Duke Lane

Having begun the updated trade paperback - through to about Chapter 56 or so - I am curious about a "stylistic" approach you've taken that doesn't seem to make complete sense to me, that I hope you will explain your reasons for. The apparent contradiction lies in your willingness to identify Almeida, still presumably the #3 guy in Cuba (#2 if you count Raul as being on top, now that Fidel's infirm), and perhaps in as good or better a position as he may have been in 1963 to take over the government of Cuba once Fidel is no longer part of the picture ... and perhaps in some jeopardy now that he's been firmly identified whereas, even when he was "out of the picture" in 1990-95, then it may only have been a suspicion. Meanwhile, you have chosen NOT to name a variety of people who have been identified over the years by various sources. One - the "gun dealer" - you say has "avoided publicity" over the years, so you will respect his (unstated?) desire to remain anonymous, even while someone can go to the end-noted source and find his identity. Another - I don't remember where or whom - you again skirt around naming him while acknowledging that his identity is known to people - and will be known to anyone who researches the endnotes. In that case, you even went so far as to apparently cut out his name at the end of a quote to avoid naming him, along the lines of: ... and the document said "Bill had been discussing it with" him. ... leaving the "him" at the end dangling as if it might've otherwise said "with John Smith of the CIA" (or whatever), but you'd purposely omitted identifying Smith, even tho' he'd already been identified by someone else - or several other people - over the years, and may even be "generally" known except to the "uninitiated" in this case. This is really the only major difficulty I've got with an otherwise very interesting and cohesive narrative, and a great source of frustration. What's up with that?

[duplicate post deleted]

I was listening to the radio show when the new witness called in. It is my recollection that she said the police officer, whom she claimed was Tippit, told the driver to move the car, which he reluctantly did. So when the shooter exited the building running soon thereafter he was perplexed for a moment as the car was not where it should have been but was instead in a nearby location where it could not be seen. The shooter, holding the rifle, then started running at a gallop with his jacket blowing in the wind towards a nearby tunnel under a road and the police officer immediately pursued him in his vehicle. That was the last that was seen by the new witness. She did say that she later learned that the driver of the car that was forced to move was named "Elrod." ... Thanks Mr. Caddy. It could work with Worrell's account. It's hard to imagine that you would run with a weapon in your hands of course, and not be seen by anyone else. Sam Pate could then have arrived after the fact and seen Worrell. I forget - Couch? Had the cops chasing someone.... Very curious. Too bad the woman's identity is unknown - could at least show her a photo of John Elrod, Malcolm Wallace and a few other folks. Edit - anyone know if Elrod wore his hair long? The kind of car he was driving when he was arrested? Edit #2 - this is itching. A buff colored Plymouth could match the description of the car parked in Lee Vida Whatley's space that morning. How does she know it was a Plymouth? What kind of car was she driving? Where exactly was she parked, and why would she be sitting in her car while the motorcade was passing? If she saw him run towards a tunnel under a road - is this the triple underpass? Could this then be the same man as seen by Jean Hill? How could the cops have given chase in a vehicle? Does the man running get into the Plymouth or keep running? How did she manage to learn the driver's name afterwards? What color was the running man's jacket? A dark grey sportscoat? Was there another cop that resembled Tippit? What on earth would make her think Tippit was there? Too many unknown variables here to work with - it's a shame we can't get more info. To quote the eminent researcher David Perry regarding Elrod: Over the last few years there has been a rash of what I call John F. Kennedy assassination "groupies." The assembly includes the likes of Ricky White, Chauncey Holt and Jim Files. All have come forward claiming they have something valuable to contribute to assassination lore. Of course, these people required a publicist. Someone that could "investigate" the story in such fashion that it is half way believable, at least to those with little knowledge of events. The above story seems to fall into that category. A key question among those above is "How did she manage to learn the driver's name afterwards?" How indeed! If there's no credible way that she could have accomplished that, then the whole story falls apart. Lee, you noted: ... which is apparently not quite accurate, whatever the source. According to the Dallas City Archives' Police "Arrest Report on Investigative Prisoner" for John Franklin Elrod dated 11/22/63 at 2:45 p.m.: This man was arrested on railroad tracks a few minutes after [a] radio call was dispatched that [a] man was walking along railroad carrying a rifle. This man was not carrying a rifle at the time of his arrest. This suspect is unemployed, states he has been in Dallas for two weeks. Lost his job last week at El Fenix [Restaurant], states he has been arrested for theft and D.W.I. [emphasis added] Perhaps the end result of his arrest "had nothing to do with the assassination of the President," but clearly his initial arrest did, or was at least a "definite maybe" at that point in time. The arresting officer is listed as C.M. Barnhart, who was a motorcycle officer. His own broadcast of detaining a "drunk" ("... arrested for theft and D.W.I.?") is at 1:08 on Channel 1; he is unit #261. He had first stopped the man and asked for a description of the shooter, which dispatch radioed back was "... a white male, thirty, slender build, five feet ten, a hundred and sixty-five pounds, armed with a .30 caliber rifle." Barnhart said that he had "a white male that fits that description in size. He's drunk" at the dead end of Laws Street, which is near the west end of the railroad yard. The arrest report - or news reports about it - is one way that the new "witness" could have learned Elrod's name, but of course, Elrod wasn't driving a car when he was arrested, so clearly - and at best - she got her subjects mixed up: if Elrod was either of the two men she'd claimed to have seen, he would have to have been the man supposedly carrying a rifle, not the driver of the car. That being the case, she is either confused or full of it. Personally, I think that calling into a radio show anonymously with claims that seem to "tie everything together" (i.e., Tippit at the assassination scene chasing "cohort" John Elrod, whom nobody has ever claimed was a shooter anyway, in a car nobody ever said he was driving anyway) tends toward the latter explanation. It seems like, at the least, she needs a better publicist! Consider also that there was only one block in which she - or "Elrod" - could have been parked on Houston Street before construction began: where could she have possibly been parked - and, as you'd asked, why would she be parked on a side street sitting in her car when the motorcade went by anyway, or more markedly, why she'd be sitting there after the shooting calmly enough to notice and remember all these details - that cops would supposedly order "Elrod" to move, but not her? Aren't there photos showing vehicles that were parked on Houston Street? Other aspects between the Pate and Worrell stories: Pate could not have arrived at TSBD any sooner than four minutes after the shooting at the very soonest, based on his whereabouts, what he'd seen, and the driving time it takes to get from where he was to TSBD. Worrell claimed to have taken off running even before the last shot had been fired, and never claimed to have dallied any four or five minutes. Ergo ...? Finally, don't forget the testimony of James Romack, who said he'd been watching the back of the TSBD and saw nobody come out, with or without a rifle. It's been speculated that someone could've come out of the building while he was moving the construction barricade for Pate, but we know about what time that was - 12:34-12:36 - and that it didn't take long, so an awful lot of stuff had to transpire in a very limited time span, and the only brief time span when Romack wasn't watching the doors. That there may be "too many unknown variables here to work with," the ones that are known seem to render the rest of them completely moot. There may be "unknown variables," but they're not necessarily - and seem unlikely to be - related.

Martha Worrell worked in a department (clothing) store. If needed, I'll try to get the particulars in the next couple of weeks ...?

... and important to note that, in at least one of the two instances if not both, "allegedly" is a key word.

