The Rumour Mill

Sat 14 Dec 2013, 4:49 pm

G'day,

I was contemplating the many first day, second day, third day, heck the first weeks I guess of media stories and rumours floating around immediately after the murder of JFK. My background for those who don't know is Australian Media, and I am a cameraman. I started my career in 1977 as a news cameraman. The reason why I ask about the rumour mill relating to the early weeks after the assassination is my first hand experience in a well publicised court case in Australia around 1980 regarding the disappearance of a families baby at Ayers Rock in the Northern Territory Australia. The treatment of that family was appalling by the Australian media at the time, and throughout the trial for murder, which the mother of the child who happened to be a baby, was charged it was apparent the media, both print and electronic, were going after her in a big way. She did not fit the mould. She didn't smile on cue, she said inappropriate things and, hey wore new dresses into the courtroom every second day and above all she had a really bad haircut. I worked on this case, I was there, firsthand and can comment. This woman accused of taking the life of her own baby while camping at Ayers rock, was tried, and convicted by a hostile media who were more than happy to go along for the ride. Damn its only someone's life we're talking about. This case had all the things we so despise about the Kennedy killing. The one major difference of course is this defendant lived to tell he story over and over until she was acquitted finally by the highest court in the land. The original guilty verdict handed down is one of the cruellest judgements in our judiciary I can remember and it was driven by lies, and fear at a very high level, to cover-up a bungling incompetent Northern Territory National Park Rangers Department.

One thing I will never forget, is the rumour mill and the story's which were floating around immediately after the child was reported missing by the family. Those rumours, most of them anyway told by local aboriginal trackers confirmed what was already widely known by us mere mortal cameramen working on the case, is that indeed a dingo (a wild Australian dog) had taken the child and that the dingo had been a pet which belonged to one of the park rangers. We all knew what had happened, unfortunately that is not how the evidence was presented to a jury in court. Much of the evidence presented was circumstantial and fabricated which drew a guilty verdict from the jury. The media played a huge role in the original outcome.

I only mention this, because I would love to hear any info with regards to the first few weeks after the assassination and what rumours were floating about, as you can see, maybe some of those rumours may have been somewhere near the truth.

Sat 14 Dec 2013, 5:57 pm

Thanks for that, Mick.

I can tell you some of the rumors going around about the case you refer to. I was born and lived periodically very close to the Seventh day Adventist village where the couple lived.

But those are the "flip side" rumors. The off-the-wall variety.

And that is where it gets tricky with the Kennedy case. I agree a lot of those early stories had legs, but not all, and you have to sort out which is which. Easier I think the case you filmed because the contrast in believability was far more substantial. "A dingo" or "the baby's name means sacrifice in the wilderness and dang if that isn't what happened!" Hmm. Hard choice. And that's the tip of the ice-berg. It divided the local community to the point were you were paranoid about saying anything to anyone in case they were in the "other" camp.

The Commission tried to bury some of the rumors here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app12.htm

But to get to more specific ones, you probably need to read a lot of early newspaper reports, go through the Dallas Police and the FBI files.

It's a daunting task, but maybe someone can add one or two?

Sat 14 Dec 2013, 11:08 pm

Thanks for the reply Greg. I think it was a post here by Lee that started my train of thought. The post was an exhaustive look at a guy called Meharg if I remember correctly. As you have so eloquently stated before, the whole circus would've been in town for the aftermath. The trick for authorities would've been keeping the chooks fed, and keeping a lid on things until they stabilized the situation. I have a firm belief that the order for the lone nut scenario came from very high up and very quickly. I am going to take your advice and start searching the newspapers of the day to see if there's anything lurking on pages 5-7

Sun 15 Dec 2013, 1:44 am

Mick,

The best example I have is concerning how the story of Lee Oswald's "escape" from Dealey Plaza by bus and taxi evolved with the assistance of Dallas Morning News reporter Hugh Aynesworth. Aynesworth was one of the closest people to the whole bus escape story which is why I know, once I discovered what I discovered, tha Hugh Aynesworth is nothing more than a cheap bitch who whores himself out to continue propping up the Warren Commission fairy tale.

