Copyright © 1998 by Joseph Backes
This article is in response to the presentation John Armstrong gave at the JFK Lancer `97 conference and with subsequent correspondence I have had with John. After nearly begging him to look further into Lee Harvey Oswald and to include the assassination by several members of the research community, notably at the Fourth Decade conference in Fredonia, New York, John has now, surprisingly, done so. However, I and I suspect several other researchers have problems with what he presents.
John believes the two Oswalds were in Dallas on the day of the assassination, one (Lee) setting up the other (Harvey). I have problems with this particularly with Oswald's post-assassination travels, and the Tippit shooting. I am troubled by John's research now because I don't believe he is properly analyzing what he reads which affects his research and his conclusions. I don't believe it's a case that every anomaly is explained by the "two Oswalds" scenario.
For the last several years I have been the tour guide on the bus tour of these areas. I have researched Oswald's post assassination travels and capture to some degree. I wrote a tour packet which I enclosed to John about Oswald's post assassination travels and arrest. So I think I'm on safe grounds questioning John's "solution" to the Tippit murder. I want to stress I don't have a solution, I don't know what happened, but in some instances I know what did not happen.
The intent of this article is to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was never on Cecil McWatters' bus. There was no Lee Harvey Oswald, nor a Lee Oswald setting up Harvey. This fact then has ramifications for John's research into the Tippit killing.
Now, why would Oswald get on this bus? Any idiot can see it's heading back toward the assassination scene, the last place Oswald would want to go. He is on it for a very short while, according to Harold Weisberg, "just long enough to involve the Commission with two of the most fantastic of its witnesses and left in time to involve it with another"1.
It is important to know where Oswald gets on the bus. According to the Warren Commission, he gets on this bus somewhere around Murphy street, which intersects Elm, and leaves before the bus gets to the Elm and Houston St. intersection. The entire episode of Oswald being on McWatters bus happens while the bus is on Elm street between the Murphy cross street and the Houston cross street.
The Elm street cross streets have changed since 1963. Here is a list of the cross streets starting on Elm and Houston and going East. ( circa 1963)
Some streets have been lost with the construction of new buildings, etc. Bledsoe testifies that they have changed between the time of the assassintion to the time she testifies. [6H411]
The divide between North and South streets is Main Street.
Michael Parks provided a lot of useful information to me on the Elm Street cross streets. "If you go north on Houston, past the TSBD, the street curves east and becomes Ross. Had Houston continued to go north, as it did in 1963, it would have hit where Woodall Rogers Freeway is now (about 3 more blocks north). Just on the north side of WRF is a one block section of old Houston. Where WRF would have hit Houston was the old TSBD Warehouse. It was removed to allow WRF right-of-way."
The Elm Street cross streets as they are today are:
1. Record (goes north and dead ends on Elm)
2. Market (intersection)
3. Austin (going north, dead ends on Elm, picks up again further south)
4. Lamar (intersection)
5. Poydras ???? (this street is now only from Commerce to Jackson but I think it used to go to Elm....not sure though)
Okay Poydras is now gone. It was an intersection (See Groden's The Killing of a President, p. 94).
6. Griffin (double wide parkway, intersection)
7. Griffin (2)
Debbie Currie, another researcher living in Dallas who provided information, explains: "There is only one Griffin Street crossing Elm. Griffin "turns into" Field Street a few blocks north of Elm and then picks up as Griffin Street again farther out and a few streets over, which is not uncommon in Dallas."
8. Murphy was once here. Now it no longer hits Elm and only one block is left between Commerce and Main. Debbie Currie told me, "No more Murphy Street -- It is now Murphy Crosswalk and is two blocks long, between the Federal Building on Commerce Street and One Main Place on Main Street. It is between Griffin and Field Streets. Murphy Crosswalk is between Griffin and Field. It's not a street at all -- just a crosswalk, but it has a street sign that says Murphy Crosswalk and is two blocks long."
Okay Murphy is now gone.
9. Field (intersection)
10. Exchange is now gone
11. Akard (intersection)
12. Stone Place - This caused some confusion as it appears to be an intersection on several maps yet does not appear to really be a street for vehicular traffic. Mary Ferrell informed me, "That was an alley running from Elm to Main. A number of years ago (I'm not certain that it was done before1963/1964) they widened the alley and made it almost like a small park with Mexican tile and benches, little trees and fountains. People use it as a short-cut between Elm and Main but also to sit and eat lunch or just enjoy the sun and open air." Mike Parks agrees, "This is just a walkway and not a street."
13. Ervay (intersection)
14. St. Paul (intersection)
15. Harwood (intersection)
16. Olive (intersection)
17. Pearl (intersection)
18. Central Expwy (This highway changes to Julius Schepps about here but a parkway breaks away from the highway and is called Central.)
There are four people the Commission uses to place Oswald on the bus, Cecil McWatters, Mary Bledsoe, Roy Milton Jones, and oddly Oswald himself. And one document, a bus transfer ticket. I will examine each one and how they relate to each other.
The Warren Commission Report states, "The bus ride.- According to the reconstruction of time and events which the Commission found most credible, Lee Harvey Oswald left the building approximately 3 minutes after the assassination, probably walked east on Elm Street for seven blocks to the corner of Elm and Murphy where he boarded a bus which was heading back in the direction of the Depository Building, on its way to the Oak Cliff section of Dallas. (See Commission Exhibit 1119-A, p.158)
"When Oswald was apprehended, a bus transfer marked for the Lakewood-Marsalis route was found in his shirt pocket. The transfer was dated "Fri. Nov. 22, `63" and was punched in two places by the bus driver. On the basis of this punchmark, which was distinctive to each Dallas driver, the transfer was conclusively identified as having been issued by Cecil J. McWatters.2"
[ The bus transfer ticket is Exhibit 381-A. It's in Volume 16 p. 974. There is no exhibit 381. ]
There is one reported incident on the bus that should tie in all of the four witnesses.
District Attorney Henry Wade tells reporters at a press conference, Sunday night, November 24th, 1963, after Oswald is murdered, that he (Oswald) took a bus leaving the depository and had laughed aloud when he (Oswald) told a woman passenger that the President had been shot.3
When passengers learn the President has been shot Oswald laughs. Any truth to this? None.
McWatters, the bus driver, testifies that it is actually Roy Milton Jones who had exchanged words during the bus ride.4
McWatters testified that a man in a car in front of the bus came back to the bus and told them the President had been shot. McWatters states that this occurs after "Oswald" left the bus and after the bus crossed Marsalis. (See 2H281)
"...after the bus crossed Marsalis" This alone rules out Oswald as being involved in this laughing incident. Marsalis is not a cross street on Elm street between Murphy and Houston. It is not a cross street on Elm Street, period!
McWatters related the progress of the bus to Oak Cliff and the incident with the woman passenger.
"Well there was a teenage boy, I would say between seventeen and eighteen years of age, who was sitting to my right on the first cross seat and me and him had, we had conversationed a little while we was tied up in the traffic, you know, of the fact we wondered where all, what all the excitement was due to the fact of the sirens and others, and...I made the remark, I wonder where the President was shot, and I believe he made the remark that it was probably in the head if he was in a convertible or something to that effect. ...It was a conversation about the President, in other words to where he was shot...
"Now as we got out to Marsalis...there was a lady who was...getting on, and I asked her had she heard the news of the President being shot...and she said, 'no, what are you --- you are just kidding me.'
