Duke Lane

The caravan's speed traveling up Houston seems to be faster than what a normal man can run. It doesn't make sense.

Based on what - you merely saying it to be so???? ... But even if you were correct despite having nothing to support what you have said ...

If the roles were reversed, Miller would be squawking "foul!" at being called for "proof." Witness his attitude about Ed Hoffman, who "must've" been where he'd said he was despite Miller's having absolutely nothing to support it and his continued ignoring of what completely disproves it.

He can have his pet theories - even disproven ones! - but nobody else can, not even relatively meaningless little ones without getting a piece of Miller's mind. This is maybe a side benefit of getting "JFK awards" (besides having a long sililoquy as a "signature" to tell everyone how cool and well-qualified (and more so than you!) that he actually is.

It is not true that Tippit was not the only cop not dispatched to DP [...]

[emphasis added by Thomas G.]

... What we got here is a triple negative. I guess what you're trying to say is that Tippit was the only cop not dispatched to DP.

If that's what you mean, then "cool, daddy-o."

Beam me up, Scotty, I think I've was accidentally transported to The Grammar Forum!

Thanks, Thomas. Actually, the second "not" doesn't belong there, hence:

It is not true that Tippit was the only cop not dispatched to DP.

That is, saying that Tippit was the only cop not dispatched to DP is a false statement.

I Just read your article Duke...great stuff.

I noticed that you have Chaney as one of the three lead motorcycle cops. I have uploaded the picture from your article for reference. In view of the recent dispute over Costella's supposed new discovery regarding the actions of Chaney, which I am following but not contributing to, I'm wondering if this position for Chaney is an error in your article, or is this where you actually believe Chaney is positioned in the photograph?

Duncan

I'm going solely by what was described to me by Bill "Lumpy" Lumpkin. Otherwise, I wouldn't know one from the other.

It strikes me offhand that Steve Ellis told a different story for later "reminisces" than he did in other circumstances. "Lumpy" told me that he had to "remind" other officers what they really did as opposed to what they later "remembered." According to official reports, Ellis remained at the top of the entrance ramp, even while he later reminisced that he was part of the lead group going to Parkland.

Unfortunately, both Ellis and Chaney are deceased as I recall, and cannot clear up this question. All I can say is to "go ahead with what I'd said," as it came from the sole surviving member of this cordon of officers.

If there are particular questions, let me know via email, and I'll attempt to clear them up with Lumpkin. Also let me know via email what the "new discovery regarding Chaney" entails, and I'll see if I can't get some insight into that.

... I don't think it is a question of whether J.D. Tippit was part of a conspiracy as much as whether his murder was connected to the assassination of JFK.

If so, further investigation of the Tippit murder would lead to a further resolution of the assassination.

Well there is some reason why Tippit was one of the few cops, if not the only cop, not dispatched to Dealey Plaza that day. That fact alone makes it seem like he was being set up.

I also find it interesting that Ruby is quoted as having jumped up and said "I know him! I know him!" after hearing about Tippit's death on the radio. It implies to me that Tippit wasn't in on the plot, though I realize it's not exactly rock solid evidence.

Myra,

I think it has been established that Ruby knew a different Tippit.

Nor did I understand how Tippit was being "set up" just because he wasn't dispatched to DP.

Is it possible to evaluate the Tippit murder without speculating? I don't know.

It is not true that Tippit was not the only cop not dispatched to DP; in fact, the only general call was to "all downtown units," which in fact resulted in all but a small handful of patrol districts responding to DP. None outside of downtown were specifically directed to DP.

The map below, adapted from a Commission Exhibit (don't have the reference offhand) shows who did and didn't respond downtown. As you can see from the yellow and red areas (those in white didn't apparently file reports, at least not that I'd found as of the time of putting the map together some years ago), most of Dallas was without police presence, the officers there assigned having responded to the "Signal 19" call.

That being the case, it raises the question why alone of all of those emptied districts, "central Oak Cliff" was singled out for an officer - Tippit - being assigned to that area. Why was there no call for someone to cover, say, patrol districts 24, 25, 43 and 44 to the north of downtown? Of all the districts that were "short of resources" (as Murray Jackson likes to explain it), why was Oak Cliff the only one that needed to have someone assigned special to it?

This is a particularly apropos question when one considers that there were two cops already in Oak Cliff: one, the regularly assigned officer W.D. Mentzel, who was the only on-duty patrol officer in the entire city of Dallas taking lunch during the motorcade, at the Luby's Cafeterial just down the street; and and another officer at least 10 miles from his regular patrol distict who radioed his location on "East Jefferson" - which is only in Oak Cliff - less than 30 seconds before Tippit was assigned to report to this "empty" district.

More interesting is that this second officer had been in his district earlier in the morning, and had last reported being in that district dealing with the aftermath of an accident. There were no further radio communications between him and dispatch until shortly after the shooting, when the dispatcher asked, "has anyone seen 56?" and to which there was no response. One wonders why dispatch is concerned at all about anyone "seeing" an officer who was assigned to a beat all the way out by Garland and Mesquite.

There is no response to that query. Several minutes later, 56 calls in to report that he is "out [of his car] for five [minutes]," at which point dispatch asks his location; he is on "East Jefferson," 56 says; dispatch responds "10-4," acknowledging the transmission and 56's location.

Thirty seconds later, JD Tippit is assigned to go to "central Oak Cliff," where 56 already is, according to his own transmission, which is acknowledge by the dispatcher! Tell us again how Oak Cliff is "short of resources" and why Tippit was needed there.

(56, incidentally, is not heard from the rest of the afternoon through 2:00 or so, does not participate in the manhunt for the cop-killer, and filed a report that he remained in his district to conduct "roadblocks.")

There is much more to the story than this but let us move on to Ray Carroll's inquiry:

The shooting (if not murder) of a second cop in the theater was supposed to be LHO's death sentence, but unfortunately (tho' not for Nick McDonald), it misfired ... while in another cop's grip.

Did McDonald invent the "misfire" to make himself look like a hero?

That inference could be drawn from the expert testimony of Cortland Cunningham.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Officer McDonald's statement that the primer of one round was dented on misfire: as far as you can tell, could this statement be confirmed?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; we found nothing to indicate that this weapon's firing pin had struck the primer of any of these cartridges.

I don't believe that McDonald - usually assigned to a patrol district adjacent to Mentzel's; I don't recall specifically which, but I'm thinking 94, a white area indicating that no report was filed regarding that officer's activities following the "Signal 19" call - was witting to his failed shooting (it would not be necessary that he be killed for LHO to be gunned down, tho' it would certainly seem preferable that he was, in case he recognized someone else's hand having held the gun), and it is indeed possible that the misfire was caused by the web of his hand between the thumb and index finger, as he'd related and, I believe, testified.

