Jump to content
The Education Forum

Greg Doudna

Members
  • Posts

    305
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Greg Doudna

  1. I like a lot of your analysis but here is a counterpoint on this particular one, just to give another point of view for consideration. -- Nothing fake about the bus transfer. He said he pre-prepared them for 1 pm, and that is what that transfer shows. Instead of multiple quarter-hours for which one needs to be punched to identify, he cut off all times below 1 pm itself. The first time at the top of the uncut form, the line for 1 pm, is still remaining. Since that is the only time showing, there was no need to punch it to identify which time that bus transfer was for. Does this reconstruction make sense? -- The vehicle which Roger Craig and other witnesses saw picking someone up who ran from around behind the TSBD, which Roger Craig said was Oswald, suffers from all of the problems in trusting that identification as you rightly bring out regarding the Tippit killing witnesses. There is a photo of Roger Craig looking at that car and he looks too far away to trust that as a secure identification. There is no question a man ran to the street and got in a car but there is no evidence there was anything sinister or Oswald related about it--lots of people watching the parade that day, somebody may have gotten separated from their ride, ran to the car so as to minimize holding up traffic behind the car, etc. The main problem with the idea of Oswald getting a ride is it makes no sense. To drive him to his rooming house? Then to drive him again to the Texas Theatre so that he could meet a getaway car at the Theatre? Makes no sense. If the car was Oswald's getaway why bother with the rooming house and Texas Theatre at all, since he already is in a getaway car. The car pickup idea also rules out--on no real evidence apart from the questionable Roger Craig distance identification which probably was mistaken--the possibility that Oswald was not part of any conspiracy but realized there had been one and he somehow needed to escape on his own. -- The planting of the bus ticket by officers on Oswald's person is really a problem and a stretch, not because its absolutely impossible, but because it is so ad hoc and makes little actual sense. First it requires at least one of those officers, plus at least one superior commanding officer, that makes two so far, to be complicit in planting that evidence, and being trusted never to reveal it or talk for the rest of their life. And for what reason or motivation? To remove Oswald having a car ride which would mean he was involved in a conspiracy with others? But a lot of the best researchers think the Oswald-alone idea was not even the original idea, but rather an Oswald-part-of-Cuban-conspiracy was the original idea. But here one has to suppose multiple officers including regular police on the street were involved in planting a bus transfer on Oswald, which is not evidence of guilt, not something that actually matters in incriminating Oswald, but rather far-fetched so as to remove the possibility that he was not on his own. This is just a lot of complexity, and all founded on no substantial evidence. -- Bledsoe the landlady is admittedly a weak witness but it raises the question, if it wasn't Oswald she saw, how did she get involved in that in the first place. She imagined it on her own? Or was she put up to it? By the same handlers who gave the instructions to plant the bus transfer to the officers searching Oswald? This just gets too complex. Better: he had been her tenant for a week; she recognized him, was not wrong about that. On the torn shirt, that was completely her getting that from the agents showing her that jacket, which she then described in her testimony because she "knew" that was what he had worn. So she was a bit screwed up on her testimony. But her testimony is not necessary to reconstruct Oswald getting the cab that day as his mode of transportation to Oak Cliff. -- On Whaley and the cab, I am inclined to give a cab driver quite a bit of credibility in identifying a passenger they carried sitting right next to them on the front seat. This is somewhat stronger evidence than eyewitnesses like the Tippit killer eyewitnesses who saw someone a few moments from a distance. As Whaley put it in his testimony and I believe it, as a cab driver it was his habit to quickly look over a new customer carefully, size him up, make a quick judgment before letting him into his cab, as a necessary survival skill. It doesn't matter that there was that business of #2 or #3 in the lineup mixup on the numbers: he never wavered in interviews etc. in saying his passenger was Oswald that he saw on TV. Furthermore his original statement said Oswald was wearing gray pants and I believe he said matching gray jacket but which the original FBI agent mistakenly wrote as "matching (gray) shirt" which was not correct. Later in his Warren Commission testimony Whaley changed the pants color from original gray to "faded blue", then had Oswald wearing his heavy blue jacket over the gray jacket which makes no sense. But that was months later. His original FBI interview had Oswald wearing gray pants and (reconstructed with the FBI report correction) matching gray jacket, pure and simple--which is what Oswald was wearing according to TSBD witnesses and Buell Wesley Frazier. Even in the video of Whaley that David Andrews posted above, right at 0:18 Whaley says "gray work clothes" with no mention of blue--and that video of Whaley was filmed after his WC testimony because elsewhere in that video he refers backward to it as past. I do think he added the "blue" and the "second blue jacket over the first" later, out of some kind of confusion or trying to cooperate or whatever when he was on the spot before the Warren Commission. -- On Oswald's movements. Yes Whaley's passenger gets out of the cab away from his rooming house and Whaley sees him walk away in the wrong direction (if it was; in the video he basically has Oswald crossing Beckley to the side of Beckley that the rooming house was up the street, which is not clearly walking away from it). But it is all consistent with Oswald acting evasively consistent with his leaving the TSBD immediately in the first place. That he was acting evasively is clear from how Earlene Roberts saw him standing at the northbound bus stop on Beckley after leaving the rooming house. I interpret that as Oswald knew she could see, knew that she would look and would see, and that was an intentional feint as if he was heading north (which she would report if asked), when actually he headed south when out of her sight, probably taking a bus south to the Texas Theatre. -- Bottom line: if Oswald had an escape car pick him up, his stops at both the rooming house and then to the Texas Theatre, both alone, make no sense--because he already is in an escape car (if so) which can drive him wherever. Instead Oswald's movements all agree with a lone fugitive, who may or may not have believed he would meet someone in the Theatre. As to who he was running from, and why, those are other questions. -- Then there is this, from William Kelly, concerning the Rio Grande Building, 251 N. Field Street. (https://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2019/06/view-from-snipers-nest.html ) . . . the Rio Grande building, - which included the Army Intelligence, Secret Service and the Emigration and Naturalization Service, who all shared the same cafeteria where Witt said he learned of the Kennedy’s distaste for umbrellas. Was it someone in cafeteria from Army Intelligence or the Secret Service who told Witt of the meaning of appeasement and symbol of the umbrella? It is a building that Oswald visited a number of times. Supposedly the bus stop where Oswald walked to get on a bus from the TSBD, was right in front of that Rio Grande building. It has occurred to me--I don't know if to anyone else--that if Oswald had a contact with an agency (as his personal history makes plausible) that contact could well have been located in that Rio Grande building. Maybe he went there not to catch a bus but to try to find someone, then instead got on the bus, then the cab? Who knows. But the evidence that does stand out to me is Earlene seeing him at the rooming house, the Whaley ID outside of the police lineup, the bus transfer, Oswald alone in the theatre, and no evidence of any other travel mechanism to Oak Cliff (long-distance claimed sighting of him getting into a car by a witness who had never seen him before, not good enough). And supposedly he basically confirmed as much to Fritz in questioning, which was likely heard by witnesses in addition to Fritz. Anyway this is an alternative point of view on this one from someone who respects your work.
  2. On the timeline of Larry Crafard's arrival to Dallas Attorney Carroll Jarnagin, writing to J. Edgar Hoover on Dec. 3, 1963 said he witnessed an unkempt young man, newly arrived in town, asking for Jack Ruby in the Carousel Club on Friday, October 4, 1963. I believe it is certain that the person Jarnagin saw with Ruby that night was neither Oswald nor a fabrication but was Larry Crafard. The only issue is interpretation of which details were garbled, but the Crafard identification itself to me is just plain. Jarnagin simply misheard Crafard telling Ruby to call him "Larry", heard by Jarnagin as sounding like "Lee" (Oswald's first name), Jarnagin mistaken. I have just found this from Greg Parker written in 2016 concerning research on Crafard. This research of Greg Parker had nothing to do with the Jarnagin story. Greg Parker, commenting on when Crafard arrived in Dallas, independently arrived at a suggestion of October 4, 1963. (http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/rokc forum/www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13311315-crafard-puzzle2679.html?page=1 [post of Feb 13, 2016 6:06 am]) "Crafard stated in that Nov 28 [1963] FBI interview that he met Ruby on or about Oct 21. Having read his [Warren Commission] testimony, I have to believe that is in error (. . .) The [Texas State] Fair--and the Hollywood show opened on October 5. Two or three days after that, Crafard meets Ruby. The FBI interview has them meeting two or three days after the R & R show ended. I think the FBI agent just got his notes confused. Two or three days after the R & R show ended was when Crafard officially started working for Ruby. "Crafard doesn't say exactly when he arrived in Dallas--only that he started work at the Hollywood show when it opened. I have checked multiple sources. It did open on Oct 5, so it is possible, maybe even likely that he arrived the day before--October 4. "Whilst October 15 was the date Oswald started work at the depository--October 4 is an interesting date too. It is the date Oswald (also) arrived in Dallas." This is indeed a startling coincidence--the suggestion on grounds independent of Jarnagin that Crafard arrived in Dallas the same day Jarnagin saw Crafard show up at the Carousel Club, newly arrived from out of town, asking for Ruby and in need of money and a place to stay. (Note: Oswald actually arrived in Dallas from Mexico City on Wed Oct 2 according to the accepted timeline, staying at the Dallas YMCA Wed and Thu nights Oct 2-3, then at Ruth Paine's house Fri, Sat, and Sun nights Oct 4-6.) Greg Parker's reconstruction is very reasonable. In other words, Jarnagin's story of what he witnessed at the Carousel Club on Fri Oct 4 was not derived backward from reading a story in a newspaper of a timeline of Oswald (who had nothing to do with Ruby or the Carousel Club). It was a witnessing of Crafard (who had a lot to do with Ruby and the Carousel Club) meeting Ruby when Crafard first got into town (returned to Dallas). Jarnagin by total accident witnessed that. And Greg Parker nailed it on the timeline, on grounds independent of Jarnagin.
  3. Thanks Micah. That explanation (thanks also to Dave Andrews) does seem to make the best sense among the alternatives.
  4. I appreciate your comments David, since no one with actual knowledge of an explanation has come forward. I have not been able to find the back threads on the Forum discussing this question to which you refer. It does look like a hand may be pulling on scalp to keep it closed over part of the major hole in the head, with a darkened black patch on the head to the left of the open flap being a portion of the gaping wound that the surgeon was not able to cover with scalp. It is difficult for me to see any obvious way that would be related to the object however, since there does not seem to have been blown away hole or loose scalp that low in the back of JFK's head where the object is. Is the object a remnant of some medical procedure at Parkland from the futile attempts to save his life? But I have no idea what that might be.
