Oswald and Bus 1213

Lee Farley
 
Lee Oswald and the Marsalis Bus
 
Mr. BALL. St. Paul? You got on at St. Paul? St. Paul and Elm?
Mrs. BLEDSOE. Uh-huh.
Mr. BALL. And the bus was going in what direction?
Mrs. BLEDSOE. West.
 
Mr. BALL. After your dispatcher checked you in what time did you leave that corner of St. Paul and Elm?

Mr. MCWATTERS. Well, the best I can remember I don’t recall even picking up a passenger there. I think I discharged one lady passenger there on that, to the best I can recall, because I remember that I had, when I crossed Field Street, I think I had five passengers on my bus.
 
More than three decades ago Sylvia Meagher came to a controversial conclusion. After pouring over the evidence related to Oswald’s escape from the TSBD she concluded that Mary Bledsoe was never on Cecil McWatters bus. In 2011 there are still many people who believe that Oswald “escaped” Dealey Plaza by public transportation. Many are Lone-Assassin theorists, but some are Warren Commission critics.
 
The sections of Warren Commission testimony from Mary Bledsoe and Cecil McWatters that I have introduced above are but one piece of evidence that supports Sylvia Meagher’s conclusion that she made all those years ago. McWatters never placed Bledsoe on his bus. He distinctly claimed no memory of ever picking up a passenger at St Paul and Elm.
 
McWatters memory blank concerning Bledsoe is all the more strange due to the seat that Bledsoe claimed she sat in. This was the seat right opposite him on the left hand side of the bus. This being one of the only seats that McWatters would have full view of without having to do a complete 180 to view. I won’t go into Bledsoe’s testimony concerning seeing Oswald because if she wasn’t on the bus then it’s pointless. The confusing nature of the way he was dressed, not wearing a jacket, with holes in his shirt and buttons missing, and a “maniacal” expression are simply perjury suborned from the Warren Commission counsellors, the FBI and the Secret Service. In an adversarial setting this woman would have been laughed out of court.
 
When Milton Jones was finally located and an affidavit taken from him he supports Meagher’s conclusion that Bledsoe wasn’t on the bus. Jones stated that after the bus had finally gotten through the traffic congestion at Houston and Elm a lady boarded the bus and sat in the seat that Bledsoe claimed she was sat in. This was the lady who took offence to McWatters and Jones “grinning” when they informed her that the President had been shot. The seat she occupied, according to Milton Jones, was directly in front of him at a 45 degree angle. I find it completely unbelievable that Bledsoe would still be sat where she claimed she was sat on the bus and not recall this incident or alternatively that McWatters or Jones didn’t recall that Bledsoe had this lady sat next to her whilst this memorable event with another passenger was going on. Unless, of course, it was Bledsoe that had this conversation with the pair and she actually boarded the bus on the other side of the Marsalis Bridge towards Oak Cliff, specifically around Marsalis Street. Hardly probable however because Jones said the woman who boarded on Marsalis was 40-45 years of age. Either way Bledsoe was not on the bus when it is claimed that Oswald was on the bus.
 
Disregarding Bledsoe as a witness, and there’s overwhelming evidence to disregard her, we are left with Jones and McWatters. McWatters original affidavit mentions that, “I picked up a man on the lower end of town on Elm and Houston.” We know this “man” he is talking about is Roy Milton Jones because he goes on in his affidavit to say, “I went on out Marsalis and picked a woman up. I asked her if she knew the President had been shot and she thought I was kidding. I told her that if she did not believe me to ask the man behind her.” The "man" McWatters is referring to we know for definite is Roy Milton Jones. “The man was grinning and never did say anything. The woman said that it was not a grinning matter. I don’t remember where I left this man off. This man looks like the #2 man I saw in a line-up tonight.”
 
The sinister aspect of this affidavit is the location where McWatters says he picked Roy Milton Jones up. We know for certain that he talking about Jones in the affidavit and in his Warren Commission testimony McWatters came clean about his identification on the evening of the 22nd November. He thought he was identifying Jones in the line-up. However, Jones boarded the bus at Harwood & Elm which is the stop before St Paul and Elm where Bledsoe claimed she boarded. The affidavit states that McWatters picked the “man” AKA Milton Jones, at the “lower end of town on Elm and Houston.” When presented with this during his Warren Commission testimony this is what happened:
 
Mr. BALL. …Let’s look again at this affidavit.
Mr. MCWATTERS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. “I picked up a man on the lower end of town on Elm around Houston,” as I remember you didn’t stop at Elm and Houston; you stopped at Record and Houston for a pickup.
Mr. MCWATTERS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember having picked up any man around the lower end of town at Elm around Houston?
Mr. MCWATTERS. Elm and Houston?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mr. MCWATTERS. No, no, sir; I didn’t pick up. I made a statement here I picked up---
 
Joseph Ball stopped McWatters at this point. The bus driver was quite obviously confused that his affidavit would claim that he picked somebody up at Elm and Houston. He knew the night of making the affidavit that the police prevented any vehicles stopping on Elm and Houston and he had testified to this already during the hearing. Joseph Ball interrupted McWatters, I believe, to stop him from saying that he didn’t actually claim this when the affidavit was taken, when by all accounts he actually did because it's in his handwritten affidavit:
 
Mr. BALL. Take a look at it, “I picked up a man on the lower end of town on Elm around Houston.”
Mr. MCWATTERS. No, I didn’t. I picked - “I picked a man up at the lower end of town at Elm,” no, sir, I didn’t pick up no man. No, I was tied up in traffic there. Market Street is the - I must not have read that very good when I signed that, because I sure didn’t. No, I didn’t.
Mr. BALL. Did you pick up a man at Record and Houston?
Mr. MCWATTERS. No, Sir.
Mr. BALL. You didn’t?
Mr. MCWATTERS. No, sir; that is not even no stop.
Mr. BALL. In other words, this statement is not an accurate statement?
Mr. MCWATTERS. That’s right, Sir…
 
The implications of this are that either McWatters couldn’t remember on the night of the assassination that earlier in the afternoon the police prevented any vehicle from stopping on Elm & Houston or alternatively he was pressured into writing Elm and Houston as the place where he picked up the “man.” McWatters had to have known that the “man” he picked up (Roy Jones) actually boarded at Harwood which was 9 blocks away from Houston & Elm.
 
