Jump to content


Spartacus

Oswald and Bus 1213


  • Please log in to reply
472 replies to this topic

#16 Guest_Lee Farley_*

Guest_Lee Farley_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 January 2011 - 10:59 AM


Hi Tom

Are you saying that Reed took photos of McWatters bus "real time" when it was stuck on Elm Street?

Lee


At the risk of tooting my own horn, please see post #11 in this thread:

http://educationforu...?showtopic=7809


Well, I did not know that. Fascinating.

I had read about the MIG Offices being on that route and were located near the bus stop that Oswald allegedly boarded the bus. I guess the time frames allow him to have met somebody outside those offices but, of course, it's impossible to say who or why.

Thanks for steering me in the direction of the thread you've linked to, Robert. I've never seen it before. Refering back to Tom Scully's post, the visual nature of the photos of "the" actual bus sitting there on Elm Street may have had quite a psychological impact on a jury if they had been presented as evidence. However, just because Reed took 2 photographs of McWatters bus as it was stuck in traffic does not necessarily mean that Oswald was on it.

I will point out one problem that jumped out at me when I saw the photograph linked here:

http://www.leeharveyoswald.nl/bus2.jpg

Mr. BALL. Using the same schedule, can you tell me at what time around 12:30 or so that the Beckley bus would leave Elm and St. Paul and proceed westerly on Elm?
Mr. MCWATTERS. He is scheduled in there the same time as I am, 12:36.
Mr. BALL. 12:36. Was that bus in the line?
Mr. MCWATTERS. No. In other words, that bus was behind me, in other words, because when I got there as a general rule, when we pull up there every day, in other words, I am coming in one direction and he is another, in other
words, most every day, we will pull up at this intersection at the same time. Now, whichever way the light changes is who gets, in other words, who gets in front of who. But at that day, I am sure that I was ahead of tbe Beckley
bus.
Mr. BALL. You are sure you were ahead of it?
Mr. MCWATTERS. Because there wasn’t another bus in front of me. I was the first bus down there that was tied up in there in the traffic.

The photograph quite clearly shows another bus ahead of McWatters AND IF this WAS the Beckley bus then it makes even less sense that Oswald would walk past it and instead get on the Marsalis bus that would take him nine blocks away from his room on North Beckley. I hate having to call people "liars" because it's difficult sometimes to discern whether someone's awareness has let them down or whether they are fabricating their observations. I have no doubts that Cecil McWatters was an honest man who found himself in quite an unfortunate and difficult situation. But quite clearly McWatters got this wrong. There was a bus in front of his, only one block ahead and his bus was not the first bus stuck in the traffic jam on Elm Street.

Edited by Lee Farley, 20 January 2011 - 11:26 AM.


#17 Guest_Tom Scully_*

Guest_Tom Scully_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 January 2011 - 12:26 PM

Lee, my musings about the reaction of a jury were intended as sarcasm. No jury ever got to review anything related to accusations against Oswald. Stuart L. Reed was not a simply a civilian, and the circumstances, timing, and the details related to the developing of his slides seem suspect. He raced around during a crucial 90 minutes, dumped his film, contacted the FBI, signed a release consigning his slides, still at the developing lab, hopped a boat to Panama out of NOLA on the 26th, and seems never to have been heard from again.

Here's the link to the first of my two posts showing how I know what I just posted about Reed and his exit.:

http://educationforu...ndpost&p=211063

But, he popped up here, in 1964, thanks to the George Smathers library,

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00094771/00656/4x?vo=11&vp=315,0

Page 4


A retirement party honoring Stuart
L. Reed, Executive Officer, Canal
Zone Civilian Personnel Policy Co-
ordinating Board, will be held at the
Quarry Heights Officers Club Satur-
day, March 23.
Reed, who came to the Canal Zone
in 1962, is well known for his activi-
ties in Canal Zone scouting, Toast-
masters, bowling, and the Shrine.
On his retirement, the latter part of
this month, he will have more than
31 Government service, most of it
with the Department of the Army.
Tickets for the retirement party-
starting with a 6:30 p.m. cocktail
hour and followed by a buffet at
7:30 p.m. may be obtained by calling
Mrs. Barbara Krueger....



#18 J. Raymond Carroll

J. Raymond Carroll

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,447 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York
  • Interests:https://www.facebook.com/search/me/friends/photos-of

Posted 20 January 2011 - 01:47 PM

The Beckley bus left the transfer point on St Paul and Elm at 12:36pm. The same time as the "Marsalis-Munger" bus. It makes no sense for Oswald to get on a bus that took him 9 blocks away from where he lived when a bus that did take him all the way home was right behind the one he allegedly got on.


On a previous thread someone posted a map of the route taken by the McWatters bus, and (going on memory here) that bus made its turnaround very close to the Texas Theatre. If my memory is correct, then taking the McWatters bus made perfect sense if Oz intended to go the movies in Oak CLiff, as he asserted.

It is entirely possible that he changed his mind about going directly to the theatre during the cab ride, and decided he had time to stop at his rooming house to change out of his work clothes.

#19 Guest_Lee Farley_*

Guest_Lee Farley_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 January 2011 - 02:44 PM


The Beckley bus left the transfer point on St Paul and Elm at 12:36pm. The same time as the "Marsalis-Munger" bus. It makes no sense for Oswald to get on a bus that took him 9 blocks away from where he lived when a bus that did take him all the way home was right behind the one he allegedly got on.