"I said, 'No, I really am not kidding you.' I said, 'It is the truth from all the reliable sources that we have come in contact with,' and this teen-age boy sitting on the side, I said, 'Well, now, if you think I am kidding you...ask this gentleman sitting over here,' and he kind of, I don't know whether it was a grinning or smile or whatever expression it was, and she said, 'I know you are kidding now, because he laughed or grinned or made some remarks to that effect.' And I just told her it wasn't no kidding mater, but that was part of the conversation that was said at that time. (2H266-267)"5
The laughing / smiling incident did not occur until after the bus got on Marsalis St. You have to leave the downtown area, take the Houston St. viaduct over the Trinity river into the Oak cliff area to get on Marsalis. Marsalis St. is not a cross street to Elm, it is not in the downtown Dallas area, and it is not anywhere near Dealey Plaza.
McWatters finished his Marsalis St. bus run after 3:30 p.m., returning to his starting point in Lakewood by the same route in which he left. He went home and spent some time watching TV. It was at this time that he saw the face of Oswald broadcast. If Oswald was on the bus, he was not then recognized by McWatters.
Towards the end of the afternoon he goes back to work - this time driving the Piedmont line. The sun had already set when he came to the bus stop at Dallas police headquarters at 6:10 p.m November 22, 1963.
McWatters is taken through the main entrance and up to the third floor. He even sees Oswald in the hallway. (Weston, "Marsalis Bus No. 1213", The Fourth Decade, March 1995 p. 7; paraphrasing an article by Dr. Jerry Rose "Double Agent Unmasked: A reconstruction, The Third Decade, Sept. 1987 p. 13)
Dr. Rose made a telephone call to McWatters on November 21, 1983 in which McWatters acknowledged that he saw Oswald on TV and at the police station prior to the police line up. Dr. Rose points out that that invalidates any identification obtained from the police lineup.
Okay, so the first witness, Cecil McWatters the bus driver, is found by the Dallas police and taken to a lineup.
Now we are told that brilliant police work leads to McWatters, that the bus transfer could only come from him and the police go out and find McWatters. Bull. They grab McWatters right off his bus when his evening bus shift, which is not the Marsalis St. bus, stops in front of City Hall. It gives the appearance that they grab the first one they could, which might be exactly what they did.
(2H 267-268)
Mr. BALL. 22nd. Do you know how they happened to get in touch with you, did you notify them that you.--Mr. McWATTERS. No, sir; I didn't know anything to that effect.
Mr. BALL. Did they come out and get you?
Mr. McWATTERS. They come out and--
Mr. BALL. What did they ask you?
Mr. McWATTERS. Well, they stopped me; it was, I would say around 6:15 or somewhere around 6:15 or 6:20 that afternoon.
Mr. BALL. You were still on duty, were you?
Mr. McWATTERS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Still on your bus?
Mr. McWATTERS. I was on duty but I was on a different line and a different bus.
Mr. BALL. What did they ask you when they came out?
Mr. McWATTERS. Well, they stopped me right by the city hall there when I come by there and they wanted me to come in, they wanted to ask me some questions. And I don't know what it was about or anything until I got in there and they told me what happened.
Does Cecil McWatters place Oswald on the bus? No.
McWatters testifies, "...he was the shortest man in the line-up...and the lightest weight one...the rest of them were larger men....he kind of had a thin like face and he weighs less than any of them...I really thought he was the man who was on the bus...that stayed on the bus." (2H281) (emphasis added)
McWatters really identified someone whom he took to be the grinning teenager, Roy Milton Jones, not Oswald!
Mr. BALL. Were you under the impression that this man that you saw in the lineup and whom you pointed out to the police, was the teenage boy who had been grinning?
Mr. McWATTERS. I was, yes, sir;"6
It should be pointed out that McWatters does point Oswald out but only because Oswald, according to McWatters, looked like Roy Milton Jones. (For more see Meagher, "Accessories after the Fact" p. 79)
McWatters himself through his own tetimony destroys his own affidavit.
"The longer McWatters testified, the more he became embroiled in self-contradiction and faulty logic. He was unable to explain how it was that all of his statements and his affidavit on the day of the assassination could have related to Milton Jones, as he now claimed, when Jones had not taken a bus transfer and when it was the bus transfer given to Oswald and found on his person that had let the police to McWatters." (Meagher p. 79)
So, in my opinion, the line-up is rigged so that McWatters is asked to identify who laughed, or who was involved in the laughing / smiling scene when a woman learned about the President being shot on his bus, or, who most closely resembles that person in this lineup. Of the possible suspects only Oswald comes close to looking like a 17 or 18 year old boy because of how thin he is, while 24 years of age he is only 134 pounds when weighed at his autopsy.
Jones tells the FBI that McWatters told him (Jones) that the Dallas Police kept him (McWatters) up until 1:00 a.m. on Saturday or Sunday morning.
They knew they had problems with the bus.
McWatters is used. He does "identify" Oswald but only in the context of confusing him with the boy who did laugh / smile when a woman who came on the bus was told of the President's shooting.
A big hint that there is something seriously wrong with the bus story is this admission from the Report, "McWatters recollection alone was too vague to be a basis for placing Oswald on the bus."7 They need to help McWatters' story. Well, what about that woman in the smiling story? What does she have to say? Enter Mary Bledsoe.
Mary Bledsoe
This unidentified woman from the laughing / smiling story becomes Mary Bledsoe. As already noted McWatters testimony is not enough to place Oswald on the bus. The Commission needs someone to bolster McWatters. Enter Mary Bledsoe. She knows Oswald by sight. She used to be Oswald's landlady. Oswald rented a room from her. If the woman from the smiling / laughing scene is Bledsoe then surely she would recall that in her account. Surely, she would know Oswald immediately and be disturbed about him smiling or laughing when the news of the shooting is announced. However, she makes no reference to this smiling / laughing scene at all. Yet, it allegedly centers around her. She can't because it really involves a completely different, unknown woman with McWatters and Jones. Also, this unknown woman gets on the bus on Marsalis St, long after "Oswald" has left. The smiling incident cannot possibly refer to "Oswald" based solely on geography. And it can't be Bledsoe as she got on the bus while it was still in the downtown area on Elm.
Yet, Bledsoe is still supposed to be on the bus. If this is the case, then she must have witnessed the scene with the unknown woman, McWatters and Jones. Nope. She makes absolutely no mention of it.
Okay, we now know the unknown woman from the "laughing incident" cannot be Bledsoe.
So when did Bledsoe get on the bus? Was it prior to "Oswald" getting on and therefore was she able to see "Oswald" or anyone resembling Oswald?
Mary Bledsoe lives at 621 North Marsalis. She is on her way home.
Did Bledsoe get on the bus at Elm and St. Paul? Or Before?
Mr. BALL. Do you know a woman named Mary Bledsoe? Did you pick anybody up at St. Paul and Elm?Mr. McWATTERS. I really don't--I really can't recall whether I did or not.
(2H288).
Bledsoe testifies to the Commission on April 2, 1964. She states she got on the bus at Elm and St. Paul. (4H 408-9)
But which bus was it?
Mr. Ball - "What bus did you catch?"Mrs. Bledsoe - "Well, I don't remember whether it was the Marsalis or the Romana."
If Bledsoe is on the Marsalis St. bus does she see Oswald?
Bledsoe makes no bones about it, "And, after we got past Akard, at Murphy---I figured it out. Let's see. I don't know for sure. Oswald got on" (6H409). There, "Oswald got on". She knows him. He rented from her for about a week. That was October 7th to the 12th, little more than a month ago. I'll be generous and say the "I don't know for sure" bit is in reference to which street he got on, not to whether or not it's Oswald.
Bledsoe continues, "He looks like a maniac. His sleeve was out here [indicating]. His shirt was undone." Her description of Oswald as, "looking like a maniac", "his face was so distorted" is in flagrant contrast to the description of "Oswald" given by others on the bus. And should be totally discounted.
