Duke Lane

That is simply not so. From the earliest moments, the story had been that a shot hit Kennedy, then a one hit Connally, then the third hit and killed Kennedy. ... Thought I'd add to this with some stuff I've tripped across in the past couple of days. January 30, 1964 memorandum from David W. Belin to J. Lee Rankin: In determining the accuracy of Oswald, we have three major possibilities: Oswald was shooting at Connally and missed two of the three shots, the two misses striking Kennedy; Oswald was shooting at both Kennedy and Connally and all three shots struck their intended targets; Oswald was shooting only at Kennedy and the second bullet missed its intended target and hit Connally instead. If there was no mass media coverage that Connally would be riding in the Presidential car, it would tend to confirm the third alternative that Kennedy was the only intended target. This in turn bears on the motive of the assassination and also on the degree of markmanship [sic] required, which in turn affects the determination that Oswald was the assassin and that it was not too difficult to hit the intended target two out of the three times in this particular situation. April 27(!) memorandum from Norman Redlich to J. Lee Rankin: The purpose of this memorandum is to explain the reasons why certain members of the staff feel that it is important to take certain on-site photographs in connection with the location of the approximate points at which the three bullets struck the occupants of the Presidential limousine. Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President by the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building. This is actually pretty late in the game - three months into the "investigation" - and we don't yet see the development of the SBT.

That is simply not so. From the earliest moments, the story had been that a shot hit Kennedy, then a one hit Connally, then the third hit and killed Kennedy. If James Tague hadn't been hit by shrapnel, there'd have been no need for the single-bullet theory. Tague's was a fourth bullet. There were others, including one that had made a mark on the north sidewalk. If someone had been hit by shrapnel from that bullet too, then there would have been a real problem asserting a single assassin.

Thanks. Knew that part, the reason for posting this was the Tom Howard story. Further to your point, however, I'm wondering if I recall correctly that the story actually began with Hugh Aynesworth ... if I recall what Hugh had said about this at one point. I think it had something to do with Hudkins being a fly in everyone's ointment, and Aynesworth wanting him to "bug off," so concocted this story for Hudkins' benefit, and came up with the "179" number off of something on his desk (a calendar?).

If that's the case, what's Marrs going to be doing?

I'm not sure. It may have come up in Whitewash II. There are some references in Weisburg's Orleans Parish Grand Jury testimony from pages 55 to about 61 here: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=57 It's kind of sketchy, I'll have to dig a little more. Steve Thomas Steve/Greg, If I remember right, Weisberg actually talked to Castorr in Maryland. Dave I happen to be re-reading Whitewash II right now, and can confirm that whole Nancy Perrin Rich—Colonel Caster/Castor/Castorr thing is there, pp 64-70. The book was published in 1966, prior to Weisberg's interview with Castorr in 1967, apparently (see above) detailed in Oswald in New Orleans, which I do not have a copy of to be able to cite.One of the characters in that gun-running thing happens to be almost a neighbor of mine, lives about a mile away. Not sure how I'd approach him, if I ever were to. !

This is just a little off-topic, but I happened to run across it and thought it an interesting addition to the discussion. In his 1966 Whitewash II: The FBI-Secret Service Coverup, Harold Weisberg discussed (pp 48-49) Oswald's relationship with the FBI and noted allegations apparently originating from Houston newspaper reporter Alonzo "Lonnie" Hudkins, including that of Oswald having an "informant number (179)" and being paid by the FBI as part of its "payroll" at the rate of $200/month at the time of his death. "There is further information from Hudkins in the [Warren] Commission's files," Weisberg notes, "and it relates to another of the pressing questions about the assassination and the investigation of it: how Jack Ruby fits into the entire picture." He cites a "second Hudkins document" dated December 11, 1963, reporting "an interview of the previous day." Weisberg goes on to say: In the document the Secret Service reports that Ruby customarily traveled armed with a guh; that it was common knowledge that he was usually armed; that he was recognized and known to have no business in the police station [on November 22-23]; that, to his lawyer's knowledge, he was armed and present the night of Oswald's so-called "press conference" [see Whitewash 66-68, 88]; and that this lawyer, Tom Howard, "arrived at the County Sheriff's Office for the purpose of obtaining the release of Ruby two minutes before Oswald was delivered to the hospital." This document is to be found in the fifth folder of File 87, folio 640 in a five-volume USSS Report forwarded to the WC on January 8, 1964, and duplicated in WC File 81, page 326, from the Texas Attorney General. The quotations may be Hudkins' allegations, or they may be a report of an actual event, so I'll only call it "interesting" at this point. EDIT: On page 91 of WW2, Weisberg quotes this report: He [Hudkins] states that one thing occurred while he was at the County Jail which was significant to him. He states that Attorney Tom Howard, who was allegedly at the Police Department at the time of the shotting, arrived at the County Sheriff's office for the purpose of obtaining a writ for the release of Ruby two minutes before Oswald was delivered to the hospital. It does not indicate how Hudkins, likewise at the Sheriff's Office at the same time, knew what time Oswald had arrived at Parkland, or why he had noted the time that Howard arrived at DCSO. (Weisberg's point, however, is that it was a claim that the WC knew about but did not investigate.) END EDIT. Oswald was shot at 11:21 a.m. CST, an event that was broadcast live, with only as much as an eight-second delay. I don't know offhand the exact time he arrived at Parkland, but figure it couldn't take much more than 10 minutes, and possibly much less at a high rate of speed, sirens blaring. Today's Yahoo maps puts it at 4.2 miles and 9 minutes using the Woodall Rogers (which I don't believe was in operation back then) and Stemmons Freeways, or 3.6 miles and 10 minutes using city streets. If LHO arrived at Parkland at 11:30 sharp, that would put Tom Howard at the Sheriff's Office at 11:28, seven minutes after his client had shot someone on live television. That's seven minutes not only to make the trip, but first to notice what had happened, recognize his client, assimilate what had happened, possibly get dressed (or at least get a jacket on?), go to his car, start it, and then drive from wherever he'd been watching TV (his home? where was that?) to the downtown Sheriff's Office. Or it means that Howard was not at all far from DCSO, "in place" as it were to secure his client's release immediately following his act of murder. EDIT: Apparently, Howard was at DPD at the time of the shooting, at least according to Hudkins's report to the USSS. If that is so - is there other indication that DPD is indeed where Howard was? - then he was but 9/10 mile and 3 minutes away, plenty of time to get from DPD to DCSO, as well as to get to his car, etc., if it was parked nearby. That he could manage that, however, doesn't speak well of the tightness of the post-shooting security at DPD if Howard was also in the basement area! END EDIT. There is the long-standing presumption that Jack Ruby thought he'd be hailed as a hero for killing Oswald and would not be charged with a crime, or that being so charged, would be released quickly and never stand trial. While we know this not to have been the case, if that was in fact Ruby's presumption, then his leaving his dog in his car could well have been based on the presumption that the dog wouldn't be alone for long. (The average daily temperature in Dallas for November is only about 66°F, so it was in no way "cruel" to have left the dog in a sweltering car, since it would probably be reasonably cool inside.) If the Hudkins allegation is true, and Tom Howard was at DCSO two minutes before Oswald arrived at Parkland - even ten minutes after the shooting - it strongly suggests that Ruby had, in fact, premeditated the murder (or been put up to it, as may well have been the case ... more on that some other time) and taken steps to ensure his timely release, to wit, having his attorney present to quickly post bail. But alas, even the best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry! Did Jack ever see Sheba again?

