Moments Leading to Oswald's Deserved Death

[Michael Griffith]

12 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

And Grammer doesn't mention Jack Ruby to Henry Hurt.  Right?

Yes, Grammer did mention Ruby in this interview with Hurt. He said he believed Ruby was the man who called. I take it you don't have a copy of Hurt's book?

Edited February 17, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Michael Griffith]

I ask again, Why did Ruby go to the Western Union office near the Dallas police HQ building when there was a Western Union office much closer to him, right there in Oak Cliff, at 206 South Zangs Blvd., Oak Cliff? Why? If he was really in such a rush to wire money to Karen Carlin, why did he drive all the way downtown when there was a Western Union office much closer to his residence in Oak Cliff? Why? Obviously, because he was trying to make his Mob-ordered hit on Oswald look like a spontaneous, spur-of-the-moment action driven by his alleged desire to spare Jackie and Caroline a trial.

WC apologists' attacks on Billy Grammer and his account are a sad sight to behold. Here we have a police officer who had no conceivable motive to fabricate an account of a phone call from Ruby, who had a good record as a policeman, and who gave a consistent version of the account every time he was interviewed. But, since his account indicates conspiracy, WC apologists grasp for any lame excuse to reject it.

If Grammer had known Oswald and if Grammer had consistently reported that Oswald called him the night before the assassination and warned that he would shoot JFK if they didn't change the motorcade route, WC apologists would be falling all over themselves to trumpet this account as evidence of Oswald's guilt. They would cite Grammer's good record as a police officer. They would note that Grammer immediately reported the phone call to his superior. Etc., etc., etc. 

Edited February 17, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Joe Bauer]

5 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Joe

There are several reasons for this threat to be taken more seriously, and elevated to Chief Curry ... the caller:

1. first asked for Grammer (by name)
2. described details surrounding Oswald's transfer later that day (i.e., had inside knowledge of police plans)
3. expressed concern for the safety of the officers and personnel in the basement of City Hall
4. didn't want Oswald murdered and (unlike other crank calls) was interested in his safe transfer to the county jail.

As David Josephs and John Armstrong write, "the purpose of Ruby’s phone calls was to provide the police with a reason to transfer Oswald quietly and secretly to the county jail, thereby making it impossible to complete his assignment to kill Oswald during the transfer".  From Hurt's book:

There were numerous crank calls from people threatening Oswald, as well as from people who wanted to offer information. Late in the evening, one of the women on the switchboard received a call from a man who asked her to look around the room and to name the police officers who were there. He explained to her that he wanted to talk to someone that he knew. The woman began telling the caller the names of different men in the communications room. When she named Billy Grammer, the caller stated that he knew Grammer and that he wanted to speak to him.

The caller began speaking of details of the transfer plans that were not known even to Grammer. He motioned for one of his superiors to listen in on the call. Lieutenant Henry Putnam came in on the line and listened. The caller described precise details of the transfer plans. As the man spoke, Grammer did not know whether or not the details were correct. The caller described the decoy vehicle that would be sent out with red lights and sirens and police escorts, only to be followed a little later with the real car containing Oswald.

Hurt goes on to describe how two inspectors from the Dallas Police Department later questioned Billy Grammer about the call ... probably the follow-up Task Force appointed by Chief Curry on November 29th (the same day that Lyndon Johnson appointed the Warren Commission). Initially, they were tasked with finding out how Ruby got into the basement, and whether Ruby and Oswald knew each other. The Task Force was abruptly disbanded six weeks later, when DPD turned over its investigative material to the Texas Attorney General, Waggoner Carr.  Billy Grammer explained to the Task Force the report submitted to Chief Curry, and that Lieutenant Putnam supported his version of events. However, the reported warnings that are in the record - the ones the police concede were ignored - did not include the caller's knowledge of the inside plans for the transfer - which Ruby uniquely had pursued and acquired throughout the weekend - likely because that aspect would've been very damaging to DPD's reputation.

If Ruby were under the control of powers that ordered him to murder Oswald—powerful enough to make him do so—then there was but one way for Ruby to escape his duty. He would have to be thwarted in his effort. A thwarted Ruby could tell his masters that he did the best he could, and surely that would be better for him than what was inevitable if he were successful, or if he refused to try. 

