REOPEN KENNEDY CASE

Have you considered the testimony of Mrs. Reid that Oswald was in her office on the 2'nd floor of the Book Depository at the time when the shots were heard? (Primary reference: "Absolute Proof" by Robert Groden) It seems that Groden is a reputable researcher on JFK, so I thought I would ask you,Sir.

Review:

Absolute Proof, by Robert Groden

Reviewed by Jim DiEugenio

Posted April 13, 2014

For at least the last 3-4 years Groden has trumpeted a new witness who he says gives Oswald an absolutely airtight alibi. This reviewer actually heard the author talk about this person at the COPA Conference in Dallas three years ago. He again discusses this witness in Chapter 2 of Absolute Proof. Here, he calls this witness Geraldine Reid.

He begins his discussion by saying that Mrs. Robert Reid, who the Warren Commission interviewed, was named Delores Reid. He then says there was a second Mrs. Reid who also worked on the second floor of the Texas School Book Depository and her name was Geraldine Reid. (Groden, p. 20)

It is important to detail from his book the importance that Groden gives Geraldine Reid. He writes that the Commission "avoided mentioning this Mrs. Reid like the plague." Why? Because she was flown to Washington and interrogated by the Commission but her testimony "was so devastating to their preconceived conclusions of Oswald's guilt that they buried all references to her." (ibid)

Referring to an interview he did with her, Groden writes, "I was threatened to keep my mouth shut, or else." He then says that the Commission tried to keep Geraldine a secret and concealed the fact there were actually two Mrs. Reids. He then quotes more fully from his interview with the second Mrs. Reid which took place before she passed away relatively recently.

There were some unusual circumstances to the interview Groden did with this woman. For instance, no tapes were permitted, and Groden was not allowed to refer to her testimony before she passed away. Reid told Groden that about one minute before the shots rang out, Oswald walked into the office on the second floor across from the snack room. He needed some change for the soda machine. He went to Geraldine and gave her a dollar and asked her for change. At that moment they both heard the sound of gunshots. But, oddly, neither of them said anything about the sounds. She continued giving him change and he walked toward the snack room. She concluded her story with, "That's the last time I saw him until he passed by me a few minutes later as he was leaving the building." (Groden, p. 21) By this time she had learned what happened and told him that Kennedy had been shot.

Groden then says he was introduced to Geraldine Reid and her story by a man names David Thiess, a former investigator for the Office of Naval Intelligence. Thiess told him he knew she had been interviewed by the Commission and they had suppressed her story and wiped her out of the record. But further, he had seen the concealed documents about her. Both Reid and Theiss died, Theiss as Absolute Proof was going to press. (ibid)

After the book was published, Richard Gilbride talked about the Geraldine Reid story at Greg Parker's fine forum, Reopen Kennedy Case. As the reader can see by reading this fascinating review of the facts, it appears that, to begin with, Groden got some of the details wrong. There was no Delores Reid working in the Depository Building. The Mrs. Robert Reid Groden refers to was first named Geraldean (at times spelled Jeraldean). And she passed away in 1973. So it turns out that there was no Geraldine Reid also, at least with his exact spelling.

What appears to have happened is that in an FBI report made on November 24th, a Mrs. Sanders talked about Geraldean Reid but the FBI agent incorrectly spelled it as "Geraldine". But the giveaway is that Sanders gave the agents the phone number of Mrs. Geraldine/Jeraldean Reid, a key point Groden apparently missed. So they were talking about the same person. Obviously, if this was the only Geraldean/Geraldine Reid at the Depository, and she died in 1973, then this could not be the person that Groden talked to several years ago, and who died relatively recently.

What appears to have happened here is that Mr. Theiss, who conveniently died right before the book came out, somehow concocted a hoax to play on the research community. This is a problem that has plagued the community since 1964. And Groden did not do the proper follow-up to prevent himself from falling for the phony "Geraldine Reid" playlet. We owe thanks to Greg Parker and the frequenters of his forum for correcting the record on this issue.

Source: http://www.ctka.net/2014_reviews/groden_book.html

from everything I have read, the snipers nest was not set up to have a realistic chance of killing JFK. IMO it was not even set up in a way that could have plausibly suggested a successful sniper's nest once it was examined in detail. I find it hard to believe (unless it was a panicked last minute improvisation) that it was intended to ever represent the nest of a successful sniper. If you want a successful sniper's nest or event wanted to falsely convey the impression of one, you would put a good quality weapon in a better position in another window. Surely the conspirators budget would have stretched to a decent plausible rifle. So IMO there could have been shots from the nest but there could never have been any serious intention of killing JFK from it.  

