WCD 1035 and the Men running from the TSBD

Robert Howard · February 1, 2009

... From They've Killed The President pages 31-32....
"Like many witnesses to the assassination, James Worrell was frightened, worried that perhaps the shooting was not over. He ran from Elm, where he had watched the motorcade, past the Depository onto Houston. He did not stop until he reached the corner of Pacific Street, a hundred yards from the Depository. As he paused to catch his breath, he saw a man burst from the back door of the Depository. From where Worrell stood the man seemed to be young, dark-haired, medium height and build, wearing light pants and a dark sports jacket. That was all Worrell could see. The man was running away."

After I wrote this, I just discovered that Anson's reference is WCH 16 H 959

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=138627

Worrell's description, its an affadavit; is actually a little more specific....

height 5'8 to 5'10, no hat, nothing in hands....

It is also kind of obvious, but WCD 1035 does not mention either of these two men getting into a car, ie the Rambler......

Dickey Worrell's time and distance estimates were all out of whack. Check his testimony to see how long (or short) it was between various events, and it's obvious that he could not keep track of time ... or worse.
The same is true of his distance estimates; see where he estimated that the limousine passed as much as 50, 75 or 100 yards in front of him ... as he stood near the southeast corner of the TSBD directly under the "sniper's nest" window. A football field's-length away? We all know better than that.

The TSBD building measures only 100' x 100' on the inside, thus if Worrell was "a hundred yards from the Depository," he was more than two blocks away. Pacific Street is directly behind the Dal-Tex Building, and would have run into the TSBD's loading dock if it continued west past Houston Street. "The corner of Pacific Street" and "a hundred yards from the Depository" has a twain that shall never meet.

More telling is the fact that a photograph was taken of that area of the TSBD moments before JFK was shot, and there is, unfortunately, nobody even remotely matching Worrell's description standing in that location.

In an article entitled "Imaginary Witness," published in Deep Politics Quarterly (January 2007?), I dissected Worrell's purported movements vis a vis the President's arrival, the motorcade's route, the bus schedule and the shooting. In it, I determined it was possible for Worrell to have been in DP at 12:30, but only if the bus he got on at Love was running 10 minutes or more late, and he knew exactly where he wanted to go after getting off the bus (and that after having crossed through the crowds on Main Street to get there, i.e., bypassed the obvious parade route).

Bottom line: Dickey most likely wasn't there.

Last question, regarding the initial seconds after the assassination...isn't it true that someone testified or stated in an affidavit that they witnessed someone running parallel to the south fence around the knoll, between it and the Western portion of the TSBD, also vanishing out of sight?
Actually, this is the story that Richard Carr told to Penn Jones, after having told something different to the FBI in 1964, and before having sworn to something different yet again during the Shaw trial in 1969.

Well, that is all well and good, but the issue I have is if he is such a fraud, then the numerous incidents where he was attacked, stabbed et cetera point to a completely different set of circumstances, in that Roger Craig was also the victim of that as well, Craig was villified as a xxxx also, and when all the facts were on the table, it turned out that Craig had been telling the truth all along.......I also notice that you don't seem very upfront in focusing at all on that...

Impartial?

William Kelly · February 1, 2009

... From They've Killed The President pages 31-32....
"Like many witnesses to the assassination, James Worrell was frightened, worried that perhaps the shooting was not over. He ran from Elm, where he had watched the motorcade, past the Depository onto Houston. He did not stop until he reached the corner of Pacific Street, a hundred yards from the Depository. As he paused to catch his breath, he saw a man burst from the back door of the Depository. From where Worrell stood the man seemed to be young, dark-haired, medium height and build, wearing light pants and a dark sports jacket. That was all Worrell could see. The man was running away."

After I wrote this, I just discovered that Anson's reference is WCH 16 H 959

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=138627

Worrell's description, its an affadavit; is actually a little more specific....

height 5'8 to 5'10, no hat, nothing in hands....

It is also kind of obvious, but WCD 1035 does not mention either of these two men getting into a car, ie the Rambler......

Dickey Worrell's time and distance estimates were all out of whack. Check his testimony to see how long (or short) it was between various events, and it's obvious that he could not keep track of time ... or worse.
The same is true of his distance estimates; see where he estimated that the limousine passed as much as 50, 75 or 100 yards in front of him ... as he stood near the southeast corner of the TSBD directly under the "sniper's nest" window. A football field's-length away? We all know better than that.

The TSBD building measures only 100' x 100' on the inside, thus if Worrell was "a hundred yards from the Depository," he was more than two blocks away. Pacific Street is directly behind the Dal-Tex Building, and would have run into the TSBD's loading dock if it continued west past Houston Street. "The corner of Pacific Street" and "a hundred yards from the Depository" has a twain that shall never meet.

More telling is the fact that a photograph was taken of that area of the TSBD moments before JFK was shot, and there is, unfortunately, nobody even remotely matching Worrell's description standing in that location.

In an article entitled "Imaginary Witness," published in Deep Politics Quarterly (January 2007?), I dissected Worrell's purported movements vis a vis the President's arrival, the motorcade's route, the bus schedule and the shooting. In it, I determined it was possible for Worrell to have been in DP at 12:30, but only if the bus he got on at Love was running 10 minutes or more late, and he knew exactly where he wanted to go after getting off the bus (and that after having crossed through the crowds on Main Street to get there, i.e., bypassed the obvious parade route).

Bottom line: Dickey most likely wasn't there.

Last question, regarding the initial seconds after the assassination...isn't it true that someone testified or stated in an affidavit that they witnessed someone running parallel to the south fence around the knoll, between it and the Western portion of the TSBD, also vanishing out of sight?
Actually, this is the story that Richard Carr told to Penn Jones, after having told something different to the FBI in 1964, and before having sworn to something different yet again during the Shaw trial in 1969.

Well, that is all well and good, but the issue I have is if he is such a fraud, then the numerous incidents where he was attacked, stabbed et cetera point to a completely different set of circumstances, in that Roger Craig was also the victim of that as well, Craig was villified as a xxxx also, and when all the facts were on the table, it turned out that Craig had been telling the truth all along.......I also notice that you don't seem very upfront in focusing at all on that...

Impartial?

I'd only add that many told X to the FBI, only to have it 'recorded' as Y - often totally distorted or the opposite of what they had said. These were not clerical errors. The FBI was busy erasing all references and witness statements [as well as physical evidence] that didn't fit the pre-planed story of the events. Period. So, that someone seems to have made a 'different' statement to the FBI to me means zero. I'd agree with Robert that attacks and threats to persons lends one whole hell of a lot of credibility to what they said and saw...i.e the 'wrong thing' [not the official scenario - but the truthful one].

Bottom line: Dickey most likely wasn't there.

Bottom line: Duke is out to discredit any witness who saw a man in brown sports coat.

What's the matter Duke, you don't like the guy?

BK

Duke Lane · February 1, 2009

Well, that is all well and good, but the issue I have is if he is such a fraud, then the numerous incidents where he was attacked, stabbed et cetera point to a completely different set of circumstances, in that Roger Craig was also the victim of that as well, Craig was villified as a xxxx also, and when all the facts were on the table, it turned out that Craig had been telling the truth all along.......I also notice that you don't seem very upfront in focusing at all on that...
Impartial?

I don't think that it's appropriate to say that, if Roger Craig wasn't a xxxx (and I've never said that he was), then someone else who made similar claims therefore isn't a xxxx either. There's no "QED" in such logic.

The only "proof" of such attacks on Carr is Carr's own words, which he made under oath while telling a completely different story to the court than he'd told to either the FBI or Penn Jones, each of which was different than the other; three different stories. Which of the three stories is the true one? If it wasn't the one he told under oath - that he saw something occur on a street that he couldn't physically have seen from where he was (and which he initially said "would have been impossible" for him to have seen) - how do we know that he told the truth about being attacked?

One of the most telling aspects of his veracity (or lack thereof) is the fact that he sought out Penn Jones - called Penn after Penn was on the radio - and had Jones come out to his house, "pleading" with Jones as he left not to "get him killed" (which was not the case with Roger Craig, who didn't seek out anyone), this after Carr had had the opportunity to tell his story to the FBI during its investigation and presumably enjoy their protection since, by January 1964, there were few if any "mysterious deaths" to be concerned about becoming one of ... and I doubt he had reason to believe that the FBI would kill him!

Moreover, in his initial interviews with the FBI, Carr said that the "brown suit man" (BSM) had been on the "top" floor of the TSBD; Carr later saw him coming south on Houston Street, turning east on Commerce, and getting into a Rambler station wagon on Record Street, said Rambler being driven by a "young negro man," who drove the car away northbound on Record Street. In 1967, when he spoke with Penn Jones, Jones called the driver "a dark complected man" while noting that Carr "called him a Negro."

But by that point, BSM was no longer even in the TSBD, but behind the picket fence on the knoll; he was no longer alone, but with another man. Carr supposedly watched him run behind the TSBD and - tho' it was impossible for him to see the area - emerge from behind or out of the side of the TSBD where the Rambler was parked, no longer on Record Street behind the Old Red Courthouse, but on Houston beside the TSBD. And BSM didn't get into the Rambler, the other guy did. He saw the car "speed north on Houston Street" even though Houston Street was closed and under construction.

By 1969, BSM was back inside the TSBD, now on the fifth rather than the "top" floor. The "Negro" man was now "a Latin," conforming to the description of some of those whom Garrison had tied into the crime (this does not reflect on whether or not Garrison was correct, only that Carr changed his story to meet the DA's needs, whether by Garrison's subornation or of his own volition).

Jones, we might note, made it a point to tell Garrison in a memo that he had not told anybody at all (other than Garrison himself) about Carr. How then did Carr become known to his supposed attackers? What cause would these folks have had for attacking him when the only thing he'd told anyone - the FBI - was that he'd seen nothing of any consequence and, in fact, did not recognize the gunshots as gunshots and didn't even know that Kennedy had been shot (at) until later in the afternoon, but not while he was in Dealey Plaza? (In his testimony in Shaw, he not only reversed that claim to having "immediately" recognized gunfire at the time, but added the detail that, from a couple of hundred yards away, he saw a bullet "furrow" into the grass!)

Even if we presume his interviews with the FBI were nothing more than "CYA" activities - saw no evil, heard no evil, and wasn't going to speak no evil either! - since all there was up to the point of his Shaw testimony was unpublished FBI reports (he is not mentioned in the WCR or in any of the volumes), what brought him to the fore as a "threat" to those he'd sought to placate by his statements to the FBI such that he would have attempts made on his life?

I've also noted that there is reason to believe that Carr lied about his wartime service with the Army Rangers ... or at the very least, that there is no proof whatsoever that he actually did serve with them.

Richard Carr is not Roger Craig. Even if one chooses to believe that Craig made up some of the things that happened to him, Craig's story was at least consistent; Carr's is merely sensational. Whether or not Roger Craig told the absolute truth about everything, what Craig said has no bearing at all upon what Richard Carr said. Consequently, there is no reason for me to be "up front" about Craig's telling the truth since it has nothing at all to do with whether or not Carr told the truth.

Nothing other than the make and nomenclature of the vehicles they said they'd seen - a Rambler station wagon, one gray the other green - jibes in the two stories: Craig said the car was on Elm Street, driven by a dark-complected man (in Dallas, in 1963, one presumes that a white man would call a Negro a Negro and not pussyfoot around with "dark complexions"), while Carr's Rambler was initially on Record Street, later on Houston Street and, until 1969, was driven by a "Negro." There is no solid reason to believe that the two cars were even related ... and if the car that Carr saw was on Houston Street, we know that Carr couldn't have seen it anyway, so where'd he get the description from?

Either he made it up, "moved" the car from one place (Record) to another (Houston), or somehow knew about Craig's sighting. Or are we to presume that he lived in a vacuum and never read any of Lane, Meagher, Anson, Thompson or Weisberg, or anything in any of the periodicals, and never heard about them from anyone else?

Yup: impartial. And I'm not lending any partiality toward believing Craig's story to believing Carr's. They are completely separate considerations.

Robert Howard · February 1, 2009

I don't think that it's appropriate to say that, if Roger Craig wasn't a xxxx (and I've never said that he was), then someone else who made similar claims therefore isn't a xxxx either. There's no "QED" in such logic.

That was not my logic in making the distinction, and I think you know better than that. The point was brought up not on the logic, that since Carr was beaten, attacked, stabbed et cetera and the same thing had happened to Roger Craig, therefore

Carr must be telling the truth too.

The point which I made was articulated clearly, in the first post, and I will not repost what I said, any idiot can go back and read what I said, Peter Lemkin's comments reinforced the point I was trying to make. And while you could have expressed some reasoning for why that is no concern of yours, you simply harp on Carr's lack of credibility, and to be honest his lack of credibility in my mind will not be resolved one way or another until I personally see his obit. The point I am trying to make as well as Bill, is that as a JFK Researcher you seem to focus only on concentrating on establishing that key persons were liars, misfits etc., [there is a balance you know, it's not McAdams way or the highway;] while I agree you are very good at doing that, the POINT that is being made is in reference to what ultimately do you do other than the above?

That is a point I am trying to make.

Edited February 1, 2009 by Robert Howard

Bernice Moore · February 1, 2009

Peter,

Right on..... :lol:

Duke :

Could you please let me know what photograph you are referring to, I have quite a few of the front of the TSBD , and very few are clear, but a couple are, and it depends exactly where he was standing, in the area......you apparently have

one in particular and I would like to check it, could you post it for us....? and or let me know the photographer's name...... also could you give me, us, the full description of Worrell, many thanks...

Duke :""More telling is the fact that a photograph was taken of that area of the TSBD moments before JFK was shot, and there is, unfortunately, nobody even remotely matching Worrell's description standing in that location.""

*******************

Duke: "In an article entitled "Imaginary Witness," published in Deep Politics Quarterly (January 2007?), I dissected Worrell's purported movements vis a vis the President's arrival, the motorcade's route, the bus schedule and the shooting. In it, I determined it was possible for Worrell to have been in DP at 12:30, but only if the bus he got on at Love was running 10 minutes or more late, and he knew exactly where he wanted to go after getting off the bus (and that after having crossed through the crowds on Main Street to get there, i.e., bypassed the obvious parade route).""

