Duke Lane

I started thinking that, after the shooting, the one person who would never arouse suspicion during the check of the TSBD would be someone in a Dallas police uniform. ....

... here's another question just for the sake of it: after Marrion Baker, who were the next five law enforcement (police, sheriff's deputies, FBI, etc.) personnel on the upper floors of the TSBD?

Not sure = but I do wonder how easy it would have been for one of the Dallas officers to be one of the shooters and completely escape detection. After all, few people see them specifically go in the building after the shooting, they have a perfectly legit reason for being there, nobody thinks their presence is the least bit suspicious and they basically control the investigation. This is not to cast aspersions on the Dallas police force as a whole, it's just a tantalizing possibility.

It is ... which is why I asked who were the first law enforcement personnel on the upper floors. Marrion Baker was definitely first, and I'm thinking Luke Mooney was next, but before I say anything further, I just want to see if you - or anyone - might know about anyone else in between. Five is just a number I picked to cover all the bases.

The following Dallas Police officers were off-duty on Friday, November 22, 1963 but most of them showed up in the vicinity of the TSBD at some point during the day:

...

I started thinking that, after the shooting, the one person who would never arouse suspicion during the check of the TSBD would be someone in a Dallas police uniform.

Does anyone have insight into the character/background of any of these men that might shed light on their activities that day?

Not offhand, but here's another question just for the sake of it: after Marrion Baker, who were the next five law enforcement (police, sheriff's deputies, FBI, etc.) personnel on the upper floors of the TSBD?

Also employed by South-Western Publishing were Gloria Calvery, Carol Hughes and Karen Westbrook (all of whom were outside during the shooting), as well as Karan Hicks (who was alone in the office).

Hicks was outside with Calvery, Westbrook, and Carol Reed. The employee who was alone in the office was Carol Hughes.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol22_0342b.htm

Mea culpa! I think that for some reason, her unusual first name just stuck out in my mind. Anyway, the point was primarily just to name the other South-Western Publishing employees. None of them had anything to say about either Truly or Caster.

From the testimony of Geneva Hine about Hine's activity right after the shooting:

Miss HINE. . . . I knocked on the door of Lyons and Carnahan; that's a publishing company.

Mr. BALL. What did you do then?

Miss HINE. I tried the door, sir, and it was locked and I couldn't get in and I called, "Lee, please let me in," because she's the girl that had that office, Mrs. Lee Watley, and she didn't answer. I don't know if she was there or not, then I left her door. I retraced my steps back to where the hall turns to my left and went down it to Southwestern Publishing Co.'s door and I tried their door and the reason for this was because those windows face out.

Mr. BALL. On to Elm?

Miss HINE. Yes; and on to the triple underpass.

Mr. BALL. I See.

Miss HINE. And there was a girl in there talking on the telephone and I could hear her but she didn't answer the door.

Mr. BALL. Was the door locked?

Miss HINE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. That was which company?

Miss HINE. Southwestern Publishing Co.

Mr. BALL. Did you call to her?

Miss HINE. I called and called and shook the door and she didn't answer me because she was talking on the telephone; I could hear her. They have a little curtain up and I could see her form through the curtains. I could see her talking and I knew that's what she was doing. . . .

Hine could hear Hughes talking on the phone, but Hughes couldn't seem to hear Hine calling and calling and shaking the door.

Also, despite Hughes's vantage point from a window overlooking Elm Street and the underpass, she was not called to testify by the Warren Commission. In her FBI statement she says "I was standing looking out this window when President John F. Kennedy was shot." Incredibly, not a single word follows about what she saw.

Also odd is the statement of Vida Lee Whatley, on whose door Hine knocked, not knowing if Whatley was there. While seemingly everyone else from the building was watching the motorcade, Whatley says she left the building at 12:15, and when JFK was shot "I was shopping on Elm Street and was walking between the Moses and Kress Stores when I heard a pedestrian remark that the President had been shot." http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol22_0355b.htm

Apparently not seeing the president that day, going right by her workplace, was no big deal to Whatley. But I hope that whatever she bought (if anything) was worth missing the crime of the century.

As to Whatley, she was not alone in her nonchalance over the President's visit, so I don't put much issue to that. Jack Cason left TSBD to go home to lunch, didn't care much about seeing no President. Matter of fact, he heard on the radio that JFK'd been shot, then stopped at a store before continuing home (CE1381 p18). Of course, he may not at the time have drawn any connection between the TSBD and the shooting, as Whatley might not have either. Warren Caster went to the dentist rather than see Kennedy; me, I'd rather do anything than go to the dentist!

Helen Palmer took the day off, but in her "defense," she went to Love Field to watch JFK land and went back to the TSBD when she heard about shooting (she couldn't get in, but stuck around for a while anyway @ CE1381 p71). But for some real fun, consider the actions of Madie Belle Reese and Ruth Dean:

Talk about nonchalance: watch the President get shot, then go deposit your paycheck! Ruth Dean merely said:

Other than that, no, there's not much else to tell, eh?

As to Hughes, you note:

From the testimony of Geneva Hine about Hine's activity right after the shooting:

Miss HINE. . . . I knocked on the door of Lyons and Carnahan; that's a publishing company.

Mr. BALL. What did you do then?

Miss HINE. I tried the door, sir, and it was locked and I couldn't get in and I called, "Lee, please let me in," because she's the girl that had that office, Mrs. Lee Watley, and she didn't answer. I don't know if she was there or not, then I left her door. I retraced my steps back to where the hall turns to my left and went down it to Southwestern Publishing Co.'s door and I tried their door and the reason for this was because those windows face out. ...

Mr. BALL. Did you call to her?

