The Beckley Bunch

First topic message reminder :

The Lone Gunman With Rob Clark,

Episode 161 The Beckley Bunch:

https://tlgpodcast.blogspot.com/p/podcast-episodes.html?m=1

Stephen Roe, proud member of the 13 inch head forum wrote:A long post, so let’s cut to the bottom line here. Did Oswald live at 1026 North Beckley or not? A simple question to you. 

A complete and on-topic answer does call for more than a single non-sequitur sentence - something Stephen has not yet learned. 

Well that’s her (Pat Hall, current owner of 1026 N Beckley) own recollections. According to ROKC, she’s not telling the truth. Let me take this moment, since you bring up Pat Hall, this debate/conversation was already been hashed out months ago with ROKC Parker, Kamp and LeDoux on social media. All of it got erased (or did it ). Pat Hall was in the middle of this after ROKC called her a xxxx and her family a bunch of money grabbing opportunists. Parker, Kamp and LeDoux will never tell you about this on their endless parlour games. 

How could anyone who destroyed crucial evidence far more valuable than a scrap of paper they sold for a pittance, be described as "money-grubbing"? No, I'd call that plain stupid. Not to mention, criminal!

How could anyone trying to sell a place for 10 times it's value based on false information be described as "money-grubbing"? Well, that should be a no-brainer.

Pat Hall may well recall a Mr Lee - because there was indeed a Mr Lee who lived there. A young slim white male who had arrived from Louisiana in late September or early October.   His first name was Herbert.



The endless parlor games are split evenly between the false division of LN/CT. Both propagate inbred and bastard children of the WC, all to keep the wheels a-spinnin' boys! That is not this site, and Roe knows it. 

Ghost of Conspiracies Past wrote:Robert, you have been sorely missed...!

Aye, he has. He just needs to unshackle those hoary old ghosts, take off the comic book coupon purchased X Files Glasses and step into the real world where real people are constantly framed in real ways.

So many things once held as established facts have been demolished.

Oswald living at the North Beckley house.

Lunchroom Encounter

Cab and Bus rides

Odio encounter

Stephen \"Cough Cough" Roe feeling right at home at the 13 Inch Head Forum wrote:Boy that holster is sure bothering you guys. Maybe you should take that up with the DPD or FBI and quit pestering me and everyone else. I’m sure the FBI has a cough cough high success rate lifting print off rough leather, right? And those 1/4” snap or rivet beveled  buttons will yield a usable print, right?

Pestering YOU?? LOL. You're funny. You are the one who joined the 13 Inch Head Forum in order to teach those ROKC varmints a lesson, dagnabit!.... by... LOL NOT answering 99% of the evidence presented, cherry-picking the other 1% and generally throwing mud and misdirection. 

Let's see what a former cop says about it...

 -----------------------------
R. Justin Freeman, Former Patrol Officer

Answered Sep 8, 2011 · Upvoted by Justin Liu, Attorney and George Kellerman, Former corporate counsel at Yahoo, attorney at Venture Law Group



[size=15][size=13]Originally Answered: What can fingerprints be lifted and not lifted from?
Print lifting capability isn't binary regarding various surface types - there is somewhat of a spectrum of suitability for lifting fingerprints. Knowing my answers tend to wax prosaic, here's the TLDR as a public service:


[/size][/size]

• Easy: Glass, glossy tile, porcelain, lacquered furniture, smooth metal.
  
• Involved: Paper, painted surfaces, drywall, cardboard, leather, most dashboards.
  
• Difficult: Organic surfaces (tree leaves, fruit peels, feathers).
  
• Formidable: Fabrics, human skin, and rough or textured surfaces (checkered handgun grips come to mind).
  
• Virtually Impossible: Oily, rusty, or extremely dirty surfaces; high traffic surfaces with multiple overlapping prints; prints smeared by movement.
  

----------------------------
So "leather" is no more difficult than paper... and we know the FBI fingerprinted lots of paper and cardboard.

But you said "rough" leather. So that "may" shift it from "involved" to "formidable". I guess the FBI just wouldn't bother with a formidable task. After all, this was just the biggest case they'd had.

But I wonder on what basis you claim the leather was "rough"?

This is the holster.


Even enlarged and fuzzy it doesn't look "rough"...

It looks more like this patent leather holster


And patent leather is... is a piece of piss* to lifts prints from

Can fingerprints be obtained from a leather briefcase?























































1 Answer

Manish Sharma, former Content Writing Specialist

Answered Jul 14, 2018







[ltr]As instructed by elegant leather accessories maker companies, patent leather briefcases are the ones from which fingerprints can be obtained. This is because patent leather material has a shiny and polished surface unlike other types which are far too textured and porous.

