Jump to content
The Education Forum

I Was A Teenage Warren Commission Report Dupe


Recommended Posts

 

I've mentioned my personal youthful story in this regards several times now and do so once again to explain when and why I first became suspicious of the official JFK assassination event finding.

Like most Americans however, I moved on and began life's journey.  I didn't obsess about the JFK assassination, however, when Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were also struck down by assassin's bullets just 5 years later and their killings were again assigned to lone nut perps by our government, my common sense instincts forced me to begin looking at these similar populist ideology high political leader killings with serious suspicion. Jim Garrison's investigation also intrigued me.

And residing in the same small town as Mae Brussell you couldn't help but catch some of her JFK, MLK and RFK and much broader conspiracy broadcasts on KRML,  just by turning on your car radio. I listened to Brussell off and on but she would exhaust you with her non-stop, high energy, hours long reports.

I believed a fair amount of what Brussell was postulating however, but again I was always so busy making enough income to survive and focusing my time and mental energies to this endeavor, that I didn't get into any deeper examination of our trifecta political leader elimination conspiracy realm until the Oliver Stone film JFK in 1993.

Responding to W. Neiderhut's original post;  when one continually discovers over decades an ever growing body of "thousands" of hard and credibly vetted research facts and testimonies that suggest a JFK conspiracy with far more  logical weight than the almost childish minded simplified "lone gunman" who just got lucky finding , it is truly more rational to consider a conspiracy in this matter versus not.

Trying to find a lone gunman answer to the JFK murder case is becoming more difficult and illogical every extra year with new information continually coming forth that just adds to the mountain of facts suggesting a conspiracy.

Oswald did not just get a lucky window of opportunity and impulsively decide to make his barbaric, murderous social change mark on history.  He was much more thoughtful and disciplined than that imo.  His extra curricular political activities were organized and planned in advance. His radio and TV  appearance in N.O. showed a person who was quite intelligent and coherent and well spoken.  If Oswald did travel to Mexico City, this took coherent planning and disciplined management of what appears to be meager, bare bones funding.

And I also believe Lee Harvey Oswald loved his babies June and Rachel too much to leave them with a potentially horrific life ruining legacy such as he supposedly did.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

12 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

I was 12 the day of JFK's assassination. 

Obviously at that young age your contemplating thoughts about the world around you are naturally limited in scope. 

My thoughts and emotional feelings that day were simply of great but confused and unsettling shock combined with a "first time" great curiosity about an event far removed from my small and relatively innocent childhood world.

Even 12 year olds in America in 1963 had at least some exposure to many forms of national media and JFK and his wife Jackie had by that time become the most media covered celebrity couple in the world.   Their glamorous movie star faces were displayed everywhere on magazine covers ,TV, newspapers, etc.

They had supplanted and far surpassed Liz and Dick, Doris Day and Rock Hudson, Sinatra, Brando, Mantle and Maris, Martin and Lewis, and even Elvis as America's most popular celebrities.

Hearing of JFK's brutal slaughter just inches from his wife's face in broad daylight and in a public place with hundreds of bystanders seeing this,  right in the prime of this JFK and Jackie's world captivating celebrity glory made this event even more shocking. 

Two days after JFK was killed I watched Jack Ruby shoot and kill Lee Oswald live on TV in Dallas's own police department building with dozens of Oswald security police officers just feet away from Ruby.  I literally jumped up from my bed and shouted over and over ..."NO WAY!"  " NO WAY!"  No way Oswald could be killed like that in that situation.

I've mentioned my personal youthful story in this regards several times now and do so once again to explain when and why  I first became suspicious of the official JFK assassination event finding.

Like most Americans however, I moved on and began life's journey.  I didn't obsess about the JFK assassination, however, when Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were also struck down by assassin's bullets just 5 years later and their killings were again assigned to lone nut perps by our government, my common sense instincts forced me to begin looking at these similar populist ideology high political leader killings with serious suspicion. Jim Garrison's investigation also intrigued me.

And residing in the same small town as Mae Brussell you couldn't help but catch some of her JFK, MLK and RFK and much broader conspiracy broadcasts on KRML,  just by turning on your car radio. I listened to Brussell off and on but she would exhaust you with her non-stop, high energy, hours long reports.

I believed a fair amount of what Brussell was postulating however, but again I was always so busy making barely enough income to survive and focusing my time and mental energies to this endeavor, that I didn't get into any deeper examination of our trifecta political leader elimination conspiracy realm until the Oliver Stone film JFK in 1993.

