William Whaley Taxis Into History

14 views
Skip to first unread message

j.raymon...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 5:08:46 PM4/17/06
to
In her book "Oswald's Game," at pages 241/242, Jean Davison wrote:

"At 12:30 pm., Lee Harvey Oswald entered history. Three shots from a
sixth-floor Depository window hit Governor Connally once and the
President twice. Oswald fled the building minutes later, caught a bus,
and, when it got stalled in traffic, got out and took a cab to his
rooming house. He picked up his revolver and a jacket and rushed out --

on his way, Albert Newman believes, to try to assassinate Walker, too."

This is a comforting scenario. This gentleman "fled" just as an
assassin might be expected to do. It is a comforting scenario, except
that it is at least partly fictional. We know it has fictional
elements inter alia because Albert Newman's belief, apparently shared
by Jean Davison, is unsupported by even a scintilla of evidence, while
the fleeing element of the story is directly contradicted by the
testimony of William Whaley.


(We will leave aside for now Mrs. R.A. Reid, Marion Baker, and Roy
Truly, none of whom reported signs of haste in Lee Oswald following the

shooting).


William Whaley was the cabdriver who drove Lee Oswald to Oak Cliff.
Whaley's testimony is not mentioned in "Oswald's Game," and the
following quotations from Whaley are not mentioned in Albert Newman's
book either.


MR. WHALEY: "He wasn't in any hurry. He wasn't nervous or anything."


Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. The front seat. And about that time an old lady,
I think she was an old lady, I don't remember nothing but her sticking
her head down past him in the door and said, "Driver, will you call me
a cab down here?"


She had seen him get this cab and she wanted one, too, and he opened
the door a little bit like he was going to get out and he said, "I will

let you have this one..."


When his testimony resumed:


Mr. BALL. Did the man sitting next to you open the door?
Mr. WHALEY. He just started to, sir, just reached for door handle and
she said she wanted me to call one. She didn't want that.
Mr. BALL. Did the man who was sitting beside you in the cab say
anything?
Mr. WHALEY. Only that she could have that one.
Mr. BALL. He said that?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.


Whaley had every opportunity to get a good look at Lee Oswald, who sat
beside him in the front seat of the taxi, thus he had no difficulty
identifying Lee in a lineup. But Whaley's testimony casts serious
doubts on the reliability of the lineup identifications of the Tippit
witnesses. In contrast to Whaley, the Tippit witnesses got little more
than a fleeting glimpse of a running gunman. Moreover, unlike Whaley,
at least some of the Tippit witnesses were probably in a state close to

shock.


. BALL. Now, in the police lineup now, and this man was talking to the
police and telling them he wanted a lawyer, and that they were trying
to, you say he said they were trying to, frame him or something of that

sort--


Mr. WHALEY. Well, the way he talked that they were doing him an
injustice by putting him out there dressed different than these other
men he was out there with.


In recent years Jean Davison has posted on this newsgroup and on
Alt.Conspiracy to the effect that there is real doubt that Lee Oswald
offered to give up his cab to a lady. (What percentage of fleeing
murderers would be willing to give up their getaway cars to a lady,
elderly or not?)


In a recent exchange with John Hunt, Jean writes:


"I wouldn't be so sure that Oswald ever offered his cab, John.
This wasn't in the earliest accounts, to my knowledge. The cab
driver's
11/23/63 affidavit says:


QUOTE:
....After we had gotten into the cab and I had turned my meter on, a
lady
came up to the cab and ask [sic] if she could get this cab. As I
recall I said there will be one behind me very soon. I am not sure
whether the man passenger repeated this to her or not, but I think he
may have. I then drove away....
UNQUOTE, from William Whaley's affidavit at
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0438-001.gif "


Every researcher knows by now that witnesses often went into greater
detail in their Warren Commission testimony than they had in their
original affidavits. There is nothing very startling about this, and it

does not at all involve that their story changed. Whaleys original
affidavit is silent about Lee Oswald opening the door to offer his cab
to the lady, but Whaley describes the incident no less than three times

in his Warren Commision testimony.


In a post on Alt.Conspiracy, Jean makes a big point out of Whaley's
statement that "...a good defense attorney could take me apart. I
get confused." [VI, 432]"


According to Jean, this means that Whaley is not a good witness. But it

is not up to Whaley to decide that. It is up to us, the jury. Only a
very stupid defense lawyer would try to tear Whaley apart, because
Whaley is one of the star witnesses for the defense.


Jean thinks that we should doubt Whaley's story because Fritz's written

report (WR, p. 604) suggests that Lee Oswald never mentioned that he
opened the door or verbally offered the cab to the lady.


Jean Quotes Fritz's report


QUOTE:
I asked him about his conversation with the cab driver, and he said he
remembered that when he got in the cab a lady came up who also wanted a

cab, and he told Oswald to tell the lady to "take another cab."
UNQUOTE


Of course we don't know exactly what Lee told Will Fritz, since Fritz
had
no tape recorder and he decided not to have a stenogropher present to
record the interrogation, but Fritz's report is hardly very persuasive
evidence on this topic. Even if Lee Oswald did not mention opening the

door or verbally offering the cab, that does not mean the incident
never
happened. Lee could have omitted it simply because it did not seem
significant, or perhaps not even relevant to the question Fritz was
asking. (Fritz's own credibility is a subject for another day).


Jean writes "Apparently the offered-his-cab story first appeared in
Whaley's March 1964 testimony. He testified again in April and gave a
slightly different version, but he didn't seem sure."


Whaley's April testimony goes like this:


Mr. BELIN. Do you remember a woman coming up to the cab?


Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; I remember that.


Mr. BELIN. What happened then?


Mr. WHALEY. The lady, I don't remember whether she was very old, but
she
was middle-aged. She bent down and stuck in and said, "Can I have this

cab?" And he cracked the door open like he was going to get out. I
thought
he was going to let her have it. I told her there would be another one,

and she said, "Would you please call me one."


Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything to the woman, that you can remember?


Mr. WHALEY. When she wanted to know if she could have the cab, I don't

know, but I got a faint hunch he did tell her she could have this one,
or
something like that. What it was, I was watching my left-hand side. I
wanted to pull out when the light changed. <<< [VI, 431]


Note that Whaley says: " And he cracked the door open like he was going
to
get out. I thought he was going to let her have it." Even if he seemed
unsure about the exact words Lee used, Whaley never seemed in any doubt

that Lee opened the door, or began to open the door, as if to offer the

cab to the lady. It did not suit Whaley for that to happen, since he
already had the meter running.


Jean has signified that she does not accuse Whaley of perjury, and that

Whaley had no motive to lie. Instead, Jean suggests, Whaley just
imagined
that Lee opened the door and indicated that the lady could have his
cab.


In his original affidavit, Whaley did not mention that he managed to
catch
every green light on the way to Oak Cliff, but he went into some detail
on
that subject in his Warren Commission testimony. Does that mean that he

just imagined catching all the green lights on the way to Oak Cliff?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 6:16:48 PM4/17/06
to
In article <1145308126.5...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
j.raymon...@gmail.com says...

>
>In her book "Oswald's Game," at pages 241/242, Jean Davison wrote:
>
>"At 12:30 pm., Lee Harvey Oswald entered history. Three shots from a
>sixth-floor Depository window hit Governor Connally once and the
>President twice. Oswald fled the building minutes later, caught a bus,
>and, when it got stalled in traffic, got out and took a cab to his
>rooming house. He picked up his revolver and a jacket and rushed out --
>
>on his way, Albert Newman believes, to try to assassinate Walker, too."


An excellent example of 'spin'. And how LNT'ers attempt to produce 'facts' out
of thin air.

An excellent synopsis of the evidence on this point. Thanks!


--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

Walt

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 9:24:58 PM4/17/06
to

"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:e2144...@drn.newsguy.com...
Please read all of the testimony about this incident. There is strong
evidence that William Whaley was just bulls..ing his cab driver buddies
about having the killer in his cab. His B.S. was taken seriously and he was
called in for questioning. In an attempt to discredit his own B.S. He told
the interrogators that his passenger looked like he had just completed a
three day bus trip, and had on THREE jackets. He said his passenger walked
AWAY from the rooming house when he got out of Whaley's cab.
Oswald told his interrogators that he took a "CITY" cab to his rooming
house. William Whaley was not employed by the City Cab Company.

Walt

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 10:58:25 PM4/17/06
to
In article <44443fe9$1...@news.bea.com>, Walt says...

Actually, Whaley said that LHO looked like "he was a wino who had been off his
bottle for about two days..."


>and had on THREE jackets.


A coat over a jacket... as I recall.


>He said his passenger walked
>AWAY from the rooming house when he got out of Whaley's cab.
>Oswald told his interrogators that he took a "CITY" cab to his rooming
>house. William Whaley was not employed by the City Cab Company.


He testified that he worked for "City Transportation Company".


>Walt


The important think is that LNT'ers are *stuck* with Whaley's story... and it
*doesn't* support their theory of the case.

It really doesn't matter, in this case, whether you believe Whaley or not. The
point is that LNT'ers are *lying* about what Whaley's testimony shows about LHO
'fleeing' the 'scene of the crime'.

