Gene Kelly
-
Posts
1,007 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Gene Kelly
-
-
Ron
During the Friday night press conference by District Attorney Henry Wade just after 11 pm, Ruby was in the crowd of reporters, standing on a table, with a clear view of Oswald. One observer (Tony Record) said that Ruby insisted on standing on the table, even though he didn’t have a camera. When Wade stated that Oswald was a member of the “Free Cuba Committee," Ruby corrected him and said, “that's 'Fair Play for Cuba Committee,' Henry.” He was obviously stalking Oswald at this point by impersonating a reporter. As Larry Hancock has previously pointed out, he appears to have been serving as the eyes/ears of the plotters (i.e., the inside man or spy) to see what Oswald was saying, and how the authorities were handling him. The simple fact that Ruby corrected Wade knew about the Fair Play for Cuba Committee clearly demonstrates that he had knowledge of the previous New Orleans charade and the over-arching plot.
Gene
-
12 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:
Gene, according to ex-British Intelligence officer, it was one Samuel Bloom (prominent Dallas executive) who, after Oswald's arrest, suggested to the Dallas police that they move the alleged assassin from the police station to the Dallas County jail in order to give the newsmen a good story and pictures.
When the cops searched Ruby's place in Oak Cliff they found a piece of paper with Bloom's name, address and telephone number on it.
Interesting Pete ... there's an April 2007 EF Thread started by Sid Walker on "Sam Bloom". He was an interesting guy ... sales/marketing executive, active in Dallas civic affairs, and he also helped orchestrate Judge Joe Brown's Ruby trail. He was certainly influential, and prominent in the Jewish community. Not surprising that Ruby would have his name and contact information, given all of Bloom's connections to the Jewish community. The EF thread contains the following extract from the Michael Collins Piper book, Final Judgement:
Once the accused assassin was in custody, it was—you guessed it—Sam Bloom, who had earlier maneuvered JFK into the kill zone, who pressured Elgin Crull, the city manager, to in turn pressure Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry into making Oswald accessible to the press and to move him publicly from the Dallas police station to the city jail. Thus, the situation was in place for Jack Ruby to move in for the kill. There are several sources, including Dallas FBI agent James Hosty, who stated Bloom and his backers were the forces behind this. When the police searched Ruby's home, they found a slip of paper with Bloom's name, address and telephone number on it.
Not sure that I would put much stock in Piper's work ... I just don't see Mossad or Israel behind the whole affair. In fact, Ruby's later incoherent rants about the persecution of Jewish people seem to be misdirection and have the ring of disinformation.
Ruby's mental condition disintegrated, and he increasingly became subject to delusions. At an appeal hearing in 1965 in Dallas, Ruby gave Elmer Gertz, one of his attorneys, this note. In it, Ruby expressed despair and voiced his belief that government authorities in the courthouse were killing and torturing "our people," a reference to Jews. In a similar fashion, Ruby told his sister that government authorities were engaged in murdering twenty-five million Jews.
Gene
-
6 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:
Joe
I'm pretty new to the Billy Grammer story. Only when I saw David Josephs' post, and his mention of the analysis that he and John Armstrong performed, did I dig into the story deeper. His timely appearance at the City Hall basement always seemed more than just a coincidence, but there's a lot of misinformation/misdirection out there, and it takes persistence to distill the truth where the assassination is concerned. Also, as Larry Hancock and Jim DiEugenio both point out, Ruby is a complex (and controversial) character, and no one has ever really done an adequate account of his true role. The people close to him that tried were quickly eliminated (reporters Jim Koethe of the Dallas Times Herald and Bill Hunter of the Long Beach Press Telegram) along with his attorney, Tom Howard. It was apparently unhealthy to get close to the Ruby story.
Regarding Grammer, my sense is that he was just as Henry Hurt described him ... a cautious and conservative man. As I stated earlier, I think that he did his job by elevating the call to his superiors, which is what an organization expects. Once you do that, it's now in the hands of higher-ups/management which most rank-and-file trust ... particularly in law enforcement. I also speculate that Grammer accepted the conclusions of the Warren Commission at the time, like so many Americans. I do not think his pension dictated staying silent ... in fact, he wasn't silent, and not only documented the call and threat, but shared it with the Task Force investigating the Department's performance. What he couldn't control was concealment of the part about the caller knowing insider details about the transfer ... that would've not only reflected very poorly on the Department but thrown a monkey wrench into the government's official story.
Regarding Chief Jesse Curry, I haven't studied him in depth. Curry transferred all of the evidence to the FBI, trusting them to cooperate with the DPD (which didn't happen). It appears that he was manipulated by city manager Elgin Crull and Mayor Earle Cabell, who insisted on the more public Oswald transfer. And those are his superiors ... as one of my former colleagues in government used to say, "everybody has a boss". So, I don't view Curry as complicit ... but Captain Fritz is an entirely different story.
Gene
I would also add that the timing of events here is important, in assessing whether Grammer's pension had anything to do with his later revelations. The HSCA had already completed its investigation in 1978. Officer Patrick Dean had been asked to answer the Committee's questions in the form of written interrogatories but declined to cooperate. The HSCA concluded that Ruby's shooting of Oswald was not a spontaneous act and involved premeditation, stating that because of Ruby’s perfect timing: "It made it difficult to accept mere coincidence, and it is unlikely that Ruby entered the basement without some sort of assistance.” The committee was also troubled by the removal of security guards from the area of the garage nearest the stairway shortly before the shooting, stating the evidence indicated Ruby did not come down the Main Street ramp, and were critical of the DPD's performance. So, when Grammer talked to Henry Hurt in May 1984, the inconsistencies in Ruby's story were already in the public domain. And he didn't retire until 1986.
-
54 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:
Just a thought about DPD Chief Curry.
It seemed that later on in his life after the weekend of 11/22/1963 thru 11/24/1963 he became more remorsefully reflective and perhaps even doubt expressing regards what may have been the truth regarding the JFK event.
Here we go again with "speculation" but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Curry knew he had been wrongly pressured by other higher forces to handle Oswald the way he did with a publicly announced daytime transfer move with a franticly yelling, shoving, easily breached press circus all around.
And especially the 11/24/1963 transfer of Oswald with general time frame public notice, in broad daylight with that crazy DPD basement tightly cramped, press crunch scene which made it possible for Jack Ruby to breach and kill the most important criminal suspect in American history.
Curry had to at least entertain the thought he had been used by these other higher ups in allowing Oswald's transfer to be a setup for killing him.
