“During police interrogation after his arrest, Oswald admitted to riding both bus and taxi in returning to his roominghouse after the assassination of the President.” ( Report, pg. 648 )
This statement in the Report offers no reference or footnote to support its claim. It’s conclusion is based on the testimony of Dallas Homicide Captain Will Fritz.
From the police lineups to Oswald’s refusing legal counsel to what Oswald said during his interrogation, Fritz lied repeatedly under oath.
In this instance, Fritz claimed that Oswald first told him that he took busses and walked to get home. ( 4 H 223 )
He claimed that Oswald changed his story and admitted taking a cab when Fritz asked him about it. ( ibid. )
Fritz got the cost of the taxi ride wrong. ( ibid. ) A mistake Oswald could not have made.
Not having a stenographer or a tape recorder present during questioning gave the Dallas Police an enormous advantage in claiming that Oswald said things which he did not say.
All they had to do is get everybody present to agree.
It also gave them an opportunity to “rough” Oswald up with no evidence that they did so.
The Commission inferred that Oswald used the bus and then a taxi to facilitate his “escape” from the Texas School Book Depository in order to avoid apprehension for assassinating President Kennedy.
But perhaps Oswald’s “escape” was anything but.
Escape ?
James Jarman worked at the Texas School Book Depository as a “checker”, a person who checked the orders for accuracy. Oswald was a “filler”, one who filled the orders and then they went to Jarman to be checked to make sure they were right.
As a co-worker of Oswald, Jarman was called to give testimony. Jarman said that at lunch time Oswald would “sometimes go out of the building. One time in particular I know he went out, but he didn’t buy any lunch.” ( 3 H 200 )
Jarman’s testimony reveals that Oswald’s leaving the building at lunchtime was nothing out of the ordinary. His leaving the building at lunchtime is consistent with his past habit of leaving the building when he worked at the Reilly Company in New Orleans ( 11 H 474 ).
The handwritten affidavit given by supervisor William Shelley confirms what Jarman said about Oswald leaving the building. Shelley wrote that Oswald, “would go for a walk at noontime”.
This is evidence that Oswald’s leaving the building was nothing out of the ordinary and casts doubt on the excuse that he was fleeing a murder scene.
On November 25, 1963, a memo form then Assistant Attorney Nicholas Katzenbach outlined the Commission’s mandate:
“The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the sole assassin, that he did not have confederates who are still at large, and the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.” ( FBI 62-109060 JFK HQ file, Sec. 18 pg. 29 )
The Commission adopted this scenario of Oswald fleeing by bus and taxi because its mandate called for a scenario of Oswald and Oswald alone. He could not have “confederates who are still at large”.
It becomes more evident that this was not only not an escape, but it wasn’t Oswald in either the bus or the taxi.
The Bus Ride
The Commission claimed that Oswald left the Texas School Book Depository walked seven blocks and boarded a bus.
According to the Commission, there were two busses that serviced Oak Cliff. The Marsalis bus and the Beckley bus.
( Report, pg. 161 )
The Commission noted that the Beckley bus would have dropped him right across the street from his roominghouse. Instead of waiting for that bus, it concluded that he chose the first bus to Oak Cliff, the Marsalis Bus, which would have dropped him off seven blocks from his destination. ( ibid. )
The Commission never explained why he did this.
That Marsalis bus was driven by Cecil McWatters, a bus driver with the Dallas Transit Company who had nearly 19 years in the company. On November 22, 1963 his route was from the Lakewood section of Dallas to Oak Cliff. ( 2 H 262 )
McWatters’ bus was stuck in traffic when a man knocked on the door and entered it. The man stayed on the bus for approximately two blocks and then asked for a transfer and got off.
That man, the Commission said, was Lee Harvey Oswald.
At about 6:30 pm on the day of the assassination, McWatters viewed four men in a police lineup. The Commission claimed that he picked Oswald from the lineup as the man who had boarded the bus at the “lower end of town around Elm and Houston” and who, on the ride south on Marsalis, had an argument with a woman passenger. ( Report, pg. 159 )
McWatters never identified Oswald
McWatters never identified Oswald, he only said that Oswald was about the same height and weight as the man who boarded the bus.
He viewed the same lineup ( Lineup # 2 ) as Ted Callaway and Sam Guinyard, Oswald with 3 police employees:
Mr. BALL. You didn’t–as I understand it, when you were at the police lineup, you told us that you didn’t–weren’t able to identify this man in the lineup as the man who got off, that you gave the transfer to.
Mr. McWATTERS. I told them to the best of my knowledge, I said the man that I picked out was the same height, about the same height, weight and description. But as far as actually saying that is the man I couldn’t–
Mr. BALL. You couldn’t do it?
Mr. McWATTERS. I wouldn’t do it and I wouldn’t do it now.
