Cecil J. McWatters Affidavit
-----
McWatters Affidavit
Cecil J. McWatters drove the bus that Oswald reportedly boarded after the assassination. In his affidavit, McWatters said that the man (Oswald) reportedly said that the President had been shot “in the temple.”
McWatters identified Oswald in a police line-up as the man who boarded his bus on Elm near Houston. This man had told him that the President had been shot "in the temple." McWatters later picked up a woman and passed on that news to her, and told her to ask the man sitting behind her, who was grinning, if she didn't believe him. The man didn't say anything, but his grinning demeanor was noted.
Here is the handwritten draft of the deposition
Cecil J. McWatters drove the bus that Oswald reportedly boarded after the assassination. In his affidavit, McWatters said that the man (Oswald) reportedly said that the President had been shot “in the temple.”
McWatters identified Oswald in a police line-up as the man who boarded his bus on Elm near Houston. This man had told him that the President had been shot "in the temple." McWatters later picked up a woman and passed on that news to her, and told her to ask the man sitting behind her, who was grinning, if she didn't believe him. The man didn't say anything, but his grinning demeanor was noted.
Here is the handwritten draft of the deposition
Cecil J. McWatters affidavit, found at https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337125/m1/1/ accessed July 15, 2026
Honestly, I don't think Oswald was gunning for Kennedy, but that his actual target was Connally, who (when he was Secretary of the Navy) had denied Oswald's request to have his "undesirable" (dishonorable) discharge changed back to a "hardship" (honorable) discharge.
So why was Oswald grinning? He had just gotten cleanly away from the TSBD, possibly thinking he was in the clear.
And how could Oswald have seen Kennedy shot "in the temple" if that happened when the limousine was farther down Elm Street where the Z313 head shot occurs? Of course, if it happened when the limousine was where I place it for the first shot, Oswald would have been in a position where he could see it.
There is also a handwritten draft of this affidavit that says pretty much the same thing:
unsigned, unnotarized draft of the above affidavit, found at https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340552/m1/1/ accessed July 15, 2026
The presence of the handwritten affidavit lends strength to the typewritten one. It indicates that McWatters (presumably the person whose handwriting this was, was speaking in his own words, and that the notarized affidavit is indeed authentic.
It should be noted that Sheriff's Deputy Roger Craig claimed to see Oswald getting into a Nash Rambler station wagon with a luggage rack on top, on Elm Street, so either McWatters or Craig had to be mistaken. I tend to think it was Craig. who was mistaken Perhaps the whistle Craig heard was Oswald hailing the bus, and there was a Rambler station wagon nearby, and Craig just assumed that Oswald got into it? Just a thought to try to resolve the Craig conflict, but that conflict does exist.
It should be noted that Sheriff's Deputy Roger Craig claimed to see Oswald getting into a Nash Rambler station wagon with a luggage rack on top, on Elm Street, so either McWatters or Craig had to be mistaken. I tend to think it was Craig. who was mistaken Perhaps the whistle Craig heard was Oswald hailing the bus, and there was a Rambler station wagon nearby, and Craig just assumed that Oswald got into it? Just a thought to try to resolve the Craig conflict, but that conflict does exist.
-----
Mary Bledsoe Affidavit
There is also an affidavit by Mary Bledsoe, dated the day after the assassination, saying that she knew who Oswald was, and it was Oswald who boarded the bus:
McWatters owned a house with a spare room that she rented out at $1/day for additional income. Oswald rented a room for her in September of 1963
There is also an affidavit by Mary Bledsoe, dated the day after the assassination, saying that she knew who Oswald was, and it was Oswald who boarded the bus:
McWatters owned a house with a spare room that she rented out at $1/day for additional income. Oswald rented a room for her in September of 1963
from https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339794/m1/1/ , accessed 7/16/2026
Some researchers have questioned Bledsoe's credibility., but I don't. Other researcherss have proposed that the bus vs. Craig accounts can be explained by "two Oswalds." I think it can be explained as a case of mistaken identity. After all, there is a strong similarity between Oswald and Billy Lovelady.
-----
Mary Bledsoe's Warren Commission Testimony
Mary Bledsoe's Warren Commission testimony (found at https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Bledsoe.pdf) indicates to me, at least, that she was something of a flake. For example, she was annoyed at Oswald for using her fridge for a container of milk. How do you rent a room to someone and not expect them to use the fridge? But she apparently let that slide, because it was the first day. However, after 5 days, she and Oswald had apparently had enough with each other. She didn't like Oswald's attitude. So she told him she didn't want him there anymore. Oswald said that he would leave, but that she owed him two dollars for the remaining two days. Bledsoe said she didn't have it. Oswald left, but returned two days later to collect his things. She rented the room to Oswald on a Monday, October 7, 1963, which is just a couple of days after his purported Mexico City trip. He was in and out the first couple of days, returned on the Saturday (5 days later), they agreed he wouldn't stay there any more, but she would not return the $2 for the remaining 2 days he had paid for, he left and returned 2 days later (October 14) to get his things.
