Oswald Leaving TSBD?

[David Josephs]

[...]

This is the opening of A11... and yet days/weeks later (after his death) you want us to believe he and the others were get [sic] these "quotes" correctly [sic]??

[...]

David,

I see your point. They needed a proofreader!

Hmmm, actually, that wouldn't explain it, would it.

You seem to be arguing that the the bad guys made that sentence up and put it in Oswald's mouth. i'm saying they probably didn't make it up because I don't think they were clever enough to not answer the question in such a creative, Oswald-like way.

But you're right. Oswald probably didn't say exactly that sentence. He probably said, "You know how young guys are...," and they misquoted him, seein' as how so much time had elapsed and all.

Question: Since the bad guys claimed that Oswald denied owning a rifle, why didn't they have him deny owning a revolver, too? Then, they could "produce' the one he may-or-may-not have owned and substituted it for the one that may-or-may-not have been planted on him in the theater, yelled xxxx xxxx pants on fire, publicized it, and gotten their own gun back!

--Tommy

Tommy -

What I'm arguing is that without a tape recording (stenographer notes can be changed or transcribed incorrectly) we cannot know.... and going on the basis of what the rest of the evidence tells us - Oswald was guilty before it even happened so much so that virtually every piece of evidence recorded and offered confirms this preconclusion... is it really a surprise to you that the DPD coordinated its story and made sure to account for all the WHY's... while at the same time dropping the clues to their compliance with the conspiracy?

The amount of "evidence" created after the fact is mind boggling... everything from ONI files "compiled" for outside review which cherry-picked the info, to the interpretation/inclusion of parts of the FBI WCDocs, to what the FBI reports themselves say, to who they DIDN'T talk to.

COULD he have said it? of course... SHOULD the DPD be infinitely ashamed of itself and held accountable for not bothering to record as evidence the FREELY GIVEN statements of the suspect PRIOR to his arrest for said crime or arraignment... of course....

Now... to Fritz's notes and his report....

In the NOTES (p3 of 5) - it says Oswald tells him he "bgt gun 7 mo Ft W.(orth)" surprisingly THAT didn't make the interrogation reports...

In the REPORT (p3) it says that Oswald said "he went home, changed his trousers, and got his pistol and went to the pictures"

In the NOTES (and from Bookout) we learn it was not just his trousers but his shirt as well..

WHERE does Oswald talk about putting on a jacket before he left??

Fritz's report continues with WHALEY identifying Oswald... even though he was not the cab driver of 1st choice....

and on and on....

====

Tommy - my overridding point here is that the evidence - especially "this is what Oswald said and did according to us... yet we have no proof" - is not something we can have any real faith in...

The EVIDENCE offered supports his changing his shirt... and that the recollections of those who see OSWALD prior to his arrest (Bledsoe and Roberts) are at best coached reconstructions using the evidence found and clothing on when arrested as its basis.

Fritz writes twice in the3 notes he changed his shirt... yet fails to inform the FBI who has the "arrest shirt" on the 22nd, that it is NOT the shirt worn at 12:30....

Why not?

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

This is the opening of A11... and yet days/weeks later (after his death) you want us to believe he and the others were get [sic] these "quotes" correctly [sic]??

[...]

David,

I see your point. They needed a proofreader!

Hmmm, actually, that wouldn't explain it, would it.

You seem to be arguing that the the bad guys made that sentence up and put it in Oswald's mouth. i'm saying they probably didn't make it up because I don't think they were clever enough to not answer the question in such a creative, Oswald-like way.

But you're right. Oswald probably didn't say exactly that sentence. He probably said, "You know how young guys are...," and they misquoted him, seein' as how so much time had elapsed and all.

Question: Since the bad guys claimed that Oswald denied owning a rifle, why didn't they have him deny owning a revolver, too? Then, they could "produce' the one he may-or-may-not have owned and substituted it for the one that may-or-may-not have been planted on him in the theater, yelled xxxx xxxx pants on fire, publicized it, and gotten their own gun back!

--Tommy

Tommy -

What I'm arguing is that without a tape recording (stenographer notes can be changed or transcribed incorrectly) we cannot know.... and going on the basis of what the rest of the evidence tells us - Oswald was guilty before it even happened so much so that virtually every piece of evidence recorded and offered confirms this preconclusion... is it really a surprise to you that the DPD coordinated its story and made sure to account for all the WHY's... while at the same time dropping the clues to their compliance with the conspiracy?

The amount of "evidence" created after the fact is mind boggling... everything from ONI files "compiled" for outside review which cherry-picked the info, to the interpretation/inclusion of parts of the FBI WCDocs, to what the FBI reports themselves say, to who they DIDN'T talk to.

