LHO in jail

[Guest Mark Valenti]

I'm looking for information about LHO's physical stay in jail between Friday and Sunday. Did he sleep? What did he eat? Did he bathe? Shave? Was he allowed privacy of any type for personal hygiene? Besides being interrogated, making phone calls and receiving visitors, what was he doing in his cell?

I presume he was under constant watch but I've read little about the exact activities.

[David S. Brownlee]

Very good thinking MV - IMO. I doubt that there is much available on this topic - would have been covered up - but anybody who has ever done a big puzzle knows that all pieces are important...even if you just get a piece of a piece.

[Myra Bronstein]

I'm looking for information about LHO's physical stay in jail between Friday and Sunday. Did he sleep? What did he eat? Did he bathe? Shave? Was he allowed privacy of any type for personal hygiene? Besides being interrogated, making phone calls and receiving visitors, what was he doing in his cell?

I presume he was under constant watch but I've read little about the exact activities.

Mark, I really thought that there were some accounts of Oswald in his cell in "Oswald Talked." Probably not about eating and bathing though. More what he said. I flipped thru the book trying to find passages for you 'cause I have it now but haven't read it. I'll let you know if I do find material, but it may not be soon 'cause I'm absorbed in other books.

Anyone have opinions on "Oswald Talked"?

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Mark, I really thought that there were some accounts of Oswald in his cell in "Oswald Talked." Probably not about eating and bathing though. More what he said. I flipped thru the book trying to find passages for you 'cause I have it now but haven't read it. I'll let you know if I do find material, but it may not be soon 'cause I'm absorbed in other books.

Anyone have opinions on "Oswald Talked"?

I don't discount "Oswald Talked" but you're right, it's more about talk than behavior. There were some accounts of Jack Ruby's jail life and of course that's because it lasted years, not days. The physical reality of LHO"s jail time touches on an area of the investigation in which I'm interested.

[Guest Richard Bittikofer]

An individual by the name of John Elrod claims that he was in the same cell as LHO on Nov 22,1963. http://home.comcast.net/~dperry1943/elrod.html

Edited December 4, 2006 by Richard Bittikofer

[Ian Griggs]

An individual by the name of John Elrod claims that he was in the same cell as LHO on Nov 22,1963. http://home.comcast.net/~dperry1943/elrod.html

I would advise extreme caution with the book "Oswald Talked". I once wrote a review of it in just three words: "No he didn't!"

Please see chapter 11 of my book "No Case To Answer". It is entitled "A repudiation of the claim that Lee Harvey Oswald shared a Dallas jail cell with John Franklin Elrod". As well as disproving the shared-a-cell theory, it also describes some of Oswald's living conditions during his short incarceration.

IAN

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I would advise extreme caution with the book "Oswald Talked". I once wrote a review of it in just three words: "No he didn't!"

IAN

I wholeheartedly agree. "Oswald Talked" is my nomination for the most useless book ever written about the JFK assassination. The only thing I can say in defense of the la Fontaines is that nobody is completely useless, because they can always be held up as an example.

Attached is a link to a review I wrote for the Assassination Chronicles in 1996:

http://jfklancer.com/pdf/ostalked.pdf

[Duke Lane]

"Oswald Talked" is my nomination for the most useless book ever written about the JFK assassination.

Well, I think there are plenty more that are even more useless (Case Closed comes to mind, as do Conspiracy of One and Mortal Error, among others), and frankly I find the larger premises of the book - the Odio story, the Terrell and Fort Hood gun-running, for example - to be reasonably credible tie-ins to the assassination, perhaps only because they provide some rationale why LHO was set up as a patsy in the first place.

As a returnee from the Soviet Union, by 1963 one would think he'd fallen off most people's radars, and clearly he was up to something that caught people's attention, and sure had a demeanor like he knew something more about the killings than he was going to say (e.g., "it will all come out at my trial").

The problem, of course, is that the basic premise - that anyone overheard Oz say anything at all in the jail cell - doesn't seem to hold water unless, as the LaFontaines purport, someone was put in an adjacent cell to "pump" him and nobody's admitting to it ... and you've only got one person's word on that, and that's a problem.

[Myra Bronstein]

"Oswald Talked" is my nomination for the most useless book ever written about the JFK assassination.

