Jim Root

Paul I am sorry that I have not responded sooner to your last post. Computer failures and the duties of “other hats” have delayed my posting. I was happy to read that you have knowledge of David Marcus. He is a remarkable historical figure and I will attempt to draw a connection between him, John J. McCloy, Maxwell Taylor and James Jesus Angleton in my next post (two previous attempts at making this post have failed). First I would like to provide some excerpts from the Ruby's Lie Detector Test and information taken form Appendix XVI of the Warren Report dealing with the Biography of Jack Ruby. First, let me provide information taken from the Testimony of Mr. Bell P. Herndon about the lie detector test that he administered to Jack Ruby. Mr. Specter. Would there be any difference in psychological reactions, Mr. Herndon, on a pattern of deception which the subject considered insignificant as opposed to a pattern of deception which the subject considered significant? Mr. Herndon. Generally the concept of the polygraph technique is that we are attempting to find out what a man's physiological responses will be in any area where he is attempting to deceive. The content of the actual deception is not particularly important. We want to get a tracing of where he is attempting to deceive. Now under a situation such as Mr. Ruby was in here, it is more probable that he is more concerned about these relevant questions than these irrelevant or control-type questions. In other words, the relevant questions have more to do with his well-being or what he is trying to prove to the Commission. However, the chart here still shows that he attempted to deceive with regard to what considered insignificant, but it tends to indicate to me that he will respond to a practice of deception, if that answers your question. Looking at the statement, “The content of the actual deception is not particularly important. We want to get a tracing of where he is attempting to deceive.” Can we find where Ruby attempts to deceive? Are some insignificant questions significant? Mr. Specter. Would you start there on series 3a with the relevant questions, the responses and your evaluation of any significant psychological deviation, please? Mr. Herndon. This particular series 3a was what would be called a modified peak of tension series. Ruby was carefully instructed prior to the series that four relevant questions were going to be asked in a consecutive order. Question No. 3: "Did you first decide to shoot Oswald on Friday night?" He responded "No." Question No. 4: "Did you first decide to shoot Oswald on Saturday morning?" He responded "No." Question No. 5: "Did you first decide to shoot Oswald Saturday night?" He responded "No." Question No. 6: "Did you first decide to shoot Oswald Sunday morning?" He responded "Yes." These are the only relevant questions in this series. A review of the chart with regard to his responses in this series reveals that Ruby's blood pressure continually rose from the question No. 3 until it reached a peak just as question No. 6 was asked. In addition it was noted that there was a rather noticeable change in his breathing pattern as question No. 6 was approached. There is a slight impact in the GSR tracing as question No. 6 is approached. This would mean to me in interpreting the chart that Ruby reached a peak of tension as the question No. 6 was about to be asked in which he responded "Yes" to "Did you first decide to shoot Oswald Sunday morning?" This particular type of series cannot be interpreted with regard to whether or not there was any deception, but it does indicate that Ruby built up a physiological peak of tension to the time of Sunday morning with regard to his decision of shooting Oswald. We have an interesting statement here, “This particular type of series cannot be interpreted with regard to whether or not there was any deception, but it does indicate that Ruby built up a physiological peak of tension to the time of Sunday morning with regard to his decision of shooting Oswald.” Did Ruby’s first thoughts of shooting Oswald begin on Friday night? Mr. Herndons dialog with Mr. Specter continues: Mr. Specter. Is there any correlation between the building up of a peak of tension and the accurate answer to the series? Mr. Herndon. In normal usage of polygraph technique where a peak of tension is used, if the series is effective, the party will usually respond to a particular item which happens to be the most pertinent with regard to the offense. In this case it appears that Ruby projected his entire thoughts and built up a physiological peak of tension to the point of Sunday morning. Does this infer that the build up of a “physiological peak of tension to the point of Sunday morning” with regards to the questions or to the actual events? With each question was he telling a greater lie? The questions from series six displayed a point were Ruby may have been less than truthful but the question was insignificant, to a degree. From a review of Mr. Ruby's polygrams, on series 6, it was noted that there were no significant physiological variations to his response to the relevant questions. It was noted that Mr. Ruby did display slight suppression in his breathing pattern, and a relative decrease in blood pressure with an increase in the heart amplitude at question No. 7. This question was: "Did you ever overcharge a customer?" Mr. Ruby replied "No." However, after the series, this question was discussed with him briefly, and he did make mention of the fact that there had been some trouble at his nightclub with regard to the waitresses and big bills. This could be interpreted as a possible deception pattern in that he hedged with regard to the question "Did you ever overcharge a customer." The total chart minutes of series No. 6 was 2 minutes 50 seconds. In this series 6 question it is easy to understand that Ruby may have lied. But since it was a control question it was just passed by, as were other control questions as not “significant.” In series 6 we find another “control question” with similar “possible deception pattern(s)” Mr. Specter. Were there any other significant findings, in series No. 7? Mr. Herndon. There was a significant change in his breathing pattern and also a slight decrease in his blood pressure when I asked him the question "Did you attend the synagogue regularly?" However, this is a control type question, and as later discussed with him there was some area of doubt in his mind as to whether he attended the synagogue regularly as much as he would like to. The total chart minutes on series 7 was 2 minutes 55 seconds. Mr. Herndon. Series 9 contains 7 questions, all being relevant. Question No. 1: "Did you ever meet Oswald at your post office box?" Mr. Ruby replied "No." Question No. 2: "Did you use your post office mail box to do any business with Mexico or Cuba?" Mr. Ruby replied "No." Question No. 3: "Did you do business with Castro Cuba?" Mr. Ruby replied "No." Question No. 4: "Was your trip to Cuba solely for pleasure?" Mr. Ruby replied "Yes." Question No. 5: "Have you now told us the truth concerning why you carried $2,200 in cash on you?" Mr. Ruby replied "Yes." Question No. 6: "Did any foreign influence cause you to shoot Oswald?" Mr. Ruby replied "No." Question No. 7: "Did you shoot Oswald because of any influence of the underworld?" Mr. Ruby replied "No." In interpreting his chart with regard to this particular series of questions, there is no noticeable significant deviation in his physiological pattern except at question No. 6. According to my notation on the chart, Ruby moved his head at this point, and there was a deviation caused by this movement in his blood pressure tracing and also in his pneumograph tracing. His heart rate maintained a consistent rate of approximately 66 to 72 heart beats per minute throughout this series. No significant changes. As I have posted in earlier threads: Mr. Specter. Will movement or speaking cause a variation in the tracings ordinarily, Mr. Herndon? Mr. Herndon. Yes. Body movements or speaking any phrase or sentence would certainly cause changes in the physiological patterns as displayed on the polygraph. I made notation of that, however, and that explains the changes On question No. 2, Mr. Ruby did show a significant drop in the relative blood pressure. This question pertained to: "Did you go to the Dallas police station at any time on Friday November 22, 1963, before you went to the synagogue? I asked him about this question later when he responded "No," and I noticed a physiological change. He advised that there was some man by the name of John Rutledge, and he made an association with proceedings at the trial which I have reason to believe this gentleman, John Rutledge, differed with what Ruby stated as to when he went to the synagogue. Due to the nature of this change, however, it is possible that it was caused by a body motion that I failed to detect during the actual response. I notice that the cardio pen dropped all the way down and hit what we call the limit screws. This frequently is caused by a sudden rapid shift in his body position, and this change could have been caused by a body movement. With regard to the other relevant questions in this series, question 4, question 6, and question 8, there was no significant deviation from his normal physiological patterns. Also in series 3, question No. 7 is of interest. Mr. Ruby was asked: "While in the service did you receive any disciplinary action?" There is a noticeable rise in his blood pressure after he responded "No." This question had been discussed rather thoroughly with him, and after the series was run, he admitted that he had been called in before his commanding officer regarding a brawl he had while in the military service. He also commented: "Evidently you are getting a good reading." This could be interpreted as a deception pattern inasmuch as in his mind he realized he had been in some trouble in the military service; however, did not want to truthfully answer the question as he considered it insignificant.However, he did admit that he had been in some trouble with his commanding officer regarding-fighting. This is considered a Control question, and its response is greater than his response to the previous relevant question which I had related. Looking at this event, while Ruby was in the military, more closely we find in Appendix XVI the details of this subject are dealt with more closely. Why did he lie about this subject and after getting caught make the statement, "Evidently you are getting a good reading." Two persons who recalled Ruby while he was in the Army Air Forces asserted that he was extremely sensitive to insulting remarks about Jews. When, during an argument, a sergeant called Ruby a "Jew bastard," Ruby reportedly attacked him and beat him with his fists. We also find in Ruby’s biography: Ruby, with several friends, frequently attempted to disrupt rallies of the German-American Bund. One acquaintance reported that Ruby was responsible for "cracking a few heads" of Bund members. Apparently he joined in this activity for ethnic rather than political reasons. The young men in the group were not organized adherents of any particular political creed, but were pool hall and tavern companions from Ruby's Jewish neighborhood who gathered on the spur of the moment to present opposition when they learned that the pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic Bund movement was planning a meeting. Hyman Rubenstein testified that Ruby would fight with any person making derogatory comments about, his ethnic origins, and others have stated that Ruby would fight with anyone he suspected of pro-Nazi or anti-Semitic tendencies. And; Following his return from the Army, Ruby was described as ready to fight with any person who insulted Jews or the military. Earl Ruby testified that on one occasion in 1946, Jack returned from downtown Chicago with his suit covered with blood. He explained at that time that he had fought with a person who had called him a "dirty Jew or something like that. " Mr. Herndons comment, “…we are attempting to find out what a man's physiological responses will be in any area where he is attempting to deceive. The content of the actual deception is not particularly important. We want to get a tracing of where he is attempting to deceive.” is, I believe, relevant. We find that Ruby seems to have attempted to deceive on repeated questions that dealt with his Jewish religion and his attendance at the synagogue. Herndon also needed to explain away the reaction to the question, "Did any foreign influence cause you to shoot Oswald?" Also from Appendix XVI: “Reared in the Jewish faith, Jack Ruby was not especially devout. Rabbi Hillel Silverman, whose conservative temple Ruby favored, reported that when Ruby's father died in 1958, Ruby came to services twice daily for the prescribed period of 11 months to recite the traditional memorial prayer. Ruby normally attended services only on the Jewish high truly days and he was quite unfamiliar with the Hebrew language. Ruby was apparently somewhat sensitive to his identity as a Jew. He forbade his comedians to tell stories directed at Jews or Jewish practices and, on several occasions after 1947, he fought with persons making derogatory remarks about his ethnic origins. The evidence also indicates that he was deeply upset that an advertisement insulting President Kennedy appeared above a Jewish-sounding name. Did Ruby’s religion play a role in the death of Lee Harvey Oswald? Jim Root

