JFK Assassination

Jack Ruby concluded his business at the western union at 11.17am and shot Oswald 4 minutes later at 11.21am. If there was a conspiracy then why would he be wiring money and acting in a normal everyday fashion?

Oswald and Ruby were also drawn together by parallel strands of chance. Oswald was brought to Ruby by two unforeseeable delays in his 10 a.m. transfer from City to County Jail, one for an hour’s further interrogation by the chief postal inspector—who skipped church at the last minute to see whether he could help the police—and another by Oswald’s last-minute request for a dark sweater for TV.

Ruby was drawn to Oswald when he decided to close his nightclubs for the weekend because of the assassination. That threw his dancers out of work. One of them called him Sunday morning for $25 for food and rent. Ruby went downtown to wire her the money. With his favorite dog Sheba in the car, he left home an hour after Oswald should have been transferred. He wired the money and walked over to the police station, where he had noticed a small crowd outside. Arriving just as a truck came up the ramp and distracted the guard, he ducked into the basement. When Oswald appeared a minute later, Ruby lunged forward and shot him with the pistol he routinely carried to protect the large amounts of cash he usually kept on his person ($2000 that day).


FROM VINCE BUGLIOSI'S BOOK, "RECLAIMING HISTORY":

"Are we just left with conjecture to reach a conclusion on the issue of how Ruby entered the police basement? No, there is evidence, common sense, and Ruby's knowledge of events that prove he entered through the Main Street ramp. ....

"The virtual proof that Ruby came down the Main Street ramp is that within a half hour of his arrest, and right after he was taken from the basement to the jail on the fifth floor (which was long BEFORE [DPD officers] Pierce, Putnam, Vaughn, and Maxey had been interviewed and given their statements), Ruby told Dallas police detective Barnard Clardy and other detectives that he had entered through the Main Street ramp and had seen Pierce driving out of the ramp.

"How could Ruby possibly have known this if he hadn't, in fact, been at the entrance to the Main Street ramp? I mean, Pierce himself didn't even receive instructions to drive out of the Main Street ramp until around 11:15 a.m., just six minutes before Ruby shot Oswald." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 108-109 of "Reclaiming History"

Vincent Bugliosi's Misnamed Reclaiming History
by David R. Wrone, 28 Sep 2007




In the forty four years of sustained discussion about the official findings of the federal government’s investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy no author can equal the failure Vincent Bugliosi has achieved in his misnamed Reclaiming History.

Invented facts & relations.

A characteristic of his narrative is the frequent use of hypothetical instances as a substitute for a lack of evidence or absence of documentary support for a statement. These he typically expresses with such phrases as “probably” or “must have” and similar wordage. In other words, when no or scant evidence exists to sustain a point he is writing about, he makes it up. For example, in one three page section of the end notes where he discusses the Officer J. D. Tippit murder he uses these made up substitutes for the lack of evidence thirty seven times. In the book as a whole one can only estimate the total number of inventions to be incredibly large. This is not what the civilization we are part of calls history, but is a class of fiction presented as non-fiction known as Munchausen’s work. In the appendix the thirty seven instances are set down.

Mythic reconstruction substituted for evidence.

Closely akin to Vincent Bugliosi’s inventions employed as evidence is his use of imaginary or mythic reconstructions to carry a point when he hasn’t any facts to sustain them. These he plugs into his narrative and employs for all the world as if they were expressions of the November 22nd reality. In this he parrots the Warren Commission’s lavish and pious use of reconstructions as a solution for the lack of evidence in its rush to frame Oswald’s guilt so a doubting America and a skeptical world would believe it. While we could cite many of these stand-in devices to illustrate this common Bugliosian anti-historical trait, perhaps his invention of the path Oswald took from his rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue to the scene of the Officer J. D. Tippit murder near 10th Street & Patton Avenue, will suffice.

Like the Warren Commission did before him Bugliosi claims Oswald killed Tippit. To do this Oswald officially—following the Warren Report’s scenario--had to move from his room on Beckley three minutes after 1:00 p.m. to the scene of the murder by 1:15 p.m. (radioed in at 1:16 p.m.) the time the Commission set for the shooting. [1] Responsible critics long ago convincingly proved the feat to have been impossible for him to have performed. [2] Bugliosi overcomes this severe and ultimately exculpatory time constraint in three ways. First he gratuitously starts Oswald to the Tippit scene several minutes before 1:00 p.m. to gain minutes for his thesis. Next, he adds minutes to the end of the walk where he speciously asserts Oswald arrived later than 1:10 p.m., the time a witness swore he had seen Tippit dead on the pavement. [3] He then couples the gerrymandered time with an invented pathway. He declares he himself fast walked this route taken by Oswald south of the rooming house to the murder scene, a route he knows by intuition alone. He got there in 11’ 23” minutes, plenty of time for Oswald following this asserted trail and supposed time to have shot Tippit at 1:15 p.m. before a citizen sounded an alert on the police radio at 1:16 p.m. [4]

