Search
Display results as :
Advanced Search
Log in
Social bookmarking
Social bookmarking digg  Social bookmarking delicious  Social bookmarking reddit  Social bookmarking stumbleupon  Social bookmarking slashdot  Social bookmarking yahoo  Social bookmarking google  Social bookmarking blogmarks  Social bookmarking live      

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website
RSS feeds

Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 
Like/Tweet/+1
Affiliates
free forum
 



Share
Go down
greg parker
Admin
Posts : 5738
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 61
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
View user profilehttp:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Wed 03 Apr 2013, 7:45 pm
Though let me say that I don't believe that Oswald was ever outside Brewer's store looking "funny/scared".

Exactly, Hasan. It's total crap.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

“God favors drunks, small children, and the cataclysmically stoned...” Steve King
"The worst thing about some men is that when they are not drunk they are sober." Billy Yeats
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." Dino Martin



https://www.thenewdisease.space
avatar
Guest
Guest

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Wed 03 Apr 2013, 7:46 pm
greg parker wrote:
"While in Harrison on this occasion, Crafard said he had been employed by Jack Ruby at the Carousel Club in Dallas. In addition to being a book-keeper and janitor for Ruby, he 'worked the lights' during the floor show and '...got tired of watching naked women.' Crafard claimed that he served as Jack Ruby's 'personal secretary;' he had coffee with Ruby in the latter's office, and he and Ruby occasionally sat at the end of the bar near the rear door of the Carousel Club and talked. According to Mrs Cascaddan, these statements by Crafard were apparently designed to demonstrate was not only an employee, but also a 'buddy' of Ruby. Too, Crafard gave the impression that his employment by Ruby was a 'big deal' and it had been an honor to work for him." https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11475&relPageId=4

Crafard's exuberance about having worked for Ruby may be partly explained by Ruby's sudden infamy. But I don't think it solely explains it. Ruby knew people. Ruby dropped names. Ruby talked big. And he was kind of in show biz. Crafard had run concession stands at fairs and done a few other drab jobs. He had been given an early general discharge from the army. Ruby gave him "important" jobs. Important sounding titles. It's no wonder Crafard looked up to him.

Now go back to Ralph's hitch-hiker. He allegedly asked Ralph if he knew Ruby or had heard of the Carousel. Those pushing the doppleganger theory make all sorts of nonsense out of that.

But if this was Crafard (as I think is more than possible), it makes sense that he was asking about Ruby. If Yates had heard of this important man, Crafard could brag that he worked for him, or was an associate, and that was where he was headed: to the Carousel. It would have been a big boost to his self-esteem.

When the answer to both was negative, the subject was probably dropped and there would be no point to asking to be taken those 6 or so extra blocks...

Yates described his hiker as

5' 9"
slender
dark eyebrows and hair

FBI description of Crafard

Age. 22
Height. 5'8"
Weight. 150 lbs
Hair. Brown
Eyes. Brown
Complexion. Med
1/2" scar center of upper lip

Photo of Crafard

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0100a.htm

I note RC-D does not think Crafard's hair and eyebrows could be described as "dark". Maybe it's just me, but I don't think "dark" is exactly way off the mark.

Crafard was mistaken for Oswald at an electronic store. That's now beyond dispute.

Addionally, I think he was mistaken for Oswald in the Carousel club, at sex parties Ruby held or attended, and possibly at Dobb's House just before Yates drove onto the scene in his trusty pickup.


Greg,

Any idea what was involved in homosexual aversion therapy in the 1960's? Ralph was possibly seeing a psychiatrist and was on medication prior to his FBI visit. Do you think it likely that he was part of an aversion programme with Dr. Weaver? i mean, homosexuality in many circles was seen as a mental illness wasn't it?

He turns up to his first FBI interview with his uncle and not his wife. He specifically asks that he not receive any media attention. He cannot prove why he was in Oak Cliff. He's picking up strange men and this one (possibly) just happens to hang around with Big Butch Pinky Ruby.

Would his wife finding out, if he was partaking in homosexual activities, not send him a bit doo-lally? Five kids?

P.S. I thought the eyebrows quote from RCD was a bit left-field. Does the case hinge on dark versus brown eyebrows?



Last edited by Lee David Farley on Wed 03 Apr 2013, 8:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
Hasan Yusuf
Posts : 1899
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 30
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
View user profilehttp://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Wed 03 Apr 2013, 7:55 pm
greg parker wrote:Lee,

Here's what I get, in part,

"I thought you could tell it by looking at my face and the way I touched you & talked to you. I guess that for some stupid reason I thought you may have felt the same way."

The big question is - is it addressed to "Gail" or "Gale" because the former would more than likely denote "female" and the latter, a "male" - as in the actor Gale Gordon.

Greg,

After looking at the Crafard letter a second time, it looks to me like you're right. Except instead of "I guess that for some stupid reason I thought you may have felt the same way" I think it's "I guess that for some stupid reason I hoped that you might have felt the same way".

Could Crafard's writing have honestly been worse.
avatar
Guest
Guest

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Wed 03 Apr 2013, 8:19 pm
Greg,

The WC brought a Robert Carl Patterson in concerning the name Boby Patterson being in /Ruby/Crafard's notebook. He said he played the Vegas Club as a musician and that's why his name was in the book.

I'd like to find out if the Tippt shooting witness called Patterson (who was with Lewis) was any relation to Robert K. Patterson.

P.S. Crafard's WC exhibit's has one missing from what I can tell
greg parker
Admin
Posts : 5738
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 61
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
View user profilehttp:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Wed 03 Apr 2013, 8:38 pm
Greg,

Any idea what was involved in homosexual aversion therapy in the 1960's? Ralph was possibly seeing a psychiatrist and was on medication prior to his FBI visit. Do you think it likely that he was part of an aversion programme with Dr. Weaver? i mean, homosexuality in many circles was seen as a mental illness wasn't it?


