Jump to content
The Education Forum

Was it really just a MOLE HUNT about "Oswald?"


Recommended Posts

On August 9, 1963 “Lee Harvey Oswald” was arrested for an apparently violent confrontation involving his pro-Castro leafleting activities in New Orleans.  

Just two months after these so-called commie activities, the FBI took Oswald off the watch list, managed by its “WANTED NOTICE” cards, at the same time a CIA cable gave him a clean bill of political health. 

Wanted_Notice_Card.jpg

The WC didn’t even bother to depose the Division 5 guy (Gheesling) who apparently ordered the FBI's flash cancellation. “Lee Harvey Oswald” had been on that list for nearly four years, since the so-called “defection.” Now that he was taken off it, he’d no longer be under FBI and SS surveillance on 11/22.

At the very same time the FBI was taking “Lee Harvey Oswald” off the watch list, the CIA was publishing several confusing things about him. Responding to a query from the Mexico City station, four CIA officers signed a cable giving lots of accurate biographical data on our boy but calling him “Lee Henry Oswald.” The three page cable expressed no security concerns whatsoever about Oswald and, in fact, indicated the Moscow embassy felt “life in Soviet Union had clearly had maturing effect on Oswald.” Nothing to worry about here!  The Agency was giving him a clean bill of political health.

This cable was signed by Jane Roman (Angleton’s assistant), William Hood (also close to Angleton), Thomas Karamessines (assistant to Helms) and John Whitten who, according to Jefferson Morley, was the only CIA officer of the four signers who suffered any adverse consequences for this troubling cable.

Lee_Henry_Oswald_1.jpgLee_Henry_Oswald_2.jpg

Also in October 1963, two different young men, both claiming to be “Lee Harvey Oswald,” appeared before Texas Employment Commission employee Laura Kittrell, the first on October 3 and again a few days later, the second on October 22.   Ms Kittell told the HSCA’s Gaeton Fonzi that the second Oswald “looked the same,” and had “the same general outline and coloring and build, but there was something so different in his bearing.”

Kittrell.gif

This appears to have been a final test by the plotters to see if one “Oswald” could pass for the other in front of an experienced interviewer. Why?  Because just four days after the second Oswald talked with Ms. Kittrell, a second Oswald began making provocative appearances at the Sports Drome Rifle Range and elsewhere in and around Dallas.  Here are some of them:

“Oswald” visits the Sports Drome Rifle Range on Oct. 26, Nov. 9, Nov. 10, and again on Nov. 17, several times creating a scene and once shooting at another guy's target;

On Nov. 2 “Oswald” visits Morgan's Gun Shop in Fort Worth.

Also on Nov. 2 “Oswald” visits the Downtown Lincoln Mercury dealership where he test drives a car at wrecklessly high speeds saying he would soon come into enough money to buy a new car.

On Nov. 6 or 7 “Oswald” visits the Irving Furniture Mart for a gun part and is referred to the shop where Dial Ryder works.

On Nov. 15, “Oswald” goes to the Southland Hotel parking garage (Allright Parking Systems) and applies for a job and asks how high the Southland Building is and if it had a good view of downtown Dallas.

On Nov. 20 “Oswald” hitch-hikes on the R.L. Thornton Expressway while carrying a 4 foot long package wrapped in brown paper and introduces himself to Ralph Yates as “Lee Harvey Oswald,” discusses the President's visit, and asks to be dropped across the street from the Texas School Book Depository (where Russian-speaking “Lee Harvey Oswald” is already working).

In recent years, some researchers have written that they believe much of the above can be explained by an internal mole hunt being conducted by the CIA.  But are we certain of that?

Or is it equally or more plausible that these documents are just what they appear to be: instruments to take the federal spotlight off Oswald so he could be framed for the assassination of JFK.

