Duke Lane

... all to what end? "Stalling" them for how long? Not very, it would seem to me.

Trying to see things from Lee's point of view:

If Lee had an idea of what was going down, perhaps he thought that being on the run is a foolish thing, he may have wanted to get arrested. Then the thing is to get arrested alive.

I'd pose the same question to you: if he realized something was going down and thought that being on the run is a foolish thing, then why run? More in just a moment on that ....

What does a movie theatre offer? Everyone no doubt has had the experience of entering a dark movie theatre and having to allow the eyes to grow accustomed to the dark.

I imagine trained ops know this and in anticipation of entering a dark place can keep one eye closed prior to entering in order to already be prepared. Possibly Lee knew this and also knew that those coming after him did not.

Therefore someone who already is in a movie theatre has an advantage over those who follow. Lee in this case can see those coming before they can see him. He can choose his location/seat in relation to other patrons and have time to change it. He may realise that they will come looking for him with a flash light and therefore will need to get up close before being totally sure it's him. Which will mean that by then a number of witnesses will be looking at him, thus the hand of the police is stayed.

So, the 'stalling' necessary was only in the order of tens of minutes.

A movie theater, being dark, also offers "cover" for the people who might want to do something to continue to set you up (or even kill you), presuming that they did know about eyes adjusting to the dark ... which didn't matter because they turned on the lights, and guess what? The operative hiding out in the dark is now semi-blinded. Major backfire there!

Why would anyone assume that someone setting them up wouldn't be wise to the darkness issue? Why limit the search for you to being with a flashlight when they could just as easily have had the lights turned on, as they did. If this was his thought process, he clearly didn't think it through ... and it only gets worse.

After all, my these measures, wouldn't he have been better off staying right where he was in DP so he was never "on the run" in the first place and had lots of people around him, including a few dozen who knew him? What's that thing about "safety in numbers?"

You say that "the hand of the police is stayed." The "people who came looking for him" in the theater were cops, so are you saying the cops were setting him up?

I think the "stalling with the cab" issue is not answered by this since, after "stalling" law enforcement, he apparently went home first, before going to the movie.

Another thing is the statements that Lee tried to use his gun. He saw what was coming in good time to shoot. He didn't shoot so he never meant to, never tried. Basically it seems his actions were to thawrt those who set him up.

On his forehead/temple area is a bruise the shape of half a rifle stock. This could have been fatal. This could also transfer residue to his face that paraffin tests may detect.?

Duke,

I like your idea of sitting down for lunch with a local Texas prosecutor and giving him the necessary information to open a grand jury investigation into JFK. In today's local paper here in Jersey, a State Grand Jury refused to indict six State Troopers in a shooting incident. The paper notes: "The review by a grand jury is routine n shooting cases involving police officers, according to officials in the state Attorney General's Office."

If that is the case in Texas too, then I think it more probably that we could get a local Dallas County or Texas State Grand Jury to investigate the murder of J.D. Tippit, which of course would dovetail with what happened at Dealey Plaza, if the cases are indeed connected.

Duke, if you had fifteen minutes with a DA to make your case, which you want him to take on and present to a grand jury, what evidence would you give him?

Bill Kelly

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

With 15 minutes, I guess I'd prefer to deal with something "digestible" than something completely satisfying in every regard. One would, as you say, dovetail into the next if the cases are related since, if someone else shot Tippit, it would certainly raise questions about everything else, wouldn't it.

It's worth a thought.

One obvious possibilty: to stall law enforcement.

I can imagine that he didn't tell Whaley to turn around and bring him to where he wanted to go because that would have raised the cab fare ... and when you're making $1.25 an hour, even 5¢ is a fair shake of money when you could save it just by walking about the same amount of time that it would take you to earn that nickel!

Why he would have passed it in the first place ... preoccupied with something? Counter-surveillence? Who's to say ...?

I wanted to explore a few areas, that ostensibly provide new avenues of research within the context of "what we know now, that we didn't know then." ....

First of the bat is a name that is familiar to some - Warren Caster; He was the District Mgr. for Southwestern Publishing Co in the Texas School Book Depository, he also garnered attention by virtue of the fact that 'he brought a Mauser rifle (30.06) into the Depository (along with a Reminigton single shot rifle) two day's before the assassination, and there is more! At the time of the assassination he was eating lunch at North Texas State University, which oddly enough was also where the universities "Young Peoples Republican Club" had planned to join alongside Edwin Walker in a protest during President Kennedy's (now infamous) motorcade. The protest was called off after the Dallas Police learned of said plan, ostensibly Walker departed on Nov. 21, and neither he nor his 'group' as the Warren Commission referred to it materialized. It would be 'interesting to ascertain' whether there was any possible connection between this 'group' and the individuals who were arrested at Dallas Market Hall (William Lee Cummings, Gene Guinn, and the Joiner family) across from the Trade Mart, where Kennedy would have spoken that day, or even others. Is it true that 'bullets' were found on these individuals? ....

The story behind the incident is that one man, not specified or named, was selling placards that read "Hurray for President Kennedy." Since he was selling these placards on the (private) Trade Mart property, he was asked to remove himself to public property across Industrial Boulevard, which he did.

At about the same time, two men showed up on the property carrying anti-Kennedy placards. They too were advised that they were on private property (the manager of the Trade Mart stated his objection to their being there) and if they didn't leave, they would be trespassing. They, too, went across the street.

After the news of the shooting, the latter two men and three others got into an argument with "spectators across the street." I don't know if that means "across the street from the Trade Mart," or "across the street from where they were" (i.e., back on Trade Mart property), but since it was a two-versus-three situation, my bet would be that it was Cummings and Guinn with the placards getting into an argument with the Joiners "across the street."

Given the identical ages of the Joiner boys and the different addresses, my guess would be that they were cousins, not brothers. Bobby Joiner, twice their age, was either an uncle or older cousin to the other two, or possibly the father to one not living with his family.

Hope this helps.

(Source: HSCA rec no 180-10107-10137, file no 003019, "Chronological report of events. Box 71." Opened in full 05/18/93, 35 pp, page 18. The order of the names is as it appears in the report.)

... What we need to do is compile a list of living witnesses and suspects.

And thanks to everyone, including Dave Perry and Duke, for responding to this thread,

BK

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.

Input from hundreds of people is not going to do it, and will likely confuse the issue if it achieves anything at all. Having 2500 signatures on a petition raising lots of issues is not going to carry any more weight than a single signature on a petition with just one or two soundly argued and well documented points that suggest a conspiracy. If LHO did not act alone (whether or not he acted at all), then there are people who haven't answered for it.

Throwing spaghetti up against the wall - naming lots and lots of obscure names with tangential reasons for wanting Kennedy dead, or having "conspiratorial connections" or having done things that "might" have made them peripherally responsible or complicit - just to see what sticks is not going to fly either.

My personal feeling is that people spend an awful lot of time talking about doing something than actually doing it. While I applaud your efforts to help people understand grand juries and how one might be utilized to reopen the case, it seems as if simply compiling that list of living witnesses, suspects, etc., would be a better use of time. The longer moving forward is delayed, the more of them will be dead.

Likewise, waiting for the release of yet another series of documents can only lead to waiting for the release of more that the first batch suggests bear scrutiny. I'd think that there is enough evidence already released - and has been for years - to provide good cause for looking into this case more closely through legal proceedings. I grant you that it does not include the name(s) of anyone involved in authorizing, funding or planning the assassination, but clearly enough to prove that something beyond LHO's actions was involved, and possibly even who else was taking some sort of action that day to further the plot.

If that were the case, then I'd be all over putting together something for the DA based on what I could show now if I thought it were significant enough. Joe West came reasonably close to making something happen by documenting how many shots people thought they'd heard and from which direction(s) (among other items), tho' eventually he got shot down.

I doubt that West had a full understanding of the technicalities of how a grand jury operates, what it can and cannot do, and how it goes about doing it, and I don't think that that knowledge is an absolute necessity for the principals/petitioners, provided that whever they are have enlisted the assistance of someone who does.

Earlier today, I posted a reply to the story of "Robert MacNeil and the Three Calm Men" that I think goes a long way toward showing the standard of proof (if you will) that would be necessary to capture prosecutors' attention: merely making a statement that shows something you consider "suspicious" is not a satisfactory avenue to pursue. I think the object of the game is to not invite ridicule and claims of frivolity to the detriment of anything truly substantive that may come along later.

And there, again, is my two cents!!

I am currently working on a new article regarding the TSBD.

