JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

'* Oswald had no alibi. He claimed to have been in the domino room, but several of his co-workers testified to being in the domino room during that time and said that Oswald was not there.'

There is no requirement for the accused to have an alibi any more than there is for the prosecution to provide a motive, although it clearly helps if they can be established.

It's not just that Oswald had no alibi - Oswald lied about having an alibi.

Troy West, Danny Acre, and Jack Dougherty all said that they had lunch in the domino room during the time Oswald claimed he was there, but they never saw Oswald.

I think Oswald has a pretty good alibi which relates to his seeing Junior Jarman and Harold Norman pass by (or pass through) the domino room at 12.23.

That's further proof that Oswald was lying.

Jarman and Norman did not claim to have passed through the domino room at 12:23. Harmon testified that after eating lunch in the domino room, where he did not see Oswald, he left the domino room, met Jarman, and they went outside sometime between 12:00 and 12:10. Jarman said that after he ate lunch he went outside to watch and that between 12:20 and 12:25 he and Jarman went up to the 5th floor.

Their testimony explained that they came through the back door rather than push past the crowds at the front door to enter the building. Oswald's description of them was accurate as he knew them by sight, and is on a different planet of credibility when compared with the descriptions given by witnesses looking up at windows and claiming to see a person they did not know.

Oswald provided virtually no description.

"He stated possibly one of these employees was called ‘Junior’ and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize."

[Fiver]

That is irrelevant because the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD was a Mauser, as certified on the day of the assassination.

A couple people misidentified the Carcano as a Mauser. Every one of the except the extremely unreliable Craig changed their minds. We have police photographs showing the Carcano in place. We have TV news footage showing the police carrying the rifle across the 6th floor after it was found - it was a Carcano.

Your theory requires a Conspiracy would be inept enough to plant the wrong rifle. And inept enough to not care that there was a TV station filming this rifle being carried across the 6th floor. Yet powerful enough to convince everyone except Craig to sign off on this rifle switch, even though it meant these people would become part of a Conspiracy to cimmit mureder and treason.

And you straight out ignore the rest of the forensics evidence.

* The Caracano was Oswald's. We have his handwriting on the order form. We have photographs of Oswald with the Carcano that were taken by his wife using Oswald's camera. One photo had a note in Owald's handwriting on the back. Fibers from his shirt match those found on the rifle.
* Oswald's prints were on boxes at the sniper's nest, the paper bag, and the rifle itself.
* Fibers from the blanket that Oswald kept his Carcano in matched fibers found in the paper bag.
* Oswald's Carcano was the weapon used to kill JFK. The shell casings match the Carcano. The bullets and bullet fragments match the Carcano.

All of this forensic evidence was confirmed by police forensic experts and the FBI forensic experts.

He saw a man whose age he estimated to be eight years older than Oswald's, whose weight he estimated to be nearly three stone heavier than Oswald's, and who was wearing much lighter-coloured clothing than the shirt Oswald was wearing when subsequently arrested.

Oswald's shirt wasn't put into the police lineup.

* An eyewitness, Howard Brennan, saw a white man of Oswald's approximate weight and build firing from the snipers nest. When he saw a police lineup, Brennan said that Oswald looked like the man he saw, but could not positively identify him.
* Several other eyewitnesses saw a man in the snipers nest or a rifle extending from it, but none provided as good of a description.

There is no evidence that Oswald ascended towards the sixth floor shortly before the assassination, that he descended from them following the assassination, nor that he ever carried a rifle inside the building.

* Given's testimony puts Oswald on the 6th floor.
* Frazier and his sister's testimony shows Oswald carried a package large enough to hold the disassembled rifle and that he was lying about ot containing curtain rods.

* Oswald had no alibi. He claimed to have been in the domino room, but several of his coworkers testified to being in the domino room during that time and said that Oswald was not there.

I agree, but that does not mean that he fired any shots nor that he was behind the assassination.

It means only that he may have been an accessory, with foreknowledge of the assassination, but who was intended to be framed for the shooting.

That makes no sense. If Oswald was an accessory, then he wouldn't have agreed to frame himself. And it would be a literal matter of life or death for every member of the Conspiracy to make sure Oswald never fell into police custody alive. Oswald would have been found dead on site, shot in the head with his own pistol. Or there would have been a car waiting for Oswald, waiting to which him away to a new identity, or more likely an unmarked grave. Or one ofr the many, many police officers that would have to be in on it would have shot him dead.

