Duke Lane

Since I didn't say so in the message above, I should describe the second thumbnail: it is simply a crop from Altgens with the second-story window moved up and alongside the third-story window, the lower ledges aligned roughly without any resizing involved. As you can see, the second-story window appears a little bit taller, which it would since it is closer to the ground and therefore the camera. Here's another crop with the second-floor window shortened so that the horizontal frame between the upper and lower parts of the window is the same distance from the lower ledge in both parts of the photo so there's some "height equivalency:" I've also drawn a line from where the bottom of the upper portion of the left ribbon "cuts off" at the same angle as the horizontal divider, across to the second-floor window to show that the "irregular-shaped object" is indeed at the same height as the women's heads (were they not outside the window!). Of course, unanswered is the question of whether the women are standing or kneeling or squatted down, but I think the point is made, at any rate, that there is no "ONLY sensible solution" to what that irregular pattern may be, which I'm now inclined to think is more likely someone trying to catch a glimpse of the parade out from the upstairs window and not a "hole" of any sort. What it actually is, is anybody's guess. If, that is, it can't be shown that this very basic analysis doesn't offer a possible solution. Comments? Criticism? Crappola?

IDD (imagination deficit disorder!) is no reason to suppose that another explanation isn't correct. Let's tax it some more and play "what-if," shall we? I'm doing this entirely on the fly.... First, let's discard the grainy image above in favor of this one (pardon the arrow), presuming as I am that you're satisfied that this is the same window as above: There is nothing about the shape or its apparent effect on the blinds that conclusively eliminates it as being a person, although I'm not prepared to say that it actually is. But consider that the ribbon above the shape angles slightly away from the vertical window frame to the left, suggesting that it could be the result of something inserted between the blind and the window and causing the blind to be pushed back from the window frame and, given the perspective, appear to angle out-and-downward when in fact it is angling away from the window. If that is the case, and presuming the blind to fall straight downward behind that inserted object (as it would, due to gravity), at the angle of the photo, it would appear to the right of where the portion above it would be: all that is missing is the angle of the ribbon behind the object to connect the two. Someone with better math skills than mine could probably, given this possibility, compute how thick the object must be to cause the ribbon to appear that far to the right from Altgens' perspective. There is furthermore a shadow that seems to extend downward and to the right toward the bottom of the center ribbon, which is not inconsistent with what we might expect there to be on the blind slats that were at an angle - or perhaps even bent somewhat - from that object's insertion: while the thin metal (presuming that to have been the material, rather than wood) might tend toward staying straight, my experience with blinds is that they don't always. The image is not clear enough to determine if the middle ribbon is "flat" all the way from the top and bottom, but it would not necessarily be as far from the window as the one to the left, especially if the metal slats bent at all, and it may be that the bottom of what we see is slightly narrower than the upper portion due to its being slightly twisted. Comparing the shading to the full Altgens image (see http://jfkhistory.co.../altgensBIG.jpg), the darkness at the lower left corner of this window does not appear to be as black as that behind the people in the window below: This suggests that the window is not missing from that space as it clearly is on the floor below (otherwise nobody would have been able to lean out the window!). Here's another interesting thing about that comparison: do you notice that where the location of the apparent insertion of the object is at about the same height above the floor - or in about the same relative vertical position - as where the women's heads are? This suggests the possibility that the "irregular shape" could be someone standing next to the window who moved the blinds outward so they could look directly out the window without, for whatever reason, actually raising them or it (perhaps they only had a moment to do so, or didn't want to be seen?). In fact, if I do "the old blur-my-eyes trick" (necessary for such things as finding Badgeman, etc.), I can easily imagine seeing a black man wearing a "golfer's cap" standing there doing exactly what I described. It's not out of the question, in my opinion. Of course, it could also be Brading watching the action ...! Entirely too many "ifs" to draw a conclusion, including an interpretation of where and how JFK "reacted" to some unknown and undefinable stimulus which, for all we know, might've been no more than a sneeze.

Thanks as ever, Robin! This is a case in point, with the 1½"-wide "ladders" clearly visible. Even with these on the first floor, it's not certain that all of the blinds in the building were the same, but it's not unlikely that they were, or at least mostly were (these could, of course, be the exception rather than the rule, but the photo with Dulles and Specter in the foreground suggests otherwise). In the grainy image posted above, it's still possible that the left-hand vertical line is indeed a ladder ribbon, even if it appears somewhat more narrow than the one to the right. It's likewise possible if not probable that the one we see in the middle section is also one, since there are three rather than two ladder ribbons in the Murray image of the first floor blinds: one at either side, and one in the middle. Thanks again!

I'm pretty thick-skinned, so no offense, but likewise no need not to clarify. There have been those who decry my "debunking," saying that eliminating various considerations runs counter to "the cause," as if "the more theories we've got, the better." "Would have" and "probably" don't cut it, but in any case, it seems like something between the thicknesses of a head and a piece of cardboard might fit the bill here. Who knows? It's clear, anyway, and we seem to be in agreement that something in between the window and blinds could have caused this misalignment of the thin "cord" line (more on that in a minute). A simple experiment would be to put a camera at about the same angle from a window of about the same size with blinds in it, and see /a/ how large or deep and object might be to cause a similar misalignment, and /b/ whether the depth of that object actually does move the blinds so far back as to be unseen. "Probably out of view" does not eliminate the possibility or the probability; it's just conjecture. Well, yes, if the window was broken, if there was something in the window, if this, that and the other thing, then you're right: this might be a helluva lot of coincidence. If, however, Braden/Brading (or anyone else) was in a building that provided absolutely no chance of successfully and surreptitiously firing a shot at anyone, then that's exactly what it is: coincidence. And even if he was supposed to have been doing the shooting, that hardly shows that he did. I must a little bafflement about a reaction by JFK to a "shot" that didn't hit him and wasn't heard by him or anyone else because of some "muffling" or "suppression" of noise, but we're not there yet, are we? First, I'd like to deal with the possibility of that window as a shooting position if we might. A point about Venetian blinds, c. 1960s (FWIW). Today, the common appearance of venetian blinds is something like this: For those of us with longer memories, many if not most (or all?) venetian blinds of decades gone by looked more like these: or these: I don't know if all venetian blinds looked that way, but that's the way I remember most of them looking, including in residential as well as business/industrial settings, i.e., with wider, 1½" woven "ladders" to tilt and raise/lower the blinds. This description more closely resembles the vertical line in the middle portion of the window than that at the left. This by no means eliminates blinds being in those windows, but it seems as if this possibility should be eliminated before concluding that we even see an actual cord there, or if we're looking at something else. Wouldn't I be justified to say that it's "most likely" or "probable" that the blinds in Dal-Tex were of the wider-ladder configuration, and thus "throw the baby out with the bath water" with a conclusion based solely on conjecture or supposed probability? About the 3rd floor of Dal-Tex. How much is actually known about this location? I cannot recall any roster of Dal-Tex employees or even a floor plan for the building such that we can determine the layout of this building or who might have "had any business" being in the vicinity of a window in the southwest sector. Nor, to my knowledge, is there any indication (a la CE1381) of where any of the Dal-Tex employees were during the parade, including whether or not that section of the third floor was occupied by any of them and/or in what kind of venue (e.g., office, warehouse space, storage closet, etc.). Is there such a thing? Absent that, can it be posited that someone could have shot out of that or any other window without witnesses either to the shooting or the escape, or - given that Brading was not arrested with a weapon - an accomplice who either hid the weapon or managed to spirit it out of the building? It seems that such a scenario at least needs to be considered (beyond the banality of "everyone" being involved in the conspiracy, it coming off as flawlessly as a Mission:Impossible op, and nobody not "in on it" not poking their noses in where it didn't belong) before we can even presume that it could have been pulled off. What exits and entrances were there besides the front door, and is there any reason to think that Pops Rackley and James Romack didn't also notice the goings-on around that building other than that they didn't say anything about it after not being questioned about it (several months after TSBD became well known as "the" scene of the shooting)? There are such things as coincidences - things that merely happen at the same time - and without demonstrating that there was opportunity to shoot from that area, it becomes doubly difficult to accept that it did simply because someone with an "odd background" was there on that floor. The Holmsian maxim is to first "eliminate the impossible," but in this case I've never seen it demonstrated that, other than a favorable trajectory, Dal-Tex was indeed a "possible" shooting perch, or that there was anyone other (or in addition to) Brading who might've had anything all to do with it. It doesn't strike me that Brading had the background to have been a shooter as opposed to either a coordinator or observer; perhaps you can fill us in on that? By no means is this either "blowing" anything "out of the water" or "debunking" the theory; I'm simply asking for more facts to support what you think. Finally, does anyone have a better image of this or the surrounding windows?

