Paul Jolliffe
-
Posts
760 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Paul Jolliffe
-
-
2 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:
There's nothing coherent or viable about the Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination. Even Lyndon Johnson didn't believe it.
"There's nothing coherent or viable about the Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination. Even Lyndon Johnson didn't believe it.
Denny, you got that right.
Here's President Lyndon Johnson dismissing the "Single Bullet Theory" as nonsense with Warren Commission member Richard Russel (Russell: "Well, I don't believe it." LBJ: "I don't either.")
Why not?
Because, as Richard Russell pointed out, John Connally testified directly to the contrary . . .
-
On 8/16/2019 at 9:19 AM, Jim Hargrove said:
Oh fer cryin’ out loud! How long will you pretend the so-called “investigation” by the WC and the FBI wasn’t exposed decades ago for the massive cover-up that it was?
To see a three minute video showing how the FBI altered statements by three critical Dealey Plaza witnesses....
Here’s an example, again, of how the Warren Commission altered sworn testimony that exposed games the FBI was playing with “Oswald’s possessions.”
The FBI falsified so much testimony that it even had a process in place for routinely doing so, including over the objections of Warren Commission attorneys.
Jim,
I find it striking that the key FBI official here is #3 man Alan Belmont. Don Gibson pointed Belmont out as the most important FBI official to foster the cover-up, even more important than J. Edgar Hoover.
In this memo, Belmont explained the procedures for "correcting" FBI testimony in the transcripts and how to "be sure the attorney understands the changes made and actually accepts the changes . . ."
"Be sure the attorney understands" was FBI-ese for "coerce the attorney into suborning perjury", a felony.
Alan Belmont.
What a piece of ****
In his book "The Kennedy Assassination Cover-up", Don Gibson's arguments were persuasive about Belmont. I highly recommend Gibson's book to all readers here.
https://www.amazon.com/Kennedy-Assassination-Cover-up-Donald-Gibson/dp/1615779639
-
21 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
It's just incredible how anyone could actually put forth the above claptrap, even though there isn't a shred of solid evidence to back up such a claim about the "IBM men" being "a direct link to conspirators".
Anyone promoting such sheer speculation should be ashamed to post at this forum (or any forum).
Whatever happened to the idea of providing some actual EVIDENCE before jumping to a conclusion?
I hope this forum isn't starting to adopt the Ralph Cinque Method Of Assassination Investigation (which is basically a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants approach where virtually any crackpot [and impossible] conspiracy theory is slapped up against the wall and expected to be taken seriously).
Related Discussion....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/04/Johnny Brewer And The Shooting Of J.D. Tippit
It really isn't that complicated, David. I bet you could understand it if you tried:
Johnny Brewer went to the Texas Theater only after he had talked with two mystery men - men he claimed in 1996 were "IBM".
Further, every interviewer (including three - THREE - different filmed versions!) omitted the key details that Brewer returned to Hardy's Shoes and then had a conversation with the mystery men. These omissions hid both Brewer's conversation with and the presence of the "IBM" men.
Also, Brewer strongly implied that these men URGED him to follow the man to the theater: "So they stayed there and all the time I'm thinking to myself what am I doing here?"
Not only that, Brewer all but told us that these men were the ones who pushed Brewer to call the cops: "I still had no reason to have somebody call the police. I'm not sure what the hell I'm doing here to start with."
Whoever those men were, the authorities went to great lengths to hide their very existence. But ol' Johnny let it slip back in 1996 just how key those men were to the "official narrative."
Without those men, Johnny Brewer doesn't go to the Texas Theater, nor does he tell Julia Postal to call the cops. And without the Johnny Brewer story, then those mystery phone calls to the DPD with the false story of a man entering the Texas Theater with a shotgun or a rifle get scrutinized and debunked. And then, the lid comes off the conspiracy to murder the president of the United States.
That's why Johnny Brewer was interviewed in such a careful manner multiple times over the years, and why the filmed versions were edited.
So you see David, it really is not that hard to follow this. It all makes sense, it all fits the known facts, and it perfectly explains why Johnny Brewer was not interviewed by the Dallas Police until December 6, 1963. It wasn't until then that the DPD realized that the cover story of why they went to the Texas Theater was needed.
-
Gentlemen,
Combined with the Vincent Bugliosi interrogation of Brewer in the 1986 "trial" of LHO, we now have three filmed examples of cuts/splice/legal interruptions to Johnny Brewer's statement - ALL AT THE EXACT SAME MOMENT: THAT INSTANT WHEN BREWER IS BEGINNING TO DESCRIBE WHAT HAPPENED AFTER HE STEPPED OUT ONTO THE SIDEWALK AND WATCHED "THE MAN" ENTER THE TEXAS THEATER!
This is no coincidence.
This is not "bad luck."
This is not irrelevant.
This is not trivial.
No, there is only one reason why three different versions of the Johnny Brewer story all stop/splice/interrupt at the crucial moment. It's because Brewer's statement about returning to Hardy's was too explosive to be revealed - he talked to someone there, almost certainly the "IBM men" and they were a direct link to conspirators.
-
Now I must give credit where it is due:
Lance included in his post a link to the 1964 interview with Johnny Brewer.
Listen very carefully to Brewer describe his own actions as he watched "this man" walk up the sidewalk to the Texas Theater.
Beginning at the 1:25 mark this is a verbatim transcript of what Brewer said:
"When he went out the lobby toward the theater, I walked up the sidewalk and watched him go in, the uh, I f(audible click) walked up to the theater and asked Miss Postal there, the cashier if she had sold a ticket to this man wearing a brown sports shirt (and his?) description . . ."
This video from 1964 fits exactly with what I argued earlier - after stepping out onto the sidewalk and watching the man, Brewer then actually walked back to Hardy's and talked to someone (the IBM men!), just as he admitted in his 1996 interview.
Only after this conversation with the mystery men did Brewer then head up to the Texas Theater to urge Julia Postal to call the cops.
How do I know?
Listen to the audible click precisely at the 1:32 mark - Brewer started to say something BUT THE SOUND EDITORS DELETED THE REST OF HIS SENTENCE! The splice is obvious (and crude!)
Note too that just before this crucial moment, the video interview of Johnny Brewer switches from Brewer himself in Hardy's Shoes - where we can watch him make his statements - to a video of the Texas Theater as the camera approaches the box office. We can hear Brewer's (spliced and edited) narrative, but we don't see him saying what he said. Why not? Because an edited video shot of Johnny Brewer talking would have made it obvious that a splice had been made - that material had been omitted - and that would have raised eyebrows.
Brewer's fumbled rendition of his conversation with Julia Postal also fits with my conviction, explained at length in earlier posts, that Brewer had been given a description of the man he was to seek out as a suspicious person at the Texas Theater. That description almost certainly originated with whomever Brewer spoke back at Hardy's.
The second video - below - Lance posted also supports my claim - the editors (YET AGAIN!) chose to delete any Johnny Brewer statement about what happened after he stepped out onto the sidewalk to watch "this man" head toward the Texas Theater. The narrator - NOT BREWER! - then picks up the story for us. (See this link below. They cut the rest of Brewer's statement at the 2:03 mark. (Why? To hide whatever he would have said next, namely his return to the shoe store and his conversation with the mysterious men!)
-
14 hours ago, Lance Payette said:
Any lawyer will tell you that a witness's earliest statements are the most probative. Two weeks after the assassination, Brewer signed an affidavit in which Oswald was nothing more than "a man." When he testified to the WC less than five months after the assassination - after presumably having given careful thought to what he would say - he testified:
Mr. BELIN - Let me hold you a minute. You used the word Oswald. Did you know who the man was at the time you saw him?
Mr. BREWER - No.
