Jump to content
The Education Forum
Greg Parker

the attempted planting of the weapon on oswald

Recommended Posts

One thing that's struck me over the years is that the DPD infiltration of the theater and the searching of a broad field of other subjects, upstairs and down, before approaching "Oswald" seems calculated to have put as much anxiety into their quarry as possible. It's as if they wanted to ratchet up a panic in which he could have been killed.

Sometimes the character of the narrative we choose tells us some truth about the "story" of an event. All the suspense imbued upon this arrest by period journalists and Jim Bishop types seems to have been as deliberate in the actions of the DPD as it was in the later re-telling.

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee, I know in some parts of this, I am repeating information since supplied by Duke, but I had been working on this periodically over a number of days, and did not see Duke' s response until just now.

So where are we up to?

So where are we up to?

We “know” that Tippit was killed between 1:00pm and 1:07pm.

We “know” that Gerald Hill claims he left the Police and Courts Building for the TSBD with Jim Valentine and Dallas Morning News reporter Jim Ewell within minutes of the shooting. No corroboration exists from either of these two people to confirm Hill’s story.

So I just went up Commerce Street and then went down into the basement of police headquarters where two days later Oswald was murdered by Jack Ruby. As I got out of my car, parking it there in the press lot, Sergeant Jerry Hill, who at one time was a former Dallas Times Herald crime beat reporter, came running out, and I said, “Jerry, what the hell’s going on?”

And his exact words were, “Some son of a bitch just shot Kennedy!” He then ran around and jumped in a black and white squad car; there was a uniform officer behind the wheel already, so I just ran over there and got in the back seat. This officer drove us back from east to west through downtown on the most circuitous route I can recall, and we were back there at the School Book Depository probably in less than two minutes.

http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/History/The_deed/Sneed/Ewell.html

Also according to a 3rd Decade article by Jerry Rose, there is a 12:48 radio log entry showing Hill and Valentine enroute to the depository.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=3

We “know” that Gerald Hill left the School Book Depository, supposedly with Bill Alexander and Calvin ‘Bud’ Owens. They left the TSBD prior to Aynesworth leaving so should assume they arrived at 10th & Patton before Aynesworth?

We “know” that Hugh Aynesworth claimed that he was at the scene no later than 1:10pm.

How do we know they left before Aynesworth? When was the first call to the police about the murder?

We have no corroboration from Owens (in his WC testimony) or Alexander (who gave no WC testimony) that Gerald Hill was with them when they left the TSBD.

The Jerry Rose article shows similar situations with most of the major players in Oak Cliff.

Hill claims he was using Owens 19 identification number over the police radio on his way to 10th & Patton instead of using his own number of 550/2.

Hill claims he arrived at the scene of Tippit’s slaying at 1:22pm. Are we to believe that he arrived 12 minutes AFTER Aynesworth said he arrived at the scene even though Hill left before him?

I find it hard to believe that Aynesworth got there at 1:10.

But in any case, the following may explain why Hill got there after him, if in fact he did:

The drive over to Oak Cliff where the officer was shot was precarious because the traffic was stopped in some areas, and was not in others. Vic and I were screaming “Stop! Stop!” as we went right through intersections as fast as we could.”

http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/History/The_dee...Aynesworth.html

Hill claims he spoke to Officer Joe Poe and looked at the shells. Poe mentions nothing about this in any of his statements and testimony.

No, but as shown by Rose, such disparity between the cops involved in Oak Cliff was the norm.

Hill claims he then used Joe Poe’s car to go searching for the suspect. Hill also claimed in his radio transmission that he had a witness in the car with him “to identify the suspect.” This witness was Herbert Russell. Lo and behold, Russell doesn’t appear before the Warren Commission, and he mentions nothing about his Starsky and Hutch adventures with Gerald Hill in his FBI report of January 21st 1964. Russell does claim in his FBI report that Tippit’s gun was laying on the front seat of the patrol car when he arrived at the scene.

Harold Russell. Herbert was an acquaintance of Earl Ruby.

You are right in saying he doesn’t mention it, but his chronology basically ends with the gun being taken from the seat of Tippit’s car and used in a vigilante style pursuit.

We “know” that Hill went to the Abundant Life Temple on foot and stated that he was about to shake it down.

Yes, and that he had a witness who saw the suspect enter, if I am recalling correctly.

We “know” that Nick McDonald made a call to the dispatcher asking for a “squad” to search the basement of the ALT.

Yes, but if he (or Hill) had already obtained the weapon and ensured the suspect got away, then this call really is just CYA.

Could McDonald’s actions be a potential spanner in the works for the whole event? Hence the library call is then required to pull all of the officers east of the shooting, away from where the actual perpetrator was west of the shooting?

The one thing that I have a nagging doubt about is this; if this call was a deliberate diversion, how lucky were they that Hamby just happened to come along at precisely the right time? What if he hadn’t…? His arrival is either a great stroke of luck for Walker and Hill whose geese are on the way to the ovens otherwise, or Walker’s story is essentially true.