On a previous thread someone posted a map of the route taken by the McWatters bus, and (going on memory here) that bus made its turnaround very close to the Texas Theatre. If my memory is correct, then taking the McWatters bus made perfect sense if Oz intended to go the movies in Oak CLiff, as he asserted.

It is entirely possible that he changed his mind about going directly to the theatre during the cab ride, and decided he had time to stop at his rooming house to change out of his work clothes.


Quite possible but on the proviso that other evidence is ignored.

So, Ray, couple of quick questions. Lee Oswald claimed he changed clothes. The DPD claimed he did not. Which do you put your faith in and why? If he changed clothes he transfered the bus ticket quite purposefully from either his trouser pockets or his previous shirt pocket (if it had one) and if he changed shirts he placed the transfer in the top left pocket of the fresh shirt he put on. Why? The transfer was useless once he left Elm Street. It had to have been the shirt pocket if he did transfer it over because if it was his trousers it would not be pristine. Especially after he'd then gone and sat in a cab. So is it not strange that he takes a useless transfer out of his shirt pocket and transfers it over to his new shirt?


Earlene Roberts said he was zipping a jacket on his way out. He was arrested without a jacket. The grey jacket that was found in the Texaco car park by all accounts was not his and there's no evidence it ever belonged to him. Marina disowned it and it was the wrong size. What happened to the jacket that Roberts saw him leaving in?

Lee Oswald originally "said" he went all the way home on the bus. Then changed his tune the next day and "said" he got off the bus and got a cab. Why did he lie on day 1?

P.S. You haven't addressed McWatters testimony about there being no bus in front of him as being completely inaccurate. By all accounts he was sat there for 45 minutes looking at that bus in front him.

Edited by Lee Farley, 20 January 2011 - 03:06 PM.


#20 Guest_Lee Farley_*

Guest_Lee Farley_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 January 2011 - 02:50 PM

Lee, my musings about the reaction of a jury were intended as sarcasm. No jury ever got to review anything related to accusations against Oswald.


Tom

I'll check the link out. Thanks.

Sorry for not picking up on the sarcasm. The question that pops in my head is "why the need for these photographs?" What purpose did they serve because they're not very well known? I must admit I'm shocked I've never seen them and there must be lots of other interested people that have not seen them before.

Lee

#21 J. Raymond Carroll

J. Raymond Carroll

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,447 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York
  • Interests:https://www.facebook.com/search/me/friends/photos-of

Posted 20 January 2011 - 03:52 PM

Lee Oswald claimed he changed clothes. The DPD claimed he did not. Which do you put your faith in and why?


It is a long time since I looked at the evidence on this, and I do not recall the basis for DPD to claim he did not, but I have never really doubted that he changed out of his work clothes.


If he changed clothes he transfered the bus ticket quite purposefully from either his trouser pockets or his previous shirt pocket (if it had one) and if he changed shirts he placed the transfer in the top left pocket of the fresh shirt he put on. Why?


Force of habit. Most men simply transfer their pocket litter when changing clothes.

Earlene Roberts said he was zipping a jacket on his way out.


Roberts is not very persuasive on the matter of clothing. There was no reason for her to pay particular attention to what Oz was wearing, she was blind in one eye, and her attention was directed towards her TV set.

Lee Oswald originally "said" he went all the way home on the bus. Then changed his tune the next day and "said" he got off the bus and got a cab. Why did he lie on day 1?


He had no reason to lie, and I do not believe he did lie. The interrogation was half-assed, at best.

You haven't addressed McWatters testimony about there being no bus in front of him as being completely inaccurate.


Well maybe you have a perfect memory for the exact details of a street scene you saw three or four months ago, but McWatters did not. You have already stated that you do not doubt mcWatters' honesty.

#22 Duke Lane

Duke Lane

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Universally loved and admired for his keen wit, sharp intellect, loathsome egoism, and awe-inspiring self-delusion, Lane studies the JFK assassination from afar, offers few opinions, and generally keeps to himself.

Posted 20 January 2011 - 11:14 PM


Are you saying that Reed took photos of McWatters bus "real time" when it was stuck on Elm Street?

At the risk of tooting my own horn, please see post #11 in this thread: http://educationforu...?showtopic=7809

I've never seen it before. Refering back to Tom Scully's post, the visual nature of the photos of "the" actual bus sitting there on Elm Street may have had quite a psychological impact on a jury if they had been presented as evidence. However, just because Reed took 2 photographs of McWatters bus as it was stuck in traffic does not necessarily mean that Oswald was on it.

I will point out one problem that jumped out at me when I saw the photograph linked here: http://www.leeharveyoswald.nl/bus2.jpg

Mr. BALL. Using the same schedule, can you tell me at what time around 12:30 or so that the Beckley bus would leave Elm and St. Paul and proceed westerly on Elm?
Mr. MCWATTERS. He is scheduled in there the same time as I am, 12:36.
Mr. BALL. 12:36. Was that bus in the line?
Mr. MCWATTERS. No. In other words, that bus was behind me, in other words, because when I got there as a general rule, when we pull up there every day, in other words, I am coming in one direction and he is another, in other words, most every day, we will pull up at this intersection at the same time. Now, whichever way the light changes is who gets, in other words, who gets in front of who. But at that day, I am sure that I was ahead of tbe Beckley bus.
Mr. BALL. You are sure you were ahead of it?
Mr. MCWATTERS. Because there wasn't another bus in front of me. I was the first bus down there that was tied up in there in the traffic.

