Greg Doudna

On 5/4/2023 at 4:00 PM, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Indeed, when they could not match the bullets fired from the the alleged assassination in 1978 against those fired in 1964, they came up with a lame excuse that the rust and hundred or so firings of the rifle in 1964 changed its toolmarks. There have been studies that have shown firing thousands of rounds have not changed the toolmarks. We had Cliff Spiegelman testify on this issue in the 2017 mock trial. I also asked raised this issue at a recent CSAFE conference and got the same answer.           

Larry — on this particular point could you comment further, not on establishing the implausibility of tool markings changing as an explanation, but as to solution or suggested solution of what actually is or could be the true explanation on that. Two sets of test bullets from the same firearm and they don’t match??

1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Greg- firearms examination is highly subjective. no minimum number of matches required with no regard to the width and depth of the toolmarks. Inconclusives are discounted in many tests which dramatically distorts the accuracy rate. The studies performed by ASFE were not properly designed from a statistical standpoint amd simply intended to  their profession. garbage to support junk science. Iregularly attend programs by CSAFE and the Center for Integrity for Forensic Science. they have lots of good material on its website. 

Given the subjectivity, it is quite likely that the FBI gave the WC the testimony it needed to match the bullets to Oswald's weapons since there was not going to be a trial. And the HSCA committee was comprised of experts who worked for labs that had government funding. no way any lab employee was going to disagree with the prior conclusions.

Indeed, when they could not match the bullets fired from the the alleged assassination in 1978 against those fired in 1964, they came up with a lame excuse that the rust and hundred or so firings of the rifle in 1964 changed its toolmarks. There have been studies that have shown firing thousands of rounds have not changed the toolmarks. We had Cliff Spiegelman testify on this issue in the 2017 mock trial. I also asked raised this issue at a recent CSAFE conference and got the same answer.           

I’m having a little difficulty thinking that someone like Cunningham would perjure himself, cook scientific reporting falsely—a very serious, career-wrecking thing if ever found out, let alone criminal jeopardy—just because asked. All the HSCA firearms panel willing to not be honest with their testimony and findings? Just because fearful of losing funding or herdthink? I’m having plausibility issues with this line of thinking. 

8 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Must be nice not to be concerned with things like facts when forming opinions...  seems to be the way it works today but I simply need more than "because I say so" before I form an opinion.

If the HIDELL ID did not come from there and instead from the arrest wallet Bentley pulled out in the car...  where is that wallet in evidence?

edit: and again, why are the contents of the wallets different for CLEMENTS and BOOKOUT 2 days apart with the addition of HIDELL's Cert of Service into the wallet contents?

And why is this photo, found in his wallet in Irving, not part of the inventory of the wallet contents?

The three photos listed below are of a baby, Marina and Oswald in his uniform.   Y'know, just wondering

I was only commenting on the tippit scene wallet story. 

53 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Ok... so Oswald did not kill Tippit; on this we agree.  Which in turn creates a domino effect related to the evidence of his doing it with the pistol they claimed was his.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/JosephsPistol.pdf. This explains my pov better than anything I can write here.

And speaking of Tippit... what is your explanation for the disappearing wallet and ID attributed to a wallet found in Irving that day?

From where Brewer's store was, seeing anyone do anything at the theater would be extremely difficult...  and of course there is the Tommy Rowe and IBM dudes aspect to that story.  

Help me understand what you mean though.  A number of DPD reports call out an arrest of someone in the balcony... do you suppose that was the man taken out the back in front of Haire, yet disappears?

Oswald not arrested in the balcony, reports saying that just wrong, the place crawling with people and witnesses and nobody witnessed an arrest in the balcony, therefore didn’t happen. All witnesses, no exceptions, saw Oswald arrested on the ground floor. Haire probably saw witness Applin being taken downtown. Tommy Rowe never happened his claims were bs and not credible. The wallet in the film footage with tippit’s pistol in an officers hand was probably Callaway’s wallet. The story it was an Oswald wallet was not even first voiced until years later by Barrett and just isn’t reliable to have confidence in. I know a lot of people are attached to an Oswald wallet at the tippit scene but I regard it as just CT urban legend (of which there are too many). 

1 minute ago, David Josephs said:

Where do you get the idea that whoever actually killed Tippit went to the theater?

Oswald went to the theater and by looking at his activities there it was obvious he was looking to meet someone.  Why else does he have the ripped dollar bills which disappear from the case as soon as they are found?

Why is Ruby at the theater? You were aware of that, yes?

Who do they arrest in the balcony?

As to stealing a vehicle from out the back door, there was a pickup truck in the alley behind the theater when the DPD gets there that they checked and thought was strange... and then of course we have Bernard Haire who sees "Oswald" taken out the back into the alley and driven away.

Help us understand please

I think the man who went past brewers store and into the theatre when Julia Postal was distracted, up into the balcony, was the killer of tippit, not Oswald. I think Oswald was already a paid ticket patron seated on the main floor area, already there (to meet someone, perhaps Carl Mather). I think Applin was mistaken in thinking ruby was there, probably some heavyset unrecognized law enforcement person or fbi man or something seated in the back watching.

1 minute ago, David Josephs said:

So ducking into the theater was already planned out at the Tippit scene?  Interesting.

The man can go in virtually any direction and instead confines himself in a closed space with little opportunity for escape.

