Duke Lane

KLIF was not the first local radio station to break into programming with a news bulletin about the assassination. That distinction apparently belongs to WFAA-AM radio. John Allen was monitoring the police radio in his newsroom, heard Chief Curry mention "Signal 19 involving the President" and immediately went on the air with that information, which would likely have been no later than 12:32. Allen made the claim in the 1964 WFAA-TV documentary, "A Year Ago Today," but his information cannot be verified since no audio tapes are known to exist.

Other stations likely interrupted immediately upon receiving the first UPI bulletin, which cleared the wire at 12:35.

The timing works; McWatters said that he left Elm & St. Paul at 12:36, his scheduled time for doing so, known to be fact because a supervisor stayed there all day to make sure busses arrived and departed from that particular location on time. It was, according to his testimony, a way to keep the busses running on time as well as to identify drivers who couldn't keep to a schedule and reprimand them.

He also estimated that he'd have arrived at Field Street at 12:40. It was at some point in the long block between Field and Griffith that either a man, or a man and a woman, got onto his bus, an event agreed upon by all of the three who gave statements about this: Cecil McWatters, the bus driver; Roy Milton Jones, the teen-aged rider; and Mary Bledsoe, Oswald's supposed former landlady.

(I qualify that only on account of the fact that the only "proof" she had of Oswald's tenancy in her home was the knowledge that he had a blue clothes-bag of some sort, and a torn-out page from her calendar that she no longer had because her son had sold it to a Mike Neiburh for four dollars. Neibuhr was tracked down and interviewed on 11/28 by the FBI, and he showed them the page which had noted on it simply, in the October 7 space, "From Oswald" and, in the October 14 space, "To Oswald." While the FBI report (by SA Robert Lish) said it bore "the handwriting notation of Lee Harvey Oswald," there is no indication that either Lish was a handwriting expert, or that the FBI had analyzed Oswald's handwriting that early in the investigation in order for anyone to have made such a determination at that point. While Lish took a photo of the page for the Dallas FBI office, I'm unaware of that handwriting being identified as Oswald's or - based on what little I know of handwriting analysis - that it could be definitively said to be his.)

I've spent some time going over the various reports involving these three people to compare and contrast their versions of events, and I find enough similarities to suggest that all three were indeed on the same bus, or that there had been enough in the newspapers over the weekend for Mary to have put together a credible story. In any case, based on what she had to say, I'm not convinced that the man she saw had to be Lee Oswald, despite various critics' contention that of course her identification of him is reliable: she was his former landlady, she owed him two dollars, and was mostly concerned with his not noticing her and asking for it. Of those three claims, only the first is true.

Before delving into that aspect, first let's examine some of the similarities and differences between the three people's statements. Cecil McWatters gave an affidavit on November 22, was interviewed by the FBI on either Friday or Saturday, November 22 or 23 (both dates are on the first page of the interview, CD5, pages 346-47, which might explain Jones' statement that McWatters had told him that "the Dallas Police had him up until 1:00 o'clock on Saturday or Sunday morning questioning him;" see below), and gave testimony on March 12, 1964. Bledsoe was interviewed several times, including on 11/23 (CD5, page 340), 11/27 (CD5, page 342) and 12/4 (CD1066, page 183)of 1963 as well as 5/4/1964 (CD7, page 302), all in addition to her November 22 affidavit and April 2 testimony. Jones was interviewed by the FBI on March 30, 1964 (CD897, page 185-88).

Here are the issues arising through them:

• Mary Bledsoe said that she'd watched the Presidential parade at Main and St. Paul and had walked over to Elm Street where she boarded a bus "approximately ten minutes after the motorcade had passed St. Paul and Main," which was at some point between 12:22 and 12:26 according to the police radio transcript of Channel Two. McWatters stated that he'd departed the stop at 12:36, which he was certain of because that was where a route supervisor stationed himself all day to make certain that the busses were running on schedule, and he would not have been allowed to leave earlier than the prescribed departure time.
  
• Bledsoe said that she'd gotten on the bus at Elm and St. Paul, either at the same stop that Milton Jones had gotten on or the one immediately after it; McWatters didn't think he'd picked up anyone there, but had only discharged a woman passenger there; Jones was silent on the question (which wasn't asked of him).
  
• Both McWatters and Jones said that Jones had been sitting on the first seat facing forward on the right-hand side of the bus, which was directly abaft a seat that faced the center of the bus, which in turn was located directly abaft of the front entry door. Bledsoe said that she sat "in a seat directly opposite the driver facing the aisle" directly behind the front doorway, where she "always sat" so she could get off the bus easily (see diagram - CE373 - below).
  
• Neither Jones nor McWatters mentioned her or anyone occupying that seat at all, even though Jones would have been looking directly at someone there in his seat, and even though Jones and McWatters engaged in small talk with each other at one point during the traffic jam, "talking through her" as if she - or anybody else - wasn't even there. Neither of the men were asked if anyone fitting Mrs. Bledsoe's description was indeed on the bus, or if anyone had been sitting in the seat between their positions.
  
• Bledsoe estimated that there were, at different times, anywhere from "very few" to 10 or 15 passengers on the bus at the time; Jones estimated that there were 15; McWatters, who would presumably have been more aware of how many people were on his bus simply because it was the business he engaged in every day, said that there were only five.
  
• Jones said that both a man and a woman got on the bus, the woman proceeding to the rear and the man sitting directly behind him; McWatters only mentioned the man who "beat on the door ... paid his fair and sat down on the second cross seat on the right," later also noting that Jones was sitting in the first cross seat on McWatters' right, corroborating Jones' story; Bledsoe only described the one man - Oswald - getting on the bus, "pay his fare, and immediate walk to the rear of the bus where he sat down," not merely two seats back from her as both men had independently described.
  
• McWatters said the man was dressed in "what I would call work clothes" with "just some type of little old jacket on," not describing his clothing further; Jones noted a man who wore a "light blue jacket and gray trousers" (a similar description to cab driver William Whaley's); Bledsoe also said he'd had on gray trousers, but instead wore a "brown or dark brown" shirt and no jacket. The pedigree of her observation, however, was more than just a little suspect: she later said that when she'd gotten home, she "turned on the radio - television - and ... we listened and heard about the President ... and they kept talking about this boy Oswald and [he] had on a brown shirt, and all of a sudden, well, I declare, I believe that this was this boy."
  
• Nothing about the man's demeanor struck either McWatters or Jones as unusual, out of the ordinary, or suspicious; both said that he did not appear nervous or excited, but just a "normal passenger;" Bledsoe, on the other hand, described him as looking "wild," like "a maniac," his face "distorted," his clothes "dirty and disheveled." She described his shirt as "undone," his "sleeve was out here," she said, making some sort of physical indication of what she meant; his waistline was "ragged," the tops of his trousers badly worn; there was a hole in the elbow of his "brown or dark-brown" shirt. (In the end, only her final observation was borne out ... but that in a shirt that Oswald had not been wearing at the time.)
  
• Jones said that a woman and a man had gotten off the bus at the same time; so did McWatters, the latter adding the detail (which Jones may have been unaware of) that the woman had wanted to get to Union Station; Bledsoe also described the woman who wanted to get to the train station, but noted that she had told the woman that it was only a short distance away and suggested to her "why don't you walk?" She also said that the woman got off after Oswald. Once again, Bledsoe was unseen and unheard by the other two, even while interjecting her helpful suggestion directly into a conversation that McWatters, at least, was fully aware of.
  

Several other things must be said about Mary Bledsoe. First that she was an older woman, having been divorced from her husband since 1925 after several years of marriage beginning at age 17; somewhere, perhaps, between 60 and 65. Compounding whatever issues her age alone may have engendered, she had also had a stroke at some time during her life, which if nothing else certainly affected her stamina (she needed to take frequent naps); judging from her testimony, it may also have impaired her memory as well. Either or both could account for the differences between her and the men's statements, as could the simple vaguaries of human memory.

Third, at the risk of sounding like a pseudo-psychologist, she comes across as a bitter woman, with strong dislikes (and few likes) that could be triggered by anything ... or nothing. As a young woman, she and her husband had "problems" over which she'd divorced him in a time when divorces weren't commonplace; she'd raised her children alone through the Depression and WWII; she'd been debilitated at least somewhat by her stroke; and by September 1963, her kids had moved out, leaving her living alone with boarders she couldn't or wouldn't keep, but whose rent payments she was keenly desirous of.

Oswald - if he ever really lived with her - was at first a clean-looking young man, neat in appearance and pleasant in manner, talking about his family, showing her a photo of his wife and daughter, someone whom she "helped" to look for a job for at least one day, but whom she nevertheless complained she had to all but force him to talk with her. On his first day in her home, he bought groceries and milk, the former which he stored in his room and the latter in her refrigerator, which she didn't like but said nothing about. He used her phone; she didn't like that either. He went into the refrigerator, going in and out of his room, "too much." He'd go job-hunting in the morning and return in the early afternoon, disturbing her naps which also annoyed her.