Her identification of him by his shirt is important as Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly went to his rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley and changed his shirt. Many witnesses will be asked about Oswald's shirt.
Bledsoe does recount a discussion of the president being shot on the bus, and how she doesn't believe it. This does not place her on the Marsalis St. bus as such a conversation could easily have ocurred on the Romana St. bus. And this story bears no similarity to the laughing / smiling incident on the Marsalis St. bus.
It is worth noting that Mary Bledsoe started renting rooms in September of 1963 after her son left.
She refers to him as Lee Oswald. He stayed less than a week, only 5 days. He was looking for a job.
Now Oswald renting a room from Mary Bledsoe is crucially important. This would make Mary a great witness to have on the bus to positively identify Oswald. And I have many questions about this. Why did Oswald rent from her? Why did he stay such a short time, and where is this room located?
According to Bledsoe's testimony, at first Oswald is "very, very congenial." (4H402); "[she] tried to look for him a job, because he was a nice looking boy, and wanted a job." (4H404), then on Wednesday, Oswald talks to someone on the phone in a foreign language, Bledsoe doesn't like that, " so I told my girl friend, I said, "I don't like anybody talking in a foreign language." (4H404). On Thursday, October 10th, 1963 Bledsoe tells Oswald he has been interfering with her 2:00 or 2:30 p.m. naps. She tells the Commission Oswald goes to her icebox too much. On Friday Oswald stays in his room all day long. On Saturday he tells her he is going for the weekend, and she basically throws him out.
Why?
According to Bledsoe, "I didn't like his attitude. He was just kind of like this, you know, just big shot, you know, and I didn't have anything to say to him, and--but, I didn't like him. There was just something about him I didn't like or want him-- just wasn't the kind of person I wanted. Just didn't want him around me."
Now something is going on here. What I don't know.
Oswald leaves on Saturday, with Bledsoe owing him two dollars, and he leaves his clothes behind which he comes back for on Monday.
Now the Commission is transfixed on what Oswald left behind and if there was anything that a rifle could be in but they don't come right out and ask that, they ask about his luggage and bags, etc.
Oswald leaves because it's time for him to go, if he ever really rented from Bledsoe at all. The strings pulling him are getting him into the TSBD on October 15th and his second baby is born on the 18th, I think. I could believe some kind of Lee Oswald, Harvey Oswald story with Bledsoe, pre-assassination, with regards to this renting a room from her as it's very, very strange. But not post assassination with McWatters bus.
Apart from the obvious illogic and phoniness of Bledsoe's testimony, Warren Commission Counselor Ball points out,
"Mr. BALL. But, before you go into that, I notice you have been reading from some notes before you.Mrs. BLEDSOE. Well, because I forget what I have to say.
Mr. BALL. When did you make those notes?
Mrs. BLEDSOE. What day did I make them?
Miss DOUTHIT. When Mr. Sorrels and I were talking about her going to Washington, he made the suggestion that she put all the things down on paper because she might forget something, and I said, "Mary, you put everything on a piece of paper so that you can remember it and you won't forget anything, you know, what happened," and that's when she started making notes." (6H407)
Miss Douthit is Bledsoe's attorney. In my opinion, Bledsoe's testimony is a creation, a complete fabrication. John Armstrong can't believe I feel that way and wants to know where is the proof Bledsoe might have been coached in her testimony. Well, right there. Bledsoe is reading from notes. She said so. A Warren Commission attorney, Mr. Ball, noticed it and pointed this out. It's right there in the record. Regardless of who wrote them it's against every rule in the book for a witness to read from notes during his or her testimony. Is it really so unreasonable to point out the existence of these notes? Or to question them? Is it really such "amateurish speculation" as John puts it, to question their integrity? Especially when, according to Bledsoe, Forrest Sorrels of the Secret Service told her to create such notes?
Bledsoe obviously is incorporating information she acquired since the events of November 22 in her testimony. An example of that is she states she learned Oswald's wife was going to have a baby because she read it in the paper (6H406)??? Read it in the paper? Why would The Dallas Morning News or The Dallas Times Herald announce that Marina is going to give birth? That's crazy. I've never seen a paper announce a pregnancy, only an actual birth of a child. If there is a newspaper announcement of Marina Oswald to the effect that she is going to have a child that was printed prior to November 22nd I want to see it. She should be sticking with what she knew and experienced on November 22 and testify to that, not about what she heard or learned about that day, or afterwards, or events prior to November 22 by the time she testifies.
Further example of this is when Ball asks if "Oswald" said anything to the bus driver before he got off the bus. Bledsoe replied, "They say he did, but I don't remember him saying anything." [6H410]
THEY SAID??? Who is "they"? Perhaps the people who wrote the notes Bledsoe is using?
Again, Ball, "Did you remember seeing him get on or are you telling me something you read in the newspapers?" [6H410]
Also, Bledsoe incorporates information she sure as hell did not acquire while on the bus while it is still on Elm, "...then they had roped off that around where the President was killed, shot, and we were the first car that come around there, and then all of us where talking about the man, and we were looking up to see where he was shot and looking-and then they had one man and taking him, already got him in jail, and we got - "Well, I am glad they found him." [6H411]
This all ocurrs and is learned by the people on McWatters bus while it is still on Elm? I don't think so.
If she experienced all of this, renting a room to Oswald and getting rid of him, all within the span of one week, less than 7 days; and seeing him on a Dallas city bus the day of the assassination, the moment when she hears of the assassination, as she will later learn Oswald was a suspect in the assassination, and this bus is his means of escape, then why all this nonsense about using her to identify Oswald by his shirt? That's the kind of thing you would do with someone who had never met Oswald before he got on the bus. See? This doesn't make any sense. And it's why I question if Bledsoe ever really rented a room to Lee Harvey Oswald at all, or was on the bus.
And Bledsoe's description of Oswald's shirt, that is was undone, dirty, had a hole in it, is anachronistic. This would be the condition of the shirt, maybe, after the arrest in the Texas Theater, not on the bus. If the shirt is in such a condition prior to the arrest, as I believe is John Armstrong's contention, then why is Bledsoe the only one who notices it?
Only Bledsoe reported seeing Oswald in such a shirt. No one else who saw Oswald that day --- not Frazier, who drove him to work; not anyone at the Depository (a lot of people); not the witnesses immediately after the assassination, like Roy Truly and Officer Baker, the motorcycle officer who ran inside the TSBD; not the driver and other passengers on the bus; nor the cab driver --- referred to Oswald as wearing a ripped or torn shirt.
McWatters and Jones both said "Oswald" was wearing a jacket. (McWatters, 2H 264;277; Jones CE 2641, also Meagher p.81) Remember, McWatters really thought he was identifying a man who most closely resembled Jones. Jones in his FBI report identified a man who might be Oswald as "30 to 35 years, 5 feet 11 inches, 150 pounds, dark brown hair receding at temples, dressed in a light blue jacket." If McWatters and Jones are correct in seeing Oswald wearing a jacket then Bledsoe must have X-ray vision to see through the jacket and some kind of time travel ability as no one who did see Oswald in his shirt made any reference to it being ripped, torn, or with buttons missing prior to the arrest. I repeat, as far as is known from all of these witnesses there is nothing wrong with the shirt prior to the arrest. There is nothing corroborating Bledsoe's description of the shirt prior to the arrest, nothing. Descriptions of it matching what Bledsoe describes occur only after the arrest. Photographs of Oswald being arrested or photographs of the shirt after the arrest do not corroborate Bledsoe's description of the shirt and thus help bolster her identification of Oswald. For those who understand this paragraph, and that I am making a point of chronology, and that Bledsoe's description of the shirt is anachronistic, help John Armstrong as I don't think he gets it.