Paul Ruby is a subject that I attempted to avoid till I finally came to the conclusion that there may well have been a conspiracy of some sort. The logical answer is that if Oswald was a patsy or if he had a motive (which I believe) he would, by necessity have to die. The other answer is that Ruby, as the Warren Commission reports he said, did it to protect Jackie Kennedy and her kids from the ordeal of a trial. The record shows that it was McCloy and Dulles that convinced the Commissioners to not deal with Ruby and the Ruby question until after the trial of Jack Ruby. This decission created a time lapse between the actual event (Oswald's assassination) and the commission collecting testimony from Oswald. When his testimony was taken only two commiccioners were present, Warren and Ford. Ruby wanted to go to Washington to tell his real story, something that never happened. He wanted to take a lie detector test and he also speaks of Edwin Walker........ Ruby was never taken to Washington but he was allowed to take a lie detector test as he requested. He had trouble with a particular question, number 2. (From the Testimony of Bell P. Herndon who adminsitered the lie detector test) Mr. Specter. Will movement or speaking cause a variation in the tracings ordinarily, Mr. Herndon? Mr. Herndon. Yes. Body movements while speaking any phrase or sentence would certainly cause changes in the physiological patterns as displayed on the polygraph. I made notation of that, however, and that explains the changes. On question No. 2, Mr. Ruby did show a significant drop in the relative blood pressure. This question pertained to: "Did you go to the Dallas police station at any time on Friday November 22, 1963, before you went to the synagogue? I asked him about this question later when he responded "No," and I noticed a physiological change. He advised that there was some man by the name of John Rutledge, and he made an association with proceedings at the trial which I have reason to believe this gentleman, John Rutledge, differed with what Ruby stated as to when he went to the synagogue. Due to the nature of this change, however, it is possible that it was caused by a body motion that I failed to detect during the actual response. I notice that the cardio pen dropped all the way down and hit what we call the limit screws. This frequently is caused by a sudden rapid shift in his body position, and this change could have been caused by a body movement. With regard to the other relevant questions in this series, question 4, question 6, and question 8, there was no significant deviation from his normal physiological patterns. (Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. XIV - Page 594) It seems Jack Ruby may have been nervous about answering questions that dealt with John Rutledge, who identified Ruby with the "two out of state" newsmen, and his trip to the synagogue. This particular question created a "a physiological change" or was it just body motion that Herndon, " failed to detect during the actual response?" "I saw Jack and two out-of-state reporters, whom I did not know, leave the elevator door and proceed toward those television cameras, to go around the corner where Captain Fritz's office was. Jack walked between them. These two out-of-state reporters had big press cards pinned on their coats, great big red ones, I think they said "President Kennedy's Visit to Dallas-Press", or something like that. And Jack didn't have one, but the man on either side of him did, and they walked pretty rapidly from the elevator area past the policeman, and Jack was bent over like this-writting on a piece of paper, and talking to one of the reporters, and pointing to something on the peice of paper, he was kind of hynched over." Newsman John Rutledge (WC Report Pg 340) "Detective Augustus M. Eberhardt, who also recalled that he first saw Ruby earlier in the evening, said Ruby carried a note pad and professed to be a translator for the Israeli press." (WC Report Pg. 342) Nobody seems to be able to identify these two "out of state" reporters who were engaged in conversation with Ruby at the Dallas Police Department. Earlier in the evening: "At 9:00 p.m. he (Ruby) telphoned Ralph Paul but was unable to persuade Paul to join him at synagogue services." (WC Report, Pg 338) "From his apartment, Ruby drove to Temple Shearith Israel, arriving near the end of a 2-hour service which had begun at 8 p.m." (WC Report, Pg 339) The Warren report establishes that Ruby had "two out of state" reporters or associates with him when he entered the DPD. it also seems that he may have been caught in a lie on his lie detector test on a question that dealt with these two men and his trip to the synagogue. Rather than investigating the answer to that question further, it is explained away by suggesting that body motion that was not noticed by the administrator could have caused the "changes in the physiological patterns as displayed on the polygraph." Long before I took the time to look closely at the Ruby record I had stumbled accross the name of an interesting historical figure named David "Mickey" Marcus during my research. I filed it away for later review. Have you ever heard of David Marcus? Jim Root

