Oswald's Escape Route Time Trial

[Tom Scully]

"Gladys Johnson, testified to a prior firing of Roberts as a compulsive teller of tall tales!" Tom scully

can i take it from your above statement then that you afford Mrs roberts no credibility ? . or is she a compulsive story teller and unreliable ONLY when what she said does not suit the argument you are making ? .

this is a point i have made often in regard LN , because LN will cite a witness to make their argument one day , and then attack that same witness as unreliable or untruthful the next day . a witness is either reliable OR NOT , they are either credible OR NOT , they are either truthful OR NOT . so given the above tell us how you see Mrs roberts tom .

Gladys Johnson, her husband, and their employee, Earline Roberts, were witnesses whose testimony should have been taken with a grain of salt. All three were unreliable as far as descriptions of their perceptions of time. Gladys impeached anything Earline would have to say.

Oswald was unemployed when he first spoke to Gladys Johnson.

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-743.html

...TOM SCULLY SAID:

Question for David von Pein [sic]....

Do you think the time observations of the witnesses you have criticized were any less credible than Gladys Johnson claiming she first talked to OH Lee about three weeks before she said she rented a room to him on 14 Oct., and that Lee told her during that first encounter that he wanted to be near his work? What work.

Or the 1:04 time fix of Earline [sic] Roberts who also stated in early December that police had arrived about thirty minutes after Oswald departed. DPD detective Potts established in his testimony that he and other officers arrived at 3:00 pm.

Or that Whaley had any idea who Oswald was or what time near exact that Oswald got in or out of his cab?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No.

You're only helping to emphasize my point about "timelines". Timelines always have to be taken with a grain of salt, including each instance you mentioned above. And the Vickie Adams timeline too.

Marrion Baker's timeline is more accurate because a detailed reconstruction of his movements was done by the Warren Commission.

Now, perhaps such a detailed reconstruction of Victoria Adams' movements should have also been done. Obviously, quite a few CTers think that such an Adams re-creation should have been performed by the Commission. I'll leave it to others to debate whether the Commission was being deliberately deceptive by not doing such a re-creation with Miss Adams.

But as far as I can recall, I have always adhered to the "Grain Of Salt" policy when discussing any "witness timeline" issues. All such times must be considered ESTIMATES. And that includes the time estimates provided by Earlene Roberts and Helen Markham and T.F. Bowley too.

[Tom Scully]

"Gladys Johnson, testified to a prior firing of Roberts as a compulsive teller of tall tales!" Tom scully

can i take it from your above statement then that you afford Mrs roberts no credibility ? . or is she a compulsive story teller and unreliable ONLY when what she said does not suit the argument you are making ? .

this is a point i have made often in regard LN , because LN will cite a witness to make their argument one day , and then attack that same witness as unreliable or untruthful the next day . a witness is either reliable OR NOT , they are either credible OR NOT , they are either truthful OR NOT . so given the above tell us how you see Mrs roberts tom .

No accurate concept of time :

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Yarborough_aff.pdf
The following affidavit was executed by Earlene Roberts on December 5, 1963.
...
Oswald went out the front door. A moment later I looked out the window. I
saw Lee Oswald standing on the curb at the bus stop just to the right, and on the
same side of the street as our house. I just glanced out the window that once.
I don’t know how long Lee Oswald stood at the curb nor did I see which direction
he went when he left there.
About thirty minutes later three Dallas policemen came to the house looking
for Lee Harvey Oswald. We didn’t know who Lee Harvey Oswald was until
sometime later his picture was flashed on television. I then let the Dallas policemen in the room occupied by Lee Oswald. While the Dallas police were searching the room two FBI agents came in. ..

Steve Thomas posted on January 3, 2021 :

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26891-gladys-johnson/#comment-435720

"Jim,

I believe that Mrs. Johnson confused the plainclothed Detectives of the Dallas Police Department for the FBI.

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/johnso_g.htm

Mr. BALL. On the day of the 22d of November, were you home around 1 o'clock?
Mrs. JOHNSON. It must have been 1:30 or 2, something like that.
Mr. BALL. When you came home?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes; after serving lunch.

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/johnso_a.htm

Mr. BELIN. All right. What happened when the officers got there? They asked if Lee Harvey Oswald lived there?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. How long had you been at the house when the officers arrived?
Mr. JOHNSON. Oh, probably 30 minutes.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember about what time of the day they arrived?
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, it must have been around 1:30 or 2 o'clock--the best I remember.
Mr. BELIN. When did you get home that day from your work?
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, it was around 1 o'clock or maybe a little bit after.
Mr. BELIN. At the time you had gotten home, had you heard that the President had been shot?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. I heard that before I went home.
Mr. BELIN. Did you hear that the President had died before you went home?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. So you got home sometime after you had heard that the President had died?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. When did you get home that day from your work?
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, it was around 1 o'clock or maybe a little bit after.

 

The announcement that the President had died was made around 1:30 PM

Oswald was arrested at approximately 1:50 PM

He was brought into Headquarters at 2:00 PM

 

I first posed the question on November 22, 2004 in the Education Forum JFK Assassination Seminars

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/2331-how-did-the-police-first-learn-of-1026-n-beckley/

How did the police first learn that Oswald lived at 1026 N. Beckley?

 

At 2:40 PM, W.E. Potts, B.L. Senkel and Lt. E.L. Cunningham were dispatched to 1026 N. Beckley. Potts wrote in his after-action report (Box 2, Folder# 9, Item# 32) http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box2.htm that after he finished taking some affidavits, Fritz dispatched them to the Beckely St address at 2:40 and they arrived at Beckley at 3:00PM.
Detective B.L. Senkel also said in his after action report (Dallas Police Archives Box 3, Folder# 12, Item#1) that they arrived at 1026 N. Beckley at 3:00PM. They did not have a search warrant, and one wasn't issued until 3:55 PM by Justice of the Peace David Johnston.

Report of Justice of the Peace, David Johnston.

Johnston Exhibit 1

(20H314

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=334&tab=page

 

What cannot be answered is why, when the police arrived at 1026 N. Beckley, they were asking for Harvey Lee Oswald.

 

WC testimony of Earlene Roberts April 8, 1964

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/robertse.htm

 

Mr. BALL. Do you remember the day the President was shot?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; I remember it---who would forget that?
Mr. BALL. And the police officers came out there?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember what they said?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was Will Fritz' men---it was plainclothesmen and I was at the back doing something and Mr. Johnson answered the door and they identified themselves and then he called me.
Mr. BALL. What did they say?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, they asked him if there was a Harvey Lee Oswald there.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mrs. ROBERTS. And he says, "I don't know, I'll have to call the housekeeper," and he called me and I went and got the books and I said, "No; there's no one here by that name," and they tried to make me remember and I couldn't, and Mrs. Johnson come in in the meantime and there wasn't nobody there by that name, and Mrs. Johnson said, "Mrs. Roberts, don't you have him?" And, I said, "No; we don't, for here is my book and there is nobody there by that name." We checked it back a year.
Mr. BALL. And you didn't have that name you didn't ever know his name was Lee Oswald?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No---he registered as O. H. Lee and they were asking for Harvey Lee Oswald.

 

To the best of my knowledge, no FBI agents were at 1026 N. Beckley.

Steve Thomas"

[Martin Weidmann]

hi Martin while i can see reasons for not reading books form either side , i also think that there is a wealth of information not available (suppressed etc ) from that tragic day in history for many years and decades that has since been made available . and its been via the very hard work of dedicated researchers , freedom of information lawsuits or just sat in the archives for hours , days , weeks and years .i believe we need all this information .i once read a book called jfk the second plot . now regardless of what the authors final conclusion might be in this case the author in the book offered a belief that this case is not just one big puzzle , but that it is a case of several puzzles that do not necessarily join together anywhere . but are independent of each other , but that each of the puzzles are a part of the full picture if you will . in essence that we need all parts of all puzzles to fully understand what happened . for example oswald in new orleans , while these events are removed from november 22 1963 they are important to the over all understanding . IE this time in Oswalds life is one puzzle , one part of the big picture . different books delve into different areas and so are important . but i must say you argue the case very intelligently and knowledgeably and so perhaps your approach has merit , i guess you remain untainted by the views of the various authors . and i can see sense in that also .but from my own point of view i like to read as much as i can when i can , but i always try to keep an open mind about what i read .

Hi Fergus,

The reason for not reading any books is that I want to keep an open mind and not be influenced by the opinion of somebody who has a book to sell. It has been my experience that if in any book or article new evidence is presented it quickly finds it way on the internet which then allows me to research the matter further and draw my own conclusions. In most cases, it isn't the evidence itself that is the problem, it's the context in which it is placed by who ever is commenting on it.

[Fergus O'Brien]

Gladys Johnson, her husband, and their employee, Earline Roberts, were witnesses whose testimony should have been taken with a grain of salt. All three were unreliable as far as descriptions of their perceptions of time. Gladys impeached anything Earline would have to say.

Oswald was unemployed when he first spoke to Gladys Johnson.

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-743.html

so can i take it from your reply that your stance is she is unreliable as regards timing , in general not reliable and a story teller , but perfectly reliable when she talked about Oswald arriving home , what he did and what he wore ? . if so (and i am sure you will clarify ) that would sort of go along with what i said previously , that in essence LN say she is reliable when it suits and unreliable when it does not suit .

[Martin Weidmann]

so can i take it from your reply that your stance is she is unreliable as regards timing , in general not reliable and a story teller , but perfectly reliable when she talked about Oswald arriving home , what he did and what he wore ? . if so (and i am sure you will clarify ) that would sort of go along with what i said previously , that in essence LN say she is reliable when it suits and unreliable when it does not suit .

that in essence LN say she is reliable when it suits and unreliable when it does not suit .

Spot on.   

[Fergus O'Brien]

hi Martin well i really did not expect an LN to reply and admit that that was their logic lol . i know it is in essence their logic , but they usually have enough sense to not admit it lol .

i think you and me have a different approach . we try to look at each witness in an honest and unbiased manner and decide genuinely if there was a serious and valid reason why we should not rely on them. any witness in any aspect of this case can be wrong or make an error , that is just being human , that would not mean we then should dismiss all that they said . some witnesses for sure are questionable or indeed unreliable at best . i know neither of us would cite the word of a witness and offer them as completely reliable that we previously said was highly unreliable . i think we are too honest to do that . it would seem that many LN do not suffer with the affliction of being honest as we do . good to talk to you , i admire your work and approach here on this forum and i always enjoy reading your comments .

[Richard Smith]

hi Martin well i really did not expect an LN to reply and admit that that was their logic lol . i know it is in essence their logic , but they usually have enough sense to not admit it lol .

i think you and me have a different approach . we try to look at each witness in an honest and unbiased manner and decide genuinely if there was a serious and valid reason why we should not rely on them. any witness in any aspect of this case can be wrong or make an error , that is just being human , that would not mean we then should dismiss all that they said . some witnesses for sure are questionable or indeed unreliable at best . i know neither of us would cite the word of a witness and offer them as completely reliable that we previously said was highly unreliable . i think we are too honest to do that . it would seem that many LN do not suffer with the affliction of being honest as we do . good to talk to you , i admire your work and approach here on this forum and i always enjoy reading your comments .

The fixation on witness discrepancies while ignoring the elephant in the room is a common trait of many CTers.  There is no doubt that Oswald was at his boardinghouse.  There is no doubt that he was the Tippit scene with a gun at the time the crime was committed.  Several different witnesses place him there.  He literally committed the crime in broad daylight on a public street in the presence of numerous witnesses.  He is still holding the smoking gun. He is arrested with this gun a short distance away after random citizens reported him acting suspiciously.  He had the exact same two brands of ammo when arrested that were used to murder Tippit.  So unlucky!  Endless pedantic nitpicking of testimony and subjective interpretation of those witness recollections to reach a desired outcome in a desperate attempt to suggest false doubt is not a compelling way to rebut the evidence.  It is a good way, however, to take every single thread on this forum down the same rabbit hole.