Did Oswald recognize Ruby?
Robert Harris
Did Oswald recognize Jack Ruby, seconds before he was shot down in the
Dallas jail? Some time ago, I posted a stabilized, animated GIF of the
murder scene, which captures Oswald turning directly toward his killer,
just before being gunned down.
But, he showed no signs of alarm at all, probably because Ruby kept his
gun down and out of sight then. What is IMO, more revealing is that Oswald
turned quickly back toward the front, as if he didn't want to draw
attention to the man he probably thought was his ally.
You can see the file at the following address. It will run in a loop,
continually, which makes it easy to study. Make your own call on whether
Oswald recognized Jack Ruby.
ftp://www.c-works.com/ruby.gif
Robert Harris
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Robert Harris wrote:
--
Martin Shackelford
"You're going to find that many of the truths we
cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
-Obi-Wan Kenobi
"You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
Russ Burr
>
>He probably did recognize him. He knew him.
>
>Martin
Hi Martin, Since I have a lot of respect in you, I would think you could
provide some evidence and a citation proving that Ruby and Oswald knew
each other. Harris promised 'truckloads' of evidence last summer but
failed to produce anything. I hope you can help us out here.
Russ
Gary Mack
lights of the media, I doubt very much that Oswald could have recognized
anyone to his front or left, which is where Ruby was at that moment.
As for Oswald knowing Ruby, there is NO credible evidence whatsoever they
were acquainted. (But Martin's still a good guy.)
Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:38703A7F...@concentric.net...
> He probably did recognize him. He knew him.
>
> Martin
>
Clark
Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:38703A7F...@concentric.net...
> He probably did recognize him. He knew him.
>
> Martin
Naw!
Just a fact.
::Clark::
Robert Harris
<gm...@jfk.org> wrote:
> Judging by the news film shot from BEHIND Oswald, which shows the blinding
> lights of the media, I doubt very much that Oswald could have recognized
> anyone to his front or left, which is where Ruby was at that moment.
>
> As for Oswald knowing Ruby, there is NO credible evidence whatsoever they
> were acquainted.
That's quite a sweeping statement, Mr. Mack.
I guess the fact that the HSCA polygraph committee unanimously concluded
that Ruby showed clear signs of deception when he denied knowing Oswald is
not "credible evidence", eh?
And it was just random coincidence that Oswald was on a direct course to
Ruby's apartment when he was stopped by Tippit.
And of course, none of the people who saw Oswald and Ruby together,
including employees and Ruby's club were "credible"?
Are you also claiming that John Elrod was not "credible" when he reported
that Oswald saw Jack Ruby at a motel room meeting? Of course, since he was
100% accurate in everything else he described about the weapons thieves, I
guess he *only* fails the credibility test on that one issue.
Odd though, that Jack Ruby's mechanic was convicted of the very crime to
which Elrod connected LHO and Ruby, isn't it?
But then coincidences seem to abound in this case, lIke the "coincidence"
that Oswald just happened to single out Ruby as the guy he turned to look
at.
BTW, the "Oswald was blinded" theory though certainly creative, is
obviously, preposterous. Neither Oswald, nor the cops on either side of
him were squinting or showing any signs at all of being blinded by the
bright lights.
Robert Harris
> (But Martin's still a good guy.)
>
> Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:38703A7F...@concentric.net...
> > He probably did recognize him. He knew him.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > Robert Harris wrote:
> >
> > > Did Oswald recognize Jack Ruby, seconds before he was shot down in the
> > > Dallas jail? Some time ago, I posted a stabilized, animated GIF of the
> > > murder scene, which captures Oswald turning directly toward his killer,
> > > just before being gunned down.
> > >
> > > But, he showed no signs of alarm at all, probably because Ruby kept his
> > > gun down and out of sight then. What is IMO, more revealing is that Oswald
> > > turned quickly back toward the front, as if he didn't want to draw
> > > attention to the man he probably thought was his ally.
> > >
> > > You can see the file at the following address. It will run in a loop,
> > > continually, which makes it easy to study. Make your own call on whether
> > > Oswald recognized Jack Ruby.
> > >
> > > ftp://www.c-works.com/ruby.gif
> > >
> > > Robert Harris
> >
> > --
> > Martin Shackelford
> >
> > "You're going to find that many of the truths we
> > cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
> > -Obi-Wan Kenobi
> >
> > "You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
> >
> >
> >
--
Website, THE JFK ASSASSINATION HOME PAGE
http://www.c-works.com/jfk
FTP site:
ftp://www.c-works.com/
Martin Shackelford
I wish I could, but my source is undisclosable until something goes
public, which I expected to happen in November, but hasn't happened yet.
Believe me, I will discuss it as soon as I can, without violating
confidentiality.
Martin
--
Martin Shackelford
"You're going to find that many of the truths we
cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
-Obi-Wan Kenobi
"You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
Russ Burr wrote:
> In article <38703A7F...@concentric.net>, Martin says...
> >
> >He probably did recognize him. He knew him.
> >
> >Martin
>
Clark
> Russ:
>
> I wish I could, but my source is undisclosable until something goes
> public, which I expected to happen in November, but hasn't happened yet.
> Believe me, I will discuss it as soon as I can, without violating
> confidentiality.
>
> Martin
>
This flies in the face of my research. I would approach this one with
caution, Martin. You could end up looking like the south end of a north
bound horse.
Just a thought.
::Clark::
Martin Shackelford
Several of us have been checking the source out very carefully.
Martin
Clark wrote:
--
Robert Harris
> Robert Harris wrote:
> >
> > In article <s71ra6i...@corp.supernews.com>, "Gary Mack"
> > <gm...@jfk.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Judging by the news film shot from BEHIND Oswald, which shows the blinding
> > > lights of the media, I doubt very much that Oswald could have recognized
> > > anyone to his front or left, which is where Ruby was at that moment.
> > >
> > > As for Oswald knowing Ruby, there is NO credible evidence whatsoever they
> > > were acquainted.
> >
> > That's quite a sweeping statement, Mr. Mack.
> >
> > I guess the fact that the HSCA polygraph committee unanimously concluded
> > that Ruby showed clear signs of deception when he denied knowing Oswald is
> > not "credible evidence", eh?
>
> Do you actually think that the polygraph is a reliable test, Bob?
Of course not John.
Obviously, the FBI which has conducted thousands of polygraph tests (and
does so now more than ever) and the many hundreds of police and Sheriff's
departments around the country that use them regularly, are total idiots.
I mean why should we put any faith in the law enforcement professionals
who actually use these devices, often to exonerate and release suspects?
This whole argument is preposterous and you know it. It was a contrivance
purely for the purpose of trying to 'splain away this little problem with
Ruby's polygraph.
And BTW, John, right or wrong, aren't you a bit outraged at the flagrant
efforts by Herndon, the FBI operator to deliberately hide the signs of
Ruby's deceit?
On a scale of 1-10 how badly does it bother you that that this guy kept
turning the sensitivity down when standard procedure called for him to
increase it? Do you have any thoughts on the motivation behind those
tactics? Do you think this guy was really doing his best to ferret the
truth out of Ruby?
>
> If so, why are polygraph examinations not allowed in court?
That's pure bullshit. Of course they are permitted if both sides agree.
But even a very tiny margin of error is enough to provide reasonable doubt.
>
> And do you think Ruby was a communist? He showed "signs of deception"
> when he denied being one.
I think his reaction may very well have been provoked because he had been
playing the role of a communist and Castro sympathesizer for Oswald.
If a con man has been pretending to be say, a banker and he is asked
during a polygraph, if he is a banker, he would be expected to react. Call
up your local Sheriff's office and ask their polygraph man if that isn't
correct, John. I'm serious, do it.
LIkewise, *ANY* mention of a criminal or deceitful activity that one has
been engaged in, will provoke a measurable response on a polygraph.
BTW, John. I posted several questions for you in new threads. Can I expect
some kind of response soon?
Robert Harris
>
> >
> > And it was just random coincidence that Oswald was on a direct course to
> > Ruby's apartment when he was stopped by Tippit.
> >
>
> Yes.
>
>
> > And of course, none of the people who saw Oswald and Ruby together,
> > including employees and Ruby's club were "credible"?
> >
>
>
> And what employees are these, Bob?
>
>
> > Are you also claiming that John Elrod was not "credible" when he reported
> > that Oswald saw Jack Ruby at a motel room meeting? Of course, since he was
> > 100% accurate in everything else he described about the weapons thieves, I
> > guess he *only* fails the credibility test on that one issue.
> >
>
> Elrod lied about being in the cell with Oswald, Bob. And since he
> wasn't in the cell, anything he says Oswald said while he had Elrod as a
> cellmate isn't very reliable evidence.
>
>
> > Odd though, that Jack Ruby's mechanic was convicted of the very crime to
> > which Elrod connected LHO and Ruby, isn't it?
> >
>
>
> If my barber is found to be dealing drugs, does that mean I'm involved
> in drug dealing? If my plumber is caught fencing stolen property, does
> that mean I'm a fence too?
>
>
> > But then coincidences seem to abound in this case, lIke the "coincidence"
> > that Oswald just happened to single out Ruby as the guy he turned to look
> > at.
> >
>
> Since Ruby was the guy lunging at him, it wouldn't be surprising if he
> looked in his direction.
>
> And Bob, I just downloaded your 700K + gif file, and what it shows is
> Oswald glancing to his left -- perhaps at Ruby, and perhaps at somebody
> else. But he shows no sign of recognition, nor of surprise, nor any
> double-take.
>
> ftp://www.c-works.com/ruby.gif
>
> He clearly don't recognize Ruby, even if he's looking at him.
>
> .John
>
> P.S. Learn to do RealMedia, Bob, and save people the massive downloads.
> --
> Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Russ and Carrie Burr
you.
Respectfully,
Russ
Martin Shackelford wrote:
> Russ:
>
> I wish I could, but my source is undisclosable until something goes
> public, which I expected to happen in November, but hasn't happened yet.
> Believe me, I will discuss it as soon as I can, without violating
> confidentiality.
>
> Martin
>
> --
> Martin Shackelford
>
> "You're going to find that many of the truths we
> cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
> -Obi-Wan Kenobi
>
> "You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
>
John McAdams
>
> In article <s71ra6i...@corp.supernews.com>, "Gary Mack"
> <gm...@jfk.org> wrote:
>
> > Judging by the news film shot from BEHIND Oswald, which shows the blinding
> > lights of the media, I doubt very much that Oswald could have recognized
> > anyone to his front or left, which is where Ruby was at that moment.
> >
> > As for Oswald knowing Ruby, there is NO credible evidence whatsoever they
> > were acquainted.
>
> That's quite a sweeping statement, Mr. Mack.
>
> I guess the fact that the HSCA polygraph committee unanimously concluded
> that Ruby showed clear signs of deception when he denied knowing Oswald is
> not "credible evidence", eh?
Do you actually think that the polygraph is a reliable test, Bob?
If so, why are polygraph examinations not allowed in court?
And do you think Ruby was a communist? He showed "signs of deception"
when he denied being one.
>
John McAdams
>
> Russ:
>
> I wish I could, but my source is undisclosable until something goes
> public, which I expected to happen in November, but hasn't happened yet.
> Believe me, I will discuss it as soon as I can, without violating
> confidentiality.
>
I hope this isn't like the Navis letter, Martin. You know, the
iron-clad proof of a Grassy Knoll shooter that just happens,
conveniently, to be "lost."
Are you admitting that there isn't *now* any evidence of Oswald knowing
Ruby?
But this "mystery witness" is going to claim to have seen them together,
right?
Is this "mystery witness" any more reliable than Beverly Oliver, who
*also* claimed to see them together?
.John
Martin Shackelford
you haven't seen it, and won't drop the subject until you do. I hope Al's
stuff gets archived, catalogued and made available soon so you can.
Remember how long it took the Marguerite Oswald papers to come out after
they were donated to a University? Don't blame Al Navis for the delay.
As for the other, the documentation is extensive, and you'll see it
eventually.
art guerrilla
dot toilet flushed-
>Do you actually think that the polygraph is a reliable test, Bob?
no, it's semi-reliable...
otherwise, what's the point, *why* are they
used at all for *anything* if there is *NO*
reliability period?
>If so, why are polygraph examinations not allowed in court?
why were (and are) dna tests not allowed
in court?
again, *WHAT* is the point of your glorious
law enforcement types having 'suspects'
take polygraphs tests if there is *ZERO*
validity, *NO* purpose to them??
one wonders if you would accept favorable
polygraph tests if the subject were 'your'
witlesses, er, witnesses...
>And do you think Ruby was a communist? He showed "signs of deception"
>when he denied being one.
maybe he's a com-symp...
>Ellrod lied about being in the cell with Oswald, Bob.
so sez you...
*must* be truth then...
And since he
>wasn't in the cell, anything he says Oswald said while he had Elrod as a
>cellmate isn't very reliable evidence.
sez you...
>If my barber is found to be dealing drugs, does that mean I'm involved
>in drug dealing? If my plumber is caught fencing stolen property, does
>that mean I'm a fence too?
well now, that all depends on if *you* are
a lowlife criminal type with mafia ties...
if so, then 'yes', it raises the possibility
that the two are related...
>Since Ruby was the guy lunging at him, it wouldn't be surprising if he
>looked in his direction.
what, you're not picking up on the
mctheory of blinded by the light?
>He clearly don't recognize Ruby, even if he's looking at him.
thanks for the definitive answer on that...
stop the researching, case closed, *again*
for the hundredth time...
ann convinced archy
eof
Gary Mack
Robert Harris <cwo...@spinn.net> wrote in message
news:cworks-0301...@192.168.1.200...
> In article <s71ra6i...@corp.supernews.com>, "Gary Mack"
> <gm...@jfk.org> wrote:
>
> > Judging by the news film shot from BEHIND Oswald, which shows the blinding
> > lights of the media, I doubt very much that Oswald could have recognized
> > anyone to his front or left, which is where Ruby was at that moment.
> >
> > As for Oswald knowing Ruby, there is NO credible evidence whatsoever they
> > were acquainted.
>
>
> That's quite a sweeping statement, Mr. Mack.
>
> I guess the fact that the HSCA polygraph committee unanimously concluded
> that Ruby showed clear signs of deception when he denied knowing Oswald is
> not "credible evidence", eh?
The HSCA found all sorts of problems with Ruby's polygraph. It's hard to
tell what, if anything, to believe.
> And it was just random coincidence that Oswald was on a direct course to
> Ruby's apartment when he was stopped by Tippit.
That route and general direction led to many homes, apartments and
businesses - no one can know exactly where Oswald was headed.
> And of course, none of the people who saw Oswald and Ruby together,
> including employees and Ruby's club were "credible"?
So far, none who are credible and whose stories stand scrutiny confirm a
Ruby-Oswald relationship. If you can name one, I'd like to hear it.
> Are you also claiming that John Elrod was not "credible" when he reported
> that Oswald saw Jack Ruby at a motel room meeting? Of course, since he was
> 100% accurate in everything else he described about the weapons thieves, I
> guess he *only* fails the credibility test on that one issue.
I've read all the published Elrod material and don't believe a word of it.
> Odd though, that Jack Ruby's mechanic was convicted of the very crime to
> which Elrod connected LHO and Ruby, isn't it?
So what? Ruby's mechanic has no connection to a Ruby-Oswald connection.
> But then coincidences seem to abound in this case, lIke the "coincidence"
> that Oswald just happened to single out Ruby as the guy he turned to look
> at.
No one can tell who he's looking at, for standing very close to Ruby at
that moment was an unidentified Asian man with a camera to his eye,
KRLD-TV's Bob Huffaker and big, tall detective Blackie Harrison, who
minutes later told DPD detectives and NBC News that the man (Ruby) came
from behind the green car and jumped over the railing to shoot Oswald.
The sequence is in TMWKK, and it supports the belief that Ruby did not go
down the Main Street ramp.
> BTW, the "Oswald was blinded" theory though certainly creative, is
> obviously, preposterous. Neither Oswald, nor the cops on either side of
> him were squinting or showing any signs at all of being blinded by the
> bright lights.
That's irrelevant, for the film is quite convincing. And speaking from
experience being in front of such lights, about all one can see is general
shapes.
Robert Harris
<gm...@jfk.org> wrote:
> Robert Harris <cwo...@spinn.net> wrote in message
> news:cworks-0301...@192.168.1.200...
> > In article <s71ra6i...@corp.supernews.com>, "Gary Mack"
> > <gm...@jfk.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Judging by the news film shot from BEHIND Oswald, which shows the blinding
> > > lights of the media, I doubt very much that Oswald could have recognized
> > > anyone to his front or left, which is where Ruby was at that moment.
> > >
> > > As for Oswald knowing Ruby, there is NO credible evidence whatsoever they
> > > were acquainted.
> >
> >
> > That's quite a sweeping statement, Mr. Mack.
> >
> > I guess the fact that the HSCA polygraph committee unanimously concluded
> > that Ruby showed clear signs of deception when he denied knowing Oswald is
> > not "credible evidence", eh?
>
> The HSCA found all sorts of problems with Ruby's polygraph. It's hard to
> tell what, if anything, to believe.
No, it isn't hard at all Gary.
The HSCA panel of experts concluded that Ruby showed clear signes of
deception when asked about being involved with Oswald and they were
shocked at the flagrant efforts by the FBI's Herndon to hide Ruby's
reactions. This is from their report,
"In fact, the reactions to the preceding question--(Did you assist Oswald
in the assassination?)--showed the largest valid GSR reaction in test
series No. 1. In addition, there is a constant suppression of breathing
and a rise in blood pressure at the time of this crucial relevant
question. From this test, it appeared to the panel that Ruby was possibly
lying when answering "no" to the question, 'Did you assist Oswald in the
assassination ?' This is contrary to Herndon's opinion that Ruby was
truthful when answering that question."
In fact, I resposted an article I wrote about that a few months ago,
entited, "Jack Ruby's Polygraph Test". You should take a look at it Gary.
>
> > And it was just random coincidence that Oswald was on a direct course to
> > Ruby's apartment when he was stopped by Tippit.
>
> That route and general direction led to many homes, apartments and
> businesses - no one can know exactly where Oswald was headed.
Sure, but he also happened to be on a direct, shortest course to Ruby's
place, didn't he?
>
> > And of course, none of the people who saw Oswald and Ruby together,
> > including employees and Ruby's club were "credible"?
>
> So far, none who are credible and whose stories stand scrutiny confirm a
> Ruby-Oswald relationship. If you can name one, I'd like to hear it.
Why?
We've all heard them and we all know the standard "rebuttals". You just
arbitrarily declare the witnesses to be full of it and then move along.
>
> > Are you also claiming that John Elrod was not "credible" when he reported
> > that Oswald saw Jack Ruby at a motel room meeting? Of course, since he was
> > 100% accurate in everything else he described about the weapons thieves, I
> > guess he *only* fails the credibility test on that one issue.
>
> I've read all the published Elrod material and don't believe a word of it.
You don't?