In an Education Forum thread from 2016-2020, "Who Was jack Ruby?", Andrej Stancak explained out how Curry was manipulated by the mayor and a Dallas city manager. Curry has initially intended to transfer Oswald secretly at 2am.  Sunday evening (after Oswald was murdered), Chief Curry told Sergeant Stavis Ellis that city manager Elgin Crull and Mayor Earle Cabell insisted on the transfer in front of cameras and newsmen. Sergeant Ellis later testified:

“Chief Curry told me that evening,” I want you and one jockey to come down here, and we’re going to move Oswald to the county jail at two o’clock and nobody know about it.”

But Elgin Crull and Earle Cabell overruled Chief Curry's orders:

“No, you will not do that! You will notify the news and media and the press so that they can be in the basement with their lights and cameras set up before you move him.” 

The Warren Commission attorneys suspected DPD complicity in Ruby's access to City Hall basement ... but Earl Warren put a stop to that inquiry, after DA Wade and none other than LBJ interceded. Here is what David Josephs and John Armstong wrote: 

Burt Griffin and Leon Hubert were convinced that Ruby had been stalking Oswald. They knew that Ruby’s presence at City Hall on Sunday morning was not coincidental, and they knew that Ruby somehow entered the basement for the purpose of killing Oswald. Griffin wrote a memo to J. L. Rankin, the WC chief counsel, explaining “I believe it likely Ruby came in by another entrance to a point where Dean could have stopped him and that Dean... is trying to conceal his dereliction of duty”. On May 15, 1964, both Griffin and Leon Hubert sent a memo to J. Lee Rankin with a list of areas that needed further investigation and a list of people they wanted to question. Sgt. Dean complained about Griffin’s accusation to D.A. Wade, who then called President Lyndon Johnson at his ranch in Texas and told him about the Dean/Griffin confrontation. Seth Kantor acknowledged that President Johnson began to exert pressure on Earl Warren. Griffin was not allowed to confront Dean at the Warren-Dean meeting. The WC soon recalled Griffin from Dallas and the investigation of the Dallas Police stopped.

It all fits together, once you assemble all the pieces of the puzzle.

Gene

GK, thank you for this excellent and thoroughly informing summary.

It answers so many questions and with multiple source citations.

Here are some Grammer call "factoids" ( a LP likes to cite ) that even B. Brown can't refute.

There was an Oswald threat call-in to the DPD around 2:am the early morning of 11,23,1963.

The caller first asked for the names of the officers present and when Grammer's name was mentioned, the caller asked to be connected to him.

The callers comments to Grammer were so specifically curious including Oswald transfer details, that Grammer motioned for his superior officer Putnam to listen in. Which Putman did.

We then know that "two" officers overheard the caller's words.

We know this as fact because the report submitted to Curry was signed by both officers.

We know that this call was alarmingly important enough in the minds of Grammer and Putnam for them to go to the unusual length of presenting it to a super busy chief Curry at that chaotic highest tension time.

Two other very similar detail Oswald threat calls were received by the Sheriff's office and the local FBI "sequentially" within the next 15 to 30 minutes following the first DPD call.

We know that Curry was highly pressured by Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell and the city manager to transfer Oswald in broad daylight with press present.

Countermanding any suggestion of moving Oswald unannounced in the dark of night with no press notification.

No one, not even B. Brown or the late J. McAdams can offer anything but a "speculation" as to the reason Grammer waited so long to publicly state he felt he recognized the Oswald threat call-in caller as Jack Ruby.

Speculations of rational, honest minded reasons like protecting one's pension are as valid as any other...imo anyways.

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Bob Ness]

4 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Bob

The arguments put forward by John McAdams 20 years ago - parodied more recently by others - about Billy Grammer's timing and motives, are what lawyers and seasoned investigators aptly characterize as specious.  I don't think Henry Wade needed Grammer's help in convicting Ruby. Wade was influenced strongly (some would say controlled) by LBJ and was likely interested in protecting (not prosecuting) the DPD.  A 2008 AP story summarized an unusually large number of overturned convictions by Wade's Office (where DNA evidence later exonerated the defendants):

Wade was first elected DA at age 35 after three years as an assistant DA, promising to "stem the rising tide of crime." Wade already had spent four years as an FBI agent. As district attorney of Dallas for an unprecedented 36 years, Henry Wade was the embodiment of Texas justice. A strapping 6-footer with a square jaw and a half-chewed cigar clamped between his teeth, The Chief, as he was known, prosecuted Jack Ruby. He was the Wade in Roe v. Wade. And he compiled a conviction rate so impressive that defense attorneys ruefully called themselves the 7 Percent Club.

