Post by Rob Caprio on Oct 26, 2021 12:11:14 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
farm6.static.flickr.com/5029/5648321077_0f00a39830_b.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) said Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was the sole assassin of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) and the sole killer of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT). Part of their evidence for these claims came from eyewitness identifications OR more accurately, claims of eyewitness identifications. As we saw in #23 of the Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions series their main witness for the JFK shooting (Howard Brennan) did NOT identify LHO while he was alive as the shooter he claimed to see on 11/22/63.
We also saw in #33 of that series (Helen Markham) how the main witness for the JDT shooting did NOT identify LHO either UNTIL she was assisted by the WC lawyer (the number two man) and even then it was a poor identification since it was based on chills and NOT his face.
Finally, as we saw in #53 of that series (lineup issues) the Dallas Police Department (DPD) did NOT conduct fair and legal lineups for the witnesses to view. Also, as seen in #51 of that series (John Abt legal representation issue) LHO was DENIED legal representation he was entitled to under the Constitution of the United States, thus, he had NO one guarding his rights at these lineups to make sure they were conducted fairly and the so-called identifications were done legally.
This post will look at another odd claim of a positive identification regarding a witness who signed a statement BEFORE he viewed the lineup!
*************************************
William Whaley, the cab driver who the WC claimed carried LHO from the point he got off the bus to near his boarding house at Beckley and Neeley Streets, who replaced a “Darryl Click” as the man who would drive LHO that fateful day. Whatever happened to “Darryl Click” is NOT known, but Mr. Whaley took over for him.
First off, Whaley repeated an supposed statement by Dallas Detective Jim Leavelle that is completely FALSE if it was uttered by him as claimed.
Mr. BALL. Now, in the police lineup now, and this man was talking to the police and telling them he wanted a lawyer, and that they were trying to, you say he said they were trying to, frame him or something of that sort—
Mr. WHALEY. Well, the way he talked that they were doing him an injustice by putting him out there dressed different than these other men he was out there with.
Mr. BALL. Now, did anyone, any policeman, who was there, say anything to him?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; Detective Sergeant Leavelle, I believe it was, told him that they had, would get him his lawyers on the phone, that they didn't think they were doing him wrong by putting him out there dressed up.
By showing him in a lineup with NO lawyer present to DEFEND HIS RIGHTS was a total violation of the law so to say they were “not doing him wrong” by doing so with NO lawyer was an outright LIE if it was spoken as claimed by Mr. Whaley. Furthermore, what did he mean by “lawyers”? How many lawyers were they supposedly trying to get for LHO? If it was plural as stated, why did they have so much trouble in getting one then? Finally, notice his comment about LHO saying again he was being framed! Many people arrested claim to be innocent, but most DON’T claim to be framed (they simply say you have the wrong person) so this has to make us wonder.
As for “Darryl Click” at least one person was curious about him.
Mr. BALL. Do you know a taxi driver named Darrell Click?
Mr. WHALEY. I may know his face, sir, but not his name.
Mr. BALL. You don't know his name?
Mr. WHALEY. We go mostly by numbers.
Mr. BALL. Okay, no further questions. The witness is excused.
I didn’t say he was REALLY curious, just curious. So the biggest investigation in the history of the country at that time couldn’t find one taxi driver? I doubt that so one has to wonder if “Darryl Click” ever existed at all, and yet, he was the one they claimed at first drove LHO to the area of his boarding house.
Here is Whaley’s first claim of identifying LHO.
Representative FORD. Did the man you identified have any reaction when they brought the group out, did he have any reaction that you noticed at the time you identified him?
Mr. WHALEY. Only that he was the only one that had the bruise on his head, sir. The only one who acted surly. In other words, I told this Commission this morning you wouldn't have had to have known who it was to have picked him out by the way he acted. But he was the man that I carried in my taxicab. I told them when I identified him. I didn't identify him as the man who shot the President. I identified him as the man who rode from the Greyhound to 1500 North Beckley with me.
Representative FORD. Did you point him out with your hand?
Mr. WHALEY. No, sir; I did not. They asked me which number he was standing under and he was standing under No. 2.
