Duke Lane

Officer Parker (call sign #56) had radio'd going to e. jefferson for a code 5 at about 12:45 p.m. This has always seemed suspicious to me in the sense that he was the closest officer to Tippit's position, yet, he did not respond to the officer down call.Dispatch asked "where is 56?" at 12:30 p.m., the appr. time of JFK's murder, and got no response. Going through the transcripts of the day, nearly every time #56 was speaking with dispatch, there was some form of interference covering up their conversations. W. P. Parker is, in my opinion, deserving of more attention. Chuck Some comments and questions on the above:First, it is difficult to credit the comments of a dead witness who was not under oath and who can't be questioned to clarify any of her points. If you've been to Dealey Plaza around any November 22, it's not unusual to find even cops there who claim to have been a part of something that they clearly were not. We cannot, therefore, suggest that the "testimony" of an ordinary citizen must be taken at face value, especially 30 or more years later. This is likewise akin to the alleged sighting of Tippit at the Gloco station when all the other evidence suggests that he was in the Kiest/Bonnieview area. To suggest that his report of being there is somehow fabricated requires some pretty fancy footwork on the part of whomever supposedly doctored the tape: it takes just about exactly eight minutes - the time between Tippit's transmission indicating his position there and his report of being at 8th and Lancaster - to travel between those two locations. (I have done this personally more than one occasion with similar results each and every time. I have travelled at about the speed limit - 40 mph - and stopped fully at each place necessary since Tippit was not told to proceed at any code into central Oak Cliff: we can only assume he went directly but not "at speed" or in any particular haste. There is only one way to travel directly between those two points without either going unnecessarily through residential side streets, or first entering central Oak Cliff and then leaving it only to turn around and go back in.) Since there is only the belated word of someone who may only be seeking their "fifteen minutes of fame" that contradicts other facts and evidence, I tend to discount the entire Gloco incident, and lacking any kind of direct corroboration of a police car in the alleyway (the driveways do not go directly through from 10th to the alleyway now, and I've seen no indication other than the Holan report that they ever did), I'm not inclined to lend any credence to this report. Sam Guinyard did not, as far as I can read, indicate anything about a police car other than Tippit's own being anywhere in the area. He gave no affidavit, and his testimony is somewhat "off" from what other people reported, such as his statements that the gunman ran down the east side of Patton until he'd gotten to within feet of Jefferson Blvd., and that he ran with about ten feet of Guinyard. He also said that he was at the shooting scene when Benavides drove up in his truck coming from the east ... or at least, that's the way it sounds like he's describing it (I think there's another explanation, but that's for a later post). His testimony reads that 7H398 he went to 10th St with Ted Callaway and "saw a police car there" and "the police[man] that was lying down in front of the car." That was the last time he or Joseph Ball used the word "car," the only other references to "car" being relative to the used-car lot he worked at; use of the word "police" was used only once in relation to a car, all the other times being related to "police station," "policeman," or "police officer." So, where the idea that he said he saw a patrol car in the alley came from is beyond me. What is a code (or "signal") five? "Code" usually refererred to how officers travelled in their vehicles, Code One being "directly with haste," Code Two being "with lights," and Code Three being "lights and siren" (or very similar descriptions; it is among DPD testimony, I want to say Lt Pierce -?). I can't imagine anything faster than that, and don't know anything about a "Code Five."Parker (or #56) may not have been the "closest officer to Tippit's position." It is quite possible that that distinction belongs to the man who was regularly assigned to the patrol district in which Tippit got killed, who was eating lunch less than a mile away at Luby's Cafeteria. It is also worthy of note that not everyone who responded to the Tippit "Signal 19" (shooting) reported having done so, so whether or not Parker(?) or #56 was part of that whole deal is an open question for the moment. If, however, #56 reported being in or near central Oak Cliff at 12:45, it raises the question why Tippit and Nelson were told to report there just three minutes later, doesn't it? Especially since the regular officer was already there ....

According to a lengthy and detailed report compiled by DPD Asst Chief Batchelor, and Deputy Chiefs Lumpkin and Stevenson, the route was not changed, and DPD and the USSS travelled the entire route, including the Elm Street bend, prior to November 22. The report was made to Chief Jesse Curry, dated November 30, 1963.According to the report (HSCA record #180-10107-10137, file #003019, Box 71, released 05/18/93), the route had not been finalized as of November 14, nor had the location for the luncheon. On Nov 15, USSS asked DPD what they felt was the best route, which they responded Lemmon to Central Expressway, to Main as "the route requiring the least manpower for traffic." "It was pointed out" (the report does not indicate by whom) that the route that would "generate the greatest number of spectators" was the one ultimately selected. The route was driven "in its entirety" from Love Field to the Trade Mart on Monday, Nov 18. USSS Lawson and Sorrells rode with Asst Chief Batchelor and Deputy Chief Lunday. Running time was determined to be 38 minutes. The report goes into details for "security," manpower and other factors. Of course, this is DPD's version of events. If someone has a reference to any contradictory or complementary information from USSS about this, please let me know.