Miss HINE. I called and called and shook the door and she didn't answer me because she was talking on the telephone; I could hear her. They have a little curtain up and I could see her form through the curtains. I could see her talking and I knew that's what she was doing. . . .

Hine could hear Hughes talking on the phone, but Hughes couldn't seem to hear Hine calling and calling and shaking the door.

Also, despite Hughes's vantage point from a window overlooking Elm Street and the underpass, she was not called to testify by the Warren Commission. In her FBI statement she says "I was standing looking out this window when President John F. Kennedy was shot." Incredibly, not a single word follows about what she saw.

Once again rising to the defense, consider that if Hughes had been looking out the window and had seen Kennedy's head get blown off, she might well have been upset. Some people react to upset by getting on the phone, and if that was the case with her, it is very possible that between the shock and upset and concentrating on the phone call, she really could not hear Hine knocking at the door.

As to the FBI statement, nothing is "incredible" when it comes to their selective hearing and/or reportage. After all, J. Edna had already told them what had happened almost before it had happened, so if she didn't see Lee with the gun or had seen someone shooting from elsewhere, then obviously she didn't see anything of note. Why take up the WC's valuable time with such drivel? After all, there was a crime to solve!

By March 20, Hughes' traumatic(?) experience watching Kennedy get shot was reduced to this:

... and, well, that's about it, nothing out of the ordinary at all. Why do you ask?

(Just for the sake of saying so, the deal about "the lights going out" at the TSBD is derived from two incidents, one being that an elevator did not run when it was supposed to have, and the other being Geneva Hine's comment about how she'd been answering phone calls. The "lights" she was referring to that "went out" were the lights on the phone, not those in the building.)

All of this goes to show that Lee Oswald was the only TSBD employee who was NOT excited about the President's visit, which was in and of itself quite unusual, even suspicious. In fact, it's so clear-cut based on that alone that LHO did it, that I'm amazed we're even having this conversation!

According to some eyewitness accounts, Oswald was quoted as saying (during interrogation),

"I observed a rifle in the Texas School Book Depository where I work, on Nov. 20, 1963. . . . Mr. Roy Truly, the supervisor, displayed the rifle to individuals in his office on the first floor. . . "

Does anybody know why Roy Truly brought his rifle to the Texas School Book Depository two days before the assassination? Was he just a hunter showing off a piece of equipment to his friends? Does anyone think this may have triggered an idea in LHO?

The guns - one gun was a Remington, single-shot, .22 rifle, and the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser (7H387, emphasis added) - belonged to Warren Caster, the manager of the Dallas office of the South-Western Publishing Company, which had its offices on the second floor, room 203, of the TSBD.

Caster testified that he bought them on his noon-hour lunch break on Wednesday, November 20, the .22 being for his son's Christmas present. He also stated that "as I entered the Texas School Book Depository Building on my way up to the buying office, I stopped by Mr. Truly's office, and while I was there we examined the two rifles that I had purchased" (ibid).

Caster's "we examined" the rifles, and Oswald's interpretation that "Truly ... displayed" them pretty well square up if LHO /a/ recognized Truly better than he did Caster (it is noteworty -?- that he didn't mention Caster as one of the "individuals"); /b/ he did not know who owned the guns; and/or /c/ was just passing by during the course of these events. At this juncture, as far as I'm aware of, there's no indication that Oswald shared Truly's confidence in any way and would have been invited into the office to see or handle the weapons.

According to Caster's testimony:

Caster said didn't know TSBD shipping people's names, of which LHO was one, so it is reasonable to conclude that LHO didn't know Caster either, but not impossible that he did.

Despite being asked twice, however, Caster never did say how many people were there, nor did he say (nor was he asked) if LHO was among them. The only two people he identified by name were Truly and Bill Shelley, who also said that he'd seen the guns and had handled the .22 Remington, but not the Mauser, which "had been converted. It was a foreign make converted to a .30-06" (and was in a carton like new? See 7H390).

Shelley also said that this was the only time he had ever seen guns in TSBD before or since November 22 ... not, in any case, through May 14, 1964, the date of his testimony.

According to Caster, he took the guns home at the end of the day (Wednesday), and never returned with them to the TSBD. Shelley did not claim to see the guns after Caster had left the first floor.

I don't think it "triggered" (pun intended?) any idea in LHO's head other than to remember he'd seen the guns. If he provided any further detail about the weapons or the people in the office, it is lost to history.

Also employed by South-Western Publishing were Gloria Calvery, Carol Hughes and Karen Westbrook (all of whom were outside during the shooting), as well as Karan Hicks (who was alone in the office). Caster was 35 miles away in Denton at North Texas State University, now the University of North Texas.

Of course (and for what it may be worth), we have only Caster's word that he took the guns home, and the reports of several law enforcement types that a Mauser was found ....

Mark,

[i'm] kind of surprised no one has added Harry Olsen to the list.

I have read many accounts which say he was off duty on 11/22 due to breaking his kneecap a few weeks earlier.

According to his own testimony however, he was placed on light office duties after the accident and asked if they needed him to work that day. Obviously they didn't. Reads to me like he was in effect, asking for the day off -- ostensibly to guard an estate belonging to a relative of motorcycle cop who couldn't guard it due to being in the motorcade.

Incredibly -- some might say unbelievably -- Olsen could not remember the name of the other cop, the name of the owner of the estate, or the address of the estate, except that it was on 8th St about 4 blocks from Kay's place.

... Recall also, that Oslen and Kay had a lengthy discussion with Ruby after the assassination - though it is a matter of some confusion as to whether this conversation took part late Friday night-early Saturday morning or Late Saturday night - early Sunday morning.

