Why Beverley Oliver Is Not The Babushka Lady

[Jack White]

Beverly did NOT come forward. She had made mistakes when younger. She was trying to

put her past behind her. She "got religion" and married evangelist Charles Massagee.

Rev. Massagee and she travelled around holding "revivals" in Texas churches. For economy

reasons, the traveling pastor and wife were often hosted in church member homes

instead of motels. Charles preached, Beverly sang. Revivals usually lasted several

days.

While holding a revival in a church in Cleburne Texas, Charles and Beverly were

hosted by architect and church member J. Gary Shaw. In his hallway, Gary had

a bookcase full of JFK books. At the dinner table during the meal, Beverly commented

on the books, and to her surprise found that Gary was a leading researcher of the

JFK murder. She had NO IDEA her host was a JFK expert.

Very matter-of-factly, Beverly commented, "Oh, you know, I was there that day.

I don't talk about it, but I saw the president die." She did NOT "come forward"; she

made an offhand comment during dinner...by accident to a person who KNEW.

Gary was astonished that chance had brought an unknown witness to his house. He

asked where she was in the plaza. She described a point about a third of the way

down Elm by the south curb. Gary knew the photos by memory. He became excited.

The ONLY woman in the photos where his dinner guest described was the unidentified

woman in a headscarf called the Babushka Lady. Chance had brought her forward to

his house.

Without showing her photos or descriptions, the next day he drove the Massagees

to Dealey Plaza. He asked her to go stand where she had been. She went to the

exact spot of the Babushka Lady.

When Gary informed her of the significance of her story, she wished to remain

anonymous. Only because Gary confided the story to his cohort Penn Jones did

her story become known. Penn hinted in several stories in his newspaper that

the Babushka Lady had been found. Only later when Beverly donated one of

her kidneys to her ailing daughter did her identity become known.

The uninformed say that Beverly "came forward". She became known only by

chance, and then wanted to avoid any publicity lest it interfere with her

religious work. She was afraid that her shady past, use of drugs, night

club singer, and association with underworld figures would ruin the revival

crusade of the Massagees. At first, she was not happy that Penn had named

her. Later, she began to see the good that her admission had done in the

search for truth, and ever since has devoted herself to doing whatever she

can to find who killed JFK.

Beverly Oliver Massagee IS the Babushka Lady.

Jack

Jack,

Thanks for your info about Beverly Oliver.

Is this the story Gary Shaw told you?

Todd

Yes...this is the story told by Gary Shaw and also repeated by Penn Jones and Beverly (from their own perspectives).

Jack

So, just so I am clear, Shaw (and Jones and Oliver) said she first told her story at Shaw's house and they went to Dealey Plaza the next day?

It was nearly 30 years ago; I am not certain it was "the next day". It may have been a few days later. Everything else is accurate.

The "next day" may have been Sunday; the revival was in progress.

Jack

Do you know if Richard Sprague went with them to Dealey Plaza? Thanks.

Richard Sprague was not mentioned by any of the persons who told me the story.

So the answer is I do not know. But I doubt it. Ask Gary Shaw or Beverly.

I have recounted all I know.

Jack

[Duke Lane]

I don't know what it is, but there seems to be a spate of attacks on witnesses on this forum and wonder why these witnesses are so threatening and if this is contageous?

It's called "separating the wheat from the chaff."

A funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Some years ago - I think it was around 1992 - a "debate" was held at a barbecue restaurant in Irving, Texas, to determine or decide "once and for all" if Beverly Oliver was indeed the Babushka Lady. It was not an event to air facts and discuss their merits, but a staged event with more of an air of a revival and witch hunt, the "witch" being one Larry Dunkel (spelling?), "a.k.a. Gary Mack," as a homemade cardboard placard - it might easily be called a "protest sign" as its owner pumped it over his head for all to call their attention to whenever Gary spoke, which was seldom enough - proclaimed.

The event was sponsored and dominated by the JFK Assassination Information Center, best known for its colorful ownership and their backing and promotion of Ricky White's abortive commercial venture to assassinate his father's memory (which, despite its fiscal failure, remains fixed in some less discerning imaginations). "Debating" Mack were Oliver, her own sponsor Gary Shaw, and for good measure, the grand dame of assassination research, Mary Ferrell.

Without going into a blow-by-blow that I barely remember beyond impressions (it largely consisted of opening commentary by Gary Mack on why he thought Beverly was not TBL, interrupted by the sign-carrying crowd and followed by a heartfelt collaborative sob by Shaw and Oliver carrying the dual themes of "we're great researchers, we can't be fooled" and "why would this nice lady lie?"), I remember clearly the "denouement" brought forth by Mary.

Mary related how she had gotten a call from Shaw to tell her of his exciting discovery of TBL and his desire to validate that discovery with her. The call was followed by a visit from Shaw with Beverly in tow to tell her story to her. Then she got to the nub of what she'd been called upon to say. I thought it was interesting the way she'd put it.

Mary related how she hadn't believed Beverly was the Babushka Lady at first because, she said, TBL had thick ankles, which Beverly did (in '92) and does not. "Women's ankles don't change," Mary said, pointing out something that I, for one, had never noticed before, the shape of a woman's ankles. Yet, she said, after Shaw and Oliver's visit, she'd "been convinced" - which differs in meaning grammatically from "was convinced" - that Beverly was "telling the truth."

This seemingly clinched the deal, and the "picketers" seemed quite happy. If Mack said anything in rebuttal, I don't recall it and seem to remember his acquiescence to Mary's pronouncement. To my knowledge, he's never said anything about it since then, publicly or privately in my hearing.