Oddly, Bledsoe's Warren Commission questioners seemed more concerned with with the colors of the two duffle bags and the clothes on hangers (and whether those hangers were wood or wire) than with whether or not she could positively identify Oswald as the man who rode the bus that day. My own take is that they were trying to discredit her memory, because she couldn't remember the color of the second bag (never identified as a "duffle," just a cheap soft-sided bag), although she did remember the first bag as being a duffle bag and being "blue." They also seemed hung up on the sequence of events on the day Oswald moved into her room, about whether he went to get the second bag before or after he went to the corner store for some milk and other food items, and how long he had been gone (about 20 minutes) The time factor might be important as an indicator of the distance from Bledsoe's home where Oswald was storing his second duffle bag, as one of her questioners pointed out, but the fact that they kept returning to that question--and not to whether she was sure it was Oswald on the bus--is very interesting.
At any rate, Bledsoe seemed to be an honest witness, despite her flakiness and apparent pickiness (with the refrigerator incident). She really didn't waiver much on what she could remember versus what she couldn't. She did admit that she had had a stroke at some point prior to her testimony, but she didn't seem too incapacitated by it.
I also note that it's interesting that her calendar page for October, the period in which Oswald had rented the room and which she marked as showing he had rented the room, had disappeared before her testimony. She said that her son had "sold" it. Which is interesting. Who would have known she rented the room to Oswald? Why wasn't her son questioned about who he sold the page to?
Other researchers have tried to discredit her testimony, but at this point I am not sure what, if any, reason they would have to do that.
Mary Bledsoe's Warren Commission testimony (found at https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Bledsoe.pdf) indicates to me, at least, that she was something of a flake. For example, she was annoyed at Oswald for using her fridge for a container of milk. How do you rent a room to someone and not expect them to use the fridge? But she apparently let that slide, because it was the first day. However, after 5 days, she and Oswald had apparently had enough with each other. She didn't like Oswald's attitude. So she told him she didn't want him there anymore. Oswald said that he would leave, but that she owed him two dollars for the remaining two days. Bledsoe said she didn't have it. Oswald left, but returned two days later to collect his things. She rented the room to Oswald on a Monday, October 7, 1963, which is just a couple of days after his purported Mexico City trip. He was in and out the first couple of days, returned on the Saturday (5 days later), they agreed he wouldn't stay there any more, but she would not return the $2 for the remaining 2 days he had paid for, he left and returned 2 days later (October 14) to get his things.
Oddly, Bledsoe's Warren Commission questioners seemed more concerned with with the colors of the two duffle bags and the clothes on hangers (and whether those hangers were wood or wire) than with whether or not she could positively identify Oswald as the man who rode the bus that day. My own take is that they were trying to discredit her memory, because she couldn't remember the color of the second bag (never identified as a "duffle," just a cheap soft-sided bag), although she did remember the first bag as being a duffle bag and being "blue." They also seemed hung up on the sequence of events on the day Oswald moved into her room, about whether he went to get the second bag before or after he went to the corner store for some milk and other food items, and how long he had been gone (about 20 minutes) The time factor might be important as an indicator of the distance from Bledsoe's home where Oswald was storing his second duffle bag, as one of her questioners pointed out, but the fact that they kept returning to that question--and not to whether she was sure it was Oswald on the bus--is very interesting.
At any rate, Bledsoe seemed to be an honest witness, despite her flakiness and apparent pickiness (with the refrigerator incident). She really didn't waiver much on what she could remember versus what she couldn't. She did admit that she had had a stroke at some point prior to her testimony, but she didn't seem too incapacitated by it.
I also note that it's interesting that her calendar page for October, the period in which Oswald had rented the room and which she marked as showing he had rented the room, had disappeared before her testimony. She said that her son had "sold" it. Which is interesting. Who would have known she rented the room to Oswald? Why wasn't her son questioned about who he sold the page to?
Other researchers have tried to discredit her testimony, but at this point I am not sure what, if any, reason they would have to do that.
-----
McWatters' Warren Commission Testimony
By the time of McWatters' Warren Commission testimony (found at https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/pdf/WH2_McWatters.pdf) taken on March 12, 1964, his memory seems to have changed. By this point, it isn't "Oswald" who said Kennedy had been shot, but either the teenager who frequently rode his bus or the driver in the car ahead, whose car being stopped in traffic, got out of the car and went to tell the driver of the bus that Kennedy had been shot. Now, there was discussion among the bus passengers as to where exactly Kennedy was shot, and someone on the bus suggested that it was "in the head" because "Kennedy was riding in a convertible." The fact that Kennedy was riding "in a convertible" does not automatically equate with a head shot, however, so where McWatters could have gotten the idea that Kennedy had been shot "in the temple," an oddly specific location, is unclear.
His testimony is all over the place. First it was the driver of the car ahead who told him about Kennedy being shot. Then it was the teenager. Whereas on November 22,, it was Oswald who told him that Kennedy had been shot "in the temple."
