Posted at request of Jim DiEugenio

[Jack White]

http://www.ctka.net/2010/perry.html

[William Kelly]

http://www.ctka.net/2010/perry.html

Thanks for that one Jack and Jim.

And a tip of the hat to Bob Fox for writing it, as there's some new info there that we should never expect Dave Perry to tell us.

I don't know why we have to drag Perry into all of this except that his explanation, that the document was a practical joke by some Dallas cops involving Mark Lane just doesn't hold water, and even if it was, then that's tampering with evidence and a certified crime.

But as Bob Fox tells us here, some Dallas PD personell vouch for the document, and a news report from the late 60s verifies the existence of the eyewitness, and the cop named on the document, J.C. White, just happens to be a real Dallas cop.

Now I don't know where Bob gets the idea that everyone at the Education Forum were taken in by Dave Perry's shennigans but I can assure him that I know most people aren't.

While you should read the entire article, I want to focus on the document, though the shirt issue is also important.

As for Porter Bledsoe being in the NO CAP and the Georgetown FSS, and certifying the existence of H. H. Grant certainly lends more credence to the allegedly bogus document, and a refocus from the mother to the son.

Once when I was in Dallas I learned Porter was working as a desk clerk on the night shift of a motel, but he was off the day I tried to contact him. I hung out at the bar he patronized (The Green Glass) and his friends talked highly of him, but I never got to meet him, though I tried.

And Bob Fox actually gives Pat Speer credit, and he deserves it. Thanks Pat.

Now to take this one step further, are H.H. Grant, J.C. White or Porter Bledsoe still alive so we can ask them if the event described in the document happened?

BK

Deeper Into Dave - By Bob Fox http://www.ctka.net/2010/perry.html

The curious case of …..Mary Bledsoe. – the Shirt and the DPD Document

……But let us return to the shirt. Two authors have done good work on the issue of Bledsoe's vital importance to the FBI and the Commission in identifying Oswald's shirt on the bus as the same one he was wearing when he was arrested. They are Pat Speer and Rodger Remington. But before delving into their observations, let us define the circumstances and the evidentiary situation. What the FBI is saying is that Oswald got off the bus, took a cab to a point near his rooming house, and went inside briefly. But he did not change his shirt. The FBI cannot have this happening. Why? Because Oswald was arrested wearing a dark brown shirt with no jacket or coat over it. The FBI lab said that there were certain fibers recovered from the butt of the rifle that matched the shirt Oswald had on when he was arrested. So if Oswald changed his shirt at the rooming house from a shirt of a different color, then something is wrong in the handling of the evidence. The implication being that the Dallas Police or the FBI sweetened the case against Oswald.

There were two serious problems with this finding. First, while being questioned in detention, Oswald said that he did change his shirt. (patspeer.com Chapter 4b "Threads of Evidence".) Secondly, the FBI and the Commission had a devil of a time finding any witnesses who would say they saw Oswald after the shooting with a dark brown shirt and no jacket or overcoat. Speer does a meticulous and careful job going over all the witnesses the Bureau tried to get to say that they saw Oswald with just that garb on……

…..Remington points out just how problematic Bledsoe's testimony was on this issue. So much so, that even Commission counsel Ball was taken aback at points. First, she revealed that not only had the FBI been out to visit her, but so had the Secret Service. (ibid, p. 401) Remington notes that he could find no citation for this Secret Service visit in the Warren Report pertaining to Bledsoe. And Ball seemed surprised to learn of it. When asked why she thought this was the shirt Oswald had on while he was on the bus, she replied, "Well, let's see the front of it. Yes. See all this ... I remember that." (Remington, p. 402) As Remington notes, this rather generic reply is quite puzzling. One would think that she would know it was the right shirt by the color and the hole in the elbow. But when Ball tries to prompt her to do just that, this is what happened:

Mr. Ball. Tell me what you see there.

Mrs. Bledsoe. I saw the – not; not so much that. It was done after – that is the part I recognize more than anything.

