James Romack, DPD's spurious but inept eyewitness

About 12:33pm, on 11/22/63, it was getting pretty crowded in back of the depository, if you accept the statements of the individuals involved. There was James Worrell, James Romack, "an unidentified individual", and, further back, apparently, George
Rackley Sr.--and a man who "come bustling out of this [back door]". Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door. And he does not
mention seeing the "unidentified individual" or Worrell, both of whom said that they saw the man exit the back door. If this "individual" was not Worrell, then there were two witnesses to the man bustling out the back door.

Why was Romack in the area? He doesn't mention JFK. He was just "piddling around" north of the TSBD (p279). And just happened to be there when he heard "three rifle shots" and saw the "motorcade passing by" (p281). Romack testifies that he was
watching the back stairs "until someone arrived", apparently two FBI agents "or something... standing right here at the very entrance" (apparently to the back of the building) (pp281-2). "We were all watching [the back] then" (p281). "We"? He doesn't
elaborate.

Romack apparently stopped watching when the back of the building was "sealed off" (p281). That would have been about 12:35, then, when the "something" agents arrived. But The Big Stakeout falls apart right there. Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels
arrived at the depository about 12:50 and entered through the "back of the building". Counsel Stern: "There was no policeman stationed at the loading platform when you came up?" Sorrels: "I did not see one, no, sir." Stern: "And you were able to
enter the building without identifying yourself?" Sorrels: "Yes, sir." (v7p348)

"Sealed off"? Not the back exit/entrance. Not by 12:35. Romack, in sum, then, just happened to be "piddling around" in the area, on the periphery of the story of the century, camped out for 5 minutes, then left, for no apparent reason. He comes there
for no reason; he goes for no reason. And he fails to tell the "somethings" that he was watching the back.

But there was a reason for his testimony. Worrell was the person who testified that he saw someone "bustling" out the back door, about 12:33. On 11/30/63, he told the FBI that he "felt that [Oswald] was the person he had seen." And his age/height/
weight estimates correspond pretty well with Patrolman M.L. Baker's for Oswald: late 20s/early 30s, 5-7 to 5-10, 155-165 (from Worrell), 30, 5-9, 165 (from Baker). (v2p196 and 11/22/63 affidavit, resp.) Of course this man could have fled north, then
doubled back to the area, but not past Worrell, certainly not past the scene of the crime. If it was indeed Oswald, he did not seem to be trying to catch a bus on Elm. And he would have to have doubled back very, very quickly in order to catch Cecil
McWatters' bus, about 12:40, as Oswald supposedly did. (WR p157)

Reason enough, perhaps, for anyone concerned to have Romack cancel out Worrell's testimony and affidavit. Even more concerning: that "unidentified individual", cited in dispatches to both FBI Agent Gordon Shanklin and "Director, FBI" (both 1/9/64). The
missive to J. Edgar Hoover stated, "An unidentified individual told DPD Inspector J.H. Sawyer that he had seen an individual run from the TSBD building shortly after the shooting of President Kennedy and that this individual was an unknown white male,
approx. 30, slender build, 5'10", 165 pounds, carrying what looked to be a 30:30, or some type of Winchester rifle. Inspector Sawyer then contacted DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee, radio dispatcher, and this description was broadcast to all Dallas squad cars."

The source for Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, then, was not witness Howard Brennan, but someone who saw an unknown man fleeing the depository. Which actually makes more sense: Brennan testified that he thought that the assassin was "standing up
and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder" (v3p144) Brennan, then, started with a mistaken visual premise and could hardly have gone on to estimate, from that mistaken premise, height and weight--without some
little prodding. Sawyer's running man, on the other hand, was seen at ground level by a man at ground level. Ideal conditions.

Reason enough to have Romack cancel out both Worrell and the "unidentified individual", in one fell swoop, and save their star Dealey witness (as Counsel David Belin wrote), as well as the DPD, from great embarrassment, if not (for the DPD), also, from
charges of soliciting perjury, and, in general, contaminating the case.

More reason for Romack's piddling testimony: that weapon description. If the unidentified witness actually saw someone leaving the depository with a rifle, that would raise the specter of a second shooter, or a second Oswald rifle. As problematic as
the unidentified witness's sensationalistic "30-30" portion of his witnessing is (no inside-the-building witnesses to this rifleman, when the depository lobby was bustling with employees around 12:33), the DPD obviously wanted to smother this awkward
rumor in its crib. Hence, Romack--contract smotherer.

But Sawyer thought his unidentified witness was credible enough to quote his suspect description, verbatim, at 12:44. And Sawyer's unidentified witness's description of the suspect almost perfectly matches Baker's description of Oswald: 30/5'9"/165 for
the latter... 30/5'10"/165 for the former.

Romack's slim pretext for contacting the FBI and testifying before the Warren Commission was that "some monkey" said that he had "seen some character running toward me". (v6p281) I can see them jumping on *that*. "I saw a policeman running north
towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building... And he didn't stay, but just... he was just there to check and he runs back." (p281)

Note the phrase "to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building". Romack seems unaware of the rank implausibilities implied by this assertion. The policeman is checking to see if anybody ran out of the building, yet doesn't seem to see,
detain or even question Romack, although he was "running north towards" him. I mean, Romack himself may not have been running, but he might have seen someone running. At least the unidentified witness talked to the police that day. That Romack did
not even talk to the policeman running towards him--about what was going on out front and/or what he himself was doing, out back--suggests that he was the one who wasn't there.

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:11:55 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

James Romack, DPD's spurious but inept eyewitness

About 12:33pm, on 11/22/63, it was getting pretty crowded in back of the depository, if you accept the statements of the individuals involved. There was James Worrell, James Romack, "an unidentified individual", and, further back, apparently, George

Rackley Sr.--and a man who "come bustling out of this [back door]". Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door. And he does not mention
seeing the "unidentified individual" or Worrell, both of whom said that they saw the man exit the back door. If this "individual" was not Worrell, then there were two witnesses to the man bustling out the back door.

Why was Romack in the area? He doesn't mention JFK. He was just "piddling around" north of the TSBD (p279). And just happened to be there when he heard "three rifle shots" and saw the "motorcade passing by" (p281). Romack testifies that he was watching

the back stairs "until someone arrived", apparently two FBI agents "or something... standing right here at the very entrance" (apparently to the back of the building) (pp281-2). "We were all watching [the back] then" (p281). "We"? He doesn't elaborate.

Romack apparently stopped watching when the back of the building was "sealed off" (p281). That would have been about 12:35, then, when the "something" agents arrived. But The Big Stakeout falls apart right there. Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels

arrived at the depository about 12:50 and entered through the "back of the building". Counsel Stern: "There was no policeman stationed at the loading platform when you came up?" Sorrels: "I did not see one, no, sir." Stern: "And you were able to enter
the building without identifying yourself?" Sorrels: "Yes, sir." (v7p348)

"Sealed off"? Not the back exit/entrance. Not by 12:35. Romack, in sum, then, just happened to be "piddling around" in the area, on the periphery of the story of the century, camped out for 5 minutes, then left, for no apparent reason. He comes there

for no reason; he goes for no reason. And he fails to tell the "somethings" that he was watching the back.

But there was a reason for his testimony. Worrell was the person who testified that he saw someone "bustling" out the back door, about 12:33. On 11/30/63, he told the FBI that he "felt that [Oswald] was the person he had seen." And his age/height/

weight estimates correspond pretty well with Patrolman M.L. Baker's for Oswald: late 20s/early 30s, 5-7 to 5-10, 155-165 (from Worrell), 30, 5-9, 165 (from Baker). (v2p196 and 11/22/63 affidavit, resp.) Of course this man could have fled north, then
doubled back to the area, but not past Worrell, certainly not past the scene of the crime. If it was indeed Oswald, he did not seem to be trying to catch a bus on Elm. And he would have to have doubled back very, very quickly in order to catch Cecil
McWatters' bus, about 12:40, as Oswald supposedly did. (WR p157)

Reason enough, perhaps, for anyone concerned to have Romack cancel out Worrell's testimony and affidavit. Even more concerning: that "unidentified individual", cited in dispatches to both FBI Agent Gordon Shanklin and "Director, FBI" (both 1/9/64). The

missive to J. Edgar Hoover stated, "An unidentified individual told DPD Inspector J.H. Sawyer that he had seen an individual run from the TSBD building shortly after the shooting of President Kennedy and that this individual was an unknown white male,
approx. 30, slender build, 5'10", 165 pounds, carrying what looked to be a 30:30, or some type of Winchester rifle. Inspector Sawyer then contacted DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee, radio dispatcher, and this description was broadcast to all Dallas squad cars."

The source for Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, then, was not witness Howard Brennan, but someone who saw an unknown man fleeing the depository. Which actually makes more sense: Brennan testified that he thought that the assassin was "standing up

and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder" (v3p144) Brennan, then, started with a mistaken visual premise and could hardly have gone on to estimate, from that mistaken premise, height and weight--without some
little prodding. Sawyer's running man, on the other hand, was seen at ground level by a man at ground level. Ideal conditions.

Reason enough to have Romack cancel out both Worrell and the "unidentified individual", in one fell swoop, and save their star Dealey witness (as Counsel David Belin wrote), as well as the DPD, from great embarrassment, if not (for the DPD), also, from

charges of soliciting perjury, and, in general, contaminating the case.

More reason for Romack's piddling testimony: that weapon description. If the unidentified witness actually saw someone leaving the depository with a rifle, that would raise the specter of a second shooter, or a second Oswald rifle. As problematic as

the unidentified witness's sensationalistic "30-30" portion of his witnessing is (no inside-the-building witnesses to this rifleman, when the depository lobby was bustling with employees around 12:33), the DPD obviously wanted to smother this awkward
rumor in its crib. Hence, Romack--contract smotherer.

But Sawyer thought his unidentified witness was credible enough to quote his suspect description, verbatim, at 12:44. And Sawyer's unidentified witness's description of the suspect almost perfectly matches Baker's description of Oswald: 30/5'9"/165 for

the latter... 30/5'10"/165 for the former.

Romack's slim pretext for contacting the FBI and testifying before the Warren Commission was that "some monkey" said that he had "seen some character running toward me". (v6p281) I can see them jumping on *that*. "I saw a policeman running north

towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building... And he didn't stay, but just... he was just there to check and he runs back." (p281)

Note the phrase "to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building". Romack seems unaware of the rank implausibilities implied by this assertion. The policeman is checking to see if anybody ran out of the building, yet doesn't seem to see,

detain or even question Romack, although he was "running north towards" him. I mean, Romack himself may not have been running, but he might have seen someone running. At least the unidentified witness talked to the police that day. That Romack did not
even talk to the policeman running towards him--about what was going on out front and/or what he himself was doing, out back--suggests that he was the one who wasn't there.

You seem to be unaware of how FUBAR your reasoning is. You treat witness estimates of times
as if they are established facts. They aren't. People general don't mark the time they do things
and if asked about it later, the best they can do is guess. A perfect example of is this:

"Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door."

The fact he doesn't know if it was four or five minutes means he was guessing and it doesn't
establish that it was four or five minutes. It could have been two or three minutes or it could
have been seven or eight minutes. That is why it is futile to try to do a reconstruction based on
multiple guesses by people as to where they were at any given time.

Robert McNeil of NBC and Pierce Allman both ran into Oswald as he was leaving the front of
the building and there is ample evidence Oswald went east on Elm St before boarding Cecil McWatters bus. That trumps and all theories that Oswald left via the rear of the building.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:11:55 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

James Romack, DPD's spurious but inept eyewitness

About 12:33pm, on 11/22/63, it was getting pretty crowded in back of the depository, if you accept the statements of the individuals involved. There was James Worrell, James Romack, "an unidentified individual", and, further back, apparently, George

Rackley Sr.--and a man who "come bustling out of this [back door]". Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door. And he does not mention
seeing the "unidentified individual" or Worrell, both of whom said that they saw the man exit the back door. If this "individual" was not Worrell, then there were two witnesses to the man bustling out the back door.

Why was Romack in the area? He doesn't mention JFK. He was just "piddling around" north of the TSBD (p279). And just happened to be there when he heard "three rifle shots" and saw the "motorcade passing by" (p281). Romack testifies that he was watching

the back stairs "until someone arrived", apparently two FBI agents "or something... standing right here at the very entrance" (apparently to the back of the building) (pp281-2). "We were all watching [the back] then" (p281). "We"? He doesn't elaborate.

Romack apparently stopped watching when the back of the building was "sealed off" (p281). That would have been about 12:35, then, when the "something" agents arrived. But The Big Stakeout falls apart right there. Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels

arrived at the depository about 12:50 and entered through the "back of the building". Counsel Stern: "There was no policeman stationed at the loading platform when you came up?" Sorrels: "I did not see one, no, sir." Stern: "And you were able to enter
the building without identifying yourself?" Sorrels: "Yes, sir." (v7p348)

"Sealed off"? Not the back exit/entrance. Not by 12:35. Romack, in sum, then, just happened to be "piddling around" in the area, on the periphery of the story of the century, camped out for 5 minutes, then left, for no apparent reason. He comes there

for no reason; he goes for no reason. And he fails to tell the "somethings" that he was watching the back.

But there was a reason for his testimony. Worrell was the person who testified that he saw someone "bustling" out the back door, about 12:33. On 11/30/63, he told the FBI that he "felt that [Oswald] was the person he had seen." And his age/height/

weight estimates correspond pretty well with Patrolman M.L. Baker's for Oswald: late 20s/early 30s, 5-7 to 5-10, 155-165 (from Worrell), 30, 5-9, 165 (from Baker). (v2p196 and 11/22/63 affidavit, resp.) Of course this man could have fled north, then
doubled back to the area, but not past Worrell, certainly not past the scene of the crime. If it was indeed Oswald, he did not seem to be trying to catch a bus on Elm. And he would have to have doubled back very, very quickly in order to catch Cecil
McWatters' bus, about 12:40, as Oswald supposedly did. (WR p157)

Reason enough, perhaps, for anyone concerned to have Romack cancel out Worrell's testimony and affidavit. Even more concerning: that "unidentified individual", cited in dispatches to both FBI Agent Gordon Shanklin and "Director, FBI" (both 1/9/64). The

missive to J. Edgar Hoover stated, "An unidentified individual told DPD Inspector J.H. Sawyer that he had seen an individual run from the TSBD building shortly after the shooting of President Kennedy and that this individual was an unknown white male,
approx. 30, slender build, 5'10", 165 pounds, carrying what looked to be a 30:30, or some type of Winchester rifle. Inspector Sawyer then contacted DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee, radio dispatcher, and this description was broadcast to all Dallas squad cars."

The source for Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, then, was not witness Howard Brennan, but someone who saw an unknown man fleeing the depository. Which actually makes more sense: Brennan testified that he thought that the assassin was "standing up

and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder" (v3p144) Brennan, then, started with a mistaken visual premise and could hardly have gone on to estimate, from that mistaken premise, height and weight--without some
little prodding. Sawyer's running man, on the other hand, was seen at ground level by a man at ground level. Ideal conditions.

Reason enough to have Romack cancel out both Worrell and the "unidentified individual", in one fell swoop, and save their star Dealey witness (as Counsel David Belin wrote), as well as the DPD, from great embarrassment, if not (for the DPD), also, from

charges of soliciting perjury, and, in general, contaminating the case.

More reason for Romack's piddling testimony: that weapon description. If the unidentified witness actually saw someone leaving the depository with a rifle, that would raise the specter of a second shooter, or a second Oswald rifle. As problematic as

the unidentified witness's sensationalistic "30-30" portion of his witnessing is (no inside-the-building witnesses to this rifleman, when the depository lobby was bustling with employees around 12:33), the DPD obviously wanted to smother this awkward
rumor in its crib. Hence, Romack--contract smotherer.

But Sawyer thought his unidentified witness was credible enough to quote his suspect description, verbatim, at 12:44. And Sawyer's unidentified witness's description of the suspect almost perfectly matches Baker's description of Oswald: 30/5'9"/165 for

the latter... 30/5'10"/165 for the former.

Romack's slim pretext for contacting the FBI and testifying before the Warren Commission was that "some monkey" said that he had "seen some character running toward me". (v6p281) I can see them jumping on *that*. "I saw a policeman running north

towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building... And he didn't stay, but just... he was just there to check and he runs back." (p281)

Note the phrase "to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building". Romack seems unaware of the rank implausibilities implied by this assertion. The policeman is checking to see if anybody ran out of the building, yet doesn't seem to see,

detain or even question Romack, although he was "running north towards" him. I mean, Romack himself may not have been running, but he might have seen someone running. At least the unidentified witness talked to the police that day. That Romack did not
even talk to the policeman running towards him--about what was going on out front and/or what he himself was doing, out back--suggests that he was the one who wasn't there.

dcw

A few years ago I was examining the Out Back Witnesses, and it's got a bit hazy now. Rackley is the father of another witness, Mrs. Donald Baker, who on the day of the assassination was "Virgie Rackley." The fact that they are father and daughter seems
to be hidden by the Warren Commission; they even misspell her maiden name when she testifies. And I am suspicious that both were hired witnesses, mainly because, at first, and only at first, Virgie was trying to implicate Joe Molina. That was dropped
like a hot potato. And the father, to me, seemed to be being used to support Worrell, another witness I believed to have been hired, in order to "see" Oswald escaping out the back door. But the Conspiracy decided to torpedo their own fake witness Worrell,
so they brought in Romack to discredit his testimony. That was my conclusion, as I recall. Perhaps Worell was abandoned to discredit any support for the idea of anybody exiting the north door because that's where Winchester Man had been seen, and the
coverup had no use for Winchester Man. Even Eddie Piper, whom I believe was coerced into denying that Victoria Adams had come down the stairs before Truly and Baker went up, even Piper was used to stand at the north door and not see nobody come out, and
he apparently is the Negro whom Sorrels encountered there whom Sorrels thinks didn't know anything. It got a bit messy there. That was my conclusion...as I recall. All notion of somebody coming out that door was abolished.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 4:19:37 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:11:55 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

James Romack, DPD's spurious but inept eyewitness

About 12:33pm, on 11/22/63, it was getting pretty crowded in back of the depository, if you accept the statements of the individuals involved. There was James Worrell, James Romack, "an unidentified individual", and, further back, apparently, George

Rackley Sr.--and a man who "come bustling out of this [back door]". Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door. And he does not mention
seeing the "unidentified individual" or Worrell, both of whom said that they saw the man exit the back door. If this "individual" was not Worrell, then there were two witnesses to the man bustling out the back door.

Why was Romack in the area? He doesn't mention JFK. He was just "piddling around" north of the TSBD (p279). And just happened to be there when he heard "three rifle shots" and saw the "motorcade passing by" (p281). Romack testifies that he was

watching the back stairs "until someone arrived", apparently two FBI agents "or something... standing right here at the very entrance" (apparently to the back of the building) (pp281-2). "We were all watching [the back] then" (p281). "We"? He doesn't
elaborate.

Romack apparently stopped watching when the back of the building was "sealed off" (p281). That would have been about 12:35, then, when the "something" agents arrived. But The Big Stakeout falls apart right there. Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels

arrived at the depository about 12:50 and entered through the "back of the building". Counsel Stern: "There was no policeman stationed at the loading platform when you came up?" Sorrels: "I did not see one, no, sir." Stern: "And you were able to enter
the building without identifying yourself?" Sorrels: "Yes, sir." (v7p348)

"Sealed off"? Not the back exit/entrance. Not by 12:35. Romack, in sum, then, just happened to be "piddling around" in the area, on the periphery of the story of the century, camped out for 5 minutes, then left, for no apparent reason. He comes there

for no reason; he goes for no reason. And he fails to tell the "somethings" that he was watching the back.

But there was a reason for his testimony. Worrell was the person who testified that he saw someone "bustling" out the back door, about 12:33. On 11/30/63, he told the FBI that he "felt that [Oswald] was the person he had seen." And his age/height/

weight estimates correspond pretty well with Patrolman M.L. Baker's for Oswald: late 20s/early 30s, 5-7 to 5-10, 155-165 (from Worrell), 30, 5-9, 165 (from Baker). (v2p196 and 11/22/63 affidavit, resp.) Of course this man could have fled north, then
doubled back to the area, but not past Worrell, certainly not past the scene of the crime. If it was indeed Oswald, he did not seem to be trying to catch a bus on Elm. And he would have to have doubled back very, very quickly in order to catch Cecil
McWatters' bus, about 12:40, as Oswald supposedly did. (WR p157)

Reason enough, perhaps, for anyone concerned to have Romack cancel out Worrell's testimony and affidavit. Even more concerning: that "unidentified individual", cited in dispatches to both FBI Agent Gordon Shanklin and "Director, FBI" (both 1/9/64).

The missive to J. Edgar Hoover stated, "An unidentified individual told DPD Inspector J.H. Sawyer that he had seen an individual run from the TSBD building shortly after the shooting of President Kennedy and that this individual was an unknown white male,
approx. 30, slender build, 5'10", 165 pounds, carrying what looked to be a 30:30, or some type of Winchester rifle. Inspector Sawyer then contacted DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee, radio dispatcher, and this description was broadcast to all Dallas squad cars."

The source for Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, then, was not witness Howard Brennan, but someone who saw an unknown man fleeing the depository. Which actually makes more sense: Brennan testified that he thought that the assassin was "standing up

and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder" (v3p144) Brennan, then, started with a mistaken visual premise and could hardly have gone on to estimate, from that mistaken premise, height and weight--without some
little prodding. Sawyer's running man, on the other hand, was seen at ground level by a man at ground level. Ideal conditions.

