Jump to content
The Education Forum

TSBD Rear Exit


Recommended Posts

The one reliable (not Holt) report I am aware of of someone holding false identification (Secret Service) relates to Roy Hargraves....the details on that are in SWHT and are also cited in Tipping Point.  Both Noel Twyman and I researched the report...given to the FBI...and verified it to our sataisfactions (at least). 

The only thing I can think of is that the mystery men were there to cover (even if by taking into custody) individuals exiting the rear of the building...but they showed up to late and the individual had already left. At that point they could easily have faded back into the crowd.

Should Harkness have checked the ID....probably not a thing in 1963, a more trusting time.  Of course he was not the only officer shown ID which was not really checked .e.g the encounter behind the fence with the man with ID and dirty fingernails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

 

The only thing I can think of is that the mystery men were there to cover (even if by taking into custody) individuals exiting the rear of the building...but they showed up to late and the individual had already left. At that point they could easily have faded back into the crowd.

 

Larry,

It occurred to me that they might have been there to "observe and report",

'Red Rover 1 to Red Rover 2"

"The pigeon has flown the coop".

"Over"

Steve Thomas

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Normally that sort of thing is done much more covertly and at a distance and by single overwatch observers.  The last thing you want is a challenge or somebody remembering something suspicious.  This sounds like something much more operational and where you had a role in mind that might require multiple people for an operational task...as well as to intimidate law enforcement if necessary.

Anybody doing overwatch should have been there from before the shooting and remained well afterwards...not coming and going as described.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is somewhat off topic, but I've often wondered if the motorcycle officer who peels off from the other riders and continues straight onto the Elm St. extension (this can be seen in Zapruder frames 17 to 27) has ever been identified. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I'm beating a dead horse here regarding Carr but I finally found a good picture of the courts building under construction.  I'm guessing the stairs stick out at least 8-10'.  Would it have made a difference in his ability to see in the third window from the east of the TSBD?  IDK.  Food for thought.

Looking at the picture this time I noticed the stairs face north south.  So he would have been looking towards the TSBD and Dealy Plaza for half of each flight of stairs.  Going up and coming down.  With the crowds then the parade itself he had to be aware of what was happening below.

Well darn.  It's not enlarged when I copy it.

Here's the link to the picture.  If anyone cares to see more detail.  Click the magnifying glass icon to enlarge.

high_res (1500×1208) (unt.edu)

high_res  

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It becomes a matter of angles as to what he could see, but beyond that its hard to get away from the issue of the level of detail he could have seen given that he claimed to be able to identify the man on the street - because of the glasses, clothing and appearance he recalled from having observed him in the TSBD window at the time of the shooting. This photo certainly does give some insight into that claim since it provides some sense of the distance involved.

Beyond that there are issues with how his story surfaced and evolved -  because of his sensational claims (which he did not report to the FBI) the FBI did devote some serous time to this story once they became aware of it:

ptions: View Full Header |  View Printable Version  | Download this as a file| Add to Addressbook  | View Message details  | View as HTML  |  Block Sender  
 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15_fu14OjpkaoKcKmPGvLLZ_sq_Vu5Gft/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x5CSb_4adaqVvLCUYQiAs9l4kEa3krzZ/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wABM3-FbGoLeTO2dCnrJhz7FuVhisStm/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-tQfcrREIpzozA8UUNDFPK2DXNTfnauO/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16D4OhytmMOksvH13jWPpyaXH1hDCMQy5/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RQgEXxYUja4x8MKvA90FKvQNcbEWaI_t/view?usp=sharing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

It becomes a matter of angles as to what he could see, but beyond that its hard to get away from the issue of the level of detail he could have seen given that he claimed to be able to identify the man on the street - because of the glasses, clothing and appearance he recalled from having observed him in the TSBD window at the time of the shooting. This photo certainly does give some insight into that claim since it provides some sense of the distance involved.

Beyond that there are issues with how his story surfaced and evolved -  because of his sensational claims (which he did not report to the FBI) the FBI did devote some serous time to this story once they became aware of it:

ptions: View Full Header |  View Printable Version  | Download this as a file| Add to Addressbook  | View Message details  | View as HTML  |  Block Sender  
 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15_fu14OjpkaoKcKmPGvLLZ_sq_Vu5Gft/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x5CSb_4adaqVvLCUYQiAs9l4kEa3krzZ/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wABM3-FbGoLeTO2dCnrJhz7FuVhisStm/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-tQfcrREIpzozA8UUNDFPK2DXNTfnauO/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16D4OhytmMOksvH13jWPpyaXH1hDCMQy5/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RQgEXxYUja4x8MKvA90FKvQNcbEWaI_t/view?usp=sharing

Thanks once again Larry.  These links make it obvious the FBI was concerned about Carr. 