But when we examine the path Bugliosi took, upon which his assertions of Oswald as murderer of the police officer must rest, we discover it is all a type of blue sky matter, a theory not history. He invented the route. There is not a scrap of genuine evidence, a fact, a scintilla of data, to mark any route to Tippit. Just as with the Commission’s map of Oswald’s alleged path taken, it is a pining wish. [5]



Sketch of Earlene Robert's home, prepared by SA Roger C. Warner, with Robert's position indicated. Click on image to enlarge.

The only evidence of what Oswald did after leaving the rooming house is based on his housekeeper’s report. At 1:04 p.m., she stated and attested, he stood at the bus stop just across the front sidewalk and just past the drive way on the right hand side of the house where he could catch a bus going north. [6] The official record avoids presenting any information on the schedule and route the northbound bus took while Bugliosi also renders them invisible entities just as he did on Oswald’s wait at the stop. But after going north the bus route turned and ultimately passed the Texas Theatre. Furbishing the logic of the bus stop wait, we recall that Oswald told Captain Will Fritz of the DPD during interrogation that after he left his room he went to the movies. [7] Certainly the north bus component ought to have been included in the evidentiary base and evaluated; a proper inquiry into the assassination of President Kennedy would demand it. [8]

The Master Theorist.

Not content with mere invention and rampant speculation, Bugliosi pommels all dissenters from the official doctrine that Oswald killed JFK and passionately tars them with the slander brush of ‘conspiracy theorists.’ But contrary to his assertion all dissenters are not theorists, such as the exemplary Howard Roffman and the indubitable Harold Weisberg, as well as many others. But bizarrely Bugliosi is a theorist himself, the castle-master indeed. The hundreds of his invented facts and dozens of mythic reconstructions are simple theories, pure instances of the pernicious breed, including the major theory suffusing his book that asserts Oswald killed JFK.

Fact corruption.

He so often corrupts facts that it makes his text unacceptable to any person of candor seeking understanding of this national tragedy. Several representative instances of this characteristic are presented in the appendix.

Calculated omission of important facts.

A close brother to distortion of some key evidentiary elements is Bugliosi’s often omission of important relations defining a fact. The result is the presentation of the false nature of the fact under discussion with the end of furthering his theory of Oswald’s guilt. Perhaps the best short example from the great many, yea scores, for us is his treatment of cab driver William Whaley’s identification of Oswald in the police line up. Without context, so important for a reader to judge the fact properly, Bugliosi briefly states that Whaley at 2:15 p.m. on the afternoon of November 23rd picked out Oswald. Whaley, of course, is the cab driver who right after the assassination had driven Oswald to N. Beckley Street and had further attested in various testimonies and affidavits that he had dropped him off at three different addresses! [9]

We are not told about the bizarre nature of this police line up. [10] Four men stood in the line up, three well dressed police officials, detectives--W. E. Perry (7H232-235) and Richard Clark (7H235-239), and jail clerk Don Ables (7H239-243)--and then the rudely dressed Oswald. Each was asked to give their name and occupation. The first three gave fake answers. Oswald though gave his true name and said he worked in the Depository, which by then the world knew about, and his picture was in the papers Whaley read that morning.

Oswald stood in the line up bawling out the policemen for framing him, cussing and ranting he was being set up; he had bruises and a black eye. “He talked,” the cab driver recalled, “that they were doing him an injustice by putting him out there dressed different than these other men he was out there with.” [11] As Whaley added: “. . . you wouldn’t have had to have known who it was to have picked him out by the way he acted.” Moreover, Whaley swore there were six men in the line up when there were four. [12] Then, incredibly, he testified that he had signed the finished affidavit before he went down to view the line up. To top it all off he did not identify Oswald as his passenger but chose no. 3, whereas Oswald was no. 2 with a large number above his head. [13] The Commission fiddled the answer and put false information about it in its Report. [14] The entire incident drives to the heart of the sickeningly incompetent and corrupt police techniques and dedicated false focus that Bugliosi consistently and often piously masks with his simulated erudition. As it is he provides a distorted picture of Whaley’s credibility.