Actually I can answer this straight away from past mkultra/ferrie research.

Dr Robert Heath at Tulane...


Maybe they were doing something similar in Dallas... or using other methods, but this does show that homosexuality was something to be "cured".

He turns up to his first FBI interview with his uncle and not his wife. He specifically asks that he not receive any media attention. He cannot prove why he was in Oak Cliff. He's picking up strange men and this one (possibly) just happens to hang around with Big Butch Pinky Ruby.

Would his wife finding out, if he was partaking in homosexual activities, not send him a bit doo-lally? Five kids?

P.S. I thought the eyebrows quote from RCD was a bit left-field. Does the case hinge on dark versus brown eyebrows?


I don't know. Maybe Robert's thinking was that Crafard's just aren't memorable...

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

“God favors drunks, small children, and the cataclysmically stoned...” Steve King
"The worst thing about some men is that when they are not drunk they are sober." Billy Yeats
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." Dino Martin



https://www.thenewdisease.space
greg parker
Admin
Posts : 5738
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 61
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
View user profilehttp:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Wed 03 Apr 2013, 8:40 pm
The Treatment of Homosexuality as a Disease
Until 1973, when the American Psychiatric Association officially removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders....

http://www.drcsilverstein.com/publications/history

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

“God favors drunks, small children, and the cataclysmically stoned...” Steve King
"The worst thing about some men is that when they are not drunk they are sober." Billy Yeats
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." Dino Martin



https://www.thenewdisease.space
greg parker
Admin
Posts : 5738
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 61
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
View user profilehttp:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Wed 03 Apr 2013, 8:48 pm
This is from Crafard's testimony:

Mr. HUBERT. How long did you serve altogether?
Mr. CRAFARD. Thirteen months.
Mr. HUBERT. Is that the usual tour?
Mr. CRAFARD. No, sir. The usual tour is 3 to 4 years.
Mr. HUBERT. Well now, what caused you to get out sooner?
Mr. CRAFARD. As far as I understand it is the next thing to a medical discharge.
Mr. HUBERT. What was it based upon, do you know?
Mr. CRAFARD. General, under honorable conditions.
A medical discharge would be under honorable conditions - not general.

What will get you a general discharge is being gay.

From a site on how to get out of the army:

4. Claim to be gay or bisexual. Under the "don't ask, don't tell" law, expressing attraction to the same sex or engaging in "homosexual acts" is grounds for discharge. Sounds much better than shooting yourself in the foot for a medical discharge, doesn't it? There are two problems, however. First of all, if your commander doesn't believe you, you won't get the discharge. Secondly, you will get a "General Discharge" rather than the "Honorable Discharge" given to most soldiers, which is somewhat of a blot on your record.
http://www.ehow.com/how_4840471_out-military-early.html

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

“God favors drunks, small children, and the cataclysmically stoned...” Steve King
"The worst thing about some men is that when they are not drunk they are sober." Billy Yeats
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." Dino Martin



https://www.thenewdisease.space
avatar
Guest
Guest

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Wed 03 Apr 2013, 8:59 pm
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PJfUHb7mB9UC&pg=PA328&lpg=PA328&dq=jolly+west+homosexual+aversion&source=bl&ots=XUcppGwe3U&sig=yU-pIPGruZAr4HntEH7WMysm_lQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GP1bUdypD4Oh0QXZqYCoDQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=jolly%20west%20homosexual%20aversion&f=false

Some aversion programmes also consisted of shock therapy which I believe Ralph Yates was subjected to many of.

From the looks of it BYU and the Mormons were still trying to cure homosexuality this way long after it was taken off the mental illness list.


Last edited by Lee David Farley on Wed 03 Apr 2013, 9:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
greg parker
Admin
Posts : 5738
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 61
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
View user profilehttp:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Wed 03 Apr 2013, 9:11 pm
Lee David Farley wrote:http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PJfUHb7mB9UC&pg=PA328&lpg=PA328&dq=jolly+west+homosexual+aversion&source=bl&ots=XUcppGwe3U&sig=yU-pIPGruZAr4HntEH7WMysm_lQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GP1bUdypD4Oh0QXZqYCoDQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=jolly%20west%20homosexual%20aversion&f=false

1975... 2 years after homosexuality was taken out of the textbooks as a psychiatric problem.

I actually remember Nixon's push to eradicate violence the West way... it was a huge story in the day...

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

“God favors drunks, small children, and the cataclysmically stoned...” Steve King
"The worst thing about some men is that when they are not drunk they are sober." Billy Yeats
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." Dino Martin



https://www.thenewdisease.space
avatar
Guest
Guest

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Wed 03 Apr 2013, 9:13 pm
greg parker wrote:
Lee David Farley wrote:http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PJfUHb7mB9UC&pg=PA328&lpg=PA328&dq=jolly+west+homosexual+aversion&source=bl&ots=XUcppGwe3U&sig=yU-pIPGruZAr4HntEH7WMysm_lQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GP1bUdypD4Oh0QXZqYCoDQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=jolly%20west%20homosexual%20aversion&f=false

1975... 2 years after homosexuality was taken out of the textbooks as a psychiatric problem.

I actually remember Nixon's push to eradicate violence the West way... it was a huge story in the day...

If Jolly was still up to after it was taken off the list then one can only imagine what he was up to when it was on it.
avatar
Guest
Guest

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Wed 03 Apr 2013, 9:19 pm
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=147009

greg parker
Admin
Posts : 5738
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 61
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
View user profilehttp:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Wed 03 Apr 2013, 9:29 pm
Lee David Farley wrote:
greg parker wrote:
Lee David Farley wrote:http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PJfUHb7mB9UC&pg=PA328&lpg=PA328&dq=jolly+west+homosexual+aversion&source=bl&ots=XUcppGwe3U&sig=yU-pIPGruZAr4HntEH7WMysm_lQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GP1bUdypD4Oh0QXZqYCoDQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=jolly%20west%20homosexual%20aversion&f=false

1975... 2 years after homosexuality was taken out of the textbooks as a psychiatric problem.