  5. That agrees with I could not find anything like that in some google searching. Also there is the question of timing of these photos--they were taken at the start of the autopsy, which would be before any morticians or restoration for purpose of open casket viewing was begun (that occurs after the autopsy)? If so then morticians' work would be irrelevant here. On "red within white" look comparable to the bloodied ear, I do not myself see any red in the object in the color photo.
  6. I think the object's appearance on multiple photos (three distinct photos I think from different angles) can rule out that it is a photographic artifact or did not exist. The "mortuary clip" idea, something related to keeping scalp attached, does not quite make sense due to lack of known scalp needing to be attached at that position of JFK's head; also, is there a picture or photo of such a tool or clip in use by autopsists or morticians?--I cannot find any, though if one could be found and shown that looks like in the photo, that could resolve the issue. Stray brain tissue ... hard to say for sure but the object seems to me to look more like it is plastic or metal.
  7. Question: what is the small triangular-shaped object about 1 inch above JFK's rear hairline in the autopsy photos? Is it (a) shrapnel as Donald Thomas argues in Hear No Evil? Thomas has a missed shot #1 hitting the street behind the limousine and kicking up shrapnel one piece of which landed in the back of JFK's head, and that is the cause of JFK raising his arms or elbows instinctively. Is it (b) a photographic artifact, an illusion in the photograph, i.e. nothing actual in JFK's head? Is it (c) something else? (what?) Back of head, JFK autopsy photo (above) Exit wound with part of bullet showing. From: https://www.bevfitchett.us/gunshot-wounds/entrance-versus-exit-wounds-entrance-wounds.html . Text accompanying this illustration: "Occasionally, a bullet traveling through the body will lose so much velocity that, while it may have sufficient velocity to create an exit hole, the bullet will not exit. This may be due to the elastic nature of the skin or resistance to its exiting by either an overlying garment or an object such as a seat back or wall. In the latter case, the "exit" may show shoring of its edges. Occasionally, a bullet may be found protruding from its exit (Figure 4.25)." Illustration caption: "Figure 4.25 7.62 x 39 mm bullet projecting from exit."
  8. John Butler, I assure you I did not have that image upside down "in order to make it harder to understand the comparison", rather that was the way it was (upside-down) in the medical slide show of the link I gave, combined with my technically not knowing how to fix that, but you have fixed it which is good. You attack Dr. Rose for using the word "temple" in his autopsy to describe the bullet to the temple the photo shows for Tippit, and charge that by using the word "temple" in description of temple, "Earl Rose's autopsy report would not pass review in any peer-reviewed journal in Anthropology..." But I just checked Rose's autopsy report on Tippit, in Myers' Appendix C in With Malice, and Rose never uses the word "temple" in his autopsy report. I believe you are casting aspersions on Dr. Rose unjustifiably on this point. On saying that bullet in Tippit's temple in the photo is not what plain, understandable layman's English would call a "temple" location of that bullet, all I can say is my guess is approximately 1000 out of 1000 native-English speakers looking at that photo would call that a shot into his temple. However, I get the impression I have stepped into some conflict between you and some others which I do not understand, and have no wish to be part of, so I am out of here. (I just would appreciate you not casting aspersions on my motives in that upside-down photo, of which there were none.)
  9. Hi David Josephs, on Vaganov, I don't think he was the Tippit gunman. A number of witnesses saw the gunman and gave fairly good physical descriptions which does not agree with Vaganov's height of 6'2". I do not think a single witness described the gunman as tall, which would be one of the first things a witness who had seen Vaganov would say. (Acquila Clemons' seeing of a tall man waving to the killer and hearing him shout "go on!" I have elsewhere argued--shown, I think--was Acquila Clemons standing at the northwest corner of Tenth and Patton seeing Ted Callaway, who was big and tall, on Patton waving across the street to the killer and shouting "hey man, what's going on?") Also I believe the light-gray, near-white jacket found behind the Texaco station at Jefferson and Crawford was left by the killer, and as brought out by author John Berendts in an Aug 1967 Esquire article on Vaganov, that jacket measured 32 1/2 inches sleeve length whereas Vaganov's sleeve length measured 36 inches. A distinctive red car seen by Benavides at the scene of the Tippit killing was suspected to be Vaganov's red Thunderbird but what Benavides saw is pretty clearly now identified as Jack Tatum's red 1964 Ford Galaxie--the movements of the red car described by Benavides match Tatum's car's movements. And finally, there is no evidence connecting Vaganov to the killing of Tippit or to anyone involved in Ruby's circle. Vaganov had some brushes with the law mainly for forged check writing but in the end he let Esquire magazine pay him to tell his story and most of his story checked out, such as a report that he had told his wife's mother he was offered a job at $17,500 a month and Vaganov explained that was an Encyclopedia Britannica salesman ad promising as much as $1,750 month earnings, and Berendts verified Encyclopedia Britannica had run such ads. The Aug 1967 Esquire article on Vaganov: https://classic.esquire.com/article/19670801073/print. I agree with Berendts in the conclusion of that article: "Vaganov's willingness to be questioned, to have his picture published in a national magazine, to go to Dallas and face the Tippit eyewitnesses, would by themselves tend to rule him out. Furthermore there is not one shred of direct evidence linking him with either killing that day or with any of the principals involved."
  10. I sure do not follow you. The photo shows a bullet in the temple, that is Dr. Liguori's description ("one in the right temple") in the FBI report of Nov 29, 1963, and a bullet entering in the right temple would go right into the middle cranial fossa which is right there according to this visual. This is from a medical lecture slide labeled "Middle Cranial Fossa Technique Lecture Slides" I found at this link: https://medicine.uiowa.edu/iowaprotocols/middle-cranial-fossa-technique-lecture-slides. Sure looks like a temple entrance to me. Sure looks to me like photo of bullet hole = right temple = middle cranial fossa. You allege the photo of Tippit with the bullet hole in his forehead is a "fraud" citing "the FBI report indicating there were only 3 gunshot wounds". I looked up the FBI report I think you and David Josephs mean, the one citing Dr. Liguori on Nov 29, 1963. He told the FBI "there appeared three wounds in the body, one being in the right temple which in the opinion of Dr. Liguori could have caused instant death, one wound in the left chest, the bullet being deflected by a brass button of the uniform worn by Officer Tippit and the bullet being found only about one inch under the surface, and the third wound in the upper abdomen" (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57697#relPageId=90&search=tippit_liguori three bullets). I am failing to follow the logic in claiming an early doctor's statement to the FBI telling of a bullet wound to the right temple of Tippit proves a photo with a bullet wound to the right temple of Tippit is fake. However thanks for answering my question and I have no more questions on that, which may be going afield from Gil Jesus's topic.
  11. The Tippit killer's fingerprints The fingerprints on Tippit's car by the passenger window where the killer was witnessed leaning in to talk to Tippit, and found on the right front fender where the killer went around to shoot Tippit and may have leaned and put his hand on the hood or bumper in that location for balance . . . for decades were identified as "smear prints...none of value", and thereby not excluded as Oswald's. In either 1998 or 2013, whichever it was (I have the 2013 edition of Myers, With Malice), Dale Myers produced and reported one of the single most exculpatory or exonerating evidentiary indications of Oswald's innocence in the Tippit killing. For it was Dale Myers who did what no one prior to him had done--he obtained those fingerprints from Dallas Police Department files and had an experienced latent fingerprint expert make a fresh study of them. That expert, Herbert Lutz of Wayne County, Michigan, found that the prints on the passenger door and the right front fender were: made by the same individual, and that individual was not Oswald (match to Oswald's prints was excluded) (pp. 336-340 ofWith Malice) This is extraordinarily significant, in terms of the issue of Oswald's guilt or innocence in the Tippit killing. It does not matter that Dale Myers is the leading proponent that Oswald killed Tippit. That has nothing to do with anything here. What matters is Myers, and no one else, produced new information, a new fact, of extraordinary relevance to the Tippit case. For those fingerprints practically certainly were left by the killer of Tippit. There is a remote possibility that that is not the case, that somebody other than the Tippit killer left those prints in those two locations exactly where the killer was with respect to Tippit's car. So it is not quite airtight. Also, separate issue, with the whole Malcom Wallace fingerprint saga in mind, second and third expert opinion corroborations would be better than just one expert opinion. But the one expert opinion is what we have to go on, it is what it is, and there is nothing known to refute or impugn it at this time, nor the expertise of the expert. Now to the basic question: what are the odds that those prints were left by the killer? Well, this is in the end going to be a subjective judgment, and judgments will vary. But I will give mine: I would put that at about 95% confidence that those prints are from the killer. Not 100%, not complete certainty. But 95%, almost certain. The reason is the two locations match the killer's location so perfectly with eyewitness testimony of where the killer was. And even more than that, the expert's finding that the passenger door prints and the right front bumper prints are not from different individuals but from the same individual. It is this last point which to me spikes the probability way up to ca. 95%. To repeat and emphasize, what Dale Myers produced in this is new, going beyond what was previously known. Myers combines what he regards as the overwhelming argument on other grounds that Oswald killed Tippit, combined with the slight possibility that the fingerprints may not be from the killer, to conclude that Oswald killed Tippit (does not interpret the prints as exonerating Oswald). Again, that is neither here nor there. What does matter is Dale Myers produced this advance in relevant evidence, it is extraordinarily important new evidence, and never mind Myers' own interpretation of what he produced, it strongly suggests, if not comes close to all but outright establishing, that Oswald was not the Tippit killer. Furthermore, those prints--almost certainly from the killer; not from Oswald--potentially could identify the actual killer. They could be checked against Crafard's prints. Crafard had a criminal record. Certainly there must be prints of Crafard. This could be done. Even at this late date, the Tippit case potentially could be solved in history on the basis of fingerprints. But the existing information of these fingerprints already known now, thanks to Myers, strongly suggests exculpation of Oswald--whatever the true solution to the case may or may not be.
