Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

This in reply from another thread (see link) about "Oswald and Bus 1213" elsewhere. This deserves a thread of its own, which I'll open with my last post in the other thread:

From Robert Howard

... On April 10, 1963, the day of the Walker shooting, Jack Ruby placed a long-distance phone call from the Carousel Club to Clarence Rector, who lived in Sulphur Springs, Texas. A week later, on April 17, 1963 the Dallas Police sold one of their patrol cars, a 1962 Ford to used-car dealer Elvis Blount, who also lived in Sulphur Springs. What makes this information so pertinent to the assassination of President Kennedy is the fact that the patrol-car bore the number # 107. It was a Dallas Police Dept. Patrol Car bearing the # 107 which was cited as the number of the mysterious vehicle parked outside of 1026 N. Beckley by Oswald's landlady Earlene Roberts just moments after Oswald ostensibly arrived at the boarding house after leaving the TSBD after the assassination of President Kennedy.

... It would not require a great deal of intelligence to speculate that the Dallas Patrol Car # 107 seen by Earlene Roberts, was, in fact the same car, which was purchased by Rector and subsequently re-appeared on November 22, 1963 in Dallas.

Sulphur Springs is still a relatively small town, just more than 15,000 residents as of 2010 and presumably quite a bit fewer 50 years ago. While I think the above quite coincidental and maybe even interesting, I'm not certain I find it suspicious inasmuch as (1) there's no reason to believe that because Jack Ruby (or anyone else) knew both Dallas cops and someone who lived in the town, that the person he knew must also have known the local used car dealer, or (2) that the patrol car was "sheep dipped" through a small town (where "everyone knew everybody else" and, presumably, their business) some 80 miles or so away.

More to the point is (3), that the car was simply spirited away and stored in April 1963 for some unknown future use that turned out to involve the shooting of the President whom nobody even knew was coming anywhere at all nearby at that time. Did someone have decommissioned Houston and Austin and Fort Worth cars standing by "just in case" as well?

It seems (4) a particularly expensive and inconvenient - not to mention incriminating - means to involve some sort of "decoy car." Which, after all, would be cheaper: buying a decommissioned police car (would - and did - DPD sell their cars with all markings intact?) and "sitting" on it for months, or simply painting a black car like it to have white doors and black "Dallas Police" lettering and LOOK like a police car? And if something unexpected happened - say, it was in an accident - would any conspirator (particularly one employed by the city who sold the vehicle) want the car to be traceable to DPD through its VIN? Better all around to use a fake patrol car than a decommissioned legitimate one, don't you think?

So, while I concede that "It would not require a great deal of intelligence to speculate" about this, it would take a LOT more information - and much better logic - to actually create a case that it was the same car and that the transaction involving Sulphur Springs was both nefarious and involved the connections drawn above.

But that speculation is not even the largest issue here, which is this:

The Warren Commission and the Dallas Police Dept. we are supposed to believe 'investigated' Robert's I.D. of patrol-car #107 and was unable to come up with any conclusive information, other than the fact that there was no DPD vehicle by that number, at the time.[1]

[1] Warren Commission Exhibit 2045; letter to WC Rep. Norman Redlich from Charles Batchelor DPD of August 4, 1964 in ref. to Elvis Blount and H.S.C.A. Volume 9 Appendix Reports, page 192 concerning Ruby and Rector.

There was no investigation regarding car #107 other than the response indicated above from Chief Batchelor in August 1964, preserved in CE 2045, which seems to be (particularly given the late date) an effort to clean up some loose ends. Earlene Roberts' testimony seems to have created it (6H443-444):

Mr. Ball. Did a police car pass the house there and honked?

Mrs. Roberts. Yes.

Mr. Ball. When was that?

Mrs. Roberts. He came in the house.

Mr. Ball. When he came in the house?

Mrs. Roberts. When he came in the house and went to his room, you know how the sidewalk runs?

Mr. Ball. Yes.

Mrs. ROBERTS. Right direct in front of that door-there was a police car stopped and honked. I had worked for some policemen and sometimes they come by and tell me something that maybe their wives would want me to know, and I thought it was them, and I just glanced out and saw the number, and I said, "Oh, that's not their car," for I knew their car.

Mr. Ball. You mean, it was not the car of the policemen you knew?

Mrs. ROBERTS.
It wasn't the police car I knew, because their number was 170 and it wasn't 170 and I ignored it.

Mr. Ball. And who was in the car?

Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't know--
I didn't pay any attention to it after I noticed it wasn't them-I didn't.

...

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.