Mr. Ball. You are pointing to the hole in the right elbow?

Mrs. Bledsoe. Yes.

Mr. Ball. What about the color?

Mrs. Bledsoe. Well I – what do you mean?...Before he was shot? Yes, I remember being brown. (Italics added)

I have italicized the two parts that are key to her relevancy to the FBI and the Commission i.e. the hole in the elbow and the color. The two italicized phrases again suggest that she was coached on these points. The first one indicates that she knows the hole in the shirt elbow was most likely made during Oswald's altercation with the police in the Texas Theater. Which occurred after Oswald stopped at his rooming house. So it would not have been visible to her on the bus. It seems someone told her about this problem previously. The second italicized phrase, "Before he was shot?" indicates the same. Someone informed her about the specific timeline required by the Bureau and the Commission. Namely that Oswald said he changed his shirt prior to being arrested. And as Remington also notes, there is another indication of this confusion in the timeline. When Ball asked her if the shirt was open or buttoned, she replies, "Yes; all the buttons torn off." (Remington, p. 405) But yet, since no one else noted this at that time, this most likely happened at the Texas Theater.

Let us bring up one last point about the shirt. The FBI technician who testified on the fibers found on the butt of the rifle was Paul Stombaugh. As Speer points out, Stombaugh made all kinds of excuses for an apparent flaw in his analysis: there was a problem in his supposed "match". (Remington also notes this problem.) Stombaugh said that he found "the shirt was composed of dark-blue, grayish-black, and orangish-yellow cotton fibers, and that these were the same shades of colors I had found on the butt plate of the gun." (ibid, p. 397) When Remington looked up the colors that composed the color of brown, they were a combination of red, black, and yellow. (ibid) Or to paraphrase Speer, I guess there is "no brown in brown."

After calling her testimony "incredible" (p. 406), Remington suggests that the person who may have coached her on it was her attorney Ms. Melody Douthit. He points out that Douthit was allowed to do something quite rare for the Commission: to take over the questioning of the witness for 53 questions, three pages in the volumes. (WC Vol. 6, p. 422) And she clearly was allowed to ask a leading question of Arlen Specterish length and complexity about Bledsoe's first meeting with Oswald. But the question that was never really answered about this whole Oswald/Bledsoe renting situation is this: Why did she ask Oswald to leave? Why did she never give him his full refund? Was it because of the ruckus described in the arrest report? Because the date of the arrest report incident, October 11th, was the day before she evicted Oswald.

THE DPD DOCUMENT -

When I asked Roger Rainwater, the head of the Special Collections division of TCU's Burnett Library, about the Mary Bledsoe arrest report, he would only say, "Although I am aware that this is part of the "folklore" of the department, I have no direct knowledge or recollection of this situation." However, the Marguerite Oswald TCU collection DOES contain another very interesting document. It is a UPI story that mentions a man named H.H. Grant, who is also mentioned in the Bledsoe police report. The report describes a tussle between one "Alek Hidell" and J. R. Rubinstein, obviously Oswald and Ruby. Bledsoe was complaining because during the scuffle, some furniture in the room she rented to Oswald was damaged. But there was a fourth person named on the report. He was listed as a witness. His name was H. H. Grant. Here is the UPI story:

Dallas, Nov. 21-UPI-"A DALLAS BUILDER TODAY DENIED THAT HE HAD BEEN ARRESTED IN 1963 WITH LEE HARVEY OSWALD AND JACK RUBY IN AN OAK CLIFF ROOMING HOUSE – AFTER A REPORTED ALTERCATION.

H.H. GRANT, 35, SAID HE WAS TAKEN TO THE DALLAS POLICE STATION "SOMETIME IN OCTOBER" OF THAT YEAR FOR QUESTIONING. BUT THAT HE AND TWO OTHER MEN ALSO QUESTIONED WERE RELEASED "WHEN IT BECAME OBVIOUS THAT THE REPORT WAS A MISTAKEN ONE."