I cannot believe Oswald wore such a shirt the entire day and no one noticed it, referred to it at the time, or referenced it in describing Oswald later, with one exception, Mary Bledsoe.
The Commission desperate to keep Bledsoe's testimony states that both Jones and McWatters are mistaken about seeing "Oswald" in a light blue jacket.
This jacket is important in terms of the identity of Tippit's killer. A jacket was said to have been discarded by the killer. But that was a grey jacket (17H416). So what about this blue jacket? The Commission said Oswald left this "blue jacket" behind in the Depository (WCR 155), where it was discovered "subsequently" in "late November" (WCR p. 163).
Back to Bledsoe and the shirt. At some undetermined time after the assassination Secret Service agents came to her home, bringing a brown shirt which she had recognized (from the hole in the sleeve and the color) as the one Oswald had worn on the bus. (6H 412-413; Quoted in Meagher p. 80)
Oh really? Recognized it did she?
In an FBI report dated December 4, 1963 SA's Carl Brown and Robert P. Butler wrote, "When the shirt was removed from an envelope in which it was contained, Mrs. Bledsoe at first said, 'No, no. That is not the shirt.' She then inquired as to whether the shirt had a ragged elbow. Upon further examination of the shirt, she observed a hole in the right elbow of the shirt, at which time she quickly stated, 'Yes, yes, This is the shirt.' ".8
When asked about being shown the shirt Bledsoe is very confused.
Mr. BALL. No, I am talking about---I am showing you this shirt now, and you said, "That is it." You mean---What do you mean by "that is it"?Mrs. BLEDSOE. That is the one he had out there that day?
Mr. BALL. Who had it out there?
Mrs. BLEDSOE. Some Secret Service man.
Mr. BALL. He brought it out. Now, I am---you have seen this shirt then before?
Mrs. BLEDSOE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. It was brought out by the Secret Service man and shown to you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen the shirt before that?
Mrs. BLEDSOE. Well---
Mr. BALL. Have you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE. No; he had it on, though. (6H413)
As with the notes she has when testifying to the Commission, I believe this is another example of Bledsoe being coached. When she said, "No, no that is not the shirt." responsible FBI agents should have said, "Thank you Mrs. Bledsoe," and left.
They didn't. Is the demand for absolute proof of her being coached really necessary? Will it take a document stating we got her to change her mind on the shirt? Is it not a very logical conclusion that they got her to change her mind? How was this "further examination of the shirt" done? The only reason for it is to get her to change her story and positively identify the shirt.
Now wait a minute, didn't Oswald change his shirt at 1026 N. Beckley? See the problem? If Oswald was wearing a ripped and torn shirt all day, though only Bledsoe saw it, and Oswald goes home and changes his shirt, how come he's still wearing the ripped and torn shirt when arrested? Oops.
Moreover, Oswald told Captain Fritz that during his brief visit to his room he had changed his trousers and his shirt, "because they were dirty," and that he placed them "In the lower drawer of his dresser." (WCR 604-605, 622) The police officers who searched the room did not indicate on the police property list that discarded trousers and shirt were found there.
Nevertheless, the Commission asserts on the strength of Mrs. Bledsoe's testimony and the bus transfer found on Oswald that "although Oswald...claimed to have changed his shirt, the evidence indicates that he continued wearing the same shirt he was wearing all morning and which he was still wearing when arrested."
(WCR 124-125) (from Meagher p. 80)
I was stunned to discover that. Everybody thinks Oswald went to 1026 N. Beckley and changed his clothes. What? It's a problem? Oh. Well, then he didn't, never mind.
Does Bledsoe remember Oswald getting a transfer ticket? No.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever see the motorman give him a transfer?Mrs. BLEDSOE. No; I didn't pay any attention but I believe he did.
Mr. BALL. Well, what do you mean he---you believe he did? Did you remember seeing him get on or are you telling me something you read in the newspapers?
Mrs. BLEDSOE. No; I don't remember. I don't remember. (6H410)
Does Bledsoe identify Oswald in a lineup? No.
Bledsoe never identified Oswald in a line-up. She never went to a line up. She "identifies" Oswald from photographs shown to her by the Dallas police on Saturday, when the whole world knows what he looks like, of Oswald holding a gun. ( Meagher p. 80) One of which will go on to become the LIFE magazine cover.
Roy Milton Jones
As already discussed, Jones in his FBI report identified a man who might be Oswald as, "30 to 35 years, 5 feet 11 inches, 150 pounds, dark brown hair receding at temples, dressed in a light blue jacket." Jones also was never taken to a police line up. So Jones can't place Oswald on the bus either.
More importantly, Jones states that it is two policemen who board the bus and informed the driver and passengers of the assassination. These two police officers questioned each passenger to see if they were carrying weapons. (Meagher reproduces much of this FBI report on p. 76, where it's more legible; it's also CE 2641 Volume 25 p. 899-901) Only Jones mentions police boarding the bus. No other witness. If police inspected the bus there is no instruction to do so in the radio logs, unless they were deleted. Why check a bus going back to Dealey Plaza? There is also no mention of police or anyone else checking any other vehicles in any direction going to or from the plaza.
McWatters confirms this, "Yes, I turned after they finally let --- they weren't letting any cars through at that time but they just run a bunch of those buses through there." (2H266)
Very oddly, Weston states about this report, "It would have been interesting to read what Jones had to say concerning...how the people on the bus first heard of the shooting. But the FBI report is silent..." HUH??? It's right there, page two of the report, "He recalled that at this time a policeman notified the driver the President had been shot and he told the driver no one was to leave the bus until police officers had talked to each passenger."
Jones leaves the bus at Brownlee and Marsalis at 1:45 p.m.
Oswald himself initially places himself on the bus.
This doesn't work either. As Weston noted, Oswald under interrogation initially stated that he got from the plaza to the Texas Theater entirely by bus. Well, let's stick with that idea and explore it.
"In response to questions put by Captain Fritz, Oswald said that immediately after leaving the building where he worked, he went by bus to the theater where he was arrested; that when he got on the bus he secured a transfer and thereafter transferred to other buses to get to his destination." (Thomas Kelly's Secret Service report, WCR p. 626, quoted in Weston's article, p. 8.)
FBI SA James Bookhout confirms the above initial story on how Oswald gets from the TSBD to the Texas theater. "Following his departure from the Texas School Book Depository Building he boarded a city bus to his residence and obtained transfer upon departure from the bus. He stated that officers at the time of arresting him took his transfer out of his pocket." (WCR p. 621)
Fritz reports the same story. "During the interview I talked with Oswald about his leaving the building, and he told me he left by bus and rode to a stop near home and walked to his house. At the time of Oswald's arrest he had a bus transfer in his pocket."
This is impossible. Factoring in the delay caused by the traffic pile up in Dealey Plaza, something testified to by McWatters, Jones, and Bledsoe, McWatters bus is at least 30 to 45 minutes late. It can't get to Oak Cliff until 1:20 p.m. at best.
The bus transfer now becomes a rock solid alibi for Oswald in the Tippit murder. He can't have killed Tippet because he's still on McWatters bus. OOPS! So the story of Oswald getting to the theater entirely by bus has to be changed.
The bus transfer ticket. It's from the wrong bus!
Oswald said the bus left him off at his residence, which is on N. Beckley. Problem, McWatters bus doesn't go there. McWatters bus would drop Oswald off 5 blocks away. (See Weston p. 8) Guess who lives exactly 5 blocks away, in a straight line, right where this bus would let Lee Harvey Oswald off? Mary Bledsoe.
