Ron Ecker

John, I don’t believe that I fit your theory, if it’s true our personalities develop as we’re children. I grew up respecting and believing those in authority. It's true that by the time I was grown I had moved away from the fundamentalist religion I had been taught in the Southern Baptist church, but I clung to it for most of my childhood, and my independent religious thinking as a young adult did not translate into politics. When JFK was murdered, the thought that there was a conspiracy didn’t even enter my mind. Why? Because the killer was caught within hours. I saw that loser in custody on TV. Conspiracy didn’t even occur to me when Ruby shot Oswald. Why? Because it was soon determined that Ruby was just very upset at Oswald for killing the president. When the Warren Commission said Oswald did it, for me that was that. I even voted for Lyndon Johnson in 1964, because he said that he was not going to send American boys to Vietnam to do what Asian boys should be doing. When Mark Lane’s Rush to Judgment was published, I didn’t bother to read it, because I read in Time magazine that it was just a piece of trash. Would Time lie? Years later when the library where I worked acquired a copy of Best Evidence, I wouldn’t read it, because I knew its claims of “disguise and deception” in the case couldn’t be true. Our government had been in charge of the case, had it not? So disguise and deception by whom? Even after Watergate I was in denial about those in authority. Nixon and his band of crooks were some kind of aberration. It was only after I finally read Best Evidence and my brother’s copy of Crossfire that I became convinced that we had been lied to. And that if the government would lie about that, it would lie about anything. Iran/Contra added confirmation, as did the political murders of the Clinton years. Now 9/11 and the Kean whitewash commission have confirmed in the starkest way that the U.S. government is unbelievably, frighteningly corrupt, and that the democracy I was taught about in civics class is a sham. But for me this has all been a slow revelation in my adult years, a matter of overcoming naivete and denial and of applying common sense to known facts. It has not been, as far as I can tell, a product of personality, though there are people who believe I am definitely paranoid because of my “conspiracy theories.” But how one might develop a paranoid personality is another story. (Mine perhaps?) Ron

Tim, The Fourth Decade (formerly The Third Decade) was a now defunct JFK journal published by Jerry Rose. The Evans article was published in March 1994. I'm going to try to find a copy of Clifford's book to get the exact description of the meeting. Ron

According to Detective Smart’s statement, it was the Allright Parking Lot, at the corner of Main and Pearl. I removed my article from the web yesterday because I am now also fairly well convinced that Ruby did not take Sheba with him that morning. There are two many oddities in the official story, such as Detective Smart testifying that he didn’t see the dog till after he had searched the car and tried a key in the ignition, because the dog was under three newspapers on the front seat, and the dog rose up only when Smart put his hand on the papers. (Is this the usual type of behavior exhibited by dogs left in cars? And why and how would a dog crawl out of sight under three newspapers, not even bothering to rise up and see what stranger was getting into and searching the car?) It’s possible that the dog was taken from Ruby’s apartment and put in the car, or it’s possible that the dog was never in the car and Senator, Jackson, Armstrong, and some of the cops were simply told to talk about a dog being in the car. I suppose that just talking about a dog being in the car would be easier than actually putting one in it. Ron