Bud

unread,
Apr 18, 2006, 8:10:34 AM4/18/06
to


There is some real Holmes-logic. It doesn`t matter whether Oz was
ever in Whaley`s cab or not, Whaley`s testimony still shows that Oz
offered up his cab.
In any case, it would have been nice to get confirmation for
Whaley`s acount from the woman in question. Viewed in the proper
context (something kooks never seem to do), we have a cab driver
relating trivial details of a mundane nature, not interesting events
that stick in a person`s mind for days or hours. He wasn`t even sure if
Oz replied, or what he aid, even sitting right next to him. Only kooks
try to portray these kinds of things as established, carved in stone
occurances. But then, when a cop (a person who had a person of
interest, with a very good reason to be paying attention to what Oz
said) relates things that Oz said after his arrest, that information is
held totally useless by the kooks. Another thing to mention is that the
other person involved in this encounter did tell the police about it.
Oz related details of this event, and just because kooks disregard this
doesn`t mean that people trying to actually figure out what happened
have to.
Also, a favorite game of kooks being played here is "this means
this". Oz can`t be fleeing the assassination if he was willing to give
up his cab to that woman. They pretend that they have established that
the two things are mutually exclusive. Have they? Have they shown that
Oz thought his chances of escape were markedly different in this cab or
the next? The only places in Dallas which his chances of capture
increased where places he was known to frequent, like the boarding
house. Which would explain why he didn`t have the cab driver take him
to the door there. He also may have thought that mimicing the actions
an innocent man might take could be of use later. Many possibilities
besides the one the kooks declare.

Walt

unread,
Apr 18, 2006, 9:51:08 AM4/18/06
to

"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:e21kk...@drn.newsguy.com...

Ben... Please study William Whaley's story carefully.
He saw Lee Oswald in custody and he heard him protesting the way he was
being treated. Whaley described Lee's actions......." He knew he was being
railroaded (framed) and he was raisin hell". After seeing Lee in custody,
Whaley realized the authorties were using his B.S. to frame Lee and he
wanted no part of it, but he was foisted on his own pitard.

Walt

Jean Davison

unread,
Apr 18, 2006, 10:58:01 AM4/18/06
to
"Ray" <j.raymon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145140694....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com.

Okay, into the Wayback Machine we go.....

> In her book "Oswald's Game," at pages 241/242, Jean Davison wrote:
>
> "At 12:30 pm., Lee Harvey Oswald entered history. Three shots from a
> sixth-floor Depository window hit Governor Connally once and the
> President twice. Oswald fled the building minutes later, caught a bus,
> and, when it got stalled in traffic, got out and took a cab to his
> rooming house. He picked up his revolver and a jacket and rushed out --
> on his way, Albert Newman believes, to try to assassinate Walker, too."
>

> This is a comforting scenario. This gentleman "fled" just as an
> assassin might be expected to do. It is a comforting scenario, except
> that it is at least partly fictional. We know it has fictional
> elements inter alia because Albert Newman's belief, apparently shared

> by Jean Davison, ...

There's a footnote at the end of the passage you quoted, Ray, in which
I mentioned two other theories about where Oswald was headed. Stating
Newman's belief as his belief is surely not fictional. (Is this really even
worth discussing?) Nobody knows where Oswald was going, maybe not
even Oswald.

> ....is unsupported by even a scintilla of evidence, while


> the fleeing element of the story is directly contradicted by the
> testimony of William Whaley.

Well, not really, imo. Do you know of any other occasion when Oswald
is known to have taken a cab? Big spender, was he?

>
> (We will leave aside for now Mrs. R.A. Reid, Marion Baker, and Roy
> Truly, none of whom reported signs of haste in Lee Oswald following the
> shooting).

I can think of one possible reason why Oswald might not have wanted
them to see him hurry. Can you?

You didn't mention his housekeeper in Oak Cliff, who said that he
came in about 30 minutes after the shooting "in an unusual hurry" and
"all but running." Does that mean he's guilty? No. Just as his lack of
haste earlier doesn't make him innocent, either.

>
> William Whaley was the cabdriver who drove Lee Oswald to Oak Cliff.
> Whaley's testimony is not mentioned in "Oswald's Game," and the
> following quotations from Whaley are not mentioned in Albert Newman's
> book either.

No book can cover every witness, every issue.

So the 9 or so Tippit witnesses were all wrong? The other evidence
all invalid? Talk about your comforting scenarios.

>
> In recent years Jean Davison has posted on this newsgroup and on
> Alt.Conspiracy to the effect that there is real doubt that Lee Oswald
> offered to give up his cab to a lady. (What percentage of fleeing
> murderers would be willing to give up their getaway cars to a lady,
> elderly or not?)

What percentage of shooters leap off a theater balcony
onto a stage? Or claim he was trying to impress an actress?
There's always a first time, Ray.

>
> In a recent exchange with John Hunt, Jean writes:
>
> "I wouldn't be so sure that Oswald ever offered his cab, John.
> This wasn't in the earliest accounts, to my knowledge. The cab
> driver's
> 11/23/63 affidavit says:
>
> QUOTE:
> ....After we had gotten into the cab and I had turned my meter on, a
> lady
> came up to the cab and ask [sic] if she could get this cab. As I
> recall I said there will be one behind me very soon. I am not sure
> whether the man passenger repeated this to her or not, but I think he
> may have. I then drove away....
> UNQUOTE, from William Whaley's affidavit at
> http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0438-001.gif "
>
> Every researcher knows by now that witnesses often went into greater
> detail in their Warren Commission testimony than they had in their
> original affidavits.

That's true. Affidavits are usually shorter with less
detail. However, it's also the case that memories change.

>There is nothing very startling about this, and it
> does not at all involve that their story changed. Whaleys original
> affidavit is silent about Lee Oswald opening the door to offer his cab
> to the lady,
>but Whaley describes the incident no less than three times
> in his Warren Commision testimony.

Now all you have to do is show that repeating something three times
means that it's accurate.

Strangely enough, being certain is not highly correlated with
accuracy of memory, from what I've read on the Web. A witness can often be
absolutely certain and yet dead wrong.

>
> In a post on Alt.Conspiracy, Jean makes a big point out of Whaley's
> statement that "...a good defense attorney could take me apart. I
> get confused." [VI, 432]"

It's what he said, no? I think Meagher was the first to "make a big
point" of this, along with the fact that Whaley's testimony had Oswald
wearing *two* jackets. That also is different from his affidavit, which
describes Oswald shirt, but no jacket -- "This boy ... had on a dark
shirt with spots of something on it. He had a bracelet on his left wrist."

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0438-001.gif

Other evidence indicates that Oswald wasn't wearing a jacket at
that time. Whaley's first description was the better one, no surprise there.

It's not a criticism of Whaley to say that there are differences
between his 11/23 statement and testimony several months later, since
everybody's memory is fallible. Yours, mine, the pope's, everybody's.

>
> According to Jean, this means that Whaley is not a good witness. But it
> is not up to Whaley to decide that. It is up to us, the jury. Only a
> very stupid defense lawyer would try to tear Whaley apart, because
> Whaley is one of the star witnesses for the defense.

Funny then that one of Oswald's original "defense lawyers,"
Sylvia Meagher, was among the first to point out these inconsistencies.

>
> Jean thinks that we should doubt Whaley's story because Fritz's written
> report (WR, p. 604) suggests that Lee Oswald never mentioned that he
> opened the door or verbally offered the cab to the lady.
>
> Jean Quotes Fritz's report
>
> QUOTE:
> I asked him about his conversation with the cab driver, and he said he
> remembered that when he got in the cab a lady came up who also wanted a
> cab, and he told Oswald to tell the lady to "take another cab."
> UNQUOTE
>
> Of course we don't know exactly what Lee told Will Fritz, since Fritz had
> no tape recorder and he decided not to have a stenogropher present to
> record the interrogation, but Fritz's report is hardly very persuasive
> evidence on this topic.

Not very persuasive you say, yet it's similar to Whaley's
original account.

> Even if Lee Oswald did not mention opening the
> door or verbally offering the cab, that does not mean the incident never
> happened. Lee could have omitted it simply because it did not seem
> significant, or perhaps not even relevant to the question Fritz was
> asking. (Fritz's own credibility is a subject for another day).

Have you reconsidered the charge that Fritz testified falsely about
his notes?

>
> Jean writes "Apparently the offered-his-cab story first appeared in
> Whaley's March 1964 testimony. He testified again in April and gave a
> slightly different version, but he didn't seem sure."
>
>
> Whaley's April testimony goes like this:
>
> Mr. BELIN. Do you remember a woman coming up to the cab?
>
> Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; I remember that.
>
> Mr. BELIN. What happened then?
>
> Mr. WHALEY. The lady, I don't remember whether she was very old, but she
> was middle-aged. She bent down and stuck in and said, "Can I have this
> cab?" And he cracked the door open like he was going to get out. I thought
> he was going to let her have it. I told her there would be another one,
> and she said, "Would you please call me one."
>
> Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything to the woman, that you can remember?
>
> Mr. WHALEY. When she wanted to know if she could have the cab, I don't
> know, but I got a faint hunch he did tell her she could have this one, or
> something like that. What it was, I was watching my left-hand side. I
> wanted to pull out when the light changed. <<< [VI, 431]
>
> Note that Whaley says: " And he cracked the door open like he was going to
> get out. I thought he was going to let her have it." Even if he seemed
> unsure about the exact words Lee used, Whaley never seemed in any doubt
> that Lee opened the door, or began to open the door, as if to offer the
> cab to the lady. It did not suit Whaley for that to happen, since he
> already had the meter running.

