Clearing The Air

[David Josephs]

dup

Edited January 7, 2012 by David Josephs

[David Lifton]

David... Mr. L.... you, nor anyone else has can say who ran into that house - other than from Roberts' words... none.

No corroboration... no one sees Oswald between this room and the theater... NOONE David - in a residential neighborhood in the 60's with mom's kids and elderly at home... Nothing.

So please... the corroboration of the evidence... the authentication of evidence - which includes FBI reports... is paramount.

Butch Burroughs says he sold popcorn to Oswald at 1:15... his is also an uncorroborated account with the same amount of weight as Roberts... but cause that would mean Oswald did NOT kill Tippit

his story is ripped apart and attacked, like the 1:06 Markham Time...

If Oswald was on the bus then it was NOT Oswald in Whaley's cab... or Click's cab.... unless the man bought a jacket on the walk from one to the other

You want to put your stock in this man's testimony?

[snip]

Murphy Street no longer exists. It is now a two block crosswalk that no longer intersects Elm Street.

McWatters said he didn't remember picking anyone up at St. Paul & Elm. He remembers Roy Milton Jones who boarded the stop before.

[snip]

[snip]

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, "Oh, you are in a hurry." He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes.

Mr. BALL. As he came in, did you say anything else except, "You are in a hurry"?

Mrs. ROBERTS. No.

Mr. BALL. Did you say anything about the President being shot?

Mrs. ROBERTS. No.

I don't think there's any mystery as to who ran into the rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley around 1 p.m. Earlene Roberts' account--that it was Oswald, who ran in, and then ran out, zippering up a jacket he had donned--is in the accounts published in both Dallas newspapers, the New York Times, carried in all the media, and then documented in FBI reports based on interviews that took place promptly.

Why does it matter that, months later, when under oath, there's a minor glitch when, asked a question designed to permit her to tell her story, there's a brief moment of confusion.

I don't believe the passage you've isolated, from the transcript, in any way undercuts the account she provided multiple times, starting on the afternoon of 11/22/63.

DSL

David Josephs:

I only am addressing one point in your post--which seems to me to imply an equivalence between the Earlene Roberts identification of Oswald and the Butch Burroughs observation(s).

I don't believe there is any basis for comparing the validity of these two identifications. One is of Oswald by Earline Roberts-whom obviously knew Oswald quite well, since he boarded there—and the other is a statement made by Butch Burroughs, at the Texas Theater, who saw Oswald (or rather, claims to have seen Oswald) once in his life, and says he sold him some popcorn.

There’s no comparison when it comes to the quality and reliability of these two observations.

Out of the Earlene Roberts identification comes what any court of law would call a "fact"--i.e., that Oswald ran into the rooming house, that Roberts saw him, made the remark she did, and that Oswald then ran out, zipping up a jacket. I don’t see that there is any reasonable basis for doubting this.

Out of the Butch Burroughs statement comes something that is simply inaccurate, is wrong, and leads to a spurious and incorrect reconstruction. And that false reconstruction, of course, fuels "two Oswald" hypothesis that (apparently) appeals to so many.

In evaluating testimony--and juries do this every day of the week--there has to be some degree of common sense exercised as to what is the "confidence level" of the observation.

I would rate Earlene Roberts observation up around 95%, because there's no question she knew who Oswald was; there can be practically no doubt about her knowledge of her own boarder was when he ran into the rooming house, and then back out; whereas I would put the Butch Burroughs statement (that he sold Oswald popcorn) down around 15%. There’s just no comparison between the quality of these two pieces of “data”.

As for William Whaley's statement: he went through this again and again, with reporters, and with the FBI. I don't think there's any question but that it was Oswald.

To recap the situation (as I see it): The "strong" witnesses—those who previously knew Oswald and could make a positive identification--are Bledsoe (on the McWatters bus) and Earlene Roberts at the rooming house.

Only be rejecting the accounts of these two witnesses --both of whom knew Oswald quite well, and who could (and did) make immediate (and positive) identifications--is it possible to overturn the official version (i.e., the official time line) from the time Oswald boarded the McWatters bus, through the cab ride back to the rooming house, and attempt to substitute--in its stead--a flimsy and implausible hypothesis involving a "second Oswald" who ran into the rooming house, while an "innocent" and supposedly unwitting Oswald somehow went from Dealey Plaza to the Texas Theater, where he was watching an Audie Murphy movie, only to be pounced on by the DPD after a patrolman was murdered nearby.

I don't find any of that reasonable or valid. I think it is a totally false and fanciful reconstruction, and is not supported by credible evidence.

DSL

1/6/11 8 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

POSTSCRIPT, 1/8/11:

When I wrote the above post, I was under the mistaken impression that Burroughs had (perhaps) testified that he sold popcorn to LHO, and was explaining why I would not give that much credence. But reviewing the situation, its now clear that Burroughs was deposed by a Warren Commission lawyer back in 1964, and that his testimony makes no mention at all of selling popcorn to Oswald. In fact, the popcorn story--from what I can see--does not come up until some 30 years later, when it appears in a CTKA article by John Armstrong. Burroughs was deposed on April 8, 1964. The transcript is in Volume 7 of the WC's 26 volumes. Here is a snippet:

QUOTE:

Mr. Ball.

Did you see that man come in the theatre?

Mr. Burroughs.

No, sir; I didn't.

Mr. Ball.

Do you have any idea what you were doing when he came in?

Mr. Burroughs.