DALLAS POLICE CHIEF CHARLES BATCHELOR SAID DALLAS POLICE RECORDS SHOWED NO RECORD OF SUCH AN ARREST.

GRANT'S STORY CAME TO LIGHT RECENTLY WHEN SEVERAL DALLAS NEWS-MEN GOT WIND OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT RUBY AND OSWALD MIGHT HAVE BEEN SEEN TOGETHER AT THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE WARREN COMMISSION, REACHING THE CONCLUSION THAT BOTH APPARENTLY ACTED ALONE IN THEIR NOVEMBER, 1963 ACTIONS, INDICATED THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT LINKED OSWALD TO THE FORMER NIGHTCLUB OWNER.

GRANT, FORMERLY OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION IN DALLAS, DETROIT AND OTHER CITIES, NOW OPERATES A BUILDING FIRM IN DALLAS.

IT IS REPORTED THAT GRANT HAS RECENTLY VISITED NEW ORLEANS FOR QUESTIONING BY DIST. ATTY. JIM GARRISON, WHO IS CURRENTLY INVESTIGATING PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY'S ASSASSINATION, ALONG WITH RELATED EVENTS THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE OCCURRED IN THE LOUISIANA CITY IN MID-1963. GRANT DENIED THAT HE HAD EVER MET GARRISON AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT.

GRANT DENIED HE HAD EVER MET RUBY, BUT SAID HIS WIFE..."_

The UPI story does not give a year as to when the story was written. But if the report is genuine, it was probably done around 1967 or 1968, when Jim Garrison was doing his investigation. Notice, according to this report, a version of the incident did happen. And parties were questioned about it. (In this regard, when John Armstrong tried to find the matching report at DPD HQ, he was told that since no action was taken – no one was booked or prosecuted – the original was probably routinely destroyed. Folliard, p. 32) Further, Grant does not deny being there during the incident, he just denies being arrested. Notice too that, according to the story, Grant was in the FBI at one time. Oswald and Ruby were both believed to have been FBI informants as well.

In addition to this, we also have some interesting family connections with the Bledsoes. When Mary Bledsoe died in 1969, Penn Jones wrote an obituary and a brief story was done about her in The Midlothian Mirror. Jones wrote that her son Porter was in the Louisiana Civil Air Patrol with Oswald when David Ferrie was a Captain there. Where and how Jones garnered this information is not revealed. So it cannot be certified as being accurate. (See Michael Benson's Who's Who in the JFK Assassination, pgs. 42, 133) In addition, I have learned that in 1963, Porter Bledsoe lived with his mother Mary. I have also learned that Porter went to the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. In addition, the H.H. Grant who was also named in the infamous police report never denied that he was there and had been in the FBI at one time.

If the police report is legitimate (and I stress the word 'if') then all three men in the report – Oswald, Ruby and Grant – could have been FBI informants at the time. And the rightwing Mary Bledsoe – she was reportedly a member of the Daughters of the Confederacy and the Dallas Navy Mothers Club – and her intelligence oriented son, would be willing to cover it all up. As, for obvious reasons, the Dallas Police would be after the fact. After all, they had two people involved in the JFK case in their hands over a month before Kennedy was killed.

Let me add one more possible point. It is these connections that may have allowed Bledsoe to be such a pliable and cooperative witness for the FBI and the Commission.

V

It is necessary to lay out all this before discussing the controversy over the Bledsoe police report. Why? Because in his writing on the subject. Perry tells you nothing about any of the above. That's right. Not a word about any of it. He doesn't tell you how important Bledsoe was to the FBI and the Commission. He doesn't tell you that Bledsoe was the eyewitness the Commission relied upon to put Oswald on the McWatters' bus. Perry doesn't tell you how she added that "homicidal look" on his face, which no on else recalled. He doesn't tell you how she was the key witness in keeping the brown shirt constantly on Oswald after the murder, and how this helped the FBI in the matching of the fibers. (Which may not have matched anyway.) He doesn't tell you how her testimony has hints of being rehearsed, how she brought her own notes, and how her attorney played an unusual role in the proceedings.

