Larry Hancock Posted October 9, 2023 Share Posted October 9, 2023 If I'm not mistaken outstanding warrants, stolen cars etc are public information - of course the reason hot sheets would be on a clip board would be that the clip board can be concealed (just turn it over)..during breaks etc. I think the photo above pretty well confirms that you could expect to find "operational" info on a clipboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted October 9, 2023 Share Posted October 9, 2023 (edited) Could be Steve, but perhaps that was just a "pick up sheet" and he was actively working it...that would be interesting as well...in any event surely somebody here knows a DPD officer or has some solid experience to bring to the question. As to the notebook, well it certainly would not be the only item from the DPD that ultimately went missing and never entered the official record - the list of of patrons at the theater comes to mind. Edited October 9, 2023 by Larry Hancock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Down Posted October 9, 2023 Share Posted October 9, 2023 Yeah it does look like operational info of some sort would be attached to the clipboard as per the picture. Its quiet possible though that whatever was on that clipboard was so boring that the clipboard was deemed to be of no value in investigating the murder of Tippit. Its possible that some of the officers that had begun the shift with Tippit would have the same print-out that Tippit had on the clipboard and as a result, if they had been consulted, would not see such a print-out attached to the clipboard as being of any significance or help in the investigation. An investigation which was pretty much closed less than an hour later when Oswald was arrested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted October 9, 2023 Share Posted October 9, 2023 Actually I don't think that hour reference is at all true as far as the investigation by the DPD was concerned, they continued questioning people, picking up people like Molina and Frazier and examining evidence as long as they could before the FBI carted off much of it by midnight. Certainly officers I have talked to considered it a very real and live investigation into the weekend. We can argue that pieces disappears later and even that there might have been malfeasance within the force but we even have comments from individual officers that suggest some thought themselves under suspicion for some sort of involvement. We should not get carried away thinking that all this was locked up and tied down as part of some master plan during the first day, the weekend etc...if it had been the hundreds of loose ends from Dallas to Bethesda would not have been left for us all to pick apart over the decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted October 9, 2023 Author Share Posted October 9, 2023 32 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said: Actually I don't think that hour reference is at all true as far as the investigation by the DPD was concerned, they continued questioning people, picking up people like Molina and Frazier and examining evidence as long as they could before the FBI carted off much of it by midnight. Larry, I have mentioned this before, but One of the most informative things I've read in a while is CD 852 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11249 DOD Bartimo Letter of 24 Apr 1964 with Attachments Starting on about the third page or so of this document is a copy of Army Regulation 195-10 which spells out how the Army was supposed to liaison with other agencies. It talks about the Army, Navy, Air Force and FBI, but interestingly enough, leaves out the Secret Service. Basically Army Regulation 195-10 is a How to Manual for conducting investigations of armed forces personnel: Who's got responsibility, who's got control, how the information flows, etc. Look at Paragraph (9)(c)(1)(a) on the bottom of Page 5 of this CD. It says how Army Commanders are supposed to establish policies to establish "effective liaison" with other agencies and specifically mentions the ATTU. The idea was not to step on each other's toes, and establish contact with an individual that some other agency was working, e.g. informants. I think in CIA jargon, it was called the “third party” rule. As I sit here, I don't know if the FBI or the ATTU has such a Regulation they were supposed to be operating under, unless, as in the FBI’s case it would be in the FBI Manual. Since so much of the Federal work in this case (like the FBI and the Secret Service) was grounded and built on the initial work the Dallas Police Department started, I got to wondering if the DPD had similar guidelines to what the Army had. That's what led me to the DPD's Manual in CD 1285. I didn't find any such guidelines in the General Manual, but did run across some interesting things like the Patrol Divisions requirement for Patrol Officer's to maintain a notebook. A couple of other things I saw: a) The Chief of Police himself promoted the motorcycle officers. They were beholden to him. b) One of the perks for DPD employees was that they were each given two free golf passes per week c) The DPD was insured by Lloyds of London d) A Bureau was defined as "An operational group organized to perform a special function." In addition to the Special Service Bureau, there was also a Personnel Bureau and a Reserve