For what it's worth:

Oy! I'll keep my comments short: Since the FBI had a habit of looking only where told to and discovering only those things that were acceptable to The Director, and since the only TSBD employee under any sort of suspicion was the late short-timer, Lee Oswald, I can see how they would have so quickly acquiesced to Truly's "demand." After all, it was less work for them ... and to what end anyway?One indicator of this is that not all TSBD building personnel were TSBD company personnel, Truly had no real "say" over what the folks at, say, Scott Foresman did or didn't do with respect to fingerprinting; that would have been left to the supervisor of each company that leased space within the building. Too, you will recall from my earlier missive that of the 69 people who worked in the building, 47 of them were women (not high on the suspect list) and 23 of them were men, one of whom was dead at that point. So in effect, Truly asked the FBI to exclude two men. Should I guess that they were perhaps himself and TSBD VP O.V. Campbell? Suddenly, Truly's (and TSBD's) "clout" become less significant, doesn't it. QED. Incidentally, what investigators were "suspicious" of anyone other than a man already dead? Maybe it was still "obvious" back in 1999, but it isn't anymore. At the very least it is not proven. First, "only" Oswald was missing. Then, researchers thought it "odd" that Givens wasn't noted as "missing" as well. Now we know that Jack Cason was not there, either, and never apparently remarked upon. How does the Rambler provide "ample cause" for Shelley's supposed detainment? Oswald did not say that Shelley told him to leave, only (and then we "know" this only by hearsay) that he'd talked with him outside, and that Oswald himself had thought there'd be no more work that day, so left (we've since seen that he was not the only one who did ... tho' the rest were women).We all know what happens when you ASS-U-ME. An assumption based upon a story told by someone who got it from a woman who "abruptly disappeared" immediately before his own notes did, that nobody vouches for working with them ... and then not finding arrest records and saying they could be "missing ... just as easily" due to destruction as the more likely fact that they never existed in the first place?!? How far can one stretch to reach a "fact" anyway? Oops, I asked too soon! Some of us can reach far! Why should we "assume" that Shelley was an "intelligence officer during World War Two" when in 1945, "at the age of nineteen or twenty he began working for the Book Depository?" We would then have to assume that he became an "intelligence officer" at the ripe young age of ... what? 15? 16? Maybe 17 so he at least got to see some service? The "irreconciliable situation" is how the heck did Shelley get to be CIA or an "intelligence officer" before he was barely old enough to have graduated high school?!? A "prodigy" perhaps? That explains him working in a freakin' warehouse for 30 years then!We don't "reach," we leap! We cannot "assume that is true." That's irreconciliable too, even as an assumption. This is almost too astounding to comment on. Clearly you know nothing of Byrd or the CAP or any of its protocols, least among which is the "orientation sessions for new cadets," something that would rarely if ever include a visit from the Regional Commander or National Board Member, which Byrd was at the time of LHO's membership in the organization, and certainly nothing so important as to require his even being informed of, much less his attendance at. That Oswald and Ferrie may well have know of Byrd is not so surprising, but to assume (there's that word again!) that Byrd therefore knew them too ...?!?Amazing. Simply amazing.

Many thanks to Bernice Moore for taking the time to type in all of the quotes of the 59 witnesses in the "Delay on Elm Street" article in Murder in Dealey Plaza. I've glanced at samples of what is in MIDP and find these are faithful reproductions. I've added ellipses to some of the longer quotes, and underlined what the witnesses said about the limousine and/or motorcade for my analysis below. Some of the ellipses and comments are in the original (or may be Bernice's?).I'm going to retract my statement that "the 59 witnesses are wrong" and say that it is merely one writer and "authority" on this issue who was mistken. (Jack, I'll trade you the phone number of your crack dealer for my remedial reading instructor's!) I've gone through the quotes referenced and rearranged them as summarized here and quoted in full below. I've kept their "witness number" with their names so anyone can review what is said here with the book (which you have one, if you're clearly a "real researcher!"). This is what they said: Said the limousine stopped - 14, two of whom reported it as others' observations, not as their own (net: 12) Said the limousine slowed - 18, two of whom reported it as others' observations, not as their own (net: 15) Said the motorcade stopped or slowed - 13. Said the limousine sped up after the shots - seven Did not specify according to above - seven That's a total of 59, less the four who merely reported on other people's observations, for a net total of 55. This, as we will see, is not "59 witnesses who say the limousine stopped" as Jack White posited, but rather 12 who did (plus two who said other people said that it did ... and those other people may already be quoted ...?), or less than 25% of the people who offered a direct opinion (12/55=21.81%). (I am taking everyone in sum total, that is, not accounting for whether it was said "on the record" - i.e., under oath - or in an informal setting, or whether it was said contemporaneously or several years after the fact.) Note that some of these people may have said more than one thing, for example that the limo stopped, then accelerated after the shooting. In that case, they are listed under "limo stopped," and not under "limo sped up." If they only said that the limo sped up, or that it was already going slow and sped up, they are under "sped up." If they were unsure - e.g., "looked like it slowed down or stopped," this is not a positive statement as to stopping, so it is under "slowed down." Ditto, "paused" is not clear that it "stopped." If they stated that the motorcade stopped, they are listed under the "motorcade" section because they did not specifically mention the limo or "the President's car" or anything like that, merely the "parade." (For example, one witness, L.P. Terry (#36), said "the parade stopped in front of the building." Since we know that the limo did not stop "in front of the building," it is a clear reference to the follow-up cars and busses, i.e., the rest of the parade and not the limo specifically.) If they contradicted themselves (e.g., said one thing in 1963 and another in 1975), they are categorized under what they said earliest. I may edit this somewhat based upon where someone was at the time, for example a motorcycle cop who was maybe still on Main Street could not have personally observed the limo do much of anything. I have added locations when known. I don't think that anyone has disputed that the limousine slowed down and that the brake lights came on. The question is whether it stopped and, consequently, the Z-film has been faked. Well, we now know that 59 witnesses did not say the limo stopped, and out of them only 13 might actually have made this observation personally, or less than 25%. (Some of them really didn't say anything at all in this respect.) If anyone thinks that, based upon what's in MIDP, my evaluation of their statements should change - i.e., what category they're in - let me know and maybe I will. So there ya have it. Does this prove the Z-film a "hoax" or "altered" with regard to the limousine stopping or not based upon 59 witnesses' statements "all" saying it stopped? I think not; what thinks ye?