Well, I was----I had a lot of stock candy to count and put in the candy case for the coming night, and if he had came around in front of the concession out there, I would have seen him, even though I was bent down, I would have seen him, but otherwise I think he sneaked up the stairs real fast. UNQUOTE

So Burroughs, for some reason, was under the impression that Oswald was upstairs. Anyway, there's no mention at all of any sale of popcorn. So I see no reason whatsoever to give that story, which is first told decades later, any credence whatsoever.

DSL; 1/8/12; 5:20 AM PST

Edited January 8, 2012 by David Lifton

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Robert:

With all due respect, please have a vote that you can back up with facts.

This discussion has gotten so intricate and arcane that we are avoiding some important facts that were previously established.

1.) McWatters was a horrendous witness. Obviously, he was coached to identify Oswald on that bus. But later, his story collapsed. And it is clear he was talking about Jones. Which is startling since JOnes was seven inches shorter than Oswald and high school student. Clearly, someone put pressure on McWatters to say something not true.

But yet, he did not recall Bledsoe being on the bus.

2.) Jones ID of Oswald is not very good either: too tall and too old.

So obviously the police and FBI need Bledsoe. In the worst way. Why?

Because of the Roger Craig testimony. Craig's testimony says one of two things: Either Oswald had accomplices or there were two Oswalds. The FBI and DPD wanted neither. Recall, there is no WC yet. BUt Hoover committed to the Krazy Kid Oswald idea that day. And as Tony Summers wrote, the FBI agents got the message. To the point that reports were discarded and reports were rewritten.

Now Bledsoe was clearly rehearsed. I mean besides being the only one who really recalled Oswald--since he was a unique and very transient boarder of hers--she puts that mad dog look on his face. And then there is the shirt, which at first she thought was the wrong shirt.

Now against all this--and there is a lot more-- David enlists the FBI reports. OK. Maybe they are valid, maybe they are not. Many of us are skeptical of these things today. Especially in tight situations like this one, where Hoover needed something.

To me, I don't know. Maybe he was on the bus, maybe he was not. But did he not even know what bus he was getting on to? Because he then gets off and walks back toward Dealey Plaza to get a taxi. Which he then rides four blocks past his rooming house.

Craig's story is much more corroborated, and with the work of Anna Marie Kuhns Walko and John Armstrong, pretty much proven. And its clear that Hoover did not want it out there, and neither did the DPD.

Here is one key point I will agree with you on. The government - LBJ, Hoover etc. did NOT want there to be any evidence that showed a conspiracy in any way, shape or form. By midnight the FBI was literally editing articles in the Dallas Times Herald (Connie Kritzberg's piece on "Neck Wounds Kill President" to make it appear as if all the wounds were caused by one person).

And the evidence - the Zapruder Film, the fact that JFK was shot both in the neck from the front and in the back, easily proved a conspiracy in real time.

The reason the government did not want to investigate a "conspiracy" was because the murderers were running the investigation.

That is why the Washington people were so furious and bitter at the Dallas police because the Dallas police were ready to charge Oswald with a "conspiracy" to murder JFK. And Henry Wade's assistant was as well.

So I will agree with you on one key point - it was complete unacceptable from the viewpoint of the murderers and conspirators in government to allow any evidence into the record that would point towards a "conspiracy."

Because the conspirators were the ones running the non-investigation.

As for Roger Craig, I think he was a decent and honest man. I think he was probably simply mistaken about seeing Oswald hop into the Rambler.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

So, as far as Barrett was concerned, and based on what he personally witnessed and heard Captain Westbrook saying, as he held the wallet in his hand, that was Lee Oswald's wallet.

In making the above statements, I am not claiming Oswald shot Tippit.

I am stating that Oswald was there, that he ran away, and then ducked into the Texas Theater.

DSL

1/5/11 6 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Then perhaps you'd care to explain why LHO had his wallet on his person when arrested, booked and processed. How many wallets are you in the habit of carrying? And when you do carry a wallet during the commission of a crime, would you carry one that ties you directly to the purchase of the weapons used in the commission of that crime?

It is self evident that the wallet at the Tippit site was a plant, demonstrated by it being surplus to requirements, the counter-intuitive contents, and the crudity of the forged ID, which would have been useless of any identification purposes. How do you explain these details?

It is also true that on the day no single police officer or DA ever used the name HIDELL in any media interviews, let alone construed the use of the HIDELL alias to suggest nefarious intent (the way they automatically did when announcing the O.H. Lee alias) nor displayed the slightest confusion over whom they had arrested. That is because the wallet Oswald possessed upon arrest did not contain the HIDELL papers; they were in the Tippit scene wallet and would later be inserted into the evidence stream as though they had been found upon LHO's person.

Ask yourself: why would DPD forego using as slam-dunk evidence the discovery at the murder scene of the killer's wallet? Why was all knowledge of that wallet made to disappear from the documentary record when it was ironclad prima facie evidence against their man? Please do explain.

It would be helpful to your assertions if you could demonstrate Oswald's fingerprints had ever been found on any of the contents of the wallet found at the Tippit scene, later surreptitiously "transferred" into LHO's actual wallet. But we know why they never conducted such tests if we think about it for more than 30 seconds, don't we?

I won't even belabour the deficiencies of the Tippit "witnesses" as that's already been done to death elsewhere on this Forum.

EDIT: typo

Bumped, in the hope that David Lifton may eventually reply to the questions posed.

[Guest Tom Scully]

...........