So we see LHO had a bruise on his head and NO one else had any visible injuries (of course not as they were teenagers) so this made LHO stand out. Also, his acting “surly” and stating he was being “framed” made him stand out too according to Whaley. He even says he told the WC that “you wouldn’t have to have known who it was to have picked him out”, but of course this was truly the man he drove despite there being NO evidence showing he did in fact drive him! By the way, as we will soon see he could NOT have been under the number "2" as Whaley claims here.
As we seen previously in other posts the men in the lineup were made to tell the eyewitnesses their name, where they were born and where they worked and LHO was the ONLY one telling the truth! Keep in mind by the time these people arrived at the Dallas Police Department (DPD) they had heard multiple times how LHO was being accused of being the shooter, and where he shot FROM so imagine how he would stand out when he said “LHO, New Orleans, I work at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD)” while the teenagers were giving fake names and places of work that I am sure were NOWHERE near Dealey Plaza (DP). This alone made the lineups an unfair proposition for LHO. Also, we know the people he was with were teenagers because Whaley said so in his WC testimony.
Mr. BALL. They brought you down to the Dallas police station?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you do there?
Mr. WHALEY. …Then they took me down in their room where they have their show-ups, and all, and me and this other taxi driver who was with me, sir, we sat in the room awhile and directly they brought in six men, young teenagers, and they all were handcuffed together. Well, they wanted me to pick out my passenger.
At that time he had on a pair of black pants and white T-shirt, that is all he had on. But you could have picked him out without identifying him by just listening to him because he was bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers and all of that and they asked me which one and I told them. It was him all right, the same man.
Mr. BALL. They had him in line with men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. With five others.
Mr. BALL. Men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. Not much younger, but just young kids they might have got them in jail.
Mr. BALL. Did he look older than those other boys?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes.
We see LHO was NOT in a lineup with people that looked similar to him, and when you add in the bruise, the comments about unfair treatment and him having to state his real name and place of work you can see he would stand out like a sore thumb. None of this matters though as Whaley said he could have picked him out anyway as his passenger.
Mr. BALL. And he was talking, was he?
Mr. WHALEY. He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.
Mr. BALL. Did that aid you in the identification of the man?
Mr. WHALEY. No, sir; it wouldn't have at all, except that I said anybody who wasn't sure could have picked out the right one just for that. It didn't aid me because I knew he was the right one as soon as I saw him.
Why Whaley was so sure he could have identified him will be shown shortly. Whaley said he picked LHO out because he was standing under the NUMBER 2, and thus, he was the man he drove as LHO was indeed the number two man in the lineups.
There are several problems with this claim. First off, he said in a SWORN AFFIDAVIT that was signed on 11/23/63 that he picked out the NUMBER 3 man, NOT the number two! Here is a link to the affidavit.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pages/WH_Vol21_0376a.gif
It clearly says, “The number 3 man who I now know as Lee Harvey Oswald was the man I carried from the Greyhound bus station to the 500 block of “ North Beckley.” The WC asked him about this when they called him back for more questioning.
Mr. BELIN. You saw a lineup?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what number he was in the lineup at all?
Mr. WHALEY. There was four of them, sir, and from the right to the left, he was No. 3.
Here we see he is sticking with number 3, but of course the WC couldn’t allow this so they began to play a game of shells.
Mr. BELIN. Starting from the right to the left, from his right or your right.
Mr. WHALEY. From your right, sir, which would have been his left. There were numbers above their heads, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Whaley, what number did you say the man was in the lineup?
Mr. WHALEY. No. 2.
Mr. BELIN. From the right or from your right?
Mr. WHALEY. From my left.
Mr. BELIN. No. 2?
Mr. WHALEY. They brought out four of them and stood them up there, and he was under No. 2. I mentioned he was the third one that come out. There were four and all handcuffed together.
Now he is in the correct spot, but how did he get there when he was just the number 3 man a moment before? They then introduced Whaley Exhibit A (see above) and asked him about his comment in it. This opened a MASSIVE CAN OF WORMS for the WC and showed how ludicrous these claims of identifying LHO really were.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Now in here it says, "The No. 3 man who I now know is Lee Harvey Oswald was the man who I carried from the Greyhound Bus Station* * *" Was this the No. 3 or the No. 2 man?
Mr. WHALEY. I signed that statement before they carried me down to see the lineup. I signed this statement, and then they carried me down to the lineup at 2:30 in the afternoon.