Thank you, sir, you saved me a lot of typing! I appreciate that .... And now I can return MIDP since, having owned it, I am now a "real researcher!"

Yeah, it's not complete and still a little "greek," but it's the best I could do over a burger and fries!

SO YOU PREFER TO DISBELIEVE 59 WITNESSES WITHOUT READING WHAT THEY SAID?Incredible! Jack Gee, Jack, I post extensively using not only original WCH readings ($2500+ if you can find the volumes) but online materials as well, so are you suggesting that I need to tell people that if they want to know what so-and-so said, they have to go find the books somewhere?Why are you pushing people to spend the money on the book rather than summarizing what they had to say, or at least naming each of the 59 witnesses so we can look it up ourselves? Do you have a financial interest in it or something? Sadly, I was looking up some JFK book or other on Amazon and noticed it had been reviewed by Vince Palamara, so I clicked to see what he had to say. The opening words were "Good book but ULTIMATE SACRIFICE by Thom Hartmann and Lamar Waldron is the VERY BEST book on the JFK assassination bar none," or words very much to that effect. Oh well, I thought, let's see what else he has to say about other books because it seems like he's got 50+ reviews here. And do you know what the opening words were? So, not having bought "the VERY BEST" book by my friends Thom and Lamar, why should I buy something clearly second-rate by Palamara? (Tho' it is possible that he didn't review his own books with that opening line, eh?) Spend the time and quote the stuff or get off the soap box. So say my handlers at Langley.

You can also find Church Committee stuff (and much more) at the History Matters archive.

... or obfuscated by echoes!Here's an semi-educated (semi-literate?) guess based upon a curious question and an even more curious response: these are the three shots that came from the 6th floor southeast window. Lee Oswald was not the shooter .... Duke, interesting. So the first three shots eminate from the sixth floor, lets further speculate that these were all decoy shots, never intended to strike Kennedy, but rather to confuse potential witnesses, and place the shooter in the TSBD, and so to the patsy. Do you believe that these shots came from the bolt action carcano, or some other rifle? Of the remaining six shots 4, to 5 hit JFK, and Connelly the other/others miss. Three further shots from behind? and three from the front? from silenced rifles. Of course some of these could have been fired during the three shots from the depository, further confusing bystanders/witnesses, and on side Secret Service personel. I didn't say anything about the order of the shots, merely the origin. They may have come from the Carcano, but that's not a necessity. A potential shooter there need only to have been someone to be seen, to make noise and to leave evidence behind (which would be the case for using the Carcano); he needn't have been depended upon to hit anything at all, and could have had other roles besides shooting. Just a theory, of course ....

Thomas, no offense intended, but I don't care how many million people agree with you, I am not one of them.Best Wishes, Ray Ray, I only know that if I had been working at the TSBD on 11/22/63 and the assassination of a U.S. President had just occured a couple hundred feet down the same street on which my place of work was situated and which the President's motorcade had just gone down after passing by my place of work, I would feel obligated to "hang around" my place of work (the TSBD) for "rollcall" purposes (and also because I would be just plain curious as to what the hell had just happened), unless, of course ... If I were innocent and simply left my place of work, I would just be drawing unwarranted and unnecessary attention to myself. Given his background and that of his wife, I don't think LHO would want to be "hassled" by the DPD or the FBI. Bottom line: I don't think he would have left work unless he had a damn good reason (like realizing that he'd been "set up," for example?). FWIW, Thomas P.S. Wow! Do millions of people really believe this? (I wouldn't have known that if you hadn't told me...) P.P.S. Why didn't you quote the whole sentence I wrote instead of just the first half of it? Unfortunately, what any of us think that we might do in such a circumstance, we clearly cannot know. Moreover, I've posted what people who were there, then, actually did in the "Robert MacNeil and the three calm men" thread. Two women went to the bank to transact some personal business immediately after the shooting. Another went to a restaurant a short while later. Still another had driven home for lunch and did not return (a third "missing person" during the roll-call whom nobody's mentioned before! Yes, he was a white man).For a complete list of TSBD employees and what they said they did (and in some cases, why), see this link. It needs some prettying up, but the facts is there! If I were innocent and didn't believe that I'd be working any more on any given day, I probably wouldn't even think about getting hassled simply because I knew I didn't do (whatever it was).

Jack, My reply is in the "Zapruder: Four Questions" thread (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...45&gopid=50163&.