COULD he have said it? of course... SHOULD the DPD be infinitely ashamed of itself and held accountable for not bothering to record as evidence the FREELY GIVEN statements of the suspect PRIOR to his arrest for said crime or arraignment... of course....

Now... to Fritz's notes and his report....

In the NOTES (p3 of 5) - it says Oswald tells him he "bgt gun 7 mo Ft W.(orth)" surprisingly THAT didn't make the interrogation reports...

In the REPORT (p3) it says that Oswald said "he went home, changed his trousers, and got his pistol and went to the pictures"

In the NOTES (and from Bookout) we learn it was not just his trousers but his shirt as well..

WHERE does Oswald talk about putting on a jacket before he left??

Fritz's report continues with WHALEY identifying Oswald... even though he was not the cab driver of 1st choice....

and on and on....

====

Tommy - my overridding point here is that the evidence - especially "this is what Oswald said and did according to us... yet we have no proof" - is not something we can have any real faith in...

The EVIDENCE offered supports his changing his shirt... and that the recollections of those who see OSWALD prior to his arrest (Bledsoe and Roberts) are at best coached reconstructions using the evidence found and clothing on when arrested as its basis.

Fritz writes twice in the3 notes he changed his shirt... yet fails to inform the FBI who has the "arrest shirt" on the 22nd, that it is NOT the shirt worn at 12:30....

Why not?

David,

So what you're saying is that since we can't know for sure if Oswald said what his interrogators claimed he said, we should assume that they lied about everything he said.

Interesting.

And if Oswald happened to tell a fib or two, did they let those "stand" to show what a rotten, low-down xxxx he was, or did they distort those, too (and perhaps unwittingly turn them into true statements)?

I hope you don't think that Oswald always told the truth, and therefore all of the so-called "false" statements he made in adult life were put in his mouth (or on his job applications, passport forms, etc) by the omniscient and omnipresent Bad Guys.

--Tommy

Edited October 31, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

Tommy - What I now understand and accept is that the evidence - virtually ALL of it - was PACKAGED with a single purpose, a single vision, and bears little resemblence to what actually happened... unless you dig and are willing to accept witness statements over packaged physical evidence.

The evidence that presented itself on the 22nd led those in Dallas to conclude shots came from the front and that putting Oswald in that window with that rifle at that time is impossible.

It also offered the impossibility of Oswald getting from his room to Tippit in the time allowed... ALLOWED - not investigated... He came in from the WEST, from the Barber shop... yet somehow THAT didn't make the published report.

EVERYTHING that comes after the SS steals JFK is a lie designed to finish the plan - Oswald the lone nut killed the POTUS just like all POTUS assassinations and he did it alone, from behind with 3 shots.

In virtually EVERY CASE the evidence published had nothing to do with the evidence gathered or analyzed...

To ME, It does not matter at all whether HARVEY's words were lies or not...we have no way to prove what he said... or even whether the reports of what he said are accurate or not... it's Fritz and Bookout against a publically convicted dead man.

The evidence of the conspiracy is pervasive thoughout the evidence offered...

These "reports" were written after the fact and after Oswald was dead. They were read by WCR lawyers who picked and chose what was best for the "report" - people like Specter and Jenner and Ball.

Of course Oswald didn't always tell the truth... so what?

Is there anything you believe he could have said that would have made a bit of difference?

Anything you believe ANYONE could have said that would have changed the outcome?

Baker perjured himself when he testified about OSWALD - or he perjured himself when he wrote his affidavit.

Here we are MONTHS later with MONTHS of investigation and analysis and conclusion...

The FBI had concluded Oswald was the man on Dec 9, 1963 and stopped looking for anyone else Nov 23, 1963.

Believe what ever you like Tommy... if Fritz said Oswald said it... it must be true.

In a world where the memo below is written from one WCR lawyer to another and DROPPED COMPLETELY as well as Harvey & Lee being a proven fact... this minutia will keep you busy forever...

Textron's purchase of BELL helicopter (while they were $100M in debt and losing sales) in late summer 1960 on the advice of the CIA and funded by an unsecured $25,000,000 "loan" with a 6-YEAR deferred payment plan

from PRUDENTIAL LIFE and with the legal help of the HIGHLY PRESTIGIOUS legal firm Cravath, Swain and Moore where McCloy was a partner and another partner becomes #2 at Defense under McNamara... all tying back to the First Bank of BOSTON and SUN Life of London... to ME is much more revealing of the highest level plans to profitize the Vietnam war and the impetus behind the assassination... then the workings of Fritz/Curry/Decker and the FBI/SS/CIA to cover up the realities of the killings.