The photograph quite clearly shows another bus ahead of McWatters AND IF this WAS the Beckley bus then it makes even less sense that Oswald would walk past it and instead get on the Marsalis bus that would take him nine blocks away from his room on North Beckley....

I'm often amused (bemused?) that people either claim to or are expected to have picture perfect memories of a day that, up to a certain point, was just "a normal day." Could Cecil McWatters have told anyone what busses were or weren't in front of him, or whether they arrived before or after him, on Tuesday, December 12, 1963? What reason would he have had to notice this on December 12, and more to the point, not knowing what would be happening later that day as he left the downtown transfer point, why would he have paid any more attention on November 22 to what bus or busses were or were not in front of him at that one time he'd passed through this point (out of however many times he passed through it on any given day)? And why would anyone expect - or believe - that he'd remember what he'd seen earlier on that day any better than he'd have remembered what he'd seen on any other day that week or that month or at any other time?

When he says "in front of me," does he mean "anywhere in front of me," or "immediately in front of me," where his front bumper (and therefore his windshield) was six inches from the back of another bus? Could, for example, a bus have left the transfer point just as he was pulling into it so, while to us it may have been "in front of" him, from his perspective - which included seeing a lot of busses "in front of" him by various distances, especially downtown - it may not have been "in front of" him, i.e., taking up his entire view?

CD 630, as I remember, has a wide variety of bus schedules included in it. Glancing over them, it doesn't seem like they're terribly easy to translate, but if McWatters' line (it was the Marsalis line, not Munger, wasn't it? Where did I even read "Munger" relative to this discussion? There's a Munger Avenue northeast of downtown ... was that his northbound terminus, Marsalis at the southbound end?) shows a time of 12:36 stopping somewhere downtown, it should be fairly easy to see which other busses had the "same schedule" as he did, and particularly if the Beckley bus did.

Reconciling(?) this with the bus photo linked above and here, it appears that the other bus is already in the left(most?) lane, and it potentially could have cleared Elm & Houston before the traffic was stopped again by police, or allowed to go past since it wasn't going through the crime scene, per se. Of course, other than the claim that it was "Oswald's bus," what is there that proves it's McWatters' bus and not any other bus, merely presumed to be McWatters' due to the estimated time and traffic situation (or simply its convenient proximity)? Is the original photo clear enough to make out the number?

Long and short, I wouldn't necessarily parse too much into McWatters' statement above. He well might not have been paying attention close enough as he might if someone had said "there'll be a quiz afterward" about what he saw, or as closely as either we'd like to think he was, or he'd wanted counsel to think he was.

(Incidentally, I think McW explains the "transfer point" downtown. It is not, as one could surmise, the only place that someone could use a "transfer," which could be anywhere bus routes intersected or came close to each other, or anywhere at all downtown. As a teenager going to high school out of my hometown, I used to get off one bus in the morning and transfer to a second one at the same spot on the way to school, but had to walk a couple of blocks to get from one bus to the other on the way home due to one-way streets, etc. Sometimes, I'd walk to a store or somewhere during the time I had before the transfer expired and pick up the second bus blocks from where I'd normally get it. Other kids walked even farther to get to their busses, depending where they were headed, and we all probably got slightly diverted from time to time.)

#23 Duke Lane

Duke Lane

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Universally loved and admired for his keen wit, sharp intellect, loathsome egoism, and awe-inspiring self-delusion, Lane studies the JFK assassination from afar, offers few opinions, and generally keeps to himself.

Posted 21 January 2011 - 02:29 AM

Further to the thought about what people notice on a "regular" basis, what explanation can there be for Milton Jones not recalling a lady with a suitcase taking a transfer before getting off to walk to the train station, which McWatters testified to, and Bledsoe noticing an occurrence that the bus driver described when she couldn't have known anything about it if she wasn't there?

As I recall, Bledsoe filed an affidavit with the sheriff's department on Saturday, long after McWatters had filed his at the police department. Hers was affidavit #5 in CE2003 (here). In it, she identified Oswald as having gotten onto the bus that she was on at about Murphy Street, which was just east of Lamar, and getting off again as traffic congested in the next couple of blocks. This also jibes with McWatters' recollection. Did the fact that Jones apparently didn't see this activity - or at the least did not remember it several months later - mean that it didn't happen because he also didn't see/remember seeing Mary Bledsoe?

That would mean that it was also a figment of McWatters' imagination, but given that two people imagined it, it doesn't seem likely. Perhaps Jones wasn't there? If he knew about the "grinning man" incident suggests that he was (tho' I don't know that McWatters was ever asked to identify him once he'd been found; was he?). That in April Jones put a younger woman in the seat supposedly occupied by Bledsoe also could mean he wasn't there ... or maybe he'd forgotten some of the details in the interim, and simply remembered "a woman" in a particular seat, and "a conversation" between "a (different) woman" and the bus driver.

She also mentioned a small handful of people being on the bus - I forget; six or eight, was it? - but didn't include a teenager. Does that also suggest that Jones wasn't there, or that, if she didn't notice him, underscore the likelihood that she wasn't there ... or simply demonstrate that two people in the same place don't always notice everything and not always the same things?