This below is what Worrell stated in his W/C testimony, re Love Field and how he left Dealey, to me it somehow differs with what you have posted....above..

I also have gone through the DPQ, and cannot find your article, "Imaginary Witnesses"....scroll down...

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DPQ/

Is there another link to such...Thanks.....

Worrell W/C Testimony.....

Mr. SPECTER - Did you leave Love Field before the President did?

Mr. WORRELL - Oh, yes.

Mr. SPECTER - Why did you happen to leave Love Field before he left?

Mr. WORRELL - Well, so I could see him better.

Mr. SPECTER - Couldn't you get a good view of him a Love Field?

Mr. WORRELL - No, I just saw him get off the plane and I figured that I wasn't going to see him good so I was going to get a better place to see him.

snip

Mr. SPECTER - How did you travel from Love Field to Elm and Houston?

Mr. WORRELL - Bus. No, no; I just traveled so far on the bus. I went down to Elm, and took a buds from there. I went down as far as, I don't know where that bus stops, anyway, I got close to there and I walked the rest of the way.

Mr. SPECTER - What time, to the best of your recollection, did you arrive at the intersection of Elm and Houston?

Mr. WORRELL - Well, about 10, 10:30, 10:45, something around there. There weren't many people standing around there then.

Mr. SPECTER - Well about how long before the Presidential motorcade came to Elm and Houston did you get there?

Mr. WORRELL - An hour; an hour and a half. Mr. SPECTER - Are you sure you were at Love Field when the President arrived there?

Mr. WORRELL - Oh yes.

snip

Mr. SPECTER - All right. What did you do next, Mr. Worrell?

Mr. WORRELL - Well, I went on down this way and headed back to Elm Street.

Mr. SPECTER - Indicating you went on down to Pacific?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes.

Mr. SPECTER - And then proceeded --

Mr. WORRELL - No, no; that is wrong. I went on Pacific and --

Mr. SPECTER - Just a minute. You proceeded from point "Y" on in a generally northerly direction to Pacific and then in what direction did you go on Pacific, this would be in an easterly direction?

Mr. WORRELL - I went east.

Mr. SPECTER - You went in an easterly direction how many blocks down Pacific?

Mr. WORRELL - I went down to Market and from Market I went on Ross.

Mr. SPECTER - You went left on Market down to Ross, and then?

Mr. WORRELL - From Ross I went all the way to Ervay.

Mr. SPECTER - Where were you heading for at the time?

Mr. WORRELL - For the bus stop near my mother's office. And I rode the bus from there out to the school and hitchhiked the rest of the way to Farmer's Branch.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/worrell.htm

Duke :""The only "proof" of such attacks on Carr is Carr's own words, which he made under oath while telling a completely different story to the court than he'd told to either the FBI or Penn Jones, each of which was different than the other; three different stories. Which of the three stories is the true one? If it wasn't the one he told under oath - that he saw something occur on a street that he couldn't physically have seen from where he was (and which he initially said "would have been impossible" for him to have seen) - how do we know that he told the truth about being attacked?""

Now that said, has it also not been the opinion of many at times on the Fs, that thre FBI lied, and altered statements, many a time...and the rest of the said Government.....?

Also Penn Jones, whose work I value and respect, has also been accused of not quite printing, exactly what he was told......

It comes down to at times, it would appear, the difference in the telling of the story, is by the story teller...It is in the retelling of the beholder in otherwards...

As for reference to one saying a dark complexioned man and then a negro, is only after all, a choice of words at the given time, nothing really to do with

his information, as you are seeing it, in mo...

Thanks....

B.....

Edited February 1, 2009 by Bernice Moore

Robert Howard · February 1, 2009

Peter,
Right on.....

Duke :

Could you please let me know what photograph you are referring to, I have quite a few of the front of the TSBD , and very few are clear, but a couple are, and it depends exactly where he was standing, in the area......you apparently have

one in particular and I would like to check it, could you post it for us....? and or let me know the photographer's name...... also could you give me, us, the full description of Worrell, many thanks...

Duke :""More telling is the fact that a photograph was taken of that area of the TSBD moments before JFK was shot, and there is, unfortunately, nobody even remotely matching Worrell's description standing in that location.""

*******************

Duke: "In an article entitled "Imaginary Witness," published in Deep Politics Quarterly (January 2007?), I dissected Worrell's purported movements vis a vis the President's arrival, the motorcade's route, the bus schedule and the shooting. In it, I determined it was possible for Worrell to have been in DP at 12:30, but only if the bus he got on at Love was running 10 minutes or more late, and he knew exactly where he wanted to go after getting off the bus (and that after having crossed through the crowds on Main Street to get there, i.e., bypassed the obvious parade route).""

This below is what Worrell stated in his W/C testimony, re Love Field and how he left Dealey, to me it somehow differs with what you have posted....above..

I also have gone through the DPQ, and cannot find your article, "Imaginary Witnesses"....scroll down...

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DPQ/

Is there another link to such...Thanks.....

Worrell W/C Testimony.....

Mr. SPECTER - Did you leave Love Field before the President did?

Mr. WORRELL - Oh, yes.

Mr. SPECTER - Why did you happen to leave Love Field before he left?

Mr. WORRELL - Well, so I could see him better.

Mr. SPECTER - Couldn't you get a good view of him a Love Field?

Mr. WORRELL - No, I just saw him get off the plane and I figured that I wasn't going to see him good so I was going to get a better place to see him.

snip

Mr. SPECTER - How did you travel from Love Field to Elm and Houston?

Mr. WORRELL - Bus. No, no; I just traveled so far on the bus. I went down to Elm, and took a buds from there. I went down as far as, I don't know where that bus stops, anyway, I got close to there and I walked the rest of the way.

Mr. SPECTER - What time, to the best of your recollection, did you arrive at the intersection of Elm and Houston?

Mr. WORRELL - Well, about 10, 10:30, 10:45, something around there. There weren't many people standing around there then.

Mr. SPECTER - Well about how long before the Presidential motorcade came to Elm and Houston did you get there?

Mr. WORRELL - An hour; an hour and a half. Mr. SPECTER - Are you sure you were at Love Field when the President arrived there?

Mr. WORRELL - Oh yes.

snip

Mr. SPECTER - All right. What did you do next, Mr. Worrell?

Mr. WORRELL - Well, I went on down this way and headed back to Elm Street.

Mr. SPECTER - Indicating you went on down to Pacific?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes.

Mr. SPECTER - And then proceeded --

Mr. WORRELL - No, no; that is wrong. I went on Pacific and --

Mr. SPECTER - Just a minute. You proceeded from point "Y" on in a generally northerly direction to Pacific and then in what direction did you go on Pacific, this would be in an easterly direction?

Mr. WORRELL - I went east.

Mr. SPECTER - You went in an easterly direction how many blocks down Pacific?

Mr. WORRELL - I went down to Market and from Market I went on Ross.

Mr. SPECTER - You went left on Market down to Ross, and then?

Mr. WORRELL - From Ross I went all the way to Ervay.

Mr. SPECTER - Where were you heading for at the time?

Mr. WORRELL - For the bus stop near my mother's office. And I rode the bus from there out to the school and hitchhiked the rest of the way to Farmer's Branch.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/worrell.htm

Duke :""The only "proof" of such attacks on Carr is Carr's own words, which he made under oath while telling a completely different story to the court than he'd told to either the FBI or Penn Jones, each of which was different than the other; three different stories. Which of the three stories is the true one? If it wasn't the one he told under oath - that he saw something occur on a street that he couldn't physically have seen from where he was (and which he initially said "would have been impossible" for him to have seen) - how do we know that he told the truth about being attacked?""

Now that said, has it also not been the opinion of many at times on the Fs, that thre FBI lied, and altered statements, many a time...and the rest of the said Government.....?

Also Penn Jones, whose work I value and respect, has also been accused of not quite printing, exactly what he was told......

It comes down to at times, it would appear, the difference in the telling of the story, is by the story teller...It is in the retelling of the beholder in otherwards...

As for reference to one saying a dark complexioned man and then a negro, is only after all, a choice of words at the given time, nothing really to do with

his information, as you are seeing it, in mo...

Thanks....

B.....

There is an article on mary ferrell's in the Journal Section

Fourth Decade Volume 2 Issue # 5 entitled North of Elm On Houston by Dennis Ford

See

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=519656

The pertinent persons covered include James Worrell, Jr., Richard Randolph Carr and also Sam Pate and James Romack, who, according to the author were also present in the area, and whose accounts refuted the accounts given by Worrell and Carr; For the most part, Ford's analysis appears to be written with a sincere desire to "get the story straight" about what was transpiring back there. Which is what we are all trying to do.......I will offer this to Duke Lane, I run across credibility issues every day, because I read declassified documents every day, and the more you read depositions, and areas that deal with literally profound issues relating to all the events of the assassination, such as the guilt or innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald, it is bedeviling when you realize that there are people who have either lied repeatedly to the various investigative agencies in matters of vital importance; or their entire testimony is suspect. I have no problem with anyone pointing out discrepancy's in a individual or individuals account of JFK Assassination matters, especially of the magnitude that a thread such as this one is dealing with, as long as it is done in an balanced and impartial manner.

Bernice Moore · February 1, 2009

Robert :

I also have found an article.......with further information by William Weston...

You will note that another man , George Rackley was also some 100 yards away from the TSBD and yet

could see the back entrance, that is not a great distance......

One of my neighbours lives approximately that distance from us,

we have no problem seeing him and all.etc...when we look that way.

I also try to keep in mind, how many of the witnesses stated at different times, how

their testimony and statements were altered, the shame and the truth is, we simply do not know......

and Specter is not about to inform us.. after all....there was to be only one

guilty man...of both the killing of the President and Officer Tippit....

See the DPD document below, and note the time and the date and how cut and dried

the charges were......He was guilty of both killings and that was a period, at 1.40pm on Nov.22/63..

the verdict was in..

I fully understand and agree with your standing, there is a huge difference between being

what I call open-minded and one that is severely closed..to other possibilities......

Thanks again, carry on.....

B... :lol:

P.S Also I enclose an aerial view taken Nov.22/63.......by Jerry Cabluck... The red line, is Pacific Street, you will note how from the corner

of such and Houston, one could have viewed the rear of the TSBD....

The Man in the Dark Sports Coat

by William Weston

A man in a dark sportcoat and light colored pants dashed out of the back door of the TSBD about three minutes after the shots had been fired at the motorcade. He was in his late 20's or early 30's, about 5'8" tall, and had dark brown hair. As he ran south on Houston Street, his coat was flapping backward in the breeze.

Who was this man and why was he running away? Was he a conspirator escaping from the scene of the crime, or was he just an excited TSBD employee? Finding an answer to that question is not an easy undertaking, as there is much conflicting testimony. Nevertheless, a proper analysis of these eyewitness accounts will demonstrate that the apparent conflicts are really non-existent ones. In this article, I shall compare and combine the details of what was seen and heard in order to obtain a unified picture of what was happening behind the TSBD.

Let us first examine the matter through the eyes of Jams Worrell, a senior in high school living with his mother and sister in Farmers Branch, a Dallas suburb.1 On November 22, he decided to skip school to see the President, and hitched a ride to Love Field, arriving at 9 am and then wait-ing for the President's arrival.

When the Presidential party arrived and disembarked, the large airport crowds prevented Worrell from getting a good view. He considered alternatives for seeing JFK, and hit upon a bus ride to Dealey Plaza, the final "slow" point of the motorcade, which would be direct, while the motorcade itself would take an indirect route at reduced speed to enhance the President's visibility. Worrell caught his bus and wound up awaiting the motorcade underneath the "sniper's window" in the TSBD.

At 12:30 he could see the presidential limousine as it made its successive slow turns onto Houston and Elm Streets. He could not see the President well, how-ever, as the press of the crowd again defeated his purpose. When the limousine had gone 50 to 75 feet past him, he heard a shot that sounded like it came from above. He looked up and saw about six inches of a rifle projecting from either the fifth or sixth floor window--four inches of barrel extending from two inches of stock. [The Mannlicher-Carcano barrel extends five and one half inches from the stock.] Worrell looked down the street to see where the rifle was aiming. A second shot was fired and the President slumped down into his seat. Worrell again looked up and saw a small discharge of flash and smoke as the rifle fired again. At that instant he heard people screaming and others were yelling, "Duck." He sought cover by going around the corner of the TSBD. Just as he was rounding the corner, he heard a fourth shot.2 Continuing on towards the rear corner of the building, he turned right and crossed the street. Stopping to catch his breath at the s.e. corner of Houston and Pacific, he waited for perhaps two to three minutes, and then saw the man in the dark sportcoat come bustling out the back door, and run toward Houston and Elm, where he disappeared among other bystanders. Worrell watched him as long as he could, but after losing sight of him, he turned eastward and walked along Pacific St. Reaching his mother's office at Ross and Ervay, he took a bus from there to school, and then hitchhiked home.

The next morning as he watched the ongoing television coverage, he saw Jesse Curry make a plea to anyone who had seen the shooting to notify the police. Worrell did so and was soon taken to City Hall to make a statement. Three and a half months later, he testified before the Warren Commission and his account of the mysterious man running from the back door of the TSBD was reported in the local papers. One man who read this story was outraged, for he knew very well that no one had come out that way.

James Romack, a truck driver for Coordinated Transportation3 had been watching the back door from the very moment the shots were fired. He did not cease watching it until after the police had arrived to seal off the building. He was angry that some fool could get away with putting forth such nonsense. To set the record straight, Romack contacted the authorities and told them exactly what happened.

On the morning of Nov. 22, Romack had been working at the railroad yard. He had been conversing with co- worker George Rackley at a spot 100-125 yards from the rear side of the TSBD.4 The sirens of approaching motorcycles drew their attention to the crowds gathered at Houston and Elm. Shortly thereafter, Romack heard three rifle shots. Rackley, curiously enough, did not hear the shooting, as he was 60 at the time and it is possible that his hearing might have been somewhat impaired. He did, how-ever, notice a large flock of pigeons that rose up from the roof of the TSBD.5

The pedestrians near the TSBD were either falling to the ground or scattering. Conspicuous among them was the distinctive blue uniform of a policeman running along the sidewalk. He was headed towards the back area of the building. Romack told the FBI that he saw the policeman "within a minute" after the shooting.6 When he testified before the WC, he used the words "just immediately after."7 Since the meaning of the word "immediately" has some elasticity, we can thus conclude that the policeman was seen during a time period of not more than 60 seconds after the shooting.

