Rushoman to Judgement

Some Albert Doyle DPF quotes from his defense of Ralph Yates

Yates rushed in to work to tell Jones of his picking-up a hitch-hiker who discussed shooting Kennedy from an office building with a high powered rifle (sound familiar?) during his motorcade. Yates rushed in to tell Jones this because it was a curious coincidence with their previous conversation about it being possible to shoot Kennedy on his visit. I don't think those researchers are quoting accurately either because I believe Yates mentioned to Jones that the man was carrying a package. Or do they think Yates rushed-in to work to tell Jones he picked-up an ordinary hitch-hiker?

I think what saves Yates is the fact he rushed back to tell Jones because the experience was freakishly similar to what they were discussing. I can't understand people who takes sides against a man who endured sanitarium persecution in order to stick to his story as well as passing a lie detector test. Yates contacting FBI in order to push a silly hoax that would only get him in serious trouble if exposed doesn't make sense. Funny how Yates had no signs at all of those alleged serious mental problems during his employment until he came forward with his story and refused to back-down.

If Yates just picked up an ordinary hitch-hiker why did he rush-in to tell Jones?

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?11329-Ralph-Yates

Clearly Doyle's defense places a lot of emphasis on this "rushing to tell".

Can someone point me to the document that mentions all this "rushing"?

My good friend, Bill Kelly at the ed forum accurately cites other cases where psychiatric institutions have been used to shut witnesses up and/or destroy their credibility. Bill also rightly pointed out that both Armstrong and Douglas should have been more critical because Yates' story does not hold together.

The point is that just because psychiatry has been misused to silence some, it does not follow that all people accused of having mental problems are likewise simply being silenced. As in all aspects of this case, each piece of evidence needs to be evaluated on its own merits - and without doubt, a part of that is bearing in mind the misdeeds of the DPD and the FBI, but Lee has covered all bases in his assessment, and until someone comes up with further evidence, his work on Yates stands as the benchmark.

I see that the polygraph test is being invoked under the mistaken belief that he passed it.

Here is what the FBI report said:

"No significant emotional responses were recorded by the polygraph when Yates was asked these relevant questions or control-type questions. Therefore no conclusions could be reached about whether Yates was answering questions truthfully."

Yates defenders want to take the above on face value while arguing that the FBI lied about everything else.

The problem for them is it does't say what they seem to think it says. "No emotional responses" does not translate as "telling the truth" in this particular report. And that should have been obvious by the little clue given at the end where it says "no conclusions could be reached" - a subtle hint suggesting, oh I don't know... something akin to "no conclusions could be reached".

The reason no conclusion could be reached is that there was no emotional response to relevant questions OR control questions - the latter are specifically designed to produce a response different to that of the relevant questions.

So depending on what the polygraph is all about... control questions might consist of simple everyday questions... or questions about past misdeeds... or any questions that should produce a different result from the relevant questions.

That Yates showed no response to either sets of questions is actually an indicator of possible mental illness. Which is why the agents then questioned him about his mental health history...

Now that his supporters understand the test he had, will they go from believing the FBI report, or place it in the same basket as all other FBI reports as unbelievable?

I can hardly wait to find out...

I agree with your sentiments regarding Lee's work, Greg. I read through his work on Ralph Yates on the Ed forum, and was thoroughly impressed. Well done to him! I no longer believe Yates' story about the hitch hiker, and I totally agree with both you and Lee that we shouldn't simply take for granted that every FBI report is bogus. To do so without considering all the evidence, would be incredibly foolish.

It seems some are willing to make any stretch needed to keep the Yates' fantasy alive.

Some of the latest arguments from Albert Doyle:

The correct interpretation (in my opinion) is that FBI got Jones to say Yates was a big talker who talked a lot of foolishness, and put it prominently in the first paragraph, because they were trying to taint the document from the start with a discrediting of Yates. Doubters probably like that because it works for their purpose but they only take sides with FBI in doing that.

Of course the FBI put it prominently. Without doubt they wanted it understood that Yates was not to their liking. Such style is not limited to the FBI. It is common practice in any report writing from any organization - especially on contentious issues - and especially when you know which side of the issue your boss prefers. But there is absolutely zero evidence that Jones was coerced into making the statement. That is merely an assumption that is needed and has nothing to underpin it except that need.

As some have correctly pointed-out this document's 3rd paragraph is key to understanding the real evidence. It shows what Jones actually said to FBI in his interview. A certain doubter has contended that Jones said Yates only told him he picked-up a hitch-hiker. The 3rd paragraph of this document disproves that and that doubter has not honestly accounted for it. His premise is completely disproven by this passage yet he hasn't come forth and admitted it.

The proper context of this paragraph reveals that Yates actually told Jones several key critical things that put his witnessing over the bar and clear him as having actually witnessed this event. A researcher with a good eye for evidence who is not solely guided by a need to discredit Yates would see this right away.

Yes. Lee seems to have got that wrong, but it changes nothing about Yates' credibility.

First off, if you view the 2nd paragraph you'll see it puts the 3rd paragraph into proper context. The 2nd paragraph shows that Jones did not contest the fact Yates was sent on a job. But more importantly - and this is the important part - it shows that the context is Jones translating what Yates told him upon arriving back at work. Simple examination of this will show that this account is completely different than what this certain researcher says it was.

