Choose Search Type
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» The Facts about Connally's Wounds
Today at 11:23 am by Paul Francisco Paso

» ROKC Lampoon
Today at 10:12 am by Stan Dane

» What strange affidavits these are!
Yesterday at 11:43 pm by Ed. Ledoux

»  How Jack Ruby's Entry Could Have Been Coordinated
Sun 04 Dec 2016, 9:59 pm by Vinny

» JFK Conference
Sun 04 Dec 2016, 9:55 pm by Vinny

» Kennedys and King website
Sat 03 Dec 2016, 6:05 pm by Paul Francisco Paso

» Kent Courtney
Fri 02 Dec 2016, 11:47 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» a ramble in and around Pine St, NO
Fri 02 Dec 2016, 11:45 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» Anatomy Of A Second Floor Encounter
Fri 02 Dec 2016, 11:01 pm by barto

Log in

I forgot my password

Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking Digg  Social bookmarking Delicious  Social bookmarking Reddit  Social bookmarking Stumbleupon  Social bookmarking Slashdot  Social bookmarking Furl  Social bookmarking Yahoo  Social bookmarking Google  Social bookmarking Blinklist  Social bookmarking Blogmarks  Social bookmarking Technorati  

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 


Affiliates
free forum
 



Rushoman to Judgement

Page 4 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by greg parker 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

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Guest 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.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Guest 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...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Robert Charles-Dunne 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!

Robert Charles-Dunne

Posts : 107
Join date : 2011-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Guest 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!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by greg parker 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

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Guest on Fri 05 Apr 2013, 9:55 am

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Greg!

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

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by greg parker 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

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Guest 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..."


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Robert Charles-Dunne 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.

Robert Charles-Dunne

Posts : 107
Join date : 2011-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Sat 06 Apr 2013, 6:13 am

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote: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.

Hi Robert. Very pleased to meet you. I think you've made a lot of good points in your post above. I agree with Greg that Yates had probably picked-up Larry Crafard, but who knows for sure.

Regards,

Hasan.

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1779
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by greg parker on Sat 06 Apr 2013, 9:59 am

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:YATES had returned from a call earlier that he had made at Irving and Oak Cliff before returning to TBSC.

Robert, I know this sounds awfully pedantic, but it is only one call mentioned - not two - yet two towns/suburbs are mentioned.

From that, one might draw the inference that Jones knew that Yates was only on one call-out - but that he had been told he was also in Oak cliff because that is where he said he picked up the hiker.

If that is the correct interpretation, then we're back to square one: what was he doing in Oak Cliff - a place that according to his boss and an employee at Charlie's Meat Mart (oh the the irony, if Yates had indeed been "cruising"!), Yates had no business being.


greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Robert Charles-Dunne on Sat 06 Apr 2013, 10:46 am

Fret not on the pedantic front. I have tried so hard to be explicit, to avoid misunderstanding, that everything gets so wordy as to be sleep inducing.

I completely get your point about two calls. And Jones’ statement seems to refer to both of them as a given fact. Was this because it was told to him by Yates, and he simply accepted it as true and repeated it? Or did Gilpin inform him? Or did Jones already know, or assume, this to be fact because he was present when Yates was initially dispatched by Gilpin, as seems to have been the practice if Gilpin’s account is correct? You tell me, friend.

For the sake of due diligence and a tenable explanation, I’d just like to keep open the possibility that the only reason everyone fixated upon 11/21 is because Yates used the Irving service call to peg the day. Correct? Which is why all parties referred to the date of the Irving service call as being the day in question. Are we still on the same page? What if Yates was mistaken, or as you’re more inclined to believe, lying? What if the Irving service call had nothing to do with the date in question?

Yates himself initially declared he was uncertain about the date and allowed that it might have been the 20th. He was responsible for pegging the date with the service call. If what you suspect of him is true, he may have deliberately picked the wrong day to muddy his own trail.