Officers Bureau. e) Each Bureau had their own Manual. Page 394 Detectives in the Special Service Bureau I suspect that any guidelines for how the Special Service Bureau was supposed to liaison with other agencies would be found in the Special Service Bureau Manual, which I haven't located. e) Each Bureau had a Criminal Intelligence Section – Page 393 Page 394 f) The Special Service Bureau reported directly to the Chief of Police Page 5 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11680#relPageId=8 g) While each Bureau was headed by a Captain, each Section within a Bureau was headed by a Lieutenant. The Criminal Intelligence Section of the Special Service Bureau was Lieutenant, Jack Revill. When the Secret Service notified the Dallas Police Department that JFK would be visiting Dallas on November 22nd, it was Jack Revill who was tasked with investigating the known subversive groups in the area. He wrote up a report and submitted it to Captain Gannaway: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340039/?q=Revill I think one of the failures in the preparation for JFK's visit was that investigative efforts were concentrated on groups rather than "lone wolf" individuals. Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted October 9, 2023 Share Posted October 9, 2023 Steve, I recall from my 112th work that the regional Army command definitely had a strong relationship with police in major metro areas and that included Dallas, which is why we so the extended exchanges between them on Nov 22, with the 112th offering info in its files on Oswald (material forwarded to them earlier from the FBI in NO). And on your second point, that is absolutely true - I had extensive talks with a DPD intelligence reserve officer who that day was assigned to surveillance on the Black Panther group, DPD was focused on groups, the Secret Service was so provincial that they could not even visualize a mobile threat against the president (even when warned by the FBI) and when they did the security PRS pull for Dallas found nothing in the file...sigh. It seems at the time the security systems only envisioned direct, proximity attacks or protests by groups turning violent...now that seems like the good old days by comparison.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted October 9, 2023 Author Share Posted October 9, 2023 (edited) Larry, The list of TSBD employees was compiled by Ray Westphal and Preston Parks of the Special Service Bureau. It had Oswald as Harvey Lee Oswald at 605 Elsbeth. No More Silence https://books.google.com/books?id=7uT-47ysB5MC&pg=PA326&lpg=PA326&dq=Dallas+%22+Roy+Westphal%22&source=bl&ots=eii6yRhLo8&sig=nr0C2_dukxaBfdcQiFnDLg3ugKM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjt-9Xpi8nRAhVpwFQKHZBBDX0Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Dallas%20%22%20Roy%20Westphal%22&f=false Roy Westphal: Says that it is his understanding the Hosty was trying to recruit Oswald as an informant because he had been to Russia. Says it didn't pan out. He had gone home and realized that he hadn't written his Report on the man at the Trade Mart wanting to wave a “Free Cuba” sign and was denied that opportunity. He picked up Preston Parks and returned to the “office which was in a little building at Fair Park”. “As I was writing the Report, the Captain called and wanted to check the School Book Depository employee list with our files. We hand handwritten, partial lists; some of them you couldn't read the names. But we did find one, a member of the American GI Forum. The Captain then instructed me to bring the entire file down to his office.” He recognized Joe Molina and helped serve a search warrant on him, but does not say anything about Harvey Lee Oswald and the 605 Elsbeth St. address. Westphal told Sneed that, “Of course we didn't identify any of our informants to them (the FBI). We kept that secret because we didn't want them swiping them from us because the Feds had more money than us since our budget was very, very limited and they could pay their informants.” So much for effective liaisoning. These are the lists I believe that Westphal and Parks would have consulted: Steve Thomas Edited October 9, 2023 by Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Down Posted October 10, 2023 Share Posted October 10, 2023 On 10/9/2023 at 5:45 PM, Steve Thomas said: Larry, I have mentioned this before, but One of the most informative things I've read in a while is CD 852 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11249 DOD Bartimo Letter of 24 Apr 1964 with Attachments Starting on about the third page or so of this document is a copy of Army Regulation 195-10 which spells out how the Army was supposed to liaison with other agencies. It talks about the Army, Navy, Air Force and FBI, but interestingly enough, leaves out the Secret Service. Basically Army Regulation 195-10 is a How to Manual for conducting investigations of armed forces personnel: Who's got responsibility, who's got control, how the information flows, etc. Look at Paragraph (9)(c)(1)(a) on the bottom of Page 5 of this CD. It says how Army Commanders are supposed to establish policies to establish "effective liaison" with other agencies and specifically mentions the ATTU. The idea was not to step on each other's toes, and establish contact with an individual that some other agency was working, e.g. informants. I think in CIA