Conclusion.

With Bugliosi we have a man with great talent and mighty work ethic whose reputation now stands tarnished. But he is not alone. In addition to the author’s weaknesses, though, we have a wide range of institutions that failed us. We have the refusal of a publisher to publish responsible volumes on this crucial subject. To spew this mind skewing mammoth of disinformation out into the public mind has no saving grace. But we also have a press and a media avoidance of the evidentiary base; we have the refusal of clueless historians to address the reality; and, we have the spurning of the subject by the intelligentsia, its rejection by Congress, and its disdain by lawyers. In short this volume must be seen as part of the breakdown of American society in a time of crisis.

read more here http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Vincent_Bugliosis_Misnamed_Reclaiming_History

i assume you dave reitzes and bugliosi have medical documentation that proves ruby was mentally unstable .

"Oswald had 48 hours to spill the beans on the 'conspiracy' but didn't because there was no conspiracy."

i beg to differ and i have shown in my posts all through this thread evidence of conspiracy , the hsca not only concluded that ruby didnt walk down the ramp but also acknowledged conspiracy . with respect all we have of oswalds many hours of interrogation are a few notes from hosty/fritz /bookhout and because of that no one will ever know what oswald said or if he "spilled the beans" as you say ,the man maintained his innocence throughout (and asked for help ) and said he was just a patsy .

"Why did the DPD not just shoot Oswald in the movie theatre after he drew his gun?"
presumably because he was heard by all the theatre patrons shouting "i am not resisting arrest "

the warren commission had diffictulty putting ruby on the ramp (inconclusive is the word they used )and the hsca said that he must have entered from the lane ,if ruby was just lucky and sneaked in through the lane in time to catch oswald why would he not say that to the police ? why lie and say he came down the ramp . i see you have resorted to labeling ruby as a mentally unstable joke of a man (as he has to be to fit your scenario of events ) when any reasearcher knows that there is so much more to ruby ,and had the commmison/hsca bothered to look they would have found that out but of course if they investigated it that would mean they would have to acknowledge it .

do you plan on offering any evidence /cites and research to back your claims /beliefs ?. or are you just happy to quote bugliosi and rietzes to the death as well as crime magazines . im quoting and citing the actual evidence/warren commission /hsca etc so if your not willing to do the same all your doing is time wasting .

i believe i did answer that question in an earlier post
"the first thing is that ruby probably knew more of the dallas police officers on a personal level than curry or fritz and its reasonable to say he could easily get information regarding oswald " ,ruby was stalking oswald as can be seen by the photographs and film of ruby in side the police station .

" Billy Grammer, a Dallas Police dispatcher, says he received a telephone threat against Oswald's life the night before Oswald's murder. He said the tipster did not identify himself, but did greet the officer by name. The caller advised police to change their plans for Oswald's transfer to another jail the next day. The voice on the other end was urgent—asserting, "We are going to kill him!"

Only after Jack Ruby murdered Oswald did Grammer realize he had been talking to a local striptease club operator he knew well. "It had to be Ruby," he later disclosed. Grammer says that phone call convinced him the Oswald slaying was "not spontaneous," but rather a "planned event."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEjT7XCN_R0
(billy grammer "rubys murder of oswald was premeditated")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDWSuPr_Ghk&feature=related
("it was as if his life depended on getting oswald")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U77Rj46ncY8&feature=related
(jack ruby "the world will never know the true facts")

that ruby made the call the evening before saying "we are going to kill him " makes perfect sense if ruby doesnt really want to kill oswald and in the process put himself in the electric chair . its also interesting that the police officer said ruby said "we" are going to kill him and not " i am " going to kill him .

tipsy your speculating on rubys state of mind in the early hours of sunday morning which is some thing really thats impossible to know .

we know ruby had mob ties (and the mob and cia have links going back to world war 11)its fairly certain ruby and oswald knew each other ,we know ruby easily gained access to the poliice station and stalked oswald over the course of the weekend and we know the police recieved a warning that "we are gonna kill him " and rubys voice was recognised .

your consistent (but i expect nothing less ) you will need to be a lot more specific than just posting a link to blesoes testimony .