Where was he on the 20th? It seems not to have been checked out, likely because each person involved focused solely upon the 21st. Yates’ own doing. But the time lines don’t work if everyone’s account had any degree of accuracy. No two can be made to reconcile. I cannot imagine FBI not sussing out the mutual exclusivity between all three accounts. If FBI showed recurring interest in him, I think this was among the reasons for it.

Given that FBI was initially told by Yates there were two possible dates, and that they soon realized the chronology for the 21st didn’t hold water, would the next reasonable act not be to check with Yates’ employer for his whereabouts on the day prior? Did this take place? Was there not pressure from Hoover to break Yates’ story? Why take Yates’ word that the entire episode coincided with the Irving service call? Some things just don’t add up.

And a big hello and welcome to Hasan, whose posts I have enjoyed reading.

Robert Charles-Dunne

Posts : 107
Join date : 2011-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by greg parker on Sat 06 Apr 2013, 11:39 am

I have tried so hard to be explicit, to avoid misunderstanding, that everything gets so wordy as to be sleep inducing.
It is a shared problem - and not just here.

We're on the same page.

The FBI only checked what leads they were given and did not show any initiative to any check further.

Yates tied it to the Irving job - the FBI checked with Gilpin. It was on the 21st.

Yates then tied it to picking up a check from Charlie's Ranch Meat Market which he himself specified happened on the 20th, and that he proceeded from there to a job in Irving.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=96522&relPageId=21

The FBI responded to this new information by checking with Thomas Ayers at Charlie's. He reviewed the check stubs for both the 20th and 21st and confirmed that no checks had been issued to Yates' employer on either date specified.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=96522&relPageId=22
There it ended.

But here's the thing. Both Yates and the FBI had already checked with Gilpin as to when Yates had gone on a call-out to Irving and there was only one date given - the 21st.

So not only is Yates trying to spuriously inject Charlie's into the equation, he's also trying to over-rule the information Gilpin supplied as to the date of the Irving job. I think Lee has a point that Yates was being cagey about the date.

Hasan is in Melbourne. You know what they say about people south of the border...

(just kidding, Hassan. Despite myself, and the weather, I actually like Melbournne )

_________________
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

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by greg parker on Sat 06 Apr 2013, 12:09 pm

Could have saved ourselves some trouble... Sylvia Meagher confirmed long ago that the information given to Jones by Yates POST-ASSASSINATION was publicly available on Nov 23 and 24.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=520985


_________________
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

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by greg parker on Sat 06 Apr 2013, 1:20 pm

Robert Lichfield. Claimed to see Oswald in Carousel. Given polygraph by the FBI who failed him on it.

Despite threats that he could be prosecuted for lying, Lichfield maintained at the very east, the person looked like Oswald.

Not jailed or thrown in a psych hospital.

-----------------------

Albert Bogard. Claimed Oswald came in to the Mercury Dealership in which he worked and test drove a car.

Given polygraph by the FBI which they claim he passed.

Not jailed or thrown in a psych hospital.

-------------------------------------------------

_________________
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

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by greg parker on Sat 06 Apr 2013, 3:01 pm

Richard Gilbride wrote: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.

Richard, going from memory here, so don't hold me to the exact wording, but I believe what was said was along the lines of running down rumors. That this was a euphemism for demonstrating Oswald's sole guilt is almost certainly a correct interpretation. On the other hand, I don't think National Security was mentioned as the reason. I think that perhaps is being drawn from a different source? LBJ's warning about the danger of blaming Communist countries?

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."

Hmm. Earl warren must have been eaves-dropping.

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

I can't find any FBI report on Myra with that date.

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.

Thanks. That explains where the NRL here got the idea...

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.

Well, my friend, your analogy only works as an analogy by equating the FBI to the umpire on the ground and Douglass to video ref needing "incontrovertible evidence" to overcome the FBI verdict. He didn't do it because his video replays didn't view the play from all possible angles and moreover, left some footage out that he didn't like, and edited and rewrote other areas.

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..."

