Duke Lane

I've got to run off to do other stuff, but wanted to respond to a couple of items from the previous couple of posts:

Duke - I'm sure we can, for example, concoct a scenario where someone else gets the bus transfer into police hands - that's sort of difficult to say.

Greg - The bus story is a crock. McWatters thought he was being brought in to ID the young fellow who laughed/smiled/made innapriate comments when news of the assassination was being discussed. I have something on this somewhere, if you're interested.

I'm familiar with McWatters' statement about his thinking they wanted him to ID the kid, bu there are still the nagging little matters about McWatter's transfer being found on Oswald's person after he'd been arrested, and dear old Mrs Bledsoe's ID'ing him on the same bus.

Greg - ... As for Tippit, the articles by Bill Drenas have him acting in an increasingly agitated fashion after parking in a Gloco gas station and watching the traffic coming from the Houston St viaduct. He was apparently doing this from 12:45 to 1:00 - which fits neatly with the timeframe the Rambler picked up a passenger resembling Oswald from out front of the depository. His agitated behaviour from that point suggests something had gone wrong - or that he realised he was being dropped in it. Witnesses stated that he took off at high speed from the Gloco leading Drenas to suggest the possibility he took off after Oswald in Whaley's cab as they went past. Not difficult to imagine this happening - but with Oswald in the Rambler, not a cab.

There is one "non-discrepancy" that belies this entire scenario (which I've argued ceaselessly with Drenas) and that is where and when Tippit gave his locations on the radio. At one point (12:46?) he gave his location as being at Kiest and Bonnieview, a location in SE Oak Cliff. Eight minutes later, he was asked his location, and he said he was at 8th and Lancaster.

The most direct route from where he was to where he went is Bonnieview, which becomes 8th, which in turn intersects with Lancaster just west of the R.L. Thornton Expressway (I-35E - see map below). I have driven this route several times at "normal" speeds - remember that JD was not told to proceed at code (lights and/or siren) - and guess what? It takes just about exactly eight minutes!

They say "the devil's in the details," and this is one that's difficult to fake, "pretending" to get from somewhere you're not to somewhere else in just the right amount of time that it would normally take.

Duke - Another [question] would be why he wasn't just spirited off to, say, Redbird Airport and into a plane to Mexico if the real game plan was to get him out of the country. I mean, why go farting around little ol' Oak Cliff on foot if the "real deal" is hundreds of miles away, presumably by air?

Greg - They had to set him up for the Tippit hit and leave more incriminating evidence.

...

Duke - I mean, the whole library/Nick McDonald thing leads one to the conclusion that the "conclusion" was to be in Oak Cliff, maybe even at the theater, so if you've got to get the cops to kill the patsy, what better way to stir their emotions than to kill one of their own ... or better yet, two of their own? A second cop-killing right in front of their eyes (so to speak) would all but guarantee that whoever did it was not going to get out alive, don't you think?

Greg - It seems possible that the TT was the designated place for Oswald to wait - so they'd know where to find him should Tippit fail to deliver him to Redbird.

But wait! Of course Lee'd have to go to the theater because Tippit was going to fail to deliver him to Redbird because they were going to kill him first! The two possibilities are a contradiction.

Gotta run!

Baker's story morphed into whatever was needed at any particular time. As I do not think he was involved in any plot, but merely fell into line afterwards, I put most weight on his affidavit taken on the afternoon of the 22nd. In that, he said in regard to Truly, "...as I entered the door I saw several people standing around. I asked these people where the stairs were. A man stepped forward and stated he was the building manager..." Seems like Truly was already in the building when Baker entered.

According to Truly's testimony, he entered the building after Baker. As the building superintendent, it would make sense that he would want to be aware of and assist with police entering the building at any time. As to Baker's perception that Truly "stepped forward," someone coming into the door and through the people standing there - and where Baker had also come from - would seem to be "stepp[ing] forward" out of the crowd from the point of view of someone who was in the middle of the room. I don't know whether Baker knew who was in the building already or who followed him in, only that someone stepped toward him as the person in charge. Truly could have just as easily just entered the door and walked forward as anything else.

With regard to a description of this person, Baker said it was "a white man, approx 30 years old/5'9"/165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket."

Oswald: white male, 24 years old, 5' 9", 145 pounds, light brown hair, grey wool or flannel jacket ... The person Baker encountered does not sound like Oswald. ...

According to Mrs Reid, Lee was not wearing a jacket when he came through her office area.

The proof that it was not Oswald is in the fact that Oswald was in the same room awaiting interrogation as Marvin Johnson took Baker's affidavit. If it had been Oswald, the affidavit would say something like "the person I encountered was the suspect now under arrest." At the very least, he would have got the description right with Oswald sitting right there across from him.

Yes, it would seem that way, wouldn't it. It depends on what else was going on in the room, if anything, that might have prevented or distracted Baker from noticing Oswald when he was there. What are the cites on where Baker was and where Oswald was?

Somewhere between the time [baker's] affidavit was taken and the time Truly gave his on the Saturday, it was decided to (1) claim this encounter had been with Oswald, and (2) to switch it from third or fourth floor to second. These switches would be necessary since it is likely Baker did encounter the real gunman (or a decoy) and Reid's statement had placed Oswald on the second floor. Truly, I believe, went with Baker to ensure Baker did not arrest this man.

One could speculate how these things were possible, but how would they have been accomplished? Here's what I'm getting so far:

• Baker gave his report on Friday, stating he saw a man on the 3rd or 4th floor "walking away from the stairs; this person was not Oswald in the second floor lunch room, as evidenced in part by the apparent fact that Baker didn't recognize Lee while he was sitting in the same room at DPD HQ;
  
• In the meanwhile, someone (who?) decided that it was unacceptable to have had "the cop" (I'm guessing nobody knew his name?) encounter a conspirator (shooter or otherwise) on his way downstairs, and thus used Geraldean Reid's statement placing Lee in the second floor office coming from the lunch room to re-manufacture the encounter as having occurred on the second floor to coincide with Reid's encounter with him.
  
• Some time after this, "the deciders" somehow convinced Baker that he needed to play along with the scenario, which could have been easy enough if only based on Baker's inferior knowledge of the building (vice Truly's: "no, officer, you'll remember that this door was swinging shut ..."), his likely adrenaline rush (he was after someone shooting at the President), and his focus on what may have been going on in the upper floors.
  

Am I missing anything?

Here's what I guess I'm not quite getting yet:

• What was Truly's role in the conspiracy; how did he fit in? As noted elsewhere, he had risen through the ranks at TSBD, so had been there for some period of time, thus he hadn't been at the CIA Conspiracy School or to Cuba, and he wasn't Italian, so who was he conspiring with? If he wasn't tied in with any of the usual groups - or was he? - then how did he come to take a part in all of this? I am presuming that it was not TSBD suppliers who were doing the shooting ....
  
• How did Truly & Company "get to" Baker to get his testimony to conform with their "cover story?" What was his (or Campbell's or Cason's) connection to the DPD that they could have brought any kind of pressure to bear on him? Was that connection direct or indirect (i.e., did they know someone or just have their own influence)? Or was it merely a case of continual "reminders" of "what happened" whenever Baker came back to the building for official purposes? Or did maybe Baker come back unofficially to refresh his own memory, and have it "refreshed" for him?
  
• How could they have known what Reid's statement was? I don't know offhand when Geraldean gave her statement, or if it was before or after Truly's. Even assuming it was prior, if it was given to DPD or DCSD, how did Truly & Company know what it contained unless they were present when she gave it, or unless they had "someone on the inside" to let them know? And if the former was the case, was Truly's just a case of fast thinking on the feet, or did he have time to confer with others - or did he even need to confer with anyone else?? - so the "correct" story was able to be circulated and "firmed up?" If the latter, you're inferring a different conspiracy than is normally postulated.
  

The thing is, if that's the case, it could not have begun and ended there; it had to continue through to Oswald's own execution and beyond, otherwise we'd have to believe that TSBD had its own "part to play" in the conspiracy and the rest was left to chance. On TSBD's part, it looks from this like it:

• Hired Oswald, specifically, on a pretense together with Charles Givens when the actual trend was to start laying off employees due to slackening times rather than hiring them. The only "excuse" - if that's all it was - to do so was to have the available manpower to re-surface the upper floors (in which case, why not use the inexperienced men to nail boards to the floor rather than fulfill orders?
  
• Enabled the shooter(s) with entry to the building and a guarded exit meaning, too, that the shooter(s) was or were known to them, at least by sight (and none of these people suffered "mysterious deaths!"). This, it would seem, would necessitate some orchestration of the other inhabitants of the building during the crucial period, or else their complicity to one degree or another;
  
• Made up and coordinated a story to implicate Oswald that survived - or merely fit into - the recollections of all of the other building employees. The latter case would seemingly require advance or immediate knowledge of what each of those employees said in their statements.
  