Yet it's always stuck in my mind how Mary Ferrell had both endorsed and refuted Beverly's claim in one fell swoop, saying from one side of her mouth that she'd "been convinced by" Shaw, while from the other telling those with ears to hear that the physical characteristics of TBL - her ankles - did not match Beverly's, and that the particular characteristic does not change with age, at least not from thick to thin (perhaps the other way around? I don't know).

Since that time almost 20 years ago, I've noticed women's ankles - particularly the thicker ones - and have even tried to decide for myself whether TBL has thick or thin ankles. I'm undecided on this point, but lean toward them being thick. Beverly's are unquestionably not thick, and if Mary's point was accurate, they never could have been.

Whether or not she is the Babuska Lady, Beverly Oliver certainly knew Jack Ruby, she worked at the Colony Club, she knew a guy named Larry Ronco who worked for Kodak and at the Texas State Fair and she was with Jack Ruby and Larry Meyers when they had dinner at the Egyptian Lounge on the night before the assassination, contrary to the Warren Report that says Ruby was with Ralph Paul.

I've been told that Larry Ronco did, in fact, "work for" Kodak, selling film to tourists at the state fair (or was it Six Flags, or both?). In such a position - a seasonal, part-time, retail sales clerk - his being given or otherwise having access to an "experimental" camera before its public release seems far-fetched at best. That's like Liz Taylor giving a bottle of her maybe-never-to-be-released new fragrance to the girl at the Macy's counter: who here really thinks that's very likely?

Did Beverly date Larry? Certainly possible, if not probable or certain. Did Larry work for Kodak? Probably so, either directly or indirectly. Did Kodak give him a top-secret camera, he in turn lend it to his girlfriend (whom he could be absolutely certain would never show or tell anyone about it ... unless they were in Dealey Plaza), what would have happened if the camera had been confiscated as others supposedly - and conveniently - were, did Kodak ever find out, and did Larry keep his job afterward? These are imponderables we'll probably never know the real answer to. They do all, however, seem unlikely.

The problem with accepting the various statements of all "witnesses" is that we tend to follow a "lead" that they give us when that lead is nothing but hogwash, a pipe dream, less than a wisp of smoke: not just gone but never there. An example of this is Richard Carr's belated "Rambler station wagon" on Houston Street, chasing a phantom that couldn't have been seen to even know if it existed. It's unfortunate for us - and a boon to whoever else may have shot Kennedy and Tippit - that some people will believe anything simply because it differs from what someone or something they don't want to believe has said was the case, to wit:

Whether or not she is the Babuska Lady, Beverly Oliver certainly knew Jack Ruby ... and she was with Jack Ruby and Larry Meyers when they had dinner at the Egyptian Lounge on the night before the assassination, contrary to the Warren Report that says Ruby was with Ralph Paul.

Here we get the impression that it was the Warren Report alone that said Jack had dinner with his sometimes partner Paul, when in fact Ralph Paul himself said that he had dinner with Ruby. Yet Beverly introduces another twist, suggesting that she had dinner with the typically asexual Ruby as some sort of "special guest" (really? why was she such an apple in his eye that he'd single her out to accompany him?) along with one Larry Meyers, thus "proving" that Ruby did not have dinner with Paul, but with Meyers and her, the big bad Report - and Ralph Paul - lying once again. If that was so, then Beverly can presumably tell us whether there where two or three other people also part of that party, and who they were, right?

What proof is there of any of these assertions? Things aren't so just because one wants them to be.

[William Kelly]

I don't know what it is, but there seems to be a spate of attacks on witnesses on this forum and wonder why these witnesses are so threatening and if this is contageous?

It's called "separating the wheat from the chaff."

A funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Some years ago - I think it was around 1992 - a "debate" was held at a barbecue restaurant in Irving, Texas, to determine or decide "once and for all" if Beverly Oliver was indeed the Babushka Lady. It was not an event to air facts and discuss their merits, but a staged event with more of an air of a revival and witch hunt, the "witch" being one Larry Dunkel (spelling?), "a.k.a. Gary Mack," as a homemade cardboard placard - it might easily be called a "protest sign" as its owner pumped it over his head for all to call their attention to whenever Gary spoke, which was seldom enough - proclaimed.

The event was sponsored and dominated by the JFK Assassination Information Center, best known for its colorful ownership and their backing and promotion of Ricky White's abortive commercial venture to assassinate his father's memory (which, despite its fiscal failure, remains fixed in some less discerning imaginations). "Debating" Mack were Oliver, her own sponsor Gary Shaw, and for good measure, the grand dame of assassination research, Mary Ferrell.

Without going into a blow-by-blow that I barely remember beyond impressions (it largely consisted of opening commentary by Gary Mack on why he thought Beverly was not TBL, interrupted by the sign-carrying crowd and followed by a heartfelt collaborative sob by Shaw and Oliver carrying the dual themes of "we're great researchers, we can't be fooled" and "why would this nice lady lie?"), I remember clearly the "denouement" brought forth by Mary.

Mary related how she had gotten a call from Shaw to tell her of his exciting discovery of TBL and his desire to validate that discovery with her. The call was followed by a visit from Shaw with Beverly in tow to tell her story to her. Then she got to the nub of what she'd been called upon to say. I thought it was interesting the way she'd put it.

Mary related how she hadn't believed Beverly was the Babushka Lady at first because, she said, TBL had thick ankles, which Beverly did (in '92) and does not. "Women's ankles don't change," Mary said, pointing out something that I, for one, had never noticed before, the shape of a woman's ankles. Yet, she said, after Shaw and Oliver's visit, she'd "been convinced" - which differs in meaning grammatically from "was convinced" - that Beverly was "telling the truth."

This seemingly clinched the deal, and the "picketers" seemed quite happy. If Mack said anything in rebuttal, I don't recall it and seem to remember his acquiescence to Mary's pronouncement. To my knowledge, he's never said anything about it since then, publicly or privately in my hearing.