I actually remember Nixon's push to eradicate violence the West way... it was a huge story in the day...

If Jolly was still up to after it was taken off the list then one can only imagine what he was up to when it was on it.

More from http://www.drcsilverstein.com/publications/history

The behaviorist school in psychology also attempted to convert gay people into heterosexuals. Some of their treatments were caustic. Three forms of aversion therapy were used. The first was electrical aversion therapy, in which an electric shock was administered to the patient if he responded erotically to a picture of a new man. Another technique was called covert sensitization, in which disgust and images of vomit were thought to cure homosexual desire. The third type of aversion therapy used the drug apomorphine, which induces nausea in the patient. Gay liberationists viewed these aversive procedures as punishment, not treatment.

Davison, who later rejected his early work, called his system "Playboy therapy," in which a gay man masturbated to pictures of naked women. A good review of the aversion therapy literature is provided by Bancroft, who himself contributed significantly to the aversion therapy literature. Masters and Johnson also attempted to change the sexual orientation of gay people.

Perhaps the most bizarre attempt to reorient the sexual orientation of a gay man was performed by Heath at Tulane University in 1972. Heath implanted electrodes into the brain of a gay man. The patient was then placed in a room with a woman prostitute, who was hired to seduce him. As the same time, Heath stimulated the pleasure centers in the brain of the man. This attempt was not a success.

Was Crafard "encouraged" to get married as part of some therapy... so deliberately chose a lesbian to circumnavigate the "cure"?

Was he "sick of looking at naked women" as his cousin quoted him, because he had been forced to feed the chickens with the help of Playboy?

I think you may be onto something with Ralph.... the above is far more speculative... but who knows?

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

“God favors drunks, small children, and the cataclysmically stoned...” Steve King
"The worst thing about some men is that when they are not drunk they are sober." Billy Yeats
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." Dino Martin



https://www.thenewdisease.space
avatar
Posts : 107
Join date : 2011-08-10
View user profile

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Thu 04 Apr 2013, 9:11 am
Crafard being gay is entirely conceivable, for reasons stated. It would also help explain why Ruby so instantly placed him in a position of great trust.

But Ralph Yates? While not impossible, in my experience on this planet, gay men don’t usually have five children. Not because they’re incapable of the contribution required, but because they don’t relish physical intimacy with women sufficiently to impregnate a woman five times. Yet Ralph seems to have managed five kids by a very early age, indeed. But anything’s possible, one supposes.

As for the description of hair and eyebrows provided by Yates, “dark” is a relative term and it would have been nice had authorities insisted on an actual colour, such as black or brown or chestnut, or what have you. Perhaps it’s just me, but when I think of blonde, brunette and black, I think light, medium and dark.

Though I cannot at present recall where, I long ago saw a photo of Crafard in which he looked more fair than he is usually depicted in photos, and thought the difference was down to using some kind of pomade like Brylcreem. Pre-Beatles, slicked hair was very much the fashion in North America, and the requisite liberal use of pomade gave me - for example - hair several shades darker than what the Good Lord provided me.

Crafard-as-hitchhiker would explain much, but I’m not sure how one would be able to corroborate it. And I do think that had it been him, he would have prevailed upon Yates to drive him to the club instead of Houston and Elm. Unless, or course, that was his intended destination because he was dropping something off for Warren Caster, who apparently needed new curtain rods. ;-)
avatar
Guest
Guest

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Thu 04 Apr 2013, 11:32 am
Yates polygraph fact: Dorothy Yates told James Douglass in 2006 that the FBI in January 1964 told her that her husband was telling the truth at his polygraph test.

I really can't express the reasons why it was reported as inconclusive better than Jim DiEugenio and Albert Doyle have at Deep Politics, so I will repost excerpts from their posts #23 and #24:

DiEugenio: I have never heard of not getting any reactions to control questions.

A control question is one in which the operator asks the witness a question that he can predict the outcome. He does this to get good test readings to compare the relevant questions to.

An experienced operator knows the questions to ask here in order to get the desired result...

Doyle: ...A lie will cause muscle tightening, increased breathing, and other nervous responses that register at the electronic sensor level as the mind worries about incriminating conflicts and getting caught. This can generally be called "emotional responses." Meanwhile a truthful person is relaxed and casual and feels no reasons for stress when answering the questions. This shows up on the polygraph as relaxed chart lines that flow without any wiggles.

So FBI had a problem where it needed to construct semantics that would satisfy their need to obey national security orders while not directly lying about the true test results. The simple answer was to use the wording "Yates showed no emotional response to the questions." In other words Yates showed no wiggles or stress reactions to the questions. His chart flowed smoothly without any observable reaction. In a very perverted interpretation of the results the FBI said the results were "inconclusive."

*******

Since it was reported that Yates responded to neither control questions nor relevant questions, i.e. since he supposedly flat-lined to both types of questions, I have to assume that the examiner didn't ask any (not one) control question that would trigger a deceptive response, in order to set a benchmark for comparison, for detecting a lie when the pertinent questions were asked.

That's a pretty suspect test, and it seems that before they commenced it they wanted a null result.



greg parker
Admin
Posts : 5738
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 61
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
View user profilehttp:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Thu 04 Apr 2013, 6:37 pm
Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:Crafard being gay is entirely conceivable, for reasons stated. It would also help explain why Ruby so instantly placed him in a position of great trust.

"He [Ruby] liked to surround himself with clean cut, well-dressed 'Hollywood"-type men because it made him feel important."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=57076&relPageId=88

But Ralph Yates? While not impossible, in my experience on this planet, gay men don’t usually have five children. Not because they’re incapable of the contribution required, but because they don’t relish physical intimacy with women sufficiently to impregnate a woman five times. Yet Ralph seems to have managed five kids by a very early age, indeed. But anything’s possible, one supposes.