No need to be shy, Charles; tell us how you really feel!

Well, shoot, there, John: you know I'm always trying to be accomodatin'! Anyone else you can think of that you haven't thought of lately?

Thomas, you're not alone. In fact, for the hundreds of pounds of books I've got on my shelves on this topic, I don't believe anybody has ever suggested that, so ... it must not be true! Even Harold Weisberg missed it, QED! (Ummm ... did Posner, Myers or Bugliosi mention it? If not, it's clearly immaterial!) Read Weisberg. It's actually pretty amazing that anyone could write so many words in succession without typos or cross-outs on a manual typewriter as he - or more likely Lillian - did, or organize their thoughts without aid of a word processor in 1965. He claimed - despite the "shrill" nature in which he presented his material, the sole "substantial" criticism I've ever read about his stuff - that nobody had or has ever proven any of his assertions in error. (I wonder: did Bugliosi even try, specifically?) He might ask: what is the proof that Oswald's expression was a "Communist salute?" Or was that merely the "spin" (not a word then, at least not in the same context!) that the authorities put on it to make their sole suspect the "obvious perpetrator?" Did LHO ever utter a word that we are aware of - and if he ever uttered one, wouldn't we be aware of it, even among Fritz's supposedly un-taken notes? - about his beliefs that anyone would or should interpret the handcuffed-fist photo as a "Communist salute?" Did anyone else - other than the WC and Gerald Posner - attribute such beliefs or actions to him? If so, can you name them and cite their testimonies?

Here is Gary Mack's explanation of the people being allowed on the underpass: "The triple underpass was, and still is, private property owned by several railroads. Despite popular opinion, the Secret Service could not force people to leave private property. That is the reason the men had to be identified to the cops by S.M. Holland. The SS could have asked the men to leave, but they had absolutely no legal right to force them to go." Absolutely logical and sensible on the face of it, but I'm not sure it's correct. First, if the USSS had no authority to "force people to leave private property," where would DPD's authority have derived from? So Holland identifies people to the two cops stationed atop the bridge, and they were supposed to do exactly what about it? Since it's "private property," seemingly at best DPD could do was request them to leave. Second, if DPD had no authority to force people to leave private property, but could request them to do so, what precluded USSS from also requesting people to leave the overpass? Experience has taught me that a request by someone with a gun is fairly tantamount to an order, and generally should be obeyed. That holds true if they're wearing a badge or showing credentials, too. Either way, there's usually some consequence of not doing so. Most people would leave. Third, bridges hold rights-of-way, in this case over a public by-way. Rights-of-way involving public land can be abridged by public authority when circumstances warrant. For example, when a highway is built, the land is typically bought by the transportation authority and rights-of-way granted to, say, farmers to drive beneath it (typically under a bridge built for the purpose!!) to get to another portion of their fields; sometimes, the right-of-way is purchased by the transportation authority and the farmer continues to own the land, even while he clearly doesn't own the highway passing over it, to which he has granted a right-of-way. If there's an accident on the bridge, a cop certainly can limit the farmer's use of that right-of-way - prevent him from using it at all - for safety or security purposes, even if it's the farmer's own land. (I'll accede, however, that the farmer would have a tough time attempting to keep public authority from making use of its right-of-way!) I have personally negotiated public rights-of-way over private property in Texas, so know a little of what I speak. Likewise, if necessary, cops have the authority (if not always the actual physical ability!) to stop a train in the furtherance of their official duties. Trains tend to travel on railroad tracks, which are typically built on narrow strips of land owned by one or more railroads, and sometimes over bridges that the railroads built and own. Train drivers - engineers, if you prefer the term - do not have any legal basis on which to challenge or ignore a cop legitimately attempting to halt the train, even while they clearly have a physical means to do so! That being the case, it does not follow that pedestrians have unfettered rights to go anywhere at any time on private property they wish to, and that police have no authority or ability to stop them from doing so. Heck, you can be arrested within the confines of your own home, which is more clearly "private property" than a railroad bridge! Cops can and do prevent people from going onto private property, and even from traversing public property and rights-of-way (streets) to get to one's own private property, such as when taping off a crime scene: your neighbor two or three houses away is killed, and you can't even get to your own house, not even traversing other private property. Likewise, if the house two doors away is on fire, and you want to stand in the middle of your lawn to watch it, fully or potentially in the way of firefighters snaking hoses and such to it, you WILL be asked to move, and if you DON'T move, you WILL be moved ... on - or even from - your own private property! Yet we should suppose that cops - or more specifically, the USSS - cannot prevent people, authorized or not, from entering on "private property" that holds a public right-of-way? Finally, when the President gives a speech at a hotel, are we to suppose that the US Secret Service cannot and does not in any way restrain any and all persons who wish to cross any part of the hotel lobby from doing so? Or in that case, is it that the hotel owners gave them permission to do so, but that the owners of the Triple Underpass would not do so, or were never asked? In any case, Holland was there to identify railroad employees who were authorized to be on that stretch of track that happened to go over a bridge over a city street. All others would presumably have been requested - "ordered" or "forced" are just as appropriate words - to not enter the bridge. The USSS could have done it, and DPD was there to do it (since DPD was in charge of on-the-ground motorcade security). So, really, USSS is not even a party to all of this: it's a DPD question only. And it appears that they did as much of their job as their tender sensibilities toward property owners would allow, regardless of safety or security reasons.