there was no conspiracy do you really think anyone (mafia or CIA) could keep it hush hush for all these years

watch this

Let us address the third reason there were three Commission attorneys on the scene for the Bledsoe deposition: Oswald's shirt.
(Some testimony deleted here.) I have included the exchange towards the end about the actual shooting because, if you notice, Bledsoe says something interesting: she tries to suggest that she was not worried about being killed since Oswald got off the bus. Which is in keeping with her maniacal portrayal of him.
But let us return to the shirt. Two authors have done good work on the issue of Bledsoe's vital importance to the FBI and the Commission in identifying Oswald's shirt on the bus as the same one he was wearing when he was arrested. They are Pat Speer and Rodger Remington. But before delving into their observations, let us define the circumstances and the evidentiary situation. What the FBI is saying is that Oswald got off the bus, took a cab to a point near his rooming house, and went inside briefly. But he did not change his shirt. The FBI cannot have this happening. Why? Because Oswald was arrested wearing a dark brown shirt with no jacket or coat over it. The FBI lab said that there were certain fibers recovered from the butt of the rifle that matched the shirt Oswald had on when he was arrested. So if Oswald changed his shirt at the rooming house from a shirt of a different color, then something is wrong in the handling of the evidence. The implication being that the Dallas Police or the FBI sweetened the case against Oswald.
There were two serious problems with this finding. First, while being questioned in detention, Oswald said that he did change his shirt. (patspeer.com Chapter 4b "Threads of Evidence".) Secondly, the FBI and the Commission had a devil of a time finding any witnesses who would say they saw Oswald after the shooting with a dark brown shirt and no jacket or overcoat. Speer does a meticulous and careful job going over all the witnesses the Bureau tried to get to say that they saw Oswald with just that garb on. I don't have anywhere near the space or time to do justice to Speer's work here but let me save the reader a lot of time by saying that besides Bledsoe, only one witness agreed to testify to that description, Marina Oswald. And as Remington points out, at first Marina did not recall the color of the shirt. But as usual, Marina eventually identified it by rote. For the Commission later showed her a black and white photo of the shirt for identification purposes and this now refreshed her memory. (Remington, Biting the Elephant, p. 390, 395)
Needless to say, they needed someone else. But all the other witnesses they talked to – Howard Brennan, Robert Edwards, Marrion Baker, Earlene Roberts, Mrs. Robert Reid etc – either recalled a different color shirt, short sleeves, a t-shirt, Oswald wearing a jacket, or the witness could not recall specifically what the shirt color was. For instance, taxi driver William Whaley recalled a "dark shirt with white spots of something in it." (CD 87, p. 275. As Speer revealingly notes, the FBI report refined Whaley's testimony to make it closer to what they needed.)
Because of the above, Bledsoe became crucial on this issue. But yet, when first shown the shirt, Bledsoe exclaimed, "No, no. That is not the shirt." (Remington, pgs. 398-99) But a few days later, by December 4th, like Marina Oswald, she had her memory refreshed. She asked if the shirt had a "ragged" elbow. And when shown that there was a hole there, she now confirmed it was the right shirt. (Even Bugliosi notes that the word "ragged" does not necessarily denote there was a hole there. Remington, p. 399)
Remington points out just how problematic Bledsoe's testimony was on this issue. So much so, that even Commission counsel Ball was taken aback at points. First, she revealed that not only had the FBI been out to visit her, but so had the Secret Service. (ibid, p. 401) Remington notes that he could find no citation for this Secret Service visit in the Warren Report pertaining to Bledsoe. And Ball seemed surprised to learn of it. When asked why she thought this was the shirt Oswald had on while he was on the bus, she replied, "Well, let's see the front of it. Yes. See all this ... I remember that." (Remington, p. 402) As Remington notes, this rather generic reply is quite puzzling. One would think that she would know it was the right shirt by the color and the hole in the elbow. But when Ball tries to prompt her to do just that, this is what happened: I have italicized the two parts that are key to her relevancy to the FBI and the Commission i.e. the hole in the elbow and the color. The two italicized phrases again suggest that she was coached on these points. The first one indicates that she knows the hole in the shirt elbow was most likely made during Oswald's altercation with the police in the Texas Theater. Which occurred after Oswald stopped at his rooming house. So it would not have been visible to her on the bus. It seems someone told her about this problem previously. The second italicized phrase, "Before he was shot?" indicates the same. Someone informed her about the specific timeline required by the Bureau and the Commission. Namely that Oswald said he changed his shirt prior to being arrested. And as Remington also notes, there is another indication of this confusion in the timeline. When Ball asked her if the shirt was open or buttoned, she replies, "Yes; all the buttons torn off." (Remington, p. 405) But yet, since no one else noted this at that time, this most likely happened at the Texas Theater.
Let us bring up one last point about the shirt. The FBI technician who testified on the fibers found on the butt of the rifle was Paul Stombaugh. As Speer points out, Stombaugh made all kinds of excuses for an apparent flaw in his analysis: there was a problem in his supposed "match". (Remington also notes this problem.) Stombaugh said that he found "the shirt was composed of dark-blue, grayish-black, and orangish-yellow cotton fibers, and that these were the same shades of colors I had found on the butt plate of the gun." (ibid, p. 397) When Remington looked up the colors that composed the color of brown, they were a combination of red, black, and yellow. (ibid) Or to paraphrase Speer, I guess there is "no brown in brown."