When police first got hold of Cecil McWatters - who was the driver of the bus connected to the bus ticket allegedly found in the pocket of Lee Oswald many hours after his arrest - by two of the worst liars employed by the Dallas Police Department - McWatter's claimed in his affidavit that after the "young boy" boarded, who we are led to believe was Lee Oswald but was actually Roy Milton Jones, he got into a little bit of an altercation with an elderly lady. This altercation took place over on Marsalis Avenue in Oak Cliff long after the real Oswald would have had to disembarked. The lady took exception to this boy "smirking" and "grimacing" when the elderly lady was told of the President being shot.

Now, remember this "laughing, smirking" boy was portrayed for a number of days in the media as Oswald. The cold hearted murderer of the President. Aynesworth himself propagated this shit. The unfortunate thing about it was that the boy couldn't be Oswald because Oswald was only supposed to be on the bus for a few minutes before he got off and then, we are told, got a cab.

The Sunday following the assassination, after Lee Oswald was left to go cold in the morgue, the authorities were now making up lie after lie to crucify their scapegoat, they released more information through Henry Wade who stated in his press conference that a key piece of evidence was that a lady saw the defendant "laughing" who had boarded the bus and the assassination was mentioned by the driver. The following week Hugh Aynesworth, the lying sack of shit, printed a story that moved the goalposts of the bus story and began a new narrative that was not supported by any evidence. He printed that the woman who saw the defendant laughing on the bus also knew him.

So the story morphed, the altercation was with Oswald and not Roy Milton Jones, it happened on Elm Street and not on Marsalis Avenue, and the woman now knew him and she would turn into Mary Bledsoe, ex-landlady.

Aynesworth was at the centre of this bullshit and every time I see his horrible saggy face appear as a talking head on a JFK related programme I want to put my foot through the TV. He is a liar, he knows he is a liar, and I know he is a liar. But he carved a good career out for himself even if he did bury his morals to get it.

Sun 15 Dec 2013, 9:25 am

Lee thanks for that.

Yeah the whole circus thing in the aftermath is a bit sad, and dead men don't talk do they. One thing that struck me, about the whole bus, cab, story is not only what you have pointed out but the copy of the bus ticket held in the archives, it's pristine, I mean if you look at it closely it's as new! Never been touched, never folded, or damaged. Even after a scuffle in the theatre. and yet we're told it was retrieved from poor dishevelled beaten Oswald's pocket after the confrontation in the Texas theatre. I mean really. They can do better than this cant they. Maybe not!!!

Sun 15 Dec 2013, 10:38 am

Mickp wrote:Lee thanks for that.

Yeah the whole circus thing in the aftermath is a bit sad, and dead men don't talk do they. One thing that struck me, about the whole bus, cab, story is not only what you have pointed out but the copy of the bus ticket held in the archives, it's pristine, I mean if you look at it closely it's as new! Never been touched, never folded, or damaged. Even after a scuffle in the theatre. and yet we're told it was retrieved from poor dishevelled beaten Oswald's pocket after the confrontation in the Texas theatre. I mean really. They can do better than this cant they. Maybe not!!!

Mick, my hat goes off to them inasmuch as they actually managed to prop this shit up.

Yeah, the magic bus ticket. From a book of transfers that should have been able to bolster it as evidence given that it had a serial number. But we don't have the full transfer book because it was never retrieved, or so we are told. Something tells me there may have been a problem with the serial numbers should they have kept it.

Sun 15 Dec 2013, 11:17 am

According to David Josephs, John Armstrong told him he had seen the transfer at the archives and "it
was indeed folded and creased given the struggle at the theater while that transfer was supposedly in his pocket... "

To his credit, Josephs does express some problems with accepting that. But if he did say it, what does it say about Armstrong? Is it not suggestive of someone who will say anything to prop up his theory? I mean, if it was creased when Armstrong saw it, he either did not see the original as he thought, or it was swapped after he saw it, or it was ironed and photographed after he saw it. And none of those explanations really make any sense at all.