Could it be - what with Jones being a teenager and all - that he was ogling some even younger woman on the street outside the bus when the transfer issuance took place? Or just looking around in curiosity to see what the delay was?

If McWatters said he gave out two transfers, one to a woman that was headed to the train station (as Bledsoe also said within 24 hours, presumably without hearing this story from McWatters, who'd have no particular reason to relate that particular portion of his adventure of the day before) and another to a man at about the same location that Bledsoe said Oswald got off the bus (but whom she did not see take a transfer), does that mean that McWatters didn't give the man a transfer or that perhaps, in her zeal not to be seen and recognized by Oswald, she simply didn't notice that transaction (as she perhaps looked the other way)?

And how did it come to pass that she described the same shirt that William Whaley described his fare wearing only a relative few minutes later in his initial affidavit (tho' not his testimony)? To be fair, as others (and perhaps Whaley himself) had said, they were "given" an affidavit to sign (one, as I recall, saying he'd identified "the number two man" even before being taken to the lineup), it's also possible that this "brown shirt" thing was written into the affidavit by a cop and not actually stated by Whaley, thus artificially tying the man in the lineup who'd been arrested in a brown shirt up with the man in the cab (before anyone "realized" that he'd had to have gone home and changed).

Nobody could have known at that point, however, that Mary Bledsoe would come forth - to a different law enforcement agency - the following day, several hours after Whaley, to give any kind of statement. It didn't mention any clothing description, however. Once she had given the statement, however, I guess it would have been a simple enough matter to "remind" her of what Oswald was wearing afterward, and reinforce it (as can be said to be the case) before her testimony. Given her lack of lucidity, it's very possible that she'd have been agreeable to any suggestion made that put Oswald in the hot seat.

If I remember correctly, she put him in the same seat that Jones did, too, if they were talking about the same man.

It strikes me that Bledsoe knew too many things that other people also knew to discount the possibility if not probability that she was there.

What also strikes me as lacking, however, is any firm evidence - outside of a calendar page that was ripped out and sold, supposedly bearing Oswald's name or signature (the buyer was identified, but to my knowledge not interviewed; nor was the calendar page, to my recollection, examined and it certainly wasn't taken into evidence) - that she actually even knew Oswald or that he was her tenant for any period of time. It could be that she was indeed on the bus and decided that she'd seen Oswald - who by Friday night had been on TV - and "made" him a tenant when in actuality he may have only stopped by to look at a room, never actually moving in.

McWatters, even after seeing Oswald on TV, didn't even pretend that he knew that the man he'd given a transfer to was, in fact, Oswald. Jones didn't even see the transfer transaction, tho' he did see the same man Bledsoe saw in the same seat she saw him in (I'm pretty sure; double-check me). So the only person who actually claims to have seen Oswald on the bus was Bledsoe, and while her credibility seems fairly well lacking, her observations seem pretty close to the mark.

I wouldn't be so quick to put her off the bus myself, even if I'm not jumping wholly onto her bandwagon.

More about the transfer itself later if you don't expound on it yourself first....

#24 Duke Lane

Duke Lane

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Universally loved and admired for his keen wit, sharp intellect, loathsome egoism, and awe-inspiring self-delusion, Lane studies the JFK assassination from afar, offers few opinions, and generally keeps to himself.

Posted 21 January 2011 - 08:13 AM

Lee Oswald and the Marsalis Bus

... Similar to us not knowing how the DPD found out about McWatters we also have very little documentation that explains whether the DPD took the full book of transfers from McWatters to gain a grasp on the numerical sequences involved in their issuance. In fact, I was under the impression for years that the only evidence in existence of bus 1213 transfers being collected was this photograph of the one allegedly given to Oswald. Transfer number 004459:

Attached File  Oswald_Transfer.gif   89.77KB   12 downloads (Transfer taken from Oswald)

What I have always found curious is that the DPD and the FBI seemed to show little interest in tracing the woman that McWatters and Bledsoe claimed got the transfer prior to Oswald's. The lady making her way to the train station would have been issued transfer number 004458. Obviously, the likelihood that the individual involved would have still had the transfer is minimal but they made no attempt to even find out (ladies purses do sometimes have a steroetypical knack of holding onto items that enter them), or to find her to corroborate McWatters recollections. Much the same way they failed to look for the old lady that Oswald offered his own cab to at the Greyhound Station who could have corroborated William Whaley's statements. The simple fact of the matter is, if these people existed, I'm sure they would have been looked for.

Concerning the transfer, I will leave you with this. We do know that the DPD confiscated the book of transfers from Cecil McWatters. Whether it was definitely the same book that Oswald's transfer was allegedly issued from is anyone's guess because the actual book was never photographed. We do know "a" book was taken because a receipt was given for it. The receipt has the following written on the back"Receipt for the book of transfers from which transfer was issued to Oswald the accused assin of Pres, John F. Kennedy." What is tantalising about this receipt is what it was written on. What is even more tantalising is the number of the thing it was written on. TRansfer receipt #004451. I'll leave it up to everyone's imagination to make their own sense out of what this could potentially mean:

Attached File  Bus_Transfer_Receipt.jpg   58.99KB   9 downloads

Link to MFF document (Transfer Receipt)

Without the full transfer book it's impossible to cast-iron prove anything regarding this little gem but at least this does prove that the DPD had the full transfer book in their possession and they certainly kept this fact out of the reports and out of discussion and if this knowledge does one thing for me, it certainly reinforces the thoughts I have had about the Oswald transfer that I've had for more than 15 years; Oswald wasn't on the bus. Nor was he in the cab. He left Dealey Plaza by other means. The transfer was planted.