Whaley never seemed in any doubt that Oswald was wearing two
jackets, either: After Ball showed him both jackets, Whaley said:

QUOTE:
>>>>
Mr. WHALEY. [....] he had this coat here on over that other jacket, I am
sure, sir.
>>>
UNQUOTE

Again, I don't mean this as criticism of Whaley.

>
> Jean has signified that she does not accuse Whaley of perjury, and that
> Whaley had no motive to lie. Instead, Jean suggests, Whaley just imagined
> that Lee opened the door and indicated that the lady could have his cab.

I wouldn't say "imagined." His memory changed, imo.

>
> In his original affidavit, Whaley did not mention that he managed to catch
> every green light on the way to Oak Cliff, but he went into some detail on
> that subject in his Warren Commission testimony. Does that mean that he
> just imagined catching all the green lights on the way to Oak Cliff?

Yes, it's possible that he simply left this out. But it sounds
like a different story to me, just like his two descriptions of the
clothing.

Jean


>
>


Jean Davison

unread,
Apr 18, 2006, 11:38:51 AM4/18/06
to
P.S.

On this one, I forgot something. (Memory is fallible, yeah.)

> (We will leave aside for now Mrs. R.A. Reid, Marion Baker, and Roy
> Truly, none of whom reported signs of haste in Lee Oswald following the
> shooting).

Actually, Baker *did* notice Oswald hurrying. Oswald didn't know
that Baker could see him at that time, because he was walking away into the
lunchroom, while Baker was about 20 feet away at the landing of the 2nd
floor stairway. Baker testified:

QUOTE:
>>>>
Mr. BAKER - ...... Now, through this window you can't see too much but I
just caught a glimpse of him through this window going away from me and as I
ran to this door and opened it, and looked on down in the lunchroom he was
on down there about 20 feet so he was moving about as fast as I was.
[....]
Mr. DULLES - ......... Did he seem to be hurrying, anything of that kind?
Mr. BAKER - Evidently he was hurrying because at this point here, I was
running, and I ran on over here to this door. [....]
And at that position there he was already down here some 20 feet away from
me.
>>>>
UNQUOTE

Good ol' Lee was probably just in a real big hurry to get himself a
Coke.

Jean


Bud

unread,
Apr 18, 2006, 4:54:13 PM4/18/06
to

Wahl, that certainly is a more entertaining version. On what planet
do people do things like that, tell lies to their freinds, when the
police come, tell them lies, and keep telling lies when they are in
front of congressmen? Doesn`t the liar at some point realize they are
in over their heads and come clean?

James K. Olmstead

unread,
Apr 18, 2006, 11:09:10 PM4/18/06
to

"Jean Davison" <walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:4444...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

Jean: Re-read the account in Mexico City when Oswald left the hotel.
The clerk goes two blocks to the bus station to get a cab for Oswald, who
was going to the bus station.

jko

Jean Davison

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 10:58:06 AM4/19/06
to

"James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:44453f56$3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

Good catch, Jim. I had to go back and look, but you're right.
Any others?

Jean

> jko

Bud

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 10:24:47 PM4/19/06
to

This is a real "huh?". You have Oz, who, by necessity (not having a car
or even a drivers license) must be a "walker", a person used to getting
around on foot. Also known to be fairly thrifty, not one to spend
lavishly, even on himself. So, Oz asks the clerk to go 2 blocks to get a
cab, and then boards the cab and goes two blocks to the same place the
clerk got the cab at? Did Oz have a lot of luggage?

James K. Olmstead

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 12:22:18 AM4/20/06
to

"Jean Davison" <walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9eq1g.17089$tN3....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...

Yes, in the USSR, when the Soviets did not provide Oswald with a car.
The point is that cabs were a major source of transportation for those
that did not drive. I find it odd and out of line for the most part when
the issue of taking a cab comes up. Chances are Lee took a cab more times
then you or I have.

jko

Marty

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 12:27:52 AM4/20/06
to

"Jean Davison" <walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9eq1g.17089$tN3....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...

Hi

Ruth Paine told the WC about taking Oswald and his "considerable" pile of
luggage to the bus station in Dallas when he was going to leave for NO.
Ruth mused that her arriving at the apartment saved Lee from spending
money to hire a cab.

Martha

James K. Olmstead

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 1:32:28 AM4/20/06
to

"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message news:1145467297....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Not by any standards....however there is some misleading info on the
number and size of his bags. The point is that Oswald had used cabs
before 22 Nov. 1963. The need for a cab to take him to the bus station two
blocks away is however another area to consider.

jko

Jean Davison

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 1:44:55 AM4/20/06
to

"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1145467297....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>

Good question, Bud. I think the clerk went around the corner to
a bus station for a Mexican company called White Star. That wasn't the
bus line that Oswald used. I think his hotel was 4 blocks from the bus
station he was headed for. He had luggage, but not a lot.

Oswald also took a cab in Moscow, but I don't know of any
testimony that he ever used cabs in this country. He walked or took a
city bus, usually.
Jean

Ray

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 3:28:11 PM4/20/06
to
Jean wrote:

"Nobody knows where Oswald was going, maybe not
even Oswald."

Jean, can you tell us why nobody bothered to ask him?

Jean wrote:

" Now all you have to do is show that repeating something three times
means that it's accurate."

Not quite, Jean. It means that you have to show that William Whaley
concocted or imagined the entire incident in which Lee Oswald,
allegedly a fleeing assassin, opened the door and offered up his
getaway car to a lady.

I will agree that there is something unbelievable about this incident
if you assume that Lee really was an assassin, but there is nothing
unbelievable about if you assume he was innocent.

Jean wrote:

" Actually, Baker *did* notice Oswald hurrying. Oswald didn't know
that Baker could see him at that time, because he was walking away into
the lunchroom, while Baker was about 20 feet away at the landing of the
2nd floor stairway. Baker testified:

QUOTE:

Mr. BAKER - ...... Now, through this window you can't see too much but
I
just caught a glimpse of him through this window going away from me and
as I ran to this door and opened it, and looked on down in the
lunchroom he was on down there about 20 feet so he was moving about as
fast as I was.
[....]
Mr. DULLES - ......... Did he seem to be hurrying, anything of that
kind?
Mr. BAKER - Evidently he was hurrying because at this point here, I was

running, and I ran on over here to this door. [....]
And at that position there he was already down here some 20 feet away
from me.
UNQUOTE

Good ol' Lee was probably just in a real big hurry to get himself a
Coke.

Jean "


We know that Lee was carrying a bottle of coke when he encountered Mrs.
Reid a few moments later, so yes, if he was hurrying, he must have been
hurrying to get a bottle of coke from the machine. But Baker only
inferred rather than actually saw him "hurrying." What Baker actually
saw was a man walking.

Mr. Belin.
Was--his back was away from you, or not, as you first saw him?
Mr. Baker.
As I first caught that glimpse of him, or as I saw him, really saw him?

Mr. Belin.
As you really saw him.
Mr. Baker.
He was walking away from me with his back toward me.
Mr. Dulles.

Vol 111 P.250

Representative Boggs.
When you saw him, was he out of breath, did he appear to have been
running or what?
Mr. Baker.
It didn't appear that to me. He appeared normal you know.
Representative Boggs.
Was he calm and collected?
Mr. Baker.
Yes, sir.

Jean's quotation from Marrion Baker's testimony opens up the question
whether the "reenactments" conducted by David Belin can validly be used
to show that a sixth-floor gunman could have beaten Baker and Truly to
the lunchroom. In Baker's testimony, as quoted by Jean, Baker himself
was "running" as he reached the lunchroom. Belin's "reenactments" were
not filmed, as they could and should have been, but was Baker actually
"running" in the "reenactment"?

Mr. Belin.
All right. When we got inside the building did we run or trot or walk?
Mr. Baker.
Well, we did it at kind of a trot, I would say, it wasn't a real fast
run, an open run. It was more of a trot, kind of.

Was it a "run" or a "trot"?

(Imagine that a man's fate depends on your answer?)

As David Belin liked to say: You Are the Jury.


j.raymon...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 10:28:27 PM4/20/06
to
P.S. Memory is fallible, and I forgot to mention that both Truly and
Baker testified that Truly ran ahead of Baker. Belin's "reenactment",
in order to have validity, should have terminated when Truly arrived on
the second floor. Instead, from what I can gather, it did not terminate
until Baker's later arrival.

Since the whole case against Lee Oswald depends, literally, on
split-second timing, I say that -- under the laws of civilized people
-- the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

Of course Leo Sauvage explained all this years ago in "The Oswald
Affair," but I don't think you will find Sauvage's book mentioned in
"Oswald's Game," or in Albert Newman's book either.


Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 11:35:38 PM4/20/06
to
In article <1145577071....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
j.raymon...@gmail.com says...

>
>P.S. Memory is fallible, and I forgot to mention that both Truly and
>Baker testified that Truly ran ahead of Baker. Belin's "reenactment",
>in order to have validity, should have terminated when Truly arrived on
>the second floor. Instead, from what I can gather, it did not terminate
>until Baker's later arrival.


The Warren Commission was forced to play with the timeline twice... They sped up
LHO's alleged acts to get him down the stairs in the quickest amount of time,
and they *slowed down* Baker's actions.

The *exact same thing* occurred with the Tippit killing... they moved Tippit's
time of murder *back*, and again, had LHO 'in a hurry'.

The times all had to be 'played with', because they simply didn't fit. So much
of the evidence simply doesn't fit. This is why LNT'ers won't debate the
*actual* evidence and testimony - and why they've sung with one voice the
infamous refrain that "Eyewitness Testimony is the least reliable form of
evidence".

This entire case is a 'patchwork quilt', and LNT'ers just hate it when you point
out just how patchy it is.


>Since the whole case against Lee Oswald depends, literally, on
>split-second timing, I say that -- under the laws of civilized people
>-- the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
>
>Of course Leo Sauvage explained all this years ago in "The Oswald
>Affair," but I don't think you will find Sauvage's book mentioned in
>"Oswald's Game," or in Albert Newman's book either.

But don't worry... Bugliosi is going to explain all this when his book comes
out.

Really!

Honestly!

You can relax now...

Jean Davison

unread,
Apr 21, 2006, 1:45:42 AM4/21/06
to
"Marty" <jam...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:HZB1g.66896$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

Hi, Martha,

Ruth's arrival was expected, and Lee was waiting with bags
packed. He asked her to take his luggage to the station for him. She was
his taxi.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0233a.htm


Jean

Bud

unread,
Apr 21, 2006, 3:16:05 AM4/21/06
to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1145577071....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> j.raymon...@gmail.com says...
> >
> >P.S. Memory is fallible, and I forgot to mention that both Truly and
> >Baker testified that Truly ran ahead of Baker. Belin's "reenactment",
> >in order to have validity, should have terminated when Truly arrived on
> >the second floor. Instead, from what I can gather, it did not terminate
> >until Baker's later arrival.
>
>
> The Warren Commission was forced to play with the timeline twice... They sped up
> LHO's alleged acts to get him down the stairs in the quickest amount of time,
> and they *slowed down* Baker's actions.

You seem sure that the second reenactment doesn`t more faithfully
recreate what occurred the day of the assassination. How is that?

> The *exact same thing* occurred with the Tippit killing... they moved Tippit's
> time of murder *back*, and again, had LHO 'in a hurry'.

Again, showing it possible he was at that location. With the
physical evidence and the witnesses identification, his being there
killing Tippit is well established.

> The times all had to be 'played with', because they simply didn't fit. So much
> of the evidence simply doesn't fit. This is why LNT'ers won't debate the
> *actual* evidence and testimony - and why they've sung with one voice the
> infamous refrain that "Eyewitness Testimony is the least reliable form of
> evidence".

Of course, for anyone to give Oz an actual alibi, all they`d need to
do is prove Oz wasn`t in the places the crimes were committed. Perhaps
that can be done for the hundreth anniversary.

> This entire case is a 'patchwork quilt', and LNT'ers just hate it when you point
> out just how patchy it is.

<snicker> Actually, it`s CT complaints about the case that is a
patchwork quilt. They don`t seem to have been able to weave all thier
suspicions into anything resembling a whole cloth yet, though.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David VP

unread,
Apr 21, 2006, 4:29:26 AM4/21/06
to
>> "Actually, it's CT complaints about the case that is a patchwork quilt."


Ain't that the truth. CT accounts run the gamut from (but certainly not
limited to the following CT Short List)........

1.) Anywhere from 2 to 6 gunmen firing shots in DP.

2.) 1, 2, or 3 gunmen/conspirators at the Tippit murder scene (none of
them the God-like Saint Oswald, naturally).

3.) Anywhere from 4 to 13 shots fired at JFK in DP. (Even though less
than 9% of witnesses heard more than three.)

4.) Oswald was a totally-innocent "Patsy".

5.) Oswald wasn't quite a "totally"-innocent "Patsy" -- i.e., he was
"involved" in the shooting in some always-undefined way (probably;
maybe; perhaps; could be), but no way he fired that head shot.

6.) Two "head shots" to JFK's cranium. (Even though the Z-Film, the
autopsy report, and all of the autopsy doctors completely debunk this
looney notion.)

7.) Umbrella Man has a nifty dart-thrower.

8.) No...Umbrella Man was merely "signaling" to the shooters.

9.) The first shot in DP missed the limo (an initial "diversionary
shot" from the TSBD).

10.) No, the first struck JFK in the throat from the front (totally
destroying theory #9).

11.) Oswald couldn't possibly have made it to the 2nd Floor in 90
seconds to meet M. Baker....but (somehow) the "real" killer(s) DID
manage to escape the 6th Floor EVEN FASTER -- otherwise why in the hell
didn't they run into Baker and Truly on the stairs? Did they leap out
the 6th-Floor window into a net below the building? Or did they decide
to just camp out inside the TSBD for many minutes after the last shot
was fired?

12.) The SBT is pure bullshit....with 3 separate bullets peppering the
2 victims instead of CE399, which was "planted" (naturally).

13.) No, no, wait...the SBT is still pure bullshit....but why not let's
have a T&T shot through JFK that somehow misses JBC? Yeah, that sounds
better than that silly "3-Shot" convenient SBT substitution. But, this
other one means that Bob Frazier is full of bullshit too when he said
there was no bullet damage done to the limo's back seats. And, of
course, this limo bullet vanishes at Jeannie's/Barbara Eden's
eye-blinking behest too (like virtually all other evidence in this case
as well).

14.) We're a-gonna shoot up the Plaza with many, many guns....but we're
gonna funnel all of this evidence down to JUST OSWALD within a very,
very short time of the shooting. Which is, of course, a theory that is
better-suited for a Quinn Martin TV production....starring David
Janssen as "The Patsy", "an innocent victim of blind justice"!

15.) It don't rain in Indianapolis in the summertime.


Can anything BE more piecemeal, incomplete, sketchy, half-baked, and
fragmentary than any of the "CTs" we've been offered since '63? If
so...how so? They're all over the map. Whereas the LN scenario is as
simple and steadfastly-stationary as can be -- One killer; One gun (his
own); Three shots; Two hits; One miss; Plus this one assassin kills
Officer Tippit while fleeing the JFK murder.

A Mark VII if there ever was a Mark VII.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 21, 2006, 10:26:38 AM4/21/06
to
In article <1145608166.3...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>> Actually, it's CT complaints about the case that is a patchwork quilt.
>
>
>Ain't that the truth. CT accounts run the gamut from (but certainly not
>limited to the following CT Short List)........
>
>1.) Anywhere from 2 to 6 gunmen firing shots in DP.


What did the eyewitnesses say?

>2.) 1, 2, or 3 gunmen/conspirators at the Tippit murder scene (none of
>them the God-like Saint Oswald, naturally).


What did the eyewitnesses say?

>3.) Anywhere from 4 to 13 shots fired at JFK in DP. (Even though less
>than 9% of witnesses heard more than three.)


What did the eyewitnesses say?

>4.) Oswald was a totally-innocent "Patsy".


What did the eyewitnesses say?

>5.) Oswald wasn't quite a "totally"-innocent "Patsy" -- i.e., he was
>"involved" in the shooting in some always-undefined way (probably;
>maybe; perhaps; could be), but no way he fired that head shot.


What did the eyewitnesses say?

>6.) Two "head shots" to JFK's cranium. (Even though the Z-Film, the
>autopsy report, and all of the autopsy doctors completely debunk this
>looney notion.)


Z-film *does* show two shots, and the X-rays support it. Bugs you, doesn't it?

You can even view the entry hole in JFK's temple yourself...


>7.) Umbrella Man has a nifty dart-thrower.
>
>8.) No...Umbrella Man was merely "signaling" to the shooters.
>
>9.) The first shot in DP missed the limo (an initial "diversionary
>shot" from the TSBD).


What did the eyewitnesses say?

>10.) No, the first struck JFK in the throat from the front (totally
>destroying theory #9).


What did the eyewitnesses say?

>11.) Oswald couldn't possibly have made it to the 2nd Floor in 90
>seconds to meet M. Baker....but (somehow) the "real" killer(s) DID
>manage to escape the 6th Floor EVEN FASTER -- otherwise why in the hell
>didn't they run into Baker and Truly on the stairs? Did they leap out
>the 6th-Floor window into a net below the building? Or did they decide
>to just camp out inside the TSBD for many minutes after the last shot
>was fired?

What did the eyewitnesses say?


>12.) The SBT is pure bullshit....with 3 separate bullets peppering the
>2 victims instead of CE399, which was "planted" (naturally).

What did the eyewitnesses, FBI, and Secret Service say?

