William Shelley- Betrayal and Perjury

Most of the little we know about Oswald's account of his own actions on November 22 comes to us second-hand. In explaining why he left the Depository shortly after the assassination, he (apparently) described how he "went outside and stood around for 5 or 10 minutes with foreman BILL SHELLEY, and thereafter went home. He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks of BILL SHELLEY, he did not believe that there was going to be any more work that day due to the confusion in the building" (WR p. 619).

This statement was not rendered until James Bookhout's solo report, filed after Oswald's death, and based upon notes he'd taken during Oswald's initial interrogation. This detail, notably, was omitted from a joint report that Bookhout had filed with James Hosty the day before Oswald's murder.

But "Shelley denied seeing Oswald after 12 noon or at any time after the shooting" (WR p. 182), and the Warren Commission opted to determine that the incident never happened.

Shelley and his trusty sidekick Billy Lovelady had watched the motorcade from the TSBD front landing. And their testimonies give the impression that they remained there upwards of 3 or 4 minutes after the shots, confusing the arrival of Gloria Caverly with that of motorcycle officer Marrion Baker. Years of film analysis have firmly established that Baker, racing along Houston Street, reached the front steps 22-23 seconds after Z-313; Caverly, who'd been down at the Stemmons sign, was nowhere near Baker then. And so their mis-synchronization has, erroneously, been chalked up to S & L's mis-memories of those confusing first few minutes.

Thanks to some superb film work by researcher Gerda Dunckel (Couch film/Lovelady and Shelley?), we now know that S & L left the front steps several seconds before Baker even arrived there.
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6724.24.html

S & L each testified that they walked down the Elm St. Extension about 100 yards to the 1st railroad track in the west parking lot. Although they had claimed in their brief FBI interviews 3 weeks earlier (WC Exhibit 1381) that they'd stood out there "about 10 minutes" & "approximately 5 minutes", their testimonies clarified that it was "maybe a minute or two" (WCH VI p. 331) & "just a minute, maybe a minute and a half" (VI p. 339). Setting Z-313 at 12:30:00, and gauging from the Couch film, their estimated arrival at the railroad track can be placed at 0:45 seconds; they stayed there until about 1:45- 2:15

This photo from David von Pein's collection illustrates this west area of the TSBD (scroll down to the 3rd photo in "Dealey Plaza Through the Years", then zoom in). Take note of the door with a ramp next to the carport, as well as the fire door built into the corner of the main warehouse.
http://www.Kennedy-photos.blogspot.com

We probably won't ever know what compelled S & L to re-enter the Depository at this juncture, but it is interesting to consider that, during this 1:45- 2:15 timeframe, Truly & Baker had paused to scan the 4th floor, and Adams & Styles were approaching S & L from the rear of the building.

Robin Unger's collection has a photo extending further along the building's northwest side, and shows that the wooden doors built into the Rear Annex had no ramp.
http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=31&pos=93

Lovelady testified (VI p. 339) that "we went back into the west entrance on the back dock had that low ramp" and went through (p. 340) "that double door that we in the morning when we get there we raised. There's a fire door and they have two wooden doors between it."

The 1st-floor diagram- which omits the West Annex (!!aha??)- shows that Lovelady is talking, somewhat muddledly, about entering the overhead doors that connected the West Annex with the rear of the main warehouse.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docid=10896
at page 7.

We now see, with the benefit of the new film evidence, that S & L were capable of returning, at a comfortable pace, to the front entrance by 12:33:30. But they weren't asked whether they returned promptly to the front landing area.

The Warren Report determined that Oswald potentially left the Depository by 3 minutes after the shots (pp. 155- 157). It was also known that WFAA reporter Pierce Allman ran to the front landing and asked Oswald where the nearest phone was located. Patrolman Welcome Barnett, by his own estimate (VII p. 543), also arrived at the front landing after 3 minutes.

I did a rigorous analysis of Allman's movements at JFKLancer a couple years ago (see Allman Timeline) and agreed that he arrived at the landing almost exactly at 12:33:00. Oswald stated he "pointed toward the pay phone in the building and that he saw the man actually go to the phone" (WR p. 629).