Not totally accurate. I was the very first RESEARCHER Groody told his story to, and a few details above are not exactly right. The craniotomy was done by Dr. Earl Rose at autopsy...NOT by Groody. Groody was an embalmer. He did such things as repair the autopsy disfigurements. He took off the skull cap and FILLED THE HEAD WITH "STYROFOAM" for stability before repairing the reflected scalp. He placed the autopsied internal organs in a plastic bag within the chest cavity. He wired the jaws together, etc. There were other things done by Groody, WHO WAS PRESENT AT THE DISINTERMENT AND START OF THE LINDA NORTON REAUTOPSY, that were not consistent with Groody's handiwork. He is adamant that the disinterred head was not connected to the body, and even described to me that he saw the head put into a steel medical pan after the casket was opened, and it rolled around in the pan. The Norton Report makes no mention of the material Groody says he put inside the skull. There is much more to indicate that the body may not have been LHO. Jack It's been a while since I did the "Grave Doubts" piece in Larry Howard and Coke Buchanan's Dateline: Dallas journal, and every bit as long since I've read the full Norton Report, but based on those 10-plus-year-old recollections, my comments on the bolded portions above are that: First and foremost, the Norton Report is explicit in every detail, not only in the gory stuff, but every step of the way, almost down to how many cylinders were firing on the machines that dug up the grave. If you can find a copy online - or if I ever get the inclination to transcribe the original copy I've got (no high likelihood to be found here, folks!) - virtually any questions that might arise about this topic will be answered by it. The crypt - again, as I recall - had actually been broken, as if too great a weight had been put atop it, and had "caved in"(?), allowing dirt and dampness - and probably little creatures! - into the grave. It was not "ajar" - slightly or any other way - but simply broken. The elements had also rotted the cover of the casket, which had likewise fallen in on the body, either or both of its own weight (and the added water) and/or the cement crypt cover. (Worth adding: I doubt that there are any statistics of how often crypts break in this manner simply because most people aren't dug up to find out! Also: burial vaults are not hermetically sealed, and the average kind cannot be: it is simply a cement cover placed atop a cement box that the hermetically sealed casket fits into.) Paul Groody's role, after the casket had been removed and brought to Baylor, was simply to identify the clothing in which he'd buried Oswald. He was brought into the autopsy room briefly for that purpose, did so, and was ushered out. There is no indication in the otherwise highly-detailed report that he was given any opportunity to make a close examination of the body (e.g., presence or absence of a craniotomy, etc.). Further to that point, it is not my recollection that Groody was present when they began even the gross examination of the body itself, and my distinct recollection that he was NOT present when the head was removed. Also further to that point, the body itself was not examined closely by the autopsists, nor was the clothing removed from it prior to the examination. Therefore, Groody's (supposed) comment about the head being "in worse condition than the body" could only have been based upon seeing Oswald's head and hands since no other part of the body was exposed in his presence. The decision to remove the head and remove the jaw was based upon the highly deteriorated condition of the body (remember: water had been seeping in, and there is typically no way for it to get out). The reason that only "minor clipping" may have been necessary is due exactly to the degree of deterioration. (Frankly, I don't care how many autopsies Groody had attended, very few if any others of them had probably been on a body that had been rotting underground in a rotted casket for almost 20 years!) Finally, the exhumation autopsy had limited scope: it was not to determine the cause of death or to catalog the condition of all of the organs, etc. The fact that no mention is made of "styrofoam" or anything else in the cranium is simply because there was no cause to enter the cranium in the first place: it was only to compare the teeth of the corpse to Oswald's dental records and thereby identify the body as his or not. In 1992, when I wrote "Grave Doubts," I had a far different perspective of a lot of the noise that goes on with the JFK case, but even now I still consider a lot of it "noise." A lot of it - such as some of the comments attributed here to Paul Groody (whom I've never met, FWIW) - are not necessarily exactly what was said or done, but rather second- and third-hand accounts of what someone else said they remembered was said. Uh, as they recall. I remember now - but not in what context I'd seen it - a video recording of Groody describing what he'd seen in the 1981 autopsy room, and can remember thinking at the time "where the hell did anyone come up with Groody saying 'his head had been switched' from what I just heard him say himself?" Groody never even hinted at it. If I remember correctly, it was an interview of him almost immediately after he'd left the room, possibly outside of Baylor. What people now say he said isn't at all what he actually did say, as is the case with many others too. Stick to the facts - in this case, the Norton Report - and if you don't know what they are, find out. EDIT - The Norton Report can be read online starting here. I have not re-read it to verify any of my above comments ... yet, anyway!

Ah, but of course you already know that "the next best thing to being him" is already in progress, eh? See the thread James Worrell: Fact or Fiction? elsewhere on this forum for the first installment of this intriguing story (and forgive the things that may change: it was, after all, a first draft). In any case, you'll remember that Worrell said that he ran AWAY from Elm....

A couple of minor points on this comment. I think it was a luncheon in early 63. It's in Soerensens Kennedy or Winchesters. Can't find it at the moment. The man on the horse is an old radical right notion that predates the second world war. It refers to 'THE" leader, or as in Germanys case, the Fuehrer, Hitler, who comes on a horse and leads to victory. It's some germanic mythology. It's referred to in older books. Lindenbergh before Pearl Harbour was thought (in the America First fifth columnist Bund-KKK coalition) as maybe being this person and in 1963 Walker was proposed by some as a candidate. You may be right. Every reference I've ever seen about it - including on "unofficial biographies" of Ted - it was '61, dinner for southwest newspaper editors ... but well before Ted might have really wished he hadn't said that!

Is there anyone who can get in touch with Jim Marrs by any means and get the actual address of this safe house into the record? Please? Have you tried WhitePages.com for any J Marrs around Fort Worth, Texas? I can't say that it's that easy and simple, but maybe it's worth a first step?

I know for a fact, from informed sources, that at the very moment I was posting my own snide comments, you were amending your previous post, and for my haste, I apologize! You are also correct that it was son Ted who was no fan of JFK, commenting at one point - during a dinner at the White House in 1961 or '62 - that (paraphrasing) "what the country was looking for was a man on a horse to lead them, and instead got someone riding Caroline's tricycle." Hard to imagine such a guy allowing black-bordered ads in his newspaper at the time, isn't it? Interestingly enough, I was recently in a home designed and built originally for G.B. Dealey's family in Highland Park by a famous architect whose name I can't recall. It is currently going for about $8 million, with about 10,000 square feet of the original home. An amazing architectural feat. It is no longer in Dallas, having already been moved twice. The agent selling it was somewhat surprised by its pedigree beyond the architect. Email me and I'll show you part of it. I was surprised to recently learn that the current - and ever! - owner of the Morning News, the Belo Corporation, is and always was a part of the News' heritage. I'd always thought it to be a conglomerate that took over the News, but found instead that Belo was the guy who set Dealey up in the first place as his managing editor in Dallas. When Belo died, his widow encouraged George to take control of the company's interests, which he did. Still, the controlling interests lie with the Belo family, and not that of the Dealeys. (Don't, however, be fooled into thinking that the Dealeys suffered for that decision!) As best as I've ever been able to discover, it was only Ted Dealey who ever brought any sort of disfavor upon the family name (not including Jerry, whose association with this topic is no doubt anathema to the clan ... but he is only a somewhat-distant relative), and that only in connection with his anti-Kennedy - and generally right-wing - rhetoric: business-wise, he did quite well for the paper and the Belos. That the Masons of Dallas found it appropriate to canonize GB by naming a Lodge in his honor is no particular surprise (witness also another local publisher's prominence in another Lodge in Fort Worth, one Amon G. Carter ... and Ben E. Keith, too, if you follow that sort of thing), tho' perhaps not "PC" in today's climate even absent the events that took place in the plaza also named in his honor. You will find many "named Lodges" in Masonry to be after prominent - and especially beneficient - citizens of the community, which by all accounts, GB was. I think it's the Bible that says that "the sons of a father should not be visited upon the son," or words to that effect. Likewise - and even more importantly - the sins of the son should not be visited upon the father. Ted was a jerk and a redneck (even despite his privileged upbringing): machts nichts in terms of this topic. As to James Richards' claim that "the treasurer of the George B. Dealey Masonic Lodge was D.H. Byrd's business associate, Jack Frost," I will check that first part out. I will post a link to a photo (supposedly) of Roy Truly, dog breeder, when I have a chance and am able to find it.

Robert, no offense, but one would think that a Dallasite would know that George Bannerman Dealey - having been born in 1859, having founded the Dallas Morning News in 1881, and died in 1946 (the year, as I recall, JFK was first elected to Congress from a small state northeast by about 1800 miles and not of much concern to folks in Dallas) - probably didn't have much of an opinion one way or the other about JFK.

