Wednesday, February 15, 2017

What came out of the brief misstep over James Bookhout's image is the reminder that there really are NO images of him from the time of the assassination; none; but alas there are NO images of him from any time or anywhere. The only images we have of James Bookhout, from his whole life, are his school yearbook images, which were all doctored: with dragqueen eyebrows, etc. And even at his death, he must have given the order to have no photo with his obituary. His wife had one, but he didn't. James Bookhout did not do pictures. The very fact of that is a smoking gun in itself.

But, what I really want to talk about is what happened the morning of November 24. We are told that Oswald was brought from his jail cell on the 5th floor to Captain Fritz' office for his final interrogation at the DPD. That was reportedly at 9:30. That interrogation would last until 11:15, so nearly 2 hours. It would be the longest interrogation he did. Bookhout said that he arrived late and just watched it through the glass partition.  

Mr. BOOKHOUT - Now, yes; on the morning of November 24, 1963, I observed him in interview with Captain Fritz and numerous other officers in the homicide and robbery bureau. Captain Fritz---I did not participate in this interview. It had already started before I arrived. There is a glass partition or wall on one side of the office that you can see what is going on inside there. I took a seat adjacent to this glass area in the office proper of the homicide and robbery bureau, and watched.

I find that hard to believe, even the part about him being late. 9:30? It's not like it was 6:30. And what would be the point of watching an interview? They weren't miming, were they? They weren't using sign language. What was the point of doing that? Presumably, if he had gotten there on time, he would have attended the meeting, right? So, would it have been so terrible if he had entered a little late? Then after it was over, he said he asked Fritz if Oswald had revealed anything, and Fritz said no, nothing. But, Harry Holmes, the postal inspector, said that Oswald sang like a canary about Mexico City. We know from multiple sources that when first asked at the first interrogation, Oswald denied having gone there, saying that the only place in Mexico he had ever been to was Tijuana. So, how could he reverse himself without saying something like, "I wasn't being truthful when I denied going there." Doesn't there have to be a segue between the lie and the truth? An explanation, a reason for the lie? It involved no crime. So, why would Oswald lie about it in the first place? He's accused of killing the President of the United States and a police officer, and he's going to start lying about a trip to Mexico City? And the trip had nothing to do with the assassination. I don't care what people say. The official story has it that it never crossed his mind to kill Kennedy until he saw the motorcade route in the newspaper a couple days before. So, how could a trip to Mexico City in September have anything to do with it? Therefore, again, why would he lie about it? He wasn't the one lying about that; Holmes lied. 

In fact, why assume they even talked about it? If Oswald stated, emphatically, that he didn't go to Mexico City, that the only place he ever went to in Mexico was Tijuana, which is on the opposite side of the country, then why ask him again? 

"Are you sure you didn't go to Mexico City?"

Man, I'll tell you, if that had been me, after explaining to them that I had never been there and giving them a point of reference, if they asked me again? "God damn it, I told you I never went to Mexico City! What the hell is wrong with you? Are you deaf? Are you stupid?" 

So, what did they talk about for nearly 2 hours? Let's look at the Fritz Notes:

So, they apparently talked about nothing, since Fritz wrote nothing down. And according to Bookhout, Fritz told him that nothing important was said. But note the time the meeting started: 10 AM. So really, it was just one hour and fifteen minutes. There was some processing involved because Oswald was leaving the the Dallas Jail for good. He was going directly from that meeting to the garage to be driven to the County Jail. So, there was a checking out process. I can see that. But, it meant that Bookhout had to arrive after 10 in order to be late for the meeting. So, how could he possibly be that late? An FBI agent? Nope. Not buying it. Who were the et al? I suspect Bookhout was one of the et al. 

So, nothing got written down about an hour and fifteen minute interrogation. What did they talk about? How about 'dem Cowboys?

How about: they were talking about the ruse they were about to pull off.  That would explain why nothing got written down. And not just talking about it, but doing it. Let's remember that it was during that time that the incident with the real Jack Ruby had to take place, in which he was arrested. So, did they bring Oswald down for that and go through the motions? The only one who can possibly shed any light on that is Jack Ruby. 