That the pistol did not misfire the "numerous times" that Cortland Cunningham personally fired it, and "at no time" he or others had attempted to fire it did it misfire, operating "excellently" and having fired "every time we have tried to fire it," does not prove that the weapon never misfired for any reason, such as the skin between McDonald's fingers keeping it from doing so. McDonald was not alone in testifying to the primer mark; it just happened to "grow out" by the time it got to the WC, it seems.

Interestingly, an officer who was behind Oswald during the scuffle in the theater was handcuffed during the melee, a point that Captain Westbrook - no fan of this officer's - recalled to the WC as "a funny thing" that happened, and which the officer himself has related, publicly and on film, more recently.

That self-same officer - sometimes described as looking like "a fireplug with legs" - inserted himself into the middle front seat of the police cruiser that transported Oswald downtown; one wonders why such a big guy would do that until you consider that the weapon was handed back to him by the officer who eventually possessed it and had it in the small of his back (and who drove said cruiser), whereupon the first officer manhandled it to the point of removing the shells from the gun, looking at each one of them, replacing them into the cylinder, and putting it in his pocket.

Might that maneuver have served to explain his fingerprints being on the weapon, which they would not have been had LHO drawn the gun from his pants and tried to shoot McDonald before McDonald pulled the gun from the hand that had it, put it out behind his own back, and had removed from his hand by another cop? Might it also have served to obliterate anyone else's fingerprints as well?

Two things are worthy of note in this regard: first, that the first officer had an opportunity to obtain the weapon from someone else while in the area of 10th and Patton, specifically at the Abundant Life Temple that he claims to have entered - alone - and come out of without searching, thereafter to lean against the "car" assigned to an officer whom he identified, but who was actually downtown on a three-wheeler arresting a drunk by some railroad tracks at the time.

The second thing is that, while Oswald was in the interrogation room in the custody of a uniformed officer - who testified that "I had [Oswald's] gun" with him in that room - the first officer had "Oswald's gun" with him elsewhere in the building. Two pistols attributed to Oswald? Great trick. The question remains where the other one went.

No, McDonald was just lucky. If he hadn't have been, there'd have been no reason for another cop - whom I believe to have been acting as a "lookout" for Tippit's arrival into Oak Cliff - to have to cajole Jack Ruby into shooting Oswald later that night in a parking lot, then marrying his girlfriend so she couldn't testify against him, if it ever came to that (which it hasn't).

"Speculation?" No, recorded evidence.

I have read the forthcoming new book about Ed's experiences, which clears up most of the disinformation about Ed over the years. The main problem has been with ASL interpreters who unintentionally misrepresent what Ed tries to explain. There are few nuances possible in ASL. Finally his story will be accurately told in a forthcoming book by two dedicated researchers.

Excerpting very briefly from the soon-to-be-published book:

"........Interpreters unfamiliar with the details of Ed's story often mistranslate plurals for singular. Most nouns in American Sign Language do not have a distinct plural form. "Man" and "men" are signed identically. At one meeting where Ed was telling his story, he referred to the police officer standing by the railroad bridge, the interpreter voiced "policemen" for Ed's singular "policeman." Sometimes translation errors occur when there is a similarity between a standard sign and an unusual body gesture. For example, Ed described how he wanted to get the attention of the officer on the railroad bridge, but was frightened by the Secret Service agent pointing the rifle. Ed demonstrated how he quickly lowered his arms and the interpreter misunderstood and voiced, "They turned off the light."........"

Virtually all problems with perceptions of Ed's story relate to unintentional misinterpretations by well-meaning translators. Publication of the book will be announced soon.

Although I'm fairly confident that this will be "explained" in the book (since I know that the authors have seen "Freeway Man"), what one must most wonder are two things:

1) why Ed wanted to get the attention of a "lone" officer on the railroad bridge (there were two) when there were a dozen cops on motorcycles on the highway forming a barricade to hold back traffic for the motorcade's progress - and kept it stopped for no less than 15 minutes and, as I recall, quite a bit longer - yet Ed did not attempt to get any of their attention, but ran by them all and took off in his car; and

2) why all of these officers, involved in the security of the presidential motorcade, would allow a man to run down the highway waving his arms, run directly by them (and not halt, as he was probably ordered to do ... if he was there, which he wasn't), and continue to his car to speed off in apparent pursuit of the motorcade, yet not one of them saw fit to concern themselves with him in the least.

Should we assume that DPD, knowing that the President had just been shot, saw a twenty- or thirty-something year old guy running along the highway and realized that there was no way that he could've had anything to do with the shooting and, when Ed didn't respond to their orders to stop, knew that Ed was just a harmless deaf-mute?

Did Ed perhaps think that the cops on motorcycles were too busy holding traffic to chase after his gunmen, and instead that the cop on top of the railroad bridge had perhaps a little more time on his hands?

The motorcycle cops didn't react to Ed simply because he wasn't there, and Ed didn't try to get their attention because he didn't know - until I researched and wrote "Freeway Man" - that they were even there. Otherwise, they would've been in his story - because they'd had to have been - and Ed would probably have an "investigatory witness" arrest report at DPD just like Ken Wilson did in Fort Worth ... despite his report having "mysteriously disappeared."

Burying his head in the sand doesn't save the ostrich from the lion's assault, and yours won't ever put Ed on the highway.

Virtually all the problems with the story lie with people who are intent on believing it no matter what the facts are, and perpetuating it at any cost, including that of The Truth (our "only client?" Well, I suppose if the WC could ignore it, so can we, eh?). In the end, it's all about "the book," and continuing the conspiracy of commercialism.

After all, some people still would like to believe that Ken Wilson was really David Atlee Phillips (tho' it doesn't seem as if First Hand Knowledge is still in circulation).

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hoffman.htm

McAdams would have us believe that Ed Hoffman's story has changed multiple times over time.

... As indeed it has. Ed blames it on other people's "misinterpretation."

... His story as generally accepted and aired on Nigel Turner's "The Guilty Men," has a scenario in which one man in a suit throws a rifle to another man in a railroad worker's uniform, who promptly breaks it down, and the two wander off down the tracks.

This story seems to validate Gary Mack's work with jack White concerning the Badgeman and the Railroad worker, but it doesn't jive well with Lee Bowers, or James Files.

Did Ed see a 'gun' or a 'rifle?'