McWatters testimony, due to the problems inherent within it, has to be discarded. The whole confusing and convoluted way it was collected is an embarrassment. The questioning is appalling and there are sections where McWatters is still confusing Oswald with Jones, places where he separates the pair, places where he says the man he identified at the line-up was Oswald and then the clarification at the end where it becomes crystal clear that he was actually identifying Roy Jones.
 
For example when Joseph Ball asks McWatters how long the man who boarded at Lamar Street (allegedly Oswald) stayed on the bus for McWatters says:
 
Mr. MCWATTERS. Two blocks was the only distance.
Mr. BALL. How long did it take you to go those 2 blocks?
Mr. MCWATTERS. Now, he paid as far as from St. Paul Street. I made—there wasn’t any traffic holding me up whatsoever.
 
McWatters is again talking about Roy Jones. Jones paid from St Paul Street because it was Jones who boarded the bus one block before St Pauls at Harwood. Even after McWatters has made it abundantly clear that it was Jones he identified in the police line-up this exchange happens:
 
Mr. MCWATTERS. …he was sitting right behind this boy, but I didn’t pay him any particular attention, to the man.
Senator COOPER. You saw him get on the bus?
Mr. MCWATTERS. Yes.
Senator COOPER. Did you see him get off?
Mr. MCWATTERS. Yes; I gave him a transfer when he got off the bus, the same place that was, the same place I was stopped where the man come back and stepped up in the bus and told me what he had heard over his radio in his car, the same place that the lady got off, with a suitcase, is the place that the man got off.
Senator COOPER. The man you later identified in the police line-up?
Mr. MCWATTERS. That is correct; yes, sir.
 
The whole thing is a farce and, like with Bledsoe, cannot be taken seriously. Once it became apparent to the Warren Commission that McWatters was confusing Jones with the man who allegedly got on the bus at Lamar Street they got the FBI to trace Roy Jones and take a statement. Jones confirmed that a man did in fact board the bus some four blocks before Houston Street but Jones’ statement threw more issues into the mix than it actually solved. Which is why, I believe, Jones was not invited to appear before the Commission. The FBI interviewed Jones on March 30th 1964; 18 days after McWatters gave his testimony. If the Commission really wanted to get to the truth in this matter surely they would have gotten Jones on the stand? The main problem for them was Jones’ introduction into the “story” of a pair of Police Officers who boarded the bus to search the passengers for firearms. Unfortunately, this didn’t jibe with McWatters testimony on the stand. McWatters claimed that it was a motorist from the traffic jam that boarded the bus and told McWatters that the President had been shot. There is no mention of Police Officers during McWatters lengthy testimony. Likewise, Jones doesn’t mention anything about a woman disembarking because she was late for a train. He states that the female passenger got on at the same stop as the man (four blocks from Houston); he also claims the female passenger took a seat further towards the back of the bus and the man sat directly behind him. There is no mention of the female passenger taking the seat directly behind the driver (as per McWatters and Bledsoe’s testimony) and there is also no mention of a train. There is no mention of the lady asking for a transfer either; this is because Jones states the female passenger got off the bus by “rear door.” The male passenger got off, according to Jones, by the front doors, and Jones mentions nothing about the male passenger asking for a transfer.
 
The way the passengers disembarked makes sense given where Jones places them on the bus. If the female passenger took a seat towards the rear of the bus it makes sense that she would disembark by the rear doors. The male passenger got off using the front doors because he was sat directly behind Jones. Jones seems to remember quite a lot from the day when we read his statement that he made to the FBI and on the surface both he and it appear credible. If there was a passenger sat behind the driver with a suitcase, who Mary Bledsoe and McWatters claimed was late for a train, and then requested a transfer should the bus catch her back up, it was certainly lost on Roy Jones because he didn’t remember any of this.
 
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62326&relPageId=46 (Jones Statement)
 
Mary Bledsoe gave her testimony on April 2nd, 1964. Forrest Sorrels was involved in requesting that Bledsoe used notes during her appearance before the Commission. Some work had obviously gone into what she was going to say prior April 2nd and what she was to say had to support what McWatters had already said. Jones making his claims 18 days after McWatters testimony that contradicted what McWatters had said was a real problem and the fact that Jones had made these claims 3 days prior to Bledsoe’s testimony was probably the reason Jones was given a wide berth concerning asking him to clarify his statement under oath.
 