>13.) No, no, wait...the SBT is still pure bullshit....but why not let's
>have a T&T shot through JFK that somehow misses JBC? Yeah, that sounds
>better than that silly "3-Shot" convenient SBT substitution. But, this
>other one means that Bob Frazier is full of bullshit too when he said
>there was no bullet damage done to the limo's back seats. And, of
>course, this limo bullet vanishes at Jeannie's/Barbara Eden's
>eye-blinking behest too (like virtually all other evidence in this case
>as well).


What did the eyewitnesses, FBI, and Secret Service say?

>14.) We're a-gonna shoot up the Plaza with many, many guns....but we're
>gonna funnel all of this evidence down to JUST OSWALD within a very,
>very short time of the shooting. Which is, of course, a theory that is
>better-suited for a Quinn Martin TV production....starring David
>Janssen as "The Patsy", "an innocent victim of blind justice"!


What was the FBI telling eyewitnesses on Saturday?


>15.) It don't rain in Indianapolis in the summertime.


What do eyewitnesses living in Indianapolis say?

>Can anything BE more piecemeal, incomplete, sketchy, half-baked, and
>fragmentary than any of the "CTs" we've been offered since '63?


Yep... the supposed "investigation".

>If
>so...how so?


It wasn't. (an investigation, that is)

>They're all over the map.


So too, is the evidence.


>Whereas the LN scenario is as
>simple and steadfastly-stationary as can be -- One killer; One gun (his
>own); Three shots; Two hits; One miss; Plus this one assassin kills
>Officer Tippit while fleeing the JFK murder.


And yet, LNT'ers snip and run when any evidence and/or rebuttals are offered to
their assertions.

Why is that, do you suppose? Cowards?


>A Mark VII if there ever was a Mark VII.

Steve

unread,
Apr 21, 2006, 12:47:07 PM4/21/06
to
Ben, Ben, Ben...

Will you ever succeed at making a post without calling people names?

James K. Olmstead

unread,
Apr 21, 2006, 2:41:07 PM4/21/06
to

"Jean Davison" <walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:AFY1g.68329$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

James K. Olmstead

unread,
Apr 21, 2006, 2:41:38 PM4/21/06
to

"Jean Davison" <walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:AFY1g.68329$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Jean: M and R did not know of the planned trip to New Orleans, nor was Lee waiting
for them...read the testimony again....they were surprised to see them leaving.

However, I don't believe that they did not know of the move.

jko

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 21, 2006, 3:32:18 PM4/21/06
to
In article <1145638027....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Steve says...

>
>Ben, Ben, Ben...
>
> Will you ever succeed at making a post without calling people names?


Snipped and ran, I see. Why would I refuse to call a liar a liar? Or a coward
a coward?

I'm an honest man, I call'em as I see 'em.


You make it so easy - too... *anyone* can see the lies and cowardice. I merely
point it out.


If the evidence and testimony in this case proved your theory, you'd be *happy*
to discuss and debate it... but it doesn't, and you aren't.

Jean Davison

unread,
Apr 22, 2006, 12:53:02 AM4/22/06
to

"James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4448bfe7$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

Jim, I'm not sure I understand you. Oswald was expecting Ruth to
come over for a visit -- that had been planned. Ruth didn't know about
the trip until she got there, but what difference does that make? Two
pages later, Ruth said that Oswald had too much luggage for a city bus,
and, "I am sure he preferred me to a taxi because I didn't cost as much."
(She didn't cost anything, of course.)


http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0234a.htm


Jean

Jean Davison

unread,
Apr 22, 2006, 12:58:56 AM4/22/06
to

"Ray" <j.raymon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145550402....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> Jean wrote:
>
> "Nobody knows where Oswald was going, maybe not
> even Oswald."
>
> Jean, can you tell us why nobody bothered to ask him?

He claimed he was going to a movie.

>
> Jean wrote:
>
> " Now all you have to do is show that repeating something three times
> means that it's accurate."
>
> Not quite, Jean. It means that you have to show that William Whaley
> concocted or imagined the entire incident in which Lee Oswald,
> allegedly a fleeing assassin, opened the door and offered up his
> getaway car to a lady.

But it's not unusual for witnesses to "concoct or imagine"
things. You tell me -- do you think Oswald was wearing both of his jackets
in Whaley's cab? (Oswald's blue jacket was found later in the TSBD. His
landlady said he arrived in his shirtsleeves.)

Witnesses have imagined seeing things on TV that were never
televised. People, normal people, sometimes confuse what they've imagined
with what actually happened. If you don't believe me, please spend a
little time researching it on Google. Try the phrase "source monitoring"
with "memory," e.g. Memory is not nearly as reliable as most people
think.

>
> I will agree that there is something unbelievable about this incident
> if you assume that Lee really was an assassin, but there is nothing
> unbelievable about if you assume he was innocent.

I don't agree that it's unbelievable if he was guilty. I'm not
even arguing that it definitely didn't happen, I've just pointed out that
it's not in Whaley's original account (and neither are the two jackets).
People do strange, crazy things every day, and why someone who'd just
killed a President couldn't do something that seems irrational -- well,
you tell me. Why is that impossible?

Of course Baker inferred it -- for good reason, according to his
testimony.

Oswald was about 20 feet away when Baker first spotted him and
*still* about 20 feet away after Baker ran over to the door. If Oswald
hadn't been hurrying, Baker should've gained ground on him -- but he
didn't, in Baker's opinion.

>
> Mr. Belin.
> Was--his back was away from you, or not, as you first saw him?
> Mr. Baker.
> As I first caught that glimpse of him, or as I saw him, really saw him?
>
> Mr. Belin.
> As you really saw him.
> Mr. Baker.
> He was walking away from me with his back toward me.
> Mr. Dulles.
>
> Vol 111 P.250
>
> Representative Boggs.
> When you saw him, was he out of breath, did he appear to have been
> running or what?
> Mr. Baker.
> It didn't appear that to me. He appeared normal you know.
> Representative Boggs.
> Was he calm and collected?
> Mr. Baker.
> Yes, sir.

CTs always quote this as though it means something. I don't think
it does, Ray. A guilty man would've been trying his best to look
innocent, no?

>
> Jean's quotation from Marrion Baker's testimony opens up the question
> whether the "reenactments" conducted by David Belin can validly be used
> to show that a sixth-floor gunman could have beaten Baker and Truly to
> the lunchroom. In Baker's testimony, as quoted by Jean, Baker himself
> was "running" as he reached the lunchroom. Belin's "reenactments" were
> not filmed, as they could and should have been, but was Baker actually
> "running" in the "reenactment"?
>

Classic Harold Weisberg, repeated by CTs for 4 decades. Wrong
then, wrong now.

The "lunchroom encounter" has been re-enacted several times,
most recently in one of the JFK documentaries (Discovery Channel's, I
think). In that one, Oswald's journey down the stairs took, as I recall,
less than 50 seconds, and the LHO stand-in wasn't out of breath.
Moreover, Baker took longer to reach the TSBD on 11/22 than he did during
the WC re-enactment -- this is shown by the timing of both Baker's
appearance on the Couch film and by a radio message Baker heard before he
left his motorcycle.

Here's an old post of mine from Lancer, just so I don't have
to type it again:

QUOTE:
************************************************
************************************************

As you know, Baker testified that as he was leaving his parked
motorcycle...:

QUOTE:
>>> ... the last thing I heard here on the
radio was the chief [Curry] saying, "Get some men up on that railroad
track."
Mr. BELIN. Did you hear that on your police radio?
Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir; that was the last thing I heard.
Mr. BELIN. As you were getting off your motorcycle?
Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir.
<<<
UNQUOTE (III, 256)

Gary Mack has estimated that Curry's statement came at least 30-40 seconds
after the shots. He gave me permission to quote from his e-mail:

QUOTE:

>> Curry told me, and others over the years, that he didn't say or do
>> anything until officer Chaney rode up and confirmed that it was a
>> shooting, that Kennedy and Connally had been hit, and they needed to get
>> to a hospital.

Thanks to the Jack Daniel home movie shot from west of the triple
underpass, it's known that at least 15 seconds went by before Chaney even
reached the underpass. Add another 10-15 seconds, or more for him to reach
Curry -- which didn't happen until Curry rounded the curve to the Stemmons
ramp -- have the brief conversation, then Curry shouted to Greer what to
do, and you have a minimum time of 30-40 seconds between the shooting and
Curry's order. ...<< UNQUOTE

Curry's testimony on this is at IV, 161.

For you "lunchroom encounter" fans, this means that Baker took longer to
get to the lunchroom than the 90 seconds of the reenactment, and the WR
noted that this might be the case, when it said:

QUOTE:

>>>The time actually required for Baker and Truly to reach the second
floor on November 22 was probably longer than in the test runs. For
example, Baker required 15 seconds after the simulated shot to ride his
motorcycle 180 to 200 feet, park it, and run 45 feet to the building. No
allowance was made for the special conditions which existed on the day of
the assassination -- possible delayed reaction to the shot, jostling with
the crowd of people on the steps and scanning the area along Elm Street
and the parkway. Baker said, "We simulated the shots and by the time we
got there, we did everything that I did that day, and this would be the
minimum, because I am sure that I, you know, it took me a little longer."
<<<

UNQUOTE

And evidently, Baker was right -- it did take him longer on 11/22. In the
reenactment he got to the front door in 15 seconds, whereas on 11/22, he
hadn't yet left his motorcycle.
Jean
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
UNQUOTE

Returning to your post......


