The South Knoll gets into the controversies of the hole in the windshield, the throat wound, and Tosh Plumlee's story.  It also implies that the Zapruder filming is somehow a staged part of the entire scenario. A South Knoll shooter also explains how they avoid collateral damage with Nellie and Jackie (all part of the plan).  Of course, if they wanted to hit Connally, they could easily have done so.  Distraction and misdirection (the hand of the magician).  You'd think that an individual in the Terminal Annex parking lot (a perfect location) would have been seen, but he must have had the benefit of spotters and break-down support ... maybe that stalled truck seen in the Cancellare photo.  The other sniper consideration pointed out (as far as that shooting vantage) is that the shooter didn't have to re-aim.  He can fire off several shots.  Perhaps it was a silenced weapon ... but its only about 60 yards away, which is a sure shot for an experienced marksman.  Harry Holmes has his office in the Annex Building.  Then there's O'Hare and Robertson strolling across the lawn shortly thereafter (the "sweepers").  Richard Trask (citing Edgar F. Tatro, "Who's Afraid of the Grassy Knoll South?"), wrote:

"At least one assassination buff believes to have located just to the right of a tree near the (south knoll) parking lot what he sees and identifies as '. . . a distinct figure clearly resembling a man holding a rifle-like object.'"

The Army Infantry hand signals (used in combat situations) are a good hint as to what might have been transpiring.  My guess - based on an assumption that there are multiple shooting teams, and simultaneity is part of the plan - is a timing technique.   How else does one explain two conspicuous individuals prominently located at the precise location/moment of impact?   How else would you accomplish  fatal head shots at the exact same time? 

Some believe that the fatal head shot originated from south of the Triple Underpass, most likely somewhere within the confines of the Terminal Annex building's parking lot (an excellent sniper location with favorable ingress/egress).  The DCM or signal man is facing towards those locations. An even more ideal sniper location would be the south end atop the overpass, which affords the best pan angle on the limousine as it proceeded down Elm, with the greatest elevation over the limo's obstructions. The brightness of the noonday sun above the South Knoll renders anyone looking in that direction (from the street or limousine) essentially blind to the whole area ... a classic sniper tactic (see Anthony DeFiore's extensive 308-page analysis establishing the throat shot from the South Knoll).  Bloodstain pattern analysis expert Sherry Gutierrez also focused on this shot origin.  Other good references include Millicent Cranor's April 2018 article in Kennedys and King; also, the EF thread started by Al Carrier in November 2004 entitled "South Knoll; Ballistics, Shot Trajectories".  Repeating what Carrier put forward:

Often, the most ideal location for shot origin, especially on a moving target, is a location that exposes the shooter the greatest.  Making the shot is only half the objective, the other is escaping either undetected or without being molested. The military found a practice to overcome this obstacle and it has been termed “Canyon Shoot”. This practice utilizes multiple snipers from locations suited to draw attention to those origins where they cannot be accessed, or by allowing the terrain to confuse the shot origin to the enemy present. In the case of Dealey Plaza, a shooter firing from the Texas School Book Depository would initially fire and the other shooters in the plaza would cue off the Depository shooter by startle reaction and fire a round immediately on top of the shot fired by the Depository shooter. Witnesses would detect the first sound and roughly identify a shot origin and this would cover the fire of the others shooters, deeper in the plaza. The echo effect of the Plaza would also aid in making the witnesses believe that it was shot reverberation that they were hearing deeper in the plaza. With another shooter firing from the North Knoll, this would direct witnesses along Elm and at the intersection of Elm and Houston to focus their attention on the area between the Depository and the Knoll. By utilizing startle reaction to cue simultaneous fire from three locations, three shots could easily sound like one.

A TSBD shooter would have initially been facing the President from the sixth floor when the presidential limousine rounded the corner ... yet he allegedly waited, and took the more difficult shot from behind (which on face makes no sense). That delay and longer shot range from the rear was obviously part of a triangulated ambush, with shooters on the Knolls (North and South) able to use the overpass railroad tracks for escape routes.  Such a positioning of the President's limousine for the kill shot would appear to be associated with Abraham Zapruder's camera POV, as well the expected echo distortion.  As Carrier points out, the reverberation amongst the three buildings at the intersection of Elm and Houston would have created greater confusion.  In summary, the triangulated and simultaneous military-style ambush seems to be somehow coordinated by these two suspicious individuals.

Tom

I'm old school, and still retain/purchase print versions of JFK books that I value. They fill up my bookshelves, and I lend them out to folks who are interested in diving into the JFK story and learning about the assassination.  I am frequently asked (as the infamous person in the family "into the JFK thing") what are the best books to read.  Joe McBride's book is on my short list, and I share it with those who want a balanced and insightful view of the mysteries surrounding John Kennedy's murder.  What impresses me about McBride's work is (a) he is a journalist, experienced writer and academic, (b) he spent many years assembling facts and creating the book, and (c) he offers an honest and unbiased approach.  His work on the Tippit story is unique and revealing, and it puts the Dale Meyers "mythology" into proper perspective. McBride interviewed or investigated individuals never much explored before (e.g. Marie Tippit, Tippit's father, fellow policemen) and he raises some interesting questions . The book is fairly long (over 600 pages) and well-sourced ... reading it was more of a marathon than a sprint. The pictures (only a few pages worth) include personal campaign photographs from Milwaukee circa 1960 of JFK.  Its clear that Joe admired JFK as a leader, as many young people of our era did.  The pictures are not what draws me to the book; its his fresh look at some old facts, in a different light.  It paints a portrait of the DPD at the time, and the law enforcement community in Dallas in the 1960's ... the "climate" surrounding the events that unfolded.    

