Gene Kelly

Paul The thread derailment began early on Thursday with these comments: There is no safe hiding place for the conspiracy theorists in the Tippit case. Oswald left his calling card at the scene, and was positively identified by multiple witnesses (either doing the shooting or fleeing the area immediately afterward) ... No amount of conspiracy spin will exonerate Lee Oswald for J.D. Tippit's slaying ... Just the fact that Oswald was in the area of the crime, brandishing a pistol and fighting with police, within 35 minutes of Officer Tippit being shot is very powerful circumstantial evidence of his guilt right there. That's when the waters began to be muddied. And the name-calling began ("conspiracy theorists"). And the ad hominem attacks. With nothing of substance or interest offered since. Muddy Waters

Nothing to do with Officer Tippit, but the date is relevant. On 22 November 1981, in the middle of their mammoth American tour, the Rolling Stones arrived at Chicago. Long influenced by Muddy Waters and the Chicago blues, members of the band paid a visit to Buddy guy’s club, the Checkerboard Lounge, to see the legendary Bluesman perform. It didn’t take long before Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Ronnie Wood and Ian Stewart were joining in on stage and later Buddy Guy, Junior Wells and Lefty Dizz also joined in the fun. It was a unique occasion that was fortunately recorded and captured on camera. It's hard to overestimate how the blues legend meant to the Rolling Stones. During their very early days, the band members landed a gig and had to give an official name (they didn't have one yet). Thinking quickly, they looked at The Best of Muddy Waters album sitting on the floor of their flat, and they zeroed in on the first track "Rollin' Stone" which then led to the group's name, the Rolling Stones. Waters himself said: "They stole my music but they gave me my name." In an excerpt from the opening pages of Keith Richards' biography, Life, he talks about the band's trip to the United States: I think some of us had died and gone to heaven, because a year before we were plugging London clubs, and we're doing all right, but actually in the next year, we're somewhere we thought we would never be. We were in Mississippi. We'd been playing this music, and it had all been very respectful, but then we were actually there sniffing it. You want to be a blues player, the next minute you xxxxing well are and you're stuck right amongst them, and there's Muddy Waters standing next to you. It happens so fast you really can't register all of the impressions that are coming at you... It's one thing to play a Muddy Waters song ... it's another thing to play with him. The Stones precipitated a huge resurrection of many blues musicians in the mid-Sixties. Prior to this revival, Muddy Waters was allegedly reduced to painting Chess Records' recording studio in the year the Stones recorded there. The group also demanded that Howlin' Wolf join them on the television program Shindig in 1965, subsequently exposing him to millions of Americans. Later, BB King, Stevie Wonder, the Meters and Ike and Tina Turner, all profited from supporting the Stones on tour. In 1984, during an interview with The New York Times, Jagger suggested that he wanted to perform, as many blues musicians did, until he died. More than thirty years later, the Stones continue to tour. Gene

Karl Of all the interesting alleys and rabbit holes that one can get lost in when wrapping ones arms around the assassination, Tippit's murder stands out for me as something really odd but very important, as far as understanding what happened. I'm not sure it can ever be unraveled, as its been convoluted and obfuscated over many years. Very little is known about Officer Tippit (he remains unknown and unknowable, as one researcher characterized him). Witnesses to his murder were intimidated and generally ignored. For me, at the 1,000 foot level, there were DPD conspirators who were littering evidence all along the way ... from Tippit's murder scene to the Theatre. Apparently painting a bright line to Oswald as the "unsub". My other instinct - again speculative and unproven - is that somehow the plot/plan seems to have gone astray, and became somehow improvised as the afternoon progressed. Jack Ruby's role in shooting Oswald seems an add-on, since something else didn't happen according to plan. Perhaps you're right ... there were several plans (and cells) operating disjointedly, while we all assume (and try to force fit it) as part of a single unified theory. Gene