All during this time, it was as if she wanted him to open up to her, yet at the same time leave her alone: don't stay in your room, but don't come out into my kitchen; she described Oswald as virtually never coming out except to drink "lots of ice water since he was in and out of the refrigerator too much." At the same time, she claimed almost never to pay attention to things; indeed, her litany of the things she "didn't like" was second only to the number of times she said she "didn't pay attention" or "wasn't paying attention" to whatever issue was at hand during her deposition, which was most of them.

In fact, about the only thing she did "pay attention" to was Oswald's supposed dress and demeanor on McWatters' bus, even while at every turn on that occasion she also claimed to not have been paying attention to him, and purposely trying not to. The reason, however, at least insofar as she actually said it was, was that "when she observed [him] looking so dirty and disheveled, she turned her head away from him not wishing to converse with him" because "she felt this was strange inasmuch as when he resided with her he had been very neat in his personal appearance."

The apparent final straw came for her when Oswald got a phone call and spoke with the caller in a foreign language; she said she told her girl friend that she "didn't like" people talking in a language she didn't understand. She did not know what language it was, and admitted even being unfamiliar with the Spanish language ... after living in Texas her whole life! When she next spoke with Lee, he was leaving the house with a bag full of what she supposed were clothes, which prompted her to ask him if he was moving. He replied that he was going to Irving for the weekend, and asked her if she would neaten his room and change the sheets. She in turn replied that she would clean his room "when he moved," which she further assured him that he was going to be doing because she no longer wished to rent to him!

It was this incident that gave rise to the supposed two dollar "debt" she owed him ... but as she described it, she apparently never felt as if there was any such debt. After telling him he had to leave her house, Oswald offered to take all of his things with him right then if she would refund him the dollar-a-day rent for the remaining two days of the week. She said she didn't have it, so he left without taking anything else with him. In sum, even though he wasn't in the house over the weekend, he occupied the room for the balance of his rental period, ergo there was no money due him from her; she, for her part, never suggested that there was.

This, then, is a snapshot of the woman whose statements "firmly" place Lee Oswald on the bus from which a transfer had been issued in the minutes following the assassination of President Kennedy. Her identification of Oswald as the male passenger who'd boarded the bus mid-block is based on her initial impression of a man whose appearance and demeanor were diametrically opposed to her own impression of Oswald from less than six weeks before, after which she purposefully avoided "paying attention" to him because she despised him so. Bledsoe's description of his appearance and demeanor was also completely at odds with both McWatters and Jones'.

Reviewing McWatters and Jones' statements and testimony, it is clear that the two men were on the same bus and had largely witnessed the same events. Jones' came more than four months after they'd occurred which, coupled with his age (17), may account for many of the disparities between them.

Only Mary Bledsoe was convinced that the male passenger who lately boarded the bus was Lee Oswald. Because the man was sitting directly behind him, Jones didn't get a good look at him, and did not think later that it was Oswald until McWatters told him that he "might have been" on the following Monday. Only after McWatters mentioned it did Jones agree that it "was possible that it could have been Oswald," but "emphasized" that he could not positively identify the man as having been Oswald. "He was inclined to think it was Oswald only because the driver told him so," his FBI interviewers duly noted.

McWatters, for his part, seems to have been convinced by police that it had been Oswald on the bus rather than to have reached that conclusion on his own. During his interview with FBI agents on the 22nd or 23rd, he repeatedly referred to Jones as being the man he'd tried to identify in a lineup at police headquarters. First he noted that, after he had turned onto Marsalis Avenue, he had asked "a male passenger on the bus" where he thought they'd shot the President; "in the temple," the man replied.

While Jones did not remember (or "denied" if you prefer) this particular conversation, McWatters went on to relate telling a woman who'd entered the bus at Vermont and Marsalis (about 12 blocks south of Jefferson Boulevard, well past where Oswald would have gotten off if he was the man in question) about the President being shot. She didn't believe him, so McWatters told here "to ask the man sitting behind him," who was the same one who "had told McWatters that the President had been shot in the temple" and had "a sort of grin on his face."

Not only did Jones relate that same "grinning" story in essentially the same way, but McWatters, while he could not be sure, believed that the man had gotten off the bus "south of Saner Avenue in Oak Cliff." In fact, Jones had alit from the bus at the corner of East Brownlee Street, the street on which he lived, one block south of Saner.

When McWatters went to the police station, he picked a man - Oswald - whom he said was "the only one in the lineup who resembles the man who had ridden on his bus" on the 22nd. McWatters further stated that "this man is Lee Oswald," but "emphasized that he cannot specifically identify him as being on his bus or as being the person who had made the remark" about the President being shot in the temple.

Indeed, in his sworn affidavit of November 22, McWatters describes having gone "on out Marsalis and picked up a woman" who didn't believe him about the President being shot. He told her to "ask the man behind her," who was grinning at the time. "This man," he said, clearly referring to Jones, "looks like the #2 man I saw in a line-up tonight," who was Oswald.

What is more noteworthy about these passages is that at no time did McWatters exclaim or express anything to the effect that, "wow, you wanted to know about the boy and just happened to show me the guy who'd gotten on my bus downtown!" There was, in sum, no recognition of Oswald by McWatters.

This is striking because McWatters recalled clearly issuing two transfers because "a woman with a suitcase" who "wanted to go to Union Station" did ask for a transfer so she could get back onto the bus if it got through traffic quickly; she'd thought it might be faster if she'd walked. "So I gave her a transfer and opened the door and as she was going out the gentleman I had picked up about 2 blocks [before] asked for a transfer and got off at the same place in the middle of the block where the lady did," McWatters testified.

Moreover, he also testified that he "only gave two transfers going through town on that trip and that was at the one stop of where I gave the lady and the gentleman that got off the bus, I issued two transfers. But that was the only two transfers that were issued. ... I only put out two transfers and I told them [Dallas Police] that there was one man in the lineup [who] was about the size and the height and complexion of a man that got on my bus, but as far as positively identifying the man I could not do it." Police and the WC were nevertheless satisfied that McWatters had, in fact, seen Oswald on his bus and given him a transfer.

Mary Bledsoe was completely unaware of this transaction despite sitting in the very front of the bus "directly opposite" the driver. Oswald, she said, "got up from the rear seat ... came to the front of the bus [and] got off the front entrance at the next stop," even while, in her opinion, "he could have gotten off the side [back] door but he did not do so," something which apparently irked the fickle Mrs. Bledsoe.

She did not recall him asking for a transfer: "they said he did, but I don't remember him saying anything," she asserted in her testimony. "I didn't pay any attention but I believe he did" get a transfer, she stated baldly, causing some consternation on the part of counsel:

Thus the woman who studiously avoided even looking at the man (whom she may not even have recognized at the time as being her erstwhile boarder until watching later news reports about his capture) thus was able to identify him positively as being on the bus, even while every detail that she recalled about his actions and appearance - other than wearing gray trousers - was in stark contradiction to the observations of both the bus driver and a passenger sitting right next to her, neither of whom mentioned her or were asked if they'd seen her.

Neither was counsel entirely convinced of Mary Bledsoe's veracity or accuracy. On a separate but related question - how she was certain that Oswald was wearing the shirt he'd been arrested in while on the bus (before, that is, he went home to presumably change his shirt) - she was actually challenged by counsel Joe Ball: "In order to convince me that you did see it before you've got to tell me what there is about it that is the same, you see. Now, you try to convince me, or tell me why it is that you believe that this is the shirt that Oswald had on when you saw him on the bus?"

Ultimately, Ball allowed himself to be convinced either actually or at a signal from co-counsel Alfred Jenner, who took over questioning after this curious exchange about the trousers worn by the man on the bus:

At this point, Jenner took over and attempted to pin Mrs. Bledsoe down on any of the so many things that she said she simply "paid no attention to," which turned out to be an exercise in futility even when assisted by Mary's own attorney.

Thus we are left with the identification of Oswald being the recipient of one of two transfers issued by McWatters resting solely upon the description of a shrew of a woman who was apparently on McWatters' bus despite her not being noticed by any of the other principals interviewed; who despised her former tenant (who could only be identified as such by cryptic and meaningless notations on a calendar no longer in her possession); who did her best not to even look at the man in question; whose description of his actions and appearance were completely at odds with all of the others'; and who did not in fact even "put two and two together," however erroneously or correctly, until after she watched news reports in which "they kept talking about this boy Oswald and [he] had on a brown shirt," which she suddenly and only thereafter attributed to a man on the bus contrary to the descriptions provided by McWatters and Jones, but also of every description by every witness who gave a description of Oswald from 12:30 forward until Oswald's arrest in the theater.