Several sources have indicated that Oswald, while he was on the front landing, encountered not only a DPD patrolman, but Shelley & Lovelady as well. Detective Ed Hicks told the London Free Press (11/23/63) that as Oswald came out "A policeman asked him where he was going. He said he wanted to see what the excitement was all about."

The Sydney Morning Herald (11/23/63) reported that "Oswald walked through the door of the warehouse and was stopped by a policeman. Oswald told the policeman that 'I work here', and when another employee confirmed that he did, the policeman let Oswald walk away."

Harry Holmes sat in on the November 24 interrogation, took notes, and testified that Oswald had stated that "a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees..." (VII p. 302)

James Jarman told the HSCA (Jarman interview, pp. 1- 2)that he, Norman & Williams had been prevented from leaving the Depository after running down the rear stairs. "And, after we was inside the building after that, I heard that Oswald had came down through the office and came down the front stairs and he was stopped by the officer that had stopped us and sent us back in the building and Mr. <Shelley> told them that that was alright, that he worked here, so then, he proceeded on out of the building...

...there was a Billy Lovelady standing out there, he was on the steps, see. And, Oswald was coming out the door and he said the police had stopped Oswald, Billy Lovelady said that Mr. <Shelley> told the policeman that Oswald was alright, that he worked there, so Oswald walked on down the stairs."

Jarman had actually said "Mr. Truly", but I've substituted <Shelley>, since we know that Truly was up on the roof with Baker at the time in question.

And now, thanks to the Couch film and Gerda's talented eye, S & L have been captured making a quick departure from the front landing- making readily possible their prompt return there, in accordance with the established sequence of their actions (railroad track, carport door, rear of main warehoouse). There isn't a shred of doubt that:

**Oswald was stopped on the front landing by Officer Barnett. He objected that "I work here." Shelley stepped forward and affirmed that Oswald was an employee. Lovelady stood and watched them. Oswald proceeded to walk down the steps. A few minutes later, inside the warehouse, Lovelady explained what had happened to Jarman.

These are the cold hard facts. And it's curious that Barnett's after-action report (WCD 1259 p. 5)- not submitted to Chief Curry until July 16th- makes no mention of any time spent on the front landing. He'd been assigned to guard the TSBD front entrance and stayed there until 3:00 PM. In his testimony a week later, he denied letting anybody out of the building after he got there, that is, "until they were authorized" (VII p. 543).

From the get-go, Shelley denied seeing Oswald on the front landing. His second DPD affidavit avoided the question: "After the President's accident, I started checking around and I missed Lee. I ask Mr. Truly about him and he told me he had not seen him. I didn't see Lee until the police brought him to the Dallas Homicide Bureau." This was reiterated in his FBI interview, taken at DPD HQ (WCD 5 p. 371).

Lovelady also avoided the question in his DPD affidavit. His same-day FBI interview stated that "The last contact he had with OSWALD was at about 11:50 A.M." just before the elevator race; "After the shooting, and his return to the building, LOVELADY did not see OSWALD again at any time (WCD 5 p. 332).

Truly, in his next-day DPD affidavit, contradicted Shelley: "I asked Mr. Shelley if he had seen Lee. He said no." This subtle role-reversal, from the viewpoint of employee-complicity in the assassination, casts doubt on whether this brief conversation ever even occurred.

S & L continued their denials when interviewed by the Secret Service in early December (WCD 87 p. 6). Their testimonies, unsurprisingly (VII p. 390 & VI p. 338), resulted in perjury:

BALL: Did you at any time after the President was shot see Oswald in the building?
SHELLEY: No, sir.
BALL: Did you at any time after the President was shot tell Oswald to go home?
SHELLEY: No, sir.

BALL: Did you ever see him again that day?
LOVELADY: No.

*********************************************************

What's the big deal? Whatever transpired on the front landing was fairly innocuous in the scheme of the day's activities, and Oswald's alleged role in them. True, he left the building around 12:34, but it wasn't like he'd been seen running out the back at 12:32

And for him to state, once he'd been taken into custody, that while out on the landing he'd gotten the impression from Shelley that it was OK to leave- this was a trivial matter, comparatively, which could easily be checked that afternoon. Shelley could have disputed Oswald's contention and effectively said, "I never told him it was OK. I don't know what gave him that idea." But Shelley thoroughly denied even being there.