Reason enough to have Romack cancel out both Worrell and the "unidentified individual", in one fell swoop, and save their star Dealey witness (as Counsel David Belin wrote), as well as the DPD, from great embarrassment, if not (for the DPD), also,

from charges of soliciting perjury, and, in general, contaminating the case.

More reason for Romack's piddling testimony: that weapon description. If the unidentified witness actually saw someone leaving the depository with a rifle, that would raise the specter of a second shooter, or a second Oswald rifle. As problematic as

the unidentified witness's sensationalistic "30-30" portion of his witnessing is (no inside-the-building witnesses to this rifleman, when the depository lobby was bustling with employees around 12:33), the DPD obviously wanted to smother this awkward
rumor in its crib. Hence, Romack--contract smotherer.

But Sawyer thought his unidentified witness was credible enough to quote his suspect description, verbatim, at 12:44. And Sawyer's unidentified witness's description of the suspect almost perfectly matches Baker's description of Oswald: 30/5'9"/165

for the latter... 30/5'10"/165 for the former.

Romack's slim pretext for contacting the FBI and testifying before the Warren Commission was that "some monkey" said that he had "seen some character running toward me". (v6p281) I can see them jumping on *that*. "I saw a policeman running north

towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building... And he didn't stay, but just... he was just there to check and he runs back." (p281)

Note the phrase "to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building". Romack seems unaware of the rank implausibilities implied by this assertion. The policeman is checking to see if anybody ran out of the building, yet doesn't seem to

see, detain or even question Romack, although he was "running north towards" him. I mean, Romack himself may not have been running, but he might have seen someone running. At least the unidentified witness talked to the police that day. That Romack did
not even talk to the policeman running towards him--about what was going on out front and/or what he himself was doing, out back--suggests that he was the one who wasn't there.

You seem to be unaware of how FUBAR your reasoning is. You treat witness estimates of times
as if they are established facts. They aren't. People general don't mark the time they do things
and if asked about it later, the best they can do is guess. A perfect example of is this:
"Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door."
The fact he doesn't know if it was four or five minutes means he was guessing and it doesn't
establish that it was four or five minutes. It could have been two or three minutes or it could
have been seven or eight minutes. That is why it is futile to try to do a reconstruction based on
multiple guesses by people as to where they were at any given time.

So you're saying that it was just *convenient* that Romack's estimate covered the time during which Worrell's suspect exited the back door? And he then just *happened* to discredit Worrell? I happen to have a bridge if you want to buy it! Not cheap,
though--you know, Biden-inflation.

What you've argued does not change the fact that Sawyer's "unidentified" witness's age/height/weight estimates almost perfectly match Baker's for Oswald *and* the 12:44 suspect description.

Robert McNeil of NBC and Pierce Allman both ran into Oswald as he was leaving the front of
the building

I don't trust *anyone's* noon-hour sighting of Oswald. That's what led me to conclude that he was a shooter. I don't even trust Sawyer's unID'd witness *or* Worrell on that. But the latter duo's descriptions pretty much match Baker's. Neither you nor
I can quite get around *that*. The two backyard witnesses (or one, if you believe that Worrell *was* the unID'd witness) saw someone out there. That pretty-much-indisputable fact finally settles the question of where the 12:44 suspect description came
from, whomever was seen.

and there is ample evidence Oswald went east on Elm St before boarding Cecil McWatters bus. That trumps and all theories that Oswald left via the rear of the building.

As I noted, the unID'd suspect could, possibly, have doubled back to McWatter's bus, especially if the latter's calculations were off a few minutes and he didn't pick up anyone quite as early as 12:40. It was pretty hectic and unscheduled that day.

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:38:22 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:11:55 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

James Romack, DPD's spurious but inept eyewitness

About 12:33pm, on 11/22/63, it was getting pretty crowded in back of the depository, if you accept the statements of the individuals involved. There was James Worrell, James Romack, "an unidentified individual", and, further back, apparently, George

Rackley Sr.--and a man who "come bustling out of this [back door]". Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door. And he does not mention
seeing the "unidentified individual" or Worrell, both of whom said that they saw the man exit the back door. If this "individual" was not Worrell, then there were two witnesses to the man bustling out the back door.

Why was Romack in the area? He doesn't mention JFK. He was just "piddling around" north of the TSBD (p279). And just happened to be there when he heard "three rifle shots" and saw the "motorcade passing by" (p281). Romack testifies that he was

watching the back stairs "until someone arrived", apparently two FBI agents "or something... standing right here at the very entrance" (apparently to the back of the building) (pp281-2). "We were all watching [the back] then" (p281). "We"? He doesn't
elaborate.

Romack apparently stopped watching when the back of the building was "sealed off" (p281). That would have been about 12:35, then, when the "something" agents arrived. But The Big Stakeout falls apart right there. Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels

arrived at the depository about 12:50 and entered through the "back of the building". Counsel Stern: "There was no policeman stationed at the loading platform when you came up?" Sorrels: "I did not see one, no, sir." Stern: "And you were able to enter
the building without identifying yourself?" Sorrels: "Yes, sir." (v7p348)

"Sealed off"? Not the back exit/entrance. Not by 12:35. Romack, in sum, then, just happened to be "piddling around" in the area, on the periphery of the story of the century, camped out for 5 minutes, then left, for no apparent reason. He comes there

for no reason; he goes for no reason. And he fails to tell the "somethings" that he was watching the back.

But there was a reason for his testimony. Worrell was the person who testified that he saw someone "bustling" out the back door, about 12:33. On 11/30/63, he told the FBI that he "felt that [Oswald] was the person he had seen." And his age/height/

weight estimates correspond pretty well with Patrolman M.L. Baker's for Oswald: late 20s/early 30s, 5-7 to 5-10, 155-165 (from Worrell), 30, 5-9, 165 (from Baker). (v2p196 and 11/22/63 affidavit, resp.) Of course this man could have fled north, then
doubled back to the area, but not past Worrell, certainly not past the scene of the crime. If it was indeed Oswald, he did not seem to be trying to catch a bus on Elm. And he would have to have doubled back very, very quickly in order to catch Cecil
McWatters' bus, about 12:40, as Oswald supposedly did. (WR p157)

Reason enough, perhaps, for anyone concerned to have Romack cancel out Worrell's testimony and affidavit. Even more concerning: that "unidentified individual", cited in dispatches to both FBI Agent Gordon Shanklin and "Director, FBI" (both 1/9/64).

The missive to J. Edgar Hoover stated, "An unidentified individual told DPD Inspector J.H. Sawyer that he had seen an individual run from the TSBD building shortly after the shooting of President Kennedy and that this individual was an unknown white male,
approx. 30, slender build, 5'10", 165 pounds, carrying what looked to be a 30:30, or some type of Winchester rifle. Inspector Sawyer then contacted DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee, radio dispatcher, and this description was broadcast to all Dallas squad cars."

The source for Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, then, was not witness Howard Brennan, but someone who saw an unknown man fleeing the depository. Which actually makes more sense: Brennan testified that he thought that the assassin was "standing up

and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder" (v3p144) Brennan, then, started with a mistaken visual premise and could hardly have gone on to estimate, from that mistaken premise, height and weight--without some
little prodding. Sawyer's running man, on the other hand, was seen at ground level by a man at ground level. Ideal conditions.

Reason enough to have Romack cancel out both Worrell and the "unidentified individual", in one fell swoop, and save their star Dealey witness (as Counsel David Belin wrote), as well as the DPD, from great embarrassment, if not (for the DPD), also,

from charges of soliciting perjury, and, in general, contaminating the case.

More reason for Romack's piddling testimony: that weapon description. If the unidentified witness actually saw someone leaving the depository with a rifle, that would raise the specter of a second shooter, or a second Oswald rifle. As problematic as

the unidentified witness's sensationalistic "30-30" portion of his witnessing is (no inside-the-building witnesses to this rifleman, when the depository lobby was bustling with employees around 12:33), the DPD obviously wanted to smother this awkward
rumor in its crib. Hence, Romack--contract smotherer.

But Sawyer thought his unidentified witness was credible enough to quote his suspect description, verbatim, at 12:44. And Sawyer's unidentified witness's description of the suspect almost perfectly matches Baker's description of Oswald: 30/5'9"/165

for the latter... 30/5'10"/165 for the former.

Romack's slim pretext for contacting the FBI and testifying before the Warren Commission was that "some monkey" said that he had "seen some character running toward me". (v6p281) I can see them jumping on *that*. "I saw a policeman running north

towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building... And he didn't stay, but just... he was just there to check and he runs back." (p281)

Note the phrase "to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building". Romack seems unaware of the rank implausibilities implied by this assertion. The policeman is checking to see if anybody ran out of the building, yet doesn't seem to

see, detain or even question Romack, although he was "running north towards" him. I mean, Romack himself may not have been running, but he might have seen someone running. At least the unidentified witness talked to the police that day. That Romack did
not even talk to the policeman running towards him--about what was going on out front and/or what he himself was doing, out back--suggests that he was the one who wasn't there.

dcw

A few years ago I was examining the Out Back Witnesses, and it's got a bit hazy now. Rackley is the father of another witness, Mrs. Donald Baker, who on the day of the assassination was "Virgie Rackley." The fact that they are father and daughter seems

to be hidden by the Warren Commission; they even misspell her maiden name when she testifies. And I am suspicious that both were hired witnesses, mainly because, at first, and only at first, Virgie was trying to implicate Joe Molina. That was dropped
like a hot potato. And the father, to me, seemed to be being used to support Worrell

You mean Romack?

, another witness I believed to have been hired, in order to "see" Oswald escaping out the back door. But the Conspiracy decided to torpedo their own fake witness Worrell

Why would they manufacture him in the first place? Was there a time when the "official" version indicated Back Door?

, so they brought in Romack to discredit his testimony. That was my conclusion, as I recall. Perhaps Worell was abandoned to discredit any support for the idea of anybody exiting the north door because that's where Winchester Man had been seen

But didn't *they* know right away about Sawyer's man on the street? (Not in the building!)

dcw

, and the coverup had no use for Winchester Man. Even Eddie Piper, whom I believe was coerced into denying that Victoria Adams had come down the stairs before Truly and Baker went up, even Piper was used to stand at the north door and not see nobody come
out, and he apparently is the Negro whom Sorrels encountered there whom Sorrels thinks didn't know anything. It got a bit messy there. That was my conclusion...as I recall. All notion of somebody coming out that door was abolished.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:23:13 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:38:22 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:11:55 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

James Romack, DPD's spurious but inept eyewitness

About 12:33pm, on 11/22/63, it was getting pretty crowded in back of the depository, if you accept the statements of the individuals involved. There was James Worrell, James Romack, "an unidentified individual", and, further back, apparently,

George Rackley Sr.--and a man who "come bustling out of this [back door]". Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door. And he does not
mention seeing the "unidentified individual" or Worrell, both of whom said that they saw the man exit the back door. If this "individual" was not Worrell, then there were two witnesses to the man bustling out the back door.

Why was Romack in the area? He doesn't mention JFK. He was just "piddling around" north of the TSBD (p279). And just happened to be there when he heard "three rifle shots" and saw the "motorcade passing by" (p281). Romack testifies that he was

watching the back stairs "until someone arrived", apparently two FBI agents "or something... standing right here at the very entrance" (apparently to the back of the building) (pp281-2). "We were all watching [the back] then" (p281). "We"? He doesn't
elaborate.

Romack apparently stopped watching when the back of the building was "sealed off" (p281). That would have been about 12:35, then, when the "something" agents arrived. But The Big Stakeout falls apart right there. Secret Service Agent Forrest

Sorrels arrived at the depository about 12:50 and entered through the "back of the building". Counsel Stern: "There was no policeman stationed at the loading platform when you came up?" Sorrels: "I did not see one, no, sir." Stern: "And you were able to
enter the building without identifying yourself?" Sorrels: "Yes, sir." (v7p348)

"Sealed off"? Not the back exit/entrance. Not by 12:35. Romack, in sum, then, just happened to be "piddling around" in the area, on the periphery of the story of the century, camped out for 5 minutes, then left, for no apparent reason. He comes

there for no reason; he goes for no reason. And he fails to tell the "somethings" that he was watching the back.

But there was a reason for his testimony. Worrell was the person who testified that he saw someone "bustling" out the back door, about 12:33. On 11/30/63, he told the FBI that he "felt that [Oswald] was the person he had seen." And his age/height/

weight estimates correspond pretty well with Patrolman M.L. Baker's for Oswald: late 20s/early 30s, 5-7 to 5-10, 155-165 (from Worrell), 30, 5-9, 165 (from Baker). (v2p196 and 11/22/63 affidavit, resp.) Of course this man could have fled north, then
doubled back to the area, but not past Worrell, certainly not past the scene of the crime. If it was indeed Oswald, he did not seem to be trying to catch a bus on Elm. And he would have to have doubled back very, very quickly in order to catch Cecil
McWatters' bus, about 12:40, as Oswald supposedly did. (WR p157)

Reason enough, perhaps, for anyone concerned to have Romack cancel out Worrell's testimony and affidavit. Even more concerning: that "unidentified individual", cited in dispatches to both FBI Agent Gordon Shanklin and "Director, FBI" (both 1/9/64).

The missive to J. Edgar Hoover stated, "An unidentified individual told DPD Inspector J.H. Sawyer that he had seen an individual run from the TSBD building shortly after the shooting of President Kennedy and that this individual was an unknown white male,
approx. 30, slender build, 5'10", 165 pounds, carrying what looked to be a 30:30, or some type of Winchester rifle. Inspector Sawyer then contacted DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee, radio dispatcher, and this description was broadcast to all Dallas squad cars."

The source for Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, then, was not witness Howard Brennan, but someone who saw an unknown man fleeing the depository. Which actually makes more sense: Brennan testified that he thought that the assassin was "standing

up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder" (v3p144) Brennan, then, started with a mistaken visual premise and could hardly have gone on to estimate, from that mistaken premise, height and weight--without some
little prodding. Sawyer's running man, on the other hand, was seen at ground level by a man at ground level. Ideal conditions.

Reason enough to have Romack cancel out both Worrell and the "unidentified individual", in one fell swoop, and save their star Dealey witness (as Counsel David Belin wrote), as well as the DPD, from great embarrassment, if not (for the DPD), also,

from charges of soliciting perjury, and, in general, contaminating the case.

More reason for Romack's piddling testimony: that weapon description. If the unidentified witness actually saw someone leaving the depository with a rifle, that would raise the specter of a second shooter, or a second Oswald rifle. As problematic

as the unidentified witness's sensationalistic "30-30" portion of his witnessing is (no inside-the-building witnesses to this rifleman, when the depository lobby was bustling with employees around 12:33), the DPD obviously wanted to smother this awkward
rumor in its crib. Hence, Romack--contract smotherer.

But Sawyer thought his unidentified witness was credible enough to quote his suspect description, verbatim, at 12:44. And Sawyer's unidentified witness's description of the suspect almost perfectly matches Baker's description of Oswald: 30/5'9"/165

for the latter... 30/5'10"/165 for the former.

Romack's slim pretext for contacting the FBI and testifying before the Warren Commission was that "some monkey" said that he had "seen some character running toward me". (v6p281) I can see them jumping on *that*. "I saw a policeman running north

towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building... And he didn't stay, but just... he was just there to check and he runs back." (p281)

Note the phrase "to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building". Romack seems unaware of the rank implausibilities implied by this assertion. The policeman is checking to see if anybody ran out of the building, yet doesn't seem to

see, detain or even question Romack, although he was "running north towards" him. I mean, Romack himself may not have been running, but he might have seen someone running. At least the unidentified witness talked to the police that day. That Romack did
not even talk to the policeman running towards him--about what was going on out front and/or what he himself was doing, out back--suggests that he was the one who wasn't there.

dcw

A few years ago I was examining the Out Back Witnesses, and it's got a bit hazy now. Rackley is the father of another witness, Mrs. Donald Baker, who on the day of the assassination was "Virgie Rackley." The fact that they are father and daughter

seems to be hidden by the Warren Commission; they even misspell her maiden name when she testifies. And I am suspicious that both were hired witnesses, mainly because, at first, and only at first, Virgie was trying to implicate Joe Molina. That was
dropped like a hot potato. And the father, to me, seemed to be being used to support Worrell

You mean Romack?
, another witness I believed to have been hired, in order to "see" Oswald escaping out the back door. But the Conspiracy decided to torpedo their own fake witness Worrell
Why would they manufacture him in the first place? Was there a time when the "official" version indicated Back Door?
, so they brought in Romack to discredit his testimony. That was my conclusion, as I recall. Perhaps Worell was abandoned to discredit any support for the idea of anybody exiting the north door because that's where Winchester Man had been seen
But didn't *they* know right away about Sawyer's man on the street? (Not in the building!)

dcw
, and the coverup had no use for Winchester Man. Even Eddie Piper, whom I believe was coerced into denying that Victoria Adams had come down the stairs before Truly and Baker went up, even Piper was used to stand at the north door and not see nobody

come out, and he apparently is the Negro whom Sorrels encountered there whom Sorrels thinks didn't know anything. It got a bit messy there. That was my conclusion...as I recall. All notion of somebody coming out that door was abolished.

My recollection is that Romack was used to discredit Worrell, but I might be confused. I should study it again and make a video. I think Worrell was the Back Door witness for Oswald leaving the building, there being no others, until years later Frazier
said so. But I think things were being changed as witnesses testified. "They," the left and right hands, don't always know what the other is doing. The Warren Commission did not know about Winchester Man, according to their letters to Hoover about the
radio description, one in January and another in November (!) of 1964. Yes, it is in the radio transcript, and Hoover told them about it in January, but this is a complex affair, and it is easy to lose track of some details.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:14:58 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 4:19:37 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:11:55 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

James Romack, DPD's spurious but inept eyewitness

About 12:33pm, on 11/22/63, it was getting pretty crowded in back of the depository, if you accept the statements of the individuals involved. There was James Worrell, James Romack, "an unidentified individual", and, further back, apparently,

George Rackley Sr.--and a man who "come bustling out of this [back door]". Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door. And he does not
mention seeing the "unidentified individual" or Worrell, both of whom said that they saw the man exit the back door. If this "individual" was not Worrell, then there were two witnesses to the man bustling out the back door.

Why was Romack in the area? He doesn't mention JFK. He was just "piddling around" north of the TSBD (p279). And just happened to be there when he heard "three rifle shots" and saw the "motorcade passing by" (p281). Romack testifies that he was

watching the back stairs "until someone arrived", apparently two FBI agents "or something... standing right here at the very entrance" (apparently to the back of the building) (pp281-2). "We were all watching [the back] then" (p281). "We"? He doesn't
elaborate.

Romack apparently stopped watching when the back of the building was "sealed off" (p281). That would have been about 12:35, then, when the "something" agents arrived. But The Big Stakeout falls apart right there. Secret Service Agent Forrest

Sorrels arrived at the depository about 12:50 and entered through the "back of the building". Counsel Stern: "There was no policeman stationed at the loading platform when you came up?" Sorrels: "I did not see one, no, sir." Stern: "And you were able to
enter the building without identifying yourself?" Sorrels: "Yes, sir." (v7p348)

"Sealed off"? Not the back exit/entrance. Not by 12:35. Romack, in sum, then, just happened to be "piddling around" in the area, on the periphery of the story of the century, camped out for 5 minutes, then left, for no apparent reason. He comes

there for no reason; he goes for no reason. And he fails to tell the "somethings" that he was watching the back.

But there was a reason for his testimony. Worrell was the person who testified that he saw someone "bustling" out the back door, about 12:33. On 11/30/63, he told the FBI that he "felt that [Oswald] was the person he had seen." And his age/height/

weight estimates correspond pretty well with Patrolman M.L. Baker's for Oswald: late 20s/early 30s, 5-7 to 5-10, 155-165 (from Worrell), 30, 5-9, 165 (from Baker). (v2p196 and 11/22/63 affidavit, resp.) Of course this man could have fled north, then
doubled back to the area, but not past Worrell, certainly not past the scene of the crime. If it was indeed Oswald, he did not seem to be trying to catch a bus on Elm. And he would have to have doubled back very, very quickly in order to catch Cecil
McWatters' bus, about 12:40, as Oswald supposedly did. (WR p157)

Reason enough, perhaps, for anyone concerned to have Romack cancel out Worrell's testimony and affidavit. Even more concerning: that "unidentified individual", cited in dispatches to both FBI Agent Gordon Shanklin and "Director, FBI" (both 1/9/64).

The missive to J. Edgar Hoover stated, "An unidentified individual told DPD Inspector J.H. Sawyer that he had seen an individual run from the TSBD building shortly after the shooting of President Kennedy and that this individual was an unknown white male,
approx. 30, slender build, 5'10", 165 pounds, carrying what looked to be a 30:30, or some type of Winchester rifle. Inspector Sawyer then contacted DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee, radio dispatcher, and this description was broadcast to all Dallas squad cars."

The source for Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, then, was not witness Howard Brennan, but someone who saw an unknown man fleeing the depository. Which actually makes more sense: Brennan testified that he thought that the assassin was "standing

up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder" (v3p144) Brennan, then, started with a mistaken visual premise and could hardly have gone on to estimate, from that mistaken premise, height and weight--without some
little prodding. Sawyer's running man, on the other hand, was seen at ground level by a man at ground level. Ideal conditions.

Reason enough to have Romack cancel out both Worrell and the "unidentified individual", in one fell swoop, and save their star Dealey witness (as Counsel David Belin wrote), as well as the DPD, from great embarrassment, if not (for the DPD), also,

from charges of soliciting perjury, and, in general, contaminating the case.

