Richard Booth

Small part of a piece from 11/23

This is another clipping that I took an interest in. I seem to recall reading or hearing something about this before. The immediate question is "was this because so many people made calls at once" or .. "was this an expected action that was part of a coup" 11/23/63

Thank you. It's a subject worthy of more students.

Unfortunately, it is often necessary to state the obvious. The downside of the forum are things like this ^

I'm using a few different tools for clippings: Newspapers.com, Newspaperarchive.com, ProQuest and various public library databases which have archives of various newspapers. For the subject I research, it's been enough to simply search for "McVeigh" as any article about the OKC bombing is going to have his name. It helps that this is a relatively uncommon name. So I don't have any tips with respect to search engine savvy. The biggest tip I have is narrowing you rdate range. In my research, I simply narrowed the range to gather reports on a month-by-month basis for every month after April 19, 1995. Sometimes I have to search using other keywords. Most often this simply involves lots of time, lots of sifting through everything to find what you need. For what you are looking for I would be searching using the term "military intelligence" and I would do a little bit of research to determine what the probable date range is for articles on that subject. What you're looking for is a very specific thing, with only a handful of reports covering it. So this would simply take a lot of time and a lot of sifting. Regarding time: I've spent up to 8 hours a day archiving and creating PDFs of newspaper reports on the subject I'm researching. But it has been worth it: after 2 years, I now have thousands of reports in my own database, and I search my own archive now using PowerGREP when I need a citation or need to check the articles to see which ones might say what. The time put in is directly linked to the usefulness of what you're working on. To contrast, the clippings I found on the JFK case that were unusual or interesting were the result of targeted date searches and I spent maybe 1 hour, and in doing so, found about 4 clippings that were interesting. Increase that to 8 hours time and you'd probably find about 10-20 reports worthy of additional follow-up. My favorite part of research is the digging... its rewards are solitary

Thanks Robert. These clippings were kind of the first things I found when I looked at news clipping aggregators. You always find interesting things in the paper which I have found are either one of two things: nuggets that need further investigation, or, bogus information. In my primary area of research I have found things in the paper which led me to dig deeper and come up with things that are substantial. I've also found things that after serious research I was able to prove were unsubstantiated.

Of course it did -- you murder a cop and you will absolutely turn every police officer against you. There are quotes from Dallas cops which reveal they didn't care about JFK being murdered, that it was "no different than a Dallas n-word murder"

Pretty much anything relating to a motive in the Tippit murder is going to be speculation and that is both implied and understood when discussing the matter. We're talking about a hypothetical motive for presumed unnamed conspirators. The only way in which discussion of that is not speculation is if your source is one of the conspirators, which is also implied and understood to be unlikely.

Probably all three. I agree with that and can think of a few so-called "witnesses" who I believe are bogus publicity and drama seekers. The key thing for me regarding the sightings I mentioned (Furniture Mart, Irving Sports shop, Sports Drome rifle range) which leads me to believe these were part of some "script" and that they are very real are the corresponding "anonymous tips" flooding into the police and FBI. I see then the activity at FM and Sports Drome as street theater that is part of a covert operation. This whole thing is saturated with scripted things. Not just those things I mentioned about the scope, but you also have for example letters sent from Cuba to Oswald in the second week of November. These letters are clearly bogus, designed to make Oswald look like a Castro agent. I simply can't ignore things like the "anonymous tips" made to the police telling them about the scope, or those bogus letters sent to Oswald from Cuba. Then there are the bogus impersonations in Mexico City Sep 28 and Oct 1, guy speaking broken Russian and broken English. The whole thing has scripted written all over it, it's just so exceedingly obvious. Re: Newman - he does what he does, I haven't seen anything he's done that I really take offense to or have fundamental disagreement with... I tend to agree with Salandria's objections over Newman's language in his 1995 book, but I'm not going to savage a guy for merely trying to appear respectable, or behaving in a way that is careful - which is really what he was doing. Agree regarding documents disappearing or monkeyed with: seems both might be necessary

I'd love to know the truth of the matter. Right now it's hard to know whether or not that actually happened, whether or not Sawyer was honest, whether or not if there was a legitimate witness, what they actually saw. There are just so many things about this whole thing that are 'variables' that are unknown. Many variables and few constants. One of the few things I am certain of is that the head shot came from the front right, based entirely on what appears in the Zapruder film. Newton's third law of motion pretty much makes that abundantly clear (to me). I'm sure there are people who disagree with that, but I know what I see on that film.