I've gotta run for now, but wanted to make at least these few points. By no means am I suggesting that any of this is necessarily impossible, but in order to be even vaguely possible, much less probable, these things would seem to need to be accounted for. Your thoughts?

Don't worry, I'm not confused.

Greg - The ALT "was part of a network run by H. L. Hunt, Carl McIntire and Billy James Hargis - called the American Council of Christian Churches, a right-wing organization that involved itself politically with many Cold War efforts, including the struggle to free Cuba. . . ." according to Eric Tagg's book on Buddy Walthers. The book is called Brush with history: A day in the life of deputy E.R. Walthers.

Thanks, I've already found copies for sale.

Duke - Still, what you're suggesting here tends toward the local rather than the national ....

Greg - Those I believe were involved in the planning had strong local ties.

Interesting. To whom or what?

Greg - As for Tippit, reports had him parked in a spot with a clear view of traffic coming from DP. I think he was waiting for the car Oswald was picked up in and he was to deliver him to Redbird. Obviously something went seriously wrong at this point. I also think Tippit was doomed whether or not he delivered Oswald to the airport. He would be killed, with Oswald framed for it via evidence left that would linkhim to Cuba (the Hidell ID). If any cop was expendable, it was Tippit. He couldn't even fill out his own paperwork according to his personnel record.

Maybe so ... but don't you think that someone would have to have a grudge or something against him? I mean, you don't just go killing fellow officer - an observation that is implicit in your reference to his personnel record - because they can't fill out paperwork. You either have to really want the guy dead, or at the very least consider him the absolute pits as a cop. You also would have to think very little of his family or otherwise - as they say the Mob does - "set them up" financially afterward. They would probably have to accept the whole deal for it to be credible, no?

Duke - He didn't say (or, nobody says he said, anyway, since we really don't know what he did say behind closed doors) that he was told he could take the afternoon off, only that he "didn't think there'd be any more work" for the rest of the day.

Greg - I can't recall who - but one of those present at the interrogations claimed Oswald had said Shelley gave him permission to leave. Even if this were true, Shelley had no authority to do so, and would have been acting under orders from Truly or Campbell. According to Don Willis, Shelley may have in fact, also left early. Google "The Employee Who Was Missing from the TSBD--William Shelley" for details.

Well, it really doesn't matter what authority Shelley or anyone else did or didn't have, what matters most is what the person he told anything to perceived him as having. If he was wrong, it only matters if the person was caught, or if anyone cared to do anything about it. Witness the fate of Lt William Calley. I'll look into the Shelley-leaving-early thing.

Duke - Personally, if I were to build a scenario that had Oswald getting framed - and killed - for the murders, I would probably have him dying in a hail of gunfire in the theater after Nick McDonald was shot ... except that the "big bang" didn't happen, and there was no time for a second try before McD got his hands on the gun.

Greg - Indeed. And in my opinion, he got his hand on before entering the TT. He was trying to plant it on Oswald as an excuse to kill him. Getting him out of the country had failed. This would have to do. Oswald saved himself by making sure everyone heard him say he wasn't resisting.

Duke - I think you may have something there ... tho' I also don't think McDonald went into it expecting he'd be the next casualty either. And if the gun didn't go off, what would the excuse for shooting Oswald have been?

Greg - It didn't have to go off. It only had to be said that he'd pulled it. Who in Texas is gonna question McDonald shooting him under the circumstances?

I see your point again, but it doesn't "listen" well. When was McD supposed to shoot Lee anyway? I don't think it makes sense that McD would attempt to pass off the idea that LHO threatened him with a gun and then not shoot him while the weapon was in his hand. In other words, it's very difficult to prove - or, really, even suggest - self-defense after you've disarmed the perp ... and McD did do just that and handed the gun off to someone else; the threat was neutralized, no good cause for shooting.

It would seem the much easier approach given those facts would have been simply to shoot him, turn around and get the gun from someone, put it in the dead guy's hand and then say "he tried to shoot me." No, I think McD was just another "poor dumb cop" if anything.

Greg - Very late here, and I think I may have answered bit and pieces from two different posts - which was not my intent. When I get time, I'll check your posts and try and sort out what's left to respond to. Hope it's not too confusing.

Not in the least, but thanks for your concern!

My reply continued ....

Just curious, what made the ALT a "safe house" other than that, if anybody was hiding in it, they weren't found?

The ALT "was part of a network run by H. L. Hunt, Carl McIntire and Billy James Hargis - called the American Council of Christian Churches, a right-wing organization that involved itself politically with many Cold War efforts, including the struggle to free Cuba. . . ." according to Eric Tagg's book on Buddy Walthers.

Not familiar with that; have no idea. I'll have to look into it if possible.

Still, what you're suggesting here tends toward the local rather than the national ....

What witness accounts track someone to that location?

See police radio transcripts.

And who was it that caused it not to be searched?

The false sighting at the library stopped some from searching as they sped off to that diversion, and Hill, in his attempt, was seen coming up the stairs by two ladies inside. They opened the door and told him they'd seen no-one and everything was jim dandy inside. Good enough for Hill, apparently.

Now that's a pretty passive role ... or very lucky on the part of whomever had managed to set all of this up ... Truly giving the "go" signal to Oz the patsy ... his managing to get away by the skin of his teeth ... pulling a dumb move like shooting a cop, drawing attention to him and his "friends" ... and then (phew!) along comes that lucky call to the library. Are you sure of all this, or maybe there are some other holes to fill? Like, for instance, if the game plan was to end up at the ALT in the first place and the library call was a planned diversion, then what was the deal with Tippit such that they'd need a diversion from that little murder?

Personally, if I were to build a scenario that had Oswald getting framed - and killed - for the murders, I would probably have him dying in a hail of gunfire in the theater after Nick McDonald was shot ... except that the "big bang" didn't happen, and there was no time for a second try before McD got his hands on the gun.

Indeed. And in my opinion, he got his hand on before entering the TT. He was trying to plant it on Oswald as an excuse to kill him. Getting him out of the country had failed. This would have to do. Oswald saved himself by making sure everyone heard him say he wasn't resisting.

I think you may have something there ... tho' I also don't think McDonald went into it expecting he'd be the next casualty either. And if the gun didn't go off, what would the excuse for shooting Oswald have been?

Then, I'd get Harry Olsen in the picture ... as if he wasn't already! (See the thread Jack Ruby, There can be only one?.)

Harry Olsen's memory was so poor, it's not surprising he had to leave the force.

If you say so. You do realize that it was the second time he got fired in the previous 18 months, don't you?

Here's a summary of what I think you're suggesting: You feel that it's possible that TSBD execs were in on the deal going down and purposely set up Lee Oswald, both weeks before the assassination by hiring him to be in the right place at the wrong time under false pretenses, and then after the fact by /a/ possibly shielding him from what was really going on (say, so he could continue to act innocent), or maybe having his active participation in some role inside the building, and then, in either of those cases, /b/ sending him elsewhere and then calling attention to him by subsequently bringing his absence to the attention of the police. The rest, as they say, is history.

Is that about right ... at least up to that point? If so, the next question would have to be to whom the TSBD folks turned control of the situation - and Oswald - over to once Lee had left the building.

Another would be why he wasn't just spirited off to, say, Redbird Airport and into a plane to Mexico if the real game plan was to get him out of the country. I mean, why go farting around little ol' Oak Cliff on foot if the "real deal" is hundreds of miles away, presumably by air?

Third might be how all these contingency plans (like a fake call to the library, or Nick McDonald attempting to plant a gun on Oswald) happened to be in place in little ol' Oak Cliff if Oak Cliff wasn't part of the plan to begin with? What do you think: did Tippit accidentally stumble upon a man walking down the street (one of many, if Harry Olsen is to be believed from his vantage point six blocks away), decide he was somehow suspicious, and end up getting himself shot and killed for his efforts? Or might he, too, have been a diversion?

I mean, the whole library/Nick McDonald thing leads one to the conclusion that the "conclusion" was to be in Oak Cliff, maybe even at the theater, so if you've got to get the cops to kill the patsy, what better way to stir their emotions than to kill one of their own ... or better yet, two of their own? A second cop-killing right in front of their eyes (so to speak) would all but guarantee that whoever did it was not going to get out alive, don't you think?

Well, I dunno. You've opened a couple of areas that seem interesting to follow, tho' I don't know that they'd lead anywhere beyond speculation, but it makes for an interesting "alternate scenario" as folks on CompuServe used to bellow for years ago (as in: "if you can't concoct a better and more plausible story than the WC version, then that's what has to have happened").

More later?