One and the same, tho' I differ somewhat with your characterization of my "career," which serves only to bias any of my replies. As you might recall, and as I believe applies even today, all I do is start with a premise - usually someone else's - and test it. The cards fall where they may. I do not start out to "debunk" anything. I disagree, also, with the perspectives that any theory "must" be correct until and unless someone posits an "alternative explanation" (or "alternative scenario," as Jean Davison used to like to say) that's universally acceptable, or that, failing to achieve such a loft goal, that failure "proves" the first theory correct. Were that the case, the sun might still be rotating around the earth (or might be "sliding by" on a linear plane given, after all, that the world was also flat at the time!). You'll also see, if you read my considerable posts here, that my writings are not oriented toward debunking, and that I'm not without a few theories of my own. None of them - none! - conclude that "Oswald did it on his own," BTW. The fact is, in any case, that it is not up to a "debunker" disprove an argument, but rather for the theorist to prove it in the first place, and to substantiate those proofs. Although this wasn't in any of the posts I responded to (I don't think), the idea that it's "reasonable to presume" or "it's possible that" (something) does not constitute "proof." For example, you cannot say "isn't it reasonable to consider that the blinds on that floor, which was used mostly for storage, might not have been exactly the right size for those windows, or that they might have been wide enough to span both of the adjoining windows," and expect others to prove that your "maybe's" are not the case. Whether they "could have been" or whether they were are two different issues. Most people who posit "might've beens" aren't as accommodating when it comes to "what might not have beens," saying in effect, "I can conjecture that maybe the blinds were two windows wide, but you have to prove that they weren't." That is essentially what you're saying when it comes to a supposed "alternative explanation." I did not set out in my above to do any such thing; I merely asked questions. I didn't take your word for anything, any more than I took Bill Miller's or Duncan McRae's. I also made some observations which, based on the limited data (my vision and/or an insufficient-quality image), have as much validity as the conjectures (which you admit as such) that you put forth. In either case, regarding the blinds, it seems to me that some people either weren't alive in the '60s or have a poor memory as to how Venetian blinds were constructed, versus how they're constructed today. A little research into that area might answer some questions about the "cords" and what is actually being seen here, including whether you're looking at blinds or shades (i.e., is the placement of the "cords" consistent with the way blinds were constructed back then?). What I remember of them - and I was but a lad back then - explains the "wide cord," but doesn't explain its apparent placement ... if that's what it is. Again, I'm only asking questions at this point. I'm hoping you're not going to avoid them by telling me you're "right" till you've been proven wrong. Surely there must be other photos during the same week or so that show this blind to be in one condition or the other; for as much as you know about this floor - it "was used mostly for storage" - surely there must be someone alive today who worked in that building or on that floor who can comment on the types of blinds used, even if not their condition on November 22, no? Who shall determine "plausible?" In my observations, for example, do I have to tell you whose hand or head might've been there - or absolutely was there - to be a "plausible alternative explanation" compared to what, to this point, seems to only be conjecture on your part? Not a very level playing field, if so.

If you look closely, I think you will see that there are no decorative wooden slats in the lower window as there are in the upper. We see the same thing in the second floor windows. This was a very old building, even in 1963. Undoubtedly, it was less expensive to replace broken windows with plain glass. But yes, you are correct that the top and bottom sections of the left cord do not line up. Doesn't it make sense that when the cord was cut, along with some of the slats there, that the top and bottom might not remain aligned with each other? And what about the rightmost cord? Why would it extend all the way to the bottom of the window, if the leftmost did not? Also, I am not clear on what kind of "feature" you think that bottom-left segment might be. Firstly I don't know if it is a wooden slat blind. Either way, if the cord was cut then the lower section should concertina collapse. I can't, as said, say what the light line is. The whole thing is open to speculation with indicators that imo veers away from your interpretation. afa the right cord, it is too thick to be a cord and it is in the wrong place to be one. imo the right cord is in the shadows and not visible. What the light wide stripe IS i can't say... As to my own observations, they're pretty limited and I'll need either a larger, higher-resolution image or much better glasses; an actual photo and a lupe rather than a bunch of pixels would be even better! I'm therefore not entirely certain what "lines" are being referred to as the "left-most cord" and the "right-most cord," and based on what I can see, can only conjecture that the references are to the thinner line that extends vertically below the left-most panel of the upper window, and the the thicker line that extends vertically below the center panel of the upper window; is that correct? I cannot see a vertical line or cord at the far right of the lower window that might correspond to the cord that tilts the blinds and acts as a "lift" to raise the blinds upward, which (what I think is meant by) the "left-most cord" could be. If that is what that is, I don't know what the center line would be since blinds only that wide tend not to have another, similar cord in the middle as wider blinds might well. Pending clarifications, let me toss out an idea or two. First on the question, "... the top and bottom sections of the left cord do not line up. Doesn't it make sense that when the cord was cut, along with some of the slats there, that the top and bottom might not remain aligned with each other? And what about the rightmost cord? Why would it extend all the way to the bottom of the window, if the leftmost did not?" As to the first part of the question, the answer seems to be yes, that if the cord was cut, then its lower portion might not remain aligned with the upper: since they're presumably no longer held together, there is nothing that keeps them in line. Fair enough. But let's presume for a moment that the "irregular shaped pattern" is not a defect, but an object; for the sake of argument, let's say it's a hand, or a head; an object inside the window and between the window and the blinds. In such a case, the blinds would "bend" out, away from the window, to accomodate the introduction of whatever the object is. The "cord" would curve outward and around the object, and continue down vertically from a point farther from the window than the upper portion, behind the object. In such a case, at an angle, the lower portion of the cord would appear to be (in this case) to the right of the upper portion, the distance appearing greater the more acute an angle the viewer was seeing it from, since they would be able to see the depth of the "curve" more greatly as they moved toward the building, and less of it the more perpendicular they were to the view; at some point, the lower portion might even appear to the left of the upper portion. Such a possibility might be supported by the lower portion of the blinds - if even that is what the lighter portion is in the window, for certain - appear to be darker to the left of what I think is the "left-most cord" that's being referred to, such as might occur if either or both the room behind the blinds was dark, and/or a shadow was being cast downward by whatever might have been attached to the object in the window (e.g., a body attached to a head or hand), or other possibilities that don't come right to mind. All of this, of course, is null and void if I'm not even talking about the same things y'all are. So what's the likelihood of getting a high-res blow-up of just that area in a size that doesn't pixelate when you try to look more closely at it? If upload space is an issue, email the image to me: I've got lots of room, more than three times what I've already uploaded in five years!

