Jump to content
The Education Forum

Who changed the motorcade route?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 417
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 5/26/2018 at 2:33 PM, James DiEugenio said:

The rest of the review is here:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/palamara-vincent-m-survivor-s-guilt

What Vince does here is he shows with multi sources that, as Jim Garrison first stated, the route was altered.  People like the shill McAdams, who have said it was not, just did not do any research on the subject. Of course, if he had and discovered this, he would have hushed it up anyway.

Anybody who has ever been to Dealey Plaza, and stood atop the trestle and looked down at the motorcade path, I mean you just shake your head in disgust.  I have said it before and I will say it now: it was like the hit team designed the route.  What more could you have asked for? The fact that the WC never called anyone on the carpet for this route or pointed out all the problems it posed for protection, that says all you need to know about them.

 

Jim,

Here is a picture from October 2014 doing just that - standing on the overpass looking straight down at the motorcade path.  

PzQe3D0.jpg

As I'm sure you're aware, it is much tighter and closer than the pictures and film from that day show.

Thanks

Rick

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

I never used that word, Jimmy. I said "hardline". (But I guess there's not too much difference between the two words.)

 

Oh, Lifton is, without question, most certainly an "outer fringe" conspiracy fantasist of the First Order. His theories are as wacky as all get out and totally unbelievable and dead wrong as all get out too. I've been saying that for years.

But there are some occasions when Mr. Lifton (unlike James DiEugenio) makes perfect sense. And David L. has exhibited that "perfect sense" trait on several occasions in the last few years at this very forum. And his last post in this thread is one such example. Although, as I mentioned, I cannot find any support for his claim that the SS Report (CD3) shows that the Nov. 14 "test drive" took the agents down Elm Street. That's nowhere to be found in CD3. And I just now read the entire CD3 document (again).

Sorry you don't agree with my major work on the JFK assassination, David, and perhaps --if time permits--I'll have something to say on that.  Another time...

Meanwhile, it would appear that we have some common ground when it comes to DiEugenio, who is bombastic in his pronouncements, and often quite inaccurate, so I'm going to focus on that, in this post, and save the rest for another time.

Here goes. . . :

I took the time to do a little reading in CD 3/Appendix A to refresh my own memory about what I originally concluded, years ago, when  if first obtained this critically important document from the National Archives, and gave it a lot of close study.

My conclusions about how the motorcade route was "selected" was largely based on reading the report in its entirety--and especially Appendix A, which details the decision making process that led up to the selection of the motorcade route.

(WARNING [to anyone following this discussion, and particularly the "pronouncements and assertions" of James DiEugenio]:  Commission Document 3 ("CD 3"), Appendix A--submitted to the Warren Commission in mid-December 1963 by the Treasury Department and the US Secret Service-- is based upon a detailed and authoritative internal investigation, conducted in late November/early December 1963) under the auspices of the Treasury Department and the Secret Service.  It  ante-dates anything DiEugenio (presently) has to say on the subject by some 55 years later.  So all his bombast about the "dog leg" being "added" the week before the Dallas trip, or that the motorcade route as originally designed went straight down Main Street (to Industrial Blvd) bypassing Dealey Plaza  is pure nonsense. It is nonsensical "revisionist history" without any basis in fact. Perhaps DiEugenio believes that, 55 years after the fact, he can post this sort of garbage on a discussion group, and it will be believed; but it is not supported by valid data and would never be taken seriously by any historian worthy of that name.  CD 3 is the definitive document when it comes to trip planning and parade route selection; not the mythology posted and promoted  by James DiEugenio.  END OF WARNING)

Most important: there is (i.e., "was") only one route that was ever "mapped" out, selected, and test driven.  There is no discussion of any "other" route--ever--and always that route, the one that was "test driven" or "selected" is the same as the one that was driven on November 22 1963.

