Duke Lane

Denis,

Still awaiting a response:

The thread seemed to be going in the direction that Oswald was just a totally innocent guy, who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Where as I belive Oswald's actions in the theater that day, along with many, many other actions, show that not to be the case.

Purported actions. Let's review some of the "many, many other actions" outside the theater that suggest he was guilty:

• Being in the second floor lunch room
  
• Buying a coke
  
• Leaving work
  
• Getting on a bus
  
• Getting off a bus
  
• Getting a transfer
  
• Taking a cab ride
  
• Walking south instead of north
  
• Going into his room
  
• Putting on a jacket
  
• Lying(?) about changing his clothes
  
• Standing by a bus stop
  
• Not using his transfer
  
• Going to a movie house
  
• Sneaking into the theater
  

Am I missing anything? You're going to be hard-pressed to have me add "killing a cop" to that list because Oswald plainly wasn't Olympics material. As for getting a gun out of his room, I'd be more inclined to go along with that if Earlene Roberts had seen such a thing (with her good eye, mind you!), but that is merely implied under presumption of his guilt in shotting Tippit. But meanwhile, we're stuck on defining those "many, many other actions" that seem to make him guilty. (Did he even do "many, many" things that day, much less "many, many" apparently incriminating things?)

There's more, of course, but these are chief among those things that supposedly make Oswald "suspect." I'm merely trying to ascertain what those "many, many other things" are that did so, and since you brought them up, what are they?

Earlier in this thread, we discussed the bus ride, the transfer, and Mary Bledsoe's supposed identification of her purported former tenant. We've also discussed, here or elsewhere, about William Whaley's description of Oswald, which popular mythology has Whaley effectively claiming that Oswald wore two jackets. Two questions that immediately arise directly and indirectly related to this evidence are these:

• Did DPD focus on Oswald's riding the bus as a result of his having the transfer; of Bledsoe's phone call and subsequent visit to police headquarters; a combination of the two, or something completely different? We will recall that Cecil McWatters was approached and removed from his bus in the early evening hours as he drove up to City Hall to identify either or both Lee Oswald and/or the transfer (certainly the former, maybe the latter). I recall that this occurred at some time around 6:00 p.m. Was Oswald's simply having the transfer sufficient cause for the search for and subsequent detention of the bus driver who issued it? Was it perhaps to validate Bledsoe's claim that she had seen Oswald on the bus (even though she was not asked to identify Oswald himself)? In either case, what could these two individuals' identification of Oswald and/or the ticket, or anything else related to the bus ride, have to do with the criminal investigation of Oswald the purported murderer? All they did was see him board and disembark from a bus (which didn't kill anybody) in the downtown area, so what was the big deal here?
  
• Was Oswald's supposed visit to his room really to change his shirt and trousers, or was that the best rationale DPD could come up with to explain why he went there and how he presumably got his pistol? This may be a bigger problem than it seems at first glance. Once again we have the conundrum of both McWatters and Jones saying that the man who'd entered the bus was wearing a short jacket (Jones was interviewed by the FBI, but not deposed or shown either of Oswald's jackets), while Bledsoe described him wearing a shirt similar to that he'd been arrested in (and identified the "arrest shirt" as being the same as she'd seen him wearing on the bus). We then find Whaley testifying to the "short jacket" wardrobe once again. So one question - which I've posed along with others - is how Bledsoe could have seen him wearing a shirt he hadn't yet gone home to get; another is how it came to pass that, if he had gone home to change and wasn't wearing the "arrest shirt" when he got the transfer from McWatters, how did the transfer end up in the pocket of that shirt?
  

The unseen problem in all of this is that, apparently, Oswald did not go back to his room to change his clothes: Whaley's initial statement on November 23 indicates that he was wearing the "arrest shirt" while riding in Whaley's cab, sitting right next to him. If Oswald didn't change his shirt - much simpler to do than trousers since one doesn't have to remove and replace shoes or boots to do so - it explains why the bus transfer would have remained in his shirt pocket ... or been "transferred" into "another" shirt pocket, which was in reality the same shirt.

Add this to Whaley's statement - again, on November 23 - that the last he'd seen Oswald, Oswald was walking south on Beckley, away from his room. The indication, then, is that Oswald was not returning to his room to change his clothes - and he apparently did not change his clothes - so why would he have told the police that he did? Is it a reasonable question to ask if he did, in fact, tell that to the police? They are the only ones who made that claim during their unrecorded interviews with him. Could it have been an attempt at humoring them, as in "okay, if you say I went home to change my clothes, then I went home to change my clothes. There's no crime in that?" Or was this claim merely to account for how he'd come to have a pistol with him?

Whaley's initial statement was problematic: it both eliminated the likelihood that Oswald had changed his clothes, and it both depicted him both passing the rooming house as well as walking away from it after having done so. Could the selection of where to exit the cab been a function of Oswald's legendary stinginess, of going as far as he could on a single dollar and still be able to give Whaley some tip, however niggardly? Whaley himself testified to the fact that, if he'd gone another block or two, the meter would've clicked over to the next rate, forcing Oswald to break another dollar bill and having entirely too much available to not give a more generous tip, as opposed to "here's [supposedly] my last dollar, keep the change" from a 95¢ fare.

So - humor me here - if Oswald did exactly as Whaley said he did on the very next day and was wearing the same clothes that he was arrested in, why would he or the Dallas Police make the claim that he'd gone home to change? The only options that I can discern are either that Oswald was a pathological xxxx (for which there's no evidence but his denials of killing anyone that day) or that it explained how he'd have come into possession of a gun that he did not have - and probably couldn't have had without being undetected by someone during the course of the morning - when he'd left the Depository or entered either McWatters' bus or Whaley's cab.

The evidence of the bus transfer is a puzzlement. Presuming that it was found on Oswald's person exactly as described, why was it ever an issue? It was clear that he'd left the TSBD downtown, ending up in Oak Cliff: why would his having a bus transfer from a bus that went from downtown into Oak Cliff have caused any alarm, such that DPD felt the immediate need to track down the bus driver and have him identify a man who'd merely been on his bus (which he did not do)?

We know from Mary Bledsoe's confused and confusing testimony that when she'd related having seen Oswald on a bus to her son, he called the police to relate the incident some time, perhaps about an hour or maybe two, after Oswald had been arrested, roughly 3:00 or 4:00, maybe even a little later depending upon when Oswald's arrest (and his name) were first broadcast.

This could have been what had triggered the discovery of and interest in the transfer and the bus driver, although the significance the police attached to it still escapes me: at best, it could only demonstrate how Oswald got from one place to the next; that he'd gotten from one to the other seemed fairly self-evident at the time, and he did nothing criminal either on the bus or by taking the bus, all the statements and IDs in the world from people who'd seen him on the bus could not have done anything to tie him to the crimes of which he was suspected.

Of course, perhaps it was simply that nobody could have known that at the time: maybe they'd have given statements of his brandishing a weapon or at least of his acting furtively, even though nothing they'd obtained at that point accomplished that. McWatters testified later that he'd thought the cops wanted to know about the passenger - Milton Jones - who'd made comments about the shooting to another elderly passenger (Mrs Bledsoe was 67; the other woman was described as elderly by McWatters himself) and told the WC that he didn't know Mary Bledsoe, and as best as can be discerned, Mary Bledsoe didn't make any comments to police the next day about Oswald's being disheveled or looking like "a maniac."

What is the signficance?

I would like to see if I can clarify some points by way of determining if they are generally accepted facts or not. If they are not generally accepted facts in the true sense of the word, would anyone mind if we did a quick poll (by way of copying the list below and pasting them into your reply with your answers) to determine a consensus?