Flattery will get you everywhere ... but don't count on it!! That Dallas was the "home base" for anyone is not necessarily probative, unless one ignores Chicago and Tampa, and potentially other places that we're not aware of (e.g., were aborted, weren't detected, etc.). The people discussed as part of this "patriotic coup" were not based in one place, and even the fact that Dallas was then considered a "hotbed" of ultra-conservative causes (as, say, Idaho and Oregon are today) does not mean that sympathizers were not in several other places, or did not or could not move between places, including places to meet and plan an action. It likewise does not mean that any one group was involved since many had similar philosophies and roots: for example, JBS (or maybe it was States Rights? I forget since they're often so amorphous) was organized in the home of a local KKK wizard. According to an account of the Silent Brotherhood (a later group), they often supported each other if their aims coincided, or complemented the other. Assets from one organization in, say, Florida might travel halfway across the country to aid another based in Oregon do something in Colorado, as with the Alan Berg incident and events leading up to it. Members were drawn from a wide range of people, including state and local officials (e.g., Bull Connor, a county commissioner in Birmingham, Alabama, most infamous for setting firehoses and dogs on voting-rights demonstrators), police, military personnel (including generals, such as Edwin Walker, who was more of a "sponsor" and "agitator" than a "member"), doctors and lawyers, as well as your "average Joe." It is a great misconception that all were uneducated hicks in overalls, incapable of pulling off an assassination, much less without getting caught. An interesting and possibly parallel case is that of the September 15, 1963, bombing of Birmingham's Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, not alone because it came to pass that J. Edgar Hoover had blocked evidence and closed the investigation. Four men were under investigation almost right from the beginning: Robert Chambliss, Herman Cash, Thomas Blanton and Bobby Frank Cherry. Chambliss, the ringleader, was convicted of one count of murder only after 15 years had passed (and a Justice Department investigation revealed Hoover's malfeasance). Blanton and Cherry were indicted even later - in 2000, 37 years after the bombing! - and convicted one and two years later, respectively. Cherry died in prison in 2004 in his eighties; Cash, who was not indicted, died in 1994. Chambliss, who also died in prison in 1985, never publicly admitted to his role in the bombing, even after his conviction and sentencing to life in prision. And there are those among us that think "someone would have talked?!" There is nothing to preclude the possibility that the actual shooters were from elsewhere, or that anybody in Dallas necessarily knew who they were - or that their identity, at least, was widely known. All that would be required - as people like to say about the Secret Service - is for certain actions to be not taken, people ignored, actions overlooked, leads not followed. This was clearly the case with, say, other firearms being reported on the police radio, even including one in the vicinity of 10th and Patton after LHO had been carted away to City Hall, and a rifle in a station wagon after Tippit had been shot (with R.C. Nelson having been sent to investigate it, then subsequently leaving pursuit to a "civilian" as he himself went to Oak Cliff in search of the cop-killer). None of these people - assuming even that they were looked into - was brought downtown as an "investigative witness," that is, simply for questioning. As to things like "the Cabinet" being on a plane over the Pacific when the news broke, that could well be a normal situation that gained significance only after the fact. If it can be stated unequivocally that this had never happened before and has never happened since, perhaps it might be important ... but if it's only "odd" or "suspicious," then it may well be nothing more than government functioning as it always did. Where was the Cabinet - or several members of it - in October when Kennedy was in Chicago, or earlier in the month when he'd visited Tampa? If they'd been likewise out of circulation at those times, then there's a whiff of conspiracy in this. If not, it only goes to show that having them outside CONUS was not by any means necessary to the success of assassination: after all, even if they were all in Washington on November 22, there was nothing at all they could have done to prevent Kennedy's murder, and nothing at all they could've said that would have changed anything LBJ did in its aftermath as President. Likewise, if they were in Washington during the Chicago and Tampa trips, and one of those plans had been successful, how would anything that ensued have changed? I don't think having the Cabinet out of town was central to the plot, but turned out to be perhaps a happy circumstance for the plotters, and one more place for suspicion to be cast ... away from the actual perpetrators! Finally, as to "sheepdipping," what was more necessary was simply being aware of the activities of malcontents, as they were with not Oswald alone, but also others in the TSBD such as Joe Molina, a member of a veterans' organization similar to, say, the VFW except that it focused on Mexican-American veterans. DPD apparently considered it quite "subversive," in apparently much the same way as they did the ACLU and anything else remotely liberal or in favor of "lesser citizens" like Mexicans and Negroes. Is it not interesting that DPD surveilled those groups, but not Walker's acolytes when they were in town? Why wasn't Walker under surveillance himself that April night when he was shot at? After all, he'd been arrested and charged in several federal crimes. Did DPD not consider his brand of politics "subversive" or dangerous in any way at all? Clearly the powers that be who dismissed him from his command did. DPD would rather spy on a bunch of Mexicans in a veterans beer hall than someone who was forcibly retired from the military for his non-conformist views? I left the last sentence just to bask in the flattery once more! The biggest driving force in persuading those in the power loop that "a bird in hand is worth two in the bush" is, in my estimate, the realization that there was not going to be any evidence developed against anyone other than Oswald. The actual perps could have covered their tracks exceedingly well (especially given the reprieve of the Tippit diversion), and/or those charged with collecting the evidence could simply have ignored or destroyed it. In any case, it's not "evidence" until an investigator actually turns it in, reports it, or at the very least, acknowledges it. If that doesn't happen, then for all intents and purposes, it never existed. What doesn't exist can't be used in a prosecution, and somebody clearly needed to be prosecuted if possible, or the dead sole suspect "convicted" if not. That Oswald was not a Communist and was not acting on behalf of any Communist entity needed to be proven to satisfy the American people and mollify the Soviets, and thus prevent any possible conflict between the US and a Communist nation-state, especially the in-this-event guiltless USSR. No matter what, the murder of the President could not go unsolved, and that is the biggest driving force of all. Even today, nearly 45 years later, the US Government will not admit - indeed, in the scheme of things, cannot admit - that it was unable to solve Kennedy's murder, that it "convicted" the wrong guy, and that it actually has no real idea - or at least no proof of - Who Killed Jack. After all, it took 'em 39 years to prosecute and convict the killers of four little black girls in an Alabama church with no such constraint, didn't it?