... Maybe Hoffman has allowed his memory to get the better of him over time, since he's also had the opportunity to be provided with new information ...

Ed's memory has simply "gotten better over time" as new information "corroborates" him and is added to his story as further "proof" of its veracity. Read the linked "Freeway Man" article and feel free to refute any of the evidence that proves Ed saw nothing on November 22, 1963.

At best, I'll allow that Ed was in the traffic jam, or passed it going the other way. "What traffic jam," you ask? Read the story. The real one. Nobody made up the circumstances to refute Ed's story before it even came to light.

In a recent email to me researcher Roy Schaeffer wrote in part...

"... In 1988 I was at the Tippit murder scene that summer. A woman and her son who lived across the street from where Tippit was shot struck up a conversation with me. I learned from her that she was the woman who put a blanket over Tippit. When talking to me she said she noticed a grey coupe blocked the driveway in front of where Tippit pulled up behind the car. She noticed a policeman get out and go toward the coupe. The next thing she noticed was hearing shots. She ran back in the house and got a blancket off the couch and placed it on Tippit."

New to me:

...car that Tippit may have pulled to the curb.

...woman covered his body with a blanket

Jack

Are you suggesting that this information is true?!? This putting a blanket over the body ranks right up - or down - there with "I saw Oswald on the elevator with a gun, he smiled at me" story, and has absolutely no probative value.

It amazes me the people who'll tell a story - like ol' Detective Bob with the hat down on DP ("I was undercover as a beatnik ... and was part of the officers arresting Oswald in the theater") - that sounds plausible enough, but relies entirely upon the audience's unfamiliarity with the facts.

Looks like everybody - Jack Tatum included - missed that there coupe. My guess is cuz it wernt there. Just like the disappearing blanket.

Sorry I didn't give you credit for the part marked with , above.

So, two birds were killed by having probable conspirator Tippit killed by someone and having that someone leave LHO's identification at the scene of the murder, thereby: 1) framing LHO, and 2) drawing attention away from Dealy Plaza.

In so many words George B. says that conspirator Tippit was set up to be a victim in order to frame LHO. George's theory that the change in plans could itself have been the plan and some of the "conspirators" (i.e. patsies) were not told about this ahead of time sounds very plausible to me and it's obvious to me that he's referring to both Tippit and LHO. The theory that Tippit was shot by another policeman or someone posing as a policeman is also very plausible, imho.

I never meant to suggest that Tippit was aware that a co-conspirator was going to kill him.

--Thomas

No, I definitely don't see the preparational exchanges going down anything like, "OK, JD, you go over to Oak Cliff when we tell you, and Bob will be along shortly to kill you." "Uh, yeah, sure, Jim. Now what time do you figure I should be there?" "Hey, don't sweat it. Wait till ol' Park's in position - he'll radio it in, then ol' Jack'll send you in, and 15 minutes later, well, you won't feel a thing." "Sure, Jim, you can count on me!" ...

Someone unwitting can hardly be called a "probable conspirator," and there's no evidence to suggest, much less prove, that JD was sent into Oak Cliff to "do" anything but die, no call to "pretend" anything simply for the sake of pretending. Getting LHO "out of town to the Redbird airport" is pure speculation, as is that LHO was walking to Jack Ruby's apartment (why do that when he was going to get a ride?) to grab enough pocket change to spend a lifetime in Mexico.

JD was a "part of the conspiracy" only inasmuch as the conspirators' plans called for killing a cop to get the rest of DPD out of Dealey Plaza, for no other crime could have diverted the Department's attention - exactly as Tippit's shooting did - than killing a cop. The shooting (if not murder) of a second cop in the theater was supposed to be LHO's death sentence, but unfortunately (tho' not for Nick McDonald), it misfired ... while in another cop's grip.

I apologize if someone has already posted this information and/or the link.

It is very pertinent to this thread, if it hasn't been mentioned or discussed previously....If it has.......apologies.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=1

It is Fenton and Kelly's 10/24/77 interview with William Mentzell regarding his activities at the time he heard of Pres. Kennedy's assassination and the immediate aftermath regarding the death of Officer J.D. Tippit.

It is indeed quite pertinent that W.D. Mentzel was the only DPD patrol officer who was assigned to be on duty that day was also the only DPD officer assigned to be on duty who was at lunch in the same patrol district where a fellow officer was gunned down, and which fellow officer was in Mentzel's patrol district (supposedly) precisely because Mentzel was not available and DPD was "short of resources" in Oak Cliff at the time and hence had to call Tippit from his patrol district to cover for Mentzel, uh, in the event an assassin fled south out of downtown.

(Incidentally, is anyone aware of an officer being assigned to "remain at large" anywhere north, east or west of downtown in case an assassin decided to flee in one of those directions, or in case "any emergency [might] come in?")

Truth is, if one examines the transcripts of Channel One, Mentzel was indeed sent to investigate an accident in approximately the same location of Davis as he stated ... but was ordered to do so after the "citizen" call by T.F. Bowley had already been made; that is, "officer down in Oak Cliff" ... "officer here in Oak Cliff" ... "officer in Oak Cliff, go investigate an accident instead." 10-4.

Of course, we still have yet to mention that there was another DPD patrol in Oak Cliff immediately before the Tippit shooting who not only did NOT later report that he had been in that section of town, but also did not apparently respond to the Tippit shooting, and would have been highly suspect for having done so since his patrol area was some 10 miles away, and he did report that he never left his district and spent the aftermath conducting a "roadblock," which one supposes Mentzell might've been ordered to do (or done on his own, since nobody else was apparently ordered to do so either).

That third officer was last heard of as he reported being in Oak Cliff less than 30 seconds before Tippit himself was assigned to go there because DPD was "short of resources" in that area.

Thanks for the doc, Robert; I'd never seen that before. Self-serving prevarication, if you ask me. Mentzell is, I understand, deceased at this time, and fully intends to remain so.

I think it is possible that the Dallas DA, having released more wrongfully convicted prisoners than any other DA in the country, will have to solve some of those crimes in which previous DAs got the wrong man.

Among the legally unresolved, unsolved cold case homicides in the Dallas DA files are JFK and JD Tippit.

It would be easier for the Dallas DA to solve the Tippit murder than JFK, and if in fact they are both attributable to one killer - that would make it a Spree Killing - more than one crime in more than one location - as well as a political assassination.

While the JFK assassination might be beyond the capabilities of a county prosecutor to solve, the killing of a cop is not.