If you are going to kill a sitting president in broad daylight, you simply must have a patsy to shut down any real investigation. Otherwise, that investigation will be relentless, and you will be caught. The mechanics for the set-up of the patsy appear to be right in front of our eyes.  Does a “mole hunt” really explain it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 599
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

28 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

On August 9, 1963 “Lee Harvey Oswald” was arrested for an apparently violent confrontation involving his pro-Castro leafleting activities in New Orleans.  

Just two months after these so-called commie activities, the FBI took Oswald off the watch list, managed by its “WANTED NOTICE” cards, at the same time a CIA cable gave him a clean bill of political health. 

Wanted_Notice_Card.jpg

The WC didn’t even bother to depose the Division 5 guy (Gheesling) who apparently ordered the FBI's flash cancellation. “Lee Harvey Oswald” had been on that list for nearly four years, since the so-called “defection.” Now that he was taken off it, he’d no longer be under FBI and SS surveillance on 11/22.

At the very same time the FBI was taking “Lee Harvey Oswald” off the watch list, the CIA was publishing several confusing things about him. Responding to a query from the Mexico City station, four CIA officers signed a cable giving lots of accurate biographical data on our boy but calling him “Lee Henry Oswald.” The three page cable expressed no security concerns whatsoever about Oswald and, in fact, indicated the Moscow embassy felt “life in Soviet Union had clearly had maturing effect on Oswald.” Nothing to worry about here!  The Agency was giving him a clean bill of political health.

This cable was signed by Jane Roman (Angleton’s assistant), William Hood (also close to Angleton), Thomas Karamessines (assistant to Helms) and John Whitten who, according to Jefferson Morley, was the only CIA officer of the four signers who suffered any adverse consequences for this troubling cable.

Lee_Henry_Oswald_1.jpgLee_Henry_Oswald_2.jpg

Also in October 1963, two different young men, both claiming to be “Lee Harvey Oswald,” appeared before Texas Employment Commission employee Laura Kittrell, the first on October 3 and again a few days later, the second on October 22.   Ms Kittell told the HSCA’s Gaeton Fonzi that the second Oswald “looked the same,” and had “the same general outline and coloring and build, but there was something so different in his bearing.”

Kittrell.gif

This appears to have been a final test by the plotters to see if one “Oswald” could pass for the other in front of an experienced interviewer. Why?  Because just four days after the second Oswald talked with Ms. Kittrell, a second Oswald began making provocative appearances at the Sports Drome Rifle Range and elsewhere in and around Dallas.  Here are some of them:

“Oswald” visits the Sports Drome Rifle Range on Oct. 26, Nov. 9, Nov. 10, and again on Nov. 17, several times creating a scene and once shooting at another guy's target;

On Nov. 2 “Oswald” visits Morgan's Gun Shop in Fort Worth.

Also on Nov. 2 “Oswald” visits the Downtown Lincoln Mercury dealership where he test drives a car at wrecklessly high speeds saying he would soon come into enough money to buy a new car.

On Nov. 6 or 7 “Oswald” visits the Irving Furniture Mart for a gun part and is referred to the shop where Dial Ryder works.

On Nov. 15, “Oswald” goes to the Southland Hotel parking garage (Allright Parking Systems) and applies for a job and asks how high the Southland Building is and if it had a good view of downtown Dallas.

On Nov. 20 “Oswald” hitch-hikes on the R.L. Thornton Expressway while carrying a 4 foot long package wrapped in brown paper and introduces himself to Ralph Yates as “Lee Harvey Oswald,” discusses the President's visit, and asks to be dropped across the street from the Texas School Book Depository (where Russian-speaking “Lee Harvey Oswald” is already working).

In recent years, some researchers have written that they believe much of the above can be explained by an internal mole hunt being conducted by the CIA.  But are we certain of that?

Or is it equally or more plausible that these documents are just what they appear to be: instruments to take the federal spotlight off Oswald so he could be framed for the assassination of JFK.

If you are going to kill a sitting president in broad daylight, you simply must have a patsy to shut down any real investigation. Otherwise, that investigation will be relentless, and you will be caught. The mechanics for the set-up of the patsy appear to be right in front of our eyes.  Does a “mole hunt” really explain it? 