From notes I made on a hurried re-reading of Appendix A of CD3:

On page 9 of the report (referring now to CD 3, Appendix A), please find the following:

The route which a Presidential motorcade travels depends on ., . (lists a number of factors).  One of the purposes of the Dallas trip was to afford as many people as possible an opportunityto see the President in the limited time available. SA Lawson was so informed and was also informed by the White House staff that the motorcade from the airport from the luncheon site should take approximately 45 minutes.   On the basis of these instructions, SA Lawson and SAIC Sorrels mapped a tenative 10-mile route through Dallas, and on November 14 drove the entire route at the anticipated speeds of the motorcade.  The width of the streets, the number of overpasses, turns and other points where problems with crowds might occur and other security factors were observed and noted., (CD 3, Appendix A, p. 9)

Note the phrase:  “a tentative 10-mile route through Dallas” —also reerred to later in the sentence as “the entire route” which was then driven “on November 14”. 

Now turn to page 10. . . : “SA Lawson and SAIC Sorrels discussed the proposed route with Dallas Police Chief Curry. (misc. data deleted)

Next paragraph begins:

QUOTE: The route” —note the word “the”—was also discussed with Mr. Jack Puterbaugh, representing the White House staff, and various local offiials.  On November 18, SA Lawson and SAIC Sorrels drove the selected route with Assistant Chief Batchelor, Dallas Police Department, and another police officer. ((DSL Note: Identity?  I don’t know.)) \

Again: note the phrase “. . the selected route. . “ clearliy indicating that a selection had been made.

That was referred to as “the survey trip”; and on the next page (p. 11):

That Chief Batchelor agreed (after that drive) “that the route would be satisfactory, and the final route was fixed on the afternoon of November 18, 1963.”

Keep in mind: this is the only route that was discussed, in this report, or “test” driven by the Secret Service (or the Dallas Police Department). . or both.

Ever.

There was no other.

Here are still additional nots that I made; again, on a re-reading of CD 3, Appendix A:

On page 11 of this Secret Service report  (again, we are in CD 3, Appendix A) comes a paragraph summarizing the news coverage preceding the Dallas trip, starting on 9/26/63, when the first announcement that there would be such a trip was published.

That paragraph includes this sentence: “The selected route of the motorcade appeared in the November 19 [Dallas] Morning News [Exhibit 6D] and in the November 19 evening edition of the Dallas Times-Herald (Exhibit 6E).  This route was released locally in Dallas on the evening of November 18.”

On page 13, it is referred to as “the route selected.”

On page 10, it is stated that on Monday, November 18, SA Lawson and SAIC Sorrels drove the selected route with Asst Chief Batchelor, DPD, and another Dallas police officer.

At no time is it ever indicated that the “selected’ route was anything other than the route as driven on November 22, 1963.  

Whether its referred to as the ‘selected’ route, the “chosen” route, etc. does not matter. There is (i.e., “was”) no other route under discussion, and that is what is most remarkable (even suspicious) about this situation.  Only one route—the “selected” route—was ever "considered" or ever test driven.  

So all this fuss about whether the dog-leg was “added” is completely irrelevant, false and misleading.  There is no evidence that any such "last minute change" (or "addition") was made; So If that is what DiEugenio is basing his case on, it is pure nonsense. 

Moreover: Debunking this nonsense is a waste of time. Its nothing but vaporware.

To repeat:  From page 9 of the report

    First, Lawson and Sorrels mapped a ten mile route through Dallas.

   Then (still on page 9):

    Then, on November 14th, they “drove the entire rouite at the anticipated speeds of the motorcade.”

Now go to page 10:

    Then, on (Monday) November 18, Lawson and Sorrels (now along with Asst. DPD Chief Batchelor) drove the same route (now referred to as “the selected route”) with DPD CHief Batchelor.    This is referred to as “the selected route” and also as  “the survey trip”; and after this “survery trip” (per page 10, bottom); Batchelor agrees “that the route [just driven] would be satisfactory, and the final route was fixed on  November 18, 1963.”  

END OF DSL NOTES OF CD3/Appendix A.

Now, here are some additional  thoughts and comments I have on the entire situation.

RE THE "EXHIBITS" to CD 3:

There are quite a few exhibits that are attached to CD 3, and I remember how--decades ago--I had to order them (separately) from NARA (which I did). Today--and this is so very convenient--its all included in the posting f CD 3, on the Internet, at the Mary Ferrell website.  How convenient (!).