Hill then stays at the ALT and Texaco/Garage area.

? Who says that? Hill himself?

The two main questions that I have for other members are:

1. Is it 100% obvious to people of an independent mind that Gerald Hill lied about ALL of his movements prior to the Texas Theater arrest?

It should be 100% obvious to any who read Rose’s article that every cop who hitched a ride that day is in the same boat. If Hill was the mastermind, or even just following orders, can’t we credit him with having at least enough sense to say he got lifts with cops who would actually back him up?

2. Did Hill wait around the ALT and Texaco area to get the “real” Tippit weapon, to get “a” weapon” or to assist the “real” Tippit slayer get away and out of the area?

Any or or all of those is possible, but the evidence is, frankly, weaker for it than I had previously allowed. A little "fact" checking has laid to rest the issue of corroboration - at least insofar as one leg of his journey. And we also now "know" that most every cop who went to OC had nothing by way of corroboration for their movements. Are they all now suspect as a result?

The case against McDonald otoh has not been touched, as far as I can see.

To reiterate what we “know” about McDonald –

  • He left his post at Dealey Plaza without permission.

  • He abandoned his partner in Oak Cliff.

  • He was at the ALT, but fails to mention this in any subsequent interview, statement or testimony

  • He made a call for a squad car to come and search the basement

  • He claimed to have gone to the library and that he specifically went in with his shotgun and cleared the suspect – none of which is corroborated (whereas Duke wants lack of corroboration for Hill’s movements to go against Hill, despite the same lack of corroboration applying to all other cops who hitched rides to and around Oak Cliff that day, he wishes to dismiss lack of corroboration for McDonald’s movements as meaningless)

  • He shook down two patrons at the TT and by his own admission to the media, was carrying a pistol as he made his way to Oswald. This pistol, like his visit to the ALT, would disappear from all future statements

  • He put his hands on Oswald’s hips as if to pat him down. Oswald reacted by moving his hips back and punching McDonald. This reaction could be explained equally by Oswald not wanting McDonald to find the pistol tucked down his waist – or by Oswald realising McDonald was trying to plant a pistol on him.

  • We also know from Applin that apart from the pistol, there was a cop in the vicinity with a “riot gun” (http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0454-001.gif). I believe this is the weapon he refers to simply as a “gun” in his testimony, as opposed to the pistol.

This “riot gun”, I believe, was going to be used on Oswald once the pistol was in his possession, or if that was proving too difficult, the pistol would be placed in his possession after being shot.

I think question two is the main sticking point in all of this and depending upon your own belief, your perception of events that then later happen at the TT will be altered accordingly.

My final question is this:

Does it really matter? Who handed the gun off to Oswald, or even if ANY gun was handed off to Oswald in the theatre?

Yes, it matters. It shows some who were involved, and if followed, may lead to the top of the pyramid.

If the Gerald Hill movements and obvious lies could be put into a coherent timeframe could it alter non-believers beliefs about what happened in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas on that eventful day?

No. But my question is, does THAT matter? Who actually knows any LN who has swapped sides, anyway, no matter what has been presented to them? The true targets should be the newly interested, the media, politicians and the legal fraternity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lee, I know in some parts of this, I am repeating information since supplied by Duke, but I had been working on this periodically over a number of days, and did not see Duke' s response until just now.
... Could McDonald's actions be a potential spanner in the works for the whole event? Hence the library call is then required to pull all of the officers east of the shooting, away from where the actual perpetrator was west of the shooting?
The one thing that I have a nagging doubt about is this; if this call was a deliberate diversion, how lucky were they that Hamby just happened to come along at precisely the right time? What if he hadn't…? His arrival is either a great stroke of luck for Walker and Hill whose geese are on the way to the ovens otherwise, or Walker's story is essentially true.
The first question that pops to my mind is "what do we really know about Adrian Hamby?" He was not apparently identified by anyone during the WC's tenure, at least inasmuch as his name is not to be found in any of the WC sources on MFF. Reading some of the other stuff to be found through an Advanced Search there, most seem to be citing Dale Myers' With Malice for information about him. What are his bona fides, how do we know he's really the kid(?) who was the object of the cops' interest, much less the circumstances of his arrival? If Myers has a major fault, it is his uncritical acceptance of what people say when what they say fits his own notions.

That said, who's then to say that Hamby - or whoever - wasn't already in the library, hadn't arrived a few minutes earlier than the call about him, or had even been a "lucky break" to have been in there when the cops came scrambling? It is the timing of the call that is suspicious, one that got everyone's attention just after McDonald had requested backup to go into the ALT ... the same ALT, of course, that was "cleared" on the word of one officer asking a receptionist if she'd seen anyone enter that huge building. I don't see this entirely as a black-and-white, either/or question, nor one that ultimately can be answered in full without further input, if possible, from Hamby himself (gee whiz, what if he said he wasn't there and never told anyone he had been, just for the sake of argument?).