Yet it's always stuck in my mind how Mary Ferrell had both endorsed and refuted Beverly's claim in one fell swoop, saying from one side of her mouth that she'd "been convinced by" Shaw, while from the other telling those with ears to hear that the physical characteristics of TBL - her ankles - did not match Beverly's, and that the particular characteristic does not change with age, at least not from thick to thin (perhaps the other way around? I don't know).

Since that time almost 20 years ago, I've noticed women's ankles - particularly the thicker ones - and have even tried to decide for myself whether TBL has thick or thin ankles. I'm undecided on this point, but lean toward them being thick. Beverly's are unquestionably not thick, and if Mary's point was accurate, they never could have been.

Whether or not she is the Babuska Lady, Beverly Oliver certainly knew Jack Ruby, she worked at the Colony Club, she knew a guy named Larry Ronco who worked for Kodak and at the Texas State Fair and she was with Jack Ruby and Larry Meyers when they had dinner at the Egyptian Lounge on the night before the assassination, contrary to the Warren Report that says Ruby was with Ralph Paul.

I've been told that Larry Ronco did, in fact, "work for" Kodak, selling film to tourists at the state fair (or was it Six Flags, or both?). In such a position - a seasonal, part-time, retail sales clerk - his being given or otherwise having access to an "experimental" camera before its public release seems far-fetched at best. That's like Liz Taylor giving a bottle of her maybe-never-to-be-released new fragrance to the girl at the Macy's counter: who here really thinks that's very likely?

Did Beverly date Larry? Certainly possible, if not probable or certain. Did Larry work for Kodak? Probably so, either directly or indirectly. Did Kodak give him a top-secret camera, he in turn lend it to his girlfriend (whom he could be absolutely certain would never show or tell anyone about it ... unless they were in Dealey Plaza), what would have happened if the camera had been confiscated as others supposedly - and conveniently - were, did Kodak ever find out, and did Larry keep his job afterward? These are imponderables we'll probably never know the real answer to. They do all, however, seem unlikely.

The problem with accepting the various statements of all "witnesses" is that we tend to follow a "lead" that they give us when that lead is nothing but hogwash, a pipe dream, less than a wisp of smoke: not just gone but never there. An example of this is Richard Carr's belated "Rambler station wagon" on Houston Street, chasing a phantom that couldn't have been seen to even know if it existed. It's unfortunate for us - and a boon to whoever else may have shot Kennedy and Tippit - that some people will believe anything simply because it differs from what someone or something they don't want to believe has said was the case, to wit:

Whether or not she is the Babuska Lady, Beverly Oliver certainly knew Jack Ruby ... and she was with Jack Ruby and Larry Meyers when they had dinner at the Egyptian Lounge on the night before the assassination, contrary to the Warren Report that says Ruby was with Ralph Paul.

Here we get the impression that it was the Warren Report alone that said Jack had dinner with his sometimes partner Paul, when in fact Ralph Paul himself said that he had dinner with Ruby. Yet Beverly introduces another twist, suggesting that she had dinner with the typically asexual Ruby as some sort of "special guest" (really? why was she such an apple in his eye that he'd single her out to accompany him?) along with one Larry Meyers, thus "proving" that Ruby did not have dinner with Paul, but with Meyers and her, the big bad Report - and Ralph Paul - lying once again. If that was so, then Beverly can presumably tell us whether there where two or three other people also part of that party, and who they were, right?

What proof is there of any of these assertions? Things aren't so just because one wants them to be.

Since we weren't there, the witnesses who were are our eyes and ears as to what happened. They are important and should be treated special.

Why does it have to be a "secret" camera? Why not just a camera that he got from work?

And why is it a question we will never know the answer to? Larry Ronco should still be alive. Why can't we find him and ask him?

And I don't believe that Ralph Paul said that he had dinner with Ruby on Thursday night. One of the Campisis brothers said it was Paul who was with Ruby but it was the Campisi who wasn't working that night so he wouldn't know.

I'd like to read where Ralp Paul says he had dinner with Ruby that night at the Egyptian Lounge. I don't think he confirmed it.

Every witness can be discredited.

And everyone believes who they want and what they want.

I believe Gary Shaw and I believe Beverly.

And I think we can know the truth if you look a little harder.

BK

[Duke Lane]

Since we weren't there, the witnesses who were are our eyes and ears as to what happened. They are important and should be treated special.

Just because people claim to have been there doesn't mean that they were there. If they were, I agree with you; if they weren't, I vehemently disagree and think they should be treated as the frauds they are. IF they WEREN'T THERE. In general, they either provably were ... or they weren't.

Why does it have to be a "secret" camera? Why not just a camera that he got from work?

For the very same reason (among others) that James Files' claimed rifle couldn't have fired on JFK: it wasn't on the market yet, that's why. As a prototype, it wouldn't have been available to employees to lend to their girlfriends. Liz Taylor doesn't hand out samples of scents under development to department store clerks either. (The word "secret" is yours, not mine. It may only have been as "secret" as what Ford hopes to bring out in 2020, but people don't get to drive their experimental vehicles either.)

And why is it a question we will never know the answer to? Larry Ronco should still be alive. Why can't we find him and ask him?

I don't presume "we" means YOU, does it? If it does, quit waiting for someone else to do the work, pick up the phone and let us know what happened.

And I don't believe that Ralph Paul said that he had dinner with Ruby on Thursday night. One of the Campisis brothers said it was Paul who was with Ruby but it was the Campisi who wasn't working that night so he wouldn't know. I'd like to read where Ralp Paul says he had dinner with Ruby that night at the Egyptian Lounge. I don't think he confirmed it.