I was never called or looked at as a mentally obsessed JFK conspiracy nut most of life by family or friends or anyone else.  Now however, my wife occasionally mentions that she wonders if I spend too much time on this forum reading and creating posts and interacting with other posters, especially when she comes home from work and finds dishes in the sink, toilet and bathroom haven't been cleaned, garbage hasn't been taken out and I'm still in my underwear in bed with my lap top with Chinese food left over boxes sitting my bed table..

Ha!  Just trying to inject a little humor here.

But seriously responding to W. Neiderhut's original post;  when one continually discovers over decades an ever growing body of "thousands" of hard and credibly vetted research facts and testimonies that suggest a JFK conspiracy with far more  logical weight than the almost childish minded simplified "lone gunman" who just got lucky finding , it is truly more rational to consider a conspiracy in this matter than not.

Trying to find a lone gunman answer to the JFK murder case is just becoming more difficult and illogical every extra year with new information continually coming forth that just adds to the mountain of facts suggesting a conspiracy.

Oswald did not just get a lucky window of opportunity and impulsively decide to make his barbaric, murderous social change mark on history.  He was much more thoughtful and disciplined than that imo.  His extra curricular political activities were organized and planned in advance. His radio and TV  appearance in N.O. showed a person who was quite intelligent and coherent and well spoken.  If Oswald did travel to Mexico City, this took coherent planning and disciplined management of what appears to be meager, bare bones funding.

And I also believe Lee Harvey Oswald loved his babies June and Rachel too much to leave them with a potentially horrific life ruining legacy such as he supposedly did.

 

 

 

 

Joe, I understand you are in the medical field?  Can you explain why LHO left his ring on the morning of the assassination?  That seems very relevant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cory, no I can't.

However, even if this action on Lee's part was a suicide mission good bye, it doesn't mean he still wasn't part of a larger group of conspirators.

Cory, can you explain Lee Harvey Oswald's statement to the world's press late Friday evening in the Dallas PD  building ..."I didn't kill nobody." And " I am just a patsy." ?

Does that sound like someone who wanted to kill JFK for greatness recognition reasons? 

Oswald supposedly told Marina he would have been justified killing General Walker, comparing him to Hitler.

He wouldn't admit to killing Kennedy, but let's say he did. He certainly couldn't compare JFK to Hitler or any other Fascist dictator.

And the man Oswald hated ( General Walker ) hated JFK!

And Oswald didn't target JFK because of JFK's aggressive actions toward Cuba.

Oswald knew JFK held back on an all out assault in the Bay Of Pigs invasion of Cuba and was hated in this country by millions for doing so.

Oswald acting under orders from Cuba to kill JFK also didn't  make sense as Castro knew JFK was trying to improve certain relations with them when JFK was killed.

And Castro would be stuck with a much more extreme anti-Castro military/intelligence agency favoring LBJ.

Oswald told his interrogators that in regards to his possible hate of JFK due to his Cuba policies,  that America's stance against Cuba wouldn't change with LBJ.

There was never any personal, political or ideological anger or hatred ever expressed by Oswald toward JFK according to Oswald's closest confidant for years - Marina Oswald.

The left marriage ring could suggest Oswald knew he might not survive past that day.  It is a powerful emotional statement and action from one spouse, who obviously felt it important to leave in the other spouse's possession. a symbol of his love for her.  But, I don't see this action in and of itself as logically indicating Oswald's guilt as a lone nut assassin.

Oswald's intriguingly curious world press proclamation of being set up as a patsy is as strong an indication of his lone gunman innocence as much as the left ring may be an indication of his lone nut guilt imo.

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

And I also believe Lee Harvey Oswald loved his babies June and Rachel too much to leave them with a potentially horrific life ruining legacy such as he supposedly did.

Joe,

 

A lot of people want to point to the fact that Oswald left a bunch of money behind on the dresser as evidence of his guilt.

The thing that has always stuck in my memory is that one of the last things Oswald supposedly told Marina; was to make sure that baby June got some shoes.

That's something I just can't shake.

 

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting thread. I often wonder how people first got into in the JFK assassination and how their thinking evolved as they began to learn more about it. It was one of the reasons I read Mr. Litwin's book. Even if I don't agree with his current conclusion, it might have been enlightening to understand what originally made him think there was a conspiracy, and what happened to change his mind. There's little of that in his book, unfortunately. So, I'm enjoying reading the stories of others describing their intellectual journey regarding this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Cory, no I can't.