The early morning conversation is ostensibly the reason for calling Olsen, putting Ruby in a distressed state of mind, bawling like a baby over "Jacqueline and the kids" and having to come back to Dallas for a trial. But the fact is that by his own word, he lied about it all from start to finish. He also lied about the "estate." The question is "to what end?" It was all so innocuous, why lie at all? His marriage to Kay also prevented her from testifying against him, and their flight to California prevented extradition (witness the Garrison trial).

I think the purpose to this exercise is not to provide a list of all the things that can't be proved or whose proof is in dispute (several people who are at least as expert as many of us here - and in many cases much more so - have, for example, provided seemingly sound rationales for why the SBT is at least possible, and the blowback out of the MC rifle that didn't show up on the paraffin tests of LHO's cheek may or may not "prove" that LHO didn't shoot that rifle that day, but exonerating LHO is not the name of the game here ... that will occur ipso facto if someone else is proved guilty), but rather to put together something significant enough that prosecutors will raise a very large eyebrow.

Duke, find me this "seemingly sound rationale for why the SBT is at least possible" and I'll sell you some swampland in Florida. The SBT CAN be weakened to the point of invisibility, where no one but the blind could see it as a reasonable possibility. I've attempted to do just that in my presentation, and I believe I've succeeded...

As far as re-opening Tippit, I think that would be a serious mistake. The evidence against Oswald in that case is a lot stronger than in the shooting of the President. The eyewitness testimony is much stronger. The ballistics evidence is stronger (he had the purported murder weapon on his person). And there is a motive (his escape).

We mustn't pull a Belin and see the Tippit slaying as "the Rosetta stone" of the assassination. Oswald may very well have killed Tippit AND been innocent of killing Kennedy.

PAT, I WOULDN'T BE AFRAID OF REEXPLORING THE TIPPIT MURDER, AS THE LINES OF INQUIRY THAT WOULD HAVE MADE THAT MURDER THE ROSETTA STONE AND SOLVED BOTH WERE NEVER FOLLOWED, AND STILL CAN BE.

I have often given thought to the notion that WC counsel knew more-or-less-exactly what had gone down, but for whatever myriad political reasons, had a job to do and did it, while at the same time being careful to get some things judiciously on the record.

The Rosetta Stone, we will all recall, was written in four writing styles. Just one of those being known at the time enabled researchers to match the known to the unknown, and thus to decipher the other writings on the tablet, and then use those to help to decipher other writings of those styles.

Thus, if you can make sense of the Tippit killing, then it will lead you toward an understanding of the Kennedy killing.

As a couple of asides, I noticed that the History Channel's "JFK: Beyond Conspiracy" was on again and sighed at "the mainstream media's" continued pushing of the "lone Oswald" point of view. On another channel at the same time was a story about tracking down Nazi war criminals.

Who was it who said that "history belongs to the victor?" This all reminds me of those who deny the Halocaust in the face of its evidence, and how its denial would be the "party line" had Germany won. The WC did not exactly win, but the "victors" keep putting the same tired story before us ... as if maybe the Halocaust deniers could win us all over too, if only they had a media outlet?

Of course, it "proves there was no conspiracy" behind the JFK murder because, well, a whole nation couldn't possibly have done what the Nazis did, which goes to prove there was no Halocaust?

Another observation (in the form of a question) is: has anybody noticed how the main players of that weekend back then were a "lone Commie" and a "lone Jew?" And did you ever wonder why Professor Oliver was really called to testify?

Finally, as regards Belin's "Rosetta Stone," it seems like we always ask - or at least always get the answer to - "why Tippit?" instead of what may be the more germane question: "why Oak Cliff?"

Hi Duke, Did anything come of your meeting? I wrote a letter to Dallas D.A. Hill in 2003 asking him to re-open this case. I received no reply. (Big surprise).

Just disappointment that someone could mouth the words of "Oswald did it ... easily," and then admit they couldn't back it up because they'd "never made a personal study of it." It was like, "Okay, you work here now, the topic comes up, here's what you say ..." and shore 'nuff, out poured the words. A more honest "they'd never even think about it" would have been more appreciated.

Attention all squads in the Oak Cliff area - pick up for investigation of a CCW (carrying a concealed weapon), the occupants of a 1957 Chevrolet sedan bearing License Number NA4445 last seen in vicinity Tenth and Jefferson. 2:33.

... from pages 113-114 of CE1974. The transcript ended less than 15 minutes later with the notation of "no other pertinent transmissions through 3:00."

Duke - that's a good question! Thanks for that one - new for me entirely. I keep saying I have to rework this thread and create a category for suspicious vehicles on 11/22 vs other dates. What's up with the Police Vehicle?

Police vehicle? Are you referring to the "squads?" This is actually the DPD dispatcher, as quoted by the FBI from Channel 1 tapes.

The only "suspicious" (?unexplained?) police vehicle I'm aware of occurred about an hour and a half or so earlier ... not referring to the mysterious "Car 10" of the blind-in-one-eye Earlene Roberts (which translated into an investigation of Car #207 by DPD, which has an interesting history of its own).

While I'm at it, let's add another "questionable" vehicle: the disabled car that Donny Benavides went to get parts for that was parked on Patton St near the Dominoes Club close to Jefferson, and which is a good candidate for why William Scoggins had to park 'way up by the corner instead and walk back and get his coke. Donny never mentioned it again in his testimony (nor was he asked about it), and when I asked him about it several years ago, he refused to talk about it and went off on a drunken ramble about something else instead. (Of course, cause and effect may be difficult to discern here!)