I'm not right 100% of the time, but I recall something of that nature from his testimony. It may have been Thursday, it could have been somewhere else. Where the Report says so, what does it cite as a reference? Nine times out of ten, it's an accurate reference even if it's not necessarily in proper context (e.g., the words are there, but the meaning is different, etc.).

Every witness can be discredited. And everyone believes who they want and what they want. I believe Gary Shaw and I believe Beverly. And I think we can know the truth if you look a little harder.

I don't agree with the first sentence, at least not about being witnesses. As I've heard before, however, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs," and I subscribe to that notion. In terms of murder - ultimately, the very subject of our many discussions here - merely wanting to believe something is not sufficient. The final two sentences I agree with, and suggest for the final one that you begin just above the feet. (Frankly, I don't think it'll cast a doubt in "some" people's minds.)

[Robert Harris]

Duncan, over the years a number of researchers have made the missing motorcyclist argument. This rider was Douglas Jackson, and he was eventually interviewed by the FBI. That Beverly brought this up in an interview does not suggest to me that she was not in Dealey Plaza om 11-22, but that she spent too much time with CTs afterward, and that her recollections of the shooting were forever tainted by this exposure.

She also claimed she saw the back of Kennedy's head explode--something pushed by no other eyewitness, save Jean Hill. When one studies Hill's statements, however, one sees that she only came to say this after years of hanging with the CT crowd. I suspect the same is true with Oliver.

She may have been a witness, but what she claims to have witnessed is undoubtedly suspect.

Just a small correction Pat. It is true that the back of the head was not blown out at 313, but it certainly was a fraction of a second later.

[Pat Speer]

Duncan, over the years a number of researchers have made the missing motorcyclist argument. This rider was Douglas Jackson, and he was eventually interviewed by the FBI. That Beverly brought this up in an interview does not suggest to me that she was not in Dealey Plaza om 11-22, but that she spent too much time with CTs afterward, and that her recollections of the shooting were forever tainted by this exposure.

She also claimed she saw the back of Kennedy's head explode--something pushed by no other eyewitness, save Jean Hill. When one studies Hill's statements, however, one sees that she only came to say this after years of hanging with the CT crowd. I suspect the same is true with Oliver.

She may have been a witness, but what she claims to have witnessed is undoubtedly suspect.

Just a small correction Pat. It is true that the back of the head was not blown out at 313, but it certainly was a fraction of a second later.

I see hair on a badly damaged back of the skull, and a large defect at the top of the head above the ear...exactly what's shown in the autopsy photos and x-rays. Are you claiming you see a hole on the back of the head? And, if so, can you explain to us what happened to the blood that erupted from this hole?

[Jack White]

Duncan, over the years a number of researchers have made the missing motorcyclist argument. This rider was Douglas Jackson, and he was eventually interviewed by the FBI. That Beverly brought this up in an interview does not suggest to me that she was not in Dealey Plaza om 11-22, but that she spent too much time with CTs afterward, and that her recollections of the shooting were forever tainted by this exposure.

She also claimed she saw the back of Kennedy's head explode--something pushed by no other eyewitness, save Jean Hill. When one studies Hill's statements, however, one sees that she only came to say this after years of hanging with the CT crowd. I suspect the same is true with Oliver.

She may have been a witness, but what she claims to have witnessed is undoubtedly suspect.

Just a small correction Pat. It is true that the back of the head was not blown out at 313, but it certainly was a fraction of a second later.

I see hair on a badly damaged back of the skull, and a large defect at the top of the head above the ear...exactly what's shown in the autopsy photos and x-rays. Are you claiming you see a hole on the back of the head? And, if so, can you explain to us what happened to the blood that erupted from this hole?

Why argue about faked animation?

Jack

[Robert Harris]

Duncan, over the years a number of researchers have made the missing motorcyclist argument. This rider was Douglas Jackson, and he was eventually interviewed by the FBI. That Beverly brought this up in an interview does not suggest to me that she was not in Dealey Plaza om 11-22, but that she spent too much time with CTs afterward, and that her recollections of the shooting were forever tainted by this exposure.

She also claimed she saw the back of Kennedy's head explode--something pushed by no other eyewitness, save Jean Hill. When one studies Hill's statements, however, one sees that she only came to say this after years of hanging with the CT crowd. I suspect the same is true with Oliver.

She may have been a witness, but what she claims to have witnessed is undoubtedly suspect.

Just a small correction Pat. It is true that the back of the head was not blown out at 313, but it certainly was a fraction of a second later.

I see hair on a badly damaged back of the skull, and a large defect at the top of the head above the ear...exactly what's shown in the autopsy photos and x-rays. Are you claiming you see a hole on the back of the head? And, if so, can you explain to us what happened to the blood that erupted from this hole?

Pat, I thought I had explained this to you a long time ago. This brief article explains exactly what happened. The most important part is toward the end.

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot/BOHDamage.html

[Robert Harris]

I don't know what it is, but there seems to be a spate of attacks on witnesses on this forum and wonder why these witnesses are so threatening and if this is contageous?

It's called "separating the wheat from the chaff."

A funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Some years ago - I think it was around 1992 - a "debate" was held at a barbecue restaurant in Irving, Texas, to determine or decide "once and for all" if Beverly Oliver was indeed the Babushka Lady. It was not an event to air facts and discuss their merits, but a staged event with more of an air of a revival and witch hunt, the "witch" being one Larry Dunkel (spelling?), "a.k.a. Gary Mack," as a homemade cardboard placard - it might easily be called a "protest sign" as its owner pumped it over his head for all to call their attention to whenever Gary spoke, which was seldom enough - proclaimed.

The event was sponsored and dominated by the JFK Assassination Information Center, best known for its colorful ownership and their backing and promotion of Ricky White's abortive commercial venture to assassinate his father's memory (which, despite its fiscal failure, remains fixed in some less discerning imaginations). "Debating" Mack were Oliver, her own sponsor Gary Shaw, and for good measure, the grand dame of assassination research, Mary Ferrell.