There's 3 important things in the first sentence. First Jones says Yates told him 1) He picked up a "boy". It's important to note Oswald had a boyish appearance. You might say southerners called people 'boys', but this is still possibly significant. 2) It shows that on that day Yates told Jones he picked the boy up at Oak Cliff. By using FBI quote smoke and mirrors a certain researcher claims all Yates told Jones was that he picked-up a hitch-hiker. Any look at this document will show that isn't true and that the true context is Yates provided a lot of important information during that talk.

I don't think there is any dispute that Yates was sent on a job. His employer told the FBI that Yates himself had requested they do a check on the date that he was sent to the Park-It Market. That date was Nov 21 and Yates had been sent at approximately 10:30 - the time Yates had claimed he was in Oak Cliff picking up his hitch-hiker. Since Yates had specified the job he had been sent to, and this job had been on Nov 21, there was no need for the FBI to check on his whereabouts on previous days. Ralph meanwhile simply started claiming he'd picked the hitch-hiker up on Nov 20 after stopping off at Charlie Jordan's Meat Market on his way to Park It Markets at Irving.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=57741&relPageId=67

On Jan 3, 1964, he was questioned as to why he had stopped at the meat market. His stated reason was to pick up a check owed to his employer - however, he was now uncertain if it had been on Nov 20 or 21.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=1015790

The FBI checked this with Charlie's Meat Mart with negative results. No checks were issued to any employee of the Texas butcher Supply Company (Yates' employer) on either day specified.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=1015791

More to come...

I have to side with Albert Doyle on this, with all due respect for Lee Farley's exposure of the fragility of Ralph Yates' story. It boils down to what rings true for one's self, and the Yates story still rings true for me. I think Albert has adequately rebutted Lee's arguments via his Deep Politics posts, the essential points being over-reliance on what's given in FBI reports, the polygraph, and all that Yates related to Dempsey Jones on November 20 (the apparent date Yates picked up the hitchhiker).
And see that some notable researchers also support Doyle's rebuttal, overtly or in effect.

I've personally concluded for a couple years that Frazier & Randle's paper bag story wasn't in existence until about 2:30 on the afternoon of November 22. Once Oswald lived to see his arrest in the Theater, the plotters realized he'd be capable of telling people that he wasn't late for work on November 20. And so Truly, with Fritz's knowledge, fabricated a paper bag so the designated patsy had some traceable method for bringing a rifle into the TSBD. And the curtain rod story was put in use, as to what Oswald allegedly told Frazier was in the bag, because the timeframe was too short (Frazier & Randle had to iron out their story that afternoon) to come up with an alternative. But the curtain rod/window shade story had just been used in Ralph Yates' refrigerator truck on November 20, and once he came forward he quickly became a non-entity. It was too many curtain rod stories, and evidence of an Oswald doppelganger. The facts can be reasonably interpreted that way and that's how they look to me.

I almost always stay out of personality issues, but want to put in a good word for Albert Doyle. He's extremely perceptive, among the most intelligent people in the forums, and I read most of his posts. Very few people's opinions interest me like that, Lee Farley is another I almost always follow. Albert is one of the good guys, we had some fun together over at Lancer, and it's been disturbing to see him get ostracized at Deep Politics. I have yet to see him de-evolve into the ad hominem mode like so many over there, where it's rightly been characterized as a toxic website.

This "Doyle" theory about multiple posters using his name is off the wall, and in my opinion a hallucinatory by-product of arrogance and egomania. It's reminiscent of Lord of the Flies, where most of the boys herd together into a tribe and gang up on Ralph, the only kid with any sanity left. There is a danger in herding, having only opinions that are safe to have, that others will like you for, in that individuality is sacrificed. I hope that researchers will give Albert Doyle the respect he deserves; he belongs at the discussion table.

Richard,

I hope you know you and your opinions and thoughts are respected here. And I personally feel deeply indebted to you for all you've done for me personally, as well as for your help in building this forum and website.

Bear that in mind with what follows...

I don't know anything about Albert Doyle. I did read a small number of his posts at Lancer at some stage, but I can't even recall what they were about.

In my opinion anyone who at least attempts to gather all evidence and assess it as dispassionately as possible, has a place at the table.

In my opinion, Albert fails both of those tests on this particular subject. Whether he fails it on other subjects, I have no idea.

You can recognise an agenda the moment spin enters the frame, and Albert has been spinning since the beginning - and moreover clearly was not aware of all the documentation.

He was spinning when he relentlessly tried to push the notion that Yates "rushed" back to work because he could not wait to tell his colleague about his hiker.

He is spinning when he tries to give the impression that Ralph told Jones the hiker initiated the Discussion on Kennedy. He needs to read the FBI reports with Yates where Yates clearly states he himself initiated discussion on potential danger for Kennedy in Dallas.

He was spinning when he claimed that Yates had passed a polygraph.

To some of your specific points...

The notion that there is an over-reliance on FBI reports when FBI reports are all we have is a bit Pythonesque to me.

Albert was quite happy to rely on the FBI report which he mistakenly believed had Yates passing a polygraph... but now he knows that is not what it said... as predicted, it gets put in the "bad" pile.