Officer Tilson phoned DPD HQ and described what he and his daughter had seen, namely a man who looked like Jack Ruby, who had come running down the embankment towards a black car parked near the underpass. He reported that the man had opened the rear door of the car and had thrown a long shaped object into the back seat. area. If HQ broadcast the report, then Tippit could have been listening to it as he was heading east on 10th ....

Too many "ifs" in this scenario, Ed. "If" DPDHQ had broadcast the report, which does not appear in any transcript anywhere. "If" Tom Tilson made the call, which he could only have done "if" he'd seen the vehicle in question and chased it as he said, which he could only have done "if" he'd been able to continue up Commerce, turn left on Houston and left again on Elm to catch up with the guy who was "speeding away."

The most telling "if" was brought up here by Lee Forman in one of the thread Suspicious Cars and 11/22/63, quoting an age-old article of mine, "The Cowtown Connection," which was originally accompanied by this Mel MacIntyre photo showing exactly the scene Tilson described so many years later, where the limo had just cleared the Triple Underpass and had not yet gotten to the Stemmons Freeway entrance ramp, and - lo and behold! - there is no car where Tilson said there was for the supposed "Ruby look-alike" to jump into and speed off into.

Since the car wasn't there, "Ruby" didn't get into it and it didn't speed off, Tilson didn't call in a report about it and didn't chase it, and DPDHQ didn't broadcast a report about and Tippit wasn't listening to it, so therefore it wasn't the reason Tippit did anything at all.

This would explain why he looked in the space between the front and rear seats.

It might ... if it had happened. Either event!

Tilson's wrote down the license plate number of the car while he was chasing after it along the highway, but claimed he lost the piece of paper, so that aspect is open to question.

So is the fact that his daughter was 18 years old at the time and remembers absolutely nothing of this story. He "lost" the paper because he never wrote down any license plate number because he never saw any such car.

One thing for sure, it was not Ruby whom Tilson was chasing ...

We can certainly agree on that!!

I would guess that the license plate number would not have been registered to Ruby either.

That's another fair guess.

I recall reading that the vehicle actually belonged to a cousin of Filipe Vidal Santiago's and was on loan to him for a period of about three months. It may also have been the same car which appears in the photograph of the outside view of Walker's house.

When one uses fabrication as evidence, anything is possible. Actually, the car belonged to me ...! (I realize you were only quoting from a story, not necessarily promoting it, but it's still a fabrication.)

The whole idea was to point the finger at a Ruby look-alike coming down the embankment carrying what appeared to be a rifle. Recall that Julie Ann Mercer at 10:50 a.m. had seen a man she subsequently recognized as being Jack Ruby, who was sitting in a truck while another man carried what looked like a rifle up the embankment. What goes up also has to come down, so to speak, and if Tilson made a mistake in thinking the man was Ruby, then likewise Mercer was entirely mistaken when she identified the man in the truck as having been Ruby. I think she was absolutelyy accurate in what she described , and that it was Ruby at 10:50 a.m. but not at 12:30 P.M..... Tilson's tale implied Mercer had made the same mistake as he had , when she tagged Ruby as the man she had seen sitting in the truck.

I won't dispute Julia Ann's report only because it already has been ... and I don't necessarily agree that it's been disproved or debunked. Was it Ruby? Probably not, but that is not by any means to suggest that another man, regardless of what he was doing or not doing on the scene at the time, could not possibly have looked like Ruby. Also, the fact that a cop had "cleared" the men and truck on the scene machts nichts.

Ruby, however, did not become an active part of the deal until late Friday or Saturday night when he and his family were threatened. The "lone Communist" was in jail instead of dead, so the "lone Jew" was sent to silence him. My only problem with that scenario, of course, is that I can't imagine who would want Communists and Jews to take the blame for all of this! I mean, qui bono?

One bothering aspect: Tilson's vehicle was sitting on the corner of Industrial as the presidential limousine raced past on its way to Parkland. To chase after the black car which was drive up the Elm St. ramp onto the Stemmons freeway, Tilson claimed that he drove up Commerce St turned left onto Houston and then made a left down Elm St. Looking at the Cancellare picture the traffic on Commerce appears to have been stalled and it's difficult to understand that Tilson would have been able to do what he claimed, not alone on account of the heavy traffic on Commerec, but also by the fact that Elm St had people all over the street and running up the GK at that time.

I mentioned the impossible "trip around the block" (note that, coming from Commerce and Industrial, one can -and could then - take either Commerce or Main through Dealey Plaza, but even allowing that he didn't take the Commerce bend and have to cut across Main again to get to Elm ...?), now let's look at another impossible aspect of it: where Tom Tilson was in relation to everything.

The MacIntyre photo was taken at or near the position marked as "A" in bold red on the map below. Tom Tilson claimed to have been at the corner of Commerce and Industrial, marked as "B."

As you can see from the map, the Stemmons Freeway (I-35W) is in between where he was and where the limo entered the highway. It is - and was - at that point an overpass (I'll take a picture for you the next time I'm there, if you'd like) meaning Tilson not only had to see this stuff at a distance, but he also had to see it through not one, but two three- or four-lane bridges with a roadway's distance - and then some! - between each of them!

In point of fact, if Tilson had seen what he'd seen when he'd claimed to have seen it, he was too far away to have seen anything of inherent value, much less what "Ruby" looked like! And he had other ample opportunity to turn around and give chase before he'd gone through the Triple Underpass, even if he'd have had to scrape the bottom of his car to do it. Remember, if you will, the idea that JFK could have continued straight down Main Street and gone over the curb to get onto Stemmons (and they could have put a temporary macadam ramp over that curb to ease that turn if they'd been so inclined ... which they weren't).

