Whaley was right: Neches and Beckley do intersect

[Donald Willis]

Whaley was right: Neches and Beckley do intersect

As I have noted, the online reproduction of CE 371 is poor.  But with the aid of an old-fashioned fold-up map and Google Maps, I was able to spot the "X" on 371 which Ball and Whaley said was where the latter left Oswald off in Oak Cliff.  It is centered just above and a bit west of the intersection where Zang, Beckley, and El Dorado meet.  That "X" is far from Neely, but near Neches.  In fact, El Dorado is really a continuation of Neches, and it does intersect Beckley.  And it's a short street, only three blocks long; Neches is 11 blocks long.  Oswald may not have even realized that, going east, Neches becomes El Dorado two blocks before Beckley.  Oswald, then, must have re-directed Whaley, en route, with an instruction like "Neches near Beckley", and Whaley dropped him off at Beckley and El Dorado, the extension of Neches.  ("This will do fine.")  And when Whaley says, of the "X" spot, with some certainty, "This is the intersection right there", he must be going by--not numbers or street names--but by the distinctive configuration of the intersection: Beckley is strictly north/south, but Zang comes in to Beckley at like a 30-degree angle, and El Dorado/Neches goes out from Beckley at about the same angle.  Whaley recognized that particular intersection.  (By contrast, the Beckley/Neely intersection is strictly north-south/east-west.  *Not* the intersection.) Whaley was confused by many things, but not by "Neches".  (For instance, it's apparently "Zang", not "Zangs", as Whaley had it.)

[Michael Kalin]

The distance from Neches to Beckley is about 240 feet, continuing to the boarding house at 1026 N. Beckley totals about 465 feet, although crossing the oblique Beckley-Zangs intersection looks a little hairy. Straightline distance from Neches to the boarding house is about 300 feet.

Incidentally Zang Blvd is often referred to as Zangs, presumably an urban custom.

Edited February 21 by Michael Kalin

[Gerry Down]

1 hour ago, Donald Willis said:

Whaley was right: Neches and Beckley do intersect

As I have noted, the online reproduction of CE 371 is poor.  But with the aid of an old-fashioned fold-up map and Google Maps, I was able to spot the "X" on 371 which Ball and Whaley said was where the latter left Oswald off in Oak Cliff.  It is centered just above and a bit west of the intersection where Zang, Beckley, and El Dorado meet.  That "X" is far from Neely, but near Neches.  In fact, El Dorado is really a continuation of Neches, and it does intersect Beckley.  And it's a short street, only three blocks long; Neches is 11 blocks long.  Oswald may not have even realized that, going east, Neches becomes El Dorado two blocks before Beckley.  Oswald, then, must have re-directed Whaley, en route, with an instruction like "Neches near Beckley", and Whaley dropped him off at Beckley and El Dorado, the extension of Neches.  ("This will do fine.")  And when Whaley says, of the "X" spot, with some certainty, "This is the intersection right there", he must be going by--not numbers or street names--but by the distinctive configuration of the intersection: Beckley is strictly north/south, but Zang comes in to Beckley at like a 30-degree angle, and El Dorado/Neches goes out from Beckley at about the same angle.  Whaley recognized that particular intersection.  (By contrast, the Beckley/Neely intersection is strictly north-south/east-west.  *Not* the intersection.) Whaley was confused by many things, but not by "Neches".  (For instance, it's apparently "Zang", not "Zangs", as Whaley had it.)

Interesting. Can you post a few maps to help explain your theory?

[Donald Willis]

On 2/20/2024 at 4:26 PM, Gerry Down said:

Interesting. Can you post a few maps to help explain your theory?

Michael posted a good map just above.  I had to coordinate the CE 371 map with paper maps with Google Maps.  I think now that Oswald must have said "This will do fine" as Whaley was turning off Zang(s) south onto Beckley, and that Whaley, consequently, parked across the street from the boarding house.  Note that Zangs appears to be a sort of extension of El Dorado which, in turn, is an extension of Neches.  

[Gerry Down]

4 hours ago, Donald Willis said:

Michael posted a good map just above.  I had to coordinate the CE 371 map with paper maps with Google Maps.  I think now that Oswald must have said "This will do fine" as Whaley was turning off Zang(s) south onto Beckley, and that Whaley, consequently, parked across the street from the boarding house.  Note that Zangs appears to be a sort of extension of El Dorado which, in turn, is an extension of Neches.  