The other problem with this approach is that, not only do you get to approve of FBI reports which actually do (or you just mistakenly believe do) support your beliefs, and reject the rest as doctored, it also allows you the freedom to make up whatever scenario you want to put in place of all the "doctored" reports.

Yates hiker was picked up on the 20th? Well, not according to the reports I've just posted -- so they also have to go into the "bad" pile.

The "Doyle" theory about multiple posters is unknown to me. Regardless, it is not relevant to how he has handled his defense of Yates.

More from Albert Doyle

Finally, in the first sentence Yates also told Jones that he dropped the hitch-hiker off at the Depository. So the first sentence, which the 2nd paragraph clearly connotes as being in the context of things Yates told Jones that day, reveals 3 important things. 1) The boyish look of Oswald. 2) A pick-up point only blocks from Oswald's boarding house. 3) A drop-off point at the Depository. To describe Yates' tale as only saying he picked-up a hitch-hiker in light of this is a serious violation of research standards. It's not surprising these people can't answer.

According to Jones, he was told that the hiker was dropped at the corner of Houston and Elm - the Depository was not mentioned and more importantly, Yates himself is quoted in his report as saying that he dropped the hiker on Elm and didn't see where he went. So once again, things are being read into the report that simply overstate the situation.

Critically important is the next sentence where Jones clearly relates that Yates told him on that day that the hitch-hiker had a package. What this is is clear evidence that 2 days prior to the assassination Yates confirmed a key piece of assassination evidence as well as a key element in his story. The doubters ignore this. They have no right to. Nor do they own-up to the fact Yates had no reason to describe the precise dimensions of that package on that day. But maybe he did as the following will show.

Yes, Jones clearly stated that the hiker had a package. That is all he stated about it on that day.

In the 2nd sentence Jones is clearly saying after the assassination Yates clarified that the man said the package contained "window shades". Doubters say this is proof Yates embellished his story. But if we examine the statement we see window shades are an interior decoration window item. Now if Yates had said "curtain rods" it might indicate he got this from news reports and was embellishing his story. However the description of window shades shows that this is different than curtain rods but is still a window interior decoration item being used as an excuse. Now if the CIA plotters had already designed a curtain rod ruse to cover the rifle, if this double was a CIA plant then his reference to window shades is right in line with their modus operandi particular to the assassination plot. The fact that window shades are other than curtain rods but similar in an important way actually aids Yates' credibility rather than hinders it. Doubters simply dwell on Yates adding this later on but smart researchers will see how it fits and helps confirm Yates' credibility. The truth is Yates had no reason to add the detail of window shades on the day of the witnessing so his only mentioning a package adds to his credibility instead of detracting from it.

To address the highlighted area... you need to go and listen to the contemporaneous broadcasts and read the contemporaneous accounts... they all erroneously refer to "window shades". No mention of curtain rods at all.

Here is the really interesting part. It is in the report on Yates' own FBI interview (which you must regard as doctored since you avoid it like the plague while harping endlessly about the Jones interview) that he claims the hiker mentioned - not window shades - but CURTAIN RODS.

Now... I have not been able to determine exactly when the first public mention of curtain rods was, but if it was after Nov 26 when the FBI interview took place, it may strengthen Yates' credentials (and gawd knows they need it). However, if it was on or prior to that, it will look awfully like he stole not only the "window shades" line from news reports for Jones' consumption, but then when the news reports finally cottoned on to curtain rods, he changed that part of the story for the FBI's consumption.

I've just had some time available to read over the latest posts at Ed Forum, Deep Politics and ReopenKennedyCase, as well as another look at the source FBI interviews and James Douglass' book. My own opinion is only stronger, and have to say I don't feel Lee Farley's stance on Ralph Yates is correct. The essence is summed up by Albert Doyle in that he accurately states that there is no way anyone making up a hoax would be able to make up 4 critical points of Oswald evidence 2 days in advance: package, picking up hitchhiker blocks from Oswald's boarding house, dropping him off at Houston & Elm, hitchhiker discussing assassinating the President.

Plus Yates brought his lawyer in for his first interview. That doesn't ring like a hoax, but of someone totally puzzled that he'd picked up a lookalike- he must have felt as if he'd just stepped into the Twilight Zone. Personally I have to "include it in the data with the overall picture", to quote Larry Hancock.

I think Albert's arguments stand up on their own merit and won't regurgitate them. And also think there is a tendency to nitpick (e.g "Yates rushing in to tell Jones" which is Albert's way of saying Yates told Jones within 2 minutes of arriving back to work; and e.g. "dropping off at the Depository" when the document clearly states at the corner of Elm and Houston- c'mon. Am I supposed to think Depository is spinning the document?) when being adversarial, as opposed to cutting someone some slack when being supportive, and looking at what they're trying to express, understanding that the emotions of the moment influence their choice of words when posting.

I don't know when curtain rods was made public, but Frazier as you well know did talk about them in his DPD and FBI affidavits made about 9:00 the night of November 22. I would assume the DPD informed the press the next day. Frazier's CBS interview on which George O'Toole used his voice stress analyser, the PSE, mentions curtain rods and is on youtube somewhere. I'm pretty sure it took place during the workweek after the assassination, because Frazier relates the curtain rod story as if it were already common knowledge.