Some believe that Wade's deputy, Bill Alexander, was complicit in the larger assassination plot, as he was pursuing a conspiracy charge against Oswald, and was later fired for saying Earl Warren should be hanged. 

Gene

Your explanation is excellent and the broader strokes I was referring to are obvious IMO. 

[Michael Griffith]

One of the silliest arguments I've heard is that Billy Grammer should have been one of the prosecution's star witnesses against Ruby. WC apologists repeat this dubious, illogical argument every time Grammer's account is discussed. 

If Grammer had been allowed to testify at Ruby's trial, his account would have raised all sorts of troubling questions. Thinking journalists and other logical observers would have asked, "Wait a minute, how did Ruby obtain inside information about Oswald's tranfser? Why was Ruby trying to get the police to change the transfer arrangements? Doesn't Ruby's phone call suggest that he was being coerced into shooting Oswald and was trying to give himself a way to avoid doing it?" 

In addition, Grammer's account would have destroyed Ruby's story that he shot Oswald on the spur of the moment in a spontaneous emotional reaction based on his alleged desire to spare the Kennedy women a trial. This, in turn, would have proved that Ruby's trip to the nearby Western Union office was a ruse designed to make his hit seem like an unplanned action.

Grammer's account would have also indicated that someone inside the DPD was feeding Ruby information about Oswald's transfer, and it would have logically suggested that Ruby was being pressured to silence Oswald and was trying to get out of having to do it.

And, again, why did not Ruby go to the Western Union office in Oak Cliff if he was in such a rush to wire money to Karen Carlin? Why did he go all the way downtown to the Western Union office that--by an amazing, cosmic "coincidence"--was across the street from the Dallas police HQ building?
 

[Joe Bauer]

Just a thought about DPD Chief Curry.

It seemed that later on in his life after the weekend of 11/22/1963 thru 11/24/1963 he became more remorsefully reflective and perhaps even doubt expressing regards what may have been the truth regarding the JFK event.

Here we go again with "speculation" but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Curry knew he had been wrongly pressured by other higher forces to handle Oswald the way he did with a publicly announced daytime transfer move with a franticly yelling, shoving, easily breached press circus all around.

And especially the 11/24/1963 transfer of Oswald with general time frame public notice, in broad daylight with that crazy DPD basement tightly cramped, press crunch scene which made it possible for Jack Ruby to breach and kill the most important criminal suspect in American history. 

Curry had to at least entertain the thought he had been used by these other higher ups in allowing Oswald's transfer to be a setup for killing him.

Now, in this thread some keep dwelling on the motive of Billy Grammer waiting so many years to publicly state he felt the 11/24/1963 Oswald threat call-in caller was Jack Ruby, whom he knew. That because he waited so long to proclaim his Ruby caller ID, it invalidates his statement integrity and believability.

I countered with a previously stated speculation that Grammer may very well have waited until his 32 year built up pension was locked in to share his story.

With my lifetime experience common sense I know that pensions are as important to their earners, perhaps over everything else in their later life.

More important than sharing truths that may rock the world yet may threaten those pensions. So, I feel the pension protecting motive is a very logical one to consider.

Back to Curry.

Imagine that Curry knew he had been set up with pressuring by higher ups regards Oswald's security handling in his custody.

That Oswald's famous "I AM JUST A PATSY" shout out to the world press may have been just as applicable to Curry!

However, where could Curry go with such world shocking knowledge?

If he shared his honest feelings about this mind blowing scenario...what would it mean for him ... and his family...forever?

Even if he wrote it all down in a secret diary only to be released upon his death.

His future generation offspring would be afflicted the rest of their lives with a Curry blame legacy burden that Curry himself probably could not bear to even imagine.

This type of Curry thought and action motive speculation for never admitting what he truly knew about the killing of Oswald in his departments custody makes as much common sense to me as any other.

And I feel certain that many others in high positions in this country back then, withheld similarly earth rocking JFK event truths ( until and past their dying days ) for this same exact reason.

Could Curry have too?

Very possibly imo.