Pardon my jumping in here, but everything else said here aside, can you truly say that the "ONLY possible explanation" is the one you've apparently decided that IS the explanation, that absolutely nothing else can possibly explain it? Without commenting on the veracity of the claim of a broken window, I'm curious what other explanations have been considered and rejected, and why. Not knowing that, I have deep reservations about any claim of anything being the "ONLY possible explanation" (even without the all-caps!). Such an all-encompassing claim tends to weaken an argument rather than strengthen it. What happens when even one other explanation is possible?!?

Coming from one as typically verbose as I am, I'll take that as a compliment. You're hardly the master of the concise discourse; don't fool yourself. I found long ago that reading people's minds causes me headaches, so I stopped. It also gives other people headaches, so maybe you should too. (A little less "me" and a little more "us" would also go a long way in your diatribes, too, even if you don't really mean it. It's not about you and your work.) You think I'm "strangely silent" about people's motivations and their effects, and I think they're merely a distraction. Worrying or being concerned about or distraught over them does nothing toward solving the puzzle of a murder, especially since we know that nobody we know did the actual shooting and they're not trying to hide anything. What the typically uninformed general public thinks has no more effect on the solution to the case than whether they think global warming is fact or fantasy. If you think that "propaganda pieces" that "confuse and blind the public" have had an effect on whether people think there was a conspiracy in the murder or not, they've been woefully inadequate: at least according to the polls, most people believe there was one, although I don't think very many people have an informed view of what it might have been. Hell, I don't even think that people who are "informed" know or agree on what it was! I don't know or care what Gary or Dave's - or McAdams or von Pein's or anyone else's - beliefs or politics or agendas are, but only if their data's any good. I'll form my own opinions about the data, just as you apparently have about Mack and Perry and even me, whether they're correct or not. You clearly think that what you believe is correct, and that's all that matters to you, and you can neither conceive or believe that you might be drastically wrong, either about the data or the people. I'm apparently at least a bit more tolerant about others expressing their beliefs that don't agree with mine than you are. I can also argue with people without resorting to calling them names or questioning their motives, even when I know that they're completely and utterly wrong (which most of them are). Truth be told, if you had the same access to mass media as Gary does, wouldn't you be telling your version of the truth - and it is only a "version" after all! - just as loudly as he's (according to you) proclaiming his? C'mon, tell me a lie and say you wouldn't. Otherwise, quit whining and just solve the freakin' case, because, y'know, until somebody does - conclusively - then it is just "[an] inpenetrable muck that no one will ever straighten out." And it's not just the likes of Mack & Perry (so you say) that are keeping it that way: many venerable "critics" are just as "guilty." Take it any way you'd like. You really are hooked on "the motivation thing," including in the above not only Perry's, but the DA who sought - and got - the indictment as well, at (we should note) considerable risk to his own reputation. Presumably because you agree with and perhaps personally like Cyril, you consider the indictment as being "meant to smear a man's good name," but you don't or can't or won't see that the kind of things you're saying and endorsing about Gary Mack and Dave Perry are likewise "smearing a man's good name," presumably because you don't agree with or like them and don't apparently think they could possibly have "good names!" Don't you think there are some folks out there who consider your exchange here nothing less than a "gleeful opportunity to muck up a prominent critic's reputation, a preoccupation" of yours? Or is that okay if you don't consider the mucker-upper (or -ee) to be a "critic?" You have an impossibly small looking glass, Alice. But there I go reading minds again, trying to discern your motivations and acting as if I'm right about them when I could very well be wrong. It would be interesting to see if I'm right thinking that you cannot bring yourself to say the same thing about yourself. You can cut and paste my words if it'll make it any easier.... Carnac out. (What's the word-count?)

I'm sorry you're having trouble keeping up. What is it you don't understand? Your characterizations are off-base, tho' your one-dimensional reaction is quite expected. What I said was that whatever you think the Discovery Channel episodes proved or disproved is unimportant, irrelevent, and meaningless. It's as much a straw man as the original, and as hobbling to "conspiracy theory" as pulling one leg off a centipede. If Oswald didn't shoot JFK and wasn't even on the sixth floor at 12:30 - for which there is NO direct evidence - then it doesn't matter if he maybe could have covered the distance from where he wasn't to where he was in any amount of time. Proving that it's not impossible is a far cry from proving that it happened, which is what the WCR tries to argue. Ditto the Oak Cliff segment: what difference does it make if Oswald could have gotten to 10th & Patton by 1:16 if by that time Tippit had already been dead eight minutes, which is what the preponderance of evidence shows to be the case, no less than four separate and independent data. It's a lead-pipe cinch that nobody (other than a few elite athletes, not including the Discovery Channel fitness guru) can cover 9/10 of a mile in four minutes, so so what if anyone can do it in 12? It's a non-sequitur. None of this changes the fact that the WC and its stand-ins couldn't or in any case either didn't do it or barely did it, but neverthess averred that Oswald "must have." All it proves is that it's not as "impossible" as our age-old mantra intones; none of it proves that it did happen. The exact same things are true of the firing sequence with a Mannlicher-Carcano. One gathers from this that, whenever something you've said, written or posted is shown not to be entirely accurate - such as that it's "impossible" for Oswald to have covered the distances between the various points A and B - you quickly amend them and admit your quite obvious error? I daresay that not "everyone" followed the Wecht debacle as closely as you and others you know - and a lot of people simply didn't care since it was only a sideshow to the topic at hand - which only means that in your zeal to paint with a broad brush, you omitted or ignored the possibility that it was mere ignorance. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the question of "who killed JFK?" and the republishing of the prosecution's indictment is no more or less "scurrilious" than the essay you cite other than by the measure that you disagree with one and endorse the other. Opinion is not fact, and nearly all of us have erroneous ones, you included. It seems as if "all things JFK" (or "all things conspiratorial") are important to you, you follow them, and report (in a completely unbiased manner) on them, and expect everyone to have the same understanding, perception, outlook and opinion of them as you do. After all, you write some pretty convincing prose, and surely it convinces everyone but the most imbecilic and/or undiscerning among us, so how could they not? What is "tiresome" to you must be tiresome to all, and only the most obtuse among us would think any differently. What you say is true, and those you disagree with have, at best, only poorly formed opinions. People aren't interested in objective facts, but only in those that reinforce what they believe, or as John Barlow put it, "you ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know." This, my friend, is exactly what we accuse the WC of, yet we find ourselves doing almost exactly the same: listening and lending credence only to the things we want to hear and trying to discredit the rest (and always succeeding in our own minds). You might consider this apologia, but that's merely your opinion. If it's wrong, I'm sure one of us is quite certain it would be the first time.