Mr. BELIN - So at the time, you didn't know what his name was?
Mr. BREWER - No.
Later:
Mr. BREWER - He just looked funny to me. Well, in the first place, I had seen him some place before. I think he had been in my store before. And when you wait on somebody, you recognize them, and he just seemed funny. His hair was sort of messed up and looked like he had been running, and he looked scared, and he looked funny.
In this 1964 interview, Brewer said the day of the assassination was "the first time" he had seen Oswald. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=K-jUhs5MPhg In this recreation, likewise from 1964, Oswald is simply "this man." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo-wHtJPdQM
32 years later, Brewer gives the interview to Griggs. Now he clearly remembers Oswald, down to his shoe size, what shoes he bought, and that he was a "pain in the butt." Read those two paragraphs of the Griggs interview. What Brewer says doesn't even make sense. You can't even tell when he had this flash of recollection about Oswald. It sounds like it was in the Texas Theater.
Ten years earlier, in 1986, when he testified at the mock trial, he had said nothing like he later said to Griggs. In the 2005 oral history statement I posted, he says nothing like he supposedly said to Griggs ("I recognized him … in a way [shrugs] … you know, like I seen this guy").
Brewer was a shoe salesman, for God's sake, caught up in the news story of the century. I have no doubt that his head was spinning and probably still is.
Witnesses' recollections simply DO NOT become vastly more detailed 32 years after the event. Yet this happens AGAIN AND AGAIN with the assassination witnesses, after they have attended conspiracy seminars, had conspiracy-oriented authors whispering in their ears and/or "educated" themselves with books, videos and internet sites.
So what does a good conspiracy theorist believe? Why, the 1996 Griggs interview, of course. That and only that.
What does a good conspiracy theorist hang his hat on? Why, discrepancies in the timeline of events, of course - probably the least reliable basis of all. Every discrepancy that will serve a cockamamie conspiracy theory becomes the gospel truth, the official timeline.
If you seriously don't believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the man in the alcove of Hardy's, I have nothing further to say to you. You have gone down the rabbit hole.
By the way,
NO ONE HAS EVEN ATTEMPTED TO EXPLAIN HOW ANY OF THIS MAKES ANY SENSE,
even after I have conceded all that I have conceded for the sake of argument. You folks don't even CARE if it makes any sense. You might as well develop your theories by consulting a Ouija board.
Lance,
Re-read everything I posted earlier - I explained simply and clearly.
You and I agree that in none of Brewer's early statements did he claim to have recognized "Oswald" - the Hardy's Shoe customer from some weeks before the assassination , whose shoes were catalogued in the Dallas Police inventory of 11/22/63 - as the man who stepped into his shoe store around 1:30 on 11/22/63.
You and I agree that he claimed to recognize "Oswald" only at the Texas Theater, but not a few minutes earlier in the lobby/vestibule of his store.
Butch Burroughs sold popcorn to "Oswald" a few minutes before 1:15 up in the Texas Theater, and therefore, "Oswald" could not have been the man in the lobby/vestibule of Hardy's Shoes at 1:30.
Other than Johnny Brewer's belated claim - which we both agree is fishy as hell! - that the man he saw in the lobby/vestibule of Hardy's Shoes was "Oswald", there is not the slightest piece of evidence that "Oswald" was in the lobby/vestibule area of Hardy's Shoes around 1:30 on 11/22/63.
It is you, Lance, who have no credible evidence that "Oswald" was in the alcove/lobby/vestibule area of Hardy's Shoes.
-
Gentlemen,
As I pointed out before, the key detail in Johnny Brewer's story (that "Oswald" entered Hardy's Shoes around 1:30) simply could not be correct because "Oswald" had been in the Texas Theater for at least fifteen minutes by then.
Whoever entered Hardy's Shoes, it wasn't "Oswald."
Could the rest of Brewer's story be basically correct?
Sure.
I explained all the anomalies in Brewer's testimony and his 1996 interview earlier, at length.
Can we say why he said what he said? No, but my guess is the most likely one - he was urged to report a suspicious person entering the Texas Theater by people he'd known and trusted. The two IBM men were the only ones in position to push Brewer - and yes, he was pushed. He admitted "" I still had no reason to have somebody call the police. I'm not sure what the hell I'm doing here to start with."
There is no reasonable explanation for that statement other than he was pressured to call the police, and that pressure came from someone else.
The crucial question, avoided studiously by all the authorities from that day to this, and apparently not well understood by many of us here is simple:
Since Johnny Brewer unquestionably knew and remembered "Oswald" as a previous customer at Hardy's Shoes, WHY DIDN'T BREWER RECOGNIZE "OSWALD" WHEN HE ENTERED THE LOBBY AT HARDY'S AROUND 1:30? (After all, Brewer knew him!)
The answer is simple: The man who came into the lobby/doorway area at Hardy's Shoes on 11/22/63 around 1:30 was NOT known to Brewer - that man was not "Oswald"!
-
5 minutes ago, David Boylan said:
Jim,
Ruby must have been an informant. 🙂
Strange mix there. McKeown knew Ruby, Oswald, Prio, Hernandez, Davis and Castro.
Yes absolutely Ruby was an informant. The FBI had to 'fess up that they wanted him back in 1959, but he never gave them anything good. Yet the FBI had records going back to 1956 quoting witnesses who claimed that any drugs shipments going through Dallas had to be cleared by Ruby first. As Jim Hargrove (and John Armstrong) have been arguing for years, the reason that McKeown was approached by a "false "Oswald"'' in September of 1963 was to implicate Castro in the upcoming assassination. McKeown had run guns to Castro a few years earlier, so if "Oswald" was part of a gun purchase from McKeown - Castro's arms dealer - then Castro himself could be blamed.
However, McKeown refused to take the bait. The high price offered to McKeown ($10,000 for four rifles!) was so suspicious that McKeown correctly smelled a rat and wouldn't make the sale.
Jack Ruby was regularly used as an informant for the DPD's Richard Clark, a detective in narcotics and vice and the Warren Commission had the evidence (which they ignored!)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10488#relPageId=92&tab=page
And, according to this FBI document, Jack Ruby was influential within the Dallas Police Department as early as 1948!
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62260#relPageId=179
However, Jim H. and John A. and I all believe that Ruby's most important connections were to the CIA. It is impossible to believe that Ruby could have been running guns to Cuba for years without the knowledge, approval and help of CIA operatives.
-
8 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:
In his essay in the Reopen the Kennedy Case Forum in 2016, Hasan Yusuf makes the case that the two IBM men in the store were Igor Vaganov, and Robert
Radelat/Radelet.
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1124-brewer-s-ibm-friends
Hasan also wrote,
<quote>
" What I also find interesting is the information contained in the following article by Robert E. Doran:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16254&search=Bill_Stage+hypnotist+Dallas+Air+force+base#relPageId=15&tab=page
Doran writes that two of his Air Force “buddies” were hypnotised by a professional stage hypnotist from Dallas named “Bill” who was brought along by a mysterious IBM instructor. The reason I find this interesting is because William Crowe (aka Bill DeMar), who was the master of ceremonies at the Carousel Club, was evidently involved with hypnosis."" This whole idea of Robert Radelat as one of the IBM men in Brewer’s shoe store is really beginning to fascinate me. There was a Guido Radelat from Cuba who was a member of the anti-Castro organisation, JURE, and who “specialized in writing computer programs.”
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=91781&search=Guido_Radelat#relPageId=31&tab=page
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/01/AR2010080103221_2.html
So we have Robert Radelat who it is said was working for IBM in November, 1963, and we have a Guido Radelat who was a member of an anti-Castro organisation who “specialized in writing computer programs.” Were they related? I sure would like to find out if they were."<end quote>
Steve Thomas
Steve,
I read that analysis by Hasan and dismissed it for the simple reason that Brewer's "IBM" men had been known to him since August of 1962, and Vaganov did not arrive in Dallas (whatever one may think his role was on 11/22/63) until shortly before the assassination.