Her only tenuous link to being an actual witness to Oswald being that man is her dubious recollection of a hole being in the elbow of Oswald's shirt, and her identification of his trousers by process of elimination in which, since the first pair shown her was not ragged around the waist, the other pair must have been ... but wasn't.

And so we return to the proposition that I put forth in Post #51, et seq., that it is far from a certainty that it was Oswald and only Oswald who could have received the McWatters bus transfer that was eventually entered into evidence as having been found upon his person following his arrest, and that it is indeed possible for someone else to have obtained it and for it later to have been "found" on Oswald, and that a firm identification of the transfer recipient being Oswald based upon his former landlady's identification of him is tenuous at best.

Were it not for the two details that she did get right - where the man had gotten onto the bus and about the lady who'd gotten off to walk to the train station - one might readily accept the proposition that Mary Bledsoe had even been on McWatters' bus at all. The only remaining question in this regard is whether there might have been any news reports about this incident prior to Mary's going to police headquarters later that night, just as there had been about Oswald's brown shirt.

Mark, while I won't dispute what you've said, the element that's missing in that scenario is a defense attorney. While it's all well and good that they could hand Wade an open-and-shut circumstantial case, it would have undoubtedly been challenged by any trial lawyer worth even half his salt, so while the case might've been "opened" on the basis of what DPD was willing to compile, it wouldn't have been "shut" until the jury came back in. Whether Wade would've prevailed in such a case is anybody's good guess; maybe, maybe not. And then there would've been the appeals if so.

While I agree that cops may not necessarily want to discover exculpatory evidence, they typically do want their case to hold together in court and therefore try to be certain that what evidence they present will hold up. In this particular case, although it may not have been enough to swing jury to the defense's favor, they would not have wanted to have the crime lab chief be confronted with the challenge that he could not, in actual fact, actually say that the rifle had been fired at all when all it would take was a simple look down the barrel for GSR to solidify that aspect of their case.

Doubt plus doubt plus doubt plus doubt plus doubt generally equals "reasonable" doubt. To hinge their case on Wade's jury-persuading abilities is to gamble on such an important case: how would DPD have looked if its one and only suspect, upon whom it had settled within three hours, was acquitted?

It is also noteworthy that, at least in American jurisprudence, it is not enough to simply state that "there is no evidence that he didn't do it" to gain a conviction. I don't know if Henry Wade was quite that good!!

To reason further along this line - of course absent the supposition that they could depend upon Wade's powers of persuasion, a heady proposition in such an important case that would undoubtedly have gained worldwide attention (and for which, therefore, Wade would have wanted a rock-solid case) - would require that DPD knew in advance that the only "court" it would need apply to and win over was that of public opinion, i.e., that their only suspect would never make it into a courtroom

That, in effect, is to argue that there were no good cops in the Dallas police department - which is a completely different argument than that there were some bad cops on the force - because virtually everyone would have had to been "in on the plot." Some I can believe, but not all, and not even all in responsible positions.

We - all of us - have a different perspective, perhaps, simply because the sole suspect didn't live to see the inside of a courtroom. In truth, it wasn't absolutely necessary on that Friday afternoon to examine the barrel (and as we've already agreed, I think, that even finding GSR wouldn't have been able to prove when the gun was fired, only that it was) as long as it was examined before it might've been test-fired at some later point. That could as easily have been done the following Friday - or the following month - as long as the integrity of the evidence was maintained.

As it turned out, however, the suspect was killed and would not be tried: his conviction was already made in the press, and the circumstantial evidence was therefore enough since it would remain unchallenged by any defense attorney. Still, it's surprising that such an inspection was not made, if only because it would have taken virtually no time at all and required no particular expertise ... and wouldn't the cops have wanted to be able to say "nope, this ain't the gun, keep looking?"

Too, I might add, just because to Fritz's knowledge no such examination had been made, doesn't actually mean that it wasn't. If, on the other hand, Carl Day said that it wasn't done, then that's pretty solid evidence that it was not in fact done.

(It is interesting to note, speaking of advance knowledge of at least the subject of the manhunt being Oswald, that none of the three transcripts provided to the WC by DPD and FBI - Sawyer Exhibits "A" and "B" and CE705 by DPD, and CE1974 by FBI - none of them have any transmissions that were related to "the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of Officer Tippit [and] the investigations into said assassination and murder" after 2:48. Does that mean that all further search was called off once Oswald had been captured, since there were no more "related" transmissions?)

... Flip side of that coin is, because they HADN'T checked the rifle for GSR, they picked up Frazier's .303 enfield and took it into custody as part of their investigation. Had they checked the barrel of the Carcano for GSR, their circumstantial case would have been complete, and the temporary confiscation of Frazier's Enfield wouldn't have been necessary. What I'm NOT saying is that the DPD knew Oswald was innocent; What I'm saying is, IF Oswald was innocent, and IF the Carcano hadn't been fired, the DPD didn't want to know that, nor did they want anyone else to know. They had their Commie, they had their rifle, they had spent shell casings for that rifle, and they had their sniper's nest...

IOW, the DPD wasn't necessarily seeking the truth; they were seeking to hand Wade a pre-packaged murder conviction. Truth was secondary to wrapping up the case. ...

Actually, there's a wee tad of intrigue for ya: if they had their Commie and had their rifle, why did they confiscate Frazier's gun (but not Warren Caster's) and keep Joe Molina up to all hours of the night? Just a case of harrassment for harrassment's sake - because they had a good excuse - or something that actually made sense?

It's interesting that any "investigation" for "additional suspects" focused entirely on TSBD employees, and only those of a perhaps "liberal" persuasion....

... As far as GSR inside the barrel of the rifle...well...the DPD didn't want to prove that the rifle HADN'T been fired; and the only thing provable by GSR in the barrel would be that the absence of GSR would show the gun hadn't been fired since its last cleaning. That's evidence the DPD certainly didn't want to find, so they purposely didn't look for it...IMHO.

Ah, so! This removes us immediately from mere incompetence at the outset and lands us smack-dab in the middle of a well-hatched plot involving the very souls who were looking for one! Weren't they saying within hours that it was a Communist plot? Didn't they spend the next several weeks searching for those nefarious scoundrels, albeit to no avail? Why waste so much time and manpower in such an intensive investigation if they knew all along that Oswald didn't do it? It simply makes no sense whatsoever. Sorry, ain't buyin' into that one, no sir.

Howard Brennan was looking in the wrong direction to have ever seen anything in the TSBD being fired anyway, which explains why he didn't "actually" see anything.

Racking my memory for DIRECT EVIDENCE of a shot or shots from the SN, all I can think of are some earwitnesses, and Richard Randolph Carr, the high school kid who claimed to have seen the rifle fire. It seems that hardly anyone, including even the warren Commission, considered him reliable.

I recall something from aeons ago - I think by Gary Mack, but maybe not - about someone going to the location where Carr was supposed to have been, and observing that the TSBD couldn't be seen from there. Based on that, presuming it's correctness, I'd have to eliminate Carr from consideration.

As to Dickie Worrell, even while I published something that showed that he could have at least gotten to Elm & Houston in time to see the motorcade, a close reading of it will tell you that it was only possible under certain circumstances involving the bus schedule - de jure AND de facto - and then only if everything went into place exactly. There was no room for error or delay.

In truth, you will not find a photo or movie showing Dickie where he claimed to be; in fact, he should be visible in Altgens 5 as plain as day, unless my memory fails me. Possibly also the Hughes film, unless I'm thinking of another one (it came up in discussion about Roy Truly's entry into the TSBD after the shooting; don't recall the thread, but it was fairly recent). There's no photographic proof of his being there, and a fair amount of photographic disproof.

There is only one "eyewitness" report of his running across Houston Street, and that's Sam Pate, who didn't even start driving toward Dealey Plaza from Stemmons at High Line until JFK's limo had passed by that location on its way to Parkland; Dickie said he started running after the first shot, before the limo had even gotten out of the plaza, so whomever Sam saw, it wasn't Worrell.

... Senator Yarborough smelled smoke. That had to be immediately after the shooting (time frame), for the smoke to have lingered, right? To me it also proved shots down near the ground in Dealey Plaza.

At what precise location was he when he smelled the smoke? How long after the first - or any - shot did he smell it? Was there sufficient time for the odor to have reached that spot in that amount of time? Which direction did it drift from? In what direction - up or down or level - does such an odor normally drift? What was the wind speed and direction that day? Did LBJ's limo remain in the plaza long enough for the odor to have reached him?

