Western Union, 1963

In 1963, were the offices of Western Union able to recieve incoming calls to their offices, from people outside?

Could you walk into a Western Union office and receive a call?

Most Western Union offices had telephone services, yes? Would the origin of these calls have been recorded, for billing purposes?

Further, are the records of calls made to and from Western Union offices recorded? My guess is that incoming calls must have been billed to SOMEONE. Further, does the offices of Western Union keep records of such calls, in case of Police investigations?

I'll wait for an answer from somebody before going any further....

Can anyone help?

 

delete post----tried to type morse code but it wouldn't maintain spacing between characters.[video=youtube;4EFpsmDDXLg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EFpsmDDXLg[/video]

 

Does this have something to do with Jack Ruby? I'm sure there was a record of calls because phone calls were a costly affair in 1963. Any such record would have been thrown away many years ago.

 

Yes it does....

My hunch is that transaction records for the Dallas Western Union office would have revealed the source of the call made to Ruby, who was doing far more at Western Union than 'wiring money'.


Those same records should also show who his call was billed to....my hunch is that it was made from the Dallas Police Office right across the road.

This would explain nicely how Jack Ruby suddenly materialized at the precise moment Oswald was being lead down the stairs. The patrolman posted at the head of the ramp leading off the street catagorically denies Jack Ruby entering the basement by this route. Given this, a side door opened for him means an insider helping, probably the same man that made the call to Western Union shortly before Ruby walked over to the Police Station.

I would suggest that any competent investigation would have subpeoned Western Union from the moment it was realized that the man on the ramp was telling the truth.

He was not present for the entire length of the wait, about an hour or so later than the Police 'announced'. Notice, too, the helpful manner in which the Dallas Police inform the community of something it should be hiding from them for the sake of the accused. It is a clear violation of the rights of Lee Harvey Oswald for the Police to allow a crowd presense at his transfer to the County Lock-up. The presense of Jack Ruby at all should have required some explaination, simply because the Patrolman at the top of the ramp was there to block the ingress of anyone who had no business being there....which basically qualified as ALL OF THEM.


I've always said with this case, explain who was ordering and paying Jack Ruby and why leads us straight to the guilty parties, without much speculating involved.

Records like the ones at the offices of Western Union should have spelt it out for all to read, in plain English.

 

Something else that stood out....

Nobody thought to ask the ticket clerk at the Texas theater exactly what time Mr. Oswald entered the Theater. The BBC had to do it for them....

He came in at seven minutes past one o'clock....

Tippet was shot between 1:07 and 1:10.

 

It's called a "perp walk" and it's a long tradition in the US. They still do it, especially with celebrities.

If a cop let the man who shot Oswald walk though his door, he's going to lie about it later. That basement was full of people who shouldn't have been there, but only one of them pulled a revolver out and shot Oswald.

 

But, that one person just happened to be the man with no business there. Especially one so well known as having Mob associations.

In fact, Jack Ruby was at every facility....The Police Station, Parkland Memorial, some witnesses even put him in Dealy Plaza itself. And Jean West places him at ground zero, sitting on the lower section of the grassy knowl in a pickup, whilst other people unload 'equipment'. Further, she identified Mr. Ruby by picking his face out of a line up, a day before he became famous as the man who shot Oswald.

Jack Ruby was a liar, a scoundrel, a known Mafia operative, and a murderer to boot. Proper investigation of Ruby's role in this affaire was conspicuous by it's absense.

How the American people can still point to Oswald as the 'man' without him ever coming to trial, without the formal sifting of evidence from a pre-trial hearing. A pre-trial hearing would have formally established who was lieing, and who was telling the truth. Testimony from many witnesses would have been rendered inadmissable in a proper court, like Helen Markham's testimony. The manner in which information was extracted from her at the Warren Commission was inadmissable in a formal court. Dallas Police incompetence would have rendered much of the physical evidence from the Tippet murder inadmissable, like the cartridge cases found at the scene.

It's a basic violation of the rights of Lee Harvey Oswald. Contrary to belief, even Oswald's corpse has a right to a fair trial, along with every other American citizen. Someone here told me not so long ago that "A corpse has no rights'.....WRONG. A dead man has even more right to fair consideration of State charges brought against him. After all, he is not around to answer the many questions that might arise, so greater care must be taken.

Of course, like all officials in every country, they are ALWAYS correct, even when not. There is no arguing with Public Servants. And that is what keeps this whole circus going round and round. Lies on top of lies, on top of blatant fraud, ontop of mindless justification of officialdom.

The ballistic evidence made little or no sense. Fingering Oswald and closing the book so quickly makes perfect sense to those not wanting a proper investgation. The American people, one day, will realize that this thing must be put to rest. This year is it's 50th anniversary, and it does not look like ending. I wish to see a proper inquiry, by an independant body with no political agenda. . Succeeding generations are going to be confronted by the same story. Someone has to come up with an explanation that fits all the evidence. And stop painting Oswald as a 'lone nut', which we know he was not.