Instead, Oswald was taken alive in spite of trying to shoot one of the arresting officers, allowed to speak to the press, and not killed until over 45 hours after his arrest.

I think that is incorrect.

You are wrong.

The case against Oswald in the killing of Officer Tippett is even stronger.
* Tippet asked the police dispatcher to repeat the description of JFK's killer just before he pulled over the man who killed him.
* Multiple witnesses who saw the killing of Officer Tippet or the killer fleeing the scene picked Oswald out of a police lineup.
* The discarded cartridge casings came from Oswald's pistol. They were a mix of two different brands of bullets.
* The bullets in Tippet's body came from Oswald's pistol. They were a mix of the same two brands of bullets.
* The jacket discarded by the killer was identified by Marina Oswald as belonging to her husband.
* When apprehended at the theater, Oswald tried to shoot one of the arresting officers.
* The bullets found in Oswald's pistol and his pocket were the same two brands of shells.

No one identified Oswald based on his clothing.

Mark Lane was a fraud who trued to manipulate witnesses.

Mrs Markham told Mark Lane that the killer was short and had slightly bushy hair.

Markam testified under oath that Lane was lying and that she had never described Tippet's killer that way.

Acquilla Clemons described the murderer as short with bushy hair.

Once asked leading questions by Mark Lane.

And even then, Clemons didn't support the bushy hair claim,

MARTIN: And did you notice his hair as all? Was it thick hair?

CLEMONS: No. I didn’t pay his hair any attention. I was getting out of his way…

Patrolman Roy W. Walker radioed a description of the killer which included his having wavy hair.

That is incorrect.

"We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson. Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson. He's a white male, about thirty, five eight, black hair, slender, wearing white jacket, a white shirt and dark slacks."

[PRB]

The Single Bullet Theory is completely unsupportable.

Looks to me that Kennedy and Connally are simultaneously jolted at Z226.

[cobalt]

I am always interested in the comment that a conspiracy has to be near perfect to succeed. If that was the case nobody would bother conspiring in the first place. Controlling the repercussions of a conspiracy is as important to its success than the planning beforehand.

The issue of Oswald in Mexico City is clearly confusing whichever side of the JFK argument you are on, but sowing confusion is part and parcel of any intelligence operation and often crucial to the concept of plausible deniability after the fact.

If a camel is a horse designed by a committee, then the presence of the FBI, the CIA and US military intelligence inside embassies, plus their Mexican equivalents, makes a recipe for a dog’s breakfast. The two embassies Oswald was alleged to have visited were both photographed by surveillance teams yet no photographs have surfaced of him to confirm this. Either they existed and have been destroyed due to political sensitivities in the wake of the JFK assassination, or he was never there.

According to Hosty, Oswald was initially charged inside the DPD with the murder of JFK as part of a Communist plot.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Lets look at Lopez' description again.

Eusebio Acue Lopez described him as "a white male, between 5'6" and 5'7", over 30 years of age, very thin long face, with straight eyebrows and a cold look in his eyes". He did not think that Oswald was the man he saw.


Lopez said 'I believe it was not the same person ... not the person or the individual who went to the consulate... I did not recognise Oswald ... The individual I saw in the movie was a young man, considerably younger and a fuller face.'

That is what Lopez testified.

He did not share your view that Oswald looked like someone who was in his 30s, nor that he had a thin long face.




That leaves two possibilities.

1) It was Oswald, but eyewitnesses misperceived or misremembered some things about him.


That is farfetched.

You accept eyewitnesses' testimony when their description does not match Oswald's and now you will not accept eyewitness testimony that a certain person was not Oswald.

Either way, Oswald is damned and that is not fair.



2) A Conspiracy that was expert at forging documents was also mindbogglingly stupid enough to send an imposter that didn't look anything like Oswald. The Conspiracy were magically able to manipulate events so that Oswald had no alibi all while keeping the manipulation completely undetected from Oswald and his wife. The Conspiracy were mindbogglingly stupid enough spend the time and resources creating a fictional narrative that would undermine their lone gunman ploy. And the Conspiracy had the psychic powers to predict a parade route for a city that might not even be on JFK's Texas tour and that Oswald would get and keep a job that would allow him to be setup as a patsy.



Conspirators leaving evidence of their muddled attempts to frame Oswald is not farfetched.

An Oswald was meeting Sylia Odio while another Oswald was in or on his way to Mexico.

Either she met the real Oswald or he was being impersonated in two places at once.

Either way, the conspirators messed that up.

The lone gunman theory was a later development.

The Mexico City impersonation was designed to make the assassination look like a communist plot.