Jim, can you add to that list Brewer's shoe shop appearance of one Oswald buying a pair of 'two eyelet crepe-soled shoes, model 8110, size eight and a half' a few weeks prior to the assassination?  Maybe another patsy set up of the Harvey by the Lee.  Maybe 'Lee' appearing in the shoe shop doorway on the 22nd to lead Brewer to the Texas theatre, as we know two Oswalds came out of there, one through the front & one out the back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Jim, can you add to that list Brewer's shoe shop appearance of one Oswald buying a pair of 'two eyelet crepe-soled shoes, model 8110, size eight and a half' a few weeks prior to the assassination?  Maybe another patsy set up of the Harvey by the Lee.  Maybe 'Lee' appearing in the shoe shop doorway on the 22nd to lead Brewer to the Texas theatre, as we know two Oswalds came out of there, one through the front & one out the back.

Thanks, Pete, but do you trust Johnny Brewer?  I don’t necessarily believe a word he said.

Why didn’t he mention this significant event to the Warren Commission?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2020 at 11:18 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

Thanks, Pete, but do you trust Johnny Brewer?  I don’t necessarily believe a word he said.

Why didn’t he mention this significant event to the Warren Commission?

Ha!  Good question.  Can't say Brewer's testimonies are at the forefront of my memory bank.  But the Tippit case is such a blatant exercise of laying a trail, wallet (billfold) jacket, bullet shells etc., all the way to the theatre.  It stinks to me of Brewer being set up, being led by the nose.  However he also said the balcony was deserted when he checked, which doesn't add up.

Anyway, I'm off topic with this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Ha!  Good question.  Can't say Brewer's testimonies are at the forefront of my memory bank.  But the Tippit case is such a blatant exercise of laying a trail, wallet (billfold) jacket, bullet shells etc., all the way to the theatre.  It stinks to me of Brewer being set up, being led by the nose.  However he also said the balcony was deserted when he checked, which doesn't add up.

Anyway, I'm off topic with this thread.

Laying a trail sounds like the kind of thing crooked cops would do.  Dallas PD have a strong rep for doing such as was exposed in later times.

Edited by John Butler
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I just got off the phone with John Armstrong.  I told him that I thought the Laura Kittrell impersonation was a final test to see if one Oswald could pass for the other before the Sports Drome and other incriminating episodes began occurring.

John pointed out that  “LEE Harvey Oswald” appeared in Baytown, TX on Labor Day weekend in 1963 attempting to purchase rifles from Fidel Castro’s friend Robert McKeown.  At the time, Lee HARVEY Oswald and his family were on holiday with the Murrets at Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana.

Since Baytown is not particularly near Dallas, I still think my theory is correct, but in all fairness I must point out that John A. is not convinced.

McKeown.png

Edited by Jim Hargrove
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Jim,

I find your idea of testing the waters ("a final test") to be intriguing with regard to the Laura Kittrell interviews.  At the same time, your chronology of the other incidents of Oswald impostors fits into a pattern in which Kittrell's experience must be included.  For years, I have reflected on Kittrell's manuscript after ordering a copy from the National Archives. 

Here are several observations:

There are moments during the first interview in Kittrell's office that seem "staged."  During the interview, the man who claimed he had resided in the Soviet Union slammed his fist down on her desk, upending a flower vase.  The man was also assertive in eavesdropping on the previous client's conversation, then commenting on what the woman was privately telling the counselor.  Uncharacteristic of what we know of the quiet and reserved Oswald who was shot by Jack Ruby, this man was loquacious in almost bragging about his past experiences in the Soviet Union and San Diego and commenting on the political operative Murray Chotiner.  This demonstrative behavior does not square with the passive and taciturn profile of Oswald.  The second Oswald interview was even more curious with a different man with a different background as a teamster.