As for your point that "the meeting...on the morning of 11/22/63...sounds like a different type of meeting than the one Ruiz-Williams said he attended," I would respond, again quoting the source you cited, Deadly Secrets, pg. 273, that Harry Ruiz-Williams was "Bobby's best-and-brightest choice to lead a renewed effort to get rid of Castro." Tim, I've happened across some more information about the 11/22/63 Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board meeting that Helms and McCone attended, which makes it even less likely that Ruiz-Williams was present. The meeting was not about Cuba, but about the fate of the CIA itself, an issue that Ruiz-Williams or other Cuban exiles would not be involved in. But whether Ruiz-Williams was there or not, this meeting was remarkable. In "The Last Investigation: A Review" by Monte Evans, in The Fourth Decade, v. 1 no. 3, Evans says the following with regard to "the penultimate Washington insider, Clark Clifford" (p. 17): "In his autobiography Counsel to the President, Clifford recalls where he was when he heard President Kennedy was shot. It seems he was chairing a meeting of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a little-known but awesomely powerful entity; one can liken it to the President's own hand-picked State Department. The subject of that November 22, 1963 PFIAB meeting was how to dismantle and re-structure the CIA in accordance with President Kennedy's desires. Fortunately for CIA, that matter was immediately shelved upon news of the President's passing. In other words, the shots in Dallas weren't fired an hour too soon as far as the CIA's fate was concerned. The monster's hydra-head was actually on the chop block, only to receive a last-moment reprieve in Dallas." I don't recall any record of JFK's intentions regarding the CIA other than his alleged statement to Mike Mansfield or somebody that he wanted to "scatter it to the winds," and an NSAM by which he intended to move covert operations from the CIA to the military. But if the above description of the FIAB meeting is accurate, this is quite extraordinary. For this means that there were two separate gatherings in progress in Washington on 11/22/63 that were dealing with the fate of two of the main suspects in the assassination: the FIAB meeting on the fate of the CIA, and the Don Reynolds hearing on Capitol Hill that could decide the fate of Lyndon Johnson. That's quite a coincidence, and it's tremendous dramatic irony that the murder in Dallas got both the CIA and LBJ off the hook that day in two DC proceedings that never resumed. Ron

I mentioned SA agent Winston Lawson’s WC testimony earlier. Here are the passages involving buildings and windows: Mr. STERN. What about the deployment of police on rooftops of buildings at any point along the route? Mr. LAWSON. We had--police were requested at points where I knew that the President would be out of the car for any length of time. Mr. STERN. And where was that? Mr. LAWSON. At the Trade Mart and at the airport. Mr. McCLOY. May I interrupt at this point. During the course of the motorcade while the motorcade was in motion, no matter how slowly, you had no provision for anyone on the roofs? Mr. LAWSON. No, sir. Mr. McCLOY. Or no one to watch the windows? Mr. LAWSON. Oh, yes. The police along the area were to watch the crowds and their general area. The agents riding in the followup car as well as myself in the lead car were watching the crowds and the windows and the rooftops as we progressed. Mr. McCLOY. It was part of your routine duties when you were going through a street in any city, to look at the windows as well as the crowds? Mr. LAWSON. Yes, sir; and if the President's car slowed to such a point or the crowd ever pressed in to such a point that people are getting too close to the President, the agents always get out and go along the car. . . . Mr. McCLOY. I want to get it clear. In your presence, in the instructions to the police in Dallas, did you tell the police to keep their eye on windows as you went along? Mr. LAWSON. I cannot say definitely that I told the police to watch windows. I usually do. On this particular case I cannot say whether I definitely said that. I believe I did, but I would not swear to the fact that I said watch all the windows. Mr. McCLOY. I have heard it rumored that there was a general routine in the Secret Service that when you were going through in a motorcade or by car, that the problem of watching windows was so great that you didn't do it. It was only as you came to a stop that it was the standing instructions that then roofs should be watched and places of advantage would be inspected or looked at. Is that true? Mr. LAWSON. No, sir; the agents in the motorcade are to watch the route and the rooftops and the windows as they can. Of course there were thousands of windows there, over 20,000 I believe on that motorcade. But agents are supposed to watch as they go along. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lawson.htm Ron