He said he SIGNED the statement BEFORE he went to view the lineup! Of course Whaley would try to act confused when asked about this.
Mr. BELIN. You signed this affidavit before you saw the lineup.
Mr. WHALEY. Well, now, let's get this straight. You are getting me confused.
How can he be confused when he said he signed the statement before he viewed the lineup HIMSELF? He clearly said he signed it before he viewed the lineup when he was NOT asked about this, but now of course it was because he was “confused.” Here he tries to explain all of this for us.
Mr. WHALEY. Let me tell you how they fixed this up. They had me in the office saying that. They were writing it out on paper, and they wrote it out on paper, and this officer, Leavelle, I think that is his name, before he finished and before I signed he wanted me to go with him to the lineup, so I went to the lineup, and I come back and he asked me which one it was, which number it was, and I identified the man, and we went back up in the office again, and then they had me sign this. That is as near as I can remember.
This is NOT an acceptable explanation because IF it did happen the way he said then why did he sign it saying it was the NUMBER THREE MAN AFTER HE SAW LHO STANDING UNDER NUMBER TWO as he claimed in his earlier WC testimony? It is obvious, he signed the statement BEFORE ever viewing the lineup and the men who had him sign it did NOT know what number LHO would be assigned. This “identification” would have been thrown out in any court of law.
Further support for Whaley’s identification of the “number three man” came from Detective Leavelle himself. He wrote a summary of his activity on 11/22/63 and 11/23/63 and it is included in the twenty-six volumes as Commission Exhibit (CE) 2003. If we go to page 311 of that exhibit we will see this written by Leavelle.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0165a.gif
Also at this showup was William Whaley, another cab driver, who drove Oswald from the Greyhound bus depot to the 500 Blk. of North Beckley. He also identified Oswald as the #3 man in a 4-man lineup. Others in the lineup were: #1 John Thurman Horn (?), #2 David Knapp, #3 Oswald, #4 Daniel Lujon.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0165a.htm
Quote off
As usual there are a couple of things of interest in this statement by Leavelle. What did Leavelle mean by “he ALSO identified Oswald as the #3 man”? Who else did this? I thought LHO was in the number TWO spot for all the lineups according to the DPD and the WC! Secondly, we clearly see LHO was positioned in the number THREE area as Whaley said in his affidavit, so why was the WC trying to get him to change his statement? And why was he so willing to do so when his affidavit reflected the TRUE positions of the men in the lineup?
Whaley would further state this in his testimony before the WC.
Mr. BELIN. When you saw the statement the first time, did you see the statement before you went down to see the lineup?
Mr. WHALEY. No; I didn't see the statement. I don't think I did. I am not for sure.
I think I signed it after I came back. It was on paper. They were writing it up on paper.
Mr. BELIN. They were writing?
Mr. WHALEY. Before I left there, I signed this typewritten, because they had to get, a stenographer typed it up. I had to wait.
Mr. BELIN. But was this before or after you saw the lineup.
Mr. WHALEY. After she typed it up. It was after.
Mr. BELIN. It was after?
Mr. WHALEY. That is when I signed it, after.
Mr. BELIN. Now, when you signed it--what I want to know is, before you went down, had they already put on there a statement that the man you saw was the No. 3 man in the lineup?
Mr. WHALEY. I don't remember that. I don't remember whether it said three or two, or what.
Mr. BELIN. Did they have any statements on there before you went down to the lineup?
Mr. WHALEY. I never saw what they had in there [affidavit]. It was all written out by hand. The statement I saw, I think, was this one, and that could be writing. I might not even seen this one yet. I signed my name because they said that is what I said.
This sums up the whole process of “identifying” LHO as the man he drove to North Beckly. He was TOLD he said this and told to sign it. Is this how our legal system is suppose to work? I don’t think so, what about you?