McWatters, whatever way you look at it, lied under oath. Same with Mary Bledsoe. Without their testimony you cannot prove Oswald was on the bus. Jones claims a man got on the bus where McWatters claimed a man boarded but without the transfers being issued it is meaningless. Remember, McWatters says he only gave two transfers out that day. One was to the woman who sat behind him, with a suitcase, who was going to be late for a train. The other was a man who got off the same stop as her. Bledsoe backed this part of his testimony up, whilst inserting herself into the story more than was necessary by claiming it was her who advised the woman to walk because the train station was only a short distance away. The main problem with this is McWatters doesn’t remember picking up Bledsoe at the stop she said she got on. He doesn’t remember her being on the bus. He also doesn’t remember her being in the seat she said she was in which was directly facing Jones. Jones, likewise, doesn’t remember Bledsoe. In fact, he says another woman occupied that seat Bledsoe was supposed to be sitting in when she boarded the bus once it had travelled over the Marsalis Bridge. The key point in all of this is that Jones claims the woman got off the bus at the rear, so therefore no transfer.
If there’s no transfer for the woman then it’s hard to imagine that McWatters would remember giving a transfer to the man because it was the memorable woman who kicked his memory into gear concerning only having issued two transfers on that stretch of the route.
 
The man who boarded the bus was in all likelihood just another passenger and certainly not a deranged assassin fleeing the scene of the crime by stupidly getting on a bus that was going to take him back toward it. Within this entire game of hoopla that was created by the Warren Commission are a couple of key questions that I would like to ask curious people to ask of themselves:
 
1. Why would Oswald get on the Marsalis bus? The nearest this bus would take Oswald to his rooming house on North Beckley is seven blocks away. Oswald regularly used public transport. Public transport has schedules. Anyone regularly using public transport generally knows these schedules. Knowing the schedules helps in not getting canned from work. Oswald must have known the schedule of the Beckley bus. It left the St Paul transfer point at the same time as the Marsalis/Munger bus that Cecil McWatters was driving. That time was 12:36pm. McWatters claimed that he was probably ahead of the Beckley bus because he couldn’t see it in front of him. If Oswald was heading back to his rooming house why would he get a bus that didn’t take him there? Especially if the one that did take him all the way home was probably right behind it?
 
2. Why would Oswald even contemplate getting a bus West on Elm Street at 12:40pm? He had just walked from Dealey Plaza and knew this bus was going to be taking him back towards the scene of his alleged crime. The official story tells us that he boarded the Marsalis bus when it was caught up in traffic. Actually boarding at an intersection and not at an authorised bus stop. The implication is then made that he disembarked when the man from a car boarded the bus to tell the passengers that the President had been shot. Are we to believe that Oswald didn’t know this, whether he was the assassin or not? Did Oswald think the traffic had backed up for some other reason and he would soon be on his way through the congestion? If he was the assassin was he sat there thinking the Secret Service was still unawares, 10 minutes after the assassination, that the President was missing a large portion of his head? It makes no sense for Oswald to board that bus, assassin or not, for a good couple of reasons.
 
3. Why would he need a transfer? I have to completely discount Mary Bledsoe’s testimony because the evidence proves she wasn’t on the bus. Because Bledsoe supports McWatters testimony in regard to the bus transfer given out I have to claim my belief that McWatters testimony on this matter was suborned. Jones mentions nothing about transfers being issued. Therefore the question is “where did Oswald get the transfer” that was in his “possession?” I will answer this question a little later because to answer it I believe you first have to contemplate a more fundamental question. Why did he need one? We know that the transfers given out on Elm Street are only good at designated transfer points. As soon as Oswald allegedly got off the bus he was, within four minutes, in William Whaley’s taxi cab. Oswald allegedly got off the Marsalis bus and headed straight for the Greyhound bus station on Lamar Street and immediately got into a cab. So why the need for a transfer? It would appear he had no plans to use it. So why would he even contemplate getting one?
 
The bus transfer is the most curious item involved in this whole affair. If he wasn’t on the bus then how did he get it? Why did it take the DPD two hours to find it? How did they find out it was McWatters who punched it?
 
There is nothing in the record that explains how the DPD found out that it was Cecil McWatters who issued this transfer. It is not contained in any reports that were filed by DPD officers or homicide detectives. We know that Lieutenant Wells sent Dhority and Brown to collect McWatters from the Piedmont line bus that was due outside City Hall at Commerce and Harwood at 6:15pm. He was taken inside where he immediately identified Roy Milton Jones in the line-up, he was then questioned, identified the bus transfer, and then an affidavit taken from him. He was kept in City Hall until the small hours of the 23rd. Considering the incredibly short affidavit he submitted and since we know that the line-up took place at 6:15pm, 6-7 hours is an incredibly long time to be interviewed. What they grilled him on for this length of time is anyone’s guess but for him to include in his affidavit that he picked up his passenger from right outside the TSBD goes some way into trying to understand what they were perhaps “talking” to him about. Especially when McWatters knew he wasn’t allowed to stop where he claims he stopped in his statement.
 
Similar to us not knowing how the DPD found out about McWatters we also have very little documentation that explains whether the DPD took the full book of transfers from McWatters to gain a grasp on the numerical sequences involved in their issuance. In fact, I was under the impression for years that the only evidence in existence of bus 1213 transfers being collected was this photograph of the one allegedly given to Oswald. Transfer number 004459:
 
What I have always found curious is that the DPD and the FBI seemed to show little interest in tracing the woman that McWatters and Bledsoe claimed got the transfer prior to Oswald’s. The lady making her way to the train station would have been issued transfer number 004458. Obviously, the likelihood that the individual involved would have still had the transfer is minimal but they made no attempt to even find out (ladies purses do sometimes have a steroetypical knack of holding onto items that enter them), or to find her to corroborate McWatters recollections. Much the same way they failed to look for the old lady that Oswald offered his own cab to at the Greyhound Station who could have corroborated William Whaley’s statements. The simple fact of the matter is, if these people existed, I’m sure they would have been looked for.
 