Paul My hypothisis is that Oswald and Walker may have met on October 9, 1959 and at no other time. October 9, 1959 was the same day that a message was sent from the US Embassy in Helsinki, Finland that outlined the method, which Oswald followed, to quickly receive an entry visa from the Soviet Embassy Helsinki(HSCA). That message was classified until some 13 years after the assassination. It is my hypothisis that until Walker saw Oswald's picture on TV the afternoon/night of the assassination he was totally unaware that Oswald had returned to the United States let alone that he was living in Dallas. If the first paragraph has any truth to it, Walker's actions the next morning make a great deal of sense. I suggest you read the complete testimony of Edwin A. Walker: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/walker_e.htm "The problem for me is Walker was a right wing nut and Oswald a left wing nut who would have cross-threaded each other." The timing of Oswald's application to the State Department to return to the United States coincides directly with Walker's "Pro Blue Program" that leads to Walker's resignation from the Army (cross-threaded). Just as Yuri Nosenko's (Soviet KGB defector) first meeting with CIA officers is made within hours of Oswald's departure from the Soviet Union back to the United States (and Nosenko's actual defection is done within days of the assassination of Kennedy) Of the twelve conclusions offered by the Warren Commissioners, numbers four and eleven are the most important in tying Oswald to the assassination of President Kennedy as a “lone nut” gunman. Number 4, states: “The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald.” (Pg 19 Warren Report summary). This statement is supported with these remarks: “Oswald had attempted to kill Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker (Resigned, U.S. Army) on April 10, 1963, thereby demonstrating his disposition to take human life.” (Ibid Pg 20) The eleventh conclusion begins: “On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes that Oswald acted alone. (Ibid Pg 22) This position is supported with these words: “The Commission could not make any definitive determination of Oswald’s motives. It has endeavored to isolate factors which contributed to his character and which might have influenced his decision to assassinate President Kennedy. These factors were…. His capacity for violence as evidenced by his attempt to kill General Walker.” (Ibid Pg 23). Researchers seem to find that it is easier to ignore or to downplay the attempted assassination of Major General Edwin Walker when criticizing various aspects of the Warren Report on the death of President John F. Kennedy. I formed a hypothesis that suggested that if there were a conspiracy designed to frame Oswald, or to protect others, questions surrounding Walkers’ life and the central role he plays in the conclusions of the Warren Report demanded a detailed search. If there was some sort of conspiracy, either to murder the President or to cover-up the facts surrounding the assassination, the Warren Commissioners were either patsies themselves or were active participants in the conspiracy. Perhaps a combination of both, patsy and conspirator could reasonably be suggested when looking at the makeup of the commission. We must, by necessity deal with that matter in other threads. Could Walker be a part of the conspiracy as well? No matter what may be true, the importance assigned to the Walker assassination attempt by the Commissioners themselves has attracted my attention in a magnetic way. The way Walker answered questions and my first cursory examination of his military experiences intrigued me. His actions in the hours immediately surrounding the assassination, in particular his telephone interview with the German newspaper, appeared to be the actions of a man with something to hide. Walker's testimony displays his ability to reveal little when asked. Jim Root

