Lee Oswald’s Departure from the TSBD

[Denis Pointing]

I'm going to take a book by NBC as fairly authoritative since they were pretty much in the thick of "media" at the time. Still are, in fact.

If "first mention" of Tippit's shooting indeed came at 1:49, that was three minutes-plus after the announcement over the police radio that "We have information that a suspect just went in the Texas Theater on West Jefferson," which was after Julia Postal called, which was in turn after Johnny Brewer went into the theater after Oswald, which again was after Brewer had seen Oswald and followed him to the theater. So in effect, the argument is that Brewer linked Oswald to an announcement that wouldn't be made for something like five minutes after he left his store.

In fact, since Brewer was inside the theater when Oswald was taken into custody at about 1:52, he never actually heard any announcement about Tippit having just been killed.

Duke, the NBC news report you refer to was the first TELEVISION report not the first RADIO report. The first radio report of a policeman (no mention of Tippits name yet) being shot in Oak Cliff was on radio KLIF at 1.33.

More info on the NBC report:

.... but the news of Tippit’s death does not appear in the police radio transcript until 1:32. The dispatcher was relaying an NBC News Radio report that Tippit was dead on arrival at the Methodist Hospital. This was not an official announcement. More time elapsed before someone from the hospital staff confirmed that Tippit was dead via a telephone call to the police department. The dispatcher did not pass along this announcement because at that time there was heavy radio traffic concerning the pursuit of a fugitive into the Texas Theater. Probably the news arrived at the sheriff’s office via telephone at 1:40.

..............................

And before you bring it up Duke, I realize the top paragraph states 1.33 whilst the second states 1.32. Even with this discrepancy I think we can say with some certainty that the first announcement of Tippits slaying was emphatically NOT 1.49.

[Denis Pointing]

Hi Duke,

Do you believe Oswald played any part in the events of that day?

Thanks - Steve

The most interesting question on this thread yet Steve, I like the way you come straight to the point. But will "THE DUKE" give as straight a reply?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Hi Duke,

Do you believe Oswald played any part in the events of that day?

Thanks - Steve

The most interesting question on this thread yet Steve, I like the way you come straight to the point. But will "THE DUKE" give as straight a reply?

Mr. Pointing, if you had bothered to read Duke's posts on this very thread wherein he discussed his views/suspicions re Oswald's role you would not be making this kind of snide insinuation. Duke has long ago earned a reputation as a straight shooter. He is not a BELIEVER, like you, he is an INQUIRER, and true inquirers cannot state their BELIEFS until the inquiry is complete.

BTW, good job on finding the radio report on the Tippit murder. Can you post a link?

Edited October 26, 2008 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Steve Mcdonagh]

Hi Guys,

I want to say that this thread is very interesting and not only that, but I think it could possibly lead somewhere. The work Duke, Ray, Dennis, Antti and others have researched and contributed has been a wealth of information for me and I sincerely appreciate it.

I am very direct, but at the same time you can rest assured I hardly ever have hidden motives – I just like to cut to the chase so I can assess the information. I hope that is ok with everyone.

Thanks - Steve

PS: Yes, good job on the report Dennis.

Hi Duke,

Do you believe Oswald played any part in the events of that day?

Thanks - Steve

The most interesting question on this thread yet Steve, I like the way you come straight to the point. But will "THE DUKE" give as straight a reply?

Mr. Pointing, if you had bothered to read Duke's posts on this very thread wherein he discussed his views/suspicions re Oswald's role you would not be making this kind of snide insinuation. Duke has long ago earned a reputation as a straight shooter. He is not a BELIEVER, like you, he is an INQUIRER, and true inquirers cannot state their BELIEFS until the inquiry is complete.

BTW, good job on finding the radio report on the Tippit murder. Can you post a link?

[Denis Pointing]

Hi Duke,

Do you believe Oswald played any part in the events of that day?

Thanks - Steve

The most interesting question on this thread yet Steve, I like the way you come straight to the point. But will "THE DUKE" give as straight a reply?

Mr. Pointing, if you had bothered to read Duke's posts on this very thread wherein he discussed his views/suspicions re Oswald's role you would not be making this kind of snide insinuation. Duke has long ago earned a reputation as a straight shooter. He is not a BELIEVER, like you, he is an INQUIRER, and true inquirers cannot state their BELIEFS until the inquiry is complete.

BTW, good job on finding the radio report on the Tippit murder. Can you post a link?

