Why Whaley separates Neely & N. Beckley from "500 block"

[Donald Willis]

Why Whaley separates Neely & N. Beckley from "500 block"

Q:  Why does William Whaley, in the "Four Days in November" video segment, say, "So I carried [Oswald] off across the viaduct, turned left at the 500 block of North Beckley, and when I got over on N. Beckley came on the intersection of Neely, North Beckley??  The left turn onto Beckley from the viaduct is at the 1000 block, the block of Oswald's rooming house, not the 500 block.

A:  Because Oswald improvised a last-minute change of destination.  As recorded in Whaley's manifest, Oswald initially told him to take him to the 500 block of Beckley.  But while Whaley was turning left onto Beckley, Oswald saw that there were no patrol cars in front of the rooming house, hence no need for Whaley to travel five more blocks, south to Neely, the actual 500 block on N. Beckley.  So he tells Whaley "This will do fine", and Whaley deposits him there, on the sidewalk opposite the rooming house.  Whaley then, as noted above, thinks that the 1000 block was the 500 block, as per Oswald's *original* instruction, because the taciturn Oswald (as Whaley describes him) does not tell him otherwise.  

Hence, also, this exchange at the hearings:

Ball:  You drove until you reached the 500 block, or not?
Whaley:  No, sir.  I didn't drive until I reached the 500 block.  I drove until I reached Beckley & Neely. (4/8/64 testimony)

Oswald has, no doubt, been kindly informed--probably more than once--that the 500 block and Neely are one and the same thing.  But his actual experience is that he let Oswald out at N. Beckley near Neches, the 1000 block--where Oswald said, "This will do fine"--and that that location has been imprinted on his mind.  Hence, the separation, in his mind of "500 block" and "Neely & Beckley".

Import:  Oswald did not walk back the five blocks to the rooming house from Neely.  He just walked across the street, after Whaley let him out at the (in Whaley's mind) "500 block".  So the timeline for his supposed walk from the rooming house to 10th & Patton is reduced by a corresponding four or five minutes, to about 1:11.  By 1:15 or 1:16, then, Oswald is nearing the Texas Theatre, not arriving at 10th & Patton.

dcw

[Michael Kalin]

Donald, I think the "Oswald" that begins the penultimate paragraph is a mistake. Shouldn't it be "Whaley has, no doubt, been kindly informed..."?

Regardless, a patrol car arrived while Oswald was inside the rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley, but the identity of the driver remains unknown. Roberts said the car's number was not 170, possibly 207, and that there were two officers on board.

Hill driving Valentine's 207 from downtown is a convincing candidate, although the presence of a passenger is doubtful, but recently in other related threads I suggested it may have been Mentzel after leaving Luby's.

The FBI at the behest of the WC issued a memorandum on this topic based on info provided by Assistant Chief Batchelor, distancing Mentzel from 1026 N. Beckley at the critical time in no uncertain terms:

Quote

W. D. MENTZEL, Districts 91 and 92, car 84. Was eating lunch at 430 West Jefferson at time of assassination. Left restaurant to answer shooting call in 400 block East 10th Street, Oak Cliff. Did not pass intersection of Zangs and Beckley.

...

Officer MENTZEL stated at approximately 12:30 P.M. he stopped for lunch at Luby's Cafeteria, 430 West Jefferson, Oak Cliff. He advised he tried on several occasions to call the station by telephone, but did not get through to the operator until about 1:00 P.M., at which time he was told the President had just been shot. He stated he left the remainder of his lunch and went into service by car radio, and was immediately dispatched to the 800 block of West Davis on an accident call, code 7, where he remained about ten minutes handling that call. He advised he then traveled west on Davis to Tyler when he heard the call involving a shooting of an officer in the 400 block of East 10th Street. He stated he was dispatched to the intersection of Beckley and Jefferson to look for a reported individual running away from that intersection, but was unable to locate the suspect. He stated that he, in company with other officers, entered the library at that intersection, and then was dispatched to the Texas Theatre, where the suspect was reportedly hiding.

