The Most Damning Evidence Against Oswald

[Greg Parker]

Greg/Ray,

I find this subject very interesing and somewhat supportive of my position when taken in total.

Jim, I'm afraid it's not as it may seem...

"the incident seems to have really occurred. Why would Finigan make it up? How did Oswald know about it to take credit in his letter of April 16?"[/b]

1st "Patrolman Finigan noticed a white male with a Viva Castro sign passing out literature on the corner of Main and Ervay. He was eventually chased by Finigan, but got away."

If Oswald "got away" he could not have been identified by Finigan, correct?

2nd In the testimony of James Patrick Hosty we find this information:

Mr. HOSTY. It says, "On April 21, 1963, Dallas confidential informant T-2 advised that Lee H. Oswald of Dallas, Tex, was in contact with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New York City at which time he advised that he passed out pamphlets for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. According to T-2, Oswald had a placard around his neck reading, 'Hands Off Cuba, Viva Fidel.'"

T-2 XX XXX. The letter was photographed during an April black bag job on FPCC HQ. (Source: Deep Politics p 261)

Mr. STERN. Did you attempt to verify that information?

Mr. HOSTY. When I got it, it was approximately 6 or 7 weeks old, past the date it allegedly took place, and we had received no information to the effect that anyone had been in the downtown streets of Dallas or anywhere in Dallas with a sign around their neck saying "Hands Off Cuba, Viva Fidel." It appeared highly unlikely to me that such an occurrence could have happened in Dallas without having been brought to our attention. So by the time I got it, it was, you might say, stale information and we did not attempt to verify it.

BSometer going off here. In his letter to FPCC, Oswald stated the incident occurred "yesterday" - the letter was sent either Apr 16 or Apr 19. It was therefore only 3 to 6 days old by the time Hosty got to hear about it - not 6 or 7 weeks. (see Lee Ex #1 which says Apr 19 - but other sources say Apr 16).

Mr. STERN. When you record this as something that an informant advised about on April 21, that doesn't mean he advised you or the Dallas office on April 21?

Mr. HOSTY. That is right.

Mr. STERN. Did this information come from another part of the FBI?

Mr. HOSTY. Yes, sir; it came from the New York office of the FBI. They were advised on the 21st of April.

Mr. STERN. But the information didn't get to you until some time after?

Mr. HOSTY. In June, I believe.

Mr. STERN. Did you have any information apart from this that there was an organization active in the Dallas area called, "The Fair Play for Cuba Committee"?

Mr. HOSTY. No, sir; we had no information of any organization by that name.

According to Finigan, Oswald was not identified because he "got away." How then did the FBI get the information to inform Agent Hosty that the event did occur and that Oswald was involved unless the Oswald letter was read in New York. If Oswald's mail was being read and he was writting to the FPCC on a regular basis, all of his movements (that we know that he was reporting to the FPCC) were being reporte by Oswald himself and if his name was on the mail opening watch list then all of his movements were being monitored by both the FBI agents and those doing the mail opening (see post above on mail opening program conducted by the CIA). Not only Oswald's movements but his thoughts were being monitored as well

Does this prove or just suggest that Oswald was on the CIA mail opening watch list? If so, when could we suppose that Oswald's name got added to this watch list. Since we know for a fact that the CIA was reading mail sent to organizations in New York and it appears that Oswald's mail was being read around April 21, 1963 would it be so far off the mark to suggest that Oswald's name may have made it to the watch list in 1957?

See thread Communist Propaganda & Oswald . I believe he deliberately got himself on the watch list in early Jan '63 - just in time for his pistol postal epistle

Jim Root

greg

Edited for language.

Edited December 11, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[Terry Adams]

"in Marina's recent interview with Vincent Bugliosi she made it clear that she does not believe that Lee shot Kennedy but is still convinced that LHO shot at Walker because, "he (LHO) told me so."

I always felt that Marina was pressured into saying that LHO shot at Walker, but this recent statement by her seems to nullify that. Has anyone (besides Bugliosi), that we know of, spoken to her recently about how she came to justify her change of heart about Oswald's guilt.

Terry

[Tim Gratz]

Terry, a very interesting and significant point.

I am sure many of us believe that Marina may be the key to shedding a light of light on what was really happening.

If she now believes LHO did not kill JFK, what about her statements to the WC implying to the contrary? Were they forced upon her? If so, by whom?

The problem is I agree with Bill Kelly that if some individual researcher tries to interview her and get her to tell the tgruth, it might backfire unless done exactly right, presumably by a professional. And the professional should have a complete mastery of at least her testimony, and the Paines and DeMohrenschildt's, before approaching her.

I have often wondered if an approach through LHO's daughters might work.

Edited December 11, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Antti Hynonen]

Terry Adams Posted Today, 12:43 PM

"in Marina's recent interview with Vincent Bugliosi she made it clear that she does not believe that Lee shot Kennedy but is still convinced that LHO shot at Walker because, "he (LHO) told me so."

I always felt that Marina was pressured into saying that LHO shot at Walker, but this recent statement by her seems to nullify that. Has anyone (besides Bugliosi), that we know of, spoken to her recently about how she came to justify her change of heart about Oswald's guilt.