This time estimate was confirmed by the officer, W.E.Barnett.8 As he stood near the front of the Depository, he heard what sounded like three shots that came from up high. Barnett looked up and scanned the roof line for a gunman. If he was up there, he might try to make a getaway down a fire escape, of which there was one on the building's east side. Was there another one on the rear side? To find out, he made a dash for the back end of the building.9 No fire escape was on that side, but there was a back door that no one was guarding. He decided to position himself at a spot where he could keep an eye on both the fire escape and the back door. While he stood there, two young women opened the door and came out.

Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles had been on the fourth floor, watching the parade from one of the windows.10 They heard gunfire as JFK's car disappeared behind a tree. To learn what happened, they ran down the back stairs and went out the back door. Adams estimated that she and her friend were going outside about a minute after the shooting. They were stopped by a policeman. "Get back into the building," he said.

"But I work here," Adams pleaded.

"That is tough, get back."

"Well, was the president shot?"

"I don't know. Go back."

The two women obeyed, yet they complied not by returning the way they came, but rather by going all the way around the west side to reenter the TSBD through the front entrance--talking to people along the way. Technically, they were disregarding the instructions of a police officer, and Barnett should have stopped them, but he must have had too many other things on his mind than to chase two young ladies determined to satisfy their curiosity. His main worry was the front entrance. As he looked in that direction, he saw police officers and sheriff's deputies all running towards the Triple Underpass. No one seemed to realize that shots came from the building itself, putting Barnett in a quandary. Should he stay in place and hope that another officer would do likewise at the front door? Or should he, Barnett, go to the front door and alert someone to take his vacated back door spot? He decided on the latter and ran toward the front of the building.

Before he reached the front entrance, he was stopped by Howard Brennan in his construction hat, who told him that he had seen a gunman on one of the upper floors. Then a police sergeant came and ordered him to find a sign on the building by which it could be identified. He had to go out into the street to see the words near the rooftop ledge. It was the Texas School Book Depository. When he finally got to the front door, he estimated that about 2 1/2 to 3 minutes had passed since he had heard the final shot.11

When Romack saw the back door being guarded by an officer, he assumed a suspect might be coming out. (Neither he nor Barnett mentioned the exit of the two women, apparently attaching little significance to them.) After the officer left the rear door, Romack decided to take up the task of guarding the rear door himself. He continued the approach to the TSBD he began at the time of the shots, reaching a sawhorse barrier that crossed Houston St., located approximately 25 yards from the TSBD to block northbound traffic into a road construction zone.12 This barrier, as we shall see, is crucial to this study, for it is the means by which a reconciliation can be made between Romack's testimony and Worrell's.

According to his statement to the FBI, Romack heard from somewhere behind him the sound of a car bouncing erratically over large chunks of asphalt. He turned and watched in amazement and disbelief as a shiny red 1963 Pontiac Catalina station wagon bumped and banged laboriously over the broken-up street. It followed the curve that joined Ross to Houston and stopped at the barrier on the other side of the railroad tracks.13 Painted on the side of the car was "KBOX Radio News." Two occupants were in the front seat. To give the news- men a helping hand, Romack walked in front of the barrier, and helped remove it to aid the car's access. In performing this task, Romack had tuned his back to the Depository.14 The car passed the barrier and parked about 15 yards from the n.e. corner of the building. (See map showing positions at 12:34 pm.)

Romack said that the news vehicle arrived on the scene about 3 minutes after the shooting.15 His time estimate was confirmed by Sam Pate, one of the car's occupants. He said that the car came to a stop near the Depository about 4 minutes after the shooting.16 We can thus pinpoint its arrival between 12:33 and 12:34. The importance of this cannot be overstated, for this was also the same moment when Worrell saw the man in the dark sportcoat coming out the back door. The time span when Romack had turned his back to the building could not have been more than a couple of minutes, yet it only takes a few seconds for someone to dash out of a building and run down the street.

What about other witnesses in the area, who had the door within their field of view? One man who said that no one came out was George Rackley.17 He did not close in as Romack had, but remained in his original location, over 100 yards from the TSBD. Although he would indicate he saw no one emerge, that does not necessarily prove that he had the rear door in focus the entire time. An indication of his distractibility is that fact that he missed the arrival, at a distance of 25 yards, of the KBOX news vehicle, accord-ing to his WC testimony. If his awareness of his surroundings was so limited that he failed to notice a wild feat of rugged-terrain driving only 25 yards away, how could his testimony be used to settle a controversy involving a relatively inconspicuous event over 100 yards away? No doubt the awesome panorama of crowds surging into the railroad yards was an overwhelming spectacle to Rackley, and it would be understandable if he did not notice such peripheral circumstances as the arrival of a news vehicle or the brief appearance of a solitary figure coming out of a building.

Another witness who had the back door within his view was news reporter Sam Pate.18 From his vantage point inside the station wagon, he would have had an unobstructed view of the TSBD during that crucial moment when Romack had dropped his guard. Yet Pate did not have the same awareness of the TSBD as the source of the shots that Romack had. Pate's main concern then was finding out where the action was, and at 12:33 his attention would have been riveted on the onslaught of humanity into the parking lot and the railroad yards. Any latecomer to the scene would naturally assume that whoever fired the shots was not inside the building. (This consideration would also apply to the other occupant in the car, Josh Dowdell, who apparently made no statement about his observations.)

The sum total of these considerations leads to the conclusion that there is no testimony strong enough which could effectively refute Worrell's contention that a suspect ran out the back door.

The evident existence of this man is corroborated by the statements made by Carolyn Walther.19 She had been stand-ing on Houston in front of the County Records Building. Less than a minute before she saw the motorcade, she happened to look up at he Depository and said she saw two men at a fifth floor window in the far east corner. One of them was kneeling at the lower open half of the window and he had a short gun or rifle in his hands. Standing beside him was a man wearing a brown suit coat. His clothing could be seen through the open window, but his face was obscured by the glass. this was the extent of her observations, for at that instant she turned her attention to the approaching motorcade. Going by the detail of the suit coat, we can suspect that the man whom Walther saw could be the same one that Worrell saw a little over three minutes later. It is relevant to mention here that this interval of time correlates exactly with the three minute passage of time between the firing of the shots at 12:30 to the use of an elevator by someone on the fifth floor going down to the ground floor at 12:33.20

Still another sighting of this man was made by an unemployed steel worker, Richard R. Carr.21 Shortly after noon, he was looking for work at the site of the new courthouse on Houston St. He was seek-ing out the foreman on the ninth floor, and as he ascended, he stopped at the sixth floor, from which he could view the top floor of the Depository. He noted a heavy-set man looking out a window next to the one on the far east end. This man was wearing a hat, glasses, and, according to Carr, a tan sportcoat.22 For a short time, Carr studied the man, and then he continued his ascent.

About a minute or two later, he heard a loud noise that sounded like a firecracker. The was a slight pause and then he heard two more reports in rapid succession. He turned his eyes toward the triple under-pass, which was where he thought the shots came from. In the grassy area between Elm and Main he could see several individuals falling to the ground. To learn more, he immediately began to descend the stairs.

After Carr reached the ground, he again saw the man whom he had previously seen on the seventh floor of the Book Depository. He was rapidly approaching Carr at a very fast walking pace. When he got to the corner of Commerce, he turned left. On the next street over was a 1961 or 1962 Nash Rambler station wagon, parked facing north. It had a luggage rack on top and Texas plates. In the driver's seat was a young Black. The heavy-set man opened the rear door and got in. The car was last seen heading north on Record Street. This momentary sighting dovetails with the observation of sheriff's deputy Roger Craig, who also saw a Nash Rambler station wagon, also driven by a dark-complected man, about fifteen minutes after the shooting, heading west on Elm. It stopped in front of the TSBD and a man later identified by Craig as Lee Harvey Oswald got inside. The car was last seen going under the triple under-pass in a direction that could have taken it toward Oak Cliff.

In the course of this study, we have looked at a good number of incidents that occurred within a very short period of time -- about fifteen to twenty minutes. To show how these wide-ranging circumstances can be combined into a logical sequence, the following chronology is presented:

12:28 A man in a tan sportcoat is seen by Carr on the seventh floor of the TSBD.

12:29 A man in a brown suit coat is seen by Walther on the fifth floor of the TSBD, standing next to a gunman.

12:30 Worrell sees a gun firing at the President from a window on the fifth or sixth floor. Romack starts walking toward TSBD, keeping back door within his view.

12:31 Barnett runs to the back area of the TSBD. He encounters Adams and Styles coming out the back door.

12:32 Barnett returns to the front of TSBD

12:33 The KBOX news car arrives on the scene. Romack removes a portion of a barrier, allowing the vehicle to pass. Meanwhile, the man in the dark sportcoat dashes out the back door.

12:34 The KBOX car is parked near TSBD. The man in the tan sportcoat is seen by Carr walking south on Houston. He gets into a Nash Rambler driven by a Black man.

12:45 Deputy Roger Craig sees "Oswald" escaping in a Nash Rambler driven by a dark-complected man.

The chronology shows that there is a common thread of truth that ties widely disparate points of view into a unified whole. Each person on the scene corroborates the others and demonstrates the value and trustworthiness of the eye-witness testimony. While it is equally true that the best evidence in a homicide would be tangible items such as documents, photographs, bullet fragments, and autopsy specimens, in the case of the Kennedy assassination, where so much of that evidence has been grossly mishandled or falsified, the best source of data often turns out to be the inter-connecting memories of ordinary people.

NOTES

1. 2H 191-201 (Worrell)

2. Worrell had estimated that about four to six seconds had elapsed during the shooting. When he was told later that all the firing came from one bolt-action rifle, he could not understand how it could have been fired so rapidly.

3. 6H 279-283 (Romack)

4. 6H 280 (Romack)

5. 6H 275 (Rackley)

6. FBI report, March 13, 1964, p.2.

7. 6H 281 (Romack)

8. 7H 539-544 (Barnett)

9. It should be noted here that Barnett was running exactly the same way along the east side of the building as Worrell. Worrell had a head start, however, for he began running before the shot sequence ended, whereas Barnett did not start until it was over. By the time Barnett was on the move, Worrell must have already been crossing the street.

10. 6H 388-393 (Adams)

11. 7H 543 (Barnett)

12. FBI report, March 13, 1964, p. 5

13. Dennis Ford, "North of Elm on Houston," Fourth Decade, July, 1995, p. 41.

14. 6H 281 (Romack)

15. FBI report, March 13, 1964, p. 2

16. Ibid., p. 6.

17. 6H 274-277 (Rackley)

18. FBI report, March 13, 1964, p.6

19. 24H 522 (FBI report, Carolyn Walther)

20. For more information on the circumstances inside the TSBD, see "The Fifth Floor Sniper," The Third Decade, May, 1993.

21. Commission Document 385. Reprinted in Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas , (NY: B. Geis, 1976), pp. 308-309.

22. The time when Carr saw the man in a tan sportcoat on the seventh floor was within a minute or two when Carolyn Walther saw a man in a brown suit coat on the fifth floor. What probably happened was that the man whom Carr had seen had immediately gone down to the fifth floor where he was seen by Walther, just before the appearance of the motorcade.

23. This statement was given to the FBI on Feb. 4,1 964. Five years later, he gave a different story at the Clay Shaw trial. The Nash Rambler was not parked on Record Street, as stated in 1964, but rather it was parked on Houston, next to the TSBD, facing north. After the shooting, two or three men came out of the Depository and got into the Rambler. The car was last seen speeding north on Houston. With some variations, this story was repeated to J. Gary Shaw in 1975 in Cover Up, (p. 13.). unfortunately for Carr's credibility, the second version contains one significant difficulty: it is impossible to see this part of Houston Street from the new courthouse building, as the old structure would have completely blocked the view. This considerations leads us to the troubling conclusion that Carr had given a partially fictitious story at the trial. While arguably this assessment of his testimony is serious enough to warrant a complete rejection of everything he has said on the matter, I think that before we take this step, it is only fair to consider the severity of assassination-related persecution that he was suffering at the time of the trial, including at least two demonstrable attempts on his life (see Cover Up, pp. 13-14.) Given these circumstances, Carr's self-destructive credibility becomes more easily understandable as a matter of survival. When seen in this light, his early statements in 1964 actually gain in value--an account so important that the plotters of the assassination could not afford to leave it unsuppressed.

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DPQ/sports~1.htm

Edited February 1, 2009 by Bernice Moore

Duke Lane · February 2, 2009

Bernice, you've made my point for me. First regarding Dickey Worrell:

What time did he say he got to Dealey Plaza after having seen the President debark from AF One?

Mr. SPECTER - What time, to the best of your recollection, did you arrive at the intersection of Elm and Houston?

Mr. WORRELL - Well, about 10, 10:30, 10:45, something around there. There weren't many people standing around there then.

Mr. SPECTER - Well about how long before the Presidential motorcade came to Elm and Houston did you get there?

Mr. WORRELL - An hour; an hour and a half.

Mr. SPECTER - Are you sure you were at Love Field when the President arrived there?

Mr. WORRELL - Oh yes.

AF One landed at approximately 11:47, as I recall. JFK arrived in Dealey Plaza at approximately 12:28-12:29. Dickey was there "an hour, an hour and a half" before that, about 11:00 a.m., about 45 minutes before the President landed, almost 2-2½ hours before Kennedy got shot by Worrell's own estimate. Yet he was also at Love Field 40 minutes before JFK was killed. Do we detect the hand of Lieutenant Commander Scott in this somewhere? Even Specter was incredulous, but Worrell wasn't going to be shaken.

You would have to read my article - I believe it's posted here on the forum somewhere - to see what the bus schedule was, which I went to incredible lengths to find and verify. In it - the first of two or three parts, the last of which haven't been completed - I gave Worrell the benefit of the doubt, concluding that it was possible that he could've gotten there ... if several variables were met, including that the driver of an earlier bus decided to hang around and watch AF1 land instead of sticking to his route, for which there is absolutely no evidence anyone did.