Sun 15 Dec 2013, 6:39 pm

greg parker wrote:According to David Josephs, John Armstrong told him he had seen the transfer at the archives and "it
was indeed folded and creased given the struggle at the theater while that transfer was supposedly in his pocket... "

To his credit, Josephs does express some problems with accepting that. But if he did say it, what does it say about Armstrong? Is it not suggestive of someone who will say anything to prop up his theory? I mean, if it was creased when Armstrong saw it, he either did not see the original as he thought, or it was swapped after he saw it, or it was ironed and photographed after he saw it. And none of those explanations really make any sense at all.

I don't know what JA saw or didn't see but if you listen to an interview that Len Osanic did with Barry Ernest on the second printing of his book "The Girl on the Stairs" you will hear about how the stenographer's tape of Victoria Adams testimony as well as the tapes of Lovelady & Shelly's testimony disappeared from NARA.

Also, Mick, I don't remember if it was on a show called something like "JFK Assassination As It Happened" or another similar show about the Dallas media coverage of the assassination where they initially talked about a couple on the Triple Overpass who were suspects in the shooting and that the DPD were looking for them. There is also the press conference with Malcolm Kilduff shortly after the President was pronounced dead where he shows where the head wound is by putting his hand on his own head.

Sun 15 Dec 2013, 7:45 pm

Marlene Zenker wrote:

greg parker wrote:According to David Josephs, John Armstrong told him he had seen the transfer at the archives and "it
was indeed folded and creased given the struggle at the theater while that transfer was supposedly in his pocket... "

To his credit, Josephs does express some problems with accepting that. But if he did say it, what does it say about Armstrong? Is it not suggestive of someone who will say anything to prop up his theory? I mean, if it was creased when Armstrong saw it, he either did not see the original as he thought, or it was swapped after he saw it, or it was ironed and photographed after he saw it. And none of those explanations really make any sense at all.

I don't know what JA saw or didn't see but if you listen to an interview that Len Osanic did with Barry Ernest on the second printing of his book "The Girl on the Stairs" you will hear about how the stenographer's tape of Victoria Adams testimony as well as the tapes of Lovelady & Shelly's testimony disappeared from NARA.

Hi Marline, I don't want to second guess what you're suggesting here in relation to what JA saw (or may have seen). Can you clarify a little for me?

Also, Mick, I don't remember if it was on a show called something like "JFK Assassination As It Happened" or another similar show about the Dallas media coverage of the assassination where they initially talked about a couple on the Triple Overpass who were suspects in the shooting and that the DPD were looking for them. There is also the press conference with Malcolm Kilduff shortly after the President was pronounced dead where he shows where the head wound is by putting his hand on his own head.

Sun 15 Dec 2013, 7:56 pm

greg parker wrote:According to David Joseph Josephs, John Armstrong told him he had seen the transfer at the archives and "it
was indeed folded and creased given the struggle at the theater while that transfer was supposedly in his pocket... "

To his credit, Josephs does express some problems with accepting that. But if he did say it, what does it say about Armstrong? Is it not suggestive of someone who will say anything to prop up his theory? I mean, if it was creased when Armstrong saw it, he either did not see the original as he thought, or it was swapped after he saw it, or it was ironed and photographed after he saw it. And none of those explanations really make any sense at all.

Mon 16 Dec 2013, 12:36 am

Let's not forget that when Jesse Curry was interviewed on the day following the assassination, he was asked how Oswald "got to the other side of town", and was specifically asked if he got there by bus. After a slight hesitation, he relays Roger Craig's story, and mentions jack all about a bus transfer being found in his shirt pocket (at about the 5 minute mark):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tjgH8o4Adw

Mon 16 Dec 2013, 3:03 am

greg parker wrote:

Marlene Zenker wrote:

greg parker wrote:According to David Josephs, John Armstrong told him he had seen the transfer at the archives and "it
was indeed folded and creased given the struggle at the theater while that transfer was supposedly in his pocket... "

To his credit, Josephs does express some problems with accepting that. But if he did say it, what does it say about Armstrong? Is it not suggestive of someone who will say anything to prop up his theory? I mean, if it was creased when Armstrong saw it, he either did not see the original as he thought, or it was swapped after he saw it, or it was ironed and photographed after he saw it. And none of those explanations really make any sense at all.