Jack,Once again, it has to do with perspective: if you were where the limo appeared to move from side to side, then it did not stop, but DID slow down very slow. If you were to the rear and the limo appeared to be growing smaller as it receded away from you, and you saw the brake lights go on, it may have appeared to have stopped, even if it did not. If the 59 people were all to the rear, then yes, they are all mistaken. Appearances can be deceiving, as you of all people should know! Duke...by your answer you show you have no idea what the 59 witnesses SAID. This is very poor research ... to comment on witness statements you HAVE NOT READ. Do you have a copy of MIDP? If not, how can you comment on the Palamara article... and INCORRECTLY at that? Get the book. Read the article. Then comment on each witness statement from the perspective of each witness. You will be surprised to find that all 59 were not at the REAR, but in many locations. For instance, Witness Johnson on the TRIPLE OVERPASS said "YOU COULD SEE IT SPEED UP, STOP, SPEED UP, AND THEN STOP..." There are 58 others. Eager to hear your 59 analyses. Jack Well, either 59 witnesses are wrong, or one film is. I opt for the witnesses. People form impressions that are often wrong.

Jack,Once again, it has to do with perspective: if you were where the limo appeared to move from side to side, then it did not stop, but DID slow down very slow. If you were to the rear and the limo appeared to be growing smaller as it receded away from you, and you saw the brake lights go on, it may have appeared to have stopped, even if it did not. If the 59 people were all to the rear, then yes, they are all mistaken. Appearances can be deceiving, as you of all people should know!

... or obfuscated by echoes!Here's an semi-educated (semi-literate?) guess based upon a curious question and an even more curious response: these are the three shots that came from the 6th floor southeast window. Lee Oswald was not the shooter ....

Bill, that the Department of Justice, of which the FBI is a part, and while its name may have the same root as the "Judicial" Branch (and the top Judicials are called "Justice" So-and-so) the DOJ is nevertheless a part of the Executive Branch: the President, not the Courts, makes the appointments (with the advice and consent of the Senate).I know it's been a while, but remember back to Civics classes in grade school: The Legislative Branch legislates or creates laws, it consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate; The Executive Branch executes or enforces laws, and consists of the President and his Cabinet (and subordinate departments, agencies, etc.); The Judicial Branch interprets laws, and is made up of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. This is so elementary that ... that ... that (gosh!!) I will prove, once again, that discretion is the greater part of valor! You also noted that they were "requested." It is a far cry from "directed," and has every bit as much legal weight and authority behind it: none.

If you review the March 1964 statements of the TSBD employees, you will see that more than a few (I'm going to compile a list of these) were either told by other employees that, if they went inside they would not be allowed back out, or that they would not be allowed in, or found the doors of the building locked (there were at least two people who made this statement).That said, Oswald's "excuse" seems to be fairly valid. He is apparently not the only one to have left the TSBD early, but the only male to have done so other than Cason, who had driven home for lunch and did not return after hearing the news. (Incidentally, this makes him the third male besodes Oswald and Givens who was "not accounted for" during the "roll-call.") Among the other employees that did not return into the building: one woman (Virgie Rackley) went to a restaurant(!) at 2:15 after hanging out in front of the TSBD until then (talk about "excessively calm," she actually ate!) five women (Dragoo, Holt, Johnson, Hicks and Palmer - the last of whom had taken the day off, but went to DP after hearing the news) found the doors locked, with one of them (Hicks) finding the doors locked a "few minutes" after the shooting as she tried to leave five in toto (Givens, Rackley, Holt, Johnson and Whatley) said that they were told by fellow employees that they could not leave if they went inside, and thus stayed outside. six (Barnum, Jacob, Kounas, Parker, Williams and Viles) stated that they either were "not allowed in" or were only allowed to enter as far as the lobby. Viles was also a white male, allowed only into the lobby; and two women (Reese and Dean) were allowed in, but only under police escort and then only to their offices. So, after all this, the question remains: in and of itself, was it really all that strange that Lee Oswald left because he "didn't think there'd be any more work that day?"

As noted earlier, I don't think it's a question of Adams' veracity, but rather her accuracy. If you can explain to me how she could have been downstairs saying something to Shelley and Lovelady who didn't respond to her without encountering either Truly, Baker or Oswald on the stairs, I'll change my mind about how accurate she was in terms of when she got downstairs.Unfortunately, it doesn't seem as if anything at all will change your mind once you've made a decision about something. I hope that you allow true believers in the WCR the same understanding. As to Baker's testimony about the two white men (thank you for that, by the way), here is the complete exchange so that we can determine where these two white men were. Remember that TSBD's interior is 100'x100' .... Baker said "as we came through the main doorway to the elevators," but you'll notice on CE 362 that there is no "main doorway to the elevators," so did he mean "as we came through the main doorway to the building, on the way to the elevators," or what? In other words, is the "main doorway" he's referring to the "main entrance" Belin referred to, or one "to the elevators" that doesn't exist on the schematic?Unfortunately, Mr Baker died a few years ago, so we can't ask him. We likewise can't determine where "this side" was that one man was sitting, or whether the other was 20-30 feet away from them at the elevators or at or near the "main doorway." Depending upon where "there" was depends where the two men were. He was not asked to mark on CE362 where the men were, and tho' asked to draw the route he'd taken to the elevators, he either failed to do so or the marked-up verion of 362 was not entered into evidence. Only two white men didn't go outside at all: one definitely was on the 3rd floor (we have photographic proof of that) and the other said he was on the 5th floor (we have his sworn statements). Of the remaining 12 who went outside initially, only two did not return inside at all. Two of them were several blocks away at lunch. Two went in within seconds of Baker. Of the remaining eight, can you state when each of them went in and how many of them are potential candidates for these "two men?" (I'd suggest that Frazier had also said that Shelley and Lovelady had gone across the roadway extension, but we "can't count" his word because he's a "co-conspirator.")