If I understand what you're (not?) saying, and what it appears that I'm seeing, the transfer shown in the FBI exhibit is one that preceded that supposedly issued to Oswald and supposedly taken from him by DPD. Let's see if I'm missing anything:

  • Both are printed by the Globe Ticket Co. Dallas
  • Both are issued by the Dallas Transit Company
  • Both are dated "Fri. Nov. 22, '63"
  • Both are "good within 15 minutes of time indicated on the date issued only, at first point of intersection or transfer point, on connecting lines except to vicinity of starting point."
  • Both are "Shopper Transfer" tickets
  • Both have the same list of routes
  • Both have (apparent) directional blocks, N S E W
  • Both have "THRU CAR" printed "beneath" the direction indicator
  • Both have "A.M." and "P.M." time stamps/punches at the end
A few general observations:

  • We now know the answer to what on what bus routes transfers could be used ("on connecting lines except to vicinity of starting point," i.e., no round trips) and where ("at first point of intersection or transfer point," wherever the routes met closest or at "transfer points" ... downtown?).
  • This also tells us that someone getting on and paying the fare for a wrong bus could use it to transfer to the correct bus continuing in the same or crossing direction
  • We also now know when a transfer was good until: "within 15 minutes of the time indicated on the date issued only."
  • The "Oswald transfer" is cut off at the 1/0 mark, indicating 0 minutes after the hour of 1, i.e., 1:00, meaning whoever was issued it had until 1:15 to get on any "connecting" bus, provided only that it didn't return the user to their point of origin
  • The 0 - 15 - 30 - 45 minute cuts are repeated so there is never an acute angle
  • The "binding" (apparently a staple) is at the "bottom" end of the ticket. This means that the driver tore from the top of the transfer, using the blade mechanism to rip it straight across the desired times, so the transfers got longer as the day got later (preventing someone from getting additional time to board the next bus: you can only shorten the ticket and invalidate it, you can't "cut it longer"). Those shown in the FBI exhibit have apparently been torn from the staple, judging from the somewhat ragged looks of them.
The only difference between the tickets is the number that's (apparently) stamped on the ticket. This can be one of two things: a sequential "serial number" for each ticket or, as its location might imply, a number associated with a particular bus, i.e., "THRU CAR" 004459 or 004451.

Let's take a deductive stab at that question.

If the number relates to a particular bus or bus line or bus driver (a "car"), then much of the rest of the information on the transfer is redundant if not entirely unnecessary and costly. If, for example, the transfer was issued "thru car 004459" in the case of the "Oswald ticket," then there would be no question as to what route or driver issued the ticket because it could only be one or two of either (one driver might use two different busses in the course of a day for whatever reason, or a bus might be assigned to a different route for whatever reason, either of which could be a shift change.

Using McWatters as an example, he drove a second, evening shift on a different route, which is how he came to be found driving by DPD HQ that evening (I think he stopped at home in between shifts, if I remember correctly). So no matter which bus he was on, he would have the same tickets. Or, conversely, if the number related to a particular bus, then those transfers would still be with the bus he'd driven earlier, being issued by a different driver.

If either of those things are true, then using a punch that was unique to each driver was a waste of someone's money and was totally unnecessary since the number relating to either the bus or the driver would be just as easy as if not easier than trying to figure out which driver had what-shaped punch.

Likewise, if it identified the bus or the route, there was no need to punch the route that it was issued from (e.g., Lakewood, as the "Oswald transfer" is punched) except to tell a driver that the transfer was not issued on the same route or "connecting lines except to the vicinity of the starting point." However, after a relatively short period of time on the job, I'd hazard that most drivers would quickly come to know the identifying "thru car" numbers assigned to those routes whose "starting points" were in the vicinity that the new bus was heading toward. Punching the route number/name on the long side of the transfer might have been easier to recognize (figuring that the "Lakewood"-stamped ticket was near their own route might be easier to translate in a driver's mind than that "004459" was such a route and this was a ticket they shouldn't take).

More to the point, why would there be a six-digit identifying number for a bus route when there were only 21 routes that could have issued a transfer, according to the list. Why not simply put a big "23" on each Lakewood transfer and be done with it? Why have two means of identifying a route, one cryptic and one relatively small, when one big one would do?

Are there any other considerations that I'm not thinking of here that would suggest a use other than that six-digit number being a serial number, unique to each ticket? The only other note worth making is that the ability to use these "route-numbered" tickets for a longer period of time is obviated by them being stamped with the date of issuance: once "within 15 minutes of" midnight hit, they were no good anymore.



The FBI exhibit has a handwritten "receipt" accompanying it, apparently from the shape of it having been written on the blank back side of a ticket, possibly but not necessarily the back of the ticket marked "004451," but more likely written on another transfer ticket, either the last one in the book or the one preceding this serialized one. It is almost definitely on the back of a transfer ticket judging by the location of the V-notch at the stapled end of the ticket being on the side opposite that of the "working" side with the times, etc., on it.