Without going into a blow-by-blow that I barely remember beyond impressions (it largely consisted of opening commentary by Gary Mack on why he thought Beverly was not TBL, interrupted by the sign-carrying crowd and followed by a heartfelt collaborative sob by Shaw and Oliver carrying the dual themes of "we're great researchers, we can't be fooled" and "why would this nice lady lie?"), I remember clearly the "denouement" brought forth by Mary.

Mary related how she had gotten a call from Shaw to tell her of his exciting discovery of TBL and his desire to validate that discovery with her. The call was followed by a visit from Shaw with Beverly in tow to tell her story to her. Then she got to the nub of what she'd been called upon to say. I thought it was interesting the way she'd put it.

Mary related how she hadn't believed Beverly was the Babushka Lady at first because, she said, TBL had thick ankles, which Beverly did (in '92) and does not. "Women's ankles don't change," Mary said, pointing out something that I, for one, had never noticed before, the shape of a woman's ankles. Yet, she said, after Shaw and Oliver's visit, she'd "been convinced" - which differs in meaning grammatically from "was convinced" - that Beverly was "telling the truth."

This seemingly clinched the deal, and the "picketers" seemed quite happy. If Mack said anything in rebuttal, I don't recall it and seem to remember his acquiescence to Mary's pronouncement. To my knowledge, he's never said anything about it since then, publicly or privately in my hearing.

Yet it's always stuck in my mind how Mary Ferrell had both endorsed and refuted Beverly's claim in one fell swoop, saying from one side of her mouth that she'd "been convinced by" Shaw, while from the other telling those with ears to hear that the physical characteristics of TBL - her ankles - did not match Beverly's, and that the particular characteristic does not change with age, at least not from thick to thin (perhaps the other way around? I don't know).

Since that time almost 20 years ago, I've noticed women's ankles - particularly the thicker ones - and have even tried to decide for myself whether TBL has thick or thin ankles. I'm undecided on this point, but lean toward them being thick. Beverly's are unquestionably not thick, and if Mary's point was accurate, they never could have been.

Whether or not she is the Babuska Lady, Beverly Oliver certainly knew Jack Ruby, she worked at the Colony Club, she knew a guy named Larry Ronco who worked for Kodak and at the Texas State Fair and she was with Jack Ruby and Larry Meyers when they had dinner at the Egyptian Lounge on the night before the assassination, contrary to the Warren Report that says Ruby was with Ralph Paul.

I've been told that Larry Ronco did, in fact, "work for" Kodak, selling film to tourists at the state fair (or was it Six Flags, or both?). In such a position - a seasonal, part-time, retail sales clerk - his being given or otherwise having access to an "experimental" camera before its public release seems far-fetched at best. That's like Liz Taylor giving a bottle of her maybe-never-to-be-released new fragrance to the girl at the Macy's counter: who here really thinks that's very likely?

Did Beverly date Larry? Certainly possible, if not probable or certain. Did Larry work for Kodak? Probably so, either directly or indirectly. Did Kodak give him a top-secret camera, he in turn lend it to his girlfriend (whom he could be absolutely certain would never show or tell anyone about it ... unless they were in Dealey Plaza), what would have happened if the camera had been confiscated as others supposedly - and conveniently - were, did Kodak ever find out, and did Larry keep his job afterward? These are imponderables we'll probably never know the real answer to. They do all, however, seem unlikely.

The problem with accepting the various statements of all "witnesses" is that we tend to follow a "lead" that they give us when that lead is nothing but hogwash, a pipe dream, less than a wisp of smoke: not just gone but never there. An example of this is Richard Carr's belated "Rambler station wagon" on Houston Street, chasing a phantom that couldn't have been seen to even know if it existed. It's unfortunate for us - and a boon to whoever else may have shot Kennedy and Tippit - that some people will believe anything simply because it differs from what someone or something they don't want to believe has said was the case, to wit:

Whether or not she is the Babuska Lady, Beverly Oliver certainly knew Jack Ruby ... and she was with Jack Ruby and Larry Meyers when they had dinner at the Egyptian Lounge on the night before the assassination, contrary to the Warren Report that says Ruby was with Ralph Paul.

Here we get the impression that it was the Warren Report alone that said Jack had dinner with his sometimes partner Paul, when in fact Ralph Paul himself said that he had dinner with Ruby. Yet Beverly introduces another twist, suggesting that she had dinner with the typically asexual Ruby as some sort of "special guest" (really? why was she such an apple in his eye that he'd single her out to accompany him?) along with one Larry Meyers, thus "proving" that Ruby did not have dinner with Paul, but with Meyers and her, the big bad Report - and Ralph Paul - lying once again. If that was so, then Beverly can presumably tell us whether there where two or three other people also part of that party, and who they were, right?

What proof is there of any of these assertions? Things aren't so just because one wants them to be.

Since we weren't there, the witnesses who were are our eyes and ears as to what happened. They are important and should be treated special.

Why does it have to be a "secret" camera? Why not just a camera that he got from work?

And why is it a question we will never know the answer to? Larry Ronco should still be alive. Why can't we find him and ask him?

And I don't believe that Ralph Paul said that he had dinner with Ruby on Thursday night. One of the Campisis brothers said it was Paul who was with Ruby but it was the Campisi who wasn't working that night so he wouldn't know.

I'd like to read where Ralp Paul says he had dinner with Ruby that night at the Egyptian Lounge. I don't think he confirmed it.

Every witness can be discredited.

And everyone believes who they want and what they want.

I believe Gary Shaw and I believe Beverly.

And I think we can know the truth if you look a little harder.