(When I was a teenager in the Civil Air Patrol - yes, you read that right - we had someone bus a leg while out on a bivouac. A jeep was headed up the mountain to get the kid, and a dozen or so of us built a ramp over a barricade of three-foot boulders for the jeep to traverse in less than an hour, by hand ... and disassembled it like it was never there in about another hour. Surely the City of Dallas could have made a six-inch ramp in the several days' time that they had!)

As to Mr Andrews, I have to agree with JW King's assessment (above) that "I don't understand why he wouldn't have reported it to the authorities or the media at the time it happened. His 'oh, want to hear something funny?' way of bringing it up years later tells me that he, like so many others, wanted his particular 'connection' to the events of that day." Not only did he know Roscoe (who had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting, by the way), but he was in the middle of the whole Tippit deal too (which Roscoe was also not involved with!). I don't think so.

Hell, the HSCA was looking for people almost 15 years before he came up with his little ditty; why didn't he tell it then? They managed to get Louie Steven Witt and a bunch of other characters, why not Andrews - and Tilson! - too?

There is a report that a Mr. James A. Andrews was stopped by J.D. Tippit just after 1pm on the 22nd.

The full report

"James A. Andrew’s was returning to work at his office in Oak Cliff a little after 1:00 P.M. on 11/22/63. He was driving west on West 10th Street (about eight or nine blocks from where Tippit was shot minutes later, see map). Suddenly a police car also traveling west on West 10th Street came up from behind Andrews’ car, passed him and cut in front of Andrews’s car forcing him to stop......"

Does anyone know what year and make of car Mr. Andrews was driving at the time? I'm curious as to why Officer Tippit (who Mr. Andrews said was the policeman who stopped him) would take an intrest in his particular car.

I don't know what kind of car Andrews was driving but I find this report most interesting as it heavily influences Tippit's alleged mind set moments before he was killed; suggesting that he was flustered and somewhat desperate.

From what I can gather, Andrews worked out of the same offices as Roscoe White and was being questioned regarding White when Andrews told the Tippit story. My question is, do we believe Andrews?

Also, was there any reports from independent witnesses confirming that the encounter with Tippit actually happened?

I've always been skeptical of this account, not least because it's in connection with the Roscoe White story (which "office" did Andrews work in with him?), but more importantly because it came out so late in the game in that same "I know something that you don't know" song-and-dance that is so unfortunately common around Dallas.

Granted that it may be paraphrased, but the introduction that “Since you are interested in the assassination, let me tell you something that happened” nevertheless fairly reeks of fabrication. The story goes that

I'm not certain exactly what time "a little after 1:00 p.m." is, but since we're so inclined to parsing seconds to figure out what time JDT was killed based on how far Helen Markham had to walk to catch her bus at what time, whether Tom Bowley's watch was accurate, and how many minutes before 1:16 - the time of the "citizen" call to dispatch - he had actually been shot, there is altogether too little time for this to have "fit in" to the scenario.

Consider that JDT had to have gotten from somewhere in the vicinity of 10th and Llewellyn or Van Buren, and back across Zangs and Beckley with a "jump" up to 9th and back down Storey or Crawford for a block in order to be driving easterly on 10th just a short time later. To get to 10th & Patton by 1:10 - the latest time he was shot - he'd had to have been going at breakneck speeds ... which is just what this story suggests: everything in "hurry-up" mode.

The trouble is that by the time he gets over to 10th and Patton, he's apparently slammed on the brakes and taken a pacifier since he's cruising slowly on 10th when he's next seen, "calmly" talks to someone beside his car, and then gets out of the car "real friendly like." I can only say that they didn't have stuff like that when I was in college!

Moreover, if the Top Ten Records story is true - and I don't have a particular reason to disbelieve it - then in order for Andrews to have encountered JD after 1:00, then it requires JD to cross Jefferson, go north a block, turn left for a couple of blocks, stop Andrews, go through his gyrations, and then go speeding off in the opposite direction to meet his fate. All of the above would still have to hold true as to his complete attitude adjustment and fast braking.

It was only sixteen minutes between the time that JD was last heard from on the radio at 8th and Lancaster until he lay dead in the street. If he spend even a couple of minutes on the phone at Top Ten, he didn't have time to go traipsing around time either before or afterward if he was going to get killed on time. (I think it's fair to say, tho', that he didn't know that at the time.)

The "attitude adjustment" is the biggest part of the problem, and belies someone who just didn't have a clue about what was supposed to happen shortly after his rendezvous with the man with the mad cop disease ... i.e., he didn't know that JD wasn't driving around like a madman.

As further evidence of that fact, JD was first told to move into central Oak Cliff at 12:48 when he was at Kiest and Bonnie View ("point A"). Eight minutes later (12:56) he was at 8th and Lancaster ("point B"). I have driven - several times - the most direct route (in fact, the ONLY route someone from point A to point B would have driven if he had any clue of the layout of the area) and it takes almost exactly eight minutes to drive at normal speeds (35-40 mph, the posted limits).

Now, you could say that JD was driving a cop car, could have had his siren and lights going, etc., etc., but the fact remains he was at point A one minute, and at point B eight minutes later. Period. I could have the wrong route, but any other - any other! - would cause him to first be closer to central Oak Cliff, then move away from it and then turn around and go back to it! I think we can all agree that that didn't happen ....

The sum total of all of this is that there is nothing that would indicate that JD was either in such a rush as Andrews describes, or had any cause to transmogrify from Mr Hyde into Dr Jekyll. Even the Top Ten guys didn't say he'd left in a "headlong" rush - so why the sudden change of demeanor for Andrews' benefit?