Bill Kelly

Congratulations on the change of heart. You must've been reading up on my old posts, and decided that I wasn't nuts after all.

The shootings are not attributable to one killer as far as can be ascertained. If you've got more than pure guesswork to suggest that they are, I'm reasonably confident that there is a grand jury out there - even of one's own making, if that could be accomplished - that would be willing to entertain it.

Duke,

I think it's logical to assume that Tippit had gotten out of his car to either 1) talk with a friend, 2) talk with or shoot a co-conspirator, or 3) have a conversation with another policeman (whose patrol car was seen, by a neighbor, in the driveway which was blocked by Tippits's patrol car; see Dixie Dea's post #12 this thread). I can't imagine a policeman getting out of his patrol car to 1) question/arrest any kind of suspect without calling the dispatcher first, or 2) to get out of his patrol car to "shoot the breeze" with a complete stranger.

Personally, I like George B.'s scenario (presented in post #18 this thread) in which I think he suggests that Tippit was shot by another policeman (or someone posing as a policeman?), and that LHO's identification was planted at the scene of the murder, thereby killing two birds with one stone: 1) framing LHO, and 2) drawing attention away from DP where the real assassins were covering their tracks/escaping.

FWIW,

--Thomas

__________________________________________

Thomas, I have to disagree with your interpretation of George's hypothesis, in which he posits that Tippit was part of the plot, etc., and I don't see where he posited "killing two birds with one stone," although I certainly recall that I have made that suggestion.

Let's just pretend the following:

Officer Tippit was part of the assasination and his job was to get LHO out of town to the Red Bird Airport. For the cover of LHO he took a second uniform so it would look like two cops which was the normal case.

The plan was changed an LHO was given the signal by the police car that honked twice in front of his room. This change of course could have been the plan right from the beginning but was not told to everybody. The signal made LHO nervous so he took his weapon with him when going to the meeting point of plan B the Texas theater.

Tippit was waiting for Oswald but he did'nt show up, so Tippit rushed to the Top Ten Record Shop to make a phone call but could not reach anybody, so he went back to the streets desperatly looking for Oswald.

„Professor Bill Pulte has a possible explanation for Tippit's erratic movements in the final minutes of his life. Hel explained that Tippit's movements are consistent with the actions of a man frantically looking for someone."

Tippit spotted a police car between 404 and 410 East Tenth Street. He pulls back and parks the car. After a short argument he got shoot and Oswalds ID is placed at the murder scene. Now the have a reason to charge LHO with murder of a police officer and he will be arrested. There might be a little chance that Oswald get shoot during the attempt of arresting but there are further plans that bring up Ruby.

Oswald meanwhile a little late due to the traffic problems on his way home, rushes to the Texas theater and forgets to buy a ticket. Because of the shooting in the neighbourhood a man running is always suspicious so he's reportet to the police.

So Tippit's part was never more than being the victim of Oswald[,] kind of the patsy of the patsy.

This scenario is rife with other issues, some of which I'd pointed out, and while I'd typically be wont to point them out, I have neither the time nor inclination to do that at this very moment. But let it be said that there is plenty of evidence to suggest - if not actually prove - that the "killing two birds with one stone" scenario is, at the very least, plausible if not entirely factual. I don't believe Tippit was cognizent of it in any way at all.

Duke: Quote: "ROFLMAO! Touche! But where's the ankle photo?

You mean Gary, Larry's ankles, sorry I have photos of his face, head, back, body etc, but he has not shown off those

ankles for any for us...pity.....we shall just have to wait till we catch him ......Strolling the Plaza....in his Bermuda's...

Actually, I was referring to what you said in your original post:

Duke : Quote: ""So here's the challenge, capitulated to (seemingly reluctantly) by Mary Ferrell, but still uncertain as far as I'm concerned: post a similar photo of Beverly where we can see her ankles, and then let's compare the two sets. They're either the same or they're not, and if they're not, the Babuska Lady is still unknown. ""

Here you go Duke........below......Bev's ankles and Babuska's.........

No photos, no ankles. Did it not post? Were there no such images?

Duke claims that Mary Ferrell told him she did not believe Beverly's story based on analysis of ANKLES in a photo. I doubt that. I daresay that I knew Mary much better than Duke, and I never heard her express such an idea. I do know that she and Beverly were friendly. I do know that Bev's strongest supporters were Gary Shaw and Penn Jones, both very close friends of Mary. I suggest that Duke supply proof of his allegation or withdraw it. Mary kept elaborate notes on EVERYTHING, so her opinion of Bev may be in the files of the Mary Ferrell Foundation. I suggest that Duke go to the MFF website and find proof and get back to us. Misquoting the dead is a common ploy.

She did not tell me anything, and I didn't say that she did. Misquoting the living is fairly common, too, it seems.

Mary made this statement at that meeting in full view and hearing of everyone there. If anyone made a recording, your proof will be there; if not, it doesn't exist other than in the memories of those who witnessed it ... or not. I remember it so vividly because up to that point, I'd never paid any attention to anyone's ankles, ever; since then, I've always been curious about the difference or similarities between BO's ankles and TBL's, if any.

Mary, you will recall, had had her doubts - that is, she was not 100% convinced - about BO being TBL. She even related the story of BO coming to her house the first time - I'm thinking in the company of Larry Howard and Gary Shaw. It was that night that she declared herself "convinced" - or at least no longer in so much doubt. Had that not been the case, there'd have been no reason to parade her out to make a statement that everyone would've known about anyway, right?

You and I are the only people who post here who were at that deal. Anyone else who may have an opinion about it (e.g., Mack and Aynesworth) I'm sure is not to be trusted, ergo if my memory squares with theirs, you must be right because everyone else is wrong and a "CIA plant." As if.

I won't withdraw any "allegation" because I was there and witnessed it. While you claim to have known Mary much better than I, you will recall that no less a personage than Harry Livingstone stated in print that I was "one of Mary Ferrell's people" (KTT, 536 ... I think; check the index), a distinction not heaped often upon you. What's that mean? Well, probably about as much as the fact that Posner cited some of my work too. So?

Duke : Quote: ""So here's the challenge, capitulated to (seemingly reluctantly) by Mary Ferrell, but still uncertain as far as I'm concerned: post a similar photo of Beverly where we can see her ankles, and then let's compare the two sets. They're either the same or they're not, and if they're not, the Babuska Lady is still unknown. ""

Here you go Duke........below......Bev's ankles and Babuska's.........

Now here's my challenge, Gary Mack's name was Lawrence Dunkel.....

I would like to see, a comparison of two photos.......one of Gary Mack's Ankles and another of Lawrence Dunkel's....