BK

Bill, I have really not been following this issue closely over the years, but as I recall, the most damning issue against her used to be the claim that the experimental camera she said she used, did not exist at the time.

Has that issue been resolved with any degree of certainty?

[William Kelly]

I don't know what it is, but there seems to be a spate of attacks on witnesses on this forum and wonder why these witnesses are so threatening and if this is contageous?

It's called "separating the wheat from the chaff."

A funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Some years ago - I think it was around 1992 - a "debate" was held at a barbecue restaurant in Irving, Texas, to determine or decide "once and for all" if Beverly Oliver was indeed the Babushka Lady. It was not an event to air facts and discuss their merits, but a staged event with more of an air of a revival and witch hunt, the "witch" being one Larry Dunkel (spelling?), "a.k.a. Gary Mack," as a homemade cardboard placard - it might easily be called a "protest sign" as its owner pumped it over his head for all to call their attention to whenever Gary spoke, which was seldom enough - proclaimed.

The event was sponsored and dominated by the JFK Assassination Information Center, best known for its colorful ownership and their backing and promotion of Ricky White's abortive commercial venture to assassinate his father's memory (which, despite its fiscal failure, remains fixed in some less discerning imaginations). "Debating" Mack were Oliver, her own sponsor Gary Shaw, and for good measure, the grand dame of assassination research, Mary Ferrell.

Without going into a blow-by-blow that I barely remember beyond impressions (it largely consisted of opening commentary by Gary Mack on why he thought Beverly was not TBL, interrupted by the sign-carrying crowd and followed by a heartfelt collaborative sob by Shaw and Oliver carrying the dual themes of "we're great researchers, we can't be fooled" and "why would this nice lady lie?"), I remember clearly the "denouement" brought forth by Mary.

Mary related how she had gotten a call from Shaw to tell her of his exciting discovery of TBL and his desire to validate that discovery with her. The call was followed by a visit from Shaw with Beverly in tow to tell her story to her. Then she got to the nub of what she'd been called upon to say. I thought it was interesting the way she'd put it.

Mary related how she hadn't believed Beverly was the Babushka Lady at first because, she said, TBL had thick ankles, which Beverly did (in '92) and does not. "Women's ankles don't change," Mary said, pointing out something that I, for one, had never noticed before, the shape of a woman's ankles. Yet, she said, after Shaw and Oliver's visit, she'd "been convinced" - which differs in meaning grammatically from "was convinced" - that Beverly was "telling the truth."

This seemingly clinched the deal, and the "picketers" seemed quite happy. If Mack said anything in rebuttal, I don't recall it and seem to remember his acquiescence to Mary's pronouncement. To my knowledge, he's never said anything about it since then, publicly or privately in my hearing.

Yet it's always stuck in my mind how Mary Ferrell had both endorsed and refuted Beverly's claim in one fell swoop, saying from one side of her mouth that she'd "been convinced by" Shaw, while from the other telling those with ears to hear that the physical characteristics of TBL - her ankles - did not match Beverly's, and that the particular characteristic does not change with age, at least not from thick to thin (perhaps the other way around? I don't know).

Since that time almost 20 years ago, I've noticed women's ankles - particularly the thicker ones - and have even tried to decide for myself whether TBL has thick or thin ankles. I'm undecided on this point, but lean toward them being thick. Beverly's are unquestionably not thick, and if Mary's point was accurate, they never could have been.

Whether or not she is the Babuska Lady, Beverly Oliver certainly knew Jack Ruby, she worked at the Colony Club, she knew a guy named Larry Ronco who worked for Kodak and at the Texas State Fair and she was with Jack Ruby and Larry Meyers when they had dinner at the Egyptian Lounge on the night before the assassination, contrary to the Warren Report that says Ruby was with Ralph Paul.

I've been told that Larry Ronco did, in fact, "work for" Kodak, selling film to tourists at the state fair (or was it Six Flags, or both?). In such a position - a seasonal, part-time, retail sales clerk - his being given or otherwise having access to an "experimental" camera before its public release seems far-fetched at best. That's like Liz Taylor giving a bottle of her maybe-never-to-be-released new fragrance to the girl at the Macy's counter: who here really thinks that's very likely?

Did Beverly date Larry? Certainly possible, if not probable or certain. Did Larry work for Kodak? Probably so, either directly or indirectly. Did Kodak give him a top-secret camera, he in turn lend it to his girlfriend (whom he could be absolutely certain would never show or tell anyone about it ... unless they were in Dealey Plaza), what would have happened if the camera had been confiscated as others supposedly - and conveniently - were, did Kodak ever find out, and did Larry keep his job afterward? These are imponderables we'll probably never know the real answer to. They do all, however, seem unlikely.

The problem with accepting the various statements of all "witnesses" is that we tend to follow a "lead" that they give us when that lead is nothing but hogwash, a pipe dream, less than a wisp of smoke: not just gone but never there. An example of this is Richard Carr's belated "Rambler station wagon" on Houston Street, chasing a phantom that couldn't have been seen to even know if it existed. It's unfortunate for us - and a boon to whoever else may have shot Kennedy and Tippit - that some people will believe anything simply because it differs from what someone or something they don't want to believe has said was the case, to wit:

Whether or not she is the Babuska Lady, Beverly Oliver certainly knew Jack Ruby ... and she was with Jack Ruby and Larry Meyers when they had dinner at the Egyptian Lounge on the night before the assassination, contrary to the Warren Report that says Ruby was with Ralph Paul.

Here we get the impression that it was the Warren Report alone that said Jack had dinner with his sometimes partner Paul, when in fact Ralph Paul himself said that he had dinner with Ruby. Yet Beverly introduces another twist, suggesting that she had dinner with the typically asexual Ruby as some sort of "special guest" (really? why was she such an apple in his eye that he'd single her out to accompany him?) along with one Larry Meyers, thus "proving" that Ruby did not have dinner with Paul, but with Meyers and her, the big bad Report - and Ralph Paul - lying once again. If that was so, then Beverly can presumably tell us whether there where two or three other people also part of that party, and who they were, right?

