Jump to content
The Education Forum

Oswald Leaving TSBD?


Recommended Posts

On 1/12/2017 at 7:40 PM, Bill Miller said:

Yet there were so many witnesses who either didn't know what was happening to other witnesses or they didn't care for they stood by the shots coming from the area of the RR yard and/or the knoll.

 

Yes, Bill, ironic, isn't it?  Be skeptical of the Dallas witnesses and the Dallas authorities, but when the Dallas authorities tell us what LHO said behind closed doors -- take that as truth.

All the answers that WIll Fritz asked, all that the FBI asked, all that the Secret Service asked, all that the Dallas Police asked, all that the witness line-ups decided -- all put together -- were never written down during those three days and two nights.

They were written down weeks later, after the Dallas authorities had the chance to share notes, and to share ideas, and to erase words here and there.

Lee Harvey Oswald was interrogated Friday afternoon, evening and late night.   LHO was interrogated on Saturday morning and afternoon and night.  LHO spent his last hours Sunday morning in another interrogation.  Yet not one word was recorded or taken by shorthand, or even by longhand -- or if words were written down, they were concealed.  All the WC witnesses who were in the interrogation room admitted their notes came from weeks later.

Will Fritz, James Hosty, James Bookhout, Forrest Sorrels and Harry Holmes supplied their best memories of the LHO interrogations after several months -- and lots of changes to compare them with each other and "refresh each others memories."

It is no surprise that the combined results for 3 days of interrogation can be read by an average court reporter in about 30 minutes -- including all reports by all principals: Fritz; Sorrels, Hosty, Bookhout and Holmes.  Also, they agree with each other so exactly; it should be obvious that they had plenty of time to rehearse their stories.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Paul,

I have always found it troubling that a tape recorder wasn't obtained so to have an audio record of the suspect's responses. I understand that it may not have been customary or standard procedure at that time, but certainly they must have realized that in the murder of a U.S. President that they would not want to leave any doubt as to what the suspect may or may not have said. After all I believe it was referenced that they wanted to be sure that Oswald's rights were being protected and yet they left themselves with little more than hearsay to rely on concerning his questioning and Lee's responses had there been a trial. I mean - what if Lee had confessed - who in their right mind would not want it recorded for future reference. One might say that they had written out what he had said and had him sign it, but then there would still be an argument that could be made that Lee was forced to sign a confession. Yet an audio recording could better establish if the witness sounded stressed or was being coerced in any of his responses. I just find it mind-boggling that no one spoke up and recommended that his interrogation be recorded on tape .... it wouldn't have taken minutes to have had someone purchase and tape recorder if nothing else.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

Paul,

I have always found it troubling that a tape recorder wasn't obtained so to have an audio record of the suspect's responses. I understand that it may not have been customary or standard procedure at that time, but certainly they must have realized that in the murder of a U.S. President that they would not want to leave any doubt as to what the suspect may or may not have said. After all I believe it was referenced that they wanted to be sure that Oswald's rights were being protected and yet they left themselves with little more than hearsay to rely on concerning his questioning and Lee's responses had there been a trial. I mean - what if Lee had confessed - who in their right mind would not want it recorded for future reference. One might say that they had written out what he had said and had him sign it, but then there would still be an argument that could be made that Lee was forced to sign a confession. Yet an audio recording could better establish if the witness sounded stressed or was being coerced in any of his responses. I just find it mind-boggling that no one spoke up and recommended that his interrogation be recorded on tape .... it wouldn't have taken minutes to have had someone purchase and tape recorder if nothing else.

In essence I agree with all the pertinent things that Bill has said there (although personally I would change 'troubling' to 'an annoyance' ;) )

I do have a couple of questions on the subject though;

What were Oswald's rights?

Had the use of a tape recorder ever been used prior to that?

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

In essence I agree with all the pertinent things that Bill has said there (although personally I would change 'troubling' to 'an annoyance' ;) )

I do have a couple of questions on the subject though;

What were Oswald's rights?

Had the use of a tape recorder ever been used prior to that?

Regards

Alistair and Bill,

Will Fritz said that the DPD Homicide Bureau never had a tape-recorder in its offices at any time through 1963.  It was not considered necessary, and the budget for the department was slim.