But Whaley said LHO got out and went walking southwards. Does that fit with your theory?

[Donald Willis]

6 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

But Whaley said LHO got out and went walking southwards. Does that fit with your theory?

That certainly didn't fit the original, Neely scenario--he'd had to have walked north about 4 blocks to get back to 1026 N. Beckley.  It does fit my scenario if Whaley lets Oswald off at the north end of the 1000 block--1026 is near the south end of the block.  Thanks for asking that!  Had forgotten about O's movements right after leaving the cab, according to his 11/23 affidavit.  And of course he could see from the north end of the block if there were any police activity at 1026, down at the south end.  I had wondered about that "south" when I first saw it.  He was in a hurry.  Didn't make sense for him to walk the wrong way.  Now it does--he wasn't walking the wrong way.  I am happy to have filled in at least one little piece of the Oak Cliff puzzle.

[Gerry Down]

The problem here though is Whaley physically drove the WC the route he says he took with LHO, and he took them down to Neely.

That Neely location made the timing tight for the WC to get LHO back to his rooming house.

So why would Whaley show the WC that he took LHO to Neely?

[Karl Kinaski]

There is a possibility that Whaley never said Neches ...  that he always said Neely and some Warren commission guy substituted Neely with Neches to muddy the water ... 

Edited February 24 by Karl Kinaski

[Donald Willis]

9 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

The problem here though is Whaley physically drove the WC the route he says he took with LHO, and he took them down to Neely.

That Neely location made the timing tight for the WC to get LHO back to his rooming house.

So why would Whaley show the WC that he took LHO to Neely?

The WC re-creation of the Whaley/Oswald route is fine as far as it goes.  But as you reminded me, it doesn't go far enough.  OK, so Whaley drives Oswald to Neely.  Then what?   As you said, or Whaley said--in his affidavit--Oswald then begins walking southwards:  Yes, he is at the 500 block--in both affidavit and re-creation.  But then (in the affidavit) he begins walking away from the rooming house!--the WC failed to address that problem.  This conjures up two possibilities:  Either Oswald did not return to the rooming house at all.  (Which no one, I believe, believes.)  Or he walked southwards further--for whatever reason--then turned back towards the house.  In which latter case, he would have gotten to 10th & Patton too late, say 1:17 at best, for the encounter with Tippit. Speaking of "tight timing"! 

And don't forget that--in the re-creation--Whaley tells us that he turned left off of Zangs onto the 500 block of Beckley.  Then he travels down to the actual 500 block.  So there are (unaddressed) problems at the beginning and the ending of Whaley's memorable trip down Beckley.  In any case, the Whaley/Oswald story is anything but cut-and-dry...

[Donald Willis]

11 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

There is a possibility that Whaley never said Neches ...  that he always said Neely and some Waren commission guy substituted Neely with Neches to muddy the water ... 

He didn't just say "Neches"--he put an "X" for the WC on the intersection of Beckley and Neches/El Dorado/Zangs as the spot where he dropped Oswald off.  And at least twice when he said "500" he meant "1000" block--in the "Four Days in November" film, where he said he turned left off Zangs onto the 500 block of Beckley THEN traveled down to the actual 500 block... and in his WC testimony, when he was asked if he had traveled to the 500 block, and Whaley responded, "No--I went to Neely & Beckley".  For him, "500 block" and Neely & Beckley were two different things.  Apparently, he did not realize that when Oswald said "This will do fine", it was ON the 1000 block.  But Whaley did not realize that Oswald had changed his mind, and wanted to be dropped  off near 1026.

[Michael Kalin]

The geography is confusing me. The 500 block of N Beckley occurs between Davis & 7th. Neely intersects N Beckley between the 600 & 700 blocks, one block north of Davis. See attached 1961 City Directory. Am I misunderstanding something?

Just as perplexing is the incorrect distance of 1.1 miles from the rooming house at 1026 N Beckley to 404 E 10th reported in CE2003. Per DCAD it is about .85 miles (also attached), confirmed by Google maps. This is a significant quarter mile discrepancy.

 

[Donald Willis]

3 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

The geography is confusing me. The 500 block of N Beckley occurs between Davis & 7th. Neely intersects N Beckley between the 600 & 700 blocks, one block north of Davis. See attached 1961 City Directory. Am I misunderstanding something?