The high-technology branch of Textron operations

began quietly in Massachusetts in 1946 as the American

Research and Development Corporation. a three million

dollar venture-capital firm. It was founded by the Sun

Life Assurance of London through its Boston operative.

Paul F. Clark. president of the John Hancock Life Insurance

Company and director of First National of

Boston, the bank whose extraordinary largess built

Textron

ALL THE EVIDENCE IS BS Tommy, and can only serve to illustrate the conspiracy and cover-up.

THIS is what the FBI said happened: a shot AFTER z313 - 3 shots, 3 hits - ever see THIS presented by anyone to the public or a government inquiry/committee?.

The memo below that is, to me, much worse than Katzenbach...

April 27, 1964

MEMORANDUM

TO: J. Lee Rankin

FROM: Norman Redlich

snip

Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by

the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President

by the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the

bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast

corner window of the TSBD building.

As our investigation now stands, however, we have not shown

that these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested

above. All we have is a reasonable hypothesis which appears to be

supported by the medical testimony but which has not been checked out

against the physical facts at the scene of the assassination.

snip

Our intention is not to establish the

point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the

hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole

assassin.

snip

I should add that the facts which we now have in our

possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and

Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will

present a completely misleading picture.

Tommy - they didn't correct the reports, now did they?

Edited November 1, 2013 by David Josephs

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

This is the opening of A11... and yet days/weeks later (after his death) you want us to believe he and the others were get [sic] these "quotes" correctly [sic]??

[...]

David,

I see your point. They needed a proofreader.

Hmmm, actually, that wouldn't explain it, would it.

You seem to be arguing that the the bad guys made that sentence up and put it in Oswald's mouth. i'm saying they probably didn't make it up because I don't think they were clever enough to not answer the question in such a creative, Oswald-like way.

But you're right. Oswald probably didn't say exactly that sentence. He probably said, "You know how young guys are when they have a gun, they just carry it," and they misquoted him, seein' as how so much time had elapsed and all.

Question: Since the bad guys claimed that Oswald denied owning a rifle, why didn't they have him deny owning a revolver, too? Then, they could "produce" the one he may-or-may-not have owned and substituted it for the one that may-or-may-not have been planted on him in the theater, yelled xxxx xxxx pants on fire, publicized it, faked the ballistics, and gotten their gun back!

--Tommy

bump

Edited November 1, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Sean Murphy]

In studying the Prayer Man figure, it's important to be aware that there is a lady standing just in front of him:

[Robert Prudhomme]

In studying the Prayer Man figure, it's important to be aware that there is a lady standing just in front of him:

Hello Sean

I've just been reading the 135 pages of debate over Prayer Man over to the JFK Assassination Forum. You are about as popular there as I am, which makes you all right in my books.

[Richard Hocking]

Further confirmation (thanks to David Josephs and Robert Charles-Dunne) that this button-down shirt--

was amongst the non-clean clothes found at Oswald's N. Beckley rooming house:

[several images removed - rh]

**

From Bookhout's 4th Interrogation Report:

He stated that after arriving at his apartment, he changed his shirt and trousers because they were dirty. He described his dirty clothes as being a reddish colored long sleeved, shirt with a button-down collar and gray colored trousers. He indicated that he had placed these articles of clothing in the lower drawer of his dresser.

From Thomas J. Kelley's 1st Interrogation Report:

He said he went home, changed his trousers and shirt, put his shirt in a drawer. this was a red shirt, and he put it with his dirty clothes. He described the shirt as having a button down collar and of reddish color. The trousers were grey colored.

**

CE151 is surely the "reddish" long-sleeved shirt with button-down collar that Oswald told Fritz he took off at his rooming house.

Again, I submit that...

Another witness and another description of the shirt that Oswald wore to work on November 22.

Linnie Mae Randle affidavit describes the shirt that Lee Oswald was wearing when he arrived for his ride to work with Wesley Frazier that morning:

"... Lee was bareheaded, wearing a light brown or tan shirt. I don't remember what kind of trousers he had on. "

[Richard Hocking]

More from Linnie Mae on Oswald's clothing the morning of the 22nd. Recall the affidavit from Nov 22 (posted above) in which she describes LHO wearing a "light brown or tan shirt".

Months later, in her WC testimony, Mr. Ball and Linnie Mae revisit the clothing issue. Linnie Mae has added a gray jacket. Mr. Ball produces CE 150 for Linnie to identify. She fails to do so:

(begin excerpt)

...

Mr. BALL. 163.

I will show you another shirt which is Commission No. 150. Does this look anything like the shirt he had on?