By "generally accepted facts," I presume you mean things that nobody is going to argue about or has any disputes over, i.e., that which might be stipulated in court? In that case, I don't think any of these fit the bill. Nevertheless, my responses in contrast to your questions in bold:

1) Is it likely or indeed probable that Oswald did enter the shoe store where Brewer worked in any capacity – enter includes ducking into the entrance or doorway for any period of time? It is likely and almost positive that someone fitting Oswald's description, if not Oswald himself, entered the vestibule of Brewer's store. Brewer believed that he'd seen Oswald before, possibly as a customer ... or, just as possibly, Brewer might've encountered him as a fellow patron of the theater at another time.

2) If so, is it probable that Johnny Brewer saw him do this? Brewer saw someone. If it was Oswald in the vestibule, then that's who Brewer saw.

3) Do we accept that Brewer then followed him to the theatre as he states? Yes. Whoever "him" was.

4) Can we accept that Ms. Postal did see Oswald or indeed someone (in any capacity – corner of her eye, shadow passing her by etc) that may have been Oswald at any stage before he entered the theatre as she states? Or maybe a breeze she felt as he passed, or a cloud passing before the sun that she thought was really a person? To this, the answer is no, despite the fact that she claimed to have noticed - or thought she had noticed, or maybe just figured it must've happened - that her boss and Oswald passed each other at the doorway. If she noticed someone near the theater door or the box office, why didn't she - the conscientious several-year employee that she was - turn around and help the guy? She only "noticed" him because afterward, the figured she "must" have to whatever limited extent. Even she didn't make as broad a range of possibilities of what she claimed to have seen.

5) Did Oswald buy a ticket to the movie? Don't know. He did not apparently have one on his person after he was arrested, but he may not have felt the need to hold onto it since he'd have no apparent reason to leave the theater before the end of the movie: even if he smoked - which he didn't - you could smoke in theaters in those days; and since there was only one screen, there was no danger in his sneaking into another movie he hadn't paid to watch. Were there any extra ticket stubs found on the theater floor or in the seats? Since the theater had presumably been swept or cleaned before opening, there were, at maximum, 24 tickets to account for, most of them presumably in the possession of or nearby the other patrons.

6) Can we also agree that Mr. Burroughs did not take a ticket from Oswald when he entered the theatre? "Also agree?!" Whatever. We can agree that Butch didn't remember taking a ticket from Oswald. Until after his arrest, what reason would Burroughs have had to remember or pay any attention to him? If he did take a ticket from Oswld - if he actually took tickets from anyone as opposed to just verifying their having one - then it was probably well before the cops showed up.

We know that Oswald was definitely in the theatre, that he was arrested in the theatre and that he was taken from the theatre (presumably) to the police station. However, do we know beyond doubt ...

1) What time Oswald entered the theatre? No. The information that someone had just entered the theater was broadcast at just before the 1:46 radio time check, which most likely would have been after Brewer had arrived there.

2) What time the police arrived at the theatre? The first patrol to acknowledge being "out" at that location (out of only a few who did) radioed in only about 30-40 seconds later.

3) What time Oswald was taken from the theatre? Sgt. Jerry Hill radioed in from the middle of the front seat of the patrol car he was in shortly after 1:52, so it could only have been before that when he was taken out of the theater.

Finally, does anyone have a picture of the layout of the theatre, such as a construction drawing or blueprint with the original 60's layout? I think there may be one in the Volumes.

I actually agree with most of your reasoning Duke. Or to put it another way, I dont disagree with most of it. I am certainly not of the "lone nutter" species. As perhaps you belive. But I am also not one of the "Oswald was just a patsy" species either. ...

Your response falls oppositely in line with what I've been espousing for some time, that being that while people might try to mitigate against LHO having been the lone shooter, the argument always comes back to a variation on the theme "but since he did it ...." Example: descriptions of "Oswald" at the Tippit scene being so disparate, maybe it wasn't him - and it certainly wasn't provably him - but why do you think he left his jacket behind the Texaco? But wait! If he wasn't there, then what does his motivation for leaving a potentially incriminating jacket behind have anything to do with anything? He wasn't there, remember?

I've pointed out that Oswald didn't take on the usual "innocent man" stance of "I don't know what you're talking about ... you've got the wrong guy;" he never acted as if he didn't know something about it, regardless of whether he held any active role in what had occurred during the course of the day. His declaration of being "just a patsy" implies some sort of knowledge about what was going on, and possibly why he was the only one being accused of the crime. Knowledge of a crime is not necessarily "guilty knowledge," especially if that knowledge came lately (say, as a result of being grabbed by someone either as he started walking from Whaley's cab or after coming out of 1026, or some other way of realizing he'd been set up).

We are nevertheless left with the fact that DPD was who accused him, DPD who were gathering the evidence against him - right down to every bit of what he owned absent a single paperclip (incredible stuff! I wonder how many other murder suspects had ever been so thoroughly acted against vice police merely gathering incriminating evidence) - and DPD who called off all further searching for the Presidential assassin(s) immediately after "capturing" Oswald whom DPD "did not connect" to both murders for several hours*; DPD who gave no consideration to any confederates he may have had even after his capture and denials, and it was in DPD's custody Oswald was killed less than 48 hours later, with all cases - Kennedy assassination, wounding of Connally, and murders of both Tippit and Oswald - having immediately been "closed" thereafter.

(* - Contrary to the proposition put forth by some people that "any cop" would "naturally presume" that the Kennedy and Tippit murders were connected, however tenuously, it ignores the testimony of several cops to the contrary, including homicide detective Jim Leavelle.)

Yet, converse to the Oswald conundrum, we say that no matter how odd it looks, no matter how strangely they handled the investigation(s), or how they might have tainted or withheld evidence that they were in charge of, why would the police lie, what would they have to cover up, and how could they have done it in front of so many witnesses? Why is it that DPD's role is automatically deemed "inept" when it could have been something completely different? "Inept" would be a much better moniker to be saddled with than "complicit" or, worse, "guilty."

Warren Commissioner John J. McCloy, oddly enough (some might say), seemed to be cognizant of this conundrum: "This commission is going to be criticized ... no matter what we do, but I think it would be more criticized if we were simply posed before the world as something that is evaluating government agencies' reports, who themselves may be culpable." For the sake of consideration, "government agencies" can include local agencies as well. That DPD - or more properly, members of DPD - could have themselves been culpable, seems to have escaped consideration.

... Of course Oswald wasn't acting alone, of course there was a conspiracy. But rightly or wrongly I believe Oswald was a very guilty part of that conspiracy. ...

Fine, then: who were his accomplices, or of whom was he an accomplice? What role did they play? How are you going to identify them? How do you know they weren't police? Mere belief in "a conspiracy" does nothing to prove its existence if you can't postulate who he was working with, what they did, who could've manipulated the evidence - presuming it was manipulated - or at least curtailed the investigation to point to Oswald's sole guilt and ensure that nobody followed up on anything once his capture was a fait accompli.

It's fine to presume that LHO was "a very guilty part of that conspiracy," but shouldn't "that conspiracy" be more closely defined if only to determine with whom he was guilty?

Whether or not Oswald pulled the weapon or, as your post would seem to imply, he was handed the weapon by an accomplice doesn't change the fact that Oswald seemed more than prepared to use it.

I never said anything even remotely resembling that he was handed a gun by an accomplice. Quite the opposite in fact. What do you think wouldn've happened if that "snap" that so many people heard - and the resulting dent from which was seen by several experienced police officers and at least one FBI agent - had resulted in a loud bang, whether or not (but especially if) the bullet had connected with Nick McDonald? I'd suggest that, at least, there would have been no embarrassing press conferences where the assassin could deny shooting anybody, ask for legal help, or claim that he was just a patsy: he'd have been carried out of the theater in a body bag and the case closed that much sooner.

As to anything changing "the fact that Oswald seemed more than prepared to use" the gun, what seems to be does not establish what is, even IF it is a fact that something "seemed" a particular way. Ask any little kid who's been or almost been shot for pointing a cap-gun at a cop, which we all know has happened.