I think it's unfortunate that Mr Weston has chosen to invalidate whatever "research" he has done - and undermine his own credibility - by stating, in effect, that his conclusion, based upon the limited information he has evaluated, is "correct" simply because he says so. He has chosen to use a rather limited set of data - witness affidavits made on the day of the shooting during a period of "complete pandemonium" in the sheriff's office (60 or more affidavits were taken that afternoon amid other routine and assassination-related activities) - to arrive at his conclusion, and invites everyone to take part in a "public stoning" of people he has, alone, tried and convicted as prosecutor, defender, judge and jury, a regular one-man band.I don't know what world he lives in, but in the one I inhabit, even the most truthful people are sometimes inconsistent. But to Weston, inconsistency is a clear sign of guilt, part of something which he calls a "fair and impartial" evaluation. Weston may believe that "accustions of libel or slander have no effect" on him, but he should be forewarned that the "long arm of the law" is even longer on the Internet. The Shelley-Lovelady-Frazier issue aside, it is clear that he hasn't done his homework. See Bochan v. LaFontaine on this very same subject. That said, let us now "look at the points that Lane has failed to address:" There are several points in this, so let's begin with the simplest one: Adams said that Shelley and Lovelady said "nothing" when she talked about the shooting. Did she (or could she) testify that "they heard me when I asked?" She didn't even say they acknowledged her, and she didn't say she waited around for them to answer. Remember: everything - in Weston's words, anyway - was "complete panemonium," and it is therefore possible that Shelley and Lovelady did not hear her in the first place.Styles and Adams were watching the parade with two other women, Elsie Dorman and Dorothy Ann Garner. They were all watching from the third set of windows from the east corner of the fourth floor, Adams specifically in the sixth individual window. Of the four, only Adams was deposed. None provided affidavits on the day of the shooting, but gave statements to the FBI in March 1964. From among these: Sandra Styles states that she and Adams left the office and went downstairs, but does not mention either Shelley and Lovelady, or that either of them had said anything to anyone on the way outside, or whether or not they replied. Elsie Dorman said only that she, Dorothy Ann Garner, Adams and Styles were present in the office on the 4th floor, and that all were employees of Scott, Foresman Company. She did not state that Virginia or Sandra left the room ... so, therefore, did they not? Dorothy Ann Garner likewise did not say that Adams and Styles left the room, ergo we have "corroboration" that (ahem!) "neither Adams nor Styles left the room." Based on this limited sample, one could (somewhat) reasonably argue that Adams and Styles did not leave the 4th floor and that all the rest of what she and they related is a fabrication. Of course, it is clear that Dorman and Garner wrote only what pertained directly to themselves - where they were and who they were with - and did not record the actions of two of their compatriots. Indeed, Garner said that she "remained on the fourth floor of the building in the Scott, Foresman offices until approximately 2:30 ... at which time I and the remaining employees departed the building." She includes "the remaining employees," presumably including both Adams and Styles, in their departure from the building at the (early) end of the day. Should we find something "suspicious" in her not mentioning Adams and Styles' actions leaving the office after the shooting yet deeming to include them in the departure? I didn't think so. As to the supposed "fact" that "the commotion outside made no effect on them" and the "fair and impartial" evaluation that "if Shelley and Lovelady were innocent people taken by surprise by the events outside they would want to see what happened," allow me to relate the "strange" and "disturbing" story of Madie Belle Reese and Ruth Dean, whose actions after the shooting surely bear greater scrutiny by Weston's measure. Who the heck are Madie Reese and Ruth Dean you might ask? Madie was the 60-year-old office manager for the MacMillen Company officing on the 3rd floor of the TSBD. She had worked with them for 19 years, while Ruth Dean was their 48-year-old receptionist. When the shooting took place, they were situated on "the second step from the bottom to the right or west side of the main entrance of the Depository building," Dean standing to Reese's left. They heard three shots, and Dean observed Kennedy "slump over in the automobile in which he was riding." If Reese saw anything, she did not say so. After the shooting, during the "panemonium" and "commotion" during which anyone "taken by surprise" would want to "see what happened," the two women stood around for about five minutes and then - gasp! - "walked up to the National Bank of Commerce where I [Reese] completed some personal business!!" Clearly unimpressed or taken aback by watching someone get shot and killed almost right in front of them, these women calmly walked to the bank and took care of personal business when they should have remained milling around in the front of the building like innocent people should and did, or at least should have fled hysterically into the building (only one woman did, by the way ... the only one to have been "taken by surprise?"). If Shelley and Lovelady didn't react according to Weston's expectations, Reese and Dean did even less so, and were apparently every bit as calm and collected as the three "suspiciously calm" men inside. What should we make of this? I wonder what their roles were in the assassination? Could Reese possibly have been going to make the money transfer to Shelley, Lovelady and Frazier's accounts? There are other similar reports of people going about their business, but none quite so "strange" as this one. We can only hope that someday, someone is able to "get to the bottom of it!" In closing this portion, I should note that MacNeil did not describe anyone as "indifferent." This is a fabrication by Weston. MacNeil called them "exceedingly calm," but in reality, that was an impression after the fact for he said that he "didn't really notice" the "excessive calmness" at the time. He did? I've just been reviewing his testimony (3H242-70) and don't find any reference to anyone other than Truly on any floor below the 2nd floor. A reference would be helpful. I've mis-remembered things, too; could this be one of those? My typo: the statement reads "west side door of the building." (CE 1381 pages 84-85 at 22H673) I mistakenly typed "east side door." We have to