Moments Leading to Oswald's Deserved Death

[Bill Brown]

2 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

Henry Hurt interviewed Billy Grammer in May 1984 ... four years before the documentary that you (and Dennis Morrissette) imply was Grammer's incentive to share his story.  

Denis Morissette (18 years ago):  "Looks like Grammer preferred to be a star witness for The Men Who Killed Kennedy."

 

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

 

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

35 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Gene Kelly]

21 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

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

 

 

Bill:

I mean no disrespect and respect your opinion ... but you need to read the book (and check the references), perform your own due diligence, and demonstrate some critical thinking.   Here is what Henry Hurt writes on page 409 of his book, derived from his 1984 interview with Billy Grammer, who was still a Lieutenant with the DPD at the time:

Grammer was stunned. He told his wife that he suddenly realized that it was Jack Ruby who had called the night before. The voice was familiar because he had met and talked to Ruby only a week or so earlier. The execution had come off just as the caller had said it would.

He wasn't sure at the time and was honest in still doubting that it was Ruby. Here is what Henry Hurt wrote in 1985:

Even today, he says that while he still is not absolutely certain, he tends to believe the caller was Ruby. (Lieutenant Putnam has since died). 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.59 Today, however, in view of what is known of Ruby—including the House Select Committee's strong feeling that he may have been acting under orders—it perhaps does make sense.

[Bill Brown]

11 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

Bill:

I mean no disrespect and respect your opinion ... but you need to read the book (and check the references), perform your own due diligence, and demonstrate some critical thinking.   Here is what Henry Hurt writes on page 409 of his book, derived from his 1984 interview with Billy Grammer, who was still a Lieutenant with the DPD at the time:

Grammer was stunned. He told his wife that he suddenly realized that it was Jack Ruby who had called the night before. The voice was familiar because he had met and talked to Ruby only a week or so earlier. The execution had come off just as the caller had said it would.

He wasn't sure at the time and was honest in still doubting that it was Ruby. Here is what Henry Hurt wrote in 1985:

Even today, he says that while he still is not absolutely certain, he tends to believe the caller was Ruby. (Lieutenant Putnam has since died). 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.59 Today, however, in view of what is known of Ruby—including the House Select Committee's strong feeling that he may have been acting under orders—it perhaps does make sense.

 

So we first hear of Billy Grammer saying that the caller may have been Jack Ruby in the mid 80's (to Henry Hurt) instead of the late 80's (The Men Who Killed Kennedy).

 

So..... 1986 instead of 1988.  Now it's more credible?

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

 

My point, lost in all of this, is that 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.  It isn't until the 80's (mid or late, either way) that we hear anything from Grammer believing the caller was Ruby.

 

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Gene Kelly said:

DA Henry Wade would have made Grammer a star witness for the state in Ruby's trial.

Uh.... no. Not at all. I wonder how he came up with that?

Edited February 17, 2023 by Bob Ness

[Ron Bulman]

10 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Uh.... no. Not at all. I wonder how he came up with that?

Bob, let's be clear here.  That's originally coming from John McAdams 20 years ago if I follow this right.  Then it was used by BB earlier.  It's not from Gene.

[Bob Ness]

5 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Bob, let's be clear here.  That's originally coming from John McAdams 20 years ago if I follow this right.  Then it was used by BB earlier.  It's not from Gene.

Oh, I know. That's why I said "he". Thanks for clarification though.

[Ron Bulman]

Gene, maybe you can shed some light here.  I don't have Reasonable Doubt which I suspect is where much of this comes from.  It seems to me that Henry Hurt seeking out Grammer in 1984 for an interview gives credence to his statements as opposed to him seeking fame on The Men Who Killed Kennedy four years later.  The Hurt interview may well have led to his invitation to appear on TMWKK.  

But I wonder, what prompted Hurt to interview Grammer.  Had anyone else interviewed him in the years between the assassination and then?  A lead from someone Grammer had spoken to?  The paper trail, his affidavit, was deep sixed by Curry on 11/24/63. 

[Gene Kelly]

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Oh, I know. That's why I said "he". Thanks for clarification though.

For clarity, when I saw the words "star witness" - in both the recent post by Bill Brown, and the dated posts from McAdam's website - it struck me as odd (but not coincidental).  Then I find a similar phrase used by Dennis Morissette (20+ years ago) also on McAdams' website: 

"Looks like Grammer preferred to be a star witness for The Men Who Killed Kennedy."  

There is nothing original or cogent about these dated arguments ... and I can't envision how/why DA Henry Wade would've effectively used Grammer, even if he knew of the calls.  As Ian Fleming wrote in Goldfinger: 

Mr. Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: 'Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action'.” 

