Did Oswald murder Tippit.

[Steve Thomas]

Duke,

Someone identifying themselves as the unit assigned to district 56, located at the right middle of the radio patrol map, calls to say that he'll be "clear for 5," in other words, out of the car (or out of service) for five minutes.

District 56, on the other hand, is located at the far eastern edge of Dallas, bordering on the towns of Garland and Mesquite. If the individual claiming to be "56" was actually assigned to that area and was in fact on East Jefferson then he was about 10 miles from his assigned patrol district.

Patrolamn W.P. Parker was assigned to Districts 56 and 58.

Captain Talbert told the WC that this was east Dallas, the Garland Road area.

This is 25H913

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=943

Steve Thomas

[Duke Lane]

Duke,

Someone identifying themselves as the unit assigned to district 56 ... District 56 ... is located at the far eastern edge of Dallas, bordering on the towns of Garland and Mesquite. If the individual claiming to be "56" was actually assigned to that area and was in fact on East Jefferson then he was about 10 miles from his assigned patrol district.

Patrolamn W.P. Parker was assigned to Districts 56 and 58. Captain Talbert told the WC that this was east Dallas, the Garland Road area. This is 25H913

Thanks, Steve. You are quite right about the location of 56, which the illustration below may provide some perspective for. I had merely assumed that you can see the "56" on the radio map.

You can see that the area from the Dallas Mapsco I've selected fits neatly into the area hand-drawn by DPD for this exhibit. District 56 is roughly the square numbered "3" on the inset map; square "1" is Dealey Plaza, square "2" is Oak Cliff. District 58 is, of course, the next patrol district to the east, or away from downtown and Oak Cliff.

The starting location I selected for the 10 mile estimate was Buckner Blvd at Garland Rd, which is marked on the upper left of the larger street map by a red square. This is closer, rather than farther, from downtown and Oak Cliff than if he had been, say, in his other district, #58, so I'm saying he was fewer miles out of his area than I could have.

(To be eminently fair, placing him at the extreme southwest corner of the district by the highway (then known as the Fort Worth Toll Road, of Donald Wayne House fame) so he could make the trip as fast as possible, Yahoo maps show it was still 10.3 miles, taking approximately 12 minutes.)

District 56 and Dallas Inset Map

Thanks also for the reminder of where I had gotten the information about officers' assignments that afternoon!

I have equivocated by saying "someone identifying themselves as" because of the discrepancy between what W.P. Parker did (according to CE2645) and where "56" said he was ("East Jefferson"). Unfortunately, this report is the only place Parker is referenced by name in the entire 26 volumes and Report, and believe it or not, it does not appear that anybody has mentioned him in any of the gazillion books on this subject. At least, his name does not appear at all in Walt Brown's "Global Index."

The two sides to the coin are that there is no way for certain to say that the voice identifying itself by Parker's call sign was Parker; on the other side, if he was in Oak Cliff around the time Tippit was killed, it was only a 10-mile drive, much of it via highway, so - what? - 15 minutes later he could very well have been setting up roadblocks just as was reported.

(Of course, one of the difficulties about these assignments is determining how the officers got them since they were not broadcast over either DPD radio channel. As already noted, 56 was not the originator or intended recipient of any broadcast after his 12:44 broadcast indicating he was on East Jefferson. No other mention of "roadblocks" is on the tapes either, so it must have been spontaneous decisions by these officer to set them up - or else they all called in by phone, or someone rode around telling them in person, somehow knowing exactly where to find them without using the radio?)

Edited November 10, 2006 by Duke Lane

[Duke Lane]

What, nobody's beating me up on this?

[Jack White]

What, nobody's beating me up on this?

Duke...you have come a long way since the days you were under

the influence of Dave Perry. Wish I could say the same for GM.

Much of your recent research is very interesting.

Jack

[Greg Parker]

Greg

With regard to a description of this person, Baker said it was "a white man, approx 30 years old/5'9"/165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket."

Oswald: white male, 24 years old, 5' 9", 145 pounds, light brown hair, grey wool or flannel jacket ... The person Baker encountered does not sound like Oswald. ...

Duke

According to Mrs Reid, Lee was not wearing a jacket when he came through her office area.

Greg

Most employees (including Oswald) left their jackets in the Domino room on the 1st floor while working. He was still "at work" (Though at lunch) when seen by Reid. He put on the woolen/flannel grey jacket when he returned to his boarding room. It's immaterial what clothing description Baker gave since I firmly believe the person he encountered was not Oswald.

Greg

The proof that it was not Oswald is in the fact that Oswald was in the same room awaiting interrogation as Marvin Johnson took Baker's affidavit. If it had been Oswald, the affidavit would say something like "the person I encountered was the suspect now under arrest." At the very least, he would have got the description right with Oswald sitting right there across from him.

Duke

Yes, it would seem that way, wouldn't it. It depends on what else was going on in the room, if anything, that might have prevented or distracted Baker from noticing Oswald when he was there. What are the cites on where Baker was and where Oswald was?

Greg

I believe all (or most) offices in the building were small. Fritz's certainly was. In any case, as pointed out, Marvin Johnson later claimed Baker ID'd Oswald, and Baker himself said in testimony he saw Oswald in the room as he was having his affidavit written. Unfortunately for Baker, no such evidence exists in the affidavit that he recognised Oswald.

Greg

Somewhere between the time [baker's] affidavit was taken and the time Truly gave his on the Saturday, it was decided to (1) claim this encounter had been with Oswald, and (2) to switch it from third or fourth floor to second. These switches would be necessary since it is likely Baker did encounter the real gunman (or a decoy) and Reid's statement had placed Oswald on the second floor. Truly, I believe, went with Baker to ensure Baker did not arrest this man.

Duke

One could speculate how these things were possible, but how would they have been accomplished? Here's what I'm getting so far:

* Baker gave his report on Friday, stating he saw a man on the 3rd or 4th floor "walking away from the stairs; this person was not Oswald in the second floor lunch room, as evidenced in part by the apparent fact that Baker didn't recognize Lee while he was sitting in the same room at DPD HQ;

* In the meanwhile, someone (who?) decided that it was unacceptable to have had "the cop" (I'm guessing nobody knew his name?) encounter a conspirator (shooter or otherwise) on his way downstairs, and thus used Geraldean Reid's statement placing Lee in the second floor office coming from the lunch room to re-manufacture the encounter as having occurred on the second floor to coincide with Reid's encounter with him.

* Some time after this, "the deciders" somehow convinced Baker that he needed to play along with the scenario, which could have been easy enough if only based on Baker's inferior knowledge of the building (vice Truly's: "no, officer, you'll remember that this door was swinging shut ..."), his likely adrenaline rush (he was after someone shooting at the President), and his focus on what may have been going on in the upper floors.

Am I missing anything?

Greg

That's pretty much it. I don't think it would have taken a great deal to Baker to comply. It's not like cops in any force in any country have never covered for each other, never encouraged subtle but telling changes to witness accounts in order to help secure convictions, sweep away technicalities which may get cases thrown out of court, or tampered with or manufactured evidence. Baker in fact, ended up so confused in writing further statements later, he wasn't apparently sure whether he was supposed to now include the coke Reid saw Oswald drinking - first including it, then crossing it out. Who prompted him on that, I wonder?