My reply continued ....

Campbell, in an undated statement taken by Leavelle, said in part, "I went back to my office and an FBI agent came in and introduced himself. I do not remember his name. He asked that I have all the employees vacate the building. This I did, telling them to take the rest of the day off. I remained in the office until 2:30pm or 3:00pm. Then I left."

Campbell does not indicate what time he ordered everyone to leave, but Roy Edward Lewis said in his statement found in CE 1381 that he left at 1:15pm. Oswald may well have been the first to be let go.

I think it's fair to say that it was well prior to 1:15 that LHO "may well have been the first to be let go," if that was indeed the case. If so, why was he singled out for a privilege not extended to anyone else for at least another half-hour, such extension of privilege forgotten, denied or disclaimed - and certainly not volunteered - by anyone who would have extended it?

It would seem that LHO had to have left the premises before any permissions were given to anyone to take the day off or to "vacate the building." He didn't say (or, nobody says he said, anyway, since we really don't know what he did say behind closed doors) that he was told he could take the afternoon off, only that he "didn't think there'd be any more work" for the rest of the day.

If he were already in Oak Cliff by 1:00, then when he left TSBD was before any FBI agent told Campbell to "have all the employees vacate the building," since, if I'm remembering correctly, Forrest Sorrells was the first FBI agent (back) on the scene after the shooting, and he didn't arrive until 1:00 or sometime shortly thereafter.

Too, if LHO was given permission to leave - and again, he didn't say he had been - then that would mean that someone told him something nobody else was told, with the sole intent of getting him to leave the premises. Even accomplishing that, there would then have had to have been some way to know (or decide) where he was going to go after he left.

An important point, too, is that despite the fact that he had been to Irving the evening before, it still was a Friday, and Irving was his usual destination ... albeit with his co-worker whom he apparently didn't ask about riding home with. Still, anyone trying to set him up simply by giving him "permission" to leave had no way of knowing that he wouldn't go somewhere other than where they'd need him to be.

Otherwise, the setup was incomplete and very possibly doomed to failure: what if he'd gone to Irving, or simply gone window shopping downtown, and hadn't been anywhere near where Tippit had gotten shot?

As for why they "didn't they get his [name and address] instead of just letting him pass", what makes you think they didn't? Are you aware that Revill made a list of employees names and addresses before Oswald was arrested, and that Oswald was at the top of the list? Are you aware that the street number on that list was slightly off - an Oswaldian thing to do, given the slight misinformation he'd supplied on other occasions.

Yes and yes ... and I'm also aware of the question that's been posed about how anyone there got that address for Oz, and your explanation makes sense ... if Revill was there soon enough after the shooting stopped to get Oswald's name from Oswald. Was he? Well, since we don't really know when Oz left or how he got to Oak Cliff - I'm sure we can, for example, concoct a scenario where someone else gets the bus transfer into police hands - that's sort of difficult to say.

Am I remembering correctly that the list was handwritten, or at least that LHO's was? If handwritten in its entirety, is the handwriting the same? (I recall that something - other than the fact that LHO's name was at the top - stuck out about it.) Also, for the sake of asking, are the people who follow his name in an order that makes sense vis-a-vis CE1381: first the people who were inside the building, followed by the people who couldn't get back in? If not, did Revill keep going in and out until he got everyone?

Even still, it would seem to have to be an incredible coincidence that the very guy that "they" wanted to get out of the building and would set up as the patsy was the first one not only whose name was taken down, but who was let loose ... as nobody after him was for at least ... what? Half an hour or 45 minutes?

Not trying to be critical (or WC-apologetic!), just trying to fill in the holes, if that's what they are.

More to the point, Jeraldean Reid was back at her desk within two minutes of the shooting, and Oswald pass through her office moments later, headed downstairs. Whether or not the Baker encounter ever took place (on the second floor or elsewhere), Baker and Truly were on their way up six more levels as Oz was making his way down one. It would seem unlikely that, if Lee went directly out the door - or even lingered for just a few moments (since nobody mentioned seeing him) - it is doubtful that Truly could have been there and upstairs at the same time ... or even that he could have taken the elevator down in time to be there to vouch for Oz after taking Baker on the guided tour upstairs.

Despite having most faith in first day statements - whether to DPD, FBI or press, I do think some errors were made - possibly just in how the stories were recorded or perceived by the recorder. One error I think was in Campbell's statement that the Oswald/cop/Truly encounter happened when Truly first went back inside....

No question about Campbell's error ... or is there? Well, assuming the stairwell B/T/O encounter is true (even if the details are wrong), I guess not. So he misperceived something that took place in his own building (well, not actually his; Harold Byrd's) amid the confusion of a rather unusual event happening outside his doors just moments before. Seems reasonable. Seriously.

... So it would seem, then, that the same latitude should be applied to Baker's statement about where the encounter took place, especially when you consider that he was in a building he had (presumably) never been inside before. The stairs were half-flights as I remember, requiring going up one, then reversing direction and starting up the next to go up one story. Thus, in haste and confusion - or not even bothering to count, more intent upon reaching a destination he knew he hadn't reached than being concerned with how far along the pathway to it he'd come - he easily could have mistaken the number of floors he'd gone up.

And haven't you done the same? Even visited a new friend's house a second time and wondered "gee, it seemed like it was a lot farther/shorter the other night" or something similar? No real idea what floor he was on at first, but after having gone back a time or two (he testified following the re-enactments) he knew it was the second ....?

... I think it happened after Truly had come back down. Oswald hadn't been seen by others because he'd gone into a storage room on the first floor, and this is where he was found in the "round up" and let go. There was a side door still open according to Billy Loveday, so again, if he left through that, it's more than possible no one saw him. This scenario fits with Roger Craig's account, btw.

Looking at CE362 (16H958 - not very clear even in its original printed form), the "storage" shown is not very large, not much more than a closet beneath the mid-way landing half-way up to the second floor, tucked away in a corner. I have no idea what might've been stored in there - it doesn't look much bigger than a closet used for execs and secretaries to put their winter coats and rain gear in - but it would seem like a pretty odd place for Oz to spend any appreciable amount of time there without arousing suspicion, nor for his co-workers not to think it odd enough to remark about him having been there. Really: I can't imagine - can you? - that any cop worth even half his pay, even with assurances that the man worked there, would just let someone being found in a place like that just walk away?

Perhaps if he'd ducked in there for a moment and ducked out again when he saw an opportune moment, then maybe nobody would have paid much attention ... but if he'd been there any appreciable amount of time - say, long enough for Baker & Truly to have made it up to the 7th floor, looked around and made it back down - it seems unlikely that he wouldn't have been viewed with a helluva lot more suspicion, even by his closest associates. Moreover, if they were actually conducting a "round up" - which may or may not have actually occurred - and he was found then, I can't imagine nobody noticing or commenting on it.

If it happened in the first couple of minutes after he'd come downstairs - say, about the time Robert what's-his-name the reporter came in looking for the phone (an "opportune moment?") - then it's a bit more plausible, but that doesn't leave time for Revill to show up and start gathering names.

In any case, if we actually propose LHO doing this - being so furtive, almost even desperate to get out of the building unseen - then we've described a man who wouldn't seem very likely to do the (unspoken?) bidding of someone who was trying to get him out of the building so his absence would be noted. And if he was trying to get out unseen - at which he was apparently successful, at least insofar as people who weren't looking for him were concerned - then he must've been nabbed by someone else when he'd managed to squeak out.

His exits would have been limited to the front door; the door on the east loading dock; and the doors at the west loading dock. The latter two present problems in that on the west side, cops and sheriff's deputies were combing through the parking lot behind the grassy knoll where so many of them thought shots originated; not a very good place to run to; and on the east side, you've got patrolman W.E. Barnett watching the side of the building and fire escape, along with James Romack playing at sentry duty at the rear. Neither saw anyone exit from the building, at least not for the first few minutes following the shooting. After that, there was also the KBOX news crew to contend with.

Unfortunately, the only person who could have told us exactly what transpired was killed under suspicious circumstances just a couple of days later.

Well, it does make it harder... but it can be pieced together... the peices are scattered, but they're there. They're there in first day statements, Fritz's notes, intorrogation reports and press reports.

I find it difficult to lend any credence to notes that didn't exist for 25 years, and may or may not have been in original form when the did begin to exist. As also noted previously, first impressions are not always the best impressions.

I see your point with regard to Truly, but can you explain how - short of a cohort of his grabbing Oswald and spriting him away - Truly "ensured" that Oswald left the premises?

By vouching for him with police and telling him he could go.

At best, I can only see that Truly could have diverted police attention from persons, places or events within the building, but not that he could have ensured that Oswald (or the "mystery coke-drinker" in the lunchroom) was not detained, or anything else for that matter. What if Oz had decided to watch the events from inside the doorway?