However, even if this action on Lee's part was a suicide mission good bye, it doesn't mean he still wasn't part of a larger group of conspirators.

Cory, can you explain Lee Harvey Oswald's statement to the world's press late Friday evening in the Dallas PD  building ..."I didn't kill nobody." And " I am just a patsy." ?

Does that sound like someone who wanted to kill JFK for greatness recognition reasons? 

Oswald supposedly told Marina he would have been justified killing General Walker, comparing him to Hitler.

He wouldn't admit to killing Kennedy, but let's say he did. He certainly couldn't compare JFK to Hitler or any other Fascist dictator.

And the man Oswald hated ( General Walker ) hated JFK!

And Oswald didn't target JFK because of JFK's aggressive actions toward Cuba.

Oswald knew JFK held back on an all out assault in the Bay Of Pigs invasion of Cuba and was hated in this country by millions for doing so.

Oswald acting under orders from Cuba to kill JFK also didn't  make sense as Castro knew JFK was trying to improve certain relations with them when JFK was killed.

And Castro would be stuck with a much more extreme anti-Castro military/intelligence agency favoring LBJ.

Oswald told his interrogators that in regards to his possible hate of JFK due to his Cuba policies,  that America's stance against Cuba wouldn't change with LBJ.

There was never any personal, political or ideological anger or hatred ever expressed by Oswald toward JFK according to Oswald's closest confidant for years - Marina Oswald.

The left marriage ring could suggest Oswald knew he might not survive past that day.  It is a powerful emotional statement and action from one spouse, who obviously felt it important to leave in the other spouse's possession. a symbol of his love for her.  But, I don't see this action in and of itself as logically indicating Oswald's guilt as a lone nut assassin.

Oswald's intriguingly curious world press confession of being set up as a patsy is as strong an indication of his lone gunman innocence as much as the left ring may be an indication of his lone nut guilt imo.

 

LHO had motive to shoot Connelly. As for what he told the police, you don’t think he could lie?  Nutty people do nutty things. 

In addition, if he was innocent why did he return to his boarding house and get a gun. That is a fact. If he went home and watched tv that is one thing but he got a gun and left. He was far from being clueless that day. He was involved in something and knew something. His actions show that. 

Edited by Cory Santos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Joe, I understand you are in the medical field?  Can you explain why LHO left his ring on the morning of the assassination?  That seems very relevant. 

All of the evidence against “Lee Harvey Oswald” is phony.

If Marina really saw her husband’s wedding ring on top of their bedroom dresser, why wasn’t it found by the Dallas cops who searched Ruth Paine’s house?

Why was the ring not listed on the original police inventory of Oswald’s possessions?

Why was the ring not photographed with all the other Oswald possessions at the Dallas Police Headquarters the evening of November 22?

Why was the ring not listed even in the vastly expanded joint Dallas Police/FBI inventory of Oswald’s so-called possessions made on November 26, 1963?

Edited by Jim Hargrove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2018 at 12:54 AM, W. Niederhut said:

It's the true story of a naive guy who grew up in America in the 1960s and 70s believing that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a lone nut in the Texas School Book Depository, named Lee Harvey Oswald

A similar description could be given for literally millions of young people at the time. I applaud your introspection and your pursuit of your questions. I think your journey has also been experienced by...if not millions, at least, thousands.. of people who grew up accepting the word of official USA. It took 99 years for people to learn that the SS Lusitania was actually loaded with armaments and a fiction that it was merely a passenger vessel. It took less time, but a similar result, to find that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution (supported by a unanimous Senate and all but 2 Representatives) was based on a lie. It took much less time to learn that the invasion of Iraq was based on a lie or that the government could be involved in an end run around the law with the Iran-Contra shenanigans. If I am surprised by anything now, it is the lack of urgency one senses in the public for a confrontation over the 9/11 deception. Similar to the intent of the Warren Commission, it clouded the truth. As I mentioned in another thread, at least after 17 years with JFK, we had books, investigations by Garrison, the House Report and the Church report that helped establish an understanding of a deep - or secret - government at work. It is almost as if it is considered useless to try and understand. The work of Griffen and Wood and Marshall and  Bollyn have helped, but so little discussion, it is depressing.

Edited by Robert Harper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

LHO had motive to shoot Connelly. As for what he told the police, you don’t think he could lie?  Nutty people do nutty things. 

In addition, if he was innocent why did he return to his boarding house and get a gun. That is a fact. If he went home and watched tv that is one thing but he got a gun and left. He was far from being clueless that day. He was involved in something and knew something. His actions show that. 