Just as perplexing is the incorrect distance of 1.1 miles from the rooming house at 1026 N Beckley to 404 E 10th reported in CE2003. Per DCAD it is about .85 miles (also attached), confirmed by Google maps. This is a significant quarter mile discrepancy.

 

OK.  Before I get to the confusion, all this does clarify one thing:  When the WR says that Beckley & Neely is "the 700 block of N. Beckley" (pp162-3), it is right, as per the city director.  Weirdly, however, it goes on, anyway, to use Beckley & Neely as the destination for Whaley and the starting point for Oswald (p163).  That's a block-plus shorter for the cab, a block-plus longer for Oswald.  Which means added time for the whole trip since walking takes longer.  At about 2 minutes per block (as per the WC), that adds about 2 minutes to Oswald's walking time, minus some 10-15 seconds for Whaley's driving time.  (The distance from Neely down to 7th is about the same as the distance between Neely & 6th, & 6th & the rooming house.)  Extrapolating from that, that means he gets to 10th & Patton about 1:16.  Add some indeterminate figure from Whaley's observation that O began walking south after he got out of the cab, and we're at, at least, 1:17 or 1:18.  Oops--gotta get another suspect for the shooting at 10th & Patton... Beautiful cartographical work, Michael!  

Now we get to the suspected chicanery, on the WC's part.  In his affidavit, Whaley names no Beckley cross streets.  Then, in his first & second stints [he seems to have made 3 or 4 separate appearances] before the Commission, he names Neches, as in "500 block at Neches and North Beckley", on March 12th.  I don't see any reference yet to Neely by anyone.  It seems that only during his third or 4th stint (April 8th) does he, finally, mention the "intersection of Beckley & Neely", as if, in the interim, he had been struck by a bolt of lightning which inspired him to substitute "Neely" for "Neches".  And that becomes a mantra for Commission and witness.  But based on your findings here, Whaley should have been saying "Beckley & 7th".  The latter is two streets south of Beckley.  Not exactly a close call.  I believe that was an intentional "mistake".  "Neely" sounds so much like "Neches".  It allows folks like Hank Sienzant to see that as confusion on the part of Whaley.  True, neither Neely nor Neches is the 500 block of N. Beckley--Whaley, as I've posited, took Oswald's change-of-mind "This will do fine" as meaning that he was letting him out at the 500 block.  But some other influence made him testify "Neely".

[Donald Willis]

5 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

The geography is confusing me. The 500 block of N Beckley occurs between Davis & 7th. Neely intersects N Beckley between the 600 & 700 blocks, one block north of Davis. See attached 1961 City Directory. Am I misunderstanding something?

Just as perplexing is the incorrect distance of 1.1 miles from the rooming house at 1026 N Beckley to 404 E 10th reported in CE2003. Per DCAD it is about .85 miles (also attached), confirmed by Google maps. This is a significant quarter mile discrepancy.

 

As for the shorter distance from 1026 N Beckley to 10th & Patton, the WR time is still 13 minutes...

[Michael Kalin]

Belin badgered Whaley's testimony into suborned shape on 4/8/64. LOL -- he was probably still smarting from the shellacking he took from Benavides on 4/2.

What I cannot understand is why his entourage "took the long way around route" from 1026 N Beckley to 404 E 10th (distance close to the 1.1 miles of CE2003), while admitting that "this is not the most direct route." Why bother -- what was his angle?

I hate to see the original Neches idea fade away, which seems to be happening. It makes a lot of sense to me.

Edited February 25 by Michael Kalin

[Donald Willis]

2 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

Belin badgered Whaley's testimony into suborned shape on 4/8/64. LOL -- he was probably still smarting from the shellacking he took from Benavides on 4/2.

What I cannot understand is why his entourage "took the long way around route" from 1026 N Beckley to 404 E 10th (distance close to the 1.1 miles of CE2003), while admitting that "this is not the most direct route." Why bother -- what was his angle?

I hate to see the original Neches idea fade away, which seems to be happening. It makes a lot of sense to me.

Yes, I noticed that the Commission route didn't follow yours.  I wonder if the differing routes account for the two-minute time discrepancy between the WC & Myers (12 minutes & 14 minutes, resp.)...