 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Charles Blackmon]

No doubt the autopsy doctors were also made well aware of the precarious condition of their military futures (notably including pensions) should they fail to follow orders on how the autopsy was to be performed.

[Gene Kelly]

54 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Just a thought about DPD Chief Curry.

It seemed that later on in his life after the weekend of 11/22/1963 thru 11/24/1963 he became more remorsefully reflective and perhaps even doubt expressing regards what may have been the truth regarding the JFK event.

Here we go again with "speculation" but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Curry knew he had been wrongly pressured by other higher forces to handle Oswald the way he did with a publicly announced daytime transfer move with a franticly yelling, shoving, easily breached press circus all around.

And especially the 11/24/1963 transfer of Oswald with general time frame public notice, in broad daylight with that crazy DPD basement tightly cramped, press crunch scene which made it possible for Jack Ruby to breach and kill the most important criminal suspect in American history. 

Curry had to at least entertain the thought he had been used by these other higher ups in allowing Oswald's transfer to be a setup for killing him.

Now, in this thread some keep dwelling on the motive of Billy Grammer waiting so many years to publicly state he felt the 11/24/1963 Oswald threat call-in caller was Jack Ruby, whom he knew. That because he waited so long to proclaim his Ruby caller ID, it invalidates it's integrity and believability.

I countered with a previously stated speculation that Grammer may very well have waited until his 32 year built up pension was locked in to share his story.

With my lifetime experience common sense I know that pensions are as important to their earners, perhaps over everything else in their later life.

More important than sharing truths that may rock the world yet may threaten those pensions. So, I feel the pension protecting motive is a very logically considered one.

Back to Curry.

Imagine that Curry knew he had been set up with pressuring by higher ups regards Oswald's security handling in his custody.

That Oswald's famous "I AM JUST A PATSY" shout out to the world press was just as applicable to him!

Where could Curry go with that world shocking knowledge?

If he shared his honest feelings about this mind blowing scenario...what would it mean for him ... and his family...forever?

Even if he wrote it all down in a secret diary only to be released upon his death.

His future generation offspring would be afflicted the rest of their lives with a Curry blame legacy burden that Curry himself probably could not bear to even imagine.

This type of Curry thought and action motive speculation for never admitting what he truly knew about the killing of Oswald in his departments custody makes as much common sense to me as any other.

And I feel certain that many others in high positions in this country back then, withheld similarly earth rocking JFK event truths ( until and past their dying days ) for this same exact reason.

Could Curry have too?

Very possibly imo.

 

 

 

Joe

I'm pretty new to the Billy Grammer story.  Only when I saw David Josephs' post, and his mention of the analysis that he and John Armstrong performed, did I dig into the story deeper. His timely appearance at the City Hall basement always seemed more than just a coincidence, but there's a lot of misinformation/misdirection out there, and it takes persistence to distill the truth where the assassination is concerned. Also, as Larry Hancock and Jim DiEugenio both point out, Ruby is a complex (and controversial) character, and no one has ever really done an adequate account of his true role. The people close to him that tried were quickly eliminated (reporters Jim Koethe of the Dallas Times Herald and Bill Hunter of the Long Beach Press Telegram) along with his attorney, Tom Howard.  It was apparently unhealthy to get close to the Ruby story. 

Regarding Grammer, my sense is that he was just as Henry Hurt described him ... a cautious and conservative man.  As I stated earlier, I think that he did his job by elevating the call to his superiors, which is what an organization expects.  Once you do that, it's now in the hands of higher-ups/management which most rank-and-file trust ... particularly in law enforcement.  I also speculate that Grammer accepted the conclusions of the Warren Commission at the time, like so many Americans. I do not think his pension dictated staying silent ... in fact, he wasn't silent, and not only documented the call and threat, but shared it with the Task Force investigating the Department's performance.  What he couldn't control was concealment of the part about the caller knowing insider details about the transfer ... that would've not only reflected very poorly on the Department but thrown a monkey wrench into the government's official story. 

Regarding Chief Jesse Curry, I haven't studied him in depth. Curry transferred all of the evidence to the FBI, trusting them to cooperate with the DPD (which didn't happen).  It appears that he was manipulated by city manager Elgin Crull and Mayor Earle Cabell, who insisted on the more public Oswald transfer.  And those are his superiors ... as one of my former colleagues in government used to say, "everybody has a boss". So, I don't view Curry as complicit ... but Captain Fritz is an entirely different story.  