It is clear he was told to pick out LHO BEFORE he even went to view the lineup based on the evidence listed in this post. In an odd set of circumstances, he viewed the one lineup that did NOT have LHO in the number two spot, thus, this caused some concern and confusion for the WC which they tried to correct by having him change his story to identifying the number two man when IT WAS NOT LHO in the lineup he saw at 2:30 P.M.
farm6.static.flickr.com/5029/5648321077_0f00a39830_b.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) said Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was the sole assassin of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) and the sole killer of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT). Part of their evidence for these claims came from eyewitness identifications OR more accurately, claims of eyewitness identifications. As we saw in #23 of the Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions series their main witness for the JFK shooting (Howard Brennan) did NOT identify LHO while he was alive as the shooter he claimed to see on 11/22/63.
We also saw in #33 of that series (Helen Markham) how the main witness for the JDT shooting did NOT identify LHO either UNTIL she was assisted by the WC lawyer (the number two man) and even then it was a poor identification since it was based on chills and NOT his face.
Finally, as we saw in #53 of that series (lineup issues) the Dallas Police Department (DPD) did NOT conduct fair and legal lineups for the witnesses to view. Also, as seen in #51 of that series (John Abt legal representation issue) LHO was DENIED legal representation he was entitled to under the Constitution of the United States, thus, he had NO one guarding his rights at these lineups to make sure they were conducted fairly and the so-called identifications were done legally.
This post will look at another odd claim of a positive identification regarding a witness who signed a statement BEFORE he viewed the lineup!
*************************************
William Whaley, the cab driver who the WC claimed carried LHO from the point he got off the bus to near his boarding house at Beckley and Neeley Streets, who replaced a “Darryl Click” as the man who would drive LHO that fateful day. Whatever happened to “Darryl Click” is NOT known, but Mr. Whaley took over for him.
First off, Whaley repeated an supposed statement by Dallas Detective Jim Leavelle that is completely FALSE if it was uttered by him as claimed.
Mr. BALL. Now, in the police lineup now, and this man was talking to the police and telling them he wanted a lawyer, and that they were trying to, you say he said they were trying to, frame him or something of that sort—
Mr. WHALEY. Well, the way he talked that they were doing him an injustice by putting him out there dressed different than these other men he was out there with.
Mr. BALL. Now, did anyone, any policeman, who was there, say anything to him?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; Detective Sergeant Leavelle, I believe it was, told him that they had, would get him his lawyers on the phone, that they didn't think they were doing him wrong by putting him out there dressed up.
By showing him in a lineup with NO lawyer present to DEFEND HIS RIGHTS was a total violation of the law so to say they were “not doing him wrong” by doing so with NO lawyer was an outright LIE if it was spoken as claimed by Mr. Whaley. Furthermore, what did he mean by “lawyers”? How many lawyers were they supposedly trying to get for LHO? If it was plural as stated, why did they have so much trouble in getting one then? Finally, notice his comment about LHO saying again he was being framed! Many people arrested claim to be innocent, but most DON’T claim to be framed (they simply say you have the wrong person) so this has to make us wonder.
As for “Darryl Click” at least one person was curious about him.
Mr. BALL. Do you know a taxi driver named Darrell Click?
Mr. WHALEY. I may know his face, sir, but not his name.
Mr. BALL. You don't know his name?
Mr. WHALEY. We go mostly by numbers.
Mr. BALL. Okay, no further questions. The witness is excused.
I didn’t say he was REALLY curious, just curious. So the biggest investigation in the history of the country at that time couldn’t find one taxi driver? I doubt that so one has to wonder if “Darryl Click” ever existed at all, and yet, he was the one they claimed at first drove LHO to the area of his boarding house.
Here is Whaley’s first claim of identifying LHO.
Representative FORD. Did the man you identified have any reaction when they brought the group out, did he have any reaction that you noticed at the time you identified him?
Mr. WHALEY. Only that he was the only one that had the bruise on his head, sir. The only one who acted surly. In other words, I told this Commission this morning you wouldn't have had to have known who it was to have picked him out by the way he acted. But he was the man that I carried in my taxicab. I told them when I identified him. I didn't identify him as the man who shot the President. I identified him as the man who rode from the Greyhound to 1500 North Beckley with me.
Representative FORD. Did you point him out with your hand?
Mr. WHALEY. No, sir; I did not. They asked me which number he was standing under and he was standing under No. 2.
