We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
J. Lee Rankin: Do you know James P. Hosty, Jr.?
Jack Revell: Yes, sir; I do.
J. Lee Rankin: How long have you known him?
Jack Revell: I have known Jim, Mr. Hosty, since 1959, when I took over the intelligence section.
J. Lee Rankin: Did you see him on November 22?
Jack Revell: Yes, sir; I did.
J. Lee Rankin: Where.
Jack Revell: In the basement of the city hall.
J. Lee Rankin: Just before you saw Special Agent Hosty, where had you been?
Jack Revell: I had been at the Texas School Book Depository.
J. Lee Rankin: What did you do there?
Jack Revell: We conducted a systematic search of the building, evacuated the people working in the building, and took names, addresses, and phone numbers of all of these people before they were permitted to leave.
J. Lee Rankin: Where did you see Special Agent Hosty?
Jack Revell: If I might explain that, I followed Mr. Hosty into the basement of the city hall. He drove into the basement, parked his car, I did the same, and Mr. Hosty departed from his car, ran over to where I was standing, Detective Brian and I.
The other two officers, Westphal and Tarver, as well as I recall, had remained in the rear talking to some other officers. I don't know who they were At that time everything was mass confusion, and we were all upset...Mr. Hosty ran over to me and he says, "Jack" - now as I recall these words - "a Communist killed President Kennedy."
I said, "What?"
He said, "Lee Oswald killed President Kennedy."
I said, "Who is Lee Oswald?"
He said, "He is in our Communist file. We knew he was here in Dallas." At that time Hosty and I started walking off, and Brian, as well as I recall, sort of stayed back, and as we got onto the elevator or just prior to getting on the elevator Mr. Hosty related that they had information that this man was capable of this, and at this I blew up at him, and I said, "Jim" -
J. Lee Rankin: What did he say in regard to his being capable?
Jack Revell: This was it. They had - "We had information that this man was capable".
J. Lee Rankin: Of what?
Jack Revell: Of committing this assassination. This is what I understood him to say.
J. Lee Rankin: Are those his exact words?
Jack Revell: As well as I recall. Give him the benefit of the doubt; I might have misunderstood him. But I don't believe I did, because the part about him being in Dallas, and the fact that he was a suspected Communist, I understand by the rules of the Attorney General they cannot tell us this, but the information about him being capable, I felt that we had taken a part in the security measures for Mr. Kennedy, and if such, if such information was available to another law enforcement agency, I felt they should have made it known to all of us, and I asked Hosty where he was going at that time. By this time we were on the elevator and he said he was going up to homicide and robbery to tell Captain Fritz the same thing. I said, "Do you know Captain Fritz?" and he said he had never met him. I said, "All right, I will take you up and introduce you to Captain Fritz." So Detective Brian and I and Hosty went to the third floor of the city hall and went to Captain Fritz' office, the homicide and robbery bureau. We didn't see Captain Fritz, he may or may not have been there. His office door was closed.
As soon as I walked into Gordon Shanklin's smoke-filled office, I saw the copy of the newspaper lying on his desk. I grabbed it. Staring back at me in bold, black print was the front-page headline: "FBI KNEW OSWALD CAPABLE OF ACT, REPORTS INDICATE."
"Oh God," I groaned.
I quickly scanned the first few paragraphs while Shanklin sat quietly behind his desk puffing away. The story read, "A source close to the Warren Commission told the Dallas News Thursday that the Commission has testimony from Dallas police that an FBI agent told them moments after the arrest and identification of Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, that 'we knew he was capable of assassinating the president, but we didn't dream he would do it...' In a memorandum to supervisors on Nov. 22, Lt. Jack Revill, head of the Dallas police criminal intelligence squad, reported that FBI special agent James (Joe) Hosty had acknowledged awareness of Oswald in the basement of the City Hall at 2:05 PM, Nov. 22. His remark was made as five officers brought Oswald in from Oak Cliff, Revill reported.
The article ended with some enlightening comments from the police: "Dallas police officers watched several known extremists prior to the Kennedy visit and even sent representatives as far as 75 miles to interview others thought to be planning demonstrations. Police chief Jesse Curry privately has told friends, 'If we had known that a defector or a Communist was anywhere in this town, let alone on the parade route, we would have been sitting on his lap, you can bet on that.' But he refused public comment."
The police were blatantly trying to wriggle out from under a rock. I wanted to laugh. The police had a long list of well known Communists in Dallas, and not one had a police officer sitting on his lap on November 22. In fact, Detective H. M. Hart told me that the police neither picked up nor watched anyone the day of November 22. Clearly, someone from the police department had fed this story to reporter Hugh Aynesworth...
J. Edgar Hoover came out blasting. He categorically denied the story's contentions. Revill himself partially retracted some of the article's allegations; he told the Dallas Times Herald that the comment that I never dreamed Oswald would kill the president was all someone else's fabrication. But Aynesworth and the Morning News had done the damage. It would prove to be irreversible regarding my relationships with the Dallas police and the Dallas media.
Two of my fellow agents, Bob Barrett and Ike Lee, later told me about their conversation with Revill after the story broke. Revill told Barrett and Lee that he had not wanted his November 22 memo to be released to the Warren Commission or the press, but police chief Jesse Curry threatened to charge Revill with filing a false police report if Revill wouldn't swear to the truth in his memo. The police then got a memo from Detective Jackie Bryan, who had been standing near Revill and me during this brief garage conversation. Contrary to Aynesworth's assertion, Bryan supported my version of the events. He reported that he did not hear me make any kind of comment suggesting I knew Oswald was capable of killing the president.
About a week after the assassination, Aynesworth, along with Bill Alexander, an assistant district attorney in Dallas, decided to find out if Lee Oswald had been an informant of the Dallas FBI, and of mine in particular. To this end, they concocted a totally false story about how Lee Oswald was a regularly paid informant of the Dallas FBI. At the time, I had no idea what information the Houston Post was relying on; it wasn't until February 1976, in Esquire magazine, that Aynesworth finally admitted he and Alexander had lied and made up the entire story in an effort to draw the FBI out on this issue. They said Oswald was paid $200 a month and even made up an imaginary informant number for Oswald, S172 - which was not in any way how the FBI classified their informants. Aynesworth then fed this story to Lonnie Hudkins of the Post, who ran it on January 1, 1964. Hudkins cited confidential but reliable sources for his story's allegations. The FBI issued a flat denial of the Post story. I was once again prohibited by Bureau procedure from commenting. It was clear that they were pointing a finger at me, since I was known to be the agent in charge of the Oswald file.
Agent Hosty testified that he was fully aware of the pending Presidential visit to Dallas. He recalled that the special agent in charge of the Dallas office of the FBI, J. Gordon Shanklin, had discussed the President's visit on several occasions, including the regular biweekly conference on the morning of November 22.
In fact, Hosty participated in transmitting to the Secret Service two pieces of information pertaining to the visit. Hosty testified that he did not know until me evening of Thursday November 21, that there was to be a motorcade, however, and never realized that the motorcade would pass the Texas School Book Depository Building. He testified that he did not read the newspaper story describing the motorcade route in detail since he was interested only in the fact that the motorcade was coming up Main Street, "where maybe I could watch it if
I had a chance."
Even if he had recalled that Oswald's place of employment was on the President's route, Hosty testified that he would not have cited him to the Secret Service as a potential threat to the President. Hosty interpreted his instructions as
requiring "some indication that the person planned to take some action against the safety of the President of the United States or the Vice President." In his opinion, none of the information in the FBI files - Oswald's defection, his Fair Play for Cuba activities in New Orleans, his lies to Agent Quigley, his recent visit to Mexico City - indicated that Oswald was capable of violence. Hosty's initial reaction on hearing that Oswald was a suspect in the assassination, was "shock, complete surprise," because he had no reason to believe that Oswald "was capable or potentially an assassin of the President of the United States."
Shortly after Oswald was apprehended and identified, Hosty's superior sent him to observe the interrogation of Oswald. Hosty parked his car in the basement of police headquarters and there met an acquaintance, Lt. Jack Revill of the Dallas police force. The two men disagree about the conversation which took place between them. They agree that Hosty told Revill that the FBI had known about, Oswald and, in particular, of his presence in Dallas and his employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building. Revill testified that Hosty said also that the FBI had information that Oswald was "capable of committing this assassination." According to Revill, Hosty indicated that he was going to tell this to Lieutenant Wells of the homicide and robbery bureau. Revill promptly made a memorandum of this conversation in which the quoted statement appears. His secretary testified that she prepared such a report for him that afternoon and Chief of Police - Jesse E. Curry and District Attorney Henry M. Wade both testified that they saw it later that day.
Hosty has unequivocally denied, first by affidavit and then in his testimony before the Commission, that he ever said that Oswald was capable of violence, or that he had any information suggesting this. The only witness to the conversation was Dallas Police Detective V. J. Brian, who was accompanying Revill. Brian did not hear Hosty make any statement concerning Oswald's capacity to be an assassin but he did not hear the entire conversation because of the commotion at police headquarters and because he was not within hearing distance at all times.