A goals of any crime are: to accomplish it; to get away; to not get caught afterward. Are you familiar with the concept of red herrings? Think it through .... And the gist of my post, Duke, was: what is IT? Think it through... First, a re-phrase of my "goals" list: to accomplish a crime; to not be suspected; to not be caught if suspected. These same three goals can be attributed to any crime, from shoplifting to murder. The initial goal to be accomplished here was the removal of the President, in this case by murder. It is, in fact, the ultimate if not the only goal to consider here because all of the rest lead to places loaded with "ifs." IF the goal was to blame a Communist country, IF the goal was to start or escalate a hot war, then you're right: the perps didn't necessarily accomplish their goals ... IF those were their goals at all. They may have been, but not provably so, especially since you can't say who the killers are to determine what motive(s) they might have had. (That hot war actually escalated in 'Nam almost immediately afterward does not mean that it was a goal of the assassination, even if it was a consequence. North Vietnam did, however, happen to be Communist, so who's to say the perps didn't accomplish their goal? Just because it wasn't a direct conflict with the USSR?) What people might do after an obstacle is removed, however they might be able to take advantage of a situation where there is no longer opposition as a result of someone else's action, that they were able to profit as a result of the result of that action does not necessarily make them complicit. Example: If I kill you and you therefore are not in a place you otherwise would have been (e.g., walking to your doctor's office), thus you're not present to save a child from being hit by a bus, does not mean that I killed you so the child would get run over, or so the bus driver would go to jail. That someone else wanted that bus driver out of the picture so he could marry the bus driver's wife does not necessarily link him to your murder, even though it allowed him to do what he wanted. People take advantage of situations as they arise. It doesn't mean that they contrived the situation to be what it is, or even knew that it would be what it is. Not everyone who had a motive to kill JFK did kill JFK - otherwise there probably wouldn't have been room in DP for the public - nor did everyone or every entity that gained directly or indirectly by his death have a hand in it, or even advance knowledge of it. Many people might even have wished it would happen, some even glad when it did happen. That doesn't make them complicit. We do know, however, that a primary goal was murder, by the simple fact it was accomplished. That guns were introduced into the environment and actually discharged is sufficient to prove intent. This is true in my example scenario as well as in the JFK assassination. If I can divert suspicion from myself, then I am well served in my second goal: to not be suspected. If someone ran out of a jewelry store that I'd been in, I might note how he'd been leaning over a shelf just before he took off running, and - lo and behold! - there's a diamond necklace missing. The natural inclination is to chase the running man while I walk casually away, the necklace in my pocket: I was a witness, not a suspect. By the time they caught up with him, I might well have been forgotten, might well have been essentially ignored as being relatively unimportant. If they catch up to him and he has no necklace in his possession, suspicion may turn to me. That being so, I will have given the necklace to a cohort who was nearby so that by the time security caught up with me, I wouldn't have any incriminating evidence upon me: if suspected, I wouldn't be caught. In the case at hand (JFK), a "Communist" killer was a major diversion. That he was himself killed before he could prove his denials - and deny, he did! - left the question open in a world where Commies were the omnipresent bogeymen, intent on subjugating the entire world by any and all means. Today, I might flee the scene wearing a kaffiyeh to ensure that "Arab terrorists" were suspected! The important point is to divert suspicion. If you're successful, you won't get caught. The more suspects there are, the less likely the right one will be! I think, after all, Pogo said it best.

Apparently Bugliosi took that very literally and decided to produce the largest heaviest book. In terms of sheer tonnage he wins hands down. ... Behind only The Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy ... and the 26 volumes of testimony and evidence that contradict it!

A goals of any crime are: to accomplish it; to get away; to not get caught afterward. Are you familiar with the concept of red herrings? Think it through ....

Quite a few of them. Robin, do any of them seem to be of European descent? We may be onto something here. Omigosh, I just realized: Kennedy (Irish); Bouvier (French) ...! Was this a suicide?!? (Sorry, couldn't help myself!)