The Marsalis St. Bus and the Beckley Ave. bus would travel down Elm St together but at Dealey their paths diverge. Marsalis turns south on Houston and the Beckley bus continues westward on Elm past the depository and the knoll. (2H283)
I checked Mary Bledsoe's address on Excite, an internet search engine. She is exactly 5 blocks west of 1026 N. Beckley. If Oswald was going to 621 N. Marsalis, the bus story has some positive tones to it. Now the bus transfer works. Now he would be dropped off at his residence, if he was still renting from Bledsoe, it's really Bledsoe's, so she helps positively identify him, at his residence and on the bus. He could get to the Texas Theater by bus again.
But there's one big negative side to it, all the right things, like the bus transfer, and Bledsoe, exclude Oswald from being a suspect for the Tippit murder. He's on the bus, with a bus transfer ticket and a witness to prove it. Keep in mind the bus was held up in traffic for 30-45 minutes in Dealey as a result of the assassination. Jones said it was held up for an hour. He supposedly got on the bus around 12:40 p.m. Now if held up means stationary, if they are stuck and sitting there, for an hour, it's 1:40 p.m. or more before it even leaves Dealey. Jones sense of time is flawed as he says he gets of the bus at Brownlee and Marsalis at 1:45 p.m. It couldn't have gotten from Dealey to Brownlee and Marsalis in 5 minutes. However, the crucial point is that the bus was held up in traffic on Elm. This is a fact. If you take this fact in the context of Oswald going entirely by bus from the Depository to the Texas theater there is a lot of exculpatory evidence vindicating Oswald as a possible suspect in the Tippit murder.
It won't work for Marsalis or Beckley. The traffic hold up means he can't take a bus the whole way. Say goodbye to all the potential witnesses, which is why they went for a bus in the first place.
Maybe they knew Oswald is supposed to be on a bus beforehand. Weston writes, "After the search was made, the bus was given permission to move on. The police had opened up a lane at Elm and Houston, allowing the buses - but not the cars - to go through." (Weston p. 7)
At some point during the exact same interrogation everybody figures this out, and there is a sudden and abrupt change. They have to get Oswald off the bus.
"As related by Kelly, Fritz asked Oswald if he had taken a taxi that day. And Oswald then changed his story and said that when he got on the bus he found it was going too slow and after two blocks he got off the bus and took a cab to his home." (emphasis mine). And Kelly's report gives Oswald the passive voice. The passive voice is always suspicious.
How convenient of Oswald to destroy his own alibi for the Tippit murder! How convenient of Oswald to pick up his cue from Fritz. The bus story, in trouble on many fronts anyway, had to be changed.
The entire bus story is a total lie. Oswald was never on it.
How is this bus transfer ticket "found" on Oswald?
So how did Oswald get a bus transfer from McWatters bus? The only logical
conclusion was that Oswald was given the bus transfer, or it was placed on him,
or the Dallas Police just put it together with his belongings. It is
"discovered" supposedly on Oswald after he is arrested, 2 and a half hours
after he is arrested!
Not at the time of his arrest as Bookhout's report states.
Walt Cakebread writes, "I would like to point out some of the improbabilities with the bus transfer story and present an alternate hypothesis to the official version of the story. The first and most obvious anomaly is the condition of the transfer. It is like the "magic bullet" in that it is in pristine condition. It just doesn't look like a piece of newsprint paper that has been in someones pocket, and especially some one who has been running, on a warm, humid Texas afternoon and wrestling with the police. It isn't even slightly wrinkled, not even a dog earred corner?? For the transfer to be in this condition it would have to have been encased in some sort of folder or purse, but there is no evidence that this was the case. Detective Sims states that he found the transfer by itself in Oswald's pocket. I defy anyone to hastily place a public transit transfer in their shirt pocket not just once, but at least twice and not even dog ear a corner!"
In McWatters' affidavit which he gave on the evening of the assassination he simply says that the transfer, #004459, "is a transfer from my bus with my punch mark" this statement doesn't even hint that this transfer was the one that had been in Oswald's pocket.
If Oswald did change his shirt at 1026 N. Beckley he would have had to remember the bus transfer and place that in his new shirt.
Keep in mind the transfer is only punched in two areas, Lakewood, to prevent the bearer from getting back on the same bus he got the transfer from, and a.m. or p.m. The actual punchmark, i.e. how the paper is cut through, is supposedly distinctive to a single bus driver.
Walt Cakebread shared a letter he wrote to The Fourth Decade. He goes even further than me, "Detective Sims found a transfer in Oswald's pocket that was punched " Marsalis 23" that had been issued at 1:00 o'clock. He was unaware that this transfer was proof that Oswald had not killed officer J.D. Tippet."
We do not need to confine the discussion to Oswald going only by bus to the Texas Theater for the bus transfer ticket to be an alibi for Oswald.
When Sims saw the Marsalis 23 slot punched and the time of 1:00 o'clock he assumed that he had proof that Oswald had left the scene of the assassination on the Marsalis bus. It was issued at one o'clock and it was valid until 1:15. Transfers were issued at fifteen minute intervals. Therefore, Oswald got the transfer at 1:00 p.m. If he had gotten the transfer prior to 1:00 p.m. it would have been marked at 12:45 and have been good only until 1:00 p.m. If Oswald got the transfer at 1:00 he can't have then gotten off McWatter's bus, walked to the greyhound bus station, gotten a cab (which leaves him of a few blocks further up Beckley), walk back to his room, perhaps change clothes, get his gun, walk to a point where Tippit accosts him and proceed to murder Tippit.
Why all these lies and manipulations?
It has to be explained how Lee Harvey Oswald got to Oak Cliff. Officially, he cannot drive. It would be conspiratorial if he had help escaping, i.e., anyone giving him a lift in a car would raise a hell of a lot of questions, one of the main reasons why the Roger Craig story is discounted, so public transportation is the only way. I'm convinced the real people behind the assassination thought they had it all worked out with the bus prior to the assassination, but someting goes wrong, it falls apart so easily even they realize it and change it the very next day. This casts serious doubts about the cab story too, because the taxi only appears after the bus story falls apart.
So the bus transfer is reduced in importance in favor of a taxi manifest, enter William Whaley.
While I haven't thoroughly researched this taxi cab ride, I have grave doubts about it. If it's real then why all the fuss over the bus? Why does Oswald not refer to it on November 22nd, but changes his story to incorporate it on November 23? Why is there still a time problem? If the idiots junked the bus story altogether, as they should have, it only adds time to Oswald getting to Oak Cliff, and this story of Oswald's post-assassination movements needs all the time it can get. He can leave the TSBD, go directly to the cab and go to Oak Cliff.
Whaley, based on his "manifest" places the person he picked up as getting in his cab anywhere from 12:30 to 12:45. [CE 370 16H966]
There is no mention of Lee Harvey Oswald taking a taxi on November 22, not by anyone. Lee Harvey Oswald does not refer to himself as having taken a taxi cab, no law enforcement official of any kind refers to Oswald as haven taken a taxi cab, no taxi cab driver comes forward to say Oswald took a cab, no witness of any kind places Oswald in a cab, and no paperwork of any kind refers to Oswald being in a cab on November 22, until November 23.
The story of Lee Harvey Oswald taking a cab to get to N. Beckley starts on Saturday, November 23, 1963 following a prompting by Captain Fritz after 10:30 a.m.
Whaley signs his affidavit on Saturday, November 23, 1963. This has to be after they figure out the bus story, as is, doesn't work. Whaley says the line-up he went to was around 2:30 p.m. that day. So, between 10:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. they get Whaley.