Therefore, according to the evidence available to us, Vaganov could not have been one of the IBM men.
It's true that Radelat was a CAP member who may have known "Oswald" back in Louisiana in the 1950's, but that doesn't have much relevance to Hardy's Shoes in 1962/63. However, if Radelat was working for IBM in Dallas in the fall of 1963 in some capacity, then it is possible that his past CAP membership may have made him useful to authorities interested in ferreting out Castro sympathizers/lefties/commies. And therefore, it is just possible (completely unproven but possible) he had approached Brewer to enlist Brewer's help.
But clearly, much, much more evidence is needed on Radelat before we arrive at even any tentative conclusions.
-
Also, it has long been apparent to me that the Warren Commission did not want to dwell on the fact that "Oswald" had been a customer at Hardy's Shoes and was known to (and remembered by!) Johnny Brewer. "Oswald" was not only not a stranger, he was someone that Brewer specifically remembered as a "jerk."
Yet as soon as Brewer began to describe this in 1964, David Belin changed the topic. (The Warren Commission could not ignore this completely, but they chose to ignore the clear implications.)
Why did it matter?
Because that would have raised the obvious question that (as far as I know) has not been asked:
Since Brewer knew and remembered "Oswald" from before, why didn't Brewer recognize him when "Oswald" (supposedly) stepped into the lobby of Hardy's Shoes?
Answer: Because that man wasn't "Oswald".
That's why Brewer hinted at being given a description. That's why Brewer didn't notice "Oswald" when he scanned the theater's (supposedly empty) balcony and main floor. He wasn't looking for "Oswald", he was looking for the man who stepped into the lobby of Hardy's Shoes.
Now Tommy Rowe's mysterious statement to his family members makes sense: Brewer didn't point out "Oswald" to the cops because he didn't know that's who he was supposed to accuse! But Tommy Rowe knew - and he pointed "Oswald" out to the cops (at least according to what he later told family members, who later told a third party, who later told Penn Jones. Jones was never able to confirm any details from Tommy Rowe himself because the whole Rowe family refused to meet with him ever.)
Now too the role of the "IBM" men becomes even more apparent: they sicced Johnny Brewer (and maybe Tommy Rowe?) on to the Hardy's Shoe lobby man, whose role was to provide a reason to call the DPD.
This scenario also explains why Brewer's affadavit for the Dallas Police was not taken until December 6, 1963. It wasn't immediately apparent to the DPD that Brewer's story was going to be needed. After all, they didn't go rushing to the Texas Theater as the result of Julia Postal's call, they went because of some call from someone (the IBM men maybe/probably/certainly?) about a man entering the Texas Theater armed with a rifle or a shotgun!
-
1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:
Still trying to catch up here, so forgive me if this has already been asked and answered, but is there anyone who can confirm Brewer’s bizarre story of the “two IBM men?” Tommy Rowe (who also worked at Hardy’s Shoes) or anyone else? Frankly, I see little reason to believe this story.
I don’t think Brewer saw either Oswald going into the theater. He claimed to hear the police reports (which described a subject in a white jacket and white shirt) yet somehow connected this with the long-sleeve brown-shirted Classic Oswald®? He allegedly even told Postal the suspect was wearing a brown shirt. Michah M. wrote a nice summary of some of the other problems with Brewer early in this thread. The whole Brewer tale never made any sense.
Nor, to me, does the saga of these “IBM men” sound the least bit credible, other than as a convenient excuse for Brewer’s role in capturing “Lee Harvey Oswald.” Just my opinion, but it seems to me as likely as anything else that Brewer just made them up. Again, does anyone know of any confirmation about these mysterious “IBM men?”
Jim,
Watch the clip I posted yesterday of Vincent Bugliosi questioning Brewer in the 1986 televised "trial" of "Oswald."
Note that just as Brewer was about to describe what happened after he stepped out of his store and watched (who?) walk into the Texas Theater, Bugliosi cut him off with the pre-emptory statement "Thereupon you proceeded to the theater", to which Brewer (taking the hint) then began to describe his interaction with Julia Postal.
Why did that matter?
Because, as Brewer confessed in his 1996 interview with Ian Griggs, Brewer did not immediately walk down to the Texas Theater. No, instead he returned to the shoe store where (as I explained yesterday), he then conversed with the two "IBM men" who so helpfully closed up the place for him!
Brewer strongly hinted that his trip to the theater and his subsequent actions were the result of prompting by the two mysterious men at Hardy's! He all but confessed it! (Read my post on this point.)
Who could they have been but some kind of contacts/handlers for Brewer?
Nothing else makes sense.After reading and listening to Brewer's first-hand accounts, I don't believe he made the whole thing up out of thin air. I think it is more likely than not that someone (BUT NOT "OSWALD"!) poked his head into Hardy's for a moment around 1:30. I bet Brewer largely did what he famously claimed to do, but as we all know, there was something fishy about his rush to call the DPD. In his interview with Ian Griggs, Johnny Brewer all but admitted that he had been put up to calling the cops.
So what was he hiding?
The two men in Hardy's. The two men that he had known and interacted with for fifteen months. The two men about whom no one wanted to ask any questions, and of whom Vincent Bugiliosi was extremely anxious to exclude from Brewer's testimony in 1986!
-
3 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:
1958
(Source: Email from Jim Campbell)
"I was a Ham Radio Operator before enlisting in the ASA in the Summer of 1957. While being processed at Ft. Devens I was assured by all and sundry that I was destined for a career as an 058 (ditty bopper). Instead, I was tapped for a job of teaching electronics in the Bird Cage at Devens. Not long after starting that job I got the opportunity to become an IBM CE for the ASA. After a stint at IBM school in Endicott and Poughkeepsie, NY I was assigned to USASA HQ Europe in Frankfurt.
I worked for a year there in the data processing center on the top floor of the IG Farben Building. Our data processing unit was transferred to Rothwesten in the Summer of 1959 and I worked there outside the Operations Building in some shelters mounted on trucks. I believe that my MOS was 206.10, Cryptanalytic Equipment Repair. I left the army in the Summer of 1960. (When I was in, no 206 had ever re-enlisted - IBM had a job ready for them when they got out. The ASA ran a new group through the IBM school every year or so.)"Steve Thomas
Steve,
That's really interesting that former Army Security Agency guys went right to work for IBM when they got out. Again, it raises the question about for whom exactly were Brewer's two mysterious "IBM men" working? IBM? Army Security Agency? The CIA? Dual loyalties - on IBM's payroll, but working for the CIA or the ASA maybe?
Anyway, as I suggested earlier, IBM probably had a legitimate reason to liaise with the Dallas Police - IBM was helping police departments all across the country to computerize their fingerprint files in 1963 and 1964.
OK, but none of that explains the presence of these two men in Hardy's Shoes for 15 months before the assassination!
The only thing that makes sense to me is that these men were intelligence spotters/recruiters/handlers and were using Johnny Brewer as some kind of source. (Remember, the hunt for "Reds" in Dallas in 1963 was not limited to the lunatic fringe - it extended to the top of Dallas society! D.H. Byrd, Jack Cason and Roy Truly were all actively looking for subversives, yet they hired one (albeit a fake one) who worked right under their noses!)
By pretending he could not remember the IBM men's names, not only did Johnny Brewer protect them, but also himself. If he gave them up, he would be useless as a future source of information.
Many informants get some satisfaction from being a source to the authorities - it gives them a sense of purpose, a sense of meaning. The KGB noted this phenomenon in its own people long ago. So too did the Gestapo: ordinary Germans and Russians would line up in droves to report on their neighbors to the authorities. In most cases, no coercion was needed at all!
