A source for the film of Oswald going past Lovelady into Fritz's office

[Joseph Backes]

Hello folks,

I found a source for viewing the short film of Lee Harvey Oswald being brought to City Hall, which is really the same thing as Dallas Police HQ. If you have this DVD called "The Story Behind the Story: JFK, Dallas, November 22, 1963, 40th Anniversary Collector's Edition," and go to side two, one of the DVDs has no artwork on either side, that's the DVD you want, go to special features and there is a program produced by WFAA-TV, an ABC network affiliated station, simply called "One Year Later." This show has many of the local reporters remembering that day, where they were, what they were doing, and what did they film. Available on Amazon - http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/B001GHDYFY

Bob Gooding is the TV host in the studio.

Gooding goes to a reporter, Charles Butt, he's a tall, thin man with glasses. This is about 38 minutes into this program. Charles Butt was in the basement of Dallas City Hall that day. He was there when Oswald was shot. Unfortunately, he did not have a good position to film or witness anything. Butt is behind a somewhat rounded middle island kind of office, the initial booking, or receiving area.

The film sequence we’re interested in starts after Butt says, “he was being brought in from the Texas theatre.” This is about 38 minutes and 28 seconds into this show. Then we fade to film of Oswald and his police escort coming around the initial booking area down a small short hallway and onto the elevator. There is a man with some type of maintance uniform on already in the elevator and he stays in the corner of the elevator as Oswald and company get in. Oswald is escorted by five men, one of whom is a Dallas cop, in uniform, with a white cap on his head.

At 38:39 there is an edit, or fade out, because the camera man filming this did not get in the elevator with Oswald.

Then at 38:40 there is another camera man that is on the third floor and captures them getting out. We see the hallway they are going to. There is an office door open on both sides with a woman standing guard next to each open door. And there are three men further down the hallway. At 38:46 the door to office 317, the Homicide and Robbery Bureau headed by Captain Fritz is open by a man with a suit on with a thin tie and Oswald and company go in. There are already at least 4 men in this office area already. One was near the door as Oswald and company came in. We follow them going in and kind of rounding the corner going somewhat parallel but now in the opposite direction of the hallway they just came from. Then there is an edit or fade out. Now at about 38:49 the camera has been moved a bit so that we see Oswald and company almost in a straight column walking away from the cameraman’s position. The position of some of the men as they walk away from the camera man's viewpoint, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th man block the camera’s view of the cop with the white cap and Oswald temporarily as this cop and Oswald move a little to the left of your screen because of where Billy Nolan Lovelady is sitting. In fact, the last man in this column temporarily blocks the camera’s view of everyone except the man directly in front of him at 38:51. Then two men move a little bit to the right, the cop with the white cap and Oswald. The cop stops and holds onto Oswald for a second or two. There is a little delay before they put Oswald into an interior office room and close the door. This door does not have a glass plane, it's solid, wood or metal.

So, Cinque is EDIT to think that Lovelady is not really there, not really siting in a chair with its back facing the desk, not really facing this group of men bringing Oswald in. Nor is there a "take two," film where they do all of this all over again but now with someone else cast as Lovelady. It's ridiculous nonsense from a person who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

I think it should be emphasized that the people brought in from Dealy Plaza as witnesses who are awaiting attention from the police or someone who will take their statements and type those up haven't got a clue about a police officer being shot in Oak Cliff, or a clue as to that suspects name, or that that suspect might be the killer of JFK. They were not listening to a radio or watching TV. I don't think they know anything about Oswald yet.

By the way, there is indeed a real clock atop a grey metal clothes tree. It’s an odd artifact in the room. I’ve never seen anything like it before. So, it is not a reflection of a clock from the hallway or from another room across the hallway.

A short time later we see a film sequence of Oswald now wearing a dark sweater coming out of the elevator, handcuffed with two Dallas police men on each side, one is Jim Leavelle, the other is L.C. Graves. They come out, and go around this middle island bit. When this film sequence starts there is a police officer blocking the camera view of Oswald and company coming off the elevator and you hear some people, one of them is probably Charles Butt saying “Officer, officer,” trying to get this officer out of the camera shot.

This footage shows Oswald getting shot but it’s from this vestibule area looking out towards the parking garage and where everybody else got a good view of Ruby shooting Oswald. In other words it is from behind.

