Jump to content
The Education Forum

PROOF OSWALD DIDN'T KNOW MOTORCADE ROUTE


Gil Jesus
 Share

Recommended Posts

...comes in the testimony of James Jarman:

Mr. JARMAN. Well, he ( Oswald ) was standing up in the window and I went to the window also, and he asked me what were the people gathering around on the corner for, and I told him that the President was supposed to pass that morning, and he asked me did I know which way he was coming, and I told him, yes; he probably come down Main and turn on Houston and then back again on Elm. Then he said, "Oh, I see," and that was all.

( 3 H 201 )

Edited by Gil Jesus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess this does not really proof something. It must be real ignorent if he does not know about the motorcade or the visit at all.

I mean: when you work in a building and the president of the United States will pass that building, I am pretty sure you will notice that in a paper, or in a conversation with co-workers.

In my opinion it is also possible that Oswald tries to build himself an alibi by asking a question like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess this does not really proof something. It must be real ignorent if he does not know about the motorcade or the visit at all.

I mean: when you work in a building and the president of the United States will pass that building, I am pretty sure you will notice that in a paper, or in a conversation with co-workers.

In my opinion it is also possible that Oswald tries to build himself an alibi by asking a question like this.

Build up an alibi for what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...comes in the testimony of James Jarman:

Mr. JARMAN. Well, he ( Oswald ) was standing up in the window and I went to the window also, and he asked me what were the people gathering around on the corner for, and I told him that the President was supposed to pass that morning, and he asked me did I know which way he was coming, and I told him, yes; he probably come down Main and turn on Houston and then back again on Elm. Then he said, "Oh, I see," and that was all.

( 3 H 201 )

Oswald also could have been playing dumb, not hard for Oswald to do, a lot like Len Colby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...comes in the testimony of James Jarman:

Mr. JARMAN. Well, he ( Oswald ) was standing up in the window and I went to the window also, and he asked me what were the people gathering around on the corner for, and I told him that the President was supposed to pass that morning, and he asked me did I know which way he was coming, and I told him, yes; he probably come down Main and turn on Houston and then back again on Elm. Then he said, "Oh, I see," and that was all.

( 3 H 201 )

Definitely interesting, but could be used either way. The statement might have indicated LHO was off in his own world and unaware of the motorcade, or that he knew about it and was being disengenous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...comes in the testimony of James Jarman:

Mr. JARMAN. Well, he ( Oswald ) was standing up in the window and I went to the window also, and he asked me what were the people gathering around on the corner for, and I told him that the President was supposed to pass that morning, and he asked me did I know which way he was coming, and I told him, yes; he probably come down Main and turn on Houston and then back again on Elm. Then he said, "Oh, I see," and that was all.

( 3 H 201 )

Thanks for posting this Gil. It is amazing how much we forget.

There is a mountain of proof that Oz was innocent, but the Oswald accusers still rule the roost. This forum has almost as many Oz accusers as the McAdams forum, and has probably even more accusers of his equally innocent widow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess this does not really proof something. It must be real ignorent if he does not know about the motorcade or the visit at all.

I mean: when you work in a building and the president of the United States will pass that building, I am pretty sure you will notice that in a paper, or in a conversation with co-workers.

In my opinion it is also possible that Oswald tries to build himself an alibi by asking a question like this.

Build up an alibi for what?

That's the $64 question, Bill.

But I agree with Hugo. It's evidence, not proof - and evidence that would have been thoroughly tested if this had gone to trial. For example witness after witness may have been called to testify that he was an avid reader of newspapers during lunch break (the implication being that it would have been hard for him to miss seeing something about it - not impossible - but enough to raise questions about likelihood)

What I'd like to see, and I think Jim D asked for something similar in another thread recently - is a timeline of the planning for the trip incorporating Frazier's move from Huntsville and his commencement at the TSBD, and Oswald's movements after his return to Dallas, the decision by Truly that the 5th and 6th floors needed new flooring, and when Oswald applied for and started work at the TSBD. My gut tells me that such a timeline would reveal a number of "coincidental" timings.

The other thing I'd like to see a list of those places Oswald allegedly applied for work along the parade route per the infamous map that was touted as such important evidence in those early days. Along side each company name, I'd like to see who referred Oswald to that job - notwithstanding that at least one of the applications was bogus.

Together, the above might just reveal who was helping set Oswald up (with Frazier used as either a Trojan Horse or potential alternative / "co" patsy)

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess this does not really proof something. It must be real ignorent if he does not know about the motorcade or the visit at all.

I mean: when you work in a building and the president of the United States will pass that building, I am pretty sure you will notice that in a paper, or in a conversation with co-workers.

In my opinion it is also possible that Oswald tries to build himself an alibi by asking a question like this.

Build up an alibi for what?

I agree with Mr. Kelly. If Oswald was planning to use this encounter with Jarman as proof of his innocence, why didn't he use it when he was interrogated ????? "How could I have killed the President when I didn't even know the motorcade route----just ask Junior Jarman !!!"