Gene

The Witt story doesn't pass the "Bozo test".  He is not interviewed, nor does he come forward for many years, until HSCA ... but he is the closest human witness to the most controversial event of the century?  It simply feels wrong and is not credible.  The symbolic nature of Appeasement is a rationalization ... nice try, but its isolated and odd.  Where are other similar protesters?   Where are all of the other umbrellas? 

For the record, type casting people as liberal or conservative, conspiracist or lone-nut, pro-choice or right to life -- even Democrat or Republican -- is a old school.   Its not a simple question of one or the other anymore.  Free thinking adults are more sophisticated and complex than that.  Its insulting, childish name-calling, and a provocation tactic. 

Tom

Joseph McBride's book is certainly worth reading ... a bit long and quite detailed.   But thought provoking.

Gene

We should all fold up tent and go home, right?  Its all about conspiracy theorists, and their flawed logic.  And obviously, you are an expert in quantum mechanics. The guy with the umbrella was Witt, he had a simple reason for what he did, and we should all get over it ...  nothing suspicious.  I know I'll regret pushing back and stating this, but you protest way too much:  

Conspiracy theorists have essentially formalized the tendency to assume agency, deliberateness, and sinister motivations in the quirky details of events. Conspiracy theories are often an exercise in anomaly hunting. When anomalies, like the Umbrella Man, are inevitably found it is assumed that they are evidence for a conspiracy. This is, of course, precisely where Conspiracy Land begins.  Better to just engage in dark speculation about who this seemingly ordinary cluck might have been.  BTW, do conspiracy participants typically sit back down on the grass and then wander over toward the TSBD, as Witt did?  The fallacy is in confusing a priori probability with posterior probability ...

Your diatribe convinces me there's more to this than meets the eye ... God (and you) only knows what it was.

Tom

Nice to see you back.   Id only be speculating if I said that Westbrook had personal reasons for using Tippit.  My logic would be that Westbrook had access to all personnel files, so he knew who could be manipulated or used, and what personal details could be exploited.   It seems that "they" (Westbrook and above) used Tippit.  I have always been drawn to the Tippit story, and especially Captain Westbrook.  We just known precious little about with of them.  Given Joseph McBride's excellent work pursuing this story (for many years), and digging deep, Id think he would have the best sense and intuition for Tippit of all.  Sylvia Meagher described Tippit as "unknown and unknowable".   It seems that Westbrook has a similar barrier constructed around his Character and background. Joseph McBride suggested that Tippit could have been a shooter, and that his father described him as a skilled marksman.  When McBride looked at Tippit's DPD files, the further  he perused Tippit’s personnel file, the more sparse the material became – the opposite of what you would expect - suggesting that it was sanitized.  A policeman who served for 11 years should have more than one firing skill evaluation yet, after about 1956, his file became thinner and thinner.  Guess who controlled the personnel files at DPD?

One thing is for sure, which has always struck me as a master stroke of the plot ... Tippit’s shooting served as a pretext for a large influx policemen and other law enforcement officials into the Oak Cliff location and to the Texas Theater.  Given the characterization of the DPD in the 1960's (i.e. The Thin Blue Line and Henry Wade's lawless reputation),  it wouldn't take much convincing to convict and execute Tippit's killer ... and tying Oswald to the scene almost guaranteed his subsequent (and immediate) death.  The only question is whether that death was supposed to happen in the theater (by the police), some other location (e.g. on the way to Cuba) or in police custody at the Police and Courts Building, the gray stone structure in downtown Dallas that housed the headquarters of the Dallas Police Department and the city jail.  But the one thing in common is ... facilitated by the police.

Larry Ray Harris did a lot of early work on the Tippit case, and called it “The Other Murder".  McBride points out that the convenient cover stories about a single “lone nut” responsible for killing both men (JFK and Tippit) were powerful psychological and public-relations maneuvers ... allowing many to believe a false story, and accept a reality that otherwise would seem truly intolerable.  Tippit researcher Greg Lowrey commented on the frustration of studying the assassination and the Tippit killing:

" ... some of the story remains tantalizingly unknown or unknowable, that we lack some of the necessary information to draw connections that may be crucial between these people and the milieu we know they inhabited. Lowrey said of Tippit, “I think he got himself involved with some real dangerous people in circumstances I don’t understand. I can’t even explain it. He might have had some dangerous knowledge.” Lowrey also speculated that Tippit may have “blundered” into that knowledge."

But in retrospect, Westbrook was at 10th and Patton awfully quickly - strange when you consider his rank, function, and that a president had been shot a few miles away - and controlling just about everything used to incriminate Oswald (including Patrolman Tippit).  Joseph McBride shows that the uncomplicated public image image of Tippit - who worked part time at  Austin's Barbecue and the Texas Theater - is not accurate, and that he could have been financially entice or blackmailed into "hunting" Oswald (or worse):

"It is worth noting that the humble Oak Cliff rib joint where he worked, Austin’s Barbecue, was not only a rowdy teenage hangout on weekends, necessitating the presence of an off-duty policeman as a security guard, but that it was run by a Bircher and was a prominent meeting place for corrupt “police characters,” mobsters, and leading far-right elements in the “City of Hate.” It is conceivable that some in that interconnecting milieu could have become aware of Tippit because he was so visible in his uniform for three years at Austin’s Barbecue. Conspirators could have realized he was financially vulnerable, since after working his fulltime job as a police officer during the daytime, he was keeping order at Austin’s from ten at night until two in the morning on Fridays and Saturdays for about ten dollars an hour while struggling to pay the mortgages on two houses (not to mention his other job as a security guard at the Stevens Park Theater).