So now let's turn to that. to the exhibits. . :

“Exhibit 5  --a map--shows the final route selected for the Presidential motorcade in Dallas on November, 1963." But its hard, if not impossible, to read without a magnifying glass.

OK. . . so now let's turn to the exhibits with text: most important is the matter of what was published in the local newspapers.

WHAT THE LOCAL MEDIA REPORTED (and the text of the news coverage is unambiguous):

Exhibit 6E shows the story in the Dallas Times Herald on Tuesday, 11/19/63

Headline: “Yarborough Gets JFK Table Spot” (by Jim Lehrer)

Describing the motorcade route, the text employs language that clearly describes the “dog leg” turn:

QUOTE: The motorcade will then pass through downtown on Harwood and then west on Main, turning back to Elm at Houston and then out Stemmons Freeway to the Trade Mart.”

Conclusion: So there's the "dog-leg" turn; it was there, from the outset, as\s I maintained in my original post on this threat,

FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND DSL COMMENTARY (AND A REQUEST):. . 

Will someone please knock real hard on DiEugenio’s cranium to see if someone is there; and if so (i.e., if the message is answered), please point out that the Dallas Times Herald of November 19, 1963  (as documented in Exhibit 6E of CD 3) published the motorcade route, and that the text of the story clearly spells out that the motorade will pass through Dealey Plaza, by going from Main (right) onto Houston, and then (left) onto Elm, and then out Stemmons Freeway.

Also, please advise DiEugenio that it is nothing less than the tactics of a shallow (not to mention uninformed) demagogue to be proselytizing, some fifty-five years after the assassination, that the 135 degree sharp LEFT turn from Houston onto Elm (I.e., the “dog leg” turn) was a last minute addition to the motorcade route (as he has repeatedly misstated, and misinformed those reading the London Forum.

It was not.

It was there from the beginning.

And DiEugenio, who prides himself as a “recoginized authority” on “this ’n that” ought to know  better; and ought to stop spreading false and misleadiing information.

He was--once upon a time-- a history teacher. . . was he not?

DSL

5/29/2018 - 9:55 AM PDT

South Orange County, California

 

 

 

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever the Secret Service had to say about the choice of routes should be balanced against what Ass't Chief Batchelor had to say in his after-action report.

See the DPD Archives Box 14, Folder# 4, Item# 10 page 3.

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box14.htm

As late as 3:00 PM on the 15th, three possible routes were still being discussed. All three of the possibilities, as outlined by Batchelor,  stopped at Main. As for the last possibility, Batchelor adds parenthetically "(Ultimately, this was the route that was announced)."   He does not say when this route was actually chosen.

At 10:00 AM on the 18th,  the police and Secret Service drove the route that had been selected. Deputy Chief R.H. Lunday drove the car. (see p. 4)

Lunday did not submit an after-action report, nor did he testify to the WC.

 

Steve Thomas

Link to post
Share on other sites

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks, David L., for taking the time to write out all your thoughts on this matter in this Education Forum post.

I, too, had seen all those references to "the selected route" that appear in the Secret Service Report (CD3), but I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing some specific reference within CD3 to "Elm Street" or "Houston Street" or "Stemmons Freeway" (relating to the "test drive" of the motorcade route).

I see now that you are utilizing ALL of CD3, in its totality, to arrive at your conclusion that the motorcade route was never changed (and I agree), including the exhibits of the 11/19/63 Dallas newspapers which clearly spell out the motorcade route (in text!), including the Houston-to-Elm turn.


DAVID LIFTON SAID:

Will someone please knock real hard on DiEugenio’s cranium to see if someone is there; and if so (i.e., if the message is answered), please point out that the Dallas Times Herald of November 19, 1963 (as documented in Exhibit 6E of CD 3) published the motorcade route, and that the text of the story clearly spells out that the motorade will pass through Dealey Plaza, by going from Main (right) onto Houston, and then (left) onto Elm, and then out Stemmons Freeway.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, David. I "knocked real hard" on Jimmy's cranium just three days ago with words that are almost identical to what you just said....