That first one is interesting, "he should be re contacted and an appropriate signed statement taken . . . allegations by Carr should be specifically repudiated."

Then in the last link, from Penn Jones, the entire quote is well worth reading and more convincing in it's entirety but, "if he did not see Oswald shoot out of the 6th floor window he better keep his damn mouth shut."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt Carr was taken seriously at first, especially since his statement was so sensational - but as I noted earlier though, unlike Ed Hoffman who did go to the FBI or or even Lee Bowers or Sam Holland (both who brought up suspicious things and did tell their stories to law enforcement) Carr waited to bring his story up anecdotally during a job interview (so he didn't report it nor did he keep his mouth shut). 

There is no doubt the FBI seriously needed to deal with a self declared after the fact witness who was circulating a story contradicting Oswald as a lone actor. However that doesn't make his story true, any more than others such as Hicks.  All of which leads us back to the basic question of whether he actually could have seen the details he later described in regard to a man in the TSBD window. Details which even allowed him to identify the man later, on the street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still have to question the testimony and statements of all the back door witnesses. 

A few corroborate each other.  Some saw nothing.  Worrell and Carr say they saw someone or more rush out.  Others contradict them, they saw nothing and should have if such happened, Barnett, Romack.  

I still don't see how Worrell and Barnett could not have seen each other.

This and more make me wonder in light of other witness stories if theirs were coached, edited or if some might have been intimidated.  It is clear that such happened to others in multiple cases.  From the DPD, FBI and Secret Service (e.g. Emer Moore - Dr. Perry, Vicki Adams...), to the Warren Omission itself.

Would Officer Barrett have gone along with the DPD/FBI/SS official version of what he saw, no matter what he did see?  He and others should have been grilled in more depth.  Too many details left unanswered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A perfect summary Ron, and unfortunately this is all much the same as when I left it years ago.  Anyone claiming to have been observing when the two women came out had to have seen them and should have remarked on them.  As usual I tend to stay with anyone who can be documented as having been there and add points for anyone who saw something suspicious at the time and reported it.  All of which seem to leave me at least with Worrell....and then people showing up there later for the DPD officer encounter who are really questionable. I'm not sure about coaching but we certainly have seen people insert themselves into this story well after the fact for a variety of reasons.  So how would you rate Worrell at this point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

A perfect summary Ron, and unfortunately this is all much the same as when I left it years ago.  Anyone claiming to have been observing when the two women came out had to have seen them and should have remarked on them.  As usual I tend to stay with anyone who can be documented as having been there and add points for anyone who saw something suspicious at the time and reported it.  All of which seem to leave me at least with Worrell....and then people showing up there later for the DPD officer encounter who are really questionable. I'm not sure about coaching but we certainly have seen people insert themselves into this story well after the fact for a variety of reasons.  So how would you rate Worrell at this point?

Not like Duke Lane did.  I think he was there, and he did see someone run out the back.  I do still wonder about other aspects of his statement/testimony.  

Duke concluded he'd made it all up as cover for skipping school.  Everyone he interviewed, friends and family, except his mom, wondered about his story.  No further detail on that I've read yet.  

Worrell said he was skipping school that day to Specter.  After he had already said he Quit going to school in October.  Specter queried him further.  It's clear the 20 year old senior quit in October of his senior year.

I think he was at Elm and Houston because of the detail he provides in his questioning.  Immediate clear answers.  Though one has to question a 4" barrel from 6 floors below.  His looking up, turning and pivoting to run seems like a legitimate fear for his own safety.

As does his pause to breathe and look back from a half block away after the shots stopped.  

Under detailed questioning by Specter he gives a detailed description of the man he saw running out the back door and south on Houston.  A dark sports jacket, non matching (lighter) trousers.  Black hair, Well I will say brunette, a full head of it, his coat was open and flapping in the breeze as he ran.  Imaginative detail for a 20 year old senior drop out?

Did I read many years ago about some one questioning his accidental death in a motorcycle accident in 1966(?).  About a car pulling out in front of him, then taking off when he wrecked?  Probably shouldn't post this last part without looking for info on it.  Maybe it was. . .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2021 at 8:14 PM, Larry Hancock said:

It becomes a matter of angles as to what he could see, but beyond that its hard to get away from the issue of the level of detail he could have seen given that he claimed to be able to identify the man on the street - because of the glasses, clothing and appearance he recalled from having observed him in the TSBD window at the time of the shooting. This photo certainly does give some insight into that claim since it provides some sense of the distance involved.