If not, Dickey had to wait another ten minutes after the plane landed to catch the next bus, which would not have gotten him downtown in order to get to DP by 12:30 (I think it's fair to say that we all agree that he didn't get there at any "10, 10:30, 10:45, something around there," or "an hour, hour and a half" before JFK did) even in the very best of traffic.

How exactly did he travel to DP, and how did he know to go there?

Mr. SPECTER - How did you travel from Love Field to Elm and Houston?
Mr. WORRELL - Bus. No, no; I just traveled so far on the bus. I went down to Elm, and took a bus from there. I went down as far as, I don't know where that bus stops, anyway, I got close to there and I walked the rest of the way.

He wasn't sure where he'd ended up, yet knew how to get to DP from wherever it was he might've been. Bear in mind that his mission was to get a better view of the President than he supposedly got at Love Field. The bus he took - the only one that could've gotten him anywhere near DP in any semblance of enough time for him to have met the parade there - crossed Main Street about ten minutes before the motorcade did (assuming, that is, that he was on the earlier bus), and there were crowds there. Was there any doubt in his mind that the parade was going to come by this way?

Who knows, but he apparently made a decision to stay on the bus and go wherever it might take him in hopes that he'd maybe be able to get where he wanted to go (he never explains how he knew to go to DP in the first place) and have enough time to walk or run or, who knows, maybe even get dropped off there. In sum, he passed up a sure thing to bet on an uncertainty.

His taking the earlier bus would've taken him to the end of that route with enough time to get to DP from the terminus point by the hair of his chinny-chin-chin. He didn't stand a chance on the later bus.

How did he leave Dealey Plaza?

Mr. SPECTER - All right. What did you do next, Mr. Worrell?
Mr. WORRELL - Well, I went on down this way and headed back to Elm Street.

Mr. SPECTER - Indicating you went on down to Pacific?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes.

Mr. SPECTER - And then proceeded --

Mr. WORRELL - No, no; that is wrong. I went on Pacific and --

Mr. SPECTER - Just a minute. You proceeded from point "Y" on in a generally northerly direction to Pacific and then in what direction did you go on Pacific, this would be in an easterly direction?

Mr. WORRELL - I went east.

Mr. SPECTER - You went in an easterly direction how many blocks down Pacific?

Mr. WORRELL - I went down to Market and from Market I went on Ross ....

He only went as far north as Pacific. Pacific is just one block north of Elm, and roughly coincides with the back corner of the TSBD. Without looking it up, I recall that he'd said it took him a "minute, minute and a half" or some ridiculously long time to "run" that block because, y'know, he was 20 years old and smoked. Pacific is at no point "100 yards" from the TSBD. If he was on Pacific and 100 yards away, he was east by at least 1½ blocks (you can measure it on Google Earth pretty accurately) and wouldn't have been able to see the side of the TSBD where he claimed to have seen a man run from - and run toward Elm Street - because the Dal-Tex building would've been in the way.

He clearly didn't know times, distances or much about the geography. Does anyone suppose it was because he was 20 years old and still in high school, or just as likely that he wasn't there and simply couldn't describe the area where he wasn't and the events he didn't see?

... I also have found an article.......with further information by William Weston...
You will note that another man, George Rackley was also some 100 yards away from the TSBD and yet could see the back entrance, that is not a great distance......

One of my neighbours lives approximately that distance from us, we have no problem seeing him and all.etc...when we look that way. ....

Of course, I never said that you couldn't see 100 yards to the TSBD, only that Pacific wasn't any 100 yards away from the TSBD. Worrell did say that he was "at the corner of Houston and Pacific" when he saw a man run out the side of the building, didn't he.

George "Pop" Rackley (related to Virgie?) said that he was "about a block" from the northeast (back) corner of the TSBD, but couldn't state "how many feet" that was. He also didn't know the time - it could've even been before noon, he said - and didn't hear any shots, but only that "the only suspicious thing" he saw was pigeons flying off of the building and, about 2-3 minutes later, police surrounded the TSBD. He didn't see anyone running from behind or out of the side of the building, and he was watching the area behind and beside the building "I would say 5 minutes anyhow. Probably 10. I was looking up that way at all times." He also didn't see anyone running - or presumably speeding in a car - north on Houston. He did say, however, that he could see the side and back doors of the TSBD: "I just, of course, seen the policemen all out there running back. They came out the back door and the side door with guns."

Pop was 60 years old at the time, btw.

James Elbert Romack was only 39. His testimony follow Pop's in Volume VI (Pop's on page 273, Romack's on page 277). Romack likewise could see the side and back of the building and didn't see anyone coming out, although as someone (Willie Weston?) pointed out, his attention may have been distracted momentarily when he moved the roadblocks from Houston Street so Sam Pate could get his red KBOX Pontiac station wagon onto the paved part of the road ("I watched them [stairs] all the time until someone arrived, and the only time I did take my back off, turn my back to the building was Sam Pate with his KBOX news, he arrived before any of the police or anyone").

Strange, though, that he didn't see, hear or otherwise notice (like possibly by getting run over by it?) the gray Rambler station wagon that men he didn't see come out of the TSBD jumped into and sped north past him. Neither did Sam.

He'd been standing "...it would be just about where Houston would intersect, but the street was under construction at the time. They didn't have it, which they still don't have it opened up for through traffic," standing out there with "Lee and Mr. Rackley, we walked out there together originally to start with. We were kind of piddling around, and I kind of walked off ahead of him" toward the TSBD. He also estimated being "100-125 yards" from the nearest corner of the TSBD. (Again, no big issue: I've no argument with someone being able to see that far, tho' I suspect it was a shorter distance than that.)

What's more interesting about Romack's testimony, however, is why he even came to be telling his story to the WC: he'd seen Darwin Payne's article about Worrell in the newspaper and was incensed because he didn't believe the man (Worrell) was telling the truth. Asked why he'd contacted the FBI in March, he said that it was because "I saw an article that was written by a guy, which I have been concerned about this thing all the way through, the assassination, and I got to reading it, and it is a story that just don't jibe with about me sitting there and watching the building. It just kind of upset me to know there is some monkey just hatched up such a story. ... About a guy seeing a rifle drawn in from the building above him, and he also seen the people as the shots were being fired, and he also seen some character running toward me with an overcoat on which was brown or gray or blue ...."

The article was written by Darwin Payne (who says that he recalls Worrell as being "credible," btw) and featured not only Worrell, but also Amos Euins and photographer Robert Jackson, who were all going to Washington to testify. This article was their "send-off" article, so to speak. And Worrell's story incensed Romack, whose story is fully corroborated by Pop Rackley.

Worrell's story does not corroborate Carr's at least inasmuch as Dickey didn't notice the car that would've come speeding toward him. But it doesn't matter since even Willie Weston - who is usually quick to latch onto something suspicious, concedes that:

23. This statement [of Carr's] was given to the FBI on Feb. 4,1 964. Five years later, he gave a different story at the Clay Shaw trial. The Nash Rambler was not parked on Record Street, as stated in 1964, but rather it was parked on Houston, next to the TSBD, facing north. After the shooting, two or three men came out of the Depository and got into the Rambler. The car was last seen speeding north on Houston. With some variations, this story was repeated to J. Gary Shaw in 1975 in Cover Up, (p. 13.). Unfortunately for Carr's credibility, the second version contains one significant difficulty: it is impossible to see this part of Houston Street from the new courthouse building, as the old structure would have completely blocked the view. This consideration leads us to the troubling conclusion that Carr had given a partially fictitious story at the trial. While arguably this assessment of his testimony is serious enough to warrant a complete rejection of everything he has said on the matter, I think that before we take this step, it is only fair to consider the severity of assassination-related persecution that he was suffering at the time of the trial, including at least two demonstrable attempts on his life (see Cover Up, pp. 13-14.) Given these circumstances, Carr's self-destructive credibility becomes more easily understandable as a matter of survival. When seen in this light, his early statements in 1964 actually gain in value--an account so important that the plotters of the assassination could not afford to leave it unsuppressed.

Of course, the only thing that makes "at least two" attempt on his life "demonstrable" is that someone else wrote about them.

Duke: Could you please let me know what photograph you are referring to, I have quite a few of the front of the TSBD , and very few are clear, but a couple are, and it depends exactly where he was standing, in the area......you apparently have one in particular and I would like to check it, could you post it for us....? and or let me know the photographer's name...... also could you give me, us, the full description of Worrell, many thanks...
Duke :""More telling is the fact that a photograph was taken of that area of the TSBD moments before JFK was shot, and there is, unfortunately, nobody even remotely matching Worrell's description standing in that location.""

I would if I could, Bernice, but I've never been any good at cataloging photos, mentally or otherwise. There is also a film that shows Marrion Baker running toward the TSBD which does not show anyone running from Worrell's claimed position (tho' I'd initially thought it might have).

Duke: "In an article entitled "Imaginary Witness," published in Deep Politics Quarterly (January 2007?), I dissected Worrell's purported movements vis a vis the President's arrival, the motorcade's route, the bus schedule and the shooting. In it, I determined it was possible for Worrell to have been in DP at 12:30, but only if the bus he got on at Love was running 10 minutes or more late, and he knew exactly where he wanted to go after getting off the bus (and that after having crossed through the crowds on Main Street to get there, i.e., bypassed the obvious parade route).""
This below is what Worrell stated in his W/C testimony, re Love Field and how he left Dealey, to me it somehow differs with what you have posted....above..

I'm sure it could have been off; I don't look up everything before I post it, and as often as not go from memory, which is no longer anywhere near as perfect as it never was anyway. It was close, in any case.

I also have gone through the DPQ, and cannot find your article, "Imaginary Witnesses"... Don't know what to say; I know Walt published it, complaining a bit about its length, and I'm sure I have a copy of it around here somewhere. No matter: do a keyword lookup on "Imaginary Witness" and I'm pretty sure it's here anyway.

Now that said, has it also not been the opinion of many at times on the Fs, that thre FBI lied, and altered statements, many a time...and the rest of the said Government.....? Also Penn Jones, whose work I value and respect, has also been accused of not quite printing, exactly what he was told...... It comes down to at times, it would appear, the difference in the telling of the story, is by the story teller...It is in the retelling of the beholder in otherwards... As for reference to one saying a dark complexioned man and then a negro, is only after all, a choice of words at the given time, nothing really to do with his information, as you are seeing it, in mo...

I will agree that three out of four instances of his statements are those related by others, and only one certainly directly from Carr's own mouth. Still, is it not odd that a "Negro" to both an FBI guy and Penn Jones (who specifically pointed out Carr's use of the word "Negro") becomes "a Latin" when spoken in court in the Quarter?

One of the 1964 statements, however, is quoted from a handwritten statement. I have a copy of the handwritten version, and it reads the same as the typed transcript. I certainly cannot swear that it is in Carr's handwriting or that Carr had anything to do with seeing or signing it (as opposed to it being cooked up wholly between FBI agents who decided to affix his signature to it since nobody would know what it looked like anyway), or that if he did, that he wasn't told what to write, that someone else wrote it for him and told him what to say, or anything of the sort ... but given how innocuous the information was at the outset, in 1964, there seems little enough reason for the FBI to have bothered falsifying what he'd said when all they had to do was write nothing and say they'd never heard of the man.

And then Carr sought out Penn Jones, and changed his story yet again when he got in front of Garrison. Maybe Jones was known to exaggerate or sensationalize, even wildly, but I hardly think he'd have "mis-heard" that Carr had seen the guy on the knoll behind the fence if Carr had said nothing of the sort. Do you?

The bottom line is that nobody corroborates Carr's story, and physical evidence - the placement of the buildings - disproves at least the part about the men and the car beside the TSBD. Worrell's story doesn't corroborate it, Rackley and Romack's stories refute both, and even Craig's story doesn't corroborate it beyond that both contain Ramblers of different colors.

And the bottom-bottom line is (in response to Bill Kelley's comment) is that yes, I have discredited many things that shouldn't be credited. It is as important to separate the wheat from the chaff, even if the chaff does make for a good story. If it's a bedtime story you want, don't bitch about research that doesn't reach the same happy ending as the one you heard as a child, just go on dreaming those happy dreams.

There are enough REAL questions and issues out there without chasing after wills o' the wisp and outright lies. Sorry if you don't like me popping balloons.

Duke Lane · February 2, 2009

There is an article on mary ferrell's in the Journal Section Fourth Decade Volume 2 Issue # 5 entitled North of Elm On Houston by Dennis Ford See http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=519656
The pertinent persons covered include James Worrell, Jr., Richard Randolph Carr and also Sam Pate and James Romack, who, according to the author were also present in the area, and whose accounts refuted the accounts given by Worrell and Carr; For the most part, Ford's analysis appears to be written with a sincere desire to "get the story straight" about what was transpiring back there. Which is what we are all trying to do.......I will offer this to Duke Lane, I run across credibility issues every day, because I read declassified documents every day, and the more you read depositions, and areas that deal with literally profound issues relating to all the events of the assassination, such as the guilt or innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald, it is bedeviling when you realize that there are people who have either lied repeatedly to the various investigative agencies in matters of vital importance; or their entire testimony is suspect. I have no problem with anyone pointing out discrepancy's in a individual or individuals account of JFK Assassination matters, especially of the magnitude that a thread such as this one is dealing with, as long as it is done in an balanced and impartial manner.

Thanks for that, Robert. If one were to go back to the very start of my recent study on Carr - to the "Aerial Photos of Dealey Plaza" thread started by Jack White - they would see that I started with a question and not a conclusion. I examined what was available - and was told by knowledgeable people that Carr had "never" said that the driver of the station wagon was a "Negro" - including both testimonial evidence as well as physical, and then arrived at a conclusion.

Dennis and I would seem to have approached the problems in very much the same way, and reached the same conclusions. Our difference is in our presentation of the conclusion, and that largely to the extent that Dennis hasn't had to listen or respond to the people who want to find possible reasons why something could've been true even where it's been shown that it's not possible. His approach certainly has a lower frustration factor.

Interesting, too, that Dennis feels that the testimony given by "others present" refuted the accounts of Worrell and Carr, while Willie Weston states that "there is no testimony strong enough which could effectively refute Worrell's contention," and leaves his analysis of Carr's sworn testimony to a footnote, justifying it with a "survival instinct" for which there is no documentary proof. Best to err on the side of spectacle?

