Lee Oswald’s Departure from the TSBD

[Antti Hynonen]

Duke Lane Posted Yesterday, 11:32 PM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Sep 30 2008, 02:20 AM)

Question 1: Did Oswald ever deny boarding the bus or did he ever deny having obtained a bus transfer ticket that day?

Please bear in mind that my responses are to the limits of what we know as fact. Just because someone said something under oath does not mean it is a fact. If more than one person said the same or similar things independent of each other, we can put more stock in it.

Question 1: We don't know for certain what Oswald said at any time, or what he was necessarily asked. I've only looked at what appears to have transpired on the bus. If memory serves beyond that, there was either a question about a bus or cab that Oswald responded to the effect of "I told you I did" (get on the bus or whatever). Getting on a bus does not necessitate a transfer, so even if he'd gotten onto one, doesn't mean that the transfer in evidence would be his. I cannot state with certainty that he was asked about the transfer as opposed to merely being on a bus.

Another consideration is that, while Oswald may even have asserted that he'd taken a bus, what bus did he take? Clearly, McWatters' bus would have been the first - after 12:40 anyway - Marsalis bus to have gone through the Elm/Houston intersection, but according to what Mary Bledsoe had to say at various times, that was not the only bus route that Oswald may have had a choice to have taken.

Mary Bledsoe's 11/24 interview notes, for example, that "she got on a bus, as she recalls, a Marsalis bus," suggesting that there may have been another bus she could've taken. In her testimony, when asked what bus she'd gotten on, she replied, "Well, I don't remember whether it was the Marsalis or the Romana," now clearly demonstrating that a second route could have gotten her home, their routes diverging at some point afterward. If the Romana bus went over the Houston Street viaduct (which empties onto Zangs Boulevard, which in turn shortly intersects with Beckley) and then turned south on Marsalis toward Mary's house, Oswald could have taken that bus and only had a short walk home, the same as he would have if he'd have taken a Marsalis bus.

We know that McWatters' bus got held up in traffic some four blocks before reaching Houston Street; what we don't know is whether or where ahead of McWatters the Romana bus might've been. If it had been ahead of McWatters somewhere in that traffic jam, it would have gotten through the intersection before McWatters and possibly picked up Oswald at its first stop thereafter, probably the same place McWatters would've stopped (as he testified), at Main and Houston.

It cannot be excluded from the realm of possibilities simply because none of the drivers from that route were apparently questioned and none testified or gave statements. If he had gotten on a Romana bus, whether or not he'd gotten a transfer (which he'd have had no need of in any case), then the validity of his statement of being - or lack of denial of not being - on a bus remains the same.

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Sep 30 2008, 02:20 AM)

Question 2: Assuming Oswald did have a bus transfer ticket, and assuming he obtained it as the WC claimed and as the transfer ticket in evidence indicates, what further destination would he have needed the transfer for?

Although I've yet to show that your wife is dead, but assuming you killed her, can you tell us some reasons why?

This is one of the difficulties in evaluating evidence in this case, because people are willing to accomodate two sets of conflicting data into their evaluation. For example, Oswald "could not have walked from Beckley to 10th in time to shoot Tippit," but assuming he did, what reason did he have for leaving his jacket behind the Texaco station? Well, since he wasn't able to be there, and since the presumption is that the killer dropped it, how does Oswald's motivation for dropping it come into play if he wasn't and couldn't have been the killer?

Going forth from the presumption that it was him on McWatters' bus and getting a transfer before getting off, then there need be no further destination in mind other than to do as the "suitcase lady" was doing: walking through the traffic jam and maybe catching the same bus on the other side of it ... which I recall Mary Bledsoe having said exactly that happened in her case.

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Sep 30 2008, 02:20 AM)

More questions: Wouldn't McWatters' bus have taken him to Harlandale, I mean close enough to his room at North Beckley? What was his likely destination after N. Beckley? Didn't his landlady at N. Beckley say that she saw him out the window at the bus stop across the street shortly after 1 p.m. on 11/22/63?

McWatters' bus would've taken him closer to Harlandale, within 6-7 blocks, as this map shows (click the little "street view" guy to take a look around the neighborhood of the supposed "safe house" - that's the yellow one, btw). I have no idea where he might have gone after Beckley, if he'd gone to Beckley, and the location where the blind-in-one-eye and distracted Earlene Roberts said it was on the northbound side of the street, i.e., the same side.

All points being simply being - as I will expand on in my response to Ray Carroll - that the facts in evidence do not establish Oswald's whereabouts beyond a reasonable doubt, no matter what Occam's Razor might dictate, for that theorem suggests that every single person who's brought to trial absolutely, positively did whatever it is they're accused of ... because that is, quite simply, the simplest solution.

If your lawyer subscribes to that theory, fire him.

Duke,

Thanks for your detailed reply.

All I wanted to achieve with my questions is further discussion (speculation) about what Oswald was thinking (of doing) after leaving the depository. It seems clear that he went home to change his clothes and to pick up a gun. However, if he wanted to flee, why did he not pick up some clothes and money and then head back into down town to board a bus headed out of town? Surely many (Grey)hound buses were able to leave the Dallas area (and Texas) shortly after 12:30 without them being searched?

