Antti Hynonen
-
Posts
906 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Antti Hynonen
-
-
Duke Lane wrote:
That said, here are some possibilities to consider:
If Oswald had reason to believe that he was being set up - remember: he never said "they got the wrong guy" or "I don't know what you're talking about," he said "I'm just a patsy" which at least suggests he knew something - it might make sense for him to make sure he was armed before venturing out in public where he could be gotten to by the actual perps.
If he was being set up and was, in fact, in the process of being set up - let's go with the deal about the "El Chico Oswald" seen by Mack Pate's mechanic being absolute fact - who's to say that he wasn't left off by whomever was setting him up, say, on the corner of Zangs & Jefferson ("and here's your gun, kid!") just as the sirens started homing in on his location, might you not duck out of sight, maybe even hide in a theater hoping not to be seen or found? Had it not been for Brewer, maybe he might've gotten away with it, eh? (Damn, the luck!)
If in such a scenario, what if the man who supposedly was watching calmly from behind Oswald (never identified) or even one of the cops who'd come up behind Oswald - or even McDonald! - had tried to slip a gun into his pocket or had otherwise touched or prodded him in, say, the lower back area just as McDonald was approaching him looking ready to draw his gun ... Oswald's surprised, whips his hand and body around to his right (in the process, hitting McDonald in the face with his left hand) ... next thing he knows, he's got a gun in his hand, someone gripping his hand around it (one of the officers nearby testified that he was told to let go of the gun, to which he replied "I can't!") ... and the rest is history.
In such as scenario as that - and given both the number of people who said they heard the "snap" and the officers who said they saw a dent - who's to say that the object wasn't to shoot McDonald - or at least fire the gun - likely ensuring that the "assassin" (who would've been assuredly identified as such when dead, just as he was when he denied it) didn't get out of the theater alive, nevertheless "solving" the crime.
Had that happened, part of the proof would've been questions similar to what you'd asked: why would he carry a gun into a theater and fight with an officer if he wasn't guilty? And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the evidence we would've found even if he had lived ...!
Just to reflect a little on those items, the hardest things to reconcile with a "patsy" scenario are these:
First, if Oswald really had just wanted to "make a name for himself in history" as the WCR suggested as a possibility, why didn't he just go ahead and say "yeah, ya got me, I did it?" Similar to what Weisberg wrote in Whitewash - "if he wanted to get caught, why run?" - if he wanted to "go down in history," why deny it?
If someone did get ahold of Oswald either before or after he'd gotten to the roominghouse to get his pistol (which could account for his not being seen anywhere between 1026 and 10&P), they kept him in a car at El Chico and then dropped him off, gun in hand, on Jefferson as in the second scenario above, why didn't he just disappear into one of the surrounding neighborhoods and stroll along like the innocuous young man that he was and hope to disappear from his tormentors? I mean, it's not like a bunch of hardened killers are going to flag down a passing cop car and give him up, is it? And as "citizens" themselves, they couldn't just go and shoot him, so ...?
Once he was safely in police custody (to what end we know to be true in his case), why the fancy dance with Fritz and Company when he could've told them straight-out exactly what had happened to him and who had done it, and thereby solved the Crime of the Century while exonerating himself at the same time?
Of course, I suppose if you factor in the thoroughly fair lineups, the belated findings of evidence (can you imagine anyone giving him the pat-down in police hq not finding five rounds of ammo in his pocket, or waiting a couple hours to see if he might've had anything in his pockets that could've jeopardized his or their own safety?), among other things, he might've gotten the mistaken impression that telling the Dallas cops what had happened would've fallen on deaf ears and gotten him killed "falling down the stairs" or while "trying to escape." The tone of his supposed answers to his interrogators seem to almost suggest as much.
By remaining silent, however, he was able to ensure his safe transfer into custody other than DPD's, where he would be able to spill the beans without having to worry about dropping the soap, likewise ensuring that a fair trial was held for the real perps, and that there'd be no lingering questions about the assassination of a President.
Somehow, I don't think that after his acquittal, we'd have heard about him breaking into anyone's hotel room flashing a gun and demanding all of his assassination memorabilia back, do you?
Anyway, just some thoughts to suggest a "why" to the questions Antti'd asked, all flimsy as hell, but worth a gander anyway.
(And Ray? Move to a better neighborhood!)
Duke, some sound thinking. I think the only way to make something logical and sensible out of these events is to fill in the blanks as well as we can.
Robert Newell,
Welcome to the Forum! New ideas and theories are also welcome.
-
Here's key parts of what Julia Postal said about the man that ducked into the theater:
--------------
Mr. BALL. And after you saw the police car go west with its siren on, why at the time the police car went west with its siren on, did you see the man that ducked? This man that you were----
Mrs. POSTAL. This man, yes; he ducked into the box office and----I don't know if you are familiar with the theatre.
Mr. BALL. Yes; I have seen the theatre.
--------------
Mr. BALL. The last time you had seen him before he ducked in, he was just standing outside of the door, was he?
Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir; he was still just in----just off of the sidewalk, and he headed for the theatre.
Emphasis in bold mine.
To me it sounds like she did observe this man. If it had been a totally different man that the cops brought out moments later, I'm sure she would have brought it up - at least she would have said something to Johnny, the shoe store man.
QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Oct 9 2008, 05:58 PM)I think a few were missing, especially one man with a criminal record was missing. He was located later that afternoon. Do you know of others?
There were 72? (Duke is the expert on this) people working in the TSBD that day and only a small number worked for Truly. So you have to consider all those other people. Since you are accusing LHO of wrongdoing by leaving early, the burden is on you to show that he did something that others did not do, and you have not met that burden so far. Most of those who left without specific authorization were women, so I suppose you will tell us now that it is OK for women to leave, but not for men?
The burden of proof? Man, sounds like a court of law. I think you are getting upset with me Ray, that wasn't the idea.
Well, let me put it this way: How many other TSBD employees got arrested that day, and were carrying concealed handguns?
For some reason, Lee sure received a lot of attention that afternoon, and mostly in the negative sense, unfortunately. I was saying that his behavior that afternoon contributed greatly to his arrest.
I am entirely happy if you see things differently and will gladly listen to your thoughts of what went down that afternoon. For the time being I see things a little differently, shall we say.
-
Wow! Paydirt at last.
But what about all the other TSBD employees who also took the afternoon off without supervisor approval. If you are to be consistent, then you must find those people equally suspicious, no?
Sure, ok. Do you know many of the TSBD employees were missing when Truly discussed this with Shelley and the others? I think a few were missing, especially one man with a criminal record was missing. He was located later that afternoon. Do you know of others?
---------------
Mr. TRULY. Then in a few minutes--it could have been moments or minutes at a time like that--I noticed some of my boys were over in the west corner of the shipping department, and there were several officers over there taking their names and addresses, and so forth.
There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not among these boys.
So I picked up the telephone and called Mr. Aiken down at the other warehouse who keeps our application blanks. Back up there.
First I mentioned to Mr. Campbell--I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him, he looked around and said no.
Mr. BELIN. When you asked Bill Shelley if he had seen whom?
Mr. TRULY. Lee Oswald. I said, "Have you seen him around lately," and he said no.
So Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, "I have a boy over here missing. I don't know whether to report it or not." Because I had another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all there or not. He said, "What do you think"? And I got to thinking. He said, "Well, we better do it anyway." It was so quick after that.
So I picked the phone up then and called Mr. Aiken, at the warehouse, and got the boy's name and general description and telephone number and address at Irving.
----------------
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/truly1.htm
----------------
QUOTENevertheless, her testimony allows the reader to understand it was the same man (LHO) that was arrested and dragged out moments later by the DPD.
Huh? So she DID have eyes in the back of her head?
I think you know what I mean, her testimony supported Brewer's - the man who pointed out LHO in the theater.
QUOTESure didn't help poor Lee to play tough guy with a 38 under his shirt. Like I said this is one of the facts that adds to his being suspect.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that he did NOT try to shoot the arresting officers, as Dennis Pointing claims, then I agree with you.
Yep, can't say the he did try to do that (the testimony is rather mixed or unclear as to what happened with that gun there), all I said is he took a gun to the theater and I do not think that was a smart thing to do. Especially in retrospect - this definitely had an impact on how he is/was perceived by the police and the general public (imo).
QUOTESo, you say that McDonald had something else in mind, not just searching the man for a gun?
I never said or suggested any such thing.
Ok, Hmmm... So, an officer of the law searches the man, one who is considered a suspect. The officer also searches in the crotch area of the suspect - so therefore a punch is called for. Nope, don't agree.
Do you fly much?
QUOTEI don't quite buy the crotch grabbing and the punch being a result of that, sorry.
Do you mean you don't buy the evidence that McDonald grabbed him in the crotch area? I take it you don't find McDonald a very credible witness then.
I don't buy that the reason for the punch was the fact that the officer searched Lee for a gun in the crotch area.
-
J. Raymond Carroll Posted Today, 03:25 PM
QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Oct 9 2008, 09:38 AM)
You can read Julia Postal's testimony (unless you already have) to form an opinion of it. My two sentence synopsis of the jist of it, should not be considered equal to studying her WC statement.
Here is Julia's testimony. As we all know, there were no defense counsel present, so we have Mr. Ball hurrying her along to his already pre-determined conclusion.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/postal.htm
Mr. BALL. And you didn't see him actually enter the theatre then?
Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You hadn't seen him go by you?
Mrs. POSTAL. I knew he didn't go by me, because I was facing west, and Johnny, he had come up from east which meant he didn't go back that way. He had come from east going west.
It sounds as though She did not see the man until he was gone, and in parts of her testimony she seems to be reporting what Johnny Brewer told her
Postal refers to her employer, John Callahan, who had taken tickets from the 24 (or 14) people who had paid to enter the cinema, so Ball called as the next witness the aforementioned Mr. Callahan ....NOT.
If this had been an honest inquiry, Mr. Callahan would have been a vital witness. But it was not an honest inquiry and Mr. Callahan was never questioned, as far as I know. He was the person who could have established whether he took a ticket from Lee Oswald at or about the time the movie began.
QUOTE
What kind of a person carries a gun.....
A short-barreled revolver is a weapon of self-defense, and on this particular afternoon there were assassins loose in Dallas. I bet he was not the only Dallas resident who decided to pack that afternoon.
QUOTE
What kind of a person strikes a police officer, while being searched?