David Josephs:

I only am addressing one point in your post--which seems to me to imply an equivalence between the Earlene Roberts identification of Oswald and the Butch Burroughs observation(s).

I don't believe there is any basis for comparing the validity of these two identifications. One is of Oswald by Earline Roberts-whom obviously knew Oswald quite well, since he boarded there—and the other is a statement made by Butch Burroughs, at the Texas Theater, who saw Oswald (or rather, claims to have seen Oswald) once in his life, and says he sold him some popcorn.

There’s no comparison when it comes to the quality and reliability of these two observations.

Out of the Earlene Roberts identification comes what any court of law would call a "fact"--i.e., that Oswald ran into the rooming house, that Roberts saw him, made the remark she did, and that Oswald then ran out, zipping up a jacket. I don’t see that there is any reasonable basis for doubting this.

Out of the Butch Burroughs statement comes something that is simply inaccurate, is wrong, and leads to a spurious and incorrect reconstruction. And that false reconstruction, of course, fuels "two Oswald" hypothesis that (apparently) appeals to so many.

In evaluating testimony--and juries do this every day of the week--there has to be some degree of common sense exercised as to what is the "confidence level" of the observation.

I would rate Earlene Roberts observation up around 95%, because there's no question she knew who Oswald was; there can be practically no doubt about her knowledge of her own boarder was when he ran into the rooming house, and then back out; whereas I would put the Butch Burroughs statement (that he sold Oswald popcorn) down around 15%. There’s just no comparison between the quality of these two pieces of “data”.

As for William Whaley's statement: he went through this again and again, with reporters, and with the FBI. I don't think there's any question but that it was Oswald.

To recap the situation (as I see it): The "strong" witnesses—those who previously knew Oswald and could make a positive identification--are Bledsoe (on the McWatters bus) and Earlene Roberts at the rooming house.

Only be rejecting the accounts of these two witnesses --both of whom knew Oswald quite well, and who could (and did) make immediate (and positive) identifications--is it possible to overturn the official version (i.e., the official time line) from the time Oswald boarded the McWatters bus, through the cab ride back to the rooming house, and attempt to substitute--in its stead--a flimsy and implausible hypothesis involving a "second Oswald" who ran into the rooming house, while an "innocent" and supposedly unwitting Oswald somehow went from Dealey Plaza to the Texas Theater, where he was watching an Audie Murphy movie, only to be pounced on by the DPD after a patrolman was murdered nearby.

I don't find any of that reasonable or valid. I think it is a totally false and fanciful reconstruction, and is not supported by credible evidence.

DSL

1/6/11 8 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

......

David, today is Jimmy Pages 68th birthday; "Ramble On"!

Yer "impeccable" witnesses, and the commission are still a mess.:

testimony of Erlene Roberts

...Mr. BALL. It was after he had come in his room?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Had that police car ever stopped there before ?

Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't know--I don't remember ever seeing it.

Mr. BALL. Have you ever seen it since?

Mrs. ROBERTS. No--I didn't pay that much attention--I just saw it wasn't the police car that I knew and had worked for so, I forgot about it. I seen it at the time, but I don't remember now what it was.

Mr. BALL. Did you report the number of the car to anyone?

Mrs. ROBERTS. I think I did---I'm not sure, because I--at that particular time I remembered it.

Mr. BALL. You remembered the number of the car ?

Mrs. ROBERTS. I think it was--106, it seems to me like it was 106, but I do know what theirs was--it was 170 and it wasn't their car.

Mr. BALL. It was not 170?

Mrs. ROBERTS. The people I worked for was 170.

Mr. BALL. Did you report that number to anyone, did you report this incident to anyone?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes, I told the FBI and the Secret Service both when they was out there.

Mr. BALL. And did you tell them the number of the car?

Mrs. ROBERTS. I'm not sure--I believe I did--I'm not sure. I think I did because there was so much happened then until my brains was in a whirl.

Mr. BALL. On the 29th of November, Special Agents Will Griffin and James Kennedy of the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewed you and you told them that "after Oswald had entered his room about 1 p.m. on November 22, 1963, you looked out the front window and saw police car No. 207?

Mrs. ROBERTS. No. 107.

Mr. BALL. Is that the number?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes--I remembered it. I don't know where I got that 106---207. Anyway, I knew it wasn't 170.

Mr. BALL. And you say that there were two uniformed policemen in the car?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes, and it was in a black car. It wasn't an accident squad car at all.

Mr. BALL. Were there two uniformed policemen in the car?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Oh, yes.

Mr. BALL. And one of the officers sounded the born ?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Just kind of a "tit-tit"--twice.

Mr. BALL. And then drove on to Beckley toward Zangs Boulevard, is that right?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes. I thought there was a number, but I couldn't remember it but I did know the number of their car--I could tell that. I want you to understand that I have been put through the third degree and it's hard to remember.

Mr. BALL. Are there any other questions?

Dr. GOLDBERG. No, that's all.

Mr. BALL. Now, Mrs. Roberts, this deposition will be written up and you can read it if you want to and you can sign it. or you can waive the signature.

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can't see too good how to read. I'm completely blind in my right eye.

Mr. BALL. Do you want to waive your signature? And then you won't have to come back down here.

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, okay....

TESTIMONY OF MRS. ARTHUR CARL (GLADYS J.) JOHNSON

....Mrs. JOHNSON. I have known Mrs. Roberts, oh, I guess it was 6 years, something like that, 6 years.

Mr. BALL. Where did you first meet her?