Then others would have seen him, and the whole plan goes belly up. Oswald had to be a party to events in some way, if what I'm proposing here is correct - which in turn means he would not be watching from inside the doorway.

Again, I take your points, and it gets hairy here ... and you're right, it does require Oswald to be a party in some way if the direction you're going is correct. The question is, in what way? I think it's fair to say that it was not as a witting patsy ... wittingly as a patsy, that is: I have difficulty imagining someone - anyone - going along with the plan that "you're going to get blamed, you have to run, you're probably going to get killed." I likewise have difficulty imagining someone as reasonably intelligent as Lee Oswald thinking that his leaving TSBD after the shooting - assuming he knew (and how could he not?) that that's what spurred his having to go into action - thinking that his leaving would not cast suspicion on him.

So if not that, then what?

More shortly. I sometimes think that this forum doesn't like to many "quote" sections and subsections, and if that's the case, I've passed my limit for a single message. BRB!

Campbell was a VP in the TSBD operation (as was Roy Truly, another VP - tho' Campbell made out as if Truly was his subordinate;

Duke, in the scheme of things, it's difficult to blame Campbell. You are quite wrong in saying Truly was a VP. The structure was this: Cason - President and Treasurer; Campbell - VP and Secretary; Truly - Superintendent. Directors - Cason, Campbell and Truly. Company stock owners - Cason and Campbell. Truly had worked his way up through the company.

You're quite right. Truly had said in his testimony that he was a director of the company. It was my bad memory thinking he'd said VP.

Campbell gave no testimony, but was mentioned several times in others'.

2H44; 3H189, 202, 214, 219-221, 230, 273-274, 279; VI, 339, 370, 397; 7H219-220, 379-380; 22H110, 845; 23H692, 816, 824-827; on shots from knoll, 3H274; Report: 154

Otherwise, his only direct contribution to the record was his 11/28 statement, comprising one paragraph about Oswald's pay records (CE1129).

That's two assertions so far that are wrong. I won't criticize you for it, as I have made assertions here myself which have been wrong. I will correct you, though. Nearly every time the FBI wanted to check on something to do with the TSBD, they checked with Campbell. The full list of FBI interviews with Campbell is CE 1129, CE 1435, CE 1887 (23H692), CE 1965 (23H816), CE 1970 (23H824-827).

Right again. I cited them above (locations in blue in your list), but didn't turn the page.

One could almost be tempted to snicker at his reference that Oswald "did not have permission to leave the building" as if such permission was necessary, or that anyone else who was outside or away from the building - which were several - did have permission.

The temptation is lessened because it's frightening in its way that some of the very people he worked with - and worked for - began to paint him in a sinister light almost immediately: no shocked disbelief, no outward shows of support, no kind words amid the dismay ... just allusions of guilt. Makes ya wonder ....

Couldn't agree more. At the very least, Truly aided in the plot by creating a temp vacancy on a false premise.

True. I think it was Bonnie Ray Williams who made the statement that TSBD was putting the boys to work at odd jobs to keep from laying them off as business usually got slow as the holidays approached. If that's so, then why did they ADD Oswald just a few weeks before?

An encounter with police on the first floor hardly precludes another encounter with others elsewhere. Jeraldean Reid testified to his crossing through her second-floor office toward the elevator and stairway at the southeast corner, with the clear presumption that he went down one or the other to the main floor since they didn't lead anywhere else ... and to right near the front entrance to boot.

I have never disputed his encounter with Reid, so I don't know where you are coming from here...

Only to the point you raised that LHO didn't encounter B&T on the second floor at the lunchroom. What mitigates in favor of that is that LHO apparently was in the lunch room at about the time B&T would have been going by there - shortly before two minutes after the shooting - getting a soda pop. For B&T to have not seen LHO in the lunchroom and still guessed correctly that he'd been in there doing what he'd been doing is a bit of a stretch.

The point being that Oz apparently was in the lunchroom getting a coke, and that apparently B&T knew he was, so to eliminate the encounter completely seems to lack basis.

Hence, Oz clearly would have "experienced" officers on the first floor, although in the immediate aftermath, I'm not certain how clear it is that they were "taking details from employees for later contact" (if they were, why didn't they get his instead of just letting him pass?). He may have been challenged on the first floor, and either Truly or someone else may have vouched for his working there if so ... although nobody stated - or admitted - as much.

Some employee statements from CE 1382 ....

You mean CE1381? That's the trouble with quoting things from memory ... at least in my case.

Either way, I don't disagree with what you selected, but there are also quite a few instances where employees said that they could not get back into the building at various times and for various reasons, including (as I recall) at least one where "the door was locked." I've got an analysis on one of my web pages. With many of them kept outside - and nobody really specified that they'd hung out right in front of the doorway - the rest of them weren't necessarily immediately available if someone wanted to "round up" the employees.

More in just a little bit ....

Perhaps 601 murdock (which is a vacant lot in 1986 at least) is just an address picked by someone passing there regularly ....

I am looking at the tax rolls for Dallas County right now, and there is no parcel legally described as '601' Murdock anywhere in the county. The only 'Murdock' is in Dallas, and of 14 parcels numbered between 500 and 625, 11 of them have assessed values under $50,000; four of them have improvements with under 1000 square feet (with two more being 1000-1200 sqft); and five of them - #600, 605, 609, 547 and 543 - show no improvements at all, i.e., vacant lots. (The 500s were included only to include the possibly of '501' being mistakenly written as '601.') The largest of the improvements in this block is under 2100 sqft.

The parcels on the Nassau Circles (North and South) are all numbered between 7000 and 8999. The largest home on the Nassaus is 2052 sqft.

In a neighborhood as old as this one is, it is unusual for two or more parcels to be combined into one (e.g., 601 and 605), and rarer still - even in newer, larger subdivisions - that they're combined into a parcel with the higher number (i.e., if 601 and 605 were combined, they more likely would become 601 than 605).

Ochus Campbell as quoted in the New York Herald Tribune 23nov63 from statements made to the press on 22nov63: "Shortly after the shooting we raced back into the building. We had been outside watching the parade. We saw him (Oswald) in a small storage room on the ground floor. Then we noticed he was gone." Mr Campbell added: "Of course he and the others were on their lunch hour but he did not have permission to leave the building and we haven't seen him since." ...

Campbell was a VP in the TSBD operation (as was Roy Truly, another VP - tho' Campbell made out as if Truly was his subordinate; Jack Cason, the president, had gone home for lunch ... another "missing employee" of TSBD!) and was standing beside Truly outside the door, on or near the steps, according to Truly and Jeraldean Reid, before the shots. Campbell gave no testimony, but was mentioned several times in others'.

He was questioned by the FBI on 11/24 and stated that he was not personally acquainted with LHO, but that Roy Truly had told him that all of the company employees "had been rounded up and one employee ... was missing," which is hearsay at its best (CE1435). Otherwise, his only direct contribution to the record was his 11/28 statement, comprising one paragraph about Oswald's pay records (CE1129).

One could almost be tempted to snicker at his reference that Oswald "did not have permission to leave the building" as if such permission was necessary, or that anyone else who was outside or away from the building - which were several - did have permission.

The temptation is lessened because it's frightening in its way that some of the very people he worked with - and worked for - began to paint him in a sinister light almost immediately: no shocked disbelief, no outward shows of support, no kind words amid the dismay ... just allusions of guilt. Makes ya wonder ....

According to Harry Holmes. Oswald gave the following account: "a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers [note the plural] that I am one of the employees of the building."

Officers [plural] were indeed on the first floor taking details from employees for later contact. How could Oswald know this unless he experienced it?

An encounter with police on the first floor hardly precludes another encounter with others elsewhere. Jeraldean Reid testified to his crossing through her second-floor office toward the elevator and stairway at the southeast corner, with the clear presumption that he went down one or the other to the main floor since they didn't lead anywhere else ... and to right near the front entrance to boot.

Hence, Oz clearly would have "experienced" officers on the first floor, although in the immediate aftermath, I'm not certain how clear it is that they were "taking details from employees for later contact" (if they were, why didn't they get his instead of just letting him pass?). He may have been challenged on the first floor, and either Truly or someone else may have vouched for his working there if so ... although nobody stated - or admitted - as much.

While "my superintendent of the place" would certainly seem to be Roy Truly, we have to remember that Holmes was relating this discussion second-hand: if those were indeed LHO's exact words, it may be indicative, but we have no way of knowing whether they were or not: he could also have said "my boss" or "my supervisor," which would have been Bill Shelley. Parsing second-hand statements is risky.