Absent knowing the answers to those questions (and probably several others), at best we can say that Ralph Yarborough thought he smelled smoke, but even if it did, it neither tells us where the smell came from nor from what gun it emanated. While it may "make sense" to us that he'd more likely smell it if fired from nearby and in front of him - and thus him driving through it - than it does that it came from 75 yards away while he was driving away from us, it unfortunately proves nothing.

Also, I don't think that, in 1963, Mr. Day was talking about exact science when he discussed whether it could be determined if a gun had been fired "today. yesterday or last month". That was CYOB talk. The smell of gunpowder would have been VERY strong in the barrel that soon after the shooting, would it not? It would say that the gun had been fired very recently. It could not, as you say, give an exact time that the gun fired.

Define "strong." Put it on a scale of 1 to 10. Is your "6" the same as my "6" or might I think it's a "4" or an "8?"

If it hadn't been fired for a week, I'd imagine the smell of gunpowder to have been very slight to non-existant; if it was "strong," it might as easily have been fired at 10:00 on the Trinity River bottoms as at 12:30 in Dealey Plaza, or Thursday as easily as on Friday.

I'm more surprised that a visual GSR check wasn't made than I am that a "smell test" wasn't. At least with the former, it could at least be said that the gun had been fired or that it had not been fired. Finding a "clean" gun in my nightstand hardly even suggests, much less proves, that I killed my wife in the bed beside me with it; maybe I used the one I keep in the living room. But hey, found a gun, got our man, right? At least a visual check would've confirmed that it had been fired, something I'd think any jury would want to know.

My opinion is that C2766 was fired from the sixth floor that day; Ray's is that it wasn't. We may each have "reasonable" grounds for each opinion, but neither of us can prove it one way or another to the other: the actual evidence doesn't exist. Hell of a way to run a homicide department, don't you think?

Gosh, so many quotes-within-quotes!! Where to begin ...?

... I either did not know or had forgotten that Jack was not asked about seeing anyone else run down the stairs. Of course any honest witness would tell the inquiry if he saw ANYONE running down stairs in those crucial seconds, so either no one ran down those stairs or else Jack Daugherty obstructed justice by withholding vital evidence. He swore to tell the WHOLE truth.

We all know that to be a joke: first, what potential suspect is ever going to provide "the whole truth" in such a way as he, himself, might become more of one? Also, how many times has a question been asked where the witness attempt to expound upon an answer and his questioner (prosecution or defense) cuts him or her off with a "yes or no, Mr. Carroll" or "Your Honor, please direct the witness to answer" comeback?

Anyway, no matter: these guys arguing the point on McAdams' site forgot about Jack being in Oswald's way entirely. And what makes anyone think Jack was an "honest witness" anyway?

Anyone who posits "no shooter" on the sixth floor has got to be nuts.

I submit that those who posit no shooter are simply refusing to make unwarranted inferential leaps. The "scientific" analyses that were supposed to PROVE, beyond doubt, that shots were fired from the SN all turned out to be unmitigated Junk, including the accoustics. No human ear can hear gunshots on those tapes, and the National Academy of Sciences, after an extensive inquiry into the evidence, reached the conclusion that whatever noises can be detected there is no reason to believe that they are gunshots, and in any event they were not recorded until after the shooting in Dealey Plaza.

"Discredit," it appears, is in the eye of the beholder.

Good luck in discrediting the National Academy of Sciences.

Perhaps I'm mistaken - and will stand corrected if so - but my understanding is that the "dictabelt sounds" were never used or intended to prove that shots came from the SN, but that one or more instead might have come from somewhere else. My understanding is also that there were no tests done to prove that any of the "impulses" came from anywhere other than the vicinity of the grassy knoll, or to determine where the origin of any such impulses may have been.

Do you actually have a position on this? If one needs "good luck discrediting the National Academy of Sciences," then by that measure, all things government-issued are at all times beyond reproach, always correct, should be taken at face value, never questioned, and be considered the epitome of all forms of every kind of exactitude. Fair enough.

Why, then, are you here? To prove the irrefutable to the irresolute? Shoot, man, the case was "closed" on November 25, 1963: why, then are you still arguing for or against it? It's done. The government got it right the first time, the second time, the third time ... and every time when it didn't get it quite right, its inferences were correct even if its math wasn't. "I ain't often right, but I've never been wrong ...?"

When one puts "national" in front of "science," whatever its academy propounds must absolutely be the truth. Has it ever made any other judgments or submissions (assuming that it even has to!) that has or have failed peer review? Or does it, in fact, have any "peers?" You seem to think not. I suspect there are scientists who might disagree. I think perhaps even that one or two have ...!

There is no axiom nor law that says that all the good scientists work in any one place. Each and all of them are human and therefore error-prone. Those at MIT can err as well and as much as those at RPI or NAS, and vice-versa. NAS not subject to peer review because "national" has no peer? Then, AMA/JAMA got it right, too, and nobody has any business arguing their conclusions!

"Good luck," indeed.

if there was any intent on anyone's part to draw attention to the TSBD and away from any other locations, at least one shot must've been fired from there in order to accomplish that. ... why bother with the gun if you're not going to fire it? Again, no need to actually hit anything, just create noise.

No need to actually fire the rifle to achieve the same result. Anyone who sees a man aiming a rifle during a shooting is apt to believe that the rifle he sees must be the source of the shots. I'm sure you will correct me if I am wrong, Duke, but my recollection is that Howard Brennan, the star witness, testified that he did not actually see the rifle being fired.

Howard Brennan was looking in the wrong direction to have ever seen anything in the TSBD being fired anyway, which explains why he didn't "actually" see anything. If the Z-film is "altered," why didn't the all-knowing reconstructionist at least turn him around so he wasn't looking to the east? Surely putting a face - anyone's! - beneath a hard-hat wouldn't have been as hard as the other things that "they did!"

There is likewise little or no doubt that a rifle that apparently hadn't been there before lunch was up there afterward; why bother with that if you're not going to at least use it as a prop during the actual shooting?

I know at least one proponent of No Shots from SN who does not dispute that the rifle may have been used as a prop during the shooting.

Why NOT at least fire the gun, if for no other reason to ensure that everyone's recollection was NOT focused on the records building, Dal-Tex or the knoll (or wherever else)? Visual stimulus is only valid insofar as those who'd actually SEEN something; more people heard than saw anything. Audio works in all directions, video only when being looked at. Noise will always attract more attention than mere visibility. Surely you're not suggesting that anyone other than Oswald would count more upon people looking up than on hearing something coming from a particular direction, are you?

That they didn't sniff or look for GSR doesn't mean it wasn't there, and ONLY if it WASN'T there does that prove anything ... and we simply don't know the answer to that 'cuz nobody apparently looked or sniffed.

And consistent with the great tradition of American Justice, the police and prosecution must always get the benefit of doubt? I say that there are good reasons to doubt that any shots were fired from the Sniper's nest.

No, sir: the defendant always gets the benefit of doubt.

The point is that sniffing/looking only eliminates the possiblity that the weapon was fired: no smell, no GSR, no shots. DPD apparently didn't eliminate that negative possibility. Nevertheless, Fritz was correct in saying that a smell or the appearance of GSR does not tell you if the gun was fired at 11:00, 1:00, on Friday, or on Tuesday, or at 3:00 a.m. the previous Sunday (presuming the smell would remain that long).

GSR would prove that the gun was fired; the smell might suggest when it was fired within certain time limits (the duration of the smell under prevailing circumstances), but neither would be able to show that it was fired at 12:30 on Friday, November 22, to the exclusion of all other dates and times, much less locations.

The lack of either might prove that it hadn't been fired at any time, but what was extant could only prove that it was fired ... but beyond that, absolutely nothing else. Prove to me otherwise.

Personally, I posit that shot(s) were, indeed, fired from the SN ... but I'm not convinced that they hit anything of significance, were intended to (and if they weren't, but did, it was a bonus!), nor that your favorite Marxist and mine pulled any triggers that day.

On the other hand, I can think of absolutely no other reason to put a gun on the sixth floor and hang it out a window without firing it unless you were betting on pure, dumb luck and knew the house was gonna fold.

I think the stakes were too high for such a bet.

... There are also other reasons to doubt that the rifle was fired that day, and some of those reasons are discussed in this recent thread started by Donald C. Willis on the McAdams Forum...

The discussion there is, unfortunately, woefully incomplete. (Feel free to copy my comments there, Ray, tho' I don't feel compelled to ask you to send me back all the ad hominem that will surely result from them.)

The first thing that I notice is that the name "Jack" doesn't appear anywhere: how can anyone posit a "general collision in the vicinity of the 5th-floor stairwell" without mentioning the man who was standing "10 feet west of the west elevator," i.e., directly in the path of "the fleeing Oswald?" What difference does it make whether or not "the three blind mice" could see the stairwell from the southwest windows if Jack was standing right smack-dab there? He, on the other hand, was asked only if he'd seen Oswald, but not if he'd seen anybody at all come down the stairs.