Mrs. JOHNSON. I hired her as a housekeeper.

Mr. BALL. At 1026 North Beckley?

Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Has she been working for you for that period of time?

Mrs. JOHNSON. No, sir; I let Mrs. Roberts go a time or two, then I would hire her back.

Mr. BALL. there some reason why you let her go?

Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, she would just get to being disagreeable with renters and I don't know, she has a lot of handicaps. She has an overweight problem and she has some habits that some people have to understand to tolerate.

298

Mr. BALL. What are they?

Mrs. JOHNSON. Talking just sitting down and making up tales, you know, have you ever seen people like that? Just have a creative mind, there's nothing to it, and just make up and keep talking until she just makes a lie out of it. Listen, I'm telling you the truth and this isn't to go any further, understand that? You have to know these things because you are going to question this lady. I will tell you, she's just as intelligent--I think she is a person that doesn't mean to do that but she just does it automatically. It seems as though that she, oh, I don't know, wants to be attractive or something at times. I just don't know; I don't understand it myself. I only wish I did. ....

Why do you suppose the document I've lniked just below, is in the Weisberg archive?

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Willens%20Howard%20P/

and....

RIVER FOREST HOME PROJECT TO START SOON

‎

Pay-Per-View -

Chicago Tribune - Jul 28, 1946

Jo-Al Enterprises, a partnership of Joseph R. and Helen Wlllens, and Albert and Libbyan Hoffman, has a $1700000 building program of 170 single family ...

RUMOR JOHNSON WITNESS TELLS 'STARTLING TALE'

?

Chicago Tribune - Mar 29, 1946

... Johnson and four associates kept out of prison for more than five years after their conviction on income tax fraud charges. Love, who lives at 1642 WV. 69th st. ..

JOHNSON PROBE PLANS TO HEAR 8 TOMORROW

?

Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - Mar 24, 1946

...The federal grand Jury . Lion into the involved legal bati.le which kept William R. Johnson, for- mei gambling figure, and four - ciates out of prison for-more than five years after conviction on income tax frauds, will he resumed tomor- rOw. Eight witnesses are scheduled to be heard: Eight witnesses are scheduled to be heard: Attorneys Charles R. Bar- rett and Isadore Goldstein, who testified briefly Friday; Atty John Elmer Johnson; Maurice Green, a disbarred lawyer; William Schwefer, a baker; Sylvia R. Hoffman, a notary public, and her brother, Albert. The probe was demanded by Fed- eral Judge John P. Barnes, who pre- sided at the trial and sent Johnson and the others to prison last week.

LONGER INQUIRY ON BILL JOHNSON STALLING ASKED

?

Pay-Per-View -

Chicago Tribune - Mar 27, 1946

... In addition to Rubovits, the grand jury is expected to hear Albert R. Hoffman, notary public, whose seal appears on one of Johlnson's re- quests for a bar group inquiry. Hoffman wNas , along Witil his sister, Sylvia R. Hoffman, also a notary public. Edward J. Hess, lawyer, is to make his second appearance before the grand

Chicago Builders Find Russians 50 Years Behind Times

?

Pay-Per-View -

Chicago Tribune - May 29, 1956

BY FRANK HUG;HES [second / sta(PFx) Gerald and Sinclair Hoffman, who with their father, Albert, and three friends and business associates, spent three weeks behind the iron curtain, said Russian craftsmanship general- ly is slipshod and quality so poer that no one in the United States would accept it. Gerald Hoffman is co-owner of Panoramic Builders, 4632 Church st., Skokie, and Sinclair Hoffman and his father are partners with Jerry Wexler, another of the travelers, in 11 Homes. 3548 Nora av. The other two who made the trip are Joe Willems of Jo-Al Enterprises, 7648 North av., and Ed Schiller of Schiller Plumbing & Heating company,

Primitive Russian Building Methods Amaze Visitors

?

Pay-Per-View -

Chicago Tribune - May 28, 1956

"And on top of it," Sinclair Hoffman said, " the Russians don't eren now what a wheel- barrow is. They carry every. thing on a wooden sled, with handles ...

RELEASE LIST OF CORONER'S SPECIAL AIDS

‎

Pay-Per-View -

Chicago Tribune - Mar 6, 1962

previously had refused to release the names on the ground that it might embarrass them. ...Toman said he gave the Kor- ers deputy coroner s badges, with the authority to carry a gun, but insisted that they do not do anv work for his office.

RELEASE LIST OF CORONER'S SPECIAL AIDS

?

Pay-Per-View -

Chicago Tribune - Mar 6, 1962

1434 N. Menard cv.; Jerome Wexler. 1506 Ashland cv.. River Forest. cnd Harold Wexler, 2914 Balmoral DV. Joseph Willens. 935 Franklin cv. .

Could it, be David, because the son of a gun totin' mob soldier, Joseph R. Willens, partnered with mob fixer Albert Hoffman, was assigned the task of drafting the organizational structure of and setting the investigative priorities of the WC?

[David Josephs]

David... Mr. L.... you, nor anyone else has can say who ran into that house - other than from Roberts' words... none.

No corroboration... no one sees Oswald between this room and the theater... NOONE David - in a residential neighborhood in the 60's with mom's kids and elderly at home... Nothing.

So please... the corroboration of the evidence... the authentication of evidence - which includes FBI reports... is paramount.