From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, October 12, 2010 (click for original): By Melody McDonald - mjmcdonald@star-telegram.com As a longtime Texas undertaker, Paul Joseph Groody certainly handled his share of bodies and burials over the years. But the most infamous visitor to his funeral home -- the one who earned him a place in American history -- was Lee Harvey Oswald, who was shot to death after being arrested in the Nov. 22, 1963, assassination of President John F. Kennedy. "Well, he got the call from the Secret Service," recalled Mr. Groody's wife, Virginia. "They told him they wanted him buried right away because of safety's sake. And he took it from there." In fact, over the next two decades, Mr. Groody would bury Oswald twice: in 1963 and again in 1981when Oswald's body was exhumed after Oswald's widow and conspiracy theorists questioned who was in the grave. Mr. Groody, funeral director at the former Miller Funeral Home in Fort Worth, died Thursday in Austin, where he and his wife had retired. He was 91. Mr. Groody was born Feb. 22, 1919, to a father who was a doctor and a mother who loved music, his wife said. He and his two older brothers, Tom and John, were raised in Manhattan, Kan. Mr. Groody served his country during World War II as an Army medical technician officer, commanding a field medical aid station, and was honored for his bravery with a Bronze Star. Virginia Groody said she met her husband by happenstance while he was stationed at Camp Swift, a combat infantry training camp near the small Central Texas town of Bastrop. She and her family had gone to an open house at the camp when they heard someone playing the organ inside an Army chapel. "He was sitting at the organ playing," she said. "We walked over and introduced ourselves. He was so nice to us. He was nice to everyone. They broke the mold when they made Paul. Of course, I'm prejudiced." Their chance meeting led to 66 years of marriage and two children, Don and Patricia, she said. When Mr. Groody got out of the service, his wife said, he became a mortician and funeral director, a career that took them to San Marcos, Austin and, finally, to Fort Worth. Mr. Groody was the funeral director at Miller Funeral Home when he took a call asking him to hastily and quietly handle Oswald's body and burial. Oswald, 24, had been fatally shot by nightclub owner Jack Ruby at Dallas police headquarters Nov. 24, 1963, two days after the assassination of Kennedy in downtown Dallas. Virginia Groody said her husband was friends with the son of a Secret Service Agent who had been assigned to find someone to handle Oswald's funeral. "He called his son and his son said, 'There is only one man I know that can take care of it,' and it was Paul Groody of Miller Funeral Home," she said. Mr. Groody signed Oswald's death certificate, embalmed his body, placed him in a reinforced steel concrete coffin and made arrangements for him to be buried at Rose Hill Chapel Cemetery in east Fort Worth on Nov. 25, 1963. Kennedy's funeral was held the same day in Washington, D.C., and only a few people showed up at Rose Hill other than police and reporters. Needing to get Oswald's casket from the hearse to the grave, Mr. Groody drafted reporters to serve as pallbearers. The funeral, which cost $710, was paid for by Oswald's brother. That wasn't the end of Mr. Groody's involvement in the case. In 1981, he handled the exhumation of Oswald's body amid growing speculation that a Soviet spy had been buried in Oswald's place. When Mr. Groody re-examined the body, he concluded that it was Oswald's, but it didn't appear to be the head he had embalmed nearly two decades earlier. After that, Mr. Groody was regularly interviewed or asked to give testimony by those investigating conspiracy theories. In the 2002 documentary Infamous Grave Sites, he is quoted as saying, "I don't know any more than you all know; I only buried the man that was supposed to have been the man that killed the president." Melody McDonald, 817-390-7386 NOTE: The Star-Telegram errata notes that the photo accompanying this article misidentifies Groody in the photo of Oswald's casket being carried to the grave.

Aww, Bill, you do me an injustice! Don't you know that some people will take it as absolute gospel truth that I'm being paid to defend Gary simply because I said it? Hell, when Jack White said I was CIA because I moved to Virginia for a while, and Lisa Pease repeated it as far and wide and publicly as she could (much to my embarrassment on a particular evening in DC), it was gospel truth. Now, you're not letting me have my own 15 minutes of infamy? The pain is just about killing me! Please! Remove your post! Don't let people think people think you've been fooled by my cover, and that you think I might not be in the Sixth Floor's diabolical employ! Heck, come to think of it, I recall that Jack said it was me who brought Perry to Texas and got Gary his job before I "went back to Langley." Gimme a little credit, willya?

There is a saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs." The "extraordinary claim" is that the official story is wrong, and to prove it so requires a certain amount of exactitude. I get beat up when I'm wrong, too, and to back up my bullspit when people doubt it. I do; I have no problem asking others to do the same. LNers not only don't make mistakes, they can't. After all, they're just re-telling what's already been told. Nothing ground-breaking or earth-shattering in that, is there? But hey, y'know, they're just people. I don't despise them because their opinions on this topic are different than mine. I guess I'm just more tolerant than other folks. My bad, eh?