It was not considered necessary -- that's the  main point.  Getting a confession out of a suspect was most often a strategy of psychology.  For example, the Paraffin test for gunshot residue on cheek and hands was widely known by Police to be a 50/50 test, with as many false positives as false negatives -- and yet it was considered valuable for psychological purposes, as the suspect was told, "The Paraffin test is going to get the truth here, so you might as well confess," and very often the suspect would confess.

So, very likely, the tape recorder was considered another psychological ploy -- would the suspect be more or less inclined to talk freely if there was a tape recorder in the room?   Very likely the decision was made that the suspect would clam up with a tape recorder in the room, so it was considered an unnecessary expense.

Will Fritz says that he didn't take notes during the interrogations of Lee Harvey Oswald during the many interviews he conducted from 11/22/1963 to 11/24/1963, because he could never really get started.  He was interrupted continually by more people than had ever been outside his office in his life.  He would ask Oswald a question, and get a preliminary answer, and ask another question, and somebody would knock on the door -- "Excuse me, but..." 

This went on for hours, he said.  How could he make any progress in that environment? 

By actual protocol, the City Jail had a duty to send the accused to the County Jail, given enough suspicion.  Some desk officers expected Oswald to go to the County Jail late Friday night.  Others expected Oswald at the County Jail early Saturday.  Others expected him Saturday afternoon.  Many were certain Oswald would be at the County Jail late Saturday night -- because this was already far too late, according to regulations.

For me, the most suspicious activity was that Jack Ruby was brought close to Lee Harvey Oswald two times during that weekend -- once very late Friday night, in the massive press conference, which lasted about 5 minutes.  DPD Chief Jesse Curry managed to arrange that.   IMHO, Jesse Curry also helped to arrange for Jack Ruby to be in the DPD basement when Oswald was finally being moved to the Dallas County Jail.

If that's correct, then what we really see with the 2.5 days delay in moving Oswald to the County Jail is the coordination of Jesse Curry with Will Fritz to manage events so that Oswald would be shot somewhere inside the City Jail.  

If that's the case, then keeping notes would have been distracting.  There were no notes.  There was no actual interrogation.  There was small talk, and delays, and Lee Oswald was never assigned a lawyer during that time.

THIS MEANS THAT THE OSWALD INTERROGATION NOTES THAT WERE PRESENTED IN WC TESTIMONY WERE FAKE: pieced together from bits of other people's testimony.

Now -- I do believe that Oswald asked to speak with New York attorney John Abt -- whom he didn't know personally, as John Abt didn't know Oswald.  I believe this firmly because Ruth Paine also testified that Oswald called her personally to insist that she keep trying to call John Abt until she got him.  Ruth thought that Oswald was being unrealistic and bossy -- what good would some stranger attorney do for him anyhow?  Abt and Oswald never met in their lives.  Ruth Paine tried a couple times, and then gave up.   So, her story convinces me of its truth.

Lawyers from the ACLU and Dallas Bar visited Oswald to ensure he had representation, and were all convinced that he refused to speak with any local attorney, because he only wanted to be represented by John Abt.  Yet John Abt was on vacation in the countryside that weekend -- away from all telephones.   IMHO, Oswald was part of a larger conspiracy involving the Radical Right in Dallas -- and they most likely, IMHO, gave instructions to Oswald to insist on John Abt -- this was to be their CODE WORD.

Lee Harvey Oswald never mentioned John Abt at any time before 11/22/1963 to the best of my knowledge, Marina's knowledge, Ruth Paine's knowledge, or Robert Oswald's knowledge.  The two men never talked or corresponded.  Why Abt?  John Abt's name did appear in the pages of The Worker Newspaper, as a reliable lawyer for left-wing causes.  For the Radical Right, this would have been a CODE WORD.

So -- we really have no idea what Lee Harvey Oswald told the Dallas Police during interrogation in the final three days of his life.   We know a little about what he told his mother, his wife, his brother and Ruth Paine.  There are rumors about what he told other inmates.  But as for the crucial hours of interrogation with Will Fritz, James Hosty, James Bookhout, Forrest Sorrels and Harry Holmes -- we must rely on their notes which were composed WEEKS LATER, and which match each other in every detail.  This is unacceptable to me.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

I understand what you are saying and agree. I also get the DPD didn't have a tape recorder for reasons they had given, but the killing of JFK was a special circumstance and with the importance of making a solid case and the claim of being concerned of Oswald's rights ... I am troubled that they didn't bother to obtain one.