In the first interview, the slamming of his hand onto Kittrell's desk would have stood out most in anyone's recall of the conversation.  Here is the description from pp. 11-12 in Kittrell's manuscript:

‘Well, I’ll be damned’, he said, as though only mildly amazed.  Then he paused and seemed suddenly to grow very angry, for he brought the heel of his palm down against the surface of my desk, hitting it astonishingly hard, considering that he had not made a fist.  When he did this, the little vase of periwinkles, being jarred, tumped over, spilling water down the side of the desk and onto the floor. I reached in my desk for a dust cloth.”

The hypothesis that I have been exploring is that the two men meeting with Kittrell were both imposters, whose visits to the Texas Employment Commission were intended to create confusion after the assassination.  In a large, metropolitan employment bureau, the clientele show up and take numbers, then are assigned to the next available counselor.  It was only by chance that, in this case, the two Oswald impersonators were assigned to Kittrell.

It is highly unlikely as well that Marina would have accompanied Oswald to the interview.  She would have been at home with the children.  The silent woman accompanying the first man to the interview and vividly recalled by Kittrell was also a likely imposter.

Another important detail is that after the interviews, a different employment counselor, Robert Adams, followed up with an attempt to contact Oswald about a job opening at the airport in handling luggage.  Ruth Paine took the message, yet chose not to pass it on to Harvey.  Through her efforts, Oswald was eventually hired at the TSBD for wages less than the baggage handler, which would have paid him $100 a month more than a TSBD book handler.  Adams' phone call fielded by Ruth Paine was at a time when Oswald had not yet accepted the job at TSDB.   

I find it likely that all of the interviews at the Texas Employment Commission were played out by imposters.  Kittrell later identified the first, aggressive Oswald from a photo of Larry Crafard.  She could not recognize the man she interviewed from any of the photos of Oswald or the extensive film footage of him over the assassination weekend.  At the time of the interview, the man was wearing a motorcycle jacket, an item of clothing that would make him stand out.  It was also an article of clothing that was not part of known wardrobe of Oswald. 

The purpose of this elaborate set of interviews with Oswald imposters, likely conceived by David Atlee Phillips, was twofold:

(a) to sow the seeds of confusion after the assassination; and

(b) to implant memories of an Oswald who was prone to erratic behavior and violence.


In the multiple Oswald impersonations leading up to the assassination, there were occurrences that the plotters could not anticipate.  In the case of the Kittrell interviews, one of those unpredictable incidents was that the two imposters were interviewed by the same counselor, who eventually wrote up her experience of the interviews in a lengthy memoir.  The Kittrell manuscript shows us the lengths to which the plotters would go in framing Oswald and in evoking chaos for anyone trying to reconstruct Oswald's movements after he was dead.

We may never know the identities of the individuals interviewed by Kittrell.  But what we can conclude with certainty is that the impression given to the counselor was that of a man prone to violence, which is part of a pattern of other Oswald pre-assassination sightings in the Dallas area with the same feeling of being "staged":  shooting erratically at the rifle range, test-driving an automobile at high speed, arguing with a waitress about an order of eggs, among others.  During the Kittrell interview with the first Oswald, the man in motorcycle jacket brought up the subject of guns.  Instead of learning about job opportunities, he took the time to carefully explain to Kittrell the different meanings of the terms “Marksman,” “Sharpshooter,” and “Expert,” as used in the Marines.

From her recollections of the employment office interviews, the most vivid memories that would stand out for the counselor were the slamming of the fist onto the desk and the discussion of guns.  The Kittrell interviews may best be seen alongside the other examples of Oswald impersonation that continued into the very day of the assassination.  Those memories were intended to cement the eventual profile of Oswald as a malcontent prone to violence that became the basis of the Warren Report. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, James Norwood said:

The purpose of this elaborate set of interviews with Oswald imposters, likely conceived by David Atlee Phillips, was twofold:

(b) to implant memories of an Oswald who was prone to erratic behavior and violence.

 

James,

There was a time in my life when I thought I would try and see if there was a correlation between Oswald's signature and those times when he was described as demonstrating, "erratic behavior and violence". I didn't get very far into that line of research before I got sidetracked onto other things.