The conspirators could have had expectations that they would be able to place Oswald in such a location as to be able to frame him for the assassination, and that is less farfetched than Oswald going to Mexico to prepare an escape route to Cuba when he had no idea that he would be working in a building on the President's motorcade route.

[FrankO]

Brennan estimated the shooter was in his early thirties. This is a reasonable mistake considering Oswald's receding hairline.

Brennan wasn't the only one, Fiver. Officer Marrion Baker, who saw him in the lunch room on the second floor, described him like this in his affadavit of November 22:
"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." And during his WC deposition he added that he also wore "maybe some kind of white-looking shirt."

Cheers,
Frank

[Fiver]

As I have pointed out before, the HSCA noted that the witness descriptions of Oswald were nothing like him.

Duran said later that she was sure the man was not Oswald.

Lopez testified that the man could not be Oswald.

Diaz said that he did not pay the man much attention.

I do not see how, after quoting Lopez's description of the man he saw, you can continue to claim that he was Oswald.

Lets look at Lopez' description again.

Eusebio Acue Lopez described him as "a white male, between 5'6" and 5'7", over 30 years of age, very thin long face, with straight eyebrows and a cold look in his eyes". He did not think that Oswald was the man he saw.

"a white male" - matches Oswald.

"between 5'6" and 5'7" - a couple inches shorter than Oswald.

"over 30 years of age" - a few years off, but Oswald's receding hairline did make him look older than he was.

"very thin long face" - matches Oswald

"with straight eyebrows" - not a good match for Oswald.

"and a cold look in his eyes" - matches Oswald.

And, of course, Lopez didn't think the man he saw was Oswald.

That leaves two possibilities.

1) It was Oswald, but eyewitnesses misperceived or misremembered some things about him.

2) A Conspiracy that was expert at forging documents was also mindbogglingly stupid enough to send an imposter that didn't look anything like Oswald. The Conspiracy were magically able to manipulate events so that Oswald had no alibi all while keeping the manipulation completely undetected from Oswald and his wife. The Conspiracy were mindbogglingly stupid enough spend the time and resources creating a fictional narrative that would undermine their lone gunman ploy. And the Conspiracy had the psychic powers to predict a parade route for a city that might not even be on JFK's Texas tour and that Oswald would get and keep a job that would allow him to be setup as a patsy.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And now you're truncating what I said to ignore the points I made.

Brennan clearly wasn't good at estimating weight based on build, but Brennan said the shooter had a slender build and Oswald had a slender build.

Brennan sad the shooter was a white man.

Brennan estimated the shooter was in his early thirties. This is a reasonable mistake considering Oswald's receding hairline.

Brennan said the shooter was 5'10". That's only off by an inch from Oswald's height.

The police report given based in Brennan's description was "White male, approximately thirty, slender build, height five feet ten inches, 165 pounds."Officer Tippett asked the dispatcher to repeat that description just before he stopped Oswald.

When Brennan saw Oswald in a police lineup, he said Oswald looked like the man he saw shooting JFK, but that he could not be certain.

Brennan did get the shirt color wrong, but Brennan wasn't called in to identify Oswald's shirt.

Well, if you want to talk about truncation, how about what Brennan said about the shooter being in a standing position, even though there is photographic evidence that the window was half open?

If Brennan was describing Oswald, he overestimated his age by about eight years, his weight by nearly three stone, and got the colour of his shirt completely wrong.

You say those are reasonable mistakes.

I say they are not and that Brennan would have been useless as a prosecution witness.

I am willing to be corrected about Tippit, but I have not read that he had a conversation about the description of the alleged assassin shortly before he was shot.

I have read that the last radio contact he had was at 12.54 p.m., when he was instructed to be at large.

There is, I suggest, no evidence that suggests that Tippit thought the man he approached was the assassin of the President.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The autopsy photographs disprove your theory.

I am not stating a theory.

I am stating hard evidence - of the type that cannot be faked, e.g. the location of the actual bullet holes in Kennedy's shirt and jacket, which agree with the autopsy diagrams as well as the diagrams drawn by two FBI officers present at the autopsy.

Kennedy was not hit in the back of the neck.

And that is a fact.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

As you know I am not persuaded that Connolly was hit around frame 220 of the ZF.

I see that the President has been hit as he emerges from behind the sign, and Connolly shows no sign of distress.

At 224 Connolly has turned his head to his right, but then turns back to face forwards.

At 236 he is starting to turn his body to his right and between 240 and 250 he is grimacing.