Do you believe he was correct in saying that he saw Miller at the jail
with his face bandaged?
Do you believe he was correct in saying they were driving a Ford
Thunderbird with a trunk full of stolen weapons?
It certainly is strange that the FBI report admitted that he recalled all
those details that matched perfectly with the actual players in the
weapons theft isn't it?
And isn't an odd coincidence that Miller was indeed, released from the
hospital and at the jail on 11/22/63??
But you don't believe "a word of of it", right Gary?
OIC! You believe everything Elrod said, that we can check out, which of
course, turned out to be 100% correct. You just don't buy the rest. Is
that it?
BTW, Gary - aren't you outraged that the DPD hid away the arrest records
of Elrod and the others who were arrested that day, obstructing three
federal investigations? Why do you think they did that?
And why do you suppose that just a few days after Elrod came forward to
talk to the FBI, the DPD rushed several of their officers to sign
deceitful affidavits, swearing that Oswald was never jailed before
midnight?
And aren't you amazed that the FBI denies having interviewed Elrod or any
of the other arrested suspects (except LHO of course)? Do you believe that
Gary? Do you believe the same FBI that interviewed hundreds of others,
never bothered to even talk to a man who was alleged to have been carrying
a rifle near DP?
Or do you only reserve your skepticism for Elrod?
>
> > Odd though, that Jack Ruby's mechanic was convicted of the very crime to
> > which Elrod connected LHO and Ruby, isn't it?
>
> So what? Ruby's mechanic has no connection to a Ruby-Oswald connection.
LOL!!
Whatever you say, Gary:-)
>
> > But then coincidences seem to abound in this case, lIke the "coincidence"
> > that Oswald just happened to single out Ruby as the guy he turned to look
> > at.
>
> No one can tell who he's looking at,
Odd, isn't it though that even John McAdams disagrees with you, admitting
that LHO did indeed turn directly toward Ruby?
> for standing very close to Ruby at
> that moment was an unidentified Asian man with a camera to his eye,
Give it a rest Mr. Mack. This is getting pathetic.
You've sure come a long way, haven't you?
Robert Harris
John McAdams
>
> In article <s7544r1...@corp.supernews.com>, "Gary Mack"
> <gm...@jfk.org> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > > But then coincidences seem to abound in this case, lIke the "coincidence"
> > > that Oswald just happened to single out Ruby as the guy he turned to look
> > > at.
> >
> > No one can tell who he's looking at,
>
> Odd, isn't it though that even John McAdams disagrees with you, admitting
> that LHO did indeed turn directly toward Ruby?
Bob, you've done this to me several times, and now you are doing it to
Gary -- claiming that "even so-and-do admits" to see something you see,
when in fact they don't.
Oswald glanced in the general direction of Ruby. We have no idea
whether he saw Ruby or not. Where in the world did you get "turned to
look at?"
It's obvious that Oswald saw nothing to attract his attention, since he
immediately turns to look forward.
Using this as evidence of a Ruby/Oswald "connection" is wacky to the
extreme.
Robert Harris
> Robert Harris wrote:
> >
> > In article <s7544r1...@corp.supernews.com>, "Gary Mack"
> > <gm...@jfk.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > But then coincidences seem to abound in this case, lIke the "coincidence"
> > > > that Oswald just happened to single out Ruby as the guy he turned to look
> > > > at.
> > >
> > > No one can tell who he's looking at,
> >
> > Odd, isn't it though that even John McAdams disagrees with you, admitting
> > that LHO did indeed turn directly toward Ruby?
>
> Bob, you've done this to me several times, and now you are doing it to
> Gary -- claiming that "even so-and-do admits" to see something you see,
> when in fact they don't.
Bullshit!
You argued on a number of occasions (incorrectly of course) that Oswald
looked toward Ruby because he perceived that ruby was charging forward
with a gun.
If you want to make an issue of this, I will do the Dejanews research
John, but only if you agree to acknowledge what you actually said.
>
> Oswald glanced in the general direction of Ruby. We have no idea
> whether he saw Ruby or not. Where in the world did you get "turned to
> look at?"
>
> It's obvious that Oswald saw nothing to attract his attention, since he
> immediately turns to look forward.
ROFLMAO!!!!
At least you remembered my refutation:-)
Robert Harris
joez...@my-deja.com
Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> I've seen a photocopy of the Bowers letter to Navis, John. I'm aware that
> you haven't seen it, and won't drop the subject until you do. I hope Al's
> stuff gets archived, catalogued and made available soon so you can.
> Remember how long it took the Marguerite Oswald papers to come out after
> they were donated to a University? Don't blame Al Navis for the delay.
>
> As for the other, the documentation is extensive, and you'll see it
> eventually.
>
You won't mind, I trust, that no one holds their breath in the
meantime, right?
--
"We're really in nut country now, Toto."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gary Mack
Robert Harris <reha...@spinn.net> wrote in message
news:reharris-040...@dialip164.spinn.net...
Of greater significance is the HSCA's final report on Ruby's polygraph.
On page 159, the HSCA said it's polygraph panel concluded that, "...it was
not validly conducted or interpreted (and) because there were numerous
procedural errors made during the test, the committee's panel was unable
to interpret the examination."
If they couldn't, I don't see how anyone else can draw meaningful, or
conclusive, information from it.
>
>
> >
> > > And it was just random coincidence that Oswald was on a direct course to
> > > Ruby's apartment when he was stopped by Tippit.
> >
> > That route and general direction led to many homes, apartments and
> > businesses - no one can know exactly where Oswald was headed.
>
>
> Sure, but he also happened to be on a direct, shortest course to Ruby's
> place, didn't he?
No he was not. As Dale Myers shows in "With Malice," Oswald was walking
WEST - away from the general direction of Ruby's apartment - when he first
noticed Tippit's approaching car.
>
>
> >
> > > And of course, none of the people who saw Oswald and Ruby together,
> > > including employees and Ruby's club were "credible"?
> >
> > So far, none who are credible and whose stories stand scrutiny confirm a
> > Ruby-Oswald relationship. If you can name one, I'd like to hear it.
>
> Why?
Because it would be important if credible.
>
> We've all heard them and we all know the standard "rebuttals". You just
> arbitrarily declare the witnesses to be full of it and then move along.
I don't arbitrarily decide anything. I look at all the evidence first.
>
>
>
> >
> > > Are you also claiming that John Elrod was not "credible" when he reported
> > > that Oswald saw Jack Ruby at a motel room meeting? Of course, since he was
> > > 100% accurate in everything else he described about the weapons thieves, I
> > > guess he *only* fails the credibility test on that one issue.
> >
> > I've read all the published Elrod material and don't believe a word of it.
>
>
>
> You don't?
No I don't. And the most compelling demonstration of why I don't is
contained in Elrod's story as seen on the Hard Copy tv show. That
segment, as you know, was produced by Ray & Mary LaFontaine prior to
publication of their book. Although Elrod was seen on camera several
times, not ONCE did he make any claim about a Ruby-Oswald connection.
All the viewers heard were vague statements from Elrod's brother Lindy.
>
> Do you believe he was correct in saying that he saw Miller at the jail
> with his face bandaged?
>
> Do you believe he was correct in saying they were driving a Ford
> Thunderbird with a trunk full of stolen weapons?
>
>
> It certainly is strange that the FBI report admitted that he recalled all
> those details that matched perfectly with the actual players in the
> weapons theft isn't it?
>
> And isn't an odd coincidence that Miller was indeed, released from the
> hospital and at the jail on 11/22/63??
>
>
> But you don't believe "a word of of it", right Gary?
>
> OIC! You believe everything Elrod said, that we can check out, which of
> course, turned out to be 100% correct. You just don't buy the rest. Is
> that it?
>
> BTW, Gary - aren't you outraged that the DPD hid away the arrest records
> of Elrod and the others who were arrested that day, obstructing three
> federal investigations?
Disapointed, but not "outraged."
>Why do you think they did that?
Because they weren't connected with the assassination, simple as that.
Why anyone would think it important to pass along reports to Federal
agencies about something that had nothing to do with the assassination or
Tippit murder is beyond me.
>
> And why do you suppose that just a few days after Elrod came forward to
> talk to the FBI, the DPD rushed several of their officers to sign
> deceitful affidavits, swearing that Oswald was never jailed before
> midnight?
Probably because he wasn't.
>
> And aren't you amazed that the FBI denies having interviewed Elrod or any
> of the other arrested suspects (except LHO of course)? Do you believe that
> Gary?
Lack of communication could be the answer too, as Elrod had no connection
to the assassination investigation.
>Do you believe the same FBI that interviewed hundreds of others,
> never bothered to even talk to a man who was alleged to have been carrying
> a rifle near DP?
Note that no rifle was found when he was arrested. Did he just throw it
away. Why didn't he say on camera that he had a rifle?
>
>
> Or do you only reserve your skepticism for Elrod?
I'm not skeptical about Elrod, for I haven't heard him say anything yet!!
I know what others claim he said, but I don't have anything from him.
You'd think the "entity" would have bumped him off by now, since he spoke
to the LaF's years ago. I appears that he doesn't know anything, unless
they find him so trustworthy they've let him live an extra 36 years.
>
>
>
> >
> > > Odd though, that Jack Ruby's mechanic was convicted of the very crime to
> > > which Elrod connected LHO and Ruby, isn't it?
> >
> > So what? Ruby's mechanic has no connection to a Ruby-Oswald connection.
>
>
> LOL!!
>
> Whatever you say, Gary:-)
>
>
>
> >
> > > But then coincidences seem to abound in this case, lIke the "coincidence"
> > > that Oswald just happened to single out Ruby as the guy he turned to look
> > > at.
> >
> > No one can tell who he's looking at,
>
> Odd, isn't it though that even John McAdams disagrees with you, admitting
> that LHO did indeed turn directly toward Ruby?
That's his opinion, but there are at least two other guys right next to
Ruby, so NO ONE can tell exactly where Oswald was looking.
>
>
>
> > for standing very close to Ruby at
> > that moment was an unidentified Asian man with a camera to his eye,
>
>
> Give it a rest Mr. Mack. This is getting pathetic.
Have you examined the CBS and NBC video tapes? You are aware that man is
holding something up to his face and that in many others views of him over
the weekend he was carrying a camera? As best I can tell, that movement
of bringing the camera up to his eyes may be what caught Oswald's
attention.
>
> You've sure come a long way, haven't you?
I came from Fort Worth.
joez...@my-deja.com
cwo...@spinn.net (Robert Harris) wrote:
> In article <s71ra6i...@corp.supernews.com>, "Gary Mack"
> <gm...@jfk.org> wrote:
>
> > Judging by the news film shot from BEHIND Oswald, which shows the blinding
> > lights of the media, I doubt very much that Oswald could have recognized
> > anyone to his front or left, which is where Ruby was at that moment.
> >
> > As for Oswald knowing Ruby, there is NO credible evidence whatsoever they
> > were acquainted.
>
> That's quite a sweeping statement, Mr. Mack.
>
> I guess the fact that the HSCA polygraph committee unanimously concluded
> that Ruby showed clear signs of deception when he denied knowing Oswald is
> not "credible evidence", eh?
>
> Ruby's apartment when he was stopped by Tippit.
>
Bob, Oswald was walking along 10th when stopped by Tippit. 10th does
not run on a direct course to Ruby's apartment. You are presuming
Oswald's final destination was Ruby's apartment. For all you know, he
could have been going to Ruby's mechanic's apartment.
> And of course, none of the people who saw Oswald and Ruby together,
> including employees and Ruby's club were "credible"?
>
> Are you also claiming that John Elrod was not "credible" when he reported
> that Oswald saw Jack Ruby at a motel room meeting? Of course, since he was
> 100% accurate in everything else he described about the weapons thieves, I
> guess he *only* fails the credibility test on that one issue.
>
Curiously, there was a man in Dallas who looked like Oswald who was
involved in running a gun shop, and was under investigation for gun
running - John Thomas Masen. Does Elrod say he saw a man who
*identified himself as Oswald* involved w/Ruby, or did Masen say he saw
a man who just *looked* like Oswald? The distinction is very important.
For if he only *looked* like Oswald, then all you may have is an
incident involving Masen & Ruby.
> Odd though, that Jack Ruby's mechanic was convicted of the very crime to
> which Elrod connected LHO and Ruby, isn't it?
>
!!
This is evidence of what, exactly? You realize when you are reduced to
citing crimes by people's acquaintances (guilt by association), you are
admitting you don't have any real evidence, right?
Hell, JFK's barber is selling locks of JFK's hair on Ebay, Bob. Does
this mean JFK also sold locks of his own hair on Ebay, Bob?
> But then coincidences seem to abound in this case, lIke the "coincidence"
> that Oswald just happened to single out Ruby as the guy he turned to look
> at.
In your opinion, Bob.
Prove it. Can you?
He looks to me to be looking at Ike Pappas, who we know shouted at
Oswald as Oswald approached. How did you determine he looked at Ruby?
Was this more or less by just looking at the videotape?
Robert Harris
wrote:
> Robert Harris <cwo...@spinn.net> wrote in message
> news:cworks-0501...@192.168.1.200...
> > In article <3872D4...@mu.edu>, John McAdams <6489mc...@mu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Robert Harris wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <s7544r1...@corp.supernews.com>, "Gary Mack"
> > > > <gm...@jfk.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Robert
> > >
> > > [snipping]
> > >
> > > > But you don't believe "a word of of it", right Gary?
> > > >
> > > > OIC! You believe everything Elrod said, that we can check out, which of
> > > > course, turned out to be 100% correct. You just don't buy the rest. Is
> > > > that it?
> > > >
> > > > BTW, Gary - aren't you outraged that the DPD hid away the arrest records
> > > > of Elrod and the others who were arrested that day, obstructing three
> > > > federal investigations? Why do you think they did that?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Bob, they "hid away" the arrest records of the Three Tramps, and *they*
> > > had no sinister connection to any assassination conspiracy.
> > >
> > > Why does their "hiding away" (actually misplacing) Elrod's arrest
> > > records indicate anything sinister?
> >
> >
> > Because they had no idea who heard/remembered what or how much.
>
> No, they were irrelevant to the investigation of the assassination.
That's silly Gary.
Just hours after the assassination, the FBI should not have had any idea
who was or was not involved. Even if they were totally convinced that
Oswald was a shooter, they didn't know if he had accomplices, people
waiting to help him escape, or were supporting him in any of a multitude
of other ways.
Elrod was alleged to have been carrying a rifle near DP that day. They
*HAD* to interrogate him, or they would have been far more negligent than
even the most radical buffs ever claimed they were.
Elrod was there all weekend and confirmed that the FBI grilled him very
thoroughly, as they would any murder suspect.
>
> > But why do you put quotation marks around "hiding away"?? That is an
> > established fact, John, confirmed by the Dallas archivist.
>
> It is NOT a fact. I have been friends with the now-former archivist for
> the city of Dallas, Cindy Smolovik, for many years. The records were not
> "hidden," they were forgotten about along with a whole bunch of other
> records apparently not deemed worthy of being sent to the Warren
> Commission.
Bullshit!
Why would you prefer the statement of an employee over her boss? This is
how McGee described the status of those records,
"It was MCGEE'S understanding that all of these documents came from a
green filing cabinet which was located in the Reports Division of the DPD.
That filing cabinet was kept under lock and key with access granted only
through the Chief of Police. MCGEE was under the impression that the
records were thought to be under federal seal, and therefore, inaccessible
to members of the Reports Division without the expressed permission of the
Chief."
McGee was undoubtedly privy to a *lot* of things she didn't share with
those who worked under her.
But tell me Gary, did Cindy explain why those particular records were just
"forgotten" unlike forty gazillion other arrest records that were required
by law to be archived and made available to other law enforcement
agencies??
So, let's summarize your position here, Gary.
You are claiming that all these arrest records were just accidentally
"lost" by the DPD. Is that right?
And you are also claiming that the FBI never bothered to interview people
who were arrested specifically on suspicion of being involved in
assassinating Kennedy. Correct?
And since the FBI professes to have maintained *NO* records in regard to
the other suspects, I guess you also buy that story as well. You actually
believe that our nation's top law enforcment bureau didn't even document
the existence of other suspects in the Kennedy case - is that correct?
>
> The tramp records, in particular, were first released in 1989,
"released"???
Don't you mean "found" Gary? I thought you said they were just lost - kind
a dropped behind the water cooler or something like that :-)
> but there
> was no public announcement and no one knew about them. When the Dallas
> city council voted to officially release any remaining records, they were
> found by the La Fonatines in early 1992, nearly three years later!
Is there a point here, other than the fact that Mary did one helluva job?
>
> > So why do you think they locked up these records, John? Do you suppose,
> > for the same reason the FBI hid or destroyed all of their own records of
> > these peoples' arrests and interviews?
>
> No, because they meant nothing in 1963 and meant even less three decades
> later.
ROFLMAO!!
I think the FBI has a new chairman for it's fan club:-)
Robert Harris
>
> But John can answer for himself. :)
>
> Gary Mack
Martin Shackelford
Martin
joez...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <38717AEB...@concentric.net>,
> Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > I've seen a photocopy of the Bowers letter to Navis, John. I'm aware that
> > you haven't seen it, and won't drop the subject until you do. I hope Al's
> > stuff gets archived, catalogued and made available soon so you can.
> > Remember how long it took the Marguerite Oswald papers to come out after
> > they were donated to a University? Don't blame Al Navis for the delay.
> >
> > As for the other, the documentation is extensive, and you'll see it
> > eventually.
> >
>
> You won't mind, I trust, that no one holds their breath in the
> meantime, right?
>
> --
> "We're really in nut country now, Toto."
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Gary Mack
> In article <s77mr5...@corp.supernews.com>, "Gary Mack" <gm...@jfk.org>
> > > In article <3872D4...@mu.edu>, John McAdams <6489mc...@mu.edu>
wrote:
> > >
> > > > Robert Harris wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <gm...@jfk.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Robert
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > But you don't believe "a word of of it", right Gary?
> > > > >
> > > > > OIC! You believe everything Elrod said, that we can check out,
which of
> > > > > course, turned out to be 100% correct. You just don't buy the
rest. Is
> > > > > that it?
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, Gary - aren't you outraged that the DPD hid away the arrest
records
> > > > > of Elrod and the others who were arrested that day, obstructing
three
> > > > > federal investigations? Why do you think they did that?
> > > > >
> > > >
*they*
> > > > had no sinister connection to any assassination conspiracy.
> > > >
> > > > Why does their "hiding away" (actually misplacing) Elrod's arrest
> > > > records indicate anything sinister?
> > >
> > >
> > > Because they had no idea who heard/remembered what or how much.
> >
> > No, they were irrelevant to the investigation of the assassination.
>
>
> That's silly Gary.
>
> Just hours after the assassination, the FBI should not have had any idea
> who was or was not involved. Even if they were totally convinced that
> Oswald was a shooter, they didn't know if he had accomplices, people
> waiting to help him escape, or were supporting him in any of a multitude
> of other ways.