Maybe this analysis will help? I haven't read it through in several years, so can't vouch for it at this precise moment, but generally he's pretty right-on-the-mark. EDIT: Nope, sorry, I should have checked first - this discusses all the other bullets ... but I'll go ahead and leave the link there anyway for anyone interested in those.

John, didn't all of the officers (Hill, Carroll, McDonald, et al.) testify to having found six live bullets in the revolver? Of course, they all testified to having seen one of them with an indentation at the primer from the firing pin "snapping" on the bullet (a misfire), but that didn't turn up into evidence either, did it. But based on their statements, it would seem that two live rounds are missing from the image ...?Regarding other evidence that could have difficulties: McWatters was fairly clear in his testimony: I wouldn't say that his nervous use of "in other words" - multiple, multiple times - made him "confused." It must have been tedious as hell listening to him repeat that so many times tho'!The conundrum is that McWatters did not identify anyone even remotely resembling Oz as getting on his bus, even after he'd seen him on the news and was given every opportunity to do so. Yes, he identified Oz in a lineup, but testified afterward that he was not making a positive ID. There is little or no question that the transfer was issued by McWatters (given the cut-out he made with his unique clipper) on the date in question. If Oswald had a bus pass issued by McWatter on November 22, then the most obvious inferences is that Oswald was on McWatters' bus - Mary Bledsoe seemed to think so - and McWatters had to have been mistaken. There remain some curious questions, however. First, if O had changed his shirt, why would he take a transfer out of one and put it in the pocket of another after the one o'clock expiry when he could not transfer onto another bus with it? My own experiences in that general time period - albeit in a different city and state - is that you can only use a transfer on a route that intersects with the issuing route, so unless McWatters' route intersected with the Beckley route, it was useless. Conversely, one could hope that the driver of the bus he tried to use it on would either or both /a/ not notice that it was from a non-intersecting route, and /b/ decide to grant a few minutes' latitude on the expiration time, or /c/ simply not pay any attention to it at all. While that may square with O's reputed miserliness, it leaves only a couple of options: first, that he attempted to use it and it was refused by the new driver. In that case, either O paid the fare anew (but his available monies have been analyzed endlessly, and the new fare money simply wasn't available unless he busted into a piggy bank that wasn't found among his posessions) or decided to walk to his destination. If he had boarded a bus, the transfer would have been taken from him no matter what, even if the bus driver decided to be charitable and let him ride for free. If he wasn't able to board the next bus, why keep the transfer? Another option is that there was no bus to board - maybe it had just left the stop when he'd left the rooming house, or the driver wouldn't wait for him to cross the street - in which case, he'd have had to walk wherever he was going anyway, so again, why keep the transfer? The last is that he'd put it in his pocket, missed or decided not to take another bus, and just forgot about the transfer. If, as McWatters effectively said, Oz was not on the bus and therefore didn't get the transfer from him, how was it otherwise obtained? The transfer shows an expiration time of 1:00 p.m. (the only one o'clock it could have been if McWatters issued it), meaning that it was issued earlier than that time, and according to McWatters' testimony, only some time before 12:30. Thus it would appear that if anyone other than O had been issued it, they'd have had to have gotten it almost immediately after the DP shooting. Or would they? In reality, if someone had boarded McWatters' bus later in the day, the transfer would have been longer, showing a later time (just for the sake of it, say 2:30). From the bus company's point of view, nobody was likely to cut off any portion of it to make their transfer expire earlier than what it showed, but someone wanting to make it appear that someone had been issued the transfer earlier - and who had no intention of actually using the transfer himself - would only have to cut off the later times to show an earlier expiration - and therefore issuance - time. Tearing the transfer using a ruler or other straight-edge would accomplish exactly what McWatters' ticket-tearer did, and it would look just about exactly the same ... unless, perhaps, the FBI were to thoroughly analyze the cut edge like they did the paper machine at TSBD which, to my knowledge, didn't happen. (Such a test would probably have been inconclusive at best: bus drivers often let several tickets, maybe a quarter inch or so, pile up on the cutter, making the tickets preceding the issued one be the actual edge that the ticket was ripped against; only the first small handful of tickets against the cutting edge would actually contact the edge when ripped.) (To better illustrate how transfers looked and were used, click here to see a mock-up of how the transfer would have looked when it was whole ... or "more nearly whole" would be a better way to say it. The lines show how the transfer would be torn: the hour is along the left edge and appears once ever four lines; at the right are the minutes, in 15-minute increments. The transfer is positioned in the cutter so that the left edge of the cutter is beneath the hour; the transfers are rotated so that the minute - i.e., 1:00, 1:15, 1:30, 1:45, etc. - are under the right edge of the cutter, so the cut would go from beneath the "1" across the transfer to beneath the appropriate quarter-hour when the transfer would expire. Thus to make the expiration time earlier, all one would have to do is take the transfer cut diagonally from, say, the "2" to the "15" - for 2:15 - and cut it again from beneath the "1" to beneath the "0" to read "1:00." It could not be cut at, say, the "3" and the "15" because that portion would not have been given to the rider.) So, it is actually possible that someone could have obtained a transfer from McWatters and cut/tore the ticket to show the earlier expiration time, thus making it appear as if Oz had gotten onto McWatters' bus shortly after the assassination. It is also possible that someone else got onto McWatters' bus sometime during the proper time frame for McWatters to have torn the transfer at the 1:00 expiration. Either would require significant contingency planning: the latter meant that someone presupposed Oswald's escape from the building or, if that was planned, obtaining the transfer was to deflect the possibility that Oz had actually gotten away from the scene in, say, a Rambler station wagon ("see? here's the bus transfer"); the former meant that someone would have had to go back downtown, get onto a bus and get a transfer from the only bus driver that would have been going through downtown at exactly the right time on a route that Oswald might have taken to get back to his rooming house (Marsalis runs parallel to and not very far from Beckley, only a matter of blocks). The latter would have been easier to accomplish: all that would have been necessary was the contingency of someone saying "look, we'll get him out of the plaza and to Oak Cliff; all you need to do is catch the Marsalis bus and get a transfer so it looks like he'd escaped by bus" ... which actually would have been possible since McWatters never even suggested that cops "shook down" the people on the bus - or in any cars - that were entering or leaving the plaza. Given the amount of planning - and especially escape planning - that must have had to have gone into the assassination of a US President (unless it really was the random act it is supposed to have been!), it would not take a rocket scientist to figure out bus schedules to accomplish that. Once it was clear that Oz had not been killed in the theater, there were at least two hours in which to accomplish this ... if the 4:05 time is true, or if it's true that Oswald was even present when the transfer was "found." If his presence at the time of discovery wasn't a concern, multiple bus transfers could have been obtained, and later researched to come up with the right one. I'm not so much suggesting that this is the way it happened, but only showing that it is possible. It of course does not account for William Whaley's account of Oswald's taxi ride with him down to Beckley ... tho' it has always surprised me that the FBI did not apparently attempt - and did not succeed in - finding the woman whom Oz had offered the taxi to (if one presumes that she took the next cab that came along, wouldn't there have been a record of at least where she was taken in the driver's log? Couldn't the other drivers have been interviewed to find out more about here at the very least?). Given, among other things, the disappearance of a key piece of evidence - and especially one that would have showed Oz's intention to shoot someone - the existence of which was testified to by no fewer than three police officers (and possibly more; my memory deserts me a the moment), can one really trust in the authenticity of any of the other evidence?

What of global attachment limits? Is the only available option to find and delete older attachments so I can upload others? I'm down to under 1K available space. Some other questions: why would someone want to add hidden text to a message? How and why would someone use a codebox? LOL The acronym function seems like something pretty useful (hover your mouse over the red text above), but it doesn't seem - using the Post Preview function anyway - to have anything that sets it off by default (e.g., color, underline, etc.) so someone knows there's something "behind" it.