  12. I don't know about that Pete, but here is something that has sobered me from studying this Tippit case: the realization of what must be a high number of criminal convictions of innocent people in history, convicted by juries who in almost all cases thought they were convicting the right person. When the Tippit killer ran into the Texas Theatre, spotted by Brewer and Julia Postal, I am convinced it was the sheer accident of, first, Brewer and usher Burroughs could not see anyone in the balcony in the dim light where the killer had gone after entering (and somehow he in the balcony avoided being seen by Brewer and Burroughs peering up into the dark balcony looking for him), and second, Brewer still from a distance, from the stage, saw Oswald in the ground level seating area stand up and move and that caught Brewer's attention, and he had a similar dark shirt, and Brewer told police, "that's him!", with, in Brewer's view, his identification retrospectively proven correct and any doubt in his mind removed if there ever was any, by all the information that came forth about the man he had pointed out, Oswald. Brewer by accident got the wrong man who was the leading suspect in the JFK assassination--Brewer by mistake got the killer's target, the hit-man's intended victim, the reason the killer was in the theatre, instead of the killer who had entered the theatre and gone into the balcony. Brewer's mistaken identification and that Oswald had a revolver on his person and resisted arrest (but did not try to shoot a police officer) sealed the case against Oswald in the eyes of police and the world. The killer of Tippit went into the balcony and was seen coming out of the balcony. The lack of any police record of his name even though police talked to him and even though police had been ordered to take down names and addresses of patrons in the theatre, I think could be because one or more officers recognized a mob connection of that individual, maybe even recognized Crafard as an associate of Ruby. In order to conceal the identity of one person in the theatre the entire list of names was not entered into records or preserved. Notably, no citizen ever came forward in later years to identify himself as having been that man in the theatre balcony that day who had been questioned by police, the only individual of adult age known to have been in the balcony that day in the moments immediately after the killer of Tippit was reported to have gone into that balcony. When police converged on the Texas Theatre in response to Julia Postal's call to the police regarding a suspicious man in the balcony, officer Henry Stringer who arrived to the back of the theatre found a pickup truck idling with its engine running, no driver in sight (report of Stringer, Dec 3, 1963, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=260&search=engine_running pickup truck stringer; Myers, With Malice, p. 229). To my knowledge that never was explained in any document I have seen (i.e. the driver found or identified and explanation of why that vehicle had been left with its engine running). Perhaps there is a mundane explanation, but a non-mundane explanation could be that was a getaway vehicle for the hitman inside the theatre intent on killing Oswald, and the driver, perhaps already standing outside the running vehicle, fled when police cruisers were seen or heard approaching the location.
  13. I am not following your point. How is a bullet entering at the "right middle cranial fossa" different from the description and photo of the bullet entering at the right temple?
  14. The murder weapon of the Tippit killing On the night of Nov 22/23, 1963, the night following the killing of officer Tippit in Oak Cliff by a killer using a .38 Special, someone abandoned a snub-nosed .38 Smith & Wesson revolver in a paper bag a few blocks away from the Carousel Club in downtown Dallas. Just threw the .38 Smith & Wesson in a paper bag by the side of a street, just got rid of it. It was found by a citizen the next morning who turned it in to the Dallas Police (documentation quoted and linked below). By that time--Saturday morning Nov 23--the narrative had already rapidly developed and was in place and reported around the world: Lee Harvey Oswald had assassinated JFK from his workplace at the TSBD and then had shot and killed officer Tippit in Oak Cliff. Police had both the rifle and the revolver of Oswald, found on the 6th floor of his workplace and on his person at his arrest at the Texas Theatre, respectively. There was no unaccounted-for missing murder weapon in the Tippit killing. But the next morning after the day of the assassination and the killing of officer Tippit--the only two known murders in Dallas that day--a .38 Smith & Wesson revolver turned up on a downtown Dallas street abandoned by somebody. Think of the oddity of that and its timing. Why would someone abandon a .38 Smith & Wesson in a paper bag on a street in downtown Dallas? There are only about two reasons I can think why: either it had just been used in a crime such as an armed robbery or a killing and the perpetrator was abandoning an untraceable weapon so as not to be incriminated by having it found on their person if arrested, or, somebody who was not supposed to be in possession of a weapon for some reason was being pulled over by a police cruiser and threw it out a car window before coming to a stop, to avoid having it found by police in their possession. The first question police might ask (one might think) would be whether there had been any armed robberies or homicides involving a handgun in the previous day or so which might be related to this abandoned snub-nosed .38 Smith & Wesson. But there was no handgun homicide in Dallas on Friday Nov 22 other than the killing of Tippit. But, they already had (or thought they did) the murder weapon for that, the Oswald revolver. Nevertheless it would be assumed that the Dallas Police Department--assassination of JFK and killing of Tippit totally aside--would investigate that paper-bag snub-nosed .38 revolver, and have records of it, except that is not the case. The Dallas Police either made no record of it or disappeared any record that was made of that paper-bag .38 revolver found early in the morning of Nov 23. The only reason the existence of a Dallas Police Department receipt of that revolver at that time is known today, before removal or destruction from files if it even ever was entered into files, is from an FBI document first released in 1978 and first noticed in the mid-1990s, plus three other FBI documents at the same time associated with it. (Yet there is no issue that that FBI document, and hence the underlying Dallas Police Department information from which the FBI document draws, is not authentic, nor has that been alleged.) That FBI document was released among 100,000 pages of FBI documents released in 1978, not noticed or discovered until 1995 when Paul Hoch obtained it from the Assassination Information Bureau (AIB), as told in this account written by Bill Adams in the May 1996 issue of Fourth Decade: https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48693#relPageId=8&search=paper_bag revolver. Like other highly relevant matters of evidence concerning the Tippit killing . . . -- the missing names and addresses officers had been instructed to collect and had collected, written down, and submitted of theatre patrons in the Texas Theatre; -- the missing identification of the man questioned by police who came out of the balcony of the Texas Theatre moments after the suspected Tippit killer had been reported to police to be in the balcony, a man who was not Oswald but who at least one and maybe two witnesses seemed to remember as having resembled Oswald; -- the lack of any record of a police interview of John Callahan, the manager of the Texas Theatre who sold the tickets to those in the theatre that day, who could well have been able to say whether or not one of those to whom he had sold a ticket had been Oswald, if he had been asked; -- the lack of a verified statement from any of the five officers who scratched their initials on the four shells ejected from the killer's .38 revolver found at the Tippit crime scene, identifying their initials on the shells that the Dallas Police Crime Lab turned in to the FBI represented as those same shells, which the FBI found had been fired from Oswald's revolver, suggesting substitutions-- In keeping with these other instances, the missing Dallas Police record of this extremely relevant find, of the snub-nosed .38 Smith & Wesson revolver in a paper bag found abandoned hours after the Tippit killing with no other murder or armed robbery in Dallas known to which this abandoned revolver was associated, is of a piece with the other items noted above. It is not that there is any reason to suppose any Dallas Police were party to the assassination or the killing of one of their own officers. It is rather that once there was a suitable closure of the case, namely on Oswald as the killer of Tippit, evidence that did not support that case was either not of interest or in certain cases covered up. Here is the full text of the FBI document which refers to the find of that revolver turned in to the Dallas Police, as quoted here (I cannot find it on the Mary Ferrell site): https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/983/gun-bag: MEMORANDUM TO SAC, DALLAS (89-43) DATE: 11/25/63 FROM SA RICHARD E. HARRISON SUBJECT: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY On 11/23/63, Patrolman J. RAZ brought into the Homicide and Robbery Bureau, Dallas PD, a brown paper sack which contained a snub-nosed .38 caliber Smith & Wesson, SN 893265. This gun had the word "England" on the cylinder and had been found at aprpoximately 7:30 AM in a brown paper sack, together with an apple and an orange, near the curb at the corner of Ross and Lamar Streets and was turned in by one Willie Flat, white male, 9221 Metz Drive, employed at 4770 Memphis, to the Dallas PD. 2-Dallas REH:cah (2) FBI DL 89-43-636 This was followed by three other FBI documents (given in full at the same link above), dated Nov 29, Nov 29, and Nov 30, 1963, which report FBI efforts to trace the serial number and history of that firearm. Record was found from the serial number that that revolver had been shipped by the Smith & Wesson company on Jan 13, 1942 to the US Government, Hartford Ordnance, Hartford, Conn. It was reported by a sales manager of Smith & Wesson that "shipments to Hartford Ordnance at that time were destined for England under Lend-Lease Agreement and stamping on cylinder is probably a proof-mark of that government certifying its acceptance. Such weapons are known to have been sold surplus in England, altered and rechambered in that country to accommodate thirty-eight special ammunition. Such weapons were subsequently imported for sale by U.S. gun dealers." I have bolded the part about the .38 revolvers in that class of shipment being "altered and rechambered" to accomodate the slightly smaller .38 Special ammunition because it is significant: .38 Special is the kind of bullets which killed officer Tippit. A snub-nosed .38 modified to fire .38 Special bullets is the same kind of revolver that Oswald had. As I understand it, modification of .38 revolvers to fire .38 Special bullets was extremely common, with the snub-nosed .38 Special perhaps the most common type of concealed handgun in America at the time. When I first encountered the FBI document above dated Nov 25 I wondered if there was a disagreement between the paper-bag revolver which in that FBI report was referred to simply as a ".38" not a .38 Special, whereas it was .38 Special bullets which had killed Tippit. But I soon realized for example in CE 2011, the FBI document prepared for the Warren Commission, that .38 Special revolvers or .38 revolvers which had been modified and rechambered to fire .38 Special bullets, were routinely referred to as simply .38's. In any case the second FBI document quoted above removes any ambiguity on this point: the paper-bag snub-nosed .38 Smith & Wesson found a few blocks from the Carousel Club hours after the killing of Tippit was exactly the kind of gun which had been used to kill Tippit. The FBI documents do not give further tracing information of what became of that weapon after its original shipment in 1942 to the US Govt in Connecticut and then likely shipment to England and likely return to the US for sale as surplus. There is no record of the FBI comparing the bullets in Tippit's body to bullets fired from that paper-bag revolver found abandoned in Dallas hours after that killing, for a possible match. That paper-bag snub-nosed .38 found abandoned in downtown Dallas sometime during the night of Nov 22/23, 1963, was not identified with any other crime, any owner, any other homicide. Whereas Oswald's revolver found on his person is explicable in terms of self-defense, and carrying a concealed weapon does not imply the carrier has murdered or intends to murder with it, the abandonment of a handgun in a paper bag on a street is a very different matter and does suggest exactly that, an abandonment of a weapon used in a crime which could well be a homicide. That is to say, there are two, not just one, .38 Special revolvers of interest with respect to the murder weapon that killed Tippit. Which is more likely, of these two, if there were no other information? The handgun found on Oswald at his arrest? Or the handgun found abandoned, very likely (even if not certain) abandoned because it had been used in a crime up to and including homicide--no other explanation for that abandoned handgun known--abandoned the very night following the Tippit killing, abandoned only a few blocks from the Carousel Theatre the very night of Larry Crafard's flight from Dallas, after he was picked up in a car at the Carousel Theatre by Ruby and George Senator at about 5 am. And if there was not a connection of that paper-bag .38 revolver to the Tippit killing, why did the Dallas Police either make no record of it or disappear all traces if records were made? Let me go directly to the conclusion suggested: that abandoned paper-bag snub-nosed .38 Smith & Wesson was the murder weapon of Tippit. That was the murder weapon used by Larry Crafard to murder Tippit after which he reloaded and went to the Texas Theatre to murder Oswald next if that had not been prevented by the arrival of police who arrested Oswald. The Tippit murder weapon was not Oswald's .38. Oswald was innocent of the murder of Tippit. He didn't do it. Crafard did. What became of that paper-bag .38 Smith & Wesson revolver? Did the Dallas Police retain it? If it was considered assassination or Tippit related they would have turned it over, or were supposed to do so, to the FBI. If it were considered unrelated the DPD might have kept it (but in that case why was FBI involved in trying to trace it?). Where is that paper-bag .38 today? Not known. Gone, just gone, never examined for its ballistics characteristics, or fingerprints, or comparison with Tippit body bullets. Just disappeared, vanished. The murder weapon of Tippit.