Antii, Thanks for pointing out about the sweater. Sometimes when you research these stories it seems like there's never an end. I just came across further testimony about a dog being in the car, this from parking lot attendant Theodore Jackson. Jackson testified to the WC that Ruby's car was in the lot when he came to work about noon. What is odd about Jackson's testimony is his seeming uncertainty when first asked if there was a dog in the car. Thereafter he is quite conversant about a dog being there. Why do people do this? Mr. HUBERT. When you came up and saw this car did you put a ticket on it? Mr. JACKSON. I put a ticket on it. Mr. HUBERT. Were there any other cars parked in the lot? Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir; about, oh, I guess about six--about six more besides his, five or six more, I disremember. Mr. HUBERT. Now, and you put a ticket on the car, did you notice whether the car was open, or closed? Mr. JACKSON. No, sir; I didn't. I just looked at the car and the key was gone. The keys wasn't in the switch, and I just got a ticket, just stamped the ticket and put it on the windshield. Mr. HUBERT. Was there a dog in the car? Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir; I think so. It was--yes, it was a dog in the car. Mr. HUBERT. Was there any window open so that the dog could get some air? Mr. JACKSON. I never looked whether there was or not. Mr. HUBERT. Did that seem strange to you that there--somebody had a dog in the parked automobile? Mr. JACKSON. Well, it did, two detectives came down, and they started searching the car, but they were looking for a key. Mr. HUBERT. Were they able to open the door of the car? Mr. JACKSON. I don't think the car was locked up, because they came down, well, they wasn't--it couldn't have been locked up, because they were looking for the key to the switch, because they wanted to take the car to the pound. Mr. HUBERT. Before we get to that, how long after you got on duty and put the ticket on Mr. Ruby's car, did the detectives arrive? Mr. JACKSON. Oh, about an hour or so, I guess. I believe about an hour or so. Mr. HUBERT. Well, did they have any difficulty in opening the doors of the car? Mr. JACKSON. I never even noticed them until they was out there to the car. I was listening to the radio about it. Mr. HUBERT. What did you say with reference to the detectives, what they were doing? Mr. JACKSON. They were searching--they searched the car. Mr. HUBERT. The doors were open by the time you saw it? Mr. JACKSON. They was searching the car. Mr. HUBERT. Well, now, answer my question, were the doors open or do you remember? Mr. JACKSON. When I seen them they were searching they must have been open. Mr. HUBERT. When you say "searching," do you mean they were searching the back? Mr. JACKSON. Looking for a key. They said they were looking for a key. Mr. HUBERT. Key to what? The ignition? Mr. JACKSON. The ignition key, and I think the trunk key, and they opened up the trunk and there was a bunch of sacks in the trunk. I don't know what was in them, and after they told me they was detectives, that was Jack Ruby's car, and I just took the ticket off the car and they were going--said they was going to take the car to the pound, and said something or another about calling somebody. Mr. HUBERT. Doing what? Mr. JACKSON. Said something or another about calling somebody, some of his relatives or something to see what they wanted to do with his dog. They were going to take the car to the pound. Mr. HUBERT. Did they do anything with this dog, that you know of? Mr. JACKSON. I don't know. They took the car to the pound. Mr. HUBERT. What happened to the dog? Was it still in the car when they took it? Mr. JACKSON. Yes; the dog was still in the car.

Al, In the RFK assassination, the bullet also had a magical quality, as after being fired from a few feet in front of RFK it circled around and hit him point blank behind the ear. Ron

Al, Isn't it true that there was usually a press truck in front of the limo in JFK motorcades, and that this truck was left out at Love Field? This, along with the absence of motorcycles, left the limo wide open for shots from the front. I think that this is one of the clearest signs of some complicity within local LE. The failure to post at both ends of the overpass was certainly convenient for the shooter whom you believe (and I agree) was positioned at the unposted end. And why would conspirators want some people on the overpass right over Elm? A couple of things come to mind. One, someone in that crowd may have been a potential shooter if JFK reached the overpass still alive. And two, allowing people from the railroad yard onto the overpass to watch the motorcade kept them from lining up behind the fence to watch. That fence had to be kept clear. Ron

The motorcade in Miami was cancelled. JFK traveled between the airport and his speaking engagement by helicopter because of security concerns. Ron

Look at the motorcycles surrounding the car in Tampa. There was not a single one in front of or beside the car in Dallas. That's called security stripping IMO. Ron

