Oswald's Escape Route Time Trial

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes Sir.  I remember.  How are you?  Do you know if Ol' Bob Harris is still around?  I used to talk to him but it's been at least 5 years since I've heard from him.


I talked to Roy Milton Jones back in October of this year.  He told me that he doesn't recall Oswald boarding the bus because "it wasn't conspicuous" (his words).  I asked him if he remembered seeing Oswald on the bus for himself and he said after he saw Oswald on the news, he recognized his face as someone he had seen on the bus.  I then specifically asked him if, in his opinion, Oswald was on the bus and he said "Yes".


Can't you imagine that the transfer has been placed under glass flattened for years, in effect straightening out any "creases" which may have occurred during the arrest?


Earlene Roberts gave various time estimates for how long Oswald was back in his room.  She said things like "about three or four minutes" and "maybe not over three or four minutes".  Both of these phrases are figures of speech, in my opinion not to be taken literal.  However, one description of time that she gave which is NOT a figure of speech is when she said he was back in his room "just long enough to go in there and get a jacket and put it on".  This is NOT a figure of speech.  This is a literal description of a length of time.  How long do you believe it takes to walk into one's room and grab a jacket and put it on?

However, one description of time that she gave which is NOT a figure of speech is when she said he was back in his room "just long enough to go in there and get a jacket and put it on".  This is NOT a figure of speech.  This is a literal description of a length of time.  How long do you believe it takes to walk into one's room and grab a jacket and put it on?

Roberts did not know what Oswald was doing in the room. She may have believed that he only grabbed a jacket, but what if, in reality he actually did change his clothes as well?

[Fergus O'brien]

Yes Sir.  I remember.  How are you?  Do you know if Ol' Bob Harris is still around?  I used to talk to him but it's been at least 5 years since I've heard from him.


I talked to Roy Milton Jones back in October of this year.  He told me that he doesn't recall Oswald boarding the bus because "it wasn't conspicuous" (his words).  I asked him if he remembered seeing Oswald on the bus for himself and he said after he saw Oswald on the news, he recognized his face as someone he had seen on the bus.  I then specifically asked him if, in his opinion, Oswald was on the bus and he said "Yes".


Can't you imagine that the transfer has been placed under glass flattened for years, in effect straightening out any "creases" which may have occurred during the arrest?


Earlene Roberts gave various time estimates for how long Oswald was back in his room.  She said things like "about three or four minutes" and "maybe not over three or four minutes".  Both of these phrases are figures of speech, in my opinion not to be taken literal.  However, one description of time that she gave which is NOT a figure of speech is when she said he was back in his room "just long enough to go in there and get a jacket and put it on".  This is NOT a figure of speech.  This is a literal description of a length of time.  How long do you believe it takes to walk into one's room and grab a jacket and put it on?

i havent come across bob harris on my travels bill , not since i was last on his forum .

"I talked to Roy Milton Jones back in October of this year.  He told me that he doesn't recall Oswald boarding the bus because "it wasn't conspicuous" (his words).  I asked him if he remembered seeing Oswald on the bus for himself and he said after he saw Oswald on the news, he recognized his face as someone he had seen on the bus.  I then specifically asked him if, in his opinion, Oswald was on the bus and he said "Yes"." Bill brown

i see you have not changed at all in your approach , the do as i say not as i do approach lol . so in 59 years no one thought to ask Mr jones what you asked and he never thought to offer the info you say you gleaned from him ? .not the police , the FBI or any of the so called  investigations asked him what you asked him ? . i mean it is pretty important stuff is it not ? that he says he can ID Mr oswald as being on that bus . but only 59 years later does he mention that . so now can i presume that you accept statements from people made years or decades after the tragic events in question ? .or do you still have the same old stance that you used to have ? which was only statements made at the time of the event or in the days pretty close to it could be relied upon .i think it is a fair question given that that was your stance certainly on Bob harris forum .and i dont believe it was any different here . oh and i need to point out that i am not trying to disrespect you or attack you here , it is just that if one holds a stance and then acts contradictory to that stance , that i feel that that should be highlighted and discussed .

humans rarely take any note of things or people that do not stand out . a young man ,just  like any other regular young man in the world gets on a bus , and takes a seat and sits there without saying a word . to use the word you used there was nothing at all CONSPICUOUS . Mcwatters testified he had close contact with a man and gave him a transfer , yet he could not state on the day or even in testimony who that man was .

Mr. BALL - As I understand it, neither then nor now are you able to identify or say that you have again seen the man that got off your bus to whom you gave a transfer?
Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir; I couldn't. I could not identify him.

Mcwatters further testified to the following .

Mr. McWATTERS - He got off at Brownley, because the man rode with me the next day.
Mr. BALL - You went out there the next day, did you?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - With an FBI man or a Dallas policeman?
Mr. McWATTERS - No, I mean--
Mr. BALL - The same teenager?
Mr. McWATTERS - The same teenager rode with me the next day.
Mr. BALL - And you noticed he got off there?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, and I noticed, and I asked him, like I told him, I said that I was--I thought that, you know, that he was, when he first got on down there, I says, "From all indications, we had you kind of pinpointed as the man who might have been mixed up in the assassination and everything." And--
Mr. BALL - Do I understand the day after you made the affidavit, this would be the 23d of November?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes.
Mr. BALL - That this same teenager got on your bus again?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, he got on.
Mr. BALL - And you noticed where you let him off?
Mr. McWATTERS - I noticed where I let him off, yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Is that the reason that today you remember he got off?
Mr. McWATTERS - That is it today I remember, just like I say, I remember I talked to him the next day, and he told me where he got on, and he told me where he got on, and where he got off and where he lived, and, you know that--
Mr. BALL - Has he been on your bus since?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes.
Mr. BALL - He has?
Mr. McWATTERS - He has rode with me since.

so here is Mcwatters testifying that the very next day he spoke to Jones , that he told jones the very next day that they  thought he might have been the one mixed up in the shooting , that he spoke to Jones again after that also . now nowhere did he say that Mr jones told him that OSWALD was the man on the bus , that he saw him and remembered him NOWHERE . these two guys discussing that they were on the same bus that the police say oswald was on , and apparently not once did Jones say to Mcwatters HE YOU KNOW I SAW HIM , I SAW OSWALD ON THE BUS LARGE AS LIFE .

"Earlene Roberts gave various time estimates for how long Oswald was back in his room.  She said things like "about three or four minutes" and "maybe not over three or four minutes".  Both of these phrases are figures of speech, in my opinion not to be taken literal.  However, one description of time that she gave which is NOT a figure of speech is when she said he was back in his room "just long enough to go in there and get a jacket and put it on".  This is NOT a figure of speech.  This is a literal description of a length of time.  How long do you believe it takes to walk into one's room and grab a jacket and put it on? " Bill brown

i guess then Bill that you dont accept and that you dispute that oswald changed his shirt and slacks , even tho it was noted in the interrogation notes , i am sure you will confirm your stance on this matter what ever that stance is. i dont believe that one saying something took 3 to 4 minutes was a figure of speech , and i dont believe Roberts took such a close look at him as he left as to know if he had changed his shirt and slacks . but i can fully understand why any LN would seek to deny that Oswald changed his clothing , the time it would take would be part of it , but then LN would have a shirt in evidence , and fibers from it supposedly left on the rifle at 12.30 at  the depository when said shirt was only put on at the rooming house in and around 1pm . i can see how that would be a problem .

nice to talk to you again Bill after so long , it is always a pleasure . take care .

[Martin Weidmann]

I agree with you on all of this.  Progress Ha Ha

I once created a thread titled "Ted Callaway And The 1:15 Shooting" or something like that.  It deals with the Callaway timeline.

Anyway, Callaway's call on the squad car radio to the dispatcher took place at 1:19.  Based on Callaway's description of his actions, he's making this call maybe four minutes after hearing the shots.

Callaway's call on the squad car radio to the dispatcher took place at 1:19.

How disappointing. And you were doing so well....

he's making this call maybe four minutes after hearing the shots.

So the shots were fired no sooner than 1:15?

Amazing... by that time Helen Markham, after taking 9 minutes to walk two blocks, would have been at the bus stop on Jefferson, either catching a delayed 1:12 bus or waiting for the 1:22 one. Go figure..

[Fergus O'brien]

However, one description of time that she gave which is NOT a figure of speech is when she said he was back in his room "just long enough to go in there and get a jacket and put it on".  This is NOT a figure of speech.  This is a literal description of a length of time.  How long do you believe it takes to walk into one's room and grab a jacket and put it on?

Roberts did not know what Oswald was doing in the room. She may have believed that he only grabbed a jacket, but what if, in reality he actually did change his clothes as well?

indeed . she had no reason to think about him changing clothes etc . yes she did notice his return and departure she was also working on her tv , plus noting police cars outside . i dont think she paid GREAT attention oswald , yes she took notice but he was not her main focus of attention in my opinion .Oswald was noted in interrogation saying he changed his clothing , his shirt and slacks . why would he offer that information ?. i dont think he was sat there in Fritz office thinking ive got to give my self less time by dreaming up ways to add more time to things he did . in fact if we say he was indeed guilty well he in saying MY CLOTHES THAT I WORE IN WORK ARE IN THAT DRAWER THERE well he was giving them evidence to use against him .despite what some say oswald was not stupid . Roberts gave an estimate , not an unreasonable estimate of time , but as you accurately state she had no reason believe he never changed clothes .

but there is one good reason why LN would never want to have to admit he changed his slacks and shirt . if he went to his rooming house wearing the red shirt he wore in work , took it off and ONLY put on the brown shirt at 1pm in his room . how could he possibly have left fresh fibers from that brown shirt on the rifle at the depository at 12.30 ? . if Oswald did indeed change his shirt that creates serious obvious problems for LN .

[Fergus O'brien]

Callaway's call on the squad car radio to the dispatcher took place at 1:19.

How disappointing. And you were doing so well....

he's making this call maybe four minutes after hearing the shots.

So the shots were fired no sooner than 1:15?

Amazing... by that time Helen Markham, after taking 9 minutes to walk two blocks, would have been at the bus stop on Jefferson, either catching a delayed 1:12 bus or waiting for the 1:22 one. Go figure..

i recall a thread here on this forum regarding this matter and the timing issues .now i may be wrong as its several years back  if so i apologize in advance of this . but if my memory is correct it was Bill who sort of acknowledged that the shots probably were fired 3 or perhaps 4 minutes prior to the radio call . the 1.16 radio call . Bill please feel free here to correct me if my memory is incorrect and that it was not you , but for some reason i am believing it was you .but anyway that would mean the shots were fired as potentially as early as 1.12 . and this would be after tippit stopped the man (be that Oswald or what ever ) and had a conversation with him . then we have to add in any excess minutes that Oswald lingered on beckley . if he is on beckley at 1.03 and the shooting was at 1.12 that creates a problem .but of course this is why LN want to make Oswalds time at the rooming house a matter of seconds as opposed to minutes .and why they want to add as much time as they can to get him to 10th and patton in time to shoot the late officer Tippit . of course its difficult perhaps impossible to come up with exacting time lines , i get that . i do remember a thread once here , i believe again from memory it was Colin crowe (i hope i have the name right ) who came up with some excellent work on the 6th floor and how long it would have taken to do what oswald is said to have done and then gone down stairs . i dont know if Colin is still a member , but i have the greatest respect for his work on this forum .but my point simply is that while i know we cant be accurate to exacting levels that we can put together a reasonably accurate time line if we do so honestly , and Colin did that .

[Richard Smith]

indeed . she had no reason to think about him changing clothes etc . yes she did notice his return and departure she was also working on her tv , plus noting police cars outside . i dont think she paid GREAT attention oswald , yes she took notice but he was not her main focus of attention in my opinion .Oswald was noted in interrogation saying he changed his clothing , his shirt and slacks . why would he offer that information ?. i dont think he was sat there in Fritz office thinking ive got to give my self less time by dreaming up ways to add more time to things he did . in fact if we say he was indeed guilty well he in saying MY CLOTHES THAT I WORE IN WORK ARE IN THAT DRAWER THERE well he was giving them evidence to use against him .despite what some say oswald was not stupid . Roberts gave an estimate , not an unreasonable estimate of time , but as you accurately state she had no reason believe he never changed clothes .

but there is one good reason why LN would never want to have to admit he changed his slacks and shirt . if he went to his rooming house wearing the red shirt he wore in work , took it off and ONLY put on the brown shirt at 1pm in his room . how could he possibly have left fresh fibers from that brown shirt on the rifle at the depository at 12.30 ? . if Oswald did indeed change his shirt that creates serious obvious problems for LN .

Changing shirts creates no issue even if that occurred.  The fibers from his shirt could have got on the rifle on some prior occasion.  They would not necessarily have needed to be on the rifle from contact on Nov. 22.  What the fibers do is add yet another link between Oswald and the rifle left at the crime scene.  The rifle used to assassinate JFK.  Even if no such fibers were ever found, there is ample evidence to do that from the overwhelming evidence that links him to the rifle.  Whether he changed his shirt or does nothing to undermine the case against Oswald.

[Martin Weidmann]

Changing shirts creates no issue even if that occurred.  The fibers from his shirt could have got on the rifle on some prior occasion.  They would not necessarily have needed to be on the rifle from contact on Nov. 22.  What the fibers do is add yet another link between Oswald and the rifle left at the crime scene.  The rifle used to assassinate JFK.  Even if no such fibers were ever found, there is ample evidence to do that from the overwhelming evidence that links him to the rifle.  Whether he changed his shirt or does nothing to undermine the case against Oswald.

Changing shirts creates no issue even if that occurred.  The fibers from his shirt could have got on the rifle on some prior occasion.  They would not necessarily have needed to be on the rifle from contact on Nov. 22.

"Richard" is grasping at straws again.

First of all, there is no such thing as "the fibers from his shirt" as it never was (and never can be) conclusively proven that the fibers found on the rifle did actually come from Oswald's shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts. At best the FBI experts could say was that the fibers were similar.

Secondly, the only realistic time that fibers of the arrest shirt could have gotten on the rifle is on November 22, for the simple reason that  - according to the official narrative - Oswald surrendered the rifle, wrapped in a blanket, to Ruth Paine, when she picked up Marina in New Orleans, in September 1963. Oswald visited Ruth Paine's home only a couple of times and simply would have had no real opportunity to have access to the rifle and/or break it down. But, let's say for argument's sake say that there was indeed a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage and that Oswald could have somehow managed to dismantle it, without being seen, that still requires that he just happened to be wearing the arrest shirt on that occassion, and that would be one massive coincidence.

Also, the likelihood that fibers similar to those of the arrest shirt could have gotten on the rifle before November 22 and stayed there is extremely low, considering that not a single single fiber similar to the fibers of the blanket, in which the rifle allegedly was wrapped for more than two months, were found on the rifle. Do the math!

What the fibers do is add yet another link between Oswald and the rifle left at the crime scene.

No they don't provide such a link, as the fibers found on the rifle were never matched conclusively to Oswald's arrest shirt.

[Fergus O'brien]

Changing shirts creates no issue even if that occurred.  The fibers from his shirt could have got on the rifle on some prior occasion.  They would not necessarily have needed to be on the rifle from contact on Nov. 22.  What the fibers do is add yet another link between Oswald and the rifle left at the crime scene.  The rifle used to assassinate JFK.  Even if no such fibers were ever found, there is ample evidence to do that from the overwhelming evidence that links him to the rifle.  Whether he changed his shirt or does nothing to undermine the case against Oswald.

well now i call that moving the goal posts , and its supposition . while it is certainly not impossible that he could leave fibers from a particular shirt on the rifle at a point in the past well i just dont believe given the fbi testimony that in this case that this is what happened . the fibers were i believe freshly left . so again if he did not put on that brown shirt until about 1pm at his rooming house some 30 minutes after the shooting , how could he have left those fibers on the shirt . on my part i have interrogation documentation stating he changed his shirt and slacks at the rooming house . that is not supposition in the sense it was documented . he could have lied about doing that , but why ? .

and i think you ever look or perhaps choose to ignore the point here . if oswald did indeed change his shirt as he said , those freshly left fibers should never have been found . but they were so if Oswald did indeed change his shirt we then have to question how they got there . if they got there other than by oswald then we have a problem with reliability of evidence .

“These I removed and put on a glass microscope slide…because this little group of fibers—little tuft of fibers, appeared to be FRESH . The fibers on the rest of the gun were either adhering to a greasy, oily deposit or jammed into a crevice and were very dirty and apparently very old…the other fibers I cleaned up, removed the grease and examined them but they were of no value.  They were pretty well fragmented…They all appeared old…in excess of a month or two months.”  Stombaugh