Now, in this thread some keep dwelling on the motive of Billy Grammer waiting so many years to publicly state he felt the 11/24/1963 Oswald threat call-in caller was Jack Ruby, whom he knew. That because he waited so long to proclaim his Ruby caller ID, it invalidates it's integrity and believability.
I countered with a previously stated speculation that Grammer may very well have waited until his 32 year built up pension was locked in to share his story.
With my lifetime experience common sense I know that pensions are as important to their earners, perhaps over everything else in their later life.
More important than sharing truths that may rock the world yet may threaten those pensions. So, I feel the pension protecting motive is a very logically considered one.
Back to Curry.
Imagine that Curry knew he had been set up with pressuring by higher ups regards Oswald's security handling in his custody.
That Oswald's famous "I AM JUST A PATSY" shout out to the world press was just as applicable to him!
Where could Curry go with that world shocking knowledge?
If he shared his honest feelings about this mind blowing scenario...what would it mean for him ... and his family...forever?
Even if he wrote it all down in a secret diary only to be released upon his death.
His future generation offspring would be afflicted the rest of their lives with a Curry blame legacy burden that Curry himself probably could not bear to even imagine.
This type of Curry thought and action motive speculation for never admitting what he truly knew about the killing of Oswald in his departments custody makes as much common sense to me as any other.
And I feel certain that many others in high positions in this country back then, withheld similarly earth rocking JFK event truths ( until and past their dying days ) for this same exact reason.
Could Curry have too?
Very possibly imo.
Joe
I'm pretty new to the Billy Grammer story. Only when I saw David Josephs' post, and his mention of the analysis that he and John Armstrong performed, did I dig into the story deeper. His timely appearance at the City Hall basement always seemed more than just a coincidence, but there's a lot of misinformation/misdirection out there, and it takes persistence to distill the truth where the assassination is concerned. Also, as Larry Hancock and Jim DiEugenio both point out, Ruby is a complex (and controversial) character, and no one has ever really done an adequate account of his true role. The people close to him that tried were quickly eliminated (reporters Jim Koethe of the Dallas Times Herald and Bill Hunter of the Long Beach Press Telegram) along with his attorney, Tom Howard. It was apparently unhealthy to get close to the Ruby story.
Regarding Grammer, my sense is that he was just as Henry Hurt described him ... a cautious and conservative man. As I stated earlier, I think that he did his job by elevating the call to his superiors, which is what an organization expects. Once you do that, it's now in the hands of higher-ups/management which most rank-and-file trust ... particularly in law enforcement. I also speculate that Grammer accepted the conclusions of the Warren Commission at the time, like so many Americans. I do not think his pension dictated staying silent ... in fact, he wasn't silent, and not only documented the call and threat, but shared it with the Task Force investigating the Department's performance. What he couldn't control was concealment of the part about the caller knowing insider details about the transfer ... that would've not only reflected very poorly on the Department but thrown a monkey wrench into the government's official story.
Regarding Chief Jesse Curry, I haven't studied him in depth. Curry transferred all of the evidence to the FBI, trusting them to cooperate with the DPD (which didn't happen). It appears that he was manipulated by city manager Elgin Crull and Mayor Earle Cabell, who insisted on the more public Oswald transfer. And those are his superiors ... as one of my former colleagues in government used to say, "everybody has a boss". So, I don't view Curry as complicit ... but Captain Fritz is an entirely different story.
Gene
-
3 hours ago, Bob Ness said:
Correct. It doesn't make sense for more than a couple reasons.
Presumably the argument put forth by Bill, McAdams et al is: Wade would have been a big winner by demonstrating how the DPD leaked the details of Oswald's transfer and after having been informed of that by their own officers Curry and Fritz blew it off, resulting in Oswald's murder. That's gold right there. Just what Wade would love to have.
On the other hand Belli could have leveraged that information into some kind of defense but all things considered it probably would work against Ruby. Both sides would be better off with Putnam and Grammer on vacation in Tiera del Fuego.
Grammer would likely stay mum until revealing that information had no effect on him or his colleagues, although I'm making a supposition there. To me that's the more likely explanation, especially since he gave corroborating sources who could deny his account. If he was lying he could leave those out.
So... There is a very strong possibility (if Grammer's story is true) it was either Ruby a conspirator or both, which is yet another reason not to call Grammer or Putnam to the stand. The official narrative is lone whacko after all.
Bob
The arguments put forward by John McAdams 20 years ago - parodied more recently by others - about Billy Grammer's timing and motives, are what lawyers and seasoned investigators aptly characterize as specious. I don't think Henry Wade needed Grammer's help in convicting Ruby. Wade was influenced strongly (some would say controlled) by LBJ and was likely interested in protecting (not prosecuting) the DPD. A 2008 AP story summarized an unusually large number of overturned convictions by Wade's Office (where DNA evidence later exonerated the defendants):
Wade was first elected DA at age 35 after three years as an assistant DA, promising to "stem the rising tide of crime." Wade already had spent four years as an FBI agent. As district attorney of Dallas for an unprecedented 36 years, Henry Wade was the embodiment of Texas justice. A strapping 6-footer with a square jaw and a half-chewed cigar clamped between his teeth, The Chief, as he was known, prosecuted Jack Ruby. He was the Wade in Roe v. Wade. And he compiled a conviction rate so impressive that defense attorneys ruefully called themselves the 7 Percent Club.
Some believe that Wade's deputy, Bill Alexander, was complicit in the larger assassination plot, as he was pursuing a conspiracy charge against Oswald, and was later fired for saying Earl Warren should be hanged.
Gene
-
5 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:
I'm still curious.
Why would Grammer and Putnam take a report of this "one" Oswald threat and take it to Curry?
Gene, as you mentioned, there must have been hundreds of Oswald threat calls received by the DPD.
So, why take one this more seriously over all others?
Was it because the caller stated details about the transfer only an insider would know?
It sounds as if Grammer and Putnam did not mention Jack Ruby in their 11/23/1963 report.
Also Hurt states Grammer's comments regards the caller saying Grammer would know him but he couldn't tell him his name?
If Grammer is telling the truth with that statement, it does add a least some weight to the possibility the caller was Jack Ruby...no?
Joe
There are several reasons for this threat to be taken more seriously, and elevated to Chief Curry ... the caller:
- first asked for Grammer (by name)
- described details surrounding Oswald's transfer later that day (i.e., had inside knowledge of police plans)
- expressed concern for the safety of the officers and personnel in the basement of City Hall
- didn't want Oswald murdered and (unlike other crank calls) was interested in his safe transfer to the county jail.