I am equally puzzled as to why if Oswald really wanted a particular person to represent him or not - Lee seemed to be a smart enough of an individual to know he could refuse to answer questions before his attorney could be obtained. In fact, any attorney could have seen that Lee's rights were not violated until Attorney Apt could be located and obtained. And maybe Lee did refuse to wait and freely wanted to talk to the police which some of his claimed responses does support this scenario - this is all the more reason the questioning should have been audio recorded. I find the excuse of the DPD not obtaining a tape recorder so to have an audio record of Lee's interviews to be quite mind-boggling.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

Paul,

...I am equally puzzled as to why if Oswald really wanted a particular person to represent him or not - Lee seemed to be a smart enough of an individual to know he could refuse to answer questions before his attorney could be obtained. In fact, any attorney could have seen that Lee's rights were not violated until Attorney Apt could be located and obtained.

And maybe Lee did refuse to wait and freely wanted to talk to the police which some of his claimed responses does support this scenario - this is all the more reason the questioning should have been audio recorded. I find the excuse of the DPD not obtaining a tape recorder so to have an audio record of Lee's interviews to be quite mind-boggling.

Bill,

This is an EXCELLENT point.  Lee Harvey Oswald was ordinarily a tight-lipped person.  Yet the WC testimony of Fritz-Hosty-Bookhout-Sorrels-Holmes portrays Oswald as a blabber-mouth. 

According to Harry Holmes, he told them every detail about his trip to Mexico City -- why he went there, what consul he visited first, why he visited the second consul, and so on.  That just doesn't sound like Oswald to me.

Oswald was very intelligent, for a high-school dropout.  He taught himself Russian (by using Berlitz guides and Russian newspapers in 1959 at his Marine base in California).  Oswald was interested in science and technology.  He was somewhat of a snob in reading.  My point is that Oswald knew his RIGHTS.  He would not have demanded to see a specific attorney, and then, waiting for the attorney, blabbed his head off.

That is a serious contradiction in the WC testimony of Will Fritz and his whole team.  They not only failed to tape record the Oswald interrogations, they failed to take written notes, and then they coordinated their "recollections" with each other WEEKS LATER, and the Warren Commission accepted their make-believe scenario.

The worst part is that for a half-century, most CTers have also accepted their make-believe scenario.  It's finally time to put Fritz-Hosty-Bookhout-Sorrels-Holmes under a microscope.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What keeps crossing my mind when I read all the discussions is the way the case was handled by police and other investigators at that time. In my option there is a lot that seems to be a cover up, or a conspiracy. But also when you would put all those ideas aside you still have to say that they made so many mistakes. In my opinion it would be far more problematic when they didn't do all those things on purpose. Let's for the argument say that all the people involved in the interrogation did all to the best of their ability. Then there can only be one conclusion : they all made some terrible and unforgivable mistakes. 

No notes - either with shorthand or longhand - of the interrogation of the person who supposedly killed the president and a police man, no tape recorder (although not common at that time, but still, this was a killing of the president. Reporters all over the place. Ordinary citizens in the police station and at the press briefings. 

It is unbelievable how many mistakes , problems, flaws there are when you would assume there was no cover up and all the people just did the best they could. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In furtherance of Hugo's comment,

What keeps crossing my mind is how complicated things must have been because there were two crimes that day - Kennedy assasination, murder of Tippit. Oswald was 'arrested' in regards to the latter, but linked to the former. Two distinctly different crimes - one suspect. How rare an occurence would that have been generally. How prepared would they have been to deal with such a thing to start with... complicated further by the 'evidence' accumulating against Oswald in regards to Kennedy's assasination was 'building' throughout (finger-prints on rifle! Backyard Photos! etc etc) whilst he was already in 'custody' for the Tippit killing... the shooting of a police officer is deemed one of the most serious crimes by Police Departments... the asassination of the President Kennedy was 'unique' circumstances (compared to the assasinations of Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley - all 'up close and personal')... the nature of the crime brought 'everyone to the table'; FBI, CIA, Secret Service, DPD... 'too many cooks spoiling the broth'... all in it was very much a (pardon my French) 'clusterxxxx' (meaning: A chaotic situation where everything seems to go wrong. It is often caused by incompetence, communication failure, or a complex environment.)