What proof is there of any of these assertions? Things aren't so just because one wants them to be.

Since we weren't there, the witnesses who were are our eyes and ears as to what happened. They are important and should be treated special.

Why does it have to be a "secret" camera? Why not just a camera that he got from work?

And why is it a question we will never know the answer to? Larry Ronco should still be alive. Why can't we find him and ask him?

And I don't believe that Ralph Paul said that he had dinner with Ruby on Thursday night. One of the Campisis brothers said it was Paul who was with Ruby but it was the Campisi who wasn't working that night so he wouldn't know.

I'd like to read where Ralp Paul says he had dinner with Ruby that night at the Egyptian Lounge. I don't think he confirmed it.

Every witness can be discredited.

And everyone believes who they want and what they want.

I believe Gary Shaw and I believe Beverly.

And I think we can know the truth if you look a little harder.

BK

Bill, I have really not been following this issue closely over the years, but as I recall, the most damning issue against her used to be the claim that the experimental camera she said she used, did not exist at the time.

Has that issue been resolved with any degree of certainty?

Well, she says she got the camera from Larry Ronco, who we have photos of with her and who worked for Kodak - remember them? Ronco reportedly returned to Rochester, NY, and should still be alive, so when he is located and questioned we'll know for sure.

BK

[Jack White]

Mary's statement about women's ankles may be the only dumb thing I ever heard her say.

Beverly was a teenager in 1963, and quite slim. At the time Mary met her she had had a

child and was an adult about 75 pounds heavier than in 1963. A heavier person has heavier

ankles. Besides, there is no definitive photo in Dealey Plaza from which the thinness/thickness

of her ankles can be determined.

Jack

[William Kelly]

Mary's statement about women's ankles may be the only dumb thing I ever heard her say.

Beverly was a teenager in 1963, and quite slim. At the time Mary met her she had had a

child and was an adult about 75 pounds heavier than in 1963. A heavier person has heavier

ankles. Besides, there is no definitive photo in Dealey Plaza from which the thinness/thickness

of her ankles can be determined.

Jack

Duke wrote: Mary related how she hadn't believed Beverly was the Babushka Lady at first because, she said, TBL had thick ankles, which Beverly did (in '92) and does not. "Women's ankles don't change," Mary said, pointing out something that I, for one, had never noticed before, the shape of a woman's ankles. Since that time almost 20 years ago, I've noticed women's ankles - particularly the thicker ones - and have even tried to decide for myself whether TBL has thick or thin ankles. I'm undecided on this point, but lean toward them being thick. Beverly's are unquestionably not thick, and if Mary's point was accurate, they never could have been

You know Jack,

I was thinking the same thing, but was just going to let Duke believe what he wants.

I know two women whose ankles swell up and down all the time, mainly because of water accumluation.

Water pills must be taken to prevent congential heart failure and the swelling of the ankles is the first sign the doctors say to look for.

So ankles don't stay the same.

And another thing he said:

Duke: Here we get the impression that it was the Warren Report alone that said Jack had dinner with his sometimes partner Paul, when in fact Ralph Paul himself said that he had dinner with Ruby.

BK: I rechecked Ralph Paul's testimony, and both times he testifimed they failed to ask him about having dinner with Ruby on Thursday, though Paul volunteers this on both occassions, they let it slide and never ask him. Paul says he had Ruby had dinner at either Egyptian or Delmonicos, and that he never met or heard of Larry Meyers. Now I'm not calling Paul a lier, I'm just saying he could have had dinner with Ruby earlier in the evening and Ruby could have went to Egyptian with Meyers and Oliver late, as it was between 10 pm and midnight, late for dinner. Nor were the others who were known to have seen Ruby at the Egyptian questioned about who he was with, including the ad salesman from the Dallas Morning News who also provided an alibi for Ruby at the time of the assassination.

Duke: Yet Beverly introduces another twist, suggesting that she had dinner with the typically asexual Ruby as some sort of "special guest" (really? why was she such an apple in his eye that he'd single her out to accompany him?) along with one Larry Meyers, thus "proving" that Ruby did not have dinner with Paul, but with Meyers and her, the big bad Report - and Ralph Paul - lying once again. If that was so, then Beverly can presumably tell us whether there where two or three other people also part of that party, and who they were, right?

What proof is there of any of these assertions? Things aren't so just because one wants them to be.

BK: And the reason Ruby asked Beverly Oliver out with him that night was because he was meeting Larry Meyers, who Ruby had met earlier at the Carousl Club when Meyers was with Jean Aase, the "dumb but accomidating broad" that he brought down from Chicago. Ruby thought Meyers was going to be with a women so he brought along a date too. But since Meyers was also meeting his brother and his wife, who were attending the Pepsi convention, and he was a married man, Jean Aase was left out of the proceedings.

What I get out of all of this is that Beverly Oliver accompanied Ruby and Meyers to the Egyptian (or if Beverly is mistaken and it wasn't Meyers but Ralph Paul, so be it), and while there Ruby and Meyers/Paul went into the back office to make a/some phone call(s). And since Campisis are known gamblers, running junkets to Vegas, and connected to known mob bosses, the phone should have been tapped. And DPD officer Joe Cody and Dallas Sheriff's offficer Al Maddox both say that that particular phone was used to call Campisi's friend in New Orleans, Carlos Marcello, who later became Larry Meyers golf partner.

The thing about the Babes of Dealey Plaza is that they don't know what they know is important.