The net effect of all these deletions is this: the whole controversy he details lacks any real context. Because he erases Bledsoe, and the troubling questions about her, from the picture. This allows him to perform his usual routine. That is to conceal and camouflage the failings of the FBI and the Commission, and second, to go after the critics. To the point of eliminating an alternative scenario as to the provenance of the report i.e. someone on the DPD or FBI might have faked the document to detract attention from how weak a witness Bledsoe was and how she was used to prop up the official story.

Now let's look at the Bledsoe police report that has been argued to be both real and fake.

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/6159/dallaspolicereport.jpg

This report was found in 1994 by JFK assassination researchers Jack White, Jim Marrs and John Armstrong while browsing through the personal files of Marguerite Oswald at the Special Collections division of TCU's Burnett Library. White and Marrs issued a press release that was printed in Probe, which, at the time was being edited by Dennis Effle. It was this press release that Perry used to attack the document as a forgery planted by mysterious conservative Dallas citizens disgruntled by how Mark Lane had made their city look silly. Perry's theory – if it can be called one – was that the forgers wanted to make Lane look stupid when he publicized it. Apparently the plotters were not too smart. They got Lane's address wrong somehow and the envelope containing the report was returned address unknown. An interesting point about Perry's "research" is that although he was arguing for a conspiracy, he would never name anyone involved, or the date when the letter to Lane was sent. This is rather surprising since Perry actually said that he talked to one of the conspirators. (See, Perry's "The Bledsoe Document Resurfaces") In that article he does not say if he asked the nameless man how he could have gotten Lane's address wrong. Lane was quite accessible at the time since he was traveling the country and also giving lectures in New York on a regular basis. Many, many people had access to him e.g. Ray Marcus, Marjorie Field etc. All that was necessary was to give the arrest report to one of them or ask them for Lane's mailing address. Another way to have gotten him the report was through his publisher. A very common practice, both then and now. It's odd that, apparently, Perry did not ask those questions.

Perry also reports as fact that the arrest report first surfaced back in the sixties, and that it was then not investigated again until 1994. The first statement is really an assumption he makes; the second statement is false. And, as we will see, it is hard to believe that Perry did not know it was false when he wrote it.

Concerning the first: How did Perry determine that the report first surfaced back in the sixties? He says he called Mary Ferrell. She had heard of it around the time of the Garrison inquiry and it was dismissed as a fraud. In fact, Perry wrote that the report actually got to Jim Garrison, he had a copy in 1967, and according to Ferrell, Garrison considered the report a fraud. This is a not completely warranted deduction. For two reasons. First, contrary to what Perry implies, Mary Ferrell never worked for Garrison. (ibid) You can scan through his extant files, you can interview anyone who worked for him at the time. They will tell you the same. So how is she a good source for this information? Secondly, as we have seen, there is evidence that Garrison actually interviewed a person named in the police report. Both Ferrell and Perry either were unaware of this or deliberately left it out.

The other main source Perry uses to convey the information that the document was around for decades is a man named Randy Chapman. He also connects to Ferrell on this issue. For Mary said that she thought she got a copy from the late Al Chapman, Randy's father. In other words, Perry was relying on the son's memory for a document the father had in his possession about 27-28 years ago. Perry does not tell the reader what Randy's age would have been at the time, or if he had such a strong interest in the JFK case back then to recall such a document. (Interestingly, Perry chose not to interview Marrs or White about this point. Because neither one of them, who have been in the area and interested in the case since the sixties, heard of the report back then.)

But here is the most important point to recall about what Perry adduced from his call to Randy Chapman. Randy told him that "his father was very friendly with Marguerite Oswald and that Al did give her a copy of the report." (See Perry's "A CTKA Story") The never curious Perry apparently did not ask Randy, "How would you recall such a thing? Were you there when the transfer happened?" Perry never asked another obvious question: "If the word was that the document was a hoax, why would your father give it to Marguerite if he was friendly with her?"