If Mae Brussells' quotations are accurate, he did not. Part of the trouble with those, of course, is that many of them are what other people said he said, which we have no way of determining one way or the other for certain.Reviewing those notes, I think perhaps that this "quote" either came out of a book (I've got four, four-foot shelves full of them - and read 'em all! - not counting the original Report and Volumes, so I'm not going to go in search of it!) or was something that someone had said he'd said on a documentary of one sort or other. I could also be confusing it with the "in time..." comment he'd (supposedly) made with regard to the back yard photos (and his presumed knowledge of photography), but it is so striking to me that it was even claimed that he said anything about his (presumably) upcoming trial, that I merely fell into the trap of believing that what I'd read was true since it was so unusual. I mean, why would anybody lie about stuff like that? Mea culpa, mayhaps?

There's an old adage about performing a scripted part, and that is that most people won't notice when you've screwed up, so don't worry about it and just keep right on going. A corrolary is that even if you screw up and somebody notices, the next guy will cover for you and your mistake will assume less prominence, so that in the end, all will seem as if it was done exactly as it was supposed to have been. In this case, there is the added advantage that nobody had a chance to practice, and later corrections can easily be put off to "the heat of the moment" and much confusion. (That's my story and we're stickin' to it.)Part of the difficulty with these "last words" is that many if not most of them are merely what someone said he said, and we really don't know whether he actually did or not. But then, why would anyone lie? John, your suspicion about a revolver having to be "confirmed as in the loop" may not actually be confirmed by this, but is at least supported by the fact of the testimony that the gun was apparently not identified by the arresting officers until more than two hours after the arrest, and then only after having been improperly handled (but only according to Captain Westbrook, who had just 22 years' experience at that point). I've already detailed enough unusual aspects about the chain of custody and other handling of the weapon as to probably be ample to eliminate it from evidence if the WC had been a real legal inquiry. When you add in the number of officers who testified to having seen and initialed an empty hull with a firing pin indentation on the primer, but the later lack of any hull that matched such a description, one really does have to wonder what aspects of the evidence are real, and which may be substituted (this not even counting Poe's inability to find his mark). How difficult is it, after all, to scratch an "M" (for McDonald) on another empty shell? I can't imagine that handwriting identification could have entered into it at all. Not to say, necessarily, that any of this did happen, but merely that there is absolutely no way to preclude that it did. Opportunities galore existed, and it is difficult at best to determine which were taken advantage of and which may have been simple, innocent mistakes. I think it's notable that (much more recently) Ken Lay of Enron was actually convicted of a crime - more than Lee Oswald ever was - but having died before having had an opportunity to appeal that conviction, the man must be "presumed innocent," and his estate is not even liable for any of the sanctions assessed against him while he was still alive. You've gotta wonder, then, why nobody - including the same people who "understand" Lay's "innocence" - are never so charitable toward Oz: you've generally got to search out the words "alleged" or "accused" preceding the word "assassin," and don't always find it: one man died before he was even tried, much less convicted (and thus with nothing to appeal), and he is popularly "guilty;" another is tried and convicted, but since he died before he could appeal, he's legally "not guilty" even despite the conviction! Go figure ....

Well, I think there are plenty more that are even more useless (Case Closed comes to mind, as do Conspiracy of One and Mortal Error, among others), and frankly I find the larger premises of the book - the Odio story, the Terrell and Fort Hood gun-running, for example - to be reasonably credible tie-ins to the assassination, perhaps only because they provide some rationale why LHO was set up as a patsy in the first place.As a returnee from the Soviet Union, by 1963 one would think he'd fallen off most people's radars, and clearly he was up to something that caught people's attention, and sure had a demeanor like he knew something more about the killings than he was going to say (e.g., "it will all come out at my trial"). The problem, of course, is that the basic premise - that anyone overheard Oz say anything at all in the jail cell - doesn't seem to hold water unless, as the LaFontaines purport, someone was put in an adjacent cell to "pump" him and nobody's admitting to it ... and you've only got one person's word on that, and that's a problem.

Pardon me for removing my own entire quote (just takes up space!), but all of that goes back to 1964 when the 26 volumes of Hearings & Exhibits were published: this is not new information!Gun was fired at 10&P and emptied as the shooter ran in front of the Davises' home (see their testimonies). Only question is how many shells in total were "shaken" out of the gun: all of them, or only those that had been fired? (Only empties were found, ergo there must have been some selectivity about which were "shaken" out ... or maybe "shaken" was a bad description on Davis's part? Didn't Benavides say that the shooter picked them out and threw them over his shoulder as he ran?) If the latter, only four or five shells had to be replaced, not all six; As I recall, Sam Guinyard - or someone who observed him running - described the shooter reloading as he ran down the other side of Patton. If Oswald did the shooting, the replacement bullets presumably came out of a batch that included those that were found(?) inside his pocket(?) later on. In sum, presume: Six bullets in the cylinder before the Tippit encounter; minus The number of shells found (equals shots fired?) at the scene; plus The number of bullets found at DPD; ... and that's the number of bullets that need to be accounted for. I don't think their origin has ever been established ... and lacking that, can the prosecution prove that the defendant ever owned them and had the opportunity to fire them?

Chuck, the FBI said "no latent prints of value." There was no fuss to speak of about this at the time. Why bother? Everyone knew he had it taken from him in the TT I've put together a detailed response to this on a new thread:

Chuck, the FBI said "no latent prints of value." There was no fuss to speak of about this at the time. Why bother? Everyone knew he had it taken from him in the TT If the matter had ever reached a court of law - which at the moment of arrest (as opposed to "shot while assaulting a police officer") all must have presumed would happen short of a miracle (such as Jack Ruby turned out to be), a decent defense attorney would have moved for exclusion of this piece of so-called evidence since the lack of fingerprints would have made it difficult to prove that the gun had ever been in Oswald's hands. At the least, that fact could have raised reasonable doubts in jurors' minds.More important than merely Oswald's prints not being on the weapon is the fact that nobody else's prints were apparently found on the weapon or, if they were, they were identified as being of an officer who'd handled the gun afterward ... presumably. Those officers include no less than Nick McDonald, Bob Carroll and Jerry Hill, and possibly others (see testimony below). With respect to the shells found at the Tippit shooting scene, Hill testified that: Mr. Hill. ... Poe showed me a Winston cigarette package that contained three spent jackets from shells that he said a citizen had pointed out to him where the suspect had reloaded his gun and dropped these in the grass, and that the citizen had picked them up and put them in the Winston package. I told Poe to maintain the chain of evidence as small as possible, for him to retain these at that time, and to be sure and mark them for evidence, and then turn them over to the crime lab when he got there, or to homicide. (7H48-49; emphasis added) Now, compare and contrast Hill's great concern over the handling of evidence with the following exchanges between WC counsel and various police witnesses: Officer M.N. "Nick" McDonald Mr. Ball. What happened then? Mr. McDonald. Well, whenever I hit him, we both fell into the seats. While we were struggling around there, with this hand on the gun -- Mr. Ball. Your left hand? Mr. McDonald. Yes, sir. Somehow I managed to get this hand in the action also. Mr. Ball. Your right hand? Mr. McDonald. Yes, sir. Now, as we fell into the seats, I called out, "I have got him," and Officer T. A. Hutson, he came to the row behind us and grabbed Oswald around the neck. And then Officer C. T. Walker came into the row that we were in and grabbed his left arm. And Officer Ray Hawkins came to the row in front of us and grabbed him from the front. By the time all three of these officers had got there, I had gotten my right hand on the butt of the pistol and jerked it free. ... Mr. Ball. What happened when you jerked the pistol free? Mr. McDonald. When I jerked it free, I was down in the seats with him, with my head, some reason or other, I don't know why, and when I brought the pistol out, it grazed me across the cheek here, and I put it all the way out to the aisle, holding it by the butt. I gave the pistol to Detective Bob Carroll at that point. ... Detective Bob K. Carroll Mr. Ball. ... were Oswald and McDonald struggling together? Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir; and then when I got up close enough, I saw a pistol pointing at me so I reached and grabbed the pistol and jerked the pistol away and stuck it in my belt, and then I grabbed Oswald. Mr. Ball. Who had hold of that pistol at that time? Mr. Carroll. I don't -know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald. Mr. Ball. After you took the pistol, what did you do with it? Mr. Carroll. The pistol? Mr. Ball. Yes. Mr. Carroll. After I took the pistol, I stuck it in my belt immediately. Then, after we got into the car and pulled out from the theater over there, I gave it to Jerry Hill, Sgt. Jerry Hill. Mr. Ball. And he was sitting in the front seat? Mr. Carroll. In the front seat right beside me and in the middle, I think Paul Bentley was sitting on the right side and Jerry was sitting there. ... Sgt. Gerald L. Hill Mr. Hill. ... the suspect was put in the right rear door of the squad car and was instructed to move over to the middle. C. T. Walker got into the rear seat and would have been sitting on the right rear. Paul Bentley went around the car and got in the left rear door and sat on that side. Mr. Belin. That would have been from the left to the right, Bentley, Oswald, and Walker? Or Bentley, the suspect, and Walker? Mr. Hill. K. E. Lyons got in the right front. I entered the door from the driver's side and got in the middle of the front seat. Mr. Belin. And being that he had the keys to the car, Bob Carroll drove the vehicle? Mr. Hill. As he started to get in the car, he handed me a pistol, which he identified as the one that had been taken from the suspect in the theater. ... he apparently had it in his belt, and as he started to sit down, he handed it to me. I was already in the car and seated. Mr. Belin. When did you [mark the pistol with your name]? Mr. Hill. This was done at approximately 4 p.m., the afternoon of Friday, November 22, 1963, in the personnel office of the police department. Mr. Belin. Did you keep that gun in your possession until you scratched your name on it? Mr. Hill. Yes, sir; I did. ... Mr. Belin. Now, you said as the driver of the car, Bob Carroll, got in the car, he handed this gun to you? Mr. Hill. Right, sir. Mr. Belin. All right, then, would you tell us what happened? What was said and what was done? Mr. Hill. Then I broke the gun open to see how many shells it contained and how many live rounds it had in it. Mr. Belin. How many did you find? Mr. Hill. There were six in the chambers of the gun. One of them had an indention in the primer that appeared to be caused by the hammer. There were five others. All of the shells at this time had indentions. ... Mr. Belin. Did you ever mark those? Mr. Hill. I can say that I marked all six of them. Mr. Belin. When was it removed? Mr. Hill. They were not taken out of the gun, as I recall, sir, until we arrived at the station. Mr. Belin. Who took it out of the gun? Mr. Hill. I took it out of the gun. Mr. Belin. Did you keep it in your possession until you put on your initials? Mr. Hill. All six shells remained in my possession until I initialed them. ... Carroll (cont) Mr. Belin. Do you know whose hand was on the gun when you saw it pointed in your direction? Mr. Carroll. No; I do not. Mr. Belin. You just jumped and grabbed it? Mr. Carroll. I jumped and grabbed the gun; yes, sir. Mr. Belin. Then what did you do with it? Mr. Carroll. Stuck it in my belt. Mr. Belin. And then? Mr. Carroll. After leaving the theatre and getting into the car, I released the pistol to Sgt. Jerry Hill. Mr. Belin. Sgt. G. L. Hill? Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. Mr. Belin. Who drove the car down to the station? Mr. Carroll. I drove the car. Mr. Belin. Did you give it to him before you started up the car, or after you started up the car, if you remember? Mr. Carroll. After. Mr. Belin. How far had you driven when you gave it to him? Mr. Carroll. I don't recall exactly how far I had driven. ... Mr. Ball. Where did you go [when you got to the police station]? Mr. Carroll. I went into the police personnel office. Mr. Ball. Who went in there with you? Mr. Carroll. There was Jerry Hill, Ray Hawkins, McDonald, Hutson, Bentley, Lyons, and myself. Oh, by the way, Lyons was in the car with us also when we came from the theatre to the police department. I don't remember whether he was sitting in the front or back seat, though, but he did come down with us. ... Mr. Ball. Had you looked at the pistol to see if it was loaded before you got to the personnel office? Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir; when I gave it to Jerry Hill, he unloaded it. Mr. Ball. He unloaded it there in the car? Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. ... Mr. Belin. When this gun, Commission Exhibit 143, was taken by you and then subsequently given to Hill, did you at any time notice whether it was or was not loaded? Mr. Carroll. I observed Sergeant Hill unload the gun. ... Mr. Ball. And did you know who took possession of the bullets? Mr. Carroll. I don't recall, sir. I don't recall even seeing the gun or the bullets turned over to anyone by Hill. Mr. Ball. But you know in the personnel department after you had delivered Oswald to the homicide squadron, you saw the gun and six bullets? Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. ... Hill (cont) Mr. Belin. What is the fact as to whether or not from the time this gun was handed to you until the time you removed these six bullets, this gun was in your possession? Mr. Hill. The gun remained in my possession until it, from the time it was given to me until the gun was marked and all the shells were marked. They remained in my personal possession. After they were marked, they were released by me to Detective T. L. Baker of the homicide bureau. He came to the personnel office and requested that they be given to him, and I marked them and turned them over to him at this point. ... Mr. Belin. Have you ever seen this gun before? Mr. Hill. I am trying to see my mark on it to make sure, sir. I don't recall specifically where I marked it, but I did mark it, if this is the one. I don't remember where I did mark it, now. Here it is, Hill right here, right in this crack. Mr. Belin. Officer, you have just pointed out a place which I will identify as a metal portion running along the butt of the gun. Can you describe it any more fully? Mr. Hill. It would be to the inside of the pistol grip holding the gun in the air. It would begin under the trigger guard to where the last name H-i-l-1 is scratched in the metal. Mr. Belin. Who put that name in there? Mr. Hill. I did. Mr. Belin. When did you do that? Mr. Hill. This was done at approximately 4 p.m., the afternoon of Friday, November 22, 1963, in the personnel office of the police department. Mr. Belin. Did you keep that gun in your possession until you scratched your name on it? Mr. Hill. Yes, sir; I did. Mr. Belin. Was this gun the gun that Officer Carroll handed to you? Mr. Hill. And identified to me as the suspect's weapon. Mr. Belin. This is what has now been marked as Commission Exhibit 143, is that correct? Mr. Hill. Yes, sir; that is what it says. ... Carroll (cont) Mr. Belin. Where did you put the initials? Mr. Carroll. Where was I, or where did I put the initials on the pistol? Mr. Belin. Where were you? Mr. Carroll. I was in the personnel office of the city of Dallas police department. Mr. Belin. With Sergeant Hill? Mr. Carroll. Yes, and others who were present. Mr. Belin. Did you see Sergeant Hill take it out of his pocket or wherever he had it, or not? Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. ... Mr. Ball. And tell me briefly who was present when you saw McDonald make the mark on the gun? Mr. Carroll. Well, let's see -- there was myself, Mack [Nick McDonald?], I think Ray Hawkins was there, and I believe Hutson was there, and I believe Bentley and Lyons had already gone out to have their feet checked, and I don't recall whether Captain Westbrook was in there at the time or not. There were so many people -- I would have to kind of explain that -- I know it sounds vague, but there were so many people in and out of there and there were about no less than anywhere from half a dozen to a dozen newspaper reporters in and out and they were bringing in mikes and it was just a big mess of confusion. You couldn't just sit down and detail this thing and say this man was at this particular spot at this time. It was so jumbled up there. ... Captain W.R. Westbrook Mr. Ball. Then, it was after that you went over to 10th and Patton? Mr. Westbrook. To 10th and Patton--yes, sir. Mr. Ball. And from there you went to the theatre? Mr. Westbrook. Yes; from there we went to the theatre, and I can't remember exactly how that I got back with Bob Barrett and Stringer, but anyway, we got together again -- probably at 10th and Patton. Mr. Ball. Were you in the personnel office at a time that a gun was brought in? Mr. Westbrook. Yes, sir; it was brought to my office when it shouldn't have been. Mr. Ball. But it was brought to your office? Mr. Westbrook. Yes; it was. Mr. Ball. And it was marked by some officer? Mr. Westbrook. It was marked by Officer Jerry Hill and a couple or three more, and when they come in with the gun, I just went on down and told Captain Fritz that the gun was in my office and he sent a man up after it. I didn't take it down. Mr. Ball. Did you see McDonald mark it? Mr. Westbrook. He possibly could have he was in there. Mr. Ball. Did you See the .gun unloaded? Mr. Westbrook. No, sir; I didn't see it unloaded. When I saw it, the gun was laying on Mr. McGee's desk and the shells were out of it. Mr. Ball. Did you look at any of the shells? Mr. Westbrook. No, sir. Mr. Ball. Did you look the gun over? Mr. Westbrook. No, sir. ... Mr. Ball. Were the handcuffs on him at the time you arrived? Mr. Westbrook. They were putting the handcuffs on him--they had one handcuff on one hand and they were trying to find the other one, and they were having difficulty in locating it because there were so many hands there. Mr. Ball. How many officers were there? Mr. Westbrook. In fact -- that was one of the only humorous things about whole thing -- somebody did get ahold of the wrong arm and they were twisting it behind Oswald's back and somebody yelled -- I remember that, "My God, you got mine." I think it was just an am that come up out of the crowd that somebody grabbed. ... Officer Charles T. Walker Mr. Belin. After you got down there [to the police station], what did you do with him? Mr. Walker. ... And I went inside [the interrogation room with Oswald], and Oswald sat down, and he was handcuffed with his hands behind him. I sat down there, and I had his pistol.... There are a number of things to glean from all of this testimony. First, as an item of passing interest only, McDonald's face was scratched when he himself brought the pistol out, not on account of any action of Oswald. Second, that McDonald did not see the pistol clearly enough during the course of his struggle with Oswald to identify it to the exclusion of any other pistol and, once he had it in his possession, immediately stuck it at arm's length "into the aisle," where Detective Bob Carroll saw it "pointing" toward him and took it from McDonald's hand, which he could not identify as belonging to any particular individual (McDonald says he "gave" it to Carroll), and Carroll "immediately" put it in his belt, again (and understandably) without