Well, I think there are plenty more that are even more useless (Case Closed comes to mind, as do Conspiracy of One and Mortal Error, among others), and frankly I find the larger premises of the book - the Odio story, the Terrell and Fort Hood gun-running, for example - to be reasonably credible tie-ins to the assassination, perhaps only because they provide some rationale why LHO was set up as a patsy in the first place.

As a returnee from the Soviet Union, by 1963 one would think he'd fallen off most people's radars, and clearly he was up to something that caught people's attention, and sure had a demeanor like he knew something more about the killings than he was going to say (e.g., "it will all come out at my trial").

The problem, of course, is that the basic premise - that anyone overheard Oz say anything at all in the jail cell - doesn't seem to hold water unless, as the LaFontaines purport, someone was put in an adjacent cell to "pump" him and nobody's admitting to it ... and you've only got one person's word on that, and that's a problem.

Ah good points, thank you Duke.

I've been trying to decide if I should take the time to read it. Too many books too little time.

I'm wavering. Just not sure if it's credible.

Did Oswald really say "it will all come out at my trial"? Could you please point me to a source for that? It's rather significant if he said it.

[Myra Bronstein]

Did Oswald really say "it will all come out at my trial"? Could you please point me to a source for that? It's rather significant if he said it.

What he did say and seems the significance has been lost on most is, "Now everyone will know who I am!" [enter Ruby stage right as proxy for the plotters to make sure no one finds out who he really was. Exit stage left American Constitutional Democracy......]

Right. That I recall; I think Mae Brussel listed it in Oswald's final words. It's a pretty significant quote. Thanks for the reminder Peter.

[Michael Hogan]

Did Oswald really say "it will all come out at my trial"? Could you please point me to a source for that? It's rather significant if he said it.

What he did say and seems the significance has been lost on most is, "Now everyone will know who I am!" [enter Ruby stage right as proxy for the plotters to make sure no one finds out who he really was. Exit stage left American Constitutional Democracy......]

Right. That I recall; I think Mae Brussel listed it in Oswald's final words. It's a pretty significant quote. Thanks for the reminder Peter.

THE LAST WORDS OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD

Compiled by Mae Brussell

http://www.prouty.org/lastwords.html

What a brilliant concept by Mae Brussell.

[William O'Neil]

I seem to remember someone (Roger Craig?) who overheard that remark say, that Oswald said it in a frustrated tone. As if realizing that now his cover would be blown...

[Duke Lane]

Did Oswald really say "it will all come out at my trial"? Could you please point me to a source for that? It's rather significant if he said it.

If Mae Brussells' quotations are accurate, he did not. Part of the trouble with those, of course, is that many of them are what other people said he said, which we have no way of determining one way or the other for certain.

Reviewing those notes, I think perhaps that this "quote" either came out of a book (I've got four, four-foot shelves full of them - and read 'em all! - not counting the original Report and Volumes, so I'm not going to go in search of it!) or was something that someone had said he'd said on a documentary of one sort or other.

I could also be confusing it with the "in time..." comment he'd (supposedly) made with regard to the back yard photos (and his presumed knowledge of photography), but it is so striking to me that it was even claimed that he said anything about his (presumably) upcoming trial, that I merely fell into the trap of believing that what I'd read was true since it was so unusual.

I mean, why would anybody lie about stuff like that? Mea culpa, mayhaps?

[Thomas Graves]

I seem to remember someone (Roger Craig?) who overheard that remark say, that Oswald said it in a frustrated tone. As if realizing that now his cover would be blown...

_______________________________

William,

You're absolutely right about Roger Craig's saying that Oswald made that remark ("Now everyone will know who I am.") in a frustrated (and self-disgusted and resigned) tone of voice. All anyone has to do to confirm this is to watch Gil Jesus' recent youtube.com posting on this Forum "VIDEO- The Green Rambler" in which you can see and hear eye-and-ear-witness Craig himself talking about the whole incident and his impressions of Oswald....

--Thomas

P.S. I think Oswald realized that he had just "let the cat out of the bag" by referring to "the car" as "Mrs. Paine's station wagon." Don't ask me why or how, though-- it's too complicated for me to figure out.... lol

_______________________________

Edited May 28, 2007 by Thomas Graves