Loitering on the streets of Oak Cliff with a gun does not seem to be the best choice of action if you intend to avoid the police or any confrontation with them. Nor does escaping into a movie theater seem very sensible either...

I think this part of the puzzle is interesting and a new understanding of Lee's thinking at this time may help understand the entire event by first understanding his point of view.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The difference, Ray, is that Carolyn Arnold didn't purposely try to ignore Oswald the moment she saw him …

Too, inside the TSBD, the potential number of subjects was significantly smaller: Arnold had only those 73 who worked there to make a mistake from; Bledsoe had the entire city of Dallas and all its visitors.

Now hold on Duke. I think you already mentioned the number of people on McWatter’s bus and the number was nowhere near 73. Mrs Bledsoe saw him up close and personal, even if she didn’t want to.

Are you going to tell me that you've never seen someone in a crowd that you knew, only to find out it was someone else? Even after more scrutiny than Mary gave Lee?

I am sure that has happened. But if someone I knew from living in my house a month ago got on my bus and walked back towards me……

and if I didn’t like him, and if I owed him money, or thought he had at least an argument that I owed him money, I might pretend not to notice him, just as Bledsoe did.

[T]he principle of "innocent until proven guilty" has not been around since the Magna Carta (which so happened to also be in Occam's time, more or less), y'know.

The principle of Innocent until Proven Guilty is MUCH MUCH OLDER THAN MAGNA CARTA, y’know.

In 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision in the case Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432; 15 S. Ct. 394, traced the presumption of innocence, past England, Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, and, at least according to Greenleaf, to Deuteronomy

.

It was well established in Roman Law

"Let all accusers understand that they are not to prefer charges unless they can be proven by proper witnesses or by conclusive documents, or by circumstantial evidence which amounts to indubitable proof and is clearer than day." Code, L. IV, T. XX, 1, 1. 25.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030216230239/...ves/001907.html

It was even well-established in the civilization of ancient Egypt, according to sources I have read but forgotten.

And the principle of reasoning embodied in Occam’s Razor existed long before Occam formulated it in such elegant language. The dialogues of Plato, for example, show that Socrates was a regular demon when it came to ferreting out the hidden assumptions that typically underlie faulty reasoning.

But on November 22nd 1963 more than 4000 years of civilized thinking was cast aside.

So, for those non-criminal acts, we have:

Why did Oswald get on a bus? To go home.

Or maybe he intended to go directly to the movie, but changed his mind when he realized he had time to change out of his work clothes

If something as innocuous as that will be taken at face value - along with other innocuous things, like getting a jacket from home - because they seem plausible, and all those plausible, possible things add up to the commission of a crime (in this case, the murder of JD Tippit), then each must be examined and ruled in or out on their own merits.

Just because Bledsoe saw him on the bus without a jacket does not necessarily mean that he picked up a jacket at his roominghouse. The only evidence for this is from a near-blind woman whose attention was focused on her TV set.

As it stands, the case is - as I think it was Nicholas Katzenbach who characterized it - "too pat, too obvious

.

Agreed.

[Duke Lane]

... Too, inside the TSBD, the potential number of subjects was significantly smaller: Arnold had only those 73 who worked there to make a mistake from; Bledsoe had the entire city of Dallas and all its visitors.

Now hold on Duke. I think you already mentioned the number of people on McWatter's bus and the number was nowhere near 73.

I stand by the number: anyone could have walked onto the bus and been seen by Bledsoe; only the people who worked in TSBD would have been seen by Carolyn Arnold.

Mrs Bledsoe saw him up close and personal, even if she didn't want to.

No, Ray: she glimpsed him. Then she looked away, and kept looking away. Big difference from "up close and personal."

Are you going to tell me that you've never seen someone in a crowd that you knew, only to find out it was someone else? Even after more scrutiny than Mary gave Lee?

I am sure that has happened. But if someone I knew from living in my house a month ago got on my bus and walked back towards me…… and if I didn't like him, and if I owed him money, or thought he had at least an argument that I owed him money, I might pretend not to notice him, just as Bledsoe did.

You weren't paying attention to (or failed to understand) where Mary B was, as well as what she saw or said. You are putting words in her mouth (so to speak) and adding elements to the circumstance that didn't exist.

I'll recap: Mary Bledsoe was sitting in the first seat on the right hand side of the bus, which faced the center aisle and the bus driver. Whoever entered therefore entered at her right elbow and, by the time he was fully in sight, in front and to the right of her, he was standing, facing the bus driver while she was seated, also facing the bus driver, which means that she saw his left rear quarter as he paid his fare, possibly his left half as he turned to move toward the back of the bus, or possibly portions of his left side as he climbed the stairs coming on board the bus, where her vision of him would have been blocked in largest part by a partition.

If she saw him once he'd gotten fully onto the bus, she would have had to look up to see his face, which she said she'd only had a "glimpse" of. It was not as if she'd seen him full-face or face-on.

If he came on board the bus from her right, with his right side away from her, and then he turned left in front of her, with his right side still away from her, I submit that it was difficult if not impossible for her to have seen the hole in his right elbow, even assuming it was there.