Paul Walker's office was his home, his staff part time. He had no scheduled appearance in Shreveport during the time period of the assassination that I can identify. Wlker did an interview with a Canadian newpaper, after Oswald was dead but before the FBI had info about Oswald's attempt on his life and no mention of the Oswald connection is made in the article, very different from the interview done while Oswald was alive. My hypothisis suggests that a living Oswald could identify Walker as the man who helped him to enter the Soviet Union (see Serendipity), which would then connect Walker to Oswald and the assassination. Walker was already a recognized Kennedy critic (Senate hearings on Muzzling the Military). By mid afternoon of the 22nd both Oswald's picture and the fact that he had defected to the Soviet Union where on every news channel. Given Walker's anti-Kennedy public stance and if he had in fact met Oswald on his way into the Soviet Union, the information passed to the German Newspaper becomes logical and necessary in order to distance himself from Oswald. After the death of Oswald it would be just as necessary for Walker to distance himself from the article as reported in Germany. It was not until I read the Warren report and began to research what was "left out" primarily dealing with the life and times of Edwin Walker that I switched from being what is called a "lone nutter" to being a person that saw, in the life of Walker, a "very slippery fellow" (Phrase used to describe Sir Robert Thomas Wilson a British spy of the Napoleonic period whose feats in Europe and South America rival any James Bond exploits). The Warren Report, as written, does not work if Oswald does not take the shot at Walker. Must admit though that most of what I have found becomes questionable if Oswald, or somebody else involved, did not take the shot at Walker. This of course would move the plot up to and before April 10, 1963......Way before Oswald got a job at the TSBD. (Before McCloy wrote his letter to Walker) It would also move the plot to Walker's Pro Blue program in Germany, but that was before Oswald even returned from Russia. Interesting, at least to myself. Jim Root

Paul Read my first post on this thread again. Jim Root

Paul Thought you might want to take a look at your potential adversary in the trial of Lee Harvey Oswald. His name was Jonathon Abt and I brought back a post I did about a month ago for you to look at. It is a shortened version of a much more in depth paper I did a couple of years ago. Jim Root

Paul Troglia You have suggested that you would like to be the attorney that would proscecute Oswald for the assassination of John F. Kennedy. If Oswld would have lived we can assume he may well have had Jonathon Abt, a man who had defended men whose convictions were overturned by the Supreme Court, as his attorney. Thought you might enjoy some information gleaned from information contained within the 20+ volumns of the suppporting documanetation for the Warren Report that dealt with this subject. Jim Root

Paul From your posts I believe that you will easily concede that Oswald was in the window and you believe, (and as the Warren Commission suggests) Oswald just happened to have gotten the job, with the help of people who had no more sinister motive than to help a man get a job who had a nice wife. Starting from those two points alone and following my hypothisis: If there was some sort of consipacy it would require that Oswald would be a man who would be willing to take the life of another human being (I believe that paraphrases the Warren Report about Oswld) in place, the knowledge of that predisposition on Oswalds part and the ability to then give Oswald the opportunity (motorcade past the window that as you say, "Look out the window in the corner. Let the scene engulf you. Watch the motorcade, watch it turn left onto Elm St. Listen to the crowd. Look at all the people waving. Look how close that open-top limo is. My gosh, I'll bet he could hear me if I yelled loud enough. He's so close. You are standing where the assassin stood, where Commission Exhibit 399 was about to leave the Manlicher-Carcano rifle and enter histor). The Morley research (See my "Big Fish" post) shows that literally real time information about Oswald was being passed up the "food chain." It also shows that agent Hosty's message, in particular, was being up the "food chain." We know from the Warren Report that agent Hosty interviewed Mrs. Paine and was made aware of where Oswald was working and passed that infromation on just as he had his previous messages. Is it two much to assume that that message went to the same people his previous message went to? Why didn't the CIA make the FBI aware of this? Please look at my previous post dealing with the establishment of the Warren Commission. The FBI was the only agency tasked with developing leads by President Johnson and Earl Warren, in the first meeting of the Commission Warren reafirmed this position. As we now know, the CIA had a lot more infromation about Oswald than the FBI knew to ask for. Coincidence? We also know, from the Warren Report, that the motorcade route was "influenced" from Washington. That leaves Oswalds predispostion to take a human life, without which all the rest of this, so far, may only be coincidence. But Oswald had in fact, according to the Warren Commission, already on April 10th, displayed his predisposition to take human life. It was, as the record shows, reported to the police and investigated at the time. If someone were to know about Oswald being in the area, as we now know the CIA did know (Morley articles) someone would also have to be aware of the Walker incident (granted a local matter that should not have been of concern to anyone on a higher level). Maxwell Taylor first met Walker in 1927 and repeatedly used Walker throughout his career to handle some of the most sensitive military matters of the cold war (see privious posts). Taylor also had influence on the Kennedy calender, Maj. Gen. Chester Clifton, was selected to be the military aide to President Kennedy and was with the motorcade when Kennedy was assassinated (Warren Report). Is it a coincidence that Clifton's first CO upon graduation from West Point was Edwin Walker? The Warren Commission neglected to go into Walker's backround. The CIA neglected to provide requested information on Oswald's flight from London to Helsinki (although it cost $111.90, page 257 I believe of the Warren Report). The State Department was aware of exactly what Oswald needed to do to get into the Soviet Union from the October 9, 1959 memo from our Ambassador in Helsinki (HSCA), one day before Oswald arrived in Helsinki Litterally within hours of his arrival in Helsinki Oswald enters the Russian embassy following exactly the information of the Oct. 9 State Department memo. (The first memo from the same Ambassador suggesting the ease of entry is dated Sept. 4, 1959 (HSCA) the same day Oswald received his early discharge fromt he Marines and applied for his passport (Warren Report)). Is it a coincidence that our Ambassador in Helsinki, John D. Hickerson was, during WWII, on the Permanent Joint Board on Defense, U.S. and Canada while a joint Canadian American Force, the First Sepcial Services Force, that Edwin Walker would serve in and command, was formed (the deployment of the FSSF needed joint Canadian American approval)? Add to this the end of Walker's distinguished military career. Within days of the State Department's decision that Oswald would be allowed to return to the US (Warren Report provides date), the actions begin that leads to Walker's downfall and entry into "right wing" activities. Coincidence? In the Soviet Union, upon Oswald being issued his exist visit and within hours of his departure from the Soviet Union, Yuri Nosenko, a man with knowledge about Oswald makes contact with the CIA. Days after the assassination, this same man defects from Russia briinging with him full knowledge of Oswald and the official position of the Soviet Union. Coincidence? The simple answer, for me, is not who put Oswald in the Window. The question is not what is in the record and what has been documented as factual since. The question is, "who put the motorcade past the window Oswald was in?" Jim Root