Gene

His son Ralph didn't seem to know much about his father's involvement in the Tippit murder and Oswald arrest.   Nor was their any resolution to the allegation that Westbrook was a member of the 488th reserve.  Westbrook did divorce his wife, and then remarried and got back together in 1994 (two years before he passed away).  He did testify before both the Warren Commission and the HSCA, but never mentioned the wallet. For someone so central to the Tippit murder scene and DPD apprehension of Oswald, there is precious little known about Captain Westbrook.  Its strange (and stands out) ... in contrast, we know far more about the peripheral players and personalities. 

The theatrical nature of the Tippit narrative has always been of great interest to me ... more so than the intricacies of Dealey Plaza, potential shooters, the autopsy, or any other aspect of the entire assassination saga.  Unlike all of those other subplots, the Tippit story reveals quite a lot about the plot (and plotters).  Westbrook and Hill stand out like a sore thumb ... they are quick to arrive at each prominent scene - Book Depository, 10th and Patton, and the Texas Theater - and quick to leave, but have no functional or investigatory reason to be there.  Tippit's murder near Oswald's rooming house is a staged scene, where we get our first glimpse of an imposter acting the part of Oswald - a second Oswald.  The one for whom Westbrook suppressed a list of 24 theater patrons, protecting the imposter (Lee) in the balcony.  Westbrook - the plainclothes head of the DPD Personnel Department - then arrests Harvey (the patsy) and manages all of the evidence.  It does surprise me that they would sacrifice a fellow policeman but,  given Westbrook's HR job and access to personnel files, he must have selected Tippit for special (personal) reasons. It's always stuck me as clever to insert a cop killing into the aftermath of the assassination; as Jim Garrison first pointed out in his February 1967 Playboy interview, killing a policeman energizes the entire police force: 

"... the conspirators arranged the murder of Dallas Patrolman J. D. Tippit in a scheme "to get rid of the decoy in the case, Lee Oswald." The Warren report held that Oswald also killed the policeman. So that Oswald would not later describe the people involved in this, they had what I think was a rather clever plan. It's well known that police officers react violently to the murder of a police officer."

In the Tippit story and Texas Theater drama, we see contemporaneous evidence of the Harvey/Lee gambit.  Jim Garrison was also on to the second Oswald:

I hesitate to use the words “second Oswald,” because they tend to lend an additional fictional quality to a case that already makes Dr. No and Goldfinger look like auditors’ reports. However, it is true that before the assassination, a calculated effort was made to implicate Oswald in the events to come. A young man approximating Oswald’s description and using Oswald’s name — we believe we have discovered his identity — engaged in a variety of activities designed to create such a strong impression of Oswald’s instability and culpability in people’s minds that they would recall him as a suspicious character after the President was murdered.

More to the point, it has also struck me odd that "Oswald" was apprehended so quickly, in record time - within little more than an hour after the assassination - the crime of the century,  solved in just one hour!  Lee kills Tippit, incriminates Harvey with evidence strewn all over the neighborhood, proceeds to the Texas Theater where he makes himself conspicuous in a shoe store and the theater lobby, and then heads up to the balcony. The arrest has its origins with ticket cashier Julia Postal’s phone call to the DPD, after shoe salesman Johnny Brewer told her to call the police because a mysterious patron didn’t pay for a ticket ... one who allegedly fit a generic (contentious) description.  At least thirty police officers in a fleet of patrol cars then descend on the theatre, a remarkable show of force for someone who didn't pay for a 75-cent ticket.  Here is an excerpt of Ms. Postal's testimony: 

"I told Johnny [brewer] about the fact that the President had been assassinated. "I don't know if this is the man they want," I said, "in there, but he is running from them for some reason," and I said "I am going to call the police, and you and Butch go get on each of the exit doors and stay there." So, well, I called the police, and he wanted to know why I thought it was their man, and I said, "Well, I didn't know," and he said, "Well, it fits the description," and I have not---I said I hadn't heard the description.  All I know is, this man is running from them for some reason.  And he wanted to know why, and told him because every time the sirens go by he would duck and he wanted to know----well, if he fits the description is what he says. I said, "Let me tell you what he looks like and you take it from there." And explained that he had on this brown sports shirt and I couldn't tell you what design it was, and medium height, ruddy looking to me, and he said, "Thank you," and I called the operator and he wanted to know if I wanted him to cut the picture off, and I says, "No, let's wait until they get here." So, seemed like I hung up the intercom phone when here all of a sudden, police cars, policemen, plainclothesmen, I never saw so many people in my life.

The Oswald look-alike (Lee) is then apprehended in the balcony after Harvey is brought out to Westbrook's unmarked car in front of the theatre.  During an interview with author Ian Griggs in 1996, Brewer claimed that on the day of the assassination (when he observed Oswald duck into the lobby of his shoe store) there were two men "from IBM" in the store with him.  Others have suggested that their surreptitious purpose was to get Brewer to summon police to the theater, to ensure Harvey's arrest (or murder).  Author James Douglass later tracked down Warren “Butch” Burroughs who was working the concession stand inside the Texas Theatre. Burroughs stated that he saw Oswald enter the theatre between 1:00 pm and 1:07 pm, and that he sold him popcorn at 1:15 pm ... the exact time that Tippit was allegedly shot by "Oswald".  Burroughs and Postal both had jobs that require knowledge of precise times, more so than other casual observers ... so there is at the least a timing issue here.  