See Duke's post above. I think McDonald said he made a grab for Oswald's body, not too far from the crotch area. I've never tried it myself, but I hear that grabbing guys in the crotch will get you a punch on the nose every time.
QUOTE
These facts together with the observations as stated in the witness testimonies as discussed prior, clearly point to a man on the run from the law imo.
Do you mean sinister activities like taking buses and taxis?
It sounds as though She did not see the man until he was gone, and in parts of her testimony she seems to be reporting what Johnny Brewer told herPostal refers to her employer, John Callahan, who had taken tickets from the 24 (or 14) people who had paid to enter the cinema, so Ball called as the next witness the aforementioned Mr. Callahan ....NOT.
If this had been an honest inquiry, Mr. Callahan would have been a vital witness. But it was not an honest inquiry and Mr. Callahan was never questioned, as far as I know. He was the person who could have established whether he took a ticket from Lee Oswald at or about the time the movie began.
Sure, agreed, it wasn't an honest inquiry, that's for sure. Postal didn't get a good look of the man that snuck in behind her. Nevertheless, her testimony allows the reader to understand it was the same man (LHO) that was arrested and dragged out moments later by the DPD.
What kind of a person carries a gun.....A short-barreled revolver is a weapon of self-defense, and on this particular afternoon there were assassins loose in Dallas. I bet he was not the only Dallas resident who decided to pack that afternoon.
Sure didn't help poor Lee to play tough guy with a 38 under his shirt. Like I said this is one of the facts that adds to his being suspect.
What kind of a person strikes a police officer, while being searched?See Duke's post above. I think McDonald said he made a grab for Oswald's body, not too far from the crotch area. I've never tried it myself, but I hear that grabbing guys in the crotch will get you a punch on the nose every time.
So, you say that McDonald had something else in mind, not just searching the man for a gun? I don't think I'd take a swing at a police officer whilst being searched, even if he was searching in that area. I might say something like: "do you mind?". I don't quite buy the crotch grabbing and the punch being a result of that, sorry.
These facts together with the observations as stated in the witness testimonies as discussed prior, clearly point to a man on the run from the law imo.Do you mean sinister activities like taking buses and taxis?
No, sir. Nothing sinister with using public transportation and taxi's. I chiefly meant his apparently perfectly timed popping into the shoe store and the movie theater to avoid the police driving by on Jefferson.
Also, I think he probably should have checked with his supervisor at the TSBD if it was ok, to take the rest of the day off and go to see a picture. As I recall he just took off.
Oh, by the way, I also think that he did in fact stop by at 1026 N. Beckley to change and pick up his 38 (Mrs. Roberts testimony has some short comings but the big picture is entirely believable)
-
Don, it looks like the motorcycle cop with the shades on, is looking that way too.
-
Ray,
I will of course let you form/have your own opinion. I have now explained to you on what I formed mine. You can read Julia Postal's testimony (unless you already have) to form an opinion of it. My two sentence synopsis of the jist of it, should not be considered equal to studying her WC statement.
However, a couple of questions do come to mind with regards to Oswald and the events at the movie theater.
What kind of a person carries a gun to the movie theater?
What kind of a person strikes a police officer, while being searched?
These facts together with the observations as stated in the witness testimonies as discussed prior, clearly point to a man on the run from the law imo.
-
J. Raymond Carroll Posted Today, 03:01 PM
QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Oct 8 2008, 08:35 AM)
Thus in my opinion, Brewer&Postal were fairly accurate in their testimonies and did in fact observe Lee.
OK Antti, how about a little elaboration? Duke has made most of the running on this thread, but whenever Duke offers an argument he supports it by posting actual testimony, etc., thus he allows us to evaluate the argument and the discussion is advanced. I would like to see you post the relevant parts of the testimonies you are relying on, and your analysis. For example, what did Postal say that convinces you that she saw Lee Oswald entering the cinema a half hour after the show began?
Bear in mind that Lee Oswald said (so far as we can determine) that he left his room and went directly to the cinema. If we assume he left his room at about 1.03 - 1.04 he would have made it to the cinema on foot by 1.24, (or earlier if he caught a southbound bus on Beckley). Bear in mind also that NO ONE has so far come up with ANY PLAUSIBLE explanation for why he would instead have headed to the vicinity of 10th & Patton.
Ray, sure, I can add their testimonies to my post, but anyone can read them online so I don't think that is necessary. If you like I can send you links to them via PM.
I find the mentioned testimonies reliable, because Brewer did observe a suspicous man (one he thought looked "funny") and whom he was able to identify in the theater.
The fellow who entered the shoestore was suspicious enough that Brewer decided to see where he went from his shoe store. Brewer sees the man walk into the nearby movie theater, and quite apparently Ms. Postal didn't sell this man a ticket.
Brewer stays until the cops arrive, and helps the cops identify the man he had observed earlier, this is the man he thought was "funny" and whom he had observed enter the theater.
It turns out that the man, arrested at the theater will later be known as Lee Harvey Oswald, aka Alek Hidell. That is, according to Brewer, the person that was in his shoe store and as the person that entered the movie theater (without paying as per their testimony).
Julia Postal's testimony basically confirms what Brewer disclosed with regards to observing a man on the street (Jefferson Blvd), a man whom she saw out of the corner of her eye, did not see walk past her, nor did she see the man turn back to walk in the direction that he came from, followed by Johnny Brewer. She concluded that the man must have entered the theater, after talking to Brewer.