Also, no one at that time would have thought that Oswald was going to be killed himself...

Perhaps there was the thought, or even just the presumption, that once things had 'calmed down' they would have the chance to 'formally' interrogate Oswald - a formal interrogation that would be recorded, or at least hand written short hand notes would be taken, or even the use of a stenographer. Oswald being killed not only put a stop to a trial against him, but it also put paid to any further interrogations of him... and we are left with a feeling of 'damn', if only they had done in the first place what we think would be common sense... if only!

As Hugo said,

2 hours ago, Hugo Langendoen said:

It is unbelievable how many mistakes , problems, flaws there are when you would assume there was no cover up and all the people just did the best they could. 

It may be unbelievable because there is no real parralels to draw upon! Yes, many mistakes, problems and flaws, but it was a very chaotic situation. Does being such a chaotic situation justify the many mistakes, problems and flaws? Looking at it with hindsight, probably not! But hindsight was not something the people at the time had the benefit of...

Regards

Edited by Alistair Briggs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alistair and Hugo,

Walt Brown said in his fine book, Teachery in Dallas (1995), that the Dallas police wanted to give the impression that they were bumblers, when actually they did everything right.

They acted according to a fairly tight plan, and their coordination was better than average.  Their first step, of course, was to get their hands on Oswald's rifle.  They did that early in the morning.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alistair and Hugo,

Here are some bullet points from chapter one of Walt Brown's book, Treachery in Dallas (1995), from the section entitled, "Blue Death:"

1.  If money of outsiders was involved, so would blackmail be.  Since there was no scandal of Dallas blackmail in 50 years, the odds are high that dedicated fanatics alone were used in the JFK shooting.  (This contradicts David Lifton's latest guesses, but I think Walt Brown makes a good point.)

2. The best assassins are natives of the area, fanatics, skilled and experienced with weapons, easily blended with the surroundings, and immune from the local authorities.  DPD officers fit this description best of all.

3. The DPD controlled the manpower in Dallas.  The DPD controlled the motorcade route.  The DPD controlled the crime scene.  The DPD controlled the evidence.  The DPD controlled the media.  The DPD controlled the suspect.  The DPD controlled the release of other suspects. The DPD controlled the suspect's family.  The DPD controlled the investigation.

4.  Despite several eye-witnesses who pointed to the 6th floor of the TSBD, the DPD dawdled for 42 minutes before arriving at the 6th floor.

5.  No APB (All Points Bulletin) was put out for Lee Harvey Oswald, yet the DPD always knew where he was.

6.   The DPD freely let witnesses go.  The DPD lineups were biased. 

7.  DPD Chief Jesse Curry repeatedly exposed LHO to the public, despite continuous threats. 

8.  Jack Ruby was controlled by the DPD

9.  Chief Curry perjured himself repeatedly regarding the number of DPD cops who knew Jack Ruby.

CONCLUSION:  The DPD did not bumble anything -- they succeeded brilliantly.  The DPD violation of the evidence and the crime scene was dazzling. 

GETTING BACK TO THE THEME OF THIS THREAD ON OSWALD LEAVING THE TSBD: The question presumes that Oswald left the TSBD by the front door -- and this is because DPD Captain Will Fritz said that Oswald himself said so.  I think Fritz was part of the conspiracy and deliberately lied.  Now, if we doubt Fritz, then we should reconsider the story of another victim of the JFK saga, Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig, who claims that he saw Oswald running down the hill from behind the TSBD into a Green Rambler.  This suggests, by my reading, that Oswald left the TSBD by one of the rear exits.   