Perry ends his "inquiry" into the report's provenance with a huge understatement. He writes that his Arthurian quest has not completely resolved how the arrest report came to be found at the TCU archives or if indeed it had been fabricated. (ibid)

But there is something that Perry may have left out of his report about his interview with Ferrell. For Ferrell told Folliard that, as she recalled it, Chapman was given the document by Lt. J. C. Day. (Folliard, p. 35) If true, this is rather important information. Because it would seem to vouch for the document's authenticity. But if the document was forged, then it was possibly forged by someone on the Dallas Police.

Let us address Perry's second point: the arrest report had not resurfaced since Garrison had discarded it. This was wrong. For in February of 1992, the FBI had interviewed one Frank O. Mote about the document. What makes this interview interesting is a point that Perry ignores completely. The interviewing agent was Farris Rookstool. In Jim DiEugenio's essay, "How Gary Mack Became Dan Rather", he revealed that Rookstool was the FBI agent who became the Bureau's beat cop in Dallas on the JFK case around the time that Oliver Stone's film JFK was released. (Click here for the essay.) Further, that Perry also moved into the Dallas-Fort Worth area just prior to that time from his previous home back east. Perry had been lifelong friends with Gus Russo. Russo had ostensibly been a former Warren Commission critic who at this same time was now switching sides. (Click here for the story on Russo.)

According to more than one Dallas based researcher, Rookstool's job was to garner any new information coming out of the JFK research community there. One of the ways he did this was to occasionally drop in at the late Larry Howard's JFK Assassination Information Center. By way of Gus Russo, who no one suspected of turning at the time, Perry also began to do his reconnaissance job on the JFK research community in Dallas. It appears they were both doing the same function. Except Perry was doing it in an unofficial capacity.

If this is so, how could Rookstool have not alerted Perry to his interview with one Frank O. Mote in 1992 about the Bledsoe arrest report? And how could Perry have known what he did about Rookstool's story, as he revealed in his article on the subject? Mote volunteered almost no information about the document. But how Rookstool discovered Mote, the document, and how Perry treats this episode is of the utmost interest.

Rookstool says that Mote provided the document to his father! (See Perry's, "The FBI's Report on Frank Mote") How Rookstool knew this, or precisely when he discovered it, is never mentioned by Perry. Neither is it explained why Mote would do such a thing. (And since Perry doesn't reveal the Dallas Police giving the report to Chapman, he doesn't have to explain why Rookstool never investigated the police angle.) Perry could easily shed light on those queries through his longtime acquaintance with Rookstool if he wanted to. And to detract from the importance of Rookstool and the Mote interview, Perry actually writes that the FBI did not make the discovery of the document in 1992, Rookstool did. This is a distinction without a difference. Rookstool was an officer of the FBI in 1992. His job was reconnaissance on the research community in Dallas. So if he found this out about his father, then the FBI found it out also.

Let me make one other observation about this 1992 strange interlude: If one questions – as I do – Perry's past attempts at moving the document's provenance back to the sixties, this is the first time word of the document surfaced. Right after the furor over Stone's film began.

VI

As previously noted, Perry tries to ridicule JFK forums and newsgroups. He titled one of his essays "Newsgroups – What Newsgroups?" The subtitle left little doubt where Perry stood on the issue: "Is there really any news on the JFK newsgroups?" Perry may want to discourage people from visiting these forums, since people like Sean Murphy are hard at work exposing some of his scams. And so is Joe Hall.

Hall is another Kennedy researcher who frequents a newsgroup. He posts at the forum for the JFK Murder Solved site. Unlike others at more popular sites like John Simkin's Spartacus, Hall didn't buy Perry or his spin on the Bledsoe arrest report. So he took the report to the Dallas Police Department. He showed it to a police officer and a police secretary at headquarters. Both thought the report was genuine. Both thought the report was very indicative of a standard police report of that period, with the errors in the report common in a petty case of this nature.