 

On a tech note...Today with advent of System X digtial et al etc...Billing is simplified and accurate. I don't know about WU..or States..But in UK at that time the old Mechanical Strowger would have been the kit used and used in billing. Quite simply unless you had someone monitoring the 2 wire with a telephone butt or at the frame you wouldn't really tell from a building of many lines when looking at billing who had made a call. And to where. Local pabx monitoring by a techie would always see at the time. But unless you were looking purposely for a reason then no chance. The billing for normal subscribers on a mechanical system such as strowger and I admit I don't know what yanks used then..but I doubt if much different, was simple..you go to exchange..get a ladder..one camera..with big attachment..take pic of numbers basically a cycle mileometer type on each line and pic the batch....then just bill by last number new number on mass.

 

There are over 1 million stories in the Naked City, ............This has been one of them?(stealing a quote)

 

And every important cop in Dallas was his buddy. They drank free at his strip club and enjoyed private sessions with his strippers. So, it's not surprising that they didn't want to dig too deeply there.

The problem with all JFK conspiracies is that they suffer from one glaring gap in logic - they depend on important and powerful forces putting their complete faith and trust in people with mental health issues. Both Oswald and Ruby were pretty flaky people.

As for timelines and what this witness saw and what that witness saw, well, I'm sure you're familiar with some of the simple classroom demonstrations that have students watch a film where something unexpected happens, then are tested on the content. Those "eyewitness accounts" are then examined against the film they watched and reveal that most of their answers are nonsense. The human brain isn't a recording device. Everything that goes in is filtered and "interpreted" before being filed as a "memory."

Let's test your powers of observation. How many times do the players in white pass the basketball?

[video=youtube;vJG698U2Mvo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo[/video]

 

If witness testimony is so unreliable, why is it the very foundation of our adversarial court system?

Prosecutions that rely entirely on witnesses often have great fun exposing different witnesses as congenital liars, simply by cross checking. This is the entire reason we have a pre-trial system, to sift the evidence, cross reference, see who's testimony is unsullied by private or public agenda.

None of this was done with Lee Harvey Oswald. It's as if people like Will Fritz knew exactly that the accused in this case would never be brought to trial. Will Fritz himself committed perjury, stating publically to newsmen...."Oh, he's the killer, without a doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt." Such phrases coming publically from law enforcement officials before a man has even been put through a pre-trial hearing should have set off alarm bells in the legal fraternity. As an arresting or prosecuting officer, you simply cannot make public statements concerning an alleged perpetrator before due process has had it's day in court.

but, like much of the actions of Dallas Police in November 1963, such laws were swept under the carpet. People like will Fritz were allowed to get away with anything, whilst testimony from creditable people like Roger Craig and Domingo Benavides got pushed aside, whilst the Police cherry picked evidence that suited their case. They passed this habit on to the Warren Commission, whose selectiveness in examination of evidence is well documented.

You've got to wonder....if this is what the Police can do to someone they THINK perpetrated a crime, (act as judge and jury before even reaching a court), then what is still possible for people to be caught up in when involved with Texas law enforcement 'official'. Like one of Ruby's dancers so rightly said..."They can kill the President of the United States. Do you think they are going to think twice about a two-bit show girl like me.?"

This is wht cases like this do to your justice system, and ours. It brings into question everything that these laws were founded on, diminishing the people it's supposed to protect, and elevating the individuals that abuse the system into God like creatures, looking down on the rest of us mere mortals with utter contempt.

No wonder people in the US make such a Right Royal Fuss about the "Right to Bear Arms." It's something that empowers them, makes them feel not so small and insignificant. Kennedy's murder left many western people feeling utterly powerless...Time to give back to the people that which has been taken from them.

 

Because we don't have cameras imbedded in our foreheads. Really though, it's not even a debatable point. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable and that has been demonstrated over and over again by scientists, academics or just magicians. How many times did the white players pass the ball?

Kennedy got shot by a nutbar, not very different than the nutbar that shot his brother. I don't know why Kennedy's shooting would make anyone feel "powerless." He was just a rich guy who used wealth and family connections to get elected. He was replaced by another rich guy with similar connections.

 

IIRC, telephone charges were always applied to the caller, not the callee, unless the charges were specifically reversed ie "calling collect.", the phone receiving the call was not charged. So, I would have to say that there would likely be no record of the call since the Western Union office was not being charged a fee. So, the only, likely, record would be with the phone company that handled the calls.

 

It has not been established before a court of law who shot John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Therefore, in the absence of a trial, Lee Harvey Oswald is not guilty. Charged he may have been, brought before the court he was not. Nothing can change this fact, that, in the eyes of the law, he's an innocent man, regardless of who saw what.