Her description of his clothing was also at odds with two other people who saw the man who'd boarded the bus, so tell me why, given all of this, you might still think that she saw Lee Oswald. What we see instead, it would seem, is her susceptibility to suggestion: yup, the shirt you [the FBI] are showing me is the one he was wearing, and yup, the one you [Joe Ball] are showing me is the same one the FBI showed me, which, despite the fact that I swore I'd never seen the shirt, "he had it on, though."

The epitome of credibility. Why do you believe her? Because you think her testimony isn't probative in any way, shape or form?

And let it be said with finality: she never, ever, even once even hinted at trying to "hide" from him because she owed him money, or thought that there might be an argument that she did - and given her general demeanor, I tend to doubt she'd ever concede any such thing. This is a supposition that has no basis in fact. That she didn't like him goes without saying, hence her refusal to look at him and thereby get anything more than a simple "glimpse" of him ... from an angle that would make positive identification difficult, impossible, or at least dubious.

The principle of Innocent until Proven Guilty is MUCH MUCH OLDER THAN MAGNA CARTA, y'know.

It doesn't really matter; it was certainly not practiced universally either geographically or chronologically.

And the principle of reasoning embodied in Occam's Razor existed long before Occam formulated it in such elegant language. The dialogues of Plato, for example, show that Socrates was a regular demon when it came to ferreting out the hidden assumptions that typically underlie faulty reasoning.

But on November 22nd 1963 more than 4000 years of civilized thinking was cast aside.

Sir, I submit that that was done in September 1964, not in November 1963, which latter date occasioned the casting aside of the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."

Just because Bledsoe saw him on the bus without a jacket does not necessarily mean that he picked up a jacket at his roominghouse. The only evidence for this is from a near-blind woman whose attention was focused on her TV set.

Setting aside the question whether Bledsoe saw him at all, Oswald's supposedly dropping by his rooming house, or getting or wearing a jacket is just as "criminal" as his getting on a bus, so what difference does it make, right?

[Duke Lane]

Duke, Thanks for your detailed reply.

All I wanted to achieve with my questions is further discussion (speculation) about what Oswald was thinking (of doing) after leaving the depository. It seems clear that he went home to change his clothes and to pick up a gun. However, if he wanted to flee, why did he not pick up some clothes and money and then head back into down town to board a bus headed out of town? Surely many (Grey)hound buses were able to leave the Dallas area (and Texas) shortly after 12:30 without them being searched?

Loitering on the streets of Oak Cliff with a gun does not seem to be the best choice of action if you intend to avoid the police or any confrontation with them. Nor does escaping into a movie theater seem very sensible either...

I think this part of the puzzle is interesting and a new understanding of Lee's thinking at this time may help understand the entire event by first understanding his point of view.

Yeah, it doesn't make much sense does it? We will never, however, understand Oswald's thinking, or even know the basis for any of it.

[William Kelly]

Duke, Thanks for your detailed reply.

All I wanted to achieve with my questions is further discussion (speculation) about what Oswald was thinking (of doing) after leaving the depository. It seems clear that he went home to change his clothes and to pick up a gun. However, if he wanted to flee, why did he not pick up some clothes and money and then head back into down town to board a bus headed out of town? Surely many (Grey)hound buses were able to leave the Dallas area (and Texas) shortly after 12:30 without them being searched?

Loitering on the streets of Oak Cliff with a gun does not seem to be the best choice of action if you intend to avoid the police or any confrontation with them. Nor does escaping into a movie theater seem very sensible either...

I think this part of the puzzle is interesting and a new understanding of Lee's thinking at this time may help understand the entire event by first understanding his point of view.

Yeah, it doesn't make much sense does it? We will never, however, understand Oswald's thinking, or even know the basis for any of it.

We may not be able to get into Oswald's head but we can certainly determine the motives for some of his actions, and whether or not he was a homicidal maniac, covert operational assassin or programmed patsy, each with its own, yet to be seen consequences.

I don't buy the idea that it just doesn't make much sense and we'll never understand or know.

All we have to know is the accused assassin wasn't nuts, and the deed attributed to him is a serious breach in our national security that still hasn't been rectafied.

Everyone seems to be describing Oswald as a confused, albet successful assassin who didn't have an escape plan, yet managed to pull off the crime of the century and to escape from the scene of the crime in the get-a-way bus/cab.

Those who want to see Oswald's post assassin behavior as erratic, panicked and confused, fail to reconcile that with the precision necessary to pull of the murder and successfully evacuate the scene, and his cool post arrest demenior that led more than one detective to conclude that he had been trained in counter-interrogation techniques.

That would lead me to conclude that his post assassination behavior was also very deliberate, and whether he was the perfect assassin or the lame patsy, he did what he had been trained and engrained to do.

Those who think of him as being confused are also confused, when by this time it should be more clear than ever.

