Gene Kelly

Deleted

Curious story.  In his July 26, 1963, televised speech, the President explains that the treaty will strengthen national security, lessen the risk and fear of radioactive fallout, reduce world tension by encouraging further dialogue, and prevent acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations not currently possessing them. The President emphasizes that while the treaty does not eliminate the threat of nuclear war, a limited test ban is safer than an unlimited arms race. 

In a DOE blog maintained by writer Frank Munger, who covers the Dept. of Energy's Oak Ridge facilities, the following story about the signature sheet appears:

The copy surfaced on the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination, when Gerald Boyd, former manager of the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge office, brought it to a meeting of the East Tennessee Economic Council and showed it around. It created a stir of interest and raised additional questions. In a telephone interview, Boyd said he’d been given a copy of the document about five years ago when he was still manager of DOE’s Oak Ridge office. Boyd said he doesn’t know where the original document is, but suggested it’s probably stored in the federal agency’s archives somewhere – possibly in Atlanta. He said there’s an assumption that the signature is authentic but doesn’t know if that has been verified ... it suggests possible Oak Ridge links to the assassination. The museum registration sheet would seem to suggest Oswald was in the presence of a number of other people from Texas. The old museum, which was owned by the Atomic Energy Commission and situated on the Oak Ridge Turnpike, has since been renamed the American Museum of Science and Energy and relocated to its current site on Tulane Avenue. 

Gene

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Yeah I know.

But I wasn't debating him, I was correcting him. Chuck Schwartz posted a link to testimony proving Bill wrong. And I didn't see anybody picking up on that... so I did.

 

Sandy

FWIW, Ruby was interviewed on Sunday, June 7, 1964, at the Dallas County Jail by WC members Earl Warren and Gerald Ford; WC counselors Arlen Spector, Joseph Ball and J. Lee Rankin; and in the presence of his attorney Joe Tonahill, Texas special counsel Leon Jaworski, Jim Bowie (ADA), Elmer Moore (SS), and Sherriff Decker.  Chuck's link and Ruby's words are found on page 189 of the Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 5:

And they questioned Henry Wade “What organization did he belong to?” or something.  And if I recall, I think Henry Wade answered “Free Cuba” … and I corrected Henry Wade, because listening to the radio or KLIF, it stood out in my mind that it was Fair Play for Cuba. There was a difference. And so, he said: “Oh yes, Fair Play Cuba”. 

A few things stand out to me, as I think more about this thread.  First, it appears that Ruby was informed about the Oswald FPCC connections not from national news or television, but rather by listening to the radio ... specifically KLIF, owned by Gordon McLendon, who in 1975 formed the Association of Former Intelligence Officers with David Phillips.  Second, how would a nightclub owner know that there was a "difference" between the 'Free Cuba' Committee (formally known as the Citizens Committee for a Free Cuba) founded by Sergio Arcacha Smith for CRC purposes and the FPCC? Also, it was Joe Tonahill who arranged for Dorothy Kilgallen to meet secretly with Ruby during his trial.  Last, if the FPCC connection was widely known by the Friday night Wade press conference, why didn't the reporters asking questions already know about it?

Gene

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Those articles by Bleau are great, especially Part I - but unless NBC’s Frank McGee made a mistake, it seems like someone in the DPD did leak information about the FPCC. In DVP’s link, McGee states:

”We do know that he has been identified by police in Dallas as chairman of an organization known as Fair Play for Cuba Committee” 

That seems pretty unambiguous, but the use of the word “chairman” is interesting. Could WDSU have sent out biographical info on the AP wire service that McGee thought came from the DPD? I have no idea.

This isn’t really a critical issue, I’d just never heard of the DPD mentioning the FPCC that early so I got curious. I’d also like to know a  source for the earliest press reports mentioning Oswald in New Orleans. 

Tom

Much of what I've learned about Ruby's behavior that Friday night is from Warren Commission exhibits. The excerpts below are from Commission Report Chapter 6 (page 342):

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-6.html

Oswald was taken from the room after a brief appearance, and Ruby remained to hear reporters question District Attorney Wade. During the press conference, Wade stated that Oswald would probably be moved to the county jail at the beginning of the next week.935 In answer to one question, Wade said that Oswald belonged to the "Free Cuba Committee." A few reporters spoke up correcting Wade and among the voices was that of Jack Ruby.936

Ruby appears to be steering Henry Wade towards KLIF Radio, and Gordon McLendon's sources:

Ruby later followed the district attorney out of the press conference, walked up to him and, according to Wade, said "Hi Henry ... Don't you know me? ... I am Jack Ruby, I run the Vegas Club. ..." 937 After talking with Johnston, he gave another card to Icarus M. Pappas, a reporter for New York radio station WNEW.939  Observing Pappas holding a telephone line open and attempting to get the attention of District Attorney Wade, Ruby directed Wade to Pappas, who proceeded to interview the district attorney.942 Ruby then called KLIF a second time and offered to secure an interview with Wade; he next summoned Wade to his phone, whereupon KLIF recorded a telephone interview with the district attorney.943 A few minutes later, Ruby encountered Russ Knight, a reporter from KLIF who had left the station for the police department at the beginning of Ruby's second telephone call. Ruby directed Knight to Wade and waited a short distance away while the reporter conducted another interview with the district attorney.