The two main questions that I have for other members are:

1. Is it 100% obvious to people of an independent mind that Gerald Hill lied about ALL of his movements prior to the Texas Theater arrest?

It should be 100% obvious to any who read Rose's article that every cop who hitched a ride that day is in the same boat. If Hill was the mastermind, or even just following orders, can't we credit him with having at least enough sense to say he got lifts with cops who would actually back him up?

2. Did Hill wait around the ALT and Texaco area to get the "real" Tippit weapon, to get "a" weapon" or to assist the "real" Tippit slayer get away and out of the area?

Any or or all of those is possible, but the evidence is, frankly, weaker for it than I had previously allowed. A little "fact" checking has laid to rest the issue of corroboration - at least insofar as one leg of his journey. And we also now "know" that most every cop who went to OC had nothing by way of corroboration for their movements. Are they all now suspect as a result?
There is a difference that you seem to be overlooking, and that is that most of the rest of the cops weren't contradicted. It is one thing for someone to say that they'd been somewhere and nobody else mentioned them being there; it is quite another for Joe Smith to say that he'd been there with John Doe, and John Doe says that he was there with someone else other than Joe Smith. (The "fact-checking" you refer to above is Larry Sneed's No More Silence, which was compiled many years after the events described. In more than one instance, it can be factually shown that the interviewee's memory is incorrect; what is there to say that Ewell's is not? NMS is not a "source," IMO, inasmuch as what you find there generally needs to be verified.)
The case against McDonald otoh has not been touched, as far as I can see.

To reiterate what we "know" about McDonald – (My comments inserted in blue. I hate to do that, but oh well.)

  • He left his post at Dealey Plaza without permission. (along with dozens of others)

  • He abandoned his partner in Oak Cliff. (validate "abandoned" - does it depend upon what the definition of "is" is? Clearly, he and his partner were separated, but by whose actions? Did the partner - I don't recall the trainee's name, tho' I'm sure it wasn't White! - say anything about being "abandoned?" Do we know what his actions or lack thereof were such that we can say that he was "abandoned?" The word is prejudicial and needs to be qualified.)

  • He was at the ALT, but fails to mention this in any subsequent interview, statement or testimony (maybe because he never actually went into it? He also didn't go into the TSBD while he was in DP, as far as we know; should he have mentioned what was going on inside there to "prove" he'd really been to DP?)

  • He made a call for a squad car to come and search the basement (this is more exculpatory than incriminating)

  • He claimed to have gone to the library and that he specifically went in with his shotgun and cleared the suspect – none of which is corroborated (whereas Duke wants lack of corroboration for Hill's movements to go against Hill, despite the same lack of corroboration applying to all other cops who hitched rides to and around Oak Cliff that day, he wishes to dismiss lack of corroboration for McDonald's movements as meaningless) (see above comments regarding corroboration and contradiction)

  • He shook down two patrons at the TT and by his own admission to the media, was carrying a pistol as he made his way to Oswald. This pistol, like his visit to the ALT, would disappear from all future statements (whoa! That is not what he said, and not even what you quoted him as saying before! Insofar as what you just said, all cops "carry" guns. Earlier, you had taken his words that he had his gun "in [his] hand" to mean that he'd had it out of his holster, which is an interpretation and not a statement of fact. Isn't it a little difficult ot "pat down" someone when you've got a drawn gun in your hand? If he didn't have the gun drawn, why ever would he or should he mention it?)

  • He put his hands on Oswald's hips as if to pat him down. Oswald reacted by moving his hips back and punching McDonald. This reaction could be explained equally by Oswald not wanting McDonald to find the pistol tucked down his waist – or by Oswald realising McDonald was trying to plant a pistol on him.

  • We also know from Applin that apart from the pistol, there was a cop in the vicinity with a "riot gun" (http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0454-001.gif). I believe this is the weapon he refers to simply as a "gun" in his testimony, as opposed to the pistol. (so now we have McDonald patting people down with a shotgun in his hand, singular?)

This "riot gun", I believe, was going to be used on Oswald once the pistol was in his possession, or if that was proving too difficult, the pistol would be placed in his possession after being shot.

In the end, we now have McDonald carrying a shotgun while also brandishing his sidearm while also patting down theater patrons, and planning on planting one of them on Oswald (but Oswald instead cold-cocked this walking aresenal). The entire scenario is too awkward to make sense. I dont' feel as if the "case" against McDonald has been made, much less that it hasn't been rebutted. Just my opinion, of course.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a couple of questions if you'd be so kind:

...

2. The Earlene Roberts statement of 11/29/63 concerning the patrol car that pulled up outside her home. In it she claimed the patrol car number was 207. Surely the fact that Jim Valentine was assigned that car and that Gerald Hill claims he went to the depository with Jim Valentine in that car creates another avenue of possibilities concerning Hill's involvement with the theatrical events in Oak Cliff from 1pm onwards? Especially as that car was then, supposedly, unoccupied from Valentine's and Hill's arrival at the TSBD until 3pm. ...