Duke

Here's what I guess I'm not quite getting yet:

* What was Truly's role in the conspiracy; how did he fit in? As noted elsewhere, he had risen through the ranks at TSBD, so had been there for some period of time, thus he hadn't been at the CIA Conspiracy School or to Cuba, and he wasn't Italian, so who was he conspiring with? If he wasn't tied in with any of the usual groups - or was he? - then how did he come to take a part in all of this? I am presuming that it was not TSBD suppliers who were doing the shooting ....

Greg

I can't say unequivocally that no one has ever looked deeply into the backgrounds of Truly, Campbell and Cason, but if they have, I've yet to come across it. And if no one ever has in 40 plus years, it is one of the great failings of the research community.

Duke

* How did Truly & Company "get to" Baker to get his testimony to conform with their "cover story?" What was his (or Campbell's or Cason's) connection to the DPD that they could have brought any kind of pressure to bear on him? Was that connection direct or indirect (i.e., did they know someone or just have their own influence)? Or was it merely a case of continual "reminders" of "what happened" whenever Baker came back to the building for official purposes? Or did maybe Baker come back unofficially to refresh his own memory, and have it "refreshed" for him?

Greg

Truly's role seems to have been limited to "manufacturing" a temp position for Oswald, and in ensuring that Oswald would appear to have decamped without clearance to do so after the assassination. Baker's charge into the building was probably not expected and he made an "exutive" decision on the spot to go with him in the search to ensure he didn't nab anyone. It wasn't "Truly & company" who needed to get Baker to fall into line. It was the DPD who were of framing Oswald. Truly had merely set the rabbit running so the frame could take place. Not all cops would even have to have been conspirators before the fact. It would only take a handful of senior ones. Except for the magnitude and implications of the crime - this in all other respects was just another frame-up. No big deal for any of them. They'd done it before, and they'd do it again.

Duke

* How could they have known what Reid's statement was? I don't know offhand when Geraldean gave her statement, or if it was before or after Truly's. Even assuming it was prior, if it was given to DPD or DCSD, how did Truly & Company know what it contained unless they were present when she gave it, or unless they had "someone on the inside" to let them know? And if the former was the case, was Truly's just a case of fast thinking on the feet, or did he have time to confer with others - or did he even need to confer with anyone else?? - so the "correct" story was able to be circulated and "firmed up?" If the latter, you're inferring a different conspiracy than is normally postulated.

The thing is, if that's the case, it could not have begun and ended there; it had to continue through to Oswald's own execution and beyond, otherwise we'd have to believe that TSBD had its own "part to play" in the conspiracy and the rest was left to chance.

Greg

I have Reid's statement as being before Truly's - though to be perfectly honest, my notes don't reflect where that came from. I think it had to "someone on the inside" who clued Truly in. No one knew in the immediate aftermath what evidence would fly later (in pointing to Oswald) and what wouldn't. The "official" version started to take shape over Saturday - and it was very different to what came out in statements to the DPD and the press the previous day.

Duke on what he perceives my take is on TSBD role

* Hired Oswald, specifically, on a pretense together with Charles Givens when the actual trend was to start laying off employees due to slackening times rather than hiring them. The only "excuse" - if that's all it was - to do so was to have the available manpower to re-surface the upper floors (in which case, why not use the inexperienced men to nail boards to the floor rather than fulfill orders?

Greg

Can't recall off-hand when Givens (re)started with TSBD - but in all other respects - yes. You've nailed it.

Duke

* Enabled the shooter(s) with entry to the building and a guarded exit meaning, too, that the shooter(s) was or were known to them, at least by sight (and none of these people suffered "mysterious deaths!"). This, it would seem, would necessitate some orchestration of the other inhabitants of the building during the crucial period, or else their complicity to one degree or another;

Greg

Enabled entry - yes. Not sure about about "orchestration" or "complicity" needed by all workers in the building. There were a number of companies operating in there, and anyone who saw a stranger walk by would probably automatically assume he was there on bussiness with one of the other companies and think no more of it. Office security then is not what it is now. Then there is Danny Arce's "old man". At the risk of sounding suspicious about everything (and I most certainly am not), this is another story which changed over time. In his initial statement, he merely said he saw the person leave the building. By the time he got to the WC, he now not only saw him entering as well, he also spoke to him, and helped him inside because the "old man" had a weak kidney and needed to pee. In other words, by the time of his WC testimony, he had a completely innocent reason ready for the man being inside. But getting back to the main point here... can you name anyone else who remembered seeing this "old man"?

Duke

* Made up and coordinated a story to implicate Oswald that survived - or merely fit into - the recollections of all of the other building employees. The latter case would seemingly require advance or immediate knowledge of what each of those employees said in their statements.

Greg

Who was in charge of gathering the evidence? Not Truly. Stories changed to fit what was needed, when it was needed. That's a fact. How that was accomplished doesn't change that fact. The floor laying crew is another example. They seem to have had pressure tut on them to say they'd seen Oswald on the 6th floor as they were going down for lunch - whereas in initial statement's it was pretty well unanimous that Oswald had been on the 5th.

Duke

I've gotta run for now, but wanted to make at least these few points. By no means am I suggesting that any of this is necessarily impossible, but in order to be even vaguely possible, much less probable, these things would seem to need to be accounted for. Your thoughts?

Greg

My thoughts on your thoughts? Some of them I see as valid and really push me to think things through further - a damn good thing cos looking after two two year olds all day and night is turning my brain to mush! That said, a couple of your points puzzle me as to why you even see them as a concern.

I know. It's really a test of thought processes. Fair enough...

[Greg Parker]

Duke

I'm familiar with McWatters' statement about his thinking they wanted him to ID the kid, bu there are still the nagging little matters about McWatter's transfer being found on Oswald's person after he'd been arrested, and dear old Mrs Bledsoe's ID'ing him on the same bus.

Greg

McWatters: even the WC called him "vague". A little confused maybe. He thought the kid must be the assassin. He realised the kid (Milton Jones) wasn't Oswald the next day when said kid got his bus again.

The transfer: According to Fritz' testimony "He was searched, the officers who arrested him made the first search, I am sure. He had another search at the building and I believe that one of my officers, Mr. Boyd, found some cartridges in his pocket in the room after he came to the city hall. I can't tell you the exact time when he searched him." The search in which the transfer was alleged to have been found was a bit more than two hours after he was brought in. So imagine for a minute... there he is... the possible presidential assassin, sitting around for at least two hours with cartridges, a box top and bus transfer all still in his pocket/s (there were conflicting accounts as to which pocket - pants or shirt the cartridges were in). Do you really buy that? Do you buy this transfer as having come out of Oswald's pocket after what he'd been through?

Bledsoe: She admitted in testimony that /a/ she only glanced at him briefly; /b/ that the SS had brought the arrest shirt to her - thus she stated Oswald had a shirt/jacket with a hole in the elbow (too bad the arrest shirt/jacket was not what he had on at the time) and /c/ that Sorrel had helped her prepare notes for her testimony.