remember a couple of things: first, that these statements were made four months after the events they describe, and it is therefore possible that some remembered events may not have been in the exact sequence in which they occurred. Second, that of all the people who made particular statements as to the times or timings of when things happened, Virginia Adams' was one that was not timed, purportedly because it would have ruined the Oswald walk/run timing to the second floor lunch room because, by her words, she should have encountered him - or at least heard him - on the stairway; she did not. Third, that it is difficult at best to reconcile a lot of people's statements with what other people did, or said they did. I'll get into this shortly, especially since two events Adams' statements can be clearly reconciled with others ... although the timing still remains questionable. Finally, whatever Oswald supposedly said must be taken with some skepticism because none of it is first-hand and he was given no opportunity to expand on any of it. Indeed, we cannot state with absolute certainty that he actually said any of it, even if we take everyone's word about what he said.Adams said, in late March 1964, "Sandra Styles and I then ran out of the building by via the stairs [in the northwest corner, the only stairs that led all the way to the 4th floor] and went in the direction of the railroad where we had observed other people running" (22H632). This would seemingly indicate that she went out the west door and southwest toward the Grassy Knoll, since that is where she would have been able to "observe" from her office (sixth individual window from the southeast corner on the 4th floor), and the west door is the closest to it. That is all she said in her statement in this particular regard. In her deposition on April 7, she said she was on her way out to the Houston Street dock, that is, the east side of the building. First, she went into the stockroom on the 4th floor; then she went to the stairs and began her run down. She encountered no one, and the elevators were not running. She did not see or hear Truly or Baker, or anyone calling for an elevator (which Truly did twice, according to both him and Baker). She estimated (6H388) that it was 15-30 seconds from the time she heard the shots to the time that she left the window, and "no longer than a minute at most" to get from the window to the bottom of the stairs at the first floor where she said she encountered Shelley and Lovelady. Remember that she didn't see or hear anyone on the stairs, and that it is supposed to have taken Oswald about 1:14 to get from the 6th floor to the 2nd, and Truly and Baker about 1:18 to get to the 2nd floor landing and lunchroom door where they lingered long enough for Truly to identify Oswald before continuing up the stairs. Thus: 12:30:00 - shots are fired 12:30:06 - shots finished 12:30:36 - latest time Adams left the 4th floor window 12:31:21 - Oswald in lunch room 12:31:24 - Truly and Baker at lunch room 12:31:34 - (?) Truly and Baker continue upstairs (allowing 10 seconds for the Oswald encounter) 12:31:36 - Adams reaches 1st floor landing Clearly, since she was on the same stairwell as Baker, Truly and Oswald were, and Baker and Truly had encountered Oswald only 12 seconds before Adams reached the first floor (one floor below where she should have encountered them as well) ... and remember, they did not go entirely into the room, so it is not as if she could have missed seeing them or, at the very least, hearing them on the stairwell. Truly, for his part, said that he didn't hear the elevators operating while going up the stairs "with all the commotion we were making running up the enclosed stairwell" (3H229). How could Adams not been aware of anyone else on the stairwell ... unless she was not in the stairwell while any of the three of them were? This means she was in there either earlier or later than they were, and if it were earlier - before Truly and Baker started upstairs - then Shelley and Lovelady were still out front (it was less than a minute after the shooting). So she must have been in the stairwell sometime after either Truly and Baker had reached the 5th floor, ascended to the 7th floor and stopped the elevator (she was adamant that the elevators were not running while she was in the stairwell because she didn't either hear them or see the cables moving). Not having an exact timing of those later movements, we cannot know how long it was before Truly and Baker stopped the elevator and got off such that the stairwell would be quiet once again. Am I fair in suggesting that it might have taken T&B 10 seconds to ascend each "floor" of stairs, that is, 30 seconds to reach the 5th floor, where they found the east elevator (only)? Should it be a little longer? Shorter? Then perhaps a little less time to go up two more floors (let's say seven seconds per floor; I have no idea how fast the elevator went. That would be a total of about 15 seconds. Thus it is no earlier than 12:32:15 (I'm splitting the time of T&B's encounter with Oswald to 12:31:00) that Adams entered the stairwell at the 4th floor. We could, of course, argue that, in her flight, she didn't notice the noise of Truly and Baker above her which could skew the time by perhaps as much as 30 seconds, but we don't know that that is what happened. And remember: none of this timing includes whatever time she spent getting to the storeroom on the 4th floor. The point of this exercise, then, is to point out that we don't know exactly when Adams and Styles got to the 1st floor to encounter Shelley and Lovelady. As for how some people noticed time, see Truly's testimony before the Commission (3H212 et seq.) as to what time it might have been when he noticed Oswald missing and had it reported to Capt Fritz on the 6th floor: it was anywhere from 12:40 to 1:15 or so. If Truly can be so mistaken on a crucial issue such as this by so wide a margin of time, how can we suggest that Adams - and Shelley and Lovelady, whose times for what they did also varied by half - was absolutely dead-on as to how long it took her to do what? Does that make her a "xxxx?" You decide: I'd hate to de-construct her testimony and be libelous too!! As to Oswald being out in front with Shelley (or in the train yards? Remember: we have no transcript of what he said, and only the several-months-old statement by someone who "didn't take notes" as to exactly what he said ... or not; maybe he only said "outside," which was interpreted as "in front?") and why he left, that will save to another time. Actually, I don't find Frazier's behavior any more "odd" than Reese and Dean going to the bank amid such commotion. Surely, they, too, must be "guilty" of something, we only have to figure out what!Is there anything else I've "failed to address?"