Butch Burroughs says he sold popcorn to Oswald at 1:15... his is also an uncorroborated account with the same amount of weight as Roberts... but cause that would mean Oswald did NOT kill Tippit

his story is ripped apart and attacked, like the 1:06 Markham Time...

If Oswald was on the bus then it was NOT Oswald in Whaley's cab... or Click's cab.... unless the man bought a jacket on the walk from one to the other

You want to put your stock in this man's testimony?

[snip]

Murphy Street no longer exists. It is now a two block crosswalk that no longer intersects Elm Street.

McWatters said he didn't remember picking anyone up at St. Paul & Elm. He remembers Roy Milton Jones who boarded the stop before.

[snip]

[snip]

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, "Oh, you are in a hurry." He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes.

Mr. BALL. As he came in, did you say anything else except, "You are in a hurry"?

Mrs. ROBERTS. No.

Mr. BALL. Did you say anything about the President being shot?

Mrs. ROBERTS. No.

I don't think there's any mystery as to who ran into the rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley around 1 p.m. Earlene Roberts' account--that it was Oswald, who ran in, and then ran out, zippering up a jacket he had donned--is in the accounts published in both Dallas newspapers, the New York Times, carried in all the media, and then documented in FBI reports based on interviews that took place promptly.

Why does it matter that, months later, when under oath, there's a minor glitch when, asked a question designed to permit her to tell her story, there's a brief moment of confusion.

I don't believe the passage you've isolated, from the transcript, in any way undercuts the account she provided multiple times, starting on the afternoon of 11/22/63.

DSL

David Josephs:

I only am addressing one point in your post--which seems to me to imply an equivalence between the Earlene Roberts identification of Oswald and the Butch Burroughs observation(s).

I don't believe there is any basis for comparing the validity of these two identifications. One is of Oswald by Earline Roberts-whom obviously knew Oswald quite well, since he boarded there—and the other is a statement made by Butch Burroughs, at the Texas Theater, who saw Oswald (or rather, claims to have seen Oswald) once in his life, and says he sold him some popcorn.

There’s no comparison when it comes to the quality and reliability of these two observations.

Out of the Earlene Roberts identification comes what any court of law would call a "fact"--i.e., that Oswald ran into the rooming house, that Roberts saw him, made the remark she did, and that Oswald then ran out, zipping up a jacket. I don’t see that there is any reasonable basis for doubting this.

Out of the Butch Burroughs statement comes something that is simply inaccurate, is wrong, and leads to a spurious and incorrect reconstruction. And that false reconstruction, of course, fuels "two Oswald" hypothesis that (apparently) appeals to so many.

In evaluating testimony--and juries do this every day of the week--there has to be some degree of common sense exercised as to what is the "confidence level" of the observation.

I would rate Earlene Roberts observation up around 95%, because there's no question she knew who Oswald was; there can be practically no doubt about her knowledge of her own boarder was when he ran into the rooming house, and then back out; whereas I would put the Butch Burroughs statement (that he sold Oswald popcorn) down around 15%. There’s just no comparison between the quality of these two pieces of “data”.

As for William Whaley's statement: he went through this again and again, with reporters, and with the FBI. I don't think there's any question but that it was Oswald.

To recap the situation (as I see it): The "strong" witnesses—those who previously knew Oswald and could make a positive identification--are Bledsoe (on the McWatters bus) and Earlene Roberts at the rooming house.

Only be rejecting the accounts of these two witnesses --both of whom knew Oswald quite well, and who could (and did) make immediate (and positive) identifications--is it possible to overturn the official version (i.e., the official time line) from the time Oswald boarded the McWatters bus, through the cab ride back to the rooming house, and attempt to substitute--in its stead--a flimsy and implausible hypothesis involving a "second Oswald" who ran into the rooming house, while an "innocent" and supposedly unwitting Oswald somehow went from Dealey Plaza to the Texas Theater, where he was watching an Audie Murphy movie, only to be pounced on by the DPD after a patrolman was murdered nearby.

I don't find any of that reasonable or valid. I think it is a totally false and fanciful reconstruction, and is not supported by credible evidence.

DSL

1/6/11 8 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

POSTSCRIPT, 1/8/11:

When I wrote the above post, I was under the mistaken impression that Burroughs had (perhaps) testified that he sold popcorn to LHO, and was explaining why I would not give that much credence. But reviewing the situation, its now clear that Burroughs was deposed by a Warren Commission lawyer back in 1964, and that his testimony makes no mention at all of selling popcorn to Oswald. In fact, the popcorn story--from what I can see--does not come up until some 30 years later, when it appears in a CTKA article by John Armstrong. Burroughs was deposed on April 8, 1964. The transcript is in Volume 7 of the WC's 26 volumes. Here is a snippet:

QUOTE:

Mr. Ball.

Did you see that man come in the theatre?

Mr. Burroughs.

No, sir; I didn't.

Mr. Ball.

Do you have any idea what you were doing when he came in?

Mr. Burroughs.

Well, I was----I had a lot of stock candy to count and put in the candy case for the coming night, and if he had came around in front of the concession out there, I would have seen him, even though I was bent down, I would have seen him, but otherwise I think he sneaked up the stairs real fast. UNQUOTE

So Burroughs, for some reason, was under the impression that Oswald was upstairs. Anyway, there's no mention at all of any sale of popcorn. So I see no reason whatsoever to give that story, which is first told decades later, any credence whatsoever.

DSL; 1/8/12; 5:20 AM PST

Wasn't there also a reverend Davis who sat next to Oswald as the movie started - by 1:20 or so?

