Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Here is an article about the Oswald killing by a reporter who was actually there, just 10 feet away from the action. And he wrote the article on the same day, just hours later. So, how could he get so many things wrong?

First, his name was Terrance McGarry, and he worked for UPI. He died in 2011.

1) He said that Oswald was led out the double doors, but Oswald was led out the side door.

2) He said that the shooter was balding, although he attributed it to UPI photographer Frank Johnston. But the shooter was wearing a hat, and his hair that was showing was as thick as a rug. And I believe it was one. I believe that Bookhout was wearing a toupee to hide his very short, razored FBI haircut. But, where did they get balding from? Was it from seeing Jack Ruby later? But, this is supposed to be an account of what they saw in the garage. 

3) He claimed to see Oswald and Ruby being "dragged" into the jail office. Dragged? Oswald? The man was an abdominal gunshot victim. Leavelle said that he and another officer "carried" him into the jail office. He even demonstrated it that way in the Ruby and Oswald tv movie. Leavelle was an actor in it, playing himself, and he was also a factual adviser to the project, for which he was paid. 

So, how could McGarry claim to see Oswald being dragged? But, more important to me: how could McGarry see Oswald being moved at all? None of the cameras saw it. And there were many, and from all angles. And a commercial photographer would have been hell-bent on capturing the crucial action, right? What could be more important than seeing Oswald? Wasn't that why they were gathered there in the first place because Oswald was going to be walked 30 feet, and they wanted to see him do it? So, if the eyes of multiple cameras couldn't see anything concerning Oswald being moved inside, how could this guy glibly claim to see it? If he could point his eyes at it and see it, why couldn't the cameras be pointed at it and see it? But, all they caught was pandemonium.

"About 11:15, a squad of hard-eyed plainclothesmen joined the platoon of uniformed officers in the garage. Most of the uniformed officers carried 12-gauge riot guns. The plainclothesmen unbuttoned their jackets for a swift draw in case of trouble."

Why did they do that? They knew the garage had been secured. By them. They secured it. So, they actually expected someone to breach their security? They didn't think they were capable of securing that garage? Amazing. 

"There was a flurry of activity and two plainclothesmen moved swiftly through the swinging glass doors. Behind them came the man whose name has filled the headlines and airwaves since Friday afternoon. There was a plainclothes detective on each side, grimly clutching his arm."
But, Leavelle wasn't clutching Oswald's arm. He had his hand in Oswald's pants, supposedly. That's where he was clutching him. Here it is in the film:
Leavelle's forearm would have to be broken to bend like that. That looks bad; I mean really fake. It's crude is what it is. 
"Oswald appeared calm. I never noticed whether he was manacled, I suppose he was."
Reportedly, Oswald wore three handcuffs: two of his own, and one that went to Leavelle. But, that was definitely a lie because you can plainly see in the Jackson photo that his hands are not cuffed together.  
And I have grave doubts about the other cuffs as well. Does that look like a standard police handcuff to you? To me it looks like something porcelain or ceramic. 
"I dashed toward the spot. Later on, I came back and paced off the scene. I was five steps from the spot when the shot sounded."
Oh really, McGarry? Just five steps? Then why didn't we see you in the films?
"I never heard the gunman say a word."
That's because he didn't, McGarry. He never said anything, and he never shows any signs of wanting to say anything. But, Ruby reportedly talked when he was there. "I'm Jack Ruby. You know me. What are you doing? Etc." Of course, Bookhout didn't say anything.
Then, McGarry claimed to get through the double doors before they closed them off. And, he claimed to see there both Oswald and Ruby lying on the floor. 
But, how could he possibly "see" Oswald on the floor. Jim Davidson's camera couldn't see Oswald. Bill Lords, the reporter, asked, "is there someone lying on the floor?". He couldn't see either. But McGarry claimed to see.
So, this below is what Davidson and Lords saw. Did McGarry have a better view? Was he right up there mingling with the cops over the body? How could he claim to "see" Oswald? 

And notice how confined that space is. You're seeing a wall on the right and on the left. Jack Ruby was definitely NOT on the ground in that vicinity. Ruby is led through this scene in about 10 seconds.
That was the first that Davidson and Lords saw of Ruby post-melee. They never reported seeing him on the floor. So, how could McGarry see Ruby on the floor?
"A stretcher came up for Oswald. His shirt was torn and as they rolled him past, I could see a small blue-ringed hole just below his ribcage on the left side. It didn't look like it was bleeding."
So, McGarry got to see Oswald's wound. And he said that it didn't look like it was bleeding. That's also what Dr. Fred Bieberdorf said. Well, if it wasn't bleeding, then how did this widely dispersed blood stain get all over the floor?
It is appalling to have so many misstatements in an article that was written on the very day of the event. So, what happened? I suspect what happened is that McGarry wrote something, and then it was edited and revised by someone from the FBI, and he went along with it. That happened to another reporter, a woman.

Dallas journalist Connie Kritzberg filed a story about the assassination on November 22, but discovered that the content of her article had radically changed by the morning of November 23. On the afternoon of the assassination, she learned from an interview with Parkland physicians that one of the wounds to the president was “an entrance wound in the midline in the front of the neck below the Adam’s apple,” which she duly reported in her submission.  But in her printed article the next day, the story never mentioned an entrance wound to the president’s throat.  Rather, the article noted only the following vague reference to the physicians:  “A doctor admitted there was possibly one wound.”  The sentence was not only ambiguous, but it completely misrepresented Kritzberg’s main point about the entrance wound.  Extremely upset, Kritzberg asked her editor, “Who changed my story?”  She was told that it was the FBI.


No comments:

Post a Comment

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