Jack Ruby initially was convicted and faced the death penalty - thanks to Judge Brown's maleficence - without any help from the DPD.  In fact, it was Officer Dean's testimony that got the initial verdict thrown out and prompted a retrial. Because of the death sentence, the case was immediately brought to appeal and in October 1966, the Criminal Appeals Court of Texas in a unanimous decision, overturned Ruby’s conviction for two reasons: (1) the trial court erred in denying Belli’s request for a change in venue; and (2) Ruby's jailhouse confession to DPD Sgt. Patrick Dean about deciding to kill Oswald when he saw him at the police lineup was improperly admitted into evidence at trial.

Ruby's statement to Dean constituted "an oral confession of premeditation made while in police custody and therefore was not admissible", because Texas law was explicit in saying that a defendant's oral statements while in custody are inadmissible as res gestae unless it was put into writing and signed by the accused. Grammer's story would not have changed that outcome. 

Gene

[Gene Kelly]

9 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Gene, maybe you can shed some light here.  I don't have Reasonable Doubt which I suspect is where much of this comes from.  It seems to me that Henry Hurt seeking out Grammer in 1984 for an interview gives credence to his statements as opposed to him seeking fame on The Men Who Killed Kennedy four years later.  The Hurt interview may well have led to his invitation to appear on TMWKK.  

But I wonder, what prompted Hurt to interview Grammer.  Had anyone else interviewed him in the years between the assassination and then?  A lead from someone Grammer had spoken to?  The paper trail, his affidavit, was deep sixed by Curry on 11/24/63. 

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

[Joe Bauer]

I'm still curious.

Why would Grammer and Putnam take a report of this "one" Oswald threat call and take it to Curry?

Gene, as you mentioned, there must have been hundreds of Oswald threat calls received by the DPD.

So, why take one this more seriously over all others?

Was it because the caller stated details about the transfer only an insider would know?

It sounds as if Grammer and Putnam did not mention Jack Ruby in their 11/23/1963 report.

Also Hurt states Grammer's comments regards the caller saying Grammer would know him but he couldn't tell him his name?

If Grammer is telling the truth with that statement, it does add a least some weight to the possibility the caller was Jack Ruby...no?

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Bob Ness]

4 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

There is nothing original or cogent about these dated arguments ... and I can't envision how/why DA Henry Wade would've effectively used Grammer, even if he knew of the calls. 

Correct. It doesn't make sense for more than a couple reasons.

Presumably the argument put forth by Bill, McAdams et al is: Wade would have been a big winner by demonstrating how the DPD leaked the details of Oswald's transfer and after having been informed of that by their own officers Curry and Fritz blew it off, resulting in Oswald's murder. That's gold right there. Just what Wade would love to have.

On the other hand Belli could have leveraged that information into some kind of defense but all things considered it probably would work against Ruby. Both sides would be better off with Putnam and Grammer on vacation in Tiera del Fuego.

Grammer would likely stay mum until revealing that information had no effect on him or his colleagues, although I'm making a supposition there. To me that's the more likely explanation, especially since he gave corroborating sources who could deny his account. If he was lying he could leave those out.

So... There is a very strong possibility (if Grammer's story is true) it was either Ruby a conspirator or both, which is yet another reason not to call Grammer or Putnam to the stand. The official narrative is lone whacko after all.

Edited February 17, 2023 by Bob Ness

[Gene Kelly]

5 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

I'm still curious.

Why would Grammer and Putnam take a report of this "one" Oswald threat and take it to Curry?

Gene, as you mentioned, there must have been hundreds of Oswald threat calls received by the DPD.

So, why take one this more seriously over all others?

Was it because the caller stated details about the transfer only an insider would know?

It sounds as if Grammer and Putnam did not mention Jack Ruby in their 11/23/1963 report.

Also Hurt states Grammer's comments regards the caller saying Grammer would know him but he couldn't tell him his name?

If Grammer is telling the truth with that statement, it does add a least some weight to the possibility the caller was Jack Ruby...no?

 

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

[Gene Kelly]

3 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Correct. It doesn't make sense for more than a couple reasons.

Presumably the argument put forth by Bill, McAdams et al is: Wade would have been a big winner by demonstrating how the DPD leaked the details of Oswald's transfer and after having been informed of that by their own officers Curry and Fritz blew it off, resulting in Oswald's murder. That's gold right there. Just what Wade would love to have.

On the other hand Belli could have leveraged that information into some kind of defense but all things considered it probably would work against Ruby. Both sides would be better off with Putnam and Grammer on vacation in Tiera del Fuego.

Grammer would likely stay mum until revealing that information had no effect on him or his colleagues, although I'm making a supposition there. To me that's the more likely explanation, especially since he gave corroborating sources who could deny his account. If he was lying he could leave those out.

So... There is a very strong possibility (if Grammer's story is true) it was either Ruby a conspirator or both, which is yet another reason not to call Grammer or Putnam to the stand. The official narrative is lone whacko after all.

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