As I reported in the News five months later, under the two-column headline "FBI Knew Oswald Capable of Act, Reports Indicate," Hosty arrived at City Hall about 2:05 and rode up in an elevator with Lt. Jack Revill, head of the DPD Criminal Intelligence Squad, and Officer V. "Jackie" Bryan. According to Revill's written account of the episode, typed up 45 minutes later and delivered to Chief Curry that afternoon, in the basement Hosty "stated that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was aware of the Subject (Oswald) and that they had information that this Subject was capable of committing the assassination of President Kennedy."
Hosty denied making the statement to Revill. Over the years he has refused my interview requests.
A few months after the assassination, I asked Gordon Shanklin why the bureau didn't at least tell the Dallas police about Oswald, and where he worked. I observed that the cops surely would have wanted to babysit such a character.
"We didn't want him to lose his job," Shanklin explained.
"Well, Mr. Kennedy lost his," I said quickly, appalled at what I'd just heard.
Though Shanklin never deliberately-to my knowledge anyway-caused me any difficulty, I was told by some of his agents that I was not his favorite person.
According to Dallas Police Lieutenant Jack Revill, an F.B.I, agent came up to him at Dallas police headquarters at 2:50 P.M. and said that the Bureau had "information that this suspect was capable of committing the assassination." The agent who brought this welcome news and was the first to mention the name of Lee Harvey Oswald was none other than James Hosty.
Was Hosty merely an innocent messenger, or had he and possibly others in the Bureau been involved in a plot to set up Oswald as the patsy? If F.B.I, employees had been part of the conspiracy, then that might explain why the Bureau had mysteriously failed to act on the warning sent over its telex system five days before the assassination and why no one responded to. the letter of warning that Richard Case Nagell claimed to have sent to J. Edgar Hoover. It also might explain why Oswald, who evidently did not get along with Hosty and may have sensed that he was being set up, had sent a telegram to the secretary of the Navy ten days before the assassination.
|Block Reason:||Access from your area has been temporarily limited for security reasons.|
|Time:||Tue, 29 Jun 2021 7:42:02 GMT|
Wordfence is a security plugin installed on over 3 million WordPress sites. The owner of this site is using Wordfence to manage access to their site.
You can also read the documentation to learn about Wordfence's blocking tools, or visit wordfence.com to learn more about Wordfence.
Generated by Wordfence at Tue, 29 Jun 2021 7:42:02 GMT.
Your computer's time: .
President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection
Audio tape recordings of conversations that took place after the Kennedy assassination are available at GPO and the National Archives.
November 22, 1963 is when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. The audio tape recordings are of conversations between various individuals in Washington, DC, Air Force One pilots, and officials on board the flight from Dallas to Andrews Air Force Base following the assassination of President Kennedy. One conversation is of President Lyndon B. Johnson being connected to Rose Kennedy to offer his condolences.
Air Force One Flight Deck Recording (Side 1)
Air Force One Flight Deck Recording (Side 2)
Warren Commission Report
The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, commonly known as the Warren Commission, was created by President Lyndon Johnson and chaired by Chief Justice Earl Warren to investigate President Kennedy's assassination. The Commission presented their findings in a report to President Johnson on September 24, 1964.
GPO produced the Warren Commission Report and 26 hearing volumes in 1964. Altogether, GPO's work for the Commission resulted in nearly 235,000 copies of the report and nearly 5,600 sets of the hearings.
Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (Warren Commission Report) - September 24, 1964
Warren Commission Hearings
The Warren Commission also released 26 hearing volumes on November 23, 1964 comprised of testimonies from 550 witnesses and evidence.
Volume I - Contains testimony of the following witnesses: Mrs. Marina Oswald, the widow of Lee Harvey Oswald Mrs. Marguerite Oswald, Oswald's mother Robert Edward Lee Oswald, Oswald's brother and James Herbert Martin, who acted for a brief period as Mrs. Marina Oswald's business manager.
Volume II - Contains testimony of the following witnesses: James Herbert Martin, who acted for a brief period as the business manager of Mrs. Marina Oswald Mark Lane, a New York attorney William Robert Greer, who was driving the President's car at the time of the assassination and others.
Volume III - Contains testimony of the following witnesses: Ruth Hyde Paine, an acquaintance of Lee Harvey Oswald and his wife Howard Leslie Brennan, who was present at the assassination scene Bonnie Ray Williams, Harold Norman, James Jarman, Jr., and others.
Volume IV - Contains testimony of the following witnesses: Sebastian F. Latona, a fingerprint expert with the Federal Bureau of Investigation Arthur Mandella, a fingerprint expert with the New York City Police Department Winston G. Lawson, a Secret Service agent who worked on advance preparations for the President's trip to Dallas Alwyn Cole, a questioned document examiner with the Treasury Department and John W. Fain, John Lester Quigley, and James Patrick Hosty, Jr., agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who interviewed Oswald, or people connected with him, at various times during the period between Oswald's return from Russia in 1962 and the assassination and others.
Volume V - Contains testimony of the following witnesses: Alan H. Belmont, assistant to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Jack Revill and V. J. Brian of the Dallas police, who testified concerning conversations Revill had with James Patrick Hosty, Jr., a special agent of the FBI Robert A. Frazier, a firearms expert with the FBI Drs. Alfred Olivier, Arthur Dziemian and Frederick W. Light, Jr., wound ballistics experts with the U.S. Army laboratories at Edgewood Arsenal, Md. J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and others.
Volume VI - Contains testimony of the following witnesses: Drs. Charles J. Carrico, Malcolm Oliver Perry, William Kemp Clark, Robert Nelson McClelland, Charles Rufus Baxter, Marion Thomas Jenkins, Ronald Coy Jones, Don Teel Curtis, Fouad A. Bashour, Gene Coleman Akin, Paul Conrad Peters, Adolph Hartung Giesecke, Jr., Jackie Hansen Hunt, Kenneth Everett Salyer, and Martin G. White, who attended President Kennedy at Parkland Hospital and others.
Volume VII - Contains testimony of the following witnesses: Drs. Charles J. Carrico, Malcolm Oliver Perry, William Kemp Clark, Robert Nelson McClelland, Charles Rufus Baxter, Marion Thomas Jenkins, Ronald Coy Jones, Don Teel Curtis, Fouad A. Bashour and others.
Volume VIII - Contains testimony of the following witnesses: Edward Voebel, William E. Wulf, Bennierita Smith, Frederick S. O'Sullivan, Mildred Sawyer, Anne Boudreaux, Viola Peterman, Myrtle Evans, Julian Evans, Philip Eugene Vinson, and Hiram Conway, who were associated with Lee Harvey Oswald in his youth Lillian Murret, Marilyn Dorothea Murret, Charles Murret, John M. Murret, and Edward John Pic, Jr., who were related to Oswald and others.
Volume IX - Contains testimony of the following witnesses: Paul M. Raigorodsky, Natalie Ray, Thomas M. Ray, Samuel B. Ballen, Lydia Dymitruk, Gary E. Taylor, Ilya A. Mamantov, Dorothy Gravitis, Paul Roderick Gregory, Helen Leslie, George S. De Mohrenschildt, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt and Ruth Hyde Paine, all of whom became acquainted with Lee Harvey Oswald and/or his wife after their return to Texas in 1962 and others.
Volume X - Contains testimony of the following witnesses: Everett D. Glover, who became acquainted with Lee Harvey Oswald following his return to Texas in 1962 Carlos Bringuier, Francis L. Martello, Charles Hall Steele, Jr., Charles Hall Steele, Sr., Philip Geraci III, Vance Blalock, Vincent T. Lee, Arnold Samuel Johnson, James J. Tormey, Farrell Dobbs, and John J. Abt, who testified concerning Oswald's political activities and associations and others.
Volume XI - Contains testimony of the following witnesses: John Edward Pic, Lee Harvey Oswald's halfbrother Edward John Pic, Jr., John Edward Pic's father Kerry Wendell Thornley, a Marine Corps acquaintance of Oswald George B. Church, Jr., Mrs. George B. Church, Jr., and Billy Joe Lord, who were on the boat Oswald took when he left the United States for Russia and others.
Volume XII - Contains testimony of the following witnesses: Dallas law enforcement officers who were responsible for planning and executing the transfer of Lee Harvey Oswald from the Dallas City Jail to the Dallas County Jail and Don Ray Archer, Barnard S. Clardy, and Patrick Trevore Dean, who participated in the arrest and questioning of Jack L. Ruby and others.
Volume XIII - Contains testimony of the following witnesses: L. C. Graves, James Robert Leavelle, L. D. Montgomery. Thomas Donald McMillon, and Forrest V. Sorrels, who participated in the arrest and questioning of Jack L. Ruby Dr. Fred A. Bieberdorf, Frances Cason, Michael Hardin, and C. E. Hulse, who testified concerning the time at which Lee Harvey Oswald was shot and others.