( 2 H 279 )
The absurdity of this man being Oswald can’t be emphasized enough. Even in the ridiculous official version, Oswald was not on the bus while it travelled south on Marsalis.
In the end, the man McWatters described was identified as teenager Milton Jones, who admitted having an argument with a female passenger. ( CE 2641, 25 H 899 )
McWatters’ refusal to identify Oswald as the man on his bus may have been the reason why he was interrogated by Dallas Police for 6 1/2 hours.
He testified that he had been stopped by the Dallas Police around 6:15 or 6:20 pm on the day of the assassination and asked to come to the station and answer some questions. ( 2 H 267-268 )
McWatters questioned for hours
Milton Jones told the FBI that McWatters told him that the Dallas Police questioned him about the man on the bus until 1 am Saturday. ( 25 H 901 )
That’s 6 1/2 hours of questioning. At a rate of one question a minute, that’s 390 questions.
There’s no way they would have asked him that many questions about a guy who was on the bus for two blocks.
This witness wasn’t just questioned, he was interrogated.
And he wasn’t released until he told them what they wanted to hear.
But the Commission was never deterred by witnesses who could not or would not tell them what they wanted to hear. They wanted Oswald on that bus and they needed only one witness to put him there. That witness was passenger Mary Bledsoe.
“His face was so distorted”
Mary Bledsoe was a divorcee’ who rented rooms on North Marsalis. She rented a room to Oswald in October, 1963. Oswald paid her $7 for a full week, but she refused to rent to him for a second week because she didn’t like him. She threw him out after only five days and he asked for two dollars back for the last two days. She told him that she “didn’t have it” and never refunded his money.
This was one of the Commission’s star witnesses.
“Mrs. Bledsoe identified the shirt as the one Oswald was wearing and she stated that she was certain it was Oswald who boarded the bus.” ( Report, pg. 159 )
Seeing as she had a past connection to Oswald it seems unlikely that she could have been mistaken in her identification. However, her prior experience with Oswald consisted of his living with her for less than a week, during which time he was hardly ever around.
Besides her inclination to become dishonest at times, Mrs. Bledsoe had suffered a stroke ( 6 H 404 ) that apparently affected her memory much to the extent that she had to read from notes she had taken. ( ibid., pgs. 407-408 )
During her testimony, Mrs. Bledsoe was asked which bus she got on.
Mr. Ball. Which bus did you catch ?
Mrs. Bledsoe. Well, I don’t remember if it was the Marsalis or the Romana. ( 6 H 408 )
Mrs. Bledsoe didn’t even know which bus she took.
She described Oswald getting on the bus: “He looks like a maniac”. I didn’t look at him. I didn’t even want to know I seen him and I just looked off. He looked so bad in his face and his face was so distorted.” ( ibid., pg. 409 )
If his face was so distorted, how could she positively identify him ? How she could positively identify someone when she admitted three times that she never looked at him. ( ibid. )
More importantly, her testimony indicates that not only was her cognitive ability affected by her stroke, but her memory was as well. I counted a conservative 22 times during her testimony when she was asked a question and could not remember.
Bledsoe’s bizarre claims
During her testimony, she made bizarre claims that Oswald’s wife was Spanish ( ibid., pg. 408 ) and when he got on the bus, all the buttons on his shirt were torn off ( ibid., pg. 410 ).
Mrs. Bledsoe claimed that Oswald was wearing the shirt, Commission Exhibit 150, on the bus. If her memory had failed on other subjects, one thing she could remember: she remembered Oswald wearing that shirt on the bus by the hole in the right elbow. ( ibid., pg. 409 )
But photographs of Oswald wearing the shirt while in police custody show no such hole in the right elbow.
Shaneyfelt Exhibit 24 is a photo of an FBI agent duplicating the picture above on the right. He’s wearing that exact same CE 150 shirt and there’s no hole in the elbow.
Since there were no entities with access to the shirt while it was in FBI custody, it comes apparent that the hole HAD to have been done by someone at the Bureau.
Mrs. Bledsoe wasn’t identifying the shirt Oswald wore on the bus. She was identifying the shirt that was brought to her house. And she admitted that before the shirt was brought out to her house, she had never seen it before.
Although she admitted under oath that she had never seen the shirt until it was brought out to her house, Mrs. Bledsoe insisted Oswald was wearing it.
The Other Passenger
Another passenger on McWatters bus was 17 year old Roy Milton Jones. Jones had boarded the bus after having been let out of school at 11:45 am.
When Jones was interviewed by the FBI, he could not identify Oswald as the man who got on the bus. In addition, his description of the man’s clothing indicates that he was not Oswald. ( 25 H 900 )
Also in that interview, Jones casts doubt on whether Mrs. Bledsoe was even on the bus by implying that the seat allegedly occupied by Mrs. Bledsoe was empty until AFTER the bus crossed the Marsalis Bridge, when a middle-aged woman passenger sat in it.
This would have been over an hour AFTER “Oswald” had left the bus. ( ibid. )
Not surprisingly, Jones was never called to testify.
The Bus Transfer
Another piece of phony “evidence” is the bus transfer reportedly recovered on Oswald.
The transfer was supposedly found on Oswald as he was searched waiting for the first lineup to begin at 4:05 pm.
So the police arrested Oswald and didn’t search him for almost an hour and a half after his arrest ?
It was allegedly found by Detective Richard Sims, who took it back up to the office, initialed it and put it in an envelope and left it in a desk of a superior officer of whom he could not remember. ( 7 H 173 )
This is chain-of-custody ?
It appears more than likely that this item was planted by police to defend the idea that Oswald fled on his own and not with an accomplice.
Why do I call this transfer phony ? Several reasons.
Firstly, Officer M.G. Hall assisted Sims and Boyd with the escort of Oswald to the first and second lineups. His report makes no mention of of a search or of finding any bus transfer on Oswald.
Secondly, an FBI teletype dated 2-3-64 notes that Detective Paul Bentley reported that he “completely searched Oswald and nothing was left in his pockets.”
No mention of any bus transfer.
Capt. Fritz verified that “Oswald was completely searched following his arrest and was allowed to keep nothing.”
Verification that Bentley emptied Oswald’s pockets comes during a second search as he sat in Capt. Fritz’s office by Dallas policeman Charles Truman ( CT ) Walker who told the HSCA in a 1978 interview that he “searched him good, but found nothing“.
The evidence shows that Oswald was completely searched TWICE, that his pockets were emptied and that he could NOT have been in possession of either the bus transfer or the unfired .38 rounds like the Dallas Police said he was.
So how else could the police have come in contact with this transfer ?
The answer may be in the testimony of bus driver McWatters, as he testified that he was stopped by police downtown on the evening of the 22nd:
“Well, they told me that they had a transfer that I had issued that was cut for Lamar St at 1 o’clock and wanted to know if I knew anything about it.” ( 2 H 268 )
The Dallas Police could not have known the location that the transfer was issued. That information is not on the transfer.
The Commission found that out when they questioned McWatters:
MR BALL. If this transfer was issued around the Lamar area or St.Paul–Elm area, is there any place where you could punch and show that particular location ?
MR. McWATTERS. No, sir.
( 2 H 291 )
So how could the Dallas Police know where the transfer was punched ?
They couldn’t. Unless there had been a previous contact between McWatters and police and he told them about it.
The evidence that police had previous contact with McWatters came through an FBI interview of Roy Milton Jones on March 30, 1964. The FBI interviewed the teenager on the bus to see if he could identify Oswald as the man on the bus. He could not.
But during that interview, Jones told the FBI that “a policeman notified the driver that the President had been shot and he told the driver no one was to leave the bus until police officers had talked to each passenger.”
He went on to say that, “he estimated there were about fifteen people on the bus at this time and two police officers boarded the bus and checked each passenger to see if they were carrying any firearms.”
And finally, that “the bus was held up by the police officers for about one hour.” ( 25 H 900 )
Not surprisingly, neither McWatters, Mrs. Bledsoe, nor young Jones were ever asked any questions regarding the events that transpired during the hour that the Dallas Police were on the bus.
For example, what were the names of the two police officers who boarded the bus ?
If police were looking for a weapon, normal procedure would have been to force all the passengers to evacuate the bus while the police conducted a search of it.
Was this done ?
Was McWatters on board while the search was going on or was he outside the bus ?
During this search, did the police have access to the transfer book and the punch ?
Did McWatters tell them that he had just dropped off a man and given him a transfer ?
McWatters testified that he only gave out two transfers to passengers on that run. But did he give police a “sample” of one of his transfers with his punch mark for comparison in case they encountered the man who left the bus ?
I know if I were that cop and I was searching buses, I’d want a sample of that transfer in case I ran into that guy. I’d want the transfer number and/or an example of the punch mark.
These are questions the Commission didn’t ask.
It seems that the transfer book and any information regarding it vanished into thin air never to be seen again.
On March 10, 1964 the FBI went looking for Cecil McWatters’ transfer book. Mr. F.F. Yates, Superintendent of the Dallas Transit System reported that “after checking his records, he was unable to find any record of the transfer books that were issued to driver Cecil McWatters on November 22, 1963.” ( CD 897, pg. 175 )
What a surprise. What happened to McWatters’ transfer book ? Did the police take it ?
To this day it remains missing.
Conclusion
This is the Commission’s evidence that Oswald boarded a bus after leaving the Texas School Book Depository:
A bus driver who wouldn’t identify him.
A teenage passenger who couldn’t identify him.
A woman whose ability to recognize faces was so badly damaged from a previous stroke that they appeared at times to be distorted. Likewise, her memory had been damaged. Twenty-two times she responded that she “couldn’t remember” when asked questions.
According to the Commission, her identification of the CE 150 shirt as the shirt Oswald was wearing on the bus was made from her recognition of a hole in the right elbow at a time when no hole existed.
This was a witness who had obviously suffered brain damage from a stroke. And this was one of the Commission’s “star” witnesses.
And there’s the bus transfer that was taken from Oswald after his pockets had been emptied, and he had been thoroughly searched twice. A bus transfer that was issued from a transfer book that eventually vanished into thin air.
This is the “evidence” that forms the foundation of the Commission’s conclusion that Oswald boarded a bus to escape the scene of the assassination.
The evidence I’ve presented indicates that this bus transfer ( CE 381-A ) was most certainly planted by police to bolster the idea that Oswald rode the bus in order to dissuade the idea that he left the Texas School Book Depository with the help of confederates.
But there’s more.
The Cab Ride
William Whaley, a taxicab driver, told his employer on Saturday morning, November 23, that he recognized Oswald from a newspaper photograph as a man whom he had driven to the Oak Cliff area the day before. Notified of Whaley’s statement, the police brought him to the police station that afternoon. He was taken to the lineup room where, according to Whaley, five young teenagers, all handcuffed together, were displayed with Oswald. He testified that Oswald looked older than the other boys. The police asked him whether he could pick out his passenger from the lineup. Whaley picked Oswald. — ( Report, Page 161 )
On November 22, 1963, Willam Whaley worked for the City Transportation Company as a cab driver. He was a veteran driver with 37 years of experience. At 12:30, he was in his 1961 Checker cab parked at the Greyhound Bus Station when he saw a man walking south on Lamar St. headed in his direction. The man was dressed in blue pants, a brown shirt with a silver-like stripe and a blue work jacket. The man asked if he could have the taxi.
( 2 H 253-255 )
Problems with Whaley’s timesheet
An examination of William Whaley’s timesheet indicates that the fare the Commission said was Oswald was picked up at the Greyhound Bus station at 12:30 PM, exactly the time that the shots were being fired in Dealey Plaza. How could Oswald be firing his rifle at the motorcade and be in a cab heading home at the same time ?
The Commission explained this away by stating in its report that the 12:30 entry was not precise, that Whaley logged in times in 15-minute intervals.
“Whaley testified that he did not keep an accurate time record of his trips but recorded them by the quarter hour..” ( Report, pg. 161 )
But that was a lie. Looking at the timesheet one can see numerous entries that were NOT in 15-minute intervals. ( red squares )
The Commission never questioned Whaley about his entries of 6:20, 7:50, 8:10, 8:20, 9:40, 10:50, or 3:10, even though it had the above copy of his timesheet. Instead, it allowed Whaley’s lie, “that he did not keep an accurate time record of his trips but recorded them by the quarter hour..” to stand, allowing the Commission to have Oswald entering Whaley’s cab at 12:47 or 12:48 and leaving it at about 12:54. ( Report, pg. 163 )
The Commission also never explained how it had concluded that Oswald ENTERED the cab ( 12:47 ) AFTER the timesheet showed that he had been dropped off ( 12:45 ).
Another thing the Commission never explained was why a 12:47 fare would have been logged in at 12:30.
If the entries were really made in 15 minute intervals and the Commission was telling the truth about Oswald entering the cab at 12:47, the entry in the timesheet showing Oswald’s entering the cab should have been at 12:45, NOT 12:30.
The timesheet proved that the Commission lied about Whaley’s recording the times by the quarter hour. His entries of 6:20, 7:50, 8:10, 8:20, 9:40, 10:50, and 3:10 proved that at the most, his times were rounded out to the nearest 5 minutes. Not 15.
Either Oswald entered his cab during the 5-minute timeframe of 12:25-12:30, which he rounded off to 12:30, meaning Oswald could not have shot the President, or the man who entered Whaley’s cab was not Oswald.
And there is evidence that his passenger was NOT Oswald. Some of that evidence involves Whaley’s description of his passenger.
Problems with Whaley’s description of his passenger
One of the more obvious examples that Whaley’s passenger was NOT Oswald comes in his description of the clothing of that passenger.
“He was dressed in just ordinary work clothes. It wasn’t khaki pants but they were khaki material, blue faded blue color, like a blue uniform made in khaki. Then he had on a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it and he had on some kind of jacket, I didn’t notice very close but I think it was a work jacket that almost matched the pants“. ( 2 H 255 )
But shortly later in his testimony, Whaley changed his mind about the blue faded work pants and identified Commission Exhibit 157, Oswald’s light grey pants, as the same color as the pants his passenger wore:
Mr. BALL. Here are two pair of pants, Commission Exhibit No. 157 and Commission Exhibit No. 156. Does it look anything like that?
Mr. WHALEY. I don’t think I can identify the pants except they were the same color as that, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which color?
Mr. WHALEY. More like this lighter color, at least they were cleaner or something.
Mr. BALL. That is 157?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
( 2 H 259-260 )
Whaley never did identify any of Oswald’s pants as the pants worn by his passenger. His testimony was only to the COLOR of the pants, and as we have seen, that changed considerably as his testimony continued.
Keep in mind that Whaley wavered in describing the color of his passenger’s pants in spite of the fact that his passenger sat in the FRONT seat of the cab. ( 2 H 256 )
But if Whaley’s credibility was lacking in regard to the color of his passenger’s pants, his description of his passenger’s jacket leaves no doubt that this witness’ credibility ends up in the garbage heap.
Mr. BALL. Here is Commission No. 162 which is a gray jacket with zipper.
Mr. WHALEY. I think that is the jacket he had on when he rode with me in the cab.
Mr. BALL. Look something like it? And here is Commission Exhibit No. 163, does this look like anything he had on?
Mr. WHALEY. He had this one on or the other one.
Mr. BALL. That is right.
Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.
Mr. BALL. Wait a minute, we have got the shirt which you have identified as the rust brown shirt with the gold stripe in it.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You said that a jacket–
Mr. WHALEY. That jacket now it might have been clean, but the jacket he had on looked more the color, you know like a uniform set, but he had this coat here on over that other jacket, I am sure, sir.
Mr. BALL. This is the blue-gray jacket, heavy blue-gray jacket.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
( 2 H 260 )
After not being able to decide which jacket his passenger had on, Whaley’s testimony was that his passenger wore BOTH JACKETS AT ONCE, the blue jacket, Commission Exhibit 163 over the grey jacket, Commission Exhibit 162.
Of course, this is ridiculous because Oswald’s blue jacket was found in the Texas School Book Depository after the assassination.
At this point, Commission counsel should have recognized that Whaley’s passenger was not Oswald, thanked him for his appearance before the Commission, and excused him from further testimony. There was no need to waste the Commission’s time and the taxpayers’ money on a witness whose testimony was so in conflict with the evidence.
But that didn’t happen.
With regard to the shirt his passenger was wearing, here is where Whaley shined. He identifies Oswald’s rust brown shirt, the shirt he was arrested in ( Commission Exhibit 150 ) , as the shirt his passenger wore.
Mr BALL. I have some clothing here. Commission Exhibit No. 150, does that look like the shirt?
Mr. WHALEY. That is the shirt, sir, it has my initials on it.
Mr. BALL. In other words, this is the shirt the man had on?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; that is the same one the FBI man had me identify.
Mr. BALL. This is the shirt the man had on who took your car at Lamar and Jackson?
Mr. WHALEY. As near as I can recollect as I told him. I said that is the shirt he had on because it had a kind of little stripe in it, light-colored stripe. I noticed that.
( 2 H 259 )
As one can see, Commission Exhibit 150 has no stripe. In addition, Whaley testified that he told the FBI that the shirt had a stripe in it, then during his testimony, he says that he “just noticed” the stripe.
Mr. WHALEY. …. I wouldn’t be sure of the shirt if it hadn’t had that light stripe in it. I just noticed that. ( 2 H 260 )
Commission counsel never established when exactly Mr. Whaley “noticed” the stripe that wasn’t there.
In addition, counsel puts words in the witness’ mouth by claiming that the witness identified the rust brown shirt with a gold stripe:
Mr. BALL. Wait a minute, we have got the shirt which you have identified as the rust brown shirt with the gold stripe in it.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
( ibid. )
The witness never identified the stripe as being gold. He described the stripe as “silverlike” and “light”.
In his affidavit ( below ) , he described the passenger’s shirt has being a “dark shirt with white spots of something on it”
What we have in the case of William Whaley is a witness who was caught between what he actually saw and his desire to cooperate with the authorities– in other words, to tell them what they wanted to hear.
The credibility of Whaley’s story is further damaged by his testimony in which he testified the # 2 man in the lineup as the man who entered his cab, when Oswald was # 3.
Problems with Whaley’s selection of Oswald
On Saturday afternoon 11/23/63, Whaley, along with another cab driver named William Scoggins, viewed a police lineup that included Oswald, two teenagers and a Mexican-American. Whaley testified that he chose the # 2 man in the lineup as his passenger from the Greyhound Bus Station to the 500 block of North Beckley in Oak Cliff. But his affidavit indicated that the man in the lineup he chose was # 3.
The Commission questioned Mr. Whaley on the discrepancy:
Mr. BELIN. All right. Now in here it says, “The No. 3 man who I now know is Lee Harvey Oswald was the man who I carried from the Greyhound Bus Station* * *” Was this the No. 3 or the No. 2 man?
Mr. WHALEY. I signed that statement before they carried me down to see the lineup. I signed this statement, and then they carried me down to the lineup at 2:30 in the afternoon.
( 6 H 430 )
Whaley then changes his testimony by saying that the police wrote out a HANDWRITTEN statement and in the middle of that statement, he was made to go down to view the lineup. When he came back, he signed a TYPEWRITTEN statement.
Mr. WHALEY. Let me tell you how they fixed this up. They had me in the office saying that. They were writing it out on paper, and they wrote it out on paper, and this officer, Leavelle, I think that is his name, before he finished and before I signed he wanted me to go with him to the lineup, so I went to the lineup, and I come back and he asked me which one it was, which number it was, and I identified the man, and we went back up in the office again, and then they had me sign this. That is as near as I can remember.
( ibid. )
But there’s only one thing wrong with Whaley’s explanation: if he viewed the lineup mid-statement, there should only be one handwritten version of his statement.
The two handwritten affidavits
The problem is the there are TWO handwritten affidavits alleged to have been taken from Whaley.
The first one appears to be the actual affidavit taken by Detective L.D. Montgomery. His initials are at the bottom.
If Whaley’s TYPEWRITTEN affidavit was copied from THIS handwritten version, why isn’t Whaley’s alleged selection of # 3 ( Oswald ) on this version ? Why is this version missing the account of the woman who came up to the cab ?
Montgomery testified that he was the one who took the affidavit from Whaley:
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I didn’t take an affidavit from him ( Scoggins ) –no, sir; I took one from Mr. Whaley.
Mr. BALL. Now, did you attend a showup?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. No, sir; I didn’t attend any showups.
Mr. BALL. You didn’t?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. No.
Mr. BALL. But you took an affidavit from Mr. Whaley?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. From Mr. Whaley–yes, sir.
( 7 H 99 )
But there is a second handwritten version of Whaley’s statement and it doesn’t take a handwriting expert to see that this one was not written by Montgomery.
I’ve purposely underlined the phrase “south on Beckley” to show that these handwritten versions are not the same.
In this version, Whaley identifies the # 3 man in the lineup and we have the woman coming up to the cab at the Greyhound station. Notice in this version, the grammar is terrible– the writer writes that the passenger “walked at and ( sic ) angle” rather than “at an angle” as Montgomery wrote. Also, there’s no indication who the author was.
It’s obvious that this version was not written by Montgomery.
The procedure for taking affidavits involved city officers or sheriff’s deputies handwriting witness statements, then a typist would type it out and the witness would swear that the information in it was correct.
While some may argue that the affidavits were taken incomplete and finished after the witness viewed the lineup, there should still only be one handwritten affidavit.
Why in this case were there two completely different affidavits ?
In addition, an affidavit is a sworn statement. You can’t add to it once it has been signed. Adding is altering and altering is illegal. You can swear out another affidavit correcting the first one, but you can’t alter the original.
Commission counsel pressed Whaley over what the HANDWRITTEN affidavit said, Whaley confessed that he hadn’t read it:
Mr. BELIN. Now, when you signed it–what I want to know is, before you went down, had they already put on there a statement that the man you saw was the No. 3 man in the lineup?
Mr. WHALEY. I don’t remember that. I don’t remember whether it said three or two, or what.
Mr. BELIN. Did they have any statements on there before you went down to the lineup?
Mr. WHALEY. I never saw what they had in there. It was all written out by hand. The statement I saw, I think, was this one, and that could be writing. I might not even seen this one yet.
Then he dropped a bomb on the Commission by implying that he was not allowed to read it:
“I signed my name because they said that is what I said.” ( 6 H 431 )
The fact is that the Dallas Police never gave the witness an opportunity to proofread the typewritten version of his affidavit before signing it.
In addition, the typed affidavit IN EVIDENCE naming the # 3 man ( Oswald ) as the man he chose was contrary to his testimony before the Commission that he chose # 2.
To cover up this discrepancy, Commission Counsel tried to confuse the witness between Numbers 2 & 3 in the lineup :
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what number he was in the lineup at all?
Mr. WHALEY. There was four of them, sir, and from the right to the left, he was No. 3.
Mr. BELIN. Starting from the right to the left, from his right or your right.
Mr. WHALEY. From your right, sir, which would have been his left. There were numbers above their heads, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Whaley, what number did you say the man was in the lineup?
Mr. WHALEY. No. 2.
Mr. BELIN. From the right or from your right?
Mr. WHALEY. From my left.
Mr. BELIN. No. 2?
Mr. WHALEY. They brought out four of them and stood them up there, and he was under No. 2. I mentioned he was the third one that come out. There were four and all handcuffed together.
( 6 H 430 )
But in this case, Whaley’s memory of how the lineup was conducted was without error. The numbers on the stage were numbered from left to right.
Mr. BROWN. …. numbering, facing the stage from your left to right.
Mr. BELIN. You mean your left, the observers left?
Mr. BROWN. Yes; the observers left to his right.
( 7 H 249 )
When the participants in the lineups entered the stage, they entered from left to right ( red arrow above ) , with # 4 entering first, then # 3, then # 2 and finally # 1 entering last.
This is reflected in the testimony of Dallas Officer Walter Potts’ description of lineup # 4 in which Daniel Lujan, who was # 4 in that lineup, entered the stage first:
Lujan went on first, because he would be No. 4. ( 7 H 200 )
So Whaley could not have mistaken # 2 for # 3.
But instead of investigating this conflict further, the Commission contended that Whaley’s memory of the lineup simply was in error:
Whaley’s memory of the lineup is inaccurate……Whaley said that Oswald was the man under No. 2. Actually Oswald was under No. 3. ( Report, Chapter 4, pg. 161 )
Whaley never said Oswald was # 2. He said that the man he CHOSE was # 2.
Representative FORD. Did you point him out with your hand?
Mr. WHALEY. No, sir; I did not. They asked me which number he was standing under and he was standing under No. 2. ( 2 H 294 )
Whaley’s “inaccurate memory” served to save the Commission the trouble of explaining how William Scoggins, who viewed the same lineup as Whaley did ( 3 H 337 ), testified that Oswald was under # 3.
Mr. BELIN. What number man in the lineup did you identify as having seen on November 22?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Number 3.
( 3 H 335 )
So if Oswald was under # 3 and being identified as # 3 by Scoggins, who was under number 2 ?
18 year old David Edmond Knapp was the # 2 man in that lineup ( 7 H 200 ). Knapp lived at 2922 Alabama Ave ( 7 H 201 ). The interesting thing about Whaley’s selection of Knapp is that Knapp’s house was almost a straight shot down Beckley from where Whaley claimed he had given the cab ride to.
It is my opinion that Whaley’s passenger was someone whose destination was further south on Beckley, someone who thought they could make it to the 500 block on a dollar but had him stop short of it because he was watching the meter and couldn’t afford to go any further.
Not necessarily Knapp, but someone whose destination was further south.
This hypothesis is strengthened by the fact that Whaley consistently described his passenger’s destination as the “500 block”, rather than a specific address or name of a business, which one would normally give the cab driver.
More support for my hypothesis comes from Whaley’s affidavit that says “the boy got out of the car and walked in front of the cab at an angle SOUTH on Beckley St.” ( 21 H 727 ). It becomes obvious from this evidence that the passenger’s destination was further south but he may not have had the funds to continue in a taxi.
More importantly, it shows that the passenger was NOT Oswald, whose roominghouse was NORTH of the dropoff point. ( see CE 1119-A, below )
My hypothesis makes a lot more sense than the Commission’s version of Oswald taking the cab PAST his roominghouse and walking back to it.
But then again, I’m not trying to prove Oswald guilty, I’m just trying to get to the truth.
If all of this makes sense to you, remember that this is just my opinion based on the evidence.
The Commission dealt with Whaley’s selection of Knapp by concluding that Whaley’s memory was “inaccurate” as to who he selected in the lineup and its assurance in spite of evidence to the contrary, that “he chose Oswald”.
The evidence, however, shows that he never chose Oswald.
Problems with the drop location
Besides the timesheet problem, his failure to describe Oswald’s clothing and his selection of the wrong man at the lineup, there’s another reason why I believe Whaley’s passenger wasn’t Oswald.
The main problem with the drop location was the location itself. If Whaley dropped his passenger at the 500 block of North Beckley Ave., it created a timing problem. The passenger could not have walked the five blocks and made it to Oswald’s roominghouse before 1pm. The timing would have made it impossible for Oswald to have been that passenger and more importantly, to have been at the Tippit murder scene before 1:15 pm.
His original affidavit indicated that he dropped his passenger off in the 500 block of Beckley. ( 7 H 727, above ) In his March testimony before the Commission, he affirmed that, calling the intersection of Neches and Beckley “the 500 block of Beckley”. ( 2 H 258 )
The testified that he dropped his passenger off on the northwest corner of the intersection. ( ibid., pg. 259 )
The timing problem was created during a re-enactment in which Whaley drove from the Greyhound station, where he picked up his passenger, to the 500 block of Beckley.
The trip alone took 9 minutes ( ibid. )
The FBI knew there was a timing problem so they sent an agent to ride with Whaley over the route.
Lo and Behold, this second re-enactment revealed that Whaley didn’t even get to the 500 block of Beckley, that instead he dropped his passenger off at the corner of Neely St. and Beckley, in the 700 block of Beckley. ( 6 H 433 )
This time, the trip took only 5 1/2 minutes. ( ibid., pg. 434 )
The 3 1/2 minute difference made it possible for Whaley’s passenger to have walked to Oswald’s roominghouse. The walk from the 700 block to the roominghouse took 5 minutes and 45 seconds, ( Report, pg. 650 ) making the whole trip, taxi ride and walk 11 mins. and 15 seconds.
This got Oswald to the roominghouse right at 12:58-1:00 pm range.
But there is another problem, one the Commission never addressed.
During his March 12th testimony, he said that he dropped his passenger on the west side of Beckley and his passenger crossed the street and he didn’t see which way he went.
( 2 H 256 )
But if you look at the affidavits listed above, you’ll see that in all versions given on the day after the assassination, Whaley swore his passenger crossed over in front of the cab and walked in an angle SOUTH on Beckley.
This is significant because Oswald’s rooming house was NORTH of where Whaley let his passenger out.
Conclusion
The Commission failed to show why Whaley would have entered a time of 12:30 in his log for a fare that started at 12:47 or 12:48 as it claimed. If Whaley made entries in his log in 15-minute intervals, why was THIS 12:47 fare entered in the log at 12:30-12:45 instead of 12:45-1:00pm ?
Why weren’t ALL of the entries in 15 minute intervals ?
And what of Whaley’s description of his passenger ?
Even though the man sat in the front seat, Whaley could not identify either of Oswald’s work pants as those the passenger wore.
He claimed that the passenger wore BOTH of Oswald’s jackets, one over the other.
He went to a live lineup, selected someone other than Oswald, then signed a sworn affidavit that had been altered without reading it first.
And if that wasn’t enough, he swore his passenger left the taxi and walked in the OPPOSITE direction of Oswald’s rooming house.
How in God’s name could any reasonable and prudent person believe that this passenger was Oswald ?
Author/researcher Harold Weisberg summed up Whaley as a witness nicely:
While this “cab ride” continues to be considered historical fact, it’s obvious that Oswald was not the passenger Whaley picked up at the Greyhound station. The time was wrong, the clothing was wrong, the destination was wrong and the selection from the lineup was wrong.
If this had gone to court, Whaley would have been destroyed on cross-examination.
The Commission tried to paint Mr. Whaley as some sort of a buffoon who was wrong about the details but ultimately chose Oswald.
Let me say that he was neither a buffoon nor did he choose Oswald. To me, he comes off as a hero in the search for the truth.
He was a veteran cab driver with 37 years of experience shuttling passengers around the streets of Dallas. With that much experience, it’s safe to say that he knew the city and its streets. And as any professional would be, he was observant with his passengers.
He wasn’t lacking in credibility, he was simply wrong about his passenger being Oswald. He may have been a victim of the FBI’s intimidation and fearful of of prison time for making false statements to government agents. It would explain his seeming lack of credibility as he was caught between telling them what they wanted to hear and what he knew to be the truth.
And yet there IS a positive side to his story.
Mr. Whaley’s insertion into this case exposed the corruption and dishonesty of the Dallas Police and their framing of Oswald for a crime he did not commit.
From their lies that Oswald didn’t want a lawyer to their unfair lineups to their having witnesses sign affidavits before they saw the lineups, his testimony served to reveal the injustice that Oswald suffered after his arrest.
And for that, we can be eternally grateful to him.
Postscript:
On December 18, 1965, Willam Whaley was killed when his taxi was involved in an accident. On Helmer Reenberg’s Youtube channel, there is a video of the damage to the taxi as it gets towed away from the scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po0c8uo7Eso
A final word
The Commission’s conclusion that Oswald “escaped” the Texas School Book Depository by means of a bus and a taxi was as fake as its evidence.
First of all, a co-worker of Oswald’s testified that Oswald’s leaving the building at lunchtime was nothing out of the ordinary.
Secondly, the Commission failed to prove that Oswald was definitely on the bus. The bus driver and a teenaged passenger could not identify Oswald as the man who got on and then off the bus. A woman passenger, who the Commission said “positively identified” Oswald, had been a victim of a stroke that obviously affected her memory and perception, making her credibility questionable.
Thirdly, the bus transfer in evidence, that was supposed to have been pre-stamped for 1 o’clock and given to Oswald by the driver, has no such timestamp on it. And it’s torn at the bottom to hide whether or not it had a timestamp for another time.
Regardless of who the man was, the bus transfer in evidence is NOT the transfer the driver gave to him.
It’s fake.
Fourthly, the Commission failed to prove that Oswald was in the taxi. It claimed that the driver entered times in 15 minute intervals on his log sheet. But the sheet itself proves that was a lie. His time of 12:30-12:45 for this fare means that this passenger could not have been Oswald, who the Commission’s timing would not have entering the cab until 12:47-48.
In addition, the driver could not describe his passenger’s clothing and when he viewed the police lineup, he chose someone other than Oswald.
He testified that although his passenger requested to go to a block that was five blocks south of Oswald’s roominghouse, he dropped him off two blocks shy of his destination and swore in his affidavit that his passenger continued walking south when he left the cab. This was the OPPOSITE direction of Oswald’s roominghouse.
This is all evidence, in my opinion, that Oswald was NOT the man on the bus or in the taxi.