Duke Lane

... What did our tongue-tied President say ? "Fool me one shame on me, fool me twice, won't get fooled again" or something to that nature. (Maybe he was a confused "Who" fan

Dawn

"Won't get fooled again" was definitely The Who! The other quote is "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!"

Duke,

Thanks for the info. Somehow I got completely disoriented at MapQuest, as I remember scrolling north from Bethesda to find Walter Reed, though I was never able to get both locations on the same map.

In any case, according to the Yahoo map a hearse coming from Walter Reed would wind up on Jones Bridge Road (Jones Mill Road becomes Jones Bridge Road going west) in approaching Bethesda Naval Hospital.

I used Yahoo to try to find Andrews Air Force Base. The closest I found was the town of Camp Springs, MD. ...

When that hearse driver told Dennis David that he came in on Jones Bridge Road, I wish David had asked him, "Jones Bridge Road from where?"

Ron

Ron,

Use "Andrews AFB, MD" in the "city,state or zip" field and you'll get it. Then click on the "From Here" link at the upper left of the map picture and enter in either of the two addresses you've got for Walter Reed and Bethesda.

While the maps we looked at gave the entry to Bethesda from whatever US Hwy that was, that hardly means that is the only possible way into the compound. In a place as relatively small as the Dallas VAMC, there are at least five, possibly six entrances from three different streets.

Dennis David has said that the driver of the black hearse that delivered the shipping casket at the rear of Bethesda Naval Hospital told him that they had come through the back gate from Jones Bridge Road.

I went to Mapquest to locate Walter Reed and Bethesda and try to determine what route one might take between the two.

Walter Reed Army Hospital is at 6900 Georgia Ave., Washington DC. Bethesda Naval Hospital is south or slightly southwest of Walter Reed, at 8901 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD.

Due to the nature of the maps (continually having to click north, south, etc.) and being unfamiliar with the whole area, I could not determine what specific roads or streets one would take from Walter Reed to Bethesda Naval Hospital. (Perhaps someone with better map resources - or better yet someone who could actually drive it! - could pinpoint the likely exact route.) But generally speaking, if one goes due south from Walter Reed, one comes to Jones Bridge Road, where a right turn takes you west to Bethesda Naval Hospital.

Robin, best I could do, no longer living there. These things aren't perfect, but the point is nevertheless made.

Yahoo maps. Hope the link works!

[information about JFK Assassination put in highlights by Tim]

Dateline: November 30, 2005

LANGLEY, VA—A report released Tuesday by the CIA's Office of the Inspector General revealed that the CIA has mistakenly obscured hundreds of thousands of pages of critical intelligence information with black highlighters.

...

The inspector general's report cited in particular the damage black highlighting did to documents concerning the assassination of John F. Kennedy, thousands of pages of which "are completely highlighted, from top to bottom margin."

"It is unclear exactly why CIA bureaucrats sometimes chose to emphasize entire documents," the report read. "Perhaps the documents were extremely important in every detail, or the agents, not unlike college freshmen, were overwhelmed by the reading material and got a little carried away."

Thanks, Tim. I've always assumed there was a logical explanation behind it, and I'm glad to see that it's been cleared up and the CIA is now investigating it. Under DCI Goss, I would expect nothing less than a full public apology, and a full-scale attempt at recovering as much of this valuable information as humanly possible.

FYI, not long ago, the story was going around that it had something to do with the "Red Act," but research yielded the fact that it had either been repealed some years ago, or else had never been passed into law. (This is a matter of continuing inquiry. I will provide updates as necessary.)

Frankly, I didn't expect you to post this given that the author is a rather obscure fellow, and especially with your reputation as an excoriator of all things right of center. Shows good balance, keep it up!

[deleted - added to 1st post]

There was in all probability a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. And for the last 42 years, a conspiracy has been in place to hide the truth. This shifting, morphing smoke screen, if penetrated, would change things dramatically. The mirrors would be shattered, and if as many suspect, the involvement goes far into existing power structures, it would mean pruning off of fallguys, distractions, defamation suits, disappearances, and irrelevant legal maneuverings. Perhaps even global events.

I doubt 'they' would go: 'I admit it, fair cop guv, which way to the injection room?'

They won't? You sure? It's kinda what I'd hoped for! Damn! Well, if they ain't, there ain't no sense hangin' 'round no more!

Please ignore all previous posts if you haven't already!!

Okay, so I lied ... but I got your attention, didn't I?

And since I've got it, let me ask why, if Lynne Foster bothers everybody so much, everybody continues to reply to her?

Weren't you ever a kid? Didn't your mother tell you that the monsters under the bed (and the school bully) would go away if you'd just ignore them?

Your continued replies perpetuate her posts, give her something to reply to (and you again in turn), and take up a lot of real estate, detracting from whatever the topic is at hand. The language (which doesn't make me blush) sometimes leaves something to be desired as well.

Enough already, okay? Sheesh!

[Added:]

Thanks to Adam's post (see below), you can make this happen:

Is this cool or what?

... This is the greatest single key to that assassination: Who had the power to call off or drastically reduce the usual security precautions that are always in effect – by law – whenever a President travels? The answer to this question is more important to me than a genealogy of Lee Harvey Oswald or the people on the grassy knoll.

The answer to that question seems to lie in Al's comment: "[the USSS] rel[ies] heavily on local LE to provide the majority of physical security." On 11/22/63, DPD was "the men on the ground," the "tactical squad" if you will. There were many more doings that they had sole control over, and looking closely at some of those will tell a lot about how some of the "tactical" aspects of the murder(s) were accomplished. Think "Tippit killing" here, too, and "the Oswald in the basement trick."