The thread seemed to be going in the direction that Oswald was just a totally innocent guy, who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Where as I belive Oswald's actions in the theater that day, along with many, many other actions, show that not to be the case.

Purported actions. Let's review some of the "many, many other actions" outside the theater that suggest he was guilty:

• Being in the second floor lunch room
  
• Buying a coke
  
• Leaving work
  
• Getting on a bus
  
• Getting off a bus
  
• Getting a transfer
  
• Taking a cab ride
  
• Walking south instead of north
  
• Going into his room
  
• Putting on a jacket
  
• Lying(?) about changing his clothes
  
• Standing by a bus stop
  
• Not using his transfer
  
• Going to a movie house
  
• Sneaking into the theater
  

Am I missing anything? You're going to be hard-pressed to have me add "killing a cop" to that list because Oswald plainly wasn't Olympics material. As for getting a gun out of his room, I'd be more inclined to go along with that if Earlene Roberts had seen such a thing (with her good eye, mind you!), but that is merely implied under presumption of his guilt in shotting Tippit. But meanwhile, we're stuck on defining those "many, many other actions" that seem to make him guilty. (Did he even do "many, many" things that day, much less "many, many" apparently incriminating things?)

To move on slightly, I have often wondered if Oswald may have been trying to get away, I wont use the term escape, via Redbird airport. I belive you told me once that the airport is a just a few miles from 10th and Patton. Any thoughts?

Yes: everything is "(just a few) miles" from somewhere or anywhere, and Redbird (now Executive) Airport is, indeed "just a few miles" from 10&P ... but if Oswald was doing as has been purported, he was going away from it ... tho' he was still "just a few miles away."

If his hope was merely to escape or get away, then the Greyhound depot may well have been his best bet, although several factors argue against that being his intent (can you imagine someone premeditating the murder of a US President and suddenly realizing he'd have to run home to get his pistol before he could get away? Oops! What, they don't have pawn shops in Juarez?). One can more easily get onto ground transportation than air transport, and someone without a driver's license seems an unlikely candidate to boost a private plane.

If he was meeting someone there - take your pick of Ferrie, Hemming, Plumlee or any of the cast of other usual suspects - it seems highly unlikely that they'd tarry at a local airport to get "their man" out without having some form of insurance that he'd get to the airport in the first place: all they might have needed to do was make sure someone was sitting at the Greyhound station (for example) who could've done exactly what Whaley did in getting out of downtown and, instead of leaving him off somewhere to totally screw up the schedule of his getting there. Were they going to wait umpteen hours till Ozzie was able to walk to the airport?

If I - or we - can think of such mundane stuff, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone planning to assassinate a President was so inept as not to. (For the record, I don't think I could put together such a conspiracy, whether or not I could analyze or hypothesize one after the fact.) It would likewise seem that anyone who was capable of planning and executing the logistics well enough to ensure having an airplane at a local (but relatively distant, especially by foot) airport would not be inclined to either /a/ include someone in the plan who was so inept as not to even remember to make sure he had his pistol before attempting his mistake (much less someone who was dependent upon an unwitting youngster for transportation to get the rifle), or /b/ who wasn't adept enough to realize that if he'd forgotten it, oh well, he'd just have to do without (or anyone even allowing him to go home to get it) and hope for the best, or /c/ sticking around after "your man" did the deed and missed meeting his transpo away from the area, skipping that little detail to go retrieve his pistol by public conveyance.

I'd think that until someone was able to fill in those kinds of gaps before they can hypothesize an "escape" via Redbird or elsewhere, that such speculation has about as much validity as the possibility that Oswald was actually headed to the Dallas Zoo (only a few blocks from where he was, in the direction he was supposedly heading, and also accessible by McWatters' Marsalis bus) to "bulldoze" his way out of Dallas on the back of an elephant.

... Its also quite possible that the other patrons names and statements weren't taken simply because they didn't see anything of real significance. Or perhaps (if its not too heretical to belive) the police were actually telling the truth and the list was genuinely lost or destroyed? Why would that be at all surprising? Just a few hours later Oswald would be charged with the murder of a policeman and a president. A short time later still Oswald himself was murdered. Surely AT THE TIME, the list would have seemed very unimportant. Human error Duke, or proof that Oswald was just a poor sap simply trying to watch a film? I concede the DPD was inept, some/many even corrupt. But I dont agree that they lied about Oswald pulling that gun. IN FRONT OF SO MANY WITNESES. ...

There is little if any question in my mind that there was a gun in Oswald's hand, never has been. Whether anyone lied about that has nothing to do with whether they lied at all; because they saw the gun in Oswald's hand doesn't mean they watched him pull it from anywhere. There is ample evidence based on prior activities to suggest that it didn't come from his waist, but won't develop that here since it's much too lengthy.

More significant is the credulity that the department was inept and had no idea how to conduct a proper murder investigation and the concept that once a bird is in hand, those remaining in the bush are no longer significant. While I recognize that Henry Wade may have been an arrogant XXXXX who won more murder trials than not, he was not infallible. Ending a wife's murder investigation the moment the husband is in custody - even if he'd been arrested at the scene and had been the one to call it in - is neither acceptable police work or prosecutorial conduct now or then.

It's also true that Oswald's denials of having shot anybody don't exonerate him, any more than those denials implicate anyone else. But that gives rise to the corollary that his denials of shooting anyone don't absolve anybody, either. The only investigation that took place following the arrest at Texas Theater was that to gather evidence against the sole accused. Police were dismissed from their emergency duties involving both murders as soon as Oswald was in custody, and the next shift came on duty and few stayed over; the search for another killer, or other killers, or any cohorts Oswald may have had, ended by shift-change.

Oswald's death likewise didn't either exonerate anyone he'd denied conspiring with, or mean that there was nobody else out there who was "part of the plot." That it can be so glibly accepted that none of the theater patrons could possibly have had any connection to Oswald because they weren't together or didn't confess the association right away (the only chance they got), is to likewise accept the fact that the police knew they "had their man on both counts" the moment they'd left the theater, and knew that there was no more trail to follow or reason to do so.

That smacks of more than just superior police work, and makes more legitimate the question of what DPD collectively - and some police officers individually - lied about to cover its collective ass for more than just being inept.

AT THAT TIME, the list would seem to have especial importance when Oswald's lack connection to anyone else in the theater could not be proved, and therefore nobody in the theater could be excluded from having anything to do with either his, Tippit's or Kennedy's deaths. But hey, we think he did it and trust that DA Wade could've proved it, so there's nothing left to investigate, who needs those names anyway? If they didn't reactivate that list of people for investigation, it suggests that, if it ever existed, it was destroyed long before it would ever have been needed in court.

It proves no further investigation was made, which in turn proves that DPD was 100% convinced, beyond any doubt whatsoever, of Oswald's sole guilt.

That kind of absolute certainty - beginning especially as early as it did - far from suggests ineptitude (DPD is still proud of the fact that it "solved the assassination within 90 minutes"), requires more than just a little luck (and the arrogance to believe it shone on them), and crosses well into the territory of suspicious behavior. To dismiss it so off-handedly is to accept that there could not have been - never could have been - any scenario other than that which the WC painted with absolute accuracy, and that no doubt about Oswald's sole guilt could ever have possibly existed under any circumstances.

No police force is that good! And if they're not that good ... think maybe there was a little lyin' goin' on anywhere?

Edited by moderator due to language.

This is ancient news, resolved 15+ years ago. The man (or men) referred to is/are named Donald Wayne House and/or Kenneth Glenn Wilson, cousins by marriage, neither of whom were any relation to or had any connections with David Atlee Phillips or any governmental agency other than the highway department in west Texas. See Yours Truly, "The Cowtown Connection," The Third Decade, Volume 9, Issue 5 (July 1993), page 36 to back cover. There's no "Raven" in this story (sorry, Jimmy!), I've met all of the principals.