Anyone who posits "no shooter" on the sixth floor has got to be nuts. This is neither to say that it was Oswald who did any such shooting, or that whoever did it actually hit anyone, but merely to say that if there was any intent on anyone's part to draw attention to the TSBD and away from any other locations, at least one shot must've been fired from there in order to accomplish that. I don't imagine that gunfire from the knoll, Dal-Tex, the records building or anywhere else could have accomplished that any better than actual gunfire from there. A gun barrel withdrawing into the window would be a nice accompaniment, but why bother with the gun if you're not going to fire it? Again, no need to actually hit anything, just create noise.

There is likewise little or no doubt that a rifle that apparently hadn't been there before lunch was up there afterward; why bother with that if you're not going to at least use it as a prop during the actual shooting? Surely nobody's going to posit that there were similar weapons cached in various buildings around the kill zone in vague hopes of just one of them being found and the rest being discarded without being found. Not unless, of course, everybody was "in on the plot."

Of course, if it was Oswald firing with the C2766 MC, then all of the above is explained anyway (with the usual disclaimers). If not, then whoever placed it there - whether or not they shot anything from or anyone with it - was not someone who'd just been casually walking by with a rifle and decided out of the blue to discard it there 'cuz it seemed like as good a place as any.

That the weapon was in a "well-oiled condition" strongly implies - but of course doesn't necessarily prove - that it had been recently cleaned, and if that was the case and it hadn't been fired, it would have been pretty foolish of someone who'd "planted" the gun to not have fired it, for it would have been either or both pretty difficult to prove that it had been fired if it was completely devoid of GSR in the barrel, and/or risky to presume that the cops wouldn't have checked to see if there was any GSR as, apparently, they didn't. It needn't, in such a case, have to have been fired at that time, but it would have had to have been at least recently ... - although some of the other considerations above would militate for it having been fired at that time.

Again, it didn't require hitting anybody, and fragments would only require that it hit something - steel floorboards as an example, a human skull as another - hard enough for the bullets to cause them to break up.

I would beg to differ with Tony Marsh about both (1) the bullet fragments being ballistically proven to have been fired from the rifle, and (2) acoustical evidence showing shots fired from the 6th floor window. I don't dispute that the fragments and the markings thereon were "consistent with" bullets fired from the C2766, but "ballistically proven" is a bit of a stretch. Likewise, as I understand it - which may not be as well as Tony does, but I'm borrowing from a post from Gary Mack somewhere - that the only actual testing was related to whether a shot might've been fired from the knoll area, and that there is nothing firmly tying any impulses to the 6th floor, or at least the 6th floor southeast window.

I am likewise also always amused by those who, citing a study that contradicted both BB&N and W&A (who reached essentially the same conclusion), call the acoustics/dictabelt evidence "completely discredited," as if either (1) there have been no other studies that refute the refutation, and (2) simply saying "it's wrong and here's why" is definitive in any way. By that measure, the WCR was "discredited" eons ago and in multiple and myriad ways ... yet along come those self-same people defending the Report while at the same decrying anyone who'll dare to defend what they say is "discredited."

"Discredit," it appears, is in the eye of the beholder.

I would have to agree with Fritz inasmuch as even if one "sniffs" a gun barrel and smells gunpowder/cordite/whatever, it does not tell you when it was fired, only that it was fired, and then only probably recently (and I have no idea how recent it would have to be before the smell of gunpowder was completely gone). Nevertheless, it would seem an elementary "test" to at least ensure that the gun had been fired, either or both by "sniffing" it and/or by checking for GSR. Any failure to do that - and document it - could certainly heap doubt upon the fact of whether it was fired at all, and if it wasn't, then my client couldn't possibly be guilty.

That they didn't sniff or look for GSR doesn't mean it wasn't there, and ONLY if it WASN'T there does that prove anything ... and we simply don't know the answer to that 'cuz nobody apparently looked or sniffed.

My guess is wherever people were standing "shoulder-to-shoulder." Look, for example, in amongst the Newmans, or between Sitzman and Zapruder.

Y'know, Jack, Bill's right. I would think it's an almost natural thing for someone who lived as far away from Dallas as a small town near Tyler to "conglomerate" the names of the Dallas MORNING News and the Fort Worth STAR-Telegram, especially if it's been several years since they've lived anywhere near there, wouldn't you? It certainly proves that she's at least been to north Texas, and by extension, very possibly in Dealey Plaza standing elbow-to-elbow in the crowd on the grassy knoll on November 22. As he said:

... she has no reason to lie because she doesn't tell us anything of forensic or investigative interest.

... the only two good reasons I can think of to tell a story that's not quite true. Of course, maintaining her privacy by not identifying herself certainly takes her off of the "publicity seekers' list!"

Great article!!

In resetting your original, I presume, someone mucked up the math on page 2, including the callout: "Without passengers, the car weighed 7800 pounds, or about 4.43 tons." Knowing a ton to be 2000 lbs., it either weighed 3.9 tons, or 8860 lbs.

On page 3, it says that "we must remember that X-100 weighed over 8000 pounds (over four and a half tons including a driver and five passengers)." If an "average" person is 150 lbs., that's 900 lbs. of people, putting its "loaded" weight at somewhere between 8700 lbs. (not quite four and a half tons) and 9760 lbs. (4.88 tons).

Can you clarify this apparent discrepancy?

Also, I've heard something to the effect that one of the standers-by at Parkland was identified and contacted, and told his perspective of the "bucket incident" regarding the "washing" of the limo. I don't know if this will be a part of the November broadcast or not.

I believe the lady is telling a big fib. She wouldn't be the first. Any "witness" claiming they were on the knoll by the "stockyard fence" and that people were packed like "sardines" in that area can be dismissed out of hand, IMO.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. What photographic evidence is there that shows a woman - alone - in that area, with or without binoculars?

... the woman who was allegedly front-ended as Tippit backed up his car. ... the bizarre account of Oswald's landlady and the bit about two cars having been sold in the Warren Report. ...

What was he looking for in the front seat of Andrew's car? Who was it that was fighting when Tippit allegedly made a stop only a short while earlier. ... Who was it that ran into the Temple and whatever became of that situation? Where was the 'estate' physically located that Harry Olsen guarded that day? ... Where did his mistress live? Is it true that he was leaving his wife that morning ...?

I give more credibility to Markham than some do. She is especially important in establishing the real time of the shooting. ... I give much credibility to ... the young man who said the killer was going west. ... It think much deliberate confusion was created around the Tippit scene. I also wonder about his watching traffic at the Glo-Co station. ... Making sense of all this is impossible.

As the saying goes, once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

Among the items noted above, some probably need discounting, particularly the woman supposedly hit by Tippit's patrol car, Andrews' "crazed cop" story, and the Gloco deal ... but the last for an entirely different reason than that it didn't happen, but that it was a different officer entirely.

The location of the "estate" is relatively simple to deduce: four blocks from Kay's apartment, a couple of blocks from "Stemmons" (actually R.L. Thornton at that point), approximately where Bonnie View becomes 8th. There's nothing there now, but there used to be. Harry wasn't "guarding" it any more than he walked to and from it. Why would a dead man's friend be calling him anyway?

Tippit's last call was a shoplifting call on a young woman whom he took briefly into custody and dropped off at her home, out of sight of the store owner and after a stern lecture. The temple search (by Nick McDonald) was thwarted by a well-timed called to catch a kid in the library; it's where the pistol was. Johnnie lived right where Charlie Davis thought JD did. Tippit wasn't leaving his wife, as is evidenced by the fact that he'd had a ring on layaway and his fellow officers gave it to Marie after JD was dead. This both supports and is supported by her contention that JD was a fine and loving husband who had no dalliances, ever.

Earlene Roberts was blind in one eye as well as being distracted by a telephone call, a television with bad reception that she was trying to tune in for news about the shooting, and a man running in and out of her house to get a jacket. The car she saw was probably had a "7" in it (but not "107"), driving around the block from the Gloco (takes 4-5 minutes). William Smith was completely contradicted by his buddy, Jimmy Burt, who said they were at 9th & Denver, not 10th & Denver. Helen Markham, if she knew nothing else, certainly knew what time she went to work and what bus she caught. Oswald could not run a four-minute mile, and probably wasn't even in the neighborhood, and wasn't "making his bones" by killing a cop.

Actually, it all makes a lot of sense ... if you look at it right!

Ah, yes: the one with him pointing to where "the hiddren Italian rifle" was found!