Do you mind explaining how? I mean, for instance, who on this site backs the ideas of Files or RIcky White? OTOH, how many people defend the work of Gary Mack (inseparable from his alter ego Dave Perry)? The damage that those two have done through their utterly shameful psych warfare for DIscovery Channel is simply deplorable and despicable. No one can ignore that fact. Gary Mack is making a good living by covering up the true circumstances of President Kennedy's death, and consequently of what happened to America as a result. How is making excuses for that "unifying" to the critical community? Jim DiEugenio: It's fairly clear that many people support only the things they choose to believe, expect everyone to agree, and label those that don't as "plants" who are "against us" (whoever "us" is). To them, whatever contributions people might make are weighed more on who they are as opposed to what the facts are, as if facts very based on personality. Jim DiEugenio, whose articles I happen to read and agree with, only gives valid opinions and professes proven facts; someone else, who I think is a complete jerk and (therefore?) seldom agree with, wouldn't know a fact if it slapped him in the face. For starters, consider this opinion: That Roscoe White was ONI is not an independently verified fact, it is part and parcel of Ricky's story, an acknowledged lie. Were it not for Geneva's photo with Jack Ruby, the Dallas Marine-turned-Dallas cop would be no more "of interest" than any of the other Texans or New Orleanians who might have been on board the same big-ass ship at the same time, whom we don't know or seem to care who they might be or even if there were any. We find the same thing when it comes to people who claim to have witnessed something that seems conspiratorial: those who debunk their stories - especially the longer-standing of them - are derided and their "loyalties" questioned. The stories perpetrated by Ed Hoffman and Richard Randolph Carr are cases in point, and for different reasons they'll be perpetuated because people - including people posting to this thread - choose to believe they're true despite all evidence to the contrary. Let's step away from Files, White and Crenshaw for the time being, shall we, into another "recipe?" Indeed, despite photographic evidence that Carr couldn't see a Rambler on North Houston Street beside the TSBD, some people persist in the view that the FBI "altered" his original statement to them that he couldn't see that area, and that despite the fact that, under oath, he lied about his military record (he was not where he claimed to be, and in fact was court martialed for an extended AWOL at the end of WWII, and imprisoned for three years before being allowed to return to civilian life, facts that he conveniently left out of his testimony), his later story should be believed because, y'know, it was under oath. Oh, and because there was a Rambler on Elm Street, just like Roger Craig said (and which was photographed there), then that "proves" that Carr's lie was "right" after all, and he is thereby exonerated and still "of interest" ... and doubly so because the person who exposed it is a complete jerk, some people don't agree with him, and he wouldn't know a fact if it slapped him in the face. Jimmy Files may not have much currency here, but don't think that Ed Hoffman doesn't. People choose to believe what they will, regardless of the evidence. Now, change channels to the Gary Mack Show, which "is simply deplorable and despicable" because some people choose to believe something other than what Mack and Perry proved to be contrary to the "conventional wisdom," e.g., that it's "impossible" for Oswald to have been able to run to from the sixth to the second floor in time to meet Baker & Truly, and that he also "didn't have time" to get from 1026 North Beckley to 10th & Patton in something like twelve minutes. I too am at odds with the use of a personal fitness trainer (and a world-class marksman) as a stand-in for Lee Oswald, whose physical conditioning - or at least, who stamina - we have no real idea about. You can also gripe about whether the stairwells were of the same exact characteristics of that at the TSBD, but the fact remains that nobody (so far) has found some place that is exactly the same as the TSBD, attempted to make the trip in the requisite time, and found it impossible to do. (Ditto the walk/run/job/fly to 10th & Patton, something that Jack White and I were going to try at one point, with me - after quadruple bypass surgery - as Oswald, but didn't come to pass. Google Maps, at least, suggests that it's possible.) Now, it's a fair question whether, if it had been found to have been impossible, THC or anyone else would have aired it or walked away as if the experiment had never taken place, but the fact remains that it is at least as theoretically possible that someone could have done it, as it is theoretically possible that Oswald "couldn't" do it. Actually, the first is a fact, the second is merely an unproven hypothesis, but let's cling to our beliefs where we can by denouncing the messenger(s) rather than the facts. Ultimately, neither of those particular issues makes one iota of difference simply Oswald wasn't on the sixth floor at 12:30, and so the amount of time it took him to get from wherever he was to the lunch room is utterly meaningless. And the preponderance of evidence - established fact - is that Tippit was dead eight minutes before Oswald maybe could've gotten to 10th & Patton. Those facts set any consideration about either of those timings aside as useless speculation that has no bearing on either murder. So what difference does it make whether or not THC "proved" Oswald could've done either or not? (Don't you think it's ridiculous that people will argue that Oswald "couldn't have" gotten to 10th & Patton by 1:16, and then continue their argument about the events after the shooting as if he left there after not being able to get there? It's amazing how many people can't or won't grasp the contradiction.) It's "utterly shameful psych warfare ... [that] is simply deplorable and despicable ... utterly atrocious" because you choose to think it's important, and that the continued belief in the "impossibility" of those actions is somehow central to the proof that someone other than Oswald did the shooting, when in fact it's neither: it's nothing. But please: use like facts against those you seek to undermine. Any shortcomings in the tests done by/for THC do not prove the "impossibility" of anything. We only think it's impossible, and only because we've been told it's impossible, but not because a one of us have tried it and can prove it's impossible. And it doesn't matter one way or the other anyway. It's time to stop riding that horse, and set ideology aside. As to: Please do try to stop confusing your opinion with "fact." You may be good at what you do, but you're not that good ... which is a fact, even if I'm a a complete jerk who wouldn't know one if it slapped me in the face. (PS - Gary, did you get my voucher? John McAdams tells me it's payable from Dave's "company" slush fund.)

(continued from above) More women than just Geneva White whose husbands - or future husbands - were cops worked for Jack Ruby. More people from the Dallas area were possibly shipside at the same time. The debunkers have never denied their being on the same ship, tho' it may not be all that significant; they've only debunked Ricky's story. That you are derisive toward those who debunk anything (as if the whole story must remain intact) is where I get the idea of where you get pissed off at them. Yes, but nothing to do with JFK. That he's in jail for something by no means suggests he's in jail for his supposed role in the assassination, or lends any credence whatsoever to that claim. CSI, remember? Perchance. Just that he didn't do what Crenshaw claimed, it seems, and Crenshaw's concoction has no bearing whatsoever upon LBJ's complicity. So why is it a big deal when someone derides Crenshaw's account? I think it's very plainly clear. Like "CSI evidence," I'm not "sympathetic" toward anyone or anything except facts. Some people, in my opinion, do a better job of synthesis with them than others, and to that extent perhaps I do sympathize. Again, mea culpa. This observation is only based upon things you've said in the past to me and about my opinions about people whose stories don't stand up against facts and other observations: you've said that they should be considered by a GJ, and that nobody should distill out the obviously wrong. Full circle: he provides more help - corrections and criticisms included - to CTers than to LNers, ergo his sympathy "must" lie with LNers. He helps CTers make more correct or cohesive arguments, thus pushing the LNer agenda. Presuming that you're correct that he doesn't email/PM LNers even when they're blatantly wrong, doesn't it seem like he's letting them make mistakes without correcting them? How does that make him supporting the LN agenda? I just don't follow the logic. Ah, well: I haven't gotten a check from Gary or Perry in quite a while for defending them (what's up with that, guys?!?), so I'll quit now and maybe be back on payday. (Oops: now I'm exposed! Everyone will know what I am!)

Bill, I replied to you (or your message), didn't I? Henceforth, so there's no confusion, I'll put "Bill," at the top so you'll know I'm writing to you and not about you. It's pretty simple. OK, so maybe it wasn't you who'd suggested "monitoring" McAdams' and Rahm's classes, which led to the geography thing. I'm still uncertain how you know what Gary - or anybody - doesn't do in the emails that he doesn't send (at least according to your theory). I can't find either "extansional" or "absurdy" in the dictionary. Please explain. ... And, of course, they do lack motivation on that. I beg to differ. If those entities aren't doing it, it is their detractors' right and responsibility to bring the things that might well get them to act to the fore. It is also their right and responsibility to ensure that what they do bring to the fore is comprehensible and comprehensive enough to sink their teeth into and move forward with. Mea culpa. I was, in fact, confused about why you had such a problem with my elimination of Richard Randolph Carr, among others, as anyone with something worthwhile and viable to add to the "CSI evidence" that you so value. (continued)

I prefer to think of it as "prolific," and if you read any of my other 1000-plus posts here, you'd know the answer to what "side" I'm on. I just don't nod and acquiesce to everything I hear, and pick it all apart equally. I subscribe to the wheat and discard the chaff. Pretty simple stuff. Pity there's so much chaff. "Most" is simply not true, and if it is, it is, at best, difficult to prove and, at worst, impossible. You simply work with what you've got, of which there is quite enough. That is a cop out , and you are against us. Oh, and you think that "how in the hell can we agree in a situation where most of the evidence has been tampered with or lost outright" isn't? Why bother arguing if nobody will ever figure it out?!? Just to see who writes their name in the snow the best? QED.