Here's the thing: Memory is a malleable thing. At the time of the incident, McWatters had no reason to suspect the Oswald passenger of having anything to do with the shooting. So he didn't pay particularly close attention to him, other than to remember that some guy had gotten off while they were stuck in traffic at about the same time that a woman who needed to catch a train and decided to walk to the station instead of relying on the bus that was stuck in traffic to. get her there on time. McWatters came into contact with so many people every day that I think we can forgive him for lapses in memory. It was only hours later, after he had already come into contact with multiple other people getting on and off his bus that he even had any reason to suspect that one passenger of anything. So in trying to reconstruct his memory of exactly who said what, he made some mistakes. I think we can forgive him for that.
Yet McWatters got involved in all this because Oswald had a bus transfer in his pocket at the time of his arrest, a transfer bearing McWatters' unique punch mark. Oswald was also seen on the bus by his landlady of one week, Mary Bledsoe, who paid more attention to him than McWatters did. It's also clear that before his testimony, McWatters was visited by an FBI agent or two who had previously visited a teenager (Milton Jones) who rode his bus somewhat regularly and happened to be on it that day. Jones gave the FBI a somewhat different version of events, while still not disproving that it was Oswald on the bus. That somewhat different version was likely used to try to jog McWatters' memory. So now, in addition to all the time and all the hundreds or thousands of bus passengers he'd come into contact in the months since November 22, McWatters is trying to fit someone else's memory into his own mental schema of events. It's not remarkable that McWatters' memory would have suffered.
But here's what I keep coming back to: "in the temple" is an oddly specific location. A 6:15 or 6:20 knowledge that JFK had been shot "in the head"--well, that might be understandably confused in memory with a more general 12:40 awareness that Kennedy had been "shot" by the time DPD picked up McWatters for questioning. With the shooting being undoubtedly the talk of passengers getting on and off his bus throughout the day, the original awareness that Kennedy had been "shot" (at 12:40-ish) might easily have been conflated with the more more certain knowledge that he was shot "in the head" as was generally known later that afternoon. But in the "temple"? That is too specific to have been a random influence, in my view.
I have some things to say about the Sam Pate radio broadcast (which is the only way the driver ahead would presumably know about Kennedy's being "shot") and the DPD radio broadcast (which is presumably how any police officer who talked with McWatters would know anything about what happened, and the DPD radio chatter is what Sam Pate was relating over the public airways), but I'll save that for another time.
As a general rule, recall made closer to the actual event is better than recall made at a distant point--months--after the event. Plus, reconstruction of memory after the fact is subject to influence from outside by outside sources--like, say, a couple of FBI agents who might have had an agenda (perhaps a benign one, to say, jog his memory) to pursue.
So there's that.
But there are a few things we can nonetheless glean from McWatters' testimony.
We can get pretty close to the time that he picked up the Oswald character, because of the place when McWatters has a time check (and waits until his exact departure time of 12:36) to the time he arrived at the approximate location 7 blocks from the TSBD, where traffic was just starting to back up, about 4 minutes, thus putting the time of the Oswald pick up at about 12:40.
We also get information about how the police were so quickly able to identify McWatters as someone to be questioned: there was apparently a bus transfer in Oswald's possessions when he was arrested, bearing McWatters' unique punch hole whose location on the ticket (rather than indicating an exact transfer location, was actually code for a time, "1:00," which McWatters clarified could actually mean 12:45 or thereabouts.
We also learn that McWatters was pretty much isolated from televised news accounts, and pretty much only had access to what others might have told him was playing on the radio, because he wa still working until the time the DPD came to question him, about 6:15 or 6:20 pm..
And just because it's relevant, here's an image of the bus transfer ticket (taken from https://harveyandlee.net/Leaving/Leaving_the_TSBD.html --not that I agree with the two-Oswald's theory, but the site does have a good image of the transfer ticket--though why that transfer ticket is not a warren Commission Exhibit is beyond my comprehension).
By the time of McWatters' Warren Commission testimony (found at https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/pdf/WH2_McWatters.pdf) taken on March 12, 1964, his memory seems to have changed. By this point, it isn't "Oswald" who said Kennedy had been shot, but either the teenager who frequently rode his bus or the driver in the car ahead, whose car being stopped in traffic, got out of the car and went to tell the driver of the bus that Kennedy had been shot. Now, there was discussion among the bus passengers as to where exactly Kennedy was shot, and someone on the bus suggested that it was "in the head" because "Kennedy was riding in a convertible." The fact that Kennedy was riding "in a convertible" does not automatically equate with a head shot, however, so where McWatters could have gotten the idea that Kennedy had been shot "in the temple," an oddly specific location, is unclear.
His testimony is all over the place. First it was the driver of the car ahead who told him about Kennedy being shot. Then it was the teenager. Whereas on November 22,, it was Oswald who told him that Kennedy had been shot "in the temple."