The Tippit rigmarole reveals itself as a Broadway play or 'B' movie.  In their essay "Looking at the Tippit Case from a Different Angle", Swedish writers Staffan Westerberg and Pete Engwall state that all of this had to be a deception ... the plotters had to create the image of a fleeing killer, and so they set up police officer to be ambushed. Tippit is vectored to Oak Cliff  - which was not his regular patrol area - but a neighborhood connected to Oswald.  There "Oswald" (or Lee) is briefly and infamously seen by his landlady Earlene Roberts ... a story etched in the stone of an official (but fictional) account.  Obviously, an innocent man would have no need to change clothes and get a weapon (switching from a rifle to a revolver) ... and in order to become Tippit's murderer, "Oswald" had to have a revolver.  In the parallel universe of this improbable narrative, Butch Burroughs sells Harvey a theater ticket (a double feature was playing that day, and “War is Hell” started at 1:20pm).  As the more credible story goes, Harvey receives his instructions from the driver of a Rambler who picked him up at the TSBD and drove him to the theater, where he went inside to meet his contact (a pregnant woman, who sat with him for a while, and would later disappear).  As an aside, why would a pregnant woman want to see “War is Hell” or "Cry of Battle" on a Friday afternoon when the President’s motorcade is passing by?  There's a dramatic touch (perhaps even an intentional mocking) to the ending of this theatrical production, in that it climaxes in a theater.

Westerberg and Engwall point out that the early evidence against "Oswald" would not otherwise present itself fast enough - an inventory head count of TSBD employees, a ticket cashiers phone call – so the plotters needed another murder "to muddy the water".   The logic becomes clear when the President is killed outside of Oswald’s work place and then a police officer is killed close to his home ... timed so that the picture of an escapee emerges.  The temptation to accept this entire line of thinking is classic disinformation, and the Swedish authors pull the fuller story into focus by suggesting that Tippit was guided  into an ambush on 10th Street with the help of Collins Radio or perhaps the 488th Military Intelligence Detachment, with its radio central in the Dallas Civil Defense Emergency Operation Center in Fair Park. Here we see the tentacles of Jack Crichton, an associate of George Bush, both of whom are associated with and recruited for Operation 40 (present in Dealey Plaza).  Many members of Crichton’s 488th group worked in the Dallas Police Department. We also see the shadow of Collins Radio when a Dallas reporter with the local FBI put a trace on the license plate number of the red Ford Falcon (with Lee in the seat) ... and come to find its owner (Carl Mathers) is a Collins Radio employee and a friend of JD Tippit.  This storyline points in so many directions, reflecting Winston Churchill's famous statement on deception and subterfuge: "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."  Perhaps we need to employ the Six Degrees of Separation concept, where sooner or later, Kevin Bacon will emerge in the Tippit story ...

Gene 

Steve:

Westbrook is interesting.  He was with DPD for many years (starting in 1940, at age 22) and rose to the rank of Captain by 1963.   He left DPD in 1965 and spends 4-5 years in Saigon with the US AID.  Following the assassination, he remained with DPD for about two years (perhaps to see the Warren Commission through) and then "retired" and went overseas to get away from the limelight and out of the country, when he was still relatively unknown as far as suspects in the plot and assassination go. I think this was done with many of the players and participants (e.g. Morales, Hunt) to take them out of sight/out of mind as far as any serious investigation is concerned.  His name never really surfaces publicly until this second wallet became prominent more than 30 years later.  The story of the wallet at the Tippit murder scene did not become public knowledge until 1996 (33 years later), when FBI agent James Hosty, revealed that a wallet containing identification for both Oswald and “Alek Hidell” was found near a pool of Tippit's blood.  However, no witness ever saw the wallet on the ground, and a second witness, patrolman Leonard Jez, revealed at a conference in 1999 that the wallet was identified at the murder scene as belonging to Oswald. Had Westbrook not been captured on a television footage at the Tippit scene with the phantom wallet, we may never have focused any attention upon him. Its no coincidence that that Dale Myers book With Malice was published shortly thereafter, in 1998 ... as a counterattack to this damaging new information.  Michael T. Griffith (2002), Joseph McBride (February 2014, Kennedys and King) and others have put the Meyers book - in effect, the Warren Report of the Tippit murder - in perspective.  Meyers book was conveniently revised for the publication of a second edition at the 50th anniversary of the assassination in October 2013.  As Joe McBride points out, the book's title gives away its agenda.  

For many years, the "official" story remained that Oswald's  wallet was not found until about an hour after the Tippit murder, when Dallas police detective Paul Bentley removed it from Oswald's back pocket after being apprehended at the Texas Theatre.  FBI agent Robert Barrett (who was at the scene of Tippit’s murder along with Westbrook) later disputed the Bentley story ... but much later.  That drop-wallet contained what is the only known instance of Oswald carrying identification under the alias of “Alek Hidell” ... a sobering point.  Nonetheless, by the next day, it was worldwide news that the assassination rifle was purchased by mail order made out by “A. Hidell” and listing Oswald’s post office box for pick up.  The second wallet conveniently tied Oswald and “Hidell” to the rifle and Tippit's murder, less than two hours after the event.  Barrett later stated (for the record) that the wallet made the case against Oswald a 'slam dunk' however, the DPD never wrote a report about any wallet found at the Tippit murder scene.  Westbrook was subsequently put in charge of investigating how Jack Ruby was able to kill Oswald, when one of the officers helping hide Ruby's body in the basement before the shooting was Kenneth Croy, the same guy who came up with the wallet at the crime scene.

An April 2014 Bill Simpich post on Jeff Morley's JFK Facts website pulls this smoke and mirrors altogether.  Barrett's rebuttal of Officer Bentley -  the Dallas officer who brought Oswald to the police station - is 50 years after the fact.  Barrett claimed that Officer Bentley was lying about finding the wallet in Oswald’s possession, in a November 2013 WFAA news story.  Simpich suggests that Barrett waited this long because "it was not a fight he cared to pick", and Bentley only recently died in 2008.  It seems that Oswald owned many wallets ... but the one planted at the Tippit scene introduces the Hidell 'poison pill' and conveniently frames Oswald for everything.  Obviously,  the wallet in question was prepared in advance of Tippit’s killing, also implying that his murder was pre-planned.  Simpich wrote about Westbrook and his specially assigned partner (a month before the assassination) Gerry Hill:

Hill is not trustworthy to me at all and neither is Westbrook, but it gets a little bit worse because at 5:00, 5:30 Jerry Hill gets on national television. He's the guy who proceeds ... And he's good at telling the story. He was a trained TV reporter, right? He tells the entire story of Lee Harvey Oswald in the Soviet Union as a defector and then marrying this lady, Marina, a Russian woman from Minsk. Now he's telling this to the entire world. This guy's just a beat officer working in personnel. Somebody asks "Jerry, how in the world did you get all that information?" He's miles ahead of ABC and NBC and CBS. He's like "Oh, I got it all from Westbrook." He's just changed the course of history by telling the world the background of the assassin, the background that major news agencies still were trying to catch up on.