Some, I suppose, will continue to see the elephant as a tree or as a snake.

... The point I am trying to make as well as Bill, is that as a JFK Researcher you seem to focus only on concentrating on establishing that key persons were liars, misfits etc., [there is a balance you know, it's not McAdams way or the highway;] while I agree you are very good at doing that, the POINT that is being made is in reference to what ultimately do you do other than the above? That is a point I am trying to make.

In order to solve a crime, you must first consider all possibilities and provide against them. Those that can be reliably provided against should no longer be considered in the solution to the crime, for once you've excluded the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth.

If I am excluding impossibilities, then I'm narrowing the focus of a proper investigation. That's a problem? Or would you prefer to think that Richard Atlee Phillips really was under arrest in Fort Worth (and that Ken Wilson doesn't really exist), or that Oswald's head really had been surgically removed prior to his exhumation autopsy? Maybe it's better that some clueless people continue to explore those dead ends, you think?

Some doors need to be closed, others need to be opened, and still others remain open. You think maybe Roscoe White and James Files and Charles Nicoletti and Mac Wallace were all shooters in Dealey Plaza, not to even mention those on the south knoll, in the sewers and drains too? Which one do you think that Ed Hoffman saw?

As to what I "ultimately" do other than sort out the chaff, that'll have to wait for a discussion offline. I will happily show and discuss material that has never seen the light of day due to its incompleteness, even after some 15 years of examination and evaluation on my part. Most of what you've seen are either snippets from that (see some of my posts in various Tippit threads), or else minor diversions I've spent some time examining and evaluating and finding easier to document than other things.

You know how to reach me. Meanwhile, casting baseless aspersions doesn't become you. :lol: The good Professor McAdams' way of thinking doesn't influence me or mine in the slightest degree, tho' I must admit to a certain amount of misplaced pride in his having taken me from being a "conspiracy theorist" to a "researcher!" (I guess that means that we conspiracy theorists can do good research. It's a pity that some people only want to acknowledge that when the research supports their own preconceived notions. Both sides of the argument are guilty of that.)

Bernice Moore · February 2, 2009

Duke from an earlier post in this thread :""More telling is the fact that a photograph was taken of that area of the TSBD moments before JFK was shot, and there is, unfortunately, nobody even remotely matching Worrell's description standing in that location.""

Hi Duke"

****Bernice:As I mentioned there are a few of the TSBD, and though I will re-check, I think that Weston states that Worrell was at the corner, and may have written

up against the building, or thereabouts......and if my grey cells have clicked in, I will check those photos also, so in implying he was at the front of the TSBD, could be an assumption, I do have them and catelogued, and will check all.. I hope this different colour works out.?

Duke :"""The only "proof" of such attacks on Carr is Carr's own words, which he made under oath while telling a completely different story to the court than he'd told to either the FBI or Penn Jones, each of which was different than the other; three different stories. Which of the three stories is the true one? If it wasn't the one he told under oath - that he saw something occur on a street that he couldn't physically have seen from where he was (and which he initially said "would have been impossible" for him to have seen) - how do we know that he told the truth about being attacked?""

****Bernice :I do not think there is very much in the way of solid proof, to how some of the witnesses were pressured, threatened, and or attacked, physically.....but imo that does not mean that such did not take place, when reports were made out by the local Police establishments, there is little if any

details and of course the implication, if one can find such reports that is, were that whatever was an accident....and or for instance head problems.Seem to me that was an almost every day occurrance...and I have always wondered the why that was so..?? As if we nay not already know ?.

Bernice, you've made my point for me. First regarding Dickey Worrell:
****Bernice: I did not start out to make any point, other than I do not think anyone should throw out the baby with the bathwater, simply because that is their conclusion, concerning anyone, or anything within what we do have of the assassination materials.....There was too much imo that was altered, destroyed, deleted, and so on, and of course those within the W/C lawyers, who questioned witnesses as we do know, left much to be desired, the questions they did not ask, many a time, would have brought out, perhaps some truths, of what perhaps would have shown us the way, and that was deliberate imo....and as I believe I did mention earlier, how do we definetely know that the answers within the W/C of let alone Worrell or any for that matter were and are correct , we do not, and there are and were too many, such as Nix, Holland, and others who stated theirs was altered.....so we do not know it appears to be the bottom line .....I have found over the years, that nothing can be brought to a solid conclusion, and that imo is the way all was set up..

What time did he say he got to Dealey Plaza after having seen the President debark from AF One?

Mr. SPECTER - What time, to the best of your recollection, did you arrive at the intersection of Elm and Houston?

Mr. WORRELL - Well, about 10, 10:30, 10:45, something around there. There weren't many people standing around there then.

Mr. SPECTER - Well about how long before the Presidential motorcade came to Elm and Houston did you get there?

Mr. WORRELL - An hour; an hour and a half.

Mr. SPECTER - Are you sure you were at Love Field when the President arrived there?

Mr. WORRELL - Oh yes.

AF One landed at approximately 11:47, as I recall. JFK arrived in Dealey Plaza at approximately 12:28-12:29. Dickey was there "an hour, an hour and a half" before that, about 11:00 a.m., about 45 minutes before the President landed, almost 2-2½ hours before Kennedy got shot by Worrell's own estimate. Yet he was also at Love Field 40 minutes before JFK was killed. Do we detect the hand of Lieutenant Commander Scott in this somewhere? Even Specter was incredulous, but Worrell wasn't going to be shaken.

You would have to read my article - I believe it's posted here on the forum somewhere - to see what the bus schedule was, which I went to incredible lengths to find and verify. In it - the first of two or three parts, the last of which haven't been completed - I gave Worrell the benefit of the doubt, concluding that it was possible that he could've gotten there ... if several variables were met, including that the driver of an earlier bus decided to hang around and watch AF1 land instead of sticking to his route, for which there is absolutely no evidence anyone did.

****Bernice :Worrel appears to have had a problem, to say the least with times and a sense of directions, and I may say many do......that does not mean they are lying...imo....and I am pleased to see where you have said you did give him the benefit of the doubt....

****Bernice :I searched again Walt's Magazine, and cannot find your article..

****Bernice : I did find where you had posted the first part on the F, the other parts are not there, they do not come up.......perhaps you could check and take a few moments, as many may be interested in reading your information...

If not, Dickey had to wait another ten minutes after the plane landed to catch the next bus, which would not have gotten him downtown in order to get to DP by 12:30 (I think it's fair to say that we all agree that he didn't get there at any "10, 10:30, 10:45, something around there," or "an hour, hour and a half" before JFK did) even in the very best of traffic.

How exactly did he travel to DP, and how did he know to go there?

Mr. SPECTER - How did you travel from Love Field to Elm and Houston?
Mr. WORRELL - Bus. No, no; I just traveled so far on the bus. I went down to Elm, and took a bus from there. I went down as far as, I don't know where that bus stops, anyway, I got close to there and I walked the rest of the way.

He wasn't sure where he'd ended up, yet knew how to get to DP from wherever it was he might've been. Bear in mind that his mission was to get a better view of the President than he supposedly got at Love Field. The bus he took - the only one that could've gotten him anywhere near DP in any semblance of enough time for him to have met the parade there - crossed Main Street about ten minutes before the motorcade did (assuming, that is, that he was on the earlier bus), and there were crowds there. Was there any doubt in his mind that the parade was going to come by this way?
Who knows, but he apparently made a decision to stay on the bus and go wherever it might take him in hopes that he'd maybe be able to get where he wanted to go (he never explains how he knew to go to DP in the first place) and have enough time to walk or run or, who knows, maybe even get dropped off there. In sum, he passed up a sure thing to bet on an uncertainty.

His taking the earlier bus would've taken him to the end of that route with enough time to get to DP from the terminus point by the hair of his chinny-chin-chin. He didn't stand a chance on the later bus.

****Bernice :I did not see it that way, that he did not know where he was going, he knew where his Mother worked, not all that far away, and seeing that the Presidential route was in the newspaper, and he was a local resident, he in all probabilty, knew exactly where he was heading.....

How did he leave Dealey Plaza?

Mr. SPECTER - All right. What did you do next, Mr. Worrell?
Mr. WORRELL - Well, I went on down this way and headed back to Elm Street.

Mr. SPECTER - Indicating you went on down to Pacific?

Mr. WORRELL - Yes.

Mr. SPECTER - And then proceeded --

Mr. WORRELL - No, no; that is wrong. I went on Pacific and --

Mr. SPECTER - Just a minute. You proceeded from point "Y" on in a generally northerly direction to Pacific and then in what direction did you go on Pacific, this would be in an easterly direction?

Mr. WORRELL - I went east.

Mr. SPECTER - You went in an easterly direction how many blocks down Pacific?

Mr. WORRELL - I went down to Market and from Market I went on Ross ....

He only went as far north as Pacific. Pacific is just one block north of Elm, and roughly coincides with the back corner of the TSBD. Without looking it up, I recall that he'd said it took him a "minute, minute and a half" or some ridiculously long time to "run" that block because, y'know, he was 20 years old and smoked. Pacific is at no point "100 yards" from the TSBD. If he was on Pacific and 100 yards away, he was east by at least 1½ blocks (you can measure it on Google Earth pretty accurately) and wouldn't have been able to see the side of the TSBD where he claimed to have seen a man run from - and run toward Elm Street - because the Dal-Tex building would've been in the way.
He clearly didn't know times, distances or much about the geography. Does anyone suppose it was because he was 20 years old and still in high school, or just as likely that he wasn't there and simply couldn't describe the area where he wasn't and the events he didn't see?

****Bernice : I differ, as to me that appears again that you have thrown all Da babies out with the bath water...

... I also have found an article.......with further information by William Weston...
You will note that another man, George Rackley was also some 100 yards away from the TSBD and yet could see the back entrance, that is not a great distance......

One of my neighbours lives approximately that distance from us, we have no problem seeing him and all.etc...when we look that way. ....

Of course, I never said that you couldn't see 100 yards to the TSBD, only that Pacific wasn't any 100 yards away from the TSBD. Worrell did say that he was "at the corner of Houston and Pacific" when he saw a man run out the side of the building, didn't he.
George "Pop" Rackley (related to Virgie?) said that he was "about a block" from the northeast (back) corner of the TSBD, but couldn't state "how many feet" that was. He also didn't know the time - it could've even been before noon, he said - and didn't hear any shots, but only that "the only suspicious thing" he saw was pigeons flying off of the building and, about 2-3 minutes later, police surrounded the TSBD. He didn't see anyone running from behind or out of the side of the building, and he was watching the area behind and beside the building "I would say 5 minutes anyhow. Probably 10. I was looking up that way at all times." He also didn't see anyone running - or presumably speeding in a car - north on Houston. He did say, however, that he could see the side and back doors of the TSBD: "I just, of course, seen the policemen all out there running back. They came out the back door and the side door with guns."

Pop was 60 years old at the time, btw.

****Bernice : Rackley was never close to or did not bother to see the motorcade up close..?? and stood only seeing the back of the TSBD building, at all times, and with all going on in the area, through all, who wrote that up.?? I might ask..?? So, he was 60, some of the best undeniable witnesses were of such an age and older....I must look further into his statements........thanks..

James Elbert Romack was only 39. His testimony follow Pop's in Volume VI (Pop's on page 273, Romack's on page 277). Romack likewise could see the side and back of the building and didn't see anyone coming out, although as someone (Willie Weston?) pointed out, his attention may have been distracted momentarily when he moved the roadblocks from Houston Street so Sam Pate could get his red KBOX Pontiac station wagon onto the paved part of the road ("I watched them [stairs] all the time until someone arrived, and the only time I did take my back off, turn my back to the building was Sam Pate with his KBOX news, he arrived before any of the police or anyone").

****Bernice : With all going on, in that specific area at that time, I do not think anyone, kept their eyes on any back door, 100 % of the time.......nor did they stay in one specific spot glued to the cement sidewalk......imo. I so have a problem with such..that is soooo Iffy ....

Strange, though, that he didn't see, hear or otherwise notice (like possibly by getting run over by it?) the gray Rambler station wagon that men he didn't see come out of the TSBD jumped into and sped north past him. Neither did Sam.

****Bernice : We have another Romack, who did not walk down to see the motorcade, even though it may have been his lunch time ? and I realise that many in the area had no use for JFK, any background on 39 year old Romack, I wonder ??.......and another who stood with his vison glued to the back door of the TSBD, something just does not come off to hoyle, with these two or three, of course it goes without saying the authourities, did not want anyone seeing anyone who may come running out of any of the TSBD's four entrance and exits.....?? After all at 1.40pm on Nov 22/63, the arrest report made out by the good old biys at the DPD, has LHO guilty of killing the President and Tippit.....so nothing new or surprises there..hmmmmm..

He'd been standing "...it would be just about where Houston would intersect, but the street was under construction at the time. They didn't have it, which they still don't have it opened up for through traffic," standing out there with "Lee and Mr. Rackley, we walked out there together originally to start with. We were kind of piddling around, and I kind of walked off ahead of him" toward the TSBD. He also estimated being "100-125 yards" from the nearest corner of the TSBD. (Again, no big issue: I've no argument with someone being able to see that far, tho' I suspect it was a shorter distance than that.)

What's more interesting about Romack's testimony, however, is why he even came to be telling his story to the WC: he'd seen Darwin Payne's article about Worrell in the newspaper and was incensed because he didn't believe the man (Worrell) was telling the truth. Asked why he'd contacted the FBI in March, he said that it was because "I saw an article that was written by a guy, which I have been concerned about this thing all the way through, the assassination, and I got to reading it, and it is a story that just don't jibe with about me sitting there and watching the building. It just kind of upset me to know there is some monkey just hatched up such a story. ... About a guy seeing a rifle drawn in from the building above him, and he also seen the people as the shots were being fired, and he also seen some character running toward me with an overcoat on which was brown or gray or blue ...."

The article was written by Darwin Payne (who says that he recalls Worrell as being "credible," btw) and featured not only Worrell, but also Amos Euins and photographer Robert Jackson, who were all going to Washington to testify. This article was their "send-off" article, so to speak. And Worrell's story incensed Romack, whose story is fully corroborated by Pop Rackley.