Thanks, guys; both of these links are useful, but aren't quite what I've been looking for. I seem to recall reading something that traced what the WC had asked DPD for, and what was given them. It strikes me that the story went something like this:

• WC asks for verbatim transcript of transmissions related to the assassination and murder of Tippit;
  
• DPD provides "subject matter" transcript of those transmissions (dated December 3, 1963) that they narrowly interpreted as "assassination-related;" these become Sawyer Exhibits A and B;
  
• WC feels that tapes are incomplete, leaving them to inquire of various police witnesses their speculation of why JD Tippit was outside of his regular patrol district, which none of them could say for certain. WC consequently requests "complete" transcription;
  
• DPD provides fuller transcript (transmitted to WC via FBI on March 9, 1964) noting that "there are some transmissions completely omitted on the log due to the heavy volume of traffic." There is still no indication of Tippit's being ordered into central Oak Cliff.
  
• WC requests full transcript of ALL transmissions made on Channel 1 from FBI in letter dated July 16, 1964. This becomes CE1974, dated August 11, 1964. Almost all transmissions are included on this transcript, including order to 78 and 87 to "move into central Oak Cliff."
  

Whatever it is that I'm thinking that I read had additional background information, references to letters, maybe staff meetings or memos, that detailed why these items were requested, what each contained, etc. The damned trouble is that I've read so much stuff that I can't even remember vaguely where I might've seen something like this. Thought maybe The Third Decade or something along those lines, but no luck there.

It looks like there's info on the "critics' tape" - maybe several versions of it? - in Chris' deal ....

Thanks again; if you think of anything else, let me know!

I'm trying to find something I'm sure I must've read before: a history of the requests for and furnishing of transcripts of Dallas Police radio broadcasts.

There are, of course, three of these: the Sawyer exhibits, CE705, and CE1947 (if I'm remembering their numbers correctly). The first was only "pertaining to the subject matter" and had relatively few entries; the second was more complete, but not quite entirely verbatim, and didn't identify the officers speaking. The third one was compiled by the FBI.

I'm trying to put as complete a history as possible together, starting with the original request to provide transcripts, through the subsequent requests - and reasons for them, i.e., why the WC wasn't satisfied with them - and when they were submitted to the WC in each case. I'm sure someone's done something on this, but my mind is drawing a blank.

Also, a history of the so-called "critics' copy" - and any others - of the Channel One broadcasts would likewise be helpful, including the "inside source" for them (I'm thinking it was Bowles), etc. A link to anything online would be useful.

Many thanks in advance!

... At what time did the first news come over the radio that JFK had been shot?

That is a tantalizing observation, but we don't know that the man in question had necessarily heard the FIRST radio report (he might have turned his radio on some time AFTER the first report), and we don't know how much time elapsed between his hearing the radio report and his conversation with McWatters.

While true in both instances, the question is "what is the earliest time that the man in the car could have heard a report of the shooting?" This will in turn tell us what the earliest time was that a transfer could have been issued to the man who got off the bus with the woman. In turn, it may tell us whether or not the recipient was indeed Lee Oswald based on how long the transfer was good for; if 1:00 was too short of a time for a transfer to be valid, then the transfer supposedly found on Oswald's person was not the one issued at that time.

It may also tell us whether the walk to the Greyhound depot and subsequent ride to Beckley were timed correctly.

I just sent you an email about this. Keep it under your hat.

I don't understand why anyone would automatically accept the bus transfer as authentic, given all we know about the state of other "evidence" against Oswald.

The bus transfer is not evidence AGAINST Oswald.

Any first year law student could tell you that.

As posted on the thread Oswald and the Amazing Technicolor Jacket:

The driver, Cecil McWatters, and passenger Roy Milton Jones said the man who boarded the bus was wearing a jacket.

Mary Bledsoe describes Oswald's shirt, that is was undone, dirty, had a hole in the sleeve at the elbow. Why is Bledsoe the only one who notices this?

Because she didn't. If the man was wearing a jacket, how could Bledsoe even see his elbow?

Well, yes, there is that problem, isn't there. William Whaley also said that Oswald was wearing a jacket. Only Mary Bledsoe saw him in just a shirt. How is that possible? To what extent, then, should she be considered credible?

As already noted, it depends upon how the transfer - and therefore his being on the bus - is introduced as any sort of evidence.

It also speaks to the validity of other portions of the prosecution's case against the accused: if you're telling me that he got on a bus when two out of three people questioned say that he didn't, and the one that does say he did described him in a way that nobody else says he appeared, and you are then telling me that you know what else he did ...??? If you can't get something as innocuous and innocent as riding on a bus right, how then can we presume you got anything else right?

... And if he didn't get on that bus - the only one that such a transfer, dated on that day and torn for that time with that particular punch pattern could have come from - where did you get that transfer? And who did you have get on the bus to get a transfer that you could subsequently try to attribute to the accused?

Essentially, the WC used it as "proof" of his "escape" and "realization" that he might get caught if the bus was boarded, hence his rapid departure ... tho' in truth, so soon after the shooting and without anyone there to identify him as a TSBD worker who should've still been at work and who was last seen on the floor where nobody yet had any cause to think that shots had been fired from, why would our man on the lam have any cause to "panic" at the thought of the bus being boarded (which, as it turned out, it wasn't)?

Simply: he wouldn't. All he'd need to do is sit there as normal as any other passenger, and away he'd go.

Another interesting thought: according to McWatters, the man to whom he'd given a transfer - as well as a woman with a suitcase - decided to alight the bus and get transfers after a man had come from his car and told McWatters that he'd just heard on his car radio that the President had been shot:

At what time did the first news come over the radio that JFK had been shot?

Yeah, Bill, but it's fun and cheaper than law school!!

... you have neglected the writings of Harold Weisberg who waxed eloquent on the subject of McWatters confusion, recalling from memory. I have always thought that No one disputed the fact that McWatters mixed up the identities of Milton Jones and Lee Oswald.

As for your theory, which I assume is based in part on the story told by Roger Craig, I cannot vouch for Craig's reliability as a witness.

In any case my comments were limited to how I see the defense being handled. As I see it, the defense would not dispute that Lee Oswald was on the bus, and since Bledsoe corroborates the defendant's claim that he took a bus, then there is no need to call McWatters to confirm a fact already proven and stipulated to be true by both sides. The bus transfer is not even needed to complete the proof, but since it is there, we can add it to the pile.

The first thing to realize, of course, is that we don't actually know that the defendant claimed to have taken a bus; there is no foundation for this other than the word and lately-discovered notes of Will Fritz. Absent his notes, a defense attorney might move to strike since Fritz had no "proof" but his memory. Cops get on the stand to provide evidence, not recollections to the best of their ability. That's what civilians are for.

The second question is, what is the purpose of introducing Oswald's being on a bus? ("Objection: relevence!") There is, as you'd said, nothing criminal about riding a bus. So if the prosecution is going to use it, to what end? The ones I might imagine are to show his "escape" from one crime and transportation to another, as well as to portray someone thinking that they might escape detection by being on a bus with several other people, then getting off when he realized that the bus might be boarded and searched. The prosecution isn't going to introduce evidence potentially exculpatory of the accused.

But let's say that it's allowed.

As defense, I might well call McWatters as a rebuttal witness. We have the question of his issuance of a transfer, and his testimony that he indeed recalled giving one to a man on Elm Street prior to reaching Houston Street, but that man wasn't Oswald; he didn't remember issuing any others in that area. We don't know who the man who got the transfer is, except that he isn't Oswald.

Since we can't substantiate the origin of the transfer allegedly found on Oswald's person - McWatters may be able to say that it's a transfer that he would have issued, but he cannot state that he gave it to Oswald between Griffin and Houston or at any time immediately following 12:30 p.m. - I'd move for its exclusion as evidence.

As to the question of identifying Oswald in a lineup, we've already covered the fact that he thought he was being asked to tell which of the men in it most closely resembled Jones, not whether any of the particular men in front of him had been on his bus, and if so, which. I would also move that any reference to his identification of the "suspect" in such a lineup be disallowed.

Finally, I would ask McWatters if at any time during the noon hour of November 22, did any man appearing very disheveled, out of breath, on the run, winded, "wild," with his shirt out and unbuttoned ever get on his bus. As a bus driver (which I might also establish), he is concerned for the safety of his bus and his passengers, and would naturally be alert for any person who might pose a risk to either, which might well include an individual so described, would it not?

If McWatters told me - as he would - that no such individual got on his bus, I would move to strike Bledsoe's testimony and in any case have destroyed it by the bus driver's failure to see this nut case that Mary Bledsoe claimed to have seen.

I don't care how - or if - Oswald got to either his rooming house or the Texas Theater; it is up to the prosecution to establish that, not the defense. Since the police had found this evidence "on the defendant's person" when we have established that the bus driver in question did not give such a transfer to any man matching the description given by Bledsoe and that the only man he did give one to does not match any description of the defendant, and further that no such person as described by Bledsoe boarded McWatters' bus, I might further ask the court to cite Bledsoe for perjury and also direct an inquiry into the police officer who claims to have found the transfer and how he came into possession of a transfer that was not, apparently, issued to the defendant.