Here's the thing: Memory is a malleable thing. At the time of the incident, McWatters had no reason to suspect the Oswald passenger of having anything to do with the shooting. So he didn't pay particularly close attention to him, other than to remember that some guy had gotten off while they were stuck in traffic at about the same time that a woman who needed to catch a train and decided to walk to the station instead of relying on the bus that was stuck in traffic to. get her there on time. McWatters came into contact with so many people every day that I think we can forgive him for lapses in memory. It was only hours later, after he had already come into contact with multiple other people getting on and off his bus that he even had any reason to suspect that one passenger of anything. So in trying to reconstruct his memory of exactly who said what, he made some mistakes. I think we can forgive him for that.
Yet McWatters got involved in all this because Oswald had a bus transfer in his pocket at the time of his arrest, a transfer bearing McWatters' unique punch mark. Oswald was also seen on the bus by his landlady of one week, Mary Bledsoe, who paid more attention to him than McWatters did. It's also clear that before his testimony, McWatters was visited by an FBI agent or two who had previously visited a teenager (Milton Jones) who rode his bus somewhat regularly and happened to be on it that day. Jones gave the FBI a somewhat different version of events, while still not disproving that it was Oswald on the bus. That somewhat different version was likely used to try to jog McWatters' memory. So now, in addition to all the time and all the hundreds or thousands of bus passengers he'd come into contact in the months since November 22, McWatters is trying to fit someone else's memory into his own mental schema of events. It's not remarkable that McWatters' memory would have suffered.
But here's what I keep coming back to: "in the temple" is an oddly specific location. A 6:15 or 6:20 knowledge that JFK had been shot "in the head"--well, that might be understandably confused in memory with a more general 12:40 awareness that Kennedy had been "shot" by the time DPD picked up McWatters for questioning. With the shooting being undoubtedly the talk of passengers getting on and off his bus throughout the day, the original awareness that Kennedy had been "shot" (at 12:40-ish) might easily have been conflated with the more more certain knowledge that he was shot "in the head" as was generally known later that afternoon. But in the "temple"? That is too specific to have been a random influence, in my view.
I have some things to say about the Sam Pate radio broadcast (which is the only way the driver ahead would presumably know about Kennedy's being "shot") and the DPD radio broadcast (which is presumably how any police officer who talked with McWatters would know anything about what happened, and the DPD radio chatter is what Sam Pate was relating over the public airways), but I'll save that for another time.
As a general rule, recall made closer to the actual event is better than recall made at a distant point--months--after the event. Plus, reconstruction of memory after the fact is subject to influence from outside by outside sources--like, say, a couple of FBI agents who might have had an agenda (perhaps a benign one, to say, jog his memory) to pursue.
So there's that.
But there are a few things we can nonetheless glean from McWatters' testimony.
We can get pretty close to the time that he picked up the Oswald character, because of the place when McWatters has a time check (and waits until his exact departure time of 12:36) to the time he arrived at the approximate location 7 blocks from the TSBD, where traffic was just starting to back up, about 4 minutes, thus putting the time of the Oswald pick up at about 12:40.
We also get information about how the police were so quickly able to identify McWatters as someone to be questioned: there was apparently a bus transfer in Oswald's possessions when he was arrested, bearing McWatters' unique punch hole whose location on the ticket (rather than indicating an exact transfer location, was actually code for a time, "1:00," which McWatters clarified could actually mean 12:45 or thereabouts.
We also learn that McWatters was pretty much isolated from televised news accounts, and pretty much only had access to what others might have told him was playing on the radio, because he wa still working until the time the DPD came to question him, about 6:15 or 6:20 pm..
And just because it's relevant, here's an image of the bus transfer ticket (taken from https://harveyandlee.net/Leaving/Leaving_the_TSBD.html --not that I agree with the two-Oswald's theory, but the site does have a good image of the transfer ticket--though why that transfer ticket is not a warren Commission Exhibit is beyond my comprehension).
The differences between McWatters' same-day affidavit and his March 12 testimony are primarily these:
1. In his affidavit, it was Oswald who told him that JFK had been shot "in the temple" (a strangely specific entry). In the testimony, it was at first the driver of the car ahead of him who got out of the car and told him that JFK had bee shot, apparently having heard it over the radio broadcast. (More on the radio broadcast in a discussion of Sam Pate elsewhere). Then it was the teenager Milton Jones who regularly rode his bus. His memory of the event of exactly who said what is unreliable--understandable given the number of individuals McWatters came into contact with on a daily basis.
2. In his affidavit, McWatters said that he picked the man up near Elm and Houston. In his testimony, it was 7 blocks away from Houston. They may have been "short" blocks (in fact, some were specifically described as "short blocks," thus accounting for "near" Elm and Houston?)
3. In his affidavit, he couldn't remember where he dropped the man off. In his testimony, it was two blocks closer to the TSBD.
Note that in his testimony, he recounts having been visited by FBI agents, who told him that they had interviewed the teenage boy (Milton Jones) who had been riding on the bus that day. Meanwhile, McWatters and Jones also continued to come into contact with each other whenever Jones boarded McWatters' bus, And the more time passed, the more contact with Jones and other people who discussed the assassination in his presence, the more opportunities for outside influences to corrupt his memory.