More reason for Romack's piddling testimony: that weapon description. If the unidentified witness actually saw someone leaving the depository with a rifle, that would raise the specter of a second shooter, or a second Oswald rifle. As problematic

as the unidentified witness's sensationalistic "30-30" portion of his witnessing is (no inside-the-building witnesses to this rifleman, when the depository lobby was bustling with employees around 12:33), the DPD obviously wanted to smother this awkward
rumor in its crib. Hence, Romack--contract smotherer.

But Sawyer thought his unidentified witness was credible enough to quote his suspect description, verbatim, at 12:44. And Sawyer's unidentified witness's description of the suspect almost perfectly matches Baker's description of Oswald: 30/5'9"/165

for the latter... 30/5'10"/165 for the former.

Romack's slim pretext for contacting the FBI and testifying before the Warren Commission was that "some monkey" said that he had "seen some character running toward me". (v6p281) I can see them jumping on *that*. "I saw a policeman running north

towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building... And he didn't stay, but just... he was just there to check and he runs back." (p281)

Note the phrase "to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building". Romack seems unaware of the rank implausibilities implied by this assertion. The policeman is checking to see if anybody ran out of the building, yet doesn't seem to

see, detain or even question Romack, although he was "running north towards" him. I mean, Romack himself may not have been running, but he might have seen someone running. At least the unidentified witness talked to the police that day. That Romack did
not even talk to the policeman running towards him--about what was going on out front and/or what he himself was doing, out back--suggests that he was the one who wasn't there.

You seem to be unaware of how FUBAR your reasoning is. You treat witness estimates of times
as if they are established facts. They aren't. People general don't mark the time they do things
and if asked about it later, the best they can do is guess. A perfect example of is this:
"Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door."
The fact he doesn't know if it was four or five minutes means he was guessing and it doesn't
establish that it was four or five minutes. It could have been two or three minutes or it could
have been seven or eight minutes. That is why it is futile to try to do a reconstruction based on
multiple guesses by people as to where they were at any given time.

So you're saying that it was just *convenient* that Romack's estimate covered the time during which Worrell's suspect exited the back door? And he then just *happened* to discredit Worrell? I happen to have a bridge if you want to buy it! Not cheap,

though--you know, Biden-inflation.

I'm not saying anything other than it is a silly exercise you engage in when you develop
convoluted theories based on highly dubious information such as people's guesstimates of
the time they were at a particular location. There is just too much variable to reach any
firm conclusions and the possibilities are countless.

What you've argued does not change the fact that Sawyer's "unidentified" witness's age/height/weight estimates almost perfectly match Baker's for Oswald *and* the 12:44 suspect description.

So? How many people do you think would closely match those age/height/weight estimates?
Just because those estimates are close doesn't mean they are describing the same person and
it doesn't mean the estimates were accurate.

Robert McNeil of NBC and Pierce Allman both ran into Oswald as he was leaving the front of
the building

I don't trust *anyone's* noon-hour sighting of Oswald. That's what led me to conclude that he was a shooter. I don't even trust Sawyer's unID'd witness *or* Worrell on that. But the latter duo's descriptions pretty much match Baker's. Neither you nor I

can quite get around *that*. The two backyard witnesses (or one, if you believe that Worrell *was* the unID'd witness) saw someone out there. That pretty-much-indisputable fact finally settles the question of where the 12:44 suspect description came from,
whomever was seen.

You zero in on one possible explanation, ignoring all others.

and there is ample evidence Oswald went east on Elm St before boarding Cecil McWatters bus. That trumps and all theories that Oswald left via the rear of the building.

As I noted, the unID'd suspect could, possibly, have doubled back to McWatter's bus, especially if the latter's calculations were off a few minutes and he didn't pick up anyone quite as early as 12:40. It was pretty hectic and unscheduled that day.

That explanation doesn't explain McNeil and Allman running into Oswald at the front entrance
shortly after Oswald's encounter with Baker and Truly. It isn't possible to pin down an exact
time it happened but there is a very small window of time in which it could have happened.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 3:50:38 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:14:58 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 4:19:37 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:11:55 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

James Romack, DPD's spurious but inept eyewitness

About 12:33pm, on 11/22/63, it was getting pretty crowded in back of the depository, if you accept the statements of the individuals involved. There was James Worrell, James Romack, "an unidentified individual", and, further back, apparently,

George Rackley Sr.--and a man who "come bustling out of this [back door]". Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door. And he does not
mention seeing the "unidentified individual" or Worrell, both of whom said that they saw the man exit the back door. If this "individual" was not Worrell, then there were two witnesses to the man bustling out the back door.

Why was Romack in the area? He doesn't mention JFK. He was just "piddling around" north of the TSBD (p279). And just happened to be there when he heard "three rifle shots" and saw the "motorcade passing by" (p281). Romack testifies that he was

watching the back stairs "until someone arrived", apparently two FBI agents "or something... standing right here at the very entrance" (apparently to the back of the building) (pp281-2). "We were all watching [the back] then" (p281). "We"? He doesn't
elaborate.

Romack apparently stopped watching when the back of the building was "sealed off" (p281). That would have been about 12:35, then, when the "something" agents arrived. But The Big Stakeout falls apart right there. Secret Service Agent Forrest

Sorrels arrived at the depository about 12:50 and entered through the "back of the building". Counsel Stern: "There was no policeman stationed at the loading platform when you came up?" Sorrels: "I did not see one, no, sir." Stern: "And you were able to
enter the building without identifying yourself?" Sorrels: "Yes, sir." (v7p348)

"Sealed off"? Not the back exit/entrance. Not by 12:35. Romack, in sum, then, just happened to be "piddling around" in the area, on the periphery of the story of the century, camped out for 5 minutes, then left, for no apparent reason. He comes

there for no reason; he goes for no reason. And he fails to tell the "somethings" that he was watching the back.

But there was a reason for his testimony. Worrell was the person who testified that he saw someone "bustling" out the back door, about 12:33. On 11/30/63, he told the FBI that he "felt that [Oswald] was the person he had seen." And his age/height/

weight estimates correspond pretty well with Patrolman M.L. Baker's for Oswald: late 20s/early 30s, 5-7 to 5-10, 155-165 (from Worrell), 30, 5-9, 165 (from Baker). (v2p196 and 11/22/63 affidavit, resp.) Of course this man could have fled north, then
doubled back to the area, but not past Worrell, certainly not past the scene of the crime. If it was indeed Oswald, he did not seem to be trying to catch a bus on Elm. And he would have to have doubled back very, very quickly in order to catch Cecil
McWatters' bus, about 12:40, as Oswald supposedly did. (WR p157)

Reason enough, perhaps, for anyone concerned to have Romack cancel out Worrell's testimony and affidavit. Even more concerning: that "unidentified individual", cited in dispatches to both FBI Agent Gordon Shanklin and "Director, FBI" (both 1/9/64)

. The missive to J. Edgar Hoover stated, "An unidentified individual told DPD Inspector J.H. Sawyer that he had seen an individual run from the TSBD building shortly after the shooting of President Kennedy and that this individual was an unknown white
male, approx. 30, slender build, 5'10", 165 pounds, carrying what looked to be a 30:30, or some type of Winchester rifle. Inspector Sawyer then contacted DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee, radio dispatcher, and this description was broadcast to all Dallas squad cars.
"

The source for Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, then, was not witness Howard Brennan, but someone who saw an unknown man fleeing the depository. Which actually makes more sense: Brennan testified that he thought that the assassin was "standing

up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder" (v3p144) Brennan, then, started with a mistaken visual premise and could hardly have gone on to estimate, from that mistaken premise, height and weight--without some
little prodding. Sawyer's running man, on the other hand, was seen at ground level by a man at ground level. Ideal conditions.

Reason enough to have Romack cancel out both Worrell and the "unidentified individual", in one fell swoop, and save their star Dealey witness (as Counsel David Belin wrote), as well as the DPD, from great embarrassment, if not (for the DPD), also,

from charges of soliciting perjury, and, in general, contaminating the case.

More reason for Romack's piddling testimony: that weapon description. If the unidentified witness actually saw someone leaving the depository with a rifle, that would raise the specter of a second shooter, or a second Oswald rifle. As problematic

as the unidentified witness's sensationalistic "30-30" portion of his witnessing is (no inside-the-building witnesses to this rifleman, when the depository lobby was bustling with employees around 12:33), the DPD obviously wanted to smother this awkward
rumor in its crib. Hence, Romack--contract smotherer.

But Sawyer thought his unidentified witness was credible enough to quote his suspect description, verbatim, at 12:44. And Sawyer's unidentified witness's description of the suspect almost perfectly matches Baker's description of Oswald: 30/5'9"/

165 for the latter... 30/5'10"/165 for the former.

Romack's slim pretext for contacting the FBI and testifying before the Warren Commission was that "some monkey" said that he had "seen some character running toward me". (v6p281) I can see them jumping on *that*. "I saw a policeman running north

towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building... And he didn't stay, but just... he was just there to check and he runs back." (p281)

Note the phrase "to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building". Romack seems unaware of the rank implausibilities implied by this assertion. The policeman is checking to see if anybody ran out of the building, yet doesn't seem

to see, detain or even question Romack, although he was "running north towards" him. I mean, Romack himself may not have been running, but he might have seen someone running. At least the unidentified witness talked to the police that day. That Romack
did not even talk to the policeman running towards him--about what was going on out front and/or what he himself was doing, out back--suggests that he was the one who wasn't there.

You seem to be unaware of how FUBAR your reasoning is. You treat witness estimates of times
as if they are established facts. They aren't. People general don't mark the time they do things
and if asked about it later, the best they can do is guess. A perfect example of is this:
"Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door."
The fact he doesn't know if it was four or five minutes means he was guessing and it doesn't
establish that it was four or five minutes. It could have been two or three minutes or it could
have been seven or eight minutes. That is why it is futile to try to do a reconstruction based on
multiple guesses by people as to where they were at any given time.

So you're saying that it was just *convenient* that Romack's estimate covered the time during which Worrell's suspect exited the back door? And he then just *happened* to discredit Worrell? I happen to have a bridge if you want to buy it! Not cheap,

though--you know, Biden-inflation.

I'm not saying anything other than it is a silly exercise you engage in when you develop
convoluted theories based on highly dubious information such as people's guesstimates of
the time they were at a particular location. There is just too much variable to reach any
firm conclusions and the possibilities are countless.

What you've argued does not change the fact that Sawyer's "unidentified" witness's age/height/weight estimates almost perfectly match Baker's for Oswald *and* the 12:44 suspect description.

So? How many people do you think would closely match those age/height/weight estimates?

Funny you should say that, because OSWALD didn't match those estimates: As the WR states, O's weight was 140 (not 165) and his age was 24 (not 30). And yet the various estimates that day match each other--Worrell's, Mr. Unidentified's, the 12:44
description's, Brennan's, and,,, Patrolman Baker's. Curious that everyone should be off by the same numbers...

Just because those estimates are close doesn't mean they are describing the same person and
it doesn't mean the estimates were accurate.

And they were in sync re their *inaccuracy*! They all follow Sawyer's unidentified witness's specs!

Robert McNeil of NBC and Pierce Allman both ran into Oswald as he was leaving the front of
the building

I don't trust *anyone's* noon-hour sighting of Oswald. That's what led me to conclude that he was a shooter. I don't even trust Sawyer's unID'd witness *or* Worrell on that. But the latter duo's descriptions pretty much match Baker's. Neither you nor

I can quite get around *that*. The two backyard witnesses (or one, if you believe that Worrell *was* the unID'd witness) saw someone out there. That pretty-much-indisputable fact finally settles the question of where the 12:44 suspect description came
from, whomever was seen.

You zero in on one possible explanation, ignoring all others.

Face it--it's the ONLY possible explanation, now that Sawyer's original story is known.

and there is ample evidence Oswald went east on Elm St before boarding Cecil McWatters bus. That trumps and all theories that Oswald left via the rear of the building.

As I noted, the unID'd suspect could, possibly, have doubled back to McWatter's bus, especially if the latter's calculations were off a few minutes and he didn't pick up anyone quite as early as 12:40. It was pretty hectic and unscheduled that day.

That explanation doesn't explain McNeil and Allman running into Oswald at the front entrance
shortly after Oswald's encounter with Baker and Truly.

To be precise, you mean McNeil and Allman SAYING that they ran into O there.
\
dcw

It isn't possible to pin down an exact
time it happened but there is a very small window of time in which it could have happened.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:01:08 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 3:50:38 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:14:58 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 4:19:37 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:11:55 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

James Romack, DPD's spurious but inept eyewitness

About 12:33pm, on 11/22/63, it was getting pretty crowded in back of the depository, if you accept the statements of the individuals involved. There was James Worrell, James Romack, "an unidentified individual", and, further back, apparently,

George Rackley Sr.--and a man who "come bustling out of this [back door]". Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door. And he does not
mention seeing the "unidentified individual" or Worrell, both of whom said that they saw the man exit the back door. If this "individual" was not Worrell, then there were two witnesses to the man bustling out the back door.

Why was Romack in the area? He doesn't mention JFK. He was just "piddling around" north of the TSBD (p279). And just happened to be there when he heard "three rifle shots" and saw the "motorcade passing by" (p281). Romack testifies that he was

watching the back stairs "until someone arrived", apparently two FBI agents "or something... standing right here at the very entrance" (apparently to the back of the building) (pp281-2). "We were all watching [the back] then" (p281). "We"? He doesn't
elaborate.

Romack apparently stopped watching when the back of the building was "sealed off" (p281). That would have been about 12:35, then, when the "something" agents arrived. But The Big Stakeout falls apart right there. Secret Service Agent Forrest

Sorrels arrived at the depository about 12:50 and entered through the "back of the building". Counsel Stern: "There was no policeman stationed at the loading platform when you came up?" Sorrels: "I did not see one, no, sir." Stern: "And you were able to
enter the building without identifying yourself?" Sorrels: "Yes, sir." (v7p348)

"Sealed off"? Not the back exit/entrance. Not by 12:35. Romack, in sum, then, just happened to be "piddling around" in the area, on the periphery of the story of the century, camped out for 5 minutes, then left, for no apparent reason. He comes

there for no reason; he goes for no reason. And he fails to tell the "somethings" that he was watching the back.

But there was a reason for his testimony. Worrell was the person who testified that he saw someone "bustling" out the back door, about 12:33. On 11/30/63, he told the FBI that he "felt that [Oswald] was the person he had seen." And his age/

height/weight estimates correspond pretty well with Patrolman M.L. Baker's for Oswald: late 20s/early 30s, 5-7 to 5-10, 155-165 (from Worrell), 30, 5-9, 165 (from Baker). (v2p196 and 11/22/63 affidavit, resp.) Of course this man could have fled north,
then doubled back to the area, but not past Worrell, certainly not past the scene of the crime. If it was indeed Oswald, he did not seem to be trying to catch a bus on Elm. And he would have to have doubled back very, very quickly in order to catch Cecil
McWatters' bus, about 12:40, as Oswald supposedly did. (WR p157)

Reason enough, perhaps, for anyone concerned to have Romack cancel out Worrell's testimony and affidavit. Even more concerning: that "unidentified individual", cited in dispatches to both FBI Agent Gordon Shanklin and "Director, FBI" (both 1/9/

64). The missive to J. Edgar Hoover stated, "An unidentified individual told DPD Inspector J.H. Sawyer that he had seen an individual run from the TSBD building shortly after the shooting of President Kennedy and that this individual was an unknown white
male, approx. 30, slender build, 5'10", 165 pounds, carrying what looked to be a 30:30, or some type of Winchester rifle. Inspector Sawyer then contacted DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee, radio dispatcher, and this description was broadcast to all Dallas squad cars.
"

The source for Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, then, was not witness Howard Brennan, but someone who saw an unknown man fleeing the depository. Which actually makes more sense: Brennan testified that he thought that the assassin was "

standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder" (v3p144) Brennan, then, started with a mistaken visual premise and could hardly have gone on to estimate, from that mistaken premise, height and weight--
without some little prodding. Sawyer's running man, on the other hand, was seen at ground level by a man at ground level. Ideal conditions.

Reason enough to have Romack cancel out both Worrell and the "unidentified individual", in one fell swoop, and save their star Dealey witness (as Counsel David Belin wrote), as well as the DPD, from great embarrassment, if not (for the DPD),

also, from charges of soliciting perjury, and, in general, contaminating the case.

More reason for Romack's piddling testimony: that weapon description. If the unidentified witness actually saw someone leaving the depository with a rifle, that would raise the specter of a second shooter, or a second Oswald rifle. As

problematic as the unidentified witness's sensationalistic "30-30" portion of his witnessing is (no inside-the-building witnesses to this rifleman, when the depository lobby was bustling with employees around 12:33), the DPD obviously wanted to smother
this awkward rumor in its crib. Hence, Romack--contract smotherer.

But Sawyer thought his unidentified witness was credible enough to quote his suspect description, verbatim, at 12:44. And Sawyer's unidentified witness's description of the suspect almost perfectly matches Baker's description of Oswald: 30/5'9"/

165 for the latter... 30/5'10"/165 for the former.

Romack's slim pretext for contacting the FBI and testifying before the Warren Commission was that "some monkey" said that he had "seen some character running toward me". (v6p281) I can see them jumping on *that*. "I saw a policeman running

north towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building... And he didn't stay, but just... he was just there to check and he runs back." (p281)

Note the phrase "to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building". Romack seems unaware of the rank implausibilities implied by this assertion. The policeman is checking to see if anybody ran out of the building, yet doesn't

seem to see, detain or even question Romack, although he was "running north towards" him. I mean, Romack himself may not have been running, but he might have seen someone running. At least the unidentified witness talked to the police that day. That
Romack did not even talk to the policeman running towards him--about what was going on out front and/or what he himself was doing, out back--suggests that he was the one who wasn't there.

You seem to be unaware of how FUBAR your reasoning is. You treat witness estimates of times
as if they are established facts. They aren't. People general don't mark the time they do things
and if asked about it later, the best they can do is guess. A perfect example of is this:
"Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door."
The fact he doesn't know if it was four or five minutes means he was guessing and it doesn't
establish that it was four or five minutes. It could have been two or three minutes or it could
have been seven or eight minutes. That is why it is futile to try to do a reconstruction based on
multiple guesses by people as to where they were at any given time.

So you're saying that it was just *convenient* that Romack's estimate covered the time during which Worrell's suspect exited the back door? And he then just *happened* to discredit Worrell? I happen to have a bridge if you want to buy it! Not cheap,

though--you know, Biden-inflation.

I'm not saying anything other than it is a silly exercise you engage in when you develop
convoluted theories based on highly dubious information such as people's guesstimates of
the time they were at a particular location. There is just too much variable to reach any
firm conclusions and the possibilities are countless.

What you've argued does not change the fact that Sawyer's "unidentified" witness's age/height/weight estimates almost perfectly match Baker's for Oswald *and* the 12:44 suspect description.

So? How many people do you think would closely match those age/height/weight estimates?

Funny you should say that, because OSWALD didn't match those estimates: As the WR states, O's weight was 140 (not 165) and his age was 24 (not 30). And yet the various estimates that day match each other--Worrell's, Mr. Unidentified's, the 12:44

description's, Brennan's, and,,, Patrolman Baker's. Curious that everyone should be off by the same numbers...

Just because those estimates are close doesn't mean they are describing the same person and
it doesn't mean the estimates were accurate.

And they were in sync re their *inaccuracy*! They all follow Sawyer's unidentified witness's specs!

Robert McNeil of NBC and Pierce Allman both ran into Oswald as he was leaving the front of
the building

I don't trust *anyone's* noon-hour sighting of Oswald. That's what led me to conclude that he was a shooter. I don't even trust Sawyer's unID'd witness *or* Worrell on that. But the latter duo's descriptions pretty much match Baker's. Neither you

nor I can quite get around *that*. The two backyard witnesses (or one, if you believe that Worrell *was* the unID'd witness) saw someone out there. That pretty-much-indisputable fact finally settles the question of where the 12:44 suspect description
came from, whomever was seen.

You zero in on one possible explanation, ignoring all others.

Face it--it's the ONLY possible explanation, now that Sawyer's original story is known.

and there is ample evidence Oswald went east on Elm St before boarding Cecil McWatters bus. That trumps and all theories that Oswald left via the rear of the building.

As I noted, the unID'd suspect could, possibly, have doubled back to McWatter's bus, especially if the latter's calculations were off a few minutes and he didn't pick up anyone quite as early as 12:40. It was pretty hectic and unscheduled that day.

That explanation doesn't explain McNeil and Allman running into Oswald at the front entrance
shortly after Oswald's encounter with Baker and Truly.

To be precise, you mean McNeil and Allman SAYING that they ran into O there. \
dcw

It isn't possible to pin down an exact
time it happened but there is a very small window of time in which it could have happened.

So you're willing to accept what all these others witnesses said as gospel but you reject what
both of these reporters said because it doesn't fit with your goofy assumptions.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:01:08 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 3:50:38 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:14:58 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 4:19:37 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:11:55 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

James Romack, DPD's spurious but inept eyewitness

About 12:33pm, on 11/22/63, it was getting pretty crowded in back of the depository, if you accept the statements of the individuals involved. There was James Worrell, James Romack, "an unidentified individual", and, further back, apparently,

George Rackley Sr.--and a man who "come bustling out of this [back door]". Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door. And he does not
mention seeing the "unidentified individual" or Worrell, both of whom said that they saw the man exit the back door. If this "individual" was not Worrell, then there were two witnesses to the man bustling out the back door.