A. When I went into the Western Union to try to send the money, and naturally the clerk took my money, and uh, and uh, turned away after he took the money, I turned away and walked out. I walked down the street, just natural strides, and as I . . .
Q. Main Street?
A. No -- Yes, Main Street, going west to Main Street, the south side of Main Street, as I walked toward the ramp, I noticed the police squad car at the head of the ramp and an officer leaning over talking to him with his back to me. All I did was walk down there, down to the bottom of the ramp and that's when the incident happened, at the bottom of the ramp -- according to the Western Union records -- the time stamped on the Western Union records -- it's 11:17 the time the incident taking place 11:21, it was 11:21.
Q. Did you walk slowly?
A. I walked my natural pace.
Q. You did not rush?
A. No.
Q. Did you recognize anybody when you reached the bottom of the ramp?
A. No. I recognized the police officer in the car -- that was in the car -- it was Lt. Sam Pierce, and this other man was just talking to him, and why Sam Pierce had not seen me, I don't know.
Q. Did you try to avoid him or anything?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. When did you finally realize that something had happened, Jack, when did you finally know?
A. Well, it happened in such a blur -- well it happened in such a blur, that before I knew it, I was down on the ground -- the officers had me on the ground.
Q. Had you realized you had done anything?
A. Well, really it happened so fast, and anything else I cannot recall what happened from the time I came to the bottom of the ramp until the police officers had me on the ground.
Q. Have no recollection?
A. No. But, I knew they were holding my hand and grabbing for the gun.

That's from David Reitzes, a written transcript of Ruby's oral interview, his death bed interview. But, you don't hear the part about 11:17 and 11:21 in the recording. Here's the link to it:

It goes from: "That's where the incident happened, at the bottom of the ramp" to his being asked: "Did you recognize anybody at the bottom of the ramp?" 

So, what are we supposed to surmise from that? That they edited the interview? That they cut the tape? That they spliced out part of Jack Ruby's death bed statement? But, why would they do that? 

But, let's look at what Ruby said to the Warren Commissioners:

Jack Ruby: And when I walked down the ramp--I would say there was an 8-foot clearance--not that I wanted to be a hero, or I didn't realize that even if the officer would have observed me, the klieg lights, but I can't take that. I did not mingle with the crowd. There was no one near me when I walked down that ramp, because if you will time the time I sent the money order, I think it was 10:17 Sunday morning.

Then his lawyer corrected him about the time, and Jack didn't dispute it. But, maybe the correction didn't take in his mind. If his own memory was 10:17, maybe it stayed at 10:17, and maybe that is what he said at his death bed interview. And since you can't edit an audio tape, all they could do is cut it out. I think it is very likely that that is what happened. Because: why else would they cut it out? And that would make the time that David Rietzes used a lie. 

Here is more of Ruby's testimony to the Warren Commissioners:

Mr. RUBY. I had the gun in my right hip pocket, and impulsively, if that is the correct word here, I saw him, and that is all I can say. And I didn't care what happened to me.
I think I used the words, "You killed my President, you rat." The next thing, I was down on the floor.
I said, "I am Jack Ruby. You all know me."
I never used anything malicious, nothing like s.o.b. I never said that I wanted to get three more off, as they stated.

The implication of that, I presume, is that he saw Oswald. "I saw him" means "I saw Oswald." So, if this happened an hour before, at say 10:21, it means that that's what they were doing: going through the motions of the jail transfer. You've heard of the pre-autopsy? Well, this was the pre-jail-transfer. 

And notice that he said "down on the floor" that he was down on the floor. Well, the televised Garage Shooter was never down on the floor. He was always on his feet. And just think about it: if they had gotten him down to the floor, then why would they have ever let him up from the floor until he was cuffed? Are we to believe that they had him down on the floor but then they let him up from the floor? Without cuffing him? Why would they do that? The whole purpose of getting an offender down on the floor is to cuff him. And you keep him down on the floor until he's cuffed. What they did makes no sense as a police behavior.

So, the incident with Ruby happened an hour before. Then they quickly got him up to the 5th floor- to get him out of the way. Then, the spectacle with Bookhout took place in the same place for the cameras. That's what I think happened. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.