Hmmm. Let's see. Do you, who advocates the convening of a grand jury of some sort to pursue the real perps of the the Kennedy killing, consider this all some sort of game where "referees" zing the "losers" via PM and email (which you seem to suggest you're inordinately privy to, knowing who doesn't get them as well as who does) but leave those they "side with" unscathed, and thus the determination of who is "right" and who is "wrong" is made? Consider that LNers are the "default winners" already because their version is the officially-endorsed if not most widely accepted version. It is an extremely simple - and simplistic - viewpoint that is easy to understand, involves only one misguided person, requires no motive(s), and both defies and requires no explanation beyond the ipso facto? LNers don't have to "sell" their version to the government, the courts, the public at-large, or the media (who do a pretty effective job of "selling" it for the LNers, even without Gary's help). (You'd probably be twice as pissed off if you found that, instead, he was correcting McAdams and Rahn and company, and that they had better arguments because of it. You'd bitch that he was "helping" them and "not" the CTers. But all that really matters is that you can be pissed off, isn't it?) As with any product, it doesn't matter how good it is, whether it's better or worse than another: it simply "sells" better because it's better "advertised." dBase was a piece of junk by most later standards, yet it was the best-selling database management system of its time, a de facto standard, one which nobody had to apologize for using it, or explain (or debate) why they bought it. It really didn't matter if something else could do the job better, faster and easier: if it wasn't dBase, it wasn't a "real" database. CTers' problem is that they don't offer a single, cohesive, intelligible (not to say "intelligent") and comprehensive solution, but rather a disorganized olio of theories that, for good or ill, if any of them are actually going to compete with the "industry standard," then it's going to have to prove itself, stand up and show what it can do, and work exactly as or better than advertised. But lo, we find the "better products" fighting amongst themselves, pointing fingers where possible, calling each other names when not, and touting their versions of history as being the "definitively best" challenger to the standard to the exclusion of all others, even though it be woefully incomplete, incomprehensible, inadequate and inane. So those who've developed the "new best product" are asked to prove that it works, and those who demand proof before "buying" it are called "disruptive." When they point out a "bug" in the "software," rather than the promoter fixing it (or - whoa! - admitting it's a bug and doesn't work!), they vilify anyone who doesn't agree that they've got the "best product" out there. When someone points out an error in their "code," rather than fix it or admit it doesn't work, again we get the hue and the cry. So "dBase" - the lone gunman theory (for that's all it is: a theory) - sits atop its hill and watches the attacking armies (for there is not just one, there are many) first fight it out amongst themselves before they ever stand a chance of gaining the hill and competing with the "king" one-on-one. Anyone who makes a suggestion on how to improve one "army's" argument is a jerk. Someone who points out that the bowmen have no arrows is an a-whole. Anyone who thinks to tell them that the objective is behind them - that they're looking in the wrong direction - is a "subversive." For someone who offers "training" to the knights errant, points out where they're wrong or where they can do better, there are no polite words to describe them since they, after all, haven't defeated the king either. Clearly, if you're not "for" at least one of the alternative theories, you "must" be "against" them all and be "for" the official one. Some consider it best to be "for" not one, but all of them, as if the more things you believe, no matter how disparate, the greater the likelihood that you're "right." It makes you "one of us" as long as you don't challenge any of "our" ideas and accept everything "we" say at face value as God's Truth (or at least most of it). All theories are acceptable, probable, and endorsed, as long as they differ from the official theory; one is as true as the next, and immune from attack, and woe unto any who try to attack any of them. It's perfectly okay to look out over all 360 degrees to find the first, second or even tenth shot, and perfectly acceptable - even expected - that we should go on wild goose chases to track down imaginary people and events told by liars, because somewhere out there lies the truth. The more spaghetti we throw against the wall, the more likely at least one strand is going to stick. Meanwhile, let's not worry about finding sticky spaghetti, or eliminating spaghetti that won't. Just don't anybody be the one who tells me that my spaghetti's slimy, or try to show me how to cook better pasta, or point out that I didn't use boiling water when I made it. If you do, you are a jerk and obviously quite wrong because y'know what? There are people out there eating it raw and not complaining. Who the hell is anyone else to tell them that there's a better way? Or that there's something wrong with the way they're doing things? Sure: believe Ricky White that his dad did it. And Jimmy Files that he did it. And Crenshaw that LBJ clearly had a hand in it. And Hoffman that a guy in a suit did it. And anyone who dares to challenge any of their stories is clearly "against us" because they're certainly not "with us" if they don't believe everything we say. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? As one who is "collecting theories" to throw at a grand jury to sort out - the more the merrier ... and probably because we can't sort them out among ourselves - it's not surprising that you don't like someone who either detracts from or tries to correct something that might have a modicum of validity to it, or that, with modification, might even be viable (but not in its present form). Or who points out why a particular theory just plain old won't work, gosh darn it. It amazes me in part that nobody seems to consider what the Sixth Floor Museum might be like if it weren't for its curator, or whether materials that it has would remain buried and inaccessible, even unacknowledged, if there wasn't some "balance" in its perspective. Instead, people would like to think that, as resident assassination expert, Gary Mack is and should be running the place and telling the people who fund it - and find the funding for it (oh, and pay his salary, the ultimate sin: shouldn't he be working for free like the rest of us? - where to put their silly ideas about what Dallas County would like to see. Don't they know it would be more profitable if they had 99 versions of the assassination they could hawk instead of just one? It's this sort of stupidity that keeps the "CT armies" from ever conquering the "LN hill." Until that changes, nothing else ever will.

You're clearly right: there couldn't possibly be any other reason on Earth. "Why else," indeed. Jim - or anybody else you respect - would never say anything that wasn't completely true or self-serving. His was the most popular course on campus, standing room only for well over a dozen attendees, a loss of untold magnitude. You're clearly right again: none of those professions of respect that you've read here could possibly be true, or not misguided. I see no reason to explore the facts beyond your myopia, and see no sense in trying to make sense of something you wouldn't understand or accept. You may now thump your chest and declare yourself a true and undeterred winner, champion of everyone's thoughts.