In that article I make the assumption that the reader has read my previous articles on the TSBD. I do not know how many readers of this forum has read those articles, so I would like to offer an old one here, and possibly more in the future. The following is an article that was printed in the Fourth Decade, Nov. 1994. It contains a section on Shelley, Lovelady, and Frazier that Jerry Rose left out, I guess because he thought it was too slanderous. So here it is, complete.

First, he cited a Commission Exhibit for the number of people who worked at the TSBD. If he had read the first page of CE1381 (at 22H331), which is a cover letter signed by J. Edgar Hoover and dated April 3, 1964, which states in part: "Enclosed for your assistance are two copies each of 73 signed statements obtained from those individuals known to have been in the Texas School Book Depository Building on November 22, 1963. ... Statements were not obtained from the following three [TSBD] employees as they were absent from work on November 22, 1963: Mrs Joseph A. (Vickie) Davis, Mr Franklin Kaiser, Mrs James L. (Dottie) Lovelady." Don't forget to add one more employee who was at work and obviously did not provide a statement: Lee Oswald. (In reality, two of the 73 statements were from TSBD personnel who worked at the North Houston warehouse and had not been to the 411 Elm location that day. That leaves 72 employees including Oswald.)

That may be a minor point, but it is one obtainable by reading a mere two paragraphs of the original source document that you cited. An elementary mistake such as this necessarily leads one to wonder what other, more substantial mistakes there might be in the words ahead. There are many.

He cited William Shelley's affidavit at 24H226, which does indeed mention his making a telephone call to his wife after the shooting, but it is certainly not detailed enough to even suggest when he made it. Notice that Shelley made two affidavits the same day; they are published as pages 59 and 60 of CD2003 and are, in fact, on the same page of Volume 24. If one were to read the second one to the exclusion of the first, one might get a totally different idea of what Shelley did and when.

The first affidavit reads:

Now, forget you read that, and read the second one, made the same day:

To read the second affidavit only, one could easily get the impression that (1) Oswald was not on the sixth floor at all that day ("I saw him periodically ... except when we were on the sixth floor"), and (2) that Shelley immediately started looking for Lee right after he'd seen the President's "accident."

Since Weston cited CE1381 (where he had discerned - or not - the number of people working at the TSBD, quoted above), Bill Shelley also submitted a sworn statement on March 18, 1964, to the FBI regarding what occurred on November 22:

I emphasized Shelley's statement that he and Lovelady went to the railroad yards with "some uniformed police officers" didn't go back into the building until "about ten minutes later" not only because the latter statement speaks directly to the theory that Shelley was the man MacNeil saw on the phone, but because this is the only mention of "accompanying" police officers to the railroad yards.

Shelley also testified before the Warren Commission (6H327 et seq.). Before examining that testimony, let first look briefly at what Billy Lovelady and Buell Frazier said in their own affidavits and statements:

LOVELADY

Lovelady said in his November 22 affidavit that he was working on the sixth floor along with Danny Arce, Jack Dougherty, Bill Shelley and Charles Givens, and that when the motorcade came by, he was standing with Bill Shelley on the steps in front of the building. After the shooting, he said, "we" (presumably meaning him and Shelley) went back into the building and then he took some police officers up to search the building.

In his March 19 statement he recalled that Shelley and Sarah Stanton were standing next to him. After the shooting, he ran "toward the spot where President Kennedy's car had stopped," and that he and Shelley stayed in that area for "approximately five minutes" before going into the TSBD via the west doors. Several minutes later, a cop asked them to remain in the building, and at about 1:45 he and several other employees accompanied an officer to City Hall for questioning. He returned at 4:30 to pick up his coat and went home.

Without referring to the other information available, one could get the idea from reading Lovelady's affidavit only that the shots rang out and "we" turned around and went inside, then took police upstairs. Reading his statement alone, he appears to have run down Elm Street toward the Triple Underpass and gone inside a few minutes later. In one account, he doesn't go anywhere but helps cops search the building, and in the other he runs into the plaza and then the only role he plays with the cops is to provide a statement at headquarters.

FRAZIER

Frazier's November 22 affidavit talks a lot about driving Oswald to work; as far as what happened in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, the final paragraph (only) says that he was stading on the front steps, that he heard three shots after JFK "had got out of my sight," and that he then stood there a while, then turned and went back into the building to get his lunch. He last saw Lee at about 11:00 a.m. when they were both working on the first floor.

His March 18 statement says only that he was standing on the front steps with Shelley and Lovelady, did not see LHO during the parade and shooting, and left the TSBD "sometime between 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM and went directly home.

(For their parts, the people mentioned by these guys - and by each other - were pretty consistent as to who was with them.)

Both Shelley and Lovelady stated that they went to the railroad yards (Shelley alone having first crossed the Elm Street Extension, the dead-end street directly in front of TSBD), and then into the TSBD via the west entrance. While their affidavits read as if they went directly back into TSBD after the shooting, both said in their later statements that they were in the railroad yards for a few minutes ("about ten" for Shelley and "about five" for Lovelady). This discrepancy in timing will remain in all instances.

As for their testimonies:

SHELLEY (April 7, 1964)

Shelley said (6H328) he heard three shots. Asked "Then what happened?" by Joseph Ball, he said "Gloria Calvary from South-Western Publishing Co. ran back up there crying and said 'The President has been shot' and Billy Lovelady and myself took off across the street to that little, old island and we stopped there for a minute." By the "island," he was referring to the strip of land that is the eastern end of Dealey Plaza between Elm Street and the Elm Street Extension. He estimated that it was about "3 or 4 minutes" after the shooting before he and Lovelady crossed the street "because this girl [Gloria Calvery] that ran back up there was down near where the car was when the President was hit." Asked later how long they had been on the divider "island" (6H331), he said it "wasn't very long ... maybe a minute or two."

They "ran out on the island while some of the people that were out watching it from our building were walking back and we turned around and we saw an officer [M.L. Baker] and [Roy] Truly [who] were at the first step like they were fixin' to go in ... they were moving," he said, but wouldn't swear to them running (6H329-30). When Truly and Baker were headed into the building, soon thereafter to encounter Oswald in the domino room, Shelley and Lovelady were still out front, across the extension at the corner of the plaza. Shelley confirmed this again (6H331).

After stopping at the corner of the plaza for a minute, the two then "walked on down to the first railroad track there on the dead-end street and stood there and watched them searching cars down there in the parking lots for a little while, and then we came in through our parking lot at the west end [of the building]" (6H330). Again, Ball sought to confirm what Shelley was saying. He asked how long they were actually in the railroad yards before going back to the buidling, and Shelley responded, "not very long ... I wouldn't say over a minute and a half," (it had been ten before!) and that they took their "good old easy time more or less" walking back to the building (6H331).

LOVELADY (April 7, 1964)

Lovelady (6H338) said he thought he heard firecrackers and that "it didn't occur to me what had happened until this Gloria [Calvery] came running up to us and told us that the President had been shot." Ball asked him what he did then:

Lovelady said that it was "approximately 3 minutes, I would say" before Calvery came up to them, which Ball commented "is a long time," to which Lovelady replied "Yes, it's — I say approximately; I can't say because I don't have a watch; it could." He did confirm that he left the steps with Shelley, that they didn't leave the steps until Calvery had come running up to them, and stated "I would say we were at least 15. maybe 25. steps away from the building [when] I looked back and I saw him [Truly] and the policeman [baker] running into the building." Asked how long they were in the railroad yards, Lovelady replied, "Oh, just a minute, maybe minute and a half" (6H339). There's that old time discrepancy again.

FRAZIER

Buell Wesley Frazier first testified before the Commission on March 11, 1964 (2H210-245). In it, he indicates that he had been working at TSBD only since September, 1963, and that he had obtained the job after moving up from Huntsville, a small city about 50 miles north of Houston (now most famous for housing Texas' Death Row) because his father was ill, and that he was referred to it by an employment agency after a fruitless job search on his own ... a heck of a way for a "conspirator" to get a job!

Given his association with Oswald and his driving him into work that day, quite a bit of his testimony is devoted to the ride to and from Dallas and Irving, the "curtain rods" parcel, and what Oswald was wearing. He did note, however - this being important only to Weston's later attribution of suspicion to Frazier's going into the basement - that he had gone "like I did every morning, I went down in the basement there and hung up my coat and put up my lunch" in a refrigerator kept there for that purpose. He later notes that, after the parade had gone by, he realized that he'd only had ten minutes left for lunch - lunchtime was from 12:00 noon until 12:45 each day, so Frazier noticed the time at approximately 12:35 ... at about the same time as it's estimated that MacNeil came into the building - and so had gone down to hurry to eat his two sandwiches and an apple.