I do not fault the DPD on the assassination although the issues of allowing unauthorized personnel atop of the overpass was poor judgement or miscommunication, regardless, it should not have happened. The DPD were stretched very thin.... DPD major screwup was allowing DP to be opened up to pedestrian and vehicular traffic immediately after the incident. It should have been shut down and it would not have been difficult to do as it was already shut down to vehiclular traffic and with the DCSO manpower standing around a block away, they could have sealed it off from pedestrians going in and preventing wits from going out.

If only the simple measures raised by Al Carrier had been taken, many of the questions with which we still wrestle would be long-ago answered. What if we had the identification of the men who appeared to assemble at Houston and Main Streets? I do have some difficulty with reports of policemen confronting self-proclaimed Secret Service agents and not being a bit more tenacious about examining the identifications. Imagine the historical difference if just one Secret Service imposter had been caught up in the kind of quickly established cordon described by Al.

...

Further to my last(?) response, who knew enough that USSS agents were not in the Plaza to be so supremely confident in impersonating one? Did cops actually expect there to be (i.e., were they briefed as to their anticipated presence)? In the heat of the moment, and given the urgency of the situation, chances are most cops are not going to "grill" others who at least appear to be cops, especially federal.

Had the situation been different - i.e., the guy with USSS creds actually was USSS - and a local detained him such that killers were allowed to escape, we'd probably be vilifying that poor, stupid cop who kept the USSS agent from doing his job!

I'm certain the USSS has been berating themselves with "if only ..." scenarios for 42 years.

... Searching cars in the parking lot behind the Grassy Knoll would have been a good thing as well, or at the very least, making a list of the license numbers of the cars parked there. If there was an assassin on either the north or south knoll, the simple act of throwing any weapon or evidence into the trunk of a car was sufficient to forever relegate it to the realm of mystery.

T.C.

I think it was probably only a matter of time before many of the cops in the plaza, with little else to do, would have started searching vehicles, trying to open trunks (boots), etc., and I'd say it's pretty much a certainty that nobody would have been driving out of the parking lots without having their vehicles searched.

But fortuitously (which is distinct from "fortunately!"), a cop got killed and those who felt their duties in the plaza weren't critical (most of them) went chasing the cop killer.

That is how anyone hiding in the parking lot got away: as soon as the cops took off, so did the assassins. That is also why JD Tippit died: if the cops had stuck around long enough to actually find someone in a trunk with a rifle, people higher on the food chain would've been twisting in the wind.

As to a list of license plates, I suspect this would have gone the way of the list of people present in the Texas Theater.

... This is the greatest single key to that assassination: Who had the power to call off or drastically reduce the usual security precautions that are always in effect – by law – whenever a President travels? The answer to this question is more important to me than a genealogy of Lee Harvey Oswald or the people on the grassy knoll.

The answer to that question seems to lie in Al's comment: "[the USSS] rel[ies] heavily on local LE to provide the majority of physical security." ...

Duke,

I do not fault the DPD on the assassination although the issues of allowing unauthorized personnel atop of the overpass was poor judgement or miscommunication, regardless, it should not have happened. The DPD were stretched very thin as the motorcade route was long and tedius as it covered a long route of slow movement with an open limo. Dallas was not the first time this occurred, but it was an ideal killing zone throughout the motorcade for a sniper. Because of the availability of the target with the terrain afforded throughout, there was little anyone could have done to prevent a successful attempt on the life of the president. Where it became ingenious was the ability to pull it off and escape. DPD major screwup was allowing DP to be opened up to pedestrian and vehicular traffic immediately after the incident. It should have been shut down and it would not have been difficult to do as it was already shut down to vehiclular traffic and with the DCSO manpower standing around a block away, they could have sealed it off from pedestrians going in and preventing wits from going out.

Al

So whom do you fault? You asked what group had the power to "call off or drastically reduce the usual security precautions that are always in effect," and you got your answer. The SS was not on the ground in DP or anywhere along the parade route; the cops were. DPD was the on-the-ground security, they assigned jobs to each and every officer along the route including in DP. They were the ones who opened the crime scene - that they alone were in charge of - to traffic, who did not secure any of the buildings around the plaza (not just including TSBD) ... the list goes on, right down to how many motorcycles flanked the VIP cars in the motorcade!

If you want to consider them screw-ups, fine. Certainly, if the Dallas cops were dumb enough not only to lose a President - under their protection, in their town - but also lose his supposed assassin - in their custody, in their headquarters - then perhaps they were too stupid to do anything right ... except, of course, identify the sole assassin long before the vaunted FBI did!

DPD "had the power to call off or drastically reduce the usual security precautions that are always in effect" because they were the security. Nobody else. Full stop.

Perhaps the problem lies here:

By todays standards, that threat would have been passed on to the advance team of the SS in Dallas who would have coordinated an effort with the Dallas Office of the SS and then communicated it with the DPD. However, we are basing this on the communication channels of today, not of '63. A similar thought is why was the Chicago threat of Nov 1, 1963 not passed onto Tampa? This was a loophole in communications that seemed to be consistent of that era, or was stalled in DC during that time. We may never know for sure.

We can't use today's standards to evaluate the performance of the USSS 42 years ago. What they do today, they do in many respects largely due to the events of Friday, November 22. Have you ever seen a US President in a convertible since then? Before that, it was commonplace. Presidents used to actually walk in public, and in fact, one or two almost died because of it, and one did.

What "usual security precautions are always in effect – by law – whenever a President travels" today were not always in effect ... and frankly, I don't think that Congress enacted any such law as to how the USSS will protect the president. I think that is a matter of internal regulation and procedure.

...

From Car 10 Where are you....