Concerning the transfer, I will leave you with this. We do know that the DPD confiscated the book of transfers from Cecil McWatters. Whether it was definitely the same book that Oswald's transfer was allegedly issued from is anyone’s guess because the actual book was never photographed. We do know "a" book was taken because a receipt was given for it. The receipt has the following written on the back“Receipt for the book of transfers from which transfer was issued to Oswald the accused assin of Pres, John F. Kennedy.” What is tantalising about this receipt is what it was written on. What is even more tantalising is the number of the thing it was written on. TRansfer receipt #004451. I’ll leave it up to everyone’s imagination to make their own sense out of what this could potentially mean:
 
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62307&relPageId=88 (Transfer Receipt)

Without the full transfer book it's impossible to cast-iron prove anything regarding this little gem but at least this does prove that the DPD had the full transfer book in their possession and they certainly kept this fact out of the reports and out of discussion and if this knowledge does one thing for me, it certainly reinforces the thoughts I have had about the Oswald transfer that I've had for more than 15 years; Oswald wasn't on the bus. Nor was he in the cab. He left Dealey Plaza by other means. The transfer was planted.

Ian Kingsbury
 
Lee

A nice piece of work mate. This gives at least a bit more credence to Roger Craig. But we can now see why they needed to deep 6 Craig's testimony. When does Gerald Hill get the Farley treatment?.

Jim DiEugenio
 
Well, since Sylvia's analysis of that whole episode it was highly questionable whether or not it happened.
 
Then Bob Fox went after Dave Perry, and he demolished it even further.
 
I would say that today, its 50-50 whether he was on the bus or not. Personally I tend to doubt it.
 
The critics have always upheld it because it is a very good defense against Oswald 'escaping' from the TSBD. I mean what kind of assassin jumps on a bus, then gets off, walks back toward the crime scene, hails a cab, offers to give up the cab to an old lady, then takes the cab five blocks beyond his destination.
 
The witness testimony for him being on the bus, as demonstrated by Sylvia and Bob Fox, was always shaky.
 
I could never figure out the bus transfer. It looked so neat, almost ironed. Second, how could anyone be sure McWatters' punched it? I mean the idea of a personal, idiosyncratic punch defies logic.

But now that Lee has found the origin of the so called identifiable transfer, this brings even more suspicion on the story.

Jack White
 
Nice research, Lee.
 
As I recall, it was Mary Ferrell who first told me that the bus transfer was planted.
 
If I recall correctly, it was not found in an initial search of Oswald, she said.

And bus drivers of that time DID have personal punches, within limits of what shapes were available. I notice the punch on the transfer is BATSHAPED, and indicated LAKEWOOD, which I think means that McWatters drove the LAKEWOOD ROUTE. It has been many decades since I rode buses and used transfers, but as I recall, the driver punch indicated the route and was good for any other route WHICH COINCIDED WITH OR INTERSECTED THE PUNCHED ROUTE. This was to combat "transfer fraud" where people could use transfers improperly on the same or other routes. I always rode the RIVERSIDE route, so if it was punched, I could not use the transfer to return home taking the same route.

Karl Kinaski
 
Quote; Fair Play…17th Issue..
 
A newly-discovered document is Yet Another Eyewitness
by John Kelin
providing additional corroboration to the claim that Lee Harvey Oswald left Dealey Plaza in a Rambler station wagon in the aftermath of the JFK assassination --- and not as the Warren Commission claimed.
Kansas researcher Chris Courtwright recently came across an FBI document at Archives II in College Park, Maryland, which tells the story of eyewitness Roy Cooper. This important document, an FBI affidavit, provides new corroboration to former Dallas Sheriff's Deputy Roger Craig, who in 1963 reported an observation virtually identical to that reported by Cooper.
The Cooper document states:
To: SAC, Dallas
From: SA Earle Haley
Subject: Assassination of President Kennedy
Mr. Roy Cooper, Route 1, Box 135A, Euless, Texas, phone Butler 3-2640, furnished the following information at 12:15 p.m. this date [ll-23-63]. He related an incident about a Nash Rambler being seen leaving the building at Elm and Houston on 11/22/63. He was driving his car and following his boss who was driving a Cadillac. They were coming south on Houston and had to wait for the parade and the incident happened shortly after they reached this intersection. Cooper observed a white male somewhere between 20 and 30 years of age wave at a Nash Rambler station wagon, light colord, as it pulled out and was ready to leave from Elm and Houston. This station wagon pulled out real fast in front of the Cadillac driven by his boss and his employer had to stop abruptly and nearly hit this Nash Rambler. Cooper could not see who was driving the Nash Rambler and could not furnish any further description of the man who jumped into this car. They drove off at a rather fast rate of speed and went down toward the overpass toward Oak Cliff.
Cooper was following his immediate supervisor Mr. Marvin C. Robinson who was taking his Cadillac home to Oak Cliff. Cooper was then to pick up Robinson and they were to go back to their employment in Garland in his car. He advised that Marvin C. Robinson resides on Marsalis Street in Dallas and that the house is five doors off Loop 12 but he does not have the exact residence.
Cooper and Robinson are both employed at Ling Temco Vought at Garland, Texas. He stated that Robinson would either be at home today or might be on duty at the Naval Air Station at Grand Prairie. He believed that Robinson could give further information about the Rambler station wagon, also the driver and the rider.
Marvin Robinson is long known to have filed a report supporting Deputy Craig's story. Robinson's FBI statement (CD 5, p. 70, though not published in the WC material; see also HSCA vol. 12, p. 18) says:
MARVIN C. ROBINSON, 5120 South Marsalis Avenue, telephone number FRanklin 4-5834, advised that approximately between 12:30 and 1:00p.m. on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, while travelling west on Elm Street he crossed the intersection of Elm and Houston Streets shortly after the assassination of President KENNEDY. ROBINSON stated that after he had crossed Houston Street and was in front of the Texas School Book Depository building a light colored Nash stationwagon suddenly appeared before him. He stated this vehicle stopped and a white male came down the grass covered incline between the building and the street and entered the stationwagon after which it drove away in the direction of the Oak Cliff section of Dallas. ROBINSON stated he does not recall the license number on the stationwagon or whether or not it bore a Texas license plate.
He stated further that he did not pay particular attention to the individual who entered the stationwagon and would be unable to identify him.
ROBINSON was unable to furnish any pertinent information concerning the assassination of President KENNEDY.
Roger Craig told the Warren Commission he saw a man he identified as Oswald flee Dealey Plaza in a Nash Rambler station wagon driven by a second man, ten to fifteen minutes after Kennedy's murder.
Just who was driving this vehicle, and who owned it, could go a long way toward explaining what really happened to President Kennedy. See the article, Possible Discovery of an Automobile Used in the JFK Conspiracy, by Richard Bartholomew, in this issue of Fair Play.
Craig's assertions appear in three different documents published in the Warren Commission volumes, two of them dated 11-23-63 and the third dated 11-25-63. Each specifically mentions a Rambler, although his published testimony before the Commission, taken April 1, 1964, does not. Craig said his references to a Rambler were changed to "station wagon."
Officially, Oswald fled the area minutes after the slaying by foot, bus, and finally taxicab, which took him to within blocks of his Oak Cliff rooming house. The Commission states on page 160 of its Report that it "could not accept important elements of Craig's testimony," and that while Craig may have seen someone fleeing, "this man was not Lee Harvey Oswald."
Craig has been a favorite target of Warren Commission apologists, in spite of a growing body of evidence he was telling the truth. He was fired by the Dallas County Sheriff's office in 1967, and committed suicide in 1975 at the age of 39.