> Mr. Belin.
> All right. When we got inside the building did we run or trot or walk?
> Mr. Baker.
> Well, we did it at kind of a trot, I would say, it wasn't a real fast
> run, an open run. It was more of a trot, kind of.
>
> Was it a "run" or a "trot"?
>
> (Imagine that a man's fate depends on your answer?)
>
> As David Belin liked to say: You Are the Jury.

Weisberg was wrong, Ray. The Couch film and the radio message from
Curry show that this is a dead issue. Oswald had plenty of time to get to
the lunchroom.

Jean

David VP

unread,
Apr 22, 2006, 4:35:18 AM4/22/06
to
>> "What did the eyewitnesses say?"

Oh, so Ben-boy wants to now (evidently) rely exclusively on
"eyewitness" testimony (at least for this post/thread at any rate).

OK.....

The OVERWHELMING majority of witnesses (nearly 100% in fact; over 95%
total) are "1 Killer" (ear)witnesses, with all but 4 or 5 witnesses
hearing shots from just "one" single location. If shots had come from 2
or more locales, this pct. of 95% in favor of just "one" location
(whether it be front or rear) is impossibly high, IMO.

Plus -- 100% of the EYEwitnesses who can offer up an informed opinion
are "1 Killer Witnesses" -- because absolutely NOBODY saw more than one
gun or more than one killer firing a weapon at JFK on 11/22.


>> "What did the eyewitnesses say?"

Re. Tippit this time -- Ben's gotta be joking here folks. He wants to
rely of the "eyewitnesses" at the Tippit scene to SUPPORT CONSPIRACY
AND MULTIPLE KILLERS OF OFFICER TIPPIT?

He must be using that CT Goofy Juice again!

Answer -- Very nearly 100% (again, like in DP) are "1 Killer"
eyewitnesses....with only ONE single lonely witness supporting the idea
of multiple killers running in opposite directions after the shooting
of Tippit.

IMO, Acquilla Clemmons saw Ted Callaway "escaping" the crime scene
(with Tippit's own gun in tow) after Callaway secured Tippit's gun from
the dead officer.


>> "What did the eyewitnesses say?"

Re. shots fired in DP --- Again, Ben must be a glutton for punishment
in bringing up the witnesses re. the # of shots....because the vast
majority (beyond ALL doubt) heard THREE SHOTS EXACTLY. ......

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg


>> "What did the eyewitnesses say?"


Re. Oswald's "Patsy" status. Let's let Ben come up with a single
"witness" who went on record on 11/22 (or any # of days later) and said
to the world "Oswald's nuttin' but a patsy folks". Can you come up with
a single person...besides the accused double-murderer himself, of
course?


>> "{The} Z-film *does* show two {head} shots, and the X-rays support it."


Bull (re. Z-Film proof), and bull again (re. the X-rays, which do not
verify any such 2-shots-to-the-head scenario). You're spittin' out
theories just to see where they'll splatter. You...are...pathetic.

The autopsy report is unambiguous and always was re. the NUMBER OF
SHOTS THAT STRUCK THE PRESIDENT -- Two. And both from "behind and
somewhat above the level of the deceased".

All THREE autopsy docs are rotten liars when they signed-off on above
conclusion...right?

You're pathetic.


>> "What did the eyewitnesses, FBI, and Secret Service say {re. the SBT's validity}?"

And what did the WC say re. the SBT's likelihood, Ben (with the WC
being the entity investigating this whole situation closer than anybody
else at the time)?

And what did the HSCA say, Ben?

And what did every single one of the nine pathologists say re. the
SBT's validity for the HSCA in '78, Ben? (Including Wecht. Wecht thinks
the bullet did emerge from JFK's throat, but somehow didn't hit
Connally OR do any limo damage....per his 1986 account of the event at
the LHO Mock Trial. In short, he's cuckoo. Because one of those two
things HAD to have happened.)

And...what has every single "re-creation" and "test" and "animation"
(using verified TSBD measurements, blueprints, exacting scale-models of
the limo, etc.) said regarding the validity and likelihood of the SBT
since 1964, Ben?

Answer -- Each test has undeniably shown the SBT to be a valid and
reasonable scenario to explain the wounding of JFK/JBC in '63.

CTers will continue to deny the SBT's viability...but so what? Matters
not. Because the SBT WAS doable, and everybody with a brain and some
CS&L can easily see that to be the case. Because if it's NOT a correct
scenario....then bullets CAN dance around President's bodies, and
multiple bullets CAN disappear without a trace, and President's necks
and backs can be void of all major damage where major damage SHOULD be,
and miracles CAN, indeed, be performed.


>> "And yet, LNT'ers snip and run when any evidence and/or rebuttals are offered to their assertions."


You must be officially in fruitcake-land with this last comment of
yours. Because your patently-weak "comebacks" to my last multi-point
pro-LN essay only prove to me you have very little on your "CT" side
re. most of these items. Your repeating "What did the eyewitnesses
say?" is laughable.

Two words again apply best here -- You're pathetic.


>> "Why is that, do you suppose? Cowards?"


And CTers will continue to "isolate" proven-invalid CT "evidence" till
the cows come home (or until "Final Verdict" by VB arrives, whichever
comes first).

Why is that, do you suppose? Stupidity perhaps?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 22, 2006, 1:09:54 PM4/22/06
to

Davey-boy again snips all the relevant context, and only responds to topics that
he thinks he can handle - which is generally less than 10% of anything I post.

Anyone wonder why?


In article <1145694918....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...


>
>> What did the eyewitnesses say?
>
>Oh, so Ben-boy wants to now (evidently) rely exclusively on
>"eyewitness" testimony (at least for this post/thread at any rate).


Actually, I responded to each of your questions by asking for the *relevant*
evidence, which in most cases were eyewitness statements or testimony.

This is an area that is dangerous for LNT'ers - they'd rather rely on
speculation, and often get upset when it's correctly labeled as such.


>OK.....
>
>The OVERWHELMING majority of witnesses (nearly 100% in fact; over 95%
>total) are "1 Killer" (ear)witnesses,

Untrue, of course... once again, when you use a lie to support your argument,
you really need to brush up on your argument.


>with all but 4 or 5 witnesses
>hearing shots from just "one" single location.


Oh? Which location was that? (Rhetorical question - Davey-boy will snip and
not answer it.)


>If shots had come from 2
>or more locales, this pct. of 95% in favor of just "one" location
>(whether it be front or rear) is impossibly high, IMO.

And we have a good basis on which to judge whether or not your opinion is worth
listening to.


>Plus -- 100% of the EYEwitnesses who can offer up an informed opinion
>are "1 Killer Witnesses" -- because absolutely NOBODY saw more than one
>gun or more than one killer firing a weapon at JFK on 11/22.

Even though there were a number of eyewitnesses to *multiple* people with a
rifle. And rifles in positions *other* than the SN.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your omissions...


>> What did the eyewitnesses say?
>
>Re. Tippit this time -- Ben's gotta be joking here folks. He wants to
>rely of the "eyewitnesses" at the Tippit scene to SUPPORT CONSPIRACY
>AND MULTIPLE KILLERS OF OFFICER TIPPIT?

As you snipped your original comment... I'll refer again to it here:

>>> 2.) 1, 2, or 3 gunmen/conspirators at the Tippit murder scene (none of
>>> them the God-like Saint Oswald, naturally).

And I asked you what did the eyewitnesses say. But you couldn't respond... for
you know, as well as I, that the closest eyewitness, Domingo Benavides, refused
to identify LHO as the killer. And strangely enough, he also reports that he
has been repeatedly threatened by police, and advised not to talk about what he
saw. (David Welsh, Ramparts, Nov '66). Helen Markham, of course, described
someone completely different.

William Scoggins, who *did* identify LHO, did so in the same lineup as Whaley,
and you can read Whaley's testimony to see what sort of "lineup" that one was.

But why is it so difficult for you to cite the evidence, Davey-boy? What scares
you about the eyewitnesses?

>He must be using that CT Goofy Juice again!
>
>Answer -- Very nearly 100% (again, like in DP) are "1 Killer"
>eyewitnesses....with only ONE single lonely witness supporting the idea
>of multiple killers running in opposite directions after the shooting
>of Tippit.


Meaningless... the closest eyewitness said one killer, I strongly suspect that
he's absolutely correct.


>IMO, Acquilla Clemmons saw Ted Callaway "escaping" the crime scene
>(with Tippit's own gun in tow) after Callaway secured Tippit's gun from
>the dead officer.


Why are you so afraid to cite the eyewitnesses for LHO's identification?


>> What did the eyewitnesses say?
>
>Re. shots fired in DP --- Again, Ben must be a glutton for punishment
>in bringing up the witnesses re. the # of shots....because the vast
>majority (beyond ALL doubt) heard THREE SHOTS EXACTLY. ......