It's clear the cops didn't consider the tramps supects in the
assassination, so why should anyone else?
>
> Elrod was alleged to have been carrying a rifle near DP that day. They
> *HAD* to interrogate him, or they would have been far more negligent than
> even the most radical buffs ever claimed they were.
So what happened to the "rifle"? Surely the cops searched for it when
they caught him. In other words, the report of a man with his rifle was
erroneous or did not refer to Elrod.
>
> Elrod was there all weekend and confirmed that the FBI grilled him very
> thoroughly, as they would any murder suspect.
Is there an acutal quote from Elrod about that, or just someone else's
say-so?
>
>
> >
> > > But why do you put quotation marks around "hiding away"?? That is an
> > > established fact, John, confirmed by the Dallas archivist.
> >
> > It is NOT a fact. I have been friends with the now-former archivist for
> > the city of Dallas, Cindy Smolovik, for many years. The records were
not
> > "hidden," they were forgotten about along with a whole bunch of other
> > records apparently not deemed worthy of being sent to the Warren
> > Commission.
>
> Bullshit!
>
> Why would you prefer the statement of an employee over her boss? This is
> how McGee described the status of those records,
McGee would have been the proper spokesperson, not Cindy. I only know
what Cindy told me and that was that they were just stashed away and later
found.
>
> "It was MCGEE'S understanding that all of these documents came from a
> green filing cabinet which was located in the Reports Division of the DPD.
> That filing cabinet was kept under lock and key with access granted only
> through the Chief of Police. MCGEE was under the impression that the
> records were thought to be under federal seal,
WHO thought that, and was it true?
>and therefore, inaccessible
> to members of the Reports Division without the expressed permission of the
> Chief."
>
> McGee was undoubtedly privy to a *lot* of things she didn't share with
> those who worked under her.
That's an assumption on your part.
>
> But tell me Gary, did Cindy explain why those particular records were just
> "forgotten" unlike forty gazillion other arrest records that were required
> by law to be archived and made available to other law enforcement
> agencies??
What "law" requires ALL records to be saved and made available, Bob? As a
matter of fact, routine records are destroyed after a period of time.
We're probably all lucky the tramp and other records survived at all.
>
> So, let's summarize your position here, Gary.
>
> You are claiming that all these arrest records were just accidentally
> "lost" by the DPD. Is that right?
No, they were not "lost," just filed away and fortgotten, according to
what little is known about them.
>
> And you are also claiming that the FBI never bothered to interview people
> who were arrested specifically on suspicion of being involved in
> assassinating Kennedy. Correct?
No, not correct? Perhaps the FBI did interview the tramps and no report
was made or has yet surfaced.
>
> And since the FBI professes to have maintained *NO* records in regard to
> the other suspects, I guess you also buy that story as well. You actually
> believe that our nation's top law enforcment bureau didn't even document
> the existence of other suspects in the Kennedy case - is that correct?
Were the tramps still suspects AFTER their arrest? Apparently not,
according to the record.
>
>
> >
> > The tramp records, in particular, were first released in 1989,
>
>
> "released"???
>
> Don't you mean "found" Gary?
If I had meant "found" I would have used that term. Mary La Fontaine
found the tramp reports in 1992, but they were available as far back as
1989.
> I thought you said they were just lost - kind
> a dropped behind the water cooler or something like that :-)
>
>
> > but there
> > was no public announcement and no one knew about them. When the Dallas
> > city council voted to officially release any remaining records, they
were
> > found by the La Fonatines in early 1992, nearly three years later!
>
>
> Is there a point here, other than the fact that Mary did one helluva job?
Well, if you consider thumbing through files a "helluva job," maybe. She
deserves credit for finding them and realizing what their significance.
>
>
>
> >
> > > So why do you think they locked up these records, John? Do you
suppose,
> > > for the same reason the FBI hid or destroyed all of their own records
of
> > > these peoples' arrests and interviews?
> >
> > No, because they meant nothing in 1963 and meant even less three decades
> > later.
>
>
> ROFLMAO!!
What?
>
> I think the FBI has a new chairman for it's fan club:-)
Think again.
Robert Harris
wrote:
Odd that they would arrest these people then, isn't it?
But it really doesn't matter that they later released them and considered
them innocent. They were suspects and had to be interrogated. It is
preposterous to presume they were not.
>
> >
> > Elrod was alleged to have been carrying a rifle near DP that day. They
> > *HAD* to interrogate him, or they would have been far more negligent than
> > even the most radical buffs ever claimed they were.
>
> So what happened to the "rifle"?
Duh..... I guess DPD never encountered a murderer who ditched his weapon.
> Surely the cops searched for it when
> they caught him.
I've seen nothing that suggested they did. But that hardly matters, since
they couldn't possibly have searched every possible place that it could
have been hidden, buried, or whatever.
This is an incredibly lame argument Gary. Elrod was a murder suspect and
had to be interrogated.
> In other words, the report of a man with his rifle was
> erroneous or did not refer to Elrod.
Well, it was certainly "erroneous" but it did indeed, refer to Elrod,
which is why he was arrested.
Actually, the bottom line argument here is that Elrod was held at the jail
all weekend and not released until Monday. If they were as certain of his
innocence as you want us to believe, then why wasn't he released on Friday
or Saturday?
>
> >
> > Elrod was there all weekend and confirmed that the FBI grilled him very
> > thoroughly, as they would any murder suspect.
>
> Is there an acutal quote from Elrod about that, or just someone else's
> say-so?
Well, he only made the statement before millions of people on the Hard
Copy piece,
"I told them [FBI] I was in a cell with Oswald"
He also told Mary La Fontaine that he was grilled by the FBI for several hours.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > But why do you put quotation marks around "hiding away"?? That is an
> > > > established fact, John, confirmed by the Dallas archivist.
> > >
> > > It is NOT a fact. I have been friends with the now-former archivist for
> > > the city of Dallas, Cindy Smolovik, for many years. The records were
> not
> > > "hidden," they were forgotten about along with a whole bunch of other
> > > records apparently not deemed worthy of being sent to the Warren
> > > Commission.
> >
> > Bullshit!
> >
> > Why would you prefer the statement of an employee over her boss? This is
> > how McGee described the status of those records,
>
> McGee would have been the proper spokesperson, not Cindy. I only know
> what Cindy told me and that was that they were just stashed away and later
> found.
So McGee just made that up, including the details about which filing
cabinet they were in, where it was located, and that only the Chief had a
key to it??
That's pretty imaginative for a city archivist, don't you think, Gary?
And Cindy's claim is a *negative* Gary. How on Earth could she have
confirmed that these records were never locked away as McGee claimed?
Maybe we should see a direct and detailed citation, explaining how Cindy
came to disprove her boss's recollections.
At the very least, she must know where they were *really* at, at DPD,
shouldn't she?
>
> >
> > "It was MCGEE'S understanding that all of these documents came from a
> > green filing cabinet which was located in the Reports Division of the DPD.
> > That filing cabinet was kept under lock and key with access granted only
> > through the Chief of Police. MCGEE was under the impression that the
> > records were thought to be under federal seal,
>
> WHO thought that, and was it true?
Of course not, Gary. Those records just fell behind the water cooler for
30 years - same thing that happened over at Dallas FBI headquarters:-)
>
> >and therefore, inaccessible
> > to members of the Reports Division without the expressed permission of the
> > Chief."
> >
> > McGee was undoubtedly privy to a *lot* of things she didn't share with
> > those who worked under her.
>
> That's an assumption on your part.
Yes, but a pretty good one, don't you think?
>
> >
> > But tell me Gary, did Cindy explain why those particular records were just
> > "forgotten" unlike forty gazillion other arrest records that were required
> > by law to be archived and made available to other law enforcement
> > agencies??
>
> What "law" requires ALL records to be saved and made available, Bob?
Give it a rest, Gary. This is getting ridiculous. I am not going to cite
statutes and regulations for you which require law enforcement agencies to
make arrest records available to other law enforcement agencies.
> As a
> matter of fact, routine records are destroyed after a period of time.
9 months???
And while the case was still under investigation by the WC??
I don't think so Gary.
> We're probably all lucky the tramp and other records survived at all.
You can say that again. If the feds had anything to say about it, they
would have been been archived alongside with Oswald's note to Hosty and
the other interviews:-)
>
> >
> > So, let's summarize your position here, Gary.
> >
> > You are claiming that all these arrest records were just accidentally
> > "lost" by the DPD. Is that right?
>
> No, they were not "lost," just filed away and fortgotten, according to
> what little is known about them.
Well, if they were just "filed away", then why did DPD supposedly tell the
FBI that Elrod was not jailed on 11/22/63? Wouldn't they have just walked
over to the filing cabinet and pulled up his records?
And if you claim that they were just misfiled, perhaps under "F" instead
of "E" then you have to believe that DPD never reorganized their records,
even 15 years later, when the HSCA inquired about them. You also have to
believe that they misfiled *ALL* of these suspects documents, not just
Elrod's.
And what do you suppose provoked McGee to make up this wild story about
the files being locked away in a special filing cabinet and put under
federal seal??
>
> >
> > And you are also claiming that the FBI never bothered to interview people
> > who were arrested specifically on suspicion of being involved in
> > assassinating Kennedy. Correct?
>
> No, not correct? Perhaps the FBI did interview the tramps and no report
> was made or has yet surfaced.
Not a chance, Gary. The feds have specifically responded to FOIA requests,
by denying that any such records exist.
At this point in time, I have to suspect that they are actually telling
the truth, don't you?
Robert Harris
joez...@my-deja.com
You failed to respond to this the first time. I am re-posting in the
hope of getting a response.
I raised a number of important issues below.
1. Oswald shot Tippit while on 10th. You claim Oswald was 'on a direct
course to Ruby's apartment at that time. But 10th does not take one to
Ruby's apartment. So Oswald wasn't on a direct course they. At best,
your conclusion reflects your conclusion based upon what you project
Oswald would have done next. It does not reflect Oswald's actual path.
2. John Thomas Masen was an Oswald-look-alike who was also involved in
gun running. Did Elrod say the man he saw with Ruby at a motel
meeting 'looked like Oswald' or did he say that man 'identified himself
as Oswald'. The distinction is important, because if it just looked
like Oswald, but wasn't, then Elrod may have been witness to a Masen-
Ruby meeting.
3. You claimed Ruby's mechanic's gunrunning implicates Ruby as a
gunrunner. Only if JFK's barber selling locks of JFK's hair on Ebay
implicates JFK in the same scheme.
4. You claimed Oswald looked at Ruby just before Oswald was shot. It
appears to me Oswald looks at Ike Pappas, who we know shouted to Oswald
and stuck his mike out as Oswald approached. You neglected to point out
how you determined Oswald looked at Ruby, instead of Pappas. Was it
just by looking, or was there some actual analysis involved?
In article <850521$alb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
joez...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <cworks-0301...@192.168.1.200>,
> cwo...@spinn.net (Robert Harris) wrote:
> > In article <s71ra6i...@corp.supernews.com>, "Gary Mack"
Tony Pitman
But there was an Oswald lookalike who was identifying himself as
Oswald also.
He appears to have had a whole set of Oswald ID papers right down to
an Oswald drivers lisence, which the real Oswald did not have. Ladies
who worked at the Texas Dept of Public Safety have confirmed this. And
if you read Hosty's book he talks of such a wallet with exactly this
set of ID, liscence and all being found at the Tippit murder scene, as
told to him by an FBI colleague who was there and saw this for
himself. Of course this "disappeared" almost immediately but it's
funny how it turned out that such a liscence did indeed exist.
There was a report of this man using this liscence as proof of age to
buy two bottles of beer that very morning also when Oswald was at work
in the TSBD so it seems he was in town that day.
The main problem for me about this is whether or not it was Masen. It
could have been but I have a feeling that it was somebody else.
Tony
Tony Pitman
wrote:
>In article <s77mr5...@corp.supernews.com>, "Gary Mack" <gm...@jfk.org>
>wrote:
>
>> Robert Harris <cwo...@spinn.net> wrote in message
>> news:cworks-0501...@192.168.1.200...
>> > In article <3872D4...@mu.edu>, John McAdams <6489mc...@mu.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Robert Harris wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > In article <s7544r1...@corp.supernews.com>, "Gary Mack"
>> > > > <gm...@jfk.org> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Robert
>> > >
>> > > [snipping]
>> > >
>> > > > But you don't believe "a word of of it", right Gary?
>> > > >
>> > > > OIC! You believe everything Elrod said, that we can check out, which of
>> > > > course, turned out to be 100% correct. You just don't buy the rest. Is
>> > > > that it?
>> > > >
>> > > > BTW, Gary - aren't you outraged that the DPD hid away the arrest records
>> > > > of Elrod and the others who were arrested that day, obstructing three
>> > > > federal investigations? Why do you think they did that?
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Bob, they "hid away" the arrest records of the Three Tramps, and *they*
>> > > had no sinister connection to any assassination conspiracy.
>> > >
>> > > Why does their "hiding away" (actually misplacing) Elrod's arrest
>> > > records indicate anything sinister?
>> >
>> >
>> > Because they had no idea who heard/remembered what or how much.
>>
>> No, they were irrelevant to the investigation of the assassination.
>
>
>That's silly Gary.
>
>Just hours after the assassination, the FBI should not have had any idea
>who was or was not involved. Even if they were totally convinced that
>Oswald was a shooter, they didn't know if he had accomplices, people
>waiting to help him escape, or were supporting him in any of a multitude
>of other ways.
>
>Elrod was alleged to have been carrying a rifle near DP that day. They
>*HAD* to interrogate him, or they would have been far more negligent than
>even the most radical buffs ever claimed they were.
>
>Elrod was there all weekend and confirmed that the FBI grilled him very
>thoroughly, as they would any murder suspect.
>
>
>>
>> > But why do you put quotation marks around "hiding away"?? That is an
>> > established fact, John, confirmed by the Dallas archivist.
>>
>> It is NOT a fact. I have been friends with the now-former archivist for
>> the city of Dallas, Cindy Smolovik, for many years. The records were not
>> "hidden," they were forgotten about along with a whole bunch of other
>> records apparently not deemed worthy of being sent to the Warren
>> Commission.
>
>Bullshit!
>
>Why would you prefer the statement of an employee over her boss? This is
>how McGee described the status of those records,
>
>"It was MCGEE'S understanding that all of these documents came from a
>green filing cabinet which was located in the Reports Division of the DPD.
>That filing cabinet was kept under lock and key with access granted only
>through the Chief of Police. MCGEE was under the impression that the
>records were thought to be under federal seal, and therefore, inaccessible
>to members of the Reports Division without the expressed permission of the
>Chief."
>
>McGee was undoubtedly privy to a *lot* of things she didn't share with
>those who worked under her.
>
>But tell me Gary, did Cindy explain why those particular records were just
>"forgotten" unlike forty gazillion other arrest records that were required
>by law to be archived and made available to other law enforcement
>agencies??
>
>So, let's summarize your position here, Gary.
>
>You are claiming that all these arrest records were just accidentally
>"lost" by the DPD. Is that right?
>
>And you are also claiming that the FBI never bothered to interview people
>who were arrested specifically on suspicion of being involved in
>assassinating Kennedy. Correct?
>
>And since the FBI professes to have maintained *NO* records in regard to
>the other suspects, I guess you also buy that story as well. You actually
>believe that our nation's top law enforcment bureau didn't even document
>the existence of other suspects in the Kennedy case - is that correct?
>
>
>>
>> The tramp records, in particular, were first released in 1989,
>
>
>"released"???
>
>Don't you mean "found" Gary? I thought you said they were just lost - kind
>a dropped behind the water cooler or something like that :-)
>
>
>> but there
>> was no public announcement and no one knew about them. When the Dallas
>> city council voted to officially release any remaining records, they were
>> found by the La Fonatines in early 1992, nearly three years later!
>
>
>Is there a point here, other than the fact that Mary did one helluva job?
>
>
>
>>
>> > So why do you think they locked up these records, John? Do you suppose,
>> > for the same reason the FBI hid or destroyed all of their own records of
>> > these peoples' arrests and interviews?
>>
>> No, because they meant nothing in 1963 and meant even less three decades
>> later.
>
>
>ROFLMAO!!
>
>I think the FBI has a new chairman for it's fan club:-)
>
>
>
>
>Robert Harris
There's also the possibility that the names of the men on those
records were not the three men in Dallas that day.
In fact, with all the dicking around with evidence that has taken
place in this case it would be par for the course.
Do any of the three men named in the records actually look anything
like the Tramps?
Odd how the doesn't seem to be one photo of any of them from back in
those days or when they still retained a similar appearance, if any.
The records would not have to be latter day forgeries as such. The
names could have been switched at the time, even using names of three
men who were actually picked up that day as vagrants. The cops did a
pretty big trawl that day and more people may have been picked up than
we know about.
That is how I would have handled it in order to cover for three men
who's release had been ordered because they were spooks or undercover
for whatever reason, phony or othjerwise. They had been seen by too
many people you see, including the press.
Tony
Tony Pitman
Right Gary except that I doubt that this was actually Oswald. A man
resembling Oswald had been seen by a witness not long before this in the
vicinity of Ruby's apartment. Whoever this guy was, it could not have been
Oswald but could just as easily have been the man who shot Tippit.
He could also have been the man who really did know Ruby for that matter.
It is more likely IMO that the man reported as Oswald in Ruby's company on
those occasions was really the lookalike, or one of the lookalikes,
whatever the case may be.
Tony
Vern Pascal
scene, but not even bother to question UM and his "companion", who hung
around sitting on the curb a few feet from the assassination site, as
attested to by the "new" Rickeby photo. Seems that even if not
considered suspicious, they would at least have had a front-seat view of
the event. And we know from other photos that cops were right there on
the scene. But they let these characters get away and
disappear?!!--------Vern
Dale Myers
denouncing the book, "With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of
Officer J.D. Tippit," (www.oakcliffpress.com), the only book dealing with
the facts surrounding the shooting of the Dallas police officer. In his
early posts on the subject, Mr. Griffith made derogatory remarks about
the book, it’s author (me), and my motivation for researching and writing
the book.
It apparently never occurred to Mr. Griffith that these early posts only
proved what a first class boob he was for denouncing a book he’d never
actually read. No matter. Posters like Mr. Griffith pontificate on
subjects they know little about for only one reason - to bamboozle anyone
who will listen to their self-proclaimed brillance.
When it was pointed out to Mr. Griffith (repeatedly and relentlessly)
that he should actually read the book before spouting an opinion, Mr.
Griffith finally caved in and bought the "vile" book he had been
condemning for so long.
In remarkably short order, Mr. Griffith announced that "...WITH MALICE,
is hardly the ‘definitive’ work on the subject that some have claimed it
to be, and Myers certainly doesn't establish Oswald's alleged guilt in
the slaying as an ‘historical fact...’ " (Surprise!) I say "remarkably
short" because Mr. Griffith hadn’t even finished the book ("....I am
exactly halfway through the book at this time...") that took me twenty
years to research and nearly three years to write before reaching his
rather predictable, predetermined conclusion. How can anyone hold Mr.