I have another post to follow quoting excerpts from JFK and the Unspeakable which seem pertinent.

On JBI Director J. Edgar Hoover sent a teletype marked "URGENT" to Dallas SAIC J. Gordon Shanklin on Ralph Leon Yates. Hoover noted that a previous FBI investigation into whether Yates may have been at his company at the same time he said he picked up the Oswald-like hitchhiker provided insufficient evidence "to completely discredit Yates' story." Hoover therefore ordered the Dallas FBI office to "reinterview Yates with a polygraph." ...

On January 4 in another "URGENT" teletype, Shanklin reported back to Hoover on Yates' polygraph examination that day: Results of test were inconclusive as Yates responded to neither relevant or control type questions." ...

During his final, January 4 trip to the FBI office, Ralph Yates was accompanied by his wife, Dorothy. He had asked her to come with him. In an interview 42 years later, she told me what happened next to her husband. After he completed his (inconclusive) lie-detector test, she said, the FBI told him he needed to go immediately to Woodlawn Hospital, the Dallas hospital for the mentally ill. ...

Dorothy related, "They told me he that was telling the truth <according to the polygraph machine>, but that basically he had convinced himself he was telling the truth. So that's how it came out. He strongly believed it, so it came out that way." ...

The FBI-defined truth was that Yates had not picked up the Oswald-like hitchhiker with the "curtain rods" package, because for the FBI there could be no such hitchhiker. Therefore Ralph Leon Yates, by being so definitive (as shown by his polygraph chart) in knowing that he did precisely that- picked up a nonexistent hitchhiker- could only have lost touch with reality.

- JFK and the Unspeakable, pp. 353-354

The truth.

1st sentence should read,

On January 2, 1964, FBI Director....

The essence is summed up by Albert Doyle in that he accurately states that there is no way anyone making up a hoax would be able to make up 4 critical points of Oswald evidence 2 days in advance: package, picking up hitchhiker blocks from Oswald's boarding house, dropping him off at Houston & Elm, hitchhiker discussing assassinating the President.

This is a major part of the problem, Richard.

The parcel: this was described to Jones as just that; a parcel. It was not further described until an unknown number of days after the assassination. Are we really going to say that it is highly unusual for a hitch-hiker to carry a parcel?

Picking up a hitch-hiker blocks from Oswald's boarding house: Firstly, all Jones said he was told was that the hiker was picked up in Oak Cliff. The location was not further defined until an unspecified time after the assassination. Oak Cliff was full of itinerant workers. Hitch-hikers would have been a dime a dozen.

So far two from two not so unusual items being spun to sound highly suspicious.

Being dropped off at Houston and Elm: The TSBD was not the only business in Dealey Plaza. Yates specifically said he did not see where the hiker went after he let him out.

Hitch-hiker talking about JFK getting assassinated: It was Yates by his own admission who initiated discussion on Kennedy's safety after the Stephenson incident. It is almost ineluctable that such a discussion would turn to the possibility of assassination. It was, as Lee states -- a major talking point around town.
-------------------------------------------

Albert Doyle simply goes beyond what is in the documents and uses the excuse that the FBI lied about everything - thus giving himself the license to give any FBI document the interpretation he needs to keep his BS together.

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

The Polygraph results: if we are going to invoke what Hoover wrote to the Commission, we should not leave out his caution to them that the alternative name of "lie detector" is a misnomer. As Hoover went on to explain, all it really is, is a detector of physiological responses which may indicate deception. It was therefore HIGHLY improper for any FBI agent to tell his wife he passed the test when deception/non deception could not be determined due to no responses to either relevant or control questions being recorded. It was not only IMPROPER - given Hoover's letter setting out what a polygraph is and is not, and what it can do and what it cannot - it was a VERY risky thing to do career -wise. The agent would have been sent to the FBI version of Siberia had Hoover found out. So for those reasons -- I do not for a minute believe any agent told her any such thing.

Not showing any response to either control or relevant questions is a sign of possible mental illness, and the agents simply followed procedure when such results are present: they questioned Yates about his mental health history.

All that has been written about Yates' polygraph shows an ignorance of polygraph procedures and in understanding results.

The only alternative is to once again, say the FBI was lying.

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

The litmus test for Yates is the parcel.

On the day of the hiker, it was just described to Jones as a parcel.

On some date after the assassination, it was described to Jones as containing "window shades".

By the time of his own interview with the FBI, Yates was now describing the length of the parcel, what it was wrapped in and that it contained --- "curtain rods".

Up until at least the 25th, the only media descriptions that went out described Oswald's alleged package as "window shades". That happened because that is the way Curry (and possibly Wade) described it to the media. Go ahead and try and find any mention of "curtain rods" by the media in the first few days after the assassination.

You have named what I think is probably the sole exception: an interview with Frazier which I am assuming took place just prior to the 26th. I hope someone can confirm or refute that.

Why I am convinced of this is simple - his description is in total synch with Frazier's description.

In short, Yates probably did pick up a hitch-hiker carrying some type of parcel SOMEWHERE in Oak Cliff and drop him off at the corner of Elm and Houston. They probably did discuss Kennedy's safety and the possibility of assassination.