So the FACT that Bledsoe has this person without a jacket and Whaley does.. no problem

That others see Oswald leaving via a different means... no problem

That he is described by Scoggins and Tatem as arriving from the EAST...

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

Although I did not remember the exact time I remember it was early in the afternoon on Friday, November 22, 1963. I was driving XXXX north on Denver and stopped at 10th St. when I first saw the squad car and men walking on the sidewalk near the squad car. Both the squad car and this young white male were coming in my direction(East on 10th Street).

That he runs in and runs out of his rooming house... quickly... in front of his half blind landlady who was busy with the TV repair...

THESE are you witnesses DSL...

SOMEONE resembling Oswald was at the theater well before Brewer talks to Postal... and IMO this person acted suspicious to arouse attention... knowing Oswald was in the theater already...

just my .02...

I simply do not agree witht he weights you place on Roberts, Whaley and Bledsoe...

Add to this the man taken out the back and ultimately seen by White... and you have your Tippit murderer

DJ

[David Josephs]

Indeed Tom... Hope you've seen the 4 dvd Zep set of live stuff... quite amazing...

Thanks for the leg up with Roberts... and DSL...

You'd think someone who would want the entire world to be open to HIS conclusions,,, would be a little more open to discussion about OTHER'S conclusions

Peace

DJ

"Achilles Last Stand!!"

David, today is Jimmy Pages 68th birthday; "Ramble On"!

Yer "impeccable" witnesses, and the commission are still a mess.:

testimony of Erlene Roberts

...Mr. BALL. It was after he had come in his room?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Had that police car ever stopped there before ?

Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't know--I don't remember ever seeing it.

Mr. BALL. Have you ever seen it since?

Mrs. ROBERTS. No--I didn't pay that much attention--I just saw it wasn't the police car that I knew and had worked for so, I forgot about it. I seen it at the time, but I don't remember now what it was.

Mr. BALL. Did you report the number of the car to anyone?

Mrs. ROBERTS. I think I did---I'm not sure, because I--at that particular time I remembered it.

Mr. BALL. You remembered the number of the car ?

Mrs. ROBERTS. I think it was--106, it seems to me like it was 106, but I do know what theirs was--it was 170 and it wasn't their car.

Mr. BALL. It was not 170?

Mrs. ROBERTS. The people I worked for was 170.

Mr. BALL. Did you report that number to anyone, did you report this incident to anyone?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes, I told the FBI and the Secret Service both when they was out there.

Mr. BALL. And did you tell them the number of the car?

Mrs. ROBERTS. I'm not sure--I believe I did--I'm not sure. I think I did because there was so much happened then until my brains was in a whirl.

Mr. BALL. On the 29th of November, Special Agents Will Griffin and James Kennedy of the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewed you and you told them that "after Oswald had entered his room about 1 p.m. on November 22, 1963, you looked out the front window and saw police car No. 207?

Mrs. ROBERTS. No. 107.

Mr. BALL. Is that the number?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes--I remembered it. I don't know where I got that 106---207. Anyway, I knew it wasn't 170.

Mr. BALL. And you say that there were two uniformed policemen in the car?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes, and it was in a black car. It wasn't an accident squad car at all.

Mr. BALL. Were there two uniformed policemen in the car?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Oh, yes.

Mr. BALL. And one of the officers sounded the born ?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Just kind of a "tit-tit"--twice.

Mr. BALL. And then drove on to Beckley toward Zangs Boulevard, is that right?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes. I thought there was a number, but I couldn't remember it but I did know the number of their car--I could tell that. I want you to understand that I have been put through the third degree and it's hard to remember.

Mr. BALL. Are there any other questions?

Dr. GOLDBERG. No, that's all.

Mr. BALL. Now, Mrs. Roberts, this deposition will be written up and you can read it if you want to and you can sign it. or you can waive the signature.

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can't see too good how to read. I'm completely blind in my right eye.

Mr. BALL. Do you want to waive your signature? And then you won't have to come back down here.

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, okay....

TESTIMONY OF MRS. ARTHUR CARL (GLADYS J.) JOHNSON

....Mrs. JOHNSON. I have known Mrs. Roberts, oh, I guess it was 6 years, something like that, 6 years.

Mr. BALL. Where did you first meet her?

Mrs. JOHNSON. I hired her as a housekeeper.

Mr. BALL. At 1026 North Beckley?

Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Has she been working for you for that period of time?

Mrs. JOHNSON. No, sir; I let Mrs. Roberts go a time or two, then I would hire her back.

Mr. BALL. there some reason why you let her go?

Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, she would just get to being disagreeable with renters and I don't know, she has a lot of handicaps. She has an overweight problem and she has some habits that some people have to understand to tolerate.

298

Mr. BALL. What are they?

Mrs. JOHNSON. Talking just sitting down and making up tales, you know, have you ever seen people like that? Just have a creative mind, there's nothing to it, and just make up and keep talking until she just makes a lie out of it. Listen, I'm telling you the truth and this isn't to go any further, understand that? You have to know these things because you are going to question this lady. I will tell you, she's just as intelligent--I think she is a person that doesn't mean to do that but she just does it automatically. It seems as though that she, oh, I don't know, wants to be attractive or something at times. I just don't know; I don't understand it myself. I only wish I did. ....

Why do you suppose the document I've lniked just below, is in the Weisberg archive?

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Willens%20Howard%20P/

and....