Frazier went outside shortly after noon and stood on the steps with Shelley and Lovelady until the parade came by, also noticing "Sarah something" (2H233), a "heavy-set lady who works upstairs ... I don't know her last name" standing nearby. He heard sounds he thought were backfires - first one, then two more - and when he saw people "running everywhere, and falling down and screaming," he concluded that "somebody else, somebody was shooting at somebody and I figured it was [the President]."

Frazier stood still. He explained why: "I figured it was somebody shooting at President Kennedy because people were running and hollering so I just stood still. I have always been taught when something like that happened or anywhere as far as that it is always best to stand still because if you run that makes you look guilty sure enough." Effectively, he froze: he hardly noticed anything that went on around him. He "believed [that] Billy [Lovelady] and them went down toward that direction," and as for cops entering the building while he was still standing there, he said "Not that I know. They could walk by the way and I was standing there talking to somebody else and didn't see it" (2H234).

Then he went inside and stood around on the first floor for a few minutes before thinking about lunch: he had two sandwiches and an apple downstairs, and only ten minutes left to eat them. So he went downstairs, wolfed down the sandwiches and came back upstairs, re-joining "the guys" who he'd been talking with before.

Most of the rest of Frazier's testimony - including this deposition at Dallas on July 24 (7H531) - dealt more with Oswald than with himself or anything he had done, seen or experienced (his incident with the DPD over his ownership of an Enfield rifle was never discussed, for example), the latter exchange being wholly about the "package" Frazier had seen Oswald with. We unfortunately - "unfortunately" mostly on account of the accusation leveled against him by Weston - learn little about his movements through his testimony, statements or affidavits, which all centered mostly on Oswald due to Frazier's familiarity with and proximity to him.

OTHERS

Roy Truly (who, incidentally, rated LHO to be "a bit above average" as a worker, who "kept working and talked little to anybody else. He just kept moving. And did a good day's work" - 3H216) testified before the Commission on March 24, 1964. In his testimony, he said there was "an explosion ... nothing happened at this first explosion. Everything was frozen. And immediately after, two more explosions ... I heard a policeman in this area along here [where he was standing] make a remark, 'Oh, goddam,' or something like that. I just remember that. It wasn't a motorcycle policeman. ... just moments later I saw a young motorcycle policeman run up to the building, up the steps to the entrance of our building. He ran right by me. And he was pushing people out of the way. He pushed a number of people out of the way before he got to me. I saw him coming through, I believe. As he ran up the stairway--I mean up the steps, I was almost to the steps, I ran up and caught up with him. I believe I caught up with him inside the lobby of the building, or possibly the front steps. I don't remember that close. ... I ran in with him."

In this portion of his testimony (Truly was also deposed at Dallas on May 14), he mentions Shelley once in the context not of telling him to guard the elevators, but to ask him if he'd seen Oswald anywhere (3H230), and a couple of times in telling of the finding of Oswald's clipboard on December 2 (3H234 et seq.). Truly said he'd "noticed" Shelley standing among a group of "boys" - which is not pejorative for blacks, if you follow everyone's testimony; it is merely a colloquialism).

Marrion Baker, the police officer who encountered LHO on the second floor, also testified before the Commission (and was later deposed in Dallas) the morning after Roy Truly did. He noted that the Presidential limo was turning onto Elm Street just as he, Baker, was turning onto Houston from Main. They were going quite slow - he estimated at "5 or 6 or 7 miles an hour because you can't hardly travel under that and, you know, keep your balance." He had, in fact, nearly lost his balance when he'd made that turn because of a stiff northerly wind, but managed to correct himself. About "some 20, 30 feet, something like that" (3H245) or "60 to 80 feet there, north of the north curbline of Main on Houston" ((3H246) is when he heard the first shot; when he heard the "two extra shots," he revved the motorcycle up and sped the remaining 180-200 feet (3H247) to the northwest corner of Elm and Houston where he parked his bike.

From this point, we know that it took Baker from one minute and 15 seconds (1:15) to one minute and eighteen seconds (1:18) to reach the second floor. Their original intent was to ride one of the elevators to the top floor, but neither elevator was on the first floor, so Baker suggested taking the stairs after Truly had yelled up for the elevators twice. After the encounter in the domino room, he and Truly ascended to the fifth floor by stairs, then took the east elevator to the sixth floor and continued up to the 7th floor and the roof. Baker estimated ((3H261) that they'd been on the roof "a little over five minutes." They then descended again to the sixth floor and rode the elevator to the ground floor and got off. Baker then went out of the building "immediately" (3H262) . He makes no remarks at all about Shelley, or about Truly's having anyone guard the elevator.

Truly mentioned Shelley in connection with Warren Caster's bringing his guns to the TSBD a few days before (Shelley was there - see 7H382), and again in wondering if he'd seen Oswald (7H383). There was much use of the word "elevator" in his testimony, but it was not in connection to anyone guarding it. We therefore cannot state with any certainty when - or, absolutely, even if Truly told Shelley to guard the elevator except that we have no real reason to doubt Shelley.

What we can discern, however, is that Truly did not tell Shelley to guard the elevator immediately after the shooting because:

Insofar as Weston's article goes about proving that MacNeil was not the "Secret Service" man seen by Oswald, and showing the time that he had actually been inside the Depositor, I think he did a creditable (and credible) job. But insofar as identifying the "three calm men," he is clearly far afield - actually, from all accounts, it seems as if there were many "calm" men hanging around on the first floor even if they weren't as "excessively calm" as to draw MacNeil's notice - and has done a disservice to the three men he identified those "three calm men" as being, especially insofar as their having "prior knowledge of the assassination" and being "complicit" in any way. It is easy to understand why Jerry Rose excised this portion of the article from The Fourth Decade.

While we are on the road toward almost totally demolishing this scenario (Jack White, are you paying close attention to my "disinformation?" My "mentor Dave Perry" would be proud if you did, and tickled pink if you called it that!), let's visit a few other items.

Weston notes that, at 12:25 "electrical power goes out," citing 6H1395, Geneva Hine's testimony. He says that the two elevators are "stuck at the fifth floor." If one reads Hine's testimony (6H395), one finds that she had seen Kennedy up close before and offered to answer phones while the other girls went outside to see him because she had been the phone receptionist before the TSBD company had moved to 411 Elm. Her actual words in this regard were in response to Joe Ball's questions about what she was doing before the shooting. She describes the phone system saying that they had "three incoming lines, then we have a warehouse line and we have an intercom system." They did not have a switchboard system as they had in the previous location.

Geneva was alone in the office after her boss, Otis Williams, decided to go outside "for five minutes" as he expected the motorcade would be along soon. Then: "I was alone until all the lights went out and the phones became dead because the motorcade was coming near us and no one was calling." Why did the phones go dead? She said it: "no one was calling." What lights went out? For that answer, let's return to the cited MacNeil account:

Get it? They had three lines on one of those old black phones with clear "Lucite buttons" on it that indicated which lines were in use. MacNeil saw that two were lit up; the one he punched was "out," that is, not in use. Hine said: "... until all the [Lucite] lights went out and the phones became dead because ... no one was calling."

This is clearly a reference to the lights on the phone, not the lights in the building. If the building lights had gone out all at once and the phone was really "dead" (i.e., no dial tone, calls cut off, etc.), clearly this would have elicited more excited commentary from her. I mean, c'mon: the President's coming so the utilities are all cut off? Give me a break! No, give her a break and credit her with just a little more brains than that!

(To find out more about possible power outages, check a sheriff's deputy's testimony about riding up on an elevator a few minutes after the shooting and seeing "a plain clothes officer like me" coming down the stairs with a rifle.)

We have already visited the issue of how many people were working in the TSBD building, including those who didn't work for the TSBD company: Weston reported "On the 22nd of November there were sixty-nine people who came to work that day," (see below) while J. Edgar Hoover, in the same cited CE1381 (beginning at 22H331) discussed the seventy-three people "known to have been in the Texas School Book Depository Building on November 22, 1963," two of whom were not in that building (but were employed by the TSBD company at their warehouse a few blocks away on Houston Street), and not (obviously) including Lee Oswald.

Someone else (and I apologize to the author for not remembering at the moment who he is!) pointed out the obvious error in math that "of that sixty-nine, thirty-six were women and twenty-three were men," which adds up (36+23=59) to ten less than cited, which is again at least four less than stated by Hoover (not including Oswald) and three less than the actual (?) number of people who were employed in that building.