Why was Romack in the area? He doesn't mention JFK. He was just "piddling around" north of the TSBD (p279). And just happened to be there when he heard "three rifle shots" and saw the "motorcade passing by" (p281). Romack testifies that he was

watching the back stairs "until someone arrived", apparently two FBI agents "or something... standing right here at the very entrance" (apparently to the back of the building) (pp281-2). "We were all watching [the back] then" (p281). "We"? He doesn't
elaborate.

Romack apparently stopped watching when the back of the building was "sealed off" (p281). That would have been about 12:35, then, when the "something" agents arrived. But The Big Stakeout falls apart right there. Secret Service Agent Forrest

Sorrels arrived at the depository about 12:50 and entered through the "back of the building". Counsel Stern: "There was no policeman stationed at the loading platform when you came up?" Sorrels: "I did not see one, no, sir." Stern: "And you were able to
enter the building without identifying yourself?" Sorrels: "Yes, sir." (v7p348)

"Sealed off"? Not the back exit/entrance. Not by 12:35. Romack, in sum, then, just happened to be "piddling around" in the area, on the periphery of the story of the century, camped out for 5 minutes, then left, for no apparent reason. He comes

there for no reason; he goes for no reason. And he fails to tell the "somethings" that he was watching the back.

But there was a reason for his testimony. Worrell was the person who testified that he saw someone "bustling" out the back door, about 12:33. On 11/30/63, he told the FBI that he "felt that [Oswald] was the person he had seen." And his age/

height/weight estimates correspond pretty well with Patrolman M.L. Baker's for Oswald: late 20s/early 30s, 5-7 to 5-10, 155-165 (from Worrell), 30, 5-9, 165 (from Baker). (v2p196 and 11/22/63 affidavit, resp.) Of course this man could have fled north,
then doubled back to the area, but not past Worrell, certainly not past the scene of the crime. If it was indeed Oswald, he did not seem to be trying to catch a bus on Elm. And he would have to have doubled back very, very quickly in order to catch Cecil
McWatters' bus, about 12:40, as Oswald supposedly did. (WR p157)

Reason enough, perhaps, for anyone concerned to have Romack cancel out Worrell's testimony and affidavit. Even more concerning: that "unidentified individual", cited in dispatches to both FBI Agent Gordon Shanklin and "Director, FBI" (both 1/9/

64). The missive to J. Edgar Hoover stated, "An unidentified individual told DPD Inspector J.H. Sawyer that he had seen an individual run from the TSBD building shortly after the shooting of President Kennedy and that this individual was an unknown white
male, approx. 30, slender build, 5'10", 165 pounds, carrying what looked to be a 30:30, or some type of Winchester rifle. Inspector Sawyer then contacted DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee, radio dispatcher, and this description was broadcast to all Dallas squad cars.
"

The source for Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, then, was not witness Howard Brennan, but someone who saw an unknown man fleeing the depository. Which actually makes more sense: Brennan testified that he thought that the assassin was "

standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder" (v3p144) Brennan, then, started with a mistaken visual premise and could hardly have gone on to estimate, from that mistaken premise, height and weight--
without some little prodding. Sawyer's running man, on the other hand, was seen at ground level by a man at ground level. Ideal conditions.

Reason enough to have Romack cancel out both Worrell and the "unidentified individual", in one fell swoop, and save their star Dealey witness (as Counsel David Belin wrote), as well as the DPD, from great embarrassment, if not (for the DPD),

also, from charges of soliciting perjury, and, in general, contaminating the case.

More reason for Romack's piddling testimony: that weapon description. If the unidentified witness actually saw someone leaving the depository with a rifle, that would raise the specter of a second shooter, or a second Oswald rifle. As

problematic as the unidentified witness's sensationalistic "30-30" portion of his witnessing is (no inside-the-building witnesses to this rifleman, when the depository lobby was bustling with employees around 12:33), the DPD obviously wanted to smother
this awkward rumor in its crib. Hence, Romack--contract smotherer.

But Sawyer thought his unidentified witness was credible enough to quote his suspect description, verbatim, at 12:44. And Sawyer's unidentified witness's description of the suspect almost perfectly matches Baker's description of Oswald: 30/5'9"/

165 for the latter... 30/5'10"/165 for the former.

Romack's slim pretext for contacting the FBI and testifying before the Warren Commission was that "some monkey" said that he had "seen some character running toward me". (v6p281) I can see them jumping on *that*. "I saw a policeman running

north towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building... And he didn't stay, but just... he was just there to check and he runs back." (p281)

Note the phrase "to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building". Romack seems unaware of the rank implausibilities implied by this assertion. The policeman is checking to see if anybody ran out of the building, yet doesn't

seem to see, detain or even question Romack, although he was "running north towards" him. I mean, Romack himself may not have been running, but he might have seen someone running. At least the unidentified witness talked to the police that day. That
Romack did not even talk to the policeman running towards him--about what was going on out front and/or what he himself was doing, out back--suggests that he was the one who wasn't there.

You seem to be unaware of how FUBAR your reasoning is. You treat witness estimates of times
as if they are established facts. They aren't. People general don't mark the time they do things
and if asked about it later, the best they can do is guess. A perfect example of is this:
"Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door."
The fact he doesn't know if it was four or five minutes means he was guessing and it doesn't
establish that it was four or five minutes. It could have been two or three minutes or it could
have been seven or eight minutes. That is why it is futile to try to do a reconstruction based on
multiple guesses by people as to where they were at any given time.

So you're saying that it was just *convenient* that Romack's estimate covered the time during which Worrell's suspect exited the back door? And he then just *happened* to discredit Worrell? I happen to have a bridge if you want to buy it! Not cheap,

though--you know, Biden-inflation.

I'm not saying anything other than it is a silly exercise you engage in when you develop
convoluted theories based on highly dubious information such as people's guesstimates of
the time they were at a particular location. There is just too much variable to reach any
firm conclusions and the possibilities are countless.

What you've argued does not change the fact that Sawyer's "unidentified" witness's age/height/weight estimates almost perfectly match Baker's for Oswald *and* the 12:44 suspect description.

So? How many people do you think would closely match those age/height/weight estimates?

Funny you should say that, because OSWALD didn't match those estimates: As the WR states, O's weight was 140 (not 165)

Rose estimated Oswald`s weight to be 150 at the autopsy.

and his age was 24 (not 30).

Oswald`s hairline might have caused people to put his age higher than it actually was.

And yet the various estimates that day match each other--Worrell's, Mr. Unidentified's, the 12:44 description's, Brennan's, and,,, Patrolman Baker's. Curious that everyone should be off by the same numbers...

Just because those estimates are close doesn't mean they are describing the same person and
it doesn't mean the estimates were accurate.

And they were in sync re their *inaccuracy*! They all follow Sawyer's unidentified witness's specs!

Robert McNeil of NBC and Pierce Allman both ran into Oswald as he was leaving the front of
the building

I don't trust *anyone's* noon-hour sighting of Oswald. That's what led me to conclude that he was a shooter. I don't even trust Sawyer's unID'd witness *or* Worrell on that. But the latter duo's descriptions pretty much match Baker's. Neither you

nor I can quite get around *that*. The two backyard witnesses (or one, if you believe that Worrell *was* the unID'd witness) saw someone out there. That pretty-much-indisputable fact finally settles the question of where the 12:44 suspect description
came from, whomever was seen.

You zero in on one possible explanation, ignoring all others.

Face it--it's the ONLY possible explanation, now that Sawyer's original story is known.

and there is ample evidence Oswald went east on Elm St before boarding Cecil McWatters bus. That trumps and all theories that Oswald left via the rear of the building.

As I noted, the unID'd suspect could, possibly, have doubled back to McWatter's bus, especially if the latter's calculations were off a few minutes and he didn't pick up anyone quite as early as 12:40. It was pretty hectic and unscheduled that day.

That explanation doesn't explain McNeil and Allman running into Oswald at the front entrance
shortly after Oswald's encounter with Baker and Truly.

To be precise, you mean McNeil and Allman SAYING that they ran into O there. \
dcw

It isn't possible to pin down an exact
time it happened but there is a very small window of time in which it could have happened.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:45:56 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:23:13 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:38:22 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:11:55 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

James Romack, DPD's spurious but inept eyewitness

About 12:33pm, on 11/22/63, it was getting pretty crowded in back of the depository, if you accept the statements of the individuals involved. There was James Worrell, James Romack, "an unidentified individual", and, further back, apparently,

George Rackley Sr.--and a man who "come bustling out of this [back door]". Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door. And he does not
mention seeing the "unidentified individual" or Worrell, both of whom said that they saw the man exit the back door. If this "individual" was not Worrell, then there were two witnesses to the man bustling out the back door.

Why was Romack in the area? He doesn't mention JFK. He was just "piddling around" north of the TSBD (p279). And just happened to be there when he heard "three rifle shots" and saw the "motorcade passing by" (p281). Romack testifies that he was

watching the back stairs "until someone arrived", apparently two FBI agents "or something... standing right here at the very entrance" (apparently to the back of the building) (pp281-2). "We were all watching [the back] then" (p281). "We"? He doesn't
elaborate.

Romack apparently stopped watching when the back of the building was "sealed off" (p281). That would have been about 12:35, then, when the "something" agents arrived. But The Big Stakeout falls apart right there. Secret Service Agent Forrest

Sorrels arrived at the depository about 12:50 and entered through the "back of the building". Counsel Stern: "There was no policeman stationed at the loading platform when you came up?" Sorrels: "I did not see one, no, sir." Stern: "And you were able to
enter the building without identifying yourself?" Sorrels: "Yes, sir." (v7p348)

"Sealed off"? Not the back exit/entrance. Not by 12:35. Romack, in sum, then, just happened to be "piddling around" in the area, on the periphery of the story of the century, camped out for 5 minutes, then left, for no apparent reason. He comes

there for no reason; he goes for no reason. And he fails to tell the "somethings" that he was watching the back.

But there was a reason for his testimony. Worrell was the person who testified that he saw someone "bustling" out the back door, about 12:33. On 11/30/63, he told the FBI that he "felt that [Oswald] was the person he had seen." And his age/height/

weight estimates correspond pretty well with Patrolman M.L. Baker's for Oswald: late 20s/early 30s, 5-7 to 5-10, 155-165 (from Worrell), 30, 5-9, 165 (from Baker). (v2p196 and 11/22/63 affidavit, resp.) Of course this man could have fled north, then
doubled back to the area, but not past Worrell, certainly not past the scene of the crime. If it was indeed Oswald, he did not seem to be trying to catch a bus on Elm. And he would have to have doubled back very, very quickly in order to catch Cecil
McWatters' bus, about 12:40, as Oswald supposedly did. (WR p157)

Reason enough, perhaps, for anyone concerned to have Romack cancel out Worrell's testimony and affidavit. Even more concerning: that "unidentified individual", cited in dispatches to both FBI Agent Gordon Shanklin and "Director, FBI" (both 1/9/64)

. The missive to J. Edgar Hoover stated, "An unidentified individual told DPD Inspector J.H. Sawyer that he had seen an individual run from the TSBD building shortly after the shooting of President Kennedy and that this individual was an unknown white
male, approx. 30, slender build, 5'10", 165 pounds, carrying what looked to be a 30:30, or some type of Winchester rifle. Inspector Sawyer then contacted DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee, radio dispatcher, and this description was broadcast to all Dallas squad cars.
"

The source for Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, then, was not witness Howard Brennan, but someone who saw an unknown man fleeing the depository. Which actually makes more sense: Brennan testified that he thought that the assassin was "standing

up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder" (v3p144) Brennan, then, started with a mistaken visual premise and could hardly have gone on to estimate, from that mistaken premise, height and weight--without some
little prodding. Sawyer's running man, on the other hand, was seen at ground level by a man at ground level. Ideal conditions.

Reason enough to have Romack cancel out both Worrell and the "unidentified individual", in one fell swoop, and save their star Dealey witness (as Counsel David Belin wrote), as well as the DPD, from great embarrassment, if not (for the DPD), also,

from charges of soliciting perjury, and, in general, contaminating the case.

More reason for Romack's piddling testimony: that weapon description. If the unidentified witness actually saw someone leaving the depository with a rifle, that would raise the specter of a second shooter, or a second Oswald rifle. As problematic

as the unidentified witness's sensationalistic "30-30" portion of his witnessing is (no inside-the-building witnesses to this rifleman, when the depository lobby was bustling with employees around 12:33), the DPD obviously wanted to smother this awkward
rumor in its crib. Hence, Romack--contract smotherer.

But Sawyer thought his unidentified witness was credible enough to quote his suspect description, verbatim, at 12:44. And Sawyer's unidentified witness's description of the suspect almost perfectly matches Baker's description of Oswald: 30/5'9"/

165 for the latter... 30/5'10"/165 for the former.

Romack's slim pretext for contacting the FBI and testifying before the Warren Commission was that "some monkey" said that he had "seen some character running toward me". (v6p281) I can see them jumping on *that*. "I saw a policeman running north

towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building... And he didn't stay, but just... he was just there to check and he runs back." (p281)

Note the phrase "to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building". Romack seems unaware of the rank implausibilities implied by this assertion. The policeman is checking to see if anybody ran out of the building, yet doesn't seem

to see, detain or even question Romack, although he was "running north towards" him. I mean, Romack himself may not have been running, but he might have seen someone running. At least the unidentified witness talked to the police that day. That Romack
did not even talk to the policeman running towards him--about what was going on out front and/or what he himself was doing, out back--suggests that he was the one who wasn't there.

dcw

A few years ago I was examining the Out Back Witnesses, and it's got a bit hazy now. Rackley is the father of another witness, Mrs. Donald Baker, who on the day of the assassination was "Virgie Rackley." The fact that they are father and daughter

seems to be hidden by the Warren Commission; they even misspell her maiden name when she testifies. And I am suspicious that both were hired witnesses, mainly because, at first, and only at first, Virgie was trying to implicate Joe Molina. That was
dropped like a hot potato. And the father, to me, seemed to be being used to support Worrell

You mean Romack?
, another witness I believed to have been hired, in order to "see" Oswald escaping out the back door. But the Conspiracy decided to torpedo their own fake witness Worrell
Why would they manufacture him in the first place? Was there a time when the "official" version indicated Back Door?
, so they brought in Romack to discredit his testimony. That was my conclusion, as I recall. Perhaps Worell was abandoned to discredit any support for the idea of anybody exiting the north door because that's where Winchester Man had been seen
But didn't *they* know right away about Sawyer's man on the street? (Not in the building!)

dcw
, and the coverup had no use for Winchester Man. Even Eddie Piper, whom I believe was coerced into denying that Victoria Adams had come down the stairs before Truly and Baker went up, even Piper was used to stand at the north door and not see nobody

come out, and he apparently is the Negro whom Sorrels encountered there whom Sorrels thinks didn't know anything. It got a bit messy there. That was my conclusion...as I recall. All notion of somebody coming out that door was abolished.

My recollection is that Romack was used to discredit Worrell, but I might be confused. I should study it again and make a video. I think Worrell was the Back Door witness for Oswald leaving the building, there being no others, until years later Frazier

said so. But I think things were being changed as witnesses testified. "They," the left and right hands, don't always know what the other is doing. The Warren Commission did not know about Winchester Man, according to their letters to Hoover about the
radio description, one in January and another in November (!) of 1964. Yes, it is in the radio transcript, and Hoover told them about it in January, but this is a complex affair, and it is easy to lose track of some details.

I don't think I understood this matter correctly last time I looked at it. This looks like a clever fake out that's really about Vicky Adams not coming out the north door. Rackley and Romack are trotted out ostensibly because of Worrell, but I think it's
really to discredit Adams, even though she is never mentioned. Romack says nobody came out that door for at least three minutes. Very interesting...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:50:45 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:45:56 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:23:13 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:38:22 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:11:55 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

James Romack, DPD's spurious but inept eyewitness

About 12:33pm, on 11/22/63, it was getting pretty crowded in back of the depository, if you accept the statements of the individuals involved. There was James Worrell, James Romack, "an unidentified individual", and, further back, apparently,

George Rackley Sr.--and a man who "come bustling out of this [back door]". Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door. And he does not
mention seeing the "unidentified individual" or Worrell, both of whom said that they saw the man exit the back door. If this "individual" was not Worrell, then there were two witnesses to the man bustling out the back door.

Why was Romack in the area? He doesn't mention JFK. He was just "piddling around" north of the TSBD (p279). And just happened to be there when he heard "three rifle shots" and saw the "motorcade passing by" (p281). Romack testifies that he was

watching the back stairs "until someone arrived", apparently two FBI agents "or something... standing right here at the very entrance" (apparently to the back of the building) (pp281-2). "We were all watching [the back] then" (p281). "We"? He doesn't
elaborate.

Romack apparently stopped watching when the back of the building was "sealed off" (p281). That would have been about 12:35, then, when the "something" agents arrived. But The Big Stakeout falls apart right there. Secret Service Agent Forrest

Sorrels arrived at the depository about 12:50 and entered through the "back of the building". Counsel Stern: "There was no policeman stationed at the loading platform when you came up?" Sorrels: "I did not see one, no, sir." Stern: "And you were able to
enter the building without identifying yourself?" Sorrels: "Yes, sir." (v7p348)

"Sealed off"? Not the back exit/entrance. Not by 12:35. Romack, in sum, then, just happened to be "piddling around" in the area, on the periphery of the story of the century, camped out for 5 minutes, then left, for no apparent reason. He comes

there for no reason; he goes for no reason. And he fails to tell the "somethings" that he was watching the back.

But there was a reason for his testimony. Worrell was the person who testified that he saw someone "bustling" out the back door, about 12:33. On 11/30/63, he told the FBI that he "felt that [Oswald] was the person he had seen." And his age/

height/weight estimates correspond pretty well with Patrolman M.L. Baker's for Oswald: late 20s/early 30s, 5-7 to 5-10, 155-165 (from Worrell), 30, 5-9, 165 (from Baker). (v2p196 and 11/22/63 affidavit, resp.) Of course this man could have fled north,
then doubled back to the area, but not past Worrell, certainly not past the scene of the crime. If it was indeed Oswald, he did not seem to be trying to catch a bus on Elm. And he would have to have doubled back very, very quickly in order to catch Cecil
McWatters' bus, about 12:40, as Oswald supposedly did. (WR p157)

Reason enough, perhaps, for anyone concerned to have Romack cancel out Worrell's testimony and affidavit. Even more concerning: that "unidentified individual", cited in dispatches to both FBI Agent Gordon Shanklin and "Director, FBI" (both 1/9/

64). The missive to J. Edgar Hoover stated, "An unidentified individual told DPD Inspector J.H. Sawyer that he had seen an individual run from the TSBD building shortly after the shooting of President Kennedy and that this individual was an unknown white
male, approx. 30, slender build, 5'10", 165 pounds, carrying what looked to be a 30:30, or some type of Winchester rifle. Inspector Sawyer then contacted DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee, radio dispatcher, and this description was broadcast to all Dallas squad cars.
"

The source for Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, then, was not witness Howard Brennan, but someone who saw an unknown man fleeing the depository. Which actually makes more sense: Brennan testified that he thought that the assassin was "

standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder" (v3p144) Brennan, then, started with a mistaken visual premise and could hardly have gone on to estimate, from that mistaken premise, height and weight--
without some little prodding. Sawyer's running man, on the other hand, was seen at ground level by a man at ground level. Ideal conditions.

Reason enough to have Romack cancel out both Worrell and the "unidentified individual", in one fell swoop, and save their star Dealey witness (as Counsel David Belin wrote), as well as the DPD, from great embarrassment, if not (for the DPD),

also, from charges of soliciting perjury, and, in general, contaminating the case.

More reason for Romack's piddling testimony: that weapon description. If the unidentified witness actually saw someone leaving the depository with a rifle, that would raise the specter of a second shooter, or a second Oswald rifle. As

problematic as the unidentified witness's sensationalistic "30-30" portion of his witnessing is (no inside-the-building witnesses to this rifleman, when the depository lobby was bustling with employees around 12:33), the DPD obviously wanted to smother
this awkward rumor in its crib. Hence, Romack--contract smotherer.

But Sawyer thought his unidentified witness was credible enough to quote his suspect description, verbatim, at 12:44. And Sawyer's unidentified witness's description of the suspect almost perfectly matches Baker's description of Oswald: 30/5'9"/

165 for the latter... 30/5'10"/165 for the former.

Romack's slim pretext for contacting the FBI and testifying before the Warren Commission was that "some monkey" said that he had "seen some character running toward me". (v6p281) I can see them jumping on *that*. "I saw a policeman running

north towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building... And he didn't stay, but just... he was just there to check and he runs back." (p281)

Note the phrase "to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building". Romack seems unaware of the rank implausibilities implied by this assertion. The policeman is checking to see if anybody ran out of the building, yet doesn't

seem to see, detain or even question Romack, although he was "running north towards" him. I mean, Romack himself may not have been running, but he might have seen someone running. At least the unidentified witness talked to the police that day. That
Romack did not even talk to the policeman running towards him--about what was going on out front and/or what he himself was doing, out back--suggests that he was the one who wasn't there.

dcw

A few years ago I was examining the Out Back Witnesses, and it's got a bit hazy now. Rackley is the father of another witness, Mrs. Donald Baker, who on the day of the assassination was "Virgie Rackley." The fact that they are father and daughter

seems to be hidden by the Warren Commission; they even misspell her maiden name when she testifies. And I am suspicious that both were hired witnesses, mainly because, at first, and only at first, Virgie was trying to implicate Joe Molina. That was
dropped like a hot potato. And the father, to me, seemed to be being used to support Worrell

You mean Romack?
, another witness I believed to have been hired, in order to "see" Oswald escaping out the back door. But the Conspiracy decided to torpedo their own fake witness Worrell
Why would they manufacture him in the first place? Was there a time when the "official" version indicated Back Door?
, so they brought in Romack to discredit his testimony. That was my conclusion, as I recall. Perhaps Worell was abandoned to discredit any support for the idea of anybody exiting the north door because that's where Winchester Man had been seen
But didn't *they* know right away about Sawyer's man on the street? (Not in the building!)

dcw
, and the coverup had no use for Winchester Man. Even Eddie Piper, whom I believe was coerced into denying that Victoria Adams had come down the stairs before Truly and Baker went up, even Piper was used to stand at the north door and not see

nobody come out, and he apparently is the Negro whom Sorrels encountered there whom Sorrels thinks didn't know anything. It got a bit messy there. That was my conclusion...as I recall. All notion of somebody coming out that door was abolished.