Duke on whether Tippit was really parked at a Gloco watching traffic from DP

There is one "non-discrepancy" that belies this entire scenario (which I've argued ceaselessly with Drenas) and that is where and when Tippit gave his locations on the radio. At one point (12:46?) he gave his location as being at Kiest and Bonnieview, a location in SE Oak Cliff. Eight minutes later, he was asked his location, and he said he was at 8th and Lancaster.

The most direct route from where he was to where he went is Bonnieview, which becomes 8th, which in turn intersects with Lancaster just west of the R.L. Thornton Expressway (I-35E - see map below). I have driven this route several times at "normal" speeds - remember that JD was not told to proceed at code (lights and/or siren) - and guess what? It takes just about exactly eight minutes!

They say "the devil's in the details," and this is one that's difficult to fake, "pretending" to get from somewhere you're not to somewhere else in just the right amount of time that it would normally take.

Greg

It seems to come down to either believing Tippit was truthful about his whereabouts at 12:46 and the five Gloco witnesses lied (or were all mistaken) or, Tippit lied and the witnesses got it right. If the latter, the timing issue you raise is (for once!) a true coincidence. Whatever the case, it could not be as you say, a case of "pretending" to get from point "a" to point "b" in just the right amount of time as he presumably had no idea when his dispatcher was going to call.

Greg

It seems possible that the TT was the designated place for Oswald to wait - so they'd know where to find him should Tippit fail to deliver him to Redbird.

Duke

But wait! Of course Lee'd have to go to the theater because Tippit was going to fail to deliver him to Redbird because they were going to kill him first! The two possibilities are a contradiction.

Greg

I'll try and rephrase... Lee may have been told to go to the TT on whatever pretext, but the plotters had no intention that he would actually make it there. Tippit was supposed to intercept him and whisk him off to Redbird. When Tippit failed to do that, they knew Oswald would - if he followed the direction - be at the TT. They couldn't just go there and grab him, however. How would that be explained? They needed someone to raise the alarm he'd entered...

As for Tippit... he was killed when Oswald slipped through his fingers. However, I do think it's likely they were going to kill him anyway even had he succeeded in getting Oswald to the airport.

[Duke Lane]

Duke...you have come a long way since the days you were under the influence of Dave Perry. Wish I could say the same for GM. Much of your recent research is very interesting.

What makes you think I'm not still? Actually, wasn't the story that I'd come from Langley to "turn" Mack and Perry? So who was under whose influence when?

Sometimes it is simpler to prove what wasn't than what was, such as the story of "David Atlee Phillips" "under arrest" at Fort Worth and the records and photos of "his" arrest having "disappeared." I'll also have something to say very soon about one 20-year-old in the plaza ... or not. It's been an interesting story so far, we'll see how it turns out.

[Jack White]

Duke...you have come a long way since the days you were under the influence of Dave Perry. Wish I could say the same for GM. Much of your recent research is very interesting.

What makes you think I'm not still? Actually, wasn't the story that I'd come from Langley to "turn" Mack and Perry? So who was under whose influence when?

Sometimes it is simpler to prove what wasn't than what was, such as the story of "David Atlee Phillips" "under arrest" at Fort Worth and the records and photos of "his" arrest having "disappeared." I'll also have something to say very soon about one 20-year-old in the plaza ... or not. It's been an interesting story so far, we'll see how it turns out.

No...quite the contrary. The speculation is that you were a young

trainee sent down to train in the field under an expert operative.

This was intensified when it was reported that your "company" had

transferred you "to Virginia".

Perry is good. How he turned GM 180 degrees is still a mystery.

"Mind control?"

Jack

[Duke Lane]

Most employees (including Oswald) left their jackets in the Domino room on the 1st floor while working. He was still "at work" (Though at lunch) when seen by Reid. He put on the woolen/flannel grey jacket when he returned to his boarding room. It's immaterial what clothing description Baker gave since I firmly believe the person he encountered was not Oswald.

Refresh my memory: who was it that found a jacket, supposedly Oswald's, at TSBD a couple of weeks later. Same guy who "found" the clipboard, I think ....

The proof that it was not Oswald is in the fact that Oswald was in the same room awaiting interrogation as Marvin Johnson took Baker's affidavit. If it had been Oswald, the affidavit would say something like "the person I encountered was the suspect now under arrest." At the very least, he would have got the description right with Oswald sitting right there across from him. ... In any case, as pointed out, Marvin Johnson later claimed Baker ID'd Oswald, and Baker himself said in testimony he saw Oswald in the room as he was having his affidavit written. Unfortunately for Baker, no such evidence exists in the affidavit that he recognised Oswald.

I will buy into Baker's getting Ozzie's description correct if they were in the same room together and Oz had been the same man he'd seen on the stairs, but two ... no, three considerations come into play here:

1. Since Baker was, according to this scenario, not clued into what was supposed to be happening here, and since other TSBD employees were at DPD providing statements, and since Oz worked at TSBD, there is not necessarily any reason for Baker to have realized that Oz was a suspect rather than someone simply giving a statement, even if Baker recognized him from an (alleged) encounter at TSBD.
   
2. As to recognition at the time of his statement, put yourself in Baker's shoes: you've just come from running into a strange building after a barrage of gunfire had sounded, looking for a potential shooter. You encounter someone that the building super had identified as being "all right." There is no longer any reason to remember this guy: he's a "nobody" as far as your investigation goes. "Trained observer" or not, it is very possible that Baker didn't put two and two together even while describing what the man he'd seen had been wearing, if only - or especially - because O wasn't wearing the same thing anymore, and was therefore a "different person." That is human nature.
   Baker's later "recognition" of LHO can be attributed to what I call "manufactured memory" or that some others might call "the power of suggestion," which simply put refers to a situation akin to someone saying "gee, now that you mention it, he does look like the guy who robbed the bank," and therefore, guess what: he is the guy you saw rob the bank (whether he really is or not).
   
3. Even if Baker did recognize Oz, it would not be proper procedure to identify someone who happened to be in the same room at the time of making a statement for a couple of good reasons:
   1. 
      
   2. There is no absolutely-certain way to identify who is in a room at any given moment, and if there are more than just one other person in the room, the reliability of his identification could be called into greater question (this is where, at trial, they would call in Johnson to state that, while taking Baker's statement, Baker had indicated that the man he'd encountered at TSBD was then in the same room while Baker was giving his statement, and Baker had pointed out the defendant to him, Officer Johnson); and
      
   3. If Oz was later found not to be the person Baker had encountered, Baker's written contemporaneous account identifying LHO as the individual he'd encountered could jeopardize his testimony at trial since, if whomever he had encountered was clearly not Oswald, how therefore could his later identification of another perp be considered reliable?
      

To paraphrase another witness, "a good defense attorney could take him apart" with that kind of testimony; a good prosecutor wouldn't even have called him as a witness to this effect. For example:

Q

- Officer Baker, isn't it true that you identified a particular individual who was then present at the police department interrogation room as being the same individual whom you saw in the TSBD?

A

- Yes, ma'am it is.

Q

- Is it not also true, Officer Baker, that that individual turned out to only have been in to make a statement - that is, not as a suspect - and was subsequently determined not to have been the individual whom you

claim

to have encountered as you went upstairs?