Gene

[David Josephs]

11 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

No doubt the autopsy doctors were also made well aware of the precarious condition of their military futures (notably including pensions) should they fail to follow orders on how the autopsy was to be performed.

Humes:  

This is in the report from the House Select Committee on Assassinations, dated August 17, 1977, by Andy Purdy, where he conducted an interview with Dr. Boswell. And I'm now going to quote from Mr. Purdy's words: "He"--and that's referring to Dr. Boswell--"indicated that Dr. Burkley was basically supervising everything that went on in the autopsy room and that the commanding officer was also responding to Burkley's wishes."

So we know that FINCK finally said that Military men gave orders... 

Q: How many other military personnel were present at the autopsy in the autopsy room?
A: That autopsy room was quite crowded. It is a small autopsy room, and when you are called in circumstances like that to look at the wound of the President of the United States who is dead, you don't look around too much to ask people for their names and take notes on who they are and how many there are. I did not do so. The room was crowded with military and civilian personnel and federal agents, Secret Service agents, FBI agents, for part of the autopsy, but I cannot give you a precise breakdown as regards the attendance of the people in that autopsy room at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
Q: Colonel (FINCK), did you feel that you had to take orders from this Army General that was there directing the autopsy?
A: No, because there were others, there were Admirals.
Q: There were Admirals?
A: Oh, yes, there were Admirals, and when you are a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army you just follow orders, and at the end of the autopsy we were specifically told -- as I recall it, it was by Admiral Kinney, the Surgeon General of the Navy -- this is sub- ject to verification -- we were specifically told not to discuss the case.

 

Q: But you did take orders and did not dissect the throat area?
A: Well, these are not direct orders, these are suggestions and directions. I was not told, "I give you a direct order" or that sort of thing.
Q: And at the time, Colonel, you were a Lieutenant Colonel, were you not?
A: Yes.
Q: And there were Admirals and Generals in that room, were there not?

 

 

 

 

[Gene Kelly]

6 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

Joe

I'm pretty new to the Billy Grammer story.  Only when I saw David Josephs' post, and his mention of the analysis that he and John Armstrong performed, did I dig into the story deeper. His timely appearance at the City Hall basement always seemed more than just a coincidence, but there's a lot of misinformation/misdirection out there, and it takes persistence to distill the truth where the assassination is concerned. Also, as Larry Hancock and Jim DiEugenio both point out, Ruby is a complex (and controversial) character, and no one has ever really done an adequate account of his true role. The people close to him that tried were quickly eliminated (reporters Jim Koethe of the Dallas Times Herald and Bill Hunter of the Long Beach Press Telegram) along with his attorney, Tom Howard.  It was apparently unhealthy to get close to the Ruby story. 

Regarding Grammer, my sense is that he was just as Henry Hurt described him ... a cautious and conservative man.  As I stated earlier, I think that he did his job by elevating the call to his superiors, which is what an organization expects.  Once you do that, it's now in the hands of higher-ups/management which most rank-and-file trust ... particularly in law enforcement.  I also speculate that Grammer accepted the conclusions of the Warren Commission at the time, like so many Americans. I do not think his pension dictated staying silent ... in fact, he wasn't silent, and not only documented the call and threat, but shared it with the Task Force investigating the Department's performance.  What he couldn't control was concealment of the part about the caller knowing insider details about the transfer ... that would've not only reflected very poorly on the Department but thrown a monkey wrench into the government's official story. 

Regarding Chief Jesse Curry, I haven't studied him in depth. Curry transferred all of the evidence to the FBI, trusting them to cooperate with the DPD (which didn't happen).  It appears that he was manipulated by city manager Elgin Crull and Mayor Earle Cabell, who insisted on the more public Oswald transfer.  And those are his superiors ... as one of my former colleagues in government used to say, "everybody has a boss". So, I don't view Curry as complicit ... but Captain Fritz is an entirely different story.  