Paul I appreciate the dialog. When the movie JFK came out I was angry that so much "artistic" license had been taken by Oliver Stone. Just as I was having those feelings I realized that, in fact, I was not that well educated on the subject and decided I needed to learn more before I could be critical and knowledgable at the same time. I remember thinking at the time, any cold case begins with the record. So I went to a used book store and bought the Warren Report and begn reading. Within the first 30 pages of the summary I was reading about Major General Edwin Anderson Walker and the fact that on April 10, 1963 (seven month before the assassination of Kennedy) Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to shoot Walker. I had never heard of Walker but knew that any man who was a Major General in 1963 played a role in World War II. Being a military history "nut" I began doing a little research on the man. 10 years later, here I am and of course I have a hypothisis (I refuse to call it a theory because I am still looking for anybody to explain away what I have discovered). If Oswald acted alone I felt that he would need a motive of some sort. In todays age we might call Oswald a serial killer if he had in fact killed both Kennedy and Walker. I guess I was looking for a link that would give him some sort of motive. It did not take me long to find a potential link. My guide was the 26 volumns of suporting documentation. In the Walker testimony the person who questions Walker makes a statement about not needing to go into his backround because everyone knew who he was. I had lived and remember vividly the assassination but I sure did not know who General Walker was. This as well as the rest of the testimony intriqued me, especially the part where Walker was contacted by a German newpaper at 7:00 A.M. on the moring following the assassination while he was staying at the Captain Shreve Hotel in Shreveport, LA. (how did they know he was there?). That newpaper printed a story the following Wednesday that Oswald had shot at Walker. It was not until the following weekend that the FBI became aware of this same information from Marina Oswald. I thought this very strange. Walker, it seemed to me at the time, had acted like a man who may have been very scared the day following the assassination of John F. Kennedy. As I would later learn, fear was not a trait that Walker was known for!. When I found that Walker was a far "right winger" but had been at Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957, I began to focus upon this Forrest Gump type figure that was in more than one historical location in his life. I soon found that being at the forfront of World events was common for Walker.m Perhaps to common. Loking deeper I learned, that the man whom the Warren Commision did not bother looking intos past, had commanded the First Special Services Force (arguably the the most uniquely trained unit of WWII and the "father" of the Green Berets) and had traveled to Europe, to take over the 24th Infantry Division, at the same time that Oswald was making his defection to Russia. My question was, could they have met along the way? Using the Warren Report as my guide my original thoughts have led me to discover a close relationship between Edwin Walker and Maxwell Taylor and to many other coincidences to mention here (I invite you to read my previous posts). New evidence, recently uncovered by Jeff Morley only lends additional support to my original hypothesis. My story goes bact to 1927 and a young cadet, Edwin Walker, who meets an instructor at West Point named Maxwell Taylor. It is a story of intrigue that is on an international scale. It goes from the Pacific to the Atlantic. It takes us to the verge of nuclear war (First Straits of Taiwan Crisis) and to an attempted phone call that the HSCA discovered Oswald may have attemtpted to make to a man named John Hurt. The story is about an airplane trip to Helsinki that the CIA could not identify at the time (in 1994 researcher Chris Mills found the answer) but that the Warren Commission reports cost exactly $111.90. It shows that on the exact day that the US Embassy in Helsinki sends a message to the State Department (a message that was only declassified for the HSCA) which said that a tourist that would show up at the Russian Embassy in Helsinki with Intouris Visas in hand could get a visa into Russia withing 48 hours. Oswald followed these instructions to the letter after haveing deverted from France and travelling in England on the that same day only to show up at the only embassy in the world where he could easily get into Russia, just as the classified embassy message said. Yes Ron, the Warren Commission and the HSCA as well as the supporting documentation is something that we all need to study. I have and I have gone from believing that Oswald was a "lone nut" assassin to now believing something very different. Jim Root