The Roy Cooper in these FBI documents is not to be confused with the former KTVH cameraman of the same name. Cooper the cameraman rescued outtakes of assassination coverage from the wastebasket. This footage was largely unknown until the spring of 1996.

Tom Scully
 
I dunno, Lee....the FBI even came up with pictures of the bus the WC claimed Oswald briefly rode. This visual prop would have influenced a jury, if a jury had ever been presented with the evidence the government represented was against Oswald.
 
The guy, Stuart L. Reed, who was supposed to have taken the bus photos in real time, also was presented as having photographed the sixth floor window and Oswald in handcuffs, leaving the Texas Theater.
 
Reed was an executive, government employee in charge of the Panama Canal operating company civilian employees under the auspices of the U.S. Army. He had only time to seemingly be everywhere at once, taking all the right photos, dropping them off at the developer lab, before he had to scoot onto a slow boat to the Canal Zone, out of New Orleans.

All he had time to do before his boat sailed was to sign a slip authorizing the FBI to pick up his developed photo slides at the Dallas developer. Seems like a rock solid chain of evidence, to me...NOT!!!! Did Reed or any single person snap the shutter on all three of those areas of interest, the bus, the sixth floor window, the arrest scene? We have no way of knowing. There is no testimony from Reed authenticating the photos, or from the lab that developed the slide images. As presented by the FBI, Reed never saw the developed slide images, and then he dropped out of sight. The FBI claimed a government executive (Reed) answering to the military took the photos, and that declaration completely satisfied the WC.

J. Raymond Carroll

McWatters, whatever way you look at it, lied under oath. Same with Mary Bledsoe. Without their testimony you cannot prove Oswald was on the bus.

 
Thank you Lee, you have given us the entire play, except you left out the Prince of Denmark!
 
Lee Oswald also said that he was on a bus, and he said that he had the transfer in his pocket when arrested. Or so say Hosty, Kelley & Bookhout.

So Bledsoe is merely a corroborative witness. The primary witness is Lee Oswald himself.

Robert Morrow
 
I don't know. With my limited knowledge in this area, I tend to think Oswald was on both the bus and the cab. Call me undecided on this one.
 
If Oswald got dropped off 4 blocks from where he lived, that would make sense for US intelligence agent Oswald who was living under an assumed named at his boarding house. Oswald would not want for folks to know where he lived.
 
As for Roger Craig, I think he is a very honest man and I believe him 100% about a Mauser being found. But as for Oswald running down the grass and being picked up in a car, perhaps Craig could be honestly mistaken on this one. Lots of young men at that time looked like Oswald - a very average looking guy.
 
In any event, no matter what transporation Oswald took, he was back at the boarding house on North Beckley at exactly 1PM. Am I correct on that point? Please correct me if I am not.

And if Oswald leaves his boarding house at 1:03 PM... then there is no way in hell he gets to 10th and Patton at 1:08 - 1:09 when the Tippit shooting occurred at the latest, even if he is walking at an extremely fast pace. I personally did the power walk at 11:05 seconds and a 2nd time at a blistering walk of 10 minutes 25 seconds, cutting corners, practically walking through traffic, etc.

Stan Dane wrote:

Stan Dane wrote:Tom Scully
 
I dunno, Lee....the FBI even came up with pictures of the bus the WC claimed Oswald briefly rode. This visual prop would have influenced a jury, if a jury had ever been presented with the evidence the government represented was against Oswald.
 
The guy, Stuart L. Reed, who was supposed to have taken the bus photos in real time, also was presented as having photographed the sixth floor window and Oswald in handcuffs, leaving the Texas Theater.
 
Reed was an executive, government employee in charge of the Panama Canal operating company civilian employees under the auspices of the U.S. Army. He had only time to seemingly be everywhere at once, taking all the right photos, dropping them off at the developer lab, before he had to scoot onto a slow boat to the Canal Zone, out of New Orleans.