Gene

I would also add that the timing of events here is important, in assessing whether Grammer's pension had anything to do with his later revelations. The HSCA had already completed its investigation in 1978. Officer Patrick Dean had been asked to answer the Committee's questions in the form of written interrogatories but declined to cooperate. The HSCA concluded that Ruby's shooting of Oswald was not a spontaneous act and involved premeditation, stating that because of Ruby’s perfect timing: "It made it difficult to accept mere coincidence, and it is unlikely that Ruby entered the basement without some sort of assistance.” The committee was also troubled by the removal of security guards from the area of the garage nearest the stairway shortly before the shooting, stating the evidence indicated Ruby did not come down the Main Street ramp, and were critical of the DPD's performance. So, when Grammer talked to Henry Hurt in May 1984, the inconsistencies in Ruby's story were already in the public domain.  And he didn't retire until 1986. 

[David Josephs]

14 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

Also, as Larry Hancock and Jim DiEugenio both point out, Ruby is a complex (and controversial) character, and no one has ever really done an adequate account of his true role. The people close to him that tried were quickly eliminated (reporters Jim Koethe of the Dallas Times Herald and Bill Hunter of the Long Beach Press Telegram) along with his attorney, Tom Howard.  It was apparently unhealthy to get close to the Ruby story. 

Ask Dorothy Kilgallan ....

Just curious now...  why is this so important to the LNer?  Whether the call was Ruby or not doesn't actually matter much as Fritz lied about being ready whenever to take Oswald down PER CURRY (notice how he offloads the blame for the transfer to CURRY's instructions) when Fritz keeps questioning Oswald until is given a sign by an un-named officer that all was good to go.

This happens AFTER the parking garage area (behind where everyone was focused) is stripped clean of police personnel except for an un-named RESERVIST who was told to guard the Freight elevator next to the stairs which Ruby used to get into the basement unseen..  we speculate this Reservist was CROY...  Who never did go over to guard that area of the basement...

In fact, CROY's affidavit states he believed it was Ruby next to him who he asked to move back well before the car goes up the ramp and everyone surges back into the small area where Oswald was being taken out.

Croy does nothing to make anyone aware that Ruby, Ruby was not a reporter or TV man but someone Croy knew did not belong there... and still he does nothing..  in that shadow to the anatomical left of Croy is Ruby..

Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, sometime after you came in, you were assigned to guard a particular area of the basement; is that correct?
Mr. CROY. No.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Would you tell us what you were assigned to do?
Mr. CROY. When I came into the city hall, I went to the assembly room, and that is where any initial assignments are made, in the assembly room, making up the muster and the roster of the reserve officers that arrived.
Mr. GRIFFIN. How long did you remain there?
Mr. CROY. Well, I was in and out of there, between there and the basement.
Mr. GRIFFIN. How long did you remain on that duty?
Mr. CROY. I never was relieved from that duty. I went in there, but I never was relieved from it.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, you have stated in your letter to Chief Curry of November 26, 1963, in paragraph 3, "I was assigned to the basement and jail office entrance, and my assignment was that of a guard."
Mr. CROY. Well, that"was in the entire thing down there is what everyone in the basement was considered a guard at the same time, if you are standing in front of the entrances, elevators, or in the back of the basement.
Mr. GRIFFIN. So you never had any particular station of duty there?
Mr. CROY. No. I wasn't just assigned a spot and told to stay there.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, did there come a time when you stationed yourself at the foot of the Main Street ramp in the basement?
Mr. CROY. Yes.

 Within a second or so as Oswald comes out.  Croy again, knowing it's Ruby makes no move to block him, move him, or say anything to arose suspicion...  Just some hoodlum in the basement...  sure...

 

We first speculated Ruby had followed the red arrow path but we have film of the car going up the ramp and for many minutes beforehand, no one walked in front of the camera from left to right to get to where Ruby was... plus that path exposed him to many more potential witnesses than just going thru the railing by walking straight.. the notes on the image even says "leaves by 10:15" and "leaves by 11am"...  the basement was unguarded along the path Ruby takes in the basement and by cutting thru the parking lot - or even walking around to the small alley that leads directly to that side door - he avoids being seen by the men along Main street.

The quoted text is from the HSCA.. most damning being the reversed image telling us how the FBI, DPD never investigated this entrance possibility and was ignored by the WC.  The other text describes how DPD Personnel was on that ramp when Ruby had to have come down, and none see the man.

 

 

Back to the call... it would seem that only Ruby would know that Fritz would wait until signaled to bring Oswald down to be killed in the basement.  Fritz provides no protection himself... in fact it seems he just gets out of the way and never bothers to even turn back..  and then has Leavelle C-his-A.  Saw the shooting my butt.