There are many examples of Oswald's signature on the web; for example,

https://www.google.com/search?source=univ&tbm=isch&q=%22Lee+Harvey+Oswald%22+signature&client=firefox-b-1-d&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjdhpq-ubXpAhXQl-AKHdCACbwQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=1314&bih=786

It's obvious that his signature varies substantially in several cases. For instance: (with a nod to Larry Rivera)

https://merdist.com/wp/2018/07/10/the-many-faces-of-lee-oswalds-signature/

Mexico City signature:

image.png.922519f86eec75ff0fa4af5ac2759a28.png

And the Albert Schweitzer College signature:

image.png.f7c81eff1da4f6e0f1cd5327e063f7cf.png

 

I thought if I could correlate the instances of when those two different examples appeared, I would know which one of the two Oswald's I was dealing with.

Like I said, I didn't get very far, but I still think it would be a very fruitful line of research.

Steve Thomas

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve,

I think it is great to study the known examples of Oswald's handwriting.  But the topic that I was raising above is whether or not the official story of Oswald's violent behavior is even accurate.  Here are several examples:

• Was Oswald often involved in physical altercations as a youngster?
• Did Oswald own and use firearms?
• Were there examples of violent behavior when Oswald served in the Marines?
• Did Oswald fire a shot into the home of General Walker?
• Was Oswald a wife beater?
• Did Oswald harbor animosity to President Kennedy and ever threaten to kill him?

In the most thorough research into Oswald's life ever conducted by an independent researcher, i.e., John Armstrong, the answer to all of the questions above is a resounding no.

This question is at the heart of the findings of the Warren Commission.  If the premise of Oswald's violent behavior is wrong, then the Warren Report is not to be trusted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, James Norwood said:

 Jim,

I find your idea of testing the waters ("a final test") to be intriguing with regard to the Laura Kittrell interviews.  At the same time, your chronology of the other incidents of Oswald impostors fits into a pattern in which Kittrell's experience must be included.  For years, I have reflected on Kittrell's manuscript after ordering a copy from the National Archives. 

Here are several observations:

There are moments during the first interview in Kittrell's office that seem "staged."  During the interview, the man who claimed he had resided in the Soviet Union slammed his fist down on her desk, upending a flower vase.  The man was also assertive in eavesdropping on the previous client's conversation, then commenting on what the woman was privately telling the counselor.  Uncharacteristic of what we know of the quiet and reserved Oswald who was shot by Jack Ruby, this man was loquacious in almost bragging about his past experiences in the Soviet Union and San Diego and commenting on the political operative Murray Chotiner.  This demonstrative behavior does not square with the passive and taciturn profile of Oswald.  The second Oswald interview was even more curious with a different man with a different background as a teamster.

In the first interview, the slamming of his hand onto Kittrell's desk would have stood out most in anyone's recall of the conversation.  Here is the description from pp. 11-12 in Kittrell's manuscript:

‘Well, I’ll be damned’, he said, as though only mildly amazed.  Then he paused and seemed suddenly to grow very angry, for he brought the heel of his palm down against the surface of my desk, hitting it astonishingly hard, considering that he had not made a fist.  When he did this, the little vase of periwinkles, being jarred, tumped over, spilling water down the side of the desk and onto the floor. I reached in my desk for a dust cloth.”

The hypothesis that I have been exploring is that the two men meeting with Kittrell were both imposters, whose visits to the Texas Employment Commission were intended to create confusion after the assassination.  In a large, metropolitan employment bureau, the clientele show up and take numbers, then are assigned to the next available counselor.  It was only by chance that, in this case, the two Oswald impersonators were assigned to Kittrell.

It is highly unlikely as well that Marina would have accompanied Oswald to the interview.  She would have been at home with the children.  The silent woman accompanying the first man to the interview and vividly recalled by Kittrell was also a likely imposter.