As David Josephs and John Armstrong write, "the purpose of Ruby’s phone calls was to provide the police with a reason to transfer Oswald quietly and secretly to the county jail, thereby making it impossible to complete his assignment to kill Oswald during the transfer". From Hurt's book:
There were numerous crank calls from people threatening Oswald, as well as from people who wanted to offer information. Late in the evening, one of the women on the switchboard received a call from a man who asked her to look around the room and to name the police officers who were there. He explained to her that he wanted to talk to someone that he knew. The woman began telling the caller the names of different men in the communications room. When she named Billy Grammer, the caller stated that he knew Grammer and that he wanted to speak to him.
The caller began speaking of details of the transfer plans that were not known even to Grammer. He motioned for one of his superiors to listen in on the call. Lieutenant Henry Putnam came in on the line and listened. The caller described precise details of the transfer plans. As the man spoke, Grammer did not know whether or not the details were correct. The caller described the decoy vehicle that would be sent out with red lights and sirens and police escorts, only to be followed a little later with the real car containing Oswald.
Hurt goes on to describe how two inspectors from the Dallas Police Department later questioned Billy Grammer about the call ... probably the follow-up Task Force appointed by Chief Curry on November 29th (the same day that Lyndon Johnson appointed the Warren Commission). Initially, they were tasked with finding out how Ruby got into the basement, and whether Ruby and Oswald knew each other. The Task Force was abruptly disbanded six weeks later, when DPD turned over its investigative material to the Texas Attorney General, Waggoner Carr. Billy Grammer explained to the Task Force the report submitted to Chief Curry, and that Lieutenant Putnam supported his version of events. However, the reported warnings that are in the record - the ones the police concede were ignored - did not include the caller's knowledge of the inside plans for the transfer - which Ruby uniquely had pursued and acquired throughout the weekend - likely because that aspect would've been very damaging to DPD's reputation.
If Ruby were under the control of powers that ordered him to murder Oswald—powerful enough to make him do so—then there was but one way for Ruby to escape his duty. He would have to be thwarted in his effort. A thwarted Ruby could tell his masters that he did the best he could, and surely that would be better for him than what was inevitable if he were successful, or if he refused to try.
In an Education Forum thread from 2016-2020, "Who Was jack Ruby?", Andrej Stancak explained out how Curry was manipulated by the mayor and a Dallas city manager. Curry has initially intended to transfer Oswald secretly at 2am. Sunday evening (after Oswald was murdered), Chief Curry told Sergeant Stavis Ellis that city manager Elgin Crull and Mayor Earle Cabell insisted on the transfer in front of cameras and newsmen. Sergeant Ellis later testified:
“Chief Curry told me that evening,” I want you and one jockey to come down here, and we’re going to move Oswald to the county jail at two o’clock and nobody know about it.”
But Elgin Crull and Earle Cabell overruled Chief Curry's orders:
“No, you will not do that! You will notify the news and media and the press so that they can be in the basement with their lights and cameras set up before you move him.”
The Warren Commission attorneys suspected DPD complicity in Ruby's access to City Hall basement ... but Earl Warren put a stop to that inquiry, after DA Wade and none other than LBJ interceded. Here is what David Josephs and John Armstong wrote:
Burt Griffin and Leon Hubert were convinced that Ruby had been stalking Oswald. They knew that Ruby’s presence at City Hall on Sunday morning was not coincidental, and they knew that Ruby somehow entered the basement for the purpose of killing Oswald. Griffin wrote a memo to J. L. Rankin, the WC chief counsel, explaining “I believe it likely Ruby came in by another entrance to a point where Dean could have stopped him and that Dean... is trying to conceal his dereliction of duty”. On May 15, 1964, both Griffin and Leon Hubert sent a memo to J. Lee Rankin with a list of areas that needed further investigation and a list of people they wanted to question. Sgt. Dean complained about Griffin’s accusation to D.A. Wade, who then called President Lyndon Johnson at his ranch in Texas and told him about the Dean/Griffin confrontation. Seth Kantor acknowledged that President Johnson began to exert pressure on Earl Warren. Griffin was not allowed to confront Dean at the Warren-Dean meeting. The WC soon recalled Griffin from Dallas and the investigation of the Dallas Police stopped.
It all fits together, once you assemble all the pieces of the puzzle.
Gene
-
9 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:
Gene, maybe you can shed some light here. I don't have Reasonable Doubt which I suspect is where much of this comes from. It seems to me that Henry Hurt seeking out Grammer in 1984 for an interview gives credence to his statements as opposed to him seeking fame on The Men Who Killed Kennedy four years later. The Hurt interview may well have led to his invitation to appear on TMWKK.
But I wonder, what prompted Hurt to interview Grammer. Had anyone else interviewed him in the years between the assassination and then? A lead from someone Grammer had spoken to? The paper trail, his affidavit, was deep sixed by Curry on 11/24/63.
Ron:
Not sure what led Henry Hurt to interview Grammer ... but the interview occurred in May 1984 (see Chapter 13 footnotes 57-59). Grammer appeared to be sincere and rationale- even 20 years later - in admitting that he wasn't completely sure that it was Ruby who called. Hurt described Grammer as "a cautious, conservative man", who:
"Grammer could not be certain that the voice on the telephone had been that of Jack Ruby. When he got to the police station that day, he consulted with Lieutenant Putnam, who also had heard Ruby's voice in the past. While Putnam would not rule out that the voice was Ruby's, according to Grammer, he said that he simply did not have enough familiarity to be certain. That, too, was Grammer's opinion. Even today, he says that while he still is not absolutely certain, he tends to believe the caller was Ruby.
He was still with DPD at the time of the Hurt interview (he retired several years later, in 1986) and I speculate that he was loyal to the Department and his superiors. He never spoke poorly of or criticized Curry or Fritz. I also read into this that Grammer never doubted the Warren Commission findings:
"Lieutenant Grammer points out that in view of the Warren Commission version of events, it never made any sense that Ruby would have made such a call."
Here is the link to the book online ... look on pages 407-410:
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Reasonable_Doubt.pdf
Gene
-
1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:
Oh, I know. That's why I said "he". Thanks for clarification though.
For clarity, when I saw the words "star witness" - in both the recent post by Bill Brown, and the dated posts from McAdam's website - it struck me as odd (but not coincidental). Then I find a similar phrase used by Dennis Morissette (20+ years ago) also on McAdams' website:
"Looks like Grammer preferred to be a star witness for The Men Who Killed Kennedy."
