Thoughts on a bus trip

[David Josephs]

Much has been written about whether Oswald was on the bus as identified by Bledsoe, McWatters and RM Jones.

I recently did a piece on the Rifle evidence which dovetails into the Bus Transfer since it, along with 5 incriminating bullets, were taken from Oswald within 15 minutes of the Markham line-up at 4:35pm 11/22

There are a number of arguments to be made about this part of the story - many of which I have made which are centered on Oswald having changed his shirt and pants at his room BEFORE leaving for the theater.

The evidence for such a change is rampant in the Oswald interrogation reports with no less than Bookout, Fritz, Hosty, and Kelley confirming he said he changed both pants and the long sleeve reddish button down shirt he wore to work.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/j..._0019a.htm Bookout
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/j..._0325b.htm Kelley

So one needs to ask whether Oswald would take an unused transfer out of his workshirt and transfer it to his Arrest shirt to go the theater while also grabbing loose bullets and shoving them into his pockets.

We must remember too that all the men writing their interrogation reports said he took a bus all the way and/or a bus and TRANSFER to his destination. Either way he would either 1) have used any transfer given to him or 2) did not ever get a transfer and was on the Marsalis bus the entire time (which stops a 10 min walk from his room at Marsalis and 5th)

More importantly is what FF YATES, McWATTERS and MILTON say about this man when the FBI finally gets around to writing a report on this activity in MARCH. 4+ months after the fact.

JONES has this man in a BLUE JACKET - 5'11" & 150lbs with only a possibility it was Oswald
McWATTERS recants his identification entirely - yet this peice of the pie seems not to have been mentioned very loudly
YATES tells us that he is unable to confirm which books McWatters had on Nov 22.

And finally... if Jones and McWatters are correct and it was NOT OSWALD, and he was wearing a blue jacket...

one wonders how she could see a hole in the elbow and 3 torn buttons when the faded grey work pants she ALSO described had been replaced by the almost black pair of arrest pants.

If one of the DPD cops were to help Bledsoe with her description of the shirt - looking at this image of 3 torn buttons, hole in the elbow and tucked into his pants, one might think she was helped along with her description... but those leaps of speculation are just that. How she could have seen the hole in the elbow while the man wore a jacket (even Whaley claimed he was wearing a blue jacket which matched his work clothing) remains a mystery.

Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. I didn't pay much attention to it right then. But it all came back when I really found out who I had. He was dressed in just ordinary work clothes. It wasn't khaki pants but they were khaki material, blue faded blue color, like a blue uniform made in khaki. Then he had on a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it and he had on some kind of jacket, I didn't notice very close but I think it was a work jacket that almost matched the pants. He, his shirt was open three buttons down here. He had on a T-shirt. You know, the shirt was open three buttons down there.

Mr. WHALEY. That jacket now it might have been clean, but the jacket he had on looked more the color, you know like a uniform set, but he had this coat here on over that other jacket, I am sure, sir.
Mr. BALL. This is the blue-gray jacket, heavy blue-gray jacket.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.






Mrs. BLEDSOE - He had a brown shirt.
Mr. BALL - And unraveled?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Hole in his sleeve right here [indicating].
Mr. BALL - Which is the elbow of the sleeve? That is, you pointed to the elbow?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, it is.
Mr. BALL - And that would be which elbow, right or left elbow?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Right.
Mr. BALL - Did he have anything on. Was the shirt open or was it buttoned?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes; all the buttons torn off.
Mr. BALL - What did he have on underneath that?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I don't know.
Mr. BALL - Do you know the color of any undershirt he had on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No.
Mr. BALL - Notice the color of his pants?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes, they were gray, and they were all ragged in here [indicating].
Mr. BALL - Around where?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - At the seam.
Mr. BALL - At the waist?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - At the waist, uh-huh.
Mr. BALL - Was the shirt tucked beneath the belt in his pants, or outside the belt?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; he had it in.
Mr. BALL - Had it tucked in?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No: it was tucked in.
Mr. BALL - So, that the belt of the pants was outside the shirt?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes; uh-huh.


A transfer - claimed to be in the pocket of the accused with a most dubious chain of possession and origination - is simply not enough corroborated evidence to conclude it was given to him. While the description sounds a lot like LEE and would definitely cause confusion... maybe it was LEE in the bus and our man Harvey getting into the Rambler... IDK

What I do know is the evidence does not support our little man Oswald on the McWatters bus. And Much like the majority of Mexico City evidence, the simple and standard records which would corroborate the evidence are gone with no explanation and even less consideration for the truth.