One last point - that bears upon what's being debated (i.e., that it was common knowledge about Oswald's FPCC affiliation) - is why would the reporters question Wade about Oswald's connections, if they already knew?  And why would Wade not know the difference between "Free Cuba" and "Fair Play for Cuba"?  

Gene

Sandy:

It's not productive to debate the skeptics here ... they are simply regurgitating the same specious arguments that McAdam's posted many years ago. Jim Garrison provided a more insightful explanation of Wade's Freudian Slip (and Ruby's quick retort), in his October 1967 Playboy interview:

You may remember that on the night of the assassination, Dallas D.A. Henry Wade called a press conference and at one point referred to Oswald as a member of the “Free Cuba Committee” instead of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC). Jack Ruby promptly chimed in to correct him. Ruby was obviously in the jail that night on a dry run prior to his successful murder of Oswald on Sunday - a possibility the Warren Commission never bothered to consider - and could hardly have been eager to draw attention to himself. However, he must have been afraid that if the press reported Oswald was a member of the “Free Cuba Committee,” somebody might begin an investigation of that group and discover its anti–Castro and ultra–right–wing orientation. And so, he risked his cover to set the record straight and protect his fellow conspirators.

Wade unknowingly blundered, describing Oswald as being a member of the "Free Cuba Committee", a CIA-funded, anti-Castro group.  Ruby quickly corrected him, stating “Fair Play Cuba,” ... steering Wade and the press towards Oswald’s one-man NOLA branch of the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee ... why would a local strip joint owner know this, much less feel compelled to correct it?  I don't buy the argument that this connection was all over the news ... the NOLA INCA people alerted the news networks to the summer antics of Oswald, but the FPCC was hardly a household name that Friday night.  Oswald had only been in custody for less than 8 hours at that point. for As Paul Bleau pointed out:

 "... not the experts, the police officers, lawyers or the journalists who were the ones trained in active listening and note-taking … no, it was the uneducated, night club owner, gun runner and future patsy killer Jack Ruby".

Eladio Del Valle was active in the "Free Cuba Committee", an organization formed by Sergio Arcacha Smith, both of whom worked for Santo Trafficante. During Garrison's investigation, he tried to interview del Valle to obtain information against Clay Shaw, but del Valle was murdered in February 1967.  Oswald was ignored by the FPCC after several letters from its Director (V. T. Lee), and Oswald never recruited anyone to join the FPCC. The street address of Oswald’s FPCC chapter in New Orleans was ignored or overlooked, likely because his activities were performed undercover for Guy Banister and the CRC. Oswald’s anti–Castro friends from Miami and New Orleans showed up in Dallas in October ... in a “Supplementary Investigation Report” filed on November 23, 1963, by Dallas policeman Buddy Walthers, an aide to Sheriff Bill Decker, Walthers stated:

“I talked to Sorrels, the head of the Dallas Secret Service, I was advised that for the past few months at a house at 3128 Harlandale, some Cubans had been having meetings on the weekends and were possibly connected with the Freedom for Cuba Party of which Oswald was a member.”

Buddy Walthers’ report of the suspicious house on Harlendale mentions the ‘Freedom for Cuba Party' ... a reference to the anti–Castro Free Cuba Committee of which Oswald, Ferrie and certain individuals (including the elusive "second Oswald") were members. This relates to Wade's press conference where he used the phrase “Free Cuba Committee” ... Ruby, who just happened to be there, promptly chimed in to correct him.

Gene

8 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Thanks David, I was wondering when the FPCC info was first broadcast on TV. According to the reporter, the information on the FPCC actually came from the Dallas Police, not WDSU. 

That makes sense, because the FBI, who of course knew Oswald and had an internal security case file, didn’t even figure out at the Bureau level that Oswald had lived in New Orleans until something ridiculous like 10 p.m. Friday night. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57690#relPageId=183

The information coming from the DPD suggests that an officer told reporters about the FPCC membership card. I’m not sure where else that info could have come from by 4:00 p.m.