But here's what I keep coming back to: "in the temple" is so specific, and McWatters did not have the opportunity to come into contact with any news sources that would have reported anything other than "in the head" between the shooting and the time that the police picked him up for questioning at around 6:15 or 6:20 that evening. So how did he hear that? It seems too specific (and too much of a match for my first shot scenario) for me to believe that "temple" was the mere product of memory contamination.
-----
A McWatters "Recanting"?
There is a very interesting FBI report, included in the Hearings as Commission Document 2641 (found at https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2641.pdf) dated April 3, 1964 (about 3 weeks after McWatters March 12 testimony) which apparently says that McWatters recanted his Commission testimony about it being "Oswald" who was on his bus.
There is a very interesting FBI report, included in the Hearings as Commission Document 2641 (found at https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2641.pdf) dated April 3, 1964 (about 3 weeks after McWatters March 12 testimony) which apparently says that McWatters recanted his Commission testimony about it being "Oswald" who was on his bus.
CE 2641 found at https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2641.pdf
Where to start with this document? First, note that it is unsigned. It's not an official "302" report of an FBI interview. Who wrote the report? That is unknown. More importantly, where are the original "302" reports? (There is a joke that FBI agents could not even go to the bathroom without filling out a "302" report, which was standard operating procedure after each witness interview). WHERE ARE THE ORIGINAL "302's"??
Second, this report says that "MCWATTERS advised the President's Commission that he was mistaken and that the young man who was the subject of his testimony is a "teen-ager" named MILTON JONES."
It's important to remember, McWatters was visited by the FBI agents who had visited the teenager Milton Jones before his testimony, not afterwards, as McWatters March 12, 1964 testimony makes clear (although the April 3 date of the report implies that the the testimony came first.
Actually, no, McWatters did not tell the Commission that he "recanted" who was the subject of his testimony (presumably Oswald), That's not what McWatters told the Commission. McWatters might have recanted who told him the President had been shot, but not that it was Oswald on the bus. As noted in the differences between his affidavit and testimony as I noted above, McWatters told the Commission that "A gentleman in the car in front of him" had told him that the President had been shot"--which of course is different from Oswald himself telling him that the President had been shot "in the temple" (again, a strangely specific place to be mentioned, especially on the same day as the shooting). According to CE2641, Jones said that it was a "policeman" (not a random unnamed driver) who told them that Kennedy had been shot. Could McWatters' "gentleman" and the purported Jones "policeman" be the same person? Possibly. But it can't be true that the gentleman/policeman and Oswald were the same person. However, could it be true that McWatters heard Oswald say that Kennedy had been shot "in the temple" without Jones hearing, and then a gentleman/policeman also told the driver that Kennedy had been shot, which Jones overheard? Sure, why not? And if it was a policeman, what was his name, and where is his report?
According to the 2641 report, two officers then boarded the bus and checked passengers for. firearms. This seemingly memorable event is not mentioned in McWatters' Commission testimony.
But before the officers boarded the bus, a woman (who apparently had a suitcase and was on her way to the train station, and the apparent suspected "Oswald" figure had already left the bus, she by the rear door and he by the front door.
Apparently the bus was held up for about an hour by police before being allowed to resume its journey. It was after that when a woman boarded the bus, and the driver asked her if she had heard that the President had been shot. When she said that she had not, the driver (McWatters) indicated Jones and said, "ask him, he saw it." But because of the expression on the woman's face, both the driver and Jones were smiling, and the woman said, "You are both smiling. I don't believe you."
In this report, Jones apparently said that he did not recall anyone saying that the President had been shot "in the temple." So apparently Jones was specifically asked about the "in the temple" statement.
It is possible that Oswald boarded the bus, told the driver that the President had been shot "in the temple," and that Jones simply didn't hear it.
But again, "in the temple" is oddly specific for McWatters to have made that up--especially on the same day!.
And perhaps more importantly, none of this refutes it possibly being Oswald who boarded the bus, so there was no "re-canting" going on in that regard. In fact, the purported Jones statements (in this unsigned report lacking F302 documentation) is that Jones thought it was possible that the man who boarded and then left the bus shortly afterwards was Oswald.
Second, this report says that "MCWATTERS advised the President's Commission that he was mistaken and that the young man who was the subject of his testimony is a "teen-ager" named MILTON JONES."
It's important to remember, McWatters was visited by the FBI agents who had visited the teenager Milton Jones before his testimony, not afterwards, as McWatters March 12, 1964 testimony makes clear (although the April 3 date of the report implies that the the testimony came first.
