then real quick he was back up.
Mr. BELIN - When you say he was----
Mr. BREWER - McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second
and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward
that, and I saw this gun come up
and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. BREWER - No.
Mr. BELIN - You saw the gun up in the air?
Mr. BREWER - And somebody hollered "He's got a gun."
**********
Admittedly he didn't say he saw Oswald "draw" the gun. But notice how
this testimony doesn't contradict Applin's in the slightest, & suggests
that McDonald was the only officer struggling with Oswald at the instant
the gun appeared in Oswald's hand, which was what Applin more
specifically suggested, although he did not name McDonald. I really
don't see how Oswald could have obtained this gun unless he grabbed it
out of McDonald's holster, or he already had it on his person. And I
don't recall McDonald ever claiming that it was his gun that Oswald had
in his hand.
Or shall we go with the possibility that McDonald, the only officer near
enough to Oswald at the time, "forced" a gun into Oswald's hand? A gun
which, at the very least, Oswald could have beat McDonald over the head
with, even if it wasn't loaded?
That seems rather ludicrous to me.
I'm looking at Gibson's testimony now. But although you may have a
point in disputing that any theater witnesses actually saw him "draw"
the gun, I see now that your response that Gibson was the "only one" who
said such a thing is also in error. He didn't say he saw Oswald "draw"
the gun, as in from his clothing, etc., either. He said essentially the
same thing as the other 2 I've cited, that at a certain point he saw
Oswald *holding* a gun.
Shall we go past the letter "G" in my next reply?
> I have tremendous
> > difficulty in believing all these different people were lying.
>
> Only because you've been misled by what the evidence actually shows.
I am showing that the evidence does not "show" anything other than what
I've essentially claimed it shows. I may have been slightly off on
little details such as whether or not theater patrons literally saw
Oswald "draw" a gun, but I wasn't even slightly off in saying that
several witnesses positively ID'd the same man who was arrested in the
theater as the man they themselves had just seen not long before that
carrying a pistol & moving in a general direction away from the scene of
the Tippit shooting & toward the theater.
> > The
> > preponderance of evidence is that he did indeed have a pistol.
>
> The evidence is far from convincing.
Only if one doesn't look at very much of it.
> McDonald said "he was darwing a gun". In the final report, this was changed to
> "he dew the gun".
Which seems to be essentially the same claim. Or are you harping on the
mere triviality of a slight change of tense in the 2 statements?
> Brewer and Gibson go anyhere near having Oswald with a gun cleanly in his
> hand.
EXCUSE ME??? I've just QUOTED them both, plus Applin, as stating he DID
very very very clearly have a gun in his hand, & 4 other witnesses to
the SAME MAN having a gun in his hand less than 30 minutes earlier in
nearby locations. I even quoted Applin saying this very thing on the
day it happened, not just months later for the WC, so we can't even
opine any subsequent "change" to his initial statement to this effect.
> Even McDonal never claimed that.
"He was drawing a gun" & "He drew the gun" do not indicate him having a
gun in his hand???
> > > > > > It seems rather clear that it wasn't the mere fact of Oswald being
> > > > > > "missing" from the TSBD which led to his arrest.
> > > > >
> > > > > Even if tue, hardly the point.
> > > >
> > > > How is it "hardly the point"? The point is precisely that there were
> > > > more reasons to arrest Oswald than merely his absence from the TSBD.
> > >
> > > I know, I know. Not buying a ticket for the movie, and performing Spencer
> > > Tracey impersonations without AGVA membership.
> >
> > You haven't a shred of evidence that he "performed" any such
> > "impersonation."
>
> No. I don't think he did, either. Brewer was probably exaggerating his
> description.
Do you see above where I quoted Brewer as attributing no more agitation
to Oswald other than that he looked "scared"? I think YOU were assuming
more agitation in Brewer's description than he actually gave. No wonder
you postulated a "Hyde" transformation. The reality is that Oswald was
not described as being "cool" as often as you claim, nor was he under
these other circumstances described as being quite as agitated as you
seemed to think. The reality seems to have been more toward the middle
than your assumption of Oswald vacillating wildly from one absolute
extreme to another.
> > > Are you aware of the confict in testimony as to whether the cops who went
> to
> > > the TT knew they were about to encounter an assassin as well as a cop
> killer?
> >
> > I've read them saying that a connection between the Tippet slaying & the
> > shooting of JFK occurred to some of them almost immediately. There
> > were, for example, several that I recall reading saying that shootings
> > of police officers in quiet residential areas like that were far from
> > common in Dallas in 1963, especially in broad daylight. I don't see all
> > of that as particularly implausible reasoning for some of them to fairly
> > quickly suspect that there was a connection between the two.
>
> Then why did some have trouble admitting it?
What "trouble" are you talking about?
> > > So what were these other reasons they had to arrest Oswald specifcally...
> as
> > > opposed to an unknown suspect?
> >
> > I'm not aware of any evidence that at first "Oswald" was to be
> > "arrested."
>
> My comment was in response to this by you: "It seems rather clear that it
> wasn't the mere fact of Oswald being "missing" from the TSBD which led to his
> arrest."
Of course, as at that time it seemed to me that you were assuming they
were already out to literally arrest him that early, just as with
Rachley/Baker, I was responding to your assertion that she didn't say
anything about returning to the TSBD only discovering later that she did
say it. I found out more after posting that comment.
> You quoted Hill quoting Fritz as merely putting out an
> > order to "pick up a man named Lee Oswald." The word "arrest" is not
> > used there. "Pick up" may have simply meant "pick up for questioning,"
> > not "arrest." I'm also not aware that the man in the Texas Theater was
> > even suspected of being Oswald, i.e., the same employee who was missing
> > from the TSBD, at the time of his arrest. Is there some evidence that
> > the DPD suspected in advance that the Oswald of the TSBD was going to be
> > the person about whom they had received the call from Postal regarding
> > him sneaking into the theater?
>
> I have no idea if such evidence exists.
Exactly.
> Are you claiming that Oswald being reported as absent has absolutely no
> importance in the scheme of things?
Nope. What I am claiming is that there is not a shred of evidence that
there must necessarily be anything suspicious about it.
> The only thing I know is that they
> > suspected this to be the killer of Tippet, & some of them suspected that
> > it had some connection to the JFK shooting as well, as I've explained
> > above. I'm not aware that, even though Truly did mention Oswald
> > specifically as missing, even Fritz during the time before Oswald's
> > arrest actually suspected him of possibly being involved in the JFK
> > shooting. Fritz seems only to have wanted him brought in for
> > questioning since he was a TSBD employee, & seems to have been surprised
> > to find that very man already under arrest & waiting to be questioned by
> > him down at his office.
>
> They were the luckiest bunch of bumblers since the Keystone mob weren't they?
I don't see "luck" having anything to do with it. Truly reports one of
his employees missing from the building from which the shots were
allegedly fired. Fritz reacts by putting out an order to find this
employee, with no suggestion whatsoever that he or anyone else at that
time suspected that employee to be involved in the shooting, or that
this employee was to be arrested, merely "picked up." During this same
time a man shoots a police officer in a neighborhood very near to where
this same employee lives, & a man is seen by several people moving away
from the scene carrying a pistol. This very same man is seen sneaking
into the Texas Theater. This very same man is *arrested* in the Texas
Theater. That it was at the very least the same man who was seen very
close to the Tippit shooting with a pistol is subsequently confirmed by
multiple witnesses, as 4 that we've seen so far positively ID'd him,
plus the same man being ID'd by Brewer & theater patrons as the man they
saw scuffling with police & being arrested. Only after they have him in
custody do the police learn that this man is ALSO the TSBD employee
reported missing. I do not know of a shred of evidence that there was
the slightest suspicion in their minds that the TSBD employee & the man
reported at & near the Tippet murder might be the same person.
The "luck" may only be due to this employee being indeed the shooter of
Tippit at the least, for which there is a good deal of evidence, indeed,
a "preponderance," just as I said. Absolutely proven that he shot
Tippit? No, & I've never claimed such a thing. I will claim (& never
from this day forward tire of claiming it) that there is far far far
MORE evidence that he did shoot Tippit & DID carry a pistol into the
theater than there is evidence to the contrary.
Or was it "lucky" that this also happened to be the alleged assassin of
JFK? That would only be so if he definitely *wasn't*, or that he most
definitely *didn't* have any connection to it whatsoever, making his
trip home & then to the theater totally unrelated to the JFK shooting.
Otherwise, do consider that if he actually *did* shoot JFK, he would
certainly also have a very clear motive to go home & grab a pistol, to
shoot the first police officer who stopped him after he'd gotten his
pistol, & a very clear motive to hide in the theater. His actions would
be perfectly plausible under those circumstances, & since in those
circumstances the JFK shooting, the Tippit shooting, & the theater
incident would all be directly related, there would be no "luck"
involved, other than the "luck" of Brewer seeing him sneak into the
theater.
> > > > > Shouldn't he have
> > > > > concluded the same of Oswald?
> > > >
> > > > Nope, because Truly didn't see Oswald *outside* the building "just
> > > > before the firing of the gun."
> > >
> > > No. He allegedly saw him 4 floors below where the sniper allegedly fired
> from,
> > > immediatley after the shooting looking cool, calm and collected.
> >
> > "Immediately" is perhaps a trifle misleading, & I would imagine that a
> > gunman who wished to appear innocent would make himself look cool, calm,
> > & collected.
>
> Uh huh. Excpet when trying to hide in shoe store foyers?
As that is hardly the only time he was reported to lack composure, that
means nothing. And note that I was only responding to your assertion; I
was not actually claiming myself that he was "cool, calm, & collected"
at that time, & we see me quoted directly below this stating why I think
this assertion assumes too much that is not in actual evidence. Do also
think carefully: if, & I'm only saying *if* Oswald did indeed shoot both
JFK & Tippit, he was in a rather different circumstance at the shoestore
than in the lunchroom. In the lunchroom he didn't really have much time
to exhibit any obvious agitation, & said not a word to indicate either
way, & may have been immediately relieved when so quickly dismissed as a
suspect. But by the time Brewer saw him, Oswald would not have escaped
as easily as he may have hoped, for by then he would have additionally
shot & killed yet another person, a police officer to boot, who he may
have assumed came very close to apprehending him, as Baker did not. I
do not find it even mildly implausible that he would be more agitated by
the time he reached the shoestore than he had been in the lunchroom, &
we don't even know for certain that he wasn't equally agitated then,
only that Baker & Truly didn't seem to notice any obvious signs of that
in their very brief assessment of him.
> > Do remember that Baker & Truly did not observe Oswald in
> > the lunchroom for very long at all. Baker asked him to come here, asked
> > Truly if the man worked here, Truly replied yes, & then Baker
> > immediately dismissed him as a suspect & both he & Truly went back to
> > the stairway. Not much time at all to fully assess Oswald's demeanor;
> > it was a very brief encounter.
Yep, there it is.
> > > > > Was Oswald acting suspiciously when spotted? Was
> > > > > he huffing and puffing? Was he nervous?
> > > >
> > > > Not according to Truly. Truly also never said Oswald was holding a
> > > > Coke. ;-)
> >
> > Kinda surprised you skipped over that one. ;-)
>
> Because the person encountered, wasn't.
Wasn't actually drinking a Coke, you mean?
> > You do realize that without having the Coke when Baker & Truly saw him,
> > this reduces the needed time still further?
>
> Yep. You do realise that if the encounter was on the 4th floor with a coat and
> no coke, Oswald could not have been seen moments later on the 2nd floor
> without coat, but with coke?
There is no evidence that he was seen with either. And you seem to be
making too much out of the "4th floor" business. Baker only named that
floor in his very earliest statement on the day of the assassination, in
which he specifically said "third or fourth." I see no evidence that he
was not simply confused & at the time of the lunchroom encounter simply
didn't recall in the heat of the moment how many flights of stairs
they'd gone up when this encounter occurred. I can *easily* see myself
as not counting flights under such urgent conditions. Obviously he was
later corrected on this matter when Truly clarified that the lunchroom
was on the 2nd floor.
Though this memo by Johnson is undated, it seems obvious that it must be
quite early, as Johnson seems merely to be repeating what Baker said in
his own affidavit regarding the floor number, which might indicate that
Baker was not corrected on the floor number until later, possibly not
even on the same day. I would imagine that if an erroneous floor number
was in Baker's own same-day affidavit, he would have been naming that
same floor to others on that day.
> Note Baker did not mention in his statement that he could ID the suspect now
> sitting in the same rrom as the person he encountered - nor did he describe
> him accurately despite a clear view as he wrote.
Say what? He DID ID the person he had stopped in the TSBD as being the
same person he now saw sitting there, whether or not he initially named
the wrong floor. And where's the inaccurate description? There's no
"description" of Oswald's appearance anywhere in that.
There's also not a thing in all that about a Coke or a coat, so I'm at a
loss as to why you went into all that.
No, look above at my text where you responded to it with "Fair enough."
As I explained farther up, I was not myself claiming that the DPD
intended to arrest Oswald from the moment they found him to be "missing"
from the TSBD, only responding to an apparent suspicion on your part
that this was so. It's not a matter of me "backing away" from a claim,
since I never made the claim in the first place. Just as I explained, &
just as you acknowledged, I was merely responding to YOUR apparent claim
without thinking more carefully about it & checking into its veracity.
Now, let's be clear: I ALSO haven't said that you yourself ever claimed
specifically that the DPD intended to "arrest" Oswald when they were
informed he was missing from the TSBD. But the tone of your articles in
general makes it plain that you attach some sort of suspicion as to why
they would put out an order to find him, when they didn't seem to put
out any such order on any other "missing" TSBD employee, & this seemed
to imply that you thought they might have intended to arrest him this
early, rather than merely pick him up for the same sort of questioning
that they were giving the other TSBD employees.
But how do you know they didn't? And don't forget that most of the
employees who had not yet reentered the building were nevertheless
standing outside nearby. It may simply be that none of the other
managers specifically noticed any other employees completely "missing."
They may have seen those employees standing outside. I'm not saying
that some employees of other companies didn't indeed wander farther
away, just suggesting that no other managers may have been *aware* at
that time that any of *their* employees were at that time completely
unaccounted for. Let's also remember again that we have almost no
record of any employees checking in with their employers before leaving
for the remainder of the day, but common sense would suggest that most,
if not all, would do so. An employee simply leaving the workplace
without asking permission is often fired, especially if they do it more
than once, as we all know. Granted these were much more unusual
circumstances, but I'm still having trouble with the idea of more than a
very very very few of these employees simply leaving for the rest of the
day & not saying a word to their employers if they had the opportunity
to talk to them.
Okay..........I guess I'm sort of seeing your point now...sort of. Did
you perhaps think that it may simply have been that the floor-laying
turned out to require more labor than had been originally expected.
> just as
> the question of where the luncheon will be held is being decided... and just
> as the Irving Organising Committee of Good Samaritans is putting feelers out
> in just the right place for a Commie Ex-Marine.
You seem to be leading toward a conclusion that Truly himself, at the
very least, was directly involved in the "conspiracy" in some way.
There's almost literally no other way for any of this to be at all
suspicious unless he had an agenda in some way connected to the
assassination. As usual, too many people have to be included in this
for all these details to be coordinated, making it more, not less,
implausible that the "secret" could be kept this many years.
> > > > > held strong anti-Kennedy sentiments,
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm, never read that before in my life. Source?
> > >
> > > Manchester's Death of a President.
> >
> > Ok. And Manchester's source for that assertion is...?
>
> Interviews. Haven't time to dig it out at present. Will do at some stage if
> you require.
Well, I don't "require" it precisely, but I'd like to know the source.
If you have the book it should only take you a minute or two to see if
he footnoted the source. I personally learned long ago the hard way not
to trust *anything* which I read in books about the assassination at
face value, especially if I've read it in only one book, as I've long
ago lost count of how many assertions I've seen made in books which I
have discovered through my own meager research, simply by checking
original sources, to be either provably false or misleading at best.
And I've seen Manchester cited as the sole source for some questionable
assertations recently by more than one poster, so I'd like to know just
how reliable he is. I note presently that your statement was made as if
it was proven fact: we still see it quoted above, "held strong
anti-Kennedy sentiments," with no qualifiers such as "probably." Do
remember that you said to me, "Glad to see all your qualifiers out for
exercise." I might say the same of you on this issue, as you appear to
have accepted the word of one single author at face value as proven
fact, without doing any investigation whatsoever into the veracity of
his claim.
> > > Also the statement of Otis Williams: "After returning inside the Texas
> > > School Book Depository Building just after hearing the three shots on
> > > November 22, 1963 I assisted a police detective in making a search
> > > of the 2nd floor of the building."
> > >
> > > Why didn't Williams and this unknown detective bump into Oswald?
> >
> > This only indicates that he returned to the building just after the
> > shots. It does not indicate how soon after that Williams began
> > assisting the detective.
>
> I disagree.
On what basis? All he said was that he helped the detective in the
search after he went back inside the building. He said he went back
inside the building just after hearing the 3 shots. He *didn't* say
that this search began immediately after he went back inside, & I'd ask
how it could have anyway, with Baker being the first officer in the
building, & no actual "detective" arriving until later.
> > > And why was this detective interested in the 2nd
> > > floor in the first place?
> >
> > Just a wild guess, but perhaps different detectives were assigned or
> > decided to search different floors, & this particular detective was
> > assigned or decided on the 2nd floor?
>
> Was there perhaps, a specific report that something may have happened up
> there?
Could be. Is there *evidence* of a specific report made that early of
something happening on that floor? Is there *evidence* that all floors
did not receive equally individual attention at this time?
But I never claimed otherwise. All I said was that he may not have
*realized* that Givens had not returned the building by that time. I
see the word "realized" plain as day in my text above to which you were
responding.
> > > > > > Doubtless I must be simply looking in the wrong places,
> > > > >
> > > > > Yup.
> > > >
> > > > That has now been corrected, as I am looking at Mr. Hill's testimony as
> > > > I type these words. Thanks. I'm glad you said "Hill" above though, as
> > > > I'd still be looking in the wrong place now otherwise. ;-)
> > >
> > > What day is it anyway?
> >
> > Huh?
>
> Yeah, thanks for help. I had to find out from another source.
Um...
I'm still missing the point of this joke, if that's what it is. Would
you kindly explain what on earth it is that you've been talking about in
this last exchange about the "day"?
--
Caeruleo
I see that approximately 4 hours after you posted this reply to me, you
posted this text in reply to Jean Davidson:
"I had always taken it as fact that Oswald did indeed offer his cab to
an older lady. But I must say that what you have posted of Whaley's
varied accounts of this incident have now led to a bit of doubt in my
mind."
I think you & I have both learned (her info was new to me too) since
posting our previous articles that it is not at all clear that in fact
Oswald *wasn't* in a hurry at the time of taking the cab as well, so we
do not actually have any solid evidence of any repeated "reversal" in
his manner during this time period.
> >> >> CT's will also definitely dispute the facile assumption that Oswald
> shot
> >>
> >> >> Tippit, which you throw in as another "accepted fact."
> >> >
> >> >Erm, not a bad point, so far as it goes, but it does indeed come far
>
> >> >closer to "accepted fact" than implicating him in the shooting of JFK,
>
> >> >as he was seen by plenty of witnesses both approaching & leaving Tippet,
> >>
> >> >with a pistol in his hand.
> >>
> >> There can be little doubt that the Tippit witness accounts pose a problem
> >> for those who posit Oswald's complete innocence in that crime. Therefore,
> >> while I yet consider his innocence in that crime to also be a strong
> >> possibility,
> >> I also allow for the possibility that Oswald did indeed kill Tippit.
> >
> >I don't consider the possibility of him being innocent in that shooting
>
> >to be particularly "strong" with that many witnesses seeing him both
> >approaching & leaving Tippet, the latter with his pistol drawn, &
> >furthermore seeing him along his route to the Texas Theater.
>
> The timing aspect and Poe's problems with the "marked" shells are but two
> of several problems I see in attempting to fix sole blame on Oswald in the
> Tippit slaying.
That may be. However, I've just finished posting another article in
this thread in which I cite an awful lot of witness testimony to Oswald
being seen & positively ID'd by multiple persons carrying a pistol in a
direction generally away from the Tippit scene & generally toward the
theater, combined with other witnesses at the theater positively ID'ing
exactly the same man as the one who was arrested. Proof of him shooting
Tippit that is not, but it seems to me to make it more likely than not
that he did.
> >> >> Nor did Oswald "duck into a shoe store"--the owner saw Oswald through
> >>
> >> >> the window.
> >> >
> >> >True, he did not literally enter the store, but he did come into the
>
> >> >recessed foyer leading to the entrance, just at the time a police car
>
> >> >went by.
> >>
> >> I see a couple of curious things worth noting here. First, for some
> >> reason,
> >> Oswald's usual calm demeanor appears to have deserted him entirely here.
> >
> >Why do you assume his calm demeanor to be "usual"? He was carefully
> >observed by people for less than 48 hours of his life.
>
> At moments of what would be presumed to be heightened fear and or heightened
> adrenaline flow, Oswald's track record in public does indeed appear to be
> that of a man who remains calm and composed. We know that at the time of
> his encounter with Baker, after allegedly just blowing off JFK's head, that
> he struck both Baker and Truly as calm.
As I have also said in recent articles, that is an oversimplification of
what they said. The encounter was extremely brief, & before Oswald had
any real chance to explain himself in the slightest, Truly informed
Baker that Oswald was an employee, & Baker immediately lost interest in
him & went back toward the stairs. Neither of them recalled any
*obvious* sign of agitation on Oswald's part during that very brief
encounter in which they had little to go on in assessing his demeanor.
We don't know for a fact that he wasn't in truth quite agitated in mind,
or what he might have said had Truly not interrupted so quickly & spared
Oswald any further questioning at that time.
> We have the statements from Stuckey,
> that even though Oswald was ambushed and broadsided during his radio debate
> with his "defection" to the Soviet Union, he comported himeslf very well,
> remaining composed and cooly parrying questions put to him. Of course, he
> was extremely cool both during and after his street fight scene with
> Bringuier,
> which led to his arrest, and his interrogators, almost to a man, have often
> reflected upon his cool demeanor during even the most intense interrogation
> sessions, some even opining that he seemed to have training in interrogation
> techniques.
As I've *also* noted in another article today, you are describing
extraordinarily different circumstances from what he would have been
under had he actually shot both JFK & Tippit, or even either one. Being
"ambushed" at a radio debate is hardly anything like just having shot
someone, & neither was the street scuffle over something that was a mere
triviality compared to a murder. When he was being interviewed by the
FBI in N.O., he was not alleged to have committed a murder or even much
of anything even mildly illegal, other than "disturbing the peace."
> So yes, I would call Oswald a cool customer, whose coolness
> inexplicably
> deserted him, if the official accounts are to be believed, in the wake of
> the Tippit shooting.
Then you're not using a very applicable set of circumstances for that
determination. In the wake of murdering a police officer alone, a
normally calm person wouldn't quite reasonably be much more agitated
than usual? "Inexplicably" is *hardly* the first adverb that would come
to my mind. He hadn't supposedly done anything within light-years of
being that serious on any of these other occasions you mentioned, except
for the lunchroom thing, which does not itself provide any remotely
conclusive evidence of his emotional state either way. Even in the
Walker shooting, if he did do it, he did not actually kill anyone. And
Marina described him as quite agitated when he came home that night.
November 22 1963 is the earliest date that Lee Harvey Oswald is even
*alleged* to have committed murder. He is only alleged to have
attempted it one previous time. He's furthermore alleged to have
committed not one, but TWO murders on the very earliest date in his life
in which he even supposedly BECAME a murderer for the very first time.
I hardly find it "inexplicable" that such a person would lose his normal
composure, no matter how tightly-controlled or even "trained" it had
always been before that.
Yes, & I've seen that since when responding over the past several days
to Greg, but I'd forgotten that I said this to you. My apologies.
> Clearly, then, there was instsnt recognition on the part of Brewer when this
> mysterious man ducked into his store alcove that afternoon. But how could
> this be, unless Oswald had shopped there? Apparently, Brewer worked days,
> as he was on duty that Friday afternoon.
Does that mean that he *always* worked days only, never evenings?
> But while Oswald was living in Oak
> Cliff, his weekdays were accounted for, as he was working at the Depository.
> In addition, most of Oswald's weekends were also accounted for, so where
> were the opportunities for Oswald to go shoe shopping in Brewer's store?
Was the store definitely never open past the time Oswald got home from
work?
> Indeed, no evidence was ever adduced that Oswald had ever been in Brewer's
> store. Yet questioner Belin was, incredibly, totally uninterested in the
> possibility that Brewer had previously encountered Oswald. And possibly with
> good reason. For had Brewer indicated that Oswald had been a customer at
> a time when it could not possibly have been the real Oswald, this would have
> opened up the strong possibility of imposture, which was a can of worms the
> Commission wanted no part of.
It also opened up the strong possibility that Brewer was merely
mistaken. How often have you seen someone you thought you knew, only
later to discover that it was someone else who merely looked like that
person? It's happened to me plenty of times. It's more likely to
happen with a person whom we don't actually "know," per say, & have
never technically met. Did Brewer ever say that he had actually waited
on Oswald before?
> But knowing that Brewer readily recognized
> the man who ducked into his foyer that day has led me to speculate that
> perhaps
> an Oswald lookalike *deliberately* led Brewer, through highly suspicious
> actions, to the Texas Theatre and where the real Oswald sat biding his time
> or attempting to make a contact.
That could be, but don't you find this whole "lookalike" business to be
something of a stretch? That assertion, in various forms, has certainly
been made by plenty of conspiracists over the years, but that seems to
put an awful lot of planning into this "conspiracy" to make such a
scenario work, with not a single "lookalike" or "planner" ever having
been conclusively identified. As usual, with practically every
conspiracy scenario I've ever seen, one is forced to include too many
people to make it work, & still be kept so secret all these years. It
isn't impossible, but it seems highly improbable to me.
And you certainly have to indulge in wild unfounded speculation to get
him in there to "make a contract," as the evidence that that would have
been his specific purpose there is virtually non-existent.
> Why else fail to buy a ticket and sneak
> into the theatre, if not to attract attention to oneself and appear to be
> a furtive fugitive on the run? For the real Oswald had plenty of money on
> him to purchase a ticket.
I don't see the money as being an issue necessarily. Remember that
police cars had just gone by not long before, which supposedly prompted
Oswald to duck into the deeply-recessed foyer of the shoestore. Then
look carefully at Postal's rather detailed description of him ducking
around the corner of the theater's box office or whatever it was, toward
the entrance of the theater, while coming close in the process to
colliding with her boss as he was leaving. Oswald may have merely seen
an opportunity to get out of sight with Postal's back turned, moreover
in a dark theater in which he would be much less plainly visible & thus
not necessarily remembered by other patrons than he would have been even
in the shoestore. I've seen no suggestion that the man whom Brewer was
following had the slightest idea he was being followed, since I don't
recall Brewer ever saying that the man looked back & saw him following,
so if it was Oswald, I don't see that he would have thought himself to
be taking much of a "risk" of being seen by anyone at all going into the
theater. Where else in that neighborhood could he have gone which would
have afforded such darkened concealment? Certainly not the shoestore, &
certainly not that library which was also searched, & not even that
church which was reported but not searched, supposedly. Neither would
he have been particularly concealed wandering around that nearby
residential neighborhood, as people in house after house after house
might see him pass by. Somewhere in one of their yards or garages? But
anyone living in those houses might discover him at any time. Only in
the darkened theater did he have a chance of not being clearly observed
& recalled later.
Occam's Razor: the most likely explanation is usually the correct one.
All this about lookalikes & so on is considerably less likely than a
murderer simply being on the run, & finally ducking into the first place
he found which afforded darkened concealment in which even others
present might never get a good enough look at him to later recall him.
They probably wouldn't have either, if the house lights had not been
turned up & he had not been arrested in their presence.
Almost any effort to make all this suspicious absolutely requires adding
extraordinary complexity to the scenario, as your suspicions about
lookalikes demonstrates resoundingly. Why is it not simply more logical
that when a man is seen running away from the scene of the murder of a
policeman carrying a pistol by multiple witnesses, is positively ID'd by
several of these witnesses on the same day, with the same man also being
positively ID'd on the same day by several other witnesses as the man
arrested in the theater, that this is more than likely the same man, not
a "lookalike"?
Jean Davison
"O.H. LEE" <ga...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3e9b...@127.0.0.1...
Hello "Mr. Lee",
Please call me Jean. Thanks for your response. I am wondering why it took me so
long to notice the conflicts in Whaley's accounts. I think I'd assumed it was a fact,
too, because I'd read it so many times. Big mistake!
Jean
Jean Davison
Yes, a few like Troy West and Eddie Piper were inside the building alone and
had no verifiable alibi. Don't forget to include Lee Harvey Oswald in this number, since
he too was inside and had no verifiable alibi.
However, we were discussing workers "who didn't return to work." West and Piper
remained at work until after they'd been questioned by police and released, about 2 PM.
By 2 PM, Oswald had already been to Oak Cliff and back and was under arrest.
Oswald was inside, had no alibi, and left early. You don't find that
suspicious?
>
> As for those outside, some stated they could not recall who was "at my elbow"
> as one put it - it is pretty obvious that not all could have had someone vouch
> for there whereabouts.
This woman was an exception, I think. Almost everyone else outside had an
alibi, according to the affidavits in CE 1381.
>
> Another example is Warren Caster. Caster stated he was at a business lunch at
> the university in Denton with a Dr Vernon V Payne during the assassination.
> This alibi was never checked out with Dr Payne.
Are you sure it wasn't checked out? Is there any reason to believe that Caster
was elsewhere?
>
> Only Givens was on
> > Truly's
> > warehouse crew, and Truly didn't report Givens missing because he knew that
> > Givens, unlike
> > Oswald, was outside the building during the shooting. In addition to about
> > 15 warehouse
> > workers, there were several dozen TSBD office workers, many of them female.
>
> As pointed out already, how could Truly have known Oswald was not outside at
> the time of the shots? If you answer because he saw him moments later on the
> 2nd floor, then by the same locic, he should have also assumed he could not
> have been on the 6th floor.
Why should Truly have assumed that LHO couldn't have been on the 6th floor, if he'd
never timed it? Why should he have assumed that Oswald had been outside and then rushed
to the back of the building, arriving before he and Baker did?
>
> > > Roy Lewis: "Following the assassination all employees were dismissed from
> > > work, and I left the building at about 1:15pm." [this is PRIOR to Oswald
> > > being
> > > "discovered" as missing]
> >
> > Truly didn't *report* Oswald missing until after 1:15, most likely,
> > but that was
> > after he'd looked up Oswald's address and located Fritz. According to his
> > statement,
> > Lewis was a warehouse worker like Oswald, and others in the crew gave later
> > estimates of the time they were let go.
>
> It is the report to Fritz which is the critical moment. By then, he knew the
> 6th floor was where they believed the sniper was.
I don't agree that Truly should've thought the 6th floor ruled out Oswald. In
fact, he would've known that this was a book storage area where his men customarily
worked.
> I can't recall was Frazier said in in WC testimony, but in this CE 1381, he
> stated he left between 1:00pm and 2:pm. No mention is made of whether he had
> permission.
It is stated in Frazier's testimony that he and fellow workers were questioned by
the police on the first floor, and gave their names and addresses. Then they were told
they could leave.
>
> > > Roberta Parker: "I was standing across the street from the Texas School
> > > Book
> > > Depository Building entrance... I was not allowed back inside the building
> > > until about 3:30pm and then only in the company of a policeman..."
> > >
> > > Bonnie Richey: "I left the Texas School Book Depository building at about
> > > 12:15pm on November 22, 1963, and never returned to this building on that
> > > date."
> >
> > These two also were outside the building during the shooting.
> > Since the WC
> > didn't claim that Oswald was the only employee who didn't return to work, I
> > don't see why it matters when they left.
>
> They may have been unnaccounted for.
Roberta Parker was alibi-ed by coworkers Delores Kounas and Lloyd Viles.
Bonnie Richey was alibi-ed with 4 people she was standing with. (CE 1381)
BTW, I was wrong when I said earlier that there were about 90+ workers in the
TSBD that day. My memory failed me. It was actually about 70, of which about 15 were on
Truly's work crew. The rest were TSBD office workers on the 2nd floor and employees of
various book publishers on the 3rd and 4th floors.
Yes, he knew that.
>
> Regardless, as I've already said, if Givens was off the hook because Truly knew
> he was out of the building, then similarly, Oswald should not have caused him
> suspicion once he knew the sniper was apparently on the 6th floor.
Why not? As he said, "it may not mean anything," but "he's missing." So you
don't think he should've told Fritz that Oswald left?
>
> > > Otis Williams: "After returning inside the Texas School Book Depository
> > > Building just after hearing the three shots on November 22, 1963 I
> > > assisted a
> > > police detective in making a search of the 2nd floor of the building."
> > >
> > > Steven Wilson [who viewed the motorcade alone from a position 3 floors
> > > directly below the "sniper's nest"]: "As the motorcade proceeded, my view
> > > of
> > > President Kennedy and his car was obscured by some trees which are on Elm
> > > Street. In a matter of seconds or less after the President's car and
> > > occupants
> > > were obscured from my view by the trees, I heard three shots...The shots
> > > did
> > > not really sound like they came from above me." [later in the statement he
> > > does say he believes that a person in the same position as he, except on a
> > > higher floor could probably have seen over the trees. But this is just a
> > > guess
> > > on his part, as he never had reason to be on the 6th floor, and therefore
> <\> he could not have known for sure]
> >
> > But we have photos taken from the 6th floor showing where the tree
> was.
>
> It was still in its original place, I hope.
>
Yes, and Wilson's observation didn't move it. :-)
> Geneva Hine
> > was on the second floor, southeast corner, and thought the shots came from
> > inside the
> > building, so opinions varied.
>
> Yes, they did. But who would have more cred on this, a young female, or an
> elderly male, who no doubt had his share of experiences of hearing gunfire?
Plenty of young Texas females have heard gunfire, but I wouldn't count on any
earwitness to locate the rifle. There's better evidence, wouldn't you agree?
>
> > > I strongly doubt there was any roll call, Vern.
> >
> > I agree, there was no formal "roll call." However, Oswald was the
> > only worker who was inside the building at 12:30 who left the area before the building
> > was
> > sealed off,
>
> Even if I allow that to stand as an unchallemged fact, Truly did not know at
> the time that Oswald was the ONLY perosn who met that crieria.
Well, I hope you won't leave it unchallenged. And Truly didn't claim to know
that Oswald was the "only worker who was inside the building at 12:30 who left the area
before the building was sealed off."
>
> > according to the sworn testimony. Apparently no CT thinks that's
> > suspicious. Roy Truly
> > reporting Oswald missing... now *that's* suspicious, right?
>
> In the circumstances, it doesn't look good... especially when he may have lied
> about his and Baker's encounter with Oswald, and that he created an artificial
> vacancy at just the right time for Oswald etc etc...
I find it amazing that, to many CTs, everybody is under suspicion but Oswald.
Could someone explain why that is?
Jean
>
> greg
>
> Jean
> >
> >
> > > greg
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Jean Davison
"James K. Olmstead" <Thp...@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:3e9b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> Jean: The cab ride incident is interesting....but is it critical to the
> case at this point? To me regardless of the level of guilt of Oswald,
> once he crossed the street, from the TSBD, he was "in the clear" until his
> next move, in relationship to his involvement.
>
> How much effect on Oswald does this incident have?
Offering a cab isn't an important issue by any means. It's often
used, though, to argue that Oswald was innocent. (Why would a fleeing man
offer to give up his means of escape?) It came up again in the "Another
TSBD Employee..." thread.
I think Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment may've been the first to quote
Whaley saying that LHO offered to give up his cab. And it'll be quoted
for years to come, I'm sure. Probably about, oh, six weeks from now...
>
> good post btw
Thanks, Jim!
Jean
O.H. LEE
Due to Ms. Davison's post on this issue, it would appear that the evidence
that Oswald actually "offered" his cab to a lady MAY be somewhat less solid,
though hardly ruled out. I did notice that one consistency in the first two
bits of testimony that Whaley offered was that Oswald did apparently begin
to open his passenger door. This might well still indicate a willingness
on Lee's part to give up that cab. So I am not ruling out Whaley's story
quite yet.
I DO allow for the *possibility* that Lee shot Tippit.
True, but Baker's testimony also indicates that he clearly had his gun leveled
at Oswald. Such a thing is usually far from a common occurrance in one's
life, yet Baker noticed absolutely no signs of panic or shock to Oswald's
demeanor at all. Indeed, Baker left that room not suspecting Oswald of being
suspicious in the least.
Neither of them recalled any
>*obvious* sign of agitation on Oswald's part during that very brief
>encounter in which they had little to go on in assessing his demeanor.
>We don't know for a fact that he wasn't in truth quite agitated in mind,
>or what he might have said had Truly not interrupted so quickly & spared
>Oswald any further questioning at that time.
In short, Oswald's demeanor in the lunchroom could clearly be described as
that of an innocent person also, correct? I find that quite calm and cool
for a fellow who had, allegedly, just blown the head off the President of
the United States some 90 seconds earlier.
>> We have the statements from Stuckey,
>> that even though Oswald was ambushed and broadsided during his radio debate
>> with his "defection" to the Soviet Union, he comported himeslf very well,
>> remaining composed and cooly parrying questions put to him. Of course,
he
>> was extremely cool both during and after his street fight scene with
>> Bringuier,
>> which led to his arrest, and his interrogators, almost to a man, have
often
>> reflected upon his cool demeanor during even the most intense interrogation
>> sessions, some even opining that he seemed to have training in interrogation
>> techniques.
>
>As I've *also* noted in another article today, you are describing
>extraordinarily different circumstances from what he would have been
>under had he actually shot both JFK & Tippit, or even either one. Being
>"ambushed" at a radio debate is hardly anything like just having shot
>someone, & neither was the street scuffle over something that was a mere
>triviality compared to a murder. When he was being interviewed by the
>FBI in N.O., he was not alleged to have committed a murder or even much
>of anything even mildly illegal, other than "disturbing the peace."
But there is absolutely NOTHING in the evidentiary record that between the
time when JFK was shot and the time that Tippit was shot, that Oswald was
ever anything but cool and collected. This would extend to several witnesses
- McWatters, Bledsoe, Whaley, and virtually ALL of the Tippit witnesses.
No one described Tippit's killer, even if it was Oswald, as a raving lunatic
on the street that day. Some thought that Tippit and his assailant were merely
carrying on a quiet conversation just prior to the shooting. Indeed, Tippit
witness Callaway claimed to have hollered to the gunman something like: "Hey
man, what the hell's going on." At this, according to Callaway, rather than
continue running off, the gunman actually paused and turned to answer Callaway,
though Callaway could not quite make out what he said. This seems to be a
far cry from the "scared, funny looking, frightened" man that ducked into
Brewer's shoe store foyer.
>> So yes, I would call Oswald a cool customer, whose coolness
>> inexplicably
>> deserted him, if the official accounts are to be believed, in the wake
of
>> the Tippit shooting.
>
>Then you're not using a very applicable set of circumstances for that
>determination. In the wake of murdering a police officer alone, a
>normally calm person wouldn't quite reasonably be much more agitated
>than usual?
Not if he had all along been demonstrating a remarkable ability to remain
calm after allegedly assassinating the President, no.
"Inexplicably" is *hardly* the first adverb that would come
>to my mind. He hadn't supposedly done anything within light-years of
>being that serious on any of these other occasions you mentioned, except
>for the lunchroom thing, which does not itself provide any remotely
>conclusive evidence of his emotional state either way. Even in the
>Walker shooting, if he did do it, he did not actually kill anyone. And
>Marina described him as quite agitated when he came home that night.
But not after succeeding at blowing away JFK?
>November 22 1963 is the earliest date that Lee Harvey Oswald is even
>*alleged* to have committed murder. He is only alleged to have
>attempted it one previous time. He's furthermore alleged to have
>committed not one, but TWO murders on the very earliest date in his life
>in which he even supposedly BECAME a murderer for the very first time.
>I hardly find it "inexplicable" that such a person would lose his normal
>composure, no matter how tightly-controlled or even "trained" it had
>always been before that.
But shouldn't JFK's murder have set such agitation off? Why would it take
the Tippit shooting for Oswald to lose his cool, not JFK's?
I'd surely have liked for the Warren Commission to have gotten the answer
to this question. You too?
>> But while Oswald was living in Oak
>> Cliff, his weekdays were accounted for, as he was working at the Depository.
>> In addition, most of Oswald's weekends were also accounted for, so where
>> were the opportunities for Oswald to go shoe shopping in Brewer's store?
>
>Was the store definitely never open past the time Oswald got home from
>work?
The key here is Brewer's presence at the store, not neccessarily the hours
that Hardy's Shoe Store was open.
>> Indeed, no evidence was ever adduced that Oswald had ever been in Brewer's
>> store. Yet questioner Belin was, incredibly, totally uninterested in the
>> possibility that Brewer had previously encountered Oswald. And possibly
with
>> good reason. For had Brewer indicated that Oswald had been a customer
at
>> a time when it could not possibly have been the real Oswald, this would
have
>> opened up the strong possibility of imposture, which was a can of worms
the
>> Commission wanted no part of.
>
>It also opened up the strong possibility that Brewer was merely
>mistaken. How often have you seen someone you thought you knew, only
>later to discover that it was someone else who merely looked like that
>person?
Well, that may be all well and true, but I am bothered by the fact that Brewer
*just happened* to have recognized the fellow who *just happened* to duck
into the foyer of his store and who *just happened* to be spotted by Brewer
entering a theatre without buying a ticket, and who then *just happened*
to be arrrested and held as a suspect in the President's assassination. A
rather tidy set of coincidences, don't you think? I'd like to know *how*
Brewer *recognized* him and from where.
It's happened to me plenty of times. It's more likely to
>happen with a person whom we don't actually "know," per say, & have
>never technically met. Did Brewer ever say that he had actually waited
>on Oswald before?
He seemed to indicate he had in his testimony, yes.
>> But knowing that Brewer readily recognized
>> the man who ducked into his foyer that day has led me to speculate that
>> perhaps
>> an Oswald lookalike *deliberately* led Brewer, through highly suspicious
>> actions, to the Texas Theatre and where the real Oswald sat biding his
time
>> or attempting to make a contact.
>
>That could be, but don't you find this whole "lookalike" business to be
>something of a stretch? That assertion, in various forms, has certainly
>been made by plenty of conspiracists over the years, but that seems to
>put an awful lot of planning into this "conspiracy" to make such a
>scenario work, with not a single "lookalike" or "planner" ever having
>been conclusively identified. As usual, with practically every
>conspiracy scenario I've ever seen, one is forced to include too many
>people to make it work, & still be kept so secret all these years. It
>isn't impossible, but it seems highly improbable to me.
Call it the "gumshoe's instinct" in me then, but I would have definitely
wanted this "loose end" of Brewer recognizing the suspicious fellow who just
happened to be arrested for the President's assassination tied up, okay?
>And you certainly have to indulge in wild unfounded speculation to get
>him in there to "make a contract," as the evidence that that would have
>been his specific purpose there is virtually non-existent.
Of course this is speculation. But I hardly rule it out. The reports of Oswald,
who was essentially a loner, "seat hopping" several times while he was in
that theatre and sitting next to a few different people is a bit troubling
to me.
>> Why else fail to buy a ticket and sneak
>> into the theatre, if not to attract attention to oneself and appear to
be
>> a furtive fugitive on the run? For the real Oswald had plenty of money
on
>> him to purchase a ticket.
>
>I don't see the money as being an issue necessarily. Remember that
>police cars had just gone by not long before, which supposedly prompted
>Oswald to duck into the deeply-recessed foyer of the shoestore. Then
>look carefully at Postal's rather detailed description of him ducking
>around the corner of the theater's box office or whatever it was, toward
>the entrance of the theater, while coming close in the process to
>colliding with her boss as he was leaving. Oswald may have merely seen
>an opportunity to get out of sight with Postal's back turned, moreover
>in a dark theater in which he would be much less plainly visible & thus
>not necessarily remembered by other patrons than he would have been even
>in the shoestore. I've seen no suggestion that the man whom Brewer was
>following had the slightest idea he was being followed, since I don't
>recall Brewer ever saying that the man looked back & saw him following,
>so if it was Oswald, I don't see that he would have thought himself to
>be taking much of a "risk" of being seen by anyone at all going into the
>theater. Where else in that neighborhood could he have gone which would
>have afforded such darkened concealment?
Sure, so buy a ticket legally and never have to concern yourself with a suspicious
shoe store manager or ticket clerk reporting you for sneaking in.
Certainly not the shoestore, &
>certainly not that library which was also searched, & not even that
>church which was reported but not searched, supposedly. Neither would
>he have been particularly concealed wandering around that nearby
>residential neighborhood, as people in house after house after house
>might see him pass by. Somewhere in one of their yards or garages? But
>anyone living in those houses might discover him at any time. Only in
>the darkened theater did he have a chance of not being clearly observed
>& recalled later.
Sure, so buy a ticket legally and do not risk being seen and reported for
suspicious behavior.
>Occam's Razor: the most likely explanation is usually the correct one.
>
>All this about lookalikes & so on is considerably less likely than a
>murderer simply being on the run, & finally ducking into the first place
>he found which afforded darkened concealment in which even others
>present might never get a good enough look at him to later recall him.
>They probably wouldn't have either, if the house lights had not been
>turned up & he had not been arrested in their presence.
>
>Almost any effort to make all this suspicious absolutely requires adding
>extraordinary complexity to the scenario, as your suspicions about
>lookalikes demonstrates resoundingly. Why is it not simply more logical
>that when a man is seen running away from the scene of the murder of a
>policeman carrying a pistol by multiple witnesses, is positively ID'd by
>several of these witnesses on the same day, with the same man also being
>positively ID'd on the same day by several other witnesses as the man
>arrested in the theater, that this is more than likely the same man, not
>a "lookalike"?
Because in this case, the reports of Oswald lookalikes and imposters abound.
The Brewer sighting would hardly have been an isolated instance of an Oswald
lookalike in this case. They are all over the map.
Caeruleo
And Jean explained that this may have been only to pass along to the old
woman what the driver had said about another cab being along shortly.
The back window may have been up, & I've been in cabs in which the
passenger's windows cannot be rolled down. In any case, that's
irrelevant; it's just as easy to crack the door open to speak to someone
outside the vehicle as it is to roll down a window slightly. Also
Whaley may have simply *thought* Oswald was about to offer the cab to
the lady merely because Oswald opened the door slightly. Did Whaley
ever actually *quote* Oswald as speaking to the lady & beginning to
offer her the cab, or even saying anything at all at that moment? If
not, we can't have the slightest idea what Oswald may have been about to
say to her; it could just as well have been, "Go to hell, old hag, I'm
in a hurry."
> This might well still indicate a willingness
> on Lee's part to give up that cab. So I am not ruling out Whaley's story
> quite yet.
Oh, I'm not going to completely "rule it out" either.
But...
The problem here is that there is simply not enough evidence to go on to
reasonably say either way whether or not Oswald was in at least some
urgent degree of hurry at this time.
The overall tone of your statements on the subject, however, seem to me
to indicate that you believe it more likely than not that he didn't
shoot Tippit. My problem with that is that I plainly see that there is
simply a greater amount of evidence that he did than that he didn't, &
more to the point, the number of people who would have had to be
involved to change the primary original evidence in such a way as to
implicate him if he was innocent seems to make it rather implausible
that not a single one of them can be conclusively identified by now.
Correction: he noticed no *obvious* signs of panic or shock in Oswald's
demeanor in a very brief assessment of that demeanor, in which the
person he was assessing did not say a single word. Baker had extremely
little to go on to make any detailed assessment of Oswald's demeanor, &
certainly of his emotional state. Many many many people express "shock"
by just standing there & not saying a word for a bit; I've reacted
precisely that way several times in my life to unpleasant news. There's
no possible way to reasonably assess Oswald's emotional state during
this extremely brief encounter.
> Indeed, Baker left that room not suspecting Oswald of being
> suspicious in the least.
Of course, because he *immediately* dismissed Oswald as a suspect at the
very instant Truly told him Oswald was an employee:
**********
Mr. TRULY. When I reached there, the officer had his gun pointing at
Oswald. The officer turned this way and said, "This man work here?" And
I said, "Yes."
Mr. BELIN. And then what happened?
Mr. TRULY. Then we left Lee Harvey Oswald immediately and continued to
run up the stairways until we reached the fifth floor.
**********
Mr. BELIN. About how long did Officer Baker stand there with Lee Harvey
Oswald after you saw them?
Mr. TRULY. He left him immediately after I told him--after he asked me,
does this man work here. I said, yes. The officer left him immediately.
Mr. BELIN. Did you hear Lee Harvey Oswald say anything?
Mr. TRULY. Not a thing.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see any expression on his face? Or weren't you paying
attention?
Mr. TRULY. He didn't seem to be excited or overly afraid or anything. He
might have been a bit startled, like I might have been if somebody
confronted me. But I cannot recall any change in
expression of any kind on his face.
**********
"Immediately" is Truly's own word, used twice to specifically describe
how quickly they left Oswald upon Truly revealing that he was an
employee; I didn't make it up. We see also Truly saying that he didn't
hear Oswald say a word. And we ALSO plainly see him NOT ascribing
complete "calm" to Oswald. Sure, he said that he didn't see any change
of expression on Oswald's face. But he arrived too late to see any
change of expression at the beginning of the confrontation, for Oswald
was by then already standing in front of Baker with Baker's gun drawn on
him, having already walked over to Baker when Baker had previously
spoken to him. But instead of complete & total calm, Truly did say that
he thought Oswald might have looked "startled."
His word; I didn't make it up.
Let's now look at Baker's account of the incident:
**********
Mr. BAKER - As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead
of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms,
and I caught a glimpse of this man walking
away from this--I happened to see him through this window in this door.
I don't know how come I saw him, but I had a glimpse of him coming down
there.
Mr. DULLES - Where was he coming from, do you know?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir. All I seen of him was a glimpse of him go away from
me.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then?
Mr. BAKER - I ran on over there
Representative BOGGS -You mean where he was?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. There is a door there with a glass, it seemed to
me like about a 2 by 2, something like that, and then there is another
door which is 6 foot on over there, and there is a
hallway over there and a hallway entering into a lunchroom, and when I
got to where I could. see him he was walking away from me about 20 feet
away from me in the lunchroom.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do?
Mr. BAKER - I hollered at him at that time and said, "Come here." He
turned and walked right straight back to me.
Mr. BELIN - Where were you at the time you hollered?
Mr. BAKER - I was standing in the hallway between this door and the
second door, right at the edge of the second door.
Mr. BELIN - He walked back toward you then?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
**********
Mr. BELIN - On Exhibit 497. When you first saw him in which direction
was he walking?
Mr. BAKER - He was walking east.
Mr. BELIN - Was--his back was away from you, or not, as you first saw
him?
Mr. BAKER - As I first caught that glimpse of him, or as I saw him,
really saw him?
Mr. BELIN - As you really saw him.
Mr. BAKER - He was walking away from me with his back toward me.
Mr. DULLES - Can I suggest if you will do this, put on there where the
officer was and where Lee Oswald was, or the man who turned out to be
Lee Oswald, and which direction he was walking
in. I think that is quite important.
Mr. BELIN - Yes, sir. We are going to get to that with one more
question, if I can, sir. When you saw him, he then turned around, is
that correct, and then walked back toward you?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Was he carrying anything in his hands?
Mr. BAKER - He had nothing at that time.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Were you carrying anything in either of your
hands?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I was.
Mr. BELIN - What were you carrying?
Mr. BAKER - I had my revolver out.
Mr. BELIN - When did you take your revolver out?
Mr. BAKER - AS I was starting up the stairway.
**********
Representative BOGGS -May I ask a couple of questions because I have to--
Mr. BELIN - Surely.
Representative BOGGS -Were you suspicious of this man?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I wasn't.
Representative BOGGS -And he came up to you, did he say anything to you?
Mr. BAKER - Let me start over. I assumed that I was suspicious of
everybody because I had my pistol out.
Representative BOGGS -Right.
Mr. BAKER - And as soon as I saw him, I caught a glimpse of him and I
ran over there and opened that door and hollered at him.
Representative BOGGS -Right.
Mr. DULLES - He had not seen you up to that point probably?
Mr. BAKER - I don't know whether he had or not.
Representative BOGGS -He came up to you?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; and when I hollered at him he turned around and
walked back to me.
Representative BOGGS -Right close to you?
Mr. BAKER - And we were right here at this position 24, right here in
this doorway.
Representative BOGGS -Right. What did you say to him?
Mr. BAKER - I didn't get anything out of him. Mr. Truly had come up to
my side here, and I turned to Mr. Truly and I says, "Do you know this
man, does he work here?" And he said yes, and I
turned immediately and went on out up the stairs.
Mr. BELIN - Then you continued up the stairway?
**********
Mr. DULLES - Could you tell us anything more about his appearance, what
he was doing, get an impression of the man at all? Did he seem to be
hurrying, anything of that kind?
Mr. BAKER - Evidently he was hurrying because at this point here, I was
running, and I ran on over here to this door.
Mr. BELIN - What door number on that?
Mr. BAKER - This would be 23.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Mr. BAKER - And at that position there he was already down here some 20
feet away from me.
Representative BOGGS -When you saw him, was he out of breath, did he
appear to have been running or what?
Mr. BAKER - It didn't appear that to me. He appeared normal you know.
Representative BOGGS -Was he calm and collected?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. He never did say a word or nothing. In fact, he
didn't change his expression one bit.
Mr. BELIN - Did he flinch in anyway when you put the gun up in his face?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir.
Mr. DULLES - There is no testimony that he put the gun up in his face.
Mr. BAKER - I had my gun talking to him like this.
Mr. DULLES - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - How close was your gun to him if it wasn't the face whatever
part of the body it was?
Mr. BAKER - About as far from me to you.
Mr. BELIN - That would be about how far?
Mr. BAKER - Approximately 3 feet.
Mr. BELIN - Did you notice, did he say anything or was there any
expression after Mr. Truly said he worked here?
Mr. BAKER - At that time I never did look back toward him. After he
says, "Yes, he works here," I turned immediately and run on up, I
halfway turned then when I was talking to Mr. Truly.
**********
Notice first of all the use of the word "immediately" twice, just as
Truly used it twice, & in exactly the same context. ;-)
Now do look carefully at all this. Baker described yelling, "Come
here," to Oswald, & Oswald turning around & coming back to him, with no
hesitation described, which I might opine that, guilty or not guilty,
would be a wise decision when someone is pointing a gun at you. If he
was guilty, fleeing at that moment would have been an extraordinarily
stupid thing to do, as for one thing it would instantly make him look
incredibly guilty, & for the other, he'd probably have been shot. Now
sure, Baker did describe him as *seeming* calm & collected, that he
didn't *seem* to be out of breath, that he didn't *notice* any change of
expression, & quite specifically, that he didn't say a word. And very
importantly, Baker did *not* say he asked Oswald any question
whatsoever. He only said he asked Truly if the man worked here. They
then left Oswald "immediately" (the very word used 4 times in the
testimony of these 2 men to describe this), & quite specifically that he
did not look again at Oswald to notice any change of expression after he
began talking to Truly. Thus, if even a fleeting expression of relief
might have crossed Oswald's face, Baker would not have seen it.
Oh, & did you notice this? I noticed it months ago:
"Evidently he was hurrying because at this point here, I was running,
and I ran on over here to this door."
See the word "hurrying," used in response to Dulles using the same word
in his question, when he asked if Oswald appeared to be in a hurry when
Baker first saw him? Baker's impression was indeed that Oswald was in a
hurry when he *first* saw him.
His word; I didn't make it up.
More to the point, Oswald was moving *away* from Baker, with his back to
him, & thus also in a direction *away* from the stairwell.
I gather you understand the possible significance of that.
The encounter was very brief, & before Baker asked Oswald any question
whatsoever, practically before Oswald had a chance to offer any
explanation whatsoever as to what he was doing there, Baker turned to
Truly, never looking at Oswald again after that, asked if the man worked
there, Truly responded in the affirmative, & *zapp*...just like that,
their observation of his "demeanor" ended & they left him.
"Immediately."
Times 4.
We don't have the slightest idea if Oswald, had he been given a chance
to speak, would have sounded agitated in any way or not, or out of
breath or not.
Because he said not a word.
This is extremely little to go on when attempting to assess the man's
emotional state. Baker & Truly were not clairvoyant; they could not see
inside his mind. He could have been tremendously agitated, & simply
evinced no obvious sign of it. Many many many times in my life I have
been tremendously upset about something, yet not spoken a word of it to
anyone, with no one having the slightest clue that I was upset.
> Neither of them recalled any
> >*obvious* sign of agitation on Oswald's part during that very brief
> >encounter in which they had little to go on in assessing his demeanor.
>
> >We don't know for a fact that he wasn't in truth quite agitated in mind,
>
> >or what he might have said had Truly not interrupted so quickly & spared
>
> >Oswald any further questioning at that time.
>
> In short, Oswald's demeanor in the lunchroom could clearly be described as
> that of an innocent person also, correct?
Sure, from the extremely little information we have on it.
> I find that quite calm and cool
> for a fellow who had, allegedly, just blown the head off the President of
> the United States some 90 seconds earlier.
I'm sorry, but this is what your argument seems to be:
Because he demonstrated no *obvious* signs of agitation, the only
possible alternative absolutely MUST be that he was completely & totally
calm.
Because he did not instantly flee when he saw Baker, the only possible
alternative absolutely MUST be that he was completely & totally calm.
Because he did not immediately start shouting at Baker, the only
possible alternative absolutely MUST be that he was completely & totally
calm.
Because an obvious expression of sheer horror did not immediately appear
on his face when he saw Baker, the only possible alternative absolutely
MUST be that he was completely & totally calm.
Because he did not shiver & shake violently when confronted by Baker,
the only possible alternative absolutely MUST be that he was completely
& totally calm.
In short, to you (it seems) that unless Oswald exhibited some
tremendously obvious & totally unmistakable sign of agitation, no matter
how briefly he was observed, there is absolutely no possibility
whatsoever that he could have been anything, anything at all, in no
other emotional state whatsoever, than totally & utterly calm.
If that's your argument, I utterly reject it.
That extraordinarily brief encounter contains woefully insufficient
evidence to determine with any degree of accuracy whatsoever exactly
what Oswald's emotional state was at the time, especially with him
not
saying
a
single
word.
The sound of a person's voice can often betray agitation even when there
is no visible sign of it. Long ago I lost count of how many times I had
no clue that someone in my presence was upset in the slightest, until
they spoke, or tried to speak. Only then did their agitation become
obvious.
We have no such evidence from Oswald in this encounter.
I'd really appreciate it if you'd at least admit that you don't have
very much to go on to support a description of Oswald being "quite calm
and cool for a fellow who had, allegedly, just blown the head off the
President of the United States some 90 seconds earlier." You're not
clairvoyant either, & you have no idea what was going through his mind
at that moment, nor do I, nor does anyone else who has ever walked the
face of this earth, except Oswald himself.
And he ain't tellin'.
Pshaw!
"Evidently he was hurrying because at this point here, I was running,
and I ran on over here to this door."
"He might have been a bit startled, like I might have been if somebody
confronted me."
Those 2 statements alone do not indicate absolute calm.
> This would extend to several witnesses
> - McWatters, Bledsoe,
Excuse me, but WHO did you say??? Bledsoe???
To the WC she said:
"Oswald got on. He looks like a maniac."
The word "maniac" suggests "cool and collected" to you???
> Whaley, and virtually ALL of the Tippit witnesses.
> No one described Tippit's killer, even if it was Oswald, as a raving lunatic
> on the street that day.
Once again, you seem to suggest that unless Oswald was widly
gesticulating, frothing at the mouth, & stomping madly about, absolutely
the only possible alternative whatsoever is that he was absolutely &
totally calm & untroubled. He cannot be anything but either wildly &
insanely agitated, or completely & totally cool. There is absolutely no
degree in between for his emotional state. He absolutely MUST be one
complete extreme or the other.
Do you see the incredible weakness in your argument?
I assure you I do.
Or is that not your argument?
I'm asking for "clarification" purposes only.
> Some thought that Tippit and his assailant were
> merely
> carrying on a quiet conversation just prior to the shooting. Indeed, Tippit
> witness Callaway claimed to have hollered to the gunman something like: "Hey
> man, what the hell's going on." At this, according to Callaway, rather than
> continue running off, the gunman actually paused and turned to answer
> Callaway,
> though Callaway could not quite make out what he said. This seems to be a
> far cry from the "scared, funny looking, frightened" man that ducked into
> Brewer's shoe store foyer.
Oh? Did you not notice that yesterday, in this very thread, I quoted
several *other* witnesses to Oswald making his way toward the Texas
Theater between the time of the Tippit shooting & the time of the Brewer
encounter. Let's DO look at some of those:
Jimmy Burt, 12-26-63 FBI report:
"At that moment he caught a glimpse of a man running on the sidewalk on
the south side of the street."
The word "running" does not suggest absolute calm to me. Does it to you?
Oh dear, & then there's this:
"He said at one point he did notice the man had a pistol in his right
hand."
So not only is he "running," but he's holding a pistol to boot.
Let's see...running & holding a pistol.
This is "calm" behavior???
Oh, & from Ted Callaway himself:
"I saw a white man running South on Patton with a pistol in hand. I
hollered at him and he looked around at me, then kept on going."
Here's this "calm" man running with a pistol again. And not even a
slight suggestion that, "rather than continue running off, the gunman
actually paused and turned to answer Callaway." There's not a thing
here about any "pause," only that the man did turn & look at him. And
this is from Callaway's statement made on the day it happened.
Now indeed, in Callaway's WC testimony, there enters something like a
"pause":
"He slowed his pace, almost halted for a minute. And he said something
to me, which I could not understand. And then kind of shrugged his
shoulders, and kept on going."
Since we don't have the slightest idea what Oswald said, how do we know
it wasn't something like, "F*ck off, I don't know what happened back
there!"
*shrug*
And in the WC testimony he's still running with a pistol.
Dunno about you, but I am supremely confident that if I stopped anyone
at all on the street, especially multiple persons, & described a man
running with a pistol, only a few minutes after shots were heard from
the general direction from which the man was coming, "calm" would
probably be far from the first adjective which would occur to the
majority of them on being asked to opine what the man's emotional state
was at the time.
Sam Guinyard, 11-22-63 affidavit:
"Today about 1:00 pm I heard some shooting near Patton and 10th Street.
I ran out and looked. I saw a white man running south on Patton Street
with a pistol in his hand. The last I saw of this man he
was running west on Jefferson."
Running, with a pistol. And not only that, but running the entire time
Mr. Guinyard was able to observe him.
Doesn't look even slightly like "calm" behavior to me.
And as I noted yesterday, I only quoted witnesses through the letter
"G." Shall we look at what all the *others* who saw him at any time
between the Tippit shooting & the Brewer encounter said about his
"demeanor"?
Oh, & did I yet mention that Callaway & Guinyard positively ID'd this
same man on the same day, & the man they ID'd turned out to be the same
man who was brought in from the Texas Theater?
> >> So yes, I would call Oswald a cool customer, whose coolness
> >> inexplicably
> >> deserted him, if the official accounts are to be believed, in the wake
> of
> >> the Tippit shooting.
> >
> >Then you're not using a very applicable set of circumstances for that
> >determination. In the wake of murdering a police officer alone, a
> >normally calm person wouldn't quite reasonably be much more agitated
> >than usual?
>
> Not if he had all along been demonstrating a remarkable ability to remain
> calm after allegedly assassinating the President, no.
He did not "demonstrate" any such thing. The amount of observation
given to him in the lunchroom was insufficient to make such a
determination.
And Mary Bledsoe described him as looking like a "maniac."
Her word; I didn't make it up.
I'm not seeing particularly compelling evidence of any "remarkable
ability to remain calm after allegedly assassinating the President."
> "Inexplicably" is *hardly* the first adverb that would come
> >to my mind. He hadn't supposedly done anything within light-years of
> >being that serious on any of these other occasions you mentioned, except
>
> >for the lunchroom thing, which does not itself provide any remotely
> >conclusive evidence of his emotional state either way. Even in the
> >Walker shooting, if he did do it, he did not actually kill anyone. And
>
> >Marina described him as quite agitated when he came home that night.
>
> But not after succeeding at blowing away JFK?
What an incredibly different situation you're proposing. Oswald &
Marina had a *conversation* when he came home that night, when she could
*hear* his agitation, & moreover telling her *exactly* what he had
supposedly just done:
"When he came back I asked him what had happened. He was very pale.
I don't remember the exact time, but it was very late. And he told me
not to ask him any questions. He only told me that he had shot at
General Walker."
What "conversation" did Oswald have with Truly & Baker in the lunchroom?
> >November 22 1963 is the earliest date that Lee Harvey Oswald is even
> >*alleged* to have committed murder. He is only alleged to have
> >attempted it one previous time. He's furthermore alleged to have
> >committed not one, but TWO murders on the very earliest date in his life
>
> >in which he even supposedly BECAME a murderer for the very first time.
>
> >I hardly find it "inexplicable" that such a person would lose his normal
>
> >composure, no matter how tightly-controlled or even "trained" it had
> >always been before that.
>
> But shouldn't JFK's murder have set such agitation off? Why would it take
> the Tippit shooting for Oswald to lose his cool, not JFK's?
"He looks like a maniac."
Those words were used to describe his appearance at a time *between* the
shooting & JFK & the shooting of Tippit. Your assertion that he didn't
"lose his cool" during this time is not in evidence.
Of course, although I don't know for a fact that they didn't, only that
it doesn't seem to appear in Brewer's testimony itself. Nevertheless, I
find this bit from it interesting:
**********
Mr. BELIN - In Austin were you just a shoe salesman?
Mr. BREWER - I was assistant manager.
Mr. BELIN - And they transferred you to a shop on Jefferson?
Mr. BREWER - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - In Dallas?
Mr. BREWER - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - What is the address of that shop in Dallas?
Mr. BREWER - 213 West Jefferson.
Mr. BELIN - They made you the manager of that shop?
Mr. BREWER - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - How long have you been manager?
Mr. BREWER - Since August of 1962.
Mr. BELIN - From August 1962 on?
Mr. BREWER - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Until the present time?
Mr. BREWER - Until the day I was made manager of the downtown store.
Mr. BELIN - Today is the 2d of April, or the 3d?
Mr. BREWER - Second.
Mr. BELIN - You were made manager of the Hardy's Downtown Shoe Store?
Mr. BREWER - Yes, sir.
It wasn't April Fool's. I thought they were firing me, but it turned out
they weren't.
Mr. BELIN - Did he call you in yesterday to tell you?
Mr. BREWER - Day before yesterday and told me to get ready for an audit,
that I would be going to town, if I wanted it, and I said yes.
Mr. BELIN - Would this be considered a promotion?
Mr. BREWER - A better store, more volume, and make more money. It would
be considered a promotion.
**********
Dunno about you, but I had never noticed before today that Brewer was
not merely an employee of the store, but its manager. As the testimony
makes plain, he was not made manager of a different store until shortly
before this testimony was taken.
Of course it establishes nothing conclusive about his hours, but I would
that a manager of such a business might fairly often stay until closing
time.
> >> But while Oswald was living in Oak
> >> Cliff, his weekdays were accounted for, as he was working at the
> >> Depository.
> >> In addition, most of Oswald's weekends were also accounted for, so where
> >> were the opportunities for Oswald to go shoe shopping in Brewer's store?
> >
> >Was the store definitely never open past the time Oswald got home from
> >work?
>
> The key here is Brewer's presence at the store, not neccessarily the hours
> that Hardy's Shoe Store was open.
As he was its manager, not merely a salesman, I would suggest that the
hours of the store might be relevant.
> >> Indeed, no evidence was ever adduced that Oswald had ever been in Brewer's
> >> store. Yet questioner Belin was, incredibly, totally uninterested in the
> >> possibility that Brewer had previously encountered Oswald. And possibly
> with
> >> good reason. For had Brewer indicated that Oswald had been a customer
> at
> >> a time when it could not possibly have been the real Oswald, this would
> have
> >> opened up the strong possibility of imposture, which was a can of worms
> the
> >> Commission wanted no part of.
> >
> >It also opened up the strong possibility that Brewer was merely
> >mistaken. How often have you seen someone you thought you knew, only
> >later to discover that it was someone else who merely looked like that
> >person?
>
> Well, that may be all well and true, but I am bothered by the fact that
> Brewer
> *just happened* to have recognized the fellow who *just happened* to duck
> into the foyer of his store and who *just happened* to be spotted by Brewer
> entering a theatre without buying a ticket, and who then *just happened*
> to be arrrested and held as a suspect in the President's assassination. A
> rather tidy set of coincidences, don't you think? I'd like to know *how*
> Brewer *recognized* him and from where.
Or another way of putting it: he "just happened" to recognize the man
because the man had indeed entered the store on at least one previous
occasion when Brewer was there, "just happened" to duck into the foyer
because one or more police cars "just happened" to pass by with their
sirens wailing at that moment, "just happened" to be followed by Brewer
because he really & honestly looked suspicious to him, "just happened"
to duck into a theater because it was the first place he had found which
might offer darkened concealment, "just happened" to be arrested & held
as a suspect in the President's assassination because he truly was
guilty of committing it...
All of which is a perfectly plausible alternate explanation.
> It's happened to me plenty of times. It's more likely to
> >happen with a person whom we don't actually "know," per say, & have
> >never technically met. Did Brewer ever say that he had actually waited
>
> >on Oswald before?
>
> He seemed to indicate he had in his testimony, yes.
Yep, you're right:
"Well, in the first place, I had seen him some place before. I think he
had been in my store before. And when you wait on somebody, you recognize
them, and he just seemed funny."
Do note carefully, however, what *else* Brewer said. He said he had
seen him "some place before." He said he *thought* he had been in the
store before. Not absolute certainty by any means.
Brewer might *also* have seen Oswald somewhere else instead.
He said so himself.
> >> But knowing that Brewer readily recognized
> >> the man who ducked into his foyer that day has led me to speculate that
>
> >> perhaps
> >> an Oswald lookalike *deliberately* led Brewer, through highly suspicious
> >> actions, to the Texas Theatre and where the real Oswald sat biding his
> time
> >> or attempting to make a contact.
> >
> >That could be, but don't you find this whole "lookalike" business to be
>
> >something of a stretch? That assertion, in various forms, has certainly
>
> >been made by plenty of conspiracists over the years, but that seems to
> >put an awful lot of planning into this "conspiracy" to make such a
> >scenario work, with not a single "lookalike" or "planner" ever having
> >been conclusively identified. As usual, with practically every
> >conspiracy scenario I've ever seen, one is forced to include too many
> >people to make it work, & still be kept so secret all these years. It
> >isn't impossible, but it seems highly improbable to me.
>
> Call it the "gumshoe's instinct" in me then, but I would have definitely
> wanted this "loose end" of Brewer recognizing the suspicious fellow who just
> happened to be arrested for the President's assassination tied up, okay?
Sure, no prob with that.
But "lookalike"?
When several witnesses positively ID'd this same man who was arrested in
the theater as the man they saw running in a general direction away from
the Tippit scene & toward the theater?
When several witnesses at the theater positively ID'd the same man in
custody that the previous witnesses had also ID'd as being the same man
they saw being arrested and/or brought out of the theater?
Did not Bledsoe, McWatters, & Whaley also positively ID this same man as
the one they encountered?
Did not some of the TSBD employees positively ID this same man as the
one they'd worked with?
Did not Ruth & Michael Paine positively ID this same man as the person
who often visited Marina at Ruth's house?
Did not Marina see Oswald while he was in custody? Did she
contemporaneously express the slightest doubt that this same man, who
had already been positively ID'd as the man "running with a gun" in
between the site of the Tippit shooting & the theater, being the same
man ALSO positively ID'd as being the man who was arrested in the
theater, was indeed her husband?
Didn't Robert Oswald also see Lee while he was in custody? Did he
express the slightest doubt that this same man was indeed his brother?
Didn't Marguerite Oswald also see Lee while he was in custody? Did she
express the slightest doubt that this same man was indeed her son?
If I'm wrong about any of this, please let me know in your next reply,
along with the evidence that it is so.
Thanks.
Otherwise, unless I am to throw away all traces of integrity, with all
due respect & absolute honesty I am urgently compelled to say that
assertions of there being more than one "Oswald" seen by all these
different people have such extraordinarily little evidence to support
them that I find these to be among the most patently absurd claims ever
made about this whole assassination.
Right up there with "aliens" (or Greer) murdering JFK.
I am also compelled to say something I've said before in several
articles in the past (not recently) that quite often people don't seem
to apply the same values of common sense to this murder case as they
seem to do with practically all other famous murder cases. O.J., if I
recall correctly, admitted to being on the grounds of Nicole's house on
the same night that she & her boyfriend were murdered, had her blood on
his clothing, & engaged in a "low-speed chase" on a freeway in a
memorable white Bronco with the LAPD which was big enough news to cause
one network to interrupt the NBA championship between the Rockets & the
Nicks to show it, yet although he was found innocent at his *first*
trial, many many many people are absolutely convinced that he's utterly
& profoundly & unequivocally guilty of the murders.
And why was he found innocent at his *first* trial? Primarily because
of technicalities in the gathering of evidence.
Rather like the sort of technicalities you described in the chain of
evidence regarding the shells at the Tippit scene.
Strange that the same level of "technicalities" aren't found to be
particularly persuasive by so many people in convincing them of O.J.'s
"innocence," yet they're more than enough to persuade a rather larger
number of people of Oswald's "innocence."
And we don't seem to have very many people at all speculating on the
possibility of an O.J. "lookalike" committing the murders.
Or fleeing in the Bronco.
Or flying into L.A. that same day.
> >And you certainly have to indulge in wild unfounded speculation to get
> >him in there to "make a contract," as the evidence that that would have
>
> >been his specific purpose there is virtually non-existent.
>
> Of course this is speculation. But I hardly rule it out. The reports of
> Oswald,
> who was essentially a loner, "seat hopping" several times while he was in
> that theatre and sitting next to a few different people is a bit troubling
> to me.
Could be. Why does this suggest a "contract" to you?
Because you read it in a book?
(Asking just for "clarification" only.)
I remember first coming across that assertion in conspiracy books years
ago. I also remember that not a shred of such an idea had ever occurred
to me before reading someone else proposing it.
Ahem. There's not a shred of evidence that Oswald was aware that either
Brewer or Postal had seen him at all. But you're having it be more
plausible that he would *buy* a ticket from Postal, thus ensuring that
she *would* see him, thus making it *more* likely that she'd remember
him. As far as he appeared to know, she hadn't seen him at all, &
neither had Brewer. Neither Brewer or Postal described seeing Oswald
look at them. He may well have thought that no one saw him go into the
theater. Buying a ticket from her would have *ensured* that she saw him.
> Certainly not the shoestore, &
> >certainly not that library which was also searched, & not even that
> >church which was reported but not searched, supposedly. Neither would
> >he have been particularly concealed wandering around that nearby
> >residential neighborhood, as people in house after house after house
> >might see him pass by. Somewhere in one of their yards or garages? But
>
> >anyone living in those houses might discover him at any time. Only in
> >the darkened theater did he have a chance of not being clearly observed
>
> >& recalled later.
>
> Sure, so buy a ticket legally and do not risk being seen and reported for
> suspicious behavior.
Buy a ticket legally & ensure that you're known to be going into the
theater by at least one witness, especially after several witnesses have
just plainly seen you only minutes earlier running with a gun in your
hand after they heard shots from nearby. Oh no, don't attempt to sneak
by that ticket taker so that just possibly there won't be any witness to
where you disappeared to, so that just possibly the trail to your
present location will be lost. Instead, *ensure* that there *will* be a
witness when the police come down the street asking questions about
having recently seen such & such a man, the same man already seen by at
least one witness discarding his jacket, so now he'll only be wearing
such & such, so did you see him? Why yes, he bought a ticket from me
just a little while ago.
Is it fairly obvious to you that I don't find your argument particularly
compelling?
Murderers have been documented throughout the ages as exhibiting quite a
wide variety of behavior patterns after committing their crimes. There
is no one particular "way" a murderer acts, even in identical
situations. There is no one particular "demeanor" exhibited by
murderers.
There have been murderers who have remained utterly calm & cool after
committing their crimes.
There have been murderers who have exhibited obvious signs of stress
after committing their crimes.
There have been murderers who have exhibited all sorts of varying
*degrees* of stress, & have exhibited them in a wide variety of ways,
after committing their crimes.
There have been murderers who have exhibited obvious signs of stress at
some points, & none at others, after committing their crimes.
Murderers have undertaken a huge variety of actions after committing
their crimes. Some flee immediately, some give themselves up
immediately, some deny it at first only to admit it later, some never
admit it to the day they die, some are abjectly apologetic & repentant,
some less so, some not at all even while admitting they did it, some
never speak of it at all either way, etc. There is no one particular
"type" of actions that a murderer undertakes after committing the crime.
A murderer's "demeanor" after murdering someone is one of the least
reliable methods in determining that person's guilt.
> >Occam's Razor: the most likely explanation is usually the correct one.
> >
> >All this about lookalikes & so on is considerably less likely than a
> >murderer simply being on the run, & finally ducking into the first place
>
> >he found which afforded darkened concealment in which even others
> >present might never get a good enough look at him to later recall him.
>
> >They probably wouldn't have either, if the house lights had not been
> >turned up & he had not been arrested in their presence.
> >
> >Almost any effort to make all this suspicious absolutely requires adding
>
> >extraordinary complexity to the scenario, as your suspicions about
> >lookalikes demonstrates resoundingly. Why is it not simply more logical
>
> >that when a man is seen running away from the scene of the murder of a
> >policeman carrying a pistol by multiple witnesses, is positively ID'd by
>
> >several of these witnesses on the same day, with the same man also being
>
> >positively ID'd on the same day by several other witnesses as the man
> >arrested in the theater, that this is more than likely the same man, not
>
> >a "lookalike"?
>
> Because in this case, the reports of Oswald lookalikes and imposters abound.
> The Brewer sighting would hardly have been an isolated instance of an Oswald
> lookalike in this case. They are all over the map.
Yes, & almost every last one of these reports originated *after* the
assassination, when Oswald's name & face were well-known. I assure you
that Posner is hardly my "bible" & there are plenty of things he says
which I flatly disagree with, but his commentary on this exact matter I
find quite apropos:
"After the assassination, scores of people came forward believing they
had seen Oswald at places other than where he was (and the same applied
to Jack Ruby), almost all of them well intentioned but mistaken. People
placed themselves with Oswald from Hawaii to Florida, from bowling
alleys to dance parties. Instead of dismissing the sightings of other
'Oswalds' at locations where he physically could not be, critics say it
is evidence of a 'double Oswald,' and sometimes even a 'triple Oswald.'"
And in a footnote he adds:
"Actually, false identifications are quite common after saturation press
coverage of the type that took place after the assassination."
Case Closed, p. 174.
Now I won't suggest that it's impossible that Posner is oversimplifying
all this a bit, or that it's impossible that there might be something to
even a single one of these Oswald "sightings." But this is what you
said 2 days ago:
"But knowing that Brewer readily recognized the man who ducked into his
foyer that day has led me to speculate that perhaps an Oswald lookalike
*deliberately* led Brewer, through highly suspicious actions, to the
Texas Theatre and where the real Oswald sat biding his time or
attempting to make a contact."
And I'm asking how it could be a different person leading Brewer into
the theater from the man who was arrested in the theater when all sorts
of witnesses positively ID'd the man in custody as the same man who was
seen running with a gun in the vicinity, seen ducking into the foyer of
the shoestore, seen on the bus, seen taking a cab, & as the very same
man who was rooming at that house on Beckley, was a TSBD employee, was
Marina's wife, was Robert's Brother, was Marguerite's son, was the same
man who got rides with Wes Frazier, & was the same man who visited Ruth
Paine's house on numerous occasions.
And was June's father.
Oh, I guess I'll be extremely charitable & admit it isn't absolutely
"impossible."
But do you really, truly, & honestly think that, in the face of all
this, it isn't at least *slightly* more likely that this was simply the
same man identified by *all* these myriad witnesses? When the
likelihood of *all* these witnesses having any sort of "agenda" is so
exquisitely tiny?
I ask for "clarification" purposes only.
Yesterday you appear to have said of me, in another thread:
"Kudos to you, Mr. Caeruleo. Whether you are a LNer or not, I commend
you for your refreshingly unbiased, impartial, and in my opinion, wholly
logical take on this issue."
Do you find me to be any less unbiased, impartial, & logical in this
present article? Or do I seem to have exhibited a "Hyde" transformation
(as Greg, who gave a similar opinion as you as to Oswald in this thread,
that Oswald exhibited wild & completely opposing changes in behavior
which are not actually in evidence), suddenly & inexplicably becoming a
totally irrational poster on this issue when I've never been on any
other issue?
I do hope that it's not that I'm seen as unbiased, impartial, & logical
only when I support a CT viewpoint, or come to the defense of a CT
poster, but not when I support an LN viewpoint.
I seek only "clarification."
James K. Olmstead
have little or nothing to do with the "main events" or key aspects used to
determine what was going on.
The point you raise however does not actually end as the cab pulls away
from the curb. There are other considerations of testimony to consider.
Was Lee sitting in front or back? Was he wearing a coat or not? Did he act
odd, strange or causal? Where and when was he actually dropped off?
When one wittness's testimony or statements are questioned they become
fair game for all sides to "use" as they wish......after all the wittness
becomes "fair game". But is it "Oswald's Game"?
There are two ways of looking at Oswald's actions. Both are basic and
depend on his "level of guilt". Few can counter that Lee was not
involved, in actions that led to the assassintion. He was not the
"innocent patsy" and his level of involvement may not "show" once he
crossed that first street after leaving the TSBD.....so the basic
consideration is that either he is "overwhelmed" with what happened or he
is making a controlled effort to "act" casual.
During the minutes of the "escape" he goes from calm and causal after the
shooting.....to dazed or confussed about taking a bus.....to a casual cab
ride and walk....to a hurried entrance and exit from the rooming house to
stand outside at a bus stop.
Without doubt the actions are "odd" and show no planned "sequence" unless
other factors are introduced.
jko
"Jean Davison" <dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote in message
news:b7i4l...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> "James K. Olmstead" <Thp...@onecom.com> wrote in message
> news:3e9b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > Jean: The cab ride incident is interesting....but is it critical to the
> > case at this point? To me regardless of the level of guilt of Oswald,
> > once he crossed the street, from the TSBD, he was "in the clear" until his
> > next move, in relationship to his involvement.
> >
> > How much effect on Oswald does this incident have?
>
> Offering a cab isn't an important issue by any means. It's often
> used, though, to argue that Oswald was innocent. (Why would a fleeing man
> offer to give up his means of escape?) It came up again in the "Another
> TSBD Employee..." thread.
>
> I think Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment may've been the first to quote
> Whaley saying that LHO offered to give up his cab. And it'll be quoted
> for years to come, I'm sure. Probably about, oh, six weeks from now...
>
> >
> > good post btw
>
> Thanks, Jim!
> Jean
"James K. Olmstead" <Thp...@onecom.com> wrote in message news:3e9b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
O.H. LEE
I believe in one of his accounts, Whaley claimed that Oswald did indeed say
to the lady, "I will let you have this one", or something similar. This is
what has led to the doubt - Whaley's inconsisitency on this issue at various
times.
If
>not, we can't have the slightest idea what Oswald may have been about to
>say to her; it could just as well have been, "Go to hell, old hag, I'm
>in a hurry."
Shucks, he didn't even speak to Mrs. Roberts that way when he genuinely DID
seem to be in a hurry. :-)
>> This might well still indicate a willingness
>> on Lee's part to give up that cab. So I am not ruling out Whaley's story
>> quite yet.
>
>Oh, I'm not going to completely "rule it out" either.
>
>But...
>
>The problem here is that there is simply not enough evidence to go on to
>reasonably say either way whether or not Oswald was in at least some
>urgent degree of hurry at this time.
Right, but I think that we can both agree that *IF* Lee did in fact offer
this lady his cab, it might indicate a lack of a hurried demeanor on his
part.
In my own mind, sir, I would only be willing to go as high as a 50/50 possibility,
no greater, okay?
My problem with that is that I plainly see that there is
>simply a greater amount of evidence that he did than that he didn't, &
>more to the point, the number of people who would have had to be
>involved to change the primary original evidence in such a way as to
>implicate him if he was innocent seems to make it rather implausible
>that not a single one of them can be conclusively identified by now.
But it isn't too difficult to get a witness consensus when witnessess whose
accounts differ radically from the official story, such as Frank Wright and
Acquilla Clemons, are ignored by official investigators, or, in the case
of Ms. Clemons, even threatened and told not to reveal what she saw.
But we DO know that he heeded Baker's command to approach him, and did not
bolt for the rear entrance. That much we do know. Again, a calm and collected
response.
>> Indeed, Baker left that room not suspecting Oswald of being
>> suspicious in the least.
>
>Of course, because he *immediately* dismissed Oswald as a suspect at the
>very instant Truly told him Oswald was an employee:
But as Baker testified, his senses were quite heightened at this point, and
he was suspicious "of everybody". Yet there was apparently nothing about
Oswald's demeanor that struck him as odd or unusual in any way.
>**********
>
>Mr. TRULY. When I reached there, the officer had his gun pointing at
>Oswald. The officer turned this way and said, "This man work here?" And
>I said, "Yes."
>Mr. BELIN. And then what happened?
>Mr. TRULY. Then we left Lee Harvey Oswald immediately and continued to
>run up the stairways until we reached the fifth floor.
>
>**********
>
>Mr. BELIN. About how long did Officer Baker stand there with Lee Harvey
>Oswald after you saw them?
>Mr. TRULY. He left him immediately after I told him--after he asked me,
>does this man work here. I said, yes. The officer left him immediately.