I am sure that we Americans are no different. Many people would gladly rat out others for a chance to get an in with the authorities.
-
18 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:
Paul,
What kind of guys just "lounge around" a shoe store?
None. They might "lounge around a malt shop, or a bar, but a shoe store?
Project WALNUT:
You can see a reference to this system (WALNUT) on page 6 in the document entitled: “DCI John McCone and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy”
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB493/docs/intell_ebb_026.PDF
that Douglas Caddy referred to in his thread, “CIA report concluded director led JFK assassination coverup
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/helms1.htm
“Mr. RANKIN. Do you have an opinion, Mr. McCone, as to whether or not the liaison between the intelligence agencies of the United States Government might be improved if they had better mechanical, computer or other facilities of that type, and also some other ideas or methods of dealing with each other?
Mr. McCONE. There is a great deal of improvement of information that might be of importance in a matter of this kind through the use of computers and mechanical means of handling files, and you, Mr. Chief Justice, saw some of our installations and that was only a beginning of what really can be done.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I did.
Mr. McCONE. I would certainly urge that all departments of government that are involved in this area adopt the most modern methods of automatic data processing with respect to the personnel files and other files relating to individuals. This would be helpful. But I emphasize that a computer will not replace the man, and therefore, we must have at all levels a complete exchange of information and cooperation between agencies where they share this responsibility, and in going through this chronology, it points out the type of exchange and cooperation that the Central Intelligence Agency tries to afford both the Secret Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in matters where we have a common responsibility.”http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/helms1.htm
“Mr. RANKIN. Do you have an opinion, Mr. McCone, as to whether or not the liaison between the intelligence agencies of the United States Government might be improved if they had better mechanical, computer or other facilities of that type, and also some other ideas or methods of dealing with each other?
Mr. McCONE. There is a great deal of improvement of information that might be of importance in a matter of this kind through the use of computers and mechanical means of handling files, and you, Mr. Chief Justice, saw some of our installations and that was only a beginning of what really can be done.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I did.
Mr. McCONE. I would certainly urge that all departments of government that are involved in this area adopt the most modern methods of automatic data processing with respect to the personnel files and other files relating to individuals. This would be helpful. But I emphasize that a computer will not replace the man, and therefore, we must have at all levels a complete exchange of information and cooperation between agencies where they share this responsibility, and in going through this chronology, it points out the type of exchange and cooperation that the Central Intelligence Agency tries to afford both the Secret Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in matters where we have a common responsibility.”According to Wikipedia, WALNUT used an IBM 1360 data retrieval and name trace system employing IBM punch cards and microfilm. Paper documents were microfilmed and then the pages were scanned and input into IBM punch cards. The cards were keyword searchable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_1360
CIA Project WALNUT
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80B01139A000200020028-0.pdf
May, 1959
\
Steve Thomas
Steve,
Thanks for the details on Project WALNUT.
This raises the question: were the two "IBM men" really from IBM or were they actually CIA/Army Intelligence?
I can't really think of a WALNUT connection/use/cover for Hardy's Shoes, so why were those men hanging around there since August of 1962?
It is impossible that any potential assassination plot could have conceived of using Hardy's Shoes in any way by August of 1962. "Oswald" didn't even move to Dallas until two months before the assassination, so why were those men "lounging around" for 15 months before? In August of 1962, "Oswald" was living in Fort Worth, not Dallas.
Were these men recruiting Brewer as an informant in a search for subversive "Reds" and lefties? Were these men Brewer's intelligence contacts? A bright, observant, personable shoe salesman might be a source of information on people in the community. In my experience, salesmen ask lots of questions as part of their job, so eliciting information from a commie/symp. could be done without raising suspicions.
If Brewer was recruited as an informant, it seems more likely it would have been by the DPD, rather than by a federal agency. But Brewer identified them as "IBM" which connotes a federal connection, not local. However, these men lived locally so they weren't Washington-based feds.
If they were really IBM, they were probably helping the Dallas Police Department to computerize its fingerprint files.
From IBM's own history on Predictive Crime Fighting: "In 1963, New York City’s Police Chief Robert Gallati enlisted the help of an IBM ® 1401 to record and track 5,000,000 sets of criminal fingerprints in New York Police Department (NYPD) files. This new system helped reduce fingerprint search time from days to minutes by allowing the simultaneous search of at least 100 sets of fingerprints. By 1964, cities across the US, such as Philadelphia, Chicago and Salt Lake City, were all using IBM punched cards to record emergency calls and dispatch the appropriate municipal services."
As a side note, the infamous Acting Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach in 1969 became IBM's general counsel. Probably a coincidence, but I've argued elsewhere that Katzenbach was the key contact (witting or not) between the conspirators and (an unwitting) LBJ. Katzenbach was the recipient of that bizarre, highly suspicious phone call on Sunday afternoon, 11/22/63 from Eugene Rostow, urging the formation of the Warren Commission.
Katzenbach was also the one pushing Earl Warren (Katzenbach wrote at least two letters to Warren!) and the Warren Commission to disinter and then cremate "Oswald's" body in January of 1964, all in the name of "saving money" . . . (There was only one reason to dig "Oswald" up and burn his body in 1964 and it had nothing to do with saving money. But that's a separate thread.)
Was Katzenbach's position in 1969 a very lucrative payoff for services rendered?
-
9 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:
Ron,
Think military intelligence, not CIA.
Steve Thomas
Steve and Ron,
Your are both correct to suspect that the "IBM men" at Hardy's Shoe store played a key role that day.
In this 1996 interview with Ian Griggs which I posted earlier, Johnny Brewer made several interesting admissions. Obviously he introduced the "IBM men" into the narrative.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16235#relPageId=8&tab=page
But even more fascinating is the following:
1. Contrary to his Warren Commission testimony, what drew Brewer's attention to the lobby area WAS NOT "OSWALD"!
Brewer freely confessed to Griggs that he, Brewer, "was actually on my way to come out from behind the counter to go outside, to watch out and see what was going on when this fellow entered from my left as I'm standing there. . . . And actually, I was a little annoyed because I thought it was someone coming in as I was fixing to go out . . ."
2. Brewer was not certain the "the man" had sneaked into the Texas Theater: (" I didn't really know for sure whether he bought a ticket or not." ) (Contrary to his later statements, the ticket booth did not butt out onto the sidewalk. Instead, in 1963 it was slightly recessed, although not as far back as it is today. Nonetheless, in 1963, the ticket window was NOT visible from Hardy's Shoes. One would have to walk within a few feet of the entrance to the theater to ascertain whether a transaction actually took place. See the first video below at the 2:15 mark.)
So why did Brewer's conversation with Julia Postal come about?
Well, it only happened after Brewer returned to Hardy's Shoes and talked to the mysterious "IBM men"! ("I went back and - I can't remember either of their names - but one of them closed up for me while I was gone.")
Brewer hinted that they urged him to go up to the theater ("So they stayed there and all the time I'm thinking to myself what am I doing here?") In other words, Brewer himself wasn't sure why he was going to the theater, but it only happened after the two "IBM men" said they'd stay at Hardy's and that they'd close it up for Brewer. These men were not at Hardy's when Brewer returned later that afternoon "the store was locked." (Yet these men disappeared as soon as "Oswald" was arrested, never to be seen or heard from again . . .)
Question: What kind of manager allows customers to close up and lock the store?
Answer: None do. These "IBM men" from the neighborhood were known to Brewer since August of 1962. Brewer explicity denied these men were customers. ("They'd just come in and kill time and lounge around.")