Please tell us more

If you buy the idea of Oswald as a patsy then it is believable there would be an attempt to kill him the day of the assassination. Here is Oswald in the theatre and an armed and reloaded killer of tippit goes into the balcony of the very theater Oswald is. Why do that? To kill Oswald, then to escape maybe steal a vehicle out the back door if someone happened to leave a key and an engine running and was gone from the vehicle (as was the case). 

1 hour ago, Norman T. Field said:

The question is: why would a man with a revolver eject shell casings at a crime scene? 

If the revolver itself is soon tossed not to be found on person or property or association with the shooter, who cares if the shell hulls are found and matched to the firearm. As for why eject hulls immediately (not waiting), I suppose it was to be able to reload immediately, so as to be able to kill again at the theater. Do you have a better explanation?

1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Greg- are you aware of the new science on ballistics/toolmarks. no better than 50% (flip a coin) in many cases. some courts are now declining to allow ballistics testimony into evidence or no longer allowing blanket "match" testimony. Experts are now expected to provide a statistically certainty. if you'd like more info, let me know.  

Larry—yes I would. To be clear, are you suggesting it is possible or believable that both the fbi lab and the hsca firearms panel independently, could each separately match hulls to Oswald’s revolver that had not been fired from that revolver? I.e without substituted hulls — two identical mistaken false positives from the top firearms authorities in America to the same wrong firearm?

I am not finding any 50% error data where inconclusive findings are not included. Also from the little i see errors are not randomly distributed I.e. there are better and worse experts. I just assume the fbi lab and hsca firearms panel would be upper percentile accuracy assuming fraud is not a factor which the replication confirms is ruled out. But please speak and I’m listening, thanks Larry. 

New article I have put up, "Were the Tippit crime scene shell hulls fired from the revolver of Lee Harvey Oswald?": https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1541. 

6 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

My goodness.

New Orleans was "owned" by organized crime from way back.

Looking over the obituary list of mobsters there in the link Greg Doudna posted above...it's like they operated there with absolutely no interference from anyone!

Until Robert Kennedy became Attorney General of the United States.

That struck me too Joe.

If only there had been, I don't know, maybe a hard-hitting local district attorney or something, to dig into whether all that New Orleans mob activity, Ruby's contacts and so on, were involved in the JFK assassination.

I see RFK, Jr., has told of his father's first question was whether the CIA or the anti-Castro activity had killed his brother but apparently received "no" answers to his inquiries from sources he trusted such that it somewhat allayed his suspicion on that, then suspected the Mob got JFK because of what he, RFK, had done to the Mob (https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/rfk-jr-on-jfk-my-fathers-first-instinct?r=3uy6f&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email).

And there are the reports of actual confessions from Marcello and a few others. This 2017 speech transcript of Moldea makes the mob case for the JFK assassination pretty well: https://www.moldea.com/MobMuseum10242017.pdf. And I want to reread Seth Kantor's book again. 

I see the Estes story, and the Jarnagin story, as possible glimpses and echoes of mob activity in the runup to the JFK assassination, that have not been appreciated or considered. 

14 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Well, we are worlds apart on the likelihood CE573 is the "steel-jacketed" slug that two DPD detectives ID'ed in a same-day report they authored and signed on April 10. 

The term "steel jacketed" is not a generic term for all jacketed bullets. Why do posit that? Anything in the literature cause you to believe that? 

The term "full metal jacket" is somewhat generic, but even that almost always refers to copper-jacketed bullets. 

And what had Chief Curry opining on Nov. 29 that JFK had been shot with a "steel-jacketed" slug was again a police official just mushing up the nomenclature.

Curry was trying to confirm with the FBI that "steel jacketed" bullets were used in the JFKA. Curry used that specific term: "steel jacketed." 

No one ever ID'ed CE399 as "steel jacketed." Not once. Never. Suddenly the generic terms and the sloppy language disappears. 

You realize that Lt. Day told the FBI and then also the WC he put his name "DAY" and a cross on the true Walker slug---but that word "Day" is not on CE573?

And that CE573 is the very textbook photo of a copper-jacketed slug? There is no mistaking it. 

You have said you are not a firearms expert, or an ammo guy. Well, neither was I, when I first started writing about the Walker episode a few years back. But the more i research ammo...the more things did not line up. Tom Gram has done excellent research on the very dubious provenance of CE573. 

In the last few years I have learned people knowledgable about firearms and bullets draw distinctions between steel and copper, and that copper-jackets are by far the most common type in the US.

Steel has generally been eschewed in US markets, and certainly was in 1963. 

Indeed the US military produced steel-jacketed 30.06 bullets during WWII---but only under duress, due to wartime shortages. 

BTW, that is what DPD Detective Ira Van Cleave said he found in the Walker home--a steel-jacketed 30.06. The kind the US military sold as surplus after 1955.

So there was such a bullet on the market in the early 1960s. 

You make a case and it is good to cross-examine these things. The issue seems to come down to whether the original officers could be mistaken in labeling, whether that is unrealistic. I agree that it is either a mistake or a substitution, not a generic term in which a police officer would knowingly call a copper-jacketed bullet steel-jacketed (I corrected wording in my above on that), in keeping with your point about C399 never being called steel-jacketed.

There is this discussion where there is some argument for the mistake idea being plausible: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/3jyJCWhHZJI . 