Earlene Roberts gave several numbers that she thought might've been on the car. It's very possible that she was either or both mistaken and/or confused: she was an elderly woman and blind in one eye, and she was questioned several times under some pressure from the police about what she did or didn't see. If she did see a police car that wasn't supposed to be there, it wouldn't be a wonder if she was intimidated ... something she might have felt even if the cops who interviewed her were vexed over the fact that they even had to spent time investigating the matter. As I recall, she testified to this effect.

That "investigation" was a farce to begin with. Once there was a number that could be focused upon, so it was to the exclusion of any other numbers. It was automatically exclusionary if an officer was driving (say) car #154, which didn't look even remotely like 207 or 209 or 109, inferring that said officer was not in the area. The trouble is that we know that no fewer than two other police cars were in Oak Cliff that didn't belong there during the period of time in question. The investigation was not open-ended to determine who was in that area, but rather closed-ended to investigate the whereabouts of only a limited number of vehicles.

As to Valentine's vehicle in particular, one very nearly gets the impression that there is a senior patrol officer assigned to act as a valet of sorts at all crime scenes, someone standing behind a portable lectern with a pegboard with hooks on which to hang the keys that officers dutifully checked in and out with him upon arriving and before leaving the scene. Does anyone imagine this to be so, that there was one sergeant who, in the immediate aftermath of an armed assault against the President of the United States, stood calmly around at some miniature "command post" where officers checked in before responding to the emergency? Remember, these guys rushed off to DP as soon as they got the news ....

The much more likely answer is that there was no such functionary at this particular time, and that in reality, all of the officers merely kept their keys either in their cars or on their persons, the former being the more likely. How else did, for example, Hill simply take off in Poe's car in Oak Cliff? Did they only have check-ins in downtown streets and leave the keys in the cars everywhere else? How, too, did so many officers depart DP when the "citizen call" came over the radio if they had to "check out" their keys from the sergeant on duty (who must've been a pretty harried man as that occurred: "hang onto your horses, I've got ten officers abandoning their posts ahead of you! You'll just have to wait your turn! Here we go: car 62!! Smith, that you? 207! Who wants 207? ...").

Talk about "other avenues of possibilities!" I think I'd call this one a "boulevard!"

Edited by Duke Lane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first question that pops to my mind is "what do we really know about Adrian Hamby?" He was not apparently identified by anyone during the WC's tenure, at least inasmuch as his name is not to be found in any of the WC sources on MFF. Reading some of the other stuff to be found through an Advanced Search there, most seem to be citing Dale Myers' With Malice for information about him. What are his bona fides, how do we know he's really the kid(?) who was the object of the cops' interest, much less the circumstances of his arrival? If Myers has a major fault, it is his uncritical acceptance of what people say when what they say fits his own notions.

That said, who's then to say that Hamby - or whoever - wasn't already in the library, hadn't arrived a few minutes earlier than the call about him, or had even been a "lucky break" to have been in there when the cops came scrambling? It is the timing of the call that is suspicious, one that got everyone's attention just after McDonald had requested backup to go into the ALT ... the same ALT, of course, that was "cleared" on the word of one officer asking a receptionist if she'd seen anyone enter that huge building. I don't see this entirely as a black-and-white, either/or question, nor one that ultimately can be answered in full without further input, if possible, from Hamby himself (gee whiz, what if he said he wasn't there and never told anyone he had been, just for the sake of argument?).

Hamby has also been interviewed by William Weston. He gave Weston essentially the same story, though maybe in greater detail. Not sure what to make of his name being absent from the extant records. Does seem decidedly odd.

There is a difference that you seem to be overlooking, and that is that most of the rest of the cops weren't contradicted. It is one thing for someone to say that they'd been somewhere and nobody else mentioned them being there; it is quite another for Joe Smith to say that he'd been there with John Doe, and John Doe says that he was there with someone else other than Joe Smith. (The "fact-checking" you refer to above is Larry Sneed's No More Silence, which was compiled many years after the events described. In more than one instance, it can be factually shown that the interviewee's memory is incorrect; what is there to say that Ewell's is not? NMS is not a "source," IMO, inasmuch as what you find there generally needs to be verified.)

I would have to re-read Rose's article to check whether others were contradicted. I think some may have been, but I could be wrong. Is it Ewell's fault his story was drawn out at the time? You claimed there was no corroboration, now you want to find a way around corroboration. How can his story be verified when the very problem you point to (differences in stories) prevents that? You are setting the bar impossibly high in order to maintain your beliefs.

-------------

On McDonald

Yes, he was one of a number who left their posts in DP. Alone it means little. But it is not a lone fact, it is part of a larger picture.

Yes he "abandoned" his partner. From Merriam-Webster- "To withdraw protection, support or help from" As you point out, his partner was a rookie, yet McDonald left him to his own devices with a cop killer on the loose.

His lack of mention of being at the ALT is not comparable to any "failure" to mention what was going on inside the TSBD. His duties in DP are not in dispute. Investigators were most interested in his movements around OC, yet fail to get from him anything about his presence at the ALT -let alone anything about his call concerning it.