Basically from their testimonies, it sounds like they observed someone who was trying to avoid law enforcement, as this "suspicious" person seemed to enter two places of business on Jefferson mainly to hide as police cars where driving by.
I'm sure if we nitpick testimonies, we will find something wrong with quite a few of them (if not all). However, to me these witness testimonies seemed quite believable as well as logical.
As to whether Lee was anywhere near 10th and Patton on 11/22/63, I don't know, and do not see any strong evidence putting him at the scene. As a contrast, the witness testimony and evidence is rather weak&contradictory regarding Lee as a suspect in the Tippit murder case. Particularly the timing of events does not do too well to support his guilt imo.
Of course there is some evidence supporting that Lee was at the Tippit scene. As I recall in addition to some 38 shells the suspect left behind a wallet. Also a jacket or sweater of some sort was located in a nearby parking lot. From what I recall it has been argued that this piece of garment belonged to Lee. I don't know if all this physical evidence actually holds up and can be tied to Lee. This is an area I'd like to investigate and discuss further.
One item that bothers me in particular, is that one of the officers at the scene recalled that he had inscribed his initials onto the 38 shells found at the scene before they were turned in as evidence. Later examinations show that no initials can be seen on these shells (this is how I recall this). Of course in official hearings this officer said something like he "thought he had marked the shells".... rather annoying.
-
Don Bailey Posted Today, 12:31 PM
When was the city bus transfer holder invented? Back in the 60’s the bus transfers were held in a stack of 50 or so in a tear-off box next to the driver… no need to ask the driver for a transfer.
Don
Don, I believe that in Dallas in 1963, passengers had to request the driver for a transfer.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/bledsoe.htm
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see the motorman give him a transfer?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; I didn't pay any attention but I believe he did.
---------------
Mr. BALL - Which exit did he leave?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Front.
Mr. BALL - By the motorman?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Uh-huh, by the motorman.
Mr. BALL - Did anybody else get off at that time when he got off?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No, not then, but there was a lady sitting right across, she wanted to go to the train station.
Mr. BALL - To the what station?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Train station, and she was worried about trying to get off, you know, trying to get there, and then we were hearing her, and I said, "Well, why don't you walk over there. It's just a little ways." Because the crowd was so bad we still didn't know the President had been killed, and finally she got off, but I think it was---it was before---I mean after Oswald did.
Mr. BALL - Did she ask for a transfer?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes; she had the man give her one, because she caught the bus before she got to the train station. Mr. BALL - How do you know that?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, I saw her.
-
I find the different points of view on this thread interesting. Particularly as the thinking here seems to go towards what was possible that Lee did and thought. I still do opine that it is safest to go with what most likely occurred, and do place my bets on much of the witness testimony related to the Oak Cliff events. Thus in my opinion, Brewer&Postal were fairly accurate in their testimonies and did in fact observe Lee.
However, I am not convinced Oswald is the killer of Tippit, although that is entirely possible too - in my mind the timing of the events is the biggest problem with this scenario.
-
J. Raymond Carroll Posted Today, 03:19 PM
QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Oct 7 2008, 09:34 AM)
Oh, by the way, once the discussion goes beyond the rooming house. Will you consider the alternative that perhaps Oswald made use of that transfer ticket and got on a bus that took him closer to 10th and Patton? Or are you asking me again to refer to the previous Tippit threads?
I must admit that I do not understand how the transfer system worked. I am not sure that the transfer was any good after he left downtown. It has been suggested here that the transfer in his possession was planted in order to make it seem that he was on McWatter's bus, but I have serious doubts about that. In any case, while he may have hoped to use the transfer later, the "fact" that he still had the transfer in his possession suggests that he did not use it again.
If there was a possibility that he caught a bus that would take him closer to 10th and Patton, I feel sure the Warren Commission would have tried to exploit that against him, and I don't remember them trying to do so.
If I was in his shoes and wanted to catch the 1.20 movie, I know I would walk south on Beckley to the bus stop at 5th, and keep on walking if no bus was in sight. There were bus stops every block going south, so I might catch one further along the way or just keep walking if no bus came. Either way I would miss no more than a few minutes of the opening of the first movie.
Ray,
Do you think catching the movie was Lee's main plan that afternoon? It seems that the ever so thorough Dallas cops would have found a movie ticket on Oswald since they found the transfer ticket as well. I mean he had some money on him, had he planned on going to the movies, I would imagine he would have paid for the ticket. Or do the ushers keep the tickets as well once you enter? Where I come from they just tear..... never mind.
You may have guessed that I do place quite a bit of weight on the testimonies of Postal and Brewer, so I do think Lee had in fact attempted to avoid Law enforcement officers, and did fear that he was a suspect.
Any suggestions as to why Lee was armed with the 38 revolver when he went to the movies? Were movie theaters in Oak Cliff really that dangerous in 1963 that one needed a hand gun with them, particularly at 1 p.m. or so?
-
Duke Lane Posted Today, 03:13 PM
QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Oct 7 2008, 02:34 AM)
QUOTE
Duke Lane Posted Yesterday, 07:16 PM
You're jumping just a little ahead of the conversation, Antti - we haven't even gotten Oswald beyond the rooming house yet! - so allow me to just tackle your last part:
...I'll sit back, let you advance the discussion further a bit, so we can cover/recap the goodies that were said in the various Tippit threads with regards to the timing and events at 10th and Patton as well as the TT.
