A hole in Bledsoe's story?

[Charles Collins]

It would not require much effort to cut a ticket from McWatters PRE PUNCHED ticket roll and then produce the ticket later and claim it was “found” in Oswald’s shirt pocket.

The question is which came 1st, the “finding” of the ticket during Oswald’s arrest, or the affidavit filed by Bledsoe?

If the former then planting the bus ticket makes no sense whatsoever.

Only if the latter is there any plausible reason possibly that someone decided that a pre punched ticket from McWatters roll of tickets could help establish Oswald shooting Tippit at 1:15 rather that Oswald being at the theatre at 1:15-1:20 as  claimed by Burroughs and Davis.

If the former then planting the bus ticket makes no sense whatsoever.



Mr. BALL - Now, you were called down to the Dallas police department later, weren't you?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What day was it?
Mr. McWATTERS - It was on the same day, the 22d.
Mr. BALL - 22d. Do you know how they happened to get in touch with you, did you notify them that you.--
Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir; I didn't know anything to that effect.
Mr. BALL - Did they come out and get you?
Mr. McWATTERS - They come out and--
Mr. BALL - What did they ask you?
Mr. McWATTERS - Well, they stopped me; it was, I would say around 6:15 or somewhere around 6:15 or 6:20 that afternoon.
Mr. BALL - You were still on duty, were you?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Still on your bus?
Mr. McWATTERS - I was on duty but I was on a different line and a different bus.
Mr. BALL - What did they ask you when they came out?
Mr. McWATTERS - Well, they stopped me right by the city hall there when I come by there and they wanted me to come in, they wanted to ask me some questions. And I don't know what it was about or anything until I got in there and they told me what happened.


Mr. BALL - When did you first notify the police that you believe you'd seen Oswald?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - When I got home, first thing I did I went next door and told them the President had been shot, and he said, "Why, he has got killed." Well, I turned on the radio--television--and we heard ambulances and going around and there was a little boy came in that room in the back and he turned it on, and we listened and hear about the President, only one I was interested in, so, he went on back to work and they kept talking about this boy Oswald and had on a brown shirt, and all of a sudden, well, I declare, I believe that this was this boy, and his name was Oswald---that is---give me his right name, you know, and so, about an hour my son came home, and I told him and he immediately called the police and told them, because we wanted to do all we could, and so, I went down the next night. He took me down, and I made a statement to them, what kind of---Secret Service man or something down there.
Mr. BALL - Where?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - At the police station.


From the above testimonies, I believe that they must have already found the bus ticket on LHO in order to know that they should track down McWatters on 11/22/63 late in the afternoon.

And Bledsoe testifies that she didn't give her statement until the next night (11/23/63).


So it seems that it is "the former" and that, in your opinion, "planting the bus ticket makes no sense whatsoever."

[John Iacoletti]

You create your own argument that even doesn't exist.
No one is saying more than half of what you printed here.

That's why he is called Strawman "Smith".

[John Iacoletti]

You left out: “conduct its own investigation, and take the testimony of witnesses in Washington.”

But Charles, the outline that Rankin presented in a January 11, 1964 memo had a section titled "Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy".  This was before they took a single bit of testimony.

[John Iacoletti]

I believed then and now that any effort by the commission to embark on an investigation that ignored the facts implicating Oswald in the killing of the president and Officer Tippit would have smacked of pretense or naïveté that would have thoroughly impeached the commission’s credibility.

How would they know these were "facts" prior to doing any investigating?  Sounds like post-hoc rationalization of a predetermined conclusion to me.

[John Mytton]

But Charles, the outline that Rankin presented in a January 11, 1964 memo had a section titled "Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy".  This was before they took a single bit of testimony.

Take off your rose coloured CT glasses for just a sec and look at a fraction of the basic facts that were accumulated by that time.

Oswald owned the rifle that killed the President. In most cases this is a slam dunk. But there is so much more.
Oswald carried a long package to work, a long package with his prints and a long package Oswald lied about.
Oswald's close description was given by Brennan and was all over the Police radio within 15 minutes of the assassination.
Oswald in his frenzied flight killed a Police Officer and tried to kill more Police Officer's when arrested.
Oswald lied about anything to do with the rifle.

In the World we live in that is Solid Evidence of Guilt but since your World is somehow different you try to introduce doubt and in the process of this fantasy diversion you throw multiple good decent people under the bus and create a conspiracy of biblical proportions, yet here we are 60+ years later not one CT has produced a shred of evidence to overturn any of these facts. Why is that, John?

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Take off your rose coloured CT glasses for just a sec and look at a fraction of the basic facts that were accumulated by that time.

Oswald owned the rifle that killed the President. In most cases this is a slam dunk. But there is so much more.
Oswald carried a long package to work, a long package with his prints and a long package Oswald lied about.
Oswald's close description was given by Brennan and was all over the Police radio within 15 minutes of the assassination.
Oswald in his frenzied flight killed a Police Officer and tried to kill more Police Officer's when arrested.
Oswald lied about anything to do with the rifle.

In the World we live in that is Solid Evidence of Guilt but since your World is somehow different you try to introduce doubt and in the process of this fantasy diversion you throw multiple good decent people under the bus and create a conspiracy of biblical proportions, yet here we are 60+ years later not one CT has produced a shred of evidence to overturn any of these facts. Why is that, John?

JohnM

Oswald owned the rifle that killed the President.