If Oswald wanted to kill Connelly instead of JFK, why didn't Oswald fire into Connelly's face when the limo was coming up Houston St.? No obstructions, no other path except going in an almost straight line toward Oswald, so little chance of a quick escape.

Where's your evidence that Oswald was nutty?

As for your question about why Oswald would get his handgun, I believe very few CT's argue that Oswald was not involved in the assassination in any way. He likely returned to his boarding house to get his gun because he knew plans had already gone awry. That's the way it looks to me. Look at the official version of Oswald's alleged escape route. Do you see the path of a man genuinely trying to make an escape? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hargrove brings up a good point, the whole ring thing was not  a first day discovery, it was later.

The money left was an accumulating amount, not a dump.

As per why did he get his handgun, I think that Oswald now began to realize--with him being in that building, the motorcade passing, and the shooting, and considering who he really was--that uh oh, something may be up.

And let us not forget, there is no evidentiary trail for the handgun in evidence today being ever picked up by Oswald at REA. Just take a look at what Hill and Westbrook did with that weapon.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Robert Harper said:

A similar description could be given for literally millions of young people at the time. I applaud your introspection and your pursuit of your questions. I think your journey has also been experienced by...if not millions, at least, thousands.. of people who grew up accepting the word of official USA. It took 99 years for people to learn that the SS Lusitania was actually loaded with armaments and a fiction that it was merely a passenger vessel. It took less time, but a similar result, to find that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution (supported by a unanimous Senate and all but 2 Representatives) was based on a lie. It took much less time to learn that the invasion of Iraq was based on a lie or that the government could be involved in an end run around the law with the Iran-Contra shenanigans. If I am surprised by anything now, it is the lack of urgency one senses in the public for a confrontation over the 9/11 deception. Similar to the intent of the Warren Commission, it clouded the truth. As I mentioned in another thread, at least after 17 years with JFK, we had books, investigations by Garrison, the House Report and the Church report that helped establish an understanding of a deep - or secret - government at work. It is almost as if it is considered useless to try and understand. The work of Griffen and Wood and Marshall and  Bollyn have helped, but so little discussion, it is depressing.

True realities that most of our country's citizens ( for many reasons ) don't know about, think about or care about.

I just saw and read an article about an old English woman ( maybe over 100 years old? ) who was employed at a very young adult age in Britain's secret German code deciphering program during W.W.II.

She said she still knows secrets that she will take to her grave to honor the secrecy vow she took in her position back in the 1940's.

Secrets of great national and even world significance definitely can be ( and are ) kept as secrets successfully...sometimes forever.

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is great, thank you. I feel privileged to be able to post and interact with people so knowledgeable and with authors who names grace my bookshelves this very moment. The JFK assassination remains of interest to me because it seems like no matter how many books or articles or posts I read, I always find out something I didn't know before. It's such a complex case with so many characters and that requires studying minutia as well as trying to grasp the larger picture in order to piece together the truth. It's also endlessly fascinating to me how intelligent people can look at the same set of evidence and draw such radically different conclusions.

I guess it's only fair that I should share my own story, since I enjoy reading how other people's opinions on this subject have evolved over time.

I was born nearly a decade after the assassination, and I grew up with the lone assassin story as the official history. There were only two books my parents had in the house that addressed it. One I think was called "Lincoln/Kennedy", I'm not sure of the author. As I recall, it was a fairly thin book recounting the two assassinations, had illustrations and pictures, and supported the Lone Nut story. I paged through it and read a bit, but it wasn't that interesting to me as a child. The other book that we had (and I still have) was "The Unanswered Questions About President Kennedy's Assassination" by Sylvan Fox. It had no illustrations, so as a kid I had even less interest in it than I did "Lincoln/Kennedy." I have a vague memory of seeing part of the 1978 TV movie "Ruby & Oswald" at one time, but had no clue what it was about.

I was in my early 20's when Oliver Stone's "JFK" came out. I saw it on the original release. I thought Stone's film made a solid case for conspiracy, but my family also subscribed to Newsweek and I was an avid reader of the magazine. Newsweek did a fairly sustained anti-"JFK" series of articles at the time, and I suppose they were effective in making me believe that a lot of the stuff in JFK was questionable at best. Stone was also the brunt of a good deal of ridicule in popular culture as well and I was young enough to let that ridicule influence my opinion of Stone's work. Truth be told, the film also presented such a huge wall of information in a relatively short period that I wasn't able to properly absorb it all at the time. In the end, I was still pretty much indifferent to the JFK assassination.