A

- Yes, ma'am.

Q

- Well, then, Officer, if your positive identification of the

first

individual turned out to have been mistaken, how can we be certain that your identification of

this

defendant is reliable?

The prosecutor would have had Truly come in as back-up to identify the man the officer had described as his employee, Lee Oswald. But if Baker's Friday afternoon statement had reflected this information as fact, you can see how easy it could have been to call his entire judgment and recollection into question (and I'm not even a trial lawyer!). Cops, I'm told, don't particularly like "reasonable doubt," and sure as heck don't want to give it up without a fight!

[*]A statement is intended to reflect the facts of what happened at the time of the events being described. Even if Oswald had come into the interrogation room and greeted Baker with a hearty "Hi, remember me? I met you on the stairs about an hour ago," that would not be germane to the events Baker had been describing (it might, however, have been pertinent to testimony provided later by either Baker or Johnson at trial).

Oops, that was four considerations! Oh well: all of that merely to say that Baker's lack of identification of Oswald in his statement does not necessarily have any real significance, and does not necessarily "prove" anything.

Greg - Somewhere between the time [baker's] affidavit was taken and the time Truly gave his on the Saturday, it was decided to (1) claim this encounter had been with Oswald, and (2) to switch it from third or fourth floor to second. These switches would be necessary since it is likely Baker did encounter the real gunman (or a decoy) and Reid's statement had placed Oswald on the second floor. Truly, I believe, went with Baker to ensure Baker did not arrest this man.

Duke - One could speculate how these things were possible, but how would they have been accomplished? Here's what I'm getting so far:

• Baker gave his report on Friday, stating he saw a man on the 3rd or 4th floor "walking away from the stairs; this person was not Oswald in the second floor lunch room, as evidenced in part by the apparent fact that Baker didn't recognize Lee while he was sitting in the same room at DPD HQ;
  
• In the meanwhile, someone (who?) decided that it was unacceptable to have had "the cop" (I'm guessing nobody knew his name?) encounter a conspirator (shooter or otherwise) on his way downstairs, and thus used Geraldean Reid's statement placing Lee in the second floor office coming from the lunch room to re-manufacture the encounter as having occurred on the second floor to coincide with Reid's encounter with him.
  
• Some time after this, "the deciders" somehow convinced Baker that he needed to play along with the scenario, which could have been easy enough if only based on Baker's inferior knowledge of the building (vice Truly's: "no, officer, you'll remember that this door was swinging shut ..."), his likely adrenaline rush (he was after someone shooting at the President), and his focus on what may have been going on in the upper floors.
  

Am I missing anything?

Greg - That's pretty much it. I don't think it would have taken a great deal to Baker to comply. It's not like cops in any force in any country have never covered for each other, never encouraged subtle but telling changes to witness accounts in order to help secure convictions, sweep away technicalities which may get cases thrown out of court, or tampered with or manufactured evidence. Baker in fact, ended up so confused in writing further statements later, he wasn't apparently sure whether he was supposed to now include the coke Reid saw Oswald drinking - first including it, then crossing it out. Who prompted him on that, I wonder?

Objection, your honor; non-responsive. The witness was asked how this was accomplished and by whom.

When did Geraldean Reid give her statement about seeing Lee on the second floor? In order for Truly to have accomodated his testimony - and presumably thereby influence Baker's later recollections - he would have had to have known either what Reid said or was going to say. The former seems much more likely if only inasmuch as Reid might not have played along ... and if someone was going to get her to play along, it would seem much more effective to try to get her not to say she'd seen Oswald. Thus her statement would seem to have thrown a monkey wrench into what Baker had said, which somehow needed to be accomodated, hence Truly's statement. Is that in fact the sequence of events: Reid's statement first, then Truly's?

Either way, someone then had to "get to" Baker. As of Saturday, Lee was still alive and stood a chance of making it to trial and could have contradicted the entire account of the lunchroom encounter if it didn't happen. Having failed to kill Lee at least once, maybe twice, confidence in his not surviving until then must have been greatly diminished (after all, the third time is not always the charm!), so making up the encounter out of whole cloth and expecting it to survive would seem pretty misguided. What if Ruby's bullet hadn't killed him, and O had spent the rest of the time pending trial under heavy guard at either or both Parkland and/or the country jail? Three failures to eliminate the defendant and his testimony would have certainly weighed in Oswald's favor, don't you think?

This entire scenario presupposes Truly's collaborating with police - and police with Truly - to first, use his building to shoot the President and hide the weapons; second, to ensure that no "real" cop (one bent on actually doing his duty, i.e., not clued into the conspiracy) questioned or arrested - or preferably even saw - any of the active players; third, to get the details of both Baker's and Reid's statements back to Truly; fourth, to concoct a story that was somehow compatible with both statements (at least in the major details); fifth, to convey Truly's account to Baker and thus confuse Baker at best ... or coerce him, at worst, to change his own account; and sixth, well in advance, to have gotten Truly to hire Lee in the first place a month before all of this was to come down.

At some point, there may arise a theory as to what Truly was doing - and how he did it - when he rushed in after Baker, but for now I'm curious how all of the above was accomplished and who did the deciding. Speculation is all well and good - "building a case" is fine - but absent hard evidence, you've at least got to provide some foundation and fill in as many gaps as you possibly can; otherwise, it's purely speculation. Since you're making the proposition here, let's return to the "prosecution" and ask:

Q

- So what leads you to the possible conclusion that the defendants, Mr. Truly and company, were able to accomplish what you have just described?

As to:

Greg - ... I don't think it would have taken a great deal to Baker to comply. It's not like cops in any force in any country have never covered for each other, never encouraged subtle but telling changes to witness accounts in order to help secure convictions, sweep away technicalities which may get cases thrown out of court, or tampered with or manufactured evidence. Baker in fact, ended up so confused in writing further statements later, he wasn't apparently sure whether he was supposed to now include the coke Reid saw Oswald drinking - first including it, then crossing it out. Who prompted him on that, I wonder?

The whole bit about Baker's crossing out the "drinking a coke" portion of the statement was covered in detail by someone; I'm thinking it was Harold Weisberg in one of his Whitewash series. Might've been someone else: sometimes I get confused about those little details!

You speak of cops "sweep[ing] away technicalities which may get cases thrown out of court," etc., with the same disdain police officers speak of defense attorneys who introduce those "technicalities that get cases thrown out of court" after the cops' arduous work in getting the case into court in the first place. If the cops want to shade the truth just a little bit - as no doubt the defense will do! - is that such a bad thing? Do the ends justify the means, even sometimes? Or does the answer to that question depend upon one's perspective?

Gotta run for now; there's more to look at in the morning!

[Duke Lane]

What makes you think I'm not still? Actually, wasn't the story that I'd come from Langley to "turn" Mack and Perry? So who was under whose influence when?

No...quite the contrary. The speculation is that you were a young trainee sent down to train in the field under an expert operative. This was intensified when it was reported that your "company" had transferred you "to Virginia". Perry is good. How he turned GM 180 degrees is still a mystery. "Mind control?"

"The speculation is ...?!?" So has all that training paid off, do you think, all these years in the field?