Whaley also screws up the identification process with Oswald in a line-up.
Of paramount importance is the fact that the Dallas police prepared a statement for him to which he signed and swore, identifying Oswald before he even views the lineup!!!!! (Weisberg p. 53; 6H431)
Yet, even with this someone still screws up because Whaley says Oswald in under #3. Nope, sorry, he's under #2. (Whaley counted from right to left, instead of left to right) Whaley is horribly confused. He seems to realize the importance of what he said identifying Oswald before he even sees him in the line-up, but fails to clear it up. He then states, "I signed my name because they said that is what I said." (6H431) Obliging, ain't he?
Keep in mind this is the second time he testifies, this second time on April 8th, 1964 by Belin in Dallas. He first testified to the Commission in Washington on March 12, 1964. In Washington Whaley states the time of getting Oswald from the Greyhound bus station to where he dropped Oswald off, several blocks up from 1026 N. Beckley, in the 500 block area as having taken 9 minutes. Belin gets that down to 5 minutes 30 seconds. All done to "correct", i.e. help, that manifest.
They really want to document Oswald's post assassination travel, even if the witnesses stories need help, even if the paperwork needs help.
I hope you agree with my conclusions, and see why and how the bus story and cab story were created and how they fall apart. I'll let the reader decide.
John hates this article. It really is a criticism of how he reads and understands documents. It goes to how he presents his information which I find fault with.
John absolutely cannot stand the fact that I quote other researchers. In my opinion this is John's greatest flaw. I'm not so stupid or arrogant as to think no one has ever looked at the assassination of President John F. Kennedy before me, or god forbid, be given credit for correctly figuring some of this material out.
To quote John, "On occasion writers quote the works of other writers --- a practice which I find deplorable. At best, one assumes the writer whom you quote to be accurate --- when in fact many times they are not. At worst, one quotes a writers judgment or speculation --- similar to Gerald Posner citing Gerald Ford's judgment as "accurate". This is amateurish and irresponsible --- not research."
Also, "Why quote authors? They were not there and are often wrong."
Isn't that astounding? Is Mr. Armstrong actually promoting the idea to never quote anyone, ever, no matter what, about anything?
One wonders if Mr. Armstrong ever wrote a paper before on anything. It's one of the most basic tenets of any research to read the works of others and quote it to back up a statement you agree with or went further with. Did you go to High School John, did you go to College? When I wrote papers I had to have sources cited. The papers I wrote had to have footnotes, endnotes, sources cited, a bibliography.
It would be one thing to prove I got something wrong, or that somone else that I am quoting from got something wrong, but John doesn't really do this. He just has a blanket philosophy against citing others.
Another criticism John has with this article is that witnesses in this case witnessed events for only a few seconds. Now this I can totally agree with, however it's how John uses this idea, and is inconsistent with it, that I find fault with.
He uses it to criticize me with regard to Cecil McWatters. To quote John, "Could he be expected to remember someone he saw passing in front of him for a few seconds?"
Well, let's understand the context, it's the day President Kennedy is assassinated. Most people can remember exactly where they were and what they were doing when they heard the news. Now Cecil McWatters is on his Marsalis St. bus when he hears about the assassination. Later that same day he will be asked if he remembers if a man boarded his bus when it was on Elm Street between St. Paul and Houston St., and if that man asked for and received from him a transfer. Now that limits the possibilities considerably, and I would say that yes he should be able to remember such man.
John apparently thinks McWatters cannot give an identification BUT does insist he saw "Harvey". See?, inconsistency. John says McWatters does put Oswald on his bus with his testimony, and news stories. (emphasis mine) News stories? I don't know what John means with that but I cannot understand how anyone can read Cecil McWatters testimony and believe he places Oswald on his bus.
McWatters' affidavit is not something to go by as McWatters himself attacks its veracity in his Warren Commission testimony and repeatedly states he was really referring to the teenager Roy Milton Jones.
John doesn't like Roy Milton Jones, either: "...if the memory of a 7th grade student is to be accepted." and "he was a 7th grade student and probably did not pay any attention to anyone on the bus"; John on the FBI report on Jones, "The report is only as good as the agents who wrote it."
Is that a valid criticism? Disregard Jones becasue he is a 7th grade student?
On my questioning McWatters, Jones and Bledsoe, and my agreement with Sylvia Meagher that Bledsoe wasn't even on McWatters bus " I can't believe this. Anyone who questions witnesses without corroboration or without foundation is no more interested in the truth than the Warren Commission."
Oh there's lots to question here with these witnesses. The foundation for asking questions is their own statements. John won't hear of it. Despite the fact that they contradict each other on several key points John sees nothing wrong with anything anyone of them said.
Completely missing the point I was making in reference to sticking with Lee Harvey Oswald's original story of going from the TSBD to the theater entirely by bus, when if you factor in the obvious traffic jam on Elm St. as seen in numerous photographs and testified to by McWatters, Jones and Bledsoe, Oswald has an alibi proving he could not have killed Tippit because he could not possibly have gotten there in time, (I was agreeing with Weston on this point), Oswald would have three witnesses, McWatters, Jones and Bledsoe, perhaps others, plus a possible bus transfer ticket, documenting that he could not possibly have shot Tippit. Or, if we use Walt Cakebread's analysis, and Oswald's revised story the bus transfer is still an alibi. John responds, "This "nonsense' is precisely why people think of some researchers as "nuts". I am embarrassed to see this in print."
I don't know what to say here. It proves the original "entirely by bus" story must be scrapped in favor of a bus and taxi, as no single bus or combination of buses could get him to Oak Cliff in time.
I say, I know, I think I prove it, there is no Oswald on McWatters bus. John- "bullshit, pure bullshit."
The bus transfer ticket had to have been given to him if indeed found on his person. John - "Silly, very poor, very amateurish."
On William Whaley's cab and the importance of the meter, Meagher makes a very good point, in my view. Whaley mentions that it cost his ride, "Oswald", 95 cents to go to Beckley from the Greyhound Station yet the meter is never referred to in Belin's reconstructions of the cab ride. John - "Explain this please!!! I would love to hear this explanation!! More Meagher bullshit."
It should be obvious, Belin should get in Whaley's cab at the Greyhound station, ride to where Oswald is alleged to have gotten out, and he should do this several times. If the average Belin is charged by the taxi meter is more than 95 cents, something's wrong. The meter should get some attention paid to it, no pun intended, as much as the time factor. John, like Belin, only concentrates on the time factor.
On Whaley screwing up Oswald's identification, "-a five minute uneventful cab ride. See if you can describe the clothing worn by a store clerk two hours ago."
Well, if I went to only one store and met only one clerk, on the day of a Presidential assassination, and I'm later told, the very next day, that that clerk is a suspect in the assassination, I think I could describe that clerk.
In an earlier edition of this article I quoted Whaley's Warren Commission testimony and Harold Weisberg, from Whitewash I p. 53 on Whaley screwing up Oswald's I.D.
"Mr. Belin. All right. Now in here it says [reading Whaley's affidavit] `The No. 3 man who I know is Lee Harvey Oswald was the man who I carried from the Greyhound Bus Station.' Was this the No. 3 man or the No.2 man?""Mr. Whaley. I signed that statement before they carried me down to see the lineup. I signed this statement, and then they carried me down to the lineup at 2:30 in the afternoon.
"Mr. Belin. You signed this affidavit before you saw the lineup?"
"Mr. Whaley. Well, now, let's get this straight. You are getting me confused."