BK

Edited October 2, 2008 by William Kelly

[Don Jeffries]

I think we make a mistake in trusting ANY part of the official account regarding Oswald's post assassination movements. You can throw in his pre-assassination actions, too. While Wesley Frazier and his sister were troublesome witnesses before the WC, since they insisted the package they saw Oswald carrying couldn't have been long enough to carry the alleged murder weapon, they still are the only ones who reported him carrying such a package into work. According to notes from his unrecorded and thus unreliable interrogation sessions after the assassination, Oswald supposedly vehmently denied carrying such a package. The only person to see him enter work that day testified that he wasn't carrying anything.

As far as the bus trip, I think Duke has done a great job of showing why Mary Bledsoe's testimony is uncredible. The same can be said for McWatters, Roberts, Whaley and Markham. These are the witnesses any prosecution would have relied upon to get their suspect from the TSBD to the scene of Tippit's murder. Ray points out that riding a bus is not suspicious in and of itself. That's certainly true, and neither is taking a cab or changing a jacket. However, the point is that all of these alleged actions of Oswald-which would certainly be termed strange-were utilized by the authorities to get him into position where he supposedly murdered a policeman. Thus, they are all crucial to the official case against Oswald.

I've pointed it out before, but the best evidence as to what Oswald was doing in the moments after the assassination is the Rambler testimony of Roger Craig and others. A real investigation would have focused on that. Instead, they came up with a slew of ridiculous witnesses that would have been laughed out of any honest courtroom.

[Antti Hynonen]

I am along the lines with Don and Bill on this.

We know to a fairly reliable certainty that Oswald left 1026 N. Beckley at about 1 p.m. We also know that he was arrested at the Texas theatre at 231 W. Jefferson Blvd at about 1:50 p.m. This is a fairly direct route south.

If I'm not totally wrong, this would imply that he travelled 1 mile south. Now as to what he did in between 1:00 pm and 1:50 is debatable. Nevertheless, the witness statements and evidence against him, is quite strong. Assuming he was at 10th and Patton at 1:15 p.m. or so, implies he would have travelled South-East a little over a mile. Thereafter, to arrive at the theater at 1:20 or 1:25 he would have traveled about half a mile to the west/south-west. I don't know if the mile and a half from Beckley to 10th and Patton is doable in a little over 10 minutes, but it seems that the half mile in 10 minutes is doable.

If Lee didn't initially think of going to the Texas theater, where was he headed walking South/South-East from N. Beckley? Harlandale street sure is that way...

The only reasonable answer is that he had a destination in mind, the follow up question is, which one is it?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Setting aside the question whether Bledsoe saw him at all, Oswald's supposedly dropping by his rooming house, or getting or wearing a jacket is just as "criminal" as his getting on a bus, so what difference does it make, right?

As we have discussed, Duke, both here and on the telephone, I do not have real doubt that Bledsoe saw him on the bus. I also do not have real doubt that he took a taxi when it appeared that the bus might be stuck there for hours. The Warren Commission tried to make this behavior seem suspicious, but where I come from travelling by bus and taxi is considered normal lawful behavior.

Now the jacket is in an entirely different category, since a jacket belonging to Lee Oswald was found not far from the Tippit crime scene, and SEEMS to implicate him in that crime. As we discussed on the Markham thread, the evidence that was right in front of the Warren Commission's noses shows that the Tippit murder occurred at just about exactly 1.08, about 4 minutes after Lee Oswald was seen standing outside his rooming-house. In 1963 there were only a few athletes in the world who could have covered the distance on foot in less than 4 minutes, and Lee Oswald was not one of them, therefore whoever placed that jacket where it was found could not have been Lee Oswald.

The evidence that Lee Oswald left his rooming-house wearing a jacket comes from a woman who was partly blind and who, by her own admission, was concentrating on her TV set. It is extremely flimsy. Moreover, it was a very warm and sunny afternoon.

So I don't think Bledsoe's testimony incriminates Lee Oswald in the slightest, whereas the testimony about him donning a jacket at his rooming-house WOULD tend to incriminate him, but only if you are willing to ignore the evidence and assume instead that his landlady had perfect eyesight and actually paid careful attention to what he was wearing.

[Duke Lane]

... Assuming he was at 10th and Patton at 1:15 p.m. or so, implies he would have travelled South-East a little over a mile. Thereafter, to arrive at the theater at 1:20 or 1:25 he would have traveled about half a mile to the west/south-west. I don't know if the mile and a half from Beckley to 10th and Patton is doable in a little over 10 minutes, but it seems that the half mile in 10 minutes is doable. ...

According to the WC, it's only 9/10 of a mile between 1026 and 10&P (8/10 according to Google Maps) and 6/10 from 10&P to TT (ibid).

The average walking speed of an adult (male?) is 4.3 feet per second, or about 3 mph. 9/10 of a mile at that rate of speed takes 18.4 minutes; 6/10 would take 12.2 minutes at the same "average" speed. One could do 6/10 of a mile in five minutes at a slightly faster clip (5.28 fps/4.43 mph), but would have to be running (10.56 fps/7.2 mph) Doing 9/10 mile in 10 minutes is 7.9 fps/11.1 mph.

As points of reference, a four-minute mile is a speed of 15 mph; a respectable 7.5-minute mile is 8 mph (which damned near "killed" me when I was a young teenager doing it for the first handful of times, and still somewhat painful after doing it regularly!).