You say his call is more erxculpatory than incriminating, and I agree. It happened, so I can't leave it out. The fact that it is exculpatory however, may be the very reason it was made (refer to past discussions on this being a CYA call).

You state apprehension at my description of McDonald carrying a pistol as he made his way to Oswald because you claim it is not what McDonald said. Well, here is the McDonald quote again. "I went up the aisle and talked to two people sitting about in the middle. I was crouching low and holding my gun in case any trouble came. I wanted to be ready for it." To hold something requires having it in hand (unless you want to suggest he was holding it between his teeth?) As to how he could pat someone down while carrying a pistol... you're kidding me? You can't pat someone down with one hand? You also say, "If he didn't have the gun drawn, why ever would he or should he mention it?" You seem to forget - he DID mention it - to the media!

Concerning your confusion over the "riot gun" mentioned by young Applin... I'm not sure how you came to conclude I was suggesting McDonald was carrying a pistol AND a riot gun. What I said was "there was a cop in the vicinity with a riot gun". "a cop in the vicinity" (of the action between McDonald and Oswald) i.e. NOT McDonald. McDonald did say in the same media interview quoted above that Walker followed him up, so perhaps it was Walker.

In the end, we now have McDonald carrying a shotgun while also brandishing his sidearm while also patting down theater patrons, and planning on planting one of them on Oswald (but Oswald instead cold-cocked this walking aresenal). The entire scenario is too awkward to make sense. I dont' feel as if the "case" against McDonald has been made, much less that it hasn't been rebutted. Just my opinion, of course.

When what is said to you is contorted out of shape, it can be much easier to knock down.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a difference that you seem to be overlooking, and that is that most of the rest of the cops weren't contradicted. ... (The "fact-checking" you refer to above is Larry Sneed's No More Silence, which was compiled many years after the events described. In more than one instance, it can be factually shown that the interviewee's memory is incorrect; what is there to say that Ewell's is not? NMS is not a "source," IMO, inasmuch as what you find there generally needs to be verified.)
I would have to re-read Rose's article to check whether others were contradicted. I think some may have been, but I could be wrong. Is it Ewell's fault his story was drawn out at the time? You claimed there was no corroboration, now you want to find a way around corroboration. How can his story be verified when the very problem you point to (differences in stories) prevents that? You are setting the bar impossibly high in order to maintain your beliefs. [emphasis added]

-------------

On McDonald

... You say his call is more erxculpatory than incriminating, and I agree. It happened, so I can't leave it out. The fact that it is exculpatory however, may be the very reason it was made (refer to past discussions on this being a CYA call). [emphasis added] ...

... and it seems you are erasing the bar. This example is particularly egregious (hence the name "Greg?" - running & ducking!) since you, I believe it was, pointed out that nobody realized or gave thought to the fact of putting things onto the radio for "posterity" of any sort (if they even considered that it was being recorded).

There is an inherent problem with postulating that whatever is "known" could be or mean something else and therefore must. "The reason I think Jones went west is because he said he went east." Well, having gone west instead of east, there are now all sorts of other possibilities that arise from the new postulation ("well, if he went west, then he could have met up with Smith, and if he met Smith and Smith went south instead of north like he said he did, then Smith and Jones were where the victim was shot, ergo Smith and Jones are provably the culprits!"), all based on "ifs."

Jerry Rose and I talked about his articles at some length not to long ago; maybe two years or so? We didn't disagree on the overall prospectus, and on few of the details. I was actually quite surprised

You state apprehension at my description of McDonald carrying a pistol as he made his way to Oswald because you claim it is not what McDonald said. Well, here is the McDonald quote again. "I went up the aisle and talked to two people sitting about in the middle. I was crouching low and holding my gun in case any trouble came. I wanted to be ready for it." To hold something requires having it in hand ....
Holding it does not necessarily mean having it drawn, out of the holster, which is how you're portraying it as being the only way it could be "held." At the risk of being censured, there are things that you and I "held" at crucial times in the digestive process but didn't take out for all the world to see. Is "holding it" in your book ONLY exposing oneself, or can you not have your hand "holding" it while it's still "holstered," where it belongs? Is a real pistol any different from that, uh, "water pistol?"

It's not that I necessarily disagree with the possibility that he meant he'd drawn his gun, but I heartily disagree that it was the only thing he could have done, as you're so narrowly interpreting it ... "to maintain your beliefs?"

... As to how he could pat someone down while carrying a pistol... you're kidding me? You can't pat someone down with one hand?
You could ... but would you? In a crowded space like theater seats with both of the suspect's hands free and in close proximity? Not very smart. Not very realistic. You've gotta give some of these guys credit for being cops and having had some training (even if it was 1963, and it was Dallas, and they were DPD")! They were not, really, after all, the Keystone Kops of slapstick (tho' it's a better perspective to promote than others).
Concerning your confusion over the "riot gun" mentioned by young Applin... I'm not sure how you came to conclude I was suggesting McDonald was carrying a pistol AND a riot gun.
My bad. I'm not certain right now either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a couple of questions if you'd be so kind:

...