Terry

The Walker incident is an interesting case. Mainly because Lee Oswalds name has been brought up as the possible assailant. Personally, I think it is possible that Lee did the shooting.

If this is true, most interesting would be to find out who the others were, that were spotted at the scene, fleeing (with Lee Oswald?) in the two cars leaving the site.

I am willing to bet that their names have already been discussed in this case.

[John Dolva]

"Answered b4 and you know it."

No, sir, I do not recall--or I would not have asked. If that is the case, you need not bother reposting but just post a url to the thread where it was posted.

Sir??? Lissen 'ere, Bud, I aint bin knighted (and would certainly refuse if offered)

"...do not recall... If that is the case, you need not bother reposting..." - thank you, most obliging, Sir Timothy. (script addendum: the trick is to turn the tap on.)

Tim, I'm tired of this one for now (or just plain tired, not sure) . Tomorrow is another day. I'll do the URL then (maybe).

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I am sure many of us believe that Marina may be the key to shedding a light of light on what was really happening.

The problem is .. that if some individual researcher tries to interview her and get her to tell the tgruth, it might backfire... I have often wondered if an approach through LHO's daughters might work.

Tim Gratz has no real interest in the truth about the JFK assassination. Marina has told the truth all along and Tim is simply not interested in hearing it.

Unlike Mr. Gratz, Marina understands that even if her husband did take a pot shot at Walker’s house, as he told her, that fact would not be evidence that he shot JFK or J.D. Tippit

Marina knows that whoever killed JFK had a powerful motive, and she also knows that her husband had NO MOTIVE. In fact, her husband warmly approved of JFK, and had no desire to see Lyndon Johnson in the White House.

But Mr. Gratz insists on further harassment of Marina, and maybe even her children. No doubt it will distract attention from the search for JFK’s assassins.

Since Marina’s testimony has not changed in over forty years, Mr. Gratz’s logical next move would be to subject her to the famous American technique of waterboarding.

[Greg Parker]

T-2 XX XXX. The letter was photographed during an April black bag job on FPCC HQ. (Source: Deep Politics p 261)

Edited for language.

Thank XXX, Antti! X had no idea personal pronouns were being given the 1984 treatment here. XX will be a challenge posting without resort to such foul "language", but X believe X am up to XX. XXX may well have saved me from Eternal XXXXfire and XXXXXXXXX!

[Antti Hynonen]

Greg Parker Posted Today, 01:40 AM

QUOTE

T-2 XX XXX. The letter was photographed during an April black bag job on FPCC HQ. (Source: Deep Politics p 261)

Edited for language.

Thank XXX, Antti! X had no idea personal pronouns were being given the 1984 treatment here. XX will be a challenge posting without resort to such foul "language", but X believe X am up to XX. XXX may well have saved me from Eternal XXXXfire and XXXXXXXXX!

What are you trying to say?

If you have a question regarding this why don't you PM me?

[John Simkin]

The Walker incident is an interesting case. Mainly because Lee Oswalds name has been brought up as the possible assailant. Personally, I think it is possible that Lee did the shooting.

I suppose it is just about possible that Oswald fired a shot at General Walker. As a right-winger he was much hated by those who had left of centre views (assuming that Oswald was indeed a Marxist). However, there is no logic in the fact that Oswald shot at both Walker and JFK. Why would someone on the left want JFK be replaced by LBJ?

[Tim Gratz]

I sure do not understand Mr. Carroll's post at all.

Marina has always told the truth?

No wonder if he believes that Mr. Carroll is forced to argue there was no nexus between the Walker shooting and the JFK shooting since per Marina LHO told her he shot at LHO.

But someone can correct me if I am wrong but there is PLENTY that Marina said to link her dead husband to the murder of JFK, including her identification of the back-yard photos. Which if I recall correctly was only one of many inculpatory statements she made connecting him to the assassination.

Mr. Carroll, I take it that the following is your position:

(1) Mr. Oswald indeed had the backyard photos taken AFTER he had shot at Gen. Walker.

(2) Mr. Oswald did not kill JFK.

(3) Nevertheless, when he was asked about the backyard photos, he claimed they were composites, thus lying to the police.

Now either Marina lied or Oswald lied re the backyard photos. It seems that simple.

But where or where did you get the impression that I was encouraging anyone to harrass Marina and/or her children? In fact, because of the discussion, I was careful to note that Marina should NOT be contacted by an amateur "researcher".

Edited December 12, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Let's continue a reasoning process.

IF Oswald did NOT shoot at Walker, then Marina is indeed a xxxx, is she not?

What are the other possibilities?

(1) That Oswald shot at Walker and shot Kennedy. But I think that we would all disagreee with THAT hypothesis.

(2) Oswald shot at Gen Walker but not at JFK. Then, per John's hypothsesis (I understand he is only offering it as a hypothesis and not necessarily advocating it) Oswald was a genuine leftist (and thus arguably not an agent of any US intelligence service).