Griffith in respect after these kind of antics?
Having read only half of the book, Mr. Griffith writes: "...Already I
have found a surprising number of important omissions, contradictions,
errors, and questionable assertions. Time and again Myers reaches
conclusions that are refuted or contradicted by his own raw data. Some of
his omissions are rather troubling..." I’m not going to dwell on Mr.
Griffith’s ability to bring sound reasoning to this subject. Frankly,
he’s an easy target. Instead, I propose to take a look - just this once
- at the facts that he claims I have omitted and misrepresented in "With
Malice:"
>...* I have already mentioned in previous threads that Myers fails to mention in the text of the book that the only witness who checked his
watch when he arrived on the scene, T. F. Bowley, said his watch read
1:10 p.m. ...<
"With Malice" is a compilation of *true* facts about the Tippit shooting.
It is not a refutation of every factoid that conspiracy buffs, like Mr.
Griffith, have held true and dear to their hearts since 1963. I don’t
think anyone could ever address in a single volume all of the crap that’s
been written about this case. Instead, I treated the subject as if it
hadn’t been written about before, and in my humble opinion, it hadn’t -
not with the kind of scrutiny it deserved.
During the course of researching, fact checking, and double-checking
there were a number of buff factoids that clearly didn’t belong on the
pedestals that conspiracy buffs have elevated them to. The Bowley time
check is one of them. The primary reason is that Bowley’s transmission to
the dispatcher was recorded - yes, *recorded* - at a time that was
inconsistent with the time check he provided ( a time check that wasn’t
given to police until 10 days after the murder). Curiously, the time of
Bowley’s recorded transmission meshes very well with all of the other
verifiable, and documented time sources. This fact is a sore spot with
conspiracy buffs because it cuts the heart out of the argument that
Oswald wouldn’t have had time to get to the murder scene to commit the
act. In the end, Bowley’s time check of 1:10 p.m. is a poor argument for
Oswald’s innocence. In light of all of the other evidence in the case, it
is clear - to reasonable minds anyway - that Bowley’s 1:10 p.m. time
check *must* have been in error. This is one corner that the buffs can’t
paint their way out of with the available facts.
In the quote above, Mr. Griffith is more intent on focusing on the fact
that Bowley’s time check is relegated to an endnote in "With Malice."
Pointing this out is supposed to help vilify the hapless author (that’s
me) who didn’t think anyone would read the endnotes he spent so much time
compiling to support his thesis. This is nit-picking of the highest
order.
>...* Equally disturbing is the fact that Myers never tells his reader that Helen Markham, on whom Myers relies heavily to establish what
happened and to indict Oswald, said the shooting occurred at around 1:06.
Perhaps Myers didn't think he could afford to mention this because he had
already noted that Markham was en route to her regular 1:12-1:15 bus when
she witnessed the Tippit slaying, that she said she left her apartment
building at 1:04, that it would have taken her about 2 minutes to walk
from apartment building to the Tippit scene, that she walked to her bus
stop EVERY DAY, that she had a routine of leaving at 1:00 to catch her
bus. Myers opines that Markham erred substantially, by 7 minutes, in her
recollection of when she left her apartment building, even though she
noted that as she was leaving she glanced at a clock (an electronic clock
in the laundry room of her apartment building) and that the clock read
1:04...<
Here again, we have examples of Mr. Griffith’s attempts to demonize the
author: "...disturbing...Myers never tells his reader...Myers didn’t
think he could afford to mention this..." etc. The real problem
here is Mr. Griffith can’t see the forest for the trees.
After posting that "...Myers didn’t think he could afford to mention
[Markham’s 1:06 p.m. shooting time]...," Mr. Griffith notes what I *did*
write, that Markham claimed to have left at 1:04 p.m. for a 1:15 p.m.
bus. It would have taken her two and half minutes to reach Tenth and
Patton, putting her arrival at about 1:06:30 p.m. The shooting, according
to eyewitnesses, would have occurred about thirty seconds later - 1:07
p.m. - *IF* Mrs. Markham’s time estimates were correct. Yet all of the
other supported time checks point to a shooting time close to 1:14:30
p.m.
This is a classic case of selective reasoning. Buffs opine that Markham
was right about her time estimate, which of necessity negates Oswald
getting to the scene on foot (Oswald is innocent!), yet on the other hand
Markham is wrong about identifying Oswald as the gunman. Both conclusions
are drawn despite verifiable facts to the contrary - the shooting must
have occurred close to 1:14:30 p.m. by all verifiable means, and physical
evidence at the scene supports Markham’s identification of Oswald as the
one and only perpetrator. To believe Markham’s time estimate is to ignore
all of the facts that show her estimate to be in error. And those facts
*are* substantial.
[You’ll also note that Mr. Griffith states that Markham glanced at "an
electronic clock in the laundry room," a phrase that suggests that her
source was extremely accurate. However, the FBI report simply refers to a
"clock on the wall" - it’s power source is not noted. Mr. Griffith uses
the term "electronic" in describing the clock - a term which, in modern
times, refers to a digital readout. In fact, sweep-hand style clocks were
common place in 1963, not digital readouts. Even if the sweep-hand clock
were electric (using an AC power source), this fact in and of itself
would not guarantee any particular degree of accuracy.]
>...* Myers, predictably, argues that the housekeeper, Mrs. Roberts, was simply lying when she said a police car stopped in front of the boarding
house and honked its horn just after Oswald entered the house. Yet, Myers
doesn't question anything else Mrs. Roberts said...
I never said, Mrs. Roberts was lying. This is Mr. Griffith’s
misrepresentation of what I wrote. What I did write is that everyone who
knew Mrs. Roberts - bar none - described her as a person who embellishes
facts. I reported that, because I saw it as the key to understanding what
happened and how it affected the investigation of Mrs. Roberts’ claims.
That personality trait raises questions about everything she
claimed happened. To say that I didn’t question "...anything else Mrs.
Roberts said..." is nonsense, invented by Mr. Griffith in order to paint
the author (that’s me) as a sloppy, and untruthful writer.
What Mr. Griffith fails to realize is that parts of Mrs. Roberts’ claims
*are* supported by other facts. For instance, Mrs. Roberts claimed Oswald
returned to his room - a fact supported by cab driver William Whaley’s
testimony, and Oswald’s own statements to police in which he admitted
returning to the room. However, it is important for the reader to
understand that statements made by Mrs. Roberts - which have no other
support - must be weighed in light of her personality.
I found Mr. Griffith’s next assessment to be particularly laughable:
>..." Personally, I have always found Mrs. Roberts to be a credible, sincere witness. I would invite anyone to listen to the radio interview
she gave on the day of the shooting. In my opinion, she comes across as
utterly sincere, simple, straightforward, and wholly disinterested. I
agree with Henry Hurt's assessment of Mrs. Roberts: . . . no one has ever
found a shred of serious reason to doubt the veracity and credibility of
Mrs. Roberts (REASONABLE DOUBT, p. 140)..."<
This is absolute, utter, nonsense. Mr. Griffith’s opinion of Mrs. Roberts
(based on listening to a radio interview) is absurd, especially when that
opinion flies in the face of anyone who actually had met, and *knew* Mrs.
Roberts. I too, have listen to that same radio interview and watched a
television interview of Mrs. Roberts. In my opinion, both support what
was described by people who knew her and her personality. The citation
from Henry Hurt’s book is equally preposterous. I would direct Mr. Hurt
to "With Malice."
>...* Myers suggests Mrs. Roberts made up the whole story about the police car visit just to get attention...<
Nonsense. I never said any such thing. Mrs. Roberts’ claims are
unsupported by the facts. Period. I don’t know why she said what she did.
>...Myers observes that the home owner, a Mrs. Gladys Johnson, told the WC that Mrs. Roberts liked to "spin tales." But Mrs. Johnson said nothing
about Mrs. Roberts' alleged tale spinning until five months later...<
Of course not. Mrs. Johnson made this statement while being interviewed
by the Warren Commission. In no uncertain terms, she explained to the
Commission the kind of person Earlene Roberts was.
>....and even then she really didn't accuse her of being dishonest but rather portrayed her as an old lady who would invent stories to make
conversation. That's a far cry from saying Mrs. Roberts would have
deliberately given false testimony...<
Nonsense! That’s exactly what she meant, and anyone (including the
befuddled Mr. Griffith) should be able to glean that much from Mrs.
Johnson’s testimony.
>....* Myers notes that a journalist named Hugh Aynesworth interviewed Mrs. Roberts soon after the assassination and said Mrs. Roberts didn't
strike him as credible. Myers fails to mention that Aynesworth has long
been known to be a defender of the Warren Commission and of the
lone-gunman theory. During Jim Garrison's investigation into the JFK
assassination, Aynesworth made serious allegations against the District
Attorney that were later proven false and for which Aynesworth declined
to offer any proof (see, for example, Jim Garrison, ON THE TRAIL OF THE
ASSASSINS, pp. 187-188; James DiEugenio, DESTINY BETRAYED: JFK, CUBA, AND
THE GARRISON CASE, pp. 159-160)...<
Here’s where buffs like Mr. Griffith pull out the blacklist to show how
certain personalities can’t be trusted. I’ve met Mr. Aynesworth and find
him a credible and reliable source of information. I’d love to meet
someone who’s actually met him and has come to a different conclusion. In
Mr. Griffith’s world we can’t believe Aynesworth’s assessment of Mrs.
Roberts - nor, I suppose, can we believe Mrs. Johnson (who she worked
for), or anyone else who shared an opinion about her personality. They
*must* all be wrong, because if they are right, then another key buff
factoid must die. I say - RIP.
>....* Myers also cites Assistant District Attorney Bill Alexander's negative assessment of Mrs. Roberts' credibility. Myers doesn't mention
that many researchers have raised questions about Alexander's conduct in
the assassination investigation.....<
So what? Anyone can raise questions. How about some answers? Where are
they? An army of question raising Griffiths will never add anything of
value to this discussion - only perpetuate fear and distrust among those
naive enough to embrace such ramblings. Bill Alexander’s opinion of Mrs.
Roberts was pertinent because he questioned her the afternoon of the
assassination, before Mrs. Roberts’ could be influenced by outside
sources. As it turns out, Bill Alexander’s assessment of Mrs. Roberts’
personality dovetails with many others who had met her. Interesting,
isn’t it?
>....Indeed, Alexander later claimed he did some tale spinning of his own: He claimed he made up a story about Oswald working for the FBI
because he "never much liked the federals" and figured that would keep
them out of his way!....<
That’s not correct. Mr. Alexander worked with two others to invent the
story in order to smoke out the FBI who they suspected were tapping their
phones. They were.
>.....In addition, Alexander denied Ruby was in the Mafia... Myers mentions none of this as he uses Alexander in his attempt to impeach Mrs.
Roberts....<
The title of the book is "With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder
of Officer J.D. Tippit." It is not about Jack Ruby, nor is it about Bill
Alexander.
>....* Myers notes that Mrs. Roberts waited five days--five whole days--before mentioning the brief police car visit. Myers doesn't mind
using testimony that was given months or even years later, but he thinks
it's significant that Mrs. Roberts waited five days before mentioning
seeing the police car stop in front of her house. The simple explanation
is probably that Mrs. Roberts just didn't realize the incident's
importance. Why would this event have seemed significant to a simple old
lady like Mrs. Roberts, especially so soon after the assassination?...<
That fact that Mrs. Roberts didn’t mention the police car until five days
after the assassination is only *one* of many facts that raise questions
about her statements on this subject. When all of the facts - as
well as Mrs. Roberts’ personality - are considered there is little that
remains credible.
>....* Myers also pounces on the fact that Mrs. Roberts wasn't sure of the police car's number. But Mrs. Roberts told the Warren Commission she
wasn't sure of the car's number....<
Huh? I pounced on a fact, that was a fact? How does one do that?
>...* Myers thinks he impeaches Mrs. Roberts because she might not have correctly remembered the names of two police officers for whom she said
she once worked. Is this really a reason to suggest Mrs. Roberts lied
under oath just to get attention?...<
I never said that Mrs. Roberts lied under oath to get attention. Once
again, I don’t know *why* Mrs. Roberts said what she did. The issue is
not whether Mrs. Roberts simply forgot a couple of names, and Mr.
Griffith knows it. Mrs. Roberts only recalled the incident (by her *own*
admission) because she thought it might be two officer’s who stopped by
often. She offered the names without hesitation. Problem? One of the
officers named had never worked patrol and the other hadn’t been on the
force since 1957. This demonstrates Mrs. Roberts’ mindset better than
anything, and underscores the description of her personality as noted by
those who knew her. These facts undermine buffs who insist that Roberts
story is credible.
>...Suffice it to say Myers is not nearly as picky or critical when it
comes to accepting and using testimony he likes....<
This is a further misrepresentation of my approach to this subject.
Nothing was included in "With Malice" because I "liked it." Facts are
presented, supported or denounced based on other facts. This kind of
statement says more about the buff that writes it than anything else.
>...For example, he relies repeatedly on Jack Tatum's testimony, even though Tatum waited some 15 years before telling his story....<
That’s incorrect. Jack Tatum’s name was turned over to authorities by his
boss. Had his boss not done that, Tatum’s story would still be a secret.
Ultimately, Tatum reluctantly told his story to HSCA investigators.
>....and even though a key part of Tatum's story is wholly unsubstantiated by any other eyewitness....<
The key part referred to here is Tatum’s claim that Oswald circled the
car and plugged Tippit a final time as he lay on the ground - a claim the
HSCA embraced to help bolster their "Mafia-did-it" theme. The HSCA noted
(as did I) that no other witness reported such an act. Yet, Tatum was
surely there as testified to by Tippit eyewitness Domingo Benavides, who
recalled Tatum’s red Ford and how Tatum had pulled over at the sound of
the shots.
Could others have missed what Tatum saw? A review of the other eyewitness
accounts cannot rule out Tatum’s version - a curiosity, if in fact what
Tatum describes *didn’t* happen. Scoggins had fled his cab and was
looking for a place to hide across Patton, Markham had fallen to her
knees and was cowering, her hands covering her face, and Benavides had
thrown himself down onto the floorboard of his truck.
I spoke with Tatum at length shortly after his story became known. I
found him to be credible and details he offered fit well with other facts
about the case that had not been published before - a strong indication
that his story was not made up after the fact based on published
accounts. Other reasons for believing Tatum’s account are detailed
throughout "With Malice." In the end, there is nothing in the record that
allows Tatum’s story to be rejected outright and with certainty.
>....But Myers is willing to overlook these problems because Tatum identified Oswald as the killer and because Tatum said the assailant was
walking east, away from the patrol car, which is what Myers wants us to
believe....<
Here we are treated again to Mr. Griffith’s cockeyed view of the
villainous author (that’s me). Obviously, the issues regarding Tatum’s
account were *not* overlooked - they were scrutinized very carefully as
evidenced throughout the book. Mr. Griffith’s simplistic approach to my
handling of Tatum’s account reflects his own lack of understanding of the
nuances of the case. There is no reason to accept Tatum’s account (as
Griffith claims) simply because he identified Oswald as the gunman - that
fact is well established with physical evidence as well as other
eyewitness accounts. Nor is it necessary to accept Tatum’s account
because he observed Oswald walking east on Tenth - other accounts show
that Oswald was initially walking west, then turned east just before
Tatum spotted him.
Mr. Griffith’s claim that "...Myers wants us to believe [the assailant
was walking east]..." misses a key point of the book - a strong
indication that Mr. Griffith is unable to comprehend what he reads.
>...* In his entire multi-page discussion on Mrs. Roberts, Myers conveniently fails to tell his reader that Mrs. Roberts said it was 1:03
or 1:04 when she saw Oswald STANDING at the bus stop in front of the
boarding house. Why this glaring omission? Perhaps because Myers opines
that the shooting occurred at 1:14:30. Perhaps because Myers knows that
Oswald's boarding house was 9/10ths of a mile from the Tippit murder
scene. Perhaps because Myers knows it takes a fast walker a good 11-12
minutes to walk 9/10ths of a mile. If we assume Oswald suddenly started
walking toward the Tippit scene at 1:03, he most likely would not have
arrived until 1:14 at the earliest. This would not have been soon enough,
given all the actions that witnesses said Tippit and his assailant did
prior to the shooting. Could this be why Myers fails to mention that Mrs.
Roberts said it was 1:03 or 1:04 when she saw Oswald STANDING in front of
the house?...<
Here again, a buff factoid is offered as proof of Oswald’s innocence. The
fact of the matter is, Mrs. Roberts’ never said that Oswald was standing
at the bus stop at 1:03 or 1:04 p.m. That’s why this factoid was not
mentioned in "With Malice" - because it never happened. When asked what
time it was when Oswald came in, Mrs. Roberts responded: "Now, it must
have been around 1 o’clock, or maybe a little after, because it was after
President Kennedy had been shot - what time I wouldn’t want to say..."
[6H440] Obviously, Mrs. Roberts wasn’t sure of the exact time Oswald
entered his room. Clues to the time are evident in her statements: It was
after JFK had been shot, and it was after the shooting had been announced
on television (the CBS bulletin aired at 12:40 p.m.), as a friend phoned
her to tell her to turn on the television. In a later statement, Mrs.
Roberts’ claimed that she was watching "As The World Turns" when Oswald
came in. The soap opera aired from 12:30 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. - yet on
November 22nd, the CBS program was interrupted by Walter Cronkite’s 12:40
p.m. bulletin and never returned. These facts are strong indications that
Oswald entered the rooming house *BEFORE* 1:00 p.m.
When asked by WC counsel how long Oswald stayed in his room Mrs. Roberts
replied: "Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes - just long enough, I guess,
to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping
it." [6H440] This, and the previous statement by Mrs. Roberts, is the
source of the factoid under discussion. Buffs have taken the "around 1
o’clock", treated it as if it were an exact time, and then added the "3
or 4 minutes" comment to come up with 1:03 to 1:04 p.m.
A review of Oswald’s movements show that he could have arrived at the
room during a range of time that began as early as 12:58 p.m. (You note
that this fits with Mrs. Robert’s remark that it was "around 1 o’clock.")
Early estimates of Oswald’s time in his room were put at 30-seconds
(Secret Service). In the end, the time of Oswald’s arrival (and therefore
the resulting departure) are *not* the exact times presented by buffs
like Mr. Griffith.
Oswald could have gotten to the Tippit shooting scene on foot based on
the range of times involved. Physical evidence *proves* that he was
present. All of this is presented in "With Malice."
>...* Incredibly, in attacking Mrs. Acquilla Clemmons' account that two men were involved in the Tippit shooting, Myers says she was "the ONLY
witness who claimed that two men were involved in the shooting" (p. 72).