Actually, no, McWatters did not tell the Commission that he "recanted" who was the subject of his testimony (presumably Oswald), That's not what McWatters told the Commission. McWatters might have recanted who told him the President had been shot, but not that it was Oswald on the bus. As noted in the differences between his affidavit and testimony as I noted above, McWatters told the Commission that "A gentleman in the car in front of him" had told him that the President had been shot"--which of course is different from Oswald himself telling him that the President had been shot "in the temple" (again, a strangely specific place to be mentioned, especially on the same day as the shooting). According to CE2641, Jones said that it was a "policeman" (not a random unnamed driver) who told them that Kennedy had been shot. Could McWatters' "gentleman" and the purported Jones "policeman" be the same person? Possibly. But it can't be true that the gentleman/policeman and Oswald were the same person. However, could it be true that McWatters heard Oswald say that Kennedy had been shot "in the temple" without Jones hearing, and then a gentleman/policeman also told the driver that Kennedy had been shot, which Jones overheard? Sure, why not? And if it was a policeman, what was his name, and where is his report?
According to the 2641 report, two officers then boarded the bus and checked passengers for. firearms. This seemingly memorable event is not mentioned in McWatters' Commission testimony.
But before the officers boarded the bus, a woman (who apparently had a suitcase and was on her way to the train station, and the apparent suspected "Oswald" figure had already left the bus, she by the rear door and he by the front door.
Apparently the bus was held up for about an hour by police before being allowed to resume its journey. It was after that when a woman boarded the bus, and the driver asked her if she had heard that the President had been shot. When she said that she had not, the driver (McWatters) indicated Jones and said, "ask him, he saw it." But because of the expression on the woman's face, both the driver and Jones were smiling, and the woman said, "You are both smiling. I don't believe you."
In this report, Jones apparently said that he did not recall anyone saying that the President had been shot "in the temple." So apparently Jones was specifically asked about the "in the temple" statement.
It is possible that Oswald boarded the bus, told the driver that the President had been shot "in the temple," and that Jones simply didn't hear it.
But again, "in the temple" is oddly specific for McWatters to have made that up--especially on the same day!.
And perhaps more importantly, none of this refutes it possibly being Oswald who boarded the bus, so there was no "re-canting" going on in that regard. In fact, the purported Jones statements (in this unsigned report lacking F302 documentation) is that Jones thought it was possible that the man who boarded and then left the bus shortly afterwards was Oswald.
-----
Roger Craig and the Nash Rambler Station Wagon
Roger Craig was a young Dallas (plainclothes) Sheriff's Deputy who was on duty that day and was standing in front of the Sherriff's office on Main Street. The motorcade had passed him, and had just enough time to travel down Houston and make the turn onto Elm when he heard a shot. He ran to the area, saw an officer heading up the knoll, and ran up there to see what he could see. Not finding anything, he came back down, spoke with Arnold Rowland, who saw a man with a rifle on one end of the TSBD sixth floor, and a "colored man" who was "pacing back and forth" at the other end. (The "pacing" might have been the janitor, Eddie Piper, getting a bite of his lunch and then returning to the window to watch the motorcade. See https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/an-eyewitness-inside-the-6th-floor-of-the-tsbd.html). Then he went to search the south curb of Elm Street for bullets, where he met Buddy Walthers. While there, he heard a "shrill whistle" and saw a light green Rambler station driving "real slow, west on Elm Street." The driver was leaning to his right, looking up at a man running down the grass. The man coming down the knoll got into the station wagon, and they drove west on Elm Street.
Here is a YouTube video of Craig found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TLHx8dlGjE&t=530s:
Roger Craig was a young Dallas (plainclothes) Sheriff's Deputy who was on duty that day and was standing in front of the Sherriff's office on Main Street. The motorcade had passed him, and had just enough time to travel down Houston and make the turn onto Elm when he heard a shot. He ran to the area, saw an officer heading up the knoll, and ran up there to see what he could see. Not finding anything, he came back down, spoke with Arnold Rowland, who saw a man with a rifle on one end of the TSBD sixth floor, and a "colored man" who was "pacing back and forth" at the other end. (The "pacing" might have been the janitor, Eddie Piper, getting a bite of his lunch and then returning to the window to watch the motorcade. See https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/an-eyewitness-inside-the-6th-floor-of-the-tsbd.html). Then he went to search the south curb of Elm Street for bullets, where he met Buddy Walthers. While there, he heard a "shrill whistle" and saw a light green Rambler station driving "real slow, west on Elm Street." The driver was leaning to his right, looking up at a man running down the grass. The man coming down the knoll got into the station wagon, and they drove west on Elm Street.
Here is a YouTube video of Craig found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TLHx8dlGjE&t=530s:
Craig can be seen walking in the railroad car park area after the assassination and pointing at cars or trains in a sweeping left-to-right gesture, perhaps talking to the man in the hat next to him, who is walking alongside Craig in the video but not looking at Craig. (images taken from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77j91I4KWFQ&list=PL0O5WNzrZqINVGfqd-M73A_czSbI__hat&index=12)
Images taken from "'President Kennedy's Final Hour' (Dallas Film Associates Film)' found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77j91I4KWFQ&list=PL0O5WNzrZqINVGfqd-M73A_czSbI__hat&index=12
Craig can also be seen at the far right edge in a William Allen (Dallas Times Herald staff photographer) photograph on the afternoon of the assassination, found at https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/3788/image-of-dallas-police-officers-and-a-deputy-sheriff-in-deal
There's an Education Forum thread on the Nash Rambler at https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27496-the-nash-rambler-on-elm/#comment-450023. I didn't see anything in it that was particularly convincing that Oswald was the one who got into the Rambler, and many of the pictures posted there are no longer available. In that thread is an image that one assumes is supposed to be Craig's Rambler.