I'm pretty sure Crafard's lesbian wife had a kid with him, and I've heard of fathers waiting for their kids to grow up and then having a sex change. As you say, anything is possible. Maybe he just "turned" or maybe he had been trying extra hard to live in denial. Five kids. Who's gonna question his manliness?

As for the description of hair and eyebrows provided by Yates, “dark” is a relative term and it would have been nice had authorities insisted on an actual colour, such as black or brown or chestnut, or what have you. Perhaps it’s just me, but when I think of blonde, brunette and black, I think light, medium and dark.

Though I cannot at present recall where, I long ago saw a photo of Crafard in which he looked more fair than he is usually depicted in photos, and thought the difference was down to using some kind of pomade like Brylcreem. Pre-Beatles, slicked hair was very much the fashion in North America, and the requisite liberal use of pomade gave me - for example - hair several shades darker than what the Good Lord provided me.

Thanks for clarifying your definitions. Maybe he wore pomade that day?

Crafard-as-hitchhiker would explain much, but I’m not sure how one would be able to corroborate it.

Well, the doppleganger theory has been getting along just fine without corroboration. Just lots of picking and choosing and misrepresentation of evidence.

And I do think that had it been him, he would have prevailed upon Yates to drive him to the club instead of Houston and Elm.

I tried to cover this earlier:
----------------------------------
While in Harrison on this occasion, Crafard said he had been employed by Jack Ruby at the Carousel Club in Dallas. In addition to being a book-keeper and janitor for Ruby, he 'worked the lights' during the floor show and '...got tired of watching naked women.' Crafard claimed that he served as Jack Ruby's 'personal secretary;' he had coffee with Ruby in the latter's office, and he and Ruby occasionally sat at the end of the bar near the rear door of the Carousel Club and talked. According to Mrs Cascaddan, these statements by Crafard were apparently designed to demonstrate was not only an employee, but also a 'buddy' of Ruby. Too, Crafard gave the impression that his employment by Ruby was a 'big deal' and it had been an honor to work for him." https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11475&relPageId=4

Crafard's exuberance about having worked for Ruby may be partly explained by Ruby's sudden infamy. But I don't think it solely explains it. Ruby knew people. Ruby dropped names. Ruby talked big. And he was kind of in show biz. Crafard had run concession stands at fairs and done a few other drab jobs. He had been given an early general discharge from the army. Ruby gave him "important" jobs. Important sounding titles. It's no wonder Crafard looked up to him.

Now go back to Ralph's hitch-hiker. He allegedly asked Ralph if he knew Ruby or had heard of the Carousel. Those pushing the doppleganger theory make all sorts of nonsense out of that.

But if this was Crafard (as I think is more than possible), it makes sense that he was asking about Ruby. If Yates had heard of this important man, Crafard could brag that he worked for him, or was an associate, and that was where he was headed: to the Carousel. It would have been a big boost to his self-esteem.

When the answer to both was negative, the subject was probably dropped and there would be no point to asking to be taken those 6 or so extra blocks...

-----------------------------------------------------
Unless, or course, that was his intended destination because he was dropping something off for Warren Caster, who apparently needed new curtain rods. ;-) bom

On Yates and his request for anonymity:

Consider that his request had nothing to do with fear of reprisals from conspirators. If he was in Oak Cliff "cruising" for men, I think that would be sufficient reason to want to keep a low profile. It would also account for no one supporting him having a work-related reason to be there and why he was trawling around looking for a time he was legitimately there so he could say "well it must have been that day."

There is no doubt in my mind that Larry was not only gay but that he was prostituting himself. That Californian jacket was almost a "trade" uniform (yes, the jacket also underwent scrutiny - not by me - but in a thorough, professional manner by someone trusted, even to the extent of talking to clothing historians, among others. For these reasons, I believe it was Crafard and not Oswald seen by witnesses at Ruby's swinging sex parties.

Since it was brought up at the other forum regarding "typical" doppleganger sightings... are there any other examples where the "double" not only forgets to say his name is "Oswald", but DOES mention Ruby and the Carousel?



_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

“God favors drunks, small children, and the cataclysmically stoned...” Steve King
"The worst thing about some men is that when they are not drunk they are sober." Billy Yeats
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." Dino Martin



https://www.thenewdisease.space
greg parker
Admin
Posts : 5738
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 61
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
View user profilehttp:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Thu 04 Apr 2013, 6:54 pm
Richard Gilbride wrote:Yates polygraph fact: Dorothy Yates told James Douglass in 2006 that the FBI in January 1964 told her that her husband was telling the truth at his polygraph test.

Richard, Can you explain why they would say that to her while writing something entirely different in the report?

I really can't express the reasons why it was reported as inconclusive better than Jim DiEugenio and Albert Doyle have at Deep Politics, so I will repost excerpts from their posts #23 and #24:

DiEugenio: I have never heard of not getting any reactions to control questions.

A control question is one in which the operator asks the witness a question that he can predict the outcome. He does this to get good test readings to compare the relevant questions to.

An experienced operator knows the questions to ask here in order to get the desired result...

Doyle: ...A lie will cause muscle tightening, increased breathing, and other nervous responses that register at the electronic sensor level as the mind worries about incriminating conflicts and getting caught. This can generally be called "emotional responses." Meanwhile a truthful person is relaxed and casual and feels no reasons for stress when answering the questions. This shows up on the polygraph as relaxed chart lines that flow without any wiggles.

Doyle knew shit all about this at the start. He's slooowly catching on. Now he only has to cotton on to control questions and the reason for them, and what it means if you are not giving out significant readings on either set of questions.

So FBI had a problem where it needed to construct semantics that would satisfy their need to obey national security orders while not directly lying about the true test results. The simple answer was to use the wording "Yates showed no emotional response to the questions." In other words Yates showed no wiggles or stress reactions to the questions. His chart flowed smoothly without any observable reaction. In a very perverted interpretation of the results the FBI said the results were "inconclusive."