Let's compare them......They're also either the same or they're not...so

For a positive ID that Gary is Larry, and Larry is Gary....it's ..Time to show their ankles....

Thank you ever so.....

B........

ROFLMAO! Touche! But where's the ankle photo?

I don't think that Mack has ever shied from his legal (or birth) name, any more so than I have from mine.

Latest I recall - correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not thinking he claims to be a witness to anything that is affected by what he's called, any more than I am when it comes to who wrote that book: my name is on my birth certificate; the author's name is not on his, so what's the point?

Gary Mack has complained to many email correspondents that I inaccurately portrayed Hugh Aynesworth as a member of the group which challenged Bev Oliver to a debate. He is correct. Mack and Perry were the ones who issued the challenge, and when they showed up at the barbecue site chosen for the meeting, they were joined at a table by Aynesworth. The debate arose when Mack and Perry repeatedly challenged Oliver's identity as the Babushka Lady in Jim Marrs' JFK study group at UTA. Someone in the group of researchers arranged for the debate meeting and sent out postcards. About two dozen researchers showed up, plus opponents Mack, Perry and Aynesworth. Bev had an attorney friend with her. Marrs, who had no part in setting up the meeting, served as emcee/moderator. As I recall, I sat near Jean Hill. I had provided lots of slides for Beverly to show, which in sequence showed her movements around the plaza. Of particular interest were her shoes, which she said she still possessed. I do not remember who arranged and publicized the meeting; it may have been the late Larry Howard. I should not have implied that Aynesworth had anything to do with setting up the debate.

Jack

As I, too, recall, it was indeed Larry Howard who put together the deal, although he sat in the audience rather than on the dais, brandishing a file folder with Gary Mack's birth name emblazoned on it as if it was somehow a crime that someone would use a name other than their own, like Kidd Craddick does on another Dallas-area radio station. "Kidd?" C'mon, I'd imagine his parents were a little more imaginative than that!!

I don't recall that Aynesworth sat with Perry, but I suppose it's possible: I've slept since then. It would've meant he was also sitting with me, which i don't think was the case. That was after I'd given him a particularly hard time at a "Marrs Meeting" (which you might recall; I'm fairly certain John Armstrong would since he was there and we talked extensively afterward. I don't imagine Hugh would've thought of me as any kind of an ally at that point. No matter.

The "debate" was heavily weighed against anyone who didn't buy into the Beverly-as-Babushka Lady story. One might do well to recall that, up until that evening, Mary Ferrell also didn't think that the two were one and the same. Although I remember Mary's exact rationale for finally accepting the possibility - more on that momentarily - the rest of the "debate" centered around Beverly being a good Christian woman whose husband is a preacher, so why would she of all people in the world lie?

The photo you put in your message, added here because it was quite a number of posts (and replies with full posts quoted in them) back, is perhaps instructive. The arrow, unintended for the purpose I'm going to note, goes to the heart of the matter.

Mary Ferrell's disbelief of Beverly being the Babushka Lady centered on the women's ankles. Mary noted - as only a woman could - that a woman's ankle's never change shape. A young lady with slender ankles will have slender ankles when she's 40 or 50 or 60; likewise, a woman with wide ankles will not have slender ankles when she's 40 or 50 or 60.

(Not being an "ankle man" myself, I'd never noticed such a thing until that night, but have much more so since then, and I have to say her analysis was right on the money.)

Unfortunately, if someone had this photo or a similar one at the BBQ joint that night, I didn't see it and thus could not have compared Beverly's ankles with Babushka's; when I've seen Beverly, I haven't had such a photo, and haven't seen Beverly when I had a photo handy.

So here's the challenge, capitulated to (seemingly reluctantly) by Mary Ferrell, but still uncertain as far as I'm concerned: post a similar photo of Beverly where we can see her ankles, and then let's compare the two sets. They're either the same or they're not, and if they're not, the Babuska Lady is still unknown.

Having a pair of shoes doesn't mean a thing. You can have several pairs of shoes, some that look like others, but you can only have one set of ankles. I've also never given a lot of credence to her "experimental camera" story either, but one thing at a time, eh?

Here's the question that has always intrigued me, brought to the fore by this thread and redoubled.

Here we've got a guy - Files - who's confessed to killing Kennedy, who alleges in turn that another man who appears in a photo with Files (I can't imagine how utterly stupid that must've would've been if Files had been apprehended) is a cop-killer. While certainly a dead bird in the hand is worth at least one living in a bush, why is nobody interested in this man?

Should we believe that DPD is content to believe that they got their man, and - even if this guy was only an accomplice - they are likewise content to let him walk free and unhindered? Nobody on DPD today was serving then and probably didn't know JD, but cripes, the man's grandson is now a Dallas cop and even he doesn't care? Not even a little tiny bit interested?

It seems reasonably clear that Files has some form of immunity from death or prosecution, if only because he could have done such a thing as "Confession of an Assassin" and remain uncharged. Nobody he's saying was behind the killing - a Mob hit, it would seem ... and they therefore must've been who was behind Files' own compensation for his part in the deed - even seems to lose sleep over Files' continued existence. Is it that "omerta" doesn't apply because he's not Sicilian? Not even Italian?

It would seem, then, that someone would be interested in nailing the guy who killed Tippit, an innocent cop who just happened to pull over the wrong guy (which seems fairly close to the truth, but not in this light). Interested enough, anyway, to at least sweat Files over his identity. Has this occurred?

I could perhaps understand that the FBI probably wouldn't get involved in this, a local cop-killing not being within their jurisdiction (tho' the question of it maybe being a "hate crime" or some other new form of aggravation could leverage that), but what's up with DPD? Don't any of the cops even care?

There is no statute of limitations on murder, and one jurisdiction - even within state and federal prisions - will usually cooperate with another, at least to the extent of accompanying an out-of-towner to interview an unincarcerated suspect, and certainly to allowing said out-of-towners to interview their incarcerated prisoner. Has it happened?

Even ADA Bill Alexander has been quoted as saying he didn't think Oswald did it alone ... but nobody's interested. Why is that? At the very least, wouldn't Files suddenly find himself able to tell who it was after the guy is mysteriously beaten to death in his sleep by unknown assailants - presumably ticked off cops anyway - leaving Files with nothing and nobody to protect? Or is DPD simply happy to have had a hero that day, albeit a dead one?

Is it all just simply to perpetuate the great cover-up? "Ah, let him walk, we charged someone, and isn't that all that counts?" I just don't get it. Maybe someone could explain?