BK

[William Kelly]

next time you're going to relay a "story", why not run it by someone first (maybe Mike Williams or David Von Pein)

Lee

Two fine researchers who deal in facts only. You should try it sometime, it'll change you forever.

One of the most bizarre statements ever written. LOL.

What's bizarre about it? It's your reply that's bizarre. LOL.

They deal in facts, that's a fact.

If they hypothesise, they say so. That's a fact.

If they make mistakes, they say so. That's a fact.

Do you have a copy of "How to Build and Maintain an Effective and Long-Lasting Love Life" by John Wayne Gacy by any chance Duncan?

Or alternatively, "Making Up "Factual" Stories About Attending Police Line-Ups" by Duncan MacRae with a forward by Howard Brennan?

It just happens that I recently wrote an article about a double-homicide at the Jersey Shore in which Bundy and Gacy are suspects, that includes a color sketch of Bundy by his former Florida Death Row mate Gacy. It was published in the Atlantic city Boardwalk Journal (June issue) but I don't think it is on line yet.

Bill Kelly

[Robert Harris]

THIS IS FAR FRM THE FIRST TIME SHE HAS BEEN ATTACKED AND THE IMPLICATION OF xxxx HAS BEEN MADE, BUT BEVERLY WILL NOT BE READING THIS THREAD NOR ANY OTHER, SHE BACKED OFF THE FORUMS YEARS AGO, BECAUSE OF SUCH TREATMENT,AS OTHERS ALSO DID, AND WHO COULD BLAME THEM, SHE HAS STATED IN THE PAST THAT SHE HAS TOLD HER EXPERIENCE AND THAT'S THAT MORE OR LESS, SOME WILL BELIEVE AND THOSE THAT DO NOT, WILL NEVER NO MATTER WHAT IS ARGUED, BUT IMO, I DOUBT PERHAPS THOUGH I PERSONALLY DO NOT KNOW OF ANY FILM STUDIES SHE HAS DONE,POSITIVELY OR AND THAT BEVERLY EVER KNEW WHAT A SPROCKET HOLE WAS,OR IS, AND YES THROUGH THE YEARS MANY RESEARCHERS HAVE MADE THE SAME MISTAKE ABOUT THE OUTSIDE MOTORCYCLE,OFFICER AND THERE ARE THOSE OUT THERE RELATIVELY NEW THAT STILL ARE...I THOUGHT THE THROWING OUT OF THE BABY WAS HOPEFULLY DONE WITH, AND YES I AGREE, TOO MANY OF THE WITNESSES ARE AND HAVE BEEN PUT DOWN ON THIS FORUM, TOO OFTEN, SOME PERHAPS APPEAR TO GET GREAT GLEE FROM DOING SO, PERHAPS BECAUSE THEN WHAT THEY THINK MIGHT HAVE SOME VERIFICATION IN THEIR MINDS, FOR THEIR PERSONAL THEORY, THEY LIMIT THEMSELVES AND THAT IS REALLY THE EXTENT OF THEIR RESEARCH STUDIES. .BTW SHE STILL HAS THE SHOES WITH THE YELLOW PAINT ON THEM FROM THE CURB THAT DAY THAT WAS FRESHLY DONE, BUT PLESE DO NOT LET ME STOP YOU ARGUING, CARRY ON DUNCAN AND ALL BY ALL MEANS..WHY ARE SO MANY BOUND BENT AND DETERMINED TO ONLY SHOW THE NEGATIVE AND NOT THE POSITIVE WITHIN THE RESEARCH, WHO IS TO BE NEXT ON THE LIST ?? .B

Bernice,

What's wrong with pointing out a blatant discrepancy between the real evidence of the motorcycle cop's movements as seen in the Zapruder film, and the blatantly wrong description given by Beverly Oliver to Vince Palamara on video?

I don't believe that she is genuine, but i'm not stopping anyone from believing that she is genuine.

Duncan

Whether she is legitimate or not, this is a poor attempt to refute her. I would bet you that 90% of the witnesses who definitely were in DP that day, could not tell you exactly how many motorcycles were there. And B.L. was even less likely to know that since she seemed to be totally focused (pardon the pun) on JFK.

The camera seems to be a critical issue. Has anyone been able to solidly confirm or deny that such an experimental model existed on 11/63? It would seem to have been quite easy for her to have made up a model number that really did exist. Why lie about it?

[Bernice Moore]

An FBI document dated 25th November 1963 describes what it calls "B-Lady" and adds that this female is "taking pictures from an angle which would have, undoubtedly, included the Texas School Book Depository in the background". Nobody else has ever been identified as being that person. (Copy of this document is in Beverly's possession).

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/08th_Issue/beverly.html

What would you say to Mr. Posner?

A: Well, first of all I would like for him to tell me how my story has ever changed. It has never changed. I never said that I used a Super Eight camera. That came from a man named Gary Shaw in a book that he wrote called The Cover-Up. I might have said to him, and this was 1970, Super Eight meaning eight millimeter. All I know is that it was a prototype camera that a man I was dating who worked for Eastman Kodak, by the name of Lawrence Taylor Ronco, Jr., gave me as a present the September before the President was killed in November, a brand new camera, a magazine load, and I had to send these little envelopes to Rochester to be developed. That's all I know about the camera, and it was a Yashika. When this came out about the camera, I called Yashika in New York and spoke to John Storch. I don't know what his position was. He was very excited to do research on the camera. Posner is right; that camera was not available to the general public in 1963, but it does not mean that I could not have had a prototype camera of it. I'm not saying it was Super Eight. I don't know what it was. He also made a statement, and I have it in writing, in talking to his supervisors and people of that time, that they felt like probably if I had used the word Super Eight in that interview, it's like people going today to get something Xeroxed. After they came out, they just became the nomenclature for any kind of an eight millimeter camera.

http://www.theharbinger.org/xvi/980526/james.html