Myers knows, and surely knew when he wrote it, that this is simply not
true. In fact, Myers himself later admits, albeit in a statement buried
in his endnotes, that eyewitness Frank Wright likewise said two men were
involved in the shooting....<
Once again, the hapless author (that’s me) is forced to bury in his
endnotes facts that he doesn’t want the reader to know. Huh? Once again,
Mr. Griffith is wrong here (surprise!). Clemmons *is* the only one who
reported two men standing near Tippit’s squad car at the time of the
shooting. Wright stated that he saw *one* man, who fled by getting in a
car that drove off. Wright believed the car was owned by the gunman and
that he drove himself.
The number of individuals present, however, is not the important part of
Clemmons’ and Wrights’ account. Watch Mr. Griffith duck the key issue:
>...Now, it's true there are some differences between his and Mrs. Clemmons' accounts, but both said two men were involved.....<
Differences? No kidding. Here’s what appears in the endnotes that Mr.
Griffith read: "The Wright and Clemmons stories have similar elements.
Both claimed that two people were at the scene of Tippit’s murder and
left in opposite directions. Clemmons claimed both were on foot, while
Wright stated one drove off in a car and the other fled on foot. The
direction of flight of the second person varies between the two accounts.
Clemmons’ suspect apparently leaves in a direction that is away from her
position, while Wright’s suspect automobile drives off toward Clemmons.
["With Malice," endnote #220]
Neither account supports the other. In addition, these two accounts are
diametrically opposed to every other eyewitness account from individuals
who were much closer to the shooting scene than either Wright or
Clemmons. Why is it that buffs insist on accepting the most unreliable
evidence over those facts which have been substantiated?
By the way, the statement in the endnote that Wright claimed that two
people were at the scene, was based on Wright’s altered version of what
happened. In his second account, Wright claimed that the gunman didn’t
drive off in the car, but instead ran alongside yelling back and forth at
the driver as he drove off. The gunman then fled on foot. ["With Malice,"
p.77] Wright’s altered version doesn’t exactly add to his credibility,
does it? Curiously, Wright’s account dovetails with what we do know
happened - the gunman fled on foot as Tatum drove off in his car. Was
Wright’s account based on these facts?
>...Furthermore, Myers also admits, again in his endnotes, that a man who claimed to have witnessed the Tippit shooting wrote a letter to a
magazine in which he said two men were involved in the murder. The man
declined to give his name, but his story is devoid of sensationalism, and
his stated reason for not wanting to identify himself is quite
understandable: He had heard that several other witnesses connected to
the assassination had died suddenly and under suspicious
circumstances....<
It is truly amazing how much this author (that’s me) "admits" in a book
that Mr. Griffith claims covers up the truth, isn’t it? Suffice it to say
that Mr. Griffith’s assessment of this tidbit is equally offbase, but
I’ll let you decide for yourself. Here’s the entire citation:
"[Note: The January 1968 edition of Playboy magazine published a letter
from a reader in New York City who, like Acquilla Clemmons, also claimed
to have seen two men shoot Tippit. "I read Playboy’s Garrison interview
with perhaps more interest than most readers," the anonymous writer said.
"I was an eyewitness to the shooting of policeman Tippit in Dallas on the
afternoon President Kennedy was murdered. I saw two men, neither of them
resembling the pictures I later saw of Lee Harvey Oswald, shoot Tippit
and run off in opposite directions. There was at least half a dozen other
people who witnessed this. My wife convinced me that I should say
nothing, since there were other eyewitnesses. Her advice and my cowardice
undoubtedly have prolonged my life -- or at least allowed me now to tell
the true story..." The letter was signed, "Eyewitness (Timid but Still
Alive)." In light of considerable testimony to the contrary, the claims
of Playboy’s anonymous writer, and other shout-from-the-darkness type
allegations, must remain footnotes until something more substantial and
supportive can be demonstrated.]" ["With Malice," endnote #200]
A half dozen witnesses that support this account????? Where are these
witnesses that impeach *everything* we know about this shooting????
Better still, why does Mr. Griffith want to put more emphasis on these
kinds of factoids???? My remarks following the quote from Playboy stand.
[more in Part 2]
Dale Myers
>...* Myers, predictably, argues that Tippit's assailant was walking east, awayfrom Tippit's car...He theorizes that the killer was walking west, but then, upon
seeing Tippit's car, suddenly turned around and began walking east. Myers' case
here is very weak. He relies on Mrs. Markham, on Jack Tatum, and on William
Scoggins....<
The case is also supported by Jimmy Burt and bricklayer, William Smith (not to be
confused with William A. Smith, Burt’s friend.)
>...But Markham and Scoggins said nothing about any change in the killer'sdirection or about him walking east in their initial statements on the
shooting....<
Mr. Griffith carefully words this statement to avoid the inevitable - Markham
stated that when she first saw Oswald, he was walking east as Tippit’s car overtook
him. In her initial statement, she told the Secret Service that Oswald was walking
along the sidewalk (exact direction not mentioned). In every statement thereafter,
Markham stated that Oswald was walking east as Tippit over took him - although
Markham changed her statements about who she observed first - Oswald or Tippit.
Scoggins, on the other hand, stated that when he first saw Oswald he was standing
still, 150 feet east of his cab - "I couldn’t say whether he was going west or was
in the process of turning around, but he was facing west when I saw him." ["With
Malice," p.64]
The point is that Oswald never passed Scoggins cab. All of the witnesses who saw
Oswald prior to Tippit stopping him said Oswald was walking west. As Tippit pulled
to the curb, Oswald was walking east - according to eyewitnesses. He turned and
walked over to Tippit’s car, a position which would have put him facing a slightly
western direction (again).
The solution to the confusing accounts of Oswald’s direction of travel is obvious.
All accounts have Oswald walking west as he approaches Scoggins cab. One hundred
and fifty feet before reaching Scoggins position, Oswald is seen walking east - as
Tippit is approaching and stops. Simple arithmetic shows that Oswald would have
changed direction as he neared the house at 400 E. Tenth - just before reaching
Scoggins’ cab. Photographs taken at the time show that Oswald and Tippit would have
had a clear line of sight to each other at the moment of the change in direction.
Did Oswald change direction because he spotted Tippit’s approaching patrol car?
There is no way to be certain, but this explanation is the best that’s been offered
in 36 years - and one I believe fits the facts squarely.
>....If they did, not one of the Secret Service, FBI, or Dallas law officers whointerviewed them noticed it or recorded it. And Tatum's account, of course, was
given over a decade after the fact. On the other hand, three well-positioned
witnesses, including Domingo Benavides, said the killer was walking WEST, toward
the car....<
This is incorrect. Benavides’ account didn’t detail which direction Oswald was
walking, as his observations were made after Tippit had stopped. Two other
witnesses - Burt and Smith (the bricklayer) - did note that Oswald’s direction of
travel (one block prior to the shooting) was west. Burt’s account is detailed in
the book. The account of William A. Smith (bricklayer) was learned after the book
went to press. Smith was the supervisor of three bricklayers working on an
apartment complex across the street from Burt. [The statements of the three
bricklayers *are* included in "With Malice."] Smith had left the three bricklayers
on the job, and headed off to lunch at a cafe near Marsalis and Tenth. As Smith
walked east on Tenth, he passed Oswald - who was headed *west* on Tenth. This
encounter occurred a moment before Burt observed Oswald. Burt’s companion (also
named William A. Smith), did not observe Oswald until after Tippit had stopped on
Tenth.
>...But Myers knows he can't tolerate this because it would mean the killercould not have been Oswald...<
Nonsense. Not only did the author (that’s me) detail Oswald’s initial westward
direction of travel, but he showed how Oswald’s later apparent change in direction
led to Tippit stopping. In either case, the buff factoid that a westward direction
of travel eliminates Oswald as the perpetrator is false. This is discussed in
detail in "With Malice." Finally, physical evidence recovered at the scene *proves*
Oswald was Tippit’s murderer.
Mr. Griffith seems unable to comprehend these simple facts surrounding Oswald’s
direction of travel.
>...* Myers misrepresents what the original police reports say about the killer'sdirection of travel as he tries to harmonize those reports with his theory that
the assailant changed directions when he spotted Tippit's car. Says Myers, "Dallas
police reports affirm that the suspect's original direction of travel was west not
east--just before the shooting" (p. 65). This is false. The police reports say
nothing about an "original" direction of travel. Those reports do not even imply
the killer changed his direction of travel just before he encountered Tippit, and
Myers surely knew this when he wrote his claim. The Dallas Police Department's
11/22/63 homicide report on the Tippit slaying says Tippit "stopped to interrogate
a suspect who was walking west on Tenth." Not a word, not a hint, about any
"original" direction or any change in direction only that the assailant was
walking west when Tippit stopped him....<
The only misrepresentation going on here is Mr. Griffith’s. The full passage that
Mr. Griffith excerpts, reads:
"...Why would J.D. Tippit stop to check the identification of this particular man?
A close inspection of the written record offers a possible solution. Jimmy Burt was
the first eyewitness to see the killer walking along the sidewalk, about a block
from where the murder occurred. At that time, the suspect was walking west. When
cab driver William Scoggins first saw the man, he was standing still - about 150
feet east of the cab - facing in his direction. "I couldn’t say whether he was
going west or was in the process of turning around, but he was facing west when I
saw him," Scoggins told the Warren Commission. Each time he gave a statement to the
authorities, Scoggins mentioned seeing Tippit’s patrol car pass directly in front
of his cab, as it cruised east on Tenth Street. Yet, according to Scoggins, the man
walking west on the sidewalk never passed his cab. The first time the cab driver
saw the man, he was 150 feet east of the cab. From the statements of Burt and
Scoggins, one could surmise that the man on the sidewalk was walking west, but was
stopped by Officer Tippit 150 feet before he reached Scoggins’ parked cab. Yet, as
Tippit was pulling to the curb, eyewitness Jack Tatum claimed the man on the
sidewalk was walking east. The same is true for eyewitness Helen Markham, who also
reported the suspect walking east along Tenth Street just as Tippit pulled to the
curb. Tatum and Markham’s statements seem to directly contradict those of Burt and
Scoggins. Or do they? Consider for a moment that all four witnesses are correct in
their observations. The man on the sidewalk was walking west. When he neared the
intersection of Tenth and Patton, the suspect would have entered a large open area,
free of foliage and parked cars capable of shielding him from the adjacent roadway.
Anyone in a passing auto could easily observe him, including J.D. Tippit. Did
something happen at that moment? The eyewitness accounts depict the suspect
traveling in two conflicting directions, with the key moment of change occurring
just east of Tenth and Patton. Is this "change in direction" the act Tippit saw
which raised his suspicion? Did the killer spot Tippit’s approaching squad car,
spin, and start back in the opposite direction? Tatum’s account of the incident
certainly raises that possibility. "I stopped at the stop sign," Tatum reported,
"and as I stopped, that’s where I first noticed the squad car pulling over to the
curb, and the man walking down the sidewalk." Tatum spotted the man walking east,
but not until Tippit was already pulling to the curb. Tatum, therefore, believed
that the man had been walking east all along. Yet prior to Tippit’s arrival on the
scene, the suspect had been walking west for more than a block. Dallas Police
reports affirm that the suspect’s original direction of travel was west - not east
- just before the shooting. Although no one can be certain of the reason why Tippit
pulled to the curb that afternoon, the sudden "change in direction" fits the facts
of the shooting more closely than the Warren Commission’s unlikely suggestion that
Tippit stopped the man based on a meager description of the suspect wanted in the
Kennedy assassination..." ["With Malice," p.64-65]
Get it? A *possible* solution. This entire passage is speculative, based on the
facts of the case. In context, it is easy to see that Mr. Griffith’s excerpt
doesn’t refer to the author’s (that’s me) misrepresentation of a Dallas police
report - but refers to the fact that initial police reports affirm that Oswald’s
direction of travel prior to being stopped was west. What the reports -
understandably - don’t clarify is that two different directions of travel were
eventually reported. Buffs have had a high old time accepting the westward
direction (which they mistakenly belief exonerates Oswald), and rejecting the
eastward direction. For the first time, "With Malice" illustrates how both accounts
may very well be correct, and inadvertently provide the solution to the reason
Tippit stopped Oswald.
>...* I don't think Myers explains why Tippit was sent to central Oak Cliff....<
Of course, I do. The top of page 44 explains it in the dispatcher’s own words. But
then, Mr. Griffith knows this - he just doesn’t accept it.
>...The explanation he cites from dispatcher Jackson seems to me to be noexplanation at all. It makes no sense...<
Really? Judge for yourself:
"...’I realized that we were draining the Oak Cliff area of available police
officers,’ dispatcher Murray Jackson recalled. ‘If there was an emergency, such as
an armed robbery or a major accident to come up, we wouldn’t have had anybody there
that would be in any close proximity to answer the call.’..."
["With Malice," p.44]
Clear enough? I think so.
>....Myers never addresses why Jackson would have singled out central Oak Cliff,where Oswald "happened" to live, when this region was well outside of [Tippit’s]
area and when there were, as Myers himself notes, other cars within 2 miles of
central Oak Cliff....
Central Oak Cliff? As opposed to - where? The fact that Oswald "happened" to lived
there is used to add some mysterious veil to the police order. Yet, thousands of
other people happened to live there as well. Is this fact also mysterious? Of
course not. This is a buff-toid that is supposed to impart some hidden meaning -
the exact nature of which we’re never told.
Mr. Griffith adds further mystery by claiming that central Oak Cliff was "well
outside" Tippit’s assigned area. First of all, Tippit was 2.6 miles from central
Oak Cliff at the time of the order - hardly a distance that could be characterized
as "well outside." Secondly, Tippit had worked central Oak Cliff in years passed
and was very familiar with the area - not a bad choice for the dispatcher to make.
Other patrol cars were in the Oak Cliff area, as I noted in "With Malice." Their
presence doesn’t negate the dispatcher’s desire to pull additional squads into the
area for the reasons given. In fact, at the time of the shooting three squads were
tied up on other calls.
Mr. Griffith’s argument here is hollow and lacks understanding of the police
situation going on in Dallas at that time. More important, it focuses attention on
irrelevant bits of information. Tippit was ordered to central Oak Cliff for sound
and true reasons. Other officers received similar orders in other parts of Dallas
for the same reason, and those reasons were explained very well by the person who
made those decisions in his own words. For buffs like Mr. Griffith, a mountain of
facts are not enough.
* * * *
I have no illusions that this will be the end of the attacks on "With Malice" by
the buff crowd. So be it.
The book is what it is - the culmination of my twenty-plus years researching the
Tippit shooting. Accept it, reject it, embrace it, spit on it. I’ve seen every
imaginable "review" since it’s release - many I anticipated, a few have been
complete surprises. Still, no one has come up with anything that would remotely
change my mind about anything I’ve written.
I expected a more factual punch to the arguments against my work. Instead the
attacks have been shoddy, ill-conceived, and laden with personal insults. If I
respond to these attacks, I am called arrogant and condescending. If I remain
silent, I am called snobby and above-it-all. Either way, I am a villain to a group
that searches for answers but refuses to answer the door when the truth comes
calling.
But then, that makes everything easy, doesn’t it? Members of the Warren Commission
(excluding Gerald Ford) are all dead now, as are many participants in the events of
November 22nd. The misguided need of the research community to blame and kick
someone has turned the research crowd against anyone who dares believe in Oswald’s
guilt. They are labeled an enemy-of-the-research-state, destined to be tarred and
feathered for the good of the republic. How goofy can you get?
Take this recent Jim Hargrove posting: "...I believe that "With Malice" was a
damage control vehicle. WFAA-TV newsreel footage, supporting Hosty's claim that
Captain Westbrook found a throwdown wallet at 10th and Patton with Oswald and
Hidell identification, was big, big news. This, of course, put that news in the
least appealing package imaginable..."
Hargrove doesn’t seem to understand that the author of "With Malice" (that’s me)
*was* the one who brought this footage to the attention of Hosty, Barrett and the
public at large. Get it? According to Mr. Hargrove, the author of the book that
brings this information to the public’s attention, does so in a way that hides the
truth. (Wouldn’t it have been easier, Jim, to simply *not* write about it in the
first place?) I’ve corrected Hargrove and John Armstrong time and time again about
this issue. Hosty’s claim was a repetition of a Barrett account, which said - in no
uncertain terms - that Westbrook had a wallet at the Tippit shooting scene. This
seems to be documented on WFAA-TV newsfilm. The idea that Westbrook "found" this
wallet, and the idea that the wallet was a "throwdown" are complete concoctions
foisted on the buffs by Armstrong and Hargrove. The facts about this matter (which
I personally researched, and wrote about in detail for the first time in "With
Malice") show that both of these concoctions are contradicted by the facts. Does
this stop the bullshit from flowing? Of course not. Armstrong and Hargrove are more
interested in promoting a pet theory about two-Oswald’s and see nothing unethical
about misrepresenting, falsifying, and concocting false "evidence" to promote their
ideas. This becomes easier for them if they can convince others not to read the one
book (the very same book they’ve based their concoction on) that shows them to be -
wrong! Convenient, eh? That leads to a very important question: If the case for
two-Oswald’s is so solid, why do Armstrong and Hargrove *need* to falsify
information???? If true, shouldn’t the evidence fit neatly into place??? To add to
this nonsense, Hargrove now claims that "With Malice" was a "damage control
vehicle." Huh? This is the kind of utter BS that undermines any shred of
respectability that buffs - who prefer to be called "researchers" - seek to
achieve.
I’ve watched the so-called research community deteriorate into a useless band of
egomaniacs whose sole purpose seems to be to perpetuate the very mystery they seek
to solve. The best minds on the subject have long since evacuated the Internet
newsgroups, leaving the loudest voices to run ramshackle over those poor
unfortunate souls who stumble in, seeking answers to this case. The postings are
filled with obscenities and insults that would make sailors blush. Ripping on
anyone posting on these newsgroups is done for shear entertainment value -
certainly not for the purpose of advancing knowledge on the case. The juvenile
mentality of these posters chases away those who know the answers, but prefer not
to spend precious time being kicked and spat upon by childish pranksters. What a
waste of a terrific resource.
Respect for those most knowledgeable on this subject has long since disappeared.
Those with years of research experience and hands-on access to living participants
are now "the enemy" to the latest generation of research wannabees. Vilifying
anyone who has come to believe that Oswald was anything short of an innocent lamb
is now common place. Anyone not falling completely on the side of Oswald’s
innocence is brandished a liar and a lone-nutter without thought or consideration.
This self-serving attitude does nothing to advance anyone’s knowledge of this case.
It certainly won’t bring anyone closer to the truth - unless the truth is that the
research community doesn’t really care about what happened on November 22nd.
Perhaps, the real reason for the community’s existence is to perpetuate the
mystery.
The handful of so-called "reviews" that claim that "With Malice" offers nothing of
value stand in the shadows of the overwhelming number of legitimate reviews that
sing its praises. Here’s a sample:
"...In his fine and powerful new book, 'With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the
Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit,' author Dale K. Myers wisely avoids the temptation
to speculate on the role Mr. Oswald played - or didn't play - in the death of the
president. But in the course of a 704 page tome, he gives compelling evidence that
Mr. Oswald, and he alone, killed Officer J.D. Tippit with three shots to the chest
and a final coup de grace to the head. So convincing is the case he makes that
anyone reading this finely crafted account may automatically conclude that Mr.