After being shot Oswald is brought back into this area and apparently is deposited on the floor. There are several men who just look down at him. The middle office area obstructs the view. After Oswald is taken away Butt's camera man films the spot on the floor where Oswald lay. There is a small pool of blood on the floor.

We also see Jack Ruby hustled and shoved past them, very angrily by one guy, and onto the same elevator that Oswald and company came out of mere moments ago.

Joe Backes

Edited May 21, 2012 by Pat Speer
abusive language

[Bernice Moore]

Thank you Joe, for your information, greatly appreciated....b

[David Lifton]

Thank you Joe, for your information, greatly appreciated....b

Thank you, Joe.

And here's information I received from Gary Mack, via email. He informs me that the photographer was Charles Buck of WFAA, and that the location was "the Dallas Police interrogation room." Further, that the DPD floor chart refers to it as the "interview room."

He also states that clearer copies of the Buck film show the clock as "2:02". Gary says that Buck was present with two other photographers, bt he didn't know their names or who they worked for. Moreover, that his film appeared unedited on WFAA that first day, since it was the only one they had of Oswald, when he was taken in for the first time.

If so--if the film was broadcast that day--then that would negate any hypothesis that Lovelady was "embedded" or added on later.

Its now clear, from the report that Joe Backes found, that Lovelady and some others were in fact brought to the Dallas Police Department. I'd still like to know who interrogated them, what they were asked, and where are those reports.

One other thing: Gary points out what I think has been noted (probably by him) on other threads, and weeks (or even months ago): that WFAA station manger Mike Shapiro alerted the FBI to the "doorway man" and invited investigators to study the photo at the TV station. He says that there are films and video tapes of them doing just that--and they still exist. I do believe all of this has been discussed before--and there are FBI reports dated 11/25/63, when this whole matter was addressed.

So that's why those of us who are "old-timers" find it difficult (if not impossble) to now accept the notion that it was Oswald "after all." It was not Oswald "after all," and never was Oswald. Moreover, this entire issue was settled decades ago. So its not just a matter of "old wine in new bottles"; its a matter of attempting to recycle an issue which was long ago resolved, and which has no valid reason for being revived today.

Anyway, my primary purpose in beginning this thread was to address the question: why was Lovelady at the DPD, prior to the arrival of Oswald? It now appears that he was brought there with "others" and I'd like to know by whom, and who conducted the interrogation. The hypothesis I posited is that the same "resemblance" which has caused so much trouble (vis a vis the issue of whether he was "the man in the doorway") may have caused him to be picked up early and brought in for interrogation, based on an incomplete and faulty profile of the pre-selected patsy. If Lovelady was brought in for an innocent reason, then that conjecture would be wrong. But its still not clear to me why Lovelady was in the Dallas Police "interrogation room" at that early hour. Perhaps its innocent, but I'd still like to see more information before the issue is entirely resolved in my own mind.

DSL

Edited May 21, 2012 by David Lifton

[Joseph Backes]

David,

CE 2003 in Volume 24 has a lot of the police affidavits of TSBD employees.

CE 1381 in Volume 22 has the FBI statements.

Billy Lovelady's affidavit is on page 36 of CE 2003 which is on page 214 of Volume 24.

Buell Wesley Frazier's affidavit in on page 25 of CE 2003 which is on page 209 of Volume 24.

William Shelley's affidavit is on page 59 of CE 2003 which is on page 226 of Volume 24.

Buell Wesley Frazier's FBI statement is on p. 32 of CE 1381 which is p. 647 in Volume 22.

Lovelady's is on p. 62 of CE1381 which is on p. 662 in Volume 22.

William Shelley's is on 84 of CE 1381 which is on p. 673 in Volume 22.

Joe

[Joseph Backes]

Thank you Joe, for your information, greatly appreciated....b

You're welcome. And I think Cinque owes me some money.

Joe

[Pat Speer]

Anyway, my primary purpose in beginning this thread was to address the question: why was Lovelady at the DPD, prior to the arrival of Oswald? It now appears that he was brought there with "others" and I'd like to know by whom, and who conducted the interrogation.

DSL

On 11-22, Lovelady signed an affidavit before Mary Rattan. 24H214. I believe this was done at the DPD's headquarters.