Craig does seem to be all over Dealey Plaza in the assassination aftermath, and was reportedly in the TSBD when the rifle was found (and also reportedly saw the empty hulls, which he described as very close together, within an inch or two of each other, in a line--not as seen in the DPD photograph. He described the rifle as a "7.65 Mauser," with the words stamped on the barrel. He described the shells as "Carcano" and the rifle and shells not being related. The rifle itself is the subject of a different investigation, but a CIA contractor named Robert Morrow claimed to have modified four Mauser rifles for the CIA and recognized the one being carried away from the TSBD on television as one he had modified to be easily dismantled, hidden, and reassembled quickly. . See https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/cia-documents.html#CIA-provided-rifle It's possible that Morrow's rifle was the "7.65 Mauser" that Craig described (also in Seymour Weitzman's affidavit, although that Weitzman would later claim that it only looked "like" a Mauser due to its bolt-action) and that the modification included firing a 6.5mm round. It's also possible that Craig only assumed that the empty hulls were Carcano rounds based on what he heard later rather than on his own limited knowledge of weaponry. After all, I think it would be very difficult to identify the caliber of an empty shell without measuring the shell, I would think, and Craig did not touch the shells he saw lying so closely grouped together on the floor. (There are reports that Chief Fritz picked the shells up before realizing that they needed to be photographed in place, and subsequently threw them back onto the floor to end up in the position in which they were later photographed.)
It is possible that whoever picked up this Oswald character gave him a ride to the Greyhound Bus Station. It is also possible that Craig was simply mistaken about who he saw get into the Nash Rambler, and that whoever it was simply had a cursory resemblance to Oswald. After all, this man was across the street, running quickly down the knoll, and Craig was some distance away. It is possible for Sheriff's Deputies to be mistaken, too, just like the rest of us. And I think that's what happened.
At any rate, there is an affidavit and testimony from a cab driver, William Whaley, that he picked up a man at the Greyhound Bus Station and drove him to the 500 block of North Beckley. The day following the assassination, this cab driver signed an affidavit saying that the passenger he picked up was Lee Harvey Oswald, whom he identified in a line-up, and later testified to the Commission to that effect.
It is possible that whoever picked up this Oswald character gave him a ride to the Greyhound Bus Station. It is also possible that Craig was simply mistaken about who he saw get into the Nash Rambler, and that whoever it was simply had a cursory resemblance to Oswald. After all, this man was across the street, running quickly down the knoll, and Craig was some distance away. It is possible for Sheriff's Deputies to be mistaken, too, just like the rest of us. And I think that's what happened.
At any rate, there is an affidavit and testimony from a cab driver, William Whaley, that he picked up a man at the Greyhound Bus Station and drove him to the 500 block of North Beckley. The day following the assassination, this cab driver signed an affidavit saying that the passenger he picked up was Lee Harvey Oswald, whom he identified in a line-up, and later testified to the Commission to that effect.
-----
The Whaley Cab
William Whaley was a cab driver. The day after the assassination, he signed an affidavit saying that he was waiting at the Greyhound bus station for a fare. A man about 25 or 26 years old came up to his cab and asked to be taken to the 500 block of North Beckley. Earlier in the day of his affidavit, Whaley identified Oswald as the man he took to North Beckley:
William Whaley was a cab driver. The day after the assassination, he signed an affidavit saying that he was waiting at the Greyhound bus station for a fare. A man about 25 or 26 years old came up to his cab and asked to be taken to the 500 block of North Beckley. Earlier in the day of his affidavit, Whaley identified Oswald as the man he took to North Beckley:
William Whaley's affidavit dated November 23, 1963, found at https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339843/m1/1/
A corrected version of this affidavit with what appears to be the original blue ink signature appears at https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340509/m1/1/
As with the McWatters affidavit, there is also a handwritten drift, this one on plain lined tablet paper rather than an affidavit blank:
handwritten draft of Whaley affidavit, found at https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340663/m1/1/
Whaley's Warren Commission Testimony
William Whaley's Warren Commission testimony can be found at https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/pdf/WH2_Whaley.pdf
Whaley
-----
Denise's Final Thoughts
My final thoughts on the matter are these: we all recognize two things: 1) that witnesses can be mistaken without intentionally lying; and 2) that the closer to events when the recollection is made, the more accurate it is likely to be.
Importantly, McWatters never "recanted" that it was Oswald on the bus, not to the Commission (as CE 2641 document says at the top) or anywhere else. What he may have "recanted" was who, exactly, first told him that the President had been shot. But if it was not Oswald himself, "in the temple" was an oddly specific location to have been merely a matter of speculation. The affidavit, remember, is same-day, before any news of Kennedy being shot any place other than "in the head" were known. The only possible exception was the Malcolm Kilduff head point, but that, as far as I know, was not aired own any Dallas news station before McWatters was taken to the police line-up and identified Oswald as the passenger who boarded and then shortly afterwards de-boarded his bus when it was stopped in traffic.