Not true. It was never proven that the rifle found at the TSBD was owned by Oswald. It was no more than an assumption based upon questionable and contradictory "evidence"

Oswald carried a long package to work, a long package with his prints and a long package Oswald lied about.

You mean a package that fitted between the cup of Oswald's hand and his armpit and was not big enough to conceal a broken down rifle.
It has never been proven that the package found at the TSBD was the one that Oswald carried. That's just one more assumption which ignores crucial evidence provided by Buell Wesley Frazier.
And there is no verbatim record of what Oswald said, which means you can't argue that he lied about anything. All you think you know is what his interrogators wrote in partially contradictionary reports

Oswald's close description was given by Brennan and was all over the Police radio within 15 minutes of the assassination.

If Brennan's description was "close" than why did he fail to identify Oswald at the line up?
There is no evidence that Brennan's description was ever broadcast by the Police radio.

Oswald in his frenzied flight killed a Police Officer and tried to kill more Police Officer's when arrested.

Assumptions aren't facts.

Oswald lied about anything to do with the rifle.

And yet more assumptions. Due to the incompetence of the interrogators, you haven't got a clue what Oswald really said.
You have been told a story which you prefer to believe.

In the World we live in that is Solid Evidence of Guilt

Calling the above points "Solid evidence of guilt" only demonstrates your bias and naivete.

yet here we are 60+ years later not one CT has produced a shred of evidence to overturn any of these facts. Why is that, John?

Calling your opinions "facts" doesn't make them so. There is no reason to produce evidence to overturn your opinions, when you can only make a case by misrepresenting the actual evidence.

[John Mytton]

Oswald lied about anything to do with the rifle.

And yet more assumptions. Due to the incompetence of the interrogators, you haven't got a clue what Oswald really said.
You have been told a story which you prefer to believe.

Not this crap again! If the interrogators were dishonest and got together later they could have well and truly shafted Oswald but instead just recalled the facts as given.

For instance, they could have said;

Oswald said he owned the rifle.
Oswald said he took the long brown package to work.
Oswald said he was on the 6th floor at the time.
Oswald said at the last interrogation on Sunday morning that he actually shot the President.
Oswald said at the last Sunday interrogation that he killed Tippit.
Oswald said he was actually in the backyard photos.
And when Ruby shot Oswald and Oswald was dying, they could have said he confessed, but they didn't.

It's clear that with so many different agencies in the interrogations that they all were compelled to the best of their abilities, to tell the truth.

BTW if you don't trust the interrogations, then why do you always bring up Oswald's "confession" that he bought the revolver in Fort Worth? Doesn't that make you a bit of a hypocrite?

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Not this crap again! If the interrogators were dishonest and got together later they could have well and truly shafted Oswald but instead just recalled the facts as given.

For instance, they could have said;

Oswald said he owned the rifle.
Oswald said he took the long brown package to work.
Oswald said he was on the 6th floor at the time.
Oswald said at the last interrogation on Sunday morning that he actually shot the President.
Oswald said at the last Sunday interrogation that he killed Tippit.
Oswald said he was actually in the backyard photos.
And when Ruby shot Oswald and Oswald was dying, they could have said he confessed, but they didn't.

It's clear that with so many different agencies in the interrogations that they all were compelled to the best of their abilities, to tell the truth.

BTW if you don't trust the interrogations, then why do you always bring up Oswald's "confession" that he bought the revolver in Fort Worth? Doesn't that make you a bit of a hypocrite?

JohnM

If the interrogators were dishonest

Who said that the interrogators were dishonest?

It's not about trusting the interrogators, it about questioning the way the interrogations were conducted and (not properly) documented.
It's the assassination of the President of the United States and the DPD can't find a recording device anywhere? Really?
Even worse, they did not even make contemporary notes and relied on memory when writing their reports after Oswald was killed.

Doesn't that make you a bit of a hypocrite?

I'm doing exactly what you are constantly doing with one exception;

I take something Oswald is supposed to have said and try to verify one way or the other.

I'm doing so with Oswald seeing Jarman and Norman walking towards the elevators to go to the 5th floor.

First of all, the reports are contradictory, but agree on one point; the reports place Jarman and Norman at the lunchroom location where Oswald said he saw them.
And Jarman and Norman do basically confirm that they were indeed at the location a few minutes before the shots were fired.
Combined, this justifies the conclusion that the interrogators' reports, although wrong on some of the details, can be believed on the point of Oswald telling them about being in the first floor lunchroom.

As for the revolver, iirc several reports mention Oswald telling them that he bought his revolver in Fort Worth. This would be a crucial detail in any honest investigation, yet it was never investigated by anybody, which is a stark contrast to the massive investigation conducted to track down the origine of a label in Oswald's grey jacket. The mere fact that no follow up investigation was conducted could very well be construed as a manipulation of the investigatory record. That, in turn, actually makes the interrogators' report relevant on this point.

Unlike me, what you do, is just accept blindly what's in the interrogators' reports without any kind of verification.

So, no, it doesn't make me a hypocrite at all.

It's clear that with so many different agencies in the interrogations that they all were compelled to the best of their abilities, to tell the truth.

Who said that they were not trying to tell the truth?

This is not a black or white thing. I am sure that the interrogators tried to tell the truth. The problem is that, because of the inadequate way the interviews were documented, there is no way to resolve the clear discrepancies between their reports. If this case had even gone to trial the defense would have had a field day with the lack of a verbatim record.