This information is provided by Greg Lowrey by way of Bill Pulte. James A. Andrews worked for American National Life Insurance whose offices were located across the street from Austin’s Barbecue. Greg Lowrey was interviewing Andrews to get recollections of Roscoe White who worked out of the same office as Andrews. During the interview Andrews told Greg “Since you are interested in the assassination, let me tell you something that happened” and told the following story. James A. Andrew’s was returning to work at his office in Oak Cliff a little after 1:00 P.M. on 11/22/63. He was driving west on West 10th Street (about eight or nine blocks from where Tippit was shot minutes later, see map). Suddenly a police car also traveling west on West 10th Street came up from behind Andrews’ car, passed him and cut in front of Andrews’s car forcing him to stop. The police car pulled in front of Andrews’ car at an angle heading into the curb in order to stop him. The officer then jumped out of the patrol car motioned to Andrews to remain stopped, ran back to Andrews’ car, and looked in the space between the front seat and the back seat. Without saying a word the policeman went back to the patrol car and then drove off quickly. Andrews was perplexed by this strange behavior and looked at the officer’s nameplate, which read “Tippit” (Tippit was wearing his nameplate on 11/22/63. This is documented in a list of personal effects removed from his body at the time of death. Source: Dallas Municipal Archives) Andrews remarked that Tippit seemed to be very upset and agitated and was acting wild.

We know by the statements Louis Cortinas at the Top Ten Record Shop that Tippit was last seen running a stop sign and traveling east on Sunset Ave. The location of Andrews’ encounter with Tippit is approximately 2 blocks northwest of the record shop. Did this event happen before or after Tippit was seen at the record shop? Given Andrews’ statement that this happened a little after 1:00 P.M. let us use the 1:03 P.M. missed call as a benchmark. Since the only documented time that Tippit was away from his car radio was when he went into the record shop, the probability is high that James A. Andrews’ encounter with J.D. Tippit happened just moments after Tippit was seen at the record shop. Tippit could have gone east on Sunset then gone north on Madison or Zangs then taken a left onto West 10th Street and this would have put Tippit traveling in the proper direction to have ‘cut off’ Andrews’ car that was also traveling west on West 10th Street.

Why did Tippit choose Andrews’ car to stop? Why didn’t he pull over Andrews’ car using conventional police procedure by using red lights and siren and stopping to the rear of Andrews’ car? Why did Tippit ‘cut off’ Andrews car the way he did? Why didn’t Tippit speak to Andrews or give him any explanation for what was going on? Why was Tippit so upset and acting the way he did? If these questions could be answered it would be very helpful in determining what was going on in the last minutes of Tippit’s life. Exactly where Tippit went and for how long after his sighting at the record shop and after his encounter with James A. Andrews are still unknown.

While Bill Drenas is a good buddy of mine and a very diligent researcher, I have difficulties with this report that he seems to accept so readily (see my post above: does it have anything to do with "injection?"). Here are some of them:

The above map shows the immediate area where all these events took place that Friday afternoon. The intersection of 10th and Patton can be seen near the upper right, and the Top Ten Record Shop is located just east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Jefferson and Bishop, on the south side of Jefferson.

By the Top Ten account, Tippit was parked on Bishop, drove across Jefferson and one block north, then turned right, going out of sight. You can see that Sunset "tees" at Beckley (that's the heavy-lined street going north-south immediately to the east of Zang(s) Blvd). You will also notice that the dividing line between "East" and "West" streets is Beckley as well, and that W 10th is the street running east-west immediately to the north of Sunset (sorry, the "10th W" doesn't appear on this portion of the map).

This means that Tippit took off eastward toward his "final" destination, then drove north somewhere along Sunset (or maybe at Zangs or Beckley), then sped westward away from his final destination, pulled Andrews over somewhere around or between Adams and Llewellyn, acted like a maniac on a mission, jumped back into his car, speeding off westward again away from where he eventually ended up.

We "next" encounter Tippit cruising slowly along East 10th, which means he turned north onto Llewellyn, east onto W 9th, crossed Zangs and Beckley (both fairly major intersections), turned south on Storey, then east on E 10th (or maybe he drove south on Beckley and turned off on Cumberland?). This is not a straight drive, but a someone circuitous route at best. If he was "on a mission" (my words), then it only involved 10th St; if he was a "speeding maniac" (mine again) on W 10th, what changed his demeanor so drastically by the time he got a few blocks away? Whether or not you choose to believe Helen Markham's "real friendly like," the fact remains that nobody said anything that even remotely suggested the same kind of manic behavior described by Andrews.

Most importantly, why go speeding westward so you can cruise slowly eastward? Something just doesn't jibe here.

Another thing is that Andrews apparently got "perplexed" the moment he stopped. I mean, put yourself in his shoes: a cop car cuts you off, cop jumps out of his car, runs back to yours, doesn't say a word as he looks into your car, then he turns around and runs back to his car and speeds away. I'd say "perplexed" came after the cop would've already gone back to his car, as in "wow, wasn't that strange! I wonder what it was all about?" Too late, in other words, to read his name badge.

Prior to that, what would your reaction be to a cop doing to you what Tippit supposedly did to Andrews? Wouldn't you be a bit afraid, perhaps, when a cop pulls something like that? I know I would be. In fact, I'd be downright freaked out. Read his name badge? Ha! Not until I knew he wasn't going to drag me out of the car right away and handcuff me for some unknown reason or maybe even shoot me! By then, he was already running back to his car.

Actually, the only thing that convinces me that Tippit might've stopped in the Top Ten store is that he didn't answer a radio call, and may well have been away from the radio. After all, hadn't he just been told to be "at large" in case an emergency came in? "At large" means "patrol at will, we've got nothing for you right now." What even made him go running into the record shop? With all this excitement he was apparently going through, why do you suppose he didn't jump out of his cruiser and tackle the guy walking along 10th??

Either something changed drastically between W 10th and E 10th, or the stuff on the west side didn't happen ... at least, not the way it's described.