There is nothing original or cogent about these dated arguments ... and I can't envision how/why DA Henry Wade would've effectively used Grammer, even if he knew of the calls. As Ian Fleming wrote in Goldfinger:
Mr. Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: 'Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action'.”
Jack Ruby initially was convicted and faced the death penalty - thanks to Judge Brown's maleficence - without any help from the DPD. In fact, it was Officer Dean's testimony that got the initial verdict thrown out and prompted a retrial. Because of the death sentence, the case was immediately brought to appeal and in October 1966, the Criminal Appeals Court of Texas in a unanimous decision, overturned Ruby’s conviction for two reasons: (1) the trial court erred in denying Belli’s request for a change in venue; and (2) Ruby's jailhouse confession to DPD Sgt. Patrick Dean about deciding to kill Oswald when he saw him at the police lineup was improperly admitted into evidence at trial.
Ruby's statement to Dean constituted "an oral confession of premeditation made while in police custody and therefore was not admissible", because Texas law was explicit in saying that a defendant's oral statements while in custody are inadmissible as res gestae unless it was put into writing and signed by the accused. Grammer's story would not have changed that outcome.
Gene
-
21 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:
And Grammer doesn't mention Jack Ruby to Henry Hurt. Right?
Bill:
I mean no disrespect and respect your opinion ... but you need to read the book (and check the references), perform your own due diligence, and demonstrate some critical thinking. Here is what Henry Hurt writes on page 409 of his book, derived from his 1984 interview with Billy Grammer, who was still a Lieutenant with the DPD at the time:
Grammer was stunned. He told his wife that he suddenly realized that it was Jack Ruby who had called the night before. The voice was familiar because he had met and talked to Ruby only a week or so earlier. The execution had come off just as the caller had said it would.
He wasn't sure at the time and was honest in still doubting that it was Ruby. Here is what Henry Hurt wrote in 1985:
Even today, he says that while he still is not absolutely certain, he tends to believe the caller was Ruby. (Lieutenant Putnam has since died). Lieutenant Grammer points out that in view of the Warren Commission version of events, it never made any sense that Ruby would have made such a call.59 Today, however, in view of what is known of Ruby—including the House Select Committee's strong feeling that he may have been acting under orders—it perhaps does make sense.
-
3 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:
Right. And as I've said about a half dozen times now, there is no mention of Jack Ruby being the caller until 1988. So what is your point exactly?
Henry Hurt interviewed Billy Grammer in May 1984 ... four years before the documentary that you (and Dennis Morrissette) imply was Grammer's incentive to share his story.
Denis Morissette (18 years ago): "Looks like Grammer preferred to be a star witness for The Men Who Killed Kennedy."
-
19 hours ago, Bill Brown said:
I'm not copy and pasting jack dooky.
Any posts I make are my own words unless I give proper credit.
John McAdams (20+ years ago) on The Kennedy Assassination Home Page: Why did Grammer never come forward with his information that Ruby had, indeed, premeditated murder. DA Henry Wade would have made Grammer a star witness for the state in Ruby's trial.
Bill Brown (yesterday): During Ruby's trial, Bill Alexander (and in effect, Henry Wade) were trying to prove that Ruby murdered Oswald with malice and forethought. They wanted the death penalty. If Ruby really did make that phone call and Grammer really did recognize that it was Ruby, then Grammer would have been their star witness during Ruby's trial since he (Grammer) would have been the perfect witness to prove malice and forethought on Ruby's part. Despite this, we do not hear from Grammer until 1988 in The Men Who Killed Kennedy.
-
22 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:
Come on Bill ... do your homework. The story is related on pages 407-409 of Hurt's "Reasonable Doubt", first published in January 1985 ... three years before "The Men Who Killed Kennedy":
"Dallas Police Lieutenant Billy R. Grammer, then a rookie policeman, was working in the communications section of the police department in 1963. Lieutenant Grammer, who is highly respected among his colleagues, was on duty in the communications room on the Saturday night prior to Oswald's murder the next morning.
Late in the evening, one of the women on the switchboard received a call from a man who asked her to look around the room and to name the police officers who were there. He explained to her that he wanted to talk to someone that he knew. The woman began telling the caller the names of different men in the communications room. When she named Billy Grammer, the caller stated that he knew Grammer and that he wanted to speak to him. Grammer, who had taken about fifty calls that evening, immediately felt that he recognized the voice that he heard, but he could not put a face or name with the voice. When Grammer asked the caller's identity, the man said, "I can't tell you that, but you know me." Grammer did not press the caller for his identity.
Grammer said that when he asked the caller who he was, he replied, "I can't tell you that, but you know me.". The caller also said, "We are going to kill Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement tomorrow." and urged that DPD change their schedule. The caller described precise details of the transfer plans. As the man spoke, Grammer did not know whether or not the details were correct. The caller described the decoy vehicle that would be sent out with red lights and sirens and police escorts, only to be followed a little later with the real car containing Oswald.
Grammer then pressed the man to say who he was, but the man insisted that it made no difference. "You're going to have to make some other plans," he warned, "or we're going to kill Oswald right there in the basement. - When the caller hung up, Grammer told Lieutenant Putnam, "I know I know who that is, but I cannot recall his name." Lieutenant Putnam told Grammer that, indeed, the caller did have solid inside information on the secret police plans for moving Oswald. He told Grammer to type up a report of the call for Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry. Grammer did so, and he and Putnam together went to Curry's office, which was swarming with reporters, and handed the report to Curry. The FBI and sheriff's office were notified about the call.
It was sometime later that two inspectors from the Dallas Police Department asked Grammer about the call. He described it, adding that he had submitted a report to Chief Curry. Even though Lieutenant Putnam supported Grammer's version of events, the report of the incident has never surfaced. The reported warnings that are in the record—the ones the police concede were ignored—did not include knowledge of secret inside plans for the transfer.
Here is the link to the book ... you can read it for your own critical thinking:
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Reasonable_Doubt.pdf
Here are the footnoted references ... Grammer was interviewed by Henry Hurt in May 1984:
57. Interview with Billy Grammer, May 1984
58. Ibid.; XXIV WC, pp. 429, 434, 436
59. Interview with Grammer, May 1984
-
3 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:
Gene, so there were even more detailed aspects of the callers message.
He said "in the basement tomorrow." ? That's a bombshell.
So, again, was it the specific logistical details in the call-in message that prompted Grammer and Putman to make a report of the call and take it directly to their Chief? Details 99.999% of other threat makers wouldn't know?
Did Grammer also mention his belief that the caller was Jack Ruby to Chief Curry?
The caller says to Grammer ( after Grammer asks who he is ) "I can't tell you that but you know me." ???
