Remember that on the evening of November 23, FBI agents stormed the home of Billy Lovelady to show him the Altgens photo and get his opinion. So, why didn't they also storm Oswald's cell and show it to him? Oswald was alive and well at the time. They didn't do it because they knew what he would say.
"Yes, that's me. Of course, it's me, although it looks like they did something to the top of my head. That's where I was during the shooting. I told you that."
So, it was LBJ who must have said that the country needed immediate closure on this, that it would be paralyzing to wade through a trial, that it would be advantageous to our enemies if that happened, that a quick and final resolution was needed right away- by killing Oswald. But, who did he say it to? It had to be J. Edgar Hoover. There was no one he was closer to than Hoover. There was no one he trusted more than Hoover. Plus, Hoover had the means and wherewithal to get it done.
But, what would Hoover have done with it? Would he have gone to the Dallas Police? Himself? No way. He surely insulated himself from stuff like that. He went to his underlings in the FBI, the ones he could trust. And, I'd be willing to bet dimes to dollars that that included James Bookhout.
We know that Hoover and Bookhout had a direct connection because just days before the assassination, Bookhout sent an internal FBI telegram to Hoover.
If you read Boohout's WC testimony, he claimed that he ended up watching the JFK assassination by accident because he went to his bank on Main Street to conduct some personal banking, and then when he came out, JFK was passing. So, he stayed and watched. But, get this: he said that HE COULDN'T SEE ANYTHING, THAT HE NEVER LAID EYES ON KENNEDY BECAUSE THERE WERE PEOPLE IN FRONT OF HIM. Do you get it now that James Bookhout was short?
But then, get this: he said that shortly afterwards, they heard sirens, and then they got word that the President had been shot, and even though he was officially on leave from the FBI, he figured he better check with the Dallas office to see if they needed him. So he head to the FBI office. But, just as he was getting there, two other agents whom he knew were coming out, and they told him that the higher-ups were looking for him because they wanted to tell him to proceed to the DPD. And so, he said he turned around and did that.
But wait. Think about it a second. Upon getting that information from those two agents, wouldn't he still go in and talk to the higher-ups? Why wouldn't he? Why didn't he? Why would he take an action based just on what a couple agents told him secondhand?
So, I don't believe that story. I think it was arranged in advance that Bookhout was going to be the point man at the DPD for the FBI, and that's probably what his telegram to Hoover was about. And, I suspect that the only reason he claimed to be "on leave" before the shooting (not on vacation, but on leave, which implies a longer separation from work) was because he went on leave immediately after the Oswald assassination, and I think it lasted a whole year. And, I don't doubt that he continued to be paid. Why did he have to go on leave? It was to stay out of sight; to avoid being seen. And you know why.
But, the main thing I want to talk about is the Dallas Police. On the afternoon of the November 24, Jim Leavelle did an interview with Bill Lorde of WFAA Television in which Leavelle claimed to do things which he clearly did not do. He claimed to have spotted "Ruby" in advance, recognized him as Jack Ruby, spotted the gun in advance, realized what was about to happen, and then took evasive action trying to protect Oswald, and also socked Ruby in the shoulder with his fist, all of which was a lie. Even at the moment of the gunshot, Leavelle hadn't even turned and started looking at "Ruby" yet- never mind done any of those other things.
Leavelle never took any action to protect Oswald; he didn't try to jerk him behind himself, as he claimed, and he never looked at Ruby, and he certainly never poked him in the shoulder. All of that was lies.
But, where did he get the confidence to tell those lies? Well, I figure he had the confidence because he must have known about the Jackson photo and what it showed.
Now, obviously, in that photo, he has his eyes on Ruby. And in that photo, he has his hand on Oswald's "waistband" as he put it. And, Oswald is turned a little bit towards him. But really, it is all ridiculous, including Blackie reaching his arm into the fray, while continuing to enjoy his cigar, like he was Groucho Marx. But, we never see this imagery in any of the films. And consider that just .6 second before, Oswald's left hand was down at his waist, as seen in the Beers photo.
So, if Oswald moved his hand up to his chest in just .6 second, it means, he really snapped his arm fast. So, why wouldn't we get a glimpse of this arm-snapping in the films? There isn't a hint of it. In fact, how is the whole reconfiguration between Beers and Jackson possible in .6 second?
That's a lot of difference. All that change occurred in just .6 second? That's like half a second. "Ruby" goes from approaching Oswald from the side to being in front of him. How could he get there so fast? In half a second?
I have to wonder if Leavelle was instructed to say that he was clutching Oswald's pants. But, is it real?
That's impossible. It's impossible because only the bend in the elbow could have caused that angle, that fold, but it's too high to be his elbow. It's too close to his shoulder. I put an "e" where his elbow is located. So the implication of that is that his elbow was completely straight, or as we say, "extended." And, above the elbow, there is just one long bone, the humerus. So, what would cause such a recess in the upper arm of his jacket, like there was a joint there? There is no joint there. I defy you to show me another photograph like this in the entire world with a fold in the jacket in that location, which was the middle of his upper arm.
Do you know when the Jackson photo was first published? It was not until the next day, Monday, in the Dallas Times Herald, which was not an early morning paper. You can read about it here:
Robert Jackson received $1000 for his Pulitzer Prize in 1964. Today, they give you $10,000, which is a little greater than the rate of inflation since then.