Well Nic,

What you said, sorta reminded me of something else....Here is another new interesting story in regard to Tippit. I'm sure some have heard about it, but it might be new to some. I first read about it in Walt Brown's, JFK/DPQ Publication and is also included in Livingstones new book.

...

For Reaseach Purposes Only!

A woman by the name of Mrs. Doris Holan, lived at 409 E Tenth Street, She lived upstairs directly across the street and her windows looked directly on Tippit's Patrol car and the murder scene....

Mrs Holan also noticed something else that had not previously, ever been reported. A second police car in the driveway, which went all the way back to the alley, moving forward slowly towards Tippit's car on Tenth. Near the police car she also saw a man in the driveway walking toward the street where Tippit was parked.

She went downstairs at once and over to Tippit. The man in the driveway continued to the street, walked in front of Tippit's patrol car, paused and looked down at Tippit's head, and retraced his path up the driveway. At the same time, the police car changed direction and backed up in the driveway to the alley running parallel to Tenth, behind the houses on 404 and 410.

In 1963, the driveway could be entered from the alley from the rear, as well as from Tenth. Because Tippit's car was parked in front of the Tenth Street entrance, the alley provided the only passage from the driveway for the driver of the police car.

Mrs. Holan's account of a second police car is supported by the comments of Sam Guinyard, who told Brownlow in 1970 that he saw a police car in the alley shortly after the police shooting. The man in the driveway was apparently also seen by others: a resident of the neighborhood, who wishes to remain anonymous, told Prof Pulte, in 1990, that he had heard about a man in the driveway who approached Tippit's car....

Some clarifications: unbeknownst to many people, myself included until just a couple of weeks ago, is that behind the houses on that block of 10th Street are ... other houses! That's right, there is one house on the lot facing 10th and accessed by 10th, and there are other houses facing and accessed by the alleyway (the sole exception in this immediate area being 400 E 10th)! The homes that are there right now are not new, but I don't know how old (20? 30? 40? 50? years old?? I'll attempt to verify this when I'm over that way next), and the driveways of the older homes do not go completely through, at least not anymore.

The neighborhood is undergoing a lot of renovation right now - very few older homes left on the 400 block - and I've got the name of the builder, so I will see what additional information I can gather on this.

More importantly, Tippit's car was not "in front of the [10th] Street entrance" as the driveway was to the east of the home. Recall Charlie Davis' testimony: "he was shot in front of the hedgerow between the house next door and the one he lives in." They don't plant hedgerows in driveways! That is as my memory serves: one of the contemporaneous photos showing the location would be a better record, but I do recall bushes rather than a driveway being beside the car.

Finally - and less importantly - the statement that "the man in the driveway was apparently also seen by others" is not supported by the comment "a resident of the neighborhood ... told Prof Pulte ... that he had heard about a man in the driveway who approached Tippit's car..." (my emphasis). We don't know the source of the story this anonymous person merely heard, and it could have been third- or fourth-hand originating with Mrs. Holan (if it was ever even true in 1963)!

FWIW, I have run across people around who feel it necessary, for some reason, to inject themselves into the story. Most recently it was a retired cop who was hanging out at Dealey Plaza this last November 22. His story was that, in 1963, he was an undercover cop investigating drug deals. He had, he said, long hair and a beard. He also said that he was "one of two officers" who handcuffed Oswald. His name is not referenced anywhere in the reports discussing Oswald's arrest, nor in any of the "theater" officers' testimonies, but (you'd think) that's because he was undercover and they wouldn't want him to somehow be identified, right? But has anyone ever seen a long-haired cop in any of the photographs taken in the theater, or do you suppose someone has artfully cropped him out to preserve his cover?

This is an observation, and not necessarily a reflection on Mrs. Holan.

Tom, I believe you and I are on the same page here. I think that those behind the assassination had connections to Nixon, but I believe that Nixon, in 1963, wasn't in on the plot [at the level of a conspirator]. It just eventually turned out to be to his advantage, and I believe those responsible made sure of that.

1. Soft Drink Bottlers convention in Dallas on 11/21/63, thereby making the "best" location for a Presidential visit non-available, which of course also completely affected potential motorcade route.

2. Soft Drink Bottlers convention organized by Pepsi-Cola

3. Richard M. Nixon, guest speaker at convention

4. Richard M. Nixon, lawyer, representing Pepsi-Cola

5. Pepsi-Cola and direct relationship to various CIA endeavors.

6. Klein's Sporting Goods actually owned by Pepsi-Cola

The "best" location for Kennedy's speech was the Women's Building, so determined by the USSS. If memory serves, that was not where the bottlers' convention was held. As to Klein's, you have evidence of that?

The planning and conducting of the Soft Drink Bottlers Association meeting in Dallas, TX, on the day prior to the visit of JFK, effectively established the "stage" as to where JFK would go for the luncheon, as well as establishing the parade route and time of the parade.

In addition, the presence of RMN in Dallas at the exact same time as JFK created a situation in which the police forces of Dallas were drawn quite thin.

And, although those responsible for the actual event of the convention as well as the participation by Nixon have no direct connection to any part of the assassination, the manipulation of these persons and events which placed the convention in Dallas at the exact same time as the JFK visit, established the "ground rules" for the parade route which JFK would ultimately take through Dallas.

This is perceptive, but unfortunately does not reflect much knowledge of the convention industry.

First, no convention can be scheduled on short notice, not even small ones. One issue, of course, is the venue: other groups will want to use it, so you've got to have the space reserved well in advance (call the Dallas Convention & Visitors Bureau - 214-571-1301 - and ask them when the next available date for a convention of about 500 people will be, with, say, 75 vendors also having wares and services to display).