I just see these other cases of mistaken early police/first-responder descriptions having long afterlifes even after corrections are made. But I agree each case is case by case. From my point of view, I think Oswald took the shot (part of a staged shot as part of Walker's circle), and I don't see any real reason to doubt Marina's basic story of Oswald taking the rifle etc. retelling what he told her. The only positive argument for there being a substitution seems to come down to police would not make that mistake originally, and motive. Neither of those strike me as particularly persuasive or convincing, but I admit this is subjective. On Day saying he wrote "DAY" instead of "D", seems a simple error to make in memory? 

And on identifications of the other characters James Estes describes, uncertain, I welcome better suggestions if any, but I propose:

(1) For "Nick" the mob-type from Louisiana, who James Estes says he saw with the briefcase of $100 bills to Connally in Ruby's office ca. early August 1963 ... maybe Nick Karno, New Orleans, "the owner of the Court of Two Sisters ... close associate of Carlos Marcello" (https://twitter.com/FilesJFK/status/1649070480303816713/photo/1 ).

Connected to Ruby with one degree of separation:

A gambler and strip club operator, [Frank Caracci] was also a capo in the NOLA family under Marcello. Owner of The 500 Club, and French Opera House, on Bourbon Street, as well as a popular late night bar in The Quarter called The Dungeon. Closely associated with NOLA mobster Nick Karno, who operated the Famous Door club, also on Bourbon St. Shortly before the assassination of JFK, Jack Ruby met with Caracci on the pretext of using one of his dancers in his Dallas Carousel Club. (https://www.nationalcrimesyndicate.com/where-new-orleans-buries-its-dead-mobsters/ )

Estes' description of "Nick": white male, dark complexion, early 30s or 40s, 6'2", 200-plus pounds weight, big frame. Real black hair cut short. Mustache. Had an accent like New Orleans or Boston. Drove a late-model maroon Cadillac, 1962 or 1963, Louisiana license plates. Ruby called him "Nick". Had a ring on his right hand with diamonds, also a watch on his right arm.

Here is a photo of Nick Karno. Looks like a big guy, has a mustache. https://www.nationalcrimesyndicate.com/where-new-orleans-buries-its-dead-mobsters-nola-cemeteries/

Here is his grave: 1909-1994 https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/149495851/nick-s-karno. 

However, there probably were any number of big guys named Nick who wore flashy jewelry and clothes and were shady from Louisiana... anyway that's a guess.

(2) On "Chuck", who seems to have managed the Carousel Club under Ruby and who hired and paid Estes--this was a tough one as I could find no "Chuck" or Charles of that description in the Carousel Club--who could that be?

My only guess is maybe Charles Isaacs of Dallas, the mysterious figure who featured in the Winnipeg Airport incident story. According to the witness who heard the conversation, Charles Isaacs was mentioned in the context of the JFK assassination. His wife did costume designing for some of Ruby's dancers. Charles Isaacs' name was in Ruby's notebook/phone book, the one the WC took Craford through item by item.

Peter Whitmey did the most research on Charles Isaacs, who never did receive much investigation. Whitmey suspected Isaacs could be more involved with Ruby than he was willing to admit. The major objection to Estes' "Chuck" being Charles Isaacs is Isaacs was working at American Airlines at Love Field, and nothing else corroborates him working in the Carousel Club in 1963. The positive argument for it being him is I think "Chuck" was somebody real because I think Estes was there and this was a real memory of Estes despite all of the drawbacks of being years later and imperfect, and there is no other Chuck or Charles connected to Ruby, especially as de facto manager of the Club ca. mid-1963, that I can find who it could be. Here is one of Whitmey's last articles on Charles Isaacs: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/winnipeg.htm.

Estes gave a physical description of "Chuck", but unfortunately I cannot find any photo or physical description of Charles Isaacs to compare. If anyone can think of a better candidate for the identity of Estes' "Chuck" figure I would like to know. 

20 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I think you could be onto something. In my own research on Oswald's shirt, I found that the fibers found on the rifle were from a shirt Oswald swore he wasn't wearing at the time of the shooting. I was able to get the Archives to send me some color photos of the shirt I thought he'd been wearing, and it matched his description for the shirt he'd been wearing. But it didn't have a hole in the elbow, when Bledsoe said she saw a hole in the elbow in the shirt he was wearing after the shooting. And, huh, the shirt Oswald said he put on after he got to his rooming house has a hole in the elbow in the FBI photos. Well, I was perfectly content to accept he'd been wearing this shirt--and had lied about the other shirt--but decided to put it to a final test. I searched out every photo of Oswald wearing the shirt now bearing a hole in the elbow and found that none of the photos taken of him at the police station on 11-22 reveal such a hole. I then read up on clothing tears in some forensic books and publications and from this it became quite clear to me that the hole in the shirt the WC claimed Oswald was wearing on the 22nd--the one whose fibers were mysteriously wrapped around the butt plate of the rifle--were man-made after Oswald's arrest (almost certainly to effect an ID from Bledsoe). 

So, yes, I do think the FBI cooked some of the evidence against Oswald, and wouldn't be surprised if they'd pulled a switcheroo on the Walker bullet as well. 