He was also interviewed by FBI agents Barrett and Almon. Their report can be found in CD5, page 332-333. I don't recall reading anything about witnesses being transferred over to the FBI's offices for questioning. So I believe this was done at the DPD's headquarters as well.

[David Lifton]

David,

CE 2003 in Volume 24 has a lot of the police affidavits of TSBD employees.

CE 1381 in Volume 22 has the FBI statements.

Billy Lovelady's affidavit is on page 36 of CE 2003 which is on page 214 of Volume 24.

Buell Wesley Frazier's affidavit in on page 25 of CE 2003 which is on page 209 of Volume 24.

William Shelley's affidavit is on page 59 of CE 2003 which is on page 226 of Volume 24.

Buell Wesley Frazier's FBI statement is on p. 32 of CE 1381 which is p. 647 in Volume 22.

Lovelady's is on p. 62 of CE1381 which is on p. 662 in Volume 22.

William Shelley's is on 84 of CE 1381 which is on p. 673 in Volume 22.

Joe

Joe,

As I recall, CE 1381 was an FBI report that resulted from a formal Warren Commission request--to the FBI--to please go out and assemble a document of every single person who was employed at the TSBD, in which certain specific questions were to be addressed. One of them (as I recall) was " Where were you at the time of the shooting."

What I think is interesting (and possibly useful) is to assemble a list of all those (who were employed at the TSBD) who were actually brought to the Dallas Police Department, rather than simply being treated as "witnesses" and brought to the Sheriff's Office (at the SE corner of Main and Houston, at Dealey Plaza).

Some of the posts on this thread are useful, in assembling such a list.

So thanks for that.

DSL

[Joseph Backes]

David,

What's so special about the Sheriff's Office?

It is not true that Mr. Shapiro was the first one to alert the FBI about the issue of "Doorway Man." Mr. Shapiro talks with the FBI on the 25th. Nor was he the first one to give the FBI a copy of the Altgens photo.

Altgens photo was on the AP wire within 40 minutes of the assassination, TV stations could have gotten it off the AP and showed it live. As recall, the NBC footage broadcasted on the A & E channel entitled "As it Happened," showed some photographs from Dallas and Dealey Plaza. Perhaps they showed this one from Altgens? It was certainly available for evening newspapers, and extra editions. By the 23rd it was in nearly every newspaper on earth, often, as the case with The Washington Post, on the front page.

The FBI knew of this issue and contacted Lovelady at his house and asked him about the Altgens photo the night after the assassination. So, that would be the 23rd. See CE 1408.

Weisberg writes that on November 25th, 1963 a Mr. Mike Shapiro, manager at WFAA-TV in Dallas brought the Altgens photo to the attention of local FBI agents. Shapiro tells them that an individual (perhaps an employee?) in the Associated Press office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania noted a similarity between “Doorway Man,” and Oswald. Shapiro gives the agents an enlarged copy of the Altgens photo. (Whitewash II p. 154) However, this is not where the FBI obtains the photograph for the first time.

There is an FBI report dated March 3, 1964 ( CD 457a, reproduced on p. 188 of Photographic Whitewash). It states that the first time the FBI knew of the Altgens photo was when Mr. Mike Shapiro of WFAA-TV in Dallas showed FBI agents an enlarged copy of the Altgens photo. But, the report does not mention Altgens by name. The report says the photo was taken by “an Associated Press photographer,” even though the captions crediting him are refered to. (PW p.66) Weisberg believes that by not mentioning Altgens by name the FBI doesn’t draw attention to its failure to interview Altgens by this date.

This March 3, 1964 FBI report goes on, building on the (false) foundation that it had not acquired a copy of the photo until Nov 25th when FBI agents went to Mr. Lovelady who identified himself in the photo. But, this is all false. The FBI showed Lovelady a copy of the Altgens photo the night after the assassination.

Weisberg refers to a book called, “The Kennedy Assassination and the American People,” that mentions how Elmer Lower, an executive with ABC - TV wondered what to do with a photo that seems to suggest Oswald witnessed the assassination and was not the assassin. He worried it would cause a sensation. “We decided against using the picture immediately. Instead we informed the FBI about it.” ( Whitewash II p. 153 ) And so the FBI checked out the photo and soon declared it was not Oswald but another employee.