I've got an Excel spreadsheet that calculates all of this stuff if anyone wants it; the forum won't let me upload it here.

If Lee didn't initially think of going to the Texas theater, where was he headed walking South/South-East from N. Beckley? Harlandale street sure is that way... The only reasonable answer is that he had a destination in mind, the follow up question is, which one is it?

A compelling case can be made that Oswald was never at Beckley around 1:00, but even assuming that he had, if it was not him at 10&P - which it couldn't have been 'cuz he couldn't run a four-minute mile(!) - and the only other place he most definitely was was in central Oak Cliff, it's difficult to say where he might have been heading.

As I've remarked elsewhere (or maybe it was here?), we sometimes have a propensity to correlate conflicting data, for example saying "Oswald didn't kill Tippit" on the one hand, then asking where might he have been going since he was "heading in that direction," on the other. If you put him at 10&P, or heading somewhere that passed through that area, then by definition, he killed Tippit. These positions cannot be reconciled unless you postulate Oswald at 10&P as an innocent bystander who ran back, more or less, the way he came for some unknown reason rather than continuing to where he'd "intended" to go.

[Duke Lane]

... I don't think Bledsoe's testimony incriminates Lee Oswald in the slightest, whereas the testimony about him donning a jacket at his rooming-house WOULD tend to incriminate him, but only if you are willing to ignore the evidence and assume instead that his landlady had perfect eyesight and actually paid careful attention to what he was wearing.

In and of itself, you may be right. Nevertheless, as a part of the "prosecution's" case, each part must be proved and, in an adversarial proceeding, the bus ride could be challenged by the proverbial "good defense attorney" that likewise could've taken Bill Whaley apart. Obviously, we don't have the benefit of knowing what a defense attorney would have done with WC witnesses, but we can judge the relative merit of the testimony that's on record, and basically, nobody else supports any part of Mary Bledsoe's testimony that relates to Oswald other than that a man got on the bus.

Anyone who believes her can only do so on the basis of "why would she lie," ignoring the evidence and assuming that she had perfect eyesight and actually paid careful - or any - attention to anything about him ... while she actually testified that she didn't pay any attention to him once she thought she'd recognized him, and deliberately ignored him from that point forward, and then accept her testimony as valid because he'd been her boarder for a week, so she "must" have known and positively recognized him.

We can simply agree to disagree on this point. I, however, am not inclined to disbelieve part A, believe part B, disbelieve part C, and believe part D, which last is dependent on the sum of the previous parts, two-thirds of which I don't believe.

If you're willing to concede those things that "aren't incriminating" in and of themselves, and challenge only those things that "make a difference" in your mind, you're left with a "jury" wondering why your conclusion is right if only half of your data is right, versus your opponent who thinks it's all right and reached a different conclusion. Whose conclusion would be "right," then?

So we believe that he got on the bus, which isn't incriminating.

Maybe into the taxi cab, which also isn't incriminating.

Maybe he got off in the 500 block of Beckley, maybe the 700's, which also isn't incriminating.

Maybe he did go into Beckley, which isn't also incriminating.

We don't believe he got a jacket, because it

might

be incriminating.

Do we believe he got a pistol, which might

also

be incriminating?

We believe he went to the bus stop, which isn't incriminating (and actually tends toward the opposite).

You take it from there. Tell me what pieces you think we can keep and which ones we need to throw away, and what we need to put in each part's place to reach the next segment otherwise. It doesn't seem that we can have part of the story right and part of the story wrong and be able to determine which conclusion is correct, does it?

Edited October 2, 2008 by Duke Lane

[Duke Lane]

... The Warren Commission tried to make this behavior seem suspicious, but where I come from travelling by bus and taxi is considered normal lawful behavior. ...

I never considered that they tried to paint these activities as "suspicious," but rather to show where he'd been and how he'd gotten to Beckley in the time allotted him. The only "suspicion" that came into play was in the presumption that he feared going back through DP where the bus might've gotten searched (and so? Did they suspect he'd be asked if he worked in the TSBD and get arrested if he'd said yes?), so he hopped off to avoid that possibility.

... As we discussed on the Markham thread, the evidence that was right in front of the Warren Commission's noses shows that the Tippit murder occurred at just about exactly 1.08, about 4 minutes after Lee Oswald was seen standing outside his rooming-house. ...

Which, of course, was why they couldn't have Tippit dead as early as he was.

My opinion is that this house of cards was built upon the twin premises that (1) Mrs. Bledsoe, his former landlady, "must" have recognized him, and the bus was on a schedule, ergo he had to be on that bus at that time; and (2) Earlene Roberts, his current housekeeper, likewise "must" have recognized him, ergo he had to be into Beckley as soon as they could get him there. Stuck with the bus's schedule and a walk to the Greyhound station, they had only so much time left to work with.

Thereafter, they had to get him out the door quickly, and Tippit couldn't have died any sooner than Bowley's announcement on the radio because Oswald couldn't have gotten to 10&P before then within the constraints they'd established (no car, nobody driving and assisting him, etc.). I'm only surprised that, after finally managing to get Whaley to within two blocks of where he'd left his passenger off (he said 500 block of Beckley; they settled on 700 block so that Oswald had time to walk back to Beckley by 1:00. It took several tries and a Secret Service or FBI car to accomplish it) that they permitted him a full four minutes of being inside.