The thing that turned me around, ironically enough, was Gerald Posner's "Case Closed." I checked it out from the library on a whim and read it straight through. I had no problems with his LN recounting of history until the story of the Tippit shooting. It didn't pass the smell test. Would a guy who had just shot the president and made a squeaky-clean getaway just casually walk toward a policeman that called him over to his police car? That's a red flag for me, but maybe it could be explained away as that Oswald didn't want to act too suspicious right at that moment. Okay, then.

But, would a policeman, seeing a person matching the description of the suspect in the killing of the president of the USA, just sit in his patrol car, wave that subject over, and hope that the suspect complies? That doesn't seem plausible and that's a second red flag. But, maybe that can also be explained away as Tippit not wanting to scare the suspect into fleeing. All right, for the sake of argument I can accept that. Yet at this point there is also a third red flag, which is Tippit passing up his first opportunity to call in on his radio and report his location and that he sees a person fitting the description of the suspect being sought.

Again, I can set aside even this third red flag for the sake of argument, because maybe at this point Tippit was still evaluating the situation at hand. That's reasonable.

So, Oswald walks over to Tippit's police car and the two men either exchange a few words through an open car window. Tippit exits his car, possibly reaching for his gun, when Oswald draws his own gun and shoots Tippit dead as Tippit is crossing the front corner of his police car.

Inside that series of events, there's a fourth red flag, and I can't dismiss it as I did the others. I believe, in combination with the other red flags, it's incriminating.

After the conversation with Oswald, Tippit, as indicated by his own subsequent actions, seemed to believe that Oswald either needed more interrogation, investigation, or possibly even apprehension. Whatever their conversation, it clearly did not make Tippit believe that Oswald was a person of no further interest.

So, why did Tippit again not call in to the police station via his radio and report this encounter with a possible presidential assassin after speaking with Oswald? This is his second opportunity to do so, and his second failure to do so. The first failure to call in can be reasonably rationalized as Tippit possibly needing more information before proceeding. But, after the conversation with Oswald, Tippit had this information and it did not exclude Oswald from being a person of interest.

This is where the threads of the LN theory began to unravel for me. I found that the more questions I began to ask, the more uncertain the picture became. Why didn't Oswald have any escape plan? If he killed JFK to "be somebody" and secure his place in history, why did he deny the crime at every opportunity? Why weren't his interrogation sessions recorded? Because there wasn't enough room in the room to have a recording device? Anyone that's seen news footage of that day can see that the narrow hallway outside the interrogation room was crammed with reporters carrying recording equipment, and one recorder couldn't fit in the office? One single stenographer could not be found? Because recording interrogations was just not the way Dallas police did things back then? Please. All this stuff is not conclusive evidence of course, but they're examples of things that just don't pass the smell test.

Later learning that Earlene Roberts reported seeing a police car stop and the driver tap his horn twice outside the boarding house during the few minutes that Oswald was inside was a turning point for me, because it explains why Oswald would be unafraid to calmly approach a police car - he had at least one confederate that was a policeman or was posing as one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Denny.

Syliva Meagher really liked the Sylvan Fox book.  Fox was actually an MSM reporter when he wrote it.

Your comments on the Tippit case are really insightful.

As time goes on, the TIppit case has become more and more problematic.  The work done on that case by people like Simpich, Armstrong, and most of all, Joe McBride, have really magnified all the problems inherent in it.  Add in the huge problem of the wallet at the scene with Oswald's ID--plus that wallet is on film and the WC never found the film?

Today, in light of all this new work, when you read the section in the Warren Report on the Tippit case, it is so bad and incomplete that its hard to keep from laughing.

And BTW, let us never forget another directly related Tippit mystery that I do not think has never been solved: Carl Mather. To my knowledge, during the WC proceedings, the FBI never talked to him. This is a guy who had his license plate on a car with an Oswald double in it a few blocks from the Tippit murder. Then, that afternoon, went to visit Tippit's wife. Plus, he worked 21 years for a CIA proprietary.  

Fishy?  Its a whole aquarium.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denny Zartman.

Just read your JFK event interest history post above.

I find it interesting and refreshingly sincere and rational and thoughtful.

Thanks for posting this.

Yes, the more you read of the research facts and main suspect connected testimonies, you can't help but develop more doubts about this being a simple, impulsive, lone nut who just got lucky act versus a more involved scenario.