>Mr. BELIN. Did you hear Lee Harvey Oswald say anything?
>Mr. TRULY. Not a thing.
>Mr. BELIN. Did you see any expression on his face? Or weren't you paying
>attention?
>Mr. TRULY. He didn't seem to be excited or overly afraid or anything. He
>might have been a bit startled, like I might have been if somebody
>confronted me. But I cannot recall any change in
>expression of any kind on his face.
>
>**********
>
>"Immediately" is Truly's own word, used twice to specifically describe
>how quickly they left Oswald upon Truly revealing that he was an
>employee; I didn't make it up.
Right, it was only immediate *after* Truly had confirmed that Oswald worked
there. But if you read the testimony, it was far from *immediate* from the
time that Baker arrived in the lunchroom. For Baker said that Oswald had
to return to him from about 20 feet away after he called him. That takes
several seconds. He also had to wait for a lagging Truly to arrive, ask him
his question, and listen to Truly's response. So he had *some* time to assess
Oswald's demeanor. The *immediate* departure only occurred after Truly's
identification.
We see also Truly saying that he didn't
>hear Oswald say a word. And we ALSO plainly see him NOT ascribing
>complete "calm" to Oswald. Sure, he said that he didn't see any change
>of expression on Oswald's face. But he arrived too late to see any
>change of expression at the beginning of the confrontation,
But Baker was there at the *beginning* of the encounter, and he, so far as
I know, never stated that he noted an abrupt change in Oswald's expression
either.
for Oswald
>was by then already standing in front of Baker with Baker's gun drawn on
>him, having already walked over to Baker when Baker had previously
>spoken to him. But instead of complete & total calm, Truly did say that
>he thought Oswald might have looked "startled."
>
>His word; I didn't make it up.
So if an innocent person is suddenly confronted by an armed officer leveling
his gun at him from about 3 feet away, you won't grant him the benefit of
even a slight "startle" response without deeming it potentially suspicious?
You're tough sir.
Right, and a agree with the testimony here. The two left immediately *after*
Truly identified Oswald. No problem. That still left Baker quite a few seconds
to assess Lee's demeanor.
>Now do look carefully at all this. Baker described yelling, "Come
>here," to Oswald, & Oswald turning around & coming back to him, with no
>hesitation described, which I might opine that, guilty or not guilty,
>would be a wise decision when someone is pointing a gun at you. If he
>was guilty, fleeing at that moment would have been an extraordinarily
>stupid thing to do, as for one thing it would instantly make him look
>incredibly guilty, & for the other, he'd probably have been shot. Now
>sure, Baker did describe him as *seeming* calm & collected, that he
>didn't *seem* to be out of breath, that he didn't *notice* any change of
>expression, & quite specifically, that he didn't say a word. And very
>importantly, Baker did *not* say he asked Oswald any question
>whatsoever. He only said he asked Truly if the man worked here. They
>then left Oswald "immediately" (the very word used 4 times in the
>testimony of these 2 men to describe this), & quite specifically that he
>did not look again at Oswald to notice any change of expression after he
>began talking to Truly. Thus, if even a fleeting expression of relief
>might have crossed Oswald's face, Baker would not have seen it.
Even if innocent, I might have a fleeting expression of *relief* cross my
face if an officer stopped leveling his gun at me, wouldn't you?
>Oh, & did you notice this? I noticed it months ago:
>
>"Evidently he was hurrying because at this point here, I was running,
>and I ran on over here to this door."
>
>See the word "hurrying," used in response to Dulles using the same word
>in his question, when he asked if Oswald appeared to be in a hurry when
>Baker first saw him? Baker's impression was indeed that Oswald was in a
>hurry when he *first* saw him.
>
>His word; I didn't make it up.
Since Baker never described Oswald as doing anything but walking, I fail
to see what he based this on, and I'm sure so would an adequate defense attorney.
>More to the point, Oswald was moving *away* from Baker, with his back to
>him, & thus also in a direction *away* from the stairwell.
>
>I gather you understand the possible significance of that.
Not really. The evidence seems to be that Oswald chose to leave via the front
entrance, and apparently had no qualms about showing his face to any potential
witnesses out on Elm Street. After Baker and Truly left, leaving via the
rear was still an option for Lee, yet he eschewed it. As for the stairwell,
this also would have been wholly consistent with coming up from the 1st floor,
would it not?
>The encounter was very brief, & before Baker asked Oswald any question
>whatsoever, practically before Oswald had a chance to offer any
>explanation whatsoever as to what he was doing there, Baker turned to
>Truly, never looking at Oswald again after that, asked if the man worked
>there, Truly responded in the affirmative, & *zapp*...just like that,
>their observation of his "demeanor" ended & they left him.
Yep, after Baker had observed his demeanor for several seconds and was able
to thusly describe it as calm and collected to the Warren Commission.
>"Immediately."
>
>Times 4.
>
>We don't have the slightest idea if Oswald, had he been given a chance
>to speak, would have sounded agitated in any way or not, or out of
>breath or not.
We also don't know if he would have exhibited a *lack* of agitation had he
spoke, do we?
>Because he said not a word.
Agreed.
>This is extremely little to go on when attempting to assess the man's
>emotional state. Baker & Truly were not clairvoyant; they could not see
>inside his mind. He could have been tremendously agitated, & simply
>evinced no obvious sign of it. Many many many times in my life I have
>been tremendously upset about something, yet not spoken a word of it to
>anyone, with no one having the slightest clue that I was upset.
But if you take, let's say, 100 Lone Nut assassins that day, and put them
in the same position that Oswald found himself in some 90 seconds later,
I would say that he would rate well in the upper half of "calm and collected"
assassins. Just my opinion.
>> Neither of them recalled any
>> >*obvious* sign of agitation on Oswald's part during that very brief
>> >encounter in which they had little to go on in assessing his demeanor.
>>
>> >We don't know for a fact that he wasn't in truth quite agitated in mind,
>>
>> >or what he might have said had Truly not interrupted so quickly & spared
>>
>> >Oswald any further questioning at that time.
>>
>> In short, Oswald's demeanor in the lunchroom could clearly be described
as
>> that of an innocent person also, correct?
>
>Sure, from the extremely little information we have on it.
>
>> I find that quite calm and cool
>> for a fellow who had, allegedly, just blown the head off the President
of
>> the United States some 90 seconds earlier.
>
>I'm sorry, but this is what your argument seems to be:
>
>Because he demonstrated no *obvious* signs of agitation, the only
>possible alternative absolutely MUST be that he was completely & totally
>calm.
Well, how else would you attempt to assess his demeanor? All we can go by
are his interactions with others, correct?
>Because he did not instantly flee when he saw Baker, the only possible
>alternative absolutely MUST be that he was completely & totally calm.
He *appeared* calm. To both Truly and Baker. Whether he was or not, this
is what both men placed on the record.
>Because he did not immediately start shouting at Baker, the only
>possible alternative absolutely MUST be that he was completely & totally
>calm.
Correct. Both Baker and Truly describe him precisely that way and no other
way.
>Because an obvious expression of sheer horror did not immediately appear
>on his face when he saw Baker, the only possible alternative absolutely
>MUST be that he was completely & totally calm.
Again, correct. Baker and Truly could only describe the man as they remembered
him. And they corroborate one another beuatifully on this point: Oswald was
indeed calm and collected.
>Because he did not shiver & shake violently when confronted by Baker,
>the only possible alternative absolutely MUST be that he was completely
>& totally calm.
That is certainly NOT the only possible alternative, but it happens to be
the fact in *this* case that the alleged assasin was indeed calm and collected
at that point.
>In short, to you (it seems) that unless Oswald exhibited some
>tremendously obvious & totally unmistakable sign of agitation, no matter
>how briefly he was observed, there is absolutely no possibility
>whatsoever that he could have been anything, anything at all, in no
>other emotional state whatsoever, than totally & utterly calm.
>
>If that's your argument, I utterly reject it.
No, the only argument I make is that when confronted by the gun-toting Baker
and Truly, that Oswald *WAS* calm and collected. This is what the evidence
shows, doesn't it?
>That extraordinarily brief encounter contains woefully insufficient
>evidence to determine with any degree of accuracy whatsoever exactly
>what Oswald's emotional state was at the time, especially with him
>
>not
>
>saying
>
>a
>
>single
>
>word.
>
>The sound of a person's voice can often betray agitation even when there
>is no visible sign of it. Long ago I lost count of how many times I had
>no clue that someone in my presence was upset in the slightest, until
>they spoke, or tried to speak. Only then did their agitation become
>obvious.
>
>We have no such evidence from Oswald in this encounter.
Right, we know that he followed Baker's orders to the letter, but he was
never asked a question. Not his fault.
>I'd really appreciate it if you'd at least admit that you don't have
>very much to go on to support a description of Oswald being "quite calm
>and cool for a fellow who had, allegedly, just blown the head off the
>President of the United States some 90 seconds earlier."
I'll make no such admission in the least. The only real evidence we have
on the matter *WAS* that this alleged assassin *WAS* calm and collected when
confronted by a gun-toting officer within two minutes of the shooting.
You're not
>clairvoyant either, & you have no idea what was going through his mind
>at that moment, nor do I, nor does anyone else who has ever walked the
>face of this earth, except Oswald himself.
But whatever may have been going "through his mind", he *stll* projected
an image of a calm and collected individual to Baker and Truly, right? And
that's the whole point - that the man, whether guilty or innocent, could
and did keep his emotions in check immediately after allegedly blowing JFK's
head off.
Baker's claim here seems specious, and would likely be torn to shreds by
a capable defense attorney.
>"He might have been a bit startled, like I might have been if somebody
>confronted me."
I know, and you would not even grant an innocent person a *startle* response
when a gun is leveled at him by a police officer without considering it suspicious,
right?
>Those 2 statements alone do not indicate absolute calm.
They indicate nothing, actually.
>> This would extend to several witnesses
>> - McWatters, Bledsoe,
>
>Excuse me, but WHO did you say??? Bledsoe???
>
>To the WC she said:
>
>"Oswald got on. He looks like a maniac."
>
>The word "maniac" suggests "cool and collected" to you???
Wasn't Bledsoe referring here to Oswald's looks? A torn shirt, perhaps unbuttoned?
I mean, she never, so far as I know, claimed that Oswald made any wild comments.
Bledsoe had it in for Lee, and in fact, no other witness on that bus, whether
McWatters or any other passenger, ever described Oswald thusly. Did anyone
on that bus ever go on the record saying something like, " Oh, by the way
officer, about 10 minutes after that shooting, a maniac came on the bus"?
So I conclude that if Mrs. Bledsoe saw a maniac on the bus that day, he was
a "cool and collected" maniac. :-)
>> Whaley, and virtually ALL of the Tippit witnesses.
>> No one described Tippit's killer, even if it was Oswald, as a raving lunatic
>> on the street that day.
>
>Once again, you seem to suggest that unless Oswald was widly
>gesticulating, frothing at the mouth, & stomping madly about, absolutely
>the only possible alternative whatsoever is that he was absolutely &
>totally calm & untroubled. He cannot be anything but either wildly &
>insanely agitated, or completely & totally cool. There is absolutely no
>degree in between for his emotional state. He absolutely MUST be one
>complete extreme or the other.
No, not at all. Just attempting to see if there are any apparent inconsistencies
in the demeanors of the man or men who allegedly assassinated JFK and killed
Officer Tippit. And there do indeed appear to be such inconsistencies.
>Do you see the incredible weakness in your argument?
>
>I assure you I do.
>
>Or is that not your argument?
>
>I'm asking for "clarification" purposes only.
Again, just trying to assess and determine if there were any apparent inconsistencies
in the demeanors of the man or men who allegedly commited these two crimes.
And these inconsistencies do indeed appear to exist.
Oh, I agree that the Tippit gunman was apparently on foot for awhile and
ran, or trotted, off. Of course, this is only relevant if said gunman was
Lee.
>And as I noted yesterday, I only quoted witnesses through the letter
>"G." Shall we look at what all the *others* who saw him at any time
>between the Tippit shooting & the Brewer encounter said about his
>"demeanor"?
>
>Oh, & did I yet mention that Callaway & Guinyard positively ID'd this
>same man on the same day, & the man they ID'd turned out to be the same
>man who was brought in from the Texas Theater?
Lee would still have been readily picked out of a lineup if a lookalike had
commited this crime. People generally want to help the police.
Funny then , for neither Baker nor Truly described a "very pale" Oswald whom
they encountered in the lunchroom that day.
>I don't remember the exact time, but it was very late. And he told me
>not to ask him any questions. He only told me that he had shot at
>General Walker."
>
>What "conversation" did Oswald have with Truly & Baker in the lunchroom?
You mean with the *unpale*, seemingly unagitated person they encountered
within 90 seconds of the shooting? Why none.
>> >November 22 1963 is the earliest date that Lee Harvey Oswald is even
>> >*alleged* to have committed murder. He is only alleged to have
>> >attempted it one previous time. He's furthermore alleged to have
>> >committed not one, but TWO murders on the very earliest date in his life
>>
>> >in which he even supposedly BECAME a murderer for the very first time.
>>
>> >I hardly find it "inexplicable" that such a person would lose his normal
>>
>> >composure, no matter how tightly-controlled or even "trained" it had
>> >always been before that.
>>
>> But shouldn't JFK's murder have set such agitation off? Why would it take
>> the Tippit shooting for Oswald to lose his cool, not JFK's?
>
>"He looks like a maniac."
>
>Those words were used to describe his appearance at a time *between* the
>shooting & JFK & the shooting of Tippit. Your assertion that he didn't
>"lose his cool" during this time is not in evidence.
When did he lose his cool then, and with whom? Baker? Truly? McWatters? Whaley?
Roberts? True, he did seem to be in a hurry when he saw Mrs. Roberts at the
roominghouse, but then, I'm sure that a good many other people in and around
Dallas were also in a hurry that day. Oswald DOES appear to be acting as
the result of the assassination in some way, I'll grant you that. But I still
maintain that this was a cool customer until *after* the Tippit shooting.
Whether he *saw* Oswald in the shoe store or elsewhere, I would still want
to know the circumstances, okay?
But the argument here is that any lookalike Tippit assailant may well have
resembled the real Lee a great deal. Identifications would really be no surprise
in that case.
>When several witnesses at the theater positively ID'd the same man in
>custody that the previous witnesses had also ID'd as being the same man
>they saw being arrested and/or brought out of the theater?
>
>Did not Bledsoe, McWatters, & Whaley also positively ID this same man as
>the one they encountered?
See above. The man is called a "lookalike* because guess what? He strongly
would have resmbled the real Oswald.
>Did not some of the TSBD employees positively ID this same man as the
>one they'd worked with?
>
>Did not Ruth & Michael Paine positively ID this same man as the person
>who often visited Marina at Ruth's house?
>
>Did not Marina see Oswald while he was in custody? Did she
>contemporaneously express the slightest doubt that this same man, who
>had already been positively ID'd as the man "running with a gun" in
>between the site of the Tippit shooting & the theater, being the same
>man ALSO positively ID'd as being the man who was arrested in the
>theater, was indeed her husband?
>
>Didn't Robert Oswald also see Lee while he was in custody? Did he
>express the slightest doubt that this same man was indeed his brother?
>
>Didn't Marguerite Oswald also see Lee while he was in custody? Did she
>express the slightest doubt that this same man was indeed her son?
Huh? What are you stating here? That his family members and co-workers at
the Depository identified the *real* Lee Harvey Oswald as the *real* Lee
Harvey Oswald? Duh. I certainly don't make the claim that it may have been
the lookalike who was arrested, and not the real Oswald. I don't know where
you're going here.
>If I'm wrong about any of this, please let me know in your next reply,
>along with the evidence that it is so.
Wrong about what? That the real Lee Harvey Oswald was indeed the real Lee
Harvey Oswald? No by golly, I believe that you are right-on here.
Maybe because O.J. wasn't being framed in advance?
>Or fleeing in the Bronco.
Maybe because there wasn't a plot afoot to frame O.J.?
>Or flying into L.A. that same day.
Ditto.
>> >And you certainly have to indulge in wild unfounded speculation to get
>> >him in there to "make a contract," as the evidence that that would have
>>
>> >been his specific purpose there is virtually non-existent.
>>
>> Of course this is speculation. But I hardly rule it out. The reports of
>> Oswald,
>> who was essentially a loner, "seat hopping" several times while he was
in
>> that theatre and sitting next to a few different people is a bit troubling
>> to me.
>
>Could be. Why does this suggest a "contract" to you?
>
>Because you read it in a book?
>
>(Asking just for "clarification" only.)
>
>I remember first coming across that assertion in conspiracy books years
>ago. I also remember that not a shred of such an idea had ever occurred
>to me before reading someone else proposing it.
It has been stated by those in intellience circles that movie theatres make
very good clandestine meeting places. Not my words. :-)
And if it was a lookalike, he wouldn't have cared and in fact, would have
welcomed it, right?
But you're having it be more
>plausible that he would *buy* a ticket from Postal, thus ensuring that
>she *would* see him, thus making it *more* likely that she'd remember
>him. As far as he appeared to know, she hadn't seen him at all, &
>neither had Brewer. Neither Brewer or Postal described seeing Oswald
>look at them. He may well have thought that no one saw him go into the
>theater. Buying a ticket from her would have *ensured* that she saw him.
Don't know if I can completely buy this premise. Could anyone sneaking into
that theatre have been assured that he would not be seen by anyone else inside,
the concessionaire for instance?
This would be a mighty high assumption. Also, a lone figure sitting surrounded
by empty seats can be quite conspicuous. As can a person who seemingly changes
seats several times, as Oswald is said to have inexplicably done. It is obviously
hindsight, but Oswald, if it was Oswald, would probably have been better
served by buying a ticket legally.
>> Certainly not the shoestore, &
>> >certainly not that library which was also searched, & not even that
>> >church which was reported but not searched, supposedly. Neither would
>> >he have been particularly concealed wandering around that nearby
>> >residential neighborhood, as people in house after house after house
>> >might see him pass by. Somewhere in one of their yards or garages?
But
>>
>> >anyone living in those houses might discover him at any time. Only in
>> >the darkened theater did he have a chance of not being clearly observed
>>
>> >& recalled later.
>>
>> Sure, so buy a ticket legally and do not risk being seen and reported
for
>> suspicious behavior.
>
>Buy a ticket legally & ensure that you're known to be going into the
>theater by at least one witness, especially after several witnesses have
>just plainly seen you only minutes earlier running with a gun in your
>hand after they heard shots from nearby.
Huh? I know of no Tippit killing witness that traced Oswald to the Texas
Theatre and saw him enter.
Oh no, don't attempt to sneak
>by that ticket taker so that just possibly there won't be any witness to
>where you disappeared to, so that just possibly the trail to your
>present location will be lost. Instead, *ensure* that there *will* be a
>witness when the police come down the street asking questions about
>having recently seen such & such a man, the same man already seen by at
>least one witness discarding his jacket, so now he'll only be wearing
>such & such, so did you see him? Why yes, he bought a ticket from me
>just a little while ago.
>
>Is it fairly obvious to you that I don't find your argument particularly
>compelling?
But by taking the course that he did, Oswald or whomever did indeed *ensure*
that his suspicious behavior would be noted and reported. This is a fact.
You do realize, I hope, that several of these so-called *sightings* involve
far more than just a visual aspect to them. At times, the person gave the
name verbally as "swald", while at other times, the name "Oswald" was noted
and written down. Just to set the record straight on the "sightings*.
But this is what you
>said 2 days ago:
>
>"But knowing that Brewer readily recognized the man who ducked into his
>foyer that day has led me to speculate that perhaps an Oswald lookalike
>*deliberately* led Brewer, through highly suspicious actions, to the
>Texas Theatre and where the real Oswald sat biding his time or
>attempting to make a contact."
>
>And I'm asking how it could be a different person leading Brewer into
Jean Davison
I didn't say that he "said this," Tony. Here's what Truly said about Givens and
Oswald. Judge for yourself.
QUOTE:
>>> Mr. TRULY. When I noticed this boy was missing, I told Chief Lumpkin that "We
have a man here that's missing." I said, "It my not mean anything, but he isn't here." I
first called down to the other warehouse and had Mr. Akin pull the application of the boy
so I could get--quickly get his address in Irving and his general description, so I could
be more accurate than I would be.
Mr. BALL. Was he the only man missing?
Mr. TRULY. The only one I noticed at that time. Now, I think there was one or two more,
possibly Charles Givens, **but** I had seen him out in front walking up the street just
before the firing of the gun.
Mr. BALL. But walking which way?
Mr. TRULY. The last time I saw him, he was walking across Houston Street, east on Elm.
<<<(VII, 382) [my emphasis]
UNQUOTE
Seems to me that Truly is explaining why he reported Oswald missing but didn't
report Givens missing. In any event, he *did* report Oswald missing, and some
CTs will never forgive him for that, it seems.
> > QUOTE:
> >
> > >>>
> > Mr. BALL. Did you make a check of your employees afterwards?
> >
> > Mr. TRULY. No, no; not complete. No, I just saw the group of the employees over there
>> on
> > the floor and I noticed this boy wasn't with them. With no thought in my mind except
>> that
> > I had seen him a short time before in the building, I noticed he wasn't there.
> >
> > Mr. BALL. What do you mean "a short time before"?
> >
> > Mr. TRULY. I would say 10 or 12 minutes.
> >
> > Mr. BALL. You mean that's when you saw him in the lunchroom?
> >
> > Mr. TRULY. In the lunchroom.
> >
> > Mr. BALL. And you noticed he wasn't over there?
> >
> > Mr. TRULY. Well, I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him around and he said "No."<<<
> >
> > END QUOTE
> >
>
> Excellent. You are assuming that "this boy" could only refer to Lee
> Harvey Oswald. Fine with me.
Huh? In context, Tony, "this boy" quite obviously refers to Oswald. Who *else*
do you think Truly had seen "a short time before" in the lunchroom?
> But you seem to be the only WC defender who
> will admit that a witness said that he saw Oswald in the lunchroom 10 to
> 12 minutes before the shooting.
Which witness are you talking about, Tony? I don't think any witness has
reliably placed Oswald in either lunchroom, though I may've agreed that some
witness *said* that.
> Not much time to get the rifle, set up
> the sniper's nest and be ready for the motorcade to arrive on time 5
> minutes earlier than it actually did.
What makes you think that Oswald "set up the sniper's nest" only 10 to
12 minutes before the shooting?
> Now that's you've opened up this can of worms, how can you explain the
> men who were actually in the lunchroom and who testified that Oswald was
> never in the lunchroom?
Again, I don't know who you're referring to.
Could you name one, Tony?
The "false claim" is in the CT books. (Oswald Talked, as just one example,
lists as a main point in "the case against Oswald" the claim that "Oswald was the only
person missing from the TSBD when a roll call was made prior to 2PM." (pp. 369,
387) I don't know of any LNers who've made that claim, I've only seen CTs
"refuting" it, unless I've overlooked something (which is always possible).
This is silly, Tony. As you know very well, Truly saw Baker run into the building
seconds after the shots. Since Baker was no longer there, do you think Truly should've
reported him missing, also??
Wait a minute. YOU think he was inside the building, yet you're accusing me of
begging the question, etc. for reaching the same conclusion?! Tell me why YOU believe he
was inside the building at the time of the shooting, then. Please list your reasons for
me, Tony.
>
> > >
> > > > according to the sworn testimony. Apparently no CT thinks that's suspicious.
> > > > Roy Truly
> > >
> > > If you claim that Oswald was the only worker to leave before the
> > > building was sealed off, it seems axiomatic that no one could leave
> > > after the building was sealed off. Therefore how do you explain people
> > > who were inside the building at the time of the shooting and then left
> > > the building?
> >
> > Excuse me? Who are you talking about that left and when? Eventually, of
> > course, they *all* went home.
> > Jean
> >
>
> You want me to repeat every other message which has been written about
> this? Try reading. Some left soon after the shooting.
Try reading yourself, Tony. What I said, which you apparently snipped, was...
"Oswald was the only worker who was inside the building at 12:30 who left the area before
the building was sealed off, according to the sworn testimony." Once the building was
sealed, no one could leave until *allowed* to leave. Now, who "left soon after the
shooting," please? If any such person has been named, please cite the post.
Thanks.
Jean
greg
<snip>
> > > Now there we have a different matter. Almost none of the statements
> > > I've looked at so far contain any mention of checking in with employers
> > > before leaving, so this does not appear to be one of the questions they
> > > were asked to answer.
> >
> > A lot couldn't check in. They were locked out, and so just went home.
>
> That's fine. Even the majority of the ones who did eventually get back
> inside the building, however, made no statement whatsoever as to whether
> or not they checked in with their employers for permission to leave for
> the remainder of the day, so this does not appear to be one of the
> questions all of them were asked to answer.
You may be right. But that is the gist of the argument. Nothing much was done
to determine the whereabouts of all employers at the time it was most critical
to do so. And in the final washup... the ONE person whose name was mentioned
just happened to be the right guy. You can argue all you want that noone else
left who had been in the building etc etc - but noone knew that at the time.
<snip>
> > > Why is that? Brewer said that the recessed foyer extended 15 feet back
> > > from the street, which seems more than deep enough to get him out of
> > > plain sight from police in passing cars.
> >
> > The police couldn't see him?
>
> They wouldn't have been able to plainly see him out on the sidewalk, no.
What might they have seen, then? A character trying hard not to be noticed...
and only doing a HALF decent job of it?
> > What good was that when it apparently made him look suspicious, thereby
> > drawing attention to himself.
> >
> > Would Brewer (or any other person) have thought him suspicious if he
entered
> > the shop and asked about a pair of loafers?
>
> If Oswald was the killer of Tippet, I would imagine he might not have
> wanted tolinger in the shoestore that long.
He didn't have to linger long. Just long enough for the cop cars to pass by.
He fact that he didn't
> come all the way into the shoestore is not necessarily evidence of
> innocence.
And standing where he was, looking funny like he was (to Brewer, at least) is
not evidence of his guilt.
> > > > But of course, his normal cool demeanour
> > >
> > > I asked another poster yesterday why he described Oswald's cool demeanor
> > > as "usual," & I'll ask you now why you describe it as "normal." Oswald
> > > was under the bright light of scrutiny for less than the last 48 hours
> > > of his life, hardly enough time to ascertain what moods were normal &
> > > abnormal for him. He certainly doesn't seem to have been especially
> > > "cool" when being brought out of the Texas Theater.
> >
> > How cool would you expect him to be after being attacked by a horde of
cops,
> > and then dragged out before a potential lynch mob? All things considered,
I'd
> > say he was cool enough to save his own neck by yelling out that he wasn't
> > resisting arrest.
>
> Why does that have to be a statement made with a "cool" attitude?
He had never been in a similar position. And yelling out about police
brutality, and demanding rights etc were not then common catch-cries - at
least outside the civic rights movement - a movement he had nil to do with,
yet he knew these words cold well save his life. It showed a cool head
considering the circumstances.
> > > The witnesses who
> > > saw him leaving the scene of the Tippet murder did not especially seem
> > > to think he was "cool" then either.
> >
> > Not proven by any stretch that this was Oswald.
>
> Depends on what you accept as "proven." Several witnesses positively
> identified him as the man they saw leaving the scene.
The line ups were a sham.
> > > His own wife described plenty of
> > > occasions in which he was far from "cool"; so did the de Mohrenschildts,
> > > & so did his own mother.
> >
> > Many people are not cool at home, but in public, they're ice.
> > He was cool with
> > Baker and Truly.
>
> As I've already noted, Baker's & Truly's time of observance of Oswald
> during that encounter was extraordinarily brief. Truly said
> specifically that Baker "immediately" (his exact word) left Oswald &
> went back toward the stairs as soon as Truly told him Oswald was an
> employee of the building. They simply did not recall observing any
> *obvious* signs of stress in Oswald during this very brief encounter,
> nor did they recall Oswald saying anything during it. This is hardly
> enough to go on to reasonably assess Oswald's demeanor, other than that
> he apparently exhibited no *obvious* signs of being upset or afraid or
> guilty, such as yelling out something, arguing with Baker, or looking as
> if he was about to flee when Baker spoke to him. All we have is that he
> didn't flee from Baker, but did come to him when called, & apparently
> remained silent during the entire brief encounter. We don't know, for
> example, that he wasn't about to speak when Truly explained that he was
> an employee, & what he would have said had he done so.
You are minipulating the statements of Baker and Truly. They never expressed
any doubt about Oswald's demeanour. You can say all you want what you wished
they'd observed, or did not observe, but it does not change their testimony:
Representative Boggs.
Was he calm and collected?
Mr. Baker.
Yes, sir. He never did say a word or nothing. In fact, he didn't change his
expression one bit.
Mr. Belin.
Did he flinch in anyway when you put the gun up in his face?
Mr. Baker.
No, sir.
********
Mr. Truly.
He didn't seem to be excited or overly afraid or anything. He might have been
a bit startled, like I might have been if somebody confronted me. But I cannot
recall any change in expression of any kind on his face.
> > He was cool during 99% of his interrogations by the DPD.
>
> Where on earth are you getting "99%" from? He was certainly described
> as extremely agitated when Hosty came in the room,
And how did he recognise Hosty, hmmm? You going to stick with that one?
but he was also
> described as being at least somewhat agitated when asked about the
> backyard photos & again when asked about the rifle.
Mr Fritz:
....Mr. Hosty spoke up and asked him something about Russia, and asked him if
he had been to Russia, and he asked him if he had been to Mexico City, and
this irritated Oswald a great deal and he beat on the desk and went into a
kind of a tantrum.
Mr. Fritz.
Yes, sir. He said, he told Hosty, he said, "I know you." He said, "You
accosted my wife on two occasions," and he was getting pretty irritable and so
I wanted to quiet him down a little bit because I noticed if I talked to him
in a cairn, easy manner it wasn't very hard to get him to settle down, and I
asked him what he meant by accosting, I thought maybe he meant some physical
abuse or something and he said, "Well, he threatened her." And he said, "He
practically told her she would have to go back to Russia." And he said, "He
accosted her on two different occasions."
That is the only instance I can find in Fritz' testimony.
And I'll remind you
> that you yourself noted that the interrogations were not taped. You
> don't have the slightest idea of what "percentage" of the total
> interrogation time Oswald remained "cool."
My 99% was not meant to be taken literally... it was only to indicate that for
by far the greater amount of time he was under interrogation, he was
unruffled. Fritz' testimony is the basis for that. I don't mind if you want to
disregard all Oswald's alleged comments, though.
> > He
> > was cool when harrased by Bringuier and friends... even offering to shake
> > hands. He was cool when arrested for that. He was cool when locked up and
> > questioned by Martello.
>
> You are now describing extraordinarily different circumstances. He was
> arrested only for allegedly "disturbing the peace," not allegedly
> shooting a police officer.
It was a hell of a lot closer in circumstance (being an arrest) than what you
tried to introduce to prove the opposite (allegations by Marina and the White
Russians).
> > > > had
> > > > evaporated temporarily (the best break the DPD ever had!). My picture
of
> > him
> > > > in that little recessed entrance is as Spencer Tracey making the
> > > > transformation from the unruffled Dr Jeckyll into the wild-eyed,
> > wild-haired
> > > > Hyde cowering, but ready to lash out if escape became impossible.
> > >
> > > You seem to be getting that picture out of thin air then, as there is
> > > not a shred of evidence that he was especially "cool" from the time
> > > Tippet was shot to the time he was put into the police car in front of
> > > the theater.
> >
> > Which is where your problem is. He goes from cool coke drinker -
>
> Um, there again you are engaging in wild speculation,
Wild speculation? I think not.
Representative Boggs.
Was he calm and collected?
Mr. Baker.
Yes, sir.
But I'm not happy with parts of Baker's testimony, and therefore could hardly
object if you want to throw all of it out along with Oswald's alleged
statements under interrogation.
& I've already put
> part of this to rest. The only person who is recorded as
> contemporaneously claiming that Oswald was drinking a Coke *during* the
> lunchroom encounter is Oswald himself,
He was seen moments later with a coke by Reid. Do you wish to claim he was
cool calm and collected as per Baker, then had gone into panic mode moments
later, or do you wish to throw Reid's statements out, too?
& I'm not sure that even that was
> specifically his claim,
It wasn't, it was, and it wasn't again. Go figure.
only that he claimed to have been in the
> lunchroom having a Coke during the time of the shooting.
Sorry. I thought the "he" you were talking about was Baker. Yes. Oswald
claimed to have a Coke, cheese sandwich and a piece of fruit. That is, if we
leaving in what Fritz' claims Oswald said.
But Baker &
> Truly themselves NEVER said that they saw him holding, much less
> drinking a Coke, during the lunchroom encounter.
Baker did. In a written statement dated sometime in Sept '64. He then crossed
out that part and initialled it.
> Their earliest
> statements made no mention of such a thing,
As I've noted, Baker made no mention in his first statement either, of the
encounter being in a lunchroom. Not surprising really, when tou consider that
he said the encounter was on the 3rd or 4th floor where no lunchroom existed.
& to the WC they both quite
> specifically said that they didn't recall seeing anything in either of
> his hands.
That's true.
Only in his statement to the FBI of 10 months later does
> there appear any suggestion by Baker that Oswald had a Coke *during* the
> lunchroom encounter, & this is the statement in which the words
> "drinking a Coke" were crossed out. But I've read that the statement
> was not in Baker's handwriting, but was rather being taken down by an
> FBI agent, & this might merely have been some initial confusion due to
> the fact that by then, 10 months after the assassination, rumors had
> gone around that Oswald had a Coke *during* the encounter,
So the agent, in your view, was writing down a rumour, instead of what Baker
was saying?
confusing the
> fact that Baker & Truly had not actually previously said such a thing
> with Oswald's supposed statements of having a Coke at the time, & the
> statement of one other TSBD employee who said she saw him with a Coke
> *after* the Baker/Truly encounter.
That is an an extremely convoluted explanation. And of course, pure
speculation on your part.
There is not a shred of evidence
> that Baker & Truly actually saw Oswald holding a Coke, or drinking one,
> at the time they encountered him in the lunchroom.
Makes no difference to me. I have not been arguing he was, anyway.
> And as far as "cool," once again, all we have is a description by 2 men
> who observed Oswald very briefly, in which Oswald apparently did not
> speak a word.
Representative Boggs.
Was he calm and collected?
Mr. Baker.
Yes, sir.
> > to wild eyed
> > Hyde -
>
> Now you're really going overboard with the speculations. I don't recall
> even Brewer describing Oswald as being *that* agitated. Here's what
> Brewer said to the WC:
>
> **********
>
> Mr. BELIN - Why did you happen to watch this particular man?
> Mr. BREWER - He just looked funny to me. Well, in the first place, I had
> seen him some place before. I think he had been in my store before. And
> when you wait on somebody, you recognize
> them, and he just seemed funny. His hair was sort of messed up and
> looked like he had been running, and he looked scared, and he looked
> funny.
> Mr. BELIN - Did you notice any of his actions when he was standing in
> your lobby there?
> Mr. BREWER - No; he just stood there and stared.
> Mr. BELIN - He stared?
> Mr. BREWER - Yes.
> Mr. BELIN - Was he looking at the merchandise?
> Mr. BREWER - Not anything in particular. He was just standing there
> staring.
>
> **********
>
> I don't see any description there even remotely approaching "wild eyed."
> The most he attributed to Oswald was that he looked "scared."
From Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: bug-eyed
Pronunciation: -"Id
Function: adjective
Date: 1922
: having the eyes bulging (as with fright)
I believe "wild eyed" is much the same thing. Scared.
<snip of what has already been responded to above>
> > back to cool under pressure of DPD interrogation.
>
> Again, your assertion of "cool" under DPD interrogation, certainly
> during the vast majority of it, is not supported by any extant evidence.
Fritz and others have been quoted as making comments along the lines I have
stated.
> > The
> > Tippit/Brewer Oswald just does not fit.
>
> Why?
For all the reasons stated in this thread.
<snip>
> > > > Did she tell the truth about the opening time?
> > >
> > > She told the WC that the box office opened at 12:45. In his testimony,
> > > Burroughs did not contradict her, only saying that he went to work at
> > > 12:00. It's rather common for employees of many different types of
> > > businesses to report to work before the businesses open, as there are
> > > often things they need to do to prepare for the businesses to open. Is
> > > there some evidence that she was not telling the truth?
> >
> > Donald Willis has done some excellent work on this issue.
>
> I'm looking at one of his articles on the matter now. He seems to find
> it suspicious that although Postal said she told Brewer not to mention
> anyone sneaking into the theater to Burroughs, according to Burroughs
> Brewer did anyway, & supposedly Brewer confirmed this. I don't see how
> this indicates any "lie" on Postal's part; it just shows that apparently
> Brewer did not follow her directions. Mr. Willis also seems to find it
> suspicious that Burroughs opined that the "sneaker" may have gone first
> to the balcony, & that Postal mentioned Burroughs' opinion on that
> matter, with the dispatcher notice saying, "Supposed to be hiding in the
> balcony." That still does not indicate that Postal "lied" about telling
> Brewer not to mention anything to Burroughs; all it may mean is that he
> mentioned something to him anyway, & once it was mentioned, there was no
> point in Postal denying to Burroughs that someone had snuck into the
> theater, at which point Burroughs might well have voiced his suspicion
> that the person had snuck up into the balcony.
Your interpretation of Don's work is way off the mark. But Don, if he's
lurking, is the best man to set you straight on it.
> > > > Why did she need to ask which man Brewer was talking about?
> > >
> > > Another silly question. Because she didn't see the man. Really, this
> > > isn't rocket science.
> >
> > Why silly? She asked which man... now you say she didn't see him....
>
> You say "now" as if I had said something different before. I do not
> recall doing so. I had never previously said that she saw him.
And I never said you did say that. Nor is it what I indended to suggest.
> But that was my own mistake, for which I apologize. But you need to
> acknowledge your mistake too. I will now elaborate. ;-)
Okay. I'm reading.
> I do now see in her testimony that she did say she saw Oswald outside
> the theater, & that he ducked "around the corner" (the corner of the box
> office it seems) passing close by her employer as he was leaving. So my
> apologies for saying that she didn't see him. It is plain that she did,
> although she didn't actually see him go into the theater itself.
>
> Now for your mistake. ;-)
>
> This portion of our discussion began with you asking 2 days ago, in text
> we see quoted above, "Why did she need to ask which man Brewer was
> talking about?"
>
> Who says she asked Brewer which man he was talking about? ;-)
SHE did.
"Johnny asked me if I sold that man a ticket. I asked him what man."
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0484-001.gif
> She did not say she asked Brewer any such thing in her testimony.
Not in her testimony, no. Like so much else, from so many others, her original
statement morphed somewhat before the commission.
> Neither did *Brewer* attribute such a question to her in his. All he
> said was, "He [Oswald] walked into the Texas Theatre and I walked up to
> the theatre, to the box office and asked Mrs. Postal if she sold a
> ticket to a man who was wearing a brown shirt, and she said
> no, she hadn't." There is no suggestion that Postal asked Brewer which
> man he was talking about.
And here is what Brewer said originally: "I asked the girl in the box office
if she sold the man a ticket and she replied that she did not think so."
Sounds like she was uncertain, even though it was allegedly just a few seconds
previous. Not looking good for the prosecution, is it? No wonder none of this
was not repeated...
But it gets better. Oswald is alleged to have cowered in the shoe store foyer
until the cop car had safely passed. Not until then did he walk up to the
theatre.
Yet Postal has him "ducking in" to the theatre to avoid being seen by... a cop
car:
Mr. Ball.
Ducked in, what do you mean? He had come around the corner----
Mrs. Postal.
Yes; and when the sirens went by he had a panicked look on his face, and he
ducked in.
Mr. Ball.
Now, as the car went by, you say the man ducked in, had you seen him before
the car went by, the police went by?
Mrs. Postal.
No, sir; I was looking up, as I say, when the cars passed, as you know, they
make a tremendous noise, and he ducked in as my boss went that way to get in
his car.
In her own testimony she said she knew
> perfectly well which man Brewer was talking about,
Yes, she did. But do you always put more weight on later accounts?
saying quite
> specifically, "Well, just as I turned around then Johnny Brewer was
> standing there and he asked me if the fellow that ducked in bought a
> ticket, and I said, "No; by golly, he didn't," and turned around
> expecting to see him."
Yep. That's what she said LATER.
But it bears no resemblance to either hers or Brewer's ORIGINAL statements.
> "Him" being the man she had just finished describing as ducking around
> the corner of the box office toward the theater, but not seen by her to
> actually go into it.
>
> > which
> > would make sense given her initial question to Brewer... but then she is
> > describing him in similar terms to Brewer, and just knows he is wanted for
> > something. If she had seen him (as she does indicate), and he was acting
so
> > suspiciously to her, she had no cause to ask Brewer who he was talking
about,
> > did she?
>
> I guess not, since there is no evidence that I can find that either she
> or Brewer ever claimed that she asked Brewer such a question. ;-)
Well, now you've found it.
> May I ask what the source of your assumption was that she did ask Brewer
> which man he was talking about?
It was NOT my assumption. It is what SHE stated.
> > > > > & he most certainly *did* have a
> > > > > pistol on him in the theater,
> > > >
> > > > Or had one forced into his hand.
> > >
> > > Oh dear...
> > >
> > > Could be, but that's rather a stretch, don't you think?
> >
> > The WC version is the stretch.
>
> How is that? Especially that it's more of a "stretch" than your
> speculation? "Forced into his hand"?? Are you suggesting the
> possibility that one of the police arresting Oswald actually may have
> *put* a gun in his hand, a weapon he could use during the struggle,
The weapon could not be fired.
even
> if it was not loaded, at the very least to hit an officer with,
He would not have had a chance. He'd have been shot quick smart. His punching
McDonald was likely because McDonald was not searching him. He was "stitching"
him ie planting the evidence which would implicate him in the Tippit killing -
and act as justification for his execution.
Ever wonder why all the cops waited for McDonald to arrive before going inside
the theatre? Was McDonald in charge? You'd think so. But nope. He was just a
patrolman. Hey, you think they might have waited for him because he was the
one with the pistol they were going to plant on their intended victim?
so that
> it could then be later claimed that Oswald had the pistol on his person
> already when he was arrested?
>
> If so, that seems an *extraordinary* stretch to me.
Only because you don't seem to have gotten much past the WCR and some of the
testimony.
> How on earth is the WC version a "stretch" when, if Oswald was indeed
> the person who shot Tippit, then it would not be a terribly implausible
> thing to keep the pistol with him when he left the scene.
You're starting from an assumption of guilt. Just like they did. When you do
that, you are then forced to make the evidence fit. Somehow.
He belived it was Oswald because the person he saw LOOKED like Oswald? Big
deal. Benavides description also fit Belin.
And here is what he said prior to that:
Mr. Benavides.
Later on that evening, about 4 o'clock, there was two officers came by and
asked for me, Mr. Callaway asked me---I had told them that I had seen the
officer, and the reporters were there and I was trying to hide from the
reporters because they will just bother you all the time.
Then I found out that they thought this was the guy that killed the President.
At the time I didn't know the President was dead or he had been shot.
I was just trying to hide from the reporters and everything, and these two
officers came around and asked me if I'd seen him, and I told him yes, and
told them what I had seen, and they asked me if I could identify him, and I
said I don't think I could. It this time I was sure, I wasn't sure that I
could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't
have.
Mr. Belin.
Did he ever take you to the police station and ask you if you could identify
him?
Mr. Benavides.
No; they didn't.
Strange behaviour on the part of the DPD. Instead, they relied upon the
hysterical Mrs Markham who needed a whiff of ammonia, just to get to the
lineup.
> The man moving away from Tippit while carrying a gun is quite clear. As
> for this being a positive ID of Oswald, it might be somewhat
> questionable, but we do see here Benavides expressing a belief that it
> was Oswald. I am at this time forgetting whether or not Benavides ever
> attended a lineup.
>
> Jimmy Burt, 12-26-63 FBI report:
>
> **********
> At that moment he caught a glimpse of a man running on the sidewalk on
> the south side of the street. The man at this point had reached the
> intersection of 10th and Patton Streets. He
> described this man as a white male, approximately 5'8". He was wearing a
> light colored short jacket. BURT stated he could not describe the man
> further as he was never closer than 50 to 60 yards
> from the man. He said at one point he did notice the man had a pistol in
> his right hand. Although he is familiar with hand weapons he said that
> because of the distance he could not describe the
> pistol.
>
> **********
>
> This certainly attests to a man seen carrying a pistol near the scene,
> though of course it is not an identification of Oswald as that man. But
> do note what he did describe of the man.
Do you know where he was, and who he was with? He claimed to be
with another "witness", Smith, at his brother's house on the corner of
9th and Denver. Smith contradicted him, and said they were in Burt's
front yard on 10th.
He was at least consistent in his statments ;-)
But not without his problems (of a timing nature).
Virginia and Barbara were positive it was Oswald, but in earliest statements,
said they viewed the scene from a side door. When before the WC, Virginia
claimed it was the front door.
> Sam Guinyard, 11-22-63 affidavit:
>
> **********
>
> I work as a partner at the used car lot at 501 E. Jefferson. Today about
> 1:00 pm I heard some shooting near Patton and 10th Street. I ran out and
> looked. I saw a white man running south on
> Patton Street with a pistol in his hand. The last I saw of this man he
> was running west on Jefferson. I went around on 10th Street and saw a
> policeman laying in the street. He was bloody and
> looked dead to me. The #2 man in the lineup I saw at the city hall is
> the same man I saw running with the pistol in his hand.
>
> **********
>
> And in his WC testimony Guinyard made it plain that he was under no
> delusion that this "number 2" man was anyone other than Oswald.
Guinyard is your best witness from this bunch. But it doesn't mean he couldn't
be honestly mistaken. The line-ups, as noted earlier were a sham, and made
identifying Oswald almost impossible to avoid.
> Are you starting to see a pattern here?
Yes. They all put the time at about 1:00pm.
> I've just produced one witness (Burt) who saw "a" man near the scene
> with a pistol, but who did not identify him as Oswald or any other
> particular person, but who nevertheless gave a description of the man
> remarkably similar to that of the other witnesses. I've just produced
> one other witness (Benavides) who missed seeing the shooting itself only
> by ducking,
But who originally claimed he did see it.
but saw a man with a pistol standing right beside the fallen
> officer emptying shells out of his gun, with an ID which, while perhaps
> not "positive" in the strictest sense,
His "it looked like Oswald" didn't come until after the murder of his brother.
still expresses a belief that the
> man he saw was almost certainly the same man whose pictures were
> subsequently seen in the media.
Yet originally claimed to see the murder... but nevertheless, was allowed to
avoid going to a lineup.
But most importantly, I have just
> produced FOUR witnesses who said they saw the man with the gun near the
> scene, & moreover positively ID'd him on the same day.
Yes they did. But for 3 of those, other aspects of their various statements
casts doubts about their reliability.
> And I've only gotten so far through the letter "G."
These 4 witnesses alone are more than enough to support my assertion
> that, "Several witnesses saw Oswald moving away from the scene of the
> Tippet murder with a pistol in his hand." "Four" would most definitely
> count as "several," & note carefully that I did not say they saw him
> *at* the scene with a pistol, but moving in a direction "away" from the
> scene. Are these 4 enough for you, or shall we go through more of the
> alphabet in my next reply?
>
> Ask & ye shall receive. ;-)
In my estimation, you have one relatively problem-free witness. I say
"relatively" because nothing is going to get around the problem with those
lineups.
> Now you may possibly explain to me why it might be a reasonable
> assertion that Oswald did not actually carry a pistol into the theater,
1) The pistol that was displayed before TV cameras at the Tippit site and
described as the murder weapon.
2) The wallet found at the Tippit murder site and described as containing
Oswald
ID by Hosty and others.
2) The Hill radio call advising that a witness had seen the wanted man run
into a church.
3) Lack of a search of that church.
4) All the other cops waiting for McDonald to arrive at the TT before entering
and allowing this patrolman to basically lead the charge.
5) The gun had a faulty firing pin
6) Oswald punching McDonald as he was being "patted down". This was when the
plant was taking place. Oswald had to get some distance between them.
Unfortunately at least 3 others came along to hold him so McDonald could do
what he came to do. This was when LHO started yelling that he wasn't resisting
arrest etc. They could not afford to kill him now with all those witnesses
hearing what he was saying.
7) Lack of attempted murder charges being filed.
8) McDonald telling the press that Oswald had given no trouble.
when precisely the same man who was arrested in the theater was
> positively ID'd by a minimum of 4 people, all of whom additionally said
> they saw him carrying a pistol (& said it on the very day even), &
> described him as moving in a general direction away from the scene of
> the Tippit murder, & more or less in a direction toward the theater.
More or less.... ya... how many minutes walk was that, btw?
> > & several of the theater patrons corroborated
> > > the police statements that Oswald drew out a pistol.
> >
> > "Several" did not. Try one. Gibson.
>
> Bzzzt!
I thought you might be desperate enough to use Applin.
And all of that under a barrage of leading questions. Even then the very young
Applin stated he thought it was Oswald because the arm holding it had on a
short sleeve shirt. Use him by all means. It's your credibility. You choice.
Yep. Leading questions. Misidentification.
> Let's not omit Brewer's description of the incident:
>
> **********
>
> Mr. BELIN - Who hit who first?
> Mr. BREWER - Oswald hit McDonald first, and he knocked him to the seat.
> Mr. BELIN - Who knocked who?
> Mr. BREWER - He knocked McDonald down. McDonald fell against one of the
> seats. And then real quick he was back up.
> Mr. BELIN - When you say he was----
> Mr. BREWER - McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second
> and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward
> that, and I saw this gun come up
> and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.
> Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
> Mr. BREWER - No.
> Mr. BELIN - You saw the gun up in the air?
> Mr. BREWER - And somebody hollered "He's got a gun."
>
> **********
>
> Admittedly he didn't say he saw Oswald "draw" the gun. But notice how
> this testimony doesn't contradict Applin's in the slightest,
No. But it does contradict that of every cop.
& suggests
> that McDonald was the only officer struggling with Oswald at the instant
> the gun appeared in Oswald's hand, which was what Applin more
> specifically suggested, although he did not name McDonald. I really
> don't see how Oswald could have obtained this gun unless he grabbed it
> out of McDonald's holster, or he already had it on his person. And I
> don't recall McDonald ever claiming that it was his gun that Oswald had
> in his hand.
> Or shall we go with the possibility that McDonald, the only officer near
> enough to Oswald at the time, "forced" a gun into Oswald's hand? A gun
> which, at the very least, Oswald could have beat McDonald over the head
> with, even if it wasn't loaded?
See above.
> That seems rather ludicrous to me.
And the WCR is the Titanic of Government reports. Except it kept lurching on
to hit countless icebergs. Smoke and mirrors gave the illusion it still
floated.
> I'm looking at Gibson's testimony now. But although you may have a
> point in disputing that any theater witnesses actually saw him "draw"
> the gun, I see now that your response that Gibson was the "only one" who
> said such a thing is also in error.
Applin "guessed" he drew it because a person wearing a short sleeve shirt
ended up with it. You can have Applin, buddy. Be my guest.
He didn't say he saw Oswald "draw"
> the gun, as in from his clothing, etc., either. He said essentially the
> same thing as the other 2 I've cited, that at a certain point he saw
> Oswald *holding* a gun.
>
> Shall we go past the letter "G" in my next reply?
Bring 'em on.
> > I have tremendous
> > > difficulty in believing all these different people were lying.
> >
> > Only because you've been misled by what the evidence actually shows.
>
> I am showing that the evidence does not "show" anything other than what
> I've essentially claimed it shows. I may have been slightly off on
> little details such as whether or not theater patrons literally saw
> Oswald "draw" a gun, but I wasn't even slightly off in saying that
> several witnesses positively ID'd the same man who was arrested in the
> theater as the man they themselves had just seen not long before that
> carrying a pistol & moving in a general direction away from the scene of
> the Tippit shooting & toward the theater.
The devil truly is in the detail... and in some of the earlier statements.
> > > The
> > > preponderance of evidence is that he did indeed have a pistol.
> >
> > The evidence is far from convincing.
>
> Only if one doesn't look at very much of it.
Uh uh. The more one looks, the worse it gets for the WC.
> > McDonald said "he was darwing a gun". In the final report, this was
changed to
> > "he dew the gun".
>
> Which seems to be essentially the same claim. Or are you harping on the
> mere triviality of a slight change of tense in the 2 statements?
Such subtle changes add up.
> > Brewer and Gibson go anyhere near having Oswald with a gun cleanly in his
> > hand.
>
> EXCUSE ME??? I've just QUOTED them both, plus Applin, as stating he DID
> very very very clearly have a gun in his hand,
Not sure if I confused you here. The above should have read "Only Brewer and
Gibson go anywhere near..."
& 4 other witnesses to
> the SAME MAN having a gun in his hand less than 30 minutes earlier in
> nearby locations. I even quoted Applin saying this very thing on the
> day it happened, not just months later for the WC, so we can't even
> opine any subsequent "change" to his initial statement to this effect.
>
> > Even McDonal never claimed that.
>
> "He was drawing a gun" & "He drew the gun" do not indicate him having a
> gun in his hand???
McDonaald said they both had a hand on it. Obviously that comes as no
surprise to me.
<snip>
> > > > > How is it "hardly the point"? The point is precisely that there
were
> > > > > more reasons to arrest Oswald than merely his absence from the TSBD.
> > > >
> > > > I know, I know. Not buying a ticket for the movie, and performing
Spencer
> > > > Tracey impersonations without AGVA membership.
> > >
> > > You haven't a shred of evidence that he "performed" any such
> > > "impersonation."
> >
> > No. I don't think he did, either. Brewer was probably exaggerating his
> > description.
>
> Do you see above where I quoted Brewer as attributing no more agitation
> to Oswald other than that he looked "scared"? I think YOU were assuming
> more agitation in Brewer's description than he actually gave. No wonder
> you postulated a "Hyde" transformation. The reality is that Oswald was
> not described as being "cool" as often as you claim, nor was he under
> these other circumstances described as being quite as agitated as you
> seemed to think. The reality seems to have been more toward the middle
> than your assumption of Oswald vacillating wildly from one absolute
> extreme to another.
Thank you. You finally get it.
> > > > Are you aware of the confict in testimony as to whether the cops who
went
> > to
> > > > the TT knew they were about to encounter an assassin as well as a cop
> > killer?
> > >
> > > I've read them saying that a connection between the Tippet slaying & the
> > > shooting of JFK occurred to some of them almost immediately. There
> > > were, for example, several that I recall reading saying that shootings
> > > of police officers in quiet residential areas like that were far from
> > > common in Dallas in 1963, especially in broad daylight. I don't see all
> > > of that as particularly implausible reasoning for some of them to fairly
> > > quickly suspect that there was a connection between the two.
> >
> > Then why did some have trouble admitting it?
>
> What "trouble" are you talking about?
They were asked, and denied they had any idea this would be the President's
assassin at the time they went to the TT.
<snip>
> Of course, as at that time it seemed to me that you were assuming they
> were already out to literally arrest him that early, just as with
> Rachley/Baker, I was responding to your assertion that she didn't say
> anything about returning to the TSBD only discovering later that she did
> say it. I found out more after posting that comment.
>
> > You quoted Hill quoting Fritz as merely putting out an
> > > order to "pick up a man named Lee Oswald." The word "arrest" is not
> > > used there. "Pick up" may have simply meant "pick up for questioning,"
> > > not "arrest." I'm also not aware that the man in the Texas Theater was
> > > even suspected of being Oswald, i.e., the same employee who was missing
> > > from the TSBD, at the time of his arrest. Is there some evidence that
> > > the DPD suspected in advance that the Oswald of the TSBD was going to be
> > > the person about whom they had received the call from Postal regarding
> > > him sneaking into the theater?
> >
> > I have no idea if such evidence exists.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > Are you claiming that Oswald being reported as absent has absolutely no
> > importance in the scheme of things?
>
> Nope. What I am claiming is that there is not a shred of evidence that
> there must necessarily be anything suspicious about it.
That's your take, and I won't try and disabuse you of it any further.
balance snipped as it mostly repetative. Feel free to start a new thread on
anything you feel I snipped but should have addressed.
greg
AnthonyMarsh
One or two more? Doesn't that statement alone disprove the false WC
defender claim that Oswald was the only TSBD employee missing?
> Mr. BALL. But walking which way?
>
> Mr. TRULY. The last time I saw him, he was walking across Houston Street, east on Elm.
> <<<(VII, 382) [my emphasis]
>
> UNQUOTE
>
> Seems to me that Truly is explaining why he reported Oswald missing but didn't
> report Givens missing. In any event, he *did* report Oswald missing, and some
> CTs will never forgive him for that, it seems.
>
That's fine. But again the point is that Oswald was not the only
employee missing, as Truly himself testified to. Maybe there was a
female employee missing, but Truly would never consider a woman a
possible assassin.
> > > QUOTE:
> > >
> > > >>>
> > > Mr. BALL. Did you make a check of your employees afterwards?
> > >
> > > Mr. TRULY. No, no; not complete. No, I just saw the group of the employees over there
> >> on
> > > the floor and I noticed this boy wasn't with them. With no thought in my mind except
> >> that
> > > I had seen him a short time before in the building, I noticed he wasn't there.
> > >
> > > Mr. BALL. What do you mean "a short time before"?
> > >
> > > Mr. TRULY. I would say 10 or 12 minutes.
> > >
> > > Mr. BALL. You mean that's when you saw him in the lunchroom?
> > >
> > > Mr. TRULY. In the lunchroom.
> > >
> > > Mr. BALL. And you noticed he wasn't over there?
> > >
> > > Mr. TRULY. Well, I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him around and he said "No."<<<
> > >
> > > END QUOTE
> > >
> >
> > Excellent. You are assuming that "this boy" could only refer to Lee
> > Harvey Oswald. Fine with me.
>
> Huh? In context, Tony, "this boy" quite obviously refers to Oswald. Who *else*
> do you think Truly had seen "a short time before" in the lunchroom?
>
As I said, it is fine with me. Next time a conspiracy theorist jumps to
the same type of conclusion, don't jump all over the person for jumping
to conclusions.
> > But you seem to be the only WC defender who
> > will admit that a witness said that he saw Oswald in the lunchroom 10 to
> > 12 minutes before the shooting.
>
> Which witness are you talking about, Tony? I don't think any witness has
> reliably placed Oswald in either lunchroom, though I may've agreed that some
> witness *said* that.
>
Do you have trouble reading? Truly said that he saw Oswald in the
lunchroom about 10 to 12 minutes before the shooting. Or maybe in that
sentence you think that the boy does not mean Oswald.
> > Not much time to get the rifle, set up
> > the sniper's nest and be ready for the motorcade to arrive on time 5
> > minutes earlier than it actually did.
>
> What makes you think that Oswald "set up the sniper's nest" only 10 to
> 12 minutes before the shooting?
>
So, when did he set it up and why didn't anyone notice it or complain
about something unusual? Maybe because it was a usual set-up as they had
to move the boxes to lay down the new floor. I'd like to see you try to
move all those boxes into place in 5 minutes! You challenged me to
produce an alternative scenario, so here is your chance. Tell me when
Oswald set up the sniper's nest. Oh, and BTW, is there any chance in
hell that you'll ever answer any of the questions I asked you? How and
when did Oswald get the wrapping paper from the TSBD out to Irving?
> > Now that's you've opened up this can of worms, how can you explain the
> > men who were actually in the lunchroom and who testified that Oswald was
> > never in the lunchroom?
>
> Again, I don't know who you're referring to.
>
You mean that you don't know which Negro employees were asked if they
saw Oswald in the lunchroom and testified that they did not see him
there at any time? Is that what you mean?
If you missed the previous threads you can probably find them in Google
Groups.
> The "false claim" is in the CT books. (Oswald Talked, as just one example,
> lists as a main point in "the case against Oswald" the claim that "Oswald was the only
> person missing from the TSBD when a roll call was made prior to 2PM." (pp. 369,
> 387) I don't know of any LNers who've made that claim, I've only seen CTs
> "refuting" it, unless I've overlooked something (which is always possible).
>
I am not sure if that is a claim made by CTers in books such as Oswald
Talked where they are arguing for Oswald's guilt. It may be a list of
commonly heard claims from the WC defenders.
Did Truly actually see Baker run in through the front door of the TSBD?
I believe that Truly was asked about strangers and also employees of the
TSBD. I don't think that he was specifically asked about police, Secret
Service agents, FBI agents, ATF agents, or CIA agents who were in the
TSBD.
Hmm, isn't that curious. How could it be that we reach the same
conclusion, but from different methods? Can you figure out how such a
thing could happen? As I said, I do not disagree with the fact. I
disagree with the methodology and the conclusions derived from the fact
as made by SOME WC defenders. It's like the amateur sleuths who prove
that a man killed his wife because his fingerprints were found in his
house.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > according to the sworn testimony. Apparently no CT thinks that's suspicious.
> > > > > Roy Truly
> > > >
> > > > If you claim that Oswald was the only worker to leave before the
> > > > building was sealed off, it seems axiomatic that no one could leave
> > > > after the building was sealed off. Therefore how do you explain people
> > > > who were inside the building at the time of the shooting and then left
> > > > the building?
> > >
> > > Excuse me? Who are you talking about that left and when? Eventually, of
> > > course, they *all* went home.
> > > Jean
> > >
> >
> > You want me to repeat every other message which has been written about
> > this? Try reading. Some left soon after the shooting.
>
> Try reading yourself, Tony. What I said, which you apparently snipped, was...
I try never to snip. Others complain about that. When in doubt the
original messages can be double checked on Google Groups.
> "Oswald was the only worker who was inside the building at 12:30 who left the area before
> the building was sealed off, according to the sworn testimony." Once the building was
> sealed, no one could leave until *allowed* to leave. Now, who "left soon after the
> shooting," please? If any such person has been named, please cite the post.
I believe that several people have been mentioned already. And my point
was that if they sealed off the building, how could anyone leave after
that?
greg
Oh, he's included, Jean. And don't forget Dougherty. Or others employed by
various book companies.
Problem is only one was identified as missing.
> However, we were discussing workers "who didn't return to work."
West and Piper
> remained at work until after they'd been questioned by police and released,
about 2 PM.
> By 2 PM, Oswald had already been to Oak Cliff and back and was under arrest.
Exactly. So how hard do you think they were questioned once the suspect had
already been nabbed?
> Oswald was inside, had no alibi, and left early. You don't find
that
> suspicious?
No more or less than the activity of others.
> > As for those outside, some stated they could not recall who was "at my
elbow"
> > as one put it - it is pretty obvious that not all could have had someone
vouch
> > for there whereabouts.
>
> This woman was an exception, I think. Almost everyone else
outside had an
> alibi, according to the affidavits in CE 1381.
One exception is okay, though?
> > Another example is Warren Caster. Caster stated he was at a business lunch
at
> > the university in Denton with a Dr Vernon V Payne during the
assassination.
> > This alibi was never checked out with Dr Payne.
>
> Are you sure it wasn't checked out?
Caster admitted it wasn't during an interview sometime in the '90's. The
article is online somewhere.
>Is there any reason to
> believe that Caster
> was elsewhere?
No there isn't... NOW. But you have a habit of arguing that any shortfalls in
the investigation back then do not matter. Hey, they got the right guy, right?
> > Only Givens was on
> > > Truly's
> > > warehouse crew, and Truly didn't report Givens missing because he knew
that
> > > Givens, unlike
> > > Oswald, was outside the building during the shooting. In addition to
about
> > > 15 warehouse
> > > workers, there were several dozen TSBD office workers, many of them
female.
> >
> > As pointed out already, how could Truly have known Oswald was not outside
at
> > the time of the shots? If you answer because he saw him moments later on
the
> > 2nd floor, then by the same locic, he should have also assumed he could
not
> > have been on the 6th floor.
>
> Why should Truly have assumed that LHO couldn't have been on the 6th
floor, if he'd
> never timed it? Why should he have assumed that Oswald had been outside
and then rushed
> to the back of the building, arriving before he and Baker did?
Why should he assume someone he'd seen moments after the last shot acting
anything but suspiciously 4 floors below where the police believed the sniper
to have been could be involved?
Oh, I know... he quotes himself later as saying at the time "this may not mean
much, but..."
What DOES mean something is the lack of action to account for the whereabouts
of all others.
> > > > Roy Lewis: "Following the assassination all employees were dismissed
from
> > > > work, and I left the building at about 1:15pm." [this is PRIOR to
Oswald
> > > > being
> > > > "discovered" as missing]
> > >
> > > Truly didn't *report* Oswald missing until after 1:15, most
likely,
> > > but that was
> > > after he'd looked up Oswald's address and located Fritz. According to
his
> > > statement,
> > > Lewis was a warehouse worker like Oswald, and others in the crew gave
later
> > > estimates of the time they were let go.
> >
> > It is the report to Fritz which is the critical moment. By then, he knew
the
> > 6th floor was where they believed the sniper was.
>
> I don't agree that Truly should've thought the 6th floor ruled out
Oswald. In
> fact, he would've known that this was a book storage area where his men
customarily
> worked.
Men. Plural. But the fact is that anyone in the building could have slipped up
to the 6th floor with the vast majority outside. One book company employee
even stated in CE 1381 that he had intended to watch the motorcade from the
6th floor, but had another appointment elsewhere. This shows conclusively that
anyone could have been on that floor... that access was not limited to Truly's
boys.
> > I can't recall was Frazier said in in WC testimony, but in this CE 1381,
he
> > stated he left between 1:00pm and 2:pm. No mention is made of whether he
had
> > permission.
>
> It is stated in Frazier's testimony that he and fellow workers were
questioned by
> the police on the first floor, and gave their names and addresses. Then
they were told
> they could leave.
Yep. I've since re read it.
Sorry, Jean. I seem to have completely misread your previous comment.
> > Regardless, as I've already said, if Givens was off the hook because Truly
knew
> > he was out of the building, then similarly, Oswald should not have caused
him
> > suspicion once he knew the sniper was apparently on the 6th floor.
>
> Why not? As he said, "it may not mean anything," but "he's
missing." So you
> don't think he should've told Fritz that Oswald left?
No. I DO think he should have immediately taken steps to account for the
whereabouts of all others. Same goes for the head of each of the book
companies.
So we can discount Geneva as well.
> > > > I strongly doubt there was any roll call, Vern.
> > >
> > > I agree, there was no formal "roll call." However, Oswald was
the
> > > only worker who was inside the building at 12:30 who left the area
before the building
> > > was
> > > sealed off,
> >
> > Even if I allow that to stand as an unchallemged fact, Truly did not know
at
> > the time that Oswald was the ONLY perosn who met that crieria.
>
> Well, I hope you won't leave it unchallenged. And Truly didn't
claim to know
> that Oswald was the "only worker who was inside the building at 12:30 who
left the area
> before the building was sealed off."
Nor did he take immediate steps to determine who else may fit that criteria.
> > > according to the sworn testimony. Apparently no CT thinks that's
> > > suspicious. Roy Truly
> > > reporting Oswald missing... now *that's* suspicious, right?
> >
> > In the circumstances, it doesn't look good... especially when he may have
lied
> > about his and Baker's encounter with Oswald, and that he created an
artificial
> > vacancy at just the right time for Oswald etc etc...
>
> I find it amazing that, to many CTs, everybody is under suspicion but
Oswald.
> Could someone explain why that is?
I find it amazing that some aren't suspicious of ANYONE except Oswald. But
that is how it is, I guess, when you present a case as the prosecution. All
evidence leading away from the accused has to marginalised, excused,
destroyed, forgotten, or twisted.
greg
Jean
>
> >
> > greg
> >
> > Jean
> > >
> > >
> > > > greg
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jean Davison
> > >
> > > "Vern Pascal" <lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> > > news:13055-3E9...@storefull-2313.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> > > > Jean Davison wrote (excerpted):
> > > >
> > > > (The WC) claimed that Roy Truly happened to notice that Oswald was
> > > > missing and reported it to the police."
> > > >
> > > > Jean, touche', The WC didn't actually claim that LHO was the only
> > > > person missing. However, since many of the TSBD employees apparently
> > > > left the grounds, did Truly "happen" to notice if anyone else was
> > > > missing besides LHO? I don't recall him mentoning anyone else. He
> > > > fixated on LHO's absence rather quicky, and exclusively, don't you
> > > > agree?---------Vern
> > >
> > > Vern, if I may interject here... he did, as you say, fixate rather quickly
> > > on
> > > LHO. What causes me concern though, is his stated reason for that, which
> > > was
> > > to the effect that LHO had stuck in his mind as a result of the alleged
> > > encounter on the 2nd floor. By the time he reported to Fritz that LHO was
> > > absent, he must have known full well that police were concentrating on the
> > > 6th
> > > floor. Why then would he be suspicious of someone he encountered on the
> > > second
> > > floor so seemingly cool, calm and collected,
> > > moments after the last shot was fired?
> >
> > Yes, they were concentrating on the 6th floor, but how did the
> > sniper exit the
> > 6th floor? When Truly raced to the back of the building with Patrolman
> > Baker, he first
> > tried to use the freight elevators in the NW corner but they were hung up on
> > the 5th
> > floor. That left the nearby stairs as the only feasible escape route from
> > the SN. And
> > golly gee, where did Mr. Oswald show up? Near those back stairs.
>
> Tres convenient.
> But firstly, I don't necessarily believe the shooter was on
> the 6th floor. He may have been. Secondly, I don't believe there was any
> encounter on the 2nd floor. Refer to my previous posts about this.
So you think both Truly and Baker lied under oath just to place Oswald on the
second floor rather than the 4th floor? But the fourth floor places him even closer to
the sniper's nest -- that's even better!
Baker that may've been confused about which floor partly because he had to
run up stairs on the outside of the building in order to enter the so-called "first
floor." That is, there's a floor under the "first."
> Add into
> the mix also the statement of Otis Williams: "After returning inside the Texas
> School Book Depository
> Building just after hearing the three shots on November 22, 1963 I assisted a
> police detective in making a search of the 2nd floor of the building."
>
> Why didn't Williams and this unknown detective bump into Oswald? Or for that
> matter, Truly and Baker? And why was this detective interested in the 2nd
> floor in the first place?
The police didn't begin searching the building until after LHO, T & B had come and
gone. All the floors were searched, and Williams helped on the 2nd because that's
where he worked. Here's some testimony from 3 witnesses:
QUOTE:
>>>
Mr. WEITZMAN. After that, we entered the building and started to search floor to floor and
we started on the first floor, second floor, third floor and on up, when we got up to the
fifth or sixth floor....<<<< [VII, 107]
>>>
Mr. SIMS. Well, let's see, we got off--we stopped at the second floor and went to the
third floor and some officer there had a key to a room and we made a hurried search of it
and there was a bunch of officers on that floor and we went on to the fourth floor, and I
don't know if we got off at the fourth or not, but anyway, we got off at the seventh floor
each floor as we passed would have officers on it, and we hadn't been on the seventh floor
very long--for just a while until someone hollered that they had found the hulls on the
sixth floor, so we went back to the sixth floor. <<<<[VII, 160]
>>>>
Mr. BELIN. Who has custody of the key [to a 2nd floor conference room]?
Mrs. REID. I got that from Mr. Williams' desk, because that is where I got it from, and
then the porter has one. I could not say. They all have the keys.
Mr. BELIN. When did you get it to unlock the door?
Mrs. REID. Well, by the time the policeman got there and started searching our floor.
[....]
Mr. BELIN. Would this have been more or less than 5 minutes after you got back in the
building that you opened the lounge?
Mrs. REID. That is where you all get me in this time because I was not watching the clock
that day.
<<<<
[III, 278]
UNQUOTE
Reid saw Oswald walk through the room before all this happened.
>
> > So there he was, well away from a view of the motorcade which
> > the vast
> > majority of the TSBD workers had been watching. With the possible exception
> > of Jack
> > Dougherty, Oswald appears to have been the only TSBD employee (out of 90+)
>
> 76 I believe was the FBI count. Only 73 statements taken because 3 were absent
> from work that day.
Yep, you are right, although 3 or so of the 73 were working at the other
warehouse that day. But yes, I goofed on the number.
>
> > who was
> > anywhere near the back stairs at that particular time. Probably just a
> > coincidence, huh?
>
> I don't think it's any coincidence he was placed by Truly, and then later by
> Baker, were he was, no.
So you think Baker and Truly committed perjury? How were they
persuaded to do this, I wonder?
>
> > Then, a few minutes after Truly sees Oswald there, the building is sealed
> off.
>
> Sawyer said the building wasn't sealed until he arrived and gave the order, so
> we're looking at 8 to 10 minutes, I believe.
Could be, but nevertheless, during those however-many minutes, everybody else
inside the TSBD could've walked out, too. They didn't.
>
> Any idea why, btw that Sawyer happened to turn up at the TSBD in the first
> place? Could not have been for the reason he gave the WC.
Ah, yet another perjurer, it seems.
>
> > No one is
> > allowed in or out. Truly remembers seeing Oswald in the building and he
> > hasn't let his
> > workers go yet, so Oswald *should* still be there, but he's not. Anybody
> > getting
> > suspicious yet? (Of Oswald, I mean, not Truly, or Dougherty.)
> > Jean
>
> Sure I'm suspicious of Oswald. But that doesn't mean things happened the wasy
> the commission stated.
If he's not guilty, it is very difficult to explain all the evidence against
him.
Jean
>
> greg
>
> > > greg
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
greg
Jean, yes it is. But Reid's affidavit the next day was the problem. She may
have been evaluated as someone who could not be "persuaded" to change her
story.
> Baker that may've been confused about which floor partly because he
had to
> run up stairs on the outside of the building in order to enter the so-called
"first
> floor." That is, there's a floor under the "first."
Sorry, Jean... I don't think a cop would get confused because he ran up some
steps to enter the building.
> > Add into
> > the mix also the statement of Otis Williams: "After returning inside the
Texas
> > School Book Depository
> > Building just after hearing the three shots on November 22, 1963 I
assisted a
> > police detective in making a search of the 2nd floor of the building."
> >
> > Why didn't Williams and this unknown detective bump into Oswald? Or for
that
> > matter, Truly and Baker? And why was this detective interested in the 2nd
> > floor in the first place?
>
> The police didn't begin searching the building until after LHO, T & B
had come and
> gone. All the floors were searched, and Williams helped on the 2nd because
that's
> where he worked. Here's some testimony from 3 witnesses:
>
> QUOTE:
> >>>
> Mr. WEITZMAN. After that, we entered the building and started to search
floor to floor and
> we started on the first floor, second floor, third floor and on up, when we
got up to the
> fifth or sixth floor....<<<< [VII, 107]
Weitzaman was a deputy constable, not a detective. Couldn't have been him
Williams was referring to.
> Mr. SIMS. Well, let's see, we got off--we stopped at the second floor and
went to the
> third floor and some officer there had a key to a room and we made a hurried
search of it
> and there was a bunch of officers on that floor and we went on to the fourth
floor, and I
> don't know if we got off at the fourth or not, but anyway, we got off at the
seventh floor
> each floor as we passed would have officers on it, and we hadn't been on the
seventh floor
> very long--for just a while until someone hollered that they had found the
hulls on the
> sixth floor, so we went back to the sixth floor. <<<<[VII, 160]
Sims was a detective, but couldn't have been him either. He didn't arrive
there until sometime around 1:00pm. In any case, he says the second floor was
full of officers when he got there. Indeed, you have posted where he says that
one of those officers had a key to a room on the 2nd floor.
> >>>>
> Mr. BELIN. Who has custody of the key [to a 2nd floor conference room]?
>
> Mrs. REID. I got that from Mr. Williams' desk, because that is where I got
it from, and
> then the porter has one. I could not say. They all have the keys.
>
> Mr. BELIN. When did you get it to unlock the door?
>
> Mrs. REID. Well, by the time the policeman got there and started searching
our floor.
> [....]
>
> Mr. BELIN. Would this have been more or less than 5 minutes after you got
back in the
> building that you opened the lounge?
>
> Mrs. REID. That is where you all get me in this time because I was not
watching the clock
> that day.
> <<<<
> [III, 278]
> UNQUOTE
>
> Reid saw Oswald walk through the room before all this happened.
Obviously, since it was only just after the Truly/Baker/Oswald encounter. I
can only surmise that since Otis claimed his assistance was rendered "just
after" the the last shot, Baker was not the only cop to race in there in quick
time.
> > > So there he was, well away from a view of the motorcade
which
> > > the vast
> > > majority of the TSBD workers had been watching. With the possible
exception
> > > of Jack
> > > Dougherty, Oswald appears to have been the only TSBD employee (out of
90+)
> >
> > 76 I believe was the FBI count. Only 73 statements taken because 3 were
absent
> > from work that day.
>
> Yep, you are right, although 3 or so of the 73 were working at the
other
> warehouse that day. But yes, I goofed on the number.
>
> >
> > > who was
> > > anywhere near the back stairs at that particular time. Probably just a
> > > coincidence, huh?
> >
> > I don't think it's any coincidence he was placed by Truly, and then later
by
> > Baker, were he was, no.
>
> So you think Baker and Truly committed perjury? How were they
> persuaded to do this, I wonder?
Do you really?
> > > Then, a few minutes after Truly sees Oswald there, the building is
sealed
> > off.
> >
> > Sawyer said the building wasn't sealed until he arrived and gave the
order, so
> > we're looking at 8 to 10 minutes, I believe.
>
> Could be, but nevertheless, during those however-many minutes,
everybody else
> inside the TSBD could've walked out, too. They didn't.
Whoa, Nellie. The 5th floor 3 came out the front and another 2 went out the
back.
> > Any idea why, btw that Sawyer happened to turn up at the TSBD in the first
> > place? Could not have been for the reason he gave the WC.
>
> Ah, yet another perjurer, it seems.
Well, the case with him is pretty clear cut. He stated before the commission
that the order to go there came over the police radio. At best, you might be
able to claim he was mistaken as to the source of the order. Perhaps he
received it by carrier pigeon?
> > > No one is
> > > allowed in or out. Truly remembers seeing Oswald in the building and he
> > > hasn't let his
> > > workers go yet, so Oswald *should* still be there, but he's not.
Anybody
> > > getting
> > > suspicious yet? (Of Oswald, I mean, not Truly, or Dougherty.)
> > > Jean
> >
> > Sure I'm suspicious of Oswald. But that doesn't mean things happened the
wasy
> > the commission stated.
>
> If he's not guilty, it is very difficult to explain all the
evidence against
> him.
If he's not guilty, I would have thought it was VERY easy to explain the
evidence against him. But there are degrees of guilt. And in that scenario,
some of the evidence against him may actually be genuine.
Regardless of degree of guilt, he was framed to take the fall solo. The frame
was amateurish, though. And it made for some fancy foot-work to account for
all the problems during the cover-up phase.
Just for the record... I personally believe he was innocent of firing any
shots. The only question in my mind is whether he played some other role, or
whether at least he had prior knowledge of what was going to happen.
greg
Jean Davison
I don't see why Reid's account is a problem, Greg. Her time estimate of 2
minutes, which was a minimum, jibes pretty well with the reenactment time for Truly/Baker
of 90 seconds (minimum). And all these time estimates have to be taken with a grain of
salt.
>
> > Baker that may've been confused about which floor partly because he
> > had to
> > run up stairs on the outside of the building in order to enter the so-called
> > "first floor." That is, there's a floor under the "first."
>
> Sorry, Jean... I don't think a cop would get confused because he ran up some
> steps to enter the building.
Cops are only human, and it was eight steps up, as seen at the bottom of this page
in CE 495:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0118a.htm
Are you sure Baker *couldn't* have been mistaken about which floor the
lunchroom was on?
>
> > > Add into
> > > the mix also the statement of Otis Williams: "After returning inside the
> > > Texas School Book Depository
> > > Building just after hearing the three shots on November 22, 1963 I
> > > assisted a police detective in making a search of the 2nd floor of the building."
> > >
> > > Why didn't Williams and this unknown detective bump into Oswald? Or for
> > > that
> > > matter, Truly and Baker? And why was this detective interested in the 2nd
> > > floor in the first place?
> >
> > The police didn't begin searching the building until after LHO, T & B
> > had come and
> > gone. All the floors were searched, and Williams helped on the 2nd because
> > that's where he worked. Here's some testimony from 3 witnesses:
> >
> > QUOTE:
> > >>>
> > Mr. WEITZMAN. After that, we entered the building and started to search
> > floor to floor and
> > we started on the first floor, second floor, third floor and on up, when we
> > got up to the
> > fifth or sixth floor....<<<< [VII, 107]
>
> Weitzaman was a deputy constable, not a detective. Couldn't have been him
> Williams was referring to.
Notice that Weitzman said "we"? He wasn't the only one searching. Was Weitzman
wearing a uniform?
>
> > Mr. SIMS. Well, let's see, we got off--we stopped at the second floor and
> > went to the
> > third floor and some officer there had a key to a room and we made a hurried
> > search of it
> > and there was a bunch of officers on that floor and we went on to the fourth
> > floor, and I
> > don't know if we got off at the fourth or not, but anyway, we got off at the
> > seventh floor
> > each floor as we passed would have officers on it, and we hadn't been on the
> > seventh floor
> > very long--for just a while until someone hollered that they had found the
> > hulls on the
> > sixth floor, so we went back to the sixth floor. <<<<[VII, 160]
>
> Sims was a detective, but couldn't have been him either. He didn't arrive
> there until sometime around 1:00pm. In any case, he says the second floor was
> full of officers when he got there. Indeed, you have posted where he says that
> one of those officers had a key to a room on the 2nd floor.
Okay, can we agree there was nothing usual about searching the 2nd floor along with
the other floors?
>
> > >>>>
> > Mr. BELIN. Who has custody of the key [to a 2nd floor conference room]?
> >
> > Mrs. REID. I got that from Mr. Williams' desk, because that is where I got
> > it from, and
> > then the porter has one. I could not say. They all have the keys.
> >
> > Mr. BELIN. When did you get it to unlock the door?
> >
> > Mrs. REID. Well, by the time the policeman got there and started searching
> > our floor.
> > [....]
> >
> > Mr. BELIN. Would this have been more or less than 5 minutes after you got
> > back in the
> > building that you opened the lounge?
> >
> > Mrs. REID. That is where you all get me in this time because I was not
> > watching the clock that day.
> > <<<<
> > [III, 278]
> > UNQUOTE
> >
> > Reid saw Oswald walk through the room before all this happened.
>
> Obviously, since it was only just after the Truly/Baker/Oswald encounter. I
> can only surmise that since Otis claimed his assistance was rendered "just
> after" the the last shot, Baker was not the only cop to race in there in quick
> time.
"Just after" is pretty vague. Besides, as I read his statement above, he's
saying that he went back inside "just after" the shots, then at some point *after that* he
assisted in the search.
>
> > > > So there he was, well away from a view of the motorcade
> > > > which the vast
> > > > majority of the TSBD workers had been watching. With the possible
> > > > exception
> > > > of Jack
> > > > Dougherty, Oswald appears to have been the only TSBD employee (out of
> > > > 90+)
> > >
> > > 76 I believe was the FBI count. Only 73 statements taken because 3 were
> > > absent from work that day.
> >
> > Yep, you are right, although 3 or so of the 73 were working at the
> > other warehouse that day. But yes, I goofed on the number.
> >
> > >
> > > > who was
> > > > anywhere near the back stairs at that particular time. Probably just a
> > > > coincidence, huh?
> > >
> > > I don't think it's any coincidence he was placed by Truly, and then later
> > > by Baker, were he was, no.
> >
> > So you think Baker and Truly committed perjury? How were they
> > persuaded to do this, I wonder?
>
> Do you really?
Yes. Care to explain it to me?
>
> > > > Then, a few minutes after Truly sees Oswald there, the building is
> > > > sealed off.
> > >
> > > Sawyer said the building wasn't sealed until he arrived and gave the
> > > order, so
> > > we're looking at 8 to 10 minutes, I believe.
> >
> > Could be, but nevertheless, during those however-many minutes,
> > everybody else inside the TSBD could've walked out, too. They didn't.
>
> Whoa, Nellie. The 5th floor 3 came out the front and another 2 went out the
> back.
But they all went right back in!! They didn't walk out and LEAVE, as Oswald did.
All 5 of them remained until told they could go home, most said about 2 PM -- they are
Williams, Norman, Jarman from the 5th floor, and Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles, who
went out the back.
Here's Norman's testimony, e.g.:
QUOTE:
>>>>
The CHAIRMAN. Then did you go out of the building, away from the building or come back?
Mr. NORMAN. No, sir; we had to go back inside.
The CHAIRMAN. You had to go back?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. In other words, you went out in front?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And then came back?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. After you had gone to the first floor.
Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. Did law enforcement officers make you go back or did you do it on
your own initiative?
Mr. NORMAN. I remember, I don't know if this is the only time or not, but I remember the
law enforcement saying not to let anybody leave from the building and I can't remember if
that is the time we went back in the building or before or what.
[III, 197]
<<<<
Oswald probably left even before any of these people went outside briefly.
>
> > > Any idea why, btw that Sawyer happened to turn up at the TSBD in the first
> > > place? Could not have been for the reason he gave the WC.
> >
> > Ah, yet another perjurer, it seems.
>
> Well, the case with him is pretty clear cut. He stated before the commission
> that the order to go there came over the police radio. At best, you might be
> able to claim he was mistaken as to the source of the order. Perhaps he
> received it by carrier pigeon?
Well, I think you're being too hard on these witnesses, Greg. It appears that
Sawyer's memory of what was said on the radio wasn't all that clear cut.
QUOTE:
>>>
Mr. SAWYER. I heard Sheriff Decker come on the radio and tell the dispatcher to get all of
his men over to, and I thought he said Texas School Book Depository, but at least that was
the overall gist of the conversation. That
is what I gathered. He may not have said Texas School Book Depository, but the Texas
School Book Depository was mentioned in the broadcasts that were made at that time. <<<
[VI, 316-317]
Then Belin took him through the transcript and they found a spot where the TSBD
was indeed mentioned:
>>>>
Mr. BELIN. All right, then, at 12:31, is a notation there that quotes, "It
looks like the President has been hit."