Alone the word "Homeland" scared me when it was first used

...AMY GOODMAN: You also talk about the language, like the Department of Homeland Security.

NAOMI WOLF: That is where I, as a social critic and a student of language, get really scared. It's scary enough to see these ten steps, but what is terrifying to me personally is how many actual phrases are being recycled, and tactics. "Homeland security"—"heimat"—became popularized by the National Socialists. ...

Fascinating. And here I'd begun to think I was the only one who'd noticed!

The author [of the above linked article] discusses the mainstream media's indifference to things conspiratorial, including the recent U.S. Court of Appeals decision regarding the CIA and its Joannides files. ....

From said article:

The difference, of course, is that Pakistan is a "banana republic;" the USA is not. QED.

One of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq was, per the PNAC's published agenda, to establish a U.S. military presence in the Gulf region. I'm surprised that the Bush regime hasn't referred to it as "living space" (Nazi "Lebensraum") for the U.S. military.

Was there a Nazi German semantic equivalent to "enhanced interrogation techniques"?

Ja. Es wurde ein freundliches Gespräch genannt!

(Here is where the ad for dictionary.com goes!)

... This Administration is the most vile one imaginable and that they will get off without Impeachment makes me ashamed of my country - fooled into even considering them; fooled into letting them steal the election twice!; fooled into the War on Terror; fooled into allowing the Patriot Act and other such policestate statutes; fooled into the offical fiction of 911; fooled into all the torture, extralegal arrests, detainment and lack of council and trials..even charges for many; fooled with the lies for the war on Iraq and Afghanistan; ....

Alone the word "Homeland" scared me when it was first used, with its un-American kinship to the words related to two of the world's recent and substantially more "vile" dictatorships, "Fatherland" (Nazi Germany) and "Motherland" (Soviet Russia). I don't know why the department couldn't have been called "Civil Defense" or "National Security" or something of a less strident nature. George Orwell was thinking a few years in advance of the reality.

... For most of its history "xxxx" was spelled "xxxxe", but the modern, four-letter spelling of the word can be found in texts dating as far back as the mid-1700s. ...

... which probably goes a long way in explaining why so many Britishers prefer to use the word with the long-I sound, yearning for the days of Empire?!?

Pamela,

I've always wondered in which state(s) it is that the felony crime of murder has a statute of limitations.

If there are none, one wonders at the lunacy of someone who'd say "hey, it was me! Give me the needle!"

It likewise astounds me that someone might discover that "wow, I've found a murderer," and would feel that the better course is to write a book - and hopefully make a buck - about the crime rather than turn the perpetrator in to authorities.

The only way that I can reconcile these issues is [a] if the purported perp knows full well there is no evidence other than "a work of fiction" that can convict him, and if the author knows full well that there is no basis to the claims, that there's nothing prosecutable really going on, but that it makes a good read anyway (as in "people will buy anything!").

Speaking as the author, intimately involved with a person claiming to have perpetrated a felonious murder, can you provide some insight into the thinking that the commission of such a crime is more of a commercial than a criminal venture, and that having published his story, the supposed perp is not - and need not worry about being - subject to prosecution?

If authorities have, in fact, examined Files' claims and found them to be without sufficient merit to warrant prosecution, how and why would the general public have any cause to believe that he actually did what he claimed? If he's been exonerated by virtue of such investigations, why is he screaming out that, really, no matter what they say, I really did commit murder, and can prove that I should be prosecuted?

Does the man have a death wish ... or a sure knowledge that he'll not face that consequence as a result of his confession? What were the reactions not only of the authorities whose attention you first brought this to (and were they competent jurisdications), but also of the AuthorHouse folks under whose aegis you've published and who may thus share in whatever criminal liabilities there may be for your having aided this admitted murderer in the "promotion" of his crime?

I'm not concerned with whether you believe Files' guilt in this - any more than I'm concerned a lawyer needs believe in his client's innocence (even if an author doesn't share the attorney's immunity) - but with how it came to pass that a criminal confession is set to be a published novel. Your comments are greatly appreciated.

Thankfully, this appears to be the complete and exhaustive list of all the questions that there are about JFK's murder. It's a toss-up whether to buy the book or invest the time and energy to look into each of these questions. If my time's not worth $24.95, then I can't afford the book, so how should I handle this?!?

Actually, as I remember, there was one more question about this whole thing, but I can't recall it off the top of my head. Does anyone else remember what it was?

PS - I failed the quiz above. Will answers be posted soon?

The sound of the shell casings being ejected prove/suggest that someone was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.

There is reason to doubt that Norman heard shells being ejected AT the time of the shOOTING. He did not mention this in his initial report, and his Warren Commission testimony came after he had participated in a reenactment during which he DID hear shells hitting the floor above him.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...amp;lnk=ol&

This link discusses the "debris" - supposedly plaster or dust? - that was on Bonnie Ray Williams' head. This is an interesting topic, especially in light of my contention that BRW was on the sixth floor while the shooters were there (and did I say "not hidden from them?"). What possible sources of the debris could there have been?

There is a possibility that it fell on his head when something moved upstairs - possibly a box being dropped, as Patricia Lambert posited? - but one wonders why it didn't also fall on Junior Jarman's head, only a few short feet from where Bonnie Ray was crouched in the window. Another possibility is that it was sawdust raised during the course of the morning's work cutting plywood.

In any case, there is nothing that even actually suggests that it came to rest on BRW's hair during or after the shooting other than the fact that that's when someone noticed it. When one parses the amount of time that BRW was actually around Hank and Junior prior to the shooting - two, possibly three minutes, just before the parade came into sight, excitement abounding - there really was neither time nor cause to have noticed it any sooner: it was probably only after the shooting that the other two even paid any real attention to him other than maybe to say "hi" and turn back to the windows in anticipation of JFK's arrival, which both Hank and Junior knew to be imminent.

If we presume that the "white stuff" on BRW's head was there prior to his arrival at the window - that is, while he was still on the sixth floor - can we then postulate that Bonnie Ray may have been the "elderly Negro" seen by Arnold Rowland in the SE sixth floor window? While Bonnie Ray (see below; that's Bonnie Ray under the arrow, Danny Arce behind him; I don't know who it is at the far left of the photo, does anyone?) would not normally be a candidate to be called "elderly," if you consider Rowland's distance from the sixth floor window, plus the fact that it was darker inside the building than out, Bonnie Ray's clear complexion might not have been so evident. The whiteness of whatever was in his hair might have stood out, though, leading to the impression that the man was elderly. This possibility eluded the WC, who sought only to show that Eddie Piper and Troy West - the only two black men in the building who could've been deemed "elderly" tho' they were only in their mid-50s - were not and could not have been on the sixth floor.