Car #170 was what Roberts was focused on; the rest, after her being subjected to "the third degree" and her "brains was in a whirl," is superfluous, not to mention both confused and confusing.

While I haven't seen the interview report by SAs Griffin and Kennedy of their Roberts interview, CD 205 page 532 is an FBI report dated early in the investigation (Dec 12, 1963), stating that Roberts had reportedly said she'd seen car #207, not #107. Subsequent investigation by DPD focused on car #207, the initial result appearing in this FBI report, and more details of it appearing in an FBI report (which seems to me to have been a regurgitation of a DPD report over Batchelor's signature) that was part of CE 2645 (CD 1108) found at 25H914.

So, all of this said, the looming issue here is not the disposition of a patrol car #107, but rather why, since Earlene Roberts only mentioned it once in her testimony, anyone is even concerned about the disposition of this unlikely vehicle.

(Has anybody wondered why such a relatively new car was sold, by the way? A 1962 model sold in April 1963? It couldn't have been more than 18 months old, and then only if it was one of the earliest 1962 models brought out in late 1961. A possibility that it was wrecked? There is simply no comment and no question about it, and the "fact" that it could have been brought back to Dallas months after its sale - months before anyone knew JFK was coming to Texas - is taken at face value, with no critical examination at all, and as if #107 was "the" vehicle reported by Earlene Roberts, which it clearly was not.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would car #107 have had a regular route along with a regular driver

When in commission?.Tippits seemed a regular route to some!.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Would car #107 have had a regular route along with a regular driver When in commission?.Tippits seemed a regular route to some!

The notion of a "route" is not a correct one, but officers were assigned to regular patrol areas ("districts") with administrative boundaries that were often crossed for a variety of reasons (e.g., lunch, officer assist, nearby call, etc.). There is a map that is a Commission Exhibit that shows exactly where these were.

The patrol district ID number is the same as the radio call number assigned to/used by patrol officers. Their car number did not enter into it since that could conceivably change even on a daily basis if necessary (e.g., car in for repairs, still in use by prior shift, etc.), tho' my experience has been that most professional drivers of any stripe prefer to drive the same, familiar vehicle whenever possible. In Tippit's case that day, he was assigned to District 78 (and used call sign "78") while driving Car #10.

But ultimately, the point: what the heck has patrol car #107 got to do with anything?

Earlene Roberts never firmly stated that the vehicle number was that except to say, incorrectly, that she had reported the vehicle as #107 and not #207 several months ago. She said that once in her testimony, and also said more than once in the same testimony that the car was #106. The only firm thing she said about the number was that it was NOT #170, which two officers for whom she had "worked for" had driven.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Would car #107 have had a regular route along with a regular driver When in commission?.Tippits seemed a regular route to some!

The notion of a "route" is not a correct one, but officers were assigned to regular patrol areas ("districts") with administrative boundaries that were often crossed for a variety of reasons (e.g., lunch, officer assist, nearby call, etc.). There is a map that is a Commission Exhibit that shows exactly where these were.

The patrol district ID number is the same as the radio call number assigned to/used by patrol officers. Their car number did not enter into it since that could conceivably change even on a daily basis if necessary (e.g., car in for repairs, still in use by prior shift, etc.), tho' my experience has been that most professional drivers of any stripe prefer to drive the same, familiar vehicle whenever possible. In Tippit's case that day, he was assigned to District 78 (and used call sign "78") while driving Car #10.

But ultimately, the point: what the heck has patrol car #107 got to do with anything?

Earlene Roberts never firmly stated that the vehicle number was that except to say, incorrectly, that she had reported the vehicle as #107 and not #207 several months ago. She said that once in her testimony, and also said more than once in the same testimony that the car was #106. The only firm thing she said about the number was that it was NOT #170, which two officers for whom she had "worked for" had driven.

So the number of the police car(Roberts) is in dispute or unknown

And the police car is also in dispute?

Ergo there was no car so the number is irrelevant ?.

If Ex police car# 107 never left Sulphur Springs

Did Mrs Roberts see an actual police car With 2 cops in it?.

Edited by Ian Kingsbury
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Duke, regarding an issue more relevant then cab 107, why did Ruby have no interviews from major news networks between incarcartion and expiration?

Steve, I thought I'd responded to that in another thread; no?