It seems to me that a "receipt" would be given by the FBI to whomever they got it from (and maybe such a thing exists or existed, but obviously not in FBI files), but this seems more for identification purposes than actual "receipt" purposes. It reads:

Receipt for the book of transfers from which transfer was issued to Oswald the accused assin [sic] of Pres. John F. Kennedy.

There is what appears to be a signature or signatures below that. It could be a second copy made from the FBI to the bus company (so the FBI would have a copy of what they gave out?), or not. The first signature line seems to be initials, possibly J.A. and a last name that begins with an "R", tho' I can't make out if whatever is to the immediate left of the "R" is. It looks like the last name ends in "tt" or maybe "lt" ("LT"), and the middle letter could be an "n" or maybe a "u" or maybe something else. It looks like two letters precede whatever that is.

The second line, however, looks a little less ambiguous. I first thought it was "Stu"-something until I recognized that the "last name" appears to be "Foreman." Instead of "Stu," the first part might well read "Sta," short for "station," i.e., "Station Foreman." If so, that would indicate that the station foreman who gave the book of transfers to the FBI was using this "receipt" to indicate what it was that he was giving to them. This could possibly be verified (and translated) through the surviving bus company, DART (Dallas Area Rapid Transit), which is the same company twice removed by ownership from the entity that existed in '63, or through an historical society or club of retired drivers, both of which exist and are reasonably accessible.

Or maybe there was a Special Agent Stu Foreman of the FBI. But I'm guessing not.


Here's where it gets a little dicey, if that's the right word I'm thinking of.

The "receipt" is for "the book of transfers from which transfer was issued to Oswald."

This indicates both that a book of tickets was given to the FBI (or maybe it was DPD originally?), and that Oswald's transfer was issued out of that book of transfer tickets.

If that is so, then an important question arises: how did the station foreman have a transfer that would have been issued before the one issued to Oswald?!?

The only way that seems possible - presuming the "thru-car" number was a serial number and not a route or bus or driver number as above, i.e., the same on every ticket in the book - is if they were serialized in reverse, in which case this ticket 004451 was issued - or rather, not issued - within eight transfers after Oswald's. I don't think McWatters was asked how many tickets he gave out that day, so it is possible that was the case, but frankly, I don't know of anything that's kept together in a booklet or a roll - like raffle tickets - that's serialized in reverse. Does anyone else?

Another possibility is that, for whatever reason, the driver kept the first ticket of the book intact, and started issuing tickets on any given day with the second ticket in the book, 004452 in this case. Ticket books were only about 1/4" or so (possibly 3/8" or 1/2") thick when new, so it is also possible that the book started at 004400 or 004401, but that means that an "odd" ticket from the middle of the book - or somewhere deeper into the book than the first ticket - was inexplicably kept intact.

If that doesn't make sense, then there exists a possibility - and seemingly a reasonable one, in its own unreasonable sort of way - that ticket 004459 was removed from beneath tickets that McWatters kept on his second-shift bus while it was parked in front of DPD, removed in its entirety and either torn before leaving the bus or torn somewhere else, either way so as not to leave a shorter ticket mixed in with longer ones, which might more likely be noticed by the bus driver than one that was simply not there at all (I'm more than fairly confident that bus drivers didn't pay attention to the ticket numbers as they tore them off).

(This "earlier" ticket also didn't bear McWatters' punch-marks, which could presumably - and possibly only - be accomplished on the bus where McWatters' punch was. Nobody could have punched it if McWatters had the punch with him inside DPD, and a second trip to the bus to belatedly punch the ticket - or return the punch - might have looked odd, but then, who would question it? The other question that arises is why the "Oswald ticket" is apparently punched as a "23. Lakewood" ticket when there is also a "30. Marsalis" route designation on the transfer. Was that the route that McWatters was on for the second shift and the one that was on the front of the bus? Oops. Or did the Lakewood bus also go down Marsalis? As a kid, we had at least four routes that went up the same main route, each farther than the one before....)

There may be other possibilities that I'm not considering or even thinking of, and if so, the floor is open to other ideas.

If there are no other possibilities, the time that McWatters was driving by DPD HQ, if known, and was detained should be examined to see how it fits in with the discovery (or "discovery") of the bus transfer in Oswald's pocket. If that fits, then comes a question of motive (there certainly was opportunity, since we can hardly imagine whoever was on McWatters' bus hanging around waiting for him to return, however long that might take ... and from the riders' perspective, God-only-knows why the cops stopped him and brought him inside in the first place: maybe he wasn't coming back!): why would anyone want to put Oswald on a bus right after the shooting?

Nobody knew about Mary Bledsoe on Friday evening, and Whaley didn't claim to have known his fare had previously been on a bus. If Oswald had been on a bus and didn't take a transfer - as Jones' statement and Bledsoe's later "dis-"recollection would have it - then maybe it was only to create a "trail," but of what and to what end?

This is an interesting find, Lee. If it's ever been noticed or explained before, I'm dumb to it.

#25 Guest_Lee Farley_*

Guest_Lee Farley_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 January 2011 - 10:45 AM

Hi Duke

I think I've solved the mystery of the 004451 transfer. If, that is, we believe the "story" that accompanies it. Thanks to Martin Hay for pushing me in the right direction.

