Jim Leavelle sees Ruby's gun !

[Ross Lidell]

Agreed.
Long ago.
Thanks.

Just wondered what the other( "honest ") police officer had to say?
He's like the "other thief" at the Crucifixion; no further mention in any other Gospels.

The other detective is L.C. Graves. He was not handcuffed to Lee Harvey Oswald, so his part in the transfer of the alleged assassin from the City jail  to the County jail was less significant. Grave's face is obscured by the back of Jack Ruby's head in the Bob Jackson photo that captures the shooting--including Oswald's agony as the bullet penetrates his abdomen. I'd like to know what sort of expression was on Grave's face.

Your allusions to the Christian religion are interesting. A believer?

[John Tonkovich]

The other detective is L.C. Graves. He was not handcuffed to Lee Harvey Oswald, so his part in the transfer of the alleged assassin from the City jail  to the Count jail was less significant. Grave's face is obscured by the back of Jack Ruby's head in the Bob Jackson photo that captures the shooting--including Oswald's agony as the bullet penetrates his abdomen. I'd like to know what sort of expression was on Grave's face.

Your allusions to the Christian religion are interesting. A believer?

A believer? In Christianity? Uh, one needn't be a "believer" to make a simile. Or was it a metaphor? An allegory?
But I digress.
To the topic: Leavelle is insignificant. Only his "man in white" persona, complete with "white hat" - and his reaction- made him make the news. Handcuffs mean nothing.

Beers' photo, and L.C. Graves - that's a topic . Of significance. I'm sure there's a thread somewhere.

Who was that "other" thief, anyway?
Questions, questions. I might be a Jesuit. Why? 

[Ross Lidell]

A believer? In Christianity? Uh, one needn't be a "believer" to make a simile. Or was it a metaphor? An allegory?
But I digress.
To the topic: Leavelle is insignificant. Only his "man in white" persona, complete with "white hat" - and his reaction- made him make the news. Handcuffs mean nothing.

Beers' photo, and L.C. Graves - that's a topic . Of significance. I'm sure there's a thread somewhere.

Who was that "other" thief, anyway?
Questions, questions. I might be a Jesuit. Why? 

Handcuffs mean nothing.

Leavelle was "tethered" to Lee Oswald: that's something.

Those monochrome pictures are deceiving. Was it a white hat? Leavelle's shirt is white and appears a much lighter shade than the Stetson. Could be a very light-tan colored hat?

The thieves were named Gestas and Dismas.

[John Tonkovich]

Handcuffs mean nothing.

Leavelle was "tethered" to Lee Oswald: that's something.

Those monochrome pictures are deceiving. Was it a white hat? Leavelle's shirt is white and appears a much lighter shade than the Stetson. Could be a very light-tan colored hat?

The thieves were named Gestas and Dismas.

I'm sure they were. In which of the "Gospels" do we learn this? From which Holy Bible? Gee, I didn't start out trying to draw a parallel, but if the sandal, Eisenhower jacket, cross etc. fits,..
But I digress.
It doesn't matter what color Leavelle's clothes really were. ( or that he was tethered)
It's the image, the perception. I did say "man in white" persona.

Odd, that you focused on the "visible" agony of Oswald in the second (later) photo.
As if he were being...   that darn parallel thing again.

L.C. was in position to stop Ruby. 57 years later, the faithful discuss ..Leavelle.
Sad. But I won't Baal about it.

[Ross Lidell]

I'm sure they were. In which of the "Gospels" do we learn this? From which Holy Bible? Gee, I didn't start out trying to draw a parallel, but if the sandal, Eisenhower jacket, cross etc. fits,..
But I digress.
It doesn't matter what color Leavelle's clothes really were. ( or that he was tethered)
It's the image, the perception. I did say "man in white" persona.

Odd, that you focused on the "visible" agony of Oswald in the second (later) photo.
As if he were being...   that darn parallel thing again.

L.C. was in position to stop Ruby. 57 years later, the faithful discuss ..Leavelle.
Sad. But I won't Baal about it.

Quit the immaterial intellectualizing!

Detective L.C. Graves was in a physical position to block Jack Ruby from shooting Lee Oswald. However, he was looking forward to his destination not towards the journalists, police officers and Jack Ruby--to his left.

Jack Ruby's lunge towards Oswald (to be in "shooting range") occurred so quickly: L.C. Graves did not notice the assassin's assassin about to assassinate the assassin.

[John Tonkovich]

Quit the immaterial intellectualizing!

Detective L.C. Graves was in a physical position to block Jack Ruby from shooting Lee Oswald. However, he was looking forward to his destination not towards the journalists, police officers and Jack Ruby--to his left.

Jack Ruby's lunge towards Oswald (to be in "shooting range") occurred so quickly: L.C. Graves did not notice the assassin's assassin about to assassinate the assassin.

Fair enough.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

In my many years & hours of looking at what witnesses etc said i was amazed at how their statements were full of krapp. Including Leavelle. Now here we have a guy who is the epitome of honesty, yet he has made a statement that is 100% krapp. There is no way that he could have seen Ruby holding a gun. Leavelle is at all times looking towards the approaching car.
I thort that perhaps Graves had seen Ruby holding a gun, & that over the years this factoid had imprinted on Leavelle's memory. But, no, Graves too was looking at the car. So, as i said, most of the statements, especially statements made months or years later, are 99.9% krapp.

[John Iacoletti]

Leavelle's memory of details became greatly enhanced in his later years...