So we're agreed there was nothing highly unusual about the FBI opinion on the test results in this instance?

_________________
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

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Guest on Sat 06 Apr 2013, 11:25 pm

So is the possibility that Yates went straight back to the TBSC after his mysterious Oak Cliff visit open for discussion?

If so, it throws up some interesting questions. Not least the question as to why Yates told some cock and bull story about dropping the hitchhiker off at Houston & Elm.

If he did whatever he was doing in Oak Cliff and dropped someone off in Dallas, headed back to the TBSC, got his Irving job from Gilpin, spoke to Yates about the hitchhiker's "coincidental" conversation before heading off to Irving, then Yates lied. Why he lied is what I'd like to get the bottom of [no pun intended] but if the above is true, then Ralph definitely told a fib.

The Texas Butcher Supply Company was situated at 2038 Commerce. The Carousel Club at 1312 1/2 Commerce. No more than 5-6 blocks separate the two businesses on the same street.

Ralph Yates in his first FBI interview was incredibly cagey about two very specific items of information:

i) The date he picked the hitchhiker up
ii) The name Jack Rubenstein/Ruby

I still cannot accept that Yates did not know when the hitchhiker incident took place. We are talking in terms of days here, not weeks or months. Placing events to other events with the assistance of documentation and others help is something we do when a substantial amount of time has elapsed between events taking place and trying to remember them. If the full significance of what Yates believed happened suddenly became quite frightening to him then that point was no later than Sunday morning. Three days after the hitchhiker event. I do not believe for one second Ralph did not remember when it occurred. If his memory was this bad then I really believe everything he said is questionable.

Now, why we he so cagey about letting it slip in his first interview about the name Jack Ruby?

Yates first interview (11/26): "YATES stated as they drove along, the man had asked him if he knew a certain party, whose name YATES cannot recall now, and he had indicated to this man he did not. He said the man then asked if he had ever been to the Carousel Club..."

Did Yates intentionally withhold the name Jack Ruby at the first interview? Jack Ruby's name was all over the news at this point in time. Was he afraid of connecting Ruby and someone he thought was Oswald? Was it because he knew there was a connection between this guy he thought was Oswald and Jack Ruby because, rather than dropping this hitchhiker at Houston & Elm, he actually dropped him off outside the Carousel Club before carrying on to the TBSC just 6 blocks east? Was the safer option, in Yates' mind, to say he dropped the hitchhiker off outside the one place that everybody in Dallas and around the world was talking about? The TSBD?

After he dropped the HH, outside the Carousel, he continues to the TBSC, he speaks to Gilpin about the job in Irving before catching up with Demspey Jones about the "coincidental" conversation he had had with the hitchhiker. He then leaves for Irving.

Gilpin told the FBI he gave the Irving job to Yates at approximately 10:30am on November 21. Jones said he had the conversation with Yates about the hitchhiker at approximately 11:00am, probably on the 21st.

I have something interesting to back me up too and I think it could involve FBI pressure to get Ralph to change a very specific aspect of his story. We know during his initial interview, Yates held back off giving the FBI the name of Jack Ruby but he does mention the Carousel Club.

When Yates is reinterviewed on December 10, his report states the following (bold emphasis mine):

"I told this man he could put this package in the back of the truck, but the man said that the package had curtain rods in it and he would just carry it with him. Later as I drove along this man asked me if I knew where the Carousel Club was or had I ever been there."

Pretty straightforward in black and white. However, the version above is the final version that had handwritten changes applied to the document, all initialed RLY.

The original version is as follows:

"I told this man he could put this package in the back of the truck, but the man said that the package had curtain rods in it and he would just carry it with him. As I drove off this man asked me if I knew where the Carousel Club was or had I ever been there."

What does the original version shout out versus the changed version? I've always said that the devil is in the details...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by greg parker on Sun 07 Apr 2013, 12:14 am

Lee David Farley wrote:So is the possibility that Yates went straight back to the TBSC after his mysterious Oak Cliff visit open for discussion?