3. Since no one ("Oswald" or anyone else) passed by Butch Burroughs at the concession stand on the way to the main floor, the only possible path for the man to have taken would be up the stairs to the balcony. And, in fact, that is exactly what Brewer and Burroughs suspected. They both walked upstairs to check, but according to Brewer there was no one in the balcony. (I don't believe that. I think there was at least one person up there. This matches so well with the TWO DPD arrest reports stating that "Oswald" was arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater!)
4. Brewer hinted that he had been given a description of "Oswald": "Well first of all I walked all the way down the left aisle and just kinda looked for somebody who looked like him . . ."
Say what? Brewer "just kinda looked for somebody who looked like him"? Why not just look for the man he had just seen outside the shoe store?
Further: "Nobody had gone out. So I walked back up to the other side and walked out and I said to Julie "Call the police" and I said "Butch, you stay here out front and if anybody matching his description leaves, then stop them . . ."
5. Brewer told Julia Postal to call the Dallas Police with the report of a suspicious person, but " I still had no reason to have somebody call the police. I'm not sure what the hell I'm doing here to start with."
Gentlemen, I believe that with this statement, Brewer virtually confessed that he had been put up to the task of drawing the Dallas Police to the Texas Theater.
That fits so perfectly with what I argued earlier about the purpose of the Brewer mission, namely to provide a cover story for the arrival of the DPD to the Texas Theater.
Who could have put Johnny Brewer up to such a thing? What acquaintances of his were in the right place at the right time to persuade this 22 year old to go report a "suspicious person"?
Only the mysterious "IBM men" who so helpfully paved the way for Brewer to step into history's spotlight, and then, like magicians, disappeared without a trace.
Note that in the second video below, that as soon as Brewer described watching the man enter the Texas Theater ("I was still in front of my store and watched him enter the theater") Vincent Bugliosi interrupted Brewer! Bugliosi did not want to take a chance that Brewer might inadvertently let slip the fact that Brewer then returned to the store and talked with the IBM men! Bugliosi interjected and gestured (as Brewer was still speaking) to say " thereupon you proceeded toward the theater." Brewer then described briefly his interaction with Julia Postal.
By interrupting when he did, Bugliosi knowingly prevented Brewer from describing his return to Hardy's and his conversation with the two IBM men!
That interruption was no accident - Bugliosi knew exactly what to hide: The two IBM men and their role in urging Johnny Brewer to report the "suspicious person."
(See the 3:35 mark and beyond in the second video below.)
"
-
6 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:
Paul,
Fascinating post. Thank you!
I had always assumed the second “Oswald” arrived at the theater to lure the cops there (though John A. was never so certain of that). Your theory about getting the pistol into Classic Oswald’s® hands does seem possible; it had just never occurred to me before.
Also, you mentioned “repeated, anonymous calls from someone within the theater itself.” Can you say what led you to this conclusion? It’s clear that ADA Jim Bowie told Leo Sauvage there were “over a half-dozen anonymous phone calls made to the Dallas Police advising that a suspicious man had gone into the Texas Theater," but I don’t believe anything was said about where these calls originated.
Thanks again for your post. Much to think about in it.
Jim Hargrove said: "I don't believe anything was said about where these calls originated."
Yes, you're right. I conflated the Sauvage quote with Penn Jones's statement (found on page 12 in Ron Bulman's reply from the March 1, 1968 Los Angeles Free Press story "Ruby had 15,000 bullet, grenades, rifles".
Look in the first column on the right - Penn Jones and Roger Craig discuss the fact that the Dallas Dispatchers somehow managed to "misplace" the tape of the calls from the Texas Theater to the DPD at that moment.
(Of course that tape was not misplaced. It was destroyed because it contained a recording of a conspirator's voice! Not to mention that calls from anyone other than Julia Postal did NOT fit the emerging narrative!)
-
2 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:
Is it possible he made up the story based on something he read earlier about Oswald's shoes?
Well yes, anything is possible.
(I am pretty sure that "Oswald" really was a previous customer at Hardy's Shoes - Warren Commission Exhibit 147 (Volume XVI, page 514) is a pair of men's black shoes labeled "Hardy's Shoes". If Brewer waited on him and disliked him., then could that have been a motive to help implicate "Oswald" in something that Brewer may not have understood fully? If the person asking for Brewer's help was someone who Brewer trusted/admired/liked, then the answer is maybe yes.)
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0269b.htm
Also, note that the DPD listed a comparable pair of shoes on their inventory from 1026 N. Beckley:
But in the end, we don't know why Brewer told the story about 11/22/63 that he told. However, we know a couple of things:
1. "Oswald" was already in the Texas Theater by 1:10 or so. Butch Burroughs sold him popcorn before the beginning of the 1:15 show. Theater patron Jack Davis noted that "Oswald" was changing seats before and during the credits of the movie. Therefore, Johnny Brewer's story about seeing "Oswald" hesitate outside the door of his store around 1:35 or so is demonstrably false.
2. No radio broadcast description of Tippit's killer had been broadcast at the time Brewer claimed later to have heard such a description. The only description the DPD had of the president's killer (called in by Inspector Herbert Sawyer at 12:45) was for a suspect who did NOT match "Oswald".
3. The normal reaction to seeing someone walk into a theater without stopping at the box office is . . . to do nothing. Johnny Brewer's story to Julia Postal that a man had just walked in did not even ring true to Ms. Postal! She had to be cajoled repeatedly into calling the DPD. Yet there is filmed evidence (the Ron Reiland news report) that the Dallas Police were tipped off to "Oswald's" presence in the Texas Theater NOT as a result of Postal's call, but because of repeated, anonymous calls from someone within the theater itself. Further that caller claimed that the suspect had been seen walking into the Texas Theater with a rifle or a shotgun.
This, of course, was laughable even in Texas in 1963, but that report is what spurred the DPD to surround the Texas Theater, not the call from Julia Postal. (Was Johnny Brewer tasked with providing a cover as to why the DPD were called to the Texas Theater? That's my guess.)
So who called the DPD from within the Texas Theater?
I believe it was probably "Oswald's" contact, the person to whom he'd been directed but did not know on sight.
Further, I think it is probable that contact had possession of the revolver used to kill Tippit. I am not saying that "Oswald's" contact was Tippit's killer, merely that the contact had the revolver at that moment.
On other threads, the question as to why the second LHO came to the Texas Theater was never answered satisfactorily.
But, permit me to speculate that the purpose was simple: to get the killer's gun into "Oswald's" hands just in time for the DPD to arrest "Oswald."
Whether or not Tippit's killer bore a physical resemblance to "Oswald", the vital point was to get that revolver into "Oswald's" contact's hands so that person could then pass it on to "Oswald." Once that transfer was made safely, it was merely a matter then of alerting the DPD in a way guaranteed to bring them running.
How?
By claiming that a man with a rifle had just walked into the Texas Theater!
It worked, but of course, that story had the drawback of being obviously false.
So Johnny Calvin Brewer was to provide cover for the conspirators, whether he knew exactly and fully his role, or not.
I bet that to this day, Johnny Calvin Brewer is sure that "Oswald" was guilty as sin in both murders, and that further, Brewer will have nothing to do with conspiracy talk.
After all, if he (inadvertently) helped the conspirators to cover up the murder of the president and to blame the patsy, his psyche would crumble.
-
22 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:
John,
There’s considerable evidence that Ruby ran guns to Cuba during several different time periods. This was surely known by the CIA, which, although it helped prosecute many others for doing the same thing, apparently protected Ruby from prosecution.
At the same time, Ruby was closely associated with KLIF radio’s Gordon McLendon, childhood friend of the Agency's David Atlee Phillips. McLendon was co-founder with Phillips of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO) . Ruby notoriously spend time at KLIF the night of the assassination and continued to correspond with McLendon from prison.