Westbrook was in Saigon and Vietnam at the height of Operation Phoenix.  Westbrook returned to Dallas - after RFK was murdered and the Vietnam War winding down - to work on Wade's staff from 1970-1983.  He died in 1996 in Oklahoma. As I stated in an earlier post, you cant find very much about William R. Westbrook in searches ... as one researcher put it, its as though he didn't exist.  A true spook.

Gene

Westbrook is clearly a person of interest.  Why would a personnel officer - one who conducts background investigations, vets Police Academy recruits, and investigates personnel complaints - be at a crime scene?  We are led to believe that Westbrook sent officers from his Personnel Research Bureau to the Texas School Book Depository immediately after the assassination.  He then shows up at the Tippit scene (in civilian clothes), after allegedly walking to the Book Depository to "help start the search".  His whereabouts for the next hour are mighty intriguing, to say the least, yet he didn’t have much to say subsequently to the Warren Commission, and they didn’t have much interest in putting him on the record.  

Oswald was arrested and placed in the back seat of Captain Westbrook's unmarked police car at the Texas Theatre.  Westbrook controlled all of the important evidence ... the light-colored jacket, the 2nd Oswald wallet, and the .38 caliber revolver. It’s difficult to believe an escaping assassin would carelessly leave all of that evidence in his path, particularly after shooting a police officer.  The wallet comes out of nowhere, into Croy's hands and then to Westbrook ... where it then disappears from the record.  Nonetheless, this illusive wallet links the identity of Oswald with the Hidell alias ...and ties the Tippit crime scene and the Carcano rifle.  Oswald and Hidell were then infamously (and forever) tied together by the rifle and the wallet.  Westbrook drove his unmarked police car from the Texaco parking lot to the Texas Theater (where it was parked out front) accompanied by a DPD Sergeant and a news reporter ... yet he lied about this to the Warren Commission, and did everything he could to distance himself from the evidence and Tippit’s murder.  The proximity of Captain Westbrook (and his subordinate Gerry Hill) to all of this drama is a coincidence that's hard to ignore.

Westbrook's ruddy complexion earned him the nickname "Pinky" from his fellow officers. The Arkansas native moved to Dallas in 1937 and joined the DPD in 1940.  Westbrook retired from DPD in 1966 after 25 years on the force.  Researcher Jones Harris wrote that when Westbrook left the Dallas police in 1966, he went to work overseas at the Office of Public Safety, an agency that worked at the liaison between the CIA and the South Vietnamese police forces.  Information in the 1998 Larry Sneed book "No More Silence" indicates that Westbrook worked for the United States Agency for International Development (i.e. CIA).  Westbrook died at age 78 of cancer in Tahlequah. He was with the Dallas Police Department from 1940 to 1965, and also worked as a special investigator for the Dallas County district attorney's office from 1970 to 1983.  His wife, Anna Fern Westbrook, said he liked his job but he did not talk about it to his family.  Not much information exists for William Ralph Westbrook on Google search ... it's almost as if he didn't exist.  

Jim/Michael

The more that I study Angleton, the more I believe he was not loyal to either the CIA or US interests.  I would not be surprised - if (and when) we reach full knowledge of this byzantine JFK story - that he was in cahoots somehow with Kim Philby, subverting the CIA at every turn (e.g. Golitsyn/Nosenko), and more aligned with Israel and Mossad than we could imagine.  

I look forward to the release of the Lisa Pease book on RFK.  Having studied Robert Kennedy's murder, there are legitimate suspects like Michael Wayne (real name Wien), Khaibar Khan and Maryam Koucham who point towards foreign intelligence involvement.  This could explain the RFK autopsy pictures in Angleton's safe.  Then there is the Turner and Christian book about RFK's murder, initially suppressed after its original 1978 publication, but updated and reissued in 1993 thanks to Oliver Stone's film.  The back story (laid out in Kennedy's and King) was a Random House ownership change, where Robert Loomis (married to Angleton's secretary) took control and removed the book from publication, including the incineration of copies, to "make space".   Perhaps Angleton was covering his tracks and protecting his foreign intelligence benefactors. 

I'm also struck by the suspicious death of William Colby is 1996 ... whose "nemesis" at CIA was James Angleton (whom he had fired).  Colby was considered "hostile" to Israel's interests, and opposed military aid, arguing that the US government was infiltrated and manipulated by Israeli agents.  Wolf Blitzer, a Washington correspondent for the Jerusalem Post: 'CBS News reported that Angleton had lost his job in December 1974 because of policy disputes over Israel, and not because of allegations of CIA domestic spying as originally reported.  Angleton was said to have argued with CIA director William Colby over Middle East policy questions as well (reference: Wolf Blitzer: Between Washington and Jerusalem, New York: Oxford University Press, 1985).

Gene

Ron

Lisa's book "A Lie Too Big to Fail" is scheduled for release on November 20th.