Oswald killed not only Officer Tippit but also the president. Even Mr. Myers once
believed that the killing of Officer Tippit was the work of conspirators.
Apparently all it took to convince him otherwise was the tireless task of leaving
no stone unturned. David W. Belin, assistant counsel to the Warren Commission,
once called the slaying of Officer Tippit 'the Rosetta Stone' that helped
unravel the mystery of the president's murder. But 35 years after the crime,
Mr. Myers does far more than the commission ever did in helping us understand the
murder of the police officer and why, in fact, the Rosetta Stone comparison makes
sense..." [Michael Granberry, The Dallas Morning News]
"...Myers weaves a tense recitation more suspenseful than most thrillers. Courage
and cowardice, fine police work and flatfoot mistakes, Myers serves it up with an
urgency as fresh as today's newspaper. 'With Malice' is a massive, erudite work of
scholarship that removes all doubt that Oswald murdered officer J.D. Tippit to
avoid being questioned about the Kennedy killing. It also makes a nearly
irrefutable case that Oswald acted alone at Dealey Plaza as well. Dale K. Myers'
book is that rarest of literary accomplishments, an impeccably accurate
historical account so superbly written that it's tough to put down." [Doug Allyn,
The Flint Journal]
"...This massive and well-researched book provides every detail of Tippit's
murder: the background, locale, witnesses, police officers, and investigators -
complete with photos, maps, radio reports, crime scene diagrams, autopsy reports,
and copies of numerous police department documents. Conspiracy buffs have
discounted Oswald as Tippit's killer, even claiming Tippit was an accomplice of
Oswald's. However, with sound reasoning and careful analysis of evidence, Myers
convincingly concludes that Oswald did murder Tippit and that there was no
conspiracy between the two men. Myers' narrative is crisp and suspenseful, reading
like a 'True Crime' drama with extra voltage. The gunshots, sirens, crackling
police radios, and cops frantically searching for a 'cop-killer' are all too real
and bring back vivid memories of that tragic day in American history. Myers also
cleverly looks past the conspiracy theorist's smoke and mirrors, chasing down and
debunking all the red herrings connected with Officer Tippit's murder..." [William
D. Bushnell, Independent Publisher]
"...'With Malice' is unquestionably the definitive book on the murder of Officer
J.D. Tippit. Because of the umbilical cord between this murder and that of
President Kennedy, Myers has made a very significant and scholarly contribution to
the literature on the assassination of JFK. Absolutely 'must reading' for any
student of this national tragedy. A superb true crime book which I recommend
highly." [Vincent T. Bugliosi, renowned prosecutor and author of "Helter Skelter"]
"...an authoritative, definitive account that is both accessible to lay readers
and valuable to pure historians...Myers has used the strongest persuasive appeals
available - when clear logic, authoritative testimony, and empirical evidence are
coupled with the sense that the writer is not only knowledgeable but also objective
and well-meaning, even the most skeptical reader is influenced. The supplements
supply the most critical thinker with material sufficient for hours of fascinating
study and perusal; the photos and diagrams create a sense of tangibility that
any student of the humanities would appreciate. The quality of the book is high,
the cost relatively low, and the 'heft' of it impressive. I would recommend it for
the collections of both public and academic libraries alike." [Andrew B. Preslar,
Review of Texas Books]
"Dale Myers' 'With Malice'...is an exhaustive micro-study of the other shooting
that day, forgotten by most Americans but rightly considered a Rosetta
stone...Myers has combined statements made to Dallas lawmen, testimony before the
Warren Commission, his own interviews of surviving witnesses, research into Dallas
municipal archives and even television out-takes to write an almost
minute-by-minute account, and surely a definitive one, of Tippit's encounter with
Oswald..." [Max Holland, The Nation]
"...'With Malice' by Dale Myers has finally cut through the veneer of insinuations
and innuendoes applied by the conspiracy buffs for the past thirty odd years. He
has cleared up the points of confusion brought on by the rumors and hearsay that
had no basis of facts. This book will clear up many questions for the reader about
the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit and the assassination of President Kennedy."
[James R. Leavelle, retired Dallas police homicide detective who led the Tippit
murder investigation]
"...As I read ['With Malice'], I found myself once again caught up in the tragic
events of that day in Dallas...reliving the capture of Oswald. ['With Malice'] is
thoroughly researched and well organized... [including] photographs and
illustrations I have never seen...An orderly exploration of the true facts."
[M.N. "Nick" McDonald, retired Dallas police officer who arrested Oswald]
"...['With Malice'] is by far one of the best and most interesting books
surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy that I have read. No
doubt [Myers] put in many years of research to write such an outstanding
book."[Paul Bentley, retired Dallas police detective who helped arrest Oswald]
"...'With Malice' is an exhaustive, multi-dimensional study of this key episode
of November 22, 1963. Myers has gathered and reexamined the voluminous primary
sources, has uncovered new information and material - and for the first time - has
melded this material to come up with a credible conclusion of the guilt of Lee
Oswald in the murder of J.D. Tippit. Scores of documents, diagrams and photographs
add to the clarity of Myers' text and assist in making this 700 page volume both
attractive and useful. While Myers cannot answer all the questions relating to
this incident, since the murder of both chief participants silenced motives and
previous actions, the author is able to dispel much previous incorrect speculation
and clear up numerous controversies. Dale Myers has written the authoritative book
on the murder of Officer Tippit. His book will stand as a major contribution to the
truth of the events in Dallas on November 22, 1963." [Richard B. Trask, archivist
and author of "Pictures of the Pain" and "That Day in Dallas"]
"At last a comprehensive study of an often overlooked aspect of the Kennedy
assassination: the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit. Dale Myers has conducted
exhaustive research on the subject and used logical reasoning in his conclusions.
He has mastered the art of blending documented evidence and personal interviews
into resolving an often debated murder mystery. Though there will always be
doubters, Myers has conclusively answered most of the questions regarding the
guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald in the murder of Officer Tippit. Supplemented with an
impressive array of photographs and endnotes, 'With Malice' is the definitive study
on the subject and should remain so for many years to come." [Larry A. Sneed,
author of "No More Silence: An Oral History of the Assassination of President
Kennedy"]
"One does not have to accept all of Dale Myers' findings to recognize the value of
this, the first serious study of the Tippit murder, a vital element in the
assassination story long neglected by official and unofficial probers alike."
[Anthony Summers, author of "Conspiracy"]
"Without a doubt, ['With Malice'] is one of the best books on the JFK assassination
I've ever read. It is thoroughly researched, well-written and filled with many new
details - all and all, a very scholarly and extremely interesting work...I expect
that this will be the definitive work on the Tippit case...definitely a 'must
read'..." [Jean Davison, author of "Oswald's Game"]
"I still wonder what would have been the consequences for Dallas had Oswald
escaped? Until author Dale Myers so painstakingly retraced the event, the person
I consider a national hero, Officer Tippit, had remained largely a faceless player
in the JFK assassination cast. Yet Tippit's showdown with Oswald had a momentous
impact on the outcome. Thanks to Myers, maybe history will remember the price
Tippit paid in the performance of duty in 1963." [James Ewell, former Dallas
Morning News reporter]
"...a fascinating web of fact vs. fantasy, of the frantic confusion that began
with the shots that killed the President on November 22, 1963 ...Thirty-five
years later, Myers has wrapped up the story. His answers make sense. They're
supported by pillars of fact and analysis. They should stand." [from the foreword,
Robert H. Johnson, Associated Press (Ret.)]
"Myers is the author of a truly remarkable book. The text is unclouded and
unlike most other assassination related books, well documented. There is no
speculation or innuendo leading the reader to false assumptions. Myers states his
case in a loud, clear voice and in my view a voice of reason. What Myers has done
with the photographs is spectacular. I have to believe this is the best and
probably the only true compilation of Tippit related photographs...Over the years,
I developed a sense that others had means, motive and opportunity to carry out the
attack on Tippit...After reading this book, I believe Myers has conclusively proven
Oswald is guilty..." [David B. Perry, assassination researcher]
I remain grateful that my work has found an audience willing to listen, comprehend,
and weigh those facts as I have found them. It has been more than gratifying to
learn that those who knew and worked with J.D. Tippit have embraced my book as the
definitive source of truth about the man and his murder. I remain optimistic that
the work will stand the test of time and offer an oasis of truth for those future
generations seeking to understand this tragic event.
Dale K. Myers
"With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit"
Robert Harris
> For the last few months, Michael T. Griffith has posted numerous messages
> denouncing the book, "With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of
> Officer J.D. Tippit," (www.oakcliffpress.com), the only book dealing with
> the facts surrounding the shooting of the Dallas police officer. In his
> early posts on the subject, Mr. Griffith made derogatory remarks about
> the book, it’s author (me), and my motivation for researching and writing
> the book.
>
> It apparently never occurred to Mr. Griffith that these early posts only
> proved what a first class boob he was
Dale,
I too, have not read your book, but I did read your article in the Toaster
magazine, most of which could have been taken straight out of the pages of
*Case Closed*, and which was replete with the same, unconscionable
misinformation.
I have also read a number of your postings in this newsgroup, including
your demonstrably false claim that the wound locations in the two victims
at Z223, aligned perfectly with a trajectory to the alleged 6th floor,
TSBD sniper's nest.
I challenged you repeatedly, to justify that claim, but you evaded my
questions continually, and have not to this day, answered me, other than
to post a few personal insults.
To your credit, you did, through another poster, and after a dozen or so
requests, finally offer documentation for your claim that there was a
preponderance of evidence in support of your argument that Oswald was
walking west when he encountered Tippit.
But that's when we discovered why you were so reluctant to document this
claim, didn't we, Dale? Almost every one of your witnesses said the guy
they saw, was *NOT* Oswald.
Tell me Dale, did you include those same *verbatim* citations in your
book, or did you just promise your readers that the witnesses ID'd Oswald?
The point of all this Dale, is that anyone who has closely followed your
postings in this newsgroup, is likely to come to the same conclusion that
Michael and I did - that you have for whatever reason, become an advocate
for the LN cause.
> for denouncing a book he’d never
> actually read. No matter. Posters like Mr. Griffith pontificate on
> subjects they know little about for only one reason - to bamboozle anyone
> who will listen to their self-proclaimed brillance.
Dale, do you ever get beyond these personal attacks?
>
> When it was pointed out to Mr. Griffith (repeatedly and relentlessly)
> that he should actually read the book before spouting an opinion, Mr.
> Griffith finally caved in and bought the "vile" book he had been
> condemning for so long.
I think it's pill 'n chill time Dale.
>
> In remarkably short order, Mr. Griffith announced that "...WITH MALICE,
> is hardly the ‘definitive’ work on the subject that some have claimed it
> to be,
Only the 'nutters and the pseudo-buffs, Dale.
If you write anything at all that advocates Oswald as the LN, they'll
promptly nominate you for a Pulitzer.
> and Myers certainly doesn't establish Oswald's alleged guilt in
> the slaying as an ‘historical fact...’ " (Surprise!) I say "remarkably
> short" because Mr. Griffith hadn’t even finished the book ("....I am
> exactly halfway through the book at this time...") that took me twenty
> years to research and nearly three years to write before reaching his
> rather predictable, predetermined conclusion. How can anyone hold Mr.
> Griffith in respect after these kind of antics?
Dale, you are going to end this tirade and discuss issues someday, aren't you?
>
> Having read only half of the book, Mr. Griffith writes: "...Already I
> have found a surprising number of important omissions, contradictions,
> errors, and questionable assertions. Time and again Myers reaches
> conclusions that are refuted or contradicted by his own raw data. Some of
> his omissions are rather troubling..." I’m not going to dwell on Mr.
> Griffith’s ability to bring sound reasoning to this subject. Frankly,
> he’s an easy target. Instead, I propose to take a look - just this once
> - at the facts that he claims I have omitted and misrepresented in "With
> Malice:"
>
> >...* I have already mentioned in previous threads that Myers fails to
mention in the text of the book that the only witness who checked his
> watch when he arrived on the scene, T. F. Bowley, said his watch read
> 1:10 p.m. ...<
Hooray!! An actual discussion of issues!
>
> "With Malice" is a compilation of *true* facts about the Tippit shooting.
> It is not a refutation of every factoid that conspiracy buffs, like Mr.
> Griffith, have held true and dear to their hearts since 1963. I don’t
> think anyone could ever address in a single volume all of the crap that’s
> been written about this case. Instead, I treated the subject as if it
> hadn’t been written about before, and in my humble opinion, it hadn’t -
> not with the kind of scrutiny it deserved.
Er.. Not yet, I guess:-(
>
> During the course of researching, fact checking, and double-checking
> there were a number of buff factoids that clearly didn’t belong on the
> pedestals that conspiracy buffs have elevated them to. The Bowley time
> check is one of them. The primary reason is that Bowley’s transmission to
> the dispatcher was recorded - yes, *recorded* - at a time that was
> inconsistent with the time check he provided ( a time check that wasn’t
> given to police until 10 days after the murder). Curiously, the time of
> Bowley’s recorded transmission meshes very well with all of the other
> verifiable, and documented time sources.
But how did you confirm that the time of Bowley's recorded transmission
was accurate?
Frankly, you may very well be right on this one, but I think you need to
explain how you are able to eliminate the possibility that the recorded
time was correct, or that it could not have been altered.
> This fact is a sore spot with
> conspiracy buffs because it cuts the heart out of the argument that
> Oswald wouldn’t have had time to get to the murder scene to commit the
> act.
It's not a "fact" Dale, until you prove it.
Perhaps more importantly, you have ignored Michael's actual point. His
complaint was that you didn't mentioned Bowley's statment about the time.
Why did you fail to mention this fact about Bowley, especially since he
did actually check his watch?
Don't you think it would have been better to have laid *ALL* the facts out
in the main body of the chapter, and let the readers decide for themselves
what happened?
> In the end, Bowley’s time check of 1:10 p.m. is a poor argument for
> Oswald’s innocence. In light of all of the other evidence in the case, it
> is clear - to reasonable minds anyway - that Bowley’s 1:10 p.m. time
> check *must* have been in error.
Good thing for your readers that they have you to decide that for them, eh
Dale:-)
> This is one corner that the buffs can’t
> paint their way out of with the available facts.
Please continue, Gerald.
>
> In the quote above, Mr. Griffith is more intent on focusing on the fact
> that Bowley’s time check is relegated to an endnote in "With Malice."
> Pointing this out is supposed to help vilify the hapless author (that’s
> me) who didn’t think anyone would read the endnotes he spent so much time
> compiling to support his thesis. This is nit-picking of the highest
> order.
Well, it seems to me that *time* is the critical issue here, isn't it
Dale? Therefore, it would certainly seem that the only witness to actually
check his watch, should get a 10 on the importance scale. Therefore, his
recollections should get front page coverage.
Why didn't you feature him in that part of the book, Dale? It wasn't
because he contradicted your own theory was it?
>
>
> >...* Equally disturbing is the fact that Myers never tells his reader
that Helen Markham, on whom Myers relies heavily to establish what
> happened and to indict Oswald, said the shooting occurred at around 1:06.
> Perhaps Myers didn't think he could afford to mention this because he had
> already noted that Markham was en route to her regular 1:12-1:15 bus when
> she witnessed the Tippit slaying, that she said she left her apartment
> building at 1:04, that it would have taken her about 2 minutes to walk
> from apartment building to the Tippit scene, that she walked to her bus
> stop EVERY DAY, that she had a routine of leaving at 1:00 to catch her
> bus. Myers opines that Markham erred substantially, by 7 minutes, in her
> recollection of when she left her apartment building, even though she
> noted that as she was leaving she glanced at a clock (an electronic clock
> in the laundry room of her apartment building) and that the clock read
> 1:04...<
>
> Here again, we have examples of Mr. Griffith’s attempts to demonize the
> author: "...disturbing...Myers never tells his reader...Myers didn’t
> think he could afford to mention this..." etc. The real problem
> here is Mr. Griffith can’t see the forest for the trees.
Rather than worrying about being "demonized" (your term, not Michael's)
why don't you just explain why you also withheld that information from
your readers?
>
> After posting that "...Myers didn’t think he could afford to mention
> [Markham’s 1:06 p.m. shooting time]...," Mr. Griffith notes what I *did*
> write, that Markham claimed to have left at 1:04 p.m. for a 1:15 p.m.
> bus. It would have taken her two and half minutes to reach Tenth and
> Patton, putting her arrival at about 1:06:30 p.m. The shooting, according
> to eyewitnesses, would have occurred about thirty seconds later - 1:07
> p.m. - *IF* Mrs. Markham’s time estimates were correct. Yet all of the
> other supported time checks point to a shooting time close to 1:14:30
> p.m.
But Dale, didn't you just say that "all the other" evidence also
contradicts Bowley?? How many others contradict "all the others"??
>
> This is a classic case of selective reasoning. Buffs opine that Markham
> was right about her time estimate, which of necessity negates Oswald
> getting to the scene on foot (Oswald is innocent!), yet on the other hand
> Markham is wrong about identifying Oswald as the gunman.
What! You mean those dirty buffs are saying that witnesses might not be
100% correct on all issues or 100% wrong, with no inbetween!?
That's a very lame argument Dale. Each witness statement needs to be
assessed individually. If Mrs. Markham had indeed, established a regular
routine, leaving her home at the same time each day, then certainly we
would give more weight to that part of her story than to others.
Anyway, I've exceeded the 32k limit of my news program - more later.
Robert Harris
<massive snippage>
Jeremy
<mete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
The buffs
> purpose is to perpetuate the mystery they seek to "solve." That's it
> in a nutshell.
Or should that be "nut's hell"?
This NG is simply a place for people who like to argue. The assassination
is a convenient and easy vehicle, and perhaps a more respectable topic
than others prone to the same kind of intense, self-important
"discussion."
The only mind you can ever change is your own. It's ironic that these
buffs pride themselves on the very attribute they lack most ‹ critical
thinking.
jeremy
AEFFECTS
A Sofen clone wrote:
<snip>
>... It's ironic that these
>buffs pride themselves on the very attribute they lack most ‹ critical
>thinking.
>
>jeremy
Jeez...'another' flag draped weeper with 'blood red tears' bowing down at the
altar of Posnerism. Science ain't going to help you figure this one out Jermey.
As for your "...lack most < critical thinking." Your in way over your head
here, this deed was 'political' and if your a student of critical thinking and
logic, you know your comment above is a *farce*.
DavidH
Michael T. Griffith
Scoggins wasn't watching the man the whole time, and his view was partially
obstructed. Bottom line: In his initial statement he said the killer was
walking west when he stopped near Tippit's car, period.
Markham's initial statements give no hint of direction--that aspect only came
later.
I don't think Burt and Smith support the change-in-direction theory. This is
your interpretation of their comments based on your reconstructional inferences
of the statements of other witnesses.