It would've been easier if they'd left the bus trip out of it - decided Mary Bledsoe was "mistaken" and ignored her along with Tom Bowley, et al. - and let him get straight into the cab, but, well, there you have it. It is not enough, however, to simply remove one card to collapse the house, ya gotta pick up all the cards.

The evidence that Lee Oswald left his rooming-house wearing a jacket comes from a woman who was partly blind and who, by her own admission, was concentrating on her TV set. It is extremely flimsy. Moreover, it was a very warm and sunny afternoon.

No argument from me on that, but I'll add that the evidence that Lee Oswald was ever inside the rooming house at all was based on the same woman's statements.

I can draw a scenario about that, also tying in the Gloco incident and the "toot-toot" out in front, but not now. Think Frank Ellsworth.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

So we believe that he got on the bus, which isn't incriminating.

Maybe into the taxi cab, which also isn't incriminating.

Maybe he got off in the 500 block of Beckley, maybe the 700's, which also isn't incriminating.

Maybe he did go into Beckley, which isn't also incriminating.

We don't believe he got a jacket, because it

might

be incriminating.

We don't believe it because the evidence is not in the least bit persuasive, for reasons already stated.

Do we believe he got a pistol, which might

also

be incriminating?

Yes, we believe he got the pistol, because he freely admitted it.

we also note

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We believe he went to the bus stop, which isn't incriminating (and actually tends toward the opposite).

We submit that Lee Oswald, when last seen, was about to start heading towards the Texas Theatre. That would be consistent with what he told his captors. As I recall that Beckley intersection, (and I know you will correct me if I am wrong) he would have to cross the street from where he stood if he wanted to walk to the Cinema.

I've got an Excel spreadsheet that calculates all of this stuff if anyone wants it.

STUPENDOUS! A giant leap forward. I nominate the Dukester for THE COPERNICUS AWARD.

Can this apparatus tell us:

1. How long it took him to walk from Beckley to the Cinema?

2. How long would it have taken him to walk [to the cinema] from the location(s) where the Taxi dropped him off?

Edited October 3, 2008 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Antti Hynonen]

Duke Lane Posted Yesterday, 08:53 PM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Oct 2 2008, 01:44 AM)

... Assuming he was at 10th and Patton at 1:15 p.m. or so, implies he would have travelled South-East a little over a mile. Thereafter, to arrive at the theater at 1:20 or 1:25 he would have traveled about half a mile to the west/south-west. I don't know if the mile and a half from Beckley to 10th and Patton is doable in a little over 10 minutes, but it seems that the half mile in 10 minutes is doable. ...

According to the WC, it's only 9/10 of a mile between 1026 and 10&P (8/10 according to Google Maps) and 6/10 from 10&P to TT (ibid).

The average walking speed of an adult (male?) is 4.3 feet per second, or about 3 mph. 9/10 of a mile at that rate of speed takes 18.4 minutes; 6/10 would take 12.2 minutes at the same "average" speed. One could do 6/10 of a mile in five minutes at a slightly faster clip (5.28 fps/4.43 mph), but would have to be running (10.56 fps/7.2 mph) Doing 9/10 mile in 10 minutes is 7.9 fps/11.1 mph.

As points of reference, a four-minute mile is a speed of 15 mph; a respectable 7.5-minute mile is 8 mph (which damned near "killed" me when I was a young teenager doing it for the first handful of times, and still somewhat painful after doing it regularly!).

I've got an Excel spreadsheet that calculates all of this stuff if anyone wants it; the forum won't let me upload it here.

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Oct 2 2008, 01:44 AM)

If Lee didn't initially think of going to the Texas theater, where was he headed walking South/South-East from N. Beckley? Harlandale street sure is that way... The only reasonable answer is that he had a destination in mind, the follow up question is, which one is it?

A compelling case can be made that Oswald was never at Beckley around 1:00, but even assuming that he had, if it was not him at 10&P - which it couldn't have been 'cuz he couldn't run a four-minute mile(!) - and the only other place he most definitely was was in central Oak Cliff, it's difficult to say where he might have been heading.

As I've remarked elsewhere (or maybe it was here?), we sometimes have a propensity to correlate conflicting data, for example saying "Oswald didn't kill Tippit" on the one hand, then asking where might he have been going since he was "heading in that direction," on the other. If you put him at 10&P, or heading somewhere that passed through that area, then by definition, he killed Tippit. These positions cannot be reconciled unless you postulate Oswald at 10&P as an innocent bystander who ran back, more or less, the way he came for some unknown reason rather than continuing to where he'd "intended" to go.

I agree with the average walking speeds. No reason to assume Lee ran to where ever he was going imo (this would draw unnecessary attention to him -and besides why would he run). I'm also ok, with the under a mile distance to 10th and Patton from 1026 n. Beckley. Assuming for a moment that Lee was in the area of 10th and Patton and that he did leave his coat/jacket where it was found under a car? in a parking lot nearby - it would put Lee in the area and it would have taken Lee some 16-18 minutes to walk to 10th and Patton from 1026 N Beckley, correct?