2. The Earlene Roberts statement of 11/29/63 concerning the patrol car that pulled up outside her home. In it she claimed the patrol car number was 207. Surely the fact that Jim Valentine was assigned that car and that Gerald Hill claims he went to the depository with Jim Valentine in that car creates another avenue of possibilities concerning Hill's involvement with the theatrical events in Oak Cliff from 1pm onwards? Especially as that car was then, supposedly, unoccupied from Valentine's and Hill's arrival at the TSBD until 3pm. ...

Earlene Roberts gave several numbers that she thought might've been on the car. It's very possible that she was either or both mistaken and/or confused: she was an elderly woman and blind in one eye, and she was questioned several times under some pressure from the police about what she did or didn't see. If she did see a police car that wasn't supposed to be there, it wouldn't be a wonder if she was intimidated ... something she might have felt even if the cops who interviewed her were vexed over the fact that they even had to spent time investigating the matter. As I recall, she testified to this effect.

That "investigation" was a farce to begin with. Once there was a number that could be focused upon, so it was to the exclusion of any other numbers. It was automatically exclusionary if an officer was driving (say) car #154, which didn't look even remotely like 207 or 209 or 109, inferring that said officer was not in the area. The trouble is that we know that no fewer than two other police cars were in Oak Cliff that didn't belong there during the period of time in question. The investigation was not open-ended to determine who was in that area, but rather closed-ended to investigate the whereabouts of only a limited number of vehicles.

As to Valentine's vehicle in particular, one very nearly gets the impression that there is a senior patrol officer assigned to act as a valet of sorts at all crime scenes, someone standing behind a portable lectern with a pegboard with hooks on which to hang the keys that officers dutifully checked in and out with him upon arriving and before leaving the scene. Does anyone imagine this to be so, that there was one sergeant who, in the immediate aftermath of an armed assault against the President of the United States, stood calmly around at some miniature "command post" where officers checked in before responding to the emergency? Remember, these guys rushed off to DP as soon as they got the news ....

The much more likely answer is that there was no such functionary at this particular time, and that in reality, all of the officers merely kept their keys either in their cars or on their persons, the former being the more likely. How else did, for example, Hill simply take off in Poe's car in Oak Cliff? Did they only have check-ins in downtown streets and leave the keys in the cars everywhere else? How, too, did so many officers depart DP when the "citizen call" came over the radio if they had to "check out" their keys from the sergeant on duty (who must've been a pretty harried man as that occurred: "hang onto your horses, I've got ten officers abandoning their posts ahead of you! You'll just have to wait your turn! Here we go: car 62!! Smith, that you? 207! Who wants 207? ...").

Talk about "other avenues of possibilities!" I think I'd call this one a "boulevard!"

Just off base a little but isn't this the same Officer Joe Poe that arrested the 3 tramps in DP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a difference that you seem to be overlooking, and that is that most of the rest of the cops weren't contradicted. ... (The "fact-checking" you refer to above is Larry Sneed's No More Silence, which was compiled many years after the events described. In more than one instance, it can be factually shown that the interviewee's memory is incorrect; what is there to say that Ewell's is not? NMS is not a "source," IMO, inasmuch as what you find there generally needs to be verified.)
I would have to re-read Rose's article to check whether others were contradicted. I think some may have been, but I could be wrong. Is it Ewell's fault his story was drawn out at the time? You claimed there was no corroboration, now you want to find a way around corroboration. How can his story be verified when the very problem you point to (differences in stories) prevents that? You are setting the bar impossibly high in order to maintain your beliefs. [emphasis added]

-------------

On McDonald

... You say his call is more erxculpatory than incriminating, and I agree. It happened, so I can't leave it out. The fact that it is exculpatory however, may be the very reason it was made (refer to past discussions on this being a CYA call). [emphasis added] ...

... and it seems you are erasing the bar. This example is particularly egregious (hence the name "Greg?" - running & ducking!)

Not erasing the bar at all. The rest of the data fits with McDonald attempting to plant a weapon. If this one piece of information completely ruled that out, so be it. But it does not. You'll note that I did say it "may" be the reason... not that it "was" the reason. The qualifier is needed in the event my hyposthesis is wrong. If on the other hand, I am right, there has to be a explanation for the call which fits in with that eventuality.

BTW, Greg is Greek for "vigilant". :zzz

since you, I believe it was, pointed out that nobody realized or gave thought to the fact of putting things onto the radio for "posterity" of any sort (if they even considered that it was being recorded).

Whilst it may have been me, I honestly don't recall saying it, or even thinking it.

There is an inherent problem with postulating that whatever is "known" could be or mean something else and therefore must. "The reason I think Jones went west is because he said he went east." Well, having gone west instead of east, there are now all sorts of other possibilities that arise from the new postulation ("well, if he went west, then he could have met up with Smith, and if he met Smith and Smith went south instead of north like he said he did, then Smith and Jones were where the victim was shot, ergo Smith and Jones are provably the culprits!"), all based on "ifs."