Gotta give it to Oz, he may have had shit weapons, but she sure housed them in style!

*Noun[/ltr]

[ltr]piece of piss (plural pieces of piss)[/ltr]




[ltr](vulgar, Britain, New Zealand, Australian slang) Something easy to achieve.[/ltr]

[ltr]Rollerblading is a piece of piss if you know how to roller-skate.[/ltr]

[ltr]Synonyms[/ltr]

[ltr]cinch, piece of cake[/ltr]


[ltr]-----------------------
I just need to know now Stephen, how Lee made it invisible to the ladies of the house and all the other nosy people who might want to wander into that unlocked room.[/ltr]

But what really bothers you and ROKC is the backyard photos with Oswald wearing a holster. Isn’t that the end-game for this fantasy theory?

There is only one goal. The clue to that is in the title of this place.

Bart, listen you guys at ROKC are not going to fool long time researchers on both sides of the argument.

Would that be the long-time researchers who believe in Two Oswalds and Two Marguerites? The long-time researchers who believe he was killed to keep the UFO secret from leaking out? Or maybe the long time researchers who don;t actually do any research because they believe the Warren Commission? Those researchers? Who gives a fuck? Do we look worried? 

Maybe you can hoodwink some Newbies, that could be your audience that will praise you guys. As exhibited here, nobody believes this theory.

I'd be worried if any of those dicks did buy into it judging from the daily sewerage flowing from its nodes.

 

It’s DOA.

 

As proven by you with your non-sequiturs, cherry picking and one-liners that I would kick the arse of a 5 year old Aussie kid if that was the best he come up with? 

I think not Stephen. I think you are verbalizing your magic-thinking. 

Now you guys go back and hunt for keys, ashtrays, yourselves. And one more thought, you darn well know this was discussed before. Does June 8th ring a bell? I presented that Oswald notebook entry to you, LeDoux and Parker. Parker even commented he never saw it before and in the span of 5-10 minutes became a handwriting expert and denounced it as “fakery”. Of course this never shows up in Ed LeDoux’s essay......I wonder why?

I don't actually recall that Stephen. Been a bit preoccupied with other shit.  No doubt I did say it because I know you guys like to squirrel things away for a potential "gotcha".  Do you really have a problem with me admitting I don't recall seeing something before?

Can you go to your boss please and obtain a direct quote from him about what I said about it being "fakery"? There's a good boy... off you go.

Now you have an even bigger problem Steve Roe!
How does that holster found at Beckley reconcile worn by Lee in the BYPs......

ENLIGHTEN US!!!

Where's the belt that was threaded through that holster at Beckley so it could hang on the door knob? The one Alexander saw? The one that's not in the inventory for Beckley, that one.

So Roe,

No fingerprints from a smooth metal snap buttons of the holster... or leather as it was just too hard to even try. Roe calls smooth leather rough. He needs to stretch his own credibility thin here.

And if Roe is saying the cops knew this to be 100% true then why no other means of documenting this evidence and tie it to Oswald.

No belt to hang the holster is included.

The Warren Commission denounced their own evidence, the slip of paper, as fake.
Roe just cant accept the proof shown him.

Roe has no answer for why Oswald had numbers and did not call even when it was necessary.
Instead we are told by Ruth a story about the numbers and her calling and of course there was no Lee Oswald there, we are told.

Roe has no key to a room for which he claims Oswald rented but can not show a single receipt or any physical evidence Oswald was the roomer or even a roomer.

My evidence trumps your flimsy phone numbers.
Direct witness statements contradict the idea the persons thought to be Oswald. Those persons were in fact other roomers.
Phone calls investigated by the FBI support this fact.
There were no roomer witnesses of Oswald.
Proven.

The management has been caught in various conflicting statements.
Their credibility is now shot.
The new management has too blown their own credibility based on their own statements.

So Steve has a mile to go and is mad he didnt check the map.
You are here [1964]

Cheers, Ed

June 8th and Ruth's calendar bs.
Roe falls for everything but whats rubbed in his nose.

Gee, Roe asks why its not in the essay, because that doesnt prove anything.
Why is FR 5 5591 in the book?
What relatives did the numbers owner have,
What answer did he give for why his number is in the book twice?

What does refute Roe is the 59 pages of evidence I presented. Roe has two trival concerns that were "addressed", no pun intended.
Roe refutes it all by a page in a book?
No no Roe.
That is not sufficient for even a weak analysis to conclude as you have.
He has almost reached circumstantial level.
Hint for Roe, better find something solid soon as your audience is turning on you.