All he had time to do before his boat sailed was to sign a slip authorizing the FBI to pick up his developed photo slides at the Dallas developer. Seems like a rock solid chain of evidence, to me...NOT!!!! Did Reed or any single person snap the shutter on all three of those areas of interest, the bus, the sixth floor window, the arrest scene? We have no way of knowing. There is no testimony from Reed authenticating the photos, or from the lab that developed the slide images. As presented by the FBI, Reed never saw the developed slide images, and then he dropped out of sight. The FBI claimed a government executive (Reed) answering to the military took the photos, and that declaration completely satisfied the WC.

Lee Farley

Hi Tom

Are you saying that Reed took photos of McWatters bus "real time" when it was stuck on Elm Street?

Lee 

Robert Charles-Dunne
 
At the risk of tooting my own horn, please see post #11 in this thread:
 
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7809

Tom Scully
 
Lee, my musings about the reaction of a jury were intended as sarcasm. No jury ever got to review anything related to accusations against Oswald. Stuart L. Reed was not a simply a civilian, and the circumstances, timing, and the details related to the developing of his slides seem suspect. He raced around during a crucial 90 minutes, dumped his film, contacted the FBI, signed a release consigning his slides, still at the developing lab, hopped a boat to Panama out of NOLA on the 26th, and seems never to have been heard from again.
 
Here's the link to the first of my two posts showing how I know what I just posted about Reed and his exit.:
 
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16712&view=findpost&p=211063
 
But, he popped up here, in 1964, thanks to the George Smathers library,

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00094771/00656/4x?vo=11&vp=315,0
 
Page 4
 
 
A retirement party honoring Stuart
L. Reed, Executive Officer, Canal
Zone Civilian Personnel Policy Co-
ordinating Board, will be held at the
Quarry Heights Officers Club Satur-
day, March 23.
Reed, who came to the Canal Zone
in 1962, is well known for his activi-
ties in Canal Zone scouting, Toast-
masters, bowling, and the Shrine.
On his retirement, the latter part of
this month, he will have more than
31 Government service, most of it
with the Department of the Army.
Tickets for the retirement party-
starting with a 6:30 p.m. cocktail
hour and followed by a buffet at
7:30 p.m. may be obtained by calling

Mrs. Barbara Krueger....

J. Raymond Carroll

The Beckley bus left the transfer point on St Paul and Elm at 12:36pm. The same time as the "Marsalis-Munger" bus. It makes no sense for Oswald to get on a bus that took him 9 blocks away from where he lived when a bus that did take him all the way home was right behind the one he allegedly got on.

On a previous thread someone posted a map of the route taken by the McWatters bus, and (going on memory here) that bus made its turnaround very close to the Texas Theatre. If my memory is correct, then taking the McWatters bus made perfect sense if Oz intended to go the movies in Oak CLiff, as he asserted.

It is entirely possible that he changed his mind about going directly to the theatre during the cab ride, and decided he had time to stop at his rooming house to change out of his work clothes.

Lee Farley

Lee, my musings about the reaction of a jury were intended as sarcasm. No jury ever got to review anything related to accusations against Oswald.

 
Tom
 
I'll check the link out. Thanks.

Sorry for not picking up on the sarcasm. The question that pops in my head is "why the need for these photographs?" What purpose did they serve because they're not very well known? I must admit I'm shocked I've never seen them and there must be lots of other interested people that have not seen them before.

J. Raymond Carroll

Lee Oswald claimed he changed clothes. The DPD claimed he did not. Which do you put your faith in and why?

It is a long time since I looked at the evidence on this, and I do not recall the basis for DPD to claim he did not, but I have never really doubted that he changed out of his work clothes.

If he changed clothes he transfered the bus ticket quite purposefully from either his trouser pockets or his previous shirt pocket (if it had one) and if he changed shirts he placed the transfer in the top left pocket of the fresh shirt he put on. Why?

Force of habit. Most men simply transfer their pocket litter when changing clothes.

Earlene Roberts said he was zipping a jacket on his way out.

Roberts is not very persuasive on the matter of clothing. There was no reason for her to pay particular attention to what Oz was wearing, she was blind in one eye, and her attention was directed towards her TV set.

Lee Oswald originally "said" he went all the way home on the bus. Then changed his tune the next day and "said" he got off the bus and got a cab. Why did he lie on day 1?

He had no reason to lie, and I do not believe he did lie. The interrogation was half-assed, at best.

You haven't addressed McWatters testimony about there being no bus in front of him as being completely inaccurate.

Well maybe you have a perfect memory for the exact details of a street scene you saw three or four months ago, but McWatters did not. You have already stated that you do not doubt mcWatters' honesty.

Stan Dane wrote:Lee Farley
 
Lee Oswald and the Marsalis Bus
... 

Similar to us not knowing how the DPD found out about McWatters we also have very little documentation that explains whether the DPD took the full book of transfers from McWatters to gain a grasp on the numerical sequences involved in their issuance. In fact, I was under the impression for years that the only evidence in existence of bus 1213 transfers being collected was this photograph of the one allegedly given to Oswald. Transfer number 004459:
 
What I have always found curious is that the DPD and the FBI seemed to show little interest in tracing the woman that McWatters and Bledsoe claimed got the transfer prior to Oswald’s. The lady making her way to the train station would have been issued transfer number 004458. Obviously, the likelihood that the individual involved would have still had the transfer is minimal but they made no attempt to even find out (ladies purses do sometimes have a steroetypical knack of holding onto items that enter them), or to find her to corroborate McWatters recollections. Much the same way they failed to look for the old lady that Oswald offered his own cab to at the Greyhound Station who could have corroborated William Whaley’s statements. The simple fact of the matter is, if these people existed, I’m sure they would have been looked for.
 