I’m not sure of the exact time frame here when the FBI talk to Elmer Lower but I believe this happens prior to November 25th because Weisberg mentions this Elmer Lower story (Whitewash II p. 153) prior to telling us about Mr. Michael Shapiro (Whitewash II p. 154) whose story happens on November 25th, 1963. I have ordered a copy of “The Kennedy Assassination and the American People,” that Weisberg quotes from, and if that gives a date for the Elmer Lower - FBI meeting I’ll make note of it.

Weisberg writes that the FBI had and used a copy immediately. (Whitewash II p. 154.) But, I don’t see exactly how, from who, or exactly when they got it. And I believe that making a mystery over when and from where the FBI got any copy of the Altgens photo is deliberately put into the record. Once it is on the AP wire they could have gotten it from that. Perhaps they just used a copy from a newspaper. They had evening newspapers back then. I’m inclined to believe that they got a copy from Elmer Lower with ABC, but even if so this may not have been the first one they got. Perhaps they got it from AP in New York City when the negatives went there. (Although there is controversy if the negative stayed in Dallas or was sent to NYC the night of the assassination.) They did get a copy from Mr. Shapiro, “The FBI solemnly borrowed the copy shown to it by Shapiro and made a copy of it.” (PW p. 67) But, that was on the 25th.

Weisberg believes the original negative remained in Dallas (Whitewash II p. 154). Richard Trask, in “Pictures of the Pain,” believes the original negatives were sent to AP HQ in New York on a commercial plane. (Pictures of the Pain p. 318) Trask writes that Altgens never saw prints made directly from his negatives before they were sent to New York. “Altgens had been so busy, that he had not gotten prints of his photos and had to request copies from New York, but apparently he never acquired a whole set of his pictures.” (Pictures of the Pain p. 318)

At no time prior to June of 1964 did the FBI go directly to the Dallas Associated Press office to obtain the original negative or ask questions of Mr. Altgens who worked there and lived in Dallas. As late as June 1, 1964 Hoover writes to Rankin that “efforts are being made to locate and interview him.” ( Whitewash II p. 155; this June 1, 1964 letter is reproduced on p. 200 of Photographic Whitewash.) For more than six months the FBI cannot find the Dallas Associated Press office? The FBI is not that incompetent. They were staying away from Altgens for some reason. Something else was going on. They "find" Altgens on June 2nd, 1964. See CE 1407.

We do know that the FBI had a copy by the 23rd because they showed it to Lovelady that night, and not two days later. How do we know this? We know it because of an article in The New York Herald Tribune dated May 24, 1964. This is CE 1408, (22H794) “The Picture With a Life of Its Own.”

It is written by Don Bonafede and apeared in The New York Herald Tribune, magazine section, May 24th, 1964. The whole article is not reproduced!

The Commission only reproduces the last two pages of the magazine article. (Whitewash II p. 187) They only reproduce a photocopy of page 9 and 10 of the magazine. Page 9, at the top, has a photo of Oswald with the shirt he had on the day he was arrested, then an enlargement of the Altgens photo highlighting “Doorway Man,” and then an even bigger enlargement showing the face of “Doorway Man.” So, The New York Herald Tribune did what the Warren Commission refused to do, namely give the reader appropriate photographic material to make a comparison. The article tells the story of how one guy, Jones Harris thought the man in the doorway was Oswald and how he tried to get a good copy of the photo. Once he got a good copy Harris tried to bring it to the attention of various officials.

I could go on, I'm working on an article to refute Fetzer's and Cincque's stuff, but think I've made the point I wanted to about Mr. Shapiro being the first to tell the FBI about this "Doorway Man" issue.

Joe

Edited May 21, 2012 by Joseph Backes

[Michael Hogan]

David,

CE 2003 in Volume 24 has a lot of the police affidavits of TSBD employees.

CE 1381 in Volume 22 has the FBI statements.

Billy Lovelady's affidavit is on page 36 of CE 2003 which is on page 214 of Volume 24.

Buell Wesley Frazier's affidavit in on page 25 of CE 2003 which is on page 209 of Volume 24.

William Shelley's affidavit is on page 59 of CE 2003 which is on page 226 of Volume 24.

Buell Wesley Frazier's FBI statement is on p. 32 of CE 1381 which is p. 647 in Volume 22.

Lovelady's is on p. 62 of CE1381 which is on p. 662 in Volume 22.