And your proof is.... you don't like it.... so it must mean the FBI was lying. How easy is that?

*******

Since it was reported that Yates responded to neither control questions nor relevant questions, i.e. since he supposedly flat-lined to both types of questions, I have to assume that the examiner didn't ask any (not one) control question that would trigger a deceptive response, in order to set a benchmark for comparison, for detecting a lie when the pertinent questions were asked.

That's a pretty suspect test, and it seems that before they commenced it they wanted a null result.

Please show me something from a professional journal which supports your claim that this test was "suspect".

Anyone can make claims from ignorance, Richard. Demonstrate it's not the case here.



_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

“God favors drunks, small children, and the cataclysmically stoned...” Steve King
"The worst thing about some men is that when they are not drunk they are sober." Billy Yeats
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." Dino Martin



https://www.thenewdisease.space
avatar
Guest
Guest

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Thu 04 Apr 2013, 10:44 pm
Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:
But Ralph Yates? While not impossible, in my experience on this planet, gay men don’t usually have five children. Not because they’re incapable of the contribution required, but because they don’t relish physical intimacy with women sufficiently to impregnate a woman five times. Yet Ralph seems to have managed five kids by a very early age, indeed. But anything’s possible, one supposes.

The Internet, and gossip-type magazines, are littered with stories of contemporary gay men who have married straight women and gone on to have children.

I agree that on first glance five kids may seem like a large amount of children for a closeted gay man to have. However, I did not live in the American South of the 1960's and do not know the pressure that many gay men were under to keep a lid on their sexuality. I would not be surprised if thousands of closeted gay men had children and it would not surprise me if some closeted gay men had more than five children. We do not know Ralph's or Dorothy's religious persuasion either. If they were catholic then it certainly wouldn't surprise me that if Ralph was gay then he
a) had so many kids
b) was desperate to feel "normal"
c) had mental issues connected to his sexuality

And we haven't taken into account that he may have been bi-sexual.
avatar
Guest
Guest

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Thu 04 Apr 2013, 11:02 pm
greg parker wrote:
Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:Crafard being gay is entirely conceivable, for reasons stated. It would also help explain why Ruby so instantly placed him in a position of great trust.

"He [Ruby] liked to surround himself with clean cut, well-dressed 'Hollywood"-type men because it made him feel important."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=57076&relPageId=88

But Ralph Yates? While not impossible, in my experience on this planet, gay men don’t usually have five children. Not because they’re incapable of the contribution required, but because they don’t relish physical intimacy with women sufficiently to impregnate a woman five times. Yet Ralph seems to have managed five kids by a very early age, indeed. But anything’s possible, one supposes.

I'm pretty sure Crafard's lesbian wife had a kid with him, and I've heard of fathers waiting for their kids to grow up and then having a sex change. As you say, anything is possible. Maybe he just "turned" or maybe he had been trying extra hard to live in denial. Five kids. Who's gonna question his manliness?

As for the description of hair and eyebrows provided by Yates, “dark” is a relative term and it would have been nice had authorities insisted on an actual colour, such as black or brown or chestnut, or what have you. Perhaps it’s just me, but when I think of blonde, brunette and black, I think light, medium and dark.

Though I cannot at present recall where, I long ago saw a photo of Crafard in which he looked more fair than he is usually depicted in photos, and thought the difference was down to using some kind of pomade like Brylcreem. Pre-Beatles, slicked hair was very much the fashion in North America, and the requisite liberal use of pomade gave me - for example - hair several shades darker than what the Good Lord provided me.

Thanks for clarifying your definitions. Maybe he wore pomade that day?

Crafard-as-hitchhiker would explain much, but I’m not sure how one would be able to corroborate it.

Well, the doppleganger theory has been getting along just fine without corroboration. Just lots of picking and choosing and misrepresentation of evidence.

And I do think that had it been him, he would have prevailed upon Yates to drive him to the club instead of Houston and Elm.

I tried to cover this earlier:
----------------------------------
While in Harrison on this occasion, Crafard said he had been employed by Jack Ruby at the Carousel Club in Dallas. In addition to being a book-keeper and janitor for Ruby, he 'worked the lights' during the floor show and '...got tired of watching naked women.' Crafard claimed that he served as Jack Ruby's 'personal secretary;' he had coffee with Ruby in the latter's office, and he and Ruby occasionally sat at the end of the bar near the rear door of the Carousel Club and talked. According to Mrs Cascaddan, these statements by Crafard were apparently designed to demonstrate was not only an employee, but also a 'buddy' of Ruby. Too, Crafard gave the impression that his employment by Ruby was a 'big deal' and it had been an honor to work for him." https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11475&relPageId=4

Crafard's exuberance about having worked for Ruby may be partly explained by Ruby's sudden infamy. But I don't think it solely explains it. Ruby knew people. Ruby dropped names. Ruby talked big. And he was kind of in show biz. Crafard had run concession stands at fairs and done a few other drab jobs. He had been given an early general discharge from the army. Ruby gave him "important" jobs. Important sounding titles. It's no wonder Crafard looked up to him.

Now go back to Ralph's hitch-hiker. He allegedly asked Ralph if he knew Ruby or had heard of the Carousel. Those pushing the doppleganger theory make all sorts of nonsense out of that.

But if this was Crafard (as I think is more than possible), it makes sense that he was asking about Ruby. If Yates had heard of this important man, Crafard could brag that he worked for him, or was an associate, and that was where he was headed: to the Carousel. It would have been a big boost to his self-esteem.

When the answer to both was negative, the subject was probably dropped and there would be no point to asking to be taken those 6 or so extra blocks...