My recollection is that Romack was used to discredit Worrell, but I might be confused. I should study it again and make a video. I think Worrell was the Back Door witness for Oswald leaving the building, there being no others, until years later

Frazier said so. But I think things were being changed as witnesses testified. "They," the left and right hands, don't always know what the other is doing. The Warren Commission did not know about Winchester Man, according to their letters to Hoover
about the radio description, one in January and another in November (!) of 1964. Yes, it is in the radio transcript, and Hoover told them about it in January, but this is a complex affair, and it is easy to lose track of some details.

I don't think I understood this matter correctly last time I looked at it. This looks like a clever fake out that's really about Vicky Adams not coming out the north door. Rackley and Romack are trotted out ostensibly because of Worrell, but I think it'

s really to discredit Adams, even though she is never mentioned. Romack says nobody came out that door for at least three minutes. Very interesting...

Lucky you guys are so clever as to see through this ruse.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 3:32:53 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:50:45 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:45:56 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:23:13 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:38:22 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:11:55 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

James Romack, DPD's spurious but inept eyewitness

About 12:33pm, on 11/22/63, it was getting pretty crowded in back of the depository, if you accept the statements of the individuals involved. There was James Worrell, James Romack, "an unidentified individual", and, further back, apparently,

George Rackley Sr.--and a man who "come bustling out of this [back door]". Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door. And he does not
mention seeing the "unidentified individual" or Worrell, both of whom said that they saw the man exit the back door. If this "individual" was not Worrell, then there were two witnesses to the man bustling out the back door.

Why was Romack in the area? He doesn't mention JFK. He was just "piddling around" north of the TSBD (p279). And just happened to be there when he heard "three rifle shots" and saw the "motorcade passing by" (p281). Romack testifies that he

was watching the back stairs "until someone arrived", apparently two FBI agents "or something... standing right here at the very entrance" (apparently to the back of the building) (pp281-2). "We were all watching [the back] then" (p281). "We"? He doesn't
elaborate.

Romack apparently stopped watching when the back of the building was "sealed off" (p281). That would have been about 12:35, then, when the "something" agents arrived. But The Big Stakeout falls apart right there. Secret Service Agent Forrest

Sorrels arrived at the depository about 12:50 and entered through the "back of the building". Counsel Stern: "There was no policeman stationed at the loading platform when you came up?" Sorrels: "I did not see one, no, sir." Stern: "And you were able to
enter the building without identifying yourself?" Sorrels: "Yes, sir." (v7p348)

"Sealed off"? Not the back exit/entrance. Not by 12:35. Romack, in sum, then, just happened to be "piddling around" in the area, on the periphery of the story of the century, camped out for 5 minutes, then left, for no apparent reason. He

comes there for no reason; he goes for no reason. And he fails to tell the "somethings" that he was watching the back.

But there was a reason for his testimony. Worrell was the person who testified that he saw someone "bustling" out the back door, about 12:33. On 11/30/63, he told the FBI that he "felt that [Oswald] was the person he had seen." And his age/

height/weight estimates correspond pretty well with Patrolman M.L. Baker's for Oswald: late 20s/early 30s, 5-7 to 5-10, 155-165 (from Worrell), 30, 5-9, 165 (from Baker). (v2p196 and 11/22/63 affidavit, resp.) Of course this man could have fled north,
then doubled back to the area, but not past Worrell, certainly not past the scene of the crime. If it was indeed Oswald, he did not seem to be trying to catch a bus on Elm. And he would have to have doubled back very, very quickly in order to catch Cecil
McWatters' bus, about 12:40, as Oswald supposedly did. (WR p157)

Reason enough, perhaps, for anyone concerned to have Romack cancel out Worrell's testimony and affidavit. Even more concerning: that "unidentified individual", cited in dispatches to both FBI Agent Gordon Shanklin and "Director, FBI" (both 1/

9/64). The missive to J. Edgar Hoover stated, "An unidentified individual told DPD Inspector J.H. Sawyer that he had seen an individual run from the TSBD building shortly after the shooting of President Kennedy and that this individual was an unknown
white male, approx. 30, slender build, 5'10", 165 pounds, carrying what looked to be a 30:30, or some type of Winchester rifle. Inspector Sawyer then contacted DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee, radio dispatcher, and this description was broadcast to all Dallas
squad cars."

The source for Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, then, was not witness Howard Brennan, but someone who saw an unknown man fleeing the depository. Which actually makes more sense: Brennan testified that he thought that the assassin was "

standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder" (v3p144) Brennan, then, started with a mistaken visual premise and could hardly have gone on to estimate, from that mistaken premise, height and weight--
without some little prodding. Sawyer's running man, on the other hand, was seen at ground level by a man at ground level. Ideal conditions.

Reason enough to have Romack cancel out both Worrell and the "unidentified individual", in one fell swoop, and save their star Dealey witness (as Counsel David Belin wrote), as well as the DPD, from great embarrassment, if not (for the DPD),

also, from charges of soliciting perjury, and, in general, contaminating the case.

More reason for Romack's piddling testimony: that weapon description. If the unidentified witness actually saw someone leaving the depository with a rifle, that would raise the specter of a second shooter, or a second Oswald rifle. As

problematic as the unidentified witness's sensationalistic "30-30" portion of his witnessing is (no inside-the-building witnesses to this rifleman, when the depository lobby was bustling with employees around 12:33), the DPD obviously wanted to smother
this awkward rumor in its crib. Hence, Romack--contract smotherer.

But Sawyer thought his unidentified witness was credible enough to quote his suspect description, verbatim, at 12:44. And Sawyer's unidentified witness's description of the suspect almost perfectly matches Baker's description of Oswald: 30/5'

9"/165 for the latter... 30/5'10"/165 for the former.

Romack's slim pretext for contacting the FBI and testifying before the Warren Commission was that "some monkey" said that he had "seen some character running toward me". (v6p281) I can see them jumping on *that*. "I saw a policeman running

north towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building... And he didn't stay, but just... he was just there to check and he runs back." (p281)

Note the phrase "to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building". Romack seems unaware of the rank implausibilities implied by this assertion. The policeman is checking to see if anybody ran out of the building, yet doesn't

seem to see, detain or even question Romack, although he was "running north towards" him. I mean, Romack himself may not have been running, but he might have seen someone running. At least the unidentified witness talked to the police that day. That
Romack did not even talk to the policeman running towards him--about what was going on out front and/or what he himself was doing, out back--suggests that he was the one who wasn't there.

dcw

A few years ago I was examining the Out Back Witnesses, and it's got a bit hazy now. Rackley is the father of another witness, Mrs. Donald Baker, who on the day of the assassination was "Virgie Rackley." The fact that they are father and

daughter seems to be hidden by the Warren Commission; they even misspell her maiden name when she testifies. And I am suspicious that both were hired witnesses, mainly because, at first, and only at first, Virgie was trying to implicate Joe Molina. That
was dropped like a hot potato. And the father, to me, seemed to be being used to support Worrell

You mean Romack?
, another witness I believed to have been hired, in order to "see" Oswald escaping out the back door. But the Conspiracy decided to torpedo their own fake witness Worrell
Why would they manufacture him in the first place? Was there a time when the "official" version indicated Back Door?
, so they brought in Romack to discredit his testimony. That was my conclusion, as I recall. Perhaps Worell was abandoned to discredit any support for the idea of anybody exiting the north door because that's where Winchester Man had been seen
But didn't *they* know right away about Sawyer's man on the street? (Not in the building!)

dcw
, and the coverup had no use for Winchester Man. Even Eddie Piper, whom I believe was coerced into denying that Victoria Adams had come down the stairs before Truly and Baker went up, even Piper was used to stand at the north door and not see

nobody come out, and he apparently is the Negro whom Sorrels encountered there whom Sorrels thinks didn't know anything. It got a bit messy there. That was my conclusion...as I recall. All notion of somebody coming out that door was abolished.

My recollection is that Romack was used to discredit Worrell, but I might be confused. I should study it again and make a video. I think Worrell was the Back Door witness for Oswald leaving the building, there being no others, until years later

Frazier said so. But I think things were being changed as witnesses testified. "They," the left and right hands, don't always know what the other is doing. The Warren Commission did not know about Winchester Man, according to their letters to Hoover
about the radio description, one in January and another in November (!) of 1964. Yes, it is in the radio transcript, and Hoover told them about it in January, but this is a complex affair, and it is easy to lose track of some details.

I don't think I understood this matter correctly last time I looked at it. This looks like a clever fake out that's really about Vicky Adams not coming out the north door. Rackley and Romack are trotted out ostensibly because of Worrell, but I think

it's really to discredit Adams, even though she is never mentioned. Romack says nobody came out that door for at least three minutes. Very interesting...

Lucky you guys are so clever as to see through this ruse.

I thought you were supposed to be ignoring me. Or was that just your idiot twin Corbett?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:50:45 AM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:45:56 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:23:13 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:38:22 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:11:55 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

James Romack, DPD's spurious but inept eyewitness

About 12:33pm, on 11/22/63, it was getting pretty crowded in back of the depository, if you accept the statements of the individuals involved. There was James Worrell, James Romack, "an unidentified individual", and, further back, apparently,

George Rackley Sr.--and a man who "come bustling out of this [back door]". Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door. And he does not
mention seeing the "unidentified individual" or Worrell, both of whom said that they saw the man exit the back door. If this "individual" was not Worrell, then there were two witnesses to the man bustling out the back door.

Why was Romack in the area? He doesn't mention JFK. He was just "piddling around" north of the TSBD (p279). And just happened to be there when he heard "three rifle shots" and saw the "motorcade passing by" (p281). Romack testifies that he was

watching the back stairs "until someone arrived", apparently two FBI agents "or something... standing right here at the very entrance" (apparently to the back of the building) (pp281-2). "We were all watching [the back] then" (p281). "We"? He doesn't
elaborate.

Romack apparently stopped watching when the back of the building was "sealed off" (p281). That would have been about 12:35, then, when the "something" agents arrived. But The Big Stakeout falls apart right there. Secret Service Agent Forrest

Sorrels arrived at the depository about 12:50 and entered through the "back of the building". Counsel Stern: "There was no policeman stationed at the loading platform when you came up?" Sorrels: "I did not see one, no, sir." Stern: "And you were able to
enter the building without identifying yourself?" Sorrels: "Yes, sir." (v7p348)

"Sealed off"? Not the back exit/entrance. Not by 12:35. Romack, in sum, then, just happened to be "piddling around" in the area, on the periphery of the story of the century, camped out for 5 minutes, then left, for no apparent reason. He comes

there for no reason; he goes for no reason. And he fails to tell the "somethings" that he was watching the back.

But there was a reason for his testimony. Worrell was the person who testified that he saw someone "bustling" out the back door, about 12:33. On 11/30/63, he told the FBI that he "felt that [Oswald] was the person he had seen." And his age/

height/weight estimates correspond pretty well with Patrolman M.L. Baker's for Oswald: late 20s/early 30s, 5-7 to 5-10, 155-165 (from Worrell), 30, 5-9, 165 (from Baker). (v2p196 and 11/22/63 affidavit, resp.) Of course this man could have fled north,
then doubled back to the area, but not past Worrell, certainly not past the scene of the crime. If it was indeed Oswald, he did not seem to be trying to catch a bus on Elm. And he would have to have doubled back very, very quickly in order to catch Cecil
McWatters' bus, about 12:40, as Oswald supposedly did. (WR p157)

Reason enough, perhaps, for anyone concerned to have Romack cancel out Worrell's testimony and affidavit. Even more concerning: that "unidentified individual", cited in dispatches to both FBI Agent Gordon Shanklin and "Director, FBI" (both 1/9/

64). The missive to J. Edgar Hoover stated, "An unidentified individual told DPD Inspector J.H. Sawyer that he had seen an individual run from the TSBD building shortly after the shooting of President Kennedy and that this individual was an unknown white
male, approx. 30, slender build, 5'10", 165 pounds, carrying what looked to be a 30:30, or some type of Winchester rifle. Inspector Sawyer then contacted DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee, radio dispatcher, and this description was broadcast to all Dallas squad cars.
"

The source for Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, then, was not witness Howard Brennan, but someone who saw an unknown man fleeing the depository. Which actually makes more sense: Brennan testified that he thought that the assassin was "

standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder" (v3p144) Brennan, then, started with a mistaken visual premise and could hardly have gone on to estimate, from that mistaken premise, height and weight--
without some little prodding. Sawyer's running man, on the other hand, was seen at ground level by a man at ground level. Ideal conditions.

Reason enough to have Romack cancel out both Worrell and the "unidentified individual", in one fell swoop, and save their star Dealey witness (as Counsel David Belin wrote), as well as the DPD, from great embarrassment, if not (for the DPD),

also, from charges of soliciting perjury, and, in general, contaminating the case.

More reason for Romack's piddling testimony: that weapon description. If the unidentified witness actually saw someone leaving the depository with a rifle, that would raise the specter of a second shooter, or a second Oswald rifle. As

problematic as the unidentified witness's sensationalistic "30-30" portion of his witnessing is (no inside-the-building witnesses to this rifleman, when the depository lobby was bustling with employees around 12:33), the DPD obviously wanted to smother
this awkward rumor in its crib. Hence, Romack--contract smotherer.

But Sawyer thought his unidentified witness was credible enough to quote his suspect description, verbatim, at 12:44. And Sawyer's unidentified witness's description of the suspect almost perfectly matches Baker's description of Oswald: 30/5'9"/

165 for the latter... 30/5'10"/165 for the former.

Romack's slim pretext for contacting the FBI and testifying before the Warren Commission was that "some monkey" said that he had "seen some character running toward me". (v6p281) I can see them jumping on *that*. "I saw a policeman running

north towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building... And he didn't stay, but just... he was just there to check and he runs back." (p281)

Note the phrase "to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building". Romack seems unaware of the rank implausibilities implied by this assertion. The policeman is checking to see if anybody ran out of the building, yet doesn't

seem to see, detain or even question Romack, although he was "running north towards" him. I mean, Romack himself may not have been running, but he might have seen someone running. At least the unidentified witness talked to the police that day. That
Romack did not even talk to the policeman running towards him--about what was going on out front and/or what he himself was doing, out back--suggests that he was the one who wasn't there.

dcw

A few years ago I was examining the Out Back Witnesses, and it's got a bit hazy now. Rackley is the father of another witness, Mrs. Donald Baker, who on the day of the assassination was "Virgie Rackley." The fact that they are father and daughter

seems to be hidden by the Warren Commission; they even misspell her maiden name when she testifies. And I am suspicious that both were hired witnesses, mainly because, at first, and only at first, Virgie was trying to implicate Joe Molina. That was
dropped like a hot potato. And the father, to me, seemed to be being used to support Worrell

You mean Romack?
, another witness I believed to have been hired, in order to "see" Oswald escaping out the back door. But the Conspiracy decided to torpedo their own fake witness Worrell
Why would they manufacture him in the first place? Was there a time when the "official" version indicated Back Door?
, so they brought in Romack to discredit his testimony. That was my conclusion, as I recall. Perhaps Worell was abandoned to discredit any support for the idea of anybody exiting the north door because that's where Winchester Man had been seen
But didn't *they* know right away about Sawyer's man on the street? (Not in the building!)

dcw
, and the coverup had no use for Winchester Man. Even Eddie Piper, whom I believe was coerced into denying that Victoria Adams had come down the stairs before Truly and Baker went up, even Piper was used to stand at the north door and not see

nobody come out, and he apparently is the Negro whom Sorrels encountered there whom Sorrels thinks didn't know anything. It got a bit messy there. That was my conclusion...as I recall. All notion of somebody coming out that door was abolished.

My recollection is that Romack was used to discredit Worrell, but I might be confused. I should study it again and make a video. I think Worrell was the Back Door witness for Oswald leaving the building, there being no others, until years later

Frazier said so. But I think things were being changed as witnesses testified. "They," the left and right hands, don't always know what the other is doing. The Warren Commission did not know about Winchester Man, according to their letters to Hoover
about the radio description, one in January and another in November (!) of 1964. Yes, it is in the radio transcript, and Hoover told them about it in January, but this is a complex affair, and it is easy to lose track of some details.

I don't think I understood this matter correctly last time I looked at it. This looks like a clever fake out that's really about Vicky Adams not coming out the north door.

Forgot about her story since she's not mentioned in the Romack/Worrell hi jinks. And wasn't there another woman with her? Sandra Styles? I remember that Adams was alarmed when she heard "4th floor" on a police radio. I know that I had the devil's own
time (as they used to say, back in my day) figuring out from the radio-log tape whether Harkness was radioing "4th floor" or "5th floor". I think the dispatcher had the same problem. (Told Sawyer shots came from the 5th or 4th floor.) So she heard
Harkness' call at 12:36. Out front. And didn't the two ladies make a rather circuitous journey to get to the front? So, work back from that & you could roughly get the time they exited the building.

Rackley and Romack are trotted out ostensibly because of Worrell, but I think it's really to discredit Adams, even though she is never mentioned.

It could have been to discredit both Worrell/Sawyer's guy AND Adams. Fortunately, Romack was inept.

dcw

Romack says nobody came out that door for at least three minutes. Very interesting...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 12:38:30 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:50:45 AM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:45:56 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:23:13 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:38:22 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:11:55 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

James Romack, DPD's spurious but inept eyewitness

About 12:33pm, on 11/22/63, it was getting pretty crowded in back of the depository, if you accept the statements of the individuals involved. There was James Worrell, James Romack, "an unidentified individual", and, further back, apparently,

George Rackley Sr.--and a man who "come bustling out of this [back door]". Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door. And he does not
mention seeing the "unidentified individual" or Worrell, both of whom said that they saw the man exit the back door. If this "individual" was not Worrell, then there were two witnesses to the man bustling out the back door.

Why was Romack in the area? He doesn't mention JFK. He was just "piddling around" north of the TSBD (p279). And just happened to be there when he heard "three rifle shots" and saw the "motorcade passing by" (p281). Romack testifies that he

was watching the back stairs "until someone arrived", apparently two FBI agents "or something... standing right here at the very entrance" (apparently to the back of the building) (pp281-2). "We were all watching [the back] then" (p281). "We"? He doesn't
elaborate.

Romack apparently stopped watching when the back of the building was "sealed off" (p281). That would have been about 12:35, then, when the "something" agents arrived. But The Big Stakeout falls apart right there. Secret Service Agent Forrest

Sorrels arrived at the depository about 12:50 and entered through the "back of the building". Counsel Stern: "There was no policeman stationed at the loading platform when you came up?" Sorrels: "I did not see one, no, sir." Stern: "And you were able to
enter the building without identifying yourself?" Sorrels: "Yes, sir." (v7p348)

"Sealed off"? Not the back exit/entrance. Not by 12:35. Romack, in sum, then, just happened to be "piddling around" in the area, on the periphery of the story of the century, camped out for 5 minutes, then left, for no apparent reason. He

comes there for no reason; he goes for no reason. And he fails to tell the "somethings" that he was watching the back.

But there was a reason for his testimony. Worrell was the person who testified that he saw someone "bustling" out the back door, about 12:33. On 11/30/63, he told the FBI that he "felt that [Oswald] was the person he had seen." And his age/

height/weight estimates correspond pretty well with Patrolman M.L. Baker's for Oswald: late 20s/early 30s, 5-7 to 5-10, 155-165 (from Worrell), 30, 5-9, 165 (from Baker). (v2p196 and 11/22/63 affidavit, resp.) Of course this man could have fled north,
then doubled back to the area, but not past Worrell, certainly not past the scene of the crime. If it was indeed Oswald, he did not seem to be trying to catch a bus on Elm. And he would have to have doubled back very, very quickly in order to catch Cecil
McWatters' bus, about 12:40, as Oswald supposedly did. (WR p157)

Reason enough, perhaps, for anyone concerned to have Romack cancel out Worrell's testimony and affidavit. Even more concerning: that "unidentified individual", cited in dispatches to both FBI Agent Gordon Shanklin and "Director, FBI" (both 1/

9/64). The missive to J. Edgar Hoover stated, "An unidentified individual told DPD Inspector J.H. Sawyer that he had seen an individual run from the TSBD building shortly after the shooting of President Kennedy and that this individual was an unknown
white male, approx. 30, slender build, 5'10", 165 pounds, carrying what looked to be a 30:30, or some type of Winchester rifle. Inspector Sawyer then contacted DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee, radio dispatcher, and this description was broadcast to all Dallas
squad cars."