After calling her testimony "incredible" (p. 406), Remington suggests that the person who may have coached her on it was her attorney Ms. Melody Douthit. He points out that Douthit was allowed to do something quite rare for the Commission: to take over the questioning of the witness for 53 questions, three pages in the volumes. (WC Vol. 6, p. 422) And she clearly was allowed to ask a leading question of Arlen Specterish length and complexity about Bledsoe's first meeting with Oswald. But the question that was never really answered about this whole Oswald/Bledsoe renting situation is this: Why did she ask Oswald to leave? Why did she never give him his full refund? Was it because of the ruckus described in the arrest report? Because the date of the arrest report incident, October 11th, was the day before she evicted Oswald.
IV
When I asked Roger Rainwater, the head of the Special Collections division of TCU's Burnett Library, about the Mary Bledsoe arrest report, he would only say, "Although I am aware that this is part of the "folklore" of the department, I have no direct knowledge or recollection of this situation." However, the Marguerite Oswald TCU collection DOES contain another very interesting document. It is a UPI story that mentions a man named H.H. Grant, who is also mentioned in the Bledsoe police report. The report describes a tussle between one "Alek Hidell" and J. R. Rubinstein, obviously Oswald and Ruby. Bledsoe was complaining because during the scuffle, some furniture in the room she rented to Oswald was damaged. But there was a fourth person named on the report. He was listed as a witness. His name was H. H. Grant. Here is the UPI story: The UPI story does not give a year as to when the story was written. But if the report is genuine, it was probably done around 1967 or 1968, when Jim Garrison was doing his investigation._Notice, according to this report, a version of the incident did happen. And parties were questioned about it. (In this regard, when John Armstrong tried to find the matching report at DPD HQ, he was told that since no action was taken – no one was booked or prosecuted – the original was probably routinely destroyed. Folliard, p. 32) Further, Grant does not deny being there during the incident, he just denies being arrested. Notice too that, according to the story, Grant was in the FBI at one time. Oswald and Ruby were both believed to have been FBI informants as well.
In addition to this, we also have some interesting family connections with the Bledsoes. When Mary Bledsoe died in 1969, Penn Jones wrote an obituary and a brief story was done about her in The Midlothian Mirror. Jones wrote that her son Porter was in the Louisiana Civil Air Patrol with Oswald when David Ferrie was a Captain there. Where and how Jones garnered this information is not revealed. So it cannot be certified as being accurate. (See Michael Benson's Who's Who in the JFK Assassination, pgs. 42, 133) In addition, I have learned that in 1963, Porter Bledsoe lived with his mother Mary. I have also learned that Porter went to the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. In addition, the H.H. Grant who was also named in the infamous police report never denied that he was there and had been in the FBI at one time.
If the police report is legitimate (and I stress the word 'if') then all three men in the report – Oswald, Ruby and Grant – could have been FBI informants at the time. And the rightwing Mary Bledsoe – she was reportedly a member of the Daughters of the Confederacy and the Dallas Navy Mothers Club – and her intelligence oriented son, would be willing to cover it all up. As, for obvious reasons, the Dallas Police would be after the fact. After all, they had two people involved in the JFK case in their hands over a month before Kennedy was killed.
Let me add one more possible point. It is these connections that may have allowed Bledsoe to be such a pliable and cooperative witness for the FBI and the Commission.
V
It is necessary to lay out all this before discussing the controversy over the Bledsoe police report. Why? Because in his writing on the subject. Perry tells you nothing about any of the above. That's right. Not a word about any of it. He doesn't tell you how important Bledsoe was to the FBI and the Commission. He doesn't tell you that Bledsoe was the eyewitness the Commission relied upon to put Oswald on the McWatters' bus. Perry doesn't tell you how she added that "homicidal look" on his face, which no on else recalled. He doesn't tell you how she was the key witness in keeping the brown shirt constantly on Oswald after the murder, and how this helped the FBI in the matching of the fibers. (Which may not have matched anyway.) He doesn't tell you how her testimony has hints of being rehearsed, how she brought her own notes, and how her attorney played an unusual role in the proceedings.
The net effect of all these deletions is this: the whole controversy he details lacks any real context. Because he erases Bledsoe, and the troubling questions about her, from the picture. This allows him to perform his usual routine. That is to conceal and camouflage the failings of the FBI and the Commission, and second, to go after the critics. To the point of eliminating an alternative scenario as to the provenance of the report i.e. someone on the DPD or FBI might have faked the document to detract attention from how weak a witness Bledsoe was and how she was used to prop up the official story.
Now let's look at the Bledsoe police report that has been argued to be both real and fake.