Again, mind blowing.
Now, the FBI certainly taped their calls back then.
Just another tid-bit they withheld from the Warren Commission?
Joe
Grammer's story is related on pages 407-409 of Henry Hurt's "Reasonable Doubt", first published in January 1985:
"Dallas Police Lieutenant Billy R. Grammer, then a rookie policeman, was working in the communications section of the police department in 1963. Lieutenant Grammer, who is highly respected among his colleagues, was on duty in the communications room on the Saturday night prior to Oswald's murder the next morning. Late in the evening, one of the women on the switchboard received a call from a man who asked her to look around the room and to name the police officers who were there. He explained to her that he wanted to talk to someone that he knew. The woman began telling the caller the names of different men in the communications room. When she named Billy Grammer, the caller stated that he knew Grammer and that he wanted to speak to him. Grammer, who had taken about fifty calls that evening, immediately felt that he recognized the voice that he heard, but he could not put a face or name with the voice. When Grammer asked the caller's identity, the man said, "I can't tell you that, but you know me." Grammer did not press the caller for his identity."
Grammer was apparently known to Ruby ... they had met a week earlier when he and another policeman were having a meal at an all-night restaurant not far from police headquarters. Ruby had come into the restaurant, spotted the two policemen, introduced himself, and sat down and insisted on paying for the meal. Before that, Grammer had seen Ruby around town, but that occasion was the only time he ever sat down and talked to him. Hurt described Grammer as "a cautious, conservative man, who wasn't certain that the voice on the telephone had been that of Jack Ruby".
When Grammer returned to the police station, he consulted with Lieutenant Putnam (his supervisor) who also had heard Ruby's voice previously. Grammer related that the caller described precise details of the transfer plans ... he described the decoy vehicle that would be sent out with red lights and sirens and police escorts, only to be followed a little later with the real car containing Oswald. Grammer then pressed the man to say who he was, but the man insisted that it made no difference.
"You're going to have to make some other plans, or we're going to kill Oswald right there in the basement."
When the caller hung up, Grammer told Lieutenant Putnam, "I know I know who that is, but I cannot recall his name." Lieutenant Putnam told Grammer that, indeed, the caller did have solid inside information on the secret police plans for moving Oswald. He told Grammer to type up a report of the call for Chief Curry. Grammer did so, and he and Putnam together went to Curry's office, which was swarming with reporters, and handed the report to Curry. The FBI and sheriff's office were also notified about the call.
Gene
-
3 hours ago, Bill Brown said:
You seem confused.
Your quote above (from Hurt's book) doesn't mention Grammer saying the caller was Jack Ruby.
It appears to me that you guys lack critical thinking skills.
Come on Bill ... do your homework. The story is related on pages 407-409 of Hurt's "Reasonable Doubt", first published in January 1985 ... three years before "The Men Who Killed Kennedy":
"Dallas Police Lieutenant Billy R. Grammer, then a rookie policeman, was working in the communications section of the police department in 1963. Lieutenant Grammer, who is highly respected among his colleagues, was on duty in the communications room on the Saturday night prior to Oswald's murder the next morning.
Late in the evening, one of the women on the switchboard received a call from a man who asked her to look around the room and to name the police officers who were there. He explained to her that he wanted to talk to someone that he knew. The woman began telling the caller the names of different men in the communications room. When she named Billy Grammer, the caller stated that he knew Grammer and that he wanted to speak to him. Grammer, who had taken about fifty calls that evening, immediately felt that he recognized the voice that he heard, but he could not put a face or name with the voice. When Grammer asked the caller's identity, the man said, "I can't tell you that, but you know me." Grammer did not press the caller for his identity.
Grammer said that when he asked the caller who he was, he replied, "I can't tell you that, but you know me.". The caller also said, "We are going to kill Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement tomorrow." and urged that DPD change their schedule. The caller described precise details of the transfer plans. As the man spoke, Grammer did not know whether or not the details were correct. The caller described the decoy vehicle that would be sent out with red lights and sirens and police escorts, only to be followed a little later with the real car containing Oswald.
Grammer then pressed the man to say who he was, but the man insisted that it made no difference. "You're going to have to make some other plans," he warned, "or we're going to kill Oswald right there in the basement. - When the caller hung up, Grammer told Lieutenant Putnam, "I know I know who that is, but I cannot recall his name." Lieutenant Putnam told Grammer that, indeed, the caller did have solid inside information on the secret police plans for moving Oswald. He told Grammer to type up a report of the call for Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry. Grammer did so, and he and Putnam together went to Curry's office, which was swarming with reporters, and handed the report to Curry. The FBI and sheriff's office were notified about the call.
It was sometime later that two inspectors from the Dallas Police Department asked Grammer about the call. He described it, adding that he had submitted a report to Chief Curry. Even though Lieutenant Putnam supported Grammer's version of events, the report of the incident has never surfaced. The reported warnings that are in the record—the ones the police concede were ignored—did not include knowledge of secret inside plans for the transfer.
Here is the link to the book ... you can read it for your own critical thinking:
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Reasonable_Doubt.pdf
-
Joe
If you read the links and the earlier threads I sent, there were three separate calls ... the first to DPD (and Grammer), then the Sherrif's Office (McCoy) and finally the FBI. Therse occurred between 2am and 2:30 am early that morning. The caller - whom the officials stated sounded identical or was the same person - was putting all the protective agencies on notice:
There will be no excitement and we will kill him. We wanted to be sure and tell the FBI, Police Department, and Sheriff's Office and we will be there, and we will kill him." (24 H 429)
Grammer was a DPD officer for 32 years, where he retired from (as a Lieutenant) in 1986. My read of him is that he did his job (as a night office communicator), properly informed his superior (Lieut. Putnam) and they took it to Chief Curry who appeared to dismiss it, but then later recommended some additional precautions, which Captain Fritz disagreed with. That all happened after Grammer's night shift ...and he later learned of Oswald's murder while at home watching television.
In Henry Hurt's 1985 book "Reasonable Doubt" - published prior to the aforementioned documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" - Billy Grammer's story is told. So, contrary to what the naysayers assert, this was already in the public domain prior to 1988:
"Grammer said that when he asked the caller who he was, he replied, "I can't tell you that, but you know me." The caller also said, "We are going to kill Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement tomorrow." and urged that DPD change their schedule. Grammer reported the call to the watch officer, Lieutenant Putnam, who told him to type up a report. He did so and the two of them brought it to Chief Curry's office."