Is there a fourth possibility? That the Walker shooting was staged, simulated, but for whatever reason LHO (who must have been witting of the subterfuge) lied to Marina about his involvement. Therefore, although Oswald did not TRY to kill Walker, Marina was telling the truth about what Oswald had told her.

I TEND to think the fourth possibility might be closest to the truth. What do you think? Also, did I miss any possibilities?

[Mark Knight]

I also believe the fourth conclusion may be the closest to the truth...that someone shot AT Walker, LHO may have lied about any involvement on his part, and Marina was simply telling the truth, as she knew it.

As a hunter and sportsman, it's inconceivable to me that the same shooter who missed so badly a stationary target like Walker, then scored three for three hits [or two for three, if you believe in the shot that missed] on a moving target at longer range. Of course, even Jesse Curry said they could not place LHO in THAT window, with THAT rifle, at THAT moment in time...and it appears LHO's only accusers in the Walker shooting, at the time, were Walker himself, and Marina. IF he were a bona fide suspect, isn't it conceivable that the DPD would've brought him in for questioning? Since the Walker shooting was only a crime in the State of Texas, and not a federal matter, the FBI would've had no reason to get involved, Walker's national notoriety notwithstanding, unless the DPD solicited their assistance.

I think the Walker shooting should be looked upon as what's becoming increasingly clear to me: a staged incident, meant to put some distance between Walker and LHO should the need arise. For that to be the case, one would have to consider--and accept--the premise that LHO and Walker were working for the same people...people ON THE RIGHT. The same people who needed the Paris summit to collapse apparently also wanted JFK out of the way. And these same people wanted groups like the FPCC to collapse...which it did, after JFK's assassination, when word got out that LHO was a member. LHO's left-wing "credentials" in this scenario then would be an acting job by LHO, in order to infiltrate the FPCC and bring about its collapse from within...which is pretty much the way things played out after LHO's arrest.

The ONLY flaw to this scenario si that Walker flubbed up and played the "Oswald-shot-at-me-too" card WAY too early in the game. The way I see it, that card was ONLY to be played in the event that the leftist facade that Oswald built began to unravel...THEN it could be justified, the Walker shooting cementing Oswald's crumbling leftist legend back into place. Walker apparently panicked and played his trump card early, when he might just as well have sloughed off and no one would've been the wiser. In this scenario, Jim Root's hypothesis that Walker was on that flight with Oswald and gave him the info he needed to gain instant access to the USSR makes complete sense. Oswald was always taking his orders from the same team as Walker was...and LHO's "patsy" comment came when he realized that, no matter how well he'd done his job, he was the odd man out, and his life was expendable...all for the "greater good," you understand.

Edited December 12, 2007 by Mark Knight

[Greg Parker]

Greg Parker Posted Today, 01:40 AM

QUOTE

T-2 XX XXX. The letter was photographed during an April black bag job on FPCC HQ. (Source: Deep Politics p 261)

Edited for language.

Thank XXX, Antti! X had no idea personal pronouns were being given the 1984 treatment here. XX will be a challenge posting without resort to such foul "language", but X believe X am up to XX. XXX may well have saved me from Eternal XXXXfire and XXXXXXXXX!

What are you trying to say?

If you have a question regarding this why don't you PM me?

Antti,

Don't mistake me for someone who cares enough about your censorship to complain about it.

I promise you no offense was meant in what I originally said, nor in my response to you above. In the latter, I was just trying to get across my amusement at the deletion of "my".

I do think it's a pity you would rather censor two relatively innocuous words than comment on what followed (the bit about Hosty lying), but that's your business.

In your time here, you've shown yourself to be a fine researcher with a good mind. The zeal with which you apparently apply yourself to moderating could be construed as a misused resource if it is eating into time spent on this case.

FWIW

[Thomas H. Purvis]

In his excellent book "Breach of Promise" Prof McKnight identifies one exhibit to the WC as the most damning evidence against Oswald as Kennedy's assassin. I can see why he says that.

For people who have not read the book, what do you think would be the most damning evidence against Oswald? It's not the backyard photos. Merely because Oswald had his photo taken holding the M-C (assuming arguendo the photos are legitimate) does not mean he used it to shoot at anyone.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/commonality

commonality

2 a: possession of common features or attributes : commonness b: a common feature or attribute

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonality

Commonality may refer to:

Common attributes or characteristics

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[J. Raymond Carroll]

If anyone still thinks that Mr. Gratz is capable of, or even interested in, an HONEST reasoned dialog concerning the JFK assassination, then please compare these two recent posts:

But someone can correct me if I am wrong but there is PLENTY that Marina said to link her dead husband to the murder of JFK, including her identification of the back-yard photos.

The person I can cite to correct MR. Gratz and show that he is wrong is ...... Tim Gratz himself.

Merely because Oswald had his photo taken holding the M-C .. does not mean he used it to shoot at anyone.

As John Simkin pointed out on a thread dealing with The Washington Post's proposed censorship of Jefferson Morley, Tim Gratz is incapable of making a sustained logical argument.

The most basic prerequisite for making a logical argument is Intellectual Honesty.

Edited December 12, 2007 by J. Raymond Carroll