Volume XIV - Contains testimony of the following witnesses: Curtis LaVerne Crafard, Wilbyrn Waldon (Robert) Litchfield II, Robert Carl Patterson, Alice Reaves Nichols, Ralph Paul, George Senator, Nancy Perrin Rich, Breck Wall (Billy Ray Wilson), Joseph Alexander Peterson, Harry N. Olsen, and Kay Helen Olsen, all of whom were friends, acquaintances, employees, or business associates of Jack L. Ruby Earl Ruby and Sam Ruby, two of Ruby's brothers, and Mrs. Eva Grant, one of his sisters Jack L. Ruby Dr. William Robert Beavers, a psychiatrist who examined Ruby and Bell P. Herndon, an FBI polygraph expert who administered a polygraph test to Ruby.
Volume XV - Contains testimony of the following witnesses: Hyman Rubenstein, a brother of Jack L. Ruby Glen D. King, administrative assistant to the chief of the Dallas police C. Ray Hall, an FBI agent who interviewed Ruby Charles Batchelor, assistant chief of the Dallas police Jesse E. Curry, chief of the Dallas police M. W. Stevenson, deputy chief of the Dallas police and others. Also includes an index to Volumes I - XV.
Volumes XVI—XXVI - These volumes contain reproductions of exhibits received into evidence by the Commission. The exhibits received in connection with testimony before the Commission are printed first, arranged in numerical order from 1 to 1053. Next are printed exhibits received in connection with depositions or affidavits, arranged alphabetically by name of witness, and then numerically— e.g., Adams Exhibits Nos. 1-, Baker Exhibits Nos. 1-22. Finally are printed other materials relied upon by the Commission, consisting principally of investigative reports by law enforcement agencies, arranged in numerical order beginning with 1054. Each volume begins with a table of contents—a descriptive listing of the exhibits in the volume and the page or pages on which each exhibit is printed.
The numbering of the exhibits received in testimony before the Commission is not completely consecutive the unused numbers are noted in the table of contents. Also, various systems of designation were used in connection with deposition and affidavit exhibits, so that the designation of some of these exhibits begins either with a letter or a number higher than 1—e.g., Jones Exhibits A-C, Smith Exhibits Nos. 5000-5006.
Almost all of the reproductions contained in the exhibit volumes consist of photographs of the exhibits. The legibility of many documentary exhibits is poor, because some exhibits were copies rather than originals and many others were discolored when tested for fingerprints. In some cases where legibility was particularly bad, the contents of the document have been typed out, and reproduced together with a miniature photograph of the exhibit. A few exhibits of negligible relevance were not reproduced because of their length or for reasons of taste. The omissions are described in the tables of contents. In a very small number of cases, names, dates, or numbers have been deleted from exhibits for security reasons or for the protection of named individuals.
Volume XVI - Exhibits 1 to 391
Volume XVII - Exhibits 329 to 884
Volume XVIII - Exhibits 885 to 1053
Volume XIX - Exhibits Allen to Fuqua
Volume XX - Exhibits Gallagher to Oliver
Volume XXI - Exhibits Paine to Yarborough
Volume XXII - Exhibits 1054 to 1512
Volume XXIII - Exhibits 1513 to 1975
Volume XXIV - Exhibits 1976 to 2189
Volume XXV - Exhibits 2190 to 2651
Volume XXVI - Exhibits 2652 to 3154
Other Related Publications
Printing of the eulogies to the late President John F. Kennedy:
109 Cong. Rec. (Bound) - November 25, 1963
Tributes delivered by Members of the Senate:
109 Cong. Rec. (Bound) - Senate: December 11, 1963
The creation of the City of DeCordova was initiated via a petition by a group of concerned DeCordova Bend Estates residents. This petition, signed by over 200 residents, was in response to a proposed expansion of incorporated boundaries by the city of Granbury. This expansion would take in the new middle school/future high school site to the south of Highway 377 East and the connecting roadway from the site to Highway 4 at James Road. This action would mean that the city of Granbury would forever block DeCordova Bend Estates (DCBE) from taking any action to become a separate legal entity and would allow Granbury to eventually annex DCBE into the city.
DCBE is a gated community of 3,341 residents (U.S. Census 2008 estimate), and all of its roadways and common property (clubhouse, golf courses, lots and parks) are privately owned. There would be no benefit to the residents of DCBE from taxes levied by and paid to the city of Granbury. The city of Granbury’s Tax in 1999 was 44 cents per 100 dollars evaluation, which equated to $550.00 for a home valued at $125,000.00. The average saving to each DCBE household would be approximately $5,500.00 in the last 6 years. (As of 2007, the Granbury City Tax is 42 cents per 100 dollars evaluation.)
Between November, 1999, and January 13, 2000, the facts surrounding the incorporation of DCBE into a city were presented and discussed by putting out direct mailings to residents, and public information meetings.
The election for incorporation was held on January 15, 2000. Approximately 60 percent (1,304) of the registered voters in DCBE (2,178) marked ballots in the election. Voters overwhelmingly approved incorporation by a vote of 1,154 (88%) for and 150 (12%) against. This mandate created DeCordova, Texas, which is believed to be the first new city in Texas in the 2000 millennium.
The County Judge selected May 6, 2000, as the date for the election of city officials. Twenty-three citizens of DeCordova Bend Estates registered to run for the 6 Alderman positions. Three citizens registered for the position of Marshal. The candidate receiving the most votes became Mayor, as stipulated by state law.
The next five top vote receivers were elected Aldermen. The top vote receiver in the Marshal race was elected Marshal. The County Judge swore in the Mayor, Aldermen and Marshal during a ceremony at the DeCordova Clubhouse on May 12, 2000. The first City Council members elected were: Dick Pruitt, Mayor Aldermen, Aletta Bennett, Truitt Garrison, Richard Reed, Joyce Smith, and Charles Tillema. Jack Revill was elected City Marshal and the City Secretary was Pat Revill.
There is one thing that helps to distinguish between the City of DeCordova and the Owners Association. The DeCordova Board of Directors are elected by one voter per household of the property owner’s association. The City Council is elected by a vote of all registered voters of the City of DeCordova, Texas. There is no intent to levy a tax on the citizens of DeCordova. The present City Council has operated in an efficient and conservative manner and has stated they will never impose a tax on our citizens, as long as they hold office.
Revill was taught to DJ by his best friend Calum Morton (a.k.a. Spencer) at the age of 13  and spent much of his teenage years DJing in bars and clubs around Glasgow - by the time Revill was 17 he was a resident at Glasgow techno institution Monox and promoting his own club-nights alongside Spencer.
He began working at the world-renowned record shop Rubadub in Glasgow at the age of 14 where, rather than asking for money he was paid one record per hours work,  though - after leaving school at 16 - he began working full at time at Rubadub distribution. It was while working at the shop that Revill was given the nickname Jackmaster in reference to the popular term "Jackmaster" coined in the Chicago House music scene in the late 80s. 
He adopted the alias Jackmaster as his DJ moniker in slots on local radio station Radio Magnetic with early mentor Claude Young from Detroit. At the time he had no DJ name and asked to use his birth name, but Claude and Spencer advised he used the name Jackmaster and it stuck. 
Revill was awarded ‘Breakthrough DJ’ at DJ Magazine ' s Best Of British Awards in 2010. 
In 2011, after his Numbers label hosted a series of parties at fabric nightclub in London, Revill was asked by the London clubbing institution to mix and curate FabricLive.57. The mix was received with critical acclaim receiving 4.5 out of 5 on Resident Advisor.  
Revill has played at a number of clubbing institutions such as fabric, Circo Loco at DC10, The Warehouse Project, Output, Berghain, Trouw and Sub Club, as well as festivals such as Glastonbury Festival, Unknown, Lost Village Festival, Dekmantel, Bestival, T In The Park and Dimensions Festival. 
He curated a diverse lineup of acts that included Moodymann, Joy Orbison, Tale Of Us, Dance Mania and DJ Slimzee. 
In December 2014 Revill was voted 'Best DJ' in the DJ Magazine Best of British Awards  as well as coming 11th in Resident Advisor ' s prestigious 'Top 100 DJs of 2014' poll, a poll where he came 5th and 2nd in the following years.  He also embarked upon a highly prestigious residency slot on BBC Radio 1 in August of the same year, joining other DJs such as Grimes, James Blake and Bonobo. 
In November 2016 Revill was awarded the SSE Scottish Music Awards Sub Club Electronic Music Award. Making him the first winner of the new category within the historic and prestigious Scottish Music Awards.  His victory came as part of an event organised to raise funds for Scotland's only music therapy charity, Nordoff Robbins.
In April 2017 Revill was awarded the Tennents Golden Can Award for Contributions to Scottish Culture, placing him beside Scottish legends such as author Irvine Welsh, singer Biffy Clyro and footballer Andy Robertson. 
Revill has set up a number of record labels the first of which, Point.One Recordings, was an electro label set up in 2006 with the intention to release the first works by Warp Records recording artist Rustie under the Voltaic alias.  Following this Revill founded Dress 2 Sweat in 2007,  a vinyl label that focused predominantly on Baltimore club and various other strains of Ghetto Music emerging from the United States. 