I decided to place this in its own topic after "The 1963 Secret Service" thread degenerated into white noise. Many thanks to John Dolva for his response, quoted below. I often think that the question of cui bono? is often examined much too narrowly, and a very possible rationale for the whitewash that was the Warren Commission examined not at all. While by no means either exhaustive or definitive, consider these possibilities: Why could not all of America have been perceived to the chief beneficiary of JFK's death? What greater motivation might some have had other than simple all-American patriotism? Patriotism, that is, as perceived by a relative few, with or without assistance from the official and semi-official circles most often mentioned as those with axes to grind? Could not the WC (an appropriate acronym) have been the fruit of the realization that we'd never get at the evidence of the real perps' guilt, and that the lesser evil was in incorrectly and improperly "convicting" a man "in the press" (as it were ... but with an official imprimatur) than admitting that it was going to be extremely difficult if not actually impossible to catch the real killer(s) of the President of the United States, that the case would most likely go unsolved? Sometimes it seems as if some of the WC assistant counsel went out of the way to get strange facts on the record, even if they never themselves made any follow-up to it or even gave any reason for why some of the questions they asked were asked. Were these but hints to future readers, or even to the perps that counsel was "onto" them, even tho' they'd probably get away with it? . . . . . Activists there are aplenty in this world, always have been, probably always will be. They're not of one political stripe or any other: consider the arch-conservative Silent Brotherhood that gunned down Denver broadcast personality Alan Berg, the more loosely-organized (?) folks who think nothing of bombing occupied abortion clinics, and at the same time the ultra-liberals who'll likewise perform outrageous acts in the name of ecology and endangered species (probably in their case killing more people out of naivete than actual malice), all simply to make a point about how the world should be in their view? The Cold War world of 1963 was not far behind the days of the Communist-hunting campaign of Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy, whom many people still considered a true American hero and patriot. No matter your view on that subject, McCarthy's aims and tactics were celebrated by many as being the only true and correct way to root out the evil of the Communist menace from our democratic shores: "the Senator was a great American whose memory we must all revere" was how one conservative writer (below) put it in 1964. ... And John F. Kennedy - rich, young, Yankee, liberal, Democrat, Catholic - was going to simply give away our country to the USSR: not even sell us out, just give it all away. Or so went the outlook of - and outpourings from - the political Right, notably but not limited to the John Birch Society (JBS), "States Rights" parties, KKK and other conservative groups ... the "right-wing extremists," which the following author calls "the Bolshevik's code-word for informed and loyal Americans," that is, people just like you and me and all of us. For a look at their version of Rush Limbaugh (on steroids!), read not only the WC testimony but also the collected works of one Professor Revilo Pendleton Oliver (or "RPO" to his friends and adherents; the link is to a search index because the revilo-oliver.com main page is currently hacked). In one article, "Marxmanship in Dallas" published in the February 1964 JBS periodical American Opinion (and written around Christmas, 1963), he haughtily notes in reference to the assassination that "obviously, something went wrong in Dallas — in our favor, this time," which he goes on to characterize as ... an act of violence both deplorable and ominous — as ominous as the violence excited by the infamous Martin Luther King and other criminals engaged in inciting race war with the approval and even, it is said, the active co-operation of the White House. It was as deplorable and ominous as the violence of the uniformed goons (protected by reluctant and ashamed soldiers) whom Kennedy, in open violation of the American Constitution, sent into Oxford, Mississippi, to kick into submission American citizens, whom the late Mr. Kennedy had come to regard as his livestock. Such lawlessness, regardless of the identity of the perpetrators or their professed motives, is as alarming as the outbreak of a fire in a house, and if not speedily extinguished, will destroy the whole social order. [emphases added] And such was the threat of John Fitzgerald Kennedy as President, whose loss to the world was not to be mourned: Rational men will understand that, far from sobbing over the deceased or lying to placate his vengeful ghost, it behooves us to speak of him with complete candor and historical objectivity. Jack was not sanctified by a bullet. The defunct Kennedy is the John F. Kennedy who procured his election by peddling boob-bait to the suckers, including a cynical pledge to destroy the Communist base in Cuba. He is the John F. Kennedy with whose blessing and support the Central Intelligence Agency staged a fake "invasion" of Cuba designed to strengthen our mortal enemies there and to disgrace us — disgrace us not only by ignominious failure, but by the inhuman crime of having lured brave men into a trap and sent them to suffering and death. He is the John F. Kennedy who, in close collaboration with Khrushchev, staged the phony "embargo" that was improvised both to befuddle the suckers on election day in 1962 and to provide for several months a cover for the steady and rapid transfer of Soviet troops and Soviet weapons to Cuba for eventual use against us. He is the John F. Kennedy who installed and maintained in power the unspeakable Yarmolinsky-McNamara gang in the Pentagon to demoralize and subvert our armed forces and to sabotage our military installations and equipment. He is the John F. Kennedy who, by shameless intimidation, bribery, and blackmail, induced weaklings in Congress to approve treasonable acts designed to disarm us and to make us the helpless prey of the affiliated criminals and savages of the "United Nations." I have mentioned but a few of the hundred reasons why we shall never forget John F. Kennedy. So long as their are Americans, his memory will be cherished with execration and loathing. If the United States is saved by the desperate exertions of patriots, we may have a future of true greatness and glory — but we will never forget how near we were to total destruction in the year 1963. And if the international vermin succeed in completing their occupation of our country, Americans will remember Kennedy while they live, and will curse him as they face the firing squads or toil in brutish degradation that leaves no hope for anything but a speedy death. "We will never forget how near we were to total destruction in the year 1963," he said, a destruction apparently circumvented primarily if not solely by the death of JFK. What "informed and loyal American" - what person just like you and me and the rest of us - would not consider it an honor to remove such a pestilence from the highest office of the land, that with the most influence and power over how our country moved ahead or if it even survived - if we even survived! - who aspired, it seemed to some, to destroy all that is "America" and "American?" His re-election - which all seem to agree was in the offing - would have guaranteed it. All would be lost - our world today probably unrecognizable - unless RPO's "outbreak of a fire in a house" was in fact "speedily extinguished." As I said: it is possible that "all of America" was the chief beneficiary. at least in the minds of those who perforce were able to plan and carry out the execution of the President, who may have been nothing less than patriots for whom the ends justified the means. As RPO also noted in another context, "there were enough honest and patriotic men on [the Dallas] police force" to identify and arrest Oswald (tho' "it required a gunman from outside to do the job" of killing him!). Perhaps the final quoted paragraph above sums it up best as RPO notes that the US would in the end be well served if it survives now as a result of the "desperate exertions of patriots," whom he has already defined and identified with as informed and loyal Americans, honest and patriotic men who will, he said, "so long as there are Americans," carry JFK's memory "in execration and loathing" (let none say that RPO's speech was anything less than picturesque!). He defines Americans and patriots; is he saying also that their "desperate exertions" - as much as they hated shooting the SOB, he needed killing and someone had to do it - resulted directly in JFK's death? If such people were in fact the perpetrators, how extremely fortuitous for "honest and patriotic men," those "informed and loyal Americans," those misnomered "right-wing extremists" to have a "Communist" to blame for killing the "Communist" President, the killer in turn being murdered by yet another "Communist" night-club owner cum "gunman from outside!" Talk about pervasive! The question is: is it persuasive?!? Or is it merely a case of a strong offense ...? John Dolva's response: One can almost get the impression that there is not just a little self-congratulation going on here and, recognizing the audience, a bit of information dissemination to boot....