Jack, the really important question is whether someone can tell well enough what they're looking at when they see it to be able to recognize a "change." No offense, but ... apparently not: nothing has ever changed. Even despite AFIO.

[Greg Parker]

Greg

I've found my notes on this. It was Fritz who made the claim in testimony that Shelley gave him permission to leave. This however, was absent from his notes which only indicate he'd seen Shelley out the front, and that he left, because as you said, he thought there'd be no more work that day. This is from Holmes' testimony:

"And he didn't say whether he took the elevator or not. He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about." And he wouldn't tell what happened then."

Compare Holmes' recall of what Oswald said with what was reported here in Australia:

"During the frantic search for the President's killer, police were posted at exits to the warehouse. Police said a man, whom they identified as Oswald, walked through the door of the warehouse and was stopped by a policeman. Oswald told the policeman that 'I work here,' and when another employee confirmed that he did, the policeman let Oswald walk away, they said."

Duke

Well, Harry's little bit there sort of shoots the O-giving-fake-address thing, as well as him giving his info to a cop and being told he could leave. I have to admit, though, it did have the ring of truth to it!

Greg

Harry had worded it a bit more clearly in his Dec 17 report on the interrogation: "Before he could finish whatever he was doing, he stated, the commotion surrounding the assassination took place and when he went down stairs, a policeman questioned him as to his identification and his boss stated that "he is one of our employees" whereupon the policeman had him step aside momentarily. Following this, he simply walked out the front door of the building. I don't recall that anyone asked why he left or where or how he went. I just presumed that this had been covered in an earlier questioning."

Oswald may have been asked to step aside momentarily, but this doesn't preclude him having been asked name and address before that - and Holmes' testimony indicates he was asked his name at very least. Oswald may have been a little coy about admitting the address part because - well - how would he explain giving a false address?

Duke

I likewise have difficulty imagining someone as reasonably intelligent as Lee Oswald thinking that his leaving TSBD after the shooting - assuming he knew (and how could he not?) that that's what spurred his having to go into action - thinking that his leaving would not cast suspicion on him.

Greg

A number of possibilities here... if he was completely uninvolved, why would he worry about leaving when he had permission and a solid alibi? More likely though, he was still acting as a decoy and was told he would either be arrested and that none of the evidence him would hold - or - that he would be flown out of the country. I doubt the first since in this scenario, he was the one who gave a false address. I also have trouble with him agreeing to leave the country (presumably permanently) as this would likely involve never seeing his kids again.

Duke

Ah, but we're no longer certain that he gave a false address, as true to form as that may have been, are we.

Greg

As above - I don't think Holmes' testimony or statement on the interrogation harms the contention - in fact, if anything - the opposite given the simarities to newspaper accounts based on Campbell, Truly and police statements within a few hours after the assassintion. And as we agree - it was true to form.

Duke

That he knew something seems pretty apparent, if only from his statement - if I'm remembering correctly that this happened at all - that "it will all come out at my trial," or words to that effect. Of course, if it did, it no doubt redoubled people's concerns about what he'd say about them, and sealed his fate ... if it hadn't been sealed already.

Greg

You may be thinking of "everyone will know who I am now"?

Duke

I've read of some scenarios where Oz was supposed to have been an infiltrator of sorts - they "listen" pretty well, actually - in Dallas into the whole Fort Hood/Terrell Armory weapons thing. That would lend some sense to why he would have been set up as the patsy - a big "gotcha!" - and might even lend some credence to his getting into someone's car in DP and heading off to Oak Cliff: how could he refuse them? Like an undercover narc who's gotten into a big coke ring or something having to tag along for and even participate in killings to maintain the cartel's trust. But when all's said and done, I really can't imagine anything as to what did or even might have happened at TSBD with Oz after the shooting ... or after he knew there was a shooting. It's just unfathomable to me, I can't get into a dead man's head.

The stolen weapons case may fit in somehow - FBI, MI and Treasury (to which ATF is attached) are all on my radar wrt to Oswald. As to imagining what went on etc etc - little imagination is required, imo (unless you are determined to account for every minute of every hour of that weekend - something that is beyond being thorough - it's borderline classic obsessive-compulsive behaviour). There are evidenciary trails to follow - just a matter of discerning the right one.

Greg

Those I believe were involved in the planning had strong local ties.

Duke

Interesting. To whom or what?

Greg

MI with insiders in DPS intelligence units and media. Robert Morris and the whole Bircher crew and their associations with congressional committees and anti-Castro exile groups.

Duke

Well, I guess that "whole Bircher crew" could include the Roy Trulys of the world. You can't forget the Walker group either, tho' I suspect they really didn't have anything to do with it, but that only from Walker's own attitude about it, having people checking into things and so forth: it almost seemed as if he knew more than the WC did!

Greg

I can't confirm or deny Truly was a part of the Bircher crew. Like I said before, he, Campbell and Cason should have been looked at far more closely. Best I can say is he was almost bound to be of a conservative bent.

I don't think Walker's usefulness to the extreme right was as anything more than a figurehead.

Duke

Have you ever read the testimony of Revilo Pendleton Oliver, "America's premier patriot and scholar?" If not, before you do, read his articles about the assassination first, particularly "Marxmanship in Dallas" and "The Aftermath of the Assassination." Actually, you can check out the website dedicated to his fond memory at revilo-oliver.com, which includes several recordings of his speeches. According to one site discussing his patriotism and scholarship,

This book, which is one of many that Oliver wrote during his long career as an academic at the University of Illinois, deals with his association with the John Birch Society, an organization founded to fight Communism. Oliver was a founding member of this patriotic organization and he not only edited their flagship publication, American Opinion, but also wrote numerous book reviews and articles. Oliver also spent many years traveling the Birch speaking circuit, trying desperately to persuade Americans of the dangers of Communism and the values of conservatism. Eventually, Oliver became disillusioned by the conservative movement and John Birch founder Robert Welch, and he turned his energies to what he perceived were the real issues in the struggle against Communism: Jews and the complete ignorance of the white race to recognize its greatness and destiny.

It would be gut-busting hilarious if he wasn't so god-awful serious. The man is Rush Limbaugh on steroids.

Greg

Wish I could say it was/is a peculiarly American problem.

[Chuck Robbins]

What, nobody's beating me up on this?

What's to beat up?

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Greg Parker]

Duke

Refresh my memory: who was it that found a jacket, supposedly Oswald's, at TSBD a couple of weeks later. Same guy who "found" the clipboard, I think ....

Greg

Frankie kaiser

Duke

I will buy into Baker's getting Ozzie's description correct if they were in the same room together and Oz had been the same man he'd seen on the stairs, but two ... no, three considerations come into play here:

1. Since Baker was, according to this scenario, not clued into what was supposed to be happening here, and since other TSBD employees were at DPD providing statements, and since Oz worked at TSBD, there is not necessarily any reason for Baker to have realized that Oz was a suspect rather than someone simply giving a statement, even if Baker recognized him from an (alleged) encounter at TSBD.