"The Houston-to-Elm dogleg was described in the November 19th Dallas newspapers, which makes perfect sense considering what I just said above about the route being officially announced on Nov. 18. Therefore, the dogleg was part of the motorcade route as of November 18th, otherwise the Dallas Morning News couldn't have printed the route in its paper on the morning of the 19th [as seen in CE1363]. .... Some conspiracy myths just refuse to die, don't they? And "The Motorcade Route Was Changed" junk is apparently one such myth that I guess will be with us until the end of time." -- DVP; May 26, 2018

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Whatever the Secret Service had to say about the choice of routes should be balanced against what Ass't Chief Batchelor had to say in his after-action report.

See the DPD Archives Box 14, Folder# 4, Item# 10 page 3.

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box14.htm

As late as 3:00 PM on the 15th, three possible routes were still being discussed. All three of the possibilities, as outlined by Batchelor,  stopped at Main. As for the last possibility, Batchelor adds parenthetically "(Ultimately, this was the route that was announced)."   He does not say when this route was actually chosen.

At 10:00 AM on the 18th,  the police and Secret Service drove the route that had been selected. Deputy Chief R.H. Lunday drove the car. (see p. 4)

Lunday did not submit an after-action report, nor did he testify to the WC.

 

Steve Thomas

(DSL Note, 5/30/18 - 6:30 AM PDT. This post was edited and corrected this date.)

Steve Thomas:

Thanks for your effort in perusing the Dallas Municipal Archives.

 As you may aware (but maybe you are not) what you are citing  is a small excerpt from the "B-L-S" (or "Batchelor -Lumpkin -Stevenson") combined "Chronological Report" --of the Dallas Police Department-- which is published in its entirety as a "Stevenson Exhibit" in Volume 21 of the WC's 26 Volumes (21 WCH 562- 592).  As published there, it is an almost impossible-to-read (31 page, single-spaced) very poor carbon copy, but decades ago, I found a crystal clear copy of this item in the Texas AG's files.  If you (or anyone) can send me their email address, I can send along (later today)  a crystal clear PDF of the entire report, which is quite lengthy (31 pages) and is dated 11/30/63.  And one of you can post it at a cyber site  along with an "internet link," so we can all study it and discuss it.  (DSL Note, 5/30/18: Corrections were made in this paragraph).

My take on this document (and this is from about 25 years ago): that B, L, and S (the DPD Assistant Chief and two of the 4 Deputy Chiefs) each kept notes (and must have made individual "CYA" records in the two (or three) weeks prior to the assassination);  and then, immediately after JFK was murdered, convened to create this "combined CYA" record (in the spirit of "we had nothin' to do with this") etc.  

Anyway, the full  report was prepared within eight (8) days, is dated 11/30/63, and was entered into the record (by which I mean the pubic record as published by the Warren Commission), when DPD Deputy Police Chief M W. Stevenson appeared in Dallas before WC Asst Counsel Burt Griffin to give a brief deposition about Jack Ruby and the Sunday (11/24) "abortive transfer" (the WC's delicate  language for the 11/24/63 jail transfer of HO, which then resulted in the murder of their prisoner, LHO).

This report---if a Robert Mueller type had been leading the investigation---should have (and would have) been carefully reviewed and analyzed,  paragraph by paragraph, and additional investigation undertaken, and additional testimony taken, as necessary. But it was not.  In some ways (and IMHO) it is the DPD's  "we-had nothing-to-do-with-this" report, compiled and written over the next eight days, and  finalized and dated on Saturday, 11/30/63, five days after JFK's funeral.

 This document deserved very serious legal investigation and follow-up.  There was none.  Not a scintilla of awareness (on the part of the WC) that any such "CYA" activity had taken place or that such a "combined report" from these three top DPD officials was written.

I am writing this to provide some context for how it is that now, some 54+ years after JFK's death, a researcher such as yourself finds-- -in a box in  the Dallas Municipal Archives---a small snippet of a much larger document which, in fact, is potentially quite significant, and which was in fact was published in its entirety in the 26 volumes (as noted above), but in a barely legible form.

What a careless way to run a murder investigation, eh?