The police officer examined the report and said he felt about 90% sure the report was for real. The secretary was even more positive. And more interesting in her comments. She said she felt 100% that the report was a genuine one. She said the only thing false on it was the numbers running across the top. And she observed that these were typed on a different typewriter. There were indications of that because the dash shifted to the left on every number. But besides that, she felt the report was authentic.

This is quite interesting. Why? Because a major way that Perry disputes the authenticity of the report is through those very numbers! (Which, according to Folliard, should not even be there. Folliard, p. 36) Yet, as the secretary told Hall, everything about the document looked real except those numbers. As Perry wrote, the numbers across the top, when matched to their numeric correspondence in the alphabet, spell out U-R-A-Fink. Yet as the secretary said, these were typed on a different typewriter. Therefore, if the document was a hoax, then it is very likely that someone else got hold of it and added this onto it to make it seem more of such. If the document is genuine, then the ersatz numbers were added to a real document to make it appear to be a false one.

Mr. Hall talked to a librarian at the Special Collections division of TCU's Burnett Library. As noted, this houses the Marguerite Oswald Collection. She had a fascinating tale to relate. For the librarian was very helpful to Hall. She got him everything he asked for. During their conversation she revealed that he was one of the very few people who had been there to inspect the Marguerite Oswald collection over the years. In fact, she said she only recalled three previous visits in her ten-year tenure.

When Hall asked her about the Bledsoe police report, she had a curious response. The woman said it was not in the files, because it was not entered in the original Oswald index list. Therefore it was not a part of the donated collection. She then stopped for a moment, and said, "Wait a minute.. . I recall something else." She then brought out another folder that held the disputed police report inside. Hall discovered from the woman that on one of the previous viewings, someone had tried to slip this report into the Marguerite Oswald collection. However the substitution was detected. Which is why she gave the inserted document to Joe in a different folder.

Let me add why this last detail is important. First, it casts even more doubt on Perry's "inquiry". For if Chapman had given it to Marguerite back in the sixties, why was it not turned over to TCU? Especially since Marguerite apparently did include the UPI story about Grant. Second, when Marrs, White, and Armstrong made their visit in 1994, the report was there in a file folder. So it was not they who inserted the report. (Interviews with White and Marrs, 3/30/10) Someone else did so prior to that visit. The questions then become: Who? When? Why?

As the reader can see, genuine or not, there is a lot more to the Bledsoe arrest report than Dave Perry ever let on. Perry's writing is so incomplete, so one-sided, so agenda-driven as to be misleading. Which, as we have seen with Discovery Channel, is par for the course with him. I began this article with a comparison of Perry to the Naked Gun's Lt. Frank Drebin. Specifically to his famous line, "Nothing to see here." If you really want to investigate Mary Bledsoe and the arrest report, there is a lot to see here. And Perry won't give it to you.

Why?

Edited April 8, 2010 by William Kelly

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Bill Kelly is right. I presumed this was a thread about DiEugenio's review of Horne. My mistake. I have deleted it.

Edited April 9, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Ron Ecker]

the cop named on the document, J.C. White, just happens to be a real Dallas cop.

Both cops named happen to be real Dallas cops, assuming that the second cop Hargis is Bobby W. Hargis. (I can't tell what the first initial is for Hargis on the document, but the middle initial, which looks somewhat like an A, could be a distorted W. Compare the similarly distorted W in "When" in the fourth sentence of the report.)

Both White and Hargis were in DP at the time of the assassination. This would suggest to me that the document is fake (though I'm not familiar with all the evidence pro or con, having never seen this doc before). Why? Out of all the cops in Dallas, the forgers used two cops whose names they knew from the assassination, i.e. two cops whom they knew existed.

[William Kelly]

the cop named on the document, J.C. White, just happens to be a real Dallas cop.

Both cops named happen to be real Dallas cops, assuming that the second cop Hargis is Bobby W. Hargis. (I can't tell what the first initial is for Hargis on the document, but the middle initial, which looks somewhat like an A, could be a distorted W. Compare the similarly distorted W in "When" in the fourth sentence of the report.)