If so, it throws up some interesting questions. Not least the question as to why Yates told some cock and bull story about dropping the hitchhiker off at Houston & Elm.

If he did whatever he was doing in Oak Cliff and dropped someone off in Dallas, headed back to the TBSC, got his Irving job from Gilpin, spoke to Yates about the hitchhiker's "coincidental" conversation before heading off to Irving, then Yates lied. Why he lied is what I'd like to get the bottom of [no pun intended] but if the above is true, then Ralph definitely told a fib.

The Texas Butcher Supply Company was situated at 2038 Commerce. The Carousel Club at 1312 1/2 Commerce. No more than 5-6 blocks separate the two businesses on the same street.

Ralph Yates in his first FBI interview was incredibly cagey about two very specific items of information:

i) The date he picked the hitchhiker up
ii) The name Jack Rubenstein/Ruby

I still cannot accept that Yates did not know when the hitchhiker incident took place. We are talking in terms of days here, not weeks or months. Placing events to other events with the assistance of documentation and others help is something we do when a substantial amount of time has elapsed between events taking place and trying to remember them. If the full significance of what Yates believed happened suddenly became quite frightening to him then that point was no later than Sunday morning. Three days after the hitchhiker event. I do not believe for one second Ralph did not remember when it occurred. If his memory was this bad then I really believe everything he said is questionable.

Now, why we he so cagey about letting it slip in his first interview about the name Jack Ruby?

Yates first interview (11/26): "YATES stated as they drove along, the man had asked him if he knew a certain party, whose name YATES cannot recall now, and he had indicated to this man he did not. He said the man then asked if he had ever been to the Carousel Club..."

Did Yates intentionally withhold the name Jack Ruby at the first interview? Jack Ruby's name was all over the news at this point in time. Was he afraid of connecting Ruby and someone he thought was Oswald? Was it because he knew there was a connection between this guy he thought was Oswald and Jack Ruby because, rather than dropping this hitchhiker at Houston & Elm, he actually dropped him off outside the Carousel Club before carrying on to the TBSC just 6 blocks east? Was the safer option, in Yates' mind, to say he dropped the hitchhiker off outside the one place that everybody in Dallas and around the world was talking about? The TSBD?

After he dropped the HH, outside the Carousel, he continues to the TBSC, he speaks to Gilpin about the job in Irving before catching up with Demspey Jones about the "coincidental" conversation he had had with the hitchhiker. He then leaves for Irving.

Gilpin told the FBI he gave the Irving job to Yates at approximately 10:30am on November 21. Jones said he had the conversation with Yates about the hitchhiker at approximately 11:00am, probably on the 21st.

I have something interesting to back me up too and I think it could involve FBI pressure to get Ralph to change a very specific aspect of his story. We know during his initial interview, Yates held back off giving the FBI the name of Jack Ruby but he does mention the Carousel Club.

When Yates is reinterviewed on December 10, his report states the following (bold emphasis mine):

"I told this man he could put this package in the back of the truck, but the man said that the package had curtain rods in it and he would just carry it with him. Later as I drove along this man asked me if I knew where the Carousel Club was or had I ever been there."

Pretty straightforward in black and white. However, the version above is the final version that had handwritten changes applied to the document, all initialed RLY.

The original version is as follows:

"I told this man he could put this package in the back of the truck, but the man said that the package had curtain rods in it and he would just carry it with him. As I drove off this man asked me if I knew where the Carousel Club was or had I ever been there."

What does the original version shout out versus the changed version? I've always said that the devil is in the details...

How he hell did I miss the Commerce address of the TBSC.

How could Yates not have noticed the Carousel before?

Being asked about the Carousel "As I drove off" strongly suggests the reason for the question - that reason being that was where the HH wanted to be dropped...

Well done!

_________________
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

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Sun 07 Apr 2013, 2:41 am

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote: And a big hello and welcome to Hasan, whose posts I have enjoyed reading.