A year later, Revill and good friend Calum Morton, along with Calum’s brother Neil, formed Wireblock records which saw releases from Hudson Mohawke and Rustie in the early stages of their career before they signed to Warp Records, as well as personal heroes such a Rome's Lory D. 
The Numbers record label was formed in 2010 with the combining of the three labels, Wireblock, Dress 2 Sweat and Stuffrecords.  Wireblock being run by Revill and brothers Calum and Neil Morton Dress 2 Sweat run by Jack Revill alone and Stuffrecords by Richard Chater.  The first release by Numbers was "If U Want Me" by Deadboy,  and it has since released records by Jamie xx, Mosca, Redinho and Sophie. 
In 2013 Numbers, along with Dedbeat, started a weekender festival called 'Pleasure Principle’. 
Revill was the subject of controversy in August 2018, after he overdosed on GHB  and subsequently attempted to "kiss and grab people against their will" at Love Saves The Day Festival in Bristol. 
Following this, he quickly privately apologized to those offended. Love Saves The Day made the following statement: "The position of the festival and its staff who were affected by Jack's behavior on the night is that Jack has directly apologized to them, he's taken time out to work on himself and undertaken to never repeat this behaviour towards anyone else in future. He has our staff and the festival's support in working towards these aims and his own future happiness." 
He subsequently pulled out of multiple lineups to focus on his recovery.  Revill has accepted responsibility for his actions and has repeatedly spoken publicly about how "It Was All My Fault"  and how "talking about my experiences is one of the first steps towards reaching one of my goals I set myself during recovery, which is to use my voice for good, and my voice to help others". 
In early 2020, Revill raised funds and awareness for Glaswegian charity Brothers in Arms through media work, fundraising and the creation and giveaway of a unique mix.  The charity ensure that people (predominantly although not exclusively men) have access to completely free psychologists through text message. The campaign was considered a success after it saw downloads and donations soar. 
William Ray Charleston - 3/5/2009
Now that we know for sure that Oswald was not the lone shooter, how does Vince Bugliosi react? It was impossible for a shooter to fire two shots less than one second apart with a bolt action rifle.
Michael Calder - 11/20/2007
So Sad. To be near the end of one's life and sell your soul to the devil. I'll just comment on the "Magic Bullet." From the Hearings and Exhibits of the Warren Commission. Commander James Humes: Kennedy's autopsy surgeon was asked if exhibit #399, (Magic Bullet) could have injured President Kennedy. "I think it is most unlikely. The reason I believe it is most unlikiely that this missile could have inflicted either of these wounds is that this missile is basically intact.I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of these locations." From Dr. Shaw, Gov Connally's surgeon we have But the examination of the wrist both by x-ray and at the time of surgery, showed some fragments of metal that make it difficult to believe that the same missile could have caused these two wounds. There seems to be more than three grains of metal missing as far as the - I mean in the wrist. The bullet has lost literally none of it's substance." So sad.
Gary L. Aguilar - 8/28/2007
Lindley asks: "Can you talk about the new findings on bullet fragments from the scene?"
Bugliosi: "That’s not a new story. These former FBI agents came up with a statement, and people are asking around the country about this new story. Here’s how new it is—it’s in my book. They’re talking about neutron activation analysis. It was simply corroborative."
Although there are myriad, similar examples of Bugliosi’s misstating or misunderstanding the data and the science, this is as useful a place as any to begin Bugliosi's high scholastic standards.
Is Bugliosi right that the new, publicized findings and statements of FBI agents are not new at all but are in Bugliosi’s book and that they corroborate his conclusions? Not even close.
But a little background first.
Neutron Activation Analysis of JFK’s Bullet Evidence
First elaborated before the House Select Committee’s (HSCA’s) reinvestigation of Kennedy’s murder in 1977, NAA is a sophisticated scientific technique. Formerly used by the FBI and police, it was said to be able to identify bullets, and to be able to match recovered fragments to specific bullets, by measuring the miniscule levels of “impurities” that are commonly present in bullet lead. Typically, the trace amounts of antimony (Sb), silver (Ag) and copper (Cu) are assayed. But other trace components could also have been used.
Vincent Guinn, an authority on bullet lead analysis, put JFK’s bullet evidence to the test for the HSCA and, against all expectations at the time, testified that NAA seemed to inextricably tie Oswald to the crime.
Since then, NAA has been championed by only two individuals, a retired atmospheric chemist, Ken Rahn, Ph.D. and Mr. Larry Sturdivan, the coauthors of two, back-to-back papers on the topic in 2004. In police circles, however, NAA has been all but abandoned as unreliable.
Drawing from Guinn, Rahn and Sturdivan, Bugliosi explained that NAA only proved useful in the Kennedy case because of an unusual feature that distinguished the bullet lead used in Oswald’s ammunition from that used in other types of hunting rounds. “When subjected to NAA by Dr. Guinn,” Bugliosi said, “all five of the specimens produced a profile highly characteristic of the Western Cartridge Company’s Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition.” Whereas with most bullet lead, said Guinn, the level of trace components are strictly controlled and so, via NAA, measure exactly the same, bullet to bullet, making them indistinguishable. But with Oswald’s ammunition, the levels of trace components vary, bullet to bullet.
Guinn said JFK’s bullet evidence showed the telltale sign it was WCC MC lead: the fragments had varying levels of antimony. Ipso facto, they were Oswald’s bullets.
But “(e)ven more interesting,” Bugliosi elaborated, “the results fell into two distinct groups … all five specimens had come from just two bullets … the large fragment found in the limousine, the smaller fragments found on the rug of the limousine, and the fragments recovered from Kennedy’s brain were all from one bullet.” Thus, the limousine fragments came from the shot that hit Kennedy in the head. But, Bugliosi continued, Guinn’s “most important conclusion by far, however, scientifically defeating the notion that the bullet found on Connally’s stretcher had been planted, was that the elemental composition and concentration of trace elements of the three bullet fragments removed from Governor Connally’s wrist matched those of a second bullet, the stretcher bullet (#399). The stretcher bullet, then, had to be the one that struck Connally … .”
In other words, the NAA “Rosetta Stone” of the JFK case had established three, central facts. First, the varying levels of trace components detected by NAA proved that all the fragments came from the type of ammo used in Oswald’s rifle. Second, the fragments recovered from JFK’s brain and from the limousine all came from a single bullet. Third, only one other bullet, #399, could have played a role, and it could not have been planted because NAA showed that all the remaining fragments, those extracted from the governor, had come from #399. Thus, Bugliosi tells us, with NAA confirming only two bullets from Oswald’s rifle were involved, the possibility of a third bullet and a second gunman had been excluded scientifically. Not only can none of these claims withstand scrutiny, Bugliosi certainly knew of the serious weaknesses.
Neutron Activation and the Kennedy Case
Regarding the "first central fact" – varying trace components prove the fragments came from MCC lead – one obvious problem with this claim is that it fails simple logic – it “begs the question.” In arguing that the varying levels of antimony in the recovered bullets/fragments proves that the ammo came solely from Oswald’s ammunition, he has assumed as true that which is in dispute. The fact there were varying levels of trace components scarcely eliminates the possibility of different types of bullets. Rather, varying levels is precisely what one would expect if different assassins had fired different types of bullets.
Bugliosi’s science isn’t much better than his logic. In a long endnote, Bugliosi acknowledges several recent studies that have cast such doubt on the value of NAA in matching bullets that the technique has been all but abandoned by crime investigators. Yet he writes that, “no one has successfully challenged the findings of Dr. Guinn in the Kennedy assassination,” as if the very studies he cited had not already eviscerated Guinn which, in fact, they had. His argument is that, while new studies show that different bullets from entirely different lots may occasionally turn out to have the same levels of trace elements, and so falsely just *seem* to be from a single bullet, Guinn had shown that the bullets Oswald used were “unlike other manufactured bullets.” Oswald’s bullets, he said, “had different elemental compositions (particularly in antimony content) from bullet to bullet within the same box (normally consisting of twenty rounds) of ammunition.” (Bugliosi’s emphasis throughout)
In other words, the proof the fragments came from the type of ammo Oswald had used, and none other, is that the recovered fragments perfectly fit the profile: the quanta of antimony content varied. Had they instead been any other, single kind of bullet, the levels of antimony would have been constant. But as is now well known from the very research Bugliosi cites, this contention is completely untrue. The lead found in Mannlicher-Carcano bullets is not at all unique or unusual. In fact, it’s rather common.
As two metallurgists from Lawrence Livermore Lab, Erik Randich, Ph.D. and Pat Grant, Ph.D., reported in an article published in the Journal of Forensic Science in 2006 (which Bugliosi cites), “The lead cores of the bullets (Guinn) sampled from WCC lots 6000–6003 contained approximately 600–900 ppm antimony and approximately 17–4516 ppm copper (with most of the copper concentrations in the 20–400 ppm range). In both of these aspects, the WCC MC bullets are quite similar to other commercial FMJ (jacketed) rifle ammunition.” Thus, they conclude, the JFK bullet fragments “need not necessarily have originated from MC ammunition. Indeed, the antimony compositions of the evidentiary specimens are consistent with any number of jacketed ammunitions containing unhardened lead.” Randich and Grant, who specifically rebutted not only Guinn’s original NAA work, but also that of anti-conspiracists Rahn and Sturdivan, said they have no opinion on the conspiracy question. Both remain entirely agnostic.