More to the point, Jeraldean Reid was back at her desk within two minutes of the shooting, and Oswald pass through her office moments later, headed downstairs. Whether or not the Baker encounter ever took place (on the second floor or elsewhere), Baker and Truly were on their way up six more levels as Oz was making his way down one. It would seem unlikely that, if Lee went directly out the door - or even lingered for just a few moments (since nobody mentioned seeing him) - it is doubtful that Truly could have been there and upstairs at the same time ... or even that he could have taken the elevator down in time to be there to vouch for Oz after taking Baker on the guided tour upstairs.

Whoever vouched for Oswald on the first floor - if anybody did - it most likely was not the "superintendent of the place," Roy Truly, who was the only "superintendent of the place."

Unfortunately, the only person who could have told us exactly what transpired was killed under suspicious circumstances just a couple of days later.

Oswald was stopped on the first floor, questioned and let go - probably not by Baker. Truly ensured he left so he could be reported missing.

I see your point with regard to Truly, but can you explain how - short of a cohort of his grabbing Oswald and spriting him away - Truly "ensured" that Oswald left the premises? At best, I can only see that Truly could have diverted police attention from persons, places or events within the building, but not that he could have ensured that Oswald (or the "mystery coke-drinker" in the lunchroom) was not detained, or anything else for that matter. What if Oz had decided to watch the events from inside the doorway?

That he was the only employee "reported missing" even while several others were absent and away from the building is beyond doubt ... but not "beyond question," since one legitimate one is: "why weren't the others reported missing, too?"

Oswald was to be killed outside the US - not arrested or killed in the TSBD. Baker stopped the actual shooter (or a decoy). Truly ensured he too, was not arrested. Using witness descriptions, you can track this guy from the TSBD all the way to the Abundant Life Temple "safe house" he was seen and reported as entering. This was never searched.

Just curious, what made the ALT a "safe house" other than that, if anybody was hiding in it, they weren't found? What witness accounts track someone to that location? And who was it that caused it not to be searched?

Personally, if I were to build a scenario that had Oswald getting framed - and killed - for the murders, I would probably have him dying in a hail of gunfire in the theater after Nick McDonald was shot ... except that the "big bang" didn't happen, and there was no time for a second try before McD got his hands on the gun. Then, I'd get Harry Olsen in the picture ... as if he wasn't already! (See the thread Jack Ruby, There can be only one?.)

Duke joked:

"Jack :: John

White :: White

Kennedy :: just a hobby? (c'mon, what's up with that?)"

I do not get the joke. Please explain.

Jack

You're Jack White. He's John ("Jack?") White. Your avocation is Kennedy. His middle name is Kennedy. Could you possibly be one person just using different photos and writing back and forth to each other? Hmmm....

Yes please, Duke. I've looked for the address on a number of occasions when it seemed relevant with no luck. I was trying to figure something out and kept coming up against that in following Ruby's movements.

John, the place was known as Simon's Garage, located at 1300 Jackson, Dallas.

Here's what "Johnny" had to say about it:

JOHN J. SIMPSON, JR., advised he resides with his sister, Mrs. GRADY AILES, at 731 Norwood Drive, Hurst, Texas, and is currently employed as a service station attandant at the Gulf Service Station located at the corner of Pipe Line Road and Harrison Lane, Hurst, Texas.

SIMPSON advised that he is commonly known by the nickname of "JOHNNY". He stated that from late Friday night, November 22, 1963, until 6:00 a.m., Saturday morning, November 23, 1963, he was employed as the night parking attendant at Simon's Garage, 1300 Jackson, Dallas, Texas.

He recalls that aroudn 1:00 a.m., Saturday morning, November 23, 1963, a Dallas police officer named OLSEN (whom SIMPSON believes is no longer employed as a Dallas police officer) came to Simon's Garage and got his car. OLSEN then pulled up the the garage exit to wait for his girl friend, name unknown, who was working as a dancer at JACK RUBY's night club, located just one block away on Commerce Street. When the girl friend came and got into OLSEN's car, they started to drive off, but the girl apparently saw JACK RUBY walking down the street and she yelled a greeting to him. RUBY called back, and OLSEN stopped his car when RUBY came up to the car to talk to OLSEN and the girl.

SIMPSON stated that RUBY, the girl, and OLSEN must have conversed at least an hour and possibly longer at this time by the garage.

SIMPSON stated that he did not take part in any of the conversation and does not know what the three talked about. He does recall having overheard RUBY remark that he had been to police headquarters that same night and had taken coffee and eats to the police officers. SIMPSON stated he knows JACK RUBY

by sight but is not a personal friend of RUBY's. He knew OLSEN as a member of the Dallas Police Department, and he recognized the girl with OSLEN as one of the dancers at RUBY's night club, but SIMPSON stated he was not a close friend of the three individuals. He would have had no reason to listen to or partake in their private conversations.

(All emphases added.)

Page one of this exhibit was a cover letter dated September 1 stating that the interview of "one 'Johnnie' (Last Name Unknown)" was requested by the WC by letter dated August 25, 1964. All of the underlined sections above indicate those that differ from Harry and Kay's April 1964 depositions. There does not appear to be any follow-up to the contradictions by anyone investigating the situation. Of course, by September 1 - plus the time it took for the report to reach DC - it really was moot as the WC was already closing up shop. An interesting item for the record, tho'.

This incident as well as Harry's guarding of the "estate" in Oak Cliff are so minor in the grand scheme of things that weekend, one really has to ask: "Why lie, Harry? What are you hiding?"

... Mr. STERN. What next occurred on the 22d, Mr. Hosty?

Mr. HOSTY. All right. After the conference that lasted until about 9 a.m, I then left the office and joined an Army Intelligence agent, and an agent of the Alcohol Tax Unit of the Treasury Department. We had a conference concerning a case not related to Lee Oswald. ...

This probably was Frank Ellsworth of the ATF - I don't recall the Intel guy's name - conferring on the Terrell Armory/Fort Hood arms thefts. At least, that's what Ellsworth once had to say. Whether it was related or unrelated to LHO in any way is a matter of debate.

I would like to start with a quote from JFK's secretary, Evelyn Lincoln's book, Kennedy & Johnson (1968). Lincoln says that JFK was very reluctant to go on the trip to Texas: “Advance reports from our own staff and from many other people gave us cause to worry about the tense climate in Texas – and, most especially, in Dallas. Dallas was removed and then put back on the planned itinerary several times. Our own advance man urged that the motorcade not take the route through the underpass and past the Book Depository, but he was overruled.”

Lincoln comments on a meeting that took place between JFK and Connally only three days before Bobby Baker resigned. The meeting was about Baker and the proposed trip to Texas. After Connally left JFK told Lincoln: “He sure seemed anxious for me to go to Texas”.

I have been able to find out more about this incident. Kennedy’s advance man was Jerry Bruno. He actually wrote about this in a book called The Advance Man (1972). In October, 1963, Bruno went to Dallas to inspect the route. He met with Ralph Yarborough who warned that Johnson and Connally might be involved in some conspiracy against Kennedy. He told Bruno that they would be “after Kennedy in a minute if they thought they could get away with it.”

After inspecting the route Bruno became convinced that it posed several dangers. He met with Connally and demanded that motorcade route should be changed. Connally refused and the discussion became heated. With this, Connally got on the phone to the White House. From what he heard Connally say, it appeared that the White House gave its backing to the proposed route. Bruno accepted the decision but after the assassination the White House Staff denied the Connally telephone call took place.

I have read many accounts of how LBJ might have been behind or at least had advance knowledge of the whole deal, but I've noticed that anyone seems to have drawn any connection between the story that LBJ wanted Connally - his political protege - to ride with him in the VP car, and for Ralph Yarborough to ride with JFK. The story goes that the two of them - JFK and LBJ - got into a heated argument about this (in Fort Worth?), and that JFK prevailed.

IF LBJ knew about what was going to happen (I've always thought that photo of him standing behind JFK in Fort Worth spoke volumes!), it not only makes sense in light of the above that LBJ would want his buddy away from the gunfire - with Yarborough as acceptable possible "collateral damage" as Connally turned out to be - and it sure sheds a different light on Connally's comment in the car, "My God, they're going to shoot us all [and not just Kennedy]!"

Just some random thoughts ....

I wonder if anyone has any information as to the address of the gas station that Harry, Kay, Jack and Jimmy had a chat variously described as 'brief' and three hours long the night before Jack shot Lee? JohnD

John, it was a parking area - garage or lot, I'm not sure, but I think the former - not a gas station. Harry's testimony identifies its location; I don't remember it offhand, but can get it for you if you really need it.