Mike:

One logical and obvious thing that always occurs to me when I ponder the role and actions of James Angleton is that he had past experience and connections to many of  the principals whom one suspects had a hand in the planning of the assassination (Harvey, Dulles, Phillips, Italy, CMC, Mafia, Mossad).   And, if he didn't somehow orchestrate the operation, he surely must have known something was going on.  For a senior official in a federal agency (one responsible for the counterintelligence of such plots) to have this knowledge - and not divulge or stop it - is treasonous in itself.

Connect the dots; The Italian bank (Credito Commerciale e Industriale) is run by one Valerio Borghese, who is connected to Angleton because his intervention at the end of WWII which saved Borghese from  the death penalty for his fascist activities. Then we see Trujillo provide a large amount of money to this Italian bank, which disappeared, and is apparently is the financial support for the assassination ... a triangulation of money from Italy to Haiti, and from Haiti to Dallas. This same bank was previously in the hands of Michele Sindona, a member of CMC-Permindex (along with Clay Shaw) and an OSS trustee when Angleton was Chief of the OSS X-2 Branch in Rome because of his "knowledge of the Italian language and culture". 

Gene

I agree with Jim.  This lead-in has the effect of a back-handed compliment:

While most conspiracy theories aren’t worth individually debunking, this is worth notice both because of the extensive citations in Newman’s 600+ page book, his background in intelligence, and his history professorship all lend his reporting an air of authenticity. This debunking of his concluding speculation isn’t meant to denigrate his work, or address the full text of Oswald and the CIA, but only the conclusions Newman offers in the epilogue and elsewhere. Newman, for his part, has the clarity to call these conclusions what they are - speculation. Yet it is because his speculation is respected by so many readers that it bears addressing.

Gene

Joe

In the context of whistle blowers (and Steve's response), Galileo was persecuted by the powerful Catholic Church's Inquisition.  His Heliocentric theory was presented as a 'truth' which rankled the powers that be, and he suffered persecution as a result. After many years, history and science ultimately vindicated Galileo.   I'd think his case is similar to what Robert Groden has experienced.  So, it matters not what the "official" or popular story line is, as some believe ... the facts are undeniable. 

Perhaps - as Galileo was purportedly saying to his inquisitors - Gary Mack didn't really believe what he was being forced to say.   

Gene

This is for Steve and Joe:

The phrase Eppur si muove is attributed to the Italian mathematician, physicist and philosopher Galileo Galilei in 1633 after being forced to recant his claims that the Earth moves around the immovable Sun. The quotation is attributed to when he was being investigated by the Inquisition. Under pressure, he supposedly said (against his beliefs) that the Sun did indeed move around the earth then added, sotto voce, Eppur si muove.  Its use in modern language is for when we acknowledge what someone else is saying, but we want to convince them otherwise. As such, the phrase is used today as a sort of pithy retort implying that "it doesn't matter what you believe; these are the facts." What Galileo was purportedly saying to his inquisitors was, he didn't really believe what he was being forced to say … that he hadn't changed his mind after all.  Some historians believe that it was upon his transfer that Galileo actually said ‘Eppur si muove,’ rather than at his public abjuration following the trial.  Scholars however recognize the story as probably apocryphal. It is noted that Galileo was Tuscan, so he likely would not have used the word "muove". This quote was first publicly recorded in the questionable work “The Italian Library” written by Giuseppe Baretti more than 120 years later.  Baretti states that, the moment Galileo was set free, he looked up to the sky and down to the ground, and, while stamping his foot, in a contemplative mood, uttered the famous quote, referring to planet Earth. 

The central dispute between Galileo and the Church was whether Galileo could assert that the Earth really did move around the Sun (as a scientific fact) or whether he should present the idea as merely a hypothesis.  Church officials admitted that Galileo’s observations gave the appearance of moving around the Sun, but argued appearances could be deceiving.  Galileo, on the other hand, thought it was ridiculous to take poetic passages from the Bible literally. Galileo’s problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as a truth. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds. There is a painting attributed to B. E. Murillo and his school in Madrid that represents Galileo in prison. When cleaned, in 1911, it turned out that the painting was larger than originally framed. When unfolded, it revealed that the figure of Galileo was gesturing toward the words “Eppur si muove.” The painting was commissioned sometime between 1643 and 1650.  The painting is not historically correct, because it depicts Galileo in a dungeon, but nonetheless shows that some variant of the "Eppur si muove" anecdote was in circulation immediately after his death, when many who had known him were still alive to attest to it, and that it had been circulating for over a century before it was published. 

 Scholars doubt that Galileo actually said this, and attribute incredible popularity of the quote to widespread animosity against the Catholic Church, prevalent in 18th century, bound with efforts to create martyr-like figures from the Church’s past adversaries and victims.  John Heilbron’s 2010 biography of Galileo associates the statement with Archbishop Ascanio Piccolomini, who had supported Galileo, and with whom Galileo spent some months after his trial. Archbishop Piccolomini had few friends in the Vatican and continued to annoy the Church hierarchy by reportedly providing a safe place for Galileo to discuss his opinions. Baretti’s account from 1757 remains the first statement of the myth.  Baretti, like Piccolomini, was living in a foreign country where he could safely express his  displeasure with the Church.  Reference: Darin Hayton (June 3, 2012) “Toward a history of Eppur si muove”

Gene

Jim

I have a friend who has read H&L and would like to contact and talk with John Armstrong when he visits Hawaii.  Is there an address or contact that you would be willing to share

Thanks

Gene

The comment by Garrison is right on.  I'd submit that  - to this day - it is not popular to ascribe to any theories that deviate from the Warren Commission's official account, as revised by the HSCA. Those - like the talented researchers on this Forum, who dig deeper and aren't satisfied with the historic account - are not universally well received.   My own personal experience (and I'm not an author or serious researcher) has been that - when folks find out that I'm "into" the JFK thing, they are simply not that interested. I might get a few minutes of discussion, and some mild fascination, but most don't have the patience or interest to hear it out or take the story on.  I cant put my finger on it, but it may have something to do with not wanting to doubt one's government, or simply a disinterest in JFK as a leader and president.  Or that its something that can't be known, so why endlessly speculate. Plus, such events become old news pretty quickly (much less 50 years later) and put into the rear view mirror. 