Mea culpa! It just looked like you had, with the observation noted between the horizontal lines you like to use, and above the "--Thomas " that seemed to sign it. My apologies to Ed and you!

I often think that the question of cui bono? is often examined much too narrowly, and a very possible rationale for the whitewash that was the Warren Commission examined not at all. While by no means either exhaustive or definitive, consider these possibilities: Why could not all of America have been perceived to the chief beneficiary of JFK's death? What greater motivation might some have had other than simple all-American patriotism? Patriotism, that is, as perceived by a relative few, with or without assistance from the official and semi-official circles most often mentioned as those with axes to grind? Could not the WC (an appropriate acronym) have been the fruit of the realization that we'd never get at the evidence of the real perps' guilt, and that the lesser evil was in incorrectly and improperly "convicting" a man "in the press" (as it were ... but with an official imprimatur) than admitting that it was going to be extremely difficult if not actually impossible to catch the real killer(s) of the President of the United States, that the case would most likely go unsolved? Sometimes it seems as if some of the WC assistant counsel went out of the way to get strange facts on the record, even if they never themselves made any follow-up to it or even gave any reason for why some of the questions they asked were asked. Were these but hints to future readers, or even to the perps that counsel was "onto" them, even tho' they'd probably get away with it? . . . . . Activists there are aplenty in this world, always have been, probably always will be. They're not of one political stripe or any other: consider the arch-conservative Silent Brotherhood that gunned down Denver broadcast personality Alan Berg, the more loosely-organized (?) folks who think nothing of bombing occupied abortion clinics, and at the same time the ultra-liberals who'll likewise perform outrageous acts in the name of ecology and endangered species (probably in their case killing more people out of naivete than actual malice), all simply to make a point about how the world should be in their view? The Cold War world of 1963 was not far behind the days of the Communist-hunting campaign of Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy, whom many people still considered a true American hero and patriot. No matter your view on that subject, McCarthy's aims and tactics were celebrated by many as being the only true and correct way to root out the evil of the Communist menace from our democratic shores: "the Senator was a great American whose memory we must all revere" was how one conservative writer (below) put it in 1964. ... And John F. Kennedy - rich, young, Yankee, liberal, Democrat, Catholic - was going to simply give away our country to the USSR: not even sell us out, just give it all away. Or so went the outlook of - and outpourings from - the political Right, notably but not limited to the John Birch Society (JBS), "States Rights" parties, KKK and other conservative groups ... the "right-wing extremists," which the following author calls "the Bolshevik's code-word for informed and loyal Americans," that is, people just like you and me and all of us. For a look at their version of Rush Limbaugh (on steroids!), read not only the WC testimony but also the collected works of one Professor Revilo Pendleton Oliver (or "RPO" to his friends and adherents; the link is to a search index because the revilo-oliver.com main page is currently hacked). In one article, "Marxmanship in Dallas" published in the February 1964 JBS periodical American Opinion (and written around Christmas, 1963), he haughtily notes in reference to the assassination that "obviously, something went wrong in Dallas — in our favor, this time," which he goes on to characterize as ... an act of violence both deplorable and ominous — as ominous as the violence excited by the infamous Martin Luther King and other criminals engaged in inciting race war with the approval and even, it is said, the active co-operation of the White House. It was as deplorable and ominous as the violence of the uniformed goons (protected by reluctant and ashamed soldiers) whom Kennedy, in open violation of the American Constitution, sent into Oxford, Mississippi, to kick into submission American citizens, whom the late Mr. Kennedy had come to regard as his livestock. Such lawlessness, regardless of the identity of the perpetrators or their professed motives, is as alarming as the outbreak of a fire in a house, and if not speedily extinguished, will destroy the whole social order. [emphases added] And such was the threat of John Fitzgerald Kennedy as President, whose loss to the world was not to be mourned: Rational men will understand that, far from sobbing over the deceased or lying to placate his vengeful ghost, it behooves us to speak of him with complete candor and historical objectivity. Jack was not sanctified by a bullet. The defunct Kennedy is the John F. Kennedy who procured his election by peddling boob-bait to the suckers, including a cynical pledge to destroy the Communist base in Cuba. He is the John F. Kennedy with whose blessing and support the Central Intelligence Agency staged a fake "invasion" of Cuba designed to strengthen our mortal enemies there and to disgrace us — disgrace us not only by ignominious failure, but by the inhuman crime of having lured brave men into a trap and sent them to suffering and death. He is the John F. Kennedy who, in close collaboration with Khrushchev, staged the phony "embargo" that was improvised both to befuddle the suckers on election day in 1962 and to provide for several months a cover for the steady and rapid transfer of Soviet troops and Soviet weapons to Cuba for eventual use against us. He is the John F. Kennedy who installed and maintained in power the unspeakable Yarmolinsky-McNamara gang in the Pentagon to demoralize and subvert our armed forces and to sabotage our military installations and equipment. He is the John F. Kennedy who, by shameless intimidation, bribery, and blackmail, induced weaklings in Congress to approve treasonable acts designed to disarm us and to make us the helpless prey of the affiliated criminals and savages of the "United Nations." I have mentioned but a few of the hundred reasons why we shall never forget John F. Kennedy. So long as their are Americans, his memory will be cherished with execration and loathing. If the United States is saved by the desperate exertions of patriots, we may have a future of true greatness and glory — but we will never forget how near we were to total destruction in the year 1963. And if the international vermin succeed in completing their occupation of our country, Americans will remember Kennedy while they live, and will curse him as they face the firing squads or toil in brutish degradation that leaves no hope for anything but a speedy death. "We will never forget how near we were to total destruction in the year 1963," he said, a destruction apparently circumvented primarily if not solely by the death of JFK. What "informed and loyal American" - what person just like you and me and the rest of us - would not consider it an honor to remove such a pestilence from the highest office of the land, that with the most influence and power over how our country moved ahead or if it even survived - if we even survived! - who aspired, it seemed to some, to destroy all that is "America" and "American?" His re-election - which all seem to agree was in the offing - would have guaranteed it. All would be lost - our world today probably unrecognizable - unless RPO's "outbreak of a fire in a house" was in fact "speedily extinguished." As I said: it is possible that "all of America" was the chief beneficiary. at least in the minds of those who perforce were able to plan and carry out the execution of the President, who may have been nothing less than patriots for whom the ends justified the means. As RPO also noted in another context, "there were enough honest and patriotic men on [the Dallas] police force" to identify and arrest Oswald (tho' "it required a gunman from outside to do the job" of killing him!). Perhaps the final quoted paragraph above sums it up best as RPO notes that the US would in the end be well served if it survives now as a result of the "desperate exertions of patriots," whom he has already defined and identified with as informed and loyal Americans, honest and patriotic men who will, he said, "so long as there are Americans," carry JFK's memory "in execration and loathing" (let none say that RPO's speech was anything less than picturesque!). He defines Americans and patriots; is he saying also that their "desperate exertions" - as much as they hated shooting the SOB, he needed killing and someone had to do it - resulted directly in JFK's death? If such people were in fact the perpetrators, how extremely fortuitous for "honest and patriotic men," those "informed and loyal Americans," those misnomered "right-wing extremists" to have a "Communist" to blame for killing the "Communist" President, the killer in turn being murdered by yet another "Communist" night-club owner cum "gunman from outside!" Talk about pervasive! The question is: is it persuasive?!? Or is it merely a case of a strong offense ...?