But that is all.

Every additional claim came post assassination.

He called the parcel "window shades" when the only media description going out for Oswald's parcel was that very thing (thanks to a slip up by Curry).

Then on Nov 26, he started calling the parcel "curtain rods" wrapped in wrapping paper and about 2 feet long which precisely mimics Frazier's description given in his first media interview - presumably done sometime between Nov 24 and 26.

Unless Frazier's first interview came after Nov 26, Yates was fabricating by stealing his descriptions from the media and turning a non-related, barely coincidental event into something -else entirely.

I think the reason he did so is buried in his crying session with the FBI. He saw something fateful in having some very "dubious"connections to big events. To quote: "he also said things were “[bothering] him a great deal, because at one time he lived on Garfield Street, in Edwardsville, Illinois, and President GARFIELD was assassinated. BARNEY T. WYATT, who is a great uncle, or some kind of distant relative of YATES, is a printer, and WYATT had done some printing work for JACK RUBY. YATES said that things like this just seem to involve him, somehow, in something and can’t figure out what it is.”

In other words, he had a history of drawing long bows and seeing disparate things as "connected" and somehow drawing him in to "involvement".

He WANTED to have some connection to Garfield and found it in something as silly as living on Garfield St.

One more thing. Can you point me to where it says he went to the FBI with a lawyer?

That sounds like yet another claim drawn from thin air, but has been accepted without question by those who want to believe...

I checked - he went with his uncle - the one married to his crazy aunt... unless someone has looked him up and discovered he was a lawyer, the claim is baseless. It certainly does not say that in the document.

I think Albert's arguments stand up on their own merit and won't regurgitate them. And also think there is a tendency to nitpick (e.g "Yates rushing in to tell Jones" which is Albert's way of saying Yates told Jones within 2 minutes of arriving back to work; and e.g.

"

Richard, excuse me if this is more nitpicking, but where in any document does it say Yates said anything at all to Jones within two minutes of getting back to work?

That is no truer than the "rushing back to work" to tell Jones about the hiker, unless I am just looking at the wrong document.

Hoover's letter to the Commission concerning polygraphs:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=368897

I hope you guys appreciate that I don't really want to be spreading myself across more than one forum on this right now because I think I'll end up having my head explode!

Just a couple of quick ones and I reiterate Greg's comments about Richard and how much I admire and appreciate his work but I very much disagree with his analysis of the Yates story due to the amount of assumption and supposition both he and other supporters of the story have thrown into the equation and an overemphasis on creating dramatic effect that does not exist in the documents.

But I do have a couple of quick comments:

Yates said he picked the hitchhiker up at the Beckley entrance of the R. L. Thornton Expressway. Do you know how many "blocks from Oswald's boarding house" the Beckley entrance of the R. L. Thornton Expressway is? It's about twenty blocks due south. It's not like the "Oswald impostor" was hanging at the 1026 North Beckley bus stop.

This whole notion that it's some sort of backup that Yates dropped the hitchhiker off outside the TSBD is, frankly, ridiculous. The corner of Elm and Houston would be the perfect place to drop off a hitchhiker who had been picked up over on the Thornton Expressway before the driver went on to Irving. Where would the supporters of Yates story expect him to drop a hitchhiker off if he was going on to Irving?

Basically you are left with a story where a guy picked someone up who had a parcel and dropped him off in Dallas. That's it. All the rest of it according to the reports came later and I'm not getting into an argument over this piece of the FBI document or report being true over this one. There's no point. If the reports are untrustworthy then they're untrustworthy for anyone to use. So let's move on past Yates. But saying that you believe Yates because all the evidence is untrustworthy is completely bonkers. Almost like believing you are Jesus. Because, of course, Jesus didn't exist.

By the way, one of the first documents I reviewed before making my first post over at the EF was Armstrong's file on Yates. It did not surprise me that the only documents in his Yates file were (other than one) the documents that supported him. No Gilpin document, no Donald Mask document, no jibberish document...

To then go and read Armstrong's section on Yates in Harvey & Lee and lo-and-behold everything written is written in the most biased way imaginable given what is contained in the record.

I'm going to answer Albert Doyle's points but don't believe for one second I'm being picky when the guy is both overstating his case and making up dramatic effects to try and make his story stronger. It's an insight into someone's mind regarding how they play the events in their head when words like "rushed" is repeated over and over again. Albert Doyle is far too emotionally connected to this story to be able to look at it objectively...

I also cannot get to grips with what the impostor was supposed to be doing. On the one hand I'm told it was a backup for the Frazier story and on the other I'm given a pile of waffle that wraps me up in knots where the claim is that it was some sort of subtle CIA operations designed for...well...I honestly couldn't tell you.

What the hell was this supposed to be about? And please, no one use the name, Harvey!

Thanks Lee.

Nothing like local knowledge.

Richard, I'd forgotten that this traipses into "Harvey and Lee" territory.

Maybe I should move the thread to the Harvey and Lee section?