Isn't it interesting that this is a witness no one can name, or provide any identifying details for, but at the same time we're to believe Sawyer sent this man with an escort to the Sheriff's Office "to give fuller or more complete detail." You would think this would have produced a detailed written account or record.

Yeah, the 1955 date comes from the GI Forum activities he participated in, in 1954. The FBI would be interested in the communists who were members of the GI Forum, and that's evident in the documents on this. But these same documents also indicate that Molina was opposed to the CP and the Communists in the group. The FBI would probably realize that Molina was merely a civil rights activist while to Jesse Curry he was a subversive who caused the Dallas Police "a lot of trouble"

He was a member of a largely pro-Hispanic veteran's group. You have to remember that in Dallas in 1963 merely being a leftist meant you were a "subversive." Being the member of a group that advocates for Hispanic people was surely viewed as "suspicious" by the Dallas cops--because they were racist idiots, largely--but Molina wasn't in any way dangerous or a threat. Put it this way: had the Secret Service known that a credit union employee at TSBD was the member of a veteran's group that had a large Hispanic population among it's members, they would not have viewed that person as a threat no matter if some Dallas cop decides that makes him "subversive" https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11821#relPageId=5&tab=page Here is one reason he would be labeled a subversive in 1955: "On November 10, 1954, JOE MOLINA was on a committee which contacted Dallas County Clerk BILL SHAW concerning alleged discrimination against Mexican-Americans on Dallas County Grand Juries." (WILLIAM J. LOWERY, Jr., 11/15/54) Talking to the white power structure in Dallas about discrimination... in 1955... is surely going to get you labeled something: Subversive, Communist, Uppity, you name it. This FBI document shows where Curry is coming from when he called Molina a subversive: "JESSE E. CURRY, Chief of Police, Dallas, Texas, on November 23, 1963, following interview by SA James S. Weir with JOE R. MOLINA that day, advised SA WEIR that MOLINA had caused the Dallas Police Department considerable trouble in the past by demanding such things as listing Mexicans as white persons rather than as Mexicans, and generally protesting alleged discrimination against Mexicans."

He wouldn't and he didn't. The best evidence for this being a fabricated story designed to make Oswald look murderous is the fact that he was never charged with attempted murder, and no police ever questioned Oswald about trying to murder someone in the theater (at least, there is no evidence of a discussion like this anywhere in the documentation) Had Oswald actually tried to murder McDonald you would expect two things: 1) an attempted murder charge added to his charges, so you have him charged not just with the murder of Tippit and JFK but also attempted murder of McDonald 2) we could expect there to be some extant notes or documentation that shows Curry or Fritz or someone at the police questioning Oswald about "why did you try to kill Officer McDonald?" I think it's a story that McDonald got good at telling over the years and kept on telling it.

I think there are a few reasons for that. The primary suspect was categorized as a malcontent, and if you can link him to the murder of a police officer you have not only showed your suspect is homicidal but you've also guaranteed that the DPD is bloodthirsty for this suspect. The DPD didn't care about JFK being shot. A police officer is quoted saying that Dallas police viewed JFK being shot as "no different than a South Dallas n-word murder" However, you shoot and kill one of their own and now all of a sudden the cops want to nail this suspect to the wall. So there are a few reasons for the Tippit murder, all of them tied to framing the suspect and putting Dallas Police in the frame of mind you want them in. Look to the WC and LN folks and their position: they will all tell you that "obviously Oswald killed JFK, because he killed the police officer." That's why the cop-murder was part of the script, it makes your perp look absolutely guilty. "He was fleeing the police" or "he knew he was guilty" -- all that comes with the cop murder.