Polls again... hmmm... that leaves you out in the cold, since polls put the
believers in conspiracy as high as 90% of America.

>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg

You clearly missed the HSCA - they corrected the record, and *four* shots is now
the official government position...

Sadly, you have no explanation for why eyewitnesses were being told by the FBI
as early as Saturday that if they didn't hear three shots, they didn't hear the
assassination... or words to that effect.

If there *were* exactly three shots, why was there official intimidation to
assert that number?


>> What did the eyewitnesses say?
>
>
>Re. Oswald's "Patsy" status. Let's let Ben come up with a single
>"witness" who went on record on 11/22 (or any # of days later) and said
>to the world "Oswald's nuttin' but a patsy folks". Can you come up with
>a single person...besides the accused double-murderer himself, of
>course?


Police Chief Jesse Curry: "We never could put him in that window with the rifle"


>> Z-film *does* show two shots, and the X-rays support it. Bugs you,
>> doesn't it?
>

>Bull (re. Z-Film proof),

Robert Harris has made an indisputable case... but you *will* dispute it, won't
you? How sad...

>and bull again (re. the X-rays, which do not
>verify any such 2-shots-to-the-head scenario).

A number of medically qualified people who've examined the X-rays have stated
so. What are *your* qualifications for calling them liars?

>You're spittin' out
>theories just to see where they'll splatter. You...are...pathetic.


Nah... just listing the evidence.


>The autopsy report is unambiguous and always was re. the NUMBER OF
>SHOTS THAT STRUCK THE PRESIDENT -- Two.

It was *also* unambiguous that the back of the heas was involved... but you
can't believe that, can you?

>And both from "behind and
>somewhat above the level of the deceased".
>
>All THREE autopsy docs are rotten liars when they signed-off on above
>conclusion...right?


You *do* have to believe that, don't you?

Or do you believe that the BOH film is altered? One or the other, they *both*
can't be true.


>You're pathetic.


Why, thankyou! I work very hard to be known as such from cowards and liars.

>> What did the eyewitnesses, FBI, and Secret Service say?

You added: "{re. the SBT's validity}?"

But let's look at what you *originally* said:

>12.) The SBT is pure bullshit....with 3 separate bullets peppering the
>2 victims instead of CE399, which was "planted" (naturally).

But you didn't answer the question - for you know that some of the medical and
ballistics experts stated that the SBT was untenable, and you know that the FBI
and Secret Service both stated, 'three shots, three hits'.

Yet you are too gutless to produce this simple answer, aren't you?

>And what did the WC say re. the SBT's likelihood, Ben (with the WC
>being the entity investigating this whole situation closer than anybody
>else at the time)?

I didn't ask you what the WC concluded, I asked you what the BASIC EVIDENCE
UNDERLYING THEIR 'CONCLUSIONS' WERE.

You couldn't give it, could you?


>And what did the HSCA say, Ben?

I didn't ask you what the HSCA concluded, I asked you what the BASIC EVIDENCE
UNDERLYING THEIR 'CONCLUSIONS' WERE.

You couldn't give it, could you?

>And what did every single one of the nine pathologists say re. the
>SBT's validity for the HSCA in '78, Ben? (Including Wecht. Wecht thinks
>the bullet did emerge from JFK's throat, but somehow didn't hit
>Connally OR do any limo damage....per his 1986 account of the event at
>the LHO Mock Trial. In short, he's cuckoo. Because one of those two
>things HAD to have happened.)

What did the evidence show? Or again, will you be too gutless to admit that
there is *NO* medically established evidence for transit - which is rather basic
to any SBT ideas...

In fact, what medical examination *was* done, proved exactly the opposite, that
no bullet transited JFK's body.


>And...what has every single "re-creation" and "test" and "animation"
>(using verified TSBD measurements, blueprints, exacting scale-models of
>the limo, etc.) said regarding the validity and likelihood of the SBT
>since 1964, Ben?


G.I.G.O.


>Answer -- Each test has undeniably shown the SBT to be a valid and
>reasonable scenario to explain the wounding of JFK/JBC in '63.


Nope.


>CTers will continue to deny the SBT's viability...but so what? Matters
>not. Because the SBT WAS doable, and everybody with a brain and some
>CS&L can easily see that to be the case. Because if it's NOT a correct
>scenario....then bullets CAN dance around President's bodies, and
>multiple bullets CAN disappear without a trace, and President's necks
>and backs can be void of all major damage where major damage SHOULD be,
>and miracles CAN, indeed, be performed.


It *would* take miracles for the SBT to be true. CAT scans have proven this
simple fact.


>> And yet, LNT'ers snip and run when any evidence and/or rebuttals are
>> offered to their assertions."
>
>
>You must be officially in fruitcake-land with this last comment of
>yours.

And yet, it's true, isn't it? LNT'ers constantly snip and run - you do it in
*THIS VERY POST*. You can't respond to the eyewitness testimony and evidence,
because there really *is* no response.

What can you say when it's pointed out that kids can see in the AP X-ray what
doctors and radiologists can't?

What can you say when it's pointed out that in the WCR and 26 volumes, they
couldn't find the space to put the OFFICIAL DEATH CERTIFICATE???!

What can you say when it's pointed out that the closest police eyewitness to the
murder was never asked a single question prior to the release of the WCR???

What can you say when it's pointed out that both the WC and HSCA *KNOWINGLY
LIED* in order to support their 'conclusions'???

The answer? "Nothing"... hence your desire to snip and run.

This is why one of my posts has drawn *no* rebuttals, despite being posted five
times now.

I think I'll expand on it, and start a weekly, or monthly posting - Just to
point out how cowardly LNT'ers have to be.


>Because your patently-weak "comebacks" to my last multi-point
>pro-LN essay only prove to me you have very little on your "CT" side
>re. most of these items.

Sad then, that you can't rebut them.


>Your repeating "What did the eyewitnesses
>say?" is laughable.


LNT'ers *have* to laugh at the evidence - they certainly can't *use* it.


>Two words again apply best here -- You're pathetic.


Thankyou. I work very hard to be considered so by those of your character.


>> Why is that, do you suppose? Cowards?
>
>
>And CTers will continue to "isolate" proven-invalid CT "evidence" till
>the cows come home (or until "Final Verdict" by VB arrives, whichever
>comes first).
>
>Why is that, do you suppose? Stupidity perhaps?

Bugliosi will be a joke, (just as Posner is), if and when his book is ever
released. Write this down.

greg

unread,
Apr 22, 2006, 1:49:33 PM4/22/06
to
From Marina's testimony at Shaw trial talking about LHO's return from
where ever he'd been since late Sept (Mexico City according to most).

Q: Now, about how long after you got to Ruth Paine's house in Irving,
Texas did you --

A: We left; a week or after a week or ten days, he show up.

Q: After a week or ten days he showed up?

A: Yes. He called one morning and said he was there, spent the night
YMCA or something like that. I forget now if he come by bus, you know,
and Ruth picked him up from the bus station or he took a taxi. I don't
remember.

Q: You don't remember which?

A: No, sir.

It would not have occurred to Marina that he may have got a taxi unless
he had used them previously.

With regard to Ruth Paine offering herself as a taxi servive... she did
later explain that when she had arrived he'd been looking for a cab.

Mr. JENNER - So that is confined to the meeting you expected to have
with Lee and Marina that morning when you went there and, to your
surprise, you found that Mr. Oswald was all packed to go to New Orleans.
Mrs. PAINE - All packed and looking for a cab; yes.

This business that he used one for the first time on 11/22/63 is a
classic LN factoid.

greg

James K. Olmstead

unread,
Apr 22, 2006, 1:57:10 PM4/22/06
to

"Jean Davison" <walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:o5h2g.74160$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...


Jean: The difficulty is understanding the event. The M and R visit...was it planned, if so
why if Oswald was leaving and they didn't know the visit was to say goodbye. If they
were a few minutes early they would interfer with the last minute packing. If they were
a few minutes late, they would have missed them. If the visit was not planned, why say it was.

All of their belongings were packed for the trip, Ruth talks them into seperatiing......which
means all of the baby stuff and all of Marina's items needed for the stay had to be unpacked
and divided.......which means the rifle was in danger of exposure to the Paines.

They said they didn't know about the trip....but I believe they did.

jko

James K. Olmstead

unread,
Apr 22, 2006, 2:03:28 PM4/22/06
to
Thanks for the comments and testimony....

btw did you get those doc last week?

jko

"greg" <magicrem...@octa4.net.au> wrote in message
news:4449d3a1$0$12115$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

j.raymon...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 22, 2006, 11:13:16 PM4/22/06
to
Jean wrote : "The Couch film and the radio message from

Curry show that this is a dead issue. Oswald had plenty of time to get
to the lunchroom."

Jean, I give up on the timing issue for now. I have not studied the
question for a long time. Of course to say that someone COULD have been
in a position to commit a crime is a long way from proving that the
same someone actually did commit the crime.

Jean wrote: "You tell me -- do you think Oswald was wearing both of his


jackets in Whaley's cab?"