I don't know what JA saw or didn't see but if you listen to an interview that Len Osanic did with Barry Ernest on the second printing of his book "The Girl on the Stairs" you will hear about how the stenographer's tape of Victoria Adams testimony as well as the tapes of Lovelady & Shelly's testimony disappeared from NARA.

Hi Marline, I don't want to second guess what you're suggesting here in relation to what JA saw (or may have seen). Can you clarify a little for me?

Also, Mick, I don't remember if it was on a show called something like "JFK Assassination As It Happened" or another similar show about the Dallas media coverage of the assassination where they initially talked about a couple on the Triple Overpass who were suspects in the shooting and that the DPD were looking for them. There is also the press conference with Malcolm Kilduff shortly after the President was pronounced dead where he shows where the head wound is by putting his hand on his own head.

I wasn't implying anything about John Armstrong - I just meant that I wouldn't be so sure that the the ticket he saw at NARA is the same one that is there now. They seem to conveniently lose evidence that becomes important because of an article or book etc. and I was just pointing out what Barry Ernest experienced. The original stenographer tapes of the testimony of I believe April 7, 1964 that was "lost" was crucial to Oswald not being on the 6th floor and all that is left at the Archives is the transcript.

Mon 16 Dec 2013, 5:45 am

Marlene Zenker wrote:I wasn't implying anything about John Armstrong - I just meant that I wouldn't be so sure that the the ticket he saw at NARA is the same one that is there now. They seem to conveniently lose evidence that becomes important because of an article or book etc. and I was just pointing out what Barry Ernest experienced. The original stenographer tapes of the testimony of I believe April 7, 1964 that was "lost" was crucial to Oswald not being on the 6th floor and all that is left at the Archives is the transcript.

Thanks Marlene. That's an understandable view. Not really sure it would apply here though because it would require them replacing evidence of Oswald's guilt (a crumpled ticket) with something that obviously had to be a plant (because of its mint condition).

Mon 16 Dec 2013, 5:55 am

Such a hypothesis would also mean that the Warren Commission exhibit 381-A was a photo of the fake ticket, but that the real ticket (which they suppressed, for some odd reason) is/was still in existence at the Archives and is/was what was shown upon request to John. Has anyone seen it since John visited the archives?

Mon 16 Dec 2013, 9:39 am

It is also possible, arguendo, that the transfer was pristine when photographed and taken as evidence, but no longer appears so due to handling while in the care of NARA. How many people have handled it since it was photographed?

Mon 16 Dec 2013, 9:45 am

Good point, Robert.

Mon 16 Dec 2013, 10:22 am

Albert Rossi wrote:Good point, Robert.

Yep. fair call.

Wed 18 Dec 2013, 8:50 am

As to Mickp's original question "with regards to the first few weeks after the assassination... what rumours were floating about?"

I've always been fascinated by the report that a Secret Service agent (or more plausibly someone with fake SS credentials) was killed at the scene, and the rumors that sprung up in Dallas that an agent's body was found on the 6th floor near where the rifle was reportedly found.
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t357-wilfred-baetz#2623

The Rumour Mill

The Rumour Mill

Re: The Rumour Mill

Re: The Rumour Mill

Re: The Rumour Mill

Re: The Rumour Mill

Re: The Rumour Mill

Re: The Rumour Mill

Re: The Rumour Mill

Re: The Rumour Mill

Re: The Rumour Mill

Re: The Rumour Mill

Re: The Rumour Mill

Re: The Rumour Mill

Re: The Rumour Mill

Re: The Rumour Mill

Re: The Rumour Mill

Re: The Rumour Mill

Re: The Rumour Mill

Re: The Rumour Mill