There's no evidence that he ever said anything like this during his interrogation or that Oswald tried to use this encounter as proof of his innocence. To believe that this ingenious criminal mind would think of covering his ass BEFORE the event in such a fashion, only to leave behind a rifle connected to him through a paper trail, then kill a policeman and leave his wallet at the scene, is just silly IMO.

The Dallas papers posted several versions of the motorcade route before the 22nd. Is it that strange that someone disinterested in the President's arrival would not know the motorcade route ?

Edited by Gil Jesus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...comes in the testimony of James Jarman:

Mr. JARMAN. Well, he ( Oswald ) was standing up in the window and I went to the window also, and he asked me what were the people gathering around on the corner for, and I told him that the President was supposed to pass that morning, and he asked me did I know which way he was coming, and I told him, yes; he probably come down Main and turn on Houston and then back again on Elm. Then he said, "Oh, I see," and that was all.

( 3 H 201 )

Oswald also could have been playing dumb, not hard for Oswald to do, a lot like Len Colby.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Edited by Karl Kinaski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess this does not really proof something. It must be real ignorent if he does not know about the motorcade or the visit at all.

I mean: when you work in a building and the president of the United States will pass that building, I am pretty sure you will notice that in a paper, or in a conversation with co-workers.

In my opinion it is also possible that Oswald tries to build himself an alibi by asking a question like this.

Build up an alibi for what?

I agree with Mr. Kelly. If Oswald was planning to use this encounter with Jarman as proof of his innocence, why didn't he use it when he was interrogated ????? "How could I have killed the President when I didn't even know the motorcade route----just ask Junior Jarman !!!"

There's no evidence that he ever said anything like this during his interrogation or that Oswald tried to use this encounter as proof of his innocence. To believe that this ingenious criminal mind would think of covering his ass BEFORE the event in such a fashion, only to leave behind a rifle connected to him through a paper trail, then kill a policeman and leave his wallet at the scene, is just silly IMO.

The Dallas papers posted several versions of the motorcade route before the 22nd. Is it that strange that someone disinterested in the President's arrival would not know the motorcade route ?

Gil,

Sorry, but this isn't proof of anything.

I'm reminded of something George Michael Evica once said, I'm paraphrasing but it's essentially like this, "It's the passive voice, and when you hear the passive voice suspect what is going on." There is no proof this conversation actually occurred or that these were the exact words used. And there's really nowhere to go with it. Even if it did occur and these were the exact words used, so what? Jarman may have had some type of conversation about the motorcade with Oswald. Big deal.

We don't know what questions were asked, or what answers were given when Oswald was questioned. We have a very incomplete record of those interrogations.

"The rifle," seems to change it's size, shape, and appearance, every time it's described. The paper trail about it has more holes in it than a sponge.

As for the wallet, Oswald leaves his wallet at 1026 N. Beckley, and another wallet at the Tippit murder scene, and has another one on him when arrested, and I think yet another when they search him again at Dallas Police HQ.

Joe Backes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"As for the wallet, Oswald leaves his wallet at 1026 N. Beckley, and another wallet at the Tippit murder scene, and has another one on him when arrested, and I think yet another when they search him again at Dallas Police HQ."

Absolute Bullxxxx! You have no clue.

I guess this does not really proof something. It must be real ignorent if he does not know about the motorcade or the visit at all.

I mean: when you work in a building and the president of the United States will pass that building, I am pretty sure you will notice that in a paper, or in a conversation with co-workers.

In my opinion it is also possible that Oswald tries to build himself an alibi by asking a question like this.

Build up an alibi for what?

I agree with Mr. Kelly. If Oswald was planning to use this encounter with Jarman as proof of his innocence, why didn't he use it when he was interrogated ????? "How could I have killed the President when I didn't even know the motorcade route----just ask Junior Jarman !!!"

There's no evidence that he ever said anything like this during his interrogation or that Oswald tried to use this encounter as proof of his innocence. To believe that this ingenious criminal mind would think of covering his ass BEFORE the event in such a fashion, only to leave behind a rifle connected to him through a paper trail, then kill a policeman and leave his wallet at the scene, is just silly IMO.

The Dallas papers posted several versions of the motorcade route before the 22nd. Is it that strange that someone disinterested in the President's arrival would not know the motorcade route ?

Gil,

Sorry, but this isn't proof of anything.

I'm reminded of something George Michael Evica once said, I'm paraphrasing but it's essentially like this, "It's the passive voice, and when you hear the passive voice suspect what is going on." There is no proof this conversation actually occurred or that these were the exact words used. And there's really nowhere to go with it. Even if it did occur and these were the exact words used, so what? Jarman may have had some type of conversation about the motorcade with Oswald. Big deal.

We don't know what questions were asked, or what answers were given when Oswald was questioned. We have a very incomplete record of those interrogations.