In the "process of elimination," Weston tells us that "Of the twenty-four men who came to work, nine had gone outside to watch the motorcade. The other fifteen were either the inside the building at the time of the shooting or had gone inside immediately afterwards." From that, we can reasonably discern that only nine men had gone outside, or that of the remaining 15, some unspecified number had gone outside(!) and "gone inside immediately afterwards." So ... how many of these men (whose numbers don't add up to either 69 or 72 or 74) "went outside" or "went outside" AND "gone back inside immediately afterwards?"

The correct answers are:

Thus, assuming that all of the men inside the building were in fact employees (in their statement, all but one employee noted that they did NOT see any strangers inside the building, the sole exception being an 80-year-old "elderly" gentleman who asked to use the bathroom, noted by Danny Arce), there were a total of seven black men and and 12 white men, for a total of 19 men. Since two (Jones and Junker) didn't return from lunch until 1:00, we can reduce that number to 17 for the purposes of determining who MacNeil may have been referring to as "excessively calm" when he was in TSBD.

Note that throughout most of their statements, affidavits and testimony, the race of various people was seldom mentioned by these Southern people: "guys," "boys" and "men" were not often distinguished according to race ("boys" not being a pejorative description of black men). If Southerners did not often distinguish, we cannot automatically assume that because MacNeil - a Yankee who may well not have paid as much attention as Southerners to color - did not say "black men" does not necessarily mean that they were white men, and it is even less likely that if the men he referred to were of mixed races he would have made such a distinction (e.g., "two white men and a black man"), thus we cannot "eliminate" black men as being among the three "excessively calm" men ... or that they could not all have been black.

With respect to MacNeil's observations of "where the shots came from," Weston tells us that his "report adds more weight to the evidence that a gunman was shooting at the President from a front-facing position" because he filed a statement saying:

Presumably, these are the comments that MacNeil made in his phone call to the New York news desk and were recorded by them. Weston seemingly ignores the fact that MacNeil was on the press bus and was not, therefore, in a position to determine what direction the shots had come from other than "from outside the bus." They were not to his left or to his right or directly ahead of him, they were merely "outside the bus." MacNeil himself said that his "instincts" led him to follow the people who were racing up the grassy knoll, which is basically to say that he reacted to what other people were doing, not to what he, himself, heard. It does not in any way, shape or form indicate MacNeil's own observation of where the shots came from, which in turn lends no weight to anything at all.

While Weston clearly put some energy and thought into this account, by not searching just a little farther into original sources, he has arrived at an unsupportable conclusion, once certainly not strong enough to paint Shelley, Lovelady and Frazier as "conspirators" who were "complicit" and had "prior knowledge of the assassination plot." One can only hope that his other articles, including that upcoming, do not rest on this faulty study to draw further conclusions ... and that he'll use these forum pages to apologize (posthumously, in two cases) to those he's wrongly accused.

Great article. Needs some additional thought.

Perhaps this is Steve Wilson in the 3rd floor window, as seen in one of the 2 Dillard shots.

- lee

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Date 1/9/64

STEVEN F. WILSON, Office Manager, Allyne and Bacon, Inc., 301 Texas School Book Depository Building, advised at approximately 12:30 p.m. on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, employees of his office had gone to view the Presidential motorcade on the corner of Elm and Houston Streets, and due to a heart condition which he has had, he opened the blinds on the third floor opposite from his reception desk and viewed the Presidential Motorcade as it proceeded north on Houston Street and then west on Elm Street. Due to a large tree being in the way, he could not view the entire procession, but as his view became obstructed, he heard three distinct shots which he thought came from a rifle, and subsequently it was determined that the President had been shot.

WILSON advised he discovered later that the President had been shot, but he had not seen or heard anything unusual in the immediate area surrounding his office, and when questioned as to any knowledge he might have concerning LEE HARVEY OSWALD, he stated he did not know OSWALD and did not, in fact, subsequently remember seeing him in the Texas School Book Depository Building. However, he noted he could have possibly seen him one or two occassions in the lunchroom located on the second floor of the building.

Mr. WILSON could offer no information of subsequent value in this matter.

It is he, no question. See his rather lengthy statement of 3/18/64 beginning here.

Duke,

Many of us are very interested in the possibility of a Texas Court of Inquiry. Could you ask your friend:

How one might go about getting a TC of I? Who do you have to persuade and how do you go about getting access?

I've heard that a TC of I would be less controversial because there is no real risk of prosecution. Is that true? And if so, is there at least a penalty of perjury that would face witnesses?

Would a Texas Court of Inquiry have the ability to subpoena evidence, including material in federal hands?

How realistic does your friend think this avenue of pursuit is?

Thanks,

Stu

I don't know these answers yet, but one question in return is: why would anyone at all be interested in any venue that has "no real risk of prosecution? That seems like an exercise only in satisfying curiosity, which doesn't seem likely for any number of reasons.

... The electrical control panel was in the basement. I believe Frazier was the one turning off the electricity since he went down into the basement after the assassination to “eat his lunch.” ...

Hmmm ... an interesting theory that someone would drive LHO into work, provide testimony that would not tend to incriminate LHO (i.e., the bag LHO was carrying was shorter than what was shown him), but actually, Frazier himself was part of the conspiracy and was tending to exonerate LHO to keep suspicion from himself? I'm not sure how that follows. Is it possible to be suspicious of too many people?

Hello Richard,

Yes indeed, a team killed JFK and it will take a team to bring them to justice. I am not alone on this, and have been working with researcher and lawyers since a Dallas COPA conference a few years ago when the JFK Grand Jury Project was announced by myself, Phil Melanson and John Judge.

... While the lawyers in Texas, especially those District Attorneys with unquestionable jursdiction, have never been inclined to act, I believe that once a Special Federal Grand Jury request is submitted and accepted, they will suddenly decide that hey, that's in our court, and try to take over the game, but it will be too late.

And yes, the on-lone petition is active - and while it is designed for US Citizens, anyone - including foreigners can sign it -as long as they mention their residence so they can be appraised of the petition's progress - [ http://www.petitiononline.com/jfkgjury/petition.html ] .

If you stand any chance of having this petition be successful and not laughed out of court (so to speak), might I suggest that you supress some of the more ridiculous comments that people have added, and that you stick to a very narrow script such that you don't end up tying the JFK assassination to everything that's come along since, from the Vietnam War to the high price of gasoline?

I wonder, even, at the wisdom of trying to get a large number of signatories to the petition since many will want, most likely, to make some contribution to what eventually finds its way to a DA, which would include each's pet theory on how the mob/CIA/right wing/USSS/FBI/USSR/Cuba/Jim Files/Roscoe White did it ... to the point where there'd be so many directions to look that there wouldn't be any direction to go ... or half the world would be indicted!

If you wonder why nobody has been willing to act, perhaps it's because of all the nutty theories out there ... and the nuts who propound them! Be careful whom you associate with this and what you allow them to say, and keep the superfluous comments to a bare, bare minimum.

As if you asked for - or I'm allowed to give - any advice!!

Duke:

Prior to the JFK assassination, the last serious "executive hit" had been: Tthat which was attempted against Harry S. Truman by "alleged" Latino radicals. While the assailants never even got inside the door of "Blair House" -- they did kill one of the "protective service" detailees, who was guarding the front door.

A close examination of that attempt remains classified, but what little of what later did leak out included:

[1] The deceased officer was armed with a "Navy/Commercial Model" Thompson Sub-Machine-Gun. However, his superiors forbade his having the weapon "cocked", albeit, with the safety engaged;

[2] As is the case with all non "double-action" automatic pistols, if you don't have a round in the chamber, it matters NOT that you might be "the-fastest-draw-in-the-west". This is especially so, if you are forced to use both hands to "crank" the slide back to "chamber" a round. Because, by the time you "go-into-battery", the bad guy has already gotten off multiple shots; and,

[3] Just before dying, the officer did fire his TSMG, but only hit the assailant once of about 16 rounds -- but, at least that was a fatal wound, and it dropped the bad guy to his knees.

That the shooters attacked the front door -- seems to be so typical of latino incidents, but it caused the USSS to revise its manuals and training protocols.