Can we take it that Duke Lane rejects the idea of representative government? If so, what would he like to take its place? No, you should take it that Duke Lane accepts the idea of the separation of powers, holding that each of the three branches of governent are co-equal.The Supreme Court can tell Congress that a law it passed is unconsitutional and therefore void; it cannot "direct" Congress to write and vote on a new law to replace it. Likewise, the Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch, and the Legislative Branch cannot "direct" the Executive to "investigate" anything. It cannot actually even tell the Executive Branch to obey or enforce the law the Legislature enacts ... but it can impeach when, for example, the Executive elects to disobey the laws that Congress has enacted and the Supreme Court has upheld. A suggestion to investigate is not equivalent to the passage of a law. It may be inconvenient and/or unpopular at times, and it may not be perfect, but it's worked for nearly 230 years. I'm in favor of keeping it. As to representative government, if we don't like the fact that the Executive Branch has not acted on something suggested by the Legislature, we can always replace the Chief Executive.

Thanks, Jack! In all of the testimony I've read, I can only recall a couple of instances where the deponents have been allowed to carry on a monologue or lengthy discourse; Jack Ruby was one such exception. The vast majority of deponents, however, were subject to direct question-and-answer interrogation. When the next question comes rolling around, you answer; you don't elaborate on a previous answer - or return to a previous question because you suddenly remembered something - unless you're asked to. If Frazier knew or knows more than he testified to, it is because he wasn't asked. After all, how many citations can we compile of people whose testimony was moving along "unprofitable" lines was suddenly "sidetracked" by counsel? "Well, Oswald was standing next to me when the President ---" "Now, what time do you normally come to work, and did you come to work that day at the same time, Mr Doe?" "Oh, I usually come in at 8:00, but that day --" "That's 8:00 and not 8:30 like everyone else? Why is that?" ... "Well, no further questions, thank you for coming." If Lovelady is being truthful and accurate, why do you have no comment on this statement WHICH ALL ALONE PROVES THE Z FILM A FABRICATION? The Z film does NOT show the limo stopping! This statement is far more valuable than his poor estimate of how much time passed. Jack, you've done perspective studies before, and can no doubt calculate how far the Z-film shows the limo to have moved forward while the brake lights were on. You can probably tell us the dimensions of the rear of the limo as well, and the speeds that it was going before the lights came on and after.Given those calculable things, tell us how much the rear of the limo would have decreased in perceived size (objects that move away from an observer appear smaller as they get farther away, larger as they get nearer) to an observer as far away as the end of the divider "island" between Elm Street and the extension that goes in front of TSBD ... which was, what, 100 feet away? 150? I didn't find it to be a significant statement because Lovelady was behind the limo and could not discern the forward movement of the vehicle. That brake lights came on for a couple of seconds on a slow-moving vehicle, I would posit that it is reasonable to perceive that it stopped because the "size" of the vehicle did not perceptibly change. You can see movement in the Z-film, however, solely because it is "side-to-side" motion from Zapruder's perspective. If it had come to a complete stop and, a couple of seconds later rolled forward just five feet before stopping again, it would have been obvious to someone at the side, but not necessarily to someone a hundred feet directly behind it. Gerry Hemming did a good job of explaining why they came on and the car slowed in another thread here; do a keyword search on "left foot" to find it. I think hanging your hat on Lovelady's statement is grasping at straws. I didn't consider it as indicative of anything except that Lovelady saw the brake lights come on. EDIT: PS - I'll respond to timing issues later when I'm able to return to Weston's response.

Wow. Can you do that again?

Oceanfront in Arizona is much more appealing to me, but thanks, Pat! The key word is "seemingly." Some people who are much more intelligent than I am believe it. Which means what? Pat, if he didn't kill Kennedy, then what did he have a motive of "escaping" from? Escaping, perhaps, a crime he hadn't committed yet (killing a cop)? About that swampland ...!My point re the Tippit case is simply that it's a much smaller can of worms than the JFK murder. Someone assisting Ruby to kill Oswald falls in the same category. I'm fairly confident that the mob and CIA and Castro and Hoover and Big Oil and the "Military-Industrial Complex" and LBJ really couldn't have cared less whether Tippit or Oswald lived or died. The list of those who might have wanted either of them dead - for whatever reason - is considerably smaller. I am, however, simply voicing my own two cents' worth: I'm not running for DA and won't be trying either case anytime soon! Ruby insisted that he was a lone nut. Oswald insisted that he didn't know what anybody was talking about, him shooting anybody, which clearly made him a nut too. Tho' he lost an insanity plea, Ruby may have almost been certifiable, don't you think?