Connolly stated that he was hit just after he started turning back to his left.

IMO there is no frame from which Connolly consistently shows distress that could provide the SBT alignment.

Mrs Kennedy appears to have her head turned towards President Kennedy by Z 220, which suggests he was shot in the back no later than Z220.

Governor Connally stated that he had turned back to his left and reached the point at which he was facing forwards when he felt the impact of a shot.

That means that he could not have been hit earlier than Z228.

Connally himself opined that he was shot at Z 230.

He seems to be reacting to a shot at Z 236.

Connally could not have been hit until about half a second later than Kennedy, but it could be a full second.

Connally's description of his reactions to hearing the shot - turning rightwards and then leftwards - could certainly have taken a full second.

The Single Bullet Theory is completely unsupportable.

[Fiver]

Readers may find it strange that having got the colour of Oswald's shirt wrong and his age wrong, and overestimated his weight by nearly three stone, Brennan's description of the man as 'nice looking, slender' points to Oswald.

And now you're truncating what I said to ignore the points I made.

Brennan clearly wasn't good at estimating weight based on build, but Brennan said the shooter had a slender build and Oswald had a slender build.

Brennan sad the shooter was a white man.

Brennan estimated the shooter was in his early thirties. This is a reasonable mistake considering Oswald's receding hairline.

Brennan said the shooter was 5'10". That's only off by an inch from Oswald's height.

The police report given based in Brennan's description was "White male, approximately thirty, slender build, height five feet ten inches, 165 pounds."Officer Tippett asked the dispatcher to repeat that description just before he stopped Oswald.

When Brennan saw Oswald in a police lineup, he said Oswald looked like the man he saw shooting JFK, but that he could not be certain.

Brennan did get the shirt color wrong, but Brennan wasn't called in to identify Oswald's shirt.

[Fiver]

JFK never received a bullet to the back of his neck.

He received a shot that hit him about six inches below his neckline, as confirmed by eyewitness testimony, FBI reports of the autopsy, FBI measurements of the bullet holes in the President's clothing, and the autopsy diagrams.

The autopsy photographs disprove your theory.

[GBinOz]

Humes and his colleagues may have been influenced by the news that 3 shots had been fired from the 6^th floor of the TSBD from behind, but, as far as I know, no SBT had crossed anyone’s mind, yet, when Humes & Co. finished the autopsy (report). As, at that point, Humes didn’t have the layout of Dealey Plaza or the exact positions of Kennedy and Connally with all the right measurements and angles involved. In other words, he didn’t know that the president and governor Connally were lined up perfectly for one shot to hit them both where they were hit between Zapruder frames 207 and 225.
Yes, I should have used the terms lone gunman and three shot limit. I find myself at a loss to understand how it can be proposed that Kennedy and Connally were perfectly aligned for the single bullet when the were behind the freeway sign. It's as though the circumstance was decided, wound placement, seat placement, how far Connolly had turned, and then it is claimed that this must have occurred where we couldn't see it.
My understanding is that the original proposal was that a bullet hit Kennedy in the back, and in the head, and Connolly in the back. Then an explanation had to be found after the examination of the ZF showing Kennedy and Connolly hit only a second apart, and Tague's statement:
"Somebody threw a firecracker. And then I thought what kind of an idiot would be throwing a firecracker with the president driving by," Tague said.
"I'm standing there still in disbelief over somebody throwing a firecracker, and then, 'Crack! Crack!' Two rifle shots, not a second apart, and something stings me in the face." Tague said that the bullet that hit the curb was the second or third shot.

I didn’t say it’s in dispute, I just hadn’t studied it yet to be able to say anything solid on the subject. Now that I have, I’m certainly not disputing that there were more witnesses who claimed to have heard a shorter pause between the 2^nd and 3^rd shots than there were witnesses who remembered the shots evenly spaced or with a shorter pause between the 1^st and 2^nd shots.

What is or can be in dispute, as far as I’m concerned, is how many witness actually got it right, as to the number of shots, the spacing between them, the timing of the shots (which one hit the president’s head/throat?). And, of course, witnesses who have given two or more versions with regards to one or more of the 3 aspects above. Like Mary Moorman, who gave one version in which she thought 3 or 4 shots were fired and another in which she thought there had been only 2 or 3 shots. Or Lee Bowers, who in one version stated that he heard “at least 3 shots very close together” and another in which he stated that after the first shot there was a pause and then two more shots very close together. And what’s interesting in this regard as well is that Tom Dillard, who was in the car with Robert Jackson and James Underwood, stated the 3 shots were evenly spaced, whilst Jackson claimed there was a pause after the first shot and then the 2^nd & 3^rd in rapid succession. In other words, the acoustics were close to identical for these two, yet, one heard, or perhaps better, remembered hearing it differently than the other. What, of course, also has to be taken into account is that quite a large number of witnesses who heard 3 shots didn’t express any recollection of how far apart the shots were.