Concerning the transfer, I will leave you with this. We do know that the DPD confiscated the book of transfers from Cecil McWatters. Whether it was definitely the same book that Oswald's transfer was allegedly issued from is anyone’s guess because the actual book was never photographed. We do know "a" book was taken because a receipt was given for it. The receipt has the following written on the back“Receipt for the book of transfers from which transfer was issued to Oswald the accused assin of Pres, John F. Kennedy.” What is tantalising about this receipt is what it was written on. What is even more tantalising is the number of the thing it was written on. TRansfer receipt #004451. I’ll leave it up to everyone’s imagination to make their own sense out of what this could potentially mean:
 
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62307&relPageId=88 (Transfer Receipt)

Without the full transfer book it's impossible to cast-iron prove anything regarding this little gem but at least this does prove that the DPD had the full transfer book in their possession and they certainly kept this fact out of the reports and out of discussion and if this knowledge does one thing for me, it certainly reinforces the thoughts I have had about the Oswald transfer that I've had for more than 15 years; Oswald wasn't on the bus. Nor was he in the cab. He left Dealey Plaza by other means. The transfer was planted.

Duke Lane

If I understand what you're (not?) saying, and what it appears that I'm seeing, the transfer shown in the FBI exhibit is one that preceded that supposedly issued to Oswald and supposedly taken from him by DPD. Let's see if I'm missing anything:

• Both are printed by the Globe Ticket Co. Dallas
  
  
• Both are issued by the Dallas Transit Company
  
  
• Both are dated "Fri. Nov. 22, '63"
  
  
• Both are "good within 15 minutes of time indicated on the date issued only, at first point of intersection or transfer point, on connecting lines except to vicinity of starting point."
  
  
• Both are "Shopper Transfer" tickets
  
  
• Both have the same list of routes
  
  
• Both have (apparent) directional blocks, N S E W
  
  
• Both have "THRU CAR" printed "beneath" the direction indicator
  
  
• Both have "A.M." and "P.M." time stamps/punches at the end
  
  

A few general observations:

• We now know the answer to what on what bus routes transfers could be used ("on connecting lines except to vicinity of starting point," i.e., no round trips) and where ("at first point of intersection or transfer point," wherever the routes met closest or at "transfer points" ... downtown?).
  
  
• This also tells us that someone getting on and paying the fare for a wrong bus could use it to transfer to the correct bus continuing in the same or crossing direction
  
  
• We also now know when a transfer was good until: "within 15 minutes of the time indicated on the date issued only."
  
  
• The "Oswald transfer" is cut off at the 1/0 mark, indicating 0 minutes after the hour of 1, i.e., 1:00, meaning whoever was issued it had until 1:15 to get on any "connecting" bus, provided only that it didn't return the user to their point of origin
  
  
• The 0 - 15 - 30 - 45 minute cuts are repeated so there is never an acute angle
  
  
• The "binding" (apparently a staple) is at the "bottom" end of the ticket. This means that the driver tore from the top of the transfer, using the blade mechanism to rip it straight across the desired times, so the transfers got longer as the day got later (preventing someone from getting additional time to board the next bus: you can only shorten the ticket and invalidate it, you can't "cut it longer"). Those shown in the FBI exhibit have apparently been torn from the staple, judging from the somewhat ragged looks of them.
  
  

The only difference between the tickets is the number that's (apparently) stamped on the ticket. This can be one of two things: a sequential "serial number" for each ticket or, as its location might imply, a number associated with a particular bus, i.e., "THRU CAR" 004459 or 004451.

Let's take a deductive stab at that question.

If the number relates to a particular bus or bus line or bus driver (a "car"), then much of the rest of the information on the transfer is redundant if not entirely unnecessary and costly. If, for example, the transfer was issued "thru car 004459" in the case of the "Oswald ticket," then there would be no question as to what route or driver issued the ticket because it could only be one or two of either (one driver might use two different busses in the course of a day for whatever reason, or a bus might be assigned to a different route for whatever reason, either of which could be a shift change. 

Using McWatters as an example, he drove a second, evening shift on a different route, which is how he came to be found driving by DPD HQ that evening (I think he stopped at home in between shifts, if I remember correctly). So no matter which bus he was on, he would have the same tickets. Or, conversely, if the number related to a particular bus, then those transfers would still be with the bus he'd driven earlier, being issued by a different driver.

If either of those things are true, then using a punch that was unique to each driver was a waste of someone's money and was totally unnecessary since the number relating to either the bus or the driver would be just as easy as if not easier than trying to figure out which driver had what-shaped punch.

Likewise, if it identified the bus or the route, there was no need to punch the route that it was issued from (e.g., Lakewood, as the "Oswald transfer" is punched) except to tell a driver that the transfer was not issued on the same route or "connecting lines except to the vicinity of the starting point." However, after a relatively short period of time on the job, I'd hazard that most drivers would quickly come to know the identifying "thru car" numbers assigned to those routes whose "starting points" were in the vicinity that the new bus was heading toward. Punching the route number/name on the long side of the transfer might have been easier to recognize (figuring that the "Lakewood"-stamped ticket was near their own route might be easier to translate in a driver's mind than that "004459" was such a route and this was a ticket they shouldn't take).

More to the point, why would there be a six-digit identifying number for a bus route when there were only 21 routes that could have issued a transfer, according to the list. Why not simply put a big "23" on each Lakewood transfer and be done with it? Why have two means of identifying a route, one cryptic and one relatively small, when one big one would do?