(Incidentally, there is no Jack A Andrews currently in the Dallas phone listings, so I can't easily get in touch with him to get clarifications. If someone has more info, I'm happy to follow it up, but lacking it ...?)

File this story under "B" for "bull," in my current opinion. I can be convinced otherwise ...(?)

There was no tampering of LHO's body.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/xindex.htm

Included here is the Norton Report and Duke Lane's 1992 essay Grave Doubts. I absolutely agree with Duke's assessment, particularly "There are enough strange goings-on, enough lies and obfuscations, enough unanswered questions about the JFK assassination without adding the improbable and unsubstatiated, into which categorization this scenario must certainly fall. It is preposterous and the facts simply do not bear out the theory."

RJS

Wow, I said that? I'm impressed!

I'm fairly new to the case and don't post much, but have a couple questions that I hope you guys can help me with.

After watching TMWKK, the mortician who buried Oswald claims that the body had been tampered with when his body was exhumed in 1981. It is his opinion that the head of the "real" Oswald was put on this body.

What are your opinions of this?

There is only one opinion among the informed: there was no "tampering" of the body in the coffin other than that actually performed as part of the proceedings (e.g., removal of the head and jaw, etc.). It still held Marina's ring where she'd put it (on his little finger), so it was the same Lee Oswald in the box that Marina knew and buried, even if he didn't look quite the same.

Oops. Duplicate post removed.

Oops - wrong sized version of the photo. Edited.

#32 - Tom Tilson's account of the middle sized, black car. Peter Whitmey's article below, and a crop from Duke Lane's Cowtown Connection. ... Maybe Duke can comment or perhaps he has an update.

No comment or update, but what number is this one on your list of "suspicious vehicles?"

Attention all squads in the Oak Cliff area - pick up for investigation of a CCW (carrying a concealed weapon), the occupants of a 1957 Chevrolet sedan bearing License Number NA4445 last seen in vicinity Tenth and Jefferson. 2:33.

... from pages 113-114 of CE1974. The transcript ended less than 15 minutes later with the notation of "no other pertinent transmissions through 3:00."

Lonnie Ray Wright w/m/ - 3 time loser. Drunk, put in jail. Was on RR track.

Where is the arrest report? Where on the RR track? Is that the man photographed by Jack Beers? I just read a Lancer post by Steve Thomas. He did a great job of trying to figure this one out as well. The man described in the radio transcript does not match the man Beers photographed - is it Wright?

Based on the timing of the dispatches, I believe the person being described below is Lonnie Ray Wright:

At 1:12 # 243 calls in on Channel 2. #243 is Patrolman B. L. Apple

“I’m down here with this three wheeler at the dead-end of Laurels (sic) and he has got black hair. He is 42 years old and got a light colored jacket on and he is pretty drunk but he has been walking down these railroad tracks. Do you want me to take him up there or what do you want me to do with him?" ....

Speaking of "suspicious vehicles" ... well, that's not exactly fair to say, since the one I'm going to refer to is actually a police vehicle ....

Just for curiosity, wasn't Apple a motorcycle officer? What became of him after this transmission? Didn't he transmit again later on about waiting for someone in a car to come pick the drunk up since he obviously couldn't transport him on the back of a bike.

I'll get back to the police car later since it'll be a bit of a possible surprise ...!

See also this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6815

This is an important subject and seems under-researched.

Thanks for that, John. I haven't had the time to pull 26H off the shelf as yet (it takes too long to print the exhibits from the web a page at a time and too small to read without zooming on it). I'm just wondering if I'll find the other TSBD employee with the means and opportunity on the list of those whose prints weren't taken.

Does anyone know /a/ which of the 75 TSBD employees were not fingerprinted, /b/ what the disposition of those prints collected was (i.e., became CEs, CDs, FBI files, etc.), /c/ if that data is available today and, if so, from where (file IDs helpful), and /d/ what data (images) exists of ALL of the prints found on the boxes, whether identified, identifiable, eliminated or not, and if so, where they can be obtained.

You can get a list of the employees who were fingerprinted from 26H beginning at page 799: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...2&relPageId=835. I like using this site because you can blow up the magnification of a page. It makes it much easier to read.

I guess you could compare that against a list of all the employees and determine who was not fingerprinted. The list of TSBD employees is on pages 802 and 803 I think. In the back and forth between Hoover and Rankin, there is also a list of the FBI agents and DPD officers who handled the boxes.

It's interesting. Truly refused to let the FBI fingerprint any female employees.

Steve Thomas

Thanks, both John and Steve.

CE1381 also contains statements made, around 3/20/64, of all of the TSBD employees plus a couple of those who worked at the Houston St warehouse as well. This is, as best as I can tell, a complete listing of everyone who worked in the building at the time, or even just for that day.

As to female employees' prints, one could argue as to relevance: why take their prints for elimination when their gender alone ostensibly does exactly that?

I'd recall that all of the employees' prints were taken save two, but that turns out to have been a mistaken recollection

Additional questions follow; first the findings:

According to CE3131 (which is to say "according to J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI"), referenced above, as of September 18, 1964, only one latent palm print - and no additional finger prints remained to be identified.

With that in mind, it was only on September 17 - one day before - that Truly had refused to have the women fingerprinted, for three (ostensibly) very good reasons at the time, none being that there was no hint of a female's being involved.

This exhibit deals only with prints found on four cartons supposedly comprising the "sniper's nest." Hoover notes that O.V. Campbell made himself and two other male employees available for printing, and that of the prints previously obtained, none matched any of the latent prints of either sort found on the boxes.

Hoover also notes, however, that "the Bureau is presently processing several other palm prints obtained in connection with this project." I don't have any reference to these.