Other issues involve getting speakers, participants and vendors: guys (and gals) who run bottling operations are by no means your average blue-collar worker, nor entrepreneurs struggling to build a small business. Consequently, their time is valuable, and cannot (on a scale large enough to create a "convention") be co-opted on short notice because of a meeting that has to be held on the day the President is driving through town.

The same holds true of the speakers - there would have to be many more than just Nixon if you're going to call this a "convention" (otherwise, it was a bottler's junket just to hear Nixon speak? I think not) - as well as the vendors ... and there are always vendors at any trade convention: the fees they pay to exhibit their goods and services offset a very large portion of the rental costs!

Even a convention of relational database (software) manufacturers, wholesales and users (both corporate and consultive), of which I would bet there are no more of these guys than there were (or are) soft drink bottlers (we're talking bottlers here, not manufacturers), more than a year to put an event together. The November 1963 bottlers' convention was not put together in very much, if any, less time.

Second, no convention creates a situation where the police force of any but the smallest towns (that wouldn't be able to host a convention anyway) are "drawn quite thin." This was not a demonstration by potentially unruly people, and even today at a reasonably large convention, there are generally not more than a half-dozen to a dozen cops assigned to it, and most often they are off-duty officers hired by the convention organizers; I'd be quite surprised if there were even that many at the bottlers' convention. What was the need?

Furthermore, a look at police assignments for November 22 shows that, where officers were reassigned from their regular duties, it was because they were assigned to assist with the Presidential visit. There is no indication whatsoever that any officers were assigned to the bottlers' convention in lieu of their regular duties.

If the presence of the bottlers' convention "set the stage" for anything, it did so well in advance of anyone ever planning the Presidential trip and motorcade, and was likely no more than a small "blip on the screen" when it came to planning anything.

From the "Washington Post" Book World.

An interesting read.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5112800596.html

... He has a lot of perceptive comments, except he just doesn't get it: Castro did it, Jeff![/i]

Actually, it is an interesting and fairly well-balanced discussion. I think Morley's most perceptive comment, however, is:

Stone's critics in the mainstream media would enhance their credibility with the conspiracy-minded public if they demanded that the government obey the JFK Records Act with the same vehemence that they denounce Stone.

... This is the greatest single key to that assassination: Who had the power to call off or drastically reduce the usual security precautions that are always in effect – by law – whenever a President travels? The answer to this question is more important to me than a genealogy of Lee Harvey Oswald or the people on the grassy knoll.

The answer to that question seems to lie in Al's comment: "[the USSS] rel[ies] heavily on local LE to provide the majority of physical security."

On 11/22/63, DPD was "the men on the ground," the "tactical squad" if you will. There were many more doings that they had sole control over, and looking closely at some of those will tell a lot about how some of the "tactical" aspects of the murder(s) were accomplished. Think "Tippit killing" here, too, and "the Oswald in the basement trick."

Ruby's comments should be paid attention to because he did have a clue, tho' he probably couldn't have named many names, and then not very high up on the food chain.

Taken from Conspiracy Nation, by Dave Emory.

"One thing I really noted it got little publicity, but he (Carter) said, We are going to have to go all the way back to the assassination (JFK) to get this country right. No sooner was Carter doing that than in May, summer of 1979, on a trip to L A there was an aborted attempt on the Presidents life. Two gunmen who had come up from Mexico named, Ray Lee Harvey, and Oswaldo Ortiz (Love the names were arrested for stalking Carter with a rifle,then they just disappeared, fell of the radar screen, no follow up on the prosecution or anything. I suspect a message was being sent to Carter."Anybody got any more on this, or is it B/S..Steve.

See AlienZoo Conspiracy Theory for more info in an account by Jim Marrs. A synopsis:

Raymond Lee Harvey was a "grubby transient" who the SS noticed "acting nervous" as Carter's appearance was approaching. They were found to have a .22-cal 8-shot revolver and 60 rounds of blank ammunition, a "cap gun" in other words. A Secret Service spokesman called it "as nothing as these things get."

Apparently, Harvey fingered 21-year-old Osvaldo Espinoza-Ortiz as a "co-conspirator," the two of them "local street people" supposedly hired by a couple of Mexican "hit men" to create a diversion while the Mexicans killed Carter. They took authorities to a nearby hotel where they found an empty rifle case and three(!) rounds of live ammo. The room was rented under the name of Umberto Camacho, who had checked out on the day of the Carter visit.

Elsewhere on the net, in the Vanderbilt Television News Archives, we find that Walter Cronkite devoted two full minutes to this episode on May 11, six days after it occurred. On May 29, Cronkite gave it another 20 seconds' coverage noting that a federal prosecutor in Louisiana was seeking dismissal of the charges against the pair due to "insufficient evidence."

It strikes me that if someone wants to take the time (someone who lives nearby, that is), they should be able to visit LAPD or other court/law enforcement archives and get more in-depth information on this. The SS is who took these guys into custody, so info may also be available at NARA. The SS considered it a "nothing" event, and it might well have been just that: nothing.

A warning, or more likely a prank? I think it odd that any "hit men" would tell "street people" what it is they ultimately planned to do; more likely, they'd have just recruited them to shoot off the blanks with no real idea why they were doing it. They even let these "street people" know where they were staying - not just the hotel, but the particular room!

This does not seem to be a good practice for anyone really planning anything of the sort: what would have prevented the "decoys" from running right to the cops? And why would someone leave behind a rifle case? So they could carry a rifle out in plain public view? And then what, after they'd hit Carter? Have nothing in which to conceal a weapon in the area where the President was just killed? (Well, I suppose it has happened before, eh?)

The empty rifle case - which is not a weapon, of course - and the three live rounds is pretty allusional, don't you think, tho', especially when coupled with the names of these guys (which, if they were street people, were probably fictional, and they probably didn't have ID as is the case with most of them). But then, who knows?