jargon, it was called the “third party” rule. As I sit here, I don't know if the FBI or the ATTU has such a Regulation they were supposed to be operating under, unless, as in the FBI’s case it would be in the FBI Manual. Since so much of the Federal work in this case (like the FBI and the Secret Service) was grounded and built on the initial work the Dallas Police Department started, I got to wondering if the DPD had similar guidelines to what the Army had. That's what led me to the DPD's Manual in CD 1285. I didn't find any such guidelines in the General Manual, but did run across some interesting things like the Patrol Divisions requirement for Patrol Officer's to maintain a notebook. A couple of other things I saw: a) The Chief of Police himself promoted the motorcycle officers. They were beholden to him. b) One of the perks for DPD employees was that they were each given two free golf passes per week c) The DPD was insured by Lloyds of London d) A Bureau was defined as "An operational group organized to perform a special function." In addition to the Special Service Bureau, there was also a Personnel Bureau and a Reserve Officers Bureau. e) Each Bureau had their own Manual. Page 394 Detectives in the Special Service Bureau I suspect that any guidelines for how the Special Service Bureau was supposed to liaison with other agencies would be found in the Special Service Bureau Manual, which I haven't located. e) Each Bureau had a Criminal Intelligence Section – Page 393 Page 394 f) The Special Service Bureau reported directly to the Chief of Police Page 5 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11680#relPageId=8 g) While each Bureau was headed by a Captain, each Section within a Bureau was headed by a Lieutenant. The Criminal Intelligence Section of the Special Service Bureau was Lieutenant, Jack Revill. When the Secret Service notified the Dallas Police Department that JFK would be visiting Dallas on November 22nd, it was Jack Revill who was tasked with investigating the known subversive groups in the area. He wrote up a report and submitted it to Captain Gannaway: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340039/?q=Revill I think one of the failures in the preparation for JFK's visit was that investigative efforts were concentrated on groups rather than "lone wolf" individuals. Steve Thomas Nice info. So each bureau was headed by a captain and each bureau had a criminal intelligence section headed by a lieutenant. With regard to the Homicide & Robbery bureau which was headed by Captain Will Fritz, who was the lieutenant in charge of the criminal intelligence section of that bureau? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Ceulemans Posted October 10, 2023 Share Posted October 10, 2023 (edited) On 10/10/2023 at 8:20 PM, Gerry Down said: Nice info. So each bureau was headed by a captain and each bureau had a criminal intelligence section headed by a lieutenant. With regard to the Homicide & Robbery bureau which was headed by Captain Will Fritz, who was the lieutenant in charge of the criminal intelligence section of that bureau? Captain W.P. Gannaway - Special Service Bureau Lieutenant. Jack Revill - Criminal Intelligence Section Edited October 19, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted October 10, 2023 Author Share Posted October 10, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gerry Down said: Nice info. So each bureau was headed by a captain and each bureau had a criminal intelligence section headed by a lieutenant. With regard to the Homicide & Robbery bureau which was headed by Captain Will Fritz, who was the lieutenant in charge of the criminal intelligence section of that bureau? Gerry, The two Lieutenants in the Homicide and Robbery Bureau were: Lieutenant, James A. Bohart; and, Lieutenant, Ted P. Wells Batchelor Exhibit 5002 Page 145 (page 28 of the pdf file) https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136#relPageId=163 T.L. Baker is also listed as a Lieutenant in a June, 1964 FBI file, so I think he got promoted. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57047#relPageId=86&search="Ted_P. Wells" There's a Facebook entry for Ted P. Wells in 2021 that reads: https://www.facebook.com/groups/libertygroveremembered/posts/1578922325781927/ Rikki Pulley I see him standing in the back. Yes, it is he, and I have never seen this. He was a very smart person. Not too many people are double promoted twice and graduate from high school 2 years early. I worked with an attorney and former police officer who told me it was no easy feat to become a Lieutenant in the Homicide Department. This photo was taken by the Dallas Times Herald while Oswald was being questioned. After-action Report of Leslie Montgomery Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits vol. XXIV (CE 2003) p. 314) https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=332&search=Wells I don't think Captain Fritz appointed either of his two Lieutenants to be in charge of the Criminal Intelligence Section, but rather assumed that role himself. Steve Thomas Edited October 10, 2023 by Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Down Posted October 10, 2023 Share Posted October 10, 2023 2 hours ago, Steve Thomas said: Gerry, The two Lieutenants in the Homicide and Robbery Bureau were: Lieutenant, James A. Bohart; and, Lieutenant, Ted P. Wells Batchelor Exhibit 5002 Page 145 (page 28 of the pdf file) https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136#relPageId=163 T.L. Baker is also listed as a Lieutenant in a June, 1964 FBI file, so I think he got promoted. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57047#relPageId=86&search="Ted_P. Wells" There's a Facebook entry for Ted P. Wells in 2021 that reads: https://www.facebook.com/groups/libertygroveremembered/posts/1578922325781927/ Rikki Pulley I see him standing in the back. Yes, it is he, and I have never seen this. He was a very smart person. Not too many people are double promoted twice and graduate from high school 2 years early. I worked with an attorney and former police officer who told me it was no easy feat to become a Lieutenant in the Homicide Department. This photo was taken by the Dallas Times Herald while Oswald was being questioned. After-action Report of Leslie Montgomery Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits vol. XXIV (CE 2003) p. 314) https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=332&search=Wells I don't think Captain Fritz appointed either of his two Lieutenants to be in charge of the Criminal Intelligence Section, but rather assumed that role himself. Steve Thomas So I assume the criminal intelligence section of the homicide and robbery bureau was different from the criminal intelligence section of the special service bureau. If there were two lieutenants in the homicide and robbery bureau I wonder if one of them was the official head of the criminal intelligence section there and the other headed another section in that bureau. Not sure what section lieutenant Carl Day was in, the guy who held the rifle over his head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Ceulemans Posted October 10, 2023 Share Posted October 10, 2023 Lt. Day was Criminal Investigations Lab Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Down Posted October 10, 2023 Share Posted October 10, 2023 1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said: Lt. Day was Criminal Investigations Lab Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted October 11, 2023 Author Share Posted October 11, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, Gerry Down said: So I assume the criminal intelligence section of the homicide and robbery bureau was different from the criminal intelligence section of the special service bureau. If there were two lieutenants in the homicide and robbery bureau I wonder if one of them was the official head of the criminal intelligence section there and the other headed another section in that bureau. Gerry, Personal History of Jack Ruby from Lieutenant, Ted P.Wells, Homicide to Captain Pat Gannway https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth190109/?q="Ted Wells" Dated November 25, 1963 October 14, 1962 news article about the beating death of one, Freeman White McDonald. Article refers to Lieutenant Ted Wells of Homicide. https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc959400/?q="Ted Wells" Neither of those two documents refer to Ted Wells as the Head of the Criminal Intelligence Section of the Homicide Bureau. As strange as it seems, I'm not so sure Homicide had one. I think k Fritz was it. Steve Thomas Edited October 11, 2023 by Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Down Posted October 11, 2023 Share Posted October 11, 2023 9 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said: Gerry, Personal History of Jack Ruby from Lieutenant, Ted P.Wells, Homicide to Captain Pat Gannway https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth190109/?q="Ted Wells" Dated November 25, 1963 October 14, 1962 news article about the beating death of one, Freeman White McDonald. Article refers to Lieutenant Ted Wells of Homicide. https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc959400/?q="Ted Wells" Neither of those two documents refer to Ted Wells as the Head of the Criminal Intelligence Section of the Homicide Bureau. As strange as it seems, I'm not so sure Homicide had one. I think k Fritz was it. Steve Thomas I was taking your previous statements on this page literally in which you stated: A Bureau was defined as "An operational group organized to perform a special function." In addition to the Special Service Bureau, there was also a Personnel Bureau and a Reserve Officers Bureau. ... e) Each Bureau had a Criminal Intelligence Section – Page 393 From this I was thinking that maybe each bureau had their own "Criminal Intelligence Section". But I guess that might be a bit odd. For example would the "Reserve Officers Bureau" really need its own "Criminal Intelligence Section"? So i'm now assuming that only some bureau's had their own "Criminal Intelligence Section". And was wondering if he designation of "lieutenant" within the DPD automatically signaled that that person was the head of some type of "section" in a particular bureau. I guess its possible that while a lieutenant was the head of a section, that lieutenant could have an assistant who was also designated a lieutenant. In this way, the designation of "lieutenant" did not automatically mean the person was the head of a section. I'm not very familiar with the structure of the DPD as its not an area i've got into. So your previous few posts above was the first time I ever gave it any real consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now