Greg

On the contrary, people brought in to give statements aren't generally handcuffed

Duke

2. As to recognition at the time of his statement, put yourself in Baker's shoes: you've just come from running into a strange building after a barrage of gunfire had sounded, looking for a potential shooter. You encounter someone that the building super had identified as being "all right." There is no longer any reason to remember this guy: he's a "nobody" as far as your investigation goes. "Trained observer" or not, it is very possible that Baker didn't put two and two together even while describing what the man he'd seen had been wearing, if only - or especially - because O wasn't wearing the same thing anymore, and was therefore a "different person." That is human nature.

Greg

Yes, that's possible. But then you have both Johnson and Baker later claiming Baker had in fact recognised him.

Duke

Baker's later "recognition" of LHO can be attributed to what I call "manufactured memory" or that some others might call "the power of suggestion," which simply put refers to a situation akin to someone saying "gee, now that you mention it, he does look like the guy who robbed the bank," and therefore, guess what: he is the guy you saw rob the bank (whether he really is or not).

Greg

That, I do not buy. Might work with some witnesses, but on a cop who'd recognise the technique...?

Duke

3. Even if Baker did recognize Oz, it would not be proper procedure to identify someone who happened to be in the same room at the time of making a statement for a couple of good reasons:

Greg

Okay. Let's look at why.

Duke

1. There is no absolutely-certain way to identify who is in a room at any given moment, and if there are more than just one other person in the room, the reliability of his identification could be called into greater question (this is where, at trial, they would call in Johnson to state that, while taking Baker's statement, Baker had indicated that the man he'd encountered at TSBD was then in the same room while Baker was giving his statement, and Baker had pointed out the defendant to him, Officer Johnson); and

Greg

While they've got Johnson on the stand, they could actually ask him about his own statement made well after Baker's. Johnson's claim about Baker's ID of Oswald was not verbal; it was a part of his own statement. If Johnson could include it, why couldn't Baker have done the same? Johnson's inclusion of it looks to me like it was a belated way of getting a positive ID into the records - something you claim should have been left out.

Duke

2. If Oz was later found not to be the person Baker had encountered, Baker's written contemporaneous account identifying LHO as the individual he'd encountered could jeopardize his testimony at trial since, if whomever he had encountered was clearly not Oswald, how therefore could his later identification of another perp be considered reliable?

Greg

What other perp? Are you seriously saying that not including the ID of Oswald in his affidavit was intentional on the basis that, if it turned out to be wrong and Oswald was found "not guilty", he (Baker) would be neutralised as a potential witness against whatever other "lone nut" they could nab?

Duke

To paraphrase another witness, "a good defense attorney could take him apart" with that kind of testimony; a good prosecutor wouldn't even have called him as a witness to this effect. For example:

Q - Officer Baker, isn't it true that you identified a particular individual who was then present at the police department interrogation room as being the same individual whom you saw in the TSBD?

A - Yes, ma'am it is.

Q - Is it not also true, Officer Baker, that that individual turned out to only have been in to make a statement - that is, not as a suspect - and was subsequently determined not to have been the individual whom you claim to have encountered as you went upstairs?

A - Yes, ma'am.

Q - Well, then, Officer, if your positive identification of the first individual turned out to have been mistaken, how can we be certain that your identification of this defendant is reliable?

Greg

A good defense attorney would have taken Baker apart had he testified against Oswald for all the reasons I've given here. To say he left the ID becuase of the risk of nullifying his effectiveness as a witness in a theoretical future trial sounds a bit far-fetched - even without considering Johnson did what you claim shouldn't be done.

Duke

The prosecutor would have had Truly come in as back-up to identify the man the officer had described as his employee, Lee Oswald. But if Baker's Friday afternoon statement had reflected this information as fact, you can see how easy it could have been to call his entire judgment and recollection into question (and I'm not even a trial lawyer!). Cops, I'm told, don't particularly like "reasonable doubt," and sure as heck don't want to give it up without a fight!

Greg

You should be a trial lawyer, damnit. You've just made my head spin!

Duke

4. A statement is intended to reflect the facts of what happened at the time of the events being described. Even if Oswald had come into the interrogation room and greeted Baker with a hearty "Hi, remember me? I met you on the stairs about an hour ago," that would not be germane to the events Baker had been describing (it might, however, have been pertinent to testimony provided later by either Baker or Johnson at trial).

Greg

Assuming you're right here, and Baker could not include a positive Id of Oswald as the man he'd encountered, don't you think Baker, at the very least, would have ensured he gave an accurate description of Oswald? That might not be "proper" since his actual recollection was of a person 20 pounds heavier, at least 6 years older, and with darker hair... but who would know except Baker he'd adjusted that recollection now that he could have a longer look?

Duke

Oops, that was four considerations! Oh well: all of that merely to say that Baker's lack of identification of Oswald in his statement does not necessarily have any real significance, and does not necessarily "prove" anything.

Greg

I disagree. It may not "prove" anything in and of itself, but together with all else I've covered in this thread, it forms part of a strong package of evidence that the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter as it was finally settled on, was in fact, manufactured by merging two separate encounters and relocating the merged version to a different floor.

Greg

I don't think it would have taken a great deal to Baker to comply. It's not like cops in any force in any country have never covered for each other, never encouraged subtle but telling changes to witness accounts in order to help secure convictions, sweep away technicalities which may get cases thrown out of court, or tampered with or manufactured evidence. Baker in fact, ended up so confused in writing further statements later, he wasn't apparently sure whether he was supposed to now include the coke Reid saw Oswald drinking - first including it, then crossing it out. Who prompted him on that, I wonder?

Duke

Objection, your honor; non-responsive. The witness was asked how this was accomplished and by whom.

Greg

Who got Baker to fal into line? I thought I'd made that clear: DPD. How? Police culture.

Duke

When did Geraldean Reid give her statement about seeing Lee on the second floor? In order for Truly to have accomodated his testimony - and presumably thereby influence Baker's later recollections - he would have had to have known either what Reid said or was going to say. The former seems much more likely if only inasmuch as Reid might not have played along ... and if someone was going to get her to play along, it would seem much more effective to try to get her not to say she'd seen Oswald. Thus her statement would seem to have thrown a monkey wrench into what Baker had said, which somehow needed to be accomodated, hence Truly's statement. Is that in fact the sequence of events: Reid's statement first, then Truly's?

Greg

Reid's first, then Truly's is what I had noted some time back. Unfortunately, as I've already admitted, I failed to also note, and do not recall where I got that. All I can say with confidence is that I didn't make it up - but if someone has different information as to the order, I'd be happy to see it.

Duke

Either way, someone then had to "get to" Baker. As of Saturday, Lee was still alive and stood a chance of making it to trial and could have contradicted the entire account of the lunchroom encounter if it didn't happen. Having failed to kill Lee at least once, maybe twice, confidence in his not surviving until then must have been greatly diminished (after all, the third time is not always the charm!), so making up the encounter out of whole cloth and expecting it to survive would seem pretty misguided.

Greg

It wasn't made up out of whole cloth. Oswald did have an encounter with police. Truly did intervene in that encounter. The trial would need to sort out the finer details of where and when. Remember also that things had not gone to plan with Oswald's capture, and had been further complicated by having to ditch a charges involving Oswald in a Communist conspiracy. Both these things called for taking some risks in the manufacturing/disappearance/altering of some evidence.

