The Girls From 203

[Dan O'meara]

In my thread "The First Shot" I have been discussing the identification of the people stood on a particular section of Elm Street shown in the pic below:



In her Oral History interview Karen Westbrook Scranton identified herself as the woman wearing the blue headscarf on the far right of the picture, partially obscured by the Stemmons sign. Her identification was based solely on the identification of the headscarf, as she is convinced she was wearing a headscarf that day.
However, it has been firmly established that this identification was incorrect and that the woman in the blue headscarf was actually Sharon Simmons, stood with her colleagues Gloria Holt and Stella Jacob (stood to her left).
The question then becomes, if Westbrook is not the woman in the blue headscarf then where is she?

The obvious starting point is to locate someone else wearing a headscarf.
Another starting point is the reasonable assumption that Westbrook was stood with her work colleagues - Gloria Calvery, Karen Hicks and Carol Reed.
In her interview she makes it clear that all four of them were stood together and she makes the same point in her CE 1381:

"On November 22, 1963, I left my office...with Mrs. Gloria Calvery...Mrs. Carol Reed...and Mrs. Karan Hicks...We walked to Elm Street and stopped at a point on the north edge of Elm Street about halfway between Houston Street and the Triple Underpass. We were standing at this point when President John F. Kennedy was shot."

Carol Reed makes a similar point:

"At the time President Kennedy was shot I was stood on the curb of Elm Street about mid-way between the Texas school Book Depository Building and the Elm Street Railroad overpass. I was with Mrs. Karan Hicks...Miss Karen Westbrook...and Mrs Gloria Calvery...at the time the President was shot."

This doesn't prove, without doubt, that they were all stood together at the time of the shooting but it is perfectly reasonable to assume they were, as a starting point for identifying them in the picture above.

All four women worked for Southwestern Publishing Company in room 203 of the TSBD building. Westbrook donated a series of photos to the Sixth Floor Museum showing her and her colleagues in their workplace. Below is one such picture:



Color photographic print of six women who worked for the South-Western Publishing Company on the second floor of the Texas School Book Depository. This photo was taken in December 1963, shortly before Christmas. Karen Westbrook, who was a stenographer with South-Western Publishing in 1963-1964, identified the women as follows: From left to right in this photo: Woman with dark hair whose name is unknown, Gloria Calvery (red hair, with glasses), Carol (last name unknown), another Carol (last name unknown), Karen Hicks in red, and on the far right, Westbrook.

Westbrook donated 6 pictures in total. In each she fails to identify the woman on the far left of the pic above, who is the heavily pregnant Carolyn Arnold. Around the time of the assassination Arnold was an employee of the TSBD but by Christmas time she found herself working in room 203 with Southwestern Publishing. This may be the reason Westbrook doesn't remember who she was.
She also fails to distinguish between the two Carols (Reed and Hughes) in the centre of the pic. Carol Hughes is the older of the two Carols and can be fairly confidently identified as the left-hand Carol.
So, these are the young women who were stood on Elm Street watching the motorcade pass by:



The point to be made at the moment concerns the relative sizes of each woman. Carol and Karan seem to have very similar body proportions, whereas Karen Westbrook is much taller than both. Gloria is also taller than both and of a much heavier build.
If we assume they are stood together, we should be looking for four women displaying the same relative sizes, with at least one of them wearing a headscarf, in the Z-frame at the top of this post.
For me, four candidates stand out immediately:



All four are wearing headscarves. Applying the information regarding relative sizes from the Christmas picture I would have to say Gloria Calvery is the one on the far right wearing a black headscarf, a black top and a checkered green skirt, Karen Westbrook is the tallest, on the far left, wearing a light coloured headscarf, the rest of her clothing is a dark colour (I can't tell if it's a dark skirt and top or a long overcoat).
In between must be Reed and Hicks but it is hard to say which is which. One is wearing a red headscarf, a white blouse and a black skirt, the other in all white.