  15. Hi Pete, although he was said to have had teeth knocked out in a fight in early October do any witnesses actually say they saw Crafard going around with no front teeth? I cannot think of any immediately. If he was missing front teeth maybe he wore dentures? Is it certain he was missing front teeth? That Laura Kittrell told memories of encounters with Larry Crafard (as well as of Oswald) is certain, and I do not recall Laura Kittrell noting anything about missing front teeth though she noted other details. A number of disparate people who saw Crafard including in good lighting and who did not have prior history of knowing Crafard or Oswald did believe mistakenly post-assassination that the Crafard they had seen had been Oswald, so this is not a matter of someone saying today they don't think that would have happened, though it is a relevant question in each specific case. On hair, I have the impression most witness descriptions including the FBI's report of physical description had Crafard with brown or darker brown hair slightly darker and fuller than Oswald's which is in agreement with the Crafard color photos of the Warren Commission exhibits. Of course witness descriptions can vary but sandy hair does not sound quite right for Crafard.
  16. Just to be clear, I am not saying Jarnagin's story was entirely reliable. The main problem is he wrote down a reconstructed conversation the best he could from what he remembered two months earlier, and did so post-assassination in which the post-assassination narrative clearly corrupted his narrative. In addition he had been drinking and may have been partly intoxicated at the time, although his companion told the FBI he was not drunk. And most of all, what he saw had nothing--nothing--to do with a sighting of Oswald in the Carousel Club as Jarnagin thought. Henry Wade was perfectly correct in not using Jarnagin as a witness for the prosecution in the trial against Ruby. His testimony would have added nothing to Wade's prosecution case and Jarnagin's testimony would have been ripped to shreds on cross-examination. None of this is contested. What has hardly been considered is something else, of much interest, that Jarnagin was a witness--an imperfect, flawed witness as many witnesses to actual history are, but a witness--of an early encounter between Ruby and Larry Crafard, of significance in light of what Jarnagin heard. The Jarnagin story is a distorted, imperfect version of an event that happened, as opposed to an invention or fabrication. That is the key point. The polygraph, rather than measuring lying, may have been measuring self-doubt on his answers, not the same thing. Perhaps that is what Henry Wade meant when he said Jarnagin was sincere and believed his story but the polygraph showed it did not happen. But self-doubt on his answers (if that is the correct interpretation of that polygraph) is not the same thing as not true. Jack Ruby: What do you want? "Lee" ["Larry"]: I need some money Jack Ruby: Money? "Lee" ["Larry"]: I just got in from New Orleans. I need a place to stay, and a job. From dancer Joyce McDonald, stage name Joy Dale, associate of Crafard who knew him before introduction to Ruby, and who came to the Carousel at about the same time as Crafard, in the WFAA-TV interview the day after Crafard left Dallas and the same day that Ruby had killed Oswald. "Well, I have a friend out here that came to Dallas, unemployed, know--not knowing anyone. He had met Jack once. Jack gave him a place to stay until he found him a job, gave him money to live off of until he went to work, until he could move out." (24 H 796) I think these are two versions of the same thing and the same person. In Crafard's Warren Commission testimony, he gives a story of having talked on the phone for hours the night of Nov 22/23 to a woman he claims he had never previously met and could not remember her name. That hours-long conversation was followed by Crafard being picked up at around 5 am by Ruby followed by a sudden decision to hitchhike to Michigan, after almost no sleep that night, according to Crafard's testimony. Though the Warren Commission sought from questioning to identify the woman of Crafard's phone call story it was hopeless; Crafard was not giving up any verifiable information on that point. I think the woman Crafard talked to the night of Fri/Saturday whom he would not identify to the Warren Commission may have been Joyce McDonald. He did say goodby to someone--Joyce McDonald, and then Ruby at 5 am. He told Joyce how he wanted his departure explained to people, and on Sunday Nov 24, the next day on WFAA-TV, she did.
  17. Ruby connects himself to the Tippit killing Carousel Club dancer Joyce McDonald, stage name Joy Dale, lived at 424 ½ West Tenth Street, Apartment 3, in Oak Cliff. This was her correct address as furnished by Andy Armstrong from Carousel Club written records to the FBI on Nov 26, 1963 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136#relPageId=111) and furnished by Joyce McDonald herself when she was interviewed by the FBI on Dec 2, 1963 (https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57014#relPageId=80&search=Joyce_McDonald ) But on Nov 24, later the same day he killed Oswald, Jack Ruby was interviewed in jail by the FBI and asked to name names and give addresses that he knew, which Ruby did. Most of the names Ruby gave he did not give street addresses known by heart but for a few he did. One Carousel Club employee address Ruby did give was for dancer Joy Dale (Joyce McDonald). But Ruby gave a wrong address for her, by mistake. Instead of the correct address (above) in the 400's block of West Tenth, instead Ruby--by mistake--gave the street address where Tippit was killed. Instead of Joyce McDonald’s address in the 400’s block on West Tenth, Ruby gave the Tippit killing address in the 400s block of East 10th St. By mistake (and that is surely what this was, a mistake) Ruby gave Joy Dale's address as "410 1/2 10th St." (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=60). Tippit met his killer when pulling his cruiser over in front of 410 East 10th St. The Tippit killing address had nothing to do with Joyce McDonald, despite Ruby providing that as her address. Joyce McDonald did not live there nor is there any reason to suppose she had anything otherwise to do with that address. It was because her correct address by accident was also on Tenth Street even though West, and by accident also on a 400's block, which caused a confusion in Ruby's brain. Ruby got two distinct and unrelated addresses, both of which he knew, confused, pure and simple. It was not a case of (these explanations can be excluded on grounds of improbability): · An actual alternative or previous address for Joyce McDonald, because the addresses are too similar (400s block; Tenth; both ending with 1/2) to be explicable as coincidence in a move from one location to another location by the same person. · A random mistake on Ruby’s part, the verbal equivalent of a typo with no further significance, because if that were the case it would have been random and not landed exactly on the address where Tippit was killed, of all street addresses in Oak Cliff. The street address of the house in front of which Tippit was killed which Ruby supplied by mistake (to which Ruby added the “1/2” from Joyce McDonald's address which Ruby remembered) was in Ruby's immediate memory, a second address which came to his mind known by heart just as he knew Joyce McDonald's address by heart. Why did Ruby know the address where Tippit was killed (to have gotten the two confused)? Ruby's mistake signals unexplained knowledge or interest in that address calling for explanation. Either Ruby had some relationship to the house at that address or Ruby had some unusual interest in the Tippit killing, enough to have committed the street address where it occurred to memory, one or the other. And if the first (a relationship to the house at that address) that too raises the question of relationship to the Tippit killing. Contrast that with nothing to associate Oswald with that address or any other address on East Tenth Street, and a total lack of any known logic or explanation why Oswald would have gone to or have been there on East Tenth Street in the first place. In other words, there is here an association of Ruby with the street address of the Tippit killing, uttered from his own mouth on the same day he killed Oswald, which tightens the argument that the killer of Tippit and would-be killer of Oswald in the Texas Theatre was Larry Crafard, associate of Ruby. The Tippit killing of Nov 22 in front of 410 East Tenth Street, the address of Ruby’s “Freudian slip” utterance on Nov. 24, was followed by a failed attempt on the part of the killer of Tippit immediately after that to kill Oswald in the Texas Theatre. That intent to kill Oswald then failed (Oswald's life saved by the timely arrival of police and arrest of Oswald). Following that, Ruby assisted his recent hire, ex-hitman Larry Crafard, killer of Tippit and would-be killer of Oswald, in fleeing Dallas that night. Ruby admitted he and another man picked up Crafard at the Carousel Club at about 4 or 5 am in the early morning hours of Nov 23 and Crafard fled Dallas for Michigan without saying goodby to anyone. But even before helping his employee of brief duration and unclear job duties, Larry Crafard, to fly by night to the other end of the country the night after Tippit was killed and Oswald narrowly avoided the same fate from the same killer, Ruby was talking to nearly everyone in sight of the need to extrajudicially kill Oswald before trial. Ruby explained this singular focus on his part in response to the grief of the JFK assassination as sympathy for Jackie Kennedy. As Ruby told it, it was all about compassion for Jackie Kennedy, and had nothing to do with the many mob contacts represented in his phone records and personal associations later investigated by the HSCA. In the version told by Ruby, transparently laying groundwork for an explanation that would sound sympathetic at the time of sentencing and in the public eye, his talk and intent to kill Oswald prior to trial had nothing to do with the recent arrival of an ex-hitman whom he barely knew but generously offered housing in the Carousel Club until said hitman fled Dallas with no goodbys in the dead of night in the early morning hours of Saturday Nov 23. In addition to talking of the necessity for Oswald to be killed before trial beginning mid-afternoon on Fri Nov 22 according to later testimony from witnesses, Ruby stalked Oswald at the police station Friday and Saturday, then on Sunday morning Nov 24 carried out the killing of Oswald that Crafard had not accomplished at the Texas Theatre on Friday. Ruby's confusion of two addresses--that slip of the tongue, that Freudian slip, told by Ruby to the FBI on Sunday Nov 24 instead of the address of Joyce McDonald which he meant to say—has gone largely unnoticed, or if noticed misunderstood, in discussions of the Tippit killing. There is no record of alert law enforcement at the time pressing Ruby to explain why that particular address was the content of his mistake. But I do not think that would be a detail that the fictional television detective Colombo would have missed.