William Shelley's is on 84 of CE 1381 which is on p. 673 in Volume 22.

Joe

Joe,

As I recall, CE 1381 was an FBI report that resulted from a formal Warren Commission request--to the FBI--to please go out and assemble a document of every single person who was employed at the TSBD, in which certain specific questions were to be addressed. One of them (as I recall) was " Where were you at the time of the shooting."

What I think is interesting (and possibly useful) is to assemble a list of all those (who were employed at the TSBD) who were actually brought to the Dallas Police Department, rather than simply being treated as "witnesses" and brought to the Sheriff's Office (at the SE corner of Main and Houston, at Dealey Plaza).

Some of the posts on this thread are useful, in assembling such a list.

So thanks for that.

DSL

Danny Arce told the FBI that when he re-entered TSBD Building he was questioned by some Dallas police officers. At about one o'clock he was told

to go the the Dallas Police Station for an interview by the police.

Arce told the FBI that he was about thirty feet from the President's car at the time of the shots although he could not see the car. Arce told the FBI that

to the best of his knowledge, the shots came from the direction of the railroad tracks near the parking lot at the west end of the Depository. (CE 1381)

[Greg Burnham]

This very good information, Joe. Thanks so much for posting it. I'm looking forward to your article.

[David Lifton]

David,

What's so special about the Sheriff's Office?

It is not true that Mr. Shapiro was the first one to alert the FBI about the issue of "Doorway Man." Mr. Shapiro talks with the FBI on the 25th. Nor was he the first one to give the FBI a copy of the Altgens photo.

Altgens photo was on the AP wire within 40 minutes of the assassination, TV stations could have gotten it off the AP and showed it live. As recall, the NBC footage broadcasted on the A & E channel entitled "As it Happened," showed some photographs from Dallas and Dealey Plaza. Perhaps they showed this one from Altgens? It was certainly available for evening newspapers, and extra editions. By the 23rd it was in nearly every newspaper on earth, often, as the case with The Washington Post, on the front page.

The FBI knew of this issue and contacted Lovelady at his house and asked him about the Altgens photo the night after the assassination. So, that would be the 23rd. See CE 1408.

Weisberg writes that on November 25th, 1963 a Mr. Mike Shapiro, manager at WFAA-TV in Dallas brought the Altgens photo to the attention of local FBI agents. Shapiro tells them that an individual (perhaps an employee?) in the Associated Press office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania noted a similarity between “Doorway Man,” and Oswald. Shapiro gives the agents an enlarged copy of the Altgens photo. (Whitewash II p. 154) However, this is not where the FBI obtains the photograph for the first time.

There is an FBI report dated March 3, 1964 ( CD 457a, reproduced on p. 188 of Photographic Whitewash). It states that the first time the FBI knew of the Altgens photo was when Mr. Mike Shapiro of WFAA-TV in Dallas showed FBI agents an enlarged copy of the Altgens photo. But, the report does not mention Altgens by name. The report says the photo was taken by “an Associated Press photographer,” even though the captions crediting him are refered to. (PW p.66) Weisberg believes that by not mentioning Altgens by name the FBI doesn’t draw attention to its failure to interview Altgens by this date.

This March 3, 1964 FBI report goes on, building on the (false) foundation that it had not acquired a copy of the photo until Nov 25th when FBI agents went to Mr. Lovelady who identified himself in the photo. But, this is all false. The FBI showed Lovelady a copy of the Altgens photo the night after the assassination.

Weisberg refers to a book called, “The Kennedy Assassination and the American People,” that mentions how Elmer Lower, an executive with ABC - TV wondered what to do with a photo that seems to suggest Oswald witnessed the assassination and was not the assassin. He worried it would cause a sensation. “We decided against using the picture immediately. Instead we informed the FBI about it.” ( Whitewash II p. 153 ) And so the FBI checked out the photo and soon declared it was not Oswald but another employee.

I’m not sure of the exact time frame here when the FBI talk to Elmer Lower but I believe this happens prior to November 25th because Weisberg mentions this Elmer Lower story (Whitewash II p. 153) prior to telling us about Mr. Michael Shapiro (Whitewash II p. 154) whose story happens on November 25th, 1963. I have ordered a copy of “The Kennedy Assassination and the American People,” that Weisberg quotes from, and if that gives a date for the Elmer Lower - FBI meeting I’ll make note of it.