My professional experience with whistleblowers has been that - while sometimes right and typically courageous - few end up happy or satisfied.  They are shunned by their peers, avoided by the management structure, and marginalized by the government authorities who they think will make them whole (which they will not).   Some receive generous settlements, but end up losing their jobs and families.  Standing up for what one ideally believes is unjust or wrong can be a very painful and unsuccessful experience. 

Joe

Understood and don't disagree.   The more obvious reaction to the Beatles was the hysteria expressed by teenage girls.  But I would also point out that many (young and old) came to be curious or appreciative of the Fab Four.  The Beatles made some courageous statements when they refused to go on at certain venues unless blacks were allowed to attend.   And while some parents disapproved of the long hair, their impact (on their children) also captured the interest of  adults. The press coverage was unprecedented; the entire world was fascinated with them. Many point to their timing as the reason for the phenomenon, an era of postwar, worldwide, mass-media ... coincident with the emergence of teenage pop-culture. Beatlemania was also an example of the right act hitting the right generation at the right time.  In America, when the Beatles broke through, the children of the baby boom were teenagers ... so they had a massive audience (i.e. about half of the US population was younger than 20 years old).  Some point to the Winter of 1963 as one of the worst/coldest of the 20th century. People therefore stayed inside - fixed to the television - which was fairly new at that time. The were young and iconic, glib and funny, and they were also fortunate to have Brian Epstein as a manager.  They were flat-out charming ...  handsome, witty, cool, fun people to be around.  Some would argue that their breakthrough occurred during a depressive period; one of the few positive things found in the news.  Of course they had talent - two of the greatest songwriters ever (in one band) ... and as one fan wrote "a musical ethic that was devoted to originality, not imitation, and yet could imitate with the best".   Music at the time needed a facelift ... the Billboard Top Five in October 1963 was pretty tame, and rock & roll was in remission:

1. Jimmy Gilmer & the Fireballs: "Sugar Shack"
2. The Ronettes: "Be My Baby"
3. Bobby Vinton: "Blue Velvet"
4. Garnet Mimms & the Enchanters: "Cry Baby"
5. The Jaynetts: "Sally Go 'Round the Roses"

There's a 1996 posting by Paul Robertson entitled "Why the Beatles?" that is a good read.  In it, he states:

They made the coolest sounding records anybody had heard in a long, long time, and backed it up with a breathtaking sense of fun and adventure. In the early 1960s, man, we were ready for this; not because of Kennedy being shot, but because the whole scene was just getting so darn grey and dull. For their part, they were a pop group that wanted success; but what they found waiting for them at the end of the road was a whole impassioned generation who went HooRAH!! at their arrival. We wanted something new, fresh, young, and un-parent-like. And, rightly or wrongly, we lay our collective hopes with a vengeance at the feet of the Beatles ... The world of teenagers would never again be united as they were in 1962, primed for great things to happen, and willing and able for it to be the same great thing for everybody.

Personally, my first favorite was the Dave Clark Five.  I loved Motown, and later became a huge Stones fan.  But I don't think it was the music, per se, that alone made the Beatles such a welcome force.  In a June 2012 BBC article, Adam Gopnik wrote that The Fab Four's music endures because it mirrors an era we still long for:

There is something eerie, fated, cosmic about the Beatles - those seven quick years of fame and then decades of after-shock. The Beatles' gift was for harmony, and their vision was above all of harmony. And harmony, voices blending together in song, is still our strongest symbol of a good place yet to come. Art makes us alive and aware and sometimes afraid but it rarely makes us glad. Fifty years on, the Beatles live because they still give us that most amazing of feelings: the apprehension of a happiness that we can hold, like a hand.

Something that I've always pondered ... the contemporaneous ascent of the Beatles, right at the time of the JFK assassination.  I was 13 years old when the British Invasion hit the USA ... what a phenomenon. Obviously there was musical genius to the Beatles and they were well on their way before JFK's murder.   But I would argue that America was in need of a happier story and a serious pick-me-up.  Writers point out that A Christmas Gift for You From Phil Spector and With the Beatles both came out on the same day as the assassination of President Kennedy ... one of the "twisted ironies in the history of popular culture".  Lester Bangs, in a famous essay on the British Invasion from The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock and Roll, wrote that “it was no accident that the Beatles had their overwhelmingly successful Ed Sullivan Show debut shortly after JFK was shot”.  Critic Ian MacDonald, argued that:

“When Capitol finally capitulated to Epstein’s pressure and issued "I want to hold your hand' in December of 1963, the record’s joyous energy and invention lifted America out of its gloom, following which, high on gratitude, the country cast itself at the Beatles’ feet.”

No event has endured more than the Beatles’ arrival in the United States in February of 1964, where they performed before 70-some million Americans on the Ed Sullivan show, soothed an injured nation in the wake of the assassination, and saved rock and roll in the process  (Ref: "The Questionable Connections Between Camelot’s Demise and Liverpool’s Ascent" by Jack Hamilton 11/18/2013 Slate). 