  18. On the Jarnagin polygraph, in the opinion of Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade, the polygraph showed Jarnagin to be sincere but untrue. Wade explained Jarnagin's polygraph to the Warren Commission not as having detected intentional deception but as having determined that Jarnagin's statements though he believed them to be true were factually untrue. I have never before heard a law enforcement official claim that a polygraph was capable of distinguishing truth from untruth in a sincere witness who believes both to be true. Mr. Wade. (. . .) I know one of them during the trial was a lawyer there in Dallas, which I presume you all got his four-page statement, said he heard them discussing killing Connally a week before then, came out to my house and that had been sent to the FBI, and that was during the trial, and I gave him a lie detector which showed that he didn't have, this was a fanciful thing. Mr. Rankin. You found that was not anything you could rely on. Mr. Wade. I didn't use him as a witness [in the Ruby trial] and after giving him the polygraph I was satisfied that he was imagining it. I think he was sincere, I don't think he was trying--I don't think he was trying to be a hero or anything. I think he really thought about it so much I think he thought that it happened, but the polygraph indicated otherwise. (5H232) That polygraph did not show Jarnagin was knowingly speaking falsely, according to District Attorney Wade. The polygraph was able to determine, instead, according to Wade, that what Jarnagin said and believed to be true, was imagination not real. Later, Mr. Wade. He talked to me at length there at my house, just us, and I would say at 11 o'clock at night. It was on a Sunday night I know (. . .) I read that statement over. It is a rather startling thing. It didn't ring true to me. It all deals with a conversation between Oswald and Ruby about killing John Connally, the Governor of Texas, over, he says, they can't get syndicated crime in Texas without they kill the Governor. I know enough about the situation, the Governor has practically nothing to do with syndicated crime. It has to be on a local, your district attorney and your police are the ones on the firing line on that, and they discussed at length killing him, how much they are going to pay him, 'He wants five thousand, I believe or half of it now, and half of it when it is done.' (. . .) He told me this is what happened, and I said, 'I can't put you on the stand without I am satisfied you are telling the truth because,' I said, 'We have got a good case here [against Ruby], and if they prove we are putting a lying witness on the stand, we might hurt us,' and I said, 'The only thing I know to do I won't put you on the stand but to take a polygraph to see if you are telling the truth or not.' He said, 'I would be glad to.' And I set it up and I later ran into him in the lawyers' club there and he handed me another memorandum which amplified on the other one, which all have been furnished to the attorney general or if we didn't lose it in the shuffle. This was during the trial actually, and then when the man called me he took a lie detector. There was no truth in it. That he was in the place. He was in the place, in Ruby's Carousel, but that none of this conversation took place. He said he was in one booth and Ruby was in another booth.
  19. George, yes. Alternative explanations for the Tippit murder such as the jealous husband or the local street gang, do not explain why the killer of Tippit went to the Texas Theatre where Oswald was arrested. The Tippit killer going to the same theatre where Oswald was inside means one of only two things: either he went there to kill Oswald, or he was Oswald.
  20. Steve Thomas, I found this FBI information obtained from Andy Armstrong dated Nov 26, 1963, in which Andy Armstrong furnished records of Carousel Club employees clearly from written records, and there it is, Joy Dale's address is 424 1/2 West Tenth Street, Apartment 3.( https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136#relPageId=111 ) Then I rechecked the Jack Ruby FBI interview of Nov 25, 1963, where Ruby gives Joy Dale's address as 410 1/2 10th St. I see in that interview of Ruby, which would be in jail away from written records since it is the day after Ruby shot Oswald--Ruby lists many names which the FBI agents want to know, and Ruby gives address information only sporadically for a few of them from memory if he knows, and its all from memory ( https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=60 ). Therefore it is clear, Ruby was giving Joy Dale's address from memory and simply erred and gave the address of the Tippit murder by mistake. Two 10th Street addresses in his mind, similar street numbers, just got them mixed up for some reason, these things happen ... (but the Columbo question: wonder why the Tippit murder address was in his mind, in making that inadvertent mistake?)
  21. Benjamin Cole, do you know the circumstances of how Thomas Peasner came to be a North Korean POW, whether he was captured unwillingly along with other soldiers or whether he voluntarily surrendered? I cannot find anything on that.
  22. The Jackets as exculpation of Oswald as the Tippit killer: an analysis First the starting fact: Oswald had two, and only two, jackets, one gray and one blue. This starting fact is not in dispute. Note below that “light” (Oswald’s gray jacket) and “heavy” (Oswald’s blue jacket) do not refer to color tone but rather to the weight or warmth of the jacket. “Marina was questioned further concerning clothing jackets which had been owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. She said to the best of her recollection Lee Harvey Oswald had only two jackets, one a heavy jacket, blue in color, and another light jacket, grey in color. She said she believes Oswald possessed both of these jackets in Russia and had purchased them in the United States prior to his departure for Russia. She said she cannot recall that Oswald ever sent either of these jackets to any laundry or cleaners anywhere. She said she can recall washing them herself. She advised to her knowledge Oswald possessed both of these jackets at Dallas on November 22, 1963.” (FBI interview, April 1, 1964) But from this agreed-upon starting point diverge significantly differing narratives of the two jackets of Oswald and the one from the Tippit killer. The standard, conventional, narrative can be called the Two Jackets Theory, to be compared here with what I will call the Three Jackets Theory. TWO JACKETS THEORY (Warren Commission) · Tippit killer light-gray jacket (C162) = Oswald gray jacket · Oswald dark blue jacket (C163) Narrative (“blue then gray”) · Oswald wore blue jacket (C163) from Irving to Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) · Oswald left TSBD without jacket · Oswald in cab to Oak Cliff without jacket · Oswald entered rooming house without jacket · Oswald left rooming house wearing light-gray C162 · Oswald killed Tippit and abandoned light-gray C162 in flight · Oswald entered Texas Theatre without jacket · Oswald arrested in Texas Theatre without jacket · Oswald blue jacket (C163) later found TSBD THREE JACKETS THEORY · Oswald gray jacket · Oswald dark blue jacket (C163) · Tippit killer light-gray jacket (C162) Narrative (“gray then blue”) · Oswald wore his gray jacket from Irving to Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) · Oswald left TSBD with his gray jacket · Oswald in cab to Oak Cliff with his gray jacket · Oswald abandoned his gray jacket en route to rooming house · Oswald entered rooming house without jacket · Oswald left rooming house wearing blue jacket (C163) · Oswald went to Texas Theatre and entered with blue jacket (C163) · Oswald took off blue jacket (C163) inside Texas Theatre · Oswald arrested in Texas Theatre without jacket · Oswald blue jacket (C163) later found TSBD Buell Wesley Frazier He knew what jacket Oswald wore very well having driven Lee back and forth to Irving many times and the morning of Fri Nov 22, and saw Oswald’s jacket sitting next to him in the car. Frazier said two things very clearly: first, that he had always seen Oswald wear only his gray jacket (not the blue) back and forth from Irving and that that was the case the morning of Fri Nov 22. And second, when shown C162, the Tippit killer's light-gray jacket, Frazier said definitely that was not Oswald’s gray jacket. Mr. Ball. On that day [morning of Fri Nov 22, 1963] you did notice one article of clothing, that is, he had a jacket? Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. Mr. Ball. What color was the jacket? Mr. Frazier. It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning. Mr. Ball. Did it have a zipper on it? Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir; it was one of the zipper types. Mr. Ball. It isn't one of these two zipper jackets we have shown? [C162, the killer's light-gray jacket; C163, Oswald's dark blue jacket] Mr. Frazier. No, sir. This testimony of Wesley Frazier is strong testimony, as credible testimony as it gets. Frazier gave that negative answer repudiating that C162 was Oswald’s jacket without qualification. Linnie Mae Randle "On the morning of November 22, 1963, Mrs. Randle stated that she looked out of a window of her residence and observed Oswald walking up her driveway, and to the best of her recollection Oswald was wearing a tan shirt and grey jacket" (FBI interview, Dec 5, 1963). "He had a gray jacket, I believe ... no, sir [it was not C162], I remember its being gray" (Linnie Mae Randle, Warren Commission testimony). After saying Oswald's jacket that morning was “gray” and no color other than “gray” several times, Linnie Mae was asked, if she had to choose between C162 and C163, the Tippit killer's light-gray jacket or Oswald's blue one, which one did she see Oswald wear to work that morning. (The true answer being neither.) Forced to choose between two false alternatives, Linnie Mae answered, "I would choose the dark one [C163] ... but I, you know, didn't pay an awful lot of attention to his jacket". Whereupon Mr. Ball, counsel for the Warren Commission, misrepresented Linnie Mae Randle’s answer on that point into the record. Mrs. Randle. It was gray, I am not sure of the shade. (. . .) Mr. Ball. Here is another jacket [C162, the Tippit killer’s jacket] which is a gray jacket, does this look anything like the jacket he had on? Mrs. Randle. No, sir, I remember its being gray. Mr. Ball. Well, this one [C162] is gray but of these two the jacket I last showed you is Commission Exhibit No. 162, and this blue gray is 163, now if you had to choose between these two? Mrs. Randle. I would choose the dark one [C163]. Mr. Ball. You would choose the dark one? Mrs. Randle. Yes, sir: that I remember. But I, you know, didn't pay an awful lot of attention to his jacket. I remember his T-shirt and the shirt more so than I do the jacket. Mr. Ball. The witness just stated that 163 which is the gray-blue is similar to the jacket he had on. 162, the light gray jacket was not. Comment: Mr. Ball is not representing accurately. He forced an identification choice for Linnie Mae between two alternatives neither of which was the jacket she saw Oswald wearing that morning. Forced to choose, Mrs. Randle picked C163 between two false choices, after consistently saying several times up to that point that the jacket she saw Oswald wearing that morning was gray (not blue). The explanation for why Linnie Mae Randle picked the blue C163 instead of the light-gray C162 would be the same reason that, when shown C162 which was so light a shade of gray that it was almost white, she said “no, sir, I remember it’s being gray”. Oswald’s gray jacket—that Linnie Mae saw Oswald wearing that morning—was a darker shade of gray than the light-gray C162 (she did not say in response to C162, “no, Oswald’s was blue”). Linnie Mae did not remember the gray jacket of Oswald as being as light in tone as C162, so, forced to choose, she defaulted to the only other alternative, the darker but equally inaccurate C163 (blue), even while never wavering from saying, repeatedly, that the jacket she saw on Oswald was gray. Mr. Ball misrepresented Mrs. Randle's forced choice between two wrong alternatives as if that represented a positive identification of one of those two alternatives, whereas an accurate representation of her answer would be that she judged C163 looked less dissimilar than C162 to the jacket she saw on Oswald that morning. In an accurate representation of Linnie Mae Randle’s testimony there is no positive weight toward identification of C163 as the jacket the witness saw Oswald wear that morning, contrary to Mr. Ball’s paraphrase of the witness’s testimony as if there was. Marina Oswald On the other hand, in contradiction to Buell Wesley Frazier’s testimony, Marina Oswald in her Warren Commission testimony did identify C162, the Tippit killer’s light-gray jacket, as the gray jacket of Lee. Commission counsel Rankin displayed one item of genuine clothing of Lee after another and Marina was identifying those items one after another then this: Mr. Rankin. 