Gene
-
Joe
The calls to the Sherrif's office and FBI were documented, and records can be found in the following links:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0226b.htm
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0278b.htm
It's not a stretch to surmise that the authorities were getting all kinds of calls that night, from all over the country. Many of the calls were aimed at the authorities themselves (not Oswald), and one would not expect them to recommend that the authorities ‘protect’ Oswald by changing their plans to move him. That is what makes the tenor of the ostensible Ruby calls more intriguing. What's interesting about the one to the Sherrif's Office at 2:15 am is that the caller stated that "they" (the group who had decided to kill Oswald during the transfer) didn't want any of the Sherrif's deputies to be hurt ... that smacks of Jack Ruby, who personally knew many of the officers in Dallas. Also, the FBI, Dallas Police and Sherrif's Office were all communicating with each other throughout the night and early morning. The FBI call was taken at 2:30 am by one Vernon Glosser:
"At 2:30 AM I received a telephone call at the office of the Dallas FBI from an unknown male who spoke in a calm voice and asked, "I would like to talk to the man in charge. I told the caller that the SAC was not present at that time asked him if someone else could help him. The caller then said, "Wait a minute," and apparently turned the phone over to another man. I am not certain there were two different voices, however, the tone of the unknown caller's voice changed somewhat at this point. The voice at this point was calm and mature in sound and this person stated as follows: "I represent a committee that is nether right nor left wing, and tonight, tomorrow morning, or tomorrow night, we are going to kill the man that killed the president. There will be no excitement and we will kill him. We wanted to be sure and tell the FBI, Police Department, and Sheriff's Office and we will be there, and we will kill him." (24 H 429)Some speculate that the second individual calling the FBI may have been Ruby's roommate (George Senator) or his attorney (Tom Howard), both of whom visited Ruby in jail that day. Later that night, Bill Hunter of the Long Beach Press Telegram and Jim Koethe of the Dallas Times Herald interviewed George Senator along with Ruby's attorney Tom Howard. Senator had allowed those three individuals to search Ruby's apartment. In April 1964, Hunter was shot dead by a policeman in the pressroom of a Long Beach police station. Jim Koethe was also murdered in September 1964 by a man who broke into his Dallas apartment and killed him by a karate chop to the throat. Tom Howard died of a suspicious heart-attack in March 1965.
Gene
-
3 hours ago, Bill Brown said:
"Grammer said..."
That's the entire problem. Grammer didn't "say" anything until the late 80's.
Bill
I don't want to try to change your mind or convince you, as you seem fixed on the idea that Grammer waited too long to share his story. All you assert is that his story only publicly surfaced with the 1988 documentary ... but we don't know whether he had shared that story prior with others (I suspect he did). He was a long-time DPD officer (32 years) and retired in 1986 ... if I were in his shoes, I would've concluded that I did my job, informed my superiors, and therefore let the chips fall where they may. Why would he want to publicly embarrass the DPD, or go against the grain of the "official" story? He wasn't the only person/group to have been warned early that morning ... which is a documented fact. Two years after his retirement, his story became more widely known ... so what? There are a number of plausible reasons for that, but it would be pure speculation at this point - yours seem to be that he fabricated his story - why do you think he "kept quiet"?
You appear to be cut/pasting dated John McAdams' arguments from 20 years ago ... perhaps you could present a more cogent or original rationale for why we should reject this Grammer story.
Gene
PS. No need to reply ..."sea-lioning" with relentless requests for evidence doesn't accomplish anything.
-
9 hours ago, Bill Brown said:
You don't really believe any of that, do you?
I'm familiar with the Grammer claim and none of that answered my question.
Grammer and his supervisor prepared a sworn affidavit in which Grammer identified Ruby as the caller that very night? I call bullsh*t on that one.
During Ruby's trial, Bill Alexander (and in effect, Henry Wade) were trying to prove that Ruby murdered Oswald with malice and forethought. They wanted the death penalty. If Ruby really did make that phone call and Grammer really did recognize that it was Ruby, then Grammer would have been their star witness during Ruby's trial since he (Grammer) would have been the perfect witness to prove malice and forethought on Ruby's part. Despite this, we do not hear from Grammer until 1988 in The Men Who Killed Kennedy.
Bill
Your response appears to mirror a comment made by John McAdams 20+ years ago.
To answer your question, I wouldn't reject Grammer's story out of hand. Grammer served 32 years with DPD and retired as a lieutenant in 1986. I suspect that he was loyal to the Department and didn't want to make waves, plus he did what he was expected to do ... he reported and documented the call to the watch officer (Lieutenant Putnam), and the two of them brought it to Chief Curry's attention. Curry dismissed the warning, since DPD were receiving many similar threats at the time. Grammer consistently related his story, 30 years after the Men Who Killed Kennedy documentary. This is also covered in James Douglas' "JFK and the Unspeakable" published in 2010 (page 367) ... Footnote 856 (WCH vol 19) refers to a report from the Sherrif's office, and Footnote 857 (WCH vol 24) documents a similar call to the FBI. The FBI's Vernon Glosser reported a caller who stated: We wanted to be sure and tell the FBI, Police Department, and Sheriff's Office and we will be there, and we will kill him." (24 H 429)
I have previous experience with investigating allegations (as a government employee) and Officer Grammer appears credible to me.
Gene
-
4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:
"You ignore the fact that the officer on dispatch duty the night before, Billy Grammer, said that a man who sounded like Ruby called the DPD, that the man knew about the actual time that Oswald would be transferred, and that the man warned that the police needed to change the transfer plan or else Oswald would be killed."
And when exactly is it that you believe we first hear of this story from Grammer?
Bill
Here is a summary of the Billy Grammer story:
At 3:00 am, Dallas Police Officer Billy Grammer received a phone call from a familiar voice warning him that Oswald would be killed if the police didn't transfer him in secret. Grammer said the man detailed the plans of the transfer, such as a decoy vehicle, information that couldn’t be obtained without the help of police officers or other government agents. Grammer then asked a high-ranking police officer to listen in on the call. After the call ended, Grammer and his supervisor prepared a sworn affidavit in which he identified Ruby as the man who called the police station and made threats against Oswald at 3:00 AM. Grammer was never asked to testify before the Warren Commission, and the sworn affidavit that he and his supervisor personally gave to Chief Curry disappeared. After placing these early morning phone calls to the Sheriff's office, the FBI office, and the Dallas Police Department Ruby likely drove home, arriving around 4:00 AM.