That is not what I have done. See above.

Jerry Rose and I talked about his articles at some length not to long ago; maybe two years or so? We didn't disagree on the overall prospectus, and on few of the details. I was actually quite surprised

I just looked at the article again. It was not just Hill and Westbrook who had problems with their stories. Rose includes Bentley and Walker as having as having "improbabilities" in their accounts of how they got to OC. So I ask again, do we now include Bentley and Walker on the suspect list?

You state apprehension at my description of McDonald carrying a pistol as he made his way to Oswald because you claim it is not what McDonald said. Well, here is the McDonald quote again. "I went up the aisle and talked to two people sitting about in the middle. I was crouching low and holding my gun in case any trouble came. I wanted to be ready for it." To hold something requires having it in hand ....
Holding it does not necessarily mean having it drawn, out of the holster, which is how you're portraying it as being the only way it could be "held." At the risk of being censured, there are things that you and I "held" at crucial times in the digestive process but didn't take out for all the world to see. Is "holding it" in your book ONLY exposing oneself, or can you not have your hand "holding" it while it's still "holstered," where it belongs? Is a real pistol any different from that, uh, "water pistol?"

It's not that I necessarily disagree with the possibility that he meant he'd drawn his gun, but I heartily disagree that it was the only thing he could have done, as you're so narrowly interpreting it ... "to maintain your beliefs?"

Not at all. McDonald was talking about a gun. Nothing else. His words, "holding my gun" imo can only be taken one way. I would have expected him to say something like, "I had my hand on my pistol ready to draw in case of trouble" if he meant what you want it to mean. Frankly, I don't care if he did actually mean that. It doesn't adversely affect the hyposthesis. I just flat out don't think he meant he only had his hand on it.

... As to how he could pat someone down while carrying a pistol... you're kidding me? You can't pat someone down with one hand?
You could ... but would you? In a crowded space like theater seats with both of the suspect's hands free and in close proximity? Not very smart. Not very realistic. You've gotta give some of these guys credit for being cops and having had some training (even if it was 1963, and it was Dallas, and they were DPD")! They were not, really, after all, the Keystone Kops of slapstick (tho' it's a better perspective to promote than others).

I don't know. I'm sure I've seen it countless times on TV cop shows. The cop holds the pistol at the head/stomach/back of the suspect and frisks with his free hand. What's the suspect gonna do? Risk getting his head blown off by making one of those infamous "false moves" so beloved of cop show writers? :ph34r:

Concerning your confusion over the "riot gun" mentioned by young Applin... I'm not sure how you came to conclude I was suggesting McDonald was carrying a pistol AND a riot gun.
My bad. I'm not certain right now either.

Great! Now recall what Ewell said about about a shotgun being aimed down among the mass of bodies as they struggled to cuff Oswald...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....Now, he's a reporter for the Dallas Morning News and he has 15 years experience. He's heard on KLIF that shots have been fired at the motorcade.

Does he stop when he sees the confusion and panic in Dealey Plaza? No, he doesn't.

"KLIF's newsman on duty in the studio was Gary DeLaune....Shortly after 12:30 p.m., just seconds after the shooting, (italics added)

DeLaune received a "hotline" call on the newsrooms telephone. The caller asked "what do you know about shots being fired at Kennedy's motorcade

and Kennedy and Connally being hit"? DeLaune responded that he didn't know anything about it yet and the caller hung up. With that, DeLaune

signaled the KLIF Control Room Disc-jockey to put him on the air immediately as he had a "bulletin" to report." (From The History of KLIF Radio)

Actually, DeLaune called the Dallas PD for confirmation before airing any bulletin.

Gary DeLaune tells it like this:

We had four minutes of fast-paced news on the top of the hour, news headlines at the bottom half and news teases 10 minutes

before the hour. When the red phone called the "hot line" rang at the news desk, you immediately started the giant 24-hour reel-to-reel

recorder and asked who was calling.

Don't ask me why, but on the morning of November 22nd when the hotline rang, I didn't start the recorder, neither did I ask who

was calling. The caller said: "What do you know about shots being fired at the motorcade with both Kennedy and Connally being hit?"

Stunned I replied, "I don't know but I'll find out." I should have kept the caller on the line, asked for a name and made sure the

recorder was rolling. Probably my deepest regrets of all the stories I have covered in my career.

I called the police department, confirmed the information with one of my sources, recorded her and we aired the bulletin time-after-time.

Gary DeLaune gave an oral history interview to The Sixth Floor Museum. About the twenty minute mark he talks about the above episode.

He seems to confirm that it was "suddenly" after reading the news headlines at the bottom of the hour, he got the call asking him if

he knew about "the shots being fired at Kennedy and Johnson in the motorcade and both were hit?"

DeLaune slams his hand on the table and says, "And to this day I am sick that I did not find out who my source was."