Thanks, Robert. I've read many of your posts on the Ed forum, and have found them to be highly informative. I hope you intend to stick around on Greg's forum for any discussion you and I might have in the future.

Hasan.

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1779
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Sun 07 Apr 2013, 2:44 am

greg parker wrote:Robert Lichfield. Claimed to see Oswald in Carousel. Given polygraph by the FBI who failed him on it.

Despite threats that he could be prosecuted for lying, Lichfield maintained at the very east, the person looked like Oswald.

Not jailed or thrown in a psych hospital.

-----------------------

Albert Bogard. Claimed Oswald came in to the Mercury Dealership in which he worked and test drove a car.

Given polygraph by the FBI which they claim he passed.

Not jailed or thrown in a psych hospital.

-------------------------------------------------

Great points, Greg. I for one would like to know why witnesses like Carolyn Walther and Lillian Mooneyham, for example, were not given the Ralph Yates' treatment, since they were both conspiracy witnesses too. Perhaps Albert Doyle and co. would care to enlighten us.


Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1779
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Sun 07 Apr 2013, 2:47 am

Lee David Farley wrote:So is the possibility that Yates went straight back to the TBSC after his mysterious Oak Cliff visit open for discussion?

If so, it throws up some interesting questions. Not least the question as to why Yates told some cock and bull story about dropping the hitchhiker off at Houston & Elm.

If he did whatever he was doing in Oak Cliff and dropped someone off in Dallas, headed back to the TBSC, got his Irving job from Gilpin, spoke to Yates about the hitchhiker's "coincidental" conversation before heading off to Irving, then Yates lied. Why he lied is what I'd like to get the bottom of [no pun intended] but if the above is true, then Ralph definitely told a fib.

The Texas Butcher Supply Company was situated at 2038 Commerce. The Carousel Club at 1312 1/2 Commerce. No more than 5-6 blocks separate the two businesses on the same street.

Ralph Yates in his first FBI interview was incredibly cagey about two very specific items of information:

i) The date he picked the hitchhiker up
ii) The name Jack Rubenstein/Ruby

I still cannot accept that Yates did not know when the hitchhiker incident took place. We are talking in terms of days here, not weeks or months. Placing events to other events with the assistance of documentation and others help is something we do when a substantial amount of time has elapsed between events taking place and trying to remember them. If the full significance of what Yates believed happened suddenly became quite frightening to him then that point was no later than Sunday morning. Three days after the hitchhiker event. I do not believe for one second Ralph did not remember when it occurred. If his memory was this bad then I really believe everything he said is questionable.

Now, why we he so cagey about letting it slip in his first interview about the name Jack Ruby?

Yates first interview (11/26): "YATES stated as they drove along, the man had asked him if he knew a certain party, whose name YATES cannot recall now, and he had indicated to this man he did not. He said the man then asked if he had ever been to the Carousel Club..."

Did Yates intentionally withhold the name Jack Ruby at the first interview? Jack Ruby's name was all over the news at this point in time. Was he afraid of connecting Ruby and someone he thought was Oswald? Was it because he knew there was a connection between this guy he thought was Oswald and Jack Ruby because, rather than dropping this hitchhiker at Houston & Elm, he actually dropped him off outside the Carousel Club before carrying on to the TBSC just 6 blocks east? Was the safer option, in Yates' mind, to say he dropped the hitchhiker off outside the one place that everybody in Dallas and around the world was talking about? The TSBD?

After he dropped the HH, outside the Carousel, he continues to the TBSC, he speaks to Gilpin about the job in Irving before catching up with Demspey Jones about the "coincidental" conversation he had had with the hitchhiker. He then leaves for Irving.

Gilpin told the FBI he gave the Irving job to Yates at approximately 10:30am on November 21. Jones said he had the conversation with Yates about the hitchhiker at approximately 11:00am, probably on the 21st.

I have something interesting to back me up too and I think it could involve FBI pressure to get Ralph to change a very specific aspect of his story. We know during his initial interview, Yates held back off giving the FBI the name of Jack Ruby but he does mention the Carousel Club.