Then there doesn't appear to be anything pertaining to where the shots might have come
from until we see at 12:34, there is a call from officer, it says No. 136, that states, "A
passer-by states the shots came from Texas School Book Depository Building.
This is the first reference in the log about the Texas School Book Depository, is that
correct?
Mr. SAWYER That's correct.
Mr. BELIN. Do you feel that you heard in your car some reference to the Texas School Book
Depository building?
Mr. SAWYER. I do.
Mr. BELIN. Would it be fair for me to assume then that you had not at least completely
left your car by 12:34 p.m?
Mr. SAWYER. Correct.
<<<<
So where is the problem?
>
> > > > No one is
> > > > allowed in or out. Truly remembers seeing Oswald in the building and he
> > > > hasn't let his
> > > > workers go yet, so Oswald *should* still be there, but he's not.
> > > > Anybody getting suspicious yet? (Of Oswald, I mean, not Truly, or Dougherty.)
> > > > Jean
> > >
> > > Sure I'm suspicious of Oswald. But that doesn't mean things happened the
> > > wasy
> > > the commission stated.
> >
> > If he's not guilty, it is very difficult to explain all the
> > evidence against
> > him.
>
>
> If he's not guilty, I would have thought it was VERY easy to explain the
> evidence against him. But there are degrees of guilt. And in that scenario,
> some of the evidence against him may actually be genuine.
Where may I read that scenario? Or any scenario that explains all the evidence
against Oswald, other than the WC's?
>
> Regardless of degree of guilt, he was framed to take the fall solo. The frame
> was amateurish, though. And it made for some fancy foot-work to account for
> all the problems during the cover-up phase.
It's easy to speak in generalities, but not so easy to specify how the frame took
place.
>
> Just for the record... I personally believe he was innocent of firing any
> shots. The only question in my mind is whether he played some other role, or
> whether at least he had prior knowledge of what was going to happen.
So, Greg, was it just a coincidence that he had no alibi for 12:30 and split
before the building was sealed off?
The thing that always puzzles me is that CTs tend to give Mr. O every possible
benefit of the doubt, but assume that numerous witnesses are lying and conspiring. Do you
understand why I speak up for these witnesses? I think I can understand your point of
view, because when I began long ago, I suspected everybody. As Marguerite once
said, the only thing I was sure of was that *I* had nothing to do with it. But
suspicion can be very misleading, I found. At any rate, I'd like to hear your
how-he-was-framed scenario sometime.
Or anyone else's, for that matter. Jean
>
> greg
>
>
>
>
greg
Jean,
You don't see it as a problem because you ignore or toss out the evidence
that contradicts it.
Having given it a lot of thought since these issues came up again recently, I
can account for what Oswald allegedly said to Fritz on the encounter. I can
account for Baker's original 3rd or 4th floor statement, and why it was
dropped. I can account for Oswald wearing a coat as seen by Baker and not
wearing one as seen by Reid. I can account for the multiple sightings of
someone resembling Oswald leaving the building some 10 to 15 minutes after the
assassination.
> > > Baker that may've been confused about which floor partly because
he
> > > had to
> > > run up stairs on the outside of the building in order to enter the
so-called
> > > "first floor." That is, there's a floor under the "first."
> >
> > Sorry, Jean... I don't think a cop would get confused because he ran up
some
> > steps to enter the building.
>
> Cops are only human, and it was eight steps up, as seen at the
bottom of this page
> in CE 495:
>
>
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0118a.
htm
>
> Are you sure Baker *couldn't* have been mistaken about which floor
the
> lunchroom was on?
Clever Jean. Too clever by half. Of course he could be mistaken about which
floor the lunchroom was on. But he NEVER mentioned any lunchroom in his
original affidavit, so it's entirely immaterial.
What I put to you is that he is highly unlikely to have been mistaken about
what floor the encounter was on. He told the WC that they went up another one
or two flights AFTER the encounter, then took an elevator to the top. How many
floors would you like to assume Baker thought there was?
But Williams did not say "we". And whoever it was probably identified himself
as a detective, since Williams does not indicate indicision about that.
Yes, we can.
Let's see:
"After returning inside the Texas School Book Depository
Building just after hearing the three shots on November 22, 1963 I assisted a
police detective in making a search of the 2nd floor of the building."
After looking at it again from your perspective, I agree it is a possible
interpretation.
I have no idea why you wonder about this.
> > > > > Then, a few minutes after Truly sees Oswald there, the building is
> > > > > sealed off.
> > > >
> > > > Sawyer said the building wasn't sealed until he arrived and gave the
> > > > order, so
> > > > we're looking at 8 to 10 minutes, I believe.
> > >
> > > Could be, but nevertheless, during those however-many minutes,
> > > everybody else inside the TSBD could've walked out, too. They didn't.
> >
> > Whoa, Nellie. The 5th floor 3 came out the front and another 2 went out
the
> > back.
>
> But they all went right back in!!
So? You said noone left. Period.
And as I now know, the building was probably not sealed by Sawyers as he
claimed:
Sorrels entered the building at 12:50 unchallenged. Fritz arrived 8 minutes
later and testified that one of the officers asked him if he'd like to have
the building sealed.
About 2 minutes after that, Lumpkin, who had arrived with Sorrels, gave
instructions for the building to be sealed.
<snip>
> Oswald probably left even before any of these people went outside
briefly.
I don't agree. Oswald probably left quite some time later.
And who was officer 136, Jean?
Answer: Hargis
Where was he @ 12:34?
Answer: At the underpass.
Who was his witness?
Answer: He did not talk to any.
What did he say about this call to the WC?
Answer: nothing. Nor was he asked about it.
Can the call be confirmed from the actual recording?
Answer: No.
Gee, do you suppose this "broadcast" was added to the transcripts as Sawyer's
excuse for being in the TSBD?
Even had this actually been broadcast, what was his excuse for ignoring the
Decker 12:31 call for everyone to get up to the railway yard? Had he done so,
he would have been in that location by the time of the alleged 12:34 call.
He must have heard that call, Jean... as his testimony clearly shows this was
the call he thought had sent him to the TSBD in the first place.
> > > > > No one is
> > > > > allowed in or out. Truly remembers seeing Oswald in the building
and he
> > > > > hasn't let his
> > > > > workers go yet, so Oswald *should* still be there, but he's not.
> > > > > Anybody getting suspicious yet? (Of Oswald, I mean, not Truly, or
Dougherty.)
> > > > > Jean
> > > >
> > > > Sure I'm suspicious of Oswald. But that doesn't mean things happened
the
> > > > wasy
> > > > the commission stated.
> > >
> > > If he's not guilty, it is very difficult to explain all the
> > > evidence against
> > > him.
> >
> >
> > If he's not guilty, I would have thought it was VERY easy to explain the
> > evidence against him. But there are degrees of guilt. And in that
scenario,
> > some of the evidence against him may actually be genuine.
>
> Where may I read that scenario? Or any scenario that explains all the
evidence
> against Oswald, other than the WC's?
A close examination of the evidence held in the 26 volumes shows most of the
cracks in the case.
> > Regardless of degree of guilt, he was framed to take the fall solo. The
frame
> > was amateurish, though. And it made for some fancy foot-work to account
for
> > all the problems during the cover-up phase.
>
> It's easy to speak in generalities, but not so easy to specify how
the frame took
> place.
Yes... and generalities are a specialty of WC defenders. My generalties here
however, are because I'm considering adding what you are asking for as the
final chapter to a book I'm working on. It will be available for downloading
from the web free of charge. A lot of my recent posts however, do give clues
as to what would be in this part of the book.
> > Just for the record... I personally believe he was innocent of firing any
> > shots. The only question in my mind is whether he played some other role,
or
> > whether at least he had prior knowledge of what was going to happen.
>
> So, Greg, was it just a coincidence that he had no alibi for 12:30
and split
> before the building was sealed off?
You don't believe in coincidence?
In any case, I do not believe he left the building at the time that the WC
concluded he did.
> The thing that always puzzles me is that CTs tend to give Mr. O
every possible
> benefit of the doubt, but assume that numerous witnesses are lying and
conspiring.
Care to explain Givens' testimony?
Do you
> understand why I speak up for these witnesses?
Yes. You, as with others, are committed to defending the WC... to the point of
denying what would be obvious to any person of average intelligence, and no
axe to grind, upon reading the exhibits and testimonies.
I think I can understand your point of
> view, because when I began long ago, I suspected everybody.
Generalising, are we? Or perhaps, projecting? You suspected EVERYBODY, so all
CTs must.
Sorry, Jean. I do NOT suspect everybody. That is a ludicrous position, and a
ludicrous slur to attempt to hurl.
As Marguerite once
> said, the only thing I was sure of was that *I* had nothing to do with it.
But
> suspicion can be very misleading, I found.
I sure can. But your response to that was... what? To go from suspecting
EVERYBODY to suspecting NOBODY apart from Oswald, and in the process,
defending the likes of Givens' and Sawyers tall tales?
Is that any sort of methodology? Suspect everyone or only one? Not even a
transitional change? Nothing in between can ever be valid? Everything has to
be black OR white?
At any rate, I'd like to hear your
> how-he-was-framed scenario sometime.
> Or anyone else's, for that matter. Jean
Hopefully you'll get the chance to see it sometime this year.
greg
> > greg
Jean Davison
>
> "Jean Davison" <dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote in message
> news:b7t08...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > "greg" <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:newscache$z3mjdh$dl$1...@news.octa4.net.au...
> > >
> > > "Jean Davison" <dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote in message
> > > news:b7o4v...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > > > "greg" <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote in message
> > > > news:newscache$sse9dh$33b$1...@news.octa4.net.au...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Jean Davison" <dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:b7880...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> > > > > > "greg" <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:newscache$56h7dh$h68$1...@news.octa4.net.au...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Vern Pascal" <lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:13055-3E9...@storefull-2313.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> > > > > > > > Jean Davison wrote (excerpted):
> > > > So you think both Truly and Baker lied under oath just to place
> > > > Oswald on the
> > > > second floor rather than the 4th floor? But the fourth floor places him
> > > > even closer to
> > > > the sniper's nest -- that's even better!
> > >
> > > Jean, yes it is. But Reid's affidavit the next day was the problem. She
> > > may
> > > have been evaluated as someone who could not be "persuaded" to change her
> > > story.
> >
> > I don't see why Reid's account is a problem, Greg. Her time estimate
> > of 2
> > minutes, which was a minimum, jibes pretty well with the reenactment time
> > for Truly/Baker
> > of 90 seconds (minimum). And all these time estimates have to be taken with
> > a grain of salt.
>
> Jean,
> You don't see it as a problem because you ignore or toss out the evidence
> that contradicts it.
Well, I don't agree that I'm ignoring anything, Greg, but when there are conflicts
in the testimony, there's no alternative to "tossing out" one thing or the other. Both
CTs and LNs do this, and it can't be helped. We just tend to "toss out" different things!
Back to the point, though -- why would Reid's account necessitate cooking up
false testimony?
>
> Having given it a lot of thought since these issues came up again recently, I
> can account for what Oswald allegedly said to Fritz on the encounter. I can
> account for Baker's original 3rd or 4th floor statement, and why it was
> dropped. I can account for Oswald wearing a coat as seen by Baker and not
> wearing one as seen by Reid. I can account for the multiple sightings of
> someone resembling Oswald leaving the building some 10 to 15 minutes after the
> assassination.
IMO, Oswald was wearing his shirt "out" and unbuttoned, leading Baker to recall it
as a jacket, and as for Reid -- it's not unusual for people to get clothing descriptions
wrong, and Oswald *usually* wore just his T-shirt at work, according to Frazier.
> > > > Baker that may've been confused about which floor partly because
> > > > he
> > > > had to
> > > > run up stairs on the outside of the building in order to enter the
> > > > so-called
> > > > "first floor." That is, there's a floor under the "first."
> > >
> > > Sorry, Jean... I don't think a cop would get confused because he ran up
> > > some
> > > steps to enter the building.
> >
> > Cops are only human, and it was eight steps up, as seen at the
> bottom of this page
> > in CE 495:
> >
> >
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0118a.
> htm
> >
> > Are you sure Baker *couldn't* have been mistaken about which floor
> > the
> > lunchroom was on?
>
> Clever Jean. Too clever by half. Of course he could be mistaken about which
> floor the lunchroom was on. But he NEVER mentioned any lunchroom in his
> original affidavit, so it's entirely immaterial.
I wasn't trying to be clever, so I'll rephrase it: Are you sure Baker *couldn't*
have mistaken the second floor for the third or fourth, after running up those outside
stairs?
>
> What I put to you is that he is highly unlikely to have been mistaken about
> what floor the encounter was on. He told the WC that they went up another one
> or two flights AFTER the encounter, then took an elevator to the top. How many
> floors would you like to assume Baker thought there was?
By the time he testified, he'd participated in a reenactment at the building. On
11/22, he was heading for the roof, and had no reason to keep track of the number
of floors. He made an error. It happens.
Not necessarily. There are several examples that day of people assuming that men
in business suits were either detectives or Secret Service agents. Oswald, for one,
assumed that a reporter looking for a phone was an agent.
Good!
Good again!
> snip old <<
> > > > > > who was
> > > > > > anywhere near the back stairs at that particular time. Probably
> > > > > > just a
> > > > > > coincidence, huh?
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think it's any coincidence he was placed by Truly, and then
> > > > > later by Baker, were he was, no.
> > > >
> > > > So you think Baker and Truly committed perjury? How were they
> > > > persuaded to do this, I wonder?
> > >
> > > Do you really?
> >
> > Yes. Care to explain it to me?
>
> I have no idea why you wonder about this.
Okay, never mind then.
> > > > > > Then, a few minutes after Truly sees Oswald there, the building is
> > > > > > sealed off.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sawyer said the building wasn't sealed until he arrived and gave the
> > > > > order, so
> > > > > we're looking at 8 to 10 minutes, I believe.
> > > >
> > > > Could be, but nevertheless, during those however-many minutes,
> > > > everybody else inside the TSBD could've walked out, too. They didn't.
> > >
> > > Whoa, Nellie. The 5th floor 3 came out the front and another 2 went out
> > > the back.
> >
> > But they all went right back in!!
>
> So? You said noone left. Period.
No, I said no one else "walked out," and I meant "left" as in "vamoosed."
>
> And as I now know, the building was probably not sealed by Sawyers as he
> claimed:
>
> Sorrels entered the building at 12:50 unchallenged. Fritz arrived 8 minutes
> later and testified that one of the officers asked him if he'd like to have
> the building sealed.
> About 2 minutes after that, Lumpkin, who had arrived with Sorrels, gave
> instructions for the building to be sealed.
>
> <snip>
I agree that it's not clear exactly when the building was sealed (with no one
allowed in or out), because witnesses disagreed as they often do. My point was that
Oswald left the area *before* that time, whether it was 12:40, 12:45, 12:50 or whenever.
He was at his rooming house around 1 o'clock, according to his landlady.
>
> > Oswald probably left even before any of these people went outside
> briefly.
>
> I don't agree. Oswald probably left quite some time later.
Why do you think so?
Are you sure? According to Lifton's book, this call *is* on the tape itself.
And this was not the only mention of the TSBD on Channel 2 of the police radio.
>
> Gee, do you suppose this "broadcast" was added to the transcripts as Sawyer's
> excuse for being in the TSBD?
No, because it wasn't added. Besides, why go to all that trouble? Sawyer
could've given some other excuse.
>
> Even had this actually been broadcast, what was his excuse for ignoring the
> Decker 12:31 call for everyone to get up to the railway yard? Had he done so,
> he would have been in that location by the time of the alleged 12:34 call.
You know this because...? I don't understand why you think he should've
followed the first call, when the later calls pinpointed a sniper in that particular
building.
>
> He must have heard that call, Jean... as his testimony clearly shows this was
> the call he thought had sent him to the TSBD in the first place.
If he was lying why do you suppose he admitted hearing that earlier call? He
didn't have to admit it, since he'd been out of his car during the motorcade.
>
> > > > > > No one is
> > > > > > allowed in or out. Truly remembers seeing Oswald in the building
> > > > > > and he
> > > > > > hasn't let his
> > > > > > workers go yet, so Oswald *should* still be there, but he's not.
> > > > > > Anybody getting suspicious yet? (Of Oswald, I mean, not Truly, or
> > > > > > Dougherty.)
> > > > > > Jean
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure I'm suspicious of Oswald. But that doesn't mean things happened
> > > > > the wasy
> > > > > the commission stated.
> > > >
> > > > If he's not guilty, it is very difficult to explain all the
> > > > evidence against
> > > > him.
> > >
> > >
> > > If he's not guilty, I would have thought it was VERY easy to explain the
> > > evidence against him. But there are degrees of guilt. And in that
> > > scenario,
> > > some of the evidence against him may actually be genuine.
> >
> > Where may I read that scenario? Or any scenario that explains all the
> > evidence against Oswald, other than the WC's?
>
> A close examination of the evidence held in the 26 volumes shows most of the
> cracks in the case.
So we've been told, over and over. But I'm not talking about yet another
critique of the WC. I'd like to hear something different -- a CT explanation for all the
evidence. What was planted, what was coincidence, who lied, etc. The WC presented a
scenario that explained the evidence against Oswald. The CTs don't like that scenario,
but where's theirs?
>
> > > Regardless of degree of guilt, he was framed to take the fall solo. The
> > > frame
> > > was amateurish, though. And it made for some fancy foot-work to account
> > > for
> > > all the problems during the cover-up phase.
> >
> > It's easy to speak in generalities, but not so easy to specify how
> > the frame took place.
>
> Yes... and generalities are a specialty of WC defenders. My generalties here
> however, are because I'm considering adding what you are asking for as the
> final chapter to a book I'm working on. It will be available for downloading
> from the web free of charge. A lot of my recent posts however, do give clues
> as to what would be in this part of the book.
I'll look forward to reading it when you post a link.
>
> > > Just for the record... I personally believe he was innocent of firing any
> > > shots. The only question in my mind is whether he played some other role,
> > > or
> > > whether at least he had prior knowledge of what was going to happen.
> >
> > So, Greg, was it just a coincidence that he had no alibi for 12:30
> > and split before the building was sealed off?
>
> You don't believe in coincidence?
Of course. How many must I accept, though? And how could the plotters have
left it to chance that he wouldn't have an alibi? Not much point in planting his rifle
if he's alibi-ed, right?
>
> In any case, I do not believe he left the building at the time that the WC
> concluded he did.
>
> > The thing that always puzzles me is that CTs tend to give Mr. O
> > every possible
> > benefit of the doubt, but assume that numerous witnesses are lying and
> > conspiring.
>
> Care to explain Givens' testimony?
Huh?
>
> > Do you
> > understand why I speak up for these witnesses?
>
> Yes. You, as with others, are committed to defending the WC... to the point of
> denying what would be obvious to any person of average intelligence, and no
> axe to grind, upon reading the exhibits and testimonies.
No, that's not the reason.
>
> > I think I can understand your point of
> > view, because when I began long ago, I suspected everybody.
>
> Generalising, are we? Or perhaps, projecting? You suspected EVERYBODY, so all
> CTs must.
That's not what I said or meant. I was telling you how it once appeared to
*me* -- but never mind.
>
> Sorry, Jean. I do NOT suspect everybody. That is a ludicrous position, and a
> ludicrous slur to attempt to hurl.
I was surprised when I read this, because I didn't intend it as a slur in the
least. I'm trying to have a friendly conversation with you.
>
> >As Marguerite once
> > said, the only thing I was sure of was that *I* had nothing to do with it.
> > But
> > suspicion can be very misleading, I found.
>
> I sure can. But your response to that was... what? To go from suspecting
> EVERYBODY to suspecting NOBODY apart from Oswald, and in the process,
> defending the likes of Givens' and Sawyers tall tales?
First place, I haven't been "defending" Givens. And I've seen no evidence that
Sawyer lied.
I went from suspecting EVERYBODY (well, almost everybody...) to recognizing
that suspicion is an unreliable guide.
>
> Is that any sort of methodology? Suspect everyone or only one? Not even a
> transitional change? Nothing in between can ever be valid? Everything has to
> be black OR white?
I'd say "black or white" is more likely to be a CT view. The methodology I'd
recommend is "don't believe anything without good evidence."
>
> At any rate, I'd like to hear your
> > how-he-was-framed scenario sometime.
> > Or anyone else's, for that matter. Jean
>
> Hopefully you'll get the chance to see it sometime this year.
If it's a scenario showing how Oswald was framed, I'll certainly read it with
interest.
Jean
>
> greg
>
>
> > > greg
>
>
>
Caeruleo
"greg" <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote:
> "Caeruleo" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:caeruleo-92FDD9...@news.fu-berlin.de...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > Now there we have a different matter. Almost none of the statements
> > > > I've looked at so far contain any mention of checking in with employers
> > > > before leaving, so this does not appear to be one of the questions they
> > > > were asked to answer.
> > >
> > > A lot couldn't check in. They were locked out, and so just went home.
> >
> > That's fine. Even the majority of the ones who did eventually get back
> > inside the building, however, made no statement whatsoever as to whether
> > or not they checked in with their employers for permission to leave for
> > the remainder of the day, so this does not appear to be one of the
> > questions all of them were asked to answer.
>
> You may be right. But that is the gist of the argument. Nothing much was done
> to determine the whereabouts of all employers at the time it was most critical
> to do so.
You don't actually know that. There were multiple employers in that
building. For all we know, every last one of them besides Truly may
have ascertained in some fashion where all their employees where during
the crucial period, especially since we have virtually no information on
them checking in with employers before leaving the area, even
temporarily, even on such a remarkable day as this. And perhaps it does
exist, & I'm simply unaware of it, but I do not at this time recall
seeing even a shred of evidence that any other of these employers
besides Truly ever reported even a single one of their employees as
completely missing & unaccounted for from the area in or around the
building to the police during this time.
> And in the final washup... the ONE person whose name was mentioned
> just happened to be the right guy.
Could that perhaps be that he *also* just happened to be the only
employee in that entire building who did not check in with his employer
before leaving the area?
> You can argue all you want that noone else
> left who had been in the building etc etc - but noone knew that at the time.
We don't actually know that no one else knew that at the time. For all
we know, all other employers besides Truly had at least a fair idea of
all their employees' whereabouts during the time between the shooting &
the arrest of Oswald. Is there evidence to the contrary? If so, I
would enjoy perusing it, so that I, without the slightest hesitation
whatsoever, may abandon this assertion permanently.
> > > > Why is that? Brewer said that the recessed foyer extended 15 feet back
> > > > from the street, which seems more than deep enough to get him out of
> > > > plain sight from police in passing cars.
> > >
> > > The police couldn't see him?
> >
> > They wouldn't have been able to plainly see him out on the sidewalk, no.
>
> What might they have seen, then? A character trying hard not to be noticed...
> and only doing a HALF decent job of it?
I would say Oswald did a quite decent job of it, whether or not he was
the shooter. He left the building in such a way as to attract the least
possible attention to himself. He did not run wildly out of the
building, but apparently walked at a slow enough speed not to look
suspicious at all. The *only* person who contemporaneously recalled
encountering him or even seeing him at all outside the building
immediately after the shooting was the reporter who asked him where a
telephone was, if I recall correctly. And of course, Roger Craig, who
reported seeing Oswald get into a vehicle, at direct odds with the bus
transfer in his pocket & the testimony of multiple witnesses who saw him
on the bus at a time consistent with that stamped on the transfer. Then
Oswald was gone, just like that, never again to be seen in Dealey Plaza
for the brief remainder of his life.
> > > What good was that when it apparently made him look suspicious, thereby
> > > drawing attention to himself.
> > >
> > > Would Brewer (or any other person) have thought him suspicious if he
> entered
> > > the shop and asked about a pair of loafers?
> >
> > If Oswald was the killer of Tippet, I would imagine he might not have
> > wanted tolinger in the shoestore that long.
>
> He didn't have to linger long. Just long enough for the cop cars to pass by.
That's apparently exactly how long he lingered in the deeply recessed
foyer of the shoestore. I fail to see how his failure to go all the way
"in" the shoestore is significant in the slightest.
> > He fact that he didn't
> > come all the way into the shoestore is not necessarily evidence of
> > innocence.
>
> And standing where he was, looking funny like he was (to Brewer, at least) is
> not evidence of his guilt.
Hmmm, it isn't? When he ducked into the foyer & turned his back to the
street simultaneously with the police cars passing by, & immediately
went back to the sidewalk & continued in the same direction he was
originally walking when they were out of sight?
> > > > > But of course, his normal cool demeanour
> > > >
> > > > I asked another poster yesterday why he described Oswald's cool demeanor
> > > > as "usual," & I'll ask you now why you describe it as "normal." Oswald
> > > > was under the bright light of scrutiny for less than the last 48 hours
> > > > of his life, hardly enough time to ascertain what moods were normal &
> > > > abnormal for him. He certainly doesn't seem to have been especially
> > > > "cool" when being brought out of the Texas Theater.
> > >
> > > How cool would you expect him to be after being attacked by a horde of
> cops,
> > > and then dragged out before a potential lynch mob? All things considered,
> I'd
> > > say he was cool enough to save his own neck by yelling out that he wasn't
> > > resisting arrest.
> >
> > Why does that have to be a statement made with a "cool" attitude?
>
> He had never been in a similar position. And yelling out about police
> brutality, and demanding rights etc were not then common catch-cries - at
> least outside the civic rights movement - a movement he had nil to do with,
Excuse me??? He may have had nothing *directly* to do with any civil
rights movement, in our conventional understanding of the term, but did
you forget that he supposedly requested John Abt to represent him,
purportedly because Abt had represented clients in connection with the
ACLU?
You do know what "ACLU" stands for, correct? I think (oh gosh, I hope
I'm right) that the "C" in it stands for the word "civil," one of the 2
words in your term above.
Your evidence that Oswald was not *intimately* acquainted with what the
ACLU was, & what it stood for, is...what, exactly?
Furthermore, your evidence that he was not *intimately* acquainted with
the common "catch-cries" of this very movement is...what, exactly?
> yet he knew these words cold well save his life. It showed a cool head
> considering the circumstances.
Or an intimate acquaintance with those "catch-cries."
> > > > The witnesses who
> > > > saw him leaving the scene of the Tippet murder did not especially seem
> > > > to think he was "cool" then either.
> > >
> > > Not proven by any stretch that this was Oswald.
> >
> > Depends on what you accept as "proven." Several witnesses positively
> > identified him as the man they saw leaving the scene.
>
> The line ups were a sham.
I've seen that assertion before, & read some stuff about it, but I've
yet to be convinced that it is actually provably true. I'll be happy to
review evidence that it is so.
Whatever the case may be, it is still an absolute *fact* that these
witnesses identified him as the man they saw.
> > > > His own wife described plenty of
> > > > occasions in which he was far from "cool"; so did the de Mohrenschildts,
> > > > & so did his own mother.
> > >
> > > Many people are not cool at home, but in public, they're ice.
> > > He was cool with
> > > Baker and Truly.
> >
> > As I've already noted, Baker's & Truly's time of observance of Oswald
> > during that encounter was extraordinarily brief. Truly said
> > specifically that Baker "immediately" (his exact word) left Oswald &
> > went back toward the stairs as soon as Truly told him Oswald was an
> > employee of the building. They simply did not recall observing any
> > *obvious* signs of stress in Oswald during this very brief encounter,
> > nor did they recall Oswald saying anything during it. This is hardly
> > enough to go on to reasonably assess Oswald's demeanor, other than that
> > he apparently exhibited no *obvious* signs of being upset or afraid or
> > guilty, such as yelling out something, arguing with Baker, or looking as
> > if he was about to flee when Baker spoke to him. All we have is that he
> > didn't flee from Baker, but did come to him when called, & apparently
> > remained silent during the entire brief encounter. We don't know, for
> > example, that he wasn't about to speak when Truly explained that he was
> > an employee, & what he would have said had he done so.
>
> You are minipulating the statements of Baker and Truly.
Hardly. I'm instead noting what they *didn't* say, noting what evidence
they *didn't* have to go on (the sound of Oswald's voice), how little
time they had to make a careful observation, how quickly they both
instantly dismissed him as a suspect, & exactly *why* they both
dismissed him as a suspect.
Oh, & it's "suspicious" that Truly "just happened" to name the exact
person who was formally accused of the assassination as his only
employee who was missing?
Fine.
Explain to me then, praytell, as I am awaiting with bated breath
evidence as to how this could be so, why Truly DIDN'T indicate in any
way to Baker, when he had the perfect opportunity with Oswald standing
right there, when Oswald could have been arrested soooooooooo easily,
that Oswald might be suspicious.
Truly didn't say, "Hmmm, now Lee, where were you just now?"
Gosh, Truly had the perfect opportunity to implicate Oswald as
"suspicious."
Yet he passed it up.
Instead, you have him waiting until Oswald was completely gone from
Dealey Plaza, with Truly having no possible way of knowing where he had
gone, to mention Oswald alone as being missing from the area, citing
Truly's purported (by Manchester alone, so far as can tell) virulent
anti-Kennedy sentiments as a possible motive.
Oswald could have EASILY been outside of the Dallas city limits by the
time Truly mentioned to Chief Lumpkin that he was missing.
If Truly was operating on any sort of "agenda" whatsoever to implicate
Oswald, no matter what inspired it, why wait until Oswald might have
been completely beyond the reach of local law enforcement.
Why not implicate him as being "suspicious" in some way when he was
standing
right
there.
Ready to be arrested on the spot.
I look forward, with intense anticipation, reading your explanation for
this.
> They never expressed
> any doubt about Oswald's demeanour.
From what little they observed of him.
> You can say all you want what you wished
> they'd observed, or did not observe,
Correction: I'll say all I want about what they themselves said they
*didn't* observe, & how short a time they had to observe it.
> but it does not change their testimony:
>
> Representative Boggs.
> Was he calm and collected?
> Mr. Baker.
> Yes, sir. He never did say a word or nothing. In fact, he didn't change his
> expression one bit.
> Mr. Belin.
> Did he flinch in anyway when you put the gun up in his face?
> Mr. Baker.
> No, sir.
> ********
> Mr. Truly.
> He didn't seem to be excited or overly afraid or anything. He might have been
> a bit startled, like I might have been if somebody confronted me. But I cannot
> recall any change in expression of any kind on his face.
Oh, I don't suggest for a moment that their testimony should be changed.
I'll however never tire of suggesting, until the day when I'm no longer
able to post to Usenet, or lose interest in doing so, that they had
precious little evidence to go on in assessing his mental state at the
time, & how quickly they both dismissed him as "suspicious."
> > > He was cool during 99% of his interrogations by the DPD.
> >
> > Where on earth are you getting "99%" from? He was certainly described
> > as extremely agitated when Hosty came in the room,
>
> And how did he recognise Hosty, hmmm? You going to stick with that one?
LOL! You explained that yourself below: 'He said, he told Hosty, he
said, "I know you." He said, "You accosted my wife on two occasions..."'
> but he was also
> > described as being at least somewhat agitated when asked about the
> > backyard photos & again when asked about the rifle.
>
> Mr Fritz:
> ....Mr. Hosty spoke up and asked him something about Russia, and asked him if
> he had been to Russia, and he asked him if he had been to Mexico City, and
> this irritated Oswald a great deal and he beat on the desk and went into a
> kind of a tantrum.
>
> Mr. Fritz.
> Yes, sir. He said, he told Hosty, he said, "I know you." He said, "You
> accosted my wife on two occasions,"
Yep, there it is.
> and he was getting pretty irritable and so
> I wanted to quiet him down a little bit because I noticed if I talked to him
> in a cairn, easy manner it wasn't very hard to get him to settle down, and I
> asked him what he meant by accosting, I thought maybe he meant some physical
> abuse or something and he said, "Well, he threatened her." And he said, "He
> practically told her she would have to go back to Russia." And he said, "He
> accosted her on two different occasions."
>
> That is the only instance I can find in Fritz' testimony.
In *his* WC testimony, perhaps. But he was hardly the only person
present, or even purportedly present, during any phase of the
interrogations, who said he was agitated only by Hosty, nor did I
suggest that evidence to the contrary was stated only by Fritz.
Remember Roger Craig, the "darling" of some of you CTs, who said to the
WC:
**********
Mr. CRAIG - Captain Fritz then asked him about the---uh---he said, "What
about this station wagon?"
And the suspect interrupted him and said, "That station wagon belongs to
Mrs. Paine"---I believe is what he said. "Don't try to tie her into
this. She had nothing to do with it."
And--uh--Captain Fritz then told him, as close as I can remember, that,
"All we're trying to do is find out what happened, and this man saw you
leave from the scene."
And the suspect again interrupted Captain Fritz and said, "I told you
people I did." And--uh--yeah--then, he said--then he continued and he
said, "Everybody will know who I am now."
And he was leaning over the desk. At this time, he had risen partially
out of the chair and leaning over the desk, looking directly at Captain
Fritz.
**********
Mr. Craig did not seem to be suggesting that Oswald was in a state of
absolute calm at this time.
Now, Mr. Craig's actual presence at any point in the interrogations may
be hotly disputed, but that of Postal Inspector Harry Holmes is not, not
even by most CTs. Read it & weep:
**********
Mr. HOLMES. I brought it up first as to did he ever have a package sent
to him from anywhere. I said, "Did you receive mail through this box
2915 under the name of any other name than Lee
Oswald," and he said, "Absolutely not."
"What about a package to an A. J. Hidell?"
He said, "No."
"Well, did you order a gun in that name to come there?"
"No, absolutely not."
"Had one come under that name, could this fellow have gotten it?"
He said, "Nobody got mail out of that box but me; no, sir." "Maybe my
wife, but I couldn't say for sure whether my wife ever got mail, but it
is possible she could have."
"Well, who is A. J. Hidell?" I asked him.
And he said, "I don't know any such person."
I showed him the box rental application for the post office box in New
Orleans and I read from it. I said, "Here this shows as being able to
receive, being entitled to receive mail is Marina
Oswald." And he said, "Well, that is my wife, so what?"
And I said also it says "A. J. Hidell."
"Well, I don't know anything about that."
That is all he would say about it.
Then Captain Fritz interrupted and said, "Well, what about this card we
got out of your billfold? This draft registration card, he called it,
where it showed A. J. Hidell."
"Well, that is the only time that I recall he kind of flared up and he
said, "Now, I have told you all I am going to tell you about that card
in my billfold." He said, "You have the card yourself, and
you know as much about it as I do." And he showed a little anger. Really
the only time that he flared up.
**********
See the word "anger" there? See the phrase "flared up"?
In common English usage, neither of these is even remotely synonymous
with "calm."
Oh, & do you notice that this "anger" was not in connection with Hosty,
but purportedly due to an entirely different matter.
That alone, even if I proceed to quote no further testimony whatsoever,
presents evidence of Oswald not being especially "calm" on more than one
occasion during his interrogation, & not even on the same date.
Holmes only saw him on the last day of his life, correct?
Hosty came in the room 2 days before that, correct?
Or was Holmes part of the "conspiracy" too?
This brings to mind another 2 things I await with bated breath an
explanation for.
If Oswald wasn't guilty, what possible motivation would he have for
claiming to "not know" who "Hidell" was, when to William Stuckey in New
Orleans only a few months before he had quite openly named Hidell as the
"president" or some such thing of the N.O. Fair Play for Cuba chapter, &
perhaps even recorded as saying the same thing in his radio interview,
if I recall correctly?
I furthermore have another question which I would dearly love to be
answered in even a remotely plausible way.
If Oswald wasn't "guilty," what possible motivation would he have for
supposedly saying during his interrogation, that the only thing he had
carried into the TSBD was his "lunch," when he told Wes Frazier that he
was carrying a package which contained "curtain rods."
The last time I checked, those were not edible.
Either way, he either lied to Frazier or he lied in his interrogation,
no matter what the package truly contained.
Unless one completely dismisses one or the other statement.
I'll warn you in advance that the *only* explanation I've ever seen
given for this, by only one poster, the only other time I've posed this
question, is that he was worried that Ruth Paine would discover that he
had "stolen" her curtain rods...
Ya right.
When he was being accused of crimes many orders of magnitude worse,
namely the murders of a certain president & a certain police officer.
But oh no, he lied about the package merely because he was concerned
about being accused of stealing mere curtain rods.
I am supremely confident that you, being an obviously intelligent
person, & well-versed in assassination evidence, will come up with an
explanation which might actually be believed by the majority of humans
on this earth.
Correct?
> And I'll remind you
> > that you yourself noted that the interrogations were not taped. You
> > don't have the slightest idea of what "percentage" of the total
> > interrogation time Oswald remained "cool."
>
> My 99% was not meant to be taken literally... it was only to indicate that for
> by far the greater amount of time he was under interrogation, he was
> unruffled. Fritz' testimony is the basis for that.
I remind you that 5 different people, at least (with Craig being
somewhat questionable), Craig, Fritz, Holmes, Hosty, & Kelley, testified
to being present during some portion Oswald's interrogations, & there
were more whose testimony I haven't read recently, including those
officers whom more than one of these witnesses said were present during
at least some of this time, for example, in Holmes' testimony:
"We went into his private room and closed the door, and those present
were Captain Will Fritz, of the Dallas Police Department, Forrest V.
Sorrels, local agent in charge of Secret Service, and
Thomas J. Kelley, inspector, Secret Service, from Washington, and also
about three detectives who were not identified to me, but simply were
guarding Oswald who was handcuffed and seated at
Will Fritz' desk."
Holmes said specifically, "about three detectives who were not
identified to me." His words; I didn't make them up.
I'm intensely curious as to why you'd peruse Fritz's statements alone,
when he by himself represented a *minority* of those supposedly present,
in attempting to ascertain Oswald's reported demeanor during this time.
> We went into his private room and closed the door, and those present were
> Captain Will Fritz, of the Dallas Police Department, Forrest V. Sorrels,
> local agent in charge of Secret Service, and
> Thomas J. Kelley, inspector, Secret Service, from Washington, and also about
> three detectives who were not identified to me, but simply were guarding
> Oswald who was handcuffed and seated at
> Will Fritz' desk.
Oh gawd, looky there, you yourself quoted EXACTLY THE SAME passage.
> I don't mind if you want to
> disregard all Oswald's alleged comments, though.
I would be an utter fool to do so, since it is literally *all* the
extant evidence we have on anything he supposedly said during
interrogation. And it is fascinating that a fair amount of it is
corroborated by 4 different people.
One in the DPD.
One in the FBI.
One in the SS.
One in the USPS.
Oh, but they all must have been part of the "conspiracy" at some level,
right? They all must have simply kept their involvement in this
conspiracy "secret" for all those years, right?
> > > He
> > > was cool when harrased by Bringuier and friends... even offering to shake
> > > hands. He was cool when arrested for that. He was cool when locked up and
> > > questioned by Martello.
> >
> > You are now describing extraordinarily different circumstances. He was
> > arrested only for allegedly "disturbing the peace," not allegedly
> > shooting a police officer.
>
> It was a hell of a lot closer in circumstance (being an arrest) than what you
> tried to introduce to prove the opposite (allegations by Marina and the White
> Russians).
'Scuse me, their "allegations" were that he had tried to murder Walker.
His arrest in N.O. was for a mere "disturbance of the peace." I rather
differ with you that the New Orleans incident was "a hell of a lot
closer in circumstance" than being accused of being successful in
exactly the same activity, which would be shooting at, with the intent
to kill, a human being. And not one, but two human beings.
Come now, being arrested for "disturbing the peace" is "a hell of a lot
closer in circumstance" than being purported to shoot a firearm at a
person with the intent to kill, when this was said both of the Walker
shooting & the JFK/Tippet shootings??
> > > > > had
> > > > > evaporated temporarily (the best break the DPD ever had!). My picture
> of
> > > him
> > > > > in that little recessed entrance is as Spencer Tracey making the
> > > > > transformation from the unruffled Dr Jeckyll into the wild-eyed,
> > > wild-haired
> > > > > Hyde cowering, but ready to lash out if escape became impossible.
> > > >
> > > > You seem to be getting that picture out of thin air then, as there is
> > > > not a shred of evidence that he was especially "cool" from the time
> > > > Tippet was shot to the time he was put into the police car in front of
> > > > the theater.
> > >
> > > Which is where your problem is. He goes from cool coke drinker -
> >
> > Um, there again you are engaging in wild speculation,
>
> Wild speculation? I think not.
>
> Representative Boggs.
> Was he calm and collected?
> Mr. Baker.
> Yes, sir.
The "wild speculation" part was rather obviously directed at your "cool
coke drinker" comment.
> But I'm not happy with parts of Baker's testimony, and therefore could hardly
> object if you want to throw all of it out along with Oswald's alleged
> statements under interrogation.
I would again be an utter fool to do such a thing, as I would be
throwing out one of the only 2 witnesses we have on an encounter with
Oswald closest to the time of the shooting.
> & I've already put
> > part of this to rest. The only person who is recorded as
> > contemporaneously claiming that Oswald was drinking a Coke *during* the
> > lunchroom encounter is Oswald himself,
>
> He was seen moments later with a coke by Reid. Do you wish to claim he was
> cool calm and collected as per Baker, then had gone into panic mode moments
> later, or do you wish to throw Reid's statements out, too?
I've never said he went into anything like "panic mode" at any time
prior to the shooting of Tippet.
> & I'm not sure that even that was
> > specifically his claim,
>
> It wasn't, it was, and it wasn't again. Go figure.
Kewl. So he lied one way or another? Please explain then, if he was
"innocent," why he would have any possible motivation to lie about a
mere soft drink, as he apparently lied about the package he carried into
the TSBD, & apparently lied about Hidell, either when he said he knew
perfectly well who Hidell was in August, or apparently said he didn't
know Hidell from Adam in November of the same year.
> But Baker &
> > Truly themselves NEVER said that they saw him holding, much less
> > drinking a Coke, during the lunchroom encounter.
>
> Baker did. In a written statement dated sometime in Sept '64. He then crossed
> out that part and initialled it.
Oh, he "said" it, did he?
Let's do look at the 1st page of Baker's 11-22-63 affidavit:
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/02/Doc-0019.jpg
Now let's look at his September 1964 FBI statement:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0358a
.htm
Now, not as long as I live will I claim to be anything close to a
handwriting expert. Nevertheless, those 2 documents seem rather plainly
to not have been written by the same person. I've read articles (by CTs
no less) in which it is unequivocally acknowledged that it was an FBI
agent, rather than Baker himself, who actually wrote the latter
document. Does it look like the same handwriting in both to you?
I'll now ask you the same question you asked me:
"But do you always put more weight on later accounts?"
> > Their earliest
> > statements made no mention of such a thing,
>
> As I've noted, Baker made no mention in his first statement either, of the
> encounter being in a lunchroom.
So? On 11-22-63, there is not a shred of evidence that Baker even
*knew* it was a lunchroom until later.
> Not surprising really, when tou consider that
> he said the encounter was on the 3rd or 4th floor where no lunchroom existed.
Also not surprising that on that same day, before he was corrected, he
simply didn't recall correctly in the heat of the moment how many
flights of stairs he had gone up.
Or will you claim that you would have done better?
With your President, whom it was your duty to protect, just having been
shot at?
Do feel free to claim such a thing, so that I may view you with contempt
& ridicule.
I would not even DARE to claim such a thing.
> Only in his statement to the FBI of 10 months later does
> > there appear any suggestion by Baker that Oswald had a Coke *during* the
> > lunchroom encounter, & this is the statement in which the words
> > "drinking a Coke" were crossed out. But I've read that the statement
> > was not in Baker's handwriting, but was rather being taken down by an
> > FBI agent, & this might merely have been some initial confusion due to
> > the fact that by then, 10 months after the assassination, rumors had
> > gone around that Oswald had a Coke *during* the encounter,
>
> So the agent, in your view, was writing down a rumour, instead of what Baker
> was saying?
"In my view" this is merely a perfectly plausible alternate explanation
to deliberate "conspiracy," which would have had to include an awful lot
of people to work to this extent.
> confusing the
> > fact that Baker & Truly had not actually previously said such a thing
> > with Oswald's supposed statements of having a Coke at the time, & the
> > statement of one other TSBD employee who said she saw him with a Coke
> > *after* the Baker/Truly encounter.
>
> That is an an extremely convoluted explanation.
Oh, it's "convoluted," is it? Apparently you haven't read nearly as
much testimony as I have. I long ago lost count of how many times I've
seen various witnesses say that they weren't sure whether their
recollections were genuine or influenced to some extent by all that they
had read or heard in the unprecedented media blitz that followed the
assassination.
> And of course, pure
> speculation on your part.
Sure. It's at least equally pure speculation on your part that Oswald
was a "calm coke drinker" during the lunchroom encounter.
> There is not a shred of evidence
> > that Baker & Truly actually saw Oswald holding a Coke, or drinking one,
> > at the time they encountered him in the lunchroom.
>
> Makes no difference to me. I have not been arguing he was, anyway.
Bwaaahahahahahahahahahaha!
"He goes from cool coke drinker..."
I did not type that text originally.
> > And as far as "cool," once again, all we have is a description by 2 men
> > who observed Oswald very briefly, in which Oswald apparently did not
> > speak a word.
>
> Representative Boggs.
> Was he calm and collected?
> Mr. Baker.
> Yes, sir.
This undermines my assertion of, "2 men who observed Oswald very
briefly, in which Oswald apparently did not speak a word,"...how,
exactly?
Brewer did not say "bug-eyed" either, that I recall. And the definition
you quoted says, "as with fright." It does not suggest that "bug-eyed"
is synonymous with "fright," merely that "bug-eyed" is one possible
*symptom* of "fright."
You're really reaching with this one.
> > > back to cool under pressure of DPD interrogation.
> >
> > Again, your assertion of "cool" under DPD interrogation, certainly
> > during the vast majority of it, is not supported by any extant evidence.
>
> Fritz and others have been quoted as making comments along the lines I have
> stated.
Oh, "others"? Like Craig & Holmes, who ascribed completely *different*
circumstances & times to Oswald showing rather a different attitude than
"cool"?
> > > The
> > > Tippit/Brewer Oswald just does not fit.
> >
> > Why?
>
> For all the reasons stated in this thread.
Oh, like those are even remotely compelling.
> > > > > Did she tell the truth about the opening time?
> > > >
> > > > She told the WC that the box office opened at 12:45. In his testimony,
> > > > Burroughs did not contradict her, only saying that he went to work at
> > > > 12:00. It's rather common for employees of many different types of
> > > > businesses to report to work before the businesses open, as there are
> > > > often things they need to do to prepare for the businesses to open. Is
> > > > there some evidence that she was not telling the truth?
> > >
> > > Donald Willis has done some excellent work on this issue.
> >
> > I'm looking at one of his articles on the matter now. He seems to find
> > it suspicious that although Postal said she told Brewer not to mention
> > anyone sneaking into the theater to Burroughs, according to Burroughs
> > Brewer did anyway, & supposedly Brewer confirmed this. I don't see how
> > this indicates any "lie" on Postal's part; it just shows that apparently
> > Brewer did not follow her directions. Mr. Willis also seems to find it
> > suspicious that Burroughs opined that the "sneaker" may have gone first
> > to the balcony, & that Postal mentioned Burroughs' opinion on that
> > matter, with the dispatcher notice saying, "Supposed to be hiding in the
> > balcony." That still does not indicate that Postal "lied" about telling
> > Brewer not to mention anything to Burroughs; all it may mean is that he
> > mentioned something to him anyway, & once it was mentioned, there was no
> > point in Postal denying to Burroughs that someone had snuck into the
> > theater, at which point Burroughs might well have voiced his suspicion
> > that the person had snuck up into the balcony.
>
> Your interpretation of Don's work is way off the mark.
In your opinion. But I had one of his articles in front of me at the
moment I typed those words.
> But Don, if he's
> lurking, is the best man to set you straight on it.
And I will welcome such clarification, if it is forthcoming.
> > I do now see in her testimony that she did say she saw Oswald outside
> > the theater, & that he ducked "around the corner" (the corner of the box
> > office it seems) passing close by her employer as he was leaving. So my
> > apologies for saying that she didn't see him. It is plain that she did,
> > although she didn't actually see him go into the theater itself.
> >
> > Now for your mistake. ;-)
> >
> > This portion of our discussion began with you asking 2 days ago, in text
> > we see quoted above, "Why did she need to ask which man Brewer was
> > talking about?"
> >
> > Who says she asked Brewer which man he was talking about? ;-)
>
> SHE did.
>
> "Johnny asked me if I sold that man a ticket. I asked him what man."
> http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0484-001.gif
Kewl.
Contrary to what you may believe of me, I am utterly pleased that you
provided this. If nothing else, it gives me the opportunity to ask this
question:
Did you not NOTICE, that only TWO SENTENCES LATER, she is quoted as
saying:
"I told him no, I didn't, but I had noticed him as he ducked in there."
I ask you now, how does this differ in any significant way from her WC
testimony? There too, she said she noticed this man ducking (I believe
the same word was used on both occasions) in the general direction of
the entrance to the theater?
So to the WC she didn't mention having said, "What man?" to Brewer?
Big Whoopie.
I'm looking, as I type these words, at the very document which YOU
YOURSELF cited.
Sorry, I see no significant difference between it & the WC testimony.
In toto, it still agrees with the gist.
Surely I must be missing something obvious, correct?
> > She did not say she asked Brewer any such thing in her testimony.
>
> Not in her testimony, no. Like so much else, from so many others, her original
> statement morphed somewhat before the commission.
"Morphed" in a matter almost totally irrelevant to this issue. She
simply didn't mention asking Brewer, "What man?" in her WC testimony.
As I've said before, a mere omission is not automatically a
contradiction. One has to directly contradict one's other statements
for it to be a contradiction, such as, "No, I never asked him which man
he was talking about," or at the very least, omit something of stunning
significance, such as Jean Hill omitting, for the first quarter-century
after the assassination, that she "saw" a gunman fire from the GK/
In vain, you will search for such a direct contradiction in her WC
testimony.
This, this, was all the "evidence" you could produce of Ms. Postal
"lying"?
> > Neither did *Brewer* attribute such a question to her in his. All he
> > said was, "He [Oswald] walked into the Texas Theatre and I walked up to
> > the theatre, to the box office and asked Mrs. Postal if she sold a
> > ticket to a man who was wearing a brown shirt, and she said
> > no, she hadn't." There is no suggestion that Postal asked Brewer which
> > man he was talking about.
>
> And here is what Brewer said originally: "I asked the girl in the box office
> if she sold the man a ticket and she replied that she did not think so."
Which is nothing even remotely like, "What man?" In stark contrast,
Brewer's statement seems to indicate she knew perfectly well what man he
was talking about.
After he explained it, that is.
> Sounds like she was uncertain, even though it was allegedly just a few seconds
> previous. Not looking good for the prosecution, is it? No wonder none of this
> was not repeated...
Or an alternate explanation: certain details were unconciously omitted
merely because they were so mundane.
I imagine I'd ask, "What man?" too, just to make sure who was being
talked about, even if I'd seen the man.
I'm intensely curious as to why you neglected to mention that in BOTH
her original statement, AND in her WC testimony, she claimed to have
seen & noticed Oswald BEFORE Brewer came up to her.
Did you think I wouldn't actually *read* the document you yourself
cited, but simply take on faith your claims regarding it?
Free clue: long long ago I learned the hard way never ever ever to trust
what anyone at all claims about what this or that witness said or meant,
without reading that witness's statements in their entirety, undedited &
unabridged. Long ago I lost count of how many times I've seen authors
of books, researchers, posters on Usenet, etc., make claims about what
witnesses said, only to see with my own eyes how palpably false those
claims were when I saw for myself what the witnesses *did* say.
I can be fooled, but not usually quite that easily.
From both her original statement (which you have kindly provided) & her
WC testimony (which I have read in its entirety) I'm seeing nothing even
remotely "suspicious" in her originally purported question, & her simple
lack of mentioning said question, even though everything else she said
on both occasions seems consistent to me.
Unless she too was involved, at some level, in the "conspiracy."
But I'm having considerable trouble with that, & with Brewer, & with
every last member of the DPD who made any sort of "curious" statement
about anything whatsoever related to the assassination, & Truly, &
several of the other TSBD employees, & the FBI, all being "involved,"
even at a lower level, without a single individual ever being
conclusively proven, even to the present day, of being "involved" in it.
> But it gets better. Oswald is alleged to have cowered in the shoe store foyer
> until the cop car had safely passed. Not until then did he walk up to the
> theatre.
>
> Yet Postal has him "ducking in" to the theatre to avoid being seen by... a cop
> car:
Just as Brewer has him "ducking in" to a deeply-recessed entrance, to
avoid being seen by...a cop car.
Their mutual assertations are inconsistent...how, exactly?
> Mr. Ball.
> Ducked in, what do you mean? He had come around the corner----
> Mrs. Postal.
> Yes; and when the sirens went by he had a panicked look on his face, and he
> ducked in.
> Mr. Ball.
> Now, as the car went by, you say the man ducked in, had you seen him before
> the car went by, the police went by?
> Mrs. Postal.
> No, sir; I was looking up, as I say, when the cars passed, as you know, they
> make a tremendous noise, and he ducked in as my boss went that way to get in
> his car.
Yeppers, I thought I recalled her using some form of the word "duck" in
her WC testimony.
Just as she did in her earliest statement.
I'm still missing how she was especially inconsistent or contradictory
between the two.
But doubtless I am missing something appallingly obvious, correct?
> In her own testimony she said she knew
> > perfectly well which man Brewer was talking about,
>
> Yes, she did. But do you always put more weight on later accounts?
Oh gawd, there it is.
What an absurd question, when you have seen me with your own eyes quote
same-day statements by several witnesses, & extensively discuss the fact
that in Baker's & Truly's *earliest* statements, they did not even come
within light-years of hinting that Oswald had anything at all in either
of hiw hands when they saw him "90 seconds" after the shooting, a Coke
or any other object.
Do you always ask questions when you already knew the answer to them
long before you typed the words?
Oh, & get you, of all people asking me this, when you yourself appeared
to put at least some "weight" on Baker's much later statement
(apparently not even in his own handwriting), the *earliest* time there
is even a *suggestion* even *purported* to be by him, crossed-out or
not, that Oswald was "drinking a Coke" when he saw him.
"He goes from cool coke drinker..."
Those are your words, not mine.
> saying quite
> > specifically, "Well, just as I turned around then Johnny Brewer was
> > standing there and he asked me if the fellow that ducked in bought a
> > ticket, and I said, "No; by golly, he didn't," and turned around
> > expecting to see him."
>
> Yep. That's what she said LATER.
She said something to essentially that same effect in the very original
statement which you yourself cited, but apparently didn't read very
carefully:
"I told him no, I didn't, but I had noticed him as he ducked in there."
Strange that I found those very words on my FIRST PERUSAL EVER, in my
entire life, of that same document...& yet you appear not to have done,
even though you appear to have been familiar with that document for
longer than me.
Oh gawd, & looky what ELSE is contained in that VERY SAME document:
"The officer asked me if the man bought a ticket, and I told him no, he
did not. Then he asked me what made me (Continued next page)"
Maybe it's just me, but I feel rather confident that the very next word
on the "next page" is probably "suspicious" or some word of similar
meaning.
You refrained from being forthright, by failing to cite the URL of the
"next page," in which Ms. Postal almost certainly clarified this
issue...why, exactly?
Did you notice how I cited the URLs for ALL 3 PAGES of the facsimiles of
Baker's original report, even though it directly contradicted my
previous assertion that his affidavit couldn't have been that many
pages, which without the slightest hesitation, from the instant I first
discovered it, I unequivocally admitted & apologized for my error?
Sorry, but at this point, I feel tempted to say:
"Typical CT: quote only the lines that support your argument, but fail
to quote, or even acknowledge the existence of, the very NEXT FEW LINES
of the SAME DOCUMENT which utterly destroy your argument."
This is not directed at you personally. The reason I like to say this
is because a certain CT poster whom I will not name (Pynex Jvyxvaf)
claimed that Ruby's roommate, George Senator, "confirmed" that by "these
two," Senator meant that Ruby was connecting the assassination to the
Weissman ad & the "Impeach Earl Warren" billboard. The poster even
quoted Senator's words to this "effect."
I cannot describe adequately, in printed text, the astounding sounds of
mirth emitted involuntarily from my frontal orifice when I read
Senator's complete WC testimony, & saw with my own eyes the very NEXT
TWO LINES of that same testimony which the poster had quoted, but who
had stopped quotation just before these lines, in which Senator was
asked this very thing, if he recalled Ruby connecting "these two" with
the assassination itself, to which Senator responded, "Oh, no, no, no,"
& then made perfectly clear that "these two" meant *only* the ad & the
billboard.
> But it bears no resemblance to either hers or Brewer's ORIGINAL statements.
LOL! I haven't seen Brewer's original yet myself, but so far (unless
I'm missing something appallingly obvious), Ms. Postal's original
statements seem to me to be remarkably similar to her WC statements,
with no direct contradiction that I've yet noticed.
> > > which
> > > would make sense given her initial question to Brewer... but then she is
> > > describing him in similar terms to Brewer, and just knows he is wanted for
> > > something. If she had seen him (as she does indicate), and he was acting
> so
> > > suspiciously to her, she had no cause to ask Brewer who he was talking
> about,
> > > did she?
> >
> > I guess not, since there is no evidence that I can find that either she
> > or Brewer ever claimed that she asked Brewer such a question. ;-)
>
> Well, now you've found it.
That I have.
Thanks.
My apologies for even implying otherwise.
But I'm still waiting for "evidence" of her "contradictions." Nothing
you've supplied so far indicates such a thing, that I have noticed, at
least.
> > May I ask what the source of your assumption was that she did ask Brewer
> > which man he was talking about?
>
> It was NOT my assumption. It is what SHE stated.
Sure she did.
Which doesn't contradict in the *slightest* her later assertations to
the WC.
> > > > > > & he most certainly *did* have a
> > > > > > pistol on him in the theater,
> > > > >
> > > > > Or had one forced into his hand.
> > > >
> > > > Oh dear...
> > > >
> > > > Could be, but that's rather a stretch, don't you think?
> > >
> > > The WC version is the stretch.
> >
> > How is that? Especially that it's more of a "stretch" than your
> > speculation? "Forced into his hand"?? Are you suggesting the
> > possibility that one of the police arresting Oswald actually may have
> > *put* a gun in his hand, a weapon he could use during the struggle,
>
> The weapon could not be fired.
Oh?
> even
> > if it was not loaded, at the very least to hit an officer with,
>
> He would not have had a chance.
To bop an officer on the head? From all accounts I recall reading, he
would have had multiple such chances.
> He'd have been shot quick smart.
I guess so. He would have also been shot quick smart if he had run from
Baker.
But he didn't.
Hmmm, I've just presented *another* example of his purported actions in
the TSBD being entirely consistent with his purported actions at the TT.
Go figure.
> His punching
> McDonald was likely because McDonald was not searching him.
"Likely"? I do so love your quaint speculations, far more wild &
unsupported than *any* of mine.
> He was "stitching"
> him ie planting the evidence which would implicate him in the Tippit killing -
> and act as justification for his execution.
Oh, he "was"? No qualification whatsover, not even "most probably was."
Simply "was," as if this was proven fact, even though you knew perfectly
well, years before you typed those words, that it has never come within
light-years of being such a thing.
And yet, you hypocritically said of me:
"That is an an extremely convoluted explanation."
Strange how exactly the same sentence seems to be at the very least
equally applicable to you, if not more so to you than me.
> Ever wonder why all the cops waited for McDonald to arrive before going inside
> the theatre?
Nope, because I wasn't previously aware, ever, at any point in my life
before the moment I'm now typing these words, honestly, that they
"waited" for any such thing.
Did they "all" specifically say they "waited" for him? I ask this in
all sincerety.
> Was McDonald in charge? You'd think so.
I don't "think" any such thing at this moment.
> But nope. He was just a
> patrolman. Hey, you think they might have waited for him because he was the
> one with the pistol they were going to plant on their intended victim?
Hey, you think that just possibly, you might be engaging in wild
unfounded speculation far far far beyond that which I have EVER engaged
in in even one single article? From what I've seen so far, to support
any sort of "conspiracy" argument whatsoever on these particular issues,
one is absolutely required to engage in exactly such wild speculations,
at the very least involving Brewer, Postal, Truly, Baker, Fritz, Kelley,
Holmes, & Hosty directly at some level in the "conspiracy."
Despite the fact that involving such people of such widely varying
backrounds, etc., all together stretches the bounds of credibility to an
enormous extent.
> so that
> > it could then be later claimed that Oswald had the pistol on his person
> > already when he was arrested?
> >
> > If so, that seems an *extraordinary* stretch to me.
>
> Only because you don't seem to have gotten much past the WCR and some of the
> testimony.
Feh. One of the very documents you yourself have cited only
*strengthens* my opinion, rather than the reverse. And I assure you I
have read far more witness statements than that given directly to the
WC. Which you knew already, since with your own eyes you have seen me
extensively quote exactly such statements.
Did you miss me engaging in *intense* disagreement with a fellow LN over
the flaws in the WCR? Flaws which *I*, rather than he, openly
acknowledged the existence of? You've not yet noticed that I ardently
disagree with certain conclusions stated therein, most notably the
traditional SBT?
Ever wonder what that .sig is doing appearing in EVERY ONE of my
articles to which you've so far responded, which also will appear in
this article I'm presently composing?
To any child, even one who has never before heard of the JFK
assassination, it should be blindingly obvious that I do not take the
WCR at face value.
Not even close.
Do feel free to read an article I posted today in response to him, in
which I soundly criticized him for failing to admit the OBVIOUS flaws in
the WC investigation.
> > How on earth is the WC version a "stretch" when, if Oswald was indeed
> > the person who shot Tippit, then it would not be a terribly implausible
> > thing to keep the pistol with him when he left the scene.
>
> You're starting from an assumption of guilt. Just like they did.
No, I am starting with what is commonly called in English, "common
sense." Did you know that I was a CT from 1988 to 2000? That I've only
been an LN for less than 3 years, a far far far shorter time than I was
a CT? I've posted abaut this many many many times, & have friends &
famliy members who will unhesitatingly confirm what I'm saying. That
alone, even if no other evidence existed, strongly suggests that I do
not start my thinking from preconceived notions.
> When you do
> that, you are then forced to make the evidence fit. Somehow.
Rofl!
That seems to me, rather, what YOU are doing: starting with a
preconceived notion of Oswald's "innocence," & only then "forcing"
yourself to make the evidence fit, "somehow." How else could one
explain your assertations of "cool coke drinker" (made without
consulting even a shred of the original evidence, but only going with
one single much "later" crossed-out statement), & most especially with
your wild "forced into his hand" statement.
Belin was of closely-similar height/weight/etc. to Oswald? I'll freely
admit that's the first time in my entire life that I've seen such an
assertation made, but I'll play along, for the moment. Do please
clarify.
> And here is what he said prior to that:
> Mr. Benavides.
> Later on that evening, about 4 o'clock, there was two officers came by and
> asked for me, Mr. Callaway asked me---I had told them that I had seen the
> officer, and the reporters were there and I was trying to hide from the
> reporters because they will just bother you all the time.
> Then I found out that they thought this was the guy that killed the President.
> At the time I didn't know the President was dead or he had been shot.
> I was just trying to hide from the reporters and everything, and these two
> officers came around and asked me if I'd seen him, and I told him yes, and
> told them what I had seen, and they asked me if I could identify him, and I
> said I don't think I could. It this time I was sure, I wasn't sure that I
> could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't
> have.
> Mr. Belin.
> Did he ever take you to the police station and ask you if you could identify
> him?
> Mr. Benavides.
> No; they didn't.
>
> Strange behaviour on the part of the DPD. Instead, they relied upon the
> hysterical Mrs Markham who needed a whiff of ammonia, just to get to the
> lineup.
Oh, they hardly relied on just her, as I have proven beyond all possible
doubt in the very article to which you responded.
Oh wow, an insignificant discrepancy in precise location. That must
automatically make every last one of the statements he ever made in his
life "unreliable."
Oh, ok, so to you, if a witness was not absolutely correct in every last
detail, every last statement the witness made should be totally rejected?
If that's the case, we'll have to throw out every last person who made
any statement whatosever in relation to the JFK assassination, since all
of them, almost without a single exceptions, made mistakes.
As every human who has ever lived has done.
Wow, she later recalled the wrong door.
That automatically makes everything she ever said in her entire life a
lie, eh?
> > Sam Guinyard, 11-22-63 affidavit:
> >
> > **********
> >
> > I work as a partner at the used car lot at 501 E. Jefferson. Today about
> > 1:00 pm I heard some shooting near Patton and 10th Street. I ran out and
> > looked. I saw a white man running south on
> > Patton Street with a pistol in his hand. The last I saw of this man he
> > was running west on Jefferson. I went around on 10th Street and saw a
> > policeman laying in the street. He was bloody and
> > looked dead to me. The #2 man in the lineup I saw at the city hall is
> > the same man I saw running with the pistol in his hand.
> >
> > **********
> >
> > And in his WC testimony Guinyard made it plain that he was under no
> > delusion that this "number 2" man was anyone other than Oswald.
>
> Guinyard is your best witness from this bunch.
They all seem equally plausible to me, as they seem to equally exhibit
typical & mundane human errors. All you've pointed out so far is
typical random variations in eyewitness testimony. You've neglected to
admit the consistencies.
> But it doesn't mean he couldn't
> be honestly mistaken. The line-ups, as noted earlier were a sham, and made
> identifying Oswald almost impossible to avoid.
Could be. Nevertheless, though you try to sashay around it with
excuses, staring you in the face is the absolutely provable fact that
they did all positively ID this same man who was arrested as the man
they saw earlier in the same day.
Strange that in no other famous murder case in all of human history is
such evidence widely considered to be even remotely controversial.
> > Are you starting to see a pattern here?
>
> Yes. They all put the time at about 1:00pm.
Oh dear, that's the *only* pattern you see? ;-)
> > I've just produced one witness (Burt) who saw "a" man near the scene
> > with a pistol, but who did not identify him as Oswald or any other
> > particular person, but who nevertheless gave a description of the man
> > remarkably similar to that of the other witnesses. I've just produced
> > one other witness (Benavides) who missed seeing the shooting itself only
> > by ducking,
>
> But who originally claimed he did see it.
If you're referring to an earlier statement that I haven't yet seen, may
be.
> but saw a man with a pistol standing right beside the fallen
> > officer emptying shells out of his gun, with an ID which, while perhaps
> > not "positive" in the strictest sense,
>
> His "it looked like Oswald" didn't come until after the murder of his brother.
Could be. He is proven to have been in error...how, exactly?
> still expresses a belief that the
> > man he saw was almost certainly the same man whose pictures were
> > subsequently seen in the media.
>
> Yet originally claimed to see the murder... but nevertheless, was allowed to
> avoid going to a lineup.
"Allowed to avoid"? From the very testimony you yourself quoted:
**********
Mr. Belin. Did he ever take you to the police station and ask you if you
could identify
him? Mr. Benavides.
No; they didn't.
**********
Perhaps your mileage may vary, but this suggests to me that the DPD did
not even *ask* Benavides to come down. Your assertation that he was
"allowed" to "avoid" doing such a thing is not in evidence, as far as I
can see.
Oh dear, & did you not notice that what he said to the WC *supports* the
notion of a guilty Oswald? May I ask what possible motivation the DPD
would have in not having him down, if they were involved at any level
whatsoever in "fingering" an "innocent" Oswald, since Benavides would
have, rather obviously, *strengthened* their case against Oswald?
> But most importantly, I have just
> > produced FOUR witnesses who said they saw the man with the gun near the
> > scene, & moreover positively ID'd him on the same day.
>
> Yes they did. But for 3 of those, other aspects of their various statements
> casts doubts about their reliability.
Ya, if you nitpick on virtually insignificant discrepancies in their
statements, while totally ignoring the far greater number of
consistencies.
> > And I've only gotten so far through the letter "G."
>
> These 4 witnesses alone are more than enough to support my assertion
> > that, "Several witnesses saw Oswald moving away from the scene of the
> > Tippet murder with a pistol in his hand." "Four" would most definitely
> > count as "several," & note carefully that I did not say they saw him
> > *at* the scene with a pistol, but moving in a direction "away" from the
> > scene. Are these 4 enough for you, or shall we go through more of the
> > alphabet in my next reply?
> >
> > Ask & ye shall receive. ;-)
>
> In my estimation, you have one relatively problem-free witness. I say
> "relatively" because nothing is going to get around the problem with those
> lineups.
So you & certain CTs say. This is at gross variance with what Fritz,
whom you yourself cited as your primary "evidence" of what Oswald
supposedly said, claimed about these very same lineups:
***********
Mr. FRITZ. That is true. I borrowed those officers, I was a little bit
afraid some prisoner might hurt him, there was a lot of excitement and a
lot of feeling fight about that time so we didn't have an
officer in my office the right size to show with him so I asked two of
the special service officers if they would help me and they said they
would be glad to, so they took off their coats and
neckties and fixed themselves where they would look like prisoners and
they were good enough to stand on each side of him in the showup and we
used a man who works in the jail office, a
civilian employee as a third man.
Mr. BALL. Now, were they dressed a little better than Oswald, do you
think, these three people?
Mr. FRITZ. Well, I don't think there was a great deal of difference.
They had on their regular working clothes and after they opened their
shirts and took off their ties, why they looked very much
like anyone else.
**********
I freely admit I could well be wrong, but at this moment I'm suspecting
that every last person who has ever claimed that the lineups were a
"sham" or anything even remotely similar, wasn't actually there to
witess even a single one of them.
I'll obviously be perfectly happy to be proven wrong, & if so, without
the slightest hesitation whatsoever, in my first article after viewing
such proof, openly & unequivocally acknowledge my error, which all by
itself, even if no other evidence existed, demonstrates rather
resoundingly that I do not operate from any preconceived notions.
> > Now you may possibly explain to me why it might be a reasonable
> > assertion that Oswald did not actually carry a pistol into the theater,
>
> 1) The pistol that was displayed before TV cameras at the Tippit site and
> described as the murder weapon.
As if the media has never made a simple mistake before, even though
we've all known them to make countless mistakes throughout all the adult
years of our lives, if not earlier in our lives.
> 2) The wallet found at the Tippit murder site and described as containing
> Oswald
> ID by Hosty and others.
Well, you've got my attention with that. Please run with it.
Thanks.
> 2) The Hill radio call advising that a witness had seen the wanted man run
> into a church.
> 3) Lack of a search of that church.
Uh-huh. I'm curious if it could not possibly be that the same suspect
was arrested *before* a search of that building of Religious
Significance could be organized.
Evidence on timing?
> 4) All the other cops waiting for McDonald to arrive at the TT before entering
> and allowing this patrolman to basically lead the charge.
Seriously, this is the first day in my entire life, in the entire 15
years I have studied the assasination, honestly, that I can recall such
an assertation being made by anyone, CT or LN or any viewpoint
whatsoever.
Evidence?
> 5) The gun had a faulty firing pin
Oh dear, I'm sure I must be ignorant in certain ways (something I'll
unhesitatingly admit) but...evidence?
You're aware, of course, of the evidence that the Mannlicher-Carcano had
a "misaligned" scope? Are you also aware that this very same rifle had
the scope mounted somewhat to the *side*, so that it did *not* prevent
use of the iron sights?
I'm not making this up; I'm getting this from several people I've talked
to who own the
very
same
brand of rifle.
> 6) Oswald punching McDonald as he was being "patted down".
I'm somehow failing to see how this is evidence of Oswald not carrying a
pistol into the TT.
> This was when the
> plant was taking place.
Oh dear, "was," without any qualification whatsoever, as if this was
absolutely proven, which you knew perfectly well, years before you typed
those words, is not so. And yet, paradoxically, you yourself said to
me, a few days ago, something to the effect of, "Glad to see all your
qualifiers are out to exercise."
Fascinating that I'm accused of something you're far far far more guilty
of than I've ever been, even in a single article,
> Oswald had to get some distance between them.
"Had," with no qualification whatsover.
Glad to see all your qualifiers are out for exercise.
> Unfortunately at least 3 others came along to hold him so McDonald could do
> what he came to do.
"Came," without any qualification whatsoever.
Yet another example of a CT attempting to masquerade wild speculation as
if it was proven fact.
You'll search on Google in vain for even a single statement in any of my
articles that Oswald "did" do it alone, without any qualification
whatsoever. On the contrary, over & over & over, I've merely said that
I find it more likely than not that he did do it, but never ever ever
even hinted that it was "fact."
> This was when LHO started yelling that he wasn't resisting
> arrest etc.
About which you have not presented even the most meager evidence that he
was not intimately familiar with said expression.
In stark contrast, I've presented fairly compelling evidence to the
opposite.
"ACLU."
> They could not afford to kill him now with all those witnesses
> hearing what he was saying.
Oh, I guess not. I'm suspecting that, even in Texas in 1963 (I was
living here during that year, & before & after it, even to the present
day; were you?) no matter what he did or didn't say, unless the
witnesses clearly saw him threatening the officers with their very
lives, as in putting them in immediate & significant danger of fatality,
they could not "afford" to kill him in any case, even if he had remained
absolulely silent.
> 7) Lack of attempted murder charges being filed.
The attempted murder of whom, praytell?
> 8) McDonald telling the press that Oswald had given no trouble.
Ooo, now that I am *genuinely* interested in.
Original source?
> when precisely the same man who was arrested in the theater was
> > positively ID'd by a minimum of 4 people, all of whom additionally said
> > they saw him carrying a pistol (& said it on the very day even), &
> > described him as moving in a general direction away from the scene of
> > the Tippit murder, & more or less in a direction toward the theater.
>
> More or less.... ya... how many minutes walk was that, btw?
Not so many as to preclude him getting there.
Ever been to Dallas?
I have.
Many many many times.
At this moment, I am typing this article from a location only 3 hours
drive away from there, as the IP in this article will prove beyond all
possible doubt. I've lived here since 1967, & before that, in 1963
itself, even on the very day we're discussing, I lived *closer* to
Dallas than I do now.
Oswald could have EASILY made it to every location he was "officially"
purported to be on that day, as I have confirmed myself with nothing
more than my own 2 feet.
Ever been in the former TSBD? I have. And guess what. Only last year,
I myself *walked* the same distance Oswald is purported to have *run* in
that very same building, & I did it in *less* time than he is
"officially" purported to have done.
The vast majority of people who claim that he "couldn't" have made it
"in time" to be seen by Baker/Truly have rather obviously never set foot
in that building.
The vast majority of people who claim that there was a "second gunman"
on the GK behind the picket fence have rather obviously never set foot
in Dealey, & seen for themselves how laughably visible such a gunman
would have been to all sorts of witnesses on that day.
> > > & several of the theater patrons corroborated
> > > > the police statements that Oswald drew out a pistol.
> > >
> > > "Several" did not. Try one. Gibson.
> >
> > Bzzzt!
>
> I thought you might be desperate enough to use Applin.
ROFL!
Far from feeling "desperate" in the slightest, in actuality, as I had
already explained (which you obviously saw, as you made reference to
it), I was going in alphabetical order, & simply quoted the first
witness I had come upon who was supposedly anywhere near the scene.
At this time, as I have continuously felt during my entire 4+ years in
posting to Usenet, I'm not particularly worried about my credibility,
since I know perfectly well that every statement I have ever made, on
any issue, even many many many issues totally unrelated to the JFK
assassiantion, was perfectly honest & truthful at the time I made it, to
the best of my knowledge & intent. I also know perfectly well that not
a single person who has ever responded to me during those years has come
even remotely close to proving that to be untrue. Additionally I know
perfectly well, far far far better than anyone else, that whenever it
has been conclusively demonstrated to me that I am wrong, I have almost
always admitted this without the slightest hesitation, & instantly
apologized for it.
But this, now...you seem to be claiming that Applin said that Oswald was
holding a pistol *only* because he saw an arm in a short-sleeved shirt
holding the gun. But there's not a shred of such a suggestion in his
*earliest* statement, which you yourself have quoted me quoting in its
entirety above.
"But do you always put more weight on later accounts?"
> > **********
Could be.
Did any of the officers present have on short-sleeved shirts?
> > Let's not omit Brewer's description of the incident:
> >
> > **********
> >
> > Mr. BELIN - Who hit who first?
> > Mr. BREWER - Oswald hit McDonald first, and he knocked him to the seat.
> > Mr. BELIN - Who knocked who?
> > Mr. BREWER - He knocked McDonald down. McDonald fell against one of the
> > seats. And then real quick he was back up.
> > Mr. BELIN - When you say he was----
> > Mr. BREWER - McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second
> > and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward
> > that, and I saw this gun come up
> > and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.
> > Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
> > Mr. BREWER - No.
> > Mr. BELIN - You saw the gun up in the air?
> > Mr. BREWER - And somebody hollered "He's got a gun."
> >
> > **********
> >
> > Admittedly he didn't say he saw Oswald "draw" the gun. But notice how
> > this testimony doesn't contradict Applin's in the slightest,
>
> No. But it does contradict that of every cop.
Do tell how. As I've seen with my own eyes you claim that Postal's
earliest statements "conflict" or some such thing with her later, while
nothing I see shows any direct contradiction, you'll pardon me if I do
not take your word at face value on this.
> & suggests
> > that McDonald was the only officer struggling with Oswald at the instant
> > the gun appeared in Oswald's hand, which was what Applin more
> > specifically suggested, although he did not name McDonald. I really
> > don't see how Oswald could have obtained this gun unless he grabbed it
> > out of McDonald's holster, or he already had it on his person. And I
> > don't recall McDonald ever claiming that it was his gun that Oswald had
> > in his hand.
>
> > Or shall we go with the possibility that McDonald, the only officer near
> > enough to Oswald at the time, "forced" a gun into Oswald's hand? A gun
> > which, at the very least, Oswald could have beat McDonald over the head
> > with, even if it wasn't loaded?
>
> See above.
Oh, I've seen it.
I've also seen you fail to produce a shred of solid evidence to support
this.
> > That seems rather ludicrous to me.
>
> And the WCR is the Titanic of Government reports. Except it kept lurching on
> to hit countless icebergs. Smoke and mirrors gave the illusion it still
> floated.
In your opinion. Mine, which is informed by me reading at least 50% of
all the complete testimony given to them by 552 witnesses, independently
of relying on what anyone, living or dead, has ever claimed about that
testimony, in which I've noted that not a single witness gave even
remotely conclusive evidence of a conspiracy, even though not a single
other murder case in all of human history has called even half this many
witnesses, is slightly different.
> > I'm looking at Gibson's testimony now. But although you may have a
> > point in disputing that any theater witnesses actually saw him "draw"
> > the gun, I see now that your response that Gibson was the "only one" who
> > said such a thing is also in error.
>
> Applin "guessed" he drew it because a person wearing a short sleeve shirt
> ended up with it.
In your opinion, which you made without citing any supporting evidence
whatsoever of even *one* of the police officers wearing a short-sleeved
shirt (especially Mr. McDonald).
> You can have Applin, buddy. Be my guest.
His last name simply starts with "A," the first letter in the same
alphabet I have used all my life.
You appear to use the same alphabet, as you consistently type in it.
> He didn't say he saw Oswald "draw"
> > the gun, as in from his clothing, etc., either. He said essentially the
> > same thing as the other 2 I've cited, that at a certain point he saw
> > Oswald *holding* a gun.
> >
> > Shall we go past the letter "G" in my next reply?
>
> Bring 'em on.
No prob. I do hope, however, that you won't continue to use specious
arguments, such as a mistake about which "door" to conclude that such &
such a witness is absolutely unreliable.
**********
Mr.REYNOLDS. OK; our office is up high where I can have a pretty good
view of what was going on. I heard the shots and, when I heard the
shots, I went out on this front porch which is, like I
say, high, and I saw this man coming down the street with the gun in his
hand, swinging it just like he was running. He turned the corner of
Patton and Jefferson, going west, and put the gun in
his pants and took off, walking.
Mr. LIEBELER. How many shots did you hear?
Mr.REYNOLDS. I really have no idea, to be honest with you. I would say
four or five or six. I just would have no idea. I heard one, and then I
heard a succession of some more, and I didn't see
the officer get shot.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see this man's face that had the gun in his hand?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Very good.
Mr. LIEBELER. Subsequent to that time, you were questioned by the Dallas
Police Department, were you not?
Mr.REYNOLDS. No.
Mr. LIEBELER. The Dallas Police Department never talked to you about the
man that you saw going down the street?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Now, they talked to me much later, you mean?
Mr. LIEBELER. OK; let me put it this way: When is the first time that
anybody from any law-enforcement agency, and I mean by that, the FBI,
Secret Service, Dallas Police Department, Dallas
County sheriff's office; you pick it. When is the first time that they
ever talked to you?
Mr.REYNOLDS. January 21.
Mr. LIEBELER. That is the first time they ever talked to you about what
you saw on that day?
Mr.REYNOLDS. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. So you never in any way identified this man in the police
department or any other authority, either in November or in December of
1963; is that correct?
Mr.REYNOLDS. No; I sure didn't.
Mr. LIEBELER. So it can be in no way said that you "fingered" the man
who was running down the street, and identified him as the man who was
going around and putting the gun in his
pocket?
Mr.REYNOLDS. It can be said I didn't talk to the authorities.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you say anything about it to anybody else?
Mr.REYNOLDS. I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. Were you able to identify this man in your own mind?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You did identify him as Lee Harvey Oswald in your own
mind?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You had no question about it?
Mr.REYNOLDS. No.
**********
In all honesty & inclusiveness (which you apparently lack, as you
neglected to show us, or even acknowledge the very existence of, all the
statements Postal made in her *original* statement which undermine your
assertations) I will additionally cite Reynolds earlier statement, in
which the FBI (whom I to this day do not trust to accurately record
witness statements any more than I trust a dog to do so, as I've had
personal experience with FBI agents having no clue what I was talking
about) paraphrasing (but not quoting directly) Reynolds saying:
"REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he
advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the
afternoon of November 22,
1963; however, he would hesitate to definitely identify OSWALD as the
individual."
Let's do look, however, at Harold Russell's paraphrased FBI statement:
"RUSSELL positively identified a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New
Orleans Police Department # 112723, taken August 9, 1963, as being
identical with the individual he had
observed at the scene of the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D.
TIPPIT on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas."
Let's then look at what he himself is directly quoted, not paraphrased,
as saying in his affidavit regarding this very same FBI report:
"I have
read this written report and it represents a correct report of what I
saw on November 22, 1963."
Oh dear, now I've gotten to "S," & the WC testimony of Mr. Scoggins
seems a trifle damning. Do I need to quote it, or will you take my word
for it?
In any case, here's the whole thing, so that anyone in the world with
just standard Web access & nothing else can see for themselves what he
said:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/scoggins.htm
Looks like he claimed not only to have seen the shooting itself, but
*also* to have positively ID'd the shooter as the same man who was taken
into custody at the TT.
Apparently Markham was hardly the "only" witness on which the DPD et al
pinned their case.
Fascinating that it has often taken fewer witnesses than the ones I
alone have cited to bring a conviction in many many many murder cases
throughout U.S. history.
Convictions which, moreover, have never been widely-disputed.
Yet, paradoxically, alone among all famous murder cases, *more* evidence
is considered by many people to be "inadequate" in the JFK assassination.
> > > I have tremendous
> > > > difficulty in believing all these different people were lying.
> > >
> > > Only because you've been misled by what the evidence actually shows.
> >
> > I am showing that the evidence does not "show" anything other than what
> > I've essentially claimed it shows. I may have been slightly off on
> > little details such as whether or not theater patrons literally saw
> > Oswald "draw" a gun, but I wasn't even slightly off in saying that
> > several witnesses positively ID'd the same man who was arrested in the
> > theater as the man they themselves had just seen not long before that
> > carrying a pistol & moving in a general direction away from the scene of
> > the Tippit shooting & toward the theater.
>
> The devil truly is in the detail... and in some of the earlier statements.
Some of which you've shown me, & in which I've seen with my own eyes
that they are not quite as inconsistent with the latter as you claim.
Good thing I don't trust what others claim about witness statements, but
instead peruse those statements for myself.
> > > > The
> > > > preponderance of evidence is that he did indeed have a pistol.
> > >
> > > The evidence is far from convincing.
> >
> > Only if one doesn't look at very much of it.
>
> Uh uh. The more one looks, the worse it gets for the WC.
I'm failing to note you presenting even a remotely compelling
demonstration of such.
> > > McDonald said "he was darwing a gun". In the final report, this was
> changed to
> > > "he dew the gun".
> >
> > Which seems to be essentially the same claim. Or are you harping on the
> > mere triviality of a slight change of tense in the 2 statements?
>
> Such subtle changes add up.
Only if one harps on irrelevant trivialities.
> & 4 other witnesses to
> > the SAME MAN having a gun in his hand less than 30 minutes earlier in
> > nearby locations. I even quoted Applin saying this very thing on the
> > day it happened, not just months later for the WC, so we can't even
> > opine any subsequent "change" to his initial statement to this effect.
> >
> > > Even McDonal never claimed that.
> >
> > "He was drawing a gun" & "He drew the gun" do not indicate him having a
> > gun in his hand???
>
> McDonaald said they both had a hand on it. Obviously that comes as no
> surprise to me.
It comes as no surprise to me either, with McDonald apparently trying to
grab the gun away from Oswald. Naturally, at some point in that
process, both of them would be in contact with the weapon.
I mean, duh.
> > > > > > How is it "hardly the point"? The point is precisely that there
> were
> > > > > > more reasons to arrest Oswald than merely his absence from the TSBD.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know, I know. Not buying a ticket for the movie, and performing
> Spencer
> > > > > Tracey impersonations without AGVA membership.
> > > >
> > > > You haven't a shred of evidence that he "performed" any such
> > > > "impersonation."