Obviously, Jack was never asked about it; on the other hand, Jimmy - actually, his name was Johnny; I don't recall his last name at the moment, but I've got the info around here - was. Harry didn't know Johnny's last name (because he didn't really know Johnny except in passing) but the FBI has its resources, and found and interviewed him at his home in Grand Prairie a short while later. His story is markedly different than Harry's, which amounts to that it didn't happen the way Harry said it did. At all.

Johnny stated that yes, he recognized Harry and Kay from their having parked there before, and knew of Jack Ruby and had seen him, too, but that he'd never spoken with any of them at any length (beyond, say, "thank you, sir, have a nice evening"), and with respect to that particular conversation - which he'd witnessed - said that he "didn't overhear" any of it, and "certainly" didn't know any of the participants in it "well enough" to engage in protracted conversation with them, and was not a participant in the conversation Harry described and claimed he took part in.

Harry lied. And then lied some more:

We're all familiar with Harry & Kay's story (they were husband and wife at this point, and could never be called to testify one against the other, but had obviously concocted a story to tell) about how Jack was "bawling" about "poor Jacqueline and the kids," a regular babbling idiot. Clearly the man was out of his mind with grief and should not be held accountable for his actions (seeing as how he was on trial at the time, it's almost a wonder anyone was even asked about him for the record!).

One can understand how such despair would stick out in someone's mind ... which would then make one wonder why Harry's original story doesn't match his testimony: in December 63, when interviewed by the FBI in his Dallas hospital bed following a car accident, he said that Jack was "no more upset than the average guy" after Kennedy's assasination. Four months later, Harry sings a different tune from California.

...And we're not even going to start delving into the rest of his testimony here, but it's definitely "post-doctorate" work (you've heard about technical degrees? BS, MS and PhD? Right: Bull S__t, More S__t, Piled Higher and Deeper).

I was looking at Robin Unger's photo gallery and I saw a good frame of "construction worker man" as the motorcade passed him (near DCM/UM)...

He appears to be giving Kennedy the full, two armed "finger" with both elbows up and one forward.

We have discussed his unusual posture elsewhere, and what I see is an emphatic gesture of contempt, you know "stick it up your @$&" which really ties him to Umbrella Man, who was supposedly making a point about appeasement and Neville Chamberlain with his prominent (signal) umbrella......

I happen to be reading a book unrelated to the assassination - Peter Wyden, Bay of Pigs: The Untold Story, Simon & Schuster, 1979 - apparently one of the first (if not the first) in-depth analysis of the "fiasco" (a generous description, given what Wyden describes) and my attention was drawn to the repeated mentions of - and emphasis on - an "umbrella" of air protection covering the Brigade, with or without the Brigade's own B-26 air cover.

Immediately prior, I read through the LaFontaine's Oswald Talked, which postulates involvement of the "betrayed" Brigade Cubans (probably as much or more by the Dallas mayor's brother than the President), and as I read the passages in BOP, the thought suddenly struck me: whoever came up with the "Neville Chamberlain" idea?

No, I would say that if indeed TUM was trying to make any kind of a statement (besides "bang, you're dead!"), it had nothing to do with Chamberlain, but rather a reference to the "umbrella" of air protection that never materialized over the BOP.

The location of TUM - and the complexion of his companion - better suggest a case of "in case you're wondering in the next few seconds what's happening and why, here's your answer." It would - in theory at least, if he had ever heard the term or indeed if he had any idea of what had been promised to the Brigade by the men on the ground with them prior - mean more to Kennedy in that respect than any vague reference to Neville Chamberlain ever would.

Unless, of course, it really was just Louie Steven Witt making sure all the rain had dried off his raingear.

In any case, BOP does make interesting reading, and I recommend it to anyone interested in that aspect of history: if you ever wondered why "fiasco" got attached to it so firmly, you won't wonder anymore after reading this!

...

12:40pm? Tom Tilson, sees a man that would fit in with Lee Bowers description, sliding down the embankment with an object that appears to be rifle shaped, slams into the side of the car, which is not a green Ford pick-up but a dark car, and drives off. Tilson and his daughter give chase, and Tilson catches up to the man and gets a good look at his face - Tilson believes it is Jack Ruby. [On-line account, below]. The McIntyre photo doesn't mean crap to me personally - if they altered the other photos, no reason to start thinking this one was left alone. ....

Or any of the rest of 'em either. How can we be sure Jack Kennedy's really even dead? The faked Z-film or the bogus autopsy photos or maybe the coerced and altered testimonies of the Parkland doctors, or the doctored DPD tapes? No reason to start thinking any of it is real!

(The real deal is that, in those days, ex-presidents could only retire, not latch onto lucrative board and consulting jobs, so ol' Jack, thinking ahead, knows his only saving grace will be as a martyr, so fakes his death and now collects royalties off of all the books and films and such. Be sparing with your word$$ here!)

On the particular topic above, I said it once, I'll say it again: Tom Tilson Tells Tall Tales. Sosumi.

Nobody could confuse the lunchbag with the gunbag.

Any idea where that Coke bottle is from? Any chance it was on the retaining wall? Looks like they are handling it to preserve any prints that may have been left on it...

It is not a Coke bottle. It is a DR PEPPER bottle...a distinct difference. As I recall it was found on the fifth floor with the chicken bones.

Jack,

Dern straight there's a difference ... especially to someone who drinks Dublin Dr Pepper! But damn if they still don't all come in "coke bottles" ... even 7-UP, 'cept o'course everyone knows ain't no "coke bottle's" green!

Speaking of Texana (Texas lore, to all y'all uninitiated), one must go back to the segregationist South - and Dallas - of the '60s to wonder at just how subjugated the average black folk were back then. For example, if in fact the coke (small "c") bottle, lunch sack and chicken bones were found on the 5th floor, we'd have to wonder at the fact that ol' Bonnie Ray Williams done testified to eatin' his lunch on the 6th floor 'fore going down the elevator to the 5th floor to meet up with ol' Junior and Slim, leaving his leftovers behind ... even described where he'd left them right, just the same as others say they'd found 'em.

Now if that wasn't the case, how'd it come to pass that ol' Bonnie Ray done got his story straight with the officers'? Maybe it's not outside the realm of possibility that on the eve of his appearance, some of the boys just come 'round to have a little ol' talk with him to 'splain how things really happened, maybe a couple of times just so's to be sure he remembered right an' all. I mean, he does like his job down there at the ol' Book Depository an' all, doesn't he? (Sure does.) But was everyone so compliant in the early '60s?

That's not to say that his gettin' the facts straight don't also jibe with the every-bit-as-unlikely scenario that them three boys done heard those itty-bitty ol' shells hittin' the floor up yonder, even knockin' some dust onto ol' Bonnie Ray's head an' all ... while all durin' the parade and after, none of 'em heard a peep - much less a footfall - from ol' Jack Dougherty, who done tol' them Warren Commission boys that he'd been up on both the 5th and the 6th floors durin' the same ol' lunch hour before the shots. That man musta moved like a ghost, y'know?

And, y'know they didn't see Jack neither when he was but fifty feet or so from 'em when they go rushin' over to that there window yonder by the railroad tracks and he's over by them elevators - accordin' to Jack anyway - that he wouldn't send down to ol' Roy Truly his boss man when Truly called up for one (but gets right to ridin' down on one soon as ol' Roy gets to clompin' up them stairs alright).

'Course, they didn't hear or see ol' Ozzie Rabbit neither, and sometimes I wonder why not. I mean, an eyewitness or two might'a been nice t' have, even if they only seed ol' Oz outta the corner of their eyes or something. They worked with him, after all, so I'd guess even a little glimpse could'a been pretty conclusive, wouldn't ya think?

'Course too, all this just leaves me to wonderin', Jack, about you and ol' John here. I mean:

But ya know I'm pullin' yer leg on that'n there, it's not like I ain't thinkin' yer writin' back-n-forth with yourself quite yet or nothin', but gosh, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I could have a field day with that'n, doncha think?

Lee this FBI statement is quite confusing. This individual is relating an unbelievable story. First off, the distance travelled is 3 miles. At 10:30 a.m. on November 20th or 21st (Wednesday and Thursday), I doubt traffic was an issue, so I assume the trip took maybe 4 minutes total.

How could the person hitch hiking relate all these things in 4 minutes and this fellow remember each thing they said (and showed a photo) with apparently astonishing accuracy? I think either this person made up the whole thing after the fact, or then he's just off his rocker.

... Also - if I can attach a map - you'll notice that the Beckley St exit from R.L. Thornton (I-35E ... the same highway as Stemmons Freeway, BTW, just a different section) is almost as far south of 1026 N Beckley as 1026 is south of TSBD: in other words, if it was LHO, he'd have to have gone about as far AWAY from work to hitchhike as he would have had to walk TO work! ...