I bet each and every one of you on this site, detractors and supporters alike, would be greatly outraged if you, as a citizen, were accused of a crime, then unceremoniously found guilty before you had even seen the inside of a courtroom. Your relatives and friends would be likewise in an up-roar.

And calling Oswald a 'nut job' bespeaks of ignorance of Lee as a man. This individual, serving his government, falls into bad company, in a case thats way beyond him, and he is the only one fingered, in circumstances that would not survive a real courtroom.

You may go on bringing Oswald into question. But, until his tax records and other files that have not been released for God knows what reason, it's pure speculation. For the record, LHO was an intelligent thinker, a naive man in the company of wolves ready to throw him to the other dogs to save their own skins.

If LHO was as guilty as the authorities make it, then why not show us the files? Until then, questions will continue to be asked by ordinary people.

 

I am well aware that the caller is charged for a call. Therefore, there has to be a record of the call made to Jack Ruby, recieved at the Dallas Office of Western Union. The origin of the CALLER is my concern. My belief is that Ruby received a call from the Dalla Police Office, across the road, and that should have been logged somewhere. The government were paying for it!

 

And why oh why would the patrolman at the top of the ramp lie?

He couldn't have lost his job over it.....and was never brought to task for his so-called "mistake" of letting Ruby in.

Calling him a liar is a very conveniant way of stoushing any further investigation into it. Ruby was well enough known as to be recognisable by his face in Dallas. The man at the top of the ramp certainly knew Jack Ruby by sight....so what does he have to gain by telling porkies?

Nothing....cause he isn't. And to be called a liar by the very people he works with to cover their own complicity is a crime not worth mentioning.

Someone, somewhere, will uncover, one fine day, a little piece of evidence still circulating that proves Jack Ruby had help from the Police....and when it is found to be so, then backtracking will unravel the whole mess...

I just hope I'm still alive to see it! I detest Police corruption, having experienced it for myself, and I just love to see Policemen treated as they deserve. I know what you will say!..."Not all Police are like this....just doing their jobs....pillars of the community...." It's the usual load of justificatory bull we here from officials everywhere in the West.

The Russians would have had this case wound up in days....and they would have found the right people too, rather than blaming the patsy, and then systematically fitting the evidence to suit themselves.

 

Further, calling John Kennedy 'just a rich guy using wealth and family connections to get elected" could describe George Bush Jr, and senior. Also, Kennedy was a war veteran. One of his brothers was killed piloting an aircraft packed with explosives. The plan was to guide the said aircraft in by remote control, after Kennedy and crew had 'bailed'. A radio frequency test is said to have detonated the aircraft prematurely, killing all aboard. So, the Kennedy's had a stake in the war, just like millions of other Americans.

In fact, you can call his Presidency the very last where the Chief of the Military actually attempted to reign in thewide expediencies of it's secret service. He tried and failed, was killed for it. It makes his time in office the last real President to not be controlled by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

It is said that Robert Kennedy knew the truth. He is on record as saying as much to his employees, the ones that ran 'Operation Freedom.' Realising their role, he is said to have written to their offices, stating "You guys did it..." Realising also that to investigate his brother's murder as Attorney General would have compromised 'Operation Freedom', which he and John set up, he did not take the investigation to the courts...still protecting the good name of the United States of America. What a guy!

 

The King is dead..long live the king...Its life. As to the billing...I think in 63 your giving the technology an awful lot of credence Volga. Unless operator connected and a supplementary charge is made the call would have been just a time on a line and as said elsewhere billed to the originator. No records are kept unless the originator kept and filed his paper bill. Well Unless America differs differently from the rest of us at that time. Itemised billing was a dream away.

 

It would describe them very well. What's your point?

 

Well, he's not so special for his campaign. You have to be rich and well connected just to be able to run for office in this day and age. Tagging Kennedy for what he was proves nothing about the man on a personal level.

I realise ol'man Joe "bought" 100,000 odd votes for the California primary, but is this really any different to other candidates, then or now?

John Kennedy was turning a lot of things around about the United States that were ugly. Hid idea for detente with the Soviets was a popular move, but certain sections of the government, particularly the ones elected by noone, like the military, opposed this policy. The Central Intelligence Agency was to be broken up and it's responsibilities seconded off to other government departments. This was going to effect a lot of sacred cows, and they made sure that Kennedy could not implement this radical changes.....by killing him.

When politics is played on this level, it's for keeps. Who knows, the present financial woes of the U.S. could have been nipped in the butt. No Vietnam, no Cold War, no CIA....my my, what a threat to Cold Warrior society he represented.

And he still has the admiration of much of the world for attempting it. The CIA are the ones that look like dogs now.