Richard Gilbride wrote:On JBI Director J. Edgar Hoover sent a teletype marked "URGENT" to Dallas SAIC J. Gordon Shanklin on Ralph Leon Yates. Hoover noted that a previous FBI investigation into whether Yates may have been at his company at the same time he said he picked up the Oswald-like hitchhiker provided insufficient evidence "to completely discredit Yates' story." Hoover therefore ordered the Dallas FBI office to "reinterview Yates with a polygraph." ...

On January 4 in another "URGENT" teletype, Shanklin reported back to Hoover on Yates' polygraph examination that day: Results of test were inconclusive as Yates responded to neither relevant or control type questions." ...

During his final, January 4 trip to the FBI office, Ralph Yates was accompanied by his wife, Dorothy. He had asked her to come with him. In an interview 42 years later, she told me what happened next to her husband. After he completed his (inconclusive) lie-detector test, she said, the FBI told him he needed to go immediately to Woodlawn Hospital, the Dallas hospital for the mentally ill. ...

Dorothy related, "They told me he that was telling the truth <according to the polygraph machine>, but that basically he had convinced himself he was telling the truth. So that's how it came out. He strongly believed it, so it came out that way." ...

The FBI-defined truth was that Yates had not picked up the Oswald-like hitchhiker with the "curtain rods" package, because for the FBI there could be no such hitchhiker. Therefore Ralph Leon Yates, by being so definitive (as shown by his polygraph chart) in knowing that he did precisely that- picked up a nonexistent hitchhiker- could only have lost touch with reality.

- JFK and the Unspeakable, pp. 353-354

The truth.

I get all that, Richard, I really do. If I was wanting to believe the Yates story (as I once did) I fully appreciate that Douglass, and others, give an interesting, fascinating and believable account.

However, I reread the Jim Douglass version AFTER I had reviewed all of the documents. It is one sided, incomplete and biased.

The Douglass version has the FBI pulling all the strings concerning Ralph's possible mental illness and makes it appear as though they got Dorothy to take him straight to a mental institution..

This is not what the record shows. Ralph called the FBI on January 8. He was crying and saying he was concerned about the statements he had given. He appeared at the FBI office on January 9 and was emotionally upset. It was during this interview that he began claiming the external world was sending him messages.

NOTE: I have a cousin who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and know exactly what this symptom looks like.

Ralph began to change aspects of his story either just before or just after the polygraph.

Ralph's mental deterioration became more rapid and when he appeared at the FBI office for the final time he thought his Doctors were trying to kill him and wanted them to test his pills.

NOTE: My cousin regularly stops taking his medication because he becomes convinced the pills are killng him. It is not longmafter he generally gets sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

There is no mention of the doctors trying to kill him or the death pills in Douglass' narrative and why would it if he wanted to leave the impression that the FBI made Ralph crazy purely from the polygraph? It was Yates who contacted the FBI after the polygraph to voice his concerns over the statements he gave and it was possibly directly after the Polygraph that he began back peddling on Rubenstein because they asked him a specific question about whether the hitchhiker mentioned Rubenstein during the polygraph.

The fact is it was Ralph and Dorothy outlining the Yates paternal mental history that probably made the FBI think that Ralph was going doo-lally-tap. Why does Jim Dougalss leave out Ralph's family medical history? Why does he leave out the episode with the pills? Why does he leave out Ralph back peddling over the Rubenstein name? Why does he leave out the discrepancy between "window shades" and "curtain rods"?

And back to your own point, why does Jim Douglass leave the impression that Ralph was sent directly to Woodlawn? He wasn't. Dorothy was the one who said she thought Ralph was having the same type of mental difficulties that his aunt suffered from. The FBI suggested Ralph go to his own doctor or Parkland and Dorothy took Ralph to Parkland hospital, not Woodlawn. Parkland actually referred Ralph to Woodlawn and he was put under observation.

The amount of assumptions I have to make to believe Ralph Yates was a) telling truth and b) made to look crazy, is just not funny any more.

I mean, for crying out loud, Douglass claims that the Yates story was an "intelligence operation tripping over itself." What kind of intelligence operation was this? Why would an "intelligence operation" have the name Jack Rubenstein and the Carousel Club mentioned by an Oswald impostor if it was to set Oswald up as the lone-assassin? And if this is one of Ralph's "embellishments" that you, Don Jeffries and Albert Doyle are talking about then why the hell are we discussin Ralph Yates at all because in this context an "embellishment" is what I would call a lie, and if we are dealing with a liar then I'm not going to sit and pick out the truth from the lies from such a damaged witness...

Seems like an "idiot operation" to me.

Ralph's mental deterioration became more rapid and when he appeared at the FBI office for the final time he thought his Doctors were trying to kill him and wanted them to test his pills.

I think it is safe to assume Ralph's medication regime preceded his dealings with the FBI and that this medication was not for heartburn, impetigo or round worms. In short, he had a pre-existing mental condition.He came close to admitting this when questioned about his mental health after the polygraph when he said an army psychiatrist told him his back pain would go away after he left the armed services. There is no need to see a psychiatrist for back pain that has a real physiological cause.

The fact is it was Ralph and Dorothy outlining the Yates paternal mental history that probably made the FBI think that Ralph was going doo-lally-tap.

That no doubt, reinforced the impression - but the initial cause for concern was the flat effect derived from both relevant and control questions. Someone with mental problems can produce a result like that - or do the opposite - send the needle haywire on all questions.