Valid questions, though you forgot to add "gas money." A valid response might be one of these two: 1) Why don't McAdams and Rahn teach classes closer to Mack and Perry so it would be equally convenient to "monitor" them as Arlington is/was? 2) Why don't other CTers "monitor" McAdams and Rahn's classes? I clearly don't know why someone who lives in Wisconsin or Rhode Island (or anywhere in New England, for that matter: it's a pretty small place) doesn't do that. Maybe nobody there believes there was a conspiracy? I don't think that's the case at all. Maybe none of them are very knowledgeable, or at least not enough that they feel they can argue against the two of them? I can't imagine that to be true either. So why bemoan this terrible lack of vigilance when it comes to LNer teachings? Are you suggesting paying plane fare so they can carry their supposed "Truth Crusade" to all corners of the earth? I don't get it otherwise. Of course, there's another possibility: McAdams and Rahn have campus security remove hecklers from their classrooms if they are "disruptive" and "rude." Umm, you're not suggesting that the University of Texas at Arlington doesn't have a similar policy, or won't back up their faculty in such cases? Maybe it checks out its instructors' politics before making such committments? Or simply doesn't like respected local journalists? Maybe there's not the great respect we've all been led to believe, and he's secretly detested by the mainstream intelligensia (masquerading as UT administrators)? - - - - But none of that was my point. My point was that Morrow has no knowledge of any of what he charged. Even assuming that UTA doesn't have a policy to remove or allow removal of disruptive students (or "students") from a classroom, even a non-credit course - a suggestion I consider extremely ludicrous - the general fact remains that when things get controversial, more - not less - people tend to be attracted to them, just like they are to a fight in the school yard. A "popular" class is not likely to be "forced" to be discontinued, and I'm certain that nobody is charging that the "disruption" and "rudeness" got so out of hand that fights spilled into the UTA hallways, thus forcing UTA to take action. What happens within the classroom - that remains civilized, anyway - is most likely to stay within the classroom. My bet - I have no direct knowledge at this point - is that Marrs decided to cancel the course on his own, for his own reasons (maybe conflicts with UFO conferences?), and if UTA initiated it, it was due to lack of enrollment. I'm also willing to bet - again without direct knowledge - that it wasn't cancelled because of Marrs' complaints about Perry and Mack, or UTA's ambivalence or antipathy toward his complaints. If Jim wants to make such allegations publicly and in writing, I'd be happy to check it out (but am not about to bother otherwise). - - - - Finally, why would they need to "go after" LNers? Are you suggesting that none of us are doing an effective job? Or that nobody needs to be - or even should be - watching the watchers?

"Gary Mack is ALSO the guy who calls the Dallas police in attempts to have American patriot and truth teller Robert Groden arrested on the Grassy Knoll?" What is your proof of this outside of suspicion? You have heard taped calls, perhaps, or read a signed complaint? Maybe been there when he made the calls? "Dave Perry and Gary Mack used to attend that thing, and they were so disruptive and so rude, that Jim Marrs was forced to CANCEL that class. Just ask Jim Marrs about that sad experience. Perry and Mack were there to disrupt and destroy learning and the search for the truth." Again, proofs? I used to attend those non-credit classes and was there when both Mack and Perry were there, as was Jack White. While I will certainly acknowledge that they - and others - did not always agree with what Marrs proposed (or taught, if you prefer the term, or professed as fact) and did not hesitate to raise questions or point out errors, I would hardly consider their participation "disruptive" and "rude," and do not for a second believe that Marrs was "forced" to cancel the class by anything other than lack of attendance. The "search for truth" is not in any way advanced by promoting conspiratorial - or non-conspiratorial - perspectives to a class of youngsters who accept the teacher's outline as authority. I wonder if Gerald Posner were to teach a class supporting the LHO-as-lone-nut scenario, would you find it as disturbing that Jim DiEugenio (for example) was there to heckle him as you appear to be that anyone would call someone who thinks that "any conspiracy theory will do" onto the carpet from time to time, or didn't endorse his every word? We also make fools of ourselves by uncritically accepting whatever the "gurus" of assassination mythology have to say, be it one "side" or the other. If anyone believes that Jim Marrs only promotes "the truth," they haven't seen him at a UFO conference.

Whew!I've got to say that Thomas does a damned good job with the "hard" evidence - forensics and procedure - and has probably written one of the most comprehensive and comprehensible analyses I've ever read on this aspect of the Tippit murder. My hat's off to him for that! Unfortunately, he doesn't do so well with the "soft" evidence - that which requires interpretation and extrapolation - and ignores a lot of it while being just plain ignorant of even more of it. He has an apparent agenda - linking Tippit, in effect, to his own murder - and is hell-bent on alluding to it while never proving it. And he actually contradicts himself in the short span of this chapter, which is scary. In the last case, on page 509, he notes that Sergeant Gerald Hill had reported later on the night of November 22 that Oswald's pistol had been "fired twice." He asks "on what possible basis did Sergeant Hill determine that the gun had been fired twice? It is difficult to conceive of any scenario other than his having found two discharged cartridges in the pistol!" (exclamation in the original). What he overlooks is that he provided one such possible scenario so "difficult to conceive of" himself just 11 pages earlier. There, he provides a perfectly plausible but seldom acknowledged explanation of why the self-same Hill had concluded and broadcast that "the shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .30 rather than a pistol," that being that "it is at least as likely" that Hill had reached that conclusion based upon the shells apparently having been ejected from an automatic weapon rather than the much less likely possibility that the perp had manually removed them from a revolver and left them at the scene (although, he says, "not all murderers are criminal geniuses"). The lead-in to this wild-eyed speculation about Hill having "found two discharged cartridges in the pistol!" is the fact that Poe had shown him a cigarette package (the cellophane, actually) he'd gotten from Donnie Benavides containing - get this - two expended cartridge casings! Is Hill's having been shown two spent cartridges in a cigarette pack a reasonable scenario to explain how he'd concluded that the pistol had been fired twice? Why is it more "difficult to conceive of" than the explanation of the "automatic .38 rather than a pistol" scenario? Having missed this obvious possibility, he continues to build upon that imaginary scenario by suggesting that the "click" of the hammer might have been the result of the hammer landing on a spent .38 Special shell that had "expanded" in the larger .38 chamber and might have been "left there" by Oswald "simply because he couldn't pry them out" when he emptied the gun at the crime scene. This seems to ignore the fact of a total of five shells having been found at the crime scene, but in reality he handles that by suggesting that they might be "false, planted evidence" put there by cops after the fact to explain away something that most if not all of them couldn't have been aware of at the time, i.e., the disparity of shells & slugs' manufacture. It also ignores the lack of testimony by any of the officers who "identified" the weapon in the Personnel office at DPD HQ later on - Hill, Carroll, McDonald and, I think, someone else whose name I can't recall - that any of the bullets then removed from the weapon in their possession had already been fired. It is also ignorant of the testimony - I recall it being Bob Carroll's - that Hill had emptied the live cartridges from the pistol in the police car after leaving the Texas Theater, as well as there being not one but two pistols "in evidence" at HQ, only one of which Hill continued to possess. He never discusses the fact that neither McDonald or Carroll could positively identify the weapon as being the one in the theater because McDonald never saw it at all there, and Carroll only saw it while or after handing it to Hill in the squad car, which Hill subsequently put in his jacket pocket after playing with the cartridges and the pistol in plain sight. (Can we say "smudged fingerprints" in unison now?) There are too many other such leaps to conclusions that he's made without fully examining the circumstances than I've got time to explore. Recapped, they include: Ignorance of #87 Ron Nelson's broadcast of his movement into and subsequent arrival downtown ("down here" in his parlance) even while he was supposed to have been en route to central Oak Cliff; Denial of the documented and documentable fact that Oak Cliff was, in fact, being "drained of police resources" prior to Tippit's murder, and continued to be even as soon as the next reassignment order following Tippit's (i.e., Anglin's order to go downtown from - ta-da! - Oak Cliff, which was so "in need of resources") No examination of or investigation into #91 Bill Mentzel's actions and activities while at lunch (not even his exact whereabouts!), and apparent ignorance of his being assigned to investigate an accident - which he obediently did for the next 20 minutes - even after being informed of the "signal 19 [shooting] involving a police officer" in his own district No acknowledgement, much less examination or refutation of the Top Ten and Gloco stories A very limited knowledge of Harry Olsen; Bad geography (e.g., suggesting that Harlandale was within blocks when it was more than a mile - see photo below, btw) Despite Thomas' having explored the circumstances and timings of Nelson's "investigation" of the gas-station rifle incident west of downtown, a failure to examine the movements and timings of Tippit's trip into Oak Cliff from Kiest and Bonnie View; and Complete ignorance of two other officers in Oak Cliff along Tippit's presumed and most direct route to 8th & Lancaster who should've been and who reported to have been more than 10 miles away in different directions themselves. I realize that a 30-something-page Chapter Fourteen on "The Tippit Case" is but a small portion of a 700-plus page tome, but to my mind at least, the large amount of oversight and ignorance leads me to wonder at the other possible conclusions he's reached in the rest of the book. If Chapter 14 is indicative, it is - to borrow from the author himself - "difficult to conceive of any scenario other than" his having reached and made some valid conclusions and points, finding that he had "too small" of a book, and filling it in as best as he could under deadline later on with extraneous half-facts and speculation, which detracts from an otherwise potentially excellent work. Maybe it will redeem itself upon reading of the full text, which is on order. Harlandale today, btw:

Correct Bledsoe document: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1140&relPageId=34

If that's the case, Duke, then the b*stard lied through his teeth to the WC.Also... Nichols was not a criminal lawyer. There was a separate Criminal Bar Association - yet all those concerned lawyers and professors allegedly phoned the NON criminal Dallas Bar Association - which just happened to have as members several lawyers who represented Dallas Oil and other Big Business. Apparently the Criminal Bar Association didn't give a toss about Oswald but good ol' H Lewis did? Yeah, right. Mea culpa: I haven't memorized all 15 volumes of testimony yet, nor even the gist of all the witnesses. I stand corrected on these for shooting from the hip.Note, however, that the Criminal Bar Association is not separate from the Bar Association, but is effectively an independent committee of it, similar to the Womens Council of Realtors, all of whose members are members of the "regular" board of realtors and realtor associations. The Bar Association has criminal defense attorneys on it as well as commercial and other specialists, while it's unlikely that any non-criminal defense attorney pays dues to a specialist subcommittee when he'll get no benefit from it. You obviously tossed him some soft balls. After joining a previous incarnation of my website and promising to answer any questions, he quickly disappeared when I asked about the Raggios and one or two other things. Well, it's certain that I didn't get in his face about anything; whether he thought you did is well beyond my ken. I had called him only about Oswald's attendance(s) at local ACLU meeting(s), and sort of digressed from there. This came up in passing, with no prep and no recriminations. On the other hand, he invited me to email him with any other questions I came up with, which I did (all softball, if I remember correctly) but he never responded. Oh well. The ACLU does not do criminal matters. Nor did Abt (though Abt did later represent Black Panther, Angela Davis, on kidnap and murder charges, clearly those matters were subsidiary to the politics of the case). Whether you believe he did ask for the ACLU and Abt, or believe, as I do, that those words were put in his mouth, the ramifications of asking for both or either, have to be considered. No argument. We seem to be saying the same thing in different ways. As far as I know, it's still true that there phone numbers that are "unlisted" - that is, unavailable - and those that are "unpublished" - available, but not through printed telephone books; directory assistance would have it. Often, people would say "unlisted" when they really meant "unpublished," making the two colloquially - but not technically - equivalent.While it's quite possible or even probable that an attorney's home phone is unlisted, it seems unlikely that his office number would be either. I agree - but wasn't the call well outside office hours? Hence, perhaps, the request to Ruth Paine? It appears conceivable that after Lewis' visit, and his effective "offer" to assist (which Oswald decline for the moment, but suggesting that Lewis could "come back next week") in getting counsel, he may have thought either or both that the Bar would help contact Abt, or that his answering service - presuming they had them at the time (sorry, not quite old enough to know!) - would have a way to reach him in an emergency, just like doctors presumably did, it seems a reasonable effort even if ultimately futile.

Bravo! ... Although I still think it's a cinch that there will be no grand jury until and unless someone is capable of presenting some sort of cohesive case to follow instead of spaghetti on the wall. The outcome of the current elections underway may be just the ticket. Maybe.

Lee, I don't know about any consenus. This is another of those issues where I may as well have beat my head against a brick wall instead of putting forward the argument that Oswald never asked for the ACLU OR Abt. Less painful. Most don't doubt he did in part because H Lewis Nichols said he did. After all, this guy was head of the Dallas Bar Association. ... I don't doubt that the request was made, in part for the same reason you cite. It is, nevertheless, hearsay inasmuch as Lewis himself did not talk with Oswald directly, but allowed the police to act as go-between, certainly a venal if not mortal sin for any sort of "defense" attorney, eh? I'm actually quite surprised that any criminal attorney would not insist upon hearing that from the accused, especially when they are not necessarily soliciting their own services to him, but coming to him as a "disinterested party" assuring that his rights were being considered. I spoke with Greg Olds, then-president of the Dallas ACLU who did likewise, about this a few years ago, and he said that he "regrets" not having pursued the question more diligently, especially in light of subsequent events. But to play Devil's advocate here for a moment, it does appear that Abt was fairly well known at the time as a "Communist lawyer," or "lawyer to Communists." Even if Oswald had not requested his counsel, it would not be inconceivable that anyone wishing to portray Oswald as a Communist might well manufacture that bit of data to "prove" his leanings. Wasn't Ruth Paine also part of this scenario, where he'd asked her to contact Abt for him (and maybe she decided otherwise)? As far as I know, it's still true that there phone numbers that are "unlisted" - that is, unavailable - and those that are "unpublished" - available, but not through printed telephone books; directory assistance would have it. Often, people would say "unlisted" when they really meant "unpublished," making the two colloquially - but not technically - equivalent. While it's quite possible or even probable that an attorney's home phone is unlisted, it seems unlikely that his office number would be either.