This report was found in 1994 by JFK assassination researchers Jack White, Jim Marrs and John Armstrong while browsing through the personal files of Marguerite Oswald at the Special Collections division of TCU's Burnett Library. White and Marrs issued a press release that was printed in Probe, which, at the time was being edited by Dennis Effle. It was this press release that Perry used to attack the document as a forgery planted by mysterious conservative Dallas citizens disgruntled by how Mark Lane had made their city look silly. Perry's theory – if it can be called one – was that the forgers wanted to make Lane look stupid when he publicized it. Apparently the plotters were not too smart. They got Lane's address wrong somehow and the envelope containing the report was returned address unknown. An interesting point about Perry's "research" is that although he was arguing for a conspiracy, he would never name anyone involved, or the date when the letter to Lane was sent. This is rather surprising since Perry actually said that he talked to one of the conspirators. (See, Perry's "The Bledsoe Document Resurfaces") In that article he does not say if he asked the nameless man how he could have gotten Lane's address wrong. Lane was quite accessible at the time since he was traveling the country and also giving lectures in New York on a regular basis. Many, many people had access to him e.g. Ray Marcus, Marjorie Field etc. All that was necessary was to give the arrest report to one of them or ask them for Lane's mailing address. Another way to have gotten him the report was through his publisher. A very common practice, both then and now. It's odd that, apparently, Perry did not ask those questions.
Perry also reports as fact that the arrest report first surfaced back in the sixties, and that it was then not investigated again until 1994. The first statement is really an assumption he makes; the second statement is false. And, as we will see, it is hard to believe that Perry did not know it was false when he wrote it.
Concerning the first: How did Perry determine that the report first surfaced back in the sixties? He says he called Mary Ferrell. She had heard of it around the time of the Garrison inquiry and it was dismissed as a fraud. In fact, Perry wrote that the report actually got to Jim Garrison, he had a copy in 1967, and according to Ferrell, Garrison considered the report a fraud. This is a not completely warranted deduction. For two reasons. First, contrary to what Perry implies, Mary Ferrell never worked for Garrison. (ibid) You can scan through his extant files, you can interview anyone who worked for him at the time. They will tell you the same. So how is she a good source for this information? Secondly, as we have seen, there is evidence that Garrison actually interviewed a person named in the police report. Both Ferrell and Perry either were unaware of this or deliberately left it out.
The other main source Perry uses to convey the information that the document was around for decades is a man named Randy Chapman. He also connects to Ferrell on this issue. For Mary said that she thought she got a copy from the late Al Chapman, Randy's father. In other words, Perry was relying on the son's memory for a document the father had in his possession about 27-28 years ago. Perry does not tell the reader what Randy's age would have been at the time, or if he had such a strong interest in the JFK case back then to recall such a document. (Interestingly, Perry chose not to interview Marrs or White about this point. Because neither one of them, who have been in the area and interested in the case since the sixties, heard of the report back then.)
But here is the most important point to recall about what Perry adduced from his call to Randy Chapman. Randy told him that "his father was very friendly with Marguerite Oswald and that Al did give her a copy of the report." (See Perry's "A CTKA Story") The never curious Perry apparently did not ask Randy, "How would you recall such a thing? Were you there when the transfer happened?" Perry never asked another obvious question: "If the word was that the document was a hoax, why would your father give it to Marguerite if he was friendly with her?"
Perry ends his "inquiry" into the report's provenance with a huge understatement. He writes that his Arthurian quest has not completely resolved how the arrest report came to be found at the TCU archives or if indeed it had been fabricated. (ibid)
But there is something that Perry may have left out of his report about his interview with Ferrell. For Ferrell told Folliard that, as she recalled it, Chapman was given the document by Lt. J. C. Day. (Folliard, p. 35) If true, this is rather important information. Because it would seem to vouch for the document's authenticity. But if the document was forged, then it was possibly forged by someone on the Dallas Police.
Let us address Perry's second point: the arrest report had not resurfaced since Garrison had discarded it. This was wrong. For in February of 1992, the FBI had interviewed one Frank O. Mote about the document. What makes this interview interesting is a point that Perry ignores completely. The interviewing agent was Farris Rookstool. In Jim DiEugenio's essay, "How Gary Mack Became Dan Rather", he revealed that Rookstool was the FBI agent who became the Bureau's beat cop in Dallas on the JFK case around the time that Oliver Stone's film JFK was released. (Click here for the essay.) Further, that Perry also moved into the Dallas-Fort Worth area just prior to that time from his previous home back east. Perry had been lifelong friends with Gus Russo. Russo had ostensibly been a former Warren Commission critic who at this same time was now switching sides. (Click here for the story on Russo.)
According to more than one Dallas based researcher, Rookstool's job was to garner any new information coming out of the JFK research community there. One of the ways he did this was to occasionally drop in at the late Larry Howard's JFK Assassination Information Center. By way of Gus Russo, who no one suspected of turning at the time, Perry also began to do his reconnaissance job on the JFK research community in Dallas. It appears they were both doing the same function. Except Perry was doing it in an unofficial capacity.