... Note the green epaulets on his shoulders. --Thomas Well, now that we know that, to paraphrase the immortal words of Jesse Curry, the case is cinched: the man is a traffic cop, as determined not alone by the white cap, but moreover by the epaulet color: green is - and was - Traffic. Since he's also a sergeant, a perusal of the Sawyer exhibits should indicate who he may have been, depending upon how many traffic sergeants were assigned to Love Field. His being a sergeant - and therefore possibly in a leadership position, such as squad commander - may also be an explanation for the difference in color of the band across the front of the cap versus that of the cap in DP. (Of course, shadows and reflection can also account for it.) As a last-ditch measure, I can email a copy of the blow-up to a former DPD officer who was also a uniformed sergeant in 1963, albeit not in Traffic. Still, he seems to not only know every cop on the force at the time, but also everything about most of them, and especially what they were doing that particular Friday afternoon. The man in the "similar" uniform to the right could be a Navy or Coast Guard officer, too: it's hard to tell without being able to see more of the uniform, but they are the only federal services that also wear blue uniforms with white caps. The particular shades of blue - as is true also with the USAF - have changed over the years, and I've got no idea how they may have differed from DPD blue, which may also have changed.

Wow. For as many times as I've been to Dallas, I don't think I've ever noticed anyone of European descent! This is a potentially momentous discovery! I had thought that DPD had specific guidelines against hiring those of European descent. They can usually be detected by their last names, such as Curry (Irish), Fritz (German), Bentley (English), etc. Have you considered looking into old Police Academy yearbooks to see if any of the other supposed graduates looked European too? Why would you suspect that this person is anything other than a DPD traffic officer? At 72 dpi web resolution, there isn't the detail to zoom in on the badge to determine whether or not it was identical or similar to, or even completely different from a DPD shield. That he is standing among several other uniformed personnel behind and to the left of him - and not drawing their apparent attention as if he was out of place - suggests that his being DPD is a strong possibility. That he was not looking at Jackie or JFK (obscured by Jackie in this photo) during the 1/250th of a second the camera's shutter was open doesn't rank particularly high on my suspicion meter, especially when you consider that there were others in the area, in uniform and out, that were looking elsewhere and even walking away. Why should any of them be beyond suspicion? Or be "suspicious?"

I will have to get you the actual date on this, but Dicky Worrell was 27 when he died in a motorcycle crash, together with a female friend/passenger. The only thing "suspicious" about it is that Dicky was with a girl. Dicky was a witness before the Warren Commission, but that's all.

Omigosh! What would our handlers say?!? Actually, it only qualifies as "rambling" since there are no cites in it. Have you seen the part about Baker "setting the rabbit running" (subtitle on another thread)? I thought that was better. About Tippit ....