Ray, no "snide insinuation" was intended, a simple request for a straight answer, no more, no less. Just for the record I have nothing but respect for Duke's work and no less respect for him as a person. But that does not mean that I have to accept all he states without question. And I'm certain Duke wouldn't want nor expect me to. To be honest I find Duke's style of writing rather confusing at times, a fault of mine rather than his I'm sure, at times Duke an I dont seem to be too far off the same page an yet at other times we seem to be in total disagreement. Hence my request for a "straight answer" I would genuinely like to know where Duke is "coming from".

When I can find the link Ray I will indeed post it, that's a promise. One final thing Ray, may I ask why you always seem so very hostile? I am here for debate and if that debate becomes a little hot at times so be it, we're all grown men. But just because my opinion differs from yours that does not mean I am some kind of enemy. With respect. DENIS.

Edited October 27, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[David G. Healy]

Hi Duke,

Do you believe Oswald played any part in the events of that day?

Thanks - Steve

The most interesting question on this thread yet Steve, I like the way you come straight to the point. But will "THE DUKE" give as straight a reply?

Mr. Pointing, if you had bothered to read Duke's posts on this very thread wherein he discussed his views/suspicions re Oswald's role you would not be making this kind of snide insinuation. Duke has long ago earned a reputation as a straight shooter. He is not a BELIEVER, like you, he is an INQUIRER, and true inquirers cannot state their BELIEFS until the inquiry is complete.

BTW, good job on finding the radio report on the Tippit murder. Can you post a link?

Ray, no "snide insinuation" was intended, a simple request for a straight answer, no more, no less. Just for the record I have nothing but respect for Duke's work and no less respect for him as a person. But that does not mean that I have to accept all he states without question. And I'm certain Duke wouldn't want nor expect me to. To be honest I find Duke's style of writing rather confusing at times, a fault of mine rather than his I'm sure, at times Duke an I dont seem to be too far off the same page an yet at other times we seem to be in total disagreement. Hence my request for a "straight answer" I would genuinely like to know where Duke is "coming from".

When I can find the link Ray I will indeed post it, that's a promise. One final thing Ray, may I ask why you always seem so very hostile? I am here for debate and if that debate becomes a little hot at times so be it, we're all grown men. But just because my opinion differs from yours that does not mean I am some kind of enemy. With respect. DENIS.

Some wonder why you spend an inordinate amount of time making excuses as to why you almost agree with those you disagree with all the time.... if you can't figure out where Duke is coming from perhaps you should consult a seer. Your hostile card was thrown into this ring long before this thread Pointing, I for one don't believe a damn thing you opine... Carry on!

[J. Raymond Carroll]

To be honest I find Duke's style of writing rather confusing at times, a fault of mine rather than his I'm sure,

One final thing Ray, may I ask why you always seem so very hostile?

If your interpretation of my writings is on a par with your interpretation of Duke's writings, then it is hardly any wonder you are under the false impression that I am "always....so very hostile."

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Thanks to Gary Mack for this email, added emphasis mine:

As for the first radio bulletin, which is what Brewer heard, that’s harder to document since not all stations recorded everything. What is known is that at least six Dallas-Fort Worth area radio stations had news departments in which there were reporters who gathered news in addition to the news readers. WFAA is known to have monitored the police radio and they were on the air with the assassination announcement within a minute or so of Chief Curry’s broadcast that Kennedy had been hit. I strongly suspect WFAA radio broadcast the cop shooting within a very few minutes of the 1:18 call from Bowley. Gary

I think it is entirely plausible that WFAA, at least, had the Tippit story by 1.30, if not before, and so I think that, whatever about the rest of his testimony, Brewer's story about listening to the radio is certainly believable.

Edited October 27, 2008 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Duke Lane]

... The police battalion arrived en masse with little provocation or good cause. It all smells of a set up.

Right from the beginning, starting even before Tippit was shot, which was itself a double setup, and nothing short of a diversion.

As to the "police batallion," does anyone have any idea how many police patrol units responded first to Dealey Plaza and thereafter, being largely unoccupied due to the tremendous number of them, in turn responded to the Signal 19 in Oak Cliff? Has anyone considered why, when police were responding from all over town (with only a small handful being told to remain on duty in their regularly-assigned areas), why only Oak Cliff was singled out for someone to move into that area from another to "remain at large for any emergency that comes in?" There is much more that could be said, but those are good starting points, don't you think?