(edit: it took McWatters less than 2 weeks to reconsider what he had said in WC testimony yet he lived months with the knowledge about who he identified as on his bus Nov 22. Does this suggest that McWatters was somehow "motivated" to identify #2 man Oswald or it was so obvious that Oswald was the one suspect in the line, he went along. How Bledsoe could know details of a shirt Oswald had yet on put on - or why his work shirt would have three torn buttons, just the same as his arrest shirt... is also a mystery)

[Drew Phipps]

I do not have any trouble imagining the penny-pinching Oswald retaining the bus transfer. At this point, Oswald is either guilty (of something), or has figured out that he's being set up, do you agree? Having limited funds, and probably needing flexibility in his travel plans, I would expect him to retain a free and "good on any Dallas bus" transfer, even after he ditches the possibly incriminating work clothes.

[Bob Prudhomme]

I do not have any trouble imagining the penny-pinching Oswald retaining the bus transfer. At this point, Oswald is either guilty (of something), or has figured out that he's being set up, do you agree? Having limited funds, and probably needing flexibility in his travel plans, I would expect him to retain a free and "good on any Dallas bus" transfer, even after he ditches the possibly incriminating work clothes.

Bus transfers typically expire within a relatively short period of time, explaining why they are time stamped by the bus driver as they are handed out. After Oswald changed his shirt at the rooming house, and was headed to the theatre, would he have transferred the transfer to the clean shirt he had put on, if he was going to be watching a movie?

[David Josephs]

I do not have any trouble imagining the penny-pinching Oswald retaining the bus transfer. At this point, Oswald is either guilty (of something), or has figured out that he's being set up, do you agree? Having limited funds, and probably needing flexibility in his travel plans, I would expect him to retain a free and "good on any Dallas bus" transfer, even after he ditches the possibly incriminating work clothes.

Before I start please note that I meant the BECKLEY bus is one he could have been on which drops him off right next to his rooming house. The MARSALIS bus is the McWatter's bus from which a Transfer would be useful to get to Beckley.
Yet if he used the transfer, it couldn't have been found at the DPD.

Drew - Maybe I was not clear enough.

From the evidence offered, Oswald was NOT on that bus.
He never obtained that transfer which he never used.
There is no transfer book in evidence from which that transfer was taken -
There is no record of McWatter's books for that day
McWatters specifically within 2 weeks of his testimony that it WAS NOT OSWALD
McWatters states in his testimony - IT WAS NOT OSWALD
Milton Jones describes a completely different person wearing a blue jacket ala Whaley;
Therefore, Bledsoe sees holes in a shirt in places she could not have seen if the man was wearing a jacket.

The only item of evidence which attempts to authenticate his presence on that bus is a transfer NOT obtained at the time of arrest as all the reports state but hours later.

I agree that then man Ruby killed might be considered a penny-pincher... one with an amazing amount of very good photographic equipment and more than enough handy cash to take care of his life plus some...

That description of the man does not lead to his having been on the bus in the first place though Drew. Like asking about his shooting expertise - since he was NOT at the window, his shooting ability is a moot point.

=========================================================
"Mr. BALL - As I understand it, neither then nor now are you able to identify or say that you have again seen the man that got off your bus to whom you gave a transfer?
Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir; I couldn't. I could not identify him."
=========================================================

Why is it that every time we have evidence that exonnerates Oswald - spoken by a citizen caught up in the cover-up - we have such a hard time accepting what they say?
And things like the transfer book which would show a variety of "transfer cuts" at different time during the day is as gone to history as Holmes' Postal Money Order book from which the PMO was supposedly found...
That too is gone to history.

The FBI followed up and found the DPD coerced a #2 ID from McWatters. McWatters was talking about Jones. Who Jones was talking about is almost of no consequence at this point as it was not Oswald.
Whaley is an entirely different can of worms we can discuss at some other time.