Another important detail is that after the interviews, a different employment counselor, Robert Adams, followed up with an attempt to contact Oswald about a job opening at the airport in handling luggage.  Ruth Paine took the message, yet chose not to pass it on to Harvey.  Through her efforts, Oswald was eventually hired at the TSBD for wages less than the baggage handler, which would have paid him $100 a month more than a TSBD book handler.  Adams' phone call fielded by Ruth Paine was at a time when Oswald had not yet accepted the job at TSDB.   

I find it likely that all of the interviews at the Texas Employment Commission were played out by imposters.  Kittrell later identified the first, aggressive Oswald from a photo of Larry Crafard.  She could not recognize the man she interviewed from any of the photos of Oswald or the extensive film footage of him over the assassination weekend.  At the time of the interview, the man was wearing a motorcycle jacket, an item of clothing that would make him stand out.  It was also an article of clothing that was not part of known wardrobe of Oswald. 

The purpose of this elaborate set of interviews with Oswald imposters, likely conceived by David Atlee Phillips, was twofold:

(a) to sow the seeds of confusion after the assassination; and

(b) to implant memories of an Oswald who was prone to erratic behavior and violence.


In the multiple Oswald impersonations leading up to the assassination, there were occurrences that the plotters could not anticipate.  In the case of the Kittrell interviews, one of those unpredictable incidents was that the two imposters were interviewed by the same counselor, who eventually wrote up her experience of the interviews in a lengthy memoir.  The Kittrell manuscript shows us the lengths to which the plotters would go in framing Oswald and in evoking chaos for anyone trying to reconstruct Oswald's movements after he was dead.

We may never know the identities of the individuals interviewed by Kittrell.  But what we can conclude with certainty is that the impression given to the counselor was that of a man prone to violence, which is part of a pattern of other Oswald pre-assassination sightings in the Dallas area with the same feeling of being "staged":  shooting erratically at the rifle range, test-driving an automobile at high speed, arguing with a waitress about an order of eggs, among others.  During the Kittrell interview with the first Oswald, the man in motorcycle jacket brought up the subject of guns.  Instead of learning about job opportunities, he took the time to carefully explain to Kittrell the different meanings of the terms “Marksman,” “Sharpshooter,” and “Expert,” as used in the Marines.

From her recollections of the employment office interviews, the most vivid memories that would stand out for the counselor were the slamming of the fist onto the desk and the discussion of guns.  The Kittrell interviews may best be seen alongside the other examples of Oswald impersonation that continued into the very day of the assassination.  Those memories were intended to cement the eventual profile of Oswald as a malcontent prone to violence that became the basis of the Warren Report. 

Dr. Norwood,

Thanks so much for this thoughtful post.  Your observations are always keen and most appreciated, and, in this case, certainly may be correct. For the moment though, let me take what I think would be, at least in part, John A’s position on this.

We agree that elements of this entire story do appear to be “staged,” and I think we would also agree that the two young men claiming to be “Lee Harvey Oswald” were both following instructions during their appearances at the Texas Employment Commission.  Let’s consider the first Oswald’s performance.

The first “Oswald” Ms. Kittrell encountered, as you say, apparently pounded his fist on the table in reaction to a discussion of Murray Chotiner.  This is the man John A. believes was Russian-speaking Lee HARVEY Oswald, who appeared numerous times at the TEC.  

If this Oswald’s reaction seems abnormally aggressive, recall that his ability to to complete an assignment included, for example, slitting his own wrist when authorities in Moscow decided to send him home.  This kid knew how to play a role and follow instructions!

If the first Oswald Ms. Kittrell encountered was not really Harvey, then the actor was remarkably well versed in Harvey’s biography.  Murray Chotner, at the time, was hardly well known outside of California and played a minor role in Harvey’s life story.  Yet the impostor picked up on it spontaneously?

In thinking about my theory that the Kittrell appearances might have been a test to see if the two Oswalds could confound an experienced interviewer, I also thought about the TEC’s procedure of assigning the next available counselor to each waiting client.  I do believe, though, that this could be overcome if, unknown to Ms. Kittrell, a client specifically stated that he had unfinished business with her. 