Wouldn't it be great if we had a time machine, and could go back and question these three (3)  top DPD officials, about the "how" and "why" backstory re how this document was created  in the first place?  When you read the "B-L-S" document in its entirety, you will understand why I believe (and have believed for several decades) that this entire report, viewed in its entirety is (a) a very significant document (legally and historically) but  (b) is defensive in nature.  

Think about it: while much of the country was watching the JFK funeral, and in the 5 days following, these 3 officials were convened in a room somewhere, probably with a stenographer and each with their individual stack of notes, and  with someone present who had decent English language (and "report writing") skills. . . putting their heads together and hammering out this (rather complex) document.

Its as if these guys had a "history teacher" (as advisor) who said: "OK. . , he;s dead.  Now I want a report from each of you as to just how this happened!"  And one of them replied, . "Well, can we write just one 'combined' report?" And the answer was "Yes, you can, but there must be no "'internal inconsistencies" of any kind, so make sure there is no room for any cross-examination, and get it done by next Saturday, Is that clear?"

"Oh of course", they replied.  "Don't you worry.  We all learned to write this sort of document when we took summer courses at Harvard Law School, before we decided not to practice law and instead retuned to Dallas and joined the Police Department, available for volunteer work should a President we don't like visit our city." <G>

Seriously. . .

Wouldn't it have been great if the Warren Commission legal staff had had the insight to properly digest this document, and then press forward with that kind of legal inquiry?. . . i.e.,  "Please provide a full accounting of how you all arrived at the decision to create this sort of "composite" document and how you all went about organizing it and writing it?"

DSL

5/29/2018 - 3:30 PM PDT

Corrections made on 5/30/18, 6:30 AM PDT

South Orange County, California

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting and relevant aside to the topic of this thread.  DNC advance man Jerry Bruno told the HSCA that Moyers "was asked to visit Texas on behalf of the President and settle the conflict over the speech site and the motorcade route."  Incredibly, Moyers claimed "(h)he could not recall whether there had been a debate about selection of the speech...he could not remember whether he had even visited Dallas."  (Survivor's Guilt) The assassination would have likely been the single biggest event in his lifetime.  He was involved in the preparations for the trip it occurred on, asked by the President himself to represent him personally on this issue.  Yet he can't remember anything about it.  He was a  LBJ guy al the way, from serving on his campaign staff 19 1954 at the age of 20.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

An interesting and relevant aside to the topic of this thread.  DNC advance man Jerry Bruno told the HSCA that Moyers "was asked to visit Texas on behalf of the President and settle the conflict over the speech site and the motorcade route."  Incredibly, Moyers claimed "(h)he could not recall whether there had been a debate about selection of the speech...he could not remember whether he had even visited Dallas."  (Survivor's Guilt) The assassination would have likely been the single biggest event in his lifetime.  He was involved in the preparations for the trip it occurred on, asked by the President himself to represent him personally on this issue.  Yet he can't remember anything about it.  He was a  LBJ guy al the way, from serving on his campaign staff 19 1954 at the age of 20.

Yes.  .IMHO  Moyers was involved in all this, but not at all with any evil intent.  Rather, he was used, as a gopher of sorts in the trip planning phase.  Afterwards, looking back on it, he very likely has thought: "OMG! Look what I was unwittingly involved in?  Look at how I was used?"

Perhaps someday Moyers will write that promised memoir, when he realizes that the obligation he has to history way exceeds in importance the ethical obligation he apparently feels towards Ladybird (for the very kind hospitality she showed him over the course of many years, when he worked for the Johnsons at KTBC).

 DSL

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Steve Thomas:

Thanks for your effort in perusing the Dallas Municipal Archives.

 As you may aware (but maybe you are not) what you are citing  is a small excerpt from the "B-L-S" (or "Batchelor -Lumpkin -Stevenson") combined "Chronological Report" --of the Dallas Police Department-- which is published in its entirety as a "Stevenson Exhibit" in Volume 21 of the WC's 26 Volumes.  As published there, it is an almost impossible-to-read very poor carbon copy, but decades ago, I found a crystal clear copy of this item in the Texas AG's files.  If you (or anyone) can send me their email address, I can send along (later today)  a crystal clear PDF of the entire report, which (as I recall) is quiet lengthy and is dated 11/25/63.  And one of you can post it at a cyber site  along with an "internet link," so we can all study it and discuss it.  