an opportunity to examine and identify it. Already, the chain of custody was lost. McDonald, despite his unchallenged attempt to say with certainty that he "gave" the pistol he'd take from Oswald to Bob Carroll, the fact is that McDonald stated that he put the gun "out there in the aisle" while he continued to struggle with Oswald and as he was surrounded by several other officers (including T.A. Hutson, C.T. Walker and Ray Hawkins by his own account, as well as Hill, Bentley and others by their accounts). As much as McDonald wanted to give the impression that he knew at that time whom he'd given the gun to, he did not ... and for his own part, the person who took it from him, Detective Carroll, could not - and would not - say whom he'd taken the gun from. McDonald's "certainty" undoubtedly came from later reconstructions in conversation with other officers, but Carroll, despite probably similar knowledge, would not pretend the same certainty under oath. Had the WC hearings been conducted in an adversarial setting (that is, with a defense to cross-examine), even a green defense attorney would have made this point ("Mr. McDonald, did you actually see Detective Carroll take the gun from your hand? No? Do you know what he did with the gun afterward?" and "Detective Carroll, is it your testimony that you don't know from whom you took the gun? So I could tell you that Officer Ray Hawkins said he had the gun before you took it, and that Officer McDonald said the same thing, and you could not tell me which of the two it might have been, is that so?") and possibly been successful in getting the weapon excluded as evidence at this point. Even if not, it could certainly introduce a reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors (assuming a jury was empaneled as well), especially in light of what follows: Third, after Oswald had been placed in the car, himself seated in the rear between C.T. Walker and Detective Paul Bentley, the only other officers who had an opportunity to even see the gun were the three in the front seat: Carroll (who drove the car), Hill and Carroll's partner, Officer K.E. Lyons. Lyons was not called to testify, so beyond his written report, there is no indication of what he saw. Of the remaining two, their accounts differ as to /a/ when Carroll removed the weapon from his belt (Hill said "as he started to get in the car ... as he started to sit down," while Carroll stated that he had started the car in motion and driven a short distance) and /b/ when Hill "broke out" the weapon and examined it and the shells (both agree that Hill opened the cylinder in the car, but Hill says he did not remove the bullets until they had gotten to HQ, while Carroll believed he had removed them in the car - but conceded that he might have been mistaken). At this juncture also, another question is introduced - by counsel - as to the identity of the weapon because, even while there is no direct testimony to this or any effect, once Hill had made an initial examination of the weapon, he apparently put it in his pocket (per David Belin: "Did you see Sergeant Hill take it out of his pocket or wherever he had it?"). One may presume that in the course of his interview with the witness, the prosecutor either learned that Hill had, in fact, placed the gun in his pocket - removing it from the other officers' sight even while in their presence - or that he had not determined what Hill had done with the pistol following that examination. In any case, there is no foundation for this question. (I had thought I'd seen this as testimony elsewhere, but I've been unable to put my finger on it if so.) Thus, by the time the officers got to HQ, deposited the suspect in the interrogation room and gone to the personnel office (where, according to a captain of police, the gun "shouldn't have been"), it could have been virtually any pistol in the world but was not the same pistol beyond a reasonable certainty. Not only does Hill testify that it was "approximately 4 p.m." that afternoon, but Captain Westbrook in his testimony noted that he had left the Texas Theater by the back door and then returned to 10th and Patton ("I don't remember how I got back with Bob Barrett and Stringer, but anyway, we got together again [after being at the Texas Theater] -- probably at 10th and Patton") before he'd returned to HQ. Westbrook testified that he was "in the personnel office at a time that a gun was brought in ... when it shouldn't have been," and that when he first saw the gun "the gun was laying on Mr. McGee's desk and the shells were out of it." Moreover, Bob Carroll testified that "there were so many people in and out of there and there were about no less than anywhere from half a dozen to a dozen newspaper reporters in and out ... it was just a big mess of confusion. ... It was so jumbled up there," which brings yet more uncertainty as to the identification of the weapon in question when the possibility of so many people in close proximity to the weapon, sitting out on a desk amid "a big mess of confusion" for as long as two hours. Not only was the personnel office an unsecured area of the police department, but there were also "about no less than anywhere from half a dozen to a dozen newspaper reporters in and out and they were bringing in mikes" and presumably other equipment since the reporters were probably not only "newspaper" reporters (who don't generally need microphones for any reason), but also radio and TV reporters as well. That the office was "so jumbled up," underscores Westbrook's evaluation that the gun "shouldn't have been" there. (It is noteworthy, too, that Westbrook did not take the gun - "keeping the chain short" to paraphrase Hill's instructions to Officer Poe at 10th and Patton - but instead called or went to the office of Captain Fritz, head of the Homicide and Robbery Bureau and thus the commander of the investigations, to have one of his officers come to the personnel office to retrieve it. Westbrook clearly did not think highly of Hill's investigative skills or discretion either, since several years later he declared in a recorded interview: When we got back to the office, the first thing I saw was Jerry Hill talking over a microphone with some reporter. He had the gun ... (a)pparently he had the gun since the arrest because if he ever got his hands on it, he would never turn it loose, you can bet on it! ([Larry Sneed, No More Silence: An Oral History of the Assassination of President Kennedy, University of North Texas Press, 1998, pages 315-16] Sneed notes also that Westbrook retired from DPD in 1966 after 25 years on the force, and later worked with District Attorney Henry Wade as a special investigator for the Dallas County Grand Jury until his retirement in 1983, so despite his having been assigned to the "routine" position of head of the Personnel Bureau, he was clearly no investigative novice himself. Westbrook also noted in the interview that "Gerald Hill probably wouldn't know a .38 automatic shell if he saw one" [ibid., page 313]. He died in 1996.) If it's not enough that any number of people could apparently have had access to the gun, the inability to conclusively identify the weapon or who may have handled it is compounded by C.T. Walker's testimony that, while in the interrogation room with Oswald, "I had his pistol," a statement left unchallenged by counsel. If Walker had Oswald's gun at any time after arriving at HQ, it could only - according to sworn testimony - been after Homicide Detective T.L. Baker had taken possession of the weapon from Hill two hours after it had arrived at HQ in Hill's pocket, which in turn presumes that a homicide detective would even consider turning a presumed murder weapon over to a uniformed patrol officer, a highly unlikely event at very best. So, who had the gun? Or, who had which gun? ("Your Honor ...?") Every bit as important as the chain of possession and integrity of the gun as evidence, is the obliteration of fingerprint evidence. To some extent, that couldn't be helped: Nick McDonald testified to taking it from Oswald, and then Bob Carroll took it from McDonald and put it in his belt before giving it in turn to Jerry Hill so that Carroll could presumably drive comfortably, so at least three individuals' prints were necessarily added to the weapon. It is here, however, that the careful preservation of evidence broke down completely as Hill opened the cylinder and examined the weapon, and may have removed the individual shells from the gun, thus not merely adding a few of his his prints to the gun, but handling enough parts of it that Oswald's prints - which would have placed the gun in his hands - were destroyed. The investigatory use of fingerprint evidence was decades old in 1963, by no means a new concept that police were only just becoming familiar with. It naturally follows that fingerprint evidence cannot become evidence unless it is somehow preserved. To manhandle a murder weapon, thus both adding the prints of each successive person who handles the item prints to those already extant while also smudging what might remain of the supposed perpetrator's prints, clearly negates the value of such evidence ... if it does not remove the evidence entirely. Moreover, if anyone else's prints were on the pistol, someone other than Oswald, those too were obliterated by Hill's mishandling of the evidence. If, as some postulate, Oswald had not used the gun to kill Tippit, then it would have been another person's fingerprints that Hill smudged or obliterated, out of sheer ignorance (as Westbrook would apparently have it) or deliberately. Then, rather than taking the gun directly to Homicide to enter as evidence, Hill maintained the revolver (or a revolver, if any weight is accorded to C.T. Walker's claim of having Oswald's gun in his possession in the interrogation room!) in his own possession for two more hours, leaving it in the open on a desk in an office where it had no business being while "there were about no less than anywhere from half a dozen to a dozen newspaper reporters in and out," handing the weapon and the ammo repeatedly, and handing them to at least two other officers - McDonald and Carroll, and very possibly others - for them to examine and further smudge any prints. If Westbrook's recollection 25 or 30 years later about Hill having the gun in his hands while holding forth before a microphone, the handling of the gun even beyond the requisite examination by the other officers was clearly not kept to a minimum. While on one hand Hill is to be commended for "keep[ing] the chain short" in accordance with his own admonition to Poe by retaining the evidence in his own possession, he erred magnificently in not turning it over immediately to Homicide. In the end, a Homicide detective took custody of the weapon from Hill anyway, so having given it to Homicide sooner rather than later would only have placed the evidence in the custody of the appropriate authority without all of the others having had to handle it further; it would not have made the chain of evidence any more complicated. Homicide may also have dusted the gun for prints immediately (it was involved in a cop-killing after all, and thus had some priority), and even if Homicide did require the other officers who'd possessed the evidence for any period of time to scratch their initials into the weapon while holding it, the earlier prints would have presumably already been processed and their integrity maintained. This didn't happen only because Gerald Hill chose to not let it happen, once again out of sheer ignorance ... or perhaps deliberately. From a defense standpoint, the argument could be reasonably made that this elongated possession and manhandling by and at the behest of Jerry Hill was done deliberately to "frame" the defendant and remove any evidence of the person who'd actually shot Tippit, whom Hill was attempting to protect. Lacking physical evidence against the defendant, the prosecution would necessarily have to rely on circumstantial evidence to convict: his purported ownership of the weapon, and the apparent fact that he'd had it in his possession when arrested; it would in any case not have any evidence tying someone else to the crime. It makes one wonder if Hill didn't already know that the weapon would never see the inside of a courtroom. Given Hill's propensity for always being "where the action was" - to the extent that he is often referred to as "Officer Everywhere" - and his apparent last-minute scramble to get to the Texas Theater to involve himself immediately and directly in Oswald's apprehension, and finally to squeeze himself into the middle front seat between two other grown men (not a comfortable place for any adult, much less an overweight police sergeant whose physique has been described as "a fireplug with legs"), a case could be made that he was intent, even desperate to eventually gain possession of whatever key evidence he was able to. In this he clearly succeeded, and - to validate his superior Captain Westbrook's evaluation, "if he ever got his hands on it, he would never turn it loose, you can bet on it!" - he didn't let it out of his possession (for long) until he had no other choice some two hours and several photo ops later. Westbrook's would have been a winning bet. Unfortunately, it probably would have caused a losing setback to District Attorney Henry Wade when he brought Oswald to trial. But who knew he never would? --- This brings us at last to Westbrook's recollection of "one of the only humorous things" about the afternoon, the incident of an unnamed police officer - one of those surrounding Oswald during his apprehension - nearly having his own hand cuffed behind Oswald's back. Was it truly "an am that come up out of the crowd that somebody grabbed," or given Nick McDonald's testimony ... [Oswald's] right hand was on the pistol ... [and] my left hand [was on the gun in Oswald's right hand], at this point. ... Officer T. A. Hutson, he came to the row behind us and grabbed Oswald around the neck. And then Officer C.T. Walker came into the row that we were in and grabbed his left arm. And Officer Ray Hawkins came to the row in front of us and grabbed him from the front. By the time all three of these officers had got there, I had gotten my right hand on the butt of the pistol and jerked it free. ... was it one - considering both of Oswald's(?) hands were accounted for - that perhaps had a gun in it? If so, could it have been the gun that Walker eventually had with him in the interrogation room?