The source for Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, then, was not witness Howard Brennan, but someone who saw an unknown man fleeing the depository. Which actually makes more sense: Brennan testified that he thought that the assassin was "

standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder" (v3p144) Brennan, then, started with a mistaken visual premise and could hardly have gone on to estimate, from that mistaken premise, height and weight--
without some little prodding. Sawyer's running man, on the other hand, was seen at ground level by a man at ground level. Ideal conditions.

Reason enough to have Romack cancel out both Worrell and the "unidentified individual", in one fell swoop, and save their star Dealey witness (as Counsel David Belin wrote), as well as the DPD, from great embarrassment, if not (for the DPD),

also, from charges of soliciting perjury, and, in general, contaminating the case.

More reason for Romack's piddling testimony: that weapon description. If the unidentified witness actually saw someone leaving the depository with a rifle, that would raise the specter of a second shooter, or a second Oswald rifle. As

problematic as the unidentified witness's sensationalistic "30-30" portion of his witnessing is (no inside-the-building witnesses to this rifleman, when the depository lobby was bustling with employees around 12:33), the DPD obviously wanted to smother
this awkward rumor in its crib. Hence, Romack--contract smotherer.

But Sawyer thought his unidentified witness was credible enough to quote his suspect description, verbatim, at 12:44. And Sawyer's unidentified witness's description of the suspect almost perfectly matches Baker's description of Oswald: 30/5'

9"/165 for the latter... 30/5'10"/165 for the former.

Romack's slim pretext for contacting the FBI and testifying before the Warren Commission was that "some monkey" said that he had "seen some character running toward me". (v6p281) I can see them jumping on *that*. "I saw a policeman running

north towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building... And he didn't stay, but just... he was just there to check and he runs back." (p281)

Note the phrase "to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building". Romack seems unaware of the rank implausibilities implied by this assertion. The policeman is checking to see if anybody ran out of the building, yet doesn't

seem to see, detain or even question Romack, although he was "running north towards" him. I mean, Romack himself may not have been running, but he might have seen someone running. At least the unidentified witness talked to the police that day. That
Romack did not even talk to the policeman running towards him--about what was going on out front and/or what he himself was doing, out back--suggests that he was the one who wasn't there.

dcw

A few years ago I was examining the Out Back Witnesses, and it's got a bit hazy now. Rackley is the father of another witness, Mrs. Donald Baker, who on the day of the assassination was "Virgie Rackley." The fact that they are father and

daughter seems to be hidden by the Warren Commission; they even misspell her maiden name when she testifies. And I am suspicious that both were hired witnesses, mainly because, at first, and only at first, Virgie was trying to implicate Joe Molina. That
was dropped like a hot potato. And the father, to me, seemed to be being used to support Worrell

You mean Romack?
, another witness I believed to have been hired, in order to "see" Oswald escaping out the back door. But the Conspiracy decided to torpedo their own fake witness Worrell
Why would they manufacture him in the first place? Was there a time when the "official" version indicated Back Door?
, so they brought in Romack to discredit his testimony. That was my conclusion, as I recall. Perhaps Worell was abandoned to discredit any support for the idea of anybody exiting the north door because that's where Winchester Man had been seen
But didn't *they* know right away about Sawyer's man on the street? (Not in the building!)

dcw
, and the coverup had no use for Winchester Man. Even Eddie Piper, whom I believe was coerced into denying that Victoria Adams had come down the stairs before Truly and Baker went up, even Piper was used to stand at the north door and not see

nobody come out, and he apparently is the Negro whom Sorrels encountered there whom Sorrels thinks didn't know anything. It got a bit messy there. That was my conclusion...as I recall. All notion of somebody coming out that door was abolished.

My recollection is that Romack was used to discredit Worrell, but I might be confused. I should study it again and make a video. I think Worrell was the Back Door witness for Oswald leaving the building, there being no others, until years later

Frazier said so. But I think things were being changed as witnesses testified. "They," the left and right hands, don't always know what the other is doing. The Warren Commission did not know about Winchester Man, according to their letters to Hoover
about the radio description, one in January and another in November (!) of 1964. Yes, it is in the radio transcript, and Hoover told them about it in January, but this is a complex affair, and it is easy to lose track of some details.

I don't think I understood this matter correctly last time I looked at it. This looks like a clever fake out that's really about Vicky Adams not coming out the north door.

Forgot about her story since she's not mentioned in the Romack/Worrell hi jinks. And wasn't there another woman with her? Sandra Styles? I remember that Adams was alarmed when she heard "4th floor" on a police radio. I know that I had the devil's own

time (as they used to say, back in my day) figuring out from the radio-log tape whether Harkness was radioing "4th floor" or "5th floor". I think the dispatcher had the same problem. (Told Sawyer shots came from the 5th or 4th floor.) So she heard
Harkness' call at 12:36. Out front. And didn't the two ladies make a rather circuitous journey to get to the front? So, work back from that & you could roughly get the time they exited the building.

Rackley and Romack are trotted out ostensibly because of Worrell, but I think it's really to discredit Adams, even though she is never mentioned.
It could have been to discredit both Worrell/Sawyer's guy AND Adams. Fortunately, Romack was inept.

dcw
Romack says nobody came out that door for at least three minutes. Very interesting...

Adams said she and Styles were out that northeast door within 1 minute of the final shot. I think it might have been about 1 and a half minutes. But she and Styles were very quickly out that door. She described seeing the policeman on that side of the
building, who must be Welcome Eugene Barnett, the same policeman described by Romack (or was that Rackley?). She and Styles then went west along the north side of the building towards the railroad yard. They were stopped from entering the railroad yard
by police, and went around the west side of the building and to the front, where Adams eventually heard something on the radio about the 4th floor, her floor, and decided to go back into the building. Some woman on the radio recording, I forget which one,
can be heard to say, "Oh my goodness! That's our floor!" I think probably she was picked up by an open mic. The 4th floor reference does not now exist on the recording, but it is written in the Warner transcript at 12:36. Adams also heard the 2nd floor
reference at 12:37, and that is when she re-entered the building. Anyway, she had to have been going out that northeast door when Romack said nobody had come out that door. The coverup seems to have been very concerned with the Vickie Adams timing story.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 12:38:30 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:50:45 AM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:45:56 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:23:13 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:38:22 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:11:55 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

James Romack, DPD's spurious but inept eyewitness

About 12:33pm, on 11/22/63, it was getting pretty crowded in back of the depository, if you accept the statements of the individuals involved. There was James Worrell, James Romack, "an unidentified individual", and, further back, apparently,

George Rackley Sr.--and a man who "come bustling out of this [back door]". Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door. And he does not
mention seeing the "unidentified individual" or Worrell, both of whom said that they saw the man exit the back door. If this "individual" was not Worrell, then there were two witnesses to the man bustling out the back door.

Why was Romack in the area? He doesn't mention JFK. He was just "piddling around" north of the TSBD (p279). And just happened to be there when he heard "three rifle shots" and saw the "motorcade passing by" (p281). Romack testifies that he

was watching the back stairs "until someone arrived", apparently two FBI agents "or something... standing right here at the very entrance" (apparently to the back of the building) (pp281-2). "We were all watching [the back] then" (p281). "We"? He doesn't
elaborate.

Romack apparently stopped watching when the back of the building was "sealed off" (p281). That would have been about 12:35, then, when the "something" agents arrived. But The Big Stakeout falls apart right there. Secret Service Agent Forrest

Sorrels arrived at the depository about 12:50 and entered through the "back of the building". Counsel Stern: "There was no policeman stationed at the loading platform when you came up?" Sorrels: "I did not see one, no, sir." Stern: "And you were able to
enter the building without identifying yourself?" Sorrels: "Yes, sir." (v7p348)

"Sealed off"? Not the back exit/entrance. Not by 12:35. Romack, in sum, then, just happened to be "piddling around" in the area, on the periphery of the story of the century, camped out for 5 minutes, then left, for no apparent reason. He

comes there for no reason; he goes for no reason. And he fails to tell the "somethings" that he was watching the back.

But there was a reason for his testimony. Worrell was the person who testified that he saw someone "bustling" out the back door, about 12:33. On 11/30/63, he told the FBI that he "felt that [Oswald] was the person he had seen." And his age/

height/weight estimates correspond pretty well with Patrolman M.L. Baker's for Oswald: late 20s/early 30s, 5-7 to 5-10, 155-165 (from Worrell), 30, 5-9, 165 (from Baker). (v2p196 and 11/22/63 affidavit, resp.) Of course this man could have fled north,
then doubled back to the area, but not past Worrell, certainly not past the scene of the crime. If it was indeed Oswald, he did not seem to be trying to catch a bus on Elm. And he would have to have doubled back very, very quickly in order to catch Cecil
McWatters' bus, about 12:40, as Oswald supposedly did. (WR p157)

Reason enough, perhaps, for anyone concerned to have Romack cancel out Worrell's testimony and affidavit. Even more concerning: that "unidentified individual", cited in dispatches to both FBI Agent Gordon Shanklin and "Director, FBI" (both 1/

9/64). The missive to J. Edgar Hoover stated, "An unidentified individual told DPD Inspector J.H. Sawyer that he had seen an individual run from the TSBD building shortly after the shooting of President Kennedy and that this individual was an unknown
white male, approx. 30, slender build, 5'10", 165 pounds, carrying what looked to be a 30:30, or some type of Winchester rifle. Inspector Sawyer then contacted DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee, radio dispatcher, and this description was broadcast to all Dallas
squad cars."

The source for Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, then, was not witness Howard Brennan, but someone who saw an unknown man fleeing the depository. Which actually makes more sense: Brennan testified that he thought that the assassin was "

standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder" (v3p144) Brennan, then, started with a mistaken visual premise and could hardly have gone on to estimate, from that mistaken premise, height and weight--
without some little prodding. Sawyer's running man, on the other hand, was seen at ground level by a man at ground level. Ideal conditions.

Reason enough to have Romack cancel out both Worrell and the "unidentified individual", in one fell swoop, and save their star Dealey witness (as Counsel David Belin wrote), as well as the DPD, from great embarrassment, if not (for the DPD),

also, from charges of soliciting perjury, and, in general, contaminating the case.

More reason for Romack's piddling testimony: that weapon description. If the unidentified witness actually saw someone leaving the depository with a rifle, that would raise the specter of a second shooter, or a second Oswald rifle. As

problematic as the unidentified witness's sensationalistic "30-30" portion of his witnessing is (no inside-the-building witnesses to this rifleman, when the depository lobby was bustling with employees around 12:33), the DPD obviously wanted to smother
this awkward rumor in its crib. Hence, Romack--contract smotherer.

But Sawyer thought his unidentified witness was credible enough to quote his suspect description, verbatim, at 12:44. And Sawyer's unidentified witness's description of the suspect almost perfectly matches Baker's description of Oswald: 30/5'

9"/165 for the latter... 30/5'10"/165 for the former.

Romack's slim pretext for contacting the FBI and testifying before the Warren Commission was that "some monkey" said that he had "seen some character running toward me". (v6p281) I can see them jumping on *that*. "I saw a policeman running

north towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building... And he didn't stay, but just... he was just there to check and he runs back." (p281)

Note the phrase "to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building". Romack seems unaware of the rank implausibilities implied by this assertion. The policeman is checking to see if anybody ran out of the building, yet doesn't

seem to see, detain or even question Romack, although he was "running north towards" him. I mean, Romack himself may not have been running, but he might have seen someone running. At least the unidentified witness talked to the police that day. That
Romack did not even talk to the policeman running towards him--about what was going on out front and/or what he himself was doing, out back--suggests that he was the one who wasn't there.

dcw

A few years ago I was examining the Out Back Witnesses, and it's got a bit hazy now. Rackley is the father of another witness, Mrs. Donald Baker, who on the day of the assassination was "Virgie Rackley." The fact that they are father and

daughter seems to be hidden by the Warren Commission; they even misspell her maiden name when she testifies. And I am suspicious that both were hired witnesses, mainly because, at first, and only at first, Virgie was trying to implicate Joe Molina. That
was dropped like a hot potato. And the father, to me, seemed to be being used to support Worrell

You mean Romack?
, another witness I believed to have been hired, in order to "see" Oswald escaping out the back door. But the Conspiracy decided to torpedo their own fake witness Worrell
Why would they manufacture him in the first place? Was there a time when the "official" version indicated Back Door?
, so they brought in Romack to discredit his testimony. That was my conclusion, as I recall. Perhaps Worell was abandoned to discredit any support for the idea of anybody exiting the north door because that's where Winchester Man had been seen
But didn't *they* know right away about Sawyer's man on the street? (Not in the building!)

dcw
, and the coverup had no use for Winchester Man. Even Eddie Piper, whom I believe was coerced into denying that Victoria Adams had come down the stairs before Truly and Baker went up, even Piper was used to stand at the north door and not see

nobody come out, and he apparently is the Negro whom Sorrels encountered there whom Sorrels thinks didn't know anything. It got a bit messy there. That was my conclusion...as I recall. All notion of somebody coming out that door was abolished.

My recollection is that Romack was used to discredit Worrell, but I might be confused. I should study it again and make a video. I think Worrell was the Back Door witness for Oswald leaving the building, there being no others, until years later

Frazier said so. But I think things were being changed as witnesses testified. "They," the left and right hands, don't always know what the other is doing. The Warren Commission did not know about Winchester Man, according to their letters to Hoover
about the radio description, one in January and another in November (!) of 1964. Yes, it is in the radio transcript, and Hoover told them about it in January, but this is a complex affair, and it is easy to lose track of some details.

I don't think I understood this matter correctly last time I looked at it. This looks like a clever fake out that's really about Vicky Adams not coming out the north door.

Forgot about her story since she's not mentioned in the Romack/Worrell hi jinks. And wasn't there another woman with her? Sandra Styles? I remember that Adams was alarmed when she heard "4th floor" on a police radio. I know that I had the devil's own

time (as they used to say, back in my day) figuring out from the radio-log tape whether Harkness was radioing "4th floor" or "5th floor". I think the dispatcher had the same problem. (Told Sawyer shots came from the 5th or 4th floor.) So she heard
Harkness' call at 12:36. Out front. And didn't the two ladies make a rather circuitous journey to get to the front? So, work back from that & you could roughly get the time they exited the building.

Rackley and Romack are trotted out ostensibly because of Worrell, but I think it's really to discredit Adams, even though she is never mentioned.
It could have been to discredit both Worrell/Sawyer's guy AND Adams. Fortunately, Romack was inept.

dcw
Romack says nobody came out that door for at least three minutes. Very interesting...

You keep treating people's time estimates as if they are established facts. They are nothing
but guesses. Nobody was marking time or running stop watches on the day of the assassination
so it is silly to treat these guesses as empirical evidence. They prove nothing. When you
construct scenarios built on one guess after another, you end up with crap. That's mostly
what you do, Don.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 16:19:35 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

You seem to be unaware of how FUBAR your reasoning is...

And you seem to be a moron... what now?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 11:30:18 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 3:52:05 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 12:38:30 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:50:45 AM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:45:56 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:23:13 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:38:22 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:11:55 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

James Romack, DPD's spurious but inept eyewitness

About 12:33pm, on 11/22/63, it was getting pretty crowded in back of the depository, if you accept the statements of the individuals involved. There was James Worrell, James Romack, "an unidentified individual", and, further back,

apparently, George Rackley Sr.--and a man who "come bustling out of this [back door]". Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door. And he
does not mention seeing the "unidentified individual" or Worrell, both of whom said that they saw the man exit the back door. If this "individual" was not Worrell, then there were two witnesses to the man bustling out the back door.

Why was Romack in the area? He doesn't mention JFK. He was just "piddling around" north of the TSBD (p279). And just happened to be there when he heard "three rifle shots" and saw the "motorcade passing by" (p281). Romack testifies that he

was watching the back stairs "until someone arrived", apparently two FBI agents "or something... standing right here at the very entrance" (apparently to the back of the building) (pp281-2). "We were all watching [the back] then" (p281). "We"? He doesn't
elaborate.

Romack apparently stopped watching when the back of the building was "sealed off" (p281). That would have been about 12:35, then, when the "something" agents arrived. But The Big Stakeout falls apart right there. Secret Service Agent

Forrest Sorrels arrived at the depository about 12:50 and entered through the "back of the building". Counsel Stern: "There was no policeman stationed at the loading platform when you came up?" Sorrels: "I did not see one, no, sir." Stern: "And you were
able to enter the building without identifying yourself?" Sorrels: "Yes, sir." (v7p348)

"Sealed off"? Not the back exit/entrance. Not by 12:35. Romack, in sum, then, just happened to be "piddling around" in the area, on the periphery of the story of the century, camped out for 5 minutes, then left, for no apparent reason. He

comes there for no reason; he goes for no reason. And he fails to tell the "somethings" that he was watching the back.

But there was a reason for his testimony. Worrell was the person who testified that he saw someone "bustling" out the back door, about 12:33. On 11/30/63, he told the FBI that he "felt that [Oswald] was the person he had seen." And his age/

height/weight estimates correspond pretty well with Patrolman M.L. Baker's for Oswald: late 20s/early 30s, 5-7 to 5-10, 155-165 (from Worrell), 30, 5-9, 165 (from Baker). (v2p196 and 11/22/63 affidavit, resp.) Of course this man could have fled north,
then doubled back to the area, but not past Worrell, certainly not past the scene of the crime. If it was indeed Oswald, he did not seem to be trying to catch a bus on Elm. And he would have to have doubled back very, very quickly in order to catch Cecil
McWatters' bus, about 12:40, as Oswald supposedly did. (WR p157)

Reason enough, perhaps, for anyone concerned to have Romack cancel out Worrell's testimony and affidavit. Even more concerning: that "unidentified individual", cited in dispatches to both FBI Agent Gordon Shanklin and "Director, FBI" (both

1/9/64). The missive to J. Edgar Hoover stated, "An unidentified individual told DPD Inspector J.H. Sawyer that he had seen an individual run from the TSBD building shortly after the shooting of President Kennedy and that this individual was an unknown
white male, approx. 30, slender build, 5'10", 165 pounds, carrying what looked to be a 30:30, or some type of Winchester rifle. Inspector Sawyer then contacted DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee, radio dispatcher, and this description was broadcast to all Dallas
squad cars."

The source for Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, then, was not witness Howard Brennan, but someone who saw an unknown man fleeing the depository. Which actually makes more sense: Brennan testified that he thought that the assassin was "

standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder" (v3p144) Brennan, then, started with a mistaken visual premise and could hardly have gone on to estimate, from that mistaken premise, height and weight--
without some little prodding. Sawyer's running man, on the other hand, was seen at ground level by a man at ground level. Ideal conditions.

Reason enough to have Romack cancel out both Worrell and the "unidentified individual", in one fell swoop, and save their star Dealey witness (as Counsel David Belin wrote), as well as the DPD, from great embarrassment, if not (for the DPD),

also, from charges of soliciting perjury, and, in general, contaminating the case.

More reason for Romack's piddling testimony: that weapon description. If the unidentified witness actually saw someone leaving the depository with a rifle, that would raise the specter of a second shooter, or a second Oswald rifle. As

problematic as the unidentified witness's sensationalistic "30-30" portion of his witnessing is (no inside-the-building witnesses to this rifleman, when the depository lobby was bustling with employees around 12:33), the DPD obviously wanted to smother
this awkward rumor in its crib. Hence, Romack--contract smotherer.

But Sawyer thought his unidentified witness was credible enough to quote his suspect description, verbatim, at 12:44. And Sawyer's unidentified witness's description of the suspect almost perfectly matches Baker's description of Oswald: 30/

5'9"/165 for the latter... 30/5'10"/165 for the former.

Romack's slim pretext for contacting the FBI and testifying before the Warren Commission was that "some monkey" said that he had "seen some character running toward me". (v6p281) I can see them jumping on *that*. "I saw a policeman running

north towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building... And he didn't stay, but just... he was just there to check and he runs back." (p281)

Note the phrase "to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building". Romack seems unaware of the rank implausibilities implied by this assertion. The policeman is checking to see if anybody ran out of the building, yet doesn't

seem to see, detain or even question Romack, although he was "running north towards" him. I mean, Romack himself may not have been running, but he might have seen someone running. At least the unidentified witness talked to the police that day. That
Romack did not even talk to the policeman running towards him--about what was going on out front and/or what he himself was doing, out back--suggests that he was the one who wasn't there.

dcw

A few years ago I was examining the Out Back Witnesses, and it's got a bit hazy now. Rackley is the father of another witness, Mrs. Donald Baker, who on the day of the assassination was "Virgie Rackley." The fact that they are father and

daughter seems to be hidden by the Warren Commission; they even misspell her maiden name when she testifies. And I am suspicious that both were hired witnesses, mainly because, at first, and only at first, Virgie was trying to implicate Joe Molina. That
was dropped like a hot potato. And the father, to me, seemed to be being used to support Worrell

You mean Romack?
, another witness I believed to have been hired, in order to "see" Oswald escaping out the back door. But the Conspiracy decided to torpedo their own fake witness Worrell
Why would they manufacture him in the first place? Was there a time when the "official" version indicated Back Door?
, so they brought in Romack to discredit his testimony. That was my conclusion, as I recall. Perhaps Worell was abandoned to discredit any support for the idea of anybody exiting the north door because that's where Winchester Man had been seen
But didn't *they* know right away about Sawyer's man on the street? (Not in the building!)

dcw
, and the coverup had no use for Winchester Man. Even Eddie Piper, whom I believe was coerced into denying that Victoria Adams had come down the stairs before Truly and Baker went up, even Piper was used to stand at the north door and not see

nobody come out, and he apparently is the Negro whom Sorrels encountered there whom Sorrels thinks didn't know anything. It got a bit messy there. That was my conclusion...as I recall. All notion of somebody coming out that door was abolished.