I editorialized that "It's beautiful isn't it? You can't make this stuff up." John writes "correct", and underlines it twice, as if he understands what I'm saying, which he obviously doesn't.
I then quoted Weisberg, "Oswald was under No. '2', regardless of what the Report says. (6H430) In his final appearance before the Commission, Whaley resolved the problem with which he had [been] confronted with his affidavit in which he said that Oswald was the number 3 man. Although each position had a number over it, and Oswald was under the number '2', Whaley decided to ignore the official numbers and count. Not from left to right, as the official police numbers went, but from right to left. That is how Oswald got to be number three."
Now John asks, right after Belin asks, "Was this the No. 3 man or the No.2 man?", "Was the number two man the second from the left or the second from the right?"
Talk about not being able to understand documents! Could it be plainer what Weisberg is saying? Could it be plainer what Belin is asking about?
So I say Whaley fails to identify Oswald too. John says, "Poor conclusion."
POOR CONCLUSION??? John, you're wrong.
I then went into the Tippit shooting, I won't recreate my writings on that only my main points, and where John gives responses that astound me.
I wrote, "In Exhibit 705 (17H401), the dispatcher asked Tippit, `You are in the Oak Cliff area, are you not ?' Tippit replied, `Lancaster and Eighth.' The dispatcher told Tippit, `You will be at large for any emergency that comes in.' Tippit acknowledged. This conversation was between the 12:54 and 12:55 p.m. time checks.
Now John is either impatient or has a serious reading comprehension disability because he writes in immediately after, "Tippit replied, `Lancaster and Eighth.'"-@12:54.
DUH! I do write the time one line down.
Again I'm quoting Weisberg, from Whitewash p. 55 "The report, for all the space it devoted to Jack Ruby, did not reveal his address. In questioning by the Commission, Ruby was not asked for his address. The appendix on "Speculations and Rumors" (R662) says Oswald's room and Ruby's apartment were 1.3 miles apart. One unofficial account located Ruby's apartment at Ninth and Lancaster, a block from Tippit's broadcast location."
Now John wrote, "This is stupid. Ruby lived at Ewing St. - why speculate where he lived?" Again, failure to comprehend what he's reading.
Well, I'll tell you. Because the Commission wasn't telling anyone. They knew it looks like that is where Oswald could have been heading. They knew people would interpret it that way. It implies they might have known each other prior to the assassination. It would look conspiratorial. And raises many questions. So they choose to deal with that piece of information by simply omitting any reference to Ruby's residence. But they are stupid about it as they do tell us Ruby had a roommate, George Senator, who gives the address, 223 Ewing and apartment number 206 (14H178) Senator was a roommate of a Mr. Corset who got married on August 8th, 1963 and he left Senator alone. Senator didn't like living alone and moved in with Ruby. They were in adjoining apartment's 206-207.
Now this one screams out at me. I write about the Tippit murder, "Officially it went like this, 'At approximately 1:15 p.m., Tippit was driving slowly in an easterly direction on East 10th Street in Oak Cliff. About 100 feet past the intersection of 10th Street and Patton Avenue, Tippit pulled up alongside a man walking in the same direction.'"
John, far too obsessed with his solution to the Tippit murder, encircles "walking in the same direction" and writes in the margin "I'd love to see your source for this!!!"
I continue the quote, "The man met the general description of the suspect wanted in connection with the assassination. He walked over to Tippit's car, rested his arms on the door on the right hand side of the car, and apparently exchanged words with Tippit through the window. Tippit opened the door on the left side and started to walk around the front of his car. As he reached the front wheel on the driver's side, the man on the sidewalk drew a revolver and fired several shots in rapid succession, hitting Tippit four times and killing him instantly." (Report p. 6-7)
GEE, I WONDER WHERE THE HELL I GOT IT FROM? I guess I'm just far too obsfucatory with words like "officially it went like this", and citing the exact pages of the Report.
Now I don't care if you want to take issue with what the Report wrote here. I'm quoting the Report so you can do just that. But for Christ's sake don't act incredulously and ask what's my source?!!!
John is far too concentrated on the Tippit shooter walking west. Well, that's fine.
I point out those who believe so as well, but you have to know the official story is that Tippit comes up from behind Oswald and that they were going in the same direction.
John also doesn't like the shot 4 times and writes in 5 times. Again, don't argue with me on this. I'm not quoting it as though it's my conclusion. I'm giving background. The Report said Tippit was shot 4 times. You want to disagree with that fine, but you cannot disagree that the Report said 4. Anybody can read the first paragraph of page 7 of the Report.
In my tour packet I address the question of Tippit being outside his normal assigned patrol area. Sylvia Meagher investigated this and I quote and paraphrase her work. First and foremost, I emphasize that there are 3 different transcripts of the police radio logs, all edited differently. The first version is Sawyer Exhibit No. A. and B. presented to the Commission on December 3, 1963. The second version is CE 705 presented to the Commission in April, 1964. And the third is CE 1974 prepared by the FBI in August, 1964. Sylvia Meagher writes about this in "Accessories..." p. 260. That first transcript did not include the instruction to Tippit to move into the Oak Cliff area.
I paraphrase p. 260-261 of Meagher's "Accessories..." wherein Dallas Police officers Bud Owens, Lt. Rio S. Pierce and Sergeant James A. Putnam under questioning by the Warren Commission theorized that Tippit hearing of the assassination started towards Dealey Plaza and his route took him to where he was shot. A theory Meagher considers weak.
John, again completely missing the point, seizes on the word "theorize" and calls it "more confusion and nonsense". Yes, correct John, but not by me or Meagher, this is the DPD officers theorizing, and the Commission theorizing, and Meagher pointing that out.
I also paraphrase Walt Brown who noted that Tippit is literally a part of the landscape. It's based on the testimony of several people. See "Treachery in Dallas" bottom of p. 154 "Tippit was literally part of the landscape where he was killed. Cabbie William Scoggings testified to seeing Tippit, but took no notice because Tippit was always there. [3H324-325]. Resident Charlie Virginia Davis told the Warren Commission that she thought Tippit lived there, highly suggestive that he spent a lot of time there, and someone looking for him would know where to find him [6H458].
John won't have any of that. Tippit is, "miles from his regular area".
Meagher believes the instruction to Tippit to move into the Oak Cliff area is a total fabrication introduced into the transcripts.
Brown says this is debatable as the tape does exist. John writes that Meagher should have listened to the tape or "she should keep still".
Brown and Armstrong miss the point completely. I repeat, there are 3 different Dallas Police Radio transcripts, not one, three, all edited differently. The tape these three transcripts are based upon is also edited and incomplete. The Dallas Police Radio logs are available from several sources and many members of the research community have them. They are not complete, original or unedited.
I go into the fact that there is controversy over how many times Tippit was shot.
Why was this? Because the Tippit autopsy report was not reproduced in the 26 volumes. What we had was differing accounts from different sources.
Then when the autopsy report was found and made available, not by the government but by the research community...
John, again completely missing that point that we didn't have the autopsy writes, "Why don't you just look at autopsy? Why confuse?"
Returning to Meagher and the Dallas Police Radio transcripts, Tippit fails to respond to a call from the dispatcher at 1:00 p.m. But turnabout is fair play as according to CE 705, a second and this time supposedly verbatim transcript, again prepared by the Dallas Police, in which those reporting to the dispatcher are designated by number and not by name, has Tippit, call number 78, calling the dispatcher, twice, at 1:08 p.m. and getting no response. So where's the dispatcher? If this is true, Tippit is obviously alive at 1:00 p.m., then where is he when the dispatcher calls him? In the FBI version of the transcript CE 1974, 78 disappears and an unidentified 488 is attributed as calling the dispatcher twice at 1:08. And 488 is not seen again in the log. (See "Accessories" p. 264)
In the second transcript, the verbatim transcript, CE 705, Tippit and a number 87, R.C. Nelson are both instructed to go to the Oak Cliff area at 12:45 p.m. A "missing" Texas School Book Depository employee, and suspect in the assassination is on his way to the Oak Cliff section but there is no known way the dispatcher could know that. So why this mysterious instruction? And why isn't it there in the first transcript?