Alan, the title (and consensus) of this thread is that no shots came from the sniper's nest. 

IMO, we have been lulled into believing that the plot was mapped out by some all-powerful group who meticulously planned every detail to the nth degree, but that is just not the case.

One quick example: for a long long time it has been suspected that the "epileptic" seizure was faked and timed to distract and/or keep the ambulence busy. I fell into that category - especially after looking into the background of Jerry Belknap a little and connecting dots - something I'm good at, but wary of at the same time, unless I've got a strong enough evidence set to back it.

But I changed my mind after looking again at his statement to the FBI and investigating the claims that he made in that. Without going into detail, his story panned out from all angles, including medical.  

I believe the plotters knew that the Dallas Police would get on board and enact a frame. They just had to point at Oswald and yell "Commie".  

But as I've said before., if something happened that made Oswald completely unusable as the patsy, one thing that they DID plan on was having back-up patsies. Here that could be Buell, Molina, or just about any of the African-American workers in the building.

Once the notion of an all-powerful Oz behind the curtian is ditched, it is much easier to understand what happened. We no longer have to make sense of how inperfect evidence fits into a perfect frame. 

Greg at May 24, 2016 at 5:54 PM

Alan, the title (and consensus) of this thread is that no shots came from the sniper's nest. 

IMO, we have been lulled into believing that the plot was mapped out by some all-powerful group who meticulously planned every detail to the nth degree, but that is just not the case.

One quick example: for a long long time it has been suspected that the "epileptic" seizure was faked and timed to distract and/or keep the ambulence busy. I fell into that category - especially after looking into the background of Jerry Belknap a little and connecting dots - something I'm good at, but wary of at the same time, unless I've got a strong enough evidence set to back it.

But I changed my mind after looking again at his statement to the FBI and investigating the claims that he made in that. Without going into detail, his story panned out from all angles, including medical.  

I believe the plotters knew that the Dallas Police would get on board and enact a frame. They just had to point at Oswald and yell "Commie".  

But as I've said before., if something happened that made Oswald completely unusable as the patsy, one thing that they DID plan on was having back-up patsies. Here that could be Buell, Molina, or just about any of the African-American workers in the building.

Once the notion of an all-powerful Oz behind the curtian is ditched, it is much easier to understand what happened. We no longer have to make sense of how inperfect evidence fits into a perfect frame. 

Too true Greg,

An ordinary garden variety wife and mother living in the suburb of Irving pointed her finger squarely at Lee Oswald to devastating effect.

Is there a thread about where the shots did come from?  I suppose I would start by simply asking - which windows or other positions had a really good view of the tight turn?  

I tried to put my lack of expertise to  good use to give a sort of novice instinctive view of the likely assassination snipers positions . I used google street view to do the motorcade.  I didnt really know where buildings other than the TSBD was.  I tried to imagine if I was part of an assassination plan where I would place myself.  My impression was that the best location to shoot JFK sitting on the right side of the car in the tight turn would be from perhaps the 2nd, 3rd or 4th floor (depending on who you really wanted to make sure you miss) of the building that I have just found out is the Dal-Tex (I had read about it but actually thought it was a different building).  

My clear impression then is that the next window of opportunity to hit JFK sititng on the right of the car was clearly the elevated knoll area and adjacent. I was amazed at how much smaller scale and very close this position is to where the car was.  Following that there is the overpass.  

Not exactly amazing stuff or revololutionary but it is my greenhorn view of what seemed rational.  So if I had to conclude I would say the best shooters locatoins where the Dal-Tex for an earlier shot around the sharp turn and then the Knoll/overpass area.  There dont seem to me to be a lot of positions in other directions where the relatively flat land and the intervening crowds wouldnt be a major problem for a shooter. There is a bit of elevated ground next to the knoll just before the car would have reached the knoll area. I am not sure what it is called. 

Just a thought but could a shooter have been up a tree posing as security and firing with a silencer? 

another thing that strikes me is, even if the trees were not a problem, the traditional snipers nest seems an incredibly steep angle for a shooter to choose take advantage of the slowest and nearest moment as the car turns left into Houston presenting a view of Kennedy on the right of the car. That alone would make an unbiased person looking at this blind with no backstory or names question this position. Then there are the trees.  A shot mid turn from a not-too-high-up window in the Dal-Tex would have seemed a much better idea.