Although this may seem like a pointless exercise, I believe identifying the location of the witnesses who were closest to the assassination is the correct thing to do on principle, and more than that - I believe, if this identification is accepted, it may reveal that elements of the Warren Commission knowingly altered the testimony of at least one witness and that at least two witnesses knowingly lied in their testimonies and that these lies were then used by the Commission to create their narrative about what happened in the TSBD building in the immediate aftermath of the assassination.

[John Iacoletti]

Not this nonsense again. Nothing has been “firmly established”. People squint at blurry images and make assumptions about what they see.

[Dan O'meara]

Not this nonsense again. Nothing has been “firmly established”. People squint at blurry images and make assumptions about what they see.

Of course trying to identify the witnesses closest to the assassination is nonsense to you.
Everything about this case is nonsense to you.
All the evidence, all the witness statements...everything.

As for whether or not the identification of Sharon Simmons as the woman wearing the blue headscarf is firmly established, I'll leave that to the general reader to decide. Your twisted view of the Kennedy assassination is beyond meaningless.
The arguments for the identification of Simmons, Holt and Jacob in the Z-film are presented on pages 161 to 167 of "The First Shot" thread.
The specific arguments are summarised in Reply#1296, page 163.

[John Iacoletti]

Of course trying to identify the witnesses closest to the assassination is nonsense to you.
Everything about this case is nonsense to you.

I don’t blame you for trying. I blame you for according more certainty than the actual evidence warrants.

Sharon Simmons to my knowledge never identified herself in the film or described herself as having worn a blue head scarf that day. Karen Westbrook did. Your handwaving and self-serving arguments against her are just that.

And how many times do you need to keep bringing this subjective opinion up? What are you hoping for? How does it further anybody’s understanding of the assassination?

[Dan O'meara]

I don’t blame you for trying. I blame you for according more certainty than the actual evidence warrants.

Sharon Simmons to my knowledge never identified herself in the film or described herself as having worn a blue head scarf that day. Karen Westbrook did. Your handwaving and self-serving arguments against her are just that.

And how many times do you need to keep bringing this subjective opinion up? What are you hoping for? How does it further anybody’s understanding of the assassination?

As for the identification of Simmons, Holt and Jacob - the evidence and the arguments emanating from that evidence are there for all to see. Using the Nix, Bronson and Zapruder films in conjunction with their own statements as to where they were standing, it is possible to locate their general position. We then have the Darnell pic which you agree shows Simmons, Holt and Jacob. It is a simple matter of then matching the general characteristics of the Darnell pic with the section of crowd shown in the Z-film to locate their position. And it couldn't be any more obvious. There are no alternatives as to who it is. When there are no alternatives there is a degree of confidence that the identification is correct.
Rather than deal with these arguments you simply label my work "dishonest" and "disingenuous", you use crass phrases like "hand-waving arguments" rather than actually engage in the arguments themselves and you constantly accuse me of stating assumptions as facts. When asked to provide examples of my stating assumptions as facts you were made to look an utter fool.
Time and time again I've asked you to provide an alternative identification based on the arguments presented and you have slithered back under your rock each time. It is something you claimed you could easily do, but have conspicuously failed to do.
All you have presented is your "Westbrook said so" argument, over and over again - no supporting evidence, nothing to back it up.
[And by the way, even though you've been told this before, Westbrook never describes her long-lost headscarf as being blue.]

How does it further anybody’s understanding of the assassination?

And what is your understanding of the assassination John?
[I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer to that one]

Back to the topic.
The identification of Westbrook, Calvery, Reed and Hicks in the Z-film is going to be a process of elimination.
Unlike the identification of Simmons, Holt and Jacob, there is no known, clear image of them taken that day showing their faces.
This doesn't mean it is an impossible task.
As already stated, Westbrook describes all four women as being stood together watching the motorcade. This is reflected in the various CE1381's that describe them leaving the building together, "we walked to Elm Street" and "we were standing at this point".
It is reasonable to assume they were stood together watching the motorcade - that is to say, stood next to each other, side by side.
It is also reasonable to assume Westbrook was wearing a headscarf that day as she is insistent on that point.