Duke

What if Ruby's bullet hadn't killed him, and O had spent the rest of the time pending trial under heavy guard at either or both Parkland and/or the country jail? Three failures to eliminate the defendant and his testimony would have certainly weighed in Oswald's favor, don't you think?

Greg

Surely.

Duke

This entire scenario presupposes Truly's collaborating with police - and police with Truly - to first, use his building to shoot the President and hide the weapons; second, to ensure that no "real" cop (one bent on actually doing his duty, i.e., not clued into the conspiracy) questioned or arrested - or preferably even saw - any of the active players; third, to get the details of both Baker's and Reid's statements back to Truly; fourth, to concoct a story that was somehow compatible with both statements (at least in the major details); fifth, to convey Truly's account to Baker and thus confuse Baker at best ... or coerce him, at worst, to change his own account; and sixth, well in advance, to have gotten Truly to hire Lee in the first place a month before all of this was to come down.

Greg

It may or may not have been DPD who got Truly to hire Oswald. Truly may or may not have been told (at the time) the ultimate reason for the request (bearing in mind the possibility of compartmentalisation and need-to-know basis of clandestine activities). The DPD were certainly involved in the co-ordinating of stories.

JFK's Texas trip was confirmed for the public on Sept 13, with the exact itinerary being announced by Connolly on November 1st. Lobbying for a luncheon at the Trade Mart had commenced however, prior to Oswald's job interview with Truly, and the Dallas Citizens Council always got its way in the affairs of that city.

Duke

At some point, there may arise a theory as to what Truly was doing - and how he did it - when he rushed in after Baker, but for now I'm curious how all of the above was accomplished and who did the deciding. Speculation is all well and good - "building a case" is fine - but absent hard evidence, you've at least got to provide some foundation and fill in as many gaps as you possibly can; otherwise, it's purely speculation. Since you're making the proposition here, let's return to the "prosecution" and ask:

Q - So what leads you to the possible conclusion that the defendants, Mr. Truly and company, were able to accomplish what you have just described?

As to:

QUOTE(Greg Parker @ Nov 11 2006, 01:45 AM) *

Greg - ... I don't think it would have taken a great deal to Baker to comply. It's not like cops in any force in any country have never covered for each other, never encouraged subtle but telling changes to witness accounts in order to help secure convictions, sweep away technicalities which may get cases thrown out of court, or tampered with or manufactured evidence. Baker in fact, ended up so confused in writing further statements later, he wasn't apparently sure whether he was supposed to now include the coke Reid saw Oswald drinking - first including it, then crossing it out. Who prompted him on that, I wonder?

The whole bit about Baker's crossing out the "drinking a coke" portion of the statement was covered in detail by someone; I'm thinking it was Harold Weisberg in one of his Whitewash series. Might've been someone else: sometimes I get confused about those little details! wink.gif

You speak of cops "sweep[ing] away technicalities which may get cases thrown out of court," etc., with the same disdain police officers speak of defense attorneys who introduce those "technicalities that get cases thrown out of court" after the cops' arduous work in getting the case into court in the first place. If the cops want to shade the truth just a little bit - as no doubt the defense will do! - is that such a bad thing? Do the ends justify the means, even sometimes? Or does the answer to that question depend upon one's perspective?

Greg

I was being a bit too cute. I should have had "" marks around the word technicalities and added that I was referring to inconvenient evidence being swept away. The ends never justify the means.

Let me expand on your theme above. What is usually referred to by prosecutors as "technicalities" used by defense to get someone off are not really technicalities, at all. They are deliberately a part of due processes and trace back to common law notions of "fairness". I have absolutely no problem with attorneys who find and "exploit" such technicalities. It is in fact, their duty to do so. In rare cases, a true loophole may also be exploited. There is a difference between the type of technicality described above, and a "loophole" caused by poorly worded legislation which causes unitended/unforeseen consequences. It is no bad thing that these are discovered and used in cases, either, as it shows the deficiency in the law, which can then be amended.

Two cases of Dallas cops manufacturing evidence which you may be familiar with: Candy Barr's marijuana bust, and the case of Randall Adams who was framed for murder. Among the framers in the latter case? Gus Rose. These two cases bookend the assassination.

[Greg Parker]

dup post deleted

Edited November 12, 2006 by Greg Parker

[Duke Lane]

This actually covers a couple of past posts, in no particular order ....

Duke - Here's what I guess I'm not quite getting yet:

• What was Truly's role in the conspiracy; how did he fit in?
  

Greg - I can't say unequivocally that no one has ever looked deeply into the backgrounds of Truly, Campbell and Cason, but if they have, I've yet to come across it. And if no one ever has in 40 plus years, it is one of the great failings of the research community.

It would seem to me, then, that it would have to all be speculation as to what his role was and how it was carried out. It is not like, say, "the Cuban Connection" where it can be shown that so-and-so worked with so-and-so during such-and-such operation, or even that "Cop A and Cop B were known to associate with each other." Truly & Co. are "outsiders" to any of the usual suspects. This is not to say that someone couldn't - or even hasn't - unearthed some connections involving the TSBD brass, but like you, if they have, I haven't heard or read about them. In fact, as close as I've heard is that both Truly and Shelley showed dogs, and I've seen separate photos of each of them with show(?) dogs, but not together in the same photo (those photos might be on this forum somewhere ...? If so, I haven't found them). I don't know if it's even true that they were "show" dogs, or that Truly and Shelley even discussed dog shows, much less attended them together (or plotted JFK's demise at them!), but that is, in any case, the sole "background check" I've heard of about them.

Duke ...

• How did Truly & Company "get to" Baker to get his testimony to conform with their "cover story?" What was his (or Campbell's or Cason's) connection to the DPD that they could have brought any kind of pressure to bear on him? Was that connection direct or indirect (i.e., did they know someone or just have their own influence)? Or was it merely a case of continual "reminders" of "what happened" whenever Baker came back to the building for official purposes? Or did maybe Baker come back unofficially to refresh his own memory, and have it "refreshed" for him?
  

Greg - Truly's role seems to have been limited to "manufacturing" a temp position for Oswald, and in ensuring that Oswald would appear to have decamped without clearance to do so after the assassination. Baker's charge into the building was probably not expected and he made an "executive" decision on the spot to go with him in the search to ensure he didn't nab anyone. It wasn't "Truly & company" who needed to get Baker to fall into line. It was the DPD who were of framing Oswald. Truly had merely set the rabbit running so the frame could take place. Not all cops would even have to have been conspirators before the fact. It would only take a handful of senior ones. Except for the magnitude and implications of the crime - this in all other respects was just another frame-up. No big deal for any of them. They'd done it before, and they'd do it again.

Further to your earlier comment:

Greg

- Those I believe were involved in the planning had strong local ties. ... MI with insiders in DPS intelligence units and media. Robert Morris and the whole Bircher crew and their associations with congressional committees and anti-Castro exile groups.

... you are moving into a realm where there are no records, few if any written memoirs, and little enough verbal lore except perhaps among those who were a bit more extreme, more patriotic than the mainstream. I was reading something recently - I don't remember what, maybe a newspaper - that discussed, albeit briefly, how conservative Dallas was in the 1960s ("conservative" in that era, in the South, translating roughly to "intolerant" today; "patriotic" translating to anti-Communist, anti-Semitic, anti-integration) and how, as much as they didn't like it, Dallas eventually got used to the civil rights changes of the Great Society, and the old "conservatives" have generally faded away.