When Yates is reinterviewed on December 10, his report states the following (bold emphasis mine):

"I told this man he could put this package in the back of the truck, but the man said that the package had curtain rods in it and he would just carry it with him. Later as I drove along this man asked me if I knew where the Carousel Club was or had I ever been there."

Pretty straightforward in black and white. However, the version above is the final version that had handwritten changes applied to the document, all initialed RLY.

The original version is as follows:

"I told this man he could put this package in the back of the truck, but the man said that the package had curtain rods in it and he would just carry it with him. As I drove off this man asked me if I knew where the Carousel Club was or had I ever been there."

What does the original version shout out versus the changed version? I've always said that the devil is in the details...

Lee,

Great find. This surely reinforces the notion that it was Crafard whom Yates had picked-up. Do you or Greg know if the Carousel club, by coincidence, required any curtain rods?

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1779
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Guest on Sun 07 Apr 2013, 5:36 am

greg parker wrote:
Lee David Farley wrote:So is the possibility that Yates went straight back to the TBSC after his mysterious Oak Cliff visit open for discussion?

If so, it throws up some interesting questions. Not least the question as to why Yates told some cock and bull story about dropping the hitchhiker off at Houston & Elm.

If he did whatever he was doing in Oak Cliff and dropped someone off in Dallas, headed back to the TBSC, got his Irving job from Gilpin, spoke to Yates about the hitchhiker's "coincidental" conversation before heading off to Irving, then Yates lied. Why he lied is what I'd like to get the bottom of [no pun intended] but if the above is true, then Ralph definitely told a fib.

The Texas Butcher Supply Company was situated at 2038 Commerce. The Carousel Club at 1312 1/2 Commerce. No more than 5-6 blocks separate the two businesses on the same street.

Ralph Yates in his first FBI interview was incredibly cagey about two very specific items of information:

i) The date he picked the hitchhiker up
ii) The name Jack Rubenstein/Ruby

I still cannot accept that Yates did not know when the hitchhiker incident took place. We are talking in terms of days here, not weeks or months. Placing events to other events with the assistance of documentation and others help is something we do when a substantial amount of time has elapsed between events taking place and trying to remember them. If the full significance of what Yates believed happened suddenly became quite frightening to him then that point was no later than Sunday morning. Three days after the hitchhiker event. I do not believe for one second Ralph did not remember when it occurred. If his memory was this bad then I really believe everything he said is questionable.

Now, why we he so cagey about letting it slip in his first interview about the name Jack Ruby?

Yates first interview (11/26): "YATES stated as they drove along, the man had asked him if he knew a certain party, whose name YATES cannot recall now, and he had indicated to this man he did not. He said the man then asked if he had ever been to the Carousel Club..."

Did Yates intentionally withhold the name Jack Ruby at the first interview? Jack Ruby's name was all over the news at this point in time. Was he afraid of connecting Ruby and someone he thought was Oswald? Was it because he knew there was a connection between this guy he thought was Oswald and Jack Ruby because, rather than dropping this hitchhiker at Houston & Elm, he actually dropped him off outside the Carousel Club before carrying on to the TBSC just 6 blocks east? Was the safer option, in Yates' mind, to say he dropped the hitchhiker off outside the one place that everybody in Dallas and around the world was talking about? The TSBD?

After he dropped the HH, outside the Carousel, he continues to the TBSC, he speaks to Gilpin about the job in Irving before catching up with Demspey Jones about the "coincidental" conversation he had had with the hitchhiker. He then leaves for Irving.

Gilpin told the FBI he gave the Irving job to Yates at approximately 10:30am on November 21. Jones said he had the conversation with Yates about the hitchhiker at approximately 11:00am, probably on the 21st.

I have something interesting to back me up too and I think it could involve FBI pressure to get Ralph to change a very specific aspect of his story. We know during his initial interview, Yates held back off giving the FBI the name of Jack Ruby but he does mention the Carousel Club.

