Moments Leading to Oswald's Deserved Death

[Bill Brown]

 

"Grammer said..."

 

That's the entire problem.  Grammer didn't "say" anything until the late 80's.

 

[Bob Ness]

3 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

That's the entire problem.  Grammer didn't "say" anything until the late 80's.

 

In terms of the trial against Ruby, yes. Regarding the subject of the JFKA, no. Clearly this is an example of important information the prosecution withheld at the time of the trial. Not surprisingly, Grammer revealed it after his pension was secure. In regard to Ruby's trial and a potential murder conspiracy there are no limitations as these are capital crimes.

It looks a lot like Curry was well aware of an ambush of LHO and Ruby was trying to get out of it, possibly because he was being forced into it in some way. Whether it was a "Texas Trial" or not, Grammer's story, which at one time had corroborating sources apparently, was a straight up admission of conspiracy, like it or not.

Under the circumstances, claiming negligence is a triple-gainer into a tea pot. There's no getting around that.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Bob Ness

[Gene Kelly]

3 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"Grammer said..."

 

That's the entire problem.  Grammer didn't "say" anything until the late 80's.

 

Bill

I don't want to try to change your mind or convince you, as you seem fixed on the idea that Grammer waited too long to share his story.  All you assert is that his story only publicly surfaced with the 1988 documentary ... but we don't know whether he had shared that story prior with others (I suspect he did).  He was a long-time DPD officer (32 years) and retired in 1986 ... if I were in his shoes, I would've concluded that I did my job, informed my superiors, and therefore let the chips fall where they may. Why would he want to publicly embarrass the DPD, or go against the grain of the "official" story?  He wasn't the only person/group to have been warned early that morning ... which is a documented fact. Two years after his retirement, his story became more widely known ... so what?  There are a number of plausible reasons for that, but it would be pure speculation at this point - yours seem to be that he fabricated his story - why do you think he "kept quiet"? 

You appear to be cut/pasting dated John McAdams' arguments from 20 years ago ... perhaps you could present a more cogent or original rationale for why we should reject this Grammer story. 

Gene

PS.  No need to reply ..."sea-lioning" with relentless requests for evidence doesn't accomplish anything. 

[Joe Bauer]

56 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

Bill

I don't want to try to change your mind or convince you, as you seem fixed on the idea that Grammer waited too long to share his story.  All you assert is that his story only publicly surfaced with the 1988 documentary ... but we don't know whether he had shared that story prior with others (I suspect he did).  He was a long-time DPD officer (32 years) and retired in 1986 ... if I were in his shoes, I would've concluded that I did my job, informed my superiors, and therefore let the chips fall where they may. Why would he want to publicly embarrass the DPD, or go against the grain of the "official" story?  He wasn't the only person/group to have been warned early that morning ... which is a documented fact. Two years after his retirement, his story became more widely known ... so what?  There are a number of plausible reasons for that, but it would be pure speculation at this point - yours seem to be that he fabricated his story - why do you think he "kept quiet"? 

You appear to be cut/pasting dated John McAdams' arguments from 20 years ago ... perhaps you could present a more cogent or original rationale for why we should reject this Grammer story. 

Gene

PS.  No need to reply ..."sea-lioning" with relentless requests for evidence doesn't accomplish anything. 

Exactly.

Grammer told Curry about the call and his suspicion that it was Jack Ruby who made it before the transfer, right?

What else could Grammer do if Curry tossed the report in the trash?

I love the suggestion that Grammer may have waited until his pension was fixed to tell his tale.

Let me tell you...in my lifetime experience of 71 years in America a person's pension is one of the top priorities of their life. Seriously, it is.

I could easily believe Grammer not wanting to endanger his pension as a main reason for not sharing his story publicly until after 1986.

If Grammer did inform Curry of the Oswald transfer threat call and mentioned Jack Ruby as the caller, Curry kept this fact from everyone the rest of his life.

Obviously because if it became known he ignored his internal staff Ruby threat warning...he looks even more negligent and responsible for his department's complete Oswald security failure.

AND, it would throw any trial of Jack Ruby into indefensible chaos as well.

 

 

Edited February 16, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Bob Ness]

2 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

I don't want to try to change your mind or convince you, as you seem fixed on the idea that Grammer waited too long to share his story. 

There is no "waited too long" in a capital offense prosecution. That's what the Innocence Project is about (even though it wasn't around then). If DoJ or anyone else chooses to let it go that doesn't invalidate the statements Grammer made after the fact that could have provided important context to Ruby's actions, should he claim he was coerced or something.

We don't know this of course but if it's true Ruby called and gave the DPD the head's up that he was going to be there with a gun to shoot LHO, they could have prevented him from entering the building and given Ruby cover for being apprehended prior to the shooting. Curry's trashing of the report (if true) speaks to his possible involvement in purposely leading LHO to his death for reasons unknown, but not difficult to divine down to a few probabilities.