... The reporter who hitched the lift was Jim Ewell. Ewell was on the balcony looking down as Oswald was being arrested. He vividly recalled a shotgun being pointed down into the tangle of bodies at Oswald. .... I was thinking of someone at HQ going to DP. It might be in one of Valentine's reports(?). I'll have to look around to see if I can find it.

Just shows, Jack, you can't believe everything you read on the web. Bill has a copy of it, and it's reproduced on pages 340 to 343 of Lattimer's book. As for no suspicion (which you seem to believe because you thought no autopsy was done) I'd have to disagree. The FBI "debunked" the suspicion it was "articiially induced" in a memo dated 3.17.67. You can obtain an original copy of Ruby's autopsy report from the Office of the Dallas County Medical Examiner for a small fee. The official version is that: Dallas County Medical Examiner Dr. Earl Rose ruled the immediate cause of death to be pulmonary embolism. He said a massive blood clot had formed in the leg, passed through the heart, and lodged in the lungs. He also found evidence of cancer in the right lung, which he listed as a contributing cause of death. But much to the surprise of Ruby's doctors, who believed that the disease had originated in the pancreas, Dr. Rose found the pancreas perfectly normal. (David Wallechinsky & Irving Wallace, The People's Almanac, 1975-81; emphasis added) So the real deal here is not that Ruby died "suddenly" of cancer, but rather that a pulmonary embolism, which is said to be "a leading cause of hospital deaths" today ... and where it stood in the spectrum of "leading causes" 40+ years ago is anybody's good guess! As far as the medico-legal authorities in Dallas and Texas were concerned at the time of Ruby's death, there was no actual cause for suspicion of foul play, especially given the embolism which could generally not be induced by people who staffed the county jail or who visited Ruby in the hospital (as who may have been allowed to). It is also not something that you can "set in motion" earlier and expect to take place in the near future. That any suspicion arose outside of the medico-legal community does not mean that it was real or even meaningful. It appears that the reason(s) for Ruby being autopsied at all, absent the suspicion of foul play may be "for appearances," that is to rule it out or allay any suspicions in the first place. Another may be - it appears to be the case, but I can't find any history on the law going back that far - that Texas Law (at least now) requires autopsy in the case of someone who dies while in custody except if it is clearly a case of death by natural causes (old age, established disease, etc.). It was Dallas Medical Examiner Earl Rose who personally prosected Ruby. Rose, we will remember, attempted to stand up to gun-wielding USSS agents determined to remove JFK's body from his jurisdiction. I spoke with Dr Rose some 10-15 years ago, and would definitely categorize him as a "no-nonsense" kind of guy. If the man said that Ruby died of an embolism, that's how Ruby died. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that it really didn't matter whether or not Rose had prevented JFK's body from being removed, it was going to be a cover-up no matter who was involved, so we can stop bemoaning the fact that Rose didn't do JFK's autopsy. Or we can accede to his being the "right man for the job" and accept his finding. As our in-house super-skeptic recently said: So why are we discussing the facts of Ruby's death? We can't have it both ways!