Both White and Hargis were in DP at the time of the assassination. This would suggest to me that the document is fake (though I'm not familiar with all the evidence pro or con, having never seen this doc before). Why? Out of all the cops in Dallas, the forgers used two cops whose names they knew from the assassination, i.e. two cops whom they knew existed.

Hi Ron,

(Just ignore Prof. Fetzer, he thinks this thread has something to do with Jimmy D and therefore cross posted that stuff about Lifton, thinking that it belongs here, and is keeping things tidy, but its clear he didn't bother to read the thread.)

The allegation is that the forgers are cops, but when J.C. White and Hargis were questioned by the WC they were never asked about the incident or the document, and were never asked at the end of their testimony if they had anything to add that they weren't questioned about, standard operating procedure.

And the idea that the two cops, accident investigators, are real and were not questioned, makes me wonder why? And they certainly knew, when they were questioned, if the incident happened, that it was a significnt event that brought Ruby and Oswald together before the assassination, and provided the reason for Bledsoe to evict Oswald.

And the other people on the document - Bledsoe, Rubenstein and Hidel - three people we know, and now there's a UPI news report, and probably a local news report, as Gary Mack points out - interviewing H.H. Grant, the other person named in the document, who is also a real person.

Can anyone obtain the original and entire news article that is quoted in this article that mentions H.H. Grant?

And also, can anyone determine if Porter Bledsoe, J.C. White, Hargus or H.H. Grant are still alive, so they can belatedly be asked if the incident occurred or if the document was forged?

Thanks,

BK

Edited April 9, 2010 by William Kelly

[William Kelly]

J.C. White DPD

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/white_jc.htm

THE TESTIMONY OF J.C. WHITE

The testimony of J.C. White was taken at 11:45 a.m., on April 9, 1964; In the office of the U.S. attorney, 801 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Joseph A. Ball, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Mr. BALL. All right, will you stand up and be sworn.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. WHITE. I do.

Mr. BALL. All right.

Mr. BALL. Will you state your name, please.

Mr. WHITE. J.C. White.

Mr. BALL. What Is your residence?

Mr. WHITE. 2803 Klondite.

Mr. BALL. And your occupation?

Mr. WHITE. Policeman.

Mr. BALL. Did you receive a letter from the Commission?

Mr. WHITE. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. For a request to-

Mr. WHITE. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. You were asked to come here by your--

Mr. WHITE. Captain.

Mr. BALL. Which captain?

Mr. WHITE. Lawrence.

Mr. BALL. Now, the Commission was established to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy. We want to ask you some questions about information that you might have that might aid us In that investigation.

I am a Staff officer of the Commission named Ball. Joseph A. Ball. I am authorized to administer the oath to you, to make this inquiry. During the course of our investigation in Dallas we discovered that you and the man that you were working with that day, Mr. J. W. Foster, knew of some facts that might aid us in the investigation. We asked Chief Curry if we could have you come up here and testify, and I guess that is the reason you are here.

You are willing to testify, are you not?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Tell us whatever you know about it.

253

[/size]

Mr. WHITE. I don't know.

Mr. BALL. Well, I can ask you.

Mr. WHITE. Okay.

Mr. BALL. I will ask you questions. Where were you born?

Mr. WHITE. Van Alystyne, Tex.

Mr. BALL. Where did you go to school?

Mr. WHITE. Van Alystyne, Tex.

Mr. BALL. How far through school?

Mr. WHITE. Ninth grade there.

Mr. BALL. Then what did you do?

Mr. WHITE. I went into the Army.

Mr. BALL. And how long were you In the Army?

Mr. WHITE. About 3 years.

Mr. BALL. And what did you do?

Mr. WHITE. Went to driving a city bus.

Mr. BALL. How long did you drive a city bus?

Mr. WHITE. 6 years.

Mr. BALL. Then what did you do?

Mr. WHITE. Joined the Police Department.

Mr. BALL. How long ago?