162? Mrs. Oswald. That is Lee’s—an old shirt. Mr. Rankin. Sort of a jacket? Mrs. Oswald. Yes. (. . .) Mr. Rankin. Do you recall any of these clothes that your husband was wearing when he came home Thursday night, November 21, 1963? Mrs. Oswald. On Thursday I think he wore this shirt. Mr. Rankin. Is that Exhibit 150? Mrs. Oswald. Yes. Mr. Rankin. Do you remember anything else he was wearing at that time? Mrs. Oswald. It seems he had the jacket, also. Mr. Rankin. Exhibit 162? Mrs. Oswald. Yes. This is it from Marina Oswald concerning identification of C162 as belonging to her husband (the significance of that to become clear momentarily). Looking at these two Warren Commission testimony identifications directly, the first one in which Marina is shown C162 and said it was “an old shirt”, raises the question of how close the item was to Marina when it was shown her, and how carefully Marina looked before answering. Nevertheless, she did make the identification. But the second identification in her Warren Commission testimony above, of thinking she saw Oswald with C162 on Thursday night in Irving—the night before the assassination—cannot be correct under the Warren Commission’s reconstruction of the case. For the Warren Commission claimed Oswald wore his blue jacket, C163, to Irving Thursday night and back to Dallas Friday morning, then left C163 at his workplace, went to the rooming house in Oak Cliff and picked up the light-gray C162 there, then killed Tippit and abandoned C162 in flight to the Texas Theatre. To my knowledge no defender of the Warren Commission narrative has considered Marina’s second C162 identification as other than simply wrong and mistaken on Marina’s part. That leaves Marina’s first identification as the positive argument—actually the sole, solitary witness testimony in support of—the Warren Commission “blue then gray” narrative in which C162 is a jacket of Oswald. Under normal circumstances an identification from a wife, Marina, would seem to outweigh testimony that conflicts, given that she lived with and knew her husband, washed his clothes and would be in the best position to know her husband’s clothes. But the most important item of information here is not what Marina stated to the Warren Commission, but what is missing: any identification from Marina of C162 as Lee’s in an FBI interview prior to her Warren Commission testimony. The significance of this has been little-remarked but prima facie is a significant omission. The FBI which had that jacket of the Tippit killer as well as other physical evidence interviewed Marina many times in the days and weeks following the assassination. A confirmation from Marina that C162, the light-gray jacket abandoned by the Tippit killer, was Lee’s, would be a significant corroboration (from investigators' point of view) that Lee had killed Tippit. It appears extraordinary that no such question or opportunity to make such an identification of C162 would have been presented to Marina. But in all of the FBI reports of interviews of Marina, there is no record that that question was asked. Either Marina never was asked or it was not reported in writing if she was. It does not inspire confidence that an identification by Marina of C162 as belonging to her husband was obtained for the first time as late as her Warren Commission testimony. Here is Marina identifying C163, Lee’s blue jacket, to the FBI: “A faded blue cloth jacket with padding bearing label ‘Sir Jac’ with zipper front was exhibited to Marina. She immediately identified this jacket as being the property of her husband, Lee Harvey Oswald. She said she recognized the jacket because she has handled it and washed it for Oswald.” (FBI interview, Dec 19, 1963) That is straightforward, concerning a jacket with no association with the killing of Tippit. It is exactly this kind of straight question and answer concerning C162 which is missing in any record of an FBI interview of Marina. In terms of the known documentary record, Marina was asked about C162 for the first time many months later—in her Warren Commission testimony in which she gives yes, yes, yes, yes answers to genuine items of Lee’s clothing and then C162 another yes, before she immediately threw her own identification of C162 into disarray by saying she thought she saw Oswald wearing C162 in Irving the night before the assassination. The argument that Marina was mistaken in her first identification of C162 as well as her second one, in her Warren Commission testimony, is powerfully and independently supported from these two items not to be underestimated: first, the missing FBI interview question and answer from Marina on that identification in the time period between the assassination and Marina’s testimony before the Warren Commission. And second, the sober testimony of Buell Wesley Frazier saying exactly the opposite concerning C162 than the more stressed and mercurial Marina. It is fair to say without much dispute that most investigators have judged Wesley Frazier a more reliable witness than Marina as a general statement—and Frazier testified with certainty that C162 was not Oswald’s gray jacket. In light of these factors, the testimony of Wesley Frazier that C162 was not Lee’s gray jacket is judged here as of greater weight (more likely to be correct) than Marina’s identification of C162 as Lee’s gray jacket in her Warren Commission testimony. The mechanism of the mistake would be that Marina knew Lee had a gray jacket and Marina assumed that C162 shown her from an unknown distance was that item and answered agreeably. Marina’s saying she thought she saw C162 on Lee Thursday night, even if incorrect, nevertheless supports Oswald having had his gray jacket Thursday night (mechanism for mistake: similarity of color), in agreement with Wesley Frazier’s testimony that Oswald wore his gray jacket on the return trip to Dallas Friday morning. At the Texas School Book Depository Charles Givens. “He [Oswald] never changed clothes the whole time he worked there, and he would wear a grey looking jacket.” (6H349) Bonnie Ray Williams: “to the best of his recollection, Lee Harvey Oswald was wearing a grey corduroy pair of pants and a greyish looking sport shirt with long sleeves on November 22, 1963.” (FBI interview, Dec 5, 1963, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=317 ) Most analysts have correctly interpreted Bonnie Ray Williams’ statement of remembering a greyish looking shirt, as Oswald’s gray jacket. I am not aware of any coworker testimony at the Texas School Book Depository that Oswald wore a blue jacket that morning (or any other morning there). Whaley and the cab to Oak Cliff Minutes after the assassination, at about 12:35 pm Fri Nov 22, Oswald left the Texas School Book Depository wearing the same gray jacket which he wore from Irving that morning to work, on the evidence of Whaley the cab driver who drove him to Oak Cliff. Whaley’s testimony has been garbled and misunderstood. From a Nov 23, 1963 FBI interview: "[Whaley] recalled that the young man he drove in his cab that day was wearing a heavy identification bracelet on his left wrist, he appeared to need a haircut and was dressed in gray khaki pants which looked as if they had been slept in. He had on a dark colored shirt with some light color in it. The shirt had long sleeves and the top two or three buttons were unbuttoned. The color of the shirt nearly matched the pants, but was somewhat darker. The man wore no hat." Comment: As will become clear why, I think there can be little dispute that the reporting FBI agent above miswrote "shirt" (in the final bolded) where Whaley meant "the color of the jacket" (not the color of the shirt which was dark colored). It was Oswald's jacket (not his shirt) which “nearly matched” Oswald's gray pants—this is what Whaley said or was trying to say. That this is so can be seen by comparison with Whaley's Warren Commission testimony. Note the parallel in wording with the above. "He was dressed in just ordinary work clothes. It wasn't khaki pants but they were khaki material, blue faded blue color, like a blue uniform made in khaki. Then he had on a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it and he had on some kind of jacket. I didn't notice very close but I think it was a work jacket that almost matched the pants." A “jacket that almost matched the pants” is what Whaley saw on the passenger in his cab who was Oswald. It was Oswald’s gray jacket which "nearly matched the pants" or "almost matched the pants" which in Whaley's original statement and in agreement with other testimony were gray pants (not faded blue). (Oswald wore gray pants to work that day.) Gray pants and gray jacket except the jacket was a little darker shade of gray than the pants is what Whaley saw on the basis of his earliest account. Continuing with Whaley’s Warren Commission testimony: Mr. Hall. Here is Commission No. 162 [Tippit killer’s jacket] which is a gray jacket with zipper. Mr. Whaley. I think that is the jacket he had on when he rode with me in the cab. Comment: although the jacket Oswald wore in Whaley's cab cannot have been C162 under either reconstruction, Whaley is responding to the color gray, Oswald’s gray jacket. Mr. Ball. Look something like it? And here is Commission Exhibit No. 163 [Oswald’s dark blue], does this look like anything he had on? Mr. Whaley. He had this one on or the other one. Mr. Ball. That is right. Comment: Although both the stenographer and Mr. Ball heard "or", based on what follows did Whaley actually say "over", "he had this one on over the other one"? Mr. Whaley. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt. Mr. Ball. Wait a minute, we have got the shirt which you have identified as the rust brown shirt with the gold stripe in it. Mr. Whaley. Yes, sir. Mr. Ball. You said that a jacket— (I am putting interpretive comments in brackets below.) Mr. Whaley. That jacket [Tippit killer’s light gray, nearly white C162] now it might have been clean [lighter in tone because it has been cleaned], but the jacket he had on [Oswald gray jacket] looked more the color, you know like a uniform set [matching jacket and pants in color], but he had this coat here [C163 dark blue] on over that other jacket [over the Oswald gray jacket which Whaley mistakenly thinks is C162], I am sure, sir. Mr. Ball. This is the blue-gray jacket, heavy blue-gray jacket [C163]. Mr. Whaley. Yes, sir. Comment: Whaley is certainly not correct that Oswald was wearing both of his jackets at the same time, his dark blue one over his gray one. In his original FBI statement Whaley said nothing of a second jacket (the dark blue one) but referred only to Oswald wearing one jacket that "nearly matched his [gray] pants", even though in that early FBI statement Oswald’s gray jacket was mistakenly termed "shirt". Whaley's testimony as to Oswald wearing a gray jacket was accurate. Months later in his Warren Commission testimony, Whaley added the part about the dark blue jacket being worn over the gray one (and also changed the color of Oswald’s pants from accurate gray to inaccurate faded light blue). Why Whaley later added the part about wearing the blue jacket over the gray jacket, who knows. But his earliest description was correct, his earliest description had no second jacket, and the gray jacket was always there in his testimony. At the rooming house on N. Beckley After Whaley dropped off Oswald on N. Beckley a few blocks from his rooming house, Oswald intentionally let Whaley see him walk in the opposite direction before making his way to the rooming house. Lee entered the rooming house with no jacket, per housekeeper Earlene Roberts. The gray jacket which Oswald had on in the cab (evidence of Whaley) he did not have on when he entered the rooming house (evidence of Earlene). Therefore Oswald abandoned his gray jacket at some point after leaving Whaley’s cab but before he entered the rooming house. What became of Oswald’s gray jacket is unknown, presumably found at some later point by some private party who never was aware that it had been Oswald's. Entering the rooming house Oswald went to his room and emerged again seen by Earlene zipping up a jacket on his way out which Earlene described as dark. “Oswald did not have a jacket when he came in to the house and I don’t recall what type of clothing he was wearing. Oswald went to his room and was only there a few minutes before coming out. I noticed he had a jacket he was putting on. I recall the jacket was a dark color and it was the type that zips up the front. He was zipping the jacket up as he left.” (Earlene Roberts, affidavit taken by Secret Service, Dec 5, 1963. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=41#relPageId=449) In her later Warren Commission testimony, when shown the Tippit killer's light gray jacket C162, Earlene objected, "it seems like the one he put on was darker than that." After Oswald entered the rooming house not wearing the gray jacket worn that morning, Oswald has now picked up his warmer dark blue jacket, confirmed by Earlene, the only witness who saw Oswald enter and leave the rooming house that day. She saw Oswald leave in a dark jacket (not light gray or nearly white), which is to say, Oswald’s dark blue jacket, C163. Inside the Texas Theatre After leaving the rooming house, Oswald intentionally stood at the northbound bus stop where he knew Earlene would see him out the window, a feint as if heading north, before out of Earlene's sight taking a bus south to the Texas Theatre where he bought a ticket as a paying customer, entered and took a seat. However, when he was arrested thirty or so minutes later in the theatre he had no jacket on. That he would have no jacket on in the theatre despite wearing one to the theatre is not unusual; inside a warm theatre most people take off their jackets, especially a heavier, warmer jacket such as C163. The anomaly therefore is not that Oswald had no jacket on inside the theatre after arriving with a jacket, but rather a different question: what became of the jacket he wore leaving the rooming house--the blue jacket, C163--which would have entered the theatre with Oswald before he took it off. The dark blue jacket that Earlene saw Oswald putting on as he left the rooming house (identified by Earlene as dark, color unknown), unless he abandoned it for some reason before entering the theatre, he would have taken off inside the theatre and set somewhere. As it happens there appears to be a heretofore-unrecognized witness account from a theatre patron who saw Oswald inside the theatre that day wearing a jacket before he took it off. This is from George Applin who was sitting only a few rows away when Oswald was arrested, the one theatre patron taken downtown that day by police to give a statement. This is from typed interview notes dated Dec 2, 1978, identified as statements of George Applin, apparently written by reporter Earl Golz (https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t371-suspect-behind-the-texas-theatre ). Here is Applin according to these typed notes: "'Big, heavyset plainclothes officer with a cowboy hat on asked Oswald, "Did you kill him." 'It look[ed] like he was trying to knock a home run through his back,' Applin says he told Warren Commission attorney or police officers. 'He, he (Oswald) didn't yell police brutality. What I said is what he said. The officer asked him why he shot the president, why he killed the president or shoot the president. And he said, "Hell, I ain't shot nobody." (. . .) I was on the third aisle setting about seven rows down. Almost in the middle section. I seen his face. And there was just nothing about it. I believe he was wearing a suit ... it was a dark suit. I know that much. What color a dark--it could have been gray or it could have been light blue.'" Oswald was not wearing a suit but this sounds like Applin seeing Oswald wearing a jacket, his dark blue jacket, C163, mistaken for a suit jacket in a darkened theatre. Applin seems to be seated and Oswald is walking toward him (since Applin sees his face). After finding his seat Oswald might have taken the jacket off, but where Oswald would have set it or left it is not clear. According to witnesses Oswald left his seat to buy popcorn and moved around to several different seating locations after his arrival. Ordinarily we would assume a jacket would be on a seat next to the theatre patron. But there is no report of officers seeing a blue jacket with Oswald at the time of the arrest. The whereabouts of the blue jacket therefore may be considered in the context of Oswald’s other acts of evasiveness that day—feints of wrong directions of travel, and the jacket change at the rooming house altering physical description. In keeping with this it can be conjectured that he might take off the jacket and stash it somewhere removed from him. It is not that the jacket would not have been found soon after Oswald’s arrest, but if it was it may not have been immediately associated with Oswald as distinguished from some other theatre patron’s lost jacket. Although there was said to be a search of the theatre after Oswald’s arrest at the time police were writing down patrons’ and staff names and addresses so they could be interviewed, there is no police record of a finding of a blue jacket or any other jacket of Oswald. There is also no police record of those theatre patron names officers wrote down. Also, it is not obvious that an item associated with Oswald found by police in that theatre would necessarily be logged in as evidence. There is a witness account of a knife having been found after Oswald's arrest in the area where Oswald had been seated, by an officer heard to say to a fellow officer that it must belong to Oswald, but that knife was not turned in. “Police at this time were searching the area around the seat [Oswald] was sitting in. They found a switchblade knife (. . .) we had come back from the managers office to the theater area, and an officer was looking down the aisle where Oswald had been sitting. He bent over and picked up a knife and showed it to another officer standing a few feet away. That officer said, ‘That’s where he was. Must be his.’” (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/F Disk/Fensterwald Bernard 1990/Item 004.pdf , page 8, 2nd and 3rd columns) The blue jacket (C163) turns up in the Texas School Book Depository Oswald’s blue jacket later did turn up. A dark blue jacket was turned in to the FBI on Dec 17, 1963, by Roy Truly, Superintendent of the Texas School Book Depository, with Truly first explaining that the blue jacket had just been found the day before (Dec 16) in the course of cleaning in the first-floor “domino room” used by employees. On March 7, 1964, interviewed again, Truly said the jacket had been brought to him three or four days after the assassination (i.e. about Nov 26) by an employee whose name Truly could not remember, not said to have been in the course of cleaning. According to this second version, Truly held on to the jacket for about three weeks and then turned it in to the FBI agent who understood Truly to have told him it had been found the day before. (FBI interviews of Truly of Dec 17, 1963 and Mar 7, 1964) This blue jacket, C163, was positively identified by Marina as Lee’s blue jacket in an FBI interview of Dec 20, 1963, noted above. In addition to that, “Several head hairs were found in the debris removed from the Q350 [blue C163] jacket. These hairs match in microscopic characteristics the previously submitted K7 hair sample of Oswald and originated either from him or from another Caucasian person whose head hairs exhibit the same microscopic characteristic. It is pointed out that hairs do not possess enough individual microscopic characteristics to be positively identified as originating from a particular person to the exclusion of all others.” (FBI lab report, Dec 31, 1963, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=96524#relPageId=53) But despite this find of Oswald’s blue jacket, C163, in the Texas School Book Depository after the assassination, none of Lee’s coworkers remembered ever having seen Oswald wear that jacket that he had supposedly left there. "Truly said that he had been unable to ascertain through inquiry among employees that this was Oswald's jacket or that anyone had specifically observed Oswald wearing it.” (FBI interview, Dec 18, 1963) This is a surprising piece of information--that a jacket of Oswald (as it later turned out confirmed to be) would be found at his workplace but nobody who worked with him could remember seeing him wear it. It agrees with a reconstruction which is the reconstruction here that that blue jacket of Oswald’s had originally been found in Oak Cliff and relocated to the Texas School Book Depository to be newly found. The impact of the failure to find even a single Oswald coworker who remembered Lee wearing that jacket was however softened by Truly. Truly "stated, however, that he himself had a vague recollection of having possibly seen Oswald wear a jacket similar to that one in the past” (same FBI interview, Dec. 18, 1963). The reconstruction here is the dark blue jacket (C163) left the rooming house with Oswald, went inside the Texas Theatre with Oswald, Oswald was seen inside the theatre with the jacket by Applin, then Oswald took it off inside the theatre, set by Oswald intentionally some place physically removed from where Oswald was seated watching the movie. The jacket may have been found or turned in to police that day, although it is also possible someone else found it later and turned it in to the police. Either way (as reconstructed) it came into the hands of police but was not logged in as evidence, and instead was relocated to the Texas School Book Depository to be “found” there. At the time the police converged on the Texas Theatre the light-gray jacket abandoned by the killer had been found (C162). In the aftermath of Oswald’s arrest the police believed they already had Oswald's jacket, since it was believed that Oswald was the Tippit killer who had abandoned the C162 jacket and entered the theatre without a jacket. If an Oswald jacket inside the theatre did come to police attention following the Oswald arrest, it would come close to being exculpatory, or at least create a serious problem in interpretation of how one killer, seen entering the theatre with no jacket, could have a second jacket belonging to him inside the theatre. But it is not necessary to suppose the police were immediately confronted with that dilemma, even if the jacket were to come quickly to their attention. What may have happened is the blue jacket of Oswald was found somewhere else in the theatre and taken by police and not reported until someone could figure out what to make of it and sort out what was going on. It may not have been immediately clear it was Oswald’s. At some point it would become a sort of hot potato item of physical evidence, difficult to explain why it had not properly been processed as evidence and potentially exculpatory to Oswald if verified to be Oswald's, so the solution was to have it found at the Texas School Book Depository where it was then handed off to the FBI to deal with. Conclusion The Warren Commission/standard reconstruction of Oswald's jackets that day was a “blue then gray” sequence. That sequence has only two items in its support: a premise that the Tippit killer’s light-gray C162 jacket was Oswald’s; and the find of the blue jacket in the Texas School Book Depository. This is contradicted by overwhelming and compelling testimony of witnesses at every stage of Oswald’s movements that day, concerning the color of jacket he was wearing, which in clear signal testify to an opposing “gray then blue” sequence. The “gray then blue” sequence of the Oswald jackets on Nov 22, 1963 is established on the basis of the strength of the witness testimonies. The C162/Oswald gray jacket identification is rejected and the find of C163 in the Texas School Book Depository combined with no one there remembering having seen Oswald wear that jacket, is consistent with a police relocation of that jacket under obscure circumstances from an actual find in Oak Cliff to the Texas School Book Depository to be found there.
  23. Jean I have a long piece about ready to post which I think will address your question. I would be interested in whether you find that it does.