> > >
> > > No. I don't think he did, either. Brewer was probably exaggerating his
> > > description.
> >
> > Do you see above where I quoted Brewer as attributing no more agitation
> > to Oswald other than that he looked "scared"? I think YOU were assuming
> > more agitation in Brewer's description than he actually gave. No wonder
> > you postulated a "Hyde" transformation. The reality is that Oswald was
> > not described as being "cool" as often as you claim, nor was he under
> > these other circumstances described as being quite as agitated as you
> > seemed to think. The reality seems to have been more toward the middle
> > than your assumption of Oswald vacillating wildly from one absolute
> > extreme to another.
>
> Thank you. You finally get it.
Oh no, I've "gotten it" all along. Brewer did not ascribe such extreme
agitation to Oswald as you've suggested, with your "wild-eyed" &
"bug-eyed" nonsense. Neither does the extant evidence suggest Oswald as
being quite as "cool" on certain other occasions as you erroneously
claimed.
Oh, & has a perfectly reasonable & logical explanation occurred to you
as to why Oswald might have been a bit more "cool" in the TSBD than he
was after the shooting of Tippit?
Free clue: there were LOTS of motorcycle cops in the motorcade.
> > > > > Are you aware of the confict in testimony as to whether the cops who
> went
> > > to
> > > > > the TT knew they were about to encounter an assassin as well as a cop
> > > killer?
> > > >
> > > > I've read them saying that a connection between the Tippet slaying & the
> > > > shooting of JFK occurred to some of them almost immediately. There
> > > > were, for example, several that I recall reading saying that shootings
> > > > of police officers in quiet residential areas like that were far from
> > > > common in Dallas in 1963, especially in broad daylight. I don't see all
> > > > of that as particularly implausible reasoning for some of them to fairly
> > > > quickly suspect that there was a connection between the two.
> > >
> > > Then why did some have trouble admitting it?
> >
> > What "trouble" are you talking about?
>
> They were asked, and denied they had any idea this would be the President's
> assassin at the time they went to the TT.
Fine.
My father was born in Missouri.
Show me. ;-)
> > > Are you claiming that Oswald being reported as absent has absolutely no
> > > importance in the scheme of things?
> >
> > Nope. What I am claiming is that there is not a shred of evidence that
> > there must necessarily be anything suspicious about it.
>
> That's your take, and I won't try and disabuse you of it any further.
Your call. I, however, will not hesitate to continue to point out how
certain assertations are not strongly supported by the extant evidence.
Especially when those making them fail to quote only a few more lines in
the very documents they claim support their arguments, when in
actuality, reading the complete & unedited documents cited gives one a
rather different impression.
> balance snipped as it mostly repetative. Feel free to start a new thread on
> anything you feel I snipped but should have addressed.
Why start a new thread when the discussion already exists in this one?
Oh, & do take special notice of my .sig immediately below this last
sentence, & notice how it does not particularly agree with the WC's
official version; I assure you I did not chose that .sig idly without
consulting a great deal of the extant evidence.
Caeruleo
Well, that's a start. ;-)
> My problem with that is that I plainly see that there is
> >simply a greater amount of evidence that he did than that he didn't, &
> >more to the point, the number of people who would have had to be
> >involved to change the primary original evidence in such a way as to
> >implicate him if he was innocent seems to make it rather implausible
> >that not a single one of them can be conclusively identified by now.
>
> But it isn't too difficult to get a witness consensus when witnessess whose
> accounts differ radically from the official story, such as Frank Wright and
> Acquilla Clemons, are ignored by official investigators, or, in the case
> of Ms. Clemons, even threatened and told not to reveal what she saw.
Thanks for this. I had previously been unfamiliar with Wright, or have
failed to remember reading about him & his wife if I have. I'm looking
at a 1964 article by George & Patricia Nash in which they quoted an
interview with the Wrights, which may also be your source. Mr. Wright
said that he saw the shooter of Tippit run away, get in a car farther
down the street, & drive away.
As for Ms. Clemons, I'm unable to find at this time any quotation of her
exact words on this issue, but she's purported to have said that she saw
*two* men involved in shooting Tippit, who took off in opposite
directions after the shooting, & I'm at this time finding no suggestion
attributed to her that either one got in a car & drove away.
Perhaps the reason these witnesses weren't & aren't taken as seriously
is simply because, for one thing, their accounts are not even consistent
with each *other*, & for another, aren't at all consistent with the
majority of other witnesses, exhibiting instead merely the typical
random variations in eyewitness testimony which is present in nearly
every criminal case which has ever occurred. I'd also be careful about
stating the "threatening" of Ms. Clemons as established fact, when this
is merely an uncorroborated claim by her.
This is said of Clemons in a 1997 article by John Locke:
**********
Example: Lane, "Rush to Judgment," Chapter 15: "Mrs [Acquilla]
Clemons told several independent investigators that she saw two men
standing near the police car just moments before one of them shot Tip-
pit. The killer then waved to the other man, she said, and they ran away
in different directions...Mrs Clemons told one independent investigator
that she had been advised by the Dallas police not to relate what she
knew to the Commission, for if she did she might be killed." There are a
number of problems with this witness. 1) Her story of seeing two killers
is inconsistent with the testimony of twelve other witnesses who saw a
single individual either shooting Tippit or fleeing the scene. 2) She re-
vealed this story to Lane a year after the assassination rather than re-
porting it to the police at the time. 3) The WC employed no
"independent investigators," so this expression, supplied by Lane, cov-
ers for the fact she didn't talk to the police. 4) The death threat,
which
none of the other witnesses reported receiving, is probably Clemons'
rationalization for not talking to the police when it would have mat-
tered.
**********
When I look at witness testimony, one of my primary objectives is to
look for elements of greatest consistency among all the witnesses who
were ever recorded as making any statement whatsoever about a particular
issue. The best example of my doing this is on an issue I was inspired
to investigate by Andrew Mason, the relative timing of the shots in
Dealey. I've found, as has he, that out of the approximately 60
witnesses who made any sort of statement whatsoever about the relative
timing, over 40 quite specifically said that shots 2 & 3 sounded
distinctly closer together than shots 1 & 2, among which witnesses
includes 2 of the 3 men on the 5th floor of the TSBD, with the 3rd man
never contradicting them in the slightest, with these witnesses being
far closer to the shooter as he was firing than all other Dealey
witnesses, & thus arguably able to hear the shots more clearly than
anyone else, & less likely to be confused by "echos," etc. Of the
remaining witnesses, less than 20, there is remarkably less consistency
even with each *other*, as within this number are to be found all other
variations on the relative timing, such as that shots 1 & 2 were closer
together, & that the shots were evenly-spaced. Therefore the element of
greatest consistency in witness testimony is that shots 2 & 3 were
closer together, which is the foundation of both Andrew & I rejecting
the traditional SBT, although this issue by itself only represents a
part of that argument.
Here I quite simply see that the element of greatest consistency in
witness testimony, among *all* witnesses I've so far seen, whether or
not they testified to the WC, whether or not they talked to the DPD,
whether or not they gave same-day affidavits, whether or not their
stories were not recorded for the first time until they told them to
private researchers, is that there was one shooter, one man seen running
through the neighborhood holding a pistol, & that this one man was
identified as being the same person arrested at the Texas Theater.
That's simply what the element of greatest consistency in all their
statements together says, quite independently of any preconceived notion
on my part. It should also be mentioned that the majority of these
witnesses even said these things in same-day affidavits, which gives
rather little time for them to be "threatened" into making their
statements fit with each other, or in any way to collude with each other
to come up with a consensus. The typical random variations in their
statements are there too, & these are elements of *least* consistency,
which almost always count as the least reliable among eyewitness
observations & recollections.
Since he would almost certainly have been shot by Baker had he tried to
bolt, it's about the *only* response anyone but an utter fool would
make. It doesn't necessarily have to be "calm & collected" to simply be
by far the best choice given the alternative.
> >> Indeed, Baker left that room not suspecting Oswald of being
> >> suspicious in the least.
> >
> >Of course, because he *immediately* dismissed Oswald as a suspect at the
>
> >very instant Truly told him Oswald was an employee:
>
> But as Baker testified, his senses were quite heightened at this point, and
> he was suspicious "of everybody". Yet there was apparently nothing about
> Oswald's demeanor that struck him as odd or unusual in any way.
With a very brief period of observation, & never having the sound of
Oswald's voice to judge from.
That still sounds like he observed Oswald for far less than a minute.
And never heard the sound of his voice.
> We see also Truly saying that he didn't
> >hear Oswald say a word. And we ALSO plainly see him NOT ascribing
> >complete "calm" to Oswald. Sure, he said that he didn't see any change
>
> >of expression on Oswald's face. But he arrived too late to see any
> >change of expression at the beginning of the confrontation,
>
> But Baker was there at the *beginning* of the encounter, and he, so far as
> I know, never stated that he noted an abrupt change in Oswald's expression
> either.
That's fine.
And ya know what?
Something occurred to me almost immediately after I posted my previous
response to you last week (I was out of town for the weekend & am
finally catching up on replies), something so blindingly logical that I
am wracked with embarrassment that it took so long to occur to me.
If Oswald was the shooter, wouldn't he have been *expecting* to
encounter police in the building immediately after the shooting? How
could he not, when all those motorcycle cops would have been so plainly
visible in the motorcade? In fact, I can't imagine him *not* assuming
that at least some of them would immediately jump off their cycles &
rush into the building, with the shots coming from within the building &
all. Thus he almost certainly would have been prepared for such an
encounter as with Baker.
How could he not have been?
But the encounter certainly went well; Oswald was dismissed as a
suspect, & free to walk right out of the building & disappear from
Dealey. He would have rather obviously thought his getaway was going
well, & so not be tremendously agitated at the time he caught the cab,
for example.
So he purportedly acted so differently after the Tippit shooting? But
now we're getting into an extraordinarily different circumstance. If
the official version is correct, Oswald would hardly have expected a
policemen to pull over & get out of his patrol car right there in
Oswald's residential neighborhood. Almost certainly the thought would
come to him that the DPD was onto him after all, that his getaway was
not going nearly as smoothly as he'd previously thought, & that
desperate measures were necessary, namely to shoot the officer & get out
of there fast. And a few minutes later, on the street which led to the
Texas Theater, here were more police sirens approaching. Oh, it's not
going well at all! They're already looking for me; I need to get
completely out of sight FAST!
A darkened theater.
Perfect.
Rather obviously, if Oswald was a lone gunman, operating entirely by
himself, he would have almost certainly been *expecting* an encounter
with police inside the TSBD. And just as obviously, he would have
almost certainly *not* been expecting an encounter with police miles
away in a residential neighborhood.
I find this explanation perfectly logical.
> for Oswald
> >was by then already standing in front of Baker with Baker's gun drawn on
>
> >him, having already walked over to Baker when Baker had previously
> >spoken to him. But instead of complete & total calm, Truly did say that
>
> >he thought Oswald might have looked "startled."
> >
> >His word; I didn't make it up.
>
> So if an innocent person is suddenly confronted by an armed officer leveling
> his gun at him from about 3 feet away, you won't grant him the benefit of
> even a slight "startle" response without deeming it potentially suspicious?
> You're tough sir.
Nope. I'm merely pointing out an example of Truly *not* attributing
absolute calm to Oswald. Your prior statements seemed to suggest that
there was nothing whatsoever in any statement by Baker or Truly which
suggested anything *but* absolute calm. I'm simply demonstrating that
such an assertion is misleading.
> >Oh, & did you notice this? I noticed it months ago:
> >
> >"Evidently he was hurrying because at this point here, I was running,
> >and I ran on over here to this door."
> >
> >See the word "hurrying," used in response to Dulles using the same word
>
> >in his question, when he asked if Oswald appeared to be in a hurry when
>
> >Baker first saw him? Baker's impression was indeed that Oswald was in a
>
> >hurry when he *first* saw him.
> >
> >His word; I didn't make it up.
>
> Since Baker never described Oswald as doing anything but walking, I fail
> to see what he based this on, and I'm sure so would an adequate defense
> attorney.
Perhaps so. Nevertheless, this is still a suggestion by Baker which is
at variance with absolute calm on the part of Oswald.
> >More to the point, Oswald was moving *away* from Baker, with his back to
>
> >him, & thus also in a direction *away* from the stairwell.
> >
> >I gather you understand the possible significance of that.
>
> Not really. The evidence seems to be that Oswald chose to leave via the front
> entrance, and apparently had no qualms about showing his face to any
> potential
> witnesses out on Elm Street.
But showing his face to witnesses there isn't particularly relevant, as
at that time he was still merely another TSBD employee, among the many
who were out front already, & had just been dismissed as a suspect. He
would actually be far more likely to be noticed & remembered going out
the back door, as he would have been one of the very few people to exit
that way. In a crowd, he'd be much less conspicuous, or suspicious.
And that's precisely what the evidence shows: only the reporter recalled
seeing him exit the building.
> After Baker and Truly left, leaving via the
> rear was still an option for Lee, yet he eschewed it.
If he was the shooter, no wonder. He was far less conspicuous going out
the front.
> As for the stairwell,
> this also would have been wholly consistent with coming up from the 1st
> floor,
> would it not?
Of course. ;-)
> >The encounter was very brief, & before Baker asked Oswald any question
> >whatsoever, practically before Oswald had a chance to offer any
> >explanation whatsoever as to what he was doing there, Baker turned to
> >Truly, never looking at Oswald again after that, asked if the man worked
>
> >there, Truly responded in the affirmative, & *zapp*...just like that,
> >their observation of his "demeanor" ended & they left him.
>
> Yep, after Baker had observed his demeanor for several seconds and was able
> to thusly describe it as calm and collected to the Warren Commission.
Except for the "hurrying" bit. ;-)
> >"Immediately."
> >
> >Times 4.
> >
> >We don't have the slightest idea if Oswald, had he been given a chance
> >to speak, would have sounded agitated in any way or not, or out of
> >breath or not.
>
> We also don't know if he would have exhibited a *lack* of agitation had he
> spoke, do we?
Of course. All I'm saying is that the sound of his voice is evidence we
completely lack for this encounter, thus it is a stretch to assume that
he absolutely "was" calm simply because 2 people who briefly observed
him said that was their impression of him. It just isn't enough
evidence to go on either way.
And I've just given above a perfectly logical explanation as to why he
might appear considerably more calm in the TSBD than later.
> >This is extremely little to go on when attempting to assess the man's
> >emotional state. Baker & Truly were not clairvoyant; they could not see
>
> >inside his mind. He could have been tremendously agitated, & simply
> >evinced no obvious sign of it. Many many many times in my life I have
> >been tremendously upset about something, yet not spoken a word of it to
>
> >anyone, with no one having the slightest clue that I was upset.
>
> But if you take, let's say, 100 Lone Nut assassins that day, and put them
> in the same position that Oswald found himself in some 90 seconds later,
> I would say that he would rate well in the upper half of "calm and collected"
> assassins. Just my opinion.
That could be.
Of course, he would have almost certainly have been *expecting* an
encounter with police at this time, right? And almost certainly that
encounter would involve some sort of question as to whether or not he
was an employee of the building, correct?
> >Because he did not instantly flee when he saw Baker, the only possible
> >alternative absolutely MUST be that he was completely & totally calm.
>
> He *appeared* calm. To both Truly and Baker. Whether he was or not, this
> is what both men placed on the record.
Sure. And he may have indeed been outwardly quite calm. I don't find
this especially remarkable, even if he was guilty.
> >In short, to you (it seems) that unless Oswald exhibited some
> >tremendously obvious & totally unmistakable sign of agitation, no matter
>
> >how briefly he was observed, there is absolutely no possibility
> >whatsoever that he could have been anything, anything at all, in no
> >other emotional state whatsoever, than totally & utterly calm.
> >
> >If that's your argument, I utterly reject it.
>
> No, the only argument I make is that when confronted by the gun-toting Baker
> and Truly, that Oswald *WAS* calm and collected. This is what the evidence
> shows, doesn't it?
The very little evidence we have, yes, for the most part, except for
"startled" & "hurrying."
> >I'd really appreciate it if you'd at least admit that you don't have
> >very much to go on to support a description of Oswald being "quite calm
>
> >and cool for a fellow who had, allegedly, just blown the head off the
> >President of the United States some 90 seconds earlier."
>
> I'll make no such admission in the least. The only real evidence we have
> on the matter *WAS* that this alleged assassin *WAS* calm and collected when
> confronted by a gun-toting officer within two minutes of the shooting.
But what you aren't admitting is that this evidence may simply not be
nearly enough to go on for us to make any reasonable assessment of his
actual, rather than briefly-perceived, demeanor during that encounter.
> You're not
> >clairvoyant either, & you have no idea what was going through his mind
> >at that moment, nor do I, nor does anyone else who has ever walked the
> >face of this earth, except Oswald himself.
>
> But whatever may have been going "through his mind", he *stll* projected
> an image of a calm and collected individual to Baker and Truly, right? And
> that's the whole point - that the man, whether guilty or innocent, could
> and did keep his emotions in check immediately after allegedly blowing JFK's
> head off.
In an encounter he would have almost certainly have been expecting in
advance, & was already prepared for.
In fact, wouldn't he almost certainly have been expecting such an
encounter even earlier, when *planning* the shooting? I mean, wouldn't
practically any adult automatically assume that there would be lots of
police in the company of a presidential motorcade, & that some of them
would almost certainly rush immediately into the building from which the
shots were fired? I'm having difficulty imagining the encounter with
Baker being much of a surprise to such an assassin at all.
But now, one must engage in much less logical speculation to have him
"expecting" a police officer to pull over, get out of his car, & walk
toward him in the residential neighborhood of Oak Cliff. How would this
lone assassin possibly be prepared for that?
That may be, yet it was still Baker's impression, who was there, as we
were not, & in fact he was the only recorded witness to see Oswald at
this point, as Truly didn't enter the room until after Oswald had
already come back toward Baker. Thus I'll use the same argument that
you used regarding the "calm & collected" business: whether it is
fatally flawed or not, this is the *only* evidence we have on what
Oswald was doing before he turned back at Baker's call.
> >"He might have been a bit startled, like I might have been if somebody
> >confronted me."
>
> I know, and you would not even grant an innocent person a *startle* response
> when a gun is leveled at him by a police officer without considering it
> suspicious,
> right?
Wrong. Again, I was simply pointing out that both Truly & Baker,
contrary to your assertion, did most definitely make at least one
statement each which is at variance with absolute "calm" on the part of
Oswald.
> >Those 2 statements alone do not indicate absolute calm.
>
> They indicate nothing, actually.
Oho? Now wait just a minute. The statements about "calm" do indicate
something, but the statements to the contrary do not? Why, exactly,
should the "calm" statements be considered any more or less reliable
than the "startled" & "hurrying" statements?
> >> This would extend to several witnesses
> >> - McWatters, Bledsoe,
> >
> >Excuse me, but WHO did you say??? Bledsoe???
> >
> >To the WC she said:
> >
> >"Oswald got on. He looks like a maniac."
> >
> >The word "maniac" suggests "cool and collected" to you???
>
> Wasn't Bledsoe referring here to Oswald's looks? A torn shirt, perhaps
> unbuttoned?
> I mean, she never, so far as I know, claimed that Oswald made any wild
> comments.
He has to make a wild comment to be anything but utterly calm? Again,
it still seems to me that you'll accept nothing less than some
tremendously obvious sign of agitation to attribute any other state to
him.
You're tough sir. ;-)
> Bledsoe had it in for Lee, and in fact, no other witness on that bus, whether
> McWatters or any other passenger, ever described Oswald thusly.
The others seem to have taken a good deal less notice of him than she
did. They didn't know him. She did. I recently read McWatter's
testimony, for example, & I clearly recall him saying something to the
effect of barely taking any note of him at all. He was just another
passenger boarding the bus.
> Did anyone
> on that bus ever go on the record saying something like, " Oh, by the way
> officer, about 10 minutes after that shooting, a maniac came on the bus"?
Ah, but O.H., the specific issue I was addressing was this statement by
you:
"But there is absolutely NOTHING in the evidentiary record that between
the time when JFK was shot and the time that Tippit was shot, that
Oswald was ever anything but cool and collected. This would extend to
several witnesses - McWatters, Bledsoe, Whaley, and virtually ALL of the
Tippit witnesses."
As with the "calm" business in the lunchroom, I am simply demonstrating
that to say "nothing" in this context, especially in all-caps, is
somewhat misleading & not entirely accurate.
> So I conclude that if Mrs. Bledsoe saw a maniac on the bus that day, he was
> a "cool and collected" maniac. :-)
That's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one. ;-)
> >> Whaley, and virtually ALL of the Tippit witnesses.
> >> No one described Tippit's killer, even if it was Oswald, as a raving
> >> lunatic
> >> on the street that day.
> >
> >Once again, you seem to suggest that unless Oswald was widly
> >gesticulating, frothing at the mouth, & stomping madly about, absolutely
>
> >the only possible alternative whatsoever is that he was absolutely &
> >totally calm & untroubled. He cannot be anything but either wildly &
> >insanely agitated, or completely & totally cool. There is absolutely no
>
> >degree in between for his emotional state. He absolutely MUST be one
> >complete extreme or the other.
>
> No, not at all. Just attempting to see if there are any apparent
> inconsistencies
> in the demeanors of the man or men who allegedly assassinated JFK and killed
> Officer Tippit. And there do indeed appear to be such inconsistencies.
Not terribly inconsistent at all, with the first police encounter almost
certainly expected & planned for, & the second not.
> >Do you see the incredible weakness in your argument?
> >
> >I assure you I do.
> >
> >Or is that not your argument?
> >
> >I'm asking for "clarification" purposes only.
>
> Again, just trying to assess and determine if there were any apparent
> inconsistencies
> in the demeanors of the man or men who allegedly commited these two crimes.
> And these inconsistencies do indeed appear to exist.
I guess, when one doesn't explore the most obviously logical explanation
for them. But I'm just as guilty; I didn't think of it until a few days
ago...& here I've been reading about this case since 1988. :(
> >> "Inexplicably" is *hardly* the first adverb that would come
> >> >to my mind. He hadn't supposedly done anything within light-years of
>
> >> >being that serious on any of these other occasions you mentioned, except
> >>
> >> >for the lunchroom thing, which does not itself provide any remotely
> >> >conclusive evidence of his emotional state either way. Even in the
> >> >Walker shooting, if he did do it, he did not actually kill anyone. And
> >>
> >> >Marina described him as quite agitated when he came home that night.
> >>
> >> But not after succeeding at blowing away JFK?
> >
> >What an incredibly different situation you're proposing. Oswald &
> >Marina had a *conversation* when he came home that night, when she could
>
> >*hear* his agitation, & moreover telling her *exactly* what he had
> >supposedly just done:
> >
> >"When he came back I asked him what had happened. He was very pale.
>
> Funny then , for neither Baker nor Truly described a "very pale" Oswald whom
> they encountered in the lunchroom that day.
Neither of them were married to him either, & knew nearly as well what
his complexion normally looked like.
> >> >November 22 1963 is the earliest date that Lee Harvey Oswald is even
>
> >> >*alleged* to have committed murder. He is only alleged to have
> >> >attempted it one previous time. He's furthermore alleged to have
> >> >committed not one, but TWO murders on the very earliest date in his life
> >>
> >> >in which he even supposedly BECAME a murderer for the very first time.
>
> >>
> >> >I hardly find it "inexplicable" that such a person would lose his normal
> >>
> >> >composure, no matter how tightly-controlled or even "trained" it had
>
> >> >always been before that.
> >>
> >> But shouldn't JFK's murder have set such agitation off? Why would it take
> >> the Tippit shooting for Oswald to lose his cool, not JFK's?
> >
> >"He looks like a maniac."
> >
> >Those words were used to describe his appearance at a time *between* the
>
> >shooting & JFK & the shooting of Tippit. Your assertion that he didn't
>
> >"lose his cool" during this time is not in evidence.
>
> When did he lose his cool then, and with whom? Baker? Truly? McWatters?
> Whaley?
> Roberts? True, he did seem to be in a hurry when he saw Mrs. Roberts at the
> roominghouse, but then, I'm sure that a good many other people in and around
> Dallas were also in a hurry that day. Oswald DOES appear to be acting as
> the result of the assassination in some way, I'll grant you that. But I still
> maintain that this was a cool customer until *after* the Tippit shooting.
Perhaps because until Tippit got out of his car the escape was going
smashingly well? Perhaps because Tippit represented an abrupt,
profound, & horrifying turn of events?
> >> It's happened to me plenty of times. It's more likely to
> >> >happen with a person whom we don't actually "know," per say, & have
> >> >never technically met. Did Brewer ever say that he had actually waited
> >>
> >> >on Oswald before?
> >>
> >> He seemed to indicate he had in his testimony, yes.
> >
> >Yep, you're right:
> >
> >"Well, in the first place, I had seen him some place before. I think he
>
> >had been in my store before. And when you wait on somebody, you recognize
> >them, and he just seemed funny."
> >
> >Do note carefully, however, what *else* Brewer said. He said he had
> >seen him "some place before." He said he *thought* he had been in the
> >store before. Not absolute certainty by any means.
> >
> >Brewer might *also* have seen Oswald somewhere else instead.
> >
> >He said so himself.
>
> Whether he *saw* Oswald in the shoe store or elsewhere, I would still want
> to know the circumstances, okay?
Believe me, so do I. Sadly, I don't think we'll ever know them at this
late date, unless Brewer is still alive, which I don't recall at this
time.
Ok.
Then I have another question of obvious logic for you.
Your suggestion with all this seems to be that a "lookalike" may have
led Brewer to the theater, acting suspicious purposefully, & was of
course *not* the same person who was subsequently arrested. That the
real Oswald had entered the theater separately.
Fine.
Then, if both the real Oswald & his "lookalike" entered the theater, how
did the real Oswald get in? You've said that in your view he would be
less suspicious if he'd simply bought a ticket from Postal. Ok, let's
run with that. Remember that Postal herself, even in her same-day
affidavit, said she saw the very same suspicious man that Brewer saw,
ducking in toward the entrance to the theater, although she did not
actually see him enter.
May I ask why she had no recollection whatsoever of *another* man who
looked almost exactly identical to him buying a ticket from her?
And oh dear, but didn't Earline Roberts see the real Oswald *wearing*
his jacket when he left? Yet the suspicious "lookalike" was seen by
several witnesses running in a general direction away from the Tippit
scene & toward the theater wearing a jacket, seen a little closer to the
theater by at least one witness discarding the jacket, then seen a
little closer to the theater without a jacket.
Yet apparently the real Oswald discarded *his* jacket too, sometime
between leaving the rooming house & his arrest in the theater.
How would the "lookalike" possibly know that it would be necessary for
him *also* to discard his jacket to match Oswald?
I'm sorry, but the vast majority of the extant evidence indicates that
this was simply the same man spotted by all these different people.
> >When several witnesses at the theater positively ID'd the same man in
> >custody that the previous witnesses had also ID'd as being the same man
>
> >they saw being arrested and/or brought out of the theater?
> >
> >Did not Bledsoe, McWatters, & Whaley also positively ID this same man as
>
> >the one they encountered?
>
> See above. The man is called a "lookalike* because guess what? He strongly
> would have resmbled the real Oswald.
And in an amazing coincidence, both of them discarded their jackets.
> >Did not some of the TSBD employees positively ID this same man as the
> >one they'd worked with?
> >
> >Did not Ruth & Michael Paine positively ID this same man as the person
> >who often visited Marina at Ruth's house?
> >
> >Did not Marina see Oswald while he was in custody? Did she
> >contemporaneously express the slightest doubt that this same man, who
> >had already been positively ID'd as the man "running with a gun" in
> >between the site of the Tippit shooting & the theater, being the same
> >man ALSO positively ID'd as being the man who was arrested in the
> >theater, was indeed her husband?
> >
> >Didn't Robert Oswald also see Lee while he was in custody? Did he
> >express the slightest doubt that this same man was indeed his brother?
> >
> >Didn't Marguerite Oswald also see Lee while he was in custody? Did she
>
> >express the slightest doubt that this same man was indeed her son?
>
> Huh? What are you stating here? That his family members and co-workers at
> the Depository identified the *real* Lee Harvey Oswald as the *real* Lee
> Harvey Oswald?
Rather obviously what I was stating was that it was the same man whom
all the other witnesses identified too. The same man in custody who was
identified as the real Oswald by those who knew him was also identified
as the same man by those who didn't.
> Duh. I certainly don't make the claim that it may have been
> the lookalike who was arrested, and not the real Oswald. I don't know where
> you're going here.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
> >If I'm wrong about any of this, please let me know in your next reply,
> >along with the evidence that it is so.
>
> Wrong about what? That the real Lee Harvey Oswald was indeed the real Lee
> Harvey Oswald? No by golly, I believe that you are right-on here.
I'm also right-on that the vast majority of the evidence indicates that
this was simply the same man who was seen at various points between the
Tippit scene & the Texas Theater.
Maybe because Oswald maybe wasn't being framed in advance either?
> >Or fleeing in the Bronco.
>
> Maybe because there wasn't a plot afoot to frame O.J.?
Maybe because there maybe was no such plot regarding Oswald either?
> >> >And you certainly have to indulge in wild unfounded speculation to get
>
> >> >him in there to "make a contract," as the evidence that that would have
> >>
> >> >been his specific purpose there is virtually non-existent.
> >>
> >> Of course this is speculation. But I hardly rule it out. The reports of
>
> >> Oswald,
> >> who was essentially a loner, "seat hopping" several times while he was
> in
> >> that theatre and sitting next to a few different people is a bit troubling
> >> to me.
> >
> >Could be. Why does this suggest a "contract" to you?
> >
> >Because you read it in a book?
> >
> >(Asking just for "clarification" only.)
> >
> >I remember first coming across that assertion in conspiracy books years
>
> >ago. I also remember that not a shred of such an idea had ever occurred
>
> >to me before reading someone else proposing it.
>
> It has been stated by those in intellience circles that movie theatres make
> very good clandestine meeting places. Not my words. :-)
That may be. It sounds a bit too James Bondesque to me though, & hardly
seems to be the most *likely* explanation for him being in the theater.
Yep. It however utterly fails to explain why Postal didn't see *both*
of them.
Or did the real Oswald sneak into the theater too?
And just by sheer coincidence, discard his jacket, just as the
"lookalike" also did?
> But you're having it be more
> >plausible that he would *buy* a ticket from Postal, thus ensuring that
> >she *would* see him, thus making it *more* likely that she'd remember
> >him. As far as he appeared to know, she hadn't seen him at all, &
> >neither had Brewer. Neither Brewer or Postal described seeing Oswald
> >look at them. He may well have thought that no one saw him go into the
>
> >theater. Buying a ticket from her would have *ensured* that she saw him.
>
> Don't know if I can completely buy this premise. Could anyone sneaking into
> that theatre have been assured that he would not be seen by anyone else
> inside,
> the concessionaire for instance?
I didn't say he'd be "assured" of not being seen by anyone else, I'm
saying that he'd be more *likely* not to be seen if he didn't go right
up to the ticket taker & *make* her see him by buying a ticket from her.
> This would be a mighty high assumption.
I don't see how.
> Also, a lone figure sitting
> surrounded
> by empty seats can be quite conspicuous.
But not clearly seen in a manner that is easily recognizable, since the
theater is much darker than outside. What's the most obvious
explanation for the witnesses being able to identify him at all?
Because the lights were turned up, & he was arrested before their eyes.
> As can a person who seemingly
> changes
> seats several times, as Oswald is said to have inexplicably done.
Still a far less remarkable & memorable circumstance than having the
lights turned up & being arrested. Far less likely that any other
theater patrons would later be able to identify him.
> It is
> obviously
> hindsight, but Oswald, if it was Oswald, would probably have been better
> served by buying a ticket legally.
In hindsight yes, only because, if the official version is correct, it
was mere chance that he was noticed by Brewer & Postal. I repeat,
buying a ticket from her would *ensure* she noticed him. Sneaking past
her presented at least a possibility that she would not.
> >> Certainly not the shoestore, &
> >> >certainly not that library which was also searched, & not even that
> >> >church which was reported but not searched, supposedly. Neither would
>
> >> >he have been particularly concealed wandering around that nearby
> >> >residential neighborhood, as people in house after house after house
>
> >> >might see him pass by. Somewhere in one of their yards or garages?
> But
> >>
> >> >anyone living in those houses might discover him at any time. Only in
>
> >> >the darkened theater did he have a chance of not being clearly observed
> >>
> >> >& recalled later.
> >>
> >> Sure, so buy a ticket legally and do not risk being seen and reported
> for
> >> suspicious behavior.
> >
> >Buy a ticket legally & ensure that you're known to be going into the
> >theater by at least one witness, especially after several witnesses have
>
> >just plainly seen you only minutes earlier running with a gun in your
> >hand after they heard shots from nearby.
>
> Huh? I know of no Tippit killing witness that traced Oswald to the Texas
> Theatre and saw him enter.
Oh come now. That's necessary...why? This man, identified on the same
day as the same man by multiple unrelated witnesses, few of whom knew
each other, long before they could have all "planned" to implicate the
same man or been "coerced" to implicate the same man, was seen at
various points along a route from the Tippit slaying to the the theater,
always headed when they saw him in a general direction away from Tippit
& toward the theater. It's simple common sense, simple 2 + 2 = 4.
Sure, it doesn't absolutely "prove" that it was this same man all the
way from point A to point B, but I mean really now. What is the most
*likely* explanation?
> Oh no, don't attempt to sneak
> >by that ticket taker so that just possibly there won't be any witness to
>
> >where you disappeared to, so that just possibly the trail to your
> >present location will be lost. Instead, *ensure* that there *will* be a
>
> >witness when the police come down the street asking questions about
> >having recently seen such & such a man, the same man already seen by at
>
> >least one witness discarding his jacket, so now he'll only be wearing
> >such & such, so did you see him? Why yes, he bought a ticket from me
> >just a little while ago.
> >
> >Is it fairly obvious to you that I don't find your argument particularly
>
> >compelling?
>
> But by taking the course that he did, Oswald or whomever did indeed *ensure*
> that his suspicious behavior would be noted and reported. This is a fact.
But, you're missing the point I'm making. Certainly this man, if he was
Oswald, ensured being noticed at various points along this route by his
actions. What he *didn't* ensure is that any witness would notice the
point where he suddenly *departed* from the route, ducking into the
theater instead of continuing on down the street in flight. How would
he "know" that Brewer would follow him? How would he "know" that Postal
would see him? It seems to have been mere chance in both cases.
I say again, that if this was simply Oswald the whole time, he did not
appear to notice that Postal had seen him, or that Brewer had followed
him.
And Postal only saw one man. She did NOT see a nearly identical man buy
a ticket from her only a few minutes earlier.
Jean Davison
And why is that a problem? As it turns out, Oswald was the only missing employee
who *could have been* the sniper, because he was the only missing employee who'd been
inside when the shots were fired. Conspiracy books don't acknowledged this
inconvenient fact. You might say they've engaged in a coverup to benefit Mr. O.
For instance, here's Mark Lane's version from Rush to Judgment (with my comments
in brackets between each quoted sentence):
QUOTE:
>>> "...Oswald was not the only employee absent from the building after the
assassination."
[True but highly misleading, since every other absent employee had been outside
the TSBD when the shots were fired.]
"....Others left the building almost immediately after hearing the shots."
[Left the building but went right back inside! Lane's footnote refers to the
affidavits of Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles, who did go outside briefly to see what was
going on, but returned to work within minutes. These ladies not only didn't leave for
good, they both had alibis for the time of the shooting -- unlike Oswald.]
"Many employees were not allowed to enter to building after the assassination
and thus were absent when the search began."
[True, but ... misleading! None of these dozen or so absentees could've been
the 6th floor sniper, since they'd been outside when the motorcade passed.]
"In fact, even among the eight employees known to have been on the sixth floor
earlier that day, Oswald was not the only one who didn't show up and couldn't be accounted
for."
[Lane's footnote reveals that he's referring to Givens -- and again this is
HIGHLY misleading because, unlike Oswald, Givens was outside at the time of the shots, had
an alibi for 12:30, and did not leave the general area right away.] <<<
UNQUOTE (p.68, paperback)
Reading Lane, you'd think someone was picking on poor Lee, whose situation
was no different from that of other employees. Wrong!
>
> > However, we were discussing workers "who didn't return to work."
> > West and Piper
> > remained at work until after they'd been questioned by police and released,
> > about 2 PM.
> > By 2 PM, Oswald had already been to Oak Cliff and back and was under arrest.
>
> Exactly. So how hard do you think they were questioned once the suspect had
> already been nabbed?
Since there was no evidence against them, how hard do you think they *should* have
been questioned?
>
> > Oswald was inside, had no alibi, and left early. You don't find
> > that suspicious?
>
> No more or less than the activity of others.
Really? Who, for instance?
>
> > > As for those outside, some stated they could not recall who was "at my
> > > elbow"
> > > as one put it - it is pretty obvious that not all could have had someone
> > > vouch for there whereabouts.
> >
> > This woman was an exception, I think. Almost everyone else
> > outside had an
> > alibi, according to the affidavits in CE 1381.
>
> One exception is okay, though?
I wouldn't say it's "okay," it's just a fact. Joyce Stansbery doesn't look
like a suspect to me, though.
>
> > > Another example is Warren Caster. Caster stated he was at a business lunch
> > > at
> > > the university in Denton with a Dr Vernon V Payne during the
> > > assassination.
> > > This alibi was never checked out with Dr Payne.
> >
> > Are you sure it wasn't checked out?
>
>
> Caster admitted it wasn't during an interview sometime in the '90's. The
> article is online somewhere.
I was able to find that through Google. Caster said the WC didn't check his alibi
"to his knowledge," but again, is there any evidence against him? Any evidence that
either of his rifles was used on 11/22?
>
> >Is there any reason to
> > believe that Caster
> > was elsewhere?
>
> No there isn't... NOW. But you have a habit of arguing that any shortfalls in
> the investigation back then do not matter. Hey, they got the right guy, right?
I'm not arguing that "shortfalls" are okay, but evidence that "might have been"
doesn't exist, so what's the point?
>
> > > Only Givens was on
> > > > Truly's
> > > > warehouse crew, and Truly didn't report Givens missing because he knew
> > > > that Givens, unlike
> > > > Oswald, was outside the building during the shooting. In addition to
> > > > about 15 warehouse
> > > > workers, there were several dozen TSBD office workers, many of them
> > > > female.
> > >
> > > As pointed out already, how could Truly have known Oswald was not outside
> > > at the time of the shots? If you answer because he saw him moments later on
> > > the
> > > 2nd floor, then by the same locic, he should have also assumed he could
> > > not have been on the 6th floor.
> >
> > Why should Truly have assumed that LHO couldn't have been on the 6th
> > floor, if he'd
> > never timed it? Why should he have assumed that Oswald had been outside
> > and then rushed
> > to the back of the building, arriving before he and Baker did?
>
> Why should he assume someone he'd seen moments after the last shot acting
> anything but suspiciously 4 floors below where the police believed the sniper
> to have been could be involved?
As it turned out, in the WC reenactments, 4 floors below was just about
exactly where the sniper *would* have been if he came downstairs right away.
Interesting "coincidence," no?
>
> Oh, I know... he quotes himself later as saying at the time "this may not mean
> much, but..."
>
> What DOES mean something is the lack of action to account for the whereabouts
> of all others.
If you're referring to Caster, I don't think it's been established whether his
alibi was checked or not.
Sure, those inside the building without alibis *could* have slipped up to the 6th
floor, but there's no evidence whatsoever that any of them *did*. Of these very few,
IIRC, all but Dougherty were either female or African-American -- the sniper reportedly
was neither.
>
> > > I can't recall was Frazier said in in WC testimony, but in this CE 1381,
> > > he
> > > stated he left between 1:00pm and 2:pm. No mention is made of whether he
> > > had
> > > permission.
> >
> > It is stated in Frazier's testimony that he and fellow workers were
> > questioned by
> > the police on the first floor, and gave their names and addresses. Then
> > they were told
> > they could leave.
>
> Yep. I've since re read it.
>
<snipping old stuff not commented on>
> > > Regardless, as I've already said, if Givens was off the hook because Truly
> > > knew
> > > he was out of the building, then similarly, Oswald should not have caused
> > > him
> > > suspicion once he knew the sniper was apparently on the 6th floor.
> >
> > Why not? As he said, "it may not mean anything," but "he's
> > missing." So you
> > don't think he should've told Fritz that Oswald left?
>
> No. I DO think he should have immediately taken steps to account for the
> whereabouts of all others. Same goes for the head of each of the book
> companies.
I think the other bosses may well have been able to account for all their workers,
since several had only a few workers who went outside together.
Of course, if Truly *hadn't* reported Oswald missing, it wouldn't have mattered,
since his report didn't lead to Oswald's arrest.
<similar snip>
> > > Geneva Hine
> > > > was on the second floor, southeast corner, and thought the shots came
> > > > from
> > > > inside the
> > > > building, so opinions varied.
> > >
> > > Yes, they did. But who would have more cred on this, a young female, or an
> > > elderly male, who no doubt had his share of experiences of hearing
> > > gunfire?
> >
> > Plenty of young Texas females have heard gunfire, but I wouldn't
> > count on any
> > earwitness to locate the rifle. There's better evidence, wouldn't you
> > agree?
>
> So we can discount Geneva as well.
As an earwitness to the location of the rifle, sure.
>
> > > > > I strongly doubt there was any roll call, Vern.
> > > >
> > > > I agree, there was no formal "roll call." However, Oswald was
> > > > the
> > > > only worker who was inside the building at 12:30 who left the area
> > > > before the building
> > > > was
> > > > sealed off,
> > >
> > > Even if I allow that to stand as an unchallemged fact, Truly did not know
> > > at
> > > the time that Oswald was the ONLY perosn who met that crieria.
> >
> > Well, I hope you won't leave it unchallenged. And Truly didn't
> > claim to know
> > that Oswald was the "only worker who was inside the building at 12:30 who
> > left the area
> > before the building was sealed off."
>
> Nor did he take immediate steps to determine who else may fit that criteria.
I'm not sure he didn't, but there wasn't anyone else who fit that criteria.
Suppose he'd reported Givens missing. What difference would it have made? None, because
Givens had an alibi.
>
> > > > according to the sworn testimony. Apparently no CT thinks that's
> > > > suspicious. Roy Truly
> > > > reporting Oswald missing... now *that's* suspicious, right?
> > >
> > > In the circumstances, it doesn't look good... especially when he may have
> > > lied
> > > about his and Baker's encounter with Oswald, and that he created an
> > > artificial
> > > vacancy at just the right time for Oswald etc etc...
> >
> > I find it amazing that, to many CTs, everybody is under suspicion but
> > Oswald.
> > Could someone explain why that is?
>
> I find it amazing that some aren't suspicious of ANYONE except Oswald. But
> that is how it is, I guess, when you present a case as the prosecution. All
> evidence leading away from the accused has to marginalised, excused,
> destroyed, forgotten, or twisted.
I don't agree that I've done any of those things. You want "twisted," see Mark
Lane above. I'm willing to be suspicious of anyone you can make a case against, Greg.
Suspicion isn't evidence, you know.
Jean
O.H. LEE
Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> I DO allow for the *possibility* that Lee shot Tippit.
>> >
>> >The overall tone of your statements on the subject, however, seem to
me
>>
>> >to indicate that you believe it more likely than not that he didn't
>> >shoot Tippit.
>>
>> In my own mind, sir, I would only be willing to go as high as a 50/50
>> possibility,
>> no greater, okay?
>
>Well, that's a start. ;-)
And where my mindset on the issue is concerned, it's also an *end*. :-)
>> My problem with that is that I plainly see that there is
>> >simply a greater amount of evidence that he did than that he didn't,
&
>> >more to the point, the number of people who would have had to be
>> >involved to change the primary original evidence in such a way as to
>> >implicate him if he was innocent seems to make it rather implausible
>> >that not a single one of them can be conclusively identified by now.
>>
>> But it isn't too difficult to get a witness consensus when witnessess
whose
>> accounts differ radically from the official story, such as Frank Wright
and
>> Acquilla Clemons, are ignored by official investigators, or, in the case
>> of Ms. Clemons, even threatened and told not to reveal what she saw.
>
>Thanks for this. I had previously been unfamiliar with Wright, or have
>failed to remember reading about him & his wife if I have. I'm looking
>at a 1964 article by George & Patricia Nash in which they quoted an
>interview with the Wrights, which may also be your source. Mr. Wright
>said that he saw the shooter of Tippit run away, get in a car farther
>down the street, & drive away.
Indeed, and he was adamant that the way that the story was reported on T.V.
was NOT the way that the Tippit shooting went down.
>As for Ms. Clemons, I'm unable to find at this time any quotation of her
>exact words on this issue, but she's purported to have said that she saw
>*two* men involved in shooting Tippit, who took off in opposite
>directions after the shooting, & I'm at this time finding no suggestion
>attributed to her that either one got in a car & drove away.
>
>Perhaps the reason these witnesses weren't & aren't taken as seriously
>is simply because, for one thing, their accounts are not even consistent
>with each *other*, & for another, aren't at all consistent with the
>majority of other witnesses, exhibiting instead merely the typical
>random variations in eyewitness testimony which is present in nearly
>every criminal case which has ever occurred.
Well, in the case of Mr. Wright, I wouldn't just call it a "random" variation.
The man gave a description of the car he saw leave the scene with someone
in it.
I'd also be careful about
>stating the "threatening" of Ms. Clemons as established fact, when this
>is merely an uncorroborated claim by her.
Okay, have it your way. She's just another inveterate liar in this case,
right?
You mean that the 5th floor witnesses were *not* confused by echoes? Pray
tell, then, what would lead one of them to believe that the shots were emanating
from a point below and to the left of him? For this is clearly in the record.
Of the
>remaining witnesses, less than 20, there is remarkably less consistency
>even with each *other*, as within this number are to be found all other
>variations on the relative timing, such as that shots 1 & 2 were closer
>together, & that the shots were evenly-spaced. Therefore the element of
>greatest consistency in witness testimony is that shots 2 & 3 were
>closer together, which is the foundation of both Andrew & I rejecting
>the traditional SBT, although this issue by itself only represents a
>part of that argument.
I tend to agree here, with you and Mr. Harris, that the witness impressions
strongly favored a 1.......2...3 pattern. However, I also do not rule out
4 shots, with one virtually fired on top of another, and/or the use of a
silencer in the attack.
>Here I quite simply see that the element of greatest consistency in
>witness testimony, among *all* witnesses I've so far seen, whether or
>not they testified to the WC, whether or not they talked to the DPD,
>whether or not they gave same-day affidavits, whether or not their
>stories were not recorded for the first time until they told them to
>private researchers, is that there was one shooter, one man seen running
>through the neighborhood holding a pistol, & that this one man was
>identified as being the same person arrested at the Texas Theater.
>
>That's simply what the element of greatest consistency in all their
>statements together says, quite independently of any preconceived notion
>on my part. It should also be mentioned that the majority of these
>witnesses even said these things in same-day affidavits, which gives
>rather little time for them to be "threatened" into making their
>statements fit with each other, or in any way to collude with each other
>to come up with a consensus. The typical random variations in their
>statements are there too, & these are elements of *least* consistency,
>which almost always count as the least reliable among eyewitness
>observations & recollections.
Well, I see the Tippit shooter as being either Oswald, or a fellow who resembled
him a great deal, so none of this surprises me.
.>> But we DO know that he heeded Baker's command to approach him, and did
not
>> bolt for the rear entrance. That much we do know. Again, a calm and collected
>> response.
>
>Since he would almost certainly have been shot by Baker had he tried to
>bolt, it's about the *only* response anyone but an utter fool would
>make.
Or someone who had just assassinated a President but was unable to keep his
emotions and reactions in check. But this doesn't apply to Oswald in the
least here.
It doesn't necessarily have to be "calm & collected" to simply be
>by far the best choice given the alternative.
It requires one to keep one's emotions and reactions in check. You deny this?
>> >> Indeed, Baker left that room not suspecting Oswald of being
>> >> suspicious in the least.
>> >
>> >Of course, because he *immediately* dismissed Oswald as a suspect at
the
>>
>> >very instant Truly told him Oswald was an employee:
>>
>> But as Baker testified, his senses were quite heightened at this point,
and
>> he was suspicious "of everybody". Yet there was apparently nothing about
>> Oswald's demeanor that struck him as odd or unusual in any way.
>
>With a very brief period of observation, & never having the sound of
>Oswald's voice to judge from.
But here again, you seem to be automatically assuming that Oswald would have
*failed* a "voice test. Why?
Yes, less than a minute for a policemen with extremely heightened senses,
ready to suspect anyone who exhibited even the slightest of suspicious behavior.
None noted here, apparently.
How could he not have expected at least *some* of the Elm street witnesses
to identify himself as at least resembling that 6th floor gunman if he was
the actual assassin? Yet he calmly saunters out the *front* entrance.
>But the encounter certainly went well; Oswald was dismissed as a
>suspect, & free to walk right out of the building & disappear from
>Dealey. He would have rather obviously thought his getaway was going
>well, & so not be tremendously agitated at the time he caught the cab,
>for example.
Perhaps, but would he have been so cool to offer to give up his cab, or sit
in the front in clear view of Whaley?
>So he purportedly acted so differently after the Tippit shooting? But
>now we're getting into an extraordinarily different circumstance. If
>the official version is correct, Oswald would hardly have expected a
>policemen to pull over & get out of his patrol car right there in
>Oswald's residential neighborhood.
But he would not have prepared mentally for the possibility that he would
again be pursued by the police eventually? I mean, you give Oswald great
credit for girding himself mentally for a probable police encounter in the
Depository, correct? Yet you would have him no longer giving any consideration
to the possibility of further pursuit by the police once in Oak Cliff? He
would have stopped making mental preparations for the next encounter?
Almost certainly the thought would
>come to him that the DPD was onto him after all, that his getaway was
>not going nearly as smoothly as he'd previously thought, & that
>desperate measures were necessary, namely to shoot the officer & get out
>of there fast.
Not so. Most witnesses paint a picture of a calm gunman (if it was Oswald)
engaging Tippit in a brief conversation prior to shooting him. It may well
be something the officer said to the gunman that prompted this rash shooting.
And a few minutes later, on the street which led to the
>Texas Theater, here were more police sirens approaching. Oh, it's not
>going well at all! They're already looking for me; I need to get
>completely out of sight FAST!
Best thing then would have been to commandeer Scoggins' cab, which was conveniently
sitting right there.
>A darkened theater.
>
>Perfect.
>
>Rather obviously, if Oswald was a lone gunman, operating entirely by
>himself, he would have almost certainly been *expecting* an encounter
>with police inside the TSBD. And just as obviously, he would have
>almost certainly *not* been expecting an encounter with police miles
>away in a residential neighborhood.
>
>I find this explanation perfectly logical.
Huh? Once clear of the Depository, Oswald, if an actual assassin, should
have promptly ceased worrying and ceased considering the possibility of further
police pursuit of himself? He should have considered himself free and clear
with any chance of another police encounter gone? You've lost me here sir.
>> for Oswald
>> >was by then already standing in front of Baker with Baker's gun drawn
on
>>
>> >him, having already walked over to Baker when Baker had previously
>> >spoken to him. But instead of complete & total calm, Truly did say that
>>
>> >he thought Oswald might have looked "startled."
>> >
>> >His word; I didn't make it up.
>>
>> So if an innocent person is suddenly confronted by an armed officer leveling
>> his gun at him from about 3 feet away, you won't grant him the benefit
of
>> even a slight "startle" response without deeming it potentially suspicious?
>> You're tough sir.
>
>Nope. I'm merely pointing out an example of Truly *not* attributing
>absolute calm to Oswald. Your prior statements seemed to suggest that
>there was nothing whatsoever in any statement by Baker or Truly which
>suggested anything *but* absolute calm. I'm simply demonstrating that
>such an assertion is misleading.
Misleading? I'd suggest that at that time, Oswald was even calmer than the
average Depository employee, *any* of whom would have probably shown, at
the very least, a slight "startle" response were a policeman to level a gun
at them.
If he were an actual 6th floor gunman, he would have been able to completely
dismiss the possibility that at least one Elm Street witness had gotten a
decent view of him in that window? If he were an assassin on that 6th floor,
he could hardly have thought of himself as merely another TSBD employee,
could he? Unless he was really innocent. :-)
He
>would actually be far more likely to be noticed & remembered going out
>the back door, as he would have been one of the very few people to exit
>that way. In a crowd, he'd be much less conspicuous, or suspicious.
Not if several members of that crowd could point him out to nearby officers
as a 6th floor gunman. And the evidence shows that such a gunman was indeed
quite visible to many down below.
>And that's precisely what the evidence shows: only the reporter recalled
>seeing him exit the building.
So he was either a very calm, inconspicuous assassin, not witnessed or recognized
by anyone on Elm street as being up on that 6th floor, or he was innocent,
agreed?
>> After Baker and Truly left, leaving via the
>> rear was still an option for Lee, yet he eschewed it.
>
>If he was the shooter, no wonder. He was far less conspicuous going out
>the front.
And far more likely to be fingered by a witness.
This seems a reasonable surmise. One still requires an ability to suppress
heightened reactions due to adrenaline release.
>> >Because he did not instantly flee when he saw Baker, the only possible
>> >alternative absolutely MUST be that he was completely & totally calm.
>>
>> He *appeared* calm. To both Truly and Baker. Whether he was or not, this
>> is what both men placed on the record.
>
>Sure. And he may have indeed been outwardly quite calm. I don't find
>this especially remarkable, even if he was guilty.
But just having blown off the head of the President of the United States
is a rather extraordinary circumstance, wouldn't you agree? It DOES show
a remarkable ability to remain calm and colected, no? Yet this quality, according
to the official account, totally deserts him after the Tippit encounter.
Again, you would have Oswald no longer girding himself for a possible police
encounter. If he was an actual assassin on the lam, isn't this a ludicrous
proposal?
>> >Excuse me, but WHO did you say??? Bledsoe???
>> >
>> >To the WC she said:
>> >
>> >"Oswald got on. He looks like a maniac."
>> >
>> >The word "maniac" suggests "cool and collected" to you???
>>
>> Wasn't Bledsoe referring here to Oswald's looks? A torn shirt, perhaps
>> unbuttoned?
>> I mean, she never, so far as I know, claimed that Oswald made any wild
>> comments.
>
>He has to make a wild comment to be anything but utterly calm? Again,
>it still seems to me that you'll accept nothing less than some
>tremendously obvious sign of agitation to attribute any other state to
>him.
>
>You're tough sir. ;-)
>
>> Bledsoe had it in for Lee, and in fact, no other witness on that bus,
whether
>> McWatters or any other passenger, ever described Oswald thusly.
>
>The others seem to have taken a good deal less notice of him than she
>did. They didn't know him. She did. I recently read McWatter's
>testimony, for example, & I clearly recall him saying something to the
>effect of barely taking any note of him at all. He was just another
>passenger boarding the bus.
Just another "maniac" passenger, or regular passenger? Bledsoe had it in
for Lee, and received zero corroboration in her opinion.
>> Did anyone
>> on that bus ever go on the record saying something like, " Oh, by the
way
>> officer, about 10 minutes after that shooting, a maniac came on the bus"?
>
>Ah, but O.H., the specific issue I was addressing was this statement by
>you:
>
>"But there is absolutely NOTHING in the evidentiary record that between
>the time when JFK was shot and the time that Tippit was shot, that
>Oswald was ever anything but cool and collected. This would extend to
>several witnesses - McWatters, Bledsoe, Whaley, and virtually ALL of the
>Tippit witnesses."
>
>As with the "calm" business in the lunchroom, I am simply demonstrating
>that to say "nothing" in this context, especially in all-caps, is
>somewhat misleading & not entirely accurate.
Only if you include the uncorroborated, grudge carrying account of Mrs. Bledsoe.
One hears nothing of any "maniac" sighting from McWatters, any of his other
bus passengers, Whaley, Roberts, or any of the Tippit witnesses.
>> So I conclude that if Mrs. Bledsoe saw a maniac on the bus that day, he
was
>> a "cool and collected" maniac. :-)
>
>That's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one. ;-)
Well, I'm actually just giving Mrs. Bledsoe the benefit of the huge doubt
here.
John Hill (joisa)
May I ask an alternate question?
Did Oswald in any way protest the suggestion that he give up his cab?
Just curious'
--
John Hill (joisa)
Jean Davison wrote in message ...
John Hill
--
John Hill (joisa)
"Jean Davison" <dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote in message
news:b7daa...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Jean Davison
> Good stuff, Jean. Thanks.
> --
> John Hill (joisa)
Thank you, John.
Jean
Caeruleo
> Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> I DO allow for the *possibility* that Lee shot Tippit.
> >> >
> >> >The overall tone of your statements on the subject, however, seem to
> me
> >>
> >> >to indicate that you believe it more likely than not that he didn't
> >> >shoot Tippit.
> >>
> >> In my own mind, sir, I would only be willing to go as high as a 50/50
>
> >> possibility,
> >> no greater, okay?
> >
> >Well, that's a start. ;-)
>
> And where my mindset on the issue is concerned, it's also an *end*. :-)
I remain thankful that my "mindset" is not that anything is an "end,"
but can be changed according to the evidence I encounter.
> >> My problem with that is that I plainly see that there is
> >> >simply a greater amount of evidence that he did than that he didn't,
> &
> >> >more to the point, the number of people who would have had to be
> >> >involved to change the primary original evidence in such a way as to
>
> >> >implicate him if he was innocent seems to make it rather implausible
>
> >> >that not a single one of them can be conclusively identified by now.
> >>
> >> But it isn't too difficult to get a witness consensus when witnessess
> whose
> >> accounts differ radically from the official story, such as Frank Wright
> and
> >> Acquilla Clemons, are ignored by official investigators, or, in the case
> >> of Ms. Clemons, even threatened and told not to reveal what she saw.
> >
> >Thanks for this. I had previously been unfamiliar with Wright, or have
>
> >failed to remember reading about him & his wife if I have. I'm looking
>
> >at a 1964 article by George & Patricia Nash in which they quoted an
> >interview with the Wrights, which may also be your source. Mr. Wright
> >said that he saw the shooter of Tippit run away, get in a car farther
> >down the street, & drive away.
>
> Indeed, and he was adamant that the way that the story was reported on T.V.
> was NOT the way that the Tippit shooting went down.
Yep.
> >As for Ms. Clemons, I'm unable to find at this time any quotation of her
>
> >exact words on this issue, but she's purported to have said that she saw
>
> >*two* men involved in shooting Tippit, who took off in opposite
> >directions after the shooting, & I'm at this time finding no suggestion
>
> >attributed to her that either one got in a car & drove away.
> >
> >Perhaps the reason these witnesses weren't & aren't taken as seriously
> >is simply because, for one thing, their accounts are not even consistent
>
> >with each *other*, & for another, aren't at all consistent with the
> >majority of other witnesses, exhibiting instead merely the typical
> >random variations in eyewitness testimony which is present in nearly
> >every criminal case which has ever occurred.
>
> Well, in the case of Mr. Wright, I wouldn't just call it a "random"
> variation.
> The man gave a description of the car he saw leave the scene with someone
> in it.
And as that is an assertation unique to that one witness, it is indeed
very akin to a random variation in witness statements.
> I'd also be careful about
> >stating the "threatening" of Ms. Clemons as established fact, when this
>
> >is merely an uncorroborated claim by her.
>
> Okay, have it your way. She's just another inveterate liar in this case,
> right?
I said no such thing. I'm simply saying there is no solid evidence to
corroborate her.
I've long been aware of that, thanks, & I didn't say they were not
confused by echos as to the direction of the sounds, I said that they
were less likely to be confused by echos regarding the *time* at which
each shot occurred, with them being so close to the origin of the sounds.
> Of the
> >remaining witnesses, less than 20, there is remarkably less consistency
>
> >even with each *other*, as within this number are to be found all other
>
> >variations on the relative timing, such as that shots 1 & 2 were closer
>
> >together, & that the shots were evenly-spaced. Therefore the element of
>
> >greatest consistency in witness testimony is that shots 2 & 3 were
> >closer together, which is the foundation of both Andrew & I rejecting
> >the traditional SBT, although this issue by itself only represents a
> >part of that argument.
>
> I tend to agree here, with you and Mr. Harris, that the witness impressions
> strongly favored a 1.......2...3 pattern. However, I also do not rule out
> 4 shots, with one virtually fired on top of another, and/or the use of a
> silencer in the attack.
I wouldn't rule out a silencer either, but there's precious little
evidence of one. The film only shows us, at most, 3 shots, & that's
only if you attribute Connally's sudden reactions after Z272 as that 2nd
shot hitting him in the torso separately from the SBT. Or if one
postulates that earlier "missed" shot somewhere around Z160, but with
not a single spectator turning suddenly to look at any supposed source
of a shot anywhere near there, I find that notion hard to support from
anything seen in the film.
> >Here I quite simply see that the element of greatest consistency in
> >witness testimony, among *all* witnesses I've so far seen, whether or
> >not they testified to the WC, whether or not they talked to the DPD,
> >whether or not they gave same-day affidavits, whether or not their
> >stories were not recorded for the first time until they told them to
> >private researchers, is that there was one shooter, one man seen running
>
> >through the neighborhood holding a pistol, & that this one man was
> >identified as being the same person arrested at the Texas Theater.
> >
> >That's simply what the element of greatest consistency in all their
> >statements together says, quite independently of any preconceived notion
>
> >on my part. It should also be mentioned that the majority of these
> >witnesses even said these things in same-day affidavits, which gives
> >rather little time for them to be "threatened" into making their
> >statements fit with each other, or in any way to collude with each other
>
> >to come up with a consensus. The typical random variations in their
> >statements are there too, & these are elements of *least* consistency,
> >which almost always count as the least reliable among eyewitness
> >observations & recollections.
>
> Well, I see the Tippit shooter as being either Oswald, or a fellow who
> resembled
> him a great deal, so none of this surprises me.
The element of greatest consistency by far in the extant witness
statements, however, is that he was Oswald.
> .>> But we DO know that he heeded Baker's command to approach him, and did
> not
> >> bolt for the rear entrance. That much we do know. Again, a calm and
> >> collected
> >> response.
> >
> >Since he would almost certainly have been shot by Baker had he tried to
>
> >bolt, it's about the *only* response anyone but an utter fool would
> >make.
>
> Or someone who had just assassinated a President but was unable to keep his
> emotions and reactions in check. But this doesn't apply to Oswald in the
> least here.
Of course, since it would obviously have all been planned in advance.
How could it not have been?
> It doesn't necessarily have to be "calm & collected" to simply be
> >by far the best choice given the alternative.
>
> It requires one to keep one's emotions and reactions in check. You deny this?
It merely requires one to not show any obvious *outward* sign of
agitation.
> >> >> Indeed, Baker left that room not suspecting Oswald of being
> >> >> suspicious in the least.
> >> >
> >> >Of course, because he *immediately* dismissed Oswald as a suspect at
> the
> >>
> >> >very instant Truly told him Oswald was an employee:
> >>
> >> But as Baker testified, his senses were quite heightened at this point,
> and
> >> he was suspicious "of everybody". Yet there was apparently nothing about
> >> Oswald's demeanor that struck him as odd or unusual in any way.
> >
> >With a very brief period of observation, & never having the sound of
> >Oswald's voice to judge from.
>
> But here again, you seem to be automatically assuming that Oswald would have
> *failed* a "voice test. Why?
I assume no such thing. I'm merely stating that the sound of his voice
is evidence we lack, & that thus the evidence of his actual emotional
state at that time is extremely limited.
Uh-huh. And I've already related here on April 9 (in response to you
even) how, in my own personal experience, a police officer with at least
somewhat "heightened senses," as he was responding to a burglar alarm,
was extraordinarily *wrong* about me, told me that his "vast experience"
in situations like this caused him to believe almost beyond any doubt
that I was guilty of trespassing on the property in question with the
intent to steal something, when in actuality I did not even set foot on
the property, did not even *try* to set foot on the property, paid
almost no attention to the property as I was walking past it, & did not
even remotely consider "stealing" anything whatsoever from it. My
personal experience gives me far less faith in the "heightened senses"
of a police officer than you apparently have.
And he even observed me, & *spoke* to me, & *heard* me speak back to
him, for several minutes, far longer than Baker observed the utterly
silent Oswald. Yet he called me a liar to my face, even though every
last word I said was the absolute truth, which I knew perfectly well.
I trust the "heightened senses" of police officers about as far as I
could throw one.
Erm, the window was not open very far, so that most of his form would
have been partially obscured behind glass which was reflecting the
strong light of a bright sunny day. This is born out by the fact that
the only photos which are purported to show anyone standing there are
remarkably unclear, with nothing close to a positive ID possible. And
while the shooter (whoever he was) was shooting, he was mostly behind
the wall. In addition, the witnesses were 6 stories below. That Oswald
would have been correct in assuming none of them could positively
identify him is confirmed by the fact that none initially did so, not
even Brennan, who "couldn't" positively ID him in the lineup.
> Yet he calmly saunters out the *front* entrance.
Perhaps because he was correctly confident that none of them could
positively ID him as the shooter?
> >But the encounter certainly went well; Oswald was dismissed as a
> >suspect, & free to walk right out of the building & disappear from
> >Dealey. He would have rather obviously thought his getaway was going
> >well, & so not be tremendously agitated at the time he caught the cab,
> >for example.
>
> Perhaps, but would he have been so cool to offer to give up his cab,
Again, the evidence, as you've admitted, is far from conclusive that he
made any such offer.
> or sit
> in the front in clear view of Whaley?
I'm thinking that front or back would make little difference as to the
likelihood of Whaley remembering him. Almost every cab driver in every
cab I've ever taken has turned & looked directly at me at some point.
> >So he purportedly acted so differently after the Tippit shooting? But
> >now we're getting into an extraordinarily different circumstance. If
> >the official version is correct, Oswald would hardly have expected a
> >policemen to pull over & get out of his patrol car right there in
> >Oswald's residential neighborhood.
>
> But he would not have prepared mentally for the possibility that he would
> again be pursued by the police eventually?
Oh, eventually, yes, sure. But that soon? Only 45 minutes after the
assassination? And not even within view of his rooming house either?
I mean, you give Oswald great
> credit for girding himself mentally for a probable police encounter in the
> Depository, correct? Yet you would have him no longer giving any
> consideration
> to the possibility of further pursuit by the police once in Oak Cliff?
That early? I find it difficult to support.
> He
> would have stopped making mental preparations for the next encounter?
Never said anything like that. I've simply said that he would have no
logical reason to expect such an encounter *that* soon, when he's just
walking down the street in a residential neighborhood, & a bit too far
away from his rooming house for any officer looking for him there to
immediately make a connection.
Of course, this does beg the question of why did Tippit stop in the
first place, which certainly does also need to be considered. It's a
shame that we have virtually no evidence whatsoever as to what motivated
him to stop & get out of his car.
> Almost certainly the thought would
> >come to him that the DPD was onto him after all, that his getaway was
> >not going nearly as smoothly as he'd previously thought, & that
> >desperate measures were necessary, namely to shoot the officer & get out
>
> >of there fast.
>
> Not so. Most witnesses paint a picture of a calm gunman (if it was Oswald)
> engaging Tippit in a brief conversation prior to shooting him. It may well
> be something the officer said to the gunman that prompted this rash shooting.
It may be. In fact, I'm thinking it must almost certainly have to do
with something Tippit said. And sadly, with the only 2 witnesses to
that conversation long dead, with the one especially not living long
enough to speak of it (unless one perhaps believes Markham, although she
didn't report him speaking of that conversation but only uttering a few
dying words, if I recall correctly), we will almost certainly never know
what it was he said.
> And a few minutes later, on the street which led to the
> >Texas Theater, here were more police sirens approaching. Oh, it's not
> >going well at all! They're already looking for me; I need to get
> >completely out of sight FAST!
>
> Best thing then would have been to commandeer Scoggins' cab, which was
> conveniently
> sitting right there.
Oh dear, & that wouldn't throw even more suspicion on him? By gunpoint,
I guess you mean.
> >A darkened theater.
> >
> >Perfect.
> >
> >Rather obviously, if Oswald was a lone gunman, operating entirely by
> >himself, he would have almost certainly been *expecting* an encounter
> >with police inside the TSBD. And just as obviously, he would have
> >almost certainly *not* been expecting an encounter with police miles
> >away in a residential neighborhood.
> >
> >I find this explanation perfectly logical.
>
> Huh? Once clear of the Depository, Oswald, if an actual assassin, should
> have promptly ceased worrying and ceased considering the possibility of
> further
> police pursuit of himself?
Never said such a thing.
> He should have considered himself free and clear
> with any chance of another police encounter gone? You've lost me here sir.
Never said that either. Instead, I've simply said that with him getting
out of the TSBD so easily, with the only officer who spoke to him
immediately dismissing him as a suspect, he may have thought his escape
to be going remarkably well until the Tippit encounter. And let's face
it: if he was indeed the shooter at the TSBD, & it is only by chance
that Tippit happened to drive down the same street Oswald was on, then
indeed it may be that he very nearly did escape Dallas.
> >> for Oswald
> >> >was by then already standing in front of Baker with Baker's gun drawn
> on
> >>
> >> >him, having already walked over to Baker when Baker had previously
> >> >spoken to him. But instead of complete & total calm, Truly did say that
> >>
> >> >he thought Oswald might have looked "startled."
> >> >
> >> >His word; I didn't make it up.
> >>
> >> So if an innocent person is suddenly confronted by an armed officer
> >> leveling
> >> his gun at him from about 3 feet away, you won't grant him the benefit
> of
> >> even a slight "startle" response without deeming it potentially
> >> suspicious?
> >> You're tough sir.
> >
> >Nope. I'm merely pointing out an example of Truly *not* attributing
> >absolute calm to Oswald. Your prior statements seemed to suggest that
> >there was nothing whatsoever in any statement by Baker or Truly which
> >suggested anything *but* absolute calm. I'm simply demonstrating that
> >such an assertion is misleading.
>
> Misleading? I'd suggest that at that time, Oswald was even calmer than the
> average Depository employee, *any* of whom would have probably shown, at
> the very least, a slight "startle" response were a policeman to level a gun
> at them.
But Truly did indeed attribute the possibility of just such a startle
response to him. We've already discussed this, & he's already been
quoted using the exact word "startled." So by what you're saying above,
he was *not* any calmer than the average Depository employee.
> >> >More to the point, Oswald was moving *away* from Baker, with his back
> to
> >>
> >> >him, & thus also in a direction *away* from the stairwell.
> >> >
> >> >I gather you understand the possible significance of that.
> >>
> >> Not really. The evidence seems to be that Oswald chose to leave via the
> front
> >> entrance, and apparently had no qualms about showing his face to any
> >> potential
> >> witnesses out on Elm Street.
> >
> >But showing his face to witnesses there isn't particularly relevant, as
>
> >at that time he was still merely another TSBD employee, among the many
> >who were out front already, & had just been dismissed as a suspect.
>
> If he were an actual 6th floor gunman, he would have been able to completely
> dismiss the possibility that at least one Elm Street witness had gotten a
> decent view of him in that window?
With close to absolute certainty, yes, which is supported by the fact
that none of them *did* initially ID him positively as the gunman. Only
Brennan *later* claimed that he could have done so.
> He
> >would actually be far more likely to be noticed & remembered going out
> >the back door, as he would have been one of the very few people to exit
>
> >that way. In a crowd, he'd be much less conspicuous, or suspicious.
>
> Not if several members of that crowd could point him out to nearby officers
> as a 6th floor gunman.
Which they didn't do.
> And the evidence shows that such a gunman was indeed
> quite visible to many down below.
"Quite visible" is rather misleading. "Visible," yes, primarily only
through glass with bright reflections.
> >And that's precisely what the evidence shows: only the reporter recalled
>
> >seeing him exit the building.
>
> So he was either a very calm, inconspicuous assassin, not witnessed or
> recognized
> by anyone on Elm street as being up on that 6th floor, or he was innocent,
> agreed?
Sure.
> >> After Baker and Truly left, leaving via the
> >> rear was still an option for Lee, yet he eschewed it.
> >
> >If he was the shooter, no wonder. He was far less conspicuous going out
>
> >the front.
>
> And far more likely to be fingered by a witness.
Very slightly more likely, I'd say. And all he'd have to say was, "Oh
no, I'm just an employee of the building." It worked with Baker. And
much less suspicious than if he'd been seen going out the back so soon
after the shooting.
> >> >This is extremely little to go on when attempting to assess the man's
>
> >> >emotional state. Baker & Truly were not clairvoyant; they could not
> see
> >>
> >> >inside his mind. He could have been tremendously agitated, & simply
>
> >> >evinced no obvious sign of it. Many many many times in my life I have
>
> >> >been tremendously upset about something, yet not spoken a word of it
> to
> >>
> >> >anyone, with no one having the slightest clue that I was upset.
> >>
> >> But if you take, let's say, 100 Lone Nut assassins that day, and put them
> >> in the same position that Oswald found himself in some 90 seconds later,
> >> I would say that he would rate well in the upper half of "calm and
> >> collected"
> >> assassins. Just my opinion.
> >
> >That could be.
> >
> >Of course, he would have almost certainly have been *expecting* an
> >encounter with police at this time, right? And almost certainly that
> >encounter would involve some sort of question as to whether or not he
> >was an employee of the building, correct?
>
> This seems a reasonable surmise. One still requires an ability to suppress
> heightened reactions due to adrenaline release.
Big whoopie. Such an ability is hardly uncommon. I've never murdered
anyone, or committed any real crime (other than a few traffic
violations) yet I've still managed many many many times in my life to
remain outwardly calm under some very stressful circumstances.
> >> >Because he did not instantly flee when he saw Baker, the only possible
>
> >> >alternative absolutely MUST be that he was completely & totally calm.
> >>
> >> He *appeared* calm. To both Truly and Baker. Whether he was or not, this
> >> is what both men placed on the record.
> >
> >Sure. And he may have indeed been outwardly quite calm. I don't find
> >this especially remarkable, even if he was guilty.
>
> But just having blown off the head of the President of the United States
> is a rather extraordinary circumstance, wouldn't you agree?
As a president has been murdered only 4 times in the entire history of
this country, I would.
> It DOES show
> a remarkable ability to remain calm and colected, no?
I don't know how "remarkable" it is. Recall my earlier post about how
murderers have been known to exhibit a wide variety of demeanors
following their crimes throughout recorded history. Plenty of them have
been utterly cool after their crimes, & plenty of them have been cool at
some points & agitated at others.
> Yet this quality,
> according
> to the official account, totally deserts him after the Tippit encounter.
Perhaps because the escape had been going smashingly well up to that
point, & suddenly it wasn't?
Nope, never said any such thing.
> If he was an actual assassin on the lam, isn't this a ludicrous
> proposal?
To not be expecting such an encounter THAT SOON, THAT FAR AWAY from the
scene of the crime, THAT FAR AWAY from his rooming house, when the
escape had apparently been going remarkably well up to that point? I
don't find it ludicrous in the slightest.
> >> >Excuse me, but WHO did you say??? Bledsoe???
> >> >
> >> >To the WC she said:
> >> >
> >> >"Oswald got on. He looks like a maniac."
> >> >
> >> >The word "maniac" suggests "cool and collected" to you???
> >>
> >> Wasn't Bledsoe referring here to Oswald's looks? A torn shirt, perhaps
>
> >> unbuttoned?
> >> I mean, she never, so far as I know, claimed that Oswald made any wild
>
> >> comments.
> >
> >He has to make a wild comment to be anything but utterly calm? Again,
> >it still seems to me that you'll accept nothing less than some
> >tremendously obvious sign of agitation to attribute any other state to
> >him.
> >
> >You're tough sir. ;-)
> >
> >> Bledsoe had it in for Lee, and in fact, no other witness on that bus,
> whether
> >> McWatters or any other passenger, ever described Oswald thusly.
> >
> >The others seem to have taken a good deal less notice of him than she
> >did. They didn't know him. She did. I recently read McWatter's
> >testimony, for example, & I clearly recall him saying something to the
> >effect of barely taking any note of him at all. He was just another
> >passenger boarding the bus.
>
> Just another "maniac" passenger, or regular passenger? Bledsoe had it in
> for Lee, and received zero corroboration in her opinion.
That may be. It still undermines your original assertion that there is
"nothing" in the evidentiary record to suggest anything but absolute
calm on the part of Oswald between his exit from the TSBD & the Tippit
shooting. There is indeed "something," whether it is reliable or not.
Have I suggested that there is "nothing" in the evidentiary record which
suggests that the Tippit shooter was not Oswald, for example? Nope. On
the contrary, I've openly acknowledged the existence of the conflicting
accounts of Wright & Clemons, while merely noting that their accounts
contain elements unique only to them which are at variance with the
elements of greatest consistency among *all* the witness statements we
have. Never have I suggested that there was "nothing" in the
evidentiary record that suggested he was not Tippit's killer.
> >> Did anyone
> >> on that bus ever go on the record saying something like, " Oh, by the
> way
> >> officer, about 10 minutes after that shooting, a maniac came on the bus"?
> >
> >Ah, but O.H., the specific issue I was addressing was this statement by
>
> >you:
> >
> >"But there is absolutely NOTHING in the evidentiary record that between
>
> >the time when JFK was shot and the time that Tippit was shot, that
> >Oswald was ever anything but cool and collected. This would extend to
> >several witnesses - McWatters, Bledsoe, Whaley, and virtually ALL of the
>
> >Tippit witnesses."
> >
> >As with the "calm" business in the lunchroom, I am simply demonstrating
>
> >that to say "nothing" in this context, especially in all-caps, is
> >somewhat misleading & not entirely accurate.
>
> Only if you include the uncorroborated, grudge carrying account of Mrs.
> Bledsoe.
Which all by itself means that "nothing" is an inaccurate description.
I've in contrast never said that there was "nothing" to suggest Oswald
wasn't the shooter of either JFK or Tippit, & have never said that there
was "nothing" to indicate a good deal of calm on his part at various
points in the route attributed to him.
> One hears nothing of any "maniac" sighting from McWatters, any of his other
> bus passengers, Whaley, Roberts, or any of the Tippit witnesses.
Tippit witnesses...you mean those making claims of his actions *before*
he shot Tippit only?
Oh, & none of them heard the conversation between Oswald & Tippit
either, did they? They didn't have a hell of a lot to go on either.
And almost none of them took any particular notice until they heard the
shots, correct?
O.H. LEE
Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <3ea83...@127.0.0.1>, "O.H. LEE" <ga...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> I DO allow for the *possibility* that Lee shot Tippit.
>> >> >
>> >> >The overall tone of your statements on the subject, however, seem
to
>> me
>> >>
>> >> >to indicate that you believe it more likely than not that he didn't
>> >> >shoot Tippit.
>> >>
>> >> In my own mind, sir, I would only be willing to go as high as a 50/50
>>
>> >> possibility,
>> >> no greater, okay?
>> >
>> >Well, that's a start. ;-)
>>
>> And where my mindset on the issue is concerned, it's also an *end*. :-)
>
>I remain thankful that my "mindset" is not that anything is an "end,"
>but can be changed according to the evidence I encounter.
But perhaps you are reading more into my statement than I meant to convey.
Of course I too am open to whatever new revelations may come to light in
any aspect of this case. But in the Tippit area, based on the *current* state
of the evidence as I understand it, I cannot in good conscience go beyond
granting a 50/50 possibility that Oswald was the assailant, okay? I apologize
if I led you to believe that I would be inflexible in the light of any new
revelations or bits of evidence in the case coming to light. On the contrary,
I am always open and receptive to new evidence being unearthed in this case.
It is something that appears to have eluded the other witnesses at the scene,
but if that grey coupe really did exist and leave the scene, rather than
a random variation, it may be an example of an astute observation made by
Mr. Wright.
>> I'd also be careful about
>> >stating the "threatening" of Ms. Clemons as established fact, when this
>>
>> >is merely an uncorroborated claim by her.
>>
>> Okay, have it your way. She's just another inveterate liar in this case,
>> right?
>
>I said no such thing. I'm simply saying there is no solid evidence to
>corroborate her.
But there aren't too many other options here, are there? If Mrs. Clemons
made such a statement, and I believe the preponderance of the evidence indicates
she did, than she is either telling the truth or spouting quite a falsehood.
If you see any other middle ground here, clue me in.
I'm far from certain, but didn't they all give the company line of evenly
spaced shots? I don't know that they were strong witnesses for any other
shooting pattern. You know otherwise? Because I could swear that I've heard
at least one of these 5th floor witnesses testify to evenly spaced shots,
which is of course contrary to so many Dealey Plaza witnesses.
>> Of the
>> >remaining witnesses, less than 20, there is remarkably less consistency
>>
>> >even with each *other*, as within this number are to be found all other
>>
>> >variations on the relative timing, such as that shots 1 & 2 were closer
>>
>> >together, & that the shots were evenly-spaced. Therefore the element
of
>>
>> >greatest consistency in witness testimony is that shots 2 & 3 were
>> >closer together, which is the foundation of both Andrew & I rejecting
>> >the traditional SBT, although this issue by itself only represents a
>> >part of that argument.
>>
>> I tend to agree here, with you and Mr. Harris, that the witness impressions
>> strongly favored a 1.......2...3 pattern. However, I also do not rule
out
>> 4 shots, with one virtually fired on top of another, and/or the use of
a
>> silencer in the attack.
>
>I wouldn't rule out a silencer either, but there's precious little
>evidence of one. The film only shows us, at most, 3 shots, & that's
>only if you attribute Connally's sudden reactions after Z272 as that 2nd
>shot hitting him in the torso separately from the SBT. Or if one
>postulates that earlier "missed" shot somewhere around Z160, but with
>not a single spectator turning suddenly to look at any supposed source
>of a shot anywhere near there, I find that notion hard to support from
>anything seen in the film.
Well, when it comes to the Governor, I do not know in my own mind whether
he was struck by one bullet, or more than one. But one thing that I DO conclude
is that he took *a* bullet at some point after Z-230 and before Z-236. That
dramatic shoulder drop and puffing out of the man's cheeks does the trick
for me. Now I hardly rule out another, later bullet strike on the Governor,
but I am convinced that he took a major bullet strike, probably through the
torso, at this point.
>> >Here I quite simply see that the element of greatest consistency in
>> >witness testimony, among *all* witnesses I've so far seen, whether or
>> >not they testified to the WC, whether or not they talked to the DPD,
>> >whether or not they gave same-day affidavits, whether or not their
>> >stories were not recorded for the first time until they told them to
>> >private researchers, is that there was one shooter, one man seen running
>>
>> >through the neighborhood holding a pistol, & that this one man was
>> >identified as being the same person arrested at the Texas Theater.
>> >
>> >That's simply what the element of greatest consistency in all their
>> >statements together says, quite independently of any preconceived notion
>>
>> >on my part. It should also be mentioned that the majority of these
>> >witnesses even said these things in same-day affidavits, which gives
>> >rather little time for them to be "threatened" into making their
>> >statements fit with each other, or in any way to collude with each other
>>
>> >to come up with a consensus. The typical random variations in their
>> >statements are there too, & these are elements of *least* consistency,
>> >which almost always count as the least reliable among eyewitness
>> >observations & recollections.
>>
>> Well, I see the Tippit shooter as being either Oswald, or a fellow who
>> resembled
>> him a great deal, so none of this surprises me.
>
>The element of greatest consistency by far in the extant witness
>statements, however, is that he was Oswald.
I fail to see how this same witness consistency could not also apply equally
to a lookalike.
>> .>> But we DO know that he heeded Baker's command to approach him, and
did
>> not
>> >> bolt for the rear entrance. That much we do know. Again, a calm and
>> >> collected
>> >> response.
>> >
>> >Since he would almost certainly have been shot by Baker had he tried
to
>>
>> >bolt, it's about the *only* response anyone but an utter fool would
>> >make.
>>
>> Or someone who had just assassinated a President but was unable to keep
his
>> emotions and reactions in check. But this doesn't apply to Oswald in the
>> least here.
>
>Of course, since it would obviously have all been planned in advance.
>How could it not have been?
What? Lee's lunchroom encounter with Baker and Truly was planned in advance?
Again, you've lost me here sir.
>> It doesn't necessarily have to be "calm & collected" to simply be
>> >by far the best choice given the alternative.
>>
>> It requires one to keep one's emotions and reactions in check. You deny
this?
>
>It merely requires one to not show any obvious *outward* sign of
>agitation.
Agreed. Doesn't sound like the scared, funny looking, frightened fellow that
Brewer saw, does it? That guy's "agitation" was quite *outward*, correct?
>> >> >> Indeed, Baker left that room not suspecting Oswald of being
>> >> >> suspicious in the least.
>> >> >
>> >> >Of course, because he *immediately* dismissed Oswald as a suspect
at
>> the
>> >>
>> >> >very instant Truly told him Oswald was an employee:
>> >>
>> >> But as Baker testified, his senses were quite heightened at this point,
>> and
>> >> he was suspicious "of everybody". Yet there was apparently nothing
about
>> >> Oswald's demeanor that struck him as odd or unusual in any way.
>> >
>> >With a very brief period of observation, & never having the sound of
>> >Oswald's voice to judge from.
>>
>> But here again, you seem to be automatically assuming that Oswald would
have
>> *failed* a "voice test. Why?
>
>I assume no such thing. I'm merely stating that the sound of his voice
>is evidence we lack, & that thus the evidence of his actual emotional
>state at that time is extremely limited.
Can't we agree that he gave both Baker and Truly the *appearance* of a calm
and collected individual? Isn't that what the record shows?
Regards,
O.H. LEE
O.H. LEE
Ha! Seems as though they were trying to make you a "patsy" sir. :-) Actually,
the example you cite here seems to point to the opposite conclusion than
that which you may desire. For in your example, the officer was considrably
*more*, not less, suspicious of someone in the immediate area of a crime,
agreed? Yet Baker, in the case of the Oswald encounter, seems to have exercised
far more restraint than did the policeman you encountered that time. So if
Baker was actually reacting in a typical way for an officer with *heightened*
senses, he must have *really* been sold on Oswald's non-involvement.