With steel-jacketed as a generic term and the tendency to follow a written record once its started, and police fallability, I don't see any major reason to assume substitution of the Walker bullet. Dallas police just have a track record of similar inexactnesses elsewhere. For examples: Item: Gus Rose and another officer cosigned a written report saying the window through which the bullet was fired into Walker's home had no blind, but film footage of reporters the next day shows the window did have a blind. Item: C162, the Tippit killer's jacket, is written up as "gray" on a DPD crime lab document and that is how it is labeled by the WC and to this very day including in Myers book, when C162 never was gray, it is a light-tan off-white. Myers' own published color photo underlying the Warren Commission's photo of C162 in his own book shows it is light tan, below which Myers has it captioned "gray". Most of the Tippit crime scene witnesses called the Tippit killer's jacket light tan. I have a paper on this coming up shortly. C162 never was gray, although occasionally mistakenly described as white or light gray but those never were quite right. But somebody wrote on a police document that C162 was "gray", and everyone followed...

Item: Dallas police officers and deputy sheriffs mistakenly identified the Carcano shown in film footage on the 6th floor as a Mauser. Item: a deputy sheriff said many metal boxes all filled with names of Cuban sympathizers were found at Ruth Paine's house when those metal boxes were inventoried from the beginning and filled with other things.

In each of these cases whole industries of decades of CT writings were built up around assuming no original police officer would make such an egregious mistake because, well, they are the police! And assuming various forms of gigantic coverups, tip-of-the-iceberg theories, imaginative theories, etc. based on an attachment to the original officer error being taken literally. 

I think this Walker bullet substitution idea fits well into the pattern above, of overthinking what is best understood as an original generic term like referring to a "xerox" copy done by a different make of machine. 

But speaking of your work on the "threads of evidence", on the shirts worn by Oswald and the argument for planted threads from a shirt Oswald was not even wearing that morning planted on the rifle ... that chapter is brilliant (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence). And I will add to it: I can explain where Mary Bledsoe got the hole in the elbow of Oswald's shirt (which preceded her being shown the brown shirt with the torn hole in it as you explain). She did not get it from either of Oswald's shirts, the maroon one that Oswald actually wore the morning of Nov 22 (as you rightly show) or the brown shirt of the afternoon arrest. 

Mary Bledsoe was describing seeing Oswald's gray jacket, the same gray jacket Buell Wesley Frazier described Oswald wearing that morning which Frazier said was sort of "woolen" and was not C162. Oswald was wearing it tucked in as if it was shirt-like when he got on that bus, and it was dirty and torn at the right elbow and there were no buttons (it was a zippered jacket without buttons)--everything Mary Bledsoe described! That is what she really saw. And I have found the hole in the right elbow in Oswald's gray "flannel, sort of woolen" jacket (as Frazier described Oswald's gray jacket), a picture of it!

On 4/22/2023 at 4:57 PM, Steve Thomas said:

Pat,

There very well may be evidence of dusting, it's just I've never seen it.

Heck, I could live with a Report that said, "We dusted the shells for fingerprints and didn't find anything useful",  but I can't find any evidence that the DPD ever tested them at all.

And the WC seemed to go out its way not to ask Barnes about it.

I find that very, very weird.

Steve Thomas

Dallas Police Lieut. J. C. Day reported that the shell hulls found at the sixth floor of the TSBD were checked for prints on the spot, right there on the sixth floor after finding them.

"Photographs were taken of the three hulls as found. They were checked for prints, marked for identification and released to Detective R. M. Sims 629 of the Homicide Bureau. The hulls were 6.5 caliber and no legible prints were found." (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=232978#relPageId=221)

In the case of the Tippit crime scene, if there is no record that there was checking for prints on the shell hulls found there, and no disclosure that no prints were found, would that suggest that the hulls may have been checked for prints and something was found?

Because if not, why not report it just as with the case of the hulls on the 6th floor TSBD?

Three possibilities:

(1) Report of "we checked ... nothing" would be what would be expected if there was nothing. (as per the TSBD hulls).

(2) Report of "we checked ... something but too smeared to be usable" would be what would be expected if something was found but unusable. (as per the claim with the patrol car fingerprints lifted from two locations on the car where the gunman was witnessed, a claim which turned out to be not entirely true when an experienced examiner took a few minutes three decades later to recheck and disclosed the previously unreported information that Oswald was easily excluded as the single individual who left the prints at the two locations.) 

(3) <nothing said> could be what would be done if there had been checking for prints and something was amiss.

Here is a question (Pat S. do you know the answer to this?): if dusting was how the checking was done, and if the crime scene hulls had been checked (dusted), would the FBI lab be able to detect that had occurred when the FBI lab was sent four hulls identified by DPD as the four picked up from the crime scene, for examination? 

Because there is a question whether the hulls the FBI lab was sent were the same ones picked up from the crime scene.  

Seth Kantor was a mainstream journalist who pursued the JFK assassination. From the Spartacus Educational site:

"After the Kennedy assassination, Kantor worked for the Scripps-Howard newspaper group in Washington. Later he worked as a reporter for the Atlanta Constitution and the Detroit News. In 1974 Kantor won the prestigious Sigma Delta Chi Professional Journalism Society Medallion.

"In his book Who Was Jack Ruby? (1978), Kantor examines the reasons why the Warren Commission seemed to be unwilling to carry out "an in-depth probe of Ruby's past". Kantor also provides information that suggests that Ruby was "allowed" into the Dallas Police Station so that he could kill Lee Harvey Oswald. This was reissued as The Ruby Cover-Up (1992).

"Seth Kantor died of a heart attack in Washington on 17th August, 1993." (https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKkantorS.htm)

 Identity of James Odell Estes' "Lee": Curtis Craford?