I didn't mean to crop R.L. Thornton's full route from the above map because, seeing it - and today, it's pretty much as it was in '63, intersecting with I-30 (which was then the Fort Worth Turnpike, Donald Wayne House's route home ... tho' he didn't quite get that far) in pretty much of a maze.

What you have is two 60-mph four- to six-lane divided highways intersecting and sharing the same roadway for a little more than a half of a mile, with vehicles merging in different directions depending upon where they want to go (east or west on I-30, north or south on I-35E) and where they're coming from.

Add to the mess of the orderly confluence of vehicles the disorder created by people who don't know where they're going (and where to turn off to get there), and people who thought they knew where they were going, but turned out not to have (stopping and slowing down, moving over - or trying to - several lanes, even stopping), plus the fact that there are downtown entrances and exits in the midst of it ... and don't forget the frontage/service road, too!

The point is that, even as short a distance as it is from S Beckley to DP, just negotiating this confluence of highways can take you four minutes, even when traffic's not that heavy.

I'll time it one of these days if I think of it. I just came through the same route as Yates took last Sunday - lots of traffic even then, and more than a little amount of the confusion I'd described - but nobody told me we'd be talking about this then (shame on y'all!! ) so I didn't time it. I'm not even going to estimate how long it took right now because I'm sure to err in either direction by as much time as Antti thinks the whole trip might've taken!

Lee Forman Posted Nov 3 2006, 02:24 AM

This one is always worth wondering about.

Lee this FBI statement is quite confusing. This individual is relating an unbelievable story. First off, the distance travelled is 3 miles. At 10:30 a.m. on November 20th or 21st (Wednesday and Thursday), I doubt traffic was an issue, so I assume the trip took maybe 4 minutes total.

How could the person hitch hiking relate all these things in 4 minutes and this fellow remember each thing they said (and showed a photo) with apparently astonishing accuracy? I think either this person made up the whole thing after the fact, or then he's just off his rocker.

The one thing that mitigates in favor of this statement is that it was given so soon after the assassination, just two business days - and four full days - afterward (I only mention 'business days' from the standpoint of someone possibly thinking they couldn't contact the FBI on weekends).

At that point, I don't know (but I'm sure a 'lurker' somewhere will set me straight!) that specifics related to the paper bag or the backyard photos had been released yet. If not, how else could he have known about them?

Moreover, he stated that the events described occurred "at approximately 10:30 AM" on either the Wednesday or Thursday before the shooting, when there is no question that LHO was at work.

Also - if I can attach a map - you'll notice that the Beckley St exit from R.L. Thornton (I-35E ... the same highway as Stemmons Freeway, BTW, just a different section) is almost as far south of 1026 N Beckley as 1026 is south of TSBD: in other words, if it was LHO, he'd have to have gone about as far AWAY from work to hitchhike as he would have had to walk TO work!

So our Mr Yates may be "off his rocker," but if so, perhaps only as much as people who watched LHO shoot and talked with him at the Sportsdrome, or drove with him from Downtown Lincoln-Mercury.

Of course, if that info was known at the time, then what mitigates against it in most major form is the fact that Yates got the wrong part of Beckley (south of Jefferson ... or "South Beckley") and a bad time. Too bad Dempsey Jones wasn't interviewed as well (or was he?).

According to the record, Marrion Baker upon hearing the shots believe they come fom an upper floor of the B/D. He drives straight to the biulding, and rushes up the stairs joined by the building super Roy Truly who is in the doorway, and hurries up the steps to the second floor, where he catches a glimpse of someone through a glass window and challenges him to "come here" gun in hand he is about to start questioning him when Truly arrives and identifies Oswald as an employee. Question, is there any evidence that anyone else in the biulding was challanged by Baker in this aggresive way, or had he, by shear luck, picked on the lone assassin..What ever, this incident seems to have got Oswalds motor running, and he goes from a calm, Coke drinking employee, to a fugative on the run.

Just a couple of minor corrections above. There is also the fact interspersed among these others that Truly and Baker (T& first go to the elevator shafts at the rear of the first (ground) floor, find that the elevators aren't there, look up and see the bottoms of both elevators at the fifth floor, and yell for someone to send one down, which doesn't happen. That is when T&B start up the stairs.

After the encounter with LHO, they continue upstairs to the fifth floor where they find one elevator, the other one having gone down while they were "creating a commotion" and making a lot of noise running up the stairs. Truly speculates that the person who rode down - without being seen or heard by either T or B - must have been Jack Dougherty, who also testified to having done exactly that, albeit without having heard his boss yell up to him to send an elevator down.

B&T then board the elevator and go up to the seventh floor, bypassing the sixth, and searching around upstairs before coming down again to the sixth, then again go onto the elevator and down to the first floor, whereupon Baker exits the building.

Leaving aside any and all speculation or theories of who it could have been, if there were ever a time when someone on the fifth and/or sixth floor(s) could have left the building undetected by Baker, there were two: riding the elevator down while B&T were running up (and making a lot of "cover noise"), and again when T&B rode the elevator from the fifth floor past the sixth floor, and spent time poking around on the seventh.

Also note that LHO didn't become a "fugitive on the run" anytime immediately following the encounter with Baker since Jeraldine Reid watched LHO walk from the lunch room, nonchalantly ("calmly") through and across her office (open like a steno pool) and out the opposite (east) door. Whatever interrupted LHO's "calm" demeanor from that point on is anybody's good guess, but it does not appear that the Baker encounter was any kind of direct catalyst.

From where he was last seen by Reid, he had two means of egress (three, if you count him doubling back around the office via the encircling hallway and back down the rear stairs or elevator), those being a passenger elevator at the southeast corner area that went only between the first (ground) and second floors, and a short stairway in the same general area that only went between the same floors. From there, it was a short walk out the front door, near which - as I recall - he supposedly said that he'd directed someone to the telephone.

None of these things suggest to me someone "on the run."

Thanks, Duke. Where did the alleged Nash Rambler come from? Wasn't it from behind the TSBD? Didn't Carr, the construction worker, observe it?

Jack

If I remember correctly, Carr said that it came "from the rear" of the TSBD as opposed, perhaps, to "from behind" it. I have always pictured in my mind that he was referring to it having been parked on the west side of Houston St near the rear of the building and coming south to Elm. Didn't he also allege that he'd seen someone run "alongside" the TSBD and jump into the car, which then sped off southward on Houston to ... was it Main?

I have also heard - but not observed for myself - that from where Carr said he was, you can't even see TSBD - or at least not at street level, such that you could see someone running from the front or around the side. Maybe one of these days when I've got extra time on my hands, I'll try to get up to look and take a photo.

If that's the case, then it really doesn't matter what Carr said he saw if he couldn't see what he said he saw, does it.

Incidentally, the self-appointed "guard" watching the back of the TSBD was James Romack. He is somewhat corroborated in his statements by DPD W.E. Barnett, and "Pop" Rackley, Virgie's dad, who worked with the same company as Romack.

Curious if anyone knows how long it took the Dallas police to seal off this street?

The Bell film shows that Houston was blocked off north of the Elm intersection BECAUSE IT WAS BEING PAVED AND WIDENED NORTHWARD. See fresh concrete in middle of frame. So the street WAS ALREADY CLOSED north of Elm.

Jack

So there was no way for a car to head in the direction of the construction? In other words, if a car was parked behind the TSBD in the loading dock area, it would have to make a RIGHT turn, toward the front of the building?

I don't know. The street just north of Elm (behind the DalTex Bldg) MAY have been open, but it deadends into Houston. In the next block, the street curves to the east, as the Bell frame shows. Houston was then two-way, not one-way as now. But during and after the assassination it was blocked to traffic. I do not know additional traffic details.

Jack

Jack is correct about the construction, even if you can't see it clearly in the screenshot of the MPEG. At least two people testified before the WC about it, and I have information on the construction from the newspapers at that time to verify it.

While the street was unquestionably closed off for construction, that did not prevent anyone from entering it, if they didn't mind bumping along rather than riding over smooth macadam.

Sam Pate drove several blocks through it from the other direction, in a red 1962 Pontiac station wagon belonging to the radio station he worked for (call letters slip my mind at the moment). It was, from what I gather from talking extensively with Sam about this, a "pretty rough ride," but not one that apparently did any serious or permanent damage to the vehicle, or kept it from making it from one end to the other.

The only difficulty of note was that, at the end of his trip at the rear of the TSBD, someone had to move a barricade to let him back out onto the pavement and then into the TSBD lot. He has never suggested that he encountered barricades - in place, anyway - anywhere else entering or passing through the construction, which was several blocks in size.

While it was at least possible that a car could have left the rear of the TSBD and turned left on Houston into the construction, it doesn't appear likely that it happened any time within, say, 15 minutes of the shooting. Quite a number of people were back there including not only Sam (intermittently) but also a man - whose name escapes me at the moment - who basically put himself on "guard duty" watching what went on back there for at least several minutes.