If this is so, how could Rookstool have not alerted Perry to his interview with one Frank O. Mote in 1992 about the Bledsoe arrest report? And how could Perry have known what he did about Rookstool's story, as he revealed in his article on the subject? Mote volunteered almost no information about the document. But how Rookstool discovered Mote, the document, and how Perry treats this episode is of the utmost interest.
Rookstool says that Mote provided the document to his father! (See Perry's, "The FBI's Report on Frank Mote") How Rookstool knew this, or precisely when he discovered it, is never mentioned by Perry. Neither is it explained why Mote would do such a thing. (And since Perry doesn't reveal the Dallas Police giving the report to Chapman, he doesn't have to explain why Rookstool never investigated the police angle.) Perry could easily shed light on those queries through his longtime acquaintance with Rookstool if he wanted to. And to detract from the importance of Rookstool and the Mote interview, Perry actually writes that the FBI did not make the discovery of the document in 1992, Rookstool did. This is a distinction without a difference. Rookstool was an officer of the FBI in 1992. His job was reconnaissance on the research community in Dallas. So if he found this out about his father, then the FBI found it out also.
Let me make one other observation about this 1992 strange interlude: If one questions – as I do – Perry's past attempts at moving the document's provenance back to the sixties, this is the first time word of the document surfaced. Right after the furor over Stone's film began.
VI
As previously noted, Perry tries to ridicule JFK forums and newsgroups. He titled one of his essays "Newsgroups – What Newsgroups?" The subtitle left little doubt where Perry stood on the issue: "Is there really any news on the JFK newsgroups?" Perry may want to discourage people from visiting these forums, since people like Sean Murphy are hard at work exposing some of his scams. And so is Joe Hall.
Hall is another Kennedy researcher who frequents a newsgroup. He posts at the forum for the JFK Murder Solved site. Unlike others at more popular sites like John Simkin's Spartacus, Hall didn't buy Perry or his spin on the Bledsoe arrest report. So he took the report to the Dallas Police Department. He showed it to a police officer and a police secretary at headquarters. Both thought the report was genuine. Both thought the report was very indicative of a standard police report of that period, with the errors in the report common in a petty case of this nature.
The police officer examined the report and said he felt about 90% sure the report was for real. The secretary was even more positive. And more interesting in her comments. She said she felt 100% that the report was a genuine one. She said the only thing false on it was the numbers running across the top. And she observed that these were typed on a different typewriter. There were indications of that because the dash shifted to the left on every number. But besides that, she felt the report was authentic.
This is quite interesting. Why? Because a major way that Perry disputes the authenticity of the report is through those very numbers! (Which, according to Folliard, should not even be there. Folliard, p. 36) Yet, as the secretary told Hall, everything about the document looked real except those numbers. As Perry wrote, the numbers across the top, when matched to their numeric correspondence in the alphabet, spell out U-R-A-Fink. Yet as the secretary said, these were typed on a different typewriter. Therefore, if the document was a hoax, then it is very likely that someone else got hold of it and added this onto it to make it seem more of such. If the document is genuine, then the ersatz numbers were added to a real document to make it appear to be a false one.
Mr. Hall talked to a librarian at the Special Collections division of TCU's Burnett Library. As noted, this houses the Marguerite Oswald Collection. She had a fascinating tale to relate. For the librarian was very helpful to Hall. She got him everything he asked for. During their conversation she revealed that he was one of the very few people who had been there to inspect the Marguerite Oswald collection over the years. In fact, she said she only recalled three previous visits in her ten-year tenure.
When Hall asked her about the Bledsoe police report, she had a curious response. The woman said it was not in the files, because it was not entered in the original Oswald index list. Therefore it was not a part of the donated collection. She then stopped for a moment, and said, "Wait a minute.. . I recall something else." She then brought out another folder that held the disputed police report inside. Hall discovered from the woman that on one of the previous viewings, someone had tried to slip this report into the Marguerite Oswald collection. However the substitution was detected. Which is why she gave the inserted document to Joe in a different folder.
Let me add why this last detail is important. First, it casts even more doubt on Perry's "inquiry". For if Chapman had given it to Marguerite back in the sixties, why was it not turned over to TCU? Especially since Marguerite apparently did include the UPI story about Grant. Second, when Marrs, White, and Armstrong made their visit in 1994, the report was there in a file folder. So it was not they who inserted the report. (Interviews with White and Marrs, 3/30/10) Someone else did so prior to that visit. The questions then become: Who? When? Why?
As the reader can see, genuine or not, there is a lot more to the Bledsoe arrest report than Dave Perry ever let on. Perry's writing is so incomplete, so one-sided, so agenda-driven as to be misleading. Which, as we have seen with Discovery Channel, is par for the course with him. I began this article with a comparison of Perry to the Naked Gun's Lt. Frank Drebin. Specifically to his famous line, "Nothing to see here." If you really want to investigate Mary Bledsoe and the arrest report, there is a lot to see here. And Perry won't give it to you.
Why?