Estes thought in retrospect one of the characters he described during the time he was employed at the Carousel Club in the summer of 1963 was Lee Harvey Oswald, which of course was not correct. But I believed Estes was saying what he believed was true and was not wilfully lying in his end-of-life unburdening of his story to the FBI without seeking fame or money.

That Estes was mistaken in the identity of the man he remembered as "Lee" does not mean "Lee" did not exist. Since Estes' "Lee" was not Oswald, who was he? A question of identification. 

In studying this, I began to consider that "Lee" was Curtis Craford. The primary reason for that identification is the descriptions are similar and "Lee" told by Estes during the summer of 1963 sounds so much like the character overheard by attorney Carroll Jarnagin on Fri Oct 4 talking to Ruby in the next table at the Carousel Club discussing the carrying out of a mob hit on Texas Governor John Connally. 

After the assassination Jarnagin tried to remember and write down all he could remember of that evening weeks earlier, perhaps fogged in memory from having consumed alcohol at the time, and wrote J. Edgar Hoover about it. But since Jarnagin identified the man he had overheard as Oswald and hopelessly mixed up Oswald in his story--and failed a polygraph--and since it could not be Oswald (whose whereabouts on Fri night Oct 4 in Irving with his wife Marina and their child at Ruth Paine's house is established)—Jarnagin's story was dismissed. But if the "Oswald details" are subtracted from Jarnagin's story and the "non-Oswald" details examined, they sound like the same character "Lee" of Estes, and both sound close enough to Craford to suggest they both were Craford.  

On the connection between Estes' "Lee" and Jarnagin's "H.L. Lee" (as Jarnagin remembered hearing the name): they both came in to the Carousel Club alone; both were beer drinkers; were of similar physical description; both were mistakenly identified by the respective Estes and Jarnagin with Oswald after seeing Oswald on TV (and Craford was a known subject of mistaken Oswald identifications).

And finally, Jarnagin says he heard Ruby greet his "H.L. Lee" by expressing recognition, Ruby saying he had not seen him around for a couple of weeks, asking where he had been. That is an allusion to prior acquaintanceship, consistent with Estes' "Lee" being this same person, in both cases perhaps Craford. 

Estes meets "Lee"

From his account Estes started work full-time at the Carousel Club doing cleanup, paid in cash, about the last week of June 1963. Estes says it was in the first or second week of July that the person he remembers as "Lee" came into the Carousel Club.

I have to interject here that what follows conflicts with Craford's account of his whereabouts in the summer of 1963 in his Warren Commission testimony. But that same Warren Commission testimony of Craford has Craford giving a timeline of his job history and whereabouts in 1961 that included no presence in California whatever in 1961, until Warren Commission staff counsels (who apparently had done a little private detective background research on Craford prior to his testimony) asked Craford about months of employment involving a series of jobs in California in 1961. Without missing a beat Craford smoothly agreed he had those jobs in those months in California in 1961 and described them, after he had just got through telling an entire timeline for 1961 with no gaps and no presence in California.

If Craford had not been called on it, his original version of his 1961 timeline as told under oath to the Warren Commission, would have skipped his time and presence and employment in California entirely.

That was the period Craford later told Peter Whitmey that he became involved with a mobster in the Bay area and worked as a hitman. (Craford left out that aspect of his employment history in California in his WC testimony.)

The reason I mention this is I see 1961 and California as a possible parallel to Craford's timeline for the summer of 1963 to the WC which might similarly leave out some things including presences in Dallas and the nature and length of his relationship with Ruby and the Carousel Club before the fall of 1963. 

The name "Lee"

We have seen that Estes misremembers names, such as the Carousel Club waitress with whom he lived and who may have saved his life, true name Bonnie Louise Kellough, remembered by Estes as "Barbara Jean Kelly".

Estes tells of his first meeting with the man he remembers as named "Lee", wk #1 or #2 of July, in which a man came in to the Carousel Club one day by himself when Estes was working and serving, and ordered a beer.

About a week later, this would be wk #2 or #3 of July, the man came in a second time and this time went to Ruby's office and was there for about an hour. Unknown to Estes what that was about.

About a week after that, this would be wk #3 or #4 of July, the man came in again, alone as before and ordered a beer, and this time invited Estes to sit down and get acquainted. They exchanged nicknames. Estes told the man he went by "Whitey" (nickname). Estes--writing years later from memory--says the man gave his comparable nickname as "Lee" which I think may have been "Larry" misremembered by Estes as "Lee" comparable to Estes misremembering Bonnie Kellough as "Barbara" Kelly.

As in all of his characters, Estes gives a physical description: he said "Lee" was 5'9" or 5'10", 165-170 lbs, medium build (not skinny), brown hair cut short "and it was sort of curly". He “walked real straight" (military background?), in his 30s.

"Lee" told Estes he liked to bowl and he liked to fish.

About a week later, which would be about wk #4 of July or wk #1 of August, "Lee" came in again and went to Ruby's office, where also were Ruby and Estes' boss "Chuck". This time "Lee" was carrying a black briefcase. Chuck gave Estes the keys to a white Cadillac and had Estes drive "Lee" to the airport. On the way "Lee" told Estes he was taking care of an "errand" for Ruby and hoped to make enough money on the deal to be able to go live in Switzerland. The nature of the "errand" or "deal" was unknown to Estes.

A Marcello payoff to Connally?