Mr. BALL - You notice in the affidavit there it says, "This man"--referring to the man who was grinning--
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes.
Mr. BALL - "This man looks like the No. 1 man I saw in the lineup today."
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Who was the No. 2 man you saw in the lineup on November 22, 1963?
Mr. McWATTERS - Well, just like I say, he was the shortest man in the lineup, in other words, when they brought these men out there, in other words, he was about the shortest, and the lightest weight one, I guess, was the reason
I say that he looked like the man, because the rest of them were larger men than--
Mr. BALL - Well, now, at that time, when you saw the lineup--
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Were you under the impression that this man that you saw in the lineup and whom you pointed out to the police, was the teenage boy who had been grinning?
Mr. McWATTERS - I was, yes, sir; I was under the impression--
Mr. BALL - That was the fellow?
Mr. McWATTERS - That was the fellow.
Mr. BALL - You were not under the impression then that night when you saw the lineup that the No. 2 man in the lineup was the man who got off the bus, to whom you had given a transfer?
Mr. McWATTERS - T[B]hat is what I say.[/B] In other words, when I told them, I said, the only way is the man, that he is smaller, in other words, he kind of had a thin like face and he weighs less than any one of them. The only one I could identify at all would be the smaller man on account he was the only one who could come near fitting the description.
Mr. BALL - Let me ask you this, though. D[B]id you tell them the man, the smaller man, you saw in the lineup, did you tell them that you thought he was the man who got off your bus and got the transfer or the man who was on the bus who was the teenager who was grinning?
Mr. McWATTERS - Well, I really thought he was the man who was on the bus. [/B]
Mr. BALL - That stayed on the bus?
Mr. McWATTERS - That stayed on the bus.
Mr. BALL - And you didn't think he was the man who got off the bus and to whom you gave a transfer?
Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir.



Mr. BALL - Let's get back to that lineup.
Did you pick out one man or two men that night as people you had seen, as a person you had seen before?
Mr. McWATTERS - Well, I picked out, the only one that I told them it was the short man that I picked out up there.
Mr. BALL - And you thought he was the teenager whom you described?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, first that is what I thought he was.
Mr. BALL - Now you have named him Milton Jones.
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, he was--
Mr. BALL - Now you realize you were mistaken in your identification that night?
Mr. McWATTERS - That is right.
Mr. BALL - As I understand it, neither then nor now are you able to identify or say that you have again seen the man that got off your bus to whom you gave a transfer?
Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir; I couldn't. I could not identify him.

[Drew Phipps]

Bob: I don't think that Oswald went to the movie theater because he wanted to see the movie. I think Oswald, when he leaves work, must be weighing his flight options. It is conceivable that Oswald thought someone was going to meet him, but he might have retained the transfer just in case he had to take a bus ride to the Greyhound station to get out of town. (I think I recall reading (DJ's article?) McWatters say that the transfer was good for four hours, which, if true, gives Oswald a travel option window until 4:30-ish). I think its far more likely that, whatever Oswald originally planned to do, when he left the TSBD, he's had second thoughts about, out of concern for his own survival.

At the point where he went into the movie theatre, he's just killed a cop (or is getting framed for same). He's ditching his jacket to change his appearance, and there are cop cars all over the neighborhood. I think he's just trying to get off the street, and/or working on an alibi for the Tippet shooting. Maybe he's meeting someone by changing his seat in the movie house, maybe he's making himself memorable to potential alibi witnesses.

DJ: You don't prove something to be true, by arguing that nobody has proved anything different. For instance, a lack of convincing proof that he was on the bus, doesn't justify concluding that he wasn't on the bus, just means that it isn't convincingly proven. Same thing with Roger Craig's testimony about the station wagon.

I agree that there are problems with the bus evidence. Most all of the evidence in the case has one or more problems. I'm interested in learning more about your research. But, if you assume that your conclusion is true (i.e. "Oswald didn't shoot JFK") then, of course, discussing the evidence is pointless, (i.e. his shooting ability).

On the other hand, I am interested in following the evidence with as few assumptions as possible, so that I might be able to evaluate conclusions and results without being handicapped by the "blinkers" or "rose-colored glasses" of my own preconceptions.



Image credit: http://www.stubbornthings.org/wearing-blinkers/

[David Josephs]

On the other hand, I am interested in following the evidence with as few assumptions as possible, so that I might be able to evaluate conclusions and results without being handicapped by the "blinkers" or "rose-colored glasses" of my own preconceptions.

I too am interested in that Drew. I've written half dozen articles on The Evidence IS the Conspiracy and continue to add to that list.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Evidence cannot shed light on what occurred on Elm Street that day. The Evidence we have is designed to illuminate a single story - Oswald, the Lone Nut, killed JFK.

My point about his shooting ability is NOT that I preconclude he did not shoot JFK... but that the evidence cannot get him to the window in the first place.

The evidence cannot get THAT rifle to the TSBD connected to Oswald. So discussing his shooting ability before you get him with a rifle to the window at the right time is non-sequitor.

Cecil McWatters tells us repeatedly that the man on his bus was NOT Oswald and that the DPD railroaded him into a line-up in order to get more incriminating evidence against Oswald.