I think Ruby was the direct contact between JFK’s assassin plotters (Phillips et al.) and the cover-up team.
Jim,
The "Clifton T. Bowes, Jr." mentioned at the bottom of the first page who refused to corroborate Blaney Mack Johnson's (FBI informant T-2) allegation about Jack Ruby is interesting.
Clifton T. Bowes, Jr. was one of the founding charter members of the Civil Air Patrol in 1941 and was so honored in Washington in 2001.
https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/atlanta/obituary.aspx?n=clifton-t-bowes&pid=1570903
As we all know, another one of the CAP's charter members was D.H. Byrd, Texas oilman who just happened to own the Texas School Book Depository building.
(From Wikipedia: "The Civil Air Patrol was conceived in the late 1930s by aviation advocate Gill Robb Wilson, who foresaw general aviation's potential to supplement America's military operations. With the help of New York Mayor Fiorello H. LaGuardia, in his capacity as then-Director of the Office of Civilian Defense, CAP was created with Administrative Order 9, signed by LaGuardia on 1 December 1941 and published 8 December 1941. The Civil Air Patrol had 90 days to prove themselves to Congress. Major General John F. Curry was appointed as the first national commander.[6] Texas oilman David Harold Byrd was a co-founder of CAP.[7])
So, this means that Byrd (in Dallas) and Bowes had known each other for decades.
Also, since (according to FBI informant T-2, Blaney Mack Johnson) Bowes knew Ruby well enough to verify that Ruby was running guns to Cuba, it is likely that Byrd knew Ruby.
And, if William Weston's speculation about the TSBD as a storage site for illegal arms shipments to Cuba is correct - and I would bet very serious money it is correct - then Byrd was an active participant with Ruby to run guns to Cuba!
(I have linked both of Weston's articles below. Both are crucial to this thread and must be read in their entirety if we are to get anywhere.)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48681#relPageId=24
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16259&relPageId=7
If the TSBD really was being used as an arsenal/repository/clandestine warehouse for arms by CIA operatives, then it is no wonder that the FBI and the Warren Commission shut down all references to Jack Ruby's gunrunning/arms deals to Cuba!
-
On 7/22/2019 at 7:34 AM, David Von Pein said:
I think it's possible that some of the confusion about the alleged "two arrests" could have been initially sparked by the fact that Johnny Brewer was briefly held at gunpoint as a suspect by the police at the back of the theater. And Brewer, like Oswald, was a slender white male in his 20s.
I can't find anything in the records that indicates whether or not Brewer was actually dragged outside into the alley behind the theater when he was held at gunpoint....and, of course, Brewer wasn't actually placed into a police car....but if someone did see the incident between the police and Johnny Brewer at the back of the theater, this could certainly have elevated the confusion of any witnesses as to how many people were being detained by the police at the theater.
JOHNNY BREWER (WC Testimony) -- "I heard a noise outside, and I opened the door, and the alley, I guess it was filled with police cars and policemen were on the fire exits and stacked around the alley, and they grabbed me, a couple of them, and held and searched me and asked me what I was doing there, and I told them that there was a guy in the theatre that I was suspicious of, and he asked me if he was still there."
JOHNNY BREWER (1986 Mock Trial Testimony) -- "...a gun was held on me."
No David.
You are completely wrong to imply witnesses may have physically confused Brewer with "Oswald" - Johnny Brewer DID NOT RESEMBLE "OSWALD".
Don't believe me?
Here's what Johnny Brewer himself said, under oath, in 1964:
Mr. BELIN - Will you describe the man you saw?
Mr. BREWER - He was a little man, about 5'9", and weighed about 150 pounds is all.
Mr. BELIN - How tall are you, by the way?
Mr. BREWER - Six three.David, your own youtube videos make it obvious that the tall, broad-shouldered Brewer could NEVER have been mistaken for '"Oswald."
Just watch Brewer stride into the courtroom - he towers over everyone there!
-
On 7/22/2019 at 4:20 PM, Micah Mileto said:
Top 9 problems with Johnny Brewer I know of:
1. Brewer's first statement was made on 12/6/63, two weeks after the assassination, not the same day or the day after, which would have been preferable for an important witness.
2. Brewer claimed to have SEEN, not heard, Police vehicles passing by a location where they almost certainly were not present.
3. Brewer claimed to have heard a description of the suspect on the radio BEFORE he saw the suspect, even though evidently no such description was circulating public airwaves at this time.
4. Brewer claimed to SEE the suspect enter the Texas Theater without buying a ticket, yet he also claimed to have asked the clerk if the suspect bought a ticket.
5. As summarized on harveyandlee.net: A very close friend of Jack Ruby's, Tommy Rowe, worked at Hardy's Shoe Store with Brewer. In 1964 Rowe told friends, relatives, and JFK researchers that it was he, NOT Brewer, who pointed out (HARVEY) Oswald to the police in the dark of the Texas Theater. Rowe was so close to Jack Ruby that Rowe moved into Ruby's apartment when Ruby went to jail for killing HARVEY Oswald. (Click here to see Midlothian Mirror editorial about Tommy Rowe.) (Click here for a 3/1/68 Los Angeles Free Press interview with Penn Jones and Roger Craig also discussing Tommy Rowe.) Unfortunately, Tommy Rowe was never interviewed by the DPD or FBI or WC or HSCA. It is worth repeating that in 1967 the New Orleans District Attorney's office interviewed Tommy Rowe, who lived in Apt. 206 at 223 S. Ewing (the same apartment occupied by Jack Ruby in 1963). Mr. Rowe said that he told shoe store manager Johnny Brewer that he saw a man wearing a brown shirt enter the Texas Theater on the afternoon of November 22, 1963. If Rowe's statement is true then Johnny Brewer never saw the man in the brown shirt in front of his store, enter the theater, nor did he point out (HARVEY) to the police.
6. When interviewed by Ian Griggs, Brewer claimed that two acquaintances were also present in the shoe store, who he would not identify besides to say they were employees of IBM.
7. As summarized by Gokay Hasan Yusuf on KennedysAndKing.com: When Ian Griggs interviewed Johnny Brewer in 1996, Brewer told him that he heard Oswald shout out "It's all over"; or words to that effect (Griggs, No Case to Answer, page 64). But when Brewer testified before the Warren Commission, Brewer merely claimed that he heard some hollering, and that he couldn't make out exactly what Oswald said (WC Volume VII, page 6)
8. ibid: When Johnny Brewer testified before the Warren Commission, he claimed that he observed a gun in Oswald's hand aimed "up in the air" (WC Volume VII, page 6). During his interview with Ian Griggs in 1996, he now claimed that Oswald was trying to shoot McDonald in the head (Griggs, No Case to Answer, page 64). Yet, none of the other witnesses and the arresting Officers, let alone Nick McDonald, claimed that this is what they had seen during the scuffle. Moreover, Brewer's claim is directly contradicted by Charles Walker, who stated that the gun was pointed about waist high.
9. ibid: When Johnny Calvin Brewer, the shoe store manager who allegedly witnessed Oswald duck into the Theater without paying, testified before the Warren Commission on April 2, 1964, he claimed that he heard someone holler "He's got a gun" (ibid, page 6). Brewer explained that before he heard this, he had seen a gun "...come up and - in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air" (ibid). But as discussed in part 1 of this writer's review of With Malice, this was most certainly a lie (see under the subheading VI: Closing in). Aside from Hill and Brewer, this writer knows of no other officer (or witness) who claimed that they heard someone yell out that Oswald had a gun. This writer is also unaware of any officer/witness who took credit for yelling out that Oswald had a gun.
Micah,
You left out the best part:
Johnny Brewer knew "Oswald" from before and did not like him! (He called "Oswald" a "jerk" and a "pain in the butt"!)