Karl Who knows ... as you state, its all speculation. One account (see July 2009 Jim Feemster EF thread) states that - while the real Oswald was chair-hopping and buying popcorn - the “light-colored jacket guy” shot Tippit and began his trek to the Texas Theater, losing his jacket and leaving bread crumbs along the way to make sure the shoe salesman gets on his trail and leads the cops by proxy to where Oswald is waiting. After slipping into the Theater this villain makes his way to the rear door and when the cops arrive is jerked out and put into a squad car to be spirited away. That account (not necessarily John Armstrong's) would imply the other Oswald did the shooting. Another person of interest was Dallas Officer Harry Olsen, a Jack Ruby associate. Olsen allegedly spent the day guarding a fictitious estate (near 10th and Patterson). He apparently broke his kneecap, took only one day off from work (that Friday), and was back on the job the following week. The Tippit shooter was described as slightly heavy-stocky with dark bushy hair, a light colored jacket, a white shirt and dark pants, and 5’10”… a closer match to Harry Olsen than Harvey Oswald. Olsen was also a hostile Warren Commission witness, claiming he could remember next to nothing on that day. After giving testimony to the Warren Commission, he requested a large part of the testimony be deleted. Olsen was fired by Chief Jesse Curry in December 1963, and moved hastily to California with his girlfriend, one of Jack Ruby's strippers. Still others speculate that the man who murdered Tippit was Curtis LaVerne Crafard (aka Larry Crafard). Crafard was employed at Jack Ruby’s Carousel Club as a "multi-purpose employee" (handyman, bartender, et al). Crafard was ostensibly living at the Carousel Club at the time of the assassination (some think that he was living at Earlene Robert's rooming house). He made a hasty departure from Dallas, supposedly hitchhiking to his cousin’s home in Clare, Michigan. Crafard was mistaken for Oswald by several witnesses. Interestingly, Crafard was asked an unusually large number of questions (3,972, to be exact) by the Warren Commission. Crafard also matched the description of Tippit's shooter given by witness Domingo Benavides, including the light gray jacket allegedly discarded by Tippit’s killer behind the Texaco service station on Jefferson Blvd. Officer Howell Summers informed the DPD radio dispatchers that he had an “eye ball” witness who observed Tippit’s killer, and that the killer was a 27 year old white male, with a fair complexion, 5 feet 11 inches tall, weighing 165 pounds, with black wavy hair, and wearing a light gray “Eisenhower type” jacket. That piece of evidence matches the jacket Crafard was wearing when he was photographed by the FBI ... both jackets made by the same manufacturer - Maurice Holman - from California (see the thread entitled The Stevenson Incident and the Assassination at Greg Parker’s research forum). Then there is the Oswald lookalike observed by T.F. White in Carl Mather’s car ... perhaps the enigmatic Igor Vaganov (see Bill Kelly's thread). And of course, Roscoe White. The reality is that six witnesses (all ignored by the Warren Commission) saw two men shoot Tippit who ran away from the scene in opposite directions; one purportedly toward the Texas Theater, throwing the planted shells up in the air so that witnesses would see and recover them. This action ironically had the opposite effect of convincing some that Oswald did not shoot Tippit. The unknown conspirator(s) then entered the Texas Theater in a manner to draw attention, and exited out the backdoor before the historic (Harvey) Oswald arrest. Gene

Vincent Salandria, an early critic of the Warren Commission, said that “Dealey Plaza reeked of conspiracy." In the summer of 1964, he interviewed Mrs. Helen Markham and came away convinced that she had been intimidated into giving testimony that conformed to the Warren Commission's lone gunman thesis.