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

I will look in to the points you mention on Walt Brown's book - does sound like an interesting topic. For now, best to just address the part in relevance to the thread. ;)

 

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

GETTING BACK TO THE THEME OF THIS THREAD ON OSWALD LEAVING THE TSBD: The question presumes that Oswald left the TSBD by the front door -- and this is because DPD Captain Will Fritz said that Oswald himself said so.  I think Fritz was part of the conspiracy and deliberately lied.  Now, if we doubt Fritz, then we should reconsider the story of another victim of the JFK saga, Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig, who claims that he saw Oswald running down the hill from behind the TSBD into a Green Rambler.  This suggests, by my reading, that Oswald left the TSBD by one of the rear exits.   
 

Oswald leaving by one of the rear exits does make sense inasmuch as it would be a 'quieter' route, he wouldn't be noticed by as many people, a better route of escape... Having said that, Oswald wouldn't have known for sure that there wouldn't already be a police officer posted outside any rear exit and if that was the case (whether Oswald was the shooter, or was being set up...) then Oswald may have decided not to run that risk, and instead had the thought that leaving by the front, although there would be more people there to see him, it may have been the 'safer' option anyway (hiding in 'plain sight')...

Anyroads, setting the above aside, did Roger Craig not say his sighting of 'Oswald' was 15 minutes after the shots? How does that tie in with other things? Also, for it to tie in with your thinking that Oswald left by one of the rear exits, does it not presuppose that it was in fact Oswald that he saw? Could it not have been someone else...

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Paul,

I will look into the points you mention on Walt Brown's book - does sound like an interesting topic. For now, best to just address the part in relevance to the thread. ;)

Oswald leaving by one of the rear exits does make sense inasmuch as it would be a 'quieter' route, he wouldn't be noticed by as many people, a better route of escape... Having said that, Oswald wouldn't have known for sure that there wouldn't already be a police officer posted outside any rear exit and if that was the case (whether Oswald was the shooter, or was being set up...) then Oswald may have decided not to run that risk, and instead had the thought that leaving by the front, although there would be more people there to see him, it may have been the 'safer' option anyway (hiding in 'plain sight')...

Anyroads, setting the above aside, did Roger Craig not say his sighting of 'Oswald' was 15 minutes after the shots? How does that tie in with other things? Also, for it to tie in with your thinking that Oswald left by one of the rear exits, does it not presuppose that it was in fact Oswald that he saw? Could it not have been someone else...

Regards

Alistair,

First, Oswald had no guarantees that he would avoid all DPD policemen -- after all, he just had a brush with Officer Baker, pistol in hand.  But Oswald sailed through that smoothly -- Oswald was a smooth operator; he was cool, calm and collected -- but still very shrewd.  IMHO he would have used the closest exits with the fewest people -- namely -- one of the back exits.

Secondly, let's review the TIMING of Roger Craig and his "14 or 15 minutes" before he heard the whistle that caused him to look up to see Oswald running down the GN hill and into a Green Nash Rambler.  I will classify this along with the TIMING of Billy Lovelady and Vickie Adams -- very subjective. There was so much going on -- virtual chaos.   So, I think Craig's TIMING was way off.  Here is the sequence of his events:

1.  I heard an explosion. A few seconds later, I heard another explosion and I knew it was a shot. And, as I began to run, I heard a third one. I was running toward Houston Street.

2.  I continued running across Houston Street, across the parkway, across Elm Street and, by this time, the motorcade went down Elm Street and I ran up to the railroad yard and started to look around when the people began to all travel over that way. So, I began moving people back out of the railroad yard.
 
3. As I reached the railroad yard, a girl getting her car thought they came from the park area on the north side of Elm Street.

3. I began looking around and asking people if they'd seen anything.

4.  That's when a young man and his wife, Arnold and Barbara Rowland, said he saw two men on the sixth floor of the TSBD; one of them had a rifle with a telescopic sight -- but he thought they were Secret Service agents and didn't report it.  He pointed out the window to me.

5. I turned them over to Deputy Sheriff Lemmy Lewis for interrogation.

6. Nobody had sealed off the TSBD by this time.

7. Then Detective Buddy Walthers said that one of the bullets had ricocheted off the south curb of Elm Street. So, we crossed Elm Street to look for the place where the bullet might have hit.

8.  That's when I heard the whistle and saw this man running down the hill into a Green Rambler.  I later recognized him as Lee Harvey Oswald.