It's a bit like mental illness affecting one's ability to discern right from wrong...

greg parker wrote:

Ralph's mental deterioration became more rapid and when he appeared at the FBI office for the final time he thought his Doctors were trying to kill him and wanted them to test his pills.

I think it is safe to assume Ralph's medication regime preceded his dealings with the FBI and that is medication was not for heartburn, impetigo or round worms. In short, he had a pre-existing mental condition.He came close to admitting this when questioned about his mental health after the polygraph when he said an army psychiatrist told him his back pain would go away after he left the armed services. There is no need to see a psychiatrist for back pain that has a real physiological cause.

The fact is it was Ralph and Dorothy outlining the Yates paternal mental history that probably made the FBI think that Ralph was going doo-lally-tap.

That no doubt, reinforced the impression - but the initial cause for concern was the flat effect derived from both relevant and control questions. Someone with mental problems can produce a result like that - or do the opposite - send the needle haywire on all questions.

It's a bit like mental illness affecting one's ability to discern right from wrong...

I agree about the pre-existing mental issue, Greg. According to the report, Ralph turned up with several bottles of medication that had been prescribed for him by several doctors over an extended period of time.

The written account of Yates' thoughts and contact with Lee Oswald must have been written the day or night before he last visited the FBI when he handed the written account over to them. His FBI visit was on January 15. In the "written account" Yates writes:

"Walked into Hospital at 3 min to midnit Jan 14 for something that would let me sleep. Couldn't get Dr. Weaver to come help me."

Hi Lee,

I've read through your work concerning Yates on the Ed forum, and FWIW; I think your work is very thorough and honest, and I totally agree that Yates should not be trusted. It amazes me the lengths some people like Albert Doyle will go to in order to "prove" that Yates is credible.

It's in Larry Hancock's Ed Forum post from a couple days ago that Yates had his lawyer with him. I was previously unaware of this. You'd have to check with him as to the veracity of this- I don't think Larry claims things out of thin air, but he's not immune to occasional errors as we all are.

"2 minutes", of course, I just made up, in line with Doyle's "rushing back to tell", but the point is that Yates told Jones about the hitchhiker shortly (some arbitrary small length of time) after arriving back at work because he & Jones had just had a similar conversation about shooting the President. It was possibly delayed if Yates had any business to attend to once he got back at work, but this wasn't a conversation that had to wait until the end of the work day. I've worked in similar companies when younger, and tended to buddy up with certain guys and once I got a minute would shoot the bull again with them.

According to my Rand-McNally atlas of Dallas, the Beckley entrance to the RL Thornton Expressway is 0.75 miles due south of 1026 North Beckley, and I count either 10 or 9 blocks. Google maps stinks for accuracy, if you ask me.

Driving along the Thornton Expressway, learning that the hitchhiker wants to go to downtown Dallas, but Yates is headed to Irving- Yates could have been more heartless and chosen to take Industrial Boulevard back to Irving. He could either take Industrial (which becomes Irving Boulevard) all the way back, or take a crossover interchange back onto the Stemmons, and drop the hitchhiker off a long block west of the Triple Underpass. Or Yates could be accomodative and go through the added hassle of taking the hitchhiker beyond the expressway ramps to where the city grid of streets begins and where, sure enough, the assassination occurred. Coincidentally enough.

Parcel- I don't think this was a package of newly-purchased Keds high-top sneakers it wasn't described by Yates as a suitcase or valise or backpack; I doubt it was freshly-wrapped flowers, or a package of shirts from Nieman-Marcus.
Excuse me, but I find the word "parcel" significant, since it dovetails perfectly into the 4 1/2-foot package description. So even the barebones minimum attribution to what Jones told the FBI reeks, in my mind, of the telltale package.

I haven't seen all of the mental health docs and simply don't have adequate time, but I'm dumbfounded as to how a guy 27, which Yates was, would have a sudden permanent onset of schizomania or whatever, coincidentally framed around this incident and subsequent reporting it to the FBI. It may well be that Douglass puts his own spin on the affair, fudging the January 4 confinement to Woodlawn with the actual January 8 confinement to Parkland and then Woodlawn, but I don't see how one can disregard the URGENT exchanges between Hoover and Shanklin.

I'm sticking with Douglass' version, in any event, and it seems to me that one can attribute unspecified meanings within FBI reports, out of thin air (the Doyle take) or just as easily attribute media fragments, out of thin air, to fill in the gaps to a supposed mental case's story (the Farley take).

This whole subject would make a good essay sometime at say Mary Ferrell and some essay might be the best place for it, when people don't get angry or frustrated or disappointed etc. The bone has certainly been tossed in the air, a la 2001 A Space Odyssey; the points have been made. The Yates story's impact on the overall narrative has been indelibly altered, but at this time I still feel this piece of the puzzle has substance.