You had written to the effect that there are very limited ROE for USSS in Presidential Protection Details with respect to using guns:

The S.O.P. during "1963" (and thoroughly revised since) was that:

[1] All vehicle-borne agents would insure that the "Executive(s)" would be immediately rushed out of the "Threat-Zone", and thereupon they would be tasked to run interference for the "Primary", guaranteeing his arrival at a pre-designated "Rally-Point". [said Rally-point would be a safe distance from the "event" or the "threat" -- and usually was a pre-secured series of buildings along the route of travel.];

[2] NO vehicle-borne agents were permitted to return fire, or engage in a fire-fight, nor dismount from the vehicles to apprehend suspects, or even "actual shooters";

[3] NO vehicle borne agents were permitted to fire upon an actual shooter, that is: until said shooter (after firing) had already gained close proximity to the "Executive(s)", and there existed no other recourse;

[4] Since ALL crowd control police officers are instructed to always face away from a motorcade, the only time the order would be given to "take-out" a uniformed shooter (actual or police imposter), would again be: Only if the shooter gained close proximity to the "Executive(s)"; and,

[5] Since 1963 (and the passage of the 25th Amendment) the Vice-President is taken to a separate and secure "Rally- Point" -- as are the President "Pro Tem" of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House; wherever they might be located at the time of the attack !!

As to #5, that almost seems an outgrowth of the Lincoln assassination where Secy of State Seward and others were also (missed) targets. One wonders why this wasn't already in place in 1963, and why LBJ was travelling in the same motorcade as his "predecessor" (who was only his boss at that point, but presumably his predecessor if something happened to him): it seems several other countries have had this safeguard in place, such as the crown prince never travelling with the king kind-of-thing.

Was it mere complacency, there not having been an attempt on the life of the CinC since Truman?

The USSS has very high standards, and requires extremes in training and drills. Other than S.W.A.T, S.P.U.. and some "special incident teams" -- the average street cop hasn't the first clue as to executive protection techniques. Why teach/learn something that will NEVER be used ??!!

For instance, the average cop [and the average "Joe 6-Pack"] might question a security detail as to the "WHY" the teams are welding the manhole covers in the middle of the streets, but NOT the covers on the sidewalks ??!! It has absolutely nothing to do with preventing a shooter, knifer, or spitwad hurler from popping up amidst a motorcade.

As you detailed, the likelihood of someone being able to effectively utilize a gambit such as this is pretty slim, it surprises that this would be a "routine" procedure while so many other, seemingly much more obvious problems weren't taken into consideration and acted upon. One in particular would seem to be why Lawson didn't insist upon taking the full and complete motorcade route rather than being satisfied with a description of where it went as he and DPD turned left onto Houston at the bottom of Main rather than right and 120° left onto Elm into an "ambush." A second would be why the on-the-ground DPD "security" was not scrutinized more closely for who was on the ground in DP and in what configuration (i.e., not mounted, on foot only).

This seems more a "given" than "20/20 hindsight" ....?

What we are missing entirely here, is the following step-by-step protocols:

[1] Long before any specific selection of "hit team" is made, a target study must be conducted, and this takes a considerable amount of time;

[2] The sponsor(s) wishes have to be considered, i.e., is the "end result" of this operation against the targeted party (or parties) fulfilled by just a "scare", a "snatch" (kidnapping), less than fatal incapacitation, or deadly force ?;

[3] How much "stalking" is required [and by which autonomous entities];

[4] What kind of, and how many, diversions are necessary to distract extant security forces, both close to, and on the periphery of the target(s) "personal space" ?;

[5] If several different and distinct locales must be selected -- in order to fulfill "the contract", how many separate and autonomous ["compartmented"] teams are to be recruited and prepared. And how many "controllers" [compartmented & autonomous] are necessary for the proper exercise of the event ?; and,

[6] How many "patsies" must be placed at each locale, and how much disruption of later forensic probes must be implemented ? Moreover, how many "phony patsies" [later found to have strong alibis] will be tossed into "the grab-bag" ?!!

If the sponsor(s) have VIP influence/control -- how far in advance can the planning of the event be made ?!

How much coercion, extortion, blackmailing, and use of "moles" -- is necessary to cause VIP elements to go along with the program. And this must be accomplished, even despite their complete ignorance of: Either the scheme or its outcome ?!

["moles"] are not necessarily persons who work for foreign entities, by might just be from political, religious, tribal, or revenge seeking insider "snitches/informants". Most often, they are themselves, simply amongst the cluster of "mushrooms" !!

The very first questions asked in the aftermath of the RFK assassination were:

[A] Did Sirhan Sirhan "always" carry a firearm to work at the Ambassador Hotel; and,

How far in advance did the kitchen staff become aware of RFK's planned "exit routing", and who was it that so informed them ?!

... At that time, I was an asset of JJA's MK/CHAOS projects, which had been organized to counter, and ultimately derail & destroy -- the MH/CHAOS projects. Said projects having "GONE ROGUE" during 1967. [The "rogueing" was just one of the inherent risks with all projects, in that they are oftentimes deviated by "zealots and/or moles"!!]

No great skill was required, and no great excitement was to be had. The usual 99% extreme boredom, interspersed with moments of "stark terror". [And this was before the availability of "Depends" !!] ....

As to the question of RFK's "exit routing," a similar question could reasonably be asked with respect to JFK's route into DP. A lot of people have raised the questions (a) why they didn't continue down Main St and hop the curb (or put "temporary ramps" on either side of it to make the "jump" easier on all concerned); and ( why they didn't continue down Main all the way to Industrial.

There were two other possibilities, of course, that nobody seems to pay much notice to: (a) they could have turned on any large intersection along Main a mere 90° and 90° again onto Elm, thus proceeding straight across Elm past the TSBD and avoiding the 120° turn; or ( they could have turned one block earlier off of Harwood and onto Elm, avoiding Main St altogether, and accomplished the same thing as above. It seems as if any one of these options would have been something that Lawson and/or Grant would have picked up on if they'd ridden the entire proposed route.

(There was, of course, also the secondary route that avoided downtown altogether, but that would have fairly well precluded a parade!)

WC Testimony of Julia Postal:

Mrs. POSTAL. Officer Tippit used to work part time for us years ago. I didn't know him personally.

Mr. BALL. You mean he guarded the theatre?

Mrs. POSTAL. On Friday nights and Saturdays, canvass the theatre, you know, and that

Although certainly not Gerry, the killing of Tippit would, by far, be more in line with a "diversionary" activity than an actual part of an E & E plan.

Therefore, it establishes three avenues:

1. Intentional Act for diversionary purpose.

2. Random Coincidence.

3. Intentional act based on prior association, and elimination of the link to the association, and/or threat.

("Poor Dumb Cop") certainly tends to indicate prior knowledge of J.D. & his cerebral capability.

Personally, I have little faith in#2.

And, actually give only marginal consideration to#1.

Then, when one throws in, for good measure, the facts which demonstrate Tippit's former Security Guard association with the Dallas Theater as well as LHO's attempted hiding here, the "common denominator" becomes one of prior association.

Not to mention the slightly "beat to death" Confederate legacy of both parties!

Tom

P.S. The operative wording is "Escape", which LHO did not do, and "Evade", in which he also appears to have failed. Not to even mention that part of the plan which assumes that the Bus will be allowed to drive along for one to catch enroute home from the TSDB, etc; etc; etc.

Of course, your avenues rest on the assumption that LHO was the shooter. If you take him out of the picture and think any shooter(s) planning an event like this, then what?

As for Tippit's security job, as I best recall, that was at a theater other than the Texas Theater (I'm thinking Stevens Theater?). That being the case, we don't have prior association, so you're left with point 1. Even if it was the case, why "eliminate the link to the association" when the only association was LHO having been a patron in the theater where JDT worked. What's to eliminate?

Duke:

Is your friend planning to get into the race? Have you ever discussed this case with him? If not perhaps that would be a good place to begin. Ask what he already knows and pass on some info, like the foolishness of the SBT, and a little history of prior investigations. Try to get him interested by presenting it as the most interesting unsolved homicide he will ever encounter.

I wrote to Bill Hill two years ago to try to get him to look into this case, but he did not respond.

(Big surprise). If much more time passes there will be no one left to indict...so this DA is the one we must all petition, both during the election (all the candidates- perhaps you can post that information, once it's become available)- and after the election.

Dawn

My friend is not going to run for DA ... as far as I know, anyway. The currently declared candidates are:

Republicans

Vickers Cunningham - former State District Judge

Toby Shook - currently a prosecutor

Democrats

Craig Watkins - (don't know)

Undeclared (but probable)

Dan Wyde - criminal court judge

I've sent an email to the Dallas Morning News reporter that has been covering this to see if I can get their emails.