My recollection is that Romack was used to discredit Worrell, but I might be confused. I should study it again and make a video. I think Worrell was the Back Door witness for Oswald leaving the building, there being no others, until years later

Frazier said so. But I think things were being changed as witnesses testified. "They," the left and right hands, don't always know what the other is doing. The Warren Commission did not know about Winchester Man, according to their letters to Hoover
about the radio description, one in January and another in November (!) of 1964. Yes, it is in the radio transcript, and Hoover told them about it in January, but this is a complex affair, and it is easy to lose track of some details.

I don't think I understood this matter correctly last time I looked at it. This looks like a clever fake out that's really about Vicky Adams not coming out the north door.

Forgot about her story since she's not mentioned in the Romack/Worrell hi jinks. And wasn't there another woman with her? Sandra Styles? I remember that Adams was alarmed when she heard "4th floor" on a police radio. I know that I had the devil's own

time (as they used to say, back in my day) figuring out from the radio-log tape whether Harkness was radioing "4th floor" or "5th floor". I think the dispatcher had the same problem. (Told Sawyer shots came from the 5th or 4th floor.) So she heard
Harkness' call at 12:36. Out front. And didn't the two ladies make a rather circuitous journey to get to the front? So, work back from that & you could roughly get the time they exited the building.

Rackley and Romack are trotted out ostensibly because of Worrell, but I think it's really to discredit Adams, even though she is never mentioned.
It could have been to discredit both Worrell/Sawyer's guy AND Adams. Fortunately, Romack was inept.

dcw
Romack says nobody came out that door for at least three minutes. Very interesting...

You keep treating people's time estimates as if they are established facts. They are nothing
but guesses.

In the Adams case, an educated guess--she heard the 12:36 radio broadcast when she was out front. And speaking of screwy times estimate--Lovelady put the time of the coming back into the building (of Shelley & himself) and seeing Adams at about 12:36 (
v6pp339-340)! She and Styles were provably (see above) already out front, after having gone out the back door & run around the building. So much for the concerted effort to discredit Adams...

dcw

Nobody was marking time or running stop watches on the day of the assassination

so it is silly to treat these guesses as empirical evidence. They prove nothing. When you
construct scenarios built on one guess after another, you end up with crap. That's mostly
what you do, Don.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 12:55:27 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 3:52:05 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 12:38:30 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:50:45 AM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:45:56 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:23:13 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:38:22 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:11:55 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

James Romack, DPD's spurious but inept eyewitness

About 12:33pm, on 11/22/63, it was getting pretty crowded in back of the depository, if you accept the statements of the individuals involved. There was James Worrell, James Romack, "an unidentified individual", and, further back,

apparently, George Rackley Sr.--and a man who "come bustling out of this [back door]". Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door. And he
does not mention seeing the "unidentified individual" or Worrell, both of whom said that they saw the man exit the back door. If this "individual" was not Worrell, then there were two witnesses to the man bustling out the back door.

Why was Romack in the area? He doesn't mention JFK. He was just "piddling around" north of the TSBD (p279). And just happened to be there when he heard "three rifle shots" and saw the "motorcade passing by" (p281). Romack testifies that

he was watching the back stairs "until someone arrived", apparently two FBI agents "or something... standing right here at the very entrance" (apparently to the back of the building) (pp281-2). "We were all watching [the back] then" (p281). "We"? He
doesn't elaborate.

Romack apparently stopped watching when the back of the building was "sealed off" (p281). That would have been about 12:35, then, when the "something" agents arrived. But The Big Stakeout falls apart right there. Secret Service Agent

Forrest Sorrels arrived at the depository about 12:50 and entered through the "back of the building". Counsel Stern: "There was no policeman stationed at the loading platform when you came up?" Sorrels: "I did not see one, no, sir." Stern: "And you were
able to enter the building without identifying yourself?" Sorrels: "Yes, sir." (v7p348)

"Sealed off"? Not the back exit/entrance. Not by 12:35. Romack, in sum, then, just happened to be "piddling around" in the area, on the periphery of the story of the century, camped out for 5 minutes, then left, for no apparent reason. He

comes there for no reason; he goes for no reason. And he fails to tell the "somethings" that he was watching the back.

But there was a reason for his testimony. Worrell was the person who testified that he saw someone "bustling" out the back door, about 12:33. On 11/30/63, he told the FBI that he "felt that [Oswald] was the person he had seen." And his

age/height/weight estimates correspond pretty well with Patrolman M.L. Baker's for Oswald: late 20s/early 30s, 5-7 to 5-10, 155-165 (from Worrell), 30, 5-9, 165 (from Baker). (v2p196 and 11/22/63 affidavit, resp.) Of course this man could have fled north,
then doubled back to the area, but not past Worrell, certainly not past the scene of the crime. If it was indeed Oswald, he did not seem to be trying to catch a bus on Elm. And he would have to have doubled back very, very quickly in order to catch
Cecil McWatters' bus, about 12:40, as Oswald supposedly did. (WR p157)

Reason enough, perhaps, for anyone concerned to have Romack cancel out Worrell's testimony and affidavit. Even more concerning: that "unidentified individual", cited in dispatches to both FBI Agent Gordon Shanklin and "Director, FBI" (

both 1/9/64). The missive to J. Edgar Hoover stated, "An unidentified individual told DPD Inspector J.H. Sawyer that he had seen an individual run from the TSBD building shortly after the shooting of President Kennedy and that this individual was an
unknown white male, approx. 30, slender build, 5'10", 165 pounds, carrying what looked to be a 30:30, or some type of Winchester rifle. Inspector Sawyer then contacted DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee, radio dispatcher, and this description was broadcast to all
Dallas squad cars."

The source for Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, then, was not witness Howard Brennan, but someone who saw an unknown man fleeing the depository. Which actually makes more sense: Brennan testified that he thought that the assassin was "

standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder" (v3p144) Brennan, then, started with a mistaken visual premise and could hardly have gone on to estimate, from that mistaken premise, height and weight--
without some little prodding. Sawyer's running man, on the other hand, was seen at ground level by a man at ground level. Ideal conditions.

Reason enough to have Romack cancel out both Worrell and the "unidentified individual", in one fell swoop, and save their star Dealey witness (as Counsel David Belin wrote), as well as the DPD, from great embarrassment, if not (for the

DPD), also, from charges of soliciting perjury, and, in general, contaminating the case.

More reason for Romack's piddling testimony: that weapon description. If the unidentified witness actually saw someone leaving the depository with a rifle, that would raise the specter of a second shooter, or a second Oswald rifle. As

problematic as the unidentified witness's sensationalistic "30-30" portion of his witnessing is (no inside-the-building witnesses to this rifleman, when the depository lobby was bustling with employees around 12:33), the DPD obviously wanted to smother
this awkward rumor in its crib. Hence, Romack--contract smotherer.

But Sawyer thought his unidentified witness was credible enough to quote his suspect description, verbatim, at 12:44. And Sawyer's unidentified witness's description of the suspect almost perfectly matches Baker's description of Oswald:

30/5'9"/165 for the latter... 30/5'10"/165 for the former.

Romack's slim pretext for contacting the FBI and testifying before the Warren Commission was that "some monkey" said that he had "seen some character running toward me". (v6p281) I can see them jumping on *that*. "I saw a policeman

running north towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building... And he didn't stay, but just... he was just there to check and he runs back." (p281)

Note the phrase "to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building". Romack seems unaware of the rank implausibilities implied by this assertion. The policeman is checking to see if anybody ran out of the building, yet doesn'

t seem to see, detain or even question Romack, although he was "running north towards" him. I mean, Romack himself may not have been running, but he might have seen someone running. At least the unidentified witness talked to the police that day. That
Romack did not even talk to the policeman running towards him--about what was going on out front and/or what he himself was doing, out back--suggests that he was the one who wasn't there.

dcw

A few years ago I was examining the Out Back Witnesses, and it's got a bit hazy now. Rackley is the father of another witness, Mrs. Donald Baker, who on the day of the assassination was "Virgie Rackley." The fact that they are father and

daughter seems to be hidden by the Warren Commission; they even misspell her maiden name when she testifies. And I am suspicious that both were hired witnesses, mainly because, at first, and only at first, Virgie was trying to implicate Joe Molina. That
was dropped like a hot potato. And the father, to me, seemed to be being used to support Worrell

You mean Romack?
, another witness I believed to have been hired, in order to "see" Oswald escaping out the back door. But the Conspiracy decided to torpedo their own fake witness Worrell
Why would they manufacture him in the first place? Was there a time when the "official" version indicated Back Door?
, so they brought in Romack to discredit his testimony. That was my conclusion, as I recall. Perhaps Worell was abandoned to discredit any support for the idea of anybody exiting the north door because that's where Winchester Man had been

seen

But didn't *they* know right away about Sawyer's man on the street? (Not in the building!)

dcw
, and the coverup had no use for Winchester Man. Even Eddie Piper, whom I believe was coerced into denying that Victoria Adams had come down the stairs before Truly and Baker went up, even Piper was used to stand at the north door and not see

nobody come out, and he apparently is the Negro whom Sorrels encountered there whom Sorrels thinks didn't know anything. It got a bit messy there. That was my conclusion...as I recall. All notion of somebody coming out that door was abolished.

My recollection is that Romack was used to discredit Worrell, but I might be confused. I should study it again and make a video. I think Worrell was the Back Door witness for Oswald leaving the building, there being no others, until years later

Frazier said so. But I think things were being changed as witnesses testified. "They," the left and right hands, don't always know what the other is doing. The Warren Commission did not know about Winchester Man, according to their letters to Hoover
about the radio description, one in January and another in November (!) of 1964. Yes, it is in the radio transcript, and Hoover told them about it in January, but this is a complex affair, and it is easy to lose track of some details.

I don't think I understood this matter correctly last time I looked at it. This looks like a clever fake out that's really about Vicky Adams not coming out the north door.

Forgot about her story since she's not mentioned in the Romack/Worrell hi jinks. And wasn't there another woman with her? Sandra Styles? I remember that Adams was alarmed when she heard "4th floor" on a police radio. I know that I had the devil's

own time (as they used to say, back in my day) figuring out from the radio-log tape whether Harkness was radioing "4th floor" or "5th floor". I think the dispatcher had the same problem. (Told Sawyer shots came from the 5th or 4th floor.) So she heard
Harkness' call at 12:36. Out front. And didn't the two ladies make a rather circuitous journey to get to the front? So, work back from that & you could roughly get the time they exited the building.

Rackley and Romack are trotted out ostensibly because of Worrell, but I think it's really to discredit Adams, even though she is never mentioned.
It could have been to discredit both Worrell/Sawyer's guy AND Adams. Fortunately, Romack was inept.

dcw
Romack says nobody came out that door for at least three minutes. Very interesting...

You keep treating people's time estimates as if they are established facts. They are nothing
but guesses.

In the Adams case, an educated guess--she heard the 12:36 radio broadcast when she was out front. And speaking of screwy times estimate--Lovelady put the time of the coming back into the building (of Shelley & himself) and seeing Adams at about 12:36 (

v6pp339-340)! She and Styles were provably (see above) already out front, after having gone out the back door & run around the building. So much for the concerted effort to discredit Adams...

dcw
Nobody was marking time or running stop watches on the day of the assassination

so it is silly to treat these guesses as empirical evidence. They prove nothing. When you
construct scenarios built on one guess after another, you end up with crap. That's mostly
what you do, Don.

Barry Earnest in his book Girl On The Stairs continues the coverup job. I don;t think that's an accident. And the Prayer Man crowd are on board with that, too. It all makes me very suspicious that many of the prominent researchers might not really be
looking to expose the truth. And I think somebody's been going through my trash, too.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 3:25:07 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 12:55:27 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 3:52:05 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 12:38:30 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:50:45 AM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:45:56 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:23:13 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:38:22 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:11:55 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

James Romack, DPD's spurious but inept eyewitness

About 12:33pm, on 11/22/63, it was getting pretty crowded in back of the depository, if you accept the statements of the individuals involved. There was James Worrell, James Romack, "an unidentified individual", and, further back,

apparently, George Rackley Sr.--and a man who "come bustling out of this [back door]". Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door. And he
does not mention seeing the "unidentified individual" or Worrell, both of whom said that they saw the man exit the back door. If this "individual" was not Worrell, then there were two witnesses to the man bustling out the back door.

Why was Romack in the area? He doesn't mention JFK. He was just "piddling around" north of the TSBD (p279). And just happened to be there when he heard "three rifle shots" and saw the "motorcade passing by" (p281). Romack testifies that

he was watching the back stairs "until someone arrived", apparently two FBI agents "or something... standing right here at the very entrance" (apparently to the back of the building) (pp281-2). "We were all watching [the back] then" (p281). "We"? He
doesn't elaborate.

Romack apparently stopped watching when the back of the building was "sealed off" (p281). That would have been about 12:35, then, when the "something" agents arrived. But The Big Stakeout falls apart right there. Secret Service Agent

Forrest Sorrels arrived at the depository about 12:50 and entered through the "back of the building". Counsel Stern: "There was no policeman stationed at the loading platform when you came up?" Sorrels: "I did not see one, no, sir." Stern: "And you were
able to enter the building without identifying yourself?" Sorrels: "Yes, sir." (v7p348)

"Sealed off"? Not the back exit/entrance. Not by 12:35. Romack, in sum, then, just happened to be "piddling around" in the area, on the periphery of the story of the century, camped out for 5 minutes, then left, for no apparent reason.

He comes there for no reason; he goes for no reason. And he fails to tell the "somethings" that he was watching the back.

But there was a reason for his testimony. Worrell was the person who testified that he saw someone "bustling" out the back door, about 12:33. On 11/30/63, he told the FBI that he "felt that [Oswald] was the person he had seen." And his

age/height/weight estimates correspond pretty well with Patrolman M.L. Baker's for Oswald: late 20s/early 30s, 5-7 to 5-10, 155-165 (from Worrell), 30, 5-9, 165 (from Baker). (v2p196 and 11/22/63 affidavit, resp.) Of course this man could have fled north,
then doubled back to the area, but not past Worrell, certainly not past the scene of the crime. If it was indeed Oswald, he did not seem to be trying to catch a bus on Elm. And he would have to have doubled back very, very quickly in order to catch
Cecil McWatters' bus, about 12:40, as Oswald supposedly did. (WR p157)

Reason enough, perhaps, for anyone concerned to have Romack cancel out Worrell's testimony and affidavit. Even more concerning: that "unidentified individual", cited in dispatches to both FBI Agent Gordon Shanklin and "Director, FBI" (

both 1/9/64). The missive to J. Edgar Hoover stated, "An unidentified individual told DPD Inspector J.H. Sawyer that he had seen an individual run from the TSBD building shortly after the shooting of President Kennedy and that this individual was an
unknown white male, approx. 30, slender build, 5'10", 165 pounds, carrying what looked to be a 30:30, or some type of Winchester rifle. Inspector Sawyer then contacted DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee, radio dispatcher, and this description was broadcast to all
Dallas squad cars."

The source for Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, then, was not witness Howard Brennan, but someone who saw an unknown man fleeing the depository. Which actually makes more sense: Brennan testified that he thought that the assassin was

"standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder" (v3p144) Brennan, then, started with a mistaken visual premise and could hardly have gone on to estimate, from that mistaken premise, height and weight--
without some little prodding. Sawyer's running man, on the other hand, was seen at ground level by a man at ground level. Ideal conditions.

Reason enough to have Romack cancel out both Worrell and the "unidentified individual", in one fell swoop, and save their star Dealey witness (as Counsel David Belin wrote), as well as the DPD, from great embarrassment, if not (for the

DPD), also, from charges of soliciting perjury, and, in general, contaminating the case.

More reason for Romack's piddling testimony: that weapon description. If the unidentified witness actually saw someone leaving the depository with a rifle, that would raise the specter of a second shooter, or a second Oswald rifle. As

problematic as the unidentified witness's sensationalistic "30-30" portion of his witnessing is (no inside-the-building witnesses to this rifleman, when the depository lobby was bustling with employees around 12:33), the DPD obviously wanted to smother
this awkward rumor in its crib. Hence, Romack--contract smotherer.

But Sawyer thought his unidentified witness was credible enough to quote his suspect description, verbatim, at 12:44. And Sawyer's unidentified witness's description of the suspect almost perfectly matches Baker's description of Oswald:

30/5'9"/165 for the latter... 30/5'10"/165 for the former.

Romack's slim pretext for contacting the FBI and testifying before the Warren Commission was that "some monkey" said that he had "seen some character running toward me". (v6p281) I can see them jumping on *that*. "I saw a policeman

running north towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building... And he didn't stay, but just... he was just there to check and he runs back." (p281)

Note the phrase "to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building". Romack seems unaware of the rank implausibilities implied by this assertion. The policeman is checking to see if anybody ran out of the building, yet

doesn't seem to see, detain or even question Romack, although he was "running north towards" him. I mean, Romack himself may not have been running, but he might have seen someone running. At least the unidentified witness talked to the police that day.
That Romack did not even talk to the policeman running towards him--about what was going on out front and/or what he himself was doing, out back--suggests that he was the one who wasn't there.

dcw

A few years ago I was examining the Out Back Witnesses, and it's got a bit hazy now. Rackley is the father of another witness, Mrs. Donald Baker, who on the day of the assassination was "Virgie Rackley." The fact that they are father and

daughter seems to be hidden by the Warren Commission; they even misspell her maiden name when she testifies. And I am suspicious that both were hired witnesses, mainly because, at first, and only at first, Virgie was trying to implicate Joe Molina. That
was dropped like a hot potato. And the father, to me, seemed to be being used to support Worrell

You mean Romack?
, another witness I believed to have been hired, in order to "see" Oswald escaping out the back door. But the Conspiracy decided to torpedo their own fake witness Worrell
Why would they manufacture him in the first place? Was there a time when the "official" version indicated Back Door?
, so they brought in Romack to discredit his testimony. That was my conclusion, as I recall. Perhaps Worell was abandoned to discredit any support for the idea of anybody exiting the north door because that's where Winchester Man had been

seen

But didn't *they* know right away about Sawyer's man on the street? (Not in the building!)

dcw
, and the coverup had no use for Winchester Man. Even Eddie Piper, whom I believe was coerced into denying that Victoria Adams had come down the stairs before Truly and Baker went up, even Piper was used to stand at the north door and not

see nobody come out, and he apparently is the Negro whom Sorrels encountered there whom Sorrels thinks didn't know anything. It got a bit messy there. That was my conclusion...as I recall. All notion of somebody coming out that door was abolished.

My recollection is that Romack was used to discredit Worrell, but I might be confused. I should study it again and make a video. I think Worrell was the Back Door witness for Oswald leaving the building, there being no others, until years

later Frazier said so. But I think things were being changed as witnesses testified. "They," the left and right hands, don't always know what the other is doing. The Warren Commission did not know about Winchester Man, according to their letters to
Hoover about the radio description, one in January and another in November (!) of 1964. Yes, it is in the radio transcript, and Hoover told them about it in January, but this is a complex affair, and it is easy to lose track of some details.

I don't think I understood this matter correctly last time I looked at it. This looks like a clever fake out that's really about Vicky Adams not coming out the north door.

Forgot about her story since she's not mentioned in the Romack/Worrell hi jinks. And wasn't there another woman with her? Sandra Styles? I remember that Adams was alarmed when she heard "4th floor" on a police radio. I know that I had the devil's

own time (as they used to say, back in my day) figuring out from the radio-log tape whether Harkness was radioing "4th floor" or "5th floor". I think the dispatcher had the same problem. (Told Sawyer shots came from the 5th or 4th floor.) So she heard
Harkness' call at 12:36. Out front. And didn't the two ladies make a rather circuitous journey to get to the front? So, work back from that & you could roughly get the time they exited the building.

Rackley and Romack are trotted out ostensibly because of Worrell, but I think it's really to discredit Adams, even though she is never mentioned.
It could have been to discredit both Worrell/Sawyer's guy AND Adams. Fortunately, Romack was inept.

dcw
Romack says nobody came out that door for at least three minutes. Very interesting...

You keep treating people's time estimates as if they are established facts. They are nothing
but guesses.

In the Adams case, an educated guess--she heard the 12:36 radio broadcast when she was out front. And speaking of screwy times estimate--Lovelady put the time of the coming back into the building (of Shelley & himself) and seeing Adams at about 12:36

(v6pp339-340)! She and Styles were provably (see above) already out front, after having gone out the back door & run around the building. So much for the concerted effort to discredit Adams...

dcw
Nobody was marking time or running stop watches on the day of the assassination

so it is silly to treat these guesses as empirical evidence. They prove nothing. When you
construct scenarios built on one guess after another, you end up with crap. That's mostly
what you do, Don.

Barry Earnest in his book Girl On The Stairs continues the coverup job. I don;t think that's an accident. And the Prayer Man crowd are on board with that, too. It all makes me very suspicious that many of the prominent researchers might not really be

looking to expose the truth. And I think somebody's been going through my trash, too.

I think it was Sean Murphy who was interested in the Adams story, too. We corresponded about it many years ago.

On another topic, why would two newspersons approach Oswald asking for a phone? He only needed one phone. Either Allman or MacNeil was superfluous it seems...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 12:55:27 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

In the Adams case, an educated guess--she heard the 12:36 radio broadcast when she was out front. And speaking of screwy times estimate--Lovelady put the time of the coming back into the building (of Shelley & himself) and seeing Adams at about 12:36 (

v6pp339-340)! She and Styles were provably (see above) already out front, after having gone out the back door & run around the building. So much for the concerted effort to discredit Adams...