Sorry about that; what I should've said was that you were getting there a little faster than me! Didn't mean to be so arrogant ....
QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Oct 7 2008, 02:34 AM)
... Oh, by the way, once the discussion goes beyond the rooming house. Will you consider the alternative that perhaps Oswald made use of that transfer ticket and got on a bus that took him closer to 10th and Patton? Or are you asking me again to refer to the previous Tippit threads?
The "technical" problem with that scenario is that a bus driver would have taken the transfer from the rider in lieu of a cash fare, meaning that the paper transfer would no longer have been in the rider's possession ... unless the bus driver was also "in on the plot!"
Ok, thanks. Where I come from, the ticket or transfer stub stays with the passenger as a receipt for the transportation services purchased, this is in case passengers get inspected for valid tickets during the bus ride (I don't know why the drivers aren't trusted to do the checking when passengers board the bus).
Of course those who wish to complicate matters will say that LHO obtained a (car/bus) ride to 10th and Patton, in order to be there in time to slay Patrolman Tippit. Have you ever given any creedence to Earlene's statement about that Patrol car honking it's horn outside 1026 N. Beckley? Perhaps as a method of transportation somewhere?
A bit far fetched, agreed, but just wondering if this avenue ever led anyone anywhere that might be helpful in seeing the "bigger picture".
-
Why would Dr. Livingston fabricate such a realisticly seeming story? How would this benefit him in any way?
Seems rather unbelievable that someone like Livingston would do such a thing.
I have no reason to doubt his recollection regarding the occurrence of this phone call.
I don't think it is key that the "FBI" told Dr. Humes to get off the phone, it could have been any other authority or it could have been no one, that is, it might have just been something Humes told Livingston to get rid of him. What is key is that the bullet wound to the throat was not disected, traced or other wise examined in a sufficient capacity to determine all facts about it. That is after an expert Dr. called the man in charge of the autopsy asking him to probe that wound to trace its course fully and to find the location of the bullet or fragments.
-
Duke Lane Posted Yesterday, 07:16 PM
You're jumping just a little ahead of the conversation, Antti - we haven't even gotten Oswald beyond the rooming house yet! - so allow me to just tackle your last part:
Duke, thanks for your reply. Well I could have sworn that the Texas Theater was mentioned on this thread already last week..... At any rate, I'll sit back, let you advance the discussion further a bit, so we can cover/recap the goodies that were said in the various Tippit threads with regards to the timing and events at 10th and Patton as well as the TT.
J. Raymond Carroll Posted Yesterday, 05:02 PMQUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Oct 6 2008, 10:53 AM)
How does it all fit in, or doesn't it?
Great question, Anti, and when we find the answer......
Many of the questions you raise have been discussed (not the same as "answered") in other Tippit-related threads.
Some time ago I requested that the moderators create a separate INDEX of Tippit-related threads, but of course I was ignored as usual. Perhaps you could use your influence with the bigwigs, Anti, and get such an index created. It would be very helpful at times like this. The murder of J.D. Tippit is certainly important enough.
Ray, thaks for your reply. I will browse through the Tippit threads to see if I can refresh my memory on what was discussed. With regards to creating an index, I must say I haven't got a clue as to how to go about creating one. I can ask and see if John S. would know. Sorry for ignoring your request previously.
Oh, by the way, once the discussion goes beyond the rooming house. Will you consider the alternative that perhaps Oswald made use of that transfer ticket and got on a bus that took him closer to 10th and Patton? Or are you asking me again to refer to the previous Tippit threads?
-
(2) Robert B. Livingston, letter to Maynard Parker, editor of Newsweek (10th September, 1993)
I was Scientific Director of the National Institute for Mental Health and (concurrently) of the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Blindness, at the time of the assassination. These two institutes are obviously relevant to interpretations of brain damage sustained by the president.
On the basis of November 22, 1963, broadcasts from Parkland Hospital, I felt obliged to call Commander James Humes, at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, who was about to perform the autopsy. Our telephone conversation was completed before the body arrived at Andrews AFB. I called to retail media reports from Parkland Hospital that there was a small wound in the front of his neck, just to the right of the trachea.
Humes said he hadn't been paying attention to the news, but was receptive to what I had to tell him. We had a cordial conversation about this. Based on my knowledge of medical and experimental analyses of bullet wounding, and personal experiences caring for numerous bullet and shrapnel wounds throughout the battle of Okinawa, I told him that a small wound, as described, would have to be a wound of entry. When a bullet exits from flesh, it violently blows out a lot of tissue, usually making a conspicuous cruciate opening with tissue protruding. A wound of entry, however, just punctures as it penetrates. So I stressed the need for him to probe that wound to trace its course fully and to find the location of the bullet or fragments. I especially emphasized that such a wound had to be an entry wound. And since the president was facing forward the whole time, that meant that there had to be a conspiracy. As we talked about that, he interrupted the conversation momentarily. He came back on the line to say, "I'm sorry. Dr. Livingston, but the FBI won't let me talk any longer." Thus, the conversation ended.