Yes, you start by presenting your change-in-direction theory as just that, a
possible solution, but later in your book you almost assume a priori that the
killer changed direction.
Again, if any of the witnesses told the police the killer changed direction,
they failed to record a single word to this effect.
I agree that your getting Oswald to Tippit's car in time does not require that
he changed direction. You're quoting from a message I posted when I noted
therein that I was halfway through the book. Later in the book you make it
clear that your scenario for getting Oswald to the Tippit scene does not depend
on a change in direction. I shall point this out in my forthcoming detailed
critique.
Your counter arguments on Jackson's explanation for why Tippit was in central
Oak Cliff don't solve anything. Officer Mentzel was on duty there. Other
districts were only partially manned (by patrol cars that were working two
districts at once). Three districts were uncovered. So why would Tippit AND
Nelson have been sent to central Oak Cliff, especially when other cars were
being told to go to Elm and Houston? You never explain this. There was no
good reason at all to single out central Oak Cliff for the sending of TWO
additional cars, when Mentzel was already in Dist. 91, when other patrol cars
were covering two areas, and when three areas were uncovered. Furthermore, the
dispatcher had just put out an "attention all squads" to come to Dealey Plaza.
You don't explain any of this. Jackson's claim that he sent Tippit and Nelson
to central Oak Cliff because that area was being "drained" doesn't wash at all.
It was not "drained." There was a patrol car assigned there already. Other
areas were similarly "drained," but received no such attention. It doesn't
wash.
Furthermore, nowhere do you explain why it took the DPD **MONTHS** to discover
the 12:45 order to Tippit and Nelson, nor why they "missed" this instruction
the first time when they prepared that transcript under the instruction to
record ALL transmissions relating to the deaths of Tippit and Kennedy.
Further, you don't explain why for months no one in the DPD seemed to know
anything about the 12:45 instruction, including the three DPD supervisors who
tried to explain Tippit's presence in Oak Cliff to the WC, even though this was
a subject of intense interest.
Mike Griffith
MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH
Visit my Real Issues Home Page
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MGriffith_2/
"No other success can compensate for failure in the home."
-- David O. McKay
Jfkcia
>whatsoever they
>> > > were acquainted.
From William Crowe, comedian and emcee at Ruby's club: "and then having what I
had thought or recalled to have possibly seen Oswald in the club the week
before and then working for the man who shot Oswald." He added, "I might say
this. Bill Willis, the drummer in the band said he seemed to remember Lee
Harvey Oswald sitting in the front row on Thursday night, right in the corner
of the stage and runway." Also, Robert Litchfield told the Warren Commission
that Oswald sat at a table in front of him at the club and spoke with Ruby for
twenty minutes. "This fellow came out (Oswald) and then Jack came out and got
me and I went back there with." him." (WCH VL 15 pgs105, 106) jfkcia.com
Gary Mack
Jfkcia <jfk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000116154357...@ng-fu1.aol.com...
> > > As for Oswald knowing Ruby, there is NO credible evidence
> >whatsoever they
> >> > > were acquainted.
>
> From William Crowe, comedian and emcee at Ruby's club: "and then having
what I
> had thought or recalled to have possibly seen Oswald in the club the week
> before and then working for the man who shot Oswald." He added, "I might
say
> this. Bill Willis, the drummer in the band said he seemed to remember Lee
> Harvey Oswald sitting in the front row on Thursday night, right in the
corner
> of the stage and runway."
Crowe said "possible," not "certainly" or anything else conclusive. Oswald
was out in Irving Thursday night at the Paine's house.
>Also, Robert Litchfield told the Warren Commission
> that Oswald sat at a table in front of him at the club and spoke with Ruby
for
> twenty minutes. "This fellow came out (Oswald) and then Jack came out and
got
> me and I went back there with." him." (WCH VL 15 pgs105, 106) jfkcia.com
And this was a day/time that conflicted with Oswald's known whereabouts.
Michael T. Griffith
man in the account he gave to the Nashes because he was afraid it would be too
controversial and/or might end up causing him physical harm. Perhaps when he
spoke with journalist Earl Golz he felt more at liberty to reveal more of what
he saw.
It's worth remembering that the FBI concluded there was no reason to question
Wright's sincerity or truthfulness.
Michael T. Griffith
>Thanks for the posts. I am trying to figure out the specific
>pathology of the buffs. You are correct in every respect. The buffs
>purpose is to perpetuate the mystery they seek to "solve." That's it
>in a nutshell.
What you might want to analyze, instead, is why you are in a tiny minority that
is about the same size of the minority that still believes OJ is innocent. I
don't know if your fellow lone-gunman theorists have brought you up to date on
current events, but poll after poll for the last few decades has shown that a
strong majority of the American people reject the lone-gunman theory. Some
polls put the number as high as 80 percent, with about 5 percent undecided.
It is laughable, if not a little weird, for you folks to suggest there is
something "wrong" with those who posit a conspiracy in the JFK case, when YOU
are the ones who are in the distinct minority on the issue.
Here's just a small sampling of some of the people who have concluded there was
a conspiracy of some kind in the JFK assassination (an asterisk for government
officials indicates they are deceased or no longer serve in government):
Senator Richard Schweiker*
Senator Richard Russell (who served on the WC!)*
Professor David Wrone, University of Wisconsin
Dr. Robert Livingston, former director of two NIH institutes and a renowned
authority
on the human brain
Professor G. Robert Blakey, Notre Dame University, and the former chief counsel
of the HSCA
Gary Cornwell, former federal prosecutor and former deputy chief counsel for
the
HSCA
Senator Christopher Dodd
Robert MacNeil, formerly of the MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour on PBS
Gaeton Fonzi, former HSCA investigator
Edwin Lopez, former HSCA investigator
Ambassador William Atwood, former special assistant to the U.S. delegation at
the
UN*
Professor Hugh-Trevor Roper, Regius Professor of Modern History, Oxford
Congressman Richard Preyer, former HSCA chairman*
Governor Jesse Ventura, Minnesota
Governor Jerry Brown, California*
Frank Mankiewicz, former aide to Robert F. Kennedy
Professor Robert Gregory, Associate Professor of Public Policy
and Administration Victoria University of Wellington, NEW
ZEALAND
The list could go on for pages.
The tactic of trying to paint your opponents as mentally ill, unstable, or
dangerously ignorant is not only sleezy, it is widely recognized as an
indication that the accuser's case is very weak on the facts. In your case,
such a tactic is downright bizarre, given the fact that it is lone-gunman
theorists who are in the distinct minority with their views on the subject.
Mike Griffith
Michael T. Griffith
your section on the fingerprints. Was it because this would have tended to
refute your theory that a bystander made the prints?
Let's quickly review what you yourself acknowledge is shown in this footage: We
see eyewitness Helen Markham and DPD Captain W. R. Westbrook standing near the
passenger door of Tippit's car. Mrs. Markham appears to be showing Westbrook
how the killer approached the car. Her arms move out in front of her in a
gesture suggesting how the killer leaned on the car. Captain Westbrook leans
down and looks at the area of the car near the passenger side window.
Westbrook jerks his head up and spots crime lab investigator Pete Barnes across
the car and speaks to him. Barnes nods his head and starts off to apparently
retrieve a fingerprint kit. Barnes was later photographed dusting the area
Westbrook had indicated for prints!
And, in this same footage we also see Detective Paul Bentley, Sergeant Bud
Owens, and Captain George Doughty investigating what apparently are
fingerprints on the right front quarter panel of Tippit's car. This area was
also dusted for fingerprints!
Why didn't you say a word about any of this in your section on the fingerprints
themselves? You don't bring them to the reader's attention until page 292,
which is one chapter and 14 pages after you try to convince the reader that a
bystander made the prints.
In spite of the WFAA footage, and in spite of Jimmy Burt's account that the
killer touched the passenger side of the car, you rely on, guess who, Jack
Tatum yet again. 14 years after the event, Tatum "specifically recalled" that
the killer had his hands in his pockets--and you take his word over Burt's
account and over the WFAA footage.
Anyway, in spite of your refusal to follow the evidence where it clearly leads,
you do deserve great credit for mentioning the WFAA footage at all and for
admitting the prints are not Oswald's. Sadly,I doubt that most other
lone-gunman theorists would have done so.
Michael T. Griffith
book. My newsgroup software won't allow me to exceed about 31K; and so rather
than mess with splitting it up again into two parts, I've just posted the
longer version on my JFK web page.
Gary Mack
Tony Pitman <a...@southern.co.nz> wrote in message
news:387aa06d...@news.southern.co.nz...
No, Tony, there is NO possibility of that.
> In fact, with all the dicking around with evidence that has taken
> place in this case it would be par for the course.
> Do any of the three men named in the records actually look anything
> like the Tramps?
Yes they do. They and family members have been interviewed by pro- and
anti-conspiracy people and there is no doubt that the three men are the
tramps in the pictures.
> Odd how the doesn't seem to be one photo of any of them from back in
> those days or when they still retained a similar appearance, if any.
Actually, there are a few photos. The tv station I worked for talked with
a relative of Frenchy and she said they had some pics of him back in the
60's. We never followed up because all of a sudden the story was on A
Current Affair and he was getting paid big bucks.
> The records would not have to be latter day forgeries as such. The
> names could have been switched at the time, even using names of three
> men who were actually picked up that day as vagrants. The cops did a
> pretty big trawl that day and more people may have been picked up than
> we know about.
> That is how I would have handled it in order to cover for three men
> who's release had been ordered because they were spooks or undercover
> for whatever reason, phony or othjerwise. They had been seen by too
> many people you see, including the press.
Maybe so, but in the real world, those were the three tramps, and their
records were ignored because THEY were ignored.
>
> Tony
>
>
Michael T. Griffith
writes:
<< Since your book and Case Closed, taken in their entirety show how obvious it
is that LHO acyting alone is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn,
people like Mr. Griffith are resorted to nit picking the details. >>
This is a markedly different line about CASE CLOSED than the one you took in
our e-mail dialogue. I'm curious as to how you can say this about CASE CLOSED
given your admissions and statements on the book in our e-mail discussion.
When we discussed the book via e-mail, you acknowledged Posner erred repeatedly
in his claims about Oswald's marksmanship and about his characterization of the
results of the "Oswald" rifle tests--these are hardly peripheral,
inconsequential issues. You said you didn't necessarily accept, and quickly
declined to continue to defend, Posner's wild tree-branch-collision and
split-bullet theories to explain the Tague curb mark and Tague wounding. You
declined to defend his SBT diagram. To cite just a few examples.
So I'm surprised to see you come on in the newsgroups and say CASE CLOSED shows
the only logical conclusion is that Oswald acting alone shot Kennedy.
Mike Griffith
Michael T. Griffith
nos...@mindspring.com (Jeremy) writes:
>This NG is simply a place for people who like to argue. The assassination
>is a convenient and easy vehicle, and perhaps a more respectable topic
>than others prone to the same kind of intense, self-important
>"discussion."
>
>The only mind you can ever change is your own. It's ironic that these
>buffs pride themselves on the very attribute they lack most ‹critical
>thinking).
I don't think this NG is simply a place for people who like to argue. And,
while perhaps the only mind you'll ever change is your own, I don't think
that's true of others who post here. To judge from the steady stream of
e-mails that I get from lurkers week after week, many people do in fact form
new opinions based on what they learn in this and in other JFK discussion
media.
Also, I presume that by "buffs" you're referring to anyone, lone-gunman
theorist or conspiracist, who has a strong interest in the case and who has
taken some time to study it because of that interest. If so, you're at least
using the word correctly.
Tony Pitman
>
>Robert Harris <cwo...@spinn.net> wrote in message
>> > >
>> > > Because they had no idea who heard/remembered what or how much.
>> >
>> > No, they were irrelevant to the investigation of the assassination.
>>
>>
>> That's silly Gary.
>>
>> Just hours after the assassination, the FBI should not have had any idea
>> who was or was not involved. Even if they were totally convinced that
>> Oswald was a shooter, they didn't know if he had accomplices, people
>> waiting to help him escape, or were supporting him in any of a multitude
>> of other ways.
>
>It's clear the cops didn't consider the tramps supects in the
>assassination, so why should anyone else?
Well it's not clear to me Gary.
We know what they have said about that but I'm not sure it's
believeable.
>> Elrod was alleged to have been carrying a rifle near DP that day. They
>> *HAD* to interrogate him, or they would have been far more negligent than
>> even the most radical buffs ever claimed they were.
>
>So what happened to the "rifle"? Surely the cops searched for it when
>they caught him. In other words, the report of a man with his rifle was
>erroneous or did not refer to Elrod.
Yes that's right.
He was picked up walking in an area where someone had reported seeing
a man walking near railroad tracks carrying a rifle. Whoever this was
could have been anybody and I doubt very much it would have been
Elrod.
I would love to know who it was tho.
I wonder if it may have been the same man who someone reported seeing
in or near DP with a lever action Winchester type rifle just after the
shooring.
A reasonable one tho Gary.
McGhee would be likely to know best what was going on.
>> But tell me Gary, did Cindy explain why those particular records were just
>> "forgotten" unlike forty gazillion other arrest records that were required
>> by law to be archived and made available to other law enforcement
>> agencies??
>
>What "law" requires ALL records to be saved and made available, Bob? As a
>matter of fact, routine records are destroyed after a period of time.
>We're probably all lucky the tramp and other records survived at all.
Doesn't this case remain open?
It should and therefore all records should have been kept and not
destroyed.
Especially given the nature and importance of the case.
>> So, let's summarize your position here, Gary.
>>
>> You are claiming that all these arrest records were just accidentally
>> "lost" by the DPD. Is that right?
>
>No, they were not "lost," just filed away and fortgotten, according to
>what little is known about them.
I find it difficult to believe that such records could simply be
forgotten with all the books written on this and the interest in the
tramps and what took place at the DPD during that weekend.
They should at the very least have come out during the HSCA hearings.
>> And you are also claiming that the FBI never bothered to interview people
>> who were arrested specifically on suspicion of being involved in
>> assassinating Kennedy. Correct?
>
>No, not correct? Perhaps the FBI did interview the tramps and no report
>was made or has yet surfaced.
Either that or the arrest records that finally surfaced are phony as I
believe they very well could be and these three were released right
away because of pressure from their employers.
It makes no sense to me that these three, who were found in such a
place right after such a crime, dressed as they were yet claiming to
be hobos (we are told), would be released so quickly yet an
insignificant individual such as Elrod is held for the weekend. Same
goes for Braden really and when his real identity was discovered they
still did not seem interested in him much. Only we of the CT seem to
give a damn.
>> And since the FBI professes to have maintained *NO* records in regard to
>> the other suspects, I guess you also buy that story as well. You actually
>> believe that our nation's top law enforcment bureau didn't even document
>> the existence of other suspects in the Kennedy case - is that correct?
>
>Were the tramps still suspects AFTER their arrest? Apparently not,
>according to the record.
No you're right but that could well be because those in charge knew
who they really were and had a damn good reason to leave it alone.
You're probably right there Gary.
The records mean nothing but because they do not name the real three
tramps.
Tony
Tony Pitman
>
>Tony Pitman <a...@southern.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:387aa06d...@news.southern.co.nz...
>>
Well OK, But I still have my doubts as the tall guy sure looks like
Charlie Harrelson to me and I have never had a satisfactory answer
about the matching "hearing aids" worn by the old tramp and the lead
cop.
There is no way a young uniform cop should be hearing impaired. He
should never get by his physical.
Tony
joez...@my-deja.com
a...@southern.co.nz (Tony Pitman) wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2000 19:12:14 GMT, joez...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >In article <cworks-0301...@192.168.1.200>,
> >> In article <s71ra6i...@corp.supernews.com>, "Gary Mack"
> >> <gm...@jfk.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Judging by the news film shot from BEHIND Oswald, which shows
the blinding
> >> > lights of the media, I doubt very much that Oswald could have
recognized
> >> > anyone to his front or left, which is where Ruby was at that
moment.
> >> >
whatsoever they
> >> > were acquainted.
> >>
> >>
> >> I guess the fact that the HSCA polygraph committee unanimously
concluded
> >> that Ruby showed clear signs of deception when he denied knowing
Oswald is
> >> not "credible evidence", eh?
> >>
course to
> >> Ruby's apartment when he was stopped by Tippit.
> >>
> >
> >not run on a direct course to Ruby's apartment. You are presuming
> >Oswald's final destination was Ruby's apartment. For all you know, he
> >could have been going to Ruby's mechanic's apartment.
> >
> >
> >> And of course, none of the people who saw Oswald and Ruby together,
> >> including employees and Ruby's club were "credible"?
> >>
> >> Are you also claiming that John Elrod was not "credible" when he
reported
> >> that Oswald saw Jack Ruby at a motel room meeting? Of course,
since he was
> >> 100% accurate in everything else he described about the weapons
thieves, I
> >> guess he *only* fails the credibility test on that one issue.
> >>
> >
> >Curiously, there was a man in Dallas who looked like Oswald who was
> >involved in running a gun shop, and was under investigation for gun
> >running - John Thomas Masen. Does Elrod say he saw a man who
> >*identified himself as Oswald* involved w/Ruby, or did Masen say he
saw
> >a man who just *looked* like Oswald? The distinction is very
important.
> >
> >For if he only *looked* like Oswald, then all you may have is an
> >incident involving Masen & Ruby.
>
> But there was an Oswald lookalike who was identifying himself as
> Oswald also.
Please advise what episode(s) you are talking about. It was not the
shooting range episode, certainly. The man there didn't identify
himself.
> He appears to have had a whole set of Oswald ID papers right down to
> an Oswald drivers lisence, which the real Oswald did not have. Ladies
> who worked at the Texas Dept of Public Safety have confirmed this.
And the source of this is?
Please provide, as I am unfamiliar with this story.
>And
> if you read Hosty's book he talks of such a wallet with exactly this
> set of ID, liscence+ and all being found at the Tippit murder scene,
as
> told to him by an FBI colleague who was there and saw this for
> himself. Of course this "disappeared" almost immediately but it's
> funny how it turned out that such a liscence did indeed exist.
The FBI colleague was Barrett. Barrett says he never saw the ID
personally, but was asked whether he knew a "Lee Harvey Oswald"
or "Alek Hidell" at the Tippit scene. There's no evidence from Barrett
that a license ever existed. What if what was found was the ID's we
already know about?
The details are in Myers book.
Most likely, Oswald lost his wallet when he reached for his revolver.
This wallet was most likely transported to the Texas Theatre when the
officers at the Tippit scene heard a suspect was trapped therein.
Hosty covers how the wallet could have been mistakenly accounted for as
from Oswald's pants pocket, as I recall.
> There was a report of this man using this liscence as proof of age to
> buy two bottles of beer that very morning also when Oswald was at work
> in the TSBD so it seems he was in town that day.
This report, how strong is it? Is it merely the recollection of
somebody after the event? What do you suspect the purpose of this beer-
buying episode was?
There's only a couple of possibilities. Let me know what your take on
this is. Here's what I came up with:
1. Somebody else bought beer using some other ID, and whoever
remembered this as Oswald, simply remembered it wrong.