Mrs. RANDLE. Well now, I don't remember it being that shade of brown. It could have been but I was looking through the screen and out the window but I don't remember it being exactly that. I thought it was a solid color.

[David Josephs]

It is my opinion that when Wesley and Linnie are brought in to DPD they are TOLD what they need to say.... just like Bledsoe, Whaley and many others.

With Wesley possible in ALOT of trouble for his rifle and involvement, I BELIEVE they did what they were told to to stay out of trouble.

This particular morning they are going thru a process they NEVER went thru... Wesley always went over to pick Oswald up... yet THIS TIME he walks with a rifle in a bag over to Wesley's ???

Please.

[Sean Murphy]

Jesse Curry--the man who let the cat out of the bag to reporters on the evening of the assassination as to a cop's having encountered an apparently exiting Oswald at the front entrance right after the shooting--gives serious attention in his 1969 book The JFK Assassination File to the possibility that Oswald was the man in the doorway in Altgens 6.

The fact that we now know for certain that the man in question was actually Billy Lovelady should not blind us to just how interesting this is.

Here we have a law enforcement official at the very heart of the investigation treating as perfectly credible the notion that Oswald was at the front entrance at the time of the shooting.

This suggests at the very least that he heard not a syllable from Fritz or from anyone else about Oswald himself having claimed to have been somewhere other than the front entrance at the time.

Less conservatively, one might say that it suggests that Curry knew all about Oswald's claim to have been at the front entrance: hence the unease caused him in subsequent years by the Altgens doorway figure.

It's a pity he never got to see Prayer Man.

[Bjørn Gjerde]

I have taken the liberty to summarize the events discussed in this thread as I currently understand the evidence by rewriting the song ‘Will the Circle be Unbroken’.

Will the Full Truth be Uncovered? (Oswald’s Song)

I was standing by the front door

On this warm November day.

Watched them fine cars as they came rollin’,

Heard those shots as they drove away.

Will the full truth be uncovered?

By and by, man, by and by.

There’s another explanation

Than this lie, man, than this lie.

Mr. Baker, Mr. Baker,

Why did you lie about me, sir?

You never saw me in that lunchroom,

You know full well I was not there.

Will the full truth be uncovered?

By and by, man, by and by.

There’s another explanation

Than this lie, man, than this lie.

Mrs. Reid and Mr. Truly,

You both lied about me too.

No one dared to speak against you,

Were too afraid by what they knew.

Will the full truth be uncovered?

By and by, man, by and by.

There’s another explanation

Than this lie, man, than this lie.

You all helped make me the patsy

And I can tell who told you to.

A sixth floor gun, a lunch room sighting

A missing man and I was through.

Will the full truth be uncovered?

By and by, man, by and by.

There’s another explanation

Than this lie, man, than this lie.

Will the full truth be uncovered?

About CIA and FBI.

There’s another explanation

Than this lie, man, than this lie.

Than this lie, man, than this lie.

©2013 Bjørn Gjerde

Edited November 9, 2013 by Bjørn Gjerde

[Richard Hocking]

It is my opinion that when Wesley and Linnie are brought in to DPD they are TOLD what they need to say.... just like Bledsoe, Whaley and many others.

With Wesley possible in ALOT of trouble for his rifle and involvement, I BELIEVE they did what they were told to to stay out of trouble.

This particular morning they are going thru a process they NEVER went thru... Wesley always went over to pick Oswald up... yet THIS TIME he walks with a rifle in a bag over to Wesley's ???

Please.

David,

While watching "JFK: The Final Hours" last night, I noticed that Wesley Frazier made a revealing remark about the morning of Nov 22. I cannot quote verbatim, but BWF said he was running late that morning. He usually tried to leave home at 7:20 but did not leave until 7:30 that day. That would explain LHO arriving while Wesley was still getting ready.

There was at least one other day when Lee likely went over to Wesley's home, which we can glean from Marina's testimony regarding Monday, October 28:

...

Mrs. OSWALD. It seems--it seems that he had overslept and that someone else had picked him up. But, no--no, I remember that he did not come to get him, but Lee met him near his house. Lee told me that. Or his sister. I don't remember. Lee told me about it. But I have forgotten.

Mr. RANKIN. But he did not go in by bus that day?

Mrs. OSWALD. No. He said his sister drove him to the bus. I only know that this boy did not come to get him that day.

Mr. RANKIN. As far as you know, he may have gone all the way into Dallas in a car, or he may have gone in a bus?

Mrs. OSWALD. Perhaps he hadn't told him to pick him up on that day. I don't know. I only know the fact that the boy did not pick him up on that day

Below, Frazier answers Ball's question how it usually worked:

Mr. Ball.