My take on this document (and this is from about 25 years ago): that B, L, and S (the DPD Assistant Chief and two of the 4 Deputy Chiefs) each kept notes (and must have made individual "CYA" records in the two (or three) weeks prior to the assassination);  and then, immediately after JFK was murdered, convened to create this "combined CYA" record (in the spirit of "we had nothin' to do with this") etc.  

Anyway, the full  report was prepared within 3 days, is dated 11/25/63, and was entered into the record (by which I mean the pubic record as published by the Warren Commission), when DPD Deputy Police Chief M W. Stevenson appeared in Dallas before WC Asst Counsel Burt Griffin to give a brief deposition about Jack Ruby and the Sunday (11/24) "abortive transfer" (the WC's delicate  language for the 11/24/63 jail transfer of HO, which then resulted in the murder of their prisoner, LHO).

This report---if a Robert Mueller type had been leading the investigation---should have (and would have) been carefully reviewed and analyzed,  paragraph by paragraph, and additional investigation undertaken, and additional testimony taken, as necessary. But it was not.  In some ways (and IMHO) it is the DPD's  "we had nothing to do with this" report, compiled and written over the weekend, and  finalized and dated on 11/25/63, the date of JFK's funeral.

 This document deserved very serious legal investigation and follow-up.  There was none.  Not a scintilla of awareness (on the part of the WC) that any such "CYA" activity had taken place or that such a "combined report" from these three top DPD officials was written.

I am writing this to provide some context for how it is that now, some 54+ years after JFK's death, a researcher such as yourself finds-- -in a box in  the Dallas Municipal Archives---a small snippet of a much larger document which, in fact, is potentially quite significant, and which was in fact was published in its entirety in the 26 volumes (volume 21), but in a barely legible form.

What a careless way to run a murder investigation, eh?

Wouldn't it be great if we had a time machine, and could go back and question these 3 top DPD officials, about the "how" and "why" backstory re how this document was created  in the first place?  When you read the "B-L-S" document in its entirety, you will understand why I believe (and have believed for several decades) that this entire report, viewed in its entirety is (a) a very significant document but  (b) is defensive in nature.  

Think about it: while much of the country was watching the JFK funeral, these 3 officials were convened in a room somewhere, probably with a stenographer and each with their individual stack of notes, and  with someone present who had decent English language (and "report writing") skills. . . putting their heads together and hammering out this (rather complex) document.

Its as if these guys had a "history teacher" (as advisor) who said: "OK. . , he;s dead.  Now I want a report from each of you as to just how this happened!"  And one of them replied, . "Well, can we write just one 'combined' report?" And the answer was "Yes, you can, but there must be no "'internal inconsistencies" of any kind, make sure there is no room for any cross-examination, and get it done by Monday!   Is that clear?"

"Oh of course", they replied.  "Don't you worry.  We all learned to write this sort of document when we took summer courses at Harvard Law School, before we decided not to practice law and instead retuned to Dallas and joined the Police Department, available for volunteer work should a President we don't like visit our city." <G>

Seriously. . .

Wouldn't it have been great if the Warren Commission legal staff had had the insight to properly digest this document, and then press forward with that kind of legal inquiry?. . . i.e.,  "Please provide a full accounting of how you all arrived at the decision to create this sort of "composite" document and how you all went about organizing it and writing it?"

DSL

5/29/2018 - 3:30 PM PDT

South Orange County, California

David - interesting follow up to Steve's post. I your research have you found any deep biographical info on any of the Dallas police? I'm thinking specifically of Lumpkin and Westbrook. I'm not a researcher, but a long interested party. These two men, and others, were mentioned at some point as being members of the 488th Reserve Military Attachment, but there is to my knowledge no proof of this, and very little is known about the 488th, though it's apparent founder Jack Crichton is a well know personage. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Thanks, David Lifton, for your post above regarding the genesis of the motorcade route.