So Drew, if the bus driver specifically says it was not Oswald who he gave a transfer to... why do we talk about the finding of a transfer in a shirt pocket he was not even wearing at the time, 2+ hours after he is arrested?

In my work on the Pistol Evidence I was concerned with when and where OSwald was searched according to the Evidence:

Mr. BELIN. By the way, did you search the suspect that you brought in from the Texas Theatre?
Mr. HILL. As to any other possible weapon?
Mr. BELIN. Yes; or ammunition?
Mr. HILL. I did not search him, and being that he was hand cuffed, and being that they were moving him out hurriedly, I don't recall anyone else searching him after he was placed under arrest.

Mr. BALL. He hadn't been searched up to that time, had he?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he had been searched.
Mr. BALL. Wasn't he searched later in the jail office?
Mr. FRITZ. He was searched, the officers who arrested him made the first search, I am sure.

TL Baker - who was supposedly given the pistol remembers them searching Oswald yet AGAIN when Sims and Boyd supposedly find the incriminating evidence.
Seems that first search was not as thorough as they had hoped I guess...

DJ: You don't prove something to be true, by arguing that nobody has proved anything different. For instance, a lack of convincing proof that he was on the bus, doesn't justify concluding that he wasn't on the bus, just means that it isn't convincingly proven.

I'm sorry Drew - please point to where I am arguing that "nobody has proved anything different". I find and bring to light the evidence which relates to the question. Yet if it appears I am doing what you claim... I'd like to make sure to change that... I show that everyone who wrote a report about the interrogation says he changed both his dirty grey pants and reddish, long sleeve button down shirt.

What parts of this following statement does not support the conclusion that McWatters could not ID Oswald as the man on his bus, in fact he goes out of his way 2 weeks after these statements to solidufy his position in an FBI report from March 26 I posted in a previous post ?

"Mr. BALL- As I understand it, neither then nor now are you able to identify or say that you have again seen the man that got off your bus to whom you gave a transfer?
Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir; I couldn't. I could not identify him."

Thanks
DJ

[Alan Ford]

You are an excellent researcher, Mr. Joseph, absolutely admire and appreciate your keen insights.

In respect to the whole bus/cab scenario, I personally don't believe the wrongfully accused was anywhere near a bus or cab that afternoon, in spite of officialdom putting words into a deadman's mouth to the contrary.

I once set out many moons ago to research the phantom bus and cab rides, but upon reading the following Warren Commission testimony from Mrs. Bledsoe, who swore up and down she saw the wrongfully accused on her bus, I caught her in a lie that suggests she is also lying about the phantom bus encounter as well. One lie needs another lie....Here's her outright lie as she describes an early encounter with Oswald on October 7, 1963 when she was showing him a room she had for rent (please note this encounter takes place weeks before the birth of his 2nd infant child, Rachel, later that month ---->

Mr. JENNER - He told you at that time and informed you that he was unemployed?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - And he would be seeking work?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - And he said that he was going to bring his wife?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - And--when and if he obtained employment?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - And so, that give me a lead, something to talk about, and I said, "Well, what kind of work do you do? "Oh, I do electronics," he said, and I said, "Well, there is some good jobs because you are young, and you can get a good job a young man like you."
And then went on. Then something about him being in the Marines, and I said, "Well, that is wonderful. My son was in the Navy." And talking about him, you know, just getting to know him, and--but, "here is a picture of my wife, and picture of the girl, and the baby." And I said, "Oh, she has got a baby, hasn't she?" And he said, "Yes."

[Bob Prudhomme]

You are an excellent researcher, Mr. Joseph, absolutely admire and appreciate your keen insights.

In respect to the whole bus/cab scenario, I personally don't believe the wrongfully accused was anywhere near a bus or cab that afternoon, in spite of officialdom putting words into a deadman's mouth to the contrary.

I once set out many moons ago to research the phantom bus and cab rides, but upon reading the following Warren Commission testimony from Mrs. Bledsoe, who swore up and down she saw the wrongfully accused on her bus, I caught her in a lie that suggests she is also lying about the phantom bus encounter as well. One lie needs another lie....Here's her outright lie as she describes an early encounter with Oswald on October 7, 1963 when she was showing him a room she had for rent (please note this encounter takes place weeks before the birth of his 2nd infant child, Rachel, later that month ---->

Mr. JENNER - He told you at that time and informed you that he was unemployed?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - And he would be seeking work?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - And he said that he was going to bring his wife?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - And--when and if he obtained employment?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - And so, that give me a lead, something to talk about, and I said, "Well, what kind of work do you do? "Oh, I do electronics," he said, and I said, "Well, there is some good jobs because you are young, and you can get a good job a young man like you."
And then went on. Then something about him being in the Marines, and I said, "Well, that is wonderful. My son was in the Navy." And talking about him, you know, just getting to know him, and--but, "here is a picture of my wife, and picture of the girl, and the baby." And I said, "Oh, she has got a baby, hasn't she?" And he said, "Yes."