2. A conspirator wanted to frame Oswald for skipping work and buying
beer (Oswald wasn't underage, so they couldn't be framing Oswald for
underage drinking).
3. An underage conspirator swiped the Oswald ID from 'Conspiracy
Central' when nobody was looking, so he could go out and buy himself
some brew.
4. A conspirator who didn't have a clue about how to frame Oswald for
the assassination thought it would somehow advance the conspiracy by
having the non-drinking Oswald be seen buying beer using the a driver's
license for the non-driving Oswald, at a time when the real Oswald was
at work. Do you really consider this more reasonable than #1, above?
Can you come up with a reasonable explanation for a conspirator to do
this?
Unless you can come up with something better, I'd vote for #1. Where
would your vote go?
> The main problem for me about this is whether or not it was Masen. It
> could have been but I have a feeling that it was somebody else.
>
For the above episode, I suspect nothing more than mistaken ID. For the
rifle range episode, Masen is a candidate.
> Tony
Louise Ward
<joez...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:874nhv$ei$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <38757f1e...@news.southern.co.nz>,
> a...@southern.co.nz (Tony Pitman) wrote:
> > On Wed, 05 Jan 2000 19:12:14 GMT, joez...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > >In article <cworks-0301...@192.168.1.200>,
> > > cwo...@spinn.net (Robert Harris) wrote:
> > >> In article <s71ra6i...@corp.supernews.com>, "Gary Mack"
> > >> <gm...@jfk.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Judging by the news film shot from BEHIND Oswald, which shows
> the blinding
> > >> > lights of the media, I doubt very much that Oswald could have
> recognized
> > >> > anyone to his front or left, which is where Ruby was at that
> moment.
> > >> >
> > >> > As for Oswald knowing Ruby, there is NO credible evidence
> whatsoever they
> > >> > were acquainted.
> > >>
> > >> That's quite a sweeping statement, Mr. Mack.
> > >>
> > >> I guess the fact that the HSCA polygraph committee unanimously
> concluded
> > >> that Ruby showed clear signs of deception when he denied knowing
> Oswald is
> > >> not "credible evidence", eh?
$$$$ New Orleans DA Jim Garrison found a women who worked at Ruby's
nightclub the Carousel who made a statement that Jack Ruby had introduced
her to Oswald.
John McAdams
<coldf...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> That's quite a sweeping statement, Mr. Mack.
>> > >>
>> > >> I guess the fact that the HSCA polygraph committee unanimously
>> concluded
>> > >> that Ruby showed clear signs of deception when he denied knowing
>> Oswald is
>> > >> not "credible evidence", eh?
>
>$$$$ New Orleans DA Jim Garrison found a women who worked at Ruby's
>nightclub the Carousel who made a statement that Jack Ruby had introduced
>her to Oswald.
>
Who was this?
Are you thinking of Cheramie? If so, she's got major credibility
problems. She said that both Oswald and Ruby were homosexuals, and
had "been shacking up for years."
If you are thinking of Beverly Oliver, she hadn't come forward with
her "interesting" stories at the time of the Garrison investigation.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Louise Ward
"John McAdams" <6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu> wrote in message
news:389cf1a5...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I guess the fact that the HSCA polygraph committee unanimously
> >> concluded
> >> > >> that Ruby showed clear signs of deception when he denied knowing
> >> Oswald is
> >> > >> not "credible evidence", eh?
> >
> >$$$$ New Orleans DA Jim Garrison found a women who worked at Ruby's
> >nightclub the Carousel who made a statement that Jack Ruby had introduced
> >her to Oswald.
> >
>
>
> Are you thinking of Cheramie? If so, she's got major credibility
> problems. She said that both Oswald and Ruby were homosexuals, and
> had "been shacking up for years."
>
> If you are thinking of Beverly Oliver, she hadn't come forward with
> her "interesting" stories at the time of the Garrison investigation.
>
> .John
>
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
$$$ Beverly Oliver didn't come forward because as she said, "if they can
kill the president, they won't think twice about a two bit show girl like
me."
Garrison discovered her during his investigation, and for the above reason
she refused to testify.
Dave Reitzes
You're quoting Oliver Stone's movie, Ms. Ward. In reality, however, Beverly
Oliver was discovered by researcher J. Gary Shaw a year after the Shaw trial
ended.
Ms. Oliver claimed that she did not come forward because her friend Janet
"Jada" Conforto underwent a "mysterious death" shortly after the assassination,
but Conforto died in 1971. Ms. Oliver identified Regis Kennedy as the FBI agent
who allegedly confiscated her alleged film on Monday, November 25, 1963 in
Dallas -- but Regis Kennedy was a New Orleans FBI agent who is documented as
having been in New Orleans all that week. (On November 25 alone he interviewed
such witnesses as David Ferrie, Jack Martin and Dean Andrews.) Beverly Oliver
announced in the early '90s -- in the wake of the Ricky White and "Badgeman"
stories -- that she had seen Roscoe White on the grassy knoll -- without a hat,
of course.
For these reasons and others, few conspiracy theorists take Beverly Oliver
seriously. Either way, no one on Earth ever claimed that she was known to Jim
Garrison. She would tell you herself that she most certainly was not.
Dave
Check out my Web site:
http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes
Russell Burr
> "John McAdams" <6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu> wrote in message
> news:389cf1a5...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > On Sun, 6 Feb 2000 03:57:09 +1300, "Louise Ward"
> > <coldf...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> >
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> That's quite a sweeping statement, Mr. Mack.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> I guess the fact that the HSCA polygraph committee unanimously
> > >> concluded
> > >> > >> that Ruby showed clear signs of deception when he denied knowing
> > >> Oswald is
> > >> > >> not "credible evidence", eh?
> > >
> > >$$$$ New Orleans DA Jim Garrison found a women who worked at Ruby's
> > >nightclub the Carousel who made a statement that Jack Ruby had introduced
> > >her to Oswald.
> > >
> >
> > Who was this?
> >
> > Are you thinking of Cheramie? If so, she's got major credibility
> > problems. She said that both Oswald and Ruby were homosexuals, and
> > had "been shacking up for years."
> >
> > If you are thinking of Beverly Oliver, she hadn't come forward with
> > her "interesting" stories at the time of the Garrison investigation.
> >
> > .John
> >
> >
> > The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> $$$ Beverly Oliver didn't come forward because as she said, "if they can
> kill the president, they won't think twice about a two bit show girl like
> me."
This is part of the script from JFK. There is no evidence that she said
this to anyone. In fact Oliver stated that she used a particular camera
that wasn't available until 1964. She also claimed that FBI SA Regis
Kennedy took this camera. Trouble is that Kennedy was in New Orleans at
the time of the assassination.
>
>
> Garrison discovered her during his investigation, and for the above reason
> she refused to testify.
Wrong. He never met her and never mentions her in his book, On The Trail
Of the Assassins", which was copyrighted in 1988. It's just another Oliver
Stone movie manipulation. Just like the scene in the movie where "Carolyn
Arnold testified that she Oswald in the 2nd floor snack room.....she never
testified in the trial.
Russ
Martin Shackelford
in "JFK," not in reality. She didn't come forward until the 1980s.
Martin
Louise Ward wrote:
> "John McAdams" <6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu> wrote in message
> news:389cf1a5...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > On Sun, 6 Feb 2000 03:57:09 +1300, "Louise Ward"
> > <coldf...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> >
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> That's quite a sweeping statement, Mr. Mack.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> I guess the fact that the HSCA polygraph committee unanimously
> > >> concluded
> > >> > >> that Ruby showed clear signs of deception when he denied knowing
> > >> Oswald is
> > >> > >> not "credible evidence", eh?
> > >
> > >$$$$ New Orleans DA Jim Garrison found a women who worked at Ruby's
> > >nightclub the Carousel who made a statement that Jack Ruby had introduced
> > >her to Oswald.
> > >
> >
> > Who was this?
> >
> > Are you thinking of Cheramie? If so, she's got major credibility
> > problems. She said that both Oswald and Ruby were homosexuals, and
> > had "been shacking up for years."
> >
> > If you are thinking of Beverly Oliver, she hadn't come forward with
> > her "interesting" stories at the time of the Garrison investigation.
> >
> > .John
> >
> >
> > The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> $$$ Beverly Oliver didn't come forward because as she said, "if they can
> kill the president, they won't think twice about a two bit show girl like
> me."
>
> Garrison discovered her during his investigation, and for the above reason
> she refused to testify.
--
Martin Shackelford
"You're going to find that many of the truths we
cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
-Obi-Wan Kenobi
"You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
Louise Ward
don't know anything about reality, whenever I have replied people keep
telling me that basically I haven't got a clue because they couldn't
possibly be wrong.
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:389DF052...@concentric.net...
> No, Garrison didn't discover Beverly Oliver during his investigation--only
> in "JFK," not in reality. She didn't come forward until the 1980s.
>
> Martin
>
> Louise Ward wrote:
>
> > "John McAdams" <6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:389cf1a5...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > > On Sun, 6 Feb 2000 03:57:09 +1300, "Louise Ward"
> > > <coldf...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> That's quite a sweeping statement, Mr. Mack.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> I guess the fact that the HSCA polygraph committee unanimously
> > > >> concluded
> > > >> > >> that Ruby showed clear signs of deception when he denied knowing
> > > >> Oswald is
> > > >> > >> not "credible evidence", eh?
> > > >
> > > >$$$$ New Orleans DA Jim Garrison found a women who worked at Ruby's
> > > >nightclub the Carousel who made a statement that Jack Ruby had introduced
> > > >her to Oswald.
> > > >
> > >
Martin Shackelford
Oliver during his investigation. She talked privately with researcher Gary
Shaw in the early 1980s, and went public in the late '80s. This is all
very well documented, and has nothing to do with what you do or don't know
about reality.
Martin
Louise Ward wrote:
> $$$I haven't got my information from 'JFK'. And stop telling me that I
> don't know anything about reality, whenever I have replied people keep
> telling me that basically I haven't got a clue because they couldn't
> possibly be wrong.
>
> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:389DF052...@concentric.net...
> > No, Garrison didn't discover Beverly Oliver during his investigation--only
> > in "JFK," not in reality. She didn't come forward until the 1980s.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > Louise Ward wrote:
> >
> > > "John McAdams" <6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:389cf1a5...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > > > On Sun, 6 Feb 2000 03:57:09 +1300, "Louise Ward"
> > > > <coldf...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> That's quite a sweeping statement, Mr. Mack.
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> I guess the fact that the HSCA polygraph committee unanimously
> > > > >> concluded
> > > > >> > >> that Ruby showed clear signs of deception when he denied knowing
> > > > >> Oswald is
> > > > >> > >> not "credible evidence", eh?
> > > > >
> > > > >$$$$ New Orleans DA Jim Garrison found a women who worked at Ruby's
> > > > >nightclub the Carousel who made a statement that Jack Ruby had introduced
> > > > >her to Oswald.
> > > > >
> > > >
Dave Reitzes
>
>$$$I haven't got my information from 'JFK'. And stop telling me that I
>don't know anything about reality, whenever I have replied people keep
>telling me that basically I haven't got a clue because they couldn't
>possibly be wrong.
Earth to Louise: In Oliver Stone's *JFK,* a character called "Beverly" says,
"If they can kill the President, do you think they're gonna think twice about a
two-bit showgirl like me?" (*JFK: The Book of the Film,* 121)
The footnote reads, "This scene is partially based on the recollections of
Beverly Oliver, a Texas woman who claims to be the 'Babushka Lady' filming the
motorcade in Dealey Plaza. . . . " (Ibid.)
Beverly Oliver was discovered by J. Gary Shaw in the early '70s, after
Garrison's investigation had ended. Unless you have a factual source to cite,
the "two-bit showgirl" statement seems to have been an invention of
screenwriters Oliver Stone and Zachary Sklar.
People who cannot admit their mistakes are often the ones who are most out of
touch with reality.
Dave
joez...@my-deja.com
Well, then, where did you get your information?
I'm all ears.
Let us know, please. What's the source, please?
>And stop telling me that I
> don't know anything about reality, whenever I have replied people keep
> telling me that basically I haven't got a clue because they couldn't
> possibly be wrong.
>
> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:389DF052...@concentric.net...
> > No, Garrison didn't discover Beverly Oliver during his
investigation--only
> > in "JFK," not in reality. She didn't come forward until the 1980s.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > Louise Ward wrote:
> >
> > > "John McAdams" <6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:389cf1a5...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > > > On Sun, 6 Feb 2000 03:57:09 +1300, "Louise Ward"
> > > > <coldf...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> That's quite a sweeping statement, Mr. Mack.
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> I guess the fact that the HSCA polygraph committee
unanimously
> > > > >> concluded
> > > > >> > >> that Ruby showed clear signs of deception when he
denied knowing
> > > > >> Oswald is
> > > > >> > >> not "credible evidence", eh?
> > > > >
> > > > >$$$$ New Orleans DA Jim Garrison found a women who worked at
Ruby's
> > > > >nightclub the Carousel who made a statement that Jack Ruby had
introduced
> > > > >her to Oswald.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Who was this?
> > > >
> > > > Are you thinking of Cheramie? If so, she's got major
credibility
> > > > problems. She said that both Oswald and Ruby were homosexuals,
and
> > > > had "been shacking up for years."
> > > >
> > > > If you are thinking of Beverly Oliver, she hadn't come forward
with
> > > > her "interesting" stories at the time of the Garrison
investigation.
> > > >
> > > > .John
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> > > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
> > >
> > > $$$ Beverly Oliver didn't come forward because as she said, "if
they can
> > > kill the president, they won't think twice about a two bit show
girl like
> > > me."
> > >
> > > Garrison discovered her during his investigation, and for the
above reason
> > > she refused to testify.
> >
> > --
> > Martin Shackelford
> >
> > "You're going to find that many of the truths we
> > cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
> > -Obi-Wan Kenobi
> >
> > "You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
joez...@my-deja.com
I
> don't know anything about reality, whenever I have replied people keep
> telling me that basically I haven't got a clue because they couldn't
> possibly be wrong.
Louise, I'd sincerely like to know where you got your info, if not from
the movie JFK. Please advise. Pretty please?
>
> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:389DF052...@concentric.net...
> > No, Garrison didn't discover Beverly Oliver during his
investigation--only
> > in "JFK," not in reality. She didn't come forward until the 1980s.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > Louise Ward wrote:
> >
> > > "John McAdams" <6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:389cf1a5...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > > > On Sun, 6 Feb 2000 03:57:09 +1300, "Louise Ward"
> > > > <coldf...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> That's quite a sweeping statement, Mr. Mack.
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> I guess the fact that the HSCA polygraph committee
unanimously
> > > > >> concluded
> > > > >> > >> that Ruby showed clear signs of deception when he
denied knowing
> > > > >> Oswald is
> > > > >> > >> not "credible evidence", eh?
> > > > >
> > > > >$$$$ New Orleans DA Jim Garrison found a women who worked at
Ruby's
> > > > >nightclub the Carousel who made a statement that Jack Ruby had
introduced
> > > > >her to Oswald.
> > > > >
> > > >
--
Tony Pitman
I dont have time to get into this right now. You'll have to do some
reading.
>> He appears to have had a whole set of Oswald ID papers right down to
>> an Oswald drivers lisence, which the real Oswald did not have. Ladies
>> who worked at the Texas Dept of Public Safety have confirmed this.
>
>And the source of this is?
>
>Please provide, as I am unfamiliar with this story.
"Denial Volume 2" by Jerry Robertson which concerns the research of
John Armstrong.
You can probably find other sources on the web.
>>And
>> if you read Hosty's book he talks of such a wallet with exactly this
>> set of ID, liscence+ and all being found at the Tippit murder scene,
>as
>> told to him by an FBI colleague who was there and saw this for
>> himself. Of course this "disappeared" almost immediately but it's
>> funny how it turned out that such a liscence did indeed exist.
>
>The FBI colleague was Barrett. Barrett says he never saw the ID
>personally, but was asked whether he knew a "Lee Harvey Oswald"
>or "Alek Hidell" at the Tippit scene. There's no evidence from Barrett
>that a license ever existed. What if what was found was the ID's we
>already know about?
>
>The details are in Myers book.
>
>Most likely, Oswald lost his wallet when he reached for his revolver.
>This wallet was most likely transported to the Texas Theatre when the
>officers at the Tippit scene heard a suspect was trapped therein.
>Hosty covers how the wallet could have been mistakenly accounted for as
>from Oswald's pants pocket, as I recall.
But not the drivers liscence I'll bet.
If you read the statements of the cops who drove Oswald from the
theater to the DPD, they seemd in no doubt that the wallet came from
Oswald's pocket. It was produced en route. I forget whether Oswald
produced it or one of them got it from his pocket himself.
I dont know what Barret has said but that was what Hosty said Barret
told him. And since there really was a liscence how did that get into
the story otherwise. If it had not been there no one would have been
aware of it.
Also it was the FBI who removed the records of it from the Texas Dept
of Public Safety and then sat on the information. I would imagine that
if not for Hosty, we still would be unaware of this and Armstrong
would not have been able to follow it up.
>> There was a report of this man using this liscence as proof of age to
>> buy two bottles of beer that very morning also when Oswald was at work
>> in the TSBD so it seems he was in town that day.
>
>This report, how strong is it? Is it merely the recollection of
>somebody after the event? What do you suspect the purpose of this beer-
>buying episode was?
Thirst perhaps?
>There's only a couple of possibilities. Let me know what your take on
>this is. Here's what I came up with:
>
>1. Somebody else bought beer using some other ID, and whoever
>remembered this as Oswald, simply remembered it wrong.
>2. A conspirator wanted to frame Oswald for skipping work and buying
>beer (Oswald wasn't underage, so they couldn't be framing Oswald for
>underage drinking).
>3. An underage conspirator swiped the Oswald ID from 'Conspiracy
>Central' when nobody was looking, so he could go out and buy himself
>some brew.
>4. A conspirator who didn't have a clue about how to frame Oswald for
>the assassination thought it would somehow advance the conspiracy by
>having the non-drinking Oswald be seen buying beer using the a driver's
>license for the non-driving Oswald, at a time when the real Oswald was
>at work. Do you really consider this more reasonable than #1, above?
>Can you come up with a reasonable explanation for a conspirator to do
>this?
>
>Unless you can come up with something better, I'd vote for #1. Where
>would your vote go?
>
>> The main problem for me about this is whether or not it was Masen. It
>> could have been but I have a feeling that it was somebody else.
>>
>
>For the above episode, I suspect nothing more than mistaken ID. For the
>rifle range episode, Masen is a candidate.
>
>
>> Tony
I dont know why the lookalike used the ID to buy beer but I suspect
that he was asked for ID because of his youth or youthful appearance.
It was probably not planned and if fact, a slip up.
This was not the only sighting that day. Another had this guy in a car
soon after the Tippit shooting and in the vicinity of Oak Cliff.
Tony
--