Bugliosi doesn’t ignore Randich and Grant. He dismisses their paper on the sole basis of a personal letter (which he reprints in a long endnote) from the longtime anti-conspiracist, Mr. Larry Sturdivan, the very man who came up with the idea that NAA was the JFK “Roseetta Stone” in the first place! Unfortunately, like Guinn and Rahn before him, Sturdivan had no metallurgical expertise. So it was no surprise when, in his “refutation,” Sturdivan repeated Guinn’s apparent error, saying that JFK’s bullet fragments were identifiable as WCC MC shells because they had the near-unique NAA profile typical of those bullets, a profile that the metallurgists from Lawrence Livermore Lab say does not exist. “Any number of jacketed” rounds, they said, would have produced the same NAA profile as JFK’s fragments.
But perhaps the most telling aspect of this story is how Bugliosi, who endlessly touts his high standards of scholarship, dealt with these flatly contradictory analyses. He had to choose between the personal remarks of a longstanding anti-conspiracy, NAA proponent with unremarkable credentials and those of two, conspiracy-agnostic, Lawrence Livermore Lab scientists with superb credentials writing in the peer-reviewed, scientific literature.
Given the importance Warren Commission loyalists have attached to this evidence, a scholar of any merit would have checked the claims in Sturdivan’s personal letter with someone in a position to know – if not Randich and/or Grant, then some other authority on bullet metallurgy. Bugliosi apparently didn’t do that, which I only discovered when I contacted Randich and Grant. Both told me Bugliosi had never once contacted them – whether about their paper, about Sturdivan’s “refutation,” or about anything else. And, in rejecting Randich and Grant to embrace Sturdivan’s conclusions, Bugliosi cites no one but Sturdivan, who is as demonstrably inexpert as he is interested in perpetuating NAA as the “Rosetta Stone” of the Kennedy case.
Ironically, it might have saved Bugliosi considerable embarrassment if he had gotten a second opinion. For in the very week Reclaiming History was released, a second scientific report, this one by a team lead by Texas A&M statistician, Clifford Spiegelman, Ph.D and a 24-year veteran of the FBI Lab, William Tobin, Ph.D., was published that corroborated Randich and Grant’s evisceration of NAA. Calling Guinn, Rahn and Sturdivan’s statistical analysis “fundamentally flawed,” Spiegelman et al demonstrated that, properly used, statistical models show that Kennedy’s bullet fragments could have come from more than two bullets, even as many as five. Thus, the second and third central facts of the “Rosetta Stone” have crumbled. Not only does NAA not exclude the possibility of a second assassin, it can’t even prove that all the fragments came from the sort of bullets Oswald is supposed to have used.
So, when asked (above), “Can you talk about the new findings on bullet fragments from the scene?” Bugliosi answered, “These former FBI agents (sic) came up with a statement, and people are asking around the country about this new story. Here’s how new it is—it’s in my book. They’re talking about neutron activation analysis. It was simply corroborative.”
Indeed, the two new studies are corroborative – but of each other, in refuting Bugliosi. And the second study, the one involving only a single, former FBI agent, Tobin, is *not* in Bugliosi’s book.
Citations, in the order they appear in the text:
Kenneth Rahn & Larry Sturdivan, Neutron activation and the JFK assassination - Part I. Data and interpretation. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, Vol. 262, No. 1 (2004) 205 – 213.
Larry Sturdivan & Kenneth Rahn, Neutron activation and the JFK assassination - Part II. Extended benefits. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, Vol. 262, No. 1 (2004) 215 – 222.
Bugliosi, p. 814.
Bugliosi, p. 814.
Clifford Spiegelman et al, Chemical and forensic analysis of JFK assassination bullet lots: Is a second shooter possible? Annals of Applied Statistics, May, 2007. On-line at: http://www.imstat.org/aoas/next_issue.html
Erik Randich et al, Metallurgical Review of the Interpretation of Bullet Lead Compositional Analysis, Forensic Science International, 2002, pp.174, 190).
* Charles Piller & Robin Mejia, Science Casts Doubt on FBI’s Bullet Evidence, Los Angeles Times, February 3, 2003, pp .A1, A16.
* Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology, Forensic Analysis, Lead Evidence, National Research Council, February 10, 2004.
* Los Angeles Times, February 11, 2004, p.A12.
* New York Times, February 11, 2004, p.A17.
* Pittsburgh Tribune Review, November 22, 2003, p.A3)*
* Erik Randich, Ph.D. & Patrick M. Grant, Ph.D. Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from Metallurgical and
Statistical Perspectives. J Forensic Sci, July 2006, Vol. 51, No. 4, p 728. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00165.x. Available online at: www.blackwell-synergy.com
Bugliosi, endnote, p. 435.
Bugliosi, endnote, p. 436.
Erik Randich, Ph.D. & Patrick M. Grant, Ph.D. Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from Metallurgical and
Statistical Perspectives. J Forensic Sci, July 2006, Vol. 51, No. 4, p 723. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00165.x. Available online at: www.blackwell-synergy.com
Erik Randich, Ph.D. & Patrick M. Grant, Ph.D. Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from Metallurgical and
Statistical Perspectives. J Forensic Sci, July 2006, Vol. 51, No. 4, p 728. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00165.x. Available online at: www.blackwell-synergy.com
Personal communication with E. Randich and P. Grant.
Bugliosi, endnotes, p. 437 438.
Bugliosi, endnotes, p. 437.
John Solomon. Study Questions FBI Bullet Analysis in JFK Assassination. Washington Post, 5/16/07, p. A03. On line at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html. See also: Clifford Spiegelman et al, Chemical and forensic analysis of JFK assassination bullet lots: Is a second shooter possible? Annals of Applied Statistics, May, 2007. On-line at: http://www.imstat.org/aoas/next_issue.html
Robin Lindley, Why Vincent Bugliosi Is So Sure Oswald Alone Killed JFK (Interview). History News Network. On-line at: http://hnn.us/articles/41490.html
George Robert Gaston - 8/23/2007
I think this would all be over now Had Lee Oswald been a third rate little Bircher or a third rate little klansman. However, as a third rate little communist, he just did not fit the mold.
Oswald has become a great little cottage industry. I suspect a great deal of money has been earned spilling ink about Lee Oswald’s guilt or innocence.
Gary L. Aguilar - 8/21/2007
Regarding Bugliosi's kind words about the concern the Warren Commission had that the public be given access to the Warren Commission's work, Bugliosi writes, "I made the assumption that they (The Warren Commissioners) were decent, honorable men, and they certainly were . In a cover letter [with] the documents and the records sent to the National Archives, [Chief Justice] Earl Warren said he wanted the fullest disclosure possible to the American public."
This is not the only time the Commission trumpeted how open it was with its records. My copy of the New York Times’ edition of the Warren Report, a Bantam Book edition published simultaneously with the government's version, features a prefatory essay written by revered New York Times correspondent, Anthony Lewis. Entitled, “On the Release of the Warren Report,” among words of praise for the Commission, Lewis writes, “The Commission made public all the information it had bearing on the events in Dallas, whether agreeing with its findings or not. It withheld only a few names of sources, notably sources within evidently within Communist embassies in Mexico, and each of these omissions was indicated.” (Bantam Books edition of Warren Report, published 10/64, p. xxxii.)
And in the introduction to a book he wrote with help from the Warren Commission entitled, "The Witnesses," (publ. 10/64), Lewis similarly wrote, “[O]n Nov. 23, a year and a day after the tragedy in Dallas, the Warren Commission took a further and most extraordinary step to inform the public. It published all the evidence that the seven commissioners and their staff had seen and heard.”
The plain fact is that neither of Lewis's statements is true. It's a virtual certainty that the Warren Commission lied to Lewis about this, perhaps even Earl Warren. For it is impossible to imagine that Lewis would have manufactured these myths of whole cloth.
That they are myths is beyond dispute. On p. 2 of the Assassinations Records Review Board's Final Report, we read that, "President Johnson . initiated a plan for the release of ('The Warren Commission's unpublished records') . The Johnson plan resulted in the release of 98% of the Warren Commission's records by 1992. Thus, at the time that Congress passed the JFK Act only (!) 3,000 pages of Warren Commission material remained for the agencies and the Review Board review." [On-line at: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/report/html/arrb_fin_027.htm ]
In other words, after steadily releasing files from 1964 until 1992, there were 3,000 pages that were still suppressed.
This minor point reflects a major problem with Bugliosi's book: Vincent's unswerving loyalty to only those sources, official and otherwise, that support Oswald's sole guilt. As we will see in subsequent comments, Bugliosi rarely questions anything or anybody telling him something he wants to hear.