 

Y'all can keep dickering about the Grammer call as if anything will change what happened or how the DPD went out of their way to provide Ruby an unobstructed path to Oswald, safeguarded by CROY who knows he's there, knows he doesn't belong there and does nothing...  With Dean instrumental in clearing out this path...

No wonder he was so quick to throw Vaughn under the bus and push the Main Street ramp as the only possible route.

Make the assumption it was someone else calling about Oswald that night...  how does that one factual change alter what occurred?

[Joe Bauer]

My God!

In the second photo we see the uniformed DPD white cap wearing Croy looking "directly at Ruby!"

Just seconds before Ruby leaps past another DPD officer friend of his - big William "Blackie" Harrison who is right in front ( just inches in front! ) of both Croy and Ruby!

Edited February 17, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Pete Mellor]

5 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Regarding Chief Jesse Curry, I haven't studied him in depth. Curry transferred all of the evidence to the FBI, trusting them to cooperate with the DPD (which didn't happen).  It appears that he was manipulated by city manager Elgin Crull and Mayor Earle Cabell, who insisted on the more public Oswald transfer.  And those are his superiors ... as one of my former colleagues in government used to say, "everybody has a boss". So, I don't view Curry as complicit ... but Captain Fritz is an entirely different story.  

Gene, according to ex-British Intelligence officer, it was one Samuel Bloom (prominent Dallas executive) who, after Oswald's arrest, suggested to the  Dallas police that they move the alleged assassin from the police station to the Dallas County jail in order to give the newsmen a good story and pictures.

When the cops searched Ruby's place in Oak Cliff they found a piece of paper with Bloom's name, address and telephone number on it.

[Ron Bulman]

20 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Ron:

Not sure what led Henry Hurt to interview Grammer ... but the interview occurred in May 1984 (see Chapter 13 footnotes 57-59).  Grammer appeared to be sincere and rationale- even 20 years later - in admitting that he wasn't completely sure that it was Ruby who called.  Hurt described Grammer as "a cautious, conservative man", who:

"Grammer could not be certain that the voice on the telephone had been that of Jack Ruby. When he got to the police station that day, he consulted with Lieutenant Putnam, who also had heard Ruby's voice in the past. While Putnam would not rule out that the voice was Ruby's, according to Grammer, he said that he simply did not have enough familiarity to be certain. That, too, was Grammer's opinion. Even today, he says that while he still is not absolutely certain, he tends to believe the caller was Ruby. 

He was still with DPD at the time of the Hurt interview (he retired several years later, in 1986) and I speculate that he was loyal to the Department and his superiors. He never spoke poorly of or criticized Curry or Fritz. I also read into this that Grammer never doubted the Warren Commission findings:

"Lieutenant Grammer points out that in view of the Warren Commission version of events, it never made any sense that Ruby would have made such a call."

Here is the link to the book online ... look on pages 407-410:

https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Reasonable_Doubt.pdf  

Gene

Thanks for the link Gene.  I did find this part interesting regarding the end notes.  From page 409:

It was some time later that two inspectors from the Dallas Police Department asked Grammer about the call.  He described it, adding that he had submitted a report to Chief Curry.  Even though Lieutenant Putnam supported Grammer's version of events, the report of the incident has never surfaced.  The reported warnings - the ones police concede were ignored - did not include knowledge of the secret inside plans for the transfer.  58

The portions of the part on Grammer on pages 408 and 409, and those after on page 410, 57 & 59 are attributed to Hurt's interview of Grammer in May 1984.

This section is attributed to XXIV WC, pp. 429, 434, 436.  So, someone at the WC was aware of these suspicions.  But they were ignored.  Surprising they even acknowledged it.

So, if, sometime later, two DPD inspectors interviewed him about it, obviously they knew about the occurrence.  From the report to Curry or talk among officers about things Grammer had said.  Their report made it to the WC, but Grammer's disappeared.  Interesting.

[Bill Brown]

 

Again, there is no verbal or written report from 1963 or 1964 (or even a couple decades later) that Grammer ever felt the caller was Jack Ruby.  Whether it's the mid 80's (Henry Hurt's Reasonable Doubt) or the late 80's (The Men Who Killed Kennedy), we don't hear anything from Grammer believing the caller was Ruby until then.