Cheers,Ed

Roe is the new MacAdams. Ignore......

Show us the Beckley Street register! The Ledger! Not some flimsy scrap of paper hastily written up at home by Gladys and then so obviously altered in the back rooms of the WC hearings by the lawyers.

barto wrote:Roe is the new MacAdams. Ignore.....

Nah... McAdams rules his own little fiefdom in google groups.

Roe is ruled by Hess in the latter's little hidden fiefdom on Facebook.

Can't quit now. We are close to seeing how silly Roe is willing to look for the sake of trying to find a "gotcha" - which he idiotically hopes readers will buy as some implosion of 50 pages of evidence.

Stephen \"Cough Cough" Roe feeling right at home at the 13 Inch Head Forum wrote:I have that as well. Now as you can see they are mad as hell in damage control mode trying to dig themselves out of yet another boneheaded blunder. 

Like I said, I know you squirrel facebook posts away like the nervous little squirrel you are, while simultaneously hiding in a non-open forum so you and other nutters can parse them without the bother of being rebutted by the original author. Cowardly behavior, but expected.

Damage control over what? You are trying to spin my admission that I did not recall seeing that entry in Oswald's book and my opinion that it was not in Oswald's handwriting as some monumental turning point in this debate. You are delusional, desperate, or both.

Firstly, let me address your claim that I became an "instant" expert in handwriting analysis -- a call you made without knowing if it had any validity or not. Because that is how you roll.

Many moons ago I worked for the Department of Social Security. One of the positions I held in that department was the investigation of things like maladministration and fraud by members of the public or staff. As part of the training for that job, I did learn some basics on what to look for in fraudulent signatures. I am not an "expect", but I do have some experience.

The thing about experts is that, like me, the best they can do is offer an OPINION. For every qualified expert that you can find to say the writing is Oswald's, I'll find one that says it isn't. Happens every day in court. Even the WC and HSCA experts sometimes offered differing opinions on the same writing samples.

So where in all of that, is your "gotcha"? There isn't one. Your bluff and bluster is merely trying to make people believe that the pimple is really Mt Everest.

Let's assume my opinion is wrong and it is Oswald's writing. Does it prove he lived there? Not at all.



Dallas Rooming House
Mrs Bledsoe
WH 219857 / WH 38993

---------------------
You would hardly call Bledsoe's home a "rooming house". It was a normal 4 bedroom house and she occasionally rented spare rooms out - mainly to friends of her son judging from FBI reports. Did she even advertise? Apart from the sign she says she had in her window, I mean?

In any case, of the two places, only the N Beckley building could rightly be described as a "rooming house". Was it in fact listed under that designation in a business or other directory? I am attempting to find out, but until I get an answer, my default assumption stands.  The rooming house in question was not Bledsoe's but the Johnson's. 

As I believe Ed has pointed out already, the lack of a name to go with the second phone number does not bode well. Why write Bledsoe's name down and not Johnson's?  The simple explanation is that he never had a name. He got the number from a directory as listed under "rooming houses", or was given the number by someone, but did not take a room there.

As for Pat Hall... I have called out her errors in memory on twitter directly to her. What's your point? If she remembers a Mr Lee it is because there was a Mr Lee. She refuses to acknowledge Herbert and continues to claim that Mr Lee was Oswald because it is in her financial interests to do so.

So far your rebuttals have been...

-the weakest "gotcha" in history
-calling a shiny leather holster a rough leather holster
-claiming the FBI would not have bothered attempting to fingerprint said holster because it was "too hard"
-name-calling (which can be fun, but should never be attempted by a rank amateur, especially if that is all he has in his debating bag)
-a lot of hot air, bluster and misdirection

--------------
I have to assume that the bulk of the points made by Ed are ones you cannot answer, not even with a patented "non-answer" that you supplied for everything else.  

How about you try to at least address this, since it is YOUR evidence




Notice that it lists "living room and television" privileges... but not kitchen and refrigerator privileges?

Would have to have been a massive industrial sized fridge to accommodate food for 12 or more guests on top of residents and staff.

But I DO note that "cafes" are listed. Why would that be? A gentle way of saying that's where you have to eat? A fact confirmed by Hugh Slough.

Yet of all the guests, the one who refused to speak to anyone and spoke on the phone in a European language, is for reasons never explained, the ONLY one given fridge privileges? 

Must be true. None of those cafe employees recalled Oswald.

Suck it up buttercup. You have nothing.