[Duke Lane]

Duke, the NBC news report you refer to was the first TELEVISION report not the first RADIO report. The first radio report of a policeman (no mention of Tippits name yet) being shot in Oak Cliff was on radio KLIF at 1.33.

It's always good to know facts. Got a cite on that one? NBC, unless I'm mistaken (which is possible) was also involved in radio at that time, so it's not necessarily apparent that it was a television announcement.

It's probably doubtful that any such tapes or transcripts have survived to give us any indication whether it was a one-time announcement or if it was repeated, or what. It's really a minor point because Brewer for whatever reason decided to see what the guy who ducked into his vestibule was up to. The big news was, of course, the shooting of the President, and I imagine that local news coverage focused largely on that, with the Tippit shooting being a mere sideline. Maybe they had repeated it shortly before Oswald ducked in, which drew the connection for Brewer together with the sirens, which were not the first sirens being heard in that area at the time (police had been in the area for more than 20 minutes by the time Oswald would've appeared).

It is merely a question of whether Brewer really thought of the connection between the news of the shooting and someone ducking into his storefront, or whether that's what he thought he sensibly thought after the fact. I might've myself.

Hi Duke, Do you believe Oswald played any part in the events of that day?

The most interesting question on this thread yet Steve, I like the way you come straight to the point. But will "THE DUKE" give as straight a reply?

It's highly unlikely.

To paraphrase someone once at the forefront of the news, "it depends on what the definition of 'played any part' is." Clearly he had a role, even if it was - as he said - merely that of "patsy." It is easily possible to construct completely different scenarios of both shootings that do not have Oswald involved in pulling any triggers, all based on existing and established evidence and testimony.

Leaving that aside, it is interesting to note that it would have been much easier to place Oswald at the scene of the Oak Cliff crime had it not been for people who knew him. Even if he had not been seen by anyone at all - as he wasn't, apparently, when travelling between 1026 and 10&P - between the TSBD and the Tippit scene, it would only have been necessary to show that he could've gotten to that area of Oak Cliff in time to kill him: he might've walked from TSBD directly to the Greyhound station and gotten in Whaley's cab for a ride to Neeley & Beckley and then walked to 10&P.

There was nobody who could've said that he didn't have his pistol stashed somewhere inside or outside of the building: he supposedly was able to spirit his rifle out of his house and bury it near where General Walker lived, then bury it again and spirit it later back into his house with nobody the wiser. Would it not have been as equally possible for him to have done something similar downtown with his pistol? Since Whaley's logs of pick-up and drop-off times were mere approximations, and Whaley did approximate the time Oswald got in his cab as being 12:30 and out at 12:45 (CE307), it would have been a simple matter to have had Oswald going directly from the TSBD to Greyhound and into Oak Cliff with lots of time to shoot Tippit, even as early as when Tippit was actually shot.

But enter Mary Bledsoe's having seen him on the bus, as well as Earlene Roberts' having seen him in the rooming house. Right or wrong, they were insurmountable problems, even if somewhat handy (Bledsoe for her "maniac" description, and Roberts for helping to account how Oswald came to have a pistol on him), resulting in the fudging of Tippit's death to allow Oswald arguably enough time in which to get there.

If we begin with the premise that the Tippit murder was a diversion (as I've postulated elsewhere, and which has considerable evidentiary support), then it requires a complete re-evaluation of all that took place in that area, involving Oswald and not, and it's a cinch that Oswald did not kill Tippit simply so the cops could find him faster (he could've stayed on the sixth floor with rifle in hand had he wanted to accomplish that, and wouldn't have disappeared between 10&P and TT only to be walking along the main drag acting suspiciously five blocks and half an hour later).

It then boils down to the question of trying to explain the inconsistencies in Oswald's known, unquestioned actions if they are not what they are supposed to have been ... and he ain't talkin'.

[Royce Bierma]

Duke, the NBC news report you refer to was the first TELEVISION report not the first RADIO report. The first radio report of a policeman (no mention of Tippits name yet) being shot in Oak Cliff was on radio KLIF at 1.33.

It's always good to know facts. Got a cite on that one? NBC, unless I'm mistaken (which is possible) was also involved in radio at that time, so it's not necessarily apparent that it was a television announcement.

It's probably doubtful that any such tapes or transcripts have survived to give us any indication whether it was a one-time announcement or if it was repeated, or what. It's really a minor point because Brewer for whatever reason decided to see what the guy who ducked into his vestibule was up to. The big news was, of course, the shooting of the President, and I imagine that local news coverage focused largely on that, with the Tippit shooting being a mere sideline. Maybe they had repeated it shortly before Oswald ducked in, which drew the connection for Brewer together with the sirens, which were not the first sirens being heard in that area at the time (police had been in the area for more than 20 minutes by the time Oswald would've appeared).