Here's a link to Commission Document No. 3 (also known as the "Report Of The U.S. Secret Service On The Assassination Of President Kennedy"). To go directly to "Appendix A", which David Lifton specifically mentioned in his above post, Click Here.

I suppose that most hardline conspiracy theorists probably contend that most of the things we find in CD3 are simply lies invented by James Rowley's Secret Service in the days and weeks after the assassination (seeing as how that SS Report is dated December 18, 1963).

Mr. Lifton is correct when he said a "test drive" of the Dallas motorcade route was driven by police and Secret Service officials on November 14th. However, I can't find any mention at all of any specific streets---Elm Street or otherwise---being mentioned on this page of that Secret Service Report (CD3) where it talks about the November 14th "test drive" (as Lifton calls it).

So when David Lifton said this in his last post....

"Asst. Dallas Police Chief Batchelor and Forrest Sorrels did a "test-drive" from Love Field to the Trade Mart, going through Dealey Plaza, and then via Stemmons Freeway, which meant entering Stemmons from Elm, which meant driving through Dealey Plaza exactly as the JFK motorcade drove that route on 11/22/63."

....I'm wondering where within Commission Document No. 3 Mr. Lifton found the information to support the specific "entering Stemmons from Elm" portion of that post?

I, myself, have no doubt that Lawson and Sorrels did, indeed, travel on Elm Street during that Nov. 14 "test drive", but I just can't find a specific reference to the Houston-to-Elm turn in the SS Report. If you can find one, David L., please point me to it.

BTW, on Page 12 of that SS Report, we find this information which totally demolishes the idea put forth by people such as Fletcher Prouty (and others) about how every single building and window should have been checked by law enforcement prior to the Dallas parade. As we can see here in CD3, no such practice was adhered to by the Secret Service in 1963:

CD3--Page-12.png

 

David, this document is what the Secret Service told the Warren Omission After the assassination.  They were in a cover up mode, just like 30 years later when the ARRB came calling, they had failed to do their job.  They also knew that in a real investigation, with cross examination, they would have been investigated for dereliction of duty, some of them would have been fired and even possibly investigated for complicity.  Even their titular head, Secretary of the Treasury Dillon in his brief appearance before them was treated with kid gloves, actually calling on LBJ regarding providing requested documents.  Then he/they waited them out.  Just like Angleton preferred to do at the CIA.

A little more from Survivor's Guilt on what "normal procedure" would have entailed.  

"Michael W Torina, Chief inspector of the Secret Service, stated Two Years before the assassination that whenever a presidential motorcade must slow down for a turn, the entire intersection must be checked in advance."  Is one cop on the corner and one on each end of the railroad overpass checking it out in advance?  Would the entire intersection include at least a cursory inspection of the buildings around it?  "The position of Secret Service Chief Inspector was very influential: it was Torina himself who completed the Secret Service's Manual".  Torina contributed significantly to a book by William Hyde, written in 1962, in which it stated, "If the President is to appear in a parade, agent and policemen are assigned posts atop buildings on the street along the parade route.  If, exceptionally large (or possibly hostile?) crowds are expected...the Secret Service may call upon the Armed Services to station troops along the line of march".  Done many times before.  Locked and loaded, ready willing and able to deploy early that morning 100 miles away.  Told to stand down, under protest, by who?  

"Author Jim Bishop, who interviewed Chief Rowley and William Greer , among others, wrote "Every street the President planned to traverse in each city had to be 'sanitized' long in advance by agents...".  

"Inspector Thomas Kelly also noted the Secret Service's concern regarding warehouses, even those that were partially occupied."

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

David, this document is what the Secret Service told the Warren Omission After the assassination.  They were in a cover up mode, just like 30 years later when the ARRB came calling, they had failed to do their job.  They also knew that in a real investigation, with cross examination, they would have been investigated for dereliction of duty, some of them would have been fired and even possibly investigated for complicity.  Even their titular head, Secretary of the Treasury Dillon in his brief appearance before them was treated with kid gloves, actually calling on LBJ regarding providing requested documents.  Then he/they waited them out.  Just like Angleton preferred to do at the CIA.