The General Location.
The Nix and Bell films firmly establish that the last person viewing the motorcade, stood on the north sidewalk of Elm Street, was Bill Newman. There is no-one stood on the sidewalk between him and the Triple Underpass.



The still from the Bronson footage above shows Bill Newman, far left and on the right-hand side, picked out by a red arrow, Sharon Simmons, the woman in the blue headscarf [note to John, this identification will be used until a more credible alternative arises - crying "Westbrook said so" isn't cutting it].
In between Newman and Simmons there are no candidates for the group of four women including Westbrook.
Which brings us to this pic:



On the far right right we see Sharon Simmons, partially obscured by the Stemmons sign. We know from the Bronson pic there is no-one to her right who can be considered a viable candidate for the girls from room 203. Logic dictates they are somewhere to her left.

I will now present the arguments supporting the identification of Westbrook and colleagues in this line of people.

Both Westbrook and Calvery were close enough to witness the headshot. In an interview with Kent Biffle on the day of the assassination Westbrook stated - ""'I saw the president's hair fly up...I knew he was hit,".
In his WC testimony, Billy Lovelady recalls an encounter with Gloria Calvery on the steps of the TSBD building entrance -  "It didn't occur to me at first what had happened until this Gloria came running up to us and told us the President had been shot...so we asked her was she for certain or just had she seen the shot hit him or--she said yes, she had been right close to it to see and she had saw the blood and knew he had been hit but didn't know how serious it was."
In his WC testimony Joe Molina recalls Calvery saying "Oh, my God, Joe, he's been shot." They were both horrified. I said "Are you sure he was shot?" She said 'Oh, Joe, I'm sure. I saw his hair fly up and I'm sure he was shot,' something to that extent."

In the Z-frame above we see A J Millican in his hard hat, beyond him are the African American people seen in the Croft picture and beyond that are people who are too far away from the headshot to be considered "right close to it".
It follows that Westbrook, Calvery, Reed and Hicks are located somewhere between Simmons on the right and Millican on the left.



In the pic above I have labelled Simmons on the right and Millican on the left. It is in between these two points we can expect to find Westbrook and co. In order to narrow down the search even further I have labelled John Templin and Ernest Brandt. For years Brandt has been in touch with various researchers such as Dave Reitzes, Don Roberdeau and Harold Weisberg, insisting he is the man wearing the hat. There are newspaper reports of him visiting Dealey Plaza each year wearing his trademark hat. Below is a link to correspondence with Harold Weisberg in which he specifically identifies himself as the man wearing the hat:
https://archive.org/details/nsia-BrandtErnest/nsia-BrandtErnest/Brandt%20Ernest%2001/
Brandt was accompanied to Dealey Plaza by one of his customers, John Templin, who he convinced to come along to watch the motorcade.
Simmons, Holt and Jacob are the first three women from right to left. There are then only three more women until we reach Brandt, so these cannot be Westbrook and colleagues.
The search for the girls from 203 has narrowed down to the line of women between John Templin and A J Millican and can be narrowed even further.
In the picture above it appears, at first glance, there are nine women between Millican and Templin. There are in fact ten. It also appears that there are only four women wearing headscarves, but there are in fact five.
Tucked away from view is a short woman wearing a blue coat [picked out with the red arrow in the pic below]:



Although she is obscured in Zapruder, she can be seen clearly in the crop of Altgens 6 [again, picked out with a red arrow]



She is clearly not any of the young ladies in the picture of the workers in room 203 who went to watch the motorcade:



This can only mean one thing - if Westbrook is wearing a headscarf and all four women are stood together, then the group of four women wearing headscarves between Templin and the lady in the blue coat must be Westbrook, Hicks, Reed and Calvery.


LATER EDIT: As per usual, many of the witness quotes reproduced in this post are lifted from Pat Speer's website.

[John Iacoletti]

What a load of dishonest revisionist history regarding our prior conversations.

I don’t accept “reasonable to assume” arguments. You either know something for a fact or you do not. Just because Simmons, Holt, and Jacob were walking together at a different time and place doesn’t prove they were standing side-by-side during the motorcade. This is handwaving.