It is merely a question of whether Brewer really thought of the connection between the news of the shooting and someone ducking into his storefront, or whether that's what he thought he sensibly thought after the fact. I might've myself.

Hi Duke, Do you believe Oswald played any part in the events of that day?

The most interesting question on this thread yet Steve, I like the way you come straight to the point. But will "THE DUKE" give as straight a reply?

It's highly unlikely.

To paraphrase someone once at the forefront of the news, "it depends on what the definition of 'played any part' is." Clearly he had a role, even if it was - as he said - merely that of "patsy." It is easily possible to construct completely different scenarios of both shootings that do not have Oswald involved in pulling any triggers, all based on existing and established evidence and testimony.

Leaving that aside, it is interesting to note that it would have been much easier to place Oswald at the scene of the Oak Cliff crime had it not been for people who knew him. Even if he had not been seen by anyone at all - as he wasn't, apparently, when travelling between 1026 and 10&P - between the TSBD and the Tippit scene, it would only have been necessary to show that he could've gotten to that area of Oak Cliff in time to kill him: he might've walked from TSBD directly to the Greyhound station and gotten in Whaley's cab for a ride to Neeley & Beckley and then walked to 10&P.

There was nobody who could've said that he didn't have his pistol stashed somewhere inside or outside of the building: he supposedly was able to spirit his rifle out of his house and bury it near where General Walker lived, then bury it again and spirit it later back into his house with nobody the wiser. Would it not have been as equally possible for him to have done something similar downtown with his pistol? Since Whaley's logs of pick-up and drop-off times were mere approximations, and Whaley did approximate the time Oswald got in his cab as being 12:30 and out at 12:45 (CE307), it would have been a simple matter to have had Oswald going directly from the TSBD to Greyhound and into Oak Cliff with lots of time to shoot Tippit, even as early as when Tippit was actually shot.

But enter Mary Bledsoe's having seen him on the bus, as well as Earlene Roberts' having seen him in the rooming house. Right or wrong, they were insurmountable problems, even if somewhat handy (Bledsoe for her "maniac" description, and Roberts for helping to account how Oswald came to have a pistol on him), resulting in the fudging of Tippit's death to allow Oswald arguably enough time in which to get there.

If we begin with the premise that the Tippit murder was a diversion (as I've postulated elsewhere, and which has considerable evidentiary support), then it requires a complete re-evaluation of all that took place in that area, involving Oswald and not, and it's a cinch that Oswald did not kill Tippit simply so the cops could find him faster (he could've stayed on the sixth floor with rifle in hand had he wanted to accomplish that, and wouldn't have disappeared between 10&P and TT only to be walking along the main drag acting suspiciously five blocks and half an hour later).

It then boils down to the question of trying to explain the inconsistencies in Oswald's known, unquestioned actions if they are not what they are supposed to have been ... and he ain't talkin'.

Duke, what are your thoughts concerning Earlene Roberts' claim that a police cruiser stopped by around the time Oswald was at the Beckley address? Do you think she mistook another vehicle for a police cruiser because of her failing eyesight? Since it's certain that Tippit couldn't have been there at that time, who would have been in the vehicle, if it was a police cruiser?

Roy Bierma

[Duke Lane]

Mr. Pointing, if you had bothered to read Duke's posts on this very thread wherein he discussed his views/suspicions re Oswald's role you would not be making this kind of snide insinuation. Duke has long ago earned a reputation as a straight shooter. He is not a BELIEVER, like you, he is an INQUIRER, and true inquirers cannot state their BELIEFS until the inquiry is complete.

Some people might also add "or until the book is finished," but I don't have any current designs on that!

... Just for the record I have nothing but respect for Duke's work and no less respect for him as a person. But that does not mean that I have to accept all he states without question. And I'm certain Duke wouldn't want nor expect me to. ...

Actually, I do expect people to swallow everything I say. Whole gulps are best: they go down faster and you don't have to take time to taste them.

To be honest I find Duke's style of writing rather confusing at times, a fault of mine rather than his I'm sure, at times Duke an I dont seem to be too far off the same page an yet at other times we seem to be in total disagreement. Hence my request for a "straight answer" I would genuinely like to know where Duke is "coming from."