Sorry, but I fail to see how an actual 6th floor assassin in that window
could make the grand assumption that he hadn't been seen by at least one
or two witnesses down below well enough to identify.
>> Yet he calmly saunters out the *front* entrance.
>
>Perhaps because he was correctly confident that none of them could
>positively ID him as the shooter?
Why would he be able to assume such a thing? How would he know of any "glare"
effect? How could he assume that at the sound of the first shot, scores of
people down below would not have had their attention drawn to the very window
he was firing from? How could he assure himself that no one below would not
have had an excellent angle to view him from?
>> >But the encounter certainly went well; Oswald was dismissed as a
>> >suspect, & free to walk right out of the building & disappear from
>> >Dealey. He would have rather obviously thought his getaway was going
>> >well, & so not be tremendously agitated at the time he caught the cab,
>> >for example.
>>
>> Perhaps, but would he have been so cool to offer to give up his cab,
>
>Again, the evidence, as you've admitted, is far from conclusive that he
>made any such offer.
Agreed, but he may have, and that would be quite an indication of coolness
if true.
>> or sit
>> in the front in clear view of Whaley?
>
>I'm thinking that front or back would make little difference as to the
>likelihood of Whaley remembering him. Almost every cab driver in every
>cab I've ever taken has turned & looked directly at me at some point.
But I maintain that choosing to sit in the front seat may have been out of
character for the stoic, loner Oswald, and certainly out of character for
an agitated assassin seeking refuge and concealment.
>> >So he purportedly acted so differently after the Tippit shooting? But
>> >now we're getting into an extraordinarily different circumstance. If
>> >the official version is correct, Oswald would hardly have expected a
>> >policemen to pull over & get out of his patrol car right there in
>> >Oswald's residential neighborhood.
>>
>> But he would not have prepared mentally for the possibility that he would
>> again be pursued by the police eventually?
>
>Oh, eventually, yes, sure. But that soon? Only 45 minutes after the
>assassination? And not even within view of his rooming house either?
But I don't think that Oswald, if he was an assassin, would have been able
to know for sure exactly when his absence at the TSBD would be noted. After
all, once that fact had been ascertained, a far greater physical description
of Oswald would have been provided by his superiors and co-workers at the
Depository than the vague shooter description that went out initially. Oswald
had no way of knowing how soon his description would hit the wire if he was
an actual assassin.
>I mean, you give Oswald great
>> credit for girding himself mentally for a probable police encounter in
the
>> Depository, correct? Yet you would have him no longer giving any
>> consideration
>> to the possibility of further pursuit by the police once in Oak Cliff?
>
>That early? I find it difficult to support.
Not for an asassin on foot, out in the open, with no way of knowing if his
absence at the Depository had been noted yet. The man's senses should have
been at least alert to the possibility of police pursuit eventually.
>> He
>> would have stopped making mental preparations for the next encounter?
>
>Never said anything like that. I've simply said that he would have no
>logical reason to expect such an encounter *that* soon, when he's just
>walking down the street in a residential neighborhood, & a bit too far
>away from his rooming house for any officer looking for him there to
>immediately make a connection.
Well, I don't say he should have thought it a sure thing, but I DO think
he should have had the possibility of another police encounter in his mind.
Definitely.
>Of course, this does beg the question of why did Tippit stop in the
>first place, which certainly does also need to be considered. It's a
>shame that we have virtually no evidence whatsoever as to what motivated
>him to stop & get out of his car.
Agreed. But I've always considered Tippit's apparent stopping and questioning
of this man most suspicious in nature.
>> Almost certainly the thought would
>> >come to him that the DPD was onto him after all, that his getaway was
>> >not going nearly as smoothly as he'd previously thought, & that
>> >desperate measures were necessary, namely to shoot the officer & get
out
>>
>> >of there fast.
>>
>> Not so. Most witnesses paint a picture of a calm gunman (if it was Oswald)
>> engaging Tippit in a brief conversation prior to shooting him. It may
well
>> be something the officer said to the gunman that prompted this rash shooting.
>
>It may be. In fact, I'm thinking it must almost certainly have to do
>with something Tippit said. And sadly, with the only 2 witnesses to
>that conversation long dead, with the one especially not living long
>enough to speak of it (unless one perhaps believes Markham, although she
>didn't report him speaking of that conversation but only uttering a few
>dying words, if I recall correctly), we will almost certainly never know
>what it was he said.
A pity, but this appears to be the case. And knowing the exact conversation
that Tippit had with his assailant would probably go a long way toward solving
at least that aspect of this case. Then again, their conversation, if known,
might only provide more questions than answers also. (Sigh).
>> And a few minutes later, on the street which led to the
>> >Texas Theater, here were more police sirens approaching. Oh, it's not
>> >going well at all! They're already looking for me; I need to get
>> >completely out of sight FAST!
>>
>> Best thing then would have been to commandeer Scoggins' cab, which was
>> conveniently
>> sitting right there.
>
>Oh dear, & that wouldn't throw even more suspicion on him? By gunpoint,
>I guess you mean.
The man was a cold blooded killer freely brandishing his weapon out in the
open for all to see by then, wasn't he? At that point, if getting far from
the scene became a priority, why not commandeer Scoggins cab? Scoggins had
seen him already.
>> >A darkened theater.
>> >
>> >Perfect.
>> >
>> >Rather obviously, if Oswald was a lone gunman, operating entirely by
>> >himself, he would have almost certainly been *expecting* an encounter
>> >with police inside the TSBD. And just as obviously, he would have
>> >almost certainly *not* been expecting an encounter with police miles
>> >away in a residential neighborhood.
>> >
>> >I find this explanation perfectly logical.
>>
>> Huh? Once clear of the Depository, Oswald, if an actual assassin, should
>> have promptly ceased worrying and ceased considering the possibility of
>> further
>> police pursuit of himself?
>
>Never said such a thing.
Your scenario doesn't have Oswald dropping his guard concerning any other
future police encounters?
>> He should have considered himself free and clear
>> with any chance of another police encounter gone? You've lost me here
sir.
>
>Never said that either. Instead, I've simply said that with him getting
>out of the TSBD so easily, with the only officer who spoke to him
>immediately dismissing him as a suspect, he may have thought his escape
>to be going remarkably well until the Tippit encounter. And let's face
>it: if he was indeed the shooter at the TSBD, & it is only by chance
>that Tippit happened to drive down the same street Oswald was on, then
>indeed it may be that he very nearly did escape Dallas.
But that opportunity presented itself at the Greyhound terminal, did it not?
Yet he passed it up.
>> >> for Oswald
No, if anything, I believe that he was. I'd like to see the Depository employee
who would *not* have exhibited a slight startle response were a policeman
to level his gun at him or her.
>> >> >More to the point, Oswald was moving *away* from Baker, with his back
>> to
>> >>
>> >> >him, & thus also in a direction *away* from the stairwell.
>> >> >
>> >> >I gather you understand the possible significance of that.
>> >>
>> >> Not really. The evidence seems to be that Oswald chose to leave via
the
>> front
>> >> entrance, and apparently had no qualms about showing his face to any
>> >> potential
>> >> witnesses out on Elm Street.
>> >
>> >But showing his face to witnesses there isn't particularly relevant,
as
>>
>> >at that time he was still merely another TSBD employee, among the many
>> >who were out front already, & had just been dismissed as a suspect.
>>
>> If he were an actual 6th floor gunman, he would have been able to completely
>> dismiss the possibility that at least one Elm Street witness had gotten
a
>> decent view of him in that window?
>
>With close to absolute certainty, yes, which is supported by the fact
>that none of them *did* initially ID him positively as the gunman. Only
>Brennan *later* claimed that he could have done so.
And above I state where I rather strongly disagree that an actual 6th floor
assassin could make such an assumption.
>> He
>> >would actually be far more likely to be noticed & remembered going out
>> >the back door, as he would have been one of the very few people to exit
>>
>> >that way. In a crowd, he'd be much less conspicuous, or suspicious.
>>
>> Not if several members of that crowd could point him out to nearby officers
>> as a 6th floor gunman.
>
>Which they didn't do.
And he would know with absolute certainty that he wouldn't be fingered by
one of the scores of witnesses on Elm street exactly how?
>> And the evidence shows that such a gunman was indeed
>> quite visible to many down below.
>
>"Quite visible" is rather misleading. "Visible," yes, primarily only
>through glass with bright reflections.
How could he know exactly what the glare factor through the glass might be?
The fact is that a gunman was clearly seen on that 6th floor by several witnesses
below.
>> >And that's precisely what the evidence shows: only the reporter recalled
>>
>> >seeing him exit the building.
>>
>> So he was either a very calm, inconspicuous assassin, not witnessed or
>> recognized
>> by anyone on Elm street as being up on that 6th floor, or he was innocent,
>> agreed?
>
>Sure.
>
>> >> After Baker and Truly left, leaving via the
>> >> rear was still an option for Lee, yet he eschewed it.
>> >
>> >If he was the shooter, no wonder. He was far less conspicuous going
out
>>
>> >the front.
>>
>> And far more likely to be fingered by a witness.
>
>Very slightly more likely, I'd say. And all he'd have to say was, "Oh
>no, I'm just an employee of the building." It worked with Baker. And
>much less suspicious than if he'd been seen going out the back so soon
>after the shooting.
He could get away with saying 'I'm just an employee" if someone down on the
street told a cop that he resembled a man they had seen in that building
with a rifle? Hardly.
Regards,
O.H. LEE
art guerrilla
you know, kampers, eye think it is
sometimes instructional to analyze the
ponderings of lonely neuters...
hee hee hee
in this case, consider the intransigence
of the neutered ones in maintaining a
lone neuter context/slant/spin/presumption
that is applied to any/all testimony and
evidence...
ho ho ho
sea tea ers can and do consider the
evidence/etc from the perspective of a
lone neuter scenario; but most/all lonely
neuters will not be caught dead even
considering the rhetorical exercise of
looking at the evidence/testimony in a
theoretical k-k-k-konspiratorial setting...
ha ha ha
hmmm...
eye'm sure it is insignificant...
ak ak ak
ann significant-bother archy
eof
Caeruleo
I will now dash this assertion of what I posted leading to any "opposite
conclusion" to smithereens with just one sentence:
I did not turn out to be an employee of that building who was
technically "at work" at that time in the building, thus leading to a
perfectly plausible & non-sinister explanation for the alarm being set
off, which would almost certainly have been immediately accepted by the
officer, who would have almost certainly immediately dismissed me as a
suspect in any theft in that building, or at least done so more likely
than not.
Is it not true, however, that when the shooter was actually *firing* he
was almost certainly aiming the rifle out of the very eastern corner of
the window, with the rifle pointed at a sharp westward angle as it would
have had to have been to shoot at the limo on Elm, with his face well
behind the wall & out of sight of any observers? If so, I don't see
that anyone would have been able to see much more than his hands at most
while he was firing. And enough of the rifle barrel could protrude out
of the window without even his hands being visible from below. There is
certainly some testimony about seeing a man (or more than one man) on
the floor very close to the time of the firing, but note how very
conflicting all that is with regard to clothing style & color, the build
of the man, & even his race. I'm not at all convinced that most of them
weren't actually reporting Jarman, Norman, and/or Williams, who were
right below, with several of these witnesses being additionally unclear
about the exact floor. I'm not at all convinced that even Brennan got
all that good a look at the gunman, such as he claimed. Unless Oswald
had stood in full view in the window, I don't see necessarily that any
witness would have ever seen nearly enough of him to make anything close
to a positive ID.
> >> Yet he calmly saunters out the *front* entrance.
> >
> >Perhaps because he was correctly confident that none of them could
> >positively ID him as the shooter?
>
> Why would he be able to assume such a thing?
See above.
> How would he know of any "glare"
> effect?
Lol, he couldn't see for himself that it was a bright cloudless day at
nearly high noon, & couldn't see for himself that the window was less
than halfway open, & moreover easily see for himself how much dirt &
grime may or may not have been on the window?
> How could he assume that at the sound of the first shot, scores of
> people down below would not have had their attention drawn to the very window
> he was firing from?
Oh, I'd imagine he would assume such a thing. And it would be
irrelevant to an identification of him if they could not see his face, &
at most could see only a tiny percentage of his body.
> How could he assure himself that no one below would not
> have had an excellent angle to view him from?
Just a wild guess: by not having his face close enough to the window for
*anyone* to see it?
> >> >But the encounter certainly went well; Oswald was dismissed as a
> >> >suspect, & free to walk right out of the building & disappear from
> >> >Dealey. He would have rather obviously thought his getaway was going
>
> >> >well, & so not be tremendously agitated at the time he caught the cab,
>
> >> >for example.
> >>
> >> Perhaps, but would he have been so cool to offer to give up his cab,
> >
> >Again, the evidence, as you've admitted, is far from conclusive that he
>
> >made any such offer.
>
> Agreed, but he may have, and that would be quite an indication of coolness
> if true.
*If* it is true, perhaps. The problem is, it *isn't* provably true, not
by a long shot, & almost certainly never will be at this late date,
agreed? Thus I must to some extent question the constructiveness of
continuing to discuss the cab offer possibility. I'm not asking you to
cease discussing it, but I'm seeing us approaching a dead end on this
issue.
> >> or sit
> >> in the front in clear view of Whaley?
> >
> >I'm thinking that front or back would make little difference as to the
> >likelihood of Whaley remembering him. Almost every cab driver in every
>
> >cab I've ever taken has turned & looked directly at me at some point.
>
> But I maintain that choosing to sit in the front seat may have been out of
> character for the stoic, loner Oswald, and certainly out of character for
> an agitated assassin seeking refuge and concealment.
Maybe. But I'm coming increasingly closer to the conclusion that you're
simply putting too much weight on evidence of his "demeanor." I've
already demonstrated from personal experience how extraordinarily wrong
human observation of the demeanor of other persons can be. As I've also
said here, although I've certainly never done anything remotely as
serious as murder someone (the worst crimes I can recall are a few
traffic violations) I have nevertheless many times been under tremendous
stress due to various circumstances & yet been able to show no outward
sign of it. On some of those occasions I surprised friends by telling
them later that I was extremely upset, with them responding that they
had no clue. I've also known friends to surprise me in much the same
way. I have never been under the impression that the ability to hide
great agitation was especially uncommon. Can't you do it too?
In addition, as I keep saying here, there is no one "way" murderers
throughout history have been known to behave. Their behavior after
committing their crimes has been known to run the gamut from absolute
calm to the most extreme agitation imaginable, with every possible
variation in between, including being calm at first & agitated later, &
being agitated at first & being calm later. And the younger of the 2
Washington snipers has been described recently as being amused when his
alleged crimes has been discussed with him, which is yet another of the
virtually infinite variations of demeanor which has been exhibited by
murderers throughout history.
There simply isn't any particular "way" that murderers act after
committing their crimes. There is no one particular "demeanor" that is
consistent with guilt.
There isn't even one particular "demeanor" that *innocent* people
exhibit when falsely accused of a crime. Some quite calmly deny the
charges, others become quite indignant, still others burst into tears,
etc. I myself instantly became hopping mad (figuratively, as I did not
actually "hop" *g* ) when that officer said, "I think your story's
b*llsh*t," & yet I remained outwardly calm, & merely said "Yes sir" &
"No sir" when asked questions requiring a yes or no answer, & in a
perfectly calm voice stuck to my perfectly true story. HOWEVER, when
that officer left, I IMMEDIATELY said to one of the OTHER officers still
present that I did not appreciate in the slightest that I, a
schoolteacher of 19 years & a perfectly upstanding citizen, who was out
for a walk on a route that I had walked many many many times over the
years (I don't walk that way anymore, btw), would have such a thing said
to me, by a law enforcement official who is sworn to protect people
EXACTLY LIKE ME, when the officer PLAINLY did not have NEARLY enough
evidence of my "guilt" to make such an assertation. The very next day I
went to the building where our city council meets & arranged a meeting
with the chief of police, with whom I met the next day after. While I
acknowledged that the officers were doing their job, admirably, by
responding quickly to the alarm, I made plain in no uncertain terms that
I found the behavior of this particular officer to be absolutely
unacceptable.
Oh dear, & I haven't yet mentioned the approximately 2000 students I
have taught in my entire career as a public school teacher. You'll of
course instantly realize that I must automatically have a vast amount of
experience with all sorts of students being questioned about whether or
not they engaged in this or that misbehavior. Guilty or innocent, I
have personally observed a wide variety of "demeanor" over all these
years. I've seen provably innocent students act exactly the same way as
provably guilty students more times than I can possibly count; likewise
with merely suspected to be innocent & suspected to be guilty.
Both guilty & innocent people, throughout all of human history, have
exhibited practically every possible variation of "demeanor." It is my
considered opinion (from solid personal experience) that demeanor is one
of the LEAST reliable aspects in determining a person's guilt or
innocence.
It seems to me at this point to be more constructive to examine Oswald's
*actions* rather than the potentially much more fallible assertations of
his "demeanor" by witnesses.
> >> >So he purportedly acted so differently after the Tippit shooting? But
>
> >> >now we're getting into an extraordinarily different circumstance. If
>
> >> >the official version is correct, Oswald would hardly have expected a
>
> >> >policemen to pull over & get out of his patrol car right there in
> >> >Oswald's residential neighborhood.
> >>
> >> But he would not have prepared mentally for the possibility that he would
> >> again be pursued by the police eventually?
> >
> >Oh, eventually, yes, sure. But that soon? Only 45 minutes after the
> >assassination? And not even within view of his rooming house either?
>
> But I don't think that Oswald, if he was an assassin, would have been able
> to know for sure exactly when his absence at the TSBD would be noted. After
> all, once that fact had been ascertained, a far greater physical description
> of Oswald would have been provided by his superiors and co-workers at the
> Depository than the vague shooter description that went out initially. Oswald
> had no way of knowing how soon his description would hit the wire if he was
> an actual assassin.
Certainly this is a good point. Nevertheless, there's rather a
difference between a specific murder which could have been planned at
least a few days in advance from the moment Oswald might have learned
that the motorcade would be passing right by the TSBD (the exact route
was in both Dallas papers 3 days before), & a possible but far from
certain encounter with police. Additionally, if Oswald was the
murderer, this appears to have been the very first day in his life that
he actually committed murder. But not just one murder. The second
murder might have been far less certain. He might have "planned" for
some sort of encounter with law enforcement, certainly, but I don't see
how he would have had any possible way of knowing exactly what form it
would take. And once again, we don't have the slightest idea what
Tippit said to him (if it was him) & thus how what was said to him might
have motivated him to shoot Tippit & might have additionally agitated
him. There simply isn't enough evidence to go on.
And I hate to keep coming back to it, but once again, there simply isn't
any one particular consistent "demeanor" exhibited by murderers.
There just isn't.
> >I mean, you give Oswald great
> >> credit for girding himself mentally for a probable police encounter in
> the
> >> Depository, correct? Yet you would have him no longer giving any
> >> consideration
> >> to the possibility of further pursuit by the police once in Oak Cliff?
> >
> >That early? I find it difficult to support.
>
> Not for an asassin on foot, out in the open, with no way of knowing if his
> absence at the Depository had been noted yet. The man's senses should have
> been at least alert to the possibility of police pursuit eventually.
The possibility, yes. Hardly the certainty, especially of what form the
encounter might take or what would be said to him. That's a far cry
from a planned shooting at a motorcade which could be known in advance
to pass exactly such & such a way on such & such a route.
> >> He
> >> would have stopped making mental preparations for the next encounter?
>
> >Never said anything like that. I've simply said that he would have no
> >logical reason to expect such an encounter *that* soon, when he's just
> >walking down the street in a residential neighborhood, & a bit too far
> >away from his rooming house for any officer looking for him there to
> >immediately make a connection.
>
> Well, I don't say he should have thought it a sure thing, but I DO think
> he should have had the possibility of another police encounter in his mind.
> Definitely.
No prob with that.
> >Of course, this does beg the question of why did Tippit stop in the
> >first place, which certainly does also need to be considered. It's a
> >shame that we have virtually no evidence whatsoever as to what motivated
>
> >him to stop & get out of his car.
>
> Agreed. But I've always considered Tippit's apparent stopping and questioning
> of this man most suspicious in nature.
Good. Me too, admittedly. Although...
Tippit was not to my knowledge responding to an "alarm" or any such
thing. I'm nevertheless not especially confident (I think you can guess
why) of the good sense of police officers in not bothering
non-suspicious persons. You may remember that I have posted about at
least one OTHER unpleasant encounter I've had with police, as a person
who was also on that occasion perfectly innocent of the crime I was
initially suspected of committing.
I do seem to recall also that Brennan's description of the assassin
(whether it was somewhat accurate merely by chance or not) had already
been broadcast on police channels by the time Tippit pulled over to get
out of his car, giving him at least the opportunity to have heard it.
While I don't know of any specific reason why Tippit would suspect
someone walking down the street in Oak Cliff, as a lifelong resident of
Texas who has been in Dallas many many many times I can attest to the
fact that that neighborhood is not terribly far away from downtown, &
can be reached by car in about 5 minutes. Dallas was also not nearly as
large a city in 1963 as it is now, & daytime shootings remain in all
American cities to this day considerably less common than nighttime
shootings. The broadcast description of the assassin may possibly have
been enough for Tippit to at least pull over & ask his eventual murderer
(whoever he was) a few questions. I remind you again that a police
officer said to me, a perfectly innocent person, "I think your story's
b*llsh*t." I know very little of Tippit's reported attitude by those
who knew him or had encountered him in the past, but practically all of
us either have personal experience of, or at least have had stories
related to us of, policemen with a rude approach. As this sort of
thing, sadly, is not terribly uncommon among police officers, I have
some cause to wonder about the manner in which Tippit approached his
murderer.
I think it was you who said something to the effect that some witnesses
described Tippit & the gunman appearing to have nothing more than a
cordial conversation before the shots were fired. While that may be
true, I feel obligated to note that the attention of the majority of the
witnesses was mostly attracted by the sound of the shots being fired.
Without that, the occasion would have obviously have been much less
noteworthy. I imagine that most witnesses would not pay especial
attention to a man merely walking down the street, or even an officer
talking to a pedestrian, until more remarkable events occurred.
And once again, we have no witness statements on the content of the
conversation between Tippit & the man he stopped. From a distance,
without being able to hear any of the words spoken, I really don't see
how any witness could tell if the conversation was actually cordial or
otherwise.
> >> Almost certainly the thought would
> >> >come to him that the DPD was onto him after all, that his getaway was
>
> >> >not going nearly as smoothly as he'd previously thought, & that
> >> >desperate measures were necessary, namely to shoot the officer & get
> out
> >>
> >> >of there fast.
> >>
> >> Not so. Most witnesses paint a picture of a calm gunman (if it was Oswald)
> >> engaging Tippit in a brief conversation prior to shooting him. It may
> well
> >> be something the officer said to the gunman that prompted this rash
> >> shooting.
> >
> >It may be. In fact, I'm thinking it must almost certainly have to do
> >with something Tippit said. And sadly, with the only 2 witnesses to
> >that conversation long dead, with the one especially not living long
> >enough to speak of it (unless one perhaps believes Markham, although she
>
> >didn't report him speaking of that conversation but only uttering a few
>
> >dying words, if I recall correctly), we will almost certainly never know
>
> >what it was he said.
>
> A pity, but this appears to be the case. And knowing the exact conversation
> that Tippit had with his assailant would probably go a long way toward
> solving
> at least that aspect of this case. Then again, their conversation, if known,
> might only provide more questions than answers also. (Sigh).
I think I can say with supreme conviction that the content of that
conversation will never be known, with the only 2 witnesses to it being
long deceased, & the only one who survived it for long enough to speak
about it apparently denying that it ever occurred, if Oswald was indeed
that 2nd person.
> >> And a few minutes later, on the street which led to the
> >> >Texas Theater, here were more police sirens approaching. Oh, it's not
>
> >> >going well at all! They're already looking for me; I need to get
> >> >completely out of sight FAST!
> >>
> >> Best thing then would have been to commandeer Scoggins' cab, which was
>
> >> conveniently
> >> sitting right there.
> >
> >Oh dear, & that wouldn't throw even more suspicion on him? By gunpoint,
>
> >I guess you mean.
>
> The man was a cold blooded killer freely brandishing his weapon out in the
> open for all to see by then, wasn't he? At that point, if getting far from
> the scene became a priority, why not commandeer Scoggins cab? Scoggins had
> seen him already.
The problem there being that the cab had a license plate which could be
reported by witnesses & spotted by police, a cab moreover that would
have to stay on the streets pretty much. The gunman appears to have had
a better chance of avoiding detection by hoofing it & discarding the
jacket he was wearing when he shot Tippit.
And I have to ask again (& I still don't recall you answering): if
Earline Roberts saw Oswald leaving & wearing a jacket, how any
"lookalike" would know to discard *his* jacket along the way to the
Texas Theater, so that he would better match the real Oswald, who was
also not wearing a jacket when he was arrested. I'll also ask again
(since you also have not answered this either, that I have seen), why
Postal would remember the "lookalike" who ducked toward the entrance to
the theater, but fail to recall the real Oswald who was arrested in the
theater buying a ticket from her, as most probably an "innocent" Oswald
would have done?
I have yet to see it even acknowledged by any poster here, much less
answered, that these questions have been asked, even though this is at
least the 3rd time I have asked them.
> >> >A darkened theater.
> >> >
> >> >Perfect.
> >> >
> >> >Rather obviously, if Oswald was a lone gunman, operating entirely by
>
> >> >himself, he would have almost certainly been *expecting* an encounter
>
> >> >with police inside the TSBD. And just as obviously, he would have
> >> >almost certainly *not* been expecting an encounter with police miles
>
> >> >away in a residential neighborhood.
> >> >
> >> >I find this explanation perfectly logical.
> >>
> >> Huh? Once clear of the Depository, Oswald, if an actual assassin, should
> >> have promptly ceased worrying and ceased considering the possibility of
>
> >> further
> >> police pursuit of himself?
> >
> >Never said such a thing.
>
> Your scenario doesn't have Oswald dropping his guard concerning any other
> future police encounters?
No. My "scenario," such as it is, has him not expecting in the same
sense, an encounter at exactly that time in exactly that manner as the
Tippit encounter, requiring him to commit an *additional* murder on the
very first day in his entire life that he had ever committed murder, as
he might have been expecting police officers to enter the TSBD
immediately after the shots were fired. In the TSBD, there is a
specific expectation as to time & place, considered possibly days in
advance, & even as to questions & answers, as almost certainly one of
the very first things any officer would attempt to ascertain would be
whether Oswald was an employee or a stranger. There would be far less
specific expectations for a potential police encounter later while on
the lam, as Oswald would have no possible way of knowing how much the
police yet knew, whether the police had yet determined him to be
"missing" from the TSBD, whether they had yet found the rifle, whether
they had yet traced it to his P.O. box, whether they had yet talked to
Marina or Ruth Paine, etc., especially only 45 minutes after the
assassination. How could his expectations have been nearly as specific
for the Tippit incident as they would have been for the JFK shooting?
> >> He should have considered himself free and clear
> >> with any chance of another police encounter gone? You've lost me here
> sir.
> >
> >Never said that either. Instead, I've simply said that with him getting
>
> >out of the TSBD so easily, with the only officer who spoke to him
> >immediately dismissing him as a suspect, he may have thought his escape
>
> >to be going remarkably well until the Tippit encounter. And let's face
>
> >it: if he was indeed the shooter at the TSBD, & it is only by chance
> >that Tippit happened to drive down the same street Oswald was on, then
> >indeed it may be that he very nearly did escape Dallas.
>
> But that opportunity presented itself at the Greyhound terminal, did it not?
> Yet he passed it up.
I've addressed that in another article. We only have evidence of how
much money Oswald was purported to have on him when arrested. We have
none for how much he may or may not have had on him between leaving the
TSBD & reaching the rooming house. He may have gone there to get more
money.
And to get his pistol.
If it wasn't "forced" into his hand during his arrest in the Texas
Theater, as another poster here has suggested.
I'll note, however, that I don't recall Oswald himself ever being
recorded as making any claim that any pistol was "forced" into his hand
at his arrest, not just in the quotations of his remarks (which may or
may not be truthful) by those present at his interrogations, but also in
the actual recordings of his voice made by the media. If such a
statement by him exists, I will be nothing but pleased to be made aware
of it.
Ok. You understand, however, that we all plainly see you above saying:
"I'd suggest that at that time, Oswald was even ***calmer*** [my present
emphasis] than the average Depository employee, *any* of whom would have
probably shown, at the very least, a slight "startle" response were a
policeman to level a gun at them."
What I was getting at is that we *also* plainly see that this very same
startle response of the "average" TSBD employee was indeed attributed to
Oswald by Truly, making Oswald no "calmer" than the "average" TSBD
employee, by your very own argument.
That's all. ;-)
> >> >> >More to the point, Oswald was moving *away* from Baker, with his back
> >> to
> >> >>
> >> >> >him, & thus also in a direction *away* from the stairwell.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I gather you understand the possible significance of that.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not really. The evidence seems to be that Oswald chose to leave via
> the
> >> front
> >> >> entrance, and apparently had no qualms about showing his face to any
>
> >> >> potential
> >> >> witnesses out on Elm Street.
> >> >
> >> >But showing his face to witnesses there isn't particularly relevant,
> as
> >>
> >> >at that time he was still merely another TSBD employee, among the many
>
> >> >who were out front already, & had just been dismissed as a suspect.
> >>
> >> If he were an actual 6th floor gunman, he would have been able to
> >> completely
> >> dismiss the possibility that at least one Elm Street witness had gotten
> a
> >> decent view of him in that window?
> >
> >With close to absolute certainty, yes, which is supported by the fact
> >that none of them *did* initially ID him positively as the gunman. Only
>
> >Brennan *later* claimed that he could have done so.
>
> And above I state where I rather strongly disagree that an actual 6th floor
> assassin could make such an assumption.
If he never showed his face to the spectators, I would find such an
assumption quite reasonable.
> >> He
> >> >would actually be far more likely to be noticed & remembered going out
>
> >> >the back door, as he would have been one of the very few people to exit
> >>
> >> >that way. In a crowd, he'd be much less conspicuous, or suspicious.
> >>
> >> Not if several members of that crowd could point him out to nearby
> >> officers
> >> as a 6th floor gunman.
> >
> >Which they didn't do.
>
> And he would know with absolute certainty that he wouldn't be fingered by
> one of the scores of witnesses on Elm street exactly how?
The same "wild" guess as before: by not showing nearly enough of his
body in the window for anyone to come within light-years of positively
IDing him?
> >> And the evidence shows that such a gunman was indeed
> >> quite visible to many down below.
> >
> >"Quite visible" is rather misleading. "Visible," yes, primarily only
> >through glass with bright reflections.
>
> How could he know exactly what the glare factor through the glass might be?
It was a bright cloudless day in November, near to high noon...
He was the closest of all persons to the window, & could plainly see
whatever its state of cleanliness was better than anyone else...
> The fact is that a gunman was clearly seen on that 6th floor by several
> witnesses
> below.
Oh dear, "clearly seen" is rather misleading. Have you not read through
the extraordinarily inconsistent witness testimony to that effect? This
gunman was apparently of multiple ethnicities, of multiple ages (of
multiple decades), wearing clothing of multiple styles & colors, & on
multiple floors, & of multiple degrees of hair loss.
"Elements of greatest consistency in witness testimony."
Who do I recall making such a statement?
Who do I recall saying that this was the most constructive thing to
search for in witness testimony?
There is no element of greatest consistency in the descriptions of this
"gunman" that I've yet noticed. If my present observation is
demonstrably incorrect, I will be nothing other than pleased for it to
be made known to me, or to discover it for myself.
> >> >> After Baker and Truly left, leaving via the
> >> >> rear was still an option for Lee, yet he eschewed it.
> >> >
> >> >If he was the shooter, no wonder. He was far less conspicuous going
> out
> >>
> >> >the front.
> >>
> >> And far more likely to be fingered by a witness.
> >
> >Very slightly more likely, I'd say. And all he'd have to say was, "Oh
> >no, I'm just an employee of the building." It worked with Baker. And
> >much less suspicious than if he'd been seen going out the back so soon
> >after the shooting.
>
> He could get away with saying 'I'm just an employee" if someone down on the
> street told a cop that he resembled a man they had seen in that building
> with a rifle? Hardly.
I'd suggest that "resembled" is hardly analogous to "positively ID'd," &
in any case, the remarkable inconsistency in the descriptions of this
person, in which no one clear description seems to predominate over any
other, indicates to me that the assassin, whoever he was, had good cause
to assume that his identification would be rather unlikely.
And here's yet another argument I've advanced in the past, & do so again
now.
I fail to be terribly confident of anyone who would be stupid enough to
shoot at a president in the first place, to be planning every last
detail to a nicety. A presidential assassin automatically suggests an
unbalanced person (the term "balanced" I have rarely, if ever, seen used
in the English language to describe a murderer of any sort, no matter
who the person murders), & there is simply no telling what eventualities
such a person will & will not plan for. The standard ideals of common
sense, which those of us who are not murderers who in retrospect discuss
this case with decades of hindsight, may not apply to a person who lacks
common values of decency & lawfulness. I propose that such an
unbalanced person may well plan for some eventualities, yet fail to
consider others.
After all, a person who of her/his own volition, shoots at the head of
state of any country, is not an especially rational person, agreed?
I think you may give a potentially "guilty" Oswald too much credit. By
the accounts of several people who knew him for years, he was rather far
from being among the most "rational" people on earth. I do not find any
argument which attributes ideal hindsight-inspired planning to him of
every detail of his planned assassination & planned escape from capture
to be especially compelling.
An unbalanced person can quite plausibly plan the initial murder
brilliantly, yet fail utterly to plan the escape at all well.
And yet, as I've said before, the escape may have appeared to be going
smashingly well...
...until Officer Tippit showed up.
But for that, I see multiple possibilities of Oswald EASILY getting out
of Dallas undetected.
EASILY.
He may have thought the very same thing.
Until the moment when he felt compelled to murder yet another person.
On the first day in his entire life that he had ever murdered ANYONE.
When ADDITIONALLY one of the persons he had murdered that day was
arguably the most powerful human on the planet.
I severely question how standard assumptions of "demeanor" &
"expectations" would apply to such an extraordinarily unique &
unpredictable individual.
Even so, although there are certainly some of his purported actions
which I agree are completely consistent with innocence, I find *more* of
them than otherwise to be completely consistent with guilt.
YMMV.
Caeruleo
> Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >In article <3ea83...@127.0.0.1>, "O.H. LEE" <ga...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> I DO allow for the *possibility* that Lee shot Tippit.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The overall tone of your statements on the subject, however, seem
> to
> >> me
> >> >>
> >> >> >to indicate that you believe it more likely than not that he didn't
>
> >> >> >shoot Tippit.
> >> >>
> >> >> In my own mind, sir, I would only be willing to go as high as a 50/50
> >>
> >> >> possibility,
> >> >> no greater, okay?
> >> >
> >> >Well, that's a start. ;-)
> >>
> >> And where my mindset on the issue is concerned, it's also an *end*. :-)
> >
> >I remain thankful that my "mindset" is not that anything is an "end,"
> >but can be changed according to the evidence I encounter.
>
> But perhaps you are reading more into my statement than I meant to convey.
> Of course I too am open to whatever new revelations may come to light in
> any aspect of this case.
Good. And I'll again compliment you, in all honesty, by saying that by
my perceptions so far, you still appear to me to be one of the most
reasonable posters to this group.
> But in the Tippit area, based on the *current* state
> of the evidence as I understand it, I cannot in good conscience go beyond
> granting a 50/50 possibility that Oswald was the assailant, okay?
Perhaps you simply don't understand it completely enough. You do
realize, correct, that FAR more witnesses than otherwise positively
identified the same person in custody as the person they saw fleeing the
scene, & at so many multiple locations between the Tippit scene & the
Texas Theater? It is said, by some, that the ID lineups were a "sham,"
but there is testimony extant which refutes this. In extremely few
other murder cases in all of recorded human history has any "lookalike"
even been suggested, although certainly there have been cases of
mistaken identity. But I'm not yet recalling any such, when
*additionally* the purported murder weapon was absolutely proven to have
been sent to the very P.O. box used by the accused murderer (you do know
that it is indeed absolutely proven, beyond all possible doubt, that
Klein's sent the rifle to that address, whether or not the signed
receipt for the weapon was "lost," which is far from implausible in a
perfectly non-sinister way, given the common knowledge of the
extraordinary ineptitude of many USPS employees *1.), when in addition
to even that, shells were found matching that same weapon in the same
location in which that same weapon was found, with the original sole
source for it "not" being that one weapon being exactly one man, who
himself never claimed, at any time, in any venue, to have even touched
the weapon himself, & moreover himself plainly stated that he was hardly
the "expert" on firearms that certain others have subsequently claimed.
> I apologize
> if I led you to believe that I would be inflexible in the light of any new
> revelations or bits of evidence in the case coming to light. On the contrary,
> I am always open and receptive to new evidence being unearthed in this case.
Good, & good. My sentiments exactly. I assure you, that if evidence
comes to my eyes which conclusively undermines my views (which has
already happened on more than one occasion, with my unequivocal
admissions immediately following), that nothing less than total honesty
will be posted by me.
As I continue to say, I am interested in nothing more or less than the
truth, insofar as it can be determined. No other "agenda" whatsoever
motivates me.
When it is corroborated by literally not a single other person present?
I suppose it's possible, but...
Elements of greatest consistency in witness statements, NOT random
variations unique to a single witness, or to only a tiny percentage of
witnesses.
Wright is the ONLY person to have claimed that the murderer of Tippet
got into a vehicle, correct?
Clemons is the ONLY person to have claimed that there were two gunmen,
who took off in opposite directions, correct?
> >> I'd also be careful about
> >> >stating the "threatening" of Ms. Clemons as established fact, when this
> >>
> >> >is merely an uncorroborated claim by her.
> >>
> >> Okay, have it your way. She's just another inveterate liar in this case,
> >> right?
> >
> >I said no such thing. I'm simply saying there is no solid evidence to
> >corroborate her.
>
> But there aren't too many other options here, are there? If Mrs. Clemons
> made such a statement, and I believe the preponderance of the evidence
> indicates
> she did, than she is either telling the truth or spouting quite a falsehood.
> If you see any other middle ground here, clue me in.
I do, actually. Parts of what she said may be truthful, as far as what
she honestly recalled, & parts may not be. She may have simply seen one
of the witnesses moving away from the scene, & assumed this person was
one of the gun"men", & honestly believed that he was involved in the
shooting. A "lie" is an intentional falsehood. As to the threats she
reported, who knows, although I'm curious as to why, if she was
"threatened" if she revealed what she "knew," she nevertheless revealed
it anyway, & apparently remained alive long past the revealing, if she
is not still alive today.
Sorta like Elrod saying he was still in "danger" in the 1990s, even
though he's been said to have let it all out anyway (& even though
others have "revealed" far more than he ever has, long before he ever
did, & still lived for decades afterward), was assured by his
interviewer that he was not in the slightest "danger" if he told the
"truth," & still is alive today, a decade later.
Oh gawd yes:
**********
Mr. JARMAN - A backfire or an officer giving a salute to the President.
And then at that time I didn't, you know, think too much about it. And
then the second shot was fired, and that is when the
people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped
forward, and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one.
**********
Mr. WILLIAMS. After the President's car had passed my window, the last
thing I remember seeing him do was, you know--it seemed to me he had a
habit of pushing his hair back. The last thing
I saw him do was he pushed his hand up like this. I assumed he was
brushing his hair back. And then the thing that happened then was a loud
shot--first I thought they were saluting the
President, somebody even maybe a motorcycle backfire. The first
shot--there was two shots rather close together. The second and the
third shot was closer together than the first shot and the
second shot, as I remember.
...
Mr. DULLES. Was there any difference in the sound of those three
explosions?
Mr. WILLIAMS. As far as I remember, there wasn't any difference in the
sound. It was just the time between the sound.
Mr. McCLOY. As I heard you testify, you said there was a larger pause
between the first and the second shot than there was between the second
and the third.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
**********
> Because I could swear that I've heard
> at least one of these 5th floor witnesses testify to evenly spaced shots,
> which is of course contrary to so many Dealey Plaza witnesses.
As this is a matter which I have researched extensively, as far as I
know at the present, you will be unable to find any recorded statement
by Harold Norman which contradicts in the slightest the assertions of
Jarman & Williams quoted above, that the 3rd shot was "fired right
behind the second one," or that the 2nd & 3rd shots were distinctly
closer together, as Williams made even plainer than Jarman in his
testimony.
It used to for me.
Until I read the combined statements of *all* witness who had anything
relevant whatsoever to say on this matter, including all statements they
ever made at any time in any venue that I have been able to locate,
including the Governor's own earliest recorded statement, which in one
aspect is remarkably at variance with all of his latter, exploring all
these statements for elements of greatest consistency. Never again will
I forget that all these witnesses, very unlike the film, could not only
see the events, but also *hear* the sounds of the shots simultaneously.
This is the alternate scenario which has been proposed, originally not
by me, though with additional views by me as they have developed to this
point:
JFK is hit in the back c.Z205 by a bullet which hits no bone in his body
& exits his throat. He is hidden by the sign at first, so that his
initial potential reactions will never be clearly seen. His more
obvious reactions are delayed by about a second because he is not
reacting directly to the "pain" of a bullet piercing him, but more
palpably to his trachea beginning to clog with blood, as is evidenced by
the fact that one of his hands initially goes to his mouth & makes a
fist, & the other hand makes a fist in front of it, as if he is coughing
into his fists; his hands NEVER actually go to his throat during the
entire film, as is plainly seen by any human with even average vision
viewing it carefully. The bullet exiting his throat obviously must go
somewhere. As it appears to be very likely that Canning placed Connally
much too far to the left, with Connally's left shoulder over the
driveshaft, it may be that Connally's torso was not at all in the line
of trajectory, but with the seatback of the jumpseat being less than
halfway up his back, & with the jump seats being much lower in the
vehicle than the back seat (as is astoundingly clear in the Croft
photo), which would have obviously caused JBC's knees to be higher than
his waist, this bullet may have tumbled after exiting JFK's throat, &
gone on to enter JBC's thigh sideways (evidenced by the fact that the
wound was considerably longer than it was wide), to be stopped dead by
the femur bone, completely removing the absurd unfragmented bullet which
supposedly also smashed through rib & wrist bones before entering the
thigh, replacing it instead with a bullet which is stopped & flattened
*only* by the thickest bone in the human body. JBC, after regaining
consciousness the following day, simply fails to recall the thigh wound
separately, as it occurred only seconds before the far more serious
torso wound. His jerking motions at Z226ff are due to a combination of
him being hit in the thigh & the sudden horrifying realization upon
hearing the 1st shot (as per his testimony) that someone was shooting at
the limo.
JBC turns around to his right to look back at JFK to see if he's all
right (a turn plainly to be seen in the film, which is completed
c.Z260), which, strangely, although he may have confused right with
left, he otherwise describes rather vividly *only* in his earliest
recorded statement from his hospital bed, made on camera & preserved in
audio & video, still to be heard by anyone today, in which he described
JFK specifically as being already "slumped," at which point he felt the
2nd shot hit him in the back (as per every statement he ever gave at any
time in his life in which he spoke of this matter), possibly at c.Z272,
at which point & in the frames immediately following, he is plainly seen
to shift suddenly to his left & then jerk violently & immediately fall
back against his wife. This is to be taken in context with the Newmans'
observation, made on that same day, & again by her at the Shaw trial,
that he grabbed his midsection immediately after the sound of the 2nd
shot, which the Z-film clearly shows him NOT doing at any point prior to
Z272, & with Zapruder's inadvertent upward pan, which results in nothing
below Connally's chin being visible from Z280 to Z305, meaning that this
is almost the ONLY time in the film he could have done what the Newmans
described, is fairly compelling evidence that he was hit again somewhere
in this range, this time with a bullet entering at the top of his right
armpit (without having first gone through JFK), is deflected by his rib,
exits his chest in multiple fragments of bullet & bone going various
directions (as is evidenced by the fact that there were multiple exits
in his chest, something not often-enough cited), one of which at least
smashes through his wrist (which is indeed in front of his chest at
Z272, with moreover the top of the wrist turned somewhat toward the
chest, & the palm side of the wrist turned somewhat away) with some of
the fragments exiting the vehicle & others accounting for some of the
fragments found in the vehicle. Once again, this completely removes the
implausible unfragmented bullet smashing through all those bones, &
instead has the merely flattened CE399 being stopped, sideways, by his
femur, & being from the previous shot. Nellie, the closest witness of
all who established any clear sequence to what happened with each shot,
corroborated by more of the closest spectators than otherwise, says
she's absolutely positive that she clearly saw JFK reacting with his
elbows splayed out, both his hands coming up to a level at least as high
as his neck, & him slumping to his left, between the sounds of the 1st &
2nd shots (that she looks at him during this time is clearly seen in the
film), & perceives her own husband to be wounded simultaneously with the
sound of the 2nd shot. The latter is corroborated by himself, who
unlike his statements about his "turns" (regarding which he
unequivocally admitted his memory was "vague), always, on every occasion
he was ever recorded as speaking about it, gave a remarkably vivid
description of hearing the 1st shot, feeling the 2nd shot hit him in the
back, & hearing the 3rd shot after he had fallen back against Nellie,
with the additional vivid & gory detail of seeing brain matter fall on
him immediately after the sound of the 3rd shot.
The 3rd shot hits JFK in the head somewhat to the right & above the EOP
(with an "entrance" to be invented under pressure by the autopsists as
in reality the entrance was obliterated in the overall damaging of the
skull, furthermore evidenced by the contradictory placement of it by the
Clark Panel). Given that JFK's head was inclined not only sharply
downward (as is plainly seen in the Z-film) but also sharply to the left
(as is plainly seen in the Muchmore & Nix films) at the instant of
impact, the trajectory of this bullet is almost precisely parallel to
the top of the right half of his head, severely fracturing part of the
upper right posterior protuberance of the skull (accounting for the
upper right posterior hole in the skull seen by 7 of the Parkland
medical personel, & also by Clint Hill), but additionally causing a good
deal of other damage to the right half of the skull, with fragments also
exiting in various directions, some of which furrow through the scalp on
the right side of his head in front of his ear, causing the grotesque
flap of flesh seen all too vividly in the film, to be closed by Jackie
on the way to the hospital, with very little amount of scalp actually
missing, primarily only near the right rear posterior, which
additionally accounts for this being the only opening the Parkland
personel, who do not attempt an extensive examination of the skull, see.
At the autopsy, however, it is confirmed, through a much more extensive
examination of the skull, that this hole observed by Parkland is simply
the rearmost edge of far more extensive damage to the skull, the more
frontal aspects of which were merely covered by mostly intact scalp at
Parkland, but in the much more extensive examination at Bethesda is
peeled back to reveal the remainder of the damage. The most
commonly-reproduceed lateral x-ray of the skull (which is oriented with
the head inclined downward toward the right side of the image) plainly
shows a distinct fissure around the segment of upper right posterior
skull bone, which is now attached only on one side, & can be opened as a
"hinge" to produce the truly existent rearward hole in the skull which
was not "imagined" at Parkland. The famous photo of the rear of the
head which appears "not" to show this same hole is merely the result of
the mostly intact scalp being held up by the thumb of the autopsist so
that the invented "entry" can be seen. Less than half of the autopsy
photos to this day have been released to the public due to the wishes of
none other than the Kennedy family themselves, already horrified decades
ago by the prospect of graphic photos of their murdered relative being
made visible worldwide. The Z-film in frame Z313ff quite plainly shows
the vast majority of bloody matter exiting forward, with only the
Connallys in front of JFK reporting actual brain tissue of significant
size falling upon them, with a fragment of bone, if one looks carefully,
seen in the film shooting out of JFK's head, striking the back of
Nellie's seat, & falling towards the floor, where it was subsequently
found. As vertibrates of many different species have been known to
exhibit violent spasms of various sorts upon being struck in the head, &
as the number of films of humans being shot in the head is not very
large, thus presenting insufficient evidence to conclusively contradict
the remainder of this sentence, JFK exhibits a violent spasm, possibly
affecting more of his body than can be seen in the film (no part of his
body below the middle of his chest can be seen at all) with his head
initially lurching forward slightly from the impact of the bullet, then
beginning, somewhat slowly at first, then with increasing speed
(continuing to accelerate past the point at which any bullet would have
still been applying force), to jolt back & to the left, with his right
arm simultaneously jerking upward, before he falls limp. One of the
several exiting fragments slams into the chrome of the windshield frame,
denting it, while another, continuing almost precisely along the
original trajectory of the bullet, strikes the curb near James Tague,
causing piece of concrete to fly up a slice across his cheek. Two
fragments of bone are also plainly to be seen in Z313 shooting up &
forward from JFK's head.
As long as those sentences & paragraphs are, that is only a brief
summary of the main points of this scenario. Evidence in far more
extensive detail can be produced to support it, & has already been, in
many many many previous articles, only a minority of which were composed
by me.
Whether you find it especially compelling or not, it may make clearer to
you why that .sig keeps appearing in all my articles.
> Now I hardly rule out another, later bullet strike on the Governor,
> but I am convinced that he took a major bullet strike, probably through the
> torso, at this point.
Oh, I wouldn't rule it out either, not entirely, but with the vast
majority of witnesses recalling exactly 3 shots, & the vast majority of
the subset who made any statement whatsoever regarding the relative
timing of the shots saying specifically that the sound of the 2nd shot
was after the midpoint between the 1st & 3rd shots, including 2 of the 3
men by far closer to the gunman as he was firing than any other
witnesses, & with the surviving wounded man himself ALWAYS being
absolutely certain that it was the 2nd shot which hit him in the back,
the elements of greatest consistency in all the available evidence
combined strongly suggests to me that he was hit in the torso at a later
point, interestingly enough matching the *other* time in the film in
which he *also* exhibits *equally* violent reactions as those at Z226ff.
It could...
But...
This is hardly the *only* evidence that Oswald did it.
Fascinating that the lookalike knew to discard his jacket too, just as
the real Oswald did.
Fascinating that the lookalike was recalled by Postal when he ducked
toward the theater entrance, yet she utterly failed to recall an
additional man who looked very similar buying a ticket from her, who
would of course be the real Oswald who was arrested in the theater.
> >> .>> But we DO know that he heeded Baker's command to approach him, and
> did
> >> not
> >> >> bolt for the rear entrance. That much we do know. Again, a calm and
>
> >> >> collected
> >> >> response.
> >> >
> >> >Since he would almost certainly have been shot by Baker had he tried
> to
> >>
> >> >bolt, it's about the *only* response anyone but an utter fool would
> >> >make.
> >>
> >> Or someone who had just assassinated a President but was unable to keep
> his
> >> emotions and reactions in check. But this doesn't apply to Oswald in the
> >> least here.
> >
> >Of course, since it would obviously have all been planned in advance.
> >How could it not have been?
>
> What? Lee's lunchroom encounter with Baker and Truly was planned in advance?
Sigh...
"Of course, since it would obviously have all been planned in advance,"
rather obviously refers merely to the shooting of the President, & to
the natural expectation that some sort of encounter with police in the
building, with an alibi already prepared by the assassin, would take
place within minutes of the shooting.
> Again, you've lost me here sir.
I don't understand how.
> >> It doesn't necessarily have to be "calm & collected" to simply be
> >> >by far the best choice given the alternative.
> >>
> >> It requires one to keep one's emotions and reactions in check. You deny
> this?
> >
> >It merely requires one to not show any obvious *outward* sign of
> >agitation.
>
> Agreed. Doesn't sound like the scared, funny looking, frightened fellow that
> Brewer saw, does it? That guy's "agitation" was quite *outward*, correct?
Rather different circumstances by then, eh? Not just the specifically
planned murder, but a second murder too, one that was *not* expected
nearly as specifically, on the first day in this person's life that he
had ever murdered *anyone*.
And once again, you seem to be attributing too much significance to the
provably unreliable witness observations of demeanor, which with one
witness can err drastically on the side of calm, & with another can err
just as drastically the opposite way. The reality may have been
actually somewhere in between.
> >> >> >> Indeed, Baker left that room not suspecting Oswald of being
> >> >> >> suspicious in the least.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Of course, because he *immediately* dismissed Oswald as a suspect
> at
> >> the
> >> >>
> >> >> >very instant Truly told him Oswald was an employee:
> >> >>
> >> >> But as Baker testified, his senses were quite heightened at this point,
> >> and
> >> >> he was suspicious "of everybody". Yet there was apparently nothing
> about
> >> >> Oswald's demeanor that struck him as odd or unusual in any way.
> >> >
> >> >With a very brief period of observation, & never having the sound of
>
> >> >Oswald's voice to judge from.
> >>
> >> But here again, you seem to be automatically assuming that Oswald would
> have
> >> *failed* a "voice test. Why?
> >
> >I assume no such thing. I'm merely stating that the sound of his voice
>
> >is evidence we lack, & that thus the evidence of his actual emotional
> >state at that time is extremely limited.
>
> Can't we agree that he gave both Baker and Truly the *appearance* of a calm
> and collected individual? Isn't that what the record shows?
Oh, I'll certainly agree with that, for the most part, although the
record *also* contains the word "hurrying" spoken by Baker, & the word
"startled" spoken by Truly. However, given the fact that the time of
observation was very brief, that the sound of Oswald's voice was never
heard, that many people all over this planet are easily able to
outwardly hide intense agitation, that witness observations of demeanor
are often extraordinarily unreliable, that demeanor itself is one of the
least reliable aspects of any determination of a person's guilt, & that
murderers throughout all recorded history have been extensively
documented as exhibiting every possible variation of demeanor
imaginable, I continue to fail to understand why a purportedly "calm"
Oswald in the lunchroom is especially relevant, or particularly
enlightening in this most studied of all murder cases.
O.H. LEE
I thought that you said that the man, without any evidence that it was so,
called you a liar to your face. Why then would he automatically believe you
if you claimed to be an employee? You would have needed someone like Truly
to vouch for you, it seems to me.
>to a positive ID.
So then it must have truly shocked you to learn that a description of this
gunman, including a height estimate, went out within 15 minutes or so of
the shooting, correct? Because according to you here, this should have been
well nigh impossible.
>> >> Yet he calmly saunters out the *front* entrance.
>> >
>> >Perhaps because he was correctly confident that none of them could
>> >positively ID him as the shooter?
>>
>> Why would he be able to assume such a thing?
>
>See above.
I did, but it failed abysmally to convince me.
>> How would he know of any "glare"
>> effect?
>
>Lol, he couldn't see for himself that it was a bright cloudless day at
>nearly high noon, & couldn't see for himself that the window was less
>than halfway open, & moreover easily see for himself how much dirt &
>grime may or may not have been on the window?
So an assassin would have been banking on dirt, grime, and glare for concealment?
>> How could he assume that at the sound of the first shot, scores of
>> people down below would not have had their attention drawn to the very
window
>> he was firing from?
>
>Oh, I'd imagine he would assume such a thing. And it would be
>irrelevant to an identification of him if they could not see his face, &
>at most could see only a tiny percentage of his body.
He would have had to conclude such a thing was a certainty though. Don't
know how he could do that.
>> How could he assure himself that no one below would not
>> have had an excellent angle to view him from?
>
>Just a wild guess: by not having his face close enough to the window for
>*anyone* to see it?
Everyone down on Elm Street had a different viewing angle up to that 6th
floor window. I fail to see how one could ensure that *no one* down below
would have been able to spot him.
>consistent with guilt.
Okay, so then one should draw absolutely no conclusions based on Brewer's
observations? The demeanor of the fellow who ducked into the foyer of his
shoe store is most likely totally irrelevant here?
Oh I agree. It's just that if a glaring inconsistency appears to crop up
in the demeanor of our alleged double murderer from his first crime to his
next, it's worth looking into, that's all.
Sure, possibly, so long as he didn't do something stupid like ducking into
a shoe store foyer and giving the manager there a good chance to observe
his "scared, funny, frightened" demeanor, or make certain to duck into a
movie theatre in clear view of a ticket taker without buying a ticket.
>And I have to ask again (& I still don't recall you answering): if
>Earline Roberts saw Oswald leaving & wearing a jacket, how any
>"lookalike" would know to discard *his* jacket along the way to the
>Texas Theater, so that he would better match the real Oswald, who was
>also not wearing a jacket when he was arrested.
Well, no matter who killed Tippit, whether Oswald or the lookalike, it probably
made sense to ditch the jacket. But there are some serious problems with
that discovered jacket. The size, color, and indications of the use of a
professional cleaning service all seem to cast great doubt as to whether
this jacket was in fact Oswald's.
I'll also ask again
>(since you also have not answered this either, that I have seen), why
>Postal would remember the "lookalike" who ducked toward the entrance to
>the theater, but fail to recall the real Oswald who was arrested in the
>theater buying a ticket from her, as most probably an "innocent" Oswald
>would have done?
Did Postal have a habit of remembering *every* male customer she sold a ticket
to? Could she swear to selling a ticket to every male patron that day, like
Applin, Davis, and Gibson? Just asking.
>I have yet to see it even acknowledged by any poster here, much less
>answered, that these questions have been asked, even though this is at
>least the 3rd time I have asked them.
Your question assumes perfect recall on the part of Postal, correct?
And no more flustered either. So I stick to my opinion that he may well have
been calmer than most Depository employees at that point in time.
Regards,
O.H. LEE
O.H. LEE
Especially for a "NutHouse" denizen? :-)
>> But in the Tippit area, based on the *current* state
>> of the evidence as I understand it, I cannot in good conscience go beyond
>> granting a 50/50 possibility that Oswald was the assailant, okay?
>
>Perhaps you simply don't understand it completely enough. You do
>realize, correct, that FAR more witnesses than otherwise positively
>identified the same person in custody as the person they saw fleeing the
>scene, & at so many multiple locations between the Tippit scene & the
>Texas Theater?
Mightn't perceptions have been altered somewhat if the accounts of Mr. Wright
and Mrs. Clemons had been permitted to enter the record?
It is said, by some, that the ID lineups were a "sham,"
Indeed, one of those pronouncing the lineups as a "sham" was none other than
the accused, Lee Harvey Oswald.
>but there is testimony extant which refutes this. In extremely few
>other murder cases in all of recorded human history has any "lookalike"
>even been suggested, although certainly there have been cases of
>mistaken identity.
I think that you are far too quick to dismiss these Oswald lookalike reports
sir. You do realize that several cases appear quite solid, with not only
corroboration, but the name "Oswald" recalled and/or written down, right?
But I'm not yet recalling any such, when
>*additionally* the purported murder weapon was absolutely proven to have
>been sent to the very P.O. box used by the accused murderer (you do know
>that it is indeed absolutely proven, beyond all possible doubt, that
>Klein's sent the rifle to that address, whether or not the signed
>receipt for the weapon was "lost," which is far from implausible in a
>perfectly non-sinister way, given the common knowledge of the
>extraordinary ineptitude of many USPS employees *1.), when in addition
>to even that, shells were found matching that same weapon in the same
>location in which that same weapon was found, with the original sole
>source for it "not" being that one weapon being exactly one man, who
>himself never claimed, at any time, in any venue, to have even touched
>the weapon himself, & moreover himself plainly stated that he was hardly
>the "expert" on firearms that certain others have subsequently claimed.
If you are referring to Weitzman here, there is still, to me, not the slightest
legitimate reason in the world, even if he misidentified the rifle "at a
glance" when it was first discovered, for the man to *still* make the same
glaring mistake some 24 hours later when executing a sworn affidavit.
>> I apologize
>> if I led you to believe that I would be inflexible in the light of any
new
>> revelations or bits of evidence in the case coming to light. On the contrary,
>> I am always open and receptive to new evidence being unearthed in this
case.
>
>Good, & good. My sentiments exactly. I assure you, that if evidence
>comes to my eyes which conclusively undermines my views (which has
>already happened on more than one occasion, with my unequivocal
>admissions immediately following), that nothing less than total honesty
>will be posted by me.
>
>As I continue to say, I am interested in nothing more or less than the
>truth, insofar as it can be determined. No other "agenda" whatsoever
>motivates me.
Ditto.
But think about it: Markham was hysterical, Benevides was cowering in his
truck, Scoggins' view was obscured by hedges and was from around the corner,
and he admitted to promptly ducking behind his cab immediately after the
shooting, the Davis ladies were looking out a door, so their view was also
limited in scope. Isn't it possible that Wright could have had an angle which
allowed him to see something that the others at the scene couldn't?
>Elements of greatest consistency in witness statements, NOT random
>variations unique to a single witness, or to only a tiny percentage of
>witnesses.
>
>Wright is the ONLY person to have claimed that the murderer of Tippet
>got into a vehicle, correct?
As stated above, he may not have had nearly the limitations some of the other
witnesses at the scene had.
>Clemons is the ONLY person to have claimed that there were two gunmen,
>who took off in opposite directions, correct?
So far as I know, yes. But again, those other witnesses may have really been
in no position to see such a thing.
>> >> I'd also be careful about
>> >> >stating the "threatening" of Ms. Clemons as established fact, when
this
>> >>
>> >> >is merely an uncorroborated claim by her.
>> >>
>> >> Okay, have it your way. She's just another inveterate liar in this
case,
>> >> right?
>> >
>> >I said no such thing. I'm simply saying there is no solid evidence to
>> >corroborate her.
>>
>> But there aren't too many other options here, are there? If Mrs. Clemons
>> made such a statement, and I believe the preponderance of the evidence
>> indicates
>> she did, than she is either telling the truth or spouting quite a falsehood.
>> If you see any other middle ground here, clue me in.
>
>I do, actually. Parts of what she said may be truthful, as far as what
>she honestly recalled, & parts may not be. She may have simply seen one
>of the witnesses moving away from the scene, & assumed this person was
>one of the gun"men", & honestly believed that he was involved in the
>shooting. A "lie" is an intentional falsehood. As to the threats she
>reported, who knows, although I'm curious as to why, if she was
>"threatened" if she revealed what she "knew," she nevertheless revealed
>it anyway, & apparently remained alive long past the revealing, if she
>is not still alive today.
I was only talking about the threats that she reported. There is no middle
ground there, is there? As to remaining alive, if conspirators were assured
that the fix was in, and that contrary accounts to the official version would
be ignored, buried, or denounced as being in error, they wouldn't have a
need to resort to murder in some cases, would they? This would certainly
be preferable to piling on the mysterious deaths. There are other ways to
negate witnesses except for the final resort of murder.
>Sorta like Elrod saying he was still in "danger" in the 1990s, even
>though he's been said to have let it all out anyway (& even though
>others have "revealed" far more than he ever has, long before he ever
>did, & still lived for decades afterward), was assured by his
>interviewer that he was not in the slightest "danger" if he told the
>"truth," & still is alive today, a decade later.
Yes, he has simply been denounced as a crackpot with no credibility in the
case, and apparently with no official investigative body ever taking him
seriously. Why would one have to stir things up with a suspicious murder
if things can be controlled in other ways? I figure that rubbing out witnesses
is sort of a last resort.
>> I'm far from certain, but didn't they all give the company line of evenly
>> spaced shots? I don't know that they were strong witnesses for any other
>> shooting pattern. You know otherwise?
>
>Oh gawd yes:
>
>**********
>
>Mr. JARMAN - A backfire or an officer giving a salute to the President.
>And then at that time I didn't, you know, think too much about it. And
>then the second shot was fired, and that is when the
>people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped
>forward, and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one.
>
>**********
>
>Mr. WILLIAMS. After the President's car had passed my window, the last
>thing I remember seeing him do was, you know--it seemed to me he had a
>habit of pushing his hair back. The last thing
>I saw him do was he pushed his hand up like this. I assumed he was
>brushing his hair back. And then the thing that happened then was a loud
>shot--first I thought they were saluting the
>President, somebody even maybe a motorcycle backfire. The first
>shot--there was two shots rather close together. The second and the
>third shot was closer together than the first shot and the
>second shot, as I remember.
>
>....
>
>Mr. DULLES. Was there any difference in the sound of those three
>explosions?
>Mr. WILLIAMS. As far as I remember, there wasn't any difference in the
>sound. It was just the time between the sound.
>Mr. McCLOY. As I heard you testify, you said there was a larger pause
>between the first and the second shot than there was between the second
>and the third.
>Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Thank you for providing this. Point well taken now with respect to Jarman
and Williams.
>**********
>
>> Because I could swear that I've heard
>> at least one of these 5th floor witnesses testify to evenly spaced shots,
>> which is of course contrary to so many Dealey Plaza witnesses.
>
>As this is a matter which I have researched extensively, as far as I
>know at the present, you will be unable to find any recorded statement
>by Harold Norman which contradicts in the slightest the assertions of
>Jarman & Williams quoted above, that the 3rd shot was "fired right
>behind the second one," or that the 2nd & 3rd shots were distinctly
>closer together, as Williams made even plainer than Jarman in his
>testimony.
But I'm not certain that the above is altogether true as it concerns Norman.
In the series "The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald", first shown I believe on
Showtime in the late '80's, I think that Norman was a witness. If you are
able to, review his testimony with respect to the spacing of the shots. I
could swear that his account was one of completely equal spacing. He even
gave his impression of the working of the bolt at this time, if I recall
correctly.
I have absolutely no problem discounting the SBT sir, believe me. But I don't
believe that I shall ever be dissuaded from the opinion that at some point
between Z-231 and Z-235, the Governor took a major bullet strike. In my own
mind, I cannot attribute the dramatic nature of his shoulder drop and the
puffing of his cheeks to anything else. Opinions differ of course, but to
me, he is struck here. Again, I hardly rule out an additional later strike
on the Governor.
Regards,
O.H. LEE
CurtJester
What he was arrested in was the same 'jacket'. The FBI agent seeing
him described it as a 'brown jacket'. What it was really was his
heavy new brown shirt he changed into that was obtained in custody.
Oswald while in custody claimed he went home to Beckley ST. to change
clothes. The clothes he wore at the TSBD that day were found as he
described in the drawer he put them as describing. The identification
of the clothes as far as the Tippet witnesses and police dispatch tell
of a whitish coat. The Oswald from the TSBD did not have a coat
similar to the one found under the Oldsmobile. The coat found was a
size M and had a California's manufacturer's name with nmerous
commerical laundry labels. Oswald had two coats purchased in Russia
according to Marina, which were never taken to commercial laundries,
which she washed herself.
Miss Postal being interviewed in 1963 by a Jones Harris was asked
about the arrestee Oswald and the ticket situation. She burst into
tears not once, but a second time whehen asked if she had sold him a
ticket. His conclusion was that she did sell him the ticket even
though she didn't answer. Her answer formed later with an FBI
interview and then with the WC. She could have also been confused
with the 'two' or the lookalike. Arrestee Oswald was heard going to
the balcony shortly after 1:00 by theater employee Butch Burroughs who
sold popcorn to Oswald between 1:10 and 1:15 which timeline was
confirmed by the Minister, Jack Davis, who said Oswald sat next to him
during the credits prior to the showing of the 1:20 scheduled movie.
The funny acting man seen by Johnny Brewer who saw him at 1:30 who
followed him to the theater and inside only to have Miss Postal call
the police between 1:40 and 1:45 which would correspond to the arrival
of that suspect and the police shortly after.
Interesting that the wallet 'dropped' at the Tippet crime scene was
viewed by Agent Barnett was gone through and an LHO driver's license
was seen and verified by him. Of course TSBD did not have a license
and wasn't supposed to to be able to drive. Paul Bentley, the
detective who was with arrestee Oswald in the police car en route took
'his' wallet out from his back pocket. Of course we know that would
all be in 'good hands' with the FBI and have LHO's license end up at
the Dept. of Public Safety mysteriously.
It sure would seem easy to me if a look-alike was into framing
somebody the last last act of an incredible ruse would be to sneak
into a theater with the guy already in there that i was trying to
frame.
CJ
I if not mistaken though he left a considerable sum right at that time
with Marina. That would not be the place he left it for her.
> And to get his pistol.
'his' pistol? Was he known to own or have one? That room was
routinely cleaned and very dinky. What is the likelyhood that it
would not have been spotted?
Also it was purported by employees who worked across the street in a
sewing shop who knew Oswald, that after the assassination they saw
Oswald handed a pistol from someone closely resembling Jack Ruby.
This was related by an Evelyn Harris to the FBI, but sadly did not
make the WC's platform of things to consider.
CJ
Caeruleo
curtj...@webtv.net (CurtJester) wrote:
Yes, I just looked at her December '63 affidavit, & she did indeed
appear to call it dark-colored. She also said it was of a type that
zipped-up in front.
> What he was arrested in was the same 'jacket'. The FBI agent seeing
> him described it as a 'brown jacket'. What it was really was his
> heavy new brown shirt he changed into that was obtained in custody.
> Oswald while in custody claimed he went home to Beckley ST. to change
> clothes.
Did that shirt have a zipper in front?
> The clothes he wore at the TSBD that day were found as he
> described in the drawer he put them as describing. The identification
> of the clothes as far as the Tippet witnesses and police dispatch tell
> of a whitish coat.
No mention is made of what the running man was wearing in the FBI report
on Elbert Austin:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/austin.htm
Nothing is said of the color of the jacket in the FBI report on Roger
Ballew:
"ROGER BALLEW advised the Dallas, Texas, Police Department had located a
jacket underneath a 1954 Oldsmobile which was parked in parking space #
17, which was believed to be the jacket
worn by the individual who had earlier shot the Dallas police officer."
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ballew.htm
But for Mary Brock, yes, a light-colored jacket:
"She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as
approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light-colored
complexion, wearing light clothing,
came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light-colored jacket and
with his hands in his pockets."
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_m.htm
(And 1:30 is given at the time; so much for Greg's "1:00" pattern.)
Nothing about the jacket color in Robert Brock's statement though:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brock_r.htm
But yep, light-colored for Jimmy Burt:
"At that moment he caught a glimpse of a man running on the sidewalk on
the south side of the street. The man at this point had reached the
intersection of 10th and Patton Streets. He
described this man as a white male, approximately 5'8". He was wearing a
light colored short jacket."
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/burt.htm
Nothing at all about clothing in Ted Callaway's same-day affidavit,
though:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/callaway.htm
Nothing at all about clothing in the same-day affidavits of Barbara &
Virginia Davis either:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
Or in Sam Guinyard's:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/guinyard.htm
Or in Francis Kinneth's same-day FBI report:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/kinneth.htm
Nothing about clothing L.J. Lewis' same-day FBI report or in his
corrective affidavit of 8-26-64:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lewis_l.htm
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lewis_l1.htm
The only mention of the jacket at all in the 1-23-64 FBI report on B.M.
Patterson is this, with no reference made to its color:
"As the individual reached Ballew's Texaco Service Station located in
the 600 Block of Jefferson, the individual made a turn in a northerly
direction and
proceeded behind Ballew's Texaco Service Station where the individual
discarded a jacket which was later recovered by the Dallas Police
Department."
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/patterson.htm
In the 1-22-64 FBI report on Warren Reynolds, there is again no
reference to clothing whatsoever, except for the "belt" in which the man
appeared to be attempting to conceal the pistol:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/reynolds_w.htm
No reference to clothing in Harold Russell's 1-22-64 FBI report either:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/russell_h.htm
Now this is interesting: in William Smith's 12-13-63 FBI report it is
said that the jacket was "light brown":
"He said he was too far away from the individual to positively identify
him but he said he was a white male, about 5' 7" to 5'8", 20 to 25 years
of age,
150-160, wearing a white shirt, light brown jacket and dark pants."
We can also see that Smith claimed to see the actual shooting itself,
not simply the man running at a further location like most of these
others. It is also said of Smith that he didn't report the incident
initially to the police because he was on two years probation for auto
theft:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/smith_w.htm
In his WC testimony he said that the man he saw appeared to have darker
hair than Oswald did on black & white television, but that a picture of
Oswald he was shown appeared to have more consistent hair color.
Of course we can also see Smith saying that the man was wearing a
"white" shirt underneath the "jacket." Of course, it appears that
Oswald (whether or not he was the Tippit shooter) was indeed wearing a
white t-shirt underneath his "brown shirt."
What I am thus seeing in these earliest statements by these people that
I am at present able to locate is that only 2, Mary Brock & Jimmy Burt,
simply said the jacket was "light-colored" & nothing else; Smith,
however, specifically said "light brown." I note that these 2 others
(similar to what we've discussed before about the man seen in the TSBD
window) did not give a particular "color," per se, but only that it was
"light." I'm not sure where you're getting "whitish" from. None of the
others described the clothing at all, other than the "belt" for a few of
them.
Now I'm looking at Johnny Brewer's 12-6-63 affidavit, which describes
the man he saw ducking into the shoestore foyer as:
"This man was wearing a brown sport shirt."
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brewer1.htm
No mention of a jacket here, & this is what Brewer claimed to have seen
*before* the man went into the Texas Theater.
And lo & behold, this matches rather well with the brown shirt you say
Oswald was wearing when he was arrested.
So let's see: all Earlene Roberts said was that the jacket was "dark,"
without giving any specific color. She also attributed a zipper to it.
The brown shirt worn by Oswald does not appear to me to resemble any
zippered jacked that I've ever seen; those latter, for example, do not
typically have buttons on the cuffs as that shirt plainly does. One
witness at the Tippit scene said the jacket was light brown. Two
witnesses further away merely said the jacket was "light" without giving
it any specific color. The next person is Brewer, whose earliest
statement that I can find has the man (again still *before* he went in
the theater) without a jacket. And as we're about to see below, Julia
Postal's even earlier original statement made no mention of what the man
was wearing.
> The Oswald from the TSBD did not have a coat
> similar to the one found under the Oldsmobile. The coat found was a
> size M and had a California's manufacturer's name with nmerous
> commerical laundry labels. Oswald had two coats purchased in Russia
> according to Marina, which were never taken to commercial laundries,
> which she washed herself.
I've seen somewhere a discussion of this "laundry label" business, & I
recall it not being especially conclusive that "both" his jackets came
from Russia, but admittedly I do not have a source in front of me at
this moment.
> Miss Postal being interviewed in 1963 by a Jones Harris was asked
> about the arrestee Oswald and the ticket situation. She burst into
> tears not once, but a second time whehen asked if she had sold him a
> ticket. His conclusion was that she did sell him the ticket even
> though she didn't answer.
His "conclusion" is not in evidence. "She didn't answer" are the
operative words.
> Her answer formed later with an FBI
> interview and then with the WC.
'Scuse me, "later"? If by this "answer" you mean her final story about
having seen only one man, & that he most definitely didn't buy a ticket,
that was what she was saying on the very day, 11-22-63:
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0484-001.gif
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0484-002.gif
That is her EARLIEST recorded statement on the matter, made only hours
after it occurred. There's not a shred of a suggestion here about two
men, one of whom was sold a ticket & the other not, or about her
actually selling even the one man a ticket.
> She could have also been confused
> with the 'two' or the lookalike.
There's no suggestion of that in her earliest statement.
> Arrestee Oswald was heard going to
> the balcony shortly after 1:00 by theater employee Butch Burroughs
Excuse me, "was" heard by Burroughs, with no qualification whatsoever?
You are now the 2nd poster within the past week that I've seen appear to
attach more credibility to Burroughs than to other witnesses at various
points between the Tippit shooting & the Texas Theater, here
specifically seeming to give greater credibility to him than to Postal,
despite the fact that his statements changed FAR more radically &
profoundly than Postal's ever did. In 1963/4 Burroughs said nothing of
the sort, & instead said quite specifically that he DIDN'T see OR hear
Oswald at all prior to the police entering the theater. In his earliest
statements he said only that he gave an OPINION to Postal that the man
MIGHT have gone up into the balcony, but he certainly never said it was
as early as 1:00. Only many years later, for the first time ever in the
1980s, did Burroughs' story change extraordinarily, to Burroughs clearly
"recalling" selling Oswald popcorn, which may also include seeing or
"hearing" Oswald going up to the balcony, although I can't remember at
this instant whether that was also included in the late claims.
> who
> sold popcorn to Oswald between 1:10 and 1:15
A claim Burroughs did not make for the first time until the 1980s,
profoundly at variance with his earliest statements.
> which timeline was
> confirmed by the Minister, Jack Davis, who said Oswald sat next to him
> during the credits prior to the showing of the 1:20 scheduled movie.
I'm curious as to when the *earliest* documentation of Mr. Davis making
this claim dates from, & whether there are earlier statements by him
which contradict this.
> The funny acting man seen by Johnny Brewer who saw him at 1:30 who
> followed him to the theater and inside only to have Miss Postal call
> the police between 1:40 and 1:45 which would correspond to the arrival
> of that suspect and the police shortly after.
At a time fairly consistent with what various witnesses reported between
the scene of the Tippit shooting & the Texas Theater. The man was seen
by these multiple witnesses always going in a direction more or less
away from the Tippit scene & towards the theater. The times given in
general get the man to Brewer's store at about 1:30, as their times are
generally within the half-hour before that, some of them quite close to
1:30, such as Mary Brock.
My main point was how the man seen running at various locations along
this route carrying a pistol could be a different man from the one
Brewer & Postal saw, & thus from the one who was arrested in the
theater. The timing, when all earliest witness statements are taken
together, does not seem to be much of a problem.
> Interesting that the wallet 'dropped' at the Tippet crime scene was
> viewed by Agent Barnett was gone through and an LHO driver's license
> was seen and verified by him. Of course TSBD did not have a license
> and wasn't supposed to to be able to drive. Paul Bentley, the
> detective who was with arrestee Oswald in the police car en route took
> 'his' wallet out from his back pocket. Of course we know that would
> all be in 'good hands' with the FBI and have LHO's license end up at
> the Dept. of Public Safety mysteriously.
That I do find interesting. Original sources?
> It sure would seem easy to me if a look-alike was into framing
> somebody the last last act of an incredible ruse would be to sneak
> into a theater with the guy already in there that i was trying to
> frame.
And again, all you've cited to suggest 2 different men, one of whom
bought a ticket from Postal & the other who didn't, going into the
theater, or even just about her selling Oswald alone a ticket, is her
supposedly breaking down when asked about this specific issue, but
without actually quoting even a single word of the Jones Harris
interview. I'm seeing an article by John Armstrong which appears to be
where you've gotten this from, who additionally says:
'On February 29, 1964 Postal told FBI Agent Arthur Carter "she was
unable to recall whether or not he bought a ticket." (A few months
later, when the Warren Report was
issued, Postal's memory had improved. She was now certain the man did
not buy a ticket. See page 178 of the report.)'
But he does not actually quote either the Jones interview or the FBI
report, except for a quotation of a *different* portion of the latter,
which contains no mention of the ticket, or lack of one. Long ago I
learned the hard way to mistrust what *any* author "claims" any given
witness said, as I've seen witnesses misquoted soooooooooo many times.
I'd like to see these documents myself. He also makes the rather
misleading statement that her memory "improved" for the WC. But even if
she did tell the FBI that she couldn't remember whether or not Oswald
bought a ticket, for the WC her memory would have simply "returned" to
what she said in her EARLIEST recorded statement. As I have proven
beyond all possible doubt above, in that very earliest statement she
expressed absolute certainty that Oswald did NOT buy a ticket from her.
In a search on the keywords harris+jones+julia+oswald+postal I am unable
to find any quotation of this Jones Harris interview, & the Armstrong
claims about it are the only reference to it that I see:
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=harris+jones+julia+oswald+postal&num=10
0
Here is the Armstrong article itself, which is currently 2nd from the
top at the above link:
http://www.webcom.com/ctka/pr198-jfk.html
Nor does Armstrong cite his source for the text of this Jones Harris
interview.
I also see Armstrong say this:
"Butch Burroughs, an employee of the Texas Theater, heard someone enter
the theater shortly after 1:00 PM and go to the balcony. Harvey Oswald
had apparently entered the theater and gone to the
balcony without being seen by Burroughs. About 1:15 PM Harvey came down
from the balcony and bought popcorn from Burroughs. Burroughs watched
him walk down the aisle and take a seat
on the main floor."
Once again we have "heard," "go," "bought," "1:00," "1:15," "watched,"
etc., without any qualification whatosever, as if this was all
established fact. Armstrong completely fails to mention in the
slightest, anywhere in his article that I can see, that all this is from
an account Burroughs did NOT give until a minimum of 2 decades later, &
that it's all profoundly at variance with the contemporaneous statements
of Burroughs, which I have read. Yet Armstrong makes sure we notice
that, "There was no mention of a brown shirt by Johnny Brewer
for two weeks; by Sam Guinyard for three months; by Julia Postal until
February 29, 1964."
Yet he utterly FAILS to mention that it took Burroughs over TWO DECADES
to mention this "popcorn" business, & all the rest regarding Oswald.
Originally he quite specifically said (in multiple statements during the
first year after the assassination) that he NEVER saw or heard Oswald
before the police came into the theater.
Strange that Mr. Armstrong points out the inconsistencies (apparent or
otherwise) with Brewer & Postal, yet behaves as if these statements he
cites by Burroughs were the ONLY statements Burroughs ever made, &
neglects to inform the reader that Burroughs was PROFOUNDLY more
inconsistent than those other witnesses EVER were.
I am not at all pleased with Mr. Armstrong's selective quotation of
witnesses.
Armstrong also says:
'On November 22nd not a single person who saw Oswald before, during or
after Tippit's shooting described him as wearing a brown shirt.
Witnesses said he wore a "white T-shirt and a white or light-colored
jacket."'
While the white shirt is correct (from Smith alone that I've seen), in
the earliest statements by all the witnesses I cited above, NONE said
that the jacket was "white."
NONE.
I see also that Armstrong makes this same claim about Oswald having
owned only 2 jackets, both from Russia, & a number of other things which
you've said in this article, such as the Jack Davis business (about
which he *also* says that Oswald supposedly sat near another
"unidentified" person & a pregnant woman who was "never seen again," so
the sole source for Oswald sitting by these different people seems to be
Davis alone) so Armstrong appears to be your source for most of what
you've posted here.
My curiosity is now aroused. Let's see if Marina actually said such a
thing.
I just looked at her entire WC testimony, for every single occurrence of
the word "jacket." Not once do I see her saying that he only owned 2
jackets which both came from Russia.
Armstrong's source for this claim is...what, exactly?
And I've seen the claim made often that Oswald moved & sat next to at
least 3 different people in the theater before the police arrived. I
see now also that the SOLE source of that assertation appears to be Jack
Davis. I now have even greater cause to wonder when Mr. Davis was
recorded for the first time as saying this, & whether he was recorded
earlier as saying something which contradicted it. Armstrong's word
alone I do not trust, for obvious quite valid reasons.
CurtJester
After viewing a photo of 'an Oswald' at the police station I would say
yes. If one would go to Google, and type in: Jack Davis Texas
Theater and go down six spots to 'New Perspectives', there within
scrolling down will see Oswald with a very dark shirt with a zipper.
It is zipped up partially so you can see the white T-shirt underneath
plainly. I believe the TSBD work shirt was a button-down.
Hmmm....maybe you should have clicked onto the WC Testimony on him. A
tannish gray Eisenhower type jacket there. To Patrolman Summers...a
whitish jacket if I am not mistaken.
I think light anything can be easily described for anything that would
seem to have an 'off-white' color. The main thing is the Tippet
witnesses don't have anything DARK to offer. Makes the theater
arrestee Oswald that has a dark brown shirt on a very poor suspect,
don't you think?
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/smith_w.htm
>
> In his WC testimony he said that the man he saw appeared to have darker
> hair than Oswald did on black & white television, but that a picture of
> Oswald he was shown appeared to have more consistent hair color.
>
> Of course we can also see Smith saying that the man was wearing a
> "white" shirt underneath the "jacket." Of course, it appears that
> Oswald (whether or not he was the Tippit shooter) was indeed wearing a
> white t-shirt underneath his "brown shirt."
>
Seems the testimony supports a fairly thick head of hair, and that of
Benvenudes (sp?) sees a block cut in the back, whereas arrestee Oswald
is tapered in the back going down below the neckline of the collar.
> What I am thus seeing in these earliest statements by these people that
> I am at present able to locate is that only 2, Mary Brock & Jimmy Burt,
> simply said the jacket was "light-colored" & nothing else; Smith,
> however, specifically said "light brown." I note that these 2 others
> (similar to what we've discussed before about the man seen in the TSBD
> window) did not give a particular "color," per se, but only that it was
> "light." I'm not sure where you're getting "whitish" from. None of the
> others described the clothing at all, other than the "belt" for a few of
> them.
You missed a few.....Tatum, Markham, and Callaway.
>
> Now I'm looking at Johnny Brewer's 12-6-63 affidavit, which describes
> the man he saw ducking into the shoestore foyer as:
>
> "This man was wearing a brown sport shirt."
Ahh,,,you're only 'corroborating' witness. A sport's shirt? A zippered
brown shirt/jacket doesn't seem to qualify does it?
>
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brewer1.htm
>
> No mention of a jacket here, & this is what Brewer claimed to have seen
> *before* the man went into the Texas Theater.
>
> And lo & behold, this matches rather well with the brown shirt you say
> Oswald was wearing when he was arrested.
lol...rather well?...nawww
>
> So let's see: all Earlene Roberts said was that the jacket was "dark,"
> without giving any specific color. She also attributed a zipper to it.
> The brown shirt worn by Oswald does not appear to me to resemble any
> zippered jacked that I've ever seen; those latter, for example, do not
> typically have buttons on the cuffs as that shirt plainly does. One
> witness at the Tippit scene said the jacket was light brown. Two
> witnesses further away merely said the jacket was "light" without giving
> it any specific color. The next person is Brewer, whose earliest
> statement that I can find has the man (again still *before* he went in
> the theater) without a jacket. And as we're about to see below, Julia
> Postal's even earlier original statement made no mention of what the man
> was wearing.
Was she even asked?