"The rifle," seems to change it's size, shape, and appearance, every time it's described. The paper trail about it has more holes in it than a sponge.

As for the wallet, Oswald leaves his wallet at 1026 N. Beckley, and another wallet at the Tippit murder scene, and has another one on him when arrested, and I think yet another when they search him again at Dallas Police HQ.

Joe Backes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Todd, the allegation isn't that Oswald left a wallet at the Tippit murder scene, the allegation is that someone else planted a wallet with Oswald's ID in it at the scene after killing Tippit.

Get it?

Bill Kelly

JFKCountercoup.blogspot.com

Bill,

I'm well aware of the allegastion.

Now, what does what you wrote have to do with the B.S from Backes?

Todd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no proof this conversation actually occurred or that these were the exact words used. And there's really nowhere to go with it. Even if it did occur and these were the exact words used, so what? Jarman may have had some type of conversation about the motorcade with Oswald. Big deal.

We don't know what questions were asked, or what answers were given when Oswald was questioned. We have a very incomplete record of those interrogations.

I would suggest that the proof the conversation DID occur is in the sworn testimony of James Jarman, which I quoted above. And I think it IS a big deal if Oswald was unaware of the direction of the motorcade route, or that it was even going to pass through the plaza. Without this information, there's simply NO MOTIVE for him to retrieve the rifle. More importantly, this conversation occurred AFTER the rifle was allegedly already in the building, meaning that either Oswald was "playing dumb" as someone suggested, or someone else brought the rifle into the building.

Although I agree that the record of the interrogations is pretty sad, none of the officers who were present during those interrogation sessions ever quoted Oswald's reference to this Jarman encounter. If Oswald was using this "ace" to prove his innocence, it was a card he never played.

To suggest that the topic may have been discussed because the record is incomplete is IMO, speculative.

The fact remains that there is no EVIDENCE that Oswald ever brought it up.

Edited by Gil Jesus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no proof this conversation actually occurred or that these were the exact words used. And there's really nowhere to go with it. Even if it did occur and these were the exact words used, so what? Jarman may have had some type of conversation about the motorcade with Oswald. Big deal.

We don't know what questions were asked, or what answers were given when Oswald was questioned. We have a very incomplete record of those interrogations.

I would suggest that the proof the conversation DID occur is in the sworn testimony of James Jarman, which I quoted above. And I think it IS a big deal if Oswald was unaware of the direction of the motorcade route, or that it was even going to pass through the plaza. Without this information, there's simply NO MOTIVE for him to retrieve the rifle. More importantly, this conversation occurred AFTER the rifle was allegedly already in the building, meaning that either Oswald was "playing dumb" as someone suggested, or someone else brought the rifle into the building.

Although I agree that the record of the interrogations is pretty sad, none of the officers who were present during those interrogation sessions ever quoted Oswald's reference to this Jarman encounter. If Oswald was using this "ace" to prove his innocence, it was a card he never played.

To suggest that the topic may have been discussed because the record is incomplete is IMO, speculative.

The fact remains that there is no EVIDENCE that Oswald ever brought it up.

No, the testimony by Jarman of what he says Oswald said is NOT proof of anything. It's classic hearsay, and not allowed in a normal criminal investigation. The "voice," of Oswald is not direct from Oswald, it's from Jarman. That's why I called it what it is, the passive voice. We see the passive voice a lot when, for example, John Connally, gives his (many) versions as to the origins of JFK's trip to Texas. One of the key criticisms of the passive voice is that it is often used to avoid responsibility.

You see the passive voice in regards to Bledsoe and her testimony as well.

The Secret Servie people use the passive voice when stating that JFK made the decision to not have the bubbletop on the limo. And they use the passive voice when they say JFK ordered agents not to ride on the back of his limo. That well known and false quote, "Keep those Ivy League charlatans off the back of my car," is a lie. JFK never said this. This is Floyd Boring saying JFK said this. It's not direct from JFK. It's uncharacteristic of JFK. There is no other reference to JFK referring to any member of his own Secret Service detail as "Ivy League Charlatans." There's no document from JFK where he orders agents off "his car." It's a lie to avoid responsibility for the weak protection JFK got from the Secret Service.

If you had a full understanding of what the passive voice is you would not fall for a lot of Warren Commission nonsense.

Jarman's testimony cannot be used to tell us anything about what Oswald knew or did not know.

You're making a lot of assumptions. That Oswald is a shooter, that there is a rifle in the TSBD and Oswald knows where it is because he brought it in.

This is all hypothetical crapola.

Your opinion on the value of the absence of a reference to a conversation for which there is no proof that such a conversation even took place is ridiculous. We can't ask Oswald about it because he's dead. Jarman, or anyone else can say absolutely anything in reference to a conversation with Oswald once Oswald is dead because then there's no way to corroborate it.

You can't comment on what was said or not said when Oswald was questioned because of the incomplete record. You can't turn around and place value of the very incompleteness of that record as proof of anything.

Joe Backes

Edited by Joseph Backes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...