What's more intriguing, however, is the fact that Amos Euins - a 14-year-old black boy who'd seen a "pipe thing" in the window as JFK arrived and watched it fire at least twice as the President passed - said that the man he'd seen shooting the gun had "a white spot in his hair." He did not say that the man was white, nor that he was bald (despite what was recorded in his statement ... which goes a long way in telling us that initial reports, written by others, are not always the "best evidence" of what someone saw).

In his WC testimony, given before the Commission itself in Washington DC (undoubtedly daunting to any 14-year-old, enough so not to lie repeatedly with a straight face!), he was adamant that he did not tell the deputy who took his statement that the man was white or that the man was bald, but only that the man had a white spot in his hair.

So we have Bonnie Ray on the fifth floor, having just come down from the sixth floor, with white stuff in his hair ... and we have an "elderly Negro" seen through the sixth floor window (a man with "white hair?"), AND a man with a "pipe thing" in the sixth floor window also with a "white spot" in his hair.

Is it then a reasonable question to ask where all this white stuff actually came from? Damned sure it didn't fall on someone's hair on the sixth floor from the fifth floor ceiling!

I just want to know how someone going at any speed can go from point "a" to point "b" without being seen by someone who testified to standing at point "X" on this image:

I for one will be looking forward to Duke's OPUS on this topic.

Said "opus" already exceeds 40 pages, absent cites, and is only about 2/3 completed. Tentatively "The Great Elevator Shuffle, the Three Blind Mice and the Invisible Man." Watch your email for a draft of parts one and two.

You stated, "Bonnie Ray Williams was very probably on the sixth floor to within three minutes of the shooting, most likely saw the shooter(s), was seen by the shooter(s), and knew full well that Lee Oswald wasn't on the sixth floor with them."

I don't believe the shooter/s stayed around on the 6th floor for "three minutes." The shooter/s would have been off that floor in very short order perhaps under a minute.

Those are two different ends of the spectrum, with the center being the shooting. I'm not drawing the connection between my saying that BRW was on six "to within three minutes of the shooting" (i.e., before the shooting, since he was clearly on the fifth during and after the shooting) and your suggestion that nobody would stay upstairs for three minutes after it.

I think we'd agree, however, that JFK was due at the Trade Mart for a 12:30 luncheon, and therefore that it was a good presumption that he'd have come by the TSBD before 12:30, wouldn't we? And also that, just as it was possible for him to be late - as he was - it was also possible for him to have been early; agreed?

Would we also agree, then, that the shooter/s would have wanted to have been ready to do the deed at whatever time JFK were to have come by, and would therefore have been in place at least a couple of minutes before his scheduled arrival, and possibly a few minutes earlier in case he was early?

Up to this point, I don't see any issues since, after all, the general attribution is that LHO spent half an hour upstairs, undetected, prior to the shooting, preparing to do the deed. If he could have remained undetected - and "apparently" did, if it was him - then so could someone else. LHO's only supposed advantage is that he worked there, and his presence in his place of employment wouldn't have aroused much suspicion. Unless, of course, someone who saw him also happened to see the rifle in his hand ....

I don't believe that the shooters were undetected. What I'm saying is that BRW was upstairs on six while the shooters were setting up (I'm confident more than one person was there, so I'll stick to the plural), that he saw them and they saw him, and that "they" did not include Lee Oswald. Even if it did include Oswald, he wasn't alone. But Oswald wasn't there.

I'll even go so far as to say that BRW was not allowed to go down to five until the parade's arrival was imminent so that he couldn't raise an alarm against them, or even if he'd tried, it would've been too late. (Trying, however, would've been stupid on his part.)

Since the three men on the 5th floor did hear the shells hitting the floor from the rifle on the floor above they would have had to travel exactly the same distance as a person exiting the area to have seen the shooter/s. Would they have been in as much of a hurry to rush to find the assassin/s as the assassin/s would have been in to exit the area? Or would they have hesitated for a few moments to observe the drama that was unfolding before their very eyes as they peered out the 5th floor window at the scene below?

That's always a tough question, tho' I'm not sure the question is whether "the unfolding drama" is what kept them from doing anything. At least two out of three of them testified that they'd felt it was "dangerous" upstairs, and thus didn't go to investigate said shells falling and rifle booming ... and two of them recognized it as rifle fire, especially Junior Jarman, who'd done two separate three-year stints in the Army. He was the first to effectively dive for cover, taking the others with him.

"Dangerous" was probably a good word. After all, someone had just done some shooting upstairs; that much was fairly obvious. Would you rush to confront an armed man who had the guts to shoot at the President of the US of A? Yet at the same time, wouldn't your curiosity be at least a little piqued to find out who'd done that shooting without putting yourself in harm's way, sort of the old "look without looking like you're looking" trick?

I've already said that I believe that BRW had already looked the shooters in the eye, so what he did or didn't claim to see on the fifth floor is of relatively little consequence. The other two guys professed no curiosity whatsoever, more intent on finding out who'd apparently done the shooting over by the railroad tracks that everyone was rushing to, than in getting a glimpse of whoever had been shooting directly over their heads, shells falling on the floor. Probably a wise move on their parts under the circumstances: hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil ... just give me three steps, mister, and you'll never hear from me no more! (For shor'!)

Of course, you'd have to believe that they held no curiosity and saw nothing, purposely or otherwise, true or not. Bonnie Ray, at least, said that he'd kept an eye on what was going on over by the elevators and stairwell, as best as he could see the area. WC counsel, of course, meticulously went about proving that he couldn't have even seen what little he did claim to see, Marrion Baker's white motorcycle helmet. Wouldn't it have been a windfall if he'd said that he'd seen - or at least heard - Lee rushing down the stairs?

But the supposition presented was that they didn't hear anyone running upstairs - despite being able to hear shells hitting the floor - because they themselves were running and making noise. Maybe so, but I think it's more likely that Bonnie Ray - who was going to "get out of the building" (a perfectly strange thing or an onlooker who only wanted to watch a parade to say!) if he hadn't come across Junior and Hank on the fifth floor - had already told them what was going on upstairs. They knew, and purposely didn't look - or at least said they didn't - because what ya don't know won't get ya killed.