Bill McWilliams - 8/21/2007
Bugliosi says he believes in the Official JFK Assassination Story, but I'm sure he knows that Oswald didn't shoot JFK.
Bugliosi wants to sell books and he knows that the corporate media will give
his book glowing coverage ONLY if he goes along with the long-proven bogus conclusions of the Warren Commission.
You get more free press if you don't rock the corporate media's adherence to their politicized application of freedom of the press.
Jack Revill - History
Here are some razors with the trademark
No.1 (private collection) REVIL
Who is “G·REVIL”?
Let’s first look at the directories
1774 “Sketchley’s Sheffield Directory”
Revill George, razor and jack penknife maker New street
1781 “Bailey’s Northern Directory” ( sheffieldhistory.co.uk/forums , Link)
Revill George and sons razor and jack penknife maker New street
(also mentioned in this directory:
Revill Charles filesmith Hill)
1787 “Gales & Martin”
George Revel, razor maker, also Jacks, Ratten Row (Ratten Row = Radford Street)
(also mentioned in this directory:
Joseph Revel, cutler, Pea Croft
Benjamin Revel, cutler, Pea Croft)
1791- “The Universal British Directory of Trade, Part 4, Sheffield“
there is no mention of a cutler, jack or penknife maker by the name “Revel(l)/Revil(l)”.
As a matter of fact, there is no mention of a “George Revel(l)/Revil(l)”,
razor maker, jack or penknife maker anymore since 1787 !
1797 “Robinson’s Directory of Sheffield”
Revil, Joseph, pocket knife cutler, 110, Scotland-street
Revil, Thomas, pocket knife cutler, Little Common
Revil, Charles, filesmith,Carver-street
Revil, Richard, razorsmith,Stannington
(LITTLE COMMON, in the parish of Sheffield,
Wapentake of Strafforth and Tick-Hill 4 miles SSW. of Sheffield)
(Thomas REVILL 1786 (F), father Abraham REVILL, Little Common, cutler
(Abraham REVILL = most probably “Abraham Revel”, Little Common, cutler
(pocket knives) with trademark “ EPHOD ” (Gales & Martin 1787))
1818- - “The Commercial Directory, Sheffield”
Revell Samuel, table-knife, pen & pocket knife cutler, Nursery
“Pen knife cutlers in the neighbourhood of Sheffield”:
Revil W.T. (Thomas?) and A.,Little Common
1822 “Baines’s Directory Yorkshire Vol 1 West Riding, Sheffield”
“CUTLERY, Pen and Pocket Knife Manufacturers”:
Revill / Revell Samuel, 19, Keaton (or Keatson) square, Nursery
Revil / Revill Thomas, Little Common
1825 “General & Commercial Directory of Sheffield”
“Pocket knife mfrs.”: Revill Thomas & Son, near the Well, Little Sheffield
1828 “Blackwell, Sheffield Directory”
“Pocket knife mfrs.”: Revill Thomas & Son, near the Well, Little Sheffield
1833 & 1837 “White”
“Pen & pocket knife mfrs.”: Revell Thomas and Son, Little Sheffield
1841 “Pigot & Co.’s Directory of … Sheffield” ,
“Pen & pocket knife mfrs.”: Revell Thomas, Little Sheffield
1845 “general directory Sheffield, White”
Revill John, spring knife mfr. Radford street house Radford place
1847 “Slater’s Directories of Important English Towns”
“Pen & pocket knife manufacturers”: Revell John, Redford st
It is very hard to search a name, if it is written differently in different directories, different on the razor itself, sometimes even differently in the same directory…
Without a doubt,
Revil l George , razor and jack penknife maker New street (1774 “Sketchley’s”),
Revil l George and sons razor and jack penknife maker New street (1781 “Bailey’s”),
Reve l George , razor maker, also Jacks, Ratten Row (1787 “Gales & Martin”), and
Revil G. , seen on the razors are one and the same George!
(or maybe George Junior as well, see further)
So, we need to find a “ Revill ” (1774, “Sketchley’s”, 1781 “Bailey’s”),
“ Revel ” (1787, “Gales & Martin”), or “ Revil ” (stamp “falchion G R” on razor),
who had this trademark:
(“falchion G R”).
We don’t have to be surprised if even the variant “ Revell ” is used…
• Normally I can find more information, for instance family trees, documents, … • With the search for “Revil” I didn’t had this at all, the only thing I could rely on was the information I could find of the lists of Masters, apprentices (with the names of their father), found on: “sheffieldrecordsonline.org.uk” (search on the “cutlers” tab > “apprentices”, first you need to be registered & logged in), “freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com” (search by letter & compare with the information found on previous link)
The remaining bit was done by many & long hours of thinking, analysing & speculation…
Maybe it is best first to read this: (Information about “apprentices”, “masters”, “Freedom”,…) Background information about the Cutlers’ Company, Freedom, marks… •
(“Where no abode is given then “Sheffield” is generally to be understood”)
Apprentice (+ start date, F = Freedom)
George REVELL (1730/1737, F1739) • George REVELL (1736, 8y. app. F1744) • George Revel (Poor boy, 1752, 8y. app.) • Samuel JOHNSON (1753, 9y.) • John Revell * (1759, F1774) • Joseph SPURR *¹ (1764) • Matthias SMITH (1766, F1777) • George REVELL (1770, F1776 ) • Henry REVELL (1770, F1777) • Joseph WIGGLESWORTH (1774) *² • James WIGGLESWORTH ( 1776 ) *² • Richard HALL (1778, 7-3y.) • James ANTROBUS (F1786) • John COX (1781, 7y. app.) • John BAGSHAW (1783, 7y. app.) • George HOLDEN * (1788, 10y. app.) • John CROOKES (F 1791) • Samuel HARRISON (F 1791) • John TURTON (1789) • Daniel ROBINSON (1789, 7y. app.) • George Revill (1802)
Tristram REVELL, Whiston, husbandman • Henry REVELL, Bramley, wheelwright • ? (Worksop) • Samuel JOHNSON, Rotherham • George REVELL * cutler • Samuel SPURR, Sheffield, Moor *¹ • Daniel SMITH, cutler (Deceased) • George REVELL cutler • George REVELL cutler • William WIGGLESWORTH *² • William WIGGLESWORTH *² • Richard HALL, Worsbrough • James ANTROBUS • Joseph COX, cutler (deceased †) • James BAGSHAW, Barmbrough (labourer) • Elias HOLDEN * (late Rotherham) • Jonathan CROOKES • Samuel HARRISON • John TURTON, Barnsborough • Daniel ROBINSON, Rotherham, shoemaker (†) • Henry Revill, razor maker
1730, Jeremiah LORD, cutler 1737, Joseph CAWTON • Jonathan MORTON (cutler) • Joseph DYSON, Owlerton (cutler) • George REVELL, cutler • ? George REVELL, cutler ? • George REV I LL *¹ , cutler (SEE REVELL) • George REVELL, cutler • George REVELL , cutler • George REVELL , cutler • George REVELL, cutler *² • George REVELL , junior cutler *² • George Revill, cutler • George REVELL, cutler • George Revill, cutler • George REVEL, cutler • George REVIL & SON cutler * • George REVEL, razor maker • George REVEL, razor maker • George Revill, cutler • George REVEL, cutler • Samuel DUTTON, knife maker
( the specific craft of “razorsmith” in which Freedom could be granted was generally listed no sooner then the 1780s, in the 1774 “Sketchley’s Sheffield Directory” though there is already mentioning of “razor makers” , “balh.org.uk“)
* “ George REVIL & SON “, who had “George HOLDEN (Father: Elias HOLDEN, late Rotherham)” as an apprentice in 1788 for 10 years were in fact “George REVELL, cutler”, with his son “John Revell/Revil (1759, F1774)”, and not the George Revel and sons were looking for. (for more information, see further below this article) *¹ : “Joseph SPURR (1764)”, one source puts his master as Revell , the other as Revill ! * ² : “Joseph Wigglesworth”, 1774, apprenticed to George Revell “James WIGGLESWORTH” (his brother), apprenticed to: (1) 1776 (7,5 y.) George Revell, junior . (2) 1779 (3-11) to Smith Thomas
Both, “George REVELL” (1730, 1737, F1739), as well as “George REVELL” (1736, F1744), would have apprentices. It is impossible to say which George Revell had which apprentices. That is why I haven’t noted all apprentices of “George Revell”
Now, when we look at the real evidence, we see:
- 1774 “Sketchley’s Sheffield Directory”
Revill George, razor and jack penknife maker New street
- 1781 “Bailey’s Northern Directory” (Link)
Revill George and sons razor and jack penknife maker New street
- 1787 “Gales & Martin”
George Revel, cutler, Ratten Row (Ratten Row = Radford Street)
So, between 1774 & 1781 , George Revill, razor and jack penknife maker , New street ,
had at least 2 son’s who were granted Freedom to work with their father. Meaning,
those 2 son’s were ≥ 21years around 1775-1780 , thus born ≤ 1754-1759 , which gives
a timeframe in which father George was born , around ≤ 1726-1738 . Father George
would have become an apprentice ≤ 1740-1752 , and granted Freedom ≤ 1747-1759 .