Either way, my best guess is that it's because he was still appealing the original verdict when he died. Most attorneys don't permit (or at least, advise against) testifying in public when there's an on-going defense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
  • 6 years later...
On 7/15/2012 at 6:23 PM, Duke Lane said:

This in reply from another thread (see link) about "Oswald and Bus 1213" elsewhere. This deserves a thread of its own, which I'll open with my last post in the other thread:

Sulphur Springs is still a relatively small town, just more than 15,000 residents as of 2010 and presumably quite a bit fewer 50 years ago. While I think the above quite coincidental and maybe even interesting, I'm not certain I find it suspicious inasmuch as (1) there's no reason to believe that because Jack Ruby (or anyone else) knew both Dallas cops and someone who lived in the town, that the person he knew must also have known the local used car dealer, or (2) that the patrol car was "sheep dipped" through a small town (where "everyone knew everybody else" and, presumably, their business) some 80 miles or so away.

More to the point is (3), that the car was simply spirited away and stored in April 1963 for some unknown future use that turned out to involve the shooting of the President whom nobody even knew was coming anywhere at all nearby at that time. Did someone have decommissioned Houston and Austin and Fort Worth cars standing by "just in case" as well?

It seems (4) a particularly expensive and inconvenient - not to mention incriminating - means to involve some sort of "decoy car." Which, after all, would be cheaper: buying a decommissioned police car (would - and did - DPD sell their cars with all markings intact?) and "sitting" on it for months, or simply painting a black car like it to have white doors and black "Dallas Police" lettering and LOOK like a police car? And if something unexpected happened - say, it was in an accident - would any conspirator (particularly one employed by the city who sold the vehicle) want the car to be traceable to DPD through its VIN? Better all around to use a fake patrol car than a decommissioned legitimate one, don't you think?

So, while I concede that "It would not require a great deal of intelligence to speculate" about this, it would take a LOT more information - and much better logic - to actually create a case that it was the same car and that the transaction involving Sulphur Springs was both nefarious and involved the connections drawn above.

But that speculation is not even the largest issue here, which is this:

There was no investigation regarding car #107 other than the response indicated above from Chief Batchelor in August 1964, preserved in CE 2045, which seems to be (particularly given the late date) an effort to clean up some loose ends. Earlene Roberts' testimony seems to have created it (6H443-444):

 

Mr. Ball. Did a police car pass the house there and honked?

 

Mrs. Roberts. Yes.

 

Mr. Ball. When was that?

 

Mrs. Roberts. He came in the house.

 

Mr. Ball. When he came in the house?

 

Mrs. Roberts. When he came in the house and went to his room, you know how the sidewalk runs?

 

Mr. Ball. Yes.

 

Mrs. ROBERTS. Right direct in front of that door-there was a police car stopped and honked. I had worked for some policemen and sometimes they come by and tell me something that maybe their wives would want me to know, and I thought it was them, and I just glanced out and saw the number, and I said, "Oh, that's not their car," for I knew their car.

 

Mr. Ball. You mean, it was not the car of the policemen you knew?

 

Mrs. ROBERTS.
It wasn't the police car I knew, because their number was 170 and it wasn't 170 and I ignored it.

 

Mr. Ball. And who was in the car?

 

Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't know--
I didn't pay any attention to it after I noticed it wasn't them-I didn't.

 

...

 

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.

Car #170 was what Roberts was focused on; the rest, after her being subjected to "the third degree" and her "brains was in a whirl," is superfluous, not to mention both confused and confusing.

While I haven't seen the interview report by SAs Griffin and Kennedy of their Roberts interview, CD 205 page 532 is an FBI report dated early in the investigation (Dec 12, 1963), stating that Roberts had reportedly said she'd seen car #207, not #107. Subsequent investigation by DPD focused on car #207, the initial result appearing in this FBI report, and more details of it appearing in an FBI report (which seems to me to have been a regurgitation of a DPD report over Batchelor's signature) that was part of CE 2645 (CD 1108) found at 25H914.

So, all of this said, the looming issue here is not the disposition of a patrol car #107, but rather why, since Earlene Roberts only mentioned it once in her testimony, anyone is even concerned about the disposition of this unlikely vehicle.

(Has anybody wondered why such a relatively new car was sold, by the way? A 1962 model sold in April 1963? It couldn't have been more than 18 months old, and then only if it was one of the earliest 1962 models brought out in late 1961. A possibility that it was wrecked? There is simply no comment and no question about it, and the "fact" that it could have been brought back to Dallas months after its sale - months before anyone knew JFK was coming to Texas - is taken at face value, with no critical examination at all, and as if #107 was "the" vehicle reported by Earlene Roberts, which it clearly was not.)

It’s worth noting here that Clarence A. Rector was actually interviewee by the Warren Commission because of his connection to Jack Ruby.

5p194f582.gif

Clarence stated that he had an automobile transportation business. And that he had recently been in Cuba. 

Just a few more data points for this mysterious Car 107. 

-Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...