It seems that Tippit was lured to 10th and Patton, and killed for the following reasons: Remove as many DPD Officers from Dealey Plaza as possible, and send them into Oak Cliff where Oswald could be apprehended Create a strong bias against Oswald ( a cop killer) by the DPD Incriminate Oswald for the assassination by leaving a mock-up wallet containing the fictitious Hidell name (linked to the rifle and revolver purchases) Portray Oswald as a homicidal maniac capable of murdering the President (and shooting at Walker)

Jim I couldn't agree with you more about Joseph McBride's book. It is excellent and - together with the previous work of others (Armstrong, Drenas, Griggs, Griffith, Lane and Simpich to name but a few) - makes the Tippit murder story hard to accept. I would also recommend a November 2002 article by Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., a Professor at University of Georgia School of Law published in Flagpole Magazine. Also a paper by Staffan Westerberg and Pete Engwall (see June 2014 EF thread started by Greg Burnham). So many facts surrounding Tippit's murder are questionable (ballistics, jacket evidence, the revolver, the three wallets) as to border on the absurd. The there are Julia Postal and Bernard Haire, who witnessed the man in the balcony, and the list of theater patrons which conveniently disappeared thanks to Westbrook As one researcher joked, you don't want to go into a Dallas movie theater without a ticket, since - within about 30 minutes after Tippit’s body was in an ambulance - more than a half-dozen police cars descended on the Texas Theater in response to a "reported infraction" (i.e. some unknown person had gone into the theater without paying). An amazing show of force for sneaking into a movie without paying. Captain William R. Westbrook and Sergeant Gerald L. Hill of the DPD are clearly working for/with the bad guys, and are apparently corrupt officers. It strains credibility that a plainclothes Captain in Human Resources can end up at all the key crime scenes and apprehend the most infamous assassin of the 20th Century. These individuals appear to be controlling the post-assassination evidence (and witnesses) - at the TSBD, the Tippit murder scene, the Texas Theatre and later during Oswald's interrogation/arraignment - ensuring the incrimination of Oswald in the pivotal period after the assassination. There are many coincidences and unexplained actions on their parts: They arrived at the TSBD very early and left early ... they arrived at the Tippit scene very early, and then left early. They are both linked with the shells at the Book Depository, and the shells and wallet at 10th & Patton where ... as well as the grey zipper jacket, the gun found/planted on Oswald, and the bullets in his pocket. If that’s not enough, Gerald Hill also is credited with finding the transfer for McWatter's bus, which conveniently happened to be at Jefferson & Marsalis during the library scene in Oak Park. Hill clearly lied about his movements prior to the Texas Theater arrest … for a downtown "beat sergeant" on temporary loan to Westbrook's personnel group, he managed to be center stage - at all strategic locations - with knowledge unsurpassed by any other law enforcement officer (DPD, FBI, Secret Service or otherwise). The sacrificial killing of Tippit accomplished several objectives: it brought the police to Oak Cliff to capture/kill the designated patsy; it helped establish the frame of Oswald as a killer desperate to escape; and it removed police focus from Dealey Plaza. When Oswald was arrested for the Tippit killing, the traditional police and public animus against an alleged cop killer was effected. As researcher Mark Knight stated (see 2005 EF Tippit thread): “It is a stroke of pure evil genius, totally unanticipated by cops... and a god-send for anyone looking to escape from police scrutiny in the plaza ... like a strategy the CIA might have employed during a coup d'état in some banana republic" Gene

My instincts tell me that Dulles comment about Teddy was a threat (and a taunt). I think they had their sights set on Teddy, just like they had their sights on Bobby. I could never prove it, but Ted's plane crash and Chappaquiddick affair were a setup (i.e. a political assassination, of sorts). It was all-out war on the Kennedy's.

Sorry for the confusion, Jim. Vincent Salandria made that comment about Ruth and Michael Paine (i.e. "clear beacons"): The Paines’ actions brand them as clear beacons leading to the killers, but our government did not cause them any trouble. The Paines were criminal co-conspirators and should be prosecuted by a guiltless government (V. Salandria). I was therefore using the same phrase to describe the disinformation ploy (by LBJ and others) to convince the public that RFK asked for Dulles to be on the WC. There's absolutely no way Robert Kennedy would have recommended or wanted that ... not after the BOP, and certainly given his animus for the entire Dulles family. That piece of disinformation smacks of a classic LBJ slight/disrespect for RFK. Plus, it reminds me of the character assassination of JFK later with Hunt's false memo about the Diem coup. Revisionist history of the worse kind.