Officer MENTZEL advised he did not go north on Beckley to Zangs Boulevard at any time on that day, and could not recall being within six or eight blocks of that location.

This is fishy -- no mention of the info Mentzel gave HSCA that he was "cruising west 10th and Zangs" prior to the car accident dispatch, the latter leading directly to the rooming house with plenty of time to beep before the dispatch to the accident; no record of a subsequent dispatch to Beckley & Jefferson; also no library at that intersection, and the DPD did not enter the library at Marsalis.

Even though 84 does not resemble 207 and Mentzel traveled alone, he's a strong choice for the driver of the police car Roberts heard & saw.

[Donald Willis]

53 minutes ago, Michael Kalin said:

Donald, I think the "Oswald" that begins the penultimate paragraph is a mistake. Shouldn't it be "Whaley has, no doubt, been kindly informed..."?

Regardless, a patrol car arrived while Oswald was inside the rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley, but the identity of the driver remains unknown. Roberts said the car's number was not 170, possibly 207, and that there were two officers on board.

Hill driving Valentine's 207 from downtown is a convincing candidate, although the presence of a passenger is doubtful, but recently in other related threads I suggested it may have been Mentzel after leaving Luby's.

The FBI at the behest of the WC issued a memorandum on this topic based on info provided by Assistant Chief Batchelor, distancing Mentzel from 1026 N. Beckley at the critical time in no uncertain terms:

This is fishy -- no mention of the info Mentzel gave HSCA that he was "cruising west 10th and Zangs" prior to the car accident dispatch, the latter leading directly to the rooming house with plenty of time to beep before the dispatch to the accident; no record of a subsequent dispatch to Beckley & Jefferson; also no library at that intersection, and the DPD did not enter the library at Marsalis.

Even though 84 does not resemble 207 and Mentzel traveled alone, he's a strong choice for the driver of the police car Roberts heard & saw.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious switcheroo.  I hate making mistakes like that.  Usually, I catch them before show time... I know that No True Flags has Hill driving Oswald around, & Roberts did offer "207" at one point.  But I find that Hill is inextricable from the depository action between about 1 & 1:10.  But, yes, if the beeping did happen, it could have been Mentzel.  Between 12:55 & 12:58, the time I have Oswald in the house.

[Donald Willis]

17 hours ago, Donald Willis said:

Why Whaley separates Neely & N. Beckley from "500 block"

Q:  Why does William Whaley, in the "Four Days in November" video segment, say, "So I carried [Oswald] off across the viaduct, turned left at the 500 block of North Beckley, and when I got over on N. Beckley came on the intersection of Neely, North Beckley??  The left turn onto Beckley from the viaduct is at the 1000 block, the block of Oswald's rooming house, not the 500 block.

A:  Because Oswald improvised a last-minute change of destination.  As recorded in Whaley's manifest, Oswald initially told him to take him to the 500 block of Beckley.  But while Whaley was turning left onto Beckley, Oswald saw that there were no patrol cars in front of the rooming house, hence no need for Whaley to travel five more blocks, south to Neely, the actual 500 block on N. Beckley.  So he tells Whaley "This will do fine", and Whaley deposits him there, on the sidewalk opposite the rooming house.  Whaley then, as noted above, thinks that the 1000 block was the 500 block, as per Oswald's *original* instruction, because the taciturn Oswald (as Whaley describes him) does not tell him otherwise.  

Hence, also, this exchange at the hearings:

Ball:  You drove until you reached the 500 block, or not?
Whaley:  No, sir.  I didn't drive until I reached the 500 block.  I drove until I reached Beckley & Neely. (4/8/64 testimony)

Whaley has, no doubt, been kindly informed--probably more than once--that the 500 block and Neely are one and the same thing.  But his actual experience is that he let Oswald out at N. Beckley near Neches, the 1000 block--where Oswald said, "This will do fine"--and that that location has been imprinted on his mind.  Hence, the separation, in his mind of "500 block" and "Neely & Beckley".