Weisberg writes that the FBI had and used a copy immediately. (Whitewash II p. 154.) But, I don’t see exactly how, from who, or exactly when they got it. And I believe that making a mystery over when and from where the FBI got any copy of the Altgens photo is deliberately put into the record. Once it is on the AP wire they could have gotten it from that. Perhaps they just used a copy from a newspaper. They had evening newspapers back then. I’m inclined to believe that they got a copy from Elmer Lower with ABC, but even if so this may not have been the first one they got. Perhaps they got it from AP in New York City when the negatives went there. (Although there is controversy if the negative stayed in Dallas or was sent to NYC the night of the assassination.) They did get a copy from Mr. Shapiro, “The FBI solemnly borrowed the copy shown to it by Shapiro and made a copy of it.” (PW p. 67) But, that was on the 25th.

Weisberg believes the original negative remained in Dallas (Whitewash II p. 154). Richard Trask, in “Pictures of the Pain,” believes the original negatives were sent to AP HQ in New York on a commercial plane. (Pictures of the Pain p. 318) Trask writes that Altgens never saw prints made directly from his negatives before they were sent to New York. “Altgens had been so busy, that he had not gotten prints of his photos and had to request copies from New York, but apparently he never acquired a whole set of his pictures.” (Pictures of the Pain p. 318)

At no time prior to June of 1964 did the FBI go directly to the Dallas Associated Press office to obtain the original negative or ask questions of Mr. Altgens who worked there and lived in Dallas. As late as June 1, 1964 Hoover writes to Rankin that “efforts are being made to locate and interview him.” ( Whitewash II p. 155; this June 1, 1964 letter is reproduced on p. 200 of Photographic Whitewash.) For more than six months the FBI cannot find the Dallas Associated Press office? The FBI is not that incompetent. They were staying away from Altgens for some reason. Something else was going on. They "find" Altgens on June 2nd, 1964. See CE 1407.

We do know that the FBI had a copy by the 23rd because they showed it to Lovelady that night, and not two days later. How do we know this? We know it because of an article in The New York Herald Tribune dated May 24, 1964. This is CE 1408, (22H794) “The Picture With a Life of Its Own.”

It is written by Don Bonafede and apeared in The New York Herald Tribune, magazine section, May 24th, 1964. The whole article is not reproduced!

The Commission only reproduces the last two pages of the magazine article. (Whitewash II p. 187) They only reproduce a photocopy of page 9 and 10 of the magazine. Page 9, at the top, has a photo of Oswald with the shirt he had on the day he was arrested, then an enlargement of the Altgens photo highlighting “Doorway Man,” and then an even bigger enlargement showing the face of “Doorway Man.” So, The New York Herald Tribune did what the Warren Commission refused to do, namely give the reader appropriate photographic material to make a comparison. The article tells the story of how one guy, Jones Harris thought the man in the doorway was Oswald and how he tried to get a good copy of the photo. Once he got a good copy Harris tried to bring it to the attention of various officials.

I could go on, I'm working on an article to refute Fetzer's and Cincque's stuff, but think I've made the point I wanted to about Mr. Shapiro being the first to tell the FBI about this "Doorway Man" issue.

Joe

Joe,

On the matter of whether it could possibly be Oswald in the doorway. . . :

First I want to thank you for putting together that list of references to the Warren Commission Exhibits for the statements of Lovelady, Frazier, and Shelley.

I also want to thank Pat Speer for the reference that he provided, and also Gary Mack, for his informative email.

This morning, I have re-read and perused all of it--in other words, I have revisited that "rabbit hole." This is material I used to know like theb ack of my hand, but had really not examined in years, and it is all very important, because it is all "first day evidence."

My conclusions:

(1) I was wrong in positing the hypothesis that Billy Lovelady's presence at the Dallas Police Department is in any way suspicious. It now seems clear that a number of TSBD employees were brought to the police department simply because (a) the were Oswald's co-workers; (b ) one or more of them working on the 6th floor; and (c, in the case of Frazier), he had actually driven Oswald to work.

So there was nothing strange at all about Lovelady being brought there.

(2) There was nothing strange at all as to where Lovelady was sitting. As Gary pointed out to me in an email, on a chart of the building, it is referred to as an "interrogation room".