Uh oh......

Good catch, BTW.

[David Josephs]

You are an excellent researcher, Mr. Joseph, absolutely admire and appreciate your keen insights.

In respect to the whole bus/cab scenario, I personally don't believe the wrongfully accused was anywhere near a bus or cab that afternoon, in spite of officialdom putting words into a deadman's mouth to the contrary.

I once set out many moons ago to research the phantom bus and cab rides, but upon reading the following Warren Commission testimony from Mrs. Bledsoe, who swore up and down she saw the wrongfully accused on her bus, I caught her in a lie that suggests she is also lying about the phantom bus encounter as well. One lie needs another lie....Here's her outright lie as she describes an early encounter with Oswald on October 7, 1963 when she was showing him a room she had for rent (please note this encounter takes place weeks before the birth of his 2nd infant child, Rachel, later that month ---->

Mr. JENNER - He told you at that time and informed you that he was unemployed?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - And he would be seeking work?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - And he said that he was going to bring his wife?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - And--when and if he obtained employment?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - And so, that give me a lead, something to talk about, and I said, "Well, what kind of work do you do? "Oh, I do electronics," he said, and I said, "Well, there is some good jobs because you are young, and you can get a good job a young man like you."
And then went on. Then something about him being in the Marines, and I said, "Well, that is wonderful. My son was in the Navy." And talking about him, you know, just getting to know him, and--but, "here is a picture of my wife, and picture of the girl, and the baby." And I said, "Oh, she has got a baby, hasn't she?" And he said, "Yes."

Thank you so much for the kind words Alan.

Sadly I will have to disagree with your assessment of what was said by Bledsoe. Below is the calendar she speaks of and what could have passed for the images shown given the comments.
I'm just not sure based on what is said and not knowing what was shown that he would be showing any "baby" photos.

I'm fairly sure that it was a 2 part sentence with 2 photos being shown.

1) here is a picture of my wife and
2) picture of the girl (Marina) and the baby (June) - the photo on the right includes Ozzie of course so it may not have been the one shown... I'd have to go dig to see if we can find which images he showed her.

"here is a picture of my wife, and picture of the girl, and the baby"

Yet I could be totally off here and the testimony could have been contrived... I just find that hard to believe given what they knew about when everyone was born by the time she testifies.
That afternoon though, her descrption of the arrest shirt - imo - gives away her complicit nature.

Oh, and McWatters once again said it was not Oswald... why, I wonder, is that not enough for some folk.

DJ

[Drew Phipps]

From the evidence offered, Oswald was NOT on that bus.
He never obtained that transfer which he never used.
There is no transfer book in evidence from which that transfer was taken -
There is no record of McWatter's books for that day

The only item of evidence which attempts to authenticate his presence on that bus is a transfer NOT obtained at the time of arrest as all the reports state

That description of the man does not lead to his having been on the bus in the first place though Drew. Like asking about his shooting expertise - since he was NOT at the window, his shooting ability is a moot point.

When I speak of the evidence, I don't mean just some of the evidence. I mean all of it. When you capitalize the letter E at the start of the word, in support of your catchphrase, you are referring to a subset of the evidence, which I take to mean, "evidence fabricated to support the official version of events," because any non-fabricated evidence of Oswald's guilt or involvement by definition couldn't be a byproduct of a conspiracy to frame him, and the evidence that tends to exonerate him wouldn't have any value to such a conspiracy.

The only evidence that Oswald didn't get on the bus is McWatter's recantation (after twice going on the record), and Roger Craig's story of Oswald's escape. An attack on the caliber of the bus evidence, or the credibility of the bus witnesses, is simply an attempt to undermine the official story, not proof of a different story. You may find it convenient to attack such evidence, or necessary, but it doesn't prove a different proposition. See argumentum ad ignorantiam. (Don't take that the wrong way, I'm not attempting to insult. I'm suggesting that this argument tactic is a well-known and time-honored logical fallacy with a Latin name.)