The name on the back of the transfer is James P. Routt. He was the Station Foreman of the Dallas Transit System. The FBI apparently went to the DTS and spoke to the Division Superintendent by the name of F. F. Yates on the 10th of March, 1964. They requested the records of the transfer books that had been issued to Cecil McWatters. Yates stated that he could find no record of the transfer books issued to Cecil McWatters on November 22nd 1963. In and of itself a bizzare state of affairs if only because the request was made in March, 1964. I struggle to get my head around why this request was left for more than 4 months. Surely if the DPD or the FBI wanted to investigate the "transfer" that was in Lee Oswald's alleged possession then a request for the transfer books, and the records of the issuance of the transfer books, would have been made the night of the assassination or no later than the morning of the 23rd?

Yates did produce transfer 004451 and gave it to the FBI. The company procedure being that when each transfer book is issued to a driver (each book containing 50 transfers numbered 1 through 50 and 51 through 00), the driver rips the first transfer out of the book he is issued, writes his badge number on the back (McWatters was badge number 195 we are told) and then this first transfer from the book is given to the station office and kept on the record for two months.

Yates claims that Station Foreman Routt kept this receipt as a "souvenir" and it was Routt who wrote the inscription on the back. Although I get the "souvenir" explanation I don't understand why Routt would sign his name on the back.

I suppose, seeing as how this is all we have to explain this, it's kind of the end of the road. I'm willing to accept this explanation. Any real investigation regarding the Oswald transfer and the book it was issued from wasn't really pursued when it should have been though.

http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=356322

Lee

Edited by Lee Farley, 21 January 2011 - 10:48 AM.


#26 Guest_Lee Farley_*

Guest_Lee Farley_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 January 2011 - 02:42 PM

I'm often amused (bemused?) that people either claim to or are expected to have picture perfect memories of a day that, up to a certain point, was just "a normal day." Could Cecil McWatters have told anyone what busses were or weren't in front of him, or whether they arrived before or after him, on Tuesday, December 12, 1963? What reason would he have had to notice this on December 12, and more to the point, not knowing what would be happening later that day as he left the downtown transfer point, why would he have paid any more attention on November 22 to what bus or busses were or were not in front of him at that one time he'd passed through this point (out of however many times he passed through it on any given day)? And why would anyone expect - or believe - that he'd remember what he'd seen earlier on that day any better than he'd have remembered what he'd seen on any other day that week or that month or at any other time?

When he says "in front of me," does he mean "anywhere in front of me," or "immediately in front of me," where his front bumper (and therefore his windshield) was six inches from the back of another bus? Could, for example, a bus have left the transfer point just as he was pulling into it so, while to us it may have been "in front of" him, from his perspective - which included seeing a lot of busses "in front of" him by various distances, especially downtown - it may not have been "in front of" him, i.e., taking up his entire view?


Duke, I don't expect anyone to have a photographic memory concerning events that may be unmemorable or run of the mill. I'm simply using his testimony to try and make sense of the event. McWatters stated that there was no bus in front of him. This may have meant directly in front of him i.e. hooked onto his bumper. He may have meant anywhere in front of him. But we have to use what he said to form a conclusion. The questioning as you point out is concerning the Beckley bus. The bus in the photograph is hardly a dot in the distance. It's quite clearly a bus and it's quite clearly only a block in front of the bus that is allegedly McWatters. He stated, quite clearly, the traffic lights, at the eastern end of Elm street, would dictate which bus got in front of the other because they were both due at the St Paul stop at the same time of 12:36pm. McWatters says there "wasn't another bus in front of me." The photograph suggests otherwise. If we take on board his testimony that he had already been informed the president had been shot (by a motorist or by a police officer - take your pick), then for me it is no longer a normal run-of-the-mill day. It is an extraordinary day. His testimony and our knowledge of the other events in Oak Cliff tell us that McWatters bus was stuck in that traffic for a minimum of 30 minutes because he was 45 minutes late at the end of his run and we know he got caught up in the commotion outside the library as well. That's a long time to be sat waiting on Elm Street and if, and it's an unsupportable if, that bus that was in front of him was there for the same length of time then if I believe the odds of McWatters remembering it being there should improve.

If he had no recollection whether there was or whether there wasn't another bus in front of him then, under oath, one would expect an honest man to say "I don't remember." McWatters said he "believed there wasn't another bus in front of him." He claimed he was the first bus stuck in the jam. I'm simply forming conclusions and judgments based on his words and recollections. If he didn't have recollections he shouldn't have told us he did.

All of this is, of course, rests on it actually being McWatters bus in these two photographs.

Lee

Edited by Lee Farley, 21 January 2011 - 02:46 PM.


#27 Duke Lane

Duke Lane

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Universally loved and admired for his keen wit, sharp intellect, loathsome egoism, and awe-inspiring self-delusion, Lane studies the JFK assassination from afar, offers few opinions, and generally keeps to himself.

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:12 PM

I think I've solved the mystery of the 004451 transfer. ...


Well, ain't that a bummer! I could've gotten a whole lot more sleep last night without having to make that elaborate last post of mine! Do you realize how many words that's taken from my usual quota of verbosity?!? ;)

At least I was partially there, with the 50-ticket guesstimate and the first-transfer-intact thought.

#28 Duke Lane

Duke Lane

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Universally loved and admired for his keen wit, sharp intellect, loathsome egoism, and awe-inspiring self-delusion, Lane studies the JFK assassination from afar, offers few opinions, and generally keeps to himself.