The defense doesn't need a case; the prosecution does. It is not incumbent upon the defense to provide an "alternative solution" - a better suspect - in order to refute the prosecution's evidence.

... The best evidence regarding Oswald's movements just after the shooting is, imho, Roger Craig's Rambler sighting (which was corroborated by three other witnesses, all unrelated to each other). How he got from that point to the Texas Theater is something that a real investigation would have considered a top priority.

As I've written elsewhere:

The only places we know for certain that Oswald was on November 22 were at the TSBD through just after 12:30, and at the Texas Theater from about 1:45 and possibly as early as 1:15 or 1:00; everywhere else is a matter of speculation and subject to doubt. The Whalley cab ride might hold some water, but between the time he let Oswald off and the time Oswald was taken into custody, almost anything is possible.

If, for example, Oswald did in fact have a bus transfer in his shirt pocket, that suggests that he did not change his shirt at the rooming house, as he supposedly said he did. Is there certain evidence that he did, in fact, change his trousers? If not, then there is no certain evidence that he actually returned to his room. Since it is not absolutely established that he ever had a weapon in his room, if he had one on his person when he went into the theater, it does not establish that he obtained it from there.

Mrs. Roberts' identification of him being there can even be called into question given that she was /a/ on the telephone, /b/ intently watching the news of the downtown shooting, and /c/ blind in one eye leaves open the possibility that someone who had his same general physical characteristics could have entered for the purpose of leaving behind the holster as opposed to picking up a gun, especially given that, in addition to the above considerations, the man who went to Oswald's room came and left in a hurry.

I'm not saying that that did happen, but the possibility that it could have cannot be entirely discounted. In a criminal proceeding, all that is necessary is to show "reasonable doubt;" whether any such doubt is "reasonable" or not is solely up to the jury, some of whom may think so, others of whom may not. His conviction, in any case, would not hinge on this one item of information anyway.

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

[1] Church Committee Report, pages 4-5

[2] Ibid., pages 6-7

What, you think this is Denver where the mountains are always to the west, and thus we know which way is north and south? Mea culpa!

Otherwise, hard to imagine a thread wandering off-topic ...!

... I don't see how Bledsoe's testimony can hurt the defense case. It is no crime to take a bus, and according to the interrogation reports (if I am remembering correctly) Lee Oswald himself told Fritz that he took a bus. If Lee Oswald says he was on a bus, and Bledsoe (who knew him well by sight) says she saw him on the McWatters bus, then the McWatters bus is good enough for me, despite mcWatters own confusion in the matter.

Why would a lawyer defending Lee Oswald try to prove Mrs. Bledsoe a xxxx? As far I can see, Bledsoe's testimony is perfectly consistent with Oswald's claim that he was innocent.

Sticking with the "theory" for a minute, let's say that Lee Oswald actually "got away" either in the Rambler driven by a dark-complected man or by some other as-yet-unknown means. A simple fact of the entire investigation is that Oswald claimed, publicly, not to have shot anybody. These statements were adjudged "lies." Even if we are to take that judgment at face value, the fact that he "lied" about not shooting anybody means that he did shoot somebody, and his declarations of innocence do not exonerate anyone else from also shooting someone. The "lie" about not doing it does not equal the truth of doing it alone, for the assassin abetted may be likewise lying about his accomplice(s).

We also know that the police search for Kennedy and Tippit's killers effectively ended as soon as Oswald was in custody. DPD, when requested to produce transcripts of radio chatter "related to the assassination" (and leaving aside all the obfuscations) only provided transcripts up to around 2:00 p.m. or so, just after he'd been taken in. "The assassination" was over at 2:00. Indeed, you will see where one sergeant, who had been downtown (but not at DP) and responded to the Signal 19 in Oak Cliff, asked if he was needed downtown or anywhere within minutes of Oswald's capture and he was told "no" ... while the search was supposedly still going on downtown! (He went back to northeast Dallas.)

So we've got Oswald in custody, denying his culpability, and the possibility that he's eventually going to spill the beans about how he actually left TSBD. If it was by any kind of motorized transport, someone else was doing the driving, i.e., he had an accessory after the fact if not also before and during. It's not like anyone saw him standing on the side of Elm Street with his thumb out and that Rambler just happened to pick him up!

At the very least, we may not know who this mystery driver was. We've "got our man on both counts," but we suspect we don't have our "other man on either count." Since the search for accomplices was non-existent ("called off" if you prefer), we're now left with how to get him into Oak Cliff from downtown with enough time to kill a cop.

Ouala! we have a bus transfer! We pull a guy in from his bus as he passes in front of HQ (talk about serendipity!), have him identify Oswald (wasn't he who said they wrote up the statement first and had him sign it, and that he thought he was trying to identify what the "kid" on his bus had looked "most closely like" in terms of who was in the lineup?), grab a transfer from one of his transfer books, cut it to an appropriate time, and pull it magically from the pocket of the shirt he'd said he'd changed into after he no longer needed the transfer (or else we say he didn't change his shirt without evidence of his having worn the same one at work, hence the transfer in the same shirt pocket).

What's Captain Fritz gonna say about this discovery? While he took sketchy notes - despite his denial of having done so - it by no means is a verbatim transcript of what was said. "What's with this transfer, son? Did you ride a bus today?" he asks, to which Oswald replies, "it's not a crime to ride a bus." Fritz writes, "rode bus." Is that, then, an "admission" that he rode a bus, or more particularly, the Marsalis Street bus?

IF - and I emphasize the hypothetical! - things like bullet primers dented by a firing pin (seen and attested to by the FBI) suddenly have no such mark; cops' initials that they thought they put inside others disappear; Dr Pepper bottles go astray when they don't have Oswald's fingerprints on them; paper bags show up from somewhere they weren't photographed; and white jackets are found by unknown and unidentified officers and then turn grey ... what makes anyone who might question these things accept a bus transfer as evidence of something that's not proven by anything other than one woman's word?

That woman being one of few who shows up with an attorney in tow, who "hates" Oswald, who brings a paper that she consults to remember what she's "supposed to say," and whose only proof of Oswald's residence in her home is a page from a guest book she no longer has because her son "sold" it.

Does it somehow tend to prove Oswald's innocence? No more than it proves his guilt. It does, however, give him the means to not only "escape" downtown, but also put him in some semblance of a position to kill a cop. Just as there is but one eyewitness to the actual killing of Officer Tippit, there is also but one witness to Oswald's being on McWatters' bus, and both of those witnesses have their foibles that make their testimony less than entirely convincing.

Your assertion "If Lee Oswald says he was on a bus, and Bledsoe (who knew him well by sight) says she saw him on the McWatters bus, then the McWatters bus is good enough for me," is right on up there with Rankin or Redlich's dictate that "the Commission has decided it wants to believe Mrs. Markham, and that's all there is to that." As for "McWatters' own confusion in the matter," I never thought I'd see the day when WCR critics called witnesses "mistaken!"

Ray, the (expiry) time on the transfer is 1:00 ... "1" on the left, "0" on the right. In any case, it's not 12:36.

I'll see your Bledsoe and raise you a McWatters, as far as the bus goes.

There is absolutely no evidence that Bledsoe was actually on the bus other than her word. As I recall, she or her son also supposedly sold their guest book (page?) with LHO's signature in it, clearly suggesting her desire for notoriety. Her description of the "wild" looking Oswald with the messed-up shirt doesn't square with anything else known or conjectured about him at the time. Is she really a credible witness?

On the other hand, McWatters recalled giving ONE man - who wasn't Oswald - a bus transfer downtown, and "identified" Oswald in the lineup by saying, in effect, that he thought they wanted to know which one of those in the lineup looked most like the BOY who had been clowning around on the bus. While he never said that, no, Oswald was NOT on the bus, he likewise never said that he was, tho' the prima facie evidence appeared to prove otherwise to McWatters (correct date, route and punch).

I'm not propounding it as a theory, I'm merely stating that it can't be shown to be NOT possible, and that the opportunity to jake up some needed evidence was present when they pulled McWatters off of his bus in front of DPD later that evening (I've always wondered how they tracked him down or what sicced them on him in the first place!).

No apparent attempt was made, for example, to confiscate the REST of the book of transfer tickets that McWatters had used earlier in the day to show that the transfer in evidence was actually from McWatters' book and that other transfers surrounding it were issued during the same general time of day, yet at the same time a very thorough search was made to try to track down a laundry tag.

A decent defense attorney could have a field day with it.