Two important subsequent events are noteworthy: Commander Humes did not dissect that wound, and when asked why not, in the Warren Commission hearings, he said that he didn't know about the small wound in the neck until the following day when he had a conversation with Dr. Perry at Parkland Hospital.
A further issue concerns reports of the appearance of cerebellar tissue in the occipital wound. This was first reported "live" as observations by an orderly, and by a nurse, both of whom were in the surgery where attempts to resuscitate the president were conducted prior to his death. I didn't give any credibility to those stories and dismissed them from my focus at the time, attributing what I thought must be mistaken identification of cerebellum to a likely lack of familiarity with neuroanatomy by two non-medically trained individuals. It would be easy to assume cerebellum in looking at macerated cerebral tissue protruding from a bloody wound. But since then, around six reputable physicians who saw the president at that time have testified that cerebellum was extruding from the wound at the back of his head. That is an important clue, indicating that something must have burst into the posterior fossa with sufficient force to uproot the cerebellum and blow a substantial hole through the heavy, covering, well-anchored, tentorium, which separates cerebellum from the main chamber of the skull.
-
Duke and Ray,
How do you account for the statements by Julia Postal, Warren Burroughs and Johnny Brewer? That is, mainly regarding the man (Oswald?) popping into the shoe store and then the movie theater. Julia and Johnny seemed to conclude this about that the man who popped into the shoestore and the movie theatre: "This man is running from them for some reason."
What about those witnesses at the Tippit crime scene, mainly for timing issues? Would you see that these statements are useful?
How reliable do you think that the police radio recordings and time stamps for these transmissions are? Didn't Benavides first try to use the Police radio at 1:16 p.m. according to these records?
How does it all fit in, or doesn't it?
-
Wim,
With regards to the other picture of Files on your website.
Files said that it was taken at the motel by LHO before the assassination.
Do you think that's correct, that the motel would have a record player in the room? I am assuming Files is in a room as he has no shirt on.
-
Duke Lane Posted Yesterday, 08:53 PM
QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Oct 2 2008, 01:44 AM)
... Assuming he was at 10th and Patton at 1:15 p.m. or so, implies he would have travelled South-East a little over a mile. Thereafter, to arrive at the theater at 1:20 or 1:25 he would have traveled about half a mile to the west/south-west. I don't know if the mile and a half from Beckley to 10th and Patton is doable in a little over 10 minutes, but it seems that the half mile in 10 minutes is doable. ...
According to the WC, it's only 9/10 of a mile between 1026 and 10&P (8/10 according to Google Maps) and 6/10 from 10&P to TT (ibid).
The average walking speed of an adult (male?) is 4.3 feet per second, or about 3 mph. 9/10 of a mile at that rate of speed takes 18.4 minutes; 6/10 would take 12.2 minutes at the same "average" speed. One could do 6/10 of a mile in five minutes at a slightly faster clip (5.28 fps/4.43 mph), but would have to be running (10.56 fps/7.2 mph) Doing 9/10 mile in 10 minutes is 7.9 fps/11.1 mph.
As points of reference, a four-minute mile is a speed of 15 mph; a respectable 7.5-minute mile is 8 mph (which damned near "killed" me when I was a young teenager doing it for the first handful of times, and still somewhat painful after doing it regularly!).
I've got an Excel spreadsheet that calculates all of this stuff if anyone wants it; the forum won't let me upload it here.
QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Oct 2 2008, 01:44 AM)
If Lee didn't initially think of going to the Texas theater, where was he headed walking South/South-East from N. Beckley? Harlandale street sure is that way... The only reasonable answer is that he had a destination in mind, the follow up question is, which one is it?
A compelling case can be made that Oswald was never at Beckley around 1:00, but even assuming that he had, if it was not him at 10&P - which it couldn't have been 'cuz he couldn't run a four-minute mile(!) - and the only other place he most definitely was was in central Oak Cliff, it's difficult to say where he might have been heading.
As I've remarked elsewhere (or maybe it was here?), we sometimes have a propensity to correlate conflicting data, for example saying "Oswald didn't kill Tippit" on the one hand, then asking where might he have been going since he was "heading in that direction," on the other. If you put him at 10&P, or heading somewhere that passed through that area, then by definition, he killed Tippit. These positions cannot be reconciled unless you postulate Oswald at 10&P as an innocent bystander who ran back, more or less, the way he came for some unknown reason rather than continuing to where he'd "intended" to go.
I agree with the average walking speeds. No reason to assume Lee ran to where ever he was going imo (this would draw unnecessary attention to him -and besides why would he run). I'm also ok, with the under a mile distance to 10th and Patton from 1026 n. Beckley. Assuming for a moment that Lee was in the area of 10th and Patton and that he did leave his coat/jacket where it was found under a car? in a parking lot nearby - it would put Lee in the area and it would have taken Lee some 16-18 minutes to walk to 10th and Patton from 1026 N Beckley, correct?
To establish a time line then:
Assuming further that the landlady's testimony of Lee leaving the rooming house at approximately 1 p.m. (give or take a minute) and standing at the north bound bus stop near the rooming house at about 1:02 (last witness visual before 10th and Patton) - this would put Lee at 10th and Patton at 1:18 - 1:20 p.m.
A bit late for the Tippit shooting.
Ray and you seem to agree that Tippit got shot as early as 1:08 p.m. Do you have a thread or details on how you arrived at this time?