A little more from Survivor's Guilt on what "normal procedure" would have entailed.  

"Michael W Torina, Chief inspector of the Secret Service, stated Two Years before the assassination that whenever a presidential motorcade must slow down for a turn, the entire intersection must be checked in advance."  Is one cop on the corner and one on each end of the railroad overpass checking it out in advance?  Would the entire intersection include at least a cursory inspection of the buildings around it?  "The position of Secret Service Chief Inspector was very influential: it was Torina himself who completed the Secret Service's Manual".  Torina contributed significantly to a book by William Hyde, written in 1962, in which it stated, "If the President is to appear in a parade, agent and policemen are assigned posts atop buildings on the street along the parade route.  If, exceptionally large (or possibly hostile?) crowds are expected...the Secret Service may call upon the Armed Services to station troops along the line of march".  Done many times before.  Locked and loaded, ready willing and able to deploy early that morning 100 miles away.  Told to stand down, under protest, by who?  

"Author Jim Bishop, who interviewed Chief Rowley and William Greer , among others, wrote "Every street the President planned to traverse in each city had to be 'sanitized' long in advance by agents...".  

"Inspector Thomas Kelly also noted the Secret Service's concern regarding warehouses, even those that were partially occupied."

Ron- thanks! Please see:

BUILDING ROOFTOPS WERE REGULARLY GUARDED DURING THE JFK ERA! ALSO, THE SECRET SERVICE WAS BOSS, NOT JFK

NOTE: THERE ARE A LOT OF IMAGES HERE IN THIS JUST-POSTED BLOG (EVEN SOME VIDEOS), BUT I CAN NEVER POST THEM HERE- THEY ARE ALWAYS TOO BIG.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 7:36 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Welcome Vince.

Keep it coming.  Your work on the route change was really good I think.  Its got DVP in a panic.

Hi, Jim!

Thanks (I am loving the new edition of your book!)

PLEASE SEE:

BUILDING ROOFTOPS WERE REGULARLY GUARDED DURING THE JFK ERA! ALSO, THE SECRET SERVICE WAS BOSS, NOT JFK

^Just posted/ created--many rare images and videos.

 

Vince

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted January 20, 2005

Above is the second post of the earliest Ed Forum thread on the motorcade route.  Ralph Yarborough to Jerry Bruno at their first meeting for the Texas trip:  They (LBJ and Connally) would be "after [Texas argot for kill] Kennedy in a minute if they thought they could get away with it."

In John Simkin's first post, Evelyn Lincoln remembers JFK saying to her after a John Connally visit, "He (JBC) sure seemed anxious for me to go to Texas."  The President smelled a rat on the governor from the start.  That's why he made sure Lyin' Lyndon's boy rode in the car with the President.

Bruno, as White House advanceman, went to Texas twice when the Trade Mart luncheon in Dallas was nailed down, 10/29/63 and 11/6/63.

When JBC and Bruno had a lunch meeting in Texas about the upcoming trip, and Bruno was still objecting about the Trade Mart, John Con had a hissy fit.  He got up (right at the start of lunch!), stormed to the phone, "called the White House", and made a big production about chewing out Kenny O'Donnell on the other end.  Then Gov. Connally came back to the flustered, dumbfounded Jerry Bruno and said it was all settled.  Problem is, after the assassination, the White House denied the JBC phone call.  Phony phone calls were a hallmark of the Texas Duo, LBJ and JBC.  LBJ did the same thing on Air Force One when he said Bobby insisted he take the oath of office before leaving Love Field.

Jim Phelps has it that the big Women's Building at the State Fairground was used by the big Pepsi bottlers convention that weekend.  The one that Joan Crawford and Richard Nixon went to.  It would be interesting to know when Pepsi reserved that venue.

This thread would be better named, "Who chose..." or "Who demanded..." the Trade Mart, hence the fatal parade route.  And that Who is obviously John Connally, who used every subterfuge until he got his way.  And there can be no doubt that he was doing the bidding of his perfidious partner, LBJ.

 

Happy birthday yesterday to our First Citizen, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.  You're 101.  Feeling good?  Feeling spry?

Edited by Roy Wieselquist
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...