Another thing that strikes me about the Dal-Tex position is that it appears to retain a good line of sight unblocked by trees long after the turn - perhaps the whole way to the underpass. it seems a very very likely choice to me for one crossfire position.  In fact I am stunned at the fantastic view it gets of Houston as far as the underpass. You would have to be mad not to think it was a great location for a sniper.    

Another thing that struck me about the general area is that it would not have been difficult to ensure it was very difficult for a sniper to set up an assassin's next. There are not that many options with clear views, elevated positions to get above the crowd/other car passangers without going long distance. So the fact that the very limited positions were not neutralised is clear evidence of a deliberate stand down. 

Been looking at Altgens 6 of the Dal-Tex building. Looking at that photo it looks to me like a position on floor 2 (UK 1st floor, US 2nd floor. Aussi??) at the central window as seen on the photo would be perfect for a shot at JFK on the right of the car from the rear (to avoid hitting Jackie) as it straightened into Houston. I read that Greer took the corner clumsily and wide and that would have changed the angle considerably. Perhaps that was the shot that was problematic.  

Talking of  the photo, there is a lot that is odd in that very position in the Dal-Tex. An open window, something almost human-like in it. Above the open part of the  window there is a tangle of fire escape parts in front of the upper part of the same widow. A light object casts a solid black shadow.  Blending into one side of the shadow is what looks like a puff of black smoke with a light dot in the lower part of it.  A straight thin line seems to come from it  and there is another straight line parallel with this on the edge of the shadow. It looks weirdly like cartoon bullet paths LOL.  

Was this photo out before it could be tampered with?  

Weirdly digging around about the Dal-Tex building and Altgens I see the Duncan Mc guy you all love so much comes up a lot in old posts. Its odd because his posts go back many years and if you look at what I think was a very interesting initial interest of his about the men in and around the 2nd floor window of that builidng and the fire escape it seems he was kind of stonewalled by researchers at the time - almost like he had found something that the gatekeepers didnt want pointed out.  However, like a few other researchers you almost get the impression he was 'turned' at some point and went over to the dark side somewhere after initially being genuine and even pointing out some uncomfortable stuff for the conspiracy deniars. Certainly that is a very clear impression I get. 

Dunc probably figured out there was no money on this side... it's all waiting on the dark side.

It was an interesting dabble to use street viewer and look at the photographic evidence. Nothing I found proves anything but I would absolutely say that the snipers nest in the TSBD is not a rational position to choose even without the detailed evidence of the rubbish rifle, bad sights, akward window type, trees in the way etc. The Dal-Tex and that perhaps that Records Building opposite just seem far better options and there were a number of open windows and vantage points. Personally the Dal-Tex just jumps out at me as having a tremendous view from the turn onwards. I understand the Altgens photo a lot better now having seen the dark skinned guy on the fire escape much more clearly  and the guy at the 2nd floor window with the suggestion of another guy behind him. That could be a shooter team but it could equally be innoccent.  What is clearly not innocent is the fact many people were allowed to be in locations like that during the montorcade.   That is utter madness unless its deliberate. I suppose without definitive photographic proof of a shooter it will remain speculation but it was worth a dabble. I now am a little bit more clued in to the realistric possibilities.  

One question for those with a better grip on this stuff than me - the TBSD snipers nest looks a very very bad choice for the shots that took place. However, could it have been a better one for a potshot that never took place looking down Elm before the turn? 

Arggg - I realise I have reversed the names of Houston and Elm in my above posts so please read them that way. Sorry. 

A random thought struck me there. Could there be a reason why the rifle in the TSBD had what look like misaligned sight. I read that it was misaligned in the sense that it fired slightly high.  Is there any chance this could have been deliberate? Firing slightly on the high side when picking a centre of head shot from the front could have been a precaution for a front shot looking down Houston from that position. Although it would have increased the chance of a miss, it would have reduced the chance of hitting the people sitting in front of JFK.  Now this shot clearly didnt happen and indeed no shots might have come from the TSBD. That doesnt mean it wasnt considered an option or even set up as an option to cover a 'long shot' possibility that a good head shot presented itself before the turn into Elm.  

From photos I have seen the nest is set up to make it look like it was aimed at Elm not Houston. However that would be easy to adjust to give that false impression. I went on google earth and hovered as low on the aerial photograph as possible without going into streetview so I could get an impression of the TSBD position and the only sense I could make of even considering that as an option is its view down Houston.

So what do you think?  TSBD nest set up on the offchance of a head shot down Houston before or at the turn from the front presenting itself.  A slightly high aligned scope to reduce chance of a headshot hitting passangers in front? Shot not didnt present itself so not taken? Then the nest altered to make it look like it was set up for a Elm shot?