It's hilarious the way Conspiracy Theorist's who fail to acknowledge the police report is fake try to include Mary Bledsoe into the conspiracy. She was a bloody stroke victim for goodness sake. If anyone wants to know how desperate these guys are then have a look at thus site http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9482&st=0

Near the end of the thread one poster finally speaks a little sense,

Bill, one motive may be divined by the fact that they used the "Rubinstein" instead of Jack's legal name of "Ruby". It seems to me that any document written about Ruby after he legally changed his name which refers to him as "Rubinstein" is one in which the author is attempting to emphasize his "Jewishness" (if I can put it that way). In this case, it is also another clue (apart from those previously noted), that the document is fake. I think using that name also disqualifies it as being sophisticated (no matter that it may have been in other ways). Legal documents require legal names and the vast majority of cops in Dallas knew Jack's legal name was Ruby.

When I said it was a waste of time; I meant in terms of discussing it as somehow part of the puzzle that would help solve the conspiracy behind the assassination. Anyone who actually thinks it's the real thing and is here to push it in those terms should be sent to Gitmo. Or better still; Canberra.

Pursuing it as an offshoot (and separate) criminal matter is a different kettle of fish and is a worthy pursuit - my gut instinct is that whatever else those behind it may have been, they were anti-Semites - and though you have doubts, the main intent was to embarrass researchers - especially those prone to believe anything that comes down the pike so long as it plays to their own biases. The thing is, an embarrassing mistake like being taken in by a fake document is not just a black eye for the idiot who was taken in - the resultant adverse publicity is a black eye to the whole community because we all get tainted by the same brush.

[SIZE=+2]Oswald and McWatters' Bus
and John Armstrong's "new look"
at the Tippit Shooting[/SIZE]
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)

1. Record
2. Market
3. Austin
4. Lamar
5. Poydras
6. Griffin (1)
7. Griffin (2)
8. Murphy
9. Field
10. Exchange
11. Akard
12. Stone Place (I know, it's not really a street, see below)
13. Ervay
14. St. Paul
15. Harwood
16. Olive
17. Pearl
18. Central Expresway
19. Hawkins
20. Good Latimer Expressway

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) 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?
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? 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, 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. 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."

The police report is fake and destroys any notion that Ruby & Oswald were friends.

U R A FINK

The document is fake and Ferrie and Oswald knew each other. Let's move on and agree to disagree. I see in an earlier post you refer to someone called Jean. Is this Jean Hill? If so you surely don't believe most of the claims she made.

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

The document is fake and Ferrie and Oswald knew each other. Let's move on and agree to disagree. I see in an earlier post you refer to someone called Jean. Is this Jean Hill? If so you surely don't believe most of the claims she made.

"I see in an earlier post you refer to someone called Jean. Is this Jean Hill? If so you surely don't believe most of the claims she made."

you will need to post exactly what i said to refresh my memory as this thread is several pages long .