There were, according to other correspondence in the exhibit, "19 identifiable latent fingerprints and six identifiable latent palm prints," not including "one fingerprint and one palm print on the four cardboard cartons which have been identified as those of Lee Harvey Oswald." That sounds like a total of 20 finger- and seven palm prints.

Truly stated to the FBI that the boxes contained "'Think and Do' books, 'People and Progress,' and 'Second Rolling Reader' books." I don't recall what the orders later found in the TSBD on the clipboard showed LHO had been collecting that morning, tho' I remember "Rolling Reader" books being among them. There is not, to the best of my knowledge, any record of what other order-fillers were picking that day ... but it seems that the guys generally worked on particular publishers' books, so it is at least possible that nobody else was picking these particular books (and I don't recall what Jack Dougherty said he was getting).

The only employees or former employees who were apparently fingerprinted were only those who "could possibly have handled the cartons," who were listed as follows (those who were fingerprinted are starred in red):

All of the above were fingerprinted except Carl Jones, who no longer worked at TSBD in September 1964; neither did Hank Norman (he and Jones are listed as "former employees"), but Norman somehow managed to get printed anyway while Jones did not.

That Troy West was one of those who "could possibly have handled the cartons" sort of belies this investigation further inasmuch as he had testified that he worked wrapping the outgoing boxes on the first floor, and never left his work area except to make morning coffee and, presumably, to use the john. He no more "could possibly have handled the cartons" than Roy Truly by this measure.

Jack Dougherty was on the sixth floor several times during the day to "get stock," but his prints were not on the boxes (or at least not identifiably so). It may have simply been that he didn't retrieve any of these particular items that particular day.

Other men who were not (at first glance, anyway) finger- or palm-printed were:

These are all apparently TSBD people who could not "possibly have handled the cartons," no how, no way, not ever. All of them, however, had alibis - and most had alibi witnesses - for the 12:15-12:45 time frame, and consequently most likely were not on the sixth floor during - or immediately before or after - the shooting.

Some of the prints on these boxes were identified as having come from cops, including Captain Doughty, Lieutenant Carl Day, and Detectives Livingston and Studebaker. In addition, another detective - Bobby Gene Brown - had handled the four boxes, and his prints, too, were taken for elimination.

Of the identified fingerprints, they were:

... in addition to one belonging to Lee Oswald, thus leaving just one unidentified. Of the latent palm prints:

... in addition to one belonging to Oswald, leaving just one unidentified.

In sum, the fingerprints that were taken did not match up to any identifiable prints on the boxes, and only one finger- and one palm print remained unidentified as of the time the WC was wrapping up operations.

It is seemingly, then, of no particular consequence that these men - and all of the women - did not have their prints taken for, even if they had handled the boxes, the prints on the boxes could not have been identified and matched up to theirs. Or so, at least, said J. Edgar Hoover.

But all of this pertains only to the four boxes that made up the "gun rest." Hoover mentioned "other prints" being investigated, but given the late date at which they were still running tests on them, I don't know if (and doubt that) this information made it into the twenty-six.

The Hoover communique in CE3131 also does not mention where the prints that his lab was "still investigating" were turned up. Does anyone have any additional information on these, or know where I might start looking some more?

More later, it's late here ....

In fact, it doesn't appear anyone here - myself included - happened to call attention to May 29. Jack Kennedy would have just turned 89.

And his birthday party would have been ruined by this report in the International Herald Tribune which shows America's standing in the world at an all time low: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/13/news/pew1.php

Were he alive today, he wouldn't recognize his own defeatist party. He sure as hell wouldn't recognize his own brother, or the other Sen from Massachusetts.

There is, of course, no way to know these things because, obviously, if he had lived, at least some things would have been different, leading to different things today: a different succession of Presidents dealing with different issues and bringing about different policies, different actions, different perceptions.

Can it be said, in sum, that his death changed the world? To some extent, each and every death does that. The degree to which it influences anything else is directly proportional to the influence the decedent had in life.

But the American University speech was a major part of that campaign to get the Partial Test Ban Treaty adopted---the first ever nuclear arms control treaty. (And I managed to respond without saying anything bad about President Bush.....)

Dan

Quite true, but even the Test Ban was just the first step in JFK's larger goal of General and Complete Nuclear Disarmament. He liked to quote the Chinese proverb that the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

Could JFK have accomplished this goal if he had another five years as President? I do not know, but I have a feeling that if a lesser man had proposed a moon landing, no one would have believed him.

I don't know how "great" Kennedy was, but having already reached the office of President - even having been seriously considered for it - shows an achievement far greater than any of us here have attained, and at an age younger than many of us are today as well. So that's definitely something.

Clearly, he did not lack vision whether or not - as we'll of course never know - he had to wherewithal to carry the vision to reality. He also had "what it takes" to make others believe that his vision was possible. A moon landing was the stuff of fantasy ... but more had been achieved in the previous 30 years than in the three centuries before, so why not this too?

On the other hand, some of his other visions - coexistence with Blacks and Reds, for example, and not killing the Yellows - were not so fantastic to others. And so, he died.

... And, of course, we'll never understand exactly why Lee did it, will we ...?

Fellow Researchers,

As we have done for the past six years, those of us who admired JFK will be meeting at the JFK Monument at the West End of the American University Athletic Field at 12 noon on Saturday, June 10th to commemorate JFK's Peace Speech.

The Kennedy family wants to honor JFK for his life, administration and policies, rather than his assassination, so we chose this date because of the influence the speech has even today, and the influence it might have had on his death. ....