... it would seem extremely unlikely the arresting officers would lie about Oswald PULLING a gun in front of so many independent eyewitness i.e. Gibson. Brewer and Applin to name just a few.

Well, since you mention it, maybe you can name some of the other witnesses in the theater? Or perhaps explain why, when ordered by Captain Westbrook to take down witnesses' names, officers did not do so? In truth, at least one other officer testified that, in particular, he and his partner did take down patrons' names, addresses, etc. Yet, unless he was lying, there is no evidence that any such names were, in fact, recorded.

Given that there were 17 patrons in the orchestra alone (plus another several in the balcony) and only two were asked to give any sort of statements, and that the list of the remaining witnesses was apparently either lost or destroyed, does the mere possibility that the others' statements were not wanted for one reason or another? As many as 22 names of witnesses were cast to oblivion, and we are to think that this is in order that DPD have as complete and accurate a record as possible?

Perhaps these were the only two whose testimonies were considered "reliable" in the eyes of DPD, i.e., the only two whose recollections wouldn't upset the apple cart; how else to explain the disappearance of the list(s) of witnesses? As we would later find, there probably wouldn't have been much that anyone could've said anything counter to DPD's story inasmuch as when George Applin put a kink in the message with his testimony about Oswald getting hit with the butt of a shotgun, all it took was for a couple of cops to say "gee, I didn't see anything like that" for Applin to have been mistaken. The fact that such a claim was not in his earliest recorded statements (coincidentally taken by DPD) was cause for casting further doubt on the veracity of his claim.

... Or like so many other members here are you in the habit of just ignoring the "bits you dont like"? It seems you're of the opinion that every person in the theater that day was either a xxxx, unreliable or corrupt. ...

That is a common human failing, hearing or reading what you like and ignoring the rest. CTers are no more guilty of it, IMO, than the LNers ... and the latter arguably more so than the former. After all, the WC's case was built on the possibility that Oswald could have done something more than upon the grounds that he did do anything.

In this case, you seem to feel that the statements made by two of the 20+ witnesses is somehow a "consensus" or the "best evidence" available, and find nothing at all odd about only two of the 20+ witnesses even being identified despite a superior's order to get names and an officer's statement that names were taken. I'd challenge you to prove that names weren't taken and, failing that, to provide a reasonable explanation why no such record exists.

It's very difficult to suggest that "every person in the theater that day was either a xxxx, unreliable or corrupt" when we don't know who the vast majority of "every person in the theater" were. If one were to assert that the DPD participants were liars or corrupt, how might someone disprove that other than to show that they all said the same things, essentially, in their reports and testimony? Odd as it may seem, all of those involved in the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church bombings in Birmingham (September 1963) all told the same story and avoided prosecution for more than 20 years, some more than 30.

Do corroborating stories demark innocence, any more than diverse ones proclaim guilt?

Even Warren Commissioner John McCloy was more than a little skeptical at the outset: consider his concern that

The same skepticism ought extend to local as well as national governmental agencies ... or at least DPD cannot be exonerated simply on account of their being the police.

... I was joking Mike eeer Mark and I didn't mean to imply you were thinking of Duke when you made your typo because the word can't apply to him.

This is true. I have never held back a large body of water, and have no plans of doing so in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, I did do a better job of plugging holes than that little Dutch boy did, plugging three holes to his two!

... Paul McCaghren told me that this transcript was created by Jim Bowles in late 1963, rather than the Secret Service, as CD87 indicates. However, I cannot believe that Bowles could or would be so inaccurate in describing place names, etc.

... Unless maybe he wanted to be? It doesn't seem to me that DPD - Henslee in particular, Bowles perchance the same? - was being terribly forthcoming about what was on those tapes.

Ah, yes, high school, so aptly named!

HEY! Where'd you get my yearbook?!?

Here's key parts of what Julia Postal said about the man that ducked into the theater:

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

Mr. BALL. And after you saw the police car go west with its siren on, why at the time the police car went west with its siren on, did you see the man that ducked? This man that you were----

Mrs. POSTAL. This man, yes; he ducked into the box office and----I don't know if you are familiar with the theatre.

Mr. BALL. Yes; I have seen the theatre.

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

Mr. BALL. The last time you had seen him before he ducked in, he was just standing outside of the door, was he?

Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir; he was still just in----just off of the sidewalk, and he headed for the theatre.

... To me it sounds like she did observe this man. If it had been a totally different man that the cops brought out moments later, I'm sure she would have brought it up - at least she would have said something to Johnny, the shoe store man.

If I were a trial attorney, I'd object to her answers as non-responsive: she didn't answer the questions. You've extracted a small portion of what Postal had said ... and I've gotta say that she wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, it doesn't seem. Witness this exchange:

No, it was only "happening so fast" after she had sold the 14 or 24 tickets, when the cops arrived and all of the patrons were inside; she was not in the midst of selling tickets throughout the time of the arrest. Her constant answers of "uh-huh" for "yes" and "huh-uh" for "no" is almost as irritating as Cecil McWatters' "in other words" repeated several times per thought; my personal favorites are how she described her boss going "that-a-way" to his car, but even better, her going to the "homicidal bureau" (which I can only hope that Julia was not at the Post Office, since it would suggest a completely different origin of the phrase "going Postal!"). Here's another good one, noticing how many words she uses to answer a simple question:

But enough of unnecessary opinions. Here's more of what she had to say:

She contradicted herself on these two points more than once.

Johnny Brewer had this to say:<B>

The bottom line is that Postal's testimony is full of inferences as opposed to observations: police car went running west past the theater ... she steps out of the box office and looks to the west ... her boss came out the door to his car; since Oswald was going in, they "must've" passed each other ... then, she turns around and Johnny Brewer is already beside her, asking if the guy had paid ... he says she didn't remember anyone going in, she says she watched Oswald with a "panicked face" duck into the doorway, but didn't notice him actually go through the door.

If I've got it out of order somewhere, it's easy to do given Postal's interesting way of telling things. Check out her way of answering Ball's question, which required a simple yes-or-no answer:

(The disinterest in Tippit's having worked for the theater company - actually at a different theater - is evident in the last question!)

The long and the short of it is that there is really no way to tell if she actually saw Oswald at any point. The sirens went by westward, attracting her and her boss's attention to the west; the sirens had gone by westward, according to Brewer, too, while Oswald was still in the vestibule in front of his store, and Oswald didn't leave there until they'd faded away. When did Julia come outside of the box office: before or after her boss left the building? Did she actually see him leave the building, or did she merely infer that because he'd been in the building and she next saw him getting into his car to follow the cops ... to the west?

Every indication is that Postal's attention, from the time the police cars had gone by westward, was drawn to the west and away from Oswald's approach. Did she really see him, or did she just "remember" the details from things she learned later? I think it's too tough a call to make. Sole point being that resting a conclusion on her testimony is probably a bit shaky at best.

Yes, actually, I am a bit uncomfortable about this whole discussion. Having been born and raised Catholic, sex is something we only discuss behind closed doors, drugs only affect Protestants, and rock-n-roll ... well, for all the references to Ed Sullivan being a "comedian," I never really did find him very funny.

But then, Leno was funnier before he tried to be Johnny Carson, too, don't you think? So was Letterman, who's still pissed about not being Johnny.

The farther afield the suspects become, the less likely there will ever be a chance of figuring out who pulled that trigger or caused it to be pulled, if in fact it wasn't Lee Oswald. The more spaghetti we can throw against the wall, the more likely it is that one strand or another is going to stick to the wall. In the end, only Lee Oswald's face shines through that mess because he is the only suspect whose "guilt" sticks to the wall better than the others'.

Probably because most of the others didn't do it.

I'm also uncomfortable with the Pope having done it out of concern for The Flock following a secular rather than a spiritual leader. Makes exactly as much sense as the Brits being behind it.

No "nervous giggle" here, girl. It is also not always true that the best defense is a good offense. "You just don't get it" is typically not a compelling argument.