Paul If I may draw from some of my privious posts on this thread: "Early on, when I sarted researching in earnest, I made one rule for myself. It says that I would accept every persons points of view and information as points and information that was arrived at sincerely. I would then choose to accept, discard or set aside that information for review as I continued to learn more." With that said I welcome you to the board and will accept your remarks as sincere and hope that you continue to post in a positive manner. As I said in my first post on this thread, "Seldom in my life have I seen a question so well asked!" Weather you wish to believe there was some sort of conspiracy or not your point, "these potential "conspirators" exposed themselves as the men "behind the curtain." A great loss to themselves" is something we should all keep in mind. My post on "Pascal's Wager" where you stated, "the heads/tails thing escapes me" can be explained as, no matter what side of the coin you are on in the assassination debate, we are, each, either 100% right about Oswald or 100% wrong. He is either a shooter or he is not, but no matter what we each choose the above is true, we are correct or we are wrong. As my "Big Fish" thread points out. if Oswald was a "two-bit creep" who as you say, "He did it alone" and " he did it, to become someone" why was the CIA, at the highest levels monitoring what magazines he was subscribing too? Jeff Morley, an editor for the Washington Post, a news organization that took the position that Oliver Stone's movie JFK was bunk, has recovered the document that FBI agent Hosty wrote in the summer or 1963 (before Oswald was in New Orleans passing out anti-Castro leaflets, etc) and has documented this information being passed directly to the office of Richard Helms who became Head of the CIA. Either he already was "someone" or the agency tasked with maintaining the security of the United State was, at the highest levels, wasting TAX PAYER dollars on insignificant people. I personally believe Richard Helms would have had more important things to do. But this is the cut in your original post that started this thread, "Why would a plot to kill JFK be necessary if the conspiracy was as all powerful as described throughout this forum? Why not let the masses believe in the power of the president, while they (the conspiracy) pull the strings, you know, like the Wizard of Oz, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" This is exactly why we search for the answers that we search for. That is why, I believe, this whole thing is not so simple as many think. This "two bit" insignificant guy, who was being monitored by the CIA who withheld information from the Warren Commission/Americn People about Oswald who was involved with the assassination of the President of the United States. If nothing else, this type of activity by our government is unacceptable in a Democratic Republic. At the begining of his book, The Murder of Admiral Darlan (written in 1964) by Peter Tompkins, himself a former OSS agent that was working with Richard Helms in Germany at the end of WWII begins with these words quoted from Waverley Root: "It is the business of Democratic journalists to try to turn the light of day into the dusty corners of secret diplomacy, and to expose to the view of the people the machinations which seek to dispose of them, even in the republics, in defiance of the principle which states that the people should decide ther own fate. 'Such journalist are therefore engaged in an unending war against secretive officials. They seek to expose what the officials seek to hide. If they win, the officials of the future will be of a new stripe (of whom we have some already), who will carry on their activities in the full view of the public, hiding nothing form them. 'If the keepers of the secrets win, there will be no more journalists in the future at all. Only scribes setting down slavishly what they are told to write. We have some of these already, too." The Murder of Admiral Darlan is the story of a conspiracy designed to gain power over the government of Free France. A young agent accepts and carries out the plot only to linger in his sell awaiting rescue for two days. By the end of the second day the assassin is dead. Food for thought, Jim Root

While discussing the assassination with a fried today the topic of Oswald's ability to actually hit a target came up. My friend implied that Oswald was in fact a bad shot and therefore his participation in the assassination was questionable. I often times turn to the Warren Report to look for information/misinformation and realized that the Warren Report dealt with this question but in a different way than I had ever realized befor. According to the Warren Report Oswald fired four shots. Three at Kennedy and one at Walker. Also according to the Warren Commission his score was 2 hits and 2 misses. 50%, not very good. Jim Root

Tim In reply to your comment, "Mr. Root is arguing that the CIA knew where LHO was working and therfore the CIA was involved in the plot. I don't think there is a sufficient nexus here." I brought back the "Seven Days in May" thread to more clearly explain my "nexus." I know it is a lot of reading and is a rather convoluted story but the Morley article falls into place in my belief that the Taylor/Walker/Oswald story may be very important. My jump from the CIA knowing where Oswald working is to a person (Taylor) who may have been working an asset (Oswald) could have had access to the information that was generated about his asset. Simple as that, instant nexus! Jim Root

Tim In Did the "Big Fish" know, Where Oswald was working? you state, "Mr. Root is arguing that the CIA knew where LHO was working and therfore the CIA was involved in the plot. I don't think there is a sufficient nexus here. If my analysis above is correct, I think it necessarily follows that Ruth Paine was involved, but we do not know who was directing her." I wanted to bring back this thread to explain that I am not saying, "therfore the CIA was involved in the plot." As this thread show my hypothisis has always leaned toward Maxwell Taylor being the major player. But the hypothisis only works if Taylor has access to the information dealing with where Oswald was working. The Morley articles in the "Big Fish" thread show that the information from agent Hosty was being passed up the "food chain" and was available to those that would be monitoring Oswald. My Seridipity thread discribes how and why I believe that Walker may have met Oswald on October 9, 1959. Because of Walker's 30+ year relationship to Maxwell Taylor, Walker was the man chosen by Taylor to meet Oswald while he was traveling to Helsinki. Once again from Robert Charles-Dunne' post Mr. Lawson: But the route that was chosen was chosen because it was the consensus of opinion that it was probably the best route under the circumstances. It allowed us 45 minutes to go from the airport to the Trade Mart at the speed that I figured the President would go from past experience with him in advances, and as a regular working agent riding in a followup car. It allowed us to go downtown, which was wanted back in Washington, D.C. [WCH IV page 326] Not the CIA Tim, Taylor. Jim Root

Jack Unaware or undecided? Early on, when I sarted researching in earnest, I made one rule for myself. It says that I would accept every persons points of view and information as points and information that was arrived at sincerely. I would then choose to accept, discard or set aside that information for review as I continued to learn more. I apologize if I have wasted your time with meaningless posts. Jim Root