So we see LHO had a bruise on his head and NO one else had any visible injuries (of course not as they were teenagers) so this made LHO stand out. Also, his acting “surly” and stating he was being “framed” made him stand out too according to Whaley. He even says he told the WC that “you wouldn’t have to have known who it was to have picked him out”, but of course this was truly the man he drove despite there being NO evidence showing he did in fact drive him! By the way, as we will soon see he could NOT have been under the number "2" as Whaley claims here.
As we seen previously in other posts the men in the lineup were made to tell the eyewitnesses their name, where they were born and where they worked and LHO was the ONLY one telling the truth! Keep in mind by the time these people arrived at the Dallas Police Department (DPD) they had heard multiple times how LHO was being accused of being the shooter, and where he shot FROM so imagine how he would stand out when he said “LHO, New Orleans, I work at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD)” while the teenagers were giving fake names and places of work that I am sure were NOWHERE near Dealey Plaza (DP). This alone made the lineups an unfair proposition for LHO. Also, we know the people he was with were teenagers because Whaley said so in his WC testimony.
Mr. BALL. They brought you down to the Dallas police station?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you do there?
Mr. WHALEY. …Then they took me down in their room where they have their show-ups, and all, and me and this other taxi driver who was with me, sir, we sat in the room awhile and directly they brought in six men, young teenagers, and they all were handcuffed together. Well, they wanted me to pick out my passenger.
At that time he had on a pair of black pants and white T-shirt, that is all he had on. But you could have picked him out without identifying him by just listening to him because he was bawling out the policeman, telling them it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers and all of that and they asked me which one and I told them. It was him all right, the same man.
Mr. BALL. They had him in line with men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. With five others.
Mr. BALL. Men much younger?
Mr. WHALEY. Not much younger, but just young kids they might have got them in jail.
Mr. BALL. Did he look older than those other boys?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes.
We see LHO was NOT in a lineup with people that looked similar to him, and when you add in the bruise, the comments about unfair treatment and him having to state his real name and place of work you can see he would stand out like a sore thumb. None of this matters though as Whaley said he could have picked him out anyway as his passenger.
Mr. BALL. And he was talking, was he?
Mr. WHALEY. He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.
Mr. BALL. Did that aid you in the identification of the man?
Mr. WHALEY. No, sir; it wouldn't have at all, except that I said anybody who wasn't sure could have picked out the right one just for that. It didn't aid me because I knew he was the right one as soon as I saw him.
Why Whaley was so sure he could have identified him will be shown shortly. Whaley said he picked LHO out because he was standing under the NUMBER 2, and thus, he was the man he drove as LHO was indeed the number two man in the lineups.
There are several problems with this claim. First off, he said in a SWORN AFFIDAVIT that was signed on 11/23/63 that he picked out the NUMBER 3 man, NOT the number two! Here is a link to the affidavit.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pages/WH_Vol21_0376a.gif
It clearly says, “The number 3 man who I now know as Lee Harvey Oswald was the man I carried from the Greyhound bus station to the 500 block of “ North Beckley.” The WC asked him about this when they called him back for more questioning.
Mr. BELIN. You saw a lineup?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what number he was in the lineup at all?
Mr. WHALEY. There was four of them, sir, and from the right to the left, he was No. 3.
Here we see he is sticking with number 3, but of course the WC couldn’t allow this so they began to play a game of shells.
Mr. BELIN. Starting from the right to the left, from his right or your right.
Mr. WHALEY. From your right, sir, which would have been his left. There were numbers above their heads, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Whaley, what number did you say the man was in the lineup?
Mr. WHALEY. No. 2.
Mr. BELIN. From the right or from your right?
Mr. WHALEY. From my left.
Mr. BELIN. No. 2?
Mr. WHALEY. They brought out four of them and stood them up there, and he was under No. 2. I mentioned he was the third one that come out. There were four and all handcuffed together.
Now he is in the correct spot, but how did he get there when he was just the number 3 man a moment before? They then introduced Whaley Exhibit A (see above) and asked him about his comment in it. This opened a MASSIVE CAN OF WORMS for the WC and showed how ludicrous these claims of identifying LHO really were.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Now in here it says, "The No. 3 man who I now know is Lee Harvey Oswald was the man who I carried from the Greyhound Bus Station* * *" Was this the No. 3 or the No. 2 man?
Mr. WHALEY. I signed that statement before they carried me down to see the lineup. I signed this statement, and then they carried me down to the lineup at 2:30 in the afternoon.