In an NPR article “Remembering JFK and The Beatles' perfect timing” by Mike Flanagan written by Mike Flanagan in 2013, he stated that by November of 1963, the Fab Four had basically conquered England.  Ringo had joined in August of '62, “Love Me Do” was recorded that September, “Please Please Me” was released in January ’63, “From Me to You” in April, and “She Loves You” followed in September. The second album With the Beatles was released on November 22nd and “I Want to Hold Your Hand” comes out one week later. He goes on to write:

But one week after the assassination, America was in a deep, grieving funk. America was in dire need of some serious joy.  The Beatles did come along at a perfect time, but what they brought would have happened with or without the American tragedy.  The atmosphere was ripe for fun, no question.  But more than JFK’s murder, the stagnant music business in general was in need of an overhaul.

To return on point and the topic of the thread (not John Armstrong, and not Gary Mack), Robert Groden was courageous and a pioneer in exposing/exploring the Zapruder film and influencing subsequent reinvestigations.   I note with interest that he settled in and hailed from Boothwyn PA, not far from where I live and work.  Given the subject matter and powerful opposition to the simple/historical Oswald story (absurd on its face), it took courage to do what he did for so long.   Not many folks have that persistence and strength of character.     

For the record, I do not find John Armstrong's premise as "nonsensical" nor was he the first to suggest such.  I also disagree that his work is not believed by the majority of JFK researchers.

Joe/Steve

Thanks for the compliment.  I think our experiences as sons (both good and bad) somehow may have prompted our later day interest in JFK and his murder.  My dad was no saint either, but he surely loved JFK.  I'll also share that, in 1960, I was ten years old and a 5th grade 'safety' (if you recall that role) at a Catholic school in Philadelphia.  JFK was campaigning in October 1960, just before the election.  His motorcade came down Route 30 (Lancaster Avenue), right past my grade school in West Philly, on the way to a speech at Temple University.  All of the Catholic nuns were out and cheering wildly (something that JFK sometimes tried to avoid given the religious biases of that time) ... he was the unprecedented first Catholic President and a source of extraordinary pride and excitement for our community.  I was out in the street - ensuring students didn't cross or get hurt - when the motorcade drove by ... close enough to touch him.  How exciting, and I can still feel the energy of the crowd today.  I have never seen more enthusiasm for a presidential candidate since.  What a great loss for all of us.

Gene

What a fascinating JFK curriculum vitae that Bob Groden has:

• In 1973, Groden showed the Zapruder film to a symposium of assassination researchers at Georgetown
• In February, 1975, Groden and Stephen Jaffee, an investigator for Garrison, testified before the Rockefeller Commission
• On March 6, 1975, he and Dick Gregory appeared on Good Night America and showed Groden's copy of the Zapruder film (prompting the HSCA)
• In 1975, Groden co-authored JFK: The Case for Conspiracy
• In the 1980s, Groden was a consultant for Oliver Stone's 1991 film JFK  appearing in cameo roles as a Parkland doctor and the courtroom projectionist at the Shaw trial
• In 1989 Groden co-authored High Treason
• During the OJ Simpson trial, Groden appeared as an expert witness and testified that a 1993 photograph of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes at an NFL game was a forgery

In Groden's July 1996 AARB interview, he reveals some interesting facts about the Nix film:

When the films were delivered to them, what they received was the original Nix film - the color original Nix film. But the copy of the Muchmore film that they got was a black and white copy. It was a duplicate. It wasn’t the original.  And they called me about that-And I said, “No, no. The original film was color. It was not black and white.”  And they went back, and they searched and searched and searched, and they finally found it.  And what they found was that the film was in two pieces. Somebody had physically cut the film at the frame of the head shot.  What Mr. Weisman had done at that point, in order to save the film-to prevent it from m losing frames is, instead of doing a professional cement splice, which would have cost them at least two frames, he Mylar spliced it - took Mylar tape to it and spliced it. The alignment on that particular frame is not exacting. And because of the cut, there is a white bar - a space that exists in that frame.  But he was able to save the film without losing the frames on that. 

Excellent article by Frank Cassano ... an excerpt:

In 1995, Bob Groden left his home, wife and family in Pennsylvania. Alone, he moved to Dallas from the small town of Boothwyn. His objective was to give the Warren Commission critics a voice against the Sixth Floor Museum’s unalterable promotion of the Warren Report. By that time, the Museum was well on its way to its current status of treating hundreds of thousands of people per year, at sixteen bucks a crack, to what Michael Morrissey once called the Biggest Lie of the second half of the twentieth century: namely, that Oswald killed Kennedy. When Groden arrived is when the battle was joined. This gunfight has taken place at the intersection of Houston and Elm Street. Gary Mack was firing a bazooka, tossing out grenades, scorching the earth, using psychological warfare, setting boobytraps and snares from his walled fortress with its drawbridge and moat at the museum.

On the other hand, Robert Groden was sitting out across the street on the legendary Grassy Knoll. He was exposed, out in the open, armed only with his books, magazines and DVDs. Talk about bringing a pea shooter to a gunfight. Bob Groden showed up armed with nothing but a deck chair, a folding card table and his research, which showed that just about everything that Mack and The Sixth Floor stood for was wrong. I doubt that’s where Bob thought this would all lead: a David (Groden) vs. Goliath/(Mack) mismatch. After all, as depicted in this film, he and Gary used to be friends. In fact, at one time, he considered Gary his best friend. They went on vacations together and he stayed at Gary’s home. But something happened. That something was two offers of employment; both by the Sixth Floor. One was to Groden; he was offered the directorship from a man named Robert Hayes and the salary was $235,000 per year to start. There was one qualification ... Bob had to stop saying anything about that conspiracy that killed Kennedy.  Bob said, well, I can’t do that, so he did not get the job. Gary Mack was offered the opportunity to replace Conover Hunt as curator. That job did not pay as much as the one offered to Groden. But it didn’t matter to Mack; he had no reservations about reversing field on just about everything he had previously said about the JFK case. So now, the former friends became enemies. As the film shows, this went as far as the Sixth Floor having the police arrest and ticket Groden many, many times. It was a Battle Royale.