"This was the first indication of the alleged instruction, and it immediately raised the question of why it had not appeared in the [first] edited transcript of December 1963. That question was posed to Police Chief Jesse Curry when he appeared before the Commission on April 22, 1964." Curry at one point seemed to suggest that Tippit was out of his assigned patrol section because he was looking for his own murderer (4H192).
Curry then says the instruction was omitted from the first transcript because it was difficult to hear. (Meagher p. 261) [And John, Meagher is quoting Curry's WC testimony, this is not stuff Meagher is dreaming up.] Well, if it was difficult to hear how come it can be heard now?
J. Lee Rankin, prompting Curry, asks if it might have been omitted from the first transcript for reasons of brevity. Curry agrees. (4H185-186)
This obviously raises questions of the authenticity of the instruction.
If it is authentic, we must ask why? Tippit and Nelson are the only officers contacted by the dispatcher with instructions unrelated to the assassination and lacking any apparent purpose. There is no breach of law and no reason to send them to Oak Cliff. If the dispatcher sent these two to the vicinity of Oswald's roominghouse at random it's a hell of a coincidence. "Aside from Tippit and Nelson, the dispatcher did not contact any specific squad cars, nor did he give any general order to men in the outlying districts to move elsewhere. We are asked to believe that in the midst of this consternation, the dispatcher took the time to call Tippit and Nelson and give them instructions which make no sense." (Meagher p. 262.)
Now this is even more strange for Nelson, told to go to the Oak Cliff area, is not heard from for 45 minutes when he shows up at the Depository! As if he had never heard or acknowledged the 12:45 instruction.
"When Nelson reported from the Book Depository, the dispatcher raised no question about his seeming disregard for an explicit order to proceed to a different location. In itself this suggests that Nelson never received such an order, nor did Tippit; the force of this inference is strengthened by a police report on a different matter (CE 2645), stating that after the assassination, Nelson was dispatched to the Book Depository, where he remained on guard in front of the building for the remainder of the afternoon!" (Accessories p. 263)
Now remember, the Dispatcher calls Tippit at 1:00. He fails to respond. But the context of the call makes no sense. The dispatcher wants blood from the blood bank to be picked up by a police squad car and delivered to Parkland. You would think that he would pick the car closest to the blood bank. The blood bank is located at the 2000 block of Commerce St., some 5 miles away from Tippit's location. (See Meagher at p. 263) Now if Tippit heard this his logical response would be ask if the dispatcher was on drugs.
So where is Tippit? Well he reported he was at Lancaster and Eight at 12:54.
Harry Olsen, a DPD officer was working in that area, moonlighting. Olsen said when he heard of the shooting he went outside and talked with a passerby. He could have and should have seen Tippit. He doesn't. Meagher notes that he is at the right place and at the right time to do so.
John says, "So what!"
Tippit could be at 1026 N. Beckley honking his horn.
Meagher noted that according to CE 705, Tippit twice signaled the dispatcher at 1:08 p.m., but the dispatcher did not acknowledge.
John, in a completely new one on me says at 1:08 Tippit had stopped Oswald and was reporting in to the dispatcher to inform him of his activities. Yet, John also states that Helen Markham's time of the shooting at 1:06 is correct. Well, if you like Helen Markham and her testimony then having Tippit shot dead yet still moving two minutes later dutifully informing the dispatcher of the identity of his own murderer isn't a problem.
I find it extremely interesting that a spare DPD uniform is hanging in the rear of Tippit's car. This too gets a "so what." from John.
Could Tippit be at The Top Ten Record Shop at 1:00 p.m?
Earl Golz, a reporter for The Dallas Morning News, did some stunning work on the assassination and got it published. He discovered that on the day of the assassination Tippit ran into The Top Ten Record Shop and placed a call on the phone. It rang and rang but apparently whomever he was calling did not respond. Tippit reportedly left and took off at a high rate of speed. Golz placed the time of this as around 1:00 p.m.
Larry Ray Harris, considered The Expert on the Tippit shooting, held a researchers workshop on the Tippit murder at the A.S.K. `92 conference.
I wrote that this store was "immediately adjacent" to the Texas theater. John, wrote, "Where in the world do you come up with this? Top 10 Record store is across the street, a half block west of theater." I got it from the Larry Ray Harris workshop audiotape. Relax, John the point is it's quite close to the Texas Theater.
And the real point I was making was that Mr. Stark, the store owner told Harris that this really ocurred around 9:00 a.m., not at 1:00 p.m. Harris could not understand or explain this discrepency.
John Armstrong wrote to me that both are correct and that the incident at 9:00 a.m. Tippit was there with Oswald! John says this is according to an FBI report.
Unfortunately, John did not share this report with me. But for Christ's sake if this is true it turns this case on its ear.
John uses Benavides description of the Tippit shooter with "dark wavy hair" as a description of "Lee" Oswald. He gives nothing to support that.
One last comment from John on my bus tour guide is in regards to the Dallas Police arresting Oswald at the Texas Theater and shouting "Kill the President will ya?" I quote Groden who beleives as I do that any members of the Dallas police drawing a connection between Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination at this point must have been part of the conspiracy. John harps on the word "believes", circles it twice and writes "worthless speculation".
I write that there is no logical reason to connect the two, meaning the assassination of President Kennedy and the shooting death of Officer Tippit.
John, consistently missing the point, see the phrase "no logical reason", thinks I'm referring to Groden's thesis, underlines "no logical reason" twice, writes "good" in the margin and gives that two exclamation points.
The point is that no one should be considering Oswald a suspect in the assassination. The point is it's strange and suspicious anyone should be shouting at Oswald "kill the President, will ya?" at him. What is the basis for anyone to yell that at him?
Now a comment on Armstrong's article in PROBE. Jan-Feb 1998 issue Vol 5 No. 2
The most amazing thing to me is John is trying to state as fact that the guy Robert Groden found in the Dillard photo of the Depository, taken within seconds of the assassination, on the same floor but on the opposite end, the southwest end, to where the lone nut Oswald is supposedly shooting from, is "Lee" Oswald. John says this person has a "hairline nearly identical to a photograph of Lee Oswald taken by Robert Oswald." This is garbage. John then goes on to write that this person could have been "Lee". I don't believe this for a minute. And I would think people would react to two Oswalds in the Depository at the same time. This figure we see in the Dillard photograh then effectively becomes "Lee" for the whole article becasue he is wearing a white shirt. John then goes into "Lee" as the one in a white shirt and "Harvey" as the long sleeved brown shirt, then everything fits.
No.
Some of John's work is tantalizing, and a lot of it I do agree with. But almost all of his Oswald material, post assassination, and Tippit murder material he should rethink as I feel he has it very, very wrong.
2. WCR p. 157
3. Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 76; Wade's statement CE2168.
4. Meagher, p. 76
5. Meagher, p. 78
6. Volume 2 p. 281
7. WCR p. 159
8. FBI report DL 89-43 by Special Agent Carl Brown and Robert P. Butler, in William Weston's article "Marsalis Bus No. 1213," The Fourth Decade, Volume 2, Number 3, March 1995, pps. 3-10
Return to Main Page
* * *