-----------------------------------------------------
Unless, or course, that was his intended destination because he was dropping something off for Warren Caster, who apparently needed new curtain rods. ;-) bom

On Yates and his request for anonymity:

Consider that his request had nothing to do with fear of reprisals from conspirators. If he was in Oak Cliff "cruising" for men, I think that would be sufficient reason to want to keep a low profile. It would also account for no one supporting him having a work-related reason to be there and why he was trawling around looking for a time he was legitimately there so he could say "well it must have been that day."

There is no doubt in my mind that Larry was not only gay but that he was prostituting himself. That Californian jacket was almost a "trade" uniform (yes, the jacket also underwent scrutiny - not by me - but in a thorough, professional manner by someone trusted, even to the extent of talking to clothing historians, among others. For these reasons, I believe it was Crafard and not Oswald seen by witnesses at Ruby's swinging sex parties.

Since it was brought up at the other forum regarding "typical" doppleganger sightings... are there any other examples where the "double" not only forgets to say his name is "Oswald", but DOES mention Ruby and the Carousel?


I think the fact that Yates struggled to be honest about the date that this incident occurred is one of the more curious parts of the situation, Greg. No one backed the guy up and I suspect the reason was what you outline; that he was originally trying to create a bit of space for himself should the FBI check with the TBSC. Unfortunately for Ralph, they did check and it didn't fall in his favour based upon the reports.

Edit: Doyle is asking why Ralph's mental problems were not on any of his employment documentation. I don't want to compare Ralph to a serial killer here and I use the example to support the mental illness issue: but I'm sure John Wayne Gacy's mental history and mental problems weren't on his employment documents. This is another generalisation being made. That if you're mentally ill, then you walk around with excrement in your pants and your undies on your head. Plus, I have to assume, based upon his comments, that Doyle has seen the employment documents. I haven't...

I'll tell you something, mostly regarding Doyle but includes some others, you needle a strong faith driven belief and you don't half see some strange reactions...
avatar
Posts : 107
Join date : 2011-08-10
View user profile

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Fri 05 Apr 2013, 1:40 am
Lads:

A couple of points:

Ralph Yates being gay and cruising during work time is a tenable hypothesis, but without some additional ammunition for it, remains supposition.

One also notes that if Yates had no business being in Oak Cliff, asking his boss to help determine which day he was there is self-defeating and self-destroying. Likewise, if he had no business in Oak Cliff and was there cruising for trade, it only underscores the importance of NOT coming forward to authorities at all.

“What were you doing in Oak Cliff?”

“Ummmmmmmm........”

Regarding gay men having kids; we’ve all encountered instances where women were married to be beards, and children were conceived. Sometimes the gay husband came out after the kids were grown and sometimes they were outed only after death. And sometimes they never came out at all, which makes it rather difficult to conclude that they’re gay in the absence of some other compelling evidence, be it love letters (Crafard?) or the assertions of credible fellow gay men with whom they had a tryst.

Yates would obviously fall into the latter category, meaning that in order to cinch this hypothesis as fact more is required in the way of evidence. I would also question the notion of having five kids to demonstrate masculinity when one or two would do. Particularly as he was not a great bread-winner, and paying the freight for so large a family must have been somewhat difficult on his blue collar salary.

If asked to choose a rationale for so large a family, I would accept Catholicism before gay-denial simply because it requires no additional evidence or moving parts to do so. If he wasn’t Catholic, I can only assume they didn’t know about or couldn’t afford contraceptives.

I must caution, also, to recall that the incorrect assertion that Garrison was going after a cabal of homosexuals was used against him, and helped discredit him in some circles. If this is to be a central plank in the Yates hypothesis, and if you have insufficient evidence for it, you will be mocked by straights and gays alike. Even today, the assertion someone is gay is touchy, and will offend certain parties if there is no smoking gun evidence for it. Tread gingerly, is good advice in this particular instance, I think.

I also want to just add that if we disagree on the Yates case, or to be more accurate, an element of it - Yates being a minor footnote at best, a name known to literally dozens of book readers - it should not be taken personally. Respect for both of you is undiminished, despite, and in some cases because of, the to-and-fro over various arcana.

Happy Birthday, Greg!
avatar
Guest
Guest

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Fri 05 Apr 2013, 3:11 am
Robert,

Here's where I'm getting confused on the Oak Cliff issue.

Yates went and asked Gilpin on November 26 for the date that he was sent out on the Irving service call. Would it be valid for us to assume that Yates went and asked Gilpin before he went to the FBI? I think that would be a fair assumption and, if true, when Yates spoke to Gilpin on the 26th he did not ask anything about Oak Cliff, he just asked when the Irving call was and this, IMO, supports the idea that Ralph had no business being out in Oak Cliff on either the 20 or 21. If the assumption is correct, that Yates spoke to Gilpin before he spoke to the FBI, then why did Yates still tell the FBI, later that day, that he was unsure whether he picked the hitchhiker up on the Wednesday or Thursday? Gilpin had already told him the service call was Thursday the 21st.

Again, I go to why Ralph couldn't remember the day it happened? This is one of the main question goes to the heart of Yates' credibility, and the only reason such a simple question turns into a sphinx's riddle is because Ralph was trying to cover something up.

Gilpin told the FBI, exactly what he told Yates, that the Irving service call was on Thursday 21st. So, why after being so shifty with the FBI in his first interview about the date, even if the assumption we made is wrong about him speaking to Gilpin before speaking to the FBI on the 26th, why did he say, in his second interview, that he was now convinced the date was Wednesday 20th. The guy was concealing something if you ask me.

P.S. I understand your warning about the sexuality question. The reason it will be attacked is not because of any sensibilities other researchers may have concerning homosexuality being mentioned, rather they'll attack us because it will be the easier option as opposed to thinking through a series of new possibilities. It doesn't matter what new ideas you present to this "community" - there's always someone wanting to rip your throat out.

I'm almost positive BTW that Oswald was either bisexual or gay. I know some high profile researchers who believe it too.