The directory of 1787 (“Gales & Martin”) shows 2 trademarks of George Revel, 1 of
them is the known trademark of George Revill (1774 “Sketchley’s Sheffield Directory”).
Despite is was normal to have more then one trademark when they became Freeman of another discipline, I believe it would be strange to have a second
trademark around the age of 40-50 years…
Because “Revel (Revill) George” moved (to “Ratten Row”), also because
of the second trademark (and the fact there isn’t mentioned an extra trade which would explain a second trademark) and the change from “Revill George and sons ” to “Revel (Revill) George”, I believe the Gales & Martin” “George Revel/Revill” is “George Revel/Revill Junior “ ! He would have inherited the trademark of his father,
(“falchion G R”)
I wouldn’t be surprised if father George Revill had died between 1781 & 1787, or at least wasn’t able to work anymore. By then, George Revel junior would have inherited his fathers trademark (“falchion G R”).
George Revel’s second trademark (“cross BELVOIR”) in Gales & Martin Directory”, could be George Revel junior ‘s own trademark, granted together with his freedom. (or maybe of his brother Henry?).
Of course, all of this is pure speculative…
Still, all this information leads to the assumption that “ George REVELL (1770, F1776 )
& Henry REVELL (1770, F1777) , son’s of George Revell, cutler, could very well be the
son’s of the George Revill we’re looking for.
It appears to fit very well! Knowing that “George & Henry Revell” (son’s of George), got their Freedom in 1776 (George) & 1777 (Henry), it would explain the fact that “ George Revill/Revell ” (father) was listed in 1774 without his son’s (they were still
in their apprenticeship), and “ Revill George & sons ” was listed in 1781 . This isn’t evidence, but still a assumable possibility!
Now, look a moment at next example:
Matthias SMITH, son of Daniel Smith, Grenoside, cutler ( deceased ) was apprenticed to: (1) Robinson Jonathan, cutler, 9-2 , 1761
(2) Staniland Richard, cutler, 7 , 1763
(3) Revell George , cutler, 3-9 , 1766, F1777
I believe what is meant is:
(1) Matthias Smith needed to be an apprentice of Robinson Jonathan for 9y. (Before
being a Freeman), after 2y., for some reason (sickness, death of the master,…) it
wasn’t possible to continue…
(2) Matthias continued the remaining period (7y.) as an apprentice of Staniland Richard.
(3) 3y. later, in 1766, he continued his apprenticeship with Revell George. He only needed 3y. (till 1769), but he was bound (probably to work as a journeyman) for a period of 9y. (an extra 6y.) instead of 3y. (until 1775), before he it was possible for him to be Free and start his own firm, after which Matthias Smith was granted his Freedom in 1777.
(Also see “Background information about the Cutlers’ Company, Freedom, marks…“:
“…It seems likely that this was designed to use them as journeymen.
It seems that poor boys, or boys whose fathers was dead, were
more likely to be bound for longer periods. “balh.org.uk”…
Revell George, son of George, cutler, to Father, cutler 3-8, 1770, F1776
If the previous statement is correct, following example suggests, that Revell George, son of George, cutler, was apprenticed (1770) for a minimum period of 3 years (to be granted Freedom, minimum in 1773) to his father, but was bound for 8 years (until 1778). So, George junior was a Freeman in 1776, but stays working for his father (under his name) until at least 1778. This also suggests that George junior was 21 years old around 1773 (minimum age of 21 to be Freeman)!
When we look for more details on the brothers Wigglesworth, found in the list above::
*² : “Joseph WIGGLESWORTH”, 1774, apprenticed to George Revell
“James WIGGLESWORTH” (his brother), apprenticed to:
(1) 1776 (7,5 y.) George Revell, junior .
(2) 1779 (3-11) to Smith Thomas,
it seems clear that “Joseph Wigglesworth” was apprenticed to “father George Revell”,
and “James Wigglesworth” to “George Revell junior “. If “George Revell junior “ is
indeed “George Revell (1770, F1776)”, and was allowed to take his Freedom in “ 1773 “,
he would have been working for three years with his father before taking his first apprentice, as obligated by the Company (Background information about the Cutlers’ Company, Freedom, marks…). He maybe had waited to take his Freedom until he was
at age to have apprentices (1776), after this he still would have worked with his father for at least two years, till 1778. (Revell George, son of George, cutler, to Father, cutler 3-8, 1770, F1776) . Or everything was written down in a contract between father & son.
After this he remained working with his father, according to Bailey’s Northern Directory”, “Revill George and sons ” razor and jack penknife maker New street), and most probably worked on his own in ≤1787 (“ 1787 Gales & Martin “,George Revel, razor maker, also Jacks, Ratten Row).
Assuming “ Revell George, son of George, cutler, to Father, cutler 3-8, 1770, F1776″ ,
means that George junior was 21y. in 1773 , (thus ° 1752 ) , the earlier found timeframe
in which father George could have been born , (around ≤ 1726-1738 , because 2 son’s
were ≥21years around 1775-1780 ) , can be adjusted to ≤ 1724-1731 . Father George
would the have become an apprentice around ≤ 1738-1745 , and granted Freedom
around ≤ 1745-1752 .
As seen in the list above, George REVELL (1730, 1737, F1739 , father: Tristram),
as well as George REVELL (1736, F1744 , father Henry), could both possible be
“ father George Revill/Revell ” with trademark:
Henry REVELL (Bramley, wheelwright), father of George REVELL (1736, F1744 ),
had at least one other son, Joseph REVELL, apprenticed to Robert KIPPAX, cutler
Joseph REVELL was granted his Freedom in 1765.
Assuming that the father of George Revell (1770, F1776) & Henry Revell
(1770, F1777) named his children after his father and himself, I would
think that the first possibility ( George REVELL (1736, F1744 )) could be
If this is the case, they most probably wouldn’t make razors, pen & pocketknives
in the 19th century, since there is a no cutler named George or Henry Revel(l)/Revil(l)
to be found in the directories after 1787…
The only thing I’ve found was a George Revill (father Henry Revill, razor maker),
1802, apprenticed to Samuel DUTTON, knife maker. It is not sure if Henry Revill
is Henry Revell (1770, F1777), but the fact he is a razor maker, makes it for me
again more assumable that he is in fact the son of George Revel(l)/Revil(l) who
made razors with the trademark “falchion G R”
I believe George Revel (Poor boy, 1752) isn’t an option as “father George”, since, if
he would have an apprenticeship of 7 years, and would be a Freeman at 21 years,
he would have been 21y. around 1759, which would make it very tight to have gotten
2 son’s who would have become 21 years (+ Freemen) before 1781, and surely
practically impossible to have a son, 21y. in 1773.
* (see previous name list) By 1787, as we have established earlier, Father “George Revel(l)/Revil(l)” was not in the trade anymore his son “George Revel(l)/Revil(l)” junior, ° 1773 , who went on with the trade, was too young to have a son who could be old enough to work together with his father in 1787. So, “ George REVIL & SON “, who had “George HOLDEN (Father: Elias HOLDEN, late Rotherham)” as an apprentice in 1788 for 10 years were in fact “George REVELL, cutler”, with his son “John Revell (1759, F1774)”, and not the George Revel and sons were looking for. Interesting is the following document (link1 & link2): “John REVIL (signs ‘ Revell ‘) married Sarah LAW, 2 Mar. 1783″
Since several data is lost in the past, it could also very well be that “ the ” George Revel(l)/Revil(l) we are searching for, isn’t found in these antique documents…
To conclude, very little to non real evidence exists of which George was the George
Revil(l)/Revel(l) who made these razors with the trademark “falchion G R”
It is very well probably though that “George REVELL/ REVILL” (1736, F1744 ),
was the one that is mentioned in , Sketchley’s Sheffield Directory” & Bailey’s Northern Directory” as razor maker. “George Revel JUNIOR” (1770, F1776 ) would be the one that is mentioned in Gales & Martin” as razor maker.
So, it isn’t certain if these razors are made by “Father George” or “George Junior”
These two razors both have the typical “Dip-at-toe” feature
(“Dip-at-toe” stubtails 18th century , SRP “Dip-at-toe” 18th century ),
a feature of razors made between 1760-1790, although the second
razor seems to be older then the first because:
- The trademark is stamped on the blade itself
- “G•REVIL”, the use of 1 or 2 “dots” between “first forename letter” & “last name”,
is seen IMHO on razors made around 1760-1775 (so, made by “Father George”)
Highly probable though is the fact that George Revil(l)/Revel(l)
didn’t make razors in the 19th century
Possibly this is an “earlier” razor, around 1790…
(no “Dip-at-toe”, younger tail (more round and shorter))
Ruth Dean stood next to Maddie Reese and in front of Otis Williams and was captured in the Wiegman and Darnell films and also partially in Altgens 6, in the latter image she is mostly obscured by the Secret Service Agent Jack Ready with Paul Landis behind him.