Import:  Oswald did not walk back the five blocks to the rooming house from Neely.  He just walked across the street, after Whaley let him out at the (in Whaley's mind) "500 block".  So the timeline for his supposed walk from the rooming house to 10th & Patton is reduced by a corresponding four or five minutes, to about 1:11.  By 1:15 or 1:16, then, Oswald is nearing the Texas Theatre, not arriving at 10th & Patton.

dcw

Correction above ("Oswald has..." to "Whaley has"), reflecting Michael's advisory.

Edited February 22 by Donald Willis
correction in one paragraphj

[Donald Willis]

17 hours ago, Donald Willis said:

Why Whaley separates Neely & N. Beckley from "500 block"

Q:  Why does William Whaley, in the "Four Days in November" video segment, say, "So I carried [Oswald] off across the viaduct, turned left at the 500 block of North Beckley, and when I got over on N. Beckley came on the intersection of Neely, North Beckley??  The left turn onto Beckley from the viaduct is at the 1000 block, the block of Oswald's rooming house, not the 500 block.

A:  Because Oswald improvised a last-minute change of destination.  As recorded in Whaley's manifest, Oswald initially told him to take him to the 500 block of Beckley.  But while Whaley was turning left onto Beckley, Oswald saw that there were no patrol cars in front of the rooming house, hence no need for Whaley to travel five more blocks, south to Neely, the actual 500 block on N. Beckley.  So he tells Whaley "This will do fine", and Whaley deposits him there, on the sidewalk opposite the rooming house.  Whaley then, as noted above, thinks that the 1000 block was the 500 block, as per Oswald's *original* instruction, because the taciturn Oswald (as Whaley describes him) does not tell him otherwise.  

Hence, also, this exchange at the hearings:

Ball:  You drove until you reached the 500 block, or not?
Whaley:  No, sir.  I didn't drive until I reached the 500 block.  I drove until I reached Beckley & Neely. (4/8/64 testimony)

Whaley has, no doubt, been kindly informed--probably more than once--that the 500 block and Neely are one and the same thing.  But his actual experience is that he let Oswald out at N. Beckley near Neches, the 1000 block--where Oswald said, "This will do fine"--and that that location has been imprinted on his mind.  Hence, the separation, in his mind of "500 block" and "Neely & Beckley".

Import:  Oswald did not walk back the five blocks to the rooming house from Neely.  He just walked across the street, after Whaley let him out at the (in Whaley's mind) "500 block".  So the timeline for his supposed walk from the rooming house to 10th & Patton is reduced by a corresponding four or five minutes, to about 1:11.  By 1:15 or 1:16, then, Oswald is nearing the Texas Theatre, not arriving at 10th & Patton.

dcw

In the interests of fairness and Hank Sienzant, I should add that, yes, Oswald might have been slowed down by an unforeseen event, and arrived at 10th & Patton just in time (circa 1:15) to run into Tippit.  But I think a possible restroom break, as he suggests, is covered by the three minutes he's in the rooming house.  He failed to mention that debris from a falling meteorite might have hit him and disoriented him for some four minutes.  Yes, any one of a hundred things might have detained him for 4 or 5 minutes.  But many of those possibilities are negated by Oswald's observed, evident need for speed.  He switched the slow bus for a fast taxi.  And Mrs. Roberts observed, "He come in, and I said, 'Well, you sure are in a hurry', & he never answered me."  At any rate, I have, I think, explained heretofore inexplicable statements by Whaley, principally his consistent inability to connect "500 block" with Neely & Beckley...

Edited February 22 by Donald Willis
correction in one paragraph

[Michael Kalin]

7 hours ago, Donald Willis said:

INA

 

Deleted.

 

Edited February 23 by Michael Kalin
Nuff said.

[Donald Willis]

2 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

Donald, better to edit the original post, and the mistake will never come back to haunt you. LOL -- this isn't a newsgroup!

Click the three dots upper right as I just did to add this note.

But what do I do about this note?

[Michael Kalin]

3 hours ago, Donald Willis said:

But what do I do about this note?

That was my problem.