About 5 days or so later Estes saw "Lee" again with a man named "Nick" (well-dressed mobster type driving a maroon Cadillac with Louisiana plates). "Lee" and Nick went to Ruby's office. A two hour meeting, after which Estes says the bartender named "Mike" literally broke all the glasswear used in that meeting--the wine bottles and the glasses used--and disposed of it. (To avoid risk of fingerprints? Estes does not say.)

The next day, mid-PM, Estes said he saw Lee, Nick, and Chuck come in the back door of the Carousel Club and go to Ruby's office. 15 minutes later Chuck went down and met two men coming in the back door. One, says Estes, was Governor Connally. Connally the governor of Texas. 

The second man with Connally, according to Estes, was a man Estes had seen in the Club "a number of times" and Estes gives a physical description but the detail of interest is according to Estes this may have been a Dallas police officer (perhaps accompanying Connally for security on this visit? or maybe he was a contact for an introduction?).

Estes, while serving beverages in Ruby's office to these men, saw a black briefcase open, filled with money, $100 bills, the same type of briefcase that he earlier had seen "Lee" carry with him to the airport.

The men stayed about 45 minutes or an hour after Estes served their drinks and cigarettes and left the room.

Chuck (Estes's boss) then took Connally and the man with him out the back door the way they had come in. "Lee" took a cab away. Estes said this occurred about wk #1 or #2 of August. Estes says he never saw the black briefcase again.

Comment: on its face this looks like a story of a bribe being paid to Connally, with "Nick" the well-dressed mobster type from Louisiana maybe from some mob connection in New Orleans (source of the money?). Was Connally corrupt (that is, is it plausible he would take a briefcase of cash)? I can find nothing on the record concerning Connally of that nature directly, but there is this: John Curington, aide and fixer for H.L. Hunt, whom I know, has told me that Connally was corrupt, and that H.L. Hunt conveyed money to Connally. The way Curington said this was done was Connally was a cattleman, and H.L. Hunt would send Curington to cattle auctions. Hunt's people would give the winning high bid for some prize steer paid to the seller and simply never take delivery. The large amount of money in that way would be conveyed legally with all paperwork in order and aboveboard, except no one would know that delivery was never taken. Curington told me this was done with a cattle auction and Connally. Of course this is all hearsay a half century later. But I'm just reporting what Curington, who was there, now in his 90s, told me happened.  

Had Estes seen too much?

Estes says about a week after that, which would be maybe wk #2 or #3 of August--Estes estimates about the middle of August--"Lee" invited Estes to go fishing on a weekend, at a cabin on Possum Kingdom Lake near Mineral Wells, Texas. "Lee" invited Estes on a Friday and they went on a Sunday. "Lee" picked him up in Irving (at the trailer park where Estes was living with Bonnie Kellough) driving a green 1961 Chevrolet Impala, a car Estes never saw again. "Lee" said the cabin belonged to a friend of his.

According to Estes, "Lee" had with him a 30.30 Winchester rifle, the same as Estes also had which he also brought.

Estes added that every other time he had seen "Lee", "Lee" was carrying "a Smith and Wesson 38 calibre pistol, six shooter ... He carried this on his left side with a waist holster." 

They drank beer at the lake and "Lee" told him of his travels when "Lee" was in the military. (Craford had been in the Army in Germany but claimed to Peter Whitmey he had also been in southeast Asia off the books, for military purposes.) According to Estes, "Lee" said he had been in Japan, Korea, Mexico, all over the U.S., had a friend in Monterrey, Mexico (a parts dealer for used cars), had been in Guam and Hawaii.

Estes said "Lee" talked of trouble with his wife. (That agrees with Craford, who was married but estranged from his wife who lived in Dallas.) 

A week later Estes says "Lee" invited him again to go to the same cabin at the lake. This time they drove Bonnie Kellough's car ("Barbara Kelly" as Estes calls her) which she let Estes drive for that occasion. (Note "Lee" is able to drive but does not own a car, also agrees with Craford.) Estes says "Lee" never told him where he lived or his address. 

This time, Estes says "Lee" was not carrying a rifle but was carrying his .38 pistol. At the return of the trip Estes let "Lee" off at the Carousel Club.

After receiving urgent advice from Bonnie Kellough about the last week of August that he should leave Dallas, without telling Estes why, and Bonnie giving him money to buy a car to be able to do so, Estes says he left Dallas either the 3rd or 4th of September. He says his last day of work at the Carousel Club was Sept. 2. If there had been any foul play planned for Estes, he disappeared and survived, living a life of fear and moving for the remainder of his life, of the people he had become inadvertently mixed up with in the summer of 1963.

On the Estes story of the bribe to Connally set early Aug 1963, compare Jarnagin's story set in early Oct 1963 in which Ruby is now telling "H.L. Lee" that mob contacts of Ruby are now wanting to have Governor Connally killed, because Connally was not cooperating with them (mob) "on paroles". (Note Connally featuring in both stories.)

What is striking is Estes and Jarnagin had no knowledge of each other or the other's story, yet their stories have similarities the way they do. By a further step in analysis an identification may be suggested of the respective figures Estes and Jarnagin described: Craford and Ruby. 

Jeffrey Meek. Although retired now he was managing editor of the Hot Springs Village Voice weekly newspaper in Hot Springs Village, Arkansas, from which platform he interviewed many relevant JFK assassination witnesses and published those interviews and recently a 2021 book, The Manipulation of Lee Harvey Oswald and the Cover-Up That Followed (https://www.amazon.com/Manipulation-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-Cover-Up/dp/B09CTY8YQ6).