Then, in post #1561 you wrote this:
“The testing of how fast the rifle could be cycled was irrelevant as the critical factor was the number of witnesses claiming that the second and third shots were close to simultaneous, and therefore could not have been fired by the same bolt action rifle.”

I assume that by “close to simultaneous” you mean that the 3^rd shot was fired within 2.3 seconds from the 2^nd. If that’s indeed what you mean, then could you say how many witnesses claimed to have heard the 3^rd shot follow within 2.3 seconds of the 2^nd?

I myself have looked into some 220 witness and only come across Frazier, Greer and Hickey, who said the 2^nd and 3^rd were almost simultaneously or words to that effect. So they would fit. Then there’s Craig who said there were no more than 2 seconds between the last 2 shots, John Solon who stated there was a pause between the 1^st and 2^nd shot and that the time between the first and last shots was approximately 5.5 seconds, and there was senator Yarborough who stated that the 3^rd shot came about 1.5 seconds after the 2nd. And there are 9 others whose testimony might fit with less than 2.3 seconds. But there are also 29 that don’t fit with that in the sense that they don’t give any estimate for either the first or the second pause or both and most of them only say that the 2^nd & 3^rd were closer.

Of course, everything hinges on how accurate the witnesses were with their observations and estimates and we know human memory is not a recording device.


Presuming that the man standing on the Pullman was standing where the red dot is on the map below, then he would still have an unobstructed view of the area behind the picket fence from, maybe, some 60 yards away.

And, again, if the pullman wasn’t where a witness placed it, it would stick out like a sour thumb as it wasn’t something that could be easily overlooked.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

As you know I am not persuaded that Connolly was hit around frame 220 of the ZF. I have watched this slow motion frame numbered video many times:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSSbYYe84W0&ab_channel=HowardWillens

I see that the President has been hit as he emerges from behind the sign, and Connolly shows no sign of distress. At 224 Connolly has turned his head to his right, but then turns back to face forwards. At 236 he is starting to turn his body to his right and between 240 and 250 he is grimacing ( every still photographer knows temporary facial expressions can occur.). However, from 250 to about 273 he can be seen still turning to his right, again showing no signs of distress. The slowmo excludes Connolly for some frames after 279, but when he re-appears at 293 he is in obvious distress. Connolly stated that he was hit just after he started turning back to his left.
IMO there is no frame from which Connolly consistently shows distress that could provide the SBT alignment.

I don't know upon what presumption it can be concluded that Desroe was standing on the Pullman at the red dot. Boone indicated he was in the railway yard. My view is that the Pullman was in the railway yard behind the TSBD and that Towner's account just left out the bit about his proceeding to the railway yard from the picket fence before he encountered Desroe. It should also be remembered that Karl Desroe said he saw nothing, but his wife, who was standing next to the Pullman, told their preacher that “I saw some things……I’m afraid to tell anybody. I’ll never tell anybody. I’m afraid for my life.” That doesn't sound like she saw nothing.

Best regards, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Roy Truly testified that he noticed that Oswald was missing, that he was not the only employee missing, and that he did not check how many were missing.

He testified further that although Norman and Jarman claimed they returned to the TSBD, he was not aware of their return and not at all sure that Charles Givens returned.


(Warren Commission Volume 7, pp 382-283, 386)

Mr. TRULY. When I noticed this boy was missing, I told Chief Lumpkin that,
“We have a man here that’s missing.” I said, “It may not mean anything, but
he isn’t here.”...
Mr. BALL. Was he the only man missing?
Mr. TRULY. The only one I noticed at that time. Now, I think there was one
or two more, possibly Charles Givens, but I had seen him out in front walking
up the street just before the firing of the gun.
Mr. BALL. But walking which way?
Mr. TRULY. The last time I saw him, he was walking across Houston Street,
east on Elm.
Mr. BALL. Did you make a check of your employees afterwards?
Mr. TRULY. No, no; not complete.