THE JFK ASSASSINATION – BASIS FOR LEGAL ACTION. – By William Kelly – bkjfk3@yahoo.com

It is a myth that the assassination of President Kennedy will always remain an enduring mystery. Though justice may never be served, the murder of John F. Kenney is not an unsolvable crime, but rather a homicide that can be solved to a moral and legal certainty.

...

The reason for the Congressional law that established the “50 year rule” on the classification of all Congressional documents is that is the amount of time it is estimated for the people mentioned in the documents to be dead. Since it is not yet 50 years after the assassination of President Kennedy, some of those suspects are therefore still alive.

It is simply not true that the murder of JFK will forever remain a mystery, and we’ll never know the truth, since thanks to the JFK Act, we have most of the evidence, the documentary records and witness testimony in the public domain.

...

How can ordinary citizens force the hand of an entrenched judicial system? An examination of how the assassination of Medgar Evers and the other civil rights murders of the 1960s were resolved presents a legal road map to follow, and one of the first stops on the way to justice is the grand jury.

...

“As a general policy,” former Justice Department official Ben Civiletti testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in its last session, “the Department of Justice seldom turns down at least exploring, or reviewing a petition or reasonable request,…(and)…to some extent it becomes a matter of public will…but also a matter of judgment that falls within the duties of any particular department or agency of government…as to how far questions…can be explored to a useful or fruitful purpose.”

...

Unsolved cold cases, especially homicides, are reviewed every few years, sometimes by a new detective who looks over old evidence to see if there is anything that has been overlooked, or if there is any previously unknown evidence or witnesses, or recently developed scientific tools that could be used to help solve the crime. There is no statute of limitations on murder, under the rules of criminal procedure homicide is given precedence over all other crimes, and once accumulated, the evidence in a homicide is presented to a grand jury

Independent researchers, journalists and ordinary citizens can identify evidence, uncover conspiracies and witness crimes, but if there is no case, no grand jury, no place to present the evidence, then there is no justice. As Mr. Civiletti explained to the HSCA, the DOJ “seldom turns down exploring at least, or reviewing a petition or reasonable request…”

Towards the development of a legal case, the grand jury Petition-Request is a citizen’s petition to a District Attorney responsible for prosecuting offenders to request a grand jury be convened to review the facts of a case and determine if there is enough evidence to indict someone for a crime.

...

If the grand jury determines there is enough evidence, they vote a “True Bill” and indict someone for a crime.

The DA can simply ignore such a citizen’s petition and request and not present the evidence to a grand jury, or even if a grand jury votes to indict, it is still up to the DA to issue the indictment and proceed to take the matter to court.

...

The previous reluctance of district attorneys to prosecute political assassinations, especially decades old crimes, is being overcome by new, young and diversified blood in official positions of authority. Although those District Attorneys at the top of their profession know that investigating political assassinations is detrimental to furthering their careers, and witnessed what happened to New Orleans DA Jim Garrison, there is a younger generation of assistant prosecutors who look upon solving such major crimes as an achievement that will advance their future careers.

Former HSCA attorney, Dean Browning, Esq., who specializes in RICO litigation, said that such indictments are possible and that, “I am especially interested in developing an approach to seek indictments of those who conspired to murder the President.”

“I believe that a prosecution is feasible,” says Browning, “especially when invoking the Pinkerton Doctrine,” which holds that “a person associated with a conspiracy culpable for any criminal act committed by a co-conspirator if the act is within the scope of the conspiracy and is a foreseeable result of the criminal scheme.” Agency theory holds that “all conspirators act as the agent or represent the other conspirators involved in the criminal scheme, and are liable for all criminal acts committed by the other conspirators.”

...

It will only take one such JFK grand jury, and there are dozens of potential jurisdictions. There are Federal, State and County grand juries, each with many assistant district attorneys who work under the District Attorney, providing dozens of individuals in which to present the Petition Request.

Establishing jurisdiction in any particular district will not be difficult. Although some will argue that it was not a federal crime to kill the president in 1963, it was a federal crime to conspire to kill a federal employee, whether it is a postman or a president.

Besides the local Dallas district, there are Texas State grand juries, as well as the North Texas Federal District court, which is located in Dallas. The reluctance of any Dallas or Texas official to investigate the assassination will probably make other jurisdictions more inviting, New Orleans in particular, where a new District Attorney recently took over from former DA Harry Connick.

...

It is not too late now, but soon, this case will slip slowly from an unsolved homicide to an historical mystery, unless we act now, and present the best evidence in a Petition-Request to convene a special JFK Grand Jury, and let the legal action take its course, wherever it may go.

Interestingly, long-time Dallas DA Bill Hill has decided not to seek (a shoo-in) re-election, and several candidates are beginning to emerge for next year's election, including one or two judges. More will undoubtedly file in coming months.

I have a friend who is a former Dallas prosecutor, and he and I will be having lunch in the course of the next couple of weeks. Any questions, comments or suggestions that would be beneficial to pursuing this avenue of thought?

Has anyone else noticed how often we appear to have an anonymous user lurking here these days. Hardly ever uesd to happen, but in the last few months it is a daily, and sometimes several times a day occurance. I cant think why any member would wish to come here in this manner. any thoughts..

I know that for quite a while, my browser wouldn't log me in automatically, even when responding to email notices, so I was an "anonymous user" for quite a while until, for whatever reason, I now get automatically logged in.

Remember: just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!!

Gerry,

I'll get to the specifics later, but first let me ask the question that I'd asked you before, in the event you hadn't seen it (you are something of a celebrity here, eh? ), and that is:

How would you rate the killing of a cop as an E&E tactic?

I might as well ask, too, "how would you set it up" if you thought it was a good maneuver?

More later.

... I have earned my status through getting dirty and trying to educate and add to forum issues. ...

... DP was an excellent killing zone not for the fact that it made the hit fairly easy, but it accomodated the plan of success and allowing all assassins to walk away, while still setting up the patsy.

If you think DPD was lax in security, get an in with a USSS Agent and ask him/her what kind of assistance they get on the average from local LE. The answer will scare you.

I have wasted enough time on this and still have not heard specific issues. Only generic and broad ramblings about the corrupt DPD and how they blew it. Get real and look at it from beginning to end. If that is possible.

Al

Let's do specifics, then:

It seems to me that you first laid claim that local police acted as the "eyes and ears on the ground" (i.e., security), but when I pointed out that this "security" seems to have been lacking once Kennedy reached Dealey Plaza, you "defended" DPD by backpedaling and saying that really, they were only there for traffic and crowd control, not to provide any real security function, hence it's perfectly plausible why there were no longer any men on the ground (rather than atop bridges) or mounted officers capable of speeds greater than running (other than the motorcade escorts, who were told not to break formation "no matter what happens" ... meaning that they, too, were not intended to act as any kind of "security" either).

(The actual quote is: "Why was there insufficient numbers of DPD throughout Dealey Plaza? Because once they made their turn onto Elm, the crowds were significantly minimal and closed off, so the need for ground security was minimal if not altogether not needed.")

You stated that you "have been a grunt in motorcade route security, airport detail security, site arrival and site stating security, and motorcycle security where (you) have been a scout and lead car driver (and) been in charge of airport security and motorcade security," all of which belies your thesis that DPD was only to have provided crowd and traffic control ... or are you really saying that you've directed traffic and held back the crowd at all of these locations? Somehow I don't think so.

Your further statement that "DP was an excellent killing zone not for the fact that it made the hit fairly easy, but it accomodated the plan of success and allowing all assassins to walk away" suggests that nobody recognized this about the place (well, apparently somebody did ... just not on the "security" side of the equation!). Does this equate with the idea that DPD was for crowd control only, and that nobody did or was supposed to evaluate the route from that perspective?

You've also not explained your reference to "the history of incidents that plagued these type of visits" (in conjunction with the Adlai Stevenson problem). Can you expand on that?

I appreciate that you have earned your "status through getting dirty and trying to educate and add to forum issues," but you seem to be requiring that people ask the right questions first (and in the proper manner) before you can respond, and so far what responses you've made seem to be contradictory to your original assertions. You seem to "defend" DPD by saying that they really weren't supposed to do all the things that they seemingly should have and even claim to have done! Can you please clear up the muddle so we can all understand what it is you're really trying to say?