This is certainly a legitimate question. I wonder, though, how much of a "warm day" it was, considering it was before noon in late November. Perhaps it was cool enough that Ruby felt he could leave Sheba in the car for the time it would take to wire some money and go shoot somebody. One would think, though, that by the time Detective Smart was sent to check out the car, it would have gotten quite warm inside, at least if the sun was out. Yet Sheba was obviously showing no sign of stress or agitation, since Smart initially didn't even notice the dog. Sheba, oddly, had crawled under some newspapers on the front seat (what, to get warm?), and Smart didn't realize she was there till he went to start the car and put his hand down on the papers, at which point Sheba rose up. I must say this is a strange part of the story. Are you suggesting that Ruby was brainwashed into shooting Oswald in the same way that Sirhan was programmed to shoot at RFK? If so, this would mean that Ruby shooting Oswald was part of the planned JFK conspiracy. I don't see how that could be, since it seems to me the arrest of Oswald was totally unexpected. And I don't think anyone had time to program Ruby between the JFK murder and the shooting of Oswald. The taking of keys from Ruby's pockets is another oddity in the story. Obviously Ruby either had two sets of keys for some reason, or else the keys that were taken from the trunk by Smart were later given to McMillon (there being no keys from Ruby's pockets as claimed), to go check on Ruby's car which was no longer there. What kind of game could that be? I didn't mean that Armstrong would confuse the two physical places. I meant that "the Carousel" may have been a slip of the tongue when he meant to say animal shelter, because "the Carousel" simply doesn't make any sense in the context of the sentence. That said, it also doesn't make much sense that Armstrong would tell the WC, only a few months after the event, that Joy Dale retrieved Sheba from the shelter, since Dale later had no memory of it and Armstrong told the HSCA, years after his WC testimony, that it was he who retrieved Sheba (i.e. his memory somehow improved over the years), but he couldn't remember if it was from the police station or the shelter. It certainly seems that Armstrong was being less than truthful on this subject, but I don't see why anyone would lie about who went and got Sheba. What difference did it make who went and got her? Any further comments or theories would be appreciated. I may need to revise my article in some respects, or simply trash the whole thing. Ron

I have something positive to say about Bob Vernon. When I was a kid (about Gibson's age?), I was a big Fats Domino fan. I also think that Jimmy Swaggart got what he deserved. But he's still a good singer (if you like gospel music). Even better than Fats. Ron

I recall reading that there were no requirements in 1963 for the Secret Service to have all windows closed or to man all tall buildings on motorcade routes. It would have been impossible to do. This is stated by Lawson or some other SS agent somewhere in the WC volumes. There was also no military "stand down" order on presidential protection as claimed by Prouty. He was interviewed by the ARRB and couldn't substantiate his famous story on this. He couldn't name the person who he claimed had called him from Col. Reich's unit. Reich was also interviewed and said there was no plan at all for protection so there was no stand down, 11/22/63 was just a normal working day at the office, and he told the ARRB that Prouty "is smoking something." The ARRB concluded that Prouty's interview should be made available in full transcript form because it was "so full of retractions, contradictions and disqualifications of his other statements - there's no way we can fairly represent the interview in summary form without it looking like a hatchet job" (Tim Wray memo, 10/23/96). There is one standout passage in Prouty's interview, however, that is worth quoting. When I read it I couldn't help but think about Jimmy Files: "I'm just astounded that somebody doesn't just address the fact that the assassination was clearly laid on as a plan; same as we do when we assassinate somebody. I've participated in some of that. (It's) pretty carefully planned; you don't just go send some kid down there with a pop gun." Ron