I think a few were missing, especially one man with a criminal record was missing. He was located later that afternoon. Do you know of others?

Just having taken a quick glance, there were something like 74 people working at (as opposed to "for") TSBD that day. Tho' I haven't looked at the source document (CE1381) for a while and don't remember what all of my notations might've meant, you can see a synopsis here of where everyone was during the shooting and whether or not they went back inside the building. In all, there were 14 people who did not return into the building during the immediate aftermath, tho' most of them were women.

You can read Julia Postal's testimony (unless you already have) to form an opinion of it. My two sentence synopsis of the jist of it, should not be considered equal to studying her WC statement.

... Julia's testimony ... sounds as though She did not see the man until he was gone, and in parts of her testimony she seems to be reporting what Johnny Brewer told her.

Postal refers to her employer, John Callahan, who had taken tickets from the 24 (or 14) people who had paid to enter the cinema, so Ball called as the next witness the aforementioned Mr. Callahan ....NOT.

If this had been an honest inquiry, Mr. Callahan would have been a vital witness. But it was not an honest inquiry and Mr. Callahan was never questioned, as far as I know. He was the person who could have established whether he took a ticket from Lee Oswald at or about the time the movie began.

Without having looked at Postal's testimony, I don't recall that she said that she had ever seen "the man who'd snuck into the theater" until Oswald was taken out of the theater past her. She is indeed providing only hearsay evidence and speculation since she did not, by her own words, see anyone sneak in nor, ergo, from what direction he'd have come (it could only have been anywhere but from the west, the direction she was facing).

That said, the WC had no procedural rules about the acceptance of hearsay, and if she was able to deduce that, if what Brewer had told her about a man ducking into the theater was true, then she did not sell him a ticket, it would probably be admissible in court, especially if counsel introduced the question with evidence already heard.

There is a "law" in jurisprudence that one should "never ask a question you don't already know the answer to;" the corollary to that is, "don't ask a question when you know the answer to be unfavorable to your position." Just because there is nothing in writing about any discussions with Callahan does not mean that nobody talked with him.

Consider, as a parallel, that WC counsel frequently asked witnesses if they - counsel and witness - hadn't spoken prior to the formal deposition about what questions (and possibly also what answers) would come up during the deposition, and in some cases even asked if the witness felt there was anything that they'd discussed but which hadn't been covered during its course.

It is thus not beyond the realm of possibility that Callahan was asked "informally" what he could add to the investigation, and that he'd said that maybe he'd remembered someone looking like Oswald buying a ticket from him - couldn't state for certain, but thought that maybe he might have - and the decision being made that he "obviously didn't know what had happened," and thus would not be an appropriate person to interview ... along the lines of "be careful what you ask, you might not want to hear the answer," or "the boss isn't going to like this guy's answers." If you hear it officially, you might have to investigate it, eh? Such an "informal interview" might have been "formal" in Callahan's mind, and so he raised no questions himself about there being no further interviews or deposition.

Strangely, I don't recall I've ever read anything critical where anyone - Meagher, Lane or Weisberg, for example - has ever raised the question about Callahan's not being deposed, or what he might've been able to add; nor do I recall anything where anyone ever tried talking to him about this, much less had something to add about what he might've said if he was asked.

What kind of a person carries a gun to the movie theater?

A short-barreled revolver is a weapon of self-defense, and on this particular afternoon there were assassins loose in Dallas. I bet he was not the only Dallas resident who decided to pack that afternoon.

What kind of a person strikes a police officer, while being searched?

See Duke's post above. I think McDonald said he made a grab for Oswald's body, not too far from the crotch area. I've never tried it myself, but I hear that grabbing guys in the crotch will get you a punch on the nose every time.

Well, I'm not going to buy into the "defensive posse" concept where everyone grabbed a gun because they, too, might be targets of the people who'd shoot a President or thought that they might just run across the killer and be able to subdue him. Nor am I going to propose that rather than McDonald putting his hand on Oswald's "waist," that what he was really saying that he went for Oswald's crotch thinking "what a waste!" (Some guys do go to the movies to actually watch the movie, y'know! Shame on Ray for even thinking otherwise!)

That said, here are some possibilities to consider:

• If Oswald had reason to believe that he was being set up - remember: he never said "they got the wrong guy" or "I don't know what you're talking about," he said "I'm just a patsy" which at least suggests he knew something - it might make sense for him to make sure he was armed before venturing out in public where he could be gotten to by the actual perps.
  
• If he was being set up and was, in fact, in the process of being set up - let's go with the deal about the "El Chico Oswald" seen by Mack Pate's mechanic being absolute fact - who's to say that he wasn't left off by whomever was setting him up, say, on the corner of Zangs & Jefferson ("and here's your gun, kid!") just as the sirens started homing in on his location, might you not duck out of sight, maybe even hide in a theater hoping not to be seen or found? Had it not been for Brewer, maybe he might've gotten away with it, eh? (Damn, the luck!)
  
• If in such a scenario, what if the man who supposedly was watching calmly from behind Oswald (never identified) or even one of the cops who'd come up behind Oswald - or even McDonald! - had tried to slip a gun into his pocket or had otherwise touched or prodded him in, say, the lower back area just as McDonald was approaching him looking ready to draw his gun ... Oswald's surprised, whips his hand and body around to his right (in the process, hitting McDonald in the face with his left hand) ... next thing he knows, he's got a gun in his hand, someone gripping his hand around it (one of the officers nearby testified that he was told to let go of the gun, to which he replied "I can't!") ... and the rest is history.
  
• In such as scenario as that - and given both the number of people who said they heard the "snap" and the officers who said they saw a dent - who's to say that the object wasn't to shoot McDonald - or at least fire the gun - likely ensuring that the "assassin" (who would've been assuredly identified as such when dead, just as he was when he denied it) didn't get out of the theater alive, nevertheless "solving" the crime.
  

Had that happened, part of the proof would've been questions similar to what you'd asked: why would he carry a gun into a theater and fight with an officer if he wasn't guilty? And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the evidence we would've found even if he had lived ...!

Just to reflect a little on those items, the hardest things to reconcile with a "patsy" scenario are these:

• First, if Oswald really had just wanted to "make a name for himself in history" as the WCR suggested as a possibility, why didn't he just go ahead and say "yeah, ya got me, I did it?" Similar to what Weisberg wrote in Whitewash - "if he wanted to get caught, why run?" - if he wanted to "go down in history," why deny it?
  
• If someone did get ahold of Oswald either before or after he'd gotten to the roominghouse to get his pistol (which could account for his not being seen anywhere between 1026 and 10&P), they kept him in a car at El Chico and then dropped him off, gun in hand, on Jefferson as in the second scenario above, why didn't he just disappear into one of the surrounding neighborhoods and stroll along like the innocuous young man that he was and hope to disappear from his tormentors? I mean, it's not like a bunch of hardened killers are going to flag down a passing cop car and give him up, is it? And as "citizens" themselves, they couldn't just go and shoot him, so ...?
  
• Once he was safely in police custody (to what end we know to be true in his case), why the fancy dance with Fritz and Company when he could've told them straight-out exactly what had happened to him and who had done it, and thereby solved the Crime of the Century while exonerating himself at the same time?
  

Of course, I suppose if you factor in the thoroughly fair lineups, the belated findings of evidence (can you imagine anyone giving him the pat-down in police hq not finding five rounds of ammo in his pocket, or waiting a couple hours to see if he might've had anything in his pockets that could've jeopardized his or their own safety?), among other things, he might've gotten the mistaken impression that telling the Dallas cops what had happened would've fallen on deaf ears and gotten him killed "falling down the stairs" or while "trying to escape." The tone of his supposed answers to his interrogators seem to almost suggest as much.