As to what asssumptions I make, I'm just trying to work with the witness statements and the evidence as we have it. Don't know where it's going to lead.
Thanks.
-
Thanks Bernice,
Talk about a picture worth a thousand words!
I do find it interesting (and telling!) that more than one Dr. (if I am reading this correctly) mentions cerebellum protruding out of the wound. To me, this is a reinforcing statement regarding the location of the head wound.
As we all remember from our biology classes, the cerebellum is located in the back of the head and below the rest of the brain, roughly below the occiput.
See below:
-
Pat Speer Posted Today, 10:18 AM
It is not true that the Parkland doctors inspected Kennedy's wounds from many angles. He was already laying on a stretcher when they came in the room, and they left the room after his death was declared. He was never turned over during treatment. The only ones to see his wounds during the cleaning, if I recall, were two nurses and an orderly, none of whom made a written description of his wounds on 11-22.
Clint Hill covered Kennedy's head with his jacket before he was removed from the limousine. Nobody got a good look at his head wounds till Clark arrived in the ER minutes later. No one stuck around to look at it after his death was declared.
Ok Pat, the Doctors treated Kennedy while he was on his back, however a nurse and an orderly together with SS helped the President onto the strecher from the limo, this was in broad daylight, mid day and Clint's coat did apparently not cover the President all the time. Please remember the consistency in the description of the location of the wound; occipital-parietal, grape fruit size gaping wound. I undesrtand that small discrepancies may exist, especially when the wound is fairly large, however I can not see how it could be confused completely from being in the back to being on the side of the head......
Nurse Bowron's testimony jives with what most of the Dr's said.
Nurse Diana Bowron at the limousine at Parkland:
Mr. SPECTER - And describe in a general way Governor Connally's condition when you first saw him?
Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was leaning forward and onto Mrs. Connally but apparently---I didn't notice very much---I was more concerned with the person in the back of the car---the President.
Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
This is available from:
-
In the BW photo I can make out a man's hat, face and probably shoulders and arms. I don't know if the proportions make sense with the rest of the photo but as a layman's comment and as a comparison to the level of difficulty to make out badge man in Moorman, this one is much clearer to me.
-
To add to Jack's comment, the President was also helped out of the limo onto a sretcher by Parkland staff. This situation gave a good visual in broad daylight from different angles.
The ambulance driver who helped put the body into a coffin described the back of the wrapped head as soft.
-
I am along the lines with Don and Bill on this.
We know to a fairly reliable certainty that Oswald left 1026 N. Beckley at about 1 p.m. We also know that he was arrested at the Texas theatre at 231 W. Jefferson Blvd at about 1:50 p.m. This is a fairly direct route south.
If I'm not totally wrong, this would imply that he travelled 1 mile south. Now as to what he did in between 1:00 pm and 1:50 is debatable. Nevertheless, the witness statements and evidence against him, is quite strong. Assuming he was at 10th and Patton at 1:15 p.m. or so, implies he would have travelled South-East a little over a mile. Thereafter, to arrive at the theater at 1:20 or 1:25 he would have traveled about half a mile to the west/south-west. I don't know if the mile and a half from Beckley to 10th and Patton is doable in a little over 10 minutes, but it seems that the half mile in 10 minutes is doable.
If Lee didn't initially think of going to the Texas theater, where was he headed walking South/South-East from N. Beckley? Harlandale street sure is that way...
The only reasonable answer is that he had a destination in mind, the follow up question is, which one is it?
-
Duke Lane Posted Yesterday, 11:32 PM
QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Sep 30 2008, 02:20 AM)
Question 1: Did Oswald ever deny boarding the bus or did he ever deny having obtained a bus transfer ticket that day?
Please bear in mind that my responses are to the limits of what we know as fact. Just because someone said something under oath does not mean it is a fact. If more than one person said the same or similar things independent of each other, we can put more stock in it.
Question 1: We don't know for certain what Oswald said at any time, or what he was necessarily asked. I've only looked at what appears to have transpired on the bus. If memory serves beyond that, there was either a question about a bus or cab that Oswald responded to the effect of "I told you I did" (get on the bus or whatever). Getting on a bus does not necessitate a transfer, so even if he'd gotten onto one, doesn't mean that the transfer in evidence would be his. I cannot state with certainty that he was asked about the transfer as opposed to merely being on a bus.
Another consideration is that, while Oswald may even have asserted that he'd taken a bus, what bus did he take? Clearly, McWatters' bus would have been the first - after 12:40 anyway - Marsalis bus to have gone through the Elm/Houston intersection, but according to what Mary Bledsoe had to say at various times, that was not the only bus route that Oswald may have had a choice to have taken.
Mary Bledsoe's 11/24 interview notes, for example, that "she got on a bus, as she recalls, a Marsalis bus," suggesting that there may have been another bus she could've taken. In her testimony, when asked what bus she'd gotten on, she replied, "Well, I don't remember whether it was the Marsalis or the Romana," now clearly demonstrating that a second route could have gotten her home, their routes diverging at some point afterward. If the Romana bus went over the Houston Street viaduct (which empties onto Zangs Boulevard, which in turn shortly intersects with Beckley) and then turned south on Marsalis toward Mary's house, Oswald could have taken that bus and only had a short walk home, the same as he would have if he'd have taken a Marsalis bus.