1964 run down on the WFAA interviews from Nov 23 including the "window shade" gaffe
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11358&relPageId=90

and duly reported in the local papers

Dallas Times Herald... Nov 24 1963

"The man said Oswald told him it was window shades..."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=145052

Ralph Yates to Dempsey Jones pre-assassination. "He had a parcel"(This is not a judgement that Yates should have elaborated about the contents, length etc at that time. It is what it is, a statement of fact that this was all he said.)
Ralph Yates to Dempsey Jones post-assassination. "He said the parcel was window shades."
https://imgur.com//XiZxN

In this CBS report which apparently aired sometime between Nov 24 and 26, the commentator describes the package as "a long, paper-wrapped parcel". Linnie-Mae describes it approximately 21/2 feet long and both Frazier and the commenter refer to it as "curtain rods".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo4K0ip2-Tk

In his FBI interview that was done on Nov 26, here is what Yates said...
"He was carrying a package wrapped in brown wrapping paper about 4 feet to 4 1/2 long... the man said the package contained curtain rods..."
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2974.0.html

So by the time of his interview, further information was made public. He now knows it was supposedly "curtain rods" and that it was wrapped in wrapping paper. He also has the approximate length of 21/2 feet which he either misremembers as 41/2 or maybe adds two feet to it because he knows the length given by Linnie Mae would not hold a rifle...

At the top of Yates FBI interview, it says he was accompanied by his uncle JO Smith. Smith was the surname of the aunt who was said to have mental illness.

Yates most likely had long-standing mental illness himself given that he was sent to see a psychiatrist for a "bad back" while serving in the army and the fact that he turned up to the FBI office with a shit-load of medication he was prescribed and wanted "tested" because "they" were trying to kill him.

According to his own writings, he was also very familiar with a Dallas psychiatrist named Weaver...
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=1016850

His own writings describe his "need" to be "involved" in major cases... "I lived on Garfield Ave .. and President Garfield was assassinated..."

Richard, this isn't about media fragments out of thin air. It is about what information he could have drawn and and when.

Unless he watched Walter Cronkite on 11/23, the only references to the package before he talked to Jones the second time, were ALL references to "window shades".

The specifics of his Nov 26 description are way too in line with the interviews with Linnie Mae and Frazier NOT to have been sourced from that. Wrapping paper - curtain rods - two and a half vs four and a half feet long (i think the really telling bit is both have that "half" included)

Add in his obvious and MOST LIKELY pre-existing mental problems.... and you have a recipe for what happened.

As for his wife... she seemed to want to be helpful back in 1963/64. I bet she was trying just as hard to be helpful with those who have interviewed her since. There is absolutely NO WAY I am buying that an agent really told her that her husband passed the test. It was career suicide, apart from being inaccurate.

A solution has come to me that may satisfy nearly everyone in this dog-fight.

Oak Cliff

Jack Ruby

Carousel

Those are the key phrases.

Jack Ruby lived in Oak Cliff.

Larry Crafard looked somewhat similar to Oswald and worked for Ruby.

Ruby was known to eat at Dobb's House. Oswald was allegedly seen there with Ruby. This was almost certainly Crafard.

Crafard was a known hitch-hiker. He hitch-hiked to Michigan after the assassination.

What say this hiker was Crafard, and the mention of the Carousel and Ruby were simply because Ruby was his employer and the Carousel was where he was headed... on Commerce...

Richard,

Let's split the difference on how many blocks it is between 1026 N. Beckley and RL Thornton:

1. E. 5th
2. E. 6th
3. W. Canty
4. W. Neely
5. W. Davis
6. W. 7th
7. W. 8th
9. W. 9th
10. W. 10th
11. Sunset
12. W. Jefferson
13. Center
14. W. 12th
15. SRL Thornton Entrance
16. Expressway

I was originally using something far worse that Google Maps. APPLE MAPS! Yikes! It overlaid what looked liked roads in the middle of a block.

What's your excuse with the map, Richard?

I thought E. 10th Street, was 0.90 of a mile from 1026 North Beckley? So how is the RL Thornton closer at 0.75 of a mile, when it is actually further away?

P.S. I totally disagree with your assessment of Albert Doyle. He is a demanding prick who, absent a life, sits barking orders around at hard working people who give up all their spare time to do this. He didn't even pay me enough respect to use my fucking name in his early posts.

greg parker wrote:
So by the time of his interview, further information was made public. He now knows it was supposedly "curtain rods" and that it was wrapped in wrapping paper. He also has the approximate length of 21/2 feet which he either misremembers as 41/2 or maybe adds two feet to it because he knows the length given by Linnie Mae would not hold a rifle...

I think he said four and a half feet because Walter Cronkite reported that Oswald was:

a. Carrying a package
b. It was made of Manila paper
c. It was long enough to carry a rifle
d. It contained "curtain rods"

greg parker wrote:A solution has come to me that may satisfy nearly everyone in this dog-fight.

Oak Cliff

Jack Ruby

Carousel

Those are the key phrases.

Jack Ruby lived in Oak Cliff.

Larry Crafard looked somewhat similar to Oswald and worked for Ruby.

Ruby was known to eat at Dobb's House. Oswald was allegedly seen there with Ruby. This was almost certainly Crafard.

Crafard was a known hitch-hiker. He hitch-hiked to Michigan after the assassination.

What say this hiker was Crafard, and the mention of the Carousel and Ruby were simply because Ruby was his employer and the Carousel was where he was headed... on Commerce...

I think you could really be onto something with the above, Greg.