Your observation about the silent woman with the first Oswald is a good one, but have you considered that this might have been Judyth Baker vacationing from her chemical work in New Orleans?  (Joke!)  No doubt we agree entirely on Ruth Paine’s position here.  Your point about the woman, though, remains a good one.

On Larry Crafard, I think John A. has argued that Crafard had unusually bad teeth not visible in a number of photographs, as well as some tattoos that, if she saw them, might not be visible in the photos.

Finally, I recall that in her interview with Gaeton Fonzi, Ms. Kittrell accurately described what we believe are familiar distinguishing characteristics of the two Oswalds.  She said the first Oswald was “very military, neat as a pin,” which kind of matches Classic Oswald®, while the second was “slouchy” and “unkempt” and “had this peculiar way of laughing and talking so that people all over the room could hear him….”

Recall that real Marguerite’s best friends for many years were Myrtle and Julian Evans.  Julian testified about LEE Oswald this way: “Lee couldn't talk to his mother in a soft voice or a low voice; it was always a very loud, insolent voice, and it seemed like he got to raising his voice all the time, and he didn't seem to care who heard him or what he said. He had what I would call a foghorn voice, and he didn't seem to make any effort at all to control it. He would just blare out, and it did disturb others around the house…. You don't see a voice in a kid like that, at 13 years old, very often."

Sure sounds like Harvey and Lee to me.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Your observation about the silent woman with the first Oswald is a good one, but have you considered that this might have been Judyth Baker vacationing from her chemical work in New Orleans?  (Joke!)  No doubt we agree entirely on Ruth Paine’s position here.  Your point about the woman, though, remains a good one.

Jim,

Do you know if the physical description of the "silent woman" provided by Mrs. Kittrell matches in any way with the description of the woman in the Furniture Mart encounter or the Alice, Texas encounter?

Steve Thomas

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Jim,

Do you know if the physical description of the "silent woman" provided by Mrs. Kittrell matches in any way with the description of the woman in the Furniture Mart encounter or the Alice, Texas encounter?

Steve Thomas

Ms. Kittrell thought the woman was deaf because she seemed to speak with her hands and added this in her manuscript:

The woman, who was young, had a broad, countrified, but wistful, blonde, face, with an expression of grave sadness,and once when my eyes caught hers. I had seen that she was staring at me with great intcntness (sic), as though she wanted to tell me something. Immediately I thought that the only thing she could possibly want to tell me was that her husband was cruel to her, and that he beat and kicked her, and that there she was, unable to make a sound. I felt my eyes ready to fill with tears, so looked away. I did not know what on earth I could do about it, if this were the case.

She was a Seventh-Day Adventist, as anyone could plainly see from looking at her, for she wore no makeup, and was cloth[ed] as women of that sect often are, tackily in shades of grey, and she wore round-toed, flat, oxfords, just like children wear.

It does strike me that this could be a description of Marina, still indicating she knew little English.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

She was a Seventh-Day Adventist, as anyone could plainly see from looking at her, for she wore no makeup, and was cloth[ed] as women of that sect often are, tackily in shades of grey, and she wore round-toed, flat, oxfords, just like children wear.

It does strike me that this could be a description of Marina, still indicating she knew little English.

I don't think this is of any real importance.  But, is based on earlier work looking at Marina's shoes in the Minsk bridge photo and trying to decide if she was in heels or flats.  After looking at a lot of other photos, I determined she wore basically two types, heels and flats with pointed toes.

Although she does not appear to be wearing the most expensive clothes, Marina seems to dress as folks did in the 60s and not as what would be described as Seventh Day Adventist drab.  In fact she seems to dress somewhat better than one would expect relying on her husband's known income.  This description does not seem to fit Marina, particularly the shoes.   