RIVER FOREST HOME PROJECT TO START SOON

‎

Pay-Per-View -

Chicago Tribune - Jul 28, 1946

Jo-Al Enterprises, a partnership of Joseph R. and Helen Wlllens, and Albert and Libbyan Hoffman, has a $1700000 building program of 170 single family ...

RUMOR JOHNSON WITNESS TELLS 'STARTLING TALE'

?

Chicago Tribune - Mar 29, 1946

... Johnson and four associates kept out of prison for more than five years after their conviction on income tax fraud charges. Love, who lives at 1642 WV. 69th st. ..

JOHNSON PROBE PLANS TO HEAR 8 TOMORROW

?

Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - Mar 24, 1946

...The federal grand Jury . Lion into the involved legal bati.le which kept William R. Johnson, for- mei gambling figure, and four - ciates out of prison for-more than five years after conviction on income tax frauds, will he resumed tomor- rOw. Eight witnesses are scheduled to be heard: Eight witnesses are scheduled to be heard: Attorneys Charles R. Bar- rett and Isadore Goldstein, who testified briefly Friday; Atty John Elmer Johnson; Maurice Green, a disbarred lawyer; William Schwefer, a baker; Sylvia R. Hoffman, a notary public, and her brother, Albert. The probe was demanded by Fed- eral Judge John P. Barnes, who pre- sided at the trial and sent Johnson and the others to prison last week.

LONGER INQUIRY ON BILL JOHNSON STALLING ASKED

?

Pay-Per-View -

Chicago Tribune - Mar 27, 1946

... In addition to Rubovits, the grand jury is expected to hear Albert R. Hoffman, notary public, whose seal appears on one of Johlnson's re- quests for a bar group inquiry. Hoffman wNas , along Witil his sister, Sylvia R. Hoffman, also a notary public. Edward J. Hess, lawyer, is to make his second appearance before the grand

Chicago Builders Find Russians 50 Years Behind Times

?

Pay-Per-View -

Chicago Tribune - May 29, 1956

BY FRANK HUG;HES [second / sta(PFx) Gerald and Sinclair Hoffman, who with their father, Albert, and three friends and business associates, spent three weeks behind the iron curtain, said Russian craftsmanship general- ly is slipshod and quality so poer that no one in the United States would accept it. Gerald Hoffman is co-owner of Panoramic Builders, 4632 Church st., Skokie, and Sinclair Hoffman and his father are partners with Jerry Wexler, another of the travelers, in 11 Homes. 3548 Nora av. The other two who made the trip are Joe Willems of Jo-Al Enterprises, 7648 North av., and Ed Schiller of Schiller Plumbing & Heating company,

Primitive Russian Building Methods Amaze Visitors

?

Pay-Per-View -

Chicago Tribune - May 28, 1956

"And on top of it," Sinclair Hoffman said, " the Russians don't eren now what a wheel- barrow is. They carry every. thing on a wooden sled, with handles ...

RELEASE LIST OF CORONER'S SPECIAL AIDS

‎

Pay-Per-View -

Chicago Tribune - Mar 6, 1962

previously had refused to release the names on the ground that it might embarrass them. ...Toman said he gave the Kor- ers deputy coroner s badges, with the authority to carry a gun, but insisted that they do not do anv work for his office.

RELEASE LIST OF CORONER'S SPECIAL AIDS

?

Pay-Per-View -

Chicago Tribune - Mar 6, 1962

1434 N. Menard cv.; Jerome Wexler. 1506 Ashland cv.. River Forest. cnd Harold Wexler, 2914 Balmoral DV. Joseph Willens. 935 Franklin cv. .

Could it, be David, because the son of a gun totin' mob soldier, Joseph R. Willens, partnered with mob fixer Albert Hoffman, was assigned the task of drafting the organizational structure of and setting the investigative priorities of the WC?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

So, as far as Barrett was concerned, and based on what he personally witnessed and heard Captain Westbrook saying, as he held the wallet in his hand, that was Lee Oswald's wallet.

In making the above statements, I am not claiming Oswald shot Tippit.

I am stating that Oswald was there, that he ran away, and then ducked into the Texas Theater.

DSL

1/5/11 6 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Then perhaps you'd care to explain why LHO had his wallet on his person when arrested, booked and processed. How many wallets are you in the habit of carrying? And when you do carry a wallet during the commission of a crime, would you carry one that ties you directly to the purchase of the weapons used in the commission of that crime?

It is self evident that the wallet at the Tippit site was a plant, demonstrated by it being surplus to requirements, the counter-intuitive contents, and the crudity of the forged ID, which would have been useless of any identification purposes. How do you explain these details?

It is also true that on the day no single police officer or DA ever used the name HIDELL in any media interviews, let alone construed the use of the HIDELL alias to suggest nefarious intent (the way they automatically did when announcing the O.H. Lee alias) nor displayed the slightest confusion over whom they had arrested. That is because the wallet Oswald possessed upon arrest did not contain the HIDELL papers; they were in the Tippit scene wallet and would later be inserted into the evidence stream as though they had been found upon LHO's person.

Ask yourself: why would DPD forego using as slam-dunk evidence the discovery at the murder scene of the killer's wallet? Why was all knowledge of that wallet made to disappear from the documentary record when it was ironclad prima facie evidence against their man? Please do explain.

It would be helpful to your assertions if you could demonstrate Oswald's fingerprints had ever been found on any of the contents of the wallet found at the Tippit scene, later surreptitiously "transferred" into LHO's actual wallet. But we know why they never conducted such tests if we think about it for more than 30 seconds, don't we?