Rather than speculation, some hard data would be useful and probably more instructive. We can't just assume that since nobody's produced it, it therefore doesn't exist. Any takers?

Something to consider in the event any evidence is found: the murder of John Kennedy was and remains a state felony, it was not and is not a federal crime. The law enacted that made presidential assassinations a federal offense could not be applied retroactively, so the only "authorities" that exist are here in the State of Texas. We have already seen with the Roscoe White affair (among others) that the Texas AG takes these things fairly seriously ... if there's anything of substance to them. ...

Yo! Duke, and hello Deb,

If we have to wait on the State of Texas for justice, it'll never happend.

That's why we have the busiest execution chamber in the nation!

Duke, the murder of John Kennedy was and remains a conspiracy, and thus falls into federal jurisdiction. It was not a federal crime if there was not a conspiracy, but since there is multible evidence of conspiracy, it was and is a federal crime.

In addition, homicide is not the only crime involved in this case, but there are many others - and once a grand jury is conviened, and witnesses and suspects questioned under oath - perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, conspiracy, treason, the Pinkerton doctrine comes into play and what's the crime they applied to the commies in "I Led Three Lives"?

I will be leading a Grand Jury Project Seminar on this topic and related issues soon.

I will remember never to argue law with you, then!!

But seriously, isn't homicide the only one of them that doesn't have a statute of limitations? Or because the primary crime is murder, do the rest of them attach even still? I agree re the Pinkerton doctrine (not the famous Pinkerton of Secret Service fame!), but I have no idea whether it applies over any time period.

I'm not sure what ARRB could've or would've done since their mandate was quite limited: they didn't investigate, they didn't prosecute, they merely gathered documents. I know that's an oversimplification, but the point is that I'm not sure how they could have "acted upon" this information.

Duke and folks,

What the ARRB could have done is to pass on the information to a researcher. There are quite a few that were working closely with the various staffers to have done this. The failure of ANY followup on this is baffling.

Unquestionably, it could have done, but one question would be "to which one?" Who would have decided what researcher (or author) was "qualified" to pass it on to, or should it have been sent out to all researchers and authors? Would having "favored" one over another constituted some sort of "endorsement," or provided an exclusive source of income (publishing a book based on "exclusive" evidence, or evidence given to me "exclusively")? No, I think the ARRB did exactly the right thing: filed it along with the rest of their stuff, to be found by ...?

Meanwhile, Larry Hancock and William Law, two of the most qualified researchers and interviewers I've ever come across are hot on this. Larry will devote a chapter in his upcoming book. And if anyone can get a second interview it is William Law. I've got complete trust in him.

I feel like this is a really big break in the case, especially after viewing the interview myself in Dallas. But this is a dangerous area since as stated, both of these guys are alive.

Yeah, it could be dangerous! I mean, after all, if these guys killed a president ...!?! What, they'd be nervous about offing someone who wrote a book? That's why I'd bring it to the authorities (whomever that might be), so I'd be safe.

Duke, you need to come to the conference. I know the boss lady and she'll probably let you in.

I was there (tho' not officially 'in attendance'): I bought Ian Griggs' book ... from you!

I appreciate the invite ... but isn't the conference over?!?

Duke, you obviously were not at the conference so I'll help fill you in. Jenkins and Quintero are BOTH alive. This is why this info is so tricky. Outside of what they told Wheaton, there is NO evidence connecting them to the killing. Researchers are scrambling to find this evidence at this moment. And Wheaton did come forward to the authorities--he sent a series of letters to the ARRB, which were not acted upon. Some researchers recently found these letters in the archives. That is why this is news now, twenty years after Wheaton was first told these things, and ten years after he first told the government about what was said.

Pat, many thanks. Sometimes it sucks living in Dallas because you can't just up and get away from the rest of life when something big or interesting (or both) comes to town!

I'm not sure what ARRB could've or would've done since their mandate was quite limited: they didn't investigate, they didn't prosecute, they merely gathered documents. I know that's an oversimplification, but the point is that I'm not sure how they could have "acted upon" this information.

Something to consider in the event any evidence is found: the murder of John Kennedy was and remains a state felony, it was not and is not a federal crime. The law enacted that made presidential assassinations a federal offense could not be applied retroactively, so the only "authorities" that exist are here in the State of Texas. We have already seen with the Roscoe White affair (among others) that the Texas AG takes these things fairly seriously ... if there's anything of substance to them.

Mayhaps I'll find something more on the Lancer forum about this stuff(?).

The most dramatic aspect of the JFK Lancer conference was the showing of the interview with Gene Wheaton. Talking to William Law and Mark Sobel, Wheaton, a former CIA freelancer, claimed that Carl Jenkins and Raphael Quintero were both involved in the assassination of JFK.

As far as I can see, it was the first time that Jenkins has been named as the man who organized the assassination. I have been checking out Jenkins and it seems that he is in fact a good candidate. Like other CIA people suspected of being involved in the assassination, David Atlee Phillips, E. Howard Hunt, David Morales, Tracy Barnes, Rip Robertson, Jenkins was part of the team that overthrew President Jacob Arbenz in Guatemala.

Jenkins was also David Morales’ boss at JM WAVE in 1963. The CIA station involved in the plot to assassinate Fidel Castro. According to Wheaton, the assassination team, that included Raphael Quintero, was redirected to kill JFK.

My research of Wheaton suggests he is a credible witness. He is the man who first exposed the Iran-Contra scandal. This is what Wheaton has to say about the CIA during the 1960s and 1970s (Declassified Radio - 4th January, 2002) ....

The first question that pops to mind is: are either or both of these guys (Jenkins and/or Quintero) still alive?