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:Lads:

A couple of points:

Ralph Yates being gay and cruising during work time is a tenable hypothesis, but without some additional ammunition for it, remains supposition.

One also notes that if Yates had no business being in Oak Cliff, asking his boss to help determine which day he was there is self-defeating and self-destroying. Likewise, if he had no business in Oak Cliff and was there cruising for trade, it only underscores the importance of NOT coming forward to authorities at all.

“What were you doing in Oak Cliff?”

“Ummmmmmmm........”

Regarding gay men having kids; we’ve all encountered instances where women were married to be beards, and children were conceived. Sometimes the gay husband came out after the kids were grown and sometimes they were outed only after death. And sometimes they never came out at all, which makes it rather difficult to conclude that they’re gay in the absence of some other compelling evidence, be it love letters (Crafard?) or the assertions of credible fellow gay men with whom they had a tryst.

Yates would obviously fall into the latter category, meaning that in order to cinch this hypothesis as fact more is required in the way of evidence. I would also question the notion of having five kids to demonstrate masculinity when one or two would do. Particularly as he was not a great bread-winner, and paying the freight for so large a family must have been somewhat difficult on his blue collar salary.

If asked to choose a rationale for so large a family, I would accept Catholicism before gay-denial simply because it requires no additional evidence or moving parts to do so. If he wasn’t Catholic, I can only assume they didn’t know about or couldn’t afford contraceptives.

I must caution, also, to recall that the incorrect assertion that Garrison was going after a cabal of homosexuals was used against him, and helped discredit him in some circles. If this is to be a central plank in the Yates hypothesis, and if you have insufficient evidence for it, you will be mocked by straights and gays alike. Even today, the assertion someone is gay is touchy, and will offend certain parties if there is no smoking gun evidence for it. Tread gingerly, is good advice in this particular instance, I think.

I also want to just add that if we disagree on the Yates case, or to be more accurate, an element of it - Yates being a minor footnote at best, a name known to literally dozens of book readers - it should not be taken personally. Respect for both of you is undiminished, despite, and in some cases because of, the to-and-fro over various arcana.

Happy Birthday, Greg!
greg parker
Admin
Posts : 5738
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 61
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
View user profilehttp:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Fri 05 Apr 2013, 7:23 am
Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:Lads:

A couple of points:

Ralph Yates being gay and cruising during work time is a tenable hypothesis, but without some additional ammunition for it, remains supposition.

One also notes that if Yates had no business being in Oak Cliff, asking his boss to help determine which day he was there is self-defeating and self-destroying. Likewise, if he had no business in Oak Cliff and was there cruising for trade, it only underscores the importance of NOT coming forward to authorities at all.

“What were you doing in Oak Cliff?”

“Ummmmmmmm........”

Regarding gay men having kids; we’ve all encountered instances where women were married to be beards, and children were conceived. Sometimes the gay husband came out after the kids were grown and sometimes they were outed only after death. And sometimes they never came out at all, which makes it rather difficult to conclude that they’re gay in the absence of some other compelling evidence, be it love letters (Crafard?) or the assertions of credible fellow gay men with whom they had a tryst.

Yates would obviously fall into the latter category, meaning that in order to cinch this hypothesis as fact more is required in the way of evidence. I would also question the notion of having five kids to demonstrate masculinity when one or two would do. Particularly as he was not a great bread-winner, and paying the freight for so large a family must have been somewhat difficult on his blue collar salary.

If asked to choose a rationale for so large a family, I would accept Catholicism before gay-denial simply because it requires no additional evidence or moving parts to do so. If he wasn’t Catholic, I can only assume they didn’t know about or couldn’t afford contraceptives.

I must caution, also, to recall that the incorrect assertion that Garrison was going after a cabal of homosexuals was used against him, and helped discredit him in some circles. If this is to be a central plank in the Yates hypothesis, and if you have insufficient evidence for it, you will be mocked by straights and gays alike. Even today, the assertion someone is gay is touchy, and will offend certain parties if there is no smoking gun evidence for it. Tread gingerly, is good advice in this particular instance, I think.

I also want to just add that if we disagree on the Yates case, or to be more accurate, an element of it - Yates being a minor footnote at best, a name known to literally dozens of book readers - it should not be taken personally. Respect for both of you is undiminished, despite, and in some cases because of, the to-and-fro over various arcana.

Happy Birthday, Greg!

Thanks mate.

I'd hate to think this issue could cause any fallout between any of us here.

On the issue of Yates... maybe he just had no preference. It was a bigger "problem" in the armed forces than they would ever admit - which is partly why rumors that Shrand was killed by someone kneeling in front of him were not easily dismissed - it not only fit the ballistics and death scene, it was not uncommon behavior.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

“God favors drunks, small children, and the cataclysmically stoned...” Steve King
"The worst thing about some men is that when they are not drunk they are sober." Billy Yeats
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." Dino Martin



https://www.thenewdisease.space
avatar
Guest
Guest

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Fri 05 Apr 2013, 9:55 am
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Greg!

Hmm. So close to Lee Farley's birthday. Coincidence or Conspiracy? Wink
greg parker
Admin
Posts : 5738
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 61
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
View user profilehttp:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Fri 05 Apr 2013, 10:59 am
Richard Gilbride wrote:HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Greg!

Hmm. So close to Lee Farley's birthday. Coincidence or Conspiracy? Wink

thanks, cobber.

Hmmm, indeed.

If I were Ralph Yates, I might be tempted to read something more than coincidence into my being born arse first on Good Friday to the son of a son of a fisherman... tongue

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

“God favors drunks, small children, and the cataclysmically stoned...” Steve King
"The worst thing about some men is that when they are not drunk they are sober." Billy Yeats
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." Dino Martin



https://www.thenewdisease.space
avatar
Guest
Guest

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Fri 05 Apr 2013, 11:33 am
What Yates experienced indicated a high-level conspiracy, the use of an Oswald doppelganger. Hoover had directed his agents to squelch any evidence of conspiracy, in the interests of national security. So the examining agents prepared a report that would please their boss. But one of the agents took Dorothy aside and told her the truth.