Beyond that there are issues with how his story surfaced and evolved -  because of his sensational claims (which he did not report to the FBI) the FBI did devote some serous time to this story once they became aware of it:

ptions: View Full Header |  View Printable Version  | Download this as a file| Add to Addressbook  | View Message details  | View as HTML  |  Block Sender  
 


https://drive.google.com/file/d/15_fu14OjpkaoKcKmPGvLLZ_sq_Vu5Gft/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x5CSb_4adaqVvLCUYQiAs9l4kEa3krzZ/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wABM3-FbGoLeTO2dCnrJhz7FuVhisStm/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-tQfcrREIpzozA8UUNDFPK2DXNTfnauO/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16D4OhytmMOksvH13jWPpyaXH1hDCMQy5/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RQgEXxYUja4x8MKvA90FKvQNcbEWaI_t/view?usp=sharing

The first document is from the Director, I. E.:  Hoover, to the SAC DL (Dallas)  dated 1/15/64, a reply to a 1/9 "airtel". Regarding Carr's 1/4 "voluntary" statement, dictated 1/8, dated 1/14.

Hoover want's Carr's allegations "specifically repudiated".  "Carr should be re contacted and an appropriate statement taken."

"... four or five other steel workers witnessed the assassination and Presumably they could Substantiate Carr's statements.

Hoover, director of the FBI was aware of and concerned about Carr in early January 1964.  Likely before.

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly makes since he would need to be "repudiated", especially since he claims he has five other witnesses that would support his story and could confirm someone else other than Oswald was a shooter...you can see it would be a really big deal, especially if he had been able to provide names and bring them into support his claims.

The problem for me is still that I can in no way see how he could have seen the detail of the man in the window from that distance that would allow him to identify him there or later on the street.  I still don't see how the story goes beyond that regardless of what he claimed when?? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Certainly makes since he would need to be "repudiated", especially since he claims he has five other witnesses that would support his story and could confirm someone else other than Oswald was a shooter...you can see it would be a really big deal, especially if he had been able to provide names and bring them into support his claims.

The problem for me is still that I can in no way see how he could have seen the detail of the man in the window from that distance that would allow him to identify him there or later on the street.  I still don't see how the story goes beyond that regardless of what he claimed when?? 

 

 

Did the FBI ask him for the names of the other construction workers?  Did they contact them?  No known record on that, why not, if Hoover was concerned?  

No disrespect for your expertise intended.

But I still wonder about the course of the Carr story, if it's ever been fully explored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2021 at 5:52 PM, Ron Bulman said:

I know I'm beating a dead horse here regarding Carr but I finally found a good picture of the courts building under construction.  I'm guessing the stairs stick out at least 8-10'.  Would it have made a difference in his ability to see in the third window from the east of the TSBD?  IDK.  Food for thought.

Looking at the picture this time I noticed the stairs face north south.  So he would have been looking towards the TSBD and Dealy Plaza for half of each flight of stairs.  Going up and coming down.  With the crowds then the parade itself he had to be aware of what was happening below.

Well darn.  It's not enlarged when I copy it.

Here's the link to the picture.  If anyone cares to see more detail.  Click the magnifying glass icon to enlarge.

high_res (1500×1208) (unt.edu)

high_res  

I love this photo.

You get an elightened new perspective of Elm street as it drops down on a much steeper downgrade than almost every other 11,22,1963 Dealey Plaza photo shows.

It really drops down a lot. 

To me, this specific downward dropping dynamic would make it even harder for a rifle shooter from the Depository as far as lining up the head shot because his target is moving not just away from him but also downward. He would have to adjust his scope sight line to accomodate both of these target moving dynamics.

Try having your almost a football field distance target move that much while aiming.

Getting a perfect bullseye on such a moving 10 inch wide target is an amazing feat imo.

Also, the red castle tower looking building seems closer to the scene than photos taken above the Plaza show.  I think someone working there could definitely see someone in a window of the Texas School Book Depository building.

And remember, the event took place just after noon. The window side of the Depository building is South facing. Which means that the entire face of the depository had the full bright noon time sun illuminating it.

I think this is why Arnold Rowland and Carolyn Walthers could so clearly see a rifle holding man ( ot two according to Walthers ) in the open higher floor windows. Let alone Howard Brennan and Amos Euins.

Look at all the 1963 and previous year classic cars on the road behind the memorial. Big finned Cadillac, An Olds, a Chevy Corvair, a VW bug. 

Wish I could go back drive those beauties again. No seat belts?

Edited by Joe Bauer
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...