  24. Steve, I accept what you show from the Dec. 5 interview report of Joyce McDonald that that may be her correct address as of Dec. 2 (date of the interview): 424 1/2 W. 10th St., Oak Cliff. It also becomes clear to me that Little Lynn's address given for Joyce McDonald (Joy Dale) of 4204 1/2 W. 10th Fort Worth is erroneous and an error for the correct address given by Joyce on Dec. 2. So the Little Lynn address for Joyce McDonald can be dismissed as of no further relevance. I do not agree however that Jack Ruby's reported address for Joyce, certainly drawn from written records as the other employee addresses he furnished the FBI on Nov 25, can so easily be dismissed as a mistake. Joyce McDonald's address (provided by Joyce Dec. 2): 424 1/2 W. 10th Joyce McDonald's pre-assassination address according to Ruby (provided by Ruby Nov 25): 410 1/2 10th St. That record of Joyce McDonald's address from Nov. 25 can hardly be written off as a typo or error for the Dec 2 address, for this reason: it is the address of the Tippit killing. If the Nov. 25 were a mistake for 424 1/2 W. 10th St. why wasn't the mistake then random? How is it that a mistake, if such is what it was, landed of all possible addresses such a mistake could land, at the very address Tippit was killed, of all places? In addition, since the other employees' addresses seem accurate from Nov 25 and Ruby's information surely came from the same written records as the others, it is not likely that that address would be a typo or mistaken in any case. But if it was, it would not land by total accident on the address where Tippit had been killed. That just does not make sense. I think now the issue should be reframed differently than was the Tippit killing address the actual residence where lived Joyce McDonald and her 3-year old daughter. From her 2009 story Joyce refers to a boyfriend. The testimony you cite from Andy Armstrong says he saw her dropped off for work at the Carousel Club once by a man driving a car, and she had a 3-year old, which had to involve some childcare arrangements when she worked. Based on this information I accept that on Dec. 2 she was living at the address she gave the FBI on Dec. 2, which was not the house of the Tippit killing. At the same time the house of the Tippit killing was on record as her address (even though the "E." is missing in E. 10th). Joyce McDonald had a close relationship to Ruby (Little Lynn told police there was gossip that Joyce McDonald was at that moment pregnant with a child by Ruby). For some reason Ruby's records showed the address of the Tippit killing as the address listed for Joyce, instead of the address given on Dec. 2. For some reason (was it intentional as a favor?) Little Lynn made a mistake in the number of Joyce's address and then made a second mistake putting the entire mistakenly-numbeed address in the wrong city, in Fort Worth instead of Dallas (Oak Cliff). Some mistakes can be done on purpose to maintain privacy or avoid giving out a true home address; is that what was going on? But if so that could explain the Little Lynn wrong address, but it becomes more difficult to explain the Ruby-furnished address for Joyce. One possibility would be Joyce's true address with her 3-year-old daughter was 424 1/2 W. 10th, but that she had some connection to 410 1/2 (E.) 10th as an address whether or not she lived there. Another possibility could be that following the assassination and the arrest of Ruby that she moved in with a friend elsewhere. So never mind whether Joyce McDonald and her 3-year old did or did not live at the address Ruby gave for her on Nov 25. She may well not have lived there. I agree there are three points of similarity between the Ruby-provided address for her and her home address of Nov. 2, namely 10th St; a three-digit street number in the 400s; and the "1/2". But there are two differences, namely the street number is different and the lack of "W." The two addresses do look related from the similarities. Yet to see one as a simple mistake in writing of the other requires two, not one, typo mistakes, in the midst of a list of names and addresses which seem accurate in the other cases. Yet the fact is--never mind where Joyce McDonald actually lived--the earliest address provided for Joyce McDonald, seemingly the Carousel Club dancer to whom Ruby was closest, and the one Carousel Club dancer with the shared parallel employment at the Texas Fairgrounds as well as at the Carousel Club with Crafard, was the address of the Tippit killing. Were the two later addresses intended to shield that from significance? Or, on Nov. 25 did Ruby furnish that address with an exact match to where Tippit had been shot to death three days earlier, by some random freak accident? If that was a coincidence, it was one hell of a coincidence. The city directory I understand has no one listed at the 410 E. 10th address in 1963. Who did own that house and was using it? Unknown. How did it come about that that particular address was what Ruby said the Carousel Club records showed for Joyce McDonald? Unknown. That house, 410 E. 10th where Tippit was killed, was said by Virginia Davis, living two houses away at 400 E. 10th, at one point in her Warren Commission testimony, to have been the house where she thought a police officer lived, from familiarity in seeing a cruiser there. "[Tippit's cruiser] was parked between the hedge that marks the apartment house where he lives in and the house next door [404 E. 10th]" (6H458) And in his 2013 edition of With Malice, Myers reported what is presented as a credible, anonymous highly-placed source, among multiple unnamed other sources, who confirmed to Myers that there had been a police officer, identity kept secret by law enforcement officials who knew all these years, who had been present at the scene of crime "in a house that overlooked the Tippit murder scene. At the sound of the shots the officer looked out a window and observed the killer fleeing the scene" (With Malice, p. 374). "[T]he story never crept beyond a handful of lawmen for fear of unintentionally exposing the relationship. The story was confirmed in 1996 by a high ranking Dallas official who stated that the 'information received was sufficient to cause belief'," Myers writes. In research of my own elsewhere, I developed argument as to a possible identification of that officer at the scene that day. I gave reasons why I see Deputy Sheriff Bill Courson as the person of interest with respect to the identity of an officer witness at the scene of the crime, if there was one (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27362-tippit-a-second-officer-present-at-the-tippit-killing/?tab=comments#comment-446862). As Bill Courson tells it in Sneed's, No More Silence, his job description working for Sheriff Decker was to keep tabs on known criminals. As part of that would go in plain clothes every night to places where criminals hung out, which Courson explained in No More Secrets included frequent visits to the Carousel Club in the several weeks immediately preceding the assassination. Courson was in Oak Cliff in plain clothes and cruiser immediately following the Tippit killing, without notification or instruction from a dispatcher to be in Oak Cliff and he did not live in Oak Cliff. By his own account Courson was wearing the same clothes on Friday as he had on the day before, Thursday. That is one odd detail, in addition to the circumstances of his presence in Oak Cliff. Of all officers who participated in the hunt for the Tippit killer in Oak Cliff, there is no known written report submitted by Courson of his actions that day, unlike most other officers. So there it is, a case worthy of the fictional television detective "Colombo". the dancer closest to Jack Ruby had a reported address of record at the Carousel Club where she was employed which is the address of the house where Tippit stopped his cruiser and was shot dead. the killer of Tippit, after killing Tippit, reloaded his gun prepared to kill again and went to the Texas Theatre Oswald was at the Texas Theatre By 2 pm Fri Nov 22 Oswald was arrested and taken away alive from the Texas Theatre By 3 pm Fri Jack Ruby began talking in the presence of multiple witnesses of the need for Oswald to be killed before trial, as sympathy for Jackie Kennedy On Sunday morning Jack Ruby shot and killed Oswald while Oswald was in police custody the dancer whose address of record at the Carousel Club was where Tippit was killed, was an associate at work with and said she was a friend of Larry Crafard. Larry Crafard, a recent hire by Ruby with little specific job description, was a later self-proclaimed ex-hitman Many witnesses who saw the killer of Tippit thought the person they had seen was Oswald Many witnesses who saw Crafard under circumstances other than the killing of Tippit thought the person they had seen was Oswald Hours after the killing of Tippit and the arrest of Oswald in the Texas Theatre, Crafard with no notice or goodby to anyone left Dallas hitchhiking to Michigan Whereas the FBI by policy did not pursue Mob leads in the investigation of the assassination of JFK, the HSCA investigation of the late 1970s found that Jack Ruby had significant Mob associations and contacts in the runup to the assassination. Carroll Jarnagin, a maligned witness, arguably witnessed and overheard an early conversation between Ruby and Crafard in the Carousel Club in which Ruby discussed with Crafard carrying out a contract killing for hire related to the JFK assassination, on behalf of Mob interests.
  25. Steve Thomas, this is interesting. That interview with Little Lynn (Karen Lynn Bennett) is undated but reads sometime after Ruby killed Oswald. Little Lynn does furnish to police a different address for Joy Dale (Joyce McDonald), a Fort Worth address, 4204 1/2 W. 10th, Fort Worth, than the pre-assassination Oak Cliff address of Joy Dale (Joyce McDonald) supplied by Ruby. Little Lynn refers in the document to Joy Dale (Joyce McDonald) having received a letter from Ruby the same day Little Lynn gave this interview ("Joy Dale got a letter today, [from Ruby], he said to tell everyone hello for him", p. 3). The police interview says Little Lynn had cooperated with police on previous occasions in giving information, and receiving favorable treatment from police as a result (not being arrested when others were). It looks like this police interview report came about because she (Little Lynn) contacted police to inform them of the contents of the Ruby letter to McDonald. Little Lynn may or may not have had the actual letter to show police, and that letter would be the source of the exact address in Fort Worth for Joy Dale (Joyce McDonald) that Little Lynn was able to provide to the police in this interview. But this does not mean Joy Dale was not living in Oak Cliff at the time of the assassination. As mentioned by Little Lynn in this same interview, another Carousel Club dancer, Tammy True, had moved to Oklahoma after the assassination. The Tammy True move analogy seems to be the best way to interpret the two addresses of Joyce McDonald--a move. Records furnished by Jack Ruby the day after he killed Oswald clearly list Joyce McDonald at the time of the assassination as living at 410 1/2 10th St., the very address in Oak Cliff at which the Tippit cruiser stopped when Tippit was killed. That Joyce McDonald lived in Oak Cliff on Nov 22, 1963--and not Forth Worth--appears confirmed by this article brought to attention by Stu Wexler, https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2009/nov/09/jack-ruby-featured-mural-20091109/. In this article from 2009, Joyce, now 66 years old, spoke of the day of the assassination so long ago. She tells of her then three-year old daughter Cynthia with her that day taking a bus to Parkland Hospital for a medical checkup for Joyce, then taking a bus with her 3-yr-old not back home but to the closed Carousel Club where she met Ruby who was talking about shooting Oswald. She refers to a boyfriend named Tommy with her "at home in Oak Cliff" on Sunday when hearing the news on the radio that Ruby shot Oswald. The address of Joy Dale provided by Little Lynn therefore does not mean the Ruby/Carousel Club record of address for Joy Dale was inaccurate. It simply means Joy Dale (Joyce McDonald) and her daughter were living elsewhere at the time Ruby wrote her from jail. Either Ruby wrote Joyce McDonald at her new Fort Worth address or Ruby's letter was forwarded there. A City Directory lack of listing anyone living at 410 E. 10th in Oak Cliff that year would seem to be compatible with, rather than in contradiction to, Ruby's information that Joyce lived there, if it was not of long duration. Also, the "1/2" of the Joyce McDonald address of 410 1/2 10th suggests part of a house, an apartment, or separate structure on the same lot rather than occupancy of the full house. Ruby's address for Joyce McDonald provided to the FBI is a straightforward documentary record that Joyce McDonald, Joy Dale, who referred to fellow Carousel employee Larry Crafard as a friend in a television interview on Nov 24, lived at the house where Tippit stopped his cruiser. It has always been a puzzle why Tippit stopped his cruiser where he did. It has been conjectured that the killer flagged Tippit's attention, or that Tippit recognized him, but it is unclear. Witnesses said the killer first talked to Tippit through the car window on the passenger side, then Tippit got out, then the killer shot and killed him. All in front of the home address of a Carousel Club dancer closely associated with both Ruby and Crafard. This is simply shocking. To show how little known this is: Dale Myers' exhaustive book on the Tippit slaying, With Malice, makes no mention of this. Neither does Joseph McBride's Into the Nightmare. Tippit did not stop and meet his killer in front of the home address of a friend of Oswald. Tippit met his killer in front of the home address of a close associate of Ruby and Crafard. Following the killing of Tippit at the address of a close associate of Ruby and Crafard, that killer, with fully reloaded gun ready to kill again, went directly to the Texas Theatre and entered that theatre, where Lee Harvey Oswald was. Lee Harvey Oswald was in that theatre. The very man Ruby was dead set on seeing killed before trial. Only the quick arrival of the police and arrest of Oswald saved Oswald from being killed in that theatre at that time.
×
×
  • Create New...