Greg, I'll try to address the questions raised by you and others here. Carlin testified that when she called Ruby, he said "something about the dog," which would mean Sheba, whom Ruby usually kept with him. When Carlin later refers to "something he had to do with the dogs' freedom, I think," she would be referring to the dogs that was kept in a back room of the club. So I see no inconsistency in her testimony with regard to Ruby's dogs. Senator testified that Sheba had 6 puppies at one time. These were "the children" who were kept at the club. Ruby had as many as 9 or 10 dogs, but Senator indicated that Ruby gave some away, and Armstrong testified that at the time Ruby killed Oswald, only the male dog Clipper and another dog were at the club. Counting Sheba, that would mean that Ruby was down to only three dogs at that time. Ruby calling Sheba his "wife" was also discussed in Senator's testimony, and at Ruby's trial Rabbi Silverman testified that Ruby once began crying and told him, "I'm unmarried, I have no children, this is my wife" - and he pointed to one of the dogs - "and these are my children." I see no reason not to believe that Ruby took Sheba with him when he went to kill Oswald. Why Ruby did it is the question, but Senator testified that when Ruby left that morning he said, "George, I am taking the dog down to the club." Detective Smart told the FBI on 11/25/63 that Asst Chief Stevenson told him to go and search Ruby's car, get the money out of it, put the car in the pound, and "take a dog from the car and have it placed in an animal shelter." Smart said that Ruby must have told Captain Fritz where the car was. Stevenson testified that he couldn't recall who told him about the car, but that someone advised him that Ruby "had a dog in the car." When Griffin asked Smart, "Was there a dog in that car?", I therefore don't see it as a leading question. Smart had already told the FBI there was a dog in the car, and Stevenson testified about a dog being there. I don't see anywhere in Smart's statement where he said that someone had already been to the car. He corrects the WC's Griffin on that point. Griffin was apparently thinking of the testimony of Detective McMillon, who said that he was instructed to take keys that were taken from Ruby's pockets and see if he could get into Ruby's car. McMillon went to the lot and couldn't find the car, because Smart had already been there and had it impounded. So it was McMillon, not Smart, who stated that someone had already been to the car. On Griffin saying to Senator let’s suppose that Ruby took Sheba to the Carousel, left all the money in the safe there, etc., I think Griffin was simply trying to get at the question of how Ruby handled his money, i.e. is that something he would have done, and was not expressing doubt that Sheba was in the car. Only Armstrong’s testimony puzzles me. He told the WC that Joy Dale went to the pound and got Sheba and brought her to the club. He later tells the HSCA that he himself went and got Sheba. (Greg, you say that Joy Dale denied getting Sheba. What is the source for that? I can’t find any testimony or statement by Joy Dale or by her real name Joyce McDonald.) When Armstrong says he couldn’t remember if he went to the police station or to the Carousel to get Sheba, he must have meant the animal shelter when he said Carousel. It wouldn’t make any sense to say Carousel, since if Sheba was at the Carousel he wouldn’t have to go get her. That’s where Armstrong worked and fed the dogs. But the HSCA’s Purdy was no help here with his questioning, abruptly changing the subject to something else. Ron

William, Welcome to the forum. Is your book on Estes going to be published in English? Ron

Mark, Where is your video available? Does it include the Paschall film, or just enhanced frames? Ron

Here's more from Madsen, on Bush stealing the 2004 election. This will be of interest to James, as it even includes the Nugan Hand Bank. http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Repor...2504madsen.html Ron

OK, I stand corrected. My question was, is this point, however you define it, behind the banister where it slants. But you have answered this with your statement that there is now a gate blocking the way to the slant in the banister. Was there any reason evident why this area has been blocked with a gate? Not being there to see it myself, only two reasons come to mind: to keep people from going into the parking lot, or to keep researchers like you from checking out a shooter position. The second would be a most telling reason. Al will have to address this. I have a paper copy of one of his Lancer posts, which I can't find by searching at Lancer. In my paper copy (of a post entitled "RE: 312-317 headshot sequence," dated 1/29/04): " . . . to explain my position for the shot origin coming from the south end atop the triple underpass where the railing banks away from parallel, is to consider the following: 1 - This is the first available position from the left front where the shooter is hidden from the others atop the underpass. 2 - This allows for the great elevation over the support rod over the front seat of the limo. 3 - It is the best tracking angle for the limos movement once it hits Elm. 4 - It does not allow for obstruction of Jackie. 5 - It explains the shallow wound trajectory of the resulting skull flap and aligns the occipital parietal blowout in the right rear." I don't understand that at all. Al will have to address it. Ron

