"After World War II broke out, Mr. Bookhout, then a 28-year-old practicing civil attorney, had a choice: He could join the military or join the FBI. "He was a calm person and thought he'd make a good agent because he didn't get rattled," said his wife, Charlotte Bookhout of Dallas."
My point is that he wasn't a policeman, and he was never a soldier. And as an FBI agent, he was an attorney. I'm assuming that they didn't send him out on shootouts- at least not as a shooter.
So, don't you think it would have been rather daunting for him to shoot Oswald? And not just from the standpoint of having the gumption to shoot another human being in cold blood, but also to able to do it and get it right.
Now perhaps you think it had to be easy to shoot someone at such close range, but think again. It was dim. His target was moving. The shot that silenced Oswald entered his left side and settled on his right, but what if Bookhout had the muzzle pointed just a little more leftward? The bullet could have entered Oswald's right side and come out his right side; in other words, just clipped him. And that would mean it would have had a lot of energy left; enough to have easily entered another person.
So, there was a lot that could have gone wrong. It was no sure thing.
And that's why I think it's likely that Bookhout just shot a blank. They must have told Oswald that they could get him out of the whole situation, but so many people wanted him dead and would continue to want to him dead, that the only way to put a stop to that was to send out the message to the world that he was dead. So, they were going to fake his shooting and then skirt him to safety, get him a new identity, etc.
Here are the Fritz Notes from that last interrogation of Oswald which lasted for 75 minutes.
NOTHING! Not a word! The plucker wrote nothing down. NADA!
He talked to Oswald for an hour and fifteen minutes, and there wasn't one thing to write down? How could that be? Well, it could be because they were talking about this ruse they were going to pull off.
Notice that it says that in attendance were Postal Inspector Holmes, and SS Agents Sorrels and Kelley. Then it says "et al" which means unnamed others. Why didn't he name them? How many could there have been? I suggest to you that "et al" referred to James Bookhout. He claims to have watched the interview through a glass partition, but who was going to contradict him if he was lying? Don't you think it's more likely that he was part of it?
That idiot postal inspector Harry Holmes filled up the time with a lurid story of Oswald talking colorfully of his great adventure to Mexico City, which even Bookhout admitted that he denied making in his first interview. But supposedly, according to Holmes, Oswald starting waxing on it about it profusely- as though he had never previously denied it. It's all bull shit. It's all just putting words in a dead man's mouth. Oswald never went to Mexico City, and you can be sure he never said he did. Look at Fritz' testimony about it:
Mr. BALL. What did he say when he was asked if he had been to Mexico City?
Mr. FRITZ. He said he had not been. He did say he had been to Russia, he was in Russia, I believe he said for some time.
Mr. BALL. He said he had not been in Mexico City?
Mr. FRITZ. At that time he told me he had not been in Mexico City.
Notice that Fritz qualified his last remark with "At that time" but if he had heard all the stuff that Holmes claimed to hear, wouldn't he have wanted to elaborate? But, Fritz didn't want to elaborate. Most people don't feel comfortable lying. They'll do it if they have to, but usually, they'd rather not talk about something than lie about it.
Then, separately, this came up:
Mr. BALL. What did he say about Mexico?
Mr. FRITZ. Mexico, I don't remember him admitting that he had been to any part of Mexico.
Mr. BALL. What do you remember him saying?
Mr. FRITZ. I remember he said he did not go to Mexico City and I don't remember him saying he ever went to Tijuana.
Why did Ball ask him again about Mexico City? Did he think he could solicit a different answer from Fritz if he prodded him? Notice that once again, Fritz did not volunteer all the stuff the Harry Holmes claimed to have heard Oswald say.
Holmes testified in April. Fritz didn't testify until July. So, Ball knew what Holmes had said. He was hoping that Fritz could be coaxed to take the bait and give the spiel, but Fritz wouldn't do it. He wasn't comfortable telling Holmes' lie.
But, getting back to 11/24/63, they weren't talking about Mexico City, and they weren't talking about nothing. They had to be talking about something. But, Fritz didn't write anything down. Zip.
But, if it's true that they were talking about the coming ruse- the dog and pony show they were going to pull off in the garage, it means that the ruse involved not just the Dallas Police and the FBI but also the Secret Service, since Sorrels and Kelly were there.
Again, that's just a speculation, but it's a reasonable speculation.
And here is something else that makes sense: Oswald glanced at the shooter in advance as if he knew him, and people assume it's because he knew Ruby.
But wait! By that point in time, Oswald knew Bookhout. He had attended all those sessions with Bookhout, and Bookhout was there as Oswald was being dragged around the police station. Remember all those images I showed you of Oswald and Bookhout? So, at this stage, his ability to recognize Bookhout was every bit as great or greater than his ability to recognize Ruby.
And notice that even there during that famous glance, that we can see that vertical cheek line that was distinguishing about Bookhout and not Ruby:
That is NOT Jack Ruby. It is James Bookhout. He was the Garage Shooter, and there is no longer any doubt about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.