Roe answer yet why Oswald did not call ahead...
he had the numbers according to Roe and yet no call to Beckley 3 weeks prior to Oct 14th, then again no call to Beckley on Oct 14th either.
Roe wants us to believe simply having numbers equates to residency.
Receipts do that.
Guest books do that.
Unaltered sign in sheets do that.
Witnesses, and other corroborating evidence does that.
Writing down a phone number and never calling it, no name to go with it... useless even as circumstantial evidence.
Roe is inept or just champions a concerted campaign of ignorance.

Oswald sure could have saved himself a trip all the way to Beckley to find out what he could have called about.... twice. I dont think so Roe.
That's a no go.

Cheers, Ed

Roe, you've just been backstopped

Ed

He's another Bill Miller...remember him? burst into the PM thread, collected his arse on the way out and went back to the woods to look for Yetis.
Wonder what Roe's real pastime is?

Whatever the hobby Steely, this borders on Doyle Denial Demeanor.
If he has DDD it'll become apparent soon.
Lack of keys, receipts or witnesses will drive him bonkers.
Cheers, Ed

Yep my prediction is coming to fruition.
Cheers, Ed

Ed. Ledoux wrote:Yep my prediction is coming to fruition.
Cheers, Ed

Yep indeed!
If he can earn himself a ban (he's trying) he can head back to his FB group and claim victory. DDD indeed!
Utter prick.

ron bulman at the ed forum wrote:1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:
Its not much of a contribution but we do know that Oswald was thinking about shoes for his daughter; it has always amazed me that it was a concern he expressed even after he was charged and being held for murder.  That he would talk about something like that at that point in time has always blown me away but it might indicate that he truly had little clue about what was going on, that he had not done anything that he was guilty of and he suspected that it was all a bogus and he had been arrested simply because he had been in Russia as he said to the press - and that he was confident no charges would stick and he would be released or certainly not convicted.

That is nothing but pure speculation of course but talking about shoes for  your child while being held for the murder of the president is pretty darn strange for someone who knows he has just committed two murders.

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html

(To his Wife.) "Oh, no, they have not been beating me. They are treating me fine. . . . You're not to worry about that. Did you bring June and Rachel? . . . Of course we can speak about absolutely anything at all. . . . It's a mistake. I'm not guilty. There are people who will help me. There is a lawyer in New York on whom I am counting for help. . . . Don't cry. There is nothing to cry about. Try not to think about it. . . . Everything is going to be all right. If they ask you anything, you have a right not to answer. You have a right to refuse. Do you understand? . . . You are not to worry. You have friends. They'll help you. If it comes to that, you can ask the Red Cross for help. You mustn't worry about me. Kiss Junie and Rachel for me. I love you. . . . Be sure to buy shoes for June."

......sure doesn't sound like a raging political assassin does he;  would have been interesting to see this printed in LIFE

An interesting perspective Larry.  Maybe I've read this before but it went right over my head and I have forgotten it.  It's almost like he doesn't have a clue, or faith in those he worked for would exonerate him.  "There are people who will help me."  "You have friends.  They'll help you."

FFS why does EVERYTHING have to be squeezed into a LN or CT box??? 

Might it not be... as simple as him trying to sound "normal" talking about "normal" things to reassure his family, who must have been beside themselves with all sorts of emotions?

Too simple? Too normal?

Well fuck, how about this.

"New shoes" is an intelligence term for a new assignment.

Go ahead and run with that... and good luck explaining how a 2 year old is on assignment...

Maybe in a Get Smart episode I missed?

Yes or
"go to the Oackcliff shoe store on Jefferson with the known spy. He will help."

New Shoes =



Ed

Yep normalcy is wildly speculative Greg when we can dream up 50 years worth of rabbits to reach for.
A simple normal thing for pent up need to care for his children is too common to be considered.
Cheers,
Ed

Odd I made no post today...



Ffs what education forum has such perposterous limits on its members ... redunk
Ed

You seem to have been put on restrictions.

Vinny wrote:You seem to have been put on restrictions.

That's how it works there. Losing the debate, they run to Gordo and bleat until he "moderates" or boots you.

I'd be willing to bet that in this case, the Bleater is also a forum donor. Not that it would make much difference. Gordo is clueless about what is going on and always is. One by one, the the tin-foil hat brigade (now dubbed "the Gordo whisperers")  will weed out all opposition to their lunacy.  "Education" will then have a very Orwellian meaning. Hell, they are just about there already.

Gordon seems to hardly visit his forum anyway.

greg parker wrote:
 "Education" will then have a very Orwellian meaning. Hell, they are just about there already.

Nicely put.