I don't know if that qualifies as "mainstream" or not. Across America around the '70s and '80s and 90s, I noticed that the print "weeklies" in cities and towns large and small seemed to reflect a shift in where real investigative reporting and breaking of stories often seemed to happen especially on local levels but sometimes national and niche too such as Jeffrey Meek's long-time work on the JFK assassination.

34 minutes ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

Christopher posted in the following website link.

11 March 2007 -- 11 Seconds in Dallas, Not Six -- By Max Holland and Johann W. Rush.

https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2007/03/11-seconds-in-d.html

 

[i]Christopher

I was an electrician's apprentice charged with changing out the traffic signals in 2004, when Dallas went from 8" light bulb to 12" LED. The one signal I never Ebay'd or sold for scrap is the one from the mast arm over Elm. By most accounts, it looks similar to the ones depicted in the pictures I see; and from what I can tell, it's a roughly 1947 model signal. I'm looking at it right now, and while I don't see any dents that appear bullet-like, I can tell you that [u]the rectangular tin frame around the signal was installed slightly crooked, [/u]which allows more light to come through on the bottom-right corner (closest to the depository). This might explain why some thought there was bullet-damage on the light itself, as opposed to the mast arm. Had I read this a decade ago, I'd have checked that arm for ya ;^).

Posted by: Christopher | 12 September 2013 at 02:25 AM[/i]

Thank you Marjan. Yes it is convincing testimony that there are no "dents that appear bullet-like" on the light signal itself, however Max Holland's proposal appears to be that the bullet hit somewhere on the metal mast, which this witness cannot give information concerning (not that you claimed that, what you claimed you delivered). 

On 4/25/2023 at 12:51 AM, Chris Bristow said:

Sherry Fiester is the only other person I know of that has acknowledged that the limo was crooked in the street at 313. She has said it was 3° crooked but I'm pretty sure it was closer to 6°.

 Usually Zapruder's angle to JFK is represented as being between 89 and 90°. if that were true then the relative positions  of the  forward posts of the side windows would look very different. He would have seen the post on the left side of the car to the left of the post on the right side. Frame 312 is much clearer and shows from Z's position the post on the left side of the car is forward of the post on the right side. The curvature of the windows can throw things off so you have to look at the base of the posts.

 This is empirical proof that the car was turned several degrees relative to Elm St. It makes sense since Greer looked over his shoulder and likely pulled the steering wheel to the right. In earlier images like Altgens 6 the limo is not crooked. I guess people could also theorize that it is due to a cut and paste of the limo  from an earlier frame.

I don't follow your point on Z312. I looked and it is as you say, the post on the left side of the presidential limousine is forward of the post on the right side. But why does that mean the limousine is "crooked" in the street instead of simply slightly forward from Zapruder's vantage point in filming at Z312 as the limousine passes. Naturally when the limousine passes Zapruder the posts are going to look that way. How does Z312 prove the limousine was "crooked"? Thanks.

On 4/24/2023 at 3:56 AM, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

I revealed a new witness (Christopher) who owns the overhead signals (Oswald's shot-1 at Z105 ricocheted offa the support arm guy rod).

Marjan, could you say where I could find your discussion about this witness you say you found? Or if it is not available elsewhere could you say what this is about here? The main point of interest is who is this witness and how does this witness know there was no damage from a bullet and if there are photos to prove it. Thanks--

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

No.

Whaley specifically said "shirt" and even described the shirt.

"This boy was small, 5'8", slender, had on a dark shirt with white spots of something on it.  He had a bracelet on his left wrist.  He looked like he was 25 or 26 years old." -- William Whaley affidavit (11/23/63)

Not a single mention of any jacket.

Whaley telling of it on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UORpPiG9QmI. "Well he just looked like an ordinary working man. He was small, had on gray work clothes, brown shirt and a silver stripe and a work jacket."

Here is a photo taken in Minsk which I think is a photo of Oswald's gray jacket (which was not C162, the Tippit killer's jacket, which was not gray and which appears in no photograph of Oswald whether USSR or US): https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24945209. Oswald wore his gray jacket from Irving to the TSBD the morning of Nov 22, 1963, and it was not found at the TSBD left behind, so I think when he left the TSBD he left with the gray jacket with him, even though he no longer had it when Earlene saw him enter the rooming house.

In the statement you cite, Whaley does not state there was no jacket. His statement written up by police based on what he was telling does not mention it, true, but Whaley later said Oswald was wearing a jacket matching the color of his pants which were gray.  

10 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Again, regardless of whether Benavides heard three, four or even five shots, Benavides saw Tippit fall and the killer backed up onto the sidewalk and headed for the corner.  Benavides has not even a single shot taking place after he saw Tippit fall.

Bill after thinking some more about this today I think you are right. Benavides is a high-quality witness and saw no shot after he saw Tippit fall. So that is one strong witness (Benavides, right there and very close), backed up by a weak witness (Wm Smith, due to distance), and no countervailing witness (I don't consider Frank Wright or Tatum countervailing witnesses). Maybe its not airtight that Benavides could not be mistaken, but the weight favors Benavides' witness being accurate on that point. I am agreeing you are right and that I learned something from you here. 

And so, based on the weight of Benavides' testimony, all the shots were fired over the hood, and the gunman did not fire into Tippit on the ground. 

The shots must have been fired quickly to hit Tippit that many times before he toppled over below line of fire over the hood. 