The point is that nobody talks about their "patriotism" back in the '60s; nobody wants to hear - nobody wants to know about Grandpa's proud exploits stringin' up n__ers, takin' pot shots at them damned Yankees signin' the darkies up to vote, and makin' sure them Commies know they ain't welcome in this here town; nobody today - correction: few people today would agree with Dr. Revilo P. Oliver's ringing endorsement of Senator Joseph McCarthy as "a great American patriot."

Yet, according to non-assassination related literature from the period (see The Decision Makers about Dallas' Citizens' Council, for example), that was very much the Dallas of the '50s and early '60s, absent the lynchings of course. Witness DPD CID's concerns over such "radical" groups as the ACLU ("liberals" - and probably Communists - all) and the Veterans' Forum, of which Joe Molina was a member (and who actually sought to obtain military benefits for Mexican-American veterans in line with white soldiers'!).

Thus, even if someone was a member of the Klan, a Bircher, a Minuteman - for many of which, Dallas was considered a "stronghold" at the time - it is unlikely today that barring some obscure reference (say, an arrest record of someone who might - yeah, right! - have been arrested for spitting on Adlai Stevenson), anyone would discover that Truly or anyone else was actually a member of such a group. It was "a different world back then," and nobody's broadcasting their '60s-era sympathies with them either.

Through such connections, however, one might well find the "missing link" that explains how, for example, Roy Truly could have been in any way clued into, "in on," or otherwise involved in a conspiracy that might include Dallas cops. It would seem highly unlikely to me, however, that his "only" job in relation to that would be to set Oswald up with a job without knowing any of the other details. Once the shots rang out and Oswald was accused, his role would have come crashing in on him if he was unaware that he'd done anything to further larger plans. If he did rush in to try to direct Baker - or any other cop who attempted to come in right away - in any particular direction, then he was fully witting of the plan even if not all of the mechanics of it.

I differ with you in one point only, and that is that it would not necessarily have to be senior police personnel - at least not in terms of rank - to effect an assassination plan and the implication of a dead patsy. Think about it: what chance would the Chief of Police stand if he knew that a corporal was part of the plot? If they've got the gumption to kill the President of the United States in broad daylight in front of dozens of witnesses, one would think that the chief - or the mayor or the governor - would be a piece of cake, like swatting a fly. (Well ... maybe not the mayor, whose brother was a US Army general and no stranger to high-level intrigue ... tho' a bit of a dim bulb for a general, I gather.)

Duke on what he perceives my take is on TSBD role

• Hired Oswald, specifically, on a pretense together with Charles Givens when the actual trend was to start laying off employees due to slackening times rather than hiring them. The only "excuse" - if that's all it was - to do so was to have the available manpower to re-surface the upper floors (in which case, why not use the inexperienced men to nail boards to the floor rather than fulfill orders?
  

Greg - Can't recall off-hand when Givens (re)started with TSBD - but in all other respects - yes. You've nailed it.

Givens only testified that he'd worked there "off and on for six years," and that he had been laid off in the past during "slack periods." He was not asked, nor did he volunteer how long he had been there for that particular stretch. He was doing the floors. (I still don't get why they'd put inexperienced people - Oswald - filling orders while other order-fillers were flooring. I mean, anyone can nail plywood down, move boxes and the like, so why not have the "temp" do that rather than something that he'd have to take time to learn?

(On the sinister side of that question lies the answer that it gave him access to the entire building and kept him out of most other people's sights most of the day, ergo if he wanted to do something, he had the opportunity.)

Duke -

• Enabled the shooter(s) with entry to the building and a guarded exit meaning, too, that the shooter(s) was or were known to them, at least by sight (and none of these people suffered "mysterious deaths!"). This, it would seem, would necessitate some orchestration of the other inhabitants of the building during the crucial period, or else their complicity to one degree or another;
  

Greg - Enabled entry - yes. Not sure about about "orchestration" or "complicity" needed by all workers in the building. There were a number of companies operating in there, and anyone who saw a stranger walk by would probably automatically assume he was there on bussiness with one of the other companies and think no more of it. Office security then is not what it is now. Then there is Danny Arce's "old man". At the risk of sounding suspicious about everything (and I most certainly am not), this is another story which changed over time. In his initial statement, he merely said he saw the person leave the building. By the time he got to the WC, he now not only saw him entering as well, he also spoke to him, and helped him inside because the "old man" had a weak kidney and needed to pee. In other words, by the time of his WC testimony, he had a completely innocent reason ready for the man being inside. But getting back to the main point here... can you name anyone else who remembered seeing this "old man"?

Nope. At least, nobody who mentioned him; on the other hand, nobody else was asked about him either and, if they saw him, they might not have considered it important enough - or in any way connected with the shooting - to be germane.

My father once told me an interesting story about my grandmother that may illustrate this scenario. The deal was that Dad had taken Grandma somewhere, I don't remember where, and they became separated. Something happened; it might have been a car crash or something to do with a train, but in any case, something "sudden" happened. When Dad first hooked back up with Grandma a couple of minutes after the crash (or whatever; it was loud enough that it became something of a spectacle), she really didn't know much about what had occurred. Dad said that, later, it was almost as if Grandma had been directing it given her steadily increasing knowledge of exactly what had happened.

Speaking for myself, I've had several times when I've been asked about something right after it happened and provided what information came to me at the moment. Later, as I had time to reflect on it, I remembered details that might have been important, but didn't really impress themselves on me when I was asked about it. Recently, when I was taking the dog for a walk, there was a commotion at a neighbor's house, flashlights looking all around for something or someone. I realized that the noise that I'd heard earlier might have something to do with it. When I went to the neighbor's gate to tell him what I'd seen (this is someone who lives nearby, not someone I'd ever met before), up comes a camoflaged assault rifle aimed right at me, with him barking behind it, "Hit the ground, motherf__er!"

When the cops showed up, I was both irate and ... well, not scared anymore (I was at first!), but certainly still excited. Y'know, I didn't think to even tell the cops what had occurred from my perspective in terms of what had apparently set my neighbor off to begin with (it was kids playing pranks in the park behind his house, apparently doing something to his fence, hence the noise I'd heard ... and the kid I later remembered seeing running from the place!). And I remember thinking at the time that I am generally someone who "makes a good witness," but I damned sure wasn't that time!

The point? Just that what someone says the first time may not be the whole story ... and what they say afterward may be "manufactured," or it may be details that they remembered later ... or may just be bullspit. There is not "best" recollection of events based on its proximity to the event being reported.

Duke - I've gotta run for now, but wanted to make at least these few points. By no means am I suggesting that any of this is necessarily impossible, but in order to be even vaguely possible, much less probable, these things would seem to need to be accounted for. Your thoughts?

Greg - My thoughts on your thoughts? Some of them I see as valid and really push me to think things through further - a damn good thing cos looking after two two year olds all day and night is turning my brain to mush! That said, a couple of your points puzzle me as to why you even see them as a concern.

Such as?