When pressed for the TIMING of all these events, Roger Craig continually said, "I don't know," and "Maybe" and "It might have been."  So, IMHO, to try to hold Roger Craig to his guesses isn't quite fair.  We should ask if the events listed above could have been accomplished in 3 minutes.  That's my current estimate.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

First, Oswald had no guarantees that he would avoid all DPD policemen -- after all, he just had a brush with Officer Baker, pistol in hand.

But Oswald sailed through that smoothly -- Oswald was a smooth operator; he was cool, calm and collected -- but still very shrewd.  IMHO he would have used the closest exist with the fewest people -- namely -- one of the back exits.

Yep, he had just had a brush with Officer Baker, but it has to be said that Truly was there to vouch for him aswell.

Just for purposes of clarification,

From the WC testimony of Baker,

Representative BOGGS -When you saw him, was he out of breath, did he appear to have been running or what?
Mr. BAKER - It didn't appear that to me. He appeared normal you know.
Representative BOGGS -Was he calm and collected?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. He never did say a word or nothing. In fact, he didn't change his expression one bit.

From the WC testimony of Truly,

Mr. BELIN. Did you see any expression on his face? Or weren't you paying attention?
Mr. TRULY. He didn't seem to be excited or overly afraid or anything. He might have been a bit startled, like I might have been if somebody confronted me. But I cannot recall any change in expression of any kind on his face.

The testimony of Baker and Truly match very well. The only real difference there is Truly mentioning that Oswald might have been a bit startled, but really that does sound like he says that only because he feels that is how he would feel if he was Oswald...

How different would it have played out had Truly not been there to vouch for him? It would be truly speculative to even hazard a guess...

Anyway, yeah, calm and collected... and I would agree with very shrewd too.

Funnily enough though, I would say it was that same shrewdness that makes me think Oswald would have left via the front as, although it wasn't the closest exit and there would be more people there, he was shrewd enough to think he would be more likely to 'sneak' past any Police there with others around than he would if he left via a route that there may have been only one police there.

For now, it's not overly important whether Oswald actually left from the front or from the back, what is more relevant is the 'timings' of what Craig's claims are...

26 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

As for the TIMING of Roger Craig, and his "14 or 15" minutes before he heard the whistle that caused him to look up to see Oswald running down the GN hill and into a Green Nash Rambler -- I will qualify this along with the TIMING of Billy Lovelady and Vickie Adams -- very subjective.

Yes, very subjective indeed.

* My personal opinion at this time is that the Lovelady and Adams 'seeing' each other happened approx. 3 minutes after the shots, which would entail (in simplistic terms) Adams testimony being underplayed by 1 minutes and Lovelady's testimony confusing (due to poor questioning/poor understanding) 3 minutes to leave the steps with 3 mintues for his entire journey - just stating that here for purposes of clarification.

32 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

...

When pressed for the TIMING of all these events, Roger Craig continually said, "I don't know," and "Maybe" and "It might have been."  So, IMHO, to try to hold Roger Craig to his guesses isn't quite fair.  We should ask if the following events could have been accomplished in 3 minutes.  That's my current estimate.

I agree that Craig's timing is not going to be exact, as you said he often said 'I don't know', 'maybe' and 'it might have been'. Even with that consideration though could the thought of it being 15 minutes really be an error for what happened in 3 minutes?

*I presume you mention 3 minutes there because you think that fits in with the time that Oswald left the building?

I'm just about to go and have another look at Craig's testimony to see what else can be drawn from it in terms of the timing, but in the meantime, just wanted to mention a slight problem with your point number 6...

38 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

6. Nobody had sealed off the TSBD by this time.

Mr. BELIN - At this time, do you know whether or not they had sealed off in entrance or the building---the School Book Depository Building---or not.
Mr. CRAIG - No; no. I didn't notice that.
Mr. BELIN - You didn't notice that?
Mr. CRAIG - No,

It could well have been 'sealed off' by that time, it's just Craig didn't know one way of the other...

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alistair,

We may be close to an agreement about where Oswald was at the moment of the JFK shooting -- I say he was in the 2nd floor kitchen finishing his lunch and getting a Coke out of the machine.  As little as 75 seconds later, he was facing Roy Truly and Officer Baker with a pistol pointed at his chest -- his Coke bottle still in his hand.