That's right - "Oswald" was NOT UNKNOWN to Brewer before 11/22/63!
Brewer did not identify a stranger - he identified a man that he remembered as an unpleasant customer!
"Oswald" had been to Hardy's Shoes, had been waited on by Brewer and apparently was arrogant or insolent to the point where Brewer disliked him!
Brewer even started to describe that encounter in his Warren Commission testimony, but David Belin quickly changed the question!
Mr. BELIN - Why did you happen to watch this particular man?
Mr. BREWER - He just looked funny to me. Well, in the first place, I had seen him some place before. I think he had been in my store before. And when you wait on somebody, you recognize them, and he just seemed funny. His hair was sort of messed up and looked like he had been running, and he looked seared, and he looked funny.
Mr. BELIN - Did you notice any of his actions when he was standing in your lobby there?
Mr. BREWER - No; he just stood there and stared.How do I know that Brewer remembered "Oswald" in detail?
Because Brewer remembered the exact shoes that "Oswald" purchased!
Read what Brewer himself in 1996 told Ian Griggs about his encounter with "Oswald" several weeks (or more) before the assassination:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16235#relPageId=8&tab=page
-
12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
That is good, I don't think I ever saw that one before.
Is it in a book?
Jim,
In Huey Reeves's testimony, he says that on Saturday night, Jack Ruby told Reeves that "he was waiting on a call or something from somebody or something and he told the girl he wasn't ready to come down . . ."
Mr. REEVES. Let’s see, I came to work at 7; it seemed to me like that Ruby was there when I got there. It seemed like he drove up and then he left and then came back, it seemed like, and that’s when he must have went home and this girl called him and then he was at home and he wasn’t ready yet. It seemed like he told me he was waiting on a call or something from somebody or something and he told the girl he wasn’t ready to come down, or he told me he wasn’t ready to give her the $5, you see, and he told me to give her the $5 and to make out a receipt.
Combined with Karen Carlin Bennett's testimony I quoted in my earlier post, we now have two sworn witnesses claiming that Jack Ruby admitted his movements downtown were directed by something other than the need to give money to "Little Lynn"!!!
WC attorney Leon Hubert was so concerned with the significance of this that he (stupidly) had Reeves clarify this, and sure enough, Reeves confirmed it!
Mr. HUBERT. But you are certain he didn’t tell you he was at home?
Mr. REEVES. No, sir ; he didn’t say where he was.
Mr. HUBERT. You did get the impression that he was?
Mr. REEVES. Yes ; that’s right, just my impression he was at home.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you know what that impression is based on?
Mr. REEVES. No, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Is it on anything he said?
Mr. REEVES. No, sir ; he didn’t say anything about where he was.
Mr. HUBERT. But he did say he couldn’t come because he was waiting for a call?
Mr. REEVES. He was either waiting for a call or wasn’t ready or something to come down, I believe is what he said.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh13/pdf/WH13_Reeves.pdf
-
On a more serious note, our topic is whether Jack Ruby's visit to the Western Union on Sunday morning, ostensibly to send a money order to "Little Lynn" Carlin, was in fact an excuse to be in the area at the moment "Oswald" was transferred, and thus provide an alibi for what otherwise would have been a clear case of first degree murder.
To most of us here, including me, Ruby's implied defense of "coincidence" is false. He planned to be there and used the Western Union visit as an excuse.
According to Karen Carlin, the stripper to whom Ruby wired the money on Sunday morning, Jack Ruby admitted that he had to go downtown anyway!
(Why Jack? Why did you have to go to downtown Dallas on Sunday morning?)
Mrs. CARLIN. Well, Jack answered the telephone. And I told him who it was, and he said, "Yes, well," and I said, "I have called, Jack, to try to get some money, because the rent is due and I need some money for groceries, and you told me to call."
And he said, "How much will you need?" And I said--I'll ask my husband, and then I said about "$25."
Mr. Hubert. Your husband was in the room with you?
Mrs. CARLIN. Yes. He was in the part of the front part of the house. And he said, "Well, I have to go downtown anyway, so I will send it to you by Western Union." And he asked me what name to send it in, and I told him, "Karen Bennett."
Mr. Hubert. Was it arranged to be sent to your home or what?
Mrs. CARLIN. No; to Western Union downtown.(Now, Jack Ruby and his time stamped Western Union Money Order seemed to provide an alibi - he just happened to be downtown and fortune intervened to make the murder of "Oswald" possible, according to the Warren Commission.)
However . . .
Jack Ruby's Sunday morning trip downtown was
his SECOND TRIP to a location close to "Oswald" in 13 hours featuring a time stamp!
At 10:33 pm on Saturday night at the Nichols Parking Garage, Jack Ruby had the attendant time stamp the receipt that Ruby gave the attendant for reimbursement. Karen Carlin had borrowed $5 from the attendant at 9:30 and Ruby repaid the man an hour later.
Mrs. CARLIN. Well, my husband then handed the phone to me and called me back to the phone so I got on the telephone and Jack said, "Tell the man at the garage, put him on the phone," and he said, "I will let you have $5 to get back home." And that was all that was said, and he gave me $5, and I signed a receipt, and that was all.
So why did Ruby have the receipt on Saturday night time stamped by the attendant Huey Reeves when he showed up at 10:33 pm?
So he would have an alibi - to provide a "reason" he was downtown, near "Oswald."
Gentlemen, TWICE IN 13 HOURS JACK RUBY USED A TIME STAMPED RECEIPT TO PUT HIMSELF CLOSE TO "OSWALD".
THAT IS NOT A COINCIDENCE!
Why did Ruby close his club for the weekend?
So he could better coordinate the hit on "Oswald."
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0122b.htm
-
12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Fascinating interview with Garrison/Cassandra/Dr. Stockman.
This was a couple of months after the Shaw trial.
In my intro I note how his comments have changed in some respects since the 1967 Playboy interview. Some really insightful comments for 1969.
Thanks Jim, Bart and Malcolm.
Garrison made a couple of mistakes, but his overall point was pretty good: the Military Industrial "Warfare" complex was behind the assassination of JFK (and almost certainly MLK and RFK, too.)
I think we all generally agree with that.
But exactly who is the "Military Industrial (Warfare) Complex"?
Several hundred thousand people worked for the Defense Department, or the intelligence agencies or the major defense contractors in 1963, and 99% of those people were innocent of the assassination, and would have been appalled had they known.
A minor point:
Garrison specifically claimed that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs had not (as of 1969) been replaced since 1963, in violation of both law and custom.
Not so. General Earl Wheeler began his appointment on July 3, 1964, replacing Maxwell Taylor. Now Maxwell Taylor, as Jim DiEugenio spelled out in his interviews with Dave Emory, had a major hand in changing President Kennedy's Vietnam policy shortly after the assassination, and seemed to play a part in delaying any implementation of JFK's Vietnam withdrawal policy in the fall of 1963.
Garrison missed an opportunity to identify Taylor there.
Another point from the interview:
When asked about David Ferrie's activities in New Orleans (connecting him presumably to the assassination), Garrison waffled a bit. Garrison detailed Ferrie's background as a pilot, his CAP association with young Oswald, his use of 544 Camp Street for the Cuban Revolutionary Front.
All good.
But directly tying the assassination to Ferrie is much more difficult, even today: whatever was Ferrie's role (if any) in helping to set up "Oswald" as a Red/pro-Castro/Commie Symp, Ferrie had no known contact with "Oswald" for at least two months prior to the assassination.
Garrison pointed out Ferrie's bizarre trip the night of 11/22/63 from New Orleans to Houston (phone calls at the ice rink on 11/23/63) and then to Galveston (where he may or may not have received a call from Jack Ruby).