"Colonel" D. Harold Byrd has been mentioned in several threads on this forum, both as an owner of 411 Elm St (the former Texas School Book Depository) and as a "founder or co-founder" of the Civil Air Patrol (CAP):

In the last, I had indicated that I'd emailed some folks at CAP Headquarters (Maxwell AFB, Montgomery, Alabama) to see if I could get some information about Byrd. I wrote:

Today I received a call from Colonel Len Blascovich, the CAP National Historian, in response to the above (and some additional comments from him on 12/14, shown below in red). Col. Blascovich's perspective on this topic is unique in that he has been a member of CAP since 1952, and had occasion to meet the "colorful" Byrd, who, he noted, was often known as "Dry-Hole Byrd" for his "wildcat" oil explorations. If "the Colonel" (actually, he had attained the rank of Brigadier General, and those who knew him called him "General," not "Colonel") did nothing else, he amassed quite a bit of money and political influence in his life.

This is a synopsis of his role with the Civil Air Patrol, as related to me by Col. Blascovich, along with a little history of the CAP itself:

The idea of a "civilian air patrol" was conceived by Gil Robb Wilson, aviation editor of the New York Herald Tribune, in 1938. He proposed using civilian aircraft to aid in the impending war effort. The initial plan was approved by General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold and the Civil Aeronautics Authority. Later, Thomas Beck, chairman of the Crowell-Collier Publishing Company, supported by Guy Gannett, the owner of a Maine newspaper chain, approached President Franklin Roosevelt with an outline that would eventually lead to the formation of the nation's civilian air power.

The CAP was established on December 1, 1941, less than a week before Pearl Harbor, under the Office of Civil Defense, headed by former New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia. Gil Robb Wilson was appointed as the first executive officer of the CAP; its first national commander was Major General John F. Curry, USAAC. It is Wilson and LaGuardia who are considered the "founders" of the Civil Air Patrol. In April of 1943, it was transferred to the War Department, and subsequently assigned to the Commanding General of the US Army Air Force (AAF) and designated as a branch of AAF Technical Services. In 1945, it was established as the official auxiliary of the AAF and in 1946, President Harry Truman signed Public Law 476 establishing the CAP as a non-profit benevolent organization. Public Law 557 of 1948 made it the official civilian auxiliary of the new United States Air Force.

Among the first orders of business of the newly-formed CAP was the appointment of statewide Wing Commanders: David Harold Byrd was commander of the Texas Wing of the Civil Air Patrol from December 1, 1941 through May 25, 1948, making him one of CAP's first members. He was initially given the rank of major, and rose to the rank of colonel in 1946. He was later the Regional Coordinator (later Regional Commander) for CAP's Southwest Region (comprised of Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Louisiana, Arkansas and Arizona) and in 1949 became the Vice Chairman of the National CAP Board under General Carl A. "Tooey" Spaatz, the retired first Chief of Staff of the Air Force, who was then CAP's National Chairman. Byrd later succeeded Spaatz as Chairman.

To the extent that Byrd was one of the first commanding officers of the CAP, he can be loosely considered a "founder or co-founder" of that organization (a "charter member" may be more accurate). In addition, following WWII, when there was talk of disbanding the CAP, Byrd's political influence was instrumental in the organization's incorporation under Public Law 476, and he was one of the Wing Commanders - who comprised the national board of the CAP - who were the signatories to that law. Technically, that makes him one of the incorporators of CAP, but again, not one of its "founders or co-founders." (That distinction belongs to Gil Robb Wilson and Fiorello LaGuardia alone.)

Byrd was promoted to brigadier general retroactively in 1970 for his services as National Chairman from April 28, 1959 to April 27, 1960. During his tenure as chairman, he was instrumental in moving the headquarters of the CAP from Washington DC to Ellington Air Force Base outside San Antonio, Texas, in August 1959 closer to his home (it was subsequently moved to Maxwell AFB, Alabama in June 1967, where it remains today).

General Byrd remained active with the Civil Air Patrol until the early 1970s when Alzheimer's Disease began affecting his life. He was a longtime supporter of the University of Texas Longhorn Band (which correctly recognizes his general's rank), and was photographed at a UT football game in 1973 with former President Lyndon Baines Johnson. General Byrd died in 1986 at age 86.

Following the Kennedy assassination, TSBD owner General Byrd apparently had the so-called "sniper's nest" window removed from the building and replaced with a replica, but may have actually had the wrong window removed. You can read more about this on the Dallas Observer website. (Thanks to Gary Mack for this amended reference!)

This clearly is but a small part of the biography of General Byrd, who has been described as "one of the wealthiest men in Dallas." It nevertheless dispels the notion that he "co-founded" the official civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force, and not only provides the correct information, but also his correct rank as well.

Colonel Blascovich may expand upon these personal observations in writing (and perhaps correct a few, as my notes were pretty sketchy ... tho' I started on this immediately after his call, I may have overlooked something or gotten it wrong), in which case I'll post his changes and/or expansions here later in the thread (which he did, and I have!).

Duke,

The use of the term second and third stringers might be somewhat derogatory, but it is the best way to describe the fact that the "A" team wasn't on the ground that day. I feel very sorry for the late Roy Kellerman. It seems he was dropped by others into a most unfortunate situation over which he had little control. To his credit, he told the WC that a "flurry of shots" were endured by the Presidential limo, rather than only three shots being claimed by those rigidly following the script.

Do you know anything of Tom Shipman, the USSS limo driver who died, reportedly of a heart attack, on October 14, 1963 while on protection duty at Camp David, Maryland? Nothing overtly suspicious about that. However, Palamara stated that while researching more information about this, he discovered that the Secret Service had destroyed the Presidential survey reports and travel logs pertaining to this matter in January 1995, at the same time as the ARRB was drafting a request for additional information.

See page 149 of the ARRB Final Report: In January 1995, the Secret Service destroyed presidential protection survey reports for some of President Kennedy's trips in the fall of 1963. The Review Board learned of the destruction approximately one week after the Secret Service destroyed them." The report continues on to say that USSS explained their rationale for this destruction both in writing and by oral briefing to the Board. I haven't seen this, so can't comment on it.

Agreed. She almost created a 'hot topic' all with her own posts.

I dunno. I can't read it!

Lt. Carrier KNOWS of what he speaks. He is NOT defending the USSS, DPD, DCSO, MI, US Army CIC, or the YMCA; nor anybody else who has been blatantly accused of complicity in the JFK "Hit" !!

Actually, Gerry, that is exactly what he purports to be doing! See the quote of his post to me at the beginning of this thread:

Too many "self-styled" researchers/investigators?? are nothing more than filthy rumor-mongers; who have absolutely NO regard for the personal reputations or integrity of ANY alleged "suspects?" nor their families !!

... That said, I would NOT be shocked to find that: There indeed were one or more persons, who, previously having been "highly placed" in government circles, opted (or was coerced) into giving an assist to the those shooters who participated in the "MULTIPLE" assassination schemes during that November of 1963.

(Ahem!) Should we be mindful of their reputations and integrity as well?

Anyone who is de minimus conversant with tradecraft -- would have immediately noticed the "professional" skills exhibited with the selection of Dealey Plaza, the TSBD, and its environs. The same professional criteria is obvious with the selection of Oswald "safe-houses" in the Dallas suburds. It is quite obvious that this was done "for" LHO, and NOT by Oswald.

Red Flags went up over 40+ years ago, when experts perused the very obvious "signatures" left by the Intel operator(s) selections: The necessities of a rear entrance or a side alley; a nearby park or semi-forested area; a nearby library (needed for "dead-drops"); that the front of the house is situated with an intersection which precludes "spotter vehicles" from any casual/routine parking for stake-outs; etc., and etc. !!

As Lt. Carrier so "politely" attempts to tutor: NO assist by law enforcement (nor Intel) is necessary. What is necessary for targeting by a "skilled" rifleman? -- his "personal" plan.

... Uppermost in the planning of "non-Kamikaze" assassins is: The 'E & E" Plan. "Escape and Evasion" seems to be a critical factor in one's surviving long enough to collect one's rewards.

... Will somebody please grow some brains, and get off of the current disinformation campaign, every skilled in this research recognizes it as a continuation of the very same scheme -- which began even LONG before JFK's arrival in Texas.

Chairs,

GPH

Just for curiosity, how would you rate the effectiveness of killing a cop being part of an E&E plan? While I agree that "no assist by law enforcement (nor Intel) is necessary," that hardly precludes its happening ... and being welcomed!

Tim,

Again you are looking at it in hindsight and puting history into perspective with real time of November of '63. Did any of the previous USSS protection details consider such a hit? If you look at them they did not or they would not have utilized an open limo. Kennedy referred to a nut with a rifle, not a professional military hit team. To this day, if professionals are called in and deployed at lets say an airfield or at a speaking engagement arrival, the chance of succeeding in a hit is pretty high.