I've heard it said (and never disputed) that JFK is the only President who is remembered more (among those who are remembered at all) on the date of his death rather than on the date of his birth.

In fact, it doesn't appear anyone here - myself included - happened to call attention to May 29. Jack Kennedy would have just turned 89.

This thread is almost QED except that rather than either date, it is another even more obscure date selected. While an inspired speech (weren't most, by today's standards anyway?), does it rank higher than his inauguration speech, that exhorting a moon landing before the decade was out, his (ungrammatical) Berlin Wall speech ...? What dates were those (other than the first), anyway?

Come to think of it, when was the Gettysburg Address and why isn't Lincoln commemorated on that date rather than his birth date ... y'know, the moment when all that he did became possible?

So when might we have a "JFK Day" be if one were ever to be had in our lifetimes?

See also this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6815

This is an important subject and seems under-researched.

Thanks for that, John.

I haven't had the time to pull 26H off the shelf as yet (it takes too long to print the exhibits from the web a page at a time and too small to read without zooming on it). I'm just wondering if I'll find the other TSBD employee with the means and opportunity on the list of those whose prints weren't taken.

one of the first things I do if I sense an attack, is ... pull the plug on the modem, ...

What's a modem?

Duke,

Does anyone know /a/ which of the 75 TSBD employees were not fingerprinted, /b/ what the disposition of those prints collected was (i.e., became CEs, CDs, FBI files, etc.), /c/ if that data is available today and, if so, from where (file IDs helpful), and /d/ what data (images) exists of ALL of the prints found on the boxes, whether identified, identifiable, eliminated or not, and if so, where they can be obtained.

You can get a list of the employees who were fingerprinted from 26H beginning at page 799.

I like using this site because you can blow up the magnification of a page. It makes it much easier to read. I guess you could compare that against a list of all the employees and determine who was not fingerprinted.

The list of TSBD employees is on pages 802 and 803 I think. In the back and forth between Hoover and Rankin, there is also a list of the FBI agents and DPD officers who handled the boxes.

It's interesting. Truly refused to let the FBI fingerprint any female employees.

Steve Thomas

Thanks, Steve; you da MAN! Just what I'm looking for short of the print cards! CE1381 also contains statements made, around 3/20/64, of all of the TSBD employees plus a couple of those who worked at the Houston St warehouse as well, but of course it doesn't go into fingerprinting at all.

As to female employees' prints, one could argue as to relevance: why take their prints for elimination when their gender alone ostensibly does exactly that? It would have seemed like a collossal waste of time and - at the risk of offending - could have only served to prolong the women's upset to be fingerprinted "like a common criminal" as if having worked in the building wasn't enough.

Or, at least, that's a perception.

I recall, tho', that all of the employees' prints were taken, save two. (I ain't often right, but I've never been wrong ... and I guess we'll just have to see which of those it is this time!)

Thanks again, let ya know what I turn up!

I hope Arlen doesn't use his "diffusive brilliance" in the same fashion as he did for the Warren Omission...

He might pull out a Commodore 64 or an Atari and explaint the internet to us so its easier to understand.

The fact that these buffoons even hold a job in America is not only awe inspiring, it is a testament to the general stupidity of the American people en masse.

This is the last right wing stooge to be speaking to anyone about anything, let alone INVESTIGATING anything....

Oh well another whitewash is on its way....[/b]

Actually, I'd probably concern myself more with a run for the White House ...!

When the "sniper's nest" boxes were checked for fingerprints, a number of "unidentified" (as differs from "unidentifiable?") prints turned up on the boxes.

A researcher named James (Jim) Olmstead has been working on the fingerprint evidence for years, has consulted numerous experts, etc. You could probably find out a great deal by reading his postings on the McAdams forum. Mr. Olmstead has a reputation for being very generous towards fellow researchers.

I have been meaning to sit down and study Olmstead's work, but just can't seem to find the time. I hope you will share your discoveries with the forum.

Thanks, Ray ... tho', if I found his posts, he doesn't seem as generous with his opinion of those terrible CTers!

It is unlikely that these problems are coming from the forum, and without a specific url of an ad deemed responsible virtually impossible for me to investigate.

However if you have been invaded by spyware from whatever source go to the following link to find the uninstaller

http://www.spybot.info/en/spybotsd/index.html

Thanks, Andy, but as others have attested, this problem is ONLY appearing on the Ed Forum ... and it ONLY happens when I arrive there as a "guest," i.e., before I sign in. If you'll send me a private message or (preferably) an email, I'll return the URLs to you to check into.

I have got SpyBot, MS Defender, AdAware and SpyWareBlaster installed in addition to McAfee Security Suite. It concerns me that I've had no problems elsewhere, and this attack seems sophisticated enough to be able to rip down my firewalls - I'm behind two software and one hardware 'walls.

It is emanating from 169.254.1.67 and 169.254.1.257 and 169.254.1.58 from the NameServer BLACKHOLE-x.IANA.ORG, supposedly the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, with an "OrgAbuseName" of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Number, i.e., ICANN, phone +1-310-301-5820 (Marina Del Ray, CA), tech phone +1-310-301-5820, attempting to come through my ports 21302 and 27971. HackerWatch calls it a "'NewTear' attack," for which I can't seem to find much in the way of identification.

Hope this helps!

... Incidentally, I'm using IE7.0 beta, and the attacks started - or at least are on my current logs - on 10 May. Here's an interesting tidbit: the only thing I changed on the date the attacks started was "Definition Update 1.14.1452.3 for BETA Windows Defender (KB915597)!"

SS incompetence + Kennedy's arrogance got him killed, nothing more.

... and a small matter of gunfire and someone wanting to kill him with it.