OK. And therefore, we should conclude that Ferrie's role was . . . what exactly? (Back-up patsy? Getaway pilot for a Houston team? I don't find that so far-fetched, actually. Early on Saturday morning, the conspirators could not be sure their patsy plan was going to work. "Oswald" was still very much alive!)
My point is that Garrison should have clearly articulated his suspicions about David Ferrie's role, and he had the opportunity here in this interview. After all, Ferrie was not about to sue for libel!
While Garrison wouldn't say much about Clay Shaw because of the upcoming perjury trial, I still think Shaw was probably innocent of complicity in the assassination itself. Was Shaw CiA?
Of course!
Did the CIA interfere like hell with Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw!
Absolutely!
But it would seem that Shaw's demonstrable involvement with "Oswald" (or LHO, either one), was limited to setting him up as a lefty, pro-Castro weirdo in August.
I still am not sure what we can conclude about the alleged meeting in N.O. in September between Shaw, Ferrie, "Oswald", and Perry Russo. Even if it went down exactly as Russo later claimed (maybe, maybe not), we know the assassination itself was not planned or executed by anyone there - it was executed by the highest levels of the CIA, specifically those men loyal to Allen Dulles! Further, Clay Shaw was apparently oblivious to "Oswald's" exact role: patsy!
Shaw called Dean Andrews to secure defense counsel for "Oswald", a thing which he WOULD NOT HAVE DONE IN A MILLION YEARS if he were in on it!
The last thing the conspirators wanted was for "Oswald" to get a lawyer and to begin talking!
Shaw's phone call to Andrews meant that Shaw could not have been anywhere near to the top of the conspiratorial food chain. (And I believe Garrison not only knew that, but hinted at that when he said "The New Orleans portion of the assassination was merely a small corner of the entire operation. However, we did catch hold of a part of that corner and my thought has been that if we kept our grip firm perhaps the press would ultimately acquire an understanding and pass on to the people what had happened in America.")
Now, Garrison correctly pointed out the incredibly suspicious and premature call from White House Situation Room in Washington to Air Force One (flying to Washington) that the assassination was the work of a lone nut. Suspicion has fallen on McGeorge Bundy - and maybe rightly so. Did Bundy give the game away with that call? (Vincent Salandria has argued that point for several decades.)
Garrison also rightly noted that the tapes of the calls did exist, and were quoted by Theodore White in his "Making of the President 1964". Garrison apparently did not know that the White House Communications Agency never made any transcripts available to the Warren Commission, not only of the Air Force One tapes, but from the motorcade in Dallas itself!
We know (but Garrison did not) the fact that the White House Communications Agency was in direct contact with Secret Service Agent (and in my view, SUSPECT) Winston Lawson is unknown to most researchers, even today. The fact that their tapes have not been heard by anybody is damning.
Finally, Garrison also claimed that Pierre Finck testified that the autopsy was controlled by "an Air Force Major General". According to the extant transcript of Finck's testimony, that isn't quite right: Finck claimed that
A: Well, I heard Dr. Humes stating that -- he said, "Who is in charge here?" and I heard an Army General, I don't remember his name, stating, I am." You must understand that in those circumstances, there were law enforcement officers, military people with various ranks, and you have to co-ordinate the operation according to directions." . . .
Q: "Now, can you give me the name then of the General that was in charge of the autopsy, as you testified about?
A: Well, there was no General in charge of the autopsy. There were several people, as I have stated before, I heard Dr. Humes state who was in charge here, and he stated that the General answered "I am," it may have been pertaining to operations other than the autopsy, it does not mean the Army General was in charge of the autopsy, but when Dr. Humes asked who was in charge here, it may have been who was in charge of the operations, but not of the autopsy, and by "operations," I mean the over-all supervision."I wonder if , in 1969, Garrison had some reason to suspect that USAF Chief of Staff (and legend) General Curtis LeMay was present at the autopsy. Today we believe so, but did Garrison subconsciously believe it then? What tipped him off, I wonder? (Did Garrison's investigators uncover more about the autopsy than Garrison let on, and could there still be some hidden gems waiting to be discovered?)
Anyway, this interview is a solid, readable introduction to Garrison's overall views on the Military Industrial (Warfare) Complex's hold on American Foreign Policy and the reduction of the American President to that of a "showman" (Garrison's term). To readers not familiar with Garrison's outlook, this interview is an easy overview.
-
2 hours ago, Stephanie Goldberg said:
Is it Joe Molina? He was a member of something called the GI Forum.
Yes. Peter Dale Scott speculated decades ago that a possible (phony) explanation given to "Oswald" to work at the TSBD was to "investigate" Joe Molina's links to groups perceived to be soft on communism. (We suspect the real reason "Oswald" worked there was to be the patsy for the assassination, of course.)
If "Oswald's" previous undercover work - paid or unpaid - was part of a much larger effort to infiltrate/recon/befriend suspected Reds in sensitive positions in key defense areas, then Molina could have been labeled a target by someone associated with the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by the infamous Senator James O. Eastland, a Democrat from Mississippi. (If William Weston's speculation was/is correct that the Texas School Book Depository was used by American operatives as a storage/drop site for weapons bound for Cuba and elsewhere in the fight against the Communist menace, then this idea about Molina as a target becomes much more likely.)
And "Oswald" may well have been an unwitting, low-level pawn in the long-running campaign of the American Right to prove that the State Department, American youth groups, anti-war activists, etc. were riddled with people who were "soft on Communism."
It seems inconceivable to me that guys like TSBD owner D.H. Byrd, or the president of the TSBD, Jack Cason (who worked closely with the FBI in his capacity with the American Legion!), or "Oswald's" supervisor, Roy Truly - all ardent anti-communists who spent a good deal of time worrying about the presence and influence of "Reds" in America - could possibly have been unaware of "Oswald's" publicly professed "Red" background!
No way!
"Oswald" was working for these men because his "Red" background was useful to them (he made a great patsy!) and/or to the conspirators who murdered the president!
Here are the 1986 obituaries for Julian Sourwine, the notorious long-time general counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senator James O. Eastland. They are worth reading in full:
https://www.nytimes.com/1986/07/22/obituaries/jg-sourwine-ex-senate-aide-is-dead-at-78.html
-
7 hours ago, Stephanie Goldberg said:
From what I remember reading about the Kilgallen interview with Jack Ruby, it was private which probably scared the heck out of certain people. (I don't think I've ever read how his visitors in jail were vetted, but I'm betting she wouldn't have been allowed to have a private conversation with him there.) He wouldn't have had to tell her the whole story from start to finish. All he would have had to know was one piece of vital information which could open avenues of research. Combine that with the research Ms. Kilgallen was supposed to have already done on the JFK assassination, and she could have had a very important key to the truth in her possession with her notes and manuscript.
I have long agreed with those who argue that Ruby was not merely a mob flunky, a DPD informant and a stooge for the FBI, but also a useful cut-out for the CIA. If (IF!) Ruby gave Kilgallen the name of his CIA handler/contact, then both he and she were dead men walking. (If, for example, Nancy Perrin Rich's mysterious Lt. Col. to whom Ruby allegedly handed a bag of cash to facilitate a guns for Cubans deal, was in fact, Ruby's handler, and if that Lt. Col. was L. Robert Castorr, and If Ruby spilled that name to Kilgallen, well . . .)
Yet another Harvey & Lee factoid that doesn't withstand scrutiny?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Bart,
Are we to assume Malcolm Blunt found this in the National Archives?
Where was it? (Was it part of the JFK records collection? What file or folder was it in? )
Do you have any information as to why Malcolm Blunt associated this article with the JFK case?
(I know all about the Norton/Oswald controversy. I just want to know where Malcolm found this, especially if some governmental authorities had it.)