By remaining silent, however, he was able to ensure his safe transfer into custody other than DPD's, where he would be able to spill the beans without having to worry about dropping the soap, likewise ensuring that a fair trial was held for the real perps, and that there'd be no lingering questions about the assassination of a President.

Somehow, I don't think that after his acquittal, we'd have heard about him breaking into anyone's hotel room flashing a gun and demanding all of his assassination memorabilia back, do you?

Anyway, just some thoughts to suggest a "why" to the questions Antti'd asked, all flimsy as hell, but worth a gander anyway.

(And Ray? Move to a better neighborhood!)

... but what I don't believe is that sex, drugs, and rock and roll (1) were only unleashed on America after the JFK assassination; (2) are the only reason we're in a state of decline; (3) were employed as a tactic by a single cohesive force of evil; or (4) are any more to blame than alcohol, divorce, country music cheatin' songs, and obesity for the sad state of America and its citizens.

Just my opinions...NOT cribbed from Limbaugh OR LaRouche, or any other demagogue with a last name beginning with "L".

Leaving aside that my name begins with an "L", I only wished to point out that there was, in fact, sex in America before the Beatles. Not much and not often, but it was practiced in certain esoteric circles for no less than nine years before JFK even, much less the Beatles.

I suppose that I should point out that this is not thoroughly documented and thus remains something of a theory, but I believe that there are recorded instances of it taking place and, that being the case, feel that earlier conjectural instances of its practice should not be ruled out.

Rock and roll probably didn't appear before the advent of electricity, but as for drugs, all I can say is that I've heard from respected students of history that the "Boston Tea Party" had nothing whatsoever to do with darjeeling or pekoe, and may have had something to do with a major cartel controlling the traffic at the time. Don't quote me on that, mind you, but there is evidence to support the proposition.

Good stuff, Steve. Many thanks for that.

I've actually managed to dig up various documents relating to the original and follow-up requests for and transmittal of the first (Sawyer Exhibits) and subsequent (CE705, CE1974) DPD transcripts. Initially, they were transcribed by Sgt. Gerald Henslee and were limited only to "pertinent" transmissions of "the assassination of President Kennedy and the murder of Officer Tippit; the investigations into said assassination and murder; and the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald," and absolutely nothing more. The determination of pertinence was left to Henslee, apparently, and the resulting transcript - running from around 10:00 a.m. until about 2:00, contained all of "the subject matter" in two-and-a-half pages that took "several days" of listening to the original belts and disks to compile.

In early March, the WC requested a "verbatim" transcript from DPD, which was completed on March 20 (while WC counsel was in Dallas interviewing witnesses), transmitted to the local FBI office, which in turn sent them to FBI/DC a week later (with WC counsel still in town), and Hoover to the WC just shy of mid-April. The depositions of several police officers including Sgt. Henslee, Lt. Pierce, Sgt. Putnam and Sgt. Bud Owens (Tippit's immediate superior) were taken on April 8 and 9, 1964, without benefit of the new (CE705) transcript.

They were left, then, to conjecture how it came to pass that JD Tippit went from his normal patrol area in district 78, into district 109 (Lancaster & 8th), and then into district 91 where he was killed. Most of the rationale involved Tippit's being on the way downtown in case he was needed, but remaining on the far side of the Trinity River from downtown as part of a "normal procedure" to move in closer when emergencies involved the movement or reassignment of other officers in the general area. Sam Pierce actually came to the almost-verbatim conclusion that he might have been moving in but then, on Channel 2, dispatchers ascertaining his position and telling him to remain "at large" in the area (exactly what did happen, but on Channel 1 ... just not on the transcript he was reading!).

The CE705 transcript, incidentally, ran 36 pages - 10 times as long as the first one - and included the order for Tippit and Nelson to "move into central Oak Cliff," as well as the order to Tippit to "remain at large." Only Chief Curry was questioned about this transcript and the meanings of the "new" transmissions, which of all people he was probably least qualified to comment on given his activities of the morning and afternoon (at Parkland and Love Field until about 4:00).

Because of the "importance" of these transmissions, the WC requested in July that the FBI again make verbatim transcripts from the originals (did they not think that what DPD had already given them was verbatim? Did they no longer trust DPD to provide them with one that was verbatim?), which were transcribed by the FBI at DPD HQ during the days of July 21-24 inclusive. These actually contained transmissions well beyond the scope of the original "subject matter" that Henslee so narrowly interpreted, including overnight transmissions, as well as those throughout Saturday and several hours past Oswald's murder.

(There are, incidentally, no "pertinent" transmissions relating to "the assassination of President Kennedy and the murder of Officer Tippit [or] the investigations into said assassination and murder" after Oswald was arrested. Once he was captured, the "investigations" ended.)

What would become CE1974 was not delivered to the WC until August 22, and to my knowledge, no depositions therefter included any discussion of this last set of more complete (but still incomplete) transcripts. The transcripts of the timeframes included in the earlier transmissions - about 10:00 a.m. until about 2:00 p.m. - had now grown from 36 pages to about 110, or about three times as many as the CE705 "verbatim" transcript, and about 50 times as many as the original "subject matter" transcript.

... and just the tip of the iceberg, Jack.

Ray, ... Are you trying to make the point that the sworn testimony of police officers isn't necessarily "convincing evidence". If you are then that of course is valid. But dont forget that there was also members of the public in the theater at the time, all of which would/could have been called to testify had the case gone to court. So unless you're of the opinion that the arresting officers already knew the case would never make court when they made their reports etc, then its difficult to imagine the police actually lied about Oswald pulling a gun on them.

We cannot forget the point that of the 17 members of the public who were in the theater (according to either Hutson or Hawkins, who actually counted them upon entering), only two were either asked to give statement or invited to be deposed. Other than these two, none of their names - much less their contact information - were even taken down on a list, despite there being a direct order from a senior department official to do so, a point acknowledged by at least one other officer (who claimed to have taken at least some down, but which list never surfaced).

As to whether "the arresting officers already knew the case would never make court when they made their reports," there are two things to consider here: first, that most of the officers did not complete reports until after the weekend was over and the sole suspect was dead and would not be tried (ergo, at least, there'd be no cross-examinations); and second, whether anyone on DPD knew at the time of the arrest that there would not be a trial.

In support of the second question, I would ask why a sergeant of police was released from any further duty in the downtown area immediately after Oswald was taken into custody (he had been downtown before the Tippit shooting, but was not participating in the TSBD search or security; his regular base of operations was in far northeast Dallas), and further why, following Oswald's being taken into custody, there were no further radio communications relating to the assassination or murder, or the investigations into said assassination and murder.

Of the three versions of the police transcripts (Sawyer Exhibit B, CE705 and CE1974), only the last - produced in mid-August 1964, when the WC had all but shut down - carries any traffic beyond 3:00 p.m. that was considered "pertinent," and the last carried only routine transmissions on the primary police channel - Channel One - for the rest of the day or weekend other than that relating to the death of Oswald.

This despite the fact that, as far as has ever been claimed, they did not consider Oswald a suspect in the President's shooting until much later in the day, and they did "not" stop searching for other potential suspects. If there's any such proof of any further search for suspects after Oswald was arrested, I'd be interested in knowing about it.

... I have no problem accepting that the officers exaggerated/lied about Oswald actually firing the gun. I do however have trouble accepting they lied about Oswald PULLING the gun, at least with so many witness present. And if I may repeat myself this is NOT the action of an innocent man, especially if Oswald acted before the officers actually approached him.

"If" being the operative word in the last sentence ... and it is an "if" not supported by testimony, much less common sense (after all, if you saw a cop approaching with a drawn gun - or even with his hand on the butt of it, ready to draw - would you pull yours?).

Nick McDonald testified:

Of course, it's true that, having just been punched in the nose in front of Oswald, he naturally could not see Oswald's back and therefore couldn't see Oswald draw a pistol. Thereafter, McDonald didn't see much of anything:

Let's see if we can draw a picture of this the way McDonald told it.