... the bus transfer ticket Oswald got while disembarking from the bus, which Furhman says (p. 78) was time stamped 12:36 PM. ... I mean [Oswald] had to cross the 6th floor, stash the rifle, go down four flights of stairs, buy a coke, encounter the cop and super, cross paths with women worker, walk down the stairs and drink the coke, see Shelly, step outside, direct a reporter to a phone, walk four blocks and get on a bus, eyeball Mary Bledsoe his old landlandy, then grab the stamped bus transfer and disembark.

Well, yes, theoretically that's what happened, but did Furhman explain in his discourse on the matter how a paper bus transfer that is torn off in 15-minute intervals was "stamped" with an exact time?

Maybe if you forward a copy of this to him, he can point out where the "12:36" is.

See? All one needs do is to make a bland assertion as a fact, and ouala! it becomes one.

We must remember, in any case, that Furhman's evidence didn't convict OJ. Some "authority," eh?

In the event that you're unfamiliar with these transfers, there is a block for each hour, so you see the "1" on the left and a "0" on the right for 1:00. Within that square (3/4 of which is torn off) and beneath the "0" is a "15" and beneath that a "30" and beneath that, a "45." Then there is a line, beneath which there is a "2" on the left, and the same sequence of numbers on the right, then a block for "3" and "4" and so on.

The transfers are bound together in a pack of - I'm guessing - 50 (about 1/4" thick), each marked with the date and a list of the routes (e.g., Belmont, Forest, Harwood). The driver uses a punch to mark the route issuing the transfer, in this case Lakewood. The purpose of this is to ensure that the person getting the transfer actually transfers to a different route and doesn't use the transfer to board the same bus going either farther along the route or back in the direction he'd come from (which would require a new fare). In the morning, he also punches the "A.M." and at noon discards those and punches a new stack with the route and "P.M."

The time that is shown - in this case, 1:00 - is the time of expiration, not the time that it is issued, thus this particular transfer is good to get on an intersecting route until 1:00; in actual practice, someone might be allowed to transfer as late as 1:15 depending upon the driver's generosity, but probably not afterward.

The cut edge at the top is situated closest to the driver; the torn edge is created when the packet of transfers is put into a holder with a straight-edge that has springs at either end to put pressure on the packet, holding it in place to allow the driver to simply pull up and tear along the desired lines. When a sufficient number of torn tickets has amassed beneath the straight-edge making the line less distinct or the tickets harder to tear, the driver typically would readjust the packet in the holder by folding the used transfers back, placing the straight-edge directly on the next transfer to be issued.

This typically also occurred when a 15-minute interval has passed, in which case the driver pulls more of the ticket out from under the straight-edge to reveal the "15" or "30" or "45" or the next hour. Since the "1" appears only once in the block, some drivers might cant the ticket so it cut from the "1" diagonally to the "45;" others might simply pull it straight out so it cut straight across and nothing would be on the left (the "1" being well above the cut) and the minutes showing on the bottom right. Since the transfers for 1:00 would necessarily be shorter than the transfer for 1:15, the driver would usually fold back the issued transfers up to that time, putting the straight-edge on the first 1:15 transfer.

(Is all of this making sense?)

Now here's where it gets interesting. First, there is the question of how much time Dallas Transit allowed for someone to board the bus and get onto an intersecting bus. Transfers were (and maybe still are; I don't know, I don't ride busses anymore) usually issued when the person boards the bus, only rarely afterward and only begrudgingly when they're debarking from a long ride, the object being to allow someone to travel where the initial bus doesn't go and NOT to allow them, say, to spend 45 minutes shopping before going on (and not, as already noted, to return on the same route).

If Dallas Transit policy was to issue 30-minute transfers, then perhaps this transfer was issued as late as 12:30 or maybe even 12:35, but not conceivably later than that. If the driver waited until 12:45 to move it to 1:00, then it becomes only a 15-minute transfer. More likely it was moved to 1:00 prior to 12:30, giving passengers a "bonus" five minutes rather than penalizing them five minutes. If they issued 45-minute transfers, this one is a real problem.

Now, nobody wants to "cancel" their transfer by tearing it to show an earlier time: why would I want to get on a bus and get a transfer that's good until, say, 3:00 and then cut it back to allow me to get on my next bus no later than 2:45? Clearly, I wouldn't, which is why the tickets are designed this way because if they were done opposite, all I'd have to do is cut the part I was given in order to have more time to do something.

There is, however, nothing that would prevent someone who wanted to prove, for example, that they'd gotten directly on the bus after school and didn't go smoking with the boys in the woods for an hour before coming home, from getting a transfer at 2:30 that the driver cut at 3:00 and then tearing the transfer again to reflect an earlier time. "See, ma? I got on the bus a half-hour before 2:30! I'm late cuz I just barely missed the connecting bus, and here's the transfer to prove it: I had to pay a new fare cuz I was late, that's why I still have the transfer!"

... Or, for that matter, to prevent someone from boarding Cecil McWatters' bus at 6:00, taking a transfer good through 6:30 (or one good until 3:00 at 2:30), and then cutting it back to 1:00, and then say "hey, lookee here what I found in this boy's pocket!"

Everything would be in order on the bus, nothing would be missing or out of place, cut improperly or anything; it was a transfer issued but never used. Happens all the time (it does). The only constraints would be what time McWatters got off from his first shift on the Lakewood route before returning later to drive his second route, which is what he'd been doing when he was stopped at DPD that evening. Was he in the same bus, just driving a different way? Did he still have the transfers from his earlier shift with him? Were there any un-torn transfers left over from the Lakewood shift still in a discarded pack?

Jim, thanks for the response: I was beginning to despair of anyone having any interest in this at all!

My impression of McCloy is as a major "power behind the throne," although I claim nothing like the knowledge you have of the man. It was interesting to learn, for example, that while he was also a member of the WC, he was simultaneously involved with negotiating a treaty with the Soviets half-way across the world (in Berlin, as I recall; maybe a nuclear test-ban treaty?). His casual mention of having to fly to London in the morning to give a speech, only to return again later on the same day - hence his inability to commit to attending a possible WC meeting - attests to the wide-ranging influence he had, and those are but examples.

I'm not sure whom in today's world we might compare him to. I'm likewise not as familiar with how he came to be selected to be a part of the Commission as I am with Hale Boggs and Dick Russell's telephonic arm-twisting sessions with LBJ (and I've always been curious about Allen Dulles' selection). Nevertheless, someone who'd held the positions that McCloy had - without ever being elected to any! - could not have NOT held a lot of sway in those conference rooms: even with the lofty (and lifetime) title of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States - above and beyond the always-tenuous titles of Congressman and Senator - Warren had to acknowledge that McCloy was in every way his equal and in many his better. (The "retired" Dulles is another thing entirely.)

In any case, I don't perceive Warren as necessarily being the leader of the Commission, even despite his name being attached to it and the distinction of chairing its meetings and presiding over its hearings. I think there's little doubt that his name - or perhaps more accurately, his title - lent credibility and prestige to the Commission's work, but it certainly can't be said that he "ran" the Commission or even that he necessarily gave it any real guidance: imagine a lawyer, politician, former state attorney general, governor and sitting Supreme Court jurist - its Chief Justice - not thinking that subpoena and immunity powers might ever be needed! Where in that do you read the word "leadership" anywhere?

I think, though, to reduce his role to that of simple figurehead is a mistake: he was at least the equal of most of the other men on the panel, not only in title (and some might argue that his was superior to others') but in political ability: it's not the average, run-of-the-mill schmoe who can be elected to a governorship, any more than than to senator or representative. Or, if that's not so, he was at least no less of a schmoe than the rest (McCloy and, perhaps to a lesser extent, Dulles aside).

One of the things that I find particularly interesting about Warren in light of his Supreme Court standing, is the contrast between the concern and indignation over the FBI's leaking the major findings of its report on the assassination (CD 1) to the press, and his apparent frustration with Hoover's attempt to "sell" his "solution" to the public ahead of the Commission's work and the FBI's - as Senator Russell phrased it - having already "tried the case and reached a verdict on every aspect," versus his obviously having already "bought" the FBI's case himself: after all, there is never any discussion in any executive session about there possibly having been anyone other than Oswald involved.

One would likewise think that a judge would be more sensitive to the aspect of a defense and cross-examination, even IF the Commission wasn't a court of law. While Warren believed that they should gather ALL the pertinent facts - dissecting Oswald's youth and finances, for example - and be certain that their findings would have proper foundation, never once did he suggest that both sides of the matter be explored: putting together the "prosecution's" side of the case was apparently sufficient to establish the actual "facts." Were that true, I submit that we only think we have over-crowded jails now!

But I wax eloquent (or am at least being verbose!). I see well your point even while I'm not familiar with McCloy's possible influence in those other areas of Warren's life. Mayhaps you can suggest some good light reading on The Life and Times of John McCloy? Then I might have a different perspective. Something on The Real Earl Warren might even make a good accompaniment!