Monday, January 8, 2018

This is Part II of: Where Was Oswald Shot? And of course, we know it wasn't the garage. It was either in the PD or in route to the hospital. And if it's the latter, it must be connected to the stop that was made, after which Graves, in his police car, took the lead. 

The gist of Part I was that if you accept Dr. Fred Bieberdorf's FBI statement, then you have to believe that Oswald was shot in the PD, since it has the Bieb saying that he saw Oswald in the jail office looking dead. But, there were problems with it, if you recall, one being that an FBI agent composed it. 

So, let's look at the Bieb's WC testimony. He corrected a few minor things in his FBI statement, but none of the ones that matter to me. And then he made a false correction, which is weird. He said that Leavelle rode with him in the middle seat, but Leavlle definitely rode in back. We can see it as they are departing and as they are arriving, that Leavelle is in the back, and close to the tailgate. So, why did the Bieb say that Leavelle rode with him in the middle seat? I don't know, but it was a lie. And I do mean that it was a lie because how could he be misinformed about that? So, why'd the Bieb lie? I don't know. Maybe he was ordered to. 

And you recall that the Bieb said that he concluded that Oswald was dead in the jail office. Not dying but dead. And in his WC testimony, he said he continued to think that Oswald was dead until they were close to the hospital, at which time Oswald started moving around, which told him that Oswald was alive. But, read this:

Mr. HUBERT. You were with him in the ambulance all the way through?
Dr. BIEBERDORF. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. And when he got to the ambulance you saw signs of life?
Dr. BIEBERDORF. Although, I did not until we got about halfway to Parkland.
Mr. HUBERT. You thought he was dead?
Dr. BIEBERDORF. He--I surmised he was dead until he started moving a little bit. 

If the Bieb continued to think that Oswald was dead, then he wasn't "massaging Oswald's sternum" then, was he, as the FBI agent wrote? Why would a doctor, of all people, be massaging the sternum of a dead person? And likewise, if he thought Oswald was dead, he didn't put a bulb resuscitator over his mouth, on account of him being dead. So, I take the above testimony as evidence that what was stated in the FBI statement is false. But why then didn't the Bieb correct it? 

The next thing is very VERY weird. Are you read for this? The Bieb said he performed a rectal examination on Jack Ruby because detectives and an FBI agent ordered him to.

Dr. BIEBERDORF. The next sentence that follows that is correct, but then there is another. That same paragraph, the last sentence in this paragraph reads, "Bieberdorf states that he gave Ruby a physical examination at this time in order to insure Ruby had not concealed any weapon on his person."
This is not correct here. Later on in the afternoon of November 24, I was asked by the police or Lieutenant--I believe in charge of the jail at that to go upstairs and at the request of detectives and one of the FBI agents, I performed a rectal examination on him to make sure he had not smuggled--or to see if he had brought anything in on his person.
This was at 6 p.m., so, I did see Ruby on two occasions. One at 2:05 and one at 6. I think that report tends to indicate it was only one. 

Wait a second. Hold everything. Something is terribly wrong here. They didn't do a rectal exam on Oswald. And people get arrested all the time, for murder and other crimes, and they don't have rectal exams done on them in the police station either. So, what the mudderpluck???? Do you mean to tell me that Dallas detectives and an FBI agent actually thought that Jack Ruby might have hidden a weapon in his rectum????????????  And if not a weapon, then what? It wasn't a drug arrest. You hear about people putting a balloon with containing drugs inside themselves, and the risk is that, if it bursts, they die from a massive overdose. But, we are not talking about drugs here, are we? The implication here seems to be weapon. So, they were concerned that Jack Ruby may have shoved a gun up his butt? They were actually concerned about that? Is that what you're telling me? Because I don't believe it. Not for a second. I don't think there is any chance that they believed such a thing. 

And think about something else: if you were arrested and being held at a police station, and someone ordered you to submit to a rectal exam, at the police station, are you going to do it? Are you not going to refuse? Because: you have the right to refuse. And if you do refuse, what are they going to do? Tie you down and do it anyway? I've never heard of such a thing. Have you ever heard of such a thing happening at a police station? YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE.  

Everybody knows that people get arrested all the time for all kinds of crimes, including murder, without submitting to rectal exams at police departments. But, it sounds like Jack Ruby just went along with it. Are you starting to get the picture now about him? About how docile he was? I'm not even sure if "docile" is a strong enough word. It's beyond docile. But I'll put it this way: they ought to make that the litmus for docility: if you submit to a rectal exam at a police station without fighting it, without resisting it, without refusing, you are the most docile mudderpluck to ever walk the face of the Earth. It doesn't get any more docile than that.

But, why did they do it? They could not have thought he had a gun up his butt. Are you kidding? They knew very well that Jack Ruby didn't shoot Oswald. So, why would he have a gun up his butt? 

All I can gather is that this was about psychologically battering Jack Ruby, destroying his sense of self, humiliating him, and also testing him to see how compliant he was. Was there anything he wouldn't do? Apparently not. 

But consider something else: you may be aware that I maintain that Ruby was drugged to get him to the police station, and the drug they gave him was scopolamine, which makes you compliant. It makes you do whatever you are told- no matter what. So, was that a factor in Ruby's willingness to cooperate with this outrageous demand?

And what about Bieberdorf? Was he used to doing rectal exams on prisoners at the police department? I don't get his cooperation about this either. It seems like he would have said, "What for?" And they weren't going to say "drugs" because drugs were not formally an issue that day. And if they said guns, he could have informed them that putting a pistol up his butt was not anything that Jack Ruby could have done, to just consider it to be physically impossible. He could have told them that. So, detectives and an FBI agent tell him to perform a rectal exam on a prisoner, and he just says, "OK" and does it? It's crazy! 

By the way, he said Ruby described the procedure as "the worst massage he ever got in his life."

I admit that I have a very bad impression of Dr. Fred Bieberdorf, both as a doctor and as a man, and it affects my opinion about where Oswald was shot. And I will render my opinion about where he was shot, but not tonight.  Part III comes tomorrow.   

No comments:

Post a Comment

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