No Jean, I do not. We do not normally identify people by their
clothing, and the real issue here is whether Whaley was able to
positively identify Lee Oswald, not by his clothing, but by his face. I
suspect that if the Commission had opened the issue of clothing by
refreshing Whaley's memory with his original affidavit, the confusion
about the jackets might never have arisen.

Ask any trial lawyer, you could trip up ANY witness, no matter how
honest or how observant, with some trivial issue like exactly what
someone was wearing four months earlier. Any trial lawyer will tell
you, though, that this is a dangerous tactic, because jurors are likely
to see right through it.

Jean wrote : "Witnesses have imagined seeing things on TV that were


never televised. People, normal people, sometimes confuse what they've
imagined with what actually happened."

I get it. So Buell Wesley Frazier imagined seeing Lee Oswald carrying a
package, and imagined that Lee said he had curtain rods. This method of
reasoning looks like great fun.

Jean, I commend you for your studies in the psychology of memory. Be
careful, though. That kind of study could lead you to the conclusion
that the lineup identifications by the Tippit witnesses are completely
worthless.

Jean wrote: "People do strange, crazy things every day, and why someone


who'd just killed a President couldn't do something that seems

irrational [offer up his getaway car to a lady] -- well, you tell me.
Why is that impossible?"

I do not say it is impossible that a fleeing killer could offer up his
getaway car to a lady, but I do say it is highly improbable. I do not
see how any fair-minded person can deny that this incident is evidence
-- not proof, just evidence -- of Lee Oswald's innocence. To attempt to
deny that the incident ever happened, why that's just a river in Egypt.


To Ben, thanks for the support. And thanks to James, Martha and Greg we
now know that, in his travels through this great big world of ours, Lee
Oswald used trains, planes and ships, and even that he was no stranger
to the common taxi. .

A special thanks goes out to Jean for clearing up one big mystery. Of
course I should have guessed the answer myself, since I have done the
same thing when confronted with an unexpected free afternoon:

Jean wrote:

"Nobody knows where Oswald was going, maybe not
even Oswald."

I wrote: " Jean, can you tell us why nobody bothered to ask him?

Jean wrote: "He claimed he was going to a movie."

So there we have it, folks. He said he was going to a movie, and dang
me if that's not exactly where he went.


David VP

unread,
Apr 23, 2006, 1:31:58 AM4/23/06
to
>> "So there we have it, folks. He said he was going to a movie, and dang me if that's not exactly where he went."

Yeah....Oswald was just dying to see that Van Heflin double-feature. So
bent on seeing it he was, that he ducked out of work early....dashed
home....and grabbed a gun (just in case the theater door was blocked by
anybody; he could shoot his way into the picture-show house).

And Lee decides to act "funny" in Brewer's shoe-store entryway too just
down the street.

Why in the world WOULDN'T Oswald use an "I was going to the movies"
excuse....seeing as how he was caught in....the movie theater???

Why do so many people want to let Lee Oswald have TWO "Free Murder"
cards??

Amazing ignorance.


Jean Davison

unread,
Apr 24, 2006, 1:27:27 AM4/24/06
to

"James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:444a1bff$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

Jim, I'm still not sure I follow you. The packing wasn't
necessarily "last minute," was it? It was planned all along that he go
alone to N.O. and find work, and Marina stay behind. He had Ruth take him
to the station so he could check his luggage and buy a ticket, but he
wasn't scheduled for any particular bus.

>
> All of their belongings were packed for the trip, Ruth talks them into
> seperatiing......which
> means all of the baby stuff and all of Marina's items needed for the stay
> had to be unpacked
> and divided.......which means the rifle was in danger of exposure to the
> Paines.

No, look again. Nothing was unpacked and divided. It was
planned that some of the baby things stay behind, which was one reason
that Ruth suggested that she drive Marina and June to New Orleans later,
rather than have Marina try to handle all that on a bus.

>
> They said they didn't know about the trip....but I believe they did.

Not sure what you mean by "they." Marina knew about the trip
ahead of time.

Jean

James K. Olmstead

unread,
Apr 24, 2006, 10:25:01 AM4/24/06
to

"Jean Davison" <walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:HgZ2g.74586$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...

Jean:

The Paines did not know of the move, you say so yourself

quote

>>>Ruth didn't know about the trip until she got there, <<<<

And if the plan was for Marina to stay behind....Lee would have
only packed his two bags.....not everything they owned.

jko

Jean Davison

unread,
Apr 24, 2006, 4:40:16 PM4/24/06
to

"James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:444cb37c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

But I don't see what difference that makes. Could you explain?

>
> quote
>
>>>>Ruth didn't know about the trip until she got there, <<<<
>
> And if the plan was for Marina to stay behind....Lee would have
> only packed his two bags.....not everything they owned.

But he *didn't* pack everything they owned. See this page,
e.g.:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0235a.htm

The entire discussion starts on p. 457 and continues for several
pages.

Jean

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Aug 12, 2006, 1:43:47 PM8/12/06
to
Jean Davison wrote:
> "Ray" <j.raymon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1145550402....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Jean wrote:
>>
>> "Nobody knows where Oswald was going, maybe not
>> even Oswald."
>>
>> Jean, can you tell us why nobody bothered to ask him?
>
> He claimed he was going to a movie.
>

No, that's silly. He only ducked into the Texas Theatre because he had
just killed a cop and the cops were looking for him.

j.raymon...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 12, 2006, 3:28:04 PM8/12/06
to
Anthony Marsh wrote:

> No, that's silly. He only ducked into the Texas Theatre because he had
> just killed a cop and the cops were looking for him.

How do you know that?

Entering a cinema without paying constitutes the crime of Theft of
Services. As far as I know no one has ever proven that Lee Oswald was a
thief. He certainly did not admit to such a crime, nor was he ever charged
with such a crime during his lifetime.


tomnln

unread,
Aug 12, 2006, 6:43:46 PM8/12/06
to
Only two more blocks on the route Oswald was taking would have brought him
to Ruby's Place.

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lqWdnfiKpM_FmEPZ...@comcast.com...

j.raymon...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 12, 2006, 8:27:29 PM8/12/06
to

tomnln wrote:
> Only two more blocks on the route Oswald was taking would have brought him
> to Ruby's Place.

Unlikely he was heading to meet Ruby.

Ruby was at Parkland hospital, remember?


Jim Shannon

unread,
Aug 13, 2006, 10:44:22 AM8/13/06
to

<j.raymon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155409458.1...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

If Oswald had a criminal record he couldn't get intio Russia. Good points.

Jim

Jim Shannon

unread,
Aug 13, 2006, 10:44:43 AM8/13/06
to

"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:K6pDg.3417$W01.2227@dukeread08...

> Only two more blocks on the route Oswald was taking would have brought him
> to Ruby's Place.

Which basically dispenses the idea Oswald was heading too Ruby's. I still
think Oswald was headed to the Oak Cliff Library and if Tippit hadn't
spotted him the Library Intern and Oswald would have been an interesting
encounter when Police got there.

Jim

tomnln

unread,
Aug 13, 2006, 2:37:29 PM8/13/06
to
How would Oswald know that?

<j.raymon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155423100.6...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Walt

unread,
Aug 13, 2006, 2:40:40 PM8/13/06
to

There's a point to be made here about Oswald going to the movies, but I
can't remember what it is right now....... The point to be made is
concerning Cap't Fritz's notes. I believe somewhere in Fritz's notes he
said that Oswald PLANNED to go to the movies when he left the TSBD.
If Fritz believed that Lee Oswald had PLANNED to go to the movies, then
why did they pretend that Oswald FLED from the scene??

Walt


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Aug 13, 2006, 7:44:58 PM8/13/06
to

What are you mumbling about now? Who said that Oswald wanted to get into
Russia after sneaking into the theatre? And please cite this law you are
talking about. Since when is sneaking into a theater a felony?

Were you just joking?

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Aug 13, 2006, 7:48:27 PM8/13/06
to

Oswald was trying to hide from the police. He had just killed a cop. He
does not want to risk being identified by the ticket clerk while paying
for a ticket. So, is sneaking into the theater a felony according to you?

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Aug 13, 2006, 8:04:02 PM8/13/06
to

Mind showing me where in Fritz's notes Oswald said that he had planned
to go to the theatre?

>
>

j.raymon...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 13, 2006, 11:33:05 PM8/13/06
to
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Oswald was trying to hide from the police. He had just killed a cop. He
> does not want to risk being identified by the ticket clerk while paying
> for a ticket.

The Gospel according to the Warren Commission.

Was he afraid that that the ticket clerk witnessed the Tippit murder?

>So, is sneaking into the theater a felony according to you?

Probably a misdemeanour given the value involved, but a crime
nonetheless. Why draw attention to himself by committing a silly crime
like theft in broad daylight if he really was a murderer?

All due respect, Mr. Marsh, I think you are missing something here.


Jim Shannon

unread,
Aug 14, 2006, 1:06:38 AM8/14/06
to

"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:1155481567.3...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Most importantly, why was Oswald spotted heading up Tenth st if he was
going to the movies. Why be on Tenth st at all?

Jim


Jim Shannon

unread,
Aug 14, 2006, 1:07:41 AM8/14/06
to

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:IOKdnZZw7bONw0LZ...@comcast.com...