>
> > The Oswald from the TSBD did not have a coat
> > similar to the one found under the Oldsmobile. The coat found was a
> > size M and had a California's manufacturer's name with nmerous
> > commerical laundry labels. Oswald had two coats purchased in Russia
> > according to Marina, which were never taken to commercial laundries,
> > which she washed herself.
>
> I've seen somewhere a discussion of this "laundry label" business, & I
> recall it not being especially conclusive that "both" his jackets came
> from Russia, but admittedly I do not have a source in front of me at
> this moment.
In CE 1843 Marina discusses that she told the FBI that. The FBI did
check also all of Oswald's clothing and found no laundry marks on any
of them.
>
> > Miss Postal being interviewed in 1963 by a Jones Harris was asked
> > about the arrestee Oswald and the ticket situation. She burst into
> > tears not once, but a second time whehen asked if she had sold him a
> > ticket. His conclusion was that she did sell him the ticket even
> > though she didn't answer.
>
> His "conclusion" is not in evidence. "She didn't answer" are the
> operative words.
Maybe not great evidence, but I am sure it would be admissable in
court. Juries get swayed by all sorts of things. Why woud anyone get
so emotional over that? I would be very suspicious of SOMETHING in
the least.
>
> > Her answer formed later with an FBI
> > interview and then with the WC.
>
> 'Scuse me, "later"? If by this "answer" you mean her final story about
> having seen only one man, & that he most definitely didn't buy a ticket,
> that was what she was saying on the very day, 11-22-63:
>
> http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0484-001.gif
>
> http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0484-002.gif
>
'that day' was December 4th.
> That is her EARLIEST recorded statement on the matter, made only hours
> after it occurred. There's not a shred of a suggestion here about two
> men, one of whom was sold a ticket & the other not, or about her
> actually selling even the one man a ticket.
>
> > She could have also been confused
> > with the 'two' or the lookalike.
>
> There's no suggestion of that in her earliest statement.
>
But still, she could just be relating just about the 'later time' and
forgot about something the could have been vague anyway up to a half
hour earlier.
> > Arrestee Oswald was heard going to
> > the balcony shortly after 1:00 by theater employee Butch Burroughs
>
> Excuse me, "was" heard by Burroughs, with no qualification whatsoever?
> You are now the 2nd poster within the past week that I've seen appear to
> attach more credibility to Burroughs than to other witnesses at various
> points between the Tippit shooting & the Texas Theater, here
> specifically seeming to give greater credibility to him than to Postal,
> despite the fact that his statements changed FAR more radically &
> profoundly than Postal's ever did. In 1963/4 Burroughs said nothing of
> the sort, & instead said quite specifically that he DIDN'T see OR hear
> Oswald at all prior to the police entering the theater. In his earliest
> statements he said only that he gave an OPINION to Postal that the man
> MIGHT have gone up into the balcony, but he certainly never said it was
> as early as 1:00. Only many years later, for the first time ever in the
> 1980s, did Burroughs' story change extraordinarily, to Burroughs clearly
> "recalling" selling Oswald popcorn, which may also include seeing or
> "hearing" Oswald going up to the balcony, although I can't remember at
> this instant whether that was also included in the late claims.
Maybe he 'heard something' but as he said he was doing his candy stock
and didn't put much thought to it. Those stairs were probably easy to
hear if that close and going overhead even if that were to have
carpeting on them if they did.
>
> > who
> > sold popcorn to Oswald between 1:10 and 1:15
>
> A claim Burroughs did not make for the first time until the 1980s,
> profoundly at variance with his earliest statements.
I read his testimony in the WC. They didn't ask him anything that
would relate to him telling them anything about popcorn. He seems
slightly mentally challenged and I could see that happening as well as
being easily led if there were ulterior motives in the questioning.
>
> > which timeline was
> > confirmed by the Minister, Jack Davis, who said Oswald sat next to him
> > during the credits prior to the showing of the 1:20 scheduled movie.
>
> I'm curious as to when the *earliest* documentation of Mr. Davis making
> this claim dates from, & whether there are earlier statements by him
> which contradict this.
What I have read so far online that anything time-wise supports a huge
time gap in the Oswald 'antics' and when the police came. I reached
info on the #1 and #6 spots in Google when I put in : Jack Davis Texas
Theater. I think I read in that Jim Marr's interviewed him around
1990. You had to be a member to get in the site.
>
> > The funny acting man seen by Johnny Brewer who saw him at 1:30 who
> > followed him to the theater and inside only to have Miss Postal call
> > the police between 1:40 and 1:45 which would correspond to the arrival
> > of that suspect and the police shortly after.
>
> At a time fairly consistent with what various witnesses reported between
> the scene of the Tippit shooting & the Texas Theater. The man was seen
> by these multiple witnesses always going in a direction more or less
> away from the Tippit scene & towards the theater. The times given in
> general get the man to Brewer's store at about 1:30, as their times are
> generally within the half-hour before that, some of them quite close to
> 1:30, such as Mary Brock.
>
The times are not constistent at all to that time frame. TSBD Oswald
is seen at the bus stop at 1:04 by Earlene Roberts at Zang and
Beckley. Willam Smith knocks off for lunch from a construction site
at 1:00 and walks to the T&C Cafe. He passes 'Oswald' on the way.
Usually when one knocks off for lunch they have a set lunch hour and
its usually on the hour or the half hour. Usually people are very
concientous of their time when to cut out and when to come back.
Helen Markham caught the same bus everyday for her waitress job. She
even knew she left her laundry room at 1:04. She estimates she came
upon 'Oswald' at 1:06-1:07 when the murder took place. I have caught
many buses to work. People are very conscious and correct about their
times and timings. The only way they could make the time fit and have
Oswald walk from Beckley was to change the murder time from 1:10 to
!:19, which they did 'conveniently'.
> My main point was how the man seen running at various locations along
> this route carrying a pistol could be a different man from the one
> Brewer & Postal saw, & thus from the one who was arrested in the
> theater. The timing, when all earliest witness statements are taken
> together, does not seem to be much of a problem.
Brewer and Brock are not Tippet witnesses. There is nothing to
suggest that the Tippet murderer went directly from the murder scene
to their spots without doing something else or going someplace else.
>
> > Interesting that the wallet 'dropped' at the Tippet crime scene was
> > viewed by Agent Barnett was gone through and an LHO driver's license
> > was seen and verified by him. Of course TSBD did not have a license
> > and wasn't supposed to to be able to drive. Paul Bentley, the
> > detective who was with arrestee Oswald in the police car en route took
> > 'his' wallet out from his back pocket. Of course we know that would
> > all be in 'good hands' with the FBI and have LHO's license end up at
> > the Dept. of Public Safety mysteriously.
>
> That I do find interesting. Original sources?
I don't recall everywhere I get info from....The FBI listed the two
wallets and are listed-- as items #114 and #382 in Armstrong's NID98
SPEECH. The Capt. Westbrook of DPD and Agent Bob Barnett are in the
well known media photo at the Tippet murder scene where a wallet is
held up. Capt. Westbrook turned it probably over to Capt. Fritz.
Detective Paul Bentley had the wallet he confiscated from Oswald from
his left rear pocket given to Lt. Baker of DPD. Armstrong details
where the confiscated Oswald evidence went in length in that 98 speech
the timelines and processes that one can click onto from his Home Page
online from the Harvey and Lee site. The driver's license supposedly
mysteriously arrived at the Dpet. of Public Safety about a week after
the assassination and employees are recorded as commenting about it.
She has waffled from the FBI testimony. Her first testimony was Dec
3, 1963 in that affidavit. Harris Jones interviews her before the end
of 1963. People can be afraid to testify because of a genuine fear
for their life. The guy whose last name started with a 'W' up there
(can't think of it) was quoted as not being able to identify the
Tippet killer with the the arrestee Oswald was threatened with his
life when he took that stance. He was shot in the head. He survived
and then proceeded to 'identify' Oswald later. A waitress that knew
Ruby for 8 years tow doors down from his club said she saw Ruby and
Oswald for a long period of time the day after the assassination in
the wee hours. She was called at work and told to get out of town if
she was interested in preserving her life. I am just saying sometimes
its hard to figure and judge motivations of people's 'so-called'
testimony.
>
> I also see Armstrong say this:
>
> "Butch Burroughs, an employee of the Texas Theater, heard someone enter
> the theater shortly after 1:00 PM and go to the balcony. Harvey Oswald
> had apparently entered the theater and gone to the
> balcony without being seen by Burroughs. About 1:15 PM Harvey came down
> from the balcony and bought popcorn from Burroughs. Burroughs watched
> him walk down the aisle and take a seat
> on the main floor."
>
> Once again we have "heard," "go," "bought," "1:00," "1:15," "watched,"
> etc., without any qualification whatosever, as if this was all
> established fact. Armstrong completely fails to mention in the
> slightest, anywhere in his article that I can see, that all this is from
> an account Burroughs did NOT give until a minimum of 2 decades later, &
> that it's all profoundly at variance with the contemporaneous statements
> of Burroughs, which I have read. Yet Armstrong makes sure we notice
> that, "There was no mention of a brown shirt by Johnny Brewer
> for two weeks; by Sam Guinyard for three months; by Julia Postal until
> February 29, 1964."
I could say the same for you....if I wanted too. You quote from his
articles 'selectively' when you quote some stuff and you fail to put
other witnesses who identify a whitish coat for the Tippet killer +
the police dispatchings that that are broadcasting for a white/light
topwear. How you'slitheringly' went to Callaway's affidavit instead of
his other testimonies..but I won't...and I think you shouldn't go
there either.
>
> Yet he utterly FAILS to mention that it took Burroughs over TWO DECADES
> to mention this "popcorn" business, & all the rest regarding Oswald.
> Originally he quite specifically said (in multiple statements during the
> first year after the assassination) that he NEVER saw or heard Oswald
> before the police came into the theater.
>
> Strange that Mr. Armstrong points out the inconsistencies (apparent or
> otherwise) with Brewer & Postal, yet behaves as if these statements he
> cites by Burroughs were the ONLY statements Burroughs ever made, &
> neglects to inform the reader that Burroughs was PROFOUNDLY more
> inconsistent than those other witnesses EVER were.
>
> I am not at all pleased with Mr. Armstrong's selective quotation of
> witnesses.
>
> Armstrong also says:
>
> 'On November 22nd not a single person who saw Oswald before, during or
> after Tippit's shooting described him as wearing a brown shirt.
> Witnesses said he wore a "white T-shirt and a white or light-colored
> jacket."'
>
> While the white shirt is correct (from Smith alone that I've seen), in
> the earliest statements by all the witnesses I cited above, NONE said
> that the jacket was "white."
>
> NONE.
Depends what you mean by white? The adjective white is used by
several. How many of the witnesses describe anything dark brown much
less brown?
>
> I see also that Armstrong makes this same claim about Oswald having
> owned only 2 jackets, both from Russia, & a number of other things which
> you've said in this article, such as the Jack Davis business (about
> which he *also* says that Oswald supposedly sat near another
> "unidentified" person & a pregnant woman who was "never seen again," so
> the sole source for Oswald sitting by these different people seems to be
> Davis alone) so Armstrong appears to be your source for most of what
> you've posted here.
>
> My curiosity is now aroused. Let's see if Marina actually said such a
> thing.
>
> I just looked at her entire WC testimony, for every single occurrence of
> the word "jacket." Not once do I see her saying that he only owned 2
> jackets which both came from Russia.
>
> Armstrong's source for this claim is...what, exactly?
>
CE 1843.
> And I've seen the claim made often that Oswald moved & sat next to at
> least 3 different people in the theater before the police arrived. I
> see now also that the SOLE source of that assertation appears to be Jack
> Davis. I now have even greater cause to wonder when Mr. Davis was
> recorded for the first time as saying this, & whether he was recorded
> earlier as saying something which contradicted it. Armstrong's word
> alone I do not trust, for obvious quite valid reasons.
And I should trust you..:)?
And we haven't even got to the 'arrest' of the second suspect in the
theater yet or one of the patrons identifying Jack Ruby in the theater
at the time of the arrest (this isn't even by Armstong).
CJ
Caeruleo
curtj...@webtv.net (CurtJester) wrote:
> Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<caeruleo-941DE7...@news.fu-berlin.de>...
> > In article <69f5d9c2.03043...@posting.google.com>,
> > curtj...@webtv.net (CurtJester) wrote:
> >
> > > Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<caeruleo-CC2150...@news.fu-berlin.de>...
> > > > In article <3eadf...@127.0.0.1>, "O.H. LEE" <ga...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > What he was arrested in was the same 'jacket'. The FBI agent seeing
> > > him described it as a 'brown jacket'. What it was really was his
> > > heavy new brown shirt he changed into that was obtained in custody.
> > > Oswald while in custody claimed he went home to Beckley ST. to change
> > > clothes.
> >
> > Did that shirt have a zipper in front?
>
> After viewing a photo of 'an Oswald' at the police station I would say
> yes. If one would go to Google, and type in: Jack Davis Texas
> Theater and go down six spots to 'New Perspectives', there within
> scrolling down will see Oswald with a very dark shirt with a zipper.
> It is zipped up partially so you can see the white T-shirt underneath
> plainly. I believe the TSBD work shirt was a button-down.
I looked at that webpage this morning. For some reason right now it no
longer appears on that first results page when I do the same search.
Adding "oswald" to the keywords, however, brings it right up, & this is
the URL:
http://scribblguy.50megs.com/intrigue.htm
The images are not clear enough for me to determine conclusively whether
or not it has a zipper, & I can't even come close to telling whether or
not the sleeves have buttons. I also don't "know" that that picture on
the right was actually taken on the first day. I'm looking myself at
*multiple* photos of Oswald in the jail in Groden's "The Killing of a
President," & in several he's plainly wearing a button-up dark
long-sleeved shirt with buttons on the cuffs.
I have, & have talked about it in at least one previous article in this
very thread.
> A
> tannish gray Eisenhower type jacket there. To Patrolman Summers...a
> whitish jacket if I am not mistaken.
Could be.
Sorry, I can instantly think of several perfectly "light" colors which
are nevertheless nothing close to "off-white."
> The main thing is the Tippet
> witnesses don't have anything DARK to offer.
True enough, it seems.
> Makes the theater
> arrestee Oswald that has a dark brown shirt on a very poor suspect,
> don't you think?
If he had discarded a lighter jacket beforehand, no.
> > http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/smith_w.htm
> >
> > In his WC testimony he said that the man he saw appeared to have darker
> > hair than Oswald did on black & white television, but that a picture of
> > Oswald he was shown appeared to have more consistent hair color.
> >
> > Of course we can also see Smith saying that the man was wearing a
> > "white" shirt underneath the "jacket." Of course, it appears that
> > Oswald (whether or not he was the Tippit shooter) was indeed wearing a
> > white t-shirt underneath his "brown shirt."
>
> Seems the testimony supports a fairly thick head of hair, and that of
> Benvenudes (sp?) sees a block cut in the back, whereas arrestee Oswald
> is tapered in the back going down below the neckline of the collar.
Wow, what a horrendous discrepancy...
> > What I am thus seeing in these earliest statements by these people that
> > I am at present able to locate is that only 2, Mary Brock & Jimmy Burt,
> > simply said the jacket was "light-colored" & nothing else; Smith,
> > however, specifically said "light brown." I note that these 2 others
> > (similar to what we've discussed before about the man seen in the TSBD
> > window) did not give a particular "color," per se, but only that it was
> > "light." I'm not sure where you're getting "whitish" from. None of the
> > others described the clothing at all, other than the "belt" for a few of
> > them.
>
> You missed a few.....Tatum, Markham, and Callaway.
I have cited both Callaway's earlier affidavit & his later WC testimony
in this thread, & I was simply unable at the time to locate any pre-WC
statement by Markham. As far Tatum, all I've been able to find so far
is his much later HSCA testimony.
> > Now I'm looking at Johnny Brewer's 12-6-63 affidavit, which describes
> > the man he saw ducking into the shoestore foyer as:
> >
> > "This man was wearing a brown sport shirt."
>
> Ahh,,,you're only 'corroborating' witness. A sport's shirt? A zippered
> brown shirt/jacket doesn't seem to qualify does it?
A zippered brown *jacket* doesn't seem to qualify, nope. I'm yet to be
convinced that the *shirt* he was arrested in at the TT was not a
button-up. Got some actual testimony to cite on that score?
> > http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brewer1.htm
> >
> > No mention of a jacket here, & this is what Brewer claimed to have seen
> > *before* the man went into the Texas Theater.
> >
> > And lo & behold, this matches rather well with the brown shirt you say
> > Oswald was wearing when he was arrested.
>
> lol...rather well?...nawww
Only if one presupposes that the shirt had a "zipper," for which I've
yet to see any particularly compelling evidence.
> > So let's see: all Earlene Roberts said was that the jacket was "dark,"
> > without giving any specific color. She also attributed a zipper to it.
> > The brown shirt worn by Oswald does not appear to me to resemble any
> > zippered jacked that I've ever seen; those latter, for example, do not
> > typically have buttons on the cuffs as that shirt plainly does. One
> > witness at the Tippit scene said the jacket was light brown. Two
> > witnesses further away merely said the jacket was "light" without giving
> > it any specific color. The next person is Brewer, whose earliest
> > statement that I can find has the man (again still *before* he went in
> > the theater) without a jacket. And as we're about to see below, Julia
> > Postal's even earlier original statement made no mention of what the man
> > was wearing.
>
> Was she even asked?
The affidavit is not "testimony" in which one can see questions &
answers given; it is simply a statement supposedly dictated by Ms.
Postal, in her words alone.
> > > The Oswald from the TSBD did not have a coat
> > > similar to the one found under the Oldsmobile. The coat found was a
> > > size M and had a California's manufacturer's name with nmerous
> > > commerical laundry labels. Oswald had two coats purchased in Russia
> > > according to Marina, which were never taken to commercial laundries,
> > > which she washed herself.
> >
> > I've seen somewhere a discussion of this "laundry label" business, & I
> > recall it not being especially conclusive that "both" his jackets came
> > from Russia, but admittedly I do not have a source in front of me at
> > this moment.
>
> In CE 1843 Marina discusses that she told the FBI that.
Yep:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0277a
.htm
And look what *else* is said there:
"She said she believes Oswald posessed both of these jackets in Russia
and had ***purchased*** them in the ***United States*** ***prior*** to
his departure for Russia." [my present emphasis]
Where on earth are you getting your "purchased in Russia" claim which we
all plainly see in your quoted text above? Oh, I see...you're getting
it (sadly) from Armstrong, who in the very article whose URL I cited
previously, tells this bold-faced lie:
'Marina told the
FBI (CE 1843) that "Lee Harvey Oswald" had only two jackets, one a heavy
jacket, blue in color (later found at the TSBD), and another light
jacket, grey in color. She said both of these jackets were
purchased in Russia.'
On the webpage, the URL for which I again post here,
http://www.webcom.com/ctka/pr198-jfk.html
the words "purchased in Russia" are even given in italics. But that
very document says no such thing, as I have just proven beyond all
possible doubt; the words instead are, "purchased in the United States
prior to his departure for Russia."
Don't you find it intensely fascinating that Armstrong does not actually
*quote* this passage from the VERY SAME document he cites?
I assure you I do.
> The FBI did
> check also all of Oswald's clothing and found no laundry marks on any
> of them.
You'll give an original source for that one (not Armstrong) before I
take it seriously. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on
me.
> > > Miss Postal being interviewed in 1963 by a Jones Harris was asked
> > > about the arrestee Oswald and the ticket situation. She burst into
> > > tears not once, but a second time whehen asked if she had sold him a
> > > ticket. His conclusion was that she did sell him the ticket even
> > > though she didn't answer.
> >
> > His "conclusion" is not in evidence. "She didn't answer" are the
> > operative words.
>
> Maybe not great evidence, but I am sure it would be admissable in
> court.
Oh, you're "sure" of that, are you?
> Juries get swayed by all sorts of things.
Yep, including things that have quite often led to an obviously
incorrect verdict.
> Why woud anyone get
> so emotional over that?
Perhaps because the whole experience of being involved in any way in the
assassination investigation was rather traumatic? I've known both women
& men who have gotten wildly upset over things of far lesser consequence.
> I would be very suspicious of SOMETHING in
> the least.
Nothing wrong with that, in & of itself. It still doesn't amount to a
plain admission on her part that she sold Oswald a ticket.
> > > Her answer formed later with an FBI
> > > interview and then with the WC.
> >
> > 'Scuse me, "later"? If by this "answer" you mean her final story about
> > having seen only one man, & that he most definitely didn't buy a ticket,
> > that was what she was saying on the very day, 11-22-63:
> >
> > http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0484-001.gif
> >
> > http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0484-002.gif
>
> 'that day' was December 4th.
You are correct. I overlooked the date given on p. 2. My apologies.
> > > She could have also been confused
> > > with the 'two' or the lookalike.
> >
> > There's no suggestion of that in her earliest statement.
>
> But still, she could just be relating just about the 'later time' and
> forgot about something the could have been vague anyway up to a half
> hour earlier.
Could be. There isn't any solid evidence of that though.
> > > Arrestee Oswald was heard going to
> > > the balcony shortly after 1:00 by theater employee Butch Burroughs
> >
> > Excuse me, "was" heard by Burroughs, with no qualification whatsoever?
> > You are now the 2nd poster within the past week that I've seen appear to
> > attach more credibility to Burroughs than to other witnesses at various
> > points between the Tippit shooting & the Texas Theater, here
> > specifically seeming to give greater credibility to him than to Postal,
> > despite the fact that his statements changed FAR more radically &
> > profoundly than Postal's ever did. In 1963/4 Burroughs said nothing of
> > the sort, & instead said quite specifically that he DIDN'T see OR hear
> > Oswald at all prior to the police entering the theater. In his earliest
> > statements he said only that he gave an OPINION to Postal that the man
> > MIGHT have gone up into the balcony, but he certainly never said it was
> > as early as 1:00. Only many years later, for the first time ever in the
> > 1980s, did Burroughs' story change extraordinarily, to Burroughs clearly
> > "recalling" selling Oswald popcorn, which may also include seeing or
> > "hearing" Oswald going up to the balcony, although I can't remember at
> > this instant whether that was also included in the late claims.
>
> Maybe he 'heard something' but as he said he was doing his candy stock
> and didn't put much thought to it. Those stairs were probably easy to
> hear if that close and going overhead even if that were to have
> carpeting on them if they did.
That still doesn't amount to him actually "hearing" Oswald himself.
Something to the effect of 20+ patrons entered the theater for that
movie, if I recall correctly. Any of them could have gone up to the
balcony, correct?
> > > who
> > > sold popcorn to Oswald between 1:10 and 1:15
> >
> > A claim Burroughs did not make for the first time until the 1980s,
> > profoundly at variance with his earliest statements.
>
> I read his testimony in the WC. They didn't ask him anything that
> would relate to him telling them anything about popcorn.
First of all, I'm curious as to why it would necessarily occur to them
to ask him such a thing, when the *earliest* recorded claim of Oswald
coming to the concessions at all was not made until over 2 decades after
the WC disbanded. And did you miss this part?
**********
Mr. BALL. Later on the police came in your place?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. They asked you if you had seen a man come in there without a
ticket?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. BURROUGHS. I said, "I haven't seen him myself. He might have, but I
didn't see him when he came in. He must have sneaked in and run on
upstairs before I saw him."
Mr. BALL. Later on, did somebody point out a man in the theatre to you?
Mr. BURROUGHS. No----I got information that a man----the police were
cruising up and down Jefferson hunting for Oswald, and he ran to a
shoestore and then came out and came on up to
the Texas, and the man came in and told me that a man fitting that
description came in the show and he wanted me to help him find him, and
we went and checked the exit doors, he was up in the
balcony, I imagine, and then we went back out and the police caught him
downstairs.
**********
Whether or not he was "asked" about Oswald buying anything at all from
concessions, Burroughs here was PLAINLY saying that he *didn't* see
Oswald before the police arrived. "I haven't seen him myself." Those
are his exact words; I didn't make them up.
> He seems
> slightly mentally challenged and I could see that happening as well as
> being easily led if there were ulterior motives in the questioning.
He was asked specifically if he had seen the man & he said he didn't.
True, he was asked if he saw a man enter "without a ticket," but I'm
looking through the entire testimony, in which Burroughs included a
vivid description of the arrestee being brought out, & there's not a
shred of a suggestion of anything like, "And then I realized that this
same man had bought popcorn from me earlier."
> > > which timeline was
> > > confirmed by the Minister, Jack Davis, who said Oswald sat next to him
> > > during the credits prior to the showing of the 1:20 scheduled movie.
> >
> > I'm curious as to when the *earliest* documentation of Mr. Davis making
> > this claim dates from, & whether there are earlier statements by him
> > which contradict this.
>
> What I have read so far online that anything time-wise supports a huge
> time gap in the Oswald 'antics' and when the police came. I reached
> info on the #1 and #6 spots in Google when I put in : Jack Davis Texas
> Theater.
Which comes up with articles by people who "claim" this & that is
present in the original documentation. Like I've demonstrated
resoundingly with Armstrong, I advise you not to trust these articles
you find on the Web at face value.
> > > The funny acting man seen by Johnny Brewer who saw him at 1:30 who
> > > followed him to the theater and inside only to have Miss Postal call
> > > the police between 1:40 and 1:45 which would correspond to the arrival
> > > of that suspect and the police shortly after.
> >
> > At a time fairly consistent with what various witnesses reported between
> > the scene of the Tippit shooting & the Texas Theater. The man was seen
> > by these multiple witnesses always going in a direction more or less
> > away from the Tippit scene & towards the theater. The times given in
> > general get the man to Brewer's store at about 1:30, as their times are
> > generally within the half-hour before that, some of them quite close to
> > 1:30, such as Mary Brock.
> >
> The times are not constistent at all to that time frame. TSBD Oswald
> is seen at the bus stop at 1:04 by Earlene Roberts at Zang and
> Beckley. Willam Smith knocks off for lunch from a construction site
> at 1:00 and walks to the T&C Cafe. He passes 'Oswald' on the way.
> Usually when one knocks off for lunch they have a set lunch hour and
> its usually on the hour or the half hour.
Sorry, but many many many times in my life I have known people at just
such jobs as this to have somewhat "loose" lunch hours.
> Usually people are very
> concientous of their time when to cut out and when to come back.
But not always, eh? I've known plenty of people who were not especially
accurate in that regard.
> Helen Markham caught the same bus everyday for her waitress job. She
> even knew she left her laundry room at 1:04. She estimates she came
> upon 'Oswald' at 1:06-1:07 when the murder took place.
Wouldn't the time the incident was first called in on the police radio
in Tippit's car be more dependably accurate, at least potentially?
> I have caught
> many buses to work. People are very conscious and correct about their
> times and timings. The only way they could make the time fit and have
> Oswald walk from Beckley was to change the murder time from 1:10 to
> !:19, which they did 'conveniently'.
Or Markham was simply in error. So far she's the only witness you're
actually citing directly who supposedly gave an earlier time.
And I'm curious as to why you seem to find her so reliable on the time
when she is one of the most frequently ridiculed witnesses of them all,
with her speaking with the dying Tippit business & all.
> > My main point was how the man seen running at various locations along
> > this route carrying a pistol could be a different man from the one
> > Brewer & Postal saw, & thus from the one who was arrested in the
> > theater. The timing, when all earliest witness statements are taken
> > together, does not seem to be much of a problem.
>
> Brewer and Brock are not Tippet witnesses.
Didn't say they were. I said that they numbered among *various*
witnesses who supposedly saw this man at *various* points between the
scene of the Tippit shooting & the Texas Theater.
> There is nothing to
> suggest that the Tippet murderer went directly from the murder scene
> to their spots without doing something else or going someplace else.
And what is there, exactly, to "suggest" otherwise? Am I in error, or
weren't the various points at which this man was spotted in a fairly
direct line between the Tippit scene & the TT?
> > > Interesting that the wallet 'dropped' at the Tippet crime scene was
> > > viewed by Agent Barnett was gone through and an LHO driver's license
> > > was seen and verified by him. Of course TSBD did not have a license
> > > and wasn't supposed to to be able to drive. Paul Bentley, the
> > > detective who was with arrestee Oswald in the police car en route took
> > > 'his' wallet out from his back pocket. Of course we know that would
> > > all be in 'good hands' with the FBI and have LHO's license end up at
> > > the Dept. of Public Safety mysteriously.
> >
> > That I do find interesting. Original sources?
>
> I don't recall everywhere I get info from....
Neither do I, so I don't blame you.
> The FBI listed the two
> wallets and are listed-- as items #114 and #382 in Armstrong's NID98
> SPEECH.
Oh dear, Armstrong again. I believe I have demonstrated rather
admirably why I don't trust him.
> The Capt. Westbrook of DPD and Agent Bob Barnett are in the
> well known media photo at the Tippet murder scene where a wallet is
> held up.
Ok. For the time being, I'll take your word for it, as I don't recall
ever having seen that photo.
> Capt. Westbrook turned it probably over to Capt. Fritz.
> Detective Paul Bentley had the wallet he confiscated from Oswald from
> his left rear pocket given to Lt. Baker of DPD. Armstrong details
> where the confiscated Oswald evidence went in length in that 98 speech
> the timelines and processes that one can click onto from his Home Page
> online from the Harvey and Lee site.
Armstrong...
Have I convinced you yet not to trust him either?
> The driver's license supposedly
> mysteriously arrived at the Dpet. of Public Safety about a week after
> the assassination and employees are recorded as commenting about it.
According to who? Armstrong? He's the one who claims CE 1843 has
Marina claiming that the 2 jackets were "purchased in Russia" (his exact
words) when the document itself plainly says that she believed them to
have been purchased in the U.S.
According to Armstrong.
> Her first testimony was Dec
> 3, 1963 in that affidavit.
Minor nitpick: ITYM December 4. ;-)
> Harris Jones interviews her before the end
> of 1963.
According to Armstrong, who does not quote even a single word of that
interview.
> People can be afraid to testify because of a genuine fear
> for their life.
True. Got any sold evidence that Postal, at any time, was in fear for
her life?
> The guy whose last name started with a 'W' up there
> (can't think of it) was quoted as not being able to identify the
> Tippet killer with the the arrestee Oswald was threatened with his
> life when he took that stance.
Hmmm, I'm looking now at the most complete list I know of of the
witnesses who gave statements, in multiple venues, about the
assassination & the Tippit business,
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/wit.htm
& I don't see anyone whose name starts with "W" who was a witness at or
near the Tippit scene.
> He was shot in the head.
The only person I can think of offhand who remotely fits that
description is Domingo Benavides' brother, who was NOT a Tippit witness.
> He survived
> and then proceeded to 'identify' Oswald later.
I'm not remembering at present whether Benavides' brother survived the
shooting or not, but Benavides himself did not "identify" Oswald until
later.
> A waitress that knew
> Ruby for 8 years tow doors down from his club said she saw Ruby and
> Oswald for a long period of time the day after the assassination in
> the wee hours.
Rather obviously she couldn't have, as Oswald was in custody at that
time, eh? Or are we talking about the "lookalike" now? In any event,
the waitress is Mary Lawrence, & a document purported to be her
statement to the FBI can be found here:
http://www.intellex.com/~rigs/page1/jfk/cafe.htm
Could be, I suppose, although this account seems to be uncorroborated by
a single other human.
> She was called at work and told to get out of town if
> she was interested in preserving her life.
She appears to have said something to that effect, yes.
> I am just saying sometimes
> its hard to figure and judge motivations of people's 'so-called'
> testimony.
True enough.
Excuse me, Curt. For one thing, in other articles in this thread, I DID
openly & unequivocally acknowledge various discrepancies between some of
these same witnesses' earlier statements & their later WC testimony.
Thus I, quite reasonably, see no need whatsoever to mention every last
discrepancy in every last article I post. For another, what I was
*obviously* doing in that particular article was specifically examining
the earliest statements of the witnesses that I could locate to
demonstrate what those witnesses said regarding the man they saw
*initially*. This becomes even plainer when one views the *context* of
this discussion, in which this is obviously an outgrowth of issues
raised in previous articles. And I'll ask you now when, including in
our rather extensive email correspondence a few months ago, you have
seen me fail to admit something which directly contradicts my assertions
when it has been shown to me? Do you see me above plainly admitting,
without any qualification whatsoever, my obvious error on the date of
Postal's affidavit, & apologizing for it without the slightest
hesitation whatsoever in the very FIRST article I posted in response to
your correction, to give just one example. And when on EARTH have you
seen me fail to admit such PROFOUND conflicts in testimony as is
contained in Burroughs' total statements? I freely admitted that the
witnesses I cited, those who made such a description, called the
clothing "light." No form of the words "white" or "whitish" appeared in
the statements I perused, it's as simple as that. And when, oh when,
have you ever seen me tell such a BOLD-FACED LIE as Mr. Armstrong told
when he said that CE 1843 has Marina saying that the jackets were
"purchased in Russia," when any human who reads English will INSTANTLY
see that the document says no such thing?
If I've ever misquoted such a thing to that extent, it has been a pure
unintentional error, for which I would have apologized INSTANTLY at the
EARLIEST opportunity after the error became known to me.
Show me, with a Google URL, even ONE instance of me doing otherwise on
Usenet.
> > Yet he utterly FAILS to mention that it took Burroughs over TWO DECADES
> > to mention this "popcorn" business, & all the rest regarding Oswald.
> > Originally he quite specifically said (in multiple statements during the
> > first year after the assassination) that he NEVER saw or heard Oswald
> > before the police came into the theater.
> >
> > Strange that Mr. Armstrong points out the inconsistencies (apparent or
> > otherwise) with Brewer & Postal, yet behaves as if these statements he
> > cites by Burroughs were the ONLY statements Burroughs ever made, &
> > neglects to inform the reader that Burroughs was PROFOUNDLY more
> > inconsistent than those other witnesses EVER were.
> >
> > I am not at all pleased with Mr. Armstrong's selective quotation of
> > witnesses.
> >
> > Armstrong also says:
> >
> > 'On November 22nd not a single person who saw Oswald before, during or
> > after Tippit's shooting described him as wearing a brown shirt.
> > Witnesses said he wore a "white T-shirt and a white or light-colored
> > jacket."'
> >
> > While the white shirt is correct (from Smith alone that I've seen), in
> > the earliest statements by all the witnesses I cited above, NONE said
> > that the jacket was "white."
> >
> > NONE.
>
> Depends what you mean by white? The adjective white is used by
> several.
That's fine.
Please NAME the witnesses who used any form of the word "white" in
describing the jacket, & in which venue they used the word, so that I,
completely in character with the manner I have consistently demonstrated
on Usenet for over 4 years, will without the slightest hesitation in the
VERY NEXT ARTICLE I post in response, may unequivocally admit that the
word was indeed used.
Thanks.
> How many of the witnesses describe anything dark brown much
> less brown?
As far as a "jacket," not a single one that I've yet seen.
See how I, without the slightest hesitation whatsoever, unequivocally
admit this?
> > I see also that Armstrong makes this same claim about Oswald having
> > owned only 2 jackets, both from Russia, & a number of other things which
> > you've said in this article, such as the Jack Davis business (about
> > which he *also* says that Oswald supposedly sat near another
> > "unidentified" person & a pregnant woman who was "never seen again," so
> > the sole source for Oswald sitting by these different people seems to be
> > Davis alone) so Armstrong appears to be your source for most of what
> > you've posted here.
> >
> > My curiosity is now aroused. Let's see if Marina actually said such a
> > thing.
> >
> > I just looked at her entire WC testimony, for every single occurrence of
> > the word "jacket." Not once do I see her saying that he only owned 2
> > jackets which both came from Russia.
> >
> > Armstrong's source for this claim is...what, exactly?
>
> CE 1843.
Do you see now that no such thing is attributed to Marina in that very
same document, but in fact something rather different? Do you still
trust Armstrong?
> > And I've seen the claim made often that Oswald moved & sat next to at
> > least 3 different people in the theater before the police arrived. I
> > see now also that the SOLE source of that assertation appears to be Jack
> > Davis. I now have even greater cause to wonder when Mr. Davis was
> > recorded for the first time as saying this, & whether he was recorded
> > earlier as saying something which contradicted it. Armstrong's word
> > alone I do not trust, for obvious quite valid reasons.
>
> And I should trust you..:)?
Apparently you should, far more than Armstrong at least.
With absolute confidence, I am certain that you will be unable to find
even a single example of me failing to admit an obvious error when it is
pointed out to me.
With absolute confidence, I am certain that you will be unable to
produce even a single Google URL in which I did anything even remotely
like what Armstrong did, where in the VERY SAME SENTENCE which he claims
(but interestingly does not actually quote verbatim) that Marina told
the FBI that both jackets were "purchased in Russia," plain as the sun
in the sky on a clear day that same document says that she believed the
jackets to have been purchased in the United States. Show me such an
abysmally profound error I've made in direct contradiction to what I've
claimed an EXACT SENTENCE in a SPECIFIC DOCUMENT says. I do not recall
EVER making an error of that magnitude, but perhaps I am wrong.
SHOW ME. Show us all, in fact.
More to the point, SHOW US ALL EVEN ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of me not
admitting such an error, if I made it.
Just one instance, Curt.
Just one.
If you cannot or do not, then, whether you admit it or not, or even if
you make statements in direct contradiction to it, I assure you that the
majority of readers of our articles will interpret it as at least a
tacit admission on your part that I am not particularly as
"untrustworthy" as you seem to imply.
> And we haven't even got to the 'arrest' of the second suspect in the
> theater yet
Oh, I assure you, I've "gotten to" that already, long ago in fact, & I
am prepared for such a discussion.
> or one of the patrons identifying Jack Ruby in the theater
> at the time of the arrest (this isn't even by Armstong).
Oh dear, Jack Ruby in the theater even. Will wonders never cease? The
man sure seems to have gotten around.
I'll freely admit that this is the first time in my life I can recall
such an assertion ever being made...by anyone. Not that I'll ever claim
to have encountered "everything" which has ever been said regarding the
assassination; not even close.
Praytell, what is the *original* *source* for this assertation (the
exact name of this "one patron" will suffice to start with) so that we
may discuss this openly, as nothing even remotely contrary to open &
free discussion (as long as it is limited to actual discussion of the
issues, with aberrant immaturity being absent) has ever been my desire,
as is made absurdly plain in the THOUSANDS of articles I have posted on
Usenet?
Thanks in advance for your reply.
Caeruleo
I've already addressed that in another article. Oswald *did* have
someone to vouch for him. I was not (& still am not) an employee of the
building I was suspected of trying to enter to "steal" something, so of
course, being a truthful person, I did not even *claim* otherwise.
Rather obviously, I did *not* have anyone to vouch for me in such a
manner, nor would I have hesitated for an instant in contradicting any
person who even "claimed" me to be an employee of that building. Isn't
it fairly obvious from Baker's own statements that the *primary* reason
he initially dismissed Oswald complete as a suspect was that Truly
"vouched" for him? By the man's own statements, the "calm & collected"
aspect of Oswald alone did not convince Baker to cease pointing his gun
at him; only Truly's statement that Oswald worked in the building caused
Baker to withdraw.
Is this not your interpretation of Baker's total statements?
I do indeed question the veracity of Brennan.
You'll surely remember that you complimented me when I *agreed* with
Ben, *against* a fellow LN (whom I subsequently killfiled, for
astoundingly obvious & perfectly valid reasons) that the WC was
incredibly remiss in not calling to testify 2 of the *closest* witnesses
to the murder of JFK, right? That alone, even if no other evidence
existed (& in fact it does exist, in literally *thousands* of articles
I've posted, on many other subjects besides just the JFK assassination)
is fairly compelling evidence of my open-mindedness.
And yes, I severely question him, even though he *supports* an
Oswald-as-guilty scenario.
Do feel free to show all of us (not just me), using exact quotes &
Google URLs for my articles, how this is especially "inconsistent" with
the majority of my articles taken in context.
> >> >> Yet he calmly saunters out the *front* entrance.
> >> >
> >> >Perhaps because he was correctly confident that none of them could
> >> >positively ID him as the shooter?
> >>
> >> Why would he be able to assume such a thing?
> >
> >See above.
>
> I did, but it failed abysmally to convince me.
Oh dear, let's see, the assasin's face, as he was firing, is supposedly
behind what is commonly called in English a "wall," which the last time
I checked, is not typically "transparent," yet you remain "abysmally"
unconvinced.
Oh well, each person's mileage may vary, I guess.
> >> How would he know of any "glare"
> >> effect?
> >
> >Lol, he couldn't see for himself that it was a bright cloudless day at
> >nearly high noon, & couldn't see for himself that the window was less
> >than halfway open, & moreover easily see for himself how much dirt &
> >grime may or may not have been on the window?
>
> So an assassin would have been banking on dirt, grime, and glare for
> concealment?
You act as if that was the "only" thing I cited for him possibly having
a firm belief that he would not be conclusively identified immediately
as the shooter. I will now, doing EXACTLY what I suggested you do
(profoundly compelling evidence of not even a shred of hypocrisy on my
part) cite exact quotes & Google URLs.
On 4-29-03 I wrote:
"Is it not true, however, that when the shooter was actually *firing* he
was almost certainly aiming the rifle out of the very eastern corner of
the window, with the rifle pointed at a sharp westward angle as it would
have had to have been to shoot at the limo on Elm, with his face well
behind the wall & out of sight of any observers?"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=caeruleo-CC2150.22182829042003%40new
s.fu-berlin.de
On the previous date I wrote:
"And
while the shooter (whoever he was) was shooting, he was mostly behind
the wall."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=caeruleo-DD36C5.20371428042003%40new
s.fu-berlin.de
Oh gosh, & what do I see, but that both these articles were posted in
this VERY SAME THREAD, "Another TSBD Employee Who Didn't Return to Work."
See the "wall" business? In TWO different articles, no less, BOTH of
which were posted in response to you? Not EVER did I claim that "dirt,
grime, & glare" would have been the "only" thing the assassin would have
been "banking on" to prevent a positive ID; rather obviously (& I'm
disappointed to see that it was apparently not obvious to you) I cited
these only as *additional* possibilities.
> >> How could he assume that at the sound of the first shot, scores of
> >> people down below would not have had their attention drawn to the very
> window
> >> he was firing from?
> >
> >Oh, I'd imagine he would assume such a thing. And it would be
> >irrelevant to an identification of him if they could not see his face, &
>
> >at most could see only a tiny percentage of his body.
>
> He would have had to conclude such a thing was a certainty though.
Why would he have had to conclude it as a "certainty"? Why cannot he
have been at least "reasonably certain"? And I say yet again (Google
will prove beyond all possible doubt that I've said this to you before,
if you chose to challenge this assertion in the slightest), that I
wonder why such certain planning must be attributed to Oswald. Would it
not be incredibly "stupid" to shoot at a president in the first place?
Such a thing does not suggest an especially clear-minded individual to
me.
> Don't
> know how he could do that.
"Oh no, I'm just an employee in the Book Depository; you must have just
seen someone who looked a bit like me."
It worked with Baker, the *first* policeman he supposedly encountered, &
he didn't even have to say any of that. Truly said part of it for him,
& Baker *immediately* stopped pointing his gun at Oswald (Oswald's
"demeanor" didn't cause that) & *immediately* dismissed Oswald
*entirely* as a suspect, left him to his own devices, & resumed his
climb up the stairs with Truly. Why would Oswald not instantly assume
this would work equally well outside if he was stopped?
Additionally, do think carefully: there were all sorts of people milling
about outside the building. Be quick enough, & the chances of
"recognition" are slim, if not non-existant.
> >> How could he assure himself that no one below would not
> >> have had an excellent angle to view him from?
> >
> >Just a wild guess: by not having his face close enough to the window for
>
> >*anyone* to see it?
>
> Everyone down on Elm Street had a different viewing angle up to that 6th
> floor window.
From 6 floors below. I'll relate now my own mother scoffing at me when
I first told her about Brennan's "positive" ID of Oswald, even before I
admitted to her that initially he did not make such an ID. "From 6
floors below?" she said. "So he was farsighted rather than nearsighted?
So what? So am I, & I don't think I'd be able to positively identify
*anyone* from that far below."
To my assertion that Brennan positively ID'd (at the scene, not just
later) at least one of the Black employees on the 5th floor, she said
(quite astutely, I might add), "Well, but what about their clothing?
Did he ID them just from that?"
Clever woman, my mother. ;-)
Oh, & did I mention yet that she is a CT?
> I fail to see how one could ensure that *no one* down below
> would have been able to spot him.
"Walls" are not typically transparent. 60+ feet away, absolute minimum,
especially *below*, is not generally conducive to positive ID.
"Ensure"? Dunno about that. Likewise I have questioned how the
"plotters" "ensured" that not a single one of the 70+ TSBD employees
would happen upon Oswald no matter where he was in the building at the
time of the shooting itself. But I'm not at all convinced that a lone
assassin of the head of state of any country would be an especially
"rational" person in the first place. It seems that too much credit is
given to him to have planned for all these different aspects with utter
perfection, especially that perceived by us with decades of hindsight as
being such, with any variant from utter perfection of planning being
perceived as "inconsistent." I've never read anything of the man, even
by CT authors, which suggests that his intellect was of such magnitude.
Could be. Brewer was *there*; we were not. It's difficult to describe
in detail all the various things which may have led Brewer to think what
he thought about the man he saw, whoever the man was. Mere words,
especially only in print, without the sound & inflections of the
person's voice to accompany them, are only a limited foundation to rely
upon in assessing a person's actual thoughts.
Sure, it's worth looking into. I continue to maintain, however, that
the purported circumstances (note Greg, Sam, & others, how,
purposefully, & with great care, I inserted the word "purported" in that
sentence) for this accused (that word I also did not use idly) assassin,
seem to have been extraordinarily different after the Tippit shooting
than before it.
From the "official version": Oswald got out of the TSBD rather easily;
in fact, without being "suspected" in the slightest up to the instant he
was last purportedly seen inside the building. Suddenly, with Tippit,
he encounters the *earliest* serious obstacle to his "getaway." Less
than 20 minutes later, there are police cars going by ad nauseum. He
"ducks" into the *first* place he's found to offer darkened concealment.
I continue to fail to see how my speculations are any less "plausible,"
"rational," or "logical" than those made by any other poster here.
Show us the evidence that this man, whoever he was, even *knew* that
either Brewer or Postal had seen him. You'll surely remember that I've
already made statements to this effect, right?
And "stupid"? LOL! Wouldn't it be incredibly, absurdly, & abysmally
"stupid" to murder either a president or a policeman, not to mention
both, in the first place? If the man did indeed do both this things, it
seems rather misguided to ascribe too much of the opposite of
"stupidity" to him.
> >And I have to ask again (& I still don't recall you answering): if
> >Earline Roberts saw Oswald leaving & wearing a jacket, how any
> >"lookalike" would know to discard *his* jacket along the way to the
> >Texas Theater, so that he would better match the real Oswald, who was
> >also not wearing a jacket when he was arrested.
>
> Well, no matter who killed Tippit, whether Oswald or the lookalike, it
> probably
> made sense to ditch the jacket. But there are some serious problems with
> that discovered jacket. The size, color, and indications of the use of a
> professional cleaning service all seem to cast great doubt as to whether
> this jacket was in fact Oswald's.
The "color" might, possibly. Never seen anything about the "size" that
is a significant discrepancy. As to the laundry marks (which you're
obviously referring to) I've addressed a certain assertion regarding
something related to this in another article in the thread "Do the Math
Folks" which I posted earlier this evening, & proved the assertion false
beyond all possible doubt using only one URL. In the cited document
(which one author told a bold-faced lie about & which I told the
provable truth about) Marina is not seen to supposedly say that she had
the slightest idea where, other than the country, the jackets were
purchased, whether or not they appeared to be used at the time she saw
them, etc.
> I'll also ask again
> >(since you also have not answered this either, that I have seen), why
> >Postal would remember the "lookalike" who ducked toward the entrance to
>
> >the theater, but fail to recall the real Oswald who was arrested in the
>
> >theater buying a ticket from her, as most probably an "innocent" Oswald
>
> >would have done?
>
> Did Postal have a habit of remembering *every* male customer she sold a
> ticket
> to? Could she swear to selling a ticket to every male patron that day, like
> Applin, Davis, and Gibson? Just asking.
I would assume she wouldn't. I'd nevertheless *also* assume that she
*would* clearly remember a man looking almost *exactly* like the man who
"ducked" around the ticket booth toward the entrance to the theater, who
additionally was supposedly seen in the incredibly remarkable &
memorable circumstance of being *arrested* in the theater (I don't know
of any evidence that anyone had been arrested in that theater before
that date, do you?), & rather clearly recall selling a ticket to a man
who looked almost precisely like the man whom she saw being brought out
of the theater, under arrest, by the police, a sort of thing which I'm
guessing she had never seen before in her entire period of employment
there.
Once again, I'm not denying that a "lookalike" is possible, but wouldn't
you agree that the most *rational* explanation is that it was simply the
same man?
> >I have yet to see it even acknowledged by any poster here, much less
> >answered, that these questions have been asked, even though this is at
> >least the 3rd time I have asked them.
>
> Your question assumes perfect recall on the part of Postal, correct?
Nope. It instead assumes a total abrogation of the extremely REMARKABLE
& MEMORABLE circumstance of twice seeing two nearly identical men, one
of whom pays for a ticket & the other doesn't, one of whom is
*additionally* arrested *inside* the theater (the first time in her
entire life Postal had witnessed anything close to such a remarkable
circumstance) with her seeing one of the men being brought out by
police, yet failing utterly to recall that she, less than an hour
earlier, had sold a ticket to a man who looked almost EXACTLY like this
same man who was arrested.
Your scenario assumes completely illogical failure to recall such
incredibly remarkable & unique circumstances, correct?
But by your own argument, he was only as calm as the "average" TSBD
employee would have been under such circumstances, not calm"er,"
therefore, I am still not seeing you give any substantive support for
your opinion. Truly attributed to him exactly the same "startle"
response that the "average" employee, or indeed average person in any
venue, would have exhibited, not "less" of one.
CurtJ...@webtv.net
I am responding in this format because of the length already of previous
post. It just is a waste of time to go through google and spend 10
minutes to just even climb up to where the dialog's begin, so I will
just do the best I can to make it a general response to what I can
remember the issues to be.
Mrs. Earlene Robert's under testimony describe's Oswald coming in a
little after 1:00 and changing clothes. He is there for 3 or 4 minutes
and sees him change into a dark brown 'jacket', that one zippers in
front. She sees him zipper it up as he is leaving. She also hears a
cop car come up while he is in the room with two uniformed policemen,
and there are two short beeps.
As far as the Tippit murder/scene most of the testimonies surround a
whitish color jacket or shirt. With the time of some of the witnesses
of the murder, especially with Markham and Smith, it would seem
impossible for Oswald to walk the 1.2 miles to the murder scene. I will
give here some of the descriptions from the Armstrong site as it is
compact and easy for me to do, even though Mr. Caeruleo doesn't care for
the name. I am doing this for the sake of discussion and the lurkers
and not for Mr. Caeruleo.
________________
Witnesses to the Tippit shooting
Mr. Clark, a barber at the 10th Street Barber Shop,
620 E. 10th, told SA Carl Underhill (11/29/63) that he "had seen a man
whom he would bet his life on was Oswald passing the shop in a great
hurry and had commented on same to a customer in the chair". The barber
shop is 3 blocks north of Jack Ruby's apartment, where Lee Oswald had
been seen the previous night by a guest of Ruby's next door neighbor
(interview with Helen McIntosh).
William Lawrence Smith was walking east toward the Town and Country Cafe
(604 E 10th) a few minutes after 1:00 pm. Smith "felt sure that the man
who walked by him going west on 10th St. was Lee Harvey Oswald"
(interview of Smith by Brookhart 1/13/64). At this time, approximately
1:04 PM, "Harvey Oswald" was a mile away --- seen by housekeeper Earlene
Roberts standing at the bus stop on the corner of Zang and Beckley.
Jimmy Burt, across the street from the construction site where W.L Smith
was working, watched the same man as he came from the direction of the
Town and Country Cafe and continued walking west on 10th. Burt described
him as a white male, approximately 5'8", wearing a light colored short
jacket (interview of Burt by SA Christianson and Acklin 12/16/63). Burt
watched as the man passed them and continued walking west toward Patton.
As the man approached Tippit's patrol car, Tippit rolled down his
passenger side car window and spoke to this man.
William Arthur Smith was with Burt at the time and described the same
man seen by he and Burt as "a white male, about 5'7" to 5'8", 20 to 25
years of age, 150-160, a white shirt, light brown jacket and dark pants
(interview of Smith by SA Ward and Basham 12/13/63). Both Burt and Smith
watched this unknown man as he walked toward Patton, approached the
squad car, spoke with Tippit, and then shot him.
Jack Roy Tatum was driving east on 10th St. As he "approached the squad
car, he noticed this young white male with both hands in the pockets of
his zippered jacket leaning over the passenger side of the squad car".
"It looked as if Oswald and Tippit were talking to each other. There was
conversation. It did seem peaceful." Tatum swore "he had on a light
colored zipper jacket, dark trousers and what looked like a t-shirt on".
He also remembered Oswald "as having dark hair, dark eyes of medium
build and around 5'10". At the point where Tatum drove slowly past
Tippit's squad car, he was less than 10 ft from Oswald. Tatum did not
see Oswald wearing a brown shirt, just a white T-shirt (HSCA ---
Moriarty 2/1/78)
WW Scoggins said Oswald wore dark trousers and a light shirt.
Domingo Benavides remembered "the back of his head seemed like his
hairline sort of went square instead of tapering off. His hair didn't
taper off, it kind of went down and squared off." Oswald's hairline, as
we know from numerous photographs taken on November 22nd, extended well
down his neck and past his collar line --- it was not "squared off" as
described by Domingo Benavides. Helen Markham said Oswald was "wearing a
light gray looking jacket and kind of dark trousers" (WC testimony, Vol
pg 502).
Ted Callaway described Oswald to DPD Officer HW Summers as "white male,
27, 5'11",165 lbs, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing light gray
Eisenhower type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt" (CE 705, pg
27). When interviewed many years later, Callaway again said "he had on a
white Eisenhower type jacket and a white T-shirt" --- again no brown
shirt, just a white T-shirt.
Mary Brock was the next person who identified Oswald's clothing. She
said Oswald was wearing "light clothing, a light colored jacket and with
his hands in his pocket" (interview of Brock by SA Kesler and Mitchem
1/22/64).
DPD dispatch 1:22 PM: Last seen about the 300 block East Jefferson. He's
a white male about 30 5'8". Black hair, slender, wearing a white jacket,
white shirt and dark slacks.
DPD dispatch 1:33 PM: w/m/30 5'8", very slender build, black hair, a
white jacket, white shirt and dark slacks.
DPD dispatch 1:45 PM: Have information a suspect just went in the Texas
Theater on West Jefferson ... supposed to be hiding in balcony.
______________________________________
So most of the clothing up top from shirt to jacket was white, light,
gray, and the 'jacket's' described seemed to be of the light and not
heavy variety.
The only variance in the previous discussion was the Johnny C. Brewer
discription of a brown sport shirt which does not seem to fit
corroborated by Mr. Caeruleo.
Mr. Caeruleo posited that upon being shown the supposed police station
of Oswald in a dark shirt he could not be so positive that it could not
be a button down shirt and even was so kind to post the site where it
could be seen. After looking at again and I invite all to do so, I
would be 95% certain that it would be a zippered item. The item is
closed some from the bottom to where a button or zipper point would be.
It goes straight up for about eight inches and the spacing of sides of
the shirt/jacket remain uniform and spread at about a 1/2", where one
can see the white from the t shirt underneath. If it were a button
down, as I was trying on at my home the lapels would flare dramatically
and the it would form a 'vee' going toward both shoulders if it were a
button down. I am sure it would depend some on the texture and
flexiblility of the material, but as for that photo, authentic or not, I
would give it a postive zippered piece of clothing material. Mr.
Caeruleo points out in his May 5th response that Mr. Groden has in a
book Oswald in jail with what he determines a button down shirt. I have
no way to corroborate that and would invite responses on that as well.
(But even if were button-down and a dark color, it would still
descrepancy in color.)
Mr. Caeruleo disparages the remark of Mr. Armstrong on the coats
supposedly owned by Oswald according to Marina and her testimony. There
does seem to be a discrepancy in where the coat's are purchased as in
Russia by Armstrong or stateside as he quotes Marina as saying. Other
than a small wonderment, what I am concerned with here is whether the
discarded gray coat under the Oldsmobile en route from the Tippit murder
scene to the Texas Theater could be Oswald's. The testimony so far
under consideration is the size which was M. Oswald was supposedly a S
or a small. The coat was with commercial markings, but could not be
traced. Marina said Oswald did no commercial laundrying and that she
did the coats herself (this I don't know if is in the CE 1836 testimony
or is just surmised by Armstrong?). Cutting to the chase here, did
Marina ever testify to that coat found under the Olds as belonging to
Oswald? If she was never asked, why was that never brought up? Oh, on
the wonderment issue, if they are married and all, why wouldn't Marina
know where the coats were purchased from? It would seem strange a
married couple would not know or ask about purchases made by the other
that were significant.
Even though most of the witness for the Tippit murder don't see any
brown much less dark brown, it is Mr. Caeruleo's contention that Oswald
could have had the gray coat over everything else and discarded it.
Would it seem reasonable that he would be seen with two pieces of
clothing at the TSBD and no more, and when the day got warmer he would
change into something that would require him to put on three pieces of
clothing? Did any of the Tippit murder witnesses report him with three
pieces of clothing?
He asks for more clothing corroboration. I think we all would. I
posted in alt.jfk.assassination under The Top Ten Record Shop where one
poster was a witness to Tippit in the shop before his murder and also to
them bringing out Oswald in the front of the Texas Theater. So far no
response but will keep looking and searching for other possible clothing
clues.
On the Texas Driver's License. Aletha Frair tells of the license showing
up on the 27th or 28th day of November at the Dept. Public Safety. This
Mr. Armstrong has on his site which he took from the Garrison
investigation. A Mr. Sanders got the offical documention from Mrs.
Frair and the five or six employees in 1968. Also is Mrs. Paine's
testimony that Oswald went down to DPS to get his permit a week before
the assassination but didn't get it because as he told her, they were
closed. This was intwined in the issue of the 'two wallets' where FBI
agent Bob Barnett and Capt. Westbrook of DPD found one at the Tippit
murder scene with the driver's license in it, and is shown at the site
taken from Dale Myer's book 'With Malice' from the WFAA-TV footage.
Detective Paul Bentley finds the other wallet in the arrestee Oswald at
the Texas Theater or in the squad car afterwards with the A.J. Hidell
identification in there. Armstrong points out the two wallets being
ID'd into FBI evidence under two separate items.
As far as Burroughs on his WC testimony, 'I never saw him' I can only
surmise that it meant from the beginning when he didn't see him enter.
In relation to the popcorn he would not have known who he was serving it
to at the time he was serving it. In the online article when I searched
[Jack Davis Texas Theater] under the first heading under Tripod the
article stated Jack Davis saw Oswald the same time Burrough's later
claims to have. It also states that Oswald was in the theater and later
went up to the lobby and then re-entered and came back in the theater.
Too bad no interviews were held on the majority of theater witnesses
which might have corroborated an Oswald eating popcorn that I know of.
Maybe Mr. Marr's interview with Jack Davis would shed some light? I
also would fail to see the motivation of lying about selling popcorn to
somebody, a fact that I am sure we could probably remember with only 7
patrons in the theater at the time.
On Jack Ruby in the theater during the arrest, from the online article
in the previous paragraph George J. Applin while under testimony around
the assassination described a 'mystery man' in the theater around the
time of the assassination. ( H & E, vol. vii, p. 91). In 1979 he tells
who this mystery many was. Jack Ruby 'just sat their watching' even
when Applin told him to move that the guy had a gun. This interview was
from the May 11, 1979 edition of THe Dallas Morning News. He also
stated he didn't divulge earlier because of what he read about witnesses
being bumped off.
Also of interest is a mystery man in the Jan/Feb article in Probe at
Armstrong's site. While in the lower seats with the arrest of Oswald
going on, their is a fellow being interrogated in the balcony by two
detectives, Cunningham, and one who starts with a T. They are stopped
by a 'manager' (Ruby??) and told this guy has been here since 12:05,
that the guy they're arresting is downstairs. Julia Postal testifies
that the 'real manager' had left for the day at 1:30. Also there is
another arrest made as one is brought out the alley from the backside
theater exit, one who Bernard Haire described as one with a 'white
pullover shirt' (no coat) and after seeing Oswald on TV was dumbounded
about 'him' being arrested in the front of the Texas Theater. That
'arrest' even though attested by 16 officers never seemed to make the
arrest records. Hmmm?
Oh, the fellow's name where I read where his testimony was inconclusive
about finger 'Oswald' from the parking lot of the discarded gray coat,
his name was Warren Reynolds. Excuse me on that one, got the first name
mixed up with the last one. He was told not to be 'inconclusive' or he
would be shot. He was, right in the head. After that he recovered and
made a 'conclusive identification' of Oswald.
I posed the 'sighting' of Oswald with Ruby by the waitress to Mr.
Caerleo in the wee house after the day of the assassination. He
mentioned the assumption of a 'look-a-like' and also besides her, the
morning of the assassination Dub Stark and employee of the Top Ten
Record Shop sold Oswald a ticket to the Dick Clark Show at 7:30 A.M.
Well after the Texas Theater arrest, Oswald came back in and retuned the
ticket. He never wavered from the accounts or story and can be viewed
online. Many other 'Oswald' sightings before, during, and after the
assassination when Oswald should have been at work at the TSBD or
arrested.
I am sure I have missed stuff, but when I go back out to the site and
into Mr. Caeruleo's May 5th article in this thread, I have the fear of
this being erased which it has in the past. I am sure with Mr.
Caeruleo's 'huge lungs', I will be quickly reminded...:)
Oh, if you got any beef on an author such as Armstrong, I would just
suggest you go ask him yourself. I think it detracts when one rants on
without giving a person a chance to respond. I have written to Walt
Brown, Lisa Pease, Jerry Robertson, and Michael T. Griffith and they
have been kind enough to respond. I am not into character
assassnations, (no pun intended).
CJ
Caeruleo
I seem to be closer to the "NutHouse" than you, according to one recent
analysis.
> >> But in the Tippit area, based on the *current* state
> >> of the evidence as I understand it, I cannot in good conscience go beyond
> >> granting a 50/50 possibility that Oswald was the assailant, okay?
> >
> >Perhaps you simply don't understand it completely enough. You do
> >realize, correct, that FAR more witnesses than otherwise positively
> >identified the same person in custody as the person they saw fleeing the
>
> >scene, & at so many multiple locations between the Tippit scene & the
> >Texas Theater?
>
> Mightn't perceptions have been altered somewhat if the accounts of Mr. Wright
> and Mrs. Clemons had been permitted to enter the record?
Perhaps so. Would it change the fact that their assertions might remain
unique & uncorroborated?
> >It is said, by some, that the ID lineups were a "sham,"
>
> Indeed, one of those pronouncing the lineups as a "sham" was none other than
> the accused, Lee Harvey Oswald.
You'll perhaps forgive me if I'd want a bit more corroboration than that
of the accused, as if he was a "guilty" accused, he'd certainly have
some motivation to say such a thing in any event. But of course there
is some beyond his word. It might be interesting to explore the reasons
*why* the lineups occurred as they did.
> >but there is testimony extant which refutes this. In extremely few
> >other murder cases in all of recorded human history has any "lookalike"
>
> >even been suggested, although certainly there have been cases of
> >mistaken identity.
>
> I think that you are far too quick to dismiss these Oswald lookalike reports
> sir. You do realize that several cases appear quite solid, with not only
> corroboration, but the name "Oswald" recalled and/or written down, right?
I'm aware of some which are purported to be such, yes. Do please name
the exact ones you're talking about so we can discuss them in detail.
Thanks.
> >But I'm not yet recalling any such, when
> >*additionally* the purported murder weapon was absolutely proven to have
>
> >been sent to the very P.O. box used by the accused murderer (you do know
>
> >that it is indeed absolutely proven, beyond all possible doubt, that
> >Klein's sent the rifle to that address, whether or not the signed
> >receipt for the weapon was "lost," which is far from implausible in a
> >perfectly non-sinister way, given the common knowledge of the
> >extraordinary ineptitude of many USPS employees *1.), when in addition
> >to even that, shells were found matching that same weapon in the same
> >location in which that same weapon was found, with the original sole
> >source for it "not" being that one weapon being exactly one man, who
> >himself never claimed, at any time, in any venue, to have even touched
> >the weapon himself, & moreover himself plainly stated that he was hardly
>
> >the "expert" on firearms that certain others have subsequently claimed.
>
> If you are referring to Weitzman here, there is still, to me, not the
> slightest
> legitimate reason in the world, even if he misidentified the rifle "at a
> glance" when it was first discovered, for the man to *still* make the same
> glaring mistake some 24 hours later when executing a sworn affidavit.
He simply wasn't corrected on it until after he submitted the affidavit?
Why would that be particularly implausible? He was not in the DPD, nor
was he in the Sheriff's department; he was instead a deputy constable
for Dallas County. I'm not aware of any evidence that he had any
particularly extensive contact with persons in either of those other
departments in the interim between the TSBD search & the submission of
the affidavit the following day. He does not seem, from what I've been
able to find, to have been much involved in the investigation after the
TSBD search; his testimony contains no suggestion of such a thing. He
may have simply gone home that evening, & had little further contact
with other law enforcement personel until the following day, perhaps not
until after he submitted the affidavit. There is no time of day given
on it, so I don't know that it wasn't in fact submitted a good deal less
than "24 hours" after the TSBD search; he may have gone to do it first
thing Saturday morning. If no one happened to correct him before he
submitted the affidavit, how would he even have known he made an error
at the time he submitted it? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that
*anyone* at all said to Weitzman anything at all about the rifle even
possibly being something other than a Mauser at that time? I'm aware of
none, & moreover aware of no evidence that he even had any opportunity
whatsoever to be made aware of his error during that time.
I also dispute somewhat that the identification of the rifle as a
Mauser, if it in fact was not one, is necessarily a "glaring mistake."
As I posted yesterday, the M-C was only one of a number of old European
rifles widely-available on the American market at that time. The M-C
entered into evidence as the one supposedly found in the TSBD was made
in the 1890s, & there were several different types of M-Cs & Mausers
made in that decade alone which were fairly common, not to mention other
surrounding decades. The identification of any single one of these
rifles would not have been as easy as some seem to suppose. With
assertations of Weitzman being an "expert" in rifles not in evidence (he
was never recorded as making such a claim about himself, nor do I know
of anyone who knew him well personally ever being quoted as describing
him as such), the precise identification of any particular type of rifle
among the myriad varieties of old European surplus then available in the
States by such a person would not necessarily be an easy matter.
Certainly.
> >Clemons is the ONLY person to have claimed that there were two gunmen,
> >who took off in opposite directions, correct?
>
> So far as I know, yes. But again, those other witnesses may have really been
> in no position to see such a thing.
Possibly so. Do we have any good idea of Clemons' vantage point?
But how would she herself know all this, since her initial "revealing"
was in 1964, before the WCR had even been issued? It didn't take her
particularly long to come out with her story, only a few months as I
recall, which might be evidence that she didn't feel particularly
"threatened."
> This would certainly
> be preferable to piling on the mysterious deaths. There are other ways to
> negate witnesses except for the final resort of murder.
I suppose so. None of them seem to have worked with her, however.
> >Sorta like Elrod saying he was still in "danger" in the 1990s, even
> >though he's been said to have let it all out anyway (& even though
> >others have "revealed" far more than he ever has, long before he ever
> >did, & still lived for decades afterward), was assured by his
> >interviewer that he was not in the slightest "danger" if he told the
> >"truth," & still is alive today, a decade later.
>
> Yes, he has simply been denounced as a crackpot with no credibility in the
> case, and apparently with no official investigative body ever taking him
> seriously.
Actually he's pretty much denounced himself. ;-)
> Why would one have to stir things up with a suspicious murder
> if things can be controlled in other ways? I figure that rubbing out
> witnesses
> is sort of a last resort.
Could be. Elrod still does not present an especially compelling case
that he was ever in any real "danger."
> >> Because I could swear that I've heard
> >> at least one of these 5th floor witnesses testify to evenly spaced shots,
> >> which is of course contrary to so many Dealey Plaza witnesses.
> >
> >As this is a matter which I have researched extensively, as far as I
> >know at the present, you will be unable to find any recorded statement
> >by Harold Norman which contradicts in the slightest the assertions of
> >Jarman & Williams quoted above, that the 3rd shot was "fired right
> >behind the second one," or that the 2nd & 3rd shots were distinctly
> >closer together, as Williams made even plainer than Jarman in his
> >testimony.
>
> But I'm not certain that the above is altogether true as it concerns Norman.
> In the series "The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald", first shown I believe on
> Showtime in the late '80's, I think that Norman was a witness.
I believe you mean "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" from 1984. The other
appears to be a television "docudrama" from 1977.
> If you are
> able to, review his testimony with respect to the spacing of the shots. I
> could swear that his account was one of completely equal spacing.
I am unable to find any transcript or audio file of the interview to
confirm.
> He even
> gave his impression of the working of the bolt at this time, if I recall
> correctly.
Well, he did that in 1964 too.
His reactions actually begin at Z226. Of course, you realize he can be
struck there, or within a second before it, still exhibit the same
reactions, & yet NOT have been struck in the torso yet but only in the
thigh?
> Again, I hardly rule out an additional later strike
> on the Governor.
Neither do I.
Caeruleo
CurtJ...@webtv.net wrote:
> Mrs. Earlene Robert's under testimony describe's Oswald coming in a
> little after 1:00 and changing clothes. He is there for 3 or 4 minutes
> and sees him change into a dark brown 'jacket', that one zippers in
> front. She sees him zipper it up as he is leaving.
Yep, the problem of course being that she is the *only* uncorroborated
witness to have him in a "dark" jacket at that time.
> She also hears a
> cop car come up while he is in the room with two uniformed policemen,
> and there are two short beeps.
A perfectly plausible explanation for the police car occurred to me
instantly upon reading this sentence in her WC testimony:
'Yes--it stopped directly in front of my house and it just "tip-tip" and
that's the way Officer Alexander and Charles Burnely would do when they
stopped, and I went to the door
and looked and saw it wasn't their number.'
I wonder if it occurs to anyone else, or if I need to be more specific.
> As far as the Tippit murder/scene most of the testimonies surround a
> whitish color jacket or shirt.
"Most"? You keep making this "whitish" claim. I didn't reproduce all
of their comments on this matter in this thread, as you've noted, but I
did indeed reproduce "most" of them in one article or another, & the
majority of them said "light-colored," not "whitish."
> With the time of some of the witnesses
> of the murder, especially with Markham and Smith, it would seem
> impossible for Oswald to walk the 1.2 miles to the murder scene.
*If* their time is more accurate than others, which is not necessarily
in evidence.
I will
> give here some of the descriptions from the Armstrong site as it is
> compact and easy for me to do, even though Mr. Caeruleo doesn't care for
> the name.
The "name" I have no particular problem with; it's simply that with my
own eyes I've seen him commit one profoundly glaring error, & also dwell
extensively on the inconsistencies of several witnesses who support the
notion that only one Oswald went from the Tippit scene to the Texas
Theater, yet utterly fail to mention the far more PROFOUND
inconsistencies with the witness who suggested an earlier theater entry
for Oswald.
> I am doing this for the sake of discussion and the lurkers
> and not for Mr. Caeruleo.
I wouldn't expect otherwise.
> ________________
>
> Witnesses to the Tippit shooting
>
> Mr. Clark, a barber at the 10th Street Barber Shop,
> 620 E. 10th, told SA Carl Underhill (11/29/63) that he "had seen a man
> whom he would bet his life on was Oswald passing the shop in a great
> hurry and had commented on same to a customer in the chair". The barber
> shop is 3 blocks north of Jack Ruby's apartment, where Lee Oswald had
> been seen the previous night by a guest of Ruby's next door neighbor
> (interview with Helen McIntosh).
With once again the claim being made only by Armstrong, as far as I can
see on the Web, with no actual quotation of the interview given by him.
And wouldn't it be more accurate to say "had been purportedly seen" or
something to that effect, than simply "had been seen," since it is of
course hardly proven fact that McIntosh actually did "see" him,
especially with her story uncorroborated by anyone else.
> William Lawrence Smith was walking east toward the Town and Country Cafe
> (604 E 10th) a few minutes after 1:00 pm. Smith "felt sure that the man
> who walked by him going west on 10th St. was Lee Harvey Oswald"
> (interview of Smith by Brookhart 1/13/64). At this time, approximately
> 1:04 PM, "Harvey Oswald" was a mile away --- seen by housekeeper Earlene
> Roberts standing at the bus stop on the corner of Zang and Beckley.
At what "time," exactly? "A few minutes after 1:00 p.m." is not any
specific time.
> Jimmy Burt, across the street from the construction site where W.L Smith
> was working, watched the same man as he came from the direction of the
> Town and Country Cafe and continued walking west on 10th. Burt described
> him as a white male, approximately 5'8", wearing a light colored short
> jacket (interview of Burt by SA Christianson and Acklin 12/16/63). Burt
> watched as the man passed them and continued walking west toward Patton.
> As the man approached Tippit's patrol car, Tippit rolled down his
> passenger side car window and spoke to this man.
>
> William Arthur Smith was with Burt at the time and described the same
> man seen by he and Burt as "a white male, about 5'7" to 5'8", 20 to 25
> years of age, 150-160, a white shirt, light brown jacket and dark pants
> (interview of Smith by SA Ward and Basham 12/13/63). Both Burt and Smith
> watched this unknown man as he walked toward Patton, approached the
> squad car, spoke with Tippit, and then shot him.
I might opine that if the "jacket" did indeed cover a buttoned shirt
which was not buttoned up all the way, it might be that the only thing
visible through the unzippered portion of the jacket might be the white
t-shirt underneath the outer shirt, since the outer shirt would also
possibly be spread to the sides from the collar down, & thus obscured by
the jacket.
> Jack Roy Tatum was driving east on 10th St. As he "approached the squad
> car, he noticed this young white male with both hands in the pockets of
> his zippered jacket leaning over the passenger side of the squad car".
> "It looked as if Oswald and Tippit were talking to each other. There was
> conversation. It did seem peaceful." Tatum swore "he had on a light
> colored zipper jacket, dark trousers and what looked like a t-shirt on".
> He also remembered Oswald "as having dark hair, dark eyes of medium
> build and around 5'10". At the point where Tatum drove slowly past
> Tippit's squad car, he was less than 10 ft from Oswald. Tatum did not
> see Oswald wearing a brown shirt, just a white T-shirt (HSCA ---
> Moriarty 2/1/78)
And if the outer shirt was unbuttoned farther down than the jacket's
zipper, it might be that primarily only the white t-shirt would be
visible.
> WW Scoggins said Oswald wore dark trousers and a light shirt.
No jacket even?
> Domingo Benavides remembered "the back of his head seemed like his
> hairline sort of went square instead of tapering off. His hair didn't
> taper off, it kind of went down and squared off." Oswald's hairline, as
> we know from numerous photographs taken on November 22nd, extended well
> down his neck and past his collar line --- it was not "squared off" as
> described by Domingo Benavides.
As I said yesterday, I'm not sure if a misidentification of rear
hairline is necessarily all that significant, especially if it is unique
to one witness, as that may simply be an example of the typical random
variations in witness statements one often sees in practically every
case of any type. I wonder if any other witness said such a thing.
> Helen Markham said Oswald was "wearing a
> light gray looking jacket and kind of dark trousers" (WC testimony, Vol
> pg 502).
Light gray. But no form of the word "white" is used there.
> Ted Callaway described Oswald to DPD Officer HW Summers as "white male,
> 27, 5'11",165 lbs, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing light gray
> Eisenhower type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt" (CE 705, pg
> 27). When interviewed many years later, Callaway again said "he had on a
> white Eisenhower type jacket and a white T-shirt" --- again no brown
> shirt, just a white T-shirt.
There's "light gray" again. And there's a very easy way to keep a
button-up shirt from being visible when wearing a jacket over it: simply
unbutton the shirt farther down than you pull the zipper of the jacket
down.
Oh, & I'm not just getting speculation that he might have done exactly
this from thin air either, as I will demonstrate below.
> Mary Brock was the next person who identified Oswald's clothing. She
> said Oswald was wearing "light clothing, a light colored jacket and with
> his hands in his pocket" (interview of Brock by SA Kesler and Mitchem
> 1/22/64).
Yep, light again.
> DPD dispatch 1:22 PM: Last seen about the 300 block East Jefferson. He's
> a white male about 30 5'8". Black hair, slender, wearing a white jacket,
> white shirt and dark slacks.
>
> DPD dispatch 1:33 PM: w/m/30 5'8", very slender build, black hair, a
> white jacket, white shirt and dark slacks.
Finally, the first occurrence of "white" in anything given here at
least, as far as the jacket is concerned.
> So most of the clothing up top from shirt to jacket was white, light,
> gray, and the 'jacket's' described seemed to be of the light and not
> heavy variety.
Yep.
> The only variance in the previous discussion was the Johnny C. Brewer
> discription of a brown sport shirt which does not seem to fit
> corroborated by Mr. Caeruleo.
But what I would be interested in is what those witnesses to the
discarded jacket might have said of what sort of shirt was then revealed
*after* the man discarded the jacket. Sadly, they seem only to have
seen him go into the parking lot with the jacket still on, but not to
have seen him exit it with the jacket off.
> Mr. Caeruleo posited that upon being shown the supposed police station
> of Oswald in a dark shirt he could not be so positive that it could not
> be a button down shirt and even was so kind to post the site where it
> could be seen. After looking at again and I invite all to do so, I
> would be 95% certain that it would be a zippered item. The item is
> closed some from the bottom to where a button or zipper point would be.
> It goes straight up for about eight inches and the spacing of sides of
> the shirt/jacket remain uniform and spread at about a 1/2", where one
> can see the white from the t shirt underneath. If it were a button
> down, as I was trying on at my home the lapels would flare dramatically
> and the it would form a 'vee' going toward both shoulders if it were a
> button down. I am sure it would depend some on the texture and
> flexiblility of the material, but as for that photo, authentic or not, I
> would give it a postive zippered piece of clothing material.
I'll freely admit that it looks as if it could be zippered in that
photo. One problem is that we don't seem to know exactly when that
photo was taken. Was it on Friday, or Saturday, or Sunday? If on one
of the latter 2 days, could this have been clothing supplied to him?
> Mr.
> Caeruleo points out in his May 5th response that Mr. Groden has in a
> book Oswald in jail with what he determines a button down shirt. I have
> no way to corroborate that and would invite responses on that as well.
> (But even if were button-down and a dark color, it would still
> descrepancy in color.)
I know a number of other posters have "The Killing of a President," & so
may corroborate what I say now. On p. 93 there is a picture of Oswald
speaking to reporters; the caption reads, "Oswald confronts the press
for the first time after his arrest." This suggests that the photo is
from Friday, as he did indeed speak to the press on that day. The shirt
is dark, with a white t-shirt underneath. It is a much clearer image
than the scan on that webpage of that other photo. Unfortunately
Oswald's torso below about the middle of his sternum is blocked, so one
cannot see nearly all of the shirt. But it does indeed seem to have the
lapels of a button-up shirt. It is also opened a good way down,
exposing a fair expanse of the t-shirt over his chest. There is nothing
resembling the metal line of a zipper on either side of the shirt's
opening.
On p. 104 there are 2 pictures of Oswald in this dark shirt, with the
caption, "Oswald runs the gauntlet of police and press." The shirt
appears to be the same one as in the previous photo on 93, & in the
lower picture the collar is quite clear; I can see what looks very like
the spots where the collar can be buttoned, & again there's nothing that
looks like the line of a zipper.
> Mr. Caeruleo disparages the remark of Mr. Armstrong on the coats
> supposedly owned by Oswald according to Marina and her testimony. There
> does seem to be a discrepancy in where the coat's are purchased as in
> Russia by Armstrong or stateside as he quotes Marina as saying.
The actual FBI document itself, which Armstrong cites by name, quotes
Marina as saying that the jackets were bought stateside. Armstrong, in
italics, says the document has her saying "purchased in Russia."
"Discrepancy" is an understatement.
> Other
> than a small wonderment, what I am concerned with here is whether the
> discarded gray coat under the Oldsmobile en route from the Tippit murder
> scene to the Texas Theater could be Oswald's. The testimony so far
> under consideration is the size which was M. Oswald was supposedly a S
> or a small.
But were his two jackets specifically said by Marina to be S?
> The coat was with commercial markings, but could not be
> traced. Marina said Oswald did no commercial laundrying and that she
> did the coats herself (this I don't know if is in the CE 1836 testimony
> or is just surmised by Armstrong?).
Did you mean 1843 rather than 1836? If so, yes, something to that
effect is in there. Did you not look at the document itself when I gave
the URL? But all that is said is that she "couldn't recall that OSWALD
ever sent either of these jackets to any laundry or cleaners anywhere,"
but that she did recall washing them herself. Nothing at all is said
about whether or not she saw any *previous* laundry marks already on it.
Do recall when she said these jackets were purchased, according to that
document.
> Cutting to the chase here, did
> Marina ever testify to that coat found under the Olds as belonging to
> Oswald? If she was never asked, why was that never brought up? Oh, on
> the wonderment issue, if they are married and all, why wouldn't Marina
> know where the coats were purchased from? It would seem strange a
> married couple would not know or ask about purchases made by the other
> that were significant.
Did you miss my quotation of the document? She said that the jackets
were purchased in the U.S. *prior* to his departure for Russia. Oswald
first entered Russia in October 1959. He did not meet Marina until
March 1961. I could understand a married couple being aware of each
other's purchases that were made *during* their marriage, but why would
Marina be especially likely to know where Oswald had bought these
jackets when he had supposedly bought them a minimum of about a year &
1/2 before she even met him, & in another country on top of that? Even
if he told her the name of the store at which he had bought it, with her
not likely to have any frame of reference for American clothing stores,
how likely would it be for her to remember the exact name of the store,
with that name moreover being almost certainly in a language she did not
speak at the time? And who says even Oswald would remember that long
afterward exactly where he bought those jackets? I don't remember
exactly at which stores I've bought a number of clothing items I own,
even quite a few purchased more recently than a year & 1/2 ago. We also
don't know how long before Oswald left for Russia that he acquired these
jackets.
Oh dear, & looky at what *else* is said in CE 1843:
"She said to the best of her recollection LEE HARVEY OSWALD had only two
jackets, one a heavy jacket, blue in color, and another light jacket,
grey in color."
Now where, oh where, have I just seen the words "light" & "grey" (or
"gray") in close juxtaposition with each other regarding a jacket? Why
yes, I remember now...in the statements of several of the witnesses
quoted above.
Will you actually please look at the document this time, if you haven't
already done so? Here's the URL again:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0277a
.htm
> Even though most of the witness for the Tippit murder don't see any
> brown much less dark brown, it is Mr. Caeruleo's contention that Oswald
> could have had the gray coat over everything else and discarded it.
It's hardly only my contention; a jacket was indeed found under a car in
that parking lot into which the man had been seen to run wearing a
jacket which looked rather like it.
> Would it seem reasonable that he would be seen with two pieces of
> clothing at the TSBD and no more, and when the day got warmer he would
> change into something that would require him to put on three pieces of
> clothing?
Did it occur to you that the jacket might initially have been for the
purpose of covering the pistol in his belt, & that it might then be
discarded after the Tippit shooting to make an ID at least somewhat less
likely?
> Did any of the Tippit murder witnesses report him with three
> pieces of clothing?
Not that I can recall. But of course, if the shirt was unbuttoned
farther down than the zipper of the jacket, they wouldn't necessarily
see the outer shirt anyway, only possibly the t-shirt.
Unbuttoned as far down as, say, it is seen to be in those 3 photos of
him.
> He asks for more clothing corroboration. I think we all would.
Yes. Sadly, the witness statements on this issue will of course be
finite in number.
> On the Texas Driver's License. Aletha Frair tells of the license showing
> up on the 27th or 28th day of November at the Dept. Public Safety. This
> Mr. Armstrong has on his site which he took from the Garrison
> investigation. A Mr. Sanders got the offical documention from Mrs.
> Frair and the five or six employees in 1968. Also is Mrs. Paine's
> testimony that Oswald went down to DPS to get his permit a week before
> the assassination but didn't get it because as he told her, they were
> closed. This was intwined in the issue of the 'two wallets' where FBI
> agent Bob Barnett and Capt. Westbrook of DPD found one at the Tippit
> murder scene with the driver's license in it, and is shown at the site
> taken from Dale Myer's book 'With Malice' from the WFAA-TV footage.
> Detective Paul Bentley finds the other wallet in the arrestee Oswald at
> the Texas Theater or in the squad car afterwards with the A.J. Hidell
> identification in there. Armstrong points out the two wallets being
> ID'd into FBI evidence under two separate items.
Again, I am nothing but interested in this, & would like to look into it
further when I have time.
> As far as Burroughs on his WC testimony, 'I never saw him' I can only
> surmise that it meant from the beginning when he didn't see him enter.
I quoted more than that, though, where Burroughs talked about guessing
that the man may have sneaked past him into the balcony. He was rather
plain that he didn't see him *then* either.
> In relation to the popcorn he would not have known who he was serving it
> to at the time he was serving it.
But when he saw Oswald being brought out of the theater by police,
wouldn't he *then* know that he had served the same man popcorn less
than an hour earlier? Yet he is not recorded as making even a shred of
such a suggestion until a minimum of 2 decades later.
> In the online article when I searched
> [Jack Davis Texas Theater] under the first heading under Tripod the
> article stated Jack Davis saw Oswald the same time Burrough's later
> claims to have. It also states that Oswald was in the theater and later
> went up to the lobby and then re-entered and came back in the theater.