Most of those aren't very innocent, obviously.  Grammer's statements were unambiguous, but Bill dispenses with them in the usual way.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Bob Ness

[Bill Brown]

9 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Bill

I don't want to try to change your mind or convince you, as you seem fixed on the idea that Grammer waited too long to share his story.  All you assert is that his story only publicly surfaced with the 1988 documentary ... but we don't know whether he had shared that story prior with others (I suspect he did).  He was a long-time DPD officer (32 years) and retired in 1986 ... if I were in his shoes, I would've concluded that I did my job, informed my superiors, and therefore let the chips fall where they may. Why would he want to publicly embarrass the DPD, or go against the grain of the "official" story?  He wasn't the only person/group to have been warned early that morning ... which is a documented fact. Two years after his retirement, his story became more widely known ... so what?  There are a number of plausible reasons for that, but it would be pure speculation at this point - yours seem to be that he fabricated his story - why do you think he "kept quiet"? 

You appear to be cut/pasting dated John McAdams' arguments from 20 years ago ... perhaps you could present a more cogent or original rationale for why we should reject this Grammer story. 

Gene

PS.  No need to reply ..."sea-lioning" with relentless requests for evidence doesn't accomplish anything. 

 

I'm not copy and pasting jack dooky.

 

Any posts I make are my own words unless I give proper credit.

 

Edited February 16, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

Obviously because if it became known he ignored his internal staff Ruby threat warning...he looks even more negligent and responsible for his department's complete Oswald security failure.

I've come to a pretty solid conclusion it wasn't a "security failure". Too much weighs against it. Protecting him should have been easy.

[Joe Bauer]

8 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

I've come to a pretty solid conclusion it wasn't a "security failure". Too much weighs against it. Protecting him should have been easy.

Was the alleged Ruby call-in to DPD dispatcher Grammer tape recorded?

Or didn't they do that back in 1963?

Edited February 16, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

Was the alleged Ruby call-in to DPD dispatcher Grammer tape recorded?

Or didn't they do that back in 1963?

I doubt it Joe. Pretty high tech for then. I suspect tape recorders were viewed by police then much like body cams now. It doesn't benefit them to have evidence of possible malfeasance and it's not needed for a conviction. They can just claim anything they like and 60 years later people are still defending their assertions, regardless of veracity. Oswald's statements for instance are taken to be gospel by many around here and yet are not even his statements. 

[Gene Kelly]

Joe

The calls to the Sherrif's office and FBI were documented, and records can be found in the following links:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0226b.htm 

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0278b.htm

It's not a stretch to surmise that the authorities were getting all kinds of calls that night, from all over the country. Many of the calls were aimed at the authorities themselves (not Oswald), and one would not expect them to recommend that the authorities ‘protect’ Oswald by changing their plans to move him. That is what makes the tenor of the ostensible Ruby calls more intriguing. What's interesting about the one to the Sherrif's Office at 2:15 am is that the caller stated that "they" (the group who had decided to kill Oswald during the transfer) didn't want any of the Sherrif's deputies to be hurt ... that smacks of Jack Ruby, who personally knew many of the officers in Dallas.  Also, the FBI, Dallas Police and Sherrif's Office were all communicating with each other throughout the night and early morning.  The FBI call was taken at 2:30 am by one Vernon Glosser:

"At 2:30 AM I received a telephone call at the office of the Dallas FBI from an unknown male who spoke in a calm voice and asked, "I would like to talk to the man in charge. I told the caller that the SAC was not present at that time asked him if someone else could help him. The caller then said, "Wait a minute," and apparently turned the phone over to another man. I am not certain there were two different voices, however, the tone of the unknown caller's voice changed somewhat at this point. The voice at this point was calm and mature in sound and this person stated as follows: "I represent a committee that is nether right nor left wing, and tonight, tomorrow morning, or tomorrow night, we are going to kill the man that killed the president. There will be no excitement and we will kill him. We wanted to be sure and tell the FBI, Police Department, and Sheriff's Office and we will be there, and we will kill him." (24 H 429)

Some speculate that the second individual calling the FBI may have been Ruby's roommate (George Senator) or his attorney (Tom Howard), both of whom visited Ruby in jail that day. Later that night, Bill Hunter of the Long Beach Press Telegram and Jim Koethe of the Dallas Times Herald interviewed George Senator along with Ruby's attorney Tom Howard. Senator had allowed those three individuals to search Ruby's apartment. In April 1964, Hunter was shot dead by a policeman in the pressroom of a Long Beach police station.  Jim Koethe was also murdered in September 1964 by a man who broke into his Dallas apartment and killed him by a karate chop to the throat. Tom Howard died of a suspicious heart-attack in March 1965.

Gene

[Joe Bauer]

So now we have "two" Oswald threat call-ins to both the Sheriff's office and the FBI?

Was Grammer a Sheriff or a Dallas PD officer?

But let me get some clarification here.

As Gene notes there were probably dozens if not hundreds of calls coming into the authorities threatening Oswald.

Maybe even many others blaming Dallas for JFK's death?