When Yates is reinterviewed on December 10, his report states the following (bold emphasis mine):

"I told this man he could put this package in the back of the truck, but the man said that the package had curtain rods in it and he would just carry it with him. Later as I drove along this man asked me if I knew where the Carousel Club was or had I ever been there."

Pretty straightforward in black and white. However, the version above is the final version that had handwritten changes applied to the document, all initialed RLY.

The original version is as follows:

"I told this man he could put this package in the back of the truck, but the man said that the package had curtain rods in it and he would just carry it with him. As I drove off this man asked me if I knew where the Carousel Club was or had I ever been there."

What does the original version shout out versus the changed version? I've always said that the devil is in the details...

How he hell did I miss the Commerce address of the TBSC.

How could Yates not have noticed the Carousel before?

Being asked about the Carousel "As I drove off" strongly suggests the reason for the question - that reason being that was where the HH wanted to be dropped...

Well done!

Although not specifically stated in Jones' FBI statement, it does read like Yates told Jones, prior tonthe assassination, that he dropped the HH off at Houston & Elm. So that causes a bit of an issue, but the fact that this part of the story, that the HH asked whether Yates knew where the Carousel Club was as soon as they drove off, and was manually changed on the types Yates report is a big indicator as to what was going on. Now I can begin to understand the FBI wanting to close the lead on Yates.

The same reason they wanted to close the lead on Litchfield and Bogart. Too many people pointing to Jack Ruby hanging with someone who was being mistaken left, right and centre for Oswald.

Remember Burt Griffin's memo asking for info on the four men who had been mistaken for Oswald? By the time Rankin sent a letter to Hoover, the four men had changed to three. The guy who fell off the request was Larry Crafard:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=709597

J. Edgar Hoover's reply to the memo from the Warren Commission for more information on the THREE individuals who had been mistaken for LHO:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=9882&relPageId=142

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=9882&relPageId=143


Last edited by Lee David Farley on Sun 07 Apr 2013, 9:05 pm; edited 3 times in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Sun 07 Apr 2013, 6:04 am

Hasan is in Melbourne. You know what they say about people south of the border...

(just kidding, Hassan. Despite myself, and the weather, I actually like Melbournne )

LOL I just saw this. Melbourne's a great place, but the weather is pretty crap. Last year we froze our backsides off in a miserable Winter. I sure hope it's not the case this year. Sure would be great to go up to Queensland, but it's not gonna happen. Crying or Very sad

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1779
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Guest on Sun 07 Apr 2013, 10:01 am

The agent's "Not in our lifetime" remark was recalled by Myra DaRouse in an interview she had with John Armstrong in 1995, recounted in "Harvey and Lee" on p. 83. He had brought up a brief interview with the FBI dated April 2, 1964; she said instead that it had taken place on November 25, and had lasted over two hours. Imagine if she had decided to tell that to some reporter at the New Orleans States-Item; I think the dark cloud of domestic conspiracy had scared most regular folks into silence.

I don't think it's fair to suggest that Yates dropped his hitchhiker off at the Carousel- Dempsey Jones did specify Yates had "taken this boy to Houston and Elm" and been told this before the assassination. I have to agree with Robert that the call to Irving, that Gilpin vouches for on the 21st, was probably spuriously tied to the Oak Cliff visit by Yates. I'm still inclined to think the incident took place on the 20th.

This 2038 Commerce refrigeration company address throws a whole new light on this subject. My guess would be that Yates was cagey about what day it was directly because of Ruby, whom Yates certainly would have learned operated an establishment right down the street. If Yates held back some details in his initial story, it gave him an escape hatch- he could claim ignorance, were a personal threat to arise.

Yates may have been innocently wasting time on the company clock on the morning of November 20 in Oak Cliff, for example looking over the latest LPs at the Top Ten Records store (!?), confused and understandably didn't want to mention it.




Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Sponsored content Today at 9:11 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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