Mr. WHITE. 1956.

Mr. BALL. And what are you now?

Mr. WHITE. Accident investigator.

Mr. BALL. And your rank is a patrolman?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Now, on November22. 1963, did you have an assignment?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Where?

Mr. WHITE. On the triple underpass.

Mr. BALL. And were you there with someone?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Who?

Mr. WHITE. J. W. Foster.

Mr. BALL. Where were you?

Mr. WHITE. Standing on the west side of the overpass.

Mr. BALL. On the west side of the overpass?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Where were you with reference to Elm. Main or Commerce as they go underneath the overpass?

Mr. WHITE. Approximately at the north curb of Main Street.

Mr. BALL. Approximately the north curb of Main on the corner of the north curb of Main? That would be--

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. On the west side of the overpass?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. BALL. I'm going to get another copy of this map. Let me see. I can use this. Mark this as Exhibit A to your deposition. Now, a diagram that was drawn by a patrolman, Joe Murphy, and he has made some marks and other witnesses have, but don't pay any attention to that. I want you to look at this drawing and take a pen and mark your position on the railroad overpass in a circle, and put your initials beside it.

You have made an "X".

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. And you have initialed J.C. White, is that right?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Over the-what would be the west curb of Main?

Mr. WHITE. North curb of Main.

Mr. BALL. The north curb?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. BALL. North curb of Main?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. And west side of the overpass?

254

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Is there a rail there?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. How many people were on that overpass that day?

Mr. WHITE. On the same side I was on?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. WHITE. None.

Mr. BALL. None? Any people attempt to come up on the overpass around noon?

Mr. WHITE. Not on my side.

Mr. BALL. They did not?

Mr. WHITE. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. Had you seen your partner send any people away from the overpass?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. You had certain instructions, didn't you?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What were they?

Mr. WHITE. Not to let any unauthorized personnel on top of the overpass.

Mr. BALL. Now, you did permit some people to stay on the overpass, didn't you?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Who were they?

Mr. WHITE. Workers of the railroad company.

Mr. BALL. Were they people you knew?

Mr. WHITE. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. Well, how did you know they were workers with the railroad company?

Mr. WHITE. Majority of them were there when we got there, working on the rails.

Mr. BALL. And you let them stay there?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Did you see the President's car come into sight?

Mr. WHITE. No, sir; first time I saw it it has passed, passed under the triple underpass.

Mr. BALL. You were too far away to see it, were you?

Mr. WHITE. There was a freight train traveling. There was a train passing between the location I was standing and the area from which the procession was traveling, and-a big long freight train, and I did not see it.

Mr. BALL. You didn't see the procession?

Mr. WHITE. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. Before the train went by, did you see some railroad personnel over on the-would it be the--

Mr. WHITE. East side?

Mr. BALL. East side of the overpass?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. How many people?

Mr. WHITE. About 10, approximately. I didn't count them.

Mr. BALL. Did you hear any shots?

Mr. WHITE. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. Didn't?

Mr. WHITE. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. First time you saw the President's car it was going underneath?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What did you do after that?

Mr. WHITE. As soon as the train passed I went over and on the northwest side of the Depository Building. On the northwest side of the book store up there with the rest of the officers and after about 30 minutes they told me to go out and work traffic at Main and Houston, and I stood out there and worked traffic.

Mr. BALL. All right, now, you heard no sound of no rifle fire or anything?

Mr. WHITE. No, sir.

255

Mr. BALL. Freight train was going through at the time?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Making noise?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir; noisy train.

Mr. BALL. Mr. White, Mr. Foster was on the east side of the overpass?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. This deposition will be written up and submitted to you for your signature if you wish to sign it, or you can waive your signature. Which do you wish to do?

Mr. WHITE. You said a while ago to him it would be written up like this? Is that correct?

Mr. BALL. No, It will be written up in the form of a deposition.

Mr. WHITE. I will waive.

Mr. BALL. You waive it. Okay. Fine.

Edited April 9, 2010 by William Kelly