Jim: As Vincent Salandria once stated (about the Paines), this fabled appointment of Dulles to the WC by RFK is a "clear beacon" to the plotters and perpetrators. Talbot characterizes Dulles as a sociopath ... but I think he was worse than that. The work of Hardway and Lopez is critical to a proper understanding of what went down. Their CIA "containment" during HSCA - information delays and the Johannides filter - is depressing and disappointing to ponder. Your analysis that Johannides would understand what they were looking for (i.e. as a fail-safe measure) is excellent. I've stated previously that a fellow I once worked with (an investigator) was part of the HSCA, and he told me several things that remain poignant 20 years later ... one being that, getting information out of the CIA was an impossibly difficult task, and that they made it as cumbersome as possible. This thread is most interesting and informative. Gene

Karl Perhaps fools rush in, where angels dare not tread. But I’ll go out on that limb and compliment John Armstrong's book. On reading the entire book, its hard not to appreciate the thorough research. And while many strive to disparage the two-Oswald aspect, there’s a lot more in his book than just the Lee versus Harvey theme. His dissection of the rifle mail order issue is impressive, as is his chapter on Mexico City, comparable in importance to the Lopez Report and John Newman's work. There exist 2,000 notebooks at Baylor and microfilm that is invaluable for anyone digging into the assassination story, compiled from the author's considerable time at the National Archives. Responsible critics cite H&L as one of the most original books in the field, with original (sourced) footnotes and very few references to other books. For me, that is a credible researcher, and it seems penny-wise and pound foolish to criticize Armstrong over minor technical details (some of which may be inaccurate) rather than the larger issues at hand. Armstrong goes well beyond the enigmatic Harvey and Lee characters ... for example, he shows the absurdity of Marina Oswald’s conflicting, ever-changing testimony. Most interesting (and convincing) for me is his exposition of Laura Kittrell, of the Texas Employment Commission. I do not understand how one can dispute her telling observations and the differences between the Oswald she’d interviewed earlier and the alleged Teamster who showed up at her office in mid-October 1963 (when the legendary Oswald was working at the TSBD). Ms. Kittrell cited differences in the behavior and appearance of the two individuals, and later wrote a 90-page manuscript (available for reading at the Baylor site) ... one that the authorities had no interest in her telling observation: “A fellow who was pretending to be the man whose wife has just had a baby, and who has been coached upon how to answer certain questions ….” Gene Kelly