Are there any other considerations that I'm not thinking of here that would suggest a use other than that six-digit number being a serial number, unique to each ticket? The only other note worth making is that the ability to use these "route-numbered" tickets for a longer period of time is obviated by them being stamped with the date of issuance: once "within 15 minutes of" midnight hit, they were no good anymore.


The FBI exhibit has a handwritten "receipt" accompanying it, apparently from the shape of it having been written on the blank back side of a ticket, possibly but not necessarily the back of the ticket marked "004451," but more likely written on another transfer ticket, either the last one in the book or the one preceding this serialized one. It is almost definitely on the back of a transfer ticket judging by the location of the V-notch at the stapled end of the ticket being on the side opposite that of the "working" side with the times, etc., on it.

It seems to me that a "receipt" would be given by the FBI to whomever they got it from (and maybe such a thing exists or existed, but obviously not in FBI files), but this seems more for identification purposes than actual "receipt" purposes. It reads:

Receipt for the book of transfers from which transfer was issued to Oswald the accused assin [sic] of Pres. John F. Kennedy.
There is what appears to be a signature or signatures below that. It could be a second copy made from the FBI to the bus company (so the FBI would have a copy of what they gave out?), or not. The first signature line seems to be initials, possibly J.A. and a last name that begins with an "R", tho' I can't make out if whatever is to the immediate left of the "R" is. It looks like the last name ends in "tt" or maybe "lt" ("LT"), and the middle letter could be an "n" or maybe a "u" or maybe something else. It looks like two letters precede whatever that is.

The second line, however, looks a little less ambiguous. I first thought it was "Stu"-something until I recognized that the "last name" appears to be "Foreman." Instead of "Stu," the first part might well read "Sta," short for "station," i.e., "Station Foreman." If so, that would indicate that the station foreman who gave the book of transfers to the FBI was using this "receipt" to indicate what it was that he was giving to them. This could possibly be verified (and translated) through the surviving bus company, DART (Dallas Area Rapid Transit), which is the same company twice removed by ownership from the entity that existed in '63, or through an historical society or club of retired drivers, both of which exist and are reasonably accessible.

Or maybe there was a Special Agent Stu Foreman of the FBI. But I'm guessing not.

Here's where it gets a little dicey, if that's the right word I'm thinking of.

The "receipt" is for "the book of transfers from which transfer was issued to Oswald."

This indicates both that a book of tickets was given to the FBI (or maybe it was DPD originally?), and that Oswald's transfer was issued out of that book of transfer tickets.

If that is so, then an important question arises: how did the station foreman have a transfer that would have been issued before the one issued to Oswald?!?

The only way that seems possible - presuming the "thru-car" number was a serial number and not a route or bus or driver number as above, i.e., the same on every ticket in the book - is if they were serialized in reverse, in which case this ticket 004451 was issued - or rather, not issued - within eight transfers after Oswald's. I don't think McWatters was asked how many tickets he gave out that day, so it is possible that was the case, but frankly, I don't know of anything that's kept together in a booklet or a roll - like raffle tickets - that's serialized in reverse. Does anyone else?

Another possibility is that, for whatever reason, the driver kept the first ticket of the book intact, and started issuing tickets on any given day with the second ticket in the book, 004452 in this case. Ticket books were only about 1/4" or so (possibly 3/8" or 1/2") thick when new, so it is also possible that the book started at 004400 or 004401, but that means that an "odd" ticket from the middle of the book - or somewhere deeper into the book than the first ticket - was inexplicably kept intact. 

If that doesn't make sense, then there exists a possibility - and seemingly a reasonable one, in its own unreasonable sort of way - that ticket 004459 was removed frombeneath tickets that McWatters kept on his second-shift bus while it was parked in front of DPD, removed in its entirety and either torn before leaving the bus or torn somewhere else, either way so as not to leave a shorter ticket mixed in with longer ones, which might more likely be noticed by the bus driver than one that was simply not there at all (I'm more than fairly confident that bus drivers didn't pay attention to the ticket numbers as they tore them off).

(This "earlier" ticket also didn't bear McWatters' punch-marks, which could presumably - and possibly only - be accomplished on the bus where McWatters' punch was. Nobody could have punched it if McWatters had the punch with him inside DPD, and a second trip to the bus to belatedly punch the ticket - or return the punch - might have looked odd, but then, who would question it? The other question that arises is why the "Oswald ticket" is apparently punched as a "23. Lakewood" ticket when there is also a "30. Marsalis" route designation on the transfer. Was that the route that McWatters was on for the second shift and the one that was on the front of the bus? Oops. Or did the Lakewood bus also go down Marsalis? As a kid, we had at least four routes that went up the same main route, each farther than the one before....)

There may be other possibilities that I'm not considering or even thinking of, and if so, the floor is open to other ideas.

If there are no other possibilities, the time that McWatters was driving by DPD HQ, if known, and was detained should be examined to see how it fits in with the discovery (or "discovery") of the bus transfer in Oswald's pocket. If that fits, then comes a question of motive (there certainly was opportunity, since we can hardly imagine whoever was on McWatters' bus hanging around waiting for him to return, however long that might take ... and from the riders' perspective, God-only-knows why the cops stopped him and brought him inside in the first place: maybe he wasn't coming back!): why would anyone want to put Oswald on a bus right after the shooting?

Nobody knew about Mary Bledsoe on Friday evening, and Whaley didn't claim to have known his fare had previously been on a bus. If Oswald had been on a bus anddidn't take a transfer - as Jones' statement and Bledsoe's later "dis-"recollection would have it - then maybe it was only to create a "trail," but of what and to what end? 

This is an interesting find, Lee. If it's ever been noticed or explained before, I'm dumb to it.