As far as shoes go there is no photos that I know of that shows Marina wearing "round-toed, flat, oxfords, just like children wear."  As an example of the type of shoes Marina wore:

marinas-shoes.jpg

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ian Griggs's interview with Brewer has Brewer

saying he doesn't know why he was in the

theater and talking about the two mysterious IBM men

being around before and during the day of November 22

and even locking up the store for him on the 22nd. It

is frustrating that Griggs doesn't probe further

about those two men and why they were around

for weeks, even if Brewer says he doesn't know

who they were, which in itself is strange and a lead that

needed to be followed.

Edited by Joseph McBride
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

If this Oswald’s reaction seems abnormally aggressive, recall that his ability to to complete an assignment included, for example, slitting his own wrist when authorities in Moscow decided to send him home.  This kid knew how to play a role and follow instructions!

Jim,

I appreciated your detailed reply, and I admired your ability to work closely to Laura Kittrell's manuscript.  In our debate, we agree on the main issue that the interviews with employment counselor Kittrell were staged events.  They were part of a pattern of similar incidents with Oswald imposters creating impressions that would later serve to incriminate him and provide the public with a motivation for Oswald killing the president, following the assassination.  These events go back at least to Sylvia Odio's encounter with men who showed up on her doorstep, including "Leon" Oswald, who was clearly an imposter. 

The issue that we are debating is who were the actors in the Kittrell charade.  My argument is that the two men interviewed by Kittrell were both imposters used to create the post-assassination memory of an angry young man, sympathetic to Marxism and prone to violence.  It was only by chance that the two different impersonators were assigned to the same counselor.  Your position is that this was part of a "final test" about how convincing the impersonators could be and that both Oswalds were instructed to meet with the same counselor, Laura Kittrell. 

My position is that this chance occurrence inadvertently provided the opportunity for an eyewitness to experience first-hand how Oswald was being groomed as the patsy.  It is for this reason that Kittrell's manuscript was suppressed until the HSCA convened in the late 1970s.  Your position is that Classic Oswald was the first of the two men visiting Kittrell at the TEC and that he was coached in advance to leave a vivid impression on Kittrell.  My position is that the two different imposters were being used to create confusion in the post-assassination period and that the plotters would never risk alerting Oswald to the method being used to set him up as the scapegoat by asking him to leave such an unfavorable impression of himself.

You make a persuasive case for Oswald as a skilled "performer" who could play a role to the hilt when instructed to do so by his handlers.  The example you give about the phony suicide in Moscow is a good one.  Another instance is his ability to hand out the leaflets in New Orleans, then go on the air to promote the FPCC and speak favorably of Fidel Castro.  You and I would likely agree that for most of his life, this young man had been inculcated in the art of role-playing and deception, referring to Marx's "Das Kapital" in front of school chums or even his fellow Marines.

The hurdle I am unable to overcome in the interviews with Kittrell is why and how Oswald's handlers would conceivably send him on a mission to overtly incriminate himself.  Oswald was carefully being groomed as the assassin of an American president.  Surely, the plotters would not want to arouse Oswald's suspicions by asking him to defame himself publicly by acting belligerent in a public place before a civil servant.  The moment of the interview that strikes me as most "rehearsed" is when the man shifts the conversation away from job-hunting to the topic of guns, explaining to Kittrell the different meanings of the terms “Marksman,” “Sharpshooter,” and “Expert,” as used in the Marines.  That scene fits with the pattern of other Oswald impersonators, boasting about rifles and on multiple occasions actually firing at a shooting range.  But if Oswald were sent on this mission to Kittrell's office, he would almost certainly be curious as to the purpose behind such an act of self-defamation in the employment office. 

By the morning of November 22, Oswald had to have been kept blissfully ignorant of the role he had been assigned as scapegoat.  Nothing could be left to chance.  If he suspected that he was being set up, he simply could have stayed at home from work that day.

So, my question to you is as follows:  If Classic Oswald were given instructions to report to the Texas Employment Commission, behave erratically, mention his years spent in the Soviet Union, and talk about firearms, how would that assignment have been presented to him without this savvy, experienced operative recognizing that he was being duped?

James


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Jim Hargrove changed the title to Was it really just a MOLE HUNT about "Oswald?"

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...