DJ No problem. As an outfall of my study of the JFK case, I also developed an interest in CIA and intelligence history. The earliest form of today's CIA - the Office of the Coordinator of Information - was begun by President Roosevelt (after Pearl Harbor) to streamline the collection of the intelligence during WW II. Their original charter was to conduct unconventional warfare, with a large $10 million budget and 600 staff, some of which was moved under the Joint Chiefs of Staff to better support the military. This became the OSS in 1942, whose title reflected the importance of ‘strategy’ in intelligence gathering and clandestine operations. There were inter-government tensions and rivalries (that persisted for many years), and General MacArthur and Admiral Nimitz kept OSS from operating against Japan, while FBI and Navy intelligence protected their domestic counterintelligence work. OSS was disbanded in 1945 and CIA soon followed, independent of (but hidden within, to your point) the Department of State and the armed services. Allen Dulles originally headed covert operations (i.e. euphemistically referred to as "Plans") and took over the leadership of an Agency with a heavy focus on the conduct of paramilitary operations (i.e. regime change) ... which is (imho) what we saw occur ten years later in Dealey Plaza. CIA has always been difficult to separate from the military, and its primary mission seems to be paramilitary operations (not necessarily intelligence gathering). Their track record is not pretty, supporting fascists (in Greece under George Papadopoulos), militarists (in Chile under Gen. Augusto Pinochet), murderers (in the Congo under Joseph Mobutu); death squads (El Salvador) and religious fanatics (Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan). CIA helped destabilize governments in Vietnam, Iran, Indonesia, South Korea, Latin America, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq ... quite a legacy. In contrast to the British system, the OSS established a tradition of putting analysts and operatives in the same organization. In Weiner's "Legacy of Ashes", William Colby is quoted as describing the bifurcated culture within the Agency - the scholars of the research and analysis division, and the spies of the clandestine service - as "separate, unequal, and contemptuous of each other." Weiner - who drew the book's title from an Eisenhower metaphor - argues these cultures never learned to work together. Eisenhower told Allen Dulles upon leaving office in 1961: "Nothing has changed since Pearl Harbor ... I leave a legacy of ashes to my successor." Some would ague that CIA did not fulfill its original Cold War charter of understanding the Soviet Union's true intent, with estimates of Soviet strategic capability consistently overstated, resulting in an expensive and dangerous arms race. Major events and intelligence failures have historically grown a large intelligence infrastructure. The National Security Agency was created in 1952 to overcome a failure to place spies in North Korea during the Korean War. The Bay of Pigs in Cuba led the Pentagon to create a Defense Intelligence Agency in 1962. U2 flights and reconnaissance led CIA and Air Force to consolidate the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). In the aftermath of the 911 attacks, we now have over 16 separate agencies under the aegis of Homeland Security ... only one of which is CIA. In 2013, Edward Sowden provided a glimpse of the scope of the US national Intelligence Program ($53 billion). In summary, the CIA as it existed in 1947-1959 (when the Oswald project came to fruition) seems light years ago. By 1963, Allen Dulles was already outdated and out of favor. And to your point, I see CIA in 1963 as very much in competition with FBI, the Pentagon and a myriad of other intelligence groups. They were not the only game in town. Gene

David Josephs Regarding the "modern CIA", I am referring to an Agency previously dominated by OSS veterans, but changing to a more integrated organization that had been previously scattered about in offices throughout DC, to a single Langley Virginia location in 1961. To me, the early CIA is an outgrowth of the OSS. In 1948, Dulles was asked to chair an early reform study of the young CIA organization. The new Director (Walter B. Smith) then brought Dulles in to oversee "plans" and covert operations in 1951 and subsequently made him his deputy director. The newly inaugurated Dwight Eisenhower made Dulles DCI in 1953 which he held until 1961. In comparison, the so-called Oswald project coincided at the time of the newly formed CIA in 1947. This project appears to be associated with Marguerite Oswald's last husband, Edwin Ekdahl, whom she divorced in June of 1948. During the period of 1947-51, there were three purchases of homes and a total of six different addresses at which Marguerite and family residing. There is a questionable logic to the repeated moves of the Oswalds in the Fort Worth area in that timeframe. I see this project as more connected to Allen Dulles than to those who succeeded him in the modern (post-1961) CIA. Gene

Bart Kamp: My comment was not meant as a slight to either nationality or profession. Regardless of how we feel about the premise of Harvey and Lee, I do consider that John Armstrong has more than demonstrated his bona fides as an unbiased and sincere researcher. He has appeared at conferences and forums, made his work available for scrutiny, and allowed criticism of his fact finding. Not so, in my view, about Mr. Titovets ... who comes out of the blue (at the 50-year anniversary) and makes a case - less about LHO's language skills - but more for his innocence as far as intelligence connections or motives. Therefore, I don't understand how one would side with Titovets (a relative unknown, given his background and associations) over the more credible John Armstrong. I don't see that as a bias ... its simply my opinion. For the record, I too have doubts about the ambiguities of Harvey and Lee. But there are a large set of associated facts that seem mighty fishy and bear more scrutiny. However, I don't feel the animosity that many express for Armstrong's work ... nor do I feel compelled to demean it with sentiments such as "fairy tale" or "rubbish". Gene Kelly

Maybe the Teamsters (and Jimmy Hoffa) disposed of Lee ... perhaps that's what he was hinting at in his interview with Ms. Kittrell. And then both Hoffa and Lee were buried in Section 107, in the corner of the west end zone of Giants Stadium - per one Donald "Tony The Greek" Frankos