“Same general characteristics” is handwaving. You’re looking at a line of people from the rear.

Westbrook doesn’t have to say she was wearing a blue scarf. She identified herself as the person wearing a blue scarf. She was there that day and she actually knew these people. You were not and did not.

I don’t have to give an alternative identification. If I did, I would have to use assumptions not in evidence and handwaving as you do, and I’m not going to do that. That doesn’t mean your answer is automatically correct.

So get off your damn high horse and admit that this is all an exercise in wishful thinking, and you’re not proving anything.

[Dan O'meara]

What a load of dishonest revisionist history regarding our prior conversations.

You forget that this forum is a written record of these conversations. They are there for all to see. The deceitful way you conducted yourself during that discussion is there for all to see. Your constant misrepresentation and Strawman arguments.
And, as we shall see, there's a classic example of this underhand tactic in this very post.

I don’t accept “reasonable to assume” arguments. You either know something for a fact or you do not.

You accept that this picture shows Stella Jacob, Gloria Holt and Sharon Simmons but you don't know it for a fact. You assume that other researchers who made these identifications did their job properly and reported their findings honestly. Which is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make. But you don't know for a fact these identifications are correct, yet you accept it.
If I don't state my assumptions you whine.
If I do state my assumptions you whine.
And to imagine that there is any case in which assumptions are not made is unbelievably naive.
Assumptions are always made. It is the quality of these assumptions that has to be determined and how they fit with the evidence. This quality is tested in debate and discussion.

Name a couple of facts in this case you are happy with.

Just because Simmons, Holt, and Jacob were walking together at a different time and place doesn’t prove they were standing side-by-side during the motorcade. This is handwaving.

And here we have it.
Dishonest John's Classic Strawman tactic.
Here's how it works folks.
John wrote - "Just because Simmons, Holt, and Jacob were walking together at a different time and place doesn’t prove they were standing side-by-side during the motorcade."
And, of course he's right, how on earth could I have written such a stupid thing? How could I try and get away with such a ridiculous notion - that because they were together in one picture it "proves" they were standing side-by-side in a different picture?
But here's the kicker - in everything I've written about this topic, all the photographic/film evidence, the numerous witness statements and how they fit together, not once - NOT ONCE - have I written anything that is even remotely like this.
John has just made it up!!
He's created this point out of thin air, simply so he can step in a win the argument that he created in the first place.
This tactic is called the Strawman argument.
John does this so he can win a point because this isn't a debate or a discussion, it's a "pissing contest", as he puts it.
And note, his crass observation that I use "handwaving" arguments, and that this is one of them when, in fact, it's just a lie John made up.

“Same general characteristics” is handwaving. You’re looking at a line of people from the rear.

General Characteristics:
One wearing a headscarf, two not - Fact
One with dark, bushy hair, one with shoulder length fair hair - Fact
Two wearing dark coloured coats, one wearing a lighter coloured dress - Fact

So now facts are "handwaving". I wonder what isn't handwaving in John's mind.
And, before we get into the usual misrepresentation, this analysis is used to support the identification of the Darnell "trio" as the Zapruder "trio"

Westbrook doesn’t have to say she was wearing a blue scarf. She identified herself as the person wearing a blue scarf. She was there that day and she actually knew these people. You were not and did not.

Again with the "Westbrook said so" argument.
And just to correct you once again, she identified the headscarf, not the person.
A headscarf she no longer owns.

I don’t have to give an alternative identification.

You can't, because there isn't an alternative.

If I did, I would have to use assumptions not in evidence and handwaving as you do, and I’m not going to do that. That doesn’t mean your answer is automatically correct.

What does "assumptions not in evidence" mean?

So get off your damn high horse and admit that this is all an exercise in wishful thinking, and you’re not proving anything.