Because the logical follow-up question the DPD would have asked was: Did you see where he went? i.e. Did he go right, or did he go left?

Had Shelley displayed any nervousness or reticence when answering, the Dallas police had cause to arrest him- and this is indeed what happened, according to journalist Elzie Glaze. Shelley had confided to him in 1975 that the DPD had formally charged him with the President's murder. (William Weston in The Fourth Decade, Vol. 6, No. 4, May 1999).

Although Shelley arrived at DPD HQ about 1:30, he was not allowed to leave until 5:00 PM (WC Exhibit 1381)- and not without submitting a second affidavit. One would imagine that his other bombshell to Glaze- that he'd joined the CIA shortly after its inception- helped especially in obtaining his early release.

********************

All of the above information does more than simply hammer home Shelley's complicity in the assassination. There's an interplay between Shelley and Oswald- what they knew while on the landing, and what they learned at DPD HQ- resembling psychological warfare. They're each participants in the plot, but what do they know about the other? Really know? And what could the other have revealed to the police?

Lastly, it seems to me that Shelley's denial about even being on the front landing reveals he had at least some knowledge regarding Oswald's subsequent movements- and supports that pesky yarn about Oswald getting into a Rambler.

Richard,

having read this a couple of times, I think the possibilities are certainly being whittled down.

One of the troublesome areas is the differences between the earlier joint Hosty-Bookhout report and Bookhout's solo effort apparently referencing the same interrogation.

As you note:

In explaining why he left the Depository shortly after the assassination, he (apparently) described how he "went outside and stood around for 5 or 10 minutes with foreman BILL SHELLEY, and thereafter went home. He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks of BILL SHELLEY, he did not believe that there was going to be any more work that day due to the confusion in the building" (WR p. 619).

This statement was not rendered until James Bookhout's solo report, filed after Oswald's death, and based upon notes he'd taken during Oswald's initial interrogation. This detail, notably, was omitted from a joint report that Bookhout had filed with James Hosty the day before Oswald's murder.

But on the other hand, Bookhout's solo report supports the phony 2nd floor lunchroom encounter, though it still goes against the official timeline:

Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola form the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunch room.

Whereas the previously written joint effort is more in line with those early newspaper accounts and Holmes' report on Oswald's account:

Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch. Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building.

Robin Unger's TSBD rear photo should read
http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=31&pos=96

I haven't used the Edit/Delete function before and fear erasing the entire post, being a basic klutz with computers.

Sterling work yet again Richard!!!!

On Page 40 of our Prayer Man thread, Tom Scully provided convincing information as to the physical appearance of William Shelley.

Tom Scully wrote:

Over at Deep Foo Foo, Fez asked if the identity of a dude in the Fair Play for Cuba pictures was Shelley (cropped and circled by me).





I do see a resemblance. If this was Shelley, what might it suggest?

Interesting.

Stan Dane wrote:I do see a resemblance. If this was Shelley, what might it suggest?

Interesting.

Other than the fact that the Fez may have gotten something right - it might be Shelley's doppelganger, after all - but it could mean that there are many more intelligence operatives working around the TSBD than we figured. How many more? It's anyone's guess.

If it's not Shelley, it means nothing of course.

 

Guys -- this has been raised by Ralph Cinque on JFK FB page. It is not Shelley. If it is anyone we know, it is Thomas Beckham who had a similar hairstyle and admitted to the HSCA he was there. In fact, it has been suggested one of the Latino girls seen might be Beckhams wife. HHe married an under-age Latino girl. Josephs has upped the anti btw. He is now claiming he can see Mike Paine there as well...

Just askin cause I saw something and didn't know. Now I do. Thanks.

Stan Dane wrote:Just askin cause I saw something and didn't know. Now I do. Thanks.