Paul Drawing from Pascal's Wager: Each person gets to decide what they feel is true about Oswald. Heads, he shot at Kennedy, Tails he did not. Depending upon what WE choose, heads or tails, there is the potential for two different outcomes. If we choose heads the coin could come up heads or tails. If we choose tails the coin could come up heads or tails. There are, in reality, two choices that create four potential outcomes. On any one flip of the coin you have a 50 - 50 chance of getting the right outcome. The only way you have a 50 - 50 chance of being correct on multiple flips is to always bet only one choice. But then, with an infinite number of flips, you will never improve upon your 50% odds. But in this game there is only one flip so WE will be either 100% right or 100% wrong no matter how strongly we believe. Form a logical sense, I always like to keep that in mind. Oswald is an interesting person to say the least. He is a self educated man who somehow got to and into the Soviet Union with remarkable ease, never having traveled out of the country on his own before. He returns to the United States, without some difficulty and finds himself at the center of a controversy that has raged now for over 40 yeaars. I do not underestimate him at all. Jim Root PS How much do you know about Jonathon Abt the attorney Oswald wanted?

Paul Seldom in my life have I seen a question so well asked! "Why would a plot to kill JFK be necessary if the conspiracy was as all powerful as described throughout this forum? Why not let the masses believe in the power of the president, while they (the conspiracy) pull the strings, you know, like the Wizard of Oz, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" Your question not only leads to motive, it also shines light on how much, in the United States, has been lost since the assassination. While we, the type of people who post on these forums, want to give so much credit to potential "conspirators," we fail to accept that these potential "conspirators" exposed themselves as the men "behind the curtain." A great loss to themselves. Or perhaps, that is what Oswald had in mind. Jim Root

All Dawn's remarks about forums being a positive medium is correct. This thread began, in reality from "Cut to the Chase, what evidence is there" started by Tim Gratz on 12/29/2004. The "What Jane Roman Said" article was added by Richard J. Smith to that thread. We all look at information in different ways usually attempting to support our own positions. I am no different in this regards. As Shanet says, "I have known about the structural links suggestive of Thomas Karamessines to this operation for many years." Looking at links to Thomas Karamessines before the assassination I see the Greek Civil War, Italian General Giovanni DeLorenzo and his SIFAR organization, GLADIO and NATO's "Stay Behind Strategy." DeLorenzo ties to Karamessines directly and all the parts tie in very easily with General Edwin A. Walker and Maxwel Taylor. Toss in the fact that Karamessines was Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense in 1954 till about 1959 and you can add a potentially strong link to the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Maxwel D. Taylor. The fact that Oswald almost got a job with, I believe, a photograpic or printing company before the TSBD job does suggest a certain randomness to his actually securing a job at the TSBD. A chance phone call from a potential empoyer to a friend that had been a previous employer may well have changed history as we know it. This is fact not speculation. Robert Charles-Dunne has added: "Mr. Lawson: But the route that was chosen was chosen because it was the consensus of opinion that it was probably the best route under the circumstances. It allowed us 45 minutes to go from the airport to the Trade Mart at the speed that I figured the President would go from past experience with him in advances, and as a regular working agent riding in a followup car. It allowed us to go downtown, which was wanted back in Washington, D.C. [WCH IV page 326]" This completes the circle. Information on Oswald's employment address goes to Washington, Washington dictates the route. Rather simple. Jim Root

Steve "The motorcade route was finalized about November 7, 1963." I will be happy to concede a later date. It allows more time for the information about Oswald's work location to be passed up the "food chain." The fact remains that information about Oswald from agent Hosty was being read at the highest echelons of the CIA in a timely manner. Also there is a documented example of a message being received from an FBI agent and passed up in less than a week. This is significant. Jack If A = B and B = C then A = C. Fact remains Oswald was working at the TSBD, the CIA was probably aware of that fact then the motorcade went past the TSBD.

A few weeks ago I suggested that if we could discover who knew where Oswald was working and then who selected the motorcade route we might have a link to a top level conspirator. Others suggested that Oswald was to small a fish to be monitored so closely. In Jefferson Morley's article, "What Jane Roman Said," we find these quotes: "Newman then reviewed the routing slips on two documents about Oswald that Roman herself had received in September 1963. The first was the FBI report from agent Hosty in Dallas. Hosty reported on Oswald's address in the summer of 1963 and his recent leftist political activities, including his subscription to the Socialist Worker newspaper. The second report was more provocative. It was a report from the FBI in New Orleans, dated September 23, 1963. (leaves one week for Roman to have received this document, my addition) Oswald, it seemed, had gotten arrested. He had been handing out FPCC pamphlets on a street corner in New Orleans on August 9, 1963 when he was confronted by some members of the militantly anti-Castro group called the Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil or DRE, which was known to North American newspaper readers as the Cuban Student Directorate. An altercation ensued. Oswald and some of the Cubans were arrested. An agent in the New Orleans office of the FBI wrote up a report and sent it to Washington." Adding other know information to Morley's article: On November 5, 1963 agent Hosty sent another memo that stated where Oswald was working. The motorcade route was finalized about November 7, 1963. Edwin Walker had been shot at on April 10, 1963 (officially unknown by whom at that time). The Morley article indicates that the CIA, at top levels, was monitoring the memos sent by Hosty (at least his memo of summer 1963) and in the case of the New Orleans FBI agent had the information in the hands of "Tom Karamessines, who served as top deputy to covert operations chief, Richard Helms" (Morley) in less than one week. The Roman story suggests that the CIA could/should/did know that the route selected passed by Oswald's place of employment two weeks in advance of the assassination. Jim Root