So, what made Grammer feel that this one Oswald threat call-in was different or more worthy of taking it all the way to Curry's office?

Surely, there were many other Oswald death threats coming in?

Was the reason for pushing this one Oswald threat call all the way up to the Chief's office because Grammer recognized the voice as Jack Ruby?

Or was it that the threat making person knew details about Oswald's transfer that the average nut threat person just could not know?

[Gene Kelly]

Joe

If you read the links and the earlier threads I sent, there were three separate calls ... the first to DPD (and Grammer), then the Sherrif's Office (McCoy) and finally the FBI.  Therse occurred between 2am and 2:30 am early that morning.   The caller - whom the officials stated sounded identical or was the same person - was putting all the protective agencies on notice:  

There will be no excitement and we will kill him. We wanted to be sure and tell the FBI, Police Department, and Sheriff's Office and we will be there, and we will kill him." (24 H 429)

Grammer was a DPD officer for 32 years, where he retired from (as a Lieutenant) in 1986.  My read of him is that he did his job (as a night office communicator), properly informed his superior (Lieut. Putnam) and they took it to Chief Curry who appeared to dismiss it, but then later recommended some additional precautions, which Captain Fritz disagreed with.  That all happened after Grammer's night shift ...and he later learned of Oswald's murder while at home watching television.  

In Henry Hurt's 1985 book "Reasonable Doubt" - published prior to the aforementioned documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" - Billy Grammer's story is told.  So, contrary to what the naysayers assert, this was already in the public domain prior to 1988:

"Grammer said that when he asked the caller who he was, he replied, "I can't tell you that, but you know me." The caller also said, "We are going to kill Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement tomorrow." and urged that DPD change their schedule. Grammer reported the call to the watch officer, Lieutenant Putnam, who told him to type up a report. He did so and the two of them brought it to Chief Curry's office." 

Gene

[Bill Brown]

3 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

Joe

If you read the links and the earlier threads I sent, there were three separate calls ... the first to DPD (and Grammer), then the Sherrif's Office (McCoy) and finally the FBI.  Therse occurred between 2am and 2:30 am early that morning.   The caller - whom the officials stated sounded identical or was the same person - was putting all the protective agencies on notice:  

There will be no excitement and we will kill him. We wanted to be sure and tell the FBI, Police Department, and Sheriff's Office and we will be there, and we will kill him." (24 H 429)

Grammer was a DPD officer for 32 years, where he retired from (as a Lieutenant) in 1986.  My read of him is that he did his job (as a night office communicator), properly informed his superior (Lieut. Putnam) and they took it to Chief Curry who appeared to dismiss it, but then later recommended some additional precautions, which Captain Fritz disagreed with.  That all happened after Grammer's night shift ...and he later learned of Oswald's murder while at home watching television.  

In Henry Hurt's 1985 book "Reasonable Doubt" - published prior to the aforementioned documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" - Billy Grammer's story is told.  So, contrary to what the naysayers assert, this was already in the public domain prior to 1988:

"Grammer said that when he asked the caller who he was, he replied, "I can't tell you that, but you know me." The caller also said, "We are going to kill Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement tomorrow." and urged that DPD change their schedule. Grammer reported the call to the watch officer, Lieutenant Putnam, who told him to type up a report. He did so and the two of them brought it to Chief Curry's office." 

Gene

 

You seem confused.

 

Your quote above (from Hurt's book) doesn't mention Grammer saying the caller was Jack Ruby.

 

It appears to me that you guys lack critical thinking skills.

 

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, Gene Kelly said:

Grammer said that when he asked the caller who he was, he replied, "I can't tell you that, but you know me." The caller also said, "We are going to kill Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement tomorrow." and urged that DPD change their schedule. Grammer reported the call to the watch officer, Lieutenant Putnam, who told him to type up a report. He did so and the two of them brought it to Chief Curry's office." 

Gene

Gene, so there were even more detailed aspects of the callers message.

He said "in the basement tomorrow." ?  That's a bombshell.

So, again, was it the specific logistical details in the call-in message that prompted Grammer and Putman to make a report of the call and take it directly to their Chief? Details 99.999% of other threat makers wouldn't know?

Did Grammer also mention his belief that the caller was Jack Ruby to Chief Curry?

The caller says to Grammer ( after Grammer asks who he is ) "I can't tell you that but you know me." ???

Again, mind blowing.

Now, the FBI certainly taped their calls back then.

Just another tid-bit they withheld from the Warren Commission?

Edited February 16, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

It appears to me that you guys lack critical thinking skills.

Wanna make sure I got this right. Somebody calls saying they're going to kill Oswald in the garage tomorrow. Oswald gets killed in the garage as stated in the message and Ruby is the one to do it. Later, one of the DPD said it sounded like Ruby whom he knew. And that leads you to believe it wasn't Ruby who called?

And "you guys" lack critical thinking skills? That's your conclusion? Who should we call in to figure out this big mystery?

Pretty thin thread you're hanging by Bill.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Bob Ness