I think this was C. Ray Hall. When he interrogated Ruby after he shot Oswald he proved Patrick Dean to be a liar (Dean had falsely placed Sorrels there hearing about the Main Street ramp story, but Sorrels had already left for Washington). Hall seems trustworthy. Warren DeBrueys is not, he's a company man. He prepared that thousand-page report on New Orleans which omitted Bannister & Camp Street. DeBrueys gets zero trust.

In a big bureaucracy like the FBI, no matter how hard they instill the company way of doing things, there are always individual thinkers, who regard it as just a job, who retain their personal dignity and sense of right & wrong. I don't buy the argument that it would be "career suicide" for an FBI agent to tell Dorothy Yates the truth about the polygraph. One example came to mind readily today.

Myra DaRouse was the 8th-grade teacher at Beauregard who was "Harvey's" homeroom teacher, as the story goes. At the end of her November 25th interview, behind a locked door in her office in the basement, she asked the FBI agent if he thought they would ever know who killed President Kennedy. The agent replied, "Not in our lifetime."

This guy had no fear of what Hoover might do, should she go to the press with that.

I've been enamoured of an analogy from the NFL that may pertain to this debate. They use video replay to settle controversial calls, such as whether a receiver had possession of the football when he lands with his feet inbounds. The ruling the refs make on the field stands, unless incontrovertible evidence on the video replay indicates otherwise. I don't see in this Yates debate that incontrovertible evidence has been introduced that would overturn the ruling on the field (Douglass' version). Whether or not this FBI agent told this about the polygraph to Dororthy Yates is completely debatable, and not cut-and-dry whatsoever.

You are right to criticize my understanding of the polygraph, but we're all only laymen here. This little article from a Dan Sosnowski, a polygraph trainer for police departments, is a real nugget for talking about inconclusive polygraphs. I never imagined they were so common.

patc.com/weeklyarticle/polygraph.shtml (google polygraph inconclusive)

"There are several factors that could cause the results of a polygraph examination to be rendered "Inconclusive". Some of the factors include improper questioning based on bad case facts. The lack of fear by the examinee of getting caught in a lie is sometimes the reason for this result. The issue of little or no consequences is another contributing factor that has to be addressed.

It is the job of the examiner to establish the proper psychological set for the polygraph examination. It is also the job of the examiner to determine what the best questions for that particular test are...

"Inconclusive"- This opinion is generally rendered in about 6-10% of cases..."

avatar
Posts : 107
Join date : 2011-08-10
View user profile

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

on Sat 06 Apr 2013, 12:53 am
Lee, you raise some very good points regarding the timing of things said by Yates, Jones and Gilpin. I’m not sure how to square the discrepancies, but here’s my current reasoning..

On 11/26, Yates advised FBI the incident had occurred on the 20th or 21st, with him picking up the hitcher @ 10:30 AM or thereabouts.. So good so far.

On 11/27, coworker Dempsey Jones advised FBI Yates had told him his story at about 11-11:30 AM “...one morning (date not specified), and YATES had returned from a call earlier that he had made at Irving and Oak Cliff before returning to TBSC.” So Yates had done the job and returned to HQ in order to tell his tale by 11-11:30 AM. Jones refers to Yates return from Irving and Oak Cliff jobs as though it were a fact; did he know this from personal knowledge, or was he just repeating what Yates had told him? Knowing the answer to that would make all the difference in the world.

Jones doesn’t specify a date for this event, but the FBI report citing him reads: “He said YATES did not discuss this man THE DAY BEFORE THE PRESIDENT WAS SHOT (emphasis mine) in any great detail......”

Despite this apparent specificity, Jones tells FBI that “...company officials should have a record of the time that YATES made the call to Irving, Texas.”

If Jones is correct about the time of day he heard this from Yates, it presumably WASN’T on the day “YATES had returned from a call earlier that he made at Irving and Oak Cliff.” How could Yates have picked up a hitcher @ 10:30 AM, made the two hour service call in Irving and have returned to the TBSC by “11 or 11:30 AM?” Something here doesn’t mesh.

Reading Gilpin’s FBI report only compounds the discrepancy:

While he agrees with Jones that it was “the day before the President was shot,” because that was the day of the Irving job, his time line for 11/21 cannot be reconciled with Jones’ time estimates. Gilpin says Yates would have been back at 12:30 or 1:00 PM, while Jones said Yates had already told him his story at 11:00 to 11:30 AM. The two hour service call bill alone indicates pretty clearly they just cannot all be talking about the same day.

My suspicion is that Yates pegged the date of the incident by conflating it with the “Irving job.” Jones and Gilpin were then asked about the episode by FBI in a way that tied it to the Irving job. But if Yates was incorrect, or lying, about it having occurred on the same date as the Irving job, then we’re back to his other original contention: it might have been the 20th instead of the 21st.

It would have been nice had FBI considered the 20th and asked further questions about that as the possible date, since it clearly wasn't on the 21st, based on the results of their above interviews.

As for the Yates=gay theory, when Garrison was accused of going after gays, it was used to depict him as a bigot. The book American Grotesque was written by a closeted gay, in order to defend the other closeted gay, Clay Shaw. In it, Garrison was a scurrilous rat, prosecuting an innocent man despite knowing it.

The media’s invention of an “homosexual cabal” was a crude caricature of what Garrison actually said, and made it sound like he was saying the assassination was committed exclusively by gays, which made Garrison sound like an idiot. Despite forward movement since then, it’s still a touchy subject. Which is why I think your case must be strong in order to survive the withering criticism I believe it will engender.

As for Oswald being gay or bi-sexual, this wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
Sponsored content

judgement - Rushoman to Judgement - Page 3 Empty Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Back to top
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum