A Rock Solid Alibi.....

[Jerry Freeman]

I here hear we smell toast when close to kicking the bucket.

There I fixed it
Cause where you could be going afterwards may be mighty toasty?
 

[Alan Ford]

So, do you really believe that Sawyer would let an alleged suspect, that an alleged unknown witness described as leaving the building with a rifle, just get away by not at least informing his department what this unknown witness said?

Letting him get away? What are you talking about, Mr Collins?

"Attention all squads. Attention all squads. The suspect in the shooting, Elm and Houston, is reported to be an unknown white male, approximately 30, slender build, height, 5 feet 10 inches, weight, 165 pounds, reported to be armed with what is thought to be a .30 caliber rifle, no further description or information at this time"

This is a description of an armed suspect at large whom all squads are to be on the lookout for. (And no particular mention here of the building as the locus of the search-------the man seen running from the building might be anywhere at this time.)

And do you really believe that Sawyer would just let an eyewitness (that said he saw a man with a rifle leaving the building) just disappear without at least getting his name and contact information?

Do you really believe Insp. Sawyer would just invent such an eyewitness and confidentially tell fellow law enforcement about it?

And do you really believe that such an eyewitness, if their contact information were on file, would be seen as a witness friendly to the official 'investigation' and hence one whose testimony was to be proactively chased up on and brought to everyone's attention?

Though maybe it did cross their minds to make Mr Oswald the man seen running from the building. He tossed the rifle, then returned inside, etc. But then what to do about the Carcano..............? 

[Charles Collins]

Letting him get away? What are you talking about, Mr Collins?

"Attention all squads. Attention all squads. The suspect in the shooting, Elm and Houston, is reported to be an unknown white male, approximately 30, slender build, height, 5 feet 10 inches, weight, 165 pounds, reported to be armed with what is thought to be a .30 caliber rifle, no further description or information at this time"

This is a description of an armed suspect at large whom all squads are to be on the lookout for. (And no particular mention here of the building as the locus of the search-------the man seen running from the building might be anywhere at this time.)

Do you really believe Insp. Sawyer would just invent such an eyewitness and confidentially tell fellow law enforcement about it?

And do you really believe that such an eyewitness, if their contact information were on file, would be seen as a witness friendly to the official 'investigation' and hence one whose testimony was to be proactively chased up on and brought to everyone's attention?

Though maybe it did cross their minds to make Mr Oswald the man seen running from the building. He tossed the rifle, then returned inside, etc. But then what to do about the Carcano..............? 

Letting him get away? What are you talking about, Mr Collins?

"Attention all squads. Attention all squads. The suspect in the shooting, Elm and Houston, is reported to be an unknown white male, approximately 30, slender build, height, 5 feet 10 inches, weight, 165 pounds, reported to be armed with what is thought to be a .30 caliber rifle, no further description or information at this time"

This is a description of an armed suspect at large whom all squads are to be on the lookout for. (And no particular mention here of the building as the locus of the search-------the man seen running from the building might be anywhere at this time.)


What this is not is a description of a man with a rifle seen leaving the building. Why do you appear to think that Inspector Sawyer, a seasoned veteran police officer, would inexplicably leave that very important aspect out? Why do you appear to think that Inspector Sawyer would not (in response to the dispatcher’s statement) explain that a witness reported seeing your mystery man with a rifle leaving the building? Why do you appear to think that Inspector Sawyer would allow the main focus of the search be inside the TSBD if your mystery man with a rifle had been reported to him as leaving the building? If you are going to try to sell your theory to others, it might be helpful if you began it with “Once upon a time.” And ended it with “And they lived happily ever after.”



Do you really believe Insp. Sawyer would just invent such an eyewitness and confidentially tell fellow law enforcement about it?


No, I don’t believe that Sawyer told that to anyone at all. The cropped image of a memo that you keep displaying is nothing more than some sixth hand bad information that was incorrect due to having gone through several people who weren’t even at the scene. I have explained this to you before, but you insist on believing your nutty theory.



And do you really believe that such an eyewitness, if their contact information were on file, would be seen as a witness friendly to the official 'investigation' and hence one whose testimony was to be proactively chased up on and brought to everyone's attention?


Though maybe it did cross their minds to make Mr Oswald the man seen running from the building. He tossed the rifle, then returned inside, etc. But then what to do about the Carcano..............? 




I don’t believe that there was such an eyewitness, all of this theory is just a figment of your imagination.

[Alan Ford]

What this is not is a description of a man with a rifle seen leaving the building.

Is it a description of a man seen firing from an upper window of the Depository?

Why do you appear to think that Inspector Sawyer, a seasoned veteran police officer, would inexplicably leave that very important aspect out?

Why do you appear to think that Inspector Sawyer, a seasoned veteran police officer, would inexplicably leave the all-important fact out that the suspect was seen firing from the window?

Why do you appear to think that Inspector Sawyer, a seasoned veteran police officer, would inexplicably forget Mr Brennan's very important clothing description?

Why do you appear to think that Inspector Sawyer would not (in response to the dispatcher’s statement) explain that a witness reported seeing your mystery man with a rifle leaving the building? Why do you appear to think that Inspector Sawyer would allow the main focus of the search be inside the TSBD if your mystery man with a rifle had been reported to him as leaving the building?

Again, you're rather confused, Mr Collins.

The Dispatcher has to explain to Insp. Sawyer that there is little or no doubt that the shots were indeed fired from an upper window of the building:

"531 (Sergeant G.D. Henslee)   Well, all the information we have receive, 9, indicates that it did come from about the 5th or 4th floor of that building."

Why do you think that might be? Hm? And why do you think Insp. Sawyer doesn't reply, "I know that, my witness saw him do it"?

Do you really believe Insp. Sawyer would just invent such an eyewitness and confidentially tell fellow law enforcement about it?

No, I don’t believe that Sawyer told that to anyone at all. The cropped image of a memo that you keep displaying is nothing more than some sixth hand bad information that was incorrect due to having gone through several people who weren’t even at the scene. I have explained this to you before, but you insist on believing your nutty theory.

The only thing nutty here, Mr Collins, is your wild theory that a group of law enforcement officials would have the discursive control of a bunch of elementary school kids and allow a man seen firing from an upper window of the Depository morph into a man seen running from the building carrying a 30:30 or some type of Winchester rifle. Amazing how the description-of-suspect details remain identical with the radio broadcast details, yet a radically different description of the context of the sighting manages to creep in. I guess you believe these guys had the cognitive sophistication of law enforcement officials for part of the sentence, but then went all elementary school for the rest.

Your reaction to this official document-----------



-----------is no different to the Warren Gullible reaction to the Stroud letter: you hate what it says, and so issue an irrational and rather desperate declaration that it's not really saying anything valid.

 

[Charles Collins]

Is it a description of a man seen firing from an upper window of the Depository?

Why do you appear to think that Inspector Sawyer, a seasoned veteran police officer, would inexplicably leave the all-important fact out that the suspect was seen firing from the window?

Why do you appear to think that Inspector Sawyer, a seasoned veteran police officer, would inexplicably forget Mr Brennan's very important clothing description?

Again, you're rather confused, Mr Collins.

The Dispatcher has to explain to Insp. Sawyer that there is little or no doubt that the shots were indeed fired from an upper window of the building:

"531 (Sergeant G.D. Henslee)   Well, all the information we have receive, 9, indicates that it did come from about the 5th or 4th floor of that building."

Why do you think that might be? Hm? And why do you think Insp. Sawyer doesn't reply, "I know that, my witness saw him do it"?

The only thing nutty here, Mr Collins, is your wild theory that a group of law enforcement officials would have the discursive control of a bunch of elementary school kids and allow a man seen firing from an upper window of the Depository morph into a man seen running from the building carrying a 30:30 or some type of Winchester rifle. Amazing how the description-of-suspect details remain identical with the radio broadcast details, yet a radically different description of the context of the sighting manages to creep in. I guess you believe these guys had the cognitive sophistication of law enforcement officials for part of the sentence, but then went all elementary school for the rest.

Your reaction to this official document-----------



-----------is no different to the Warren Gullible reaction to the Stroud letter: you hate what it says, and so issue an irrational and rather desperate declaration that it's not really saying anything valid.

 

Is it a description of a man seen firing from an upper window of the Depository?

Why do you appear to think that Inspector Sawyer, a seasoned veteran police officer, would inexplicably leave the all-important fact out that the suspect was seen firing from the window?

These four broadcasts occurred just prior to the one we are discussing:

Officer 142 - I just talked to a guy up here wno was standing close
to it and the best he could tell it came from the
Texas School Book Dapository Building here with that
Hertz Renting sign on top .

Officer 260 - I have a witness that says that it came from the 5th
floor of the Texas Bock Depository Store .

Officer 22 - Get some men up here to cover this school depository
building . It's believed the shot came from, as you
see it on Elm Street, looking toward the building,
it would be upper right hand corner, second window
from the end .

Officer 137 - We have a man here who says he seen him pull the
weap,;^ back through the window from Southeast corner
of that depcsitnry bud,'ding .


Therefore, the general location of the source of the shots had already been reported. Why do you appear to think the location needed to be repeated again? Sawyer was reporting a description of the suspect.


Why do you appear to think that Inspector Sawyer, a seasoned veteran police officer, would inexplicably forget Mr Brennan's very important clothing description?

I don't think that. I believe that Brennan, in all the excitement and at the moment he was first asked, couldn't remember it (but after a short while and a little thought he did remember it by the time Forrest Sorrels escorted him to the Sheriff's Office). If you consider that Sawyer might have said "currently, witness can't remember..." instead of "current witness can't remember..." it makes better sense to me. The last syllable of "currently might have easily been lost when trying to interpret the recording.



Again, you're rather confused, Mr Collins.

The Dispatcher has to explain to Insp. Sawyer that there is little or no doubt that the shots were indeed fired from an upper window of the building:

"531 (Sergeant G.D. Henslee)   Well, all the information we have receive, 9, indicates that it did come from about the 5th or 4th floor of that building."

Why do you think that might be? Hm? And why do you think Insp. Sawyer doesn't reply, "I know that, my witness saw him do it"?

Sawyer was trying to be the initial command center at this very early point in time. He was hearing a lot of different accounts. Many people (including many officers) initially thought the shots came from other places than the TSBD (the bushes, the picket fence, the triple overpass, etc). Those accounts, being listened to by Sawyer just prior to that point in time, would plenty of reasons for Sawyer to have some initial doubts that Brennan's account was accurate. Just because Sawyer doesn't broadcast Brennan's name, address, and social security number, doesn't mean that it wasn't Brennan's description.



The only thing nutty here, Mr Collins, is your wild theory that a group of law enforcement officials would have the discursive control of a bunch of elementary school kids and allow a man seen firing from an upper window of the Depository morph into a man seen running from the building carrying a 30:30 or some type of Winchester rifle. Amazing how the description-of-suspect details remain identical with the radio broadcast details, yet a radically different description of the context of the sighting manages to creep in. I guess you believe these guys had the cognitive sophistication of law enforcement officials for part of the sentence, but then went all elementary school for the rest.


I don't have any idea where Batchelor got his information (the memo doesn't say, so it could have been passed through several others before Batchelor got it) but then the message is passed to Vincent Drain, then it was passed to James Malley, then it was passed on to Gordon Shanklin. It appears that all of these transmissions must have been verbal until Shanklin prepares his memo. It doesn't matter whether they were school children or professional law enforcement officers, when a message is verbally passed through that many people, the chances of it being anywhere near correct at the end of the line are slim and none. Getting part of it right and being wrong on other parts would be expected. The only thing that surprises me is that apparently Shanklin put it in writing without verifying it was accurate. But when one considers that Shanklin allegedly ordered the destruction of the LHO note, it shows that he tended to react rather badly under pressure. Many people do just that.  No one to my knowledge has confirmed or corroborated the mystery suspect that you so desperately want to believe in, no one. All you have is a memo that seems to include some details that are not accurate. And by the way, I don't believe that I have ever said anything at all about the Stroud letter.

[Dan O'meara]

Letting him get away? What are you talking about, Mr Collins?

"Attention all squads. Attention all squads. The suspect in the shooting, Elm and Houston, is reported to be an unknown white male, approximately 30, slender build, height, 5 feet 10 inches, weight, 165 pounds, reported to be armed with what is thought to be a .30 caliber rifle, no further description or information at this time"

This is a description of an armed suspect at large whom all squads are to be on the lookout for. (And no particular mention here of the building as the locus of the search-------the man seen running from the building might be anywhere at this time.)

Do you really believe Insp. Sawyer would just invent such an eyewitness and confidentially tell fellow law enforcement about it?

And do you really believe that such an eyewitness, if their contact information were on file, would be seen as a witness friendly to the official 'investigation' and hence one whose testimony was to be proactively chased up on and brought to everyone's attention?

Though maybe it did cross their minds to make Mr Oswald the man seen running from the building. He tossed the rifle, then returned inside, etc. But then what to do about the Carcano..............? 

 
There is also this from Amos Euins' WC testimony:

Mr. Euins: No, sir. He was kind of an old policeman. I ran down and got him. And he ran up here.
Mr. Specter: You mean--
Mr. Euins: The Book Depository Building.
Then he called some more cars. They got all the way around the building. And then after that, well, he seen another man. Another man told him he seen a man run out the back.
Mr. Specter: Do you know who that man was who said somebody ran out the back?
Mr. Euins: No, sir. He was a construction man working back there.

Hmmmm...

[Alan Ford]

Is it a description of a man seen firing from an upper window of the Depository?

Why do you appear to think that Inspector Sawyer, a seasoned veteran police officer, would inexplicably leave the all-important fact out that the suspect was seen firing from the window?

These four broadcasts occurred just prior to the one we are discussing:

Officer 142 - I just talked to a guy up here wno was standing close
to it and the best he could tell it came from the
Texas School Book Dapository Building here with that
Hertz Renting sign on top .

Officer 260 - I have a witness that says that it came from the 5th
floor of the Texas Bock Depository Store .

Officer 22 - Get some men up here to cover this school depository
building . It's believed the shot came from, as you
see it on Elm Street, looking toward the building,
it would be upper right hand corner, second window
from the end .

Officer 137 - We have a man here who says he seen him pull the
weap,;^ back through the window from Southeast corner
of that depcsitnry bud,'ding .


Therefore, the general location of the source of the shots had already been reported. Why do you appear to think the location needed to be repeated again? Sawyer was reporting a description of the suspect.

Inspector Sawyer, notably, does not put out any broadcast on that. Yet he has supposedly just spoken with a witness who could speak very specifically to that.

Inpsector Sawyer will have obviously connected the man seen running from the building with a rifle to the man other witnesses had seen at the window. However, such a connection will have been provisional in his seasoned veteran's mind: hence his pointed statement of uncertainty as to whether the man seen running from the building had been in that building in the first place. And hence the Dispatcher's pointed words in response to him: "Well, all the information we have receive, 9, indicates that it did come from about the 5th or 4th floor of that building."

Why do you appear to think that Inspector Sawyer, a seasoned veteran police officer, would inexplicably forget Mr Brennan's very important clothing description?

I don't think that. I believe that Brennan, in all the excitement and at the moment he was first asked, couldn't remember it (but after a short while and a little thought he did remember it by the time Forrest Sorrels escorted him to the Sheriff's Office). If you consider that Sawyer might have said "currently, witness can't remember..." instead of "current witness can't remember..." it makes better sense to me. The last syllable of "currently might have easily been lost when trying to interpret the recording.

~Grin~

Keep reaching, Mr Collins!

Again, you're rather confused, Mr Collins.

The Dispatcher has to explain to Insp. Sawyer that there is little or no doubt that the shots were indeed fired from an upper window of the building:

"531 (Sergeant G.D. Henslee)   Well, all the information we have receive, 9, indicates that it did come from about the 5th or 4th floor of that building."

Why do you think that might be? Hm? And why do you think Insp. Sawyer doesn't reply, "I know that, my witness saw him do it"?

Sawyer was trying to be the initial command center at this very early point in time. He was hearing a lot of different accounts. Many people (including many officers) initially thought the shots came from other places than the TSBD (the bushes, the picket fence, the triple overpass, etc). Those accounts, being listened to by Sawyer just prior to that point in time, would plenty of reasons for Sawyer to have some initial doubts that Brennan's account was accurate.

You're right in one respect: Insp. Sawyer has heard different (and probably conflicting) reports. But he knows for sure that a man was seen running from the building with a rifle in his hand, and that the witness can give a good description. While the obvious conclusion is that this man was the man others report as having seen firing from an upper window of the building, this is far from the only possible conclusion. The man might have been handed the weapon by the real shooter, who might still be in the building. He might have had the weapon dropped down to him from a high window. The man might have fired from west of the Depository and run behind it for cover, before running on further. He might have been but one of several shooters.

All Insp. Sawyer knows for sure is that a man seen running with a rifle in his hand shortly after the shooting is most definitely a suspect and is at large------------and so he puts out the description. That description comes from a witness who has no clothing description, and thinks the rifle was a "30.30 or some type of Winchester rifle"------------i.e. a witness other than Mr Brennan

The only thing nutty here, Mr Collins, is your wild theory that a group of law enforcement officials would have the discursive control of a bunch of elementary school kids and allow a man seen firing from an upper window of the Depository morph into a man seen running from the building carrying a 30:30 or some type of Winchester rifle. Amazing how the description-of-suspect details remain identical with the radio broadcast details, yet a radically different description of the context of the sighting manages to creep in. I guess you believe these guys had the cognitive sophistication of law enforcement officials for part of the sentence, but then went all elementary school for the rest.


I don't have any idea where Batchelor got his information

Don't be silly! He spoke with Insp. Sawyer. If his source had been someone other than Insp. Sawyer, dontcha think he would have checked with Insp. Sawyer before passing on such bombshell information to Special Agent Drain? Being some ways past elementary school level of training and all?

[Alan Ford]

 
There is also this from Amos Euins' WC testimony:

Mr. Euins: No, sir. He was kind of an old policeman. I ran down and got him. And he ran up here.
Mr. Specter: You mean--
Mr. Euins: The Book Depository Building.
Then he called some more cars. They got all the way around the building. And then after that, well, he seen another man. Another man told him he seen a man run out the back.
Mr. Specter: Do you know who that man was who said somebody ran out the back?
Mr. Euins: No, sir. He was a construction man working back there.

Hmmmm...

Hmmmm indeed, Mr O'Meara. I guess this nukes Mr Collins' claim that "No one to my knowledge has confirmed or corroborated the mystery suspect that you so desperately want to believe in, no one."

We await Mr Collins' 'explanation': Euins wasn't too long out of elementary school......................