Tom

David has some good information on his website about the news broadcasts that Friday afternoon/evening. Also, a blog from Jefferson Morley's JFK facts (in 2016) by Tom Scully contains the following comments:

Before 7:30 PM EST, NBC News, New York, was in possession of WDSU recordings of the Butler, Stuckey, Oswald radio debate, and possibly of Oswald, Steele, and possibly a third individual handing out FPCC flyers adjacent to the International Trade Mart (ITM) in August 1963.

The biographical information about Oswald, from the Associated Press library, was collated and disseminated by their wire service sometime after 4PM CST in response to the Dallas Police designating him as the “prime suspect”. That information started to be reported on air shortly before 5 PM CST. Previous to the Dallas Police designation, the only information broadcast other than Oswald’s name and age was that he had been in New Orleans and was connected with the FPCC (offered up by interested parties in that city), and NBC’s scoop that he worked in the TSBD which also came to them directly from the Dallas Police.

It appears that the FPCC connection came from New Orleans and WDSU (Butler, INCA, et al).  The 2021 articles in Kennedys and King "Exposing the FPCC" written by Paul Bleau are informative. 

Gene

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Ruby correcting Wade on the FPCC definitely raises an eyebrow, but isn’t it possible that Ruby heard about it on the TV or radio that day? When was Oswald’s membership in the FPCC first mentioned in the press? Another possibility is Ruby got an inside scoop from one of his cop or reporter buddies.

Good point Tom ... but that begs the question of why Ruby would feel compelled to correct Wade's statement ... out loud, in front of the cameras, even though he is not a reporter.  How many Americans had ever heard of this obscure committee? That reinforces (at least to me) that he is making sure that Oswald's legend is publicly known. 

He wrote to the Committe in May 1963, and then did his leaflet thing in the summer in NOLA.  When he returned home to Dallas, he stayed with his family at Ruth Paine’s home ... this is where the Dallas Police recovered his Fair Play for Cuba Committee membership card.  Apparently, Oswald was carrying a second Fair Play for Cuba membership card in his wallet when he was apprehended on November 22, 1963.  I don't think his affiliation was widely known at the time of the press conference. 

22 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Well, I do like to stick to historical facts & to stay clear of unsubstantiated theories.  Yet, in this case I note many suspicious facts linking Mossad & Israel.

For instance, David Ben Gurion really hated John Kennedy.  We know of the pressure JFK was applying to Israel regarding the atomic processing plant at Dimona, which in the early summer of '63 caused Ben Gurion to step down from office.  Israel was also well aware of JFK's support of Nasser & Egypt.  JFK's assassination could easily be seen as most convenient for Israel.

One thing that I consider we can take to the bank in this case is Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City.  The likely puppet master would be CIA, i.e. David Phillips, Winn Scott & pulling the strings Jim Angleton.  Angleton was practically Mossad, sole handler of CIA's 'Israeli desk' since the 50's and their station in Tel Aviv.  He was a traitor to the U.S. regarding the Dimona plant in the Negev desert, which he knew was going critical.  After Angleton's death, the heads of Mossad & Shin Bet paid a final tribute to Angleton in Jerusalem, 'to a beloved member of their covert community!'

As for Jack Ruby, he was as much a Jew as he was allied to the mob & the mob was heavily influenced by Jewish elements.  Didn't Ruby, after shooting Oswald tell his Rabbi Silverman that "I did it for the Jewish people."   The W.C.'s Burt Griffin received testimony from Dallas Detective Eberhardt who witnessed Ruby in City Hall D.P.D. accompanied by Israeli newspaper reporters.  Ruby speaking Yiddish and supposedly acting as translator for the Jewish 'reporters'.  Shame, as per usual these men have never been identified.  As Mr. Rubenstein told the W.C., "I was used for a purpose."  Also Ruby intimated to press interviews at the Dallas County Jail, "Well, the answer is the man in office now."

LBJ as president was also a good friend to Israel. He reversed many of JFK's policies as we know.  Bobby Kennedy's Justice Dept., was working against the American Zionist Council to curtail their undue influence on U.S. foreign policy, the action was dropped after the assassination.  Opposition to Dimona was ignored.  Economic and military aid to Israel rocketed.  No wonder Haaretz news reported 'Lyndon Johnson: Israel Has Had No Better Friend'.  Johnson also aided Israel with intelligence on location of Egyptian forces prior to the 6 Day war & of course the false flag operation with the U.S.S. Liberty.

Sure, we do not have historical evidence as to who was behind the JFK assassination, but I would not rule out Mossad and Israel.  Cui Bono.

   

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

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:

1. first asked for Grammer (by name)
2. described details surrounding Oswald's transfer later that day (i.e., had inside knowledge of police plans)
3. expressed concern for the safety of the officers and personnel in the basement of City Hall
4. 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.