Did you say usually you had to go by and pick him up?

Mr. Frazier.

Well, I said I had a couple of times. Most of the time, you know, he was usually walking down the sidewalk as I was driving out of the driveway so, therefore, I didn't have to go up to the house there to pick him up. I just usually picked him up around the corner because he was usually on the sidewalk and I just stopped and picked him up.

My records show Lee riding to work with Frazier probably 5 times. Two times Lee went to the Randle home. The other times, Frazier either picked him up as Lee was walking toward the house or at the Paine residence. Remember, It was only 300' or so between the two houses. Lee could walk that distance in well under one minute.

The exact location of the "pickup" was random, as opposed to being an established process.

Overall though, I agree with you that we need to weigh Wesley and Linnie's statements very carefully.

[Richard Hocking]

Jesse Curry--the man who let the cat out of the bag to reporters on the evening of the assassination as to a cop's having encountered an apparently exiting Oswald at the front entrance right after the shooting--gives serious attention in his 1969 book The JFK Assassination File to the possibility that Oswald was the man in the doorway in Altgens 6.

The fact that we now know for certain that the man in question was actually Billy Lovelady should not blind us to just how interesting this is.

Here we have a law enforcement official at the very heart of the investigation treating as perfectly credible the notion that Oswald was at the front entrance at the time of the shooting.

This suggests at the very least that he heard not a syllable from Fritz or from anyone else about Oswald himself having claimed to have been somewhere other than the front entrance at the time.

Less conservatively, one might say that it suggests that Curry knew all about Oswald's claim to have been at the front entrance: hence the unease caused him in subsequent years by the Altgens doorway figure.

It's a pity he never got to see Prayer Man.

Sean,

Have you ever seen any usable frames from the Tina Towner film of the TSBD entrance? She was standing just across Elm street at the intersection when her camera pans by the TSBD. The copies I have reviewed are too poor resolution to show details. The original might show figures in the entrance 15-30 seconds before Couch, Weigman, and Darnell take their shots.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Richard Hocking

[Sean Murphy]

Sean,

Have you ever seen any usable frames from the Tina Towner film of the TSBD entrance? She was standing just across Elm street at the intersection when her camera pans by the TSBD. The copies I have reviewed are too poor resolution to show details. The original might show figures in the entrance 15-30 seconds before Couch, Weigman, and Darnell take their shots.

This is the best copy I've seen, Richard.

Some funny movement in the Lovelady area.

Click to enlarge:

[Sean Murphy]

I've just been listening to the May 1978 HSCA interview of Billy Lovelady, as archived by Greg Parker over at Reopen Kennedy Case http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/audio.html

There are two electrifying exchanges.

**

#1.

THE F.B.I. CONTACTED LOVELADY ABOUT THE ALTGENS DOORWAY FIGURE THE VERY EVENING OF THE ASSASSINATION

The wording in the May 64 Dom Bonafede article is misleading: the "night following the assassination" means the night of 11/22 itself.

One hears Lovelady sharing with the HSCA interviewer his clear recollection, corroborated by his wife who is present during the interview and who was with him at the time of the visit on 11/22:

At around 6pm on 11/22, Lovelady arrived home to his 22 Hume Drive apartment house to find two officials waiting for him on the porch.

They showed him a blowup of the doorway area in Altgens and asked for an identification:

"...I immediately pointed to myself and there was a sigh of relief when I pointed to myself."

A sigh of relief.

Somehow, within a very few hours of the shooting, the F.B.I. have been given cause to

a ) notice

and

b ) get so worried about a tiny figure in the background of a photo that has already gone out on the wires as to make a beeline for Lovelady's home.

We really need to reflect on this circumstance, for it's telltale.

If Oswald had been telling Fritz, in the presence of F.B.I. agents, that he was (for instance) in the first-floor domino room or (for instance) in the second-floor office area at the time of the assassination, why in heaven's name would the F.B.I. be obsessing over and 'actioning' an assassination-time doorway image?

The Altgens doorway figure is of truly explosive significance not because he's Lee Oswald (he isn't) but because the F.B.I., within hours of the assassination and with full access to Oswald's claims in custody, were thrown into a panic by the possibility that he might be.

This panic, and the subsequent "relief", does not make sense unless Oswald himself were claiming to have been at the front entrance.

If Lovelady had failed to identify himself in Altgens that evening, it is doubtful that the phoney lunchroom story would have gone on the record that night--or any time after that.

The neutralisation of the Altgens problem by the visit to Lovelady is what made the audacious switch of the Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter from front entrance to lunchroom a viable option.