(3) Therefore (and in the spirit of "finally"): Lovelady was not the only one brought to the DPD. As I noted above, several people were brought there, because---as in "DUH"---the Dallas Police Department were the "first responders" and (again, "DUH") they were investigating the crime.

Hence, the notion that it is somehow "suspicious" that Lovelady was at the DPD is just plain wrong. As you (Joe) pointed out, Lovelady's own statement to the FBI says that he and others were brought to the DPD.

Because I was wrong, I am going to search out my oriignal post on this matter, and post a notice that I was wrong. (Because of Cinque's posts, which I will be much more skeptical about in the future, I falsely inferred that Lovelady was the "only" one brought to the DPD and secondly, that there was soomething truly suspicious about where Lovelady was seated (all of Cinque's "bowels" of the Police Department statements).

Other things I am reminded of: always (ALWAYS) go back to "first day evidence" to get a clear picture of the starting point in any issue. And take the time to examine the "first day evidence" yourself. Don't rely on what anyone else says about it. Read it yourself.

In this case, the "first day evidence"--that is, the original statements of Shelley, Lovelady himself, and Oswald-- makes very clear that there is no reason to believe that Oswald was on the front steps of the TSBD; and certainly no reason to subscribe to the proposition that Oswald was "with Shelley."

That's just plain ludicrous.

Here's what Lovelady says, in his 11/22/63 statement at the DPD:

“When the President came by Bill Shelley and I was standing on the steps in front of the building where I work.”

“After he had passed and was about 50 yards past us I heard three shots.There was a slight pause after the first shot then the next two was right close together.

“ I could not tell where the shots come from but sounded like they were across the street from us. However, that could have been caused by the echo.”

“After it was over we went back into the building and I took some police officers up to search the building. I did not see anyone around the building that was not supposed to be there. DPD affidavit (11/22); (CE 2003,p.59, or 24 WCH 226)

Here's what Shelley says:

"

I saw him periodically all morning with the exception of when we were on the sixth floor. At noon I started eating my lunch in my office and I went outside to see the President. After the Presidents accident (!!), I started checking around and I missed Lee. I asked Mr. Truly about him and He told me he had not seen him. I didn’t see Lee until the Police brought him into the Dallas Homicide Bureau.

(24 WCH 226; p. CE 2003, p60)

I re-checked the FBI interrogation reports of Oswald. At no point does Oswald ever say or even imply that he was standing out front watching the parade (or that he was with Shelley at the time the parade passed by). That all comes from Jim Fetzer's excited and highly inaccurate reading of Fritz' handwritten notes. Oswald says he was eating lunch (which I don't necessarily believe) and then he went to the coke machine, where the encounter with Baker occurred.

As far as I'm concerned, the hypothesis that Oswald was outside with Shelley is completely unwarranted and absurd. Its the result of Jim Fetzer having misread some lines of notes made by Captain Fritz (which I posted about yesterday), when he interrogated Oswald, and Oswald mentioned Shelley. Another point: If Oswald had said any such thing when interrogated by Fritz, it would have been in the FBI reports, because they were right there when Fritz interviewed Oswald.

This whole controversy is completely artificial, and results from Fetzer and Cinque's subjective interpretation of imagery that they claim to "see" in the Altgens photograph, but is not --in any way--supported by the record of the statements of people who were actually out front and watching the parade. Not by Shelley; not by Lovelady; not by anyone.

It is all subjective interpretation of photographs, coupled with the bizarre idea that, through photographica alteration, one person person has been made to appear in another person's clothing, etc etc. The result is an epistemological nightmare and, imho, just a silly circus of subjective interpretation.

Moreover, when shown the photograph(s) of Oswald being marched by Lovelady, Ralph Cinque then posited--falsely, in my opinion--that the photographic evidence was falsified,and that Lovelady had been "embedded" into those film frames. Absurd. There is no real evidence for any of that (either).

Further, and indicative of the rather inaccurate and excited way he went about the pursuit of this line of investigation, Ralph Cinque said that Lovelady was in the "bowels" of the DPD. ( More nonsense) and "what was he doing there? How did he get there?" he asked.

I'm sorry to say that, by not fully checking the record, I got drawn into this nonsense.