This was later recounted in a KTBS TV interview on November 18, 2018, "Retired Dallas officer Billy Grammer remembers the call that could've stopped killing of JFK's assassin" by Gerry May (see link below). In his interview, Grammer stated that Chief Curry told FBI investigators the next day that he did not remember getting Billy's report ... but Grammer says his fellow officer and two FBI agents stood behind him.
"That report has never surfaced," Grammer says. "When all that happened on Sunday and Oswald was killed, I think probably Sunday afternoon the chief probably shredded that thing and threw it in the trash," Grammer says.
Chief Curry never mentioned Billy Grammer or discussed the typewritten report given to him by Grammer during his Warren Commission testimony. Nonetheless, Curry apparently took this threat seriously because he suggested to Assistant Police Chief Charles Batchelor and Deputy Chief Stevenson that Oswald be transported to the county jail in an armored truck, although Captain Fritz disagreed, and later intended to use the armored truck as a decoy.
Gene
-
Ron
I share your fascination with Dr. Jolyon West's visits to Jack Ruby. If he were to show up in my jail cell - knowing of his reputation and MKUltra work - I would certainly be worried. Here are some excerpts that I have found about West and his suspicious interest in Jack Ruby:
Ruby had an isolated cell constructed for him to live in as he awaited his fate and contemplated the possibility of being executed. Dr. West’s research proposal to the CIA (and Sidney Gottlieb) - uncovered years later in his UCLA files by Tom O'Neill - stated (in part) that:
“There is reason to believe that environmental manipulations can affect the tendencies for dissociative phenomena to occur. Isolation, in particular, can markedly change the individual’s response to suggestion in the form of verbal communication. It is proposed that new experiments utilizing special environmental manipulations, including sensory isolation, be begun.”
West’s proposal specifies that these can produce marked personality changes, which Ruby appeared to have undergone in West’s examination of him. The report asserts that Ruby was psychotic and delusional at the time. In his report, West said that “hypnosis and intravenous sodium pentothal were included among possible techniques” to be used on Ruby. In his proposal to CIA for continuing his MKULTRA work with them, he proposed that “the combined use of hypnotic techniques and autonomic drugs be exercised.” Sodium pentothal, as a barbiturate, is one such autonomic drug that - frequently used in various MKULTRA experiments and other interrogation or hypnosis related programs. Then there is this revealing article published on an Ohio State University website:
Ruby Bangs Head on Wall in Dallas Jail (April 27, 1964, The Ohio State Lantern)
DALLAS—Condemned slayer Jack Ruby took advantage of his jailer's momentary absence early yesterday to ram his head into the wall of his cell in what Sheriff Bill Decker called "a deliberate act. " "Apparently, he suffered only a knot on his head, " the Sheriff said. The convicted slayer of accused presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was rushed under heavy guard to a Dallas hospital for a physical examination but Decker said that x-rays of his head revealed no injury. But when he was returned to his cell, Ruby attempted to rip his clothing into strips, Sheriff Decker said. As precautionary measures the few furnishings were removed from Ruby's cell, leaving him only a mattress. The sheriff gave newsmen his account:
Ruby had refused to go to bed and had been talking with one of the guards who are assigned to watch him on a round-the-clock basis. About 1 am. Ruby asked the guard for a drink of water, just as the jailer started to leave the cell, Ruby lowered his head, took several fast steps and rammed his head against the cell wall. The guard, who stepped back into the cell quickly and restrained him, said Ruby did not lose consciousness. The jail doctor was called immediately. He found an abrasion on the scalp, but no cut. Later yesterday Ruby was visited in his cell by Dr. Louis Jolyon West of the Oklahoma School of Medicine a psychiatrist recently engaged by the defense counsel. Dr. West declined to reveal his findings to newsmen.
Gene
-
3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:
The prosecution did not buy your innocent explanation of Ruby's phone call. You left out the fact that Ken Dowe said that Ruby asked him when Oswald would be transferred:
Ken Dowe, a KLIF announcer, to whom Ruby made at least two telephone calls within a short span of time Saturday afternoon, confirmed that he was probably the person to whom Hallmark and Brown overheard Ruby speaking. In one call to Dowe, Ruby asked whether the station knew when Oswald would be moved. . . . (WCR, p. 346)
Now, gee, why was Ruby asking about the time of Oswald's transfer?
Shall we talk about Ruby's numerous calls to Mafia figures in the weeks before the assassination? Or how about the fact that we learned in 1967, from a note written by Ruby himself, that Ruby's professed motive for shooting Oswald was really just a legal ploy suggested by his first attorney (HSCA Report, p. 158)?
And, yes, the phone call was in the afternoon, not the evening.
I notice you said nothing about the HSCA's demolition of the myth that Ruby entered the basement via the Main Street ramp.
Let's not forget that a psychiatrist named Louis Jolyon West visited Jack Ruby in his isolation cell in a Dallas jail in April 1964. West found that Jack Ruby was ‘technically insane’ and in need of immediate psychiatric hospitalization. Prior to this, Ruby seemed perfectly sane to the people who knew him. But Louis Jolyon West pronounced him crazy. West was working for the CIA at the time, as an expert on mind control in the infamous MKUltra program in which powerful psychiatric drugs were being administered to patients without their knowledge.
West tried to insert himself into the Ruby trial proceedings by petitioning Judge Joe Brown to examine Ruby for the court, but he was rebuffed. Three times West referred to being told to do this, but never identified by whom. When Ruby was convicted of murder, he fired his attorney's and hired one of their team for the appeal, Hubert Winston Smith, a psychiatrist with a law degree. One of his first actions was to bring in Jolly West for a reexamination of Ruby.
Strange bedfellows ... to say the least.
Gene
-
Gil and Joe:
David's excellent paper points out that there was a door on the Main St. side of the parking garage which led to the sub-basement, and two doors that opened into passenger elevators in the central part of the garage. Reserve Officer Alvin Brock was assigned to guard the doors and elevators but was re-assigned to traffic detail (about an hour or so before Ruby arrived). There was a second reservist (G.E. Worley, Jr.) guarding that area ... but, after Officer Brock left, he too was reassigned to traffic duty and left the building. So, twenty minutes before Oswald was brought to the basement, there were no police officers guarding the parking area. This is where Croy enters the scene ... and Ruby arrives in the basement within 1-2 minutes of Oswald's transfer (thanks to Westbrook, Fritz and Harry Holmes), blending in with the news media and knowing exactly where to stand (next to Croy). And it's clear that he didn't come down the ramp, as the Warren Commission (and Officer Patrick Dean) wanted us to believe.
Nothing coincidental or spontaneous about any of this.
Gene
-
21 hours ago, David Josephs said:
Hi Michael...