Good candidates to be involved in JFK's assassination or not, it's easy to point fingers at dead men who (1) don't point back, (2) don't shoot back, (3) will neither confirm nor deny, ergo (4) cannot provide further information or proofs, e.g., as to higher-ups (you can't assume it was done at the "operative" level or even with "field management"), (5) cannot defend themselves, (6) cannot sue, and (7) cannot be prosecuted.

Accusing dead people of stuff - even if true, which requires some pretty stiff (no pun intended) proofs in my mind - is how we got bogged down in the Roscoe White business for so long (and some people still can't deal with the fact that it's BS because they don't like the messenger ... or perhaps they just like to believe all of the theories out there?).

The second question that pops to mind is: what is anybody doing about it, if these guys are alive? Are they writing a book or going to the authorities?

Why would Wheaton tell Law and Sobel about the others' involvement? If he wanted it known and had proof, one would think that he would go to the authorities. After all, is this a crime we're dealing with here, or merely an interesting soap opera?

If Wheaton didn't want to go to the authorities for some reason, why would he tell someone who might either do just that or (more likely?) write a book about it, in any case not be quiet about it? Either because it isn't true, or that it is and he figured anyone who could do anything about it wouldn't believe a couple of "conspiracy buffs" anyway? Or perhaps another reason (like maybe they will write a book and he'll share in the royalties)?

What suss you?

It looks like the thing to do is to be sure you've joined the JFK Lancer forum: Greg left a message there that he's "giving $10 per year" [subscriptions?] to JFK Lancer forum members. I can risk $10, tho' I'm not so sure about $119 or even $10 per month charged to my CC ...!

The question that remains to be resolved is who (if any) were the co-conspirators. In a way, we are not too far apart on the issue whether LBJ was a co-conspurator. You argue he was a conspirator. I believe (suspect) he was given foreknowledge which might very well make him an accessory before the fact.

I have long been of the opinion that it would be nearly impossible - if not entirely so - to identify and, more importantly, indict any of the "top echelon" conspirators since if they had half a brain - as even anyone on this forum does, without any kind of training - they would have been cautious not to leave any incriminating evidence or connections (or, some might add, witnesses!) behind.

Hell, this is what people who hire "contract killers" (who usually end up being cops ... at least in those instances that we hear about!) to kill their wives or husbands for insurance money are out to do. Some undoubtedly succeed. Those, like CIA's lament about their successful ops, we don't hear about; only the unsuccessful ones.

If (some of) those people can get away with murder (quite literally), why should we not suppose that anyone "higher on the food chain" of a Kennedy hit would not do the same, only better and more successfully? Indeed, some of them (such as a J. Edgar Hoover) were so respected in their time that they would never have come under suspicion anyway, and if someone pointed the finger at them, they'd be laughed out of court. (Of course, in Hoover's case, that might no longer be the case ... but then, you'd still have to prove his involvement, right?)

If - and I consider this to be a relatively large "if" - someone were able to identify the functionaries, the guys working the deal at the "street" level, and came up with a case that at least warranted official investigation, then perhaps that would lead to them identifying someone - or several someones - who had a "higher" hand in it.

The trouble with that, of course, is that so many people want to be the Grassy Knoll Gunman or want to claim that someone else was (we have several examples of that even now ... it's their fifteen minutes of fame, I guess), and their stories are so full of holes if not patently false that it would be hard, I think, to get any "official" attention to the matter after all of this "crying wolf."

Or, at least, harder than it may have been without these flakes: few people are aware, for example, that the Texas Attorney General's office actually began an investigation into the Roscoe White affair. That it led nowhere is, according to far too many people, a result of "the continuing cover-up" rather than the fact that evidence to the contrary outweighed the (non-existant) evidence of his guilt.

As to Johnson, while again there would likely be nothing left behind with his fingerprints on it, while I've always kind-of thought of his visage in the photo taken of him behind and to the right of JFK talking in Fort Worth outside the hotel as having some sort of sinister cast to it (like "you'll be dead in a couple of hours!"), what has more struck me as odd is the photo taken of him with Harold Byrd sometime after his presidency was over: you'd think a wise politician who only attained his high office as a result of his predecessor's death would have a little more couth than to be seen - and photographed - publicly with the man who'd owned the building his predecessor was supposedly shot from!

Nevertheless, absent some other form of evidence, es machts nichts.

Still: to believe Lee Oswald did it by his lonesome, alone and unaided ...? Sorry, folks, but I've got a "reasonable doubt," and so would have to vote to acquit.

There is an article by Sheldon Inkol, "Jack Lawrence Responds," in the September 1992 issue of The Third Decade. In an earlier article, Inkol had accused Lawrence of being an active conspirator. Lawrence called Inkol, and after Lawrence gave his side of the story in the discussions that followed, Inkol apologized to Lawrence in the September 1992 article and expressed his view that Lawrence was probably set up as a potential patsy.

Based on Lawrence's story, what has been written about him in the literature is grossly inaccurate. Indeed Inkol points out that the HSCA did both Lawrence and researchers a great disservice by not even interviewing Lawrence to get his side of the story.

Regarding the car that Lawrence reportedly left parked behind the fence on the grassy knoll, Lawrence said that he left for work from the YMCA in the demonstrator he had between 12:35 and 12:40 pm. He didn't get far because there was a logjam of traffic, so he parked the car at the corner of Ervay and Main and walked to work at Downtown Lincoln Mercury so he wouldn't be late. He said he may have looked flushed when he got there, but the story that he was muddy and ran to the restroom and threw up is nonsense.

Lawrence knew that he had to get the car back as soon as possible because it was illegally parked and might get towed. So one of the other salesmen whose name he can't remember but who was a retired Air Force Colonel drove Lawrence to where he left the car. Inkol says that he would love to know who this Colonel was, because the lie that Lawrence left the car behind the fence on the grassy knoll must have originated with this person.