Lovelady was in an area clearly marked as an interrogation room and he was there because the DPD had brought in some of the fellow employees for interrogation--in Lovelady's case, he had actually been up on the sixth floor.

l cannot resist pointing, in connection with this absurd hypothesis, some of Fetzer's other beliefs", because they all go to the credibilty that should be accorded (or not accorded) to the various arcane and improbable hypotheses which he posits, and to which he dearly subscribes:

(a) That we didn't go to the moon --that all of that has been faked.

(b ) THat no planes hit the World Trade Center (it is all video fakery)

(c )That the buildings were all brought down by "controlled demolition"

(d) That a missile, not a plane, hit the Pentagon ; and later, that it was not a passenger jjet, but some other military aircraft

(e) That the debris outside the Pentagon was not from the aircraft that hit, but was rather "planted" there aftewards (a la bullet 399, only somehow deposited by a low flying aircraft. Sorry if I dont have all the details correct. I have trouble keeping track of all this nonsense).

(f) That the hijackers are still alive.

(g) That Isreal and its backers were really behind the 9/11 attacks

(h ) That Osama Bin Laden was actually killed in 2001, and the recent killing of Bin Laden was all a fake

etc etc etc and yadadada. . .

From recent postings, it is clear that Ralph Cinque is also a 9/11 truther, and a subscriber to one or more of these theses.

Anyway, Joe. . back to you and to reality.

I look forward to the piece you said you were working on.

One other point--a small one, but important: You asserted that Lovelady told reporter Dom Bonafede that he was visited by the FBI on Saturday night, and interviewed about his image in the Altgens photograph. Please note: there are NO FBI reports of any such interview. I'm not saying it didn't occur, but either (a ) the FBI deliberately omitted these "early Lovelady" interviws or (b ) it wasn't the FBI who interviewed him at that time or (c ) Lovelady is just plain mistaken.

I don't know which of the three it was. But in following your lead, I looked up CE 1403, and expected to find an FBI interview, and instead realized it was simply a Lovelady statement inside the Dom Bonafede 5/64 NY Herald Tribune article.

Well, as Winston Churchill used to say. . ."KBO". . .

This whole "Oswald was there . . . after all" business, imho, is a total side issue and has been an almost complete waste of time.

DSL

PS In answer to your question: the Sheriff's office is where "witnesses" were brought; the DPD (Harwood and Main) was the heaquarters for "the investigation". That's all I meant to imply. And again, many thanks for looking up all those citations. I know that took time to assemble.

Edited May 24, 2012 by David Lifton

[Joseph Backes]

David,

You made one small mistake, probably a typo, you meant CE 1408, which is the New York Herald Tribune magazine article.

Yes, you're right there are no FBI reports about their interview with Lovelady on the 23rd, nor are there reports on the other interviews with him by the FBI on other nights, or by the other agencies. Weisberg noted this.

Weisberg writes, “If Lovelady was ever asked to give the Commision the shirt he was wearing in that picture or describe it to them, I have found no indication of it. But he did say, ‘The FBI, Secret Service and the Warren Commision have all questioned me I don’t know how many times.’ (in the New York Herald Tribune, magazine section, article from May 1964, CE1408) There is no reflection of this in the printed evidence either.” (Whitwash II p. 188)

[Joseph Backes]

The Picture With a Life of Its Own by Dom Bonafede page 7 of the following link:

http://digitalcollec...t/page/download

With other material relating to Billy and Altgens-6 in same document, including a correspondence between Roy Schaeffer and David Mantik. Mantik didn't buy what Schaeffer was selling.

Thanks Lee

Good to see you back here.

Joe

[Joseph Backes]

Joe,

Very good work in post number 8.

I look forward to both your reply on this, and your reply on the Wexler-Hancock book.

Thanks Jim

BTW, if anyone can help me on that front. I need to see an article, I'm assuming there was one on the day after, or maybe later that same week about two men, who had nothing to do with the murder of Medgar Evers, but made such a nuisance of themselves that they were arrested at the scene of the murder and released later that same day. Such an article would be in the Jackson Daily or the Clarion Ledger. No one has this on microfilm anywhere near me. I would appreciate any help. Thanks.

[Gil Jesus]

"Four Days in November" has the video of Oswald being paraded past Lovelady. As one can tell, Lovelady was NOT wearing a red and white striped shirt that day.

http://i45.tinypic.com/33m2b1v.jpg