I like Bill Simpich's conclusion in State Secret: Sawyer's witness was part of the conspiracy, he was a nondescript white man whose job was to go tell the police Oswald's description to get it on the radio, and that this description probably came from the files on Oswald. As you illustrated with that military intelligence file, this description of 5 foot 10, 165 pounds was all over the files, military and CIA. Of course it's very sloppy because Oswald was about 5 foot 9, 130 pounds. However the plotters were going off the information they had which, to what was available to them, that information said the guy was 5 foot 10 165 so that's what they went with.

someone would have to have said or done something quite dramatic in some extreme political context to be put on such an exclusive Molina was just an ordinary leftist. At that time simply being a progressive leftist meant you were a "subversive." He was also Hispanic and that plays a factor too. Molina was by my estimation nowhere even close to Oswald: no leafleting, no defection, he was simply guilty of being to the left, in the South, in 1963. He was a member of the American GI Forum which was an organization for veterans which had a large contingent of Hispanic members and this is what caused him to be labeled a "subversive" http://www.prayer-man.com/tsbd/joe-molina/ https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11821#relPageId=5&tab=page He lost his job at TSBD due to all this, and DPD went to his house the evening of 11/22 and searched it. Sounds like the guy's life was ruined merely because he belonged to a veterans group. Sad really.

The casings would be hot if you tried to reload the pistol immediately after firing it -- I don't believe that happened though. I don't think any of the witnesses said they saw that happen. To my mind the shell casings and the wallet were obviously dumped at the scene like the MC rifle was a drop gun left on the 6th floor. If this were just the ordinary murder of a Dallas cop I might view the crime scene a little different. However, when you take into account all of the variables and analyze this situation knowing full well it's a conspiracy, things begin to look a bit different. How this is looked at is probably tainted a great deal by whether or not a person believes a conspiracy or a LN account.

I've always found this suspicious -- this description that doesn't match Oswald, but it was only after I read more and saw that Oswald was described as 5 foot 10 inches 165 pounds in CIA documents that I began to think it even more unusual. 10/10/63 "OSWALD IS FIVE FEET TEN INCHES, ONE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE POUNDS" https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=110013&relPageId=2

11/22/63 Associated Press story in the Huntsville Times Says a Secret Service agent was killed ... also has some oddly specific details "a white man in his mid 20s was arrested in the Riverside section of Fort Worth in the shooting of the policeman. The man, who has black curly hair and who wore a red shirt, denied that he was connected with the assassination of the president."

I also find this story interesting. This is from The Huntsville Times (22 Nov 1963) in an Associated Press story: Secret Service Agent, Dallas Officer Killed

This is interesting 11/22/63 | UPI (wire service) report "Officer J.D. Tippit, 38, was slain as he and fellow policeman M.N. McDonald ran into a rear exit of the Texas Theater. Tippit and MacDonald had received a tip that the assassin of President Kennedy might have gone into the theater" I speculate that the Tippit murder might have been initially planned to be carried out at the theater. As you can see the script is already being propagated into the newspaper: "Lee H. Oswald, 24, chairman of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee"

If anyone has read Bill Simpich's State Secret then you know how the descriptor "5 foot 10, 165 pounds" is important https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Chapter1.html I found this in a clip from 11/22 ... there it is again, 5 feet 10, 165 pounds. What is interesting is this is not Oswald's height nor weight, however 5 foot 10, 165 pounds is indeed found in documents about Oswald. What are the odds that this description as found in CIA files on Oswald miraculously appears in the newspaper on 11/22? Had the description actually been based on a person viewing Oswald they would have said 5 foot 9, 130 pounds. Was the description pulled from a file?

In researching the April 19, 1995 OKC bombing I've archived many thousands of newspaper reports on that case In doing so, I've come to rely on a handful of different services for newspaper clippings. Some are actual images of the paper, scanned, other sources provide text only. Anyhow, my experience with that multi-year research project is that you find a lot of really interesting things in the newspaper. Sometimes you get really good things that you need to follow-up on. Other times, erroneous things, just depends. I decided that I wanted to check out the newspaper accounts of November 1963 to see what nuggets I might find. This is the literally the first newspaper article I found: November 22 1963 Sapulpa, Oklahoma. This report says that Secret Service thought the gunshots came from the "grassy knoll" I was under the impression the term "grassy knoll" was coined much later or by someone else on a video (a witness, forgot her name). They got at least one thing right here, haha: Here is the link to this paper on newspapers.com https://www.newspapers.com/image/661892826/