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:35 PM

... The bus in the photograph is hardly a dot in the distance. It's quite clearly a bus and it's quite clearly only a block in front of the bus that is allegedly McWatters. He stated, quite clearly, the traffic lights, at the eastern end of Elm street, would dictate which bus got in front of the other because they were both due at the St Paul stop at the same time of 12:36pm. McWatters says there "wasn't another bus in front of me." The photograph suggests otherwise. ...

There's that key word: allegedly.

Until and unless you can change it to "decidedly," you can't draw a conclusion from it. It could be that the bus at the left hand side of the shot from the rear is McWatters' bus, or it could be that neither bus is McWatters'. You can't call him "wrong" until you can declare yourself "right."


... If we take on board his testimony that he had already been informed the president had been shot (by a motorist or by a police officer - take your pick), then for me it is no longer a normal run-of-the-mill day. It is an extraordinary day. His testimony and our knowledge of the other events in Oak Cliff tell us that McWatters bus was stuck in that traffic for a minimum of 30 minutes because he was 45 minutes late at the end of his run and we know he got caught up in the commotion outside the library as well. That's a long time to be sat waiting on Elm Street and if, and it's an unsupportable if, that bus that was in front of him was there for the same length of time then if I believe the odds of McWatters remembering it being there should improve.

If he had no recollection whether there was or whether there wasn't another bus in front of him then, under oath, one would expect an honest man to say "I don't remember." McWatters said he "believed there wasn't another bus in front of him." He claimed he was the first bus stuck in the jam. I'm simply forming conclusions and judgments based on his words and recollections. If he didn't have recollections he shouldn't have told us he did.

All of this is, of course, rests on it actually being McWatters bus in these two photographs.


Agreed on all major points. Milton Jones also said that the bus had been stuck in traffic for "an hour" or something like that. I'd found that essentially insupportable when I was looking at the question of Bledsoe on the bus a couple of years ago, tho' I don't recall the reason why (it's somewhere here on the forum, I think). I don't recall his being caught up in the events around the library (corner of Jefferson & Marsalis), but that could well be due to an aging brain and, uh, an "active youth."

As to an honest recollection of events, an attorney will often coach his witness to state things with certainty when testifying (let his adversary - absent in WC proceedings - find the weaknesses in testimony). Although, in truth, in other words, it's difficult to imagine that McWatters could be coached, in other words, to state anything with certainty if he wasn't, in other words, certain himself. If you know what I mean. In other words, he could have said that he "didn't remember" prior to his interview, but told, in other words, to phrase it not as a vague memory, but in other words as a fact. "I don't remember a bus in front of me" becomes "there was no bus in front of me," which is the truth insofar as his recollection goes, in other words.

Ultimately, if the photo is of another bus or other busses, McWatters' memory worked just fine. In other words.

#29 Guest_Lee Farley_*

Guest_Lee Farley_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 January 2011 - 04:22 PM

I think I've solved the mystery of the 004451 transfer. ...


Well, ain't that a bummer! I could've gotten a whole lot more sleep last night without having to make that elaborate last post of mine! Do you realize how many words that's taken from my usual quota of verbosity?!? ;)

At least I was partially there, with the 50-ticket guesstimate and the first-transfer-intact thought.


"Bummer" being the key word, Duke. If I'd have done on Monday what I put off until today I could have saved you all that trouble. My sincerest apologies for my laziness. Truth to be told, I really didn't think I'd find anything.

My question to you is does the explanation provided leave you completely satisifed or does it conjur any questions?

P.S. The Marsalis bus was also known as the Munger Bus Run No. 1213. Or so says this document, and so says Cecil McWatters in his testimony:

http://www.maryferre...3&relPageId=205

Edited by Lee Farley, 21 January 2011 - 04:57 PM.


#30 Duke Lane

Duke Lane

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Universally loved and admired for his keen wit, sharp intellect, loathsome egoism, and awe-inspiring self-delusion, Lane studies the JFK assassination from afar, offers few opinions, and generally keeps to himself.

Posted 21 January 2011 - 11:10 PM

... "Bummer" being the key word, Duke. If I'd have done on Monday what I put off until today I could have saved you all that trouble. My sincerest apologies for my laziness. Truth to be told, I really didn't think I'd find anything.

My question to you is does the explanation provided leave you completely satisifed or does it conjur any questions?

P.S. The Marsalis bus was also known as the Munger Bus Run No. 1213. Or so says this document, and so says Cecil McWatters in his testimony:

http://www.maryferre...3&relPageId=205

I knew I'd seen "Munger" somewhere before in connection with this.

I was surprised you'd found what you did, and yeah, I wish you'd been quicker on the update, but I also could've not been in such a rush to put out my thoughts. It was a worthwhile exercise anyway.

The explanation works. It makes sense and doesn't leave any obvious holes. It satisfies me.

It also makes for an important lesson, that we shouldn't always take absolutely verbatim everything that we read, because people don't always say exactly what they mean (and vice versa, of course, but we can't know what they do mean if they don't say it, eh?).

Mr. Routt wrote "Receipt for the book of transfers from which transfer was issued to Oswald...," but he obviously didn't mean a full "book" if what he said is true (and there's no reason to think that it wasn't unless we want to make him "part of the conspiracy" too! Sort of reminds me of the "kamikaze kab killer" guy who ran into William Whaley...).

OK, back to the bus then.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users