(Volume 7 page 382)




Mr. BALL. You have no exact memory as to the time you discovered he was not there?
Mr. TRULY, So, sir : I didn’t believe after thinking things over-it was over in 15 or 20 minutes after the shots were fired, but after retracing my trip to the roof and the time delay and back, I would have to say that it was farther along in the day than I had believed, so it could have been 1 or 1:05 or something like that.
Mr. BALL. Before you discovered Oswald wasn’t there?
Mr. TRULY. That’s right

..........

Mr. BALL. Now, you say that you knew that Givens was not there afterwards?
Mr. TRULY. I knew he wasn’t there at the time of the shooting because I had seen him walk across the street-up the street.
Mr. BALL. Toward what?
Mr. TRULY. Up Elm Street across Houston.
Mr. BALL. Toward Main-down toward Main?
Mr. TRULY. I saw him walking on the north side of Elm, crossing Houstonon the north side of Elm crossing Houston. However, at that time I saw two other boys with him and I later learned, I believe, that it was James Jarman and possibly Harold Normrin-there were two or three--they were all standing in the crowd close to myself and they- started across Houston Street up Elm.
I didn’t see them turn over to the right across Elm.
Mr. BALL. Wait a minute-you saw Norman and Jarman with Givens in front
of the Texas School Book Depository Building first, didn’t you?
Mr. TRULY. Right; sometime earlier-a good deal- a little while before the shooting-I believe they were the three.
Mr. BALL. Did you see Jarman and Norman going across Elm?
Mr. TRULY. I’m pretty sure there was the three of them.

(Volume 7 page 385)

[FrankO]

Hi all,

Here's the part of Truly's WC testimony where he spoke about Oswald being missing:

"Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got back to the first floor, or what did you see?
Mr. TRULY. When I got back to the first floor, at first I didn't see anything except officers running around, reporters in the place. There was a regular madhouse.
Mr. BELIN. Had they sealed off the building yet, do you know?
Mr. TRULY. I am sure they had.
Mr. BELIN. Then what?
Mr. TRULY. Then in a few minutes--it could have been moments or minutes at a time like that--I noticed some of my boys were over in the west corner of the shipping department, and there were several officers over there taking their names and addresses, and so forth.
There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not among these boys.
So I picked up the telephone and called Mr. Aiken down at the other warehouse who keeps our application blanks. Back up there.
First I mentioned to Mr. Campbell--I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him, he looked around and said no.
Mr. BELIN. When you asked Bill Shelley if he had seen whom?
Mr. TRULY. Lee Oswald. I said, "Have you seen him around lately," and he said no.
So Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, "I have a boy over here missing. I don't know whether to report it or not." Because I had another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all there or not. He said, "What do you think"? And I got to thinking. He said, "Well, we better do it anyway." It was so quick after that.
So I picked the phone up then and called Mr. Aiken, at the warehouse, and got the boy's name and general description and telephone number and address at Irving.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have any address for him in Dallas, or did you just have an address in Irving?
Mr. TRULY. Just the address in Irving. I knew nothing of this Dallas address. I didn't know he was living away from his family.
Mr. BELIN. Now, would that be the address and the description as shown on this application, Exhibit 496?
Mr. TRULY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you ask for the name and addresses of any other employees who might have been missing?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Why didn't you ask for any other employees?
Mr. TRULY. That is the only one that I could be certain right then was missing.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do after you got that information?
Mr. TRULY. Chief Lumpkin of the Dallas Police Department was standing a few feet from me. I told Chief Lumpkin that I had a boy missing over here "I don't know whether it amounts to anything or not." And I gave him his description. And he says, "Just a moment. We will go tell Captain Fritz."
Mr. BELIN. All right. And then what happened?
Mr. TRULY. So Chief Lumpkin had several officers there that he was talking to, and I assumed that he gave him some instructions of some nature I didn't hear it. And then he turned to me and says, "Now we will go upstairs".
So we got on one of the elevators, I don't know which, and rode up to the sixth floor. I didn't know Captain Fritz was on the sixth floor. And he was over in the northwest corner of the building.
Mr. BELIN. By the stairs there?
Mr. TRULY. Yes; by the stairs.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. TRULY. And there were other officers with him. Chief Lumpkin stepped over and told Captain Fritz that I had something that I wanted to tell him.
Mr. BELIN. All right. And then what happened
Mr. TRULY. So Captain Fritz left the men he was with and walked over about 8 or 10 feet and said, "What is it, Mr. Truly," or words to that effect.
And I told him about this boy missing and gave him his address and telephone number and general description. And he says, "Thank you, Mr. Truly. We will take care of it.
And I went back downstairs in a few minutes."

Cheers,
Frank