Worrell's story does not corroborate Carr's at least inasmuch as Dickey didn't notice the car that would've come speeding toward him. But it doesn't matter since even Willie Weston - who is usually quick to latch onto something suspicious, concedes that:

23. This statement [of Carr's] was given to the FBI on Feb. 4,1 964. Five years later, he gave a different story at the Clay Shaw trial. The Nash Rambler was not parked on Record Street, as stated in 1964, but rather it was parked on Houston, next to the TSBD, facing north. After the shooting, two or three men came out of the Depository and got into the Rambler. The car was last seen speeding north on Houston. With some variations, this story was repeated to J. Gary Shaw in 1975 in Cover Up, (p. 13.). Unfortunately for Carr's credibility, the second version contains one significant difficulty: it is impossible to see this part of Houston Street from the new courthouse building, as the old structure would have completely blocked the view. This consideration leads us to the troubling conclusion that Carr had given a partially fictitious story at the trial. While arguably this assessment of his testimony is serious enough to warrant a complete rejection of everything he has said on the matter, I think that before we take this step, it is only fair to consider the severity of assassination-related persecution that he was suffering at the time of the trial, including at least two demonstrable attempts on his life (see Cover Up, pp. 13-14.) Given these circumstances, Carr's self-destructive credibility becomes more easily understandable as a matter of survival. When seen in this light, his early statements in 1964 actually gain in value--an account so important that the plotters of the assassination could not afford to leave it unsuppressed.
Of course, the only thing that makes "at least two" attempt on his life "demonstrable" is that someone else wrote about them.
Duke: Could you please let me know what photograph you are referring to, I have quite a few of the front of the TSBD , and very few are clear, but a couple are, and it depends exactly where he was standing, in the area......you apparently have one in particular and I would like to check it, could you post it for us....? and or let me know the photographer's name...... also could you give me, us, the full description of Worrell, many thanks...
Duke :""More telling is the fact that a photograph was taken of that area of the TSBD moments before JFK was shot, and there is, unfortunately, nobody even remotely matching Worrell's description standing in that location.""

I would if I could, Bernice, but I've never been any good at cataloging photos, mentally or otherwise. There is also a film that shows Marrion Baker running toward the TSBD which does not show anyone running from Worrell's claimed position (tho' I'd initially thought it might have).
Duke: "In an article entitled "Imaginary Witness," published in Deep Politics Quarterly (January 2007?), I dissected Worrell's purported movements vis a vis the President's arrival, the motorcade's route, the bus schedule and the shooting. In it, I determined it was possible for Worrell to have been in DP at 12:30, but only if the bus he got on at Love was running 10 minutes or more late, and he knew exactly where he wanted to go after getting off the bus (and that after having crossed through the crowds on Main Street to get there, i.e., bypassed the obvious parade route).""
This below is what Worrell stated in his W/C testimony, re Love Field and how he left Dealey, to me it somehow differs with what you have posted....above..

I'm sure it could have been off; I don't look up everything before I post it, and as often as not go from memory, which is no longer anywhere near as perfect as it never was anyway. It was close, in any case.

I also have gone through the DPQ, and cannot find your article, "Imaginary Witnesses"... Don't know what to say; I know Walt published it, complaining a bit about its length, and I'm sure I have a copy of it around here somewhere. No matter: do a keyword lookup on "Imaginary Witness" and I'm pretty sure it's here anyway.

Now that said, has it also not been the opinion of many at times on the Fs, that thre FBI lied, and altered statements, many a time...and the rest of the said Government.....? Also Penn Jones, whose work I value and respect, has also been accused of not quite printing, exactly what he was told...... It comes down to at times, it would appear, the difference in the telling of the story, is by the story teller...It is in the retelling of the beholder in otherwards... As for reference to one saying a dark complexioned man and then a negro, is only after all, a choice of words at the given time, nothing really to do with his information, as you are seeing it, in mo...

I will agree that three out of four instances of his statements are those related by others, and only one certainly directly from Carr's own mouth. Still, is it not odd that a "Negro" to both an FBI guy and Penn Jones (who specifically pointed out Carr's use of the word "Negro") becomes "a Latin" when spoken in court in the Quarter?

One of the 1964 statements, however, is quoted from a handwritten statement. I have a copy of the handwritten version, and it reads the same as the typed transcript. I certainly cannot swear that it is in Carr's handwriting or that Carr had anything to do with seeing or signing it (as opposed to it being cooked up wholly between FBI agents who decided to affix his signature to it since nobody would know what it looked like anyway), or that if he did, that he wasn't told what to write, that someone else wrote it for him and told him what to say, or anything of the sort ... but given how innocuous the information was at the outset, in 1964, there seems little enough reason for the FBI to have bothered falsifying what he'd said when all they had to do was write nothing and say they'd never heard of the man.

And then Carr sought out Penn Jones, and changed his story yet again when he got in front of Garrison. Maybe Jones was known to exaggerate or sensationalize, even wildly, but I hardly think he'd have "mis-heard" that Carr had seen the guy on the knoll behind the fence if Carr had said nothing of the sort. Do you?

The bottom line is that nobody corroborates Carr's story, and physical evidence - the placement of the buildings - disproves at least the part about the men and the car beside the TSBD. Worrell's story doesn't corroborate it, Rackley and Romack's stories refute both, and even Craig's story doesn't corroborate it beyond that both contain Ramblers of different colors.
And the bottom-bottom line is (in response to Bill Kelley's comment) is that yes, I have discredited many things that shouldn't be credited. It is as important to separate the wheat from the chaff, even if the chaff does make for a good story. If it's a bedtime story you want, don't bitch about research that doesn't reach the same happy ending as the one you heard as a child, just go on dreaming those happy dreams.

There are enough REAL questions and issues out there without chasing after wills o' the wisp and outright lies. Sorry if you don't like me popping balloons.

That's all for now, thanks Duke.......

B...

P.S I do hope the different colour shows...eh?? :lol:

****No this did not work out, so I am putting astericks beside my replies, next time I go back to copy and pasting..... :blink:

Edited February 3, 2009 by Bernice Moore

Bernice Moore · February 4, 2009

Duke :

Another reply to you.......

I have spent the time and studied what you stated within this thread in regards to your two witnesses that gave the impression made "toast" out of Worrel's information...along with you mentioning similar in regards to Parr....at times.........first.......

George W.Rackley Sr......You mention Worrell's poor memory in regards to time and directions.......Did you not see the same within Rackley's testimony, and yet whom you believe as one who saw no one running out of the back entrance of the TSBD.....??

I am aware you mentioned he was 60 years old...but...

He did not know the time, he did not hear the shots, he did not see the motorcade nor anything, pertaining to such, except pigeons fly off the roofs....He stood there for 5 to 10 minutes looking at the dock entrance..he says.......???.....Glued...........he did not walk closer...He was with Romack...

He says....

Mr. BELIN. Where in Dallas is it?

Mr. RACKLEY. It is on Ross and Market Street, about two blocks from the courthouse.

Mr. BELIN. Now where is it with relation to the corner of Elm and Houston?

Mr. RACKLEY. Well, it is on up on Ross. Two blocks north is where our place is.

Mr. BELIN. Your place is two blocks north of the corner of Elm and Houston?

Mr. RACKLEY. Yes, sir.

snip: Mr. BELIN. Did you see the President's motorcade at all on that day?

Mr. RACKLEY. No, sir; I didn't

Mr. BELIN. Were you standing with anyone there?

Mr. RACKLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. With whom?

Mr. RACKLEY. With James Romack. I and him had walked out.

Mr. BELIN. You had walked out?

Mr. RACKLEY. I heard the siren; the parade was coming.

Mr. BELIN. You heard sirens?

Mr. RACKLEY. Yes, sir. And I had walked out in front of the place, to where I could get a better view, as a fellow says.

Mr. BELIN. Where were you standing?

Mr. RACKLEY. Well. I had walked out in the truck lot.

Mr. BELIN. In the truck lot?

Mr. RACKLEY. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. And was that --

Mr. RACKLEY. You might say would have been in the middle of the street.

Mr. BELIN. Would that have been in the middle of Houston Street?

Mr. RACKLEY. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. In what direction were you facing?

Mr. RACKLEY. Facing south.

Mr. BELIN. All right, did you see the motorcade at all?

Mr. RACKLEY. No.

Mr. BELIN. What did you see?

Mr. RACKLEY. I didn't practically see anything.

Mr. BELIN. Did you hear any sounds at all?

Mr. RACKLEY. Yes. Heard the sounds of the parade.

Mr. BELIN. Did you hear the sounds that sounded like firecrackers or shots at all?

Mr. RACKLEY. No, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Didn't hear that?

Mr. RACKLEY. No.

Mr. BELIN. About how far would you have been from the northeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository when you were standing there?

Mr. RACKLEY. I would say right at a block.

Mr. BELIN. About a block. Do you have any idea about how many feet that is?

Mr. RACKLEY. No, sir; I don't

Mr. BELIN. Were you just standing there, or were you walking?

Mr. RACKLEY. I was just standing there.

Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything happen at all there?

Mr. RACKLEY. No, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Did you see anyone in the parade?

Mr. RACKLEY. The only thing - I told the guy, he was down there, the only thing that I saw that looked suspicious to me, there was something like a hundred pigeons flew up like you shot into them, and I noticed that, but I never heard no shots.

Mr. BELIN. Where did you see them fly from?

Mr. RACKLEY. From over the top of the building.

Mr. BELIN. Which building? The School Book Depository or over on the other side?

Mr. RACKLEY. The Trinity Building.

Mr. BELIN. Which building did they fly off of?

Mr. RACKLEY. I wasn't looking. I just seen they all flew together.

Mr. BELIN. Did it look like they were flying up from both buildings?

Mr. RACKLEY. Both buildings.

Mr. BELIN. You don't know about when this took place?

Mr. RACKLEY. No, sir; I don't.

snip:

Mr. BELIN. Had any of the parade already gone by the corner of Elm and Houston?

Mr. RACKLEY. I couldn't say.

Mr. BELIN. So you don't know whether it did or didn't?

Mr. RACKLEY. No.

Mr. BELIN. But would you say it was about that time that the motorcade was to be going by there?

Mr. RACKLEY. It was between 11 and 12.

Mr. BELIN. It was between 11 and 12?

Mr. RACKLEY. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. O'clock?

Mr. RACKLEY. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. What time did you - was this before or after you had lunch?

Mr. RACKLEY. Well. I just eat just any time I get a chance.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know accurately what time it was?

Mr. RACKLEY. No, sir; I don't.

Mr. BELIN. Could it have been as late as 12:30?

Mr. RACKLEY. No.

Mr. BELIN. It was before 12:30?

Mr. RACKLEY. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. Before 12?

Mr. RACKLEY. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. Sometime between 11 and 12?

Mr. RACKLEY. Well, it was at the time that, really, that they had shot him, because I was there when the policemen covered the place.

Mr. BELIN. You were there when the policemen covered the place?

Mr. RACKLEY. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. With relation to the time that the policemen covered the place, how many minutes before that did you see the birds fly up?

Mr. RACKLEY. I saw the pigeons there 2 or 3 minutes before that.

Mr. BELIN. Now after you saw the pigeons, you saw the police covering the place?

Mr. RACKLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Within 2 or3 minutes after you saw the pigeons?

Mr. RACKLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Did you see any people coming out the back door at all?

Mr. RACKLEY. No.

Mr. BELIN. Could you see the back door of the Texas School Book Depository?

Mr. RACKLEY. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. That was at the dock they have back there?

Mr. RACKLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Were you looking towards that direction?

Mr. RACKLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. About how long did you keep your eyes fixed over there?

Mr. RACKLEY. Oh, I would say 5 minutes anyhow. Probably 10. I was looking up that way at all times.

Mr. BELIN. Five or 10 minutes, you figure?

Mr. RACKLEY. Yes

Mr. BELIN. Did you see any people leave the Texas School Book Depository by way of the rear exit?

Mr. RACKLEY. No, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Did you see any people running north on Houston Street?

Mr. RACKLEY. No, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Did you tell your company supervisor that there had been some shooting?

Mr. RACKLEY. No; not right then.

Mr. BELIN. Later did you tell them?

Mr. RACKLEY. Yes; I imagine.

Mr. BELIN. You said you stayed there 5 or 10 minutes looking to the south?

Mr. RACKLEY. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. What did you do after that?

Mr. RACKLEY. Well, when the policemen began to crowd around and they all ...over the place, well then I told him I thought that something had happened over there.

I wasn't expecting anything like that until I just, of course, seen the policemen all out there running back. They came out the back door and the side

Mr. BELIN. did you tell that to that you thought something happened there?

Mr. RACKLEY. Gail George.

Mr. BELIN. Is that your Forman?

Mr. RACKLEY. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. After you said you kept your eyes on this looking south for 5 or 10 minutes, what did you do after that?

Mr. RACKLEY. Well, I went back to the office.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/rackley.htm

Now in regards to James Elbert Romack.... First off you mention that Worrel contacted the authourities, so did Romack but not till March 1964....after a phone

call from the Scecret Service.......on the previous Sat evening ,he then testified for the W/C that next week, apparently from the way it reads...

....Romack also states the article he saw in the paper had some guy running towards him, what Worrel stated was the man ran up towards the fence area, Romack was on Houston.....Worrel did not to my knowledge say anyone ran out of the back door of the TSBD and down Houston ? He stated he ran up towards the fence area.......Correct me if I am wrong......tx..

Romack says he saw a policeman run to the back of the TSBD and then leave, and he takes over on his own, watching the dock entrance....?? from Houston....As far as I know, from the photos......I have pondered over, you cannot see the dock entrance while standing on Houston.....as it was tucked away on a slant, into the right back entrance of the TSBD.......

..Romack says the DPO that headed to the back of the TSBD did not stay, he checked and he left..........but then when asked if he could see the dock entrance he says they had it block off, and he could see it as good as anyone ??

Who are they ? he also mentions two men he thought could have been FBI....that arrived around the back of the TSBD, as others also have mentioned similar showing such ID, as SS...... and yet none were within Dealey.....?? ......and he also states he could only see the dock as good as anyone ??