I also agree that I have no firm facts telling me if Oswald left the TSBD by the front door or by a rear exit.  This is only guesswork so far.  Prayer-Man still might be Oswald.

I also agree with your interpretation -- Roger Craig did not notice any DPD cops sealing off the TSBD in those early minutes.  It is only my surmise that if there were DPD cops hastily sealing off the TSBD building, that Roger Craig would have noticed it -- he was right there at the Grassy Knoll, with his eyes wide open.

I still maintain that Deputy Roger Craig's estimate of "14-15 minutes" before he saw Oswald leave the TSBD and run into a Green Nash Rambler is way off base.  By that time the TSBD really was sealed off.   It took the DPD a full 10 minutes to get it through their heads that nobody found anybody at the Grassy Knoll parking lot (except other DPD cops) so they had little choice but to seal off the TSBD.

Within those 10 minutes the TSBD was sealed off.  Vickie Adams herself said that when she tried to re-enter the TSBD front door, it had already been sealed off -- only 5 minutes after the JFK shooting.  Now, her time estimates are too short (just as Roger Craig's are too long).  However, we have another half-dozen WC eye-witnesses who can give us better estimates of the exact time when the TSBD was officially sealed off.

 Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, I think we agree on a few things, but there are still things we disagree on. That's ok though, always happy to discuss things with you. :)

28 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

I still maintain that Deputy Roger Craig's estimate of "14-15 minutes" before he saw Oswald leave the TSBD and run into a Green Nash Rambler is way off base.  By that time the TSBD really was sealed off.   It took the DPD a full 10 minutes to get it through their heads that nobody found anybody at the Grassy Knoll parking lot (except other DPD cops) so they had little choice but to seal off the TSBD.

Within those 10 minutes the TSBD was sealed off.  Vickie Adams herself said that when she tried to re-enter the TSBD front door, it had already been sealed off -- only 5 minutes after the JFK shooting.  Now, her time estimates are too short (just as Roger Craig's are too long).  However, we have another half-dozen WC eye-witnesses who can give us better estimates of the exact time when the TSBD was officially sealed off.

From the testimony of Adams;

Miss ADAMS - There was an officer on the stairs itself, and he was prohibiting people from entering the building, that is correct. But I told him I worked there.
Mr. BELIN - Did he let you come back in?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir.

Not particularly 'sealed-off' then if she was allowed back in. lol

I think it would be of interest to look at the other WC eye-witnesses to see if we can put a better time on when it was officially sealed off... (although, I suppose it will end up coming down, alas, to what the definition of 'sealed off' is)...

I think if it was possible to nail down the time that Adams re-entered the building then at least we would know that at that time there was one officer on the steps stopping (not really though) people from getting in or out!

Anyroads,

From reading through the testimony of Craig, I would say he comes across as quite reliable when it comes to his timings. So yeah whilst there has to be leeway of course, my thinking is that it is not going to be that much less from what he said (14-15 minutes after the shots heard the whistle).

Of course, it has to be noted that Craig didn't see the 'oswald figure' run out of the TSBD (either front or back) but said he saw him run from the direction of. There is a chance that whoever he saw either came from somewhere else or came from within the TSBD but had already left before it was sealed off and had just been 'hanging around' outside - that doesn't explain the running though I suppose but there could be any number of reasons for him running...

Just to go back to the 'sealing off' part. In Craig's testimony, he mentions an officer standing guard at the door with a shotgun and also several officers crowded around...

Mr. CRAIG - Well, then---uh, I went back up to the front of the School Book Depository---rather, I went up to it and noticed that it was sealed off. There was an officer standing guard in it with a shotgun in the doorway; several officers crowded around in front of it.
Mr. BELIN - How long would this have been after the shots were fired?
Mr. CRAIG - I'd say nearly 20 minutes.

I think cross referencing with others could certainly help with tying down a decent timeline for everyone. Going to be a difficult task to do so. Where to start? Argh. lol

What is the name again of the 'reporter' who (allegedly) was told where the phone was by Oswald just before he left the building?

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...