Just because you're riding a three-legged Shetland pony doesn't mean I'm on a high horse.
The evidence and the arguments emanating from that evidence are summarised in Reply#1296, page 163 of "The First Shot Thread".
Is the identification I've proposed an Absolute Truth or an Irrefutable Fact? - no, it's not, but I'm not working to those standards.
Have I proven the identification "beyond a reasonable doubt"? - yes, I have. There is no credible alternative.
Have I proven it to a very high degree of probability? - yes, I have.
Those are the standards I am working to.

[John Iacoletti]

You forget that this forum is a written record of these conversations.

Yes it is. And it is nothing like your smear tactic characterizations of it. I did nothing “deceitful”. I “misrepresented” nothing. I made no “strawman argument”. I did nothing “underhanded”.

Instead of just making a counterargument in a civil manner, you have to go straight to the angry rhetoric, which is a sure sign that your argument isn’t very solid.

You accept that this picture shows Stella Jacob, Gloria Holt and Sharon Simmons but you don't know it for a fact.

I didn’t claim to know it for a fact. You’re the one here making a s*load of assumptions and declaring it to be “firmly established”.

You assume that other researchers who made these identifications did their job properly and reported their findings honestly.

Where did you get this idea? Another assumption? I’ve found and seen yearbook photos of all three. And whether you like it or not, faces are easier to identify than the backs of people’s bodies.

If I don't state my assumptions you whine.
If I do state my assumptions you whine.

I’m not “whining”. I’m disputing that your assumptions are necessarily valid.

Name a couple of facts in this case you are happy with.

“Happy” is an odd way to characterize it. Something is either a fact or it isn’t. Happiness has nothing to do with it.

And here we have it.
Dishonest John's Classic Strawman tactic.
Here's how it works folks.
John wrote - "Just because Simmons, Holt, and Jacob were walking together at a different time and place doesn’t prove they were standing side-by-side during the motorcade."
And, of course he's right, how on earth could I have written such a stupid thing? How could I try and get away with such a ridiculous notion - that because they were together in one picture it "proves" they were standing side-by-side in a different picture?
But here's the kicker - in everything I've written about this topic, all the photographic/film evidence, the numerous witness statements and how they fit together, not once - NOT ONCE - have I written anything that is even remotely like this.
John has just made it up!!
He's created this point out of thin air, simply so he can step in a win the argument that he created in the first place.
This tactic is called the Strawman argument.
John does this so he can win a point because this isn't a debate or a discussion, it's a "pissing contest", as he puts it.
And note, his crass observation that I use "handwaving" arguments, and that this is one of them when, in fact, it's just a lie John made up.

Well that was a lovely rant. And dishonest. Your whole approach was to look at the sea of the backs of bodies and look for three people standing side-by-side with your “general characteristics” from a black and white photo. Of course you’re assuming that the three are standing side-by-side in Zapruder. As you are trying to do with the Westbrook four.

General Characteristics:
One wearing a headscarf, two not - Fact
One with dark, bushy hair, one with shoulder length fair hair - Fact
Two wearing dark coloured coats, one wearing a lighter coloured dress - Fact

So now facts are "handwaving".

No. Speaking of strawmen…

The handwaving is that “dark coat” and “bushy hair” is enough to uniquely identify somebody and call it “firmly established”.

Again with the "Westbrook said so" argument.

And yet we’re supposed to go with “Dan thinks her coat is similarly dark”.

And just to correct you once again, she identified the headscarf, not the person.
A headscarf she no longer owns.

No, she pointed herself out. And mentioned that she wishes she still had the scarf. She would know what her scarf looked like.

You can't, because there isn't an alternative.

This is just the usual “my guess is automatically correct unless you prove me wrong” argument.

What does "assumptions not in evidence" mean?

An assumption that there is no evidentiary basis for. Like that the three were standing side-by-side at the time of the motorcade.

Is the identification I've proposed an Absolute Truth or an Irrefutable Fact? - no, it's not, but I'm not working to those standards.
Have I proven the identification "beyond a reasonable doubt"? - yes, I have. There is no credible alternative.
Have I proven it to a very high degree of probability? - yes, I have.

Says you. But then you have a very high opinion of your own assumptions.