I've had that comment made about my writing style before, and I do try to not run on so much and segue better, but it's a bear sometimes when there's so many considerations to a single issue at times. At least I get you to read what I write at least two times, which makes the swallowing easier when they've been chewed a little!

Well, we now know, at least in brief, where I'm "coming from" based on some of the posts above if we hadn't before. It's as much of a "straight answer" that can be achieved at this point in time.

Meanwhile, you've recently written:

I actually agree with most of your reasoning Duke. Or to put it another way, I dont disagree with most of it. I am certainly not of the "lone nutter" species. As perhaps you believe. But I am also not one of the "Oswald was just a patsy" species either. Of course Oswald wasn't acting alone, of course there was a conspiracy. But rightly or wrongly I belive Oswald was a very guilty part of that conspiracy. The thread seemed to be going in the direction that Oswald was just a totally innocent guy, who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Where as I believe Oswald's actions in the theater that day, along with many, many other actions, show that not to be the case.

From all that I've seen that you've posted, it seems that you think that Oswald was more than "a very guilty part of that conspiracy," but rather the only guilty part of the conspiracy since you haven't suggested any role for any of the others involved.

What did those other people do?!? Could we get "a straight answer" on that?

As close as you've seemed to come in defining "the conspiracy" was to acknowledge something I didn't actually say, but which suggests your openness to the possibility of at least one co-conspirator:

... Whether or not Oswald pulled the weapon [in the theater] or, as your post would seem to imply, he was handed the weapon by an accomplice doesn't change the fact that Oswald seemed more than prepared to use it.

It hardly seems plausible that an accomplice in the theater could or would have done anything other to keep the gun himself and not to give it to Oswald. That's what accomplices do: they help you; putting the murder weapon back in your hand ain't hardly "helpin'."

If, after having been pointed out as being THE guy who snuck into the theater by Brewer, there was no gun involved, it's unlikely that Oswald would have been arrested: the cops had bigger fish to fry than some guy not paying a buck to see a movie. Since they were there responding only to one suspicious character who'd been pointed out by Brewer, it's just as unlikely that they would have started searching anyone else just for the sake of being sure Brewer hadn't misidentified the "gate-crasher" whose crime was extremely petty under the circumstances.

Nor do I think they would have started a search for a weapon on other patrons or elsewhere in the building (say, stashed at the bottom of a trash barrel or in the tank of the commode) any more than they searched the library earlier since there was no apparent cause in either case to believe there was one there: having a guilty "gate-crasher" without a murder weapon is hardly reason to believe that the real killer was in the theater or ever had been.

All of that said, I think we can pretty well rule out an accomplice in the theater ... unless his "accomplice-ment" was to have gotten Oswald arrested!

Thanks to Gary Mack for this email, added emphasis mine:

As for the first radio bulletin, which is what Brewer heard, that's harder to document since not all stations recorded everything. What is known is that at least six Dallas-Fort Worth area radio stations had news departments in which there were reporters who gathered news in addition to the news readers. WFAA is known to have monitored the police radio and they were on the air with the assassination announcement within a minute or so of Chief Curry's broadcast that Kennedy had been hit. I strongly suspect WFAA radio broadcast the cop shooting within a very few minutes of the 1:18 call from Bowley. Gary

I think it is entirely plausible that WFAA, at least, had the Tippit story by 1.30, if not before, and so I think that, whatever about the rest of his testimony, Brewer's story about listening to the radio is certainly believable.

Well, this is the first time I've ever heard of a "1:18 call from Bowley," although it is refreshing to see Bowley's role acknowledged rather than Benavides'! Even the WC postulated it was only 1:16. I know some people would like to give Oswald as much time as possible to do the deed, but still ....

(In reality, all that can be said about the time of the transmission - without playing the recording and timing it, and being 100% certain that the time checks were made at exactly 1:16 and 1:19, which they very well may not have been - is that the call came through after the 1:16 time check and before the 1:19 time check, with fewer transmissions between it and 1:16 than between it and 1:19. Does that make it 1:18, two-thirds of the elapsed time since 1:16? I don't see how.)

It strikes me that I've read elsewhere that the first public announcement of JFK getting shot was closer to 12:36 or 12:37, but who's counting? As I said earlier, it's really a pretty minor issue: why Brewer was suspicious of Oswald is not as important as that he was suspicious of him, or whether it was in fact Oswald he was really suspicious of. I just like to see the story told with as many demonstrable facts as possible. It was not a fact that police turned around at Zangs and went back east, at least not according to Julia Postal, who was watching police cars disappear in the distance away from Brewer's store as he walked up behind her. Using an event that might not have happened to "explain" someone's suspicion - to say that their testimony, although wrong, is "clear evidence" - is inaccurate at best.