Yes, the car was in use initially by Valentine, which he used to drive from HQ to DP. He then parked it and, according to his report, gave the keys to someone in command, and eventually someone had to go to retrieve the car later.That's as much as I remember offhand, but it is on account of this report that I was able to determine exactly "how" Jerry Hill got to the TSBD. Trouble is, Valentine doesn't corroborate his "passenger's" being with him, or Hill's account of how Valentine was just lounging around in the garage when Hill approached him and "commandeered" a ride. There's also a reporter or photographer tied up in this story at HQ somehow, tho' I don't recall at the moment exactly how he fit in (or didn't).

Thank you, Steve: I knew I'd seen it somewhere! (My immediate reference was in a bunch of WCH pages that I compiled together relating to the events in Oak Cliff - specifically dealing with the posssession of the revolver that shot Tippit - and all I had was "Apple" on the Channel One for around 1:11 or so at the end of belt 6.)If I had enough space to upload an image (only 837 bytes left in global space!), I could show exactly where Laws St is, but since I can't, it will have to suffice to say that Laws is about 8 blocks north of Elm off of Houston. According to the map, the "dead end" was not a cul-de-sac, but the end of Laws at Houston, or else its southeastern terminus, also about 8 blocks northeast of Elm & Houston. Either way, as noted above, Apple 10-4's the order to bring the drunk to HQ, so one of two things happened at this point or shortly thereafter: Apple brought the drunk to HQ and 20 minute s later, when he was called on Channel One, he was still at HQ processing the drunk into jail, or Three minutes after picking up the drunk, the call comes over Channel One about an officer being shot in Oak Cliff, whereupon Apple lets the drunk go and hauls ass to Oak Cliff like everyone else did (most without telling Dispatch until later, if at all). At 1:34, if he was at HQ, he couldn't have responded to the call. Otherwise, if he'd gone to Oak Cliff, he simply chose not to respond. As you noted, McDonald made the squawk (above) about the church basement just before 1:34. It was not until 1:40, however, that Hill called in on Channel Two: 550/2 (before 1:43) - A witness reports that he last was seen in the Abundant Life Temple about the 400 block. We are fixing to go in and shake it down. Dispatch - Is that the one that was involved in the shooting of the officer? 550/2 - Yes. Dispatch - They already have him. 550/2 - No, that wasn't the right one. (at 1:44) 550/2 - Advise someone to get in the alley and behind that building at the fire escape. (about 1:45) It's sort of interesting - mildly - to note that Channel Two is, at this point, dedicated to communications with the presidential (LBJ) escort to Love Field when Hill breaks in from his previous communications on Channel One to make the above comments. Immediately thereafter, at 1:46, he calls again back on Channel One(!) to ask "Do you have any additional information on this Oak Cliff suspect?" (huh? No report on the "shake down" of the Temple?) to which Dispatch responds, "They think he is at Texas Theater, 550/2." His next communication is at 1:52 to report, "Suspect on the shooting the police officer is apprehended and en route to the station ... Caught him on the lower floor of the Texas Theater after a fight." So we have the following: 1:33 - McDonald calls in from the Abundant Life Temple while other squads were shaking down the old houses between Jefferson and the alleyway that backs the Temple; 1:33 - Unit 66 (F.S. Williams) indicates he is "en route," presumably (based solely on the timing of his call) to the ALT; he calls in a short while later and gets no response. This is his last recorded transmission. His location is not indicated. 1:43 - 10 minutes later, 550/2 (Hill) calls in on Channel Two to say they're "fixing [getting ready] to shake down" the temple. It takes him about two minutes to complete this broadcast. 1:46 - Just one minute later, back on Channel One, Hill asks for "more information" about the suspect, is told that they "think" he's at the Texas Theater, and finally, 1:52 - Just six minutes later, Hill is reporting that Oswald has been apprehended, is in custody, in the police car, and headed toward HQ. McDonald only makes two broadcasts after the "officer down" call, the first around 1:25 indicating that he is "en route," and the next at 1:33 to get someone over "here" to "check out this church basement," indicating that he is already at the church. It is ten more minutes before anyone else (Hill) indicates that they are about to "shake down" the building (in which effort he expends less than a minute). McDonald is not heard from again until after Oswald's arrest. (The tape timeline also gives lie to Hill's claim of jawing with Apple near Apple's car after checking out the church, since just eight minutes after indicating that he's "fixing to" check out the church, and just seven minutes after requesting "someone to get in the alley and behind that building at the fire escape," he has already gone from the Temple to the Theater and aided in Oswald's arrest.) Something has a foul odor in a large city, to paraphrase an old adage?

From Hill's testimony: The next place I went was, I walked up the street about half a block to a church. That would have been on the northeast corner of 10th Street in the 400 block, further west of the shooting, and was preparing to go in when there were two women who came out and said they were employees inside and had been there all the time. I asked them had they seen anybody enter the church, because we were still looking for possible places for the suspect to hide. And they said nobody passed them, nobody entered the church, but they invited us to check the rest of the doors and windows and go inside if we wanted to. (7H49 - emphasis added) It appears as if it was Hill's choice not to enter the building, not that he was barred from entering in any fashion. Immediately thereafter, Hill said: An accident investigator named Bob Apple was at the location at that time, and we were standing there together near his car when the call came out that the suspect had been seen entering the Texas Theatre. (ibid., emphasis added) Apple neither testified nor made a report of his actions on 11/22, and he is not identified in any of the transcripts by name. In some earlier research, however, I was able to determine that the only Officer Apple on duty that day responded to a request by Officer Barnhart (38) at the behest of Captain Talbert (15) at or around 1:11 to 1:15 p.m. to pick up someone (apparently drunk) being detained by Barnhart (who rode a motorcycle and could not transport anyone) at the dead end of Laws, which is downtown. (CE1974, page 51) (Unfortunately, I don't immediately remember the source for determining this information. If I come across it, I'll post it.) I've long considered it odd that, with all of the officers searching through abandoned buildings in search of a cop-killer, and with reports of someone fleeing into the church, both that Hill /a/ was so easily "convinced" not to enter the church (despite being invited to do so if he wished), and /b/ that he would then relax and have a chat with Bob Apple near the latter's car when Apple was apparently a couple of miles away transporting a drunk prisoner. This, of course, is not the only time that Hill - who was (at least temporarily) assigned to the Personnel Department, and waxed eloquent when it came to identifying every officer he came in contact with by name and assignment - misidentified people he was supposedly with during the early afternoon: He claimed to have been transported from DPD HQ to TSBD by an Officer Valentine (who was driving car #207, which was the subject of an investigation into the car that toot-tooted outside 1024 North Beckley, the rooming house), while Valentine did not indicate that Hill or anyone else had ridden with him to Dealey Plaza (he was, in fact, attending to business in the Juvenile Section, while Hill described him effectively as "lounging" by his vehicle in the garage); and He identified the men he drove to Oak Cliff with from the TSBD, including one being Captain Westbrook, his immediate superior. However, none of the other officers, including Westbrook, named Hill as being in the car with them. I have elsewhere cited Hill's other curious actions especially with regard to the handling of the pistol, which is not mentioned (except minimally) in the report above. In sum, I don't think it's a necessary conclusion that Hill was "deflected" from entering the ALT or that his failure to enter it was necessarily innocent. If your analysis of McDonald's movements is correct, then it would follow that Hill was not far behind him, if behind him at all, if McDonald went to and entered the Temple. If so, it likewise follows that Hill either did not encounter McDonald (and knew nothing of his entering the Temple) therefore implying that McDonald did not enter it, or else that Hill was aware of McDonald's being in the Temple and chose not to mention it. Given Hill's lack of accuracy and inability to identify other officers correctly, one could reasonably conclude that he made up his story as he went along. It is also an interesting side-note that Hill's and Ruby's depositions were only ones on the record that were not of the standard question-and-answer format employed for every other witness called before the Commission and/or counsel.