By the ideal point do you mean from behind the banister, where it slants eastward toward the parking lot? This is where Al placed the shooter, I believe. I don't get your point here. Any shooter on the south end of the overpass would try to avoid being seen, so naturally there would be "scant evidence" of anyone there. I believe Al has stated that anyone behind the banister where it slants at the south end could not be seen by the people who were standing at the north end, because of the slant. Did you take note of this when you were there, or do you agree? Ron

Al, Isn't it your view that the south knoll shooter was on the overpass, specifically behind the banister on the south end, where it slants eastward toward the parking lot? I believe this is what you have posted previously on the Lancer forum. Interestingly, there is one significant witness who thinks a shot came from the overpass. At the 1996 December in Dallas conference, Mark Oakes showed a video interview with Dallas motorcycle officer H.B. McClain (he of the the stuck microphone fame), who states, "I think he was shot from that overpass and the picket fence." (Mark Oakes, "Witnesses to History," Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, Winter 1996-97, p. 49.) Ron

James, There is some info on Whatley in Hemming's HSCA testimony. (The spelling there is Watley. Would that be a transcriber's error?) Hemming says he believed that Whatley, formerly in Special Forces, was with Military intelligence, as was Sturgis, Whatley being Sturgis's "right hand man." At the time of Hemming's testimony Whatley was working with DEA. http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca...mming_0089a.htm Ron

Yes, the plan required the TSBD shooter to wait in order to have triangulation of gunfire. I imagine a lone nutter would say that Oswald waited because taking an easy frontal shot on Houston would lessen his chance of making a getaway. The source of the shot would be more obvious, and the Secret Service was directly facing the building. Here is J. Edgar Hoover's lying explanation to the Warren Commission: "Now, some people have raised the question: Why didn't he shoot the President as the car came toward the storehouse where he was working? The reason for that is, I think, the fact there were some trees between his window on the sixth floor and the cars as they turned and went through the park. So he waited until the car got out from under the trees, and the limbs, and then he had a perfectly clear view of the occupants of the car, and I think he took aim, either on the President or Connally, and I personally believe it was the President in view of the twisted mentality the man had." Hoover was a fine one to talk about twisted mentality. Ron

John, Fonzi quotes WerBell's statement that Jack Ruby called him on page 72. This is probably the "startling revelation," a bit of editorial hyperbole. Ron

An interesting question is why Ruby took his favorite dog Sheba (his "wife") with him, and left her in the car (unlocked), when he went and shot Oswald. My hunch is that Ruby was told to do so to reinforce the idea that the killing was not planned but done spontaneously after happening onto the scene. Here's an article I wrote on this subject: http://hobrad.angelfire.com/rubysdog.html

John, Thanks for the photo of WerBell. On Ruby, there was only WerBell’s drunken reference to a call from Ruby in his interview by Gaeton Fonzi. From a 1994 video interview of Fonzi (link below): “And we spent an awful lot of time with WerBell and looking into his connections and associations. And because they were so convoluted and so, in many cases, so very, very deep, involved in covert operations, we weren't really able to come up with anything in terms of any kind of linkages. Though, in my interview with him, at one point he said he received a call from Ruby. Incoming, as he said. And then refused to get specific about exactly what that call was. But he was half bombed when I was talking to him. And it may have been something that either he made up, or he slipped. And I thought it was interesting. “Addendum (not on video) to answer 71 by Gaeton Fonzi: [i don't mean to give the impression I didn't attempt to follow up on WerBell's reference to Ruby. At the time, however, it was difficult to get WerBell to respond coherently to questions I asked, either because he was getting drunker or, more likely, pretending he was getting drunker. He simply became evasive and mumbled more when I repeatedly tried to pin him down to details, so it's still difficult to decide whether his reference to Ruby was a true slip or an attempt to add a touch of disinformation.]” http://www.cuban-exile.com/doc_001-025/doc0006.html Ron