He approached Oswald, who raised both of his hands, empty. As McDonald reached for his waist, Oswald punched him on the nose, whereupon McDonald hit Oswald back using his right hand, and the two of them fell into the seats. McDonald's left hand somehow ended up on the pistol when his left hand went into the seats, as did his head, further obscuring his vision.

That his head was in the seats is indicated by his statement that he "was down in the seats with him, with my head, some reason or other, I don't know why," which thought was left dangling somewhat until he said that when he pulled his left hand out from "the seats," he scratched his face.

Then, before doing anything else, he stuck the gun out "all the way out to the aisle," whereupon it was taken from him before he could have gotten up. While he says that he "gave the pistol to Detective Bob Carroll at that point," he knew this from later conversation and not from observation.

By his own testimony, he did not actually see the gun until much later: it was behind Oswald, then "down in the seats," then wrenched free while struggling with Oswald, then held "all the way out to the aisle" away from him, where it was then taken from him. Bob Carroll for his part testified that he immediately put the gun in the small of his back before joining in the effort to subdue Oswald.

How, then, did or could McDonald have first-hand knowledge of the whereabouts and description of the gun in order to be able to identify it positively as the gun he took from Oswald? Did he identify it by feel? He didn't see Carroll take it from him, or know what Carroll did with it afterward; McDonald remained in the theater, and had no knowledge of the disposition or chain of possession once it left his hand.

It is noteworthy not only that he heard a "snap," but that he saw a dent in the primer of a bullet later at HQ - as did other officers and an FBI agent who took possession of the unfired bullets from DPD later (it is in a report that I can't lay my hands on at the moment) - which was later confirmed not to be there.

(On this alone, I'd bet a half-way decent defense attorney could get the weapon and ammunition excluded from evidence, along with anything to do with it in the course of the arrest, and very possibly in the course of the shooting of JD Tippit ... and certainly so after any kind of a ballistics match between the gun and the bullets was proved to be impossible!)

But forgive me: I drone on! There is more, but I'll let it rest for a while.

Bottom line: Oswald did not draw a pistol prior to being approached by McDonald, McDonald never saw him do so (although it's a reasonable inference when someone's hand suddenly has a gun in it that he did!), and actually, nobody else in the theater did either ... or, rather, nobody who testified to or gave statements about it.

When was the city bus transfer holder invented? Back in the 60's the bus transfers were held in a stack of 50 or so in a tear-off box next to the driver… no need to ask the driver for a transfer.

That may have been true in some cities, but not where I grew up nor, apparently, in Dallas, based on Cecil McWatters' testimony that he gave a transfer to a man and a woman, that they'd requested one from him rather than have taken it on their own. Allowing passengers to take them on their own would seem not to be a wise thing to do: what would prevent a high-school kid, say, from grabbing two or three or more of them so at the next stop, he and his friends could ride another bus after paying only one fare?

... The conspiracy theories around JFK are a bunch of crock. Boomers are attracted to these kooky theories because it deflects the real issue behind the murder; and the boomers dont really want to deal with the reality of JFK's murder. They prefer "bullet diagrams" "autopsy pictures" and BS about the CIA and government. But JFK's murder has been reduced to the absurd.

Right. Just what I've been trying to tell everyone: "I read the Report and the Report's right" (sung to the tune of "I fought the Law and the law won," just as was intended by that song's writers ... who were actually Peter Paul and Mary, on a re-write of their infamous "Puff the Magic Dragon" espousing drug abuse).

Absent the "kooky ... conspiracy theories," there is, quite frankly, no "reality of JFK's murder" other than the absurdity of the WCR, which - that being the case - proves that there's no reason for any of us to be having these silly conversations (or singing such ridiculous songs like "I read the Report and the Report's right ...").

But I was so much older then ... (sigh). Other than proving to his wife that he was an honest-to-God DUDE, man, what exactly was "the real issue behing the murder?" Just curious ....

Damn, now everyone will know who I am! (Fritz! Yo, Will! Don't you be writin' that xxxx down now, y'hear?)

As a student of history, I must agree with Ron. Sex has been in America a lot longer than just since the JFK assassination; I was born 9 years before that ....

No sir, I'm here to tell you that you were born a mere eight years before sex was practiced in America! If you wish to be famous, please find a different way to do so, okay? False claims such as this have a way of interfering with some of the classes I teach, and I want you to know that I don't appreciate it!

Yours (Roy "Back to Basics") Truly

Duke, some time back I inquired as to the whereabouts/accessibility of tapes that the FBI made of the DPD Dictabelt recordings, specifically about the hours after the assassination, my interest primarily being what information went out over the police radio that led to the DPD confiscating, at least temporarily, a certain .303 Enfield rifle belonging to a particular TSBD employee.

The esteemed Gary Mack enlisted many behind-the-scenes sources to help seek out the whereabouts of these tapes, but the tapes apparently no longer exist...not in the National Archives, not nowhere, not no-how, to paraphrase a certain Emerald City gatekeeper. Since transcripts are subject to alteration, the tapes would be preferable to transcripts...but, alas, they apparently have become the stuff of which legendary evidence is made.

If you find out differently, I'd certainly be interested in finding out where the tapes have been...or why and how they were lost/destroyed/vanished.

I'm beyond the point of knowing. If you've got expert advice suggesting that the originals have disappeared, I'd run with that and question upon what basis NARA had determined how to "preserve" these non-existant items. See, for example, the NARA documents in this index relating to "Background Report Prepared for Advisory Committee on Preservation on the Preservation of the Dallas Police Dictabelts" and "Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Preservation on the Preservation of the Dallas Police Dictabelts," clearly non-sensical titles.

As to particular sources, I was provided back in 1993 certain excerpts of a purported DPD "radio tape" by Gary Mack which I'd in turn sent along to someone else to identify their own voice, which he (or rather, his daughter) did. Since that time, such exerpts are "no longer available," and no such recording exists - according to the same source - within the archives of the Dallas County facility that might make such items available to the researching public.

For the sake of saying so, "copyright" cannot be claimed by a public entity - such as the City or County of Dallas, two such separate public entities - over any such materials. I don't know why any private individual with access to and some degree of authority over what's available through Dallas County or any of its subsidiary entities would not make such a recording, if extant, available to its, their, or his "constituents."

I recommend that you contact the curator of Dallas County's Sixth Floor Museum to determine how or if this can be rectified.

In the meanwhile, my understanding is that Chris Scally - a member of and contributor to this forum - has some information available about the chain of possession of the dictabelts (Ch1) and disks (Ch2) following the assassination. You might want to check with him to see if he can fill in any of the holes. Best of luck!

Mr. Lane, does this help you out ? ...

Mr. RANKIN. So if there is a discrepancy between the two [sawyer "B" and CE705], are you satisfied that Exhibit 705 is correct?

Mr. CURRY. Is the correct exhibit; yes.

Gil, yes it does, and thanks!

I think it's fair to say, based upon the above excerpt, that Curry said, in effect, that "what you've read is what you've read; what you've read, you've read correctly." If he'd repeated the same thing several more times, it would have made it that much more clear and obvious that CE705 was, in fact, CE705. QED. Amazing, isn't it? Quite a grasp upon the obvious, I think.

The question he wasn't asked - and quite clearly didn't respond to - is whether what CE705, purporting be the "verbatim" contents of the DPD radio tapes was in fact what was on the radio tapes. Curry did explicitly say that he'd listened to the recordings; the impolication being that what was in CE705 is what he'd heard on the tapes.

But that's not what he said. He only said that CE705 was indeed CE705. Read the words; call me mistaken.

He did not say that what was part of the 36-page CE705 was more correct - or totally correct - versus what was on the 3½-page Sawyer Exhibit "B." He could not, at that point, have stated that what was in the 36-page CE705 is all that would have been found in the 110+ page CE1974 that also purported to be a a "verbatim" transcript of the same timeframe (it wasn't) that "superceded" the two earlier "verbatim" transcripts given to the WC when it might have acted on any discrepancies.