(Bonnie Ray said that he'd thought they might've been there because he heard their footsteps while he was eating his lunch, or maybe "the windows moving" - being opened, probably. Odd, don't you think, that he could hear footsteps falling on a floor ten feet below him through the floor he was sitting on, but nobody could hear footsteps falling on a floor only about five feet above their heads with nothing in between? The whole business about the heavy boxes on the floor above muffling the sound doesn't hold water since there were heavy boxes on the fifth floor to muffle footsteps there, too.)

While you suggest that no one could have left the 6th floor without being seen you seem to suggest that assassins could have entered and exited the building without being seen. I do not question your sincerity in what you believe but having been on the scene and walked the area I believe that the timing you suggest gives Oswald or anyone else the opportunity to exit the area.

If we suggest that Oswald was no where near the 6th floor we still have to have someone going to the 6th floor to leave the rifle and the shell cassing (which were heard hitting the floor while the shooting was going on), build the snipers nest and leave Oswald prints on the boxes and rifle without being seen going to the 6th floor and without being seen by anybody exiting the area after the shooting. The sound of the shell casings being ejected prove/suggest that someone was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting. I find it easier to believe that it was Oswald on the 6th floor and exiting the 6th floor without being seen than to have strangers come into the building, plant the evidence that points to Oswald and then they themselves exit the scene without being seen.

For me it is more difficult to believe in evidence planters on the 6th floor that were not seen going or coming than it is to accept that Oswald may have been the shooter.

I'm not disputing someone shooting from the sixth floor. I'm simply saying that if it was LHO, who had to be downstairs (by pure happenstance: who'd have known Baker would rush into the building?) within 90 seconds, he could not have done so without passing within two feet of Jack Dougherty, if not actually bumping into him. Jack heard one sound (which he took to be a backfire from the parade he'd have "loved to see," but which this "great big husky fellow" "would never have been able to see" because of the crush of people outside the TSBD; in other words, nothing to be concerned about, that backfire) and was standing on the fifth floor, "ten feet west of the west elevator," at the "X" I'd marked in the diagram above. While he may undoubtedly have moved about from that exact spot, he did not leave the immediate environs of the elevator and stairwell, as evidenced by the fact that none of the three other men on the fifth floor - or even just BRW - claimed to have seen him.

That he wasn't concerned about a "backfire" is further evidenced by the fact that Jack also did not leave the area by taking the elevator anywhere until after Roy Truly had looked up the elevator shaft on the first floor, and saw the bottoms of both elevators at the fifth floor, together, fully a minute after the shooting had stopped. By this point, LHO was either in or almost in the second floor lunchroom, regardless of where he'd come from. If he'd come from the sixth floor, though, he'd have had to pass almost literally within inches of Jack Dougherty without being seen, heard or even felt (as the air eddied behind him, or even as his feet vibrated the floor as he passed) by Jack.

Jack's testimony could've been another windfall ("I was standing there by the elevator when that Lee fellow came barrelling down the stairs at a dead run"), but wasn't ... and that simply because he did not see, hear or feel Lee Oswald run by him, and that in turn is simply because Lee didn't run by him. If he had, Jack would've said so. He was not deaf and blind.

Bear in mind here that I'm not saying that nobody saw anybody, I'm simply saying that nobody saw Lee Oswald do what he was purported to have done. BRW ate his lunch within 15 feet of the "sniper's nest" window, but claimed not to be able to see anything from where he sat, effectively because (get this!) the sniper's nest boxes were in the way. He was on the sixth floor until at least 12:25, and probably as late as 12:27-28; that's provable. And, that being the case, Bonnie Ray Williams therefore did see the shooter/s. If that were LHO, acting alone, what's the harm in saying so? What was Lee going to do: rise from the dead and kill his family? A gunman (or gunmen) who hadn't been caught, on the other hand, is a completely different keg of beer.

Can gunmen who weren't Lee Oswald have gotten into and out of the building undetected? The answer is a resounding "yes," with the caveat that they were detected, even if only by Bonnie Ray Williams. Chances are, however, that they were also seen by others, but their still being at large would certainly cause a wee bit of hesitancy on anyone's part in saying so. I can actually show how it could've been done, both in and out, based on long-available evidence. The question is whether anyone else who'd seen them was an observer or an abettor. They'd have at least the same incentive as Bonnie Ray not to have said anything.

Since the shooters weren't constrained by the time limits of having to be in the second floor lunchroom 90 seconds after the shooting, it becomes all the more possible, even plausible ... and also explains why nobody was heard running across the sixth floor after the shooting: because nobody was running up there! As it was, they had - at the least - all the time it took for Baker and Truly to run up four or five flights of stairs ... and it wasn't even a given that Baker or anyone else would've rushed into the building, just like nobody rushed into the Dal-Tex building. All that was absolutely necessary was to prevent anyone who did come in to search the building from having access to the elevators, which was done whether by accident or design.

And lo, don't you know that by the time Baker and Truly got to the fifth floor (where, remember, Truly had seen the bottoms of the elevators), one of those two elevators had left the floor? Is it not therefore possible if not probable that said gunmen had only to finish their business upstairs, walk down a single flight of stairs, walk about 15 feet straight forward from the stairs, and exit via the elevator going down from the fifth floor while Baker and Truly were noisily running up in an enclosed wooden stairwell?

Oddly, while the elevator was certainly a potential means of escape, and while Truly had seen both of them on the fifth floor when he'd looked up the shaft, he did not call Baker's attention to the fact of the west elevator's absence when they'd reached the fifth floor, and did not himself investigate where it had gone, but instead led Baker over to the far side of the elevator shaft to the non-automatic east passenger elevator, and then bypassed the sixth floor to get to the seventh and the roof. (Granted that Baker's destination had always been the roof, but this nevertheless does create additional time and opportunity for an escape.)

In all, the shooters had as much as three to five minutes to clear out of the sixth floor. A reasonable question is whether they ever intended or even needed to clear completely out of the building. What if, a la Patrolman Smith's "Secret Service" guy on the knoll, they had dressed up as to be confused with cops who'd presumably be searching the building after the shooting? Even if nobody had come in to search the building, if they looked like cops, they'd only have to say that they were searching the building. "Search" complete, out they went.

As a matter of fact, there were two men - seen by two witnesses - who were believed to have been plainclothes cops seen on and coming down from the fourth floor even before Luke Mooney - the first law enforcement type to actually go out onto the sixth floor (Baker had only looked out from the elevator area) - had gotten upstairs. Between Baker's coming down and Mooney's going up, however, there is no record of any police officers on the upper floors of the building, and certainly not any who'd gone up, searched the place and were already leaving by the time Mooney started up. If I'm wrong about that, correct me.