I won't even belabour the deficiencies of the Tippit "witnesses" as that's already been done to death elsewhere on this Forum.

EDIT: typo

Bumped, in the hope that David Lifton may eventually reply to the questions posed.

Bumped, again, in the hope that David Lifton may eventually reply to the questions posed.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

So, as far as Barrett was concerned, and based on what he personally witnessed and heard Captain Westbrook saying, as he held the wallet in his hand, that was Lee Oswald's wallet.

In making the above statements, I am not claiming Oswald shot Tippit.

I am stating that Oswald was there, that he ran away, and then ducked into the Texas Theater.

DSL

1/5/11 6 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Then perhaps you'd care to explain why LHO had his wallet on his person when arrested, booked and processed. How many wallets are you in the habit of carrying? And when you do carry a wallet during the commission of a crime, would you carry one that ties you directly to the purchase of the weapons used in the commission of that crime?

It is self evident that the wallet at the Tippit site was a plant, demonstrated by it being surplus to requirements, the counter-intuitive contents, and the crudity of the forged ID, which would have been useless of any identification purposes. How do you explain these details?

It is also true that on the day no single police officer or DA ever used the name HIDELL in any media interviews, let alone construed the use of the HIDELL alias to suggest nefarious intent (the way they automatically did when announcing the O.H. Lee alias) nor displayed the slightest confusion over whom they had arrested. That is because the wallet Oswald possessed upon arrest did not contain the HIDELL papers; they were in the Tippit scene wallet and would later be inserted into the evidence stream as though they had been found upon LHO's person.

Ask yourself: why would DPD forego using as slam-dunk evidence the discovery at the murder scene of the killer's wallet? Why was all knowledge of that wallet made to disappear from the documentary record when it was ironclad prima facie evidence against their man? Please do explain.

It would be helpful to your assertions if you could demonstrate Oswald's fingerprints had ever been found on any of the contents of the wallet found at the Tippit scene, later surreptitiously "transferred" into LHO's actual wallet. But we know why they never conducted such tests if we think about it for more than 30 seconds, don't we?

I won't even belabour the deficiencies of the Tippit "witnesses" as that's already been done to death elsewhere on this Forum.

EDIT: typo

Bumped, in the hope that David Lifton may eventually reply to the questions posed.

Bumped, again, in the hope that David Lifton may eventually reply to the questions posed.

Bumped, yet again, in the hope that David Lifton will find the time to eventually reply to the questons posed.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

So, as far as Barrett was concerned, and based on what he personally witnessed and heard Captain Westbrook saying, as he held the wallet in his hand, that was Lee Oswald's wallet.

In making the above statements, I am not claiming Oswald shot Tippit.

I am stating that Oswald was there, that he ran away, and then ducked into the Texas Theater.

DSL

1/5/11 6 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Then perhaps you'd care to explain why LHO had his wallet on his person when arrested, booked and processed. How many wallets are you in the habit of carrying? And when you do carry a wallet during the commission of a crime, would you carry one that ties you directly to the purchase of the weapons used in the commission of that crime?

It is self evident that the wallet at the Tippit site was a plant, demonstrated by it being surplus to requirements, the counter-intuitive contents, and the crudity of the forged ID, which would have been useless of any identification purposes. How do you explain these details?

It is also true that on the day no single police officer or DA ever used the name HIDELL in any media interviews, let alone construed the use of the HIDELL alias to suggest nefarious intent (the way they automatically did when announcing the O.H. Lee alias) nor displayed the slightest confusion over whom they had arrested. That is because the wallet Oswald possessed upon arrest did not contain the HIDELL papers; they were in the Tippit scene wallet and would later be inserted into the evidence stream as though they had been found upon LHO's person.

Ask yourself: why would DPD forego using as slam-dunk evidence the discovery at the murder scene of the killer's wallet? Why was all knowledge of that wallet made to disappear from the documentary record when it was ironclad prima facie evidence against their man? Please do explain.

It would be helpful to your assertions if you could demonstrate Oswald's fingerprints had ever been found on any of the contents of the wallet found at the Tippit scene, later surreptitiously "transferred" into LHO's actual wallet. But we know why they never conducted such tests if we think about it for more than 30 seconds, don't we?

I won't even belabour the deficiencies of the Tippit "witnesses" as that's already been done to death elsewhere on this Forum.

EDIT: typo

Bumped, in the hope that David Lifton may eventually reply to the questions posed.

Bumped, again, in the hope that David Lifton may eventually reply to the questions posed.

Bumped, yet again, in the hope that David Lifton will find the time to eventually reply to the questons posed.

And yet again. Why has the man who started this thread so assiduously avoided answering questions posed to him herein?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Since David Lifton has just been visiting these parts, perhaps he'll finally choose to answer the questions put to him in this thread, initiated by him. Or perhaps not. Either way will illustrate something about the man.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Since David Lifton is currently present here, perhaps he’ll take this opportunity to answer questions posed to him quite some time ago. If not, it’ll tell us as much about him as any answers he might provide.

[Gene Kelly]

Lee:

Do you have additional information on Captain Westbrook. I saw you quoted in another forum as saying he left the DPD and was with CIA in Saigion in a training role. Given his out-of-role behaviour that day, and all of the "events" he had a personal hand in (related to evidence and arrest), he seems an individual of primary interest. Was he ever subsequently interviewed? Does anyone have a picture of Westbrook?

Gene