Stan, in a further update, the man being touted as Mike Paine is now being touted as Buell Frazier by others. James Richards has pointed out that the same man has in the past, been touted as Charles Rogers.

This is the person in question:

 

Ralph is suggesting photo forgery because the hand appears to be the wrong one. My own opinion is that it would be the height of stupidity to forge a photo and put the wrong hand there - but the bigger question - for what purpose would ANY hand be put there?

I think there is a logical and non-conspiratorial explanation along the lines of some type of optical illusion. It certainly isn't Frazier, Paine or Rogers...

Cant find Elvis on this one , but the large arse, top left, could be my mother in law.

Alan Dixon wrote:Cant find Elvis on this one , but the large arse, top left, could be my mother in law.

Rofl.

She must have been running them all! 

Can't wait to see who the next candidate is from the brains trust of Fez & Cinque, inc.

It does look like Bill Shelley but there is no way we can ever get a positive ID off this.  The weakest link is the ears.  I would expect the ears to be more prominent because Shelley did have quite a pair of great comedy value.

I do not believe the Shelley lookalike is Beckham.  I think the other guy is more than likely Beckham.

The Fez needs a break from all this if he thinks that is Michael Paine...

Hello Goodbye wrote:It does look like Bill Shelley but there is no way we can ever get a positive ID off this.  The weakest link is the ears.  I would expect the ears to be more prominent because Shelley did have quite a pair of great comedy value.

I do not believe the Shelley lookalike is Beckham.  I think the other guy is more than likely Beckham.

The Fez needs a break from all this if he thinks that is Michael Paine...

You're right. The guy in the photo has ears practically plastered to his head. That's not like Shelley at all.

But could it be Elvis wearing a disguise, I wonder?

Reading what Richard wrote upthread (in 2012) for the first time I'd suggest the evidence Shelley was formally charged on 11/22 or was a CIA operative is pretty thin. Assuming for a moment he really said these things, its just as likely he was pulling the leg of a new co-worker asking too many questions.

What intrigues me is that Frazier has since told a TV interviewer he saw Oswald outside after the shooting and surmised he'd left the TSBD by the rear loading dock.

If that's true (and since Frazier refuses to identify himself in picture standing next to Prayer Man, we have to take whatever he says with a grain of salt), then Oswald could have ran into Shelley and Lovelady as he was leaving--and they were returning-- by way of the loading dock.

Frazier's assertion that Oswald left by the loading dock raises the possibility that Oswald ran into someone else behind the TSBD. Remember what DPD Sergeant Harkness told the Warren Commission:

Mr. Belin Then you went around to the back of the building?
Mr. Harkness  Yes, sir.
Mr. Belin Was anyone around in the back when you got there?
Mr. Harkness There were some Secret Service agents there. I didn't get them identified. They told me they were Secret Service. were some Secret Service agents there. I didn't get them identified. They told me they were Secret Service.
http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2012/10/fake-secret-service-agents-in-dealey.html

All the genuine Secret Service agents were still with the motorcade, perhaps these fake SS agents were waiting back there to kill or apprehend Oswald but with too many witnesses puttering around behind the TSBD (Shelley, Lovelady, Adams, Styles, Harkness) they might have wimped out and simply asked Oswald for directions to a telephone.

Mr. BELIN. You don't remember anything about that. Did he say anything about telling a man about going to a pay phone in the building?
Mr. HOLMES. Policeman rushed--I take it back---I don't know whether he said a policeman or not--a man came rushing by and said, "Where's your telephone?" And the man showed him some kind of credential and I don't know that he identified the credential, so he might not have been a police officer, and said I am so and so, and shoved something at me which I didn't look at and said, "Where is the telephone?" And I said, "Right there," and just pointed in to the phone, and I went on out.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/holmes1.htm

Of course if Oswald was standing in entrance vestibule, there was no telephone in the front lobby he could have pointed to "right there". However as Bill Kelly noted, there was a telephone in the back, towards the loading dock.