Al

Why is it so difficult to engage in "debate" with someone who was so eager to do so over my "spouting long enough?"

RE (from two previous posts): "It was the planning of the exposure of the motorcade that allowed the assassination to happen. It is obvious. ... Do not look at this in hindsight, but instead consider what they feared after the Stevenson incident and the history of incidents that plagued these type of visits. ... You are all looking at this after-the-fact .... Even with [the use of the flying wedge with the motorcycle escort in Tampa], the elevation of the shooters would not have been effected [sic] by the motorcycle escorts if they would have been present as they were in Tampa and Berlin. The sharp turn from Houston to Elm was covered as far as normal security was considered as there were ample uniformed officers in the vicinity and the follow-up USSS car was in close proximity to challenge any ground attacks. ... Dealey Plaza was an ideal kill zone if one was looking for a military sniper hit. Nobody was in November of '63. If they were, then the route would have been changed ... There were no inconsistencies in DP from the previous security on the motorcade route. ... Once the limo entered DP, they could have added twenty more motorcycles and an additional fifty officers on the ground, the hit would still have went off if that was what they wanted. Trust me, it was not that difficult under the circumstances. The most difficult part was fleeing the scene undetected."

I always worry when someone says "trust me!"

A "history" of incidents that "plagued" visits of this "type?" Could you expand on that beyond the Adlai Stevenson visit? Was there a similar occurence when, for example, Kennedy came to Dallas to visit House Speaker Sam Rayburn at Baylor Hospital? What other incidents do you mean? One would think that if there was indeed such a "history," everyone including both DPD and USSS would be on heightened, not diminished alert. Violence "plagued" the visits of dignitaries, so everyone "feared" spitballs and rotten tomatoes? More on this "plague," please.

At the very least, USSS was fully aware of the Miami and Chicago deals and could have easily led DPD to "beef it up a little" without telling them the specifics. Advance men Lawson and Grant were part of the White House Detail, not field agents: it might be understandable, in light of past "communications failures" (as Al so quaintly put it), that maybe Dallas SAIC Sorrels wasn't appraised of the other cities' problems, but to suggest that WHD had "no idea" (and didn't want to "alarm" their "primary ground security" with that information!) sounds pretty implausible. You will also recall that Lawson was fairly high up on the USSS food chain and in the "need to know" bracket.

USSS also participated in briefings with DPD officials, including on the night of November 21 at DPD HQ. Presumably, security arrangements were discussed and, if found lacking, either Lawson and/or Grant spoke up about it or they didn't. If they did call any laxities to DPD's attention, then DPD apparently ignored it; if they didn't, then there is either a larger problem involving USSS, or collusion between the two.

According both to the Lunday/Lawrence report and the testimonies of both Lawrence and Chief Curry, DPD had planned on putting more solo motorcycles around the limousine, but were told by Lawson and Grant that Kennedy "didn't want" such tight security, and that they, themselves, felt that just four motorcycles - two at the front and two at the rear, both outboard of the front and rear wheels, leaving the passenger compartment fully exposed - was "adequate." As has been pointed out already, what "Kennedy wanted" didn't hold sway in Fort Worth earlier in the day, i.e., after USSS told DPD what wasn't going to happen.

As far as "normal security" in DP and any "inconsistencies from previous security" elsewhere on the motorcade route, Al you're just plain flat-out wrong. I covered this in my original post: at every single intersection coming down Main, there was one man on foot and one man mounted (solo or 3-wheel motorcycle). The officers in DP were only on foot; the only motorcycles were in the escort, and they only supplemented previous duty stations, they did not take the place of it. From Elm & Houston onward to the Trade Mart, "security" was only on top of bridges and catwalks, and could not react to - much less prevent - anything going on at ground level.

That an "additional fifty officers on the ground" wouldn't have made any difference is highly debatable. Would the additional manpower have been able to more adequately cover the parking lot and other areas of the plaza? One would certainly think they could have! Throughout the rest of the parade route, part of the consideration was officers' ability to respond to any threats, real or perceived; once the motorcade entered DP, that consideration seems to have vanished since, as I and others have already pointed out, officers on foot and on top of bridges were effectively hamstrung in their ability to respond to anything at ground level. Likewise, so few of them (two, one not even facing DP) could hardly have covered as much ground as there is above the roadway.

As to what the security considerations were in 1963 ("Dealey Plaza was an ideal kill zone if one was looking for a military sniper hit. Nobody was in November of '63"), how would you know? I sincerely doubt that was part of any of your training ("okay, now that we've told you how to deal with the USSS during a presidential visit, let's now cover what we were looking for in 1963 and 1948 and 1980, too"). As others have pointed out, sniper attacks were not uncommon at that time (DeGaulle, et al.); you're saying that PRS dismissed the possibility and didn't do anything to counter them? (Maybe they happened only in Europe ... like conspiracies only happen in "banana republics!") That the route wasn't changed is far from "proof" of this theory of yours.

Even so, this sounds more like an excuse than a reality. In fact, this whole business of everybody doing their best but, gee whiz, their best just wasn't good enough and who should have expected it to be (I mean, who could've known? Who might've expected? There was nothing anybody could have done. Nobody could realistically have expected them to have stopped it. It was a done deal, it was going to happen no matter what) sounds much more like a batch of excuses than any kind of "defense." You've effectively moved your position from "USSS relies heavily on local LE for security" to "USSS needs traffic cops when in town."

(Incidentally, as an aside, I think that the use of the term "third-stringers" is improper at best: that Kellerman was the third in charge does not make him lesser player, merely outranked by (just) two people. This also put him "above" scores of others. Being third in charge doesn't make you "third-rate," you're still pretty damned good! This isn't a sports team, folks! You cannot always have "the boss" being in charge as that would tend to exhaust him (or her) and never give subordinates - who would at some point presumably become "the boss" - any experience. That the HMFIC's weren't "in charge" that weekend is only significant because of what happened.)

"Harold Weisberg once said about his Whitewash works that "there are no theories in my books... they're factual."[1] The sentiment about factuality has been echoed by many respectable researchers, who insist that "the Kennedy case ought to be treated as a homicide, which is what it is." Aren't we pressing for a final, legal investigation of the JFK murder to view all of the evidence, new and old, holding it to the constraints of our legal system? A common refrain, after all, is that the Warren Commission's investigation and "conviction" of Lee Oswald would never have held up in a true adversarial judicial proceeding.

Interestingly, we don't seem to hold ourselves to the same constraints. If one researcher discovers something, even in error, we are apparently permitted to cite that person's work, without certification, as established fact. Many people complain when their own theories are held up to the same critical light as we hold the official investigations, as if we aren't beholden to the same burden of proof we assign them."

...from 'THE COWTOWN CONNECTION' by M. Duke Lane

Thanks, Duke. Even the most earnest and well-intentioned among us occasionally put things in regression. I'm enjoying this debate and this new (for me) information.

Yours Truly,

JAG

Wow, how scary is that? I was reading the words and thinking to myself, "gee, that sounds like something I'd write!" Who'd have thought that it was?!?

Ed, I think one needs to consider some other facts as well,

her system is already switched on (adrenaline, endorphines etc) so she is in the fight flight stage.

people in this state can do some remarkable things, (there was a person who was suddenly confronted with a lion and managed to turn and run and jump about three meters to grab a branch and hoist themselves up, something impossible for this person in normal cirumstances.)

she is in some ways prepared, assassination and what to do is a topic of discussion for her and Jack. She loves him and is the kind of altruistic person that moves towards loved ones in danger, not away for self preservation.

she does react in the frames immediately following the headshot, one can see a flinching followed by a moving towards, then a spotting of something belonging to Jack falling away. hence what follows.

whether this fits with the idea of film alteration or not I don't know, but I personally don't think that in this particular instance starting to rise within 1.6 seconds is necessarily impossible. I've been in accidents where say a fall or a crash takes a split second but my awareness slows so that everything is in slow motion and certainly I can think quite a lot of thoughts even if there is not enough time to activate muscles.

I think the "adrenaline rush" concept squares well with her recollection of ... well, not recollecting anything related to these movements. Like a kid who can pick up a car from his friend or relative lying beneath, sometimes the "impossible" becomes possible. I hardly think this points toward alteration, and frankly don't think the film was altered at all. But that's merely my opinion, and we all know about "opinions!"