John Armstrong and I recently finished a paper about that in detail https://harveyandlee.net/Oswald_Killed/Oswald_Killed.html
Yes, the HSCA concluded that the side door was the most likely but did not get deeper into it
We do... and it's quite interesting... Hope you enjoy
David:
Excellent paper and very informative read.
Another myth in this Ruby story involves Karen Lynn Bennett Carlin, aka “Little Lynn”, who worked as a stripper at Ruby’s Carousel Club. She later served as Ruby’s alibi after he shot Oswald. She allegedly phoned Ruby on the morning of November 24th, 1963, and asked him to wire her $25 for rent and groceries. While this was what she had testified to, her husband Bruce stated:
"I do not know for sure that the $25 that we asked for went for rent at that time or whether we kept it and paid it when it was due, or whether it went for groceries or medicine, which we both needed … had she not phoned, Ruby would not have been in downtown Dallas that Sunday morning and almost certainly would not have shot Oswald”.
Karen said that she called Ruby about 10:00 am on Sunday morning and Jack said that he would go downtown and send it Western Union ... but she and Bruce didn't pick it up until 3:20 pm that afternoon. Carlin was arrested in December 1963, during Ruby’s trial, for carrying a pistol into the courtroom in her purse. After the assassination, Carlin turned up on the lists of "mysterious deaths" although there was no evidence as such. In 1992, Karen Carlin came back from the dead, and contacted Gary Shaw after living under an assumed identity for 30 years and told him she knew of a plot to kill Oswald, that Ruby told her to phone him Sunday morning and would telegraph her $25 just before shooting Oswald, to establish his alibi as an impulsive act of revenge.
According to a 1993 news article by Peter Kendall, Karen spent much of 1964 changing residences in Fort Worth and made her last appearance as an exotic dancer at the Skyliner Ballroom where she was arrested by Fort Worth police for indecent exposure on Labor Day ... she pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, paid a fine and disappeared. Apparently, Penn Jones met with Carlin and an unknown man in Houston in 1966, where they allegedly asked Jones to report Carlin’s death so that she could go into witness protection. Karen lived under the name Karen Block in Detroit; her son alleged that he and his mother moved around and lived in multiple states while he was growing up. Karen passed away in July 2010. (Reference: 11/22/2013 article by Matt Smith, “This just in: Little Lynn still dead”, The Cleburne Times-Review).
Gene
-
5 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:
After writing extensively about what was credible in regard to RCN and his story (including the admitted CIA names in his notebook) in SWHT as well as publishing a situational study of his changing remarks over the years from his time in jail to his death (via CD including documents - which is unfortunately no longer available from Lancer but may soon go up on the Weisberg archives) and carrying that on to blog posts on his documented (and strangely not investigated) effort to defect to an adversary nation in Mexico City as well as the very likely possibility that the CIA officer contacting him in Mexico City was Henry Hecksher I think I've done as much as I can to paint the full Nagell story as best we can know it at this distance in time.
Given how much time I've spent on it I've no interest in participating in a long winded forum dialog but I would advise there is a great more to Nagell than what is presented to challenge his stability - which certainly is a caution. The real challenge is to map his claims to what was going on at given points in his life and then make your own estimate of his remarks at any given point in time.
I would also say that when you boil it all down, its unlikely he knew anything about Dallas - what he did know was that anti-Castro Cubans had approached Oswald to begin manipulating him in New Orleans. Anti-Castro Cubans representing themselves as Cuban agants. He just could not understand why Oswald would not break off from them - but of course that's another story entirely. But in the end, his warnings and remarks about Oswald were simply that Oswald was being manipulated by other people and not a lone actor, a story which definitely needed to be suppressed at the time.
Personally I think Dick captured it all in his conversation with Nagell's lawyer who said he would have made a totally different defense of Nagell if only he could have proved he had been in Mexico City - something we now know without a doubt.
Thanks Larry.
I too am conflicted about Nagell's story. In my recent posts, I have tried to summarize some key information (from a variety of sources) and also wanted to see what the experts like yourself, and David Boylan think. Nagell is exasperating to understand, and I do agree with Matt and Ben (and others) that a lot of the "evidence" is word of mouth, interviews, and convoluted stories. The word "situational" is a wise caution here, in interpreting his story. However, he did seem to have a lot of insider information, which would be very dangerous to know/have at the time. One thing that struck me is your analysis that the CIA officer contacting him in Mexico City was Henry Hecksher ... that would give me some pause.
Gene
Moments Leading to Oswald's Deserved Death
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Pete
It is difficult to ignore history, although an active role by Mossad (through Ruby) is a big circumstantial leap of faith. There is an excellent analysis of all of this by Jim DiEugenio in October 2020 in Kennedys and King, "Nasser, Kennedy, the Middle East, and Israel". The central issue of contention was Israel's pursuit of highly enriched uranium and weapons grade plutonium, which Kennedy was opposed to. JFK's middle east foreign policy with respect to Egypt, Nassar and the Saudis was certainly a tipping point, straining America's relations with Britain as well. Here is a cogent excerpt of what Jim D. wrote:
On May 10, 1963, Kennedy sent a letter to Ben Gurion expressing his frustration at the state of affairs. He said Tel Aviv had not responded to a request for regular inspections at the Dimona Plant. He closed the letter with something no other president, before or since, had done with Israel: he threatened to pull American funding for Israel if no regular inspections were forthcoming. Ben Gurion called for a cabinet meeting and in letters to JFK compared Nasser to Hitler.
On June 15, 1963, Kennedy replied to Ben Gurion, and a supplementary note was sent by Dean Rusk to the American ambassador in Tel Aviv. Kennedy repeated his warning: either there would be full and regular inspections or Ben Gurion would be placing future American aid in limbo. Rusk’s note said that these inspections had to be arranged before the reactor reached criticality. One day after Tel Aviv was in receipt of this letter, David Ben Gurion resigned his post as prime minister. Levi Eshkol now assumed office; two weeks after Ben Gurion’s resignation, Kennedy wrote back on July 4th, stating: "This government’s commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized if it should be thought that we were unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to peace as the question of Israel’s effort in the nuclear field". (Letter of July 4, 1963). At the time of Kennedy’s assassination, Bundy was negotiating with Eshkol the terms of biannual inspections of Dimona ... a sticking point was that Eshkol did not want Egypt's Nasser to know about the visits, whereas for Kennedy, this was one of the predicates for the inspections.
After the assassination, President Johnson slowly but surely reverted back to the Eisenhower/Dulles policy in the Middle East.
Gene