> Too bad no interviews were held on the majority of theater witnesses
> which might have corroborated an Oswald eating popcorn that I know of.
> Maybe Mr. Marr's interview with Jack Davis would shed some light? I
> also would fail to see the motivation of lying about selling popcorn to
> somebody, a fact that I am sure we could probably remember with only 7
> patrons in the theater at the time.
Motivation? A little fame? A little attention? Plenty of people have
been motivated in exactly such a way, & hardly just in this one case.
> On Jack Ruby in the theater during the arrest, from the online article
> in the previous paragraph George J. Applin while under testimony around
> the assassination described a 'mystery man' in the theater around the
> time of the assassination. ( H & E, vol. vii, p. 91). In 1979 he tells
> who this mystery many was. Jack Ruby 'just sat their watching' even
> when Applin told him to move that the guy had a gun. This interview was
> from the May 11, 1979 edition of THe Dallas Morning News. He also
> stated he didn't divulge earlier because of what he read about witnesses
> being bumped off.
Could be, although again here we have a claim not made for the first
time until many years later, & contradictory to the earlier statements.
Doesn't automatically make the later statements false, of course, but it
still is questionable, especially again, as I hate to keep repeating,
this appears to be another assertion uncorroborated by any other witness.
> Also of interest is a mystery man in the Jan/Feb article in Probe at
> Armstrong's site. While in the lower seats with the arrest of Oswald
> going on, their is a fellow being interrogated in the balcony by two
> detectives, Cunningham, and one who starts with a T. They are stopped
> by a 'manager' (Ruby??) and told this guy has been here since 12:05,
> that the guy they're arresting is downstairs. Julia Postal testifies
> that the 'real manager' had left for the day at 1:30. Also there is
> another arrest made as one is brought out the alley from the backside
> theater exit, one who Bernard Haire described as one with a 'white
> pullover shirt' (no coat) and after seeing Oswald on TV was dumbounded
> about 'him' being arrested in the front of the Texas Theater. That
> 'arrest' even though attested by 16 officers never seemed to make the
> arrest records. Hmmm?
"16 officers"? Original source?
> I posed the 'sighting' of Oswald with Ruby by the waitress to Mr.
> Caerleo in the wee house after the day of the assassination. He
> mentioned the assumption of a 'look-a-like' and also besides her, the
> morning of the assassination Dub Stark and employee of the Top Ten
> Record Shop sold Oswald a ticket to the Dick Clark Show at 7:30 A.M.
> Well after the Texas Theater arrest, Oswald came back in and retuned the
> ticket. He never wavered from the accounts or story and can be viewed
> online. Many other 'Oswald' sightings before, during, and after the
> assassination when Oswald should have been at work at the TSBD or
> arrested.
I hate to cite Posner, as I don't trust him any more than any other
author, but he does make the point that it is fairly typical in
high-profile cases for "sightings" to crop up. Were not almost all of
these assertions not made until after the assassination? Few if any, at
least of these cited, include solidly-datable documentation of the
sighting having occurred before the assassination, unfortunately. Not
that some of them couldn't be quite valid, but it's hard to tell.
> I am sure I have missed stuff, but when I go back out to the site and
> into Mr. Caeruleo's May 5th article in this thread, I have the fear of
> this being erased which it has in the past. I am sure with Mr.
> Caeruleo's 'huge lungs', I will be quickly reminded...:)
Actually you've done fine, & I have no quibble at all with anything you
may have omitted.
> Oh, if you got any beef on an author such as Armstrong, I would just
> suggest you go ask him yourself.
That is a rather novel notion. It is rather uncommon for people who
write criticisms of widely-available literature to contact the authors
of that literature before writing the criticisms. I have no need to
"contact" Mr. Armstrong to be able to determine with absolute certainty,
merely by looking at the very document he himself cited, that he grossly
misrepresented it. I have no need to "contact" him to determine that
while he went into great detail about the "discrepancies" in the
statements of Brewer, Postal, et al, he made no mention whatsoever of
the discrepancies of Burroughs. And how would I contact him anyway? No
address, email or otherwise, is given for him in on that webpage.
> I think it detracts when one rants on
> without giving a person a chance to respond.
Excuse me, how on EARTH am I not giving Armstrong "a chance to respond"?
Can he not post to this newsgroup as easily as I can? I have undertaken
no action whatsoever to "prevent" him from responding here, nor would I
ever attempt to do such a thing. I would instead welcome such a
response.
> I have written to Walt
> Brown, Lisa Pease, Jerry Robertson, and Michael T. Griffith and they
> have been kind enough to respond.
That's fine. Are you suggesting, then, that you "never" post any
criticism whatsoever of any author until you at least attempt to contact
them first? If so, you are extraordinarily unusual among Usenet
posters, & I doubt many people would agree that it is remiss to not
attempt such a contact before ever ever ever posting any criticism of
that author.
> I am not into character
> assassnations, (no pun intended).
Neither am I, & I am rather offended that you seem to be suggesting
otherwise. How on earth is merely pointing out, quite correctly,
*provably* correct, in fact, that an author has grossly misrepresented
his own cited document the equivalent of "character assassination"?
O.H. LEE
Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >> But in the Tippit area, based on the *current* state
>> >> of the evidence as I understand it, I cannot in good conscience go
beyond
>> >> granting a 50/50 possibility that Oswald was the assailant, okay?
>> >
>> >Perhaps you simply don't understand it completely enough. You do
>> >realize, correct, that FAR more witnesses than otherwise positively
>> >identified the same person in custody as the person they saw fleeing
the
>>
>> >scene, & at so many multiple locations between the Tippit scene & the
>> >Texas Theater?
>>
>> Mightn't perceptions have been altered somewhat if the accounts of Mr.
Wright
>> and Mrs. Clemons had been permitted to enter the record?
>
>Perhaps so. Would it change the fact that their assertions might remain
>unique & uncorroborated?
It may well have given researchers and investigators some other areas to
scrutinize and investigate while the trail was still warm
>> >It is said, by some, that the ID lineups were a "sham,"
>>
>> Indeed, one of those pronouncing the lineups as a "sham" was none other
than
>> the accused, Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
>You'll perhaps forgive me if I'd want a bit more corroboration than that
>of the accused, as if he was a "guilty" accused, he'd certainly have
>some motivation to say such a thing in any event.
Would he not also have had such motivation if he were innocent and sensed
that he was being railroaded?
But of course there
>is some beyond his word. It might be interesting to explore the reasons
>*why* the lineups occurred as they did.
>
>> >but there is testimony extant which refutes this. In extremely few
>> >other murder cases in all of recorded human history has any "lookalike"
>>
>> >even been suggested, although certainly there have been cases of
>> >mistaken identity.
>>
>> I think that you are far too quick to dismiss these Oswald lookalike reports
>> sir. You do realize that several cases appear quite solid, with not only
>> corroboration, but the name "Oswald" recalled and/or written down, right?
>
>I'm aware of some which are purported to be such, yes. Do please name
>the exact ones you're talking about so we can discuss them in detail.
>Thanks.
Well, two cases come to mind rather readily. I believe that a gunsmith (fellow's
name may have been Dial Ryder - I'm not sure) told of an "Oswald" coming
into his shop and requesting a scope being fitted on a rifle. Another is
the early November incident at the car dealership when an "Oswald" was ostensibly
car hunting, making comments concerning going back "to Russia", driving in
a wild, reckless manner, etc. In both of these cases, I believe that the
fellow not only resembled Oswald, but gave the name "Oswald", which was also
duly written down on paper. This is fairly impressive evidence of imposture
to me, for the fact that the name was both given and written down is a considerable
hurdle to overcome when one attempts to debunk these accounts.
So unless someone initiated conversation concerning the make and model of
the rifle with Weitzman, it seems perfectly logical to you that he would
have no apparent interest in getting the identification of a rifle possibly
used in a Presidential assassination correct? The only way that this makes
any sense, when the man was preparing to put his name to a sworn document
the next day, is that there was no doubt in his mind that the rifle was in
fact a Mauser. For if there was doubt about what type of rifle was found
and that he observed, wouldn't he logically make a simple phone call to get
the identification right? Wouldn't you have done such if you weren't sure?
Wouldn't I? After all, this was a Presidential assassination.
I'm not certain off-hand, but perhaps she stepped out onto her porch and
was able to get a good wide angle view down the street, as Mr. Wright may
have.
Or was an uncommonly brave woman.
>> This would certainly
>> be preferable to piling on the mysterious deaths. There are other ways
to
>> negate witnesses except for the final resort of murder.
>
>I suppose so. None of them seem to have worked with her, however.
Again, though, they may well have "called off the dogs" on Clemons once they
determined that she would be wholly neglected by officialdom. No need to
kill her then, right?
>> >Sorta like Elrod saying he was still in "danger" in the 1990s, even
>> >though he's been said to have let it all out anyway (& even though
>> >others have "revealed" far more than he ever has, long before he ever
>> >did, & still lived for decades afterward), was assured by his
>> >interviewer that he was not in the slightest "danger" if he told the
>> >"truth," & still is alive today, a decade later.
>>
>> Yes, he has simply been denounced as a crackpot with no credibility in
the
>> case, and apparently with no official investigative body ever taking him
>> seriously.
>
>Actually he's pretty much denounced himself. ;-)
Has he? Mr. Harris and Mr. and Mrs. LaFontaine would vehemently argue that
point.
>> Why would one have to stir things up with a suspicious murder
>> if things can be controlled in other ways? I figure that rubbing out
>> witnesses
>> is sort of a last resort.
>
>Could be. Elrod still does not present an especially compelling case
>that he was ever in any real "danger."
So what do you conclude then? The man's fears are irrational? Or is he putting
on an act?
This is the series that features Mr. Bugliosi as the prosecutor and Mr. Spence
as Oswald's attorney. Yes, I believe that Mr. Norman was indeed a witness,
and that he did indeed indicate an even spacing between the three shots he
heard.
Regards,
O.H. LEE
O.H. LEE (ga...@aol.com)
AnthonyMarsh
There were many surplus rifles from which to choose, but the rifle found
in the TSBD was photographed and filmed and we can see that it is
Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano.
> entered into evidence as the one supposedly found in the TSBD was made
> in the 1890s, & there were several different types of M-Cs & Mausers
I have no idea what you mean by that. The designation of Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano model is a 91/38. That means that it was the
modification designed in 1938 based on the original 1891 design.
Oswald's particular short rifle was made in 1940, so stamped on the
rifle.
> made in that decade alone which were fairly common, not to mention other
> surrounding decades. The identification of any single one of these
> rifles would not have been as easy as some seem to suppose. With
Weitzman never go close enough to see the AD date or the Fascist date
stamped on the rifle.
> assertations of Weitzman being an "expert" in rifles not in evidence (he
> was never recorded as making such a claim about himself, nor do I know
> of anyone who knew him well personally ever being quoted as describing
> him as such), the precise identification of any particular type of rifle
> among the myriad varieties of old European surplus then available in the
> States by such a person would not necessarily be an easy matter.
>
Which is why we should not vilify Weitzman. It is an easy mistake to
make. It looks like a Mauser type of rifle to the untrained eye.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
CurtJ...@webtv.net
>Group: alt.conspiracy.jfk Date: Tue, May 6, 2003, >9:27pm (PDT+2) From:
caer...@yahoo.com >(Caeruleo)
>>In article
>><25432-3EB...@storefull-2117.public.la>>>wson.webtv.net>,
CurtJ...@webtv.net wrote:
>>Mrs. Earlene Robert's under testimony describe's >>Oswald coming in a
little after 1:00 and changing >>clothes. He is there for 3 or 4 minutes
and sees
>> him change into a dark brown 'jacket', that one
>> zippers in front. She sees him zipper it up as he >>is leaving.
>Yep, the problem of course being that she is the >*only* uncorroborated
witness to have him in a
> "dark" jacket at that time.
But she does see that he is in the act of zippering which is to me much
more than a casual look. The discarded jacket also had a zipper. I
would find it highly unlikely if Oswald had a zippered item at arrest
and beyond, that he would have had two zippered items on at the same
time.
>>She also hears a
>>cop car come up while he is in the room with two >>uniformed
policemen, and there are two short >>beeps.
>A perfectly plausible explanation for the police car >occurred to me
instantly upon reading this >sentence in her WC testimony:
>'Yes--it stopped directly in front of my house and it >just "tip-tip"
and that's the way Officer Alexander >and Charles Burnely would do when
they stopped, >and I went to the door
>and looked and saw it wasn't their number.'
What is your 'perfectly plausible explanation'?
>I wonder if it occurs to anyone else, or if I need to >be more
specific.
So far over my head. I can surmise some that it could have been
Tippit's car.
>>As far as the Tippit murder/scene most of the >>testimonies surround a
whitish color jacket or >>shirt.
>"Most"? You keep making this "whitish" claim. I >didn't reproduce all
of their comments on this >matter in this thread, as you've noted, but I
did >indeed reproduce "most" of them in one article or >another, & the
majority of them said "light-colored,"
> not "whitish."
Just semantics here....gray to me is a white color especially when
light. White and black mixed make gray. Off-white means to me any
color mixed with white to be predominately white orientated.
>>With the time of some of the witnesses
>>of the murder, especially with Markham and >>Smith, it would seem
impossible for Oswald to >>walk the 1.2 miles to the murder scene.
>*If* their time is more accurate than others, which >is not necessarily
in evidence.
I contend with 1:20 showing of the film at the TT and Oswald being seen
prior in there, that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to have walked to the Tippit
murder and do the shooting AND do all the things he did to get to the
theater. Was Earlene Roberts wrong when Oswald came in at 1:00 or a few
minutes after? Was T.F. Bowley wrong when he looked at his watch upon
arriving at an already dead Tippit at 1:10? Markham had to be wrong to
even though she knew when she left at 1:04 from the laundry room? Craig
must have been wrong when he looked at his watch as being 1:06 whilst at
the TSBD when overhearing the police dispatch of an officer shot. Why
on earth would they have the 'evidence' to change the time of the
shooting/death from 1:10 to 1:19? I find Mr. Caeruleo rather
inconsistent when spending countless hours tryng to justify seconds in
the possible sixth floor TSBD suspect's descent to flittering off
minutes here as so seemingly 'unattainable' or not worthy of scrutiny.
[snipped one piece of dialog]
[snipped Tippit witness testmony]
>>So most of the clothing up top from shirt to jacket >>was white,
light, gray, and the 'jacket's' described >>seemed to be of the light
and not heavy variety.
>Yep.
[snip Brewer desription]
>>Mr. Caeruleo posited that upon being shown the >>supposed police
station of Oswald in a dark shirt >>he could not be so positive that it
could not be a >>button down shirt and even was so kind to post >>the
site where it could be seen. After looking at >>again and I invite all
to do so, I would be 95% >>certain that it would be a zippered item. The
item >>is closed some from the bottom to where a button >>or zipper
point would be. It goes straight up for >>about eight inches and the
spacing of sides of >>the shirt/jacket remain uniform and spread at
>>about a 1/2", where one can see the white from >>the t shirt
underneath. If it were a button down, >>as I was trying on at my home
the lapels would >>flare dramatically and the it would form a 'vee'
>>going toward both shoulders if it were a button >>down. I am sure it
would depend some on the >>texture and flexiblility of the material, but
as for >>that photo, authentic or not, I would give it a >>postive
zippered piece of clothing material.
>I'll freely admit that it looks as if it could be >zippered in that
photo. One problem is that we >don't seem to know exactly when that
photo was >taken. Was it on Friday, or Saturday, or Sunday? If >on one
of the latter 2 days, could this have been >clothing supplied to him?
That is a good question. I would ask the same of Groden's pictures as
well if the shirt were any different.
>>Mr.
>>Caeruleo points out in his May 5th response that >>Mr. Groden has in a
book Oswald in jail with >>what he determines a button down shirt. I
have >>no way to corroborate that and would invite >>responses on that
as well. (But even if were >>button-down and a dark color, it would
still >>descrepancy in color.)
>I know a number of other posters have "The Killing >of a President," &
so may corroborate what I say >now. On p. 93 there is a picture of
Oswald >speaking to reporters; the caption reads, "Oswald >confronts the
press for the first time after his >arrest." This suggests that the
photo is from >Friday, as he did indeed speak to the press on that >day.
The shirt is dark, with a white t-shirt >underneath. It is a much
clearer image than the >scan on that webpage of that other photo.
>Unfortunately Oswald's torso below about the >middle of his sternum is
blocked, so one cannot >see nearly all of the shirt. But it does indeed
seem >to have the lapels of a button-up shirt. It is also >opened a good
way down, exposing a fair expanse >of the t-shirt over his chest. There
is nothing >resembling the metal line of a zipper on either side >of the
shirt's opening.
..or if that clothing was supplied to him f it was different.
>On p. 104 there are 2 pictures of Oswald in this >dark shirt, with the
caption, "Oswald runs the >gauntlet of police and press." The shirt
appears to >be the same one as in the previous photo on 93, & >in the
lower picture the collar is quite clear; I can >see what looks very like
the spots where the collar >can be buttoned, & again there's nothing
that looks >like the line of a zipper.
Noted.
>>Mr. Caeruleo disparages the remark of Mr. >>Armstrong on the coats
supposedly owned by >>Oswald according to Marina and her testimony.
>>There does seem to be a discrepancy in where >>the coat's are
purchased as in Russia by >>Armstrong or stateside as he quotes Marina
as >>saying.
>>The actual FBI document itself, which Armstrong >>cites by name,
quotes Marina as saying that the >>jackets were bought stateside.
Armstrong, in >>italics, says the document has her saying >>"purchased
in Russia."
> "Discrepancy" is an understatement.
>>Other
>>than a small wonderment, what I am concerned >>with here is whether
the discarded gray coat >>under the Oldsmobile en route from the Tippit
>>murder scene to the Texas Theater could be >>Oswald's. The testimony
so far under >>consideration is the size which was M. Oswald
>> was supposedly a S or a small.
>But were his two jackets specifically said by >Marina to be S?
I believe the article used in Jan/Feb 1998 Probe used at Armstrong's
site alluded that all of Oswald's clothing checked out was i the S
category. Is there anything Marina said that would indicate not all his
clothing would be S? Or that some would be M? I think she should know
if she routinely washed his clothing.
>>The coat was with commercial markings, but >>could not be traced.
Marina said Oswald did no >>commercial laundrying and that she did the
coats >>herself (this I don't know if is in the CE 1836 >>testimony or
is just surmised by Armstrong?).
>Did you mean 1843 rather than 1836? If so, yes, >something to that
effect is in there. Did you not >look at the document itself when I gave
the URL? >But all that is said is that she "couldn't recall that >OSWALD
ever sent either of these jackets to any >laundry or cleaners anywhere,"
but that she did >recall washing them herself. Nothing at all is said
>about whether or not she saw any *previous* >laundry marks already on
it. Do recall when she >said these jackets were purchased, according to
>that document.
Yes it appears I made a mistake with the numbers trying to recite from
memory. No, did not look.
Ooops, made a logic mistake. You should have just asked instead of
running on. But while you got balled up in that you missed my comment
on the found gray jacket. I will ask again, was Marina able to identify
the found gray jacket under the Olds as Oswald's? If not can you find
any reason why she was not asked?
>Oh dear, & looky at what *else* is said in CE 1843:
>"She said to the best of her recollection LEE >HARVEY OSWALD had only
two jackets, one a >heavy jacket, blue in color, and another light
>jacket, grey in color."
>Now where, oh where, have I just seen the words >"light" & "grey" (or
"gray") in close juxtaposition
> with each other regarding a jacket? Why yes, I >remember now...in the
statements of several of the
> witnesses quoted above.
My question seems even more important now, especially her offering that
in testimony. It would be now inconceivable that they could not offer
her the jacket for description, the one found under the car.
>Will you actually please look at the document this >time, if you
haven't already done so? Here's the >URL again:
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh>23/html/WH_Vol23_0277a
htm
I tried but my webtv does not adapt to it.
>>Even though most of the witness for the Tippit >>murder don't see any
brown much less dark >>brown, it is Mr. Caeruleo's contention that
>>Oswald could have had the gray coat over >>everything else and
discarded it.
>It's hardly only my contention; a jacket was indeed >found under a car
in that parking lot into which the >man had been seen to run wearing a
jacket which >looked rather like it.
>>Would it seem reasonable that he would be seen >>with two pieces of
clothing at the TSBD and no >>more, and when the day got warmer he would
>>change into something that would require him to >>put on three pieces
of clothing?
>Did it occur to you that the jacket might initially >have been for the
purpose of covering the pistol in >his belt, & that it might then be
discarded after the >Tippit shooting to make an ID at least somewhat
>less likely?
I guess it could have, but it seems like he could have just hid it under
whatever he was wearing beside the t-shirt. Yes for the making the ID
less likely. But he wouldn't wear extra clothing in anticipation of a
murder he didn't know he would be committing.
>>Did any of the Tippit murder witnesses report him >>with three pieces
of clothing?
>Not that I can recall. But of course, if the shirt was >unbuttoned
farther down than the zipper of the >jacket, they wouldn't necessarily
see the outer shirt >anyway, only possibly the t-shirt.
>Unbuttoned as far down as, say, it is seen to be in >those 3 photos of
him.
>>He asks for more clothing corroboration. I think >>.we all would.
He may have seen him descend from the balcony not knowing who he was and
got the popcorn and figured later that it must have been the guy he
heard. Since there was so few in the theater it might have stood out
that somebody would go up in the balcony.
>>In relation to the popcorn he would not have >>known who he was
serving it to at the time he >>was serving it.
>But when he saw Oswald being brought out of the >theater by police,
wouldn't he *then* know that he >had served the same man popcorn less
than an >hour earlier? Yet he is not recorded as making >even a shred of
such a suggestion until a minimum >of 2 decades later.
Maybe if he was acute in mind. Maybe he didn't think about it with all
the surronding excitement of the event, and it took some 'jogging' to be
rememebred.
>>In the online article when I searched
>>[Jack Davis Texas Theater] under the first >>heading under Tripod the
article stated Jack >>Davis saw Oswald the same time Burrough's later
>>claims to have. It also states that Oswald was in >>the theater and
later went up to the lobby and >>then re-entered and came back in the
theater. >>Too bad no interviews were held on the majority >>of theater
witnesses which might have >>corroborated an Oswald eating popcorn that
I >>know of. Maybe Mr. Marr's interview with Jack >>Davis would shed
some light? I also would fail to >>see the motivation of lying about
selling popcorn >>to somebody, a fact that I am sure we could >>probably
remember with only 7 patrons in the >>theater at the time.
Have a question here, how many ways were there to the balcony in the TT?
>Motivation? A little fame? A little attention? Plenty >of people have
been motivated in exactly such a >way, & hardly just in this one case.
I could see Johnny Brewer in that category, instrumental in fingering
the 'criminal' in the most famous murder case ever known especially
hearing about and even seeing Oswald's clothing before he testified. If
Burrough's was out for fame don't you think he would want to seek it
before two decades? I would like to know too, how the interview came
about, whether a reporter sought him out or not?
>>On Jack Ruby in the theater during the arrest, >>from the online
article in the previous paragraph >>George J. Applin while under
testimony around >>the assassination described a 'mystery man' in >>the
theater around the time of the assassination. >>( H & E, vol. vii, p.
91). In 1979 he tells who this >>mystery many was. Jack Ruby 'just sat
their >>watching' even when Applin told him to move that >>the guy had a
gun. This interview was from the >>May 11, 1979 edition of THe Dallas
Morning >>News. He also stated he didn't divulge earlier >>because of
what he read about witnesses being >>bumped off.
>Could be, although again here we have a claim not >made for the first
time until many years later, & >contradictory to the earlier statements.
Doesn't >automatically make the later statements false, of >course, but
it still is questionable, especially again, >as I hate to keep
repeating, this appears to be >another assertion uncorroborated by any
other >witness.
It's not really years later when he said there was a mystery man at the
time of the assassination. He at least 'paved the way', making it much
more credible.
Also, there is Evelyn Harris the worker from the sewing shop along with
witnesses seeing Ruby giving Oswald a gun right after the assassination,
who stated she knew Oswald previously I believe from lunch hour(s)
mingling(s).
>>Also of interest is a mystery man in the Jan/Feb >>article in Probe at
Armstrong's site. While in the >>lower seats with the arrest of Oswald
going on, >>their is a fellow being interrogated in the balcony >>by two
detectives, Cunningham, and one who >>starts with a T(oney). They are
stopped by a >>'manager' (Ruby??) and told this guy has been >>here
since 12:05, that the guy they're arresting is >>downstairs. Julia
Postal testifies that the 'real >>manager' had left for the day at 1:30.
Also there >>is another arrest made as one is brought out the >>alley
from the backside theater exit, one who >>Bernard Haire described as one
with a 'white >>pullover shirt' (no coat) and after seeing Oswald >>on
TV was dumbounded about 'him' being >>arrested in the front of the Texas
Theater. That >>'arrest' even though attested by 16 officers never
>>seemed to make the arrest records. Hmmm?
>"16 officers"? Original source?
Ooops my mistake again, reading about the guy in the alley and thinking
the 16 officers testified to it; they testified to the Oswald apparently
to the one brought out of the theater in the front.
>>I posed the 'sighting' of Oswald with Ruby by the >>waitress to Mr.
Caerleo in the wee house after >>the day of the assassination. He
mentioned the >>assumption of a 'look-a-like' and also besides her,
>>the morning of the assassination Dub Stark and >>employee of the Top
Ten Record Shop sold >>Oswald a ticket to the Dick Clark Show at 7:30
>>A.M. Well after the Texas Theater arrest, Oswald >>came back in and
retuned the ticket. He never >>wavered from the accounts or story and
can be >>viewed online. Many other 'Oswald' sightings >>before, during,
and after the assassination when >>Oswald should have been at work at
the TSBD or >>arrested.
>I hate to cite Posner, as I don't trust him any more >than any other
author, but he does make the point >that it is fairly typical in
high-profile cases for >"sightings" to crop up. Were not almost all of
these >assertions not made until after the assassination? >Few if any,
at least of these cited, include >solidly-datable documentation of the
sighting >having occurred before the assassination, >unfortunately. Not
that some of them couldn't be >quite valid, but it's hard to tell.
Way too many in the 3 months prior to be in that category IMO especially
when one was supposed to be in a different city doing something when the
'other' was in another doing something else. When a guy checks an ID
the morning of the assassination (8:30 A.M.) with the same birth month
and year and name of the accused assassin of the President of U.S. and
the accused assassin doesn't have a license and doesn't know how to
drive and that license comes up at a policeman's murder scene 5 hours
later and at a Dept. of Public Saftey agency 6 days later, shouldn't one
investigate or at least think hard on the subject?
Really, you went too far with me, Pointing out apparent discrepancies
is fine for the discussion, but you assailed him as a "bold-faced liar"
and ranted on about his being "untrustworthy". You have no way of
knowing whether he would have gotten mixed up and made a mistake much
less than making a statement that would purposely deceive the public. I
tried pointing out your fallacy by assigning the same adjecives to you
when you made a mistake (Julia Postal's affidavit), but you have a
double standard that only applies to him and not to you, apparently.
>>I am not into character
>>assassnations, (no pun intended).
>Neither am I, & I am rather offended that you seem >to be suggesting
otherwise. How on earth is >merely pointing out, quite correctly,
*provably* >correct, in fact, that an author has grossly >misrepresented
his own cited document the >equivalent of "character assassination"?
You must think he needs to arrive here and account for something in
order to be 'exonerated' in order to not be a "bold-faced liar". Also
it gives the tone that if one thing in his research is wrong, it all
must be wrong (and don't be stupid enough to look into it any further).
CJ
Caeruleo
CurtJ...@webtv.net wrote:
> >Group: alt.conspiracy.jfk Date: Tue, May 6, 2003, >9:27pm (PDT+2) From:
> caer...@yahoo.com >(Caeruleo)
>
> >>In article
> >><25432-3EB...@storefull-2117.public.la>>>wson.webtv.net>,
> CurtJ...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >>Mrs. Earlene Robert's under testimony describe's >>Oswald coming in a
> little after 1:00 and changing >>clothes. He is there for 3 or 4 minutes
> and sees
> >> him change into a dark brown 'jacket', that one
> >> zippers in front. She sees him zipper it up as he >>is leaving.
>
> >Yep, the problem of course being that she is the >*only* uncorroborated
> witness to have him in a
> > "dark" jacket at that time.
>
> But she does see that he is in the act of zippering which is to me much
> more than a casual look. The discarded jacket also had a zipper. I
> would find it highly unlikely if Oswald had a zippered item at arrest
> and beyond, that he would have had two zippered items on at the same
> time.
I wouldn't think so either. However, neither you or I know yet whether
the shirt he was wearing at the time of arrest had a zipper.
> >>She also hears a
> >>cop car come up while he is in the room with two >>uniformed
> policemen, and there are two short >>beeps.
>
> >A perfectly plausible explanation for the police car >occurred to me
> instantly upon reading this >sentence in her WC testimony:
>
> >'Yes--it stopped directly in front of my house and it >just "tip-tip"
> and that's the way Officer Alexander >and Charles Burnely would do when
> they stopped, >and I went to the door
> >and looked and saw it wasn't their number.'
>
> What is your 'perfectly plausible explanation'?
Here it comes.
> >I wonder if it occurs to anyone else, or if I need to >be more
> specific.
>
> So far over my head. I can surmise some that it could have been
> Tippit's car.
Oh dear...
I rather think probably not.
Let's look at the whole exchange first:
**********
Mrs. ROBERTS. Right direct in front of that door-there was a police car
stopped and honked. I had worked for some policemen and sometimes they
come by and tell me something that maybe
their wives would want me to know, and I thought it was them, and I just
glanced out and saw the number, and I said, "Oh, that's not their car,"
for I knew their car.
Mr. BALL. You mean, it was not the car of the policemen you knew?
Mrs. ROBERTS. It wasn't the police car I knew, because their number was
170 and it wasn't 170 and I ignored it.
Mr. BALL. And who was in the car?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't know--I didn't pay any attention to it after I
noticed it wasn't them-I didn't.
Mr. BALL. Where was it parked ?
Mrs. ROBERTS. It was parked in front of the house.
Mr. BALL. At 1026 North Beckley?
Mrs. ROBERTS. And then they just eased on--the way it is-it was the
third house off of Zangs and they just went on around the corner that
way.
Mr. BALL. Went around what corner?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Went around the corner off of Beckley on Zangs.
Mr. BALL. Going which way--toward town or away from town?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Toward town.
Dr. GOLDBERG. Which way was the car facing?
Mrs. ROBERTS. It was facing north.
Dr. GOLDBERG. Towards Zangs?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Towards Zangs--for I was the third house right off of
Zangs on Beckley.
Mr. BALL. Did this police car stop directly in front of your house?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes--it stopped directly in front of my house and it just
"tip-tip" and that's the way Officer Alexander and Charles Burnely would
do when they stopped, and I went to the door
and looked and saw it wasn't their number.
Mr. BALL. Where was Oswald when this happened?
Mrs. ROBERTS. In his room.
Mr. BALL. It was after he had come in his room?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Had that police car ever stopped there before ?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't know--I don't remember ever seeing it.
Mr. BALL. Have you ever seen it since?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No--I didn't pay that much attention--I just saw it wasn't
the police car that I knew and had worked for so, I forgot about it. I
seen it at the time, but I don't remember now what it
was.
Mr. BALL. Did you report the number of the car to anyone?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I think I did---I'm not sure, because I--at that
particular time I remembered it.
Mr. BALL. You remembered the number of the car ?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I think it was--106, it seems to me like it was 106, but I
do know what theirs was--it was 170 and it wasn't their car.
Mr. BALL. It was not 170?
Mrs. ROBERTS. The people I worked for was 170.
Mr. BALL. Did you report that number to anyone, did you report this
incident to anyone?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes, I told the FBI and the Secret Service both when they
was out there.
Mr. BALL. And did you tell them the number of the car?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I'm not sure--I believe I did--I'm not sure. I think I did
because there was so much happened then until my brains was in a whirl.
Mr. BALL. On the 29th of November, Special Agents Will Griffin and James
Kennedy of the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewed you and you
told them that "after Oswald had entered
his room about 1 p.m. on November 22, 1963, you looked out the front
window and saw police car No. 207?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No. 107.
Mr. BALL. Is that the number?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes--I remembered it. I don't know where I got that
106---207. Anyway, I knew it wasn't 170.
Mr. BALL. And you say that there were two uniformed policemen in the car?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes, and it was in a black car. It wasn't an accident
squad car at all.
Mr. BALL. Were there two uniformed policemen in the car?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Oh, yes.
Mr. BALL. And one of the officers sounded the born ?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Just kind of a "tit-tit"--twice.
Mr. BALL. And then drove on to Beckley toward Zangs Boulevard, is that
right?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes. I thought there was a number, but I couldn't remember
it but I did know the number of their car--I could tell that. I want you
to understand that I have been put through the
third degree and it's hard to remember.
**********
So let's see...a police car pulled up in front of the rooming house.
The officer who was driving honked "the way Officer Alexander and
Charles Burnely would do when they stopped." But it wasn't their car,
which was 170. But she said that's really all she looked for, so she
didn't go out. She said specifically that she didn't see who was in the
car.
Could it perhaps simply be that officers Alexander & Burnely were in a
different police car that day? Did they *always* use the same car, &
never, even once, use a different one?
And wasn't Tippit alone? Yet we clearly see her saying that she saw 2
officers in the car.
> >>As far as the Tippit murder/scene most of the >>testimonies surround a
> whitish color jacket or >>shirt.
>
> >"Most"? You keep making this "whitish" claim. I >didn't reproduce all
> of their comments on this >matter in this thread, as you've noted, but I
> did >indeed reproduce "most" of them in one article or >another, & the
> majority of them said "light-colored,"
> > not "whitish."
>
> Just semantics here....gray to me is a white color especially when
> light. White and black mixed make gray. Off-white means to me any
> color mixed with white to be predominately white orientated.
Fine.
> >>With the time of some of the witnesses
> >>of the murder, especially with Markham and >>Smith, it would seem
> impossible for Oswald to >>walk the 1.2 miles to the murder scene.
>
> >*If* their time is more accurate than others, which >is not necessarily
> in evidence.
>
> I contend with 1:20 showing of the film at the TT and Oswald being seen
> prior in there,
Being seen "prior" by whom? Burroughs? That's not much to go on with
his extraordinary inconsistency. Why do you seem to favor his later
statements over his earlier? Why do you favor his later timing over
Brewer's & Postal's, when they were far more consistent than Burroughs?
> that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to have walked to the Tippit
> murder and do the shooting AND do all the things he did to get to the
> theater. Was Earlene Roberts wrong when Oswald came in at 1:00 or a few
> minutes after? Was T.F. Bowley wrong when he looked at his watch upon
> arriving at an already dead Tippit at 1:10? Markham had to be wrong to
> even though she knew when she left at 1:04 from the laundry room? Craig
> must have been wrong when he looked at his watch as being 1:06 whilst at
> the TSBD when overhearing the police dispatch of an officer shot. Why
> on earth would they have the 'evidence' to change the time of the
> shooting/death from 1:10 to 1:19?
I'm curious if you actually know precisely how far it is from the
rooming house to the location where Tippit was killed. I've driven by
that area many times, but unfortunately not yet on those very streets,
so it's difficult for me to comment on how long he might have taken to
traverse that distance.
> I find Mr. Caeruleo rather
> inconsistent when spending countless hours tryng to justify seconds in
> the possible sixth floor TSBD suspect's descent to flittering off
> minutes here as so seemingly 'unattainable' or not worthy of scrutiny.
Excuse me. Where on EARTH are you getting the impression that I don't
want to nail down the precise timing of this rooming house to Tippit
scene business just as much as the other? When have I made any
statement that this is "not worthy of scrutiny"? That's a strawman,
Curt, & unworthy of you. I've never said such a thing. I'll thank you
not to attribute attitudes to me that I don't posess, & for which you
have no evidence that I posess, & attribute arguments to me that I've
never made, if you wish me to continue any further discussion with you.
> >>Mr. Caeruleo posited that upon being shown the >>supposed police
> station of Oswald in a dark shirt >>he could not be so positive that it
> could not be a >>button down shirt and even was so kind to post >>the
> site where it could be seen. After looking at >>again and I invite all
> to do so, I would be 95% >>certain that it would be a zippered item. The
> item >>is closed some from the bottom to where a button >>or zipper
> point would be. It goes straight up for >>about eight inches and the
> spacing of sides of >>the shirt/jacket remain uniform and spread at
> >>about a 1/2", where one can see the white from >>the t shirt
> underneath. If it were a button down, >>as I was trying on at my home
> the lapels would >>flare dramatically and the it would form a 'vee'
> >>going toward both shoulders if it were a button >>down. I am sure it
> would depend some on the >>texture and flexiblility of the material, but
> as for >>that photo, authentic or not, I would give it a >>postive
> zippered piece of clothing material.
>
> >I'll freely admit that it looks as if it could be >zippered in that
> photo. One problem is that we >don't seem to know exactly when that
> photo was >taken. Was it on Friday, or Saturday, or Sunday? If >on one
> of the latter 2 days, could this have been >clothing supplied to him?
>
> That is a good question. I would ask the same of Groden's pictures as
> well if the shirt were any different.
Again, I quote the caption: "Oswald confronts the press for the first
time after his arrest." This rather obviously means Friday, his first
day of incarceration. The webpage which shows the photo of Oswald in
the "zippered" clothing, however, contains no suggestion whatsoever as
to when during the assassination weekend the picture was taken. What we
need here is more pictures, & more witness statements as to the type of
shirt he was wearing when first brought out of the theater, & first
brought in to the jail. It is a shame that that one photo of him being
brought out of the theater (if there is another, I cannot recall having
yet seen it) shows only his face behind others, with the shirt not
visible.
> >>Mr.
> >>Caeruleo points out in his May 5th response that >>Mr. Groden has in a
> book Oswald in jail with >>what he determines a button down shirt. I
> have >>no way to corroborate that and would invite >>responses on that
> as well. (But even if were >>button-down and a dark color, it would
> still >>descrepancy in color.)
>
> >I know a number of other posters have "The Killing >of a President," &
> so may corroborate what I say >now. On p. 93 there is a picture of
> Oswald >speaking to reporters; the caption reads, "Oswald >confronts the
> press for the first time after his >arrest." This suggests that the
> photo is from >Friday, as he did indeed speak to the press on that >day.
> The shirt is dark, with a white t-shirt >underneath. It is a much
> clearer image than the >scan on that webpage of that other photo.
> >Unfortunately Oswald's torso below about the >middle of his sternum is
> blocked, so one cannot >see nearly all of the shirt. But it does indeed
> seem >to have the lapels of a button-up shirt. It is also >opened a good
> way down, exposing a fair expanse >of the t-shirt over his chest. There
> is nothing >resembling the metal line of a zipper on either side >of the
> shirt's opening.
>
> ..or if that clothing was supplied to him f it was different.
Indeed. Or if that webpage picture shows clothing supplied to him later.
> >>Other
> >>than a small wonderment, what I am concerned >>with here is whether
> the discarded gray coat >>under the Oldsmobile en route from the Tippit
> >>murder scene to the Texas Theater could be >>Oswald's. The testimony
> so far under >>consideration is the size which was M. Oswald
> >> was supposedly a S or a small.
>
> >But were his two jackets specifically said by >Marina to be S?
>
> I believe the article used in Jan/Feb 1998 Probe used at Armstrong's
> site alluded that all of Oswald's clothing checked out was i the S
> category. Is there anything Marina said that would indicate not all his
> clothing would be S? Or that some would be M? I think she should know
> if she routinely washed his clothing.
There isn't anything in CE 1843 about that. I am also at present unable
to locate any discussion of his clothing sizes in her WC testimony, her
Shaw Trial testimony, & her HSCA testimony.
What should I have "asked," Curt? I was simply addressing your
assertion of it being "strange" that she wouldn't know exactly where the
jackets were purchased.
> But while you got balled up in that you missed my comment
> on the found gray jacket. I will ask again, was Marina able to identify
> the found gray jacket under the Olds as Oswald's?
Sorry. What is at least purported to be that same jacket is CE 162,
which is shown in the bottom photo here:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0272b
.htm
It's most definitely a jacket, not a shirt, & looks as if it could quite
easily completely cover a shirt that was unbuttoned farther down than
the jacket was unzipped.
And yes, she did identify this as Lee's to the WC.
She also ID'd the brown shirts, CE 150 & 151, as his. These are
supposedly the only brown shirts in this collection. Both are
long-sleeved, & both are button-up. I see no brown shirt in these
photos that has a zipper:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/contents.htm
If one of these is the shirt he was arrested in, then the "zippered"
shirt scenario is blown out of the water.
> If not can you find
> any reason why she was not asked?
Since she was asked, no. ;-)
> >Oh dear, & looky at what *else* is said in CE 1843:
> >"She said to the best of her recollection LEE >HARVEY OSWALD had only
> two jackets, one a >heavy jacket, blue in color, and another light
> >jacket, grey in color."
>
> >Now where, oh where, have I just seen the words >"light" & "grey" (or
> "gray") in close juxtaposition
> > with each other regarding a jacket? Why yes, I >remember now...in the
> statements of several of the
> > witnesses quoted above.
>
> My question seems even more important now, especially her offering that
> in testimony. It would be now inconceivable that they could not offer
> her the jacket for description, the one found under the car.
But they did, or at least one purported to be that same jacket.
> >Will you actually please look at the document this >time, if you
> haven't already done so? Here's the >URL again:
>
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh>23/html/WH_Vol23_0277a
> htm
>
> I tried but my webtv does not adapt to it.
Oh. :(
> >>Would it seem reasonable that he would be seen >>with two pieces of
> clothing at the TSBD and no >>more, and when the day got warmer he would
> >>change into something that would require him to >>put on three pieces
> of clothing?
>
> >Did it occur to you that the jacket might initially >have been for the
> purpose of covering the pistol in >his belt, & that it might then be
> discarded after the >Tippit shooting to make an ID at least somewhat
> >less likely?
>
> I guess it could have, but it seems like he could have just hid it under
> whatever he was wearing beside the t-shirt. Yes for the making the ID
> less likely.
I'm hoping you'll be able to view the photo of that jacket cited above.
It would rather obviously hide a pistol far better than a mere shirt
would.
> But he wouldn't wear extra clothing in anticipation of a
> murder he didn't know he would be committing.
Who said he would have worn it to anticipate a murder? I said he may
have worn it to hide the pistol.
> >>As far as Burroughs on his WC testimony, 'I never >>saw him' I can
> only surmise that it meant from the >>beginning when he didn't see him
> enter.
>
> >I quoted more than that, though, where >Burroughs talked about guessing
> that the man >may have sneaked past him into the balcony. He >was rather
> plain that he didn't see him *then* >either.
>
> He may have seen him descend from the balcony not knowing who he was and
> got the popcorn and figured later that it must have been the guy he
> heard.
That still doesn't explain why he would not recognize this as the same
man when he was brought out by police.
> Since there was so few in the theater it might have stood out
> that somebody would go up in the balcony.
Sure. Doesn't mean it was Oswald, however, as any of the patrons could
have done so, & doesn't mean it was earlier than the Brewer/Postal
Oswald entry.
> >>In relation to the popcorn he would not have >>known who he was
> serving it to at the time he >>was serving it.
>
> >But when he saw Oswald being brought out of the >theater by police,
> wouldn't he *then* know that he >had served the same man popcorn less
> than an >hour earlier? Yet he is not recorded as making >even a shred of
> such a suggestion until a minimum >of 2 decades later.
>
> Maybe if he was acute in mind. Maybe he didn't think about it with all
> the surronding excitement of the event, and it took some 'jogging' to be
> rememebred.
How much "jogging" do you think his memory would need, Curt? Seeing the
very man being brought out under arrest less than an hour after
Burroughs "sold" him popcorn, an incredibly remarkable circumstance,
wouldn't be more than enough? And his testimony to the WC was taken on
4-8-64, over 4 months after that day. His memory *still* wasn't
"jogged" on this incredibly remarkable circumstance by then?
> >>In the online article when I searched
> >>[Jack Davis Texas Theater] under the first >>heading under Tripod the
> article stated Jack >>Davis saw Oswald the same time Burrough's later
> >>claims to have. It also states that Oswald was in >>the theater and
> later went up to the lobby and >>then re-entered and came back in the
> theater. >>Too bad no interviews were held on the majority >>of theater
> witnesses which might have >>corroborated an Oswald eating popcorn that
> I >>know of. Maybe Mr. Marr's interview with Jack >>Davis would shed
> some light? I also would fail to >>see the motivation of lying about
> selling popcorn >>to somebody, a fact that I am sure we could >>probably
> remember with only 7 patrons in the >>theater at the time.
>
> Have a question here, how many ways were there to the balcony in the TT?
Burroughs' testimony suggests only one stairway up to it.
> >Motivation? A little fame? A little attention? Plenty >of people have
> been motivated in exactly such a >way, & hardly just in this one case.
>
> I could see Johnny Brewer in that category, instrumental in fingering
> the 'criminal' in the most famous murder case ever known especially
> hearing about and even seeing Oswald's clothing before he testified. If
> Burrough's was out for fame don't you think he would want to seek it
> before two decades?
Not necessarily. In the case of remarkable changes to original stories,
the passage of time makes it easier to make such changes, as, for
example, other witnesses who were present at the same event may be
deceased, so that they can no longer dispute the "new" version. Later
changes in stories can also appeal to "revisionist" reporters, authors,
etc. Think also that in 1963/4 the climate for conspiracy stories
regarding the JFK assassination was not so fertile as it became later.
> I would like to know too, how the interview came
> about, whether a reporter sought him out or not?
Marrs appears to have sought him out, as far as I can tell.
> >>On Jack Ruby in the theater during the arrest, >>from the online
> article in the previous paragraph >>George J. Applin while under
> testimony around >>the assassination described a 'mystery man' in >>the
> theater around the time of the assassination. >>( H & E, vol. vii, p.
> 91). In 1979 he tells who this >>mystery many was. Jack Ruby 'just sat
> their >>watching' even when Applin told him to move that >>the guy had a
> gun. This interview was from the >>May 11, 1979 edition of THe Dallas
> Morning >>News. He also stated he didn't divulge earlier >>because of
> what he read about witnesses being >>bumped off.
>
> >Could be, although again here we have a claim not >made for the first
> time until many years later, & >contradictory to the earlier statements.
> Doesn't >automatically make the later statements false, of >course, but
> it still is questionable, especially again, >as I hate to keep
> repeating, this appears to be >another assertion uncorroborated by any
> other >witness.
>
> It's not really years later when he said there was a mystery man at the
> time of the assassination.
True, he spoke of a man to the WC, to whom he supposedly suggested that
the man should move because "there's a gun" or something to that effect,
but the man just sat there. However, in his WC version the man did not
sit by him as he did in the 1979 version; instead, Applin was standing,
saw the man sitting in the back row of the theater, & told the man he
ought to move.
> He at least 'paved the way', making it much
> more credible.
Dunno, with him originally saying he never saw the man again.
> Also, there is Evelyn Harris the worker from the sewing shop along with
> witnesses seeing Ruby giving Oswald a gun right after the assassination,
> who stated she knew Oswald previously I believe from lunch hour(s)
> mingling(s).
This again seems to come from Armstrong, or at least I am unable to
locate any other citation of this on the Web. He does here appear to
quote the FBI document directly, but I wish he had named it, so that the
original might be viewed.
> >>I posed the 'sighting' of Oswald with Ruby by the >>waitress to Mr.
> Caerleo in the wee house after >>the day of the assassination. He
> mentioned the >>assumption of a 'look-a-like' and also besides her,
> >>the morning of the assassination Dub Stark and >>employee of the Top
> Ten Record Shop sold >>Oswald a ticket to the Dick Clark Show at 7:30
> >>A.M. Well after the Texas Theater arrest, Oswald >>came back in and
> retuned the ticket. He never >>wavered from the accounts or story and
> can be >>viewed online. Many other 'Oswald' sightings >>before, during,
> and after the assassination when >>Oswald should have been at work at
> the TSBD or >>arrested.
>
> >I hate to cite Posner, as I don't trust him any more >than any other
> author, but he does make the point >that it is fairly typical in
> high-profile cases for >"sightings" to crop up. Were not almost all of
> these >assertions not made until after the assassination? >Few if any,
> at least of these cited, include >solidly-datable documentation of the
> sighting >having occurred before the assassination, >unfortunately. Not
> that some of them couldn't be >quite valid, but it's hard to tell.
>
> Way too many in the 3 months prior to be in that category IMO especially
> when one was supposed to be in a different city doing something when the
> 'other' was in another doing something else.
You need to observe that the sightings were "claimed" to be in the 3
months prior, but that almost all the "claims" were not recorded until
after the assassination.
> When a guy checks an ID
> the morning of the assassination (8:30 A.M.) with the same birth month
> and year and name of the accused assassin of the President of U.S. and
> the accused assassin doesn't have a license and doesn't know how to
> drive and that license comes up at a policeman's murder scene 5 hours
> later and at a Dept. of Public Saftey agency 6 days later, shouldn't one
> investigate or at least think hard on the subject?
I would think so. Of course, most of the "sightings" you've referenced
involve nothing like this, no actual physical documentation, only claims
by these persons, mostly not recorded until after the assassination,
that they saw Oswald and/or Ruby at this or that location.
> >>I have written to Walt
> >>Brown, Lisa Pease, Jerry Robertson, and Michael >>T. Griffith and they
> have been kind enough to >>respond.
>
> >That's fine. Are you suggesting, then, that you >"never" post any
> criticism whatsoever of any author >until you at least attempt to
> contact them first? If >so, you are extraordinarily unusual among Usenet
> >posters, & I doubt many people would agree that it >is remiss to not
> attempt such a contact before ever >ever ever posting any criticism of
> that author.
>
> Really, you went too far with me, Pointing out apparent discrepancies
> is fine for the discussion, but you assailed him as a "bold-faced liar"
No, I said that his statement claiming that CE 1843 says that the
jackets were purchased in Russia is a bold-faced lie. Here is the exact
sentence:
"Oh, I see...you're getting
it (sadly) from Armstrong, who in the very article whose URL I cited
previously, tells this bold-faced lie:"
I did not call the man himself a liar, bold-faced or otherwise, although
I suppose to say he lied implies he's a liar.
But you yourself admit you haven't seen the document. I have. I don't
see how on earth he could get "purchased in Russia" out of that as a
mere error, especially in an article, rather different from more
casually-posted newsgroup articles which are typical, which has the
appearance of being a more finished article meant to stand for some time
on that site, if not also originally published in print media, in which
one might presume that the author might take a bit more care to get
things right before publishing it.
> and ranted on about his being "untrustworthy". You have no way of
> knowing whether he would have gotten mixed up and made a mistake
That's a hell of a big whopper of a "mistake," Curt. He claims the
document to say almost precisely the opposite of what it actually says,
placing the purchasing of the jackets in Russia where they'd be very
unlikely to acquire laundry marks of launderers in the U.S. before
Marina herself began washing them, instead of correctly noting that the
document says they were purchased in the U.S. before he even went to
Russia, an absolute minimum of 1 & 1/2 years before Marina even met him,
much less began washing his clothes, which blows his whole point about
the laundry marks out of the water, as we can't know from that document
where the clothes may have been laundered in the U.S., whether Oswald
bought them used with laundry marks already on them, etc.
> much
> less than making a statement that would purposely deceive the public.
Well, maybe he didn't do it intentionally, Curt, although I just don't
see, looking at that document, how he could have possibly gotten
"purchased in Russia" out of it if he had really read it.
> I
> tried pointing out your fallacy by assigning the same adjecives to you
> when you made a mistake (Julia Postal's affidavit), but you have a
> double standard that only applies to him and not to you, apparently.
You're close to a plonk on that one. I exhibit no "double standard."
The day I read your correction & then went back & looked at the
affidavit was only the SECOND TIME I had seen that affidavit, & I
admitted my error & unequivocally apologized for it in the FIRST ARTICLE
I posted in response. The first time I looked at the document I had
neglected to look at the date at all, thus this was NOT a situation of
me seeing the date & reporting it wrongly. I had simply assumed it was
a same-day affidavit, as I looked at it in close proximity of time with
other affidavits which were indeed from 11-22-63, which still does not
excuse my assumption. In CE 1843, however, at the FIRST TIME I saw the
document, the sentence about where the jackets were purchased was
immediately clear to me. I think it's a slightly different thing to
overlook a date at the top than to see a sentence which plainly states
something & say it states something complete different. He would have
had to *read* the sentence which talks about purchasing the jacket to be
able to say there was any statement at all about where the jacket was
purchased, otherwise how would he know that the document contained any
statement at all about where the jacket was purchased.
I incorrectly reported a date which I had not seen at the time I
reported it.
He incorrectly reported a sentence which he rather obviously HAD seen at
the time he reported it.
His article was published in February 1998. He's had over 5 years to
retract & apologize for that error. Show me where he has done so.
I retracted & apologized for my error only 2 days after I made it.
And do you find my error to be nearly of the magnitude of his? Oh wow,
I got a date wrong by 12 whole days! He, however, made a sentence out
to say something radically different from what it actually says, in his
version strongly supporting one of his primary points in the article,
when in actual fact the real sentence doesn't even come close.
> >>I am not into character
> >>assassnations, (no pun intended).
>
> >Neither am I, & I am rather offended that you seem >to be suggesting
> otherwise. How on earth is >merely pointing out, quite correctly,
> *provably* >correct, in fact, that an author has grossly >misrepresented
> his own cited document the >equivalent of "character assassination"?
>
> You must think he needs to arrive here and account for something in
> order to be 'exonerated' in order to not be a "bold-faced liar".
Excuse me again. I do not think any such thing. I'll thank you to
cease claiming you are clairvoyant & can read my mind. I simply
responded to your ridiculous assertion that the man was not being given
a "chance to respond," when I've done NOTHING to prevent or discourage
him from responding. I plainly said I would welcome such a response.
You're getting even closer to a plonk.
> Also
> it gives the tone that if one thing in his research is wrong, it all
> must be wrong (and don't be stupid enough to look into it any further).
Never said anything like that either, although I know plenty of other
CTs who say that about Posner, for example. Never did I say that
"everything" he claimed must be wrong. I instead said (with perfect
clarity) that since I myself have proven him beyond all possible doubt
to grossly misrepresent the very document he cited, & also demonstrated
him to go to great lengths to point out the "inconsistencies" of several
of the witnesses who support the WC version, while failing to even
*acknowledge* the much GREATER inconsistencies of at least one witness
who (only decades later) did not support it, & in fact acted as if
Burroughs had never said anything whatosever besides his much later
claims, that it would be advisable not to take everything Armstrong says
at face value without checking his sources.
I stated this quite clearly, Curt. How could you not have understood it
perfectly from the beginning?
I NEVER said that "everything" Armstrong said is wrong, & I ask you now
to please quote me actually saying such a thing, or immediately retract
this assertation about me. If you do neither, I doubt I'll be reading
your articles anymore for a while, & I certainly won't if even once more
you accuse me, without the slightest shred of solid evidence to support
it, of a "double standard," or of "thinking" something which I know
perfectly well I don't think.
Caeruleo
"O.H. LEE " <ga...@sol.com> wrote:
> Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> But in the Tippit area, based on the *current* state
> >> >> of the evidence as I understand it, I cannot in good conscience go
> beyond
> >> >> granting a 50/50 possibility that Oswald was the assailant, okay?
> >> >
> >> >Perhaps you simply don't understand it completely enough. You do
> >> >realize, correct, that FAR more witnesses than otherwise positively
> >> >identified the same person in custody as the person they saw fleeing
> the
> >>
> >> >scene, & at so many multiple locations between the Tippit scene & the
>
> >> >Texas Theater?
> >>
> >> Mightn't perceptions have been altered somewhat if the accounts of Mr.
> Wright
> >> and Mrs. Clemons had been permitted to enter the record?
> >
> >Perhaps so. Would it change the fact that their assertions might remain
>
> >unique & uncorroborated?
>
> It may well have given researchers and investigators some other areas to
> scrutinize and investigate while the trail was still warm
True enough.
> >> >It is said, by some, that the ID lineups were a "sham,"
> >>
> >> Indeed, one of those pronouncing the lineups as a "sham" was none other
> than
> >> the accused, Lee Harvey Oswald.
> >
> >You'll perhaps forgive me if I'd want a bit more corroboration than that
>
> >of the accused, as if he was a "guilty" accused, he'd certainly have
> >some motivation to say such a thing in any event.
>
> Would he not also have had such motivation if he were innocent and sensed
> that he was being railroaded?
Sure.
> >> >but there is testimony extant which refutes this. In extremely few
> >> >other murder cases in all of recorded human history has any "lookalike"
> >>
> >> >even been suggested, although certainly there have been cases of
> >> >mistaken identity.
> >>
> >> I think that you are far too quick to dismiss these Oswald lookalike
> >> reports
> >> sir. You do realize that several cases appear quite solid, with not only
> >> corroboration, but the name "Oswald" recalled and/or written down, right?
> >
> >I'm aware of some which are purported to be such, yes. Do please name
> >the exact ones you're talking about so we can discuss them in detail.
> >Thanks.
>
> Well, two cases come to mind rather readily. I believe that a gunsmith
> (fellow's
> name may have been Dial Ryder - I'm not sure) told of an "Oswald" coming
> into his shop and requesting a scope being fitted on a rifle.
Was the name written down at that time?
> Another is
> the early November incident at the car dealership when an "Oswald" was
> ostensibly
> car hunting, making comments concerning going back "to Russia", driving in
> a wild, reckless manner, etc. In both of these cases, I believe that the
> fellow not only resembled Oswald, but gave the name "Oswald", which was also
> duly written down on paper. This is fairly impressive evidence of imposture
> to me, for the fact that the name was both given and written down is a
> considerable
> hurdle to overcome when one attempts to debunk these accounts.
If I recall that case correctly, when the paper with the name written
down on it was asked to be produced, it could not be found, though I
could be wrong about that.
I said nothing of the sort. I did not say that he would have no
"interest" in getting the identification right.
> The only way that this makes
> any sense, when the man was preparing to put his name to a sworn document
> the next day, is that there was no doubt in his mind that the rifle was in
> fact a Mauser.
Exactly. He may well have *believed* he had no doubt in his mind, &
thus it may not have occurred to him to "check" with anyone else before
giving the affidavit. He saw a rifle. He believed it to be a Mauser.
That's all the evidence shows. He gave virtually no detail on what it
was about the appearance of the rifle which caused him to believe this
at the time. There is only one sentence in the affidavit in which the
rifle itself is described at all, & it is this:
"This rifle was a 7.65 Mauser bolt action equipped with a 4/18 scope, a
thick leather brownish-black sling on it."
That's it. Nothing else about the appearance of the rifle at all.
Nothing about what caused him to believe it to be a Mauser, such as
seeing the word "Mauser," nothing about handling the rifle himself, etc.
I am additionally unaware of the existence of any other recorded
statement by him from that weekend in which he described the rifle in
any greater detail than this, discussed why he believed it to be what it
was, how "certain" he was of this identification, etc. Not even to the
WC months later did he explain why he had made this identification, or
what it was about the appearance of the rifle which caused him to
initially believe it to be a Mauser.
> For if there was doubt about what type of rifle was found
> and that he observed, wouldn't he logically make a simple phone call to get
> the identification right?
There is no evidence of him having any "doubt" at this time. He saw a
rifle. He believed it to be a Mauser. We don't have any idea *why* he
believed it to be a Mauser. There is no further evidence on the matter.
> Wouldn't you have done such if you weren't sure?
> Wouldn't I? After all, this was a Presidential assassination.
I would hope so. But that's if he had doubts. There is no extant
evidence that he did at that time.
I don't know a thing about Weitzman's character, so this following is
pure speculation, as applied to him. But having lived in Texas all my
life (I was born over 5 years before the assassination), I've known
plenty of Texas "good-ole-boy" law enforcement types. They'll often
enough say things such as, "Why, that's a such & such," & be absolutely
sure about it, having an aspect of being a "knowing" lawman & wanting to
show it off. Some of these I've known to be quite reluctant to admit
their errors. I've already told about how horrendously wrong such an
officer was about me, yet he seemed to be quite certain that his opinion
was correct. Plenty of these sorts of officers strike me as the type
who would say, "Oh yeah, well that there's an Enfield deer rifle, ya
know," & then puff up like a toad if one suggests they might be wrong.
Weitzman might have had some aspect of this in his makeup; having been
in the "sporting goods business awhile" (I think those were his words to
the WC), he might have said something like, "Oh yeah, I've seen one o'
them, that's a Mauser, sure it is," when it actually wasn't.
But of course I don't know that Weitzman was anything like this.
Nevertheless I've known *lots* of law enforcement personel in Texas who
are.
The main point that needs to be made with all of this is that Weitzman
is the ONLY person present who saw the rifle while it was still on the
6th floor who contemporaneously claimed the rifle to be a Mauser from
his own personal observation. Boone also initially said it was a Mauser
(or so I've read), but he made it plain that he said so only because he
heard someone *else* call it a Mauser. He did not claim to have
recognized it as such from his own personal observation. Literally no
other person present contemporaneously corroborated Weitzman's claim, &
there is no extent evidence that Weitzman was much of an "expert" on all
these myriad old European surplus rifles. And when I say old I mean
OLD, even at that time. You did know, correct, that the Carcano
purported to be the rifle found was made in the 1890s? That it was only
one of *several* different types of Carcano made in that same decade
that were available at that time on the American market? That there
were also more than one type of Mauser from that same decade available?
That this doesn't even include such rifles made in subsequent decades
which were *also* available? That's a hell of a lot of different rifles
to keep straight, especially when the American sporting goods business
would *also* carry plenty of newer rifles, including those made in the
U.S. It may simply be that the rifles which Weitzman had most often
seen in his stint in the sporting goods business (a business which
includes many more items besides rifles, such as fishing rods, to give
only one example) were Mausers, as far as these old European surplus
that he had seen.
And here's the kicker:
Unless there is something I have yet to come across in my 15+ years of
reading about the assassination, I am not aware of a
single
shred
of evidence that Weitzman had ever even SEEN a Mannlicher-Carcano before
that day. I am additionally not aware of even a shred of evidence that
he even KNEW of the existence of that name, i.e., that brand of rifle,
before that day.
If you or any other reader of this article knows otherwise, I will be
happy to see the documentation of it.
Thus, how much weight, exactly, would it be reasonable to put on
Weitzman's initial identification?
But of course, it should be mentioned that one other person supposedly
present did "corroborate" Weitzman's initial identification, albeit not
until years later, in 1971. That would be Roger Craig, who also said he
had identified it as a Mauser from his own personal observation, & had
even seen the word "Mauser" upon it as he handled it. The problems of
course are that he had directly contradicted this in a 1968 interview in
which he quite clearly said that he had no idea what type of rifle it
was other than "foreign" (his exact word), that in this same interview
is his earliest recorded claim of handling the rifle, & that not a
single other person present contemporaneously or later corroborated his
claim of handling the rifle, unless there is something I haven't yet
seen or have forgotten.
> >> >Clemons is the ONLY person to have claimed that there were two gunmen,
>
> >> >who took off in opposite directions, correct?
> >>
> >> So far as I know, yes. But again, those other witnesses may have really
> been
> >> in no position to see such a thing.
> >
> >Possibly so. Do we have any good idea of Clemons' vantage point?
>
> I'm not certain off-hand, but perhaps she stepped out onto her porch and
> was able to get a good wide angle view down the street, as Mr. Wright may
> have.
Possibly so. But it should perhaps be clarified before any further
discussion ensues, yes?
That may be. At this late date, who's to say?
> >> This would certainly
> >> be preferable to piling on the mysterious deaths. There are other ways
> to
> >> negate witnesses except for the final resort of murder.
> >
> >I suppose so. None of them seem to have worked with her, however.
>
> Again, though, they may well have "called off the dogs" on Clemons once they
> determined that she would be wholly neglected by officialdom.
Again, however, how would she know that "they" had already "called off
the dogs" as early as January 1964. Am I mistaken, or is that not when
she is first recorded as making these claims?
> No need to
> kill her then, right?
I suppose not, if it could be known that early that "officialdom" would
neglect her. As I recall, however, she made these statements months
before the official version was made "official," as the WCR was not
published until September 1964. January would have been long before it
could possibly have been known for certain that the WC would not call
her to testify, if I am correct about the month.
> >> >Sorta like Elrod saying he was still in "danger" in the 1990s, even
> >> >though he's been said to have let it all out anyway (& even though
> >> >others have "revealed" far more than he ever has, long before he ever
>
> >> >did, & still lived for decades afterward), was assured by his
> >> >interviewer that he was not in the slightest "danger" if he told the
>
> >> >"truth," & still is alive today, a decade later.
> >>
> >> Yes, he has simply been denounced as a crackpot with no credibility in
> the
> >> case, and apparently with no official investigative body ever taking him
> >> seriously.
> >
> >Actually he's pretty much denounced himself. ;-)
>
> Has he? Mr. Harris and Mr. and Mrs. LaFontaine would vehemently argue that
> point.
Oh dear, & I've vehemently argued their assertions with them, definitely
as far as Harris is concerned, & with someone at least purported to be
another of these mentioned. There were some lllooonnnggg discussions
here earlier this year between us on this issue, which I guess you
missed. I'd really not like to type it all again now; here are some of
the threads which contained these discussions:
http://groups.google.com/groups?th=a49cc83c33f8186d
http://groups.google.com/groups?th=39bae8d68ec6b9cd
http://groups.google.com/groups?th=1f5be08f47c15fa5
http://groups.google.com/groups?th=f94c22dc72218ecb
http://groups.google.com/groups?th=da65636a6aabaff8
http://groups.google.com/groups?th=218ab63ea4ceefac
http://groups.google.com/groups?th=4b9c4cf3579bc507
http://groups.google.com/groups?th=ad699db65d475ba5
http://groups.google.com/groups?th=949bd8fc98b71cc3
http://groups.google.com/groups?th=f3bc9c646084acd3
In a (very brief) nutshell, one of the foundations of the La Fontaines'
argument is that Elrod described quite accurately (apparently only to
the La Fontaines, as far as I can tell) a fellow jailmate, Daniel
Douglas. No physical documentation apparently exists of which cell
Elrod occupied during that weekend, but the La Fontaines in their book
reproduce the phone logs for the Dallas Jail which show Oswald in cell
"F2" (this entry is quite clear) & *supposedly* shows Douglas to have
been in F-1 (with or without a hyphen in between). This in conjunction
with Elrod's "accurate" description of Douglas is presented as
independent "corroboration" that Elrod was in the same cellblock F as
Douglas, & thus also with Oswald. Sadly, on not even a single page or
in even a single sentence do the La Fontaines make even the barest
mention of a curious anomaly which appears in Douglas' entry & in no
other entry on the 2 pages of the document reproduced, including Oswald,
which makes it extremely questionable that Douglas was actually in cell
"F-1." Suffice it to say that between the purported "F" & the purported
"1," any human on earth with even average vision will instantly see that
there are not one but *two* marks, one of which is almost precisely
diagonal & the other of which is nearly vertical, neither of which looks
at all like any "hyphen" I've ever seen in my life. I asked both
posters over & over & over to directly address this anomaly; Mr. Harris
did nothing but answer evasively, & "Herself" refused to even
acknowledge that the question had even been asked.
Elrod in 1964 reported a "cellmate" whom he heard talking about a
gunrunning operation involving a man with an injured face whom he saw
being brought along the hallway outside his cell, who matches rather
well a real gunrunner who was indeed brought to the jail at that time,
with the additional detail that the "cellmate" claimed to have seen Jack
Ruby meeting with this same man whose face was injured. The record on
Elrod subsequently became silent until he was found again in the 1990s,
at which time his claim became that the "cellmate" was Oswald, but
without him ever, to the present day, being directly quoted as saying
that Oswald had been the person whom he had heard talking about the
gunrunner & Ruby. In the only purported telephone interview with Elrod
that I've ever seen, much more recently, Elrod *still* would not confirm
that Oswald was the person whom he heard say these things:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3AAFA3D4.4D823511%40foxvalley.net
"Herself," in response to me, initially claimed that Elrod *had*
confirmed this, which I disputed when I found the interview & reproduced
it as I have here. "Herself" became utterly silent on the issue
immediately after that.
One can also see in at least one of these threads (if not more) that I
asked to be put in contact with Elrod myself so that I could settle this
business once & for all, a request which by multiple persons who
apparently had his contact details was never acknowledged.
The implication in this scenario is that Oswald was an FBI informant on
this gunrunning operation. "Herself" has repeatedly claimed to have
seen an FBI memo in which the informant's name in this case is
"redacted." She has been asked over & over & over by many different
posters to produce this memo, & I myself asked her repeatedly to quote
even a single sentence from it, but she openly stated that she refused
to do so.
Both posters claimed that the "cellmate" Elrod heard was heard in the
process of identifying the man with the injured face to the FBI, yet
neither has produced any evidence that the man (whose name was Lawrence
Miller, btw) was actually accompanied by any FBI agent at the time. Nor
has Elrod been recorded at any time in any venue as claiming that this
"cellmate" was identifying Miller to anyone in the hallway outside his
cell.
Both Mr. Harris & "Herself" accused me of never having read "Oswald
Talked," despite the fact that I bought it at least as early as 1997
(back when I was still an avowed CT), read it in its entirety at that
time, & have read substantial portions of it many many many times since.
The book sits less than 3 feet away from me at the instant I type these
words.
The FBI claimed in 1964 that their informant in the Miller case was with
the ATF, which was denied by a representative of the ATF. I noted,
however, that "Oswald Talked" mentions one ATF agent who is identified
by name (Frank Ellsworth) who was directly involved in this case, who
appears at least not to have been this informant, but *also* mentions
another ATF agent who is not named, who is said to have been present
with Ellsworth at that same stakeout on Miller. When I asked for the
name of this other ATF agent to be produced, & speculated that perhaps
*this* might have been the informant who tipped-off the FBI, both
"Herself" & Mr. Harris became abruptly silent, never even acknowledging
that I had asked the question.
Mr. Harris at one point claimed that Miller was brought to the Dallas
jail from another jail specifically to be "identified" by the
"informant." I corrected him by quoting the book I have "never read"
(which was sitting in my lap while I composed & posted the article) in
which it was quite specifically said that Miller was brought directly
from Parkland, where he had been treated for his injuries, to the Dallas
jail.
Meanwhile, "Herself" branded me as another poster whom I have never met,
as can be seen in some of the threads cited above. When I produced
irrefutable proof that I have lived in Huntsville, Tx. for years, &
asked her directly if the person she thought I am also lives in this
town, she abruptly disappeared & has to the present day never responded
to me again.
> >> Why would one have to stir things up with a suspicious murder
> >> if things can be controlled in other ways? I figure that rubbing out
> >> witnesses
> >> is sort of a last resort.
> >
> >Could be. Elrod still does not present an especially compelling case
> >that he was ever in any real "danger."
>
> So what do you conclude then? The man's fears are irrational? Or is he
> putting
> on an act?
I hesitate to say what his motivations are or were; all I know is that
there are tremendous structural & foundational problems with the
scenario that Elrod heard an "FBI informant" identify Miller & name Ruby
as an associate, & that the "informant" he heard was "Oswald."
I would like to see a transcript of what he said, or better yet, the
video itself or at least a sound file of his voice speaking the words.
Caeruleo
Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The main point that needs to be made with all of this is that Weitzman
> is the ONLY person present who saw the rifle while it was still on the
> 6th floor who contemporaneously claimed the rifle to be a Mauser from
> his own personal observation. Boone also initially said it was a Mauser
> (or so I've read), but he made it plain that he said so only because he
> heard someone *else* call it a Mauser. He did not claim to have
> recognized it as such from his own personal observation. Literally no
> other person present contemporaneously corroborated Weitzman's claim, &
> there is no extent evidence that Weitzman was much of an "expert" on all
> these myriad old European surplus rifles. And when I say old I mean
> OLD, even at that time. You did know, correct, that the Carcano
> purported to be the rifle found was made in the 1890s? That it was only
> one of *several* different types of Carcano made in that same decade
> that were available at that time on the American market? That there
> were also more than one type of Mauser from that same decade available?
> That this doesn't even include such rifles made in subsequent decades
> which were *also* available?
Ugh, this needs to be corrected. The M-C which is attributed to Oswald
was NOT made in the 1890s, but rather based on a model from that time.
The rifle itself was made in 1940. My apologies; this business of when
the rifle was made is still fairly new to me, & I did not have my facts
straight.
Gil Jesus
Gil: ROFLMAO !!! Oh Please stop it !!! LOL
"Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor, Defend the fatherless,
Plead for the widow." Isaiah 1:17 (New King James Version)
CurtJ...@webtv.net
Group: alt.conspiracy.jfk Date: Wed, May 7, 2003,
7:52pm (PDT+2) From: caer...@yahoo.com (Caeruleo)
In article <19605-3E...@storefull-2111.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
CurtJ...@webtv.net wrote:
>>But she does see that he is in the act of zippering
>> which is to me much more than a casuallook.The
>> discarded jacket also had a zipper. I would find it
>> highly unlikely if Oswald had a zippered item at
>> arrest and beyond, that he would have had two
>> zippered items on at the same time.
>I wouldn't think so either. However, neither you or I
> know yet whether the shirt he was wearing at the
> time of arrest had a zipper.
True , but it's nice to clarify.
>>She also hears a cop car come up while he is in
>> theroom with two uniformed policemen, and
>> there are two short beeps.
>A perfectly plausible explanation for the police car
> occurred to me instantly upon reading this
> sentence in her WC testimony:
>'Yes--it stopped directly in front of my house and it
> just "tip-tip" and that's the way Officer Alexander
> and Charles Burnely would do when they
> stopped,and I went to the door and looked and > saw it wasn't
their number.'
>Here it comes.
>Oh dear...
>Dr. GOLDBERG. Towards Zangs?
>Mrs. ROBERTS. Towards Zangs--for I was the > thirdhouse right off
of Zangs on Beckley.
>Mr. BALL. Did this police car stop directly in front > of your house?
>Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes--it stopped
> directly in front of my house and it just "tip-tip"and
> that's the way Officer Alexander and Charles
> Burnely would do when they stopped, and I went > tothe door and looked
>Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.
> 170 and it wasn'ttheir car.
>Mr. BALL. It was not 170?
>Mrs. ROBERTS. The people I worked for was 170.
>Mr. BALL. Did you report that number to anyone,
> did you report this incident to anyone?
>Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes, I told the FBI and the Secret
> Service both when they was out there.
>Mr. BALL. And did you tell them the number of the
> car?
>Mrs. ROBERTS. I'm not sure--I believe I
> did--I'm not sure. I think I did because there was > somuch
happened then until my brains was in a > whirl.
>Mr. BALL. On the 29th of November, Special
> Agents Will Griffin and James Kennedy of the
> Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewed you
> and you told them that "after Oswald had entered
> his room about 1 p.m. on November 22, 1963, you
> looked out the front window and saw police car?
>No.
>207?
>Mrs. ROBERTS. No. 107.
>Mr. BALL. Is that the number?
>Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes--I remembered it. I don't > know where I got
that 106---207. Anyway, I knew > it wasn't 170.
>Mr. BALL. And you say that there were
> two uniformed policemen in the car?
>Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes, and it was in a black car. It
> wasn't an accident squad car at all.
>Mr. BALL. Were there two uniformed policemen in
> the car?
>Mrs. ROBERTS. Oh, yes.
>Mr. BALL. And one of the officers sounded the
> horn?
> Mrs. ROBERTS. Just kind of a "tit-tit"--twice.
>Mr. BALL. And then drove on to Beckley toward > ZangsBoulevard, is
that right?
>Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes. I thought there was a
> number, but I couldn't remember it but I did know
> the number of their car--I could tell that. I want > you to
understand that I have been put through > the third degree and it's
hard to remember.
**********
>So let's see...a police car pulled up in front of the
> rooming house. The officer who was driving > honked
> "the way Officer Alexander and Charles Burnely
> would do when they stopped." But it wasn't their
> car, which was 170. But she said that's really all
> she looked for, so she didn't go out. She said
> specifically that she didn't see who was in the car.
>Could it perhaps simply be that officers Alexander&
> Burnely were in a different police car that day? > Did
> they *always* use the same car, & never, even
> once, use a different one?
>And wasn't Tippit alone? Yet we clearly see her
> saying that she saw 2 officers in the car.
Yes it is possible. The articles I have read so far indicated the cars
were all accounted for. Doesn't mean they were. Yes I believe Tippit
was alone even at the GLOCO station at 12:45. Of course she could have
been mistaken on the "two" as you might infer she was mistaken on the
color of the coat Oswald might have put on in her sight. I believe
Tippit's car # was 10 only one digit off the new number she reportedly
saw.
A little on the timeline for the possibility of Tippit being the
possible car, is that he was parked at the GLOCO in a position where he
could have seen Whaley's cab pass on the route that he would have had to
go by to drop Oswald where he did on Beckley six blocks from Oswald's
rooming house. Tippit calls in at 8th and Lancaster and a few minutes
before 1:00 goes to the Top Ten Record Shop to make an unusual phone
call for a policeman. No contact and he is in a hurry and after rushing
in his car runs a stop sign or light and after crossing Jefferson and
turning right on Sunrise is headed right in the direction of N. Beckley
where he was then out of witness sight. So he would have been two
minutes from Oswald's rooming house and about eight minutes from being
killed in my estimation. Somehow the blanks need to be filled in.
Also it should be noted that Tippet knew of the other 'unaccountable'
Oswald as he was according to The Dobb's House Restaurant employees
where 'Oswald' was a regular coffee drinker (whilst TSBD Oswald worked
during the days without missing work) where Tippit would frequent. They
were there at the same time according to employees on Nov. 20th. Tippit
and 'Oswald' were also in the Top Ten Record Shop at the same time the
day of the assassination.
>>With the time of some of the witnesses
>> of the murder, especially with Markham and >> Smith, it would
seem impossible for Oswald to >> walk the 1.2 miles to the murder scene.
>*If* their time is more accurate than others, which > is not
necessarily in evidence.
I did read somewhere that it would take 14 minutes to walk the distance.
Nobody, even in a highly populated area saw him en route to the crime
scene. I believe that the general direction where he was seen walking
was an opposite or westerly direction instead of the easterly one he
would have embarked upon from the rooming house. Bowley looked at his
watch before coming to the fallen body of Tippit and saw 1:10.
Markham's bus that she took everyday was a 1:12 bus. The radio
transmission that went to the TSBD that reported the fallen officer that
Craig overheard that was found in the National Archives was a 1:10
transmission. If all of this is fairly accurate, walking to the rooming
house to the Tippit crime scene would seem impossible. Walking to the
Texas Theater straight and getting popcorn would seem to be impossible.
Going then from the crime scene and all he way to the TT would just add
to the unlikelyhood.
>>I contend with 1:20 showing of the film at the TT >> and Oswald being
seen prior in there,
>Being seen "prior" by whom? Burroughs? That's
> not
> much to go on with his extraordinary >
inconsistency.
> Why do you seem to favor his later statements > over
> his earlier? Why do you favor his later timing over
> Brewer's & Postal's, when they were far more
> consistent than Burroughs?
I believe the lack of good questions paved the way for the lack of
stellar answers.
I believe Jack Davis contended he sat next to him during the opening
credits and that would be before the 1:20 scheduled start of the film.
I guess you could dispute the film's start. The projectionist was
supposedly there. Maybe he would have something to say? Oswald
supposedly sat next to a pregnant woman and she left and went up to the
balcony to use the ladies room, not to return. Maybe Postal, Burroughs,
or the manager Callaway could give some inisght when she left?
>I'm curious if you actually know precisely how far it
> is from the rooming house to the location where
> Tippit was killed. I've driven by that area many
> times, but unfortunately not yet on those very
> streets, so it's difficult for me to comment on how
> long he might have taken to traverse that > distance.
I read it, I could possibly have no idea. It would be an easy test to
do.
>>I find Mr. Caeruleo rather inconsistent when
>> spending countless hours tryng to justify seconds >> in
>> the possible sixth floor TSBD suspect's descent >> to
>> flittering off minutes here as so seemingly
>> 'unattainable' or not worthy of scrutiny.
>Excuse me. Where on EARTH are you getting the
> impression that I don't want to nail down the
> precise timing of this rooming house to Tippit > scene
> business just as much as the other? When have I
> made any statement that this is "not worthy of
> scrutiny"? That's a strawman, Curt, & unworthy of
> you. I've never said such a thing. I'll thank you not > to attribute
attitudes to me that I don't posess, & > for
> which you have no evidence that I posess, &
> attribute arguments to me that I've never made, if
> you wish me to continue any further discussion > with you.
Oh did I ruffle a feather here? I do seem to hear something about a few
minutes past 1:00 by Smith passing Oswald as being sorta vague. Brock,
Postal, and Brewer seem to be in the ballpark even with their later
times. Ooookk...just thought you were slippin' on me there.
>>Cutting to the chase here, did Marina ever testify >> to
>> that coat found under the Olds as belonging
>> to Oswald? If she was never asked, why was
>> that never brought up?
>Sorry. What is at least purported to be that same > jacket is CE 162,
which is shown in the bottom > photo here:
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh>16/html/WH_Vol16_0272b
htm
>It's most definitely a jacket, not a shirt, & looks as > if
> it could quite easily completely cover a shirt that
> was unbuttoned farther down than the jacket was
> unzipped.
Ok, thank you. I did get to view it today when I clicked on at google.
I seemed to remember a few ID'ings of the jacket by witnesses as it
being a windbreaker or Eisenhower jacket. Is this jacket that type?
>And yes, she did identify this as Lee's to the WC.
>She also ID'd the brown shirts, CE 150 & 151, as
> his. These are supposedly the only brown shirts in
> this collection. Both are long-sleeved, & both are
> button-up. I see no brown shirt in these photos > that has a
zipper:
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh>16/contents.htm
>If one of these is the shirt he was arrested in, then
> the "zippered" shirt scenario is blown out of the
> water.
Well, unless we have some behind the scene switchings or discardings. I
did correspond with Gary Haas from the other NG, who said he was 3 feet
from Oswald when he came out of the theater. He doesn't remember, but I
did send him the site of the 'zippered shirt' at the police station to
see if it would jog his memory. He also said there was a lot of
photgraphy taken of the scene, but doubts one would find any on the
internet.
>>If not can you find any reason why she was not
>> asked?
>Since she was asked, no. ;-)
I guess so, now. I wonder why you didn't bring that up before?
>Oh dear, & looky at what *else* is said in CE 1843:
> "She said to the best of her recollection LEE
> HARVEY OSWALD had only two jackets, one a
> heavy jacket, blue in color, and another light > jacket, grey
in color."
>>Have a question here, how many ways were >> there to the balcony
in the TT?
>Burroughs' testimony suggests only one stairway > up to it.
>>I would like to know too, how the interview came
>> about, whether a reporter sought him out or not?
>Marrs appears to have sought him out, as far as I
> can tell.
Looks better for not being fame-hungry.
>>Also, there is Evelyn Harris the worker from the >> sewing shop along
with witnesses seeing Ruby >> giving Oswald a gun right after the
>> assassination, who stated she knew Oswald >> previously I believe
from lunch hour(s) >> mingling(s).
>This again seems to come from Armstrong, or at > least I am unable to
locate any other citation of > this on the Web. He does here appear
to quote > the FBI document directly, but I wish he had >
named it, so that the original might be viewed.
Haven't looked yet. Supposedly her daughter and co-workers knew Oswald
and knew of Ruby beforehand too. Mrs. Harris was one who supposedly
sought out the FBI and her affadavit or testimony was taken by an A.
Manning.
>>Way too many (Oswald sightingts) in the 3 >> months prior to
be in that
>> category IMO especially when one was >> supposed
>> to be in a different city doing something when >> the 'other' was
in another doing something else.
>You need to observe that the sightings were
> "claimed" to be in the 3 months prior, but that
> almost all the "claims" were not recorded until > after the
assassination.
But the witnesses would have had to have prior knowledge to the
assassination. Only a conspirator or somebody overhearing some details
would know.
>>Really, you went too far with me, Pointing out
>> apparent discrepancies is fine for the discussion,
>> but you assailed him as a "bold-faced liar"
>No, I said that his statement claiming that CE > 1843
> says that the jackets were purchased in Russia is > abold-faced lie.
Here is the exact sentence:
>"Oh, I see...you're getting it (sadly) from > Armstrong,
> who in the very article whose URL I cited
> previously, tells this bold-faced lie:"
>I did not call the man himself a liar, bold-faced or > otherwise,
although I suppose to say he lied > implies he's a liar.
Yes, you implicated he was, and you kept asking me quesiions on how I
could support and trust that type of person.
>But you yourself admit you haven't seen
> the document. I have. I don't see how on earth he
> could get "purchased in Russia" out of that as a
> mere error, especially in an article, rather different
> from more casually-posted newsgroup articles
> which are typical, which has the appearance of
> being a more finished article meant to stand for
> some time on that site, if not also originally
> published in print media, in which one might
> presume that the author might take a bit more
> care to get things right before publishing it.
I saw your copying of it in the other post. I corresponded with Lisa
Pease today as she is some kind of head with Probe or their affiliate,
but just got a snooty response with no merit. You would think people
would be more careful, but there isn't an author I have seen so far that
I don't have a major wonderment about on the assassination.
>>and ranted on about his being "untrustworthy". >> You
>> have no way of knowing whether he would have
>> gotten mixed up and made a mistake
>That's a hell of a big whopper of a "mistake," Curt.
> He claims the document to say almost precisely > the
> opposite of what it actually says, placing the
> purchasing of the jackets in Russia where they'd > be
> very unlikely to acquire laundry marks of > launderers
> in the U.S. before Marina herself began washing
> them, instead of correctly noting that the
> document
> says they were purchased in the U.S. before he
> even went to Russia, an absolute minimum of 1 &
> 1/2 years before Marina even met him, much less
> began washing his clothes, which blows his whole
> point about the laundry marks out of the water, as
> we can't know from that document where the
> clothes may have been laundered in the U.S.,
> whether Oswald bought them used with laundry
> marks already on them, etc.