The shot into the forehead I interpret as an intentional shot to the head by a skilled shooter shooting from the hip. Not Oswald who was not skilled or able to hit a head intentionally, but a skilled practiced shooter who could be that accurate at 10-12 feet shooting from the hip. 

Shooting from the hip was Curtis Craford's job at the Texas State Fair. "'shooting guns' into the air which appeared to be for the purpose of attracting customers to the concession" (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=217).

Also, I have found that Curtis Craford was right-handed based on examining a handwritten letter of Craford to Gale Cascaddan in the Warren Commission exhibits for the one trait I learned which can fairly reliably tell left- from right-handed writing: which direction the crossing of T's is done (known by thicker at the start and thinning to a point at the end of the stroke as the pen lifts off the paper): Craford crosses his T's from left to right as right-handed writers do, and therefore Craford was right-handed.

Here is a possible scenario by which Craford as a right-handed shooter could leave a right handprint on the patrol car's right fender at the position the gunman was firing: shoots five shots over the hood rapidly with gun in right hand including one to the head of Tippit (right temple); wants to look around the front of the car to see Tippit fallen; crouches; transfers gun to left hand; leans on right hand resting on fender for balance as peeks around the right front, sees Tippit prone in the street; gets up and leaves (probably continuing to hold the gun in the left hand while unloading and reloading bullets with the right hand).

On 4/20/2023 at 8:33 AM, Michael Griffith said:

A few follow-up points:

Whaley said nothing about his passenger wearing a jacket in any of his three police statements, nor did he mention a jacket when he described the passenger to the FBI. Yet, at one point in his WC testimony, Whaley said his passenger was wearing two jackets, one over the other. Clearly, something is very wrong with Whaley's WC testimony.

If Oswald did in fact take a cab, this does not automatically mean that he took Whaley's cab. There were plenty of other cabs available. We're talking about the downtown area of a major city. 

An error of 17 minutes on a timesheet strikes me as a bit much, as a bit hard to believe, even making the questionable assumption that Whaley waited several fares before recording his pickup times. Again, his timesheet shows no indication that he used 15-minute increments. I suspect he said this because he was advised to say it or because he was trying to say what he thought the WC wanted to hear. 

Oswald probably resembled 10-15% of the male population of Dallas. His height and weight were in the average range. Nothing about the appearance of his hair stood out. It's entirely possible that Whaley's passenger bore some resemblance to Oswald, and that this general resemblance may have caused Whaley to think that he recognized his passenger when he saw a photo of Oswald in the newspaper. 

I think Whaley actually did refer to a jacket on Oswald in his original FBI interview even though the original FBI interview report refers to a "shirt" not "jacket". The reason is because Whaley then and later consistently spoke of a match in color between the pants and (later) jacket, earlier "shirt" (as reported in his first FBI interview). The color of Oswald's pants is known: gray, without dispute on that fact. A match of color to Oswald's gray pants would be Oswald's gray jacket which Oswald is otherwise attested as having worn to work that morning.

A match of color to gray does not work for the maroon shirt Oswald was then wearing (or the brown shirt Oswald changed into subsequent to that cab at his rooming house). I think the FBI agent erred in writing up the initial report confusing "shirt" with "jacket", not any malevolence, just inaccuracy in the writeup. Yesterday I saw an early FBI interview report of Buell Wesley Frazier which has Frazier referring to his sister, Linnie Mae, living in Grand Prairie, Texas! Obviously Frazier never said that--the FBI agent got that wrong in the writeup.

Same phenomenon with the original FBI reporting that Whaley said Oswald "was dressed in gray khaki pants ... he had on a dark colored shirt ... the color of the shirt [sic!] nearly matched the pants" (FBI Nov 23, 1963).

Compare the parallel from Whaley in his later Warren Commission testimony: "... he had on a brown shirt ... and he had on some kind of jacket ... a work jacket that almost matched his pants".

I doubt if a defense counsel of Oswald would bother going after Whaley on his identification of Oswald, unless it would be for the purpose of showing Dallas Police lineup impropriety. Since it is uncontested that Oswald went to his rooming house, in a sense who cares which cab he took to get there--its not incriminating and it doesn't change he went to the rooming house.

But Whaley's cab passenger as Oswald works: its to the right pickup location and destination to get him to the rooming house, at approximately the right time on Whaley's retroactively roughly-written time sheet (within 17 minutes); Whaley said it was Oswald and remembered details such as an identification bracelet and a lady who was offered the cab but declined (told by Oswald to his interrogators). Even the cheap tip which disgruntled Whaley (only a nickel tip on a 95 cent fare as he recalled) sounds like a match to Oswald too. 

9 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

In other words, Benavides saw Tippit fall; there were no more shots after seeing Tippit fall.

That is Benavides' testimony months after the fact. He said he saw Tippit falling after three shots. Then says he saw the killer go back to the sidewalk. But there were five shots, and this is months later in the telling.

13 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Domingo Benavides saw pretty much everything.  He said after the shots, the killer, from his position across the hood from Tippit, backed up onto the sidewalk and took off for the corner.  Benavides says nothing about the killer going out in front of the patrol car to final a final shot.

What conclusion do you draw from that as to what happened or did not happen? 

13 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Bill Smith said that the gunman ran off after firing the shots; nothing about the gunman going in front of the car to fire off a final shot before taking off.

What conclusion do you draw from that as to what happened or did not happen?