He said he SIGNED the statement BEFORE he went to view the lineup! Of course Whaley would try to act confused when asked about this.
Mr. BELIN. You signed this affidavit before you saw the lineup.
Mr. WHALEY. Well, now, let's get this straight. You are getting me confused.
How can he be confused when he said he signed the statement before he viewed the lineup HIMSELF? He clearly said he signed it before he viewed the lineup when he was NOT asked about this, but now of course it was because he was “confused.” Here he tries to explain all of this for us.
Mr. WHALEY. Let me tell you how they fixed this up. They had me in the office saying that. They were writing it out on paper, and they wrote it out on paper, and this officer, Leavelle, I think that is his name, before he finished and before I signed he wanted me to go with him to the lineup, so I went to the lineup, and I come back and he asked me which one it was, which number it was, and I identified the man, and we went back up in the office again, and then they had me sign this. That is as near as I can remember.
This is NOT an acceptable explanation because IF it did happen the way he said then why did he sign it saying it was the NUMBER THREE MAN AFTER HE SAW LHO STANDING UNDER NUMBER TWO as he claimed in his earlier WC testimony? It is obvious, he signed the statement BEFORE ever viewing the lineup and the men who had him sign it did NOT know what number LHO would be assigned. This “identification” would have been thrown out in any court of law.
Further support for Whaley’s identification of the “number three man” came from Detective Leavelle himself. He wrote a summary of his activity on 11/22/63 and 11/23/63 and it is included in the twenty-six volumes as Commission Exhibit (CE) 2003. If we go to page 311 of that exhibit we will see this written by Leavelle.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0165a.gif
Also at this showup was William Whaley, another cab driver, who drove Oswald from the Greyhound bus depot to the 500 Blk. of North Beckley. He also identified Oswald as the #3 man in a 4-man lineup. Others in the lineup were: #1 John Thurman Horn (?), #2 David Knapp, #3 Oswald, #4 Daniel Lujon.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0165a.htm
Quote off
As usual there are a couple of things of interest in this statement by Leavelle. What did Leavelle mean by “he ALSO identified Oswald as the #3 man”? Who else did this? I thought LHO was in the number TWO spot for all the lineups according to the DPD and the WC! Secondly, we clearly see LHO was positioned in the number THREE area as Whaley said in his affidavit, so why was the WC trying to get him to change his statement? And why was he so willing to do so when his affidavit reflected the TRUE positions of the men in the lineup?
Whaley would further state this in his testimony before the WC.
Mr. BELIN. When you saw the statement the first time, did you see the statement before you went down to see the lineup?
Mr. WHALEY. No; I didn't see the statement. I don't think I did. I am not for sure.
I think I signed it after I came back. It was on paper. They were writing it up on paper.
Mr. BELIN. They were writing?
Mr. WHALEY. Before I left there, I signed this typewritten, because they had to get, a stenographer typed it up. I had to wait.
Mr. BELIN. But was this before or after you saw the lineup.
Mr. WHALEY. After she typed it up. It was after.
Mr. BELIN. It was after?
Mr. WHALEY. That is when I signed it, after.
Mr. BELIN. Now, when you signed it--what I want to know is, before you went down, had they already put on there a statement that the man you saw was the No. 3 man in the lineup?
Mr. WHALEY. I don't remember that. I don't remember whether it said three or two, or what.
Mr. BELIN. Did they have any statements on there before you went down to the lineup?
Mr. WHALEY. I never saw what they had in there [affidavit]. It was all written out by hand. The statement I saw, I think, was this one, and that could be writing. I might not even seen this one yet. I signed my name because they said that is what I said.
This sums up the whole process of “identifying” LHO as the man he drove to North Beckly. He was TOLD he said this and told to sign it. Is this how our legal system is suppose to work? I don’t think so, what about you?
It is clear he was told to pick out LHO BEFORE he even went to view the lineup based on the evidence listed in this post. In an odd set of circumstances, he viewed the one lineup that did NOT have LHO in the number two spot, thus, this caused some concern and confusion for the WC which they tried to correct by having him change his story to identifying the number two man when IT WAS NOT LHO in the lineup he saw at 2:30 P.M.