The Floor-Laying Crew

[Charles Collins]

In an ordinary situation where someone had committed a double murder in Dallas including a police officer in 1963, they would have fried faster than one of Colonel Sander's chickens.  But this was no ordinary situation.  I think the authorities would want answers from Oswald and a full confession due to the historical context and implications.   And avoiding the death penalty could have been the deal.  The James Earl Ray situation is as close as we can get for an insight on how it might have played out.

We will just have to disagree on this little bit of speculation. I really cannot imagine LHO being offered a plea bargain arraignment. I was only 10-years old back then but, as I remember, the death penalty was viewed as a deterrent to those who might be considering committing a serious crime. In other words I believe that LHO would have been made an example of what happens to those who attempt to assassinate the president. Swift trial and the electric chair (after the appeals process)…

[Jon Banks]

Best article I've read about the conflicting accounts of the School Book Depository workers:

Rewriting History: Bugliosi Parses the Testimony

Among the false claims made by Bugliosi in his effort to convince us that Oswald shot Kennedy is that he was the only employee to “flee” the Texas School Book Depository following the shooting. The truth is that several employees left the building (affidavits in CE 1381), including the aforementioned Charles Givens. In fact, the Dallas police put out an APB to have Givens picked up for questioning about the shooting.

Givens was the Warren Commission’s star witness. He alone, among all of the witnesses, is supposed to have seen Oswald on the sixth floor of the Book Depository during the lunch hour. But the truth is, contrary to Bugliosi’s account, Givens never testified to the Warren Commission. The Warren Commission flew ninety-four Dallas witnesses to Washington D.C. to testify before them. Yet, Givens, the only witness who could positively identify Oswald and place him at the scene of the crime at or near the time of the shooting, was not among them. Givens was deposed in private in Dallas by a single Warren Commission lawyer.

The problem with Givens’ deposition was spelled out in an article published in the Texas Observer by researcher Sylvia Meagher (Meagher in Texas Observer, 13 August 1971. The issue also contains a rebuttal of sorts by David Belin). Givens did indeed state in April 1964 that he had seen Oswald on the sixth floor at lunchtime on the day of the assassination. Hence, Givens gave two accounts of Oswald’s whereabouts, one in November that tended to corroborate Oswald’s alibi, and a second in April that tended to incriminate him. Yet his statement in November contained no mention of Oswald on the sixth floor, while the statement in April contains a denial that he had seen Oswald elsewhere. It is in that light that the special handling of Givens by the Warren Commission staff is seen as manipulative; that and the fact that the Warren Report contains no mention of Givens’ statement to the FBI...

Aside from the fact that Givens never gave any testimony to the Warren Commission is the fact that Givens stated in his deposition that the encounter with Oswald on the fifth floor took place around 11:30 (CD 5 p. 329), not 11:50. Thus, there is no time contradiction among the accounts, only to Bugliosi’s version of events. Bugliosi exploits the differing time estimates to garble the accounts when it is the sequence of events that is important. In Givens’ accounts, he saw Oswald three separate times over a span of about 25 minutes.

Junior Jarman, Oswald’s direct supervisor, told the FBI that he saw Oswald leave the first floor, boarding one of the freight elevators with his order pad in hand, presumably to fill an order for books, at approximately 11:30 (CD 5, p. 334). Charles Givens was part of a four (not six) man work crew that was laying plywood flooring on the sixth floor that morning. The crew broke for lunch early because the President’s motorcade was expected to pass the building during the noon hour. Although the four varied widely in their guesstimates as to the actual time that they broke for lunch, all four men recounted seeing Oswald on the fifth floor on their way down in the freight elevators, some recalling that Oswald had shouted to them to send one of the elevators back up. This was the last undisputed sighting of Oswald prior to the assassination. The estimated time of this event differed among the work crew from close to 11:30 to close to 12:00, but all agreed that it was before noon. Junior Jarman recalled that the four man crew arrived on the first floor for lunch at 11:45 (police report reprinted in Bonner, p. 286). Bugliosi estimates 11:50.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-_Bugliosi_Parses_the_Testimony.html

The book, "Accessories After The Fact" also goes into detail about this and broader conflicts in the eye witness testimonies.

[Charles Collins]

Best article I've read about the conflicting accounts of the School Book Depository workers:

Rewriting History: Bugliosi Parses the Testimony
The book, "Accessories After The Fact" also goes into detail about this and broader conflicts in the eye witness testimonies.

There are normally conflicts in various witness accounts. Showing these conflicts and suggesting they represent something sinister is apparently what CTs do. But all it is is meaningless conjecture. I believe that Givens was taken to the DPD headquarters and his affidavit taken before he would have known that LHO was a suspect or that the shots came from the sixth floor. So, why would no mention of his seeing LHO on the sixth floor at about 11:55 am in his affidavit of 11/22/63 be considered “suspect”?

[John Iacoletti]

What's sinister is the way Bugliosi misrepresents the details in order to fit his preferred narrative.

But Givens was interviewed several times by the FBI and the Secret Service between November and April.  It wasn't until April that the story about going back for his cigarettes and seeing Oswald first popped up.  And that was after Revill told Gemberling that Givens had been previously handled by the Special Services Bureau on a marijuana charge and he believes that Givens would change his story for money.

[Bill Brown]

Truly’s testimony appears to confirm that most of the boxes surrounding the sniper’s nest were already moved there, due to the flooring work, prior to 11/22/63. So, relatively few of them needed to be repositioned by LHO.

Correct.

Also, the smaller Rolling Readers boxes (much smaller and lighter than the larger, heavier boxes containing books) were moved to the sniper's nest specifically for the purpose of being used as a gun rest.  These smaller boxes would not have been placed in the sniper's nest area by the floor-laying crew.  The smaller Rolling Readers boxes weren't kept over on the west end of the floor where the floor was currently being laid; they were kept a few rows over from the sniper's nest window (more towards the middle of the floor as opposed to being on either end of the floor).

These Rolling Readers boxes had recently been handled by Lee Oswald.

[Bill Brown]

If Oswald had fired the shots as the motorcade came toward him on Houston, CTers would be here arguing that he should have waited until it passed.  If he had picked up the bullet casings, CTers would be here arguing that he wouldn't have paused in front of the window to do so, and he had to leave the rifle anyway.

I agree completely.

[John Iacoletti]

Also, the smaller Rolling Readers boxes (much smaller and lighter than the larger, heavier boxes containing books) were moved to the sniper's nest specifically for the purpose of being used as a gun rest. 

Pure speculation.

These Rolling Readers boxes had recently been handled by Lee Oswald.

And by “recently”, Bill means within 3 days, according to Latona.

[Richard Smith]

Best article I've read about the conflicting accounts of the School Book Depository workers:

Rewriting History: Bugliosi Parses the Testimony
The book, "Accessories After The Fact" also goes into detail about this and broader conflicts in the eye witness testimonies.

What is the significance of quoting a statement that "Givens never testified to the Warren Commission"?  Givens was interviewed at length by Belin in his capacity as an assistant counsel for the WC.  Belin asked him those questions in Dallas rather than flying him to DC.  Big deal.  Maybe that was Givens' preference.  Regardless, it makes no difference since Givens did testify and his testimony is part of the record taken into consideration by the WC.