We do not yet know that Brewer did hear any such announcement over the radio, Denis lacking a cite of it and Gary having only a "strong suspicion" of a broadcast earlier than NBC's 1:49.

[Denis Pointing]

Duke, the NBC news report you refer to was the first TELEVISION report not the first RADIO report. The first radio report of a policeman (no mention of Tippits name yet) being shot in Oak Cliff was on radio KLIF at 1.33.

It's always good to know facts. Got a cite on that one? NBC, unless I'm mistaken (which is possible) was also involved in radio at that time, so it's not necessarily apparent that it was a television announcement.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...H25_CE_2275.pdf

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...a67db92e456971b

http://www.reelradio.com/se/index.html#klif112263

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6322

Edited October 27, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[Duke Lane]

Duke, what are your thoughts concerning Earlene Roberts' claim that a police cruiser stopped by around the time Oswald was at the Beckley address? Do you think she mistook another vehicle for a police cruiser because of her failing eyesight? Since it's certain that Tippit couldn't have been there at that time, who would have been in the vehicle, if it was a police cruiser?

Whoever it was that was at the Gloco, maybe? It's clear that Tippit couldn't have been there either, despite the fact that employees there thought it was him, and Bill Turner's estimation that they were not publicity-seekers making up a story.

So, if Turner is right, and if there was a police car there, its driver wasn't Tippit, and it did take off at a high rate of speed south on Lancaster (and around the blocks to Beckley, about a 4-5 minute trip?), that's the most likely suspect vehicle.

The patrol vehicles normally assigned to the districts around Beckley are pretty well accounted for based on other than the officers' later statements. If an on-duty officer was in the area for some nefarious purpose, it's not likely he'd say so, so the fact that reports were taken from the other patrol officers to the effect that they weren't - and had no reason to be - anywhere near 1026 doesn't mean much.

Earlene wasn't exactly certain what the number on the car was - she gave at least three - and her eyesight (blind in one eye, presumably had a prescription for the other since she wore glasses) might've not let her see whatever number was there clearly, so no number can necessarily be ruled out completely. Even though she said any of 207 or 107 or 106, it might as easily have been 35 or 193 or any other number. Even where officers reported driving a particular numbered vehicle, it is not an absolute fact that they were driving the car they had said they were driving, especially if their visit to Oak Cliff was not for purposes they'd want to have on record, or even that their car was in the shop that day and it wasn't a detail that they'd thought was important or they even remembered.

But again: if Turner is right, and if there was a police car there, its driver wasn't Tippit, and the other patrol vehicles from around the area are accounted for, then someone was in the area who had no official cause to be. If so - and even if that non-official cause was innocent (as is difficult to imagine the case being when someone is parked in a gas station parking lot a couple blocks from Oswald's house and taking off at a high rate of speed at just about the time Oswald - or "Oswald" - was entering 1026) - it's understandable that they wouldn't want to admit being there.

(For the record, the officer normally assigned to that particular district, 106, had been assigned to a hotel downtown where the White House Communications center was located, and he remained there all day except to ferry some FBI or USSS personnel somewhere like Parkland or Love Field. District 106 is the district immediately west of Dealey Plaza and because of its proximity to the parade route - not to mention the assassination - it would surprise me that nobody else was assigned to cover that district in that officer's absence, yet there is no indication that anyone was, and no officer who submitted a report on his whereabouts indicated that he had been assigned to cover that district on that day.

(Also, the only car that was the subject of an investigation of its whereabouts - 207, and not the other numbers Roberts had suggested - had been driven by Officer J.M. Valentine, who had driven from the Juvenile Division at City Hall down to Dealey Plaza and there parked, the keys reportedly given to a sergeant in charge there. Valentine also reported that he had remained in DP until later in the afternoon, as did several other officers such as R.C. Nelson who most certainly did not ... and which gives rise to the question of how accurate those reports were.)

[Denis Pointing]

From all that I've seen that you've posted, it seems that you think that Oswald was more than "a very guilty part of that conspiracy," but rather the only guilty part of the conspiracy since you haven't suggested any role for any of the others involved.

What did those other people do?!? Could we get "a straight answer" on that?

it.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Denis Pointing