He only contacted the W/C after the Secret Service had contacted him on the Sat evening, before his giving testimony, in March 1964......?? After Worrell story hit the front page......????

Mr. ROMACK. I was on lunch period, Just piddling around out north by east, I would say, from the Texas School Book Depository Building.

Mr. BELIN. You were standing around Houston Street?

Mr. ROMACK. It would be just about where Houston would intersect, but the street was under construction at the time. They didn't have it, which they still don't have it opened up for through traffic.

Mr. BELIN. Were you standing with anyone?

Mr. ROMACK. Well, Lee and Mr. Rackley, we walked out there together originally to start with. We were kind of piddling around, and I kind of walked off ahead of him.

Mr. BELIN. Was that George W. Rackley you were referring to?

Mr. ROMACK. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Is he also known as "Pop" Rackley?

Mr. ROMACK. Right.

Mr. BELIN. You said you started walking away. Where did you walk?

Mr. ROMACK..Toward the School Book Depository Building.

Mr. BELIN. Along what street did you walk?

Mr. ROMACK. Well, it wouldn't be no street at the time.

Mr. BELIN. Well, if there would be a street?

Mr. ROMACK. I guess it would be just about, I don't know whether they are going to split Ross and Houston Street up.

Mr. BELIN. Would you be looking straight at Houston Street?

Mr. ROMACK. More or less. I would be looking at Houston Street; yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. All right, and what happened as you were walking?

snip

Mr. ROMACK. And I looked up and I felt kind of chilly looking down towards the which I am facing the Houston entrance, and I looked down toward where all the people were standing along, the motorcade was passing by, and just immediately after I heard the shots, I saw a policeman running north towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building.

Mr. BELIN. What building?

Mr. ROMACK. Texas School Book Depository Building. And he didn't stay but just, oh, he was just there to check and he runs back.

Well, sensing that something is wrong, I automatically take over watching the building for the man.

Mr. BELIN. What part of the building were you watching?

Mr. ROMACK. The back

Mr. BELIN. Could you see that back dock in the back part?

Mr. ROMACK. Well, I mean, they got it sealed off. I could see as much as anyone could see.

Mr. BELIN. Could you see---there are some stairs that go up to the back dock, aren't there?

Mr. ROMACK. Right here.

Mr. BELIN. You are pointing to a first floor plan of the Texas School Book Depository?

Mr. ROMACK. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. How long did you watch them after you saw the policeman leave?

Mr. ROMACK. Well, I watched them all the time until someone arrived, and the only time I did take my back off, turn my back to the building was Sam Pate with his KBOX news, he arrived before any of the police or anyone.

Mr. BELIN. Is that KBOX

Mr. ROMACK. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. Is that a radio or television station?

Mr. ROMACK. It is a radio station.

Mr. BELIN. How long did you take your eyes off then?

Mr. ROMACK. He was driving up and they were having a little high---the city has ,a piece of wood that they use to stop traffic coming through, and I'd taken that so he could come through, drive his truck.

Mr. BELIN. How long did you leave your post?

Mr. ROMACK. I didn't leave. That was right there, even closer than what we were. But all I did was let that down for him, and then we

Mr. BELIN. Would that have taken less than a minute?

Mr. ROMACK. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. Less than 30 seconds, do you know?

Mr. ROMACK. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. How long did you stay after that watching that back door?

Mr. ROMACK. Well, we were all there watching it then.

Mr. BELIN. How long a period of time?

Mr. ROMACK. Pardon?

Mr. BELIN. Did you see a policeman go up there?

Mr. ROMACK. I saw policemen up in there. I didn't see anyone come up the back. They came in the front, all---most of them.

Mr. BELIN. Did you see any employees walk up the back way?

Mr. ROMACK. There was two other gentlemen which I never said anything. about, that taken over. They were FBI or something standing right here at the very entrance, and just stood there.

Mr. BELIN. You are pointing again to the back stairway that leads up from the street to the dock on the north side of the building?

Mr. ROMACK. Right.

Mr. BELIN. See anyone else?

Mr. ROMACK. No, sir; other than all the motorcycle officers and squad cars. They started coming in, I would say, in 4 minutes from the time that this happened. They were swarming the building, which naturally. I quit watching anything particular.

Mr. BELIN. In other words, about 4 minutes after the shots came you quit watching it? Would that be accurate, or not?

Mr. ROMACK. Well, I would say somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 minutes, 4 or 5 minutes. That would probably be true. I stayed there, but I wasn't particularly watching.

Mr. BELIN. In other words, then as I understand your testimony, you said that from about the time of the shots until about 5 minutes after the shots, you watched the back door of the building?

Mr. ROMACK. Right.

Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not you saw anyone leave the building?

Mr. ROMACK. They wasn't anyone left the building.

Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not you saw anyone enter the building other than a police officer?

Mr. ROMACK. No one entered while I was standing there.

Mr. BELIN. Did you see anybody running down the street near you at all?

Mr. ROMACK. No, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Where were you standing? How far were you from this stairway going to this Houston Street dock?

Mr. ROMACK. Well, after this KBOX---you are asking prior to before he got there?

Mr. BELIN. Before KBOX got there first?

Mr. ROMACK. I would say I moved between 75 yards.

Mr. BELIN. 75 yards of the northeast corner of the building?

Mr. ROMACK. 75 yards of the northeast corner of the building.

Mr. BELIN. After KBOX got there?

Mr. ROMACK. He got to about, I would say, maybe 35 yards to the building, or 40. That is where he parked his car.

Mr. BELIN. How long did he stay, KBOX?

Mr. ROMACK. Oh, I would say 35 or 40 minutes. Then I went and called my wife and was telling her the sad news, and then I went back and stayed again. I ended up laying off work. I didn't even work that afternoon.

Mr. BELIN. Did you ever contact the FBI?

Mr. ROMACK. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. When did you do that?

Mr. ROMACK. It was on a Saturday night after I got in from work.

Mr. BELIN. What month was it?

Mr. ROMACK. It was this past month.

Mr. BELIN. You mean March?

Mr. ROMACK. Right.

Mr. BELIN. What caused you to contact the FBI in March?

Mr. ROMACK. I was trying to pinpoint the day that I must have come in from It was on the weekend that I'd come home, and there was a paper up left-hand corner.

Mr. BELIN. You mean the newspaper?

Mr. ROMACK. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Dallas newspaper?

Mr. ROMACK. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. Which one, do you know, offhand?

Mr. ROMACK. Herald, the paper that I take.

Mr. BELIN. What did you see in the paper?

Mr. ROMACK. I saw an article that was written by a guy, which I have been concerned about this thing all the way through, the assassination, and I got to reading it, and it is a story that just don't jibe with about me sitting there and watching the building. It just kind of upset me to know there is some monkey just hatched up such a story.

Mr. BELIN. What is the story that you read that you got concerned about?

Mr. ROMACK. About a guy seeing a rifle drawn in from the building above him, and he also seen the people as the shots were being fired, and he also seen some character running toward me with an overcoat on which was brown or gray or blue, and he heard 4 shots.

Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this. Do you remember what page of the paper this was on?

Mr. ROMACK. It was on the headlines. I don't mean the headlines. It was on the front page in the left corner of the page.. snip Mr. ROMACK. Right. Unless you called me last Saturday. I don't remember who called me.

Mr. BELIN. Well, on Saturday, what did someone do, call you and tell you to come down here?

Mr. ROMACK. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Did that person talk to .you about the facts that we were talking about now?

Mr. ROMACK. No, sir.

Mr. BELIN. It wasn't I, just for the record. I believe it was the Secret Service that called you, but I am not sure.

Mr. ROMACK. It was.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/romack.htm

Duke I am thinking you need to find a couple of better witnesses than you have chosen......and not pick and choose what information in relation to them you mention, when you post, there is simply too much you left out within this thread in regards to them....and you only chose what fit your scenario against Worrell.....IMO...

...If you had studied their information that would have been very obvious....... Yet you seemingly allow these two who came forward in March 64.....as showing solid information against Worrell....or anyone that saw any person run out of the back of the TSBD.......??

........You mention in this thread how you dissected Worrell's information, I think you should have done the same with Romack and Rackley....

If I may, I ask a question of you......Why is it, instead of putting all your effort and research to finding and proving, the possibility that there were men in the area that did escaoe, instead you continue, with great effort to down the facts that those witnesses put forth . You only appear to work on proving them wrong with the whomevers you think prove them in error. With these two that you have used as an example.....is a poor choice...and Duke, you are not accomplshing what you have hoped to......imo....

I still have not been able to find your said article within PDQ ,Walts magazines nor do the two attachments you made, in your bio work to the next two parts, re Worrell, if you could possibly take a moment and check and eanbe them as others would also like to persue all.....

Thanks again......It certainly has been interesting.....

B.... :offtopic

Edited February 4, 2009 by Bernice Moore

Duke Lane · February 4, 2009

Bernice, forgive me, but I can't make sense out of what you're saying.

I'm not going to take up two pages or more quoting lengthy "snippets" of Worrell's testimony and not coming to a conclusion about what we're supposed to be talking about, as you did in saying:

George W.Rackley Sr......You mention Worrell's poor memory in regards to time and directions.......Did you not see the same within Rackley's testimony, and yet whom you believe as one who saw no one running out of the back entrance of the TSBD.....??
I am aware you mentioned he was 60 years old...but...

He did not know the time, he did not hear the shots, he did not see the motorcade nor anything, pertaining to such, except pigeons fly off the roofs....He stood there for 5 to 10 minutes looking at the dock entrance..he says.......???.....Glued...........he did not walk closer...He was with Romack...

He says.... (followed by lengthy testimony)

... and then following up with "Now in regards to James Elbert Romack ...." What exactly was your point?

I did not mention Dickey's "poor memory," I said that his stuff made no sense. I showed in "Imaginary Witness" (which it seems as if I'll have to post here separately: I don't know what you found in DPQ, but you might want to talk to Walt about it since it's the only thing I'd submitted to him, and he did publish it. 2007? 2006? I don't remember) that Worrell could only have made it to DP from Love on the slimmest of chances. That slimness could not have given him the impression that he'd spent "an hour, hour and a half" in DP before the motorcade showed up. It wasn't even "an hour, hour and a half" from the time AF1 landed to the time JFK was killed.

Maybe you'd just have to be familiar with the geography to realize the impossibility - improbability - of what Dickey told people. It just doesn't work: He'd have had to have skedaddled from the bus stop to DP in order to even catch a glimpse of the motorcade if he'd been at Love Field when the plane landed and if he'd taken a scheduled bus as he said he did. There is absolutely no room for the perception of having spent "an hour, hour and a half" in DP before JFK showed up.

60 years old, btw, is no longer that "old" to me anymore. Still, at 50+, I recognize that there do become certain physical limitations to what one can observe and do.

Incidentally, I don't know who "Parr" is. Carr, maybe?

Duke : Another reply to you.......
I have spent the time and studied what you stated within this thread in regards to your two witnesses that gave the impression made "toast" out of Worrel's information...along with you mentioning similar in regards to Parr....at times.........first.......

Now in regards to James Elbert Romack....

First off you mention that Worrel contacted the authourities, so did Romack but not till March 1964....after a phone call from the Scecret Service.......on the previous Sat evening ,he then testified for the W/C that next week, apparently from the way it reads...
....Romack also states the article he saw in the paper had some guy running towards him, what Worrel stated was the man ran up towards the fence area, Romack was on Houston.....Worrel did not to my knowledge say anyone ran out of the back door of the TSBD and down Houston ? He stated he ran up towards the fence area.......Correct me if I am wrong......tx..

Romack says he saw a policeman run to the back of the TSBD and then leave, and he takes over on his own, watching the dock entrance....?? from Houston....As far as I know, from the photos......I have pondered over, you cannot see the dock entrance while standing on Houston.....as it was tucked away on a slant, into the right back entrance of the TSBD.......

..Romack says the DPO that headed to the back of the TSBD did not stay, he checked and he left..........but then when asked if he could see the dock entrance he says they had it block off, and he could see it as good as anyone ??

Who are they ? he also mentions two men he thought could have been FBI....that arrived around the back of the TSBD, as others also have mentioned similar showing such ID, as SS...... and yet none were within Dealey.....?? ......and he also states he could only see the dock as good as anyone ??

He only contacted the W/C after the Secret Service had contacted him on the Sat evening, before his giving testimony, in March 1964......?? After Worrell story hit the front page......????

Dickey did not personally contact the authorities; his mother did. This won't be found in any WC testimony or anything of the sort, but it's what his mother told me.

You see, Dickey was 20 years old and still a junior in high school. Mom's not real proud of that, but she loves her son. He skipped school, which he clearly wasn't doing very well with, and then told a story about how he'd witnessed the biggest thing to happen in Dallas, probably since its founding. In the midst of all the news coverage, Mom called DPD and they actually sent a car up to Farmers Branch to bring Dickey downtown to make a statement.

Darwin Payne's article appeared on the front page of the Dallas Times-Herald on March 6, 1964. This is apparently the article Romack was referring to. Check out other people's articles to this effect, including those referenced earlier: this is not an original idea of mine, even though I arrived at it independently. Romack contacted authorities after reading this article and thinking that it was so much BS, to register his dispute with the "facts" that Dickey told Darwin. Darwin, as I've said, found Dickey to be "credible." I think he merely lied well.

I will finish this with the observation about what Dickey told his Mom about his trip to Washington; you tell me if you think it is credible. It seems that, upon testifying before the WC - not merely being deposed by counsel - Earl Warren gave him, Amos Euins and Robert Jackson use of the Chief Justice's limousine for the evening, and they were thus shown around the nation's capital that evening.

Do you believe that? Seriously: do you? I will give you Mom's phone number if you wish to check the veracity of this supposed story: it's what she told me, and it's never been stated by anyone, ever, anywhere else but here and now.

And that's the kind of story he told his mother! ....

If you have reason to believe that Romack and/or Rackley were full of spit, then by all means, substantiate it here.

Duke I am thinking you need to find a couple of better witnesses than you have chosen......and not pick and choose what information in relation to them you mention, when you post, there is simply too much you left out within this thread in regards to them....and you only chose what fit your scenario against Worrell.....IMO...
...If you had studied their information that would have been very obvious....... Yet you seemingly allow these two who came forward in March 64.....as showing solid information against Worrell....or anyone that saw any person run out of the back of the TSBD.......??

........You mention in this thread how you dissected Worrell's information, I think you should have done the same with Romack and Rackley....

By all means, please provide me with those "better witnesses." I've spent many hours with Sam Pate, and Dennis Ford has apparently spoken with James Romack. There aren't any known "better witnesses," and if so, please name them.

Someone once told me the difference between a "buff" and a "researcher," that being that a buff raises questions while researchers answer them. You don't have to like what I've got to say, and you don't even have to agree with it, but you DO have to realize that I'm not "just supposin'" when I make statements like these. I have absolutely no reason to think that Romack and Rackley weren't where they said they were, and - there's no way you could know, but - I actually had originally set out to prove that Dickey Worrell was a witness just like he said.

Unfortunately, the facts didn't fit the hypothesis. Get over it or do more and better work on it than I did. No offense intended, but his sister and cousin/best friend didn't believe him either, btw. Call 'em and ask 'em. They're in the book.

If I may, I ask a question of you......Why is it, instead of putting all your effort and research to finding and proving, the possibility that there were men in the area that did escaoe, instead you continue, with great effort to down the facts that those witnesses put forth . You only appear to work on proving them wrong with the whomevers you think prove them in error. With these two that you have used as an example.....is a poor choice...and Duke, you are not accomplshing what you have hoped to......imo....

"All" of my efforts? Hardly. You've only seen the easy stuff, which are but projects in the course of a much larger effort. First, one must separate the wheat from the chaff so that all you're dealing with are actual facts. The impossible must be excluded in order to determine what the truth is. Like it or not, someone's got to do it. Consider me one of the "Roscoe White School of Fact-Finding," and then wonder why it is that James Files suddenly became the one to have been doing all that Roscoe was claimed to have been doing once it was finally determined that Roscoe couldn't have been the one who did it, and didn't even die the way it was explained by his money-grubbing son.

And if you disagree with that story, please post factual evidence rather than ad hominem rationale why the disprovers aren't to be believed or had some sort of hidden agenda, like you seem to be suggesting that I do.

Beat me up on facts, Bernice, not on mere conjecture or hyperbole.

Bernice Moore · February 4, 2009

Duke :

You can consider yourself a Roscoe or anyone you wish ...

:offtopic

You started out by stating you could make no sense of what I am saying......

so there is no sense in trying to reply to your long reply post...Right....

.....Perhaps if you did not bring down every

thread and only copied and pasted what you were replying to, it would make things

much easier.....for others to reply to you....

So, I shall put it plainer so that you do.....though I know by your reply, you got

the drift...and apparently did and do..

Why is it that you believe as you call them the downers, and not the witnesses....??

this has been mentioned not only by myself in all this, but by tothers and more than a few times....

You state there was no reason for you not to believe the downers..as you call them

..I do wonder if you investigated their stories as soundly as you say you have the others....??

I looked into the two of them, and imo in places they made no sense..and do not...and posted such in my reply to you, that

you say you did not comprehend...

Perhaps instead of just zeroing in on the negative that you see, within the witnesses, information...and thereby

throwing all out.....as you do.....

and only zeroing in on the downers that agrees with what you think you see....in proving the witnesses wrong, you might find a

middle ground here somewhere......imo.

cest le vie....

B.....

Edited February 4, 2009 by Bernice Moore

Peter Fokes · February 4, 2009

... From They've Killed The President pages 31-32....
"Like many witnesses to the assassination, James Worrell was frightened, worried that perhaps the shooting was not over. He ran from Elm, where he had watched the motorcade, past the Depository onto Houston. He did not stop until he reached the corner of Pacific Street, a hundred yards from the Depository. As he paused to catch his breath, he saw a man burst from the back door of the Depository. From where Worrell stood the man seemed to be young, dark-haired, medium height and build, wearing light pants and a dark sports jacket. That was all Worrell could see. The man was running away."

After I wrote this, I just discovered that Anson's reference is WCH 16 H 959

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=138627

Worrell's description, its an affadavit; is actually a little more specific....

height 5'8 to 5'10, no hat, nothing in hands....

It is also kind of obvious, but WCD 1035 does not mention either of these two men getting into a car, ie the Rambler......

Dickey Worrell's time and distance estimates were all out of whack. Check his testimony to see how long (or short) it was between various events, and it's obvious that he could not keep track of time ... or worse.
The same is true of his distance estimates; see where he estimated that the limousine passed as much as 50, 75 or 100 yards in front of him ... as he stood near the southeast corner of the TSBD directly under the "sniper's nest" window. A football field's-length away? We all know better than that.

The TSBD building measures only 100' x 100' on the inside, thus if Worrell was "a hundred yards from the Depository," he was more than two blocks away. Pacific Street is directly behind the Dal-Tex Building, and would have run into the TSBD's loading dock if it continued west past Houston Street. "The corner of Pacific Street" and "a hundred yards from the Depository" has a twain that shall never meet.

More telling is the fact that a photograph was taken of that area of the TSBD moments before JFK was shot, and there is, unfortunately, nobody even remotely matching Worrell's description standing in that location.

In an article entitled "Imaginary Witness," published in Deep Politics Quarterly (January 2007?), I dissected Worrell's purported movements vis a vis the President's arrival, the motorcade's route, the bus schedule and the shooting. In it, I determined it was possible for Worrell to have been in DP at 12:30, but only if the bus he got on at Love was running 10 minutes or more late, and he knew exactly where he wanted to go after getting off the bus (and that after having crossed through the crowds on Main Street to get there, i.e., bypassed the obvious parade route).

Bottom line: Dickey most likely wasn't there.

Last question, regarding the initial seconds after the assassination...isn't it true that someone testified or stated in an affidavit that they witnessed someone running parallel to the south fence around the knoll, between it and the Western portion of the TSBD, also vanishing out of sight?
Actually, this is the story that Richard Carr told to Penn Jones, after having told something different to the FBI in 1964, and before having sworn to something different yet again during the Shaw trial in 1969.

Hi Duke,

If I recall, didn't Worrell claim he saw "fire" coming from the muzzle of the rifle?

How likely is that!

Regards,

Peter Fokes,

Toronto

Duke Lane · February 4, 2009

... Perhaps if you did not bring down every thread and only copied and pasted what you were replying to, it would make things much easier.....for others to reply to you....

I don't bring down every thread, Bernice, and do only excerpt those particular things I'm replying to, to make things easier. You don't see your entire post replicated in my reply, do you? Where did those lengthy quotes of testimony disappear to?

... Why is it that you believe as you call them the downers, and not the witnesses....??
this has been mentioned not only by myself in all this, but by tothers and more than a few times.... You state there was no reason for you not to believe the downers..as you call them ..I do wonder if you investigated their stories as soundly as you say you have the others....?? I looked into the two of them, and imo in places they made no sense..and do not...and posted such in my reply to you, that you say you did not comprehend... Perhaps instead of just zeroing in on the negative that you see, within the witnesses, information...and thereby throwing all out.....as you do..... and only zeroing in on the downers that agrees with what you think you see....in proving the witnesses wrong, you might find a middle ground here somewhere......imo.

We'll leave aside the fact that I've never called anyone "downers;" you must be thinking of someone else.

In some cases - as with Carr and Worrell - the question is whether they are, in fact, witnesses. The bus schedule alone knocks Worrell out of the competition: if he saw JFK land at Love Field, walked to and caught a bus downtown, it would not have left him off at the route's terminus several blocks from DP until after 12:30. Only one bus could have gotten him there. The only ways that he could have gotten to DP in time were (1) if he'd left Love Field before AF1 landed, or (2) if one of the bus drivers lingered at Love an extra ten minutes to see the plane land, perhaps with the intent of telling his supervisors that he was held up by traffic or security.

Since there is no evidence to even suggest the latter - that is, other than Worrell's claim to have gotten to DP in time - there is no reason to think that was the case. Even if it was, Worrell could only have "just" gotten there before the motorcade showed up, not any "hour, hour and a half" - or even 15 minutes - beforehand. So explain to me why anyone should believe that he actually did?

Carr physically could not see the area he claimed to have seen - and then only in his Shaw testimony 5½ years later - so on that basis alone, why should anybody believe he saw something that would've been hidden from his view by buildings? If he could have seen the Rambler station wagon on Houston and watch it leave northbound on Houston and turn on Pacific, how is it that Worrell missed it while standing just across the street from the TSBD and at the corner the station wagon supposed went speeding around?

I don't know what a "middle ground" is in these cases. We agree that they saw what they couldn't see on account of special circumstances that occurred only on that one particular day? Or that they couldn't or didn't see it, but knew anyway that it happened? That a bus deviated significantly from its schedule and sped downtown to get Dickey to where he needed to be?

There's not a single case of my "zeroing in on the downers that agrees with what think see," since in no case did I have a particular position for them to "agree" with. If I did, then it was in the "witnesses'" favor. Example: the entire Carr inquiry was originally to evaluate a claim from someone in Dallas who, as I'd heard it, had "gone to where Carr had been" but was unable to see what Carr had supposedly seen. Where in the county courthouse did this individual go to view that perspective? Should I repeat that Carr "couldn't" see Houston Street north of Elm based solely on this individual's claim? Despite his being recognized as something of an authority on this topic, on what other basis could I have cited that?

It wasn't until I'd seen the aerial that Jack White had posted that I was even 100% certain of where the "building under construction" had been. Having seen it in the photo, and also seen the "construction stairs" near the southwest corner of the building, I could now state with reasonable certainty where Carr's supposed vantage point was ... and it happened to be on the side of what is now a blank wall with no windows. How then could that individual have "gone to where Carr was" and seen that it was "impossible" for Carr to have seen what he claimed? Short answer: it wasn't.

(In fairness to that individual, he did not make the claim of having "been there, seen that" directly to me, and I never actually heard him make that claim, but rather it is something that someone else had told me he'd done. I did not consult him on the question either.)

So, this last November, I went to Dealey Plaza and made my own first-hand observations. Since I also couldn't get onto the side of that building, the only thing I could do was to view the same line of sight from the reverse angle: if I could plainly see where Carr would have been from any of the places he claimed to have seen, then clearly, Carr might well have seen those areas from the reverse direction; here's a photograph to prove it, taken by me:

It's a bit distorted, but from the third window west of Houston on the 7th floor, you can see as far down as where the courthouse "widens" at the 9th floor and one floor below over the roof of Old Red. So you can better see which floors are which, the image below is from Google Maps "Streetview" from the intersection of Houston & Commerce:

If Carr was on the 7th floor of the new courthouse, the line of sight is questionable; if he was "seven floors above the ground," i.e., the 8th floor, it's more likely. On the 9th floor - where the foreman supposedly was - then there's no question of the 7th floor's visibility. (The sixth floor is an open question because I honored the Sixth Floor Museum's stricture against using cameras in the museum proper, but according to CD329, page 31, FBI agents went there and found that they could see the 7th floor of the TSBD, but not the "lower floors." These photos seem to concur with that observation, so you tell me if I've examined the FBI's statement as closely as I have Carr's.)

Having seen where the floors are in the image above, in this photo taken at the SE corner of the TSBD building (not in the street), you can guesstimate how many floors from the top of the new courthouse building are visible from this location:

Is it two floors, i.e., the 12th and 11th? Three (down to the 10th)? Six (all the way down to where Carr said he was on the 7th floor)? Can you see any of the courthouse wall's southwest corner where the staircase was? In case you don't recall where that was, here's an aerial in which it can be seen:

As you move northward on Houston, the new courthouse appears to recede backward as the Records Building and old county jail building seem to move forward in perspective. Here's a view from a couple of car lengths back from the corner; tell me if you think you can see where the staircase was on the 7th floor (without using your x-ray vision, that is):

It is an absolute certainty that, if the buildings block your view of someone on the 7th floor side of the new county courthouse, their view of you at this location on Elm is likewise blocked by the same buildings.

This means that nowhere on the side of the new county courthouse building on November 22 1963 would have had a vantage point of this particular location, where Carr claimed he saw a Rambler station wagon and men escaping from the TSBD. If he couldn't see this area, what conceivable difference does it make what he claimed he saw when he plainly couldn't see it?

If you think there are flaws in this reasoning, please explain them to me, or do you think it's simply a case of me "wanting to believe" those "downer" FBI agents who clearly were trying to discredit a credible "witness?"

You will also find city bus schedules among the Commission Documents, possibly CD640 if I'm remembering correctly. If you find a schedule of the route from Love Field to downtown that shows that Worrell could have witnessed both the landing of AF1 and the shooting in DP, please bring it to our attention. If there wasn't a bus that could have left Love Field after 12:47 when the plane landed, and gotten to within a few blocks of DP with enough time for Dickey to have walked (or run at top speeed) to Elm & Houston to get there even just in the nick of time, by all means, please produce it.

If Dickey couldn't have gotten from Love to Dealey in time to have witnessed both events, then what he claimed he saw is of no consequence unless you can explain how he did get from one place to the other to be able to do and see what he said he did. If you can't, but Romack and Rackley had corroborated Worrell (or Carr), then I might be more inclined to think either of them saw what they claimed, but when you can't show that Worrell could have gotten to where he said he was, and can't show that Carr could've seen what he claimed to see, then the statements of other witnesses on the ground in the area take on additional weight and are less subject to attack because you can't use Worrell or Carr's statements about what they apparently couldn't see to try to establish the verity of what the others had to say.

Incidentally, up to the time of the first shot, Dickey claimed to have been standing up against the TSBD directly under the SE windows, and looked up to see the rifle protruding from an upper window before taking off running around the corner. At the very least, he should have been visible in Altgens 6, which shows that particular area at approximately that particular moment. Dickey was about 6'1" and wore thick, black glasses. Please point him out.

If you can find him there or elsewhere, I'll concede my criticism to be in total error. I am not, however, going to go searching through myriad photos and films that show the area only to be told that it "could have been" taken after Worrell ran. If you think he was there, prove it. The evidence suggests otherwise, and I stand by what I've said.

I'll see if I can dig up that "Imaginary Witness" article which, incidentally, concludes by stating the possibility that Worrell was there (but it is only "Part One!").

Back to you.

WCD 1035 and the Men running from the TSBD

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

Announcements