Mistakes are made. He could have blurred the sentence and got the
opposite meaning. I did in just the other post about the arrest and
corroboration of the 16 officers. Just read something with slight
ambiguity and got an opposite meaning. Armstong contends with
documentation that both Oswalds were in the Marines at different
stations and times but both were in California. Marina is quoted in a
French magazine as being the wife of both. who knows? and one just
never knows.
I do now see that it is a bigger issue than I originally thought.
You can claim all you want that he should have done the right thing and
he should have if he knew what he was doing. If he chose to deceive
shame on him. I could see him seeing the testimony and calling Marina a
purjurer which he has done in the past. The editors of the magazine
would be just as much at fault too.
>His article was published in February 1998. He's
> had over 5 years to retract & apologize for that
> error. Show me where he has done so.
How do you know that he knows he made an error?
>I retracted & apologized for my error only 2 days
> after I made it.
>And do you find my error to be nearly of the
> magnitude of his? Oh wow, I got a date wrong by
> 12 whole days! He, however, made a sentence > out
> to say something radically different from what it
> actually says, in his version strongly supporting > one
> of his primary points in the article, when in actual
> fact the real sentence doesn't even come close.
>>I am not into character assassnations, (no pun
>> intended).
>Neither am I, & I am rather offended that you seem
> to be suggesting otherwise. How on earth is > merely
> pointing out, quite correctly, *provably* correct, in
> fact, that an author has grossly misrepresented > his own cited
document the equivalent of > "character assassination"?
One can't ultimatly pin an ulterior motive or impugn one's intergity by
assuming their motives. One can greatly wonder, point out, etc. I
didn't impugn your motives, I merely said, "I could" as an
example....the degree of mistake is not even an issue.
>>You must think he needs to arrive here and >> account for
something in order to be 'exonerated' >> in order to
>> not be a "bold-faced liar".
>Excuse me again. I do not think any such thing. I'll
> thank you to cease claiming you are clairvoyant &
> can read my mind. I simply responded to your
> ridiculous assertion that the man was not being
> given a "chance to respond," when I've done
> NOTHING to prevent or discourage him from
> responding. I plainly said I would welcome such a
> response.
He doesn't frequent this newsgroup as a poster anyway. He has nothing
to respond to other than someone wondering about a sentence in a
article. Now he is supposed to by clairvoyant? I noticed in one of his
articles or speeches that some of his documentation is listed in JFK
Lancer. Maybe you could try there.
>You're getting even closer to a plonk.
Lol...I should be the plonker instead of the plonkee!
And how many times have I seen you go out of your way to have somebody
be sure and check sources from a certain author? None that I know of.
It should be a universal given for anybody to do that. Nobody has the
time to do it all. I have a lot more to try to confirm than the one's
you have brought up here, more perhaps by Armstrong because his research
is more of a virgin territory than the more orthodox researches.
CJ
Caeruleo
CurtJ...@webtv.net wrote:
> Group: alt.conspiracy.jfk Date: Wed, May 7, 2003,
> 7:52pm (PDT+2) From: caer...@yahoo.com (Caeruleo)
>
> In article <19605-3E...@storefull-2111.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
> CurtJ...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >>But she does see that he is in the act of zippering
> >> which is to me much more than a casuallook.The
> >> discarded jacket also had a zipper. I would find it
> >> highly unlikely if Oswald had a zippered item at
> >> arrest and beyond, that he would have had two
> >> zippered items on at the same time.
>
> >I wouldn't think so either. However, neither you or I
> > know yet whether the shirt he was wearing at the
> > time of arrest had a zipper.
>
> True , but it's nice to clarify.
Of course. I want to know as much as you do whether or not the shirt he
was wearing when arrested had a zipper.
Shouldn't you say "purportedly were" or something to that effect, rather
than simply "were"? I've not yet looked into this one, but what is the
original source? Is it only one person, or is there contemporaneous
corroboration?
> >>With the time of some of the witnesses
> >> of the murder, especially with Markham and >> Smith, it would
> seem impossible for Oswald to >> walk the 1.2 miles to the murder scene.
>
> >*If* their time is more accurate than others, which > is not
> necessarily in evidence.
>
> I did read somewhere that it would take 14 minutes to walk the distance.
I would like to get that determined conclusively. I know of no better
way than going there myself. It's only 3 hours drive away from me. In
fact...hmmm...(thinking about what my plans are for this weekend). ;-)
> Nobody, even in a highly populated area saw him en route to the crime
> scene.
As far as we know, that seems to be true. Of course, a man simply
walking down a sidewalk isn't particularly remarkable or memorable.
You'll recall that virtually *all* of the witnesses who saw this man
running near the scene reported gunshots attracting their attention
first.
> I believe that the general direction where he was seen walking
> was an opposite or westerly direction instead of the easterly one he
> would have embarked upon from the rooming house.
I'm looking at 2 different maps of the area now. Beckley, the street on
which the rooming house was runs directly north-south on it. Patton,
the street on which Tippit was shot runs paralell to Beckley for several
blocks as it goes southward & is also very close to Beckley, being only
2 blocks east of it; then Patton veers slightly southeast. Oswald would
have been walking mostly straight south the entire time to the Tippit
scene, except for turning east to walk the 2 blocks to Patton. The
Texas Theater appears southwest of this location, & at a lesser distance
from the Tippit scene than the rooming house appears, though the scale
of this map may not be consistent. I seem to recall some author or
other saying something to the effect that Oswald would have "reversed"
his original direction to go to the TT, but I see plainly here that it
is not so. Drawing a straight line from the rooming house to the Tippit
scene near the corner of Patton & 10th, & then a straight line from the
Tippit scene to the TT involves less than a 90 degree turn at the Tippit
scene.
> Bowley looked at his
> watch before coming to the fallen body of Tippit and saw 1:10.
Was his watch absolutely accurate? It's not at all uncommon for a
personal watch to be off by as much as 5 minutes.
> Markham's bus that she took everyday was a 1:12 bus.
I'm looking at her saying "1:15" bus to the WC.
> The radio
> transmission that went to the TSBD that reported the fallen officer that
> Craig overheard
Roger. According to Armstrong, he looked at his watch when he heard the
news of the Tippit murder & saw it say 1:06. I'm curious as to the
original source for that. Would it perhaps be Tippit's publication from
1971?
> that was found in the National Archives was a 1:10
> transmission.
I see that's from Armstrong too. I'd like to see this document with my
own eyes, wouldn't you?
> If all of this is fairly accurate, walking to the rooming
> house to the Tippit crime scene would seem impossible. Walking to the
> Texas Theater straight and getting popcorn would seem to be impossible.
*If* he got popcorn. That's considerably under question, eh?
> Going then from the crime scene and all he way to the TT would just add
> to the unlikelyhood.
>
> >>I contend with 1:20 showing of the film at the TT >> and Oswald being
> seen prior in there,
>
> >Being seen "prior" by whom? Burroughs? That's
> > not
> > much to go on with his extraordinary >
> inconsistency.
> > Why do you seem to favor his later statements > over
> > his earlier? Why do you favor his later timing over
> > Brewer's & Postal's, when they were far more
> > consistent than Burroughs?
>
> I believe the lack of good questions paved the way for the lack of
> stellar answers.
That's still not much of an excuse for Burroughs waiting 2 decades to
mention for the first time that the man he saw being arrested was the
same man to whom he'd sold popcorn less than an hour before.
> I believe Jack Davis contended he sat next to him during the opening
> credits and that would be before the 1:20 scheduled start of the film.
> I guess you could dispute the film's start. The projectionist was
> supposedly there. Maybe he would have something to say? Oswald
> supposedly sat next to a pregnant woman and she left and went up to the
> balcony to use the ladies room, not to return.
That's according to Jack Davis alone, uncorroborated by anyone else, &
also, if I recall correctly, in statements he was not recorded as making
for the first time until about 2 decades later.
> Maybe Postal, Burroughs,
> or the manager Callaway could give some inisght when she left?
Maybe so. If she was there at all.
> >I'm curious if you actually know precisely how far it
> > is from the rooming house to the location where
> > Tippit was killed. I've driven by that area many
> > times, but unfortunately not yet on those very
> > streets, so it's difficult for me to comment on how
> > long he might have taken to traverse that > distance.
>
> I read it, I could possibly have no idea. It would be an easy test to
> do.
That it would, & I plan to do it soon. Might be able even to do it
today. Seriously.
> >>I find Mr. Caeruleo rather inconsistent when
> >> spending countless hours tryng to justify seconds >> in
> >> the possible sixth floor TSBD suspect's descent >> to
> >> flittering off minutes here as so seemingly
> >> 'unattainable' or not worthy of scrutiny.
>
> >Excuse me. Where on EARTH are you getting the
> > impression that I don't want to nail down the
> > precise timing of this rooming house to Tippit > scene
> > business just as much as the other? When have I
> > made any statement that this is "not worthy of
> > scrutiny"? That's a strawman, Curt, & unworthy of
> > you. I've never said such a thing. I'll thank you not > to attribute
> attitudes to me that I don't posess, & > for
> > which you have no evidence that I posess, &
> > attribute arguments to me that I've never made, if
> > you wish me to continue any further discussion > with you.
>
> Oh did I ruffle a feather here?
No, you simply caused the troll-o-meter to twitch slightly. ;-)
> I do seem to hear something about a few
> minutes past 1:00 by Smith passing Oswald as being sorta vague.
Of course it is, as that is not an exact time, such as "1:06" is.
> Brock,
> Postal, and Brewer seem to be in the ballpark even with their later
> times. Ooookk...just thought you were slippin' on me there.
Postal & Brewer are indeed "in the ballpark," as far as Oswald being
able to get there from the Tippit scene at the time they said. Didn't
Brewer say "1:30"? But I'm not considering them any differently from
Roberts, Markham, et al. Not once have I said that Brewer couldn't have
been off by as much as 5 minutes either way. I don't see it implausible
that *any* of these witnesses we've been discussing could have off as 5
minutes. I'm treating *all* of them exactly the same way in this
regard; I'm not giving Brewer & Postal any more benefit of the doubt
than I give the earlier witnesses. And once again we come to the
question of setting watches, clocks, & other timepieces. Not at all
uncommon for such things to be off by as much as 5 minutes either way.
Look what happens if, say, Roberts' clock was 5 minutes fast, & Oswald
really came in at 12:55. Suddenly Oswald is given *more* time to get to
the Tippit scene. Look what happens if Brewer is off by only 5 minutes
in the other direction, seeing Oswald at 1:35 instead of 1:30. Any of
these things are possible.
I'm not treating any of these witnesses with any different criteria than
the others. *Any* of them could have easily been off by as much as 5
minutes either way.
> >>Cutting to the chase here, did Marina ever testify >> to
> >> that coat found under the Olds as belonging
> >> to Oswald? If she was never asked, why was
> >> that never brought up?
>
> >Sorry. What is at least purported to be that same > jacket is CE 162,
> which is shown in the bottom > photo here:
>
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh>16/html/WH_Vol16_0272b
> htm
>
> >It's most definitely a jacket, not a shirt, & looks as > if
> > it could quite easily completely cover a shirt that
> > was unbuttoned farther down than the jacket was
> > unzipped.
>
> Ok, thank you. I did get to view it today when I clicked on at google.
> I seemed to remember a few ID'ings of the jacket by witnesses as it
> being a windbreaker or Eisenhower jacket. Is this jacket that type?
I'm not sure I know what an "Eisenhower jacket" is. This jacket looks a
bit heavier than what I commonly call a "windbreaker," but that
description may have partly been due to the material. Dunno.
> >>If not can you find any reason why she was not
> >> asked?
>
> >Since she was asked, no. ;-)
>
> I guess so, now. I wonder why you didn't bring that up before?
If you'll look carefully at my text quoted above, you'll see that the
first sentence is "Sorry." I simply hadn't gotten around to it before
then.
> >>I would like to know too, how the interview came
> >> about, whether a reporter sought him out or not?
>
> >Marrs appears to have sought him out, as far as I
> > can tell.
>
> Looks better for not being fame-hungry.
I've known all sorts of people to add embellishments to their stories as
years go by, including friends who were describing events at which I
also had been present years before. Burroughs may have thought that his
original story wasn't "remarkable" enough, & upon being contacted came
up with a "better" one. Who knows?
> >>Way too many (Oswald sightingts) in the 3 >> months prior to
> be in that
> >> category IMO especially when one was >> supposed
> >> to be in a different city doing something when >> the 'other' was
> in another doing something else.
>
> >You need to observe that the sightings were
> > "claimed" to be in the 3 months prior, but that
> > almost all the "claims" were not recorded until > after the
> assassination.
>
> But the witnesses would have had to have prior knowledge to the
> assassination.
To mention for the first time *after* the assassination that he/she had
"seen" Oswald *before* the assassination, a witness would require "prior
knowledge" of the assassination? I don't see how. The only cases where
it can actually be verified that the witness did see Oswald before the
assassination would be where there is conclusively datable documentation
of the witness saying such a thing earlier than the assassination.
> Only a conspirator or somebody overhearing some details
> would know.
Not necessarily, in cases where the claims were not actually *recorded*
until after the assassination.
> >"Oh, I see...you're getting it (sadly) from > Armstrong,
> > who in the very article whose URL I cited
> > previously, tells this bold-faced lie:"
>
> >I did not call the man himself a liar, bold-faced or > otherwise,
> although I suppose to say he lied > implies he's a liar.
>
> Yes, you implicated he was, and you kept asking me quesiions on how I
> could support and trust that type of person.
Oh, that last I did, & with good reason. Since I have proven him beyond
all possible doubt to be erroneous in one of his *major* assertions, how
could it not be anything other than wisdom for you to verify his *other*
major assertions before accepting them at face value?
> >>and ranted on about his being "untrustworthy". >> You
> >> have no way of knowing whether he would have
> >> gotten mixed up and made a mistake
>
> >That's a hell of a big whopper of a "mistake," Curt.
> > He claims the document to say almost precisely > the
> > opposite of what it actually says, placing the
> > purchasing of the jackets in Russia where they'd > be
> > very unlikely to acquire laundry marks of > launderers
> > in the U.S. before Marina herself began washing
> > them, instead of correctly noting that the
> > document
> > says they were purchased in the U.S. before he
> > even went to Russia, an absolute minimum of 1 &
> > 1/2 years before Marina even met him, much less
> > began washing his clothes, which blows his whole
> > point about the laundry marks out of the water, as
> > we can't know from that document where the
> > clothes may have been laundered in the U.S.,
> > whether Oswald bought them used with laundry
> > marks already on them, etc.
>
> Mistakes are made. He could have blurred the sentence and got the
> opposite meaning. I did in just the other post about the arrest and
> corroboration of the 16 officers.
But the mistake you made I see as a relatively minor error, & you
immediately realized it. This was not in any article you were carefully
composing for publication.
> I do now see that it is a bigger issue than I originally thought.
That is good.
Oh, indeed. It is a travesty that that "purchased in Russia" sentence
is allowed to remain online.
> >His article was published in February 1998. He's
> > had over 5 years to retract & apologize for that
> > error. Show me where he has done so.
>
> How do you know that he knows he made an error?
How do you know that he doesn't?
> >>You must think he needs to arrive here and >> account for
> something in order to be 'exonerated' >> in order to
> >> not be a "bold-faced liar".
>
> >Excuse me again. I do not think any such thing. I'll
> > thank you to cease claiming you are clairvoyant &
> > can read my mind. I simply responded to your
> > ridiculous assertion that the man was not being
> > given a "chance to respond," when I've done
> > NOTHING to prevent or discourage him from
> > responding. I plainly said I would welcome such a
> > response.
>
> He doesn't frequent this newsgroup as a poster anyway. He has nothing
> to respond to other than someone wondering about a sentence in a
> article. Now he is supposed to by clairvoyant?
Didn't say so. *You* were the one who said I wasn't giving him "a
chance to respond." I did no such thing.
> >You're getting even closer to a plonk.
>
> Lol...I should be the plonker instead of the plonkee!
Really? When have I attributed attitudes to you that you don't posess,
as you have done with me? You said about me that I treated witnesses
inconsistently, which is rather obviously not the case. And you told
what is essentially a "lie" on your own part, Curt, by saying that I
wasn't giving Armstrong "a chance to respond." I realize that it is
quite likely that he is not aware that I've posted criticisms of him in
this newsgroup, but that is hardly the same thing as me specifically not
giving him a chance to respond. I've done NOTHING to prevent him from
responding.
Show me where I've made such absurdly incorrect statements about you,
Curt.
WHAT??? I've said exactly that to you over & over & over. "None"?
I've recommended to you to check Armstrong's sources repeatedly, & with
your own eyes you've seen me check several of his sources.
> It should be a universal given for anybody to do that.
That it should.
> Nobody has the
> time to do it all.
Of course not. Never said otherwise.
> I have a lot more to try to confirm than the one's
> you have brought up here, more perhaps by Armstrong because his research
> is more of a virgin territory than the more orthodox researches.
That's fine. But what you did in your first response to me in this
thread was simply regurgitate Armstrong's assertions without
qualification, stating them as if they were fact. I saw no evidence
that you at that time had checked more than perhaps a very few of his
assertions. Have you noticed that I, rather consistently, do *not* tend
to cite any one particular author when I discuss the assassination? I
cannot recall even once presenting a whole scenario based on a repeating
of any single author's assertations without citing original sources.
Show me an article by me in which I went with a scenario based almost
entirely on a single author, presenting all that author's assertions
nearly verbatim without qualification, as you did. I don't trust *any*
author, Curt; I long ago learned the hard way not to. I don't trust
Posner any more than Armstrong, to give just one example. I do not
treat Armstrong any differently from any other author; I *refuse* to
accept any individual author's claims at face value without checking
original sources. If I repeat what any author says, I almost *always*
qualify that by making clear whether or not my sole source is that
author, & whether or not I have any other source for the info.
That is not at *all* what you did in your first response to me in this
thread, as is plainly seen here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=69f5d9c2.0304300901.4540b820%40posti
ng.google.com
You simply repeated Armstrong's assertions as if they were fact, & made
no mention whatsoever that he was your source; the word "Armstrong"
appears nowhere in the article.
Show me where I've done anything like this regarding any one particular
author.
Of *course* you can't check *every* original source for *every* claim by
an author. Neither can I. But I *don't* simply come across an author's
article on the Web & then post all that author's claims without
attribution & without checking them & stating them as if they were
simple fact. I check what I can *before* I post the author's
assertions, or else I make plain that I haven't, & that these are claims
purported by the author, *not* necessarily actual fact. It did not take
me much time at all to find CE 1843, for example. I would certainly
have checked more of Armstrong's claims than you apparently did before
posting in even remotely like the manner you did, simply stating them,
quite a few of them, without attributing them to him, & as if they were
simply documented truth. I would have done some backround research
*before* accepting his claims. You did the opposite: you accepted his
claims *before* doing the backround research.
I'm not for a moment claiming that I don't slip up from time to time.
I've made plenty of errors (what human hasn't?), but I try to admit them
& apologize for them as quickly as possible when they're made known to
me. Occasionally you will even see me correcting myself *before* anyone
else has pointed out to me the error; there have been several times when
I've posted an article, then come across something which demonstrated
something I said to be wrong, then immediately posted *another* article
in response to my previous article, *before* anyone else had yet
responded to it, correcting my error.
But you'll look in vain for me taking a single article by another author
& presenting a scenario based directly on it as my sole or primary
source, without attribution & stating everything as simple fact.
CurtJester
> In article <17846-3E...@storefull-2118.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
> CurtJ...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > Group: alt.conspiracy.jfk Date: Wed, May 7, 2003,
> > 7:52pm (PDT+2) From: caer...@yahoo.com (Caeruleo)
> >
> > In article <19605-3E...@storefull-2111.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
> > CurtJ...@webtv.net wrote:
> >
> > >>But she does see that he is in the act of zippering
> > >> which is to me much more than a casuallook.The
> > >> discarded jacket also had a zipper. I would find it
> > >> highly unlikely if Oswald had a zippered item at
> > >> arrest and beyond, that he would have had two
> > >> zippered items on at the same time.
>
> > >I wouldn't think so either. However, neither you or I
> > > know yet whether the shirt he was wearing at the
> > > time of arrest had a zipper.
> >
> > True , but it's nice to clarify.
>
> Of course. I want to know as much as you do whether or not the shirt he
> was wearing when arrested had a zipper.
>
It's just good to consider what little one can. Odum Bardwell the FBI
agent who saw Oswald on the way out of the TT stated it as a 'brown
jacket' and could have easily made the mistake of dfferentiating
between shirt and jacket, but jacket implies more of a possiblity of
having a zipper than a having buttons at least to my personal
purchases over the years and what I see most people wearing.
I think "purportedly" could be used in every sentence on the Kennedy
assassination since everything said and done is an issue and debate
and not agreed upon in many instances. I think if you research this
you will find the statements of the employees and manager given to the
FBI within a couple of weeks of Nov. 22, to be that they were regular
customers and viewed the 'egg incident' in which Oswald complained was
met with a glare from Tippit. These folks saw the TV Oswald and
"purportedly" said it was the same guy. Of course we know that it
couldn't be TSBD Oswald because he was at work.
> > >>With the time of some of the witnesses
> > >> of the murder, especially with Markham and >> Smith, it would
> > seem impossible for Oswald to >> walk the 1.2 miles to the murder scene.
> >
> > >*If* their time is more accurate than others, which > is not
> > necessarily in evidence.
> >
> > I did read somewhere that it would take 14 minutes to walk the distance.
>
> I would like to get that determined conclusively. I know of no better
> way than going there myself. It's only 3 hours drive away from me. In
> fact...hmmm...(thinking about what my plans are for this weekend). ;-)
>
Oh boy.... I can see him shaving five minutes off the WC and HSCA
times of 13 minutes and 14.5 minutes respectively. I would be
investigating The Carousel Club myself...:)
> > Nobody, even in a highly populated area saw him en route to the crime
> > scene.
>
> As far as we know, that seems to be true. Of course, a man simply
> walking down a sidewalk isn't particularly remarkable or memorable.
> You'll recall that virtually *all* of the witnesses who saw this man
> running near the scene reported gunshots attracting their attention
> first.
>
But, you would think somebody would have been out in their yards or
walking and after the murder and assassination and if they did see
somebody resembling Oswald would have forth readily. Smith, Clark,
and Markham saw Oswald before the murder.
> > I believe that the general direction where he was seen walking
> > was an opposite or westerly direction instead of the easterly one he
> > would have embarked upon from the rooming house.
>
> I'm looking at 2 different maps of the area now. Beckley, the street on
> which the rooming house was runs directly north-south on it. Patton,
> the street on which Tippit was shot runs paralell to Beckley for several
> blocks as it goes southward & is also very close to Beckley, being only
> 2 blocks east of it; then Patton veers slightly southeast. Oswald would
> have been walking mostly straight south the entire time to the Tippit
> scene, except for turning east to walk the 2 blocks to Patton. The
> Texas Theater appears southwest of this location, & at a lesser distance
> from the Tippit scene than the rooming house appears, though the scale
> of this map may not be consistent. I seem to recall some author or
> other saying something to the effect that Oswald would have "reversed"
> his original direction to go to the TT, but I see plainly here that it
> is not so. Drawing a straight line from the rooming house to the Tippit
> scene near the corner of Patton & 10th, & then a straight line from the
> Tippit scene to the TT involves less than a 90 degree turn at the Tippit
> scene.
>
Assuming that killer came from Beckley. If the killer was walking
past Clark and Smith in the direction they described, wouldn't that
put Beckley Oswald off course?
> > Bowley looked at his
> > watch before coming to the fallen body of Tippit and saw 1:10.
>
> Was his watch absolutely accurate? It's not at all uncommon for a
> personal watch to be off by as much as 5 minutes.
>
But less likely when you need it for accuracy as in Markham needing to
be on time for work and for Bowley having to pick up his wife up at a
certain time in which he was doing.
> > Markham's bus that she took everyday was a 1:12 bus.
>
> I'm looking at her saying "1:15" bus to the WC.
>
I see that too, wonder if that is from the actual bus schedule?
> > The radio
> > transmission that went to the TSBD that reported the fallen officer that
> > Craig overheard
>
> Roger. According to Armstrong, he looked at his watch when he heard the
> news of the Tippit murder & saw it say 1:06. I'm curious as to the
> original source for that. Would it perhaps be Tippit's publication from
> 1971?
Tippit's publication from 1971? I am not following you on that one.
>
> > that was found in the National Archives was a 1:10
> > transmission.
>
> I see that's from Armstrong too. I'd like to see this document with my
> own eyes, wouldn't you?
Lot of stuff he has the visual documents at his site. Don't see that
one, and yes I do, and I think other researchers would too.
>
> > If all of this is fairly accurate, walking to the rooming
> > house to the Tippit crime scene would seem impossible. Walking to the
> > Texas Theater straight and getting popcorn would seem to be impossible.
>
> *If* he got popcorn. That's considerably under question, eh?
>
> > Going then from the crime scene and all he way to the TT would just add
> > to the unlikelyhood.
> >
> > >>I contend with 1:20 showing of the film at the TT >> and Oswald being
> > seen prior in there,
> >
> > >Being seen "prior" by whom? Burroughs? That's
> > > not
> > > much to go on with his extraordinary >
> inconsistency.
> > > Why do you seem to favor his later statements > over
> > > his earlier? Why do you favor his later timing over
> > > Brewer's & Postal's, when they were far more
> > > consistent than Burroughs?
> >
> > I believe the lack of good questions paved the way for the lack of
> > stellar answers.
>
> That's still not much of an excuse for Burroughs waiting 2 decades to
> mention for the first time that the man he saw being arrested was the
> same man to whom he'd sold popcorn less than an hour before.
Maybe he doesn't need an 'excuse'. He probably isn't into timelines.
Popcorn, what could that have to do this mind might think? Plus, the
hugeness of event might of put a small mundane event like that way
back on the back burner, so to speak. And nobody asked. Whether it was
one day or twenty years probably wouldn't make a difference. I am
very curious how popcorn came up during the Marr's interview? Was it
by good questioning, something that would job a memory? I think the
interview is taped, anybody seen it?
>
> > I believe Jack Davis contended he sat next to him during the opening
> > credits and that would be before the 1:20 scheduled start of the film.
> > I guess you could dispute the film's start. The projectionist was
> > supposedly there. Maybe he would have something to say? Oswald
> > supposedly sat next to a pregnant woman and she left and went up to the
> > balcony to use the ladies room, not to return.
>
> That's according to Jack Davis alone, uncorroborated by anyone else, &
> also, if I recall correctly, in statements he was not recorded as making
> for the first time until about 2 decades later.
Ditto for Mr. Davis as for Mr. Burroughs.
>
> > Maybe Postal, Burroughs,
> > or the manager Callaway could give some inisght when she left?
>
> Maybe so. If she was there at all.
And maybe never with such shoddy policework. And one would think if
the police didn't cover that reporters would have at the time.
But there is no exact time according to you. Dropping the ball at
Times Square could be five minutes off, right?..:
>
> > Brock,
> > Postal, and Brewer seem to be in the ballpark even with their later
> > times. Ooookk...just thought you were slippin' on me there.
>
> Postal & Brewer are indeed "in the ballpark," as far as Oswald being
> able to get there from the Tippit scene at the time they said. Didn't
> Brewer say "1:30"? But I'm not considering them any differently from
> Roberts, Markham, et al. Not once have I said that Brewer couldn't have
> been off by as much as 5 minutes either way. I don't see it implausible
> that *any* of these witnesses we've been discussing could have off as 5
> minutes. I'm treating *all* of them exactly the same way in this
> regard; I'm not giving Brewer & Postal any more benefit of the doubt
> than I give the earlier witnesses. And once again we come to the
> question of setting watches, clocks, & other timepieces. Not at all
> uncommon for such things to be off by as much as 5 minutes either way.
> Look what happens if, say, Roberts' clock was 5 minutes fast, & Oswald
> really came in at 12:55. Suddenly Oswald is given *more* time to get to
> the Tippit scene. Look what happens if Brewer is off by only 5 minutes
> in the other direction, seeing Oswald at 1:35 instead of 1:30. Any of
> these things are possible.
>
> I'm not treating any of these witnesses with any different criteria than
> the others. *Any* of them could have easily been off by as much as 5
> minutes either way.
They could be off, but what's important is combining the best
testimony of time with timing of surrounding events. Yes, Earlene
Roberts could have been off, but when you have Whaley saying he let
Oswald off at a time of 12:54 , I believe, and he has six more blocks
to walk to the rooming house then it as to make her time more
accurate. I think it is fair for my to conject that if Oswald was in
that theater before the 1:20 showing of that film, the unlikliness of
him being the Tippit killer and geting to the TT by foot very great.
It also make the possibilty greater of another 'Oswald'in that theater
if the Postal, Brewer, Brock times are correct.
But do you need two embellishers? Doesn't Davis have to be off too?
>
> > >>Way too many (Oswald sightingts) in the 3 >> months prior to
> be in that
> > >> category IMO especially when one was >> supposed
> > >> to be in a different city doing something when >> the 'other' was
> > in another doing something else.
> >
> > >You need to observe that the sightings were
> > > "claimed" to be in the 3 months prior, but that
> > > almost all the "claims" were not recorded until > after the
> > assassination.
> >
> > But the witnesses would have had to have prior knowledge to the
> > assassination.
>
> To mention for the first time *after* the assassination that he/she had
> "seen" Oswald *before* the assassination, a witness would require "prior
> knowledge" of the assassination? I don't see how. The only cases where
> it can actually be verified that the witness did see Oswald before the
> assassination would be where there is conclusively datable documentation
> of the witness saying such a thing earlier than the assassination.
>
> > Only a conspirator or somebody overhearing some details
> > would know.
>
> Not necessarily, in cases where the claims were not actually *recorded*
> until after the assassination.
I don't know if I am seeing this. Wouldn't it be like your statement
of Oswald walking to the Tippit scent from Beckley, not likely to be
noticed til the actual event of the murder where then people really
started noticing? People could have Oswald experiences and sightings
before the assassination but were only noteworthy to be remembered
only when the assassination occurred.
>
> > >"Oh, I see...you're getting it (sadly) from > Armstrong,
> > > who in the very article whose URL I cited
> > > previously, tells this bold-faced lie:"
>
> > >I did not call the man himself a liar, bold-faced or > otherwise,
> > although I suppose to say he lied > implies he's a liar.
> >
> > Yes, you implicated he was, and you kept asking me quesiions on how I
> > could support and trust that type of person.
>
> Oh, that last I did, & with good reason. Since I have proven him beyond
> all possible doubt to be erroneous in one of his *major* assertions, how
> could it not be anything other than wisdom for you to verify his *other*
> major assertions before accepting them at face value?
Is he worth singling out and warning more than any other author? He
has lot's of major assertions well into the hundreds if not thousands.
I don't see the why other than pointing out an apparent discrepancey.
Just the first topic I came onto today getting in the group was the
'100 mistakes' of a certain author. Let the mistake be known; we
will be capable of deciding if it is a "lie" or if he might be a liar.
And I suppose every sentence you don't agree by a published author
should be exterminated? I think you should be happy its there so if
you meet him in person then if there is a computer close by you can
call him on it right there.
>
> > >His article was published in February 1998. He's
> > > had over 5 years to retract & apologize for that
> > > error. Show me where he has done so.
> >
> > How do you know that he knows he made an error?
>
> How do you know that he doesn't?
But you are assuming he does if you call the statement " a bold faced
lie". Isn't this country's justice still based on 'innocent til
proven guilty'?
>
> > >>You must think he needs to arrive here and >> account for
> something in order to be 'exonerated' >> in order to
> > >> not be a "bold-faced liar".
>
> > >Excuse me again. I do not think any such thing. I'll
> > > thank you to cease claiming you are clairvoyant &
> > > can read my mind. I simply responded to your
> > > ridiculous assertion that the man was not being
> > > given a "chance to respond," when I've done
> > > NOTHING to prevent or discourage him from
> > > responding. I plainly said I would welcome such a
> > > response.
> >
> > He doesn't frequent this newsgroup as a poster anyway. He has nothing
> > to respond to other than someone wondering about a sentence in a
> > article. Now he is supposed to by clairvoyant?
>
> Didn't say so. *You* were the one who said I wasn't giving him "a
> chance to respond." I did no such thing.
He has no chance to respond if he is unaware or hasn't been accused.
It would be ridiculous to say one was preventing him from doing so.
>
> > >You're getting even closer to a plonk.
> >
> > Lol...I should be the plonker instead of the plonkee!
>
> Really? When have I attributed attitudes to you that you don't posess,
> as you have done with me? You said about me that I treated witnesses
> inconsistently, which is rather obviously not the case. And you told
> what is essentially a "lie" on your own part, Curt, by saying that I
> wasn't giving Armstrong "a chance to respond." I realize that it is
> quite likely that he is not aware that I've posted criticisms of him in
> this newsgroup, but that is hardly the same thing as me specifically not
> giving him a chance to respond. I've done NOTHING to prevent him from
> responding.
>
> Show me where I've made such absurdly incorrect statements about you,
> Curt.
I just pointed out stuff from your accusations and you wanted to think
about plonking me. I didn't bring up anything about a certain author.
I think you went off unwarranted. I shouldn't have even answered
most of it. This plonking business seems a bit childish to me, in
that if you don't like what they say, just move on, instead of trying
to conduct an ethic's class. It's just usernet with mostly adults and
different personalities: not a classroom that needs an teacher
authority figure.
I haven't seen you do this with another poster, nor have I seen you do
this with another author I get information from.
I can state anything I want whether its from an author or not. I can
purposely contrive and make-up stuff just to see if I get a response.
This is Usernet. People say Oswald did this in the TSBD, and in my
mind's eye I would say 'suspect'; but that is their perogerative. I
can call them on it, let it go by, move on to another post. Maybe
Armstrong when he comes out with his book, which I've heard he is, you
can have better avenues to get what you desire clarifed.
CJ
Caeruleo
curtj...@webtv.net (CurtJester) wrote:
ITYM Barwell Odum, who among other things was one of the FBI agents who
worked with Wes Frazier on 12-2-63 to determine the length of Oswald's
package in the back seat of Frazier's car. I am unable to find an
example of him saying any such thing, or even making any statement at
all about Oswald at the TT. In fact, I am at present unable to locate
any confirmation that Odum was even *at* the TT at the time, although I
won't deny for a moment that such evidence may exist. But once again,
Armstrong is the only author I can find on the web making this claim
about Odum, & he provides no attribution in the article I saw. What is
the original source for Odum saying this?
Perhaps, if one goes so far as to use criteria that might lead one to
make statements such as, "purportedly the sun rises & sets over most of
the planet." There are plenty of things, however, which go far beyond
being merely "purported" in the viewpoint of most humans on earth.
> I think if you research this
> you will find the statements of the employees and manager given to the
> FBI within a couple of weeks of Nov. 22, to be that they were regular
> customers and viewed the 'egg incident' in which Oswald complained was
> met with a glare from Tippit. These folks saw the TV Oswald and
> "purportedly" said it was the same guy. Of course we know that it
> couldn't be TSBD Oswald because he was at work.
Um, what I've found is that Sam Rogers, Douglas Leake, & Delores
Harrison supposedly told the FBI on 12-5-63 that Oswald sometimes ate
breakfast at Dobb's, but that it wasn't necessarily at a time when he
should have been at work at the TSBD. I can only find Mary Dowling
supposedly making the claim that Tippit also was present at any occasion
when Oswald was there. I'm trying to locate the original FBI documents,
so far without success.
> > > >>With the time of some of the witnesses
> > > >> of the murder, especially with Markham and >> Smith, it would
> > > seem impossible for Oswald to >> walk the 1.2 miles to the murder scene.
> > >
> > > >*If* their time is more accurate than others, which > is not
> > > necessarily in evidence.
> > >
> > > I did read somewhere that it would take 14 minutes to walk the distance.
> >
> > I would like to get that determined conclusively. I know of no better
> > way than going there myself. It's only 3 hours drive away from me. In
> > fact...hmmm...(thinking about what my plans are for this weekend). ;-)
>
> Oh boy.... I can see him shaving five minutes off the WC and HSCA
> times of 13 minutes and 14.5 minutes respectively.
I don't know that I'll be able to do any such thing myself. But like
the 75 second timing of Truly from 6th floor to lunchroom, sometimes
certain common assertions can be overturned when one goes to the actual
places in person. It was a bit too much short notice for me to arrange
a Dallas trip this past Saturday, but I will definitely be going this
coming weekend, & I have invited any poster in alt.assassination.jfk to
join me. I extend the same invitation to this newsgroup. I'll be
walking from the location of Ozzie's rooming house (which I've never
seen, have wanted to see for years, & should be seeing in any case) to
the scene of the Tippit murder on 10th a bit east of Patton, then back
to Patton to the parking lot (if it's still there, or at least the
location) near the corner of Patton & Jefferson where some man
supposedly discarded a jacket, & from there down Jefferson to the TT
between Zang & Madison. I will be seeing how long this takes me, & I
plan to do it at a leisurely walking pace. I will then take a more
direct route back from the TT to the rooming house (I'll rather need to
go back there, as that's where my car will be parked) to also see how
long that will take. I plan for the excursion to start promptly at 9:00
a.m. (according to my watch) this coming Saturday May 17. I'll post the
results honestly within the following 48 hours or so, & in any case, I
cannot yet know that there might be another poster who shows up who
might corroborate me.
> I would be
> investigating The Carousel Club myself...:)
For what? It isn't there anymore.
> > > Nobody, even in a highly populated area saw him en route to the crime
> > > scene.
> >
> > As far as we know, that seems to be true. Of course, a man simply
> > walking down a sidewalk isn't particularly remarkable or memorable.
> > You'll recall that virtually *all* of the witnesses who saw this man
> > running near the scene reported gunshots attracting their attention
> > first.
>
> But, you would think somebody would have been out in their yards or
> walking and after the murder and assassination and if they did see
> somebody resembling Oswald would have forth readily. Smith, Clark,
> and Markham saw Oswald before the murder.
And rather obviously remembered him primarily because of the shooting.
> > > I believe that the general direction where he was seen walking
> > > was an opposite or westerly direction instead of the easterly one he
> > > would have embarked upon from the rooming house.
> >
> > I'm looking at 2 different maps of the area now. Beckley, the street on
> > which the rooming house was runs directly north-south on it. Patton,
> > the street on which Tippit was shot runs paralell to Beckley for several
> > blocks as it goes southward & is also very close to Beckley, being only
> > 2 blocks east of it; then Patton veers slightly southeast. Oswald would
> > have been walking mostly straight south the entire time to the Tippit
> > scene, except for turning east to walk the 2 blocks to Patton. The
> > Texas Theater appears southwest of this location, & at a lesser distance
> > from the Tippit scene than the rooming house appears, though the scale
> > of this map may not be consistent. I seem to recall some author or
> > other saying something to the effect that Oswald would have "reversed"
> > his original direction to go to the TT, but I see plainly here that it
> > is not so. Drawing a straight line from the rooming house to the Tippit
> > scene near the corner of Patton & 10th, & then a straight line from the
> > Tippit scene to the TT involves less than a 90 degree turn at the Tippit
> > scene.
>
> Assuming that killer came from Beckley. If the killer was walking
> past Clark and Smith in the direction they described, wouldn't that
> put Beckley Oswald off course?
Not by my understanding of the route (which I'll admit may be incorrect)
nor by what I see on the map. From the rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley
(which appears to be very close to the corner of Beckley & 5th, if not
on it) one can go straight south only one block, then turn east on 6th
to walk 2 blocks to Patton, turn south on Patton, & walk 4 blocks to
10th, then turn east on 10th. I seem to recall that some of these
witnesses thought Oswald was walking east on 10th when Tippit pulled up
on 10th between Patton & Denver, that the shooting occurred on this
block of 10th, & that the shooter then went back west on 10th & turned
south on Patton. The parking lot which he was seen to enter, in which a
jacket was found, in any case was further south on Patton.
> > > Bowley looked at his
> > > watch before coming to the fallen body of Tippit and saw 1:10.
> >
> > Was his watch absolutely accurate? It's not at all uncommon for a
> > personal watch to be off by as much as 5 minutes.
>
> But less likely when you need it for accuracy as in Markham needing to
> be on time for work
Ah yes, Markham. I'm unable at present to find any pre-WC statement by
Markham, though doubtless such exists, but as we've already discussed,
she told the WC that the bus was due at 1:15. I thus still await the
original source for the "1:12" assertation.
> and for Bowley having to pick up his wife up at a
> certain time in which he was doing.
Um, why would his watch being perhaps no more than 5 minutes off either
way make any significant difference with that? He'd only be 5 minutes
late at the most in picking up his wife, which most people don't
consider to be a big deal. How would this "ensure" that his watch
wasn't off by a few minutes?
Oh, btw, I ran across by accident a page in Scoggins' WC testimony in
which he asked for the dispatcher to confirm what time he had called in
Tippit's murder, & was told that it had been at 1:23:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0174b.h
tm
> > > Markham's bus that she took everyday was a 1:12 bus.
> >
> > I'm looking at her saying "1:15" bus to the WC.
>
> I see that too, wonder if that is from the actual bus schedule?
I have no idea.
Yet.
> > > The radio
> > > transmission that went to the TSBD that reported the fallen officer that
> > > Craig overheard
> >
> > Roger. According to Armstrong, he looked at his watch when he heard the
> > news of the Tippit murder & saw it say 1:06. I'm curious as to the
> > original source for that. Would it perhaps be Tippit's publication from
> > 1971?
>
> Tippit's publication from 1971? I am not following you on that one.
Oops, thanks, that would be Craig's publication. Sorry.
Oh, & before you go off on me for that error, notice that I admitted it
& apologized for it in my first response. And I assure you that if I
had been submitting this article for publication, I would have been far
more careful, & would have proofread the article repeatedly, & checked
my sources repeatedly, before submitting it for publication. I am
supremely confident that the chances of me letting a claim such as CE
1843 saying "purchased in Russia," especially with those words in
italics, continue past the first of the 3 drafts (minimum) I would have
made for such an article are so infinitesmally small that it is more
likely that Venus would fall to Earth than such a thing appearing in my
final draft.
You can believe me, or not believe me, as is your choice.
> > > that was found in the National Archives was a 1:10
> > > transmission.
> >
> > I see that's from Armstrong too. I'd like to see this document with my
> > own eyes, wouldn't you?
>
> Lot of stuff he has the visual documents at his site. Don't see that
> one, and yes I do, and I think other researchers would too.
Especially since he's the sole author to whom I can so far trace that
claim.
> > > Going then from the crime scene and all he way to the TT would just add
> > > to the unlikelyhood.
> > >
> > > >>I contend with 1:20 showing of the film at the TT >> and Oswald being
> > > seen prior in there,
> > >
> > > >Being seen "prior" by whom? Burroughs? That's
> > > > not
> > > > much to go on with his extraordinary >
> > inconsistency.
> > > > Why do you seem to favor his later statements > over
> > > > his earlier? Why do you favor his later timing over
> > > > Brewer's & Postal's, when they were far more
> > > > consistent than Burroughs?
> > >
> > > I believe the lack of good questions paved the way for the lack of
> > > stellar answers.
> >
> > That's still not much of an excuse for Burroughs waiting 2 decades to
> > mention for the first time that the man he saw being arrested was the
> > same man to whom he'd sold popcorn less than an hour before.
>
> Maybe he doesn't need an 'excuse'. He probably isn't into timelines.
> Popcorn, what could that have to do this mind might think? Plus, the
> hugeness of event might of put a small mundane event like that way
> back on the back burner, so to speak.
A SMALL MUNDANE EVENT???
You're having him put "on the back burner" seeing a man arrested in the
theater in which he worked, within 24 hours seeing that same man all
over the media being named as the accused assassin in the Crime of the
Century, seeing in the media that the same man had been murdered on
television (the first televised real murder in all of history, as far as
I know) yet forgetting for 2 decades that he had sold this VERY SAME MAN
popcorn less than an hour before he was arrested.
> And nobody asked.
You'd better go back & check that assertion out carefully.
> Whether it was
> one day or twenty years probably wouldn't make a difference.
Oh come now.
What an incredibly poor excuse you're giving Burroughs for taking so
long to even mention the astoundingly remarkable circumstance of selling
popcorn to the accused presidential assassin less than an hour before he
saw that same person being arrested, & subsequently all over the media.
Fascinating that you seem almost never to give those witnesses who
*support* the LN Oswald scenario nearly so much leeway. And yet you of
all people criticize me for granting as much as 5 minutes possible error
either way, whether or not they support Oswald as lone assassin. Your
treatment of witnesses is far more inconsistent than mine; it is
blindingly obvious that whenever a witnesses says anything at all which
supports a conspiracy scenario, no matter how inconsistent that witness
was otherwise, you fall all over yourself to offer reasons, no matter
how implausible to the average person, to accept their
conspiracy-supporting statements over any others that they may have
made, & yet nitpick at the tiniest discrepancies in any witness who
generally supports the LN position, even if they were in general more
consistent than the witnesses you defend. You without hesitation cited
an interview (without citing the original source or quoting even a
single word of it, & moreover without even confirming that such an
interview ever occurred) with Postal in which she supposedly broke down
in tears (but never actually said she sold a ticket to Oswald) as
evidence that she probably did anyway, yet don't bat an eye at Burroughs
utterly failing to mention an extremely crucial detail in this case for
over 20 years, instead very generously offering excuses for his failure.
You've demonstrated this attitude in article after article after article.
If the witness made any statement whatsoever to support a CT viewpoint,
all inconsistencies of that witness may be excused.
If the witness made any statement whatsoever to support an LN viewpoint,
all inconsistencies of that witness must be held under a magnifying
glass.
My approach to the witnesses in this case is so far removed from yours
it's ludicrous. I'm already on record as stating plainly that *any* of
these witnesses, without a single exception, no matter what viewpoint
they support, might have been looking at personal timepieces which might
have been as much as 5 minutes off either way. You've also apparently
missed me saying only a few days ago in this newsgroup that I don't find
Brennan particularly more credible than Burroughs.
> > > I believe Jack Davis contended he sat next to him during the opening
> > > credits and that would be before the 1:20 scheduled start of the film.
> > > I guess you could dispute the film's start. The projectionist was
> > > supposedly there. Maybe he would have something to say? Oswald
> > > supposedly sat next to a pregnant woman and she left and went up to the
> > > balcony to use the ladies room, not to return.
> >
> > That's according to Jack Davis alone, uncorroborated by anyone else, &
> > also, if I recall correctly, in statements he was not recorded as making
> > for the first time until about 2 decades later.
>
> Ditto for Mr. Davis as for Mr. Burroughs.
Oh right, Mr. Davis won't say a word until he's asked precisely the
right question. I'd be telling all & sundry about what I saw on Day
One, whether they "asked" or not, if I'd witnessed such things, wouldn't
you? And speaking of Mr. Davis, I so far have not just been unable to
locate him making these particular claims earlier than the 1980s, I'm
unable to locate him making ANY claims about even being in the TT
earlier than the 1980s. Is there contemporaneous evidence that he was
even there that day at all? I'm not denying for a moment that such
evidence might exist, but so far, I haven't been able to find it.
> > > Maybe Postal, Burroughs,
> > > or the manager Callaway could give some inisght when she left?
> >
> > Maybe so. If she was there at all.
>
> And maybe never with such shoddy policework. And one would think if
> the police didn't cover that reporters would have at the time.
How would they, unless someone mentioned to them first that a pregnant
woman was in the theater. I can't imagine them asking out of the blue,
"Was there a pregnant woman in there?" If Jack Davis didn't tell anyone
that at the time (if he was even there) why would it occur to them to
investigate it.
> > > >>I find Mr. Caeruleo rather inconsistent when
> > > >> spending countless hours tryng to justify seconds >> in
> > > >> the possible sixth floor TSBD suspect's descent >> to
> > > >> flittering off minutes here as so seemingly
> > > >> 'unattainable' or not worthy of scrutiny.
> >
> > > >Excuse me. Where on EARTH are you getting the
> > > > impression that I don't want to nail down the
> > > > precise timing of this rooming house to Tippit > scene
> > > > business just as much as the other? When have I
> > > > made any statement that this is "not worthy of
> > > > scrutiny"? That's a strawman, Curt, & unworthy of
> > > > you. I've never said such a thing. I'll thank you not > to attribute
> > attitudes to me that I don't posess, & > for
> > > > which you have no evidence that I posess, &
> > > > attribute arguments to me that I've never made, if
> > > > you wish me to continue any further discussion > with you.
> > >
> > > Oh did I ruffle a feather here?
> >
> > No, you simply caused the troll-o-meter to twitch slightly. ;-)
> >
> > > I do seem to hear something about a few
> > > minutes past 1:00 by Smith passing Oswald as being sorta vague.
> >
> > Of course it is, as that is not an exact time, such as "1:06" is.
>
> But there is no exact time according to you.
Now you're telling a falsehood about me. This is exactly what I'm
talking about, Curt, you're still attributing arguments to me that I've
never made. This is commonly called a "strawman." When did I EVER say
anything like there is "no" exact time? Never said such a thing. What
I have instead said is that a few minutes after 1:00 is not an exact
time (surely you agree?), & that it is entirely possible that at least
*some* of these witnesses' personal timepieces might have been off by as
much as 5 minutes. How many times have you compared the time on your
watch & found that it is different from someone else's? It's happened
plenty of times to me, & happened plenty of times to many many many
other people. How many times have you walked into someone's house &
seen a clock which does not have the same time as your watch? That is a
very common experience for many people too. At the moment I type these
words, my watch says 10:05, my computer clock says 10:01, the cable box
says 10:03, & a digital clock in my bedroom says 10:06. Which one is
"correct"? Were a police officer to be murdered outside my house at
this instant, which of these times should I give to investigators?
Isn't it obviously rather ludicrous to put too much faith in the *exact*
times given by each & every one of these witnesses?
I have no such precise faith in *any* of them, whether they support an
LN view or not.
> Dropping the ball at
> Times Square could be five minutes off, right?..:
What a ridiculous question. You're now bringing up something
extraordinarily different from one individual's personal timepiece. Is
not that event coordinated with nationwide, if not worldwide,
synchronizations of time?
To the WC he said 12:45, but admitted that that could have been off by
as much as 15 minutes either way!
To speak of a witness perhaps being off.
He said it, I didn't make it up.
Please show us an original source for him ever saying "12:54."
> and he has six more blocks
> to walk to the rooming house then it as to make her time more
> accurate. I think it is fair for my to conject that if Oswald was in
> that theater before the 1:20 showing of that film, the unlikliness of
> him being the Tippit killer and geting to the TT by foot very great.
> It also make the possibilty greater of another 'Oswald'in that theater
> if the Postal, Brewer, Brock times are correct.
And do you realize you're undermining your own scenario? Plainly on a
map of the area can be seen that it is *farther* to the TT from the
rooming house than it is from the rooming house to the scene of the
Tippit shooting. The official time given by the WC for when the
shooting was called in is 1:16, & I'm still waiting to see this
"document" in the National Archives which shows the call being made at
1:10. Above you yourself have quoted the times 13 minutes & 14.5
minutes for a walk from rooming house to Tippit scene. Do now look at
maps of the area & tell me you think Oswald could have made it to the TT
in less than 20 minutes from the rooming house. I'll be finding out in
person whether that's particularly possible less than a week from today.
Wanna join me?
> > > >>If not can you find any reason why she was not
> > > >> asked?
> >
> > > >Since she was asked, no. ;-)
> > >
> > > I guess so, now. I wonder why you didn't bring that up before?
> >
> > If you'll look carefully at my text quoted above, you'll see that the
> > first sentence is "Sorry." I simply hadn't gotten around to it before
> > then.
> >
> > > >>I would like to know too, how the interview came
> > > >> about, whether a reporter sought him out or not?
> >
> > > >Marrs appears to have sought him out, as far as I
> > > > can tell.
> > >
> > > Looks better for not being fame-hungry.
> >
> > I've known all sorts of people to add embellishments to their stories as
> > years go by, including friends who were describing events at which I
> > also had been present years before. Burroughs may have thought that his
> > original story wasn't "remarkable" enough, & upon being contacted came
> > up with a "better" one. Who knows?
>
> But do you need two embellishers? Doesn't Davis have to be off too?
Would it be the first time in a famous case that more than one person
embellished their stories years later? It's hardly an uncommon
occurrence, Curt.
Of course. And how many of these might have merely involved people who
looked somewhat like Oswald (Billy Lovelady continues to be confused
with him to the present day), since Oswald was not of a tremendously
uncommon appearance? But up to the Tippit scene Oswald is supposedly
merely a man walking down a sidewalk. It was also the middle of the day
on a weekday. How many people were looking out their windows at that
time? What would motivate them to look out their windows before hearing
shots? That's not at all similar to, say, an "Oswald" coming into a
place of business, to be waited on by an employee.
> > > >"Oh, I see...you're getting it (sadly) from > Armstrong,
> > > > who in the very article whose URL I cited
> > > > previously, tells this bold-faced lie:"
> >
> > > >I did not call the man himself a liar, bold-faced or > otherwise,
> > > although I suppose to say he lied > implies he's a liar.
> > >
> > > Yes, you implicated he was, and you kept asking me quesiions on how I
> > > could support and trust that type of person.
> >
> > Oh, that last I did, & with good reason. Since I have proven him beyond
> > all possible doubt to be erroneous in one of his *major* assertions, how
> > could it not be anything other than wisdom for you to verify his *other*
> > major assertions before accepting them at face value?
>
> Is he worth singling out and warning more than any other author?
I have said repeatedly that he isn't. Why are you asking a question
which I've already answered multiple times?
> He
> has lot's of major assertions well into the hundreds if not thousands.
> I don't see the why other than pointing out an apparent discrepancey.
> Just the first topic I came onto today getting in the group was the
> '100 mistakes' of a certain author. Let the mistake be known; we
> will be capable of deciding if it is a "lie" or if he might be a liar.
Yes, you know who that's by, correct? Why do I fail to see you
criticizing that poster for failing to contact Mr. Posner *before*
posting those criticisms? Why have you *never* criticized any of these
posters for "not giving Posner a chance to respond"? I know quite well
you haven't; I looked on Google at all articles you've ever posted in
which the word "Posner" appears at all.
Fascinating that you take me to task for these things when I criticize
John Armstrong, yet you don't breathe a word when multiple posters do
EXACTLY THE SAME THING to Posner. Quite a few of them have claimed him
to have "lied" too. Why do you treat me so astoundingly different from
these other posters?
Oh good lord.
That does it.
There are thousands of sentences which I don't particularly "agree"
with, & yet I would never dream of suggesting should be "exterminated."
Whether I personally "agree" with something is not the issue. Mr.
Armstrong made a provably false statement about CE 1843. It isn't a
matter of "opinion" that it is false; the document simply says something
plainly different from what he claimed it says. I don't "agree" with
him citing the "inconsistencies" for Brewer & Postal yet failing to
mention those of Burroughs at all, yet I haven't suggested that those
particular sentences be stricken from the article. I've suggested only
that this provably false statement about CE 1843 should be corrected.
Can you come up with any valid reason why it should not be?
> I think you should be happy its there so if
> you meet him in person then if there is a computer close by you can
> call him on it right there.
I am not "happy" that it is there, as I wish it had never been put there
in the first place, & I would not particularly relish any opportunity to
call him on it, as I would prefer that no such need existed in the first
place.
> > > >His article was published in February 1998. He's
> > > > had over 5 years to retract & apologize for that
> > > > error. Show me where he has done so.
> > >
> > > How do you know that he knows he made an error?
> >
> > How do you know that he doesn't?
>
> But you are assuming he does if you call the statement " a bold faced
> lie". Isn't this country's justice still based on 'innocent til
> proven guilty'?
It is, & now, as I told you I would do in another communication, I
apologize to this newsgroup, to you, & to Mr. Armstrong for implying in
any way that he was lying. A lie is a statement known to be false to
the person who makes it at the time it is made. I do not know for a
fact that he knew the statement to be false at the time he submitted the
article.
What I will *not* apologize for in the slightest, & will continue to
stand by even if Mr. Armstrong were to respond in this newsgroup
himself, & even if I were to ever find myself face to face with him in
real life, is that this was a major whopper of an error to let stand in
an article supposedly carefully prepared for publication, & that I find
him incredibly remiss, if nothing more, additionally in failing to cite
any inconsistency in Burroughs' statements (indeed, not even
acknowledging that Burroughs ever said anything different from what is
quoted in that article) while heavily emphasizing even suspected (but
not proven) inconsistencies of other witnesses, such as Postal.
Let the man come forth. I'm quite ready for him.
> > > >>You must think he needs to arrive here and >> account for
> > something in order to be 'exonerated' >> in order to
> > > >> not be a "bold-faced liar".
> >
> > > >Excuse me again. I do not think any such thing. I'll
> > > > thank you to cease claiming you are clairvoyant &
> > > > can read my mind. I simply responded to your
> > > > ridiculous assertion that the man was not being
> > > > given a "chance to respond," when I've done
> > > > NOTHING to prevent or discourage him from
> > > > responding. I plainly said I would welcome such a
> > > > response.
> > >
> > > He doesn't frequent this newsgroup as a poster anyway. He has nothing
> > > to respond to other than someone wondering about a sentence in a
> > > article. Now he is supposed to by clairvoyant?
> >
> > Didn't say so. *You* were the one who said I wasn't giving him "a
> > chance to respond." I did no such thing.
>
> He has no chance to respond if he is unaware or hasn't been accused.
To this very moment I have no idea whether he's aware or not, whether he
reads this newsgroup or not, whether someone else who reads it has told
him about my articles or not, & neither do you. He can read this
newsgroup as easily as anyone else, & post to it as easily as anyone
else.
> It would be ridiculous to say one was preventing him from doing so.
You were the one claiming that I was not giving him a chance to respond.
Strange that you never say such things when other posters criticize
Posner.
> > > >You're getting even closer to a plonk.
> > >
> > > Lol...I should be the plonker instead of the plonkee!
> >
> > Really? When have I attributed attitudes to you that you don't posess,
> > as you have done with me? You said about me that I treated witnesses
> > inconsistently, which is rather obviously not the case. And you told
> > what is essentially a "lie" on your own part, Curt, by saying that I
> > wasn't giving Armstrong "a chance to respond." I realize that it is
> > quite likely that he is not aware that I've posted criticisms of him in
> > this newsgroup, but that is hardly the same thing as me specifically not
> > giving him a chance to respond. I've done NOTHING to prevent him from
> > responding.
> >
> > Show me where I've made such absurdly incorrect statements about you,
> > Curt.
>
> I just pointed out stuff from your accusations and you wanted to think
> about plonking me.
Plonking you would have nothing to do with you correctly pointing out
aspects of my arguments. The temptation to do so comes solely from you
attributing arguments to me that I've never made, & attitudes to me for
which you do not have a shred of evidence that I posess.
> I didn't bring up anything about a certain author.
Hogwash. You didn't initially name him, but in your original response
to me in this thread you drafted wholesale his arguments, stated them as
if they were simple proven fact, & obviously didn't bother to check out
even a tithe of them for veracity.
> I think you went off unwarranted.
Oh really? So I'm just supposed to sit back & say nothing when you make
provably false statements, supported by terrible research on your part,
& failing to initially cite your source?
Not in this lifetime.
> I shouldn't have even answered
> most of it.
Then why did you?
> This plonking business seems a bit childish to me, in
> that if you don't like what they say, just move on, instead of trying
> to conduct an ethic's class.
Your inexperience on Usenet is showing. Killfiling has been widely
considered for years to be one of the most effective methods for
filtering out posters whose articles are not a constructive use of one's
time to read, & it is recommended by a number of ISPs. It isn't any
accident that some sort of killfile feature is included in most
newsreader programs; such features have been available for years. Not
even once have I ever killfiled a poster merely because I "don't like"
what they say. There are only a very few things which cause me to come
to believe that a poster is not worth my time to read:
The poster is what is commonly called a "troll," who posts annoying or
offensive comments merely to get attention.
The poster makes immature ad hominem insults.
The poster instantly compares anyone who says anything at all that
he/she doesn't like to the Third Reich (do sometime look up "Godwin's
Law").
The poster repeatedly produces strawman arguments about myself and/or
about others.
A poster can disagree with me all day long & I won't be even mildly
tempted to plonk her/him. It is when the level of nonsense exceeds the
level of useful information or cogent discussion that I have a tendency
to find that poster not worth my time.
> It's just usernet with mostly adults
I only have 5 posters presently in my killfile (it will be 6 as soon as
I finish posting this present article), & most of those do not seem to
me to act like adults.
> and
> different personalities: not a classroom that needs an teacher
> authority figure.
ROFL! What an absurd thing to say. I've never had the slightest
intention of acting as an "authority figure" on Usenet; only a moderator
in a controlled newsgroup could do so. That I am not, & I would decline
the job even if it was offered. I simply know that the last time I
checked, I still had the right to determine whose articles I will & will
not see on my own computer. My killfile entries do not affect any other
poster, nor does it affect in the slightest what they can & cannot post.
Then you've only read only a tiny percentage of my articles, or remember
only a tiny percentage of what you've seen me write. I've offered this
advice many times, to many people besides you. And you apparently
missed Barb taking me to task in October during the first week I had
ever in my life posted in any JFK newsgroup, in which she gave me this
very advice, recommending strongly that I read testimony in its entirety
rather than relying on what any particular author claimed about it.
I've taken her advice to heart ever since. You should too.
> nor have I seen you do
> this with another author I get information from.
Perhaps it is because I too have read only a tiny percentage of your
articles, but I cannot ever recall you before drafting virtually
wholesale the claims of a single author (a number of which seem to be
unique to that one author) rather obviously without making much effort
at all to verify the validity of his assertions.
Of course you "can" state anything you want. It should, however, be a
reasonable expectation on your part that you will be called on it if you
mindlessly repeat provably false statements, & exhibit very poor
research criteria when doing so. Would you prefer never to be corrected
when you do such things? I wouldn't; I ardently desire to be corrected
when I'm wrong.
> I can
> purposely contrive and make-up stuff just to see if I get a response.
Then you'd be a troll. Is that what you want to be?
> This is Usernet.
That it is, & it has enough crap on it already. Adding even more serves
no constructive purpose, & certainly no constructive purpose is served
in the name of JFK assassination research to post shoddy
poorly-documented claims.
> People say Oswald did this in the TSBD, and in my
> mind's eye I would say 'suspect'; but that is their perogerative.
Notice how many times I've said the same thing? I've long ago lost
count of how many times I've admitted unequivocally that it isn't
"proven" that Oswald did this or did that, including killing JFK and/or
Tippit. If you've missed all those articles too, they're on Google.
> I
> can call them on it, let it go by, move on to another post.
That is your choice.
> Maybe
> Armstrong when he comes out with his book, which I've heard he is, you
> can have better avenues to get what you desire clarifed.
Maybe so.
At present, however, sadly, though you've made plenty of good arguments,
you've also made too many which are patently ridiculous, continue to
show a propensity for attributing nonexistent arguments & attitudes to
me, & continue to demonstrate a willingness to excuse witnesses who
support a conspiracy, & not to excuse those who don't. To me, your
invalid arguments outweigh your valid ones. You seem not to regret in
the slightest lifting your arguments virtually wholesale from a single
author, while making little effort to determine the veracity of those
arguments. I regret to say that I no longer find your articles a
constructive use of my time to read, or to respond to; overall it is a
waste of time, rather. You haven't really provided much useful
information in them, at least in this thread. You may think the same of
me; if so, so be it - it does not especially concern me. Your articles
now become invisible to me on this newsreader on my computer alone
(which is my right, & affects no one else in the slightest) for a period
of 30 days, so that if you respond to this, I will not see it during
that time. It certainly is NOT because I "don't like" what you say, or
simply because you disagree with me. The true reasons should be
absurdly plain, but if they are not, all I can do is state them; I
cannot guarantee that they'll be understood.
CurtJester
There is none from Armstrong online. If one would ever go there, as
you have been many times, would see his reasons for not citing
everything for his magazine articles and speeches. He provides an
avenue to get to them through JFK Lancer.
Bardwell Odum was around everywhere in the investigation from the
beginning through during. It would hardly be a shock. It was also
noted "many witnesses" outside the theater described also a 'jacket'.
Maybe some of the Dallas newspapers could give you some more clues,
say around 11/23/63.
So in assassination terms I see you are still avoiding defining
"purportedly" in 'Caeruleo's Rules of Order'.
>
> > I think if you research this
> > you will find the statements of the employees and manager given to the
> > FBI within a couple of weeks of Nov. 22, to be that they were regular
> > customers and viewed the 'egg incident' in which Oswald complained was
> > met with a glare from Tippit. These folks saw the TV Oswald and
> > "purportedly" said it was the same guy. Of course we know that it
> > couldn't be TSBD Oswald because he was at work.
>
> Um, what I've found is that Sam Rogers, Douglas Leake, & Delores
> Harrison supposedly told the FBI on 12-5-63 that Oswald sometimes ate
> breakfast at Dobb's, but that it wasn't necessarily at a time when he
> should have been at work at the TSBD. I can only find Mary Dowling
> supposedly making the claim that Tippit also was present at any occasion
> when Oswald was there. I'm trying to locate the original FBI documents,
> so far without success.
Out of the two, Dowling and another waitress, they were seen either
the 20th or the 21s respectively. The one waitress said Oswald was
"regular coffee customer". Tippit made that restaurant an everyday
stop. It might do one well to not look for something the FBI would be
apt to destroy; rather, say to look for the coffee drinking habits, if
any, of the TSBD Oswald.
Short notice?.......lol...like one was goading you to go there.
>
> > I would be
> > investigating The Carousel Club myself...:)
>
> For what? It isn't there anymore.
Oh, well, if those walls could talk as they say...and I have a few
extra singles too.
>
> > > > Nobody, even in a highly populated area saw him en route to the crime
> > > > scene.
> > >
> > > As far as we know, that seems to be true. Of course, a man simply
> > > walking down a sidewalk isn't particularly remarkable or memorable.
> > > You'll recall that virtually *all* of the witnesses who saw this man
> > > running near the scene reported gunshots attracting their attention
> > > first.
> >
> > But, you would think somebody would have been out in their yards or
> > walking and after the murder and assassination and if they did see
> > somebody resembling Oswald would have forth readily. Smith, Clark,
> > and Markham saw Oswald before the murder.
>
> And rather obviously remembered him primarily because of the shooting.
Yes, as in watching the TV and reading the local papers.
I thought Smith had him passing by and going west before the shooting,
as well as Clark seeing pass by his barber shop the same way. I
thought somebody too, saw him walking one direction and then do
an-about-face before Tippit pulled over to the curb.
>
> > > > Bowley looked at his
> > > > watch before coming to the fallen body of Tippit and saw 1:10.
> > >
> > > Was his watch absolutely accurate? It's not at all uncommon for a
> > > personal watch to be off by as much as 5 minutes.
> >
> > But less likely when you need it for accuracy as in Markham needing to
> > be on time for work
>
> Ah yes, Markham. I'm unable at present to find any pre-WC statement by
> Markham, though doubtless such exists, but as we've already discussed,
> she told the WC that the bus was due at 1:15. I thus still await the
> original source for the "1:12" assertation.
I think it would be fair to say that most bus people would arrive at
least 5 minutes before the scheduled bus time to ensure the
coordinating of their pickup.
>
> > and for Bowley having to pick up his wife up at a
> > certain time in which he was doing.
>
> Um, why would his watch being perhaps no more than 5 minutes off either
> way make any significant difference with that? He'd only be 5 minutes
> late at the most in picking up his wife, which most people don't
> consider to be a big deal. How would this "ensure" that his watch
> wasn't off by a few minutes?
>
> Oh, btw, I ran across by accident a page in Scoggins' WC testimony in
> which he asked for the dispatcher to confirm what time he had called in
> Tippit's murder, & was told that it had been at 1:23:
Which would mean exactly what? It would have nothing to do with the
arrival of the murderer(s), when the murder took place, or where one
might be in flight at that time.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0174b.h
> tm
>
> > > > Markham's bus that she took everyday was a 1:12 bus.
> > >
> > > I'm looking at her saying "1:15" bus to the WC.
> >
> > I see that too, wonder if that is from the actual bus schedule?
>
> I have no idea.
>
> Yet.
Well, if you are into bus schedules check the buses that stopped at
Zang and N. Beckley that could have dropped Oswald close to the Texas
Theater.
>
> > > > The radio
> > > > transmission that went to the TSBD that reported the fallen officer that
> > > > Craig overheard
> > >
> > > Roger. According to Armstrong, he looked at his watch when he heard the
> > > news of the Tippit murder & saw it say 1:06. I'm curious as to the
> > > original source for that. Would it perhaps be Tippit's publication from
> > > 1971?
> >
> > Tippit's publication from 1971? I am not following you on that one.
>
> Oops, thanks, that would be Craig's publication. Sorry.
>
> Oh, & before you go off on me for that error, notice that I admitted it
> & apologized for it in my first response. And I assure you that if I
> had been submitting this article for publication, I would have been far
> more careful, & would have proofread the article repeatedly, & checked
> my sources repeatedly, before submitting it for publication. I am
> supremely confident that the chances of me letting a claim such as CE
> 1843 saying "purchased in Russia," especially with those words in
> italics, continue past the first of the 3 drafts (minimum) I would have
> made for such an article are so infinitesmally small that it is more
> likely that Venus would fall to Earth than such a thing appearing in my
> final draft.
Go off?, like I did before...like when I prefaced beforehand 'that
this is only an example' and not a snipe. You are now a falsehooder,
tsk tsk. Of course, I should know that Mr. Caeruleo would never let
anything not go to Stet that was not in 'apple-pie' order. We put
through a successful novel once, in rough draft form with
misspellings, logic mistakes, etc., due to time constraints. We might
as well never put it out if we had waited.
>
> You can believe me, or not believe me, as is your choice.
Believe you?, now how could I anymore?
>
> > > > that was found in the National Archives was a 1:10
> > > > transmission.
> > >
> > > I see that's from Armstrong too. I'd like to see this document with my
> > > own eyes, wouldn't you?
> >
> > Lot of stuff he has the visual documents at his site. Don't see that
> > one, and yes I do, and I think other researchers would too.
>
> Especially since he's the sole author to whom I can so far trace that
> claim.
Or would even think to check that out. I wonder how many authors even
spend timat the National Archives?
Yes, a very mundane event. He probably sold a 100 bags a day. With
the greater events that surrounded that so closely I could see the
mundane as not being remembered as anything to tell an investigator.
>
> > And nobody asked.
>
> You'd better go back & check that assertion out carefully.
Is there anything in the WC testimony that hints of that type of
questioning? If there is, I missed it.
Falsehood after falsehhood. It was only suggested about Postal. I
stated the author Jones Harris' opinion about the crying outbursts.
You conveniently gave her an excuse which average people may not find
'plauible'.
Back to reality. Brewer follows the 1:35 Oswald into the theater.
There are 2 sets of doors. Between the 1st and 2nd set there is the
entrance to the balcony. (As far as timing goes this has to be close
because of Postal's firm time she calls the police). We know where
TSBD Oswald is arrested, 3rd row in the main floor of the theater.
When Brewer goes through the 2nd set of doors and goes to Burroughs,
Burroughs sends him where? To the balcony. Why? Because, I would
think that he would have surely noticed a hurried man banging into 2
sets of doors and going by his Concession into the theater.
When all the arrest is going on of TSBD Oswald downstairs, Lt.
Cunningham and Det. Toney are questioning a man in the balcony
(Stringfellow report) and at 2:00 a man in a "white pullover" shirt
seen by hobby shop owner Bernard Haire taken out the side back exit
door of the theater and put into a patrol car. Of course, Mr. Haire
was astounded later at arrest in the "front" of the theater. Guess
the WC was less than astounded.
>
> If the witness made any statement whatsoever to support a CT viewpoint,
> all inconsistencies of that witness may be excused.
>
> If the witness made any statement whatsoever to support an LN viewpoint,
> all inconsistencies of that witness must be held under a magnifying
> glass.
>
> My approach to the witnesses in this case is so far removed from yours
> it's ludicrous. I'm already on record as stating plainly that *any* of
> these witnesses, without a single exception, no matter what viewpoint
> they support, might have been looking at personal timepieces which might
> have been as much as 5 minutes off either way. You've also apparently
> missed me saying only a few days ago in this newsgroup that I don't find
> Brennan particularly more credible than Burroughs.
I can 'look' at it any which way I want. Guess what?, I don't even
have to believe it. You weren't even into timing on this before I
came in on it. Now you're a bellyacher. I want to see how much is
known or how much you know. Seems like there is a lot to be uncovered
or there is a lot that that has been covered up.
>
> > > > I believe Jack Davis contended he sat next to him during the opening
> > > > credits and that would be before the 1:20 scheduled start of the film.
> > > > I guess you could dispute the film's start. The projectionist was
> > > > supposedly there. Maybe he would have something to say? Oswald
> > > > supposedly sat next to a pregnant woman and she left and went up to the
> > > > balcony to use the ladies room, not to return.
> > >
> > > That's according to Jack Davis alone, uncorroborated by anyone else, &
> > > also, if I recall correctly, in statements he was not recorded as making
> > > for the first time until about 2 decades later.
> >
> > Ditto for Mr. Davis as for Mr. Burroughs.
>
> Oh right, Mr. Davis won't say a word until he's asked precisely the
> right question. I'd be telling all & sundry about what I saw on Day
> One, whether they "asked" or not, if I'd witnessed such things, wouldn't
> you? And speaking of Mr. Davis, I so far have not just been unable to
> locate him making these particular claims earlier than the 1980s, I'm
> unable to locate him making ANY claims about even being in the TT
> earlier than the 1980s. Is there contemporaneous evidence that he was
> even there that day at all? I'm not denying for a moment that such
> evidence might exist, but so far, I haven't been able to find it.
Well, it's even ludicrous to think that only two patrons from 24
tickets sold (Postal testimony) would be interviewed. Applin and
Gibson only seemed to be asked about the actual arrest. Do you expect
thse people to arrive in front of a reporter's desk or at the police
station?
>
> > > > Maybe Postal, Burroughs,
> > > > or the manager Callaway could give some inisght when she left?
> > >
> > > Maybe so. If she was there at all.
> >
> > And maybe never with such shoddy policework. And one would think if
> > the police didn't cover that reporters would have at the time.
>
> How would they, unless someone mentioned to them first that a pregnant
> woman was in the theater. I can't imagine them asking out of the blue,
> "Was there a pregnant woman in there?" If Jack Davis didn't tell anyone
> that at the time (if he was even there) why would it occur to them to
> investigate it.
To establish timelines and credibility for the police and all
potential people giving testimony. They wouldn't have even found out
that if one hadn't asked, right?
Oh back to real time instead of blather. I used to be a hack and we
always rounded off on the trip sheet. Maybe the radio transmissions
to the dispatcher would give conciseness. I looked up a few in
google. 12:48 for the pickup and 12:54 for the drop off. With the 5
or 6 blocks to the rooming house to go on foot, it would appear Mrs.
Roberts to be very solid.
>
> Please show us an original source for him ever saying "12:54."
>
> > and he has six more blocks
> > to walk to the rooming house then it as to make her time more
> > accurate. I think it is fair for my to conject that if Oswald was in
> > that theater before the 1:20 showing of that film, the unlikliness of
> > him being the Tippit killer and geting to the TT by foot very great.
> > It also make the possibilty greater of another 'Oswald'in that theater
> > if the Postal, Brewer, Brock times are correct.
>
> And do you realize you're undermining your own scenario? Plainly on a
> map of the area can be seen that it is *farther* to the TT from the
> rooming house than it is from the rooming house to the scene of the
> Tippit shooting. The official time given by the WC for when the
> shooting was called in is 1:16, & I'm still waiting to see this
> "document" in the National Archives which shows the call being made at
> 1:10. Above you yourself have quoted the times 13 minutes & 14.5
> minutes for a walk from rooming house to Tippit scene. Do now look at
> maps of the area & tell me you think Oswald could have made it to the TT
> in less than 20 minutes from the rooming house. I'll be finding out in
> person whether that's particularly possible less than a week from today.
>
> Wanna join me?
Undermine my own scenario? I don't think he could have got to the TT
directly without some sort of transportation at this point from the
bus stop at N. Beckley and Zang to be in the theater at 1:15.
Join Pope Plonk? Nahhhhh.
>
> > > > >>If not can you find any reason why she was not
> > > > >> asked?
>
> > > > >Since she was asked, no. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > I guess so, now. I wonder why you didn't bring that up before?
> > >
> > > If you'll look carefully at my text quoted above, you'll see that the
> > > first sentence is "Sorry." I simply hadn't gotten around to it before
> > > then.
> > >
> > > > >>I would like to know too, how the interview came
> > > > >> about, whether a reporter sought him out or not?
>
> > > > >Marrs appears to have sought him out, as far as I
> > > > > can tell.
> > > >
> > > > Looks better for not being fame-hungry.
> > >
> > > I've known all sorts of people to add embellishments to their stories as
> > > years go by, including friends who were describing events at which I
> > > also had been present years before. Burroughs may have thought that his
> > > original story wasn't "remarkable" enough, & upon being contacted came
> > > up with a "better" one. Who knows?
> >
> > But do you need two embellishers? Doesn't Davis have to be off too?
>
> Would it be the first time in a famous case that more than one person
> embellished their stories years later? It's hardly an uncommon
> occurrence, Curt.
But wouldn't they somehow have to be in cahoots with each other so as
to get their timelines right?
I'm more interested in the one that was born Oct, 18, 1939 that had a
tattoo on his forearm, that showed his ID to Fred Moore at The Jiffy
Store, 8:30 A.M. 11/22/63, not the one buried two days later in the
grave without the tattoo.
But I haven't read Posner and I don't post that often. I don't think
I would be afraid to point out double standards with anyone else. Why
do you think that I wouldn't? Maybe you have a persecution complex.
Slowly he turns, step by step, inch by inch (hehe).
>
> There are thousands of sentences which I don't particularly "agree"
> with, & yet I would never dream of suggesting should be "exterminated."
> Whether I personally "agree" with something is not the issue. Mr.
> Armstrong made a provably false statement about CE 1843. It isn't a
> matter of "opinion" that it is false; the document simply says something
> plainly different from what he claimed it says. I don't "agree" with
> him citing the "inconsistencies" for Brewer & Postal yet failing to
> mention those of Burroughs at all, yet I haven't suggested that those
> particular sentences be stricken from the article. I've suggested only
> that this provably false statement about CE 1843 should be corrected.
> Can you come up with any valid reason why it should not be?
When it becomes known to him, after his analysis, it should then
corrected.
>
> > I think you should be happy its there so if
> > you meet him in person then if there is a computer close by you can
> > call him on it right there.
>
> I am not "happy" that it is there, as I wish it had never been put there
> in the first place, & I would not particularly relish any opportunity to
> call him on it, as I would prefer that no such need existed in the first
> place.
But we all make mistakes. If I were to think that all the posting
mistakes I have seen in these NG's to be exacted with a retraction or
an apology, I think the postings would at least double their sizes.
Instead of getting your panties in a bind just wait for the right time
and call him on it.
>
> > > > >His article was published in February 1998. He's
> > > > > had over 5 years to retract & apologize for that
> > > > > error. Show me where he has done so.
> > > >
> > > > How do you know that he knows he made an error?
> > >
> > > How do you know that he doesn't?
> >
> > But you are assuming he does if you call the statement " a bold faced
> > lie". Isn't this country's justice still based on 'innocent til
> > proven guilty'?
>
> It is, & now, as I told you I would do in another communication, I
> apologize to this newsgroup, to you, & to Mr. Armstrong for implying in
> any way that he was lying. A lie is a statement known to be false to
> the person who makes it at the time it is made. I do not know for a
> fact that he knew the statement to be false at the time he submitted the
> article.
"Go and sin no more."
>
> What I will *not* apologize for in the slightest, & will continue to
> stand by even if Mr. Armstrong were to respond in this newsgroup
> himself, & even if I were to ever find myself face to face with him in
> real life, is that this was a major whopper of an error to let stand in
> an article supposedly carefully prepared for publication, & that I find
> him incredibly remiss, if nothing more, additionally in failing to cite
> any inconsistency in Burroughs' statements (indeed, not even
> acknowledging that Burroughs ever said anything different from what is
> quoted in that article) while heavily emphasizing even suspected (but
> not proven) inconsistencies of other witnesses, such as Postal.
>
> Let the man come forth. I'm quite ready for him.
The world is not ready for one like you yet.
>
> > > > >>You must think he needs to arrive here and >> account for
> something in order to be 'exonerated' >> in order to
> > > > >> not be a "bold-faced liar".
>
> > > > >Excuse me again. I do not think any such thing. I'll
> > > > > thank you to cease claiming you are clairvoyant &
> > > > > can read my mind. I simply responded to your
> > > > > ridiculous assertion that the man was not being
> > > > > given a "chance to respond," when I've done
> > > > > NOTHING to prevent or discourage him from
> > > > > responding. I plainly said I would welcome such a
> > > > > response.
> > > >
> > > > He doesn't frequent this newsgroup as a poster anyway. He has nothing
> > > > to respond to other than someone wondering about a sentence in a
> > > > article. Now he is supposed to by clairvoyant?
> > >
> > > Didn't say so. *You* were the one who said I wasn't giving him "a
> > > chance to respond." I did no such thing.
> >
> > He has no chance to respond if he is unaware or hasn't been accused.
>
> To this very moment I have no idea whether he's aware or not, whether he
> reads this newsgroup or not, whether someone else who reads it has told
> him about my articles or not, & neither do you. He can read this
> newsgroup as easily as anyone else, & post to it as easily as anyone
> else.
If he is, I'm sure hie is shaking in his boots.
Is there a NG confessional?
>
> > I think you went off unwarranted.
>
> Oh really? So I'm just supposed to sit back & say nothing when you make
> provably false statements, supported by terrible research on your part,
> & failing to initially cite your source?
>
> Not in this lifetime.
>
> > I shouldn't have even answered
> > most of it.
>
> Then why did you?
Yeah, why did I? I should polnk myself for that!
And now your accusing the whole NG of being 'immature'since no one
seems to plonk or killify but you?
>
> > and
> > different personalities: not a classroom that needs an teacher
> > authority figure.
>
> ROFL! What an absurd thing to say. I've never had the slightest
> intention of acting as an "authority figure" on Usenet; only a moderator
> in a controlled newsgroup could do so. That I am not, & I would decline
> the job even if it was offered. I simply know that the last time I
> checked, I still had the right to determine whose articles I will & will
> not see on my own computer. My killfile entries do not affect any other
> poster, nor does it affect in the slightest what they can & cannot post.
No, but they sure take up a lot of posting time. This a making me
type soooo slow.
She seems like a nice lady and I enjoy her posts becuse they are
concise and to the point. Sorry, I don't read a lot of yours because
they are not. Funny Armstrong says the same thing about sources too.
>
> > nor have I seen you do
> > this with another author I get information from.
>
> Perhaps it is because I too have read only a tiny percentage of your
> articles, but I cannot ever recall you before drafting virtually
> wholesale the claims of a single author (a number of which seem to be
> unique to that one author) rather obviously without making much effort
> at all to verify the validity of his assertions.
I have 4 or 5 authors in my favorites. I just go by what I can get to
online. Armstrong seems to be into Tippit more than most. If I just
put the claim in people can go look it up for themselves or just
politely ask. They don't have to be emotionally challenged to 'go
off'.
A troll says stuff to get attention, I like to get knowledge results.
>
> > This is Usernet.
>
> That it is, & it has enough crap on it already. Adding even more serves
> no constructive purpose, & certainly no constructive purpose is served
> in the name of JFK assassination research to post shoddy
> poorly-documented claims.
>
> > People say Oswald did this in the TSBD, and in my
> > mind's eye I would say 'suspect'; but that is their perogerative.
>
> Notice how many times I've said the same thing? I've long ago lost
> count of how many times I've admitted unequivocally that it isn't
> "proven" that Oswald did this or did that, including killing JFK and/or
> Tippit. If you've missed all those articles too, they're on Google.
I have seen where you have made poor wording decisions but I am not on
any crusade to change people.
I cannot help deem me worthy. I think I have resented plenty of logic
scenarios to keep ones busy. I do think you are worthy of a
"timeout', Mr. Caeruleo, from me as well possibly from the whole NG's
because of your bashing, time consuming harpings, that go well beyond
any relevant issues in the assssination.
As MLK once said, "Free at last...I'm free at last!"
CJ
Caeruleo
wrote:
> Caeruleo wrote:
>
> > made in that decade alone which were fairly common, not to mention other
> > surrounding decades. The identification of any single one of these
> > rifles would not have been as easy as some seem to suppose. With
>
> Weitzman never go close enough to see the AD date or the Fascist date
> stamped on the rifle.
He certainly never said so, at least. Thus this assertion made by some
other posters in these groups that he looked closely enough at the rifle
to even see "Made Italy" printed on it is also quite disputable.
> > assertations of Weitzman being an "expert" in rifles not in evidence (he
> > was never recorded as making such a claim about himself, nor do I know
> > of anyone who knew him well personally ever being quoted as describing
> > him as such), the precise identification of any particular type of rifle
> > among the myriad varieties of old European surplus then available in the
> > States by such a person would not necessarily be an easy matter.
>
> Which is why we should not vilify Weitzman. It is an easy mistake to
> make.
I agree.
> It looks like a Mauser type of rifle to the untrained eye.
That appears to be the case. Nor is there solid evidence that Weitzman
was especially "trained" to conclusively identify all these different
rifles. He himself never made such a claim.
--
I'll take your assertions about the timing of Oswald to the Tippet scene
seriously when you've accompanied me on a walk from his rooming house to the
exact spot where Officer Tippet was murdered.