Editor Jerry Rose added a note to this article saying that Lawrence's story still lacked credibility in some areas and that he hoped to develop an article on it. Rose said he doubted, for example, that Lawrence heard four shots while inside the YMCA about a mile from Dealey Plaza as he claimed. And wouldn't Lawrence rather be late for work, since he had the traffic jam as an excuse, rather than leave the demonstrator in a no parking zone to likely be towed?

I don't know what further may have been written in The Third Decade on this, but I thought that this was worth passing on.

Ron

As Jerry Rose said, Jack Lawrence shouldn't have the last word on Jack Lawrence. I by no means intend by this to suggest that his story is a crock of bull, but rather that the denial of a "suspect" doesn't exonerate said suspect: if that were the case, every murderer who said he didn't do it would have to be set free, and the cops would have to go looking for someone else!

Even incensed complaints such as Lawrence's to Inkol should be given some weight, so too should it be checked out. I'd imagine someone who was a "retired Colonel" in 1963 would no longer be with us (he'd have been at least middle aged at retirement ... or even at attaining the rank of colonel!), it remains possible that someone else was at the time of Inkol's article, or even still is today.

It was honorable for Inkol to back off of his accusation after hearing from Lawrence, but perhaps a little irresponsible to assume his denial was as accurate as his earlier sources were. I can't see how looking further into it after Lawrence's denial would have irritated him further, especially given the possibility (if not the probability) that others would have corroborated his story, completely exonerating him.

One of the problems "we" have in this "research community" - and I probably am affected by it to one degree or another myself - is what I call the "'if' theorem," which holds that by stringing together enough "ifs" and speculating upon what all of them together could mean, we are eventually able to reach a "conclusion of fact" based upon mere ifs. For example:

Then:

I should be arrested, shot and hung (not necessarily in that order).

Now that we have reached this dubious conclusion, it can now be cited that "Duke Lane said, in his post on the Education Forum, that he ...," and now that that has been cited as a "source of information," we can now accept it as established fact.

Such is the case made, in effect, by someone else in this thread who cited Crossfire, which in turn cited High Treason ... and without bothering to look it up (and why would we need to with two citations already?), who knows what citation Livingstone and Groden gave it? (Citing Crossfire in the first place is absurd, especially since Marrs' first words were "don't believe this book!")

Greg,

... As for Lawrence being an expert marksman in the AF, he told researcher Inkol that he almost didn't get to become an Air Policeman (his highest rank in the AF was Airman 2nd Class) because he was a "lousy shot." He also said that he was blinded in one eye by a rock at the age of 11. He said he didn't own a firearm of any kind.

Blind in one eye at 11 yet accepted into the armed services at 17 or 18? Highly unlikely, IMHO. Bad vision ("'blind' as a bat")? Much more possible.

Inkol states that Downtown Lincoln Mercury was at the corner of Commerce and Industrial, where JFK's limo would have turned had an alternate motorcade route been chosen. (Why wouldn't the turn have been at Main and Industrial?)

As Main goes west under the Triple Underpass, it merges with Commerce and is named Commerce from that point westward.

Thanks, guys.

It seems that the distance was about .6 of a mile. Close but not quite close enough to consider that Bernard Haire would have known Oswald or at least have seen him on a regular basis.

Tantalizing but ultimately frustrating.

Cheers,

James

I wonder sometimes if the "back door Oswald" wasn't Johnny Calvin Brewer, who opened the back door for the police when they arrived, and apparently got a little bit toussled before he was able to convince them he was "one of the good guys?"

A complete (as possible) description from each of these guys as to what they saw/experienced might help to clear this up, but after all these years ...?

And, of course, one must also wonder if it is not a case of someone injecting themselves into the story to get their 15 minutes of fame.

ID anyone?

John,

I've been told that "everyone in the basement was identified by DPD except for the Asian reporter, who remains unidentified to this day. The DPD list is keyed by number to a scale diagram of the scene which, unfortunately, was not published by the WC."

There remains the possibility (at least) that this is available through the Dallas City Archives JFK Collection, available online (click the link). Unless you're on a slow dial-up connection, your best bet is to check the Database link and do a search for "witnesses" or "newsmen" or whatever you think might turn up this info. The "complete index" is not particularly useful in this regard.

My guess is that it's someone in law enforcement, but only because a reporter would seem to want to be closer to the action (Oswald) than this guy appears to be.

Good luck, let us know what you find!

John, the more I look at the clip the more the behaviour of that guy looks suspicious! Do you know if there exists a list of the persons who were in the basement of the DPD that sunday? ....

George

See post above.

Duke and Stan,

See this link:

http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year3/psyc364...acial_asymmetry

The difference, I guess, is that they're starting with a real face, whereas you're starting with an alleged composite to find two different real faces. In any case it should be borne in mind that real faces are not exactly symmetrical.

Ron

I wasn't suggesting that all faces are perfectly symmetrical ... although, if you read farther down the page, you note the question "Why are symmetrical faces attractive?" So is it better and more accurate to say that "not all faces are perfectly symmetrical?"

In any case, the forensic anthropologist's "rule of thumb" is that faces are roughly symmetrical, enough so to be able to identify someone from. I think that's the case in the first three photos at that link: while neither of the composite photos exactly resemble the original, the resemblance is close enough to be able to identify her.

I think it's fair to say, too, that absent great deformities, one side most people's faces resembles the other side. So if two sides composited together show what appears to be two different people, can it be said that it probably is two different people?

Maybe I'll find that photo somewhere ... or perhaps even Jack White will be kind enough to post it for us? (Of course, never having done so before, it'll get posted in my "composited" mode and he'll say he'd figured that out aeons ago, just hadn't gotten around to showing it to anyone yet!)