Point 1) Why not disassemble the rifle and walk out of TSBD with it, but instead rather hide it in TSBD? Probably due to panic and lack of time, the better option in this state of mind and surrounding status would seem to hide the weapon. Point 2) Walking out of the TSBD with a 3 foot package just after the President has been shot, might just cause some co-worker, cop or other sharp individual to say: "hey, what you got in there?". Again safer to not walk out with a disassebled weapon, better to hide it. Hey, they might not find it among all those heavy boxes.... Gosh ... all those words of mine, and the point seems to have slipped by entirely! The testimony of Troy Eugene West showed quite clearly that Oswald had had no access to the paper and tape machine without West having seen him. It also made clear that: it was not possible to take the tape out of the machine and cut it without getting the adhesive wet (the tape had been determined to have been cut by the tape machine); that the tape needed to be used immediately or the glue was useless (that it, it could not be extracted through the machine, cut, let dry, and then transported elsewhere and rewetted to use to seal the "package" later); and West never once saw Oswald in proximity to the tape machine and paper, much less actually take any paper and tape ... and much less still see Oswald assemble such a package in the time constraints necessary. In sum, Oswald never had the opportunity to manufacture this bag. West would have had to have been complicit if Oswald was anywhere near the wrapping station doing what he'd have to do when he'd have been able to do it. As I recall, lab testing showed that both the paper and tape were used within a short time of what was being used on November 22, ergo the package was not something that could have been manufactured a week in advance or after the fact. If the "bag" was made in a very narrow window of time and Oswald didn't have the opportunity to make it during that window, then it was ipso facto made by someone else - and left in the sniper's nest? - either serendipitously (!) or for the express purpose of tying the gun to the bag to the workplace and thus to Oswald. QED: conspiracy. Someone else did have such access, as other testimonies made clear, by his usual practice of arriving at TSBD an hour before everyone else "to check the pipes for leaks." He also had about 60 minutes to let someone else in to make it - and get them out again - before anyone else arrived for work. Even LN'ers don't suggest that Oswald managed to manufacture the bag. It's just one of the "imponderables" of the case: Oz shot JFK, he used a rifle, he brought it to work that morning in a paper bag, a paper bag was "found in the sniper's nest" (LN'ers don't use quotes!), it was made using materials from TSBD ... ergo Oswald made it even if we can't figure out how or when! If, at the time of the shooting, the bag was anywhere other than where it was claimed to be - and never photographed in place - then there's clearly a bigger issue looming ... as is probably the case. That means it was never there or arrived later, in either case unconnected to Lee Oswald. Chris Brown's points are good but a little inaccurate. The wrapping paper was not used "all over the TSBD" nor "all around them" (the TSBD employess), but rather only at Troy Eugene West's wrapping station on the first floor. He used it to wrap book orders going out to customers, thus its use was limited to one location, and its proximities limited to between West's station and the shipping dock. This is not to say that other paper llike it might've been found elsewhere, but not that paper. Of course, employees probably wouldn't have noticed the fine nuances between them, eh? As to bringing a gun to work - say, for example, a Mauser - or maybe even leaving it there was not necessarily "suicide," as I think I demonstrated reasonably adequately (if not quite conclusively) above: we have Luke Mooney - the first law enforcement person to have walked across the empty sixth floor - noting the departure of two "plainclothes [officers] like me" before he'd even gotten to the sixth floor himself. How did he surmise them to be police? By their dress alone? Or possibly by the fact that they were carrying a rifle - presumably the assassination weapon - down the stairs? Likewise, there is no indication that there was any systematic, floor-by-floor, office-by-office search of the premises ... at least none that is corroborated by civilian employee/witnesses. All that was necessary was to get a rifle into the TSBD - as, for example, Warren Caster did two days before (a .22 for his son, and a "sporterized Mauser" for himself), or as someone entering the building at 7:00 a.m. that morning could have done - but it was not absolutely imperative that it be taken out if nobody was going to look in every possible nook and cranny for it. Is it possible that Caster did not bring the rifles home as he'd said (it was not investigated), that he'd left them in his office, that someone had gotten one or both from his office and returned them there after the shooting, and thus did not have to get them out of the building that day? The answer is "yes" ... with the main argument against that particular scenario being that Caster's office was on the second floor of TSBD, meaning someone would have had to bring the gun past Mooney, and/or possibly be seen by Baker (if Truly had taken him up the front steps instead, for example) and/or Jeraldean Reid as she returned to her desk in office pool on that floor within two minutes of the shooting. As to the (moot) points in the last post: What indication of any such "panic" is there, at least on Oswald's part? "Panicked" one moment, then cool and calm less than two minutes later with a police revolver poked into his stomach? "This state of mind" so gamely postulated is not supported by any facts in evidence. Gimme a break! You still have to get Oswald near to West's wrapping station to construct said "three foot package" in the first place before he can walk out the door with it. Troy West - who did not even leave his station when the motorcade went by! - might've noticed and said something, eh? The question of "why hide the rifle" reminds me of Harold Weisberg's comment in response to the WCR's determination that LHO shot JD Tippit and "bottled himself up in the blind alley of a theater" instead of continuing his flight outside and away because he "wanted to get caught:" if he wanted to get caught, Weisberg asked rhetorically, why run? Nobody could have considered the possibility of the rifle not being found; the only question was how long it would take someone to find it. A few minutes is all it would have taken to get out of the building an just a block away to safety. Apparently, it worked.

A possible answer above? See post #21. "Ping!" Yes. As opposed to "THUD-THUD-THud-THud-Thud-Thud-THUD!-thud-thud-thud-thud-thud-thud...." (Feel free to substitute any "footfall" sound you'd like - "clomp?" The other loud one was the rifle being quickly hidden!) Of course, I've also always wondered: why not "click-shick-ping!-shick-click ... bang! ... click-shick-ping!-shick-click ... bang!" Nope, just "ping!" And no "thud!" Remember, at least the first couple of "thuds" were directly above their heads, too. After hearing those "pings," they wouldn't have had their attention directed above at least a little?!? Enough, anyway, to hear a 135-lb man get up, move boxes and run away? Especially after what might be construed as gunfire (or even just firecrackers) immediately above them, and just as people started panicking below, running toward the RR tracks? I think all the conjecture in the world can be made about "why did they hear one noise to the exclusion of all others?" None of it, unfortunately, proves a damned thing, or is necessarily putative to anyone not predisposed to accepting it. Like: "empty floors reverberate; those with weight on them make no noise at all." Sounds logical till you start to think about it some.