We know that McWatters' bus got held up in traffic some four blocks before reaching Houston Street; what we don't know is whether or where ahead of McWatters the Romana bus might've been. If it had been ahead of McWatters somewhere in that traffic jam, it would have gotten through the intersection before McWatters and possibly picked up Oswald at its first stop thereafter, probably the same place McWatters would've stopped (as he testified), at Main and Houston.
It cannot be excluded from the realm of possibilities simply because none of the drivers from that route were apparently questioned and none testified or gave statements. If he had gotten on a Romana bus, whether or not he'd gotten a transfer (which he'd have had no need of in any case), then the validity of his statement of being - or lack of denial of not being - on a bus remains the same.
QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Sep 30 2008, 02:20 AM)
Question 2: Assuming Oswald did have a bus transfer ticket, and assuming he obtained it as the WC claimed and as the transfer ticket in evidence indicates, what further destination would he have needed the transfer for?
Although I've yet to show that your wife is dead, but assuming you killed her, can you tell us some reasons why?
This is one of the difficulties in evaluating evidence in this case, because people are willing to accomodate two sets of conflicting data into their evaluation. For example, Oswald "could not have walked from Beckley to 10th in time to shoot Tippit," but assuming he did, what reason did he have for leaving his jacket behind the Texaco station? Well, since he wasn't able to be there, and since the presumption is that the killer dropped it, how does Oswald's motivation for dropping it come into play if he wasn't and couldn't have been the killer?
Going forth from the presumption that it was him on McWatters' bus and getting a transfer before getting off, then there need be no further destination in mind other than to do as the "suitcase lady" was doing: walking through the traffic jam and maybe catching the same bus on the other side of it ... which I recall Mary Bledsoe having said exactly that happened in her case.
QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Sep 30 2008, 02:20 AM)
More questions: Wouldn't McWatters' bus have taken him to Harlandale, I mean close enough to his room at North Beckley? What was his likely destination after N. Beckley? Didn't his landlady at N. Beckley say that she saw him out the window at the bus stop across the street shortly after 1 p.m. on 11/22/63?
McWatters' bus would've taken him closer to Harlandale, within 6-7 blocks, as this map shows (click the little "street view" guy to take a look around the neighborhood of the supposed "safe house" - that's the yellow one, btw). I have no idea where he might have gone after Beckley, if he'd gone to Beckley, and the location where the blind-in-one-eye and distracted Earlene Roberts said it was on the northbound side of the street, i.e., the same side.
All points being simply being - as I will expand on in my response to Ray Carroll - that the facts in evidence do not establish Oswald's whereabouts beyond a reasonable doubt, no matter what Occam's Razor might dictate, for that theorem suggests that every single person who's brought to trial absolutely, positively did whatever it is they're accused of ... because that is, quite simply, the simplest solution.
If your lawyer subscribes to that theory, fire him.
Duke,
Thanks for your detailed reply.
All I wanted to achieve with my questions is further discussion (speculation) about what Oswald was thinking (of doing) after leaving the depository. It seems clear that he went home to change his clothes and to pick up a gun. However, if he wanted to flee, why did he not pick up some clothes and money and then head back into down town to board a bus headed out of town? Surely many (Grey)hound buses were able to leave the Dallas area (and Texas) shortly after 12:30 without them being searched?
Loitering on the streets of Oak Cliff with a gun does not seem to be the best choice of action if you intend to avoid the police or any confrontation with them. Nor does escaping into a movie theater seem very sensible either...
I think this part of the puzzle is interesting and a new understanding of Lee's thinking at this time may help understand the entire event by first understanding his point of view.
-
Pat Speer Posted Today, 08:54 AM
That's it, Royce. In the Lincoln image at left I placed the red star directly above his ear, in the location of the wound on Kennedy's head in the autopsy photos. In the Lincoln image at right I placed it on the back of his head, in the location many of the Parkland witnesses believed was the location of Kennedy's head wound. The backwards lean of Lincoln in the first image, which shifts the wound above the ear to a position behind the ear in lateral space, however, confuses people as to its actual location. Most people look at this image and think the two stars are in the same location.
The inability of people to accurately judge the spatial relationship of marks on the face when the face is turned sideways has been well-documented, and is discussed in chapter 19 at patspeer.com. The problems associated with this at Parkland were only amplified by Kennedy's being turned almost upside down. According to Jenkins, they put him in the Trendelenburg Position.
Pat I would agree that "people" may be confused as to the exact location of such a wound. Especially, when considering the wound in Kennedy's head was fairly large, especially compared to the size if the star in your Lincoln picture.
However, I have a hard time understanding why highly professional Dr.'s who typically work in the Emergency rooms of a major city would be so confused about this location. That is especially when the issue is brought up later for discussion - and the Dr.'s will stand firm with what they have previously stated.
What do you think of the statement (I forget by whom) that parts of Kennedy's cerebellum was protruding from the head wound?
Japanese linguist John Hurt
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Robert,
Dan Marvin tells of a similar assignment also at Ft. Bragg. He said it was a company man (CIA) that approached him with the assignment to assassinate Lt. Cmdr. William Pitzer, of the Navy Medical school of Bethesda, Md. If I recall this was in August of 1965. Dan Marvin declined, but reacalls that someone else in his outfit was approached after him.