HSCA enlargement Altgens 6 of Ruth Dean
Ruth Dean (dressed in black with black hat) on the front steps in Wiegman
Ruth Dean in the Darnell film
The best image however was captured by Jim Murray and only recently, thanks to Linda Giovanna Zambanini and the ROKC scan below was Ruth Dean identified, up till the end of 2015 it was assumed that the lady in black was Sarah Stanton.
Ruth Dean in the black outfit and hat next to Madeleine Reese
Ruth Dean from Larry Sneed’s No More Silence.Criminal Intelligence Report, by R. W. Westphal. Report to Captain W. P. Gannaway through Lt. Jack Revill concerning Ruth Dean Feb 1964 Criminal Intelligence Report, by R. W. Westphal. Report to Captain W. P. Gannaway through Lt. Jack Revill concerning Ruth Dean Feb 1964 Criminal Intelligence Report, by R. W. Westphal. Report to Captain W. P. Gannaway through Lt. Jack Revill concerning statement by Ruth Dean CE 1381 Ruth Dean No More Silence-An Oral History of the Assassination of President Kennedy – Larry A Sneed-97 No More Silence-An Oral History of the Assassination of President Kennedy – Larry A Sneed-98 No More Silence-An Oral History of the Assassination of President Kennedy – Larry A Sneed-99
4. Major collections
The following provides details of repositories and institutions that hold major collections relating to military history.
4.1 General repositories
Holds papers of Sir Winston Churchill, including those relating to his military career airforce, military and naval papers, predominantly 20th century, including the papers of Marshal of the RAF Sir William Dickson, Air Marshal Sir Thomas Elmhirst, General Sir Charles Bonham Carter, General Sir Thomas Erle, Field Marshal William Joseph Slim, Admiral Andrew Browne Cunningham, and Admiral John Arbuthnot Fisher. See Select Classified Guide To The Holdings Of The Churchill Archives Centre (1992).
Personal diaries, letters and unpublished memoirs of over 5000 servicemen and women and civilians in war time. Records of senior commanders from all three services, from both world wars, including Marshal of the RAF William Sholto Douglas, Field Marshal John Denton Pinkstone French, Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, and Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson.
Papers of Sir Basil Liddell Hart. Private papers of higher commanders of the armed services and defence personnel in the 20th century including Field Marshal Edmund Henry Hynman Allenby, Field Marshal Alan Francis Brooke, Major-General John Frederick Charles Fuller, Major-General Sir Percy Hobart and Admiral Francis William Kennedy. Upwards of 400 individual accessions. See the Consolidated List of Accessions (1986), further Supplement 1985-1990.
Peter Liddle&rsquos 1914-18 Personal Experience Archive, the private letters, diaries, logs and non-manuscript material of some 5000 individuals who served in the armed forces, merchant navy and wartime civilian occupations during the First World War.
Papers relating to the history of Scottish servicemen. Private diaries and papers, regimental order books and papers including the Royal Scots Greys and the records of local militia and fencibles 17th-20th century. Papers of General Sir David Baird.
The main collection of the 1st Duke of Wellington&rsquos papers including military correspondence. Papers of Earl Mountbatten of Burma, covering his period in command of Combined Operations in the Second World War, as Supreme Allied Commander in SE Asia and his post war roles as First Sea Lord and Chief of the UK Defence staff. Material on HMS Kelly. Papers relating to the Dieppe Raid. Papers of Wing Commander Marchess de Casa Maury and copies of papers (some with original material) of Vice-Admiral J Hughes-Hallett. The Library also holds papers relating to the Nuremberg Military Tribunal 1945-49. See CM Woolgar and K Robson, A Guide to the Archive and Manuscript Collections of the Hartley Library (1992).
4.2 Specialist repositories &ndash Army
Most of the papers held by this organisation have been deposited in the National Army Museum. See next entry.
Papers relating to the British Army and earlier formations from the 15th-20th centuries, with a strong emphasis on the 18th and 19th centuries. Private papers of army officers including General Sir William John Codrington, Field Marshal Sir George Nugent, Lord Fitzroy Somerset, Lt-General Sir James Outram and General Henry Seymour Rawlinson. A large collection of personal papers and memoirs of service by individual soldiers. Regimental records including the 9th/12th Royal Lancers, Westminster Dragoons, the Surrey Yeomanry and Middlesex Regiment. Records of the Women&rsquos Royal Army Corps and the Royal Army Educational Corps. Records of organizations, including the United Service Club.
A small MS collection, including the papers of Dame Maud McCarthy, Army Matron in Chief.
Artillery topics 1716-20th century. Papers of serving officers, including papers of General Sir Robert Biddulph, General Sir Robert William Gardiner, Lt-General John Henry Lefroy, the collections of Lt-General Samuel Cleveland and Major-General Sir Alexander Dickson. Regimental archives, including Royal Artillery unit war diaries for the First and Second World Wars.
Private papers of serving and former RE serving officers, including General Sir John Burgoyne, General Sir John Hawkins and General Sir Edward Stanton. Letters from Major-General Gordon 1874-1879, miscellaneous letters, papers and notebooks of Gordon. Papers of Major General Sir Elliot Wood. Diaries, journals and papers of officers and other ranks 18th-20th centuries. A large collection of plans, maps and surveys relating to the work of the Royal Engineer Corps and predecessor bodies.
RE Garrison letter books 18th-19th centuries, unit war diaries, mainly the First World War, personnel registers, records of related bodies and organisations including sports clubs. Private papers, including typescript memoirs of Major FJ Mulgheen relating to tunnelling 1914-18. ER James&rsquo narrative account of Crimean War experiences (3 volumes). Sir John Glubb&rsquos diaries 1914-18. Typescript history of General Sir Charles W Pasley (founder of Royal School of Military Engineering) by Colonel JC Tyler. An extensive collection of MS and typescript technical reports, a photograph collection and a collection of maps and plans.
Records of the Academy and predecessor bodies, the Royal Military Academy (Woolwich) and the Royal Military College, Sandhurst. Papers of General JG Le Marchant.
Papers relating to the history of military communications from the Crimean War to the present day. Records of the Royal Corps of Signals and predecessor bodies, the Telegraph Battalions Royal Engineers and subsequently the Royal Engineers Signal Service. Diaries and papers of officers and soldiers who served in the various units 19th-20th century.
Manuscripts and other material relating to the history of mechanical armoured warfare on land. War diaries and histories of British armoured regiments and papers of serving individuals.
MS collection of the Royal Army Medical Corps, comprising private journals and papers of army surgeons including Sir John Hall and Sir Thomas Longmore. MS collections relating to army medical services including the Mytchet Collection. Administrative records of the Corps, its component units and predecessor bodies are kept in The National Archives (series WO), including war diaries of individual units, WO 95 (First World War) and WO 177 (Second World War).
4.3 Specialist repositories &ndash Royal Navy
Official records including papers of Board of Admiralty, Navy Board, Royal Dockyards and related bodies 17th-19th centuries. Personal papers of serving officers including Admirals Beatty, Hawke, Hood and Nelson. Several large collections of naval MSS comprising letters, papers, journals, logs and order books. Some papers of the Royal Naval Air Service and business records of shipbuilding firms including Vickers-Armstrongs Ltd. See RJB Knight Guide to the Manuscripts in the National Maritime Museum, vol i The Personal Collections (1977), vol ii: Public Records, Business Records and Artificial Collections (1980).
Archives of the Corps, including material transferred from the Ministry of Defence, comprising divisional order books from 1664. Personal correspondence, papers, diaries and log books of serving officers.
Papers and photographs relating to the general and in particular the social history of the Royal Navy from the 17th century to the present day. 200 hundred logs and journals, several hundred personal records of service and the official WRNS collection. Correspondence and papers of Admiral Sir Arthur Auckland Cochrane, Admiral Sir Robert Stopford and Admiral Sir Reginald Godfrey Otaw Tupper. Some official clerk&rsquos office papers of Portsmouth Dockyard. The museum now holds the manuscript collections formerly at the Admiralty Library.
4.4 Specialist repositories &ndash Royal Air Force
Archives relating to British Aerospace and its predecessor companies engaged in aircraft manufacture at Brooklands, Vickers-Armstrongs Ltd and the British Aircraft Corporation, including De Havilland Engine Co Ltd, D Napier & Son Ltd and Rolls-Royce. A large collection of technical drawings and manuals. Records of aircraft designers including Barnes Wallis (with information relating to the Dams raid).
Records relating primarily to British military aviation (although they also hold some civil aviation material). Private papers of former serving officers including senior commanders, most notably, Air Chief Marshals Hugh Caswell Tremenhere Dowding, Sir Douglas Evill, Sir Roderic Hill, Sir Leslie Hollinghurst and Marshals of the RAF Sir Arthur Tedder and Sir Hugh Trenchard. A collection of air crew log books and diaries and papers of airmen and women and also papers of pioneer aviators, such as Lord Brabazon of Tara and Sir Charles Richard Fairey. Business records of aircraft manufacturers (mainly drawings) including Handley Page Ltd, HG Hawker Engineering Co and Sopwith Aviation Co Ltd.