I'm not sure I've actually done that, but merely pointed out what I think are reasonable explanations. I could be 180° off the mark. I take your point fully about how some things become "fact." One of the things that can't be taken as "fact" is what anybody said that Lee Oswald said while he was in custody, including Harry Holmes. Maybe he did, but maybe he didn't, but only Holmes knows (knew) for sure. Ditto Fritz and the guys in the car between the theater and the jail.As to a "butt stamp" on his face, while I've never examined it closely enough to conjecture yea or nay, some thoughts to consider: one, that virtually everybody involved in his arrest said that nobody hit him; two, that no officer in the theater saw anyone who had a shotgun or rifle in the theater to hit him with; and three - and most importantly - that no gun is going to "transfer blowback" to anyone's face unless that weapon had been fired very recently and nobody's hand or cheek was covering the butt so that a significant enough amount of gasses and particles could land on it to be transferred to someone else. Not to say any of the above is impossible, but at least insofar as the blowback is concerned it seems unlikely enough as not to be seriously considered, and certainly not as a deliberate act. Possible, tho'? Could be. If it was a butt-stamp, well, all I can say is that Oswald wouldn't have been the first prisoner to fall down the stairs or be hurt during a sudden stop in traffic or even shot while escaping, in Dallas or anywhere else. He was, after all, a suspected cop-killer. Hmmm ... now I know why you don't think the Tippit murder is any reason to call a grand jury: we already know who the culprit is!! I don't know why someone "practicing tradecraft" would want to get a cop's attention simply to kill him (unless, of course, he wanted other cops swarming all over the place around him!), but even still you forgot the last couple: 1) Looking into the reflections of the glass in the shoestore's outdoor lobby; and 2) Changing seats in the theater ... tho' I'd actually put this more in the genre of getting a cop's attention just to kill him and get more cops on your back. Like the other patrons wouldn't notice him, even in a "dark" theater? Of course, it could also be "tradecraft" to kill a cop to get their attention focused on someone else, I suppose. But that doesn't make sense ....

I have not had time yet to to do the search, but I will certainly take Duke's word for it. The more I read Duke Lane's posts the more I feel like one of the villagers in Oliver Goldsmith's poem, as they gazed upon the village schoolmaster: "And still they gazed and still the wonder grew that one small head could carry all he knew." Since the Court of Inquiry is a dead duck, then Bill Kelly's Grand Jury suggestion seems like the only way to go at state level. Allow me to paraphrase one of the greatest pearls of wisdom I've gotten regarding this case, this from Jim Marrs: "do not trust my posts." Verify.I didn't say a Court of Inquiry is a dead end, merely that its rules have changed since 1963 ... in fact, in 1966, when Carr was still in office. I haven't read all of the references - or even most of them, and barely even some of them! - so I'm not entirely familiar with why to choose that avenue over another except that the Court of Inquiry is a public proceeding, unlike a grand jury. That in itself seems a good enough reason why not to pursue this venue. Read the references, and maybe you'll find a lot more than I know, because I sure as heck don't claim to know them all! (The biggest problem with the earlier Courts of Inquiry were that they were basically a cumpulsory "Kangaroo Court" that offered little if any protections to the people called before them or inquired about. They were convened by Justices of the Peace, and were as often a "political" rather than legal tool as not.) Pinkerton ... no relation to Alan!Forgive my ignorance, but did HSCA say who aided Ruby? If not, did they at least describe the mechanics by which it was done so names could be put with the faces, so to speak? While they may have said "it sure seems that way," and recommended to the Justice Department to investigate it, there is nothing other than a "suggestion" that a crime (conspiracy) may have been committed, and certainly no evidence that they put forth in hard form (that I've ever even vaguely heard of). If a citizen has to come up with a bit more than "questions" to get a DA to convene a grand jury, why do a bunch of politicians have such a lesser standard? I can't march into Dallas County and say "y'know, it sure looks like JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy, and 97% of the people think that, too, so you need to convene a grand jury to find out who they were." A bunch of Congressmen shouldn't be able to direct the Executive Branch to investigate anything on a similar basis, no matter how sensible it may seem to you and me. That is effectively what they did. HSCA also said that Oswald was a shooter. So I'm supposed to believe that the cops were conspirators based on what they say? A "Select Committee of Congress, for God's sake" is no more than a bunch of politicians with hired guns doing their work for them, and preparing something for them to sign. I don't think God necessarily wants to be connected to that in any way!! Don't take my remarks to suggest that I disagree that there was any kind of conspiracy in either murder, or that the Ruby-Oswald case isn't as strong or stronger a likelihood to re-open any investigation at any level, if it could even be done at all. That's not for a layman like me to decide: I don't work on my truck, either; I leave it to a trained professional. But that doesn't mean I can't tell when something's wrong with it and be able to tell my mechanic where to start looking to find the problem. He can pick his own wrenches, tho'.