How do you know the radio broadcast was at 12:36?

More guesswork.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 14:10:11 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 12:55:27?PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

In the Adams case, an educated guess--she heard the 12:36 radio broadcast when she was out front. And speaking of screwy times estimate--Lovelady put the time of the coming back into the building (of Shelley & himself) and seeing Adams at about 12:36 (

v6pp339-340)! She and Styles were provably (see above) already out front, after having gone out the back door & run around the building. So much for the concerted effort to discredit Adams...

How do you know the radio broadcast was at 12:36?

More guesswork.

Clearly you haven't taken the time to do even the most basic research.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mo2pl59XDU

Moron, aren't you?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 9:06:54 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 3:25:07 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 12:55:27 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 3:52:05 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 12:38:30 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:50:45 AM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:45:56 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:23:13 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:38:22 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:11:55 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

James Romack, DPD's spurious but inept eyewitness

About 12:33pm, on 11/22/63, it was getting pretty crowded in back of the depository, if you accept the statements of the individuals involved. There was James Worrell, James Romack, "an unidentified individual", and, further back,

apparently, George Rackley Sr.--and a man who "come bustling out of this [back door]". Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door. And he
does not mention seeing the "unidentified individual" or Worrell, both of whom said that they saw the man exit the back door. If this "individual" was not Worrell, then there were two witnesses to the man bustling out the back door.

Why was Romack in the area? He doesn't mention JFK. He was just "piddling around" north of the TSBD (p279). And just happened to be there when he heard "three rifle shots" and saw the "motorcade passing by" (p281). Romack testifies

that he was watching the back stairs "until someone arrived", apparently two FBI agents "or something... standing right here at the very entrance" (apparently to the back of the building) (pp281-2). "We were all watching [the back] then" (p281). "We"? He
doesn't elaborate.

Romack apparently stopped watching when the back of the building was "sealed off" (p281). That would have been about 12:35, then, when the "something" agents arrived. But The Big Stakeout falls apart right there. Secret Service Agent

Forrest Sorrels arrived at the depository about 12:50 and entered through the "back of the building". Counsel Stern: "There was no policeman stationed at the loading platform when you came up?" Sorrels: "I did not see one, no, sir." Stern: "And you were
able to enter the building without identifying yourself?" Sorrels: "Yes, sir." (v7p348)

"Sealed off"? Not the back exit/entrance. Not by 12:35. Romack, in sum, then, just happened to be "piddling around" in the area, on the periphery of the story of the century, camped out for 5 minutes, then left, for no apparent reason.

He comes there for no reason; he goes for no reason. And he fails to tell the "somethings" that he was watching the back.

But there was a reason for his testimony. Worrell was the person who testified that he saw someone "bustling" out the back door, about 12:33. On 11/30/63, he told the FBI that he "felt that [Oswald] was the person he had seen." And

his age/height/weight estimates correspond pretty well with Patrolman M.L. Baker's for Oswald: late 20s/early 30s, 5-7 to 5-10, 155-165 (from Worrell), 30, 5-9, 165 (from Baker). (v2p196 and 11/22/63 affidavit, resp.) Of course this man could have fled
north, then doubled back to the area, but not past Worrell, certainly not past the scene of the crime. If it was indeed Oswald, he did not seem to be trying to catch a bus on Elm. And he would have to have doubled back very, very quickly in order to
catch Cecil McWatters' bus, about 12:40, as Oswald supposedly did. (WR p157)

Reason enough, perhaps, for anyone concerned to have Romack cancel out Worrell's testimony and affidavit. Even more concerning: that "unidentified individual", cited in dispatches to both FBI Agent Gordon Shanklin and "Director, FBI" (

both 1/9/64). The missive to J. Edgar Hoover stated, "An unidentified individual told DPD Inspector J.H. Sawyer that he had seen an individual run from the TSBD building shortly after the shooting of President Kennedy and that this individual was an
unknown white male, approx. 30, slender build, 5'10", 165 pounds, carrying what looked to be a 30:30, or some type of Winchester rifle. Inspector Sawyer then contacted DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee, radio dispatcher, and this description was broadcast to all
Dallas squad cars."

The source for Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, then, was not witness Howard Brennan, but someone who saw an unknown man fleeing the depository. Which actually makes more sense: Brennan testified that he thought that the assassin

was "standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder" (v3p144) Brennan, then, started with a mistaken visual premise and could hardly have gone on to estimate, from that mistaken premise, height and weight--
without some little prodding. Sawyer's running man, on the other hand, was seen at ground level by a man at ground level. Ideal conditions.

Reason enough to have Romack cancel out both Worrell and the "unidentified individual", in one fell swoop, and save their star Dealey witness (as Counsel David Belin wrote), as well as the DPD, from great embarrassment, if not (for

the DPD), also, from charges of soliciting perjury, and, in general, contaminating the case.

More reason for Romack's piddling testimony: that weapon description. If the unidentified witness actually saw someone leaving the depository with a rifle, that would raise the specter of a second shooter, or a second Oswald rifle. As

problematic as the unidentified witness's sensationalistic "30-30" portion of his witnessing is (no inside-the-building witnesses to this rifleman, when the depository lobby was bustling with employees around 12:33), the DPD obviously wanted to smother
this awkward rumor in its crib. Hence, Romack--contract smotherer.

But Sawyer thought his unidentified witness was credible enough to quote his suspect description, verbatim, at 12:44. And Sawyer's unidentified witness's description of the suspect almost perfectly matches Baker's description of

Oswald: 30/5'9"/165 for the latter... 30/5'10"/165 for the former.

Romack's slim pretext for contacting the FBI and testifying before the Warren Commission was that "some monkey" said that he had "seen some character running toward me". (v6p281) I can see them jumping on *that*. "I saw a policeman

running north towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building... And he didn't stay, but just... he was just there to check and he runs back." (p281)

Note the phrase "to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building". Romack seems unaware of the rank implausibilities implied by this assertion. The policeman is checking to see if anybody ran out of the building, yet

doesn't seem to see, detain or even question Romack, although he was "running north towards" him. I mean, Romack himself may not have been running, but he might have seen someone running. At least the unidentified witness talked to the police that day.
That Romack did not even talk to the policeman running towards him--about what was going on out front and/or what he himself was doing, out back--suggests that he was the one who wasn't there.

dcw

A few years ago I was examining the Out Back Witnesses, and it's got a bit hazy now. Rackley is the father of another witness, Mrs. Donald Baker, who on the day of the assassination was "Virgie Rackley." The fact that they are father

and daughter seems to be hidden by the Warren Commission; they even misspell her maiden name when she testifies. And I am suspicious that both were hired witnesses, mainly because, at first, and only at first, Virgie was trying to implicate Joe Molina.
That was dropped like a hot potato. And the father, to me, seemed to be being used to support Worrell

You mean Romack?
, another witness I believed to have been hired, in order to "see" Oswald escaping out the back door. But the Conspiracy decided to torpedo their own fake witness Worrell
Why would they manufacture him in the first place? Was there a time when the "official" version indicated Back Door?
, so they brought in Romack to discredit his testimony. That was my conclusion, as I recall. Perhaps Worell was abandoned to discredit any support for the idea of anybody exiting the north door because that's where Winchester Man had been

seen

But didn't *they* know right away about Sawyer's man on the street? (Not in the building!)

dcw
, and the coverup had no use for Winchester Man. Even Eddie Piper, whom I believe was coerced into denying that Victoria Adams had come down the stairs before Truly and Baker went up, even Piper was used to stand at the north door and not

see nobody come out, and he apparently is the Negro whom Sorrels encountered there whom Sorrels thinks didn't know anything. It got a bit messy there. That was my conclusion...as I recall. All notion of somebody coming out that door was abolished.

My recollection is that Romack was used to discredit Worrell, but I might be confused. I should study it again and make a video. I think Worrell was the Back Door witness for Oswald leaving the building, there being no others, until years

later Frazier said so. But I think things were being changed as witnesses testified. "They," the left and right hands, don't always know what the other is doing. The Warren Commission did not know about Winchester Man, according to their letters to
Hoover about the radio description, one in January and another in November (!) of 1964. Yes, it is in the radio transcript, and Hoover told them about it in January, but this is a complex affair, and it is easy to lose track of some details.

I don't think I understood this matter correctly last time I looked at it. This looks like a clever fake out that's really about Vicky Adams not coming out the north door.

Forgot about her story since she's not mentioned in the Romack/Worrell hi jinks. And wasn't there another woman with her? Sandra Styles? I remember that Adams was alarmed when she heard "4th floor" on a police radio. I know that I had the devil'

s own time (as they used to say, back in my day) figuring out from the radio-log tape whether Harkness was radioing "4th floor" or "5th floor". I think the dispatcher had the same problem. (Told Sawyer shots came from the 5th or 4th floor.) So she heard
Harkness' call at 12:36. Out front. And didn't the two ladies make a rather circuitous journey to get to the front? So, work back from that & you could roughly get the time they exited the building.

Rackley and Romack are trotted out ostensibly because of Worrell, but I think it's really to discredit Adams, even though she is never mentioned.
It could have been to discredit both Worrell/Sawyer's guy AND Adams. Fortunately, Romack was inept.

dcw
Romack says nobody came out that door for at least three minutes. Very interesting...

You keep treating people's time estimates as if they are established facts. They are nothing
but guesses.

In the Adams case, an educated guess--she heard the 12:36 radio broadcast when she was out front. And speaking of screwy times estimate--Lovelady put the time of the coming back into the building (of Shelley & himself) and seeing Adams at about 12:

36 (v6pp339-340)! She and Styles were provably (see above) already out front, after having gone out the back door & run around the building. So much for the concerted effort to discredit Adams...

dcw
Nobody was marking time or running stop watches on the day of the assassination

so it is silly to treat these guesses as empirical evidence. They prove nothing. When you
construct scenarios built on one guess after another, you end up with crap. That's mostly
what you do, Don.

Barry Earnest in his book Girl On The Stairs continues the coverup job. I don;t think that's an accident. And the Prayer Man crowd are on board with that, too. It all makes me very suspicious that many of the prominent researchers might not really be

looking to expose the truth. And I think somebody's been going through my trash, too.

I think it was Sean Murphy who was interested in the Adams story, too. We corresponded about it many years ago.

On another topic, why would two newspersons approach Oswald asking for a phone?

Because they needed to report it to the news organizations they worked for and mobile phones
were extremely rare in those days.

He only needed one phone. Either Allman or MacNeil was superfluous it seems...

It seems you aren't very bright. Both needed to get the report to their employers, MacNeil worked
for NBC and Allman worked for a local radio station. Each had to file his report separately.

It was almost an hour later that MacNeil, reported to Frank McGee on live TV, that JFK had
died. McGee was repeating word for word what MacNeil was dictating to him. Chet Huntley
was sitting at McGee's side as he repeated what he was being told.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 15:13:23 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

It was almost an hour later that MacNeil, reported to Frank McGee on live TV, that JFK had
died.

Then they were scooped by the radio - which was busy reporting on the
shooting just minutes after it happened.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 3:13:25 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 9:06:54 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 3:25:07 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 12:55:27 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 3:52:05 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 12:38:30 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:50:45 AM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:45:56 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:23:13 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:38:22 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:11:55 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:

James Romack, DPD's spurious but inept eyewitness

About 12:33pm, on 11/22/63, it was getting pretty crowded in back of the depository, if you accept the statements of the individuals involved. There was James Worrell, James Romack, "an unidentified individual", and, further back,

apparently, George Rackley Sr.--and a man who "come bustling out of this [back door]". Romack is the wild card here: He testified that he was there for about four or five minutes after hearing shots (v6p282) and saw no one come out the back door. And he
does not mention seeing the "unidentified individual" or Worrell, both of whom said that they saw the man exit the back door. If this "individual" was not Worrell, then there were two witnesses to the man bustling out the back door.

Why was Romack in the area? He doesn't mention JFK. He was just "piddling around" north of the TSBD (p279). And just happened to be there when he heard "three rifle shots" and saw the "motorcade passing by" (p281). Romack testifies

that he was watching the back stairs "until someone arrived", apparently two FBI agents "or something... standing right here at the very entrance" (apparently to the back of the building) (pp281-2). "We were all watching [the back] then" (p281). "We"? He
doesn't elaborate.

Romack apparently stopped watching when the back of the building was "sealed off" (p281). That would have been about 12:35, then, when the "something" agents arrived. But The Big Stakeout falls apart right there. Secret Service

Agent Forrest Sorrels arrived at the depository about 12:50 and entered through the "back of the building". Counsel Stern: "There was no policeman stationed at the loading platform when you came up?" Sorrels: "I did not see one, no, sir." Stern: "And you
were able to enter the building without identifying yourself?" Sorrels: "Yes, sir." (v7p348)

"Sealed off"? Not the back exit/entrance. Not by 12:35. Romack, in sum, then, just happened to be "piddling around" in the area, on the periphery of the story of the century, camped out for 5 minutes, then left, for no apparent

reason. He comes there for no reason; he goes for no reason. And he fails to tell the "somethings" that he was watching the back.

But there was a reason for his testimony. Worrell was the person who testified that he saw someone "bustling" out the back door, about 12:33. On 11/30/63, he told the FBI that he "felt that [Oswald] was the person he had seen." And

his age/height/weight estimates correspond pretty well with Patrolman M.L. Baker's for Oswald: late 20s/early 30s, 5-7 to 5-10, 155-165 (from Worrell), 30, 5-9, 165 (from Baker). (v2p196 and 11/22/63 affidavit, resp.) Of course this man could have fled
north, then doubled back to the area, but not past Worrell, certainly not past the scene of the crime. If it was indeed Oswald, he did not seem to be trying to catch a bus on Elm. And he would have to have doubled back very, very quickly in order to
catch Cecil McWatters' bus, about 12:40, as Oswald supposedly did. (WR p157)

Reason enough, perhaps, for anyone concerned to have Romack cancel out Worrell's testimony and affidavit. Even more concerning: that "unidentified individual", cited in dispatches to both FBI Agent Gordon Shanklin and "Director, FBI"

(both 1/9/64). The missive to J. Edgar Hoover stated, "An unidentified individual told DPD Inspector J.H. Sawyer that he had seen an individual run from the TSBD building shortly after the shooting of President Kennedy and that this individual was an
unknown white male, approx. 30, slender build, 5'10", 165 pounds, carrying what looked to be a 30:30, or some type of Winchester rifle. Inspector Sawyer then contacted DPD Sgt. G.D. Henslee, radio dispatcher, and this description was broadcast to all
Dallas squad cars."

The source for Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, then, was not witness Howard Brennan, but someone who saw an unknown man fleeing the depository. Which actually makes more sense: Brennan testified that he thought that the assassin

was "standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder" (v3p144) Brennan, then, started with a mistaken visual premise and could hardly have gone on to estimate, from that mistaken premise, height and weight--
without some little prodding. Sawyer's running man, on the other hand, was seen at ground level by a man at ground level. Ideal conditions.

Reason enough to have Romack cancel out both Worrell and the "unidentified individual", in one fell swoop, and save their star Dealey witness (as Counsel David Belin wrote), as well as the DPD, from great embarrassment, if not (for

the DPD), also, from charges of soliciting perjury, and, in general, contaminating the case.

More reason for Romack's piddling testimony: that weapon description. If the unidentified witness actually saw someone leaving the depository with a rifle, that would raise the specter of a second shooter, or a second Oswald rifle.

As problematic as the unidentified witness's sensationalistic "30-30" portion of his witnessing is (no inside-the-building witnesses to this rifleman, when the depository lobby was bustling with employees around 12:33), the DPD obviously wanted to
smother this awkward rumor in its crib. Hence, Romack--contract smotherer.

But Sawyer thought his unidentified witness was credible enough to quote his suspect description, verbatim, at 12:44. And Sawyer's unidentified witness's description of the suspect almost perfectly matches Baker's description of

Oswald: 30/5'9"/165 for the latter... 30/5'10"/165 for the former.

Romack's slim pretext for contacting the FBI and testifying before the Warren Commission was that "some monkey" said that he had "seen some character running toward me". (v6p281) I can see them jumping on *that*. "I saw a policeman

running north towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building... And he didn't stay, but just... he was just there to check and he runs back." (p281)

Note the phrase "to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building". Romack seems unaware of the rank implausibilities implied by this assertion. The policeman is checking to see if anybody ran out of the building, yet

doesn't seem to see, detain or even question Romack, although he was "running north towards" him. I mean, Romack himself may not have been running, but he might have seen someone running. At least the unidentified witness talked to the police that day.
That Romack did not even talk to the policeman running towards him--about what was going on out front and/or what he himself was doing, out back--suggests that he was the one who wasn't there.

dcw

A few years ago I was examining the Out Back Witnesses, and it's got a bit hazy now. Rackley is the father of another witness, Mrs. Donald Baker, who on the day of the assassination was "Virgie Rackley." The fact that they are father

and daughter seems to be hidden by the Warren Commission; they even misspell her maiden name when she testifies. And I am suspicious that both were hired witnesses, mainly because, at first, and only at first, Virgie was trying to implicate Joe Molina.
That was dropped like a hot potato. And the father, to me, seemed to be being used to support Worrell

You mean Romack?
, another witness I believed to have been hired, in order to "see" Oswald escaping out the back door. But the Conspiracy decided to torpedo their own fake witness Worrell
Why would they manufacture him in the first place? Was there a time when the "official" version indicated Back Door?
, so they brought in Romack to discredit his testimony. That was my conclusion, as I recall. Perhaps Worell was abandoned to discredit any support for the idea of anybody exiting the north door because that's where Winchester Man had

been seen

But didn't *they* know right away about Sawyer's man on the street? (Not in the building!)

dcw
, and the coverup had no use for Winchester Man. Even Eddie Piper, whom I believe was coerced into denying that Victoria Adams had come down the stairs before Truly and Baker went up, even Piper was used to stand at the north door and

not see nobody come out, and he apparently is the Negro whom Sorrels encountered there whom Sorrels thinks didn't know anything. It got a bit messy there. That was my conclusion...as I recall. All notion of somebody coming out that door was abolished.

My recollection is that Romack was used to discredit Worrell, but I might be confused. I should study it again and make a video. I think Worrell was the Back Door witness for Oswald leaving the building, there being no others, until years

later Frazier said so. But I think things were being changed as witnesses testified. "They," the left and right hands, don't always know what the other is doing. The Warren Commission did not know about Winchester Man, according to their letters to
Hoover about the radio description, one in January and another in November (!) of 1964. Yes, it is in the radio transcript, and Hoover told them about it in January, but this is a complex affair, and it is easy to lose track of some details.

I don't think I understood this matter correctly last time I looked at it. This looks like a clever fake out that's really about Vicky Adams not coming out the north door.

Forgot about her story since she's not mentioned in the Romack/Worrell hi jinks. And wasn't there another woman with her? Sandra Styles? I remember that Adams was alarmed when she heard "4th floor" on a police radio. I know that I had the

devil's own time (as they used to say, back in my day) figuring out from the radio-log tape whether Harkness was radioing "4th floor" or "5th floor". I think the dispatcher had the same problem. (Told Sawyer shots came from the 5th or 4th floor.) So she
heard Harkness' call at 12:36. Out front. And didn't the two ladies make a rather circuitous journey to get to the front? So, work back from that & you could roughly get the time they exited the building.

Rackley and Romack are trotted out ostensibly because of Worrell, but I think it's really to discredit Adams, even though she is never mentioned.
It could have been to discredit both Worrell/Sawyer's guy AND Adams. Fortunately, Romack was inept.

dcw
Romack says nobody came out that door for at least three minutes. Very interesting...

You keep treating people's time estimates as if they are established facts. They are nothing
but guesses.

In the Adams case, an educated guess--she heard the 12:36 radio broadcast when she was out front. And speaking of screwy times estimate--Lovelady put the time of the coming back into the building (of Shelley & himself) and seeing Adams at about

12:36 (v6pp339-340)! She and Styles were provably (see above) already out front, after having gone out the back door & run around the building. So much for the concerted effort to discredit Adams...

dcw
Nobody was marking time or running stop watches on the day of the assassination

so it is silly to treat these guesses as empirical evidence. They prove nothing. When you
construct scenarios built on one guess after another, you end up with crap. That's mostly
what you do, Don.

Barry Earnest in his book Girl On The Stairs continues the coverup job. I don;t think that's an accident. And the Prayer Man crowd are on board with that, too. It all makes me very suspicious that many of the prominent researchers might not really

be looking to expose the truth. And I think somebody's been going through my trash, too.

I think it was Sean Murphy who was interested in the Adams story, too. We corresponded about it many years ago.

On another topic, why would two newspersons approach Oswald asking for a phone?

Because they needed to report it to the news organizations they worked for and mobile phones
were extremely rare in those days.

He only needed one phone. Either Allman or MacNeil was superfluous it seems...

It seems you aren't very bright.

Sez Dim- Bulb Corbett. At that rate, Oswald might have stayed around all afternoon directing reporters to phones!

Both needed to get the report to their employers, MacNeil worked

for NBC and Allman worked for a local radio station. Each had to file his report separately.

It was almost an hour later that MacNeil, reported to Frank McGee on live TV, that JFK had
died. McGee was repeating word for word what MacNeil was dictating to him. Chet Huntley
was sitting at McGee's side as he repeated what he was being told.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)