After he hung up he immediately called the Dallas Police Department dispatcher where he was told that they had reports of shots being

fired and that Kennedy and Connally were both hit. Then KLIF aired their famous bulletin. KLIF was a news giant (owned by Gordon McLendon)

that fed reports that weekend to 350 affiliates. DeLaune says that Oswald's balled up fist while handcuffed was a sign of Marxism.

DeLaune's accounts of that weekend and Jack Ruby are fascinating. There is no doubt in his mind that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin, but

he is at a loss to explain Oswald's motives. DeLaune knew Marina Oswald well and to this day he thinks she knows more than she has ever told.

It's very curious to me that someone would anonomously call KLIF so quickly after the shooting and ask the question so matter of factly.

Links:

http://1650oldiesradio.com/pgtwo.html

http://voices.mysanantonio.com/garydelaune/2009/12/i-always-wondered-what-kind-of.html

http://www.c-span.org/apa/6thfloor.asp?CatCodePairs=Current_events,6thfloor;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...DeLaune's accounts of that weekend and Jack Ruby are fascinating. There is no doubt in his mind that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin, but he is at a loss to explain Oswald's motives. DeLaune knew Marina Oswald well and to this day he thinks she knows more than she has ever told.

If Oswald was the lone assassin, there's nothing "more" for Marina to know other than why he did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

''When the red phone called the "hot line" rang at the news desk, you immediately started the giant 24-hour reel-to-reel

recorder and asked who was calling.

Don't ask me why..''

Sorry, no can do : Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Hogan:

...DeLaune's accounts of that weekend and Jack Ruby are fascinating. There is no doubt in his mind that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin, but he is at a loss to explain Oswald's motives. DeLaune knew Marina Oswald well and to this day he thinks she knows more than she has ever told.

Duke Lane:

If Oswald was the lone assassin, there's nothing "more" for Marina to know other than why he did it.

Good point.

''When the red phone called the "hot line" rang at the news desk, you immediately started the giant 24-hour reel-to-reel

recorder and asked who was calling.

Don't ask me why..''

Sorry, no can do : Why?

Too right. He should be asked that very question. KLIF was McLendon's station, and it was the station Julia Postal was listening to. Possibly Brewer as well (he didn't name the station he was tuned in to).

On McDonald carrying a weapon:

"...McDonald moves cautiously down the aisle, crouching low, gun drawn, toward Oswald..." Trauma Roon One, Crenshaw, p87. Whilst not proof, it at least shows others have no problem with interpreting McDonald's words as meaning he had the pistol drawn.

On the sound said to be a firing pin

Mr. Brewer.

When we first went down to the exit by the stage, we heard a seat pop up, but couldn't see anybody. And we never did see him. But we went back and upstairs and checked, and we came down and went back to the box office and told Julia that we hadn't seen him.

This was before the police arrived, but it does show the seats did make a clicking sound when springing back, and it was the initial impression of one of the cops that the noise had been a seat pop.

Brewer was not asked if anyone attempted to fire the pistol during the arrest, but he did testify that Oswald knocked McDonald into the seats, and that McDonald got straight back up.

Mr. Brewer. Oswald hit McDonald first, and he knocked him to the seat. Mr. Belin. Who knocked who? Mr. Brewer. He knocked McDonald down. McDonald fell against one of the seats. And then real quick he was back up.

------------------

From the FBI report on Brewer dated 3/2/64: "He said he heard a radio broadcast describing the suspect and the man he observed in the foyer resembled this person. In other words, he was "in his early 20s, short stature, weighing about 145 to 150 pounds, about 5' 9" or 5' 10""

During his Warren Commission testimony, Brewer was asked to describe the person he followed. This entailed being asked about height, weight, hair color, complexion and clothing . He was pointedly not asked about age.. Not that the weight description matched either...

I would like to know more about Brewer, and more about the owners of the shoe store.

The alleged call to KLIF tipping them off about the assassination... not recording the tipoff as was apparently the usual practice - despite there being nothing traumatic happening at the time which might otherwise excuse the oversight... the fact that Postal and maybe Brewer were listening to KLIF... Brewer's statements and testimony, parts of which seem scripted by a very bad would-be Hollywood writer and recalling that McLendon - owner of KLIF had made z-grade horror films in Texas... and welll... a long bow at present, may one day not seem so long....

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We went a bit into Brewer a few years ago. A number of things stood out, one is how (from memory) by the time he testified he had received quite a promotion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUMP; For Martin, Bernie and Dean to have a look through and maybe resurrect the thread?

Lee

Thanks for the bump Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUMP; For Martin, Bernie and Dean to have a look through and maybe resurrect the thread?

Lee

Thanks for the bump Lee

Thanks for that Lee. I remember following it the first time round. I'll give it another read.

As a seperate topic but one in which you guys may be able to help me with, I have asked numerous times if anyone who believes Oswald acted alone could tell (or even guess) when he first made the decision. It's like extracting dinosaur teeth with a matchstick! I wondered if anyone else knew what the 'standard' response to this problematical question is, seeing as the 'true believers' are clearly too coy to answer.

Any ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...