He never said "you've got a full and complete transcript in your hands." He knew better ... at least, he did if he'd done as he'd sworn he'd done and actually listened to the tapes.

Is there a lingering question out there about just what makes the chief of a major metropolitan police force lie so blatantly?

I didn't think so.

(I'm sure I'll hear about a "common sense explanation" for this by email in the morning. "I've seen the light, the Report's right." I have a feeling there's a country-western band out there somewhere who'll record the jingle if we come up with the lyrics: "I fought the law and the law won?" Where's that "TM" key on my keyboard?!?)

Beyond that, all I can say is that "Mr. Lane" is my dad, and his name isn't Mark! I'm Duke.

It seems that the ever so thorough Dallas cops would have found a movie ticket on Oswald since they found the transfer ticket as well. I mean he had some money on him, had he planned on going to the movies, I would imagine he would have paid for the ticket.

He may have been holding the ticket stub in his hand and lost it in the scuffle, or he may have placed it on the seat beside him. It seems he was not asked about a cinema ticket during interrogation, so we do not know what his explanation would have been. I would only add that I for one do not guard a movie ticket with any great care once I have gained admission.

This is probably more true in a single-screen movie theater like TT than in today's large multiplex cinemas where you can go out to the popcorn stand and then sneak into another movie: as long as you didn't leave the building - under police escort or otherwise!! - you probably didn't need to keep the ticket for any reason.

Depending upon the weight you place on other statements made or supposedly made, Ray, one might be compelled to ask "placed it on which seat 'beside him'?"

I do think Lee had in fact attempted to avoid Law enforcement officers, and did fear that he was a suspect.

I, on the other hand, have yet to be convinced of that.

That largely depends upon what occurred with him after being last positively seen on the second floor of the TSBD.

If it was as the WC concluded, then yeah, he probably did fear he was a suspect. If it was anything other than that - say, along the lines of the "Wes Wise Allegation," or the "toot-tooting" cop car being somehow involved, or his unknown ride to 10&P having ditched him - it's anyone's good guess.

It is interesting to note in that context, when asked if he'd shot anybody, he didn't say "they've got the wrong guy," but rather "I'm just a patsy," which suggests that he knew or at least suspected who else had done the shooting. For that reason, I don't think he was heading to the theater for the afternoon, but found it a convenient - if ultimately foolish - place to be.

But then, didn't someone say that they remembered him at the concession stand more than 1/2 hour before the cops came barging in? I'm sure they were mistaken, but still ...?

... Of course those who wish to complicate matters will say that LHO obtained a (car/bus) ride to 10th and Patton, in order to be there in time to slay Patrolman Tippit. Have you ever given any creedence to Earlene's statement about that Patrol car honking it's horn outside 1026 N. Beckley? Perhaps as a method of transportation somewhere? A bit far fetched, agreed, but just wondering if this avenue ever led anyone anywhere that might be helpful in seeing the "bigger picture."

While DPD queried its on-duty officers about being in the Oak Cliff area or specifically in the Zangs/Beckley area, it appears to have taken whatever the officers said at face value. None were in the unit designated by Earlene Roberts (#107) or anything similar, and none claimed to have been in the immediate area.

Therefore (if I might digress from the subject ever so slightly) Mrs. Roberts - who was blind in one eye and distracted by trying to improve the TV reception, but nevertheless was able to positively identify Oswald to "most everyone else's" satisfaction because she'd known him for five weeks and had presumably seen him almost every day and thus could not be mistaken even though she never testified to doing more than glancing at him - was unable to differentiate a police vehicle, approximately 30 times bulkier and with a much larger provile than any human being we'll ever know, from any civilian vehicle on the road. Based on police reports - any one or more of which could have been lying to cover their sixes - she was "mistaken."

There is at least one scenario that I know of that would or could place a police vehicle in front of 1026 from its last suspected position in approximately the same elapsed amount of time as Oswald presumably spent inside the house. The driver was not and could not have been JD Tippit ... and that's all I'm prepared to say about that right now.

There is absolutely no question that Oswald could have gotten to 10&P by vehicular transport, but since he didn't own a car, didn't presumably have a license, and likewise had no assistance whatsoever, that has to be ruled out. It's further ruled out by the unlikelihood that anyone could have driven him only to that neighborhood and then forced him out of the car, gun in hand, left to his own devices (and not worry about being shot themselves, or held at gunpoint) ... and if that's as far as he was going, why get anyone else involved? If he'd hitchhiked, it was a helluva place to hitchhike to.

Even had that happened, someone still needs to put the gun in Oswald's hand, which nobody has ever been able to do.

(I kno-o-ow!)*

* With apologies to TV's Craig Ferguson!

I must admit that I do not understand how the transfer system worked. I am not sure that the transfer was any good after he left downtown. It has been suggested here that the transfer in his possession was planted in order to make it seem that he was on McWatter's bus, but I have serious doubts about that. In any case, while he may have hoped to use the transfer later, the "fact" that he still had the transfer in his possession suggests that he did not use it again.

I can perhaps provide some insight into this from a couple of perspectives.

The first is that I rode public busses for many years to and from middle and high schools and used transfers every day. That said, I did not do it in Dallas, and it's very possible if not likely that DTC's rules were different than the bus company's where I grew up. The second may be through talking with some folks still in Dallas whom I'd been in contact when researching my bit on Worrell. While I know I won't be able to dig up specific information about, say, bus route schedules, it is entirely possible that they'll be able to recall broader topics like how the transfer system worked.

The bus company I rode with allowed you to transfer on to any intersecting route, but not use it to get off of one route's bus for a period of time and get back onto that route's next bus; i.e., a transfer from line #19 could not be used to board a bus on line #19. If, however, line #20 continued past the point where line #19 stopped, you could use the line #19 transfer to get onto line #20, just as you could to change onto an east-west bus from a north-south bus.

Typically, you had to ask for a transfer when you first got onto the first bus or shortly thereafter. The transfer tickets they used were identical in most major respects to DTC's transfers, although I cannot attest to a driver's punch being used. They, too, were marked in 15-minute increments (not obvious from the ticket in evidence since all higher time intervals were cut off), with the time that was shown being the time of the transfer's expiry, i.e., you could not use a transfer cut off at 1:00 at 1:15 or 1:30 (although some drivers were undoubtedly more lenient than others).

The transfer was used in lieu of fare, meaning that the driver had to collect either the transfer or the cash from you as you boarded the bus. This prevented someone from getting on bus "A" and transferring to bus "B" and then again to bus "C" or "D" or "E" for as long as the time was not yet expired. This could be done more easily in a downtown area where several bus lines converge than it could in an outlying area where the lines are fewer even if not less frequent.

As you say, since no bus driver had the transfer, it most likely means it was not used to transfer to another bus. I will see what I can do about finding out how DTC worked in the next several weeks.

If there was a possibility that he caught a bus that would take him closer to 10th and Patton, I feel sure the Warren Commission would have tried to exploit that against him, and I don't remember them trying to do so.

There never was a suggestion that he could've taken a bus there, although - absent the transfer and assuming DTC's rules to be the same as my bus company's - it is very well possible. Indeed, even with the transfer in hand, it doesn't preclude that he couldn't find the transfer in his pocket (how long, after all, did it take the cops to find it?) and paid the cash fare instead. It was probably only a nickel or so (five or ten cents/pence for the furriners here!), which he could've had laying on top of his dresser in pennies, thus not figuring into his financial portfolio as dissected by the WC.

If I was in his shoes and wanted to catch the 1.20 movie, I know I would walk south on Beckley to the bus stop at 5th, and keep on walking if no bus was in sight. There were bus stops every block going south, so I might catch one further along the way or just keep walking if no bus came. Either way I would miss no more than a few minutes of the opening of the first movie.

'Tis so.