Jim Fascinating .... 1955 predates the modern CIA. So, we cant lay the “Oswald Project” at certain Agency peoples feet. It’s clearly a Dulles/Angleton creation. Dulles fascination with the use of doubles is well documented. McCone, Turner, Colby and Schlesinger inherited a bag of worms. Gene

Jim: I did not know about all of the South Texas sightings, so thanks for that. The document cited as recently found in the Archives - an internal Warren Commission document from David Slawson to members of the staff - is revealing: "We are beginning to uncover bits of evidence which indicate that Lee Harvey Oswald may have been better able to drive a car than we previously believed. If this is so, it is significant primarily because he must have had a motive for keeping his ability secret. Likewise, if Marina knew of his driving ability and has failed to disclose it to the Commission she too must have some motive for keeping it a secret." In contrast, we have Texas motor vehicle division employees who claim to have seen a driver's license issued to Oswald. Marina and Ruth Paine allegedly did not see Harvey Oswald from the time he departed New Orleans until he turned up in Dallas in early October ... but Rachel Oswald was born on October 20th, and in none of these South Texas accounts is the woman with "Oswald" described as being pregnant. Something fishy was going on. As far as the Teamsters are concerned, their history is associated with professional drivers. To Mark's point, they did not just exclusively consist of just drivers. While Teamsters are known as the champion of freight drivers and warehouse workers, they have organized workers in every occupation imaginable, both professional and non-professional, private sector and public sector. Not sure about their rules in the 1960's, but today if your job requires driving and your license is suspended, you must inform the company as soon as you know. It seems one of the Oswalds interviewed by Ms. Kittrell spoke of prior work as a delivery person in San Diego. "Curiouser and curiouser!” cried Alice ... she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English (how was her Russian?) Gene

Mark: John Judge and Mae Brussell believed that Lee (the Oswald who survived) was one Donald O. Norton who stayed on the move but hung his "hat" (and dyed red hair) in Jupiter and Avon Park FLA. He ran a fishing bait & tackle shop, but allegedly kept on the move. he also had something to do with a Las Vegas retirement home (perhaps a safe house) for former intelligence operatives. Gene

Jim: I read the Baylor material regarding the Kittrell documents (surfaced during HSCA) ..... very illuminating. She was quite frustrated that the Warren Commission essentially ignored her. The anecdote about the Teamsters (but not having a drivers license) is priceless. One wonders why both of these imposter/patsies went through with the unemployment interviews. It would seem that they were being coordinated (and apparently must have known of each other too). Just this aspect alone is enough to discredit what the WC investigation did ... and there are many examples where the WC underachieved and disappointed the American electorate. What a travesty of justice. Ms. Kittrell' s account (and testimony) reinforces the work of John Armstrong ... it alone is enough to think twice (as in two) about Oswald. Cognitive dissonance at work. Gene

Mark: I've always had the same nagging question. If (for a moment) we accept two Oswalds, and Lee was the guy in the balcony of Texas Theater -- the one led out the back door and later seen at El Chico Restaurant in a red Ford Falcon -- then that is the last that we ever see or hear of him. One W. T. White, a mechanic, alleged that he and his wife were watching TV on the night of the assassination when they brought Lee Harvey Oswald out at the police station. White said to his wife, “That’s the man I saw in the car over in the parking lot this afternoon.” The car was later traced to a Carl Mathers who knew Tippit and worked at Collins Radio. Lots of coincidences there. Bill Kelly did some ground work on the El Chico story, and I understand Mather's was given immunity and his HSCA testimony is not released. Then there is NORAD/Air Force sergeant Robert G. Vinson's providential presence on the second Oswald's flight from Dallas (detailed in Douglas's "JFK and the Unspeakable"). On November 22, 1963, Vinson saw the second Oswald escaping on the same C-54 cargo plane he was hitching a ride home on. Vinson also got off the plane at the same CIA base as Oswald's double did, a few minutes after him. Thirty years later, Robert Vinson told the story of his flight from Dallas to news anchor Larry Hatteberg on Wichita's KAKE-TV Channel 10 News. In 2003 James Johnston and journalist Jon Roe co-authored FLIGHT FROM DALLAS, describing Robert Vinson's experience in detail. The trail (of "Lee") goes cold after that. I do find it a striking dichotomy that there are many observations of Oswald doubles in the months preceding the assassination ... but not a single one after November 1963. Gene