That phone seems to be a phone reserved for employees at work in the rear of the first floor, in the warehouse section.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20535

Say, in his WC testimony where was the last place Shelley said he saw Oswald (albeit 40 minutes before shooting)?
Mr. SHELLEY. On the first floor over near the telephone.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/shelley2.htm

beowulf wrote:What intrigues me is that Frazier has since told a TV interviewer he saw Oswald outside after the shooting and surmised he'd left the TSBD by the rear loading dock.
If that's true (and since Frazier refuses to identify himself in picture standing next to Prayer Man, we have to take whatever he says with a grain of salt), then Oswald could have ran into Shelley and Lovelady as he was leaving--and they were returning-- by way of the loading dock.

Even though Frazier refuses to ID himself in the picture, he does say that the package Oswald brought with him the morning of 11.22.63 was too small to be carrying a rifle and he says he's not even sure Oswald did the dirty deed. I give him points for that.

Even though Frazier refuses to ID himself in the picture, he does say that the package Oswald brought with him the morning of 11.22.63 was too small to be carrying a rifle and he says he's not even sure Oswald did the dirty deed. I give him points for that.

Stan,

my own theory on why he describes the bag that way is because when first asked about it, he was - or thought he was being given a lie detector test, so he has simply told the truth about the bag Oswald had - until badgered and prodded by FBI on Dec 2 to agree he could be wrong. His public statement that he's not sure if Oswald even did it - though welcome - came way too late. Not that I blame him for that... but it's safe to say it now because who gives a shit any more except us hard core "buffs"?

That whole Irving gang (what's left of them anyway) needs to be put on a stand and cross-examined - with, for a change, the right set of questions.

Greg, hear me out on this please. After 50 years the few surviving witnesses (apart from the Paines) may be more receptive to relating their experiences with a softly approach, rather than finger jabbing. You know, far more than I, who was most uncomfortable trying to read a script they had never seen beforehand.

Alan Dixon wrote:Greg, hear me out on this please. After 50 years the few surviving witnesses (apart from the Paines) may be more receptive to relating their experiences with a softly approach, rather than finger jabbing. You know, far more than I, who was most uncomfortable trying to read a script they had never seen beforehand.

Alan,

there's no reason why a lawyer couldn't take that softly softly approach in a cross-examination because more often than not, they will know the answer already. The witness stand is needed so that any persistent lies can be pursued as perjury where possible.

Fair enough, Greg. At this stage though, i think it would be beneficial to see just who is most likely to bend towards a friendly voice. And who's voice?

Alan Dixon wrote:Fair enough, Greg. At this stage though, i think it would be beneficial to see just who is most likely to bend towards a friendly voice. And who's voice?

The right, soft voice might say something like this:
 
"I can only imagine how tough it's been on you over all these years. Nobody's made it easy, that's for sure. There were enormous, relentless pressures to conform. Any normal person would have responded likewise under similar circumstances. You are not being judged harshly for just trying to survive in a tough situation. On the contrary.
 
"But now it's OK to say what needs to be said. It's safe. It's safe to say what's right. It's time for us all to make things right. We are with you…."
 
Win them over by genuinely empathizing with them.

Alan and Stan,

understand where you're coming from. Just call me "Bad Cop".    

Seriously -- I'd go along with that on the proviso that it went further than getting an "off the record" comment. It has to extend to getting them to put down what they know in a sworn statement or affidavit.

greg parker wrote:Alan and Stan,

understand where you're coming from. Just call me "Bad Cop".    

Seriously -- I'd go along with that on the proviso that it went further than getting an "off the record" comment. It has to extend to getting them to put down what they know in a sworn statement or affidavit.

Of course that's the best way; having the weight and force of law behind you so that there would be real consequences if questions were not asked truthfully. But absent that, the soft approach is what I think Alan was advocating here. Because if we can't get, (or until we get) this thing into a courtroom, what are we left with?

Funny how Frazier's recent interviews (yes he has claimed on more than one occasion) have Oswald leaving the TSBD in the direction of the bus escape route. Seeds planted by others maybe. Certainly his non-cofirmation of himself in the PM images is highly suspicious IMO as he had previously gone out of his way to express dismay that he could not be seen standing there "because he was back in the shadows". Now that he can be seen standing next to PM this appears more disturbing to him than relief from vindication of his location.