To establish a time line then:

Assuming further that the landlady's testimony of Lee leaving the rooming house at approximately 1 p.m. (give or take a minute) and standing at the north bound bus stop near the rooming house at about 1:02 (last witness visual before 10th and Patton) - this would put Lee at 10th and Patton at 1:18 - 1:20 p.m.

A bit late for the Tippit shooting.

Ray and you seem to agree that Tippit got shot as early as 1:08 p.m. Do you have a thread or details on how you arrived at this time?

As to what asssumptions I make, I'm just trying to work with the witness statements and the evidence as we have it. Don't know where it's going to lead.

Thanks.

[Duke Lane]

I've got an Excel spreadsheet that calculates all of this stuff if anyone wants it.

STUPENDOUS! A giant leap forward. I nominate the Dukester for THE COPERNICUS AWARD.

Can this apparatus tell us:

1. How long it took him to walk from Beckley to the Cinema?

2. How long would it have taken him to walk [to the cinema] from the location(s) where the Taxi dropped him off?

It is geographically neutral: it doesn't care what's at either end of a trip, only that you know how long it was. Google Maps is good for determining that with reasonable accuracy.

All you do is plug in a distance in miles, to any decimal value you want (e.g., 100 yards = .0568 mi) and it will, in the first column, compute how long it will take an average adult moving at an "average" page (4.3 feet per second) to cover that distance in both seconds and minutes (70 seconds or 1.16 minutes), as well as feet per second, feet per minute, feet per hour and miles per hour. As an added bonus, it will also tell you "what kind" of a mile is being covered, e.g., a four-minute mile or a ten-minute mile.

You can then, in a second column, change the amount of time you want that distance to be covered in minutes (say, 10 seconds, or 0.16666666666 minutes) and get the same calculations as above (a 10-second, 100-yard dash is equal to running at about 20.46 mph, or a 2.9-minute mile if someone could sustain that speed ... or run that fast: I have no idea what a "fast" 100-yard dash is), as well as the reverse calcs for determining what their average fps is. A third column gives you the same calculations to allow you to compare the difference between, say, running that 100-yard dash in 12 seconds, or in six.

You could also calculate a marathoner's average speed over a much longer distance, as long as you work with distance expressed in (fractions of) miles, and time in (fractions of) minutes, so that if you covered 29 miles in 4.00 hours (i.e., 240 minutes), the average speed is 7.25 mph, or 10.6 fps, more than double the "average" pace of an adult (4.3 fps or 2.93 mph). An auto covering 29 miles in 30 minutes would be going an average of 58 mph.

According to Google Maps (which now has walking directions and times in beta), it is 1.0 miles from 1026 to TT, going south on Beckley to Davis then cutting over to Zangs to Jefferson. Google estimates a total elapsed time of 21 minutes; my spreadsheet estimates 20.47 minutes at the 4.3 fps average, close enough. If you wanted someone to get from 1026 to TT in, say, 11 minutes, they be moving at 8.0 fps or 5.45 mph; if you wanted LHO out the door at 1:04 and walking into TT by 1:10 in time to see the start of the first movie (but miss the trailers!), he'd have been moving at 14.7 fps or 10 mph ... probably meaning that he'd gotten a ride, because that's a six-minute mile).

Handy stuff, no?

We don't believe he got a jacket, because it might be incriminating.

We don't believe it because the evidence is not in the least bit persuasive, for reasons already stated.

Do we believe he got a pistol, which might also be incriminating?

Yes, we believe he got the pistol, because he freely admitted it.

I guess it all depends upon how easily you're persuaded that the people who wanted to get a confession out of him reported his statements accurately, and/or that Lee's statements were made and could be taken at face value (i.e., not sarcastic or "what they wanted to hear"), or whether, as a defense attorney, you would allow that a statement about carrying a gun to the effect that "you know how boys do" (not a seemingly apropos answer, verbatim, from any 24-year-old man, I wouldn't think) is the same as a "confession." Remember that until recently, concealed handguns were in themselves illegal; there was no such thing as carrying an gun "without a permit" (a la Jack Ruby) because there were no permits to be had.

We believe he went to the bus stop, which isn't incriminating (and actually tends toward the opposite).

We submit that Lee Oswald, when last seen, was about to start heading towards the Texas Theatre. That would be consistent with what he told his captors. As I recall that Beckley intersection, (and I know you will correct me if I am wrong) he would have to cross the street from where he stood if he wanted to walk to the Cinema.

As far as I know, Dallas doesn't have any one-way sidewalks, so no, he wouldn't have to had to cross the street to get anywhere, and going north - unless he wanted to walk down Zangs to Jefferson, which is about the same distance (1.0 miles, per Google) - is hardly necessary because, if he'd wanted to cross the street at a marked crossing, he could have done so at 5th or 6th or any street along the way, or anywhere along the way if he wasn't so concerned about crossing at a corner.