He was watching for persons running - which he did not see - so you'd have to make your own guess as to whether a car was so big that he couldn't have missed one if it came along, or whether he could have missed it because he was so intent on looking for a person.

Had they not been forced into the questioning of Mr. Altgens by the newspaper articles, who knows exactly where Mr. Altgens position may have ended up

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0068b.htm

I do believe that the "written word" has now moved Mr. Altgens to a position "opposite" the TSDB.

When he was in fact "opposite" the steps which lead down to Elm St, and "opposite" the position of Emmett Hudson, way down past the position of Mr. Abraham Zapruder, past the first yellow stripe on Elm St, and some 30+ feet farther down the street than the impact point of the second shot to the head of JFK at Z313.

Report, page 112:

The Report should have referenced Willis Exhibit 1, slide 5 in this same batch of evidentiary photos, but did not, nor was Willis 5 published in the Report at all. According to the quoted analysis, Altgen's photo was taken "30 to 45 frames (approximately 2 seconds)" after the President was first shot, which by the same analysis happened when Phil Willis shot his Slide 5, supposedly at Z210. Yet W5 is not published, so there's basically no way to compare one photo with the other to compare or contrast them.

(Even what was published in the Hearings & Exhibits (21H770) hardly compares in quality with even a copy of (a copy of?) the original.)

I don't disagree with your basic thesis, which is that the WC showed the "jury" what they wanted it to see; that is, the basic evidence that supported their view, presented and interpreted in such a way as to bolster their position. That is no different than any prosecutor or defense attorney will want to do (avoid presenting evidence - however obvious - that paints the perp as possibly innocent, or the client as possibly guilty).

As noted, the WC were able to do so because there was no adversary to counter their argument or present another. Those who've done so since then, of course, are all amateurs and "kooks," again no different than the view of any prosecutor or defense attorney ("how dumb can the jury be? It's unbelievable that they reached the verdict that they did, given the evidence we presented" ... which was apparently countered more effectively by the opposition!).

I have never said that the WC was fair and unbiased, or even honest: I've read and evaluated 'way too much to ever reach that conclusion! My mere point is that the finer points of the photos were probably not examined - nor used in setting up the photos in the first place - as closely as has been done since then in selecting what they would present as their "evidence."

At first glance, the photos appear to be nearly identical - and in fact they are "nearly" identical - so if they could choose where they thought Altgens was standing, shoot a photo that looked "about right," then that was all the "homework" they had to do to "prove" their point. I find it difficult to fathom that they would take a series of photos from various places - from where Altgens was to where they wanted him to be - then compared and contrasted with his photo until they found one that put him where they wanted him to be that hadn't gone too far astray from what was shown in his actual photo.

The only reasons I have difficult with that are because /a/ if you succeed reasonably enough doing it the easy way, why complicate matters; and /b/ there are none of the "other" photos still in existence. Is it not still possible that someone took the shots, chose the one they liked and destroyed the rest? Sure. But if they were so good at "creating" evidence and getting rid of what "didn't fit," they certainly would have done a better job of it, like burning the Executive Session transcripts and such: the whole thing would have been "lily white and pure," not even vaguely open to opposing interpretation ... but clearly that's not the case.

I guess my dilemma is choosing when to consider then clumsy and when to consider them crafty, which they alternately seem to be portrayed. Were they both, and if so, did they deliberately choose when to be one or the other, or was it simply fate? The long and short is that the Report is, as Mark Lane characterized it, a "prosecutor's brief," and all the evidence should be viewed in that light.

Duke;

When all aspects of the Altgens position are taken into consideration, that the "re-enactment" photo was as deliberate an act as was the attempt to not even call Mr. Altgens to testify, becomes quite obvious within the "circumstantial chain" of evidence.

Somewhere, long ago, I "backdrew" the position from which the re-enactment photo was actually taken, which is of course irrelevant as the WC went out of it's way to attempt to "move" Altgens way up the street closer to the Z313 headshot.

Simply stated, the exact position of James Altgens could be determined to within a matter of a few inches since he and the second stripe on Elm St. are clearly defined in the film.

Therefore, there is absolutely no excuse for having some "acidentally" mislocated photo location.

And, when one takes a look at the letters on the TSDB which show between the fork in the tree, this is fully representative of what the extent which the WC went to, as well as their mistakes.

The "Altgens re-enactment photo" happens to be a blind within a blind, which was utillized multiple times by the WC.

And lastly, most third graders could have done a better job of photo alignment, based on the letters on the front of the TSDB as well as the edge of the column in the background behind JFK.

The WC was neither stupid nor were they this incompetent, and just as no one had figured out the charades of the "Adjusted Position" utilized during their survey re-enactment and what it represented, even those who caught the obvious discrepancy in the CE900 photo's, were at a complete loss to explain exactly what the hell it had to do with anything.

That to date, (mid-1990's anyway) no one had managed to figure out the game which the WC was playing with the evidence, as well as what these games were about, attest fully to the competence of Specter & Company in obfuscation of the simple facts of three shots fired------three impacts.

Thomas, by no means do I mean to argue that the WC - or any other investigation of this incident, official or otherwise - did not try to make its "evidence" fit its "solution," which IMHO it clearly did. I am merely addressing the issue of the photo.

As a photographer myself, I have often attempted to duplicate others' photos for various reasons; most are approximations, "close enough for government work." Speaking as one who has looked through many a viewfinder, IMO the lettering between the tree branches was simply too distant to use as a gauge of whether or not you were at the right angle - and therefore in the right position - or not: even IF you could make it out, it looks "close enough" to the original to make one think they were in the right place.

The alternatives are - and can only be - that multiple photos were taken and the one that was WRONG was the one that was chosen as a "re-enactment," and/or Altgen's position was "pre-determined" (incorrectly), the photo taken, examined closely, and determined to be "proof" of the "correctness" of that pre-determination despite its "obvious" error.

Frankly, I don't believe anyone examined it that closely. At best, it was determined to be "close enough," and nobody went back to try to correct it since it "proved" the WC position as to Altgen's location just the way it was.

Unfortunately, the letters no longer exist on the building, so it is impossible to re-create both photos exactly today, at least not using the letters as a gauge. Thus, on that basis only, you can't determine even if the re-enactment photo was taken where the WC placed Altgens or just somewhere nearby. Or at least you can't do it by trying to re-create either photo.

On the other hand, the photo does clearly prove that the WC did not go to great lengths to ensure that what they did re-create was accurate, and that they were happy to allow "close enough" to be passed off as "exact proof."

The question in this thread really comes down to just this: was the WC's "un-evidence" carefully calculated, or was "looks good, sounds good" simply good enough to serve as "proof," ignoring exactitude whenever it didn't support the pre-determined conclusion, and being "exact" only when necessary to support it?

I tend toward the latter: the simple fact is that they would never have gotten any assistance or support in determining the actual truth had they pursueed it, they knew it, and they just did what they had to do to come up with the result that they had no choice in coming up with. Basically, they were doing what all criminal lawyers do: they built the case their client paid for, and they got away with it simply because there was no adversary to contradict or disprove them.

Tom, I've been looking and looking, but can't come to any answer. I can see that your'e right that they while superficially it looks like it, they haven't lined the two up properly. As you say the letters through the tree branch etc. I can't conceptualise where the two cameras would have been in relation to each other except that one was to the left of the other. So I don't have an answer. What is it? More hints please.

EDIT:: I think I see that the reenactment is taken from a closer position than Altgens and correspondingly higher up?

The inset photo at the bottom right was taken a short distance to the right of where the corresponding original photo was taken. The distance does not appear to be that great, although I couldn't calculate exactly how far without knowing things like the size of the letters, etc., and even still, I'm not sure I've got the math skills for it.

Ditto all of the above for determining whether or not it was taken closer to the building than the original.

In any case, it appears to me that the re-enactment was valid attempt at recreating where Altgens stood. Could it have been more exact? Probably, if they'd taken the time to trace exactly how the letters (for example) appeared in the re-enactment photo, but frankly, I think they're probably "close enough for government work" (could it have been the inspiration for the phrase? ).

For it to have been a purposeful misplacement, the supposed perps would have had to go through as exacting a process to ensure that the photo was taken in the wrong place as they would have to ensure it was in the exact right place, so for that reason alone, I have little faith that there was a nefarious purpose - at least not the nefarious purpose of mis-placing Altgens on purpose! - in taking the photo from where it was taken.

... Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't normal police procedure be to publicly request the old man to come forward to make a statement (along with anyone else who may have been in the building that day for whatever reason, up to the time of the assassination)?

Probably ... but none of them were Lee Harvey Oswald, so why bother?