The 2641 document, while being clear that Roy "Milton" Jones could not confirm anyone telling McWatters that JFK had been shot "in the temple,," doesn't disprove it either. It could have been said as Oswald was boarding the bus, and Jones simply didn't hear it.
As for that man actually being Oswald, the Mary Bledsoe affidavit and testimony certainly lend weight to that conclusion. For it not to have been Oswald, both McWatters and Bledsoe would have to have been mistaken.
But what about Roger Craig and his "Oswald" character getting into the Nash Rambler station wagon? Is it possible that Craig could have been mistaken? I think that's what happened. Someone who bore a cursory resemblance to Oswald was seen by Craig--from some distance--coming from the knoll area and boarding a station wagon, and later, when Craig saw a suspicious man at the DPD, he just automatically assumed it was the same person.
But the start of this study was that "in the temple" phrase in the McWatters affidavit--that oddly specific location for Kennedy to have been shot. McWatters was working from the time of the assassination until the time he was brought in by the DPD. So where did that phrase come from? I think it's possible that Oswald told McWatters that Kennedy had been shot "in the temple" and that Milton Jones simply did not overhear it. Then, a couple of blocks later, seeing that traffic was not moving and perhaps seeing police stop and search other buses, decided that maybe he had better exit the bus--especially when he saw another woman doing that. But being the cheapskate he was, he asked for a transfer, which he ultimately didn't use. He then took the Whaley cab to a point near his rooming house.
But that "in the temple" statement couldn't stand, especially not if it was uttered by Oswald. Enter an FBI agent or two, who manage to track down a teenage boy Milton Jones who rode the same bus (how did they manage that??) The FBI agents use Jones' purported statements to convince McWatters that he first heard about Kennedy's being shot from someone else, and there is no mention of "in the temple," but it is speculated to have been "in the head."
But the bottom line is this: even if I am completely wrong about McWatters hearing Oswald himself make that oddly specific "in the temple" statement, it does not change a bit any of the other plethora of "forehead/temple" evidence.
My final thoughts on the matter are these: we all recognize two things: 1) that witnesses can be mistaken without intentionally lying; and 2) that the closer to events when the recollection is made, the more accurate it is likely to be.
Importantly, McWatters never "recanted" that it was Oswald on the bus, not to the Commission (as CE 2641 document says at the top) or anywhere else. What he may have "recanted" was who, exactly, first told him that the President had been shot. But if it was not Oswald himself, "in the temple" was an oddly specific location to have been merely a matter of speculation. The affidavit, remember, is same-day, before any news of Kennedy being shot any place other than "in the head" were known. The only possible exception was the Malcolm Kilduff head point, but that, as far as I know, was not aired own any Dallas news station before McWatters was taken to the police line-up and identified Oswald as the passenger who boarded and then shortly afterwards de-boarded his bus when it was stopped in traffic.
The 2641 document, while being clear that Roy "Milton" Jones could not confirm anyone telling McWatters that JFK had been shot "in the temple,," doesn't disprove it either. It could have been said as Oswald was boarding the bus, and Jones simply didn't hear it.
As for that man actually being Oswald, the Mary Bledsoe affidavit and testimony certainly lend weight to that conclusion. For it not to have been Oswald, both McWatters and Bledsoe would have to have been mistaken.
But what about Roger Craig and his "Oswald" character getting into the Nash Rambler station wagon? Is it possible that Craig could have been mistaken? I think that's what happened. Someone who bore a cursory resemblance to Oswald was seen by Craig--from some distance--coming from the knoll area and boarding a station wagon, and later, when Craig saw a suspicious man at the DPD, he just automatically assumed it was the same person.
But the start of this study was that "in the temple" phrase in the McWatters affidavit--that oddly specific location for Kennedy to have been shot. McWatters was working from the time of the assassination until the time he was brought in by the DPD. So where did that phrase come from? I think it's possible that Oswald told McWatters that Kennedy had been shot "in the temple" and that Milton Jones simply did not overhear it. Then, a couple of blocks later, seeing that traffic was not moving and perhaps seeing police stop and search other buses, decided that maybe he had better exit the bus--especially when he saw another woman doing that. But being the cheapskate he was, he asked for a transfer, which he ultimately didn't use. He then took the Whaley cab to a point near his rooming house.
But that "in the temple" statement couldn't stand, especially not if it was uttered by Oswald. Enter an FBI agent or two, who manage to track down a teenage boy Milton Jones who rode the same bus (how did they manage that??) The FBI agents use Jones' purported statements to convince McWatters that he first heard about Kennedy's being shot from someone else, and there is no mention of "in the temple," but it is speculated to have been "in the head."
But the bottom line is this: even if I am completely wrong about McWatters hearing Oswald himself make that oddly specific "in the temple" statement, it does not change a bit any of the other plethora of "forehead/temple" evidence.