Frank I thing you make an assumption here that I am not willing to concede: " There are clear signs that he had a variety of connections and associations that were not fully explored when the WC considered the case. " I tend to believe that there were, at least, some commissioners that could have been aware of the "connections and associations" of Lee Harvey Oswald and that is exactly why they were selected to be on and direct the commission findings (McCloy and Dulles in particular). "There are *so* many inconsistencies in the records regarding LHO that it is a virtual certainty that we have yet to learn the full extent and scope of what (and who) he was involved with." Agree completly although, of course, I have my ideas. "About the only thing that I'm "certain" of is that it was no coincidence that LHO was in/around Dealy Plaza on November 22nd." Exactly! I am in complete agreement here. Jim Root

George Add to your list his actions before the assassination. Going to visit his wife a day before he was expected. Leaving his wedding ring and money behind for his wife. Taking "curtin rod" package to work with him that day. I like the full context of the "patsy" comment, "No, they've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'M JUST A PATSY!" His after assassination action that I find interesting to this case is his explicit and repeated request to have Jonathan Abt as his attorney. I have always felt that Oswald knew exactly which attorney he wanted. Abts backround with Smith Act (attempts to overthrough the government) cases is also of interest. These actions suggest a pre knowledge of the events that were to unfold on November 22, 1963. The ring, money and "curtin rods" suggest the same thing. Bullets in his pocket, leaving the scene, a gun and a dead cop between his residence and the movie theater that he selects to attend also looks, at minimum, as the actions of a suspicious character. Having been a Marine who "defected" to the Soviet Union, his actions in New Orleans, the rifle and Hidell identification as well as his affiliation with George De Mohrenschildt not to mention his job at the TSBD. As G. Robert Blakley said, "Lee Harvey Oswald is a mystery wrapped up in an enigma, hidden behind a riddle." Jim Root

Tim When we say "the cover-up" are we making a statement that may mean different things to different people. When the CIA responded to the Warren Commissions question reguarding Oswald's flight from London to Helsinki with the statement that, There were no direct flights from London to Helsinki, Finland that would have allowed Oswald to arrive in Helsinki, Finland in time to register at the Torni Hotel by midnight on October 10, 1959 when he did in fact register. " We have a truthful statement of fact. Is it a cover-up when a truthful statemnt is made in answer to a legitimate question? At a minimum I would have to answer perhaps and I lean toward the belief that this is a provable example of an attempt to "cover-up" information that the CIA wished to withold from the Commission/public. Why? We now know that there were two flights, neither "direct" since each made one stop, that would have allowed Oswald to arrive in Helsinki in time to check into the Torni Hotel. The Commission report goes on to state that Oswald's flight cost him exactly $111.90. This seems to indicate that the flight Oswald took was known to someone but that there was a desire to keep the information about exactly which flight a secrete. The report succeeded in this untill 1994 when the two available flights were uncovered and the records of who was on the available flights had long since been discarded, lost to historians. My point is that without telling a lie there was the ability to withhold information from the public. If Oswald were, in fact, involved in an intelligence stratagem National Security Council 10/2 and NSC 5412 would mandate a "cover-up" (plausible deniablity). Nothing more sinister (although very sinister) than that! And those at the highest levels of government could be compelled to accept this logic in the name of "National Security." The perfect crime? Jim Root

Tim The "patsy" coment, please help me out here. Although usually taken as simply, "I am only a patsy" (Mae Brussul) wew also find "I'm a patsy" or I'm just a patsy" being used as the quote. I believe the quote comes from the notebook of Seth Kantor, a Washington news correspondant. Was the actual quote recorded? I understand that the famous quote originated from Oswald's answer to the question: "Did you shoot the President?" Answer: "No, they've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union...I'M JUST A PATSY!" Was Oswald the "patsy" that had been sent to the Soviet Union? Was Oswald speaking of some "mission" to Russia that had led to arrest in Dallas on November 22, 1963? Jim Root

Quote from the record: Appendix 15: Transactions Between Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina Oswald, and the U.S. Department of State and the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice "...on October 31, 1959, a Saturday, Oswald presented himself at the American Embassy in Moscow....Oswald stated to Snyder that he had voluntarily told Soviet officials that he would make known to them all information concerning the Marine Corps and his specialty therein, radar operation, as he possessed." "... the Embassy received an undated letter from Oswald postmarked Minsk, February 5. The letter stated: Since I have not received a reply to my letter of December 1960, I am writing again asking that you consider my request for the return of my American passport. I desire to return to the United States, that is if we could come to some agreement concerning the dropping of any legal proceedings against me. If so, than I would be free to ask the Russian authorities to allow me to leave. If I could show them my American passport, I am of the opinion they would give me an exit " "On May 26, 1961, the Embassy sent a despatch to the Department 94 advising that on May 25, 1961, it had received a letter from Oswald Page 754 postmarked Moscow, May 16, 1961.95 In his latest letter Oswald said he wanted "to make it clear"" that he was asking for full guarantees that he would not be prosecuted "under any circumstances" should he return to the United States. Oswald went on to say that if the Embassy could not give him these assurances, he would "endeavor to use my relatives in the United States, to see about getting something done in Washington" However, on Saturday, July 8, 1961, before the Embassy had received the response from Washington, Oswald appeared without warning at the Embassy in Moscow. "...He denied that he had made any derogatory statements concerning the United States to radio, press, or TV in the Soviet Union, and he denied that he had turned over any information to the Russians as he had threatened to do in the 1959 interview with Snyder." Jim Root

Tim As I recall when Oswald applied to return to the US he displayed a fear that he might be prosecuted for some reason. Providing the information to the Soviets that he threatened upon his entry to Russia? Did he feel guilt about the U-2 and the possibility that he had something to do with that incident.....and the following failure of the Paris Summit????? Did he, at some point in time, begin to realize that he had traveled between the Orchids and rather than finding personal satisfaction had been decieved by the attractive flowers? Jim Root