Earlene Robert's WC testimony statements about a Dallas police car stopping and horn tapping twice in front of her rooming house just as Oswald was in his room for a minute or two is just one of hundreds of witness testimony statements that sound almost unbelievable in their beyond coincidence intrigue incongruity relative to the simple lone nut official finding.

You'd have to be purposely avoiding or hiding from the full truth not to see something more to Earlene Robert's police car horn honking right in front of her door story just as Oswald arrived and went to his room next to Robert's entrance room. The distance from the curb to Ms. Robert's front door was not far.

 Ms. Roberts could clearly see the car number through the window she walked to and was so familiar with this from prior police car stops she easily and confidently recalled the difference and even recognized the car as specifically different from an "accident squad car."  Pretty credible testimony it appears to me.

Robert's WC testimony below is mind blowing imo.

 

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. Where was it parked ?
Mrs. ROBERTS. It was parked in front of the house.
Mr. BALL. At 1026 North Beckley?
Mrs. ROBERTS. And then they just eased on--the way it is-it was the third house off of Zangs and they just went on around the corner that way.
Mr. BALL. Went around what corner?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Went around the corner off of Beckley on Zangs.
Mr. BALL. Going which way--toward town or away from town?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Toward town.
Dr. GOLDBERG. Which way was the car facing?
Mrs. ROBERTS. It was facing north.
Dr. GOLDBERG. Towards Zangs?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Towards Zangs--for I was the third house right off of Zangs on Beckley.
Mr. BALL. Did this police car stop directly in front of your house?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes--it stopped directly in front of my house and it just "tip-tip" and that's the way Officer Alexander and Charles Burnely would do when they stopped, and I went to the door and looked and saw it wasn't their number.
Mr. BALL. Where was Oswald when this happened?
Mrs. ROBERTS. In his room.
Mr. BALL. It was after he had come in his room?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Had that police car ever stopped there before ?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't know--I don't remember ever seeing it.
Mr. BALL. Have you ever seen it since?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No--I didn't pay that much attention--I just saw it wasn't the police car that I knew and had worked for so, I forgot about it. I seen it at the time, but I don't remember now what it was.
Mr. BALL. Did you report the number of the car to anyone?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I think I did---I'm not sure, because I--at that particular time I remembered it.
Mr. BALL. You remembered the number of the car ?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I think it was--106, it seems to me like it was 106, but I do know what theirs was--it was 170 and it wasn't their car.
Mr. BALL. It was not 170?
Mrs. ROBERTS. The people I worked for was 170.
Mr. BALL. Did you report that number to anyone, did you report this incident to anyone?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes, I told the FBI and the Secret Service both when they was out there.
Mr. BALL. And did you tell them the number of the car?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I'm not sure--I believe I did--I'm not sure. I think I did because there was so much happened then until my brains was in a whirl.
Mr. BALL. On the 29th of November, Special Agents Will Griffin and James Kennedy of the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewed you and you told them that "after Oswald had entered his room about 1 p.m. on November 22, 1963, you looked out the front window and saw police car No. 207?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No. 107.
Mr. BALL. Is that the number?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes--I remembered it. I don't know where I got that 106---207. Anyway, I knew it wasn't 170.
Mr. BALL. And you say that there were two uniformed policemen in the car?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes, and it was in a black car. It wasn't an accident squad car at all.
Mr. BALL. Were there two uniformed policemen in the car?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Oh, yes.
Mr. BALL. And one of the officers sounded the born ?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Just kind of a "tit-tit"--twice.
Mr. BALL. And then drove on to Beckley toward Zangs Boulevard, is that right?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes. I thought there was a number, but I couldn't remember it but I did know the number of their car--I could tell that. I want you to understand that I have been put through the third degree and it's hard to remember.
Mr. BALL. Are there any other questions?
Dr. GOLDBERG. No, that's all. 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

All of the evidence against “Lee Harvey Oswald” is phony.

If Marina really saw her husband’s wedding ring on top of their bedroom dresser, why wasn’t it found by the Dallas cops who searched Ruth Paine’s house?

Why was the ring not listed on the original police inventory of Oswald’s possessions?

Why was the ring not photographed with all the other Oswald possessions at the Dallas Police Headquarters the evening of November 22?

Why was the ring not listed even in the vastly expanded joint Dallas Police/FBI inventory of Oswald’s so-called possessions made on November 26, 1963?

I wish I could go into court and pronounce to the judge “all the evidence against my client your honor is phony and wait for the judge to say case dismissed.”  But in reality it does not work like that. Simply because you can question something, as you did above, does not make it a fact or true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...