Karl: You would believe and trust a Russian biochemist who came out after 50 years over an American researcher? It seems that Titovets' book is more a refutation of Armstrong's work, than an account of his dear friend Lee. Or, perhaps it was intended to exonerate or obfuscate Marina Prusakova and her true associations. Titovets apparently stated in a 1993 PBS documentary that he was “paid to befriend LHO and make the recordings”. He was the same age as Oswald, and since Oswald was under surveillance in Minsk, his association suggests that he was cooperating with the KGB. And we are to take the word of Anita Ziger as gospel? Oswald's supervisor at the factory was Alexander Romanovich Ziger - with likely CIA connections - and his family was relocated from the Soviet Union by US authorities after the assassination. Then there is Inessa Yakhliel, who met Lee in Minsk in 1961. Yakhliel recalled her friendship with the young couple in a 2013 interview with Radio Free Europe: RFE/RL: Was he a kind man? Was he friendly? Yakhliel: I think he was. Although, you know, I don't think he let people he didn't know well too close to himself, but there was a certain circle of people: the so-called Erik [or Ernst] Titovets -- not the best specimen -- myself, some other people, I won't try to remember them all now. [The Oswalds] were very hospitable. I wonder what she means by "not the best specimen". Gene

No coincidence, in my opinion. Seems farfetched (and difficult to believe) but I wouldn't put it past that crew of "plumbers"

Thanks for the link, Jim: It would be interesting to know what became of Ms. Kittrell. I wonder if the HSCA ever tried to contact her. I appreciate the controversy about multiple Oswalds, as it makes one's head spin. And I do admire the work of John Armstrong. There simply had to be more than one "Oswald" ... and keeping a lid on that mystery (by those hiding/protecting something) seems central to the difficulties in unravelling this case. Plus, it would explain the need to distract and obfuscate with disinformation, even to present day. Gene

John: Jim Hargrove points out an important fact about the story of Laura Kittrell of the Texas Employment Commission, who interviewed both Oswalds prior to the assassination. After her first encounter/interview, a second "Oswald" showed up for another interview (about one week later). Ms. Kittrell realized this Oswald was not the same person she had interviewed previously ... the two individuals were similar - but different - people: "The man I remember as (Harvey) Oswald, and the man I remember as the Teamster were much alike in size, shape and outline, generally, there was a marked difference between them in bearing and manner. The man I remember as Oswald was a trim, energetic, compact, well-knit person, who sat on the edge of a chair (Harvey). The man I remember as the Teamster, was sprawled over his chair and rather messy looking (Lee)". Kittrell gave a thirty-page statement to the U.S. Attorney in Dallas. Her statement was hand-carried to the Warren Commission by the Secret Service. But her 30-page statement and subsequent 90-page manuscript were ignored and suppressed. The FBI also interviewed Kittrell on June 4, 1965. Her statement was eventually released and only made public many years later, in 1994. Conflicting information exists about Oswald's travels at that particular time. The FBI had tracked Oswald's return trip to the U.S. from Mexico City, indicating that he took a La Frontera bus, arriving at the border town on Nuevo Laredo on the morning of 10/3/63. However, Oswald also applied for unemployment compensation at the Texas Employment Commission that same day. Therefore, the FBI report found it "highly improbable that Oswald could have traveled" the 426 miles "from Laredo to Dallas, in time to appear personally" before Laurel Kittrell at the Texas Employment Commission. The agent who wrote the report was obviously unaware that two people were sharing the identity of Oswald. Gene