[Duke Lane]

I agree with the average walking speeds. No reason to assume Lee ran to where ever he was going imo (this would draw unnecessary attention to him -and besides why would he run). I'm also ok, with the under a mile distance to 10th and Patton from 1026 n. Beckley. Assuming for a moment that Lee was in the area of 10th and Patton and that he did leave his coat/jacket where it was found under a car? in a parking lot nearby - it would put Lee in the area and it would have taken Lee some 16-18 minutes to walk to 10th and Patton from 1026 N Beckley, correct?

According to this magnificent spreadsheet I've got(!), a walk of 8/10 mile would take 16.37 minutes at an "average" speed.

To establish a time line then:

Assuming further that the landlady's testimony of Lee leaving the rooming house at approximately 1 p.m. (give or take a minute) and standing at the north bound bus stop near the rooming house at about 1:02 (last witness visual before 10th and Patton) - this would put Lee at 10th and Patton at 1:18 - 1:20 p.m. A bit late for the Tippit shooting.

Since we now have this spreadsheet and Google Maps "walking directions" available to us (and both seem to jibe in terms of time to cover any distance), let's start at the beginning. It seems as if the WC had decided that Lee was a brisk walker at all times. This is necessary because their "reconstruction" was dependent upon getting him to a certain point by a certain time, rather than from a certain point in whatever period of time (it was meant to prove he could do it, not eliminate the possibility that he couldn't).

FBI and USSS agents walked the seven-block distance from Elm & Houston to Elm & Murphy (which latter is no longer a street, but a pedestrian walkway located just west of Field Street, i.e., less than half-a-block closer to Houston than Field) three times, averaging 6.5 minutes. Our Google Maps estimates the distance at .4 mile with an eight-minute walk; our "average speed calculator" estimates the time needed to cover that distance at 8.19 minutes (8:11.4); covering the same distance in 6.5 minutes gives us an average speed of 5.4 fps (vs. 4.3 "average"), or 25% faster than "normal."

The WCR estimated Oswald getting to 1026 at "about 12:59 to 1 p.m" after getting on the bus at 12:40 (four minutes after McWatters left the Elm/St. Paul stop); being on the bus for four minutes (12:44); three to four minutes walking three blocks to the Greyhound depot (12:47-12:48); taking a six-minute cab ride (12:54); and walking 3/10 mile to 1026. It quoted Earlene Roberts as estimating that Lee stayed in the house "no more than three or four minutes," having entered in "an unusual haste" (Roberts' own words were a bit more colorful) and leaving while "zipping up a jacket." Then "a few seconds later," she saw him "standing near the bus stop in front of the house on the east side of Beckley" (current maps show the bus stop to be beyond the house next door to the north). (WCR161-65)

It goes on to note that he "was next seen nine-tenths of a mile away" at 10th & Patton which, "if he left his roominghouse shortly after 1 p.m. and walked at a brisk pace, he would have reached 10th and Patton shortly after 1:15 p.m. Tippit's murder was recorded on the police tape at about 1:16 p.m."

Using the WC's own "nine-tenths of a mile," the spreadsheet calculates the "normal walking speed" time to get there as 18.42 mins (18:25.2); Google gives us 0.8 miles and about 16 minutes, and at that distance, the spreadsheet calculates 16.37 minutes. Using the average of 0.85 miles, we end up with 17.4 minutes, or 17:24; call it 17 minutes.

Pick at time that Oswald left the rooming house to come up with an arrival time:

1:02 = 1:19

1:03 = 1:20

1:04 = 1:21

1:05 = 1:22 (giving one minute standing at the bus stop, latest "possible" time ... tho' who's to say Earlene Roberts' estimate of his being there "no more than three or four minutes" wasn't short, and he'd been there five or six; after all, she was trying to tune in her TV set to catch the news about the shooting, and could've been wrong about how long he'd been there in either direction.)

Remembering the "normal" rate of speed as 4.3 fps (2.93 mph), if he arrived there "by shortly after 1:15," Oswald's walking speeds would have to be:

1:02 = 5.8 fps = 3.92 mph (15.3-minute mile)

1:03 = 6.2 fps = 4.25 mph (14.1-minute mile)

1:04 = 6.8 fps = 4.64 mph (12.9-minute mile)

1:05 = 7.5 fps = 5.10 mph (11.8-minute mile)

... all eminently do-able times at a "brisk" pace, tho' the last couple might today be called "power-walking," maybe even jogging, at about 1.6 to 1.75 times the "normal" rate of speed.

Ray and you seem to agree that Tippit got shot as early as 1:08 p.m. Do you have a thread or details on how you arrived at this time? As to what asssumptions I make, I'm just trying to work with the witness statements and the evidence as we have it. Don't know where it's going to lead.

It could've been as early as 1:06 or 1:07, but we can state with a fair degree of certainty that it was before 1:10. There are several threads relating to Tippit that have this information, but for starters, you can also go to the affidavits of Helen Markham and T.F. Bowley, as well as Markham's testimony about the events. I've got something lengthier and more in-depth that I can email you; drop me a PM. (As to Markham, as much an "utter screwball" as she may have been, she certainly knew when she left for work and what bus she had to catch to get there.)